Printable View
If you desire instability and chaos then your Golden Age has arrived.Quote:
Welcome to the Golden Age.
"captive"??? How???Quote:
Be honest, you fear the facts and cling desperately to the narrative fed to you by captive media outlets.
There's multiple media choices for any point of view now a days. A person can find a validating media source for about any point of view. Then there is a choice to not pay attention to any of them. So, "captive", I don't see how.
Some of us have to live in the real world.
Good thing you're not one of them, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
So in your real world is it acceptable for the Whitehouse to post an AI generated picture of the pope? Only asking because I thought Trump turning up to the Pope's funeral in a blue suit was pretty disrespectful - but this is a level of either insanity or disrespect (or both) I couldn't even of imagined before seeing it....Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
Attachment 194674
Not sure how anyone can quite justify this from their leader, however I am sure you will find a personal justification somehow.
Just a few links about this, just for the record.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-funeral.html
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world...al/ar-AA1E6cIW
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/347803...p-pope-ai-pic/
https://www.lbc.co.uk/usa/politics/d...francis-photo/
https://news.sky.com/story/trump-pos...ocial-13360403
https://www.politico.eu/article/whit...ld-trump-pope/
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/trump-post...074533909.html
https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2...e-picture.html
and some from youtube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L60d8bWE7Kg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mc1f1JXwilE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKBuaToTHcM
That's not surprising. The robe combines his two favorite colors: White and gold.
I was actually wondering if he was thinking that before I even saw your post.
I obviously have a low opinion of Trump, but the fact he can constantly find ways to lower it even further is quite impressive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Partly I find the blatant hypocrisy baffling...
* His party criticised Zelenskyy for not wearing a suit - then he turns up at a funeral in a blue suit, something anyone should know is disrespectful.
* He is the master of the deal, but has bankrupted multiple business and multiple casinos
* Good economy under Biden is because everyone know he would be the next president, bad economy under Trump is because of Biden.
* Clinton using a private email server deserves jail, military secrets being leaked on signal to a) a journalist, and b) to friends and family, also c) his sodding wife being present in secret meetings is perfectly normal government activity.
Just utterly baffling.
They've already managed to justify his deportation of 2 year old, cancer suffering, American citizens without due process. If you're waiting to see where the line is, there isn't one.Quote:
I am sure you will find a personal justification somehow
Just roll a die and the answer will be the number, doesn't really matter what the question is.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
1 - Illegal immigrants are gang members, millions and millions of which were shipped in by the Dems.
2 - DEI / WOKE (no other justification needed)
3 - Bidens economy did it.
4 - DOGE is doing it and Elon is a genius so it all makes sense.
5 - Tariffs will fix it all anyway.
6 - Subsidising Canada with $200 billion dollars a year is the problem so we need to invade them, Panama, and Greenland to fix it.
I don't find Trump baffling anymore. He has consistently been a totally self absorbed, morally bankrupt, con man, all his adult life. What I find baffling is that ANYONE would believe ANYTHING he says. Much less, actually be a Trump supporter. The fact that 50% of the voters thought it would be a good idea to elect him president again makes no sense to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by PlausiblyDamp
But here we are.
That is exactly what I meant, how anyone can look at him and think "I know he has lied to and cheated every single person or company he has been involved with, including his own wives, and will do anything for personal gain; but I just know he wouldn't lie to me or treat me badly". Yet, like you say, enough people voted based on that belief.Quote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
There's video of a "cabinet meeting" where Pam Bondi reports that the reduction in fentanyl in his first 100 days has saved the lives of about 245 million Americans.
I can't quite decide who was being played in that one. Did she not realize that was about 75% of the US population, or did she realize the number was absurd, but know that he wouldn't figure that out? He certainly didn't say anything about that, though he has yet to crow about it to the media, so perhaps somebody pointed out the ridiculousness of that number.
It wasn't really a cabinet meeting, anyways, in any normal sense, as there were some odd faces at the table. Maybe his cabinet really does include family?
Your head is squarely up the wrong end of your liberal media.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
The "citizens" involved are what are called "anchor babies." That game no longer works.Quote:
Attorneys for the mothers and their children who were sent to Honduras are blasting Trump administration officials, saying the deportations of three U.S. citizen children over the weekend, including the 4-year-old boy who left without access to his cancer medicines, are illegal. They’re pushing back against statements that the families chose for the children to go with their mothers.
On Monday, Trump administration border “czar” Tom Homan said the three U.S. citizen children, all under 10 years old, were placed on deportation flights at their mothers’ request. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said the children weren’t deported but “went with their mothers,” adding that as citizens they could come back if there's someone in the United States who "wants to assume them."
Actually substantially more than 50%, but how much more we don't know. Nobody has seen the need to examine the election rigging of 2024.Quote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
Of course it is. But people who still lick the boots of the inbred remnants of a Medieval aristocracy in their own country can't be expected to comprehend that.Quote:
Originally Posted by PlausiblyDamp
The humorless radical left even less so. Jokes are lost on Bolshevists.
Well Dil, your responses are consistent, your usual,
InsultsQuote:
Your head is squarely up the wrong end of your liberal media.
Conspiracy theoriesQuote:
Actually substantially more than 50%, but how much more we don't know. Nobody has seen the need to examine the election rigging of 2024.
More insultsQuote:
Of course it is. But people who still lick the boots of the inbred remnants of a Medieval aristocracy in their own country can't be expected to comprehend that.
And more insults.Quote:
The humorless radical left even less so. Jokes are lost on Bolshevists.
All very colorful but as usual no substance.
What is insulting is that people here that did not care to comment or commend "meh" responses about the Pope's death insulting threat, to be religiously insulted now that the WH posted the picture.
From what I get, tho haven't been following the WH do that for every occasion. P.E. : https://www.foxnews.com/politics/whi...ing-lightsaber
Also what is insulting is WOKE babies that ridiculed every aspect of Christianity religion with pictures of the Virgin Mary in their "crumps" on they gay pride marches , comic Jesus adaptations, gay saints on Olympics and every other insult possible on Christianity, to be insulted. That makes me wanna horse laugh (find the reference) .
But keyboard warriors got to keyb as they can't do anything else but wine wine wine.
Wow, "every occasion" so the popes death and May the 4th are "every occasion" - good to see how you can justify a world leader effectively mocking the death of a religious leader, and a sort of joke regarding a movie franchise as being comparable.Quote:
Originally Posted by sapator
But any excuse to claim something is "WOKE" must be taken.
If you ignore conspiracy theories it is actually just under 49% according to most sources - but MSM is evil and hates the TRUTH, so it is probably closer to 99.7% in reality...Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
Putting "citizens" in "quotes" doesn't actually change their legal standing, whatever your personal opinion is - try and be honest and admit that they are citizens or had the legal right to live in the US.Quote:
The "citizens" involved are what are called "anchor babies." That game no longer works.
So if a person is legally allowed to live in the US should they not be allowed to have children? What are you proposing, sterilisation on entry? They were legally allowed to live in the US, they were legally allowed to have children, the children were legal US citizens. Think about this, that means a legal US citizen who is also a minor can now be deported without any due process, so where is the line drawn on which legal citizens can or cannot be deported?
You really are a hateful, spite-filled individual. Is there any race, religion, or people you don't spout hate and vitriol about? Obviously that doesn't include trump and his mob - because why would anyone criticise a convicted fraudster, known liar, convicted sex offender, sexist, racist, misogynistic, adulterer, and repeated bankrupt? That kind of person is worthy of total obedience, his word is truth and truth is his word.Quote:
Of course it is. But people who still lick the boots of the inbred remnants of a Medieval aristocracy in their own country can't be expected to comprehend that.
The humorless radical left even less so. Jokes are lost on Bolshevists.
I did not justify it , I wasn't even asked. For me it was a foul on the Pope.
But cleverly skip everything I wrote and concentrate on the matter and screaming 'WOKE AGAIN!" won't save you on all the insult that WOKE boys have done to Christianity. I don't mean you personally on this btw but I do mean you and others here that protest, that whistled in the rain when the anti Pop thread was going on.
I find this insulting to our intelligence (well whatever left from reading thread like this :P ) and proschematic . So "wow" back at ya.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
It's baffling because you're asking the wrong question. The question you should be asking isn't why did people vote for Trump. You should be asking why are the people rejecting the Democrats.Quote:
Originally Posted by PlausiblyDamp
PD was right, you were able to justify to yourself. And the fact that to do so required you to disregard both the humanity of a two year old child and to ignore the text of your constitution shows that I was right too, there is no line.Quote:
The "citizens" involved are what are called "anchor babies." That game no longer works.
Had to preserve that one. The spelling error strikes me as the most European statement I've seen in a good long time...though I admit that I may well be wrong about my impression, so nobody else might find it nearly as amusing as I do.Quote:
Originally Posted by sapator
That question is being asked plenty. Too much, I'd say. In the US, the party that loses an election goes into an intense bout of soul searching that gets reported on as a circus event. I call it a circus event because I've never known it to come up with any right answers. Insiders all say, "we ought to do X" or "perhaps we should try Y", which gets reported on as angst and some kind of different direction, but then the next election comes along and what actually happens ends up being different, though predictably so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
Basically, you can ignore all the predictions and hand-wringing until the mid-term elections.
Have you smashed every mirror in your home? You sure do get outraged whenever I hold one up to you.
I knew what I wrote and I knew what to expect (marks "X") :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
That's a fair point. I'd say a significant amount of the votes Trump received were from voters that don't believe his lies but were voting against the current administration. But some are true believers and as I said,Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
Quote:
What I find baffling is that ANYONE would believe ANYTHING he says.
You just never know what's coming next. https://www.npr.org/2025/05/05/nx-s1...lcatraz-reopen
Trump truly is the P.T. Barnum of presidents. :)
There aren't enough of those to make a difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
It seems to me that the lion's share of Trump voters are refugees fleeing the Democrat party or independents voting against the Democrats. I don't know if I said this before but whether you like Trump or hate him he is still a far better choice than Kamala Harris and when I say far better, I mean that. They aren't even in the same universe. If I were American, I'd vote against her too. I don't care if a lump of coal was her opponent, I'd vote for the lump of coal in a heartbeat.
I've seen some of the post-mortems from both the right and the left and based on that, it could be a while before the Democrats hold the office of President again. The right gets it, but Democrats have no idea why they lost. Their forensic analysis of the corpse that was their presidential campaign keeps leading them to the wrong answers. The Democrats believe that they did everything right and that they are perfectly moral, just, and beyond reproach. In their view, the problem is the American voter who is an uneducated, racist, transphobic bigot, slow to renounce his hateful ways. If they don't let go of this fantasy, they may never hold the office of President again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
In my opinion, the Democrats need to scrap the entire thing and start over from scratch. They need new voices and a new message. They need to rebuild their brand from the ground up and take great care not to incorporate any of the insanities they are currently infested with or any other insanity out there currently looking for a home in the political landscape.
I figured that was too expensive to be realistic. Sounds like that's the case.
That, right there, is the very essence of modern American politics. There are some people who like one candidate or another, and there are a whole lot who vote like that. Perhaps it has always been that way. It may be why we only ever have two viable candidates, since a lot of people will be voting against somebody rather than for somebody.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
I would guess that it will be four years. Culture warriors want to make it out that what matters to them is what drives US elections. It does drive a little bit. It drives the base to the polls. The election swings on the economy. We want our causes to matter, but there are not enough Democrats or Republicans to win an election on their own. They have to move independents, and it's the economy that moves them.Quote:
I've seen some of the post-mortems from both the right and the left and based on that, it could be a while before the Democrats hold the office of President again.
Certainly there is. If .8% would have voted differently there could have been a different result. Depending on what state those votes were in. Haven't checked in a while but the last I saw there are about 30 - 35% of the republican party that are Trump loyalist.Quote:
There aren't enough of those to make a difference.
You seem to be having a hard time grasping what the term "ANYONE" means.
I remember a while back you saying, people vote with their wallets. I think that's an accurate way to put it. The economy doesn't even really need to be bad. You just have to get people to perceive it to be bad or that you will improve their financial situation.Quote:
The election swings on the economy.
Right, but it's a bit deeper than that. Roughly 70% of our economic activity is us buying and selling crap between one another. That makes sense if you think about it. Even if you buy a widget from China, you generally bought it from a store in the US staffed by people in the US, so your buying the widget did result in some money going to China (if you leave time out of it), but it also resulted in a bit of money going to the employees of the store, whatever means you took to get to the store or get the widget from the store to your house, and so forth.
If people feel like the economy is bad, then it will be. If they believe it is strong, then it will be. If enough people decide to delay a purchase, we go into recession. This is a maddening situation for politicians, because there isn't much they can really do about boosting it...except give money to poor people. That will work. Giving money to the middle class won't do much, and giving money to the rich won't do a thing, but giving money to poor people will boost the economy. Not easy to do, though, and if people still feel sour about the economy, it might not even help much.
No no no. What I was meaning to say is that he cannot win with his die hard supporters alone. There aren't enough of them. Trump won because he was able to convert a lot of people. That's the idea I was driving at.Quote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
But that's not what you said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
Trump certainly wouldn't have won without them. They definitely made a difference. Your statement was very clear.Quote:
There aren't enough of those to make a difference.
I'm honest enough with myself to realize I don't know much about what creates a good/bad economy. I'd say I judge it on some basic factors,Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Inflation - anything less than 4% seem fine to me.
Stock Market - A bullish market makes me happy.
Jobs market - If unemployment is low that's good. At least I thought that was always true until @ 2022 or 23 when the fed was saying it's to low. I still don't really understand
why that's bad.
There are other things but those are probably what I pay attention to the most. I would add the housing market but it's been crazy in my area for over 20yrs.
I know others that look at the economy very very simply. If gas prices are high, the economy sucks. lol
Poor choice of words on my part. I should have said, there aren't enough of them to make a difference by themselves which is what I actually meant to communicate. I was trying to say that the winning strategy for Trump cannot depend on his die hard supporters alone. He must sway people on the fence and some from the other side. In other words, the true believers, as you call them, don't matter if he cannot seduce people outside his core base to make up the numbers he needs to win.Quote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
His core base was always going to vote for him regardless. The outsiders are what actually made the difference and the Democrats needed them to beat Trump.
This is undoubtedly true but I wonder why. I can understand that US politics is highly polarised but it seems statistically unlikely that it polarises along an almost exactly even split. Yet it does and has done for several electoral cycles. And it doesn't feel unique to you. Our situation in the UK sees slightly wider swings but not that much wider. I feel like there must be some "self corrective" factor at play to drive that split but I can't, for the life of me, think what it could be.Quote:
If .8% would have voted differently there could have been a different result.
You need to factor in the Electoral College also. States with the population of the city I live in can carry as much weight as a state with millions.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Not just American politics. We just had general elections in my country. The party I voted for was really just a vote against the other party. In other words, I didn't vote for them because I thought they were the better choice, I voted for them because I was thinking they might be the less bad choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
BTW the other party won, so I guess I'll find out if they are going to be as bad as I imagined.
It may be true of EVERY election everywhere. It's unlikely that you will be happy with every position of any candidate, so you will almost certainly be unhappy with at least some portion of their positions. Therefore, it may be that almost everybody is voting against somebody rather than for somebody.
I would speak for Greek voters. The problem is attendance. With 40-45 (can't recall) in last elections the traitor got 41% (mind you not Euro elections that got 30 if I recall) so that is actually 20.5% of all voters. Of course there is the question if lazy voters get off their banoukas what will they vote for but most likely won't be the 1st party not the 2nd or the 3rd that they have established an army of party dogs. Hopefully with what happened with the last protests they will get off their harry potters and vote for something as long it's not the 3ple crown traitorial devotators .
Edit. Not 20.5 I was thinking a 50% but it's lower
We have something like that problem. Presidential elections bring much higher turnout up around 60-65%, while mid-term elections are quite a bit lower, and the off-year elections (local ballot initiatives only, for the most part) can have turnouts down around 20-30%. Those local ballot initiatives are often things that very directly affect people, as they tend to be things like bond levies for building schools, fixing roads, irrigation, and so forth. They are things that are quite expensive (especially since the cost is spread over so few people) and have significant impacts on daily life, yet only a tiny minority tend to vote in those elections.
When I was growing up, we would have town meetings. Perhaps 10% of the town would attend. All the big ticket items got voted on in those town meetings, and that could severely impact taxes. Vote for every purchase on the ballot, and your taxes could double for the next year. The reasoning behind every item on the ballot was pretty obvious and accessible, so people could really understand whether they needed a new snowplow, or whether a road should be widened. Those who voted were quite well informed on the issues by the time they voted, but it was still only a tiny percentage of the people affected, and that tiny percentage could do bizarre things that would impact everybody else.
You have to understand what the majority feels. They have been let down and abused and had a warped cultural paradigm shoved down their throats so much that enough finally stood up and said ENOUGH!
Here is what they see:
https://youtu.be/4VHw61dXMbA?si=7mk7uBCPQlR0fKFc
I wish I hadn't read this. lolQuote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
It started me thinking about why that split is so close, and thinking and thinking. With absolutely no answer. Was it media saturation by both sides, half the people are pessimists and half optimists, but nothing really explained such a close split.
Just what I need, another mystery of life. ;)
There is also the "one issue" voter. I voted for the first Bush, mostly, over gun rights. I image it is a small percentage but it is a piece of the overall voting blocks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
I believe the reasons are due to a number of dichotomies. Male/female, blue/white collar workers, heartland oppressed/bi-coastal elites, population density, etc.
But the biggest factor is probably that a lot of people, despite their pain, still try very hard to imagine that the Democrats care one whit about the American people. Stockholm syndrome isn't easy to shrug off. Quite a few have finally done so, and the trend is likely to increase. It already has among younger people.
Here's a thought: Newton's method. Can anyone guess where I'm going with this?Quote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
I don't know.
Pythagoras?
To sit under an apple tree?Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
No, no, no!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by TysonLPrice
To sit under a Fig tree. :wave:
Oh, right, Newton's method. Because nothing says 'I'm super intelligent' like casually dropping an advanced math term into a political conversation. Who needs actual points when you can just leave everyone wondering if they missed a calculus class? :bigyello:Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
But unless those dichotomies are an even split there is no reason they would scale to an even split. That's maths.Quote:
I believe the reasons are due to a number of dichotomies. Male/female, blue/white collar workers, heartland oppressed/bi-coastal elites, population density, etc.
Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Seems awfully unlikely, doesn't it? But hey, that might make us "conspiracy theorists."
"108 billion tons per year: Antarctica witnesses sudden rise in glacier ice"
https://www.livenowfox.com/news/anta...e-sheet-growth
https://www.indiatoday.in/environmen...692-2025-05-05
https://eos.org/science-updates/new-...arctic-sea-ice
And the WOKERS (I posted this eons ago in the known thread) https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/20/c...a-climate-intl
"John Turner and Josefino Comiso call for a coordinated push to crack the baffling rise and fall of sea ice around Antarctica."
https://www.nature.com/articles/547275a
So what do 99% of the scientist suggest? The climate gets hotter or colder or the same?
It just means there's some function at play we haven't identified. No conspiracy required.Quote:
that might make us "conspiracy theorists."
An example of such a function might be that both parties adjust their stance, messaging and policies to appeal to the broadest spectrum of current opinion while staying in touch with their wing. Meaning that, as the Overton Window shifts back and forward, the parties tend to self correct, leading to the even split observed. FWIW, I don't think that's a satisfactory explanation (it's overly simplistic) but it should provide an example of the sort of thing I'm talking about.
On the conspiracy theorist thing: if you're still cleaving to Election Fraud having changed the result of the 2020 election despite every audit, including those initiated by Trump, failing to find evidence and it having been dismissed in 62 separate court hearings including those held by Trump appointed judges, dismissed by Trump's own appointed Attorney General, dismissed by Trump's own DOJ, dismissed by Trump's own appointed aides and even dismissed by his own daughter, then yeah, you qualify.
When your position requires the "Deep State" to extend to the entire state then it's not the Deep State. It's just the State.
Yes.Quote:
The climate gets hotter or colder or the same?
The climate changes regionally as well as globally. It also varies temporally. So while some parts of Antarctica have seen increased snowfall and ice growth, particularly in East Antarctica, this has not been enough to offset losses in their regions, particularly the West. And it really has not been enough to offset ice loss in the Arctic which is occurring at a much higher rate. The overall trend is still towards loss I'm afraid.
That damn climate, always on the run. ;)
A rise in Antarctic ice could have some interesting results. When the Thwaites glacier unzips, I would think that more ice would cause the unzipping to be faster and the result to be greater. That would be entertaining.
So Carney scuttled home after being told he has nothing we need. Starmer caved on trade. Stock markets are up. Xi probably won't last much longer, his plans make those around him uncomfortable. Australia is scratching its rear wondering if they really want to be last for tucker.