I do, especially crisp red apples. But i prefer pears altogether.
US 2024 Presidential Election
- Thread starter gorfias
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yes but most people don't divert off topics into discussions nobody cares about. It's much better to just give the information relevant by who's being asked.
- Feb 13, 2009
- 189
- 48
- 33
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Does it really matter?
Oh its not just going to be the decor that will be golden.
That thing will be a completely gaudy golden monstrosity, because that is what Trump thinks will impress the world.
The US does need something more befitting its new, truer self, so they should tear all of it down and replace it with a presidential palace. Or move things to Mar-a-Lago.
The man has no taste. His golden oval office looks like gaudy shit too.
I mean, the topic i asked about was literally the subject of the tweet he posted. If someone super doesn't want to talk about it, its a bit odd to post a tweet about it.
And still: i used 2 posts asking. You've now spent >5x as many posts demanding i account for why i asked.
See, that's only the case if you weren't paying attention to the topic, because Tippy wasn't saying a word about them masking or not, your question in the first place was off topic, and in a way that was counter productive to the actual topic.
I don't think your question was so far out of left field that it was a different fruit altogether. But neither was tippy2k2's answer, which basically amounted to "that's not the point". This is much more like asking someone "do you think that the growing of peaches should be better regulated for quality?" after someone said that they think all peach orchards should be destroyed.
And this is all in the wider context of being another species of continual liberal pestering to give the Democratic Party credit where no credit is due.
...I'm genuinely not sure what point you think you're making here. Silvanus repeated a question - one at the heart of the very tweet Tippy had kicked off the discussion with - after receiving an answer that reasonably could be considered a non-sequitur or a dodge.
The exchange could adequately be paraphrased as "See! Democrats are bad because they're promising that they'll unmask ICE if they get power back rather than [making the unrealistic promise that they'll] eliminate it entirely!" "Not to belabor the point that ICE should be abolished...are you saying it's a bad thing that they're saying that they won't let ICE keep hiding their identities to get away with their abuses?" "I don't think ICE should exist at all!" "Yes, we got that. But failing that, do you think ICE not being allowed to hide behind masks is a step in the wrong direction?" That's not even remotely close to the breach of decorum you're treating it as.
That someone is "not owed an answer" does not make the person wrong to re-ask a question when they believe that the provided answer is unsatisfactory. Meanwhile, you've spent 18 posts and counting, hounding Silvanus over repeating a question because you found that to be unsatisfactory. So it's pretty obvious that you know better.
Even if we take your framing at face value, you’ve violated it more egregiously than the person you’re scolding. To return your own words to you: "You asked a question, got an answer you didn't like, and kept pushing it like you were saying something anyone cared about".
...Dude. Here's the original post this entire kerfuffle has been revolving around:
It centers on the tweet of "Rep. Eric Swalwell says, "when we’re in the majority, ICE masks coming off", with Tippy very clearly taking exception to that statement, interpreting it as meaning that the Democrats 'just want to be the ones in charge of the Gestapo'.
And this was reinforced a few posts later, before Silvanus asked Tippy directly:
"We are specifically talking about ICE here. I have no idea why you're bringing up Not-ICE in this discussion about Democrats wanting to keep ICE around but just make it so they can't be masked..."
Silvanus's post very clearly was a part of the discussion Tippy was insisting upon and directly alluded to the same tweet and train of thought:
"I agree with all of this. ICE is unsalvageable and worthy of being abolished.
Do you not agree that ICE officers should not be allowed to wear masks & must have visible ID? To be clear, that's what the "masks are coming off" comment referred to; it was specifically about banning the use of masks to hide ICE officers' identities. I also think those masks should be banned. I assumed you would too."
So I don't think you followed the discussion as well as you presumed.
So respectfully, - and speaking as someone who is no less guilty of getting bogged down in similar exchanges - just drop it already.
Last edited:
I have in fact followed the discussion and whether you think it's unrealistic to abolish ICE, that is the central argument, not whether or not ICE should mask. The question on whether they should mask or not presupposes that they should exist, which is the entire point of why Tippy brought up the tweet at all. Before Silvanus opened his mouth there was actually an interesting conversation on the history of ICE and the enforcement of customs and immigration. It should be blindingly obvious to anyone watching the conversation that Tippy was outright hostile to the debate on whether ICE should be allowed to wear masks, because it centers the debate away from the important question.
And Silvanus is following in that exact same movement of the overton window away from the question of whether ICE should exist or not. Swalwell could have just as easily said ICE should wear badges, or be dressed in pink. The actual content of what Swalwell talked about is immaterial, what matters is that it presupposes nothing will be done about the core problem. That's why I say Tippy wasn't saying a word about masking, because he wasn't.
Last edited:
Ensuring China doesn't have a monopoly on rare earth processing, which, even for those focused on economics, would eventually lead to high prices. The only idiots for that are nationalist NIMBY environmentalists and ignorant environmentalists who think, well, it's dirty to do so, let's throw away American interests into a trash bin.
A functional self-sufficient supply chain for semiconductors, so that if Russia bombs the Netherlands with a swarm of drones, or Taiwan gets annexed, either willingly or not, we are going to have new computers, IOT, or general electronics for the foreseeable future.
Investing in defense, like the F-15 EX and F-47 sixth-generation fighter, which Biden's Sec of the Air Force wanted to cancel over budget purposes despite congressional pressure. I don't know since many of you guys are old, but when you guys and later on I die from old age, hopefully from old age, I don't want us to be a BRICS colony, I want there to be a future for the world that has some vestige of freedom vs no freedom no porn no video games no liberalism, social and economic. If the F-47 had been cancelled, Chinese fighters would have been more survivable, they possibly could hack or destroy our drones, and we would have old, possibly outdated fifth-generation fighters getting swarmed to shit. But if you guys want to eat the young of the future for your social security and medicare checks, then by all means do it.
Finally ending the Cuban relationship. It was completely one-sided. Raúl Castro laughed at us while we were trying to get them to liberalize anything in Cuba.
Increasing pathways through investor permanent residency, should have happened a long time ago, a rich person ending up in the US costs less in the short term then your refugee, and economic immigrant we need them to subsidize the image of immigration since AMerica was seeing image after image of Fox News showcasing Central American Canvarans in the US, they are still happening by the way, and is don't agree with too much restrictions on immigration, but if your in an Spanish speaking enthic enclave and you don't asslimating, and adding to the civic nationalism of the US your not helping the image of US immigrants who do like me.
We have student loans, and if German universities were more marketable, they would also charge more, but they aren't. Also in America, you're free to succeed, and free to fail; it's a two-way street because if it weren't, we would get inflation.
Far-right AfD party wants Germany to leave the EU
Germany's far-right AfD has stated in its draft election manifesto that it wants to leave the EU and the euro in Brexit-like fashion. What consequences would this have for Germany and the bloc?
www.dw.com
German universities are free to attend and 100% tax funded. Marketability has nothing to to with it.
In a draft election manifesto sent to its members ahead of a vote in the party conference scheduled for early January, the anti-immigration party repeated a promise from its European election campaign in the summer, saying, "We consider it necessary for Germany to leave the European Union and to establish a new European community."Far-right AfD party wants Germany to leave the EU
Germany's far-right AfD has stated in its draft election manifesto that it wants to leave the EU and the euro in Brexit-like fashion. What consequences would this have for Germany and the bloc?
In place of the EU, the AfD wants to introduce something it calls a "Europe of fatherlands" — an association of states that would include a common market and an "economic and interests community."
As i said, they want to reform/replace it. They don't want to go alone. (And the replace is also something that only appears in this draft, all the other statements go the reform route)
Trump didn't care at all about rare earth processing until China squeezed him there. He only cared about mining and securing natural ressources. And even that is not something he started. The US, the UK the EU and pretty much everyone other industrial power has started to invest in alternative procurement options to safeguard against a China monopoly for a couple of years already. The only meaningful thing Trump added was the Greenland thing and trying to strongarm Ukraine.
Which, again, is not Trumps idea or something that started under him.
Here is the UKs one from 2023
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-1-billion-strategy-for-uks-semiconductor-sector
Or one of several in the EU
https://commission.europa.eu/strate.../europe-fit-digital-age/european-chips-act_en
Even the US CHIPS Act is from 2022 and a Biden thing.
Trump is following here, not leading.
Now you could credit Trump with going all in on Crypto and on AI. But then again, Crypro is a scam and AI is a bubble.
Trump wants the F-47 not because it is particularly needed, but because it has the number 47 and he likes fighter jets. The US military was lukewarm about it at best which is why cancelling it was considered.
Furthermore, Trump ruined all of the US alliances and no one else plans to buy the F47 once it is developed. The F-35 could only succeed because other countries chipping in on development or ordering the plane for themself for high prices made it viable. The F-47 won't get any of this and likely fail.
It was a wrong call. Isolating Cuba is what has made the Castros maintain their grip.
Spanish speaking enclaves don't exist because of immigrants. They exist because the US stole so much land from Mexico.
And if you are happy that Trump is selling citizenship to money launderers and fraudsters who want to get out of legal reach of other countries, you do you.
Last edited:
Already getting in some advance work on next years Peace Nobel.
Whoa...hold on a second there. It does not, in fact, presuppose that they should exist, just that they do exist. It's like a question of how you treat septic blood. That does not presuppose that a patient should have septic blood, but it assumes that they do have it as a premise of the question. Addressing a condition (such as the septic blood or ICE's anonymity) does not imply approval of the condition’s existence, much less the factors that created it. It simply takes that existence as a premise for analysis. That is basic rhetoric.
Having said that, I've genuinely got no interest in participating this pissing contest. I'm just trying to get you two to cool your heads and deescalate and break the damn loop you're caught in. I don't care if you two kiss and make up, but for Pete's sake, you've spent 18 posts diverting the thread from ICE to instead focus on Silvanus personally and call foul on them for repeating a question, actively refusing to let the conversation move on.
And it's going nowhere fast. You have spent the last 5 pages all but shouting at Silvanus that it's a stupid question that you're offended was asked a second time - singlehandedly prolonging the focus on that question - and are accepting no clarifications or explanations for it, instead treating them as a reason to push harder. Your stated bone of contention is that people are focusing on that question, but literally the only reason anyone is doing so now is in response to you doing so yourself. You are perpetuating the very derailment of the thread that you are complaining about to focus on the rhetorical integrity of the question you are arguing was overemphasized. So move on already.
You want to talk about ICE needing to be abolished? Then talk about ICE needing to be abolished rather than trying to turn the main topic of the thread into a moral indictment of someone for asking a question you didn't like five pages ago.
And as I don't want to further contribute to doing so myself, that's the last I'll say on the matter.
Last edited:
The tweet he posted was specifically and solely about them masking and not showing IDs. This is why i thought it was relevant, which i think is a reasonable takeaway.
As Asita says, i'm more than happy to let this drop if you are, hence a non-combative reply.
Its a bit like asking that. If the person had chosen to post a tweet specifically about the regulation of peach growing, condemning the person who said so.
Cutting out the empty bait.
Just going to combine this here that focusing on the tweet itself and thinking that Tippy at all wanted to talk about it was the problem because it does in fact presuppose ICE will continue to exist because unlike a blood infection, ICE is a political decision that's not even all that old all things considered. More to the point though, Tippy had already shown aggression to exactly that line of thinking you're both showing, so I have no idea why Silvanus thinks he wouldn't show aggression to being asked about it. And all over something he supposedly doesn't even disagree on.
Silvanus specifically, you do this a lot. Find some minor point of contention to derail a topic, usually while playing coy about it.
Tippy did not want to talk about abolishing ICE.
Tippy wanted to misrepresent a position of some Democrats to limit ICE into meaning an opposition to abolishing ICE and wanting to use it as a tool.
Silvanus did little more than call this out by pointing to what the statement actually said.
I mean, usually we get this kind of dishonest bad-faith argumentation from the likes of tstorm, not tippy but alas, here we are.
When a Democratic Party lawmaker says that ICE will be masked when the Democratic Party returns to power, it presupposes support for the continuing existence of ICE by the Democratic Party. If you're going to do semantic hairsplitting, at least get the context right.
Tippy absolutely wanted to talk about abolishing ICE and his posts before Silvanus showed up showed that. It's hardly dishonest to point out that dems saying they want to pull masks off ICE instead of attacking the core problem of ICE is a sign that they don't want to tackle the core problem that is ICE.
The F-47 is a replacement for the F-22, not the F-35. Also, we don't want other countries to get the F-47 and the technology due to leaks of the jet to China, leading to the J-20, which was made due to the supersized supply chain around it. China also has six-gen jets, and so does the EU in the making, so if six-gen jets are bad, your country should cancel the FCAS as well.
I also don't care if the US stole land from Mexico; Mexicans can cope with it since they lost a war against Polk who was one of my favorite presidents, and Mexican Americans need to accept it since they took the citizenship pledge like I did when they became naturalized or were born here, and are US citizens, so they want to renounce their citizenship, they are free to do so.
AI isn't a bubble, Putin, Xi, the EU, and even democrats mostly agree that without it, a country is at a significant strategic disadvantage in terms of say drones, or AD. Of course, you, being an EU citizen, would want us to unilaterally disarm.
Yes but Biden was letting Taiwan walk all over him, and begging him to fund their fabs, and make fabs here. Trump is the one who forced Intel to keep the Ohio foundry.