lennybird @ lennybird @lemmy.world

Posts

9

Comments

2,908

Joined

2 yr. ago

Moderating

---

I appreciate Kimmel but I'm partial to Stewart taking that Zelenskyy title in terms of his actual capacity to lead and depth of knowledge. He pretty much singlehandedly bullied Republicans of Congress to pass legislation for first responders and veterans.

Anyone remember the Rally to Restore Sanity with Colbert / Stewart?

Stigamtism isn't an excuse to hide a link though. They could've chosen better quotes, even if the link is indeed bullshit.

LOL

Thanks for the laugh, buddy.

Do we know these were written after, or if these were reminders of the objective of this hearing from his advisors?

To me these sound like objectives going into the hearing.

• "Have a good fight with Swalwell"
• "Hold the line on Epstein."
• "Brush off their attacks."
• "Rise above next line of partisan attacks."

I guarantee he was coached on this shit.

I mean, Watergate.

But that's the point. Shit this obviously bad and fucked up was at least done in the shadows in the past. This is out in the open and it's just some weekend news.

I remember when this would be the biggest news for weeks and end any other presidency, especially a Democratic president. Now, this will probably be the last I hear of it.

So... Are there any independent watchdogs keeping track of all the damage he's doing? So that we can reverse this asap should we somehow manage to get someone at least milquetoast back in?

"An Unbiased perspective," it is titled.

Lmfaaoooooo.

Jordan, you're good dude. You've been fighting the good fight for a long time. Always easy for people to throw peanuts from the peanut gallery. This reads like a manufactured hit piece that cherry-picks out of context and ignores the countless times they, for example, defend trans. Looking forward to your full rebuttal, even though it probably shouldn't be necessary. I've seen a lot of mods over the years, from Digg to Reddit to here, and you've been one of the more reasonable.

That user name-drops FlyingSquid to accuse you as being "flyingsquid 2.0" strikes me as VERY weird, considering FlyingSquid has said countless times they have a trans kid and they've been incredibly fearful of what would happen under Trump. So much so that word is that he emigrated his family to another country to protect them. So, sounds like that's a compliment?

Say, random meta question but... Why is editing turned off for me? No response when I tried to contact a mod. Is this platform-wide or am I being punished for something lol.

I too have been watching for decades while also having the unfortunate displeasure of being on both sides of the ideological spectrum.

I too have the same concerns; but that doesn't change the Game Theory.

Righties, accelerationists (who are so willing to sacrifice others for their cause or romanticizing the apocalypse) absolutely love to promote apathy and defeatism in stating that voting doesn't matter.

If it doesn't, then what you say will come true anyway; but until proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, you still push people to vote. I heard similar talk during his first term. Trump left the White House once. We can make him do it again.

Whoa, let's not make that assumption now until we're proven otherwise. We have no choice but to promote, register, and assume the next elections will be mostly legitimate.

It's far too risky to spread apathy right now. Game Theory dictates you promote voting, regardless.

So anyway, now may be a good time to:

1. Reach out to our foreign friends and ask to help lobby their governments to provide refugee programs before we are cut off from the outside world.
2. Look into decentralized mesh internet infrastructure.

I'm sure the worst among them will prevail.

I still think it's highly useful to go, "What if Biden did this?" "What if Obama did this?"

Won't necessarily change maga, but it will change minds of fence sitters. Thought experiments like this helped change my family years ago during Bush.

Should also tie this to the scene in V for Vendetta when the satirist is taken out for mocking the dictator.

I think there were many contributing factors to Kamala's loss, but I I think this is pretty low if non-existent among them, and it risks gatekeeping qualified, charismatic candidates like AOC out of fear of past milquetoast candidates that were unpopular from the outset and deeply lacking in charisma.

Worth noting as I almost missed it myself from not RTFA, but: AOC is "gearing up for a big campaign for a bigger office in 2028 -- they're just not sure which."

I align with your view that I really thought AOC would be better to primary against Schumer. Not only is it arguably more attainable, it addresses our problem with stagnant Congressional AIPAC-representing leadership.

That said, I part ways in the belief that a female president is not capable of being elected for a couple of reasons which I'll try to lay out point-by-point:

• There is no actual evidence that a gender-bias led to Kamala's loss that I have seen.
• The Venn Diagram join of sexist misogynistic bigots and Never-Dem deep-red maga is a circle; in other words, we were never going to get these people no matter if we put Trump fused with Reagan in and mirrored their platform word-for-word.
• Willingness to vote for a female President has been historically tracked:

Public willingness to vote for a woman

In 1937, the first time the public was asked by Gallup about its willingness to vote for a female president, the question included the caveat “if she were qualified in every other respect.” Gallup removed that phrase, with its implications, and tried a new version in 1945, asking, “If the party whose candidate you most often support nominated a woman for President of the United States, would you vote for her if she seemed best qualified for the job?” The results remained the same, with about one-third saying yes.

In 1948, the country was split on a new version of this question, which identified the woman candidate as qualified, but not “best” qualified. The final wording became settled in 1958 and has been asked repeatedly since. Large gains were made over the 1970's and the proportion answering yes has continued to rise, reaching 95% in the most recent poll.

Americans may say they are willing to vote for a woman, but when asked to assess the willingness of others, people have not been as optimistic about women’s chances of winning the presidency. In 1984, when NBC asked likely voters if they were ready to elect a woman president, only 17% said yes. Substantial shares of the population have remained skeptical, though the most recent poll found the lowest proportion who believe the country is not yet ready.

Sinclair. Lmao

The megaphones of disinformation have drowned out any legitimate voice of The People.

Bystanders, be wary of people like this who try to egg OTHER people on to do things they themselves won't or can't for some likely bogus excuse or another.

Fuck fascists as much as the next person, but half the time I think people like this are fascist operatives hoping to provoke some new Reichstag incident.

Better not pull both sides bullshit, Jon.