Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
The consequences being: MAGA style politics is now socially acceptable and encouraged because it works and will for a decade or two.
Alright, this is for my fellow far-right nazis: when are we going to set up the concentration camps? Have we set up the handmaid's tale outfits for women, yet? I feel like there's a lot on the agenda we need to get properly scheduled.
Perhaps in retrospect the Democrats can admit running a candidate who couldn't make it a few months in their primary was a bad idea.What was the other option though when Biden was so clearly unfit for office?
The other option was not hiding Biden's cognitive decline in the first place. Being "forced" to choose an extremely unpopular VP to run was a result of that bad decision. Had the DNC ran an actual primary instead of a farce, they might not be staring down the barrel of the reddest government the US has seen in decades.
No mainstream politician thinks that all abortions should be allowed with zero rules or regulations that take into account things like the progression of the pregnancy.
Okay, how about your main favorite right now. What limits on abortion does Kamala Harris want? This was a specific question asked to her at the Trump-Kamala debate.
Kamala has clearly shown herself to be an abortion extrimist.
From the article: "Our cloth masks made out of old bandanas wouldn’t have done anything, anyway."
"To take an example close to my own work, there is an emerging (if not universal) consensus that schools in the U.S. were closed for too long:"
"Remember when the public-health community had to spend a lot of time and resources urging Americans not to inject themselves with bleach? That was bad."
"Los Angeles County closed its beaches in summer 2020. Ex post facto, this makes no more sense than my family’s masked hiking trips."
Many people have neglected their health care over the past several years. Notably, routine vaccination rates for children (for measles, pertussis, etc.) are way down. "
You are correct, Sadaam...[/sarcasm] The article only mentioned social distancing.
I don't think I have to ignore anything you say to make it seem like you're being pedantic. After all, this entire, hmm, "discussion" is based entirely on you being pedantic!
...
Well this is certainly an opinion. While I can't claim your wild interpretations of other people's words is "wrong", I can point out that it doesn't seem to be the natural conclusion I would expect someone take take away from the article.
Which Americans and what gun control? I find that while "gun control" is often positively polled, the numbers change drastically when you word precisely what is intended by "gun control". Take these gallup polls for example:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
Should gun policy be more strict? Most Americans answer yes. Then, when asked if they want to ban assault rifles, assault weapons or handguns, the majority say no. In the case of handguns, a whopping +46% say no. Harris supports an assault weapon ban, which automatically puts her on the wrong side of the gun policy polls. Unsurprisingly, this has cost her support.
What sort of rights do Democrats protect? What rights do Republicans plan to remove? As far as I understand it, the only strong difference these days is on the T. The majority of people in this Gallup poll answered that changing one's gender is "wrong".
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx
Now, I'm not going to comment on whether it's wrong. What I am noting here is that the majority of people don't like the T in LGBT. Again, this is costing Harris support.
This depends entirely on what you mean by "abortion rights". Do the majority of Americans support some form of abortion? The answer is yes. Do the majority of Americans support the Democrat party's particular flavor of abortion? No.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
Over a third of Americans want abortion to be illegal entirely. The vast majority of Americans believe abortion should be possible only under "certain circumstances". More specifically, the vast majority of Americans think abortion past the first trimester should be illegal. Right off the bat, the Democrats have to fight over only 70% of voters who want some form of pro-choice. Only 22% of those voters want abortion to be legal under all circumstances. It could very well be that the "pro-choice" voters interested in mild abortion access end up voting for Republicans because they consider no abortion access to be better than a free-for-all.
So this is your argument so far:
1. The article wasn't written by the government. It doesn't matter.
2. THEN - Okay, so even though it wasn't written by the government, I suppose it can matter, but it doesn't say exactly what you want it to say
If you had read the entire article instead of just the headline (here's an archived link to avoid the paywall), you would have known that it's not saying what you think it's saying. It's an opinion piece written by one person who in no way "represents" the government or any company, and seems to be more interested in humblebragging about (supposedly) being right all along about schools being closed for too long and patronizingly offering forgiveness to those who doubted her than anything else. At no point does this article say that closing businesses and encouraging social distancing were wrong, nor that requiring masks to be worn in public buildings was wrong, nor that employers requiring their employees to be vaccinated was wrong, and certainly not that the vaccine was dangerous or unhelpful. This is not any kind of vindication for conspiracy theorists, unless your particular conspiracy theory happens to be that schools were closed for too long, and even then, the author would be on your side.
We're trying to adventure towards the next natural point:
3. THEN - Okay, so it may allude to the things you say, but that's not good enough. It should say them verbatim!
After that, we can go even further! We can discuss your precise interpretation of sentences. This requires you state why you believe what you do, rather than just saying "hmm actually this article doesn't say anything".
You see, honk, like yourself, other people don't like admitting they made huge mistakes during the pandemic. They have to hint at it, while pretending to have been correct all along, but also giving away that they realized they were in the wrong. I suggest you thoroughly read the article with that in mind.
Then why did you respond at all? It seems like all you wanted was some kind of weird "gotcha" where you inform me that a newspaper is not actually owned by the government. Thank you for the informative post, very helpful.
If you'll notice, that was not addressed to you. I was talking to Action80.
Ah, my mistake for assuming that your response to me would be about the subject I was discussing. In any case, if you're not talking about the article, then I've got nothing to say to you.
Then why did you respond at all? It seems like all you wanted was some kind of weird "gotcha" where you inform me that a newspaper is not actually owned by the government. Thank you for the informative post, very helpful.
I never posted one goddamn thing about Rushy's article, except the quote.
Ah, my mistake for assuming that your response to me would be about the subject I was discussing. In any case, if you're not talking about the article, then I've got nothing to say to you. I'm not interested in re-litigating covid policies.
Then why did you respond at all? It seems like all you wanted was some kind of weird "gotcha" where you inform me that a newspaper is not actually owned by the government. Thank you for the informative post, very helpful.
Businesses and governments are collections of people. People who pushed covid nonsense, collectively, as people. Some of those people (ergo: they) are publishing articles about having pushed this nonsense on their fellow man. Did this man personally pass covid legislation? No. Does he represent a certain apologetic factor in having people engage in performative nonsense? Yes.
People are the people that pushed covid policies (yes, that includes you!). The government isn't some magical entity that forces people to do things. Those people do things in voluntary agreement with the government. They don't actually have to do them!
I think this is the core problem. You're not actually interested in a legitimate discussion. You just wanted to reply with nonsense. Did you genuinely believe anyone here believed a single newspaper represents the entire government? The answer is obviously no. Did you ask me to clarify? No. You wanted to imply a ridiculous take just to sound righteously incredulous. Good job.
If you had read the entire article instead of just the headline (here's an archived link to avoid the paywall), you would have known that it's not saying what you think it's saying. It's an opinion piece written by one person who in no way "represents" the government or any company, and seems to be more interested in humblebragging about (supposedly) being right all along about schools being closed for too long and patronizingly offering forgiveness to those who doubted her than anything else. At no point does this article say that closing businesses and encouraging social distancing were wrong, nor that requiring masks to be worn in public buildings was wrong, nor that employers requiring their employees to be vaccinated was wrong, and certainly not that the vaccine was dangerous or unhelpful. This is not any kind of vindication for conspiracy theorists, unless your particular conspiracy theory happens to be that schools were closed for too long, and even then, the author would be on your side.
I never posted one goddamn thing about Rushy's article, except the quote.
I didn't realize government and businesses were made by robots that don't contain people with opinions. I should have known better!
Now that you're done having this absolutely insane take on what was posted, maybe you'll want to come up with something a bit more relevant than this ranting nonsense that comes to your head. Take a deep breath and try posting again, but this time read what you wrote before you posted it. This way, you don't post something like "hurr durr The Atlantic is not a department of the US government" and double-down on that as if it's an actual point that anyone was bringing up.
" articles years later." How else could I possibly interpret that other than you apparently thinking that this article came from the same people who gave us covid policies? But if I'm wrong, as you insist I am, then please just tell me what it is that you did mean.
^From the source provided by Rushy:
"But the thing is: We didn’t know."
I don't know who "we" is, but if you check the various threads on this forum and others, there are plenty of instances where many told the "we," they were absolutely full of shit with their approach in response to the "plandemic."
Woah, it's an opinion piece? You mean to tell me the article wasn't written by the FBI and published by the CIA? Say it ain't so, honk. I'm devastated by this news. I can't believe it. I thought The Atlantic was a department of the federal government.
Always remember how companies and the government behaved when it came time to ignore all precedent and force you to do something against your will.
Reminder: they will have you do things that are obviously ridiculous nonsense, then when push comes to shove, they'll publish "sorry pls forgive
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/10/covid-response-forgiveness/671879/
" articles years later." As insane as it sounds, he evidently thinks that the "they" who were responsible for covid-era policies (the government and businesses) were also responsible for this article. There's no other way to interpret his post. There's also, of course, the fact that this article doesn't say what he thinks it says, and that he clearly just looked at the headline and assumed he knew the content of the article without reading it, but that's admittedly less wacky than thinking that the government is writing opinion pieces in The Atlantic. What a dumbass, am I right?
Firstly, it's extremely unlikely that the IRS is hanging onto records of the income tax that a fast-food worker paid forty years ago; secondly, there's no good reason (both in the sense of Kamala's political interests and the public interest) to ask them to try to verify Kamala's McDonald's employment; thirdly, that's not a thing the IRS would do even if there was a good reason to verify Kamala's McDonald's employment; and fourthly, Trump and his supporters would immediately label any evidence the IRS produced as fabricated, so what would even be the point? Nobody who isn't already a ride-or-die Trump fan doubts that Kamala worked at McDonald's when she was younger, because it's entirely believable and would be an utterly pointless thing to lie about.
Wow, what a convent slew of semi-plausible excuses.
“IRS doesn’t have it”
“If they do have it, it doesn’t matter”
“If it does matter, they won’t release it”
“If they do release it, then it’s fabricated”
“If it isn’t fabricated, then it’s not relevant”
It reminds me of the narcissist’s prayer. Which I guess is fitting for Kamala.
No, the fact that people care about whether or not the subject is worth caring about is not automatically evidence that they care about the subject itself. Those are two different things. To put it another way, if I made a thread saying that Trump wears pink underwear, and you responded by asking who even cares, that would not in and of itself be evidence that you cared about whether or not Trump wears pink underwear.
If everyone chimed in to talk about how much they didn't care about a topic in every thread, then all threads would constantly be filled with nonsensical posts of people informing everyone how very much they do not care. I think you can see why this would get out of hand rapidly.
As I already pointed out, this thread is filled with posts that no one cared about and did not respond to (because they do not care!) However, they immensely care about Harris' work history. Lots of regulars came to the thread, only to insist that they do not care in the slightest... while making long posts about how the evidence could exist but doesn't matter. It really makes me think.