ex-President Trump

where can you find an 1800/mon single bedroom?

i need to move somewhere cheaper

I never said any liberals should feel comfortable voting for Trump. Is that what you read ? Or did you do the other thing

1 - it's always been tough to get tone in an online forum.

2 - I couldn't figure out any way that would be considered funny (and still don't).

3 - after reading so many claims that seem to be crazy on this forum, I no longer assume any claim couldn't possibly be what someone believes...

4 - even more strongly now, as I recently started reading the fringe conspiracy thread. It's more likely that someone has a lot of friends in the KKK, etc., then pretty much anything posted in that thread by PB.

5 - see that post.

You can't understand obvious sarcasm? 🙄

Dang i looked it up at 28 million workers out of 157 million get zero vacation, zero holidays.

As pessimistic as I am, that was worse than I thought. This really is a 3rd world nation for like half the population.

Only developed country on earth where workers aren't guaranteed time off.

Let's go out and save this democracy... where not a single person who would change that is permitted on the ballot.

wealth and power disparity were a fixed characteristic of basically all human societies since agriculture.

late 18th century america was less unequal than usual only because cheap land achieves that. that's not the first time that happened.

when the (historically very rare) scenario is one where people are relatively scarce compared to land, labor gets a higher than usual cut of production vs capital. it happened in Europe after the black plague as well.

when that happens naturally, it's a boon for survivors/colonizers. if you are the scarce resource you can live better.

when that happens by forced redistribution disaster ensues

ok so why are we reading about massive increases in populism in the countries that have the biggest welfare state ever or close to it like France and Germany?

no college debt, public healthcare, a lot of vacation days, mandated maternity and paternity leave (mandated to employees as well lol, you have to take it at least a bit), all your socialist dreams come true and...

Le pen gets 31% of the vote. and the "left alliance" , those to the left of Macron, is running with a campaign in favour of massive ulterior increases in public spending (that's populism as well).

35.5% is latest news for le pen.
Most likely more than that for AFD in the three states that vote in September in Germany.

Make a vacation in any german city. Or simply in Bagdad... Hardly any difference anymore.

Populism means popular opinions, for a reason.

Deadly knife attacks nearly daily. Group rapings, hard drugs selling and welfare spendings are exponentially increasing etc etc.

Immigrants getting money for up to 25 children who still live in africa... I could go on like that for ages

Only the danish left gets it. Maybe also the finnish left.

Nationalism can be bi partisan. Preferring your own culture over others can be bi partisan. Not wanting unlimited immigration can be bi partisan.

Fortunately for me the left is in favour of mass immigration and hates the west which means it loses election because of that so leftist policies in the economy (which i abhor) have a lower chance of becoming law.

I am terrified that more leftist parties become smart as the danish ones, start being "racist" (according to the current leftist definition) and get supermajorities because of it.

Luckly for now they are not smart.

Supermajorities of people in most countries (perhaps not in the USA) are culturally conservative, economically liberal.

Populism in the technical way used to mean "promising people what they want to hear even if it's impossible to realize, and always claim their conditions are bad because of external reasons, never because of their own mistakes".

But since people realized that's basically the totality of leftist politics all the times, now populism means "any rightwing policy proposal which has significant support among the population".

Your politics are way left of center and inherently not applicable to the vast majority of peoples lives. Furthermore, you have a proven track record of trolling and emjoying causing suffering. These are not in any way the values of a normal conservative or moderate.

Snopes, a fact-checking website, has recently issued a correction regarding a statement made by former President Donald Trump in 2017. The correction acknowledges that the media misrepresented Trump's statement, which was initially reported as him calling neo-Nazis "very fine people." The correction comes six years after the initial reporting, raising questions about the timing and motivations behind it.

https://nypost.com/2024/06/23/us-news/fa...

I am a libertarian who leans very right on the economy and very left on some social issues, moderate on others. I am expected to be radical in many, most things compared to the status quo because the status quo is very very very far from libertarian miniarchist values.

I don't troll and don't accept that insult.

Except it seems that it wasn't. Did you read the follow up discussion? If I am still missing the sarcasm, explain it to me please.

You don't troll, but sometimes your views are so, so far outside the realms of ordinary discourse here that passersby mistake it for trolling.

Also, never admitting to being wrong about anything or lacking knowledge on a specific topic is a hallmark of trolls.

For a very few things yes. For some it's just "selectively reactionary", ie they would have been seen as mainstream 30 or 50 or 100 or 150 years ago.

There are very few things were i "invented" my politics, a lot of it is how the most advanced (at the times) countries managed their affairs in late 19th century.

I do admit i lack knowledge of many topics , but those are the topics where i don't make claims.

For ex i know close to 0 about military technology. I don't go around claiming this about missiles or that about fighters and so on (in the sense of what they can achieve and how a war would change if a side had more access to more of those weapons and so on).

I know very little about sports, about south american cockroaches, about mongolian traditional rites, about pop music, about movies outside of some genre i like, about popular contemporary novels and so on and on and on. Which is why i don't talk about those topics.

In general i don't see anyone talking about a topic making claims then claiming he has no knowledge on the topic, in this forum or elsewhere. Do you?

When I have particular in-depth knowledge of a topic, e.g. the US criminal justice system, I've found you speak authoritatively on matters where your knowledge is superficial or flat out wrong (don't ask me for specific examples, as I don't remember, but I do recall correcting you at the time). I've also seen others correct you on their particular areas of expertise, e.g. Rococo recently in the Supreme Court thread.

This leads me to believe that although you speak as though you have an in-depth understanding of topics, your knowledge is sufficient to pass muster but not scrutiny.

We have another entry for the "conservatives vs. numbers" file:

I remember you clarifying to me which words and legal expressions were used in the USA to mean specific things more than once yes, i don't recall having spoken authoritatively about that though , in procedural terms.

As in the supreme court thread with rococo recently, if you read the exchange he wasn't addressing my point about commerce clause rulings during the lochner era. I linked to actual decision , pivotal ones, with very clear readings of the clause, he didn't counter with lochner era decisions about the commerce clause that went in a different direction. He (correctly) mentioned that for other parts of the constitution, the lochner era rulings were legislation from the bench which went far away from the constitutional text. But that wasn't my point, i didn't claim lochner era was textualism. I claimed lochner era was textualism *relatively to commerce clause decisions*.

Doesn't matter anyway

"Issuing a correction" implies they're correcting something they themselves said, which as far as I'm aware is not true at all. I'm sure others have made that claim and Snopes might be correcting them but that's the entire point of the site. The way you've phrased it seems like you're just trying to unjustifiably cast shade on Snopes.

Regarding the actual situation being referenced, the issue with Trump's statement has always been the fact that the entire rally was organised and largely consisted of white supremacists and neo-nazis. The idea that anyone willingly rubbing shoulders with those types of people could be considered "very fine people" is a massive stretch, even given that they weren't themselves white supremecists or neo-nazis.

Basically Trump was wrong to state that there were very fine people on either side and drawing that sort of equivalence between the two sides was abhorrent, even though he did also say that he condemns white supremicists and neo-nazis.

You mean the (checks notes) NY Post article was a lie? I mean, this is massive, call the mayor.

Someone should also call that Pecker guy and tell him that a rogue employee is not meeting his impeccable editorial standards.

by d2_e4 P

We have another entry for the "conservatives vs. numbers" file:

That is a weird one, because technically what they did does match what they wrote (making the total add up to less than the bill + tip, implying they weren't getting the full tip) but the difference was less than 10% of the tip and even after that the tip was still over 20% of the bill, which all seems pretty ineffective for trying to make their point.

Honestly in both the contexts of "people making political points in totally inappropriate settings" and "conservatives vs numbers" this seems pretty inconsequential.