They did, they sat him down in a room and interviewed him for hours. His actions towards the couch were quite surprising however. That’s why the couch is no more.
Spoiler!
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilboimcdavid
Eakins wasn't a bad coach, the team just had 2 bad years, they should've been more patient.
The gist is they didn’t think it mattered. He was chosen when it looked like a cakewalk for Trump. Biden’s mental acuity was being questioned daily, Democrat enthusiasm was at an all time low, he was a luxury pick to further entrench the MAGA core.
The gist is they didn’t think it mattered. He was chosen when it looked like a cakewalk for Trump. Biden’s mental acuity was being questioned daily, Democrat enthusiasm was at an all time low, he was a luxury pick to further entrench the MAGA core.
Trump is also just terrible at picking people. Just look at his White House staff or his lawyers.
I don't think Trump really picked the guy. Apparently Junior is a big fan of Vance and Thiel, and he was pushed as the VP pick accordingly. This is what I was saying a few weeks ago about this unholy alliance between ideological far-right interests who think they're going to be raptured soon and ideologically vacant rich guys who want the system to favour the further accretion of wealth and thereby power. Trump is just riding that wave, they help him, he doesn't care what policy outcomes result or how badly the country is trashed in the process. Just get him back into the White House.
EDIT: This is what I meant.
Spoiler!
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
I actually think you're conflating two allied groups. There are the kleptocrats - guys like Peter Thiel and to an extent David Sacks - who may have some views about how government should work but are essentially just in it for the money. They want a system they can exploit. Then there are the true believers, who think their ideological priorities are SO important that anything can be justified in their pursuit. The former don't really care about abortion rights, for example - they just want to use the influence of the people who do really care about that to improve conditions for the increased aggregation of wealth.
The current GOP is essentially now controlled by the wing of people who fall into the ideological side of this alliance, which is why there's even MORE religion at the RNC this year, and why it has less of a "I am a humble man of faith who cares about family and my local church community" tone now and more of a hucksterish, fire-and-brimstone, "GOD HAS PLACED US HERE TO FULFIL HIS DIVINE MISSION" tone. That mission is so important that they are willing to look the other way for the porn star affairs and other similar un-Christ-like behaviour to get to the ends they want. Similarly, the kleptocrats are willing to pretend to adherence to the religious nonsense they don't actually give a crap about to get to their end goal.
I mean, ultimately, Putin isn't a dictator in the sense of being an omnipotent king-like figure, he presides over a complex web of oligarchs that is deliberately set up to leech as much as possible off the Russian public. That's why guys like Thiel make anti-democratic comments, they want to live in that world.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Last edited by CorsiHockeyLeague; 08-07-2024 at 01:59 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Location: A simple man leading a complicated life....
Exp:
Quote:
“I’m sad because of all I’ve invested in all this anti-Biden gear,” the man said, totallng the cost of the merchandise as “thousands of dollars.” “I buy it at the ‘Let’s Go Brandon’ store in Toms River, New Jersey … I think they’re gonna have to rename.”
Quote:
MAGA supporters pointed their fingers at a variety of culprits who they believed plan the shooting, with answers including “the dems,” “the Left,” “the deep state,” “the government” and, yes, Obama. “I think that [Obama] surely knew about it,” one attendee said.
Well, in most political campaigns, it's a matter of perspective - each side's faithful will say that the things they're concerned about are "real dangers" rather than fearmongering. It's a tough line to draw, most of the time, without being hypocritical.
It's hypocritical to speak out about things like climate change and authoritarianism as threats to society, without pretending that trans women in sports or drag queens are also a threat to society?
Alrighty then...
__________________
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Mathgod For This Useful Post:
God, some people on this board are hopelessly simple... learn to read, please, rather than putting words in my mouth. JFC.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
No, I don't need to clear that up. I'm adequately certain that anyone with a brain can read that post and the immediately preceding post and understand my point that this particular campaign is far outside of historical norms, for very obvious reasons. If anyone thinks I meant what you just tried to attribute to me, they aren't smart enough to be worth clarifying for.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
America, this is the path you're going down if you vote for Trump. (For the record, I put this in the category of "warning about real danger" not "spreading fear".)
Well then you're going to have to clear up the "tough line to draw without being hypocritical" part. I don't think I misread it.
I'm with you on this. But I guess I'm just a moron too.
Corsi, it really reads like you 'both sides'-d the argument. And I think its fair to ask for counter examples.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
This individual is not affluent and more of a member of that shrinking middle class. It is likely the individual does not have a high paying job, is limited on benefits, and has to make due with those benefits provided by employer.
Finally got to watch the Gov. Josh Shapiro speech. Wow the Democrats are going to be in the White House a long time which is a good thing. He so reminds me of Obama. A lot of the same mannerisms.
I'm with you on this. But I guess I'm just a moron too.
Corsi, it really reads like you 'both sides'-d the argument. And I think its fair to ask for counter examples.
He didn’t, not in the way Mathgod is positioning it.
Both sides DO run campaigns based on fear, that’s a “both sides” that’s true, so the hypocrisy is either side (or a supporter of either side) positioning themselves against a fear-based campaign.
If Side A says “Trans people are a danger to society, they must be stopped! We will stop it, vote for us!”
And Side B says “Campaigning on fear is ridiculous and I am against it. And also, climate change is a serious threat to our world and must be stopped! We will stop it, vote for us!”
Side B is a hypocrite. It doesn’t matter that Side B’s concern is valid and side A’s isn’t, because the hypocrisy comes from the approach, not the content.
You can’t be against “fear mongering” as a concept while ringing alarm bells (fear mongering) about climate change and fascism.
