NationStates

San Lumen wrote:

Telconi wrote:
Sorry, not going to fuss over the freedoms of people who's entire schtick is destroying freedoms. He wants to have his rights respected he can learn some human decency.

Your free to not vote for him. He has a right to say what he did and not be thrown in prison. That’s what a dictatorship would do. Going by your past statements any elected official who disagrees with you should be jailed

There is a fundamental difference between disagreeing, and attacking. This had been explained repeatedly.

Blargoblarg wrote:

Pacomia wrote:Vermin Supreme 2020?

Giant Meteor is better.

Hmm?

A Coronal Mass Ejection (CME) is much better. Easier on the fauna and flora. We still need to eat. But it forces us to use paper ballots and the idiot tweeting sure as fuck is done with.

Twelve Monkeys wrote:

Blargoblarg wrote:Giant Meteor is better.

Hmm?

A Coronal Mass Ejection (CME) is much better. Easier on the fauna and flora. We still need to eat. But it forces us to use paper ballots and the idiot tweeting sure as fuck is done with.

But I'd lose my job.

Twelve Monkeys wrote:

Blargoblarg wrote:Giant Meteor is better.

Hmm?

A Coronal Mass Ejection (CME) is much better. Easier on the fauna and flora. We still need to eat. But it forces us to use paper ballots and the idiot tweeting sure as fuck is done with.

Yeah but then we'd just be technologically stunted assholes.

Telconi wrote:

Twelve Monkeys wrote:
Hmm?

A Coronal Mass Ejection (CME) is much better. Easier on the fauna and flora. We still need to eat. But it forces us to use paper ballots and the idiot tweeting sure as fuck is done with.

Yeah but then we'd just be technologically stunted assholes.

Might work. You'd still have your guns. We'd still have free speech but with much less fraud.

Twelve Monkeys wrote:

Telconi wrote:
Yeah but then we'd just be technologically stunted assholes.

Might work. You'd still have your guns. We'd still have free speech but with much less fraud.

Think of it like this, Tel. You wouldn't have to deal with us for at least 12-18 months before electricity could return. That would remove a lot of stress.

Shrillland wrote:

Twelve Monkeys wrote:
Hmm?

A Coronal Mass Ejection (CME) is much better. Easier on the fauna and flora. We still need to eat. But it forces us to use paper ballots and the idiot tweeting sure as fuck is done with.

But I'd lose my job.

Mortar and brick stores wold be hiring though. Look in something they used to call the classified ads.

Shrillland wrote:

Twelve Monkeys wrote:
Might work. You'd still have your guns. We'd still have free speech but with much less fraud.

Think of it like this, Tel. You wouldn't have to deal with us for at least 12-18 months before electricity could return. That would remove a lot of stress.

He'd be stuck in California with millions of people cut off from their rant outlets. What could go wrong?

Shrillland wrote:

Twelve Monkeys wrote:
Might work. You'd still have your guns. We'd still have free speech but with much less fraud.

Think of it like this, Tel. You wouldn't have to deal with us for at least 12-18 months before electricity could return. That would remove a lot of stress.

No, it really wouldn't, because y'all would return eventually.

Shrillland wrote:

Twelve Monkeys wrote:
Might work. You'd still have your guns. We'd still have free speech but with much less fraud.

Think of it like this, Tel. You wouldn't have to deal with us for at least 12-18 months before electricity could return. That would remove a lot of stress.

Nah we should just EMP the entire world and go back to the stone age.

Dresderstan wrote:

Shrillland wrote:
Think of it like this, Tel. You wouldn't have to deal with us for at least 12-18 months before electricity could return. That would remove a lot of stress.

Nah we should just EMP the entire world and go back to the stone age.

Well, a strong CME saves you the trouble of an EMP. It's like that. Nobody to blame either.

There was one in 2012 that crossed into Earth's orbit and missed the planet by one week.

Dresderstan wrote:

Shrillland wrote:
Think of it like this, Tel. You wouldn't have to deal with us for at least 12-18 months before electricity could return. That would remove a lot of stress.

Nah we should just EMP the entire world and go back to the stone age.

I don't think EMPs would be enough. Perhaps some sort of mind control ray that makes everyone into a psychotic anprim?

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:

Dresderstan wrote:Nah we should just EMP the entire world and go back to the stone age.

I don't think EMPs would be enough. Perhaps some sort of mind control ray that makes everyone into a psychotic anprim?

Nah, that wouldn't work. Hanging out with mind controlled zombies would get old quick.

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:

Dresderstan wrote:Nah we should just EMP the entire world and go back to the stone age.

I don't think EMPs would be enough. Perhaps some sort of mind control ray that makes everyone into a psychotic anprim?

Huh?

Warren peaked in the polls over a month ago at 18.5, via RCP. Now she is at 17. Saying she is "surging" is blatant gaslighting. That said, if she does win, Yang would be an unironically good running mate.

South Odreria 2 wrote:Warren peaked in the polls over a month ago at 18.5, via RCP. Now she is at 17. Saying she is "surging" is blatant gaslighting. That said, if she does win, Yang would be an unironically good running mate.

No billionaire that runs wants to be Veep.

Eternal Lotharia wrote:

South Odreria 2 wrote:Warren peaked in the polls over a month ago at 18.5, via RCP. Now she is at 17. Saying she is "surging" is blatant gaslighting. That said, if she does win, Yang would be an unironically good running mate.

No he's very much his own show. Me and UM discussed this, when I suggested it. The post is in the last thread. Also surging is more than polling, it's a complicated thing.

Stop thinking in such a oversimplified manner. You need to think in a less ridiculous way, you're so brainwashed and aggressive it shows how you specifically are too immature to be debated with seriously, I've gotten sick of it.

Going back off now, sorry, had to get this off my chest guys.

Says falling/flat in polls is not surging >>> "think in a less ridiculous way"

Twelve Monkeys wrote:No billionaire that runs wants to be Veep.

Yang has an estimated net worth of 1 million. That is less than a billion. For comparison, Warren's has been estimated at from 8-12 million.

Eternal Lotharia wrote:

South Odreria 2 wrote:
Says falling/flat in polls is not surging >>> "think in a less ridiculous way"

Her favorability ratings and unfavorability ratings are getting a lot better with more time. Her popularity and her policies as well.
Please understand that the world isn't as simple as you speak, it makes you look ridiculous and it pisses me off.

The poll you linked shows Warren falling to 13% in the first four states, 8 points out of second place.

Eternal Lotharia wrote:It's far too simple and fails to understand the complicated nature of reality.

Can you please stop posting stuff like this. If someone is not showing any measurable improvement in polling, fundraising, volunteer sign-ups, or anything else, they are not surging.

South Odreria 2 wrote:

Eternal Lotharia wrote:No he's very much his own show. Me and UM discussed this, when I suggested it. The post is in the last thread. Also surging is more than polling, it's a complicated thing.

Stop thinking in such a oversimplified manner. You need to think in a less ridiculous way, you're so brainwashed and aggressive it shows how you specifically are too immature to be debated with seriously, I've gotten sick of it.

Going back off now, sorry, had to get this off my chest guys.

Says falling/flat in polls is not surging >>> "think in a less ridiculous way"

Twelve Monkeys wrote:No billionaire that runs wants to be Veep.

Yang has an estimated net worth of 1 million. That is less than a billion. For comparison, Warren's has been estimated at from 8-12 million.

I didn't think he was a billionaire and figured someone would say it. His net worth should surprises people. I could use the $1000/month, but the larger legacy of this country isn't giving money to the people. It's taking it away, like pirates. Yang would certainly be far better than another 4 years of Trump. He might want the veep job but I doubt any of the other candidate would seriously offer it to him. Then I guess he'd better win the nomination or sell a lot of books while trying.

South Odreria 2 wrote:Warren peaked in the polls over a month ago at 18.5, via RCP. Now she is at 17. Saying she is "surging" is blatant gaslighting. That said, if she does win, Yang would be an unironically good running mate.

You don't understand this term.

South Odreria 2 wrote:Warren peaked in the polls over a month ago at 18.5, via RCP. Now she is at 17. Saying she is "surging" is blatant gaslighting. That said, if she does win, Yang would be an unironically good running mate.

I wouldn't describe Warren's motion as a "surge" anyway, she's gaining steadily in the polls over the past few months, though it's been petering out lately so we'll see where she goes.

Yang wouldn't be a good running mate for Warren. Imo, Buttigieg seems like the better pick for her, I feel like they vibe well.

Valrifell wrote:

South Odreria 2 wrote:Warren peaked in the polls over a month ago at 18.5, via RCP. Now she is at 17. Saying she is "surging" is blatant gaslighting. That said, if she does win, Yang would be an unironically good running mate.

I wouldn't describe Warren's motion as a "surge" anyway, she's gaining steadily in the polls over the past few months, though it's been petering out lately so we'll see where she goes.

Yang wouldn't be a good running mate for Warren. Imo, Buttigieg seems like the better pick for her, I feel like they vibe well.

The "surge" narrative comes from the fact that she's closest to having one and, unlike Buttigieg, Harris and O'Rourke, she's the only candidate to have had largely consistent upwards movement.

I'm still put out with this silly tendency to try to pull the VP from among the also rans, obviously there are times when it's worked wonders, but I don't see why it's necessary for the nominee to exclusively pick from among a field of (mostly) strong incumbents. And for needless horse racery, I'd say that in Warren's case she'd do best to run with a person with executive experience (Buttigieg nominally, sure) and a progressive record (not as much, in his case). If Warren's the nominee and she's going to win, the relevant model is '92. Doubling down on a Warren administration as a progressive sea change.

Ngelmish wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
I wouldn't describe Warren's motion as a "surge" anyway, she's gaining steadily in the polls over the past few months, though it's been petering out lately so we'll see where she goes.

Yang wouldn't be a good running mate for Warren. Imo, Buttigieg seems like the better pick for her, I feel like they vibe well.

The "surge" narrative comes from the fact that she's closest to having one and, unlike Buttigieg, Harris and O'Rourke, she's the only candidate to have had largely consistent upwards movement.

I'm still put out with this silly tendency to try to pull the VP from among the also rans, obviously there are times when it's worked wonders, but I don't see why it's necessary for the nominee to exclusively pick from among a field of (mostly) strong incumbents. And for needless horse racery, I'd say that in Warren's case she'd do best to run with a person with executive experience (Buttigieg nominally, sure) and a progressive record (not as much, in his case). If Warren's the nominee and she's going to win, the relevant model is '92. Doubling down on a Warren administration as a progressive sea change.

I still think Buttigieg would be perfect VP for her.

Cannot think of a name wrote:

South Odreria 2 wrote:Warren peaked in the polls over a month ago at 18.5, via RCP. Now she is at 17. Saying she is "surging" is blatant gaslighting. That said, if she does win, Yang would be an unironically good running mate.

You don't understand this term.

U right

Valrifell wrote:Yang wouldn't be a good running mate for Warren. Imo, Buttigieg seems like the better pick for her, I feel like they vibe well.

I mean, Warren and Pete do go well together, but on the other hand those are the two candidates with the whitest coalitions, which makes for a weak ticket. Of current candidates, I think Yang is a good contrast for Warren both physically and personality-wise, but he may be too strong a character for a running mate. It's probably a non-candidate then, as Ngelmish said.

South Odreria 2 wrote:

Cannot think of a name wrote:You don't understand this term.

U right

Valrifell wrote:Yang wouldn't be a good running mate for Warren. Imo, Buttigieg seems like the better pick for her, I feel like they vibe well.

I mean, Warren and Pete do go well together, but on the other hand those are the two candidates with the whitest coalitions, which makes for a weak ticket. Of current candidates, I think Yang is a good contrast for Warren both physically and personality-wise, but he may be too strong a character for a running mate. It's probably a non-candidate then, as Ngelmish said.

Yang is too inexperienced to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency