Yeah, I didn't mind him posting here either. I got a kick out of it. I really do think he's too lazy and can't handle it.

<Wippy> is a nitwit and is definitely not up to Elite Poster standard.

He's petty and ridiculous.

First he made a total fool of himself when <Diademas> highlighted his history errors, and then he got egg on his face over Brave New World.

The guy is a clown and would be way out of his league on this forum.

However, I think you should give Jim a chance.

Perhaps I could sponsor Jim, you know, like how exclusive clubs admit new people if a member is prepared to sponsor them.

??????

The <tuna> is the main troll of the Other Page. For instance, when confronted with the evidence from official Alabama state website that VOTER ID was free of charge, and that they had roving mobile units that went to poor areas of the state to help the "inner city" folks get VOTER IDS, <Jim Bartle> actually went to the website, read how it said FREE VOTER ID, and said, "Yep. Not free"

I think with that, he proved to the forum that he reason and facts don't matter to him. Therefore, he is <only> there to troll.

This is just one example. There are countless others along these exact same lines.

However, it's been made clear to <Saffuna> that if he turns over a new leaf, doesn't troll, and posts seriously, substantively and with insight, that he is welcome to post here.

Perhaps if you told him about your idea of sponsoring him here, being responsible for his posting quality and such? Maybe we could work something out.

<it's been made clear to <Saffuna> that if he turns over a new leaf, doesn't troll, and posts seriously, substantively and with insight, that he is welcome to post here. Perhaps if you told him about your idea of sponsoring him here, being responsible for his posting quality and such? Maybe we could work something out.>

Alright, next time I see him, I'll mention it to him.

<Stop changing what I write! These are YOUR words, not mine.

I am very precise in my wording, but you are completely botching what I wrote.

I quit reading after this.>

Then I misunderstood your point, sorry about that. My reasoning went like this:

<If you are referring to the Republican party, then all I can do is shake my head. It is obvious that the Republicans' role in politics is to divert the citizenry from forming a true opposition party. They siphon off the votes of people who oppose Leftism, yet if the GOP ever wins an election, they immediately surrender to what the Left wants.>

So the GOP's function is to prevent any opposition to the Left and make sure that politically the Left gets their policies implemented. That sounds like collusion to me but I grant that it can instead be construed as a case of severe incompetence on the part of the Republican Party.

How do you see the remedy here? In the US political system it would be very difficult to succesfully form an alternate party to the GOP I gather. The traditional way would be to seek reform of the existing party, however we all know such things are not easy either. Thing is, a healthy democracy relies on competent parties, so even as a liberal I have no wish to see the GOP in a death-spiral. The schadenfreude may be sweet for a short while but anyone holding power without ample opposition will soon become problematic.

You regard it as highly unlikely that liberals want to put Christians, conservatives and Trump supporters in concentration camps?

The link to <al wazir's> post was shared in this forum, and the complete lack of criticism, until they were shamed into it much later, is also there for everyone to see.

So why think it is unlikely?

Do you mean that it's unlikely to happen? That's not the point at all. The <central point> is that this outrageous statement was posted and that it was not met with outrage. It wasn't even met with criticism!

That is that <central point>.

Why was <al wazir> so comfortable posting something so Nazi?

Was it because he knows his audience after posting in that forum for almost 10 years?

And why was it met with zero criticism (until it was shoved in their faces for a few days, and then only mild criticism was offered!)?

Could it be that <al wazir's> deep desire to see Trump supporters (Christians, conservatives) in <concentration camps> is actually shared by quite a bit of the Left?

I think I made that point when I posted many other outrageous quotes from top CEOs, celebrities, and politicians.

Perhaps you are unaware of the hatred the libs have for the regular folks.

Is it coincidental that libs are talking about <concentration camps>, <eradicating> the right, <removing them from society> and, on top of all of that, we see this new, brazen push to silence the right with President Trump being banned from Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest, YouTube and many other platforms, but not just Trump. Many of the leading voices on the right were also banned from the same platforms.

Then they went to a competition platform called Parler, but Amazon, who hosted Parler, revoked their hosting (Parler is suing them now for breach of contract, but Amazon doesn't care. They will just pay the price, but for now, they have silences Parler), and then Apple and Google colluded to remove the Parler app from their app stores!

Why are there 25,000 troops at the capitol when it's going to be a virtual swearing-in?

In 1864, Abe Lincoln had a free and open swearing-in, with 50,000 people in attendance, including his future killer, John Wilkes Boothe. That was during the Civil War.

Yet Biden is doing this <virtually> and yet there are 25,000 troops there.

Is this because his election was a fraud and they know that everyone knows it? Is it because the fraudsters that stole this election are fully aware that Biden is not seen as legitimate?

These are the sorts of things that third world nations struggle with. This is the sort of thing we'd have seen in the USSR and China, where their "elections" are a joke - like ours are now.

I don't think a few people smashing windows at the capitol building justifies this sort of an epic overreaction. We had rampant lawlessness all over the country with cops being murdered, police stations being burned down, no-go zones in Portland, full city riots, thousands of businesses smashed and looted, and hostile gangs of thugs (Democrat Brown Shirts) intimidating regular people all over the country - and the ruling elite did absolutely nothing to stop it.

Then all of a sudden a few dozen people get rowdy at the capitol and there are 25,000 troops in town. They are comparing it to when the British burned the building down to the ground in 1814. Gimme a break.

The only violence was when the lib politicians' bodyguards shot and killed unarmed Americans protesting the greatest crime in American politics in our history.

Biden's inauguration is a Police State inauguration.

That is that <central point>. >

OK, clear. I am addressing something different than your point here.

Regarding the <censorship> I made my point in a previous post. I think we have created a problem for ourselves by subcontracting public opinion to private corporations, especially ones that are not established press. So if Twitter bans someone, it feels like censorship, but if the state wants to decide who gets to post on Twitter, it smells of expropriation.

So the GOP's function is to prevent any opposition to the Left and make sure that politically the Left gets their policies implemented. That sounds like collusion to me but I grant that it can instead be construed as a case of severe incompetence on the part of the Republican Party.>

Well, fair enough. I would say that the GOP <plays> the role of the <only> viable opposition.

There are a few true policy differences, but in the end the GOP surrenders to immorality. I don't necessarily think Dems and GOP meet in secret to plot, but rather that the respective parties get their orders from their respective big donors - billionaires and corporations. And I also suspect most politicians are demonically influenced. Yes, I said it.

<How do you see the remedy here? In the US political system it would be very difficult to succesfully form an alternate party to the GOP I gather. The traditional way would be to seek reform of the existing party, however we all know such things are not easy either. Thing is, a healthy democracy relies on competent parties, so even as a liberal I have no wish to see the GOP in a death-spiral. The schadenfreude may be sweet for a short while but anyone holding power without ample opposition will soon become problematic.>

Good question. The remedy is for Western Civilization to return to Christian monarchies as their means of government, and for the citizenry to repent and turn back to Christianity.

Democracy is a great ally of Communism, which is atheistic and evil. Both should be rejected.

<As for the concentration camp thing, this was posted some time back now, and that was actually the only thing my intial post was about. There were some statements that the liberals want to set up concentration camps for Christians and conservatives, and I simply objected to this, as I regard it highly unlikely.>

I just noticed this on Alan's chessforum>

Just another IQ<10 cowardly liar.

<perfidious: Tomorrow, we return to the sunlight of freedom after four years of crimes and misrule under the yoke of a putative dictator. May this people of this country find the strength to throw off the shackles and look ahead, not behind, as they come to grips with the reality that a hard road lies before them.>

It's difficult to be more stupid, and remain alive eating dinner with sharp utensils. (although he may use Nerf forks/knives/spoons)

Of course, the hallmark of the lib-nutjob, is what they bravely stand for.

 <playground player: <Perfidious> And you're still a Democrat?>

Yet Biden is doing this <virtually> and yet there are 25,000 troops there.>

Heh, heh, 24,998 troops!

<Two U.S. Army National Guard members are being removed from the security mission to secure Joe Biden’s presidential inauguration.

But how does a professional poker player contribute to society?>

By buying stuff in capitalism.
Food/rent/things, and so on.

Is a professional chess player any different?

Magnus wins, Naka doesn't.

By buying stuff in capitalism.
Food/rent/things, and so on.>

But what does he produce by going to work and playing poker? That's what <optimal play> was focusing on.

A guy goes to work in a window factory and at least he is producing windows for everyone. Houses need windows and the man is producing something of value to society.

A poker player doesn't do that by fleecing his opponents of their rent money.

A drug dealer goes around spending money in capitalism too, just like a poker player. That's nothing to brag about.

But let's bring this discussion over to day trading. What about day traders? Are they producing anything for society when they login to their e*trade account and try to make a quick $300 on a trade today?

When poker/chess player loses enough, he gets a regular job.>

<Chess and poker players make a living of entertainment.>

Not a valid comparison.

<But what does he produce by going to work and playing poker? That's what <optimal play> was focusing on.>

Exactly!

People enjoy watching and playing over a chess game.

We come to this site to kibitz over chess games.

That's not the case with poker or any other form of gambling.

Now anyone may enjoy a friendly poker game or any kind of gambling as entertainment, but that is quite different from a professional gambler. Different even from a professional chess-player or any kind of professional sports person.

<Magnus wins, Naka doesn't.>

That's a sporting contest.

Magnus wins the prize money, but he doesn't walk away with Naka's rent money.

Naka still derives some benefit from the contest, as does many chess fans.

By contrast gambling is a zero-sum game.

Professional poker players sitting around a card table identify the 'mark' and take full advantage of him, potentially ripping off his life savings.

Professional gamblers are inherently unethical.

They are lazy and want to obtain other people's money by trickery.

Interesting comparison.

I suppose day trading is a lot like gambling.

How do day traders contribute to society?

What benefit do day traders bring to the community?

I don't know?

They are leeches and a drain on society.>

What benefit do day traders bring to the community?>

Back in the day, they would say they provide liquidity to the markets.

Naka still derives some benefit from the contest, as does many chess fans.>

Many chess players have gone to poker because there is more money in it. (at least in theory)

<Professional poker players sitting around a card table identify the 'mark' and take full advantage of him, potentially ripping off his life savings.>

People enjoy watching and playing over a chess game.>

People also enjoy watching things like the World Series of Poker.

A little different in today's algo/computer driven world.>

Yes, although they're not really investors, they would contribute to the market.

If the share index rises that day then potentially they're all winners, but if it dips then there's bound to be losers. But they each know what they're in for.

<diceman: <optimal play: Naka still derives some benefit from the contest, as does many chess fans.>

Many chess players have gone to poker because there is more money in it. (at least in theory)>

Yes, I understand why they do it, but where does the money come from?

It's no use professional poker players swapping their own money around the table between them. They need new money to divide up between themselves. Where does this new money come from?

<<Professional poker players sitting around a card table identify the 'mark' and take full advantage of him, potentially ripping off his life savings.>

If a poor (as in bad) player brings his life savings to the table, he deserves what he gets.>

(live and on TV)>

World Series Poker consists of the elite professional poker players in a contest.

World Series Poker consists of the elite professional poker players in a contest.>

No, Joe Blow can be at the final table, you only need the buy-in.

<It is not the same as professional poker players routinely extracting hard-earned money from honest but gullible citizens.>

There are "cheats" in all professions, from politician, to lawyer, to contractor, to auto mechanic, to used car salesman. It doesn't mean I should indict all these people:

<According to the WPT: With more than 60 million poker players in the United States and more than 100 million worldwide, more people play poker than play golf, billiards, or tennis.>

In a 5 round New York chess tournament, after I beat a guy in round 4, he proposed we lie about the result. (if he beat me he would have been 4-0, with me winning I was 3-1) A win for him in the last round would create a bigger prize for us to split.

No, Joe Blow can be at the final table, you only need the buy-in.>

Joe Blow is entering a competition, which is a different scenario.

<<It is not the same as professional poker players routinely extracting hard-earned money from honest but gullible citizens.>

There are "cheats" in all professions, from politician, to lawyer, to contractor, to auto mechanic, to used car salesman. It doesn't mean I should indict all these people:>

The difference is those professions all make a valid contribution to society, regardless of cheats, whereas a professional poker player, regardless of cheating, makes no real contribution.

<<According to the WPT: With more than 60 million poker players in the United States and more than 100 million worldwide, more people play poker than play golf, billiards, or tennis.>

As a form of entertainment amongst friends, no problem. I already admitted that. Even I play poker occasionally for fun.

<In a 5 round New York chess tournament, after I beat a guy in round 4, he proposed we lie about the result. (if he beat me he would have been 4-0, with me winning I was 3-1) A win for him in the last round would create a bigger prize for us to split. I declined. I won my last round game. While I won less money, it was honest money.>

Not relevant to the discussion about professional poker players.

Dice, may I ask, are you a serious poker player?

You seem somewhat defensive about my criticism of professional poker players.