# Can Donald Trump become President Again?



## SG854 (Mar 14, 2022)




----------



## Flame (Mar 15, 2022)

ah shit. I need my covfefe. Too early to mod this type of thread.


----------



## Norris (Mar 15, 2022)

he can but its not gonna happen


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Mar 15, 2022)

Hoooooooooo boy the responses for this thread should be fun.


----------



## Norris (Mar 15, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Hoooooooooo boy the responses for this thread should be fun.


THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN JOE BIDEN IS A REPTILE


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 15, 2022)

There is the proven track record/incumbent bonus/name recognition thing, though we have less data on people coming back after a loss/being out of the game for a moment.

So there are three major forces in US politics.
The democrats (though they have their own internal factions that don't get along). The nominally left leaning party (high taxes, will take freedoms to gain safety, social programs, comparatively anti business).
The republicans (again not without their factions). The nominally right leaning party (higher but not necessarily high taxes, generally go for freedoms over safety, more of a religious bent, less concerned with social programs, comparatively pro business)
The libertarians. Very small by comparison but potentially a thing for the spoiler effect (voting is winner take all. 30 D 25R 10L would mean D takes it even if 35 for the combined R and L factions that don't like D would beat it) and has been on a few occasions. Rather weak at present compared to past times and having their own internal civil war. Would probably be more right leaning than pure centrist but have some ideas on big government vs small government that makes them different enough to note than simple left-right dichotomy of the other two.

In pondering elections you have two major forces.

1) Voter apathy. Aka how many would be supporters actually bother to turn up (turnout being the usual phrase of choice). Can be skewed by state and rules within the electoral college.

2) Independents. Those that have no particular political alignment and will vote for them because they like their policies more than the other guy, like their haircut, thought he had more energy, is good at smack talk, they want to fuck them or whatever.

Would Mr Trump then have those that like him turn up and vote or conversely those that dislike him enough that while they would normally have stayed home actually turn up and vote for someone else that goes against him.

Would those in the independent camp either i) dislike the other guy so as to vote tactically as it were, or ii) approve of him (and among republicans he has several different ideas on how things work/should work) enough to go for that instead.

Statistically speaking, be it with the electoral college or popular vote, then things are a pretty even split these days and likely are going forward.

We don't know who the democrats or libertarians are likely to field -- age is a concern all around actually but especially with the deteriorating mental state of the current el presidente (it was almost suicide to field him last time, can't imagine this time being a positive), as well as the general ineffectiveness of the regime at present. You may have also had some new generations come online and some old ones die off (if generally nobody under the age of 35 votes, and tend to vote for those 20 years older than them) then those 90s democrats and last of the religious right are due to be dead and buried if standard human lifespans and distributions thereof are a thing.
Timeline wise we also have several more years, most of which are likely to be quite interesting with wars, economic collapse (and things are looking very bad out there on the financial front), social upheaval (stoking some, pointlessly, tactically or ahead of schedule*, seems to be a default play. It is also one that burns the hand that deals it as often as it benefits it) and more. Depending upon what goes also changes stats -- mid war boost is a thing. At the same time matters have been forced that people are paying attention to local politics despite that normally being a snooze fest which could get interesting. Mid terms (which are reasonably soon) might be an indicator, and if power shifts there (a reasonably solid bet) then playing politics to hamstring the presidency and boost your is... pretty much how the game is played.

*there are plenty of things that might take some time to warm to, might want some people to die off or need to be done by thousand cuts as it were but some seem to be going whole hog into and getting what has to be expected pushback. Tactically this could be poisoning the land or it could be short term pain for long term gain.

To answer the question of the thread. I could see it happen in as much as he has some recognition and is not complete poison. Whether it would be tactically a wise play (something most political parties seem almost alien to these days) is a different matter entirely, though I am not sure who they would pick as an alternative (granted neither party has a problem with grabbing unknowns and pretending they were movers and shakers all along). Even ignoring the likely fun of the next few years I don't have a particularly good read on what kind of apathy among the right, libertarian protest vote, independent sway (or indeed a particularly good breakdown of independent concerns, independent concerns by regions where it matters and weightings there, and also would need to evaluate the impact of social democrats among said same as they have some strange ideas that might similarly push independents and even a few generally democrat voters out of their camp) or left turnout boost (or indeed turnout boost where it matters -- few 18 year olds in California that would have otherwise stayed home matters basically not at all).


----------



## Hayato213 (Mar 15, 2022)

Technically he could but probably be too old to be honest, Trump would be 77 if he did win.


----------



## digipimp75 (Mar 15, 2022)

Sure hope so.


----------



## AmandaRose (Mar 15, 2022)

Hayato213 said:


> Technically he could but probably be too old to be honest, Trump would be 77 if he did win.


Concidering Biden was 78 when he became president last year I don't see age being an issue for Trump.


----------



## MasterJ360 (Mar 15, 2022)

Why? so we can ally with Russia?


----------



## Norris (Mar 15, 2022)

digipimp75 said:


> Sure hope so.


your gonna wish you never said that in 60 years when our planet kills itself


----------



## Veho (Mar 15, 2022)

If he manages to stay out of jail, and it looks as though he might, he has a good chance of getting elected again.


----------



## Norris (Mar 15, 2022)

Veho said:


> If he manages to stay out of jail, and it looks as though he might, he has a good chance of getting elected again.


the thing is he was never even actully fully voted for hillary got more votes trump only won cause of rep system and joe biden won over him i hope he stays out for a long long time


----------



## appleburger (Mar 15, 2022)

Nah, I don't see it happening after the Capital situation and social media tomfoolery.  Even if the country shocked us with giving him the popular vote this go around, I can't imagine the Electoral College voting him back in.  

Too much damage control - regardless of policy anyone is trying to push.  I felt like policy-wise Trump was less dramatic than most republican presidents, but his mouth just got him in way more trouble than it needed to.

I understand why Americans liked the idea of a non-politician being president, but you have to hand it to the politicians - they have a way of dealing with Media (and the public in general), and Trump trying to combat it only hurt himself in the long run.


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 15, 2022)

appleburger said:


> Nah, I don't see it happening after the Capital situation and social media tomfoolery.  Even if the country shocked us with giving him the popular vote this go around, I can't imagine the Electoral College voting him back in.
> 
> Too much damage control - regardless of policy anyone is trying to push.  I felt like policy-wise Trump was less dramatic than most republican presidents, but his mouth just got him in way more trouble than it needed to.
> 
> I understand why Americans liked the idea of a non-politician being president, but you have to hand it to the politicians - they have a way of dealing with Media (and the public in general), and Trump trying to combat it only hurt himself in the long run.


He was a bellend on social media before/during the runup to presidency and throughout it. Did not particularly seem to bother much there, some even enjoyed it. Whether what happened since then or those growing up with it (if you are 18 in 2024 then you were probably born after myspace died -- 2006 timeframe facebook was mostly still for US college students, and depending upon the timelines might statistically speaking be part of those that never have had a facebook account either) coming online for voting somehow bothering to vote in a place where it matters. Plus those that probably want their politicians to be austere and dignified gentlemen dying off as well, though what that counts for I don't know.
As far as the whole 6th of January thing. So a bunch of people that nominally supported him (as opposed to being authorised/sent/condoned by him) ran around the capital and got a bit rowdy to a far lesser extent than various other protests -- it was being cleaned up and everybody knocked off for happy hour. Even if it somehow mattered I would also wonder at the filter of time in memory for that one or whether some for want of a better term comparatively minor scandal a month before (and I am sure they will be saving them up to launch at the appropriate time) takes the spotlight.

As far as dealing with the media. He could have done a better job of killing it but it was left kneecapped and bleeding by the end.

On less dramatic policies then I will note that historically republicans at lower levels have suffered with that -- the main threat to right leaning politicos being further right politicos if not outright replacing them then spoiler effect (some d gets 30%, some R that would normally have got 45% then gets a 20% drop to someone further right R and oh wow). Where that balance lies for independents, turnout of various parties and libertarian protest or whatever vote I am still unsure.


----------



## appleburger (Mar 15, 2022)

> He was a bellend on social media before/during the runup to presidency and throughout it. Did not particularly seem to bother much there, some even enjoyed it.


This is true, although I feel he tipped those scales throughout the presidency.  This is anecdotal, but I'm in a particularly red area, and the view on his brashness from my peers went from "Haha, go get 'em and screw the establishment, Trump!" to "Okay, this is a bit too much" once we got to the capital situation.  Even online, while obviously I can't know what everybody thought about it, I saw a trend of people agreeing it was an extremely bad call compared to his behavior leading up to being elected.  His ratings reflected it, as well, for what those are worth.



> As far as the whole 6th of January thing. So a bunch of people that nominally supported him (as opposed to being authorised/sent/condoned by him) ran around the capital and got a bit rowdy to a far lesser extent than various other protests


Yes, there have existed protests where more bodily harm and property damage occurred - that's a fact.

However, the people that sparked these generally aren't trying to be elected as president.  As a president, speaking to the public and being the voice of government is one of the most powerful tools at your disposal.  Trump seemed to be weaponizing this to fight against not being re-elected, and I think a lot of Americans agree that we'd rather have a President who wields that power more carefully.

While he did tell the crowd to please be peaceful, he certainly should have been aware of the consequences of using ignorant assumptions (or lies, honestly we have no way of knowing, but that's moot) to tell his country their democracy was being compromised, when all the evidence said otherwise.  His choice of words leading up to that were incredibly poor, imo.

I generally vote based on policy and not public opinion on what politicians say, but I have to concede that I'm in the minority on that, and so I'd be very surprised if he was re-elected at this point.  I also don't want to have somebody in office that lacks damage control with the public, regardless of policy, so he certainly wouldn't get my vote.  He's just too reckless for me to feel confident putting him back in office.



> As far as dealing with the media. He could have done a better job of killing it but it was left kneecapped and bleeding by the end.


I sympathize with a president getting irritated by the Media, but as far as Presidents being treated unfairly by Media go, Trump had small potatoes compared to, say, Kennedy's Catholicism being a big problem.  Past presidents have addressed common Media clickbait info far more elegantly than Trump was able to.  Again, gotta hand it to the politicians.



> On less dramatic policies then I will note that historically republicans at lower levels have suffered with that -- the main threat to right leaning politicos being further right politicos if not outright replacing them then spoiler effect (some d gets 30%, some R that would normally have got 45% then gets a 20% drop to someone further right R and oh wow). Where that balance lies for independents, turnout of various parties and libertarian protest or whatever vote I am still unsure.


My history isn't great, but I think this is a cycle we've seen throughout US history with both major parties.  The parties have swayed enough over time to actually completely swap identities - the Democrats were closer to today's Republicans before Roosevelt came along, from what I remember learning.  So I'd anticipate how "left/right" the parties go will depend on what's going on in the world during election season, and how opposing the sides are.  The popular vote results should still loosely reflect how liberal or conservative the public feels we should steer the ship, although there's evidence to support that we generally lean liberal, but due to voter turnout that's not always reflected.  I don't think Independents stand a chance until they get funding that can compete with the two major parties.  It's my main gripe with our system.  Advertising runs our election cycles for us, and I feel like it undermines the ideology.  But I'm also a random dude who doesn't really know any better, that's just my perception.

Maybe I'm off base here, though - do you agree/disagree with any of this as far as the likelihood of him getting re-elected?  I'd probably say I sit at a solid 95% level of confidence he doesn't have a shot.


----------



## Norris (Mar 15, 2022)

if trump was president rn lets be honest he would side with Russia


----------



## spoggi (Mar 15, 2022)

He'll grow his own hair before he become president again


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Mar 15, 2022)

Norris said:


> your gonna wish you never said that in 60 years when our planet kills itself


Trump becoming president again equates to the planet imploding on itself. Make sense, like lighting a match and throwing it on the ground in Antarctica will instantly melt the entire continent and cause major flooding around the globe.


----------



## idontgetit (Mar 16, 2022)

Let's hope. It'll be funnier. And in less sad of a way


----------



## Norris (Mar 16, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Trump becoming president again equates to the planet imploding on itself. Make sense, like lighting a match and throwing it on the ground in Antarctica will instantly melt the entire continent and cause major flooding around the globe.


trump should have never been presedent he hast even had a majority vote once


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 16, 2022)

Gotta be honest : he might. Republicans would nominate a paper bag if they thought it was electable, and Donald had more votes in 2020 than in 2016. Republicans have also gone from evil by passing laws that would make it harder for the large population to actually... Y'know... Exercise the democratic right to vote.

Otherwise put: Americans are stupid enough to vote for him again. 


Kind of wondering what's his slogan going to be now

"make America great again again again" ?


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Mar 17, 2022)

Norris said:


> trump should have never been presedent he hast even had a majority vote once


That's right, that's how he became president in the first place, by not getting the majority vote. Makes sense.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 17, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> That's right, that's how he became president in the first place, by not getting the majority vote. Makes sense.


Holy shit you're telling me you aren't even aware of the existence of the electoral college?  No Republican president has won the popular vote since George Bush Sr.


----------



## Viri (Mar 17, 2022)

Hayato213 said:


> Technically he could but probably be too old to be honest, Trump would be 77 if he did win.


People brought up John McCain's age before when he ran, but for some reason, age stopped being brought up so much.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Mar 17, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Holy shit you're telling me you aren't even aware of the existence of the electoral college?  No Republican president has won the popular vote since George Bush Sr.


If we let the popular vote decided who won we'd be even more fucked than we are now. Yes, I do know about the Electoral College so fuck off good sir. Trump was presidenrt because people the majority wanted him in. Get over it. Unless you also think it was "stolen", then I guess 2020 was stolen as well.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 17, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> If we let the popular vote decided who won we'd be even more fucked than we are now.


"What are we, some sort of democracy or something?"



BitMasterPlus said:


> Trump was presidenrt because people the majority wanted him in


Dude, do you have multiple personalities?  I only ask because the other you just acknowledged that Trump won solely because of the electoral college.  If the majority of the voting population wanted him in, the majority would've voted for him.  Pretty simple concept.


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 17, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> If we let the popular vote decided who won we'd be even more fucked than we are now. Yes, I do know about the Electoral College so fuck off good sir.


Ah, i guess @Xzi hasn't picked up on your sarca...


BitMasterPlus said:


> Trump was presidenrt because people the majority wanted him in.


... Either you somehow manage to completely forget what it is in your very next sentence, or you have no idea what @Xzi had just said. 

So... No. Xzi shouldn't fuck off. You should pay more attention (or even a minimum of attention, as it's really not that hard). Trump didn't get the majority of voters. In 2016 he just won in more strategically important states. In 2020, Biden won in more of those AND got the popular vote. It's just that the latter is a fun little trivia in us elections.


----------



## tpax (Mar 17, 2022)

He technically can, but


----------



## Norris (Mar 17, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Holy shit you're telling me you aren't even aware of the existence of the electoral college?  No Republican president has won the popular vote since George Bush Sr.


i think he knows were just discussing how stupid it is


----------



## Norris (Mar 17, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> If we let the popular vote decided who won we'd be even more fucked than we are now. Yes, I do know about the Electoral College so fuck off good sir. Trump was presidenrt because people the majority wanted him in. Get over it. Unless you also think it was "stolen", then I guess 2020 was stolen as well.


bro the majority didnt tho trump has never had a majority vote LoL


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Mar 17, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Dude, do you have multiple personalities?  I only ask because the other you just acknowledged that Trump won solely because of the electoral college.  If the majority of the voting population wanted him in, the majority would've voted for him.  Pretty simple concept.


We are in a democracy, and the majority did vote him in. I don't know what's so difficult for your brain to comprehend this?


----------



## SAIYAN48 (Mar 17, 2022)

I hope America puts some decent who isn't a senior citizen.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Mar 17, 2022)

Considering that statistically governments that get into a war keep office I guess you'll have Kamala for a long time in there.


----------



## stanna (Mar 17, 2022)

Best president America ever had.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Mar 17, 2022)

Most of what the other side says about Trump and what he said or what he did are complete lies. Take for example the January 6th mostly peaceful protests, where a few hundred people out of a couple *hundred thousand* broke off of the main group and decided to riot. Trump never instructed anyone to do that and told them to stop and go home after the fact. 

Then there's the coronavirus response in which the liberals called Trump a racist for closing the borders and doing many other things like forming a CDC task force to deal with the threat. So when he responded he was called a racist and then after all that his administration did the liberals now claim he didn't do anything or enough. 

Of course there's the many misquotes like the 3 tweets instructing certain members of Congress to go back to their home countries, fix their problems and then come back and tell us how it's done. The liberals decided to take part of 1 of 3 tweets and use it out of context to attack him and again called him a racist. 

Then there's the first impeachment _attempt _where Volodymyr Zelenskyy the President of Ukraine and Trump the President of the United States agreed on a trade deal and then were accused of Quid Pro Quo by the liberals over the terms. Both parties in the deal said there is no Quid Pro Quo yet the Democrats decided to impeach Trump anyway and in the end he was acquitted of all charges because he was innocent. I'm not exactly sure why the liberals would call Volodymyr Zelenskyy a liar then and now during the current war would believe what he has to say, but logic rarely attaches itself to the liberal mindset I suppose.

The best thing Trump did in my opinion wasn't legalizing hemp, shutting down the borders to prevent the spread of covid-19 or overseeing one of the best economies in my lifetime. The best thing he did was shine a light on how corrupt the main stream media is. He shined a light on how they use their position and power to deceive and now around half of the USA's population or 166,283,977 people are now aware of the fact that they had and are still being lied to. With this new found awareness millions of people can now decipher fact from fiction and see the Democrats and liberals as the evil scum they are.

There's nothing stopping Donald Trump from running for President again in 2024 and due to the way Joe Biden's economy is makes what Trump can offer all of us look mighty tempting. I for one *will vote for him again* ... no doubt. He isn't perfect and I don't worship any human, but he did a damned good job while he was President. It's just unfortunate that he lost to Joe Biden and hopefully will win again in 2024. 

Go Trump! Make America Great Again!


----------



## XDel (Mar 17, 2022)

Dude man at 2:26 needs to understand what autocratic means. Trudau, Jin XiPing, and Biden, maybe, but Trump? No!


----------



## Magnus87 (Mar 18, 2022)

I don't think Trump will ever be president again, but what I do think is that Biden's term needs to end as soon as possible.

I'm not saying that Biden should resign, but rather that "time passes quickly enough" for elections to be held again in the USA


----------



## Lacius (Mar 18, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> We are in a democracy, and the majority did vote him in. I don't know what's so difficult for your brain to comprehend this?


Donald Trump has never won the popular vote in a presidential election. Not in 2016, and not in 2020.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> Most of what the other side says about Trump and what he said or what he did are complete lies. Take for example the January 6th mostly peaceful protests, where a few hundred people out of a couple *hundred thousand* broke off of the main group and decided to riot. Trump never instructed anyone to do that and told them to stop and go home after the fact.
> 
> Then there's the coronavirus response in which the liberals called Trump a racist for closing the borders and doing many other things like forming a CDC task force to deal with the threat. So when he responded he was called a racist and then after all that his administration did the liberals now claim he didn't do anything or enough.
> 
> ...


Regardless of how you feel about the capitol riots, the protests themselves were against democracy and free/fair elections.

Edit: It would be a mistake for me to ignore that Donald Trump also relished in the violence and initially responded to pleas to call off the violence by praising the violent protesters and condemning those making the pleas as not caring as much about America as those violently storming the Capitol.


----------



## omgcat (Mar 18, 2022)

i think a lot of americans that normally would sit out would come out to prevent trump from winning again. lots of people are worried about what an unhinged president with trumps track record would do during this crisis. the republicans are fracturing with chunks of the republican establishment pulling away from trumpworld. younger more liberal people who might have sat out in 2024 due to apathy if say desantis got the nomination would absolutely vote in huge numbers to stop a trump presidency. trump will not have the same social media advantage he had last time as well. he has been entirely insulated to his own platforms and only the most ardent of supporters would bother signing up for that.

in my opinion the republicans should field trump if they want to lose.


----------



## kenlee168 (Mar 18, 2022)

Put his antic aside, he is the only President that really mind what people want the most and push the limit to produce result even with strong opposition from even his own party.


----------



## Th3tM3t (Mar 18, 2022)

will gbatemps ever be free of politics lol


----------



## rantex92 (Mar 18, 2022)

Th3tM3t said:


> will gbatemps ever be free of politics lol


politicthreads....politikthreads never changes


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 18, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> We are in a democracy, and the majority did vote him in. I don't know what's so difficult for your brain to comprehend this?


Dude... Are you purposefully trolling? How many people have to tell you the same thing before you accept something, let alone pretend the other one is stupid for not hearing what they say? 

To go technical : there are hardly (no?) countries with a direct democracy, but USA is, like most, a represented democracy: the people decide whom should represent their interest. 


What you mock as 'being even more fucked' is actually how most of not all other (representative) democracies work : you choose whom you want to be lead by. Majority wins. 
The us doesn't work that way. Heck... Technically the people haven't picked a single president in their entire history. Because as far as I understand, it stems from before or was technically possible to really hold elections in a country that big. But states hold their own elections, and the majority of that vote gets you a representative that'll pick the president. And the weight of that representative roughly depends on the population of the state.

I've heard that the 'roughly' is somewhat an issue to have changed (eg: state A has increased its population whilst B decreased. How is it taken into calculation?), but by far its the first part the post system that can cause huge swings between what the most people voted for and the resulting president. Especially since voting isn't obligated. 

Let's pretend the us consists of two states with few citizens :
A has 100 citizens and therefore a representative worth 100.
B has 50 citizens and a representative worth 50

In the election, candidate X gets 21 votes from A and 3 from B. Total: 24 votes
Y gets 15 votes from A and 19 from B. Total : 34 votes

Most democracies would use that system to say Y had won. But the US doesn't. Their reasoning is that X won in A and got 100 points, and Y won in B so got 50 points. 100 > 50 so X wins. 

I'm not in a position to claim its an outdated system and i frankly don't care that you're a fan of the system. But would you please shut up about repeating that 'he got the majority' bullshit? It's factually wrong.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Mar 18, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Donald Trump has never won the popular vote in a presidential election. Not in 2016, and not in 2020.


No he didn't win the popular vote, but the popular vote isn't what gets you elected. I don't know why your side is stuck focusing on a number that doesn't decide who wins or who loses.



Lacius said:


> Regardless of how you feel about the capitol riots, the protests themselves were against democracy and free/fair elections.
> 
> Edit: It would be a mistake for me to ignore that Donald Trump also relished in the violence and initially responded to pleas to call off the violence by praising the violent protesters and condemning those making the pleas as not caring as much about America as those violently storming the Capitol.



Would you mind providing me with proof of this? I've never to this date heard of Trump doing that. The only thing I've read were his tweets telling the rioters to stop and go home.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Mar 18, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Donald Trump has never won the popular vote in a presidential election. Not in 2016, and not in 2020.


And yet he still became president, so in a sense, he was popular


Taleweaver said:


> Dude... Are you purposefully trolling? How many people have to tell you the same thing before you accept something, let alone pretend the other one is stupid for not hearing what they say?
> 
> To go technical : there are hardly (no?) countries with a direct democracy, but USA is, like most, a represented democracy: the people decide whom should represent their interest.
> 
> ...


Blah blah blah. He was president because the people voted him in, end of story. I ain't shutting up just because you want me too,


----------



## Lacius (Mar 18, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> And yet he still became president, so in a sense, he was popular
> 
> Blah blah blah. He was president because the people voted him in, end of story. I ain't shutting up just because you want me too,


My point was that you were factually incorrect when you said he received a majority of the vote. Hilary Clinton received more votes than him, and Joe Biden received significantly more votes than him. Trump became president after the 2016 election because of the Electoral College, a system that is grossly undemocratic, disproportionately benefits one side, and gives more voting power to people and less to others based solely on where they live.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> No he didn't win the popular vote, but the popular vote isn't what gets you elected. I don't know why your side is stuck focusing on a number that doesn't decide who wins or who loses.
> 
> 
> 
> Would you mind providing me with proof of this? I've never to this date heard of Trump doing that. The only thing I've read were his tweets telling the rioters to stop and go home.


I suggest familiarizing yourself with the actual timeline of events:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domes..._United_States_Capitol_attack#President_Trump

Regarding my specific claim, which is one example of many, Kevin McCarthy pleaded with Trump over the phone to call off the rioters and condemn the violence, and Trump (while relishing in what was going on) responded by saying, “Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...rgument-during-capitol-riots-sources-n1257805

There's a reason why bipartisan majorities in both the House and Senate voted to impeach and convict respectively.


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 18, 2022)

On claims of he is so desperately unpopular that he would mobilise the inactive (particularly youth, maybe even places where it matters such as not winner take all or swing states), turn off the independents/centrists and make some lifelong republican voters (whatever have not died in the last 4 years anyway, which stats and lifespans say is probably a fair few, with whatever the "if you don't vote blah as a youth you have no heart" set presumably being those independents and centrists) either stay at home or go libertarian then do we have any vaguely recent polls or anything to that effect? I am as dubious about polls as anybody that followed any elections for the last 5 or so cycles/10 or so years or indeed knows basic statistics and sampling/polling/questioning theory (how many use rather loaded questions for one) but they can still reveal some info, certainly more than anecdote and supposition.

I am also curious to see what effect social meeja might play this time. Facebook is somewhat dying (though demographics there might get fun to contemplate), twitter is losing what little lustre it ever had (though big enough to still note) and that means the game changes somewhat, especially if the changes accelerate on a nice timeline before then.
Can't wait for tiktok is Chinese spyware, paedophile hunting ground, ruining attention spans of kids allowing political advertising, even more so if silicon valley has a little pact to make it hard for those they don't like to play.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 18, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> And yet he still became president, so in a sense, he was popular
> 
> Blah blah blah. He was president because the people voted him in, end of story. I ain't shutting up just because you want me too,


The people didn't vote him in. The general population didn't really have a say. 

He was put in by a few people through the electoral college.


----------



## Stone_Wings (Mar 18, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> And yet he still became president, so in a sense, he was popular
> 
> Blah blah blah. He was president because the people voted him in, end of story. I ain't shutting up just because you want me too,



These events never happened. Never. Trump 100% did not win because the majority of people wanted him to. You are 100% factually wrong, yet you're still carrying on with complete lies. Please get help, because it literally seems you are suffering from mental illness. Some sort of identity crisis or dissociative identity disorder. Which is ok. Just know that there is help out there for you.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Mar 18, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> And yet he still became president, so in a sense, he was popular
> 
> Blah blah blah. He was president because the people voted him in, end of story. I ain't shutting up just because you want me too,


You pride yourself on being inaccurate? The devil is in the details. Don't let your laziness make a fool of you.


----------



## AncientBoi (Mar 18, 2022)

I still say:

Oh Hell fuq NO! 


Over Flame 's dead body, he won't win.


----------



## Glyptofane (Mar 18, 2022)

I mean maybe? I personally just can't get behind Vaxy Don anymore and probably won't be involved with the hoax voting system going forward in general, but good luck to anyone who still wants him, I guess. Hard to reckon anyone could really be any worse than what we have now.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Mar 18, 2022)

Glyptofane said:


> Hard to reckon anyone could really be any worse than what we have now.


Weekend at Bernie's?


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Mar 18, 2022)

Jesus more crybaby's came to this thread than...actually, this is the reasonable amount of crybabies on this site lol Still can't accept Trump got in fairly so they simp to a literal brain dead retard currently in office. This whole thread and the people in it just proves Trump is still living in their heads rent free. Like, it's the only thing they think about and they only know hate because of how bitter and miserable they are. Wonder how people will cope if Trump gets in again? Spike in suicides?


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Mar 18, 2022)

SG854 said:


> The people didn't vote him in. The general population didn't really have a say.
> 
> He was put in by a few people through the electoral college.


Yes he did.



Stone_Wings said:


> These events never happened. Never. Trump 100% did not win because the majority of people wanted him to. You are 100% factually wrong, yet you're still carrying on with complete lies. Please get help, because it literally seems you are suffering from mental illness. Some sort of identity crisis or dissociative identity disorder. Which is ok. Just know that there is help out there for you.


Speaking of mental illness, would you like some help for your TDS?



sarkwalvein said:


> You pride yourself on being inaccurate? The devil is in the details. Don't let your laziness make a fool of you.


Hey man, what's true is true, and you can't change that.


AncientBoi said:


> I still say:
> 
> Oh Hell fuq NO!
> 
> ...


That can be arranged~ jk Let's wait and see what'll happen in the future.


----------



## Stone_Wings (Mar 19, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Yes he did.
> 
> 
> Speaking of mental illness, would you like some help for your TDS?
> ...



Lmfao. You're not even GOOD at trolling. It's not even slightly amusing. It's all just incredibly stupid. And TDS? You guys can't even come up with an insult without fucking it up.  The most amusing part of it all though is that regardless of ANYTHING you say, you're still wrong. Trump never won popular vote. You still lose. LOL!


----------



## The Catboy (Mar 19, 2022)

I hope he never becomes president again. Watching Trump supporters go through mental gymnastics is too enjoyable.


Xzi said:


> Dude, do you have multiple personalities?  I only ask because the other you just acknowledged that Trump won solely because of the electoral college.  If the majority of the voting population wanted him in, the majority would've voted for him.  Pretty simple concept.


As someone actually diagnosed with DID (Dissociative identity disorder or commonly known as multiple personality disorder,) I can safely say that even my alters have greater continuity than that.


----------



## Stone_Wings (Mar 19, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Jesus more crybaby's came to this thread than...actually, this is the reasonable amount of crybabies on this site lol Still can't accept Trump got in fairly so they simp to a literal brain dead retard currently in office.



Ummm. No one is stating Trump did not get in fairly. They are stating that he only won from the electoral colllege, not because he was voted in by the majority of people. Which are facts. Wtf is wrong with you?


----------



## The Catboy (Mar 19, 2022)

Stone_Wings said:


> Ummm. No one is stating Trump did not get in fairly. They are stating that he only won from the electoral colllege, not because he was voted in by the majority of people. Which are facts. Wtf is wrong with you?


He deliberately made an effort to surround himself with exclusively conservative views and news outlets to the point where his personality is just a generic conservative guy on gaming forums.


----------



## Stone_Wings (Mar 19, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> He deliberately made an effort to surround himself with exclusively conservative views and news outlets to the point where his personality is just a generic conservative guy on gaming forums.



So like the Tucker Carlson of gbatemp?


----------



## The Catboy (Mar 19, 2022)

Stone_Wings said:


> So like the Tucker Carlson of gbatemp?


Yeah, basically. He's just going to argue any point even if it doesn't line up with any of his previous points, so long as he can be a counter to anything you say.


----------



## KingVamp (Mar 19, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Electoral College, a system that is grossly undemocratic, disproportionately benefits one side, and gives more voting power to people and less to others based solely on where they live.


It does and he would probably agree, if it didn't benefit his side.



The Catboy said:


> I hope he never becomes president again. Watching Trump supporters go through mental gymnastics is too enjoyable.


Except they go through mental gymnastics even when he is president, so in that case, it is barely a secondary benefit.


----------



## The Catboy (Mar 19, 2022)

KingVamp said:


> It does and he would probably agree, if it didn't benefit his side.
> 
> 
> Except they go through mental gymnastics even when he is president, so in that case, it is barely a secondary benefit.


One was annoying and it was the "he didn't mean that" or "he's just hiding his hand" the other is funny because it's "He can still be president if he *inserts something either obviously illegal or not gonna happen*" I like the mental gymnastics that don't have an effect on my life, that being the ones outside of his presidency.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Mar 19, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Yeah, basically. He's just going to argue any point even if it doesn't line up with any of his previous points, so long as he can be a counter to anything you say.


Gee, doesn't that sound familiar? Like a lot of people in this thread including you Nah, it's just me, I'm the asshole. 2024's gonna be a bloodbath, regardless of who becomes president at this point.


----------



## omgcat (Mar 19, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Why don't you cry and cope to your mother loser? Your responses remind me of a schizophrenic moron. He was voted in by the majority. If you say Trump didn't get in fairly, then I guess I get to say neither did Biden.


trump won the EC and lost the popular vote, biden won the EC and won the popular vote. your argument doesn't make sense at all. also when you say "the majority" you mean won the majority of EC votes. everyone else is talking about "majority of the popular vote".


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Mar 19, 2022)

omgcat said:


> trump won the EC and lost the popular vote, biden won the EC and won the popular vote. your argument doesn't make sense at all. also when you say "the majority" you mean won the majority of EC votes. everyone else is talking about "majority of the popular vote".


Well it's a good thing the popular vote doesn't really count since it means jack shit, otherwise we'd be fucked even sooner that we already are now, even though he still won the majority vote and became president.


----------



## The Catboy (Mar 19, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Gee, doesn't that sound familiar? Like a lot of people in this thread including you Nah, it's just me, I'm the asshole. 2024's gonna be a bloodbath, regardless of who becomes president at this point.


I am more than a generic catboy, I am also a generic catgirl too.
As for 2024, props gonna have the war in Ukraine going on if things keep going the way they are. It’s doubtful that we are going to see a “bloodbath” as a result of the election. It’s more likely the few loud Trump supporters will just make up more conspiracies. Trump’s support for Putin has and should fuck him over. Trump’s always been a Putin bootlicker and I am amazed people don’t see that as a problem.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 19, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Well it's a good thing the popular vote doesn't really count


"It's a good thing presidents aren't democratically elected, since my candidate isn't popular enough to get a majority of votes."


----------



## SG854 (Mar 19, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Well it's a good thing the popular vote doesn't really count since it means jack shit, otherwise we'd be fucked even sooner that we already are now, even though he still won the majority vote and became president.


Literally every person is telling you that Trump didn't win the popular vote lol because he didn't.


----------



## Chaosta (Mar 19, 2022)

tldr
answer to the title: yes absolutely. especially if its trump vs biden again. some hated trump, most hate biden.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Mar 19, 2022)

Chaosta said:


> tldr
> answer to the title: yes absolutely. especially if its trump vs biden again. some hated trump, most hate biden.


In some way that is true.
I didn't like Trump at all, I don't like the style of trying to throw fuel into the fire for a good spectacle... it sure makes news funnier but it also increases unrest and widens the social rift. 

Not that Biden is any better on this, specially in making people get apart, tearing society and rising unrest... add to that a natural gift for incompetence and some evident problems that come with old age and well, here we are. To be honest I've felt the world going straight into dystopia with both of them and right now with this administration it is straight on a path to nineteen eighty four.

I hope you are not forced to choose between bad and worse for next term though.


----------



## smf (Mar 19, 2022)

Chaosta said:


> tldr
> answer to the title: yes absolutely. especially if its trump vs biden again. some hated trump, most hate biden.



I don't think people are dumb enough to give him a second term, however people surprise me with their dumbness all the time.

Biden seems to be more popular than Trump so far, but only just. We have a long way until the next election

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Mar 19, 2022)

Voting Trump means you may as well vote in Putin, the "toughtest on Putin" got no sanctions, fancy that.


----------



## fatherjack (Mar 19, 2022)

Can Donald Trump become President Again?​

can and should


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Mar 19, 2022)

fatherjack said:


> Can Donald Trump become President Again?​
> 
> can and should


Nah, he's a criminal and seditionist, the only thing he should be president of is a federail jail club of losers.


----------



## The Catboy (Mar 19, 2022)

fatherjack said:


> Can Donald Trump become President Again?​
> 
> can and should


Why would you want a Putin bootlicker to be the president?


----------



## AncientBoi (Mar 19, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Why would you want a Putin bootlicker to be the president?


And don't forget, Putin [or was it Puto] Stepped in . So  let tRuMp lick his boots now.


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 19, 2022)

I don't think it will happen. But it would be preferable to the current train wreck administration.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 19, 2022)

Hanafuda said:


> I don't think it will happen. But it would be preferable to the current train wreck administration.


I can't imagine how anyone in their right mind would say the Trump administration, and its kowtowing to Russia, would be preferable to the actions of the current administration.


----------



## smf (Mar 19, 2022)

Lacius said:


> I can't imagine how anyone in their right mind would say the Trump administration, and its kowtowing to Russia, would be preferable to the actions of the current administration.


Nobody in their right mind would have voted for Trump in the first place.

There are quite a lot of people who are not in their right mind.


----------



## KingVamp (Mar 19, 2022)

Lacius said:


> I can't imagine how anyone in their right mind would say the Trump administration, and its kowtowing to Russia, would be preferable to the actions of the current administration.


Things aren't perfect, but doing things worse isn't a solution.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 19, 2022)

Oh No!!! People not liking Trump he must be living rent free in people's brain according to @BitMasterPlus.

You all should like Trump more or else this will negatively affect your life. No disagreements. Not allowed to criticize. Or else you will be negatively consumed by the act of disagreeing with someone.


----------



## stanna (Mar 19, 2022)

I would be as happy as a puff with a bag of dicks if Trump was president again.


----------



## The Catboy (Mar 19, 2022)

Hanafuda said:


> I don't think it will happen. But it would be preferable to the current train wreck administration.


What did Trump actually accomplish in his presidency that wasn’t a carryover from Obama or something not directly involved with the sitting President? Also, pretty sure Trump would have either ignored the current Russian attack or backed it. Why would that have been preferable?


----------



## masagrator (Mar 19, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> What did Trump actually accomplish in his presidency that wasn’t a carryover from Obama or something not directly involved with the sitting President?


He finally abolished visa for Poland.  Only positive thing of his candidacy, where three previous presidents were promising abolishing visa for Poland and they didn't fullfill their promises.


----------



## smf (Mar 19, 2022)

masagrator said:


> He finally abolished visa for Poland.  Only positive thing of his candidacy, where three previous presidents were promising abolishing visa for Poland and they didn't fullfill their promises.


Poland was let into the visa waiver program, after the US introduced the esta which is basically a visa with another name.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Mar 19, 2022)

It's certainly possible.  Frankly I doubt it will happen, but then again I didn't think he'd win in 2016, so what do I know lol.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Mar 19, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> What did Trump actually accomplish in his presidency that wasn’t a carryover from Obama or something not directly involved with the sitting President? Also, pretty sure Trump would have either ignored the current Russian attack or backed it. Why would that have been preferable?


He bombed more in 4 years than Obama in 8, for one.


----------



## The Catboy (Mar 19, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> He bombed more in 4 years than Obama in 8, for one.


That's an impressive accomplishment


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Mar 19, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> That's an impressive accomplishment


IkR, and yet somehow thought that Trump and Putin were "peacebringers"


----------



## chrisrlink (Mar 20, 2022)

fatherjack said:


> Can Donald Trump become President Again?​
> 
> can and should


sure have fun with putin 2.0


----------



## chrisrlink (Mar 20, 2022)

@ whoever said Antarticawill melt.....funny you should say that https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-polls-antarctica-70-above-normal/7103319001/


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 20, 2022)

Trump has already achieved the objectives I wanted him to achieve during his first term, and in spite of the consistently negative coverage he is still the presumptive nominee. I wouldn’t bet money on a win in 2024 like I would in 2016, but he has a chance to win should he choose to run. It’d certainly make me grin like the Cheshire Cat if he did score another term, but I don’t think we’ll reach those levels of funny again - Trump was a once in a lifetime shock to the system. Then again, a lot depends on who the Democrats roll in on a wheelbarrow this time. Biden scoring a second term is a very hard sell, so we’re looking at a Kamala Harris run - who she’ll run against remains to be seen. I try not to look that far into the future - a lot can change in the next two years. We’ll see how things play out when the time comes.


----------



## fatherjack (Mar 20, 2022)

Would Biden be able to live another four years?


----------



## Jayro (Mar 20, 2022)

stanna said:


> Best president America ever had.


Yeah, sure... And that's why the world saw us as a laughing stock and a disgrace during that single-term loser's presidency. America lost all it's credibility and respect globally with Trump running the show.


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 20, 2022)

Jayro said:


> Yeah, sure... And that's why the world saw us as a laughing stock and a disgrace during that single-term loser's presidency. America lost all it's credibility and respect globally with Trump running the show.


Did that not happen long before then?
People pointing and laughing at the ridiculousness and ineptitude of American politics is a worldwide (or maybe worldwide minus North Korea) past time and has been for the many decades I have been on this earth now (granted I am not old enough to remember a time before Nixon-Frost, not that there is a lack of political satire or examples of America being used as a negative/poor example in many languages before then), and then people figure out if there is a way for you to deal within the framework available.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Mar 20, 2022)

FAST6191 said:


> Did that not happen long before then?
> People pointing and laughing at the ridiculousness and ineptitude of American politics is a worldwide (or maybe worldwide minus North Korea) past time and has been for the many decades I have been on this earth now (granted I am not old enough to remember a time before Nixon-Frost, not that there is a lack of political satire or examples of America being used as a negative/poor example in many languages before then), and then people figure out if there is a way for you to deal within the framework available.


Actually people didn't laugh at American ineptitude - we were really sick of your imperialism and dragging us in your own wars which ended up creating terrorists everywhere. Only Trump was additionally reviled and hated for his evil.


----------



## LoggerMan (Mar 20, 2022)

It would be nice if he could lose twice in a row. I wouldn't mind seeing him run against Pete. I don't think Trump can win again. The spell has been broken in swing voters. Also Trump winning in 2024 with Russia going on sounds like the start of a nuclear holocaust movie.


----------



## WG481 (Mar 20, 2022)

We should put all of the presidential candidates in an arena and have them duke it out Hunger Games style. Big oil companies can send in weapons and food and medicine through sponsorships.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Mar 20, 2022)

WG481 said:


> We should put all of the presidential candidates in an arena and have them duke it out Hunger Games style. Big oil companies can send in weapons and food and medicine through sponsorships.


want to make it an octuagenarian-fest?


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 20, 2022)

Bickering removed. The next person throwing an invective-filled tantrum is going on a holiday. If you can’t handle the heat in a polite manner, the kitchen isn’t for you.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Mar 20, 2022)

Lacius said:


> My point was that you were factually incorrect when you said he received a majority of the vote. Hilary Clinton received more votes than him, and Joe Biden received significantly more votes than him. Trump became president after the 2016 election because of the Electoral College, a system that is grossly undemocratic, disproportionately benefits one side, and gives more voting power to people and less to others based solely on where they live.
> 
> 
> I suggest familiarizing yourself with the actual timeline of events:
> ...



Thank you for your reply. It seems there was some internal dialog going on at the White House during the times of the riots, but after reading your sources I see only collaboration with what I said, which was Trump never instructed the protestors to riot and after they started rioting the tweets he made were asking them to stop and go home. So not much has changed other than having to read a shitty wiki authored by people obsessed with Trump.


----------



## Stone_Wings (Mar 20, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> having to read a shitty wiki authored by people obsessed with Trump


 OMG. HAHAHAHAHA!!! Because Trumps base are not literally obsessed with Trump. I mean. Like. You really just said that? LMFAO!!!


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Mar 20, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Bickering removed. The next person throwing an invective-filled tantrum is going on a holiday. If you can’t handle the heat in a polite manner, the kitchen isn’t for you.


Still wondering what exactly is there to smile as Cheshire cat when a narcissist Putin-like gets into the White House. The only shock to the system was it showed how broken is America - not that Britain is better.

Is that what you wanted? Because not all change is necessarily positive or useful. He made me positively miss Bush Jr, for all his informed stupidity, despite the fact that both him and Cheney are unforgivable, arguably more than Trump. And I say this well aware that Trump is far more delinquent than either of them (yes, even at International level, as I haven't forgotten WHY he was impeached the first time).

I ask again: what exactly would make you smile like the Cat if he were re-elected? America turning into a radicalised KKK dictatorship?

Edit: as a brief reminder, last time Trump got in, it emboldened fascists throughout the world. Bolsonaro, Salvini, Johnson, that Austrian imbecile, Turnbull. Honestly, hasn't humanity suffered enough? We arw also potentially on the brink of a world war because of a far right dictator. And if you think back, both previous world wars happened because of far right dictators being in power and unable to reconcile their egos with reality.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 20, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Still wondering what exactly is there to run as Cheshire cat when a narcissist Putin-like gets into the White House. The only shock to the system was it showed how broken is America - not that Britain is better.
> 
> Is that what you wanted? Because not all change is necessarily positive or useful. He made me positively miss Bush Jr, for all his informed stupidity, despite the fact that both him and Cheney are unforgivable, arguably more than Trump. And I say this well aware that Trump is far more delinquent than either of them (yes, even at International level, as I haven't forgotten WHY he was impeached the first time).
> 
> I ask again: what exactly would make you smile like the Cat if he were re-elected? America turning into a radicalised KKK dictatorship?


I have my reasons, I am under no obligation to divulge them, particularly not after what you’ve just pulled. Stick to the topic and avoid name-calling users and staff in the future. Should you like to review the rules of the section, they’re stickied in the subforum. More general board rules are available at https://gbatemp.net/help/terms/ - give those a read next time before you choose to spin out of control.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Mar 20, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I have my reasons, I am under no obligation to divulge them, particularly not after what you’ve just pulled. Stick to the topic and avoid name-calling users and staff in the future. Should you like to review the rules of the section, they’re stickied in the subforum. More general board rules are available at https://gbatemp.net/help/terms/ - give those a read next time before you choose to spin out of control.


I didn't pull anything. I was name called *first* and not particularly inclined to give in to rude bullies. And somehow it feels you're legitimising said bullies since you're tarring everyone with the same brush despite behaviours CLEARLY being different. It took someone wishing for my non-existence to lose my temper, I hardly think that's a an unreasonable reaction.

I'd love to read the *terms* but the link is somehow broken. I just tried twice from Android.

Yes I'm sure you have no obligation to divulge anything (like no one has) but it would be interesting to hear said reasons since joining a conversation then saying nothing to further is just bad debate behaviour - and I certainly didn't name call you, because your message didn't cause name-calling. I'm also quite curious, as I'm wondering if I have heard those reasons before (ie, last time or this time, not necessarily online).


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 20, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I didn't pull anything. I was name called *first* and not particularly inclined to give in to rude bullies. And somehow it feels you're legitimising said bullies since you're tarring everyone with the same brush despite behaviours CLEARLY being different. It took someone wishing for my non-existence to lose my temper, I hardly think that's a an unreasonable reaction.
> 
> I'd love to read the *terms* but the link is somehow broken. I just tried twice from Android.
> 
> Yes I'm sure you have no obligation to divulge anything (like no one has) but it would be interesting to hear said reasons since joining a conversation then saying nothing to further is just bad debate behaviour - and I certainly didn't name call you, because your message didn't cause name-calling. I'm also quite curious, as I'm wondering if I have heard those reasons before (ie, last time or this time, not necessarily online).


Fixed the link for you, not sure what happened there with the redirect, it should be working now. As a side note, playing the fool is not going to win you any favours. The conversation has ended. Have a nice evening.


----------



## erikas (Mar 20, 2022)

Hopefully. Joe biden is so bad, it's affecting europe.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Mar 20, 2022)

erikas said:


> Hopefully. Joe biden is so bad, it's affecting europe.


Not as bad as Trump was, and the way Trump affected Europe was much worse (with one exception).


----------



## Xzi (Mar 20, 2022)

Objectively no, nobody who has fomented an insurrection or even an _attempted_ insurrection can be allowed to run for public office again. It's literally in the constitution, 14th amendment. Whether Dems have the balls to actually enforce that or not is a different matter, but failing to enforce it could easily spell the end of democracy in the US.


----------



## erikas (Mar 20, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Not as bad as Trump was, and the way Trump affected Europe was much worse (with one exception).


Trump affected Europe how exactly?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Mar 20, 2022)

erikas said:


> Trump affected Europe how exactly?



As I said to global mod, his election emboldened far right parties throughout Europe. You know, the people who triggered two world wars. So not exactly a small effect.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 20, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Objectively no, nobody who has fomented an insurrection or even an _attempted_ insurrection can be allowed to run for public office again. It's literally in the constitution, 14th amendment. Whether Dems have the balls to actually enforce that or not is a different matter, but failing to enforce it could easily spell the end of democracy in the US.


It’s a good thing the FBI found no evidence of one, otherwise we’d be in real trouble. The only news outlet that still insists on calling Jan 6th an insurrection is CNN, everybody else has shifted their messaging to more accurate nomenclature - riot, one that Trump didn’t plan, coordinate or endorse in any way.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Mar 20, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> It’s a good thing the FBI found no evidence of one, otherwise we’d be in real trouble. The only news outlet that still insists on calling Jan 6th an insurrection is CNN, everybody else has shifted their messaging to more accurate nomenclature - riot, one that Trump didn’t plan, coordinate or endorse in any way.


Er, are you familiar with the definition of Terrorism by Professor Bruce Hoffman, perhaps THE authority in America about terrorism? And he wrote it in 2006, so in unsuspecting times.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 20, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> It’s a good thing the FBI found no evidence of one, otherwise we’d be in real trouble. The only news outlet that still insists on calling Jan 6th an insurrection is CNN, everybody else has shifted their messaging to more accurate nomenclature - riot, one that Trump didn’t plan, coordinate or endorse in any way.


It's obvious the FBI cannot be trusted on these matters ever since we found out they sat around with their thumbs up their asses for the entire time they were supposed to be investigating Brett Kavanaugh.  Nor are they the ultimate authority on deciding these matters...the evidence can still be brought before an impartial judge.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 20, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Er, are you familiar with the definition of Terrorism by Professor Bruce Hoffman, perhaps THE authority in America about terrorism? And he wrote it in 2006, so in unsuspecting times.


I’m familiar with the results of the investigation in question. It was a disorganised riot perpetrated by a bunch of idiots who had nothing better to do after a political rally.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Mar 20, 2022)

Bruce Hoffman of Georgetown University has defined terrorism as “violence—or equally important, the threat of violence—used and directed in pursuit of, or in service of, a political aim.”

The only reason that there have no "charges for terrorism" is that Congress — despite establishing a legal definition for “domestic terrorism” — has not created any stand-alone federal crime called that. As a result, it is not possible for prosecutors to charge any of the Jan. 6 rioters “with terrorism” regardless of whether they committed terrorist acts.

They are terrorists. Not "idiots" (while I accept they are idiotic terrorists). And it's a disgrace they are let off the hook so easily when, in certain states, black men are sentenced to a decade in prison for smoking pot.

There is also the undeniable fact that their actions were premeditated, not *idiots with nothing better to do*. Not a spur of the moment.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 20, 2022)

Xzi said:


> It's obvious the FBI cannot be trusted on these matters ever since we found out they sat around with their thumbs up their asses for the entire time they were supposed to be investigating Brett Kavanaugh.  Nor are they the ultimate authority on deciding these matters...the evidence can still be brought before an impartial judge.


ITT: Xzi knows better than the world’s premier crime investigators. I’m actually surprised they came to this conclusion too, but for a wholly different reason. The FBI has shown its hand over the course of his presidency and they’re not Trump’s buddies by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, a good portion of the controversies Trump was involved in were caused wholly or in part by their bad intel rather than any actual wrong-doing.



Dark_Ansem said:


> Bruce Hoffman of Georgetown University has defined terrorism as “violence—or equally important, the threat of violence—used and directed in pursuit of, or in service of, a political aim.”
> 
> The only reason that there have no "charges for terrorism" is that Congress — despite establishing a legal definition for “domestic terrorism” — has not created any stand-alone federal crime called that. As a result, it is not possible for prosecutors to charge any of the Jan. 6 rioters “with terrorism” regardless of whether they committed terrorist acts.
> 
> ...


That’s nice. Only one little problem with this - the evidence that the attack was organised is scant at best, and evidence that it was in any way coordinated by Trump, or anyone associated with Trump, is non existent. Trump is not responsible for what private individuals do in their spare time, in the same way that Bernie Sanders is not responsible when one of his fans goes to a congressional ball game guns blazing and starts blasting at congressmen, killing one in the process.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 20, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> ITT: Xzi knows better than the world’s premier crime investigators.


Again, probably a mistake to assume any investigation into this matter took place at all.



Foxi4 said:


> I’m actually surprised they came to this conclusion too, but for a wholly different reason. The FBI has shown its hand over the course of his presidency and they’re not Trump’s buddies by any stretch of the imagination.


The FBI has pretty much always had a conservative bias, and there were internal reports of it becoming "Trumplandia" while the 2016 election was still ongoing.  Even Comey wasn't particularly "against" Trump, he was only covering all his bases so that he wouldn't go down with the proverbial ship.  If you really believe Wray, a Trump appointee, isn't also a Trump sycophant, well then I got some magic beans for sale you'd probably be interested in.  The man _exclusively_ appointed sycophants, and occasionally fired and replaced them with even bigger sycophants.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Mar 20, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> That’s nice. Only one little problem with this - the evidence that the attack was organised is scant at best, and evidence that it was in any way coordinated by Trump, or anyone associated with Trump, is non existent. Trump is not responsible for what private individuals do in their spare time, in the same way that Bernie Sanders is not responsible when one of his fans goes to a congressional ball game guns blazing and starts blasting at congressmen, killing one in the process.


I didn't say that Trump was to be charged with terrorism (not that one such thing would be possible anyway - yet) - I am talking specifically about the terrorists themselves.

One little problem with your interpretation: there is also the matter of moral, in addition to legal, responsibility. Which is not trivial in the world of politics. Even more so when the one inciting, in public, is the President of the USA. Now, I appreciate the moral bankruptcy of the GOP, but even so, linked to your Cheshire grin to see Trump elected again: what exactly could the benefit be of a man who, let's not forget, DID try (and is still trying) to overturn an election because it went against him. And evidence of that is NOT scant and it certainly does exist.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 20, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Again, probably a mistake to assume any investigation into this matter took place at all.
> 
> 
> The FBI has pretty much always had a conservative bias, and there were internal reports of it becoming "Trumplandia" while the 2016 election was still ongoing.  Even Comey wasn't particularly "against" Trump, he was only covering all his bases so that he wouldn't go down with the proverbial ship.  If you really believe Wray, a Trump appointee, isn't also a Trump sycophant, well then I got some magic beans for sale you'd probably be interested in.  The man _exclusively_ appointed sycophants, and occasionally fired and replaced them with even bigger sycophants.


I believe that the FBI launched a probe into Trump and his campaign based on a completely fabricated dossier that looked ridiculous from the start. I also believe in anti-Trump bias in the department based on leaked text messages from Strzok. I only believe in things that can be backed by evidence, but you’re welcome to believe in conspiracies if that’s your angle - just don’t package them as truth to forward your political goals, that’s disinformation.


Dark_Ansem said:


> I didn't say that Trump was to be charged with terrorism (not that one such thing would be possible anyway - yet) - I am talking specifically about the terrorists themselves.
> 
> One little problem with your interpretation: there is also the matter of moral, in addition to legal, responsibility. Which is not trivial in the world of politics. Even more so when the one inciting, in public, is the President of the USA. Now, I appreciate the moral bankruptcy of the GOP, but even so, linked to your Cheshire grin to see Trump elected again: what exactly could the benefit be of a man who, let's not forget, DID try (and is still trying) to overturn an election because it went against him. And evidence of that is NOT scant and it certainly does exist.


I was unaware that requesting recounts and casting doubt on the process was considered overturning an election. Somebody should tell that to the DNC, since they have a long history of doing the same.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Mar 20, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I was unaware that requesting recounts and casting doubt on the process was considered overturning an election. Somebody should tell that to the DNC, since they have a long history of doing the same.


Asking local governors to overturn the election is, well, overturning the election. Do you have an issue with evidence you dislike?


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 20, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Asking local governors to overturn the election is, well, overturning the election. Do you have an issue with evidence you dislike?


It’s a good thing that never happened. Trump asked governor Kemp for an audit of absentee ballots, he never asked any governor to “overturn” the election.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Mar 20, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> It’s a good thing that never happened. Trump asked governor Kemp for an audit of absentee ballots, he never asked any governor to “overturn” the election.


He absolutely did so, to his own DOJ for 9 times, and in Michigan, Georgia, Wisconsin, to be begin with.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 20, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> He absolutely did so, to his own DOJ for 9 times, and in Michigan, Georgia, Wisconsin, to be begin with.


I was unaware that the DOJ hired governors - news to me. Also no, he did not. Your interpretation of the events is at odds with reality.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 20, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I believe that the FBI launched a probe into Trump and his campaign based on a completely fabricated dossier that looked ridiculous from the start.


That shows a clear bias, as you automatically believe what one foreign intelligence source is telling you over another, so long as they're telling you what you already wanted to hear.



Foxi4 said:


> I also believe in anti-Trump bias in the department based on leaked text messages from Strzok.


If they had promoted him upon discovery of those messages instead of canning him, you might have a leg to stand on.  One guy's opinion does not an institutional bias make, however.



Foxi4 said:


> you’re welcome to believe in conspiracies if that’s your angle


And you're welcome to play dumb all you like, it doesn't change the fact that the FBI/CIA have done far more to lose Americans' trust over the decades than they have to build it.  They've always been an enforcement arm of capitalism and therefore they've always been apprehensive about going after the rich and powerful.  I'll keep waiting patiently for this matter to be brought before a judge or jury rather than defer to your Trump brand loyalty, thanks.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 20, 2022)

Xzi said:


> That shows a clear bias, as you automatically believe what one foreign intelligence source is telling you over another, so long as they're telling you what you already wanted to hear.
> 
> 
> If they had promoted him upon discovery of those messages instead of canning him, you might have a leg to stand on.  One guy's opinion does not an institutional bias make, however.
> ...


The FBI came to the exact same conclusion, just a year or two late. Perhaps they should verify their sources better - the entire intelligence community treated the dossier with a block of salt, except the FBI. Strzok was fired *because* the messages were discovered - it’s called saving face. I will agree that the FBI and the CIA have lost face with the American people over the years, that doesn’t change the fact that an investigation took place and their findings are considered valid - you purported otherwise, which is incorrect.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Mar 20, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I was unaware that the DOJ hired governors - news to me. Also no, he did not. Your interpretation of the events is at odds with reality.


Again, not what I said, I'd really appreciate less dishonesty on your part.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 20, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I will agree that the FBI and the CIA have lost face with the American people over the years, that doesn’t change the fact that an investigation took place and their findings are considered valid - you purported otherwise, which is incorrect.


Valid or not, my point is that their findings are both untrustworthy and irrelevant.  The FBI aren't a court of law.  It also wouldn't surprise me in the least to find out a few FBI agents participated in the events of January 6, and not in any official capacity.


----------



## The Catboy (Mar 20, 2022)

erikas said:


> Hopefully. Joe biden is so bad, it's affecting europe.


How has Biden affected Europe?


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 20, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Again, not what I said, I'd really appreciate less dishonesty on your part.


I’d appreciate facts, as opposed to nonsense. Trump has never requested any governor to overturn the election in his favour - he requested audits and recounts based on his belief that not all votes cast were legitimate. His campaign also filed lawsuits to this effect, with specific figures. After a series of recounts and audits the results were confirmed to be correct, give or take.


Xzi said:


> Valid or not, my point is that their findings are both untrustworthy and irrelevant.  The FBI aren't a court of law.  It also wouldn't surprise me in the least to find out a few FBI agents participated in the events of January 6, and not in any official capacity.


Judging by the available evidence, agents did participate in the events of January 6th, in official capacity, I’m not even going to argue this point - you’re speaking the truth.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Mar 20, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> How has Biden affected Europe?



Restored some resemblance of trust in America, for one.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 21, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Thank you for your reply. It seems there was some internal dialog going on at the White House during the times of the riots, but after reading your sources I see only collaboration with what I said, which was Trump never instructed the protestors to riot and after they started rioting the tweets he made were asking them to stop and go home. So not much has changed other than having to read a shitty wiki authored by people obsessed with Trump.


He instructed the would-be rioters to protest against democracy by telling lies about the election being stolen. If I repeatedly told lies about you being the ring leader of the world's biggest pedophile ring, hypothetically, and someone killed you because of the lies I was spouting, I'd be responsible.

Trump also relished in the violence, tried to use it as a bargaining chip, and made the conscious decision to be silent about the riots for a long while. It reportedly took so long in part because he was resistant to using language that condemned the riots. His so-called condemnation of the violence also coddled the rioters.

If you think the timeline of events "corroborates" any of the claims you've made, you're delusional.

Edit: Also, I'm sorry inconvenient facts make a wiki "shitty" for you.


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 21, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> How has Biden affected Europe?


I have not got anything resembling an impact analysis to hand but there could be plenty of things to look at

Trade policies (several in the process of being actively (re)negotiated in the years prior and since)
Legal policies (the US plays puppetmaster on a great many occasions here)
Travel policies (restrictions and slackening of such)
International relations
The whole world police thing

Inaction, actions, differences in styles thereof compared to previous efforts. All these could have measurable impacts on how things play out.

Whether good or bad may depend upon your goals, may vary depending upon your opinions on the roles of government, be gambles that lost, be gambles that won, be gambles that maybe broke even, may vary depending upon your risk tolerances, to say nothing of how much he or his people are able to put a thumb on the scales.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Restored some resemblance of trust in America, for one.


I would be curious to see an analysis there.
Most of Europe in all their general dealings keep the US at arm's length where they can, mainly using it as a mercenary force (have some land we don't care about, spare us notable % of GDP developing international warfare arms) and deciding whether to deal with the not inconsiderable internal US market (access to which the US uses as a crude bludgeoning tool in trade negotiations, also one of the more compelling cases for being in the EU as it acts as a larger trading block when dealing with the US, much to the US' annoyance at times). This game is played out over decades as well and matters little what figurehead is on the prow of the USS we want money for nothing and to have all dealings on our terms if we can.


----------



## Stone_Wings (Mar 21, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I’d appreciate facts, as opposed to nonsense. Trump has never requested any governor to overturn the election in his favour - he requested audits and recounts based on his belief that not all votes cast were legitimate. His campaign also filed lawsuits to this effect, with specific figures. After a series of recounts and audits the results were confirmed to be correct, give or take.
> 
> Judging by the available evidence, agents did participate in the events of January 6th, in official capacity, I’m not even going to argue this point - you’re speaking the truth.



If you think Trump wasn't trying to convince the Georgia Secretary of State to come up with fake votes in his favor, you are severely delusional. Let me guess, "But but but!!! That's not what he meant!".


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 21, 2022)

Stone_Wings said:


> If you think Trump wasn't trying to convince the Georgia Secretary of State to come up with fake votes in his favor, you are severely delusional. Let me guess, "But but but!!! That's not what he meant!".


He never made such a request, so I don’t have to “think” anything of it. You’re the one being conspiratorial here, not me. As a side note, hearsay is not considered admissible evidence in a court of law - any exchanges between Raffensperger and Trump that were “overheard” by third parties and then reported on as if they were gospel are taken (rightfully) with a pinch of salt. The only reliable source of information is the transcript, and the transcript, in my eyes, shows no evidence of wrong-doing - he requested signature verification, and his request was denied.


Spoiler: “Boring Legalese”



This was based on an honest (albeit misguided) belief that the election was being tampered with. Regardless of how Raffenspberger felt about it, no threat was issued and, in context of the conversation, Trump did not expect him to do anything illegal, rather to review the results. He mentions a specific number of votes required to turn the tide in his favour, but that’s an aside to the actual request made - Trump makes it clear during the call, he believes they’ll “find” scores more than that. As such, having the various statutes in question in mind, I don’t think it even comes close to tampering - no forgery of results was ever requested. I believe some investigations are still on-going, but I suspect they’re not going to come up with anything more than what we already know. The complete transcript is out there, there’s nothing more to uncover - people can read the exchange and interpret it for themselves. Trump has a very simple defense in his Georgia case - he actually believed in what he was saying, and wasn’t intending to commit any crime, but rather prevent one from taking place, which absolves him as far as 52 USC 20511 and other related potential charges are concerned - the statute has specific prerequisites, those being “knowingly and willfully” as well as “known by the person to be materially false, fictitious or fraudulent” - if Trump believes in his case, he de facto does not fulfil the prerequisites of the felony, and by extension, cannot solicit participation. He never gave off the impression that he didn’t, which is why the case is dragging on like a snail, they’re yet to find a “hook”. They’d have to catch Trump specifically stating that he knows the results are correct, he did lose, and he wants to use his position to alter them - they’re having a hard time finding such a statement because Trump, in all likelihood, believed he had a case, and probably still thinks so to this day. Is he guilty of having poor phrasing in the heat of the moment? Yes. Is he guilty of any criminal act? I don’t think so, but that’s a subjective evaluation. He’s yet to be charged with anything in regards to the call, which tells me that evidence is scant. Why is the investigation still open then? No idea - either they’re being exceedingly thorough with the investigation or it’s being kept alive for purely political reasons.


Raffenspberger is also not the governor, so I don’t know why you bring him up in a discussion about Trump speaking to governors.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Mar 21, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I’d appreciate facts, as opposed to nonsense. Trump has never requested any governor to overturn the election in his favour - he requested audits and recounts based on his belief that not all votes cast were legitimate. After a series of recounts and audits the results were confirmed to be correct, give or take.



So what do you make of his calls about "finding votes"? That's a very loaded way to demand a recount, almost a recount for votes that don't exist, aka a fraud. I appreciate you appreciating facts opposed to nonsense. To this end, I tell you: medice, cura te ipsum.


----------



## erikas (Mar 21, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Valid or not, my point is that their findings are both untrustworthy and irrelevant.  The FBI aren't a court of law.  It also wouldn't surprise me in the least to find out a few FBI agents participated in the events of January 6, and not in any official capacity.


OK, so is your hypothesis even falsifiable then? Like what would need to happen, what proof would you need to see to exonerate Trump in your eyes? Because if there's nothing then there is no arguing with you.


----------



## erikas (Mar 21, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Restored some resemblance of trust in America, for one.


Europe is in a state of war. Gas prices have been skyrocketing even before then. And gas prices are worse in Europe. Biden is the most unintimidating person anyone could have picked. While Trump was in office, there was peace. Not just in Europe, mind you, he ended several wars in the middle east. The world is objectively worse with Biden in office.


----------



## subcon959 (Mar 21, 2022)

erikas said:


> The world is objectively worse with Biden in office.


That's impossible to evaluate, but I will say that the world of comedy is objectively worse with Biden in office.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 21, 2022)

erikas said:


> OK, so is your hypothesis even falsifiable then? Like what would need to happen, what proof would you need to see to exonerate Trump in your eyes?


All the evidence needs to be gathered, which is what the January 6th commission is doing, and then it needs to be presented to a federal judge.  The applicable individuals then need to face charges, and I'm not referring to only Trump.  If and when he's cleared of those charges, so be it.  I'm never going to believe he's an ethical or moral guy, or that the justice system is blind when it comes to wealth in the US, but he can live out the last couple years before his burger-induced heart attack a free man.



erikas said:


> Europe is in a state of war. Gas prices have been skyrocketing even before then. And gas prices are worse in Europe. Biden is the most unintimidating person anyone could have picked. While Trump was in office, there was peace. Not just in Europe, mind you, he ended several wars in the middle east. The world is objectively worse with Biden in office.


Don't fucking kid yourself, multiple world leaders literally laughed in his fat face.  The only ones that bothered to flatter him were the dictators, and it worked like a charm.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Mar 21, 2022)

erikas said:


> Europe is in a state of war. Gas prices have been skyrocketing even before then. And gas prices are worse in Europe. Biden is the most unintimidating person anyone could have picked. While Trump was in office, there was peace. Not just in Europe, mind you, he ended several wars in the middle east. The world is objectively worse with Biden in office.



None of what you said is Biden's fault, and only a GOP cultist in bad faith could fault him for that. Not that RepubliKkKans worry about Europeans anyway, so...

Also, Biden unintimidating? As opposes to the Orangeman, who was in Putin's pocket?


----------



## Stone_Wings (Mar 21, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> He never made such a request, so I don’t have to “think” anything of it. You’re the one being conspiratorial here, not me. As a side note, hearsay is not considered admissible evidence in a court of law - any exchanges between Raffensperger and Trump that were “overheard” by third parties and then reported on as if they were gospel are taken (rightfully) with a pinch of salt. The only reliable source of information is the transcript, and the transcript, in my eyes, shows no evidence of wrong-doing - he requested signature verification, and his request was denied.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: “Boring Legalese”
> ...



Wow. LMFAO! Like I stated previously, severely delusional. Governor, secretary of state, it seriously doesn't matter dude. That nit-picking is just you being your typical Trump cult loyalist. "BUT BUT!!!! I SAID GOVERNOR!!! LOL! Really? He literally asked for the EXACT number needed to overturn the results. Said he doesn't care who who does it, who it is, that it can be done confidentially, etc. etc. My God, are you seriously that dense?


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 21, 2022)

Stone_Wings said:


> Wow. LMFAO! Like I stated previously, severely delusional. Governor, secretary of state, it seriously doesn't matter dude. That nit-picking is just you being your typical Trump cult loyalist. "BUT BUT!!!! I SAID GOVERNOR!!! LOL! Really? He literally asked for the EXACT number needed to overturn the results. Said he doesn't care who who does it, who it is, that it can be done confidentially, etc. etc. My God, are you seriously that dense?


Nitpicking? That’s the law. Maybe you should read the transcript yourself and see what he was asking for. He certainly didn’t ask for votes to materialise - he was asking for signature verification for existing votes, among other checks.


Dark_Ansem said:


> So what do you make of his calls about "finding votes"? That's a very loaded way to demand a recount, almost a recount for votes that don't exist, aka a fraud. I appreciate you appreciating facts opposed to nonsense. To this end, I tell you: medice, cura te ipsum.


See post above.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Mar 21, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> See post above.



I just did, and it does agree with me.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 21, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I just did, and it does agree with me.


Can’t help you then. The entire transcript is public - anyone can read it, see the context of the conversation for themselves and make an evaluation of what the request actually was.


----------



## smf (Mar 21, 2022)

LoggerMan said:


> It would be nice if he could lose twice in a row. I wouldn't mind seeing him run against Pete. I don't think Trump can win again. The spell has been broken in swing voters. Also Trump winning in 2024 with Russia going on sounds like the start of a nuclear holocaust movie.


I don't know, Trump is too easily controlled by Putin. I'm not sure that Putin will be around though in 2024 though. So they might not pay to get Trump elected again.



subcon959 said:


> That's impossible to evaluate, but I will say that the world of comedy is objectively worse with Biden in office.


I think Biden is funnier than Trump, but Trump is more corrupt than anyone (including Hilary). Lock him up, Lock him up.



Stone_Wings said:


> Wow. LMFAO! Like I stated previously, severely delusional. Governor, secretary of state, it seriously doesn't matter dude. That nit-picking is just you being your typical Trump cult loyalist. "BUT BUT!!!! I SAID GOVERNOR!!! LOL! Really? He literally asked for the EXACT number needed to overturn the results. Said he doesn't care who who does it, who it is, that it can be done confidentially, etc. etc. My God, are you seriously that dense?


Yeah, Trump wanted someone to commit fraud for him because he is used to people committing fraud for him.


----------



## Dr_Faustus (Mar 21, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Well it's a good thing the popular vote doesn't really count since it means jack shit, otherwise we'd be fucked even sooner that we already are now, even though he still won the majority vote and became president.


Funny you mentioned that, the electoral college is actually being considered redundant in many cases and are being phased out in a handful of states since the voting system in general is fucked no matter how you look at it.


The Catboy said:


> What did Trump actually accomplish in his presidency that wasn’t a carryover from Obama or something not directly involved with the sitting President? Also, pretty sure Trump would have either ignored the current Russian attack or backed it. Why would that have been preferable?


I mean, he did get impeached twice in only one term. Thats impressive no matter how you look at it, like speedrunning a game over scenario in micro seconds.


erikas said:


> Europe is in a state of war. Gas prices have been skyrocketing even before then. And gas prices are worse in Europe. Biden is the most unintimidating person anyone could have picked. While Trump was in office, there was peace. Not just in Europe, mind you, he ended several wars in the middle east. The world is objectively worse with Biden in office.



He is not responsible for any of these things, that is all because of the shit going on in Ukraine right now, and short of wanting Ukraine steamrolled so that russia claims victory and everything goes back to normal that is something that no one is going to want aside from any of Putin's people of preference. Let's not forget that Trump was withholding aid to Ukraine so he could benefit for his own end of things. Does that seem like someone who was in the mindset of making the world a better place, especially over in the EU? Not at all. 

The only reason things are bad as they are is because Biden inherited Trumps shit from the previous era. Its like how dumbasses blame Obama for the 2008 crisis because he was president at that time despite him just entering into office to inherent all the shit that went down during the Bush Administration and funneling all our money out to a war. 

Shit does not break as soon as someone enters office, it takes a long ass time to do that, it takes even longer to fix it.


----------



## Joker25 (Mar 21, 2022)

No one can compare to Ukraine's President Zelensky anyway!
Although Trump was more decisive than Biden. That's why I'm more in favor of Trump.


----------



## The Catboy (Mar 21, 2022)

erikas said:


> Europe is in a state of war. Gas prices have been skyrocketing even before then. And gas prices are worse in Europe. Biden is the most unintimidating person anyone could have picked. While Trump was in office, there was peace. Not just in Europe, mind you, he ended several wars in the middle east. The world is objectively worse with Biden in office.


None of these things have anything to do with Biden or Trump. There wasn’t peace under Trump either. There was still the wars started during the Bush administration that were happening under Trump (and Obama,) then there were the constant attacks on the LGBT+, Asians/Asian Americans, and several other groups. Trump also incited a literal attempt to overthrow an election during the final month of his presidency. I wouldn’t say his presidency was “peaceful,” it was actually pretty shit for minorities and anyone who wasn’t a blind follower to him.


----------



## erikas (Mar 21, 2022)

Xzi said:


> All the evidence needs to be gathered, which is what the January 6th commission is doing, and then it needs to be presented to a federal judge.  The applicable individuals then need to face charges, and I'm not referring to only Trump.  If and when he's cleared of those charges, so be it.  I'm never going to believe he's an ethical or moral guy, or that the justice system is blind when it comes to wealth in the US, but he can live out the last couple years before his burger-induced heart attack a free man.
> 
> 
> Don't fucking kid yourself, multiple world leaders literally laughed in his fat face.  The only ones that bothered to flatter him were the dictators, and it worked like a charm.


All evidence needs to be gathered, yet you seem to have no problem passing judgement before he was even accused of anything.

Every world leader that's not a dictator is a clown sitting in the pocket of Klaus Schwab and don't really mean much. There is no possibility of a nuclear thread between USA and EU no matter who the leaders on either side are, so intimidating them is not necessary. And yes, he either intimidated dictators or made friends with them. You might not like that, but the alternative to that is making the dictators your enemy in which case you raise the threat of nuclear war, like we have right now.


----------



## Stone_Wings (Mar 21, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Nitpicking? That’s the law. Maybe you should read the transcript yourself and see what he was asking for. He certainly didn’t ask for votes to materialise - he was asking for signature verification for existing votes, among other checks.
> 
> See post above.



Some reading comprehension skills would do you well. The nitpicking I was referring to is you saying "But but but! I was talking about governors! Why are you talking about secretaries of state?!?!?!?!" And I called your response so damn easily. Same old, same old, sorry ass excuse/reasoning. "That's not what he meant!".


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Mar 21, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Can’t help you then. The entire transcript is public - anyone can read it, see the context of the conversation for themselves and make an evaluation of what the request actually was.



Hah, I'm not sure your help would actually help. And the context of the conversation makes it worse, as a mentally ill president refusing to concede is unfit to be alone, let alone rile.



Joker25 said:


> No one can compare to Ukraine's President Zelensky anyway!
> Although Trump was more decisive than Biden. That's why I'm more in favor of Trump.



Being decisive and making bad decisions is a liability, not something that should be rewarded.


----------



## smf (Mar 21, 2022)

Joker25 said:


> No one can compare to Ukraine's President Zelensky anyway!
> Although Trump was more decisive than Biden. That's why I'm more in favor of Trump.


Don't you think that the quality of the decisions is more important than the frequency?



erikas said:


> All evidence needs to be gathered, yet you seem to have no problem passing judgement before he was even accused of anything.


Except a lot of the evidence was already released to the public (some of it by him on TV) and so it's obvious. Which might be his play, that he now can't have a fair trial.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 21, 2022)

Stone_Wings said:


> Some reading comprehension skills would do you well. The nitpicking I was referring to is you saying "But but but! I was talking about governors! Why are you talking about secretaries of state?!?!?!?!" And I called your response so damn easily. Same old, same old, sorry ass excuse/reasoning. "That's not what he meant!".


It’s not even “that’s not what he meant”, that’s literally not what he said, and there’s written record of it. Funny you mention reading comprehension, given that yours is lacking. You didn’t “call” anything so much as you’re unfamiliar with the transcript, which is not surprising.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Hah, I'm not sure your help would actually help. And the context of the conversation makes it worse, as a mentally ill president refusing to concede is unfit to be alone, let alone rile.


No charges as of yet, and it’s been quite a while. Paranoia is not a good look as far as mental fitness is concerned. I’m not one to judge though - it’s entirely possible that he’ll eventually get charged with something in relation to the call, perhaps even in this millennium. As far as the law goes, his defense would be very simple and it’d be supremely difficult to make a charge stick based on the contents of the exchange.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Mar 21, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> No charges as of yet, and it’s been quite a while



Yes, because American justice has ever been fast at prosecuting those in power, its well known that American justice speed is inversely proportional to the number of lawyers you can throw to dilute the whole thing. 

I agree that paranoia is not a good factor, hence why he's even less suited to a re-election- or to being left alone with kids.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 21, 2022)

erikas said:


> All evidence needs to be gathered, yet you seem to have no problem passing judgement before he was even accused of anything.
> 
> Every world leader that's not a dictator is a clown sitting in the pocket of Klaus Schwab and don't really mean much. There is no possibility of a nuclear thread between USA and EU no matter who the leaders on either side are, so intimidating them is not necessary. And yes, he either intimidated dictators or made friends with them. You might not like that, but the alternative to that is making the dictators your enemy in which case you raise the threat of nuclear war, like we have right now.


There were two Russian offensives on Ukraine in recent history - one in 2014, under Obama, and one in 2022, under Biden. Many scholars have pondered why that’s the case, and are yet to figure this matter out. If only there was some commonality between the two invasions. Alas, we may never know what that common element might be.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Yes, because American justice has ever been fast at prosecuting those in power, its well known that American justice speed is inversely proportional to the number of lawyers you can throw to dilute the whole thing.
> 
> I agree that paranoia is not a good factor, hence why he's even less suited to a re-election- or to being left alone with kids.


Trump is not “in power”, he’s not even on Twitter, let alone any position of political pull. Keep fearing the orange boogeyman though.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Mar 21, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Trump is not “in power”, he’s not even on Twitter, let alone any position of political pull. Keep fearing the orange boogeyman though.



Are you being deliberately obtuse in peddling a barefaced lie, namely that a former US president does not possess any influence or power? Or that the Prosecution services would not treat him differently?


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 21, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Are you being deliberately obtuse in peddling a barefaced lie, namely that a former US president does not possess any influence or power? Or that the Prosecution services would not treat him differently?


Oh, they certainly treat him differently - they don’t want to wear egg on their faces for the third time in a row over yet another manufactured controversy. Nothing obtuse about it.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Mar 21, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Oh, they certainly treat him differently - they don’t want to wear egg on their faces for the third time in a row over yet another manufactured controversy. Nothing obtuse about it.



If you're talking about the impeachment, the only eggs in face arw the Republicans, who actually convicted Bill Clinton for some lousy oral sex and refuse to convict Trump for treason. But once again, morality, coherence and justice have never been Conservative virtues.


----------



## Stone_Wings (Mar 21, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> It’s not even “that’s not what he meant”, that’s literally not what he said, and there’s written record of it. Funny you mention reading comprehension, given that yours is lacking. You didn’t “call” anything so much as you’re unfamiliar with the transcript, which is not surprising.



The transcript it literally the exact same as the phone call itself. Wtf are you even getting at with this? That's your defense? "You didn't read the transcript!" LOL! This has absolutely nothing to do with any reading issue on my end. This goes straight back to you and the tired af "He didn't mean that!" bullshit. I listened to the entire phone call. I don't need to also read the script. I heard what was said by Trumps own mouth, not something written by a 3rd party. Your "But but but you didn't read the transcript!" thing is already old. Have anything else? Oh, wait, this must have been what Rudy meant by "Truth isn't truth" and what Trump was talking about when he said, "What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening." Right? LOL! What Trump said is right there in the call itself and in the transcript (if it's an accurate transcript).  100% case of "That's not what he meant!"-ism. Stop playing dumb. I know it's the easiest excuse to use, but you guys use it for EVERY damn thing that comes out of his mouth. "Oh! That's not what he was saying!" You HAVE to have something better. You're right. It's all right in the transcript. Trump could murder someone right in front of you, and if Trump said it never happened, you'd insist it never happened.

Why do you people continue to worship this guy? It's amusing. Cult is cult.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 21, 2022)

erikas said:


> All evidence needs to be gathered, yet you seem to have no problem passing judgement before he was even accused of anything.


The hell are you talking about?  He's accused of fomenting an attempted insurrection, one which we all saw happen on live TV.



erikas said:


> And yes, he either intimidated dictators or made friends with them.


He exclusively made friends with dictators, and gave them tons of concessions without receiving anything in return.  That's not how a strong leader operates.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 21, 2022)

Stone_Wings said:


> The transcript it literally the exact same as the phone call itself. Wtf are you even getting at with this? That's your defense? "You didn't read the transcript!" LOL! This has absolutely nothing to do with any reading issue on my end. This goes straight back to you and the tired af "He didn't mean that!" bullshit. I listened to the entire phone call. I don't need to also read the script. I heard what was said by Trumps own mouth, not something written by a 3rd party. Your "But but but you didn't read the transcript!" thing is already old. Have anything else? Oh, wait, this must have been what Rudy meant by "Truth isn't truth" and what Trump was talking about when he said, "What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening." Right? LOL! What Trump said is right there in the call itself and in the transcript (if it's an accurate transcript).  100% case of "That's not what he meant!"-ism. Stop playing dumb. I know it's the easiest excuse to use, but you guys use it for EVERY damn thing that comes out of his mouth. "Oh! That's not what he was saying!" You HAVE to have something better. You're right. It's all right in the transcript. Trump could murder someone right in front of you, and if Trump said it never happened, you'd insist it never happened.
> 
> Why do you people continue to worship this guy? It's amusing. Cult is cult.


…are you having trouble reading too, then? I don’t exactly know what you’re talking about, your post is word salad, but I’ll gather what I can before I finish the conversation with you. If you listened to the phone call then you wouldn’t be saying what you’re saying now, unless you have severe memory issues or trouble with comprehension skills. For the record, here’s the transcript:

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/01/03/...affensperger-phone-call-transcript/index.html

Now, this is a big ask since the conversation took an hour, so I don’t expect you to read it, but I’m posting it for context. The conversation touches on several issues Trump had with the process, most of which have been resolved since (late night ballot drops, multiple scanning, dead voters etc. - various assorted concerns that were on the news at the time) - those did not affect the final tally, but Trump doesn’t know that since he’s not a vote tabulator. He asks Raffenspberger to “get to the bottom of this” because he doesn’t believe the final count is accurate. He mentions the number of votes he lost by and, in the same breath, specifies that he believes he’ll find more fraudulent votes than that. Y’know. Like *I said the conversation went*. At no point in the entire exchange does Trump threaten  Raffenspberger with any physical or political repercussions for not auditing the result again. He does not request any fraudulent votes to be added to the tally either. He specifically requests inspection of existing votes, via signature verification, because he’s under the impression that some of the existing ballots are fraudulent. That’s the exact opposite of what the statute states. The *only* request Trump insists on throughout the phone call is signature verification in Fulton County. The votes he purports to “find” there are just that. That, in the wording of the Georgia statute, is the exonerating factor, and he’s unlikely to be hit with a charge that sticks over the phone call. There’s really no point in continuously groaning about this if you have selective memory, or can’t recall the actual conversation that took place. There’s nothing more to discuss here - you can keep accusing him of things he did not request, but I don’t have to comment on it.


Dark_Ansem said:


> If you're talking about the impeachment, the only eggs in face arw the Republicans, who actually convicted Bill Clinton for some lousy oral sex and refuse to convict Trump for treason. But once again, morality, coherence and justice have never been Conservative virtues.


Bill Clinton was impeached for lying to congress, not “a sex thing”. Nobody cares about his scepter getting polished by interns, that wasn’t the issue. He was indeed caught in a cleverly constructed trap, but ultimately he’s the one who lied under oath. Shame, considering I quite liked the guy as a president.


----------



## Stone_Wings (Mar 21, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> …are you having trouble reading too, then? I don’t exactly know what you’re talking about, your post is word salad, but I’ll gather what I can before I finish the conversation with you. If you listened to the phone call then you wouldn’t be saying what you’re saying now, unless you have severe memory issues or trouble with comprehension skills. For the record, here’s the transcript:
> 
> https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/01/03/...affensperger-phone-call-transcript/index.html
> 
> ...



"But but but, that's not what he meant!", again?


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 21, 2022)

Stone_Wings said:


> "But but but, that's not what he meant!", again?


“Literally not what he said or asked for”, again, and anyone can verify that for themselves by just reading what he actually said, yes. I don’t know why you find that amusing considering it directly contradicts what you said - you purport Trump asked Raffenspberger to “find votes for him”. He didn’t do that. Through the exchange he’s talking about finding fraudulent votes, not votes for himself. That’s about all there is to it.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Mar 21, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Bill Clinton was impeached for lying to congress, not “a sex thing”. Nobody cares about his scepter getting polished by interns, that wasn’t the issue. He was indeed caught in a cleverly constructed trap, but ultimately he’s the one who lied under oath. Shame, considering I quite liked the guy as a president.



So, considering that Trump lied to Congress and public far more than Clinton did, why did he escape impeachment twice?


----------



## obs123194 (Mar 21, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> We are in a democracy, and the majority did vote him in. I don't know what's so difficult for your brain to comprehend this?


the whole point of the electoral college is to have better representation of the states isn't as balanced as you think


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 21, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> So, considering that Trump lied to Congress and public far more than Clinton did, why did he escape impeachment twice?


When did Trump lie to congress under oath? He also didn’t “escape impeachment” - Trump’s been impeached twice, he was simply acquitted of the charges because there wasn’t ample evidence to prove he’s committed any offense. Congress can move to impeach the sitting president at any time, for any reason - it doesn’t mean anything in isolation and doesn’t bar Trump from running again.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Mar 21, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> When did Trump lie to congress under oath? He also didn’t “escape impeachment” - Trump’s been impeached twice, he was simply acquitted of the charges because there wasn’t ample evidence to prove he’s committed any offense. Congress can move to impeach the sitting president at any time, for any reason - it doesn’t mean anything in isolation and doesn’t bar Trump from running again.



He escaped impeachment because of a spinless couple of Republicans who relied on procedure devised when the idea of such "types" being POTUS was unthinkable.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 22, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> He escaped impeachment because of a spinless couple of Republicans who relied on procedure devised when the idea of such "types" being POTUS was unthinkable.


You’re clearly not very familiar with the history of the office then. Not that it matters - if your complaint here is that he wasn’t charged because congress followed the letter of the law then I don’t really know what to tell you.  People don’t get charged with crimes just because you don’t like them.


----------



## Stone_Wings (Mar 22, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> “Literally not what he said or asked for”, again, and anyone can verify that for themselves by just reading what he actually said, yes. I don’t know why you find that amusing considering it directly contradicts what you said - you purport Trump asked Raffenspberger to “find votes for him”. He didn’t do that. Through the exchange he’s talking about finding fraudulent votes, not votes for himself. That’s about all there is to it.



"But but but, that's not what he meant!", again? 



Foxi4 said:


> People don’t get charged with crimes just because you don’t like them.



Yet you're fine with people getting away with crimes because you like them. Funny how that works. Coward Trump wouldn't even testify at his own impeachment hearings because they knew he'd commit perjury every other breath.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 22, 2022)

Stone_Wings said:


> "But but but, that's not what he meant!", again?
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you're fine with people getting away with crimes because you like them. Funny how that works. Coward Trump wouldn't even testify at his own impeachment hearings because they knew he'd commit perjury every other breath.


Why would he ever testify before congress? To get trapped in an impeachment trap, like Clinton did? That’d be idiotic on his part. Innocent until proven guilty - he has the same rights as any other American and is under no obligation to testify if he believes that would implicate him somehow. It was congress’ job to collect material evidence of wrong-doing, and they failed to do so, so acquittal was the only correct path forward. As a side note, repeating yourself doesn’t make you right - doubling down on silly is doubly silly, which is precisely why I said that the conversation about the call is effectively over. There are no “but buts” about it, nobody is splitting hairs over what Trump “meant”, or “implied” - he didn’t say what you accuse him of saying, period. It’s never brought up in the call. It’s not open to interpretation. You can continue to be stubborn about it, it’s really no skin off my back. Other than being spammy, your response adds nothing to the conversation, so it’s safe to assume you have no rebuttal and your further input on the matter can be safely ignored.


----------



## LoggerMan (Mar 22, 2022)

Probably a good idea to remind ourselves that Trump is still the number one polled possible candidate for 2024. How can be campaign without Twitter though, also how can we know his health won't decline. He is old and fat and at that age two extra years can make a big difference to your health. Biden is slim and looks healthy for his age, he is less likely to have a sudden massive decline in health. And Pete would look like the peak of youth next to either of them. Plus Pete is the perfect opponent against Trump; the country may not have cared about sexism against women, but if Trump attacks a gay man just for being gay then the backlash against him would be huge. Unlike the issue of sexism, constant attacks or insinuations against Pete for being gay would spark a "conversation" about homophobia that won't go away until after the election. Trump would have to choose between appearing weak to his base and not attacking his opponent for being gay, or keep digging a hole deeper for himself by attacking him for being gay. If Hilary was Trump's very perfect opponent, then Trump is Pete's most ideal opponent for the opposite reason, because Trump won't get away with it this time.


----------



## smf (Mar 22, 2022)

Dr_Faustus said:


> Funny you mentioned that, the electoral college is actually being considered redundant in many cases and are being phased out in a handful of states since the voting system in general is fucked no matter how you look at it.


People have this weird obsession with the electoral college, but it existed to solve the communication problem that was solved decades ago. 

How could you possibly transmit the result of every single persons vote from all over the country any quicker? ;-)


----------



## smf (Mar 22, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Why would he ever testify before congress? To get trapped in an impeachment trap, like Clinton did? That’d be idiotic on his part. I


It's only a trap if he's guilty, like Clinton was.

So you admit he IS guilty then.



Dark_Ansem said:


> So, considering that Trump lied to Congress and public far more than Clinton did, why did he escape impeachment twice?


Are you asking why republicans didn't impeach Trump?


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 22, 2022)

smf said:


> People have this weird obsession with the electoral college, but it existed to solve the communication problem that was solved decades ago.
> 
> How could you possibly transmit the result of every single persons vote from all over the country any quicker? ;-)


That’s not the reason why the electoral college was established. The founders wrote at length about their reasoning behind it. It’s intended as a buffer between the population and the selection process which serves two purposes - firstly, it balances the voting power of larger and smaller states to ensure that they’re properly represented in the union. Secondly, a smaller group of electors chosen from the population is more likely to make an informed decision than a mob of people - it’s a presidential election, not a popularity contest. It’s supposed to be about policy, not about whether the candidate is endearing or not. Communication was certainly easier when sending electors as opposed to large shipments of ballots, but that wasn’t the primary concern - the concern was populism. An excerpt from the Federalist 68:


> ”It was equally desirable, that the immediate election *should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station*, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. *A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations*. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.”
> 
> “*Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State*; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him *in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union*, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.”
> 
> -Alexander Hamilton


If communication was the sole reason behind the existence of the electoral college, it would’ve become obsolete with the invention of the telegraph. That, of course, wasn’t the case then, and isn’t the case now.


smf said:


> It's only a trap if he's guilty, like Clinton was.
> 
> So you admit he IS guilty then.


Plenty of innocent people in prison. You should never testify in your own defense unless absolutely, positively necessary, and only under the advice of an attorney. This is court proceedings 101 - “if you’re innocent then you have nothing to hide” is a tired argument. Either they have evidence or they don’t - prosecutors are not your friends. “Nothing to hide” is the weakest of weak sauce - come up with something better. Refusing to aid the prosecution is not an admission of guilt, it’s the exercise of basic legal rights. Every attorney on the planet will tell you to avoid the stand like the plague if you can help it - prosecutors are in court to win, not to uncover truth. The same applies to congressional committees, except they’re less qualified than actual prosecutors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument


----------



## smf (Mar 22, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> That’s not the reason why the electoral college was established. The founders wrote at length about their reasoning behind it. It’s intended as a buffer between the population and the selection process which serves two purposes - firstly, it balances the voting power of larger and smaller states to ensure that they’re properly represented in the union, secondly a smaller group of electors chosen from the population is more likely to make an informed decision than a mob of people - it’s a presidential election, not a popularity contest. Communication was certainly easier when sending electors as opposed to large shipments of ballots, but that wasn’t the primary concern - the concern was populism. An excerpt from the Federalist 68:
> 
> If communication was the sole reason behind the existence of the electoral college, it would’ve become obsolete with the invention of the telegraph. That, of course, wasn’t the case then, and isn’t the case now.


Right, their reason for doing it was corrupt and is designed to foster tribalism to make it easier to control people.

Why for example should a smaller state have as much say as a larger state? Are the people who live in a larger state not as deserving of representation individually? Each person is equal. The idea that states are homogeneous is wrong now, if it wasn't wrong before. Especially with the rise in communication, so you can share views with people outside of the state.

But there wasn't really an alternative at the time, so arguing against it was kinda pointless. People (including Trump) have spoken against the electoral college. People will resist change until they don't, I think we are seeing a shift towards abandoning it.

It's only the www that has created the infrastructure necessary to allow people to vote electronically, the telegraph would not have cut it. Access to the www has only really become ubiquitous in the last decade.

Republicans have been meddling with electoral law to try to further exploit the electoral college. Which should alarm republicans as well as democrats.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 22, 2022)

smf said:


> Right, their reason for doing it was corrupt and is designed to foster tribalism to make it easier to control people.
> 
> Why for example should a smaller state have as much say as a larger state? Are the people who live in a larger state not as deserving of representation individually? Each person is equal. The idea that states are homogeneous is wrong now, if it wasn't wrong before. Especially with the rise in communication, so you can share views with people outside of the state.
> 
> ...


Because the United States are a republic that consists of a number of states with varied interests which do not necessarily align. What’s good for New York might not be so great for West Virginia or Texas - in fact, it might even be damaging. As such, a system for rebalancing voting power was devised to avoid a situation wherein a large state with a substantial population dictates policy for the rest of the country with complete disregard to their different circumstances. Not only is it a good system, it’s a shame that it isn’t emulated in other countries. I also maintain that the telegraph would’ve sufficed - it’s really not that hard to transmit two numbers over a length of wire - ballots can be counted locally, and they are counted locally to this day. The telephone made such a transmission even easier, and the Internet makes it trivial indeed - that still doesn’t make the electoral college obsolete since there are other reasons why it exists. Of course there’s something to be said about the U.S. becoming (sadly) increasingly homogenised, with people identifying as American first, and as residents of their particular state second, but that’s a wholly different discussion. The whole premise of the U.S. is a union of states with varied state law and varied interests - if you don’t like one, you can always move to another which suits your expectations better. The U.S. was never meant to be a homogenous federal blob - the states are individual entities, the federal government only exists for the purposes of more overarching activity that encompasses all states.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Mar 22, 2022)

smf said:


> Are you asking why republicans didn't impeach Trump?



Not really, just highlighting the hypocrisy and doublethink of right wingers. 



Foxi4 said:


> You’re clearly not very familiar with the history of the office then. Not that it matters - if your complaint here is that he wasn’t charged because congress followed the letter of the law then I don’t really know what to tell you.  People don’t get charged with crimes just because you don’t like them.



This is entirely false, however. Not to mention your misleading attempt to conflate impeachment and standard criminal proceedings - they are not the same and rely on different rules.

The fact remains that, despite your mental gymnastics, asking someone to find "11800" votes (very precise) is electoral fraud and, in fact, an attack on the US Constitution. "Context", in this case, only makes it worse. Why the FBI pisses its pants is another matter.


----------



## kenlee168 (Mar 22, 2022)

Media and Hollywood brain washing is lethal. Orange man is bad.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Mar 22, 2022)

kenlee168 said:


> Media and Hollywood brain washing is lethal. Orange man is bad.



Fox news, QAnon and RT is worse. Orange man is a terrorist and a seditionist.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 22, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> This is entirely false, however. Not to mention your misleading attempt to conflate impeachment and standard criminal proceedings - they are not the same and rely on different rules.
> 
> The fact remains that, despite your mental gymnastics, asking someone to find "11800" votes (very precise) is electoral fraud and, in fact, an attack on the US Constitution. "Context", in this case, only makes it worse. Why the FBI pisses its pants is another matter.


Of course they’re not the same - real criminal proceedings take place in a real court, in front of a real judge and a jury of peers, not a partisan circus. Presumption of innocence is a *principle* - it applies to any proceeding that purports to be fair. Trump isn’t guilty of anything until it can be proven. Him being president doesn’t nullify his constitutional right to due process, even if said due process is taking place in a ridiculous kangaroo court.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

He also doesn’t have to testify unless he’s subpoenaed by congress, and he (rightly) rebuffed even the mere suggestion of a subpoena as he was president at the time these events took place, and should continue to refuse questioning until his deathbed - he has no reason to testify.

No mental gymnastics either, that’s not what Trump was asking about. What he was asking about is obvious from the contents of the call, Trump is very specific, especially in the introduction. He’s operating under the (misguided) impression that illegitimate votes were tallied and wants them audited - he believes that once cross-examined, many ballots will turn out to be forgeries, turning the tide in his favour. At no point does he suggest or solicit any felonious activity, rather he has trouble believing Raffenspberger when he says that those matters are already actively investigated and the data the president was working with was incorrect.

As a side note, the FBI has nothing to do with the pending probe in Georgia, which falls under the hospices of the State Board of Elections and Georgia’s D.A., Fani Willis. It’s been well over a year and at this point even Raffenspberger himself is criticising the D.A. for moving at a snail’s pace. I assume that Willis wants to keep this thing hanging over Trump’s head for as long as humanly possible in order to dissuade him from running, or perhaps block his candidacy altogether. Let’s call it an “ace up the sleeve”, if you will. If the probe came up with anything worthwhile, we’d know it by now, but only time will tell - politics and intrigue go hand in hand, after all.


----------



## Nakamichi (Mar 22, 2022)

Sure he can, but wouldn't Putin have to retire first?


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 22, 2022)

Nakamichi said:


> Sure he can, but wouldn't Putin have to retire first?


If things in Ukraine proceed the way they have been so far and discontent in Russia continues to rise due to the economic pressure from the west, someone might “retire” Putin before the 2024 election, and I’m not even talking about the western powers, but rather his immediate circle.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Mar 22, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> As a side note, the FBI has nothing to do with the pending probe in Georgia, which falls under the hospices of the State Board of Elections and Georgia’s D.A., Fani Willis. It’s been well over a year and at this point even Raffenspberger himself is criticising the D.A. for moving at a snail’s pace. I assume that Willis wants to keep this thing hanging over Trump’s head for as long as humanly possible in order to dissuade him from running, or perhaps block his candidacy altogether. Let’s call it an “ace up the sleeve”, if you will. If the probe came up with anything worthwhile, we’d know it by now, but only time will tell - politics and intrigue go hand in hand, after all.


Now this is an interesting interpretation.


> If things in Ukraine proceed the way they have been so far and discontent in Russia continues to rise due to the economic pressure from the west, someone might “retire” Putin before the 2024 election, and I’m not even talking about the western powers, but rather his immediate circle



That is exactly what I think, and in fact what I hope, even if of course the consequences wouldn't be rosy


----------



## Nakamichi (Mar 22, 2022)

@Foxi4 I hate violence, but Putin has done so much harm. I think that him getting killed may actually be an acceptable outcome to me.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 22, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Now this is an interesting interpretation.


It’s actually pretty transparent. The same can be said about the Jan 6th commission. It’s in large part political, I don’t know why we’re all still pretending they’re actually investigating the riot when law enforcement and intelligence services have long since stated their opinion on the matter. No big plot, just a bunch of disgruntled dummies taking an unguided tour of the building, causing a mess and ultimately dispersing. It’s a hatchet above Trump’s neck should he choose to put it in harm’s way, which is why I’m not confident he’d run. Then again, hubris is very powerful. I have my popcorn ready either way.


Nakamichi said:


> @Foxi4 I hate violence, but Putin has so much harm. I think that him getting killed may actually be an acceptable outcome to me.


The man just replaced his entire staff for fear of being poisoned, he’s terrified - with good reason, his country is known for poisoning inconvenient people.

https://www.businessinsider.com/ukr...-staffers-over-fears-poison-him-report-2022-3


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 22, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> That is exactly what I think, and in fact what I hope, even if of course the consequences wouldn't be rosy


A good, old-fashioned poisoning never hurt anyone.

…

Wait a minute.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Mar 22, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> A good, old-fashioned poisoning never hurt anyone.
> 
> …
> 
> Wait a minute.


Metaphorically speaking ofc.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 22, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Metaphorically speaking ofc.


Oh, purely hypothetical, in Minecraft. I’m just saying - the man’s former KGB. If he’s this worried, he probably has a reason.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Mar 22, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Oh, purely hypothetical, in Minecraft. I’m just saying - the man’s former KGB. If he’s this worried, he probably has a reason.


Wasn't he an analyst, rather than operative?


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 22, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Wasn't he an analyst, rather than operative?



Seems a reasonable overview of such things if you were curious. Speaks to more than paper pusher there even if not hardcore the things we have the Moscow rules for ( https://intelligence.fandom.com/wiki/The_Moscow_Rules ).

That said as far as him being popped is there a) likely to be a notable change and b) if there is a change is it going to be for the better? See also pretty much every unmanaged collapse since world war 2, especially eastern Europe. Warlords would not necessarily be a better look, especially if they could secure a nice nuclear deterrent in the meantime or allow said same to slip through their fingers.


----------



## smf (Mar 22, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Because the United States are a republic that consists of a number of states with varied interests which do not necessarily align.


Whether that is true or not, it's completely irrelevant and pointless to the discussion of the role the president performs.

It might make some sense if states actually voted 100% for one candidate, but they clearly don't. So even if there is this mythical "varied interests" then their population is not privy to what that is or what effect the president should have. You can't balance out the multitude of different conflicting "varied interests" that could arise by manipulating the vote like this. 

Once in power the president is supposed to be everyone's president and balance their needs, not that the president has complete power anyway.

It's basically a way of controlling the vote by people who are anti democratic.


----------



## The Catboy (Mar 22, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> A good, old-fashioned poisoning never hurt anyone.
> 
> …
> 
> Wait a minute.


A good poisoning still shouldn’t hurt, too much.


----------



## Dr_Faustus (Mar 22, 2022)

smf said:


> People have this weird obsession with the electoral college, but it existed to solve the communication problem that was solved decades ago.
> 
> How could you possibly transmit the result of every single persons vote from all over the country any quicker? ;-)


Its an outdated concept that was left over from the days when we had 13 colonies/states more or less. We just never let things go as a country because we embrace every part of history in our growing phases to an extreme fault. I am sure if it was not for a good handful of concerned people throughout the ages rocking the boat we would probably still have slavery in some form and women still unable to vote because its just **that hard** for the US to adopt new ideas and more so abandoning older ones.

We are a country that is stubborn as fuck when it comes to changing, and that is mostly because most of our government is full of people in their 50's+ who cannot get over the "good ol' days" of when they were young and they were at the top of everything where as everyone else was under their feet. Honestly I think the biggest change we need is younger blood in our offices, because putting people in office that are so old that its hard to determine whether or not they are senile is a genuine concern to say the least. That said we will rarely if ever see this happen.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Fox news, QAnon and RT is worse. Orange man is a terrorist and a seditionist.


Q was just a *Channer who got rejected from *Chan's pol board because they were sick of his political fanfiction and decided to troll facebook instead which then caused a following of dipshits to happen. 

Seriously, all this Q bullshit originated as some channer's story that was so shit that even other channers told him to toss off. When you know thats the case it just shows how bad people are in believing shit on the internet. (But hey, these are probably the same people who probably believed the fake apple shit in which putting your iPhone in the microwave would charge it, resulting in many, many dumb as shit people cooking their new iPhones because of it.)


----------



## smf (Mar 22, 2022)

Dr_Faustus said:


> Honestly I think the biggest change we need is younger blood in our offices, because putting people in office that are so old that its hard to determine whether or not they are senile is a genuine concern to say the least. That said we will rarely if ever see this happen.


There is evidence that supports the idea that people start out left wing when they are young and poor and become more right wing as they get older. There is the problem that young people have no experience either.

So old people just aren't going to vote for young people no matter what & we have a lot of old cranky voters.

I do hope that things improve, but the fact that Trump ever got elected and some people still want him back shows they aren't very clever at working out what is best for them long term.



Nakamichi said:


> I hate violence, but Putin has done so much harm. I think that him getting killed may actually be an acceptable outcome to me.



A televised unexpected shooting in the head would be an interesting end, but I'd rather he rotted in jail.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Mar 22, 2022)

FAST6191 said:


> Seems a reasonable overview of such things if you were curious. Speaks to more than paper pusher there even if not hardcore the things we have the Moscow rules for ( https://intelligence.fandom.com/wiki/The_Moscow_Rules ).
> 
> That said as far as him being popped is there a) likely to be a notable change and b) if there is a change is it going to be for the better? See also pretty much every unmanaged collapse since world war 2, especially eastern Europe. Warlords would not necessarily be a better look, especially if they could secure a nice nuclear deterrent in the meantime or allow said same to slip through their fingers.



Why thank you for this, very interesting!


----------



## Dr_Faustus (Mar 22, 2022)

smf said:


> There is evidence that supports the idea that people start out left wing when they are young and poor and become more right wing as they get older. There is the problem that young people have no experience either.
> 
> So old people just aren't going to vote for young people no matter what & we have a lot of old cranky voters.
> 
> I do hope that things improve, but the fact that Trump ever got elected and some people still want him back shows they aren't very clever at working out what is best for them long term.


I mean, I also believe that voters should at least be filtered via an aptitude test to ensure they have not had their brain completely spoiled by misinformation, people talk about votes being stolen or hacked but the truth is most of the issues with votes anymore is that voters are getting pudding brain from illegitimate sources of information and the line toeing between calling bullshit on misinformation and those believing that the capital needs to be raided is apparently a line that needs to be drawn and filtered as shitty as it sounds. That said its not like some of the bible belt states aren't trying to enforce something similar but with the filter working against those who are not white or have a special ID. At least my idea just filters those who are too mentally compromised to determine if the person they want to vote for is for legitimate reasons or are being influenced by stupid internet rumors. 

I feel like to vote for someone that will control the country you need to go through the process similar to getting a firearm. It should filter out the crazys but at the same time crazys have nothing better to do with their free time where as those who do not have free time but are mentally sound to vote may simply skip out on it. So even then my idea is inherently flawed too.

I know I am basically sounding like a hypocrite here saying this but I miss the days when the internet was not as influential on people as it is now. It may be a great gift to the world but its helped the spread of brain rot to unprecedented levels. The last two years alone has shown just how bad it can influence the worst in people on a global scale. Its an ugly but unfortunate truth.


----------



## smf (Mar 22, 2022)

Dr_Faustus said:


> I mean, I also believe that voters should at least be filtered via an aptitude test to ensure they have not had their brain completely spoiled by misinformation, people talk about votes being stolen or hacked but the truth is most of the issues with votes anymore is that voters are getting pudding brain from illegitimate sources of information and the line toeing between calling bullshit on misinformation and those believing that the capital needs to be raided is apparently a line that needs to be drawn and filtered as shitty as it sounds.


It wouldn't be so bad if we didn't have people as corrupt as Trump standing. If people who voted for him accepted that he never tells the truth and they are just along for the white supremacy, then I could actually respect them for their vote. It's the underhand tactics.

I had someone explain to me how Trump was great as oil prices plummeted while he was president and no oil was imported and so they wanted him back. But of course that was due to covid 2020 lockdowns & not Trump. He has in effect become a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Mar 22, 2022)

Dr_Faustus said:


> I know I am basically sounding like a hypocrite here saying this but I miss the days when the internet was not as influential on people as it is now. It may be a great gift to the world but its helped the spread of brain rot to unprecedented levels. The last two years alone has shown just how bad it can influence the worst in people on a global scale. Its an ugly but unfortunate truth.


Nah even the creator of WWW protocol has said he's disgusted with what the Internet has become.


----------



## Dr_Faustus (Mar 22, 2022)

smf said:


> It wouldn't be so bad if we didn't have people as corrupt as Trump standing. If people who voted for him accepted that he never tells the truth and they are just along for the white supremacy, then I could actually respect them for their vote. It's the underhand tactics.
> 
> I had someone explain to me how Trump was great as oil prices plummeted while he was president and no oil was imported and so they wanted him back. But of course that was due to covid 2020 lockdowns & not Trump. He has in effect become a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult


I would say its funny because the RNC really did not want him to get as far as he did in terms of voter popularity. They basically wanted to do to him what the DNC did to Sanders, in which they already had their choice regardless of what the people wanted but in the case of the RNC they do not have protocols in place to prevent a popular choice to override their own personal choice. Thats why shit like Superdelegates exist in the DNC. Its basically their internal version of the electoral college as a checks and balances system to push their choice over what the voters might want.

They really wanted someone like Jeb be the primary choice, probably because for one it would be a Bush in the race again, and two because it would have made the vote for a Bush or a Clinton funny in a nostalgic way. But Trump really made waves in popularity, and despite him openly embodying the worst of what the party represents in real time (so much so that the parody jokes of which you see on prime time TV has become reality) the RNC had no choice but to roll with it as their primary.




Dark_Ansem said:


> Nah even the creator of WWW protocol has said he's disgusted with what the Internet has become.


TBL has a mixed opinion on things as it stands, but that is because things moved way too fast in the adoption rate of the internet. I blame Apple for that mostly.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Mar 22, 2022)

Dr_Faustus said:


> I blame Apple for that mostly.


Why  specifically?


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 22, 2022)

Dr_Faustus said:


> I mean, I also believe that voters should at least be filtered via an aptitude test to ensure they have not had their brain completely spoiled by misinformation, people talk about votes being stolen or hacked but the truth is most of the issues with votes anymore is that voters are getting pudding brain from illegitimate sources of information and the line toeing between calling bullshit on misinformation and those believing that the capital needs to be raided is apparently a line that needs to be drawn and filtered as shitty as it sounds. That said its not like some of the bible belt states aren't trying to enforce something similar but with the filter working against those who are not white or have a special ID. At least my idea just filters those who are too mentally compromised to determine if the person they want to vote for is for legitimate reasons or are being influenced by stupid internet rumors.
> 
> I feel like to vote for someone that will control the country you need to go through the process similar to getting a firearm. It should filter out the crazys but at the same time crazys have nothing better to do with their free time where as those who do not have free time but are mentally sound to vote may simply skip out on it. So even then my idea is inherently flawed too.
> 
> I know I am basically sounding like a hypocrite here saying this but I miss the days when the internet was not as influential on people as it is now. It may be a great gift to the world but its helped the spread of brain rot to unprecedented levels. The last two years alone has shown just how bad it can influence the worst in people on a global scale. Its an ugly but unfortunate truth.


A truly frightening prospect, considering the fact that it implies some kind of authority, most likely governmental, deciding what is and is not “good quality information”.



smf said:


> Whether that is true or not, it's completely irrelevant and pointless to the discussion of the role the president performs.
> 
> It might make some sense if states actually voted 100% for one candidate, but they clearly don't. So even if there is this mythical "varied interests" then their population is not privy to what that is or what effect the president should have. You can't balance out the multitude of different conflicting "varied interests" that could arise by manipulating the vote like this.
> 
> ...


Countries in the European Union have their own governments and their own leaders that only send a select few to the Europarliment to deliberate on matters that affect the entire continent. The United States were intended to be a similar sort of construct, except in the U.S. the fed is also in charge of interstate law, foreign policy and the military, among a myriad of other things. That was always the intended blueprint. The founders were never in support of a fully unrestrained democracy, for reasons that were already explained.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Mar 22, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> A truly frightening prospect, considering the fact that it implies some kind of authority, most likely governmental, deciding what is and is not “good quality information”.


I mean, not really. Something like what happens in Switzerland would be nice.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 22, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I mean, not really. Something like what happens in Switzerland would be nice.


Every Swiss citizen aged 18 or over that is not subject to guardianship due to mental disability or other impairment of judgement is eligible to vote on a federal level and automatically enrolled, I don’t know what you’re talking about. Similar rules apply in the United States - if you’re under the impression that just about anyone can show up to the ballot box, you’re incorrect.

https://www.usa.gov/who-can-vote

What’s *not* used as a filter is political alignment, as it would stand in direct contradiction to the Bill of Rights. People can vote for whoever they want and they’re under no obligation to justify their choice to anyone.

If you mean something else (the context was voting, after all, and “misinformed voters”), you’ll have to be more specific.


----------



## Stealphie (Mar 23, 2022)

This thread's gonna be a fun one.


----------



## kenlee168 (Mar 23, 2022)

No doubt, Donald Trump likes to troll against the media and the Dem whenever possible  which other president don't or doing it not as much, the toxic atmosphere could be felt in most of his press briefings until the point of never trumper and now look what sleepy joe did or never do his diligent role as the commander in chief?
Like it anot, Trump will swiftly turn thing around if WWIII doesn't start under biden's watch.


----------



## impeeza (Mar 23, 2022)

Like a Latinamerican sonwriter used to sang:

My grandpa was a brave man,
He only was afraid of idiots.
When I asked ¿why?
He answered:
"Because they are a lot
and been majority
they can choose everything
even elect presidents!"

The original Spanish version:



> _Mi abuelo era un hombre muy valiente,_
> _sólo le tenía miedo a los idiotas._
> _Le pregunté ¿por qué?,_
> _y me respondió:_
> ...


----------



## The Catboy (Mar 23, 2022)

kenlee168 said:


> No doubt, Donald Trump likes to troll against the media and the Dem whenever possible  which other president don't or doing it not as much, the toxic atmosphere could be felt in most of his press briefings until the point of never trumper and now look what sleepy joe did or never do his diligent role as the commander in chief?
> Like it anot, Trump will swiftly turn thing around if WWIII doesn't start under biden's watch.


Trump won’t turn the war around, he’d just bootlick Putin some more and pretend the war wasn’t happening or downplay it.


----------



## kenlee168 (Mar 23, 2022)

Trump will always be at fault no matter what he does. His trollings really do hurt feelings.


----------



## kenlee168 (Mar 23, 2022)

He is well known for Art of a Deal, he will try to think of a way so he can bragged on his rally. He always brag he drew millions to his rally and he is without a guitar. 



The Catboy said:


> Trump won’t turn the war around, he’d just bootlick Putin some more and pretend the war wasn’t happening or downplay it.


----------



## The Catboy (Mar 23, 2022)

kenlee168 said:


> He is well known for Art of a Deal, he will try thing of a way so he can bragged on his rally.


He’s also known for constantly licking Putin’s boots and making terrible business choices.


----------



## Stone_Wings (Mar 23, 2022)

Here's your GOP. Remember these things when it comes time to vote.


----------



## Dr_Faustus (Mar 23, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Why  specifically?


The original iMac G3 from 1998/99 was the leap point where access to the internet became more attainable for most average users. Between its attractive design and all in one form factor with built in networking functionality allowing simple access to the internet for anyone who wanted in on it without needing to know how to install cards, drivers or anything above dead simple plug in and play use. 

This once again would be surpassed by Apple once again by the time the first iPhone came out, popularizing mobile smartphones and pushing the race forward for an internet everywhere and in everyone's hands. 

Would this have changed dramatically if Apple was not in the picture? Probably not by too much, as the leaps would have existed in some other form but we would have probably had a more gradual adoption of the internet rather than the rapid adoption that happened between the early to late 00's. Now everyone has access to the internet, regardless of age or mental state.



Foxi4 said:


> A truly frightening prospect, considering the fact that it implies some kind of authority, most likely governmental, deciding what is and is not “good quality information”.


That is also another prospect that I found flawed aside from what I previously mentioned. The handling of what constitutes as factual or fiction would have to be handled by a third party of non biased means acting purely on fact. But even this can be found corruptible in the long run. 

Pretty much anything born of human mind can be corrupted in the long run. 



The Catboy said:


> He’s also known for constantly licking Putin’s boots and making terrible business choices.


He was basically trying to wine and dine Trump in the same way he had done with Lukashenko in Belarus. I am sure he tried to do the same with the officials in China but I think they have the tables turned and are waiting for the other foot to drop so they could take over and make Russia theirs.


----------



## smf (Mar 23, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Nah even the creator of WWW protocol has said he's disgusted with what the Internet has become.


I'm not sure Sir Tim has any more say about what the internet should be used for than the person who designed my kitchen has over what I cook. The internet is just a reflection of humanity, for better or worse.



Foxi4 said:


> A truly frightening prospect, considering the fact that it implies some kind of authority, most likely governmental, deciding what is and is not “good quality information”.
> 
> Countries in the European Union have their own governments and their own leaders that only send a select few to the Europarliment to deliberate on matters that affect the entire continent. The United States were intended to be a similar sort of construct, except in the U.S. the fed is also in charge of interstate law, foreign policy and the military, among a myriad of other things. That was always the intended blueprint. The founders were never in support of a fully unrestrained democracy, for reasons that were already explained.


Well clearly you can't leave it up to the people to decide, because the half wits will vote for Trump. So do you have a better solution? The only other option would be to just kill Trump, but I don't really like that idea either.

I don't think it's relevant what the founders of the states were in support of, they were in favor of slavery etc.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 23, 2022)

smf said:


> Well clearly you can't leave it up to the people to decide, because the half wits will vote for Trump. So do you have a better solution? The only other option would be to just kill Trump, but I don't really like that idea either.


I don’t have a problem with half-wits being manipulated into voting for politicians that enact policy I find beneficial - the stupid have been manipulated since the dawn of time. You’re over 200 years late to discuss this matter with the likes of Tocqueville - democracy equals tyranny of the stupid. Another good reason for the Electoral College to exist - as a stop gap against the stupid. It’s almost as if it was designed to do that - to act as a check against the tyranny of the majority.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

Long discussion for a different thread.


> I don't think it's relevant what the founders of the states were in support of, they were in favor of slavery etc.


The founders were aiming to abolish slavery from the very beginning, they were forced into an inconvenient socioeconomic situation and opted for gradual change for the sake of establishing unity first - out of necessity rather than preference. They were actually quite vocal about that. The blame for slavery existing in the United States at all was solely and squarely cast on the British Empire and the king. They always recognised that slavery ran contrary to the American ideal of all people being created equal, but had no means to resolve the matter - compromises had to be made in the face of a greater foe.


Dr_Faustus said:


> That is also another prospect that I found flawed aside from what I previously mentioned. The handling of what constitutes as factual or fiction would have to be handled by a third party of non biased means acting purely on fact. But even this can be found corruptible in the long run.
> 
> Pretty much anything born of human mind can be corrupted in the long run.


Unbiased third parties don’t exist - the last thing I need is fact checkers fact checking fact checkers. I have a better idea - just show me the facts and I’ll form my own opinions.


----------



## smf (Mar 23, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I don’t have a problem with half-wits being manipulated into voting for politicians that enact policy I find beneficial


Which is a basic lack of integrity that throws all of what you "find beneficial" into doubt.

That is a fundamental problem. We shouldn't be doing what someone with that outlook "finds beneficial".

Hopefully one day you will figure out why it's a problem, until then I can't be bothered with you.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 23, 2022)

smf said:


> Which is a basic lack of integrity that throws all of what you "find beneficial" into doubt.
> 
> That is a fundamental problem. We shouldn't be doing what someone with that outlook "finds beneficial".
> 
> Hopefully one day you will figure out why it's a problem, until then I can't be bothered with you.


You’re the guys who just suggested that people should be disenfranchised on the basis of their beliefs, “being misinformed” or their level of intelligence - you can take your criticism, fold it into a paper boat and toss it into the sea because your supposed moral authority is a ship that’s already sailed. I’m perfectly happy with them voting, I just want them to be convinced to vote my way. I quote:


smf said:


> Well clearly *you can't leave it up to the people to decide*, because the *half wits* will vote for Trump.


Mask slipping again, your authoritarianism is showing.


----------



## smf (Mar 23, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> You’re the guys who just suggested that people should be disenfranchised on the basis of their beliefs, “being misinformed” or their level of intelligence - you can take your criticism, fold it into a paper boat and toss it into the sea because your supposed moral authority is a ship that’s already sailed. I’m perfectly happy with them voting, I just want them to be convinced to vote my way. I quote:
> Mask slipping again, your authoritarianism is showing.


No, I'm saying we need a way of getting rid of bad actors so that bad actors like you can't fuck us.

The whole point of society is to weed out bad actors like you

And if by "mask slipping" you mean stopping bad actors, then sure. My mask is off.

I'm actually very very liberal until I am confronted by disingenous people like you, but you won't see it because you can't help yourself

You are far more authoritarian in your views, you just are happy because you are getting your own way while decent people are getting screwed.


----------



## KingVamp (Mar 23, 2022)

Except, we risk the "tyranny of the minority" instead.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 23, 2022)

smf said:


> No, I'm saying we need a way of getting rid of bad actors so that bad actors like you can't fuck us.
> 
> The whole point of society is to weed out bad actors like you
> 
> ...


First of all, that’s not what you said. You suggested that the ability of “half-wits” to participate in the election process should be filtered or otherwise limited “or else they’ll vote the wrong guy in”, you used the example of Trump, and by “wrong guy” we’re talking about your subjective evaluation. Second, your flailing doesn’t matter since your backpedal is equally silly, you’re projecting. I will always back the candidate that *I* believe will be best for the country and provide long-term benefit to the people, not necessarily just myself. I don’t need other people to understand why that’s the case - I just need them to vote that guy in. How that guy wins their hearts and votes over is completely immaterial to me, it’s all marketing at the end of the day. On the flip side, I consider people like you to be bad actors - you openly want to limit participation in the process based on what you subjectively find appropriate or adequate, both in terms of people running and people voting, lording over others whom you obviously find inferior, either morally or intellectually. It’s a bad look, but not a surprising one from your side of the aisle.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Mar 23, 2022)

Hell yeah he can, Biden's done such a bad job that honestly people will just give up on him, unless someone really impressive runs against Trump


----------



## djpannda (Mar 23, 2022)

Heavily doubt it. But mid terms will be the Key,

 Most Trump back Candidates are internally polling horribly. With that Many Repubican organizations have been meeting and working "around/ without " Trump in mind. As they prepare for the Republican Party without him. Also the Republican falure in Redistricting ( some state maps so bad that Republican state Courts Struck them down as Racist) . and Now the View that from Moderate Republicans viewing Trumps Weak on Russia is going to make the play downhill.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 23, 2022)

Stealphie said:


> This thread's gonna be a fun one.


A little late to the party


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 23, 2022)

djpannda said:


> Heavily doubt it. But mid terms will be the Key,
> 
> Most Trump back Candidates are internally polling horribly. With that Many Repubican organizations have been meeting and working "around/ without " Trump in mind. As they prepare for the Republican Party without him. Also the Republican falure in Redistricting ( some state maps so bad that Republican state Courts Struck them down as Racist) . and Now the View that from Moderate Republicans viewing Trumps Weak on Russia is going to make the play downhill.


Trump is favourite to *win* according to the gross majority of polls, let alone get the nomination. I don’t know where you get your info from, but it’s not consistent with polling data. Still far too early to tell, we don’t even know if he’s planning to run, so no point in taking bets just yet. If he does run, it’s going to be a tight race with no holds barred.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2024/president/us/general-election-trump-vs-biden-7383.html


----------



## djpannda (Mar 23, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Trump is favourite to *win* according to the gross majority of polls, let alone get the nomination. I don’t know where you get your info from, but it’s not consistent with polling data. Still far too early to tell, we don’t even know if he’s planning to run, so no point in taking bets just yet. If he does run, it’s going to be a tight race with no holds barred.
> 
> https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2024/president/us/general-election-trump-vs-biden-7383.html


I stated "Trump Back Candidates" are polling horrible  ..but ok...


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 23, 2022)

djpannda said:


> I stated "Trump Back Candidates" are polling horrible  ..but ok...


Sorry, sometimes I have trouble reading your posts. Thanks for the explanation, “Trump-backed candidates” aren’t doing so hot, with DeSantis leading the charge last I checked. He’s far ahead of any other option besides Trump himself.



KingVamp said:


> Except, we risk the "tyranny of the minority" instead.


Striking a balance is the ideal, albeit difficult to achieve end goal. I say difficult because balance tends to be in constant flux.


----------



## spotfek (Mar 23, 2022)

no


----------



## spotfek (Mar 23, 2022)

no


----------



## lokomelo (Mar 23, 2022)

In regard to age, a second Trump x Biden election will make the chair of US president look like the chair of the papacy.

Anyway, I just waiting for someone to post: Can Jimmy Carter become President Again?


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 23, 2022)

lokomelo said:


> In regard to age, a second Trump x Biden election will make the chair of US president look like the chair of the papacy.
> 
> Anyway, I just waiting for someone to post: Can Jimmy Carter become President Again?


We’ll know we’re on the right track when an Nixon’s animated disembodied head in a jar gets the nomination, after that space ships and cyclops ladies are just a matter of time.


----------



## djpannda (Mar 23, 2022)

I really wonder how successful can a President bid be from Prison or at the best an indicted person…
Flipping on each other


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 24, 2022)

djpannda said:


> I really wonder how successful can a President bid be from Prison or at the best an indicted person…
> Flipping on each other


Mo Brooks is spinning tales because Trump rescinded his endorsement, this sounds like a bunch of gobbledygook. I sure hope he has some kind of evidence to back this allegation up, otherwise it’s he-said-she-said to the extreme.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Mar 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I don’t know what you’re talking about


Heh.


Foxi4 said:


> Mo Brooks is spinning tales because Trump rescinded his endorsement, this sounds like a bunch of gobbledygook. I sure hope he has some kind of evidence to back this allegation up, otherwise it’s he-said-she-said to the extreme.


"I don't like this therefore it's not real".


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Heh.
> 
> "I don't like this therefore it's not real".


Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It makes no sense to me - Mo Brooks, a known idiot, was in no position to fulfil such a request even if it were made. A lot of people say a lot of things about Trump - very few can back up their claims with any kind of record. I’d like to see evidence of such conversations taking place, and their context. If it’s true then it’d put Trump in some hot water, but I’m not planning on taking hearsay as gospel. Seems to me that Brooks is acting like an admirer scorned.


----------



## kenlee168 (Mar 24, 2022)

Hearsay sufficient for a quid pro quo trial if it's  concern a particular orange man


----------



## tabzer (Mar 24, 2022)

People should be more mad that their government tried to run Trump out of office and how they did so.  I don't care if Trump is an asshole, a loser, or a piece of shit.  When your own government openly conspires to run fake hit pieces against someone in order to ostracize them for civilization, your problems are a lot bigger than Orange Man.  Also, your democracy is fake news.


----------



## kenlee168 (Mar 24, 2022)

Swamp
people who hanged on for too long like nancy pelosi


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Mar 24, 2022)

tabzer said:


> People should be more mad that their government tried to run Trump out of office and how they did so.  I don't care if Trump is an asshole, a loser, or a piece of shit.  When your own government openly conspires to run fake hit pieces against someone in order to ostracize them for civilization, your problems are a lot bigger than Orange Man.  Also, your democracy is fake news.


when your own government which you appointed "tries to run you out" (which didn't happen) it usually means you're unfit for office, if even your own lackeys think you're mad.


----------



## tabzer (Mar 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> when your own government which you appointed "tries to run you out" (which didn't happen) it usually means you're unfit for office, if even your own lackeys think you're mad.


Sounds like you missed my point or reinvented what you are responding to.  I know it's an uncomfortable fact that your own presidents aren't protected by, or in this case, from the government.  The implications on the safety of the citizens goes out the window.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> when your own government which you appointed "tries to run you out" (which didn't happen) it usually means you're unfit for office, if even your own lackeys think you're mad.


The President doesn’t appoint the Congress. That’s actually kind of the point - the legislature and the executive are two branches that are supposed to work as checks on each other. People don’t think about this very often, but the U.S. government is designed to be in a constant state of opposition against itself. The purpose behind setting it up as such is that only ideas that have broad support can actually be signed into law, law being the only relevant factor as far as citizens are concerned. It’s not a popularity contest or a Carebear convention, those people aren’t supposed to be “buddies”.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Mar 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> The President doesn’t appoint the Congress. That’s actually kind of the point - the legislature and the executive are two branches that are supposed to work as checks on each other. People don’t think about this very often, but the U.S. government is designed to be in a constant state of opposition against itself. The purpose behind setting it up as such is that only ideas that have broad support can actually be signed into law, law being the only relevant factor as far as citizens are concerned. It’s not a popularity contest or a Carebear convention, those people aren’t supposed to be “buddies”.


Congress and Government are two different things, speak to that guy who clearly is incapable of distinguishing. And unfortunately politics ARE only a matter of popularity, which is sad and useless. If it were a matter of competence, perhaps things wouldn't be so bad.


tabzer said:


> Sounds like you missed my point or reinvented what you are responding to. I know it's an uncomfortable fact that your own presidents aren't protected by, or in this case, from the government. The implications on the safety of the citizens goes out the window.


No, you just don't know what you're talking about. ANY impeachement measure is a protective mechanism.


----------



## tabzer (Mar 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> No, you just don't know what you're talking about. ANY impeachement measure is a protective mechanism.


Correction.  I don't know what you are talking about.  Seems like you are tossing red herrings to divert the point.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> *Congress and Government are two different things*, speak to that guy who clearly is incapable of distinguishing. And unfortunately politics ARE only a matter of popularity, which is sad and useless. If it were a matter of competence, perhaps things wouldn't be so bad.


…what?

Did you mean to say “cabinet”?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States


----------



## Dr_Faustus (Mar 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Unbiased third parties don’t exist - the last thing I need is fact checkers fact checking fact checkers. I have a better idea - just show me the facts and I’ll form my own opinions.


I would say machines can exist to do this, but even then I would not put my whole heart into trusting them, or more so those who program and operate them. Its a checks and balances that would exist on a very fine line.


lokomelo said:


> In regard to age, a second Trump x Biden election will make the chair of US president look like the chair of the papacy.



Honestly given the extreme batshittery that is going on in the RNC right now I would not be surprised if the party splits in half between the radicals who are borderline communist and those who are oldschool Republicans wanting to restore some kind of respect and credibility that they had before the GOP became a thing feared and hated on the world.



lokomelo said:


> Anyway, I just waiting for someone to post: Can Jimmy Carter become President Again?


Hell even the corpse of Reagan would be a viable choice.


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 24, 2022)

Dr_Faustus said:


> [truth divining] I would say machines can exist to do this, but even then I would not put my whole heart into trusting them, or more so those who program and operate them. Its a checks and balances that would exist on a very fine line.


This side of strong AI that can change its own programming with 1984 ain't got shit on me levels of surveillance (sounds like a wonderful place to live) then not seeing it. No real way for humans to program it in the traditional sense, and that leaves us again strong AI or some kind or machine learning which is also fraught with difficulty.

We can barely get things to identify items or predict patterns and most of those are yes/no for a group or specific trait, and this is "working one of these makes me a lot of money" levels of computing power and programmers available. Making sense of a complicated blurry video feed, some of which may also be value judgements (see also jury nullification)... no chance in this lifetime.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 24, 2022)

Dr_Faustus said:


> I would say machines can exist to do this, but even then I would not put my whole heart into trusting them, or more so those who program and operate them. Its a checks and balances that would exist on a very fine line.





FAST6191 said:


> This side of strong AI that can change its own programming with 1984 ain't got shit on me levels of surveillance (sounds like a wonderful place to live) then not seeing it. No real way for humans to program it in the traditional sense, and that leaves us again strong AI or some kind or machine learning which is also fraught with difficulty.
> 
> We can barely get things to identify items or predict patterns and most of those are yes/no for a group or specific trait, and this is "working one of these makes me a lot of money" levels of computing power and programmers available. Making sense of a complicated blurry video feed, some of which may also be value judgements (see also jury nullification)... no chance in this lifetime.


I remember one implementation of AI meant for scanning through CV’s for prospective job candidates. Upon seeing the results it was promptly decided that the AI was sexist and racist.


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I remember one implementation of AI meant for scanning through CV’s for prospective job candidates. Upon seeing the results it was promptly decided that the AI was sexist and racist.


I saw the same thing. Opinions seemed to vary. One was that it was fed examples from existing employees (mostly a tech company so play that as you will) and thus tried to match those. Another was that those running it were more about that equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity and there was a material difference.
I would note that come the day of the revolution. Lawyers, landlords, bankers... all safe from me. HR people on the other hand...


----------



## HBK (Mar 24, 2022)

Yes, and he will likely win not only the Republican nomination but the Presidency itself in 2024. Against Biden, he polls strongly. 

Joe Biden remains the only viable alternative on the Democratic side - no, Hillary isn't coming back - and his Presidency is being decided by this proxy war with Russia. The longer the war drags on, the stronger the chances of Trump winning.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 24, 2022)

FAST6191 said:


> I saw the same thing. Opinions seemed to vary. One was that it was fed examples from existing employees (mostly a tech company so play that as you will) and thus tried to match those. Another was that those running it were more about that equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity and there was a material difference.
> I would note that come the day of the revolution. Lawyers, landlords, bankers... all safe from me. HR people on the other hand...


Ah, the human refuse department! Yes, I’m familiar. Chopping block, second only to OSHA pencil pushers.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Mar 25, 2022)

Unpopular Opinion: I am absolutely in favour of DT taking HC to court. 1000 pages of senate enquiry against him, plus being exposed to some of the most lethal lawyers in the world. That's gonna be fun, and hopefully sink his presidential chances.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Mar 25, 2022)

HBK said:


> Yes, and he will likely win not only the Republican nomination but the Presidency itself in 2024. Against Biden, he polls strongly.
> 
> Joe Biden remains the only viable alternative on the Democratic side - no, Hillary isn't coming back - and his Presidency is being decided by this proxy war with Russia. The longer the war drags on, the stronger the chances of Trump winning.


He polled strongly against Biden the first time too.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 25, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Unpopular Opinion: I am absolutely in favour of DT taking HC to court. 1000 pages of senate enquiry against him, plus being exposed to some of the most lethal lawyers in the world. That's gonna be fun, and hopefully sink his presidential chances.


Why would he take Clinton personally to court for a weird civil suit when the Durham probe (which the public is consistently distracted away from) is starting to uncover possibly criminal liability on the part of the Clinton campaign? Things are only going to get more and more interesting on that front.


----------



## tabzer (Mar 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Why would he take Clinton personally to court for a weird civil suit when the Durham probe (which the public is consistently distracted away from) is starting to uncover possibly criminal liability on the part of the Clinton campaign? Things are only going to get more and more interesting on that front.



Probably to get the media to cover it.


----------



## Dr_Faustus (Mar 25, 2022)

FAST6191 said:


> This side of strong AI that can change its own programming with 1984 ain't got shit on me levels of surveillance (sounds like a wonderful place to live) then not seeing it. No real way for humans to program it in the traditional sense, and that leaves us again strong AI or some kind or machine learning which is also fraught with difficulty.
> 
> We can barely get things to identify items or predict patterns and most of those are yes/no for a group or specific trait, and this is "working one of these makes me a lot of money" levels of computing power and programmers available. Making sense of a complicated blurry video feed, some of which may also be value judgements (see also jury nullification)... no chance in this lifetime.


I mean less of a sense of AI and more of a process that is fed accurate source information to determine truthful examinations. Think something like Politifact being fed to a scantron machine. Not a perfect and sound solution but a seemingly viable baseline.  Actual AI determination of politics would probably result in the AI declaring WW3 and just systematically removing world leaders just to install itself as de-facto leader of the human race. 

I may exaggerate but honestly I would not be surprised if the outcome of an AI learning politics would just want to do away with the whole thing.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Mar 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Why would he take Clinton personally to court for a weird civil suit when the Durham probe (which the public is consistently distracted away from) is starting to uncover possibly criminal liability on the part of the Clinton campaign? Things are only going to get more and more interesting on that front.


The Durham proble is a fluke that only tinfoil hats believe in.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 25, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> The Durham proble is a fluke that only tinfoil hats believe in.


You do realise that one of the sources from the dossier was already indicted in February, and there’s evidence to suggest that computers in the White House were compromised, right? Surveillance of Trump was questionable before he assumed office, but it appears that it didn’t end after he became President, which borders on treason. You have a private company spying on a sitting President here, funded in part by the Clinton campaign and, by proxy, the DNC. It’s a bigger deal than you think.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Mar 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> You do realise that one of the sources from the dossier was already indicted in February, and there’s evidence to suggest that computers in the White House were compromised, right? Surveillance of Trump was questionable before he assumed office, but it appears that it didn’t end after he became President, which borders on treason. You have a private company spying on a sitting President here, funded in part by the Clinton campaign and, by proxy, the DNC. It’s a bigger deal than you think.


Didn't you say that somehow the length of the FBI in charging trump meant he committed nothing? This has been going on for longer.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 26, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Didn't you say that somehow the length of the FBI in charging trump meant he committed nothing? This has been going on for longer.


Not exactly the same kind of investigation. I remind you that the Mueller probe took 2 years to complete.


----------



## kenlee168 (Mar 29, 2022)

Election do have consequences and biden really has proven it so far.

It might be a uphill task after what had happened and gonna occur under biden watch, the final nail is the dollar losing value after putin and xi outsmart biden administration. allies like saudi, india chossing to stand with putin and china in ditching the dollar.


----------



## Davycrockof (Mar 29, 2022)

everyone wants him back, only the soy boy gang is still against him at this point


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Mar 29, 2022)

Davycrockof said:


> everyone wants him back, only the soy boy gang is still against him at this point


Literally only his cult wants him back.


----------



## KuntilanakMerah (Mar 29, 2022)

fck biden, donald trump bring peace to the world


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Mar 29, 2022)

KuntilanakMerah said:


> fck biden, donald trump bring peace to the world


The man who said he'd trigger the world war 3 over Ukraine after praising putin y'all are braindead cultists.


----------



## lokomelo (Mar 29, 2022)

Davycrockof said:


> everyone wants him back, only the soy boy gang is still against him at this point





Dark_Ansem said:


> Literally only his cult wants him back.



Are there polls about this already? I mean legit journalistic polls.

The newspapers here usually talks about US Presidency approval ratings witch is not the same thing. (It was around 40% BTW on last time I read about it).


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Mar 29, 2022)

lokomelo said:


> Are there polls about this already? I mean legit journalistic polls.


Not yet as US presidential campaign is not out yet.


----------



## The Catboy (Mar 29, 2022)

Davycrockof said:


> everyone wants him back, only the soy boy gang is still against him at this point


Do you have any polls or anything to back up everyone wanting Trump back? Do you have any sources to back up the “soy boy claim,” that being anyone who doesn’t want him back are all soy eaters?


KuntilanakMerah said:


> fck biden, donald trump bring peace to the world


How would Trump do that? Under his presidency there was a spike in hate crimes in the US
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1260264
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/03/anti-lgbtq-hate-crime-bigotry-britain
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2...c-hate-crimes-soared-in-pandemic-figures-show
https://thehill.com/changing-americ...inst-latinos-rose-in-2019-pushing-overall?amp
He couldn’t even bring peace to the US, how would he bring it anywhere else? He is also a Putin bootlicker

What would Trump do to bring “world peace?” Bootlick Putin and hope he stops? While also having his rhetoric be the bases of hate crimes?


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 29, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Ah, the human refuse department! Yes, I’m familiar. Chopping block, second only to OSHA pencil pushers.


Elf and safety are already on the shoot on sight list, indeed the merest rumour that one is on site anywhere I have been is down tools and start hunting time.


----------



## Davycrockof (Mar 29, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Do you have any polls or anything to back up everyone wanting Trump back? Do you have any sources to back up the “soy boy claim,” that being anyone who doesn’t want him back are all soy eaters?
> 
> How would Trump do that? Under his presidency there was a spike in hate crimes in the US
> https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1260264
> ...



a spike from the left, rofl... yes, it was hard to mange a country half bent against him. even our own government was against the president. What do you expect when his whole platform was politics are useless but remenber when war with north korea was right around the corner under obama just for trump to fly over there and share a meal?


----------



## tabzer (Mar 29, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Do you have any polls or anything to back up everyone wanting Trump back? Do you have any sources to back up the “soy boy claim,” that being anyone who doesn’t want him back are all soy eaters?
> 
> How would Trump do that? Under his presidency there was a spike in hate crimes in the US
> https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1260264
> ...



From what I saw, it looked like he kept the radical war-mucking interests inside the country.  Better if the US dies alone instead of sucking in the whole world into its suicide cult.


----------



## djpannda (Mar 29, 2022)

anyone found it weird that the most people rooting for Trump are the few usual Trolls and A MOSTLY BRAND NEW NON-Burner accounts... ( like BRAND SPANKING NEW)/ accounts not used at all


----------



## Davycrockof (Mar 29, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Literally only his cult wants him back.


why dont you stop at ANY job site and take a poll?



djpannda said:


> anyone found it weird that the most people rooting for Trump are the few usual Trolls and A MOSTLY BRAND NEW NON-Burner accounts... ( like BRAND SPANKING NEW)/ accounts not used at all


the bot is double posting again... scripts be funny like that


----------



## Runehasa (Mar 29, 2022)

Ill take Desantis over Trump but in the very least these Dems got to go.  Anyone defending Biden these days is either Dumb, Blind, or Deceitful


----------



## djpannda (Mar 29, 2022)

Davycrockof said:


> the bot is double posting again... scripts be funny like that


.. surreee , I see youre new here..


----------



## Davycrockof (Mar 29, 2022)

djpannda said:


> .. surreee , I see youre new here..


i see you live here, alot of trump posts....


----------



## djpannda (Mar 29, 2022)

Davycrockof said:


> i see you live here, alot of trump posts....


Yea, I tend to disagree with Fascism and Bigotry..


----------



## The Catboy (Mar 29, 2022)

Davycrockof said:


> a spike from the left, rofl... yes, it was hard to mange a country half bent against him. even our own government was against the president. What do you expect when his whole platform was politics are useless but remenber when war with north korea was right around the corner under obama just for trump to fly over there and share a meal?


A spike from the left? Is there any evidence that “the left” are the ones committing these hate crimes? I ask because the increased hate crimes appear to be the groups Trump spent much of his presidency targeting. 
North Korea is an unstable country that is extremely fickle when it comes to US relationships. Their likes or dislikes of individuals is arbitrary and largely based on the likes and dislikes of their dictator. Simply put, they aren’t a good example of global politics.


Davycrockof said:


> the bot is double posting again... scripts be funny like that


djpannda has been around since 2009 and definitely isn’t a bot. What is interesting is how many bots have been linked to pro-Trump accounts.
https://amp.theguardian.com/media/2...qanon-twitter-bots-found-to-be-worst-culprits
https://time.com/5286013/twitter-bots-donald-trump-votes/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/699668/us-pro-trump-bot-tweets-during-campaign/
It seems Trump supporters really seem to rely quite a bit on bots


----------



## djpannda (Mar 29, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> A spike from the left? Is there any evidence that “the left” are the ones committing these hate crimes? I ask because the increased hate crimes appear to be the groups Trump spent much of his presidency targeting.
> North Korea is an unstable country that is extremely fickle when it comes to US relationships. Their likes or dislikes of individuals is arbitrary and largely based on the likes and dislikes of their dictator. Simply put, they aren’t a good example of global politics.
> 
> djpannda has been around since 2009 and definitely isn’t a bot. What is interesting is how many bots have been linked to pro-Trump accounts.
> ...



 don't forget the influencers of the last 4 years ( from Elections to COVID)


----------



## tabzer (Mar 29, 2022)

djpannda said:


> don't forget the influencers of the last 4 years ( from Elections to COVID)



I find it funny that catboy liked your post after fuming about the lack of sources for lesser claims.

Bot farms exist, therefore your opinion is invalid.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 29, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Do you have any polls or anything to back up everyone wanting Trump back? Do you have any sources to back up the “soy boy claim,” that being anyone who doesn’t want him back are all soy eaters?


Nearly every pollster in America currently shows Trump ahead of Biden in a potential 2024 match-up. It’s fair to assume that these results are, at least in part, due to voters switching from Biden to Trump, or at the very least “against Biden”.




https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2024/president/us/general-election-trump-vs-biden-7383.html

With that being said, most Americans either don’t want or don’t believe either of them will run for re-election. There’s polls to support that also.


----------



## djpannda (Mar 29, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I find it funny that catboy liked your post after fuming about the lack of sources for lesser claims.
> 
> Bot farms exist, therefore your opinion is invalid.


..so you saying because Bot Farms exist , my post stating Bot Farms have influenced American Landscape is invalid?


----------



## tabzer (Mar 29, 2022)

djpannda said:


> ..so you saying because Bot Farms exist , my post stating Bot Farms have influenced American Landscape is invalid?


That is the logic presented in your initial post.  I'm saying that it is absurd with (what should be interpreted as) sarcasm, not validating it.

But now you are dialing it back with a new post.

"fake it 'til you make it"


----------



## djpannda (Mar 29, 2022)

tabzer said:


> That is the logic presented in your initial post.  I'm saying that it is absurd with (what should be interpreted as) sarcasm, not validating it.
> 
> But now you are dialing it back with a new post.
> 
> "fake it 'til you make it"


.... so you are saying my Post about Russian Bot farms Influcening American landscape is invalid because "bot farm exist"


----------



## tabzer (Mar 29, 2022)

djpannda said:


> .... so you are saying my Post about Russian Bot farms Influcening American landscape is invalid because "bot farm exist"



I was calling you stupid and fake, and now your ctrl+c skills are deteriorating.


----------



## Dr_Faustus (Mar 29, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> A spike from the left? Is there any evidence that “the left” are the ones committing these hate crimes? I ask because the increased hate crimes appear to be the groups Trump spent much of his presidency targeting.
> North Korea is an unstable country that is extremely fickle when it comes to US relationships. Their likes or dislikes of individuals is arbitrary and largely based on the likes and dislikes of their dictator. Simply put, they aren’t a good example of global politics.


To be fair the diehard supporters of Trump probably do not see the actions of hate as a hate crime but more of some double talk or a nice new term for desiring "ethnic cleansing".

That also said, while considerably much smaller a similar scenario happened when Obama got elected for the first time where some radical right thought that he was going to get taken out in the first 40 days and some radical left believing that electing him meant that racism is over. 

Being a diehard political shill on either side just makes said person look like a dumbass. Problem is also they are so brainwashed in their political belief that reality does not exist for them anymore, and anything straying away from that truth is either fake news or actions from the opposing party. People needs to seek truth more in this day and age, and stop getting their news from facebook groups and Tucker Carlson. 


Finally before people start putting colours on my sleeve, I dislike both Biden and Trump. I dislike the GOP and the DNC, I dislike radicals on both sides. I just want someone that can see the problems that exist in our current society and put the effort to fix them. Not put the blame on some race of people, or trying to appeal to everyone getting nowhere. Just improve things so everyone has a chance of living and being educated in this world. Its a system that is ass backwards when we cannot promise health, food and education for our future or current, and its all because people are more concerned with what they think socialism is or communism is than the fact that actual poverty exists in this country, that the divide between the working class and the elites is so wide that the concept of a middle class does not exist anymore because the working class *is* the middle class now. We are supposed to be set as an example of how other countries should desire to be, to be a beacon of the world, the American dream and all that. We do not have that, we have a simple straightforward mindset of "Fuck you, got mine" which only as of recently has proven to be flawed as fuck in a system that cannot support it when a pandemic hits. No one wants to really help each other, they just want to take everything they want for themselves and either screw the rest or profit off the misery of those less fortunate. That is the society we made for ourselves and the hyper embracing of political ideologies makes it like we are dealing with sports teams now than actual discussion of policies and helping people.


----------



## The Catboy (Mar 29, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Nearly every pollster in America currently shows Trump ahead of Biden in a potential 2024 match-up. It’s fair to assume that these results are, at least in part, due to voters switching from Biden to Trump, or at the very least “against Biden”.
> 
> View attachment 303848
> 
> ...


Thanks for the source, I always appreciate it when someone provides one. That being said, I think most Americans are tired of either camp. It’s either an establishment do-nothing Democrat that’s changes nothing or an establishment do-nothing Republican. Trump might be a far-right conspiracy nutjob, but at least he gave the illusion that he wasn’t just another establishment shill and won’t turn into one


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 29, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Thanks for the source, I always appreciate it when someone provides one. That being said, I think most Americans are tired of either camp. It’s either an establishment do-nothing Democrat that’s changes nothing or an establishment do-nothing Republican. Trump might be a far-right conspiracy nutjob, but at least he gave the illusion that he wasn’t just another establishment shill and won’t turn into one


I’d love to see him back in office, but I don’t think that’s feasible as of 2022. We’ll see how things look when campaigns start up - Trump is crippled in his run straight out of the gate because his core marketing avenues, Twitter and Facebook, have banned him (rightfully or wrongly - in my opinion wrongly). I suspect he’d have to have some kind of PAC behind him to act as a proxy, or do what he’s been doing so far and just use Don Jr.’s account. I don’t expect any good will from the social media giants in this regard, they’ll stifle any attempt on his part to inform the voters about his platform.


----------



## AncientBoi (Mar 29, 2022)

Sorry @Foxi4 , I'd like to see him eat , than to have him back in. 

I'm not going through his  again.


----------



## djpannda (Mar 29, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I was calling you stupid and fake, and now your ctrl+c skills are deteriorating.


cool .....Personal attacked because I pointed out and made a mockery of your double speak..


----------



## tabzer (Mar 29, 2022)

djpannda said:


> cool .....Personal attacked because I pointed out and made a mockery of your double speak..


If you can point out the double speak, I will award you 2 points.  Also, I don't know who "you" are.  I'm only responding on what you say.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 29, 2022)

AncientBoi said:


> Sorry @Foxi4 , I'd like to see him eat , than to have him back in.
> 
> I'm not going through his  again.


Show us where the mean tweets touched you.


----------



## AncientBoi (Mar 29, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Show us where the mean tweets touched you.




Why? So you can pick it apart? Nah, I don't play that game. Republicans made theirs, and I made mine. None of this back n forth


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 29, 2022)

AncientBoi said:


> Why? So you can pick it apart? Nah, I don't play that game. Republicans made theirs, and I made mine. None of this back n forth


”I don’t like him and can’t verbalise why” - good chat.


----------



## tabzer (Mar 29, 2022)

I want a perfect politician.

Wait, is this an oxy-moron or a case of not being careful of what I wish for?


----------



## The Catboy (Mar 29, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I’d love to see him back in office, but I don’t think that’s feasible as of 2022. We’ll see how things look when campaigns start up - Trump is crippled in his run straight out of the gate because his core marketing avenues, Twitter and Facebook, have banned him (rightfully or wrongly - in my opinion wrongly). I suspect he’d have to have some kind of PAC behind him to act as a proxy, or do what he’s been doing so far and just use Don Jr.’s account. I don’t expect any good will from the social media giants in this regard, they’ll stifle any attempt on his part to inform the voters about his platform.


I would prefer he didn’t become President again. I didn’t enjoy his random attacks on the LGBT+, Asian, and other minority communities. I also didn’t enjoy the harassment I kept getting from Trump supporters. His presidency only made things worse on my end. I also don’t want Biden because he’s literally done the bare minimum and nothing more. I am honestly tired of the choices being loud terrible old dude vs less loud but still terrible old dude.


----------



## tabzer (Mar 29, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> also don’t want Biden because he’s literally done the bare minimum and nothing more.



Literally, you are minimizing his contributions.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Mar 29, 2022)

Davycrockof said:


> why dont you stop at ANY job site and take a poll?


Job sites, yes, because construction workers are the only people who vote LOL


----------



## djpannda (Mar 29, 2022)

tabzer said:


> If you can point out the double speak, I will award you 2 points.


Simple as
Definition of doublespeak
language used to deceive usually through concealment or misrepresentation of truths invalid.

My statement


djpannda said:


> don't forget the influencers of the last 4 years ( from Elections to COVID)


Referring to Russian Bot Farms influence American landscape for the last 4 years with events not limited to Elections and Covid..

Government and Medical sources (yes actually SOURCES)
Weaponized Health Communication: Twitter Bots and Russian Trolls Amplify the Vaccine Debate
Exposing Russia’s Effort to Sow Discord Online: The House Intelligence
So my "opinion" is not just a opinion but the major, proven, Consensus of what is actually Happening
Yet ...your statement


tabzer said:


> Bot farms exist, therefore your opinion is invalid.


Implies that My "opinion" is not valid because Bot farms exist even though the beginning of your statement is acknowledgment  of  the True of my statement.
So the 2nd half of Your statement to invaidate what you already Confirmed in the 1st part of your statement.
*Double Speak.(**period)
now give me my DAMN points*


----------



## djpannda (Mar 29, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Job sites, yes, because construction workers are the only people who vote LOL


the way most State Government is trying to restrict voter rights and who eligible in Red states..Yes Republican are trying to only allow them to vote lol


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Mar 29, 2022)

djpannda said:


> the way most State Government is trying to restrict voter rights and who eligible in Red states..Yes Republican are trying to only allow them to vote lol


In some places the court struck it down isn't it.


----------



## djpannda (Mar 29, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> In some places the court struck it down isn't it.


most of them yes, and Marc Elias (Lawyer Speicalizing in Election laws ) was able to dismantle most of the Republican gerrymandering Maps and laws in State Supreme Courts and even US Supreme courts.. But Texas is a huge problem with Them Forcing ballots from Blue,poor and minority communities to be automatically rejected at a rate of high 20% compared to 2020 rejection of 8%


----------



## The Catboy (Mar 29, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Literally, you are minimizing his contributions.


Biden did the minimum of rolling back many of Trump’s abusive policies but that was given. It was expected to be a cat-n-mouse game of executive orders. But he’s done nothing to deal with anti-LGBT+ discrimination being pushed into state laws. He’s done nothing to deal with the pro-life laws being pushed. He’s done nothing in regards to drug law reforms. He’s appointed a new head to ICE and obviously that means they are still around. Kids are still in cages for the 3rd President in a row. His Covid actions have been lukewarm, even if they have been better than Trump. Biden isn’t without criticism and he needs to do better than what he’s doing. Too many people bank on “he’s not Trump,” which is a low bar to get over.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 29, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> I would prefer he didn’t become President again. I didn’t enjoy his random attacks on the LGBT+, Asian, and other minority communities. I also didn’t enjoy the harassment I kept getting from Trump supporters. His presidency only made things worse on my end. I also don’t want Biden because he’s literally done the bare minimum and nothing more. I am honestly tired of the choices being loud terrible old dude vs less loud but still terrible old dude.


I won’t purport to know what your experience has been, so I have no comment on how you felt about his term. I can say that many of your complaints appear imaginary to me - I followed the man quite closely, and if calling a virus a humorous name like “China Virus” is now considered an attack on the Asian community then perhaps growing a thicker skin might be just what the doctor ordered. I can say the same about the supposed “attacks on the gay community” - I keep hearing about them, but I’ve never heard one coming from the horse’s mouth. I suppose it’s a matter of what you define as an “attack”.


The Catboy said:


> Biden did the minimum of rolling back many of Trump’s abusive policies but that was given. It was expected to be a cat-n-mouse game of executive orders. But he’s done nothing to deal with anti-LGBT+ discrimination being pushed into state laws. He’s done nothing to deal with the pro-life laws being pushed. He’s done nothing in regards to drug law reforms. He’s appointed a new head to ICE and obviously that means they are still around. Kids are still in cages for the 3rd President in a row. His Covid actions have been lukewarm, even if they have been better than Trump. Biden isn’t without criticism and he needs to do better than what he’s doing. Too many people bank on “he’s not Trump,” which is a low bar to get over.


The president has no business interfering in state affairs. If you don’t like your state’s laws, you have freedom of movement which enables you to move elsewhere, and the right to vote to make an honest attempt to change those laws locally by electing officials that more closely align with your beliefs.


----------



## The Catboy (Mar 29, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I won’t purport to know what your experience has been, so I have no comment on how you felt about his term. I can say that many of your complaints appear imaginary to me - I followed the man quite closely, and if calling a virus a humorous name like “China Virus” is now considered an attack on the Asian community then perhaps growing a thicker skin might be just what the doctor ordered. I can say the same about the supposed “attacks on the gay community” - I keep hearing about them, but I’ve never heard one coming from the horse’s mouth. I suppose it’s a matter of what you define as an “attack”.
> The president has no business interfering in state affairs. If you don’t like your state’s laws, you have freedom of movement which enables you to move elsewhere, and the right to vote to make an honest attempt to change those laws locally by electing officials that more closely align with your beliefs.


List of Trump's anti-LGBT+ actions from multiple sources
https://www.hrc.org/news/the-list-of-trumps-unprecedented-steps-for-the-lgbtq-community
https://www.glaad.org/gap/donald-trump
https://epgn.com/2021/01/06/a-timeline-of-trumps-anti-lgbtq-actions/
Let's not also forget Trump attempting to strip trans people from joining the military, through a tweet
There are also connections between calling Covid the "Chinese virus" and a rise in anti-Asian attacks
https://thediplomat.com/2021/06/how-trump-fueled-anti-asian-violence-in-america/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/robert...-hate-on-twitter-study-finds/?sh=1636dba81a7c
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/03/19/trump-tweets-chinese-virus-racist/
Being married to a half-Japanese family, I've witnessed people literally blaming my in-laws for Covid. Working in sales I had to listen to countless anti-Asian remarks and conspiracies. Pretending his comments didn't fuel the anti-Asian attitude is just pure ignorance.
There's also Trump's history of dog-whistling far-right groups like the Proud Boys

His comments don't exist in the bubble and it seems almost deliberate to pretend they do.
The notion of "just leave" or "vote" isn't going to help when it cost money to move and voting really doesn't amount to much in most states. You are ignoring the systematic issues where voting lines are deliberately made to make sure one-party states constantly stay that way. It's not uncommon for states to change but those changes are normally towards someone "soft" in their party lines. That being said, these are criticisms based on what was promised or expected of Biden's presidency. One would expect someone who claims to be against these issues, would do what he can to uphold his principles but he hasn't. That's something that needs to be criticized.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 29, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> List of Trump's anti-LGBT+ actions from multiple sources
> https://www.hrc.org/news/the-list-of-trumps-unprecedented-steps-for-the-lgbtq-community
> https://www.glaad.org/gap/donald-trump
> https://epgn.com/2021/01/06/a-timeline-of-trumps-anti-lgbtq-actions/
> ...


I had a brief skim through the list of accusations and some of them are hearsay/not directly attributed to Trump as a person, but rather the management of his (many) companies or a part of a broader debate. I’ll address those that aren’t.

There’s absolutely a case to be made regarding transgender people and the eligibility for military service - there’s a lot of medical conditions that disqualify a person from service, this isn’t unusual. The condition is inseparable from higher risks of both suicide and depression, and in many cases requires long-term medical care in excess of what a normal service member would require. Therapy is fine and dandy, but not on the taxpayer’s dime - I see no reason why American citizens should foot the bill for hormone therapy of service members, for instance. Given the choice between a service member who requires additional therapy versus a service member who does not, the calculus points at the service member who is cheaper in upkeep as a better candidate.

As far as the Equality Act is concerned, I object to any and all protected categories on principle, and as such find no fault here - in fact, many of the existing “protections” should be rolled back. A business owner should be entitled to hire or not hire any individual based on any characteristics they deem relevant. Whether that’s rightful or wrongful is not for me to decide - customers can vote with their wallets, as they have in the case of Chick-fil-a, which led to a change in many company policies. This is not something the federal government should ever be involved in - the Constitution guarantees equal treatment to all, in reference to *the government* - it does not refer to private citizens minding their own business.

Regarding cutting the budget for programs fighting AIDS abroad, first of all good - it’s not necessary spending, foreign countries can fight AIDS on their own dime. You can’t simultaneously complain about growing national debt and spend in excess of what’s required. Second, if you’re saying that this is an attack on the gay community specifically, you’re simultaneously saying that AIDS is inherently connected to “being gay” - for the better half of a decade I was told that this is a homophonic stereotype and anyone can be affected by AIDS. Which is it? We both know that AIDS overwhelmingly affects the gay community, so perhaps this isn’t a federal government problem and rather a promiscuity problem? Maybe the gay community has some internal issues that it will have to resolve itself over time rather than lay the burden of the consequences of risky sexual behaviours on taxpayers? We may never know.

Your list also includes ACA - it should be dismantled in its entirety. That’s a policy position, not an “attack on the gay community”. Not only that, “being gay” should not confer any additional protection anyway - I’m not interested in who you have sex with, that has no bearing on your medical conditions.

Regarding his comments on COVID, Trump is not responsible for what other people do, so blaming him for a “rise in anti-Asian” hate is preposterous. Overall I find your post thoroughly unconvincing - not in the sense that its assorted references are false, but rather because they’re from the Stretch Armstrong playbook.

If I missed anything relevant, you can point it out. Given the number of links you posted in quick succession I can only assume that this was a prepared copypasta, so take your time forming an argument.

Not sure what to say in regards to your comment about moving to a different state - I moved across a sea with relative ease, and I’m no rich man by any stretch of the imagination, so I can’t relate. A bus ticket is not that expensive - if the provisions in state law you don’t like are not enough to motivate you then perhaps they’re just not that oppressive. I can’t relate to inaction, it’s not my style. You expect your surroundings to adapt to your specific demands because “you won’t do anything about it” - that’s an imposition you put on others, and they’re not obligated to care.


----------



## The Catboy (Mar 29, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I had a brief skim through the list of accusations and some of them are hearsay/not directly attributed to Trump as a person, but rather the management of his (many) companies or a part of a broader debate. I’ll address those that aren’t.
> 
> There’s absolutely a case to be made regarding transgender people and the eligibility for military service - there’s a lot of medical conditions that disqualify a person from service, this isn’t unusual. The condition is inseparable from higher risks of both suicide and depression, and in many cases requires long-term medical care in excess of what a normal service member would require. Therapy is fine and dandy, but not in the taxpayer’s dime - I see no reason why American citizens should foot the bill for hormone therapy of service members, for instance. Given the choice between a service member who requires additional therapy versus a service member who does not, the calculus points at the service member who is cheaper in upkeep as a better candidate.
> 
> ...


There's no evidance showing trans people have caused any issues with their service in the military and there's also no reason for service people to not get their medical treatment. Just because the person happens to be trans, shouldn't disqualify them, and acting like trans people are less qualified to die for oil is just shitty. 

Given the history of hiring discrimination causing systemic issues, I don't agree with your position. It only benefits the majority when minority rights aren't being protected. This has been an issue in the past and those actions are what lead us to this point now. It comes from a very serious position of privilege to look at protective measures for minorities and believe they are a problem. You might have nothing to worry about, but that doesn't mean everyone else shouldn't be concerned with their right to employment, housing, and medical treatment.

Counting AIDS fonds isn't specifically an LGBT+ issue and it is listed as one that is concerning. But that being said, the action only services to continue to cause more problems. These programs were for everything from researching AIDS to spreading awareness and education. Cutting those funds only hurts more people than it helps.

I don't give a shit about formatting and these links are actually just found on Google. Still, don't see how my formatting changes my point. The issue was Trump was a shitbag to minorities and I hope he's never the president again. I am happy you were able to move and happy life is going well for you. But my own experiences under Trump's presidency and how I've been treated by Trump supporters, have led me to decide he's defiantly not the best president for me. You can really thank his supporters, who have only greeted with me transphobic remarks, conspiracies theories, death threats, harassment, stalking, and even an attempted assault. Many of these things have happened on The Temp from other members. I am not going to pretend these people aren't influenced by Trump or that their support of shitty views isn't linked to their reasons for supporting Trump.


----------



## Darth Meteos (Mar 29, 2022)

yes, he can
he probably will, given how dogshit biden has been


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 29, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> There's no evidance showing trans people have caused any issues with their service in the military and there's also no reason for service people to not get their medical treatment. Just because the person happens to be trans, shouldn't disqualify them, and acting like trans people are less qualified to die for oil is just shitty.


The prevalence of issues in the current service body is not relevant given the fact that clinical evidence within gen pop is available - that’s the basis of the policy. Gender reassignment care is additional care that does not apply to other service members - it’s extra spending.


> Given the history of hiring discrimination causing systemic issues, I don't agree with your position. It only benefits the majority when minority rights aren't being protected. This has been an issue in the past and those actions are what lead us to this point now. It comes from a very serious position of privilege to look at protective measures for minorities and believe they are a problem. You might have nothing to worry about, but that doesn't mean everyone else shouldn't be concerned with their right to employment, housing, and medical treatment.


Systemic issues are caused by problems in the system. You should not face roadblocks based on your identity - by the same token, you should not get any special treatment. Everyone should have equal footing legally. As far as private citizens are concerned, that’s their own private business. You can can the privilege talk - you don’t know me.


> Counting AIDS fonds isn't specifically an LGBT+ issue and it is listed as one that is concerning. But that being said, the action only services to continue to cause more problems. These programs were for everything from researching AIDS to spreading awareness and education. Cutting those funds only hurts more people than it helps.


No funding for American AIDS patients was cut, no funding for American research was cut. Thank you for choosing a side of the fence as opposed to sitting on it - something I can’t say about the author of the article linked.


> I don't give a shit about formatting and these links are actually just found on Google. Still, don't see how my formatting changes my point. The issue was Trump was a shitbag to minorities and I hope he's never the president again. I am happy you were able to move and happy life is going well for you. But my own experiences under Trump's presidency and how I've been treated by Trump supporters, have led me to decide he's defiantly not the best president for me. You can really thank his supporters, who have only greeted with me transphobic remarks, conspiracies theories, death threats, harassment, stalking, and even an attempted assault. Many of these things have happened on The Temp from other members. I am not going to pretend these people aren't influenced by Trump or that their support of shitty views isn't linked to their reasons for supporting Trump.


If your aim is to convince someone, you should care. I remain unconvinced - none of those appear to be “attacks on the LGBT community” as far as I’m concerned, they’re policy decisions you don’t like. As for your personal experiences, they’re anecdotes irrelevant to the conversation, unless you want to say Trump assaulted you. As for Trump’s “shitty views”, I still don’t know what they are - I didn’t read anything about him saying something objectionable so far, only policy, which he doesn’t single-handedky create.


----------



## lokomelo (Mar 29, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Just because the person happens to be trans, shouldn't disqualify them, and acting like trans people are less qualified to die for oil is just shitty.


This phrase of yours was quite deep in way too many directions, if that make sense.

I understand (and agree) with both your points, one being that trans people are as able to take this job as people that are not trans and the other that this specific job is serving an evil purpose more often than it should.

Anyway, I once believed that this post was just a joke, I even joked around here, but now the thing is getting way too serious.


----------



## Gamemaster1379 (Mar 29, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Biden did the minimum of rolling back many of Trump’s abusive policies but that was given. It was expected to be a cat-n-mouse game of executive orders. But he’s done nothing to deal with anti-LGBT+ discrimination being pushed into state laws. He’s done nothing to deal with the pro-life laws being pushed. He’s done nothing in regards to drug law reforms. He’s appointed a new head to ICE and obviously that means they are still around. Kids are still in cages for the 3rd President in a row. His Covid actions have been lukewarm, even if they have been better than Trump. Biden isn’t without criticism and he needs to do better than what he’s doing. Too many people bank on “he’s not Trump,” which is a low bar to get over.


Let's not forget the important part, like rolling back energy independence by shutting down the pipeline, then being lukewarm on foreign policy and sanctioning a primary oil source -- hyperinflating an already hyperinflated economy.

It's suspicious to me that nobody ever talks about the economics when talking rights about LGBTQ+ Americans. They are just as negatively affected by the value of their dollars going down and their cost of living going up.


----------



## The Catboy (Mar 29, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> The prevalence of issues in the current service body is not relevant given the fact that clinical evidence within gen pop is available - that’s the basis of the policy. Gender reassignment care is additional care that does not apply to other service members - it’s extra spending.
> Systemic issues are caused by problems in the system. You should not face roadblocks based on your identity - by the same token, you should not get any special treatment. Everyone should have equal footing legally. As far as private citizens are concerned, that’s their own private business. You can can the privilege talk - you don’t know me.
> No funding for American AIDS patients was cut, no funding for American research was cut. Thank you for choosing a side of the fence as opposed to sitting on it - something I can’t say about the author of the article linked.
> If your aim is to convince someone, you should care. I remain unconvinced - none of those appear to be “attacks on the LGBT community” as far as I’m concerned, they’re policy decisions you don’t like. As for your personal experiences, they’re anecdotes irrelevant to the conversation, unless you want to say Trump assaulted you.


I agree with the notion that people should be treated equally and fairly and personally, I don't agree with special treatment from the government. The issue with that is that equality isn't going to happen if the government then turns around and commits an overreach into LGBT+ people's lives. Do I want government protection? Not really, but I really don't want the government telling me I deserve fewer rights based on me being part of the LGBT+. Until we can get a government that doesn't take lack of protection as a means of taking rights away, these protections unfortunately need to be a thing. Although, I honestly think the basic freedoms should just extend to everyone and anyone trying to limit or harm those should be seen as a problem. Simply put, I do have the goal of wanting everyone equal under the law and I would much rather there not be special rules for anyone and all rules applied are applied equally. Until then though, we do have to accept that too many governments officials take a lack of specific protections as an excuse to justify government overreach. My issue with Trump is removing any protections with no stated intentions similar to what I've stated. If Trump said, "Hey, we already have anti-harassment laws, everyone should be covered regardless of circumstance." Then I wouldn't an issue, I would fully agree because that is how it should be. But removing protections and just leaving it at that, only opened the door back to discriminatory practices. I would like to note this isn't just limited to Trump. Biden has not done anything similar to what I mentioned above and even just ignored many of these issues. I simply want the government to enforce the laws for everyone equally and neither Trump nor Biden aim to accomplish that desire.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 29, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> I agree with the notion that people should be treated equally and fairly and personally, I don't agree with special treatment from the government. The issue with that is that equality isn't going to happen if the government then turns around and commits an overreach into LGBT+ people's lives. Do I want government protection? Not really, but I really don't want the government telling me I deserve fewer rights based on me being part of the LGBT+. Until we can get a government that doesn't take lack of protection as a means of taking rights away, these protections unfortunately need to be a thing. Although, I honestly think the basic freedoms should just extend to everyone and anyone trying to limit or harm those should be seen as a problem. Simply put, I do have the goal of wanting everyone equal under the law and I would much rather there be special rules for anyone and all rules applied are applied equally. Until then though, we do have to accept that too many governments officials take a lack of specific protections as an excuse to justify government overreach. My issue with Trump is removing any protections with no stated intentions similar to what I've stated. If Trump said, "Hey, we already have anti-harassment laws, everyone should be covered regardless of circumstance." Then I wouldn't an issue, I would fully agree because that is how it should be. But removing protections and just leaving it at that, only opened the door back to discriminatory practices. I would like to note this isn't just limited to Trump. Biden has not done anything similar to what I mentioned above and even just ignored many of these issues. I simply want the government to enforce the laws for everyone equally and neither Trump nor Biden aim to accomplish that desire.


I disagree. The lunch counter protests of the 60’s shows us that the public holds all the power in regards to unfair treatment by private entities. The government should not force private entities into business relationship that they do not consent to. On principle, an employer should have the ability to end a business relationship with an employee and serve them with their severance as per the contract agreement, for any reason. If the conduct is specified in the contract, no severance is required. If you were a business owner and you unknowingly hired someone you disapprove of, someone who reflects poorly on you, you’d want to reserve the right to fire that person. I personally don’t think that behaviour of employees outside of the business should have any relevance in regards to their career, but I don’t usurp that right from others - they’re entitled to do so, it’s their money and their business venture which they should run however they find appropriate. The market will decide if their leadership is wise or stupid.


----------



## KingVamp (Mar 29, 2022)

"Energy independence" is green energy. The only thing Trump will do is allow even more pollution.


----------



## The Catboy (Mar 29, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I disagree. The lunch counter protests of the 60’s shows us that the public holds all the power in regards to unfair treatment by private entities. The government should not force private entities into business relationship that they do not consent to. On principle, an employer should have the ability to end a business relationship with an employee and serve them with their severance as per the contract agreement, for any reason. If the conduct is specified in the contract, no severance is required. If you were a business owner and you unknowingly hired someone you disapprove of, someone who reflects poorly on you, you’d want to reserve the right to fire that person. I personally don’t think that behaviour of employees outside of the business should have any relevance in regards to their career, but I don’t usurp that right from others - they’re entitled to do so, it’s their money and their business venture which they should run however they find appropriate. The market will decide if their leadership is wise or stupid.


I am not necessarily talking just about businesses but more of a focus on less optional issues. These kinds of issues that are covered by the government. I am more talking about issues like government assistance shelters, marriages, adoptions, and other issues that typically have some form of government involvement in them. Business not hiring someone for being gay is between the person and the business. A government-funded adoption agency that is supposed to be nonpartisan shouldn't deny adoption to a qualified family just because the parents are same-sex. The government shouldn't deny someone's right to marriage if the people involved are legal, consenting, and sober adults. Where I would like to see government equal treatment, is when their money is part of it. The government has no business in the personal lives of the people and it should be that any laws that discriminate should be seen as a violation of individual freedom and a government overreach. This also extends to government overreach in medical practices. I don't believe the government should have any say in what someone does with their bodies.


----------



## Gamemaster1379 (Mar 29, 2022)

KingVamp said:


> "Energy independence" is green energy. The only thing Trump will do is allow even more pollution.


That's a subset of energy independence. We don't have that tech yet, so cutting off our nose to spite our face does no good. Ask any American how they're feeling about the virtue of green energy when they're paying $6 at the pump and the cost of all their groceries has gone up another 20% in the midst of this Russia/Ukraine conflict.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 29, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> I am not necessarily talking just about businesses but more of a focus on less optional issues. These kinds of issues that are covered by the government. I am more talking about issues like government assistance shelters, marriages, adoptions, and other issues that typically have some form of government involvement in them. Business not hiring someone for being gay is between the person and the business. A government-funded adoption agency that is supposed to be nonpartisan shouldn't deny adoption to a qualified family just because the parents are same-sex. The government shouldn't deny someone's right to marriage if the people involved are legal, consenting, and sober adults. Where I would like to see government equal treatment, is when their money is part of it. The government has no business in the personal lives of the people and it should be that any laws that discriminate should be seen as a violation of individual freedom and a government overreach. This also extends to government overreach in medical practices. I don't believe the government should have any say in what someone does with their bodies.


Government assistance shelters are ran by the government and are legally required to treat you equally to other applicants. Marriage is an area of private life that the government should’ve never gotten involved with and should cease to legislate as soon as possible - it’s an unwarranted tax break for people who would like to formalise their banging. The premise of straight marriage is an LLC with the express intent of making more citizens in return for government subsidy - gay marriages can’t do that for purely biological reasons. If anything at all, motherhood should be subsidised. All other benefits of marriage can be equally easily achieved during one visit at a notary’s office. Introducing government clerks into a loving union of two people was a mistake, it’s a relict of the Middle Ages when marriages were more about dividing land than actual relationships - there’s nothing romantic about it and the institution of marriage as a legal construct needs to go away. Adoption is complicated business that should be discussed as a separate thread, but in general there’s a pretty common sense hierarchy of most and least optimal applicants, with straight couples at the top (male and female role models with double income) and singles at the bottom (one role model, one income), barring any other differences gays or lesbians would rank somewhere in the middle. Law should be concerned with what’s best for the child, and what’s best for a child is to have parents of both genders to look up to (and see the differences between them) in relative financial well-being. I also agree that the government should not intervene in medicine - it’s not qualified to make those judgements. Let’s dismantle government interference in healthcare, starting with ACA. Right now tax payers pay into the system, so yes, they *do* have a say in how that money is spent, via voting. Medicare was sold to voters as a fee, not a tax - over time it became obvious that it was a tax, so let’s get rid of it.


----------



## chrisrlink (Mar 30, 2022)

trump needs to go (to prison) and charged with treason (especially with those pro putin remaks) now that Putin is labeled a war criminal by the US (as he should be) any remark like those he said a few weeks ago would fall under the treason clause of the constitution (2nd part) the giving  aid and or comfort to an enemy (he may have done treason already and admitted to it even by giving putin funds for digging up dirt on hunter biden) of the US government which if convicted not only gives him 5 years minimum fed pen (or the death penalty depending on what the jury gives) byut BANS him from getting elected and unlike impeachment which is done by congress Treason is delt with through the court system (and i doubt any judge would tolerate his lawyers stall tactics and force them to proceed or be held in contempt most likely if they stall for too long)


KingVamp said:


> "Energy independence" is green energy. The only thing Trump will do is allow even more pollution.


ok captain planet doubt you (or biden for that matter) can change anything


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 30, 2022)

chrisrlink said:


> trump needs to go (to prison) and charged with treason (especially with those pro putin remaks) now that Putin is labeled a war criminal by the US (as he should be) any remark like those he said a few weeks ago would fall under the treason clause of the constitution (2nd part) the giving  aid and or comfort to an enemy (he may have done treason already and admitted to it even by giving putin funds for digging up dirt on hunter biden) of the US government which if convicted not only gives him 5 years minimum fed pen (or the death penalty depending on what the jury gives) byut BANS him from getting elected and unlike impeachment which is done by congress Treason is delt with through the court system (and i doubt any judge would tolerate his lawyers stall tactics and force them to proceed or be held in contempt most likely if they stall for too long)


Trump is a private citizen and not a government figure - he can make any comments he wants. He also hasn’t “given aid or comfort” to “the enemy” - the U.S. is not at war with Russia, and even if it was, making a comment wouldn’t even come close to falling under the clause. The reverse is true - his right to comment on the situation is constitutionally protected. Your understanding of the law is bizarre.


----------



## tabzer (Mar 30, 2022)

djpannda said:


> Simple as
> Definition of doublespeak
> language used to deceive usually through concealment or misrepresentation of truths invalid.
> 
> ...



Lol, it implies that the argument that "bots exist" is a stupid reason to be dismissive of an issue.  In this thread, you are pretending to argue against bots to deflect from the content that is posted.  

Bots exist for all topics.  Look at Twitter.  

My primary response was to you using an tweet to reinforce an unrelated claim, and it was ironic that Catboy liked it immediately after their little rant about sources.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 30, 2022)

Gamemaster1379 said:


> That's a subset of energy independence. We don't have that tech yet, so cutting off our nose to spite our face does no good. Ask any American how they're feeling about the virtue of green energy when they're paying $6 at the pump and the cost of all their groceries has gone up another 20% in the midst of this Russia/Ukraine conflict.


Americans overwhelmingly supported cutting ourselves off from Russian oil, despite knowing full well that would mean prices going up.  Not to mention: solar and wind energy are now a fraction of the cost per KWh.  The biggest hurdle to going completely green and/or energy independent are the big oil conglomerates who want neither of those things to happen in the US.  And it's extremely obvious by now that they've got the entire Republican party deep in their pocket.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 30, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Americans overwhelmingly supported cutting ourselves off from Russian oil, despite knowing full well that would mean prices going up.  Not to mention: solar and wind energy are now a fraction of the cost per KWh.  The biggest hurdle to going completely green and/or energy independent are the big oil conglomerates who want neither of those things to happen in the US.  And it's extremely obvious by now that they've got the entire Republican party deep in their pocket.


The biggest hurdle in going “full green” is, and always has been, energy storage. For the record, Russia is a major exporter of nickel, a crucial component in many industrial applications, particularly in the production of batteries. Y’know, the thing you need to push green energy. In order to actually switch away from fossil fuels entirely, you’d need to guarantee that in the event of a complete power generation shut down (which is common since wind turbines and solar panels are inherently unreliable and weather-dependent) you’d still be able to supply power to key installations - right now you cannot. The idea that the world will switch away to renewables completely in the foreseeable future, or even in our lifetimes, is a complete pipe dream, and that’s not because of “big oil” or “big coal”, it’s because of our current level of energy storage technology (although we are getting better at it). Many countries that claim to have gone 100% green do so via various credit systems and offsets - nobody is insane enough to not have a traditional system in place unless they can guarantee it cannot fail, and the list of countries like that is rather short, 4 or 5 if I recall correctly (geographically-dependent, rather than based on good will - Iceland comes to mind thanks to volcanic activity covering 1/4th of the country’s energy supply. Various hydroelectric implementations are also great) - green energy is generally supplementary, not primary.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 30, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> The biggest hurdle on going “full green” is, and always has been, energy storage.


I'd call that the second biggest hurdle, as it wouldn't surprise me in the least to find out oil companies have a solve for that issue which they keep locked up in a vault 200 miles underground.  Additionally, we already have the means to move much of the US to a green energy grid, we could just hold off on the East and West coast for a bit until battery technology catches up.



Foxi4 said:


> In order to actually switch away from fossil fuels entirely, you’d need to guarantee that in the event of a complete power generation shut down you’d still be able to supply power to key installations - right now you cannot.


That's not true...a lot of US military bases have supplemented their power supply with solar and/or use it as a backup energy source in case our extremely outdated and insecure oil/coal-based energy grid gets hacked.  The bottom line is that our existing grid would still need a total revamp even if we weren't looking at the possibility of upgrading it with green sources, so we might as well make it more future-proof during the process too.


----------



## KingVamp (Mar 30, 2022)

Gamemaster1379 said:


> That's a subset of energy independence. We don't have that tech yet, so cutting off our nose to spite our face does no good. Ask any American how they're feeling about the virtue of green energy when they're paying $6 at the pump and the cost of all their groceries has gone up another 20% in the midst of this Russia/Ukraine conflict.


We have the technology to be less reliant on gas than we are now, unfortunately people keep voting for people that are beholden to gas companies. Even now, people are saving money with just hybrid cars.

Besides, even if we forgo all environmental safety for more pipelines, unless we nationalize gas, we have no control where that gas goes. 



chrisrlink said:


> ok captain planet doubt you (or biden for that matter) can change anything


Getting a worse president and government wouldn't help.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 30, 2022)

Xzi said:


> I'd call that the second biggest hurdle, as it wouldn't surprise me in the least to find out oil companies have a solve for that issue which they keep locked up in a vault 200 miles underground.  Additionally, we already have the means to move much of the US to a green energy grid, we could just hold off on the East and West coast for a bit until battery technology catches up.
> 
> That's not true...a lot of US military bases have supplemented their power supply with solar and/or use it as a backup energy source in case our extremely outdated and insecure oil/coal-based energy grid gets hacked.  The bottom line is that our existing grid would need a total revamp even if we weren't looking at the possibility of upgrading it with green sources, so we might as well make it more future-proof during the process too.


Supplementary yes, primary not so much, or at least not in all states. Plenty of large rivers in the U.S. ripe for hydroelectric dams, but you’d have to chase off the hippies with large sticks to take advantage of them - think of all the beavers. I’m also not sure if the grid would need a “total revamp” - it would need investment in sensible power generation rather than windmills and solar - those two just happen to be the easiest to deploy, so that’s what most states go for when they want to tickle the electorate with green bait.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 30, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I’m also not sure if the grid would need a “total revamp” - it would need investment in sensible power generation rather than windmills and solar


We probably disagree about the definition of the term "sensible" in this context, as it's impossible to generate _any_ energy with increasingly-severe fires, tornadoes, floods, and hurricanes destroying all our power lines on an annual basis. My theory is that we've had literally thousands of alien visitors to this planet, but they all noped the fuck out the second they realized we are still basically cavemen unable to move past such a primitive and finite energy source.


----------



## djpannda (Mar 30, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Lol, it implies that the argument that "bots exist" is a stupid reason to be dismissive of an issue.  In this thread, you are pretending to argue against bots to deflect from the content that is posted.
> 
> Bots exist for all topics.  Look at Twitter.
> 
> My primary response was to you using an tweet to reinforce an unrelated claim, and it was ironic that Catboy liked it immediately after their little rant about sources.


Still waiting for my points….


----------



## tabzer (Mar 30, 2022)

djpannda said:


> Still waiting for my points….


Your logical fallacy was self-defeating and I demonstrated that.  Nothing was ambiguous about it.  Study a little more about what doublespeak is and drop the mental gymnastics.

You suggested an issue can be dismissed because botfarms exist.  That's stupid.


----------



## djpannda (Mar 30, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Your logical fallacy was self-defeating and I demonstrated that.  Nothing was ambiguous about it.  Study a little more about what doublespeak is and drop the mental gymnastics.
> 
> You suggested an issue can be dismissed because botfarms exist.  That's stupid.


Lol you are dismissing my statement of  bots farms damaging American ….because ….bot farms exist…!


----------



## tabzer (Mar 30, 2022)

djpannda said:


> Lol you are dismissing my statement of  bots farms damaging American ….because ….bot farms exist…!


A couple things.  That wasn't your claim.  That was something else you said after the fact.

Also, it is stupid and self-defeating to claim that because botfarms exist, opinions are invalid.  You seem to understand that, but you seem to miss the part where it was mocking you for making that suggestion (or are playing dumb).


----------



## Lacius (Mar 30, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Supplementary yes, primary not so much, or at least not in all states. Plenty of large rivers in the U.S. ripe for hydroelectric dams, but you’d have to chase off the hippies with large sticks to take advantage of them - think of all the beavers. I’m also not sure if the grid would need a “total revamp” - it would need investment in sensible power generation rather than windmills and solar - those two just happen to be the easiest to deploy, so that’s what most states go for when they want to tickle the electorate with green bait.


Yeah, states definitely don't go wind and solar because they have become some the cheapest sources of electricity and don't contribute to the destruction of the planet as we know it.

I bought rooftop solar panels last summer that provide >100% of my yearly electricity needs. Over the lifespan of these panels, I'll end up making thousands of dollars in profit. I really should have invested in more sensible power generation instead of buying solar panels just to tickle my own taint.

What a joke.


----------



## kenlee168 (Mar 30, 2022)

People tends to get too emotional and even radical and rather prefer hell ignoring whatsoever a person can bring for the good as a whole. Where are the "paid' protestor now after joe got put in? Reason why China will takeover US as a superpower as there are too much internal unrest from within and hinder it.


----------



## djpannda (Mar 30, 2022)

tabzer said:


> A couple things.  That wasn't your claim.  That was something else you said after the fact.
> 
> Also, it is stupid and self-defeating to claim that because botfarms exist, opinions are invalid.  You seem to understand that, but you seem to miss the part where it was mocking you for making that suggestion (or are playing dumb).


So your saying that the bot farms that I referred exist…?  But your insistence has betrayed your double speak


----------



## tabzer (Mar 30, 2022)

djpannda said:


> So your saying that the bot farms that I referred exist…?  But your insistence has betrayed your double speak



I said what I said, not whatever you are trying to pretend I said.  Hope that clears it up for you.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 30, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Yeah, states definitely don't go wind and solar because they have become some the cheapest sources of electricity and don't contribute to the destruction of the planet as we know it.
> 
> I bought rooftop solar panels last summer that provide >100% of my yearly electricity needs. Over the lifespan of these panels, I'll end up making thousands of dollars in profit. I really should have invested in more sensible power generation instead of buying solar panels just to tickle my own taint.
> 
> What a joke.


ITT: Lacius hasn’t heard of snow. What works for you doesn’t work in Wisconsin. Also yes, solar panels are both inherently unreliable and inefficient, though I am glad that you manage to produce an energy surplus and sell that surplus off to the energy company - that’s a pretty good deal. Were I in your situation, I would’ve done the same. In my region cloud coverage is too dense to get anywhere near that level of efficiency, hence why panels are less popular. Cloud coverage can reduce power generation by as much as 80%, snow will drop it down to 0% until the panel is cleared of obstruction (obviously). Photovoltaic is great *depending on where you live*, which is what I stated.


Xzi said:


> We probably disagree about the definition of the term "sensible" in this context, as it's impossible to generate _any_ energy with increasingly-severe fires, tornadoes, floods, and hurricanes destroying all our power lines on an annual basis. My theory is that we've had literally thousands of alien visitors to this planet, but they all noped the fuck out the second they realized we are still basically cavemen unable to move past such a primitive and finite energy source.


It’s a “primitive and finite energy source” that always works regardless of weather conditions and is easy to implement, that’s the advantage. 100 years from now people in harsh climates will still use diesel generators to supplement their own power, specifically for the reasons you’ve listed, because they’d rather not freeze.


----------



## Localhorst86 (Mar 30, 2022)

Russians certainly want him back:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...former-President-Donald-Trump-reinstated.html

And apparently, trump would accept "outside" help:

https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...asks-putin-provide-dirt-hunter-biden-1329356/
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/29/trump-putin-hunter-biden-00021223

You can't make this stuff up...


----------



## kenlee168 (Mar 30, 2022)

One side tends to label people racist/russian asset/bot if they have different opinion than theirs.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 30, 2022)

Localhorst86 said:


> Russians certainly want him back:
> 
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...former-President-Donald-Trump-reinstated.html
> 
> ...


I’m not terribly surprised Russians would be opposed to the current administration amidst economic sanctions, I don’t know why you’re surprised. As for Russian media running cover stories for American politicians, this is a known element from the playbook - they did the same thing in 2016. The aim is to create turmoil - back then they had trolls supporting both Trump and Hillary, although admittedly more of them “supported Trump”. They intend to create the impression of internal conflict to confuse voters - in reality hardly anyone actually cares.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 30, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> ITT: Lacius hasn’t heard of snow. What works for you doesn’t work in Wisconsin. Also yes, solar panels are both inherently unreliable and inefficient, though I am glad that you manage to produce an energy surplus and sell that surplus off to the energy company - that’s a pretty good deal. Were I in your situation, I would’ve done the same. In my region cloud coverage is too dense to get anywhere near that level of efficiency, hence why panels are less popular. Cloud coverage can reduce power generation by as much as 80%, snow will drop it down to 0% until the panel is cleared of obstruction (obviously). Photovoltaic is great *depending on where you live*, which is what I stated.
> It’s a “primitive and finite energy source” that always works regardless of weather conditions and is easy to implement, that’s the advantage. 100 years from now people in harsh climates will still use diesel generators to supplement their own power, specifically for the reasons you’ve listed, because they’d rather not freeze.


Golly, I really should have factored in all the snow and nighttime I get here in the Midwest before posting. I've honestly never heard of these things. I'm really going to look foolish when I look it up and find out my state gets a whopping 10% more sunlight than Wisconsin.

Pour one out for the mole people of Wisconsin who can't generate cheap electricity from photovoltaic solar panels.


----------



## Localhorst86 (Mar 30, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I’m not terribly surprised Russians would be opposed to the current administration amidst economic sanctions, I don’t know why you’re surprised. As for Russian media running cover stories for American politicians, this is a known element from the playbook - they did the same thing in 2016. The aim is to create turmoil - back then they had trolls supporting both Trump and Hillary, although admittedly more of them “supported Trump”. They intend to create the impression of internal conflict to confuse voters - in reality hardly anyone actually cares.


I am not surprised they are opposed to the Biden administration admidst the economic sanctions and his recent remarks. In light of those remarks it's just a "two can play at this game" situation.

What I am somewhat surprised about, is the fact they are not just calling for a regime change (which the US already has a system in place to change every 4 years, 8 at max) but specifically calling for Trump and how openly Trump is willing to accept/call for help from Russia and Putin specifically...

It's just absurd to me, as an outsider, that a large number of conservatives would give their vote to such open acts of moral disregard just to "own the libs/dems"...


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 30, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Golly, I really should have factored in all the snow and nighttime I get here in the Midwest before posting. I've honestly never heard of these things. I'm really going to look foolish when I look it up and find out my state gets a whopping 10% more sunlight than Wisconsin.
> 
> Pour one out for the mole people of Wisconsin who can't generate cheap electricity from photovoltaic solar panels.


I didn’t say “can’t”. I said that it’s less optimal than other methods and inherently more unreliable based on weather conditions - it doesn’t work as well in colder climates, it’s a known quantity. You’re putting words in my mouth. Wisconsin gets 30 degree lows and up to 160 inches of snow between December and February - if you happen to live in the north, snow coverage stays on surfaces for 140 days out of a year, around 65 days in the south. If you’re cool with not having electricity for two months in the dead of winter then that’s cool, otherwise panels are an insufficient source of energy in the region without 24/7 maintenance and can only be used to supplement the grid.


Localhorst86 said:


> I am not surprised they are opposed to the Biden administration admidst the economic sanctions and his recent remarks. In light of those remarks it's just a "two can play at this game" situation.
> 
> What I am somewhat surprised about, is the fact they are not just calling for a regime change (which the US already has a system in place to change every 4 years, 8 at max) but specifically calling for Trump and how openly Trump is willing to accept/call for help from Russia and Putin specifically...
> 
> It's just absurd to me, as an outsider, that a large number of conservatives would give their vote to such open acts of moral disregard just to "own the libs/dems"...


I seem to remember a certain other figure known from the Oval Office making recommendations on who should be elected in a foreign election, but who keeps score?


----------



## obs123194 (Mar 30, 2022)

MAGA 2024 leggo


----------



## Dr_Faustus (Mar 30, 2022)

Localhorst86 said:


> What I am somewhat surprised about, is the fact they are not just calling for a regime change (which the US already has a system in place to change every 4 years, 8 at max) but specifically calling for Trump and how openly Trump is willing to accept/call for help from Russia and Putin specifically...
> 
> It's just absurd to me, as an outsider, that a large number of conservatives would give their vote to such open acts of moral disregard just to "own the libs/dems"...


Back in the day we called this treason, but now its more patriotic to ignore the man behind the iron curtain and embrace our leaders actions regardless of right and wrong.

Also these days its just a matter of team pride. Not a matter of logic or sense of morality, its about what you wear on your sleeve and having to strictly abide by that, refusing to see any other side but your own. That is the world we live in now.


----------



## Gamemaster1379 (Mar 31, 2022)

KingVamp said:


> We have the technology to be less reliant on gas than we are now, unfortunately people keep voting for people that are beholden to gas companies. Even now, people are saving money with just hybrid cars.
> 
> Besides, even if we forgo all environmental safety for more pipelines, unless we nationalize gas, we have no control where that gas goes.
> 
> ...


That's helplessly idealistic. You do realize that electric vehicle battieries use lithium, which is absolute fucking poison to mine, right? Furthermore, if we were on an all electric vehicle system, that energy has to be created somehow, right? Because of our innate fear of nuclear for whatever reason, we rely on fossil fuels to make that energy.

Just because you aren't huffing gas fumes doesn't mean your electric car isn't poisoning the environment. At best, you're either frontloading the emissions or being a NIMBY about _where _the emissions are emitted.

I'm not discounting that electric vehicles aren't a good R&D initiative. It shows alternatives which may be more prone to eventually being less negative environment impacts, but to continue pretending we're already in that future is asinine and is doubling down on making the general populace suffer by royally fucking up the economy and people's quality of lives and the the absolute definition of virtue signalling.


----------



## Dr_Faustus (Mar 31, 2022)

Gamemaster1379 said:


> That's helplessly idealistic. You do realize that electric vehicle battieries use lithium, which is absolute fucking poison to mine, right? Furthermore, if we were on an all electric vehicle system, that energy has to be created somehow, right? Because of our innate fear of nuclear for whatever reason, we rely on fossil fuels to make that energy.



Not all cars of this nature use lithium as a battery type, some use nickel-cadmium for their battery type (Primarlity Toyota vehicles seem to be anyways).



Gamemaster1379 said:


> Just because you aren't huffing gas fumes doesn't mean your electric car isn't poisoning the environment. At best, you're either frontloading the emissions or being a NIMBY about _where _the emissions are emitted.
> 
> I'm not discounting that electric vehicles aren't a good R&D initiative. It shows alternatives which may be more prone to eventually being less negative environment impacts, but to continue pretending we're already in that future is asinine and is doubling down on making the general populace suffer by royally fucking up the economy and people's quality of lives and the the absolute definition of virtue signalling.



I do not think environmental tables are any bit of focus, as no matter what you do or use its going to cause issues down the line no matter what. Its not so much about less carbon foot printing and more about having renewable energies that do not depend on siphoning on resources that are by nature finite. Unless someone can figure out how to rapidly convert organic mass into petroleum on the fly or create something along the lines of a Mr. Fusion type system we should be moving away from fossil fuels and towards alternative sources of energy that will not become increasingly harder to source as time goes on.


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 31, 2022)

Localhorst86 said:


> Russians certainly want him back:
> 
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...former-President-Donald-Trump-reinstated.html
> 
> ...


Heh... Wouldn't that be the solution that passes everyone? 

Poetin steps down as president of Russia... 

... To be succeeded by Donald Trump. Wouldn't that please everyone?


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 31, 2022)

Dr_Faustus said:


> Not all cars of this nature use lithium as a battery type, some use nickel-cadmium for their battery type (Primarlity Toyota vehicles seem to be anyways).
> 
> I do not think environmental tables are any bit of focus, as no matter what you do or use its going to cause issues down the line no matter what. Its not so much about less carbon foot printing and more about having renewable energies that do not depend on siphoning on resources that are by nature finite. Unless someone can figure out how to rapidly convert organic mass into petroleum on the fly or create something along the lines of a Mr. Fusion type system we should be moving away from fossil fuels and towards alternative sources of energy that will not become increasingly harder to source as time goes on.


Cadmium is even worse for the environment than lithium - lithium mining damages the environment because it’s extracted from the earth via strip mining, cadmium is straight up toxic, like most heavy metals. It’s also heavily restricted in the European Union under RoHS, with few exceptions. NiCads are awful, there’s a reason why they were, for the most part, replaced by Li-ion and NiMH cells.


----------



## Dr_Faustus (Apr 1, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Cadmium is even worse for the environment than lithium - lithium mining damages the environment because it’s extracted from the earth via strip mining, cadmium is straight up toxic, like most heavy metals. It’s also heavily restricted in the European Union under RoHS, with few exceptions. NiCads are awful, there’s a reason why they were, for the most part, replaced by Li-ion and NiMH cells.


Its all fairly bad, that said NiCads have a much better shelf life and use life compared to lithium based sources. The only real benefit lithium has is that it can be in theory cheaper, and it charges faster, but its general life of use is sharply lower than that of NiCads in terms of long use life. 

Its all varying levels of evil here when it comes to the environment, what matters is choosing a source that will last long term in practicality of use and in eventual replacement. Id imagine the amount of times a NiCad needing replacement is far fewer than lithium batteries are. Also NiCads do not explode on you if something fucks up with the power delivery or if the battery goes bad.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 1, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> As far as the Equality Act is concerned, I object to any and all protected categories on principle, and as such find no fault here - in fact, many of the existing “protections” should be rolled back.


Spoken exactly like someone who's never encountered prejudice or discrimination in life, why am I not surprised you're gushing for a fascist like Trump.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 1, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Spoken exactly like someone who's never encountered prejudice or discrimination in life, why am I not surprised you're gushing for a fascist like Trump.


1. Fascism is the combination of government and business against the citizen - if we’re looking purely through the lens of policy, the Biden administration has been significantly more fascistic.
2. Anti-pole prejudice in the UK is common, I’m just not a big baby about it. No special treatment for anyone - that’s equality.


----------



## lokomelo (Apr 1, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> 1. Fascism is the combination of government and business against the citizen - if we’re looking purely through the lens of policy, the Biden administration has been significantly more fascistic.


This in not a definition of fascism


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 1, 2022)

lokomelo said:


> This in not a definition of fascism.


Fascism is often called the intersection of government and business, I’m surprised you haven’t heard of this. Business monopolies operating as proxies under government control are one of the defining characteristics of the system. I quote:


> An important aspect of fascist economies was *economic dirigism*, meaning an economy where the government often *subsidizes favorable companies and exerts strong directive influence over investment*, as opposed to having a merely regulatory role. In general, fascist economies were based on private property and private initiative, but these were *contingent upon service to the state*.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism





Dr_Faustus said:


> Its all fairly bad, that said NiCads have a much better shelf life and use life compared to lithium based sources. The only real benefit lithium has is that it can be in theory cheaper, and it charges faster, but its general life of use is sharply lower than that of NiCads in terms of long use life.
> 
> Its all varying levels of evil here when it comes to the environment, what matters is choosing a source that will last long term in practicality of use and in eventual replacement. Id imagine the amount of times a NiCad needing replacement is far fewer than lithium batteries are. Also NiCads do not explode on you if something fucks up with the power delivery or if the battery goes bad.


NiCd batteries absolutely do explode, particularly in overcharge conditions. It’s a more stable chemistry, but the reason why batteries explode in the first place is rapid discharge of stored energy, which usually means heat. Modern Li-ion batteries are vented and highly unlikely to explode under any conditions - if they’re mistreated, they simply off-gas excess electrolyte. They also feature fire retardants nowadays, we’re not in the early 2000’s anymore.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 1, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Fascism is often called the intersection of government and business, I’m surprised you haven’t heard of this.


Probably because you made it up.


Foxi4 said:


> 2. Anti-pole prejudice in the UK is common, I’m just not a big baby about it. No special treatment for anyone - that’s equality.


First of all: hypocrite whataboutism, which is not surprising. Second of all, wrong. What you said is the opposite of equality


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 1, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Probably because you made it up.


It’s literally one of the defining characteristics of a fascist state, but okay.


> First of all: hypocrite whataboutism, which is not surprising. Second of all, wrong. What you said is the opposite of equality.


Treating everyone equally is the opposite of equality, I’m guilty of whataboutism when I mentioned anti-pole sentiment in the UK after being told I’ve never faced prejudice or discrimination. Got it. In other news, white is black, up is down and the sun orbits the Earth. Great stuff.


----------



## chrisrlink (Apr 1, 2022)

obs123194 said:


> MAGA 2024 leggo


you forgot "to hell"


----------



## KingVamp (Apr 1, 2022)

Gamemaster1379 said:


> That's helplessly idealistic. You do realize that electric vehicle battieries use lithium, which is absolute fucking poison to mine, right?
> 
> Just because you aren't huffing gas fumes doesn't mean your electric car isn't poisoning the environment. At best, you're either frontloading the emissions or being a NIMBY about _where _the emissions are emitted.


Nah, helpless idealism is nuclear fusion in my lifetime.

Yes, they aren't perfect, but they are still environmentally better. Even PHEVs are still better than just gas cars. 



Gamemaster1379 said:


> Furthermore, if we were on an all electric vehicle system, that energy has to be created somehow, right? Because of our innate fear of nuclear for whatever reason, we rely on fossil fuels to make that energy.


Which can come from other growing green energy sources. Growth that could be faster, if it wasn't getting push back from people that are beholden to gas companies. 

I'm fine with nuclear, in fact, more funding was giving to existing ones recently. 



Gamemaster1379 said:


> I'm not discounting that electric vehicles aren't a good R&D initiative. It shows alternatives which may be more prone to eventually being less negative environment impacts, but to continue pretending we're already in that future is asinine and is doubling down on making the general populace suffer by royally fucking up the economy and people's quality of lives and the the absolute definition of virtue signalling.


Electric isn't perfect, but it already has less environmental impact than gas cars. Needlessly being stuck in the past and shortsightedness, isn't helping anyone either.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Apr 1, 2022)

lokomelo said:


> This in not a definition of fascism





Dark_Ansem said:


> Probably because you made it up.
> 
> First of all: hypocrite whataboutism, which is not surprising. Second of all, wrong. What you said is the opposite of equality


>someone explains the definition of fascism
>gets told it's not fascism
>"NO THAT'S NOT FASCISM YOU LYE!"

Sounds like someone who supports or is a fascist would do and say, but what do I know, I'm _clearly _a fascist myself.


----------



## The Catboy (Apr 2, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> >someone explains the definition of fascism
> >gets told it's not fascism
> >"NO THAT'S NOT FASCISM YOU LYE!"
> 
> Sounds like someone who supports or is a fascist would do and say, but what do I know, I'm _clearly _a fascist myself.


That's actually not the definition of fascism.


> Definition of fascism
> 1often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
> 2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
> early instances of army fascism and brutality
> — J. W. Aldridge


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism


> (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
> (sometimes initial capital letter) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.
> (initial capital letter) a political movement that employs the principles and methods of fascism, especially the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43.


https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fascism

What was given was the definition of a corporatocracy.


> Corporatocracy (/ˌkɔːrpərəˈtɒkrəsi/, from corporate and Greek: -κρατία, romanized: -kratía, lit. 'domination by'; short form corpocracy is a term used to refer to an economic, political and judicial system controlled by corporations or corporate interests.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatocracy


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Apr 2, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> That's actually not the definition of fascism.
> 
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism
> 
> ...


Considering on how all those sites are biased and has regularly changed definitions to follow the mainstream nonsense narrative:
https://www.vox.com/identities/2020/6/10/21286656/merriam-webster-racism-definition
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2...ses-definitions-eliminate-prejudiced-language
https://www.newsmax.com/us/wikipedia-liberal-activist-website/2020/11/29/id/999156/
(to name a few examples)
I'm not putting much stock or trust in them. I'd rather to stick to what words and their definitions actually mean.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 2, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Considering on how all those sites are biased and has regularly changed definitions to follow the mainstream nonsense narrative:
> https://www.vox.com/identities/2020/6/10/21286656/merriam-webster-racism-definition
> https://www.theguardian.com/books/2...ses-definitions-eliminate-prejudiced-language
> https://www.newsmax.com/us/wikipedia-liberal-activist-website/2020/11/29/id/999156/
> ...


All those links you listed says nothing about fascism.


----------



## The Catboy (Apr 2, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Considering on how all those sites are biased and has regularly changed definitions to follow the mainstream nonsense narrative:
> https://www.vox.com/identities/2020/6/10/21286656/merriam-webster-racism-definition
> https://www.theguardian.com/books/2...ses-definitions-eliminate-prejudiced-language
> https://www.newsmax.com/us/wikipedia-liberal-activist-website/2020/11/29/id/999156/
> ...


None of those links even say anything about fascism.


BitMasterPlus said:


> I'm _clearly _a fascist myself.


At least you finally said it


----------



## SG854 (Apr 2, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Probably because you made it up.


He didn't make it up if he got it from the wiki article.

That apparently @BitMasterPlus says not to trust because they changed the definition of racism. So don't trust @Foxi4 wiki source either thanks to BitMasterPlus.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Apr 2, 2022)

SG854 said:


> All those links you listed says nothing about fascism.





The Catboy said:


> None of those links even say anything about fascism.


Because I was using those as examples on why I don't completely trust their definitions on most words since they change them based on


The Catboy said:


> At least you finally said it


Now admit you have daddy issues and we're good 



SG854 said:


> He didn't make it up if he got it from the wiki article.
> 
> That apparently @BitMasterPlus says not to trust because they changed the definition of racism. So don't trust @Foxi4 wiki source either thanks to BitMasterPlus.


I'm just careful on which sources to trust. Sometimes they can be right, and sometimes they can be completely bias so one must be careful. Besides, what makes catboy's definition more valid that Foxi4's? Aside from half the people belonging to the same circlejerking group to stick up for one another.


----------



## The Catboy (Apr 2, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Now admit you have daddy issues and we're good


I don’t recall that being part of fascism either. Your examples really didn’t prove a point though. You just don’t like being corrected. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## SG854 (Apr 2, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Because I was using those as examples on why I don't completely trust their definitions on most words since they change them based on
> 
> Now admit you have daddy issues and we're good
> 
> ...


Was the definition of fascism changed? Do you have any evidence that they changed the definition and therefore should not be trusted?

Or are you just going on a hunch based on changes to racism. You gave links to changes of racism but not facism. 

Provide evidence they changed fascism for mainstream nonsense.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Apr 2, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> I don’t recall that being part of fascism either. Your examples really didn’t prove a point though. You just don’t like being corrected. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


_sigh _Ok whatever, keep living in fantasy land.



SG854 said:


> Was the definition of fascism changed? Do you have any evidence that they changed the definition and therefore should not be trusted?
> 
> Or are you just going on a hunch based on changes to racism. You gave links to changes of racism but not facism.
> 
> Provide evidence they changed fascism for mainstream nonsense.


Like I said, I was using them as examples as to why I don't completely trust those sites anymore, what part of that is not getting your thick god damn skull? I trust Foxi4's definition more because it actually what it is, and not the made up shit people like you believe in. And since people on this site spit on evidence anyways, I don't see why I should go to all that trouble. Make of that what you will, but I know what you people usually think or believe in, the opposite is true.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 2, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> _sigh _Ok whatever, keep living in fantasy land.
> 
> 
> Like I said, I was using them as examples as to why I don't completely trust those sites anymore, what part of that is not getting your thick god damn skull? I trust Foxi4's definition more because it actually what it is, and not the made up shit people like you believe in. And since people on this site spit on evidence anyways, I don't see why I should go to all that trouble. Make of that what you will, but I know what you people usually think or believe in, the opposite is true.


I an not the one that said I don't trust foxi's definition. I trust it because he gave a source. 

Provide evidence they changed fascism for bias.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Apr 2, 2022)

SG854 said:


> I an not the one that said I don't trust foxi's definition. I trust it because he gave a source.
> 
> Provide evidence they changed fascism for bias.


I already stated multiple times what I meant in my posts, it's not my fault you're illiterate, so I'm not repeating myself again and ending this here.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 2, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> That's actually not the definition of fascism.


I provide a source link in the very same post you and the other two geniuses have a problem with - from a reliable source that *you’re quoting as a rebuttal*. It’s *not* the definition of a corporatocracy, it’s *corporatism* and *dirigism*, you’re way off. Those two terms are often confused, but not the same.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirigisme

A corporatocracy is *the exact opposite* scenario, where private business uses its influence to control the government, as per *your own source* which you clearly failed to read.

It’s *the* defining characteristic of every fascist economy - one of the few, actually, since those states were pretty diverse in economic policy otherwise. From Mussolini’s fascist cartels to Hitler’s relationship with Hugo Boss or Volkswagen, fascist states have always existed on the intersection of government and private industry. It’s literally called VOLKS WAGEN, “the people’s car”. Good grief, what do they teach y’all in schools these days? Again, same link.



> In general, *fascist governments exercised control over private property but they did not nationalize it*. Scholars also noted that big business developed an *increasingly close partnership* with the Italian Fascist and German fascist governments. Business leaders *supported the government's political and military goals. In exchange, the government pursued economic policies that maximized the profits of its business allies*.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism



This is truly painful. It’s one thing to not know something, another to double down on it. I was unaware that words only have one strict definition - I was under the impression that there can in fact be multiple. Fascism has many *defining* traits, and this is one of them, period. It’s not even a discussion, it’s historical fact. Shall we argue what a “defining trait” is as well, or are we done here now? Dear lord, I never thought I’d have to argue about what economic fascism is.


----------



## lokomelo (Apr 2, 2022)

Definition of fascism by the founder of the fascism:  "Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato". 

No the founder of fascism was not Trump nor Sanders.


----------



## The Catboy (Apr 2, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I provide a source link in the very same post you and the other two geniuses have a problem with - from a reliable source that *you’re quoting as a rebuttal*. It’s *not* the definition of a corporatocracy, it’s *corporatism* and *dirigism*, you’re way off. Those two terms are often confused, but not the same.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirigisme
> ...


The honorable thing to do is say that I appear to have been wrong and to note that I should do a bit more research beforehand.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 2, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> The honorable thing to do is say that I appear to have been wrong and to note that I should do a bit more research beforehand.


I don’t know why this is even an argument at all. The relationship between the state and big business in fascist states is well-known, splitting hairs over it is both off-topic and a waste of time. The entire point of the post was that the Biden administration has been exerting extensive control over private business over the course of the last two years as part of their strategy against COVID. Those who play along get to make money - those who don’t are out of luck. It’s gotten so ridiculous that they roped in the CDC in order to justify an *eviction moratorium* because legislating one instead would’ve been illegal. They’ve been sliding in regulation under the guise of health recommendations and mandates as means of exerting control over how businesses run - that was my point. It’s undeniable. Whether they did so rightly or wrongly is another matter, that depends on your point of view.


----------



## The Catboy (Apr 2, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I don’t know why this is even an argument at all. The relationship between the state and big business in fascist states is well-known, splitting hairs over it is both off-topic and a waste of time. The entire point of the post was that the Biden administration has been exerting extensive control over private business over the course of the last two years as part of their strategy against COVID. Those who play along get to make money - those who don’t are out of luck. It’s gotten so ridiculous that they roped in the CDC in order to justify an *eviction moratorium* because legislating one instead would’ve been illegal. They’ve been sliding in regulation under the guise of health recommendations and mandates as means of exerting control over how businesses run - that was my point. It’s undeniable. Whether they did so rightly or wrongly is another matter, that depends on your point of view.


My dude, I’ve conceded that I was wrong and need more research. I am always open for correction but this just feels like you expected me not to concede. I would actually like some more reliable sources to read on the topic because I want to properly make sure I am informed and any incorrect information I am holding onto is corrected.


----------



## weatMod (Apr 2, 2022)

imagine still beleiving elections are real
imagine still believing your vote means fuckall
 imagine still believing  presidents are Elected and not SElected

but yeah I do see \TPTB installing him again, I believe it is  part of their plan


----------



## SG854 (Apr 2, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> I already stated multiple times what I meant in my posts, it's not my fault you're illiterate, so I'm not repeating myself again and ending this here.


Catboy gave two links to the definition of Facism which matches the definition provided by wiki. Catboy sources and Foxi sources says the same thing.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism



> The extreme authoritarianism and nationalism of fascism often manifests a belief in racial purity or a master race, usually synthesized with some variant of racism or bigotry against a demonized "Other". These ideas have motivated fascist regimes to commit genocides, massacres, forced sterilizations, mass killings, and forced deportations.[13]




Why even mention you don't trust the two sites Catboy linked as a response to what Catboy said? When the definitions are correct. Why mention that at all?


Me thinks you did not actually read the sources Catboy provided and decided to argue instead.


You still need to provide evidence the the two sites Catboy provided are biased changes for the definition of fascism.


----------



## KingVamp (Apr 2, 2022)

So, ignoring the context and intentions, any attempt to regulate businesses would be consider fascism.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 2, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> My dude, I’ve conceded that I was wrong and need more research. I am always open for correction but this just feels like you expected me not to concede. I would actually like some more reliable sources to read on the topic because I want to properly make sure I am informed and any incorrect information I am holding onto is corrected.


Not really ragging on you, just saying that the conversation is kind of pointless in context. If I wanted to drag you over the coals, it’d be way more abrasive than that - c’mon, give me (or rather, my venom) some credit, and allow me to enjoy my well-deserved victory lap.


KingVamp said:


> So, ignoring the context and intentions, any attempt to regulate businesses would be consider fascism.


Regulate? No. Play favourites? Yes. If your regulation clearly incentivises one kind of business activity over another in the same sector, you’re bending the rules instead of letting the market decide. You can see this in action right now as far as fossil versus renewable is concerned. Bigger subject, to be sure.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Apr 2, 2022)

SG854 said:


> Catboy gave two links to the definition of Facism which matches the definition provided by wiki. Catboy sources and Foxi sources says the same thing.
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
> ...


Why don't you provide evidence of you being an asshole? Oh wait, you already did.
Dude the conversation about this has ended. Let it go.


----------



## KingVamp (Apr 2, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Regulate? No. Play favourites? Yes. If your regulation clearly incentivises one kind of business activity over another in the same sector, you’re bending the rules instead of letting the market decide. You can see this in action right now as far as fossil versus renewable is concerned. Bigger subject, to be sure.


The market would have decided that unbounded pollution was more worth it than protecting our planet and the livings things on it, hence regulation.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 2, 2022)

KingVamp said:


> The market would have decided that unbounded pollution was more worth it than protecting our planet and the livings things on it, hence regulation.


This is incorrect. The market decides what is most cost-efficient is best. It’s a balancing act of how much it costs to do X versus Y, if recycling a bottle costs more than making a new bottle, we’re making a new bottle. What most people don’t understand, because it’s removed by one degree, is that there’s a reason behind that. Let’s say, for the sake of an argument, that it takes more overall energy, or a more complex infrastructure - I don’t know if it does, this is a hypothetical. That additional infrastructure and energy carries a cost, not just monetary, but also environmental. You can run into a situation where recycling a certain material causes *more* pollution than just making a new unit because the energy it took to make it happen went straight into the atmosphere. We used to call money the “petrodollar” for a reason, although admittedly those times are behind us. Bigger topic of discussion, to be sure. For the record, all the “green” industries out there exist because they’re profitable - the government didn’t do that, consumers did.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 2, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> all the “green” industries out there exist because they’re profitable - the government didn’t do that, consumers did.


Pretending like the government didn't have a hand in creating these green technologies, lol.

Edit: I bought my aforementioned solar panels in part because the federal government paid for about 30% of it, but yeah, fuck the government.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 2, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Pretending like the government didn't have a hand in creating these green technologies, lol.
> 
> Edit: I bought my aforementioned solar panels in part because the federal government paid for about 30% of it, but yeah, fuck the government.


The government didn’t invent solar panels, nor does it manufacture or install them. Private industry is perfectly happy doing that, and making mint on it. I’m glad that you received a subsidy - always take free money from the government, it’s a warranted return of your tax money that would’ve otherwise been wasted on nonsense and boondoggles.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 2, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> The government didn’t invent solar panels, nor does it manufacture or install them.


You act as though the government doesn't invest in cutting-edge scientific research or license technology out to businesses with the purpose of commercializing that technology. I'm honestly trying to figure out if you're being disingenuous or are really so stupid that you don't know how the development of science and technology works. Did Google invent the internet? Did Amazon invent rockets?

I suggest you look at the history of photovoltaics and associated technologies.



Foxi4 said:


> I’m glad that you received a subsidy - always take free money from the government, it’s a warranted return of your tax money that would’ve otherwise been wasted on nonsense and boondoggles.


I'll take this as a retraction of your "the government didn't do that" nonsense.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 3, 2022)

Lacius said:


> You act as though the government doesn't invest in cutting-edge scientific research or license technology out to businesses with the purpose of commercializing that technology. I'm honestly trying to figure out if you're being disingenuous or are really so stupid that you don't know how the development of science and technology works. Did Google invent the internet? Did Amazon invent rockets?
> 
> I suggest you look at the history of photovoltaics and associated technologies.


Oh, you mean this effect that was discovered in the 17th century that eventually found a practical application thanks to Bell Laboratories? Thank you, Bell.


> I'll take this as a retraction of your "the government didn't do that" nonsense.


”Getting your own money back via a convoluted scheme” isn’t exactly what I describe as “doing something”. It’s more like a cartoon skit, but we do what we can to claw back what’s ours.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 3, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Oh, you mean this effect that was discovered in the 17th century that eventually found a practical application thanks to Bell Laboratories? Thank you, Bell.


My rooftop solar panels are totally 17th century technology. Yep. There definitely haven't been any advancements since then.



Foxi4 said:


> ”Getting your own money back via a convoluted scheme” isn’t exactly what I describe “doing something”. It’s more like a cartoon skit, but we do what we can to claw back what’s ours.


Whether or not you think my taxes are fair is irrelevant to the fact that 30% of my solar panels were paid for by the federal government, and there's a good chance I wouldn't have gotten them without it. The industry would look a lot different in this country without the federal government's financial assistance, and you'd be stupid to argue otherwise.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 3, 2022)

There any reason we re-hashing the government versus private sector argument in this thread specifically?  Trump leeched off of both, and failed to be an effective leader in either.  Couldn't sell steaks at the Sharper Image, and couldn't sell beans from the White House.  Truly a man that would be worthy of pity, if he weren't so much more worthy of derision instead.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 3, 2022)

Xzi said:


> There any reason we re-hashing the government versus private sector argument in this thread specifically?  Trump leeched off of both, and failed to be an effective leader in either.  Couldn't sell steaks at the Sharper Image, and couldn't sell beans from the White House.  Truly a man that would be worthy of pity, if he weren't so much more worthy of derision instead.


My goal wasn't to derail the thread, but I felt compelled to break my "don't respond to @Foxi4" rule after he posted some things that were stupid even for him.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 3, 2022)

Lacius said:


> My rooftop solar panels are totally 17th century technology. Yep. There definitely haven't been any advancements since then.


The industry continuously innovates, yes.


> Whether or not you think my taxes are fair is irrelevant to the fact that 30% of my solar panels were paid for by the federal government, and there's a good chance I wouldn't have gotten them without it. The industry would look a lot different in this country without the federal government's financial assistance, and you'd be stupid to argue otherwise.


You seem confused. While it is true that governments worldwide invest in development which sometimes leads to various discoveries, those contributions are accidental. Industry did not directly fund the invention of a cordless drill or a microwave because there was no practical use for them at the time as nobody was working or cooking in space - NASA wanted to work or cook in space. If you want to give them credit for that, that’s fair, but only in context. They created a problem that didn’t exist before, and industry found a solution to it on government contract - I will always give credit to the government for its ability to find problems that they can solve with other people’s money. They helped with funding, let’s be realistic here. The same can be said about the Internet, which was originally developed for military purposes (that branch has since split to Milnet) or rockets (developed in large part by Nazis to deliver warheads long-distance). Again, you can stop bragging about your subsidy - I agree that you probably wouldn’t get the panels otherwise, I don’t see how that makes the government a contributor towards development or proliferation - it’s a contributor of (often) Ill-gotten money. As soon as a practical use case exists, industry innovates because there’s a new market to sell a product to.


Lacius said:


> My goal wasn't to derail the thread, but I felt compelled to break my "don't respond to @Foxi4" rule after he posted some things that were stupid even for him.


Everything I posted is factually correct. “Stupid” is in the eye of the beholder - we’re having this conversation on devices made by corporations over a network built and maintained by corporations using an operating system programmed by a corporation - it’s nice that you see some benefit in governmental investment, but to purport that our technology wouldn’t exist in the absence of said funding is preposterous. The evidence to the contrary is all around us, you use precisely zero government products, but who’s keeping score. Government funding can certainly accelerate things, but I hesitate to give credit for that - anyone can spend money. Science and technology predate the federal government, I’m afraid.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 3, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Everything I posted is factually correct.


Contextually wrong, however. And highly selective and sectorial. AKA misleading practices.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 3, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Contextually wrong, however. And highly selective and sectorial. AKA misleading practices.


I don’t know what you mean by that, and I won’t even hazard a guess - you have a bad record of not knowing what you’re talking about, so how can I know what you’re thinking? Did you look up the terms “congress” and “cabinet” yet?


----------



## Lacius (Apr 3, 2022)

@Foxi4 It's rich to hear you describe someone else as "not knowing what they're talking about," considering the ignorance you've displayed here. Public funding is a vital part of how science innovation works. We wouldn't be having this conversation over the internet on our computers without government research and funding, and my solar panels wouldn't be powering my computer right now if it weren't for government research, funding, and subsidies.

If you can't see how the government subsidizing thousands of dollars worth of a single rooftop solar installation (for example) can't/won't result in the proliferation (your word) of rooftop solar, then you don't understand economics.

I'm sorry if this all conflicts with your delicate little libertarian sensibilities, but the facts don't care about your denialism.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 3, 2022)

Lacius said:


> @Foxi4 It's rich to hear you describe someone else as "not knowing what they're talking about," considering the ignorance you've displayed here. Public funding is a vital part of how science innovation works. We wouldn't be having this conversation over the internet on our computers without government research and funding, and my solar panels wouldn't be powering my computer right now if it weren't for government research, funding, and subsidies.
> 
> If you can't see how the government subsidizing thousands of dollars worth of a single rooftop solar installation (for example) can't/won't result in the proliferation (your word) of rooftop solar, then you don't understand economics.
> 
> I'm sorry if this all conflicts with your delicate little libertarian sensibilities, but the facts don't care about your denialism.


Fighting a lot of strawmen over there, Don Quixote. I don’t really know why you want to fight this fight over the Internet, but I’m not too bothered by it - I gave up on trying to find any common ground years ago. I’ve never denied that government funding can accelerate research and development via grants - I simply called the money ill-gotten. What I also said was that research and development predates the existence of the government and would’ve continued in the absence of the government, which is indisputable. The gross majority of technological innovation comes from the private sector - always has. The fact that the private sector, like the many universities involved in laying the groundwork for ARPANET (like Stanford) utilise public funding is clever accounting on their part. The idea of telecoms and wide area networks predates any government involvement anyway - it gained steam thanks to Paul Baran while he was under the employment of RAND Corporation. You could even argue that the origins of the Internet predate the first transistor, as the theoretical and mathematical underpinnings were being developed since as early as the 1920’s. If you want to live in the misguided belief that computer networking wouldn’t be developed without the government’s involvement (despite the fact that it’s been actively theorised long before we even had computers) then you’re welcome to do so, I personally find that silly. I understand that you have an outsized admiration for the federal government, but inventions are credited to the brilliant minds behind them, not political constructs. “The government” doesn’t develop anything, researchers and engineers do, so that’s who I’m going to credit. I’m still not sure how we got here from the subject of Trump’s potential presidential run, and I’ve long since lost the interest in the conversation anyway. As for your rooftop panels, I will happily shake hands on giving you 70% of the credit (plus whatever small percentage was taken from you in income tax over your lifetime), since that’s your contribution - as such, I am happy to see private citizens helping reduce their carbon footprint.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 3, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> you have a bad record of not knowing what you’re talking about, so how can I know what you’re thinking?


More projection and embarassment from you, mr "boo hoo I am (unspecifiedly) discriminated but I won't make a huge deal of it and I think that not only no one should get protection but I would also find very funny to have someone who bombarded in 4 years more than his predecessor did in 8 elected, uncaring of the fact he admires the man who may as well create WW3"


Foxi4 said:


> Did you look up the terms “congress” and “cabinet” yet?


Have you looked about what "fairness" and "equality" mean yet? Better yet, have you looked about what "fascism" means?


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 3, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> More projection and embarassment from you, mr "boo hoo I am (unspecifiedly) discriminated but I won't make a huge deal of it and I think that not only no one should get protection but I would also find very funny to have someone who bombarded in 4 years more than his predecessor did in 8 elected, uncaring of the fact he admires the man who may as well create WW3"


Donald Trump is the only president since Carter who hasn’t started a new international conflict during his term, if I recall correctly.


> Have you looked about what "fairness" and "equality" mean yet? Better yet, have you looked about what "fascism" means?


You’re confusing equal with equitable. Equal means that out of a basket of four apples we both get two apples each, an equal share. Equitable means that I get one apple and you get three because, purportedly, you’re “more hungry” and thus require more apples due to your outsized need. I support the former, you support the latter. That’s the actual point of contention here. I’m helping you out since definitions weren’t your strong suit last time either. “Fairness” is an ethereal construct - to me “fair” means that everybody is treated exactly the same regardless of any innate qualities or circumstances, that’s equal treatment. To you, some people “need” more help than others, and it’s “fair” to give them more (at the cost of others), that’s equitable treatment. Which one of those outcomes is actually “fair” is a matter of personal value systems. In complete isolation, what’s fair is that everybody gets their own apples or starves, but since “we live in a society” as you’ve mentioned, that’s suboptimal. We choose to work together because it’s mutually beneficial, but that has nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with optimisation. If I’m taller than you, I can walk around the orchard with the basket and pick apples - you’re shorter, so you can peel them. At the end of the day we’ll bake an apple pie and split it - that’s society optimising a workload.

As for any discussion of fascism (or more specifically, economic fascism, since that’s what the discussion was about in context), I’m not going to recap the last few pages for you, you have your own scroll wheel. I believe we came to a consensus on that already (in my favour, no less).


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 3, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Donald Trump is the only president since Carter who hasn’t started a new international conflict during his term, if I recall correctly.


Resurrecting Islamic State from the face of defeat by betraying the Kurds to Erdogan is, I'd argue, worse, as is America's withdrawal from the Paris agreement, as not only this perpetrated an international terrorist threat, but it also accelerated an existential threat to humanity. Not to mention, his ineptitude and admiration for Putin are worse than starting a war in Syria, frankly. Lastly, not "starting" a war doesn't suddenly equate to "not being a warmonger".


Foxi4 said:


> That’s the actual point of contention here. I’m helping you out since definitions weren’t your strong suit last time either.


All this libertarian smugness is both silly and out of place considering, as someone else told you, your astounding ignorance and hypocrisy.


Foxi4 said:


> Equitable means that I get one apple and you get three because, purportedly, you’re “more hungry” and thus require more apples due to your outsized need.





Foxi4 said:


> “Fairness” is an ethereal construct - to me “fair” means that everybody is treated exactly the same regardless of any innate qualities or circumstances, that’s equal treatment.


Hilarious statements from someone who thinks to be so clever to call others ignorant then coming out with such a ridiculous statement "Since I don't believe in this concept it is ethereal and doesn't exist". Oh, and the first meaning of "equitable" is "having or exhibiting equity : dealing fairly and equally with all concerned", so the complete opposite of what you said.

Please take the L and let's move on as, in one of the few non-ridiculous things you said that didn't spectacularly backfire in your face, it's really interesting how we ended up here from a Trump re-election thread.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 3, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Resurrecting Islamic State from the face of defeat by betraying the Kurds to Erdogan is, I'd argue, worse, as is America's withdrawal from the Paris agreement, as not only this perpetrated an international terrorist threat, but it also accelerated an existential threat to humanity. Not to mention, his ineptitude and admiration for Putin are worse than starting a war in Syria, frankly. Lastly, not "starting" a war doesn't suddenly equate to "not being a warmonger".


>Salon dot com




> All this libertarian smugness is both silly and out of place considering, as someone else told you, your astounding ignorance and hypocrisy.


Always happy to help.


> Hilarious statements from someone who thinks to be so clever to call others ignorant then coming out with such a ridiculous statement "Since I don't believe in this concept it is ethereal and doesn't exist". Oh, and the first meaning of "equitable" is "having or exhibiting equity : dealing fairly and equally with all concerned", so the complete opposite of what you said.
> 
> Please take the L and let's move on as, in one of the few non-ridiculous things you said that didn't spectacularly backfire in your face, it's really interesting how we ended up here from a Trump re-election thread.


That’s not what ethereal means, that’s not how the word “equitable” applies in context of distribution of goods. Equitable distribution is not necessarily equal - it’s based on need. In common law you usually see it in divorce cases when marital assets are divided. For instance, if the mother keeps the children while the father opts for visitation rights, the mother will likely be awarded a larger share of total assets because her needs are larger than those of the father - she has additional mouths to feed. The court opts for equitable distribution in this instance, on account of the children.


> The best way to show the difference between equality and equity is with an example. Let’s assume I wanted to distribute food to a group of children and adults. If I wanted equality, I would simply give the same amount of food to everybody. If I wanted equity, however, things become more complicated: how do I distribute the food “fairly” or “justly”? Should children get less food because they can’t eat as much? Should I give different rations to different people based on how hungry they say they are? Regardless of the criteria I use, my attempt at trying to decide a “fair” distribution and not an “equal” one means I am looking to achieve equity and not equality.
> 
> https://www.dictionary.com/e/equality-vs-equity/


I’m correct. While we’re on the subject of taking L’s, I’m ready for your concession speech, go for it.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 3, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Why? I’m correct. You’re objectively wrong.


More projection and delusion, but that's not uncommon with libertarians.


Foxi4 said:


> >Salon dot com


I'm sorry, Fox News and GB News were not available, you Fuhrage cultist.


Foxi4 said:


> That’s not what ethereal means, that’s not what equitable means in context of distribution of goods. Equitable distribution is not necessarily equal - it’s based on need. In common law you usually see it in divorce cases when marital assets are divided. For instance, if the mother keeps the children while the father opts for visitation rights, the mother will likely be awarded a larger share of total assets because her needs are larger than those of the father - she has three additional mouths to feed.


Oh so now you were making a legal distinction? How clever, are you a lawyer? A real one I mean, not someone who relied on Google for 5 minutes. If so, you should know that fairness, in common law, is a legal concept, not something "ethereal", either for you or anyone else. It's also hilarious that, in the link you posted, it talks explicitly about LGBT people - you know, some of those you claim that don't need extra protection.


----------



## FAST6191 (Apr 3, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Have you looked about what "fairness" and "equality" mean yet? Better yet, have you looked about what "fascism" means?


Given your musings thus far I might actually be curious what yours are, and whether they would match dictionaries.

For the sake of things.

Fairness. The act of not imposing artificial roadblocks to someone or something attempting an action.

Equality. Related to above but everybody gets the same chance to impress, live, thrive and survive. There will likely be differences based on all manner of things from randomness to biology however. Some however have the bizarre idea that it means everybody should be represented by whatever metrics in proportion (or exceeding if they are "disadvantaged" despite that being a contradiction in terms, maths and logic) to the population locally and at large.

Fascism. Originally. A political philosophy attempted in Italy in the 1930s and 1940s. Can play with some etymology if you like but other than the sticks thing being a symbol in some modern clueless types it serves little purpose in quick definitions. "everything for the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state" would probably be said to be the defining mantra of such a thing (actually rather less pithy in the original Italian which is a rarity in these things) and fairly fitting for its approach to the world both in intent and action.
More latterly. Some have attempted to cast it as anything extreme right wing (rather odd given its original adherents and their philosophies prior to and in action and traditional definitions thereof) in political philosophy. I don't know if this means we get to have a discussion about horseshoes, ignorance or malice attempting to mischaracterise things, and above it all it does rather a disservice should you wish to discuss either actual fascism of the time, aligned groups (one would usually include nazbol, national socialism and things that may not have achieved such a level of long standing notoriety, to say nothing of the connections to general communism) or the like.

Anyway any chance we could get back to the analysis of whether enough centrists would be swayed one way or the other, protest votes put off (or made), turnout among the relevant classes (or indeed what those classes might be -- saw some rather fascinating data on the racial demographics that run contrary to the white = republicans + libertarians, everything else + some white = democrats as it pertains to the "latino" block the other day, and discussion of the youth vote is also a fun one)? That was getting somewhat interesting before this little off topic aside with even some juicy data to look at. Politics might be boring and largely irrelevant as it pertains to the US (generally I would go with whatever the colour of tie the puppet in charge is wearing the interest groups, immediate nature and long term stagnation means nothing really changes) but the stats, and to a lesser extent psychology, can have some fun things. Can even have some discussion if the sea change is enough to ponder things; wartime guy in charge vs peace time can be different, if the sands have shifted such that he might be particularly ill suited then maybe that is in place.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 3, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> More projection and delusion, but that's not uncommon with libertarians.
> 
> I'm sorry, Fox News and GB News were not available, you Fuhrage cultist.
> 
> Oh so now you were making a legal distinction? How clever, are you a lawyer? A real one I mean, not someone who relied on Google for 5 minutes. If so, you should know that fairness, in common law, is a legal concept, not something "ethereal", either for you or anyone else. It's also hilarious that, in the link you posted, it talks explicitly about LGBT people - you know, some of those you claim that don't need extra protection.


More specifically, I don’t believe anyone should get any extra protections - everyone should be treated exactly the same. I’ve edited my post to add some additional information. Your lot loves sources, so I figured adding one was warranted. I hope you find this treatment equitable, since I know the difference between the words “equal” and “equitable” and you don’t, so I’m adding information based on your needs. You can concede at any time.

Edit: You mean Farage. That’s his last name. I’m also not exactly a fan, fellow traveler at best (lest I need to remind anyone who started the Brexit movement which goes directly against my interests as a Pole in the United Kingdom).


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 3, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> You can concede at any time.


I concede is that your ill-placed arrogance cannot cover your several Ls, but rather makes them more obvious, that's what I concede  and that's after having seen your ramblings, we are only missing "taxation is theft" and the picture is complete.


Foxi4 said:


> More specifically, I don’t believe anyone should get any extra protections - everyone should be treated exactly the same.


which, as any person with education above 5th grade can tell, is perhaps the safest way to ensure everyone is treated differently. Thank you for confirming you are below that.


Foxi4 said:


> so I figured adding one was warranted. I hope you find this treatment equitable, since I know the difference and you don’t,


The only thing you seem to know is how to fail at Google 101, like plenty of others all-rounder pundits that belong with you lot.


FAST6191 said:


> Anyway any chance we could get back to the analysis of whether enough centrists would be swayed one way or the other, protest votes put off (or made), turnout among the relevant classes (or indeed what those classes might be -- saw some rather fascinating data on the racial demographics that run contrary to the white = republicans + libertarians, everything else + some white = democrats as it pertains to the "latino" block the other day, and discussion of the youth vote is also a fun one)? That was getting somewhat interesting before this little off topic aside with even some juicy data to look at. Politics might be boring and largely irrelevant as it pertains to the US (generally I would go with whatever the colour of tie the puppet in charge is wearing the interest groups, immediate nature and long term stagnation means nothing really changes) but the stats, and to a lesser extent psychology, can have some fun things. Can even have some discussion if the sea change is enough to ponder things; wartime guy in charge vs peace time can be different, if the sands have shifted such that he might be particularly ill suited then maybe that is in place.


In general, I feel that centrists are swayed NOT to vote for someone, rather than vote for the opposite - at least, that's what I've seen happen. Which, at the end of the day, is wholly insufficient.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 3, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I concede is that your ill-placed arrogance cannot cover your several Ls, but rather makes them more obvious, that's what I concede  and that's after having seen your ramblings, we are only missing "taxation is theft" and the picture is complete.


Not all taxation. Just a couple forms of taxation, like the income tax - a penalty on productivity which was supposed to be a temporary measure to fuel the war effort and turned into a mainstay in taxation.


> which, as any person with education above 5th grade can tell, is perhaps the safest way to ensure everyone is treated differently. Thank you for confirming you are below that.


Everyone should be treated equally under the law, as we are all equal. None of us are superior or inferior and we all deserve to be treated exactly the same. How individuals treat each other privately is none of my business. Maybe you shouldn’t associate with assholes if you keep getting “mistreated” so frequently.


> The only thing you seem to know is how to fail at Google 101, like plenty of others all-rounder pundits that belong with you lot.


Doubling down on being wrong is a bad look. Please, take your time and read about the difference between equal and equitable, so as to avoid looking silly in public next time. I’m saying this in earnest, your understanding of those terms is incorrect, and if you ever want to be a part of a debate about distribution, it is in your interest to know the difference. I’m a villain, not a monster - I’ll make fun of you, but I will also reach out to help you out of the mud.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 3, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Not all taxation. Just a couple forms of taxation, like the income tax - a penalty on productivity which was supposed to be a temporary measure to fuel the war effort and turned into a mainstay in taxation.


And which other forms of taxation, then, now I must know. Which ones work?


Foxi4 said:


> Everyone should be treated equally under the law, as we are all equal. None of us are superior or inferior and we all deserve to be treated exactly the same. How individuals treat each other privately is none of my business. Maybe you shouldn’t associate with assholes of you keep getting “mistreated” so frequently.


Ok, now we are veering from your attempts to rely on jurisprudence to the purely philosophical. Taking away all your insufferable smarm, how realistic your scenario is, without law? And you know the answer, as you said something quite relevant some posts before.


Foxi4 said:


> Doubling down on being wrong is a bad look. Please, take your time and read about the difference between equal and equitable, so as to avoid looking silly in public next time. I’m saying this in earnest, your understanding of those terms is incorrect, and if you ever want to be a part of a debate about distribution, it is in your interest to know the difference.


The only thing you can help with, Faragista, is generating further embarassment of yourself, who failed spectacularly several days ago in even understanding who wrote what. You keep throwing this dead cat of equitable and equal, thinking you were clever with your mirror-climbing claim of a legal definition, while in fact you were hilariously wrong. In a very sad way.


Foxi4 said:


> I’m a villain, not a monster - I’ll make fun of you, but I will also reach out to help you out if the mud.


No one in the gutter can help people out of anything, so, sorry, but consider your dragging attempts laughable. Ditto about being a villain, however, but nowhere as important as you think yourself to be.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 3, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> And which other forms of taxation, then, now I must know. Which ones work?


As a general rule, I like to pay for services rendered.


> Ok, now we are veering from your attempts to rely on jurisprudence to the purely philosophical. Taking away all your insufferable smarm, how realistic your scenario is, without law? And you know the answer, as you said something quite relevant some posts before.


I don’t know - perhaps you should tell me how civilisations were formed? Humans are rather social creatures - we’ve been cooperating for the entirety of out history. In fact, probably longer than that, considering primates in general are social creatures. Hominids lived in organised groups since before our species has emerged.


> The only thing you can help with, Faragista, is generating further embarassment of yourself, who failed spectacularly several days ago in even understanding who wrote what. You keep throwing this dead cat of equitable and equal, thinking you were clever with your mirror-climbing claim of a legal definition, while in fact you were hilariously wrong. In a very sad way.


Uhm… no. I am correct. Not just in a legal sense - these words have specific meanings. I’m just waiting for you to come to terms with that. I know exactly “who said what”, I have a scroll wheel. I can choose to respond more broadly if I’m responding to a group - that is not the case right now.


> No one in the gutter can help people out of anything, so, sorry, but consider your dragging attempts laughable. Ditto about being a villain, however, but nowhere as important as you think yourself to be.


You can persist in ignorance, it’s no skin off my back. I find that people who act childishly often respond to stimuli meant for children, like picture books. In the spirit of fairness, I’ll make a last ditch effort.




Hopefully that resolves any remaining queries.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 3, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> As a general rule, I like to pay for services rendered.


That's a non-answer if I ever see any. 


Foxi4 said:


> I don’t know - perhaps you should tell me how civilisations were formed? Humans are rather social creatures - we’ve been cooperating for the entirety of out history. In fact, probably longer than that, considering primates in general are social creatures. Hominids lived in organised groups since before our species has emerged.


I can. Are you ready to accept the answers?


Foxi4 said:


> Uhm… no. I am correct. Not just in a legal sense - these words have specific meanings. I’m just waiting for you to come to terms with that. I know exactly “who said what”, I have a scroll wheel. I can choose to respond more broadly if I’m responding to a group - that is not the case right now.


No, you tried to spin a concept and failed. Then I turned it on your head and you're still throwing a tantrum.


Foxi4 said:


> You can persist in ignorance, it’s no skin off my back. I find that people who act childishly often respond to stimuli meant for children, like picture books. In the spirit of fairness, I’ll make a last ditch effort.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


LOL, if there was ever need of how you can't be taken seriously, this is it. And again, like many libertarian Faragistas, you can try to throw irrelevant dead cats on the table, you'll fail.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 3, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> That's a non-answer if I ever see any.


I can’t keep doing your homework - at some point you have to figure out what words mean.


> I can. Are you ready to accept the answers?


Boy howdy.


> No, you tried to spin a concept and failed. Then I turned it on your head and you're still throwing a tantrum.


I gave you accurate definitions, an example and a source link. At this point it’s on you.


> LOL, if there was ever need of how you can't be taken seriously, this is it. And again, like many libertarian Faragistas, you can try to throw irrelevant dead cats on the table, you'll fail.


You keep calling me a “Faragista”. I thought I already said I’m not a supporter of Nigel Farage. I had doubts regarding your reading comprehension as it is, you’re not helping your case.

I think we can close the “equitable versus equal” chapter of the conversation - you refuse to accept defeat in the face of overwhelming evidence. As such, we can’t have an honest discussion in good faith - you’ve demonstrated that you’re incapable of learning, or ingesting new information. That’s one thing you could potentially learn from @The Catboy.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 3, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I think we can close the “equitable versus equal” chapter of the conversation - you refuse to accept defeat in the face of overwhelming evidence. As such, we can’t have an honest discussion in good faith - you’ve demonstrated that you’re incapable of learning, or ingesting new information. That’s one thing you could potentially learn from @The Catboy.


And you can't have a conversation without lies, spin and misinformation.


Foxi4 said:


> I can’t keep doing your homework - at some point you have to figure out what words mean.


If this were your homework, you'd get a sound 0%. 


Foxi4 said:


> Boy howdy.


Again, another non-answer, something you seem to be specialised in. Are you a politician?


Foxi4 said:


> I gave you accurate definitions, an example and a source link. At this point it’s on you.


And I didn't refute them, in fact I never refuted them. But your nonexistent reading comprehension is showing.


Foxi4 said:


> You keep calling me a “Faragista”. I thought I already said I’m not a supporter of Nigel Farage. I already had doubts in your reading comprehension, you’re not helping your case here.


My reading comprehension is fine - matter is, I don't believe you, mr "Trump in 2nd term would be hilarious and I can't tell why BECAUSE OF REASONS".


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 3, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> And you can't have a conversation without lies, spin and misinformation. If this were your homework, you'd get a sound 0%. Again, another non-answer, something you seem to be specialised in. Are you a politician? And I didn't refute them, in fact I never refuted them. But your nonexistent reading comprehension is showing.


Perhaps it’s your ability to convey your thoughts that’s at fault here, considering you called my description incorrect (we call that an “objection”, you couldn’t “refute” because that’d require you to be correct, which you’re not) based on your own misunderstanding of a basic Google search. If this is your concession then I accept, I’ve lost interest in debating the matter since I’m demonstrably correct.


> My reading comprehension is fine - matter is, I don't believe you, mr "Trump in 2nd term would be hilarious and I can't tell why BECAUSE OF REASONS".


Ah, I understand. You ascribed an imaginary feature to me and you’re now busy criticising me for it as a form of insult. Deranged, but amusing. You can continue, I figured that you missed that part, but clearly not - you just like fighting strawmen, by your own admission.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 3, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Perhaps it’s your ability to convey your thoughts that’s at fault here, considering you called my description incorrect based on your own misunderstanding of a basic Google search. If this is your concession then I accept, I’ve lost interest in debating a matter when I’m demonstrably correct.


I concede you're incapable of having an honest discussion, but I don't blame you. Like every libertarian, you think that your worldview is the only one that works. You're wrong, obviously, the only places where libertarians won were overrun by bears, so bears are literally smarter than libertarians, but it's always hilarious to see you lot gasp.


Foxi4 said:


> Ah, I understand. You ascribed an imaginary feature to me and you’re now busy criticising me for it as a form of insult. Deranged, but amusing. You can continue, I figured that you missed that part, but clearly not - you just like fighting strawmen, by your own admission.


Then explain, in plain terms and no wordplay, why you want Trump to win a second term.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 3, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I concede you're incapable of having an honest discussion, but I don't blame you. Like every libertarian, you think that your worldview is the only one that works. You're wrong, obviously, the only places where libertarians won were overrun by bears, so bears are literally smarter than libertarians, but it's always hilarious to see you lot gasp.


I concede that if this was my homework, I would indeed fail the assignment as you’ve learned nothing.


> Then explain, in plain terms and no wordplay, why you want Trump to win a second term.


I have many reasons, I’m under no obligation to disclose them. You seem to be under the impression that I care about your opinion - I really, honestly don’t. I don’t owe you a justification. If you insist on badgering me, deregulation and tax cuts come to mind first and foremost, but there’s a lot to talk about in terms of policy.


----------



## ChrisMCNBVA (Apr 3, 2022)

I’ll say plain and simple that I want Donald Trump to be president again because I can’t stand Biden one bit I just don’t understand why some people like him better


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 3, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I have many reasons, I’m under no obligation to disclose them. You seem to be under the impression that I care about your opinion - I really, honestly don’t. I don’t owe you a justification. If you insist on badgering me, deregulation and tax cuts come to mind first and foremost, but there’s a lot to talk about in terms of policy


Neither I care for yours, but I am curious and what can I say.  But before I go forward, I'd like to thank you for your (half-arsed) answer.
Lol tax cuts for the super rich while raising taxes for the common folk who, like total morons, vote for him. Why somehow I am not surprised. Are you an affluent (it means rich, do you need another definition?) US citizen?
Deregulation eh? Spoken like a true libertarian who thinks a FFA is an ideal environment, in any context.
Thank you for this fascinating snippet of libertarian 'thinking'.


Foxi4 said:


> I concede that if this was my homework, I would indeed fail the assignment as you’ve learned nothing.


I am sorry you feel that way, incompetence should never be highlighted. I hope by highliting your fallacies I have helped to drag you out of the mud.


ChrisMCNBVA said:


> I’ll say plain and simple that I want Donald Trump to be president again because I can’t stand Biden one bit I just don’t understand why some people like him better


Because Biden is not an incompetent, amoral scumbag who flooded the highest institution of the land with his family, who wasted taxpayer money on golf trips and who had a sickening crush for the man who is instigating world war 3. And yet somehow to you those are endearing qualities.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 4, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Neither I care for yours, but I am curious and what can I say.  But before I go forward, I'd like to thank you for your (half-arsed) answer.
> Lol tax cuts for the super rich while raising taxes for the common folk who, like total morons, vote for him. Why somehow I am not surprised. Are you an affluent (it means rich, do you need another definition?) US citizen?
> Deregulation eh? Spoken like a true libertarian who thinks a FFA is an ideal environment, in any context.
> Thank you for this fascinating snippet of libertarian 'thinking'.


Everyone across the board saved money after the Trump tax cuts, your point of contention is that the “rich” saved a higher dollar amount. This is not surprising - the rich make more money, that’s how percentages work. IRS data shows that the key beneficiaries of the cuts were in fact the working and middle class tax payers - they need to hold on to their money the most, the “rich” are already “rich”. The former two groups can benefit from an increased standard of living by holding on to more of their income, and a boom in consumption shows that they did. Tax liability also dropped off a cliff, which shows that tax avoidance has also decreased. Despite the cut, the treasury still saw record revenues. I’m not particularly concerned about “rich people’s money” and have a strong preference for citizens holding on to their individual incomes - Trump’s cuts accomplished that, leaving average households with more money in the bank by the end of the year. Average incomes grew by about 5.7% - an unprecedented growth, growth which was effectively wiped out by Bidenflation. You see, a growth in income is only relevant if it outpaces inflation - if it doesn’t, wages are stagnated, it’s just the number that changes, not the level of wealth. Sadly we had to deal with COVID in the immediate aftermath of Trump’s great results, but there’s nothing holding us back once the pandemic comes to a close. Someone who happens to think “like Trump” would be excellent right about now to give the economy a much-needed boost, considering the lockdowns led to crib death of many small businesses. Now, more than ever, the federal government needs to lower the bar for entry and allow new players onto the field through more lax regulation and lesser tax burden. Hard to achieve when you keep printing money, but not impossible.

https://thehill.com/opinion/finance...enefited-middle-working-class-americans-most/

https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/sto...first-year-after-trumps-tax-reform-2020-03-03


> I am sorry you feel that way, incompetence should never be highlighted. I hope by highliting your fallacies I have helped to drag you out of the mud.


Putting fingers up your ears and going “la la la!” doesn’t change the fact that you were wrong, my only failure is in explaining to you why that is effectively, but there’s only so much one can do on infertile ground.


----------



## The Catboy (Apr 4, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> That’s one thing you could potentially learn from @The Catboy.


Can a catboy not nap in peace?


----------



## Dr_Faustus (Apr 4, 2022)

ChrisMCNBVA said:


> I’ll say plain and simple that I want Donald Trump to be president again because I can’t stand Biden one bit I just don’t understand why some people like him better



Lesser evil more or less. People did not like either, and honestly if Covid did not happen at all he would have probably gotten a second term despite the impeachments (because those do not seem to do shit anymore for a form of discipline) But since the handling of the pandemic was so fucked sideways he really did not have any good leg to stand on in the global picture which made us just realize how bad he and his team was at leading a country and its people (without needing to rely on conspiracy driven rhetoric anyways).  

No one really wanted Biden but the DNC, he was pushed as the primary choice by his party first before the people who even had a choice in the primary races. Its basically the same shit that happened back in 2016 with Hillary, just this time it worked out for the DNC despite Trump literally going out of his way building his entire defense for Biden in that election. I think if the people had a better means to choose their DNC primary we would have ended up with someone more reasonable or at least more interesting than someone who is another cookie cut moderate who puts so much effort in appealing the other side they waste their time actually shaking things up for the better forgetting they actually have majority control of the senate and do not need to appeal to both sides. 


TL;DR People are sick of moderates on the democratic side. Its a wasted effort as no respecting republican will ever take the side to agree with a democrat. Its literally not in their nature to. Rather than trying to play nice with everyone people want someone who will take control and just get shit done. Basically a Dick Cheney for the Democrats, which did exist but the DNC is scared shitless of him ever getting the primary vote.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 5, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Pretending like the government didn't have a hand in creating these green technologies, lol.
> 
> Edit: I bought my aforementioned solar panels in part because the federal government paid for about 30% of it, but yeah, fuck the government.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 6, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Putting fingers up your ears and going “la la la!” doesn’t change the fact that you were wrong, my only failure is in explaining to you why that is effectively, but there’s only so much one can do on infertile ground.


And no one knows more about infertile grounds for minds than you LMAO the master of throwing dead cats and mystifying.



Foxi4 said:


> Everyone across the board saved money after the Trump tax cuts, your point of contention is that the “rich” saved a higher dollar amount. This is not surprising - the rich make more money, that’s how percentages work. IRS data shows that the key beneficiaries of the cuts were in fact the working and middle class tax payers - they need to hold on to their money the most, the “rich” are already “rich”. The former two groups can benefit from an increased standard of living by holding on to more of their income, and a boom in consumption shows that they did. Tax liability also dropped off a cliff, which shows that tax avoidance has also decreased. Despite the cut, the treasury still saw record revenues. I’m not particularly concerned about “rich people’s money” and have a strong preference for citizens holding on to their individual incomes - Trump’s cuts accomplished that, leaving average households with more money in the bank by the end of the year. Average incomes grew by about 5.7% - an unprecedented growth, growth which was effectively wiped out by Bidenflation. You see, a growth in income is only relevant if it outpaces inflation - if it doesn’t, wages are stagnated, it’s just the number that changes, not the level of wealth. Sadly we had to deal with COVID in the immediate aftermath of Trump’s great results, but there’s nothing holding us back once the pandemic comes to a close. Someone who happens to think “like Trump” would be excellent right about now to give the economy a much-needed boost, considering the lockdowns led to crib death of many small businesses. Now, more than ever, the federal government needs to lower the bar for entry and allow new players onto the field through more lax regulation and lesser tax burden. Hard to achieve when you keep printing money, but not impossible.


A recipt for disaster, not to mention the usual amount of lies and spin typical of libertarians. But I appreciate that "less tax" sounds like the best improvement ever, doesn't matter if that money is absolutely nothing compared to the cost of life. "Bidenflation" LOL you're a ridiculous Putin stooge.


----------



## smf (Apr 6, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> As a general rule, I like to pay for services rendered.


So you want police and fire fighters to turn up with a credit card reader. Got it.



Lacius said:


> and you'd be stupid to argue otherwise.


Surely you've already drawn your conclusion on that matter by now.



Dr_Faustus said:


> Lesser evil more or less. People did not like either, and honestly if Covid did not happen at all he would have probably gotten a second term despite the impeachments (because those do not seem to do shit anymore for a form of discipline) But since the handling of the pandemic was so fucked sideways he really did not have any good leg to stand on in the global picture which made us just realize how bad he and his team was at leading a country and its people (without needing to rely on conspiracy driven rhetoric anyways).



I'm not sure covid had much to do with it, his supporters all seem to think he did a wonderful job with covid and that it was all someone elses fault. 

The thought of a second term convinced people to vote who never did before, it turns out that there are more people who didn't want him than did. Which is not unlike his first term, it was only the electoral college that moved him from second to first place.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 6, 2022)

smf said:


> So you want police and fire fighters to turn up with a credit card reader. Got it.


That also includes healthcare, and we've seen how healtchare works in america


----------



## smf (Apr 6, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> That also includes healthcare, and we've seen how healtchare works in america


And roads, you can only build a road when someone is sitting there waiting to drive on it and willing to pay.

I'm not sure he understands what "services rendered" means.


----------



## Reiten (Apr 6, 2022)

smf said:


> So you want police and fire fighters to turn up with a credit card reader. Got it.


Or they turn up to late since they were working in their other jobs, as there might not be enough services to render, in the  area, to make a living out of it.


----------



## smf (Apr 6, 2022)

Reiten said:


> Or they turn up to late since they were working in their other jobs, as there might not be enough services to render, in the  area, to make a living out of it.


Your child has been abducted? We need $200 for the call out fee, plus $500 a day, payable in advance.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 6, 2022)

Making fun of the things they don't understand is what smart people do.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 6, 2022)

smf said:


> So you want police and fire fighters to turn up with a credit card reader. Got it.


No, you do not. No surprise there though. Just as a quick reminder, the state has three basic responsibilities - creating, executing and enforcing law (legislature, executive branches, law enforcement, judiciary etc.), defending citizens from internal (police) and external (military) threats and creating an environment wherein citizens can engage in commerce (infrastructure, legal tender, so on and so forth). Those are the main interests of the government, I’ll let you figure out if that includes “police and fire fighters” or not.


smf said:


> And roads, you can only build a road when someone is sitting there waiting to drive on it and willing to pay.
> 
> I'm not sure he understands what "services rendered" means.


Someone’s certainly having trouble.


Dark_Ansem said:


> That also includes healthcare, and we've seen how healtchare works in america


Healthcare in America has been completely removed from any semblance of a free market many, many years ago via boneheaded employer-based insurance, Social Security and other assorted legislation. Switzerland on the other hand, they have it knocked. It’s almost as if private healthcare was a perfectly serviceable model in the absence of government interventionism.


Reiten said:


> Or they turn up to late since they were working in their other jobs, as there might not be enough services to render, in the  area, to make a living out of it.


Now that’s what I like, arguing with hypotheticals based on second-hand strawmen. It’s also funny to read that “not having to deal with fires” (and the dozens of different problems responders deal with on a daily basis) is an issue - sounds like a good problem to have, if only we were all so lucky.


smf said:


> Your child has been abducted? We need $200 for the call out fee, plus $500 a day, payable in advance.


Maybe it was asking for it, what was the child wearing? 

You guys really are amazing. I await to hear more of “my opinions”.


Dark_Ansem said:


> And no one knows more about infertile grounds for minds than you LMAO the master of throwing dead cats and mystifying.


I don’t really care how you take your L’s.


> A recipt for disaster, not to mention the usual amount of lies and spin typical of libertarians. But I appreciate that "less tax" sounds like the best improvement ever, doesn't matter if that money is absolutely nothing compared to the cost of life. "Bidenflation" LOL you're a ridiculous Putin stooge.


I mean, it’s official IRS records. They’re public, you can look them up yourself. You’re not even arguing with me at this point, you’re arguing with the tax man - I thought that was my spiel? As for Bidenflation, inflation in the U.S. is well above global levels. It’s at its highest point since 1982, sitting at around 8%, and it hit that level *before* the oil price spike on account of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but you go on ahead and blame everyone *except* the people in charge.

https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/it...prices-bureau-of-labor-statistics-11646952656


----------



## chrisrlink (Apr 6, 2022)

i'm supprised this thread wasn't shutdown a while ago for the level of stupidity emanating from it  i swear some of you must be commies for endosing trump or very stupid and ignorant of the facts in your face if trump is elected again democracy is F-ed plain and simple


----------



## KingVamp (Apr 6, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Switzerland on the other hand, they have it knocked. It’s almost as if private healthcare was a perfectly serviceable model in the absence of government interventionism.


Except, you must have healthcare and companies must have a basic plan. Also, the government will still step in, if your income is too low.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 6, 2022)

KingVamp said:


> Except, you must have healthcare and companies must have a basic plan. Also, the government will still step in, if your income is too low.


That’s correct - the government requires all citizens to sign up for a healthcare plan as a bare minimum and only offers welfare to those who lack any other coverage option due to low/no income. Very sensible.


chrisrlink said:


> i'm supprised this thread wasn't shutdown a while ago for the level of stupidity emanating from it  i swear some of you must be commies for endosing trump or very stupid and ignorant of the facts in your face if trump is elected again democracy is F-ed plain and simple


Thread’s admittedly been pretty badly derailed - with some luck we’ll get back on track (hint hint, Bidenflation was the bait, still waiting for the usual suspects to chime in). Other than that I’m not sure why you’re surprised by a potential Trump run thread revolving around Trump - not sure what the input is here.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 6, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> That’s correct - the government requires all citizens to sign up for a healthcare plan as a bare minimum and only offers welfare to those who lack any other coverage option due to low/no income. Very sensible.


Switzerland also has one of the highest median incomes in all of Europe, and I'm guessing a much higher effective minimum wage than the US.  I'd also bet my left nut that their insurance industry is tightly regulated and can't deny a necessary surgery to somebody who has paid in more than double its cost.  

So certainly there are lessons we could learn from them, but healthcare has never been a one size fits all proposition.  Given the extent of cronyism in the US insurance industry, it'd be far easier to start fresh with a public option and/or universal healthcare.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 6, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Switzerland also has one of the highest median incomes in all of Europe, and I'm guessing a much higher effective minimum wage than the US.  I'd also bet my left nut that their insurance industry is tightly regulated and can't deny a necessary surgery to somebody who has paid in more than double its cost.
> 
> So certainly there are lessons we could learn from them, but healthcare has never been a one size fits all proposition.  Given the extent of cronyism in the US insurance industry, it'd be far easier to start fresh with a public option and/or universal healthcare.


I will agree that starting fresh and making all previous legislation and regulation null and void would be easier. I’m even keen on agreeing on the universality, although technically as a libertarian I believe people should have the right to make their own decisions, including bad, self-destructive and irresponsible ones (perhaps an “opt out” option and opt in default. Somewhat deceptive, but leaning towards less harm, which is an acceptable trade off that still leaves the path open to any takers). I’m not so keen on the public option part. The government has no business running healthcare - private providers are perfectly capable of delivering quality service, which is the only thing I’m interested in. What I do know for a fact is that the system needs reform, regardless of who runs in the next election cycle.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 6, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I’m not so keen on the public option part. The government has no business running healthcare - private providers are perfectly capable of delivering quality service, which is the only thing I’m interested in.


They might be capable of it, but they'd never do it solely out of the goodness of their hearts.  Out of the two options for keeping them honest: strict regulatory oversight or stiff competition in the form of a public option, I'd think you'd prefer the latter as less heavy-handed.  Regardless, I'm glad to hear you can at least recognize when certain privatized ecosystems are starting to crumble under the weight of their own flaws.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 6, 2022)

Xzi said:


> They might be capable of it, but they'd never do it solely out of the goodness of their hearts.  Out of the two options for keeping them honest: strict regulatory oversight or stiff competition in the form of a public option, I'd think you'd prefer the latter as less heavy-handed.  Regardless, I'm glad to hear you can at least recognize when certain privatized ecosystems are starting to crumble under the weight of their own flaws.


A public option is not “stiff competition”, you can’t compete with “free”. What you’re describing is a pathway to supplemental insurance - why would private providers waste time and resources on coverage that the state is already providing? This proposition is a non-starter as far as free market competition is concerned. The government is supposed to play a regulatory role - it doesn’t run the market, it only sets the rules of the game. If you want the game to be fair, your only concern is that the rules aren’t rigged. Right now they are rigged, for many reasons that go well beyond the scope of the thread.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 7, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> A public option is not “stiff competition”, you can’t compete with “free”.


A public option isn't free though, you know that.  The only difference is you pay your premiums through taxes rather than a monthly billing cycle.  If private insurers can provide more extensive, more customizable plans than what the government offers, they have nothing to worry about.  Same way FedEx and UPS can exist and remain profitable despite USPS undercutting them for a lot of services.



Foxi4 said:


> This proposition is a non-starter as far as free market competition is concerned.


That's never really been a concern of mine.  After all, the closest thing the modern world has seen to the ancap fantasy of a "totally free market" is Jeffrey Epstein's island lmao.  If certain insurance companies have to close up shop just because the healthcare industry necessitates ethical business practices (through regulation or public competition), then we're better off without them.


----------



## kenlee168 (Apr 7, 2022)

Getting Ignored, given a cold shoulder


----------



## Reiten (Apr 7, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Now that’s what I like, arguing with hypotheticals based on second-hand strawmen. It’s also funny to read that “not having to deal with fires” (and the dozens of different problems responders deal with on a daily basis) is an issue - sounds like a good problem to have, if only we were all so lucky.


I actually know a fire station in a rural area, responsible for a few small villages, that would fit what I described. They sometimes get only  a few jobs per month. Using teams from other bigger places doesn't work as that increases the time needed to arrive too much. Having another fire station subside it would be rather similar to taxes, so what's a sensible solution for such a case? It's most certainly an edge case, but those also have to be taken into consideration.
Also how exactly would billing work, does the owner always pay? Doesn't sound fair in like grass fires, where a guy threw a cigarette in a field and it caught fire or similar cases.
It like to hear a replay to this, but I'll stop there as we're totally off topic with this.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 7, 2022)

Xzi said:


> A public option isn't free though, you know that.  The only difference is you pay your premiums through taxes rather than a monthly billing cycle.  If private insurers can provide more extensive, more customizable plans than what the government offers, they have nothing to worry about.  Same way FedEx and UPS can exist and remain profitable despite USPS undercutting them for a lot of services.
> 
> That's never really been a concern of mine.  After all, the closest thing the modern world has seen to the ancap fantasy of a "totally free market" is Jeffrey Epstein's island lmao.  If certain insurance companies have to close up shop just because the healthcare industry necessitates ethical business practices (through regulation or public competition), then we're better off without them.


Any option that requires you to pay for it after you’ve already opted for the alternative is inherently unfair to the taxpayer. Of course this isn’t “free”, however it is paid for collectively by mandate as opposed to by a singular customer and electively. _*Clears throat*_ “It’s not a fee, it’s a tax”. The private sector can’t compete with that. As an aside, in this scenario, the government is the only provider that can discriminate based on income (the less income you make the less tax you pay), which is kind of funny.


Reiten said:


> I actually know a fire station in a rural area, responsible for a few small villages, that would fit what I described. They sometimes get only  a few jobs per month. Using teams from other bigger places doesn't work as that increases the time needed to arrive too much. Having another fire station subside it would be rather similar to taxes, so what's a sensible solution for such a case? It's most certainly an edge case, but those also have to be taken into consideration.
> Also how exactly would billing work, does the owner always pay? Doesn't sound fair in like grass fires, where a guy threw a cigarette in a field and it caught fire or similar cases.
> It like to hear a replay to this, but I'll stop there as we're totally off topic with this.


Why are you arguing with yourself? I never said any of this - nobody asked me. You just had a bizarre exchange with somebody else about things I didn’t say, then concocted a weird scenario based on a personal anecdote.


----------



## Reiten (Apr 7, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> As a general rule, I like to pay for services rendered.


My apologies, you are right. You never said anything about it, I just interpreted this line of yours too broadly.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 7, 2022)

Reiten said:


> My apologies, you are right. You never said anything about it, I just interpreted this line of yours too broadly.


Oh, I don’t blame you, it is a pretty general statement. You were mislead by a third party, I just don’t know why you entertained it. To be more clear, the police existing, patrolling the streets and enforcing the law is a service granted by the state. I am using it not only when I actively call the police - I am using it all the time, just passively. Crime is a known quantity - it exists, and in order for law to mean anything, somebody needs to enforce it. It is in my interest for criminals to not roam the streets, I benefit from that service at all times, not just when I specifically require it. That is a service rendered, and payment is due. If I explicitly wanted to protect my property and my property alone, I’d contact a security company - that’s not what the police is for.


----------



## FAST6191 (Apr 7, 2022)

chrisrlink said:


> i'm supprised this thread wasn't shutdown a while ago for the level of stupidity emanating from it  i swear some of you must be commies for endosing trump or very stupid and ignorant of the facts in your face if trump is elected again democracy is F-ed plain and simple


Can't tell if troll and I have seen/recall your post history... masterful work if so.



kenlee168 said:


> Getting Ignored, given a cold shoulder



Why speak to the puppet when you can chat with the puppet masters?

Anyway not too much of great interest here since I last posted, at least for the ostensible topic.
Still interested in making a reasonable base for a polling scenario, one that might predict reality and describe it reasonably accurately. Seemingly hard when everybody is age, sex, location and maybe race where a notable difference and population amount (in a given area) could make a difference with anything else being interesting quirks and opinion pieces ( https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/14/opinions/republican-latino-voters-gest/index.html was a concept I noted before, link for the sake of link. All quite amusing from someone sitting in Europe where Spain and Portugal are just other countries really, and have been for centuries).


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 8, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I don’t really care how you take your L’s.


I don't, as there are no "L's" to take, unlike your case.


Foxi4 said:


> Crime is a known quantity - it exists, and in order for law to mean anything, somebody needs to enforce it. It is in my interest for criminals to not roam the streets, I benefit from that service at all times, not just when I specifically require it.


Spoken like someone who knows absolutely nothing about crime. That "known quantity" snippet is especially ludicrous.


Foxi4 said:


> Healthcare in America has been completely removed from any semblance of a free market many, many years ago via boneheaded employer-based insurance, Social Security and other assorted legislation. Switzerland on the other hand, they have it knocked. It’s almost as if private healthcare was a perfectly serviceable model in the absence of government interventionism.


Yeah - because they took the profit aspect out of the compulsory one every citizen has to do. They made it a public service in all but name. A yearly cost of around $350 dollars is, surprise surprise, akin to a tax, rather than a crazy US-like insurance premium. Lastly, but more importantly, Americans are not Swiss. Ultimately, however, it's been proved time and again that a Universal healthcare model tends to be cheaper and overall more efficient.


----------



## FAST6191 (Apr 8, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Spoken like someone who knows absolutely nothing about crime. That "known quantity" snippet is especially ludicrous.


I am assuming Foxi is not going for some ankh morpork style acceptable crime levels scenario when the known quantity term is employed. In which case it is a fairly common turn of phrase to indicate that while the specifics are not knowable you can make broad trends* (similar to how by definition I can't know the state of every particle of whatever in a beaker but somehow chemistry still works), generalisations and act accordingly, and laws that are not enforced are generally said not to be laws (with the added perk of precedents also being thrown in there).

*data driven approaches to policing being employed to wonderful effect not only in recent times but going fairly far back now, and every reason it can be expected to work in the future as it works wonders everywhere else it has been tried, usually better than a lot of gut instinct.

In this case. You have a certain percentage of sociopaths (well managed it is quite a useful trait, especially in the modern world, and the ladies do often go weak at the knees for such things* so tends to propagate down the generations where it might not be as well managed), you will find those hard up and desperate for various reasons (can't handle their drugs, they gambled and lost possibly to the wrong people, they had more kids than they could afford, they want that fancy lifestyle but don't have the talen, they were not well raised...), and the phrase "keeping honest people honest" is noted in security at various levels along with a lot more psychology to ponder. To that end you can reasonably predict the rise of crime, even more so once you get into dense environments beyond Dunbar's number (or, worse still, most suburban America).

*albeit you will probably hear it more as dark triad if you want to go looking there.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 8, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I don't, as there are no "L's" to take, unlike your case.
> 
> Spoken like someone who knows absolutely nothing about crime. That "known quantity" snippet is especially ludicrous.
> 
> Yeah - because they took the profit aspect out of the compulsory one every citizen has to do. They made it a public service in all but name. A yearly cost of around $350 dollars is, surprise surprise, akin to a tax, rather than a crazy US-like insurance premium. Lastly, but more importantly, Americans are not Swiss. Ultimately, however, it's been proved time and again that a Universal healthcare model tends to be cheaper and overall more efficient.


1. By all objective measures your L keeps increasing in size. I don’t know why you keep dragging this out - you can just admit that you didn’t understand the difference between equal vs. equitable and now you do, or you can drop it altogether to avoid drawing attention to your boo-boo. No shame in either option, but there’s *a lot* of shame in what you’re doing right now. It’s amusing, don’t get me wrong, but it’s a bad look for you. I don’t get this bit. Is this a bit?

2. Google what the phrase “known quantity” means before commenting further, we’re not going through this again. Trust me, I’m doing you a solid.

2. It’s not a public service in any sense, the insurance requirement does not remove competition in the field of healthcare providers. In fact, they’re two entirely separate business sectors.


----------



## smf (Apr 9, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> as a quick reminder, the state has three basic responsibilities - creating, executing and enforcing law (legislature, executive branches, law enforcement, judiciary etc.), defending citizens from internal (police) and external (military) threats and creating an environment wherein citizens can engage in commerce (infrastructure, legal tender, so on and so forth). Those are the main interests of the government, I’ll let you figure out if that includes “police and fire fighters” or not.


As a quick reminder, you were asked what tax you would be prepared to pay and you said you only wanted to pay for services rendered.

So you can't go back now and retrospectively amend your answer now that someone pointed out a fatal flaw & pretend you meant it all along.

It's not my job to figure out your position.



Foxi4 said:


> I am using it not only when I actively call the police - I am using it all the time, just passively.



Like healthcare, or whatever else the government tax you for. You just have a hate boner for some taxes that you deem bad, while love taxes that meet your prejudices.


----------



## ChicoManu (Apr 9, 2022)

well nah


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 9, 2022)

smf said:


> As a quick reminder, you were asked what tax you would be prepared to pay and you said you only wanted to pay for services rendered.
> 
> So you can't go back now and retrospectively amend your answer now that someone pointed out a fatal flaw & pretend you meant it all along.
> 
> It's not my job to figure out your position.


Your lack of understanding of basic English isn’t my problem. The only fatal flaw here is in your reading comprehension, and you display it consistently in this subforum. As a side note, I specifically said “as a general rule”, which signifies a trend or preference, it’s not strict. I never said “only” - you did. This means that even if what you said was correct (it isn’t), your point would still be moot - my specific wording does not exclude exceptions.


> Like healthcare, or whatever else the government tax you for. You just have a hate boner for some taxes that you deem bad, while love taxes that meet your prejudices.


Incorrect. The government is not in control of disease like it is in control of law - disease is a part of the natural order, we’re just coping with it. It *only* affects the sick patient - it makes no difference to me whether you’re healthy or sick, and it is not my responsibility to ensure that you receive medical care. Your own well-being is *your* responsibility. I’m not in charge of your habits, your diet or any of the other circumstances that affect your health, and neither is the government - that’s on you. For instance, if you want to eat a Big Mac every single day, you’re welcome to do so, but don’t ask me to pay for your triple bypass. Tending to your base biological needs is your responsibility, not mine - I don’t know you or care about you. You should pay for your own medical care in the same way as you pay for your food, water and shelter.

On the flip side, to give an example of a fair tax, a road tax is perfectly okay - we all use roads, either actively with our vehicles or passively by engaging in commerce (this is a big brain concept, but hear me out - in order for goods to be on store shelves, someone needs to transport them, presumably with a truck, which happens to require roads). The road tax is calculated fairly - it’s derived as a portion of the tax paid on fuel, which in the consumer sector is primarily used to power motor vehicles. The users of roads pay proportionally to how much they use them, based on their fuel consumption (a big truck chugs through a bit more fuel than a sedan, I assure you). A road, by its very definition, is a shared public space that we all pay the upkeep for and are all entitled to use.

Very simple stuff, unless you’re you and you choose to pretend not to understand the basics. Then again, it’s not certain that you’re pretending, given the aforementioned consistency in lack of understanding.


----------



## smf (Apr 9, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Your lack of understanding of basic English isn’t my problem. The only fatal flaw here is in your reading comprehension, and you display it consistently in this subforum. As a side note, I specifically said “as a general rule”,


Oh wow, so you basically cluster fucked your way through an argument and are now rewriting it because you got caught.

I thought you were dishonest in your arguments, but not this bad.

I know when I'm on to something when you start insulting. We all see it, you are a joke.

ps. I stopped reading at this point of your post because frankly why waste my time watching you proving the dunning kruger effect

If you want to be an asshole to people then don't fuck up as much as you did here. You'll find that people are more forgiving of your inability to explain your position, if you actually developed a personality that wasn't so grotesque (you would probably change your political viewpoint too).


----------



## KingVamp (Apr 9, 2022)

The more healthy a population is, the less chance they got in getting others sick, like covid for example. Not to mention, more productivity.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 9, 2022)

smf said:


> ps. I stopped reading


Good. I would say “quit while you’re ahead”, but you’re way behind, so I won’t. No “rewrites”, just you failing to read and getting flustered, as per usual. Maybe if you were less pedantic and more inquisitive, you wouldn’t be confused nearly as often. As far as the Dunning-Kruger effect is concerned, you must own a lot of smashed mirrors.


KingVamp said:


> The more healthy a population is, the less chance they got in getting others sick, like covid for example. Not to mention, more productivity.


I’m interested in the individual, not the collective. If individuals are well-off in general, so will the collective, but the opposite isn’t necessarily true. You can keep the entirety of the population healthy, well-fed and “productive” through tyranny, but the cost is too great. There’s a healthy middle ground between anarchy and total control, we just disagree where that point actually is. To my eye, people would be equally motivated to remain healthy regardless of whether the option is public or private - that’s not the barrier to entry in this discussion. The barrier is affordability, and the prices are inflated specifically because a large portion of the payers in the system are corporations (via employer-based insurance) and not private individuals. Insurance companies aren’t competing over *your* dollar, they’re competing over the dollar of huge conglomerates that have very different interests compared to you, and much deeper pockets. Big discussion - one that we’ve had in the past.


----------



## smf (Apr 10, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Good. I would say “quit while you’re ahead”,


And other things losers say.

Maybe next time you shouldn't rely on insults to bolster a terrible argument. That is too much to ask it seems.

You were asked, you didn't want to expand your point and now it's too late. Don't blame others for your bad judgement.

Not only do you want to back peddle, you want others to back peddle for you.

BTW you seem to be straying way off topic.



KingVamp said:


> The more healthy a population is, the less chance they got in getting others sick, like covid for example. Not to mention, more productivity.


Which is why you convince people that covid isn't real and that the things that prevent covid are evil. The right wing are so stupid they don't realize they were weaponized.

It's amazing how some people will justify risking peoples lives to save some money. We saw that with tobacco and more recently with the opioid crisis.

I figure Trump could become president again because there are enough dumb people.

An interesting article on the subject.

https://aninjusticemag.com/liberals-cant-wrap-their-brains-around-the-trump-supporter-d12f0cd75af6


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 10, 2022)

smf said:


> And other things losers say.
> 
> Maybe next time you shouldn't rely on insults to bolster a terrible argument. That is too much to ask it seems.
> 
> ...


I’ve expanded the answer not once, but twice now. Your buddy @Reiten didn’t seem to have any trouble understanding the clarification - you’re the only person here who still appears clueless (there’s a very good chance that he still disagrees with me, but he understands the position - you don’t, which is odd). To be fair, it does suit you. For the record, I’m not “insulting you” - I am making a judgement regarding your ability to read based on the available evidence. I’m not calling you names in order to hurt your feelings - your feelings are immaterial to me. I’m questioning your abilities because you’ve shown no evidence of prowess thus far. If you have a habit of being silly on the Internet, you should expect to be treated accordingly. Oh, and it’s “backpedal”. You’re welcome.


----------



## kenlee168 (Apr 10, 2022)

Althou Trump might be able to save America economically, with him as the President will likely trigger both side and creates dramas and more impeachment hoax. He might be hardworking and always eager to succeed where dem failed but he is overly trolling at media and pelosi/aoc/oman will only drive haters to go more extreme .
He hinting/trolling russia to reveal biden crime record will backfire more than do him any good.


----------



## FAST6191 (Apr 10, 2022)

kenlee168 said:


> with him as the President will likely trigger both side and creates dramas and more impeachment hoax


Muck slinging/muck raking has been a concept in news media and political strategy for... easily decades but we can go way further back. It is employed in everything from local elections for simple job posts on up whenever I have been in the US, and when your percentages to win or lose are marginal in the vast majority of places then there is massive incentive to use every trick.

Gloves these days seem to be well and truly off (see also how they treat family members, even those not acting as advisors) and the public equally does not give a damn (or at least those under about 63 don't*) or enough of one to matter, soundbite politics (though depending upon your age then headline politics/campaigning or [some twitter related term] may substitute) has been the order of the day for decades now... What incentives or chance do you give of it going all "well my esteemed colleague across the aisle has a point but my analysis of the scenario says costs of the project are likely to be 30% higher, I would instead direct the funds at this alternative project to help the people"?


*any illusions that politicos were special in the US had to have died in 1977 with Frost-Nixon (18 year olds then being 63 today, if we bump that to the 30 or so that people start voting in and... yeah), and probably way earlier than that (Battle of Athens being what 1946, Heuy Long being clipped in 1935).


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 11, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> 2. Google what the phrase “known quantity” means before commenting further, we’re not going through this again. Trust me, I’m doing you a solid.


And by "solid" you mean further embarassment to yourself.


Foxi4 said:


> 1. By all objective measures your L keeps increasing in size. I don’t know why you keep dragging this out - you can just admit that you didn’t understand the difference between equal vs. equitable and now you do, or you can drop it altogether to avoid drawing attention to your boo-boo. No shame in either option, but there’s *a lot* of shame in what you’re doing right now. It’s amusing, don’t get me wrong, but it’s a bad look for you. I don’t get this bit. Is this a bit?


You keep mystifying and lying about this so no, I'm not gonna let it rest, because the habit of libertarians of lying must be called out, even more so when so blatantly.


Foxi4 said:


> 2. It’s not a public service in any sense, the insurance requirement does not remove competition in the field of healthcare providers. In fact, they’re two entirely separate business sectors.


Once again, I never even remotely implied this, but somehow you decided that is what I meant, just like your previous dead cat debacle.


smf said:


> Oh wow, so you basically cluster fucked your way through an argument and are now rewriting it because you got caught.
> 
> I thought you were dishonest in your arguments, but not this bad.


That is, in fact, what libertarians do: derail and then claim that somehow this is what was meant all along.

anyway, I am once again proud of how sidetracked the topic became from trumpo to Swiss healthcare and crime rates.


kenlee168 said:


> Althou Trump might be able to save America economically, with him as the President will likely trigger both side and creates dramas and more impeachment hoax.


LOL the guy who almost triped public debt, who went bust what, 5 times and whose brand keeps failing even for social networks could not "save economically" a piss-up in a brewery let alone America. You're ridiculous.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 11, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> And by "solid" you mean further embarassment to yourself.
> 
> You keep mystifying and lying about this so no, I'm not gonna let it rest, because the habit of libertarians of lying must be called out, even more so when so blatantly.


We all have scroll wheels. It doesn’t really matter, you’ll drop it eventually anyway.


> Once again, I never even remotely implied this, but somehow you decided that is what I meant, just like your previous dead cat debacle.


You called it a public service in everything but the name. Your words, not mine. It’s not a public service, in name or any other way. A mandate on insurance does not make healthcare coverage public, unless you also want to claim that mandatory car insurance makes mechanics public. In other words, what you said made no sense, I just pointed it out. You were probably trying to make some kind of awkward point about it being universal - that’s correct, everyone is insured, except nobody argued that they weren’t, so… fighting windmills again.


> That is, in fact, what libertarians do: derail and then claim that somehow this is what was meant all along.


I’m not in your head, nor would I venture there without a detailed map, judging by the amount of spaghetti you’re spilling here. I can only operate on what you post - if what you post makes no sense, I’m going to point that out.


> anyway, I am once again proud of how sidetracked the topic became from trumpo to Swiss healthcare and crime rates.


It’s almost as if political platforms were multifaceted.


> LOL the guy who almost triped public debt, who went bust what, 5 times and whose brand keeps failing even for social networks could not "save economically" a piss-up in a brewery let alone America. You're ridiculous.


Democratic Congress tripled the debt - the President doesn’t hold the power of the purse. Tax revenues hit record highs under Trump - I’m sorry that the COVID relief package and other assorted unexpected spending melted that away. As far as his private ventures are concerned, 5 businesses going bust out of around 500 under the Trump umbrella is a pretty stellar track record.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 11, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> You called it a public service in everything but the name. Your words, not mine. It’s not a public service, in name or any other way. A mandate on insurance does not make healthcare coverage public, unless you also want to claim that mandatory car insurance makes mechanics public. In other words, what you said made no sense, I just pointed it out.


Do you know the expression "in everything but name" or "in name only"? The idea originally comes from Shakespeare.


Foxi4 said:


> We all have scroll wheels. It doesn’t really matter, you’ll drop it eventually anyway.


We do, so you'd best be careful with those stones in that glass house of yours.


Foxi4 said:


> I’m not in your head, nor would I venture there without a detailed map, judging by the amount of spaghetti you’re spilling here. I can only operate on what you post - if what you post makes no sense, I’m going to point that out.


casual racism now as well? Besides, it's all fine and dandy, I'm going to point out your several inaccuracies and lies too.


Foxi4 said:


> Democratic Congress tripled the debt - the President doesn’t hold the power of the purse. Tax revenues hit record highs under Trump - I’m sorry that the COVID relief package and other assorted unexpected spending melted that away. As far as his private ventures are concerned, 5 businesses going bust out of around 500 under the Trump umbrella is a pretty stellar track record.


the guy went bust what, 5 times? Assuming he kept 500 ventures each time, that means 495 out of 2500 across 20 years isn't what I'd call a "stellar track record". And before you throw another of your useless platitudes, this is called a hyperbole. Or are you going to deny his several bankruptcies?

Democratic congress LMAO yeah, because the Congress introduced the TCJA? ah no wait, that was Trump! In 2020 the debt to GDP ratio was the highest since WW2, was that somehow Biden's fault as well?

It's so ridiculous that you keep pointing about that ridiculous "tax revenue" strawman, when cost of life became impossible. It's like saying. Not to mention, Trump’s tax cuts, especially the sharp reduction in the corporate tax rate to 21% from 35%, took a big bite out of federal revenue. The CBO estimated in 2018 that the tax cut would increase deficits by about $1.9 trillion over 11 years.

Meanwhile, Trump’s claim that increased revenue from the tariffs would help eliminate (or at least reduce) our national debt hasn’t panned out. In 2018, Trump’s administration began hiking tariffs on aluminum, steel and many other products, launching what became a global trade war with China, the European Union and other countries.

The tariffs did bring in additional revenue. In fiscal 2019, they netted about $71 billion, up about $36 billion from President Barack Obama’s last year in office. But although $36 billion is a lot of money, it’s less than 1/750th of the national debt. That $36 billion could have covered a bit more than three weeks of interest on the national debt — that is, had Trump not unilaterally decided to send a chunk of the tariff revenue to farmers affected by his trade wars. Businesses that struggled as a result of the tariffs also paid fewer taxes, offsetting some of the increased tariff revenue.

By early 2019, the national debt had climbed to $22 trillion. Trump’s budget proposal for 2020 called it a “grave threat to our economic and societal prosperity” and asserted that the U.S. was experiencing a “national debt crisis.” However, that same budget proposal included substantial growth in the national debt.

By the end of 2019, the debt had risen to $23.2 trillion and more federal officials were sounding the alarm. “Not since World War II has the country seen deficits during times of low unemployment that are as large as those that we project — nor, in the past century, has it experienced large deficits for as long as we project,” Phillip Swagel, director of the CBO, said in January 2020.

Weeks later, COVID-19 erupted and made the financial situation far worse. As of Dec. 31, 2020, the national debt had jumped to $27.75 trillion, up 39% from $19.95 trillion when Trump was sworn in. The government ended its 2020 fiscal year with the portion of the national debt owed to investors, the metric favored by the CBO, at around 100% of GDP. The CBO had predicted less than a year earlier that it would take until 2030 to reach that approximate level of debt. Including the trillions owed to various governmental trust funds, the total debt is now about 130% of GDP.

Trump had the third-biggest primary deficit growth, 5.2% of GDP, behind only George W. Bush (11.7%) and Abraham Lincoln (9.4%). Bush, of course, not only passed a big tax cut, as Trump has, but also launched two wars, which greatly inflated the defense budget. Lincoln had to pay for the Civil War. By contrast, Trump’s wars have been almost entirely of the political variety.

Trump challenged Congress to spend — and borrow — even more. Then he went golfing.

But sure, stellar success in economics because of what, tax peanut money not paired by cost of life conditions? like pissing at a house on fire, fire set by the same guy pissing at it BTW.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 11, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Do you know the expression "in everything but name" or "in name only"? The idea originally comes from Shakespeare.


Oh, I’m aware, and I know what it means, I just don’t think you do. “In everything but the name” means a given “thing” has all the qualities of another “thing”, but it’s called something else, usually for some kind of formal reason.


Spoiler: “English Lesson”



To illustrate this I’ll use one of the examples provided by Merriam-Webster.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/in all/everything but name

Let’s say that you have a “married” couple, but they’ve been separated for years. The husband and wife don’t live with each other, they don’t share income or expenses, they don’t love each other or interact in any meaningful way. In this scenario you could say that _”their marriage is over in all but the name”_ even though formally they’re not divorced. They’re technically still married, but they have nothing in common with a married couple _besides the name_. They show all the qualities of a divorced couple, but they’re not divorced. You can push the term a little bit to describe a foregone conclusion. Very simple stuff.


The term is not applicable here because this system has no qualities in common with public healthcare. The providers are private, the insurance companies are private, patients pay out of pocket as opposed to via tax, the only element introduced by the government is the mandate - a requirement to purchase insurance. That doesn’t make it “public in all but the name” and arguing otherwise is silly. You’re not getting the same end result under a different name, what you are getting is universality, which is a completely different discussion. Access is universal, but not because it’s “public” in any way.


> We do, so you'd best be careful with those stones in that glass house of yours.


I don’t really have a response. This debacle is all yours.


> casual racism now as well? Besides, it's all fine and dandy, I'm going to point out your several inaccuracies and lies too.


I don’t think you’ve managed to accurately recognise one idiom or turn of phrase so far. 



Spoiler: “English Lesson”



Let me help - to “spill spaghetti (out of one’s pockets)” is common internet slang that denotes finding yourself in an awkward situation and getting flustered/embarrassed after doing/saying something silly. The term originates from a genre of famous copypastas called “spaghetti stories”.

“Head full of spaghetti” or “spaghetti head” is also widely used, not just on the Internet but in everyday speech. It’s a term used to describe someone who’s oblivious or lacks common sense.


You’re always one search away from not saying something silly, and you always fail to take that one extra step. It’s hardly my fault that you’re unfamiliar with a popular term or phrase. This isn’t some arcane incantation, it’s well-known, and distinctly not “racist” - in fact, it has nothing to do with Italy or Italians. I didn’t say that you’re “spilling spaghetti” because you’re from Italy, I said it because you’re talking nonsense.


> the guy went bust what, 5 times? Assuming he kept 500 ventures each time, that means 495 out of 2500 across 20 years isn't what I'd call a "stellar track record". And before you throw another of your useless platitudes, this is called a hyperbole. Or are you going to deny his several bankruptcies?


What is this weird math? Am I supposed to explain what an LLC is now? No. He didn’t “start 500 businesses 5 times” - is that what you’re calling hyperbole? Because it’s not hyperbole. There are around 500 *different businesses* under The Trump Organisation umbrella, and out of those 500 completely separate entities, 5 went bust. Trump himself was never personally bankrupt, not once - he’s a billionaire. Some of his _businesses_ went bankrupt, but they all have entirely separate books. You don’t take money out of your own pocket and funnel it into an LLC - that’s not how it works. That’s the “limited liability” part of LLC. Tesla’s money doesn’t belong to Elon Musk either, or vice versa.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trump_Organization



> Democratic congress LMAO yeah, *because the Congress introduced the TCJA?* ah no wait, that was Trump!


Yes, Congress introduced the TCJA. Trump endorsed it, and once Congress was done, he signed his name on the dotted line. It’s a good piece of legislation, but if you’re under the impression that he wrote it… well…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Cuts_and_Jobs_Act_of_2017



> In 2020 the debt to GDP ratio was the highest since WW2, was that somehow Biden's fault as well?


The TCJA is not the reason why the national debt inflated to such an extent. I never mentioned Biden, what are you on about? Congress raised the debt ceiling in order to make room for their lengthy wish list - a large portion of it was related to COVID relief. You can see it on the graph below, but we’ll get to that.


> It's so ridiculous that you keep pointing about that ridiculous "tax revenue" strawman, when cost of life became impossible. It's like saying. Not to mention, Trump’s tax cuts, especially the sharp reduction in the corporate tax rate to 21% from 35%, took a big bite out of federal revenue. The CBO estimated in 2018 that the tax cut would increase deficits by about $1.9 trillion over 11 years.
> 
> Meanwhile, Trump’s claim that increased revenue from the tariffs would help eliminate (or at least reduce) our national debt hasn’t panned out. In 2018, Trump’s administration began hiking tariffs on aluminum, steel and many other products, launching what became a global trade war with China, the European Union and other countries.
> 
> ...


Tax revenues hit a record high, and yet the debt increased - that means that *spending* has increased compared to previous years. Congress is *spending* in excess of revenue, that’s how you get debt. Trump didn’t set the budget, he didn’t write spending bills, that wasn’t his job. We had a whole government shutdown over spending, lest we forget. Useful graph from your own source:




I see a certain sharp incline at around 2020. The trajectory was exactly the same, give or take, as in previous years *until* 2020. Did Trump do that? I think not.

In any case, the point is this: if you want to reduce the debt, you must necessarily do one thing - stop overspending. The president is not in charge of that. His only job is to sign whatever Congress comes up with into law. The office of the President *does not have the power of the purse*. Blame Congress. For the record, both sides of the aisle are at fault here as both continue to raise the debt ceiling. Even Trump doesn’t seem to be too bothered by it, which is one of the few things I don’t like about his views on fiscal policy. “You have to spend money to make money” is all well and good, but not when you’re already extremely in debt. Congress needs to learn how to tighten the belt, otherwise no amount of economic growth is going to make up for the deficit. With that being said, I don’t know why you bring up living cost in this context. I could think of a number of things that led to it increasing - tax cuts are not on that list.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 11, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> In any case, the point is this: if you want to reduce the debt, you must necessarily do one thing - stop overspending. The president is not in charge of that. His only job is to sign whatever Congress comes up with into law. The office of the President *does not have the power of the purse*. Blame Congress. For the record, both sides of the aisle are at fault here as both continue to raise the debt ceiling. Even Trump doesn’t seem to be too bothered by it, which is one of the few things I don’t like about his views on fiscal policy. “You have to spend money to make money” is all well and good, but not when you’re already extremely in debt. Congress needs to learn how to tighten the belt, otherwise no amount of economic growth is going to make up for the deficit. With that being said, I don’t know why you bring up living cost in this context. I could think of a number of things that led to it increasing - tax cuts are not on that list.


I bring cost of living in this context because your much touted "increased incomes" were, in fact, a pay cut which you de-contextualised and ignored the big issue: not only these tax cuts are temporary, they also hurt the working class the most:
In its finalized form, however, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act cut the corporate tax rate, benefiting shareholders—who tend to be higher earners. It only cuts individuals' taxes for a limited period of time. It scales back the alternative minimum tax and estate tax, as well as reducing the taxes levied on pass-through income (70% of which goes to the highest-earning 1%). It does not close the carried interest loophole, which benefits professional investors. It scraps the individual mandate, likely driving up premiums and making health insurance unaffordable for millions. These provisions taken together are likely to benefit high earners disproportionately and—particularly as a result of scrapping the individual mandate—hurt some working- and middle-class taxpayers. So, the only reason that the tax revenue was high was because, what your little libertarian lies tried to spin differently, Trump actually RAISED taxes for everyone bar high earners.


Foxi4 said:


> Oh, I’m aware, and I know what it means, I just don’t think you do. “In everything but the name” means a given “thing” has all the qualities of another “thing”, but it’s called something else, usually for some kind of formal reason.
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


And, considering the essential traits of compulsory swiss insurance, it has, as I already said, pretty much every aspect of how taxation-funded healthcare works, starting with the (very affordable) price. So once again, your attempt at being clever has failed spectacularly.


Foxi4 said:


> I don’t really have a response. This debacle is all yours.


If only both of these statements were true, but sadly no, the debacle is yours and you have plenty of ludicrous responses.


Foxi4 said:


> Let me help - to “spill spaghetti (out of one’s pockets)” is common internet slang that denotes finding yourself in an awkward situation and getting flustered/embarrassed after doing/saying something silly. The term originates from a genre of famous copypastas called “spaghetti stories”.


I'm sorry, I don't know your idiotic internet slang expressions - that's an advantage, not a fault, as clearly of us I'm the one who has a real life beyond the Internet. If you think that I'm flustered, you're nuts LOL



Foxi4 said:


> What is this weird math? Am I supposed to explain what an LLC is now? No. He didn’t “start 500 businesses 5 times” - is that what you’re calling hyperbole? Because it’s not hyperbole. There are around 500 *different businesses* under The Trump Organisation umbrella, and out of those 500 completely separate entities, 5 went bust. Trump himself was never personally bankrupt, not once - he’s a billionaire. Some of his _businesses_ went bankrupt, but they all have entirely separate books. You don’t take money out of your own pocket and funnel it into an LLC - that’s not how it works. That’s the “limited liability” part of LLC. Tesla’s money doesn’t belong to Elon Musk either, or vice versa.


See, if I were a condescending and rude has-been like you, now I'd drop a definition of "hyperbole" from any dictionary, and then say something stupid to make you look bad for your (supposed) ignorance, because winning Internet arguments would be the only satisfaction of my life. Luckily for you, you're like, quite low in my priority list, so I'm gonna assume you know exactly what hyperbole means, and that you're just being your ridiculous self for no reason other than the mental satisfaction your petty illusions give you.


Foxi4 said:


> Yes, Congress introduced the TCJA. Trump endorsed it, and once Congress was done, he signed his name on the dotted line. It’s a good piece of legislation, but if you’re under the impression that he wrote it… well…
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Cuts_and_Jobs_Act_of_2017


Nice try but no, the Act was introduced, as "any google search could tell you", by the Republican Party, passed by both the Republican-Dominated Congress and Senate. Unless you're implying Donald Trump wasn't involved at all with you know, a massive legislative project of his own party, in which case this is further evidence he's unfit to rule, because it would show a complete lack of judgement and understanding necessary for a position of responsibility, such as POTUS.
It's also very interesting how, despite your previous claim giving Trump the merit of the (supposed) fiscal successes, somehow now you say that he only signs them. Again, more doublespeak from you, together with your usual double standards.


Foxi4 said:


> I never mentioned Biden


You have been mentioning Biden through the 20+ pages this ridiculous thread is made of, and somehow you think it's his fault if the inflation has happened - despite CLEARLY SAYING BEFORE THAT TRUMP "doesn't control the purse". Again, the usual double standards (and doublethink) of libertarians.


Foxi4 said:


> Tax revenues hit a record high, and yet the debt increased - that means that *spending* has increased compared to previous years. Congress is *spending* in excess of revenue, that’s how you get debt. Trump didn’t set the budget, he didn’t write spending bills, that wasn’t his job. We had a whole government shutdown over spending, lest we forget. Useful graph from your own source:


My graph was really useful indeed. Are you blaming Biden for the pandemic as well? Not you know, the guy who suggested that Ivermectin and Hydroxyquil would work, who stubbornly refused to endorse vaccines just to ensure that his successor would be seen worse off handling the pandemic? Because you know, even if I believed that Trump was the economic genius you think he is (he's not), there is also the fact that he did precisely the above. Is this the sort of moral authority the POTUS can have? I suppose you found highly entertaining people dying because they listened to a colossal orange imbecilic manchild, so you're hoping for an encore?


Foxi4 said:


> I see a certain sharp incline at around 2020. The trajectory was exactly the same, give or take, as in previous years *until* 2020. Did Trump do that? I think not.


First of all, you somehow want us to think that the US President has no influence at all on public spending. That's disingenous and ludicrous even for you.


Foxi4 said:


> In any case, the point is this: if you want to reduce the debt, you must necessarily do one thing - stop overspending. The president is not in charge of that. His only job is to sign whatever Congress comes up with into law. The office of the President *does not have the power of the purse*. Blame Congress. For the record, both sides of the aisle are at fault here as both continue to raise the debt ceiling. Even Trump doesn’t seem to be too bothered by it, which is one of the few things I don’t like about his views on fiscal policy. “You have to spend money to make money” is all well and good, but not when you’re already extremely in debt. Congress needs to learn how to tighten the belt, otherwise no amount of economic growth is going to make up for the deficit. With that being said, I don’t know why you bring up living cost in this context. I could think of a number of things that led to it increasing - tax cuts are not on that list.


The 2020 poverty line for a family of four is $26,200: People with incomes between $10,000 and $30,000 — nearly one-quarter of Americans — are among those scheduled to pay a higher average tax rate in 2021 than in years before the tax “cut” was passed. The C.B.O. and Joint Committee estimated that those with an income of $20,000 to $30,000 would owe an extra $365 next year — these are people who are struggling just to pay rent and put food on the table.

Of course, the poor have never mattered much to the Republican Party or to Libertarians, but those on the edge of poverty have been particularly hard hit by the pandemic and the recession it has caused, so Trump’s planned tax increases seem especially heartless, and impractical, when you consider that their higher tax payments, while a huge burden for them, will add little to the budget. 

By 2027, when the law’s provisions are set to be fully enacted, with the stealth tax increases complete, the country will be neatly divided into two groups: Those making over $100,000 will on average get a tax cut. Those earning under $100,000 — an income bracket encompassing three-quarters of taxpayers — will not.

At the same time, Trump has given his peers, people with annual incomes in excess of $1 million dollars, or the top 0.3 percent in the country, a huge gift: The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated the average tax rate in 2019 for this group to be 2.3 percentage points lower than before the tax cut, saving the average taxpayer in this group over $64,000 — more than the average American family makes in a year.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 11, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I bring cost of living in this context because your much touted "increased incomes" were, in fact, a pay cut which you de-contextualised and ignored the big issue: not only these tax cuts are temporary, they also hurt the working class the most:
> In its finalized form, however, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act cut the corporate tax rate, benefiting shareholders—who tend to be higher earners. It only cuts individuals' taxes for a limited period of time. It scales back the alternative minimum tax and estate tax, as well as reducing the taxes levied on pass-through income (70% of which goes to the highest-earning 1%). It does not close the carried interest loophole, which benefits professional investors. It scraps the individual mandate, likely driving up premiums and making health insurance unaffordable for millions. These provisions taken together are likely to benefit high earners disproportionately and—particularly as a result of scrapping the individual mandate—hurt some working- and middle-class taxpayers. So, the only reason that the tax revenue was high was because, what your little libertarian lies tried to spin differently, Trump actually RAISED taxes for everyone bar high earners.


This is pure fiction, and it was discussed earlier in this thread. The act primarily benefitted lower and middle tax brackets.


> And, considering the essential traits of compulsory swiss insurance, it has, as I already said, pretty much every aspect of how taxation-funded healthcare works, starting with the (very affordable) price. So once again, your attempt at being clever has failed spectacularly.


I don’t even know how to respond to that. Nobody in their right mind would ever claim that Swiss healthcare has “traits of tax-funded healthcare” - it has none of them. It’s objectively private, by any relevant metric. If your argument is that Swiss healthcare is “like public healthcare” because it’s cheap (as you mention above, which is weird considering public healthcare is anything but cheap) and universal (as you probably mean, but seem unable to convey) then your argument is stupid - neither trait is explicitly “public” in nature. In fact, you have it backwards entirely - Swiss healthcare *proves* that those traits are not exclusive to public coverage.


> If only both of these statements were true, but sadly no, the debacle is yours and you have plenty of ludicrous responses.


Like I said, I really don’t care if you take ownership of your boo boo or not. It makes no difference to me, I’m just giving you an out.


> I'm sorry, I don't know your idiotic internet slang expressions - that's an advantage, not a fault, as clearly of us I'm the one who has a real life beyond the Internet. If you think that I'm flustered, you're nuts LOL


Apology accepted.


> See, if I were a condescending and rude has-been like you, now I'd drop a definition of "hyperbole" from any dictionary, and then say something stupid to make you look bad for your (supposed) ignorance, because winning Internet arguments would be the only satisfaction of my life. Luckily for you, you're like, quite low in my priority list, so I'm gonna assume you know exactly what hyperbole means, and that you're just being your ridiculous self for no reason other than the mental satisfaction your petty illusions give you.


This is a very long-winded way of saying that I was correct on all counts and you have no rebuttal. There’s nothing that says I’m low on your priority list quite like writing a dissertation about how little you care.


> Nice try but no, the Act was *introduced, as "any google search could tell you", by the Republican Party, passed by both the Republican-Dominated Congress and Senate*. Unless you're implying Donald Trump wasn't involved at all with you know, a massive legislative project of his own party, in which case this is further evidence he's unfit to rule, because it would show a complete lack of judgement and understanding necessary for a position of responsibility, such as POTUS.
> It's also very interesting how, despite your previous claim giving Trump the merit of the (supposed) fiscal successes, somehow now you say that he only signs them. Again, more doublespeak from you, together with your usual double standards.


…I said that the act was created by Congress, and you come back with “a-ha! You’re wrong! It was actually created by Congress”? Uhm… yes, that’s what I said. I really don’t know if you’re pretending to be clueless or if you really don’t know how legislation works at this point. I give credit to Donald Trump’s administration for successfully implementing the tax cuts - he’s the head of the executive, that’s his job. He didn’t “create the tax cut” because that’s not in his purview.


> You have been mentioning Biden through the 20+ pages this ridiculous thread is made of, and somehow you think it's his fault if the inflation has happened - despite CLEARLY SAYING BEFORE THAT TRUMP "doesn't control the purse". Again, the usual double standards (and doublethink) of libertarians.


I never mentioned Biden in regards to the subject we’re discussing *right now* - the TCJA, signed under the *previous administration*. I mentioned him in regards to *Bidenflation* occurring under the *current administration*, the subject that was discussed previously. For the love of God, try to keep up - these are two separate discussions. As a side note, both of those things can be true - the office of the president does not hold the power of the purse and the administration can make moves that affect inflation.


> My graph was really useful indeed. Are you blaming Biden for the pandemic as well? Not you know, the guy who suggested that Ivermectin and Hydroxyquil would work, who stubbornly refused to endorse vaccines just to ensure that his successor would be seen worse off handling the pandemic? Because you know, even if I believed that Trump was the economic genius you think he is (he's not), there is also the fact that he did precisely the above. Is this the sort of moral authority the POTUS can have? I suppose you found highly entertaining people dying because they listened to a colossal orange imbecilic manchild, so you're hoping for an encore?


I don’t ask sitting presidents for medical advice. Regarding COVID response, Trump’s number one priority was shutting down the borders (for which he was called racist, even though it’s a perfectly reasonable move in light of a pandemic erupting in a specific region of the world) and Operation Warp Speed.


> First of all, you somehow want us to think that the US President has no influence at all on public spending. That's disingenous and ludicrous even for you.


The president doesn’t hold the power of the purse - that’s what I said, and that’s true. The budget is compiled and voted upon in Congress, the president signs it.


> The 2020 poverty line for a family of four is $26,200: People with incomes between $10,000 and $30,000 — nearly one-quarter of Americans — are among those scheduled to pay a higher average tax rate in 2021 than in years before the tax “cut” was passed. The C.B.O. and Joint Committee estimated that those with an income of $20,000 to $30,000 would owe an extra $365 next year — these are people who are struggling just to pay rent and put food on the table.


Not terribly surprising given the sheer amount of spending on the table right now. This was built into the system from the start as means of easing before 2025 when the act expires (for the most part) - we knew all of this the day it was signed. Moreover, there are moves made to make the cuts permanent, we’ll see where that goes - so far the Senate didn’t act upon it. You’re posting this comparison without context - the same families that will be paying $300-odd more in income tax are saving in a variety of other ways, and have saved orders of magnitude more in previous years. You’re uninformed, plus you’re quoting the NY Times without attribution and completely verbatim, as if you wrote this. I thought I politely nudged you with the graph, but you didn’t pick up on it. In case it isn’t obvious, I can instantly recognise which parts of your posts are written by you and which ones are not - it’s very easy to tell. Are you plagiarising articles intentionally, or are you just forgetting to add sources/signify that those are quotes? No matter, my sources are below.

https://taxfoundation.org/no-stealth-tax-increases-in-2021-republican-biden-taxes/

https://thehill.com/opinion/finance...enefited-middle-working-class-americans-most/

The GOP’s number one priority in future races should be to make the cuts permanent - they couldn’t achieve that goal at the time due to rules concerning budget, but they absolutely can going forward. The cuts will only expire if Congress fails to act upon it.

https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/go...k-hispanic-wage-growth-employment-11643834495



> Of course, the poor have never mattered much to the Republican Party or to Libertarians, but those on the edge of poverty have been particularly hard hit by the pandemic and the recession it has caused, so Trump’s planned tax increases seem especially heartless, and impractical, when you consider that their higher tax payments, while a huge burden for them, will add little to the budget.


”The poor” have benefitted from the cut first and foremost - their deductions have nearly doubled.


> By 2027, when the law’s provisions are set to be fully enacted, with the stealth tax increases complete, the country will be neatly divided into two groups: Those making over $100,000 will on average get a tax cut. Those earning under $100,000 — an income bracket encompassing three-quarters of taxpayers — will not.


Again, there’s more to the act than just the income brackets.


> At the same time, Trump has given his peers, people with annual incomes in excess of $1 million dollars, or the top 0.3 percent in the country, a huge gift: The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated the average tax rate in 2019 for this group to be 2.3 percentage points lower than before the tax cut, saving the average taxpayer in this group over $64,000 — more than the average American family makes in a year.


Good. What are you expecting me to say, that I don’t want people to hold on to their money? I’m against the income tax even existing - it’s a penalty on productivity.

I’ll cut you some slack now, unless there’s something you want to add. I don’t think the two of us can have a productive discussion - it’s fairly obvious that you don’t know how the U.S. government works, and it’s not my responsibility to educate you. We can’t keep having this back and forth where you say something stupid, I correct you and you come back to double down, or even repeat what I just told you as a “rebuttal”. We can get back to this when you figure out how legislation is passed in the U.S., and which branch is responsible for what.


----------



## sley (Apr 11, 2022)

No, he did some good stuff with North Korea etc. but made a fool of himself too many times.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 12, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> This is pure fiction, and it was discussed earlier in this thread. The act primarily benefitted lower and middle tax brackets.


Nah, this is you lying once more.



Foxi4 said:


> I don’t even know how to respond to that. Nobody in their right mind would ever claim that Swiss healthcare has “traits of tax-funded healthcare” - it has none of them. It’s objectively private, by any relevant metric. If your argument is that Swiss healthcare is “like public healthcare” because it’s cheap (as you mention above, which is weird considering public healthcare is anything but cheap) and universal (as you probably mean, but seem unable to convey) then your argument is stupid - neither trait is explicitly “public” in nature. In fact, you have it backwards entirely - Swiss healthcare *proves* that those traits are not exclusive to public coverage.


Again, being deliberately dense and misleading with all your stupid waffle.



Foxi4 said:


> This is a very long-winded way of saying that I was correct on all counts and you have no rebuttal. There’s nothing that says I’m low on your priority list quite like writing a dissertation about how little you care


That's nice, you think a small paragraph isn a dissertation!
No, that's a long way of saying exactly what I said: that you are a condescending little liar who is incapable of discussing in good faith.


Foxi4 said:


> …I said that the act was created by Congress, and you come back with “a-ha! You’re wrong! It was actually created by Congress”? Uhm… yes, that’s what I said. I really don’t know if you’re pretending to be clueless or if you really don’t know how legislation works at this point. I give credit to Donald Trump’s administration for successfully implementing the tax cuts - he’s the head of the executive, that’s his job. He didn’t “create the tax cut” because that’s not in his


More mirror climbing: now it's the "administration" when until now you said it was Trump's merit by himself. You're laughable.



Foxi4 said:


> You’re posting this comparison without context


Oh, the irony of you saying this.



Foxi4 said:


> You’re uninformed, and quoting the NY Times without attribution and completely verbatim, as if you wrote this. I thought I politely nudged you with the graph enough, but in case it isn’t obvious, I can instantly recognise which parts of your posts are written by you and which ones are not. Are you plagiarising articles intentionally, or are you just forgetting to add sources/signify that those are quotes?


I literally just schooled you and you had to write a "dissertartation" of waffle 
I'm not plagiarising anything: someone else made the argument and I'm just using it, since you claim to respect sources (only to ignore those that do not agree with you, despite being more authoritative), therefore saving me precious time from engaging with someone who talks the talk rather than walking it.



Foxi4 said:


> The poor” have benefitted from the cut first and foremost - their deductions have nearly doubled.


More nonsense, as clearly their conditions haven't improved at all. 



Foxi4 said:


> people to hold on to their money? I’m against the income tax even existing - it’s a penalty on productivit


And of course, you're one of the fathers of fiscal thinking, clearly you know exactly what you are saying - not. Not a surprise libertarians can't run a piss-up in a brewery.



Foxi4 said:


> I’ll cut you some slack now, unless there’s something you want to add. I don’t think the two of us can have a productive discussion - it’s fairly obvious that you don’t know how the U.S. government works, and it’s not my responsibility to educate you. We can’t keep having this back and forth where you say something stupid, I correct you and you come back to double down, or even repeat what I just told you as a “rebuttal”. We can get back to this when you figure out how legislation is passed in the U.S., and which branch is responsible for what


Yes, it's really difficult to have a productive discussion when you're a condescending liar who keeps engaging in bad faith, throwing words of all kinds around (veiled or otherwise), then hiding behind paper-thin justifications, despite the fact that I have at least tried to engage constructively. Hilarious that a functionally illiterate individual like yourself thinks he can educate anybody on anything. Not to mention, the nonsense of your dead cat hasn't abated yet, imagine how much you have to amuse yourself to keep doing that.



sley said:


> No, he did some good stuff with North Korea etc. but made a fool of himself too many times.


The moment he left NK the dictator reneged on every promise, so, like what?


----------



## Stone_Wings (Apr 12, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> your feelings are immaterial to me



That is probably THE biggest lie you've told. You and a few others around here should honestly be shit canned of your position on the site. You're quite pathetic from everything I've read. What kind of site mod posts the shit you do and gets involved in other forum members pissing contests on a consistent basis? Sad.


----------



## lokomelo (Apr 12, 2022)

Stone_Wings said:


> That is probably THE biggest lie you've told. You and a few others around here should honestly be shit canned of your position on the site. You're quite pathetic from everything I've read. What kind of site mod posts the shit you do and gets involved in other forum members pissing contests on a consistent basis? Sad.


I had not realized that the guy is a mod before your reply here. It's odd indeed because he bullied the guy for not understanding English, a problem witch many here face (me included). Those kind of small bullies or whatever is called are common, even acceptable if not too frequent, but if the guy is a mod, it is not the same I think.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 12, 2022)

Stone_Wings said:


> That is probably THE biggest lie you've told. You and a few others around here should honestly be shit canned of your position on the site. You're quite pathetic from everything I've read. What kind of site mod posts the shit you do and gets involved in other forum members pissing contests on a consistent basis? Sad.


An active mod. I wasn’t aware that I was not allowed to participate in discussions solely because I hold a staff position. I’ll be sure to add your complaint to the list. You may have to grab a ticket and stand in line, but don’t let that discourage you.


lokomelo said:


> I had not realized that the guy is a mod before your reply here. It's odd indeed because he bullied the guy for not understanding English, a problem witch many here face (me included). Those kind of small bullies or whatever is called are common, even acceptable if not too frequent, but if the guy is a mod, it is not the same I think.


I didn’t “bully him” - he didn’t understand what I was saying and vice versa, so I explained certain terms to him. Not that it helped, but that’s hardly my fault. I don’t know about you, but when I don’t know something, I don’t assume that the first idea that comes to my head is correct - I check what a given term or phrase actually means, or I ask clarifying questions. It’s very effective. Besides, the problem isn’t that he “didn’t understand English”, rather that his train of thought is illogical. His grasp of language is perfectly adequate. I’m not in the habit of showing courtesy to people who are disrespectful from the start.

Now that I’ve taken the usual complaints under consideration, surely we can get back to Trump? The thread was finally reeled back on topic, and I’d like to keep it that way.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Apr 12, 2022)

Based giga Chad Trump will put 'murrica back on course after Dementia Joe has ruined it!

USA! USA! USA! USA!


#MAGA2024


----------



## Dr_Faustus (Apr 12, 2022)

You know one of the things that confuses the hell out of me is that he was Impeached twice yet can still run for office again. I figured the whole point of impeachment is to discourage or even prevent that from happening after they are out of office. Compared to the impeachments of the past however, this seems to have absolutely done nothing to or against him much. Is it just no longer an act of consequence anymore?


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 12, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Nah, this is you lying once more.


See source below with accurate figures from the IRS.


> Again, being deliberately dense and misleading with all your stupid waffle.


This is not an argument. The system is classed as universal private coverage. It doesn’t have “traits of tax-funded healthcare” as you claimed. We can’t proceed unless one of two things happen - you accurately describe what specific traits you mean or you acknowledge that the system is private, but you find it beneficial for specific reasons. You named cost so far - we can agree that cost is a good reason, but it’s not intrinsically related to tax-funded coverage. You also mentioned the mandate, which isn’t unusual - I provided car insurance as a rebuttal, which is also mandatory and can hardly be considered public in any sense. If you want me to respond, you need to tell me what you actually mean. “It has traits of public care” means nothing - what traits? In my estimation it has none.


> That's nice, you think a small paragraph isn a dissertation! No, that's a long way of saying exactly what I said: that you are a condescending little liar who is incapable of discussing in good faith.


You’re the only person saying things that aren’t true without backing them up.


> More mirror climbing: now it's the "administration" when until now you said it was Trump's merit by himself. You're laughable.


I can see why you’d be confused by this statement if you don’t know U.S. government structures. Congress and the administration are not one and the same. The president is the head of the executive - what the administration does is directly attributed to him as the head of the branch, yes.


> I literally just schooled you and you had to write a "dissertartation" of waffle
> I'm not plagiarising anything: someone else made the argument and I'm just using it, since you claim to respect sources (only to ignore those that do not agree with you, despite being more authoritative), therefore saving me precious time from engaging with someone who talks the talk rather than walking it.


It’s literally plagiarism - you’re using somebody else’s words verbatim without attribution. I’m not interested in what NY journos think - I’m interested in what you think, along with facts and figures. IRS records tell me all I need to know about the effects of the cut - there’s a myriad of other reasons that affected living costs. I certainly don’t feel “schooled” because there’s no “stealthy tax hike” going on - the expiration date was there from the start, and had to be there - there are rules that govern this (if that’s what you’re referring to). TCJA was enacted under reconciliation and had to comply with budget process requirements, so some of the provisions sunset after a fixed period - it is what it is, and can be remedied if needed.


> More nonsense, as clearly their conditions haven't improved at all.


Based on what metric?


> And of course, you're one of the fathers of fiscal thinking, clearly you know exactly what you are saying - not. Not a surprise libertarians can't run a piss-up in a brewery.


We’re discussing fiscal policy. Fiscal thinking is a prerequisite.


> Yes, it's really difficult to have a productive discussion when you're a condescending liar who keeps engaging in bad faith, throwing words of all kinds around (veiled or otherwise), then hiding behind paper-thin justifications, despite the fact that I have at least tried to engage constructively. Hilarious that a functionally illiterate individual like yourself thinks he can educate anybody on anything. Not to mention, the nonsense of your dead cat hasn't abated yet, imagine how much you have to amuse yourself to keep doing that.


Nothing you said was constructive. So far you haven’t tried to find common ground once - you’re just repeatedly accusing me of things, and you refuse to acknowledge any error on your part, of which there were many. The reason why we can’t have a discussion is because you refuse to engage in one - you speak from a soapbox and get aggressive when questioned. Instead of supporting your opinion in any way, you just attack people’s character (“you think that because you’re an X”, “you argue in bad faith”, “this is double speak” and other assorted Scrabble words/non-arguments) - that’s no way to have a discussion. This has been the case each time - you post something that you think is true, but is in fact incorrect, and any critique of those statements is automatically considered to be an attack. You dig your heels in instead of learning. You could ask clarifying questions, but instead of doing that you thrash and throw tantrums. What am I supposed to say? That it’s Congress that creates legislation, not the president? That the administration and Congress are two separate bodies, one executive and one legislative? That the Swiss system is classed as universal private healthcare and it shares no features with public healthcare? I’ve done that - you responded with doubling down and aggression. If we’re not moving forward then why have a discussion at all? It’s a waste of our time. I’m not interested in this kind of exchange, so unless you have something relevant and factual to add, we can end it here and now, until you familiarise yourself with how the U.S. government actually works, what the branches are and what they’re responsible for. We literally cannot have an exchange about it otherwise. If you want to try and have a civil discussion instead then I can indulge you also, but you’ll have to be civil in return. I can do that, provided you can too.


Dr_Faustus said:


> You know one of the things that confuses the hell out of me is that he was Impeached twice yet can still run for office again. I figured the whole point of impeachment is to discourage or even prevent that from happening after they are out of office. Compared to the impeachments of the past however, this seems to have absolutely done nothing to or against him much. Is it just no longer an act of consequence anymore?


Trump was acquitted, twice.


----------



## Stone_Wings (Apr 12, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> An active mod. I wasn’t aware that I was not allowed to participate in discussions solely because I hold a staff position. I’ll be sure to add your complaint to the list. You may have to grab a ticket and stand in line, but don’t let that discourage you.
> 
> I didn’t “bully him” - he didn’t understand what I was saying and vice versa, so I explained certain terms to him. Not that it helped, but that’s hardly my fault. I don’t know about you, but when I don’t know something, I don’t assume that the first idea that comes to my head is correct - I check what a given term or phrase actually means, or I ask clarifying questions. It’s very effective. Besides, the problem isn’t that he “didn’t understand English”, rather that his train of thought is illogical. His grasp of language is perfectly adequate. I’m not in the habit of showing courtesy to people who are disrespectful from the start.
> 
> Now that I’ve taken the usual complaints under consideration, surely we can get back to Trump? The thread was finally reeled back on topic, and I’d like to keep it that way.



Are you serious? The point that is obviosuly beyond your comprehension isn't the fact that you take part in conversations and you know it. Stop pretending with this "Who??? Me!?!?!!?!" bullshit of a line. it's the fact that you're a moderator and you start shit on a regular basis. You belittle people on a regular basis. Rather than controlling situations and ending toxic arguments, you add to them on a regular basis. Your title should come with a higher level of respect towards others and a higher level of moderating. I'm sure there are many here that would love to have your position on the site, and would do a hell of a better job at it without being a loud mouthed, belittling, jerk off taking part in member feuds every possible chance. You're not only a liar, you're a complete fraud and shit at your job.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 12, 2022)

Stone_Wings said:


> Are you serious? The point that is obviosuly beyond your comprehension isn't the fact that you take part in conversations and you know it. Stop pretending with this "Who??? Me!?!?!!?!" bullshit of a line. it's the fact that you're a moderator and you start shit on a regular basis. You belittle people on a regular basis. Rather than controlling situations and ending toxic arguments, you add to them on a regular basis. Your title should come with a higher level of respect towards others and a higher level of moderating. I'm sure there are many here that would love to have your position on the site, and would do a hell of a better job at it without being a loud mouthed, belittling, jerk off taking part in member feuds every possible chance. You're not only a liar, you're a complete fraud and shit at your job.


You forgot to add handsome. Listen, if you want to file a complaint, or you have issues with my abrasive personality, this is the wrong venue to air grievances. Please don’t derail the thread with personal squabbles. You’re more than welcome to contact any Supervisor if you think my conduct here is inappropriate, and I encourage you to do so if you truly feel this way. I’m certainly not going to stop you from doing so - what I am going to stop is any derailments off the realm of politics. Brief diversions into the realms of the economy or healthcare are perfectly acceptable since they’re relevant to a given candidate’s political platform, this is entirely unrelated. You know who to contact if you have concerns.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Apr 12, 2022)

Dr_Faustus said:


> You know one of the things that confuses the hell out of me is that he was Impeached twice yet can still run for office again. I figured the whole point of impeachment is to discourage or even prevent that from happening after they are out of office. Compared to the impeachments of the past however, this seems to have absolutely done nothing to or against him much. Is it just no longer an act of consequence anymore?



When both impeachments were compete farces who cares?


----------



## Stone_Wings (Apr 12, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> When both impeachments were compete farces who cares?



So you're flat out denying any abuse of power or obstruction of justice on behalf of Trump? LMFAO! Smfh.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Apr 12, 2022)

Stone_Wings said:


> So you're flat out denying any abuse of power or obstruction of justice on behalf of Trump? LMFAO! Smfh.


What did he do exactly?

Inquired about Hunter Bidens dodgey dealings with Ukraine gas companies?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 13, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> You forgot to add handsome.


No one forgot to add handsome.


Foxi4 said:


> We’re discussing fiscal policy. Fiscal thinking is a prerequisite.


*Good *fiscal thinking, which you lack.


Foxi4 said:


> Nothing you said was constructive. So far you haven’t tried to find common ground once


This is completely false, and as you said, the scrollers can see it.


Foxi4 said:


> Besides, the problem isn’t that he “didn’t understand English”, rather that his train of thought is illogical. His grasp of language is perfectly adequate. I’m not in the habit of showing courtesy to people who are disrespectful from the start.


By that reasoning, then, I'd have been a condescending little jaded individual to you from the beginning, since you started all this. Again, scrollers can see it. Or did you forget all your ridiculous retorts when I asked for your reason for a second trump term? That's the first thing I asked you, and I asked politely, and you were flippant. So you want to blame someone for being disrespectful from the start, once again, blame yourself, it's your fault.


Foxi4 said:


> you speak from a soapbox and get aggressive when questioned. Instead of supporting your opinion in any way, you just attack people’s character (“you think that because you’re an X”, “you argue in bad faith”, “this is double speak” and other assorted Scrabble words/non-arguments) - that’s no way to have a discussion. This has been the case each time - you post something that you think is true, but is in fact incorrect, and any critique of those statements is automatically considered to be an attack. You dig your heels in instead of learning. You could ask clarifying questions, but instead of doing that you thrash and throw tantrums. What am I supposed to say? That it’s Congress that creates legislation, not the president? That the administration and Congress are two separate bodies, one executive and one legislative? That the Swiss system is classed as universal private healthcare and it shares no features with public healthcare? I’ve done that - you responded with doubling down and aggression. If we’re not moving forward then why have a discussion at all? It’s a waste of our time. I’m not interested in this kind of exchange, so unless you have something relevant and factual to add, we can end it here and now, until you familiarise yourself with how the U.S. government actually works, what the branches are and what they’re responsible for. We literally cannot have an exchange about it otherwise. If you want to try and have a civil discussion instead then I can indulge you also, but you’ll have to be civil in return. I can do that, provided you can too.


More dead cats and lies. I understood perfectly, you threw that nonsense "you don't know what that means" just to stroke your already over-inflated ego, not that libertarians aren't famous for being honest. Most of what you write is a deliberate misdirection and misquote of what I said, but it's my fault for assuming you'd engage in good faith.


Foxi4 said:


> This is not an argument. The system is classed as universal private coverage. It doesn’t have “traits of tax-funded healthcare” as you claimed. We can’t proceed unless one of two things happen - you accurately describe what specific traits you mean or you acknowledge that the system is private, but you find it beneficial for specific reasons. You named cost so far - we can agree that cost is a good reason, but it’s not intrinsically related to tax-funded coverage. You also mentioned the mandate, which isn’t unusual - I provided car insurance as a rebuttal, which is also mandatory and can hardly be considered public in any sense. If you want me to respond, you need to tell me what you actually mean. “It has traits of public care” means nothing - what traits? In my estimation it has none.


Your estimation is, well, yours. Not universal neither true. As you said, I named cost and mandate - and affordable healthcare for everyone is indeed part of what universal, tax-funded healthcare is. Because, in direct contrast with your smugness from before, universal healthcare and tax-based healthcare can be used as synonyms, and I only say this since you took the time, once again, to attempt to be smug drawing a distinction between the two as if I had been wrong - and I wasn't. Just like I wasn't wrong on any other points, you derailed the conversation putting in my virtual mouth words I've never said.


Foxi4 said:


> Trump was acquitted, twice.


By a Republican-controlled senate whose members said they'd acquit even before seeing the evidence. Kangaroo Court, do you know what it means?


Foxi4 said:


> You’re the only person saying things that aren’t true without backing them up.


Nonsense, I've said no untrue things. I've said things you disagree with, which I appreciate you feel makes things untrue, but that's not the case.


Foxi4 said:


> I can see why you’d be confused by this statement if you don’t know U.S. government structures. Congress and the administration are not one and the same. The president is the head of the executive - what the administration does is directly attributed to him as the head of the branch, yes.


I'm not confused, I'm highlighting your inconsistencies and hypocrisies.


Foxi4 said:


> It’s literally plagiarism - you’re using somebody else’s words verbatim without attribution. I’m not interested in what NY journos think - I’m interested in what you think, along with facts and figures. IRS records tell me all I need to know about the effects of the cut - there’s a myriad of other reasons that affected living costs. I certainly don’t feel “schooled” because there’s no “stealthy tax hike” going on - the expiration date was there from the start, and had to be there - there are rules that govern this (if that’s what you’re referring to). TCJA was enacted under reconciliation and had to comply with budget process requirements, so some of the provisions sunset after a fixed period - it is what it is, and can be remedied if needed.


Yeah, I don't doubt you wouldn't feel schooled, that's what you've been braying from the start. 


Foxi4 said:


> I’m not interested in what NY journos think - I’m interested in what you think, along with facts and figures.


This is a barefaced lie - what you're only interested is people agreeing with you.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 13, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> *Good *fiscal thinking, which you lack.


Opinion, not fact.


> This is completely false, and as you said, the scrollers can see it.


You should double-check that.


> By that reasoning, then, I'd have been a condescending little jaded individual to you from the beginning, since you started all this. Again, scrollers can see it. Or did you forget all your ridiculous retorts when I asked for your reason for a second trump term? That's the first thing I asked you, and I asked politely, and you were flippant. So you want to blame someone for being disrespectful from the start, once again, blame yourself, it's your fault.


I said that I’m under no obligation to share, but if I must, tax cuts are a primary reason. You’re the one who called me Faragista because you imagined I’m one.


> More dead cats and lies. I understood perfectly, you threw that nonsense "you don't know what that means" just to stroke your already over-inflated ego, not that libertarians aren't famous for being honest. Most of what you write is a deliberate misdirection and misquote of what I said, but it's my fault for assuming you'd engage in good faith.


That’s the only reasonable explanation one can reach when reading your posts. I am being generous, and explaining things along the way, in hopes that you’ll gather something from it.


> Your estimation is, well, yours. Not universal neither true. As you said, I named cost and mandate - and affordable healthcare for everyone is indeed part of what universal, tax-funded healthcare is. Because, in direct contrast with your smugness from before, universal healthcare and tax-based healthcare can be used as synonyms, and I only say this since you took the time, once again, to attempt to be smug drawing a distinction between the two as if I had been wrong - and I wasn't. Just like I wasn't wrong on any other points, you derailed the conversation putting in my virtual mouth words I've never said.


Right, so you did mean those two factors. Neither of them is intrinsically related to public care. As your link states, public care is public because it’s tax-funded and often (not necessarily) provided by the state, either via a state-ran insurance system or via state-ran hospitals. Swiss care is not tax-funded, not provided by the state and yet affordable and universal. This point was rebutted already, and your link doesn’t prove it - it contradicts it. I don’t understand your train of thought here (not for the lack of trying), but I’ll make an honest attempt - are you trying to say that the fee is akin to a tax because it’s mandatory? Because if that’s the case, this is also incorrect - Swiss citizens pay private providers for their insurance, not the government. This is not a tax-based system. Universal and tax-funded are not synonymous, I think I finally found the bone of contention. Universal refers to how broad the coverage is - universal systems cover all citizens, non-universal systems don’t. Tax-based refers to the funding mechanism - you’re paying the government, and the government in turn pays the provider. Those are two separate factors. Again, the Swiss system is universal, meaning it covers every person in Switzerland who lives there for an extended period of time, but it is not public.


> The healthcare in Switzerland is universal and is regulated by the Swiss Federal Law on Health Insurance. There are *no free state-provided health services*, but *private health insurance is compulsory* for all persons residing in Switzerland (within three months of taking up residence or being born in the country).
> 
> The insured person *pays the insurance premium for the basic plan*. If a premium is *too high compared to the person's income*, the government gives the insured person *a cash subsidy* to help pay for the premium.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland


Surely you can see why I’m confused, no? I bolded the relevant parts for you - the providers are private, and patients pay their premiums out of pocket. The *only* public element of the entire system, which would’ve been a good point to bring up (so I’ll bring it up, why not) is the cash subsidy for low income earners who wouldn’t be able to purchase insurance otherwise. I’m in support of that, but that doesn’t really make the system public - it’s welfare. Claiming that the system is “public in everything but the name” is just untrue, it doesn’t work like that, so I can’t agree with you.


> By a Republican-controlled senate whose members said they'd acquit even before seeing the evidence. Kangaroo Court, do you know what it means?


Oh, it was definitely a Kangaroo court, but for the exact opposite reason - the House moved to impeach in both cases without concrete evidence of wrong-doing, which they’re entitled to do - that’s why the Senate has the power to overturn such an impeachment. Even Mueller himself failed to make any connections to Trump or his campaign, and anyone can verify that because the report is public. As for the second trial, Trump’s statements were public and widely publicised, so anyone can make a judgement call on whether he “called for violence” or not. It appears that the majority of the Senate thinks he didn’t.


> Nonsense, I've said no untrue things. I've said things you disagree with, which I appreciate you feel makes things untrue, but that's not the case.


I mean, I can list them (with quotations), but is that productive? I already mentioned some in what you’re responding to.


> I'm not confused, I'm highlighting your inconsistencies and hypocrisies.


Nothing I said was inconsistent.


> Yeah, I don't doubt you wouldn't feel schooled, that's what you've been braying from the start.


I can’t be surprised by known facts.


> This is a barefaced lie - what you're only interested is people agreeing with you.


I’m interested in opinions from the other side, but those opinions have to be grounded in reality. If you make a factual error, I have to point that out because otherwise the rest of the conversation makes no sense.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 13, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Opinion, not fact.


Like pretty much everything else you said.


Foxi4 said:


> You should double-check that.


I did.


Foxi4 said:


> I said that I’m under no obligation to share, but if I must, tax cuts are a primary reason. You’re the one who called me Faragista because you imagined I’m one.


Nice try, I'm talking way before that, when the illusion that you were in good faith still existed. I called you Faragista because you speak and talk like one, you know, with all your nonsense about "no one deserves or needs special protection".


Foxi4 said:


> That’s the only reasonable explanation one can reach when reading your posts. I am being generous, and explaining things along the way, in hopes that you’ll gather something from it.


Again, more projection like most of your rightwing ilk.


Foxi4 said:


> ight, so you did mean those two factors. Neither of them is intrinsically related to public care.


They are, however, the essential traits of public healthcare. And you weren't confused, you were being your usual hostile condescending self.


Foxi4 said:


> Oh, it was definitely a Kangaroo court, but for the exact opposite reason - the House moved to impeach in both cases without concrete evidence of wrong-doing, which they’re entitled to do - that’s why the Senate has the power to overturn such an impeachment. Even Mueller himself failed to make any connections to Trump or his campaign, and anyone can verify that because the report is public. As for the second trial, Trump’s statements were public and widely publicised, so anyone can make a judgement call on whether he “called for violence” or not. It appears that the majority of the Senate thinks he didn’t.


He made plenty of connections to the campaign, which means that either Trump is a criminal genius who could cover his tracks, which means he's unfit to be president, or that he's a moron who could be completely sidelined by his own people, which means he is unfit to be president. The fact that he pardoned those convicted doesn't erase the conviction.


Foxi4 said:


> I’m interested in opinions from the other side, but those opinions have to be grounded in reality. If you make a factual error, I have to point that out because otherwise the rest of the conversation makes no sense.


That's your problem, you think that your opinions are facts. They're not.


----------



## urherenow (Apr 13, 2022)

@Dark_Ansem

As a scroller, I see you getting flustered and throwing names at him in most of your replies. And I see a bunch of falsehoods that you spam on repeat, as if saying it again makes your point of view true. I can do simple math. I am middle class, and my taxes went down. Period. Idiots who can't add and subtract scream about their low tax returns, because they don't consider the lower tax amount that was taken from every check. Pay less in, get less back. In the end, I was DEFINITELY paying less. @Foxi4 even posted sources to help you understand. But what... you don't accept them because they don't agree with the world view instilled in you by the liberal media? Prove the source wrong then. Oh, wait... you CAN'T prove it wrong to me, because I have unadulterated raw data. MY. OWN. TAX. RETURNS. I was an enlisted servicemember that whole time, so my income didn't even come close to the 6 digit mark, even including all of my non-taxable benefits at the time.

And don't look now, but many doctors DID use Ivermectin and it seemed to help a lot of people. Of course, you're probably hanging on to the plethora of articles thrown around about taking horse de-wormer because it reinforced your desire for Trump to be an idiot. Sure just ignore the fact that it is a HUMAN drug, made for humans, and 2 doctors were given a Nobel prize for their work... WITH HUMAN parasites. Turns out that in much higher doses, it works great on horses too. But that isn't the same formula that gets prescribed to humans. And any reputable article you can find that specifies that it is not recommended for COVID treatment, clarifies that statement with "Clinical trials assessing ivermectin tablets for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in people are ongoing." <- as stated by the fda HERE. And yes, there are legitimate studies like THIS one.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 13, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Nice try, I'm talking way before that, when the illusion that you were in good faith still existed. I called you Faragista because you speak and talk like one, you know, with all your nonsense about "no one deserves or needs special protection".


Nobody deserves any special treatment, that’s correct. Everyone should be treated equally.


> Again, more projection like most of your rightwing ilk.


I gave specific examples of factual errors.


> They are, however, the essential traits of public healthcare. And you weren't confused, you were being your usual hostile condescending self.


They’re not “specific traits of public care”. Everything has a cost, and the government mandates a lot of things. I think I explained this explicitly above - follow the links for more information.


> He made plenty of connections to the campaign, which means that either Trump is a criminal genius who could cover his tracks, which means he's unfit to be president, or that he's a moron who could be completely sidelined by his own people, which means he is unfit to be president. The fact that he pardoned those convicted doesn't erase the conviction.


He wasn’t “pardoned”, he was never found guilty of the charges in the first place. I’ll let Mueller speak for Mueller.


> “Ultimately, *the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government* in its election-interference activities."
> 
> Mueller Report, Part 1, page 173





> (…) the Office's investigation uncovered evidence of numerous links (i.e., contacts) between Trump Campaign officials and individuals having or claiming to have ties to the Russian government. The Office *evaluated the contacts under several sets of federal laws, including conspiracy laws and statutes governing foreign agents who operate in the United States*. After considering the available evidence, the Office *did not pursue charges under these statutes against any of the individuals discussed* in Section IV above (…)
> 
> Mueller Report, Part 1, page 180


Mueller investigated whatever contacts existed between the campaign and Russia, and upon evaluation decided that they could not charge Trump with anything. The *only* people who were indicted were charged for things unrelated to collusion with Russia, or straight-up non-nationals list below:

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/po.../2/20/17031772/mueller-indictments-grand-jury

How many of those were part of Trump’s campaign at the time? Zero. Some former associates, to be sure, but former is the key word here. Of course Trump was acquitted - there was no sufficient evidence for a charge. He wasn’t “found guilty and pardoned”, he was never found guilty, period.


> That's your problem, you think that your opinions are facts. They're not.


Look, the U.S. government works in a very specific way. When you tell me something along the lines of “tax reform wasn’t Congress, it was all Trump!”, as if Trump woke up one day, wrote an entire tax bill and enacted it with a Tweet, I’m going to call that untrue because it is untrue. That’s just one example out of many where you’ve said something that was factually incorrect. We’re having a discussion, I’m obligated to correct you in those instances, otherwise we’re operating on make-believe rules.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 13, 2022)

urherenow said:


> As a scroller, I see you getting flustered and throwing names at him in most of your replies.


Well, you obviously see wrong, as I didn't get flustered and my "throwing names" only comes after being thrown names and insults at. But somehow, you missed that, your eyes seem to be selectively accurate.


urherenow said:


> Period. Idiots who can't add and subtract scream about their low tax returns, because they don't consider the lower tax amount that was taken from every check. Pay less in, get less back. In the end, I was DEFINITELY paying less. @Foxi4 even posted sources to help you understand. But what... you don't accept them because they don't agree with the world view instilled in you by the liberal media? Prove the source wrong then. Oh, wait... you CAN'T prove it wrong to me, because I have unadulterated raw data. MY. OWN. TAX. RETURNS. I was an enlisted servicemember that whole time, so my income didn't even come close to the 6 digit mark, even including all of my non-taxable benefits at the time.


Oh, I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that your experience spoke for the entirety of America. I'll make sure to ask what you think from now on. Because if it went well for you, it must have been just as well for everyone else, isn't it.
Also, the fact that you say "liberal media" tells me enough about you and how you're gonna spin things. Not to mention, you're probably quite looking forward, as the worldview instilled in you by your rightwing media says, that Trump is a genius who can never do wrong. So, sorry, I'm gonna take what you say with a grain of salt, but I applaud you for the COI declaration.


urherenow said:


> And don't look now, but many doctors DID use Ivermectin and it seemed to help a lot of people. Of course, you're probably hanging on to the plethora of articles thrown around about taking horse de-wormer because it reinforced your desire for Trump to be an idiot. Sure just ignore the fact that it is a HUMAN drug, made for humans, and 2 doctors were given a Nobel prize for their work... WITH HUMAN parasites. Turns out that in much higher doses, it works great on horses too. But that isn't the same formula that gets prescribed to humans. And any reputable article you can find that specifies that it is not recommended for COVID treatment, clarifies that statement with "Clinical trials assessing ivermectin tablets for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in people are ongoing." <- as stated by the fda HERE. And yes, there are legitimate studies like THIS one.


I wasn't even talking about Ivermectin, I was talking about Hydroxyquil or however it's written. And there is plenty of idiots who got the horse dosage since, rightly so, pharmacies prohibited the human dosage sale.
It's amazing how somehow taking THAT without any trial whatsoever was considered fair but you people made fierce oppositions to vaccines.
Bottom line: his political opposition to vaccines and recommendation for a de-wormer which incidentally also has some anti-inflammatory properties, to me, are nothing short than manslaughter offences. You disagree, because all you care is to "own the libs". The fact that, 2 years later, some correlation (not yet causation) has been found doesn't justify nor acquit him of responsibility. And I include all the BS Fox News and others who recommended the same behaviour and who made political opposition to vaccinations.


Foxi4 said:


> He wasn’t “pardoned”, he was never found guilty of the charges in the first place. I’ll let Mueller speak for Mueller.


I said HE pardoned, not that he was pardoned.


Foxi4 said:


> Look, the U.S. government works in a very specific way. When you tell me something along the lines of “tax reform wasn’t Congress, it was all Trump!”, as if Trump woke up one day, wrote an entire tax bill and enacted it with a Tweet, I’m going to call that untrue because it is untrue. That’s just one example out of many where you’ve said something that was factually incorrect. We’re having a discussion, I’m obligated to correct you in those instances, otherwise we’re operating on make-believe rules.


Again, more dead cats. I don't contest that and frankly, never did. I was just pointing out your inconsistency, and misdirection, about your double standards.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 13, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I said HE pardoned, not that he was pardoned.


Whoops, that’s my bad. I misread your post. You are correct, in a sense - the investigation was supposedly about collusion with Russia, and that never materialised. As far as the law is concerned, Trump was never charged with a crime and he was never found guilty - he was effectively chastised by Congress on the basis of insufficient evidence. If the evidence isn’t there to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the appropriate thing to do is to acquit, which is what the Senate has done both times. Trump pardoning some of the indicted (many of whom were charged with “gotcha” charges) doesn’t change that.


> Again, more dead cats. I don't contest that and frankly, never did. I was just pointing out your inconsistency, and misdirection, about your double standards.


It seems to me that you were, but I’m willing to let bygones be bygones.

As a side note, you keep mentioning that Trump is opposed to vaccination. He certainly used to be in the past, but he promoted vaccination on national television, on his rallies and even at CPAC. I’ll let him speak.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 13, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> It seems to me that you were, but I’m willing to let bygones be bygones.


yes, probably for the best.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 13, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> yes, probably for the best.


I added a video of Trump promoting the vaccine in an edit above, should you wish to take a look.


----------



## urherenow (Apr 13, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Well, you obviously see wrong, as I didn't get flustered and my "throwing names" only comes after being thrown names and insults at. But somehow, you missed that, your eyes seem to be selectively accurate.
> 
> Oh, I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that your experience spoke for the entirety of America. I'll make sure to ask what you think from now on. Because if it went well for you, it must have been just as well for everyone else, isn't it.
> Also, the fact that you say "liberal media" tells me enough about you and how you're gonna spin things. Not to mention, you're probably quite looking forward, as the worldview instilled in you by your rightwing media says, that Trump is a genius who can never do wrong. So, sorry, I'm gonna take what you say with a grain of salt, but I applaud you for the COI declaration.
> ...


Dude.. HE was the reason we got the vaccines so fast. Biden had absolutely ZERO to do with it. I don't understand where you get your bullshit from.

And you're goddamn right my experience is the same as everyone in the middle class. I don't follow different tax rules than anybody else. What the hell are you smoking?

EDIT: Here... you'll probably either not read it, or immediately dismiss it as a lie because of the source. No matter how verifiable it is: https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.go...ns-safe-effective-vaccine-delivering-results/


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 13, 2022)

urherenow said:


> Dude.. HE was the reason we got the vaccines so fast. Biden had absolutely ZERO to do with it. I don't understand where you get your bullshit from.


Duh, Biden wasn't president in 2020.
And even the vaccine scientists said that it wasn't because of Trump, but rather, despite him, that the vaccine actually happened the way it did.


urherenow said:


> And you're goddamn right my experience is the same as everyone in the middle class. I don't follow different tax rules than anybody else. What the hell are you smoking?


Completely missing the point, ah well, not surprised.


urherenow said:


> EDIT: Here... you'll probably either not read it, or immediately dismiss it as a lie because of the source. No matter how verifiable it is: https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.go...ns-safe-effective-vaccine-delivering-results/


He also refused to do proper testing and said plenty of falsehoods in 2020 alone, let alone later. And refused to endorse vaccinations, as I said, on a political basis. This man has no moral authority to be POTUS, notwithstanding the imaginary triumphs you think he has.


----------



## urherenow (Apr 13, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> He also refused to do proper testing and said plenty of falsehoods in 2020 alone, let alone later.


How is this an argument for your statement that suggests Trump was against the vaccine(s)? It's not. It's the exact opposite. Trump made it happen and got it into the arms of people faster than ever in history. Prove that wrong with facts. I love how you consistently try to accomplish the same shit you've been accusing Foxi4 of...

lol... vaccine scientists said... WHICH exactly? Who? When? where? You're full of it in every single reply you have made in this thread so far. You are simply not worth my time. Good day.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 13, 2022)

urherenow said:


> lol... vaccine scientists said... WHICH exactly? Who? When? where? You're full of it in every single reply you have made in this thread so far. You are simply not worth my time. Good day.


Since your time is worth nothing... 


urherenow said:


> lol... vaccine scientists said... WHICH exactly? Who? When? where?


Head of Moderna enough? They were already in trials when "warp speed" happened. After all, the first vaccine was developed in Germany, not America, wasn't it?
More fact checking. Ah, but of course it's liberal media.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 13, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Duh, Biden wasn't president in 2020.
> And even the vaccine scientists said that it wasn't because of Trump, but rather, despite him, that the vaccine actually happened the way it did.


Moderna and Astra-Zeneca took direct funding via Operation Warp Speed to fund their research. It doesn’t matter when they “started”, they participated in the program. Pfizer did not take funding directly, but their statement that research wasn’t aided by the program is untrue - CNN fact checked their claims. I quote:


> The real story is more nuanced than both Pence's tweet and Jansen's comment made it sound. Pfizer's vaccine progress is certainly not solely attributable to the Trump administration's Operation Warp Speed public-private partnership program. But it was not accurate for Pfizer to suggest that it is operating entirely apart from Operation Warp Speed; the company has a major agreement to sell at least 100 million doses of its vaccine to the federal government, and Pfizer acknowledged in a Monday statement to CNN that it is in fact "participating" in Operation Warp Speed through this deal. Also, at least some independent experts say the Trump administration deserves partial credit for Pfizer's progress.
> 
> https://edition.cnn.com/factsfirst/politics/factcheck_565aa63a-4c46-4eea-9586-093253d1bdf3


Pfizer had to recant Jansen’s comment - they absolutely were participating in the initiative.

More details here, along with a list of companies aided by the program:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Warp_Speed


> He also refused to do proper testing and said plenty of falsehoods in 2020 alone, let alone later.


Let’s go point by point.

1. The more testing you do the more positive cases you report. Even the article you posted specifies that testing has ramped up, and was initially slow due to low supply.
2. Trump had a “hunch” that it’s 1%, and the article says that, at the time, the best estimate scientists came up with was 1%. Trump was guilty of having a good hunch.
3. This one’s factually correct - we don’t shut down the economy over seasonal flu. Providing context is good, but the statement itself wasn’t false.
4. They did come up with a vaccine, at a record pace.
5. The U.S. did take aggressive action, including travel restrictions, organised effort to fund vaccine research and quarantine efforts. It’s hard to quantify whether these measures were more or less aggressive - they were less restrictive, but that’s not the only metric available. The sheer amount of funding that went towards mitigating the pandemic was unprecedented - that’s pretty aggressive.


----------



## urherenow (Apr 13, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Since your time is worth nothing...
> 
> Head of Moderna enough? They were already in trials when "warp speed" happened. After all, the first vaccine was developed in Germany, not America, wasn't it?
> More fact checking. Ah, but of course it's liberal media.


lol... of course it's spun that way because it's liberal media, and you can't even see it. He never said he created it. He pushed for it. Operation Warp Speed far outdates your little article. The fact that it was pushed through the process as fast as it was, WAS all Trump. THAT is what he wants, and deserves, credit for. Not the creation of it.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/07/tru...fda-like-him-vaccine-coming-very-shortly.html

EDIT: and looks like Foxi4 already one-upped my Google-Fu with a CNN source that further shows how wrong your article was. CNN freaking hated Trump too!


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 13, 2022)

urherenow said:


> lol... of course it's spun that way because it's liberal media, and you can't even see it. He never said he created it. He pushed for it. Operation Warp Speed far outdates your little article. The fact that it was pushed through the process as fast as it was, WAS all Trump. THAT is what he wants, and deserves, credit for. Not the creation of it.
> 
> https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/07/tru...fda-like-him-vaccine-coming-very-shortly.html


Yeah, I'm sorry, the word of Trump cultists isn't to be taken literally, let alone the words of Trump himself. All of europe delivered vaccines faster than America, so what, they took Warp Speed money too? LMAO


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 13, 2022)

urherenow said:


> EDIT: and looks like Foxi4 already one-upped my Google-Fu with a CNN source that further shows how wrong your article was. CNN freaking hated Trump too!


Coz they were busy busting his bubble of lies.


Foxi4 said:


> et’s go point by point.
> 
> 1. The more testing you do the more positive cases you report. Even the article you posted specifies that testing has ramped up, and was initially slow due to low supply.
> 2. Trump had a “hunch” that it’s 1%, and the article says that, at the time, the best estimate scientists came up with was 1%. Trump was guilty of having a good hunch.
> ...


OK, so now you know more than the BBC, which I despise? Is there no limit to your arrogance?


Foxi4 said:


> Moderna and Astra-Zeneca took direct funding via Operation Warp Speed to fund their research. It doesn’t matter when they “started”, they participated in the program.


It does, because they were already underway. Or are you claiming that participating at a later date in something means that you can claim ownership of discovery? also, Jansen had to recant but Mina didn't.


> Not everyone agrees. Dr. Michael Mina, assistant professor of epidemiology at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, said he would "put the role of the US government low on the list" of what has helped Pfizer get to this positive preliminary result.
> "Pfizer is a large enough company that in this case it was not the promise of purchase that enabled this early result and rapid acceleration of a vaccine. The global demand is such that with or without any sort of agreement to purchase vaccines, Pfizer would have very likely had the same path," Mina said in an email.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 13, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> OK, so now you know more than the BBC, which I despise? Is there no limit to your arrogance?


BBC saved me the trouble by busting some of the claims in their own article, so for the most part I didn’t have to. The rest was proven with time. I know more than the BBC did at the time of writing the article because I have the advantage of time on my side - the article was written before the vaccine roll-out, I’m writing my response at the tail end of the pandemic.


> It does, because they were already underway. Or are you claiming that participating at a later date in something means that you can claim ownership of discovery? also, Jansen had to recant but Mina didn't.


How do you define aid? The government gave those companies money. This money was spent on research. It’s money that the companies in question wouldn’t otherwise have. That accelerated research. I don’t know what you expected Trump to do - put on a lab coat and develop the vaccine himself? They held a contest and awarded cash money to companies with promising prototypes, they relaxed FDA requirements, offered guaranteed contracts and approved emergency use. That, in turn, led to a faster roll-out. This is fact, Trump and his admin get *some* of the credit for the vaccines reaching the market at the pace they did. Of course he didn’t develop them - scientists in the private sector did. At this point you should know that I’m the last person to credit the government with just about anything, but I *can* credit it for removing roadblocks that would’ve otherwise existed - it was fast-tracked. Did we forget that I’m the deregulation guy? I’m the deregulation guy. As for statements by Pfizer, they already told CNN that they participated in the program through government contract - it doesn’t matter what any doctor says about it, they’re not in charge of the books. “Low on the list” (in the case of Pfizer it would be, see above) doesn’t matter - it’s on the list.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Yeah, I'm sorry, the word of Trump cultists isn't to be taken literally, let alone the words of Trump himself. All of europe delivered vaccines faster than America, so what, they took Warp Speed money too? LMAO


The U.S. was the first country to successfully deliver and administer a COVID-19 vaccine. If you mean the rate of the roll-out, there’s supply issues involved. As for taking Warp Speed money, the answer is “yes, kind of” - the U.S. government directly contributed to the creation of these vaccines, the rest of the world benefitted from that by definition. I’m sure other governments also chipped in - it was a global effort.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-55307642


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 13, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> BBC saved me the trouble by busting some of the claims in their own article, so for the most part I didn’t have to. The rest was proven with time. I know more than the BBC did at the time of writing the article because I have the advantage of time on my side - the article was written before the vaccine roll-out, I’m writing my response at the tail end of the pandemic.


Even so, the fact that Trump had a hunch for a specific variant of Covid doesn't make him right - it makes him lucky, in a very extensive context.



Foxi4 said:


> . I don’t know what you expected Trump to do - put on a lab coat and develop the vaccine himself?


HA, you can rest assured I will never expect that.



Foxi4 said:


> The U.S. was the first country to successfully deliver and administer a COVID-19 vaccine.


That's ok, but it was still developed first in Germany wasn't it. And AZ was developed between UK and Belgium with EU money. And I'm certain those people didn't get Warp Speed money.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 13, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Even so, the fact that Trump had a hunch for a specific variant of Covid doesn't make him right - it makes him lucky, in a very extensive context.


His hunch was correct, was it not? Luck or no luck, it was an accurate estimate at the time he said it. Moreover, he explicitly said it was a “hunch” - he didn’t peddle the figure as fact.


> That's ok, but it was still developed first in Germany wasn't it. And AZ was developed between UK and Belgium with EU money. And I'm certain those people didn't get Warp Speed money.


What do you mean by “these people”? The companies in charge of development received funding, via Warp Speed. Of course they received “Warp Speed money”, they participated in the program. They also received funding from the EU, that doesn’t change anything - they got funding from multiple sources, multiple parties contributed. The question was whether the U.S. government aided them in development when it was under Trump, and we’ve established that it did - we can split hairs to what extent until the cows go home, this is a yes or no question, and the answer is yes.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 13, 2022)

N


Foxi4 said:


> His hunch was correct, was it not? Luck or no luck, it was an accurate estimate at the time he said it. Moreover, he explicitly said it was a “hunch” - he didn’t peddle the figure as fact.


Except that it wasn't, as Delta hadn't arrived yet. 


Foxi4 said:


> What do you mean by “these people”? The companies in charge of development received funding, via Warp Speed. Of course they received “Warp Speed money”, they participated in the program. They also received funding from the EU, that doesn’t change anything - they got funding from multiple sources, multiple parties contributed. The question was whether the U.S. government aided them in development when it was under Trump, and we’ve established that it did - we can split hairs to what extent until the cows go home, this is a yes or no question, and the answer is yes.


The researchers that actually made the vaccines (the 2 turkish-germans in germany, and the team in UK-Belgium) got no funding from Warp Speed.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 13, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Except that it wasn't, as Delta hadn't arrived yet.


That’s what I said. I’m typing in April 2022, the BBC wasn’t.


> The researchers that actually made the vaccines (the 2 turkish-germans in germany, and the team in UK-Belgium) got no funding from Warp Speed.


The Oxford team you’re referring to was working in association with AstraZeneca, the German team works under BioNTech, if I recall correctly, which in turn has been in partnership with Pfizer since November 9th 2020. Both groups participated in Warp Speed, it’s all in the Wikipedia article I linked.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 13, 2022)

Hey now, no using r-words. I’m literally right here. Heated debate is fine, but don’t call each other slurs.

_*Post yeet-i delete-i*_


----------



## Stone_Wings (Apr 13, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Hey now, no using r-words. I’m literally right here. Heated debate is fine, but don’t call each other slurs.
> 
> _*Post yeet-i delete-i*_



You flame PLENTY yet your posts remain. Funny how that works, isn't it? Just because your choice of a single word used is different, doesn't make your flaming any better. Your signature says everything about your personality, attitude, and moderating decisions. I'd report you like you said to do, but we all know the only reason you're so willing to say that is because you know absolutely ZERO action will be taken against you. That said, I have nothing more to say about you personally that I haven't already stated. Back on topic, although I won't be a part of it any longer. Have fun.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 13, 2022)

Stone_Wings said:


> *Complaining*


Rules are rules. You’re getting off with no warning, I don’t see the issue.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 13, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> The Oxford team you’re referring to was working in association with AstraZeneca, the German team works under BioNTech, if I recall correctly, which in turn has been in partnership with Pfizer since November 9th 2020. Both groups participated in Warp Speed, it’s all in the Wikipedia article I linked.


I think a bigger deal would have been made if either group of researchers received trump funds, as I distinctly remember no one thanking Warp Speed when Pfizer and AZ were developed.

What did I miss with the deletion?


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 13, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I think a bigger deal would have been made if either group of researchers received trump funds, as I distinctly remember no one thanking Warp Speed when Pfizer and AZ were developed.
> 
> What did I miss with the deletion?


Nothing major, let’s call it poor choice of words.

In any case, every big pharma company has labs and researchers working for it. The government works out deals with the parent entity, and the parent entity in turn delegates as needed. Warp Speed had a very specific purpose - look at available promising vaccine candidates, pick the ones that show most promise/are already at an advanced stage of development, fund those companies with prototypes and open some doors for them in order to make the certification process take months as opposed to years. This objective was achieved, and the companies involved are delivering on their contracts, so there’s *some* credit to give. We can disagree on how much, but to say that the roll-out wasn’t accelerated by the program at all is disingenuous. The U.S. provided $18 billion in funding, and it went beyond just vaccines. Even in a scenario where the vaccines were 100% complete, you still need to manufacture billions of doses - that takes a tremendous effort and necessitates infrastructure capable of such large scale production - that costs money.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 14, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Nothing major, let’s call it poor choice of words.
> 
> In any case, every big pharma company has labs and researchers working for it. The government works out deals with the parent entity, and the parent entity in turn delegates as needed. Warp Speed had a very specific purpose - look at available promising vaccine candidates, pick the ones that show most promise/are already at an advanced stage of development, fund those companies with prototypes and open some doors for them in order to make the certification process take months as opposed to years. This was objective was achieved, and the companies involved are delivering on their contracts, so there’s *some* credit to give. We can disagree on how much, but to say that the roll-out wasn’t accelerated by the program at all is disingenuous. The U.S. provided $18 billion in funding, and it went beyond just vaccines. Even in a scenario where the vaccines were 100% complete, you still need to manufacture billions of doses - that takes a tremendous effort and necessitates infrastructure capable of such large scale production - that costs money.


All right, fair enough.


----------



## urherenow (Apr 14, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Coz they were busy busting his bubble of lies.




You live in THEIR bubble of lies.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 14, 2022)

urherenow said:


> You live in THEIR bubble of lies.
> 
> View attachment 306141


LOL get over yourself, he didn't get 2 bn from the Saudi (who were complicit with 9/11 thanks to their funding of Osama for years + their citizens were some of the terrorists) while being in office by pure nepotism, nor he is a traitor planning to overturn the election, so yeah, I'd take Hunter Biden over Trump Jr literally anytime.


----------



## HelloShitty (Apr 14, 2022)

Norris said:


> THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN JOE BIDEN IS A REPTILE


He's brain dead and working with Kamala's grey material which is not much better!


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 14, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> LOL get over yourself, he didn't get 2 bn from the Saudi (who were complicit with 9/11 thanks to their funding of Osama for years + their citizens were some of the terrorists) while being in office by pure nepotism, nor he is a traitor planning to overturn the election, so yeah, I'd take Hunter Biden over Trump Jr literally anytime.


Do you have any opinion on Biden’s admin agreeing to re-supply Saudi Arabia with PATRIOT missiles, made by Raytheon? Follow-up question, are you bothered by the fact that Biden’s Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin is on the Raytheon Board of Directors?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 14, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Do you have any opinion on Biden’s admin agreeing to re-supply Saudi Arabia with PATRIOT missiles, made by Raytheon?


Absolutely, I keep hoping the Saudi dictators will blow their own face one day.


Foxi4 said:


> Follow-up question, are you bothered by the fact that Biden’s Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin is on the Raytheon Board of Directors?


I'm always bothered by COIs, but even so, there are two major differences. No nepotism and no conspiracy to subvert democracy so yeah, comparing apples and oranges here. They are fruit, but that's it.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 14, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Absolutely, I keep hoping the Saudi dictators will blow their own face one day.
> 
> I'm always bothered by COIs, but even so, there are two major differences. No nepotism and no conspiracy to subvert democracy so yeah, comparing apples and oranges here. They are fruit, but that's it.


No nepotism? As far as I’m concerned, he’s lining his buddy’s pockets with money from government contracts (American tax money, I might add) and foreign states, but who am I to judge? As for subverting democracy, I’ll believe it when I see evidence of it.


----------



## sailr (Apr 14, 2022)

Of course, our comrades become the president of the United States faster than other ways to bring down the United States*(joke)*


----------



## Glyptofane (Apr 14, 2022)

Stone_Wings said:


> Ummm. No one is stating Trump did not get in fairly. They are stating that he only won from the electoral colllege, not because he was voted in by the majority of people. Which are facts. Wtf is wrong with you?


"Ummm", so I guess the first impeachment trial never happened then? Must have been a fever dream as I could have sworn the corporate media and NPCs were all foaming at the mouth over it. Conveniently short memories and hypocrisy as a virtue as always.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 14, 2022)

Glyptofane said:


> "Ummm", so I guess the first impeachment trial never happened then? Must have been a fever dream as I could have sworn the corporate media and NPCs were all foaming at the mouth over it. Conveniently short memories and hypocrisy as a virtue as always.


Trump's first impeachment was about trying to extort political dirt from a foreign country in exchange for foreign aid, lol.


----------



## lokomelo (Apr 14, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Trump's first impeachment was about trying to extort political dirt from a foreign country in exchange for foreign aid, lol.


Ukraine right? It was a recurring topic on Biden x Trump election, and now it is a recurring topic on Le Pen x Macron election.


----------



## urherenow (Apr 14, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> LOL get over yourself, he didn't get 2 bn from the Saudi (who were complicit with 9/11 thanks to their funding of Osama for years + their citizens were some of the terrorists) while being in office by pure nepotism, nor he is a traitor planning to overturn the election, so yeah, I'd take Hunter Biden over Trump Jr literally anytime.


Again, nothing you have said so far has any basis in fact.



> Jared Kushner secured a $2 billion investment in his private equity firm from Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund just six months after the end of the Trump presidency and despite lender reservations, according to a report.
> 
> Trump’s son-in-law and his former senior adviser, who forged close ties with Mohammed bin Salman, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia while at the White House, secured the deal despite being flagged for its “inexperience” and “public relations risks”, said The New York Times.



Nothing mentions Trump there, and the investment was six months after the end of Trump's presidency? You're deluded. Just like always. Classic TDS.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 15, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> No nepotism? As far as I’m concerned, he’s lining his buddy’s pockets with money from government contracts (American tax money, I might add) and foreign states, but who am I to judge?


Nepotism as in putting friends and family in place, at least that's how I always used the words.


Foxi4 said:


> As for subverting democracy, I’ll believe it when I see evidence of it.


His calls are publicly available where he outlines a "strategy" for it. He is stupid, but got initiative.


urherenow said:


> Again, nothing you have said so far has any basis in fact.


Again, you're wrong, but you're a Trump cultist, so being wrong is your natural state.


lokomelo said:


> Ukraine right? It was a recurring topic on Biden x Trump election, and now it is a recurring topic on Le Pen x Macron election.


Correct. He refused to provide Ukraine with the promised financial help unless they made up shit about Hunter Biden. Again, not the behaviour of a man who is meant to lead, well, anything.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 15, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Nepotism as in putting friends and family in place, at least that's how I always used the words.


Nepotism usually refers to friends and family, that’s correct. Notwithstanding, this is clearly a “one hand washes the other” kind of situation, which is what I was alluding to. The U.S. government and its allies utilise military hardware made by Raytheon - the last person who should be in the seat of the Secretary of Defense is a Raytheon board of directors member. The *correct* thing to do is to liquidate associated assets before taking the position - Lloyd didn’t do that, and as far as I’m concerned, the possibility of profiteering from his position is very real.


> His calls are publicly available where he outlines a "strategy" for it. He is stupid, but got initiative.


I don’t know what kind of “subversion” you mean, so I can’t comment. He wants the race to be fair, and has certain ideas on how to make it so. When the opposite side of the aisle is doing the same thing, we call it “fortifying the election”, so what’s the standard here?


Dark_Ansem said:


> Correct. He refused to provide Ukraine with the promised financial help unless they made up shit about Hunter Biden. Again, not the behaviour of a man who is meant to lead, well, anything.


That’s not entirely true now, is it? Back in 2012 Victor Pshonka, the then-prosecutor-general in Ukraine, was investigating government corruption, including Burisma. The investigation was inherited by Victor Shokin when he became prosecutor-general in 2015. The U.S. government expressed concern that Shokin wasn’t “adequately investigating the matter” and was instead an “obstacle to anti-corruption efforts”. In December of the same year Joe Biden, then Vice President to Barak Obama, met with the President of Ukraine, Peter Poroshenko, and offered an ultimatum - the U.S. was going to withhold loan guarantees from Ukraine unless Shokin was fired. I quote Joe Biden himself: “ 'I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money”. Shokin was of course fired, which presents a conflict of interest since, at the time, Biden’s son Hunter was serving on Burisma’s board. There’s an appearance of impropriety here that Trump wanted to see investigated - that’s what the entire call was about. If we’re on the subject of “withholding money from the Ukrainians”, Biden did it long before Trump, specifically to exert political pressure. He says as much himself, so there’s no point in arguing otherwise. Now, that’s not to say that any impropriety did occur, but it’s certainly a bad look.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 15, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I don’t know what kind of “subversion” you mean, so I can’t comment. He wants the race to be fair, and has certain ideas on how to make it so. When the opposite side of the aisle is doing the same thing, we call it “fortifying the election”, so what’s the standard here?


I'm referring to what he said in 2020 about subverting the election.


Foxi4 said:


> Nepotism usually refers to friends and family, that’s correct. Notwithstanding, this is clearly a “one hand washes the other” kind of situation, which is what I was alluding to. The U.S. government and its allies utilise military hardware made by Raytheon - the last person who should be in the seat of the Secretary of Defense is a Raytheon board of directors member. The *correct* thing to do is to liquidate associated assets before taking the position - Lloyd didn’t do that, and as far as I’m concerned, the possibility of profiteering from his position is very real.


I suppose after having seen the absolutely ridiculous scale of Tory corruption in UK, and some grand larcenies (I'm not necessarily being literal, I'm using an old-fashioned term for hyperbole effect and to lighten the mood) in other countries, my sense of outrage is kinda numb to this one person.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 15, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I'm referring to what he said in 2020 about subverting the election.


I still don’t know what you mean by that.
[wuote]I suppose after having seen the absolutely ridiculous scale of Tory corruption in UK, and some grand larcenies (I'm not necessarily being literal, I'm using an old-fashioned term for hyperbole effect and to lighten the mood) in other countries, my sense of outrage is kinda numb to this one person.
[/QUOTE]One of many suspect picks, but that’s neither here nor there. Not sure what the Tories have to do with anything, is this a jab at me residing in the UK? I don’t vote Tory, nor do I support any political party in the UK. All of the freedom-loving politicians in this country boarded ships and sailed to greener pastures sometime in the 18th century - I don’t vote, and won’t vote until I see a viable platform.

Added some clarification about the Ukraine debacle above, too.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 15, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I still don’t know what you mean by that.


I'm talking about this.


Foxi4 said:


> One of many suspect picks, but that’s neither here nor there. Not sure what the Tories have to do with anything, is this a jab at me residing in the UK? I don’t vote Tory, nor do I support any political party in the UK.


No, it is not a jab at you. Not everyone loves sniping as much as some people in this clusterfuck thread. It's an observation of reality.


Foxi4 said:


> That’s not entirely true now, is it? Back in 2012 Victor Pshonka, the then-prosecutor-general in Ukraine, was investigating government corruption, including Burisma. The investigation was inherited by Victor Shokin when he became prosecutor-general in 2015. The U.S. government expressed concern that Shokin wasn’t “adequately investigating the matter” and was instead an “obstacle to anti-corruption efforts”. In December of the same year Joe Biden, then Vice President to Barak Obama, met with the President of Ukraine, Peter Poroshenko, and offered an ultimatum - the U.S. was going to withhold loan guarantees from Ukraine unless Shokin was fired. I quote Joe Biden himself: “ 'I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money”. Shokin was of course fired, which presents a conflict of interest since, at the time, Biden’s son Hunter was serving on Burisma’s board. There’s an appearance of impropriety here that Trump wanted to see investigated - that’s what the entire call was about. If we’re on the subject of “withholding money from the Ukrainians”, Biden did it long before Trump, specifically to exert political pressure. He says as much himself, so there’s no point in arguing otherwise. Now, that’s not to say that any impropriety did occur, but it’s certainly a bad look.


Different matter than simply getting another country busy smearing someone with falsities to derail an election, however, isn't it? Not really good what happened in 2012 either, but we're on a completely different scale.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 15, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I'm talking about this.


What do I care about what Donald Trump Jr. texts to people? I thought we were talking about Donald Trump? Trump was entitled to challenge the vote if he found it suspect - recounts are not new, neither are audits or lawsuits. Regarding the electors, I’m pretty sure Trump learned about them from a memo he was given, just like Mike Pence did. I’m not surprised the GOP had them at the ready considering they were still hoping they could successfully dispute the results and replace Biden’s electors. The idea that Mike Pence would’ve thrown them out outright was always harebrained, but it isn’t news. The argument was that Pence should not consider electors from states that conducted their elections in a manner contrary to the constitution, as no unconstitutional act of law can be considered valid. It was a stupid argument from the start because such unconstitutionality would have to be proven in court first - uncertainty is not sufficient justification. It was never in Pence’s purview.


> No, it is not a jab at you. Not everyone loves sniping as much as some people in this clusterfuck thread. It's an observation of reality.


Okay.


> Different matter than simply getting another country busy smearing someone with falsities to derail an election, however, isn't it? Not really good what happened in 2012 either, but we're on a completely different scale.


We don’t know what Hunter was up to in Ukraine, and we’ll probably never find out at this point - I personally don’t care. What I do care about is what Joe Biden was up to, because he’s the sitting president. I don’t care about Biden’s kid, I don’t care about Trump’s kid, those people are immaterial to the discussion.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 15, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> What do I care about what Donald Trump Jr. texts to people? I thought we were talking about Donald Trump? Trump was entitled to challenge the vote if he found it suspect - recounts are not new, neither are audits or lawsuits. Regarding the electors, I’m pretty sure Trump learned about them from a memo he was given, just like Mike Pence did. I’m not surprised the GOP had them at the ready considering they were still hoping they could successfully dispute the results and replace Biden’s electors. The idea that Mike Pence would’ve thrown them out outright was always harebrained, but it isn’t news. The argument was that Pence should not consider electors from states that conducted their elections in a manner contrary to the constitution, as no unconstitutional act of law can be considered valid. It was a stupid argument from the start because such unconstitutionality would have to be proven in court first - uncertainty is not sufficient justification. It was never in Pence’s purview.


No, we were talking about Trump Jr by that point.


Foxi4 said:


> We don’t know what Hunter was up to in Ukraine, and we’ll probably never find out at this point - I personally don’t care. What I do care about is what Joe Biden was up to, because he’s the sitting president. I don’t care about Biden’s kid, I don’t care about Trump’s kid, those people are immaterial to the discussion.


And yet they are not, as Trump flooded the white house with his family and friends. Therefore, when they became public servants, they stopped being immaterial.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 15, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> No, we were talking about Trump Jr by that point.


When did we switch? We talked about the Ukraine phone call, you said Trump’s “got initiative” and he tried to “subvert democracy” and I inquired how. Did we switch then? You meant Junior all along? If so, that explains it. In any case, I don’t care about a crack addict’s business in Ukraine, I care about whether Joe Biden has dodgy dealings.


> And yet they are not, as Trump flooded the white house with his family and friends. Therefore, when they became public servants, they stopped being immaterial.


Didn’t like that either, they weren’t qualified IMO, but in his unique position of “world vs. Trump” I can see how finding trustworthy allies was difficult.


----------



## Glyptofane (Apr 15, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Trump's first impeachment was about trying to extort political dirt from a foreign country in exchange for foreign aid, lol.


Yes, it followed a formal House inquiry into Trump soliciting foreign interference with the upcoming 2020 election in his favor. It was also meant to discredit Trump's claim that Ukraine interfered with the 2016 election instead of their established and discredited nonsense claim that it was Russia on Trump's behalf. It really all came about from the idea that there was foreign interference that helped him get elected the first time and that he was planning it again for his reelection.

Anyway, I don't even really care about Vaxy Don anymore. You're closer to a supporter than I am at this point since you both share the obsession of promoting deadly vaccines.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 15, 2022)

Glyptofane said:


> Yes, it followed a formal House inquiry into Trump soliciting foreign interference with the upcoming 2020 election in his favor. It was also meant to discredit Trump's claim that Ukraine interfered with the 2016 election instead of their established and discredited nonsense claim that it was Russia on Trump's behalf. It really all came about from the idea that there was foreign interference that helped him get elected the first time and that he was planning it again for his reelection.
> 
> Anyway, I don't even really care about Vaxy Don anymore. You're closer to a supporter than I am at this point since you both share the obsession of promoting deadly vaccines.


The 2016 election had nothing to do with either impeachment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_impeachment_of_Donald_Trump
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_impeachment_of_Donald_Trump

I know it's hard to keep all the facts straight. He was the only disgraced president to get impeached twice.


----------



## Glyptofane (Apr 15, 2022)

Lacius said:


> The 2016 election had nothing to do with either impeachment.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_impeachment_of_Donald_Trump
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_impeachment_of_Donald_Trump
> 
> I know it's hard to keep all the facts straight. He was the only disgraced president to get impeached twice.


From your source:


> The inquiry reported that Trump withheld military aid[a] and an invitation to the White House to Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy in order to influence Ukraine to announce an investigation into Trump's political opponent Joe Biden and to promote a discredited conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, was behind interference in the 2016 presidential election.



The manufactured impeachments are largely meaningless. The real disgrace is caving to the COVID coup, continuing to promote vaccines and Israel, and condemning and then refusing to do anything to help his own supporters after the 1/6 Capitol protest.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 15, 2022)

Glyptofane said:


> From your source:


The impeachment had nothing to do with the 2016 election. It was only about Trump's actions in 2020, and nothing more. The only thing the 2016 election had to do with anything is Trump himself trying to relitigate it as part of his 2020 extortion campaign, lol. Thanks for the reminder.



Glyptofane said:


> The manufactured impeachments are largely meaningless. The real disgrace is caving to the COVID coup, continuing to promote vaccines and Israel, and condemning and then refusing to do anything to help his own supporters after the 1/6 Capitol protest.


You should learn what whataboutism is.


----------



## Glyptofane (Apr 15, 2022)

Lacius said:


> The impeachment had nothing to do with the 2016 election. It was only about Trump's actions in 2020, and nothing more. The only thing the 2016 election had to do with anything is Trump himself trying to relitigate it as part of his 2020 extortion campaign, lol. Thanks for the reminder.
> 
> 
> You should learn what whataboutism is.


I don't know what to tell you. It's mentioned in the inquiry 20 times which itself is the basis for the trial, so we're really just circling back around to my original statement about short (and selective) memories and I'm done with it. We'll simply have to agree that Trump's a piece of shit and move on.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 15, 2022)

Glyptofane said:


> I don't know what to tell you. It's mentioned in the inquiry 20 times which itself is the basis for the trial, so we're really just circling back around to my original statement about short (and selective) memories and I'm done with it. We'll simply have to agree that Trump's a piece of shit and move on.


I don't know what to tell you. Trump was not impeached for anything he or anybody else did did in 2016, ever. If you want to talk about people with false memories, let alone short and selective memories, you should probably look in a mirror.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Apr 15, 2022)

DO liberal leaning folks unironically think Biden isnt mentally impaired?

Dudes straight senile.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 16, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> DO liberal leaning folks unironically think Biden isnt mentally impaired?
> 
> Dudes straight senile.


Like him or not, I haven't seen any evidence that President Biden is senile.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Apr 16, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Like him or not, I haven't seen any evidence that President Biden is senile.


You must be joking.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 16, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> You must be joking.


There is no more evidence that Biden is senile than there was for Trump being senile.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Apr 16, 2022)

Lacius said:


> There is no more evidence that Biden is senile than there was for Trump being senile.


Talk about delusional. The guy can barely string a sentence together most of the time.

Trump was high energy and engaging. Biden rambles incoherently and just acts completely bizarre. His team of handlers literally scream when he gets asked a unscripted unplanned question at a press conference.

Grandpas meds wear off and he's left bumbling and stumbling around.

It's honestly pretty sad you're so biased you would pretend he isn't mentally impaired. If it was any other world leader you would likely admit to it.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 16, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> The guy can barely string a sentence together most of the time.



President Biden strings plenty of sentences together just fine.
Biden notably has had a stutter since childhood. I wonder what Trump's excuse is.



Purple_Shyguy said:


> Biden rambles incoherently and just acts completely bizarre.


If you were to say one of the last few presidents did this, I would respond, "Oh, you mean Trump?" Like him or not, Trump's incoherence and bizarreness might have been the most memeable in the history of US presidents.



Purple_Shyguy said:


> His team of handlers literally scream when he gets asked a unscripted unplanned question at a press conference.


I'm unaware of this kind of behavior occuring with Biden. In reality, I see a president who actually takes questions from the press, while Trump notably ended all press briefings and press conferences long before the end of his term. No other president was more anti-press conference, lol. In addition, Trump notably refused to debate Biden late in the 2020 election.



Purple_Shyguy said:


> Grandpas meds wear off and he's left bumbling and stumbling around.


This is all just baseless conjecture. This reminds me though of the fact that Biden promptly released thorough medical records, while Trump's thorough medical records and cognitive state were for a long time limited to public conjecture during the period he refused to release them.



Purple_Shyguy said:


> It's honestly pretty sad you're so biased you would pretend he isn't mentally impaired. If it was any other world leader you would likely admit to it.


It's honestly pretty sad you're so biased you would pretend the current president is mentally impaired while ignoring everything that suggested the last guy was mentally impaired. If anybody behaved like the last guy, you would likely admit to it.

To be clear, my argument is not "Trump is mentally impaired" or "Trump is senile." I don't accept either one of them is senile. My argument is you're laughably inconsistent, and your loose standards for evidence of senility means you have to conclude Trump is senile long before making the same conclusion about Biden.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Apr 16, 2022)

Lacius said:


> President Biden strings plenty of sentences together just fine.
> Biden notably has had a stutter since childhood. I wonder what Trump's excuse is.
> 
> If you were to say one of the last few presidents did this, I would respond, "Oh, you mean Trump?" Like him or not, Trump's incoherence and bizarreness might have been the most memeable in the history of US presidents.
> ...


Are you a parody account? You cannot be real.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 16, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Are you a parody account? You cannot be real.


Be sure to tag me or respond to my post directly if/when you decide to post a response that's actually substantive.

Refuting my points is hard, if not impossible, so I don't blame you for the cop out.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Apr 16, 2022)

Basically one of the things this thread is becoming.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Apr 16, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Be sure to tag me or respond to my post directly if/when you decide to post a response that's actually substantive.
> 
> Refuting my points is hard, if not impossible, so I don't blame you for the cop out.


How can I refute sheer delusional comments like "Biden is the picture of mental clarity, bro! He's NEVER struggled with his speech or ever had bizarre mannerisms, dude!"


----------



## Lacius (Apr 16, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> How can I refute sheer delusional comments like "Biden is the picture of mental clarity, bro! He's NEVER struggled with his speech or ever had bizarre mannerisms, dude!"


I never said these things, so that should help you.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Apr 17, 2022)

Biden is old @Purple_Shyguy so he's bound to have some mental fog. It's also apparent with his lack of being unable to answer unscripted questions that there's cooperation between the media and the White House to stick to their agenda together. He does have a slight stutter, which is not exactly normal, but not exactly a sign of a brain tumor. He also swallows a lot because his stomach protrudes up into his esophagus causing bad heart burn. I don't think he's at the level that the right goes on about though. I think he makes his own decisions when it comes to important matters. I however don't know why people on the left thought he'd be a better alternative than Trump. Just look at our economy and prices, the war and the handfuls of other problems going on in the world right now. I know the left won't blame Biden even though they blamed Trump for everything under the sun. We're paying for their ignorance now as all they are is a bunch of dumb sheep. BAHHHH!


----------



## Lacius (Apr 17, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> It's also apparent with his lack of being unable to answer unscripted questions


He answers unscripted questions all the time.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> I however don't know why people on the left thought he'd be a better alternative than Trump


I'm guessing you weren't paying attention during Trump's four years, particularly the last year of his presidency. My life is many times better now than it was in 2020, and I expect most people can say the same thing.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> Just look at our economy


Our economy is far from perfect, but there's currently record employment.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> and prices


There are a lot of factors beyond the control of the president of the United States that go into inflation. Agree with them or not, it would be worse if it weren't for certain Biden administration policies. The war with Ukraine doesn't help.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> the war


I really wish Biden hadn't declared war on Ukraine, too.


----------



## urherenow (Apr 17, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Be sure to tag me or respond to my post directly if/when you decide to post a response that's actually substantive.
> 
> Refuting my points is hard, if not impossible, so I don't blame you for the cop out.


It’s not hard to refute your post about Biden, but all of the easiest video proof to find is housed on media sites that are so far to the right, that even I have trouble swallowing the crap they spew.

Videos of Biden getting lost, trying to find his way off of a stage. Videos of Biden literally throwing his hand out for a hand shake… to thin air… after completing a speech (is the dude seeing things, or simply trying to shake the hand of the person telling him what to say from an earpiece in his right ear? I seriously don’t know…). Videos of him literally saying “I’m not allowed to say…” or “they won’t let me…”. Videos of secret service actually having to tell him which was he’s going… at the White House.

Perhaps retirement age should be MANDATORY retirement for POTUS, and the House and Senate. That would weed out some of the old crows and preclude either Trump or Biden from running again.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 17, 2022)

urherenow said:


> It’s not hard to refute your post about Biden, but all of the easiest video proof to find is housed on media sites that are so far to the right, that even I have trouble swallowing the crap they spew.
> 
> Videos of Biden getting lost, trying to find his way off of a stage. Videos of Biden literally throwing his hand out for a hand shake… to thin air… after completing a speech (is the dude seeing things, or simply trying to shake the hand of the person telling him what to say from an earpiece in his right ear? I seriously don’t know…). Videos of him literally saying “I’m not allowed to say…” or “they won’t let me…”. Videos of secret service actually having to tell him which was he’s going… at the White House.
> 
> Perhaps retirement age should be MANDATORY retirement for POTUS, and the Congress, and the Senate. That would weed out some of the old crows and preclude either Trump or Biden from running again.


I can't claim to have seen every video on the internet, but I've seen plenty of deceptively edited or improperly subtitled videos that don't amount to anything.


----------



## urherenow (Apr 17, 2022)

Lacius said:


> I can't claim to have seen every video on the internet, but I've seen plenty of deceptively edited or improperly subtitled videos that don't amount to anything.


Perhaps. But definitely true on both sides. Like Trump asking a question about somehow using bleach to kill COVID turning into every leftest out there saying that Trump told people to drink bleach.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 17, 2022)

urherenow said:


> Perhaps. But definitely true on both sides. Like Trump asking a question about somehow using bleach to kill COVID turning into every leftest out there saying that Trump told people to drink bleach.


Trump did, in fact, suggest that injecting bleach could be an effective COVID-19 treatment.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Apr 17, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Trump did, in fact, suggest that injecting bleach could be an effective COVID-19 treatment.



No he didn't. Most of what the left claims Trump did or said is in fact simply not true and they blamed him for things that he either had no control over, wasn't involved in or couldn't possibly have done. They blame Trump for everything yet then give Biden a pass. They are sick in the head.

https://www.politifact.com/factchec...mp-didnt-tell-americans-infected-coronavirus/


----------



## Lacius (Apr 17, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> No he didn't. Most of what the left claims Trump did or said is in fact simply not true and they blamed him for things that he either had no control over, wasn't involved in or couldn't possibly have done. They are sick in the head.
> 
> https://www.politifact.com/factchec...mp-didnt-tell-americans-infected-coronavirus/


I didn't say "drink." I say what I mean, and I mean what I say.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Apr 17, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Trump did, in fact, suggest that injecting bleach could be an effective COVID-19 treatment.



You're thick in the head. He's more PROOF. You take things he never said nor implied and imply your own meaning to it. That's not reality.

https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/apr/24/context-what-donald-trump-said-about-disinfectant-/


----------



## Lacius (Apr 17, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> You're thick in the head. He's more PROOF. You take things he never said nor implied and imply your own meaning to it. That's not reality.
> 
> https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/apr/24/context-what-donald-trump-said-about-disinfectant-/





> "And then I see the *disinfectant*, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that,* by injection* inside or almost a cleaning, because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that...."


Trump did, in fact, suggest that injecting bleach could be an effective COVID-19 treatment.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Apr 17, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Trump did, in fact, suggest that injecting bleach could be an effective COVID-19 treatment.



Your quote doesn't mention anything about "bleach". He also didn't tell anyone to inject anything. He said "it'd be interesting to check that" meaning it needs to be checked out as a possibility. Sorry bud, you lose this round.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 17, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Your quote doesn't mention anything about "bleach". He also didn't tell anyone to inject anything.


If your counterargument is he said "disinfectant" instead of "bleach," you're just quibbling.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> He also didn't tell anyone to inject anything.


He did mention injection, actually.

Edit: If you didn't see before, I bolded in the word in Trump's statement.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> He said "it'd be interesting to check that" meaning it needs to be checked out as a possibility.


I do believe I said he said "could be" a treatment for COVID-19. Don't be disingenuous.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> Sorry bud, you lose this round.


With all due respect, while I'm not infallible, I can say with a high level of confidence that I don't think I'm ever going to lose an argument to you.

Trump did, in fact, suggest that injecting bleach could be an effective COVID-19 treatment. If you want to replace "bleach" with "disinfectant," be my guest.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Apr 17, 2022)

Lacius said:


> President Biden strings plenty of sentences together just fine.


If that's true, please explain these?





https://nypost.com/article/worst-joe-biden-gaffes/
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/18272673/joe-biden-hand-shake-gaffe-viral/

Since Biden is such an expert speaker and apparently you can understand him just fine on what he says, can you tell me what are the words he seems to mumble from time to time? Since it's left me and a whole bunch of others stumped to no end. I'd really like to know what the hell he's talking about and since you seem to understand him just fine, why not ask the expert? I'm genuinely curious as to what he's trying to say and convey most of the time, and why he confuses words or certain situations from time to time? Unless he doesn't and it's just something I'm missing here.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 17, 2022)

It's simple really: nobody's ever claimed Biden is the most coherent speaker on Earth, but if there's one person who never fails to make him sound like he has a Master's in English, it's Donald Trump.  IIRC long-form analysis showed that Trump speaks at an even lower grade level than GWB.

Ultimately though the reason why Trump lost the election had nothing to do with how stupid he sounds, and everything to do with how stupid he acted while in office.  The turnover rate in his administration was insanity enough on its own, put even McDonald's and Wal-Mart to shame.


----------



## Aserl (Apr 17, 2022)

my dad is a trump supporter and isnt fond of biden so he would probably like if trump was president again but i dont care about politics and i think they're boring soooooooooooo


----------



## Lacius (Apr 17, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> If that's true, please explain these?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I could post ten times as many videos showing Trump to be unintelligible, and we'd be back to my original point.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 17, 2022)

Aserl said:


> my dad is a trump supporter and isnt fond of biden so he would probably like if trump was president again but i dont care about politics and i think they're boring soooooooooooo


Well as it turns out, the 2020 election decided whether the US would be supporting or opposing attempted genocide in Ukraine.  I sure as shit won't thank god that Biden is in office, but I will thank god that Trump isn't.


----------



## impeeza (Apr 17, 2022)

Every time I read the title of the post, I think this is a good way for us the non-english people to learn about:

Should
Would
Could
May
Can
Auxiliary verbs


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Apr 17, 2022)

Lacius said:


> I could post ten times as many videos showing Trump to be unintelligible, and we'd be back to my original point.


Soooooo you can't explain it? You just chose not to confront any of the facts due to blind worship? It's always the same. Everything you say about us, you always are the ones who do it. You say Trump worship is cult like, what do you call this? Blindly defending Biden and ignoring all his clear faults and mishaps he's done just from the past 2 years alone. Trump isn't perfect, but Biden ain't no saint, and Trump doesn't nearly have as bad of gaffs as Biden, and I'm sure your "sources" are pure bullshit anyway.

This won't get to you though, this place is a safe place for you and others here, but guess what, no matter how many meaningless likes people throw out you on your comments, you and I both know it doesn't mean your right or it means anything. Out there, you're nothing. In here, you think you're somebody. This goes for many other people here as well. And that's the bitter truth.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Apr 17, 2022)

Lets hope, if not, america had a good run!


----------



## lolcatzuru (Apr 17, 2022)

Lacius said:


> I didn't say "drink." I say what I mean, and I mean what I say.



then im assuming you were aware by a weird technicality he was right, just said it wrong?


----------



## subcon959 (Apr 17, 2022)

Regardless of semantics or intent, no President should be thinking out loud in public about the merits of bleach as a treatment. Even if you believe he didn't mean it, he still shouldn't have said it.


----------



## urherenow (Apr 17, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Trump did, in fact, suggest that injecting bleach could be an effective COVID-19 treatment.


WRONG. A BIllion times, WRONG. The script is out there. Read it. He asked a question. But Biden sure as hell lied about it. Just as you are. Instead of watching the entire speech or reading the whole script of this, the relevant part is quoted here:

https://www.statesman.com/story/new...o-drink-bleach-to-kill-coronavirus/113754708/


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Apr 17, 2022)

urherenow said:


> WRONG. A BIllion times, WRONG. The script is out there. Read it. He asked a question. But Biden sure as hell lied about it. Just as you are. Instead of watching the entire speech or reading the whole script of this, the relevant part is quoted here:
> 
> https://www.statesman.com/story/new...o-drink-bleach-to-kill-coronavirus/113754708/


This guy is literally a NPC. There's no point in engaging with him.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 17, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Soooooo you can't explain it? You just chose not to confront any of the facts due to blind worship? It's always the same. Everything you say about us, you always are the ones who do it. You say Trump worship is cult like, what do you call this? Blindly defending Biden and ignoring all his clear faults and mishaps he's done just from the past 2 years alone. Trump isn't perfect, but Biden ain't no saint, and Trump doesn't nearly have as bad of gaffs as Biden, and I'm sure your "sources" are pure bullshit anyway.


You seem to have missed my point and falsely suggested I think Biden is a perfect orator or a perfect president (I don't), so I will lay it all out clearly.

You haven't posted anything that suggests Biden is actually senile. If our bar for what it takes to say Biden is senile has actually been cleared by what you've posted, then we must also conclude Trump is senile in order to be consistent.

I don't accept the claim that either man is senile. Do you accept the claim that they both are?

I may not accept Trump or Biden are senile, but given the number of times you've argued against things I haven't said, and the number of times I've had to repeat myself, I'm starting to think you might be.



BitMasterPlus said:


> This won't get to you though, this place is a safe place for you and others here, but guess what, no matter how many meaningless likes people throw out you on your comments, you and I both know it doesn't mean your right or it means anything.


I'm right because my arguments are logically sound, and you're wrong because your arguments are not.

The number of likes my posts get don't do anything except increase the sexual gratification I get from re-reading my own posts. Now that I know the numbers of likes cause you distress, my sexual gratification is only likely to increase.



BitMasterPlus said:


> Out there, you're nothing. In here, you think you're somebody. This goes for many other people here as well. And that's the bitter truth.


Are you okay?



urherenow said:


> WRONG. A BIllion times, WRONG. The script is out there. Read it. He asked a question. But Biden sure as hell lied about it. Just as you are. Instead of watching the entire speech or reading the whole script of this, the relevant part is quoted here:
> 
> https://www.statesman.com/story/new...o-drink-bleach-to-kill-coronavirus/113754708/


Whether or not he was asked a preceding question, Trump suggested injecting bleach/disinfectant could be an effective COVID-19 treatment. This is a fact. Whether or not other people have mischaracterized his statement as being about ingesting bleach (something that isn't far off from Trump's actual comments) is irrelevant to the point I made.



Purple_Shyguy said:


> This guy is literally a NPC. There's no point in engaging with him.


Does not compute. Please restate your inquiry.


----------



## urherenow (Apr 17, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Whether or not he was asked a preceding question, Trump suggested injecting bleach/disinfectant could be an effective COVID-19 treatment. This is a fact. Whether or not other people have mischaracterized his statement as being about ingesting bleach (something that isn't far off from Trump's actual comments) is irrelevant to the point I made.


No, you're still wrong. He asked a question. Period. You can either be one of the "there's no such thing as a stupid question" people, or you can say it was a stupid question. You CAN'T say he suggested that anybody does it, He didn't. Period. In case the answer in some fantasy land was that it WAS something to be looked into, he also specified the use of doctors. To say otherwise makes you a liar, plain and simple. His own words are right there for you to ponder over. Try taking the entire conversation into context. Or just remain an ignorant liar.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 17, 2022)

urherenow said:


> No, you're still wrong. He asked a question. Period. You can either be one of the "there's no such thing as a stupid question" people, or you can say it was a stupid question. You CAN'T say he suggested that anybody does it, He didn't. Period. To say otherwise makes you a liar, plain and simple. His own words are right there for you to ponder over. Try taking the entire conversation into context. Or just remain an ignorant liar.


I've pasted Trump's direct quote on this page, lol. He suggested the injection of disinfectant could be an effective COVID-19 treatment. Whether or not he phrased it in the form of a question is irrelevant.


----------



## urherenow (Apr 17, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Whether or not he phrased it in the form of a question is irrelevant.


only if you’re illiterate or an idiot.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 17, 2022)

urherenow said:


> only if you’re illiterate or an idiot.


It's incredibly silly to say a person cannot be suggesting the possibility of something if the statement is in the form of a question.

_And then I see the idiotic posts by @urherenow, where they knock us out in one second. And is there a way him ingesting his own urine caused that, or by injection inside or almost a cleaning, because you see it gets in the brain and it does a tremendous number on the brain, so it’d be interesting to check that._

I'm not suggesting you might drink your own urine and that it might be causing your brain to fail, because it was a question. 

In all seriousness, it is more than possible to suggest the possibility of something even if it's in the form of a question. Whether or not it's a question is irrelevant.


----------



## Magnus87 (Apr 17, 2022)

I think this thread should die, not because it is against Trump but because I think that talking about politics for so many pages is already tiring. None of those who are here is going to change their political vision for more arguments, evidence and facts are presented.

Politics is like sports or religion, everyone has their "team" and they are not going to "abandon" it so easily.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 17, 2022)

Magnus87 said:


> I think this thread should die, not because it is against Trump but because I think that talking about politics for so many pages is already tiring. None of those who are here is going to change their political vision for more arguments, evidence and facts are presented.
> 
> Politics is like sports or religion, everyone has their "team" and they are not going to "abandon" it so easily.


I'd abandon just about any belief I have if presented evidence that warrants doing so.


----------



## Magnus87 (Apr 17, 2022)

For more tests and "real" evidence that they present to you, you will always doubt. People cling to what we know, we enjoy when we hear the other think the same as us.

This has nothing to do with "levels of intelligence", politics is something more "passionate", which can generate very strong feelings, which go beyond reason.
The one who always votes for the left will always do so as well as the one who votes for the right will also continue to vote for the right. Those who tip the balance are those in the center, the most hesitant, those who do not "marry" anyone.
Also "defending" a politician is not healthy either, that person will never know you or be interested in knowing who you are, for them you are just a number, an "random citizen". Publicly they "despised" each other but in private they are partners and even friends.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 17, 2022)

Magnus87 said:


> The one who always votes for the left will always do so as well as the one who votes for the right will also continue to vote for the right.


I can't wait to tell my formerly Fox News-watching, formerly-right-wing family members that they're liars when they tell me they vote Democratic now.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 17, 2022)

urherenow said:


> Not wrong, but you’re perfectly capable of copying and pasting from every left-wing news media, and regurgitation of every lie ever told, because you’re brainwashed.
> 
> Trump never said to make shit up, you bumbling idiot. He wanted an investigation done. Too bad that laptop wasn’t brought to light earlier… but then again it still would have been disappeared until after the election anyway.
> 
> So yet again, you are batting 0. You’ve said nothing that isn’t either stupid or a flat-out lie.


LOL embarassing misdirection and lies, so really, you're embarassing yourself.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 17, 2022)

Lacius said:


> I can't wait to tell my formerly Fox News-watching, formerly-right-wing family members that they're liars when they tell me they vote Democratic now.


If that is true, you are a hero


----------



## Lacius (Apr 17, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> If that is true, you are a hero


It's true, but I give Trump more credit than I give myself.


----------



## Aserl (Apr 17, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Well as it turns out, the 2020 election decided whether the US would be supporting or opposing attempted genocide in Ukraine.  I sure as shit won't thank god that Biden is in office, but I will thank god that Trump isn't.


True


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Apr 17, 2022)

Lacius said:


> You haven't posted anything that suggests Biden is actually senile. If our bar for what it takes to say Biden is senile has actually been cleared by what you've posted, then we must also conclude Trump is senile in order to be consistent.


His mental decline is on display for the whole world to view, what more do you want? He take a cognitive test? Oh wait, he refuses to do so, even though Trump took a dozen of them and pass every single one, why won't Biden take one to prove his mental stability as well? "Oh, he doesn't need to because he is of sound mind." Based on what? A cognitive test itself is the basis to prove that and he doesn't want to, nor is anybody hounding him to do so like they did with Trump. So, what's the proof he isn't senile? Because he says so, is that it? What. Is. The. Proof? Because all I see is a whole bunch of nothing to support that he's not senile.


Lacius said:


> I don't accept the claim that either man is senile. Do you accept the claim that they both are?


No, I accept the "claim" (which I already said is on full view of the world on display) that he is senile. Trump took test to prove that he wasn't, Biden has yet to take any. What's your proof?


Lacius said:


> I may not accept Trump or Biden are senile, but given the number of times you've argued against things I haven't said, and the number of times I've had to repeat myself, I'm starting to think you might be.


I think you're just changing your argument midway to save face.


Lacius said:


> I'm right because my arguments are logically sound, and you're wrong because your arguments are not.


Funniest joke I've heard all week. Tell me another, please.


Lacius said:


> The number of likes my posts get don't do anything except increase the sexual gratification I get from re-reading my own posts. Now that I know the numbers of likes cause you distress, my sexual gratification is only likely to increase.


That's sad, sick, and pathetic, but not surprising from the typical twisted mind of a liberal. Anything else you wanna get off your chest? Molested any kids lately after grooming them? Go one, it's a safe space here.


Lacius said:


> Are you okay?


Just fine, thank you for asking.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 17, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> His mental decline is on display for the whole world to view, what more do you want? He take a cognitive test? Oh wait, he refuses to do so, even though Trump took a dozen of them and pass every single one, why won't Biden take one to prove his mental stability as well? "Oh, he doesn't need to because he is of sound mind." Based on what? A cognitive test itself is the basis to prove that and he doesn't want to, nor is anybody hounding him to do so like they did with Trump. So, what's the proof he isn't senile? Because he says so, is that it? What. Is. The. Proof? Because all I see is a whole bunch of nothing to support that he's not senile.
> 
> No, I accept the "claim" (which I already said is on full view of the world on display) that he is senile. Trump took test to prove that he wasn't, Biden has yet to take any. What's your proof?
> 
> ...


Clearly you don't know what a joke looks like.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Apr 18, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Clearly you don't know what a joke looks like.


I keep responding to one of many right now. Still no proof to show because you clearly have none,


----------



## Lacius (Apr 18, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> I keep responding to one of many right now. Still no proof to show because you clearly have none,


Proof of what? I don't recall making any claims recently that require proof.


----------



## Dominator211 (Apr 18, 2022)

I am not going to put my political views out here because I do not think they are relevant. Or should be discussed on a video game-based forum, even though this is the right place to do it. I'm just here to see the utter chaos that ensues from this very simple question.


----------



## Dominator211 (Apr 18, 2022)

Dominator211 said:


> I am not going to put my political views out here because I do not think they are relevant. Or should be discussed on a video game-based forum, even though this is the right place to do it. I'm just here to see the utter chaos that ensues from this very simple question.


Also Another question I have is, How old are you people, like can some of you even vote?


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Apr 18, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Proof of what? I don't recall making any claims recently that require proof.


Proof of Biden being of sound mind.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 18, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Proof of Biden being of sound mind.


As I've said already, I haven't seen any evidence he is senile, and I definitely haven't seen any more evidence that Biden is senile than I've seen that Trump is.

It isn't my job to prove anything. I'm not the one claiming anything.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 18, 2022)

Dominator211 said:


> Also Another question I have is, How old are you people, like can some of you even vote?


The average age of users here is probably higher than you'd expect, but there are still definitely some who are under voting age.


----------



## omgcat (Apr 18, 2022)

smf said:


> There is the problem that young people have no experience either.



i'm sure glad these 70+yo congressional members have great experience in the current field of technology and science!


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Apr 18, 2022)

Lacius said:


> As I've said already, I haven't seen any evidence he is senile, and I definitely haven't seen any more evidence that Biden is senile than I've seen that Trump is.


I made a post that clearly shows he's not of sound mind. Misspeaking, mumbling, saying the wrong things, getting confused, insulting and snapping at people etc. it's clear he's got some kind of mental problem in his advanced age, be it dementia or something else, and I have yet to see evidence that counters that. You claim Trump is senile, but what's the basis for that? He actually took a cognitive test and passed, what about Biden? Nothing as of yet. What's so hard to prove that he isn't senile unless one can't? Even a former white house physician says he should take one. Does his expertise not count toward something?


Lacius said:


> It isn't my job to prove anything. I'm not the one claiming anything.


You claim Trump is senile and Biden isn't even though there are a million examples showing the opposite. That's a claim you have yet to prove. Don't try to weasel out just because you can't back up your shit. It's amazing how you and others demand proof and sources, which when done you deny if it doesn't agree with your views even if it's backed up by facts, then deny to do the same because "I don't have to, I didn't claim anything". If that's the case, when someone demands for sources next time, I don't have to do jack shit for them.


----------



## smf (Apr 18, 2022)

omgcat said:


> i'm sure glad these 70+yo congressional members have great experience in the current field of technology and science!


Can you give an example of how that would be beneficial?


----------



## smf (Apr 18, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> You claim Trump is senile, but what's the basis for that?.


I don't think he is senile, he has always been dumb.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Apr 18, 2022)

smf said:


> I don't think he is senile, he has always been dumb.



"The Young Turks" I'd rather not watch that biased cancer which they named themselves based on a political movement found on genocide on multiple groups, which the founder himself supported at one point, if I'm being honest.


----------



## smf (Apr 18, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> "The Young Turks" I'd rather not watch that biased cancer which they named themselves based on a political movement found on genocide on multiple groups, which the founder himself supported at one point, if I'm being honest.


So it's biased to use videos of Trump saying dumb things to prove he is an idiot?

I can see why Trump supporters have so many problems when they think reality is biased


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Apr 18, 2022)

smf said:


> So it's biased to use videos of Trump saying dumb things to prove he is an idiot?
> 
> I can see why Trump supporters have so many problems when they think reality is biased


Because the video you posted, as I said, are from a biased extremist group who named themselves after a genocidal movement in which even their founder agrees with. If you can discredit something if you think it's made by a group you don't like, like neo nazis or something, why can't I do the same? They've shown how biased they are throughout the years anyway, and how extreme and evil they are.


----------



## smf (Apr 18, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> If you can discredit something if you think it's made by a group you don't like, like neo nazis or something, why can't I do the same?


I wouldn't discredit something *just* because it's made by a group I don't like, that would be a serious error of judgement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

I have no interest in derailing this topic, just so you can avoid criticism of Trump. If you refuse to see the mountains of evidence that he is dumb, then you won't ever see it.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Apr 18, 2022)

smf said:


> I wouldn't discredit something *just* because it's made by a group I don't like, that would be a serious error of judgement.


So I guess if a group was called "The Fourth Reich" or "Let's kill all *insert group of people who are a certain race or religion here*", then we should in turn not discredit them either. Gotcha.


smf said:


> I have no interest in derailing this topic, just so you can avoid criticism of Trump. If you refuse to see the mountains of evidence that he is dumb, then you won't ever see it.


I could say the exact same thing with people and Biden, which there is mountains of surmountable proof of. Most criticism of Trump has either been disproven or the brainwashed BS people have been led to believe and haven't yet let go even though it's been disproven or unfounded in the first place. I know Trump isn't perfect, and I don't agree with every single thing he does or says, but most stuff I do, and most "criticism" against him is just pure rehashed bullshit that's either untrue or twisted by the mainstream media narrative, so forgive me for not "seeing" the clear lies they push.


----------



## smf (Apr 18, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> So I guess if a group was called "The Fourth Reich" or "Let's kill all *insert group of people who are a certain race or religion here*", then we should in turn not discredit them either. Gotcha.


You're saying you would decide that a video of Trump must be false, if it's posted by someone you hate.

Even though the video clips are of verifiable public speeches given by Trump.

But you're saying they aren't true, because purely because of who posted them???



BitMasterPlus said:


> Most criticism of Trump has either been disproven or the brainwashed BS people have been led to believe and haven't yet let go even though it's been disproven or unfounded in the first place.


No, that is not true. By disproven, you've assumed it wasn't true because who said it then again you're making basic mistakes

All that has happened is that enough people are making those same basic mistakes, that he is getting away with it.

What is sad is that you are unable to see it, because it would affect your whole identity. So you are stuck with living outside of reality.

I have no problems with criticizing Biden, he just isn't as crooked or dangerous as Trump and more importantly he was elected president and Trump was not.

tl;dr sort out your self esteem issues and don't link your identity to Trump & you'll be able to have more objective discussdions


----------



## Lacius (Apr 18, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> I made a post that clearly shows he's not of sound mind. Misspeaking, mumbling, saying the wrong things, getting confused, insulting and snapping at people etc. it's clear he's got some kind of mental problem in his advanced age, be it dementia or something else, and I have yet to see evidence that counters that. You claim Trump is senile, but what's the basis for that? He actually took a cognitive test and passed, what about Biden? Nothing as of yet. What's so hard to prove that he isn't senile unless one can't? Even a former white house physician says he should take one. Does his expertise not count toward something?
> 
> You claim Trump is senile and Biden isn't even though there are a million examples showing the opposite. That's a claim you have yet to prove. Don't try to weasel out just because you can't back up your shit. It's amazing how you and others demand proof and sources, which when done you deny if it doesn't agree with your views even if it's backed up by facts, then deny to do the same because "I don't have to, I didn't claim anything". If that's the case, when someone demands for sources next time, I don't have to do jack shit for them.


I never claimed Trump is senile, and I've gone out of my way multiple times to point out that my claim isn't that Trump is senile. I'll continue to participate in this back and forth if you can summarize my argument, regardless of whether or not you agree with it, because it would be ridiculous for me to continue if you're not even going to read my posts.


----------



## Dr_Faustus (Apr 18, 2022)

smf said:


> Can you give an example of how that would be beneficial?


Considering the foundation of our very society is now based mostly on the back of technology, to ignore or belittle its importance in any way is very concerning. It would be akin to treating the automobile as some new niche technology despite it being something that has redefined the way we travel in this country. 

The problem is a lot of the people in office simply are too out of date and out of touch when it comes to the world they are in now. I mean hell, most people liked Obama so much because he was actually young and was not afraid of technology or treated it as something niche and unimportant to the very structure of society. He knew what it was about and what needed to be done to help advance it further. Otherwise we would probably be still living in a world where the concept of the electric car is nigh fantasy or something only millionaires can afford, the same can be said with trying to make the internet a Tier 2 Utility to better spread out its use, to better manage it and treat it as an actual essential tool rather than some sort of luxury.  Something that was being reverted when Trump's FCC folk stepped in and basically promised that they had the ISP's back so they could not worry about having their shit be regulated and that customers can continue getting screwed over with little to no impact on said companies since they no longer have to abide to the old rules and regulations that net neutrality was meant to enforce. But that is what you get when you put in an ex-Verizon lawyer as your FCC chairman in that period.


----------



## Blakejansen (Apr 18, 2022)

Lacius said:


> I never claimed Trump is senile, and I've gone out of my way multiple times to point out that my claim isn't that Trump is senile. I'll continue to participate in this back and forth if you can summarize my argument, regardless of whether or not you agree with it, because it would be ridiculous for me to continue if you're not even going to read my posts.


I've been lurking Temp for years and you are still arguing about Trump 5 years later


----------



## Lacius (Apr 18, 2022)

Blakejansen said:


> I've been lurking Temp for years and you are still arguing about Trump 5 years later


And you're still reading my posts five years later. You're welcome.


----------



## omgcat (Apr 18, 2022)

smf said:


> Can you give an example of how that would be beneficial?


it was sarcasm, we are fucked due to the geriatrics in congress not knowing how modern tech and problems work. the pace of tech advancement has accelerated to the point where most people in congress have zero clue about anything involving the internet, computers, cellphones, and other CORE parts of our current society. i'll cite my good friend and senator from alaska "the internet is a series of tubes!"


----------



## smf (Apr 18, 2022)

omgcat said:


> it was sarcasm, we are fucked due to the geriatrics in congress not knowing how modern tech and problems work. the pace of tech advancement has accelerated to the point where most people in congress have zero clue about anything involving the internet, computers, cellphones, and other CORE parts of our current society. i'll cite my good friend and senator from alaska "the internet is a series of tubes!"


I'll ask again, in what way do you think congress knowing about modern tech would be beneficial?

Do you think it would be better to replace them with 18 year olds who know about facebook/instagram/etc but nothing else?

Old people are always out of touch with young people, it's not a new phenomena.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Apr 19, 2022)

smf said:


> You're saying you would decide that a video of Trump must be false, if it's posted by someone you hate.
> 
> Even though the video clips are of verifiable public speeches given by Trump.
> 
> But you're saying they aren't true, because purely because of who posted them???


It depends on the content of the video and if it's been edited or not and the reputation and truthfulness of the publisher. The Young Turks do not have any integrity or truthfulness in anything they do from all the lies and backpedaling over the years, so forgive me if I don't believe or even want to see what those lying scumbags post about a man who made this country strong within 4 years despite all the push back he got and all these people do is actively and wanting to destroy my country. If you want me to even hear what you have to say, maybe don't lie for years and years, manipulate people, then try to tell people your point of view after insulting a certain base of people.

Would you listen to a serial killer who also mutilated corpses and had various sexual interactions with said dead bodies who then talks about love and forgiveness and what we can do to be a better man for mankind? Regardless of what you think of the example, it's still the same thing.


smf said:


> No, that is not true. By disproven, you've assumed it wasn't true because who said it then again you're making basic mistakes
> 
> All that has happened is that enough people are making those same basic mistakes, that he is getting away with it.
> 
> What is sad is that you are unable to see it, because it would affect your whole identity. So you are stuck with living outside of reality.


Oh lookie look, projection rears its ugly head yet again as I can say about Biden and his supporters, but in this case it'd actually be true.


smf said:


> I have no problems with criticizing Biden, he just isn't as crooked or dangerous as Trump and more importantly he was elected president and Trump was not.


Yeah I don't believe that. Even if you do think Biden is crooked, which he is, you're still dumb enough to believe Trump is, and that's one of many downfalls in logic and sense.


smf said:


> tl;dr sort out your self esteem issues and don't link your identity to Trump & you'll be able to have more objective discussdions


Once again, projection, since this sounds like you and others more than me. My self esteem is fine so you don't have to worry about that my good sir, but thank you for your kind concern.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Apr 19, 2022)

Lacius said:


> I never claimed Trump is senile, and I've gone out of my way multiple times to point out that my claim isn't that Trump is senile. I'll continue to participate in this back and forth if you can summarize my argument, regardless of whether or not you agree with it, because it would be ridiculous for me to continue if you're not even going to read my posts.


I've read your posts and it's full of shit. Biden is senile, Trump isn't. Deal with it. Give me proof, otherwise just shut the fuck up shill as people like you are infinitely worse than he is.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 19, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> I've read your posts and it's full of shit. Biden is senile, Trump isn't. Deal with it. Give me proof, otherwise just shut the fuck up shill as people like you are infinitely worse than he is.


So no, you can't summarize my argument? Good deal. That saves me some time.


----------



## omgcat (Apr 19, 2022)

smf said:


> I'll ask again, in what way do you think congress knowing about modern tech would be beneficial?
> 
> Do you think it would be better to replace them with 18 year olds who know about facebook/instagram/etc but nothing else?
> 
> Old people are always out of touch with young people, it's not a new phenomena.



hard to write legislation that isn't brain dead stupid when you don't even have a grasp on how the technology works, or what it is used for. no i'm not saying replace all of them with 18yos but maybe getting the median age down to 38-45yo so people in congress can get a fucking grip and worry about their long term decisions.


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (Apr 19, 2022)

Can we say that both Biden and Trump are senile as shit and we really deserve better candidates?

Also what BitMaster is saying about TYT is true...they're just as extremely left as fox news is extremely conservative. If Fox news being brought into an argument is discrediting...shouldn't it work both ways?...


----------



## Xzi (Apr 19, 2022)

stanleyopar2000 said:


> Also what BitMaster is saying about TYT is true...they're just as super left as fox news is super right. If Fox news being brought into an equation discredits the argument...shouldn't it work both ways?...


Supporting universal healthcare is enough to classify a person as "far left" in the US.  The far right is actively supporting genocide in Ukraine and would similarly support genocide in the US in order to establish a monolithic fascist ethnostate.  In practice, horseshoe theory applies to gun ownership and that's all.


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (Apr 19, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Supporting universal healthcare is enough to classify a person as "far left" in the US.  The far right is actively supporting genocide in Ukraine and would similarly support genocide in the US in order to establish a monolithic fascist ethnostate.  In practice, horseshoe theory applies to gun ownership and that's all.



You have a good point. Just trying to find ways to reason with these individuals as much as possible.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Apr 19, 2022)

Lacius said:


> So no, you can't summarize my argument? Good deal. That saves me some time.


I can't summarize your argument because it's full of lies and shit


----------



## Xzi (Apr 19, 2022)

Cuckgba said:


> Universal healthcare is a leftist wetdream and an unatainable fantasy.


So unattainable that it works absolutely everywhere else in the modern world, and wastes far less money than our current system.  



Cuckgba said:


> You like giving 50% of your paycheck in taxes to finance it?


I have to pay taxes no matter what.  I'd much rather they go toward healthcare than bombing brown kids.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Apr 19, 2022)

Blakejansen said:


> I've been lurking Temp for years and you are still arguing about Trump 5 years later


For all the people who hate Trump, he still all lives in their heads rent free lol


----------



## Xzi (Apr 19, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> For all the people who hate Trump, he still all lives in their heads rent free lol


As long as he's still alive I'll keep on hating the fascist prick, but his presence within the mainstream consciousness has basically been zeroed out since he got banned from Twitter.  No reason to think about him at all except for those moments when a headline like this one pops up.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 19, 2022)

Xzi said:


> So unattainable that it works absolutely everywhere else in the modern world, and wastes far less money than our current system.



Notice how this point of yours was left unanswered.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 19, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Notice how this point of yours was left unanswered.


I think he was banned after making a few posts in this section.  Probably a previously banned user trying to use a new account.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 19, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> I can't summarize your argument because it's full of lies and shit


I made a very clear and concise argument, whether or not you agree with it, and I made it on several occasions. It's a failure on your part that you can't or won't repeat back to me what that argument was. It shows your posts are not in good faith, and if the people reading your last few posts are anything like me, they feel embarrassed for you.


----------



## lokomelo (Apr 19, 2022)

I know you all having fun here, but please allow me go off the rail to get out of my head some doubts (hopefully it is not a matter on opinion)

1- since it would be a second term, Trump is automatically a Republican candidate if he wishes, or previews will take place?

2- if Republican previews are to be held, is there any person that can beat Trump inside his party?

3- what happened to Bush royal family? It's been a while since I head about any of them from here where I'm at


----------



## Lacius (Apr 19, 2022)

lokomelo said:


> I know you all having fun here, but please allow me go off the rail to get out of my head some doubts (hopefully it is not a matter on opinion)
> 
> 1- since it would be a second term, Trump is automatically a Republican candidate if he wishes, or previews will take place?
> 
> ...


1. Trump is not automatically the Republican nominee in 2024, whether or not he chooses to run. He would still have to win the primary elections.

2. Can anyone beat Trump in the primary elections? I don't know. The polling I've seen suggests Trump will almost certainly win the Republican primary elections if he runs, but anything could happen.

3. Jeb Bush ran in 2016 but lost to Trump in the primary elections.


----------



## smf (Apr 19, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Would you listen to a serial killer who also mutilated corpses and had various sexual interactions with said dead bodies who then talks about love and forgiveness and what we can do to be a better man for mankind? Regardless of what you think of the example, it's still the same thing.



You have major issues. Trump not crooked? His fake university and charities are pretty damning evidence.

If it's not low self esteem then it's because you're as crooked as he is.


----------



## smf (Apr 19, 2022)

stanleyopar2000 said:


> Also what BitMaster is saying about TYT is true...they're just as extremely left as fox news is extremely conservative. If Fox news being brought into an argument is discrediting...shouldn't it work both ways?...


No, what he is saying about TYT is not true. I posted their video because it is a compilation of Trump saying really dumb things & it was the first in the google search. They haven't edited them, they are real. He wants a free pass because of who posted the compilation of videos of Trump saying dumb shit.

Fox news showing a video of Biden saying stupid things should not be discredited.

Fox news saying dumb things about Biden can be discredited.

It's the kind of disingenuous arguments that we have to put up from the loony right.


----------



## smf (Apr 19, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> I can't summarize your argument because it's full of lies and shit


Projecting again I see. The only lies round here come from you.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Apr 19, 2022)

subcon959 said:


> Regardless of semantics or intent, no President should be thinking out loud in public about the merits of bleach as a treatment. Even if you believe he didn't mean it, he still shouldn't have said it.



Trump never said to ingest, inject or otherwise consume "bleach". He was pondering about the possibility of using a disinfectant to fight COVID19. The fact he was suggesting there might be a possible treatment is good thing. We need discussion on how to combat the virus and his acknowledgement of the virus was needed at such an early phase of it due to the fact there were a lot of right wingers who didn't even believe COVID19 was real at that point in time. I also agree he shouldn't be thinking out loud though, which gave the liberals ammo to attack him, but he never mentioned bleach at all. The liberals are putting words in his mouth that he never said.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 19, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I also agree he shouldn't be thinking out loud though, which gave the liberals ammo to attack him, but he never mentioned bleach at all. The liberals are putting words in his mouth that he never said.



So what about hydroxyclide or whatever the F that other thing was?


----------



## seany1990 (Apr 19, 2022)

He can because Rupert Murdoch's boy always has a shot in the english speaking world.


----------



## smf (Apr 19, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> The fact he was suggesting there might be a possible treatment is good thing.


No, it isn't. His moronic fan base will listen to his moronic suggestions. It's a bad idea, unless you want to euthanize his supporters.

The arrogance that he might have thought of something that the worlds doctors hadn't, outweighed any medical knowledge that he may have picked up from existing. The people around him should have told him to STFU and stop talking about things he clearly knew nothing about & stick to what he does (fraud and tax evasion), but they wanted to keep their jobs.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7529601/

_Infection preventive practice of using disinfectants against SARS-CoV-2 has become the new normal due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Although disinfectants may not be applied directly to the human body, it remains at high risk of exposure including close skin contact on disinfected surfaces or during handling. This dermal contact, on a regular basis, can induce hazardous skin reactions like irritation, inflammation, and burning in severe conditions. Disinfectants are germicide chemicals that can penetrate the skin and create skin reactions that are usually regarded as irritant and allergic contact dermatitis._

*You should not under any circumstances use disinfectant internally or externally on your body, it is a bad fucking idea. Anyone who suggests it is either an idiot, or trying to harm you.*


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Apr 19, 2022)

Xzi said:


> As long as he's still alive I'll keep on hating the fascist prick, but his presence within the mainstream consciousness has basically been zeroed out since he got banned from Twitter.  No reason to think about him at all except for those moments when a headline like this one pops up.


_Yes, let the hate flow through you. Let it consume you~_



Dark_Ansem said:


> No point, they are brainwashed cultists.


The lack of self awareness is completely unsurprising at this point.

*Snip*


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Apr 19, 2022)

MAGA2024


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Apr 19, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> So what about hydroxyclide or whatever the F that other thing was?



Trump mentioned that he was taking hydroxychloroquine, which is a normal prescription medication that's safe to ingest, but wasn't proven to help fight against COVID. What you're speaking of is the fish tank cleaner that some old couple got mixed up with a normal prescription medication. It's not Trump's fault that someone thought that the fish tank cleaner was the same drug as the one he mentioned. Even if Trump was referring to the fish tank cleaner, which he wasn't, it would still be the fault of the people who ingested something deadly that they died. Trump wasn't talking about the fish tank cleaner.

_"The difference between the fish tank cleaning additive that the couple took and the drug used to treat malaria is the way they are formulated."_

They share part of a common name, but they are two completely separate substances.

https://www.webmd.com/lung/hydroxychloroquine

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tru...proven-drug-touted-covid-19/story?id=70751728

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/corona...hloroquine-drug-touted-by-trump-as-treatment/


----------



## Xzi (Apr 20, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Yes, let the hate flow through you. Let it consume you~


Further proof that the Republican party models itself on the Sith.  Except Trump makes Palpatine look like a male model by comparison.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Apr 20, 2022)

smf said:


> No, it isn't. His moronic fan base will listen to his moronic suggestions. It's a bad idea, unless you want to euthanize his supporters.
> 
> The arrogance that he might have thought of something that the worlds doctors hadn't, outweighed any medical knowledge that he may have picked up from existing. The people around him should have told him to STFU and stop talking about things he clearly knew nothing about & stick to what he does (fraud and tax evasion), but they wanted to keep their jobs.
> 
> ...



Actually, there's a lot of different types of disinfectants, hundreds of them, and some are safe to use externally or orally.
Hydrogen Peroxide can be used to disinfect wounds on your skin or used as a mouth wash to kill bacteria. There's hundreds of disinfectants and that's why I won the argument against @Lacius because Trump never specified which disinfectant he thought could possibly help people with COVID19. So some can be used on the body and some, such as bleach, should not.

https://ehs.princeton.edu/sites/ehs/files/List_of_Disinfectants.pdf


----------



## Lacius (Apr 20, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Actually, there's a lot of different types of disinfectants, hundreds of them, and some are safe to use externally or orally.
> Hydrogen Peroxide can be used to disinfect wounds on your skin or used as a mouth wash to kill bacteria. There's hundreds of disinfectants and that's why I won the argument against @Lacius because Trump never specified which disinfectant he thought could possibly help people with COVID19. So some can be used on the body and some, such as bleach, should not.
> 
> https://ehs.princeton.edu/sites/ehs/files/List_of_Disinfectants.pdf


This should go without saying, but here we go: Disinfectants like bleach, hydrogen peroxide, etc. should not be injected into the body, ingested, put into the lungs, etc. Suggesting any of these things might be an effective COVID-19 treatment, like the former president did, is reckless and stupid.

Better luck next time "winning the argument."


----------



## tabzer (Apr 20, 2022)

You guys don't need the internet to cry.  All I see is people getting the respect that they give out.  You don't get to call someone a loser and then cry when someone throws it back in your face.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Apr 20, 2022)

Lacius said:


> This should go without saying, but here we go: Disinfectants like bleach, hydrogen peroxide, etc. should not be injected into the body, ingested, put into the lungs, etc. Suggesting any of these things might be an effective COVID-19 treatment, like the former president did, is reckless and stupid.
> 
> Better luck next time "winning the argument."



I agree that it was stupid and reckless to state that possibly injecting disinfectants could help with the virus, but that's not what we were discussing. You stated he told people to inject bleach. That's why I won the argument. I know that's what liberals do though, take something out of context or put words in peoples mouths that they never uttered. Their logic is flawed. Doesn't change the fact he never told anyone to inject bleach.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 20, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I agree that it was stupid and reckless to state that possibly injecting disinfectants could help with the virus, but that's not what we were discussing. You stated he told people to inject bleach. That's why I won the argument. I know that's what liberals do though, take something out of context or put words in peoples mouths that they never uttered. Their logic is flawed. Doesn't change the fact he never told anyone to inject bleach.


The former president suggested that injecting disinfectant, like bleach, may be an effective treatment against COVID-19. He didn't tell anybody to go out do it (even though some of his supporters went and did so), but that was never my point. I'm sorry if the truth is inconvenient for you, but at least you admit the former president is a reckless moron.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Apr 20, 2022)

Lacius said:


> The former president suggested that injecting disinfectant, like bleach, may be an effective treatment against COVID-19. He didn't tell anybody to go out do it (even though some of his supporters went and did so), but that was never my point. I'm sorry if the truth is inconvenient for you, but at least you admit the former president is a reckless moron.



LOL "Like bleach". You think that makes you correct? Haha. Sorry bud, you lost and you can't get over it. He never instructed anyone to inject bleach nor suggested that injecting bleach might cure covid19. Bleach was never mentioned. How do you know which disinfectant or disinfectants out of the hundreds of kinds he was referring to? You don't because it was never stated.

Oh and Trump isn't a moron as he's actually pretty damned smart it's just you've been brainwashed. However I do agree that  his statement and question that day regarding disinfectants was stupid. No one is perfect or always correct (something @Xzi should come to realize).


----------



## Xzi (Apr 20, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Oh and Trump isn't a moron as he's actually pretty damned smart it's just you've been brainwashed.


"Trump isn't a moron, you've just been brainwashed by all that edumacation."



JonhathonBaxster said:


> However I do agree that his statement and question that day regarding disinfectants was stupid.


Most people have enough common sense to know when to shut the fuck up, especially when an expert is speaking on a subject in their field which they have a decade plus experience in.  Trump not only constantly interrupted doctors and scientists during public health briefings, he actually *took over* the briefings in their entirety after a while. A man who managed to bankrupt a fucking casino doesn't believe there's anybody on Earth smarter or more knowledgeable than him, on any subject. That's what makes him the world's biggest idiot and loser: he lets his ego control his every word and action.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Apr 20, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Further proof that the Republican party models itself on the Sith.  Except Trump makes Palpatine look like a male model by comparison.


Why? Because of a joke? lol ok, your side is worse than any evil empire, fictional or non fictional, so seethe more for all I care. It's fun to see how delusional you are, like you are literally living in some kind of reality you made for yourself, your own personal hell, but refuse to come out of it due to the massive amount of ignorance instilled upon you and others.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 20, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Why? Because of a joke? lol ok, your side is worse than any evil empire, fictional or non fictional, so seethe more for all I care. It's fun to see how delusional you are, like you are literally living in some kind of reality you made for yourself, your own personal hell, but refuse to come out of it due to the massive amount of ignorance instilled upon you and others.


Dude you're a child who can't articulate a single good reason why you support Donald Trump.  You're just following daddy's lead.  Most of your views, political and otherwise, are very likely to change once you've made it all the way through puberty and you're not so needlessly angry all the time.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 20, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Hydrogen Peroxide can be used to disinfect wounds on your skin or used as a mouth wash to kill bacteria.


You really shouldn't use it as mouthwash as it will ruin your teeth. And gums, which is arguably worse.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 20, 2022)

Can’t leave you people for 5 minutes without a flame war developing. Posts deleted/snipped accordingly - if I missed anything, you all know where the button is. Not every post is worth replying to, basic impulse control.

Regarding the Trump and Disinfectants meme, I find that truth tends to be the best argument in most discussions. What *did* Trump say?



> And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do *something like that*, by injection inside or almost a cleaning, because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that, so that *you’re going to have to use medical doctors with*, but it sounds interesting to me.



Let’s go through this point by point.

1. Disinfectants kill viruses on surfaces.
2. Is there a way to achieve the same effect internally (“something like that” - as in, not disinfectant, but something that’d be a medical analog)? He finds the concept “interesting”.
3. If there is, doctors could take advantage of that.

At no point in the entire statement did Trump suggest or even allude to people self-medicating by bleach injection. People are welcome to twist what he said to their own ends, but that’s not what he said. As a little curiosity, bronchoalveolar lavage is actively used in diagnostics and involves flooding a portion of the lungs with liquid for the purpose of collecting samples. It is not used as a medicine delivery method. It is, however, used as a method of removing excess mucus or other obstructions, so it has therapeutic uses. Funnily enough, it’s referred to as “bronchoalveolar washing”. Does Trump know any of that, and that’s why he’s referencing it? No, probably not, because he’s not a doctor - he likely read a snippet about it online and used it as a Scrabble word. Does it matter? Not in particular. Should Trump speak out of turn on subjects he has no experience in? No, he shouldn’t. Does he do so notoriously? Yes, he does. Truth is the middle, where it usually is.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 20, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> LOL "Like bleach". You think that makes you correct?


Yes. Trump's comments about injecting disinfectants into the body/lungs weren't without context. Trump's questions/ramblings immediately followed Bill Bryan's comments about disinfectants like "bleach and isopropyl alcohol" being used externally, and Trump asked a question that using them internally might be an effective COVID-19. He never told people to inject themselves with bleach, and he never outright said "this works," but his comments and suggestions were idiotic and reckless.


----------



## lokomelo (Apr 20, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Trump mentioned that he was taking hydroxychloroquine, which is a normal prescription medication that's safe to ingest



It is a Malaria medicine, it's side effects are BAD really BAD. It is not safe to ingest, it is just a good trade off if you have Malaria or a really bad circulatory system problem, that's why it is sold.

Brazil's current president made hydroxychloroquine the staple of he's pandemic response strategy, the results were awful.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Apr 20, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Dude you're a child who can't articulate a single good reason why you support Donald Trump.  You're just following daddy's lead.  Most of your views, political and otherwise, are very likely to change once you've made it all the way through puberty and you're not so needlessly angry all the time.


Why must you continuously describe yourself to me like I give a damn?


----------



## smf (Apr 20, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Actually, there's a lot of different types of disinfectants, hundreds of them, and some are safe to use externally or orally.


No, no, no

_*An antiseptic is applied to the body, while disinfectants are applied to nonliving surfaces, such as countertops and handrails.*_

The same chemicals may be used in both, but a disinfectant would be more concentrated to the point of being dangerous.


----------



## smf (Apr 20, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Why must you continuously describe yourself to me like I give a damn?


The fact you are playing "I know you are, but what am I" means you give a damn


----------



## smf (Apr 20, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> 2. Is there a way to achieve the same effect internally (“something like that” - as in, not disinfectant, but something that’d be a medical analog)? He finds the concept “interesting”.


It's not interesting. There is literally a zero chance that Trump has a thought that nobody else had.

So even if you give him the benefit of the doubt (and you never ever should) then all you are proving is he is arrogant and thinks that he is cleverer than everyone else (which is is not).

In any case, a load of his supporters thought that he was telling them to drink disinfectant. Which makes you wonder whether he deserved to be president in the first place.

He is also not any good with weather predictions.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/04/trump-hurricane-dorian-alabama-sharpie-map

There isn't anything you can trust him with, not even glue and scissors.



Foxi4 said:


> Does it matter? Not in particular. Should Trump speak out of turn on subjects he has no experience in? No, he shouldn’t. Does he do so notoriously? Yes, he does. Truth is the middle, where it usually is.


It can't be both. If he shouldn't do it, then it matters. Specifically because his dumb voters do what they think he says.

Drink disinfectant, insurrection, etc, etc


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 20, 2022)

smf said:


> It's not interesting. There is literally a zero chance that Trump has a thought that nobody else had.
> 
> So even if you give him the benefit of the doubt (and you never ever should) then all you are proving is he is arrogant and thinks that he is cleverer than everyone else (which is is not).
> 
> ...


Trump is not responsible for what strangers do with information they failed to comprehend. Suitability for the seat is not based on the base.


----------



## smf (Apr 20, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Trump is not responsible for what strangers do with information they failed to comprehend. Suitability for the seat is not based on the base.


As president, he is responsible. He goes after voters of low IQ, he should be more careful what he says to them. If only because he should want them to remain alive to vote for him again.

Suitability is entirely based on the base. His supporters are either retarded or criminal or racist (pick one or more).
The reason american felons weren't allowed to vote is because the suitability IS based on the people voting.

I do wonder how he would do now that he abandoned his rioters to rot in jail. They seemed convinced Trump would rescue them.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 20, 2022)

smf said:


> Suitability is entirely based on the base. His supporters are either retarded or criminal or racist (pick one pr more).


None incompatible with each other.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 20, 2022)

smf said:


> As president, he is responsible. He goes after voters of low IQ, he should be more careful what he says to them. If only because he should want them to remain alive to vote for him again.
> 
> Suitability is entirely based on the base. His supporters are either retarded or criminal or racist (pick one or more).
> The reason american felons weren't allowed to vote is because the suitability IS based on the people voting.
> ...


As president he’s responsible for what citizens do? I think not. Nobody is responsible for what third-parties do if they misunderstand the information given. They shouldn’t be listening to medical advice from non-doctors anyway. It’s arguable whether disenfranchising felons is justifiable. As for idiocy, it does not have a political affiliation - I’d like to remind you that the anti-vax movement in the early 2000’s was not led by rednecks, but by mid-to-high income , affluent liberals who, for some reason, were convinced that vaccines cause autism. There’s a reason why affluent areas of the United States had vaccination rates equivalent to those of Chad. On the other end of the scale you have highly liberal inner cities - not a lot of Nobel prize winners there either, not with their drop-out rates. Swings and roundabouts.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Apr 20, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Can’t leave you people for 5 minutes without a flame war developing. Posts deleted/snipped accordingly - if I missed anything, you all know where the button is. Not every post is worth replying to, basic impulse control.
> 
> Regarding the Trump and Disinfectants meme, I find that truth tends to be the best argument in most discussions. What *did* Trump say?
> 
> ...


Chad Foxi4 destroying Trump deranged posters spreading lies and misinformation!


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Apr 20, 2022)

lokomelo said:


> It is a Malaria medicine, it's side effects are BAD really BAD. It is not safe to ingest, it is just a good trade off if you have Malaria or a really bad circulatory system problem, that's why it is sold.
> 
> Brazil's current president made hydroxychloroquine the staple of he's pandemic response strategy, the results were awful.


Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't some democrat senator say that Trump's statements on Hydroxychloroquine were so offensive and wrong that he should literally step down as president? And not one month later this same woman's husband was hospitalized by Covid and given Hydroxychloroquine as a treatment and survived and then she went on publically state on record that she believed its what saved his life? LMAO


----------



## Xzi (Apr 20, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Chad Foxi4 destroying Trump deranged posters spreading lies and misinformation!


His post boils down to "Trump didn't make a moronic statement, he asked a moronic question."  But sure, gotta take what small wins you can when it comes to defending a 75-year-old with the equivalent of a third grader's knowledge base.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Apr 20, 2022)

Xzi said:


> His post boils down to "Trump didn't make a moronic statement, he asked a moronic question."  But sure, gotta take what small wins you can when it comes to defending a 75-year-old with the equivalent of a third grader's knowledge base.


The guy claimed trump literally said to inject Bleach. He didn't. Cope.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 20, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> The guy claimed trump literally said to inject Bleach. He didn't. Cope.


Right.  Trump instead _asked_ a medical expert if it was _maybe_ a good idea to inject disinfectant. That _totally_ makes him sound much smarter in context.


----------



## smf (Apr 20, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Right.  Trump instead _asked_ a medical expert if it was _maybe_ a good idea to inject disinfectant. That _totally_ makes him sound much smarter in context.


And bearing in mind the brain washing Trump has done on his supporters so they don't trust doctors anyway, then why wait?

disinfectant is great at kill germs, and people. I guess you can't get covid if you are dead.

You know that these are all Trump supporters.

https://time.com/5835244/accidental-poisonings-trump/

Dumb voters == Dumb president.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Apr 20, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Right.  Trump instead _asked_ a medical expert if it was _maybe_ a good idea to inject disinfectant. That _totally_ makes him sound much smarter in context.


So you're officially moving the goalposts from saying he definitely said this one thing to he suggested maybe possibly doing some other thing? Got it.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 20, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> So you're officially moving the goalposts from saying he definitely said this one thing to he suggested maybe possibly doing some other thing? Got it.


I wasn't involved in that argument, bud.  I could always post the video to clarify exactly what he said, but there's no need as I'm in agreement with Foxi's assessment that he was simply asking dumb questions with even dumber timing.  Like just about all Trump quotes, his loyal cultists then have to translate it into something more intelligible.  Supposedly for the benefit of the rest of us, but in truth more so to convince themselves they haven't wasted years worshiping a coked-out, washed up D-list reality TV celeb.  Reaganism should've died with Reagan.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 20, 2022)

Xzi said:


> I wasn't involved in that argument, bud.  I could always post the video to clarify exactly what he said, but there's no need as I'm in agreement with Foxi's assessment that he was simply asking dumb questions with even dumber timing.  Like just about all Trump quotes, his loyal cultists then have to translate it into something more intelligible.  Supposedly for the benefit of the rest of us, but in truth more so to convince themselves they haven't wasted years worshiping a coked-out, washed up D-list reality TV celeb.  Reaganism should've died with Reagan.


I don’t know if it’s a dumb question. It could conceivably be used as a medicine delivery system. Thing is, there’d be no point in doing that - inhalers exist, as does intravenous treatment. Flooding the lungs is unnecessarily invasive unless there’s a physical obstruction or a sample cannot be obtained by other means - you generally want to avoid putting tubes in people’s air passages.

God bless Saint Ronald Reagan, praise be.


smf said:


> Dumb voters == Dumb president.


This statement doesn’t hold water - the voters do not set the policy, they only vote. A candidate can win the vote of the electorate with their charm and enact good policy. The two are not connected, in any way.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 20, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I don’t know if it’s a dumb question.


I do, because Trump exclusively asked dumb questions, made dumb statements, and relied on a dumb strategy throughout the entirety of his role in the pandemic.  Let the virus wash over all of the US, then tried to blame Democratic governors for high mortality rates.  Inevitably though, it spread like wildfire to rural areas after the urban, which is something any doctor or scientist could've told him was going to happen; _if_ he hadn't fired most of them and spoke over the top of the rest.



Foxi4 said:


> God bless Saint Ronald Reagan, praise be.


If you're gonna look up to a drug dealer as a role model, at least pick a cooler one that didn't go out drooling and shitting himself.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 21, 2022)

Xzi said:


> I do, because Trump exclusively asked dumb questions, made dumb statements, and relied on a dumb strategy throughout the entirety of his role in the pandemic.  Let the virus wash over all of the US, then tried to blame Democratic governors for high mortality rates.  Inevitably though, it spread like wildfire to rural areas after the urban, which is something any doctor or scientist could've told him was going to happen; _if_ he hadn't fired most of them and spoke over the top of the rest.


That’s one way to look at things. I can think of a couple others, but this isn’t a thread about COVID.


> If you're gonna look up to a drug dealer as a role model, at least pick a cooler one that didn't go out drooling and shitting himself.


Marx died in poverty and ridden by disease, so things could be worse. Comparatively speaking, the Reagan fan club has more W’s.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 21, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Marx died in poverty and ridden by disease, so things could be worse.


As did the vast majority of people before the advent of modern medicine.



Foxi4 said:


> Comparatively speaking, the Reagan fan club has more W’s.


There's literally nobody with more L's.  The puppetmasters behind his presidency set off a chain of events that will eventually lead to the end of democracy in the US.  Assuming we can even still call it alive right now, with only one functional political party that has an actual platform.  The man himself was just a trained circus monkey.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Apr 21, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> You really shouldn't use it as mouthwash as it will ruin your teeth. And gums, which is arguably worse.



Hydrogen Peroxide comes in various mouth washes and toothpastes that you can buy in stores so I don't know what you're going on about. I suggest you discuss it with your dentist if you have concerns.

https://www.dentaly.org/us/oral-hygiene/best-mouthwash/hydrogen-peroxide-mouthwash/

https://www.colgate.com/en-us/oral-...gen-peroxide-toothpaste-four-common-questions


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Apr 21, 2022)

lokomelo said:


> It is a Malaria medicine, it's side effects are BAD really BAD. It is not safe to ingest, it is just a good trade off if you have Malaria or a really bad circulatory system problem, that's why it is sold.
> 
> Brazil's current president made hydroxychloroquine the staple of he's pandemic response strategy, the results were awful.



I didn't really follow the news regarding the drug. I just know Trump was taking it at one point in time and since Trump liked it the liberals hated it. So much for logic. Thank you for the information. I sure as hell am not going to take the drug regardless of the side effects. Trump isn't my personal doctor and I don't take medical advise from random people even if that person is the President.


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 21, 2022)

anybody can be president after the Biden disaster


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 21, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> God bless Saint Ronald Reagan, praise be



Regan deserves to burn in hell considering what he and his wife did.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> Hydrogen Peroxide comes in various mouth washes and toothpastes that you can buy in stores so I don't know what you're going on about.



As even a 3rd grader could tell, that's not what you were talking about. You were talking about pure Hydrogen Peroxide, and I stand by my point. Don't move the goalposts.



Valwinz said:


> anybody can be president after the Biden disaster



Lowest unemployment in decades, salary growth, an anti covid programme which wasn't insane, gave america again the position of leader of the west... yep, a disaster all right.



Foxi4 said:


> Marx died in poverty and ridden by disease, so things could be worse. Comparatively speaking, the Reagan fan club has more W’s.



Marx is also one of the fathers of political thought whose works are still studied and known centuries after his death, and his principles have been validated by history. Regan is increasingly recognised for the awful president and petty man he was.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 21, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Regan deserves to burn in hell considering what he and his wife did.


Ronald forgives you.


> Marx is also one of the fathers of political thought whose works are still studied and known centuries after his death, and his principles have been validated by history. Regan is increasingly recognised for the awful president and petty man he was.


Father of the mechanism running the world’s most murderous regimes, you mean. Now that’s someone who’s roasting 24/7, rightfully so.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 21, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Father of the mechanism running the world’s most murderous regimes, you mean. Now that’s someone who’s roasting 24/7, rightfully so.


LOL most murderous regimes, yep, nothing to see here, rightwing dictatorships, nothing at all! Blaming Marx for nonsense is hilarious even for your standards.


Foxi4 said:


> Ronald forgives you.


Ronald is burning in hell.


----------



## smf (Apr 21, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> This statement doesn’t hold water - the voters do not set the policy, they only vote. A candidate can win the vote of the electorate with their charm and enact good policy. The two are not connected, in any way.


The voters choose the politicians based on how they say they will set the policy.

If you find yourself choosing the same president as people who make poor choices, you should re-evaluate your own choices they are probably poor too.

This is the difference between liberals and the right, liberals re-evaluate their mistakes and make better choices the next time while the right just doubles down on poor choices and tries to change reality to meet them (for an example see Trumps sharpie pen scribbling on the map...)


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 21, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> LOL most murderous regimes, yep, nothing to see here, rightwing dictatorships, nothing at all! Blaming Marx for nonsense is hilarious even for your standards.


Communist regimes are murderous. Arguably *the* most murderous in recorded history.


> Ronald is burning in hell.


Because the income tax still exists.


smf said:


> The voters choose the politicians based on how they say they will set the policy.


We should be so lucky. 


> If you find yourself choosing the same president as people who make poor choices, you should re-evaluate your own choices they are probably poor too.


Does that apply to mayors? Detroit would like a word.


> This is the difference between liberals and the right, liberals re-evaluate their mistakes and make better choices the next time (…)


Hilarious, especially considering the example above.


> while the right just doubles down on poor choices and tries to change reality to meet them (for an example see Trumps sharpie pen scribbling on the map...)


I don’t care about personal notes on a map. Storm in a teacup - he made an error and corrected himself after the fact.

An election is part popularity contest and part policy, what value you want to assign to those two elements is up to you. I don’t delve into people’s reasoning behind choosing one politician other another, but to pretend that the gross majority of voters vote a specific way because they’ve read the platform and support one path of development over the other, or that they weighed the pros and cons, is truly naive. One candidate is red and one is blue, that’s about half of the decision-making process, ads account for the majority of the other half.



Xzi said:


> As did the vast majority of people before the advent of modern medicine.


It warms my heart regardless.


> There's literally nobody with more L's.  The puppetmasters behind his presidency set off a chain of events that will eventually lead to the end of democracy in the US.  Assuming we can even still call it alive right now, with only one functional political party that has an actual platform.  The man himself was just a trained circus monkey.


”Sky is falling” nonsense. Democracy isn’t going anywhere. By that logic, the founding fathers themselves started that particular “chain of events” since they were never fans of unrestrained democracy in the first place - they’re the ones who implemented stopgaps against it, rightfully so - they prevent mob rule.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Apr 21, 2022)

smf said:


> The fact you are playing "I know you are, but what am I" means you give a damn


Not sure how that makes sense but ok. This convo's not going anywhere productive anymore anyway.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Apr 21, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Hydrogen Peroxide comes in various mouth washes and toothpastes that you can buy in stores so I don't know what you're going on about. I suggest you discuss it with your dentist if you have concerns.
> 
> https://www.dentaly.org/us/oral-hygiene/best-mouthwash/hydrogen-peroxide-mouthwash/
> 
> https://www.colgate.com/en-us/oral-...gen-peroxide-toothpaste-four-common-questions


Nooooooo delete this! Bleach bad bleach bad! Orange man say inject bleach!!!


----------



## smf (Apr 21, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Not sure how that makes sense but ok. This convo's not going anywhere productive anymore anyway.


It makes sense & we are learning more about how bad you are at making points.

So please continue.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Apr 22, 2022)

smf said:


> It makes sense & we are learning more about how bad you are at making points.
> 
> So please continue.


How about you keep talking so I can get a nice bed time story to put me to sleep? I have yet to see a lot of people here make actually good and coherent points that make sense at this point.

Seriously, why are we even still talking if nothing productive comes of it? Just wanna stroke your own ego at this point?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 22, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Communist regimes are murderous. Arguably *the* most murderous in recorded history.



Utter nonsense. No communist regime instigated two world wars. Neither it was a communist regime who instigated that "war on terror" debacle.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Apr 22, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Utter nonsense. No communist regime instigated two world wars. Neither it was a communist regime who instigated that "war on terror" debacle.


So the only way to be murderous is to start a world war?


----------



## Xzi (Apr 22, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Utter nonsense. No communist regime instigated two world wars. Neither it was a communist regime who instigated that "war on terror" debacle.


Shieeet, between the US and the UK alone they've colonized and/or invaded 80% to 90% of the world.  Foxi can't be objective about this because of his past experiences, but if we're counting things in terms of death and destruction caused by "capitalism vs communism," capitalism wins by a country mile.  Bearing in mind that that's a silly way to measure things to begin with, as there are individuals directly responsible for those deaths instead; economic systems are only involved to the extent that they fund the military industrial complex.  I blame Stalin for murdering so many of his own people, and I blame GWB/Cheney for murdering so many civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 22, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Utter nonsense. No communist regime instigated two world wars. Neither it was a communist regime who instigated that "war on terror" debacle.


Communist regimes are the most murderous, bar none, and there are plenty of shallow graves in forests or trees with their bark torn off to prove as much. Between Stalin and Mao, communism can be attributed to anywhere between 60 million to 150 million deaths in total, depending on how you calculate excess death. Some of those deaths are a result of direct mass killings (Katyn, The Great Purge, Cambodian genocide, so on and so forth) while others are a result of state policy designed with the express intent of ethnic cleansing (the Holodomor), or just boneheaded policy in general (The Great Leap Forward). This isn’t really a debate - it’s accepted historical fact. Both world wars put together pale in comparison to the total death toll of communism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes


Xzi said:


> Shieeet, between the US and the UK alone they've colonized and/or invaded 80% to 90% of the world.  Foxi can't be objective about this because of his past experiences, but if we're counting things in terms of death and destruction caused by "capitalism vs communism," capitalism wins by a country mile.  Bearing in mind that that's a silly way to measure things to begin with, as there are individuals directly responsible for those deaths instead; economic systems are only involved to the extent that they fund the military industrial complex.  I blame Stalin for murdering so many of his own people, and I blame GWB/Cheney for murdering so many civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq.


It is said that in the 500 years of European colonisation of the Americas, 90% of indigenous peoples have died, for a variety of reasons, from direct killings to disease brought over on the ships of colonisers (which is a bit of a Stretch Armstrong-level situation - I don’t see how someone can be held liable for being sick, it’s not exactly a decision one makes deliberately, but hey). That number translates to an estimated 100 million total, give or take. The communists accomplished the same or higher number in just a few decades. The reason why “capitalism versus communism” comparison is a non sequitur is because deaths under communism are by design whereas deaths under capitalism are not. Communism operates within specific confines of a centrally planned economy that the state is in charge of, capitalism is a blanket term describing any market-based economy. The market doesn’t kill people - the market is interested in creating and selling products. Communist states *do* kill people, either directly through genocide or indirectly through market manipulation, which they’ve accepted the responsibility for because it’s a prerequisite to their operation. If a farmer plants crop that isn’t in demand and ends up in poverty, that’s not capitalism’s fault - there was no market for it, the farmer is poor because he’s in a low demand market and should consider changes to their business. If a farmer grows crop that *is* in demand, the state rolls in and confiscates it, the state *is* at fault for the farmer’s poverty - the state took away their livelihood. This is simple stuff.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 22, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> The reason why “capitalism versus communism” comparison is a non sequitur is because deaths under communism are by design whereas deaths under capitalism are not. Communism operates within specific confines of a centrally planned economy that the state is in charge of, capitalism is a blanket term describing any market-based economy. The market doesn’t kill people - the market is interested in creating and selling products. Communist states *do* kill people, either directly through genocide or indirectly through market manipulation, which they’ve accepted the responsibility for because it’s a prerequisite to their operation.


Yeah that's a pant load.  "The market" doesn't get to dodge responsibility for all the deaths it causes, either directly or indirectly, especially when it's in the business of fucking with government to ensure that they don't provide for basic necessities either.  Besides, many millionaires/billionaires gladly accept responsibility for the deaths caused by the private sector, while simultaneously laughing them off.  Sociopathic behavior is pretty common among that crowd.  Oligarchy and authoritarianism remain the same whether they're employed by a fake communist like Stalin who didn't redistribute fuck all, or by an alt-reich "businessman" with a bad spray tan.  Or, if you need someone with an even higher body count, Mohammad Bin Salman would be an even better example of a modern ruthless capitalist.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 22, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Yeah that's a pant load.  "The market" doesn't get to dodge responsibility for all the deaths it causes, either directly or indirectly, especially when it's in the business of fucking with government to ensure that they don't provide for basic necessities either.  Besides, many millionaires/billionaires gladly accept responsibility for the deaths caused by the private sector, while simultaneously laughing them off.  Sociopathic behavior is pretty common among that crowd.  Oligarchy and authoritarianism remain the same whether they're employed by a fake communist like Stalin who didn't redistribute fuck all, or by an alt-reich "businessman" with a bad spray tan.


Nobody’s “in charge of the market”, people are *definitely* in charge of the state. I can point at a person responsible for deaths under Maoist policies - Mao. Under a market economy you operate on individual responsibility instead - people are responsible for what they do, and face consequences of their actions on an individual level. Regarding government corruption, I’m all for prosecuting government officials for colluding with private businessmen to the detriment of the public, but I don’t know if corruption is a good argument for you given the fact that communist states are rife with it, primarily due to scarcity. The difference between some corruption at the top (which is illegal and actively prosecuted) versus corruption on every level of governance (which is mostly ignored, with the occasional scapegoat prosecuted to get free cheers from the crowd) is quite staggering.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 22, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Nobody’s “in charge of the market”, people are *definitely* in charge of the state.


There are undeniably people on top of the chain of command when it comes to the private sector.  That might be hundreds, or even as many as thousands.  Same can apply to government and the state, regardless of what economic system is in place.



Foxi4 said:


> Under a market economy you operate on individual responsibility instead - people are responsible for what they do, and face consequences of their actions on an individual level.


Do they though, or in a capitalist economy do the rich just get richer regardless of what they do?  Let's ask Elon Musk, who got the seed money to buy Tesla from his apartheid emerald mines that utilized child slave labor.



Foxi4 said:


> The difference between some corruption at the top (which is illegal and actively prosecuted) versus corruption on every level of governance (which is mostly ignored, with the occasional scapegoat prosecuted to get free cheers from the crowd) is quite staggering.


I'm sorry, which is which in this example?  You could be talking about any number of Republican administrations when it comes to the latter.  Or even China's current band of capitalist oligarchs in charge of government.


----------



## smf (Apr 22, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> I have yet to see a lot of people here make actually good and coherent points that make sense at this point.


It's no surprise you can't make sense of a lot of the points.

I don't believe you grasp the concept of how to behave in a constructive discussion either.


----------



## smf (Apr 22, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Under a market economy you operate on individual responsibility instead - people are responsible for what they do, and face consequences of their actions on an individual level.


Not really, you're left responsible for sorting out whatever mess you were put in by someone richer than you.

That isn't the same as being responsible for your own actions.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 22, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Communist regimes are the most murderous, bar none, and there are plenty of shallow graves in forests or trees with their bark torn off to prove as much. Between Stalin and Mao, communism can be attributed to anywhere between 60 million to 150 million deaths in total, depending on how you calculate excess death. Some of those deaths are a result of direct mass killings (Katyn, The Great Purge, Cambodian genocide, so on and so forth) while others are a result of state policy designed with the express intent of ethnic cleansing (the Holodomor), or just boneheaded policy in general (The Great Leap Forward). This isn’t really a debate - it’s accepted historical fact. Both world wars put together pale in comparison to the total death toll of communism.



You're ridiculous. The consequences of the world wars and colonialism make these seem tame. And as your own WP page says, those numbers are contested. Were they horrible? Yes. But your disingenuous argument that somehow this makes them worse than the right triggering two world wars and a catastrophic war on terror whose consequences still exist today (not to mention slavery etc) makes your headcount look silly. Not to mention, no genocides either. Nor nuclear fallout.

Your whole idea that somehow this is Marx's fault is absolutely ludicrous as well. Are you blaming Nietzsche and the Catholic Church for nazism and fascism as well?



Foxi4 said:


> It is said that in the 500 years of European colonisation of the Americas, 90% of indigenous peoples have died, for a variety of reasons, from direct killings to disease brought over on the ships of colonisers (which is a bit of a Stretch Armstrong-level situation - I don’t see how someone can be held liable for being sick, it’s not exactly a decision one makes deliberately, but hey). That number translates to an estimated 100 million total, give or take. The communists accomplished the same or higher number in just a few decades. The reason why “capitalism versus communism” comparison is a non sequitur is because deaths under communism are by design whereas deaths under capitalism are not. Communism operates within specific confines of a centrally planned economy that the state is in charge of, capitalism is a blanket term describing any market-based economy. The market doesn’t kill people - the market is interested in creating and selling products. Communist states *do* kill people, either directly through genocide or indirectly through market manipulation, which they’ve accepted the responsibility for because it’s a prerequisite to their operation. If a farmer plants crop that isn’t in demand and ends up in poverty, that’s not capitalism’s fault - there was no market for it, the farmer is poor because he’s in a low demand market and should consider changes to their business. If a farmer grows crop that *is* in demand, the state rolls in and confiscates it, the state *is* at fault for the farmer’s poverty - the state took away their livelihood. This is simple stuff.



Talk about mental gymnastics here. Wasn't aware you were one of those denialists trying to whitewash history.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Apr 22, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> As even a 3rd grader could tell, that's not what you were talking about. You were talking about pure Hydrogen Peroxide, and I stand by my point. Don't move the goalposts.



No, you're putting words in my mouth, which is _typical behavior of a liberal_. You *assumed *I was talking about 100% pure Hydrogen Peroxide and it wasn't. Hydrogen Peroxide comes in many products. Yes, there is the pure 100% chemical, but that's not what I was referring to. I was talking about toothpaste and mouth wash. The only goalposts that were moved are in your head. By the way, I'm not even sure how to obtain 100% Hydrogen Peroxide as even the big brown bottles at the pharmacy come diluted. You're the one trying to sound educated by stating misinformation that these products ruin your teeth and gums, which they don't. Hydrogen Peroxide is safe to use even straight from the brown bottles. It can also be used to clean and disinfect wounds (as it is after all a disinfectant).

Edit: Alcohol is also a disinfectant, was on the list and is safe to use to *disinfect *cuts and wounds *on the body*.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Apr 22, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> LOL most murderous regimes, yep, nothing to see here, rightwing dictatorships, nothing at all! Blaming Marx for nonsense is hilarious even for your standards.



I'm not sure why the party that hates old white rich men would take up a form of government that was created by an old rich white man. It's also been proven to fail time and time again. You do realize that American's enemies want to force us to adopt communism through socialism because they want to see us destroyed, right? You're being played.


----------



## Dr_Faustus (Apr 22, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I'm not sure why the party that hates old white rich men would take up a form of government that was created by an old rich white man. It's also been proven to fail time and time again. You do realize that American's enemies want to force us to adopt communism through socialism because they want to see us destroyed, right? You're being played.


Yeah, because good ol' capitalism work for us when we had been hit with the pandemic right? It almost destabilized our entire country because of how ass backwards our system is compared to other countries when it comes to income and healthcare. 

You are just one of those people who shits themselves in fear whenever the word of "socialized" gets put into anything. Because when we start actually giving free things to US citizens it means the end of democracy as we all know it! Perhaps if we redirect some of that money from giving multi-billion dollar companies kickbacks and the military's unending fund in case we need to tactically nuke every other country on this planet and put it into actually helping the US citizens we would not have such a shitshow of a situation currently still unfolding in our country.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 22, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Talk about mental gymnastics here. Wasn't aware you were one of those denialists trying to whitewash history.


How is it white washing? It’s a 100 million dead people, from all factors (war/conflict, ethnic cleansing and European diseases). It’s actually at the high end of estimates - there are lower numbers floating about. If anything, I’m being generous. As far as Marx is concerned, yes - I do blame him. He created the abjectly amoral framework that all those those oppressive regimes based their own system on, he’s one of the catalysts of collectivist thought. In the absence of Marx, none of them would ever be established. I wonder how the world would’ve looked like then - an interesting thought.

@Xzi @smf we could have a 200th “communism versus capitalism” conversation on this forum, but frankly, we’ve been over this to death. It’s just not that interesting to me. We have a very different point of view in regards to responsibility. To me, the guilty party is *always* the party that performs a deliberate action leading to the negative consequence. I can’t blame capitalism for what a particular individual decided to do - that’s asinine. We’re comparing like to like - systemic failure to systemic failure. Under communism those decisions are made by the state, so I *must* blame the state, it’s the only conclusion that logically follows. The failures of communism are systemic specifically because it’s centralised. We can’t agree on that premise, so further discussion is pretty much pointless. I will shake hands on “20th century communist regimes were horrible”, which is an objectively true statement that we can all agree with - that way we avoid 5 pages of a nonsensical back and forth that ends with an unsatisfying  crescendo of “let’s agree to disagree”.


----------



## FAST6191 (Apr 22, 2022)

Re world wars. Are we ignoring the socialist part (and they were) of national socialist for at least round two? The history of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and earlier rearmaments is also a fun one in this.
As far as 1 being a right wing affair... that is a drastic oversimplification but I don't know how much time we have for that one. That said I think it is more the usual right-left being a weak lens when it was made in the French revolutions and hundreds of years did not serve to make it better.

Also have we got the colonial era was bad thing around here now? Thought we had dodged that one for a while.
Oh well. I was not around but on behalf of whatever ancestors I had that participated then you are welcome is my usual response, would do it again. Certainly some fuck ups along the way, great fun studying those, but ultimately way better off than they would have been otherwise, though I suppose that immediately devolves into subjective and interference discussions (freedom be good yo).
On the disease thing. Today it would be a thing, however... I suppose some tentative steps in the history of germ theory were known before then but we are still in the mid to late 1800s for stuff to get real (several hundred years after the first of said colonies), and if doing virology then give or take sniffing scabs (a wildly unreliable method, though better than baseline) was 1796 for the smallpox-cowpox thing and taking a few years to hit the US ( https://www.historyofvaccines.org/timeline#EVT_89 ). Equally in a background to all this I would have to do the *points at history of cures for scurvy*. To that end with death and disease being a fact of life really it is hard to usefully look back with modern eyes in judgement on that one.

Anyway we seem to be way way off topic, though I guess that is normal for this section.

The mid terms appear to be heating up and are usually seen as a bellwether for things here.
https://www.bonus.com/election/midterms/ is a betting company (their odds moving in line with input bets to mean they don't lose money* rather than polling, historical analysis or some kind of revealed preference approach) but at time of writing and some historical patterns there




77% odds of Republican house and senate there.

*give or take a perfunctory concern for fairness as it applies to them then betting companies don't care who wins, they make their money from the rake (their little cut for facilitating the bet/paying out the bet). The losing bets going to pay the winners and the odds calculated accordingly.

I suppose a more interesting question is it looks like the republican governor of Florida (Ron Desantis, born 1978 if that matters) is setting about making a name for himself on the national stage (usually a prelude to such a run and I doubt this is going to be for a US Senate or congress seat unless they park him there to age up/have the boomers die off) by appealing to various people**, and not necessarily being as divisive as some cast Trump as (though there is time and the media is not quite dead yet, appear to be ramping up their efforts as well). Now we are still some years off but internal threats for nomination... could be a fun one to debate. For those not knowing their US states then Florida is 4th largest sate by GDP (New York, Texas, California being ahead, California being and about 50% larger than Florida), third in terms of population (experiencing considerable growth over the last few years), Florida also enjoying a fairly notable status in the entertainment and tourism sector as well.

**not necessarily your rank and file republican either, though there were some questionable moves if he wants to get the more centrist democrats (the anti abortion thing being one, and props to the media for managing to coin "don't say gay" even if that is not what it was -- https://web.archive.org/web/2015090...ng-techniques-theyre-using-you-right-now.html once more RIP amusing version of cracked). That or I am massively underestimating the hispanic voting segment (one the democrats are fairly rapidly losing the support of, and that represents a larger and larger section of the population) which is possible.

What state is the economy likely to be in by this point and is that likely to change things? Maybe a nice depression that the democrats can point at and say we would have done it better but we were not in power, and have people believe it or does that go straight to the top and the one in charge bear the blame in the eyes of the population (who are rarely skilled economists).
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts if accurate (and CPI is clearly doctored to skew lower -- look at actual housing costs for one) if allowed to continue and the fed continuing to not being doing much*** (while nominally free to operate outside of the government... who actually believes that? Granted it is no Turkish central bank but yeah).
For the record money printer has gone brrr for well over a decade at this point ( http://www.shadowstats.com/charts/monetary-base-money-supply ) and a lot of that did go into making a few nice bubbles in stocks and housing.

***or indeed benefiting themselves and their friends playing investor rather than the common man.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 22, 2022)

Mistaking crony politicized opportunism as capitalism misses the "socialism" in effect.

If capitalism was pure, you'd be able to buy Gucci handbags with pocket change.  The "socialist" tendencies of your government decided to give their friends "a fair chance" in "owning" thoughts and ideas.  Sooner or later you won't be able to think of anything without infringing on someone's rights, if that hasn't happened already.


----------



## Dr_Faustus (Apr 22, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Mistaking crony politicized opportunism as capitalism misses the "socialism" in effect.
> 
> If capitalism was pure, you'd be able to buy Gucci handbags with pocket change.  The "socialist" tendencies of your government decided to give their friends "a fair chance" in "owning" thoughts and ideas.  Sooner or later you won't be able to think of anything without infringing on someone's rights, if that hasn't happened already.


Can you elaborate on that further, because the concept of "owning" thoughts and ideas is typically taken in the form of patent law as well as copyright law, both things have been implemented in capitalist systems and have been abused as hell by those who are at the top end of the capitalist system. Between shit like Apple suing people left and right for the patents of a rectangle and "slide to unlock" and companies like Disney flushing cash into congressional pockets every 20 years to extend the deadline of copyright laws so the public domain cannot exist.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 22, 2022)

Dr_Faustus said:


> Can you elaborate on that further, because the concept of "owning" thoughts and ideas is typically taken in the form of patent law as well as copyright law, both things have been implemented in capitalist systems and have been abused as hell by those who are at the top end of the capitalist system. Between shit like Apple suing people left and right for the patents of a rectangle and "slide to unlock" and companies like Disney flushing cash into congressional pockets every 20 years to extend the deadline of copyright laws so the public domain cannot exist.


I’d say that there’s a benefit to ownership of ideas, and the concepts of a copyright and a patent, but there need to be sensible limitations imposed on both. Initially those concepts entered the legal system in order to enable inventors and creators to monetise their work regardless of whether they had the means to manufacture or create en masse straight away. It morphed into a patent trolling and gate keeping dystopia that definitely needs to be reigned in. Patent trolling in and out of itself should be banned as it runs contrary to the spirit of patents. They exist to create a window of monetisation opportunity - if a given party has no interest in actually using the patent and sits on it instead in the hopes of others wanting to use it and thus having to pay dividends, they should be instantaneously stripped of it. That’s neither here nor there though. You raise a good point - in Soviet Russia for instance all intellectual property “belonged to the people” as a “common good”, which was a long way of saying it belonged to the state as far as international trade was concerned. Authors had rights within the Soviet states themselves, but not beyond that scope. The state had a monopoly as far as negotiating foreign contracts was concerned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_Soviet_Union

The Tetris debacle comes to mind - Alexey Pajitnov barely made any money on possibly the most recognisable puzzle game of all time. He couldn’t collect royalties until 1997 when the rights for the game finally reverted to him.

http://edition.cnn.com/TECH/9701/22/tetris.inventor/


----------



## tabzer (Apr 22, 2022)

Dr_Faustus said:


> Can you elaborate on that further, because the concept of "owning" thoughts and ideas is typically taken in the form of patent law as well as copyright law, both things have been implemented in capitalist systems and have been abused as hell by those who are at the top end of the capitalist system. Between shit like Apple suing people left and right for the patents of a rectangle and "slide to unlock" and companies like Disney flushing cash into congressional pockets every 20 years to extend the deadline of copyright laws so the public domain cannot exist.


Capitalism isn't a government enforced idea.  When government can overrule the market, it is no longer capitalism.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Apr 22, 2022)

What if Trump seized the means of production, bros?

Would the delusional communist sympathizer in this thread then vote for him?


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Apr 22, 2022)

Socialism and Communism are bad because yes, they take control of the people, and usually leads to millions of deaths. Even the best systems, like Capitalism, usually have one fault that no system can really fix: Human greed. You can create a near perfect system that's fair for everyone, but someone will take advantage of any weaknesses one way or another because greed is a common sin in man. Not everyone is greedy, but you can and will have someone to take advantage in some shape or form. We can never have a "truly perfect system", but we can improve on the great system we have and try to mitigate the greed one can possess. But a free market is a free market. People have the freedom to do business however they please to a certain extent, and other people are free to give their support and money if they want to or not. You can't stop a person from being greedy, and you can't force people not to support anyone who you think are greedy, even if they are, because it's all personal choice, and that's one of the greatest strengths in Capitalism, personal freedom and choice.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 22, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I can’t blame capitalism for what a particular individual decided to do - that’s asinine. We’re comparing like to like - systemic failure to systemic failure.


No kidding, that's why I gave you an out early on by saying essentially the same thing.  There are individuals we can point to as responsible for the failures of communist regimes.  They weren't granted power by communism, hell they didn't even follow the basic tenants of communism; they seized power by force from an already-broken system.  Same way the US now has "businessmen" with designs on becoming dictator running for president every four years, thanks largely to shit like citizens' united making money = speech.



Foxi4 said:


> Under communism those decisions are made by the state, so I *must* blame the state, it’s the only conclusion that logically follows. The failures of communism are systemic specifically because it’s centralised.


Same logic would apply to a private sector that owns the state.  Communism does not _require_ centralization, that's why anarcho-communism and democratic socialism exist.  All forms of government and economic systems require the people in power to work in good faith to function properly.



Purple_Shyguy said:


> What if Trump seized the means of production, bros?
> 
> Would the delusional communist sympathizer in this thread then vote for him?


What if there's a large population of unicorns on Mars?  Trump is already the beneficiary of keeping the means of production right where it is, firmly in the hands of billionaires.  If he did make such a power grab, though, we'd all know it's because he's about to declare himself dictator, and not because he intends to redistribute any of it.  "Seize the means of production" is intended for the working class, not yuppie nancy-boys like Trump who never did a single honest day's work in his life.


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 22, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Lowest unemployment in decades, salary growth, an anti covid programme which wasn't insane, gave america again the position of leader of the west... yep, a disaster all right.



Man i cant wait to see your reacting in the midterms  im sure Joe will do fine with his approval rating been lower than trump


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 23, 2022)

Xzi said:


> No kidding, that's why I gave you an out early on by saying essentially the same thing.  There are individuals we can point to as responsible for the failures of communist regimes.  They weren't granted power by communism, hell they didn't even follow the basic tenants of communism; they seized power by force from an already-broken system.  Same way the US now has "businessmen" with designs on becoming dictator running for president every four years, thanks largely to shit like citizens' united making money = speech.


As I said countless times before, it is the basic tenants of communism that lead to this behaviour, the individuals involved are only enacting them. It a divisive system by design, it is intended to be enacted through violent revolution and it separates people into antagonistic groups by design. It’s perpetuated by a continuous pursuit of new boogeymen, hence the countless deaths. There’s always an “enemy of the state” around the corner - communism is a hungry beast that requires constant worship and sacrifice.


> Same logic would apply to a private sector that owns the state.  Communism does not _require_ centralization, that's why anarcho-communism and democratic socialism exist.  All forms of government and economic systems require the people in power to work in good faith to function properly.


I wouldn’t describe democratic socialism as communism. As for anarcho-communism, as far as the historical record goes, it fell on its face wherever it was tried, specifically due to the absence of the state. The state has its functions - that’s why I’m a minarchist, not an anarchist. The kind of structure you describe can only work in small, tightly knit groupings, like a family - nobody runs a family based on market principles. It doesn’t work on the level of a state. Off the top of my head I can think of Korea, where it lasted all of two years, and some small regions of Spain where it had a better chance of survival (due to smaller groupings), but was ultimately conquered as well. Again, bigger subject - one that has nothing to do with Trump’s run, and one that’s intensely boring. I don’t really have a problem with people believing in the false song of socialism as long as they’re not running apology tours for the Soviet Union, North Korea, China or Cuba. Stalinism wasn’t awful because of Stalin - Stalin’s just one guy. Stalinism was awful because it was designed on a rotten foundation. The same applies to Maoism - Mao’s responsible for the bad policies, but it’s the machine itself that was faulty.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 23, 2022)

Valwinz said:


> Man i cant wait to see your reacting in the midterms  im sure Joe will do fine with his approval rating been lower than trump


I do like that he’s cheering himself on with the “biggest reduction in unemployment ever” because… people returned to work after their workplaces were locked down… by the government. Reminds me of this:



The way some people interpret this data is mind boggling. These are not “new jobs”. Inflation is outpacing growth 2:1 - no wealth is being generated, people are losing money hand over fist, and they think they’re getting “raises”. At this point they may as well enact a $15 minimum wage - by the time it goes through Congress that $15 will be worth about as much as the $7.25 from 2 years ago.


Instaroleplay said:


> "Democratic socialism", "anarcho communism", dumb long terms that mean nothing. Humanity doesnt need those lies. Politics aint real. Demographics are. And they are also destiny.


Pump the breaks on that ethnonationalist train.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Apr 23, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I do like that he’s cheering himself on with the “biggest reduction in unemployment ever” because… people returned to work after their workplaces were locked down… by the government. Reminds me of this:
> 
> View attachment 307228
> 
> ...



You do realize the liberals who were clamoring over raising the minimum wage are now eating their words that prices wouldn't also increase therefor nullifying any wage increases. Of course they're not going to admit they were wrong and the people who warned them were right.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Apr 23, 2022)

Instaroleplay said:


> "Democratic socialism", "anarcho communism", dumb long terms that mean nothing. Humanity doesnt need those lies. Politics aint real. Demographics are. And they are also destiny.



Anything containing the word socialism or communism is already set up to fail. That's why our enemies are trying to manipulate the dumb liberals into adopting it. They're just too stupid to realize they are pawns.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 23, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> As I said countless times before, it is the basic tenants of communism that lead to this behaviour, the individuals involved are only enacting them. It a divisive system by design, it is intended to be enacted through violent revolution and it separates people into antagonistic groups by design. It’s perpetuated by a continuous pursuit of new boogeymen, hence the countless deaths. There’s always an “enemy of the state” around the corner - communism is a hungry beast that requires constant worship and sacrifice.


Again I could replace every instance of communism in this quote with capitalism and it would make just as much sense/be just as valid.  Millionaires and billionaires are constantly antagonistic of the lower classes, even inflict violence upon them through the enforcement arm of capitalism (police).  The profit motive requires a continuous pursuit of new boogeymen, hence the countless deaths and destruction of lives caused by the war on drugs and the war on terror.

Again I repeat myself: every economic system and system of government requires those individuals in power to operate in good faith.  Else they break down and allow for authoritarianism and oligarchy to seep in through the cracks.



Instaroleplay said:


> "Democratic socialism", "anarcho communism", dumb long terms that mean nothing. Humanity doesnt need those lies. Politics aint real. Demographics are. And they are also destiny.


"Only tribalism is real because I'm a weak-minded tool who can't imagine anything better."


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 23, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> You do realize the liberals who were clamoring over raising the minimum wage are now eating their words that prices wouldn't also increase therefor nullifying any wage increases. Of course they're not going to admit they were wrong and the people who warned them were right.


Well, it’d be silly to admit that the market reacts to new disposable income via price adjustments. That’s asinine, of course the rent isn’t going to go up after you magically start earning double… right? Your landlord wouldn’t do that, nu-uh.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 23, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Again I could replace every instance of communism in this quote with capitalism and it would make just as much sense/be just as valid.  Millionaires and billionaires are constantly antagonistic of the lower classes, even inflict violence upon them through the enforcement arm of capitalism (police).  The profit motive requires a continuous pursuit of new boogeymen, hence the countless deaths and destruction of lives caused by the war on drugs and the war on terror.
> 
> Again I repeat myself: every economic system and system of government requires those individuals in power to operate in good faith.  Else they break down and allow for authoritarianism and oligarchy to seep in through the cracks.


Millionaires and billionaires are not the state. They can only influence policy if the state itself is crooked, which it is. The market didn’t do that - politicians designed it so, for their own benefit. Perhaps if they had a little less power over your life there wouldn’t be a point to buying their favour. I will agree that the members of government should operate in good faith, but that ship has sailed the moment we started paying them. I was always of the opinion that the government should not be revered - it should be in a constant state of fear. They are servants, we are the masters. They enjoy brief, but conditional power - conditional based on our approval or disapproval. Sadly, since the government is worshipped as a holy cow, we can’t have nice things. Again, the difference between capitalism and communism is that under communism the market and the state are one and the same, therefore any culpability is de facto on the state.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 23, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Millionaires and billionaires are not the state.


I know, they fucking own the state.  Which is another thing I could claim is by design of capitalism.  The private sector will always outgrow the public sector unless heavily and strictly regulated.  Which means the amoral in pursuit of pure profit will always eventually have undue influence over all aspects of governance.



Foxi4 said:


> The market didn’t do that - politicians designed it so.


Precisely, because those were and still are politicians who put their oaths to capitalism before their oaths to the people and the constitution.



Foxi4 said:


> I was always of the opinion that the government should not be revered - it should be in a constant state of fear. They are servants, we are the masters. They enjoy brief, but conditional power. Sadly, since the government is worshipped as a holy cow, we can’t have nice things.


Agreed.  The upper echelon of the private sector should be treated similarly and should have to submit to similar restraints.  Assuming they're going to keep paying their employees poverty wages and forcing the government to make up for it, anyway.  Or keep taking massive corporate welfare checks on an annual basis.  Basically trying to squeeze government to death from both sides, and make the dystopian autocracy depicted in Blade Runner reality.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 23, 2022)

Xzi said:


> I know, they fucking own the state.  Which is another thing I could claim is by design of capitalism.  The private sector will always outgrow the public sector unless heavily and strictly regulated.  Which means the amoral in pursuit of pure profit will always eventually have undue influence over all aspects of governance.
> 
> 
> Precisely, because those were and still are politicians who put their oaths to capitalism before their oaths to the people.
> ...


You lost me on the last point. “Rich people” don’t owe you anything - you’re the one willingly giving them money for goods and services. There’s some overlap though, so not too shabby as a closer.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 23, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> You lost me on the last point. “Rich people” don’t owe you anything - you’re the one willingly giving them money for goods and services. There’s some overlap though, so not too shabby as a closer.


If they're heisting my tax dollars from government, and they very frequently are, then they do owe me something.  Corporations would never in a million years be able to repay all the taxes they've illegally avoided, let alone all the handouts given to them by the politicians they've bought.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 23, 2022)

Xzi said:


> If they're heisting my tax dollars from government, and they very frequently are, then they do owe me something.  Corporations would never in a million years be able to repay all the taxes they've illegally avoided, let alone all the handouts given to them by the politicians they've bought.


Objectively speaking, it’s their own tax dollars, just by sheer volume, but that’s a different discussion.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 23, 2022)

Capitalism is a behavior defined after the fact.  You can't snuff it out.  It even exists in prison.

These people... If the government makes a "good" policy in regulating the market, it's called socialism.  If they make a "bad" decision, blame capitalism.  Lol.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 23, 2022)

Instaroleplay said:


> Capitalism is just a tool.


Capitalism is an economic system, you aren't telling me anything I didn't already know.  The whole crux of the argument is that I don't believe economic systems can be held responsible for the actions of individual imperialists, authoritarians, oligarchs, and dictators.  Do I believe capitalism enables amoral individuals to rise to those positions more easily?  Yes.  Subtle but important distinction.



Foxi4 said:


> Objectively speaking, it’s their own tax dollars, just by sheer volume, but that’s a different discussion.


It doesn't matter what the total they've paid in taxes is if they aren't paying their share as mandated by law.  The rest of us common folk are permitted to do nothing less.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 23, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> No, you're putting words in my mouth, which is _typical behavior of a liberal_.


No, you're moving the goalposts and gaslighting, which is_ typical behaviour of abusive reactionary traitors_.


JonhathonBaxster said:


> You do realize that American's enemies want to force us to adopt communism through socialism because they want to see us destroyed, right? You're being played.


Oh, boy, America needs socialism so bad. Just like in Northern Europe (not UK), the happiest societies of the world. not the clusterfuck the USA are, where abortion rights are being rolled back by a cabal of fanatics you support as a way to actively control women. Or where people died of Covid because they couldn't afford to see a doctor. Seriously, is this the society you think it's worth preserving? Because if you think so, you're mad.

Your obsession with "communism" is concerning, since you're a Putinist stooge anyway. Communism is dead across the planet, and rightfully so as it obviously failed. Socialism is a very different beast, and one every society should adopt. Disaster capitalism, which both USA and UK clearly represent, needs to be wiped out. It's not like USA doesn't have some socialist policies anyway: what do you think firefighters are, genius? Public transport? road maintenance?


FAST6191 said:


> Re world wars. Are we ignoring the socialist part (and they were) of national socialist for at least round two? The history of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and earlier rearmaments is also a fun one in this.
> As far as 1 being a right wing affair... that is a drastic oversimplification but I don't know how much time we have for that one.


No, it's you trying to whitewash an ascertained historical fact for your vile political ends, you Denialist you. Williamson coming to mind!


Foxi4 said:


> How is it white washing? It’s a 100 million dead people, from all factors (war/conflict, ethnic cleansing and European diseases). It’s actually at the high end of estimates - there are lower numbers floating about. If anything, I’m being generous. As far as Marx is concerned, yes - I do blame him. He created the abjectly amoral framework that all those those oppressive regimes based their own system on, he’s one of the catalysts of collectivist thought. In the absence of Marx, none of them would ever be established. I wonder how the world would’ve looked like then - an interesting thought.


And again, you're talking nonsense - and frankly, it's amazing at the amount of misdirection you're playing.

Blaming Marx but not Nietzsche or any other political author. OK, more intellectual dishonesty here.
There is nothing amoral about Marx, as you'd know if you had actually read ANYTHING written by him, and not the bits misquoted and lied upon by reactionary propaganda. In fact, it's scary how spot-on he was, even more than two centuries later. Same thing can't be said about Nietszche, for one.


Valwinz said:


> Man i cant wait to see your reacting in the midterms im sure Joe will do fine with his approval rating been lower than trump


I've already noticed the ridiculous amount of gerrymandering that happened, so it's safe to say that America can't be counted as a democracy in any meaningful way. Also, you're wrong - Biden's approval is (sligthly) higher than Trump in the same year. Then again, no-one ever accused Americans of being meaningful thinkers in any way.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 23, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> No, you're moving the goalposts and gaslighting, which is_ typical behaviour of abusive reactionary traitors_


Dude was talking about diluted forms typically used for other sterilization purposes, not rocket fuel.  Let it go.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 23, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Dude was talking about diluted forms typically used for other sterilization purposes, not rocket fuel.  Let it go.



Not the point, which you obviously missed.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 23, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> And again, you're talking nonsense - and frankly, it's amazing at the amount of misdirection you're playing.


That’s not a rebuttal. Do you have a different figure to offer, or just the pearls that you’re clutching over there? What exactly is the objection? Which part is false, or white washing? I *just* said that colonisation led to the death of 90% of the indigenous population, either directly or indirectly, over the course of 500 years. Which part of that statement is inconsistent with historical record?


> Blaming Marx but not Nietzsche or any other political author. OK, more intellectual dishonesty here.
> 
> There is nothing amoral about Marx, as you'd know if you had actually read ANYTHING written by him, and not the bits misquoted and lied upon by reactionary propaganda. In fact, it's scary how spot-on he was, even more than two centuries later. Same thing can't be said about Nietszche, for one.


The core precepts of communism, as outlined in Marx’s Communist Manifesto (which he co-authored with Engels), are amoral.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 23, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> The core precepts of communism, as outlined in Marx’s Communist Manifesto (which he co-authored with Engels), are amoral.



It's hilarious to hear a libertarian talk about something being amoral when your basic tenets ditch morality altogether.

Let's go with a brief synthesis of the most basic of Marxist principles (https://libcom.org/article/basic-principles-marxism-critique-sociale):

"Opposition to an economic system based on inequality and on the alienation and exploitation of the majority (by means of the system of wage labor), a system whose purpose is to obtain profits for some people rather than satisfying the needs of all."

The only amoral thing I see here is the situation described, not opposing it.



Foxi4 said:


> I *just* said that colonisation led to the death of 90% of the indigenous population, either directly or indirectly, over the course of 500 years. Which part of that statement is inconsistent with historical record?



Did you forget that colonial powers were NOT communist? Or are you saying the British empire was some sort of commie dictatorship?


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 23, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> It's hilarious to hear a libertarian talk about something being amoral when your basic tenets ditch morality altogether.
> 
> Let's go with a brief synthesis of the most basic of Marxist principles (https://libcom.org/article/basic-principles-marxism-critique-sociale):
> 
> ...


I’m not going to walk you through the piece point by point - you can read it yourself. If you dislike the term “amoral”, “immoral” is also applicable. In fact, portions of it are also self-contradictory.





> Did you forget that colonial powers were NOT communist? Or are you saying the British empire was some sort of commie dictatorship?


…are you arguing with yourself again? What are you on about? Nobody said that.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 23, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I’m not going to walk you through the piece point by point - you can read it yourself. If you dislike the term “amoral”, “immoral” is also applicable. In fact, portions of it are also self-contradictory.…are you arguing with yourself again? What are you on about? Nobody said that.



I did read those, and before this conversation, and "immoral" is even more ludicrous. Hence why you're talking nonsense.

And no, I'm not arguing with myself. Just highlighting how your claim that "communist dictatorships were the worst thing on earth" is completely bonkers.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 23, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Not the point, which you obviously missed.


I noticed both the strawman and fake outrage.  It looks pathetic.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 23, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I noticed both the strawman and fake outrage.  It looks pathetic.



And I notice someone who hasn't understood anything as nature has left him desperately lacking, and yet is desperate to participate. It looks sad, you'd consider retiring.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 23, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I did read those, and before this conversation, and "immoral" is even more ludicrous. Hence why you're talking nonsense.
> 
> And no, I'm not arguing with myself. Just highlighting how your claim that "communist dictatorships were the worst thing on earth" is completely bonkers.


Confiscation of property without compensation is immoral. Violent revolution (which entails the systematic murder of the “oppressing classes”) is immoral. Replacing an elected state with unelected revolutionaries is immoral. We could go on all day.

I don’t know how you’ve reached this bizarre conclusion regarding colonisation, but that’s not what the argument is about - nobody has ever said, at any point, that colonisation of the Americas had anything to do with communism. We were comparing death tolls. How you reached your conclusion from that is a mystery.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 23, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Confiscation of property without compensation is immoral. Violent revolution (which entails the systematic murder of the “oppressing classes”) is immoral. Replacing an elected state with unelected revolutionaries is immoral. We could go on all day.



You ARE aware that, in Marx's own words, these things are not a given, aren't you? Despite his materialistic perspective, Marx didn't necessarily think that violence was the only answer. But considering that he lived and wrote in the 19th century, a century marked by Napoleonic wars AND the 1848 revolutions, together with the peak and subsequent fall of slavery, ll this inevitably left a mark on the man. Who knows, perhaps if those reactionary imperialist powers hadn't acted so brutal, things would have been different.



Foxi4 said:


> How you reached your conclusion from that is a mystery



You can blame yourself and your ridiculous assertions for it. 

I suppose we can all agree that world war 2 was much worse than every communist dictatorship together, and since you like sources: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll

If we go by the geometric column, WW2 is at 77 million deaths (in its ridiculously short duration) while every single communist dictatorship over 104 years (and in case you need to be told, it's 1917-present day) a "mere" 64 million.

Personally, I think that death toll is only one parameter to consider, but somehow you think it's the only one so I decided to rely on that.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Apr 23, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Oh, boy, America needs socialism so bad. Just like in Northern Europe (not UK), the happiest societies of the world. not the clusterfuck the USA are, where abortion rights are being rolled back by a cabal of fanatics you support as a way to actively control women. Or where people died of Covid because they couldn't afford to see a doctor. Seriously, is this the society you think it's worth preserving? Because if you think so, you're mad.
> 
> Your obsession with "communism" is concerning, since you're a Putinist stooge anyway. Communism is dead across the planet, and rightfully so as it obviously failed. Socialism is a very different beast, and one every society should adopt. Disaster capitalism, which both USA and UK clearly represent, needs to be wiped out. It's not like USA doesn't have some socialist policies anyway: what do you think firefighters are, genius? Public transport? road maintenance?



I don't like Putin or Russia and its good that we're outlawing the killing of unborn life. As for your views that somehow socialism will solve problems ... like I already stated, that's what our enemies, like Russia, want you to believe.



			
				Dark_ansem said:
			
		

> No, you're moving the goalposts and gaslighting, which is_ typical behaviour of abusive reactionary traitors_.


You're sure mastering the Liberal buzzwords, however they are empty and without substance. You're simply wrong. Get over it.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 23, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> You ARE aware that, in Marx's own words, these things are not a given, aren't you? Despite his materialistic perspective, Marx didn't necessarily think that violence was the only answer. But considering that he lived and wrote in the 19th century, a century marked by Napoleonic wars AND the 1848 revolutions, together with the peak and subsequent fall of slavery, ll this inevitably left a mark on the man. Who knows, perhaps if those reactionary imperialist powers hadn't acted so brutal, things would have been different.


There is no possible scenario in which the precepts of the communist manifesto could be enacted peacefully.


> You can blame yourself and your ridiculous assertions for it.


Everything I said was correct. You misunderstood the exchange I had with Xzi and then said something nonsensical that nobody mentioned before.


> I suppose we can all agree that world war 2 was much worse than every communist dictatorship together, and since you like sources: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll
> 
> If we go by the geometric column, WW2 is at 77 million deaths (in its ridiculously short duration) while every single communist dictatorship over 104 years (and in case you need to be told, it's 1917-present day) a "mere" 64 million.
> 
> Personally, I think that death toll is only one parameter to consider, but somehow you think it's the only one so I decided to rely on that.


Not a “mere” 64 million. I disagree with your low estimate. The Great Leap Forward accounts for 30 million dead from starvation alone (estimates range between 15 and 55 million), making “The Three Years of Great Famine” the worst period of famine in recorded history. Your figure does not pass the sniff test.

We also can’t “agree” regarding WWII’s effects. We haven’t even established that they’re separate - they’re not, communist forces participated in the conflict and contributed to that figure. In fact, a large number of communist massacres occurred *during* WWII or in its immediate aftermath, so those two figures intersect - you’re counting dead bodies twice. More importantly, you’re attacking a point that was never made - in addition to loss of human life, WWII had a variety of consequences, including environmental ones, which isn’t what we’re discussing. We were discussing the death toll, and the death toll of communism ranges between 60 million on the low ball and 150 million on the high end. In the spirit of fairness I’m picking average figures for all of those events, and communism still comes out on top, by a significant margin. The accepted and commonly quoted number is 100 million, so that’s what I chose.

I don’t know what point you’re trying to make, and I’m not going to hazard a guess. Maybe once you elaborate on what you’re trying to say things will become a bit clearer. Better yet, you can refrain from beating a dead horse and move on with the discussion since this part has pretty much concluded, unless you have a closing statement of some kind?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 23, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I don't like Putin or Russia and its good that we're outlawing the killing of unborn life. As for your views that somehow socialism will solve problems ... like I already stated, that's what our enemies, like Russia, want you to believe.



Russia is as much socialist as I am king of England. So either whip up my crown or STFU. Russia is the epitome of a disaster capitalist society - currently even more than America. And unborn life can't be killed, because it's not life. But I appreciate your misogyny showing, and your loser nature shining through these disgusting attempts to punish women for enjoying sex.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> You're sure mastering the Liberal buzzwords, however they are empty and without substance. You're simply wrong. Get over it.



I can play this game too, MTG of gba. You're full of nonsense and are a liar and a cheat.



Foxi4 said:


> There is no possible scenario in which the precepts of the communist manifesto could be enacted peacefully.



Wrong again. Has happened and is happening in plenty of places.



Foxi4 said:


> Not a “mere” 64 million. I disagree with your low estimate. The Great Leap Forward accounts for 30 million dead from starvation alone (estimates range between 15 and 55 million), making “The Three Years of Great Famine” the worst period of famine in recorded history. Your figure does not pass the sniff test.



Not "my estimate", and that you disagree with it is inconsequential, as that's what we have. As you repeatedly said throughout these 30+ pages, it's only the data that matters. I disagree with your higher estimate.



Foxi4 said:


> In fact, a large number of communist massacres occurred *during* WWII or in its immediate aftermath, so those two figures intersect - you’re counting dead bodies twice.



No, I'm not.



Foxi4 said:


> they’re not, communist forces participated in the conflict and contributed to that figure



As did non-communist ones. There, see?



Foxi4 said:


> More importantly, you’re attacking a point that was never made - in addition to loss of human life, WWII had a variety of consequences, including environmental ones, which isn’t what we’re discussing



I was discussing them, in fact I introduced them to the discourse, but you decided to ignore them because they wouldn't fit your libertarian narrative.



Foxi4 said:


> I don’t know what point you’re trying to make, and I’m not going to hazard a guess. Maybe once you elaborate on what you’re trying to say things will become a bit clearer.



I've already stated it plenty of time, doesn't matter how much you and circlejerk of putinist stooges disagrees.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Apr 23, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Russia is as much socialist as I am king of England. So either whip up my crown or STFU. Russia is the epitome of a disaster capitalist society - currently even more than America. And unborn life can't be killed, because it's not life. But I appreciate your misogyny showing, and your loser nature shining through these disgusting attempts to punish women for enjoying sex.
> 
> I can play this game too, MTG of gba. You're full of nonsense and are a liar and a cheat.



I never stated that Russia was under socialism. I stated I dislike Putin and Russia and that Russia is our enemy and one that has helped brainwash you into thinking that adopting socialism is the right thing to do. As for you, who seems to like to only insult others and talks about things no one uttered or said you're going on ignore. I don't need your kind of influence in my life. Bye.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 23, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Wrong again. Has happened and is happening in plenty of places.


Name them. I can’t address a rebuttal that consists of “no, you’re wrong”. There are very few communist states that were implemented in history and I can’t think of any that were established without direct bloodshed or not in the immediate aftermath of an unrelated revolution (if a foreign power or another revolution has already dismantled the state then there’s a possibility that communism can fill in the vacuum, but that’s an obvious special circumstance). Certainly not long-lasting ones, but I’ll wait for examples.


> Not "my estimate", and that you disagree with it is inconsequential, as that's what we have. As you repeatedly said throughout these 50+ pages, it's only the data that matters. I disagree with your higher estimate.


Then you disagree with the majority of scholars and we can end the discussion here. The commonly quoted and generally agreed upon figure is 100 million - some say it’s lower, some say it’s higher. This is the safe average.


> No, I'm not.


I have no response. You haven’t addressed the argument.


> As did non-communist ones. There, see?


See what? Make an argument. I can’t guess what you’re thinking.


> I was discussing them, in fact I introduced them to the discourse, but you decided to ignore them because they wouldn't fit your libertarian narrative.


I generally ignore irrelevant information, yes. If it’s not something that we were discussing, it can be dismissed. The point that was being contested was the death toll.


> I've already stated it plenty of time, doesn't matter how much you and circlejerk of putinist stooges disagrees.


You’re right, it doesn’t matter. I’m just giving you an opportunity to clarify what otherwise doesn’t make any sense.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Apr 23, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Dude was talking about diluted forms typically used for other sterilization purposes, not rocket fuel.  Let it go.



Thank you for backing me up. What I was talking about was the fact that Trump suggested it might be possible to inject disinfectants to help fight COVID19. While I'm not sure why he suggested it might be possible he never specifically stated which disinfectant or disinfectants he was referring to. So the dumb liberals claim he meant bleach and some say he said to drink bleach while others claim he said to inject bleach. However, bleach was never mentioned. So I went on to give a link to a list of common disinfectants that Trump might have been referring to and then mentioned that hydrogen peroxide, which is on the list, can be used as a disinfectant. Then @Dark_Ansem stated that hydrogen peroxide will harm you and I replied with links to commercially available products such as toothpaste and mouth wash that contain hydrogen peroxide. After that Dark_Ansem claimed all sorts of stupid shit to try to avoid having to admit he was wrong. Anyway, thanks again!


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 23, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I never stated that Russia was under socialism. I stated I dislike Putin and Russia and that Russia is our enemy and one that has helped brainwash you into thinking that adopting socialism is the right thing to do. As for you, who seems to like to only insult others and talks about things no one uttered or said you're going on ignore. I don't need your kind of influence in my life. Bye.



There's been literally no communist propaganda from Russia for 20 years. They're busy supporting your Republican pals, traitors to the West as you all are.

And socialism IS the right thing to do, as clearly most socialist countries are faring better than the majority of the anglosphere.

More hypocrisy and lack of self awareness from you.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 23, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Name them. I can’t address a rebuttal that consists of “no, you’re wrong”. There are very few communist states that were implemented in history and I can’t think of any that were established without direct bloodshed or not in the immediate aftermath of an unrelated revolution. Certainly not long-lasting ones, but I’ll wait for examples.
> Then you disagree with the majority of scholars and we can end the discussion here. The commonly quoted and generally agreed upon figure is 100 million - some say it’s lower, some say it’s higher. This is the safe average.
> I have no response. You haven’t addressed the argument.
> See what? Make an argument. I can’t guess what you’re thinking.
> ...



I refuse to be drawn into your nonsense again where you pretend to be deaf and simply ignore what you don't like.

As per your first question: Norway, Denmark, Germany, Sweden, Finland, New Zealand - even France and Italy to an extent. Heck even Poland and your ridiculous PiSS party have put in place (populist) socialist measures.



Foxi4 said:


> Then you disagree with the majority of scholars and we can end the discussion here.



Actually the majority of scholars, and basic maths, agree with me so yeah, you're not making sense again.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> Then @Dark_Ansem stated that hydrogen peroxide will harm you and I replied with links to commercially available products such as toothpaste and mouth wash that contain hydrogen peroxide.



As always, you're a gaslighting Trumptard. The keyword is "containing" Peroxide. The way you wrote you were advertising pure Peroxide, which I again strongly recommend you'd never use.

Your apology is accepted.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 23, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Thank you for backing me up. What I was talking about was the fact that Trump suggested it might be possible to inject disinfectants to help fight COVID19. While I'm not sure why he suggested it might be possible he never specifically stated which disinfectant or disinfectants he was referring to. So the dumb liberals claim he meant bleach and some say he said to drink bleach while others claim he said to inject bleach. However, bleach was never mentioned. So I went on to give a link to a list of common disinfectants that Trump might have been referring to and then mentioned that hydrogen peroxide, which is on the list, can be used as a disinfectant. Then @Dark_Ansem stated that hydrogen peroxide will harm you and I replied with links to commercially available products such as toothpaste and mouth wash that contain hydrogen peroxide. After that Dark_Ansem claimed all sorts of stupid shit to try to avoid having to admit he was wrong. Anyway, thanks again!


He is aware of his own edge.  I can't tell if he's being satirical or lonely.  I don't really care to find out.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 23, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I refuse to be drawn into your nonsense again where you pretend to be deaf and simply ignore what you don't like.
> 
> As per your first question: Norway, Denmark, Germany, Sweden, Finland, New Zealand - even France and Italy to an extent. Heck even Poland and your ridiculous PiSS party have put in place (populist) socialist measures.


Oh. You classify those as “communist countries”. I see the problem now. Are you confusing communism with liberal democracies? Because that would explain a lot. None of those countries are communist (Poland *used to be* communist and was forced into that position via Soviet occupation, was East Germany, but that’s not what you mean, is it?). I’m so lost here - what point are you making?


> Actually the majority of scholars, and basic maths, agree with me so yeah, you're not making sense again.


False. 100 million is by far the most quoted, and generally agreed upon figure. You don’t have to agree with it, I don’t really care.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 23, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Oh. You classify those as “communist countries”. I see the problem now. Are you confusing communism with liberal democracies? Because that would explain a lot. None of those countries are communist. I’m so lost here - what point are you making?



More nonsense from you. I've said SEVERAL times that I'm a supporter of socialism and socialist measures, NEVER communist ones. I'd appreciate if you stopped lying and gaslighting.



Foxi4 said:


> False. 100 million is by far the most quoted, and generally agreed upon figure. You don’t have to agree with it, I don’t really care.



Most quoted by you or other libertarians? I wasn't aware you spoke for the entire world.



> He is aware of his own edge.  I can't tell if he's being satirical or lonely.  I don't really care to find out.



And yet you're still sticking around...


----------



## tabzer (Apr 23, 2022)

Communism/socialism is great, but it's not something a government can provide.  If you want to aid your immediate community, you have my full support.  But since you are arguing policy, it seems like you have nothing to offer and just want to be a beneficiary.  That would make you trash.

Government can't enforce charity without enforcing slavery.  Be the change.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 23, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Communism is great


Excuse me?



tabzer said:


> But since you are arguing policy, it seems like you have nothing to offer and just want to be a beneficiary. That would make you trash.


Are you illiterate?



tabzer said:


> Government can't enforce charity without enforcing slavery. Be the change.


You can't "enforce' charity because the whole concept of charity is incompatible with the idea of "enforcement". Even in Islam, which has the closest concept in religion to "forced charity" (pardon the oxymoron), that charity concept is limited to una tantum occurrence.

What the government can enforce, however, are uplifting measures. Which are NOT charity.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 23, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> More nonsense from you. I've said SEVERAL times that I'm a supporter of socialism and socialist measures, NEVER communist ones. I'd appreciate if you stopped lying and gaslighting.


I feel like I’m rapidly losing brain cells just talking to you. I asked you to name *communist countries* that were established without bloodshed and not in the immediate aftermath of a revolution/some other similar conflict and you respond by giving me a list of countries that are not communist, then criticised *me* for pointing it out. I’m done with this discussion.


> Most quoted by you or other libertarians? I wasn't aware you spoke for the entire world.


Type in “communism death toll” in Google and scroll down. This isn’t hard.

https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/100-years-of-communismand-100-million-dead-1510011810
https://reason.com/2013/03/13/communism-killed-94m-in-20th-century/?amp
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...17/11/07/lessons-from-a-century-of-communism/
https://www.latimes.com/la-oe-service16jun16-story.html

We’ll never get an exact number due to the nature of many of those deaths, we can only operate on estimates, and this one happens to be the popular one.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 23, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I feel like I’m rapidly losing brain cells just talking to you. I asked you to name *communist countries* that were established without bloodshed and not in the immediate aftermath of a revolution and you respond by giving me a list of countries that are not communist


And I feel your dishonesty is reaching peak, thus wasting everyones time just to stroke your ego to even more megalomaniacal levels. That's not what you asked at all. We were talking about marxist principles which you said were unattainable without revolution, you disagreed and I told you were full of nonsense and then you asked me where. That's what we were talking about. Not about "communist countries". Stop attempting to misdirect.



Foxi4 said:


> Type in “communism death toll” in Google and scroll down. This isn’t hard.


I did, and I decided to stick with the geometric mean values that Wikipedia provided, because, as you mentioned, outlier values should be excluded. If we're going with outlier/hypothetical values, WW2 still comes out on top: https://www.nationalww2museum.org/s.../research-starters-worldwide-deaths-world-war 

Or you think you know more than the whole WW2 museum?

And that's not taking into account that your "communist death toll' is still going into the present day.


----------



## tabzer (Apr 23, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> What the government can enforce, however, are uplifting measures.


Lol. Explain that.  An example of an "uplifting measure" would be nice.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 23, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> And I feel your dishonesty is reaching peak, thus wasting everyones time just to stroke your ego to even more megalomaniacal levels. That's not what you asked at all. We were talking about marxist principles which you said were unattainable without revolution, you disagreed and I told you were full of nonsense and then you asked me where. That's what we were talking about. Not about "communist countries". Stop attempting to misdirect.


This is exhausting. I asked you a direct question. Your answer was gobbledygook. For the record, the precepts of *the Communist Manifesto*, which is what we’re taking about, cannot be enacted without bloodshed, you just don’t know what those precepts are (which is odd - it’s a 10-point plan, it’s really not that hard to digest)… so wrong on both counts.


> I did, and I decided to stick with the geometric mean values that Wikipedia provided, because, as you mentioned, outlier values should be excluded. If we're going with outlier/hypothetical values, WW2 still comes out on top: https://www.nationalww2museum.org/s.../research-starters-worldwide-deaths-world-war
> 
> Or you think you know more than the whole WW2 museum?
> 
> And that's not taking into account that your "communist death toll' is still going into the present day.


That’s not what you did. You posted an estimated death toll of WWII (from the graph) and compared it to a number you pulled out from a hat. You’ve posted zero source links for your “64 million” figure - either you calculated it yourself from the non-exhaustive list of anthropogenic disasters/wars, *or* you pinched it from here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes

Which happens to be the link I posted earlier. 64 million would land among the low end of listed estimates. At this point I don’t know where it’s from, and I don’t care - it’s incorrect either way. I don’t dispute your WWII figure, I dispute your communism figure because it’s poppycock. The outlier values listed here are 60 million on the low end and 141 million on the high end - what exactly are you “eliminating”?

I’m sorry, but I’m unable to continue this conversation with you. There’s some kind of barrier here - not a language barrier, since you seem fluent enough, but a logic barrier. I ask you for an omelette and you give me scrambled egg - I can’t unscramble an egg to make an omelette out of it. You don’t respond to what you’re asked about, you just kinda say whatever comes to your mind, then get flustered. I can’t have a discussion like that - it’s just too exhausting. Don’t take this the wrong way, but I literally don’t understand you. I understand the words, and when I put them together I can understand the sentences, but what you’re saying makes zero sense.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 23, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Lol. Explain that.  An example of an "uplifting measure" would be nice.


Minimum LIVING wage. Welfare measures such as healthcare. See? That wasn't difficult was it? I have more



Foxi4 said:


> This is exhausting. I asked you a direct question. Your answer was gobbledygook. For the record, the precepts of *the Communist Manifesto*, which is what we’re taking about, cannot be enacted without bloodshed, you just don’t know what those precepts are (which is odd - it’s a 10-point plan, it’s really not that hard to digest)… so wrong on both counts.


Utter nonsense again from you. I was right on both counts and you kept going on with your usual gaslighting and misdirection.
Also, 10 points? You're ridiculous.




Foxi4 said:


> That’s not what you did. You posted an estimated death toll of WWII (from the graph) and compared it to a number you pulled out from a hat. You’ve posted zero source links for your “64 million” figure - either you calculated it yourself from the non-exhaustive list of anthropogenic disasters/wars, *or* you pinched it from here:


This is evidence you don't even read my posts, you're in soliloquy. My figure came from the other Wikipedia link I posted, the one you kept ignoring because you didn't like it.




Foxi4 said:


> I’m sorry, but I’m unable to continue this conversation with you. There’s some kind of barrier here - not a language barrier, since you seem fluent enough, but a logic barrier. I ask you for an omelette and you give me scrambled egg - I can’t unscramble an egg to make an omelette out of it. You don’t respond to what you’re asked about, you just kinda say whatever comes to your mind, then get flustered. I can’t have a discussion like that - it’s just too exhausting. Don’t take this the wrong way, but I literally don’t understand you. I understand the words, and when I put them together I can understand the sentences, but what you’re saying makes zero sense.


The barrier is that you say something and mean something else, then forget what you post and complain I'm not following your script.

What I say makes sense, you just don't like it. Even now, i told you exactly how it happened and what you asked and you *insist* that it's not what you asked. Despite you know, messages and summary.

While I think you enjoy to an extent this bickering, there's also the fact that you barely read what I post, you merely quote it and say "no u". At least I make the effort of going through your messages.

I will concede that I tend to go on a tangents or refer to older messages without quoting, but honestly, typing from a mobile phone with you is exhausting. Eve more so with your sycophants as well.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 23, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Utter nonsense again from you. I was right on both counts and you kept going on with your usual gaslighting and misdirection.
> 
> Also, 10 points? You're ridiculous.


Now it’s pretty clear you didn’t read it. They’re called the ten planks. It’s a 10-step plan. Are you going to argue with Marx about what Marx wrote? This is why we can’t have a discussion.


> This is evidence you don't even read my posts, you're in soliloquy. My figure came from the other Wikipedia link I posted, the one you kept ignoring because you didn't like it.


What other link? Where is it? Where is the figure from? What did you add together to arrive at this estimate? I am scrolling, I really am, but all I see is a Wikipedia article on wars/anthropogenic disasters (if you added those figures then it’s non-exhaustive) and a WWII estimate on a different site.


> The barrier is that you say something and mean something else, then forget what you post and complain I'm not following your script.


No, the barrier is me explicitly asking you about examples of communist countries and you giving me back a list of democracies with social programs, with the justification being that you like socialism. You didn’t answer the question, you just spilled marbles and called it an answer, then accused me of gaslighting when the question was clear.


> What I say makes sense, you just don't like it. Even now, i told you exactly how it happened and what you asked and you *insist* that it's not what you asked. Despite you know, messages and summary.


I am, for the second time, physically unable to untangle the way your thoughts connect. I am trying to make sense of what you’re saying, but your replies are not connected to what you’re responding to, which makes it difficult.


> While I think you enjoy to an extent this bickering, there's also the fact that you barely read what I post, you merely quote it and say "no u". At least I make the effort of going through your messages.


I always respond with a proper rebuttal, supported by an example when needed. You call me names, which I ignore.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 23, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> No, the barrier is me explicitly asking you about examples of communist countries and you giving me back a list of democracies with social programs, with the justification being that you like socialism. You didn’t answer the question, you just spilled marbles and called it an answer, then accused me of gaslighting when the question was clear.


Clearly it wasn't, you assumed it was so.



Foxi4 said:


> I always respond with a proper rebuttal, supported by an example when needed. You call me names, which I ignore.


No, you always answer with your opinion and some low-key insults which I do not ignore.



Foxi4 said:


> Now it’s pretty clear you didn’t read it. They’re called the ten planks. It’s a 10-step plan. Are you going to argue with Marx about what Marx wrote? This is why we can’t have a discussion.


Again, more gaslighting. The 10 planks are from a very specific document, his "communist manifesto", the one he was paid to write twice. I, since I studied MORE than that, and more of his works such as the Capital, which are considerably more elaborate and cannot be summarised in 10 points- as it would have been obvious if you read my first link about Marx.




Foxi4 said:


> What other link? Where is it? Where is the figure from? What did you add together to arrive at this estimate? I am scrolling, I really am, but all I see is a Wikipedia article on wars/anthropogenic disasters (if you added those figures then it’s non-exhaustive) and a WWII estimate on a different site.


I'm referring to both of these, and someone else did the math. Again, do you know more than the ww2 museum?


Foxi4 said:


> I am, for the second time, physically unable to untangle the way your thoughts connect. I am trying to make sense of what you’re saying, but your replies are not connected to what you’re responding to, which makes it difficult


What you are doing is being daft on purpose, as I even made the effort to quote your message and somehow you claim to be unable to understand, which is ridiculous as obviously you are just being your usual contrarian self.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 23, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Clearly it wasn't, you assumed it was so.
> 
> No, you always answer with your opinion and some low-key insults which I do not ignore.
> 
> ...


I didn’t make any “assumptions”, I asked a question, and you responded with marbles. My dude, we were discussing the Communist Manifesto, of course the planks are from there, that’s the exact document we were talking about. Was this somehow surprising? I was very specific. In any case, you were referring to both of those sites? How? “Communism” in its totality isn’t mentioned at all - individual events in human history are, and the list is obviously incomplete, the page says as much. I… I really don’t think I can do this anymore, it’s too much. 

Listen man, we can’t continue. If this is a troll then masterfully done - you roped me in hook, line and sinker. I applaud you for your perseverance if it’s all a put-on, it was very funny. If this isn’t a troll and you’re jumping between different, disconnected thoughts like this in real life then I don’t know what to say. You are a very unusual person. Either way, godspeed to you - this was entertaining, for all the wrong reasons.

EDIT: Lord almighty, after extensive digging I finally found the mean you’re talking about. It refers to “Various communist leaders”, not communism in its totality, but let’s ignore that. The heading clearly states that the list is not complete - I have no reason to believe that this specific section is. “Various” does not equal “all”. As for the numbers themselves, the low estimate is listed as 28 million, the high estimate as 148 million, and the mean is, as you say, 64 million. Do note that the discrepancy is rather substantial - the average works out to about 88 million, significantly more than WWII. You’re welcome to go for the mean if that’s what you want to do (it’s a statistically sound methodology), however the only sourced numbers are the high end estimates. This is not surprising, since the real number is likely higher than the mean.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_mean

If this is the argument you’re bringing to the table, it’s weak sauce - it’s not an actual estimate of the total death toll, it’s napkin math based on existing estimates to demonstrate a trend in numbers. Fun fact - the very same table entry you’re referencing is also telling you to visit my link under “See also”. I wonder why that is, my guy. On the bright side, I at least found the number you were referring to. You’re partially vindicated, in the sense that your source actually lists it. I was beginning to think that it doesn’t. I consider it low, particularly compared to broadly referenced estimates.

Lest we forget, we got here because I said that communist regimes are the most murderous bar none. It appears that your source corroborates that. Don’t see a whole lot of other contenders for the title.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 23, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> EDIT: Lord almighty, after extensive digging I finally found the mean you’re talking about.


Extensive? It was literally there.



Foxi4 said:


> If this is the argument you’re bringing to the table, it’s weak sauce - it’s not an actual estimate of the total death toll, it’s napkin math based on existing estimates to demonstrate a trend in numbers. Fun fact - the very same table entry you’re referencing is telling you to visit my link under “See also”. I wonder why that is, my guy. On the bright side, I at least finally found the number you were referring to, and still consider it low based on what I saw.


Well, we will have to agree to disagree then.



Foxi4 said:


> Lest we forget, we got here because I said that communist regimes are the most murderous bar none. It appears that your source corroborates that. Don’t see a whole lot of other contenders for the title


It really doesn't, as it states very clearly that ww2, as does the ww2 museum, was much worse - and again, I'm only humouring you with death tolls because somehow it's the only criterion you seem to like.

That you don't "see" contenders is only an itty bitty sus, but hey, as I said, you display this curious tendency to ignore what you don't like and dismiss it as "weak'. Two can play this game, frankly.

I suppose that you and your reactionary cabal-cult will still wave your fists at the cloud of "communism", terrorising yourself sick about the shadows of your very own Plato cave. If only you'd keep your insanity to yourselves. It's not a communist regime once again about to trigger a world war. Its your idol Putin, the one you're all simping for.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Extensive? It was literally there.


It’s a huge list, the number you’re referencing comes from the “Political Repression” section and the “Various Communist Leaders” row. Not exactly the terms we were discussing, nor is it even exhaustive. I don’t know why I’d be compelled to look there for a total under communism considering those deaths go beyond repression - I would’ve located it faster if you simply told me where it was.


> Well, we will have to agree to disagree then.


Yes, we will.


> It really doesn't, as it states very clearly that ww2, as does the ww2 museum, was much worse - and again, I'm only humouring you with death tolls because somehow it's the only criterion you seem to like.


I think I know what’s going on here. In your head, Nazi Germany started WWII, therefore Nazi Germany is responsible for any and all casualties of WWII, regardless of whether they were on the side of Axis or Allies. Am I correct in this assessment? Because it’s kind of asinine, but go for it, champ - let’s count casualties caused by the Allies. This is very sensible. There’s a reason why I said there’s an overlap here, but you go on and be you.


> That you don't "see" contenders is only an itty bitty sus, but hey, as I said, you display this curious tendency to ignore what you don't like and dismiss it as "weak'. Two can play this game, frankly.


Communist regimes continue to be the most murderous bar none. No other system on the planet is more efficient at killing its own people.


> I suppose that you and your reactionary cabal-cult will still wave your fists at the cloud of "communism", terrorising yourself sick about the shadows of your very own Plato cave. If only you'd keep your insanity to yourselves. It's not a communist regime once again about to trigger a world war. Its your idol Putin, the one you're all simping for.


You’re talking with me. I don’t care about any other conversation you may or may not be having on the side. I’m also not sure why you’d accuse me of sympathising with Putin, but then again, you always resort to baseless accusation when cornered.

Speaking of things that are sus…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

That’s a lot of Soviets and the Chinese. How peculiar. Seems to me that the respective regimes were throwing their people into the meat grinder by the wheelbarrow. It’s odd that post-war famine hit communist Russia and China the most… almost as if they were horrifically mismanaged compared to the rest of the world… but what do I know, I just look into the numbers I’m presented.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> It’s a huge list, the number you’re referencing comes from the “Political Repression” section and the “Various Communist Leaders” row. Not exactly the terms we were discussing, nor is it even exhaustive. I don’t know why I’d be compelled to look there for a total under communism considering those deaths go beyond repression - I would’ve located it faster if you simply told me where it was.
> Yes, we will.
> I think I know what’s going on here. In your head, Nazi Germany started WWII, therefore Nazi Germany is responsible for any and all casualties of WWII, regardless of whether they were on the side of Axis or Allies. Am I correct in this assessment? Because it’s kind of asinine, but go for it, champ - let’s count casualties caused by the Allies. This is very sensible. There’s a reason why I said there’s an overlap here, but you go on and be you.
> Communist regimes continue to be the most murderous bar none. No other system on the planet is more efficient at killing its own people.
> ...


Wrong on most counts and very disingenous in your calculations, stooge. 
Also "cornered"? Get a grip, this isn't the Far West or a War Zone, despite you flaunting those deaths as if they were cattle. You're not winning anything here, and you're certainly not 

And no, I'm not pinning all deaths of WW2 on the 3rd reich (even if you know, without them there would have been no WW2 - in the shape we know it - so calling it "asinine" is your usual pointless flexing of words you barely understanding, since asinine is more than adequate for your ramblings).

I mean, it's more accurate than you considering war casualties as part of "death by communist regime", which is both disingeous and, frankly, intellectually dishonest. But what do I know, I look into the numbers I'm presented and understand them.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 25, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Wrong on most counts and very disingenous in your calculations, stooge.
> Also "cornered"? Get a grip, this isn't the Far West or a War Zone, despite you flaunting those deaths as if they were cattle. You're not winning anything here, and you're certainly not
> 
> And no, I'm not pinning all deaths of WW2 on the 3rd reich (even if you know, without them there would have been no WW2 - in the shape we know it - so calling it "asinine" is your usual pointless flexing of words you barely understanding, since asinine is more than adequate for your ramblings).
> ...


If the state redirects resources towards the war effort to such an extent that millions of citizens starve to death (which is what happened, let’s be real here), it’s absolutely the regime’s fault. The civilian losses seen in Soviet states (or states that fell under Soviet influence in the immediate aftermath of the war) are not replicated in any other state, including ones that were under complete Nazi occupation. If you can’t draw a conclusion from that, I can’t help you. An irresponsible government is irresponsible in times of peace and in times of war. We’ll just have to agree to disagree - a conclusion I predicted before this debacle even started.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 28, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> If the state redirects resources towards the war effort to such an extent that millions of citizens starve to death (which is what happened, let’s be real here), it’s absolutely the regime’s fault. The civilian losses seen in Soviet states (or states that fell under Soviet influence in the immediate aftermath of the war) are not replicated in any other state, including ones that were under complete Nazi occupation. If you can’t draw a conclusion from that, I can’t help you. An irresponsible government is irresponsible in times of peace and in times of war. We’ll just have to agree to disagree - a conclusion I predicted before this debacle even started.


Sorry for the delay, I was distracted by the French election and other issues, including that I travelled. As you said, we have to agree to disagree as I do not approve of your spin on facts just like you don't approve me relying on your playbook, ie being ridiculously selective on data and ignoring everything you don't like.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 28, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Sorry for the delay, I was distracted by the French election and other issues, including that I travelled. As you said, we have to agree to disagree as I do not approve of your spin on facts just like you don't approve me relying on your playbook, ie being ridiculously selective on data and ignoring everything you don't like.


Honestly my guy, it’s cool. It’s hard for me to follow your train of thought sometimes, and I don’t know why that is, but I made an effort, as you did. You won’t really change my opinion, particularly not on something I’ve experienced and seen with my own two eyes. Arguing about who’s worse, communists or Nazis, is like arguing what’s better, getting boiled or deep fried. My country had a little bit of column A and a little bit of column B, and we’re wiser for it. Both camps can take a long walk off a short pier.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Apr 28, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> You won’t really change my opinion, particularly not on something I’ve experienced and seen with my own two eyes.


It wasn't my intention. You have seen and experienced NOTHING. You live in UK, if anything you'd know that libertarians are some of the worst ever.



Foxi4 said:


> Arguing about who’s worse, communists or Nazis, is like arguing what’s better, getting boiled or deep fried.


Then why did you start the whole thing?


Foxi4 said:


> My country had a little bit of column A and a little bit of column B, and we’re wiser for it. Both camps can take a long walk off a short pier.


As did mine, and while I agree with the sentiment, I think distinctions need to be drawn.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 28, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> It wasn't my intention. You have seen and experienced NOTHING. You live in UK, if anything you'd know that libertarians are some of the worst ever.


…what are you on about? I grew up in Poland, I was born before the wall fell and watched the entire reconstruction period. One of my earliest conscious memories is denomination in 1994, when we got rid of the old, worthless money in favour of money with actual value. My elder sisters queued in front of empty stores before the system got dismantled in 1989 - I may have been too young to distinctly remember that, but they were not. I know exactly what I’m taking about, so get off the high horse. I spent my early years watching my parent’s generation fixing the mess communists left behind.

As for the UK, where I live *currently*, the libertarian movement here is almost non-existent - all of the freedom-loving Brits boarded ships some time in the 18th century and sailed off to start the best country on planet Earth, the only relevant party in the area with a libertarian bent is Plaid Cymru, and they’re left-wingers - thanks, but no thanks. I don’t understand your allergy to liberty.


> Then why did you start the whole thing?


I didn’t start a thing. I just said that communist regimes are the most murderous bar none, which is a fact - it’s you guys who came in with the weird comparisons, racing to prove Godwin’s law correct.


> As did mine, and while I agree with the sentiment, I think distinctions need to be drawn.


I don’t. What happened in Italy after the war is in no way comparable to what happened in Poland. After the fall of Mussolini’s fascist regime Italy became a republic - you had a brief communist party majority (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Communist_Party), but never actually changed the system of governance to anything other than democracy, with a (admittedly strong) socialist bent. Poland was first under complete Soviet occupation and then was pressured into converting to communism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_People's_Republic). Becoming a Soviet satellite state was preferable to annexation, but it was hardly voluntary. Water under the bridge at this point, but our history is not the same - it’s not even close. Italians were always free to make their own decisions - Poles were not. The Polish government at the time was nothing more than Moscow’s puppet.


----------



## _47iscool (Apr 29, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes
> It is said that in the 500 years of European colonisation of the Americas, 90% of *indigenous peoples* have died, for a variety of reasons, from direct killings to disease brought over on the ships of colonisers (which is a bit of a Stretch Armstrong-level situation - I don’t see how someone can be held liable for being sick, it’s not exactly a decision one makes deliberately, but hey). That number translates to an estimated 100 million total, give or take. The communists accomplished the same or higher number in just a few decades. The reason why “capitalism versus communism” comparison is a non sequitur is because deaths under communism are by design whereas deaths under capitalism are not. Communism operates within specific confines of a centrally planned economy that the state is in charge of, capitalism is a blanket term describing any market-based economy. The market doesn’t kill people - the market is interested in creating and selling products. Communist states *do* kill people, either directly through genocide or indirectly through market manipulation, which they’ve accepted the responsibility for because it’s a prerequisite to their operation. If a farmer plants crop that isn’t in demand and ends up in poverty, that’s not capitalism’s fault - there was no market for it, the farmer is poor because he’s in a low demand market and should consider changes to their business. If a farmer grows crop that *is* in demand, the state rolls in and confiscates it, the state *is* at fault for the farmer’s poverty - the state took away their livelihood. This is simple stuff.


https://www.eutimes.net/2012/03/sto...t-prove-the-first-americans-came-from-europe/


----------



## Nothereed (May 1, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> you’re the one willingly giving them money for goods and services


When those goods and services are fucking food and housing, perhaps we're not so willing but coerced into it.
Unless your telling me death is a valid and accepted option in a supposed to be functioning society. Essentially obligated to "give" that money otherwise we'd be dead.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 1, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> When those goods and services are fucking food and housing, perhaps we're not so willing but coerced into it.
> Unless your telling me death is a valid and accepted option in a supposed to be functioning society. Essentially obligated to "give" that money otherwise we'd be dead.


What a ridiculous notion. It implies there’s a food monopoly. There isn’t, you have a variety of vendors. Not only can you go somewhere else if you don’t like the prices, you can produce food yourself - nobody’s going to stop you.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (May 1, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> What a ridiculous notion. It implies food monopoly - you have a variety of vendors. Not only can you go somewhere else if you don’t like the prices, you can also produce food yourself - nobody’s going to stop you.


But making food yourself would imply a lot of work and self sufficiency to do something as ridiculous as hard work when the government can give it to your for free in exchange for your life and mind and compliance.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 1, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> But making food yourself would imply a lot of work and self sufficiency to do something as ridiculous as hard work when the government can give it to your for free in exchange for your life and mind and compliance.


We invented trade for this very reason. I don’t know about you, but me? I’m not a farmer, or a baker, or a butcher. I have a good grasp of other disciplines which these other people are not so proficient at. Now, we could all become proficient in each other’s disciplines and be mediocre at everything we do, or we could choose to specialise, establish trade and enjoy good bread, good deli meats and good vegetables, among other things. Humans, being the social creatures that they are, quickly came to the conclusion that the latter option is more optimal. Of course not all disciplines generate a physical product, so bartering was sub-optimal - we have an entire service industry that doesn’t produce a physical “thing” that can be traded, not to mention all the hassle of converting product value in general, so we invented a representation of value called money to facilitate exchange. Ever since then we’ve been trading our labour for money, and used that money to exchange goods and services. Crazy, I know. We participate in this system consensually and willingly because it’s objectively beneficial to everyone involved - regardless of how rich you are, you’re still human and have the same human needs as everybody else. It just so happens that some goods or services are more valuable than others, and the market regulates based on supply and demand. Nobody’s “in charge” of that, it’s just the way it is, and it is the way it is because we have specific wants. Those wants generate demand, and demand creates opportunity. Provide supply in the market and you will not go hungry, be unproductive, or productive in all the wrong ways, and you’ll have trouble making ends meet. That’s not “coercion”, there is no force involved. You have a biological need for sustenance and food companies create products to meet that need. You don’t have to buy their products, but you should, because they make a better, cheaper product than you can, unless your time is worthless otherwise. I *can* bake a loaf of bread, but the time and resource investment required to bake *one* loaf just for myself far surpasses the amount of value I can generate using my expertise elsewhere, so guess what? I don’t bake bread, unless it’s for my own amusement. Nobody “coerced” me to do that - I am actively saving *my* time, which is valuable, by utilising pre-existing supply.


----------



## smf (May 1, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> What a ridiculous notion. It implies there’s a food monopoly. There isn’t, you have a variety of vendors. Not only can you go somewhere else if you don’t like the prices, you can produce food yourself - nobody’s going to stop you.


You can't go somewhere else if you can't afford the lowest prices.

You can't produce food yourself, if you don't have any land or the skills or funds to get started.

It's arguable how the problems should be solved, but you can't just hand wave the problem away.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 1, 2022)

smf said:


> You can't go somewhere else if you can't afford the lowest prices.
> 
> You can't produce food yourself, if you don't have any land or the skills or funds to get started.
> 
> It's arguable how the problems should be solved, but you can't just hand wave the problem away.


Sure you can - there are children in kindergarten right now growing cress in a plastic pot on some gauze. You can put soil in a plastic pot and grow a carrot. You can go to the nearest forest or park and forage for wild fruit, herbs or mushrooms (for your own use, of course). Why you’d do that when food is readily available and cheapest it has ever been in history is beyond me, but you have the option to grow or find your own. I have very fond memories of picking berries and mushrooms on holidays, but I did it for my own amusement as part of the trip. However, locals in wooded areas tend to turn that kind of thing into a business, and sell their foraged fruit and mushrooms on the side, much to the ire of the state (somewhat understandable, seeing that the health and safety of such an endeavour is questionable, hence many acts prohibit the sale of foraged ingredients. Not that anyone cares, but hey). Still, tourists tend to bite, otherwise you wouldn’t see those guys by the roadside.

EDIT: In case someone is terribly interested in the legality of foraging, as far as the UK is concerned this is regulated by the Wildlife and Countryside Act, which enables anyone to forage for what the law recognises as “four F’s” - fruit, foliage, flora and fungus (with the exception of protected species) as long as a public path exists and you’re foraging for personal use, rather than commercial use. This includes private land as long as the foraging does not involve uprooting plants or other forms of damage to the land. The specifics can also be found in the Theft Act, which states that picking on private land is not considered theft unless performed for a commercial purpose.


----------



## Nothereed (May 1, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> What a ridiculous notion. It implies there’s a food monopoly. There isn’t, you have a variety of vendors. Not only can you go somewhere else if you don’t like the prices, you can produce food yourself - nobody’s going to stop you.


Let's play a thought experiment. As I described earlier


Nothereed said:


> When those goods and services are fucking food and housing, perhaps we're not so willing but coerced into it.
> Unless your telling me death is a valid and accepted option in a supposed to be functioning society. Essentially obligated to "give" that money otherwise we'd be dead.


That people are coerced into it. So let's see how far someone can go.
4 rules:
1. you cannot spend any money anywhere, if I am arguing this is coercion, and you saying that's ridiculous, then it should be fairly easily decided by how often capitalism or the enforcing governing system does get in the way or makes a task harder to accomplish.
If it is coercion, then we'd expect an absurd amount of intrusions. If it's not, then very few.
2. You start in one of the major cities in the United States by population size.
3. you start this at 18 with little to no assistance from others. Since you clearly believe in individualism, this should be achievable by only the individual since your reheotic heavily follows under individual responsibility. The only exception of this is at the very very start, with your mother obviously renting a house, but that doesn't matter much since you are moving out.
4. As someone who went to school, you do have a small backpack. Outside of that, no additional resources. Somehow capable and have the knowlage to build houses of your own, and a gardening expert.

I'll let you describe how this scenario would go.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 1, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Let's play a thought experiment. As I described earlier
> 
> That people are coerced into it. So let's see how far someone can go.
> 4 rules:
> ...



These are all very limited circumstances that don't last long. For those circumstances you can visit a food bank, which are run in almost every city by religious organizations. They will provide you with free food to get you by. If there's a will there is a way. All I see you doing is making excuses.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 2, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Let's play a thought experiment. As I described earlier


Let’s not, because your premise is ridiculous. I’m not going to have a weird conversation about a world with no food banks, shelters, part-time jobs for low-skill employees, cheap rental properties and a zillion other factors that make your scenario silly. Here’s what we were actually talking about - you’re not coerced into participating in the marketplace. You have a biological need for sustenance, and I don’t particularly care how you satisfy it. Capitalism didn’t do that - nature did. I’m not going to argue about a stupid hypothetical, particularly not when it’s off topic.


----------



## Kurt91 (May 2, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Let's play a thought experiment. As I described earlier
> 
> That people are coerced into it. So let's see how far someone can go.
> 4 rules:
> ...


Let's see... Playing along with your little game, I'm going to assume a city such as NYC.

Step 1: Go to a construction site or hardware store and find a large thrown-out cardboard box. Optimally, while digging through this dumpster, grab a damaged tarp or large sheet of industrial plastic that construction materials are typically packaged in. Also, grab the used twine that said materials are also bundled with. By opening the box, covering with the tarp, and tying the tarp in place, you have a relatively water-proof temporary shelter. If you were exceptionally lucky, you may have found some wooden pallets that you can place your shelter on top of to prevent the bottom from getting wet. Depending on the type of year this thought experiment is to take place, you can fill the space between the tarp and cardboard box with crumpled newspaper for additional insulation. Until you can leave the city and get somewhere where materials and foraging options are more abundant, this provides a warm-enough dry place to sleep away from the elements.

Step 2: Go to a restaurant of some sort and ask if you can have one of the commercial-sized metal tins that their ingredients come in. They usually just get thrown out, and receiving one that's somewhat freshly used should make it easier to rinse out and wash. Again, if you're lucky, it'll include a plastic lid for additional convenience. You now have a metal container that you can fill with water and cook with.

Step 3: Going to Central Park or your chosen city's nearest equivalent, find a tree that you can gather acorns from. These acorns can be ground into an edible flour. Fill your backpack with these acorns for this purpose. If it's the appropriate time of year, dandelions can be gathered as well. The green leaves on young dandelions are not just edible, but delicious enough that they're often put in commercially-sold salad mixes. If the flowers are older, the greens are still edible, but will be more bitter.

Step 4: Since you're still in the city, go to a library and do some research on what plants can be foraged and are edible, as well as other self-sufficiency methods. While the end goal is to leave the city, you don't want a lack of knowledge to be detrimental to your self-sufficient life.

Step 5: Filling your metal container with water from a faucet or drinking fountain at a public facility, use some rocks you grabbed back at the park and begin grinding your acorns down. Your goal is to mix the resulting flour with the water to make a dough that you can make into hardtack, cooking them in your metal container over a garbage-can fire. Hardtack has exceptional shelf-life and can last for years. It should be good enough to last you at least until you can walk/hitch-hike out of the city to where you can have an easier time living off the land.

Yeah, this isn't entirely pleasant, but I've managed to gather enough sustenance and a temporary carry-able shelter to get my way out of the city with zero capitalism or trade. All materials and supplies were either provided with the starting conditions (backpack), free public resource (library), or scavenged from recycling bins. Once out of the city, more typical live-off-the-land measures can be applied.

Note: I'm not exactly taking sides. I just thought it was a fun thing to think about today in my free time.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 2, 2022)

Kurt91 said:


> Let's see... Playing along with your little game, I'm going to assume a city such as NYC.
> 
> Step 1: Go to a construction site or hardware store and find a large thrown-out cardboard box. Optimally, while digging through this dumpster, grab a damaged tarp or large sheet of industrial plastic that construction materials are typically packaged in. Also, grab the used twine that said materials are also bundled with. By opening the box, covering with the tarp, and tying the tarp in place, you have a relatively water-proof temporary shelter. If you were exceptionally lucky, you may have found some wooden pallets that you can place your shelter on top of to prevent the bottom from getting wet. Depending on the type of year this thought experiment is to take place, you can fill the space between the tarp and cardboard box with crumpled newspaper for additional insulation. Until you can leave the city and get somewhere where materials and foraging options are more abundant, this provides a warm-enough dry place to sleep away from the elements.
> 
> ...


I like how a thread about Donald Trump’s potential presidential run has turned into a thought experiment about simulating homelessness. The actual solution is to get a job, but some people have an allergy to the marketplace, it seems.


----------



## Nothereed (May 2, 2022)

Kurt91 said:


> Let's see... Playing along with your little game, I'm going to assume a city such as NYC.


Thanks for playing along. And yeah that's 100% correct(I say 100 correct since you played exactly by the rules.). I do have some minor gripes, however that's my fault for failing to provide a full context of the goal. I left it way too vague. So I'll state again that's 100% my bad there.
 So your main goal at the end is to have some sort of permanent housing figured out, and food and water supply figured out. In which I quickly identified 3 main issues.
1. You cannot just build a house (usually) and I don't mean this in a resource limited way. (though can be) I also mean this in a legal way. You have to buy a plot of land, usually. (there is some exceptions to that. However those exceptions can be incredibly difficult to pull off) This usually is the biggest killer in my eyes.
2. about little over half of the United States waterways are polluted. This obviously comes with health risks and issues. However in order to have a consistent access to water, which will absolutely be needed for making food, you of course, most likely need to use those waterways, unless there is a consistent rainy season.
3.corporations messing with your food.
Yeah that sounds ridiculous... right? Well. Monsanto has patented a lot of genetically modified food genes. Okay so what gives?
Well, plants have a lot of methods of reproducing, a lot of it is commonly through the air. They (Monsanto) are also well known for, checking peoples crops (illegally commonly but we don't talk that part) for if there crop is being used. If so, they will throw the legal hammer. Just so happens they really don't try to prevent any cross pollination


----------



## DKB (May 2, 2022)

This thread is great. Some of the shit said to each other here would easily warrant bans on other forums; Let alone full blown replies by multiple mods.


----------



## Nothereed (May 2, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> The actual solution is to get a job, but some people have an allergy to the marketplace, it seems.


Nah the actual solution is to make so people have a reasonable choice foxi4. Though I'm so happy that you seemed to as a moderator legitimize this discussion through not deleting it.
So, let me describe that. As that individual user stated above it is indeed possible or at least escaping and such, building a place? that's another question. However to get it requires quite frankly, scrapping the bottom of the barrel. Wouldn't it be a lot easier if say idk... those resources was publicly available in not such a difficult manor? Or as I would call it, empowered to do so. Let's hold that thought just for a bit.

See here's my issue with your framing, since your seemingly forgetting the context of capitalism and "the marketplace" There are the owners, and then there are the workers. The workers don't own their own work. They own a tiny little itty bitty fraction of it. while the Owner, "just oversees everything". if that's too abstract, let's describe it this way, since this is how capitalism at the end of the day ends up.

You and your friend are going trick or treating. Your friend states that he'll just sitback and oversee you going door to door, grabbing candy. At the end of the night, he forcefully grabs your pillow/container, takes a handful of candy, and puts in your hand. Reasonably, you'd ask why he would take the bag, after all that was your hardwork. and he would respond with "I told you I would oversee everything. I gave you the bag for you to do the work. If it  wasn't for me you wouldn't been able to do this"

People aren't sick of "having a job" or don't want to do work, quite the contrary, people are sick of "I've put in 40 hours a week and I barely make rent" and that problem is literately everywhere. Why do you think there is a worker shortage here in the states? There's no laws or anything like that limiting how high a landlord can increase rent. In other parts of the world, there are.

The main problem, is the United States has still jobs paying 8.25.  You were talking about cheep housing. So I'll bring up again that my rent here is 850 including utilities. Two bedrooms one bathroom, for about 800 square feet. if you were to do the math, that's only 660 dollars, pre tax. for a two week pay period, for 40 hours. how about 10.00? that's 800 dollars pre tax for again, two week pay period.  So when people are given the choice between, working their ass off to barely if at all, pay their rent. To alternatives (giving up) a lot of people are going to say fuck it, it's not worth it.

I've derailed within my own derail, now that's impressive. Back to the part where I said "let's hold that thought"
Scrapping the bottle of the barrel like that generally has a very negative sentiment behind it. There's plenty of anti homeless design, and rhetoric that those homeless people just don't want to work, somehow lesser. So, wouldn't it be easier if say, you could just idk, ask if it's okay to take those resources? now of course, in a capitalist system, who ever you'd be asking would say get a job, after all they got money and a business to run.
Forcing you to incoperate yourself back into the system.
 In anarcho communist system however... No one would really bat an eye as long as you were self sufficient. That's one less home for the community to help build, one less mouth to account for.
Which of the two is more humane? which of the two is less coercive. The one that forces you to be homeless for a significant time, and difficult to even get to building phase?
Or the one that just straight up gives the materials presuming that you demonstrate what you know what your doing, and _empowers_ you to go about things the way you want to?
Such as Idk, an anarcho communist society?
TL;dr
the actual solution is to reconsider how we have structured things. We shouldn't be focusing on endless growth, and having society circle around doing as much work as possible for carrots on a stick for green paper. We should be focusing on work that's only needed when and wherever possible. That doesn't mean to be lazy or sloppy, far the opposite, it's just being more time efficient and pinoint accuracy within reason. We are a social species, our current system is alienating people because how driven this system is to keep us on that treadmill. Unless your one of those few ultra rich people, your on that treadmill walking on it.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 2, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Nah the actual solution is to make so people have a reasonable choice foxi4. Though I'm so happy that you seemed to as a moderator legitimize this discussion through not deleting it.


You have a reasonable choice - a choice of career. Nobody can decide what you want to do to support yourself besides you. Based on your hypothetical personal finances you seem to be doing just fine, compared to living in a cardboard box. If you want more, do more - you have a monetary incentive to improve your productivity. Of course you’re not going to do that - that’d be work. You and I both know that you just want to be “given resources” to “build”, and you won’t accept that you’re probably not qualified to do that, or that you’re paid exactly as much as you’re worth already. You choose lashing out over self-reflection - it’s “the system” that’s wrong and needs to change, you don’t need to change at all, even if you don’t fit in. This lack of motivation to improve your life makes this discussion pointless - I can’t improve it for you, nobody can. You can’t change your own circumstances, but you’re confident you can change the world? Okay. The fact of the matter is that in the system you propose you wouldn’t have two bedrooms and a bathroom - you’d live in a hovel. People with marketable skills wouldn’t do business with you because you have nothing to give them in return for their goods or labour. They simply wouldn’t waste time on you without coercion, and once you introduce coercion, you’ve created the state - you’re not “anarcho” anything anymore. In the current system you have money, and money is king - you can exchange that for anything, regardless of whether the vendor has a need for someone with your skill set or not.

I’m not “legitimising” anything - I’ve told you that this thought experiment is a waste of time based on a ridiculous premise. That was your cue to realise that it’s entirely off-topic, and that I’m not going to entertain it for much longer. Any chance we could get back to Donald Trump? Ideally while the man is still alive? He’s 75 and quite corpulent, we don’t have much time.


----------



## Nothereed (May 2, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> you have a monetary incentive to improve your productivity.


That's blantely false. Productivity has gone up 59.7% but wages have have gone up only 15% since 1979.
https://www.epi.org/blog/growing-inequalities-reflecting-growing-employer-power-have-generated-a-productivity-pay-gap-since-1979-productivity-has-grown-3-5-times-as-much-as-pay-for-the-typical-worker/#:~:text=Productivity and pay once climbed,released ahead of Labor Day.
Why continue raising my productivity if obiviously the corporations aren't paying me for my work.
How many hours are necessary foxi4? How many hours is it until it's considered ridiculous for you? A lot of places in the states don't allow or offer over time. If I just described that a lot of people are barely making rent. At what is the considered standard of 40 hour work week. And your telling people to just work more? that's ridiculous even for you.


Foxi4 said:


> Of course you’re not going to do that - that’d be work


Nah. I'm willing to work. But I'm not willing to go run on a treadmill for the rest of my friends and my life were someone else chooses my value.
Because let's not kid ourselves here. If companies had direct control over the governent in full. they'd happily pay workers 0 dollars. They'll just include the occasional pieces of food as "benefits" while keeping you working day in out without any breaks in extremely unsafe working conditions.
If you don't believe me. Please explain to me what we saw before unionization, before the 40 hour work week during the industrial revolution.



Foxi4 said:


> You choose lashing out over self-reflection - it’s “the system” that’s wrong and needs to change, you don’t need to change at all, even if you don’t fit in This lack of motivation to improve your life


Gaslighting too now? Now that's new. Calling me "lashing out" when I'm responding to a moderator on a political form is rather silly don't you think? As for your "self reflection" argument I have time and time again. Sure I don't conform with society. I'm bisexual polyamorous(multiple consented romantic relationships) and left handed, with a side of being not neuraltypical. All of which does not conform to standard norms. Sure I could repress that I'm left handed. After all, for a time being that seemed like
 something to correct. To be "fixed." I could just pretend that I only like girls and not guys to be "fixed"
So the fact that your seeing me as the one in the wrong. Failing to understand my view point. And that I need to "fix" myself is incredibly rude. I'm not perfect, but I also know when to draw the line on something being ridiculous. If someone is working for 10.00 an hour. I'd call that ridiculous. No matter what. And if I'm seeing that ridiculousness every where I turn. Then what I'm I expected to do? Shut up about it? Don't talk about how this is a massive problem? How people are grinding away their life just to meet, not exceed, meet bare neccities. This system when you look at it by level by level is ridiculous and extremely contrived.


Foxi4 said:


> You and I both know that you just want to be “given resources” to “build”, and you won’t accept that you’re probably not qualified to do that


Ah wow, great pulling out of context.
No foxi4. Get it out of your head the notion that people don't want to work towards things. People aren't just going to willynilly provide resources if you don't know what your doing. I even explicitly stated that, and you like to cut real early.



Nothereed said:


> So, wouldn't it be easier if say, you could just idk, ask if it's okay to take those resources? now of course, in a capitalist system, who ever you'd be asking would say get a job, after all they got money and a business to run.
> Forcing you to incoperate yourself back into the system.
> *In anarcho communist system however... No one would really bat an eye as long as you were self sufficient*.


Self sufficient implying that you knew how to do those things. Which the community would be happy to provide. I'd ask if you could quit trying to spin words, you have a fairly nasty habit of that.



Foxi4 said:


> I’m not “legitimising” anything - I’ve told you that this thought experiment is a waste of time based on a ridiculous premise. That was your cue to realise that it’s entirely off-topic, and that I’m not going to entertain it for much longer.


Well it's convenient that you knew it was offtopic, didn't bother deleting it, choose to respond to it and grandstand. And here we are talking again and now your throwing the "this is off topic" hammer. Did you leave it up because you saw it as ridiculous? Or did you leave it up because then you wouldn't be able to grandstand on a deleted post.


----------



## Nothereed (May 2, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Okay. The fact of the matter is that in the system you propose you wouldn’t have two bedrooms and a bathroom - you’d live in a hovel. People with marketable skills wouldn’t do business with you because you have nothing to give them in return for their goods or labour.


Ah of course. The "it cannot work because there's nothing to provide"
Except of course:
Helping people who are responsible for those goods from time to time when needed.
Helping around the community
Taking care of another member.
Or as I'd put it. "Be a reasonably nice person and help pitch in"
Sure in this kind of society and you were to drop the current version of me into it. I'd definitely know I'd have no skills in building a house. But I do have one kind of skill.
Communicating. Sure, I wouldn't know anything about building a home. But if say for example, I assist the people building the actual houses in a meaningful way. Or help the farmers grow food for everyone. By their specialized instructions since they'd know better than I do. I have pitched into the community, and helped out. And as such, the general community wouldn't mind giving a helping hand.

After all, in this system the community decides. So if your truly freeloading, doing absolutely nothing to help at all. Then of course they aren't going to provide assistance.
If someone needs help getting something done, and you got free time, help them out. And if it's a communal effort, even more reason for them to help you. Just straight up help others, or do the needed jobs. Take what you need, give what you can.
Giving is implying both resources and labour. You don't have to work 40 hours a week. But you are at least in this framework I've described, expected to pitch in in some meaningful way when your needed.
We don't expect people to work all the time, we expect people to work when we need to. 
In our current system, we're expected to work most of the time. Burning more energy on doing things we may not actually need to do. For example, the United States tax system is horrendous. And adds unessary work. However that unessary work is lobbied by tax companies, who by the way, consists of workers who don't ready have any control over what the boss guy says,doing work to process a tax system that's already incredibly inefficient, and asking people to pay up front. Which means, you guessed it. Even more work for the sake of work.
Littearly, keeping a inefficient system, so they can make money off of how inefficient that system is. Causing far higher level of work than necessary.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 2, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Well it's convenient that you knew it was offtopic, didn't bother deleting it, choose to respond to it and grandstand. And here we are talking again and now your throwing the "this is off topic" hammer. Did you leave it up because you saw it as ridiculous? Or did you leave it up because then you wouldn't be able to grandstand on a deleted post.


I generally allow small diversions and distractions because sometimes they take a thread to some interesting places before circling back to the main subject. Sometimes you have to make a point A as a supporting argument for point B. This is taking us nowhere, and it’s been given ample chance to sprout. All I’ve gathered is that “you’re willing to work, but you’re not willing to jump on the treadmill”, which I described earlier as “being productive in all the wrong ways”, and that holds true. Your provision of “you know what you’re doing” is empty - you demonstrably don’t, otherwise you’d monetise those skills, so by your own admission a hovel would be your only shelter. You’re advocating for a system that would make you an outcast. I don’t care what kind of relationship you’re in, or whether you’re left or right-handed - I don’t see how that’s relevant. That’s not what needs “fixing” - you have an unhealthy attitude towards making money, that’s what’s holding you back. There’s no “gaslighting” going on - I’m telling you what your friends and family probably wouldn’t because I’m a stranger who doesn’t care how you feel about it. That being said, I’m also not your therapist, and this is not a thread for that kind of discussion. Improve yourself before you try to take on the world. As a side note, the 40 hour work week was popularised in America by Henry Ford - he implemented it because well-rested workers were more productive. Profits went up, so it was adopted more broadly. Unionisation didn’t have anything to do with that, you owe that to capitalism.


----------



## Yulian_guardsman (May 2, 2022)

i just want to know how they double omega impeached him before he was impeached to begin with by traitors who are doing the same things they accused him of doing.

Lol The vaccine 180 was hilarious how they went from "I WILL NEVER TAKE THE DWUMP VAX!" to "OMG WE MUST FORCE ALL HUMAN SHAPED ANIMALS ON THE PLANET TO TAKE THIS NEW EXPERIMENTAL GENE THERAPY FOR A DISEASE THAT HAS NEVER BEEN PROVEN TO EXIST BEYOND LARPING TROLL ACCOUNTS CLAIMING THEIR ENTIRE BLOODLINE GOT WIPED OUT BY THE NAPALM ULTIMATE MEGA DELUXE COLLECTOR'S EDITION OMEGA STRIKE VARIANT" And they censor everything at random.


----------



## tabzer (May 2, 2022)

I think there are people here who leech off their parents and are afraid of being kicked out.  Guys.  Just bite the bullet.  Get kicked out.  Go homeless.  You'll be surprised to find a thriving underworld of dumpster-diving and communal living that you've never imagined.  Even without "money" you will still find a system of "capitalism" where people give and receive favors.  You aren't going to con everybody into giving you everything with nothing in return.  Those who you do con are probably praying for your soul.


----------



## Kurt91 (May 2, 2022)

Considering the conversation has been pretty civil for a while, I'm going to throw my two cents in on the original topic.

Personally, I'm pretty sure that unless Trump is flat-out arrested and convicted for something before time comes to run for office again, he's got a somewhat solid chance. Regardless of all of the inner workings on what's going on, here's what the common lay-person sees at a casual glance.

1: Trump continues to state how things were better under his time in office, and that the Democrats have been against him from the start.

2: Despite two impeachments, he has never actually been convicted of anything and arrested, even after his term ended. This adds some credibility to his claim. After all, if he actually did anything wrong, wouldn't he have been arrested and at least put on trial after this long?

3: I'm in a bit of a bad mood (I forgot my whole damned backpack and had to go back for it, and missed the bus to my college courses), and I don't exactly feel up to searching for the article, but I saw something over the weekend that the latest investigation into Trump, being done by New York prosecutors (I think), is coming to a close and they still haven't found enough to arrest and try him. This further adds credibility to him not doing anything wrong and the Democrats being out to get him.

The main problem here is that regardless of how anything's happened up until now, the Democrats made a big mistake out of making it a big deal for every single impeachment attempt and investigation into the man. Nothing's come up, which is just continuing to make them look bad and in some ways makes Trump look better because, again, "If he had actually done anything wrong, they'd have actually arrested him by now" (Note that this isn't a statement to stop trying, but stop making it such a big deal on the news and everything, and just silently do your investigations. If things come up, then it can make the news once you've arrested the man. If not, the public wasn't aware and you won't look so bad for continuing to fail)

So from a legal standpoint, yeah. Trump has a pretty good chance of running for and becoming President again.

The other thing is, people have reasons to want him, or at the very least somebody who's not a Democrat in office for the next Presidential term. For simplicity's sake, I'll just sum up one basic reason.

Right now, in Spokane, gasoline is starting to creep up on $5.00 a gallon. I understand that because of everything that's going on between Ukraine and Russia right now, that's to be expected. The thing is, one of the first things Biden did when he started his term in office was he shut down the pipeline that was being worked on. Regardless of the environmental impact, having a local supply of fuel on this side of the ocean would have probably at least helped keep the prices of fuel manageable.

At the very least, the prices of fuel is causing issues with my family. I don't have a driver's license, due to a fear of driving. (long story, but it stemmed from a really bad experience when trying to learn) I personally live just a couple hours away from the rest of my family, in a campus apartment. During the weekends, my mother comes and picks me up so I can spend the weekend with my family. My mother is on Social Security, and is at the point now where she's having a difficult time affording things like gas. She REALLY wants me to be able to come home for Mother's Day weekend, but even with me taking the bus to meet her halfway, I don't like that she's going to have to spend money she doesn't have on gasoline to be able to come get me, let alone bring me back after the weekend.

Fuel prices alone are getting to where they are directly and negatively affecting people's lives, and not only did Biden stop a potential preventative measure (regardless of whether it was possible to see current events coming, it's always nice to have plans for "just in case" things come up, and the common person isn't going to be forgiving on that when things are this bad), but there doesn't seem to be any plans to try and remedy the situation. People are going to be upset about it, and are going to be that much more likely to vote Republican in the next election, regardless of who's running.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 2, 2022)

Kurt91 said:


> Considering the conversation has been pretty civil for a while, I'm going to throw my two cents in on the original topic.
> 
> Personally, I'm pretty sure that unless Trump is flat-out arrested and convicted for something before time comes to run for office again, he's got a somewhat solid chance. Regardless of all of the inner workings on what's going on, here's what the common lay-person sees at a casual glance.
> 
> ...



Fuel and food prices were increasing long before the conflict in Ukraine. I fail to see how a single conflict light years away from us could possibly have such a big impact on our prices when they were trending upward long before it started. I also want to thank you about how you mentioned the impeachment *attempts*. Both were "attempts" because he was acquitted of the charges, both times. This is something the Liberals can't seem to grasp. Sort of like how Trump won the election in 2016.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 2, 2022)

Kurt91 said:


> Considering the conversation has been pretty civil for a while, I'm going to throw my two cents in on the original topic.
> 
> Personally, I'm pretty sure that unless Trump is flat-out arrested and convicted for something before time comes to run for office again, he's got a somewhat solid chance. Regardless of all of the inner workings on what's going on, here's what the common lay-person sees at a casual glance.
> 
> ...


The plan for the fuel shortage is boneheaded. The government is banking big on renewables, which is a good long term plan, but provides no immediate remedy. No matter how you slice it, the entire country isn’t going to start driving Teslas because they can’t afford fuel - they can’t afford fuel, how can they possibly afford an EV? When you’re drowning, you generally try to swim to the nearest available boat, not draft plans to build a boat in about 10-20 years time. An increase in fuel prices ripples across just about every other industry due to skyrocketing distribution costs, and it’s compounding with inflation which is already hitting the world hard regardless, not just in the U.S., so it’s a double whammy. The administration can only blame the increase on the conflict in Ukraine for so long - other countries have also seen price hikes on fuel, but not nearly to the same extent. As far as the market is concerned, there’s a great deal of uncertainty - oil companies do not want to invest in new sites or increase their production if A) the long term plan is to switch away from fossil fuels, making the investment pointless and B) if they can’t export the surplus, on account of the pipeline shutdown. The industry has no incentive to remedy the problem - they’re making money hand over fist regardless. Why would you make more fuel with the knowledge that in the not-so-long term the government will actively disincentivise buying your product? Not so long ago the price of a barrel of oil went into the negative - any sane executive knows that this can happen again if they overproduce. At this point it’s the government that needs to step in and reassure investors, but that’s not happening because it’s directly counter to the party platform. At this rate, we’re approaching an economic death spiral.


----------



## smf (May 2, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Sure you can - there are children in kindergarten right now growing cress in a plastic pot on some gauze. You can put soil in a plastic pot and grow a carrot. You can go to the nearest forest or park and forage for wild fruit, herbs or mushrooms (for your own use, of course).


You can't live on cress or a single carrot.

Nearest forest? Travelling costs and time would far outweigh any benefit.

As to why? You are so far out of touch with reality that you ask such a question.


----------



## smf (May 2, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Fuel and food prices were increasing long before the conflict in Ukraine. I fail to see how a single conflict light years away from us could possibly have such a big impact on our prices when they were trending upward long before it started.


Ukraine & Russia produced 30% of the worlds wheat, 46% of the worlds sunflower & 35% of the barley. Plus fertilizer used in other countries.

I fail to see how you fail to see how this would affect food prices.

Ukraine is not light years away. The effect of russia invading ukraine would have been felt whether food prices were trending upwards, downwards or staying the same before hand. Because the effects are cumulative.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 2, 2022)

smf said:


> Ukraine produced 30% of the worlds wheat & 46% of the worlds sunflower.
> 
> I fail to see how you fail to see how this would affect food prices.
> 
> Ukraine is not light years away. The effect of russia invading ukraine would have been felt whether food prices were trending upwards, downwards or staying the same before hand. Because the effects are cumulative.



Thank you for the information. I was unaware of these facts.


----------



## smf (May 2, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I was unaware of these facts.


If you can't see something, then the first step should always be to question if you have missed something.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 3, 2022)

smf said:


> You can't live on cress or a single carrot.
> 
> Nearest forest? Travelling costs and time would far outweigh any benefit.
> 
> As to why? You are so far out of touch with reality that you ask such a question.


One should expect ridiculous answers when asking ridiculous questions. You said that you “can’t produce food” by yourself - you can. We never agreed on what extent of your diet you’re supposed to produce yourself. As for “travel cost”, many edible plants can be found in cities, so it very well may be zero. I guess you’ve never heard of crab apples. Not that it matters since Britain is a pretty “green” country anyway, so even if you were to travel to the nearest large park or forest, it probably wouldn’t take you all that long. Why you’d choose to live like a hermit when you can procure a basic meal for petty change is still beyond me, but the option is there.


----------



## smf (May 3, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> One should expect ridiculous answers when asking ridiculous questions. You said that you “can’t produce food” by yourself - you can. *We never agreed on what extent of your diet you’re supposed to produce yourself. *As for “travel cost”, many edible plants can be found in cities, so it very well may be zero. I guess you’ve never heard of crab apples. Not that it matters since Britain is a pretty “green” country anyway, so even if you were to travel to the nearest large park or forest, it probably wouldn’t take you all that long. Why you’d choose to live like a hermit when you can procure a basic meal for petty change is still beyond me, but the option is there.


When you are concerned I expect ridiculous answers to serious questions.

I award you Miss Disingenuous 2022.

Maybe in future stop being so much of a troll

If you can't afford food for you and your child, then someone telling you to grow cress or a carrot is abuse. Which we expect from you.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 3, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> …what are you on about? I grew up in Poland, I was born before the wall fell and watched the entire reconstruction period. One of my earliest conscious memories is denomination in 1994, when we got rid of the old, worthless money in favour of money with actual value. My elder sisters queued in front of empty stores before the system got dismantled in 1989 - I may have been too young to distinctly remember that, but they were not. I know exactly what I’m taking about, so get off the high horse. I spent my early years watching my parent’s generation fixing the mess communists left behind.


I find that actually difficult to believe, and you confirmed that you saw nothing directly, only secondhand experience, and a fuzzy one at that.


Foxi4 said:


> The Polish government at the time was nothing more than Moscow’s puppet.


So, no difference than how it was before the war in ukraine then? PiSS party and Duda simping over Putin and throwing antisemitism around just like Russian Foreign Secretary did on TV couple days ago?


----------



## Foxi4 (May 3, 2022)

smf said:


> When you are concerned I expect ridiculous answers to serious questions.
> 
> I award you Miss Disingenuous 2022.
> 
> ...


The premise is ridiculous. Out of plain curiosity, I checked how many people in the UK die of starvation under our awful and oppressive capitalist system. The latest stat I could find was 66 in 2016, and that was considered a particularly bad year. There were 524048 deaths recorded that year, so starvation accounts for 0.01% of all deaths in the country. It’s not a major concern - food is cheap, plus we have institutions already in place for people in dire need. Just for the sake of comparison, I also checked how many people die falling out of bed in the morning - it was 20. Your likelihood of starving in England and Wales (Scotland has their own stats) is equivalent to 3x the odds of fatally falling out of bed - terrifying. As for growing your own food, or baking your own bread, many people do it - it’s fun, and it supplements your diet. Every supermarket I can think of sells seeds for gardening hobbyists, not to mention dozens of different flours or bread mixes. Go nuts if you want to supplement your diet this way. I still don’t know why you wouldn’t just participate in the market economy instead, nor do I advocate for becoming a part-time farmer, but your idea that it requires large swathes of land is false - anyone can “make their own food” with relative ease. Not even large scale farmers are “self-sufficient” - they focus on specific products and buy the rest, like the rest of us. I’m not the one advocating for a bizarre ancom society where everyone lives in backwards tribes - I’m perfectly fine participating in trade.

As a side note, it’s mister. My pronouns are “your highness” and “his majesty”.


Dark_Ansem said:


> I find that actually difficult to believe, and you confirmed that you saw nothing directly, only secondhand experience, and a fuzzy one at that.
> 
> So, no difference than how it was before the war in ukraine then? PiSS party and Duda simping over Putin and throwing antisemitism around just like Russian Foreign Secretary did on TV couple days ago?


I don’t really care what you believe, or what your opinion of my recollection is.


----------



## Dark_Phoras (May 3, 2022)

smf said:


> Ukraine & Russia produced 30% of the worlds wheat, 46% of the worlds sunflower & 35% of the barley. Plus fertilizer used in other countries.
> 
> I fail to see how you fail to see how this would affect food prices.



Russia is also the world's 2nd top exporter of crude oil, refined petroleum, and the top exporter of petroleum gas. That adds to the inflation happening in the West. The european countries are working against the clock to eliminate their dependence of Russia in these areas.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 3, 2022)

Dark_Phoras said:


> Russia is also the world's 2nd top exporter of crude oil, refined petroleum, and the top exporter of petroleum gas. That adds to the inflation happening in the West. The european countries are working against the clock to eliminate their dependence of Russia in these areas.


Russia is also a major supplier of zinc (necessary in many industrial applications, particularly batteries), and Ukraine provides some 70% of the world’s neon and 40% of the world’s krypton (both gasses being necessary in the production of semiconductors), as well as a large share of xenon. It’s a huge problem for the world’s economy. Just about everything is more expensive due to the war, but fuel specifically is a multifaceted problem.


----------



## smf (May 3, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Out of plain curiosity, I checked how many people in the UK die of starvation under our awful and oppressive capitalist system..


Continuing your disingenuous streak I see.

There is a difference between dying of starvation and not having enough food to eat. It can cause developmental problems in children, which can affect their ability to learn at school etc.

You would likely end up at a food bank before dying of starvation. Which is not really ideal. I didn't say capitalism was awful, only that you were awful. I think there are some rough edges that can be smoothed off our system (the uk has a welfare state after all), you on the other hand seem intent on being irredeemable.

You are not as clever as you believe, you are probably not even as clever than we all believe.

I didn't realize you supported people choosing their pronouns. Is that a new thing?


----------



## Foxi4 (May 3, 2022)

smf said:


> Continuing your disingenuous streak I see.
> 
> There is a difference between dying of starvation and not having enough food to eat.
> 
> ...


It’s almost as if I’ve already mentioned that from the outset and you were just arguing with yourself, as you tend to do. Do you even know what you’re arguing with me about, or are you just being your usual contrarian self, doing a drive-by not fully aware of the actual subject? And it’s mister, not that you could possibly offend me with something this inconsequential (or at all, for that matter - you don’t have what it takes).

Edit: I see that you’ve edited your post, possibly not to seem like a hypocrite who operates in a way that’s inconsistent with your own ideology (which isn’t exactly a foreign concept to you anyway). Shame that you can’t edit mine also. I appreciate the gesture though, now that you’ve been corrected (twice).


----------



## tabzer (May 3, 2022)

How do you genuinely believe that I will live forever on a single carrot?

You aren't as clever as everyone thinks you are!


----------



## Foxi4 (May 3, 2022)

tabzer said:


> How do you genuinely believe that I will live forever on a single carrot?
> 
> You aren't as clever as everyone thinks you are!


Precisely why I didn’t want this particular diversion to continue for any longer than it needed to. It was a stupid premise to begin with, it can only get dumber going forward.


----------



## ieatpixels (May 4, 2022)

SG854 said:


>



Journalism... it's clear they're creating a narrative with a negative bias. I mean even the opening remarks they say Trump called Putin a genius for killing innocent people but that's not true, he said it before the war broke out and was referring to something else about Putin. He's also condemned the Ukraine takeover repeatedly, mainly using it to say it wouldn't have happened if he was in charge but he's said it's awful to see the death and destruction. People judging Trump when in reality no new wars broke out while he was in office. He doesn't deserve the criticism.
Watching the first few mins of the video, like I said earlier it's not accurate reporting but clearly biased in a negative way against 45. It's not hard to provide criticism then provide a counter-argument or alternative viewpoint. That's what's fair to do and it's missing here. 
I mean the reporter saying everyone needs to agree that the election was stolen or else the Trump supporters will go after them. What is that accusation even based on? It's a mean, fear mongering thing to say. Bad for both sides. 
I haven't seen any of that in the discussions I've read. Having to agree with election fraud or being attacked for believing in it. 
I mean 4 minutes in they seem to be implying Trump is dangerous because he believes in "keep your friends close and your enemies closer", but why make that accusation? Putin and Kim Jong-un were kept in check when he was in office. 
I'm far from an expert on geopolitics but this is all very basic stuff. "Fake news" hardly even begins to describe this. 
I just pity the people who don't know any better. It's important to have scepticism and judge facts over subjective opinions. 
Why do they say in a menacing tone, Trump running for pres in 2024 would be having a "very different" leader.
Different how? He was president just recently, we know exactly what to expect. His rhetoric hasn't changed in recent speeches and he's famously very consistent with what he stands for,  even saying the same things in the 80s on Oprah and 60 Minutes.
Anyway I don't really care, just writing this on my phone in bed.
If you don't like Trump's character, the way he is unabashed and direct with what he says and you prefer a more hands off, cryptic person to be in power then that's fine.


----------



## ieatpixels (May 4, 2022)

Norris said:


> if trump was president rn lets be honest he would side with Russia


He's said what he would do with Russia and its far from siding with them.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 4, 2022)

ieatpixels said:


> He's said what he would do with Russia and its far from siding with them.



It's funny that even after being debunked that the left still believes there was collusion between Russia and Trump. It ended up being something fake created by the Hillary campaign. You see how you're not talking to the brightest light on the spool.


----------



## smf (May 4, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> It’s almost as if I’ve already mentioned that from the outset and you were just arguing with yourself, as you tend to do.


Actually, I was arguing with you.

However you are so far out of depth you don't realize what I'm saying.

If you are confirming that you are just a troll, then this is progress.

You didn't confirm you supported people choosing their own pronouns. I treat people how they treat others.
So missy, what is it to be?



Foxi4 said:


> Precisely why I didn’t want this particular diversion to continue for any longer than it needed to. It was a stupid premise to begin with, it can only get dumber going forward.


Yes, your premise was stupid. That was what I was trying to get through to you.

You seem to only get dumber going forward. Off your meds?

Please get back to us when you are able to hold a discussion without having a mental breakdown.



ieatpixels said:


> He's said what he would do with Russia and its far from siding with them.


He says a lot of things, very little of which are true.

In front of Putin he said 

“My people came to me, [Director of National Intelligence] Dan Coats came to me and some others saying they think it’s Russia. I have President Putin, he just said it’s not Russia,” Trump said. “I will say this, I don’t see any reason why it would be.”

When Putin was not there.

"I said the word 'would' instead of 'wouldn't,'" Trump explained, speaking at the White House more than 24 hours after his news conference with Putin began drawing fire from allies and critics alike. "The sentence should have been, 'I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be Russia.'"  

"I think that probably clarifies things pretty good by itself," Trump said.


How can we be sure what Trump would/wouldn't do if he can't keep that story straight.



ieatpixels said:


> I mean even the opening remarks they say Trump called Putin a genius for killing innocent people but that's not true, he said it before the war broke out and was referring to something else about Putin.



It was referring to Putin's strategy to invade ukraine.


“I said, ‘This is genius,'” Trump said on a right-wing podcast. “Putin declared a big portion of … Ukraine … as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful. … I said, ‘How smart is that?’ And he’s going to go in and be a peacekeeper. That’s strongest peace force. … We could use that on our southern border. That’s the strongest peace force I’ve ever seen. There were more army tanks than I’ve ever seen. They’re going to keep the peace all right. Here’s a guy who’s very savvy … I know him very well. Very, very well.”


----------



## Foxi4 (May 4, 2022)

smf said:


> Actually, I was arguing with you. However you are so far out of depth you don't realize what I'm saying. If you are confirming that you are just a troll, then this is progress.


You’re doing a drive-by on a conversation I was having with Nothereed. Your initial argument was that “you can’t make your own food” - you can, as described above. This was unsatisfactory to you because “you can’t produce enough food to be completely self-sufficient”, or so I gathered. That counter is stupid - farmers with acres upon acres of land aren’t self-sufficient either, they trade with other people to acquire things they don’t/can’t produce. We never talked about the acceptable amount of “your own food” either - you simply said that you can’t produce any without land, and I proved otherwise. I think that’s about all that was said.


> You didn't confirm you supported people choosing their own pronouns. I treat people how they treat others.
> So missy, what is it to be?


You can keep going all day long, you’re still not getting me off-kilter with your low-tier bait.


> Yes, your premise was stupid. That was what I was trying to get through to you.


Not my premise - Nothereed’s premise. I explicitly said that the subject is far too ridiculous to have a meaningful conversation about - it’s you who’s insisting on having one.


> You seem to only get dumber going forward. Off your meds?
> 
> Please get back to us when you are able to hold a discussion without having a mental breakdown.


Insulting me won’t illicit a favourable response from me - I understand that you crave attention, but that’s not how you’re going to get it. It’s also against our terms of service. Thankfully I’m not easily offended, you can consider yourself lucky. In case I’m not being clear, this is your verbal warning. I’ve given you ample opportunity and notice to engage in respectful debate, and regardless of how easy-going and forgiving I am, there’s a point at which my hand is forced and rules need to be enforced. It’s not something I generally like doing, so I’d appreciate it if you followed the rules instead of mounting more unsuccessful attempts at trolling - you’re not going to get an emotional response from me, if that’s what you’re after. You seem pretty emotional in your response as it is - perhaps taking a step back and returning with a cooler head would be a good idea.


----------



## tabzer (May 4, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Precisely why I didn’t want this particular diversion to continue for any longer than it needed to. It was a stupid premise to begin with, it can only get dumber going forward.


It's unfortunate that some people take a disagreement with the premise as a concession that the (absurd) premise is noticed, which is enough "permission" to double down on the absurdity.  Any kind of response is a desired response to those who aren't interested in reaching an understanding, but in it for some sort of validation for existing.

*At least one is consolidating their posts now.  But, it's still everyone else's fault that one didn't do it in the first place.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 15, 2022)

Ooops, clearly I got sidetracked. Not like these weeks have been uneventful ofc. So, what do you know, Roe V Wade being struck down by the RepubliKKKan SC Judges. And a MAGA shooter killed 13 people in Texas yesterday.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 20, 2022)

So, what was the idea around here, that Trump was some sort of business genius? His newest partners DISAGREE.


----------



## Hanafuda (May 23, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> It's funny that even after being debunked that the left still believes there was collusion between Russia and Trump. It ended up being something fake created by the Hillary campaign. You see how you're not talking to the brightest light on the spool.




on that topic ... Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign manager totally pinned the tail on the donkey in sworn testimony in federal court last week over this, i.e. that Hillary Clinton herself gave the ok.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/hillar...-trump-russia-collusion-alfa-bank-11653084709

look at thow they "build" the story out of thin air, using media reporters and social media



> Prosecutors asked Mr. Mook about his role in funneling the Alfa Bank claims to the press. Mr. Mook admitted the campaign lacked expertise to vet the data, yet the decision was made by Mr. Mook, policy adviser Jake Sullivan (now President Biden’s national security adviser), communications director Jennifer Palmieri and campaign chairman John Podesta to give the Alfa Bank claims to a reporter. Mr. Mook said Mrs. Clinton was asked about the plan and approved it. A story on the Trump-Alfa Bank allegations then appeared in Slate, a left-leaning online publication.
> 
> On Oct. 31, 2016, Mr. Sullivan issued a statement mentioning the Slate story, writing, “This could be the most direct link yet between Donald Trump and Moscow.” Mrs. Clinton tweeted Mr. Sullivan’s statement with the comment: “Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank.” “Apparently” is doing a lot of work in that sentence.
> 
> In short, the Clinton campaign created the Trump-Alfa allegation, fed it to a credulous press that failed to confirm the allegations but ran with them anyway, then promoted the story as if it was legitimate news. The campaign also delivered the claims to the FBI, giving journalists another excuse to portray the accusations as serious and perhaps true.



So there's our current national security adviser, taking part in a scheme to publish a smear of known bullshit against a political opponent, then going on Twitter to link to the published story and puff it up as monumentally damning stuff. Nice.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 23, 2022)

Hanafuda said:


> on that topic ... Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign manager totally pinned the tail on the donkey in sworn testimony in federal court last week over this, i.e. that Hillary Clinton herself gave the ok.
> 
> https://www.wsj.com/articles/hillar...-trump-russia-collusion-alfa-bank-11653084709
> 
> ...


Well of course, this is a surprise to no one, at least not to people paying attention. The probe is turning up exactly what everyone had already suspected. That being said, the story is “older than two weeks”, so it effectively doesn’t matter, that’s how the media cycle works. Clinton will get away with this, just like she got away when breaking federal law in the past. If anything, this vindicates people who had to suffer the indignity of being called “conspiracy theorists” for pointing out the obvious.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 23, 2022)

It's not been debunked at all, are you two high?


----------



## Foxi4 (May 23, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> It's not been debunked at all, are you two high?


What wasn’t debunked? Who said anything about debunking? We’re talking about the Durham probe. Reading troubles again?


----------



## tabzer (May 23, 2022)

Durham is a conspiracy theorist.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 23, 2022)

Hanafuda said:


> on that topic ... Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign manager totally pinned the tail on the donkey in sworn testimony in federal court last week over this, i.e. that Hillary Clinton herself gave the ok.
> 
> https://www.wsj.com/articles/hillar...-trump-russia-collusion-alfa-bank-11653084709
> 
> ...



I had been lightly following the subject, but this is news to me. The Russian collusion was a hoax. Sadly, there are die hard holdouts that weren't swayed by the Mueller investigation results that still to this day claim Trump colluded with Russia. Can't fix stupid, so I don't even try.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 24, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I had been lightly following the subject, but this is news to me. The Russian collusion was a hoax. Sadly, there are die hard holdouts that weren't swayed by the Mueller investigation results that still to this day claim Trump colluded with Russia. Can't fix stupid, so I don't even try.


It wasn't a hoax, Trump himself wasn't convinced but his inner circle was. The fact that he pardoned them doesn't mean it didn't happen.


Foxi4 said:


> What wasn’t debunked? Who said anything about debunking? We’re talking about the Durham probe. Reading troubles again?


You were talking about Russian interference?


----------



## _47iscool (May 24, 2022)

I supported him at first, but not now. I don't support bumbling Biden either.

Trump was not as "America First" as he claimed.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> It wasn't a hoax, Trump himself wasn't convinced but his inner circle was. The fact that he pardoned them doesn't mean it didn't happen.
> 
> You were talking about Russian interference?


Nobody was talking about Russian interference - we know that Russia interfered in the election. We’re talking about fabricated accusations against the Trump campaign, and how they were used to trick the F.B.I. into investigating a conspiracy that didn’t exist.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Nobody was talking about Russian interference - we know that Russia interfered in the election. We’re talking about fabricated accusations against the Trump campaign, and how they were used to trick the F.B.I. into investigating a conspiracy that didn’t exist.


If Russia did interfere with the election and Manafort was indicted... then how is it a conspiracy?


----------



## Foxi4 (May 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> If Russia did interfere with the election and Manafort was indicted... then how is it a conspiracy?


Maybe you should read the article instead of asking me silly questions.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Maybe you should read the article instead of asking me silly questions.


I'm not asking *you* anything, as you have no answer and usually lack the intellectual honesty to provide anyway. It's a rhetorical question, and I recommend to wait until the actual investigation.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I'm not asking *you* anything, as you have no answer and usually lack the intellectual honesty to provide anyway. It's a rhetorical question, and I recommend to wait until the actual investigation.


…that’s testimony directly from the investigation.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> …that’s testimony directly from the investigation.


I meant a verdict, my mistake, I caught Coronavirus and am not feeling at my best. But alas, I hopefully won't die because of it, sorry to disappoint you.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I meant a verdict, my mistake, I caught Coronavirus and am not feeling at my best. But alas, I hopefully won't die because of it, sorry to disappoint you.


I hope you get better soon. Stay warm.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Stay warm.


If only heat could actually kill the virus!


----------



## Marc_LFD (May 28, 2022)

The left hates Trump, and the right thinks Trump is the savior.

Well, I'll just leave these two images here...












I lean towards the right, but tend to disagree on various aspects the majority agrees with. Especially about Trump "saving" us.


----------

