I'd probably post a response like that, too

Wow. Where was this rhetoric before the last election?

Tiggity® · 2025-07-08T08:11:12.731Z

An excellent idea for Elon. I could not have suggested better for anyone starting a political party. There may be a pub that gets it and steps forward after all. https://x.com/EricLDaugh/status/1942283755152105858?t=6wE1x80L2cAT9Dns0hycnA&s=19

His point was that DeSantis wasn't involved in the BUB. And DeSantis, little shitbag fascist that he is, wasn't. That's a fact.

Now if he had been in Congress, would he have voted for it? Probably. But you don't know that for certain.

That was Swarley's point. His point is also that he agrees with his advice; is it sincere? Very likely not. But we also don't know for certain. You have admitted you're a lawyer (I wouldn't have brought that up unless you offered the information). Would such an accusation hold up in court without evidence? No.

So, here's where you take the conversation to the realm of stupid: "Its honestly wild that you will so easily lie to yourself about this." There you go. A personal attack when he disagrees.

Then this stupidity:

"You’re exactly why the Republican senators voted for the bill even though they knew it was a terrible bill. They know you won’t hold them accountable and instead will make excuses for them."

No, he's not. They voted for the bill because they're beholden to Trump's neo-fascist and corrupt agenda. They don't give two ##### what any of us voters think now. And how the hell is Swarley supposed to hold them accountable?

These ### clowns think they can do whatever they want now and they aren't listening to a #### word any of us are saying.

Swarley then asks what you mean by holding people accountable--which he can't ####### do--and your response is, "I genuinely just cant comprehend what you get out of playing dumb."

Then when he says he's out, you say, "Maybe you genuinely don’t understand how dumb you should making an analogy that you would be a virgin if you hadn’t met your wife."

WHAT? Okay, right there, that shows me you suck at reading comprehension. Which might explain your childish responses and bad strawmen. That's not what he said at all.

After Swarley calls you out for getting insulting for simply disagreeing, you respond with: "You’re over here twisting yourself into a pretzel so you can argue that DeSantis actually believes in balanced budgets.

When you’re intentionally lying to yourself and others, you’re incapable of having actual discussions."

Except he WAS trying to have a discussion with you and you just started ranting and calling him stupid. So why would he want to continue?

Ultimately, this brings us to your childish MO, which you've been doing for years on this board.

1. Disagree with someone.
2. When they attempt to defend their arguments, insult their intelligence while also misquoting them or claiming they are arguing something they aren't.
3. When the person decides you aren't worth the time, claim that you're right, they can't stand that you're right, and that they need to admit they're wrong.

This is dumb and sophomoric. You need some serious self reflection, or I can only assume you can't get away with this BS in person so you do it here.

Or this is some way you're trying to make up for your inadequacies for attending the inferior collegiate institution.

Classof09®

Orange Elite [5550]

TigerPulse: 45%

Posts: 17962

Joined: 2005

It really is a shame you dont realize what youre getting wrong with this

Jul 9, 2025, 11:36 AM

analysis.

His point was that DeSantis wasn't involved in the BUB. And DeSantis, little shitbag fascist that he is, wasn't. That's a fact.

Now if he had been in Congress, would he have voted for it? Probably. But you don't know that for certain.”

That was Swarley's point. His point is also that he agrees with his advice; is it sincere? Very likely not. But we also don't know for certain. You have admitted you're a lawyer (I wouldn't have brought that up unless you offered the information). Would such an accusation hold up in court without evidence? No.

When do you ever know anything for certain? That is such an incredibly high standard. It’s explicitly why even the most stringent evidentiary standard we have is a “beyond a reasonable doubt” and not a “absolute certainty” standard.

Unless there is video evidence of someone committing a murder, you can’t have absolute certainty. But the facts can show that it’s unreasonable to conclude the opposite. That’s why someone arrested fleeing the scene of the crime with gunpowder on his hands would likely be convicted of murrder. Just because there is a possibility he didn’t do something doesn’t mean it’s a reasonable outcome.

More importantly, do you know about civil litigation? In civil litigation it’s a preponderance of the evidence standard. All you have to prove is is it’s more likely true than not true.

Here, we have an amplitude of evidence to show that DeSantis would have fallen in line if he had the opportunity. You even said “probably” in your response. That clearly meets the evidentiary burden in court.

No, he's not. They voted for the bill because they're beholden to Trump's neo-fascist and corrupt agenda. They don't give two ##### what any of us voters think now. And how the hell is Swarley supposed to hold them accountable?

These ### clowns think they can do whatever they want now and they aren't listening to a #### word any of us are saying.

But there has to be a reason why they are beholden to Trump. This highlights how you miss the important nuance in conversations. You can’t just say something is true, there has to be a reason why it’s true.

You’re right that they’re all beholden to Trump, DeSantis included. But there has to be a reason why. The answer is because Trump will threaten to support others in the primary against them. That’s literally why Tillis is retiring. Why is that concerning for the elected politicians? Because more people are like Swarley and Flow and will walk into the voting booth and vote for the candidate Trump promotes than people who won’t.

You don’t just get to be a dictator in a democracy. You have to have the support of voters to get there. I’m not sure how you miss that important piece.

Then when he says he's out, you say, "Maybe you genuinely don’t understand how dumb you should making an analogy that you would be a virgin if you hadn’t met your wife."

WHAT? Okay, right there, that shows me you suck at reading comprehension. Which might explain your childish responses and bad strawmen. That's not what he said at all.

Now this is the quintessential example of your inability to use deductive logic.

Swarley was trying to argue that it’s a dumb argument to argue about whether DeSantis would have voted for a bill. The same way it’s dumb for his wife to argue about whether he would have slept with other women.

The problem is that is only “logical” on its face. Yes, it’s a dumb argument that his wife makes because it has no value and of course he would have slept with other women if she wasn’t in his life. The only alternative was for him to be a virgin his whole life. That’s an absurd standard for anyone to think anyone should stay single forever.

But it’s actually not a dumb argument to question whether DeSantis would have voted for the bill. Because DeSantis is arguing for a balanced budget. By arguing for a balanced budget he’s projecting that he truly believes in them. Whether he would have vote against unbalanced budgets directly invalidates his integrity on the topic and whether it’s a sincere belief.

That’s valid.

If we actually apply Swarley’s argument logically that it’s a dumb argument because DeSantis couldn’t have voted, it would mean his wife’s argument is dumb because he couldn’t have slept with other women.

But that’s not what he meant. Because his argument didn’t flow logically.

1. Disagree with someone.
2. When they attempt to defend their arguments, insult their intelligence while also misquoting them or claiming they are arguing something they aren't.
3. When the person decides you aren't worth the time, claim that you're right, they can't stand that you're right, and that they need to admit you're wrong.

This is dumb and sophomoric. You need some serious self reflection, or I can only assume you can't get away with this BS in person so you do it here.

Now that we’ve established you couldn’t actually follow the discussion with Swarley. Maybe it’s time to self-reflect that you don’t really understand what’s going on in the other discussions?

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

"Smelley, Garcia, and Beecher are going to lead you to 4-8." - york_tiger

Wow. Where was this rhetoric before the last election?

Term Limits, yes. BB Amendment is a very bad, no good, idea.

There can be nuance to a BB Amendment.

Re: There can be nuance to a BB Amendment.

Naturally.***

Our governemnt is already hamstrung with $37T in debt.

That doesn't make the BBA a good idea. Economically, it's a bad idea.****

Economically, our debt being called will be worse.***

Not if you like deflationary spirals.***

Or. ORRRwe could go back to the gold standard.***

lol it's been 4 days and they're already back to balanced budget talk

I don't understand why that's weird. The impact to the budget has been front

The fact everyone was talking about it and

Again, it was Musk, who has been consistent, and DeSantis, who, as the

Thats the problem, it isnt sincere

He would've fallen in line and voted for it.***

I mean, maybe. But thats not the grave sin you are painting it as.

Its honestly wild that you will so easily lie to yourself about this

What are you talking about? Its like arguing with my wife about if I would

I genuinely just cant comprehend what you get out of playing dumb.***

How dare you? Im not playing.

Im not playing dumb

Youre trying way too hard to win an argument instead of

No, Im genuinely saddened you cant formulate an actual logical discussion

Yeah. Its a shame. Dont give up on us, though.***

Re: Im not playing dumb

I spend most of my real life around incredibly educated and

Youre going to run out of people here to argue with***

Which is the real shame

That's not what's going to happen

Youre working yourself into the same logic pretzel

Re: Youre working yourself into the same logic pretzel

Please provide a single instance of me actually doing that

"Why can't everyone just admit I'm right about everything!!!?!?"

Re: "Why can't everyone just admit I'm right about everything!!!?!?"

I'm not even in this discussion and you're demanding I admit I'm wrong

Re: I'm not even in this discussion and you're demanding I admit I'm wrong

Okay, help this poor boy out with your superior intelligence

Re: Okay, help this poor boy out with your superior intelligence

Apparently not. Show me, great genius.

I'm just imagining what a thread would look like if T3Tiger was still here.***

Honestly...

And since you've been so insistent, allow me to wreck your discussion with Swarl

It really is a shame you dont realize what youre getting wrong with this

Re: It really is a shame you dont realize what youre getting wrong with this

Re: It really is a shame you dont realize what youre getting wrong with this

This would be quality trolling if you were doing

If I mayIll try to find the issue.

The issue is that maybe is clearly wrong in this instance

lol! That WAS it!?! Thats hysterical.

It really is wild how insecure you guys are about admitting you were

Ads are now so bad on page they are covering up the thumbs up symbol.***

Re: Wow. Where was this rhetoric before the last election?

Balanced budget and term limits have been discussed

Thus DeSantiss counsel to go to the states and push for a Constitutional

Which is why I LOVE what DeSantis just suggested.

Re: Which is why I LOVE what DeSantis just suggested.

Tiggity didn't just endorse the big beautiful bill

I didn't endorse the bloated, ugly bill.

Re: Wow. Where was this rhetoric before the last election?

It was shot down because it's a bad idea.****

TigerBoard POTD