7 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

So you think dividing people by an immutable characteristic (race) is the same as dividing them by political ideology?

Yes dude, they're different 🤣

Do you actually think Black Rights are not a political ideology by definition? A political ideology is not just Democratic and Republican. You not agreeing with that as an ideology or wanting to not over represent it is a different argument, but there’s no question that in 1965 and now, it’s a legitimate political sect.

Just like white rights/supremacists.

Edited 9 hours ago9 hr by Negat0ry

And just to be clear, I believe that all gerrymandering is bad, but cherry picking what we call bad and ignoring it where it is beneficial is literally just more gerrymandering.

Either get rid of district maps being drawn by election commissions and just split the US into amorphous blobs fairly distributed mathematically. Or just go by popular vote. If New England is 40% republican, give them 40% of the seats. Give Texas 40% dem seats. Give California 40% republican seats. Sounds good to me and much more fair than what happens now. On top of that, give third parties a chance to gain representation.

Edited 9 hours ago9 hr by Negat0ry

2 hours ago, Negat0ry said:

Do you actually think Black Rights are not a political ideology by definition? A political ideology is not just Democratic and Republican. You not agreeing with that as an ideology or wanting to not over represent it is a different argument, but there’s no question that in 1965 and now, it’s a legitimate political sect.

Just like white rights/supremacists.

They weren't being divided by ideology, which you would know if you actually read the opinion. That would have included white people and Asians, and excluded some black people who aren't "Black Rights Activists." They were specifically drawing the maps based on skin color. Zero effort was spent filtering for ideology.

The fact you are trying to equate skin color with an ideology is wild.

3 hours ago, Negat0ry said:

Is your argument really that “racial gerrymandering is bad, but the partisan gerrymandering is different”? Because that’s what loudly complaining about democratic gerrymandering without expressing the whole picture is. Also wtf is “partisan” gerrymandering? Turns out both disenfranchise voters.

Gerrymandering is bad—period. Neither side should be doing it. But let’s not pretend this is some new revelation. The reality is the cat’s out of the bag, and now it’s a full-on fight because no one wants to unilaterally disarm.

Packing the court? Also bad. Undermines the credibility of the judiciary and turns it into just another political tool. Yet we’re watching one side openly push for it when they don’t like the current makeup.

Killing the filibuster? Same story. It exists to force consensus and protect against raw majority rule. But again, one side is eager to toss it aside the moment it becomes inconvenient.

And making Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico states—not based on some sudden principle, but because it shifts the balance of power in the Senate? That’s not about representation, that’s about leverage.

Call it what you want, but changing the rules of the game to lock in power is a dangerous path. History is full of examples of how that ends, and none of them are good.

6 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

It wasn't a come back. You're obviously upset about the things you read here, and it's not worth being on any website where the discourse is exasperating to you.

You're one of those people who tells his wife to calm down aren't you...

1 hour ago, slackline said:

You're one of those people who tells his wife to calm down aren't you...

My wife doesn't get irrationally upset about other people having commonplace opinions on issues that are almost completely beyond her ability to influence outside of an occasional selection in a voting booth.

But if she started talking about politics like this, then yeah I'd suggest she take a breath and maybe give the Internet a timeout for a while.

On 4/29/2026 at 11:09 PM, slackline said:

They did change their tune, almost overnight. Then Trump lost 2020 (I'm sure some of you think he won because he told you to), and their tune changed again, oh, somewhere around Jan 6th... Unsure why. And then it looked like he was going to make a comeback, and they changed their tune again.

As for the Hitler comparisons, I think you guys are forgetting that He didn't start his career out by killing millions of people. There was a slow boil that led to it...

We are a laughing stock, the world over. The cabinet, for being all about merit, is full of unqualified lapdogs. The economy is great for people with enough money to invest, but sucks for everyone else. Trump has stopped science dead in its tracks, to the point that it will be almost impossible to catch up to China now. You guys must not believe climate change is a real thing, which, good for you because he's rolled back every measure that made sense to slow it down. Voting rights have taken another major hit thanks to his SC, which he only likes when they rule in his favor. His SAVE act is a thinly veiled voter suppression act, and if it passes Republicans will take the biggest hit since they're the voters least likely to have a passport. We could go on, but I won't waste any more of your time. The narcissistic attitudes in here by what I used to believe we're critical thinkers is mind boggling.

OK, I'll go back to lurking for another few years.

Just now, Lord Ratner said:

My wife doesn't get irrationally upset about other people having commonplace opinions on issues that are almost completely beyond her ability to influence outside of an occasional selection in a voting booth.

But if she started talking about politics like this, then yeah I'd suggest she take a breath and maybe give the Internet a timeout for a while.

Well, you've done it again. Masterfully avoided saying anything of substance. It's so odd how you've built this self-image where you think you always hold the high ground without saying anything real. I've watched you do this in here, and other apologists seem to flock around you doing the same thing, patting each other on the back, accusing anyone not acting as an apologist for this administration of falling prey emotions, ignoring obvious facts, etc. All while you ignore facts and spin things in a way to placate your own egos and support your narrative. I guess time will tell...

5 minutes ago, slackline said:

Well, you've done it again. Masterfully avoided saying anything of substance. It's so odd how you've built this self-image where you think you always hold the high ground without saying anything real. I've watched you do this in here, and other apologists seem to flock around you doing the same thing, patting each other on the back, accusing anyone not acting as an apologist for this administration of falling prey emotions, ignoring obvious facts, etc. All while you ignore facts and spin things in a way to placate your own egos and support your narrative. I guess time will tell...

It's been 486 pages, bud. How many times do we need to repeat ourselves?

Seriously though; why spend time on an Internet stranger who already has an unbendable view of the issues and labels anyone who disagrees an "apologist" or worse?

Do you feel better? Are you happier? What's this conversation doing for you? Have your views changed? Do you feel that comparing Trump to Hitler has shifted the political winds back in a direction you consider an improvement?

If you think it's time to "go back to lurking" then you're probably right. Which is all I said.

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

It's been 486 pages, bud. How many times do we need to repeat ourselves?

Seriously though; why spend time on an Internet stranger who already has an unbendable view of the issues and labels anyone who disagrees an "apologist" or worse?

Do you feel better? Are you happier? What's this conversation doing for you? Have your views changed? Do you feel that comparing Trump to Hitler has shifted the political winds back in a direction you consider an improvement?

If you think it's time to "go back to lurking" then you're probably right. Which is all I said.

You asked if I feel better, if my views have changed, whether this is doing anything for me. Ridiculous questions aimed at dismissing rather than engaging. I'll answer anyway.

No, my views haven’t changed. Neither have yours. I figured that out early. I’m not writing for you. I’m writing for the quiet majority on this board; the guys who value a clean debrief and are reading both sides without posting. They notice who brings data and who brings “probably for the best.”

You’re capable of substance when you feel like it. But you didn’t touch the NIH numbers. You didn’t address the SAVE Act data. Not a word on China passing us in R&D or a trillion dollars in clean energy investment while we repeal every incentive we have. Instead you asked if I’m “happy” and compared me to a wife who needs to calm down. That’s not a debrief, it's an attempt at dismissing it as though you somehow are above the fray.

Here’s what I think the lurkers actually see when they read your posts: red lines that move. You set them in 2016. Every time one gets crossed, you don’t re-evaluate the person crossing them; you redraw the line. You said it yourself: “another example of why Trump is worth the insanity.” Read that back. You’re conceding the insanity and arguing the tradeoff is worth it. So where’s the line you won’t move? What would actually be too far? Because if there isn’t one, then the cost-benefit framework you’re presenting isn’t analysis; it’s loyalty with a spreadsheet. And you’d never accept that framework from the other side.

You talk about merit. Look at the cabinet. The SECDEF had zero defense leadership experience. The AG’s primary qualification was loyalty on television. The intelligence community picks were chosen for alignment, not expertise. If “merit” means “agrees with the boss,” that’s not meritocracy; it’s patronage with better branding. The people on this board who’ve spent careers watching what happens when loyalty replaces competence in leadership positions know exactly what that produces.

ViperMan showed what happens when someone actually engages. He came in swinging, I came back with numbers, he came back with substance. We found common ground on multiple issues, and anyone who read it walked away better informed. That’s what this forum used to produce.

I’m not interested in another round of rhetorical exits and concerned-tone deflections. Your methodology is built so you can’t be wrong; if the data challenges you, you redefine the question; if someone pushes back, you suggest they’re emotional. That’s a closed loop, and further debate inside it is a waste of bandwidth.

The data of the last eighteen months speaks for itself for anyone willing to look at it without a pre-determined conclusion. I’ll leave it to the people reading this to decide which side of this exchange was running a clean debrief, and which side consistently (at least as of late) refuses to engage.

3 hours ago, slackline said:

You're one of those people who tells his wife to calm down aren't you...

Take it easy bro.

14 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

Take it easy bro.

1 hour ago, slackline said:

You asked if I feel better, if my views have changed, whether this is doing anything for me. Ridiculous questions aimed at dismissing rather than engaging. I'll answer anyway.

No, my views haven’t changed. Neither have yours. I figured that out early. I’m not writing for you. I’m writing for the quiet majority on this board; the guys who value a clean debrief and are reading both sides without posting. They notice who brings data and who brings “probably for the best.”

You’re capable of substance when you feel like it. But you didn’t touch the NIH numbers. You didn’t address the SAVE Act data. Not a word on China passing us in R&D or a trillion dollars in clean energy investment while we repeal every incentive we have. Instead you asked if I’m “happy” and compared me to a wife who needs to calm down. That’s not a debrief, it's an attempt at dismissing it as though you somehow are above the fray.

Here’s what I think the lurkers actually see when they read your posts: red lines that move. You set them in 2016. Every time one gets crossed, you don’t re-evaluate the person crossing them; you redraw the line. You said it yourself: “another example of why Trump is worth the insanity.” Read that back. You’re conceding the insanity and arguing the tradeoff is worth it. So where’s the line you won’t move? What would actually be too far? Because if there isn’t one, then the cost-benefit framework you’re presenting isn’t analysis; it’s loyalty with a spreadsheet. And you’d never accept that framework from the other side.

You talk about merit. Look at the cabinet. The SECDEF had zero defense leadership experience. The AG’s primary qualification was loyalty on television. The intelligence community picks were chosen for alignment, not expertise. If “merit” means “agrees with the boss,” that’s not meritocracy; it’s patronage with better branding. The people on this board who’ve spent careers watching what happens when loyalty replaces competence in leadership positions know exactly what that produces.

ViperMan showed what happens when someone actually engages. He came in swinging, I came back with numbers, he came back with substance. We found common ground on multiple issues, and anyone who read it walked away better informed. That’s what this forum used to produce.

I’m not interested in another round of rhetorical exits and concerned-tone deflections. Your methodology is built so you can’t be wrong; if the data challenges you, you redefine the question; if someone pushes back, you suggest they’re emotional. That’s a closed loop, and further debate inside it is a waste of bandwidth.

The data of the last eighteen months speaks for itself for anyone willing to look at it without a pre-determined conclusion. I’ll leave it to the people reading this to decide which side of this exchange was running a clean debrief, and which side consistently (at least as of late) refuses to engage.

1 hour ago, slackline said:

Instead you asked if I’m “happy” and compared me to a wife who needs to calm down.

4 hours ago, slackline said:

You're one of those people who tells his wife to calm down aren't you...

I was thinking about responding, but if you can't even keep track of what you're saying, what are the odds you can follow what I'm saying?

You're all pathetic with your quips vice substance. No wonder people have stopped engaging here, it's like talking to children.