|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:He took an old 1960 JFK campaign ad and photoshopped his head over JFK's body, but kept everything else and implied the entire Kennedy family was behind him. i fuckin love this guy
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 15:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 18:31 |
|
|
It literally consisted of nothing but the word Kennedy flashing on the screen over and over.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 15:18
|
|
|
Shadowlyger posted:Not voting doesn't stop the genocide from happening. The idea is that it could lead to fewer deaths in the future as a depressed Biden turnout would possibly signal to those with their thumbs on the scale that being overtly pro genocide is a disqualifying position for a dem nominee. Lawrence O'Donnell famously said in 2006 that the only way for progressives to exercise any power over the Democratic party is to show that they won't blindly vote for whoever the nominee is. Each person has to decide for themselves what their red line is. I don't think many people are going to change their minds on this topic and I wish there were a lot less moral posturing on both sides. I myself won't vote for Biden but I very much understand people who view it differently and have no ill will or judgment towards that. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 15:18
|
|
|
Morrow posted:It literally consisted of nothing but the word Kennedy flashing on the screen over and over. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 15:19
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:I don't know if it was especially gross, but it was a totally shameless attempt to associate himself with JFK and imply that he has the family endorsement. All the Shrivers and Kennedys who were upset with him with mostly upset that he was implying that the Kennedy family and JFK were behind his anti-vaccine theories (especially since two of the Shrivers currently run vaccination charities and the RED campaign anti-HIV and international vaccination programs). they hate him for the antivax stuff since we lost some extended family to covid and a bunch of extended family are also various stripe of anti vax shithead. zoux posted:
yeah he doesnt give a poo poo but he is probably spooked that he might lose out on whatever the kennedy brand/money is worth these days. honestly. i am curious how much the kennedy name even means outside boomers, people near boston. like i went up to his museum last summer and it was nice enough. Dapper_Swindler fucked around with this message at 15:29 on Feb 12, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 15:25
|
|
|
Seems very on brand for RFK so at least he's a consistent piece of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 15:28
|
|
|
Hmmm I googled RFK Jr and I got a video of him listing encounters with Epstein and Ghislane Maxwell like Bubba Gump listing types of shrimp
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 15:29
|
|
|
zoux posted:Hmmm I googled RFK Jr and I got a video of him listing encounters with Epstein and Ghislane Maxwell like Bubba Gump listing types of shrimp Great, now I'm gonna spend the rest of the my day thinking "Grilled pedophilia, stir-fried pedophilia, cumin-maple glazed pedophilia..."
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 15:33
|
|
|
im not going to think about that for even a second
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 15:35
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I can't think of the last time the US had an anti-genocide president. Trump certainly wasn't one, and Obama did plenty to soak his hands in blood directly and indirectly too. The Clinton administration's long been panned for its insistence that "acts of genocide" happening in Rwanda didn't mean that a "genocide" was happening there. HW Bush was the former head of the CIA. Reagan heavily backed the Guatemalan genocide, and probably others as well. And so on. If you've ever voted in a US presidential election, you've voted for genocide. Bit late to start pretending you can have clean hands now, ain't it? i'm not trying to restart electoralism chat i promise, but i didn't get a chance to reply to this yesterday, so out of curiosity: is your contention that if i have ever voted for president in the past, it is disingenuous for me to oppose any genocide going forward?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 15:37
|
|
|
FLIPADELPHIA posted:The idea is that it could lead to fewer deaths in the future as a depressed Biden turnout would possibly signal to those with their thumbs on the scale that being overtly pro genocide is a disqualifying position for a dem nominee. Can you please explain how withholding a vote because a candidate is not far enough left/right will get that candidate to move further left/right? I hear this argument all of the time, but I don't understand how it works when the majority of the country don't hold far left/right positions. It seems to me like the logical conclusion of a low voter turnout for a specific party would be to move closer to the majority opinion in the country. Unless there was exit poll that showed an extremely large number of non-voters stating a far left/right position as a reason, but I can't imagine it would ever be a higher number than non-voting centrists. I'm trying to find studies on it but it's hard to find a clear/good summary. Please link some if you have any handy. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) Kalit fucked around with this message at 15:54 on Feb 12, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 15:38
|
|
|
The RFK ad also appeals to a voter base that is small and getting smaller by the day. Like 20 years ago, it would of been an interesting idea for an ad but now it doesn't resonate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 16:08
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:The RFK ad also appeals to a voter base that is small and getting smaller by the day. Like 20 years ago, it would of been an interesting idea for an ad but now it doesn't resonate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 16:17
|
|
|
Bet rfk wants to be a perennial candidate
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 16:20
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:The RFK ad also appeals to a voter base that is small and getting smaller by the day. Like 20 years ago, it would of been an interesting idea for an ad but now it doesn't resonate. "Hey! Remember how political dynasties were awesome?!" No.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 16:23
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:I didn't watch anything yesterday, why was the ad bad enough it needed to be apologized for? This seems to be the ad in question: https://twitter.com/AmValues2024/status/1756847553595760906 Given that the entire rest of the Kennedy clan seems to hate him and everything he stands for, it's no wonder they were particularly pissed about this ad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 16:25
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Possibly. His big mistake was trying to run as a Dem when he clearly has no real connection to the party or what the Dem base wants partly but id say its also that he has a poo poo platform too. he is running as a soft chud who focuses on Covid and shutdowns in 2024. he isnt running on some manchin type platform or a progressive or leftist type platform, its just weird Q adjecent poo poo. the only people he polls are weirder chuds. also as petty as it, he litterally sounds like a fallout ghoul. which probably hurts him more.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 16:28
|
|
|
Somewhat relevant to last night, since the game was sponsored by multiple sports gambling companies. These companies are massively popular and enormous now. The official sports betting industry is projected to cross $100 billion in revenue in 2024. It's pretty amazing how quickly these companies exploded, how much money they make now, and how much they have become just an intrinsic part of sports now. According to polls from last year, Americans don't necessarily think it is a good thing, but very few of them have strong opinions and only about 1/3 of people want to ban it again. Seems like a generally bad thing for society overall, but they are extremely popular and it is hard to say exactly what the impact would be of banning them again now that they have become so ubiquitous. quote:https://twitter.com/ryan_hassett/status/1756812629652152709 Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 16:34 on Feb 12, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 16:30
|
|
|
"Know how it's a big concern that both of the main party candidates are really old? How do we tap in to that?" "No idea, but take a look at my ad concept that looks 70 years out of date!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 16:30
|
|
|
Lol just he just photoshopped his head into JFKs body
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 16:31
|
|
|
the ease and ubiquity of sports gambling is going to be a social disaster, if it isn't already
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 16:31
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:partly but id say its also that he has a poo poo platform too. he is running as a soft chud who focuses on Covid and shutdowns in 2024. he isnt running on some manchin type platform or a progressive or leftist type platform, its just weird Q adjecent poo poo. the only people he polls are weirder chuds. also as petty as it, he litterally sounds like a fallout ghoul. which probably hurts him more.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 16:32
|
|
|
But they have a hotline if you're gambling becomes a problem you see
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 16:32
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:This seems to be the ad in question:  lol Also most of the money from American Values PAC comes from one guy, a Trump megadonor
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 16:33
|
|
|
lobster shirt posted:the ease and ubiquity of sports gambling is going to be a social disaster, if it isn't already Lol yeah I've never gambled so the whole thing was completely under my radar but I watched the Wendover video when it came out a whle ago and it seems pretty bad! https://youtu.be/Pm5bTZRhncY?feature=shared
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 16:39
|
|
|
Like most vices, banning gambling doesn't actually decrease gambling, it just makes it harder to tax. Legality is not the problem. The problem, as always, is the greed of the leagues (and particularly, the team owners) and broadcasters themselves, who are more than glad to take any amount of dollars to shove sports gambling down the throats of everyone. It is always within the purview of the government to ban advertising. But they won't, because they're on the take too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 16:40
|
|
|
lobster shirt posted:the ease and ubiquity of sports gambling is going to be a social disaster, if it isn't already It seems to be a disaster for a small subset of people who have gambling addictions, but didn't have access to extremely easy methods of gambling. If they started restricting it or banning it again, then does it just go gray market? Sports betting and "fantasy football gambling" were definitely still around and popular prior to fan duels and the 100 other new official gambling companies, but they didn't have to report to the SEC, so it's not totally clear how much money was going through them. Is the huge popularity of sports betting new people getting in or is it what people were doing before, but made much easier and public? If it is new people, then do they just stop for good if it was banned/restricted again?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 16:41
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Possibly. His big mistake was trying to run as a Dem when he clearly has no real connection to the party or what the Dem base wants I mean, yes that too and now Republican's are mad because he's taking away R votes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 16:41
|
|
|
Xombie posted:Like most vices, banning gambling doesn't actually decrease gambling, it just makes it harder to tax. Legality is not the problem. The problem, as always, is the greed of the leagues (and particularly, the team owners) and broadcasters themselves, who are more than glad to take any amount of dollars to shove sports gambling down the throats of everyone. Having math education not be absolute poo poo wouldn't hurt either.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 16:41
|
|
|
Xombie posted:Like most vices, banning gambling doesn't actually decrease gambling, it just makes it harder to tax.. This sounds like one of those libertarian "truisms" that isn't actually true in practice. I would be absolutely stunned if having a gambling app on everyone's phone didn't lead to massively increased gambling, for the same reason that caffeine addiction is a lot more common than opium addiction.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 16:44
|
|
|
It's on your phone and you get told to use it every commercial break of every game. There's no way that hasn't caused a huge boom in usage
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 16:46
|
|
|
The fact that college sports and universities are now partnering and promoting sports gambling to their fans is also pretty wild. I can't think of another thing that so totally and completely became enmeshed within society and every aspect of an industry so quickly before. Even Amazon took 15 years before they basically took over online shopping and they only account for ~38% of all online sales. There's about 3 companies that account for 98% of all online gambling.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 16:46
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Having math education not be absolute poo poo wouldn't hurt either. Human brains are pretty much physically incapable of understanding probability at an intuitive level. We're just bad at it; our brains are evolved to expect low probability but high magnitude events as disproportionately likely ("what if there is a tiger behind that bush?") and so we are very vulnerable to gambling scams. It seems to me like just another hollowing out of the commons by capitalism. Any good thing we have, even just the common shared joy of a sports game, capitalism drives to monetize, and we no longer have any other social institutions capable of resisting that pressure.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 16:48
|
|
|
The fact that approximately 25% of all sports related content is now gambling related, while a lesser concern than gambling pathologies, loving sucks. What changed in law to allow this to happen?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 16:48
|
|
|
I can't help but think of this little quote from 1984 when I hear about Sports Betting getting let loose in our country. It makes me really queasy, especially after tons of web-surfing on British soccer forums has shown me how often some people are giving money to these bookies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 16:48
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:This sounds like one of those libertarian "truisms" that isn't actually true in practice. I would be absolutely stunned if having a gambling app on everyone's phone didn't lead to massively increased gambling, for the same reason that caffeine addiction is a lot more common than opium addiction. There was already sports gambling on phones before sports gambling was legal, though. They just called it "daily fantasy sports". You can put anything on an app and skirt the law about it. But like all addictions, you can't be addicted unless you've actually participated. Simply being available isn't what gets people hooked. You have to convince them to try it. Which is where advertising comes in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 16:49
|
|
|
zoux posted:The fact that approximately 25% of all sports related content is now gambling related, while a lesser concern than gambling pathologies, loving sucks. The Supreme Court struck down a law banning it at the federal level in 2018, it was then regulated at the state level, several states legalized it, then it exploded around 2019.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 16:50
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Having math education not be absolute poo poo wouldn't hurt either. This is part of the reason the odds are stuff like+1500 and -1000 now right I'm tired of hearing about sports bets in every single event for every possible thing already. It even came up in BattleBots for a bit lmao
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 16:51
|
|
|
zoux posted:The fact that approximately 25% of all sports related content is now gambling related, while a lesser concern than gambling pathologies, loving sucks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy_v._National_Collegiate_Athletic_Association
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 16:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 18:31 |
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The fact that college sports and universities are now partnering and promoting sports gambling to their fans is also pretty wild. this i think is squarely the biggest part of the problem, its no less predatory than credit card companies trying to get college students signed up and spending
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 16:54
|
|