Fanatic: it constantly baffles most non-religious types seeing so many of "Christian faith" refusing to see or acknowledge his racism, criminality, misogyny etc etc. one of the theories I've seen floated is along the lines "It's like in a western when the good townfolk are attacked repeatedly by an evil gang, so they reluctantly hire a murdering gunslinger to save them." the end justifying the means, God's will etc. is there any validity to that, do you think?
he's blathering on about a debate on Fox, no? why should she agree to that, when he's bailing on the ABC scheduled event?
He has arranged the Fox debate without any input from the Democrats, agreeing the rules between him Fox only. Just watch, he’s going to claim she’s running scared.
100% and to duck out of the ABC thing he's using some bullshit "conflict of interest with ABC" because he launched a lawsuit against Stephanopolous. I think it was for being nasty to him.
The reason for the 30+ minute delay at the start of the NABJ interview was not audio problems but because Lumpy changed the agreement at the last minute (sound familiar?). It had been agreed that there would be a live, on-stage fact checker. At the last minute, he said no way to the fact checker, despite agreeing beforehand. Which means he knows exactly that he’s a lying sack of shit and intended to lie all along anyway. It just so happened that the interview was opened by Rachel Scott of ABC. Whom he attacked straight out of the box. Because he can’t take and isn’t used to tough interviews. But it was all a set up anyway. Rachel Scott, ABC, George Stephanopolous ABC, throw them all in together, conflict of interest, blah, blah, blah. Let’s go running, all butthurt, to Fox. Because he’s a coward.
“He was always of white heritage and he was only promoting white heritage. I didn’t know he was Orange until a number of years ago when he happened to turn Orange and now he wants to be known as Orange.”
"We're the party that will save democracy, as we rally behind our candidate that literally no one voted for in the primary." "Not to worry though, with our friends in the media, we'll turn the one person with a lower approval rating than Biden into a superstar in the span of 2 weeks! How? We'll start calling the other side 'weird' for wanting to preserve the traditional family unit. That's definitely WEIRD and not normal, like our policy of irreparable sex changes for minors or allowing biological men into women's sports/spaces!"
At the end of the day I'd rally behind a squirrel if it meant keeping Trump out of office again. Most normal people would. Hell, most abnormal people would too. Also - what's the traditional family unit? Is that the one where the Bible dictates what we can or can't do? That is indeed weird. Finally - why does the media have a bad rap again? When they were ripping sleepy joe in favor of felon Don - the media were great. Apparently not anymore. That's also weird.
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but two parties having beyond unparralleled access to the machinery of the Federal State's Electoral System has nothing whatsoever to do with the functioning of democracy. It is merely a set of exclusionary rules about this and that, that people put up with, like paying someone to weed their garden. Democracy is everyone having the choice to vote or not to vote for any candidate that can make it to a ballot over whatever arcane and injunctive rules of preferential treatment may or may not be in place. Nothing is stopping anyone from not voting for the candfidate that the party they belong to decided to give them. Or standing for office themsellves if they reject all other choices. Nothing whatsoever. If they don't like it they can exercise their democratic right to make it know by not showing up or writing in Joe Biden. The primary is a party action - nothing legally more, and if there are people bothered by it taking so long to figure out its candidate there's an open convention next week or two where they can make that point. But I frankly doubt there'll be too many of them as bothered by what happened to them (not to you) as you are..... I doubt there are any more than a handful of people who feel that any democratic right has been eviscerated. merely a party right, which is already artificial....
Also - you've got it backwards. Steve Schmidt did that nearly two weeks after Kamala 's campaign began to soar. So, a totally disingenuous statement.
Sour grapes… if no one wants to vote for Harris and her VP, no one will. I expect a whole lot of people will though, and it won’t happen because of the media. The straw man tactics are pretty well developed too. Who outside of Faux news and the MAGA hype machine is talking about irreparable sex changes for minors? I swear so much energy spent on building up this argument, just so they can try to distract from the more unsavory aspects of Trump’s character and the political history of the party he’s taken over. It’s amazing really when you think about it. Let’s go after the gays! Oh wait, since we now allow them to marry and it turns out they form nuclear families just like everyone else when they are given the opportunity. I guess we’ll have to pick on another minority that are “different enough” that you can scare people about them. It used to be the Jews, then it was the gays, now it’s the transgender people. So spare me the righteous indignation, Trump and his ilk don’t give a crap about “traditional families.” That is just a smoke screen to distract from their atrocious public policy history.
In fact, if anything was the democratic thing to do it was to seek upend the thing that 70+% of polled americans said they really did not want - which was two 75+ year old men doing a re-match. And it could reasonably be said that the democratic party owed this decision to itself, as it shafted Bernie for Hilary 8 years ago....
Is there anything more pathetic and transparent than right wing concerned citizens and rubes being overcome by the vapors when considering voting rights? Especially voting rights in the Democratic Party? Lumpy spent a large part of the ‘16 campaign vowing to fight for the rights of Bernie Sanders’ voters, so upset and concerned was he with the absolute, definite and complete denial of their voting rights. And now this shit? That we’re ever so concerned about the voting process and the supposed disenfranchisement of voters in the Democratic Party. Because that’s the one thing that marks out right wingers and GOPers: minority voting rights. Keeps ‘em up at night.
Social media such as X are fuelling the growth of extremism by allowing its figureheads a platform to direct violence The far right has moved online, where its voice is more dangerous than ever | Far right | The Guardian
Yes, that's a point that I often make in terms of Christian nationalists, but this particular Trump supporter was not a Xn nationalist. She just claimed that she never heard DJT say anything racist or that he didn't provoke Jan 6th. That's just delusional. That said, for many fundamentalist or evangelical Xns the ends -- outlawing abortion for example-- justified the means.
Yeah. Once Roe was overturned, basically Lumpy could set up death camps for evangelicals and they’d find a way to excuse him.
Funny (if it was funny, of course, but it's not) I read the first snippet and immediately thought - these dudes aren;t much hat with analysis of ratios.. then I read your 2nd clip! It's obvious, isn't it, that The Heritage (heritage of stupidity for the stupid and easily led, by their milkers) Foundation, and it's equivalents, research this stuff in order to dumbfound and obfuscate any sense of reasoned analysis which otherwise might seep down into some of the clearer headed minds of their target audiences..... Likely Fact: Such a statistic ratio, if extrapolated, wouldn't make it into any reviewed research paper or official report as data indicative of a trend. The problem is: I know this. You know this. Sam knows this, etc ... But the target audience of the mass of always easily deluded people (such as that woman in my earlier post of Steve Schmidt's Lincoln Project/Warning video) do not know this and can not easily ever figure this out, and will take any Hannity/Carlson/clown-Waters imprimateur of it as Gospel.
This Dutch couple explains why the world is laughing at the United States. We are a global laughingstock. pic.twitter.com/RGSoNnfgVM— Greg Buster (@Gregnus__2024) August 5, 2024
Why in the name of God would a rational person allow themselves to think that someone (x by large numbers of people) trying to get into the United States to live here, would compound their risk of being blocked entry or imprisoned by muling drugs?? Such utter nonsense. As to the blindness - Leave abortion aside, as that's a tricky issue to get into - and because of it being at least a rational position for both sides to disagree over, it doesn't actually get anyone anywhere to discuss it as a vehicle argument regarding Trumpism as nonsense The crucial fact of the matter on that one is that it is not a 50-50 issue it's a 75+% issue on one side and a loud vocal minority who demand that the democratic state ignore itself and its functioning mechanisms in order to placate their religious fervour on this issue - but did he happen to ask her why she thinks it is okay for Trump to act the opposite of Jesus Christ's teachings in nearly every possible way? And if so - why? Or the common-sense truth that the powerful lying about absolutely everything whenever it is possible to lie can only add into the destabilization of a society and not make it get better? That, for example, the non-weaponized US Justice Department is currently prosecuting both a Democratic US Senator and a former US Presidnet for independent Grand Jurty indictments. These people know full well, in their deep of deeps that they would have demanded (and they would have been right to so demand) Barack Obama's head had he been the guy caught on the telephone gangsterizing the office of the Presidency to the Ukrainian govt. And if you pulled them up short and asked any one of them if they would swear that they believed that Trump did nothing wrong and that if presented with the exact same evidence about Obama they would not have thought that he either did anything impeachable; and then asked that the swearing of this personal truth be done on the self-karmic proviso statement that you wanted them to say that it was okay to accept warning/belief (whether their psychology believed in such things or not) that if they are not telling the truth about this belief, that then they accept that some providence which arises from truth in the universe might cause one of their nearest and dearest to develop something terminal - my guess is that very few of them would make the statements -- because although there are some who are too deep and befuddled and too wayyyy down the rabbithole, most in their deepest places do not believe what they are mouthing.....