Fueling the cycle of violence. This is what you keep getting wrong. Blaming Israel’s policies for the violence.
It’s in Hamas’ charter to kill Jews wherever they find them. Israel’s policies are largely irrelevant.
The New Lounge
- Thread starter hpnole
- Start date
It’s in Hamas’ charter to kill Jews wherever they find them. Israel’s policies are largely irrelevant.
You accuse me of misrepresenting you, but you ignored the key questions I asked: What’s your end goal? Do you want this war to end? Do you want people to stop dying? You didn’t answer—because those questions cut through the noise.
I’ve stayed balanced, addressed your points directly, and avoided personal attacks. You’ve done the opposite—dodging substance, twisting language, and leaning on insults. That’s not engagement, it’s deflection.
Calling “hostage swap” pro-Hamas is absurd—it’s standard diplomatic language. If that’s your bar for bias, you’re not debating in good faith.
You also keep referencing other people in this thread—like this is a team sport. I thought we were debating the best way forward in the Hamas-Israeli conflict, not trying to rally a cheering section.
I’m not here for likes or attaboys. I’m here because this matters. If you’re not interested in an honest conversation, just say so—but don’t pretend I’m the one avoiding it.
Change the subject. I watched a little Fox News yesterday (sorry Datt), and they were talking about all the people around the Biden team coming out saying how bad he was during his time as President. The people on Fox were acting surprised, saying with this info coming out "who was really running the country"...
I'm sitting there shaking my head, muttering "we knew this back in 2020."
I'm sitting there shaking my head, muttering "we knew this back in 2020."
You keep saying you’re operating in good faith. Yet you ask insulting questions like ‘Do you want people to stop dying?’
Taking offense at the term hostage swap isn’t absurd. It morally conflates a convicted terrorist with an innocent civilian. If that’s not morally complex enough for you, my apologies.
Right now my goal is for Hamas to surrender and release the hostages. Period.
Until then, the aftermath of the war is on the back burner. I’d like for Gaza to be self governing, but that’s probably not realistic. As you’ve said yourself it’s a “ radicalized” population.
You say your goal is for Hamas to surrender and release the hostages—fine. But then what? You’ve pushed everything else “to the back burner,” including what happens to the millions in Gaza, many with no ties to Hamas.
You say Gaza can’t govern itself and point to radicalization. So what’s the plan? Long-term occupation? Blockade forever? Forced displacement? If you reject diplomacy, rebuilding, and any form of Palestinian self-rule—what are you actually proposing?
And about that question—“Do you want people to stop dying?” I didn’t say Israelis or Palestinians. You assumed I meant one side. That assumption says more about how you’re seeing this than anything I said. The question stands: Do you want this to end? If so, how?
You pushed me earlier to go back and answer Ghost’s questions, and I did. Now that questions are pointed at you, they’re suddenly off-limits? You can’t change the rules when the spotlight’s on you. And stop relying on other people to bail you out when the argument slips—this isn’t a group project.
And just to be clear—I don’t see you or anyone here as someone to “one up.” I actually enjoy your posts outside this thread, and I even like some of the back and forth—when it doesn’t turn into shit slinging. I’ve stayed respectful, answered questions, and engaged directly. If that’s not good faith, show me where I’ve missed. I’m trying to talk through what a better path might actually look like.
Do you want people to stop dying is not a good faith question, it’s an insult disguised as a question.
First things first re: all your questions. Israel and the UN haven’t even laid out a legit plan yet, and I’m supposed to lay out a long term plan to avoid further badgering and self righteous grandstanding. Hard pass.
Calling “Do you want people to stop dying?” an insult says a lot. It’s a basic moral question—and if that feels threatening, maybe take a second look at the position you’re defending.
As for the rest: Israel and the UN haven’t laid out a long-term plan, so you won’t either? That’s not a response—it’s a dodge. We’ve moved past surface-level takes in this conversation. At this point, any real conversation has to involve nuance, context, and critical thinking.
And just to be clear—I was content walking away from this discussion last night. You’re the one who kept responding. So if you’re not in a place to have that kind of conversation—because you don’t know enough about the subject or just don’t want to think it through—that’s fine. But don’t act like avoiding the conversation is some kind of moral high ground.
Exactly. And they’ve been asking the same question for four years. For good reason, but Fox was more entertaining when Biden was in office. Some have lost all credibility with their Trump praise, like Fox’s in house moron Janeane Pirro. She’s not even trying anymore. Hannity never did.
That said, they’re no more ridiculous than the msm for the Dems. I’m not sure the Dems broke any laws with their Biden cover up. They weren’t under oath so no one will likely be held to account legally.
because you don’t know enough about the subject.
If that’s the type of nuance and context you’re advocating for, I think it’s time to bow out. Any criticism of your posts is deemed as personal attacks, while your posts ooze condescension like the above in bold.
It was fun until it wasn’t so no hard feelings. You’re just too exhausting to deal with.
Have a great weekend and as always Go Duke!
You accuse me of being condescending, but the moment you ran out of surface-level comebacks, you bailed and tried to reframe the entire discussion as some kind of personal attack.
You’ve spent this thread accusing me of bad faith, partisanship, and arrogance while dodging questions, leaning on group approval, and projecting every tactic you’ve used onto me. Now that you’ve been asked to go deeper—to actually think through what you’re defending—you’re walking away, pretending that tone is the problem.
Let’s be real: this didn’t get “too exhausting.” It just stopped being easy.
No hard feelings. Go Duke.
How's that any different from how they've almost always been, and how is it any different from you?
Sometimes things have to get worse before they can get better. If Trump is wrong though, I'll admit it. Unlike you libtards. Where was your criticism of Biden? So I frankly don't give a shit that you've lost 10% since January.
Go kick rocks for all I care.
Go kick rocks for all I care.
I don’t remember any quarterly financial reports when Joe was President. The tariffs have definitely been a jolt to the system, but hopefully it’s just a temporary downturn. The whole pt is to bring manufacturing jobs back to this country. High paying jobs that Dems don’t like cus it gets uneducated workers off of govt assistance.
So, if you’re going to suggest that Trump’s policies are a complete failure because the market has taken a downturn, you’re not operating in good faith but from a place of resentment and panic.
I cited nothing but my personal circumstances since January.
I'll ask again: Is this the "owning libtards" y'all voted for? How's all this winning working out for y'all so far?
And while we're at it, from Friday: How's that any different from how they've almost always been, and how is it any different from you?
Just like you mocked my Dad's death and the depression I experienced in the aftermath.
The market fluctuates. If it’s so traumatic that you compare it to a death in the family, I’d put the $ into something with zero risk.
No, no. I was comparing @Mac9192 's response. He had no empathy in either case and even used my reaction to my Dad's death in 2021 to mock me.
It's why he will forever be a rage-filled little man, even when his hero is in office.
My 403b and the kids' college accounts are all in low-risk, conservative investments. I've been contributing to the 403b since my 20s. We had the first college account set up right after our first kid was born in 2001, and shortly after the others' births in 2004 and 2009.
Woah now. You can think all you want about me, but I do have empathy for others, regardless of political beliefs. I'm a dad, been a husband, and have dealt with (and had) more struggles than I've ever brought up on here.
If you ever felt I've mocked you or the depression you dealt with after, I'm sincerely sorry.
We’ve already given examples of Trump’s policies that we have concerns about.
If you’ve already forgotten because that nuance doesn’t fit into your good/evil, black/ white mentality, that’s your problemo.
The old way of doing things was great for the elites and the stock market and our MNC’s overseas, but our manuf base has been hollowed out. This is a bold approach, and way too early to deem it a failure and start the “I told you so” bullsh- like you’re doing right now
You've thrown mental health jabs at me consistently ever since.
Apologies don't mean anything when they're just words you throw out there when it would reflect negatively on you. If your apology has any integrity behind it at all, it should be obvious moving forward. I won't be holding my breath.
You're really reaching here. I meant everything in my post above. You take the jabs I say about you and your takes here, and make that your general assumption of me. So by your opinion of me, I should assume you're full of shit about everything, and a horrible person. Guess what? I don't. I do think you're delusional with your political and some social beliefs, but I honestly think you're a decent person.
Your concerns have been mild and conditional, like GOP Congress members who make brief statements implying they have backbones, then fall in line to support him. You rally to defend him to the point @Mac9192 doesn't care at all that I'm losing money public educators have little chance of saving any other way. Y'all don't even pause to acknowledge what anyone is going through right now before ripping into President Biden and pointing everywhere but the present and the exact, real example in front of you.
Tariffs are complicated and it’s important to look at the history behind them. Trump seems to take inspiration from the McKinley-era playbook, but the U.S. economy back then looked nothing like it does now. There was no federal income tax, the government was largely funded by tariffs, and we weren’t deeply integrated into global supply chains. It’s also worth remembering what came next: the rise of Theodore Roosevelt and a broader populist wave that reshaped how government interacted with both industry and labor.
Tariffs can be useful, especially when targeted and strategic. There’s a legitimate case to be made for recalibrating trade with certain countries. But what’s missing in this current round is a coherent strategy. These aren’t being deployed in a measured, long-term framework—they’re framed as “reciprocal,” but really they’re a reaction to trade imbalances, many of which are rooted in structural realities: raw material exports, limited consumer markets, and weak purchasing power in a lot of these countries. They can’t import U.S. goods even if they wanted to.
And here’s the core issue: I don’t think these tariffs will bring jobs back in the way they’re being sold. If the goal was real onshoring, a better approach would’ve been a modest, across-the-board tariff—say, 10%—which is what he advertised during the campaign. Add a clear timeline with built-in escalation and give companies time to adapt. Pair that with real federal incentives and funding to support domestic manufacturing, and you’ve got a plan.
But that’s not what we’re seeing. This feels like a headline play more than an industrial policy. I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump walks this back soon, claims a few “renegotiated” deals as a win, and moves on—without making the structural changes needed to actually bring jobs home.
And I’ll be honest—I have personal concerns about all of this. Playing with the stock market—along with everything tied to it like retirement accounts, consumer confidence, and business investment—is playing with fire. You shake that too hard, and the fallout doesn’t just hit the donor class. It hits regular people. That’s a huge gamble politically, and if it backfires, there’s no easy way to spin it.
Tariffs can be useful, especially when targeted and strategic. There’s a legitimate case to be made for recalibrating trade with certain countries. But what’s missing in this current round is a coherent strategy. These aren’t being deployed in a measured, long-term framework—they’re framed as “reciprocal,” but really they’re a reaction to trade imbalances, many of which are rooted in structural realities: raw material exports, limited consumer markets, and weak purchasing power in a lot of these countries. They can’t import U.S. goods even if they wanted to.
And here’s the core issue: I don’t think these tariffs will bring jobs back in the way they’re being sold. If the goal was real onshoring, a better approach would’ve been a modest, across-the-board tariff—say, 10%—which is what he advertised during the campaign. Add a clear timeline with built-in escalation and give companies time to adapt. Pair that with real federal incentives and funding to support domestic manufacturing, and you’ve got a plan.
But that’s not what we’re seeing. This feels like a headline play more than an industrial policy. I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump walks this back soon, claims a few “renegotiated” deals as a win, and moves on—without making the structural changes needed to actually bring jobs home.
And I’ll be honest—I have personal concerns about all of this. Playing with the stock market—along with everything tied to it like retirement accounts, consumer confidence, and business investment—is playing with fire. You shake that too hard, and the fallout doesn’t just hit the donor class. It hits regular people. That’s a huge gamble politically, and if it backfires, there’s no easy way to spin it.
All I have to think about you is what you present here, and everything you say about me says I'm not a decent person. You accuse me of being dangerous to kids and that I shouldn't be allowed near them; you claim that I know everything I believe is a lie; you claim I support things deliberately designed to destroy the country. I could go on. I even call you out on your absolutism and extremism all the time and you double down every time.
All any of us have here are our words. Exercise some freakin control like an adult for once instead of using the language of a tantruming child at every turn.
Last edited:
You're right. I think you should look in the mirror too. But the fact you respond to my posts the way you are, maybe I'm also wrong about you being a decent person.
“What anyone is going through right now”. You don’t think the rest of us are worried about the market? Or that it hits the middle class the hardest? That some of our family members’ net worths have declined by as much as 20 % in little over two months? Trump and his team knew this would happen, are banking on its temporal nature, and if it gets much worse the Rep could take a shellacking in the midterms as Thor alluded to in his post.
All any of us have here are our words. I presented my personal example and look at the d-bag response I got. Y'all don't gaML about anyone outside your bubble. The rest of us are enemies, just like our President told you to believe.
I’d have preferred a more measured, gradual approach but that’s obviously not Trump’s style.
The incentive to bring jobs back home is obviously offset by lower stock prices. This is the part Trump and his team leave out. Companies have less money to reinvest in capital and the labor pool esp if stock prices continue to drop, when fear and risk aversion take over. Which throws us into a recessionary climate if not an actual one.
This from a guy who supported a Pres who literally called half the country garbage, whose party is run by a bunch of elitist a- hats who hate the values that made this nation great.
You show up after a few days with your tale of woe about your kids’ college fund, same kind of stuff we’re all dealing with at the moment we just keep our personal lives private, to each his own.
Cherry on top: you throw your usual bait at the end, the usual premature ejaculatory I told you sos so if anyone responds negatively, you can launch your usual, you don’t care about anyone diatribe.
Exactly—this is the piece that gets glossed over. You can’t push tariffs as a jobs strategy while ignoring the impact on markets. When stock prices drop, companies pull back—less capital investment, less hiring, more caution. That’s how you slide toward a recession, not a manufacturing boom.
If the goal is long-term onshoring, you need predictability and a clear framework. Shock moves grab headlines, but they don’t create stable jobs.
What does gaML mean? You forget sometimes that the rest of us don’t hang out with kids all day
90 day pause on tariffs. Market up 5% today. Insiders continue to make a killing.
Trump pauses tariffs for 90 days. Market up 5.5 % today. Almost back up to 40k so hope your 403b gets back to where it was.
Like KD said, we are all getting hit. We all voted for him knowing things might get a little rocky, but get better over time. Instead of just making the announcement about the loss of your investments, you do what we know you to do, which is take some cheap shot, then turn around and act like a victim.
You want to be treated serious, act like it. You're the teacher, not the kid.
So now we’re pausing the tariffs for 90 days—just because? This is so stupid. You can’t claim to be building a serious trade policy and then treat it like a PR stunt. No business, no foreign government, nobody is going to take this kind of whiplash approach seriously.
Tariffs—whether you’re for or against them—only work if they’re part of a clear, consistent strategy. You can’t roll them out one week, pause them the next, and expect anyone to adjust supply chains, negotiate deals, or make investment decisions in that kind of chaos.
And what—then we just do this all over again in 90 days? That’s not leadership, that’s just playing chicken with the economy.
Tariffs—whether you’re for or against them—only work if they’re part of a clear, consistent strategy. You can’t roll them out one week, pause them the next, and expect anyone to adjust supply chains, negotiate deals, or make investment decisions in that kind of chaos.
And what—then we just do this all over again in 90 days? That’s not leadership, that’s just playing chicken with the economy.
I deliberately use slang from a decade ago with kids. I am fueled by their groans.
I won't even use abbreviations of curse words because I've literally been suspended for it before. The g-a stands for "give a." It's the same as a pretty common abbreviation that starts with the same 2 letters.
"When there's blood in the streets, buy real estate."
Wild fluctuations put regular people through the gauntlet and consolidates money and power with the people who already have most of it. The income gap gets wider. Using money you already have to make more money isn't actual work and isn't primarily about skill. It's primarily about what you started with that morning. We shouldn't worship that. Not when it's clear that the rising tide is not raising all boats, that bigger and bigger boats end up capsizing other boats.
Using money made from one successful investment to fuel another is not work, according to your definition. It is work, and so is all the paperwork and stress that go along with it.I deliberately use slang from a decade ago with kids. I am fueled by their groans.
I won't even use abbreviations of curse words because I've literally been suspended for it before. The g-a stands for "give a." It's the same as a pretty common abbreviation that starts with the same 2 letters.
"When there's blood in the streets, buy real estate."
Wild fluctuations put regular people through the gauntlet and consolidates money and power with the people who already have most of it. The income gap gets wider. Using money you already have to make more money isn't actual work and isn't primarily about skill. It's primarily about what you started with that morning. We shouldn't worship that. Not when it's clear that the rising tide is not raising all boats, that bigger and bigger boats end up capsizing other boats.
I thought you’d be relieved that your kids’ college fund was only temporarily impacted. While Thor’s concerns about the long term impacts of this chaos are duly noted, your reduction of the topic to a childish meme is troubling.
Your points are valid, but the 10% base tariff is left in place. The reciprocal tariffs are on pause.
The small time investor will likely sit on his money as will small and medium businesses due to all the turbulence and uncertainty
The folks with money to burn are the ones who will cash in as they can afford more risk with all this chaos. Nothing ever changes
