American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by Bonded

Dubya would be wild. Swift is way less interesting

I can’t imagine any world where the news of an irrelevant old republican who can’t influence his own party let alone anyone else is brought news than Oprah. It’s probably the biggest pop star on earth that’s my guess

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

It kinda has to be Swift. If they leak "YOU WON'T BELIEVE WHO'S GOING TO SHOW UP" and then it's someone other than Swift, it'll just be a disappointment.

Pfizer Boy Kelce!

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Not one former president endorses Trump on either side already. Dubya and his entire family has been highly critical of Trump for years and nobody cares.

It would be historic but wouldn't move the needle. Swift could get MILLIONS of new voters to the polls.

Yeah, that is why I went with interesting not impactful.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

It’s not like Swift will actually speak though right? Won’t she just play before Kamala comes out? Still a big get. Her endorsement would be great for getting the youth vote.

[MRCboicgy]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Congrats on joining me in the stalker club! It's too bad this hate filled loon can't post here to tell us how they actually feel.

Chill out Mac, we got y'all covered, man.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I hope she speaks at least briefly. Just to give a soundbite about him using an AI generated image of her to try to trick people into voting for him without her permission and how that's not surprising because he's "never been big on consent". Something to that effect would have a measurable impact on polling.

[puffnstuff]

https://meidasnews.com/news/trump-wi...a-in-september

This will def swing some independent/undecided voters their way.

[MRCboicgy]

Originally Posted by rubecube

The cringiest person to ever be nominated for VP and it's not even close.

ngl, I lol'ed

https://twitter.com/user/status/1826704579247177754

[activeStick]

I'd say Swift has already endorsed whoever the Democrats put on the ticket given her public dislike of Trump.

[MrButtons]

Originally Posted by puffnstuff

https://meidasnews.com/news/trump-wi...a-in-september

This will def swing some independent/undecided voters their way.

I missed Rudy if im honest. Happy hes back in the spotlight where he belongs.

[Coach]

Swift doesn't have to outwardly endorse anyone to potentially sway the vote. Just taking a big stance on voting in general would likely sway the election Democrat. Even though I'm sure she has many republican fans as well, no doubt her fanbase is largely a Democratic voting base.

I'm guessing the guest is Beyonce.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It’s bizarre. The topic of rape and sexual assault has been referred to as/talked about in terms of:
- the woke agenda
- “so called” rape
- the other team is worse
- it was normal back then!
- she was obviously obsessed with him
- you must be an unhappy person to even bring that up
- the Mongols raped, you gonna litigate them too? (my favourite)
That’s the kind of attitude that these same people think all Republicans have.

People need to grow up and realise we can have normal adult conversations in this thread without being worried around how it’s going to impact an election. Stop refusing to even discuss, let alone criticize, very real and totally fair issues to discuss surrounding Democrats. It’s extremely dorky.

Adult conversations and criticisms of Democrats are completely fine.

Where things go off the rails is when factually inaccurate claims are made to mislead people about the situation we're talking about.

Saying that Bill is a "known rapist" is factually inaccurate.

A much more reasonable take would have been, "due to the sheer number of allegations, it would have been best if the Democrats erred on the side of caution and didn't invite Bill to speak".

When someone watches the DNC and their only takeaway is "EWW! BILL SPOKE! RAPIST RAPIST"... the person does come across as having an anti-Democrat agenda.

Originally Posted by rubecube

People could have just said "yeah, not a great look," and moved on.

The same applies to you.

Also, for those of you who keep bringing up Trump in relation to Clinton, this one's for you.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

No, not really. When there are important differences between the situations, it's lazy and quite frankly dishonest to ignore those differences. Bill is not running for president, and he's not been adjudicated in court guilty of anything.

Originally Posted by rubecube

The justifications for the cult behaviour are almost identical, too.

MAGA: "If Kamala wins, it's the end of America as we know it. The communists will have won."

Blue MAGA: "If Trump wins, it's the end of America as we know it. The fascists will have won!"

Obviously MAGA is dumber, because Kamala is very firmly a neoliberal, but the cognitive dissonance from Blue MAGA is pretty funny.

The bolded is simply a true statement. For you to try to classify those who say it as "Blue MAGA" (or comparable in any way to MAGA), is extraordinarily dishonest.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Bonded

I never thought I'd see someone worse than Palin. Crazy how unlikable Vance is

Palin was probably the dumbest person ever nominated for VP, but she has a folksy charm that carried her a long way. Vance is the complete opposite, has technical intelligence but rolled a hard 0 on charisma. I'm baffled on how he even managed to win an election that got him into the senate

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

Palin was probably the dumbest person ever nominated for VP, but she has a folksy charm that carried her a long way. Vance is the complete opposite, has technical intelligence but rolled a hard 0 on charisma. I'm baffled on how he even managed to win an election that got him into the senate

Weirdo Thiel's money.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

When someone watches the DNC and their only takeaway is "EWW! BILL SPOKE! RAPIST RAPIST"... the person does come across as having an anti-Democrat agenda.

Ah yes, the sneaky anti-Democrat agenda masquerading as taking legitimate issue with someone who has faced several rape and sexual assault allegations. I suppose we should assume you only take issue with Trump’s rape and sexual assault allegations because you’re anti-Republican? Seems fair.

IDK I guess it just seems more like an anti-rape agenda to me.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Adult conversations and criticisms of Democrats are completely fine.

Where things go off the rails is when factually inaccurate claims are made to mislead people about the situation we're talking about.

Saying that Bill is a "known rapist" is factually inaccurate.

Why is that factually inaccurate? People who've seen the allegations against Clinton consider him a known rapist. Not being convicted isn't an argument against that. I feel the same way about Bill Cosby.

When someone watches the DNC and their only takeaway is "EWW! BILL SPOKE! RAPIST RAPIST"... the person does come across as having an anti-Democrat agenda.

That's a strawman and an incredibly feeble-minded take. Where did I say that was my only takeaway from the DNC? My posts today have all been different iterations of "look at how pathetic the GOP are."

No, not really. When there are important differences between the situations, it's lazy and quite frankly dishonest to ignore those differences. Bill is not running for president, and he's not been adjudicated in court guilty of anything.

My position is that platforming sexual predators is wrong. The pushback I've been getting from others is "It's not wrong because the other side's sexual predator is worse."

The bolded is simply a true statement. For you to try to classify those who say it as "Blue MAGA" (or comparable in any way to MAGA), is extraordinarily dishonest.

It's perfectly accurate when you act as a hivemind to try and police speech and quell dissent.

[Ped]

I don't often agree with rube, but totally here. Is Bill Clinton a convicted or adjudicated rapist like Donald Trump? No, no he is not. But wow was there a lot of smoke about him, and more than enough accusations, that maybe you say "hey, maybe let's not celebrate this guy and have him speak."


It's not about what the GOP does or doesn't do with Trump. It's about if your're pitching your party as morally superior - and they are, and they should be - that means you actually should be. Not "well our guy is not a proven rapist, so it's okay."


It's actually pretty disgusting. Want to be not like the GOP? Then don't be like them, including having a guy whose not as bad as them.

[MoneyGuy]

Do these DNC speakers use teleprompters? I imagine they do.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Ped

I don't often agree with rube, but totally here. Is Bill Clinton a convicted or adjudicated rapist like Donald Trump? No, no he is not. But wow was there a lot of smoke about him, and more than enough accusations, that maybe you say "hey, maybe let's not celebrate this guy and have him speak."

It's not about what the GOP does or doesn't do with Trump. It's about if your're pitching your party as morally superior - and they are, and they should be - that means you actually should be. Not "well our guy is not a proven rapist, so it's okay."

It's actually pretty disgusting. Want to be not like the GOP? Then don't be like them, including having a guy whose not as bad as them.

Exactly. Also, if this election is for all the marbles, why risk ceding ANY moral high ground to the Republicans. Nothing is lost by not having Bill Clinton speak in 2024.

[rubecube]

Anyways, back to T-Swift. If they can get her to announce Kamala, it's a massive win for the Dems. Not only do you likely get more turnout, but conservatives are going to really start frothing at the mouth and you'll get even more deranged takes that just alienate moderates and independents.

Or you'll get pathetic dweeb #### like this.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1815903394097479942