Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Asymptotically Approching What's Been Obvious Since 2019 More

Asymptotically Approching What's Been Obvious Since 2019

Comments Filter:
  • Is this just you trying to run interference for the latest courtroom failures from your Dear Leader? No matter how much of a "decline" you think Biden to be in, he's still smarter that Trump. Trump would struggle to beat Biden's dog in a cognition test.

    • No matter how much of a "decline" you think Biden to be in, he's still smarter that Trump.

      I guess that you can float that air biscuit in confidence that it will never be challenged.

      I guess that if Judas Joe's zombie shtick were nothing more than an act, your assertion could be true.

      If that's the case, though, then Herr Sniffer is truly an actor for the ages, and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences will have to assign a lifetime achievement Oscar to Slow Joe, post-haste.

      • No matter how much of a "decline" you think Biden to be in, he's still smarter that Trump.

        I guess that you can float that air biscuit in confidence that it will never be challenged.

        Trump is an idiot, period. An average American 6th grader knows more about how the federal government works than Trump ever did, or ever will. He demonstrated no interest in learning about how his job was supposed to work, and every time he failed at it he quickly blamed someone else for his own stupidity. It's no small miracle that he has the intellectual ability to sign his own name.

        While Your Team has happily sent a parade of morons to the White House, Trump makes GWB look like a Rhodes Scholar.

        • An average American 6th grader knows more about how the federal government works than Trump ever did

          I support and defend your 1A right to soil yourself with farcical statements of this sort.

          Juxtaposed with your hot, shrill denials that Zombie Joe is Biden's meat puppet, I think the reality and the bollocks content of our exchange sorts itself nicely into two columns.

          • An average American 6th grader knows more about how the federal government works than Trump ever did

            I support and defend your 1A right to soil yourself with farcical statements of this sort.

            Trump is an idiot.

            He is far and away the least intelligent and least intellectually curious individual to ever occupy the White House. We made fun of VP Dan Quayle for wanting to put an "E" at the end of "potato" but Trump isn't even that smart.

            I will concede that indeed there is no intellectual requirement for being POTUS. That doesn't change the fact that I've had bowel movements that could challenge your Dear Leader intellectually.

            Biden isn't the smartest POTUS to come from the Democratic P

            • He is far and away the least intelligent and least intellectually curious

              Please. Public service requires a myriad of skills, but raw intellect isn't chief among them. Nor are copious other examples one could name any real beacons of brains. What fascinates me here is your seemingly visceral need to denigrate and personally attack Trump. The Tangerine Tamerlane truly treads rent-free in your heads.

              he's still easily 40 IQ points above

              I doubt it, and we're never going to have it tested, so What. Difference. Does. It. Make?

              • What fascinates me here is your seemingly visceral need to denigrate and personally attack Trump.

                I'm merely stating a fact. Trump is an idiot, period. It's no more an insult than pointing out that he is about to turn 78 years old.

                he's still easily 40 IQ points above

                I doubt it, and we're never going to have it tested, so What. Difference. Does. It. Make?

                Trump is both an idiot, and a coward. The former is a fact, the latter is a fact and an insult. He will tell us he has "a great mind" and other such bullshit, but in the end the entire world - aside from his most devoted cult members - knows him to be an idiot. He would be reaching really hard to even reach average intelligence level.

                • We really have to ensure that Trump is not re-elected. It sounds as though you're at risk of death by dehydration due to unstoppable, hot tears of anguish.
                  • Your projection does you no service. I am not crying over your idiot leader, though it does give me concern that people see in him someone who is in some way qualified to lead our nation. I wouldn't trust him to manage a local Hardee's, let alone our country.
                    • I realize that four years of no new wars and relative economic prosperity were hurtful to you compared to the current dirty diaper we are sitting in, but try to understand that pretty much everyone preferred the former.

                    • that pretty much everyone preferred the former.

                      That is factually untrue. Your Dear Leader left office with an historically low approval rating. Far more people would have preferred someone else than would have preferred more time of your Dear Leader to be in power. The election results showed that as well.

                    • I take literally none of this seriously, including Trump's "outsider" status. It's all farce.

                    • I take literally none of this seriously, including Trump's "outsider" status. It's all farce.

                      I have a really hard time accepting that as a good faith argument. If that statement from you is true, it invalidates a great number of statements you've made before in support of his intentions to "drain the swamp" or his claims of being "persecuted" by the "deep state". Considering how many times you have used your doubt of "good faith" to walk away from discussions before, it makes you quite the hypocrite to have yourself been using a bad faith argument this whole time.

                      Rather what you have just sta

                    • I really don't care whether you accept it or not. The whole dirty diaper needs reform, rather than further sinking into the diaper. One is skeptical that reform will come without a really, really hard crash, especially with a zombie at the helm and thought leaders such as yourself who appear to think that folly is the new wisdom.

                    • folly is the new wisdom.

                      Your Team has implemented Reaganomics three times, and all three times it has been a disaster for over 90% of our country. Your Team seems eager to try to force it down our throats a fourth time if you can find a way to install your Dear Leader back into the White House for the rest of his (and possibly our country's) life. If the

                      really, really hard crash

                      Is really what you're after than your locked-in Trump vote makes a whole lot of sense for that goal.

                    • Your Team (and here, fustakrakitch is correct: there is only the one Swampoisie Team, and we've been variously cheering for disparate ends thereof) has pushed the debt/deficit off the cliff. Maybe there won't be a total economic crash in 2024, as the two Fake Teams play music chairs with the polls for who gets to eat the blame.

                      If it helps you with the emotional pangs, then by all means blame the GOP end of the Swampoisie Team. They certainly own a solid half of the problem.

                      We can either put on our Big P

                    • dispassionately set about improving matters

                      What is your plan for that? Your Team has three times pushed Reaganomics on us, and three times nearly cratered the economy in the process - naturally on the backs of the lower 90% of the economy while the top 10% did exceptionally well. Do you have a different plan? If not then your claim to be independent of them seems quite empty.

                    • What is your plan for that?

                      Article V. The Congressional junkie won't get off the smack. fustakrackitch is all about having the voters take responsibility for matters, until the voters take responsibility for matters, at which point he seems to wet himself. But

                      Our legislation calls for a Convention of States [conventionofstates.com] "limited to proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress."

                      ...seems the likeliest course to stabilize the country that I have seen.

                      You may now fling the poo.

                    • That is not an economic plan. That is a plan for power redistribution. That is one place where you and fusta couldn't be more at odds; he is calling for improved voter enfranchisement, you are calling for amplification of voter disenfranchisement.
                    • I'm going have to ask you in what coherent, logical, economically valid way that putting power back down at the states, where individual votes will have greater effect on choosing policy makers, is somehow "disenfranchisement".

                      I realize you're from the party that cannot define "woman", but is sure that a man can become one, so the Möbius strip logic promises to be splendid.
                    • You've already told us you want to take the right to choose US Senators away from the voter. That is only one part of Your Team's disenfranchisement efforts. Your Team also puts great effort into widespread gerrymandering so that representatives can choose their voters rather than the other way around.

                    • take the right to choose US Senators

                      Dude, the parties own the ballot, but go on.

                    • take the right to choose US Senators

                      Dude, the parties own the ballot, but go on.

                      Have you not - on multiple occasions - stated you want governors to appoint US Senators? That's a whole different level of voter disenfranchisement there. You can pretend to be unhappy with what Your Team presents on ballots, but dropping elections off ballots entirely is a different matter altogether.

                    • stated you want governors to appoint US Senators?

                      Yes, I have. The original Constitutional design was superior to Wilson's sodomized version.

                      That's a whole different level of voter disenfranchisement there.

                      It's an acknowledgement that the Founders had a rounder wheel on that point, and "Progress" has racked up an unpayable amount of debt.

                      I remember when "liberalism" meant fairly considering all sides of the argument.

                      The sun has set on those days, apparently.

                    • That's a whole different level of voter disenfranchisement there.

                      It's an acknowledgement that the Founders had a rounder wheel on that point, and "Progress" has racked up an unpayable amount of debt.

                      How are you connecting those two matters? You are arguing for taking away the vote on US Senators - letting governors instead appoint them - and claiming that the vote somehow was responsible for a large national debt? Please show the connection.

                    • Brakes on a car. If the auto analogy, is too tired, go with Chesterton's fence [wikipedia.org]. Wilson, the 16A, 17A and Federal Reserve Act, have brought the worst fears of the anti-Federalists to pass.
                    • You've suggested that before, but correlation is not causation. Just because you prefer what the Senate composition would be if today all the senators were driven out and replaced by appointees chosen solely by the governors of each state does not mean that the course of history would have been different. We've long ago established that you associate everything bad in the universe with people who are not on Your Team, and you see Your Team as the only cure for that.

                      I was really hoping maybe you'd do a

                    • 1. "...replaced by appointees chosen solely by the governors of each state does not mean that the course of history would have been different."

                      2. "We've long ago established that you associate everything bad in the universe with people who are not on Your Team..."

                      It was a non-partisan point, and then you made it partisan.

                    • It was a non-partisan point, and then you made it partisan.

                      I would believe you if not for the fact that every time you have claimed this would "improve" things, the majority of governor's mansions belonged to Your Team. I have a hard time seeing that as a mere coincidence, that revoking that constitutional amendment would re-stack the senate in your favor.

                    • I would believe you if

                      I am supremely confident that there will always be some bogus "if" for you to eject, because the idea of wresting control from the Deep State (GOP & Democrat branches) and returning it to State and local levels isn't something you seem to support.

                      Your non-confidence in the GOP is valid. The Republican party needs to be flogged continuously to make its actions adhere to its platform. The GOP base is acutely aware that the leadership are a pack of sell-outs to the oligarchs. Shtick notwithstanding, Trum

                    • I would believe you if

                      I am supremely confident that there will always be some bogus "if" for you to eject,

                      We've seen you move your goalposts - and your belief systems - all the time here on slashdot to support Your Team.

                      Your non-confidence in the GOP is valid. The Republican party needs to be flogged continuously to make its actions adhere to its platform.

                      Yet your commitment to them is unwavering. They are running a fascist for the white house and there is no situation under which you would even consider voting for anyone else next November. The GOP is not inconsistent with its platform, they are doing exactly what they are aspiring to - they are moving towards installing fascism in our government.

                    • all the time here on slashdot to support Your Team.

                      Your Narrative is impervious to reality.

                      Yet your commitment to them is unwavering.

                      It totally wavered in the previous sentence, whereas your Olympian certainty did not. Oh, how cool you are.

                    • Yet your commitment to them is unwavering.

                      It totally wavered in the previous sentence

                      You wavered in speech yet there is no situation in which you will vote for anyone else for president. Your Team could run Xi Jinping and you'd vote for him.

                    • Your Team could run Xi Jinping and you'd vote for him.

                      Well, at least you didn't say "Adolf Hitler", who is pretty much fungible with Zombie Joe at this point.

                    • While Your Dear Leader is borrowing tactics and rhetoric from Hitler, Hitler continues to be dead. I'm pretty sure for at least a little while longer Your Team will agree that one needs to be alive to be POTUS. That of course could well change if Your Dear Leader is reinstalled as POTUS-for-life in 2025.

                    • borrowing tactics and rhetoric from Hitler

                      No, no: Your Team ran the Reichstag Fire play on 06Jan, and has fomented various riots in recent times.

                    • borrowing tactics and rhetoric from Hitler

                      No, no: Your Team ran the Reichstag Fire play on 06Jan, and has fomented various riots in recent times.

                      Can you show actual proof of one riot incited by anyone other than your team in recent memory? You are pushing again the conspiracy of "actors" being in the January 6th insurrection, which you still have zero proof of. Let's just accept that you're not going to find proof on that, and I ask you to show proof for your other "various riots".

                    • Really quick: how many people did the FBI have at 06Jan? It was an Op.

                    • Really quick: how many people did the FBI have at 06Jan?

                      FBI - Federal Bureau of Investigation. Investigations happen after a crime has been committed - or at least after it has begun. What evidence did they have before the capital was attacked that something was going to happen? Why would they be there before hand? You seem to be sharing another conspiracy that requires a time machine.

                      You also conveniently avoided answering my other questions

                      Can you show actual proof of one riot incited by anyone other than your team in recent memory?

                      You are pushing again the conspiracy of "actors" being in the January 6th insurrection, which you still have zero proof of. Let's just accept that you're not going to find proof on that, and I ask you to show proof for your other "various riots".

                      Your conspiracy asking for an FBI headcount has nothing to do with either of those questions.

                    • January 06 was an Op.

                    • January 06 was an Op.

                      What on earth do you mean by "an Op"? Is that your new shorthand for a conspiracy that requires a time machine?

                    • It was an FBI-driven operation, like this Patriot Front crap that pops up occasionally.

                    • It was an FBI-driven operation

                      Can you show a single fact that supports that idea? I've heard of people from Your Team spreading that idea but I have not seen a single fact come forward that supports it. After all, if all of law enforcement supports the GOP - an oft-repeated claim from Your Team - then why would the FBI run this as an "op" (especially while the POTUS is from Your Team)?

                    • The details, of course, are classified. Yet the body language has told the tale.
                    • With that weasel phrase you could support any argument you could ever want to put forward. I could just as well say that the FBI knows that Trump used a time machine and killed JFK. Considering you now have (at least) two conspiracies that require time travel, I might as well try for one myself.
                    • Your Team is losing in the court of public opinion. It's hard on you, I know, but zooming in and quibbling about every detail has scant effect on the overall mosaic.
                    • Again I'm asking you for factual information to support your conspiracy. We have concluded that you don't have any. Now you're attacking me because you can't support your conspiracy. This isn't about details, this is about the fact that you have zero factual evidence to support this conspiracy - which is very common when you parade out conspiracies to support Your Team.
                    • You demand facts, and then when such are proffered, you reject them. This is due to your Galactic Coolness Factor.

                    • You demand facts, and then when such are proffered, you reject them

                      You claim that to have happened, and yet just like when I ask you for facts to support your conspiracies, you cannot find evidence to support that claim. Your Jan06 conspiracy is absolutely 100% devoid of factual support, and you brush that off by claiming that it is supported by classified extra-special information that mere mortals will never be allowed to see. Your White House Coke conspiracy never had any factual support either, you insisted just like QAnon noise that it would eventually get support

Slashdot Top Deals

God help those who do not help themselves. -- Wilson Mizner

Close