Jump to content

chainsaw

Full Members
  • Posts

    9091
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by chainsaw

  1. So the redacted stuff, I'm guessing he has a medical condition?
  2. The entire "groundswell" of pro-Paxton billboards and social media ads came from that asshole
  3. That graph tells half the story. It's not just that they're appealing to stupid people (they are, and the stupid people are responding as expected) It's also that these counties have driven out the people who have (or tried to get) college degrees. They're driven out because the counties have nothing going on economically: goodbye to that rural clinic and sayonara to that tiny, underfunded, private university. They're also driven out by red state policies that are openly hostile to women, to people of color, to queer people, to the irreligious, and even to people who are religious but not Protestant. You only have one life to live, so why would anyone who values education spend it in a podunk town with nothing going on? The part of the story I'm not sure the graph fully captures is that people who have attended college probably haven't increased their affinity for the democratic party. I don't think the people have "moved further left" it's just that the existing left-of-center people have been forced to relocate to population centers where all the jobs and amenities are.
  4. Probably should move this to the Help forum. Do you know where the false loan applications were made?
  5. Peterson is washed up. Low view counts compared to before he joined Daily Wire. But he got them to pay him while his stock was high. The grift is over.
  6. https://mynorthwest.com/crime_blotter/shawn-kemp-tacoma-shooting/4092614 That's a great prank call name I feel like they should consider his years in Cleveland as time served. The man has suffered enough.
  7. It's why Idiocracy was so terrifying despite how entertaining and funny it was. That movie's all I think about any time I'm in a large crowd of unwashed masses.
  8. What are the steps for an indictment exactly?
  9. The problems with the party are much, much deeper than its inability to "message."
  10. Looks like he's from SA and does stand up comedy too. Wonder if he's any good
  11. Asteroid City was too pretentious for most audiences, and while I enjoyed it for what it was, I wouldn't call it one of his better movies. The quirky affect of his style didn't lend itself very well to the story, which at times dragged. I really hope this new movie is an improvement.
  12. These goons are in her domain. She has the right to tell them to fuck off. If they're interfering with her official duties, she is not just allowed to but I would even say obligated to tell them to back the fuck off. Any criminal defendant with a half decent lawyer could use the presence of masked goons as grounds for a mistrial. Why would she risk that when she has the power to control what happens in and around her duty station? Fuck outta here.
  13. 8 years ago, Alex Jones was a novelty to Joe Rogan. Someone he found fascinating and could hold an interview with that would be entertaining and incisive at the same time without ever devolving into namecalling or a debate. Today, Alex Jones is a personal friend who influences his opinions and values. 8 years ago, Joe Rogan opposed government intervention into personal liberties such as abortion, gender-affirming care, and marriage. Today, Joe Rogan pals around with people who think the government should pass laws to increase white birth rates, people who think "gender ideology" is corrupting our children, and people who want women to be submissive and for gays and trans people not to exist. 8 years ago, his guests included Bill Burr and Steve-O. Now, it's crackpots like Aaron Rodgers and xenophobes like Douglas Murray, author of "The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam" and "The War on the West" This is what happens when dark money is behind the wheel of a Gen X-er's social media diet. You turn libertarians into white nativist conservatives. You create a climate where someone with the exact same platform as Pat Buchanan's becomes electable.
  14. He used to be progressive, probably as a way to fit in with his colleagues in LA, back when it was possible to call yourself progressive while still having slurs in your standup routine and be friends with married guys who sleep with subordinates. No progressive would have endorsed Donald Trump, knowing everything we knew about him by 2024. Maybe I should have used more precise words than "seemingly progressive." When I say "seemingly progressive" I mean "doesn't talk like Pat Robertson." He's really more of a throwback to the 2000s Ron Paul libertarian guys, who were completely insufferable.
  15. He's bad/maga because: he explicitly endorsed Donald Trump he constantly platforms eugenicists he owes much of his success to MAGA loyalist Dana White He's extra dangerous because he normalizes these things as a seemingly progressive guy, with a lot of the same seemingly progressive values that his viewers used to have. It's essentially a permission structure for socially-aware progressive-leaning guys with asshole tendencies to embrace their asshole tendencies and slowly reject decency. The narrative being that if a guy like Joe Rogan made these lifestyle changes (moving from LA to Texas, going from apolitical to explicitly right wing) and can still be successful then I can also embrace a set of values that allows me to overlook my friends' problematic behaviors and disregard the hurtful consequences of voting republican.
  16. https://www.texastribune.org/2025/05/21/texas-screwworm-cattle-industry-border/
  17. He probably should not have, but this was the height of MeToo's political might.
  18. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cr4n90g6v9qo I'd be interested to see that Harris poll. I'm not super familiar with them but I seem to recall them having a right-of-center bias. Did they really ask "Do you support Hamas over Israel" because that type of framing feels a bit like editorializing. "Do you support the Taliban over the Coalition of the Willing?"
  19. FWIW, Franken recently had Peter Beinart on his podcast, who is way better than "my job is to keep the Democrats pro-Israel" Chuck Schumer. It has become crystal clear to me that the issues some of the liberals here deride as "purity tests" are more like "litmus tests" that can be used to weed out the Sinemas, Fettermans, Machins, Cuellars, and Gallegoses of the world. Nobody in this coveted "Gen Z male who spends 12 hours a day listening to podcasts" demographic supports Israel's genocide and they certainly don't want their crypto wallets being taxed to provide universal healthcare in Israel while their elected officials are poised to kick millions off Medicare. Electing a black man president was enough of a provocation that inmates took over the asylum which paved the way for the Tea Party and Birther movements, totally redefining the internal power dynamics of the GOP. You'd think that re-electing someone whose incompetence in the position led to millions of preventable deaths would have provided the same provocation among the Dems to burn down their internal power dynamics, but no. They still have the ingrained "it's her turn" seniority mechanism, and they still have the same fealty to AIPAC and other big money donors, which all but ensures that nobody who's able to meet the moment will ever have a realistic chance of getting elected. They have been outmaneuvered for our entire adult lives. Does anyone remember Lindsay Graham's flip-flop from Merrick Garland to Amy Coney Barrett? That's the kind of top-down incompetency I'm talking about. Only a fossil and a fool like Chuck Schumer wouldn't have seen such hypocrisy coming a mile away. Israel/Palestine from a domestic politics standpoint is really just a variation on the "call a spade a spade" exercise that the Iraq War was for politicians back in the George W Bush administration. You had mass media manufacturing consent based on a lie and you had 9/11 supplying an enhanced permission structure for appealing to Islamophobia, which meant only a handful of politicians, even the ones who were nominally anti-war, who felt like they could publicly oppose the invasion. And it was Obama's track record of having opposed the invasion that set him apart from the others in the 2008 primary. History was on his side. That's how the Gaza genocide will be looked at. While I'm glad to see more democrats abandoning the "unwavering support" mantra, make no mistake that the people within the party who have any kind of power are on the wrong side of this important issue. (We all remember the Georgia legislator being denied a chance to give a pre-screened speech at the DNC so that some executive from Uber could blather on about god knows what). Young voters in the 00s were overwhelmingly anti-war which is what propelled Obama to the success he saw. Young voters today are overwhelmingly pro-Palestine, and even the ones who remain neutral are still self-interested enough to say hell no to all the tax dollars being diverted toward a foreign government. Beyond being the morally righteous position, the alternative (being like John Fetterman or Chuck Schumer) requires the politician to say things that are simply untrue. They're failing the "call a spade a spade" test, so they lose credibility among voters who consider themselves to be "independent thinkers" (of which there are many in Gen Alpha and Gen Z). That's bad politics, any way you slice it.
  20. This has been true for at least 40 years now. You're right about this: Do I trust the Dems to know what the next thing will be? No, I do not. I'm firmly in the "fire them all" camp.
  21. So the Denny's thing is funny, to me. He's trying to make a point about the judicial branch not having 24 hour service, but there is such a thing as night court and cell phones. Those of us in the serf class have been forced to become familiar with the concept of being "on call." But let's assume for a moment that it's true the entire judicial branch is asleep at 12:34 am, it's also true that people show up for work at 8 am, so the idea that the court thought it would be okay to just ignore the urgent filing is really what the Supreme Court was criticizing. We're still nowhere near "42 minutes." Who does he think he's impressing with this conniption?
×
×
  • Create New...