|
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 |
On October 08 2024 05:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2024 05:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 08 2024 05:10 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 05:08 NewSunshine wrote:
Biden obviously made a joke. Don't talk about Smithsonian-level anything when you let an obvious joke fly clear over your head. You haven't reached that level yet. Come back when you understand what a joke is. Good lord. The joke didn't fly over his head. He's intentionally and sarcastically pretending that Biden wasn't making a joke to illustrate how absurd it is that people are pretending that Trump thinks Kamala murdered someone on a hiking trail in Maryland. This is electric sharks all over again and really probably a big reason they might lose ground over the next month. Baiting themselves into these absurdly petty bickering matches over the stupidest aspects of the serious issues they distract from is incredibly repellant to people that can be persuaded to show up and vote for Democrats. What are you talking about? People can discuss serious issues *and* call out Trump for saying stupid shit also. (I'm also not quite sure I agree with your premise that a presidential candidate saying alarmingly stupid shit isn't its own serious issue.) Harris and Walz and Democratic supporters haven't suddenly stopped talking about their plans for the economy, or women's rights, or other important topics. And it's extremely hypocritical when Republicans almost never talk about substance, but god forbid Democrats pause for a second from the issues, to point out Trump's gaslighting or fearmongering or lying.
I mean they can, but that's not what gets the engagement.
You can see a microcosm of it play out here in the difference between the level of engagement on anything that isn't bickering with BJ and oBlade about the most inane shit.
The national version (that also played out here) was how Democrats lost a week that was supposed to be about Amber Thurman and how "Women are bleeding out in parking lots, turned away from emergency rooms, losing their ability to ever have children again. Survivors of rape and incest are being told they cannot make decisions about what happens next to their bodies. And now women are dying. These are the consequences of Donald Trump’s actions.” (sounds a lot like Trump's bit about Harris killing someone) apnews.com
Instead Dems, the media, and posters here basically spent the week arguing pet eating with people whose primary objective is simply to get Dems, media, and posters like yourself to spend that engagement arguing about whatever bullshit stupid bait argument is the flavor of the day instead of the Amber Thurman of the day. You guys fall for it basically every time. You can't help yourselves.
|
On October 08 2024 05:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2024 05:17 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 05:12 NewSunshine wrote:On October 08 2024 05:05 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 04:57 WombaT wrote:On October 08 2024 04:50 oBlade wrote:On October 08 2024 04:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 04:30 oBlade wrote:In another bout of erudite literalism, Biden recently announced he's reentering the race for president at a White House press conference, something he probably impulsively decided after losing his octogenarian temper at an unseemly reporter's prodding, "Do you regret dropping out?" And then with the same lack of respect that has typified this entire dumpster fire administration, everyone in the vicinity just laughed at the demented old racist to his face. He probably doesn't even realize how many ballot deadlines he's already missed. Watch the video you just linked. He said it sarcastically, grinned, and people laughed at his joke. Don't be a tool and don't fabricate things. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to think Biden is old and over-the-hill; you don't need to make up a new one. He literally said it. He stated it very clearly. With the same blank expression he always has. We don't need you Harats to deny reality and run interference like this. You really think the average voter would be capable of figuring out he was actually "joking" if he was as you claim? Clearly he's deranged, and wanting revenge on the people who pushed him out, meaning especially Kamala who replaced him. What better way than to falsely claim he's back in the race, causing a vote split as all the people who would never vote for the first black woman president decide to write in Biden instead. The only "joke" is that he'll be having the last laugh when he collapses the Democratic party out of spite with election interfering stunts like this. You can't just say something and mean it differently than what the words are. What on unearthly fuck are you talking about? He's clearly satirizing people's eagerness to take Trump literally that Kamala murdered someone while dismissing Biden's statement as being unserious. Apparently you get to pick and choose when to take something literally and when to ignore the context that someone is not speaking literally. You want to explain to me how "she killed her like she had a gun in her hand" somehow isn't ascribing responsibility to Harris for killing that person? Fuck me, that's two people who refuse to understand tone and the meaning of words based on tone. What's in the water today? He IS ascribing responsibility to Kamala for Rachel Morin's death. He's not saying Kamala was literally the one that murdered her. "Gun in her hand" is a metaphor. He's not saying Kamala literally had a gun in her hand and used it to murder that woman on a hiking trail in Maryland. Pretending like we don't know what metaphors are just to attack Trump on something is just really bizarre. That's my point. Show nested quote +On October 08 2024 05:27 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 05:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 05:10 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 05:08 NewSunshine wrote:
Biden obviously made a joke. Don't talk about Smithsonian-level anything when you let an obvious joke fly clear over your head. You haven't reached that level yet. Come back when you understand what a joke is. Good lord. The joke didn't fly over his head. He's intentionally and sarcastically pretending that Biden wasn't making a joke to illustrate how absurd it is that people are pretending that Trump thinks Kamala murdered someone on a hiking trail in Maryland. Trump wasn't joking. I could see someone hand-waving away Trump's statement, with something like "Yeah, that's just Trump making stupid claims again; what else is new," and then a discussion could be had about whether it's okay or not to dismiss Trump's dangerous accusations. But to think Biden's joke is comparable to Trump saying his usual bullshit is ridiculous. You were already giving Trump way too much credit, but it's doubly weird to see you trying to die on the absurd "oBlade Knows What's He's Talking About" hill. I didn't say Trump was joking. I said he wasn't speaking literally. The quote is "Kamala let the savage in that murdered Rachel Morin. Kamala murdered her."
How do you interpret that? That Kamala murdered Rachel Morin? But he just said the savage murdered her. Did he forget in the faction of a second that he already said the savage murdered her? Was it a double murder? Did the savage rape her and then Kamala finished the job with the butt end of her metaphorical gun? It's just really weird having to explain this. It's obvious he is saying that the savage is the one that killed Rachel Morin but Kamala is culpable for her death because she is the one that allowed the savage in. If you delete the context and narrow in one the one sentence "Kamala murdered her" then of course it looks like he is actually accusing Kamala of murdering someone. Just like if you delete the context of Joe Biden grinning and people laughing then it looks like he is "back in" the 2024 race. The point is it's stupid to delete context to win stupid arguments. So Trump is saying that Harris is responsible for the victim's murder, but he also used a metaphor about the wrong cause of death. And that means "not murder". Does Trump think that Harris should only be convicted of manslaughter instead of murder? Please tell us the name of the crime, since Trump said "murder" but you know he meant "not murder". If your ace in the hole is that two people can't be convicted of the same murder, then I think that's something you need to flesh out in more detail. I thought such a thing was possible, but I could be wrong. You and oBlade are comparing a joke to a serious statement (part of which, at best, might contain a metaphor). These are not the same things though. oBlade might sincerely not understand this, but you're working really hard to try to make these things equal, even though I suspect you know they aren't.
I'm guessing it would be 2nd degree murder unless Trump thinks there was pre-meditation before Kamala bashed someone's skull in with her metaphorical gun.
On October 08 2024 05:43 brian wrote:
‘like she has a gun in her hand’ - you wouldn’t say it was ‘as if she had the gun,’ if you thought she was literally murderer you wouldn’t compare her to one.
Actually my schooling is starting to come back and I think when you use "like" or "as" it's a simile, not a metaphor. So maybe I was wrong about it being a metaphor. Although some argue that a simile is a type of metaphor.
|
I'm not sure how best to access/watch the interview, but Harris just had one with "Call Her Daddy", which apparently has a massive following:
"In 2020, Call Her Daddy was the fifth most popular podcast on Spotify.[16][17] In 2021 and 2022, Call Her Daddy was ranked as the second most popular podcast on Spotify, finishing behind The Joe Rogan Experience in both years.[18][19]"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_Her_Daddy
|
On October 08 2024 06:05 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2024 05:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 05:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 08 2024 05:10 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 05:08 NewSunshine wrote:
Biden obviously made a joke. Don't talk about Smithsonian-level anything when you let an obvious joke fly clear over your head. You haven't reached that level yet. Come back when you understand what a joke is. Good lord. The joke didn't fly over his head. He's intentionally and sarcastically pretending that Biden wasn't making a joke to illustrate how absurd it is that people are pretending that Trump thinks Kamala murdered someone on a hiking trail in Maryland. This is electric sharks all over again and really probably a big reason they might lose ground over the next month. Baiting themselves into these absurdly petty bickering matches over the stupidest aspects of the serious issues they distract from is incredibly repellant to people that can be persuaded to show up and vote for Democrats. What are you talking about? People can discuss serious issues *and* call out Trump for saying stupid shit also. (I'm also not quite sure I agree with your premise that a presidential candidate saying alarmingly stupid shit isn't its own serious issue.) Harris and Walz and Democratic supporters haven't suddenly stopped talking about their plans for the economy, or women's rights, or other important topics. And it's extremely hypocritical when Republicans almost never talk about substance, but god forbid Democrats pause for a second from the issues, to point out Trump's gaslighting or fearmongering or lying. I mean they can, but that's not what gets the engagement. You can see a microcosm of it play out here in the difference between the level of engagement on anything that isn't bickering with BJ and oBlade about the most inane shit. The national version (that also played out here) was how Democrats lost a week that was supposed to be about Amber Thurman and how Show nested quote +"Women are bleeding out in parking lots, turned away from emergency rooms, losing their ability to ever have children again. Survivors of rape and incest are being told they cannot make decisions about what happens next to their bodies. And now women are dying. These are the consequences of Donald Trump’s actions.” (sounds a lot like Trump's bit about Harris killing someone) apnews.comInstead Dems, the media, and posters here basically spent the week arguing pet eating with people whose primary objective is simply to get Dems, media, and posters like yourself to spend that engagement arguing about whatever bullshit stupid bait argument is the flavor of the day instead of the Amber Thurman of the day. You guys fall for it basically every time. You can't help yourselves.
It was pretty well-established, even among the Republicans, that Trump's "they're eating the dogs" meltdown during the debate was an embarrassment. There's nothing wrong with milking that for all it's worth, and - again - that's not stopping the rallies and interviews and other points being made. It doesn't hurt to occasionally remind the voters of the mistakes your opponent makes.
And yes, bickering with BJ* and oBlade does happen a lot, but it's not like there are conservatives on this forum proposing great, substantive ideas for policy. (I would imagine it's because the leader of the Republican party doesn't have many of those either.) There are still discussions about other important issues, and "important" is subjective; I'm sure a lot of people roll their eyes when we end up having yet another "GH vs. Capitalism" conversation that goes on for several pages, even if some people consider it a legitimately useful topic.
*BJ spent multiple posts denying that Trump meant "murder", even though he said "murder", only to eventually concede that Trump probably only meant "second-degree murder" and that the metaphor stops it from technically being first-degree murder, so it does indeed appear to have been a fruitless discussion about semantics with him:
On October 08 2024 06:07 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2024 05:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 05:17 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 05:12 NewSunshine wrote:On October 08 2024 05:05 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 04:57 WombaT wrote:On October 08 2024 04:50 oBlade wrote:On October 08 2024 04:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 04:30 oBlade wrote:In another bout of erudite literalism, Biden recently announced he's reentering the race for president at a White House press conference, something he probably impulsively decided after losing his octogenarian temper at an unseemly reporter's prodding, "Do you regret dropping out?" And then with the same lack of respect that has typified this entire dumpster fire administration, everyone in the vicinity just laughed at the demented old racist to his face. He probably doesn't even realize how many ballot deadlines he's already missed. Watch the video you just linked. He said it sarcastically, grinned, and people laughed at his joke. Don't be a tool and don't fabricate things. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to think Biden is old and over-the-hill; you don't need to make up a new one. He literally said it. He stated it very clearly. With the same blank expression he always has. We don't need you Harats to deny reality and run interference like this. You really think the average voter would be capable of figuring out he was actually "joking" if he was as you claim? Clearly he's deranged, and wanting revenge on the people who pushed him out, meaning especially Kamala who replaced him. What better way than to falsely claim he's back in the race, causing a vote split as all the people who would never vote for the first black woman president decide to write in Biden instead. The only "joke" is that he'll be having the last laugh when he collapses the Democratic party out of spite with election interfering stunts like this. You can't just say something and mean it differently than what the words are. What on unearthly fuck are you talking about? He's clearly satirizing people's eagerness to take Trump literally that Kamala murdered someone while dismissing Biden's statement as being unserious. Apparently you get to pick and choose when to take something literally and when to ignore the context that someone is not speaking literally. You want to explain to me how "she killed her like she had a gun in her hand" somehow isn't ascribing responsibility to Harris for killing that person? Fuck me, that's two people who refuse to understand tone and the meaning of words based on tone. What's in the water today? He IS ascribing responsibility to Kamala for Rachel Morin's death. He's not saying Kamala was literally the one that murdered her. "Gun in her hand" is a metaphor. He's not saying Kamala literally had a gun in her hand and used it to murder that woman on a hiking trail in Maryland. Pretending like we don't know what metaphors are just to attack Trump on something is just really bizarre. That's my point. On October 08 2024 05:27 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 05:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 05:10 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 05:08 NewSunshine wrote:
Biden obviously made a joke. Don't talk about Smithsonian-level anything when you let an obvious joke fly clear over your head. You haven't reached that level yet. Come back when you understand what a joke is. Good lord. The joke didn't fly over his head. He's intentionally and sarcastically pretending that Biden wasn't making a joke to illustrate how absurd it is that people are pretending that Trump thinks Kamala murdered someone on a hiking trail in Maryland. Trump wasn't joking. I could see someone hand-waving away Trump's statement, with something like "Yeah, that's just Trump making stupid claims again; what else is new," and then a discussion could be had about whether it's okay or not to dismiss Trump's dangerous accusations. But to think Biden's joke is comparable to Trump saying his usual bullshit is ridiculous. You were already giving Trump way too much credit, but it's doubly weird to see you trying to die on the absurd "oBlade Knows What's He's Talking About" hill. I didn't say Trump was joking. I said he wasn't speaking literally. The quote is "Kamala let the savage in that murdered Rachel Morin. Kamala murdered her."
How do you interpret that? That Kamala murdered Rachel Morin? But he just said the savage murdered her. Did he forget in the faction of a second that he already said the savage murdered her? Was it a double murder? Did the savage rape her and then Kamala finished the job with the butt end of her metaphorical gun? It's just really weird having to explain this. It's obvious he is saying that the savage is the one that killed Rachel Morin but Kamala is culpable for her death because she is the one that allowed the savage in. If you delete the context and narrow in one the one sentence "Kamala murdered her" then of course it looks like he is actually accusing Kamala of murdering someone. Just like if you delete the context of Joe Biden grinning and people laughing then it looks like he is "back in" the 2024 race. The point is it's stupid to delete context to win stupid arguments. So Trump is saying that Harris is responsible for the victim's murder, but he also used a metaphor about the wrong cause of death. And that means "not murder". Does Trump think that Harris should only be convicted of manslaughter instead of murder? Please tell us the name of the crime, since Trump said "murder" but you know he meant "not murder". If your ace in the hole is that two people can't be convicted of the same murder, then I think that's something you need to flesh out in more detail. I thought such a thing was possible, but I could be wrong. You and oBlade are comparing a joke to a serious statement (part of which, at best, might contain a metaphor). These are not the same things though. oBlade might sincerely not understand this, but you're working really hard to try to make these things equal, even though I suspect you know they aren't. I'm guessing it would be 2nd degree murder unless Trump thinks there was pre-meditation before Kamala bashed someone's skull in with her metaphorical gun.
Neat. I'm satisfied.
|
On October 08 2024 06:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2024 06:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 08 2024 05:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 05:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 08 2024 05:10 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 05:08 NewSunshine wrote:
Biden obviously made a joke. Don't talk about Smithsonian-level anything when you let an obvious joke fly clear over your head. You haven't reached that level yet. Come back when you understand what a joke is. Good lord. The joke didn't fly over his head. He's intentionally and sarcastically pretending that Biden wasn't making a joke to illustrate how absurd it is that people are pretending that Trump thinks Kamala murdered someone on a hiking trail in Maryland. This is electric sharks all over again and really probably a big reason they might lose ground over the next month. Baiting themselves into these absurdly petty bickering matches over the stupidest aspects of the serious issues they distract from is incredibly repellant to people that can be persuaded to show up and vote for Democrats. What are you talking about? People can discuss serious issues *and* call out Trump for saying stupid shit also. (I'm also not quite sure I agree with your premise that a presidential candidate saying alarmingly stupid shit isn't its own serious issue.) Harris and Walz and Democratic supporters haven't suddenly stopped talking about their plans for the economy, or women's rights, or other important topics. And it's extremely hypocritical when Republicans almost never talk about substance, but god forbid Democrats pause for a second from the issues, to point out Trump's gaslighting or fearmongering or lying. I mean they can, but that's not what gets the engagement. You can see a microcosm of it play out here in the difference between the level of engagement on anything that isn't bickering with BJ and oBlade about the most inane shit. The national version (that also played out here) was how Democrats lost a week that was supposed to be about Amber Thurman and how "Women are bleeding out in parking lots, turned away from emergency rooms, losing their ability to ever have children again. Survivors of rape and incest are being told they cannot make decisions about what happens next to their bodies. And now women are dying. These are the consequences of Donald Trump’s actions.” (sounds a lot like Trump's bit about Harris killing someone) apnews.comInstead Dems, the media, and posters here basically spent the week arguing pet eating with people whose primary objective is simply to get Dems, media, and posters like yourself to spend that engagement arguing about whatever bullshit stupid bait argument is the flavor of the day instead of the Amber Thurman of the day. You guys fall for it basically every time. You can't help yourselves. + Show Spoiler +It was pretty well-established, even among the Republicans, that Trump's "they're eating the dogs" meltdown during the debate was an embarrassment. There's nothing wrong with milking that for all it's worth, and - again - that's not stopping the rallies and interviews and other points being made. It doesn't hurt to occasionally remind the voters of the mistakes your opponent makes.
And yes, bickering with BJ* and oBlade does happen a lot, but it's not like there are conservatives on this forum proposing great, substantive ideas for policy. (I would imagine it's because the leader of the Republican party doesn't have many of those either.) There are still discussions about other important issues, and "important" is subjective; I'm sure a lot of people roll their eyes when we end up having yet another "GH vs. Capitalism" conversation that goes on for several pages, even if some people consider it a legitimately useful topic. *BJ spent multiple posts denying that Trump meant "murder", even though he said "murder", only to eventually concede that Trump probably only meant "second-degree murder" and that the metaphor stops it from technically being first-degree murder, so it does indeed appear to have been a fruitless discussion about semantics with him: + Show Spoiler +On October 08 2024 06:07 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2024 05:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 05:17 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 05:12 NewSunshine wrote:On October 08 2024 05:05 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 04:57 WombaT wrote:On October 08 2024 04:50 oBlade wrote:On October 08 2024 04:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 04:30 oBlade wrote:In another bout of erudite literalism, Biden recently announced he's reentering the race for president at a White House press conference, something he probably impulsively decided after losing his octogenarian temper at an unseemly reporter's prodding, "Do you regret dropping out?" And then with the same lack of respect that has typified this entire dumpster fire administration, everyone in the vicinity just laughed at the demented old racist to his face. He probably doesn't even realize how many ballot deadlines he's already missed. Watch the video you just linked. He said it sarcastically, grinned, and people laughed at his joke. Don't be a tool and don't fabricate things. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to think Biden is old and over-the-hill; you don't need to make up a new one. He literally said it. He stated it very clearly. With the same blank expression he always has. We don't need you Harats to deny reality and run interference like this. You really think the average voter would be capable of figuring out he was actually "joking" if he was as you claim? Clearly he's deranged, and wanting revenge on the people who pushed him out, meaning especially Kamala who replaced him. What better way than to falsely claim he's back in the race, causing a vote split as all the people who would never vote for the first black woman president decide to write in Biden instead. The only "joke" is that he'll be having the last laugh when he collapses the Democratic party out of spite with election interfering stunts like this. You can't just say something and mean it differently than what the words are. What on unearthly fuck are you talking about? He's clearly satirizing people's eagerness to take Trump literally that Kamala murdered someone while dismissing Biden's statement as being unserious. Apparently you get to pick and choose when to take something literally and when to ignore the context that someone is not speaking literally. You want to explain to me how "she killed her like she had a gun in her hand" somehow isn't ascribing responsibility to Harris for killing that person? Fuck me, that's two people who refuse to understand tone and the meaning of words based on tone. What's in the water today? He IS ascribing responsibility to Kamala for Rachel Morin's death. He's not saying Kamala was literally the one that murdered her. "Gun in her hand" is a metaphor. He's not saying Kamala literally had a gun in her hand and used it to murder that woman on a hiking trail in Maryland. Pretending like we don't know what metaphors are just to attack Trump on something is just really bizarre. That's my point. On October 08 2024 05:27 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 05:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 05:10 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 05:08 NewSunshine wrote:
Biden obviously made a joke. Don't talk about Smithsonian-level anything when you let an obvious joke fly clear over your head. You haven't reached that level yet. Come back when you understand what a joke is. Good lord. The joke didn't fly over his head. He's intentionally and sarcastically pretending that Biden wasn't making a joke to illustrate how absurd it is that people are pretending that Trump thinks Kamala murdered someone on a hiking trail in Maryland. Trump wasn't joking. I could see someone hand-waving away Trump's statement, with something like "Yeah, that's just Trump making stupid claims again; what else is new," and then a discussion could be had about whether it's okay or not to dismiss Trump's dangerous accusations. But to think Biden's joke is comparable to Trump saying his usual bullshit is ridiculous. You were already giving Trump way too much credit, but it's doubly weird to see you trying to die on the absurd "oBlade Knows What's He's Talking About" hill. I didn't say Trump was joking. I said he wasn't speaking literally. The quote is "Kamala let the savage in that murdered Rachel Morin. Kamala murdered her."
How do you interpret that? That Kamala murdered Rachel Morin? But he just said the savage murdered her. Did he forget in the faction of a second that he already said the savage murdered her? Was it a double murder? Did the savage rape her and then Kamala finished the job with the butt end of her metaphorical gun? It's just really weird having to explain this. It's obvious he is saying that the savage is the one that killed Rachel Morin but Kamala is culpable for her death because she is the one that allowed the savage in. If you delete the context and narrow in one the one sentence "Kamala murdered her" then of course it looks like he is actually accusing Kamala of murdering someone. Just like if you delete the context of Joe Biden grinning and people laughing then it looks like he is "back in" the 2024 race. The point is it's stupid to delete context to win stupid arguments. So Trump is saying that Harris is responsible for the victim's murder, but he also used a metaphor about the wrong cause of death. And that means "not murder". Does Trump think that Harris should only be convicted of manslaughter instead of murder? Please tell us the name of the crime, since Trump said "murder" but you know he meant "not murder". If your ace in the hole is that two people can't be convicted of the same murder, then I think that's something you need to flesh out in more detail. I thought such a thing was possible, but I could be wrong. You and oBlade are comparing a joke to a serious statement (part of which, at best, might contain a metaphor). These are not the same things though. oBlade might sincerely not understand this, but you're working really hard to try to make these things equal, even though I suspect you know they aren't. I'm guessing it would be 2nd degree murder unless Trump thinks there was pre-meditation before Kamala bashed someone's skull in with her metaphorical gun. Neat. I'm satisfied.
Between this and the post about the "Call Her Daddy" podcast I don't think I could make my point better than you are right now.
|
On October 08 2024 06:32 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2024 06:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 06:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 08 2024 05:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 05:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 08 2024 05:10 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 05:08 NewSunshine wrote:
Biden obviously made a joke. Don't talk about Smithsonian-level anything when you let an obvious joke fly clear over your head. You haven't reached that level yet. Come back when you understand what a joke is. Good lord. The joke didn't fly over his head. He's intentionally and sarcastically pretending that Biden wasn't making a joke to illustrate how absurd it is that people are pretending that Trump thinks Kamala murdered someone on a hiking trail in Maryland. This is electric sharks all over again and really probably a big reason they might lose ground over the next month. Baiting themselves into these absurdly petty bickering matches over the stupidest aspects of the serious issues they distract from is incredibly repellant to people that can be persuaded to show up and vote for Democrats. What are you talking about? People can discuss serious issues *and* call out Trump for saying stupid shit also. (I'm also not quite sure I agree with your premise that a presidential candidate saying alarmingly stupid shit isn't its own serious issue.) Harris and Walz and Democratic supporters haven't suddenly stopped talking about their plans for the economy, or women's rights, or other important topics. And it's extremely hypocritical when Republicans almost never talk about substance, but god forbid Democrats pause for a second from the issues, to point out Trump's gaslighting or fearmongering or lying. I mean they can, but that's not what gets the engagement. You can see a microcosm of it play out here in the difference between the level of engagement on anything that isn't bickering with BJ and oBlade about the most inane shit. The national version (that also played out here) was how Democrats lost a week that was supposed to be about Amber Thurman and how "Women are bleeding out in parking lots, turned away from emergency rooms, losing their ability to ever have children again. Survivors of rape and incest are being told they cannot make decisions about what happens next to their bodies. And now women are dying. These are the consequences of Donald Trump’s actions.” (sounds a lot like Trump's bit about Harris killing someone) apnews.comInstead Dems, the media, and posters here basically spent the week arguing pet eating with people whose primary objective is simply to get Dems, media, and posters like yourself to spend that engagement arguing about whatever bullshit stupid bait argument is the flavor of the day instead of the Amber Thurman of the day. You guys fall for it basically every time. You can't help yourselves. + Show Spoiler +It was pretty well-established, even among the Republicans, that Trump's "they're eating the dogs" meltdown during the debate was an embarrassment. There's nothing wrong with milking that for all it's worth, and - again - that's not stopping the rallies and interviews and other points being made. It doesn't hurt to occasionally remind the voters of the mistakes your opponent makes.
And yes, bickering with BJ* and oBlade does happen a lot, but it's not like there are conservatives on this forum proposing great, substantive ideas for policy. (I would imagine it's because the leader of the Republican party doesn't have many of those either.) There are still discussions about other important issues, and "important" is subjective; I'm sure a lot of people roll their eyes when we end up having yet another "GH vs. Capitalism" conversation that goes on for several pages, even if some people consider it a legitimately useful topic. *BJ spent multiple posts denying that Trump meant "murder", even though he said "murder", only to eventually concede that Trump probably only meant "second-degree murder" and that the metaphor stops it from technically being first-degree murder, so it does indeed appear to have been a fruitless discussion about semantics with him: + Show Spoiler +On October 08 2024 06:07 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2024 05:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 05:17 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 05:12 NewSunshine wrote:On October 08 2024 05:05 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 04:57 WombaT wrote:On October 08 2024 04:50 oBlade wrote:On October 08 2024 04:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 04:30 oBlade wrote:In another bout of erudite literalism, Biden recently announced he's reentering the race for president at a White House press conference, something he probably impulsively decided after losing his octogenarian temper at an unseemly reporter's prodding, "Do you regret dropping out?" And then with the same lack of respect that has typified this entire dumpster fire administration, everyone in the vicinity just laughed at the demented old racist to his face. He probably doesn't even realize how many ballot deadlines he's already missed. Watch the video you just linked. He said it sarcastically, grinned, and people laughed at his joke. Don't be a tool and don't fabricate things. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to think Biden is old and over-the-hill; you don't need to make up a new one. He literally said it. He stated it very clearly. With the same blank expression he always has. We don't need you Harats to deny reality and run interference like this. You really think the average voter would be capable of figuring out he was actually "joking" if he was as you claim? Clearly he's deranged, and wanting revenge on the people who pushed him out, meaning especially Kamala who replaced him. What better way than to falsely claim he's back in the race, causing a vote split as all the people who would never vote for the first black woman president decide to write in Biden instead. The only "joke" is that he'll be having the last laugh when he collapses the Democratic party out of spite with election interfering stunts like this. You can't just say something and mean it differently than what the words are. What on unearthly fuck are you talking about? He's clearly satirizing people's eagerness to take Trump literally that Kamala murdered someone while dismissing Biden's statement as being unserious. Apparently you get to pick and choose when to take something literally and when to ignore the context that someone is not speaking literally. You want to explain to me how "she killed her like she had a gun in her hand" somehow isn't ascribing responsibility to Harris for killing that person? Fuck me, that's two people who refuse to understand tone and the meaning of words based on tone. What's in the water today? He IS ascribing responsibility to Kamala for Rachel Morin's death. He's not saying Kamala was literally the one that murdered her. "Gun in her hand" is a metaphor. He's not saying Kamala literally had a gun in her hand and used it to murder that woman on a hiking trail in Maryland. Pretending like we don't know what metaphors are just to attack Trump on something is just really bizarre. That's my point. On October 08 2024 05:27 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 05:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 05:10 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 05:08 NewSunshine wrote:
Biden obviously made a joke. Don't talk about Smithsonian-level anything when you let an obvious joke fly clear over your head. You haven't reached that level yet. Come back when you understand what a joke is. Good lord. The joke didn't fly over his head. He's intentionally and sarcastically pretending that Biden wasn't making a joke to illustrate how absurd it is that people are pretending that Trump thinks Kamala murdered someone on a hiking trail in Maryland. Trump wasn't joking. I could see someone hand-waving away Trump's statement, with something like "Yeah, that's just Trump making stupid claims again; what else is new," and then a discussion could be had about whether it's okay or not to dismiss Trump's dangerous accusations. But to think Biden's joke is comparable to Trump saying his usual bullshit is ridiculous. You were already giving Trump way too much credit, but it's doubly weird to see you trying to die on the absurd "oBlade Knows What's He's Talking About" hill. I didn't say Trump was joking. I said he wasn't speaking literally. The quote is "Kamala let the savage in that murdered Rachel Morin. Kamala murdered her."
How do you interpret that? That Kamala murdered Rachel Morin? But he just said the savage murdered her. Did he forget in the faction of a second that he already said the savage murdered her? Was it a double murder? Did the savage rape her and then Kamala finished the job with the butt end of her metaphorical gun? It's just really weird having to explain this. It's obvious he is saying that the savage is the one that killed Rachel Morin but Kamala is culpable for her death because she is the one that allowed the savage in. If you delete the context and narrow in one the one sentence "Kamala murdered her" then of course it looks like he is actually accusing Kamala of murdering someone. Just like if you delete the context of Joe Biden grinning and people laughing then it looks like he is "back in" the 2024 race. The point is it's stupid to delete context to win stupid arguments. So Trump is saying that Harris is responsible for the victim's murder, but he also used a metaphor about the wrong cause of death. And that means "not murder". Does Trump think that Harris should only be convicted of manslaughter instead of murder? Please tell us the name of the crime, since Trump said "murder" but you know he meant "not murder". If your ace in the hole is that two people can't be convicted of the same murder, then I think that's something you need to flesh out in more detail. I thought such a thing was possible, but I could be wrong. You and oBlade are comparing a joke to a serious statement (part of which, at best, might contain a metaphor). These are not the same things though. oBlade might sincerely not understand this, but you're working really hard to try to make these things equal, even though I suspect you know they aren't. I'm guessing it would be 2nd degree murder unless Trump thinks there was pre-meditation before Kamala bashed someone's skull in with her metaphorical gun. Neat. I'm satisfied. Between this and the post about the "Call Her Daddy" podcast I don't think I could make my point better than you are right now.
I couldn't find the video or the audio for the interview, besides some clips, or else I'd post it like I've done with other interviews. Someone else may have more luck. You're also throwing stones at everyone else, when you're far from innocent. Nothing's stopping you from posting about important issues.
Edit: Found the interview!
https://open.spotify.com/episode/1ddW3mBpl0JxElYHZNuZ5b
|
On October 08 2024 06:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
*BJ spent multiple posts denying that Trump meant "murder", even though he said "murder", only to eventually concede that Trump probably only meant "second-degree murder"
You really do take everything literally, huh
|
Northern Ireland26032 Posts
Well Harris has no case to answer as people are autonomous beings and if they choose to do shitty things nobody else is responsible whatsoever. I mean that’s the standard nowadays of public figures right?
Is it even worth engaging in Trump apologetics, or devil’s advocacy at this point, or indeed at many points during the preceding 8 years?
It’s just endless double standards and bad faith fucking nonsense on behalf of a guy not fit to be a departmental Walmart manager much less the President of the United States
|
On October 08 2024 06:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2024 06:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 08 2024 06:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 06:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 08 2024 05:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 05:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 08 2024 05:10 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 05:08 NewSunshine wrote:
Biden obviously made a joke. Don't talk about Smithsonian-level anything when you let an obvious joke fly clear over your head. You haven't reached that level yet. Come back when you understand what a joke is. Good lord. The joke didn't fly over his head. He's intentionally and sarcastically pretending that Biden wasn't making a joke to illustrate how absurd it is that people are pretending that Trump thinks Kamala murdered someone on a hiking trail in Maryland. This is electric sharks all over again and really probably a big reason they might lose ground over the next month. Baiting themselves into these absurdly petty bickering matches over the stupidest aspects of the serious issues they distract from is incredibly repellant to people that can be persuaded to show up and vote for Democrats. What are you talking about? People can discuss serious issues *and* call out Trump for saying stupid shit also. (I'm also not quite sure I agree with your premise that a presidential candidate saying alarmingly stupid shit isn't its own serious issue.) Harris and Walz and Democratic supporters haven't suddenly stopped talking about their plans for the economy, or women's rights, or other important topics. And it's extremely hypocritical when Republicans almost never talk about substance, but god forbid Democrats pause for a second from the issues, to point out Trump's gaslighting or fearmongering or lying. I mean they can, but that's not what gets the engagement. You can see a microcosm of it play out here in the difference between the level of engagement on anything that isn't bickering with BJ and oBlade about the most inane shit. The national version (that also played out here) was how Democrats lost a week that was supposed to be about Amber Thurman and how "Women are bleeding out in parking lots, turned away from emergency rooms, losing their ability to ever have children again. Survivors of rape and incest are being told they cannot make decisions about what happens next to their bodies. And now women are dying. These are the consequences of Donald Trump’s actions.” (sounds a lot like Trump's bit about Harris killing someone) apnews.comInstead Dems, the media, and posters here basically spent the week arguing pet eating with people whose primary objective is simply to get Dems, media, and posters like yourself to spend that engagement arguing about whatever bullshit stupid bait argument is the flavor of the day instead of the Amber Thurman of the day. You guys fall for it basically every time. You can't help yourselves. + Show Spoiler +It was pretty well-established, even among the Republicans, that Trump's "they're eating the dogs" meltdown during the debate was an embarrassment. There's nothing wrong with milking that for all it's worth, and - again - that's not stopping the rallies and interviews and other points being made. It doesn't hurt to occasionally remind the voters of the mistakes your opponent makes.
And yes, bickering with BJ* and oBlade does happen a lot, but it's not like there are conservatives on this forum proposing great, substantive ideas for policy. (I would imagine it's because the leader of the Republican party doesn't have many of those either.) There are still discussions about other important issues, and "important" is subjective; I'm sure a lot of people roll their eyes when we end up having yet another "GH vs. Capitalism" conversation that goes on for several pages, even if some people consider it a legitimately useful topic. *BJ spent multiple posts denying that Trump meant "murder", even though he said "murder", only to eventually concede that Trump probably only meant "second-degree murder" and that the metaphor stops it from technically being first-degree murder, so it does indeed appear to have been a fruitless discussion about semantics with him: + Show Spoiler +On October 08 2024 06:07 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2024 05:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 05:17 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 05:12 NewSunshine wrote:On October 08 2024 05:05 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 04:57 WombaT wrote:On October 08 2024 04:50 oBlade wrote:On October 08 2024 04:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 04:30 oBlade wrote:In another bout of erudite literalism, Biden recently announced he's reentering the race for president at a White House press conference, something he probably impulsively decided after losing his octogenarian temper at an unseemly reporter's prodding, "Do you regret dropping out?" And then with the same lack of respect that has typified this entire dumpster fire administration, everyone in the vicinity just laughed at the demented old racist to his face. He probably doesn't even realize how many ballot deadlines he's already missed. Watch the video you just linked. He said it sarcastically, grinned, and people laughed at his joke. Don't be a tool and don't fabricate things. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to think Biden is old and over-the-hill; you don't need to make up a new one. He literally said it. He stated it very clearly. With the same blank expression he always has. We don't need you Harats to deny reality and run interference like this. You really think the average voter would be capable of figuring out he was actually "joking" if he was as you claim? Clearly he's deranged, and wanting revenge on the people who pushed him out, meaning especially Kamala who replaced him. What better way than to falsely claim he's back in the race, causing a vote split as all the people who would never vote for the first black woman president decide to write in Biden instead. The only "joke" is that he'll be having the last laugh when he collapses the Democratic party out of spite with election interfering stunts like this. You can't just say something and mean it differently than what the words are. What on unearthly fuck are you talking about? He's clearly satirizing people's eagerness to take Trump literally that Kamala murdered someone while dismissing Biden's statement as being unserious. Apparently you get to pick and choose when to take something literally and when to ignore the context that someone is not speaking literally. You want to explain to me how "she killed her like she had a gun in her hand" somehow isn't ascribing responsibility to Harris for killing that person? Fuck me, that's two people who refuse to understand tone and the meaning of words based on tone. What's in the water today? He IS ascribing responsibility to Kamala for Rachel Morin's death. He's not saying Kamala was literally the one that murdered her. "Gun in her hand" is a metaphor. He's not saying Kamala literally had a gun in her hand and used it to murder that woman on a hiking trail in Maryland. Pretending like we don't know what metaphors are just to attack Trump on something is just really bizarre. That's my point. On October 08 2024 05:27 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 05:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 05:10 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 05:08 NewSunshine wrote:
Biden obviously made a joke. Don't talk about Smithsonian-level anything when you let an obvious joke fly clear over your head. You haven't reached that level yet. Come back when you understand what a joke is. Good lord. The joke didn't fly over his head. He's intentionally and sarcastically pretending that Biden wasn't making a joke to illustrate how absurd it is that people are pretending that Trump thinks Kamala murdered someone on a hiking trail in Maryland. Trump wasn't joking. I could see someone hand-waving away Trump's statement, with something like "Yeah, that's just Trump making stupid claims again; what else is new," and then a discussion could be had about whether it's okay or not to dismiss Trump's dangerous accusations. But to think Biden's joke is comparable to Trump saying his usual bullshit is ridiculous. You were already giving Trump way too much credit, but it's doubly weird to see you trying to die on the absurd "oBlade Knows What's He's Talking About" hill. I didn't say Trump was joking. I said he wasn't speaking literally. The quote is "Kamala let the savage in that murdered Rachel Morin. Kamala murdered her."
How do you interpret that? That Kamala murdered Rachel Morin? But he just said the savage murdered her. Did he forget in the faction of a second that he already said the savage murdered her? Was it a double murder? Did the savage rape her and then Kamala finished the job with the butt end of her metaphorical gun? It's just really weird having to explain this. It's obvious he is saying that the savage is the one that killed Rachel Morin but Kamala is culpable for her death because she is the one that allowed the savage in. If you delete the context and narrow in one the one sentence "Kamala murdered her" then of course it looks like he is actually accusing Kamala of murdering someone. Just like if you delete the context of Joe Biden grinning and people laughing then it looks like he is "back in" the 2024 race. The point is it's stupid to delete context to win stupid arguments. So Trump is saying that Harris is responsible for the victim's murder, but he also used a metaphor about the wrong cause of death. And that means "not murder". Does Trump think that Harris should only be convicted of manslaughter instead of murder? Please tell us the name of the crime, since Trump said "murder" but you know he meant "not murder". If your ace in the hole is that two people can't be convicted of the same murder, then I think that's something you need to flesh out in more detail. I thought such a thing was possible, but I could be wrong. You and oBlade are comparing a joke to a serious statement (part of which, at best, might contain a metaphor). These are not the same things though. oBlade might sincerely not understand this, but you're working really hard to try to make these things equal, even though I suspect you know they aren't. I'm guessing it would be 2nd degree murder unless Trump thinks there was pre-meditation before Kamala bashed someone's skull in with her metaphorical gun. Neat. I'm satisfied. Between this and the post about the "Call Her Daddy" podcast I don't think I could make my point better than you are right now. I couldn't find the video or the audio for the interview, besides some clips, or else I'd post it like I've done with other interviews. Someone else may have more luck. You're also throwing stones at everyone else, when you're far from innocent. Nothing's stopping you from posting about important issues.
I mentioned the Call Her Daddy podcast post because it (and the other interviews/posts you mention) are an example of the point I made about what actually gets the engagement. Harris could recite the chemical composition of a universal cure for cancer and Trump could put a pile of shit in a bag and light it fire on Pelosi's doorstep and Democrats would bait themselves into making the newscycle about "Trump's vicious act of terrorism". While you and others here would argue with BJ and oBlade about whether he was a terrorist and/or if it made some random Democrat that did something tangentially similar a terrorist also.+ Show Spoiler + That's a bit hyperbolic if that's not obvious, but even the fleeting thought it might not be is indicative of the problem I'm talking about.
As for the aspect of "important" in that context, I meant to their own self-ascribed policy/strategy. Democrats don't really engage with the sort of introspective analysis I've argued they needed in order to be considered even viable social democrats, let alone dem socialists or beyond.
I've come to terms with the general disinterest among libs in actually addressing that kind of stuff. I'm not voting for Harris because my vote is obviated by the system and doing so despite that would be irrationally cruel. Democrats though, they are ostensibly pretty committed to Harris winning. So when I point out how poorly she's doing compared to Biden in 2020 and how arguing about the latest stupid thing with the BJ's and oBlades of the world could be catastrophic, it's not because I'd rather discuss things of substance and value toward ending oppression in a holistic way (though I certainly would, and frequently offer opportunities for such, to little or no avail). It's because I'm pointing out Democrats and their supporters are just doing a bad job at what they are ostensibly trying to do by their own metrics and that's still bad for anyone that doesn't want Trump to become the fascist dictator Democrats (and Trump) tell me he will be.
|
On October 08 2024 07:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2024 06:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 06:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 08 2024 06:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 06:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 08 2024 05:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 05:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 08 2024 05:10 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 05:08 NewSunshine wrote:
Biden obviously made a joke. Don't talk about Smithsonian-level anything when you let an obvious joke fly clear over your head. You haven't reached that level yet. Come back when you understand what a joke is. Good lord. The joke didn't fly over his head. He's intentionally and sarcastically pretending that Biden wasn't making a joke to illustrate how absurd it is that people are pretending that Trump thinks Kamala murdered someone on a hiking trail in Maryland. This is electric sharks all over again and really probably a big reason they might lose ground over the next month. Baiting themselves into these absurdly petty bickering matches over the stupidest aspects of the serious issues they distract from is incredibly repellant to people that can be persuaded to show up and vote for Democrats. What are you talking about? People can discuss serious issues *and* call out Trump for saying stupid shit also. (I'm also not quite sure I agree with your premise that a presidential candidate saying alarmingly stupid shit isn't its own serious issue.) Harris and Walz and Democratic supporters haven't suddenly stopped talking about their plans for the economy, or women's rights, or other important topics. And it's extremely hypocritical when Republicans almost never talk about substance, but god forbid Democrats pause for a second from the issues, to point out Trump's gaslighting or fearmongering or lying. I mean they can, but that's not what gets the engagement. You can see a microcosm of it play out here in the difference between the level of engagement on anything that isn't bickering with BJ and oBlade about the most inane shit. The national version (that also played out here) was how Democrats lost a week that was supposed to be about Amber Thurman and how "Women are bleeding out in parking lots, turned away from emergency rooms, losing their ability to ever have children again. Survivors of rape and incest are being told they cannot make decisions about what happens next to their bodies. And now women are dying. These are the consequences of Donald Trump’s actions.” (sounds a lot like Trump's bit about Harris killing someone) apnews.comInstead Dems, the media, and posters here basically spent the week arguing pet eating with people whose primary objective is simply to get Dems, media, and posters like yourself to spend that engagement arguing about whatever bullshit stupid bait argument is the flavor of the day instead of the Amber Thurman of the day. You guys fall for it basically every time. You can't help yourselves. + Show Spoiler +It was pretty well-established, even among the Republicans, that Trump's "they're eating the dogs" meltdown during the debate was an embarrassment. There's nothing wrong with milking that for all it's worth, and - again - that's not stopping the rallies and interviews and other points being made. It doesn't hurt to occasionally remind the voters of the mistakes your opponent makes.
And yes, bickering with BJ* and oBlade does happen a lot, but it's not like there are conservatives on this forum proposing great, substantive ideas for policy. (I would imagine it's because the leader of the Republican party doesn't have many of those either.) There are still discussions about other important issues, and "important" is subjective; I'm sure a lot of people roll their eyes when we end up having yet another "GH vs. Capitalism" conversation that goes on for several pages, even if some people consider it a legitimately useful topic. *BJ spent multiple posts denying that Trump meant "murder", even though he said "murder", only to eventually concede that Trump probably only meant "second-degree murder" and that the metaphor stops it from technically being first-degree murder, so it does indeed appear to have been a fruitless discussion about semantics with him: + Show Spoiler +On October 08 2024 06:07 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2024 05:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 05:17 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 05:12 NewSunshine wrote:On October 08 2024 05:05 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 04:57 WombaT wrote:On October 08 2024 04:50 oBlade wrote:On October 08 2024 04:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 04:30 oBlade wrote:In another bout of erudite literalism, Biden recently announced he's reentering the race for president at a White House press conference, something he probably impulsively decided after losing his octogenarian temper at an unseemly reporter's prodding, "Do you regret dropping out?" And then with the same lack of respect that has typified this entire dumpster fire administration, everyone in the vicinity just laughed at the demented old racist to his face. He probably doesn't even realize how many ballot deadlines he's already missed. Watch the video you just linked. He said it sarcastically, grinned, and people laughed at his joke. Don't be a tool and don't fabricate things. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to think Biden is old and over-the-hill; you don't need to make up a new one. He literally said it. He stated it very clearly. With the same blank expression he always has. We don't need you Harats to deny reality and run interference like this. You really think the average voter would be capable of figuring out he was actually "joking" if he was as you claim? Clearly he's deranged, and wanting revenge on the people who pushed him out, meaning especially Kamala who replaced him. What better way than to falsely claim he's back in the race, causing a vote split as all the people who would never vote for the first black woman president decide to write in Biden instead. The only "joke" is that he'll be having the last laugh when he collapses the Democratic party out of spite with election interfering stunts like this. You can't just say something and mean it differently than what the words are. What on unearthly fuck are you talking about? He's clearly satirizing people's eagerness to take Trump literally that Kamala murdered someone while dismissing Biden's statement as being unserious. Apparently you get to pick and choose when to take something literally and when to ignore the context that someone is not speaking literally. You want to explain to me how "she killed her like she had a gun in her hand" somehow isn't ascribing responsibility to Harris for killing that person? Fuck me, that's two people who refuse to understand tone and the meaning of words based on tone. What's in the water today? He IS ascribing responsibility to Kamala for Rachel Morin's death. He's not saying Kamala was literally the one that murdered her. "Gun in her hand" is a metaphor. He's not saying Kamala literally had a gun in her hand and used it to murder that woman on a hiking trail in Maryland. Pretending like we don't know what metaphors are just to attack Trump on something is just really bizarre. That's my point. On October 08 2024 05:27 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 05:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 05:10 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 05:08 NewSunshine wrote:
Biden obviously made a joke. Don't talk about Smithsonian-level anything when you let an obvious joke fly clear over your head. You haven't reached that level yet. Come back when you understand what a joke is. Good lord. The joke didn't fly over his head. He's intentionally and sarcastically pretending that Biden wasn't making a joke to illustrate how absurd it is that people are pretending that Trump thinks Kamala murdered someone on a hiking trail in Maryland. Trump wasn't joking. I could see someone hand-waving away Trump's statement, with something like "Yeah, that's just Trump making stupid claims again; what else is new," and then a discussion could be had about whether it's okay or not to dismiss Trump's dangerous accusations. But to think Biden's joke is comparable to Trump saying his usual bullshit is ridiculous. You were already giving Trump way too much credit, but it's doubly weird to see you trying to die on the absurd "oBlade Knows What's He's Talking About" hill. I didn't say Trump was joking. I said he wasn't speaking literally. The quote is "Kamala let the savage in that murdered Rachel Morin. Kamala murdered her."
How do you interpret that? That Kamala murdered Rachel Morin? But he just said the savage murdered her. Did he forget in the faction of a second that he already said the savage murdered her? Was it a double murder? Did the savage rape her and then Kamala finished the job with the butt end of her metaphorical gun? It's just really weird having to explain this. It's obvious he is saying that the savage is the one that killed Rachel Morin but Kamala is culpable for her death because she is the one that allowed the savage in. If you delete the context and narrow in one the one sentence "Kamala murdered her" then of course it looks like he is actually accusing Kamala of murdering someone. Just like if you delete the context of Joe Biden grinning and people laughing then it looks like he is "back in" the 2024 race. The point is it's stupid to delete context to win stupid arguments. So Trump is saying that Harris is responsible for the victim's murder, but he also used a metaphor about the wrong cause of death. And that means "not murder". Does Trump think that Harris should only be convicted of manslaughter instead of murder? Please tell us the name of the crime, since Trump said "murder" but you know he meant "not murder". If your ace in the hole is that two people can't be convicted of the same murder, then I think that's something you need to flesh out in more detail. I thought such a thing was possible, but I could be wrong. You and oBlade are comparing a joke to a serious statement (part of which, at best, might contain a metaphor). These are not the same things though. oBlade might sincerely not understand this, but you're working really hard to try to make these things equal, even though I suspect you know they aren't. I'm guessing it would be 2nd degree murder unless Trump thinks there was pre-meditation before Kamala bashed someone's skull in with her metaphorical gun. Neat. I'm satisfied. Between this and the post about the "Call Her Daddy" podcast I don't think I could make my point better than you are right now. I couldn't find the video or the audio for the interview, besides some clips, or else I'd post it like I've done with other interviews. Someone else may have more luck. You're also throwing stones at everyone else, when you're far from innocent. Nothing's stopping you from posting about important issues. I mentioned the Call Her Daddy podcast post because it (and the other interviews/posts you mention) are an example of the point I made about what actually gets the engagement. Harris could recite the chemical composition of a universal cure for cancer and Trump could put a pile of shit in a bag and light it fire on Pelosi's doorstep and Democrats would bait themselves into making the newscycle about "Trump's vicious act of terrorism". + Show Spoiler + That's a bit hyperbolic if that's not obvious, but even the fleeting thought it might not be is indicative of the problem I'm talking about. As for the aspect of "important" in that context, I meant to their own self-ascribed policy/strategy. Democrats don't really engage with the sort of introspective analysis I've argued they needed in order to be considered even viable social democrats, let alone dem socialists or beyond. I've come to terms with the general disinterest among libs in actually addressing that kind of stuff. I'm not voting for Harris because my vote is obviated by the system and doing so despite that would be irrationally cruel. Democrats though, they are ostensibly pretty committed to Harris winning. So when I point out how poorly she's doing compared to Biden in 2020 and how arguing about the latest stupid thing with the BJ's and oBlades of the world could be catastrophic, it's not because I'd rather discuss things of substance and value toward ending oppression in a holistic way (though I certainly would, and frequently offer opportunities for such, to little or no avail). It's because I'm pointing out Democrats and their supporters are just doing a bad job at what they are ostensibly trying to do by their own metrics and that's still bad for anyone that doesn't want Trump to become the fascist dictator Democrats (and Trump) tell me he will be.
I think many of us would agree that Democrats need to work on messaging and communication, and I've said that plenty of times. Sometimes I feel like Democrats are worried that appeasing one of their sub-groups (or almost-sub-groups / potential voters) or trying to make a meaningful change in one direction, might push away other supporters because of conflicts (like trying to appeal to both moderates and the left-wing, or trying to show sympathy for both Jews and Muslims in the Middle East, or trying to address systemic discrimination in law enforcement and the criminal justice system without coming across as anti-police or anti-law). Do you think that's a legitimate concern, since the party wants to appeal to as many people as possible? Inclusivity can be helpful for getting votes, but on the other hand it may push away parts of all groups if the message is too broad or amorphous or insincere.
I do recognize the hyperbole in your example about Democrats preferring to talk about Bad Man Trump instead of their cure for cancer, but honestly I just feel like Democrats would still attempt to promote the cure for cancer, as would the medical and scientific communities of experts, but then half the country would still just deny that cancer exists, or that they'd be immune if they ever got cancer, or that the cure for cancer is nothing more than a "jab" designed by Big Pharma to help the government track you... and the people who already appreciate the cure of cancer are already underneath the Democratic tent 
|
Kamala's not just doing "Call Her Daddy" Podcast. She's also going to be on Howard Stern, The View, and Late Nite with Stephen Colbert. Of course there are lots of serious journalists that would love an opportunity to interview Kamala. It would be nice if she gave as much attention to answering questions from the press as she does to giving softball interviews with podcasters that are happy to cheerlead for her.
|
On October 08 2024 08:22 BlackJack wrote:
Kamala's not just doing "Call Her Daddy" Podcast. She's also going to be on Howard Stern, The View, and Late Nite with Stephen Colbert. Of course there are lots of serious journalists that would love an opportunity to interview Kamala. It would be nice if she gave as much attention to answering questions from the press as she does to giving softball interviews with podcasters that are happy to cheerlead for her.
60 Minutes isn't a serious interview? Trump backed out of it, too.
|
On October 08 2024 06:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2024 06:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 08 2024 05:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 05:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 08 2024 05:10 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 05:08 NewSunshine wrote:
Biden obviously made a joke. Don't talk about Smithsonian-level anything when you let an obvious joke fly clear over your head. You haven't reached that level yet. Come back when you understand what a joke is. Good lord. The joke didn't fly over his head. He's intentionally and sarcastically pretending that Biden wasn't making a joke to illustrate how absurd it is that people are pretending that Trump thinks Kamala murdered someone on a hiking trail in Maryland. This is electric sharks all over again and really probably a big reason they might lose ground over the next month. Baiting themselves into these absurdly petty bickering matches over the stupidest aspects of the serious issues they distract from is incredibly repellant to people that can be persuaded to show up and vote for Democrats. What are you talking about? People can discuss serious issues *and* call out Trump for saying stupid shit also. (I'm also not quite sure I agree with your premise that a presidential candidate saying alarmingly stupid shit isn't its own serious issue.) Harris and Walz and Democratic supporters haven't suddenly stopped talking about their plans for the economy, or women's rights, or other important topics. And it's extremely hypocritical when Republicans almost never talk about substance, but god forbid Democrats pause for a second from the issues, to point out Trump's gaslighting or fearmongering or lying. I mean they can, but that's not what gets the engagement. You can see a microcosm of it play out here in the difference between the level of engagement on anything that isn't bickering with BJ and oBlade about the most inane shit. The national version (that also played out here) was how Democrats lost a week that was supposed to be about Amber Thurman and how "Women are bleeding out in parking lots, turned away from emergency rooms, losing their ability to ever have children again. Survivors of rape and incest are being told they cannot make decisions about what happens next to their bodies. And now women are dying. These are the consequences of Donald Trump’s actions.” (sounds a lot like Trump's bit about Harris killing someone) apnews.comInstead Dems, the media, and posters here basically spent the week arguing pet eating with people whose primary objective is simply to get Dems, media, and posters like yourself to spend that engagement arguing about whatever bullshit stupid bait argument is the flavor of the day instead of the Amber Thurman of the day. You guys fall for it basically every time. You can't help yourselves. It was pretty well-established, even among the Republicans, that Trump's "they're eating the dogs" meltdown during the debate was an embarrassment. There's nothing wrong with milking that for all it's worth, and - again - that's not stopping the rallies and interviews and other points being made. It doesn't hurt to occasionally remind the voters of the mistakes your opponent makes. And yes, bickering with BJ* and oBlade does happen a lot, but it's not like there are conservatives on this forum proposing great, substantive ideas for policy. (I would imagine it's because the leader of the Republican party doesn't have many of those either.) There are still discussions about other important issues, and "important" is subjective; I'm sure a lot of people roll their eyes when we end up having yet another "GH vs. Capitalism" conversation that goes on for several pages, even if some people consider it a legitimately useful topic. *BJ spent multiple posts denying that Trump meant "murder", even though he said "murder", only to eventually concede that Trump probably only meant "second-degree murder" and that the metaphor stops it from technically being first-degree murder, so it does indeed appear to have been a fruitless discussion about semantics with him: Show nested quote +On October 08 2024 06:07 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 05:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 05:17 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 05:12 NewSunshine wrote:On October 08 2024 05:05 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 04:57 WombaT wrote:On October 08 2024 04:50 oBlade wrote:On October 08 2024 04:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 04:30 oBlade wrote:In another bout of erudite literalism, Biden recently announced he's reentering the race for president at a White House press conference, something he probably impulsively decided after losing his octogenarian temper at an unseemly reporter's prodding, "Do you regret dropping out?" And then with the same lack of respect that has typified this entire dumpster fire administration, everyone in the vicinity just laughed at the demented old racist to his face. He probably doesn't even realize how many ballot deadlines he's already missed. Watch the video you just linked. He said it sarcastically, grinned, and people laughed at his joke. Don't be a tool and don't fabricate things. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to think Biden is old and over-the-hill; you don't need to make up a new one. He literally said it. He stated it very clearly. With the same blank expression he always has. We don't need you Harats to deny reality and run interference like this. You really think the average voter would be capable of figuring out he was actually "joking" if he was as you claim? Clearly he's deranged, and wanting revenge on the people who pushed him out, meaning especially Kamala who replaced him. What better way than to falsely claim he's back in the race, causing a vote split as all the people who would never vote for the first black woman president decide to write in Biden instead. The only "joke" is that he'll be having the last laugh when he collapses the Democratic party out of spite with election interfering stunts like this. You can't just say something and mean it differently than what the words are. What on unearthly fuck are you talking about? He's clearly satirizing people's eagerness to take Trump literally that Kamala murdered someone while dismissing Biden's statement as being unserious. Apparently you get to pick and choose when to take something literally and when to ignore the context that someone is not speaking literally. You want to explain to me how "she killed her like she had a gun in her hand" somehow isn't ascribing responsibility to Harris for killing that person? Fuck me, that's two people who refuse to understand tone and the meaning of words based on tone. What's in the water today? He IS ascribing responsibility to Kamala for Rachel Morin's death. He's not saying Kamala was literally the one that murdered her. "Gun in her hand" is a metaphor. He's not saying Kamala literally had a gun in her hand and used it to murder that woman on a hiking trail in Maryland. Pretending like we don't know what metaphors are just to attack Trump on something is just really bizarre. That's my point. On October 08 2024 05:27 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 05:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 05:10 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 05:08 NewSunshine wrote:
Biden obviously made a joke. Don't talk about Smithsonian-level anything when you let an obvious joke fly clear over your head. You haven't reached that level yet. Come back when you understand what a joke is. Good lord. The joke didn't fly over his head. He's intentionally and sarcastically pretending that Biden wasn't making a joke to illustrate how absurd it is that people are pretending that Trump thinks Kamala murdered someone on a hiking trail in Maryland. Trump wasn't joking. I could see someone hand-waving away Trump's statement, with something like "Yeah, that's just Trump making stupid claims again; what else is new," and then a discussion could be had about whether it's okay or not to dismiss Trump's dangerous accusations. But to think Biden's joke is comparable to Trump saying his usual bullshit is ridiculous. You were already giving Trump way too much credit, but it's doubly weird to see you trying to die on the absurd "oBlade Knows What's He's Talking About" hill. I didn't say Trump was joking. I said he wasn't speaking literally. The quote is "Kamala let the savage in that murdered Rachel Morin. Kamala murdered her."
How do you interpret that? That Kamala murdered Rachel Morin? But he just said the savage murdered her. Did he forget in the faction of a second that he already said the savage murdered her? Was it a double murder? Did the savage rape her and then Kamala finished the job with the butt end of her metaphorical gun? It's just really weird having to explain this. It's obvious he is saying that the savage is the one that killed Rachel Morin but Kamala is culpable for her death because she is the one that allowed the savage in. If you delete the context and narrow in one the one sentence "Kamala murdered her" then of course it looks like he is actually accusing Kamala of murdering someone. Just like if you delete the context of Joe Biden grinning and people laughing then it looks like he is "back in" the 2024 race. The point is it's stupid to delete context to win stupid arguments. So Trump is saying that Harris is responsible for the victim's murder, but he also used a metaphor about the wrong cause of death. And that means "not murder". Does Trump think that Harris should only be convicted of manslaughter instead of murder? Please tell us the name of the crime, since Trump said "murder" but you know he meant "not murder". If your ace in the hole is that two people can't be convicted of the same murder, then I think that's something you need to flesh out in more detail. I thought such a thing was possible, but I could be wrong. You and oBlade are comparing a joke to a serious statement (part of which, at best, might contain a metaphor). These are not the same things though. oBlade might sincerely not understand this, but you're working really hard to try to make these things equal, even though I suspect you know they aren't. I'm guessing it would be 2nd degree murder unless Trump thinks there was pre-meditation before Kamala bashed someone's skull in with her metaphorical gun. Neat. I'm satisfied.
Actually this back and forth is a good reason why people who don't agree with dem policy positions don't really post about them. Sure, it's time consuming and can be less fun, but as we see here, some people are simply incapable of giving their opponents even the slightly benefit of the doubt or believing that they hold their positions in good faith. If a right-leaning poster argues for, say, a way to reduce debt that doesn't address every progressives wishlist item then really that person is just a shill who wants billionaires to run everything and believe that everyone who is poor deserves to be poor and powerless. And something like the debt, when taken as a topic by itself, is about the most boring thing you can talk about. Now imagine trying to talk about healthcare, the middle east, or anything else. You seem to think that discussing policy would be less rancorous, but given the way the left views policy disagreements (as moral failures) it can be even worse.
|
On October 08 2024 08:33 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2024 06:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 06:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 08 2024 05:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 05:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 08 2024 05:10 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 05:08 NewSunshine wrote:
Biden obviously made a joke. Don't talk about Smithsonian-level anything when you let an obvious joke fly clear over your head. You haven't reached that level yet. Come back when you understand what a joke is. Good lord. The joke didn't fly over his head. He's intentionally and sarcastically pretending that Biden wasn't making a joke to illustrate how absurd it is that people are pretending that Trump thinks Kamala murdered someone on a hiking trail in Maryland. This is electric sharks all over again and really probably a big reason they might lose ground over the next month. Baiting themselves into these absurdly petty bickering matches over the stupidest aspects of the serious issues they distract from is incredibly repellant to people that can be persuaded to show up and vote for Democrats. What are you talking about? People can discuss serious issues *and* call out Trump for saying stupid shit also. (I'm also not quite sure I agree with your premise that a presidential candidate saying alarmingly stupid shit isn't its own serious issue.) Harris and Walz and Democratic supporters haven't suddenly stopped talking about their plans for the economy, or women's rights, or other important topics. And it's extremely hypocritical when Republicans almost never talk about substance, but god forbid Democrats pause for a second from the issues, to point out Trump's gaslighting or fearmongering or lying. I mean they can, but that's not what gets the engagement. You can see a microcosm of it play out here in the difference between the level of engagement on anything that isn't bickering with BJ and oBlade about the most inane shit. The national version (that also played out here) was how Democrats lost a week that was supposed to be about Amber Thurman and how "Women are bleeding out in parking lots, turned away from emergency rooms, losing their ability to ever have children again. Survivors of rape and incest are being told they cannot make decisions about what happens next to their bodies. And now women are dying. These are the consequences of Donald Trump’s actions.” (sounds a lot like Trump's bit about Harris killing someone) apnews.comInstead Dems, the media, and posters here basically spent the week arguing pet eating with people whose primary objective is simply to get Dems, media, and posters like yourself to spend that engagement arguing about whatever bullshit stupid bait argument is the flavor of the day instead of the Amber Thurman of the day. You guys fall for it basically every time. You can't help yourselves. It was pretty well-established, even among the Republicans, that Trump's "they're eating the dogs" meltdown during the debate was an embarrassment. There's nothing wrong with milking that for all it's worth, and - again - that's not stopping the rallies and interviews and other points being made. It doesn't hurt to occasionally remind the voters of the mistakes your opponent makes. And yes, bickering with BJ* and oBlade does happen a lot, but it's not like there are conservatives on this forum proposing great, substantive ideas for policy. (I would imagine it's because the leader of the Republican party doesn't have many of those either.) There are still discussions about other important issues, and "important" is subjective; I'm sure a lot of people roll their eyes when we end up having yet another "GH vs. Capitalism" conversation that goes on for several pages, even if some people consider it a legitimately useful topic. *BJ spent multiple posts denying that Trump meant "murder", even though he said "murder", only to eventually concede that Trump probably only meant "second-degree murder" and that the metaphor stops it from technically being first-degree murder, so it does indeed appear to have been a fruitless discussion about semantics with him: On October 08 2024 06:07 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 05:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 05:17 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 05:12 NewSunshine wrote:On October 08 2024 05:05 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 04:57 WombaT wrote:On October 08 2024 04:50 oBlade wrote:On October 08 2024 04:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
Watch the video you just linked. He said it sarcastically, grinned, and people laughed at his joke.
Don't be a tool and don't fabricate things. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to think Biden is old and over-the-hill; you don't need to make up a new one. He literally said it. He stated it very clearly. With the same blank expression he always has. We don't need you Harats to deny reality and run interference like this. You really think the average voter would be capable of figuring out he was actually "joking" if he was as you claim? Clearly he's deranged, and wanting revenge on the people who pushed him out, meaning especially Kamala who replaced him. What better way than to falsely claim he's back in the race, causing a vote split as all the people who would never vote for the first black woman president decide to write in Biden instead. The only "joke" is that he'll be having the last laugh when he collapses the Democratic party out of spite with election interfering stunts like this. You can't just say something and mean it differently than what the words are. What on unearthly fuck are you talking about? He's clearly satirizing people's eagerness to take Trump literally that Kamala murdered someone while dismissing Biden's statement as being unserious. Apparently you get to pick and choose when to take something literally and when to ignore the context that someone is not speaking literally. You want to explain to me how "she killed her like she had a gun in her hand" somehow isn't ascribing responsibility to Harris for killing that person? Fuck me, that's two people who refuse to understand tone and the meaning of words based on tone. What's in the water today? He IS ascribing responsibility to Kamala for Rachel Morin's death. He's not saying Kamala was literally the one that murdered her. "Gun in her hand" is a metaphor. He's not saying Kamala literally had a gun in her hand and used it to murder that woman on a hiking trail in Maryland. Pretending like we don't know what metaphors are just to attack Trump on something is just really bizarre. That's my point. On October 08 2024 05:27 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 05:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 05:10 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 05:08 NewSunshine wrote:
Biden obviously made a joke. Don't talk about Smithsonian-level anything when you let an obvious joke fly clear over your head. You haven't reached that level yet. Come back when you understand what a joke is. Good lord. The joke didn't fly over his head. He's intentionally and sarcastically pretending that Biden wasn't making a joke to illustrate how absurd it is that people are pretending that Trump thinks Kamala murdered someone on a hiking trail in Maryland. Trump wasn't joking. I could see someone hand-waving away Trump's statement, with something like "Yeah, that's just Trump making stupid claims again; what else is new," and then a discussion could be had about whether it's okay or not to dismiss Trump's dangerous accusations. But to think Biden's joke is comparable to Trump saying his usual bullshit is ridiculous. You were already giving Trump way too much credit, but it's doubly weird to see you trying to die on the absurd "oBlade Knows What's He's Talking About" hill. I didn't say Trump was joking. I said he wasn't speaking literally. The quote is "Kamala let the savage in that murdered Rachel Morin. Kamala murdered her."
How do you interpret that? That Kamala murdered Rachel Morin? But he just said the savage murdered her. Did he forget in the faction of a second that he already said the savage murdered her? Was it a double murder? Did the savage rape her and then Kamala finished the job with the butt end of her metaphorical gun? It's just really weird having to explain this. It's obvious he is saying that the savage is the one that killed Rachel Morin but Kamala is culpable for her death because she is the one that allowed the savage in. If you delete the context and narrow in one the one sentence "Kamala murdered her" then of course it looks like he is actually accusing Kamala of murdering someone. Just like if you delete the context of Joe Biden grinning and people laughing then it looks like he is "back in" the 2024 race. The point is it's stupid to delete context to win stupid arguments. So Trump is saying that Harris is responsible for the victim's murder, but he also used a metaphor about the wrong cause of death. And that means "not murder". Does Trump think that Harris should only be convicted of manslaughter instead of murder? Please tell us the name of the crime, since Trump said "murder" but you know he meant "not murder". If your ace in the hole is that two people can't be convicted of the same murder, then I think that's something you need to flesh out in more detail. I thought such a thing was possible, but I could be wrong. You and oBlade are comparing a joke to a serious statement (part of which, at best, might contain a metaphor). These are not the same things though. oBlade might sincerely not understand this, but you're working really hard to try to make these things equal, even though I suspect you know they aren't. I'm guessing it would be 2nd degree murder unless Trump thinks there was pre-meditation before Kamala bashed someone's skull in with her metaphorical gun. Neat. I'm satisfied. Actually this back and forth is a good reason why people who don't agree with dem policy positions don't really post about them. Sure, it's time consuming and can be less fun, but as we see here, some people are simply incapable of giving their opponents even the slightly benefit of the doubt or believing that they hold their positions in good faith. If a right-leaning poster argues for, say, a way to reduce debt that doesn't address every progressives wishlist item then really that person is just a shill who wants billionaires to run everything and believe that everyone who is poor deserves to be poor and powerless. And something like the debt, when taken as a topic by itself, is about the most boring thing you can talk about. Now imagine trying to talk about healthcare, the middle east, or anything else. You seem to think that discussing policy would be less rancorous, but given the way the left views policy disagreements (as moral failures) it can be even worse.
We can literally test this right now  Please explain what you believe would be the best way to reduce our national debt, and why you think it would be effective.
|
On October 08 2024 07:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2024 07:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 08 2024 06:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 06:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 08 2024 06:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 06:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 08 2024 05:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 05:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 08 2024 05:10 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 05:08 NewSunshine wrote:
Biden obviously made a joke. Don't talk about Smithsonian-level anything when you let an obvious joke fly clear over your head. You haven't reached that level yet. Come back when you understand what a joke is. Good lord. The joke didn't fly over his head. He's intentionally and sarcastically pretending that Biden wasn't making a joke to illustrate how absurd it is that people are pretending that Trump thinks Kamala murdered someone on a hiking trail in Maryland. This is electric sharks all over again and really probably a big reason they might lose ground over the next month. Baiting themselves into these absurdly petty bickering matches over the stupidest aspects of the serious issues they distract from is incredibly repellant to people that can be persuaded to show up and vote for Democrats. What are you talking about? People can discuss serious issues *and* call out Trump for saying stupid shit also. (I'm also not quite sure I agree with your premise that a presidential candidate saying alarmingly stupid shit isn't its own serious issue.) Harris and Walz and Democratic supporters haven't suddenly stopped talking about their plans for the economy, or women's rights, or other important topics. And it's extremely hypocritical when Republicans almost never talk about substance, but god forbid Democrats pause for a second from the issues, to point out Trump's gaslighting or fearmongering or lying. I mean they can, but that's not what gets the engagement. You can see a microcosm of it play out here in the difference between the level of engagement on anything that isn't bickering with BJ and oBlade about the most inane shit. The national version (that also played out here) was how Democrats lost a week that was supposed to be about Amber Thurman and how "Women are bleeding out in parking lots, turned away from emergency rooms, losing their ability to ever have children again. Survivors of rape and incest are being told they cannot make decisions about what happens next to their bodies. And now women are dying. These are the consequences of Donald Trump’s actions.” (sounds a lot like Trump's bit about Harris killing someone) apnews.comInstead Dems, the media, and posters here basically spent the week arguing pet eating with people whose primary objective is simply to get Dems, media, and posters like yourself to spend that engagement arguing about whatever bullshit stupid bait argument is the flavor of the day instead of the Amber Thurman of the day. You guys fall for it basically every time. You can't help yourselves. + Show Spoiler +It was pretty well-established, even among the Republicans, that Trump's "they're eating the dogs" meltdown during the debate was an embarrassment. There's nothing wrong with milking that for all it's worth, and - again - that's not stopping the rallies and interviews and other points being made. It doesn't hurt to occasionally remind the voters of the mistakes your opponent makes.
And yes, bickering with BJ* and oBlade does happen a lot, but it's not like there are conservatives on this forum proposing great, substantive ideas for policy. (I would imagine it's because the leader of the Republican party doesn't have many of those either.) There are still discussions about other important issues, and "important" is subjective; I'm sure a lot of people roll their eyes when we end up having yet another "GH vs. Capitalism" conversation that goes on for several pages, even if some people consider it a legitimately useful topic. *BJ spent multiple posts denying that Trump meant "murder", even though he said "murder", only to eventually concede that Trump probably only meant "second-degree murder" and that the metaphor stops it from technically being first-degree murder, so it does indeed appear to have been a fruitless discussion about semantics with him: + Show Spoiler +On October 08 2024 06:07 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2024 05:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 05:17 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 05:12 NewSunshine wrote:On October 08 2024 05:05 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 04:57 WombaT wrote:On October 08 2024 04:50 oBlade wrote:On October 08 2024 04:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 04:30 oBlade wrote:In another bout of erudite literalism, Biden recently announced he's reentering the race for president at a White House press conference, something he probably impulsively decided after losing his octogenarian temper at an unseemly reporter's prodding, "Do you regret dropping out?" And then with the same lack of respect that has typified this entire dumpster fire administration, everyone in the vicinity just laughed at the demented old racist to his face. He probably doesn't even realize how many ballot deadlines he's already missed. Watch the video you just linked. He said it sarcastically, grinned, and people laughed at his joke. Don't be a tool and don't fabricate things. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to think Biden is old and over-the-hill; you don't need to make up a new one. He literally said it. He stated it very clearly. With the same blank expression he always has. We don't need you Harats to deny reality and run interference like this. You really think the average voter would be capable of figuring out he was actually "joking" if he was as you claim? Clearly he's deranged, and wanting revenge on the people who pushed him out, meaning especially Kamala who replaced him. What better way than to falsely claim he's back in the race, causing a vote split as all the people who would never vote for the first black woman president decide to write in Biden instead. The only "joke" is that he'll be having the last laugh when he collapses the Democratic party out of spite with election interfering stunts like this. You can't just say something and mean it differently than what the words are. What on unearthly fuck are you talking about? He's clearly satirizing people's eagerness to take Trump literally that Kamala murdered someone while dismissing Biden's statement as being unserious. Apparently you get to pick and choose when to take something literally and when to ignore the context that someone is not speaking literally. You want to explain to me how "she killed her like she had a gun in her hand" somehow isn't ascribing responsibility to Harris for killing that person? Fuck me, that's two people who refuse to understand tone and the meaning of words based on tone. What's in the water today? He IS ascribing responsibility to Kamala for Rachel Morin's death. He's not saying Kamala was literally the one that murdered her. "Gun in her hand" is a metaphor. He's not saying Kamala literally had a gun in her hand and used it to murder that woman on a hiking trail in Maryland. Pretending like we don't know what metaphors are just to attack Trump on something is just really bizarre. That's my point. On October 08 2024 05:27 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 05:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 05:10 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 05:08 NewSunshine wrote:
Biden obviously made a joke. Don't talk about Smithsonian-level anything when you let an obvious joke fly clear over your head. You haven't reached that level yet. Come back when you understand what a joke is. Good lord. The joke didn't fly over his head. He's intentionally and sarcastically pretending that Biden wasn't making a joke to illustrate how absurd it is that people are pretending that Trump thinks Kamala murdered someone on a hiking trail in Maryland. Trump wasn't joking. I could see someone hand-waving away Trump's statement, with something like "Yeah, that's just Trump making stupid claims again; what else is new," and then a discussion could be had about whether it's okay or not to dismiss Trump's dangerous accusations. But to think Biden's joke is comparable to Trump saying his usual bullshit is ridiculous. You were already giving Trump way too much credit, but it's doubly weird to see you trying to die on the absurd "oBlade Knows What's He's Talking About" hill. I didn't say Trump was joking. I said he wasn't speaking literally. The quote is "Kamala let the savage in that murdered Rachel Morin. Kamala murdered her."
How do you interpret that? That Kamala murdered Rachel Morin? But he just said the savage murdered her. Did he forget in the faction of a second that he already said the savage murdered her? Was it a double murder? Did the savage rape her and then Kamala finished the job with the butt end of her metaphorical gun? It's just really weird having to explain this. It's obvious he is saying that the savage is the one that killed Rachel Morin but Kamala is culpable for her death because she is the one that allowed the savage in. If you delete the context and narrow in one the one sentence "Kamala murdered her" then of course it looks like he is actually accusing Kamala of murdering someone. Just like if you delete the context of Joe Biden grinning and people laughing then it looks like he is "back in" the 2024 race. The point is it's stupid to delete context to win stupid arguments. So Trump is saying that Harris is responsible for the victim's murder, but he also used a metaphor about the wrong cause of death. And that means "not murder". Does Trump think that Harris should only be convicted of manslaughter instead of murder? Please tell us the name of the crime, since Trump said "murder" but you know he meant "not murder". If your ace in the hole is that two people can't be convicted of the same murder, then I think that's something you need to flesh out in more detail. I thought such a thing was possible, but I could be wrong. You and oBlade are comparing a joke to a serious statement (part of which, at best, might contain a metaphor). These are not the same things though. oBlade might sincerely not understand this, but you're working really hard to try to make these things equal, even though I suspect you know they aren't. I'm guessing it would be 2nd degree murder unless Trump thinks there was pre-meditation before Kamala bashed someone's skull in with her metaphorical gun. Neat. I'm satisfied. Between this and the post about the "Call Her Daddy" podcast I don't think I could make my point better than you are right now. I couldn't find the video or the audio for the interview, besides some clips, or else I'd post it like I've done with other interviews. Someone else may have more luck. You're also throwing stones at everyone else, when you're far from innocent. Nothing's stopping you from posting about important issues. I mentioned the Call Her Daddy podcast post because it (and the other interviews/posts you mention) are an example of the point I made about what actually gets the engagement. Harris could recite the chemical composition of a universal cure for cancer and Trump could put a pile of shit in a bag and light it fire on Pelosi's doorstep and Democrats would bait themselves into making the newscycle about "Trump's vicious act of terrorism". + Show Spoiler + That's a bit hyperbolic if that's not obvious, but even the fleeting thought it might not be is indicative of the problem I'm talking about. As for the aspect of "important" in that context, I meant to their own self-ascribed policy/strategy. Democrats don't really engage with the sort of introspective analysis I've argued they needed in order to be considered even viable social democrats, let alone dem socialists or beyond. I've come to terms with the general disinterest among libs in actually addressing that kind of stuff. I'm not voting for Harris because my vote is obviated by the system and doing so despite that would be irrationally cruel. Democrats though, they are ostensibly pretty committed to Harris winning. So when I point out how poorly she's doing compared to Biden in 2020 and how arguing about the latest stupid thing with the BJ's and oBlades of the world could be catastrophic, it's not because I'd rather discuss things of substance and value toward ending oppression in a holistic way (though I certainly would, and frequently offer opportunities for such, to little or no avail). It's because I'm pointing out Democrats and their supporters are just doing a bad job at what they are ostensibly trying to do by their own metrics and that's still bad for anyone that doesn't want Trump to become the fascist dictator Democrats (and Trump) tell me he will be. I think many of us would agree that Democrats need to work on messaging and communication, and I've said that plenty of times. Sometimes I feel like Democrats are worried that appeasing one of their sub-groups (or almost-sub-groups / potential voters) or trying to make a meaningful change in one direction, might push away other supporters because of conflicts (like trying to appeal to both moderates and the left-wing, or trying to show sympathy for both Jews and Muslims in the Middle East, or trying to address systemic discrimination in law enforcement and the criminal justice system without coming across as anti-police or anti-law). Do you think that's a legitimate concern, since the party wants to appeal to as many people as possible? Inclusivity can be helpful for getting votes, but on the other hand it may push away parts of all groups if the message is too broad or amorphous or insincere. I do recognize the hyperbole in your example about Democrats preferring to talk about Bad Man Trump instead of their cure for cancer, but honestly I just feel like Democrats would still attempt to promote the cure for cancer, as would the medical and scientific communities of experts, but then half the country would still just deny that cancer exists, or that they'd be immune if they ever got cancer, or that the cure for cancer is nothing more than a "jab" designed by Big Pharma to help the government track you... and the people who already appreciate the cure of cancer are already underneath the Democratic tent
There's two different (though there can be some overlap) things going on when you ask me something like "do you think that's a legitimate concern?". On one hand, I'm a socialist/communist, so we have fundamentally different understandings of what US democracy functionally is. On the other, I'm not so divorced from my old lib days to be unable to speculate on what Democrats should or shouldn't do within their own (I would argue irreparably flawed) paradigms/worldviews.
As a socialist/communist it's a stupid question about what the best layout for the chairs on the deck of the Titanic is.
Imagining myself as a well-meaning lib, it's a reasonable concern that they are botching so badly they might lose to a 2x impeached, 30x+ convicted felon, fraudster, rapist, etc. that's only there because they thought pushing him to being the Republican leader would cynically make winning easier.
The obvious one for me is cutting off weapons to Israel. Doing so is the majority/plurality polling position and even as a lib I was opposed to being complicit in ethnic cleansing/genocide. The idea that Biden and Harris have to be so unequivocally unconditional about arming Israel for votes just isn't reasonable.
I understand and share your feelings of frustration about unburstable bubbles of ignorance and irrationality you notice Trump supporters occupy, but from my perspective, they're not as dissimilar from the bubbles libs occupy as you and other libs imagine.
|
On October 08 2024 08:33 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2024 06:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 06:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 08 2024 05:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 05:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 08 2024 05:10 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 05:08 NewSunshine wrote:
Biden obviously made a joke. Don't talk about Smithsonian-level anything when you let an obvious joke fly clear over your head. You haven't reached that level yet. Come back when you understand what a joke is. Good lord. The joke didn't fly over his head. He's intentionally and sarcastically pretending that Biden wasn't making a joke to illustrate how absurd it is that people are pretending that Trump thinks Kamala murdered someone on a hiking trail in Maryland. This is electric sharks all over again and really probably a big reason they might lose ground over the next month. Baiting themselves into these absurdly petty bickering matches over the stupidest aspects of the serious issues they distract from is incredibly repellant to people that can be persuaded to show up and vote for Democrats. What are you talking about? People can discuss serious issues *and* call out Trump for saying stupid shit also. (I'm also not quite sure I agree with your premise that a presidential candidate saying alarmingly stupid shit isn't its own serious issue.) Harris and Walz and Democratic supporters haven't suddenly stopped talking about their plans for the economy, or women's rights, or other important topics. And it's extremely hypocritical when Republicans almost never talk about substance, but god forbid Democrats pause for a second from the issues, to point out Trump's gaslighting or fearmongering or lying. I mean they can, but that's not what gets the engagement. You can see a microcosm of it play out here in the difference between the level of engagement on anything that isn't bickering with BJ and oBlade about the most inane shit. The national version (that also played out here) was how Democrats lost a week that was supposed to be about Amber Thurman and how "Women are bleeding out in parking lots, turned away from emergency rooms, losing their ability to ever have children again. Survivors of rape and incest are being told they cannot make decisions about what happens next to their bodies. And now women are dying. These are the consequences of Donald Trump’s actions.” (sounds a lot like Trump's bit about Harris killing someone) apnews.comInstead Dems, the media, and posters here basically spent the week arguing pet eating with people whose primary objective is simply to get Dems, media, and posters like yourself to spend that engagement arguing about whatever bullshit stupid bait argument is the flavor of the day instead of the Amber Thurman of the day. You guys fall for it basically every time. You can't help yourselves. It was pretty well-established, even among the Republicans, that Trump's "they're eating the dogs" meltdown during the debate was an embarrassment. There's nothing wrong with milking that for all it's worth, and - again - that's not stopping the rallies and interviews and other points being made. It doesn't hurt to occasionally remind the voters of the mistakes your opponent makes. And yes, bickering with BJ* and oBlade does happen a lot, but it's not like there are conservatives on this forum proposing great, substantive ideas for policy. (I would imagine it's because the leader of the Republican party doesn't have many of those either.) There are still discussions about other important issues, and "important" is subjective; I'm sure a lot of people roll their eyes when we end up having yet another "GH vs. Capitalism" conversation that goes on for several pages, even if some people consider it a legitimately useful topic. *BJ spent multiple posts denying that Trump meant "murder", even though he said "murder", only to eventually concede that Trump probably only meant "second-degree murder" and that the metaphor stops it from technically being first-degree murder, so it does indeed appear to have been a fruitless discussion about semantics with him: On October 08 2024 06:07 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 05:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 05:17 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 05:12 NewSunshine wrote:On October 08 2024 05:05 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 04:57 WombaT wrote:On October 08 2024 04:50 oBlade wrote:On October 08 2024 04:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
Watch the video you just linked. He said it sarcastically, grinned, and people laughed at his joke.
Don't be a tool and don't fabricate things. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to think Biden is old and over-the-hill; you don't need to make up a new one. He literally said it. He stated it very clearly. With the same blank expression he always has. We don't need you Harats to deny reality and run interference like this. You really think the average voter would be capable of figuring out he was actually "joking" if he was as you claim? Clearly he's deranged, and wanting revenge on the people who pushed him out, meaning especially Kamala who replaced him. What better way than to falsely claim he's back in the race, causing a vote split as all the people who would never vote for the first black woman president decide to write in Biden instead. The only "joke" is that he'll be having the last laugh when he collapses the Democratic party out of spite with election interfering stunts like this. You can't just say something and mean it differently than what the words are. What on unearthly fuck are you talking about? He's clearly satirizing people's eagerness to take Trump literally that Kamala murdered someone while dismissing Biden's statement as being unserious. Apparently you get to pick and choose when to take something literally and when to ignore the context that someone is not speaking literally. You want to explain to me how "she killed her like she had a gun in her hand" somehow isn't ascribing responsibility to Harris for killing that person? Fuck me, that's two people who refuse to understand tone and the meaning of words based on tone. What's in the water today? He IS ascribing responsibility to Kamala for Rachel Morin's death. He's not saying Kamala was literally the one that murdered her. "Gun in her hand" is a metaphor. He's not saying Kamala literally had a gun in her hand and used it to murder that woman on a hiking trail in Maryland. Pretending like we don't know what metaphors are just to attack Trump on something is just really bizarre. That's my point. On October 08 2024 05:27 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 05:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 05:10 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 05:08 NewSunshine wrote:
Biden obviously made a joke. Don't talk about Smithsonian-level anything when you let an obvious joke fly clear over your head. You haven't reached that level yet. Come back when you understand what a joke is. Good lord. The joke didn't fly over his head. He's intentionally and sarcastically pretending that Biden wasn't making a joke to illustrate how absurd it is that people are pretending that Trump thinks Kamala murdered someone on a hiking trail in Maryland. Trump wasn't joking. I could see someone hand-waving away Trump's statement, with something like "Yeah, that's just Trump making stupid claims again; what else is new," and then a discussion could be had about whether it's okay or not to dismiss Trump's dangerous accusations. But to think Biden's joke is comparable to Trump saying his usual bullshit is ridiculous. You were already giving Trump way too much credit, but it's doubly weird to see you trying to die on the absurd "oBlade Knows What's He's Talking About" hill. I didn't say Trump was joking. I said he wasn't speaking literally. The quote is "Kamala let the savage in that murdered Rachel Morin. Kamala murdered her."
How do you interpret that? That Kamala murdered Rachel Morin? But he just said the savage murdered her. Did he forget in the faction of a second that he already said the savage murdered her? Was it a double murder? Did the savage rape her and then Kamala finished the job with the butt end of her metaphorical gun? It's just really weird having to explain this. It's obvious he is saying that the savage is the one that killed Rachel Morin but Kamala is culpable for her death because she is the one that allowed the savage in. If you delete the context and narrow in one the one sentence "Kamala murdered her" then of course it looks like he is actually accusing Kamala of murdering someone. Just like if you delete the context of Joe Biden grinning and people laughing then it looks like he is "back in" the 2024 race. The point is it's stupid to delete context to win stupid arguments. So Trump is saying that Harris is responsible for the victim's murder, but he also used a metaphor about the wrong cause of death. And that means "not murder". Does Trump think that Harris should only be convicted of manslaughter instead of murder? Please tell us the name of the crime, since Trump said "murder" but you know he meant "not murder". If your ace in the hole is that two people can't be convicted of the same murder, then I think that's something you need to flesh out in more detail. I thought such a thing was possible, but I could be wrong. You and oBlade are comparing a joke to a serious statement (part of which, at best, might contain a metaphor). These are not the same things though. oBlade might sincerely not understand this, but you're working really hard to try to make these things equal, even though I suspect you know they aren't. I'm guessing it would be 2nd degree murder unless Trump thinks there was pre-meditation before Kamala bashed someone's skull in with her metaphorical gun. Neat. I'm satisfied. Actually this back and forth is a good reason why people who don't agree with dem policy positions don't really post about them. Sure, it's time consuming and can be less fun, but as we see here, some people are simply incapable of giving their opponents even the slightly benefit of the doubt or believing that they hold their positions in good faith. If a right-leaning poster argues for, say, a way to reduce debt that doesn't address every progressives wishlist item then really that person is just a shill who wants billionaires to run everything and believe that everyone who is poor deserves to be poor and powerless. And something like the debt, when taken as a topic by itself, is about the most boring thing you can talk about. Now imagine trying to talk about healthcare, the middle east, or anything else. You seem to think that discussing policy would be less rancorous, but given the way the left views policy disagreements (as moral failures) it can be even worse.
Fwiw I can at least say I personally extend you the benefit of the doubt if/when you speak up on issues. That doesn't have that much value, but I do appreciate conservative voices still being here.
|
On October 08 2024 08:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2024 08:33 Introvert wrote:On October 08 2024 06:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 06:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 08 2024 05:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 05:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 08 2024 05:10 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 05:08 NewSunshine wrote:
Biden obviously made a joke. Don't talk about Smithsonian-level anything when you let an obvious joke fly clear over your head. You haven't reached that level yet. Come back when you understand what a joke is. Good lord. The joke didn't fly over his head. He's intentionally and sarcastically pretending that Biden wasn't making a joke to illustrate how absurd it is that people are pretending that Trump thinks Kamala murdered someone on a hiking trail in Maryland. This is electric sharks all over again and really probably a big reason they might lose ground over the next month. Baiting themselves into these absurdly petty bickering matches over the stupidest aspects of the serious issues they distract from is incredibly repellant to people that can be persuaded to show up and vote for Democrats. What are you talking about? People can discuss serious issues *and* call out Trump for saying stupid shit also. (I'm also not quite sure I agree with your premise that a presidential candidate saying alarmingly stupid shit isn't its own serious issue.) Harris and Walz and Democratic supporters haven't suddenly stopped talking about their plans for the economy, or women's rights, or other important topics. And it's extremely hypocritical when Republicans almost never talk about substance, but god forbid Democrats pause for a second from the issues, to point out Trump's gaslighting or fearmongering or lying. I mean they can, but that's not what gets the engagement. You can see a microcosm of it play out here in the difference between the level of engagement on anything that isn't bickering with BJ and oBlade about the most inane shit. The national version (that also played out here) was how Democrats lost a week that was supposed to be about Amber Thurman and how "Women are bleeding out in parking lots, turned away from emergency rooms, losing their ability to ever have children again. Survivors of rape and incest are being told they cannot make decisions about what happens next to their bodies. And now women are dying. These are the consequences of Donald Trump’s actions.” (sounds a lot like Trump's bit about Harris killing someone) apnews.comInstead Dems, the media, and posters here basically spent the week arguing pet eating with people whose primary objective is simply to get Dems, media, and posters like yourself to spend that engagement arguing about whatever bullshit stupid bait argument is the flavor of the day instead of the Amber Thurman of the day. You guys fall for it basically every time. You can't help yourselves. It was pretty well-established, even among the Republicans, that Trump's "they're eating the dogs" meltdown during the debate was an embarrassment. There's nothing wrong with milking that for all it's worth, and - again - that's not stopping the rallies and interviews and other points being made. It doesn't hurt to occasionally remind the voters of the mistakes your opponent makes. And yes, bickering with BJ* and oBlade does happen a lot, but it's not like there are conservatives on this forum proposing great, substantive ideas for policy. (I would imagine it's because the leader of the Republican party doesn't have many of those either.) There are still discussions about other important issues, and "important" is subjective; I'm sure a lot of people roll their eyes when we end up having yet another "GH vs. Capitalism" conversation that goes on for several pages, even if some people consider it a legitimately useful topic. *BJ spent multiple posts denying that Trump meant "murder", even though he said "murder", only to eventually concede that Trump probably only meant "second-degree murder" and that the metaphor stops it from technically being first-degree murder, so it does indeed appear to have been a fruitless discussion about semantics with him: On October 08 2024 06:07 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 05:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 05:17 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 05:12 NewSunshine wrote:On October 08 2024 05:05 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 04:57 WombaT wrote:On October 08 2024 04:50 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
He literally said it. He stated it very clearly. With the same blank expression he always has. We don't need you Harats to deny reality and run interference like this. You really think the average voter would be capable of figuring out he was actually "joking" if he was as you claim? Clearly he's deranged, and wanting revenge on the people who pushed him out, meaning especially Kamala who replaced him. What better way than to falsely claim he's back in the race, causing a vote split as all the people who would never vote for the first black woman president decide to write in Biden instead. The only "joke" is that he'll be having the last laugh when he collapses the Democratic party out of spite with election interfering stunts like this. You can't just say something and mean it differently than what the words are. What on unearthly fuck are you talking about? He's clearly satirizing people's eagerness to take Trump literally that Kamala murdered someone while dismissing Biden's statement as being unserious. Apparently you get to pick and choose when to take something literally and when to ignore the context that someone is not speaking literally. You want to explain to me how "she killed her like she had a gun in her hand" somehow isn't ascribing responsibility to Harris for killing that person? Fuck me, that's two people who refuse to understand tone and the meaning of words based on tone. What's in the water today? He IS ascribing responsibility to Kamala for Rachel Morin's death. He's not saying Kamala was literally the one that murdered her. "Gun in her hand" is a metaphor. He's not saying Kamala literally had a gun in her hand and used it to murder that woman on a hiking trail in Maryland. Pretending like we don't know what metaphors are just to attack Trump on something is just really bizarre. That's my point. On October 08 2024 05:27 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 05:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 05:10 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 05:08 NewSunshine wrote:
Biden obviously made a joke. Don't talk about Smithsonian-level anything when you let an obvious joke fly clear over your head. You haven't reached that level yet. Come back when you understand what a joke is. Good lord. The joke didn't fly over his head. He's intentionally and sarcastically pretending that Biden wasn't making a joke to illustrate how absurd it is that people are pretending that Trump thinks Kamala murdered someone on a hiking trail in Maryland. Trump wasn't joking. I could see someone hand-waving away Trump's statement, with something like "Yeah, that's just Trump making stupid claims again; what else is new," and then a discussion could be had about whether it's okay or not to dismiss Trump's dangerous accusations. But to think Biden's joke is comparable to Trump saying his usual bullshit is ridiculous. You were already giving Trump way too much credit, but it's doubly weird to see you trying to die on the absurd "oBlade Knows What's He's Talking About" hill. I didn't say Trump was joking. I said he wasn't speaking literally. The quote is "Kamala let the savage in that murdered Rachel Morin. Kamala murdered her."
How do you interpret that? That Kamala murdered Rachel Morin? But he just said the savage murdered her. Did he forget in the faction of a second that he already said the savage murdered her? Was it a double murder? Did the savage rape her and then Kamala finished the job with the butt end of her metaphorical gun? It's just really weird having to explain this. It's obvious he is saying that the savage is the one that killed Rachel Morin but Kamala is culpable for her death because she is the one that allowed the savage in. If you delete the context and narrow in one the one sentence "Kamala murdered her" then of course it looks like he is actually accusing Kamala of murdering someone. Just like if you delete the context of Joe Biden grinning and people laughing then it looks like he is "back in" the 2024 race. The point is it's stupid to delete context to win stupid arguments. So Trump is saying that Harris is responsible for the victim's murder, but he also used a metaphor about the wrong cause of death. And that means "not murder". Does Trump think that Harris should only be convicted of manslaughter instead of murder? Please tell us the name of the crime, since Trump said "murder" but you know he meant "not murder". If your ace in the hole is that two people can't be convicted of the same murder, then I think that's something you need to flesh out in more detail. I thought such a thing was possible, but I could be wrong. You and oBlade are comparing a joke to a serious statement (part of which, at best, might contain a metaphor). These are not the same things though. oBlade might sincerely not understand this, but you're working really hard to try to make these things equal, even though I suspect you know they aren't. I'm guessing it would be 2nd degree murder unless Trump thinks there was pre-meditation before Kamala bashed someone's skull in with her metaphorical gun. Neat. I'm satisfied. Actually this back and forth is a good reason why people who don't agree with dem policy positions don't really post about them. Sure, it's time consuming and can be less fun, but as we see here, some people are simply incapable of giving their opponents even the slightly benefit of the doubt or believing that they hold their positions in good faith. If a right-leaning poster argues for, say, a way to reduce debt that doesn't address every progressives wishlist item then really that person is just a shill who wants billionaires to run everything and believe that everyone who is poor deserves to be poor and powerless. And something like the debt, when taken as a topic by itself, is about the most boring thing you can talk about. Now imagine trying to talk about healthcare, the middle east, or anything else. You seem to think that discussing policy would be less rancorous, but given the way the left views policy disagreements (as moral failures) it can be even worse. We can literally test this right now Please explain what you believe would be the best way to reduce our national debt, and why you think it would be effective.
From what I read the first thing that needs to happen is to simply stabilize debt as a percentage of GDP. We can theoretically never have a balanced budget (and even have an always increasing debt) but still be ok so long as the portion of the economy that it takes up remains constant. There can be modest tax hikes, but for deficits of the size we are running now (and what types of spending are going to be main debt drivers in the future) it simply is not possible to tax your way out, and it has diminishing returns. The big elephants in the room is Social Security and Medicare (this is where things get controversial). But first the government needs to rein in spending during the normal part of the cycle where is should be giving itself a cushion for hard times. Unfortunately, neither major party nominee has a *serious* plan to fix this. Federal spending exploded during COVID... not just in one time expenditures, but almost every department had its regular, baseline budget significantly increased. COVID is over, but the government spends a higher percentage of GDP now then it did before. In 2018 it was ~19%. During COVID it was 30%, even now it's 22% (after the 2009 crisis it was 24%). And both parties have plans to spend even more. So that's the main problem, the exact dollar amount isn't as concerning as the trendline, interest payments, and the crowding out effect.
Edit: Those are net outlays btw, numbers are slightly different gross. looks a little better actually, or more accurately it's barely changed since the end of the financial crisis ~34%). However *debt* as a % of GDP is going up like crazy. Maybe I should have led with that lol
On October 08 2024 09:10 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2024 08:33 Introvert wrote:On October 08 2024 06:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 06:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 08 2024 05:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 05:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 08 2024 05:10 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 05:08 NewSunshine wrote:
Biden obviously made a joke. Don't talk about Smithsonian-level anything when you let an obvious joke fly clear over your head. You haven't reached that level yet. Come back when you understand what a joke is. Good lord. The joke didn't fly over his head. He's intentionally and sarcastically pretending that Biden wasn't making a joke to illustrate how absurd it is that people are pretending that Trump thinks Kamala murdered someone on a hiking trail in Maryland. This is electric sharks all over again and really probably a big reason they might lose ground over the next month. Baiting themselves into these absurdly petty bickering matches over the stupidest aspects of the serious issues they distract from is incredibly repellant to people that can be persuaded to show up and vote for Democrats. What are you talking about? People can discuss serious issues *and* call out Trump for saying stupid shit also. (I'm also not quite sure I agree with your premise that a presidential candidate saying alarmingly stupid shit isn't its own serious issue.) Harris and Walz and Democratic supporters haven't suddenly stopped talking about their plans for the economy, or women's rights, or other important topics. And it's extremely hypocritical when Republicans almost never talk about substance, but god forbid Democrats pause for a second from the issues, to point out Trump's gaslighting or fearmongering or lying. I mean they can, but that's not what gets the engagement. You can see a microcosm of it play out here in the difference between the level of engagement on anything that isn't bickering with BJ and oBlade about the most inane shit. The national version (that also played out here) was how Democrats lost a week that was supposed to be about Amber Thurman and how "Women are bleeding out in parking lots, turned away from emergency rooms, losing their ability to ever have children again. Survivors of rape and incest are being told they cannot make decisions about what happens next to their bodies. And now women are dying. These are the consequences of Donald Trump’s actions.” (sounds a lot like Trump's bit about Harris killing someone) apnews.comInstead Dems, the media, and posters here basically spent the week arguing pet eating with people whose primary objective is simply to get Dems, media, and posters like yourself to spend that engagement arguing about whatever bullshit stupid bait argument is the flavor of the day instead of the Amber Thurman of the day. You guys fall for it basically every time. You can't help yourselves. It was pretty well-established, even among the Republicans, that Trump's "they're eating the dogs" meltdown during the debate was an embarrassment. There's nothing wrong with milking that for all it's worth, and - again - that's not stopping the rallies and interviews and other points being made. It doesn't hurt to occasionally remind the voters of the mistakes your opponent makes. And yes, bickering with BJ* and oBlade does happen a lot, but it's not like there are conservatives on this forum proposing great, substantive ideas for policy. (I would imagine it's because the leader of the Republican party doesn't have many of those either.) There are still discussions about other important issues, and "important" is subjective; I'm sure a lot of people roll their eyes when we end up having yet another "GH vs. Capitalism" conversation that goes on for several pages, even if some people consider it a legitimately useful topic. *BJ spent multiple posts denying that Trump meant "murder", even though he said "murder", only to eventually concede that Trump probably only meant "second-degree murder" and that the metaphor stops it from technically being first-degree murder, so it does indeed appear to have been a fruitless discussion about semantics with him: On October 08 2024 06:07 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 05:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 05:17 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 05:12 NewSunshine wrote:On October 08 2024 05:05 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 04:57 WombaT wrote:On October 08 2024 04:50 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
He literally said it. He stated it very clearly. With the same blank expression he always has. We don't need you Harats to deny reality and run interference like this. You really think the average voter would be capable of figuring out he was actually "joking" if he was as you claim? Clearly he's deranged, and wanting revenge on the people who pushed him out, meaning especially Kamala who replaced him. What better way than to falsely claim he's back in the race, causing a vote split as all the people who would never vote for the first black woman president decide to write in Biden instead. The only "joke" is that he'll be having the last laugh when he collapses the Democratic party out of spite with election interfering stunts like this. You can't just say something and mean it differently than what the words are. What on unearthly fuck are you talking about? He's clearly satirizing people's eagerness to take Trump literally that Kamala murdered someone while dismissing Biden's statement as being unserious. Apparently you get to pick and choose when to take something literally and when to ignore the context that someone is not speaking literally. You want to explain to me how "she killed her like she had a gun in her hand" somehow isn't ascribing responsibility to Harris for killing that person? Fuck me, that's two people who refuse to understand tone and the meaning of words based on tone. What's in the water today? He IS ascribing responsibility to Kamala for Rachel Morin's death. He's not saying Kamala was literally the one that murdered her. "Gun in her hand" is a metaphor. He's not saying Kamala literally had a gun in her hand and used it to murder that woman on a hiking trail in Maryland. Pretending like we don't know what metaphors are just to attack Trump on something is just really bizarre. That's my point. On October 08 2024 05:27 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 05:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 05:10 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 05:08 NewSunshine wrote:
Biden obviously made a joke. Don't talk about Smithsonian-level anything when you let an obvious joke fly clear over your head. You haven't reached that level yet. Come back when you understand what a joke is. Good lord. The joke didn't fly over his head. He's intentionally and sarcastically pretending that Biden wasn't making a joke to illustrate how absurd it is that people are pretending that Trump thinks Kamala murdered someone on a hiking trail in Maryland. Trump wasn't joking. I could see someone hand-waving away Trump's statement, with something like "Yeah, that's just Trump making stupid claims again; what else is new," and then a discussion could be had about whether it's okay or not to dismiss Trump's dangerous accusations. But to think Biden's joke is comparable to Trump saying his usual bullshit is ridiculous. You were already giving Trump way too much credit, but it's doubly weird to see you trying to die on the absurd "oBlade Knows What's He's Talking About" hill. I didn't say Trump was joking. I said he wasn't speaking literally. The quote is "Kamala let the savage in that murdered Rachel Morin. Kamala murdered her."
How do you interpret that? That Kamala murdered Rachel Morin? But he just said the savage murdered her. Did he forget in the faction of a second that he already said the savage murdered her? Was it a double murder? Did the savage rape her and then Kamala finished the job with the butt end of her metaphorical gun? It's just really weird having to explain this. It's obvious he is saying that the savage is the one that killed Rachel Morin but Kamala is culpable for her death because she is the one that allowed the savage in. If you delete the context and narrow in one the one sentence "Kamala murdered her" then of course it looks like he is actually accusing Kamala of murdering someone. Just like if you delete the context of Joe Biden grinning and people laughing then it looks like he is "back in" the 2024 race. The point is it's stupid to delete context to win stupid arguments. So Trump is saying that Harris is responsible for the victim's murder, but he also used a metaphor about the wrong cause of death. And that means "not murder". Does Trump think that Harris should only be convicted of manslaughter instead of murder? Please tell us the name of the crime, since Trump said "murder" but you know he meant "not murder". If your ace in the hole is that two people can't be convicted of the same murder, then I think that's something you need to flesh out in more detail. I thought such a thing was possible, but I could be wrong. You and oBlade are comparing a joke to a serious statement (part of which, at best, might contain a metaphor). These are not the same things though. oBlade might sincerely not understand this, but you're working really hard to try to make these things equal, even though I suspect you know they aren't. I'm guessing it would be 2nd degree murder unless Trump thinks there was pre-meditation before Kamala bashed someone's skull in with her metaphorical gun. Neat. I'm satisfied. Actually this back and forth is a good reason why people who don't agree with dem policy positions don't really post about them. Sure, it's time consuming and can be less fun, but as we see here, some people are simply incapable of giving their opponents even the slightly benefit of the doubt or believing that they hold their positions in good faith. If a right-leaning poster argues for, say, a way to reduce debt that doesn't address every progressives wishlist item then really that person is just a shill who wants billionaires to run everything and believe that everyone who is poor deserves to be poor and powerless. And something like the debt, when taken as a topic by itself, is about the most boring thing you can talk about. Now imagine trying to talk about healthcare, the middle east, or anything else. You seem to think that discussing policy would be less rancorous, but given the way the left views policy disagreements (as moral failures) it can be even worse. Fwiw I can at least say I personally extend you the benefit of the doubt if/when you speak up on issues. That doesn't have that much value, but I do appreciate conservative voices still being here.
Thanks
|
On October 08 2024 08:44 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2024 07:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 07:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 08 2024 06:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 06:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 08 2024 06:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 06:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 08 2024 05:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 05:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 08 2024 05:10 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
Good lord. The joke didn't fly over his head. He's intentionally and sarcastically pretending that Biden wasn't making a joke to illustrate how absurd it is that people are pretending that Trump thinks Kamala murdered someone on a hiking trail in Maryland.
This is electric sharks all over again and really probably a big reason they might lose ground over the next month. Baiting themselves into these absurdly petty bickering matches over the stupidest aspects of the serious issues they distract from is incredibly repellant to people that can be persuaded to show up and vote for Democrats. What are you talking about? People can discuss serious issues *and* call out Trump for saying stupid shit also. (I'm also not quite sure I agree with your premise that a presidential candidate saying alarmingly stupid shit isn't its own serious issue.) Harris and Walz and Democratic supporters haven't suddenly stopped talking about their plans for the economy, or women's rights, or other important topics. And it's extremely hypocritical when Republicans almost never talk about substance, but god forbid Democrats pause for a second from the issues, to point out Trump's gaslighting or fearmongering or lying. I mean they can, but that's not what gets the engagement. You can see a microcosm of it play out here in the difference between the level of engagement on anything that isn't bickering with BJ and oBlade about the most inane shit. The national version (that also played out here) was how Democrats lost a week that was supposed to be about Amber Thurman and how "Women are bleeding out in parking lots, turned away from emergency rooms, losing their ability to ever have children again. Survivors of rape and incest are being told they cannot make decisions about what happens next to their bodies. And now women are dying. These are the consequences of Donald Trump’s actions.” (sounds a lot like Trump's bit about Harris killing someone) apnews.comInstead Dems, the media, and posters here basically spent the week arguing pet eating with people whose primary objective is simply to get Dems, media, and posters like yourself to spend that engagement arguing about whatever bullshit stupid bait argument is the flavor of the day instead of the Amber Thurman of the day. You guys fall for it basically every time. You can't help yourselves. + Show Spoiler +It was pretty well-established, even among the Republicans, that Trump's "they're eating the dogs" meltdown during the debate was an embarrassment. There's nothing wrong with milking that for all it's worth, and - again - that's not stopping the rallies and interviews and other points being made. It doesn't hurt to occasionally remind the voters of the mistakes your opponent makes.
And yes, bickering with BJ* and oBlade does happen a lot, but it's not like there are conservatives on this forum proposing great, substantive ideas for policy. (I would imagine it's because the leader of the Republican party doesn't have many of those either.) There are still discussions about other important issues, and "important" is subjective; I'm sure a lot of people roll their eyes when we end up having yet another "GH vs. Capitalism" conversation that goes on for several pages, even if some people consider it a legitimately useful topic. *BJ spent multiple posts denying that Trump meant "murder", even though he said "murder", only to eventually concede that Trump probably only meant "second-degree murder" and that the metaphor stops it from technically being first-degree murder, so it does indeed appear to have been a fruitless discussion about semantics with him: + Show Spoiler +On October 08 2024 06:07 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2024 05:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 05:17 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 05:12 NewSunshine wrote:On October 08 2024 05:05 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 04:57 WombaT wrote:On October 08 2024 04:50 oBlade wrote:On October 08 2024 04:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 04:30 oBlade wrote:In another bout of erudite literalism, Biden recently announced he's reentering the race for president at a White House press conference, something he probably impulsively decided after losing his octogenarian temper at an unseemly reporter's prodding, "Do you regret dropping out?" And then with the same lack of respect that has typified this entire dumpster fire administration, everyone in the vicinity just laughed at the demented old racist to his face. He probably doesn't even realize how many ballot deadlines he's already missed. Watch the video you just linked. He said it sarcastically, grinned, and people laughed at his joke. Don't be a tool and don't fabricate things. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to think Biden is old and over-the-hill; you don't need to make up a new one. He literally said it. He stated it very clearly. With the same blank expression he always has. We don't need you Harats to deny reality and run interference like this. You really think the average voter would be capable of figuring out he was actually "joking" if he was as you claim? Clearly he's deranged, and wanting revenge on the people who pushed him out, meaning especially Kamala who replaced him. What better way than to falsely claim he's back in the race, causing a vote split as all the people who would never vote for the first black woman president decide to write in Biden instead. The only "joke" is that he'll be having the last laugh when he collapses the Democratic party out of spite with election interfering stunts like this. You can't just say something and mean it differently than what the words are. What on unearthly fuck are you talking about? He's clearly satirizing people's eagerness to take Trump literally that Kamala murdered someone while dismissing Biden's statement as being unserious. Apparently you get to pick and choose when to take something literally and when to ignore the context that someone is not speaking literally. You want to explain to me how "she killed her like she had a gun in her hand" somehow isn't ascribing responsibility to Harris for killing that person? Fuck me, that's two people who refuse to understand tone and the meaning of words based on tone. What's in the water today? He IS ascribing responsibility to Kamala for Rachel Morin's death. He's not saying Kamala was literally the one that murdered her. "Gun in her hand" is a metaphor. He's not saying Kamala literally had a gun in her hand and used it to murder that woman on a hiking trail in Maryland. Pretending like we don't know what metaphors are just to attack Trump on something is just really bizarre. That's my point. On October 08 2024 05:27 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 05:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 05:10 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 05:08 NewSunshine wrote:
Biden obviously made a joke. Don't talk about Smithsonian-level anything when you let an obvious joke fly clear over your head. You haven't reached that level yet. Come back when you understand what a joke is. Good lord. The joke didn't fly over his head. He's intentionally and sarcastically pretending that Biden wasn't making a joke to illustrate how absurd it is that people are pretending that Trump thinks Kamala murdered someone on a hiking trail in Maryland. Trump wasn't joking. I could see someone hand-waving away Trump's statement, with something like "Yeah, that's just Trump making stupid claims again; what else is new," and then a discussion could be had about whether it's okay or not to dismiss Trump's dangerous accusations. But to think Biden's joke is comparable to Trump saying his usual bullshit is ridiculous. You were already giving Trump way too much credit, but it's doubly weird to see you trying to die on the absurd "oBlade Knows What's He's Talking About" hill. I didn't say Trump was joking. I said he wasn't speaking literally. The quote is "Kamala let the savage in that murdered Rachel Morin. Kamala murdered her."
How do you interpret that? That Kamala murdered Rachel Morin? But he just said the savage murdered her. Did he forget in the faction of a second that he already said the savage murdered her? Was it a double murder? Did the savage rape her and then Kamala finished the job with the butt end of her metaphorical gun? It's just really weird having to explain this. It's obvious he is saying that the savage is the one that killed Rachel Morin but Kamala is culpable for her death because she is the one that allowed the savage in. If you delete the context and narrow in one the one sentence "Kamala murdered her" then of course it looks like he is actually accusing Kamala of murdering someone. Just like if you delete the context of Joe Biden grinning and people laughing then it looks like he is "back in" the 2024 race. The point is it's stupid to delete context to win stupid arguments. So Trump is saying that Harris is responsible for the victim's murder, but he also used a metaphor about the wrong cause of death. And that means "not murder". Does Trump think that Harris should only be convicted of manslaughter instead of murder? Please tell us the name of the crime, since Trump said "murder" but you know he meant "not murder". If your ace in the hole is that two people can't be convicted of the same murder, then I think that's something you need to flesh out in more detail. I thought such a thing was possible, but I could be wrong. You and oBlade are comparing a joke to a serious statement (part of which, at best, might contain a metaphor). These are not the same things though. oBlade might sincerely not understand this, but you're working really hard to try to make these things equal, even though I suspect you know they aren't. I'm guessing it would be 2nd degree murder unless Trump thinks there was pre-meditation before Kamala bashed someone's skull in with her metaphorical gun. Neat. I'm satisfied. Between this and the post about the "Call Her Daddy" podcast I don't think I could make my point better than you are right now. I couldn't find the video or the audio for the interview, besides some clips, or else I'd post it like I've done with other interviews. Someone else may have more luck. You're also throwing stones at everyone else, when you're far from innocent. Nothing's stopping you from posting about important issues. I mentioned the Call Her Daddy podcast post because it (and the other interviews/posts you mention) are an example of the point I made about what actually gets the engagement. Harris could recite the chemical composition of a universal cure for cancer and Trump could put a pile of shit in a bag and light it fire on Pelosi's doorstep and Democrats would bait themselves into making the newscycle about "Trump's vicious act of terrorism". + Show Spoiler + That's a bit hyperbolic if that's not obvious, but even the fleeting thought it might not be is indicative of the problem I'm talking about. As for the aspect of "important" in that context, I meant to their own self-ascribed policy/strategy. Democrats don't really engage with the sort of introspective analysis I've argued they needed in order to be considered even viable social democrats, let alone dem socialists or beyond. I've come to terms with the general disinterest among libs in actually addressing that kind of stuff. I'm not voting for Harris because my vote is obviated by the system and doing so despite that would be irrationally cruel. Democrats though, they are ostensibly pretty committed to Harris winning. So when I point out how poorly she's doing compared to Biden in 2020 and how arguing about the latest stupid thing with the BJ's and oBlades of the world could be catastrophic, it's not because I'd rather discuss things of substance and value toward ending oppression in a holistic way (though I certainly would, and frequently offer opportunities for such, to little or no avail). It's because I'm pointing out Democrats and their supporters are just doing a bad job at what they are ostensibly trying to do by their own metrics and that's still bad for anyone that doesn't want Trump to become the fascist dictator Democrats (and Trump) tell me he will be. I think many of us would agree that Democrats need to work on messaging and communication, and I've said that plenty of times. Sometimes I feel like Democrats are worried that appeasing one of their sub-groups (or almost-sub-groups / potential voters) or trying to make a meaningful change in one direction, might push away other supporters because of conflicts (like trying to appeal to both moderates and the left-wing, or trying to show sympathy for both Jews and Muslims in the Middle East, or trying to address systemic discrimination in law enforcement and the criminal justice system without coming across as anti-police or anti-law). Do you think that's a legitimate concern, since the party wants to appeal to as many people as possible? Inclusivity can be helpful for getting votes, but on the other hand it may push away parts of all groups if the message is too broad or amorphous or insincere. I do recognize the hyperbole in your example about Democrats preferring to talk about Bad Man Trump instead of their cure for cancer, but honestly I just feel like Democrats would still attempt to promote the cure for cancer, as would the medical and scientific communities of experts, but then half the country would still just deny that cancer exists, or that they'd be immune if they ever got cancer, or that the cure for cancer is nothing more than a "jab" designed by Big Pharma to help the government track you... and the people who already appreciate the cure of cancer are already underneath the Democratic tent There's two different (though there can be some overlap) things going on when you ask me something like "do you think that's a legitimate concern?". On one hand, I'm a socialist/communist, so we have fundamentally different understandings of what US democracy functionally is. On the other, I'm not so divorced from my old lib days to be unable to speculate on what Democrats should or shouldn't do within their own (I would argue irreparably flawed) paradigms/worldviews. As a socialist/communist it's a stupid question about what the best layout for the chairs on the deck of the Titanic is. Imagining myself as a well-meaning lib, it's a reasonable concern that they are botching so badly they might lose to a 2x impeached, 30x+ convicted felon, fraudster, rapist, etc. that's only there because they thought pushing him to being the Republican leader would cynically make winning easier. The obvious one for me is cutting off weapons to Israel. Doing so is the majority/plurality polling position and even as a lib I was opposed to being complicit in ethnic cleansing/genocide. The idea that Biden and Harris have to be so unequivocally unconditional about arming Israel for votes just isn't reasonable. I understand and share your feelings of frustration about unburstable bubbles of ignorance and irrationality you notice Trump supporters occupy, but from my perspective, they're not as dissimilar from the bubbles libs occupy as you and other libs imagine.
I appreciate you offering your insights through both lenses (your current perspective and the old lib days). I also wish that Democratic leadership took a stronger stance against Israel (mostly because I think it's the ethical thing to do, and not just because it might be more popular... although from a practical political perspective, I could see the latter reason being sufficient for some politicians).
I am definitely aware that Democrats are also capable of bias and ignorance and irrationality, but I definitely don't think it's as extreme as what Trump and his followers believe or reject. I think that there is a false equivalence between what Trump/Vance says and does dishonestly, and what Harris/Walz says and does dishonestly, and I think that it also exists between the two parties in Congress, and trickles down to most supporters on each side.
|
On October 08 2024 10:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2024 08:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 08 2024 07:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 07:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 08 2024 06:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 06:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 08 2024 06:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 06:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 08 2024 05:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 05:19 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
This is electric sharks all over again and really probably a big reason they might lose ground over the next month. Baiting themselves into these absurdly petty bickering matches over the stupidest aspects of the serious issues they distract from is incredibly repellant to people that can be persuaded to show up and vote for Democrats. What are you talking about? People can discuss serious issues *and* call out Trump for saying stupid shit also. (I'm also not quite sure I agree with your premise that a presidential candidate saying alarmingly stupid shit isn't its own serious issue.) Harris and Walz and Democratic supporters haven't suddenly stopped talking about their plans for the economy, or women's rights, or other important topics. And it's extremely hypocritical when Republicans almost never talk about substance, but god forbid Democrats pause for a second from the issues, to point out Trump's gaslighting or fearmongering or lying. I mean they can, but that's not what gets the engagement. You can see a microcosm of it play out here in the difference between the level of engagement on anything that isn't bickering with BJ and oBlade about the most inane shit. The national version (that also played out here) was how Democrats lost a week that was supposed to be about Amber Thurman and how "Women are bleeding out in parking lots, turned away from emergency rooms, losing their ability to ever have children again. Survivors of rape and incest are being told they cannot make decisions about what happens next to their bodies. And now women are dying. These are the consequences of Donald Trump’s actions.” (sounds a lot like Trump's bit about Harris killing someone) apnews.comInstead Dems, the media, and posters here basically spent the week arguing pet eating with people whose primary objective is simply to get Dems, media, and posters like yourself to spend that engagement arguing about whatever bullshit stupid bait argument is the flavor of the day instead of the Amber Thurman of the day. You guys fall for it basically every time. You can't help yourselves. + Show Spoiler +It was pretty well-established, even among the Republicans, that Trump's "they're eating the dogs" meltdown during the debate was an embarrassment. There's nothing wrong with milking that for all it's worth, and - again - that's not stopping the rallies and interviews and other points being made. It doesn't hurt to occasionally remind the voters of the mistakes your opponent makes.
And yes, bickering with BJ* and oBlade does happen a lot, but it's not like there are conservatives on this forum proposing great, substantive ideas for policy. (I would imagine it's because the leader of the Republican party doesn't have many of those either.) There are still discussions about other important issues, and "important" is subjective; I'm sure a lot of people roll their eyes when we end up having yet another "GH vs. Capitalism" conversation that goes on for several pages, even if some people consider it a legitimately useful topic. *BJ spent multiple posts denying that Trump meant "murder", even though he said "murder", only to eventually concede that Trump probably only meant "second-degree murder" and that the metaphor stops it from technically being first-degree murder, so it does indeed appear to have been a fruitless discussion about semantics with him: + Show Spoiler +On October 08 2024 06:07 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2024 05:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 05:17 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 05:12 NewSunshine wrote:On October 08 2024 05:05 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 04:57 WombaT wrote:On October 08 2024 04:50 oBlade wrote:On October 08 2024 04:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 04:30 oBlade wrote:In another bout of erudite literalism, Biden recently announced he's reentering the race for president at a White House press conference, something he probably impulsively decided after losing his octogenarian temper at an unseemly reporter's prodding, "Do you regret dropping out?" And then with the same lack of respect that has typified this entire dumpster fire administration, everyone in the vicinity just laughed at the demented old racist to his face. He probably doesn't even realize how many ballot deadlines he's already missed. Watch the video you just linked. He said it sarcastically, grinned, and people laughed at his joke. Don't be a tool and don't fabricate things. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to think Biden is old and over-the-hill; you don't need to make up a new one. He literally said it. He stated it very clearly. With the same blank expression he always has. We don't need you Harats to deny reality and run interference like this. You really think the average voter would be capable of figuring out he was actually "joking" if he was as you claim? Clearly he's deranged, and wanting revenge on the people who pushed him out, meaning especially Kamala who replaced him. What better way than to falsely claim he's back in the race, causing a vote split as all the people who would never vote for the first black woman president decide to write in Biden instead. The only "joke" is that he'll be having the last laugh when he collapses the Democratic party out of spite with election interfering stunts like this. You can't just say something and mean it differently than what the words are. What on unearthly fuck are you talking about? He's clearly satirizing people's eagerness to take Trump literally that Kamala murdered someone while dismissing Biden's statement as being unserious. Apparently you get to pick and choose when to take something literally and when to ignore the context that someone is not speaking literally. You want to explain to me how "she killed her like she had a gun in her hand" somehow isn't ascribing responsibility to Harris for killing that person? Fuck me, that's two people who refuse to understand tone and the meaning of words based on tone. What's in the water today? He IS ascribing responsibility to Kamala for Rachel Morin's death. He's not saying Kamala was literally the one that murdered her. "Gun in her hand" is a metaphor. He's not saying Kamala literally had a gun in her hand and used it to murder that woman on a hiking trail in Maryland. Pretending like we don't know what metaphors are just to attack Trump on something is just really bizarre. That's my point. On October 08 2024 05:27 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 05:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 05:10 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 05:08 NewSunshine wrote:
Biden obviously made a joke. Don't talk about Smithsonian-level anything when you let an obvious joke fly clear over your head. You haven't reached that level yet. Come back when you understand what a joke is. Good lord. The joke didn't fly over his head. He's intentionally and sarcastically pretending that Biden wasn't making a joke to illustrate how absurd it is that people are pretending that Trump thinks Kamala murdered someone on a hiking trail in Maryland. Trump wasn't joking. I could see someone hand-waving away Trump's statement, with something like "Yeah, that's just Trump making stupid claims again; what else is new," and then a discussion could be had about whether it's okay or not to dismiss Trump's dangerous accusations. But to think Biden's joke is comparable to Trump saying his usual bullshit is ridiculous. You were already giving Trump way too much credit, but it's doubly weird to see you trying to die on the absurd "oBlade Knows What's He's Talking About" hill. I didn't say Trump was joking. I said he wasn't speaking literally. The quote is "Kamala let the savage in that murdered Rachel Morin. Kamala murdered her."
How do you interpret that? That Kamala murdered Rachel Morin? But he just said the savage murdered her. Did he forget in the faction of a second that he already said the savage murdered her? Was it a double murder? Did the savage rape her and then Kamala finished the job with the butt end of her metaphorical gun? It's just really weird having to explain this. It's obvious he is saying that the savage is the one that killed Rachel Morin but Kamala is culpable for her death because she is the one that allowed the savage in. If you delete the context and narrow in one the one sentence "Kamala murdered her" then of course it looks like he is actually accusing Kamala of murdering someone. Just like if you delete the context of Joe Biden grinning and people laughing then it looks like he is "back in" the 2024 race. The point is it's stupid to delete context to win stupid arguments. So Trump is saying that Harris is responsible for the victim's murder, but he also used a metaphor about the wrong cause of death. And that means "not murder". Does Trump think that Harris should only be convicted of manslaughter instead of murder? Please tell us the name of the crime, since Trump said "murder" but you know he meant "not murder". If your ace in the hole is that two people can't be convicted of the same murder, then I think that's something you need to flesh out in more detail. I thought such a thing was possible, but I could be wrong. You and oBlade are comparing a joke to a serious statement (part of which, at best, might contain a metaphor). These are not the same things though. oBlade might sincerely not understand this, but you're working really hard to try to make these things equal, even though I suspect you know they aren't. I'm guessing it would be 2nd degree murder unless Trump thinks there was pre-meditation before Kamala bashed someone's skull in with her metaphorical gun. Neat. I'm satisfied. Between this and the post about the "Call Her Daddy" podcast I don't think I could make my point better than you are right now. I couldn't find the video or the audio for the interview, besides some clips, or else I'd post it like I've done with other interviews. Someone else may have more luck. You're also throwing stones at everyone else, when you're far from innocent. Nothing's stopping you from posting about important issues. I mentioned the Call Her Daddy podcast post because it (and the other interviews/posts you mention) are an example of the point I made about what actually gets the engagement. Harris could recite the chemical composition of a universal cure for cancer and Trump could put a pile of shit in a bag and light it fire on Pelosi's doorstep and Democrats would bait themselves into making the newscycle about "Trump's vicious act of terrorism". + Show Spoiler + That's a bit hyperbolic if that's not obvious, but even the fleeting thought it might not be is indicative of the problem I'm talking about. As for the aspect of "important" in that context, I meant to their own self-ascribed policy/strategy. Democrats don't really engage with the sort of introspective analysis I've argued they needed in order to be considered even viable social democrats, let alone dem socialists or beyond. I've come to terms with the general disinterest among libs in actually addressing that kind of stuff. I'm not voting for Harris because my vote is obviated by the system and doing so despite that would be irrationally cruel. Democrats though, they are ostensibly pretty committed to Harris winning. So when I point out how poorly she's doing compared to Biden in 2020 and how arguing about the latest stupid thing with the BJ's and oBlades of the world could be catastrophic, it's not because I'd rather discuss things of substance and value toward ending oppression in a holistic way (though I certainly would, and frequently offer opportunities for such, to little or no avail). It's because I'm pointing out Democrats and their supporters are just doing a bad job at what they are ostensibly trying to do by their own metrics and that's still bad for anyone that doesn't want Trump to become the fascist dictator Democrats (and Trump) tell me he will be. I think many of us would agree that Democrats need to work on messaging and communication, and I've said that plenty of times. Sometimes I feel like Democrats are worried that appeasing one of their sub-groups (or almost-sub-groups / potential voters) or trying to make a meaningful change in one direction, might push away other supporters because of conflicts (like trying to appeal to both moderates and the left-wing, or trying to show sympathy for both Jews and Muslims in the Middle East, or trying to address systemic discrimination in law enforcement and the criminal justice system without coming across as anti-police or anti-law). Do you think that's a legitimate concern, since the party wants to appeal to as many people as possible? Inclusivity can be helpful for getting votes, but on the other hand it may push away parts of all groups if the message is too broad or amorphous or insincere. I do recognize the hyperbole in your example about Democrats preferring to talk about Bad Man Trump instead of their cure for cancer, but honestly I just feel like Democrats would still attempt to promote the cure for cancer, as would the medical and scientific communities of experts, but then half the country would still just deny that cancer exists, or that they'd be immune if they ever got cancer, or that the cure for cancer is nothing more than a "jab" designed by Big Pharma to help the government track you... and the people who already appreciate the cure of cancer are already underneath the Democratic tent There's two different (though there can be some overlap) things going on when you ask me something like "do you think that's a legitimate concern?". On one hand, I'm a socialist/communist, so we have fundamentally different understandings of what US democracy functionally is. On the other, I'm not so divorced from my old lib days to be unable to speculate on what Democrats should or shouldn't do within their own (I would argue irreparably flawed) paradigms/worldviews. As a socialist/communist it's a stupid question about what the best layout for the chairs on the deck of the Titanic is. Imagining myself as a well-meaning lib, it's a reasonable concern that they are botching so badly they might lose to a 2x impeached, 30x+ convicted felon, fraudster, rapist, etc. that's only there because they thought pushing him to being the Republican leader would cynically make winning easier. The obvious one for me is cutting off weapons to Israel. Doing so is the majority/plurality polling position and even as a lib I was opposed to being complicit in ethnic cleansing/genocide. The idea that Biden and Harris have to be so unequivocally unconditional about arming Israel for votes just isn't reasonable. I understand and share your feelings of frustration about unburstable bubbles of ignorance and irrationality you notice Trump supporters occupy, but from my perspective, they're not as dissimilar from the bubbles libs occupy as you and other libs imagine. I appreciate you offering your insights through both lenses (your current perspective and the old lib days). I also wish that Democratic leadership took a stronger stance against Israel (mostly because I think it's the ethical thing to do, and not just because it might be more popular... although from a practical political perspective, I could see the latter reason being sufficient for some politicians). I am definitely aware that Democrats are also capable of bias and ignorance and irrationality, but I definitely don't think it's as extreme as what Trump and his followers believe or reject. I think that there is a false equivalence between what Trump/Vance says and does dishonestly, and what Harris/Walz says and does dishonestly, and I think that it also exists between the two parties in Congress, and trickles down to most supporters on each side.
My pleasure.
I know it feels that way, and is true to some degree. My point is, that as someone who said you would let the Democrat nominee murder your mom in cold blood in front of you and still cast a completely unnecessary vote for them, they're not as far apart as you'd like to imagine.
To be frank, I don't think you believe Democrats can actually stop Republicans in the long run or stop capitalists from controlling both parties or any of the things you know are necessary to just mitigate the worst hellscape future scenarios. I honestly think you're so scared of what it would mean to actually do your best to prevent those hellscapes, it's easier for you to pretend doing so is unreasonable compared to the you unnecessarily voting for your own mom's murderer thing.
I promise you should be way more terrified of what it means to not to actually do your best and instead rely on hamster wheel electoralism for Democrats if for no other reason than it provoked you to say you'd vote for your own mother's cold blooded murderer.
That might sound harsh, but I promise I say all that with sincere love.EDIT: Also you said it, but it's basically a universal position among people voting for/supporting Harris whether they admit it or not.
|
On October 08 2024 10:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2024 10:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 08:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 08 2024 07:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 07:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 08 2024 06:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 06:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 08 2024 06:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 06:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 08 2024 05:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
What are you talking about? People can discuss serious issues *and* call out Trump for saying stupid shit also. (I'm also not quite sure I agree with your premise that a presidential candidate saying alarmingly stupid shit isn't its own serious issue.) Harris and Walz and Democratic supporters haven't suddenly stopped talking about their plans for the economy, or women's rights, or other important topics. And it's extremely hypocritical when Republicans almost never talk about substance, but god forbid Democrats pause for a second from the issues, to point out Trump's gaslighting or fearmongering or lying. I mean they can, but that's not what gets the engagement. You can see a microcosm of it play out here in the difference between the level of engagement on anything that isn't bickering with BJ and oBlade about the most inane shit. The national version (that also played out here) was how Democrats lost a week that was supposed to be about Amber Thurman and how "Women are bleeding out in parking lots, turned away from emergency rooms, losing their ability to ever have children again. Survivors of rape and incest are being told they cannot make decisions about what happens next to their bodies. And now women are dying. These are the consequences of Donald Trump’s actions.” (sounds a lot like Trump's bit about Harris killing someone) apnews.comInstead Dems, the media, and posters here basically spent the week arguing pet eating with people whose primary objective is simply to get Dems, media, and posters like yourself to spend that engagement arguing about whatever bullshit stupid bait argument is the flavor of the day instead of the Amber Thurman of the day. You guys fall for it basically every time. You can't help yourselves. + Show Spoiler +It was pretty well-established, even among the Republicans, that Trump's "they're eating the dogs" meltdown during the debate was an embarrassment. There's nothing wrong with milking that for all it's worth, and - again - that's not stopping the rallies and interviews and other points being made. It doesn't hurt to occasionally remind the voters of the mistakes your opponent makes.
And yes, bickering with BJ* and oBlade does happen a lot, but it's not like there are conservatives on this forum proposing great, substantive ideas for policy. (I would imagine it's because the leader of the Republican party doesn't have many of those either.) There are still discussions about other important issues, and "important" is subjective; I'm sure a lot of people roll their eyes when we end up having yet another "GH vs. Capitalism" conversation that goes on for several pages, even if some people consider it a legitimately useful topic. *BJ spent multiple posts denying that Trump meant "murder", even though he said "murder", only to eventually concede that Trump probably only meant "second-degree murder" and that the metaphor stops it from technically being first-degree murder, so it does indeed appear to have been a fruitless discussion about semantics with him: + Show Spoiler +On October 08 2024 06:07 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2024 05:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 05:17 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 05:12 NewSunshine wrote:On October 08 2024 05:05 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 04:57 WombaT wrote:On October 08 2024 04:50 oBlade wrote:On October 08 2024 04:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 04:30 oBlade wrote:In another bout of erudite literalism, Biden recently announced he's reentering the race for president at a White House press conference, something he probably impulsively decided after losing his octogenarian temper at an unseemly reporter's prodding, "Do you regret dropping out?" And then with the same lack of respect that has typified this entire dumpster fire administration, everyone in the vicinity just laughed at the demented old racist to his face. He probably doesn't even realize how many ballot deadlines he's already missed. Watch the video you just linked. He said it sarcastically, grinned, and people laughed at his joke. Don't be a tool and don't fabricate things. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to think Biden is old and over-the-hill; you don't need to make up a new one. He literally said it. He stated it very clearly. With the same blank expression he always has. We don't need you Harats to deny reality and run interference like this. You really think the average voter would be capable of figuring out he was actually "joking" if he was as you claim? Clearly he's deranged, and wanting revenge on the people who pushed him out, meaning especially Kamala who replaced him. What better way than to falsely claim he's back in the race, causing a vote split as all the people who would never vote for the first black woman president decide to write in Biden instead. The only "joke" is that he'll be having the last laugh when he collapses the Democratic party out of spite with election interfering stunts like this. You can't just say something and mean it differently than what the words are. What on unearthly fuck are you talking about? He's clearly satirizing people's eagerness to take Trump literally that Kamala murdered someone while dismissing Biden's statement as being unserious. Apparently you get to pick and choose when to take something literally and when to ignore the context that someone is not speaking literally. You want to explain to me how "she killed her like she had a gun in her hand" somehow isn't ascribing responsibility to Harris for killing that person? Fuck me, that's two people who refuse to understand tone and the meaning of words based on tone. What's in the water today? He IS ascribing responsibility to Kamala for Rachel Morin's death. He's not saying Kamala was literally the one that murdered her. "Gun in her hand" is a metaphor. He's not saying Kamala literally had a gun in her hand and used it to murder that woman on a hiking trail in Maryland. Pretending like we don't know what metaphors are just to attack Trump on something is just really bizarre. That's my point. On October 08 2024 05:27 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 05:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 08 2024 05:10 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2024 05:08 NewSunshine wrote:
Biden obviously made a joke. Don't talk about Smithsonian-level anything when you let an obvious joke fly clear over your head. You haven't reached that level yet. Come back when you understand what a joke is. Good lord. The joke didn't fly over his head. He's intentionally and sarcastically pretending that Biden wasn't making a joke to illustrate how absurd it is that people are pretending that Trump thinks Kamala murdered someone on a hiking trail in Maryland. Trump wasn't joking. I could see someone hand-waving away Trump's statement, with something like "Yeah, that's just Trump making stupid claims again; what else is new," and then a discussion could be had about whether it's okay or not to dismiss Trump's dangerous accusations. But to think Biden's joke is comparable to Trump saying his usual bullshit is ridiculous. You were already giving Trump way too much credit, but it's doubly weird to see you trying to die on the absurd "oBlade Knows What's He's Talking About" hill. I didn't say Trump was joking. I said he wasn't speaking literally. The quote is "Kamala let the savage in that murdered Rachel Morin. Kamala murdered her."
How do you interpret that? That Kamala murdered Rachel Morin? But he just said the savage murdered her. Did he forget in the faction of a second that he already said the savage murdered her? Was it a double murder? Did the savage rape her and then Kamala finished the job with the butt end of her metaphorical gun? It's just really weird having to explain this. It's obvious he is saying that the savage is the one that killed Rachel Morin but Kamala is culpable for her death because she is the one that allowed the savage in. If you delete the context and narrow in one the one sentence "Kamala murdered her" then of course it looks like he is actually accusing Kamala of murdering someone. Just like if you delete the context of Joe Biden grinning and people laughing then it looks like he is "back in" the 2024 race. The point is it's stupid to delete context to win stupid arguments. So Trump is saying that Harris is responsible for the victim's murder, but he also used a metaphor about the wrong cause of death. And that means "not murder". Does Trump think that Harris should only be convicted of manslaughter instead of murder? Please tell us the name of the crime, since Trump said "murder" but you know he meant "not murder". If your ace in the hole is that two people can't be convicted of the same murder, then I think that's something you need to flesh out in more detail. I thought such a thing was possible, but I could be wrong. You and oBlade are comparing a joke to a serious statement (part of which, at best, might contain a metaphor). These are not the same things though. oBlade might sincerely not understand this, but you're working really hard to try to make these things equal, even though I suspect you know they aren't. I'm guessing it would be 2nd degree murder unless Trump thinks there was pre-meditation before Kamala bashed someone's skull in with her metaphorical gun. Neat. I'm satisfied. Between this and the post about the "Call Her Daddy" podcast I don't think I could make my point better than you are right now. I couldn't find the video or the audio for the interview, besides some clips, or else I'd post it like I've done with other interviews. Someone else may have more luck. You're also throwing stones at everyone else, when you're far from innocent. Nothing's stopping you from posting about important issues. I mentioned the Call Her Daddy podcast post because it (and the other interviews/posts you mention) are an example of the point I made about what actually gets the engagement. Harris could recite the chemical composition of a universal cure for cancer and Trump could put a pile of shit in a bag and light it fire on Pelosi's doorstep and Democrats would bait themselves into making the newscycle about "Trump's vicious act of terrorism". + Show Spoiler + That's a bit hyperbolic if that's not obvious, but even the fleeting thought it might not be is indicative of the problem I'm talking about. As for the aspect of "important" in that context, I meant to their own self-ascribed policy/strategy. Democrats don't really engage with the sort of introspective analysis I've argued they needed in order to be considered even viable social democrats, let alone dem socialists or beyond. I've come to terms with the general disinterest among libs in actually addressing that kind of stuff. I'm not voting for Harris because my vote is obviated by the system and doing so despite that would be irrationally cruel. Democrats though, they are ostensibly pretty committed to Harris winning. So when I point out how poorly she's doing compared to Biden in 2020 and how arguing about the latest stupid thing with the BJ's and oBlades of the world could be catastrophic, it's not because I'd rather discuss things of substance and value toward ending oppression in a holistic way (though I certainly would, and frequently offer opportunities for such, to little or no avail). It's because I'm pointing out Democrats and their supporters are just doing a bad job at what they are ostensibly trying to do by their own metrics and that's still bad for anyone that doesn't want Trump to become the fascist dictator Democrats (and Trump) tell me he will be. I think many of us would agree that Democrats need to work on messaging and communication, and I've said that plenty of times. Sometimes I feel like Democrats are worried that appeasing one of their sub-groups (or almost-sub-groups / potential voters) or trying to make a meaningful change in one direction, might push away other supporters because of conflicts (like trying to appeal to both moderates and the left-wing, or trying to show sympathy for both Jews and Muslims in the Middle East, or trying to address systemic discrimination in law enforcement and the criminal justice system without coming across as anti-police or anti-law). Do you think that's a legitimate concern, since the party wants to appeal to as many people as possible? Inclusivity can be helpful for getting votes, but on the other hand it may push away parts of all groups if the message is too broad or amorphous or insincere. I do recognize the hyperbole in your example about Democrats preferring to talk about Bad Man Trump instead of their cure for cancer, but honestly I just feel like Democrats would still attempt to promote the cure for cancer, as would the medical and scientific communities of experts, but then half the country would still just deny that cancer exists, or that they'd be immune if they ever got cancer, or that the cure for cancer is nothing more than a "jab" designed by Big Pharma to help the government track you... and the people who already appreciate the cure of cancer are already underneath the Democratic tent There's two different (though there can be some overlap) things going on when you ask me something like "do you think that's a legitimate concern?". On one hand, I'm a socialist/communist, so we have fundamentally different understandings of what US democracy functionally is. On the other, I'm not so divorced from my old lib days to be unable to speculate on what Democrats should or shouldn't do within their own (I would argue irreparably flawed) paradigms/worldviews. As a socialist/communist it's a stupid question about what the best layout for the chairs on the deck of the Titanic is. Imagining myself as a well-meaning lib, it's a reasonable concern that they are botching so badly they might lose to a 2x impeached, 30x+ convicted felon, fraudster, rapist, etc. that's only there because they thought pushing him to being the Republican leader would cynically make winning easier. The obvious one for me is cutting off weapons to Israel. Doing so is the majority/plurality polling position and even as a lib I was opposed to being complicit in ethnic cleansing/genocide. The idea that Biden and Harris have to be so unequivocally unconditional about arming Israel for votes just isn't reasonable. I understand and share your feelings of frustration about unburstable bubbles of ignorance and irrationality you notice Trump supporters occupy, but from my perspective, they're not as dissimilar from the bubbles libs occupy as you and other libs imagine. I appreciate you offering your insights through both lenses (your current perspective and the old lib days). I also wish that Democratic leadership took a stronger stance against Israel (mostly because I think it's the ethical thing to do, and not just because it might be more popular... although from a practical political perspective, I could see the latter reason being sufficient for some politicians). I am definitely aware that Democrats are also capable of bias and ignorance and irrationality, but I definitely don't think it's as extreme as what Trump and his followers believe or reject. I think that there is a false equivalence between what Trump/Vance says and does dishonestly, and what Harris/Walz says and does dishonestly, and I think that it also exists between the two parties in Congress, and trickles down to most supporters on each side. My pleasure. I know it feels that way, and is true to some degree. My point is, that as someone who said you would let the Democrat nominee murder your mom in cold blood in front of you and still cast a completely unnecessary vote for them, they're not as far apart as you'd like to imagine. To be frank, I don't think you believe Democrats can actually stop Republicans in the long run or stop capitalists from controlling both parties or any of the things you know are necessary to just mitigate the worst hellscape future scenarios. I honestly think you're so scared of what it would mean to actually do your best to prevent those hellscapes, it's easier for you to pretend doing so is unreasonable compared to the you unnecessarily voting for your own mom's murderer thing. I promise you should be way more terrified of what it means to not to actually do your best and instead rely on hamster wheel electoralism for Democrats if for no other reason than it provoked you to say you'd vote for your own mother's cold blooded murderer. That might sound harsh, but I promise I say all that with sincere love.EDIT: Also you said it, but it's basically a universal position among people voting for/supporting Harris whether they admit it or not.
Who are in the group of capitalists that you are describing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
