|
I would like him to talk about the biggest sea change to reproductive rights in a minute instead of the deficit in fact
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 21:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 16:35 |
|
|
You are not the only audience. The existence of other speeches on other topics is not an optics error, except that you are working backward from seeking something to be angry about. As the person I was originally responding to asserted with the idea that Biden simply "decides that this is what actually matters," rather than this being one of the many things scheduled to talk about on a given day, through different means. Other things matter to other audiences than you. If you'd taken the position that Biden should speak more, or earlier, on the subject, it might make sense- demanding that others be dropped doesn't. Similarly, your inability to understand parallels to previous parts of this discussion does not make you less culpable for the same error, or obligate others to ignore the parallel: you are demanding that the scope of acceptable speech curve entirely around your preferences. Kaine can make statements that appeal to other constituencies, and demanding that he change the scope of his comments to only appeal to yours sets up an impossible, shifting counterfactual by which no particular speech is acceptable. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 21:57 on May 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 21:55
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:You are not the only audience. The existence of other speeches on other topics is not an optics error, except that you are working backward from seeking something to be angry about. As the person I was originally responding to asserted with the idea that Biden simply "decides that this is what actually matters," rather than this being one of the many things scheduled to talk about on a given day, through different means. Other things matter to other audiences than you. Are you replying to someone in particular? Please feel free to quote them and reply to their specific arguments.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 21:57
|
|
|
World Famous W posted:I would like him to talk about the biggest sea change to reproductive rights in a minute instead of the deficit in fact 
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 22:01
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:What do you mean by this? As its worded, it seems to say the GOP has lost faith in their pro-life stance, but that doesn't seem to be what you're saying. I asked this without realizing the gentleman would be on probation, and he was kind enough to give a response in PM: Ciprian Maricon posted:I'm using the definition of apostasy as "the abandonment or renunciation of a religious or political belief" and I'm referring specifically to the idea that you could be a pro-choice republicans. This ties to other posts i've made about how the GOP has systematically eliminated members who do not hold to the pro-life orthodoxy. A good example would be the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Majority_for_Choice complete dissolution as an entity, the number of pro choice Sentators, say during Obama's administration compared to now.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 22:09
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:As president, Biden should be aware of context. The time and place of his remarks has to be taken into account. While he may intend that speech for a certain audience, it may get picked up by a different audience who feels that he’s not doing enough in the current ongoing situation. I'll add to this that celebrating the deficit being paid down is stupid regardless of anything else going on. It's literally a right wing talking point, who cares? It's yet another example of this administration catering to the right wing while neglecting or outright attacking the left.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 22:17
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:You are not the only audience. The existence of other speeches on other topics is not an optics error, except that you are working backward from seeking something to be angry about. As the person I was originally responding to asserted with the idea that Biden simply "decides that this is what actually matters," rather than this being one of the many things scheduled to talk about on a given day, through different means. Other things matter to other audiences than you. If you'd taken the position that Biden should speak more, or earlier, on the subject, it might make sense- demanding that others be dropped doesn't. I would think the biggest blow to women’s rights in the past 50+ years would be something that Biden could offer up a better response than “You don’t want to ask about deficits?” I’ll be charitable and say that deficits were the topic of that scheduled speech but if there was a physical terrorist attack on the United States soil, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to expect Biden to have a prepared remark. In this case we are talking about an religious extremists hijacking the courts and fascists attacking the fundamentals of the judicial process. I’m sure you can understand why people are, justly, upset. I also can’t imagine why you would defend the Biden administration over this without skin in the game. Please enlighten me. Fister Roboto posted:I'll add to this that celebrating the deficit being paid down is stupid regardless of anything else going on. It's literally a right wing talking point, who cares? Exactly this. virtualboyCOLOR fucked around with this message at 22:23 on May 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 22:18
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:I'll add to this that celebrating the deficit being paid down is stupid regardless of anything else going on. It's literally a right wing talking point, who cares? How many rubles did you get paid for this take (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 22:25
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:You are not the only audience. The existence of other speeches on other topics is not an optics error, except that you are working backward from seeking something to be angry about. As the person I was originally responding to asserted with the idea that Biden simply "decides that this is what actually matters," rather than this being one of the many things scheduled to talk about on a given day, through different means. Other things matter to other audiences than you. If you'd taken the position that Biden should speak more, or earlier, on the subject, it might make sense- demanding that others be dropped doesn't. fatuous... much fatuity (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 22:35
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:I mean that's the point. A "potential human" is not a real thing. "I would like the experience of having a baby" is what the woman is actually trying to choose. Before the human exists the thing that has value is that choice. Whether or not the eventual baby has value is irrelevant. These things are not mutually exclusive though. The fetus having the "potentially a human" propriety assigned to it does not give it the value of the eventual baby. That's a false transitivity promulgated by anti-choice demagogues. It's barely more of a potential human than a non-fertilised egg, and should be treated as such. I just think that NICUs, related medical procedures, and a plethora of social rituals are enough for me to acknowledge that "human potentiality" is a real property that we assign to things. A vastly overrated one. VitalSigns posted:Uhm for the same reason people want to get pregnant in the first place? I never made that sperm distinction. I'd put that in essentially the same category as a non-viable fetus: A thing that could potentially become human not worth abridging anyone's rights over. And before someone pounces on it, I don't think a viable fetus, or a newborn for that matter, has much intrinsic societal value either. Aramis fucked around with this message at 22:43 on May 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 22:36
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:I would think the biggest blow to women’s rights in the past 50+ years would be something that Biden could offer up a better response than “You don’t want to ask about deficits?” It's strange that on a comedy forum folks read a headline and didn't immediately assume that he was making a joke. He was. You can watch the video. He was giving a short speech on deficit reduction, and when asked about sanctions and abortion he made a joke about the dry nature of deficit reduction. And you're right, it wouldn't be unreasonable for him to have a prepared remark even at an unrelated event. Unsurprisingly, he did, and spent the next three minutes (of a 12 minute press event) speaking about the issues he had with the decision. Just curious. Did any of y'all actually look into this beyond reading the tweet with the "you don't want to ask me about deficits?" line? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 22:38
|
|
|
Baronash posted:It's strange that on a comedy forum folks read a headline and didn't immediately assume that he was making a joke. He was. You can watch the video. He was giving a short speech on deficit reduction, and when asked about sanctions and abortion he made a joke about the dry nature of deficit reduction. And you're right, it wouldn't be unreasonable for him to have a prepared remark even at an unrelated event. Unsurprisingly, he did, and spent the next three minutes (of a 12 minute press event) speaking about the issues he had with the decision. Mea culpa, can you help me find the find in the posted article where it states Biden was clearly making a joke and then went on to make prepared remarks about the attack on women’s rights: https://apnews.com/article/biden-business-national-debt-37aed6b8475ba3f404529aba17bb4e7a vvvv you seemed to have found it too How Are U. Can you also point out to me in the posted article (linked again for your convenience) where it states Biden was clearly making a joke and then went on to make prepared remarks about the attack on women’s rights? virtualboyCOLOR fucked around with this message at 22:49 on May 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 22:45
|
|
|
Baronash posted:It's strange that on a comedy forum folks read a headline and didn't immediately assume that he was making a joke. He was. You can watch the video. He was giving a short speech on deficit reduction, and when asked about sanctions and abortion he made a joke about the dry nature of deficit reduction. And you're right, it wouldn't be unreasonable for him to have a prepared remark even at an unrelated event. Unsurprisingly, he did, and spent the next three minutes (of a 12 minute press event) speaking about the issues he had with the decision. This is one of the enormous problems with social media-based news aggregation and consumption. Social media mediums like Twitter 1) feed you content it thinks you want to see the most, and as much of it as possible and 2) pushes on-site engagement like commenting, re-Tweeting, etc, and not clicking through to read the article or do any deeper dive. You get the headline you want to see, you react to it, and you move onto the next item that will trigger a response.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 22:47
|
|
|
How are u posted:This is one of the enormous problems with social media-based news aggregation and consumption. Social media mediums like Twitter 1) feed you content it thinks you want to see the most, and as much of it as possible and 2) pushes on-site engagement like commenting, re-Tweeting, etc, and not clicking through to read the article or do any deeper dive. You get the headline you want to see, you react to it, and you move onto the next item that will trigger a response. Years spent as an academic and deep reader only made me more angry at the system and its defenders. I recommend Perlstein’s work if you want to learn what America is, and Weiner’s duo on CIA and FBI if you want to learn what we do. Neither of them will leave a good taste in your mouth, but will provide context for why this poo poo gotta get burnt down. Endless reasons.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 22:52
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:Mea culpa, can you help me find the find in the posted article where it states Biden was clearly making a joke and then went on to make prepared remarks about the attack on women’s rights: No, but I can post the video with the remark in it (starts at 8:52 or so). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3qBbfAwokA&t=533s It's weird that you got called out on a bad source and instead of getting upset with the dishonestly framed news article you're getting angry at the person who pointed it out.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 22:53
|
|
|
Baronash posted:No, but I can post the video with the remark in it (starts at 8:52 or so). I don’t read that as him joking, but rather covering up anger with an attempt at a joke.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 23:00
|
|
|
Baronash posted:No, but I can post the video with the remark in it (starts at 8:52 or so). Ah so when you insinuated people don’t read articles Baronash posted:Just curious. Did any of y'all actually look into this beyond reading the tweet with the "you don't want to ask me about deficits?" line? And how r u explicitly stated such How are u posted:pushes on-site engagement like commenting, re-Tweeting, etc, and not clicking through to read the article You both failed to read the article yourself and instead rushed to this board to insult posters. selec posted:I don’t read that as him joking, but rather covering up anger with an attempt at a joke. Same here. Seems like he wanted to talk about the failure of the Democratic Party over the past 30 years and the failure for Dems to support women’s rights now. I would say the “joking” suggestion from Baronash was editorializing their own reality.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 23:04
|
|
|
Aramis posted:
I'm kinda confused what you're arguing though, you were defending politicians who call abortion immoral but now you're saying fetuses or newborns don't have much value, and these seem contradictory? Are you flipping between playing devil's advocate for Tim Kaine's views in some posts and describing your own view in others or something because I don't see how abortion can be immoral if fetuses (and newborns  ) don't have much intrinsic value
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 23:04
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:Ah so when you insinuated people don’t read articles virtualboyCOLOR posted:it wouldn’t be unreasonable to expect Biden to have a prepared remark. In this case we are talking about an religious extremists hijacking the courts and fascists attacking the fundamentals of the judicial process. He did have a prepared remark. He gave it. Use better sources and maybe don't be so quick to double down when your article is wrong. 
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 23:11
|
|
|
Baronash posted:I'm going with joke because he did his "come on man" arm shake and people laughed, but agree to disagree. It's really not important whether you think it's a joke, because the point being refuted was this: He also gave Tara Reade a "c'mon man" when he sexually violated her according to her statements. Does that mean he was just joking with a finger inside her?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 23:14
|
|
|
Baronash posted:He did have a prepared remark. He gave it. Use better sources and maybe don't be so quick to double down when your article is wrong. So his prepared remark were, in summary, “yeah that’s bad” and then walked away. Seems like the president of the ruling party would offer more to the American people that gave him the most votes in American history. He offered nothing to the women about to be sent back to the 1950s. These are the “prepared remakes” that are being defended? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) virtualboyCOLOR fucked around with this message at 23:21 on May 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 23:18
|
|
|
Lib and let die posted:He also gave Tara Reade a "man, my dad could drive a car" when he sexually violated her according to her statements. Does that mean he was just joking with a finger inside her? Ftfy
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 23:20
|
|
|
I remember it being reported as "c'mon man, I thought you liked me" but I could be wrong! So far as my recollection in general goes, "c'mon, man" is rhetoric he falls back on when he wants to be overtly dismissive of something.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 23:21
|
|
|
We're lucky that this is what passes for leadership among the Republicans. https://twitter.com/GOP/status/1521965643217747968?s=20&t=WrlvFyHIhr1AhOxW4qdtVQ
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 23:22
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:So his prepared remark were, in summary, “yeah that’s bad” and then walked away. Seems like the president of the ruling party would offer more to the American people that gave him the most votes in American history. He offered nothing to the women about to be sent back to the 1950s. Acknowledging that they occurred = defending. Cool. Always a fun ride on the D&D stairmaster.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 23:22
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:All right well nevertheless you get that just because a woman is weighing the health risk of a pregnancy versus the chance of a successful birth doesn't mean she's assigning some moral value to the fetus as a potential person, right. Yep. My only objection was that the potentiality not having a moral value doesn't mean it doesn't exist. VitalSigns posted:I'm kinda confused what you're arguing though, you were defending politicians who call abortion immoral but now you're saying fetuses or newborns don't have much value, and these seem contradictory? Are you flipping between playing devil's advocate for Tim Kaine's views in some posts and describing your own view in others or something because I don't see how abortion can be immoral if fetuses (and newborns I was just originally bemoaning the fact that politicians have no choice but to slot themselves in nuance-free positions. Had the conversation kept going in that direction, I would have landed in the "It's ultimately how they vote that matters" camp. The closest thing to a defence I can give these politicians is: There's a lot of people out there who are put off by absolutist positions, and I appreciate the desire to thread the needle of reaching to these people. But it's ultimately fruitless, as modern political speech is just not equipped to do so. So at best, they are naively making things worse. Clinton's "Unfortunate, necessary, and rare" is the best possible example of that. I responded with my original, admittedly unclear, take on what nuance means for me as a response to "it depends what nuance means". That was not in defence of any politician. From that point on, I was just trying to clarify/defend where I stand. Apologies if I was being misleading on that front. Making an argument via absurdity on the internet without a big flashing sign was a certainly a stupid mistake on my part. Aramis fucked around with this message at 23:42 on May 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 23:23
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:You are not the only audience. The existence of other speeches on other topics is not an optics error, except that you are working backward from seeking something to be angry about. As the person I was originally responding to asserted with the idea that Biden simply "decides that this is what actually matters," rather than this being one of the many things scheduled to talk about on a given day, through different means. Other things matter to other audiences than you. If you'd taken the position that Biden should speak more, or earlier, on the subject, it might make sense- demanding that others be dropped doesn't.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 23:25
|
|
|
Dick Trauma posted:We're lucky that this is what passes for leadership among the Republicans. Pokemon Go harass the poll workers
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 23:26
|
|
|
I made a transcript of his response (cut out the first part about sanctions), for those that would rather read than watch the video. Joe Biden posted:Look, as I said when I when this hit as I was getting on the plane to go down to Alabama. This is about a lot more than abortion. I hadn't read the whole opinion at that time, but this reminds me of the debate with Robert Bork. Bork believed the only reason you had any inherent rights was because the government gave them to you. If you go back and look at the opening comments from the [bork-biden?] when i was questioning him as chairman, I said, "I believe I have the rights that I have not because the government gave them to me, which you believe, but because I'm just a child of god, I exist." I delegated by joining this union here, to delegate some [obligations?], some rights I have to the government, for social good. So the idea that somehow there is an inherent right, that there is no right of privacy, that there is no right, and remember the debate we, you don't remember but we had a debate about Griswold vs Connecticut. There had been a law saying that a married couple could not purchase birth control in the privacy of their own bedroom and use it; well that got struck down. Griswold was thought to be a bad decision by Bork and my guess is the guy's on the supreme court now. What happens if you have a state change the law saying that children who are LGBTQ can't be in classrooms with other children. Is that legit under the way the decision is written? What are the next things that are going to be attacked? Because this MAGA crowd is really the most extreme political organization that has existed in American history, recent American history. I definitely would not be touting this as a "prepared response" and I really encourage anyone talking about this press conference/article to read this first. Reverend Dr fucked around with this message at 23:38 on May 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 23:31
|
|
|
Obviously not the most important thing going on right now but lots of blue checks are teasing Mitch’s next knife into cawthorns back and rumors are running it’s a sex tape. https://twitter.com/therickwilson/status/1521979467698253825?s=21&t=Zb6FJ4iDgP9wUOJqNcXjCg
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 23:34
|
|
|
Baronash posted:I'm going with joke because he did his "come on man" arm shake and people laughed, but agree to disagree. It's really not important whether you think it's a joke, because the point being refuted was this: While it's a fair point about the article cherrypicking stuff, it's hard to fault people for expecting comprehensive coverage from an AP article written by an AP White House reporter and tweeted by a White House Assistant Press Secretary. The larger issue is the underlying argument (that White House messaging should be focused entirely on the leaked draft opinion, to the exclusion of all else). But presidents are always talking about all sorts of stuff, it's just that the press filters most of it out because they don't give a poo poo and know that we don't either. For example, today Biden also announced that the White House will be holding a conference on hunger and the economy. Should he cancel that too so it won't distract from next month's Roe ruling? Yesterday, in addition to commenting on the leaked Supreme Court draft opinion, he also talked a lot about sending weapons to Ukraine. And regardless of your opinion on US policy toward Ukraine, the war there isn't going to put itself on pause to wait around for US domestic political events.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 23:37
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:Obviously not the most important thing going on right now but lots of blue checks are teasing Mitch’s next knife into cawthorns back and rumors are running it’s a sex tape. At this point, Madison should name names and go into detail under oath lol
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 23:40
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/jherrerx/status/1521969506473631744?s=21&t=uV4m1nkVxGcVlwLU_D6H4A
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 23:43
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:https://twitter.com/jherrerx/status/1521969506473631744?s=21&t=uV4m1nkVxGcVlwLU_D6H4A
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 23:46
|
|
|
Aramis posted:Yep. My only objection was that the potentiality not having a moral value doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But anyway if potential lives have no moral value then positions like Kaine's are incoherent Aramis posted:Yep. My only objection was that the potentiality not having a moral value doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Basically I think there are valid criticisms to be made and you're strawmanning a bit by lumping them all together as intrinsic hatred of nuance and sophistication VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 23:50 on May 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 23:47
|
|
|
So, the, uh, video leaked
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 23:51
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I don't think this is the case though I think politicians can have nuanced positions and many do, I think the criticism of Kaine's position isn't that it's nuanced and nuance is bad, it's that his position is hosed up and has had materially bad consequences for women because the logic led to him doing some bad stuff as governor In my meagre defence, the page I initially responded on was only talking about Ted Kennedy, for whom the lack of nuance is a lot more obvious. But I have no trouble conceding that I was being overly hyperbolic. VitalSigns posted:Idk what this means, potential things don't exist at all that's why they're potential Oh boy, here comes an awkward analogy that I will surely regret: A tree that can potentially become lumber has more value than a tree that cannot. Please don't read too much into the details. I'm not saying that the moral value of personhood is in any way comparable to monetary value, or that motherhood is comparable to a lumberyard. I'm just try to express that potentiality, despite not being "real", still alters how we perceive and approach things. Aramis fucked around with this message at 00:00 on May 5, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 23:52
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:Sure he wants to destroy women's inalienable right to their bodies, but he is polite about it, and that's what really matters. What is the point of having anything to do with these clowns? important to note that this pissant event, which clyburn could have cancelled to send the slightest signal of solidarity with women, is for a person who will more than likely be inside a cell before the November election E: https://twitter.com/jaspscherer/status/1521972930187567106?s=21&t=jSKoGyjq3nMC8US4Cokepg Raskolnikov38 fucked around with this message at 00:01 on May 5, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 23:53
|
|
|
I realize people are like "look at how the GOP is messing with Cawthorn, why aren't dems doing that to Manchin!" Madison vastly over-estimated his value to the GOP, as a house member who can easily be replaced with any other chud will vote the same way.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 23:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 16:35 |
|
|
Well their is a wheelchair in the room and naked bros doing naked bro stuff but I don’t know if I could testify under oath it was him.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 23:56
|
|
