Thread 41411085

We need straight kings to lead us

I'll be joining the "No Singhs" protest to get them out of my country now

>>41411085 (OP)
why would it cost 300mil to have a rally? america is a weird fuck ass country

>>41411259
Flying in and paying for people to attend

>>41411085 (OP)
>Exposing
This is public information, no? Why phrase it like that?

Anyway, America is a very capitalist country, money makes its way everywhere, so this kind of thing really isn't that shocking. Most "grass roots" right wing movements have just as much money and power behind them (Musk and Thiel are both billionaires with ties to the current government), a fact that right wingers will readily acknowledge, and yet you don't see people going around saying that the MAGA movement was inorganic.

>>41411479
>This is public information, no? Why phrase it like that?
Not OP, but it's because most people have no idea who is funding and shaping their action plans, or that they might be being used for agitprop by rich actors with agendas. They can easily spot it in the opposing side if pressed, but not for themselves.
Chomsky was 100% correct on manufactured consensus, and we're both lucky and unlucky to be living in a time where it's not really possible anymore.

>source: inner rectum
This website is so fucking stupid lmfao

I made a chart, that means it's real guys.
>>41411259
Actually, it cost 300 billion! I'll post the chart for it in a second.

Thiel and his friends literally bought the VP (likely future president), Elon Musk bought himself to be 2nd in command. Soros hasn't spent anywhere near that money on all projects in the past decade, but right-wingers literally believe anything.

>>41411561
>reee this publicly available information that NGOs are required to disclose for tax purposes is sooo faaaake you can't just make a table you have to post your heckin sourcerinos
Go back, hun

>>41411596
Post the source then, ivan

>>41411588
Partisan politics have done a very good job of convincing retards to root for controlled opposition.

>>41411596
Why is asking for a sorce so unreasonable? You should be skeptical of what you read online.

>>41411602
You get to do the aggregation yourself, but the source is the No Kings partners list (https://www.nokings.org/partners) joined onto both the IRS NGO tax lookup (https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/) and the grants databases for each funder on the list. For instance, here's the OSF grant database: https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/grants/past

>I'm going to pretend I don't know what aggregation is
Yes, it's plainly aware there's a retarded slice of the progressive left that intentionally pretends not to understand anything. It's not cute, and it's partly why you lost.

>>41411714
>do my research for me
I accept your concession.
Democrats lost almost entirely due to inflation and an unbelievably uncharismatic candidate who refused to distance herself one iota from an unbelievably unpopular president, and even then it was a difference of <200k votes. Very, very few Democrats are at all progressive.

>>41411714
Not him, but thank you for posting links. I already knew this stuff, but it's good to know that you're dealing with someone else who is willing to do their research.

>You get to do the aggregation yourself
You mean read the data? When I see the word "aggregation" in a context like this, I typically take it to mean the gathering of data. But you clearly don't mean that, so I'm somewhat confused.

>>I'm going to pretend I don't know what aggregation is
I find it odd that you're going after him for something that he didn't actually do.

>and it's partly why you lost.
Polling data seems to suggest that the Dems lost because they failed to energize their base through their policy, not because people thought leftists acted annoying.

>>41411815
>asked for sources
>gets sources
>muh concession
>also we just lost because of, like, messaging, we don't actually have to change anything of substance
Lol. Keep doing and thinking exactly that, pretty please

>>41411857
>messaging
Who is he talking to? Nobody said that lmfao what

>>41411857
There's no paper or essay or even twitter post tracing the data because it doesn't exist and is required for your source to be at all valid.

>>41411259
300 million on advertising is just average america moment

>>41411085 (OP)
in the absence of rainbow capitalism they're desperately trying to keep the left docile and pliable through other means

>>41411259
democrats are astroturfed… did you think reddit was real life?

>>41411836
>I find it odd that you're going after him for something that he didn't actually do.
Except they did it right afterward (>>41411815, >>41411887), because of course they did, because they can't help themselves. Consider it a form of shot-calling, an early prediction that increases confidence once it comes true.
>You mean read the data?
Aggregation here means reading the data for each partner and then grouping and summing the amounts per the contributing NGO. Think of it like a SQL query.
>not because people thought leftists acted annoying.
I'd point to polling that shows dems lost a historically reliable demographic (young men) because they perceive the dems to be shrill scolding Karens, but as I mentioned to the other anon: if I'm right, you acting on your conclusion helps me politically, so carry on.

>>41411836
The difference between a source and a link to where a page where you may be able to find that information should be incredibly obvious. Obviously, he never ran the numbers, you never ran the numbers, nobody did. If anyone did, this could actually make news outside hyper-partisan conservative media where anything can be made up whole cloth.

>>41412014
>if you have a source showing 2 apples, and a source showing 3 oranges, you need a source to conclude 5 fruits
This is you, btw

why would you fund a rally?
it's people walking down a street

>>41412031
Einstein predicted my exact birthdate, it’s in the library somewhere, go read all the books until you find it

>>41412078
People need food, water, and signs. It was the 2nd largest turnout in protests on single day in the US. That said, if you believe conservatives, especially without giving sources, you shouldn't try your hand at politics.

>>41412079
Cool, all Einstein's works are in trasnscript form, and basic combo regex with all date formats can parse them all in under 10 minutes. Your whataboutism is getting more and more retarded. If you ask where your car keys are, and I tell you it's on the table, are you going to bemoan having to search a 1 trillion molecules of the table, or every table in existence including the one in your kitchen?

Like it's so embarrasing for you.

>>41412132
It's not one of his works, it was a note that he put in a book. You can go find it. Idgaf if you don't want to do the work yourself.

>>41411085 (OP)
i just assume anything that guy says is untrue desu

>>41412140
Oh cool, well Google books scans that stuff too, so it's fine. Luckily for you, the NGO funding search space is nowhere near as convoluted. Also good luck finding your car keys with that electron microscope. And you wonder why (or even if) people think you're insufferable lol.

>>41412132
>>41412031
>>41411921
>>41412159
>go run all these numbers for me, it'll only take several hours
>no, we can't and haven't done it, but we believe it
yawn

>>41411259
The country that celebrates the Boston Tea party (deliberate destruction of private property) clutches pearls about old NPR grandmas protesting down at the local strip mall.

>>41412182
>I need a single source
>the single source will be a list of links that resolve precisely to the expanded set of links already given in-thread
The funny thing is, even if we assume your viewpoint here, that this is some bad-faith thing, you still lose here pragmatically. The info is released in a climate where people are inclined to believe it because of the current NGO landscape, and countering it effectively it requires you to actually run the calculation anyway.
So again, keep doing what you're doing, it's net helpful to me

>>41411259
>why would it cost 300mil to have a rally?
That's how much the repairs cost after the riots starting at 4pm conclude.

How many protests have been funded by the CIA around the world for the last 80 years?

Only now do Ameircans complain about it, now that it comes home to roost.

The only language they understand is hypocrisy.

>>41412273
>we right-wingers easily fall for disinfo
wait really?

>>41411921
>I'd point to polling that shows dems lost a historically reliable demographic (young men)
Are they? I always got the impression they leaned right. Regardless, if you've been in left-wing circles, it's not exactly a secret that people are sick of people like Biden and Harris.

>if I'm right, you acting on your conclusion helps me politically, so carry on.
For what it's worth, I'm an independent centrist, and probably align closer with you on trans issues than I do most people here. I just resent idea that the shenanigans the Dems get up to are in any way exclusive to them. Republicans do this all day every day, but blinks an eye when they do it.

>>41412348
Hey, it's your fever dream script I'm working with, which makes me a malicious actor, not a retarded actor, with no meaningful distinction between the two in terms of outcome. But hey I get it, anime smugposting is cathartic and so much easier than actually having to understand how to be effective

>>41412372
What do you suggest they do?

>>41412385
Not sperg out like a retard on every square centimeter of claim in arguments, for one. Epistemic rabbit-holing isn't cost effective generally, and it makes them look and sound like morons when it's done so trivially.
Especially when the cost of proof-of-wrong is so low and the benefit of finding it is so high.

Even if they doubt the claim, most people can entertain the hypothetical and work with that, and still shape whatever arguments they desire.

>>41412432
>Not sperg out like a retard on every square centimeter of claim in arguments, for one.
I agree, but at the same time, this isn't a behavior exclusive to libs; you have the goddamn Whitehouse posting AI slop of caca being sprayed on them. So I doubt that this is an issue of rhetorical conduct.

>>41412485
>on them
I mean on the NMK protestors. Sorry, I'm phoneposting.

>>41412485
For sure, but the practical difference is that the dudes in the white house don't have to win back power and the dudes outside the white house do. Inertia is real.

>>41412432
>>41412485
>4chan arguments matter

>>41412508
I thought you said the dems lost the election because of their behavior? Would this not apply to the republicans now? We're coming up on an election year after all.

>>41412372
>>41412432
what can be said without evidence can be dismissed without evidence

>>41412540
>2025
>mass /pol/ containment breach
>mass meme warfare containment breach
>4chan arguments don't matter
Lol.
I'm not saying that the voter who's going to flip the deciding state is reading this thread. But per your own admission earlier in thread, the margins are super tightly narrow, and the odds of them being shitposters on internet cesspits are increasing with time.

>>41412571
4chan is a dying wholly irrelevant website. You are hopelessly lost lol.

>>41412567
>what can be said without evidence can be dismissed without evidence
That's a limited heuristic for material debate, not a functioning praxis for nation scale politics. To state it plainly, that's a losing prognosis.
>I thought you said the dems lost the election because of their behavior? Would this not apply to the republicans now? We're coming up on an election year after all.
I may. Depends on what voters decide they value. But even then, when and for how long? It took 15ish years and 2 additional generations becoming adults for behavior to turn on dems.
>>41412596
My nigger, we are living in a moment where the absolute craziest lab-grown ideas of this website are being real-time mainstreamed in culture, on both extremes.
You can be unconvinced, that's fine, because as stated prior, your mistake there also helps me immensely.

>>41412563
Missed the quote, see >>41412640
Also
>*It may

I still don't get why people hype Soros up so much. Isn't his net worth only like $5 billion? Compared to Elon's ~$500 billion, Soros may as well be in the little leagues. Unless you're telling me that Despite the sheer disadvantage that Soros is able to outfund and outwit the rightwing billionaires which I find incredibly funny.

>>41412640
>you raise a good point, but retards won't buy it
lol. actually, you're right, 4chan is super important. keep spending your days here. you're sure to bring out the non-maga conservative movement somehow.
>>41412679
conservatives aren't known for questioning anything

>>41412696
>lol. actually, you're right
Glad you could own up to it desu. Keep that up and you might be able to break out of the smugposting irony shell too!

>>41411815
HEY YOU I KNOW YOU. YOU WERE THE ANON THAT WAS FLIRTING WITH ME IN FIT

fuck off with these screenshots, if I wanted to go on twitter I'd go on twitter

>>41412640
>It took 15ish years and 2 additional generations becoming adults for behavior to turn on dems.
No it didn't? We've had exactly as many republican presidents in the 20th century as we have democrats, and one of those democrats was elected as recently as five years ago. And it's not like Trump won by a landslide either time he was elected, both times he won by relatively thin margins. Hell, the first time was so close that the electoral college was the deciding factor.

>My nigger, we are living in a moment where the absolute craziest lab-grown ideas of this website are being real-time mainstreamed in culture, on both extremes.
Please elaborate, because from my understanding, 4chan peaked in cultural relevance a decade ago and has since steadily been eclipsed by Twitter, which at this point influences us more that we do them.

>>41412837
>>It took 15ish years and 2 additional generations becoming adults for behavior to turn on dems.
By "behavior turning on dems" here, I'm not necessarily referring to Republic electoral losses, but to major demographic shifts that may (likely will) effect decades to come. This includes young men shifting +15 to the right all at once, and from Obama to current year, blacks shifting +20(!) and latinos shifting +15.
The shift is so potentially consequential that Ruy Texiera (who's a dem demographer who predicted a decade of Dem control before Obama) published a book predicting the complete opposite, a long political decade or more of conservatism.
So whatever the cause, if you're the dems, you've probably got the same shape of fight as the R's had in 2009.
>steadily been eclipsed by Twitter
This may be true but is a hyper-recent phenomena in terms of the topics being discussed
>4chan peaked in cultural relevance a decade ago
And yet the most notable mind viruses of this website (whether truscum/tucute, pup play, furry ABDL, gassing the jews, globohomo, etc) are loose and getting actual attention and engagement by normies.

>>41412132
>>41412159
moid brain replies. show me your crustacean stickers.

>>41413052
I'm male, big surprise

I believe AOC will be the next President.
Dems got more voter registrations in June.
The only way is up!

>>41413084
If they run AOC every male democrat under 6' is going to switch parties

>>41412978
>but to major demographic shifts that may (likely will) effect decades to come.
Maybe. I'll have to look into it myself more.

>whether truscum/tucute, pup play, furry ABDL, gassing the jews, globohomo, etc
None of those things came from 4chan, and as someone who was around back then, it felt like half of it was being pushed on us from the outside in. You could argue that they spread through 4chan, but even then, that's 4chan at its peak. At this point, I can't think of anything of any real cultural significance that I saw on 4chan first.

>>41413084
What's this in response to?

>>41413084
(I'm >>41413393) Also, for what it's worth, the two parties are still about as large as eachother. Over a million new members over a year sounds impressive until you do the math and realize that even if the republican party continued its current growth rate and the democratic party also shrunk by the exact same amount the republican party grew, it would still take the rest of Trump's term for there to be more republicans than democrats, and even longer to invert the 45/38 ration we have as of this year.

But beyond that, elections aren't decided by party membership. If that were the case, Trump wouldn't be in office right now. They're decided by swing voters in swing states.