He was once a Democrat, and that's the entire Democrat schtick re: Trump

When you run out of things to say your brain freezes. It appears to freeze more often.

tob

Now your brain is confusing bot with tob.

Another variation of your brain freeze. Keep it coming.

2ot

Demos are experienced and educated? By blue-state educcation? Hint, there is no state that has been exclusively blue or red. That “superior education myth is just that. My entire education (a few baccalaureates and PhDs, was in two states, CA and UT, and both were blue and red during elementary thru grad school.

If Dems are so experienced, who is qualified as a descent pres in 18? Anybody?

All States are a shade of purple.

Though some like to paint them blue and red.

After the last election the USA was 2% redder and therefore 2% less blue.

Though some like to believe that it became far redder than it actually was.

All States are a shade of purple.

Though some like to paint them blue and red.

After the last election the USA was 2% redder and therefore 2% less blue.

Though some like to believe that it became far redder than it actually was.

I think designating Trump states as "red" states is misleading. red was always the designation for Republican, but the Trump movement is RICO at best, it really has nothing in common with what the Republican designation stood for all those decades when red was used. In keeping with the tradition of using flag colors, I think a more accurate representation should be blue states and white states, the particularly shade, "supremacist white".

A white flag signals surrender. You are thinking too far ahead of Trump’s MAGA party.

Let FLRW go.

Been saying this, MAGA is NOT conservative!

It's fundamentally racist to claim all people with black skin are American.

Which no one in this thread did. As usual, you’re having a conversion with yourself.

Also, Mexico isn't listed as a race under any of the phrenology dogma describing the functional religion of racism.

Another thing no one here said. You two should probably get a room.

Contrast MAGA with Kamala declaring that she wouldn't do anything different from Biden, and it's clear the American parties are functionally reversing their roles, where Democrants will fight tooth and nail for status quo(conservative), and MAGA wants real change(progressive).

MAGA isn’t seeking progressive change, they’re trying to take us backwards while democrats are saying no.

All this attention on immigration isn’t about solving any real world problem, it’s about making America whiter, like we used to be.

Tarrifs aren’t about ushering in a new era of manufacturing, it’s about bringing us back to the “good old days” where we produced all our own shit.

Even the slogan, make America great again… that’s not forward looking by definition.

The idea that the left is about conserving the status quo is silly. What the left is fighting back against is authoritarianism, nepotism, oligarchy, and just outright stupidity. You can brand all of that as progressive if you want, doesn’t make your point any more salient.

It's axiomatic that if you don't want to make your country great, then you are okay with it as-is.

Most of what Biden did was to reverse changes (conservatism)

In that sense, much of what Biden did wasn’t progressive at all. It was conservative in the literal meaning of the word: reversing changes and restoring prior norms rather than proposing a new direction. Kamala's answer on the View practically screamed preservation. Your voters rejected that.

Five hard examples:

Border policy: Ending Trump-era enforcement tools and reverting closer to pre-2017 norms isn’t innovation; it’s conserving status-quo with better vibes.

Energy policy: Keystone canceled, Paris rejoined, leasing paused. That’s a snapping back to Obama-era defaults.

Regulation: environmental, labor, finance rules rewritten to Obama-era. Safe, familiar, bureaucratically comfortable.

Foreign policy: “America is back” literally meant a reset backwards. NATO tone reset, multilateralism restored, pre-Trump consensus revived. Stability over strategy.

Student loans: no structural fix, just extended pauses and executive maneuvers. Temporary relief pretending to be reform. Maintaining the status quo.

Biden was billed as a safe vote, and he delivered. Big time. You might be confusing the tribal definition of conservatism with the objective outcomes definition. You’re arguing labels, I’m measuring outcomes. A tad dissapointing considering the lost opportunities.

All this attention on immigration isn’t about solving any real world problem, it’s about making America whiter, like we used to be.

That would mean importing millions of white people from all over the globe if that was a real goal. Your country is not doing that, and is losing a great many immigrants of many skin colors to forced and self-deportations, the vast majority violating some part of your immigration laws. Only someone concerned with the religion of phrenology would care about the color of immigrants, legal or otherwise. Who would want to be an avid supporter of that obsolete religion?

Funny thing about colors relative to the Rep and Dem official colors. By CMYK [cyan, magenta, yellow, black print colors], Red is 100% magenta, 100% yellow, but no cyan [a medium blue], whereas Blue is 100% cyan, 26% magenta. So, even blue is 1/4 red.

Okay, but just pointing out that Red cannot be 100% magenta and also 100% yellow; it must be 50/50.

And by the same reckoning, Blue must be 74% cyan and 26% magenta.

Therefore, blue would be 24% bluer, than red is red....If you get my drift.

It's axiomatic that if you don't want to make your country great, then you are okay with it as-is.

“Make America great” means something entirely different to everyone, so this argument is meaningless from the start.

Moreover, the slogan is, “make America great… again”. That. Literally. Translates. Into. “Let’s move backwards”.

Most of what Biden did was to reverse changes (conservatism)

In that sense, much of what Biden did wasn’t progressive at all. It was conservative in the literal meaning of the word: reversing changes and restoring prior norms rather than proposing a new direction.

OMG

Progressive doesn’t mean “I’m going to do something different than the last guy”. These terms are defined by looking at society through the lens of history, not the lens of the last election.

That would mean importing millions of white people from all over the globe if that was a real goal.

The fact that they aren’t doing everything possible to achieve the goal does not mean it isn’t the goal. There comes a point where actions become excessive and therefore counter productive.

This is basic common sense.

Only someone concerned with the religion of phrenology would care about the color of immigrants

You mean like someone who will go as far as occupying cities to target all the black and brown people but explicitly opens the door nice and wide to white South Africans?

You have apparently never been involved in the details of color printing. Each color, cyan, magenta, yellow and black, are somewhat transparent inks and can be used at 0 to 100% intensity of color. You can imagine, I'm sure, a variable intensity of a grayscale: 0% intensity of black renders white, because there is 0% of black used, and the same for any other of the three colors; however, to achieve a pure white, white paper must be used.. At 100% black the resulting print is all black; 100% intensity. Same for the other 3 colors, thus rendering, combined, about 17M distinguished colors. In paint, it's possible to achieve the same results adding a fifth color, white, to the beech of colors to achieve a more pale color mix to get pastel color result. To achieve white on a color paper, an opaque white ink is used.

Colour is only skin deep. This truth has been uncovered time and time again.

Maybe so.

But I was just pointing out the obvious and basic mathematical flaw in your previous post.

If a colour is an equal mixture of magenta and yellow, in percentage terms it will be 50/50 and not 100/100. irrespective of the intensity of the pigments.

I follow your reasoning and agree.

You're both opposing 120 years of known printing science, but go ahead and believe your collective fantasy of 50% max of any given color. Printing in color is an up to four-color process [potentially five colors if white is a necessary printed color] using a percentage of 0 to 100% of one to all four colors, C, M, Y, K, in order to print up to 17M separate colors, and not just a maximum of 50%. You're both thinking either in terms of the quantity of ink used for a particular print job, or that the printing job is printed by running the paper a single run through the press to complete the job in all four [or five, or even more if realistic metallic colored are needed for a print job]. In that instance, printing 100,000 color brochures for advertising will use more ink than a job printing 50,000 of the same brochure. No, each color is a separate run through the press, assuring that each run, the paper is run through the press with the exact alignment assured in each run. Have neither of you ever watched a printing press in operation? Didn't y'all ever take field trips in school? This is not rocket science, but it seems to have escaped y'all nonetheless.

I agree in the printing process each colour is independently printed. But in art colour are mixed to produce different shades and a different percentage of each colour is mixed to bring out the desired effect.

That's painting, not printing. Let's keep our processes in their separate corners, yeah?

I'm discussing mathematics rather than printing or painting...It's pretty straightforward stuff.

It would be like saying a smoothie containing 1 pear 1 apple 1 banana and 1 kumquat was a mixture of 100% pear, 100% apple,100% banana and 100% kumquat.

a smoothie containing 1 pear 1 apple 1 banana and 1 kumquat was a mixture of 100% pear, 100% apple,100% banana and 100% kumquat.

Your words; every one of them. And if your smoothie does, indeed, contain the entirety of a pear, apple, banana, and kumquat, then what percentage of each fruit is missing from the smoothie according to your math? All of each one; 100% of each. You're right, it is simple math, but printing-wise, you are failing to grasp meaning. Color printing is done by screen-tint. The best print that is most easily identified using the process is newsprint, which is typically just black ink, but the Sunday comics, for example, you see in full color, and looking at it through a magnifying glass, you see the cyan, magenta, yellow and black dots which, collectively, give you a color image; the more of one of the pure colors, the more a particular field is going to be of that color rather than a blend of different colored dots. If the printing is going to be 100% cyan, for example, there are no dots of separate color - it's a solid field of cyan only. That is what is meant by percentage of color use for each color.

Modern printing colours are automatically mixed by the printer but not in a way paints are mixed in a bucket.

Yes, but you ignored the word "mixture".

So for sure, each individual component is 100% individual.

Whereas the "mixture" is made up roughly of 25% each of 4 different fruits.

Similarly, your red colour "mixture" of equal parts magenta and yellow, is a 100% "mixture" of 2 different colours, therefore the mixture" is 50/50.

Your extensive knowledge of printing inks and printing techniques makes no difference.

Believe as you will. I'm done.