TheAntipopulist
Formerly Ben___Garrison
No bio...
User ID: 373
OK sure, my particular example was dumb for the reasons you pointed out. I wanted to think of something that had partisan valence in the other direction, but at this point Republicans are mostly only pro-business as a historical accident. Most of the base hates "Wall Street" and "Big Business", so I think their response to Bernie-style economic leftism would be relatively muted compared to, say, 20 years ago.
I don't know about the tilma of Juan Diego, but I've looked into Eucharistic miracles a long time ago. All claims of such miracles are either 1) fringe enough that nobody cares, 2) unfalsifiable in that there's no evidence to check against, or 3) rely on witnesses.
Looking at Trump's first term approval ratings, the 37% mark is close to where I'd put the 50-50 at. But 1) I make a habit of not betting on prediction markets unless I have a decent alpha, and 2) Trump is one or two standard deviations more buffoonish this term than he was in his first term, which needs to be factored in. I could probably barely be persuaded to make an even-money bet at 35%, and I'd feel genuinely good if I could make the bet at 33%.
The intellectual leader of MAGA has basically already confirmed your line of thinking.
Who cares? "Insider trading" probably doesn't crack the top 5 list of worst examples of corruption, and Trump defenders would furiously denounce it as "lawfare" no matter what it was anyways.
I'm just so tired with everyone's vapid obsession with tariffs. To the point where it feels like a psyop.
"It feels like a psyop"? Oh good heavens.
I feel like you're only upset about the topic because it reflects poorly on your ingroup, and it's providing fodder for your outgroup. Democrats were practically wallowing in despair for several months after the election, but Trump's buffoonishness was such a blatant shoot-myself-in-the-foot moment that suddenly the Dems were getting very talkative again, and almost became triumphant. They were practically egging on a crash, and reality was largely granting it to them until Trump waffled.
I doubt your reaction would be similar if the shoe was on the other foot, e.g. if Biden suddenly tried to force 1 in 20 people to undergo a sex change in the name of diversity.
I also didn't see your post as insinuating he was a "bad person". I don't know how he came to that conclusion or what he means by that.
What?
If the dollar collapses, world traders will just pick a different currency, or a basket of currencies.
And nobody needs to prevent all conflict in the world, they just need to prevent piracy or a giant world war for trade to continue on.
A veto-proof majority? Not gonna happen in any realistic scenario. I doubt Trump's approval rating will drop below the high 30s for any sustained period of time, he just has that much of a lock on the Republican base. Trump has also invested quite heavily in purifying the party from all critics. He's been much more focused on that than any durable policy goals. With all that in mind, Republican legislators (beyond a few dissidents) will not broadly from Dear Leader.
I loathe Trump, buffoon that he is, but I'll admit he did effectively kill wokeness which was great. If he does this, it will be another good step in my eyes. Storm clouds are gathering, and the US needs to be ready one way or the other.
In dollar terms, the US already spends more on its military than the next 8 largest spenders put together do on theirs. The US is under no existential threat from any other country barring a nuclear war. But given that the US already has a very substantial nuclear deterrent, spending $100 more billion a year on the military is unlikely to substantially improve that situation.
This is very wrong. If adjusted for PPP values and differences in accounting (e.g. what's kept in black budgets) then China spends nearly as much, if not more than the USA does. Worse, China is concentrating that in one area whereas the USA is spread out all over the globe still (including, foolishly, much of the Middle East). The notion that nations can invest in some nukes and then forget about foreign policy while assuming nothing bad will happen is silly.
Well, firstly, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
It's not conclusive evidence but it should certainly raise our suspicious given that 1) humans frequently and erroneously attribute mundane phenomena to the supernatural (it's an extremely common human logical fault), 2) with so many claims, you'd assume at least a few would have clear evidence of occurring and not having ready explanations. It's similar to UFO sightings, which were quite common a few decades ago. If they were real, the proliferation of smartphones with cameras should have led to a surge in evidence of their existence. Instead, the lack of such evidence is a good indication that it was bunk all along. That's not to say we should be completely closeminded on the issue if evidence does arise, but we should wait for that compelling evidence first.
Minor or even moderate healing is a bad metric since the human body is extremely complicated, so mundane phenomena could easily be confused for the supernatural. Moreover, health is something people are very emotional about, so they pray about it frequently. But if people were e.g. regularly doing crazy things like being able to walk on water or (as Jiro mentioned) regrowing lost limbs, then that would be a better starting point.
This all reminds me of the fact that scientists refused to accept the existence of meteorites for a very long period of time because they were one-off events.
This story should raise your opinion of science, not lower it. Rocks falling from the sky would seem like superstitions in the early enlightenment, but Jean-Baptiste Biot collected evidence it actually occurred and science was persuaded relatively quickly. Miracles should be held to the same standard.
But anyway, the claim here being made (by Voxel) is that miracles (or supernatural or if you prefer inexplicable events) aren't very uncommon or, shall you say, extraordinary.
Claims of miracles aren't uncommon, I'm sure. But that just proves that humans are fallible fools in their explanations.
From a Bayesian perspective, I'd say that the claim that "miracles happen, but only in ways that are conveniently impossibly difficult to scientifically corroborate" is pretty good evidence that we should discount them unless we really do get some solid proof. This is especially true given humans have a known habit of attributing unexplainable phenomena on the supernatural, but which have later been conclusively proven to have mundane origins (e.g. primitive humans thinking thunder and lightning were gods fighting each other).
Extraordinary claims should require extraordinary evidence.
I sort of agree with this at a broad level, but people claim miracles are happening quite frequently, so you'd expect at least one case to have evidence that's genuinely decent instead of just testimony.
Everything is worth what it's purchaser is willing to pay for it.
A lot of what we'd see in both GDP and debt numbers is just inflation. But there's also been genuine growth, especially in tech.
I would like for the system not to be destroyed, given that I have to live in it, and destroying something doesn't automatically make a better alternative pop out of nothing.
Arguing from miracles is just... painfully bad. If you have strong evidence that could be tested and perhaps replicated of supernatural phenomena occurring on Earth, that would be one thing. But this is like debating Trumpian 2020 election skeptics, where they're full of reasons to sneer and hate their outgroup, but if you ask them to make a positive case for their own arguments, they wither and try to deflect. The best evidence I can think of to dismiss these people as a group is the fact they've failed to find a single good example to rally around (be it an example of election fraud that was widespread enough to make a difference, or a miracle that genuinely occurred). They all have their own little gish gallop of bad reasons that primarily rely on the audience not being familiar with the arguments, because any evenhanded analysis would show their points are bunk.
Meanwhile, you’ve got the blue-haired commie fag brigade whining about “muh consumer prices” like a bunch of NPCs who can’t handle a little economic heat. Bro, wake up—those low prices came at the cost of your neighbor’s job and your country’s soul. Tariffs are the ultimate redpill: they expose how addicted we got to foreign handouts and force us to rebuild what we lost. Sure, your Walmart trash might cost an extra buck, but that’s a small price to pay for sticking it to the CCP and watching soyboys seethe. Trump’s playing 4D chess while the haters are stuck on checkers, crying into their avocado toast. This is peak kino—raw, unfiltered, and gloriously chaotic. Tariffs aren’t just policy; they’re a vibe, and that vibe is winning.
This is the quality shitposting that really makes me "feel the AGI".
Also, why would anyone need to establish an alt here?
Ban evasion I'm guessing.
I, like Hanania, was dunking on Dems plenty when they were in the driver's seat in terms of wokeness and immigration. I can appreciate how effectively Trump dismantled wokeness in the first month of his admin. But I oppose buffoonish as a rule, and while the delusions were previously coming from the left, now they're mostly coming from the right.
This doesn't seem true to me. Social media rose in the 2005-2010 era, which predates the 2014-2016 mark by up to a decade.
More damningly, social media rose all throughout the first world, but it was really only the Anglosphere (mostly the US, to some extent the UK) that went insane during this time period. The rest of the first world remained relatively tranquil until quite recently, even Germany which had a lot of challenges around the 2015 era.
I don't really disagree with anything you've written here, although I have some quibbles around the edges. In 1984, Reagan won with a margin of over 18%. Close elections aren't an immutable fact of the US electoral system, they're just a modern result of (most likely) partisan echo chambers.
I agree even small victories can bring outsized vibe shifts. The most recent election was a good example, with Trump barely winning but everyone treating it like he won by a 40% margin.
Debt is a normal financial instrument that has plenty of legitimate uses. Since 2000 the US economy has almost tripled in size, so an increase in debt is both expected and normal.
The main danger of debt right now is too much US federal debt, which Republicans and Democrats are both roughly equally at fault for not reigning in. Trump is poised to blow out the deficit even harder than ever before.
Your point is correct, nobody has a good retort here because they just dislike the fact that Hanania has turned his gun on right wing foolishness now.
His role is to write things that flatter the sensibilities and biases of the priestly caste
This is strongly off-base. Even just a year or two ago he spent most of his time attacking woke ideas more than anything, something that had strong buy-in from the "priestly caste". Hanania is probably more responsible than anyone for the Trump admin cracking down on woke ideology so effectively in the first month. This forum broadly loved him a few years ago, and only recently turned on him once he started aiming his sights on the foolishness on the right.
I'd personally do my napkin math from the Cook PVI instead.
I'd break Republican Reps into the following buckets
So I see what you're saying as fairly unlikely. Trump would have to do something truly cataclysmic to get a third of Republican Reps to fear losing re-election more than Trump coming after them with a primary challenge. The 2022 midterms showed Trump would gladly prioritize eliminating "traitors" over actually having Republicans win. Purifying the party is something Trump has always shown very consistent determination in doing, far above any actual policy goals.
More options
Context Copy link