Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Kchama
Jul 25, 2007

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

Dick Blumenthal and Josh Hawley just asked Zuckerberg if he would apologize to the parents with dead kids sitting behind him. He actually stood up, faced them, and said:

Seems like a fairly good on-the-spot apology.

And then he had to add on:

https://twitter.com/zamaan_qureshi/status/1752742234250674473

Zuckerberg’s instincts at saying the worst thing possible in the situation is extremely impressive.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Kchama
Jul 25, 2007
The fact that Sinema was so happy pissing off her base by deliberately betraying them by working against everything she promised to work towards as a candidate is why I think she's just dumb as bricks and doesn't get that this is not going to help her.

Kchama
Jul 25, 2007

Main Paineframe posted:

Eh, her voters had a decent idea of what they were getting with her. All her old leftist rhetoric was long gone by the time she set her sights on Congress. By 2018, she was pretty much openly campaigning on her willingness to defy Democratic leadership and show how independent and unconcerned with partisan politics she was.

She had still some left, like ‘protecting women’s reproductive rights’, which is what got a lot of people voting for her, and then she decided that she should do that by…. blocking passage of bills doing just that. That one got a lot of people mad.

Basically compromise is fine, but when your compromise is “screwing over your own side for no gain on important causes”, that starts to piss people off. She voted with the Dems 90% of the time, but if the 10% she didn’t had been on non- or less important stuff, then she wouldn’t be in this trouble. Unfortunately, that 10% was on stuff that was extremely important to her base.

Kchama
Jul 25, 2007
Just to clarify, Sprinter99800 regularly posts lying poo poo and got banned from Twitter for a while for it and also worshiping a Syrian war criminal to the point of having his picture as their profile pic. Probably the worst source you can think of. Look at how they posted the statue thing without even knowing when or why it was done.

Kchama
Jul 25, 2007

Killer robot posted:

That "A gallon of their blood for every drop of ours" reply to stories of Americans killed on 10/7 wasn't a policy statement, but it sure was a statement. And reminds me of lots of 2016 "Aww, it's just rhetoric, don't take it seriously" campaign promises he kept, like dropping more bombs than Obama and killing more civilians.

He pretty much promised to genocide Gaza harder than Israel.

Kchama
Jul 25, 2007

B B posted:

It would probably be easier to fight back against the "Donald the Dove" stuff if his opponent weren't actively supporting and enabling a genocide.

Donald Trump has declared he’d join the genocide because he thought Israel was being soft. Which is a few dozen steps past what Biden has done.

Kchama
Jul 25, 2007

Byzantine posted:

The Dems' tweet specifically says it's a victory for rural voters and claims they've been sidelined.

For Black and rural voters. Two demographics with a lot of overlap in South Carolina.

Kchama
Jul 25, 2007

FistEnergy posted:

https://x.com/DeItaone/status/1754520469317861834?s=20

Huge upside miss this morning on the inflation data. Especially non-manufacturing prices, which was a gigantic miss. The market is displeased today. The administration's celebrating and backslapping over the last few weeks appears to have been premature.

Can you explain more in-depth?

Kchama
Jul 25, 2007

FistEnergy posted:

Right. I completely agree. It's surreal.

https://x.com/PhilipWegmann/status/1754933040491483364?s=20

What part of this is supposed to convince me to support the Democrats? The part where they stump and whip for a right-wing bill full of border hysteria/racism and billions more for an Israeli regime dedicated to genocide and oppression? Or the part where they get outsmarted and outmaneuvered by the GOP yet again?

The Dems got everything they wanted and the Republicans gave up everything they wanted. And Dems even get to brag that the Republicans are the ones screwing up here. How is this the DEMs being outsmarted and outmaneuvered...?

Kchama
Jul 25, 2007

wet_goods posted:

I mean if the other bill passes, then yeah, but don’t count chickens etc.

Well yes but they were claiming that getting the original bill passed was the Dems being outsmarted and outmanuevered.


koolkal posted:

The Democrats have completely ceded the argument that immigration and immigrants are bad for the America.

That's good if you care about the Democrats as an entity or a team because they're winning but bad if you care about the Democrats as being an anti-racist anti-nativist anti-nationalist political party.

As stated, most Americans, even on the left, want something to be done. The Dems getting to go 'oh well we TRIED, but the Republicans refused to let us!' while not actually doing anything is a pretty good win if you don't want the Dems to actually do that. And I don't want them to.

Kchama
Jul 25, 2007

Al Sharpton is not a legislator, he's a talk show host. And your own article (Fox News) notes that other liberals found those remarks to be 'highly controversial' to say the least.

Kchama fucked around with this message at 00:07 on Feb 7, 2024

Kchama
Jul 25, 2007

koolkal posted:

The "other liberals" cited are a law professor and a HuffPo writer.

And it's not like Sharpton is a nobody, he's an MSNBC host. And he said this to a current US senator on Morning Joe, which as everyone knows is Joe Biden's favorite television program. And the senator was asking him for advice on how to get people to pressure other senators to pass the bill!

So why bring up Al Sharpton? Yes, he has a name, but he's also not directly involved. If the Dems still want to pass the negotiated bill instead of accepting the easy win of everything they want and nothing the Republicans want, then you can complain about them then, but a single talk show host saying poo poo isn't going to bother me.

Kchama
Jul 25, 2007

selec posted:

There’s enough room for more than one genocide guy. Biden’s a genocide guy now too. It’s genocide guys all the way down, at least when it comes to our national electeds, it would seem.

I think Trump promising to send US troops in genocide Gaza harder would be a much bigger 'no-no'.

Kchama
Jul 25, 2007

World Famous W posted:

if i ever found myself defending my genocider by saying the other genocider would make a bigger "no-no", it would probably make me take pause

Do you think that was a defense of Biden on Gaza? I was speaking to the perspectives of people who have Gaza as their reason to possibly support Trump.

Kchama
Jul 25, 2007

World Famous W posted:

i don't think many people who condemn biden for this is voting trump (likely because he to is guilty of this poo poo) but i apologize for aiming that at you if it is not your opinion

You'd be surprised. Too many people believe the nonsense about Trump being isolationist/dove. And not just on the left, either.

Kchama
Jul 25, 2007

sleep with the vicious posted:

George w bush is 4 years younger than biden and was president 25 years ago

His folksy mannerisms and fake sayings were part pf his charm strategy

Joe Biden cannot remember the difference between Egypt and Mexico

Joe Biden's nickname back in 2008 was 'Gaffe Machine' because he made verbal mistakes like this all the time and always has. They're basically part of his brand.

Kchama
Jul 25, 2007

IT BURNS posted:

I'm inclined to agree, but Trump was likely to win again even without this.

Was he? Even with this? I mean, the polling we have been shown that seems to get everyone terrified is that Biden is mildly behind Trump despite being the so-called 'most unpopular president in history' which doesn't seem to be bode very well for Trump, or even Haley. If they can barely muster a lead at the time that an incumbent president is at their typical lowest popularity, then what are they going to do when campaigning actually starts and people are certain it is Trump versus Biden?

Kchama
Jul 25, 2007

FistEnergy posted:

It would be helpful for you to look at this from the opposite direction:

Biden won narrowly in 2020 despite the massive and unprecedented election boost of hanging COVID on Donald Trump. Over the past 3+ years, many of Trump's weaknesses have been dulled due to Biden being weak/vulnerable/guilty in the same areas: family corruption, mental weakness, improper actions with classified documents, being hostile with the press, bloodthirsty Middle East policy, inflation, voters' feelings on the economy, age and ability to handle the job, etc.

Additionally, the national polling shows a small but reliable advantage for Trump. The election environment as of right now is *clearly* more favorable for Trump than it was in 2020. You'd have to be naive or in denial to look at the landscape and not conclude that things look very fertile for a Trump victory in November. While it is still early with a lot of time before November, the cake is in the metaphorical oven and there are only a few minutes left on the timer.

So why isn't Trump ahead by more, then? I'm not going to pretend it'll be easy, but it's not going to be easy for Trump either.

Also, 74 EV and 4.5% popular vote difference isn't that much worse than Obama's victories vs McCain (192 EV, but only 7.2%) and Romney (126 EV, 3.9% pop), and Biden got the most votes in history.

By your argument Trump should be cruising to an obvious victory, not struggling against the so-called most unpopular president in history.

Kchama
Jul 25, 2007

Shammypants posted:

Larry Hogan will turn around and vote with Trump (if president) 100/100 times. You cannot trust a word this dude says. He was completely held on a leash by a Democratic supermajority and he still let his craziness shine through now and again. There is no "good guy hogan," gently caress larry hogan.

If you read the post, they were making fun of the fact that his policy page was lorem ipsum, aka "pain itself".

Kchama
Jul 25, 2007

Tatsuta Age posted:

it was one hell of a stutter 2 days ago when he name-dropped the French leader who died 25 years ago too, natch

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/second-mixup-week-biden-talks-meeting-dead-european-leaders-rcna137823

Yeah? That’s basically how stuttering works. The harder you work to control it, the more it’s going to make you slip up in other ways. It really sucks rear end, and happens to me a lot.

There’s a reason why he’s been making these gaffes for decades.

Kchama
Jul 25, 2007

FizFashizzle posted:

Of course verbal fluency is a measure of cognition and history of gaffs aside, Biden’s presentation over the past four years is concerning. Biden’s (handlers are) smart enough not to come out and state he went 0/5 on delayed recall like Trump did, but it just how Biden acts when he’s speaking extemporaneously is obviously not just “slowing down.”

And the whole stutter thing has never been very convincing to me. This only became an issue during Iowa where he was very clearly struggling to keep it together. The stutter was never a problem when he was burying Paul Ryan on live television. Ot was never mentioned during the other two times he ran for president.

Biden can’t complete sentences later in the day and all of a sudden it’s a stutter.

He's had a stutter all his life and it predated all of that. The issue isn't that he's suddenly obviously stuttering, but the effort it takes to not stutter means you say the wrong word, or it comes out sounding weird. For example, I tend to substitute the wrong word. Sometimes it is something I am looking at, or am thinking. My mind latches onto something close to what I am talking about, and that comes out instead. I sometimes say 'fay' instead of 'say', so you'll hear me go "I fay... I mean, I say" and stuff like that. And yes, being tired makes it more difficult to keep under control. I've been like that since I was a child, and it is not an indication of cognitive decline.

Kchama
Jul 25, 2007

Main Paineframe posted:

It's because nobody really cared about his stutter until the "Biden is too old" stuff started to rear his head. When he was younger, it was all about "gaffe machine Biden", no one really gave a poo poo about the stutter specifically.

However, most voters don't know enough about him to know he has a stutter, nor do they know enough about stutters to know that stuttering can cause things like that.

It doesn't really matter what he said at this press conference, it's not going to hurt him. It's February, nobody's paying attention. But if he does a Mexico/Egypt mixup on camera in October, that's gonna be big trouble.

Yeah, this is basically it. The quote posted about Biden saying he doesn't think he has a stutter is literally true. He doesn't stutter anymore because of his control. With the type of stutter I have, talking feels natural until suddenly it isn't and I've said something odd or I'm having to slam my mouth shut for a couple of moments to reboot my mouth.

Thankfully, I've avoided saying stuff TOO embarrassing too much. The worst was probably the time I was gonna challenge a guy to a fighting game at the arcade, and "Wanna fight?" came out as "Wanna gently caress?"

He replied "Yeah, but later."



At least I got revenge in the actual game.

Kchama
Jul 25, 2007

Acebuckeye13 posted:

Well did you gently caress after???

He thankfully knew about my problem and just liked to give me poo poo about it. Would have been pretty awkward otherwise!!

Kchama
Jul 25, 2007

koolkal posted:

The big reason it's in the news is due to the special prosecutor's report. He was hired by Garland, who Biden himself picked.

Blaming this on Republicans is silly. Biden shot himself in the foot.

I should note that the special prosecutor's report didn't actually question Biden's health. He was still attacking Biden because he's a Republican, but his attack was that Biden would PRETEND to be a 'nice old man with bad memory' and easily get off. Even before getting to the 'he returned them the moment they were found and did not attempt to hoard them for himself' aspect.


FLIPADELPHIA posted:

Who actually gives a poo poo about the specific medical causes of Biden looking like a total idiot / semi-comatose fossil? The perception is what is important and no one is going to care about these "well actually it's a stutter that causes these hundreds of gaffes" explanations, even if they are correct. His age is a major concern and all of these verbal / mental mistakes are going to keep compounding the issue.

Because it loving sucks as someone who deals with the exact same thing every day and people are intentionally perpetuating the perception that a stutter and its knock-on effects are proof that you're suffering dementia or senile.

B B posted:

It's also not just Republicans who have concerns. This is from a poll that was released two days before the report and press conference:

Seems bad that a majority of Democrats and an overwhelming majority of independents had concerns.

This particular series of events probably won't factor into the election much or at all, but it does add to a growing perception that Biden isn't mentally fit. If there's a similar series of events around election day, it could end up hurting him at the polls.

The pollster notes that Biden's health concerns don't drive voter's voting choices nearly as much as Trump's crimes do, even if more Democratics are worried about his health. There's much less worry about Trump's health because Republicans have 0% worry about it.

Kchama fucked around with this message at 18:03 on Feb 10, 2024

Kchama
Jul 25, 2007

mawarannahr posted:

Which part?

I presume the "it might short out if wet" part.

Also the reliably has gotten a lot better since Trump's Pentagon guy said that, though it's apparently becoming clear that some aspects of the equipment need to be updated if there's going to be further improvements.

Kchama
Jul 25, 2007

mawarannahr posted:

As I already mentioned, it has to be evaluated in the context of his umbrage vis-a-vis the well-known reliability issues for a system that is operating on water.

It is not the water that is causing reliability issues.

Kchama
Jul 25, 2007

Senate Cum Dump posted:

Number of drone strikes is hardly the only or most important metric for judging a president's foreign policy. I would point instead towards Biden's saber-rattling toward China and Russia--quite a bit more than saber rattling you could argue, but ratcheting up tensions in general. Also, y'know, the genocide in Gaza. There's no guarantee that Trump would be all that much better but given his interest in making "deals" I think he might be more open to sending Jared Kushner to work with the Saudis and pressure Netanyahu into a ceasefire.

I'm not advocating anyone vote for Trump. There's a difference between not voting for Biden and actively voting for Trump. However, I think having a disinterested isolationist clown in charge might be better than a China hawk and rabid Zionist, at least for foreign policy.

Trump literally bombed an Iranian higher up and Iran was the restrained party there. There's also betraying the Kurds. Also Trump has been promising to actually send America in to show Israel how to really genocide the Gazans.

Kchama
Jul 25, 2007

Main Paineframe posted:

60% of liberals think Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, but only 27% think there should be an immediate ceasefire, while 42% think the war has to end with the destruction of Hamas in some form or fashion. There's got to be a fair chunk of people who think it's a genocide but that there shouldn't be a ceasefire. Though rather than self-identified liberals, I was personally looking at Dem/Biden voters and 18-29 groups, both of which are admittedly slightly less sure that it's a genocide.

As for how people can put those positions together, I think I can get an idea of it even if they don't agree: they believe that Hamas has to be destroyed, and that Israel has the fundamental right to invade Gaza and destroy Hamas in retaliation for Oct 7th. They wish that Israel wouldn't be quite so blatantly going out of their way to cause needless civilian casualties, but their desired result isn't "stop the war", it's "convince Israel to stop shooting quite so many civilians and focus entirely on Hamas".

Holy poo poo that avatar someone gave you. That person should be permabanned.

Kchama
Jul 25, 2007

FistEnergy posted:

this is an interesting post because it's literally the exact same logical thread some of us are using for Biden and Gaza/Middle East. If the threat to trans people happening right now takes precedence over possible future betrayal, then so does the actual genocide being done in Gaza right now.

Ah yes, surely Donald “We’ll drown Gaza in Palestinian blood!” Trump will decrease the genocide in Gaza.

Kchama
Jul 25, 2007

Majorian posted:

Trump could be worse than Biden on Gaza, but if you're going to make the affirmative claim like this, it would be great if you'd explain why you believe this and what makes you so certain of it. Remember, we're talking about him being worse than Biden, not just "not better than Biden."

Because he literally made a bunch of tweets after Oct 7th about how if HE was President he'd have America actively help genocide the Gazans with troops. He wanted a much worse genocide.

Majorian posted:

I'm asking what specifically you think he will do to make the situation in Gaza worse, not whether or not his rhetoric is pro-Israel, pro-Zionism, anti-Palestinian, etc. I'm not trolling; I'd like an answer to my question.

Considering he wanted to Just Start Killing Gazans with American troops, I think that's a bit of a clue.

KillHour posted:

Assuming it hasn't changed since you posted this and you're talking about the political cartoon depicting the IDF as Nazis - it's good actually and should be everyone's avatar.

I think the text where it says "The souls of all Jews are in hell and it'd be best if the Jews died quickly" is where it takes a perfectly fine politoon and goes straight to hardcore antisemitism.

Kchama
Jul 25, 2007

Majorian posted:

He hasn't made any tweets in three years (are you referring to posts on another social media outlet?), and I'm not finding the quotes you're describing in this thread (or on Google). I am seeing a far-right minister in the Israeli government saying that Trump would support Israel more, as well as Trump saying he'd reject Gazan refugees (a very bad thing, I think we can all agree), but that's kind of it. I have no doubt that he's at least as rabidly anti-Palestinian as Biden is, possibly more. The question is, what would he do? I don't see much of a reason to believe he'd send in American troops when Israel is doing a good enough job of murdering Palestinian civilians on its own.

'Truths' or whatever they're called, I don't care. You knew what I meant. He literally posted on Truth that there needed to be more, harder genocide because Americans died on October 7th. So he would find something to do that would be much worse than anything Biden has done. He's done it before, and quite easily.

KillHour posted:

"I want bad things to happen to the people related to the people who are hurting me" is not a positive sentiment, but I have a hard time clutching pearls about it at this point. It's approaching "death to YT" levels in my book.

I say this as someone who is probably (at least partly) a Jew*


*I'll never know for sure because my family fled Krakow under fairly suspicious circumstances, changed their name to sound more German, and my great grandfather took the truth to his grave.

That's cool that you're fine with it, but it's still hardcore antisemitism. It's not going to solve anything, especially not branding it on people they clearly think are Jews.

Kchama
Jul 25, 2007

Lemming posted:

From https://www.c-span.org/video/?531245-1/presidential-candidates-speak-republican-jewish-coalition-conference

It's difficult to copy and paste the text, so here's a screenshot:



"If you spill a drop of American blood, we will spill a gallon of yours. We are doing that because we want to start peace. We will start wars. The wars have to be finished often times before the peace. If you don't do the wars the peace will not happen. If you aren't tough and ruthless like they are it will not happen."

This sounds like obviously substantially worse.

Yes, this. And he keeps promising war over and over. American war with Gaza. So yes, he can do more to genocide Gaza than Biden has.

Kchama
Jul 25, 2007

KillHour posted:

Being angry and being rational are generally not well correlated.

Whoever bought that title was clearly loving pissed. I don't know the exact conversation that led to it, but I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt and say they were probably rightly pissed, given the subject matter. I'm not going to stand in front of someone who is rightly pissed about an ongoing genocide and say "you're lumping in innocent people with the genociders; you should really be more careful."

You're free to, but I don't recommend doing it in person unless you like getting slugged.

Edit: And if they had just said "that should be worded more carefully" I wouldn't have responded in the first place. From context, they told someone they should be permabanned for being mad about a genocide and being overly broad about directing that anger, and didn't even clarify what it was they were taking issue with. That deserved some pushback.

Who cares if they are pissed? Just because they are mad about evil people doing evil things doesn't mean you shouldn't take it out on innocent people. Even if the evil people are trying to use them as a shield. It just makes everything worse. The person who posted that AV does not just hate Israel, which deserves hatred, but hates all Jews and wishes them dead. Just because you're fine with that doesn't mean it should just be allowed to happen. It is how hardcore bigotry has been perpetuated and made people's lives worse for basically all of history.

Kchama
Jul 25, 2007

Majorian posted:

I don't think anyone here is going to deny that Trump was a terrible president. "Uniquely terrible," though? That's the part that seems like hyperbole to me. Considering the GWB, Obama, and Biden Admin's policies towards the broader MENA region, his foreign policy was unfortunately pretty in line with the trend: GWB had Iraq and Afghanistan and everything else, Obama had Libya, Trump had his drone war, etc. Trump's rhetoric is certainly more inflammatory than his predecessors' or successor's, but in material terms there doesn't seem to have been much that was "unique" about this part of his foreign policy.

This, I think, is a much stronger argument, and one that I largely agree with. I'm not sure Biden realizes quite how badly the war is making him look with a lot of his base, but I'm hoping he wises up quickly and calls for a ceasefire.

Trump declared he'd invade Gaza himself. That's definitely uniquely terrible, especially if you think this one genocide is a uniquely bad one.

Kchama
Jul 25, 2007

KillHour posted:

Not everything has to be a maximalist "you're either completely in agreement with me or something is loving wrong with you." I didn't say racism is acceptable*; I said the response to call for a perma was over the top, especially since it called out the avatar and not specifically the title. It frankly immediately reminded me of how Israeli mouthpieces immediately accuse everything critical of Israel of being anti-semitic. I realize due to the rest of the conversation that followed that this isn't what kchama was doing, but without that context, it could easily be taken that way.

*You said excusable, not acceptable, but I want to be careful with words because yes I'm making excuses for the person, and I want to make it clear that I understand why they said it, even if I also think they shouldn't have said it, but I also think a perma is a ridiculous punsihment and kchama was wrong to call for one.

The text is part of the avatar. That's why it's called a RTA, Red-Text Avatar. And I think saying that Main Painframe should die painfully for being a Jew is extremely permaban worthy. Calling for the death of other posters has traditionally been that.

Kchama
Jul 25, 2007

KillHour posted:

I disagree both with your characterization and conclusion, but I don't really have anything else to add to the conversation, so I'm not really sure what you want.

Edit: Also, if you're phone-posting, which I was, you don't see the red text.

So the reason why everyone is screaming at you is that the text was literally "The soul of my race is already in hell, may the rest of my time on this earth short and painful. "

Kchama
Jul 25, 2007

TGLT posted:

Israel is right now bombing the 1.5 million Palestinians they concentrated into Rafah. Whether or not Trump would conceivably be worse this is the actual non-theoretical result of Biden's treatment of Israel's numerous atrocities.

It can get worse in the future, though. It is horrific now, but just imagine when Trump gets in and can do the Gazan Invasion he was screaming about.

Kchama
Jul 25, 2007

TGLT posted:

Israel right now is taking every step it would need to take to annex Gaza. What, exactly, is the meaningful distinction here?

Children are trying to survive on grass. Red Crescent workers are getting murdered trying to save six year olds. Unless you think Trump has a behelit and can initiate the eclipse, how exactly does it get worse?

An American invasion intending to massacre Gazans would be quite a hell bit worse than the IDF’s extremely brutal but incompetent takeover attempt. Israel has a lot of nasty weapons, but we saved worst.

Kchama
Jul 25, 2007

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

It would be really nice if there was any area of the modern economy where this was not true.

Anyone else still remember when your phone rang and it was exciting because you probably wanted to talk to the person on the other end?

No.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Kchama
Jul 25, 2007

Google Jeb Bush posted:

surprisingly similar to mobile game ads

"Come now, My Lord."

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply