Total posts: 4,276
-->
@WyIted
How much are CEOs bothered right now that one was murdered in cold blood and the general population is amused by it?
Eh, half of the high-profile deaths are celebrated by some group nowadays. It might bother some CEOs, but in all likelihood, the internet will forget about him in a few days and go back to being mad at Trump. Even if the commies win, they'll need the support of some rich people, so easy to align yourself with the Bolsheviks if it comes to that.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
We don't know if the shooter is Trump yet. His people might not be the best, most loyal people.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Suspiciously specific
Created:
Anyone who participates in capitalism is fair game for assassination according to Marxist revolutionaries. (Just watch Parasite.) That includes anyone with stock in a 401k.
Created:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Which half isn't owned by foreign interests? The part under American influence or the part occupied by Russia?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It also sends a chilling message to the west as well.
So win-win. Everyone receives a message.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@Shila
their GDP really didn't take much of a hit
They've lost a lot of soldiers though, and much of their military equipment has been destroyed. The war took much longer than Russia expected. Its BRICS position has strengthened, but that was always something Russia knew they could fall back on. If Russia wins, it will be a pyrrhic victory, especially if they don't get all of Ukraine. I'm not sure other countries will look at this war and think that invading another country is worth it. There's a sliding scale to how much Russia gains in this war, and harming them in ways they don't expect can deter invasions even if Ukraine still loses.
It's Vietnam/Afghanistan all over again
The US doesn't have boots on the ground. Big difference. Russia is the country losing soldiers.
Now, is it ethical to kill Russian and Ukrainian conscripts for a war Ukraine will likely lose, just to deter future invasions? From a utilitarian perspective, maybe. If you don't think the ends justify the means, then probably not. But from a purely strategic perspective, Russia losing a lot of soldiers for invading another country sends a pretty strong message.
Russia will not collapse under Putin
I don't know that the main benefit is "collapsing Russia" as much as "deterring invasions."
Ukraine's war is very much a tie.
If the West wants to deter invasions, that's better than Russia winning easily.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
From a purely selfish perspective, the West doesn't need Ukraine to win. It just needs Russia to suffer a high cost for invading another country in order to discourage further invasions to Western allies. Even if the West is paying a cost as well, it might be better to pay a higher financial cost for each war but have fewer of them overall. In this case, Russia is paying in lives and the West is paying in money, so the punishment to Russia outweighs the cost to Western nations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
- saying r@pist instead of rapist- very frequent use of the abbreviation "POTUS," no use of the term "president" except when quoting other people- bolding random words- very similar post frequency
The point is that you and TU are the only users on the site with these behavioral patterns. These aren't things everyone does.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
Maybe he switched or something
So just a few posts ago, you knew exactly why he worshiped God and enough about his beliefs to agree on getting vasectomies together? Now he "maybe" doesn't talk about religion that much?
Also, you have basically identical typing patterns to the ones he had before leaving this site:
- saying r@pist instead of rapist
- very frequent use of the abbreviation "POTUS," no use of the term "president" except when quoting other people
- bolding random words
- very similar post frequency
Besides that, your first posts all addressed users with familiarity as if you'd talked to them before, even mentioning a lot about their positions. Very uncommon for a new user, but all those people do happen to be users who argued a lot with TheUnderdog.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
No one can beat you up through the screen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
I'm talking about both of us
Indeed. Might be for the same reason I never see both of you at the same time.
Also unrelated, but while reading your profile I found it interesting that you said "there is nothing wrong with a white person using the N word" but then censored the word.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
He seemed to realize a sober, but sad truth
Like here. You're obviously talking about yourself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
Also, both of you have posts saying you're going to get a vasectomy before having sex (well, your profile, his post). Either you're the same person, or that's something you talked about with your bro and decided to do together.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
Your first post is a month after TU's last post, and yet TU introduced you to the site? That window doesn't make sense unless you're his alt.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
Multiple accusations of me being UD were made; so that's why I posted that thread. I could probably find more.
You're right, in fact looking back I was one of the people who made that accusation. (Somehow, I got the order of the threads mixed up.) Rest still stands though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
That's the thread where you say "I'm not TheUnderdog, I disagree on certain issues." Then you link to threads where TU was obviously being sarcastic, discussing issues he's flip-flopped on repeatedly. And besides, you could just be lying about all of your positions anyway in order to "prove" you're not TU. I'd never even seen anyone accuse you of being TU until you posted that thread, but now that you did, everyone's going to assume you're him. Either you're TheUnderdog, or you're trying very hard to make it look like you are.
I assume this is a troll of some kind, and the point was either to trick people (for some reason?) or to make people expend effort arguing about your identity. Honestly, the bar for entertainment on this site is low, and anything that drives activity is probably good. So I can't knock you for this, much as I don't really see what your motive is here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
neither is good enough
Different emotional appeals will be "good enough" for different people. Plenty of people feel confident saying what an ideal God ought or ought not to do, and I wouldn't say it's pointless to have that opinion, just difficult to come to an agreement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Owen_T
Don't tell me that literal god had to bend his command around the acceptance of mortals.
Well, that should answer the question, right? We're just mortals, so we shouldn't expect the actions of a superior being to make sense to us.
Kidding (sort of).
There are varying interpretations and translations of Deuteronomy 22:28-29 in particular (it's been a while since I've seen these passages posted), but broadly speaking, the Old Testament is Christianity on easy mode. The New Testament is where you get verses like "the wages of sin is death" and "all fall short of the glory of God," which was Paul's way of opining that everyone deserves to be tortured for eternity. Even someone who hasn't sinned yet might be considered a bad person by New Testament standards if their virtue isn't strong enough to make them incorruptible. Compared to that, the God of the Old Testament is pretty tame.
At best, you can defend the Christian God as good by Christian metrics of what makes God "good," and that's about it. Everyone else has different standards God has to meet to be considered "good." If one person thinks no one deserves to go to hell and someone else thinks that all people who commit x crime should be sent to Hell immediately with no opportunity for repentance, then no version of God is going to satisfy both of those people. If one person thinks giving people the ability to sin is bad and another person thinks humans don't have enough free will, same issue. That's why you can't really argue the problem of evil like a math problem...it's usually just decided by who can make the better emotional appeal. Most people have their own strong feelings about what an ideal God should and shouldn't do, so your emotional appeal is as good as mine.
Created:
Posted in:
I think it's more likely that RemyBrown and TheUnderdog are the same person.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
he hasn't acted on it...jerked off to naked pictures of your child on the internet
Viewing child pornography is definitely acting on it.
Imagine your child as a sex object to BestKorea (he has used child porn).
Are we really taking anything a known troll says at face value?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
The founders hated pedos
You might want to ask Sally Hemings about that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
The constitution offers no protection for the degenerates in our society whether they act on it or not.
You might want to read it again.
Created:
Posted in:
If the last US election has been any indicator, pundits and politicians seem to be convinced that the winning strategy is to come up with a "coalition" of voters from different race/gender groups. Much attention gets paid to who is winning what demographic. But for all the talk about race and gender divisions, I have to wonder how useful it really is for campaigning. For example, if you know your campaign is behind on "black men," and you want to appeal to them, you have to assume you know what it is black men want. And if you did know that, you probably wouldn't be losing that demographic in the first place. Then if you try to appeal to black men, you have to make sure you're not losing other demographics, which is a never-ending whack-a-mole of appealing to different groups.
It seems to me that a better approach would just be to look at what swing voters or likely voters in general want. Ideally, you could appeal to all of them at once. It doesn't matter if your coalition is 20-year-old Latino men or 80-year-old Jewish women, because at the end of the day, all that really matters is having the most electoral votes. Knowing that some ad increases your support among swing voters seems much more useful than knowing it increases your support among white women or Chinese men. It also doesn't seem like a good thing that politicians care more about appealing to one demographic rather than pursuing what's best for the country as a whole...but I suppose that's the temptation of cross-tabs.
Politicians keep doing it, so they must have something telling them it's a good strategy, but if the last presidential election was any indicator, political advocates are at their worst when trying to appeal to a specific race or gender. "Real men for Harris" was endlessly mocked, and Trump saying he would "protect women" did him little favors, even if he did end up winning the overall election. The Democrats were convinced that a bunch of white women secretly wanted to vote for Kamala but didn't realize they could vote anonymously....why they believed this, I have no idea. What's good for the goose is usually good for the gander, and one might wonder if talking points that only appeal to one group are even worthwhile policies to pursue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Owen_T
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Just dont ask how will he do it.
I actually think that not giving away his hand to foreign adversaries is the right move. If he was an FDR or an Eisenhower, it would be a brilliant maneuver. But he's Trump, and while he was able to deter adversaries in his first term, I'm a bit more uncertain how he will handle wars already in progress. As soon as he steps into office, he'll be forced to show his hand, and he really can't afford to screw up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
Trump was able to win the primary
He was able to win because he shifted to the right. If he came in and ran as "ultra pro-choice guy," Reps wouldn't like him. If he changed to "ultra pro-choice guy" now, Reps wouldn't like him. That's a pretty important issue for the Republican base. Same as with Biden shifting his position on Roe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
If Trump in 2020 won and advocated to make vaccienes mandatory initially, then the MAGA base will become pro mandate
Some of them, maybe. If he had initially been pro all abortions though, he never would have become popular with Reps in the first place.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
You hate Harris because of policy group B (which can encompass multiple policies or maybe just 1). If Trump enacted everything in group B, then you would still love Trump.
I'm going to tag some anti Trump people to see if you might be correct. I doubt it.
I think your premise is correct for some things, like foreign policy. If it was a Republican president funding Ukraine, you'd see more Republicans vocally supporting that.
But there are definitely policy positions Trump could take to alienate his base. If he says "we need open borders," "make vaccines mandatory," or "legalize all abortions" all day long, this will harm his support among conservatives. If he tries to ban all Christian worship services, and sticks to that position permanently, this will harm his support among conservatives. His creation of the vaccine didn't permanently alienate his base because he didn't insist on making them mandatory and moved on to other things (and many conservatives supported the vaccine).
Created:
Posted in:
I don't get bragging about election results before they happen. If your guy wins, you can just brag then. If your guy loses, you get mocked for overconfidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
almost certain to lose
She's the underdog, but I don't think that anyone with over a 1/3 chance of victory is "almost certain" to lose.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MarkWebberFan2
Nah you're right, the internet has just made me cynical lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@JoeBob
Trump saying pre-made jokes
While that's true, at least he said them live instead of sending in a recording (which Kamala did)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MarkWebberFan2
Is that what you wrote to your girl friend?
Is the intended insult that Best.Korea has a girlfriend? Because I'm not sure that's an insult.
Created:
-->
@RemyBrown
It's different because that was a policy disagreement
Mostly the same with the political divide.
If you're a blue person living in a red area or vice versa, then it's just a 6 hour drive in most cases.
People are lazier than you think.
It happened with India/Pakistan; they just split up
I don't think the cultural difference in the US is that big. Throw politics aside, and Democrats and Republicans are more similar to each other than they are to people in other countries.
Why would Canadians look down on blue America?
Pride.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The personality part is the very thing I'm questioning
Yeah, but I don't think the parts that appeal to Trump supporters are what you would consider "presidential." They like that he insults people on the other side and even on the Republican side. They like that he promises to build a wall even if he doesn't give the logistics of that.
Does that make him fit for the most serious job on earth? Well, there's a part of Trump's base that would rather have someone unprofessional, because it means that he's taking shots at "the system." Basically, if the media and the Democrats hate him, he must be doing something right. Whether or not he can actually "make China pay" or "make Mexico pay," they like that someone says it. That's the personality part.
The policy part is that he's not a Democrat.
Created:
-->
@RemyBrown
What's that?
WW2 reference
Created:
-->
@RemyBrown
This is why America needs to break up
Best chance of that was the Civil War. Good luck motivating people now when physical region correlates much less with political views.
Blue America can get annexed by Canada
Canadians looks down on Blue America too.
Trump can have an absolute monarchy in red America; I just want no part of it in New England.
The Neville Chamberlain strategy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Trump voters are the ones I'm trying to figure out, because they clearly don't hold him to that standard and yet think he's fit to be the president again. That seems to me like a massive contradiction and I've yet to hear any serious attempt to square it.
It's a worthy attempt to try and understand the other side, but I think the explanation is simpler: Trump supporter's like Trump's personality/policies and don't like Kamala's personality/policies. Trump overpromises a lot, but they still prefer what he did in office to what Biden did in office, and that's their metric for measuring the candidates. And once people have figured out who they want in office, it becomes easy to cherry-pick parts of their personality to further justify it. In that way, they're not too different from other political factions (even though Trump insists that he's not a politician or whatever).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The problem is that this wouldn’t be a problem for her at all if you put her in the same vane as you put Donald Trump. It’s only an issue for Kamala to the point you’d bring It up here because people hold her to a standard where she supposed to offer something better than that.
Obviously Trump supporters are going to use all the ammo they can find against Kamala, and Kamala supporters are going to use all the ammo they can find against Trump. Double standards are how people support their candidate.
no one holds Trump to that standard, not even close
Plenty of Democrats do. If they're not talking about something Trump said, they're criticizing him for something else. He also gets a lot of criticism internationally. Kamala gets more coverage now because she's a newer candidate for president this cycle and hasn't been president already.
I also think most politicians aren't sincere at all most of the time, such that even if we're talking in generalities, you can throw the accusation at most politicians. That doesn't justify Trump's craziness, but it explains why a politician would behave like he does. If you're looking for candidates to vote against, there are plenty of them around.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
"A guy who dresses up like a bat clearly has issues."
- Bruce Wayne
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
This doesn't effect me personally.
Ok, The Underdog
Pro UD
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Taking someone's words seriously =/= believing everything they say uncritically, nor does it mean believing that they will do/accomplish everything they say they will do/accomplish. All it means is that when they say something we assume they are being serious. This is basic English.
I don't think everything needs to be taken seriously. When a politician says they relate to the middle class more than the rich while owning three homes, we can probably roll our eyes and ignore it. Many mainstream politicians have promised idealistic things that are obviously unconstitutional. I can't take Kamala seriously when she says "my values haven't changed" if I'm going to also take her new policy positions seriously.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Pretty much every single one
Have to disagree with you there. Obama, Bush, both Clintons, Cruz, Ramaswamy, Vance, Kamala, Walz, and most other politicians you can name have very clearly dodged questions, stretched the truth, and changed their positions to be what people want to hear. I'd buy that they lie more believably than Trump or even less often, but politicians are not particularly honest people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Is there a politician whose words you do take seriously?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
In America, talking politics at work is considered taboo. In Canada, it isn't
That's because they talk a lot about American politics, and it's less taboo to say "that country is a disaster" than to say "this country is a disaster." Plus, in comparison to how the media shows American politics, Canadian politicians don't seem that bad.
Free speech turns people closer to Canada's leftism over America's conservatism
Canada does not have as many stringent protections on free speech, even regulating what language can be on signs in Quebec. If anything, Canadians would probably say America goes too far in allowing hate speech. It's worth noting that America also has some restrictions on speech, and the two nations are probably more similar in their restrictions than they are different. But Canada doesn't have more free speech than the US.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Bold of you to assume people have only one personality on the internet.
Created: