Twitter is better

[headshuck]

I dunno. If Biden doesn’t run for whatever reason, I’d like to see Harris debate all the other Democratic candidates rather than be told who to vote for.

[BobDole]

7 minutes ago, headshuck said:

I dunno. If Biden doesn’t run for whatever reason, I’d like to see Harris debate all the other Democratic candidates rather than be told who to vote for.

I'm not against debates between same party candidates, those are a little more productive. Debates between different parties are progressively getting worse and worse. Very few people are swayed by the debates and have already declared a winner before it starts.

[VakAttack]

34 minutes ago, BobDole said:

I'm not against debates between same party candidates, those are a little more productive. Debates between different parties are progressively getting worse and worse. Very few people are swayed by the debates and have already declared a winner before it starts.

You're right, but that says more about the viewership than the format, unfortunately.  

[WrestlingRasta]

1 hour ago, mspart said:

 

Ok, got it.   If a person has WR's seal of approval, legit candidate.   Otherwise, he/she doesn't belong, not legit, go home not worth taking anyone's time.   You can't take me seriously?   That's your opinion.   But for my part it is difficult to take someone serious that refuses to acknowledge that RFK Jr IS a candidate for the Democratic nomination.   Here's a tip:  When someone does all the paperwork necessary to become a presidential candidate, they are a legit presidential candidate.   It doesn't matter if you approve or not.  

To your tip for me:  I knew nothing about Clinton when he was running.   Hick from AK is all I knew.   Therefore, he was not a legitimate candidate if I go by your philosophy.    Funny thing that he won eh?  And he was not the front runner at the beginning because "who the heck was he".  

Here's the deal and the optics:   Joe won't debate.   RFK Jr will debate.   Who's afraid of who?   Why won't Joe debate, and the many follow up questions from that.  

I am not a RFK Jr acolyte.   I would prefer Biden win the nomination.   He's as weak as it gets.   I think in the end he won't be the nominee.   It will be like Lyndon Johnson, just not enough support.   He's running on "Bidenomics" and 34% of the people polled approve of his handling of the economy.   There is no there there.   And no one even on the left wants Biden for a 2nd term.   I'm guessing he will bow out and Newsome and some other Ds will take his place.   I'll bet they would be happy and excited to debate RFK Jr and wipe the stage with him.    

I will be enjoying the 4th of July with my family.   I wish you a Happy 4th of July as well. 

mspart 

You really are not very good at this. 

There are a lot of tips to be offered here, let me start with tip #1: you should just stop on this subject now. You're not doing yourself any favors.

Tip#2: Stick to what I said, not what I didn't say.   

But for my part it is difficult to take someone serious that refuses to acknowledge that RFK Jr IS a candidate for the Democratic nomination.   Here's a tip:  When someone does all the paperwork necessary to become a presidential candidate, they are a legit presidential candidate.   It doesn't matter if you approve or not.  

I never said RFK is not an official candidate who didn't turn in his paperwork.  In fact my initial statement about him made zero mention of his Presidential candidate, and my points about him have had absolutely nothing to do with whether he did or did not file.  You brought in bona fide candidate, and I agreed he is not a bona fide candidate, in fact even mentioning I would not be a bona fide candidate even if I declared to be.  The fun part of that is, if you look up bona fide, you will see words like 'sincere', 'without intent to deceive'.   Guess what words you won't find.....'official', 'paperwork', 'declared'.   Now, maybe you realized that, and that's why you started twisting it in to claiming I was denying he officially had declared himself a candidate.  Or-maybe you did actually look into his past, and history, and realize what a POS he is, and had to acknowledge he isnt' to be taken seriously, but are just incapable so you had to do some twisting of words.  I don't know.  I'm not sure what it is that goes on in that mind of yours, but it is interesting.

 

Tip#3: Remember which side of the argument you are on when you are arguing. (we may have a whole new 'dumbest thing you have ever said here')

I knew nothing about Clinton when he was running.   Hick from AK is all I knew.   Therefore, he was not a legitimate candidate if I go by your philosophy. 

Listen closely here Sparty so you can follow me: YOU ARE THE ONE SAYING YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT RFKjr OTHER THAN HE IS SR'S SON.  I am saying I know a lot about him, and that is why I'm saying he's not to be taken seriously.  (Again, I never used the word legitimate.  Please review tip #2 before proceeding)

And finally tip #4: Dude, lose your hard on for Biden.  I'm not a fan either, but wow.  It's not healthy.

I would prefer Biden win the nomination.   He's as weak as it gets.   I think in the end he won't be the nominee.   It will be like Lyndon Johnson, just not enough support.   He's running on "Bidenomics" and 34% of the people polled approve of his handling of the economy.   There is no there there.   And no one even on the left wants Biden for a 2nd term. 

While yes, there has been discussion in this thread about Biden/RFK, my initial comment, which you responded to, had nothing to do with Biden vs RFK in anything.  It was strictly about RFK.  I made that clear again, I'm talking about RFK.  Yet, you have typed the name Biden 11 times, not including 'Bidenomics', while twisting things I did not say in regard to RFK.   Seriously dum dum......let it go limp.   I worry about you.

[WrestlingRasta]

37 minutes ago, BobDole said:

I'm not against debates between same party candidates, those are a little more productive. Debates between different parties are progressively getting worse and worse. Very few people are swayed by the debates and have already declared a winner before it starts.

Debates were an important piece when people's source of information was one TV in the house and the local newspaper on your doorstep.   Today people are rarely swayed by debates because their positions and character are already well known.  Or at least, discussed heavily.   "well known" depends on how much of that discussion is accurate.

[Offthemat]

I think they should have the debates before the voting starts. 

[mspart]

2 hours ago, WrestlingRasta said:

You really are not very good at this. 

There are a lot of tips to be offered here, let me start with tip #1: you should just stop on this subject now. You're not doing yourself any favors.   I say the same for you.  You are arguing a man should not be able to debate because you can't stand him.   See below.   That is an untenable position.  

Tip#2: Stick to what I said, not what I didn't say.   

But for my part it is difficult to take someone serious that refuses to acknowledge that RFK Jr IS a candidate for the Democratic nomination.   Here's a tip:  When someone does all the paperwork necessary to become a presidential candidate, they are a legit presidential candidate.   It doesn't matter if you approve or not.  

I never said RFK is not an official candidate who didn't turn in his paperwork.  In fact my initial statement about him made zero mention of his Presidential candidate, and my points about him have had absolutely nothing to do with whether he did or did not file.  You brought in bona fide candidate, and I agreed he is not a bona fide candidate, in fact even mentioning I would not be a bona fide candidate even if I declared to be.  The fun part of that is, if you look up bona fide, you will see words like 'sincere', 'without intent to deceive'.   Guess what words you won't find.....'official', 'paperwork', 'declared'.   Now, maybe you realized that, and that's why you started twisting it in to claiming I was denying he officially had declared himself a candidate.  Or-maybe you did actually look into his past, and history, and realize what a POS he is, and had to acknowledge he isnt' to be taken seriously, but are just incapable so you had to do some twisting of words.  I don't know.  I'm not sure what it is that goes on in that mind of yours, but it is interesting.

Sticking with what you said, "He’s (JFK Jr.) not worthy of a debate."   So I am supposed to take from this you feel he is a legitimate candidate with no legitimacy for a debate with the other contender?   How am I supposed to read this?  Exactly as I did.   Tip for you - say what you mean and don't try to weasel out of your words.  You do not consider him a legitimate candidate because you hate his guts and he is not worthy to debate in your opinion.  All I am saying is he is a legitimate candidate which makes him worthy of being on a debate stage with the other candidates.   I'm not sure what you are reading but you are not reading that.  I cannot make it any clearer.  

Tip#3: Remember which side of the argument you are on when you are arguing. (we may have a whole new 'dumbest thing you have ever said here')

I knew nothing about Clinton when he was running.   Hick from AK is all I knew.   Therefore, he was not a legitimate candidate if I go by your philosophy. 

I am arguing your point (I'm really surprised I have to explain this) that can't say anything about RFK Jr because I don't know anything about him.   I counter with no one knew Clinton when he started.  But he won.   So it didn't matter that no one knew of him.   People came to know him.   Would you not expect the same to be the case as the race continues?   You don't seem to be tracking here.   I am arguing everything you put out and you are trying to say I'm changing topics.   If I can't put out relevant examples to counter your arguments, you have some strange rules for engagement.  

Listen closely here Sparty so you can follow me: YOU ARE THE ONE SAYING YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT RFKjr OTHER THAN HE IS SR'S SON.  I am saying I know a lot about him, and that is why I'm saying he's not to be taken seriously.  (Again, I never used the word legitimate.  Please review tip #2 before proceeding)

Sparty - That cute.   It really carries your message.  So I should accept that RFK Jr shouldn't be allowed on the debate stage because he's not worthy and you can't stand his guts.   I have to say, I don't accept that as a legitimate argument.  

And finally tip #4: Dude, lose your hard on for Biden.  I'm not a fan either, but wow.  It's not healthy.

Where do you get that from?   You continue to say I am taking things out of context and twisting your words.   You are just plain making up stuff now.   Nowhere did I say Biden should win the next Presidential election.   I said, and again, I'm just surprised I have to repeat this, he should win the D nomination.  Because he is the worst possible D candidate.  He has no support so he should lose a general election.   Where does your assertion come from then?  Only you know. 

I would prefer Biden win the nomination.   He's as weak as it gets.   I think in the end he won't be the nominee.   It will be like Lyndon Johnson, just not enough support.   He's running on "Bidenomics" and 34% of the people polled approve of his handling of the economy.   There is no there there.   And no one even on the left wants Biden for a 2nd term. 

How can this be construed as I'm in love with Biden.   Only in your mind. 

While yes, there has been discussion in this thread about Biden/RFK, my initial comment, which you responded to, had nothing to do with Biden vs RFK in anything.  It was strictly about RFK.  I made that clear again, I'm talking about RFK.  Yet, you have typed the name Biden 11 times, not including 'Bidenomics', while twisting things I did not say in regard to RFK.   Seriously dum dum......let it go limp.   I worry about you.

I do not appreciate your sesxual innuendos here WR.   I have not and will not treat you or anyone else that way.   It demonstrates the weakness you feel in your arguments that you feel you have to disparage me in such a vulgar way.  That is my opinion. 

So from the beginning of this, you took umbrage that I said RFK Jr should debate Biden.   You said he is a no good ###$#$@#%@#$@%# and that he is not worthy to debate.   So I surmise you do not think he is a legitimate candidate.   What else am I to gather from your tirade about him?   You are the one not making any sense here.   I have addressed just about everything you have said and you say I'm am changing the subject and taking things out of context.   I think you are too invested in your desire that RFK Jr not be in the race.   I have addressed what you have written just like I have in this post.   Bringing up legitimate examples is apparently out of bounds.   That's just plain weird.   I appreciate your feigned worry about me.   Really there is no need.  

 

Responses in RED.   This is my last post on this little argument.   You clearly are steeped your opinion as am I.   I feel RFK Jr should debate Biden and you don't.   I think that sums this up nicely. 

mspart

[mspart]

2 hours ago, Offthemat said:

I think they should have the debates before the voting starts. 

Yes, the debates should end before voting begins.   This was not an issue before early voting became a thing.   Vote on the day of the vote.   That way you have all the info. 

mspart

[WrestlingRasta]

Correct, I do not think a man whose life has consistently and throughout revolved around lies, deceit, drug dealing, drug addiction, physical abuse, and psychological abuse, is worthy of a presidential debate. You do. We finally have an agreement on something.  (Except I think you need to review who first identified and replied to whom in our chat, and who initiated any kind of talk about debates in our little chat. I thought I told you to review tip #2 before proceeding!!)
 

The funny thing is; you believe that within your defending the man I described above (all facts no opinion) you’re saying something about me. 
 

Sweet dreams dum dum. 

Edited July 1, 2023 by WrestlingRasta

[jross]

I will listen to RFK Jr and consider him even though we don’t agree on all issues.  

[WrestlingRasta]

Listening is good. But which is a better indicator of one’s character and values…..something they say on camera,  or a lifetime of actions involving lies, deceit, and abusive activity?

[Offthemat]

5 hours ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Listening is good. But which is a better indicator of one’s character and values…..something they say on camera,  or a lifetime of actions involving lies, deceit, and abusive activity?

And who they take showers with. 

[Plasmodium]

Musk says Twitter is getting scraped too much, so they are limiting account activity(including paid) and requiring an account to view any tweets.  Decent chance that is a lie and they are running out of money to pay for scale, which would indicate impending collapse.

[Wrestleknownothing]

26 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

Musk says Twitter is getting scraped too much, so they are limiting account activity(including paid) and requiring an account to view any tweets.  Decent chance that is a lie and they are running out of money to pay for scale, which would indicate impending collapse.

Well that explains why I can't see tweets anymore, but I am less confident than you about the reason. It makes sense to cut guys like me off. I lurk, but earn them no revenue and don't count toward their monetizable users that help sell adds. Cut me off and see if I subscribe. I won't, but some like me will.

[VakAttack]

Big day for the "Twitter is better" thread!

[headshuck]

Imagine the daily onslaught of denial of service attacks they must deal with including our own government organizations?

[headshuck]

[GreatWhiteNorth]

5 hours ago, headshuck said:

Imagine the daily onslaught of denial of service attacks they must deal with including our own government organizations?

The DDoS service attacks? Like the ones that attack every internet service worldwide regularlyy? Yes. That is part of providing a public internet service - dealing with it is a cost just like electricity. Can't do business online without it.

BUT slow down on the 'our own government organizations' part - I hope you aren't implying any of our government agencies are attacking Twitter. That would be crazy talk. (Like, seriously tin hat, cabin in the woods, bat shit crazy.)

[Le duke]

Why would the USGOV harm Twitter in any way?

It’s an intel goldmine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GreatWhiteNorth]

3 hours ago, headshuck said:

Ahhh - so the point is that a 40+ billion cloud company is "hard" to run?

I'm not at all sure who could be 'surprised' by that. The answer = absolutely nobody.

 

[billyhoyle]

Ok, so twitter is clearly unusable in its current form.  I'm surprised by how incompetent Musk has been running this company.  

 

Do we all plan to just transition to the platform that Meta will release soon if things don't improve? 

[billyhoyle]

14 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Well that explains why I can't see tweets anymore, but I am less confident than you about the reason. It makes sense to cut guys like me off. I lurk, but earn them no revenue and don't count toward their monetizable users that help sell adds. Cut me off and see if I subscribe. I won't, but some like me will.

This isn't a logical move to increase revenue.  The people who subscribe do so to increase eyeballs on their content.  I imagine that has just dropped significantly-if anything fewer people will subscribe because the analytics for their tweets are about to get much much worse.  

[headshuck]

Interesting. Elon stepped on a rattlesnake.

[VakAttack]

LOLOLOL. Sure he did man.  The site was virtually unusable (again) but it was actually a GOOD thing.  War is peace.  Freedom is slavery.  Ignorance is strength. 

[jross]

20 hours ago, Plasmodium said:

Musk says Twitter is getting scraped too much, so they are limiting account activity(including paid) and requiring an account to view any tweets.  Decent chance that is a lie and they are running out of money to pay for scale, which would indicate impending collapse.

Is 'running out of money' and 'pending collapse' wishful thinking?  Twitter was roughly break even in April. 

Musk is winning his goal for Twitter: it is the best source for truth, timely and more accurate than big news, and less censored.