Which “liberals?” I thought it was funny. I guess I’m not “liberal” enough? I’m voting for Biden because I’ll do anything to stop Trump, but I’m not going to pretend he shouldn’t be mocked.
My guess is bot farms mostly. Russia, the DNC, the RNC, et al benefit in their own ways from posting their reactions all over social media. Sure some on the far left probably didn’t make it past the first commercial break, but with an election, everyone is coming out to play
Regardless, they are both way too old to be running again. I find it hard to believe these guys with one foot in the grave and an inability to speak coherently are our best bet.
I thought it was funny too, but man is it uncomfortable knowing that it could sway people away from voting for Biden and swing the scales in favor of Trump.
The problem is of the people that watch him. The majority of them would never vote for Trump in the first place. Most of them would probably vote Biden. So being hard on Trump he’s simply preaching to the choir. Being hard on Biden. He might demoralize a few from participating. It doesn’t mean he was wrong or wrong to do it. But it is a possible concern. Though the only group to actually blame for that is the Democrats.
I mean I’m still going to vote for them. Because I like the idea of still having elections even if they are highly flawed. You don’t get that sort of thing under full blown fascism.
It won’t, it was honest and painted Trump in a worse (and deservedly awful) light. The apologists that call the sky yellow when you can see it’s fucking blue cause much more damage by eroding public trust in the democrats.
I prefer flawed candidates that overcome their flaws so that, hopefully, we can find a less flawed candidate next time.
That’s an interesting point. Jon Stewart’s job isn’t to get Biden elected. Just like Fox and MSNBC shouldn’t be their job to get their respective candidates elected. He should present things as he sees it and the people should inform themselves to select the best candidate
"No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.
It doesn’t matter, they pick and choose what they want to believe. If you try throwing scripture at them they just contort themselves into a pretzel trying to explain why that particular scripture is not to be taken literally.
I find it fun backing them into corners and them becoming enraged. I then point out that they are not being very Christ like, and that usually ends my conversation with the charlatan.
Just because they will be 100% unwilling to admit to you that they are actually physically experiencing the feeling of doubt, does not mean it isn’t actually happening.
Don’t expect them to be honest about what’s going on inside them though. They value fighting, never giving up, persistence, dedication, loyalty, strength, power, confidence and security. None of these things makes it more likely for them to admit to you when something they disagree with might sound reasonable.
It’s a defense mechanism. Can’t just give it permission to function though.
You do have to back off before you actually infuriate them though, as the emotion of anger will strengthen the defense mechanisms dramatically. Better to walk away having peacefully left some food for thought. You can’t convince them though, being so readily convinced would itself be unacceptable to them, just on principle.
This. Best explanation I ever heard of narcissism is that we all eventually reach a point where we feel intense shame. It's a chasm. Some people look at it, fall in, and never recover. Some people look at it, realize the danger, and stay away from the edge but don't run screaming.
And some people see it, and become so terrified, that they pretend it never happened and will fight anyone who reminds them of the shame.
That's the narcissists, which are empowered by systems of religious dogma. Very often they're least faithful - they're just lying to avoid anyone around them finding out.
If any of the chucklefucks actually gave a shit about what the bible says, they’d all be as socialist as Jesus and would’ve burned Trump at a stake for being the antichrist.
You can’t deprogram religious extremists with religion.
Not looking to deprogram with religion, just logic. And even though they will be mad at me for pointing out their flaws, hopefully someone somewhere will go “hmm…”
Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
They won’t admit it (publicly), but I think the biggest betrayal for most of them is that he adopted a black kid. “Conservatives” as they stand now are irredeemable…
Yes. They’re fascists. They’re the ultimate tribal bros. They’d start a fistfight with you if you had the wrong favorite color and caught them in a bad mood… They’re ONLY selfish pricks who want their way. That is the ONLY true constant with them.
You’re either with them 100% or you’re against them 100%. Trump sycophants require full loyalty and anyone who dares question their narrative is branded a commie.
This is really just a preview of what’s to come as Republicans have been and intend to continue attacking freedom of speech and expression.
Yep. They won’t be content with having their stupid agenda and view being overly represented like it already is (see the House and SCOTUS - wildly out of step with the American people, and the cons think that is somehow a working system), many of them want to silence any and all dissent. Even if that means extreme violence.
“Never believe that [they] are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. [They] have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
I know it's not hugely relevant to this particular case, but I do think the original context of the quote should be included here, just for completeness if nothing else.
Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies.
While he's discussing anti-semitism, bigots of all kinds use very similar rhetorical strategies. A lot of this stuff did originate with anti-semitism though, and I feel that shouldn't be forgotten.
like does donny-rapist understand that presenting his "evidence" to the public and presenting to the court are two Very different things? If you have proof exonerating yourself you present it to the court at the time of trial, or you present it to the grand jury before indictment, which he was given plenty of chances to do and refused to do it.
Im suspicious that his "evidence" will be nothing but propaganda...
Assuming he actually does release something, I'm guessing he's making an appeal to the court of public opinion to incite his dumbass supporters to storm the courts to protect him.
Of course he knows the difference. He only cares about the court of public opinion. He knows nothing good can happen legally for him. He’s hoping if he keeps a shiny nugget on the horizon long enough, his entourage might terrorize the court, witnesses or the prosecution enough to get him off.
He really has nothing else since it seems other GOP candidates are less likely to pardon him by the day.
Using similar logic we should be able to use for that. It’s a load of bullshit. The government is constantly giving money directly to rich people, but God forbid we do the same thing for regular people.
The difference is that the PPP loans were designed to be partially or fully forgiven. They were given out to stop businesses from going under thanks to COVID lockdowns/border closures/etc. They were never meant to be paid back. They should never have used the term “loan” for them, as clearly doing so made a lot of people think that they were in any way equivalent to a student loan.
Not nuking North Korea was probably the right choice. On the other hand, I’d rather get vaporized in a nuclear fireball than starve to death in a reeducation camp for not clapping hard enough when [Great/Supreme/Dear] Leader farts.
Pretty sure they’re referring to how a lot of people didn’t believe he could win in 2016. I don’t know to what extent that actually affected voting, but even the pollsters (the supposed experts at election prediction) predicted he had no chance at winning.
Probably because this is a civil case and not a criminal one. Not showing up negatively affects his case more than anything. This isn’t the same as defying a subpoena, or not being present as a criminal defendant, both of which would absolutely land this broke-ass motherfucker in jail
Trump’s hands are too small to push anyone out of a window. Also, the way his full diapers and heel lifts make him lean forward, puts him at too much risk of falling out as well.
If I’m not mistaken, refusing to defend yourself in a civil case results in the judge automatically assuming everything the plaintiff is accusing you of is true. I wonder if that applies when your lawyers are present but you aren’t when ordered?
“This don’t feel like a victory today, bro,” Bannon said, observing how Johnson’s office had directed all incoming calls to voicemail after voting took place. “When 209 Hakeem Jeffries-loving Democrats vote for something, it just doesn’t feel like a victory. I’m not feeling victorious right now. I kind of got this righteous indignation.”
And there it is. It’s not about governing, it about ensuring that your team is beating the other team. Doesn’t matter that the government is avoiding a shutdown and essential government functions will continue to keep people alive, safe, employed, etc, because the other team voted for it, it must be bad.
Also, nobody* loves Jeffries. It’s his turn according to the congresswoman whose allies still control all committee assignments and who’s still one of the most effective solicitors of the legal bribes they depend on, so the rest just have to go along with it.
That’s fine. I don’t love most of my coworkers and my bosses. I tolerate and respect them, though. I don’t see why that’s a positive or negative to want to share a hotel room when traveling with your speaker.
It’s interesting that it’s all about how he “feels”, nothing to do with facts, logic, context, or any consideration of the effects on the people who live in the U.S.
“Republicans need to look at all of these numbers, and really think about what’s more important. Yes, most people that are Republicans are probably pro-life,” she stated. “And we love our babies. And I love being a mother. But what’s most important? Republicans taking over. And Republicans being able to keep our country!”
Their problem is that they’ve been making abortion a wedge issue for so long, that it’s now impossible for them to back down. They’ve been catering to the religious right, pushing a message that life begins at conception and any form of abortion (and some birth control) is literally the same as murdering babies. And their base ate that shit up.
Now they’re trying to backtrack, which leads to their hilarious message of basically “look, we’re going to have to kill a few babies to get into power, because power is more important.” Good luck trying to sell that.
They're being really blatant about it all of a sudden. Is this sort of statement effective on Republicans voters? Do they not have any sort of cognitive dissonance when hearing one of their beloved Fox and Friends anchors saying this?
No, they don’t. Because they feel the same way. Beyond all of the minutiae the ultimate driving force behind the ideology of fascism is taking power for the sake of power
Remember this when any future conservative (I don’t care what party flag they’re flying) tries to claim they are about any policy. If they ever attempt to come up with a policy again.
They’ve been getting vauger for decades intentionally.
Anti-abortion is going to become “childs rights” and they’ll swear they’d never dream of outlawing abortion until they think they can get away with it.
The “Vote NO on 1” signs littering the chuds’ yards in my neighborhood were subtitled with bullshit slogans like “protect children”, “protect parents’ rights” and, most egregiously, “protect them both” (complete with an illustration of a pregnant woman who is ostensibly in danger of being forced at gunpoint into an abortion?). [edit to add] I just read this morning that there were people putting out rumors that the amendment would allow minors to get gender reassignment surgery without parental consent, when all anyone needs to do is read the goddamn ballot, publicly available, to see that there is nothing there at all saying that. They’re craven liars.
Nothing is off the table for these psychopaths; for fuck’s sake, when they tried to block the measure from the ballot back in August, some of these jamokes had the gall to put up signs that said “protect the 2nd amendment”… but idiots will lap it up.
“Children’s Rights” can absolutely be their next tactic, because as long as they act in bad faith and say all kinds of shit with zero meaning behind it, why the hell not?
Don’t disagree with your point, just want to note it’s vaguer. The u is after the g to keep the g hard despite the e, and the e which is silent in vague is there to make the a long. Without the e it would be be vag, which ironically is pronounced with a soft g because of the i in vagina, even though it’s been shortened.
When I was little, before kindygarten even, I would read books with my mom. One had the word “vague” in it, and I would pronounce it “vagh-you” because I didn’t know yet how to pronounce it. My mom would correct me, but I thought she meant that I was mispronouncing the vowel in the first syllable, and we’d go back and forth until I melted down because I was 4. It wasn’t until later on when I was actually in school that I got it because she never explained the concept of silent letters. Almost 40 years later, I’m still miffed about that.
Mark my words - if the GOP manages to gain a 2/3 majority in the house and Senate through any form of shenanigans they will pass an amendment to relegalize slavery.
She’s been bending over backwards for Trump since day one, and she’s spent this entire time dragging her feet on even the most basic of issues. She created delay after delay, and is now using the delay she created as the justification for granting the postponement that Trump has been seeking all along.
“Mid November.” What a god damned coincidence. The rotting corpse of Hellen Keller could have seen right through that load of bullshit.
Is there anyway they can throw her out or do something about this cunts corruption? Seriously we going allow her to keep this from proceeding until she is sure he is President and can pardon himself.
It’s such an open and shut case, he may still be convicted with all the help in the world. If that happens he is in a bad position to effectively argue that she was biased against him.
That “may” is doing a lot of heavy-lifting. I don’t want revenge" or to punish Trump because I don’t like him (though I don’t). I want justice to be served. The judge is clearly biased toward him, and that could result in a miscarriage of justice. She must be removed.
At this point I'm convinced she's literally in communication with his team or people once removed. This is the most slam dunk case ever. Did he have these documents? Yes. Was he allowed to? No.
And no small number of supposed leftists found in all this cause for celebration. Others, meanwhile, loudly refused to condemn Hamas’s atrocities, insisting it was not their place to decry the “military strategy” or “violent resistance” of oppressed Palestinians.
Whom? I want names or at least hard numbers. Too many people throw around these nebulous quantities like it is self-apparent support for their claims. You know who else uses that tactic? Dishonest politicians (it’s a favorite of right-wing politicians stoking fear or feigning support).
This reads like someone with confirmation bias and no real data to back it up.
Israel doesn’t get a “Get Out of Warcrimes Free” card just because they had warcrimes committed against them. Fuck Israel, fuck the Hamas. I stand with the citizens on both sides caught in the middle.
So now they want to legislate what kind of stickers private business owners can put in their shop windows? Wow, I’ll remember that the next time republicans start whining about government overreach and calling everyone snowflakes.
Don’t just talk about it next time the topic of government overreach comes up, get angry about it. If you’re talking to someone you know, make them feel stupid for supporting a party that’s afraid of stickers.
I would love to rub the average republican’s face in this sort of hypocrisy, but they don’t care. You can’t play chess against someone playing calvinball.
Nothing matters to them except power. No reasoned arguments. No past events, statements, or beliefs. Only power.
They’re an existential threat and we should treat them as such.
I’m so sick of people somehow believing that being polite to bigots will magically change them. Punching them in the face and socially excluding them changes them
Socially excluding them could have the opposite effect. Suddenly everyone they surround themselves with is also making jokes disparaging trans people and supporting their suspicions that masks are the mark of the beast and that vaccines will give you blood clots and kill you.
Would simply changing conservative university to PragerU not be more context/more descriptive? I can't even see it being called editorializing if it's more accurate.
I don’t understand PragerU… they put out all of this fascist propaganda, but they still have this video up on their YouTube channel that spells out in no uncertain terms that the cause of the civil war was slavery and the south’s want to defend a “morally repugnant institution”:
They just sell content to education institutions, nothing more, nothing less. They don’t care what that content is for or against, only that someone finds it valuable. It’s not about being “fair and balanced”; it’s about playing both sides to make as much money as possible.
I mean their founder guy or whoever did a rant about how it’s ok for siblings to fuck and that inbreeding isn’t real, just to give you an idea of what kind of people they actually are…
Historically, it was the democratic party pre 1960s that were the defenders of slavery. Lincoln was a Republican at the time of the Emancipation Proclamation, and the ideologies basically switched around the time of the Civil Rights Act.
I mean yes its a technicality but its also a pointless argument seeing as most political parties aren't the same after 100+ years. Hell even in a span of 20 years, it is quite crazy to see progress since for a while the democrats basically avoided the whole lgbt topic entirely but now is one of its "pillars" for party ideals.
Exactly, just as conservatism has changed and gotten more extreme in the last 40ish years. My point though is that far too many people treat the political parties as constant throughout their history, and it’s worth pointing out that modern iterations of a given party are a stretch from even 20 years ago, almost to the point that they’re different parties entirely today.
The ideologies did not switch. The Republican party was more appealing to Protestants, was largely anti-union, etc many other things, but largely was the party of “individualism”. The Democratic Party has always been more interventionist- but started to ideologically evolve after FDR. Barry Goldwater and certain other Republicans opposed the 1964 Civil Rights because they argued it was federal overreach. This attracted some Democrats who just went with what ever party they saw as letting them keep being racist, as for actual politicians who switch IIRC Strom Thurmond was the only one(but I may be wrong). But a big part of the “switch”(Carter won in the south the first time, Bill Clinton won a few states in the South, Reagan won traditionally blue areas) is that anti-government interventionism(especially after Reagan) switched from being a more urban thing to a more rural thing. Thats not to suggest that a lot of Republicans didn’t pitch their policies in a way to appeal to voters(who may be racist), they did. But the ideologies of the parties didn’t swap. Republicans stayed more or less the same, Democrats evolved.
Honestly Youtube sucks. I get flagged for “supporting criminal gang activity” because I had a video about Randy Stair that didn’t even paint him in a positive light, most youtubers have to say “unalive” because mentioning death gets them demonetized yet PragerU can just straight up say we need to re-enslave black people and the response is “aww shucks”
The problem is that social media companies have completely capitulated to fascists, with absolutely zero attempt to put up a fight.
Everyone knows, and I mean literally everyone, that if the rules were enforces fairly on social media then something like 60% of conservatives would have to be banned. They regularly say things that are openly racist, sexist, and incite violence on the reg.
But social media companies only care about money, and to make money they want as many people as possible to show up. So while they know these cesspools exist on their platforms where people say the most heinous shit imagineable, they tolerate it because it makes them money and avoids the big fascist rage party if they fairly enforced their rules.
The fucked up part is, I have been banned or suspended from a few social media platforms for completely innocuous reasons. Which is just frustrating when I get a 3-month band on Facebook for racism for making a self-deprecating joke about being white, but white supremacist groups are allowed to just openly operate and the people who gave me death threats for being transgender “were found not to be in violation of policies”
I fucking knew it… Read the headline and came to the comments thinking “it’s definitely that shithole PragerU isn’t it…”
Conservatives LOVE projection and they use their victim complex as ammunition. “Libz own the colleges and indoctrinate our youth so it’s totally fine now to have our own propaganda university teaching real history!”
Yeah - they don’t seem to understand that there is a massive difference between “having biases” and “being biased.” It’s how they’ve excused the purposeful slant of FoxNews all these years.
politics
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.