Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 464: Hell-th Care

(+) Yeah! (+)

scarletspeed7 posted...

Nothing about your posting history would suggest there has ever been a single humorous word uttered in any sentence you've ever made. The difference between that and your standard posts is negligible at best.

oh, please. Read other topics.

LightningStrikes posted...

Well, the UK Deputy Prime Minister (who is also the Housing Minister) has just resigned over seemingly accidental failure to pay the correct amount of tax on a house she bought. This is very bad as she was very much from the left and the most prominent left wing member of government at the front of a lot of the actually good stuff its doing and largely opposed to the bad stuff its doing. She was also seen as the heir apparent to Starmer so thats done. And its going to be an enormous boost to the far right as well.

The British culture of resigning at the drop of a hat feels really weird to me. The Tories had 5 prime ministers from 2010 to 2024 before they lost an election. So 4 successive prime ministers resigned without losing an election.

Metal_DK posted...

oh, please. Read other topics.

You mean the others where you spout the same overused blah blah blah about the 2007 blah blah of blah blah?

scarletspeed7 posted...

You mean the others where you spout the same overused blah blah blah about the 2007 blah blah of blah blah?

i dont in plenty of topics. The only reason why i post it here so much is because social media is the number one issue with the current state of affairs politically.

hold up, are we SURE bro is real?

look at the timing of posts 95-97.

95 was made at 6:48am
96 was made at 9:46am, a full three hours after the most recent post in the topic.
97 was made at 9:47am, one minute after 96.

Are we absolutely sure bro is real? Did he just happen to be spamming refresh on the topic (which had no posts for three hours), see post 96, and reply that quickly? Or is there some other possible, "less-real" magic at play here?

Or maybe I'm just on gamefaqs at work on a friday?

bots don't have jobs, silly

HeroicCrono posted...

The British culture of resigning at the drop of a hat feels really weird to me. The Tories had 5 prime ministers from 2010 to 2024 before they lost an election. So 4 successive prime ministers resigned without losing an election.

These are somewhat different. In the UK (and other countries) there is a ministerial code you are expected to resign if you are in breach of. The latter half of the Tories last government was full of them massively flaunting this and trying to change it to get around it though. As for the revolving door of Prime Ministers, all of those were political moves. Something happened and they realised the best way to win the election was to ditch the leader. Which Labour are likely to do in a few years.

This is not just a UK thing by the way, its most democracies. Of course Japan has had many short lived PMs. Ireland right now actually has a rotating premiership as part of the coalition deal. The US is the exception with having fixed terms not the norm. Although interestingly Norway also has fixed terms despite being a parliamentary system which I did not know.

Also, in addition to the Deputy PM stepping down theres been a cabinet reshuffle which makes sense as a political strategy in light of that (centrist flooding the zone) but some of the decisions are very strange? Notably demoting the foreign secretary who basically had Trump wrapped around his finger. Very odd but I wont get into the weeds of it unless Sheep turns up.

If the Democrats run in 2028 on the platform that social media is bad, they might be able to actually win. They would have to make it pretty much their only issue. They need a paradigm shift and this would be it.

The problem is apparently people dont care and dont want to admit to themselves that they are addicted.

People are starting to realize social media makes them miserable, but they cant stop

Cupcake2006 posted...

Did he just happen to be spamming refresh on the topic

Yes. Metal DK obviously suffers from a severe internet addiction problem. That's also why he's so obsessed with the idea that the modern internet is the biggest problem with society; he's just projecting his own issues on the rest of the world.

LightningStrikes posted...

These are somewhat different. In the UK (and other countries) there is a ministerial code you are expected to resign if you are in breach of. The latter half of the Tories last government was full of them massively flaunting this and trying to change it to get around it though. As for the revolving door of Prime Ministers, all of those were political moves. Something happened and they realised the best way to win the election was to ditch the leader. Which Labour are likely to do in a few years.

This is not just a UK thing by the way, its most democracies. Of course Japan has had many short lived PMs. Ireland right now actually has a rotating premiership as part of the coalition deal. The US is the exception with having fixed terms not the norm. Although interestingly Norway also has fixed terms despite being a parliamentary system which I did not know.

Also, in addition to the Deputy PM stepping down theres been a cabinet reshuffle which makes sense as a political strategy in light of that (centrist flooding the zone) but some of the decisions are very strange? Notably demoting the foreign secretary who basically had Trump wrapped around his finger. Very odd but I wont get into the weeds of it unless Sheep turns up.

Do you think the UK would have shorter periods where a party is continuously in power if PMs had to continue until they lost an election (or maybe a better way of putting this - if a PM quitting automatically triggered a general election)? The last two were 13 and 14 years, which feels very long to me. The longest the US has had in recent decades was 12, from 1980-1992, with the incredibly popular Ronald Reagan, and normally it's only 8.

Xeybozn posted...

Yes. Metal DK obviously suffers from a severe internet addiction problem. That's also why he's so obsessed with the idea that the modern internet is the biggest problem with society; he's just projecting his own issues on the rest of the world.

I probably have my issues with internet consumption, but I dont have a Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or TikTok. I do have a youtube account because gmail, and I watch youtube maybe a video or two every day/other day.

But i observe my family who now is on their phones the whole time we eat dinner together. And I go to the gym and I see more people taking 10 minutes between sets as they are on their phones. I see people (well mostly the white people i work with) on their phones all lunch at work.

If you think its just me projecting you are ignoring any introspection and observation. Most phones have apps that can track how much time you spend on these apps. I've asked friends to show their phone usage to me, and their wives will interject and say things like 'trust me, ive already seen it, its too much time wasted'

I also go weeks without posting in this topic, its just when I do i get more guttural reactions from people than almost everyone else.

red_sox_777 posted...

If the Democrats run in 2028 on the platform that social media is bad, they might be able to actually win. They would have to make it pretty much their only issue. They need a paradigm shift and this would be it.

they can even market Shoot your local tech bro shirts

red_sox_777 posted...

Do you think the UK would have shorter periods where a party is continuously in power if PMs had to continue until they lost an election (or maybe a better way of putting this - if a PM quitting automatically triggered a general election)? The last two were 13 and 14 years, which feels very long to me. The longest the US has had in recent decades was 12, from 1980-1992, with the incredibly popular Ronald Reagan, and normally it's only 8.

Yes, absolutely. This is not just for the UK either. Quick changes in government are baked into the US system.

Every time I see people arguing with Metal DK I think about that "first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win" quote

The sad thing is Metal_DK is completely right. Hes just a tad too aggressive with his messaging.

Cupcake2006 posted...

Are we absolutely sure bro is real? Did he just happen to be spamming refresh on the topic (which had no posts for three hours), see post 96, and reply that quickly?

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/user/messages

do people really not bookmark the AMP page

I mostly rely on my tracked topics, but will still check my AMP with some regularity to see if there are any new posts in any untracked topics I care about.

Kenri posted...

Every time I see people arguing with Metal DK I think about that "first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win" quote

Very few people doubt the overall truth of what he's saying, just the deathly boring and annoying repetition. Bear in mind that the casual revolution of 2007 gimmick started over a decade ago with him posting the same copy-pasted post in any topic it was even remotely relevant, and now it's just "fuck 2007 and beyond" in any topic where it is even remotely relevant

I've never seen him post anything in any topic that wasn't in relation to this stance.

XIII_Rocks posted...

Very few people doubt the overall truth of what he's saying, just the deathly boring and annoying repetition. Bear in mind that the casual revolution of 2007 gimmick started over a decade ago with him posting the same copy-pasted post in any topic it was even remotely relevant, and now it's just "fuck 2007 and beyond" in any topic where it is even remotely relevant

Its not a gimmick, mom!!! Its a CAUSE!!!

Metal DK you need to stop following the Path of PETA which is basically this:
Screaming in peoples faces wont change their minds, just make them opposed to whatever you say.
PETA harasses people in the name of vegans, people hate vegans.
If you want people to interact respectfully and not call you a bot, you need to calm down.

Or maybe you are a troll spam bot and Im wrong.

I dont think I post to any specific person in an aggressive way with my posts. Maybe after people tell me to shut up or something ill respond to individuals in a more aggressive way, but most of my initial posts are pretty high level and not attacking any individual.

People just take it that way because they feel attacked with my high level posts, because I'm describing them. Or they think I bring it up too much, but its how people spend hours and hours of their day, so its extremely important.

Then they bring up Reagan or something for the millionth time instead, like its some new mind blowing idea (and not even realizing that Nixon started that particular venue).

Metal_DK posted...

People just take it that way because they feel attacked with my high level posts, because I'm describing them.

No dude it is 100% because of the repetition

I've been addicted to the Internet since maybe 2003 and addicted to my smartphone since I got one

Telling me I'm Internet addicted is not hurtful in the slightest it's just like, yeah sure.

So if i just blame everything on Reagan instead in all my posts im b8er of the year?

edit: and boomers, of course

Dude

Trying not to be rude but

You don't need to talk about blaming ANYONE because we all already get it

The actual answer is to cut back on about 80% of your posts

Few people here bring genuinely new ideas to the table, so it is totally hypocritical to single out DK. It's funny that he acts like a mindless robot despite being so afraid of social media turning everyone into mindless robots. But he's not too different from anyone else here.

im still wishing youd tell me the city you live in because you said its a very un social media city.

You sound like the Zuck trying to get my personal info

He wants the info to get you hooked on his shit, I want it because it sounds like a good place to be.

Eric Adams about to give an "Important Campaign Presser" any minute now.

With recent rumblings you'd think this was the drop out for Trump.

....But there's a "Re-Elect Eric" banner around the podium apparently so....either no or really bad staging lmao.

Apparently this wasn't supposed to run late, because several news sites already released their statements that the announcement is that he ISN'T dropping out.

https://youtu.be/lF7M0FISH5Y?si=WkZoeyLAhQ9tUAkb

Metal_DK posted...

Or they think I bring it up too much

Its this.

I'd bet social media issues are brought up more in these topics than Reagan and it probably isn't close. The way you feel about Reagan talk is the way everyone else feels about your casual revolution talk.

Ok fair, I'm outtie for at least a few weeks again

Yep, he's confirmed he's staying in. Spent the presser attacking....Cuomo, lol. Says Mamdani is the only opponent who matters and he's gonna beat him.

......

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/e/e3de13aa.jpg

Does NYC have ranked choice for the general? It would really help here.

Whiskeyleaks just said they want lethal, not legal. Violent effect, not politically correct.

This is going to be a disaster, but I guess blowing up that boat for shits and giggles yesterday was a dry run.

I hope beyond hope all these literal war criminals get locked away for good some day, a long with everyone who is just "following orders" through all this.

L
M
F
A
O

https://bsky.app/profile/slothropsmap.bsky.social/post/3ly4mrbbmn22v

FBI informant to the Democratic hoax. Saddest part is some Americans will literally believe this shit because their minds are mush

If this is true (it isn't) I would be very curious to know what percentage of FBI informants are innocent people who the FBI reach out to randomly to inform on their friends and what percentage are people who being caught in somethings themselves and turned informant to deliver a bigger fish and save their own skin.

If he actually was an informant (he definitely wasn't) I would say he probably falls into the second group.

"I only fucked those kids because the FBI told me to" <--- we are dangerously close to being here

https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/05/economy/us-jobs-report-august-final

Soabout those job numbers and firing the BLS chief

Trump has already said that the job numbers wouldn't be fixed for a year. He has already pre-emptively called these figures fake

More than a year, he's saying 2027. He is trying set a narrative for people to ignore the number during the midterms.

Forceful_Dragon posted...

If he actually was an informant (he definitely wasn't) I would say he probably falls into the second group.

It actually sounds completely plausible to the point that I wouldn't even question it if more evidence for that came out. If he was put in that position he absolutely would've sold out his best friend and rape partner. The only question is whether the FBI actually put him in the situation, which is unlikely.

foolm0r0n posted...

It actually sounds completely plausible to the point that I wouldn't even question it if more evidence for that came out. If he was put in that position he absolutely would've sold out his best friend and rape partner. The only question is whether the FBI actually put him in the situation, which is unlikely.

yeah usually civilian informants are already knee-deep in the mud and are seeking clemency through narcing

foolm0r0n posted...

It actually sounds completely plausible to the point that I wouldn't even question it if more evidence for that came out.

How about some compelling evidence against the theory?

The simple fact that Trump himself has not personally admitted to being an FBI informant many times over. When pressed on his relationship with Epstein he would surely immediately have pivoted into how he was actually the best most amazing informant that the FBI has ever had. He'd be telling us how the FBI told him that nobody has informed as good as him and that he has only the best information to give and they never would have got Epstein without his bigly assistance.

Trusting what Trump does not say is dangerously close to trusting what Trump does say

okay so acknowledging that obviously there are airtight FBI NDAs and all that

would an NDA cover someone saying trump was NOT an informant? its not like youre disclosing the identity of actual informants or anything