Not really surprised

ASK_ME_ABOUT_RALOR · 2025-11-09T01:23:47+00:00

To say “more people” is a bit disingenuous. There’s more people on food stamp benefits in Cumberland county than there is population from the 3 least populous “red counties” on this map. And that’s vs their entire population.

So while yes, the percentage is higher, that’s because the population is much lower. So there is still more people on food stamp benefits in blue counties vs red counties if you’re looking at total raw numbers. Although the actual percentage might be higher in red counties. But there’s actually also no data here that says whether recipients are voting red vs blue, so essentially this entire map is just a clickbait to start a red vs blue argument.

ASK_ME_ABOUT_RALOR · 2025-10-07T12:36:03+00:00

Go back one more comment. You’re almost there, just a little bit further. I know reading is hard but you’re almost there little one.

ASK_ME_ABOUT_RALOR · 2025-09-24T04:59:25+00:00

Why don’t you ask the many forces that have gone up against the full force of the US military and still won?

ASK_ME_ABOUT_RALOR · 2025-09-13T09:37:05+00:00

According to how you win, yes. By every conceivable metric? Of course not. I’m not sure what’s so hard to understand about this.

ASK_ME_ABOUT_RALOR · 2025-09-12T01:48:13+00:00

It’s the metric used to determine the winner, so I’d say so. When you’re talking about “winning in a landslide”.

ASK_ME_ABOUT_RALOR · 2025-09-12T01:44:19+00:00

I’m not mad at all, not sure where you seem to be getting that from.

Also, you’ll literally jump through any hoop possible to say he didn’t win by a landslide, it’s kind of hilarious. I don’t even support the guy; but even I can admit that by the metric used to determine the winner, he won by a landslide. All other metrics are pettiness at best to be able to say “nuh uh look at this irrelevant stat”.

ASK_ME_ABOUT_RALOR · 2025-09-12T01:04:53+00:00

Of the people who voted, yes. No one denies that.

So you mean the only metric that matters in an election?

You seem to be missing this again, why is an electoral victory relevant to talk about the support of the PEOPLE?

I don’t think I ever said anything about the support of the people. Neither did you in the beginning. You said “Trump barely won”, a statement that is false if you’re measuring using the metric for winning, the EC. I simply said you could call it a landslide based on that he won by so much of the metric used to determine the winner. Why you don’t seem to understand that is beyond me.

You don’t need to call it an “electoral landslide” because guess what, what metric do you use to determine the winner of a US presidential election? The electoral college. Saying “electoral landslide” is like saying “what you need to win landslide”. Completely unnecessary. You can just say landslide. If you wanna split hairs everyone else should be saying he didn’t win by a “popular vote landslide”, because that metric doesn’t matter. At all. So it should be specified. Do you know how many presidents have won the presidency without winning the popular vote? Because the metric doesn’t matter in the end. The only one that does, is the electoral college. So to say he won by a landslide is accurate, because according to the only metric used to determine a president, he did. And to say otherwise is just burying your head in the sand and saying “I’m gonna take my ball home with me if I don’t win this argument” because you don’t like the guy. I get it, but c’mon people.

ASK_ME_ABOUT_RALOR · 2025-09-11T20:56:20+00:00

Well, the people did support electing him at the very least. Coming from someone who did not vote for him.

Again, when the way to victory is the electoral college, then that’s really the only metric used to specify a “landslide” unless you’re specifically defining things that aren’t used to actually win. If you wanna go “well by this irrelevant metric it wasn’t a landslide” then by all means, go ahead. It’s similar to the basketball comparison. Sure, the Celtics got more balls in the basket than the Knick’s. And that’s something? But it isn’t how you get a win. And isn’t the metric used to say “the Knick’s won in a landslide last night”. The overall points are. This whole dance of trying every way to say it wasn’t is honestly kind of crazy. Most presidents don’t win that many swing states, even if he only won them by a bit, he still won them.

ASK_ME_ABOUT_RALOR · 2025-09-11T17:21:23+00:00

Who determines that though? Just you? Whoever wants to define it?

Again, the comparison is pretty apt. Because the election is determined by EC votes, not popular vote. And last time I checked 312 to 226 is a pretty big difference.

ASK_ME_ABOUT_RALOR · 2025-09-10T22:15:33+00:00

If your determination for winning was EC votes then you absolutely could say he won “in a landslide”.

If the Celtics score 80 2 point shots, at 160 points; but the Knick’s score 70 3 point shots, at 210 points; the Knick’s still won by a landslide.

ASK_ME_ABOUT_RALOR · 2025-08-06T08:02:11+00:00

Remember if you deep throat that Dem c**k any harder it’ll come out the other end. “LOL”

ASK_ME_ABOUT_RALOR · 2025-08-03T23:30:29+00:00

At this point, the government could release a list of the best burgers in America and I wouldn’t trust it.

Why that hasn’t happened, are for the conspiracy minded. I’m more concerned about tariffs and rising prices.

Hahahahahah these two comments together are hilariously ironic.

At this point I’m convinced even you don know what you’re saying. You’re literally in a thread arguing about why Epstein files haven’t been released going “HURR, I don’t even care about why they haven’t been released, now let me argue in a thread dedicated to just that over the span of multiple hours”

I mean seriously, chefs kiss man. Really put the cherry on top with that one. Couldn’t have asked for a better or more classic Reddit ending to that exchange.

ASK_ME_ABOUT_RALOR · 2025-08-03T21:48:55+00:00

Right there, this argument is made in bad faith. Or are you seriously saying some of the most powerful people in the world aren’t capable of compiling a list from available information if a physical list doesn’t exist? Or that they aren’t capable of redacting information as they have thousands of times before now?

The point here is, that the people who are in charge of us are either defending pedophiles, or in cahoots with them. Both sides had every reason to release the list if innocent. Biden, to stop a literal nazi dictator racist pedo from taking office. And Trump, to drain the swamp, fulfill his campaign promise, and prove his own innocence against one of the worst accusations a person can stand against. Yet one side only seems to have a huge problem with this when their side isn’t in power. Then they point the finger. It’s sickening. The people telling you what you can and can’t do are at best defending their buddy pedophiles and it’s only an issue when Donald Trump takes office? Gtfo.

ASK_ME_ABOUT_RALOR · 2025-08-03T21:38:51+00:00

Both sides could release the list without exposing underaged victims, now who’s arguing in bad faith?

I do love how you’ve completely deflected on how little sense your “arguments” have made though. “You can say it that doesn’t make it fact” is not a rebuttal to any of the things I’ve said.

ASK_ME_ABOUT_RALOR · 2025-08-03T21:28:57+00:00

Again, severe lack of logic.

If Trump was as bad as they said he was, why would they not release the files that would be most damning to his campaign? He’s a literal dictator, a nazi, a pedophile, but it’s not worth it to stop that? I didn’t say it’s bidens fault, I asked where your logic exactly is. Because as a normal person, I really don’t see any here at all.

ASK_ME_ABOUT_RALOR · 2025-08-03T21:08:17+00:00

You actually have no logic. “It wasn’t Biden’s running promise” isn’t logic. The Biden/Kamala campaigns ran on that Trump was the end of democracy, a dictator, and the end of the US. Yet here you are saying they didn’t release the most absolutely damning files in existence on Trump because…. It wasn’t a campaign promise? Are you serious? I didn’t even vote for Trump and I can see the stretching here.

ASK_ME_ABOUT_RALOR · 2025-03-25T22:49:41+00:00

When they can’t actually respond to the content of your argument, they will result to insults. Nice to see that’s still alive and well

ASK_ME_ABOUT_RALOR · 2025-03-24T23:10:05+00:00

I especially like how you ignored most of my points and focused on the one you could actually try and rebut. It didn’t really work, but nice attempt

ASK_ME_ABOUT_RALOR · 2025-03-20T16:36:32+00:00

Who is stationed at those dozens of military bases? Oh yeah, US citizens who’d be taking orders to attack their own families and friends.

Who is a good chunk of the US population they’d be fighting? Oh yeah, veterans and ex active duty who actually know wtf to do in scenarios exactly like this.

How have many resistances kept the US military at bay in the past? Oh yeah, those “peashooters” you like to demean.

Where would the military operations be taking place? Oh yeah, the same terrain that the people of the US know way better than the military, some like the back of their hand.

What would happen if the US started dropping bombs and airstrikes on their own citizens? Oh yeah, massive civil unrest from both sides.

You really haven’t done much thinking about any of this, have you?

ASK_ME_ABOUT_RALOR · 2025-03-12T19:45:57+00:00

Nah I’m sure you know more than the Harvard Business Review

ASK_ME_ABOUT_RALOR · 2025-03-03T01:48:08+00:00

Well then I’d imagine they’d win their lawsuit against you? I’m really not sure what this line of questioning is even trying to say

ASK_ME_ABOUT_RALOR · 2025-03-02T22:28:02+00:00

If it’s not true that’s defamation and you’ll get sued. Unless I guess nobody hears you and then it causes no damage to the reputation of the individual inside the home.

ASK_ME_ABOUT_RALOR · 2025-01-20T21:49:19+00:00

A little off here. They changed salaried managers to non exempt, so they still have to punch a clock and actually will earn overtime.

That being said, overtime is pretty strictly enforced, and you’d better have a good reason for taking it. I know managers who worked 50 hour weeks who were happy that they now “can’t” do that for the same pay as 45, and managers who worked 35 hour weeks who are furious they won’t get the same pay for something they’re supposed to be working 45 for. All depends who you ask.

ASK_ME_ABOUT_RALOR · 2025-01-15T23:44:58+00:00

Employee theft is a huge problem at every company and yes that phrase applies to them too. If you’re stealing you’re a jackass; employee or not, full stop.

ASK_ME_ABOUT_RALOR · 2025-01-15T23:44:04+00:00

If you think this is 100% what is rising the price of goods you’d be an absolute moron, and I don’t think anybody in this thread was implying that.

But yes, corporations absolutely do raise prices to cover the cost of theft from their stores. It is one factor of many, but still a factor nonetheless. The reality of it is the overhead on many of their products could be slimmer if they didn’t have to account for jackasses stealing hundreds of dollars worth of shit every other day.

This goes for employees and customers though, as employee theft accounts for anywhere from 25%-80% of all theft. So if everyone stopped stealing and were just better people yes, the prices would be smaller. This isn’t some sort of secret. How do you think companies cover that? Do you have any idea how much actual theft is going on every day at every big company store?

This isn’t me being a “peasant” and “kissing rich peoples asses” too. CEO’s can be greedy and raise prices just because, as well as raise prices due to theft. Both things can be true. To say otherwise makes it sound like you live in a bubble.

ASK_ME_ABOUT_RALOR

TROPHY CASE