As far as I’ve seen their argument is usually something along the lines of “The West is so antagonistic, of course they have to cozy up to Russia. They’re pretty much the only country not trying to destroy them.”
It’s all bullshit of course. In reality it’s almost always just Campism. North Korea opposes the Great SatanUS therefore they must be good. Any evil they’ve done has to be actually our fault and not any kind of evil or corruption from them.
I don’t think it’s that deep. I think he’s just trying to dismantle any “Biden win” he can. Probably wants to drop it here and get them to normalize outside of that deal so he can say that it was all him.
I’m guessing some variation of “You don’t understand… The West forced them to go all those things with the sanctions or whatever” has definitely been said by that individual before.
More like if we let gays get married the women-folk might have an option beyond being trapped in a marriage to a potentially abusive husband (them) the way God™ intended.
That’s what they’re scared of. That women might choose to be alone or “be gay” rather than be with them.
It’s never been more true.
There are only two sexualities, Straight and Woke.
There are only two ethnicities, White and Woke.
There are only two genders, Male and Woke.
It would almost be amusing how baby-brained these chuds’ understanding of the world is were it not for the massive amount of harm they cause. Like how every accusation is a confession so it takes very little thought to work out what they think from what they accuse others of.
"They just say everything they don't like is Hitler." = Everything I don't like is Woke.
"Trans people are going to attack cis women in the restroom." = That's what I'd do with unrestricted access to the women's restroom.
And on, and on, and on...
Knowing him he’ll probably allow them to get on that “Gold Card” track without the money as a show of “combating the horrible racial injustice” in South Africa.
Every accusation is a confession after all. So it would be very on brand for them to fast track granting these people status that allows them to vote so now they’ll be the ones with the “millions of illegals voting” for them.
I think I get what it’s saying? It’s saying that while your phone isn’t directly listening to your conversations in any meaningful way they collect crazy amounts of other data on basically everyone and can piece it together in such a way that they can make some scary accurate guesses as to the kind of ads to serve you based on what their systems have gathered your interests are and where/with whom you spend your time.
I’m not entirely sure. They didn’t really seem to present much more than speculation on it.
It’s like the Old Man Yaoi version of Thanos trying to court Death by killing half of all life in the universe.
It was only supposed to be a little instability Donald! Give us a little dip that we could use to buy up another chunk of the pie. NOT BLOW UP THE ENTIRE FOUNDATION OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE DONALD!
I think so. I looked up the definition quickly to be sure, and:
shamelessly immoral or debauched. wildly extravagant or wasteful.
I know they wouldn’t think so obviously. But a lot of that seems to fit pretty well I think the whole goal of “force whatever woman I can to be my own personal Bang Maid subject to all my whims,” kinda qualifies.
Anyone who listened to Trump and Vance explain them basically. For months they’ve been straight up lying to their voters that if they put a tariff on China, then China would have to pay to ship their products to the US. How they’re going to bring in all this money from China and the rest of the countries that had been supposedly “screwing us” in trade.
Oh yes, tie their ability to stay in the country to them staying in a marriage to someone who actively despises their existence…
Oh wait, that’s the “Greatness” a lot of these chuds want to bring back. The days before the country was “ruined” by “No-Fault Divorce” when women couldn’t have their own bank accounts and were at the mercy of their husbands/fathers… Right.
Literally from your link they quote him saying.
…but it does not have the right to use US dollars to kill thousands of innocent men, women, and children in Gaza.
But Oh No he didn’t say the Magic Word to the press 2 months in when we still have 0 idea what internal discussions were happening. Can’t give the guy with probably the longest track record of being on the right side of pretty much every issue any benefit of the doubt. Especially not when he has before been very vocal about Palestinian rights. Couldn’t possibly be any good reason he didn’t use the Magic Purity Word.
Color me surprised. A video with a hostile interviewer trying to bait him into making statements that paint pro-Palestinian sentiment as pro-Hamas and him predictably navigating the “do you condemn Hamas?” traps.
Of course that outweighs him using the power he has to try to block 20 billion dollars worth of weapons. Heaven forbid he try to be an effective advocate and not demonstrate perfect ideological purity in every interview and talk no matter how it might impede him actually trying to fucking do something about it.
More entirely missing the point. He was literally one of the only voices trying to block weapons to Israel. But no, he didn’t stop them entirely on his own or call Biden “Genocide Joe” so that must mean he supports the genocide.
It’s really starting to sound like there’s literally nothing he could have done that would have been good enough for you.
My Sibling in Satan, how do you think making these demands work? This is an asymmetrical fight. Most of the time you won’t get a direct answer because the politicians are playing a different game. By and large they won’t commit to anything before the election that might alienate large sections of voters one way or the other.
Electoral politics is about choosing your battlefield for the action to come. In a presidential election it is a mathematical fact that there are only two viable options. Yes, they’re both captured to varying degrees by capital. But you can get a sense of who is more likely to accept the things you want.
There was 0 chance of the Republicans stopping what’s happening in Gaza for example. Clearly the chance was at least close to 0 with the Democrats but they were more vulnerable on that front and almost certainly they at least wouldn’t be trying to send pro-Palestinian activists to a gulag in El Salvador. So given this context which is the more advantageous battlefield you try to advocate on? There is a correct answer here and it’s the Democrats.
Is it fair? Absolutely not. Are you running the risk of getting them elected and still not doing what you want? Yep. But a risk they won’t listen is objectively better than a guarantee the Republicans won’t listen. This is why electoral politics cannot be the only arena where we’re fighting, but it’s an arena we still have to fight on because it determines the battlefield other action takes place on.
A bunch of comments going for the “why would you buy toilet paper that already has shit on it” route, but I can’t believe nobody went for calling this a shit(tickets) post.
You mean things like Single-Payer Healthcare, Housing as a Human Right, increasing the minimum wage, or any of the myriad of other policy positions that he talks about every time he talks basically anywhere? That thing he already does?
Honestly I feel like it would hurt his ego more to be reduced to a generic Republican. I feel like he hates nothing more than getting ignored.
Well yeah the AI support is just the next iteration of confusing telephone trees and long wait times. The direct hope is that they make it just convoluted enough that a chunk of people that they before would have to “waste money” serving and fixing whatever problem they had will instead just give up without opening them up to liability for denying service. Only now they can do it while hiring even fewer actual people to handle the cases that get through.