Vice-President Kamala Harris
Probably requires her own thread at this moment, lock/delete etc if someone else wins the nom
I thought you were talking about the evilness of votes. Biden was running, had run in the past, and all I said about him, which is what you were saying about Trump (and I agree about Trump), was also true about Biden. So voting for Biden was evil - can we agree?
Anyone voting for either major party is doing something evil. That's probably most people here. You are all doing evil because you think there will be no consequences. You think clim
My brother in Christ, we just live in the real world, not in your fantasy land where we get to pontificate on a message board about how the world could be all rainbows and butterflies and unicorns if only we wished hard enough upon a star. That doesn't mean we don't believe in climate change or the possibility of nuclear war. That is what we call a non sequitur.
Also, your farts don't smell like roses to anyone else except you.
My brother in Christ, we just live in the real world, not in your fantasy land where we get to pontificate on a message board about how the world could be all rainbows and butterflies and unicorns if only we wished hard enough upon a star. That doesn't mean we don't believe in climate change or the possibility of nuclear war. That is what we call a non sequitur.
Also, your farts don't smell like roses to anyone else except you.
In not so many words
[YOUTUBE]pnlN8F3zLe0?si=HgcfMdSz2OkWvnwX
[/YOUTUBE]
Sometimes life present you with bad choices but you just have to choose regardless and go with it -> 88 in blackjack .
I thought you were talking about the evilness of votes. Biden was running, had run in the past, and all I said about him, which is what you were saying about Trump (and I agree about Trump), was also true about Biden. So voting for Biden was evil - can we agree?
Anyone voting for either major party is doing something evil. That's probably most people here. You are all doing evil because you think there will be no consequences. You think clim
You need some serious help.
I can definitely see this guy ranting about ideal poker and/or hanging around on street corners screaming "do you like rake?!" at at passersby within the next 5 years or so.
Why do you guys act so weird when someone comes out with the very trite take of "the two parties are the same"?
Fringes always existed who believed that, and under the assumption they make it is even somewhat true.
They simply are sort of single issue voters, with the single issue being "rich people and corporations shouldn't rule the country".
Ofc that's a silly issue as rich people always run every country in the history of the world (even communist countries, just different rich people from those who existed pre-revolution).
But in their view it can be different and so they treat all parties which cater to rich people and corporations as evil.
Why do you guys act so weird when someone comes out with the very trite take of "the two parties are the same"?
Fringes always existed who believed that, and under the assumption they make it is even somewhat true.
They simply are sort of single issue voters, with the single issue being "rich people and corporations shouldn't rule the country".
Ofc that's a silly issue as rich people always run every country in the history of the world (even
Nobody is acting weird, unless you think that telling people they are being dumb is "weird".
If you mean the "need help" suggestion, that's more of a body of work thing, not just that specific post.
My brother in Christ, we just live in the real world, not in your fantasy land where we get to pontificate on a message board about how the world could be all rainbows and butterflies and unicorns if only we wished hard enough upon a star. That doesn't mean we don't believe in climate change or the possibility of nuclear war. That is what we call a non sequitur.
Also, your farts don't smell like roses to anyone else except you.
I'm not going for rainbows and butterflies, more like just trying to avoid the end of all decent human living in the near term.
You don't have to wish upon a star. All you have to do is what you know to be right instead of what you know to be wrong. Having a rational, majority focused policy is not out of human reach. We've seen other countries do it.
My farts have stopped even being benign to me. I was told I should go to the doctor recently by someone who caught a whiff. I agreed.
I'm not going for rainbows and butterflies, more like just trying to avoid the end of all decent human living in the near term.
You don't have to wish upon a star. All you have to do is what you know to be right instead of what you know to be wrong. Having a rational, majority focused policy is not out of human reach. We've seen other countries do it.
My farts have stopped even being benign to me. I was told I should go to the doctor recently
The "rainbows and butterflies" are in your completely fantastical assertion that voting for by far the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil therefore just as morally reprehensible. The real world is about pragmatism and compromises and playing the hand you're dealt, Montreal's 88 vs A upcard example being a perfect example of that. Sure, you'd like to surrender, but the house doesn't offer that option so you hit. You can cry about the rules till they eject you, or you can take a card.
Anyone voting for either major party is doing something evil. That's probably most people here. You are all doing evil because you think there will be no consequences. You think climate change isn't real. You think nuclear war is impossible because you've never seen it. You believe in these threats the way someone about to have a one night stand believes that sinners go to Hell, not in the way that someone believes a hot stove will burn the
Nope, nope, nope. You can choose to believe that people are doing something evil if you like, but you can't come to any kind of conclusion about why they are doing so. I mean, you can and have, but said conclusions are completely unfounded.
But leaving that aside, what is it you will be doing that is going to address any of these issues, and is that what others should be doing?
Nope, nope, nope. You can choose to believe that people are doing something evil if you like, but you can't come to any kind of conclusion about why they are doing so. I mean, you can and have, but said conclusions are completely unfounded.
But leaving that aside, what is it you will be doing that is going to address any of these issues, and is that what others should be doing?
that has always been the big problem from the far left, complain complain complain and yet never able to find a goddamn pragmatic solution to solve their own complains...
only pure ideology and no better then the others on the far right.
they both always missing the big elephant in the room about the pragmatic stuff of life having its own realities and more often then not, u just have to play the hand u got stuck with and do the most of it.
ho yes that exactly what sunshine and rainbow is all about.
dont we wish santa claus was real but u got grow up someday and face reality.
Russian disinformation and propaganda in general only works on those idiots that believe in things different than me.
The big difference is my opinions are all based on logic and scientific facts I got from my social media feed and the NY Times.
You know why Russians disinformation works so great on « republicans » (rather tea party/maga then try republicans but w.e) ?
To make believe trump was/is a conservative ….
Once u succeed in this to people who have no clue , u can make believe any nonsense you want afterwards .
Ps: trump having charisma ?
lol…
Russian disinformation and propaganda in general only works on those idiots that believe in things different than me.
The big difference is my opinions are all based on logic and scientific facts I got from my social media feed and the NY Times.
Propaganda can work on anyone, especially if groups or emotions are involved. There is also no doubt that even renowned newspapers can fall prey to propaganda. Rather obviously, it is also easier to spot propaganda meant for people you disagree with, propaganda meant for you will be dressed in things you already believe.
However, it is obviously easier to prey on the ill informed or those who enjoy fringe beliefs. The first for obvious reason, the second because they also tend to accept fringe sources.
That doesn't mean all people who don't know much are easy victims for propaganda. Plenty of people are aware of their own limitations and take them into account. Such a person could be harder to convince with propaganda than someone informed who is less introspective.
Lastly, there is without a doubt an annoying subset of people who would be very willing to believe "http://uspatriot.fighthedeepstate.info/b... as long as it affirms their beliefs, but will generally think anything from the NYT frontpage is a the deep state, liberals and the illuminati working together to achieve X.
And no, the NYT is obviously not immune to propaganda. Some years back they hired hired a climate skeptic columnist for example, and he still works there. He was and still is one of your typical climate skeptic hack: Arts educated columnist good at writing and convincing people, but with no discernible skills at understanding or communicating science so he turns to preaching to the fearful and ill informed instead. He is an example of what I would call "upscale propaganda", texts or media that at first glance sounds clever, impressive and high-brow.
NYT is one of the main SOURCES of propaganda, it's not about it not being "immune" from it. It creates narratives based on lies and manipulations.
Same as fox news of course, and many others.
And no, the NYT is obviously not immune to propaganda. Some years back they hired hired a climate skeptic columnist for example, and he still works there. He was and still is one of your typical climate skeptic hack: Arts educated columnist good at writing and convincing people, but with no discernible skills at understanding or communicating science so he turns to preaching to the fearful and ill informed instead. He is an example of w
Bret Stephens? Man were his climate opinions rough reads. Basically written solely for other morons to quote with an NYTimes link but no better thought out than any hacky climate skeptic blog.
Nope, nope, nope. You can choose to believe that people are doing something evil if you like, but you can't come to any kind of conclusion about why they are doing so. I mean, you can and have, but said conclusions are completely unfounded.
But leaving that aside, what is it you will be doing that is going to address any of these issues, and is that what others should be doing?
I'm being a little hyperbolic. I don't think these people are evil, more like amoral. Like Kamala Harris isn't rubbing her hands together thinking about how many Palestinian babies she can burn to death or get double tapped sniper shot. But she doesn't care - at all - about actively enabling it out of her own free will if it advances her greed for material possessions and ego inflation.
I think people should just vote for people who share their values as evidenced by actions and words, not just words. I don't think most people understand the depths of depravity of those who have risen to be the most visible representatives of corporate interests. They are just a fundamentally different type of person psychologically. But they look and act so very similar to normal people that unless you really consider their behavior you will be fooled.
Do we think dems are using the same playbook as they did with biden 4 years ago where they go to great lengths to hide their candidate from having to do anything except read a teleprompter while in public?
I don't know if this is true (and I doubt it is true because if it was it would be absurd), but I read today that kamala hasn't taken one interview or answered any media questions since joe got exposed.
Do we think dems are using the same playbook as they did with biden 4 years ago where they go to great lengths to hide their candidate from having to do anything except read a teleprompter while in public?
I don't know if this is true (and I doubt it is true because if it was it would be absurd), but I read today that kamala hasn't taken one interview or answered any media questions since joe got exposed.
No idea whether it's true, but the odds of it being true went down as a result of you posting it.
No idea whether it's true, but the odds of it being true went down as a result of you posting it.
So what has it been since Kamala was anointed Queen 2 weeks ? 3 weeks?
Yet hasn't done any interviews and even declined the black journalists . Though she is great at reading a teleprompter ( pause ) unlike her predecessor
So what has it been since Kamala was anointed Queen 2 weeks ? 3 weeks?
Yet hasn't done any interviews and even declined the black journalists . Though she is great at reading a teleprompter ( pause ) unlike her predecessor
Do we think dems are using the same playbook as they did with biden 4 years ago where they go to great lengths to hide their candidate from having to do anything except read a teleprompter while in public?
I don't know if this is true (and I doubt it is true because if it was it would be absurd), but I read today that kamala hasn't taken one interview or answered any media questions since joe got exposed.
Dumb question but when did she win officially the Democrat nominee for the presidency?
, Montreal's 88 vs A upcard example being a perfect example of that. Sure, you'd like to surrender, but the house doesn't offer that option so you hit. You can cry about the rules till they eject you, or you can take a card.
Deuces was just thrown a fastball with an analogy that can be hit out of the park.
Deuces was just thrown a fastball with an analogy that can be hit out of the park.
If you are implying that the EV of splitting is higher, IIRC this depends on whether the house stands on S17, and would also be an index play on some positive counts. My blackjack is pretty rusty, so could be wrong. In any case, I think the analogy is pretty clear as it stands.
Dumb question but when did she win officially the Democrat nominee for the presidency?
Yeah thx !😀
Kinda funny how lozen and baham think Harris is hiding when it’s only been hours she’s the official nominee .
