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.
On August 24 2024 02:41 oBlade wrote: But the next Republican is always the one that's actually Hitler.
Just Trump. I don't know of anyone who called McCain or Romney "Hitler", but even JD Vance thought Trump was Hitler. McCain and Romney weren't fascists; Trump is.
I can't remember "Hitler" being thrown at McCain and Romney, but they were certainly attacked as if they were going to be the worst presidents ever... somehow worse than GW Bush. Since Trump, attacks both ways have ramped up significantly and have gotten a lot more personal. However, McCain and Romney both had to suffer through a lot of bullshit attacks on their character on the way to losing the presidency. The democrats were certainly not above the fray.
Even going back to the 2000s primary, McCain had to suffer a lot of total bullshit from the Bush camp (Republican friendly fire). But that stuff was more along of the lines of political operatives calling people and asking "Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain if you knew that he fathered an illegitimate black child?" They just wanted to get that idea in voters heads without ever actually saying that he did it.
It's always been dirty and no side is above it.
Sure, but that's not what we're talking about.
If oBlade had merely said that everyone runs negative ads against everyone, and that every candidate has their character attacked and that nobody runs 100% positive, clean campaigns, then I'd be in agreement.
On August 23 2024 23:07 WombaT wrote: Didn’t Bernie pull in big numbers of eyes on multiple appearances on Joe Rogan’s podcast in some of his runs? Hell AOC was bringing the numbers on Twitch playing Among Us with a bunch of left YouTubers and streamers. OK we’re getting into ‘what is major?’ territory again, but I don’t think it’s land all sorts of other Dems are incapable of ploughing, if they so chose to go down that route. Although yes, Trump probably does have more pulling power in these kind of domains.
Hey, he makes interesting points. What are the odds on him following through on such observations?
The regulations on price transparency he already followed through with. The others would probably need to get passed as laws, as not everything is something a single person can just do even if they're president, so let's nobody make the mistake of thinking that's how the world works.
For podcast viability I meant of the 4 major candidates in this cycle which is the relevant one. There's not a total lack of people among Democrats who can actually communicate and have a human conversation for 1-2 hours. Bernie is one as we've seen yes. AOC playing a video game for zoomers, I don't know. But there are plenty. You almost have to be better at communication in order to sell people on ideas that are self-contradictory or just utterly regressive or bald faced lies. This is what we're seeing in real time as Harris attempts to run as an opposition candidate to herself, who pledges she will do the same things Drumpf promises to do but only after he has promised to do them, even though she has done the exact opposite.
On August 22 2024 21:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Bill Clinton + Nancy Pelosi was a solid pairing of the old guard, even though they weren’t particularly energizing, especially back-to-back. Their words for Biden and Harris and Walz were very kind
It's nice to know despite ousting him that there's no hard feelings between them.
On August 22 2024 21:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Clinton had a few good jabs at Trump too, like how Trump actually thought Hannibal Lecter was a good guy and… literally a *real* person. Yikes.
This is fine people hoax level Tiktok gossip. But it wouldn't be the DNC without a lie or two from good old Hillary.
On August 22 2024 21:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Kamala Harris, to Brett Kavanaugh: “Can you think of any laws that give government the power to make decisions about the *male* body?” BK: “I can’t think of any.”
Kamala not understanding that men can get pregnant and Kavanaugh not knowing about the Selective Service Act isn't a great look on either of them.
On August 22 2024 21:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Oprah Winfrey’s existence all brought some serious back-to-back-to-back energy to the crowd. Oprah Winfrey, in particular, was electrifying.
Tear-jerking, almost reminds me of her existence years ago when she was writing letters to Drumpf saying they should run together.
On August 22 2024 21:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: “I’m Pete Buttigieg and you might recognize me from Fox News” lol. He absolutely tore Trump and Vance to shreds in his speech, for the assholes that they are. “At least Pence was… polite” lmao. He also spoke very eloquently on inclusion and gay rights.
Reminds me of all the gay weddings Pence held at Mar-a-Lago. Oh fuck, that was actually Drumpf and all we heard for 4 years is Pence wanted to convert gays - "polite." In 4 years when Desantis runs we will be hearing from the same propaganda machines about how moderate Drumpf was compared to him. Infinitely renewable outrage cycle of fake fascism - defeat the evil Romney and McCain and they're consigned to the past as being moderate losers. But the next Republican is always the one that's actually Hitler.
On August 22 2024 21:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: The montages and speeches by Tim Walz’s students and football team players and fellow military veterans and neighbors and wife were touching. That just doesn’t exist on the Republican side.
Did they have a speech from his chaplain too? I must have missed it.
On August 22 2024 21:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: “Never underestimate a public school teacher.” Fuck yeah.
He led Minnesota to dropping below the national average in education, below national average in elementary school reading assessments. He closed schools and paintballed moms on their porches.
On August 22 2024 21:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: “While other states were banning books from their schools, we were banishing hunger from ours.” Double fuck yeah. When Walz talked about his family and fertility treatments, the camera cut to his kids… his daughter is trying not to cry, and his son is standing and clapping and crying and you can see him saying “That’s my dad”. Literally the proudest kid in the entire world. That was raw, incredibly emotional. There’s such a stark contrast between Walz and Vance, almost as big as the contrast between Harris and Trump.
Think we've amply proven Vance a fan of fertility already. Drumpf, the proof is in the pudding.
I don’t question it’s a difficult task and not one that can simply be done unilaterally, I very much question that there’s any earnest intent there on reforming the governance/lobbyist pipeline from Donald Trump
Hopefully the few remaining anti-corporatist Democrats will pick it up, then, or perhaps Kamala will hear that Drumpf said it and copy him again.
On August 24 2024 02:57 WombaT wrote: He’s had a term already, where was that there? Indeed he’s so committed to maintaining the culture of cronyism and backscratching he stuck family members in influential positions.
He stuck one daughter and her husband in a position of being his advisor (And a beautifully bipartisan move it was). He did not fill cabinet secretary positions with his family. He didn't make Don Jr. head of the FBI. Though seeing the reaction anyway from all the people out there who only read the first page of a newspaper, he probably ought to have.
On August 24 2024 02:57 WombaT wrote: He’s just throwing the odd bone to appeal to unconvinced moderates, I highly doubt he’s got any real commitment here
Perhaps the issue of the government/lobbyist pipeline is not as central to the voter as immigration or the economy, which might explain why he hasn't organized the entire GOP platform around it?
On August 24 2024 02:57 WombaT wrote: Speaking of how the world works, if a perennially proven bullshitter with a track record of self-aggrandisement tries to pivot to present themselves as some anti-corruption reformer, until they actually make a concerted effort to do that, believing them is a fool’s errand
You didn't watch the interview. You're now mischaracterizing the statement, its context, and delivery and his intention, using a track record of similar mischaracterizations of things you probably didn't personally read that you have memed into a self-justifying excuse to not have to listen to ideas until someone lives up to delivering a fix for the entire world to you.
On August 24 2024 02:32 KwarK wrote: Why would a Palestinian be speaking at the DNC?
To give the DNC's empty rhetoric on not supporting Israel's genocide against Palestinians the slightest aura of credibility to people with a conscience.
Palestinians aren’t especially relevant to national politics or the DNC and in foreign politics they’re an extremely anti American group. It’d be profoundly weird if they put one on stage. They’d either find the least representative Palestinian in the world to stand up and endorse the bombing of Palestine which would make you extremely unhappy or they’d find a “death to America” guy which would make everyone but you unhappy. And since you and people like you literally don’t vote there’s really no upside to trying to please you. You’re irrelevant.
But why Palestinian? Why not a Russian who could complain about American bombs getting in the way of their extermination of Ukraine? Why not an Iranian or a Yemeni? Why are you fetishizing their struggle in such a weird way? And why do you have this need for the DNC to be involved in your kink despite their disinterest in it and your proclaimed disinterest in them?
Why can’t you just have a revolution in a room by yourself and let the DNC do its thing?
The reason “why not an Iranian or a Yemeni” is because there is a decent chunk of voters in the left that are willing to be single issue voters on Gaza. I agree it’s kind of dumb to have a random Palestinian speak at the DNC (although some people on the left love hollow pandering for whatever reason) but it’s also incorrect to pretend this issue is irrelevant to American politics.
RFK actually suspended his campaign, confirming this week's rumors.
The key points are: He approached both sides about solving key issues he cared about, and Drumpf's campaign was the only receptive one. Kamala's wouldn't meet with him. Meaning if Kamala wins and she's president for 8 years, he'll have no chance to have an impact on the issues, some of which are also his life's work. He's 70 so that makes sense enough.
He also reasoned that at this point, even in the national stage of the election, he hasn't been afforded the same platform/opportunities as independents in the past - specifically comparing how many TV interviews the networks gave Ross Perot to get his message across in the 90s to the meager interviews he gets in comparison.
Also, something he didn't mention, which happens to be true, is that despite almost qualifying for CPD debates this cycle, one of the problems with a three-way debate is that since 2020, the campaigns in both parties have circumvented the CPD and instead simply organized debates via direct negotiation. Although there are a lot of polls, especially 3-way Biden/Drumpf/Kennedy polls or 5 way polls including Stein and the libertarian in which he performed pretty well, meaning that it's conceivable if he had gotten a debate platform that he could have enjoyed a boost to actual electable chances, which again haven't existed since Perot. But back to what he said.
The issues in a nutshell are: Ending the war in Ukraine Ending forever wars and the influence of the MIC Protecting freedom of speech Securing the border Economy and dollar as global reserve currency Security and risk of nuclear annihilation Reining in the surveillance state/intelligence agencies, and Health, broadly.
This last one he elaborates on for a while, going through a litany of issues, especially: The US's high rates of chronic disease, among both adults and children specifically. He cites history rates of under 1% chronic disease 50 years ago and 66% today. Childhood obesity 3% in Japan and 50% in America. Chronic disease costs the US more per year than the defense budget. There has been an increase in the rates of neurological diseases, like kids with ADD, ADHD, and therefore pharmaceuticals - more adderall, SSRIs, and he didn't mention vaccines even once that I heard, but kind of alluded to it by saying autism has increased from 1 in 1500 to 1 in 36. Lots of teens and women with diagnosed mental problems. Mentioned cancer rates are increasing as well - still uncured by Biden.
Instead of vaccines, he did talk at length about diet and chemicals as causes. Also, the issue of people running CDC, FDA, and so on, being people selected from the industry, meaning they have conflicts of interest. Children's (especially) diets are too industrially processed. Processed sugar and skyrocketing diabetes, including juvenile diabetes that he says was almost unheard of when he was growing up. The US uses chemicals to process food that are banned in Europe. Toxic chemicals, pesticides, and hormone disruptors causing earlier puberty. Railed against subsidizing toxic food, while essentially poisoning the poor (and minorities) with that food. Also railed against big pharma, and in support of small farms.
He arrived at the issue of health not because he particularly wanted to, but being trained as a lawyer, when he was working in environmentalism, the issue chose him because it was so widely neglected.
He related the issue of chronic disease and obesity not just in terms of its financial cost, but as a national security issue - people aren't fit enough to even serve in the military.
"Ultimately the only thing that will save our country and our children is if we choose to love our kids more than we hate each other."
This obviously lines him up for a position in the administration, continuing Drumpf's tradition of ignoring party lines, like when he made his daughter an advisor or when he made himself a Republican, then Reformer, then Democrat, then Republican, then Independent, then Republican.
He says he is working to take himself off the ballot, especially in battleground states, and not to vote for him, that he believes Drumpf is going to take the chronic disease issue seriously and that he (Kennedy) will run and staff whatever offices he's in charge of by reforming them to address these issues and eliminate corporate influence. Says we should be able to make America healthy again and endorsed Drumpf to join together as a unity party because of the overlap on these key issues, which still outweigh even the serious disagreements on other issues. Says he will support Drumpf to unify an intersectional national populist movement.
On August 23 2024 23:07 WombaT wrote: Didn’t Bernie pull in big numbers of eyes on multiple appearances on Joe Rogan’s podcast in some of his runs? Hell AOC was bringing the numbers on Twitch playing Among Us with a bunch of left YouTubers and streamers. OK we’re getting into ‘what is major?’ territory again, but I don’t think it’s land all sorts of other Dems are incapable of ploughing, if they so chose to go down that route. Although yes, Trump probably does have more pulling power in these kind of domains.
Hey, he makes interesting points. What are the odds on him following through on such observations?
The regulations on price transparency he already followed through with. The others would probably need to get passed as laws, as not everything is something a single person can just do even if they're president, so let's nobody make the mistake of thinking that's how the world works.
For podcast viability I meant of the 4 major candidates in this cycle which is the relevant one. There's not a total lack of people among Democrats who can actually communicate and have a human conversation for 1-2 hours. Bernie is one as we've seen yes. AOC playing a video game for zoomers, I don't know. But there are plenty. You almost have to be better at communication in order to sell people on ideas that are self-contradictory or just utterly regressive or bald faced lies. This is what we're seeing in real time as Harris attempts to run as an opposition candidate to herself, who pledges she will do the same things Drumpf promises to do but only after he has promised to do them, even though she has done the exact opposite.
On August 22 2024 21:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Bill Clinton + Nancy Pelosi was a solid pairing of the old guard, even though they weren’t particularly energizing, especially back-to-back. Their words for Biden and Harris and Walz were very kind
It's nice to know despite ousting him that there's no hard feelings between them.
On August 22 2024 21:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Clinton had a few good jabs at Trump too, like how Trump actually thought Hannibal Lecter was a good guy and… literally a *real* person. Yikes.
This is fine people hoax level Tiktok gossip. But it wouldn't be the DNC without a lie or two from good old Hillary.
On August 22 2024 21:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Kamala Harris, to Brett Kavanaugh: “Can you think of any laws that give government the power to make decisions about the *male* body?” BK: “I can’t think of any.”
Kamala not understanding that men can get pregnant and Kavanaugh not knowing about the Selective Service Act isn't a great look on either of them.
On August 22 2024 21:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Oprah Winfrey’s existence all brought some serious back-to-back-to-back energy to the crowd. Oprah Winfrey, in particular, was electrifying.
Tear-jerking, almost reminds me of her existence years ago when she was writing letters to Drumpf saying they should run together.
On August 22 2024 21:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: “I’m Pete Buttigieg and you might recognize me from Fox News” lol. He absolutely tore Trump and Vance to shreds in his speech, for the assholes that they are. “At least Pence was… polite” lmao. He also spoke very eloquently on inclusion and gay rights.
Reminds me of all the gay weddings Pence held at Mar-a-Lago. Oh fuck, that was actually Drumpf and all we heard for 4 years is Pence wanted to convert gays - "polite." In 4 years when Desantis runs we will be hearing from the same propaganda machines about how moderate Drumpf was compared to him. Infinitely renewable outrage cycle of fake fascism - defeat the evil Romney and McCain and they're consigned to the past as being moderate losers. But the next Republican is always the one that's actually Hitler.
On August 22 2024 21:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: The montages and speeches by Tim Walz’s students and football team players and fellow military veterans and neighbors and wife were touching. That just doesn’t exist on the Republican side.
Did they have a speech from his chaplain too? I must have missed it.
On August 22 2024 21:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: “Never underestimate a public school teacher.” Fuck yeah.
He led Minnesota to dropping below the national average in education, below national average in elementary school reading assessments. He closed schools and paintballed moms on their porches.
On August 22 2024 21:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: “While other states were banning books from their schools, we were banishing hunger from ours.” Double fuck yeah. When Walz talked about his family and fertility treatments, the camera cut to his kids… his daughter is trying not to cry, and his son is standing and clapping and crying and you can see him saying “That’s my dad”. Literally the proudest kid in the entire world. That was raw, incredibly emotional. There’s such a stark contrast between Walz and Vance, almost as big as the contrast between Harris and Trump.
Think we've amply proven Vance a fan of fertility already. Drumpf, the proof is in the pudding.
I don’t question it’s a difficult task and not one that can simply be done unilaterally, I very much question that there’s any earnest intent there on reforming the governance/lobbyist pipeline from Donald Trump
Hopefully the few remaining anti-corporatist Democrats will pick it up, then, or perhaps Kamala will hear that Drumpf said it and copy him again.
On August 24 2024 02:57 WombaT wrote: He’s had a term already, where was that there? Indeed he’s so committed to maintaining the culture of cronyism and backscratching he stuck family members in influential positions.
He stuck one daughter and her husband in a position of being his advisor. He did not fill cabinet secretary positions with his family. He didn't make Don Jr. head of the FBI. Though seeing the reaction anyway from all the people out there who only read the first page of a newspaper, he probably ought to have.
On August 24 2024 02:57 WombaT wrote: He’s just throwing the odd bone to appeal to unconvinced moderates, I highly doubt he’s got any real commitment here
Perhaps the issue of the government/lobbyist pipeline is not as central to the voter as immigration or the economy, which might explain why he hasn't organized the entire GOP platform around it?
On August 24 2024 02:57 WombaT wrote: Speaking of how the world works, if a perennially proven bullshitter with a track record of self-aggrandisement tries to pivot to present themselves as some anti-corruption reformer, until they actually make a concerted effort to do that, believing them is a fool’s errand
You didn't watch the interview. You're now mischaracterizing the statement, its context, and delivery and his intention, using a track record of similar mischaracterizations of things you probably didn't personally read that you have memed into a self-justifying excuse to not have to listen to ideas until someone lives up to delivering a fix for the entire world to you.
An inevitable consequence of perpetually playing devil’s advocate is occasionally you’ll find yourself representing the devil.
I have no particular interest in following all that much that the man does in order to pass some kind of ‘open mindedness’ threshold. It’s a waste of both of our times to keep up that pretence.
Any politician who meaningfully legislated against the government/lobbyist pipeline would be enormously popular for doing so. As bipartisan issues go, it’s probably up there in favourably, if not necessarily weight of importance.
Donald Trump will not do this, nor has any intention to do this, and indeed when in situ the spirit of his governance went in the absolute opposite direction
On August 24 2024 02:32 KwarK wrote: Why would a Palestinian be speaking at the DNC?
To give the DNC's empty rhetoric on not supporting Israel's genocide against Palestinians the slightest aura of credibility to people with a conscience.
Palestinians aren’t especially relevant to national politics or the DNC and in foreign politics they’re an extremely anti American group. It’d be profoundly weird if they put one on stage. They’d either find the least representative Palestinian in the world to stand up and endorse the bombing of Palestine which would make you extremely unhappy or they’d find a “death to America” guy which would make everyone but you unhappy. And since you and people like you literally don’t vote there’s really no upside to trying to please you. You’re irrelevant.
But why Palestinian? Why not a Russian who could complain about American bombs getting in the way of their extermination of Ukraine? Why not an Iranian or a Yemeni? Why are you fetishizing their struggle in such a weird way? And why do you have this need for the DNC to be involved in your kink despite their disinterest in it and your proclaimed disinterest in them?
Why can’t you just have a revolution in a room by yourself and let the DNC do its thing?
The reason “why not an Iranian or a Yemeni” is because there is a decent chunk of voters in the left that are willing to be single issue voters on Gaza. I agree it’s kind of dumb to have a random Palestinian speak at the DNC (although some people on the left love hollow pandering for whatever reason) but it’s also incorrect to pretend this issue is irrelevant to American politics.
They do have a Palestinian-American member of Congress...
It's not really a far left thing either, even Jon Stewart called out Democrats for this.
If Robert Kenney wanted to be taken seriously he shouldn't have gone on Joe Rogan and talked about vaccines so early in his campaign. That almost immediately invalidated him to any moderates on the Liberal side of the aisle, and for good reason.
If you want people to take any of your policy suggestions seriously, you should probably start with something else.
On August 24 2024 05:45 WombaT wrote: An inevitable consequence of perpetually playing devil’s advocate is occasionally you’ll find yourself representing the devil.
I have no particular interest in following all that much that the man does in order to pass some kind of ‘open mindedness’ threshold. It’s a waste of both of our times to keep up that pretence.
Any politician who meaningfully legislated against the government/lobbyist pipeline would be enormously popular for doing so. As bipartisan issues go, it’s probably up there in favourably, if not necessarily weight of importance.
Donald Trump will not do this, nor has any intention to do this, and indeed when in situ the spirit of his governance went in the absolute opposite direction
Why even entertain it?
You don't have to watch everything he does in order to avoid making random shit up. Popular? Dear God, we know Drumpf has no interest in that - you've sealed in my mind that he would never actually help address the issue, and he was just saying it to address it because it's an issue at the forefront of the minds of the podcast listeners of substance abuse recovering comedian Theo Von.
I'm pretty sure the DNC blob that produced Harris is not going to do more swamp draining than second term Drumpf.
On August 24 2024 05:40 oBlade wrote: RFK actually suspended his campaign, confirming this week's rumors.
The key points are: He approached both sides about solving key issues he cared about, and Drumpf's campaign was the only receptive one. Meaning if Kamala wins and she's president for 8 years, he'll have no chance to have an impact on the issues, some of which are also his life's work. ...
The issues in a nutshell are: Ending the war in Ukraine Ending forever wars and the influence of the MIC Protecting freedom of speech Securing the border Economy and dollar as global reserve currency Security and risk of nuclear annihilation Reining in the surveillance state/intelligence agencies, and Health, broadly.
The assertion that Harris isn't receptive towards these issues is asinine.
Also, please don't suggest that an anti-vaxxer cares about people's health (you even bolded it lol).
On August 24 2024 05:40 oBlade wrote: RFK actually suspended his campaign, confirming this week's rumors.
The key points are: He approached both sides about solving key issues he cared about, and Drumpf's campaign was the only receptive one. Meaning if Kamala wins and she's president for 8 years, he'll have no chance to have an impact on the issues, some of which are also his life's work. ...
The issues in a nutshell are: Ending the war in Ukraine Ending forever wars and the influence of the MIC Protecting freedom of speech Securing the border Economy and dollar as global reserve currency Security and risk of nuclear annihilation Reining in the surveillance state/intelligence agencies, and Health, broadly.
The assertion that Harris isn't receptive towards these issues is asinine.
Also, please don't suggest that an anti-vaxxer cares about people's health (you even bolded it lol).
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., is a career attorney who: 1) Won 2 landmark cases against Dupont for toxic dumping 2) Won a class action suit against Monsanto for using carcinogens in herbicides 3) Helped negotiate the New York City Watershed Memorandum of Agreement allowing NYC, a huge industrial and commercial city of 10 million, to continue to supply clean unfiltered drinking water after years of lawsuits and work trying to clean up the Hudson and NYC 4) Founded the Waterkeeper Alliance
What have you done to improve people's health other than tell them to get a booster every 3 months for a vaccine that doesn't stop the common cold in order to deplete the stock of the vaccine so the government has to spend more of their tax money buying more doses for the next 3 months in order to boost Pfizer's profits, pump their stock, and help their executives get a nicer wine and yacht collection?
On August 24 2024 05:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: The assertion that Harris isn't receptive towards these issues is asinine.
80% of those are issues your party has spent the best part of a decade having a perpetual meltdown over because they are either fascism or would never work and Harris has directly worked against during her time in the White House already.
On August 24 2024 05:45 WombaT wrote: An inevitable consequence of perpetually playing devil’s advocate is occasionally you’ll find yourself representing the devil.
I have no particular interest in following all that much that the man does in order to pass some kind of ‘open mindedness’ threshold. It’s a waste of both of our times to keep up that pretence.
Any politician who meaningfully legislated against the government/lobbyist pipeline would be enormously popular for doing so. As bipartisan issues go, it’s probably up there in favourably, if not necessarily weight of importance.
Donald Trump will not do this, nor has any intention to do this, and indeed when in situ the spirit of his governance went in the absolute opposite direction
Why even entertain it?
You don't have to watch everything he does in order to avoid making random shit up. Popular? Dear God, we know Drumpf has no interest in that - you've sealed in my mind that he would never actually help address the issue, and he was just saying it to address it because it's an issue at the forefront of the minds of the podcast listeners of substance abuse recovering comedian Theo Von.
I'm pretty sure the DNC blob that produced Harris is not going to do more swamp draining than second term Drumpf.
What have I made up?
It’s a perfectly reasonable extrapolation from what the man has stood for his entire political career, and indeed beyond.
On August 24 2024 05:51 Vindicare605 wrote: If Robert Kenney wanted to be taken seriously he shouldn't have gone on Joe Rogan and talked about vaccines so early in his campaign. That almost immediately invalidated him to any moderates on the Liberal side of the aisle, and for good reason.
If you want people to take any of your policy suggestions seriously, you should probably start with something else.
Also, how does RFK expect to get anything done on issues which would require regulatory oversight, with Trump and a wider GOP who, broadly speaking are quite loose in their tastes re regulation.
RFK raises some absolutely correct, pertinent issues. He just has the unfortunate issue that he also talks his fair share of absolute bollocks.
On August 24 2024 06:12 oBlade wrote: What have you done to improve people's health other than tell them to get a booster every 3 months for a vaccine that doesn't stop the common cold
That's a terrible argument. I'm not running for president; RFK Jr. is/was. And the covid vaccine isn't supposed to "stop the common cold". Do you think the polio vaccine is nonsense because it doesn't "stop the common cold" either? What about the MMR vaccine?
On August 24 2024 05:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: The assertion that Harris isn't receptive towards these issues is asinine.
80% of those are issues your party has spent the best part of a decade having a perpetual meltdown over because they are either fascism or would never work and Harris has directly worked against during her time in the White House already.
On August 24 2024 02:32 KwarK wrote: Why would a Palestinian be speaking at the DNC?
To give the DNC's empty rhetoric on not supporting Israel's genocide against Palestinians the slightest aura of credibility to people with a conscience.
Palestinians aren’t especially relevant to national politics or the DNC and in foreign politics they’re an extremely anti American group. It’d be profoundly weird if they put one on stage. They’d either find the least representative Palestinian in the world to stand up and endorse the bombing of Palestine which would make you extremely unhappy or they’d find a “death to America” guy which would make everyone but you unhappy. And since you and people like you literally don’t vote there’s really no upside to trying to please you. You’re irrelevant.
But why Palestinian? Why not a Russian who could complain about American bombs getting in the way of their extermination of Ukraine? Why not an Iranian or a Yemeni? Why are you fetishizing their struggle in such a weird way? And why do you have this need for the DNC to be involved in your kink despite their disinterest in it and your proclaimed disinterest in them?
Why can’t you just have a revolution in a room by yourself and let the DNC do its thing?
The reason “why not an Iranian or a Yemeni” is because there is a decent chunk of voters in the left that are willing to be single issue voters on Gaza. I agree it’s kind of dumb to have a random Palestinian speak at the DNC (although some people on the left love hollow pandering for whatever reason) but it’s also incorrect to pretend this issue is irrelevant to American politics.
They do have a Palestinian-American member of Congress...
It's not really a far left thing either, even Jon Stewart called out Democrats for this.
The celebrity left loves the empty-gesture pandering more than anyone. Patting yourself on the back for allowing a Palestinian to talk about their suffering right before you approve the next weapons shipment for Israel is pretty on brand.
I’m just surprised you’re in favor of this kind of shallow pandering although I suspect you’re actually not and you just want to fling some mud at the Dems. If they actually did have a Palestinian speak you would be making the same criticism that I am now. There’s no sense trying to appease you because you wouldn’t be appeased either way, which was Kwark’s point. I just disagree if that’s true for all the single issue Gaza voters.
Does the single issue Gaza voter exist in any relevant number? and what do these voters think they accomplish by letting someone who is objectively worse for Gaza get into the WH?
On August 24 2024 07:28 Gorsameth wrote: Does the single issue Gaza voter exist in any relevant number? and what do these voters think they accomplish by letting someone who is objectively worse for Gaza get into the WH?
2000 election was decided by a few hundred votes so a relevant number of voters could be quite small from that perspective.
Your 2nd question seems to have a fairly straightforward answer. They hope to have the Dems reconsider their Gaza stance because they know the Dems very much don’t want to lose to Trump.
On August 24 2024 07:28 Gorsameth wrote: Does the single issue Gaza voter exist in any relevant number? and what do these voters think they accomplish by letting someone who is objectively worse for Gaza get into the WH?
They don't think. They react. All of these people are more or less reactionary to shit that's going on. No one cared before but because of social media and "influencers" now everyone cares and has an issue that is the central tenet in getting their vote. You can't pander to someone who is more or less not going to vote/vote for you anyway. So I think the DNC made the right choice. Harris spoke her piece on it and moved on. They can either get with that or with Trump. But at the end of the day, I tell people who don't vote: "STFU. You didn't voice your opinion by voting, so you get no say in how things turn out."
Not voting is the same as not helping a murder/robbery being committed in front of you. You chose to stand by and watch instead of taking action. So therefore anything you say is moot and would be a better usage of time and brain cells to not converse.
On August 24 2024 07:28 Gorsameth wrote: Does the single issue Gaza voter exist in any relevant number? and what do these voters think they accomplish by letting someone who is objectively worse for Gaza get into the WH?
They don't think. They react. All of these people are more or less reactionary to shit that's going on. No one cared before but because of social media and "influencers" now everyone cares and has an issue that is the central tenet in getting their vote. You can't pander to someone who is more or less not going to vote/vote for you anyway. So I think the DNC made the right choice. Harris spoke her piece on it and moved on. They can either get with that or with Trump. But at the end of the day, I tell people who don't vote: "STFU. You didn't voice your opinion by voting, so you get no say in how things turn out."
Not voting is the same as not helping a murder/robbery being committed in front of you. You chose to stand by and watch instead of taking action. So therefore anything you say is moot and would be a better usage of time and brain cells to not converse.
I guess they could just write in “Mickey Mouse” or something since you think this gesture is crucially important to being able to complain
On August 24 2024 07:28 Gorsameth wrote: Does the single issue Gaza voter exist in any relevant number? and what do these voters think they accomplish by letting someone who is objectively worse for Gaza get into the WH?
They don't think. They react. All of these people are more or less reactionary to shit that's going on. No one cared before but because of social media and "influencers" now everyone cares and has an issue that is the central tenet in getting their vote. You can't pander to someone who is more or less not going to vote/vote for you anyway. So I think the DNC made the right choice. Harris spoke her piece on it and moved on. They can either get with that or with Trump. But at the end of the day, I tell people who don't vote: "STFU. You didn't voice your opinion by voting, so you get no say in how things turn out."
Not voting is the same as not helping a murder/robbery being committed in front of you. You chose to stand by and watch instead of taking action. So therefore anything you say is moot and would be a better usage of time and brain cells to not converse.
I guess they could just write in “Mickey Mouse” or something since you think this gesture is crucially important to being able to complain
If they otherwise weren't going to vote, writing in Mickey Mouse is just a "well, actually" hypothetical. This is nitpicking, you know what he means.
On August 24 2024 07:28 Gorsameth wrote: Does the single issue Gaza voter exist in any relevant number? and what do these voters think they accomplish by letting someone who is objectively worse for Gaza get into the WH?
They don't think. They react. All of these people are more or less reactionary to shit that's going on. No one cared before but because of social media and "influencers" now everyone cares and has an issue that is the central tenet in getting their vote. You can't pander to someone who is more or less not going to vote/vote for you anyway. So I think the DNC made the right choice. Harris spoke her piece on it and moved on. They can either get with that or with Trump. But at the end of the day, I tell people who don't vote: "STFU. You didn't voice your opinion by voting, so you get no say in how things turn out."
Not voting is the same as not helping a murder/robbery being committed in front of you. You chose to stand by and watch instead of taking action. So therefore anything you say is moot and would be a better usage of time and brain cells to not converse.
I guess they could just write in “Mickey Mouse” or something since you think this gesture is crucially important to being able to complain
If they otherwise weren't going to vote, writing in Mickey Mouse is just a "well, actually" hypothetical. This is nitpicking, you know what he means.
They would vote if they had a candidate that doesn’t “support genocide” or whatever. Hopefully Micky Mouse doesn’t.
EPT
