Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 289: You Down to Invoke P? Yeah You Know Me!

(+) Yeah! (+)

MoogleKupo141 posted...

it is extremely funny to me that WWE is involved

Didn't Trump appear in some wrestling events in the 80s or 90s? It makes sense to me he'd care about them.

---

Or Schefter has Vince down for the wrong league and he's there on behalf of the XFL!

no idea what in the world he wants all (well most, don't see tennis having a rep) the commissioners for though. like if it was just the nfl and some owners i could buy he just wanted to bitch about not getting to own the bills or something but...

---

Trump called out Dems for calling him xenophobic and racist for his China Travel Ban during his conference. Lol.

---

---

republicans democrats
-----hating justin amash-----

to be fair though, as someone vaguely libertarian amash is probably perfectly fine being judged based on his individual actions and votes

edit: wow that

---

Yeah, if both the RNC and DNC are against him Amash is probably winning reelection.

---

Based on those timestamps, are Republicans just plagiarizing Democrats?

---

https://twitter.com/ne0liberal/status/1246508421911846913?s=21

lmao what a shocker

---

Why am I not surprised you people are more outraged about Joe fucking Rogan than Mike Bloomberg

---

Because when people point out that the Sanders campaign was a stupid mess each time, and you devotees screech otherwise, it's enticing to call out these sorts of i told you so 's to really hammer home the idea

---

Peace___Frog posted...

Because when people point out that the Sanders campaign was a stupid mess each time, and you devotees screech otherwise, it's enticing to call out these sorts of i told you so 's to really hammer home the idea

...You told us so about what?

You people attack Bernie for not being able to pull independents, you attack him for having supporters whod vote Trump.

Which is it?

Remind me when Joe Biden disavowed Mike fucking Bloombergs endorsement? Oh wait, he openly embraced it? Sorry, but hes a billion times more evil than Joe Rogan.


---

Why are you defending Joe Rogan right now

You realize they can both be awful people, right?

Why are you going into instant Joe Rogan Defense Force Mode of all things

---

Im defending Bernie.

The idea that he shouldnt have recognized the support of the most popular podcaster in the world coming from the same people who say he cant win moderate/independents is just sickeningly disingenuous.

These people wonder why we dont trust them.


---

Oh are people using this to attack Bernie

Sorry, didn't notice

This is just a pure "Joe Rogan sucks"

There's no reason to bring any more or less into it

---

I definitely meant it as "Joe Rogan sucks"

---

I mean there are definitely people using this to attack Bernie, though I don't think they're here.

Bloomberg is definitely a worse endorsement then Rogan, though, that's just easy facts.

Yeah my bad, I clicked through to Twitter and saw lots of dumbshit replies.

---

they're both bad endorsements

---

whynotboth.gif

---

Nobody disagreeing there.

Well, here at least.

joe rogan voting trump over biden is like the Independent version of the people who are voting biden in the primary even though they like bernie's policies

it just really is never actually about policy

---

Rogan is giving an everyday man opinion there. Rogan doesn't see Biden as strong or even competent right now, he sees the guy as someone who literally doesn't have the mental capacity to lead anymore. If you ain't going "never Trump" then that's gonna be the biggest concern ultimately as it wraps the VIP selection in there too.

---

I don't understand how anyone can be of the opinion that Donald fucking Trump is the pick if you're looking for competence

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

I don't understand how anyone can be of the opinion that Donald fucking Trump is the pick if you're looking for competence

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

it just really is never actually about policy

^

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

I don't understand how anyone can be of the opinion that Donald fucking Trump is the pick if you're looking for competence

More so than Biden. Which isn't praise for Trump, it's all about Biden's decline.

If you go down the logic, you end up with... Trump is leading, even if you don't like it. You know who it's all from and that he's in charge.
With Biden, you know he's not and it's a committee. And it's a committee you know you won't be liking either.

---

Biden is leagues ahead of Trump on competence

And I certainly would prefer Ron Klain (who successfully dealt with Ebola) to be leading this response instead of Mike Pence and Jared fucking Kushner

---

lol Trump isn't leading, it's Fox's cable lineup or Miller - whoever he heard from last.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Biden is leagues ahead of Trump on competence

And I certainly would prefer Ron Klain (who successfully dealt with Ebola) to be leading this response instead of Mike Pence and Jared fucking Kushner

Isnt Ron Klain the guy who literally said go out to dinner in Chinatown when Covid first hit here? Seems like he was all over the place.


---

Wow so it appears I have a mod stalker!

Legit question: will it be more interesting/better for you guys if people like me stopped posting in this topic? If you want a 100% left and center-left range of opinions, I suppose it's fair to have that and I will leave/make separate topics.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Biden is leagues ahead of Trump on competence

Questionable.
For a lot of people, including Rogan, they see him with significant cognitive failure. Some of you give Tony shit for saying that but he's honestly been pretty nice about it: a good chunk see him as a guy with dimentia.

And look, they may vote for him anyway because in their eyes, DNC Committee is better than Trump. But there's plenty others who'd disagree with that and figure both may be bad but committee option is worse.

---

Biden is going to get thrashed in the general and yes, there will be I told you so's

Kinglicious posted...

Questionable.

No, it's not.

---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Wow so it appears I have a mod stalker!

Legit question: will it be more interesting/better for you guys if people like me stopped posting in this topic? If you want a 100% left and center-left range of opinions, I suppose it's fair to have that and I will leave/make separate topics.

If you left this topic would be 99% Bernie people calling Biden old and Biden people calling Bernie people privileged. And would probably collapse on itself in short order as it would be mindnumbingly boring.

---

BDB is going with the Brian Kemp excuse for inaction: bizarrely claiming that we just learned in the past day or two that the coronavirus can spread asymptomatically

https://twitter.com/edkrayewski/status/1246495683525390338

---

https://twitter.com/jaredlholt/status/1246146259020324864?s=21

Excuse me while I sit here and cry

---

It doesn't show that at all because a one time 2 trillion dollar expense is a lot different than a yearly 3 trillion dollar expense

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

It doesn't show that at all because a one time 2 trillion dollar expense is a lot different than a yearly 3 trillion dollar expense

Im gonna address your argument as delivered and ignore any potential economic gains that might bring that 3 trillion down:

This one time 2 trillion dollar stimulus is literally just a band-aid, nobody can argue it permanently fixes anything, and in fact millions of people have lost their healthcare and likely wont get it back anytime soon.

So if we can afford a 2 trillion dollar band-aid, why cant we afford a 3 trillion dollar permanent fix that will give everyone healthcare?

I think thats an extremely fair discussion to have, and it makes me incredibly sad that Charlie Kirk is the one making it, while you immediately shoot it down.

---

It'll be a more interesting argument when the full numbers eventually come out.

Gonna be at least 6 trillion for small businesses and Americans.

This federal funding isn't counting the state funding costs.

It's not including the extra money thrown to Cigna, BCBS, or UHC or the money they're waiving.

The actual costs are going to matter a lot. Especially considering we're already at over 10 million unemployed, expecting more, and each of those is getting an extra $600/week from the feds. If you assume they ride that out for 13 weeks...

600 x 13 = 7800
7800 x 10,000,000 = 78,000,000,000

Already the feds are on the hook for 78b.
Unemployment may well double.
The length of time may well double.
A 1200 check ain't gonna be a thing compared to THIS well of funding. Universal coverage may be talked about later but I don't think it's gonna come out in anything like M4A, even though we're artificially doing that right now in some ways and rapidly hitting all it's ideas.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

https://twitter.com/jaredlholt/status/1246146259020324864?s=21

Excuse me while I sit here and cry

Uh, he's not actually saying "we can afford this, why don't we do this?" He's arguing from the perspective of

1) The stimulus costs $4 trillion, which is bad because deficit spending
2) The precedent is now set that Congress is okay with passing $2-4 trillion bills in a year
3) M4A costs about that much per year
4) What is stopping Congress from passing M4A and making more deficit, which he is opposed to

Kirk is actually making a similar argument as LOTM here. That's why the headline says "worries," although it isn't a good headline.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Uh, he's not actually saying "we can afford this, why don't we do this?" He's arguing from the perspective of

1) The stimulus costs $4 trillion, which is bad because deficit spending
2) The precedent is now set that Congress is okay with passing $2-4 trillion bills in a year
3) M4A costs about that much per year
4) What is stopping Congress from passing M4A and making more deficit, which he is opposed to

Kirk is actually making a similar argument as LOTM here. That's why the headline says "worries," although it isn't a good headline.

He's also coming from a position of horrifically bad faith, given his stance on things like the tax bill that was passed in 2017.

His argument is absolutely not "deficits bad" if he's in favor of creating them with tax cuts.

https://twitter.com/AlexBerenson/status/1246825831864963073?s=19

Alex Berenson has been a great follow for anyone who wants to balance the covid modeling with some optimism. His theory is essentially that the hospitalization curve is a more reliable indicator for overall deaths, and it's currently VERY out of line with the doomsday models.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Uh, he's not actually saying "we can afford this, why don't we do this?" He's arguing from the perspective of

I never said hes arguing in favor of it, its disheartening that he can recognize and acknowledge the argument, and LotM instantly is like lol nah.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

I never said hes arguing in favor of it, its disheartening that he can recognize and acknowledge the argument, and LotM instantly is like lol nah.

What argument? They both recognize and disagree with the massive M4A spending required. The only difference is that Kirk is being alarmist (from his perspective) about huge spending now leading to even more spending later, and LotM seems to think that it's not even a possibility that Congress would approve it.

I really think the headline's wording is doing a lot of heavy lifting on extending any credit to Kirk here tbqh. He's not saying it's affordable, he's saying that it could pass anyways but Kirk himself is just fearmongering. He is very much against the justification that $3 trillion/year is fine, and trying to paint that as some sort of ridiculous mainstream Congress opinion so that he looks like the reasonable one.

---

Again, this argument isn't quite worth having now because the costs have only begun. Healthcare costs specifically are gonna be found in what's been subsidized, paid for, government money, etc and it's going to be fucking huge. Way bigger than right now.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

What argument? They both recognize and disagree with the massive M4A spending required. The only difference is that Kirk is being alarmist (from his perspective) about huge spending now leading to even more spending later, and LotM seems to think that it's not even a possibility that Congress would approve it.

I really think the headline's wording is doing a lot of heavy lifting on extending any credit to Kirk here tbqh. He's not saying it's affordable, he's saying that it could pass anyways but Kirk himself is just fearmongering. He is very much against the justification that $3 trillion/year is fine, and trying to paint that as some sort of ridiculous mainstream Congress opinion so that he looks like the reasonable one.

My guy I read past the headline to what he said.

The fact that hes scaremongering or bad faith arguing isnt whats important imo. Its that hes willing to recognize the argument and Democrats arent.

Hell, Trump is practically a coin flip from deciding to support Medicare for All at this point, we all know he has no Conservative ideological consistency and accidentally mentioned it before.

If he does, the fact people like Charlie Kirk recognize the argument is gonna be pretty dangerous.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

The fact that hes scaremongering or bad faith arguing isnt whats important imo

Oh okay, I disagree strongly with this premise and that's where the issue is. I have far less patience for Kirk when I'm not even sure he believes what he's saying, than someone like LotM.

And I don't think we have to worry about Trump changing his support to M4A either! He and other Rs might eventually come up with better messaging than the Dems, it wouldn't be hard, but we are never getting that actual policy out of them.

But as a pure messaging concern, yeah. I don't think this is good messaging that meshes with that because it's essentially trying to scare people into voting conservative to avoid M4A, but it could be an issue in the future.

---

red sox 777 posted...

If you left this topic would be 99% Bernie people calling Biden old and Biden people calling Bernie people privileged. And would probably collapse on itself in short order as it would be mindnumbingly boring.

Yeah but clearly I am being targeted and modded for posting anything even moderately contrarian. If the majority of the topic doesn't want to hear anything right-of-center, who am I to conflict with democratic consensus?

---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Yeah but clearly I am being targeted and modded for posting anything even moderately contrarian. If the majority of the topic doesn't want to hear anything right-of-center, who am I to conflict with democratic consensus?

I've been modded like 3 times in 17 years on this site. So I dunno that posting right of center stuff by itself will get one moderated.

---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Legit question: will it be more interesting/better for you guys if people like me stopped posting in this topic?

absolutely

---

red sox 777 posted...

I've been modded like 3 times in 17 years on this site. So I dunno that posting right of center stuff by itself will get one moderated.

They are out for you though because A. You have a lot of people in topics like these marking all your posts. And B. Because the moderators themselves are politically charged.

---