|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
What's easier: climbing an impossibly steep mountain and shouting, whilst climbing, people need to climb the mountain, or walking a finite amount of an infinite amount of steps?
Finding a local optimum can be difficult enough, but by walking some amount of steps, you can get to a good spot. Trying to one shot the global optimum via an impossibly difficult task is just asking for disaster.
Ideologically, GH (and I'm sure many others here) has the best outcome in mind. Practically, no one would ever try this method, because it's almost a statistical impossibility.
What's more, there's so many parameters that need to be accounted for at every step of the way that it's probably computationally infeasible to calculate an actual outcome that is ideal (or even close to what GH wants).
And lastly, what will GH be happy with? Is there a suboptimal version that is actually "good enough"? Is there a version of the revolution that doesn't turn out the way he envisioned, but that can be settled with?
|
|
|
On August 07 2024 07:27 Magic Powers wrote:
While it makes perfect sense to mitigate harm in the short term and vote for Kamala - which is a perfectly valid counter to GH's position - if there is no plan for the long term then GH's point is at least half valid. The mockery GH has received without any propositions for improvement to balance out that mockery is quite the display of high horse riding. Some people here need to ask themselves how useful they are on the path out of oppression when compared to GH. If their plan requires infinite steps towards their goal, then each single step is merely a ghost of a vision. That is GH's argument, and that is the reason why he quite rightfully holds on to his views.
GH's entire existence here is an exercise in high horse riding. GH hasn't offered a single idea on how to make things better. He's like a child sticking his tongue out and saying "nanny nanny boo boo, you're complicit in genocide and I'm not." An idea he has fashioned because he thinks sitting on his couch on election day is the morally superior option to voting for either Harris or Trump.
Kwark and I have already expressed our allegiance to the socialist revolution and he won't even give us instructions on how to proceed. He has the answers on how to end the war in Gaza and he's keeping them to himself. That's truly evil. Or, if I am being charitable, his revolution is just a means to provide an imaginary 3rd option that enables him to brow beat everyone else as genocide enablers for supporting Harris or Trump. Either way, he's contributing fuck-all.
|
United States41470 Posts
Blackjack, you’re completely dismissing the vast amount of praxis we’re generating. I’ve got my praxis levels up to over 7 kilopraxis on a good day, considerably more than the industry standard of 4. If we combine our praxis the revolution will be unstoppable. To the untrained eye Comrade GH may appear to be doing nothing but he’s been contributing praxis for years.
|
^ The fuck? Lol
On August 07 2024 03:43 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2024 02:38 riotjune wrote:
All Kamala has to do is not have any major fuckups in the next three months. What if the American public learn something disqualifying about her like the colour of her skin or her inverted penis? She’s already made critical mistakes.
Damn, in my optimism I totally forgotten that she is a black? woman and this is America. Oh well gg, all hail King the Donald!
On August 07 2024 09:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:I'd love to see Walz debate Vance. Pretty sure Walz would destroy Vance. Walz is so much more charismatic and able to connect and "real". Edit: The sofa jab again is fantastic: https://x.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/1820955342626312433
Methinks JD "Couch-Fucker" Vance gonna probably dodge this debate as Trump did with his, but we'll see. Don't want to make any more definitive predictions as I have already locked in a Trump win in November, and I don't know how many shots of this Inverse Cramer magic I currently have will last, seeing as how I also predicted Kristi "Fine Bitch" Noem (Gaetz's words, not mine) to be Trump's VP pick and got that wrong too when she fucking shot a puppy in the face (oh boy, another psychopath with a gun...). I know you already adjusted the bet with your friend, but I'm going to take my being wrong there as is. Who knows, maybe my Voodoo shenanigans might actually work, it's all in good fun.
|
On August 07 2024 09:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:I'd love to see Walz debate Vance. Pretty sure Walz would destroy Vance. Walz is so much more charismatic and able to connect and "real". Edit: The sofa jab again is fantastic: https://x.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/1820955342626312433
Is it "real" to repeat flagrantly false things, like the couch story? As long as we all know what we're dealing with here. I mean Trump and Kamala lie enough as it is, but it's certainly an odd jab when it doesn't have any basis in reality at all.
|
On August 07 2024 12:19 Introvert wrote:Is it "real" to repeat flagrantly false things, like the couch story? As long as we all know what we're dealing with here. I mean Trump and Kamala lie enough as it is, but it's certainly an odd jab when it doesn't have any basis in reality at all.
What are you talking about? Walz never officially said that Vance fucks couches, and I haven't seen Vance give a public explanation about how he doesn't fuck couches. Republicans don't get to suddenly care about the burden of proof.
And then once Vance explains himself briefly, I'll move the goalposts back to how Vance hasn't released a long-form explanation of how he doesn't fuck couches. Perhaps he has a certificate stating such?
We're just asking questions.
Vance is the one who voluntarily tied his wagon to Hitler Trump. That's pretty weird. He deserves all the memes he gets.
|
On August 07 2024 12:19 Introvert wrote:Is it "real" to repeat flagrantly false things, like the couch story? As long as we all know what we're dealing with here. I mean Trump and Kamala lie enough as it is, but it's certainly an odd jab when it doesn't have any basis in reality at all.
This is funny shit. I hadn't pegged you as someone who could do jokes.
|
On August 07 2024 06:39 Uldridge wrote:
Have you ever outlined how you think the social revolution should be enacted? If you have, I've missed it, so apologies for that.
This is probably my most recent example:
On July 09 2024 03:41 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2024 03:10 Mohdoo wrote:
GH, I think a lot of this miscommunication is coming from how you use the word “revolution” and what you actually mean by it. People are responding to you as if your solution to everything is “we need to just all run towards politicians with pitch forks and demand universal income and an equitable tax structure”. I think it’s very clear to me that’s not what you are saying.
But it also feels like you are ignoring the fact that people are hugely misunderstanding you. You are clearly using revolution as a term to describe widespread social engagement and subsequent political changes by electing people who subscribe to worker-empowering policies. You view this as a fundamentally new framework for how equity is created and distributed. But when you don’t really address how people are framing your views, it gives the impression you’re just saying “idk I’m just saying democrats and shit heads and we should just kinda generally rush the capital with pitchforks until revolution is achieved”. They aren't "misunderstanding" in good faith, their "misunderstanding" is willful. They wouldn't refer to it as (variations of) "GH's revolution" [Kwark is stuck on calling it "imaginary"] otherwise. As if I'm the one concocting this stuff alone from staring at rocks in a hat or something. I'm not sure what you mean by "electing people". Whether you're referencing " non-reformist reforms" or that socialism is democratic and would still elect people, either way the primary obstacle for people that have failed to comprehend as much as you have isn't my communication, but their own stubborn resignation. For those (mostly lurkers checking out the thread because of recent political happenings) that could use a refresher/outline on socialist revolution, I think this could be helpful. Show nested quote +The socialist revolution consists of the entire process, on a world scale, through which the socialist mode of production is established and supplants earlier modes of production. Hence just as the bourgeois revolution continued through an entire historical period extending over many years, during which revolutionary changes took place in one country after another, so, it may be expected, will the socialist revolution.
I think it is useful to consider the socialist revolution in this way, because then we have to reflect on the characteristics of a long process in time, passing possibly through several different stages of development as it spreads and gathers momentum. If as participants in the socialist movement we can fill our minds with such an historical sense, then we can the better adapt our passions and hopes to reality, and the better understand our current political and economic problems.
The socialist revolution is the work of generations. There are brilliant successes in its long course, and also disastrous setbacks; ideas and methods which carried all before them give rise, as conditions change through their very agency, to confusions, dogmas and falsehoods; schisms arise, mistakes and even crimes are committed. Such has ever been the history of revolutions, and the socialist revolution proves no exception.
Marxism is the theory of the socialist revolution. And considering revolution as an historical process, we should distinguish the fundamental principles of Marxism – those principles which we may expect to hold good all the time – from their consequences in policies and practices which we may expect to change from time to time; and from ideas and theories which, valid at one stage, in one set of circumstances, need to be revised when that stage is passed.
There are times of transition – and the present appears to be one of them – when it is necessary to review all the ideas and practices inherited from the past in order, in the light of facts and fundamental principles, to reject what is no longer applicable in them and generally to correct and change them for use in the new conditions. The necessity of this may well make itself known in the form of a crisis within the movement, of the revelation of evils plain for all to see as consequences of the old ideas and practices.... The revision then comes about as a bitter learning of lessons, a righting of wrongs, a conclusion forced on us by events, rather than as a calm process of scientifically deducing conclusions from premises.
What is fundamental and permanent in Marxism? What are those ideas we shall not revise, but in the light of which we shall revise other ideas? First of all, the statement of purpose, the goal of socialism. Secondly, the scientific proof of the historical necessity of that purpose. Thirdly, the demonstration of the means to gain it.
First, Marxism formulates the goal of the socialist revolution – the abolition of capitalist private property, the abolition of all exploitation of man by man, the social ownership of the means of production and their planned use for the benefit of the whole of society, leading to abundance and the brotherhood of communism.
Secondly, Marxism does not put forward this goal as a utopia, as a mere vision of what would ideally satisfy people’s needs and make them all happy, but as a goal the practical attainment of which is made necessary by the actual conditions of modern society, and the posing and attainment of which in fact corresponds to objective laws of development operating throughout human history. The development of the social production of the material means of life in the last analysis determines the direction of social development as a whole; and if now the goal of socialism is placed as a practical objective, that is because only under a socialist economy can the contradictions of modern capitalist society be solved and the great modern forces of production be fully utilised.
Thirdly, the goal being set and its necessity and attainability proved, Marxism states the indispensable means to attain the goal – in other words, what social forces must be set in motion and what action they must take. Socialism will only be gained by waging the working-class struggle. The forces to gain it are the working class in alliance with all the working people. The condition for gaining it is the conquest of power by these forces. And to wage this struggle and achieve the conquest of power, the working class must have its own independent political party.
Of course, whole books have been written, and more need to be written, explaining, justifying and elaborating the principles of Marxism, and the materialist dialectical method which is employed in them. But the above seems to me their essence.
As the socialist revolution develops, it is clearly the job of Marxist organisations to conclude from the new facts what is necessary to be done in the light of their Marxist principles. And what we have perhaps especially to guard against is fixed ideas about the means for gaining socialism and for building it, that is, fixed ideas about the methods of working-class struggle, the nature and policies of a socialist state, and the nature and methods of work of working-class parties. In times of transition, we have to criticise and revise not our fundamental principles but the conclusions we draw from them. This in turn brings with it, and cannot be effected without, changes in sentiments, in moral ideas, in standards and attitudes. www.marxists.org
To tie it into previous explanations, I'd add that it basically starts with taking the socialists we have and organizing to study and do praxis more collectively. Part of that praxis is serving our communities (stuff like feeding people and providing other basic needs and services to those in need). During that praxis, we communicate with our communities. I prefer a Freirean approach which includes focusing on what our communities need based on what they tell us rather than us telling them what they need. It also includes (to the degree circumstance allows) exploring the role capitalism plays in that problem and how a socialist paradigm is different and preferable to a capitalist one in the context of the issues they care about.
Organized, educated, and motivated, some of the first ambitions (and most recognizable to reformists/libs) are non-reformist reforms
Different strains of socialism have different ideas on how best to go about just that part, before we even consider revolution.
Contrary to Kwark's unabashed shitposting, none of that is imaginary. It's happening in pockets around the country despite the best efforts of conservative Republicans like Kwark, Libertarians like BJ, Libs like riot, and even social Democrats like Sunshine to undermine it and malign the people doing the work.
The more "Revolutiony" bits most people are fixated on comes after a combination of reaching a critical mass of educated/organized socialists, non-reformist reforms are working, and/or material conditions demand/are conducive to revolution. I'm not an accelerationist, so the last one isn't a viable path on it's own, but rather an eventual inevitability of capitalism amid virile socialist opposition imo. One that makes it crucial to do the organizing, education, serving our communities, gathering of a critical mass, and getting the non-reformist reforms that will give us a chance against a perpetually encroaching fascist threat.
What that looks like could vary wildly depending on what precipitates the revolutiony bits and one's particular favored flavor of socialism. Like it looks wildly different (particularly regarding timing) if Trump wins vs if he loses or if one identifies as a "Democratic Socialist" vs "Revolutionary Socialist" for example. It doesn't really change the need for organizing, education, or praxis, but it does dramatically impact the "material conditions demanding revolution" aspect.
|
Northern Ireland22755 Posts
On August 07 2024 12:19 Introvert wrote:Is it "real" to repeat flagrantly false things, like the couch story? As long as we all know what we're dealing with here. I mean Trump and Kamala lie enough as it is, but it's certainly an odd jab when it doesn't have any basis in reality at all.
He was just using a common vernacular expression and not alluding to any kind of story at all!
Being serious I mean, I don’t think most people actually believe it anyway, but it’s still a bit of craic anyway. Bit like ‘David Cameron fucked a pig’ . Me and my peer group had this discussion and despite enjoying it as a meme, none of us actually believed that he was involved in porking a member of the species we get that cut from.
It’s really not something I particularly care about in a climate of the opposition party chatting shite about Jewish Space LazersTM and claiming Barack Obama wasn’t eligible to be President.
Something I care even less about as riots still abound in the UK, including my native city, sparked off by utter fabrications about British Muslims.
It’s absolute small fry stuff, and far too many people for far too long either perpetrated truly egregious and harmful lies, or were happy to be silent bystanders for calls for a return to truth and decorum now of all times to ring anything but extremely hollow.
|
On August 07 2024 12:59 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2024 12:19 Introvert wrote:On August 07 2024 09:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:I'd love to see Walz debate Vance. Pretty sure Walz would destroy Vance. Walz is so much more charismatic and able to connect and "real". Edit: The sofa jab again is fantastic: https://x.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/1820955342626312433 Is it "real" to repeat flagrantly false things, like the couch story? As long as we all know what we're dealing with here. I mean Trump and Kamala lie enough as it is, but it's certainly an odd jab when it doesn't have any basis in reality at all. This is funny shit. I hadn't pegged you as someone who could do jokes.
The implication that Trump bases all his lies in reality was my favorite part. My second favorite part was the attempt at linking Harris to Trump, as if they both lie a comparable number of times and have a similar reputation.
|
On August 07 2024 12:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2024 12:19 Introvert wrote:On August 07 2024 09:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:I'd love to see Walz debate Vance. Pretty sure Walz would destroy Vance. Walz is so much more charismatic and able to connect and "real". Edit: The sofa jab again is fantastic: https://x.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/1820955342626312433 Is it "real" to repeat flagrantly false things, like the couch story? As long as we all know what we're dealing with here. I mean Trump and Kamala lie enough as it is, but it's certainly an odd jab when it doesn't have any basis in reality at all. What are you talking about? Walz never officially said that Vance fucks couches, and I haven't seen Vance give a public explanation about how he doesn't fuck couches. Republicans don't get to suddenly care about the burden of proof. And then once Vance explains himself briefly, I'll move the goalposts back to how Vance hasn't released a long-form explanation of how he doesn't fuck couches. Perhaps he has a certificate stating such? We're just asking questions. Vance is the one who voluntarily tied his wagon to Hitler Trump. That's pretty weird. He deserves all the memes he gets.
The thing I find amusing is how left-wing twitter actually bought the story for so long. The point I was making though was more specific. I don't get how Walz can be all these great things and the type of person who traffics in what would seem to be, as you imply by this post, a very Trumpian type of thing. And reveling in it! What is that saying? Maybe you two aren't so different after all! And I think you realize what you are doing with that sentence at the end saying essentially that Vance deserves it for being tied to Trump. I'm just curious what makes that "real" and how is that connecting to anyone, again besides silly people on twitter.
I mean if it were humor I would expect it to be funny. As a righty I'm used to jokes at my side's expense, that's not really the problem. I wonder how many people here actually thought the story was real until I pointed it out?
but here's maybe a more relevant post dealing with Walz.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/steve-kornacki-tim-walz-election-results-blue-collar-politics-desk-rcna165435
What’s striking, if anything, is how different the Walz and Biden numbers are from Obama’s. When Obama won his two elections, he joined strong metro-area support with respectable showings (and sometimes better) among small-town and blue-collar voters. A primary feature of American politics since Obama has been the virtual disappearance of that kind of demographic and geographic balance from the Democratic coalition.
In his ’22 campaign, Walz didn’t restore that old balance. His coalition, instead, looked just like what has become the standard post-Obama coalition for Democrats. He rolled up massive margins in metro areas and took a beating practically everywhere else.
None of this is to say the Harris-Walz ticket won’t be able to win Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan. It very well may. But to boost the ticket in those states beyond what has become the Democratic Party norm, Walz will need to break through Trump-era polarization in the kinds of places he wasn’t able to do it in 2022.
|
On August 07 2024 13:01 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2024 12:19 Introvert wrote:On August 07 2024 09:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:I'd love to see Walz debate Vance. Pretty sure Walz would destroy Vance. Walz is so much more charismatic and able to connect and "real". Edit: The sofa jab again is fantastic: https://x.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/1820955342626312433 Is it "real" to repeat flagrantly false things, like the couch story? As long as we all know what we're dealing with here. I mean Trump and Kamala lie enough as it is, but it's certainly an odd jab when it doesn't have any basis in reality at all. He was just using a common vernacular expression and not alluding to any kind of story at all! Being serious I mean, I don’t think most people actually believe it anyway, but it’s still a bit of craic anyway. Bit like ‘David Cameron fucked a pig’ . Me and my peer group had this discussion and despite enjoying it as a meme, none of us actually believed that he was involved in porking a member of the species we get that cut from. It’s really not something I particularly care about in a climate of the opposition party chatting shite about Jewish Space LazersTM and claiming Barack Obama wasn’t eligible to be President. Something I care even less about as riots still abound in the UK, including my native city, sparked off by utter fabrications about British Muslims. It’s absolute small fry stuff, and far too many people for far too long either perpetrated truly egregious and harmful lies, or were happy to be silent bystanders for calls for a return to truth and decorum now of all times to ring anything but extremely hollow.
One reason I mentioned it at all is because, as I know from my years here, there are ABSOLUTELY people reading that and believing it. 100%. Second, I think it's an odd disconnect. The "when they go low we go high" was never actually true, but it's kind of interesting to watch it be thrown off, and thrown off so gleefully! But perhaps I can chalk this up to the sugar high dems still riding. The relief to go from someone always inarticulate and literally incoherent to someone merely inarticulate and often incoherent is huge. and it must be nice to finally be able to say the quiet part out loud and stop lying to myself: Joe Biden is not mentally fit to be president for 4 more years. For most of his presidency they've been pretending otherwise. I'd feel happy too.
Edit:
I know the post below is bait, but it actually is kind of interesting question of what to do. A random twitter account literally made it up with a fake page reference in his book, so often the idea is to just ignore it. Denying it just seems like a waste of time, because almost all of the people talking about it don't actually care if it's true. But I'm not sure what the upside is for an opposing politician to bring it up either, so who knows.
|
I mean, you've said that JD Vance hasn't fucked a couch, but he and his campaign, to my knowledge, have not done so. He's a big boy and can speak for himself. Some of us just wonder why he'd be okay looking like someone who might have actually fucked a couch. And also being someone who's not refuting allegations that he fucked a couch. What could he be hiding?
|
On August 07 2024 13:34 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2024 13:01 WombaT wrote:On August 07 2024 12:19 Introvert wrote:On August 07 2024 09:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:I'd love to see Walz debate Vance. Pretty sure Walz would destroy Vance. Walz is so much more charismatic and able to connect and "real". Edit: The sofa jab again is fantastic: https://x.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/1820955342626312433 Is it "real" to repeat flagrantly false things, like the couch story? As long as we all know what we're dealing with here. I mean Trump and Kamala lie enough as it is, but it's certainly an odd jab when it doesn't have any basis in reality at all. He was just using a common vernacular expression and not alluding to any kind of story at all! Being serious I mean, I don’t think most people actually believe it anyway, but it’s still a bit of craic anyway. Bit like ‘David Cameron fucked a pig’ . Me and my peer group had this discussion and despite enjoying it as a meme, none of us actually believed that he was involved in porking a member of the species we get that cut from. It’s really not something I particularly care about in a climate of the opposition party chatting shite about Jewish Space LazersTM and claiming Barack Obama wasn’t eligible to be President. Something I care even less about as riots still abound in the UK, including my native city, sparked off by utter fabrications about British Muslims. It’s absolute small fry stuff, and far too many people for far too long either perpetrated truly egregious and harmful lies, or were happy to be silent bystanders for calls for a return to truth and decorum now of all times to ring anything but extremely hollow. One reason I mentioned it at all is because, as I know from my years here, there are ABSOLUTELY people reading that and believing it. 100%. Second, I think it's an odd disconnect. The "when they go low we go high" was never actually true, but it's kind of interesting to watch it be thrown off, and thrown off so gleefully! But perhaps I can chalk this up to the sugar high dems still riding. The relief to go from someone always inarticulate and literally incoherent to someone merely inarticulate and often incoherent is huge. and it must be nice to finally be able to say the quiet part out loud and stop lying to myself: Joe Biden is not mentally fit to be president for 4 more years. For most of his presidency they've been pretending otherwise. I'd feel happy too.
You're welcome to feel the same way when Trump goes the fuck away. I do hold some small piece of sympathy for people who want to identify as Republicans but are stuck with Trump. I don't think it materially changes my problems with the Republican party any, that those people detest Trump, but I get it. Your turn will come soon.
Also, I don't know where you got the interpretation that "when they go low, we go high" means you never get told off when your candidates suck ass. Definitely not since the event horizon that has been Trump's presidency. A lot of decorum got thrown out the window, and despite whatever protests you might've had at the time I still know where you cast your lot. You cannot reasonably have the expectation that people will play nice with Republicans anymore. They abused the privilege.
|
On August 07 2024 13:43 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2024 13:34 Introvert wrote:On August 07 2024 13:01 WombaT wrote:On August 07 2024 12:19 Introvert wrote:On August 07 2024 09:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:I'd love to see Walz debate Vance. Pretty sure Walz would destroy Vance. Walz is so much more charismatic and able to connect and "real". Edit: The sofa jab again is fantastic: https://x.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/1820955342626312433 Is it "real" to repeat flagrantly false things, like the couch story? As long as we all know what we're dealing with here. I mean Trump and Kamala lie enough as it is, but it's certainly an odd jab when it doesn't have any basis in reality at all. He was just using a common vernacular expression and not alluding to any kind of story at all! Being serious I mean, I don’t think most people actually believe it anyway, but it’s still a bit of craic anyway. Bit like ‘David Cameron fucked a pig’ . Me and my peer group had this discussion and despite enjoying it as a meme, none of us actually believed that he was involved in porking a member of the species we get that cut from. It’s really not something I particularly care about in a climate of the opposition party chatting shite about Jewish Space LazersTM and claiming Barack Obama wasn’t eligible to be President. Something I care even less about as riots still abound in the UK, including my native city, sparked off by utter fabrications about British Muslims. It’s absolute small fry stuff, and far too many people for far too long either perpetrated truly egregious and harmful lies, or were happy to be silent bystanders for calls for a return to truth and decorum now of all times to ring anything but extremely hollow. One reason I mentioned it at all is because, as I know from my years here, there are ABSOLUTELY people reading that and believing it. 100%. Second, I think it's an odd disconnect. The "when they go low we go high" was never actually true, but it's kind of interesting to watch it be thrown off, and thrown off so gleefully! But perhaps I can chalk this up to the sugar high dems still riding. The relief to go from someone always inarticulate and literally incoherent to someone merely inarticulate and often incoherent is huge. and it must be nice to finally be able to say the quiet part out loud and stop lying to myself: Joe Biden is not mentally fit to be president for 4 more years. For most of his presidency they've been pretending otherwise. I'd feel happy too. You're welcome to feel the same way when Trump goes the fuck away. I do hold some small piece of sympathy for people who want to identify as Republicans but are stuck with Trump. I don't think it materially changes my problems with the Republican party any, that those people detest Trump, but I get it. Your turn will come soon. Also, I don't know where you got the interpretation that "when they go low, we go high" means you never get told off when your candidates suck ass. Definitely not since the event horizon that has been Trump's presidency. A lot of decorum got thrown out the window, and despite whatever protests you might've had at the time I still know where you cast your lot. You cannot reasonably have the expectation that people will play nice with Republicans anymore. They abused the privilege.
Does it count as your candidate sucking when your opponents have to make stuff up? At least the cat lady thing is something Vance actually said. My more cynical impression is that 1) lots of people who should have checked believed it 2) when they found out it was literally made up, they kept with it because they want to believe it. Otherwise I think it's not the type of thing a politician would feel comfortable bringing up. When Trump accused Cruz of an affair (through his mouthpiece at a publication) there was a debate about whether or not it should even be referenced. I don't see any such thing here, though maybe this is different.
|
On August 07 2024 13:29 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2024 12:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 07 2024 12:19 Introvert wrote:On August 07 2024 09:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:I'd love to see Walz debate Vance. Pretty sure Walz would destroy Vance. Walz is so much more charismatic and able to connect and "real". Edit: The sofa jab again is fantastic: https://x.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/1820955342626312433 Is it "real" to repeat flagrantly false things, like the couch story? As long as we all know what we're dealing with here. I mean Trump and Kamala lie enough as it is, but it's certainly an odd jab when it doesn't have any basis in reality at all. What are you talking about? Walz never officially said that Vance fucks couches, and I haven't seen Vance give a public explanation about how he doesn't fuck couches. Republicans don't get to suddenly care about the burden of proof. And then once Vance explains himself briefly, I'll move the goalposts back to how Vance hasn't released a long-form explanation of how he doesn't fuck couches. Perhaps he has a certificate stating such? We're just asking questions. Vance is the one who voluntarily tied his wagon to Hitler Trump. That's pretty weird. He deserves all the memes he gets. The thing I find amusing is how left-wing twitter actually bought the story for so long. The point I was making though was more specific. I don't get how Walz can be all these great things and the type of person who traffics in what would seem to be, as you imply by this post, a very Trumpian type of thing. And reveling in it! What is that saying? Maybe you two aren't so different after all! And I think you realize what you are doing with that sentence at the end saying essentially that Vance deserves it for being tied to Trump. I'm just curious what makes that "real" and how is that connecting to anyone, again besides silly people on twitter. I mean if it were humor I would expect it to be funny. As a righty I'm used to jokes at my side's expense, that's not really the problem. I wonder how many people here actually thought the story was real until I pointed it out?
The story that Vance has sex with couches? It took me two seconds to Google it when I first heard it lol. Don't mistake people enjoying Vance's extremely well-deserved mocking for people thinking that every rumor about him is true. Besides, it's just locker room talk! Every guy talks about their conquests, right? Even if it's with an inanimate object, like a sofa? I won't judge if Vance comes out as homo-sectional. What they do in the privacy of their own living room is between a man and IKEA.
You: JD Vance agreed to be Trump's runningmate.
Someone Else: JD Vance? Isn't he that weird couch-fucker who thinks Trump is Hitler, thinks women are useless and psychos if they don't have kids, has a hatred of cats and people owning cats, thinks parents should get extra votes, said he would have helped Trump steal the 2020 election if he were in Pence's position, and tried to beat racism by bragging about Diet Mountain Dew? Why would he want to be Hitler's runningmate?
You: He doesn't really fuck couches, ya know.
As if that's the most problematic part.
|
On August 03 2024 12:59 NewSunshine wrote:Is that confirmed? I'm not seeing anything about it yet.
my dumbass believed Xitter for a moment
|
On August 07 2024 13:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2024 13:29 Introvert wrote:On August 07 2024 12:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 07 2024 12:19 Introvert wrote:On August 07 2024 09:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:I'd love to see Walz debate Vance. Pretty sure Walz would destroy Vance. Walz is so much more charismatic and able to connect and "real". Edit: The sofa jab again is fantastic: https://x.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/1820955342626312433 Is it "real" to repeat flagrantly false things, like the couch story? As long as we all know what we're dealing with here. I mean Trump and Kamala lie enough as it is, but it's certainly an odd jab when it doesn't have any basis in reality at all. What are you talking about? Walz never officially said that Vance fucks couches, and I haven't seen Vance give a public explanation about how he doesn't fuck couches. Republicans don't get to suddenly care about the burden of proof. And then once Vance explains himself briefly, I'll move the goalposts back to how Vance hasn't released a long-form explanation of how he doesn't fuck couches. Perhaps he has a certificate stating such? We're just asking questions. Vance is the one who voluntarily tied his wagon to Hitler Trump. That's pretty weird. He deserves all the memes he gets. The thing I find amusing is how left-wing twitter actually bought the story for so long. The point I was making though was more specific. I don't get how Walz can be all these great things and the type of person who traffics in what would seem to be, as you imply by this post, a very Trumpian type of thing. And reveling in it! What is that saying? Maybe you two aren't so different after all! And I think you realize what you are doing with that sentence at the end saying essentially that Vance deserves it for being tied to Trump. I'm just curious what makes that "real" and how is that connecting to anyone, again besides silly people on twitter. I mean if it were humor I would expect it to be funny. As a righty I'm used to jokes at my side's expense, that's not really the problem. I wonder how many people here actually thought the story was real until I pointed it out? The story that Vance has sex with couches? It took me two seconds to Google it when I first heard it lol. Don't mistake people enjoying Vance's extremely well-deserved mocking for people thinking that every rumor about him is true. Besides, it's just locker room talk! Every guy talks about their conquests, right? Even if it's with an inanimate object, like a sofa? I won't judge if Vance comes out as homo-sectional. What they do in the privacy of their own living room is between a man and IKEA. You: JD Vance agreed to be Trump's runningmate. Someone Else: JD Vance? Isn't he that weird couch-fucker who thinks Trump is Hitler, thinks women are useless and psychos if they don't have kids, has a hatred of cats and people owning cats, thinks parents should get extra votes, said he would have helped Trump steal the 2020 election if he were in Pence's position, and tried to beat racism by bragging about Diet Mountain Dew? Why would he want to be Hitler's runningmate? You: He doesn't really fuck couches, ya know. As if that's the most problematic part.
idk man, that's the part you seem most interested in...again though, absolutely no discussion if this is a good idea from him, which is kind of where I tried to steer this. Now of course you are going to tell me "but Trump" as if somehow Trump isn't allowed to get away with far more than any other politician. I just think dems should cool their jets, heartbreak could be a mere 3 months away.
|
harris walz is like the option you pick when you have hopium off world levels, i cant believe this
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
