patrick.net

mell says

How so? In Charlottesville he correctly made the distinction between those who protest the removal of the statues and the white supremacists. He wants to keep as many people united as possible except for those that truly want to divide. As a counterexample I can only shudder when I think of Obama's handling of the George Zimmerman case where the tapes where DELIBERATELY DOCTORED (cut and paste) to make look Zimmerman - who had previously fought for a homeless black man to get shelter - like a racist. And Obama went through with that narrative. It can't be anymore divisive to start a race war over a case that clearly wasn't racist.

I think this is the problem with Trumpism in general in that it encourages distrust and people to have their own "facts". When nobody can agree on truth and facts, it leads to very poor decision making. How can people come together when a large portion of the population disagrees with truth and facts?

You had the Press Secretary blatantly lying about the size of the inauguration crowd, then Kellyanne stating that they have "their own facts" as if that's OK. That pretty much set the tone.

mell says

Got laughed at when I suggested DT may be candidate, let alone win. Was very close to place 300:1 bet, unfortunately of course I also had doubts and thought no way so I lost out on 100K or so, but the following MAGA stock market redeemed the lost opportunity and then some ;)

You're not alone. I had a chance to place very lucrative bets on whether Trump would win and passed them up without thinking twice. Imagine a $10,000 at even 100 to 1. Now, seems like such a small wager, but in October 2016, quite risky.

HappyGilmore says

mell says

How so? In Charlottesville he correctly made the distinction between those who protest the removal of the statues and the white supremacists. He wants to keep as many people united as possible except for those that truly want to divide. As a counterexample I can only shudder when I think of Obama's handling of the George Zimmerman case where the tapes where DELIBERATELY DOCTORED (cut and paste) to make look Zimmerman - who had previously fought for a homeless black man to get shelter - like a racist. And Obama went through with that narrative. It can't be anymore divisive to start a race war over a case that clearly wasn't racist.

I think this is the problem with Trumpism in general in that it encourages distrust and people to have their own "facts". When nobody can agree on truth and facts, it leads to very poor decision making. How can people come together when a large portion of th...

But how can you argue the doctoring of the tape?? This is a fact, not some right-wing fantasy, He said the guy "may be up to no good" at one time and they cut out everything in between and put it right next to "he's black". GZ may have been an overzealous one-man neighborhood patrol, heck call him a guy with issues, whatever, but he clearly wasn't a racist. NOTHING whatsoever indicated that the altercation had a racial motive.

HappyGilmore says

You had the Press Secretary blatantly lying about the size of the inauguration crowd, then Kellyanne stating that they have "their own facts" as if that's OK. That pretty much set the tone.

Fine, but that's a nothingburger compared to fanning the fire of racial divides and possible violence.

I just want to say that everything seems fine to me, in fact almost every thread was interesting today with good points, instead of a lot of mud slinging and whinging.

I'm not kissin' ass, I'm telling it like it is.

Goran_K says

mell says

Got laughed at when I suggested DT may be candidate, let alone win. Was very close to place 300:1 bet, unfortunately of course I also had doubts and thought no way so I lost out on 100K or so, but the following MAGA stock market redeemed the lost opportunity and then some ;)

You're not alone. I had a chance to place very lucrative bets on whether Trump would win and passed them up without thinking twice. Imagine a $10,000 at even 100 to 1. Now, seems like such a small wager, but in October 2016, quite risky.

Where can you wager that with 10k limits?

HappyGilmore says

mell says

Fine, but that's a nothingburger compared to fanning the fire of racial divides and possible violence.

I disagree---purposeful disregard for the truth is FAR, FAR worse, IMO.

Absolutely. If we’re not be honest and genuine, nothing matters

DoofusRicky says

Brother Goran I understand your reasons and indubitably they are yours to make however going back all of my years I have never seen a member's goodbye thread erased from a website.

Those who had the pleasure to actually see it before it was yanked would agree with me that there wasn't anything the least bit abusive in his goodbye. People have commented that he was a long time user and although I had never talked with him, I'm sure at least a few people here appreciated him sharing his investment insights.

I admit that I am probably quite naive about all the circumstances but how come he was not even allowed to say goodbye?

I wasn't the one who nuked that thread. I wouldn't nuke a "good bye" thread.

Goran_K says

I wasn't the one who nuked that thread. I wouldn't nuke a "good bye" thread.

He's right. I did it.

It's in the "about" post now: "Mic-drop" comments and posts are also instantly nuked the moment I see them. If you want to leave, leave. Public announcements of leaving are intended to be inflammatory and therefore are banned.

If you want stay and not talk about the other users then you are very welcome and I'm happy to read whatever you have to say.

Goran_K says

Not very many people get banned on here

Aside from actual robotic spam-bots, only one user was ever banned. And he came back and is still here, though I find I have to frequently delete his comments because they are about the other users.

I changed the "uncivil" link to "personal" to better reflect what it means.

It means that the comment was about the person instead of purely about the point they are making.

Patrick says

Goran_K says

Not very many people get banned on here

Aside from actual robotic spam-bots, only one user was ever banned. And he came back and is still here, though I find I have to frequently delete his comments because they are about the other users.

That sucks that he would disrespect The site like that

One would think that the inly resolution would be such an egregious offender, permanently. Put mods on constant watch for him

Patrick says

I changed the "uncivil" link to "personal" to better reflect what it means.

It means that the comment was about the person instead of purely about the point they are making

I want to say thank you. I know you put a lot of time and effort to provide a bunch of us deploables on both side of the aisle a free website .
Some people expect a Ferrari for free!!!!!

Maybe you should just allow banner ads or side ads-don't know how much they net?

That’s the spirit

APOCALYPSEFUCK_is_ADORABLE says

Right on, Poobah Pat!

Niceness Counts!

Remember, you fucking cunts, we're a family website!

Perma ban trouble-makers. Why waste precious time moderating their posts daily?

lostand confused says

Maybe you should just allow banner ads or side ads-don't know how much they net?

Thank you. Google ads pay shit, but maybe I'll find some other kind of ads.

anon_b9fbb says

Perma ban trouble-makers. Why waste precious time moderating their posts daily?

I don't need to ban them. If they find they can't make trouble, they won't. It does take time, so I have some moderators I trust.