Bro, a worm ate part of his brain, and then died because of mercury poisoning. Doing something blatantly obvious and stupid is par for the course for him now. Like, this is the same guy who chainsawed off the head of a beached whale and strapped it to his car’s roof.
Well that’s not true. You’re very pro-genocide, as long as it’s against Palestinians. That’s pretty political.
The kids ARE alright!
Man, I’m going to feel like a real dick if English isn’t your first language, but “not condoning” is very much not the same thing as “condemning”. For example, I would not condone anybody hurling insults at you, especially if I think they’re over the top. That being said, I wouldn’t condemn it either. Do you see the difference?
I’m not obligated to explain myself to you. :)
True - your obligation is merely to your own conscience. If you ever get tired of being a garbage human being, you’re going to have some serious soul searching to do.
I don’t have to explain anything to you or do anything of the sort.
Yup. Called it. No wonder you are acting like such a weasel. You are at the very least ok with it, and at most support it. But you don’t want anybody else to know that about you, so you’re trying to pretend you’re taking some kind of moral high ground.
You know what the moral high ground actually is? Condemning genocide. It’s possibly the most basic moral test that exists, and you failed it spectacularly. I stand by every negative thing I’ve said about you.
It’s not my job to condemn, support, or even comment on every article someone else posts
No, it certainly isn’t. But the fact that you declined to respond to OP, and chose to respond to someone criticising OP instead is very telling about your priorities.
Also, just to be clear, I do like Israel. My girlfriend is Jewish, and I’ve been there—it’s a beautiful place. That doesn’t mean I have to agree with their leaders or condone genocide.
Ok, crazy hypothetical time here… let’s say that we were discussing some other famous genocide. You can pick any one you’d like. And let’s say that some piece of shit posted an article on the channel you moderate saying that “hey - actually it’s not a genocide, it’s just, like, pre-emptive self defence, guys”, and someone calls that person out. If someone responds to that by saying: “Hey, I like <name_of_country>”, would you take that to mean “I really like the rivers and hills, and I have a passing familiarity with the place”, or would you not take the dumbest possible interpretation, and instead treat it as if instead of being a complete nonsequitor, it was in the context of the conversation to date? When you said: “I like Israel”, it was in the context of Israel committing a genocide. Who gives a shit if the place is pretty? The conversation had nothing to do with how scenic the country is, but rather how terrible their government is.
By implying–actually saying–that I support genocide is a gross distortion of the facts and you should feel icky about yourself.
You want me to feel icky about interpreting the things you said in the way that makes the most sense? Maybe in the future, if you don’t want to be misunderstood, be clear about what you’re talking about, and don’t try to weasel out of responsibility. Your entire whining response to me between that post and this boils down to you not taking responsibility for being obtuse.
I believe in diversity of opinion in that community.
Ah yes - classic liberal thinking: “People who deplore genocide and people who cheer it on should be equally heard!” Fuck you.
But don’t lie and say I support genocide.
Ok - condemn Israel, and condemn the poster who posted an apologetics piece about Israel’s genocide. I don’t give a shit how pretty you think the countryside of Israel is.
The article posted by the OP in that instance was a bullshit apologetic thinkpiece about how the people opposed to Israel’s genocide of Palestinians are just ignorant, which includes the re-framing of genocide into “self-defense”. You not only didn’t have a problem with that, but you essentially defended OP against someone who did - me. At no point did you condemn any of the morally bankrupt positions the article OP posted took, and then you went and said that you like Israel. Could just be that you said that just to antagonize me, and you don’t actually mean it. If that’s the case, then at the very best, you’re a disingenuous jackass who doesn’t take the genocide seriously. At worst, you’re a supporter of it.
Which is it?
It’s actually pretty funny that you and OP are seeing eye to eye on this, considering you want the US to stop funding Israel’s genocide, and OP is 100% cool with Israel’s genocide. Politics makes for some strange bedfellows, indeed.
This really is quite pathetic when you think about it. The primary duty of a political party is to get their candidate on the ballot in all 50 states. Fuckery in Nevada aside, the Green Party has only managed to get Stein on the ballot in 38 states. Like, it’d be one thing if they managed to get her on the ballot in all 49 other states and just got screwed in NV, but they completely failed to do their job in 11 other states besides Nevada. And when it comes down to it, the problem in NV is that they filed incorrect paperwork. Any organization that was on the ball would be triple checking everything to make sure that their primary job (get the candidate on the ballot) was done right.
Shit like this is why I can never take the Green party seriously. How do you expect to win the presidency if the residents from a quarter of the states in the Union don’t even have an option to vote for you? And if the party can’t even get their primary job done correctly, how can they even expect to attract good candidates?
It could also be interpreted as a criticism of Libertarianism. The first two pigs didn’t go by any building codes, and instead decided that they wanted to build their shelters out of inferior materials with substandard protections against high winds. The third pig made sure that his dwelling met hurricane standards, and was saved. The story doesn’t go into the reasons why pigs #1 and #2 chose inferior building materials, so it could be interpreted in a number of different ways. It doesn’t HAVE to be about economics. It could just be that pigs #1 and #2 were big fans of Ayn Rand and reaped the whirlwind as a result.
It looks like we have an answer to the question “what happens when the FBI shuts off the Russian money pipeline to American right-wing grifters?”. Apparently, the answer is that they organize a griftcon.
It’s really not about him losing votes, though. Despite the fact that there are a truly mind-boggling number of idiot cultists out there who are for some reason devoted to this moron, there are not enough of them to win an election. Both candidates need to appeal to the vast pool of undecided or apathetic voters in order to win. In 2020, the Democrats won because that pool of people were highly motivated to oust Trump after living through 4 years of his presidency, but people have very short memories and even shorter attention spans, and so the Dems can’t really count on the same thing happening again in 2024.
When Trump was running against Biden at the beginning of this race, things were looking grim for the Democrats, because that group of morons who can’t be bothered to pay the slightest bit of attention to what’s happening in their government (apathetic & undecided voters) decided that they couldn’t really tell the difference between two senile, doddering old men, so Trump’s rambling incoherence wasn’t that big of a problem. Now that he’s facing someone more than 2 decades younger than him who still has the complete use of her mental faculties, it’s imperative for him to do SOMETHING to make himself not look like a shoeless old man in a hospital gown wandering between lanes of traffic after escaping from his rest home. This debate didn’t do that.
It’s amazing to me that anybody on his team was shocked he did so poorly. It just indicates to me that they’re absolutely shit at their jobs. Being a good advisor requires you to be able to recognize the difference between reality and fantasy, and anybody who thought Trump would do well in this debate after spending any amount of time actually listening to him has failed this most basic of tests.
I’m surprised that he did so well in the debate, actually. I mean, he still got absolutely bodied, but no microphones picked up the sound of him shitting himself this time, so he’s already showing an improvement over his debate performance with Biden.
Edit: it just occurred to me that Trump randomly shitting himself could be the reason his team were so gung ho for muted mics: it means that there’s 50% less chance he’ll drop a deuce while near a hot mic. If so, that’s a great strategy on their part.
I suppose the title isn’t exactly misleading, but it certainly left me with the impression that he had another sundowning moment where he gets off on a tangent and then a tangent to that tangent, and never gets back to the original point.
This wasn’t that. He was talking shit, obviously, but his drivel contained cogent points. It’s probably the most coherent I’ve seen him be in the last year or two. While he was speaking (and making one coherent point), he was interrupted by a mosquito, and then took a moment to mention how much he hates mosquitoes. Then, and this is the important bit, he went back to his original point. Everybody does this. Usually, it’s nothing more than just waving your hand around in front of your face and saying: “fucking mosquitoes!”, but it’s the same general principle nonetheless.
Contrast this with his whole shark / boat / battery scenario. Or his long, rambling diatribe about how powerful “nuclear” is. This is nothing.
Sorry if this makes me sound like uncultured swine, but is this piece a reference to anything? Like did this artist want to do an homage to something else? Or is it just a bunch of random bullshit of varying shades of white placed into a concise pattern?
Be the change you wish to see in the world.
The thing that most disturbs me is how cavalier the bystanders were about the guy having a gun, which the group proceeded to fight over. They’re just sitting there filming and providing commentary. My ass would be out of the pool, out to the parking lot, into my car, and driving home.
50 bucks says that the instant that Arlington staffer’s info gets made public, s/he’ll be inundated with death threats from Cult 45ers.
I mean, anything can look like a conspiracy to a layperson who pays zero attention to 60 years of incremental progress and focuses solely on the end result. It’s the same reason why people think vaccines are evil, or that 5G towers cause COVID.