By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Chrkeller 5 days ago
Torillian said:
Chrkeller said:

The other explanation is the people are not happy with the current administration and the DNC ran on the two points:

a) everything is great, we aren't changing anything

b) we aren't the other guy

Maybe it didn't resonant?  Maybe running anyone associated with an administration that has a 60% disapproval rating was simple demotivating for many?  

Another perfectly reasonable explanation. Y'know what isn't an explanation though? That Democrats can steal elections but only when Trump is in office. That's one of the dumbest conspiracy theories I've ever heard. Not everything is a conspiracy sometimes shit's just different for one reason or another. Just like sometimes it snows in Texas and it's not fake snow and sometimes it floods in areas that don't usually flood and it's not because there's Lithium. 

Preaching to the choir, the whole stolen thing was utter nonsense and played the biggest role in my voting this year.  



i7-13700k

Vengeance 32 gb

RTX 4090 Ventus 3x E OC

Switch OLED

Around the Network
the-pi-guy 5 days ago
iron_megalith said:


I'm so tired with all these appeal to emotion you people do. It's egregiously manipulative.

I don't think I did any appeal to emotion. Enlighten me if you think otherwise. 

Meanwhile you are appealing to emotion - fear. 

Even this post you are mostly just appealing to anger, on this basis that you feel other people are cutting corners. 

iron_megalith said:


There's a difference between spending money to fix a problem that the Democrats have caused. We didn't need to get here in the first place if we actually enforced our borders and kept the illegals out. Trump did it before the Dems surely could find a way if they really wanted to. But we all know they wouldn't do that because they're politically pandering.

Trump's proposal is well beyond "fixing a problem that Democrats have caused". Several million illegal immigrants have been in the country for decades at this point, through Bush's administration, Obama and Trump's. 

iron_megalith said:


It's preposterous you people say that we don't know if they will commit a crime. Illegally crossing the border is already a crime. I don't care if they will be doing violent crime or what not, the rule of law must be followed. There is a process to legally migrate and people should abide by it. If no one wants to follow it, then why the hell do we have these laws for at this point? Then I should have entered illegally here if that's the case.

Didn't say "we don't know if they will commit a crime."

Most people do follow immigration laws. There are still legal processes that happen when someone doesn't. 

Situations are complicated. 
Killing someone is generally illegal, except it's legal when it's done in self defense. 

You're also appealing to tradition here. Just because those are what the laws are, doesn't mean that's what they should be. Clearly conservatives agree with that idea, because they're going to push a much more strenuous law. 

iron_megalith said:


I'm so tired with all these appeal to emotion you people do. It's egregiously manipulative. I'd rather give money to an organization that rehabilitates homeless US CITIZENS in a meaningful way that actually yields results than let the government whimsically give out tax payer's money to illegal immigrants. This irresponsible spending is how California spent $20+ Billion on tackling homeless with no audit and no results to show.

I would happily give money to an organization that helps US citizens in a meaningful way. Why aren't they? 

The big advantage of government is that government doesn't need to make money, whereas companies usually do. 

iron_megalith said:


Them doing violent crime is only a short term issue. The long term effects of these unvetted mass immigration is that it also allows them to abuse birthright citizenship. When that kid is old enough to vote, they can be manipulated into voting for a specific party IF that party pandered to them by promising amnesty and/or a path to citizenship for their parents which they do not deserve in the first place. 

Pandering is a major problem regardless of demographic. Illegal immigrants aren't special or notable in that regard. 

iron_megalith said:


It's baffling that you think it's absurd that Legal Migrants hate this bullshit. You simply resort to calling us conservative as a derogatory. Guess what, that shit don't mean anything to people like me anymore.

1.) I never said it's absurd. You seem to have a major problem with making stuff up. 

2.) Conservative isn't a derogatory. It's a word that has a specific meaning. 

Last edited by the-pi-guy - 5 days ago

Chris Hu 5 days ago
the-pi-guy said:
iron_megalith said:



They always keep lumping us legal migrants who went through the process as if we owe them to vote for Democrats. It's this out of touch, condescending behavior that pushes people away from supporting your cause.

Or you know 

A.) Latinos will get harassed because police will assume they're here illegally. We had already seen American citizens that were "accidentally" deported during Trump's first term.

B.) In a lot of cases, would know someone who is illegal. And liberals don't understand why they would want to hurt someone they know. 

It's going to be worse during his second term he is going to deport legal residents and naturalized citizens.



OlfinBedwere 5 days ago

Thinking back to John Kerry's loss twenty years ago, I'm reminded how pointless it actually is at this stage trying to determine with any degree of certainty precisely what the Democrats need to do in four years time (beyond the obvious thing of just finding a good candidate). After Kerry's defeat there were many people talking about how the Democrats needed to be more socially conservative, friendlier to big business, and more hawkish on foreign policy in order to ever have any hope of winning an election again. Of course, by the time 2008 actually rolled around, those would have been the absolute last things Obama wanted to do.



Wman1996 5 days ago
OlfinBedwere said:

Thinking back to John Kerry's loss twenty years ago, I'm reminded how pointless it actually is at this stage trying to determine with any degree of certainty precisely what the Democrats need to do in four years time (beyond the obvious thing of just finding a good candidate). After Kerry's defeat there were many people talking about how the Democrats needed to be more socially conservative, friendlier to big business, and more hawkish on foreign policy in order to ever have any hope of winning an election again. Of course, by the time 2008 actually rolled around, those would have been the absolute last things Obama wanted to do.

It still blows my mind that George W. Bush won two terms. 

Barack Obama won two terms largely because of charisma and some policy proposals. Donald Trump won largely because of charisma even now in 2024 with the insane baggage he has.

George W. Bush didn't seem charismatic at all compared to most presidential candidates. Unless people found the Bushisms endearing compared to Gore and Kerry and their more straightforward approaches. 

Gore did win the popular vote and probably won Florida based on recounts that continued after the Supreme Court handed the presidency to Bush. 

Obviously, charisma doesn't always determine the winner. Joe Biden wasn't charismatic in the slightest, at least not in his late 70s to now. 



Lifetime Sales Predictions 

Switch: 161 million (was 73 million, then 96 million, then 113 million, then 125 million, then 144 million, then 151 million, then 156 million)

PS5: 115 million (was 105 million) Xbox Series S/X: 48 million (was 60 million, then 67 million, then 57 million)

PS4: 120 mil (was 100 then 130 million, then 122 million) Xbox One: 51 mil (was 50 then 55 mil)

3DS: 75.5 mil (was 73, then 77 million)

"Let go your earthly tether, enter the void, empty and become wind." - Guru Laghima

Around the Network
SanAndreasX 5 days ago
Wman1996 said:
OlfinBedwere said:

Thinking back to John Kerry's loss twenty years ago, I'm reminded how pointless it actually is at this stage trying to determine with any degree of certainty precisely what the Democrats need to do in four years time (beyond the obvious thing of just finding a good candidate). After Kerry's defeat there were many people talking about how the Democrats needed to be more socially conservative, friendlier to big business, and more hawkish on foreign policy in order to ever have any hope of winning an election again. Of course, by the time 2008 actually rolled around, those would have been the absolute last things Obama wanted to do.

It still blows my mind that George W. Bush won two terms. 

Barack Obama won two terms largely because of charisma and some policy proposals. Donald Trump won largely because of charisma even now in 2024 with the insane baggage he has.

George W. Bush didn't seem charismatic at all compared to most presidential candidates. Unless people found the Bushisms endearing compared to Gore and Kerry and their more straightforward approaches. 

Gore did win the popular vote and probably won Florida based on recounts that continued after the Supreme Court handed the presidency to Bush. 

Obviously, charisma doesn't always determine the winner. Joe Biden wasn't charismatic in the slightest, at least not in his late 70s to now. 

Gore was always depicted as a monotone Democratic version of Ben Stein. He actually showed some comedic chops on Futurama, where his daughter was a writer. It's too bad he didn't show those while he was in office or running. 



Shaun87 5 days ago

Yeah I agree charisma can go a long way in making people want to vote for them, it’s the exact opposite here in the UK, we have a wooden plank as our pm, an ironing board would appeal more to me than that loser.



OlfinBedwere 5 days ago
Wman1996 said:

George W. Bush didn't seem charismatic at all compared to most presidential candidates. Unless people found the Bushisms endearing compared to Gore and Kerry and their more straightforward approaches.

Bush's re-election was probably the earliest example of the disconnect between what people online and the general public are thinking. When Bush came out with that line in the debate about "rumors on the internets", a lot of people in discussion forums of the day were laughing at his ignorance and assuming there was no possible way that Kerry could fail to beat this moron. Of course, for every person who was laughing at him, there were almost certainly more people thinking "Hey, I don't get all that internetty stuff either, President Bush is A-OK in my book."

All that being said, Bush's re-election probably had more to do with Iraq not yet having quite taken enough of the sheen off his post-9/11 popularity to deny him re-election, along with Kerry being a pretty forgettable opponent. The three-way combo of Iraq, Hurricane Katrina, and the financial crash rendered John McCain's campaign DOA four years later... but even then, Sarah Palin (somehow) resonated with more than a few voters, indicating that people will very often overlook a candidate's flaws if they find them more relatable than their opponent.



EricHiggin 4 days ago
Torillian said:

And this time it was just too hard to cheat while democrats were actually in power?

Do you guys listen to yourselves talk?

Here's a simple explanation for 2020, it was the easiest year to vote ever. It was awesome, shit got sent to your house, you filled it out at home, and then you dropped it in a box. Best experience I've ever had voting. You make it easier to do the thing and more people do it is not surprising to me in the slightest. You make it more difficult again and that number goes back down is also not a surprise.

I agree with your simplicity point. That's one of the most simple answers, and the majority of the time that is the case when it comes to anything.

The only logical thing I can think of when it would come to rigging elections in this specific case, would be that getting caught doing so while in office would be much worse than getting caught while trying to obtain office, so there would be more on the line overall. Especially if the incumbent has a strong message of democracy, while the non incumbent has been accusing you of cheating (prior). Otherwise it would be a pretty poor conspiracy theory.

A more believable conspiracy theory perhaps, maybe to some, would be if you said it was due to a worldwide pandemic, and because of the chaos, worry, extreme fear, and heavy focus on saving lives, who's going to care if an election was rigged, or the call by some for an investigation being shrugged off because it easily could be? That would be something that would make one think, but would still just be a conspiracy theory.



Robert_Downey_Jr. 2 days ago
the-pi-guy said:
iron_megalith said:

You can still keep denying what's really going on but it won't go away. Just here in California, they busted a crime ring that had illegals coming in and out of the border to do burglary. The lax border is being used to abuse the system. It's not just in Cali, it's every where else.

No one has ever denied that some illegal immigrants are criminals. 

The thing that you conservatives seem to struggle to understand is that liberals don't tend to take these ultra black and white positions. There's a practically frustrating amount of nuance to basically everything.

Some illegal immigrants are murders and rapists and burglars. If you took literally any sizable group of even a thousand people, some of those people are going to be those things. 

If you think that liberals are completely denying that some people are criminals, then you've completely misunderstood their position.

The liberal concerns are:

1.) How much investment is it worth to do deportation? You were just complaining about ballooning a budget. Have you considered the logistics that are required to shut down the border and do all these deportations. How feasible is it to cover a few thousands mile of border. How feasible is it to find 10 million or whatever illegal immigrants and deport them? It would easily cost hundreds of billions dollars overall. 

1a.) How much of this crime would actually be prevented, if you actually did those things? A lot of drugs are illegal in the US, that doesn't stop them from costing billions. 

2.) They're less likely to commit crime than citizens. Which again, "less likely" does not mean "no crime".  It's still a lot of crime actually.

3.) Is that actually the most feasible way to prevent these issues? Conservatives love to punish people, and yet that is frequently the most expensive way to handle things. 

It's this constant idea, that we need a bigger hammer on these issues. Instead of ever wondering, maybe there are other better ways. 

when you are citing crime numbers, are you talking about immigrants or illegal immigrants specifically?  Because every illegal immigrant commits a crime when they enter the country without the proper procedure.



I am Iron Man