Nicole Scherzinger doubling down on the MAGA Train- Page 3

[darquegk]

Posted: 9/15/25 at 11:27am

sinister teashop said: "Can I just say that though it might be tempting here to see online forums as some sort of control mechanism for the scary chaos going on in this country, they probably add to the problem. Although I don't see this as a two sides story, the right here is to blame for the mounting violence, however I do see fear and panic on both sides. People are scared because things and familiar structures are being destroyed, by Trump, by the environment, by the collapse of other things that were familiar. "

There’s no such thing as leftist or liberal social media: the very notion of “social media” is a right-wing concept at best, an outright intentional honeypot at worst. I’m certainly not saying not to use it- it’s too late for that and I’m no Luddite- but just remember there’s nothing you can say or do or organize on the internet that isn’t ultimately either harmless, or somehow beneficial, to the System at Large. It’s still you in your house, shouting into the void, and staying out of the streets and corridors of power.

[BorisTomashevsky]

Posted: 9/15/25 at 11:30am

MB124 said: "BorisTomashevsky said: "ER765 said: "BorisTomashevsky said: "The octopus or honey badger or elephant can evolve ahead of us, fine with me."

In your case, they already have."

I’m encouraging you to leave the ad hominem behind. You’re doing your future self no favors by relying on it."

I don’t think anyone in this thread or even on this board writ large is taking ANY advice or “encouragement”from you any time soon, beloved."

Most of you have different philosophies than I do. All the same, I’ve never insulted anyone here because of that. But it seems to be the only thing some of you are able to do. 

[Matt Rogers]

Posted: 9/15/25 at 11:34am

BorisTomashevsky said: "ER765 said: "BorisTomashevsky said: "The octopus or honey badger or elephant can evolve ahead of us, fine with me."

In your case, they already have."

I’m encouraging you to leave the ad hominem behind. You’re doing your future self no favors by relying on it."

Get some new material, troll. 

[BorisTomashevsky]

Posted: 9/15/25 at 11:48am

Matt Rogers said: "BorisTomashevsky said: "ER765 said: "BorisTomashevsky said: "The octopus or honey badger or elephant can evolve ahead of us, fine with me."

In your case, they already have."

I’m encouraging you to leave the ad hominem behind. You’re doing your future self no favors by relying on it."

Get some new material, troll."

Get any material. Matt. 

[Matt Rogers]

Posted: 9/15/25 at 11:51am

BorisTomashevsky said: "Matt Rogers said: "BorisTomashevsky said: "ER765 said: "BorisTomashevsky said: "The octopus or honey badger or elephant can evolve ahead of us, fine with me."

In your case, they already have."

I’m encouraging you to leave the ad hominem behind. You’re doing your future self no favors by relying on it."

Get some new material, troll."

Get any material. Matt."

Why are you even here????

[BorisTomashevsky]

Posted: 9/15/25 at 11:54am

Matt Rogers said: "BorisTomashevsky said: "Matt Rogers said: "BorisTomashevsky said: "ER765 said: "BorisTomashevsky said: "The octopus or honey badger or elephant can evolve ahead of us, fine with me."

In your case, they already have."

I’m encouraging you to leave the ad hominem behind. You’re doing your future self no favors by relying on it."

Get some new material, troll."

Get any material. Matt."

Why are you even here????"

To make someone like you ask why I’m here. That’s why. 

[binau]

Posted: 9/15/25 at 12:11pm

If you call me names, if you try and belittle my intelligence, it only exposes your own weakness to not be able to engage with the ideas and respond directly. 

If anyone wants to actually show their intelligence I ask you to respond directly to the point below - if you don't, if you continue with these ad hominems all it does it continue to reinforce that you don't have the ability to.

You can see the problem you have which is that the only way to argue the shooter does not have left-wing ideologies is to:

 1. Suggest the information BBC, CNN and others is inaccurate (which I agree we may find out that it IS inaccurate in time, so we need to be open to this), or if it does end up being true

 2. Argue that someone who:

a) BBC: Said "Charlie Kirk is full of hate and spreads Hate"
b) BBC: uses left-wing symbolism (e.g. the anti-fascist lyrics on the bullet-casing)
c) BBC: has a transgender parter 
d) CNN: colleague says the shooter does not like Trump or Kirk 
e) [Alleged]: shoots someone in the neck who is critical of transgender issues

is more likely to be a 'right-wing conservative' than be ideologically left. I think you will find it very difficult to argue coherently, which is why you haven't attempted to this.

Let's assume points a, b, c, d, e are true. For the sake of argument, if we accept these are true how can you not see that it's almost impossible to make a conclusion that the shooter was ideologically right? 

So far, only one person has actually attempted to respond to this, and they took the path of 1). However, unsuccessfully because they used the WSJ example of information that was retracted. This does not contradict the information reported by the BBC and CNN. 

We have to call a spade a spade. This does not mean that left-wing ideology is inherently bad (on the contrary, I actually think it's generally GOOD until you all take it too far) or that trans people are to blame. Far from it, all it means is that the ideological motivations of the shooter were extreme left-wing. We need to recognise the problem and radicalisation that is taking place before we can solve it. 

[Huss417]

Posted: 9/15/25 at 12:14pm

binau said: "If you call me names, if you try and belittle my intelligence, it only exposes your own weakness to not be able to engage with the ideas and respond directly.

If anyone wants to actually show their intelligence I ask you to respond directly to the point below - if you don't, if you continue with thesead hominems all it does it continue to reinforce that you don't have the ability to.

You can see the problem you have which is that the only way to argue the shooter does not have left-wing ideologies is to:

1. Suggest the information BBC, CNN and others is inaccurate (which I agree we may find out that it IS inaccurate in time, so we need to be open to this), or if it does end up being true

2. Argue that someone who:

a) BBC: Said "Charlie Kirk is full of hate and spreads Hate"
b) BBC:uses left-wing symbolism (e.g. the anti-fascist lyrics on the bullet-casing)
c) BBC:has a transgender parter and shoots someone in the neck who is critical of trans issues
d) CNN: colleague says the shooter does not like Trump or Kirk

is more likely to be a 'right-wing conservative' than be ideologically left. I think you will find it very difficult to argue coherently, which is why you haven't attempted to this.

Let's assume points a, b, c, d are true. For the sake of argument, if we accept these are true how can you not see that it's almost impossible to make a conclusion that the shooter was ideologically right?

So far,only one personhas actually attempted to respond to this, and they took the path of 1). However, unsuccessfully because they used the WSJ example of information that was retracted. This does not contradict the information reported by the BBC and CNN.

We have to call a spade a spade. This does not mean that left-wing ideology is inherently bad (on the contrary, I actually think it's generally GOOD until you all take it too far) or that trans people are to blame. Far from it, all it means is that the ideological motivations of the shooter were extreme left-wing. We need to recognise the problem and radicalisation that is taking place before we can solve it."

I'm going to ask again. Didn't you just the other day start a new thread with a diatribe about leaving BroadwayWorld? It does seem that the people who announce they are leaving never do.

[binau]

Posted: 9/15/25 at 12:19pm

I have already responded to that very point. You can go and read my posts if you want an answer to that. 

[MB124]

Posted: 9/15/25 at 12:30pm

binau, no one is engaging with you because your arguments are ridiculous and full of word salad, nonsense, and lapses in logic. 

Call it name calling, call it ad hominem usage, hell - call it witchcraft.

You sound ignorant and it’s not worth anyone’s time to engage.

THAT’S why no one’s doing it.

But if you’re convinced it’s some holier than thou complex where your argument is correct and infallible, then go on ahead with that. 

[binau]

Posted: 9/15/25 at 12:45pm

I don’t agree. It’s because you aren’t able to. If you were, you would. But you know you’re going to make yourself look like an idiot if you try, so you don’t. 
 
The post is well structured. I’m not an idiot, as much as you all like to pretend to. 

If you could easily argue against it, you would. Because you’d want to demonstrate your ability to ‘own me’. 

Instead, you can’t. So you call me names lol. 

[JSquared2]

Posted: 9/15/25 at 12:47pm

Hey MODS -- why are you allowing this s**t to keep going on (and on and on)???

[The Bandstand]

Posted: 9/15/25 at 1:01pm

Aww are you frustrated by the attacks thrown at your gay icon trumper Nicole S?? 

[SteveSanders]

Posted: 9/15/25 at 1:02pm

@binau

I'm genuinely curious. What exactly are you trying to accomplish here?

• Get regular dopamine hits?
• Fulfill some sort of twisted court-ordered community service?
• Have someone say, "You are so right.  So right"?
• Ensure you can sleep at night because you really carried the flag in a BWW discussion thread?

I'm a fan of the Quaker belief that "everyone holds a piece of the truth."  You've said your piece.  Repeatedly.  It seems unlikely that saying it yet again will persuade anyone who wasn't already sympathetic to your arguments.
 

 

 

[Matt Rogers]

Posted: 9/15/25 at 1:07pm

binau said: "If you call me names, if you try and belittle my intelligence, it only exposes your own weakness to not be able to engage with the ideas and respond directly.

If anyone wants to actually show their intelligence I ask you to respond directly to the point below - if you don't, if you continue with thesead hominems all it does it continue to reinforce that you don't have the ability to.

You can see the problem you have which is that the only way to argue the shooter does not have left-wing ideologies is to:

1. Suggest the information BBC, CNN and others is inaccurate (which I agree we may find out that it IS inaccurate in time, so we need to be open to this), or if it does end up being true

2. Argue that someone who:

a) BBC: Said "Charlie Kirk is full of hate and spreads Hate"
b) BBC:uses left-wing symbolism (e.g. the anti-fascist lyrics on the bullet-casing)
c) BBC:has a transgender parter
d) CNN: colleague says the shooter does not like Trump or Kirk
e) [Alleged]: shoots someone in the neck who is critical of transgender issues

is more likely to be a 'right-wing conservative' than be ideologically left. I think you will find it very difficult to argue coherently, which is why you haven't attempted to this.

Let's assume points a, b, c, d, e are true. For the sake of argument, if we accept these are true how can you not see that it's almost impossible to make a conclusion that the shooter was ideologically right?

So far,only one personhas actually attempted to respond to this, and they took the path of 1). However, unsuccessfully because they used the WSJ example of information that was retracted. This does not contradict the information reported by the BBC and CNN.

We have to call a spade a spade. This does not mean that left-wing ideology is inherently bad (on the contrary, I actually think it's generally GOOD until you all take it too far) or that trans people are to blame. Far from it, all it means is that the ideological motivations of the shooter were extreme left-wing. We need to recognise the problem and radicalisation that is taking place before we can solve it."

EXCUSE YOU. YOU’RE the one who started a now locked troll thread about Charlie Kirk on the off topic board. What was the title of that thread, sweet pea? So don’t start crying about calling people names now, hag. You and your fellow right wing trolls have earned every name that you have been called. Take a bow!!!!

[binau]

Posted: 9/15/25 at 1:27pm

SteveSanders said: "@binau

I'm genuinely curious. What exactly are you trying to accomplish here?

• Get regular dopamine hits?
• Fulfill some sort of twisted court-ordered community service?
• Have someone say, "You are so right. So right"?
• Ensure you can sleep at night because you really carried the flag in a BWW discussion thread?

 

 

 

 

 

I'm a fan of the Quaker belief that "everyone holds a piece of the truth." You've said your piece. Repeatedly. It seems unlikely that saying it yet again will persuade anyone who wasn't already sympathetic to your arguments."

 

 

 

 

 

It’s a good point. I really don’t know. What I would say is that people are welcome to ignore me and even block me. What I find really funny is they don’t, even after some suggest they will! The fact that people can’t seem to ignore me, the fact they get seemingly so furious and can’t even engage with the ideas to me suggests the real problem is they are really angry and emotionally triggered because they sense challenge to the ideology, but don’t really have a logical reason why or they’d offer it. So instead they kind of emotionally think I’m an ‘enemy’ because they can see I’m not agreeing to absolutely everything and go on the hunt to destroy without even really thinking  properly.

As far as the utopian reason why I do this: it’s because I’m sick of seeing ‘us’, the left, which despite the name calling I would include myself in, drive off a cliff and make life so unpleasant for everyone including and especially ourselves. Do I want to log onto this message board and have to see yet the latest cancel culture ridiculousness? Do I want to see the Great Comet close and everyone out of work for no good reason? Do I want to see Kecia say slanderous things about Patti and then a whole mob try and cancel her? Do I want to see Trump win not just one but two presidencies? No I do not. 

One of the biggest problems with the movement right now is the ideological stubbornness and inability to take any criticism. It’s like a religion. If the movement can’t take criticism and can’t evolve then it doesn’t improve and it doesn’t solve its problems. 

The ideological stubbornness is so strong on this forum that when presented with actual evidence from reputable or left wing sources (which I conceded COULD be end up being wrong but is currently reported as true) they can’t seem to even engage with it and do every mental gymnastics to find away to dismiss it. 

It really was a well structured proposition which is why I don’t accept people can dismiss it. Either the evidence is not true (which I accept could be the case and you could share you don’t think it’s true and will be corrected in future), or it IS true and if so would have to be reconciled with what the ideological motivations are and I invite people here to do that because I certainly can’t. This is a logical necessity there is no alternate options. 

[Kad]

Posted: 9/15/25 at 1:41pm

binau, you've written nearly 3k words in this thread alone in the span of less than 12 hours. Nobody is reading all of it. Go to bed. 

[TotallyEffed]

Posted: 9/15/25 at 2:01pm

I'm curious and want to take a little poll. I hope the results will encourage binau to read a book, go for a walk, seek a mental health professional, go to the gym, put on a Bernadette album, call their best friend, go to a roller derby, watch a film, literally anything but spewing this much energy into the ether. Okay, here goes.

 

Like this post if you are NOT reading all that binau is writing about politics and the state of America.

[TotallyEffed]

Posted: 9/15/25 at 2:02pm

Like this post if you ARE reading all that binau is writing about politics and the state of America and want him to continue doing so.

[Charley Kringas Inc]

Posted: 9/15/25 at 2:07pm

feeling somewhat vindicated for not being able to afford to see the sunset revival

[TotallyEffed]

Posted: 9/15/25 at 2:08pm

Charley Kringas Inc said: "feeling somewhat vindicated for not being able to afford to see the sunset revival"

 

It was quite sensational.

[binau]

Posted: 9/15/25 at 2:16pm

Why do you continue to engage with me? I don’t get it. 

[Huss417]

Posted: 9/15/25 at 2:19pm

The Bandstand said: "Aww are you frustrated by the attacks thrown atyour gay icon trumper Nicole S??"

Also curious. Old account nothing posted in 8 years or so and all of a sudden a lot of posts. An old burner account perhaps?

[ColorTheHours048]

Posted: 9/15/25 at 2:33pm

binau said: "Why do you continue to engage with me? I don’t get it."

At first, it was to counter your inane worldview. Then, it was out of irritation because you were doubling down. Now, I’m getting kind of a perverse enjoyment seeing you continue to spiral down the drain.

I can’t speak for everyone, but I keep opening these threads trying to find some kind of information that will add context or shading to the topic at hand, but mostly I’m just finding you arguing with a wall and people pointing out how foolish you look basically talking to yourself (and Boris and Seb, which… ick). I would recommend taking your own advice to yourself and just pack it up. You’re not changing anyone’s mind; nor us, yours.

[Huss417]

Posted: 9/15/25 at 2:49pm

binau said: "I have already responded to that very point. You can go and read my posts if you want an answer to that."

It's really not worth my time to hunt down your retraction to your alleged leaving of BroadwayWorld. Like I have said those who have to announce their departure never end up leaving or like some others just show back up under another name thinking none of us realize who they were/are.