Welcome to Thunderdome

My perceived vibe of the "america first" economic foreign policies was, "We're done sucking your dick with uneven trade agreements. You need us more than we need you."

GORDON wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 2:31 pm My perceived vibe of the "america first" economic foreign policies was, "We're done sucking your dick with uneven trade agreements. You need us more than we need you."

That was the message. But it's mostly wrong and dumb. Which, to me, makes America 1st selfish and non-cooperative.

2016 - "Watch Bush start a fucking war."

2025 - "Lol Trump won't even enter a war."

The only way this headline could be better would be by adding... "with their puppies."

Trump Has Now Deported Multiple U.S. Citizen Children With Cancer

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/trump ... r-AA1DEfMP

https://x.com/AGPamBondi/status/1917311265774727323

It's real.

Feels like that statement needs a "potentially" in there.

A good chunk of the country is saying "stop saving the drug abusers."

Leisher wrote: ↑Wed Apr 30, 2025 1:33 pm Feels like that statement needs a "potentially" in there.

Do 6 people take each pill? Was everyone in the US going to die before the end of this year if this had not happened?

TheCatt wrote: ↑Wed Apr 30, 2025 2:38 pm

Leisher wrote: ↑Wed Apr 30, 2025 1:33 pm Feels like that statement needs a "potentially" in there.

Do 6 people take each pill? Was everyone in the US going to die before the end of this year if this had not happened?

There are over 300M people in the U.S., not 119M.

Also, I went with "potentially" because I believe she's thinking of fentanyl in the liquid form.

Leisher wrote: ↑Wed Apr 30, 2025 3:21 pm There are over 300M people in the U.S., not 119M.

"Trump's first 100 days" How many days are in a year?

OK, she's not the only person with math issues

Leisher wrote: ↑Wed Apr 30, 2025 3:21 pm Also, I went with "potentially" because I believe she's thinking of fentanyl in the liquid form.

She said "pills"

TheCatt wrote: ↑Wed Apr 30, 2025 3:38 pm "Trump's first 100 days" How many days are in a year?

Educate me, because I don't see in that image where she makes any reference to lives per day or anything like that?

TheCatt wrote: ↑Wed Apr 30, 2025 3:38 pmShe said "pills"

I am aware, which is why I said "

I believe she's thinking of fentanyl in the liquid form

". It's a faux pas...I hope. We forgive faux pas, for the most part, or did you forget the past four years?

I assumed it was the New Math they started using during Obama, when they started describing programs as "this will save $X billion dollars" and not mention they meant over ten years.

Leisher wrote: ↑Wed Apr 30, 2025 3:55 pm Educate me, because I don't see in that image where she makes any reference to lives per day or anything like that?

She said in 100 days, they saved 119 million lives. There are 365 days in a year.

TheCatt wrote: ↑Wed Apr 30, 2025 4:40 pm

Leisher wrote: ↑Wed Apr 30, 2025 3:55 pm Educate me, because I don't see in that image where she makes any reference to lives per day or anything like that?

She said in 100 days, they saved 119 million lives. There are 365 days in a year.

"But who's on first?"

I'm on your side here Chief, but the issue with her statement doesn't involve math. It's her mistake of assuming pills laced with fentanyl are as much of a danger as liquid fentanyl AND not saying "potentially". The 100 days was simply about Trump's 100 days or she wouldn't even have said that number.

The rest of it is just guesstimates like ANYTHING. How many people will a nuke kill? Way too many variables, but the experts can give you an answer despite that. That's where her 119M comes from. Has nothing to do with days.

Leisher wrote: ↑Wed Apr 30, 2025 5:00 pm The rest of it is just guesstimates like ANYTHING. How many people will a nuke kill? Way too many variables, but the experts can give you an answer despite that. That's where her 119M comes from. Has nothing to do with days.

119M people in 100 days is an implied rate.

Well, F me, she's saved 78% of the USA now.
WTF?

TheCatt wrote: ↑Wed Apr 30, 2025 5:28 pm

Leisher wrote: ↑Wed Apr 30, 2025 5:00 pm The rest of it is just guesstimates like ANYTHING. How many people will a nuke kill? Way too many variables, but the experts can give you an answer despite that. That's where her 119M comes from. Has nothing to do with days.

119M people in 100 days is an implied rate.

Seriously, who the fuck is on first?

Sure, it's an implied rate based upon "expert" analysis. NOT saying her numbers are right. I'm saying some "expert" somewhere said that that much fentanyl in liquid form could kill X number of people given certain circumstances. That's what her number is based upon.

She's wrong, but not why you are saying she's wrong.

Leisher wrote: ↑Wed Apr 30, 2025 9:20 pm That's what her number is based upon.

OK, but it is still horrifically wrong. Also, there is 100% a rate there. 100 days, X amount of fentanyl, 1/3rd of America dead. 100 more days, X more fentanyl, killing the next 1/3rd of America.

TheCatt wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 3:50 pm OK, but it is still horrifically wrong.

Zero argument. I've always hated those types of numbers (used in any field) presented without explanation that they're "worst case".