Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 319: Dishonorable Discharges

(+) Yeah! (+)

So as a distraction, Trump added Ted Cruz, Tom Cotton, and Josh Hawley to his list of possible Supreme Court judges to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

And Tom Cotton tweeted these:

https://twitter.com/TomCottonAR/status/1303786807692124160

https://twitter.com/TomCottonAR/status/1303791494306902016

https://twitter.com/TomCottonAR/status/1303797599988854785


---

I understand the desire to court the personal votes of wavering US Senators by removing one of their three worst colleagues, but there must be a better way!

---

https://twitter.com/mradamtaylor/status/1303728385873584131

Metal Gear!?

---

kojima calls it again

---

TheRock1525 posted...

So as a distraction, Trump added Ted Cruz, Tom Cotton, and Josh Hawley to his list of possible Supreme Court judges to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

And Tom Cotton tweeted these:

https://twitter.com/TomCottonAR/status/1303786807692124160

https://twitter.com/TomCottonAR/status/1303791494306902016

https://twitter.com/TomCottonAR/status/1303797599988854785

I mean, hes kinda close on the last one at least
---

https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1303732124877492224

Woodward reports that the NSA and CIA have classified evidence that Russians had placed malware in the election registration systems of at least two Florida counties -- St. Lucie and Washington.

No evidence it was activated but it was sophisticated and could erase voters in specific districts. Same vendor is also used in states across the country.

"cool"

---

KamikazePotato posted...

Doubtful. This isn't a breaking point for the remaining Trump supporters.

Yeah but at least the rest of us get to watch them make damn fools of themselves on live TV:

https://twitter.com/EliStokols/status/1303805238281986048

---

I hope that people remember how the Republican party let Trump do or say whatever the hell he wanted. They won't, but I can still hope.

---

To add onto what I said: the things that would ACTUALLLY be a dealbreaker for casual Trump supporters are:

1. Making immigration easier and nationalizing illegal immigrants
2. Stricter gun control
3. Openly declaring atheism
4. Supporting abortion

Nothing else matters to them. He could in fact murder a person in broad daylight and they would ignore it as long as he avoids doing any of these

---

DHS Whistleblower complaint out and jfc:

https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status/1303768777675493376

Whistleblower states he was ordered to modify a threat assessment, particularly "the section on White Supremacy" to make "the threat appear less severe," and to "include information on the prominence of violent 'left-wing' groups."

That the Acting DHS head instructed him to stop providing intelligence assessments on the threat of Russian interference because it "made the President look bad" and to instead focus on China and Iran and that these instructions came from the White House.

That the Acting DHS head instructed the whistleblower to modify intelligence assessments so that they would match what Trump was spewing publicly.

Cuccinelli wanted DHS officials to change intelligence assessments for El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala to make it harder for them to get asylum.

---

KamikazePotato posted...

To add onto what I said: the things that would ACTUALLLY be a dealbreaker for casual Trump supporters are:

1. Making immigration easier and nationalizing illegal immigrants
2. Stricter gun control
3. Openly declaring himself to be atheist
4. Supporting abortion

Nothing else matters to them. He could in fact murder a person in broad daylight and they would ignore it as long as he avoids doing any of these

Really doubt #3, somewhat doubt the others
He's pretty much the embodiment of sin and vice and they pull "imperfect vessel" bullshit now, so I don't know why admitting that's not religious would matter. I think the central appeal of Trump is that he's a bully, but he's "their" bully, and that's not changing regardless of what his positions are.

---

4 is the only one I think might be true. The others lol. He's already made comments about taking guns without due process and they didn't care. Everyone knows #3 is true already lol. And I mean they'd find some way on immigration.

It's a cult at this point and the only goal is "owning the libs." Find a way to spin to that and they'd follow him anywhere. Hell, even if you can't find a way to spin it, they will.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Really doubt #3, somewhat doubt the others
He's pretty much the embodiment of sin and vice and they pull "imperfect vessel" bullshit now, so I don't know why admitting that's not religious would matter. I think the central appeal of Trump is that he's a bully, but he's "their" bully, and that's not changing regardless of what his positions are.

Agree, if Trump said he was not a believer he would be compared to Cyrus the Great as an example of a powerful imperial ruler who did God's work despite not believing himself.

---

Only way Trump loses the support of his base is if he says good things about Liberals and apologizes for his behavior. Anything else is excusable in the eyes of his base.

---

Grimlyn posted...

the sad truth is that the only coverage that matters is Fox News -- including the completely mad in the kool-aid "opinion shows", because these are the only people that large swathes of Trumpers listen to and any other reporting might as well not exist

and for a little view into this world today

https://twitter.com/JasonSCampbell/status/1303804473400270854

lmao

---

xp1337 posted...

i realize this isn't important at all but i can't get over this part

Washington Post says...

He called Woodward? How does Woodward have this access after writing Fear? He gets 18 on-the-record interviews with Trump for a second book?

My understanding is that Trump thought Fear would have been a more positive book if he had talked with Woodward directly so he wanted to do interviews for the follow up book.

---

xp1337 posted...

https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1303732124877492224

Woodward reports that the NSA and CIA have classified evidence that Russians had placed malware in the election registration systems of at least two Florida counties -- St. Lucie and Washington.

No evidence it was activated but it was sophisticated and could erase voters in specific districts. Same vendor is also used in states across the country.

"cool"

Uhh isn't it illegal to disclose classified information?

GentlemanGamer posted...

Uhh isn't it illegal to disclose classified information?

for the Washington Post or CNN?

Unlikely. There was a landmark SCOTUS case on this very topic back in 1971 when the government sought to prevent the NYT from publishing the then-classified Pentagon Papers.

The person who leaked it to Woodward - assuming that's what happened here, if identified, the government may be able to make an Espionage Act case against them, but the press? Probably not. NYT v US doesn't give the press unlimited freedom here but I would tend to assume they have the benefit of the doubt here. (Think Snowden for a more modern example. The press was able to report what he leaked; it is Snowden himself who was/is in legal jeopardy for the leaking)

---

One thing that is annoying me about the framing of the Trump coronavirus video.

The narrative getting passed around is that Trump "downplayed" the virus. Which is true, of course, he did. But there is a distinct difference between downplaying something and outright lying about something. Trump didn't just downplay, he lied about the virus.

---

Sometimes I struggle to even comprehend why someone would vote for Trump after how badly he's handled the pandemic. Then I remembered his base lives in a completely different world.

---

LinkMarioSamus posted...

Sometimes I struggle to even comprehend why someone would vote for Trump after how badly he's handled the pandemic. Then I remembered his base lives in a completely different world.

I don't really think any president could have handled it any better. You can just delay the inevitable by locking down.

---

Corrik7 posted...

I don't really think any president could have handled it any better. You can just delay the inevitable by locking down.

You really think it was inevitable that the US had the most deaths of any country? That we couldn't have done way better on getting good tests much earlier (like, e.g., South Korea)? That it wouldn't have helped if he had modeled good behavior for his supporters by wearing a mask until several months after it was clear that they probably helped control the spread of the virus?

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

You really think it was inevitable that the US had the most deaths of any country? That we couldn't have done way better on getting good tests much earlier (like, e.g., South Korea)? That it wouldn't have helped if he had modeled good behavior for his supporters by wearing a mask until several months after it was clear that they probably helped control the spread of the virus?

When all is said and done, countries that are large and don't have geographic factors helping them will likely end up in relatively the same boat depending on their country demographics and how much economic damage they were willing to do until a vaccine. Sweden pretty much shows that.

---

How does Sweden show that? Most countries are doing a lot better than the US or Sweden (without larger economic damage as far as I know), and if a vaccine arrives in, say, the first half of 2021 they're very likely to stay that way.

---

HashtagSEP posted...

Fair enough. And I try not to complain about people talking with Corrik or the like because he actually believes what he's saying. red sox in particular just seems fruitless for serious conversation because it's an act.

i'd say corrik is a lot like red sox, actually. both of them are neither 100% fake nor completely genuine. red sox's posts can be disengenuous but i really do think he likes trump. i don't think his constant praising of trump is an act at all. as for corrik, sure, he "actually believes what he's saying." but the whole "let's have an open discussion about this i'm open-minded and interested in what you guys have to say" attitude is all an act. like i've said before, he's only here to tell us how superior to us he is because he's a "nuanced enlightened centrist" and we're all crazy leftists. he never (or very very rarely, at best) gives our opinions and ideas serious consideration. if you still think there's really something to be gained from a corrik conversation, you're gullible as fuck tbqh. like, you still think you can have a productive discussion with corrik after that stupid ivanka argument, where he accused you of being "right for the wrong reasons"?

tl;dr i still don't get why people in this topic go comparatively hard after red sox. i talk to both red sox and corrik (yes, you can attack me for this after the above paragraph, i'll happily admit that i am wasting my time/am too addicted to this board) but i don't think discussions with corrik are more productive in the least. i also think he's far more insufferable.

final note: perhaps it's interesting to point out that red sox conceded that i made a "good point" about the apprentice earlier in this very topic. he took my point seriously and it actually made him reconsider his position. i've NEVER had something like that happen with corrik in the past 319 topics. just saying.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

My only beef with red sox is that he does not contain his politics talk in the politics containment topic

after the implementation of flairs, i don't think breaching the containment is that big of a deal anymore tbqh.

plus 99% of the political topics red sox makes are polls and those are kind of hard to do in these topics.

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

. if you still think there's really something to be gained from a corrik conversation, you're gullible as fuck tbqh. like, you still think you can have a productive discussion with corrik after that stupid ivanka argument, where he accused you of being "right for the wrong reasons"?

He was. The supreme court rulings all point against him. The fact Ivanka made a special agreement on her status was due to the fact the law was that way. The fact you are trying to spin that when it is literally a simple cause and effect on the situation is telling.

"Ivanka has to be an employee no matter what she is paid because she works in the government"

"Supreme Court rulings show this is untrue if unpaid"

"Wahhh yeah huh she has to be"

"No"

"She made a special agreement to be treated as one because they were worried she wouldn't have to follow ethics regulations due to being unpaid due to the supreme court rulings"

"Then she is considered one but that doesn't change the law wouldn't have considered her one without a special agreement on her status"

"Nuh uh wahhh this proves the law states she is an employee all along!"

"Nope. Learn reading comprehension noob"

Just realized I should probably simplify the cause and effect for you.

Cause: unpaid federal workers are not considered employees by law.

Side effect: Not being an employee means you are not beholden to ethics regulations employees are.

Effect: Ivanka agreed to a special status to be considered an employee to assuage fears she would be able to side step ethics regulations due to being unpaid and not considered an employee.

Very simple. His entire range of arguments were false the entire time. Then in his mass googling in his floundering at being hammered by supreme court rulings and labor laws, he uncovered an article about the special status agreement. Then took a victory lap acting like this made all his wrong arguments correct, despite the existence of the agreement to a special status is specifically because he was wrong in all his arguments.

---

btw this was SF yesterday

https://twitter.com/TimothyORourke/status/1303871432913350658

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

How does Sweden show that? Most countries are doing a lot better than the US or Sweden (without larger economic damage as far as I know), and if a vaccine arrives in, say, the first half of 2021 they're very likely to stay that way.

Sweden isn't the worst despite no lockdowns and just voluntary guidelines. I mean, I understand you are picking an arbitrary date that is politically advantageous to your causes (October vaccine we should wait til next year to see if safe - Early 2021 vaccine safe and makes our 2020 response terrible etc). However, you have to also take this from a viewpoint that a vaccine from the on start was considered impractical /unheard of to be made within a year and could have taken up to a decade if not ever under normal processing speed / possible complications.

You are saying that Sweden shows the wrong path if a safe and effective vaccine (that can be delivered to entire country right away) appears magically when Biden takes office. However, I disagree.

I agree that we should have locked down initially. We literally did not know what we were dealing with then. I agree we should have preached logical rules that covered every facet of society, not with exemptions. However, we definitely thought it was going to be a lot worse than it actually was though also. We have come a long way from begging for 30k ventilators in New York concurrently to probably not even using 30k ventilators in New York ever cumulative.

We overreacted. And that is fine. When unsure, we should take the most precaution. However, in hindsight we can see it was one. Doesn't change how we should have acted. But, it does show Sweden probably in a huge gamble took the better approach.

---

sweden isn't the worst but they're not exactly doing great either. they have more cases (but less deaths, admittedly) than my country, even though sweden's population density is far lower. i wouldn't say your "sweden did the right thing by not locking down" point is backed up by the numbers.

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

sweden isn't the worst but they're not exactly doing great either. they have more cases (but less deaths, admittedly) than my country, even though sweden's population density is far lower. i wouldn't say your "sweden did the right thing by not locking down" point is backed up by the numbers.

Again. You are taking the numbers now versus what the numbers will end up being. Sweden is at under 1% positivity on 100k+ tests a week. They have fallen off to basically lockdown numbers without a lockdown, while the places that did lockdown are seeing the virus return. Sweden never even closed schools.

---

Sweden has one of the worst death rates per capita in the world (the 13th worst according to this, just below the US):
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality

Note, btw, that most Swedish people voluntarily distanced; it wasn't literally life as normal there. In fact, my understanding is that voluntary compliance there is quite a bit better than in the US (which is part of the reason we're doing so badly). But if you compare Sweden to most countries other than the US, their policy appears to be a total failure (and iirc their economy isn't doing better than the other Scandinavian countries which locked down and thus had way fewer deaths per capita).

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Sweden has one of the worst death rates per capita in the world (the 13th worst according to this, just below the US):
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality

Note, btw, that most Swedish people voluntarily distanced; it wasn't literally life as normal there. In fact, my understanding is that voluntary compliance there is quite a bit better than in the US (which is part of the reason we're doing so badly). But if you compare Sweden to most countries other than the US, their policy appears to be a total failure (and iirc their economy isn't doing better than the other Scandinavian countries which locked down and thus had way fewer deaths per capita).

Their economy is of course intertwined with the countries surrounding it. They can't escape the economic damage of course.

Again. For the umpteenth time. You are comparing the now versus the end. Their positivity has plummeted while those who locked down are rising. Thus, their death rates will increase while Sweden's won't. Thus, they just got to where you always were going to get to faster.

The, of course, wild card is the vaccine. If a vaccine could be done in 30 days do you lock down 30 days? Probably right? If a vaccine is going to be 30 years, do you lock down for 30 years? Probably not, right? What if you don't know when it could be from a year to a decade. Do you do the proposed rolling lockdowns? Every 3 months you relockdown for a month? Do you roll with it? Does it matter if you spread out the deaths and infections as long as you stay under the hospital limits? The point of the lockdowns was to mitigate it from overwhelming hospitals right? Have we lost focus on that?

Nowhere was the point of lockdowns to keep our death rates lower. The point of the lockdowns was to keep our death rates from staggeringly increasing by not having hospitals to support the sick. Many have lost that message in their political hand-wringing.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Their economy is of course intertwined with the countries surrounding it. They can't escape the economic damage of course.

Again. For the umpteenth time. You are comparing the now versus the end. Their positivity has plummeted while those who locked down are rising. Thus, their death rates will increase while Sweden's won't. Thus, they just got to where you always were going to get to faster.

The, of course, wild card is the vaccine. If a vaccine could be done in 30 days do you lock down 30 days? Probably right? If a vaccine is going to be 30 years, do you lock down for 30 years? Probably not, right? What if you don't know when it could be from a year to a decade. Do you do the proposed rolling lockdowns? Every 3 months you relockdown for a month? Do you roll with it? Does it matter if you spread out the deaths and infections as long as you stay under the hospital limits? The point of the lockdowns was to mitigate it from overwhelming hospitals right? Have we lost focus on that?

Nowhere was the point of lockdowns to keep our death rates lower. The point of the lockdowns was to keep our death rates from staggeringly increasing by not having hospitals to support the sick. Many have lost that message in their political hand-wringing.

The new outbreaks in countries that appeared to have the virus under control are quite unlikely to get as bad as the ones at the start of the pandemic in Italy or France or NYC or wherever. We know a lot more now, and have more tools (e.g. we know masks help slow the spread, we're better at treating the virus, a lot of countries have contact tracing in place). Feel free to say "I told you so" if I'm wrong, but most of these countries are absolutely not going to get as bad as the US, and they will not have as much death as they would have had without the lockdowns (or even better yet, quick testing+tracing to avoid ever having to go that far, e.g. South Korea).

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

The new outbreaks in countries that appeared to have the virus under control are quite unlikely to get as bad as the ones at the start of the pandemic in Italy or France or NYC or wherever. We know a lot more now, and have more tools (e.g. we know masks help slow the spread, we're better at treating the virus, a lot of countries have contact tracing in place). Feel free to say "I told you so" if I'm wrong, but most of these countries are absolutely not going to get as bad as the US, and they will not have as much death as they would have had without the lockdowns (or even better yet, quick testing+tracing to avoid ever having to go that far, e.g. South Korea).

I agree with better knowledge of the virus our governors wouldn't have ordered those sick with the coronavirus into nursing homes, etc. We probably won't know for 10-20 years what really happened during all of this. There is motivations to not report accurate numbers by governments, differences in testing numbers, densities, populations, obesity rates in countries, and so on that will need to be analyzed that possibly may never come to actual conclusions on due to the complexity of the situation.

---

Republicans to introduce skinny coronavirus stimulus bill in Senate for vote today. Democrats expected to filibuster it.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Again. You are taking the numbers now versus what the numbers will end up being.

well yeah, nobody knows what the numbers will end up being so that seems like the right thing to do for the time being. "sweden did the right thing because i'm sure their numbers will look great at some point in the future" isn't a good argument.

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

tl;dr i still don't get why people in this topic go comparatively hard after red sox. i talk to both red sox and corrik (yes, you can attack me for this after the above paragraph, i'll happily admit that i am wasting my time/am too addicted to this board) but i don't think discussions with corrik are more productive in the least. i also think he's far more insufferable.

Not really a fan of the meta talk here but I think a defining conversation, and one I should have taken to heart much sooner than I ultimately did, was one I had with red sox probably back in like 2017 or maybe 2018 idk time anymore.

I forget the exact topic of discussion, but IIRC the topic was discussing the Mueller investigation at a time when I believe Sessions was still AG. The topic was discussing an argument being made by the Trump DOJ (but in a casual sense, no one was linking sources or anything because it was obvious) and red sox was pushing back along the lines of, "Come on guys, Republicans are too smart to make such an argument" or something. I posted an article showing that, yes, the Trump DOJ was literally making such a claim as we were all talking about. And within 10 minutes red sox had switched sides entirely and was defending the Trump DOJ's claim. When I called him out on this by quoting the total 180 he made inside of 15 minutes his response was, "15 minutes ago I didn't know that [this was the Republican argument]!"

I think it kinda encapsulates perfectly why the topic generally feels the way it does.

If you really, really want to try and find this discussion, I don't know how these archives are structured but IIRC the post I made when quoting red sox's flip simply said "The prosecution rests." so maybe you can Control+F that but if you have to go topic-by-topic then it probably isn't worth it because I truly don't remember the approximate time of all this beyond the Mueller investigation definitely being an ongoing thing at the time.

---

xp1337 posted...

Not really a fan of the meta talk here but I think a defining conversation, and one I should have taken to heart much sooner than I ultimately did, was one I had with red sox probably back in like 2017 or maybe 2018 idk time anymore.

I forget the exact topic of discussion, but IIRC the topic was discussing the Mueller investigation at a time when I believe Sessions was still AG. The topic was discussing an argument being made by the Trump DOJ (but in a casual sense, no one was linking sources or anything because it was obvious) and red sox was pushing back along the lines of, "Come on guys, Republicans are too smart to make such an argument" or something. I posted an article showing that, yes, the Trump DOJ was literally making such a claim as we were all talking about. And within 10 minutes red sox had switched sides entirely and was defending the Trump DOJ's claim. When I called him out on this by quoting the total 180 he made inside of 15 minutes his response was, "15 minutes ago I didn't know that [this was the Republican argument]!"

I think it kinda encapsulates perfectly why the topic generally feels the way it does.

If you really, really want to try and find this discussion, I don't know how these archives are structured but IIRC the post I made when quoting red sox's flip simply said "The prosecution rests." so maybe you can Control+F that but if you have to go topic-by-topic then it probably isn't worth it because I truly don't remember the approximate time of all this beyond the Mueller investigation definitely being an ongoing thing at the time.

How many times have people jumped onto redsox for jumping to conclusions while doing the exact same like 10 posts later?

How many times do people call our redsox or myself or so on for doing something while others "on their side" do the same and go unscathed or even agreed with?

I think, it is easy to sit here and play these bad faith and bad people games. This is a discussion topic. You should be able to listen to views from the opposite sides and just present sides without an agreement having to be come to, even if you view it ridiculous. The problem is that a select few decided to make this a "we are better than others" topic and spend like half their posts just discussing how they are better than others and others aren't as good as them for not recognizing what they should be doing like them. That is has become acceptable in here is actually kind of weird. I am at least instilled with some hope because at least a few of you have spoken out against that lately, but my point is... its hard to call out red sox or something repeatedly while others do the same just as much and go without a whisper.

How many times have I pointed out Kamikaze's issue with the lynchings claim? Tony even tried to defend what Kamikaze said inaccurately. I proved that wrong with direct quotes. Tony went quiet. Kamikaze acts like they have me on ignore (maybe does here and there) while responding directly to me here and there to not acknowledge it.

I mean, we can do this all day. There is very few bulletproof people in here regarding their arguings tbqh.


---

As for Trump's absolute failure on COVID-19 there are a ton of ways to approach it but I think a fairly simple one is to just look at deaths per capita where we're among the worst in the world (10th worst worldwide; 57.75 per 100,000) and compare us to say, Germany (11.24 per 100,000).

---

xp1337 posted...

As for Trump's absolute failure on COVID-19 there are a ton of ways to approach it but I think a fairly simple one is to just look at deaths per capita where we're among the worst in the world (10th worst worldwide; 57.75 per 100,000) and compare us to say, Germany (11.24 per 100,000).

That is a very simpleton way to look at things, of course.


---

okay

---

xp1337 posted...

Not really a fan of the meta talk here but I think a defining conversation, and one I should have taken to heart much sooner than I ultimately did, was one I had with red sox probably back in like 2017 or maybe 2018 idk time anymore.

I forget the exact topic of discussion, but IIRC the topic was discussing the Mueller investigation at a time when I believe Sessions was still AG. The topic was discussing an argument being made by the Trump DOJ (but in a casual sense, no one was linking sources or anything because it was obvious) and red sox was pushing back along the lines of, "Come on guys, Republicans are too smart to make such an argument" or something. I posted an article showing that, yes, the Trump DOJ was literally making such a claim as we were all talking about. And within 10 minutes red sox had switched sides entirely and was defending the Trump DOJ's claim. When I called him out on this by quoting the total 180 he made inside of 15 minutes his response was, "15 minutes ago I didn't know that [this was the Republican argument]!"

I think it kinda encapsulates perfectly why the topic generally feels the way it does.

If you really, really want to try and find this discussion, I don't know how these archives are structured but IIRC the post I made when quoting red sox's flip simply said "The prosecution rests." so maybe you can Control+F that but if you have to go topic-by-topic then it probably isn't worth it because I truly don't remember the approximate time of all this beyond the Mueller investigation definitely being an ongoing thing at the time.

without looking up what you're talking about, i don't think this encapsulates why the topic feels the way it does at all.

yes, those red sox posts are dumb and bad (from the sound of it). but are they really that much worse than any number of corrik posts i could easily pull up? that's what i want to know. keep in mind that this discussion started because i was replying to SEP, who was saying "i only complain about people talking to red sox, i don't complain about people talking to corrik."

---

Ehhh... like I said, I don't really care for the meta conversation here of "X user isn't worth engaging with, Y user is" stuff. I have my own opinions on it, of course, but it's just not a very productive conversation to have really IMO so I try to keep it to myself. I gave that anecdote as an attempt to try and answer you. It's fine if you find it unsatisfactory but I don't really want to delve any deeper into this personally.

---

Vanuata is the best country in the world for dealing with the covid-19! (Despite doing nothing for it!)

North Korea is the best non-island country in the world for dealing with the covid-19! (lol)

Very simpleton. You know that. It's cherry picked.

Is the country who lockdowns for a year straight for a vaccine and has a decimated economy for 20+ years dealing with the pandemic better than the country who locked down a month, was in the top 10 in per capita deaths, and the economy was messed up for 2 years better?

I mean, there is very hard questions to ask there. So using a simpleton argument regarding it that easily doesn't even tell the full picture seems a bit short sighted.

The problem though is again. Let's say I am exactly right. Sweden has reduced rates do to increased immunity. It can't possibly spread like it did initially now due to natural social distancing due to immunity. The other countries that locked down increase in rates until they reach similar thresholds in say 6 months.

In 6 months, you will all just fall silent and ignore being wrong about it regardless. So, for yinz it is a no lose argument regardless. We have seen this time and time again with jumps to conclusions and when found to be wrong, crickets in return.

How many people responded to the minneapolis riot over the guy who shot himself after murdering someone else over "police brutality" when I said that some of these riots don't even make sense to riot over? Crickets. I mean, I get it. Why respond to things you don't wanna think about or talk about. i do it sometimes also. However, it is an example of how some of the right can't even discuss with yinz. You only a lot want to hear what you want to hear, and if ever proven wrong to the oh so despicable conservative posters here, just act like it never happened!

---

Corrik7 posted...

How many people responded to the minneapolis riot over the guy who shot himself after murdering someone else over "police brutality" when I said that some of these riots don't even make sense to riot over? Crickets. I mean, I get it. Why respond to things you don't wanna think about or talk about. i do it sometimes also. However, it is an example of how some of the right can't even discuss with yinz. You only a lot want to hear what you want to hear, and if ever proven wrong to the oh so despicable conservative posters here, just act like it never happened!

Your problem is that you generalize what you perceive as faults in specific users here and then generalize them to "yinz" so we all have to bear their "sins."

Hell, sometimes it isn't even us at all, you've leveled shit you've read on other forums like ResetEra as if we had to answer for it here

I never said anything positive or negative about the incident you're talking about but here I am facing a post where you're coming at me (on an unrelated topic no less) with it as an example along with predetermining my sentiments. I'm... pretty sure I've admitted when I've been wrong on stuff. I generally try to be pretty careful with what I say/comment on so I like to think it doesn't happen too often but it has and I try to own up to it when it does, If you have any cases where I have behaved as you're alleging I'm completely open to hearing them out. But I don't give a fuck if you're going to throw shit that other people have done at me as though I must answer for them. They can answer for themselves if you'd actually accuse them specifically instead of just hiding behind "yinz" all the time.

---

Holy fuck I just got moderated for calling something a simpleton way to look at things.

You literally can't call someone a foolish or gullible to use such an argument.

Please someone call me gullible for believing Trump on something so we can see if the moderation is even there. Lmfao.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Holy fuck I just got moderated for calling something a simpleton way to look at things.

You literally can't call someone a foolish or gullible to use such an argument.

Please someone call me gullible for believing Trump on something so we can see if the moderation is even there. Lmfao.

wtf

That wasn't me and I'm... pretty shocked that was modded.

Edit: Oh, I thought you meant #242 but it's still up for me. idk about any other posts.

---

xp1337 posted...

Your problem is that you generalize what you perceive as faults in specific users here and then generalize them to "yinz" so we all have to bear their "sins."

Hell, sometimes it isn't even us at all, you've leveled shit you've read on other forums like ResetEra as if we had to answer for it here

I never said anything positive or negative about the incident you're talking about but here I am facing a post where you're coming at me (on an unrelated topic no less) with it as an example along with predetermining my sentiments. I'm... pretty sure I've admitted when I've been wrong on stuff. I generally try to be pretty careful with what I say/comment on so I like to think it doesn't happen too often but it has and I try to own up to it when it does, If you have any cases where I have behaved as you're alleging I'm completely open to hearing them out. But I don't give a fuck if you're going to throw shit that other people have done at me as though I must answer for them. They can answer for themselves if you'd actually accuse them specifically instead of just hiding behind "yinz" all the time.

I don't have the memory to separate all of you, especially with your name changes and such. Nor do I have to think you have to bear all your sides sins either. I think it is just not fair to only point out the sins of one side, while it happens all around, as if it's like only a conservative commonplace or something.

---

xp1337 posted...

wtf

That wasn't me and I'm... pretty shocked that was modded.

Edit: Oh, I thought you meant #242 but it's still up for me. idk about any other posts.

242 is it. It was moderated for abusive behavior but not deemed worthy of being deleted. Notified without deletion. Which of course means marking my subsequent posts for using the same not abusive behavior terms will increase the moderations if the moderator on his high horse deems to do so.

---