|
indiscriminately posted:Vote for the seemingly less bad option, which takes a half hour of your time on one day every two or four years- then apply the huge remainder of your time to helping your community in what ways you can, when & where you can. Provide people a positive example, show them what the good values are, encourage them to be like you. Or: don't vote, but do all the other stuff. This is sort of like when people say "why aren't you letting illegal immigrants stay at your house if you're so concerned with their treatment?" Yes, obviously we should all be doing what we can to support our communities, but there are people and organizations with a thousand times more power than little old me who are responsible for putting us in this situation to begin with, and they have no interest in change. If we never deal with them, we're going to have to keep making this horrible choice every four years. I just don't like any solution that turns every person into a little individual actor making decisions in a vacuum.
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 20:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 00:28 |
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:No; I'm pointing out the absurdity of handwaving Reade's accusation as Biden being "handsy." Your point is well taken, though I was referring to his general handsiness, not Reade in particular. Their "signature moves", if you will.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 20:27
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:There are plenty of people whose primary contribution to this thread has been "oh wow reade likes putin isn't that weird makes you wonder not saying anything just saying wink wink" I mean sure, all of this is true. But to pretend that this kind of motivated reasoning, tribalism, whatever you want to call, is exclusive to people with that specific set of political preferences is pretty lol. It's present in literally every political tendency, yes, very much including leftists. I personally know someone who was all about the Tara Reade allegations, saying that they were disqualifying, etc. then turned around and called the allegations against Shahid Buttar (DSA guy who tried to primary Nancy Pelosi from the left, got accused of sexual harassment by a bunch of female volunteers on his campaign) "weaponized white feminism". This is a universal human tendency. People who share your beliefs and allegiances aren't solely deciding their loyalties based on piercing moral vision and careful analysis of the facts either.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 21:40
|
|
|
I feel like the voting stuff is a bit of a non-starter in every direction. People choose who they vote for and cannot vote for anyone for a variety of reasons. People can justify their votes for a wide variety of reasons, in the case of Biden vs Trump, there is literally the matter of Title IX rules that currently make it easier to rape people. And I feel like it turns away conversation from being survivor focused.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 21:49
|
|
|
Lester Shy posted:This is sort of like when people say "why aren't you letting illegal immigrants stay at your house if you're so concerned with their treatment?" Yes, obviously we should all be doing what we can to support our communities, but there are people and organizations with a thousand times more power than little old me who are responsible for putting us in this situation to begin with, and they have no interest in change. If we never deal with them, we're going to have to keep making this horrible choice every four years. I just don't like any solution that turns every person into a little individual actor making decisions in a vacuum. That immigrant thing is vindictive. I don't feel what I suggested is like that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 22:14
|
|
|
Still Dismal posted:I mean sure, all of this is true. But to pretend that this kind of motivated reasoning, tribalism, whatever you want to call, is exclusive to people with that specific set of political preferences is pretty lol. It's present in literally every political tendency, yes, very much including leftists. I personally know someone who was all about the Tara Reade allegations, saying that they were disqualifying, etc. then turned around and called the allegations against Shahid Buttar (DSA guy who tried to primary Nancy Pelosi from the left, got accused of sexual harassment by a bunch of female volunteers on his campaign) "weaponized white feminism". This is a universal human tendency. People who share your beliefs and allegiances aren't solely deciding their loyalties based on piercing moral vision and careful analysis of the facts either. As well as what happened with DSA-LA.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 22:22
|
|
|
indiscriminately posted:That immigrant thing is vindictive. I don't feel what I suggested is like that. I don't think it's a 1:1 comparison, but "what should you do for your local community" and "what should we do about national problems" are two separate questions. I don't like conflating the two, and you can easily use one to distract from the other. I could spend the rest of my life volunteering at the local women's shelter; that won't stop the DNC from continuing to nominate rapists.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 22:50
|
|
|
Still Dismal posted:this kind of motivated reasoning, tribalism, whatever you want to call, is exclusive to people with that specific set of political preferences is pretty lol. I don't think anyone said this?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 22:56
|
|
|
I think that there's not necessary the sequence of going from "the accuser is lying" to "well maybe it's true but electing Biden is still important" and that most of these people likely alternate between these opinions depending upon the discussion (or say the latter while privately believing all however-many accusers are lying, which is absolutely the case with many people who claim to believe Reade). Someone can reluctantly say "well maybe he's not a good person, but electing him was still necessary" and a couple hours later read a media puff piece and be like "I'm so happy we have a president with empathy again!" This is the sort of thing that can easily happen if you don't really have any concrete beliefs to begin with, particularly in our current era of hyper-rapid media cycles. Lester Shy posted:This is sort of like when people say "why aren't you letting illegal immigrants stay at your house if you're so concerned with their treatment?" Yes, obviously we should all be doing what we can to support our communities, but there are people and organizations with a thousand times more power than little old me who are responsible for putting us in this situation to begin with, and they have no interest in change. If we never deal with them, we're going to have to keep making this horrible choice every four years. I just don't like any solution that turns every person into a little individual actor making decisions in a vacuum. It's basically like if someone said something bad about Trump and people replied "instead of criticizing Trump, have you tried helping out in your own community?" Or for an even more direct comparison, when Obama and various Democrats decided that we need to move on and focus on progress instead of prosecuting members of the Bush administration. It's all just transparent deflection. When you can't actually defend something, just tell people that they should be focusing on something else instead (or maybe wrap it up in a message of positivity). It's a perspective that can very conveniently be used to dismiss the opinions of the vast majority of people while elevating the voices of the sort of careerists who work in NGOs. Broadly speaking, one of the biggest issues with left-liberals and even a significant portion of leftists is an unwillingness to identify enemies (or at least to declare anyone but the most obviously hostile people/organization to be such). The belief that you can accomplish things solely through positive messaging/actions is deeply misguided and fails to account for the fact that nothing meaningful can be accomplished without addressing the people and institutions with great power that are directly fighting against you. I think that this is how you can end up with situations like Bernie canvassers constantly having positive interactions with people who support the left's agenda, but not actually voting for him. It's not enough to convince people that left ideas are good - you need to actually convince them that institutions like the Democratic Party are bad and opposed to those things. This is obviously far more difficult, but it's still necessary. This isn't a debate club or a "marketplace of ideas" - the hostile people/institutions in question are guilty of various crimes against humanity. It's just as absurd as someone in Nazi Germany deciding to fight back by spreading the positive message of opposing bigotry and anti-semitism. Getting people to think your candidate is a swell guy/gal and your ideas are good isn't enough when media and society are constantly telling people that they need to vote for someone else. It'll just make them more fond of one of the candidates that they didn't vote for and the ideas that their candidate doesn't support.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 22:58
|
|
|
Yeah that's definitely one of the biggest hurdles to overcome if you want to make any progress in society- everyone likes Bernie's ideas, but you can't enact them and get the votes by convincing people that these things are good, you need to hammer home again and again that these things are good and Joe Biden is not going to do them
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 00:17
|
|
|
“All of these things you like are loving bad and actually suck and are literally implicated in crimes against humanity  ” is a great way to forever remain a morally pure and righteous fringe weirdo. Most people don’t have much of a coherent ideology but they do have people and things they’re emotionally attached too. You can sneer at them for being stupid brainwashed sheeple for this if you want, but that’s not going to make it not true.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 02:15
|
|
|
Still Dismal posted:“All of these things you like are loving bad and actually suck and are literally implicated in crimes against humanity You keep turning up in this thread and responding to things no one has said. It's very weird. Are you actually reading any of the other posts being made or just making wild guesses?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 02:44
|
|
|
Are you reading mine? Because I quote the post I’m responding to in one, and I use literally the exact same words (bolded, even) in quotation marks in another in referencing what I’m replying to in the other.
Fill Baptismal fucked around with this message at 02:58 on Apr 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 02:52
|
|
|
Still Dismal posted:Are you reading mine? Because I quote the post I’m responding to in one, and I use literally the exact same words (bolded, even) in quotation marks in another in referencing what I’m replying to in the other. Were you responding to this? Ytlaya posted:This isn't a debate club or a "marketplace of ideas" - the hostile people/institutions in question are guilty of various crimes against humanity. Because if that's what you were referring to then you either wildly misunderstood the point or are deliberately misrepresenting it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 03:00
|
|
|
Other than some mild hyperbole that I would hope would be easily understood as such by someone who frequents these forums, that is a misrepresentation of that point in which way? How, exactly did you interpret that point? Since I have evidently misread it, please assist me here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 03:06
|
|
|
Still Dismal posted:Other than some mild hyperbole that I would hope would be easily understood as such by someone who frequents these forums, that is a misrepresentation of that point in which way? How, exactly did you interpret that point? Since I have evidently misread it, please assist me here. Okay, for starters: do you think what Ytlaya said was inaccurate? Do you think that Joe Biden is not implicated in any crimes against humanity? Second: do you think they were advocating going around saying that to try and persuade people? Third: do you honestly believe that anyone who's canvassing for medicare for all and so on is going to to phrase their argument the way you did?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 03:11
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:Okay, for starters: do you think what Ytlaya said was inaccurate? Do you think that Joe Biden is not implicated in any crimes against humanity? Second: do you think they were advocating going around saying that to try and persuade people? Third: do you honestly believe that anyone who's canvassing for medicare for all and so on is going to to phrase their argument the way you did? 1) You could define "crimes against humanity" in such a way as to make Joe Biden guilty of them in a way that is morally coherent and consistent. Defining them so would also mean that pretty much every person of any level of appreciable power was also guilty, and the term would, in my view, basically lose all real meaning. I mean, if you believe that, why care about or get emotionally invested electoral politics at all? Why give a poo poo about any of this? It's all corrupt. Either check out entirely or go to the woods and learn artillery skills. This is also a very fringe position, and I would hazard a guess that most Americans do not believe this. But yes, you could define the term so in a way that would that an accurate descriptor. I personally am not hugely invested in the question for the reasons I have previously stated. Joe Biden is not a personal friend of mine, and his personal or spiritual goodness or badness is not a topic that weighs heavily on me. 2&3) No, I do not literally think that they wanted people to say those exact combination of words in those order. Again, fairly obvious hyperbole. I do believe that they were saying that attacking things like the Democratic Party itself was good and necessary, and think that is a very reasonable reading of their post. I think that there is very little evidence to back this up, regardless of if you think that it is right to do so, and more broadly think it is indicative of a mindset that treats politics as a manichean pseudo-religious struggle of good and evil rather than the contestation of control for state power in specific conditions at a specific time. I believe that this view is misguided. Saying the "right things" is not as important as winning, and believing them is not as important as policy outcomes. Politics is material, not spiritual. I did not vote for Joe Biden in the primary and was not pleased when he won that contest.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 03:30
|
|
|
Still Dismal posted:1) You could define "crimes against humanity" in such a way as to make Joe Biden guilty of them in a way that is morally coherent and consistent. Defining them so would also mean that pretty much every person of any level of appreciable power was also guilty, and the term would, in my view, basically lose all real meaning. to draw an analogy, at some point you have to be able to blame dick cheney and george bush jr for the iraq war...
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 05:19
|
|
|
Still Dismal posted:1) You could define "crimes against humanity" in such a way as to make Joe Biden guilty of them in a way that is morally coherent and consistent. Defining them so would also mean that pretty much every person of any level of appreciable power was also guilty, and the term would, in my view, basically lose all real meaning. Wait what? So if all our leaders commit crimes against humanity then the term becomes meaningless and we shouldn't care? Or can't care because the words to describe it now longer carry any meaning or information whatsoever? Like we couldn't say "gee what if we put these guys on trial for their crimes against humanity, and then got some leaders who didn't commit crimes against humanity" because the sentences would be meaningless noises arranged in inscrutable patterns and just sound like baby talk and no longer serve to communicate ideas? So back in the day when every leader owned serfs, nobody could say "gee ya know we really shouldn't have serfdom anymore seems bad" because every government had serfdom so nobody could even conceive of the human language to talk about serfdom and advocate for its abolishment? How did we get rid of it then, did one king like forget to have serfs one day and then suddenly there was a difference between kings and everyone gained the ability to talk about it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 05:36
|
|
|
I observe a recurring pattern of posters retreating into 'but what do words even mean, maaaan' when they've run out of defenses.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 05:39
|
|
|
The Iraq War killed hundreds of thousands of people, destabilized and wrecked a massive region, polluted huge swathes of land, and destroyed priceless historical sites, but it also made a some people a lot of money and got us a better GI Bill, so who's to say whether it was a crime against humanity or not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 05:51
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:
Sure, I do blame them, and I blame Biden for it as well. It is, all else being equal, something that would certainly make me not want to support any of those people. But all else is very rarely equal. I think you can make a very fair argument that Biden is bad and monsterous. I don’t think you can make one that he is uniquely bad and monstrous in a way that does not include most of our political class. You’d have to work backwards from the conclusion you wanted to reach and narrowly define certain things as beyond the pale but not others in a way that would not be very coherent. I don’t really care much either way, because ultimately I think the question is pretty much academic, the same as those best or worst president ever ranking lists. It is also probably a pretty fringe and marginal view not shared by most Americans, which doesn’t necessarily mean it’s wrong, I believe plenty of stuff that is unpopular, but is relevant for the context in which this point was brought up. E: although you know what, if I think that adjudicating a politician’s individual sins and graces isn’t that interesting or important, why am I posting in a thread very clearly about that, yeah ok, you’ve got me there, it’s not like the title was unclear, so that’s on me. Fill Baptismal fucked around with this message at 06:23 on Apr 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 06:16
|
|
|
I hope you can appreciate that for some people whether to politically support genociders and concentration campers in any way is not academic
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 06:25
|
|
|
When was the last time a American presidential candidate not guilty of crimes against humanity on the general election ballot, as a main party candidate, in your view?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 06:26
|
|
|
Still Dismal posted:I think you can make a very fair argument that Biden is bad and monsterous. I don’t think you can make one that he is uniquely bad and monstrous in a way that does not include most of our political class. Are you saying you can't tell the difference between voting for the Iraq War and not voting for the Iraq War? Or are you saying that we shouldn't bother to tell the difference if "most" of our political class voted for it? Because a big chunk of our political class didn't vote for it! It was 81-126 among House Democrats for example, so it wasn't even "most". Unless to get "most" you're including Republicans, in other words we can't judge Republicans for anything they do while they're in the majority, since if they all vote for something then by definition "most" of congress voted for it, and it magically becomes fine somehow. Actually even if the Iraq War was unanimous, surely that wouldn't make it okay right? Did we let defendants at Nuremburg off for anything that "most" of the German political class did too?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 06:31
|
|
|
Still Dismal posted:When was the last time a American presidential candidate not guilty of crimes against humanity on the general election ballot, as a main party candidate, in your view? Trump, 2016 (but not 2020) If future crimes count retroactively then McGovern I guess
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 06:34
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Trump, 2016 (but not 2020) This is exactly what I’m getting at. People born the year he ran would be pushing 50. If you consider Joe Biden a monster, then we are ruled by monsters, nearly without exception. I think that saying “gently caress this”, and checking out is totally defensible if you believe this. But I also think that selecting the least bad monster is as well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 06:38
|
|
|
Still Dismal posted:This is exactly what I’m getting at. People born the year he ran would be pushing 50. If you consider Joe Biden a monster, then we are ruled by monsters, nearly without exception. ok well what if this is true, should we pretend it's not? to bring it back to the thread topic: if every presidential candidate since 1972 raped a woman, would we say that most people don't remember a non-rapist candidate, therefore we need to pretend it's not happening and definitely not ever criticize a candidate for rape ever again? that seems....bad
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 06:44
|
|
|
Still Dismal posted:Defining them so would also mean that pretty much every person of any level of appreciable power was also guilty, Wouldn't that be wild!!! But seriously everyone currently eligible to vote was alive in 2003 and is currently living with the effects of the war that Joe Biden did more than to start and continue, and if you don't think the war in Iraq was a crime against humanity than we're coming at the world from fundamentally different places. Still Dismal posted:I do believe that they were saying that attacking things like the Democratic Party itself was good and necessary, and think that is a very reasonable reading of their post. I think that there is very little evidence to back this up, regardless of if you think that it is right to do so, and more broadly think it is indicative of a mindset that treats politics as a manichean pseudo-religious struggle of good and evil rather than the contestation of control for state power in specific conditions at a specific time. I believe that this view is misguided. Saying the "right things" is not as important as winning, and believing them is not as important as policy outcomes. Politics is material, not spiritual. Saying whatever you think will get votes and placing winning above belief is what got us into this mess! People can tell when you're full of poo poo and don't mean what you're saying, and nobody likes being talked down to! That kind of thinking is how you end up with a party staffed top to bottom by bloodless careerist weathervanes like Buttigieg and Harris, people who prize power above principle so strongly they're prepared to lie down and accept appointments to make sure a transformational politician is defeated by a racist, corrupt old rapist who was visibly sundowning and promised to do nothing for anyone. It's how UK Labour replaced the most genuinely decent man in the whole plagued island with the character O'Brien from 1984. It's how NZ Labour won a once-in-a-lifetime majority and used it to do absolutely loving nothing. It's how you get Macron lecturing striking workers about their language from his solid gold throne. It's how you get Merkels and Golden Dawns and so on forever. There was poll after poll during the primary showing that a lot of people voting for Biden thought he supported medicare for all. We need to talk to people in real terms and say hey, weed decriminalization and prison reform are incredibly popular, so maybe vote for the guy who supports it and not the one who jailed an entire generation of black people and fought to keep them there. Medicare for all is incredibly popular, vote for the guy who champions it, not the one who promised to veto it. etc. some plague rats fucked around with this message at 06:53 on Apr 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 06:49
|
|
|
Still Dismal posted:This is exactly what I'm getting at. People born the year he ran would be pushing 50. If you consider Joe Biden a monster, then we are ruled by monsters, nearly without exception. I think that saying "gently caress this", and checking out is totally defensible if you believe this. But I also think that selecting the least bad monster is as well. I believe we could have a future where we don't elect rapists and monsters to the most powerful positions on earth, where we aren't constantly asked to choose the lesser of two evils. These aren't immutable facts of nature; the status quo can be changed. But you have want the change, not convince yourself you're actually happy with how things are or close your eyes and pretend it doesn't exist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 06:51
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:ok well what if this is true, should we pretend it's not? Who is asking you to pretend anything? Someone asked if I thought Biden was guilty of “crimes against humanity” and I answered. In the sense of the context that question was asked, I don’t think emphasizing relatively marginal and fringe views that you have (such as every president for the last 50 years being a war criminal) is a particularly effective strategy if you want to actually win, especially if they aren’t necessary to do so. But have whatever thoughts you want.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 06:58
|
|
|
God is in his heaven. Everything is normal on Earth.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 07:01
|
|
|
Still Dismal posted:Who is asking you to pretend anything? Someone asked if I thought Biden was guilty of “crimes against humanity” and I answered. In the sense of the context that question was asked, I don’t think emphasizing relatively marginal and fringe views that you have (such as every president for the last 50 years being a war criminal) is a particularly effective strategy if you want to actually win, especially if they aren’t necessary to do so. But have whatever thoughts you want. "Marginal or fringe views" that the people who rule on our behalf are not monsters?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 09:03
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:"Marginal or fringe views" that the people who rule on our behalf are not monsters? That could describe quite a lot of positions that have suddenly become standard Democrat values within the last few years, like gay and trans people being human beings deserving of rights. I see we're past 'what do words actually mean, maaan' and straight back to appeal to authority and normalcy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 10:37
|
|
|
It's the year 1800, and it's okay for Thomas Jefferson to rape his slaves because everyone else is doing it too! This is a flawless moral framework that can only lead to good outcomes. edit: Seriously, stop and think for one loving second. Imagine these two worlds: World A: Everyone thinks like you. We excuse politicians for rape, genocide, war crimes, etc. World B: We don't do that. Now, which world is better???????????????????????
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 11:43
|
|
|
Still Dismal posted:E: although you know what, if I think that adjudicating a politician’s individual sins and graces isn’t that interesting or important, why am I posting in a thread very clearly about that, yeah ok, you’ve got me there, it’s not like the title was unclear, so that’s on me. Yeah, you loving think?? “People are tribal about their politics to the point of excusing horrible things, what is to be done about that?” is like the argument at the heart of this thread lol Still Dismal posted:Who is asking you to pretend anything? Someone asked if I thought Biden was guilty of “crimes against humanity” and I answered. In the sense of the context that question was asked, I don’t think emphasizing relatively marginal and fringe views that you have (such as every president for the last 50 years being a war criminal) is a particularly effective strategy if you want to actually win, especially if they aren’t necessary to do so. But have whatever thoughts you want. You’re scoffing at people accusing the president of crimes against humanity, but also you concede that could be true, but you don’t think it’s an “effective strategy” to acknowledge the truth, but you’re not asking people to pretend otherwise? If you’re not then who is? Are you channeling spirits through your posts?? If you’re going to concern troll at least try a little harder than this If you acknowledge we’re ruled by monstrous war criminal rapists the correct answer is to be horrified and put your foot down and say “no more of this poo poo”. It’s to tell people what their elected leaders have done and continue to do, honestly and without euphemism. not go “ah well that’s politics, gotta win though right?” I don’t want these loving people to win anything! I want them aggressively removed from power and kept away from it for the rest of their lives!
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 12:54
|
|
|
Still Dismal posted:Who is asking you to pretend anything? Someone asked if I thought Biden was guilty of “crimes against humanity” and I answered. In the sense of the context that question was asked, I don’t think emphasizing relatively marginal and fringe views that you have (such as every president for the last 50 years being a war criminal) is a particularly effective strategy if you want to actually win, especially if they aren’t necessary to do so. But have whatever thoughts you want. I don't really understand what you're saying though. You're not making an argument that the Iraq War wasn't a crime against humanity. You're basically just starting from a conclusion: If all our leaders going back to the 70s are mass murderers and monsters that would make you sad, therefore they aren't. It's...not a great way to reason? I'd like leaders who don't rape subordinates and don't commit enormous war crimes too. But pretending they aren't isn't going to make it go away, only electing leaders who really aren't rapists and war criminals is going to make it stop. Unless your goal is just feeling better I guess then pretending accomplishes that, it's not my goal though. E: and I will have whatever thoughts I want, if you don't care what I and people who agree with me on this think why are you arguing about it in the first place, it seems like you do care VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 13:18 on Apr 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 13:14
|
|
|
Bumping the thread bc I came across this askreddit thread about women's experiences with "creeps" and I was struck by just how many women were assaulted & harassed as young teens. Also, I'm now p. certain that Cuomo will never be impeached, either for his nursing-home massacres or his sexual assaults. He might step down if James's reports are damning, but there's no way the NY Dems are going to shine a light on his scuzziness through impeachment hearings. (And their vow to only impeach him if they can do it without needing GOP votes proves that.) Most likely, imo: He'll decline to run again next year and instead get a federal appointment under Biden. Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 17:12 on May 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 17:10
|
|
|
yea there was just a major report the other day that he outright hid the real death toll near every day for a chunk and even the right wingers barely touched it, I don't think I saw it at all on MSNBC but to be fair I don't really check often so I may well have missed it. CNN had a brief blurb before basically 100% unquestioningly accepting his excuse of 'uh but, you see, the numbers were BAD, and TRUMP, the bad man, was going to yell at me about them, so I had to lie'. He's not going anywhere for straight up manslaughter, let alone for sexual assault that most dem leaders are on record for just kinda shrugging off. There's also hilarious reports that Biden's just not running multi-state Covid briefings anymore, but letting him take the reins, so yea he's gonna just skate on this and probably parlay it to an appointment sexpig by night fucked around with this message at 00:45 on May 3, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2021 00:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 00:28 |
|
|
Calling it now: Cuomo/Harris 2024
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2021 01:25
|
|