Trump 2024 — The second term

[jamil]

Where's that little socialist fain at? Shim won't be happy about this.

O'Brian is any less socialist?

 

[jamil]

Please list the republican president and their accomplishments that exceed what Trump did?

Accomplishments that survived their presidency or just EO's?

 

[jamil]

I listed my criticisms... you picked "tweets at 3 am".... so I'll recap, for one, HUUUUGELY negative coattails.

Is there a modern Republican President with worse coattails? I don't think so.

2016 coattails were pretty good IIRC. Since? Republicans have been underperforming, let's say.

 

[jamil]

I've got two points to make and for brevity I'll make them both here because the ideas are sort of related. Only the second is related to your post, KG

Earlier, jamil was nattering about extra due diligence needed for ideological sources. Upon careful, even jamilian consideration, I can't think of ANY sources anymore that are not ideological. Perhaps he could name the one(s) he has in mind

Then IMO, the same caveat somewhat applies to your post. We've seen that there a few, and possibly no, non-ideological courts. I would not automatically accept something as fact just because a 'court of law' in NYC or ATL said so. I believe they have adequately demonstrated that they are after a conviction and not the truth

Due diligence is the diligence that is due. Sorry for the tautology, but it seemed oddly needed. The most biased sources are bat **** crazy. They exist on both sides. A site that claims the earth is flat, for example is obviously NOT a reliable source. Would you say whatever diligence that's due for them requires more scrutiny than, say, GWP?

Actually as I think about this, it seems clearer let's graph it. Okay, on the graph, the x-axis represents political bias of the media outlets left to right. Y-axis is the person's belief where skepticism in a given report mitigates belief. So maximum belief at the top, zero belief at that bottom. Trumpers would probably look like a bell curve centered around GWP with a fairly high peak. So the diligence you might say is due for evaluating GWP might be zero scruteny. A person who is biased but just thinks everyone is lying anyway, would have a low magnitude peak centered wherever their bias is.

I'd like to believe GWP, because I read their articles and I just want to believe it. They lie. I don't trust them. I watch Timcast sometimes. I don't trust their bias. So I take it with a grain of salt. I'm cynical, I guess you could say. But, I'm a cynic with a sense of humor. That's jamilizing.

 

[jamil]

even jamilian consideration

I forgot to address this. Man, you keep feeding my ego. I'm probably gonna start using forms of my screen name WAY more now.

 

[BugI02]

I haven't gotten to use 'jamilesque' yet

Edit: In #1904 you don't answer the question (this is my shocked face). You opine that greater diligence is needed when considering ideological sites. That clearly implies that you believe there are non-ideological sites. My viewpoint is everything and everybody has an axe to grind these days, so I asked you to name sites that you consider non-ideological (and thus, one would imagine, not in need of extra scrutiny). I don't believe there are any

 

[BugI02]

 

[foszoe]

View attachment 323407

Neil Diamond?

 

[KG1]

Neil Diamond?

Sweet Caroline...ba ba..ba..

 

[jamil]

I haven't gotten to use 'jamilesque' yet

Edit: In #1904 you don't answer the question (this is my shocked face). You opine that greater diligence is needed when considering ideological sites. That clearly implies that you believe there are non-ideological sites. My viewpoint is everything and everybody has an axe to grind these days, so I asked you to name sites that you consider non-ideological (and thus, one would imagine, not in need of extra scrutiny). I don't believe there are any

Well, instead of analyzing what you say I said, let's look at what I actually said.

First, I think any ideologically based source is unreliable, whether from the left or the right. So if it's something a source like CNN or GWP reports, except when they don't have a reason to lie about it, you have to corroborate it to be confident in it.

Second, you seem to think any site that prints information unfavorable to Trump, is "left wing".

It's not a logical conclusion from what I actually said that I'm implying there are no unbiased sources. You infirred it.

Actually, you probably didn't infer it. You never intended to take anything I say at face value. I made a point that addressed the post I replied to. That's the context. The point was not to addres all forms of bias, and wasn't even specifically about just bias. Notice that I did not say "ideologically biased", I said "ideologically based". But they get that way because of bias, so fair enough.

So you guys take a point constrained to what I was replying to, so that you could claim that what I didn't say implies the thing you attacked. Why not try to attack the point I actually made? Wouldn't that be more intellectually honest? You think I'm wrong? Make your case. Tell me how ideologically based (again, based, not just biased) sites aren't unreliable. That would then be arguing in good faith. But you aren't arguing in good faith, or truth. Your intrest is in making what you consider your enemies, sound wrong. If you did argue in good faith, I would react to you in like kind. Either way, you get what you give.

Here's something that might blow your mind. Now this is uber controversial. You may not even be able to handle it. I recommend you sit down on the ****ter for this:

Everyone is biased at least a little on most things they care about. Not all biases are political! Bug be like, Whah? No. NO! Run for your lives! jamil can't say that! No. It's too jamilacious for my tealness! I can't handle all this jamil!

Okay, so let's start this part of the explanation off gently. Some car magazines, I've noticed. Wait. I have to compose myself for this. Rather than having left/right biases. They...I'll just come out and say it. They're biased against certain cars or manufacturers! I know, right? Shocking that not everyone cares about politics! Not that writers for car magazines don't have political biases, but not all people care about politics. Just point them at who they should hate on the ballot in case they bother to vote. Everyone's biased. Not everyone cares about the same things so the object of their biases follow the things they care about.

 

[jamil]

Ooh. Bug. And Mike. Less Mike though. Here's another one if you have any unblown mind left after that jamilgasm. Some sports magazines, rather than having a left/right bias, are biased against certain teams!

Now Imma get all soap box here. Like all the contempt for the Big10 conference in football. Pfft. SEC teams can't lose to Big10 schools, because they're so beneath us. They aren't physical enough to even compete. And then UM beat Alabama. Line of scrimage> Bama was dominated. Okay, yeah, sour grapes. Fair enough.

Point is. SEC suck. No. The point is, not all biases have anything to do with left or right. It's what you care about. You care a lot about Trump, the other Trumpers, and AF and all that. That's where you're biased. But you also care about jamil. Possibly a little too much.

 

[jamil]

View attachment 323407

I don't see how that's in contrast with what people have said. Or do you still see yourself as oppressed by "ABT" whateverthe**** that is, who think you should vote for someone else? No one is telling you to vote for someone else.

Everyone is entitled to their beliefs. Even delusions. No one is entitled to not have them challenged.

 

[Ingomike]

Ooh. But. And Mike. Less Mike though. Here's another one if you have any unblown mind left after that jamilgasm. Some sports magazines, rather than having a left/right bias, are biased against certain teams!

Now Imma get all soap box here. Like all the contempt for the Big10 conference in football. Pfft. SEC teams can't lose to Big10 schools, because they're so beneath us. They aren't physical enough to even compete. And then UM beat Alabama. Line of scrimage> Bama was dominated. Okay, yeah, sour grapes. Fair enough.

Point is. SEC suck. No. The point is, not all biases have anything to do with left or right. It's what you care about. You care a lot about Trump, the other Trumpers, and AF and all that. That's where you're biased. But you also care about jamil. Possibly a little too much.

You clearly do not read the types of publications you talk so glib about. The car mags suck and look like the government EV propaganda they are and sports mags get in to all kinds of political crap. The most revised the Rodgers/Kimmel vaccine efficacy and Epstein list. But the list of political topics covered is mind boggling. The left is everywhere…

 

[KLB]

OMG. Someone said something nice about EVs. They're obviously flaming progressives.

Or, they could actually be good cars for some people, especially people that like to drive fast.

 

[jamil]

You clearly do not read the types of publications you talk so glib about. The car mags suck and look like the government EV propaganda they are and sports mags get in to all kinds of political crap. The most revised the Rodgers/Kimmel vaccine efficacy and Epstein list. But the list of political topics covered is mind boggling. The left is everywhere…

I think when you get yourself so tightly wound around politics you tend to see it everywhere. Unfortunately, I have to state that I'm not saying politics is nowhere, because if I don't say it, you'll say I'm implying it.

Your problem with EV's is purely ideological. You and I agree that government should not be pushing them. It's not their place. They're not anywhere near capable of replacing all use cases of ICE cars yet. Government is pushing them for ideological reasons.

But, EV's have a stand-alone popularity. Magazines write about them because they're interesting and a popular topic--not everyone thinks everything you don't like is propaganda. Also, because the mainstream car enthusiast magazines have a crony relationship with manufacturers. They need that ad money.

Mainstream sports has gone political. ESPN is political, but that seems to have died out lately. But the next George Floyd comes along and they'll be back pontificating their racist political ****. But there are a lot of publishers who don't. Their version of politics is deflate-gate. Spy-gate. Etcetera.

The point was, even now, not everyone's bias is political.

 

[KLB]

Mainstream sports has gone political. ESPN is political, but that seems to have died out lately. But the next George Floyd comes along and they'll be back pontificating their racist political ****. But there are a lot of publishers who don't. Their version of politics is deflate-gate. Spy-gate. Etcetera.

The leagues themselves are political. That is also waning, but it is still there. It's down enough that I was able to actually watch some games this year. TBH, the showboating by the players for making simple plays bugs me more now.

 

[jamil]

OMG. Someone said something nice about EVs. They're obviously flaming progressives.

Or, they could actually be good cars for some people, especially people that like to drive fast.

The EV thread is a prime example of hyper-ideologically driven opinions. EV's are bad because the government is pushing them for ideological reasons. Truth is, there are good things and bad things about EV's. They're not viable for everyone. But if you're ideologically opposed to them it's like you're on a team. You can't go against the team. There are no legitimate qualities. Attack the infidels.

I think EV's aren't capable of replacing ICE vehicles yet. Whatever market there is for it should be organically grown. Shouldn't need government subsidies to grow. Shouldn't need ideologues pushing them to be viable.

That said, I'm not gonna **** on EV's because of the politics. If it fits your use case. Buy it. If not, don't. That there are government/corporate ideologues pushing EV's, shouldn't be part of people's decision about whether or not they're a good fit for them. It's not an ideological decision unless you make it one.

 

[jamil]

The leagues themselves are political. That is also waning, but it is still there. It's down enough that I was able to actually watch some games this year. TBH, the showboating by the players for making simple plays bugs me more now.

Well, yeah. We had the Kaepernick ideological kneeling ********. And I will say the NFL is political as far as it affects their bottom line. Goodell doesn't give a flying **** about the culture war. He just wants to try to be on the side that wins. The winds are shifting and so is Goodell.

Speaking of the showboating, I kinda don't give a **** about that. The only time it pisses me off really is when it costs the team I'm rooting for. Taunting, excessive celebrations, unsportsmanlike conduct, when it is on my team, it's enfuriating. When it's on the other team, of course I enjoy that.

 

[KLB]

I think EV's aren't capable of replacing ICE vehicles yet. Whatever market there is for it should be organically grown. Shouldn't need government subsidies to grow. Shouldn't need ideologues pushing them to be viable.

Agreed. Both sides of the political mess need to butt out.

 

[KLB]

Well, yeah. We had the Kaepernick ideological kneeling ********. And I will say the NFL is political as far as it affects their bottom line. Goodell doesn't give a flying **** about the culture war. He just wants to try to be on the side that wins. The winds are shifting and so is Goodell.

Speaking of the showboating, I kinda don't give a **** about that. The only time it pisses me off really is when it costs the team I'm rooting for. Taunting, excessive celebrations, unsportsmanlike conduct, when it is on my team, it's enfuriating. When it's on the other team, of course I enjoy that.

Meh. Showboating for doing your f'in job is ridiculous. More so since the networks insist on focusing on it, which just causes more of it. They should stop focusing on it.

You can't go a play without someone acting like they did something awesome, like making a routing tackle that they are paid millions of dollars to do.