Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,287,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

*** OFFICIAL BREXIT SUNLIT UPLANDS and #MEGA THREAD ***

Page 10 of 17 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 676 to 750 of 1207
  1. #676
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,509
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Same
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  2. #677
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  3. #678
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  4. #679
    I'm pretty sure we can make up for this 1bn Euros loss by selling more fish...


    https://www.ft.com/content/4784e5f3-...9-e63c362f97b9



    Oh snap! Goddamn Eurolibtards!

    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  5. #680
    Take back our fish that no-one here wants to eat.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...t_custom1=link
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  6. #681
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,509
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Well, if people aren't even willing to taste something because it has a gross name, and that same thing is enjoyed by other people who call it a different name, then it makes sense to rebrand it to get away from whatever gross connotations were getting in the way of people trying it.

    If it is a nutritious food that people are only avoiding for psychological reasons unrelated to the food's nutrition or flavor, then rebrand that stuff.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  7. #682
    Sure, but that's not really the point. Brexit was promoted as the saviour of the fishing industry. If saving it just required us to eat more fish we didn't eat before, then re-branding them was all we needed to do. We didn't need to also disconnect ourselves from the largest trading bloc in the world and fuck the rest of our economy over.

    Also, I don't know how many people are going to be buying these fish now, just 'cause they got snazzy names. I'm guessing it won't make much of an impact - smacks of desperation more than anything imo.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  8. #683
    Wasn't one of the benefits of Brexit supposed to be increased security, since we would "take back control" of our borders?

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknew...1dLuY7?ocid=st
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  9. #684
    Unelected bureaucrat takes over as Brexit minister. That'll teach those Eurolibtards we're serious about democracy here!

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56101215
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  10. #685
    Poop doesn't seem to understand how British politics works.

    I'll tell you... we don't vote for the cabinet, we vote for the ruling party. Boris, who was elected, appointed this man to the cabinet.

    Is it my idea of a perfect democracy? Far from it. But at least we get to boot them out in a few years, if indeed we, as a nation, decide to do so.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  11. #686
    Ong doesn't understand how irony works. The same people who told you Brexit was a victory for democracy because we would stop being ruled by unelected bureaucrats just appointed an unelected bureaucrat to be in charge of Brexit.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  12. #687
    He wasn't elected when he became Ambassador to Denmark, either. Not everyone in government gets elected into their position.

    It's just another thing for you to moan about, that's all. I don't give a fuck who deals with the EU from here on out. It can be the Downing Street cat for all I care.

    The same people who told you...
    Clutching at straws here mate. Boris didn't tell me that leaving the EU was a victory for democracy. I told myself that. And I didn't appoint Frost. So no, you're wrong.

    Like I say, our idea of democracy is far from perfect. But it's still orders of magnitude better than the EU's idea of democracy.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  13. #688
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post

    It's just another thing for you to moan about, that's all.
    Show me the sunlit uplands, or even one good thing that has resulted from Brexit, so I can stop moaning and be all happy about it like you then.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I don't give a fuck who deals with the EU from here on out. It can be the Downing Street cat for all I care.
    You seemed to care when it was the unelected EU bureaucrats you were whinging about lol. And I got a news flash for you: as long as we trade with the EU we're going to have to deal with them. So unless you figure out a way to teleport our fish to China we're going to be working under EU rules.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I told myself that.
    Brilliant.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  14. #689
    You seemed to care when it was the unelected EU bureaucrats you were whinging about lol.
    Yes, people we couldn't vote out, apart from a once-in-a-generation referendum. BIG difference.

    Show me the sunlit uplands, or even one good thing that has resulted from Brexit, so I can stop moaning and be all happy about it like you then.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  15. #690
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Yes, people we couldn't vote out, apart from a once-in-a-generation referendum. BIG difference.
    You're still pretending you never heard of the EU Parliament?

    When are you next going to vote for the Brexit minister?



    [/QUOTE]


    Those are plains, not uplands. But, can't say I'm surprised that's the best you can do.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  16. #691
    I did actually realise that it wasn't "uplands" when I found the image, but Stonehenge is as recognisably British as it gets.

    You're still pretending you never heard of the EU Parliament?
    My feelings on this are made clear in this thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  17. #692


    There you go poop. A reward for you pedantry.
    Lake District.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  18. #693
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,638
    Location
    North Carolina
    I'm not reading through all this shit. Which one of you is for/against Brexit?
  19. #694
    I voted to leave, poop thinks we're all going to die as a result.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  20. #695
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,638
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I voted to leave, poop thinks we're all going to die as a result.
    I was also in favor of you leaving.
  21. #696
    If we'd have voted to remain, the noise would be all over by now. I wouldn't have continued to screech like a bitch. I'd have accepted it and be grateful to live in a democracy.

    There was once a time where people respected other peoples' political opinions. Now people think it's acceptable to harshly judge people for having a different political opinion. The irony is that these are the very same people who claim the moral high ground.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  22. #697
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,638
    Location
    North Carolina
    You know, if you look at the anti-Trump thing, there are a lot of people who think he either is or was the next Hitler (or similar) in the making. If you have someone who really and truly believes that, then they're going to be balls out because they've got this idea that they're "on the right side of history." They're ultimately delusional fucks, and their screeching and caterwauling are the direct result of that.

    At the same time, they're really only repeating the shit they've been told and had pumped into them from the news, which trickles down to Reddit, Facebook and whatever else. It's not like millions of people all had the same independent thought and happen to agree with each other. They're just parrots.

    So then if you look at the news and what their incentives are, it really just comes down to making money off of people who will believe the shit. Ad dollars are for real, and the anti-Trump thing skews to a higher income demographic on average anyway, so that's always going to be a group to go after to get paid.
  23. #698
    If I thought he was the next Hitler, I'd have been more vocal about him. The analogy seemed ridiculous though, I don't understand how anyone with any shred of critical thought can think for even one second that he is comparable to a man who gassed Jews by the million. Especially before he even takes office.

    USA never fails to deliver though. Greatest country in the world, but today for all the wrong reasons.

    The media and politicians on both sides have a lot to answer for. They deliberately stoke the divisive politics and it's incredibly dangerous, it has USA on the brink of a civil war. idk how any amount of money can make that outcome worthwhile.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  24. #699
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,201
    Location
    Finding my game
    ^^You can sub anti-Trump with anti-Hillary and all of that is still accurate.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  25. #700
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    I was also in favor of you leaving.
    Economically, leaving the largest trading bloc in the world has been a disaster, and will continue to be one for years to come. Politically, it has fuelled separatist sentiments in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

    If you ever have 27 hours to spare I recommend watching James O'Brien interviewing Brexiteers in the vain hope that one of them will be able to provide a single benefit of leaving.

    Mostly it has come down to lies and propaganda aimed at nationalist sentiments. There is no better future for the UK coming out of this.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  26. #701
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    If we'd have voted to remain, the noise would be all over by now. I wouldn't have continued to screech like a bitch. I'd have accepted it and be grateful to live in a democracy.

    There was once a time where people respected other peoples' political opinions. Now people think it's acceptable to harshly judge people for having a different political opinion. The irony is that these are the very same people who claim the moral high ground.

    Congratulations on having reached stage 5.




    Ong, believe it or not there is an endgame to this, and it's not to make people who voted Brexit feel bad for being misled. It's to make them realise they were sold a lemon and that the sooner we rejoin the better.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  27. #702
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,638
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    The media and politicians on both sides have a lot to answer for. They deliberately stoke the divisive politics and it's incredibly dangerous, it has USA on the brink of a civil war. idk how any amount of money can make that outcome worthwhile.
    I'm a bit of an accelerationist in this regard. I think that America is beyond saving at this point in its current state. I just think we're beyond a reasonable point of no return.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Economically, leaving the largest trading bloc in the world has been a disaster, and will continue to be one for years to come. Politically, it has fuelled separatist sentiments in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

    If you ever have 27 hours to spare I recommend watching James O'Brien interviewing Brexiteers in the vain hope that one of them will be able to provide a single benefit of leaving.

    Mostly it has come down to lies and propaganda aimed at nationalist sentiments. There is no better future for the UK coming out of this.
    Nationalism is the best ism.
  28. #703
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,665
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Accelerate towards what? Trump was the accelerationist and where did that get you? He exploded the national debt, mismanaged the covid pandemic so bad half a million americans are dead, and destroyed international relations with most countries except the UAE and Russia. Now Biden rejoins international agreements, stops arms sales to SA, and rebuilds the EPA. You're not getting your Mad Max fantasy. At best your coal plants freeze shut (because decades of neoliberal horseshit means you have no regulations to protect your power grid from weather,) you lose TV for an evening and Tucker Carlson can blame it on windmills. That's as far as it goes.
    Last edited by oskar; 02-22-2021 at 10:28 AM.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  29. #704
    Quote Originally Posted by poop
    Ong, believe it or not there is an endgame to this, and it's not to make people who voted Brexit feel bad for being misled. It's to make them realise they were sold a lemon and that the sooner we rejoin the better.
    We're not rejoining. On the one hand, you're convinced Scotland leaves the union and NI unites with Ireland, and on the other you seem to think that the UK rejoining is on the table in the future. These three outcomes do not all happen, ever. The ONLY way the UK ever rejoins is if a) the union remains intact, and b) English voters have a change of heart. And that's if the EU even consider having us back, which is also a huge doubt.

    Your best bet is to move to Scotland if you want to remain in the EU, and hope for "independence" and EU membership. From there, you can slag the English off while making friends, eat battered mars bars, and enjoy the weather, which is even worse than England's.

    Quote Originally Posted by spoon
    Nationalism is the best ism.
    Nah. Hedonism wins.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  30. #705
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    We're not rejoining. On the one hand, you're convinced Scotland leaves the union and NI unites with Ireland, and on the other you seem to think that the UK rejoining is on the table in the future. These three outcomes do not all happen, ever. The ONLY way the UK ever rejoins is if a) the union remains intact, and b) English voters have a change of heart. And that's if the EU even consider having us back, which is also a huge doubt.
    First, I'm not "convinced" of anything except that Brexit is a giant pile of shit.

    Second, if we make noises to rejoin that will probably be enough to keep S and NI in the union.

    Third, if they leave we'll have even more reason to rejoin, as we'll be even further isolated. Mind you, the amount of trade disruption between us and Scotland will pale in comparison to what we'll be experiencing with the rest of the EU, so it's possible it'll already be so bad we won't notice. Plus, we already have trade disruption with NI, so that's strictly a loss in terms of prestige, not economics.

    Fourth, alot of English voters already did have a change of heart once it dawned on them what a colossal mistake this was. It will be a big surprise if people are dumb enough to actually watch their towns and industries fucked over and think "yeah that was a great idea, let's stick with that."

    Finally, the EU has no reason not to let us back in - in fact it would be a huge win for them.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Your best bet is to move to Scotland if you want to remain in the EU, and hope for "independence" and EU membership. From there, you can slag the English off while making friends, eat battered mars bars, and enjoy the weather, which is even worse than England's.
    Back to the "if you don't like it, leave, Johnny Foreigner" gambit huh? lol, it's funny that instead of trying to argue how great Brexit is you just keep accusing me of being anti-English, even when I make it abundantly clear I don't hold it against people if they were duped into supporting Brexit by a bunch of lies and nationalist rhetoric. I'm really just anti- getting screwed over for nothing. Sorry if that doesn't fit your little stereotype about what being anti-Brexit means.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  31. #706
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    Accelerate towards what? Trump was the accelerationist and where did that get you? He exploded the national debt, mismanaged the covid pandemic so bad half a million americans are dead, and destroyed international relations with most countries except the UAE and Russia. Now Biden rejoins international agreements, stops arms sales to SA, and rebuilds the EPA. You're not getting your Mad Max fantasy. At best your coal plants freeze shut (because decades of neoliberal horseshit means you have no regulations to protect your power grid from weather,) you lose TV for an evening and Tucker Carlson can blame it on windmills. That's as far as it goes.
    I think America can either go the way of the 60s and flirt with revolution, or go Mad Max. Things are more likely to be the former imo.

    Either way America's going to have to deal with the fact that it's not going to be King of the World for too much longer. China will pass them by 2050 at the latest imo. I'll be interested to see how the US faces that.

    Spoon, what is your view on the MAGAlution that happened at the Capitol? Good or bad for the country? And was Trump responsible, and/or should he face consequences for it?
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  32. #707
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,509
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    It's worth pointing out that there has been no time in American history when we weren't fiercely divided along a political divide that is so nearly a 50/50 split that it's not really statistically significant when it swings to 55/45 from time to time.

    ***
    I'm not saying I'm right about anything. I'm not claiming any political expertise. I'm merely expressing my own ignorance. These are things I don't understand.


    I do not understand the Republican perspective. I do not understand how electing DJT to "drain the swamp" can simultaneously exist with re-electing all the incumbent sitting Republican Senators and Representatives. I do not understand what "the swamp" is that needs draining, or how DJT accomplished that.

    I do not understand why investing in our human resources for a more economically productive future is "giving handouts." I.e. letting public schools in poor neighborhoods go without any attention to fixing them seems like just shooting yourself in the foot. I can vaguely understand the animosity toward deadbeat parents, but not the animosity to their kids. Providing good education to children is a positive investment in the future economy. I don't understand how a party that leans on family values and a strong economy can let that be part of their platform.

    Among many other issues that seem contradictory to me.

    Like the death penalty. Why is it the Reps want to give the darkest elements of our society the easy way out? Why don't they want to punish those people to the full extent of what's possible? Why is it that they want to let them off so easy? I don't get it.
    And why are Reps so scared of so many Americans? Why do they need to criminalize everything? How do they explain that "the land of the free" needs to have more of its own citizens in its own prisons than any other nation on Earth? What is it about Americans that makes us to villainous? Is it really about granting freedoms? Seems like the opposite.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  33. #708
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,201
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    I do not understand how electing DJT to "drain the swamp" can simultaneously exist with re-electing all the incumbent sitting Republican Senators and Representatives. I do not understand what "the swamp" is that needs draining, or how DJT accomplished that.
    He never explained what he meant with "the swamp", everyone is free to fill that in with whatever boogieman they're thinking of, be it corrupt politicians, corporate money in elections etc, or for his supporters more likely Hillary, Soros, the Democrats and colored people. That was brilliant really, no surprise Trump himself didn't like the term.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  34. #709
    Back to the "if you don't like it, leave, Johnny Foreigner"
    Bollocks. Stop playing this card, it's bullshit. If I wanted you to fuck off, I wouldn't ask you to go to Scotland, which remains part of the country I live in.

    I will make one thing very clear. I have nothing against Johnny Foreigners living in the UK, in England, in Shropshire, next door to me, whatever. You're welcome here, and you would still be welcome here if you were brown. The only way I say you're not welcome here is if you break the law in a serious enough manner to warrant deportation. I don't expect that of you.

    If I ask you why you choose to remain here, that is not the same as me telling you to fuck off. So stop this, because it's an absolute crock of shit.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  35. #710
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,638
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    Accelerate towards what?
    Civil war and/or splits of the major political parties.

    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    Trump was the accelerationist and where did that get you? He exploded the national debt, mismanaged the covid pandemic so bad half a million americans are dead, and destroyed international relations with most countries except the UAE and Russia. Now Biden rejoins international agreements, stops arms sales to SA, and rebuilds the EPA. You're not getting your Mad Max fantasy. At best your coal plants freeze shut (because decades of neoliberal horseshit means you have no regulations to protect your power grid from weather,) you lose TV for an evening and Tucker Carlson can blame it on windmills. That's as far as it goes.
    This is just a bunch of incoherent screeching that I don't really care to respond to.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Nah. Hedonism wins.
    I think hedonism as a core philosophy is completely valid.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    1. Spoon, what is your view on the MAGAlution that happened at the Capitol?

    2. Good or bad for the country?

    3. And was Trump responsible, and/or should he face consequences for it?
    I numbered your questions to make this more visually organized since I'm responding to a lot in one post:

    1. I thought it was funny as fuck. I was literally watching live streams with popcorn. It was so pitiful. Just imagine how bad it could have been if they'd actually planned and organized as far as doing anything other than going inside and standing around yelling and throwing shit.

    2. Hard to say if there is a long-term effect either way. I'm leaning towards it being slightly better for the country since I think having that little shit fit makes the civil war outcome less likely and the split of the Republican Party (which I believe will lead to a split of the Democratic Party as well) more likely. I also think it's probably good in the long run that the people in Congress (and politicians in general) understand how close they could be to getting slaughtered if they piss off the people enough. That's sort of a founding principle of this country, but it's worth noting that I'm pretty anti-politician in general.

    3. I think the people who busted ass into the Capitol were the ones responsible. I don't know if Trump broke any laws with all of that, but I don't know which laws would be available for him to break in that situation either. I wouldn't be surprised if he did.

    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Like the death penalty. Why is it the Reps want to give the darkest elements of our society the easy way out? Why don't they want to punish those people to the full extent of what's possible? Why is it that they want to let them off so easy?
    On this point, there are two reasons why conservatives [should] traditionally opposite the death penalty:

    1. From a moral perspective: While there are people who deserve to die, the state should not have the power to kill its own citizens as long as there's a non-zero chance that they get the verdict wrong.

    2. From a fiscal perspective: It costs more money, by a significant amount, to put someone to the death penalty than it does to hold them in prison for a life term. (It's worth noting that this difference in cost does not come from the appeals process, which is a common misconception.)
    Last edited by spoonitnow; 02-22-2021 at 03:08 PM.
  36. #711
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Bollocks. Stop playing this card, it's bullshit. If I wanted you to fuck off, I wouldn't ask you to go to Scotland, which remains part of the country I live in.

    I will make one thing very clear. I have nothing against Johnny Foreigners living in the UK, in England, in Shropshire, next door to me, whatever. You're welcome here, and you would still be welcome here if you were brown. The only way I say you're not welcome here is if you break the law in a serious enough manner to warrant deportation. I don't expect that of you.

    If I ask you why you choose to remain here, that is not the same as me telling you to fuck off. So stop this, because it's an absolute crock of shit.
    Glad to know I'm welcome, but you have to see how it looks when you keep saying that over and over.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  37. #712
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    I think having that little shit fit makes the civil war outcome less likely and the split of the Republican Party (which I believe will lead to a split of the Democratic Party as well) more likely.
    Interesting. I could see the Ds splitting into Progressive vs. Moderate groups. The Rs would I guess split into Reactionary/Conservative vs. QAnon/Trumpers.

    But it's certainly in each party's best interests to stay whole if possible, especially if the other party splits, since it's winner-take-all in the elections.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  38. #713
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,638
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Interesting. I could see the Ds splitting into Progressive vs. Moderate groups. The Rs would I guess split into Reactionary/Conservative vs. QAnon/Trumpers.

    But it's certainly in each party's best interests to stay whole if possible, especially if the other party splits, since it's winner-take-all in the elections.
    To elaborate slightly, the issue has always been that the first party to split takes a massive disadvantage. That has been a major factor in why neither of the major parties have split.

    Enter Trump. He doesn't give a fuck if the Republican Party takes a hit because of a split.

    If the Republican Party splits, that puts the Democratic Party in a position where they don't get as much of a disadvantage (if any? idk) from splitting. That's why I think both will split over the next two years but that it'll be the Republicans that do first.

    I might be wrong, but I really, really hope I'm not. In any event, it's the best chance we have of me viewing US politics as anything other than entertainment for the rest of my life.
  39. #714
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Glad to know I'm welcome, but you have to see how it looks when you keep saying that over and over.
    I can't help it if you choose to interpret my comments in such a way, despite me having to spell it out every time that I am not saying what you wish I was saying.

    I'm not racist, I'm not xenophobic, and I'm not Johnny Foreignerist. I've said to you in the past that I prefer migrants such as yourself rather than women oppressors and unemployable people who can't speak English, but obviously you prefer to forget such comments when it suits you in order to throw some moral shit at me.

    If you complain about this country and the democratic decisions we make, and someone asks "why do you stay here then", that is not an invitation to fuck off. That is a legitimate question. I've said multiple times I would not want to stay in a country if I held that country and their people in contempt.

    It is not unreasonable for natives to expect migrants to respect our democratic decisions. And it's not unreasonable for you to be reminded you have more choice than I do about where you live. I assume you have a vote. You have exactly the same amount of say as I do. If I vote for the loser, I accept and respect it. That's a core value of democracy. If you don't like democracy, you're in the wrong country. If you do like democracy, you have a very funny way of showing it.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  40. #715
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,638
    Location
    North Carolina
    I think what OngBonga is trying to say is that the UK needs to build a wall.
  41. #716
    We already have one, it's called Hadrian's wall and the Romans built it to keep the Scots out. I think it needs reinforcing.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  42. #717
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,638
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    We already have one, it's called Hadrian's wall and the Romans built it to keep the Scots out. I think it needs reinforcing.
    I meant around the whole damn island.

    And make France pay for it.
  43. #718
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post

    If you complain about this country and the democratic decisions we make, and someone asks "why do you stay here then", that is not an invitation to fuck off. That is a legitimate question. I've said multiple times I would not want to stay in a country if I held that country and their people in contempt.
    You're doing the very thing you're accusing me of here. I've said myself several times I do not hold the UK or its people in contempt.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    It is not unreasonable for natives to expect migrants to respect our democratic decisions. And it's not unreasonable for you to be reminded you have more choice than I do about where you live. I assume you have a vote. You have exactly the same amount of say as I do. If I vote for the loser, I accept and respect it. That's a core value of democracy. If you don't like democracy, you're in the wrong country. If you do like democracy, you have a very funny way of showing it.
    First, I've never told you to go anywhere except back to Anglony Saxony land.

    Second, it's universally accepted that it's a dogwhistle to point out that someone is not native to your country in any context where you are discussing the country itself. We've told you this before. Whether you claim to personally actually mean anything by it or not is irrelevant, you just don't do it.

    Third, you don't get to make the rules. Liking and respecting democracy does not mean accepting everything that happens in a democracy, no matter how underhanded the tactics were to make it happen, or how bad an idea it is, because people voted for it. Voters come in all varieties. Many of them are stupid. Many are uninformed, and many are susceptible to being manipulated, and en masse they make objectively bad choices very often. I can't help that, and I sure as hell don't have to align my thinking with how the masses vote on anything.

    You're trying to pull this old argument out of your ass again that I am somehow "undermining" democracy by listing the ways in which the thing a majority of people voted for is bad. That's got nothing to do with democracy. An idea doesn't become "good" or "right" because a bunch of people voted for it. I don't let the masses tell me what to believe, and I don't forfeit my right to criticise their judgment because I live in a democracy.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  44. #719
    Fuck yes, I'm in. It might destroy our lovely coastline, but if it costs the French a few billion, I think it's a great idea.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  45. #720
    You're doing the very thing you're accusing me of here. I've said myself several times I do not hold the UK or its people in contempt.
    No, just the half of the country you have political differences with.

    dogwhistle
    Nice buzzword. This is a dogwhistle for accusing someone of racism or xenophobia without actually saying it.

    Third, you don't get to make the rules.
    Who said it was a rule? It's polite. You can be impolite if you want to be, there's nothing stopping you, but don't pretend to be morally superior to others.

    Liking and respecting democracy does not mean accepting everything that happens in a democracy
    Indeed, but continuing to stoke political tensions after a democratic outcome is unhelpful.

    Many of them are stupid. Many are uninformed.
    Sure, but their vote is exactly as equal as yours.

    You're trying to pull this old argument out of your ass again that I am somehow "undermining" democracy by listing the ways in which the thing a majority of people voted for is bad.
    The fact you are telling other people that their choice is "bad" is doing exactly what you claim you're not doing... undermining democracy.

    Your vote is no more right or wrong than anyone else's.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  46. #721
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    No, just the half of the country you have political differences with.
    I don't hold them in contempt either. Some of them perhaps, the ones who benefit from harming the country. But most of them I think are just misguided.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Nice buzzword. This is a dogwhistle for accusing someone of racism or xenophobia without actually saying it.
    I'm accusing you of being either ignorant or racist/xenophobic. You claim you're not the latter, so I guess you are just ignorant.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Who said it was a rule? It's polite. You can be impolite if you want to be, there's nothing stopping you, but don't pretend to be morally superior to others.
    Lol. It's not impolite to disagree with people, nor does it have anything to do with moral superiority or whatever you're trying to accuse me of here.




    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Indeed, but continuing to stoke political tensions after a democratic outcome is unhelpful.
    Dude, there's like three or four of us on this forum. I'm hardly stirring up a revolution here lol.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Sure, but their vote is exactly as equal as yours.
    I understand the mechanics of voting, thanks.




    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    The fact you are telling other people that their choice is "bad" is doing exactly what you claim you're not doing... undermining democracy.
    This is a peculiar blend of police state and democracy you're conjuring up here, where opinions that don't agree with the majority vote should be silenced.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  47. #722
    I don't hold them in contempt either.
    This claim is at odds with suggestions that people's political opinions are "bad" or "wrong".

    I'm accusing you of being either ignorant or racist/xenophobic.
    Because I disagree with you and accuse you of holding half the country in contempt? Nice.

    It's not impolite to disagree with people.
    No, but it's impolite to tell people they voted wrong.

    Dude, there's like three or four of us on this forum. I'm hardly stirring up a revolution here lol.
    I never suggested you were. But you continue to play divisive politics after the democratic outcome. What purpose does it serve other than to maintain an aura of political tension?

    I wish you'd shut up about it, and not because you're Canadian. I wish everyone would shut up about Brexit. It's happened. Get over it, move on with your life.

    This is a peculiar blend of police state and democracy you're conjuring up here, where opinions that don't agree with the majority vote should be silenced.
    Not at all. But what's the plan? Spend the next decade complaining about a democratic decision? What possible positive outcome can this have?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  48. #723
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    This claim is at odds with suggestions that people's political opinions are "bad" or "wrong".
    Disagreeing != contempt.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Because I disagree with you and accuse you of holding half the country in contempt? Nice.
    No I accuse you of being ignorant because you use a xenophobic dogwhistle while claiming not to be xenophobic. Keep up.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    No, but it's impolite to tell people they voted wrong.
    I respectfully disagree. I'm sorry if you feel that means I hold you in contempt. It doesn't mean that at all.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I never suggested you were. But you continue to play divisive politics after the democratic outcome.
    I'm not playing politics mate. I'm not running for office here.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    What purpose does it serve other than to maintain an aura of political tension?
    Education.


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I wish you'd shut up about it, and not because you're Canadian. I wish everyone would shut up about Brexit. It's happened. Get over it, move on with your life.
    No-one is forcing you to read and/or engage with this thread are they?



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Not at all. But what's the plan? Spend the next decade complaining about a democratic decision? What possible positive outcome can this have?
    You're confusing complaining with explaining. I've invited you several times to explain the benefits of Brexit, and you haven't managed to come up with anything other than vague concepts of sovereignty and democracy that aren't in any way tangible.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  49. #724
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,638
    Location
    North Carolina
    Complaining about dogwhistles often undermines what could otherwise be a good argument because they're made up and don't matter.



    Much like crypto.
  50. #725
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,665
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Who is going to organize anything resembling a "civil war" on the republican side? Your guys stormed the capitol and then couldn't think of anything to do except smear shit on the walls and sit in a chair they're not supposed to sit in... and that one was master minded by the biggest brain you had. Those were the 4d chess moves.

    The closest you'll get to a civil war is some militia larpers going Allahu Akbar on a vaccination tent.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  51. #726
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,638
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    Who is going to organize anything resembling a "civil war" on the republican side?
    The next civil war, if we have one before the country just collapses as a whole, won't be Republican vs. Democrat or right vs. left. It'll be either: 1) the two center parties against the two fringe parties (who will also be against each other), or 2) everyone against communists.

    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    Your guys stormed the capitol...
    My guys were out in the protests selling MAGA t-shirts and hats.

    Note that the people who stormed the Capitol were the fringiest of the fringe on the right. They don't represent the right in any serious way. If you don't think that or accept that, then I have a bridge to sell you.
    Last edited by spoonitnow; 02-23-2021 at 09:24 AM.
  52. #727
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,665
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    As someone with a better track record at predicting american politics than yourself, I can guarantee you democrats will not split for at least another 12 years. Who would even split? The furthest people to the left have voiced no interest in splitting the party.
    The only way republicans split is if Trump forms his own party. I don't see that happening because Trump has no interest in politics. He wants his belly rubbed by spineless sycophants, and there are easier ways to do that like TrumpTV or turning "the office of the former president" into a reality show.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  53. #728
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,509
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    What do you mean by the parties splitting?

    Will the split come from politicians or from voters?

    I mean, will the sitting politicians change / divide their teams? Or will the voters elect non-incumbent leaders?
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  54. #729
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,509
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    I'm accusing you of being either ignorant or racist/xenophobic. You claim you're not the latter, so I guess you are just ignorant.
    Oof.

    That's a shade beyond impolite, IMO. Reign it in a smidge.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  55. #730
    Quote Originally Posted by poop
    I respectfully disagree.
    poop, your vote is yours to do as you please with. If you vote to remain, or vote for Labour, or whatever, it's not my place to tell you such a vote is "wrong" or "bad". Your vote is a reflection of YOUR opinions, not mine. Your vote is only "wrong" if you vote for what you don't believe.

    Telling people their political belief is wrong is most certainly impolite. What you're saying is you think everyone should think like you, and if they don't, they are below you. It's arrogance.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  56. #731
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,638
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    What do you mean by the parties splitting?

    Will the split come from politicians or from voters?

    I mean, will the sitting politicians change / divide their teams? Or will the voters elect non-incumbent leaders?
    A new party forms. People from an existing party leave en masse to the new party. It's pretty straightforward.

    The Republican Party is the most likely to split first by far and can split in two viable ways:

    1. Moderates leave to form a new conservative party - https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberth...litical-party/
    2. Trump and/or the MAGA delegation forms a new party - https://www.usnews.com/news/politics...ump-poll-finds

    The only viable way for the Democratic Party to split is for the socialist left to split. Bernie only declined to lead a new party because he was running for president again in 2020 and saw it as something that would guarantee Trump's re-election - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moveme...ople%27s_Party

    The interesting scenario is that he would have much more of an incentive to lead such a party if the Republican Party itself split because that disadvantage isn't as serious.
    Last edited by spoonitnow; 02-23-2021 at 12:25 PM.
  57. #732
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,638
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    As someone with a better track record at predicting american politics than yourself
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    I can guarantee you democrats will not split for at least another 12 years.
    You have no viable way to make either of these claims.

    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    Who would even split? The furthest people to the left have voiced no interest in splitting the party.
    This is simply false. The MPP is proof of that.

    Moreover, the only viable primary challenger from the left in the past two presidential elections wasn't even from the same party.

    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    The only way republicans split is if Trump forms his own party.
    This is simply false: https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberth...litical-party/

    But look, I'm not going to do this with you. You just spout off a bunch of opinions as fact and don't know nearly as much about American politics as you think you do. Having a conversation with you is like working as an unpaid fact checker, and it's not worth my time since the chance of you admitting you're wrong seems low even in the face of clear evidence.
  58. #733
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,509
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Is the continued denial of the legitimacy of the 2020 election by some Republican leaders part of this, or related to the split?

    What do they stand to gain by undermining the legitimacy of US elections?

    (Insofar as whatever wrongdoing could not overturn the results / not saying there was no impropriety whatsoever. Feel free to correct me if you don't agree.)
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  59. #734
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,638
    Location
    North Carolina
    Before I answer this, it's critical to note that the election was extremely, extremely close. A lot of people, especially non-Americans, don't understand how ridiculously close it was because our system for elections is so atypical.

    With an election of more than 155 million votes total, if 6k votes went the opposite way in Georgia (a state with over 4.9 million votes), 5.5k went the opposite way in Arizona (a state with over 3.2 million votes) and 20.5k went the opposite way in Wisconsin (a state with over 3.2 million votes), the electoral college would have been a tie at 279-279, and all hell would have broken loose with what we call a contingent election, in part because Trump would have most likely won based on our rules for that.

    For scale, imagine an election with about 155,000 votes total. If 32 votes went a different way, the results of the election would have been different. That's essentially what we're dealing with here.

    I point this out to show that, in terms of numbers, it's absolutely the case that the election could have plausibly been stolen (in either direction) because things were simply so close. If Trump won this election with these numbers, we'd be hearing all about the Russians rigged it or something similar instead.

    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Is the continued denial of the legitimacy of the 2020 election by some Republican leaders part of this, or related to the split?
    That's part of it, but it's not really a core issue. The primary issue is that a lot more voters are more loyal to Trump than the Republican Party at this point, but that's been the case since the 2016 election for a lot of people. The reasons for how indifferent they are about the Republican Party go back decades. Long story short, the United States doesn't really have a actual conservative party.

    Since so many are more voters are loyal to Trump and the MAGA agenda, many in GOP leadership tried to align themselves with him to help with their re-election over the past four years. Ted Cruz is a good example who is in the news right now. Having an endorsement from Trump is a really big deal right now and helps your chances in elections a lot.

    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    What do they stand to gain by undermining the legitimacy of US elections?
    That brings us back to the elections. Whether they give a shit about the election or not is kind of irrelevant. For example, for a lot of them, they're probably actually in a better position with Trump losing than winning because fundraising goes better when you're the minority party in Congress.

    For the most part, they're just aligning themselves with Trump to get that rub.
    Last edited by spoonitnow; 02-23-2021 at 01:11 PM.
  60. #735
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,509
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Thanks for the answers.

    Didn't Ted Cruze vote against Trump in the 2nd impeachment? Or do I have that crossed in my head?


    Re. the first part:
    I'd have agreed with you that it could have plausibly been stolen before the dozens of court cases ruled against all the allegations of election fraud on any mass scale. Now that we have more information, from a variety of different sources and court rulings, I'm not inclined to agree.

    What claims of election fraud are you convinced by?

    I don't think your statistical equivalence of boiling it down to the 32 votes out of 155,000 takes into account the joint probability of all 3 states flipping. If we're going to analyze the numbers, we need political maps of each state in question to examine which counties went which way, and exactly where those discrepant votes could have come from, given what we already know.


    I don't think analysis "based on numbers" alone is adequate to understand the 2020 election at this point.
    At any rate, analysis based on only the numbers seems like ignoring a wealth of data we now have, months after the event.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  61. #736
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    I don't think analysis "based on numbers" alone is adequate to understand the 2020 election at this point.
    At any rate, analysis based on only the numbers seems like ignoring a wealth of data we now have, months after the event.

    Yeah, there's a problem with boiling it down like that for sure.

    The votes aren't simply a small percentage of votes overall, as 32/155,000 implies. It's a percentage of votes in three separate states all run independently. In order for the fraud to have happened, they'd have had to a) first identify which states they'd need the votes in before any votes were counted; and then b) ensure that enough fraudulent votes were "found" in each of those states to tip the election.

    a) above is somewhat plausible. You could imagine a fraud conspiracy where they say 'states Q to Z are going to be close, let's focus our fraudulent activities on those.' But b) is not really plausible. How do you know that you will need (say) 6k votes in Georgia to win? If you really wanted to ensure that your side won, you wouldn't be looking for these small margins. You'd be pumping 100k votes or more into each of these states. Then you have to find a way to cover it up, independently, in each of these states. High officials in each of those states would have to be complicit in the fraud and cover up. There can't be any traces left in even one of those states because it will cause the whole thing to unravel. It'd require a level of organisation that would make D-Day look like a picnic on the beach.

    I'm not saying it would be completely impossible to pull off, but it does seem extremely unlikely given it would require human beings to be in charge of the planning and execution of it.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  62. #737
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,638
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Thanks for the answers.

    Didn't Ted Cruze vote against Trump in the 2nd impeachment? Or do I have that crossed in my head?
    Ted Cruz did not vote to convict Trump in either impeachment trial.

    Before I dive into the rest, I want to point out that we're not talking about statistical and mathematical assessment and evaluation with a goal of trying to decide if the election was stolen. We're not even trying to find out if the election was actually stolen. We're talking about the politics of Republican leaders playing up the claims of an illegitimate election.

    I want to point that out so that you don't think I'm being dismissive or flippant with what I'm about to say. I'll use italics to differentiate my politician voice from actual discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    I'd have agreed with you that it could have plausibly been stolen before the dozens of court cases ruled against all the allegations of election fraud on any mass scale.
    The courts are rigged. They're all a bunch of deep state plants trying to undermine Trump's legitimate claim to the presidency.

    While we're at it, Trump's election lawyers were also plants who were paid off to undermine him.

    Btw click here to donate.


    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Now that we have more information, from a variety of different sources and court rulings, I'm not inclined to agree.
    Oh okay, so you're going to believe the rigged courts and the very fake news. You're one of those. This is how fascism gets you. They control the media first, and then they control the courts.

    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    What claims of election fraud are you convinced by?
    Election fraud happens in virtually every US election on the national, state and local levels. It's just a part of the game here. Hell, much of our news cycle for 2017, 2018 and 2019 was about how Russia rigged our presidential election. Even back in 2000 with Bush vs. Gore, we had a whole kerfluffle about the entire election coming down to what happened in a few districts in a single state that ended up going to the Supreme Court.

    To think that this presidential election was somehow completely immune to that or that none of our elections have ever been decided by election fraud is kind of silly. But to your point, I'm not interested in getting into some long, drawn-out debate about whether or not the election results are legitimate. I couldn't possibly know for sure whether they were one way or the other, and I don't particularly care.

    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    I don't think your statistical equivalence of boiling it down to the 32 votes out of 155,000 takes into account the joint probability of all 3 states flipping. If we're going to analyze the numbers, we need political maps of each state in question to examine which counties went which way, and exactly where those discrepant votes could have come from, given what we already know.

    I don't think analysis "based on numbers" alone is adequate to understand the 2020 election at this point.
    At any rate, analysis based on only the numbers seems like ignoring a wealth of data we now have, months after the event.
    What I wanted to illustrate with that example was that the election was a lot closer than most non-Americans realize from just looking at the popular vote or the electoral college.

    With the election being so close, it makes claims of election fraud much more viable than if it was a blowout. It also makes it much easier to convince voters and get them to the polls.

    At this point, being a Republican politician and not pushing the election issue is probably a liability.

    I'm not making anymore of these long-ass posts, but you get the idea.
    Last edited by spoonitnow; 02-23-2021 at 02:54 PM.
  63. #738
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,638
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Yeah, there's a problem with boiling it down like that for sure.

    The votes aren't simply a small percentage of votes overall, as 32/155,000 implies. It's a percentage of votes in three separate states all run independently. In order for the fraud to have happened, they'd have had to a) first identify which states they'd need the votes in before any votes were counted; and then b) ensure that enough fraudulent votes were "found" in each of those states to tip the election.

    a) above is somewhat plausible. You could imagine a fraud conspiracy where they say 'states Q to Z are going to be close, let's focus our fraudulent activities on those.' But b) is not really plausible. How do you know that you will need (say) 6k votes in Georgia to win? If you really wanted to ensure that your side won, you wouldn't be looking for these small margins. You'd be pumping 100k votes or more into each of these states. Then you have to find a way to cover it up, independently, in each of these states. High officials in each of those states would have to be complicit in the fraud and cover up. There can't be any traces left in even one of those states because it will cause the whole thing to unravel. It'd require a level of organisation that would make D-Day look like a picnic on the beach.

    I'm not saying it would be completely impossible to pull off, but it does seem extremely unlikely given it would require human beings to be in charge of the planning and execution of it.
    Like MMM, you're trying to debate whether the election was stolen. That's not the topic. The topic is the politics of pushing that idea as a Republican politician right now.

    I don't disagree with either of you. You're just trying to go into another topic that's not what I'm talking about here.
    Last edited by spoonitnow; 02-23-2021 at 02:56 PM.
  64. #739
    Discrediting the election is just a political tactic to get your side riled up. The problem is if your supporters take it too literally they might just give up on voting and grab their pitchforks. That's why most politicians won't go down that road unless their led there by someone.

    I think the biggest reason he claimed fraud is that Trump doesn't give a shit about anyone but himself. It was his way to avoid having to admit defeat.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  65. #740
    I also agree that the main reason most R politicians support Trump, or ever supported him, was out of cynical self-interest. It's pretty obvious when you see how the same guys who were calling him a horrible lunatic before he won the nomination in '16 suddenly turned into his firm supporters after he won. Christie, Cruz, Graham, all spring to mind in that regard.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  66. #741
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,638
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    I think the biggest reason he claimed fraud is that Trump doesn't give a shit about anyone but himself. It was his way to avoid having to admit defeat.
    That may be the case, but it's also a bit overly simplistic. Pushing the election fraud story is very on-brand for him at this point, and it puts him in the best position to keep his base riled up for his post-2020 plans, whatever those may be. We've seen talks about a news channel to compete with Fox as one example of a direction he could go in.

    Don't forget that he was claiming election fraud in the 2016 election before it even happened.

    In any event, I think we can agree that he maintains more power if he claims election fraud than if he doesn't, which makes it the correct move for him from his perspective.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    I also agree that the main reason most R politicians support Trump, or ever supported him, was out of cynical self-interest. It's pretty obvious when you see how the same guys who were calling him a horrible lunatic before he won the nomination in '16 suddenly turned into his firm supporters after he won. Christie, Cruz, Graham, all spring to mind in that regard.
    It's also tied to the main reason he got virtually none of his agenda done when the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. They were pissy that he beat the entire party on the grandest political stage of them all and wouldn't work with him.

    Once it became clear that his win wasn't a fluke and that voters weren't going to show up for other GOP candidates, that's when they started trying to play the role of supporter.

    And I mean, Trump welcomed it and handled that reasonably well once they wanted to give their support. Him making up with Ted Cruz after the shit their respective campaigns said about each other's wives was one example.
    Last edited by spoonitnow; 02-23-2021 at 03:19 PM.
  67. #742
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,665
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    Having a conversation with you is like working as an unpaid fact checker, and it's not worth my time since the chance of you admitting you're wrong seems low even in the face of clear evidence.
    We had a similar conversation about 2 years ago where I said Trump will be either removed through impeachment or lose re-election in a landslide and his supporters would lose their mind and march on DC, and I believe the way you put it was "what movie are you watching" and that Trump will crush re-election yadda yadda.

    "anti Trump party"... If I had any respect for you I would think you were joking. Trump's approval among republicans is over 80% after Jan 6. Yeah sure, form an anti-trump party. It has no shot of breaking 1%. That's not splitting the party.
    Republicans will not break with Trump, and thinking they will is insane.

    I know for sure democrats won't split because democrats are many things but they aren't stupid. Republicans are done. Trump lost in a landslide, but they can't break with Trump... noone aspiring to run on the red ticket for sure can't denounce Trump so you're stuck with Trump-but-worse in a race that Trump got humiliated in. Democrats will hold on to all 3 branches for at least 8 years barring a miracle. No reason to fuck that up.

    I do not know what MPP is. I assume it's some dumb shit.
    Last edited by oskar; 02-23-2021 at 04:57 PM.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  68. #743
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,638
    Location
    North Carolina
    I mean to come back to this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Discrediting the election is just a political tactic to get your side riled up. The problem is if your supporters take it too literally they might just give up on voting and grab their pitchforks. That's why most politicians won't go down that road unless their led there by someone.
    While I don't disagree, let's not forget that the ongoing narrative for vast majority of the past four years from the Democratic Party has been that the 2016 election was not legitimate.

    Both sides have been going on one about the elections not being legitimate since early in the 2016 general election, and I think it's gotten to the point that trust in the integrity of the election in general is lower for everyone.

    That's one of the reasons why I think that Republican politicians are finding it easier to jump on that bandwagon right now for political points despite what I quoted of you above.
  69. #744
    Hmm, I don't recall anyone ever saying the election was lost directly because of Russian interference, or if they did I never paid it any attention. Mostly what I heard was complaints that up against a confessed pussy-grabber, Hillary somehow managed to be the less appealing candidate.

    Also, claiming foreign interference is a much different angle than saying it was corrupted from within, in terms of what it does to public opinion. Obviously countries have a vested interest in each other's elections and are going to interfere as much as they can get away with. It's not like you're going to discover some Russian MAGAbots on facebook and then go to war over it. But if people think the elections are being rigged by the other side in their own country, that's probably going to cause some problems within your own borders.

    It's a lot less dangerous to have your citizens mad at Russia than mad at each other and their own gov't.
    Last edited by Poopadoop; 02-23-2021 at 06:42 PM.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  70. #745
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,509
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Sorry if I made it seem like I was trying to debate anything. I'm not interested in debate.
    I'm interested in growing as a person and understanding what people who passionately disagree with me are passionate about.

    Cause I know I'm nowhere near perfect, and that I'm wrong about a lot of things, but I just don't know which things I'm wrong about, or else I'd just change them and be right... so I'm looking for people that can challenge my opinions with thoughtful opinions.

    We're just a couple guys talking. I've been desperately seeking an intelligent person to explain the positions of the US political right for over a year, now. I'm sincerely interested in what you have to say as an intelligent person with opinions that differ from mine. I'm not interested in "trying" to change your mind or mine. I'm interested in learning what you hold true so that I may better understand a sensible voice.

    When I asked what claims of election fraud you were convinced by, that's a genuine and direct question. I'm not asserting there was no fraud in any election. I'm saying that what I heard about the fraud claims in the 2020 election were unconvincing to me, and if you are convinced by something, then maybe I will be, too, because I missed it in my news bubble.

    The last thing I want is to get into a heated discussion about whether the left or the right has a better vision of our future. I firmly believe that either side is fine. If we gave full control to either the R's or the D's, things would be fine. Different, sure, but fine. Both sides want what's best for America. We're arguing about these tiny slivers near the center. So who cares, IMO.

    We have opinions. I'm interested in learning yours and why because I respect your intelligence and that you and I fall on separate sides of a lot of political issues. I'm not interested in changing your mind, and if mine changes because you've educated me, then that's awesome, but I'm not talking to you to be lectured at... right? We're just 2 dudes talking, here.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  71. #746
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,509
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    ... but didn't the entirety of the Russian involvement boil down to some Facebook pages and other social media tomfoolery? Like... that was the extent of it, right?

    So it was really nothing like what we're talking about w.r.t. the 2020 election fraud claims, right?
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  72. #747
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,638
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    I've been desperately seeking an intelligent person to explain the positions of the US political right for over a year, now. I'm sincerely interested in what you have to say as an intelligent person with opinions that differ from mine. I'm not interested in "trying" to change your mind or mine. I'm interested in learning what you hold true so that I may better understand a sensible voice.
    I just didn't want you to think that I was giving my own position in terms of things like thinking the election was rigged when I was laying out the landscape.

    Explaining the positions of the US political right is difficult right now for other reasons though. We don't have an actual conservative party anymore. However, we do have lots of dumbasses (on both sides) who believe ridiculous horseshit and who want to take it to similarly ridiculous extremes.

    I'll go over the basic conservative stances for the US in a nutshell though and the reasoning behind them in my next post in this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    ... but didn't the entirety of the Russian involvement boil down to some Facebook pages and other social media tomfoolery? Like... that was the extent of it, right?
    There were a few different fronts. The one you're thinking of was targeted advertising on social media platforms that was directly geared toward building the type of insane polarization we have now. They had ads in favor of everything you can imagine like Bernie, Hillary, Trump, BLM and whatever else. They just made sure they showed up in zip codes where it would piss off the most people and rile things up as much as they could.

    Another front was that some Russian government figures allegedly offered the Trump campaign dirt on the Clinton campaign in exchange for something or another. They didn't actually take the deal, but campaign officials did meet with those Russian figures to discuss a deal.

    Yet another front was the Hillary emails issue, which is partially tied into the above. I'm sure you remember reading blah blah 30,000 emails. As Secretary of State under Obama, Hillary broke a bunch of laws to do with handling classified data, her email security and things of that nature. Her people then went wayyyy out of their way to cover up evidence of it. Those last two sentences are undisputed and are just factual things that happened (like all of their phones being busted with hammers and all of this other crazy stuff that actually turned out to be true; she went in front of Congress over it but got a slap on the wrist at best).

    The question was always if those emails had been hacked (presumably by Russia; it could have been the dirt they were offering) and what was in those emails that she needed to hide that would have covered up whatever crimes, including more improper handling of classified data. That's what created all of the conspiracy theory type stuff over that.

    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    So it was really nothing like what we're talking about w.r.t. the 2020 election fraud claims, right?
    Sort of the same but also different.

    For example, the DNC rigged the primary election against Bernie. That's established fact. People were fired for it. Donna Brazile was fired from CNN over it for feeding questions from debates and town halls to the Clinton campaign ahead of time during the primary against Bernie. Debbie whatsherface-Schultz, the Congresswoman from the same district as the Parkland school shooting, was fired from the DNC over it (and immediately given a cushy job with the Clinton campaign). Her replacement was... Donna Brazile. Somehow, Donna Brazile ended up working for Fox News after all of that was over with. There's a whole thing there that's interesting on its own.

    As far as the general election and Russia goes, there were allegations of voting machines being hacked by Russia and all of this mess, but it never really got major media attention because the cycle was dominated by Trump stuff. It's all in the Mueller mess if you want to read through that clusterfuck of a novel.
  73. #748
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,638
    Location
    North Carolina
    I started writing out a list of political issues and where conservatives stand on them. I had to break each topic up into a list of how each conservative group views them, which turned into a list of bullet point lists. It got really long really quickly, and I was only a portion of the way done. I also felt like I wasn't achieving the aim I set out for.

    Instead, and trying to keep with the spirit of what I set out to do without it getting too dry, I'll pick two hot-button topics and explain the situation surrounding them and why they're so contentious in not too many sentences.

    Gun Control

    The debate over the Second Amendment (which gives us the right to bear arms) boils down to whether or not it only applies to federally regulated militias. The court case District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) decided that it didn't only apply to those militias. That's only 13 fucking years ago that this was decided in court, which is insane to think about since it's been a contentious issue for so long.

    One of the founding principles of our government is that human beings are born with rights and that rights are not given by the government. Instead, rights are protected by the government and are only limited in situations where it's necessary to avoid a person infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens.

    As such, the conservative position is that the Second Amendment is in place to protect a person's right, given to them by virtue of being born, to own and carry arms. That right doesn't disappear because someone commits a crime with a gun, and living with those crimes is frequently considered a part of the unpleasant sacrifice required to have our rights protected.

    Abortion

    There are four important aspects of the abortion issue that I can think of off the top of my head, one of which (#4) isn't about abortion per se:

    1. Some people believe that human life begins at conception, so abortion is the killing of an unborn child. That's why they're against it. It's not an unreasonable position if you follow the premise to its logical conclusion.
    2. Another premise you can start with is that of bodily autonomy (ie: if your brother has a car accident and will die if you don't give him a kidney; the government cannot force you to undergo something that could risk you harm or death to benefit another). If you follow that to its logical conclusion, then the government cannot make it illegal even if you think it's unethical.
    3. Curiously enough, this is a topic that white nationalists and white supremacists frequently disagree on. White nationalists think that abortion in the white ethnostate has to be illegal as a matter of national security. However, white supremacists are often in favor of abortion because it's chosen disproportionately by black people.
    4. Planned Parenthood receives a lot of funding from the government. They also contribute a lot in political donations. Virtually all conservatives, regardless of where they stand on the abortion itself, see this as political corruption in the sense that any body or company that receives government funding should not be able to make political donations.
  74. #749
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,509
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    One of the founding principles of our government is that human beings are born with rights and that rights are not given by the government. Instead, rights are protected by the government and are only limited in situations where it's necessary to avoid a person infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens.
    Goddamn you can turn a phrase.

    ***
    The abortion debate in the US has been stagnant for over 100 years. The lines haven't changed. The arguments haven't changed. The realities haven't changed. There are old-ass black and white Hollywood movies about abortion (well, at least one).
    People take their sides, then defend them with whatever they like. IMO, it's a medical issue and I'm not a doctor or a woman, so my opinion and the opinions of non-doctors and non-women is pretty much just mansplaining.

    Are you telling me that *intelligent* people on the Right are for real worked up about abortion?
    C'mon. The history is clear. The primal emotions on both sides are fundamentally human. Both sides keep making the same points, generation after generation.

    ***
    Note that exactly $0 Planned Parenthood receives from the gov't goes toward abortions.

    They do a lot more than just abortions, and the state funding they receive is isolated from all their abortion-related services.

    They do "man stuff" too. It's not a women's clinic or anything. It's more like a sexual health clinic.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  75. #750
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,509
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    I mean... I want to clarify that I'm not interested in understanding the bonehead Right perspective (nor the bonehead Left perspective).
    I'm not asking you to catalogue the state of political factions for me.

    I'm asking what you support and believe in. I recall you and I are more in line than not on guns and abortion in the past. Though if we talk about guns, oskar might pop a blood vessel about it. (mwah winky face heart)

    I mean - my position on guns is that if anyone can have them, then everyone can have them. I do not think it's morally acceptable to have a citizenry that is outlawed from the means to revolt against their government should they choose. I'm pretty sure that's what the 2nd amendment is about.

    Abortion is, to me, a medical issue, and I'm not a doctor. Or a woman.
    I kinda don't think anyone who's neither a medical doctor nor a woman should be given a microphone on this issue.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •