Have you got any evidence for this or are you just following Jim Banks lines?
A few thoughts about January 6, 2021
- Thread starter ObsidianJones
- Start date
Nah, screw Jim Banks. I lived through Levine's crap, see post 1454.
I don't know what you're trying so hard to not understand people.
Officials describe threats following 2020 election
State election officials told a congressional committee they’ve received graphic threats to their safety since the 2020 election and warned that pressure on election workers is a threat to democracy.
apnews.com
Oh no, I *understand* the argument you are making quite well, I just think it's bullshit that you are projecting onto your political opponents because you can't fathom why people are saying that the lifetime politico with decades of both good and bad politics might be voted for for different reasons than a businessman turned game show host with zero political experience outside of lobbying for kickbacks and stiffing workers.
Prior to 2008, Clinton wasn't the great satan that the GOP considers her now. I don't like John McCain or Mitt Romney. Thier politicians are controversial. But I fully acknowledge that people who voted for them probably liked their politics more than the other side and weren't just voting for them to "own the libs", however mad they made me. But "owning the libs" was a self-described reason for voting for Trump
Last edited:
And Clinton was mostly controversial because Republicans decided she was controversial. It was always an artificial demonization. It certainly worked to ruin Clinton's reputation but the starting point was that they already didn't like her and increasingly convoluted reasons as to why then got introduced to justify this dislike.
Because for a policy perspective Clinton really shouldn't be remotely controversial for any Republican. She's neither particularly woke nor all that supportive to the working class. She's a Neoliberal who in no way rejected the ''Reagan revolution''.
Its true that Clinton was a career politician and not all that likable, but that was never the reasons Republicans had it out for her. Those things explain more why many Democrat voters were lukewarm towards her.
Yes, she wasn't really controversial at all in terms of political career - very much mainstream, pragmatic Democratic centre.
Republicans hated her as the wife of a successful and popular president who blew apart their expectations of a generation-long political dominance, and secondly in the lead-up to 2016 where they knew full well she was an extremely credible presidential candidate who needed to be maximally damaged. Although of course she was also a woman and a feminist, which shouldn't be enough to rouse Republicans to rage but maybe is if they're fragile enough.
She was the Great Satan that the left considers her now, though.
You see, it's posts like this that make horseshoe theory believers' days. Sounding as crazy as Qanon because you're used to using hyperbole to try and out-left other members of the left doesn't help your case...
And despite all their efforts (and his own misdeeds), Republicans couldn't put a dent in Bill Clinton's popularity- but Hillary Clinton didn't have the same affable approachability, plus as a non-submissive woman in power she naturally rankled conservative sensibilities.
Also, she didn't have the litany of sex crimes that seems to be required to become president
If it's one thing I've learned over the last decade, the conservatives are right about their opponents being bad but not for their reasons.
No, Obama wasn't a Muslim plant from whereever in Africa. He did start drone strikes and killed thousands, many innocent. But a conservative would see that as a positive, not a negative, so they have to make up a birther story that could be fact checked in seconds
Serious question, why does the position exist in that capacity at all? Like you already have the Secretary of Health and Human Services - which my limited reading indicates the Surgeon General reports to anyway - so what purpose does the position serve that cannot be taken on by an existing official within the department?
This question obviously does not include the separate Surgeon-General's of the actual branches of the armed forces.
It's effectively a deployable military branch that does healthcare instead of blowing shit up. Other than that, well, why have a Coast Guard when you have a Navy? Why have Marines when you have an Army? Why does the Navy have pilots when we have an Air Force?
United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Just because you either don't care about other people or have the memory of a goldfish doesn't make it 'hyperbole'.
Marines are - as the name implies - a naval infantry force, deployed from ships as a fast reaction force to take a position so that army infantry can then hold it. The US Marine Corps is just large enough to have many of its own ships and aircraft but it still reports to the Secretary of the Navy. Indeed there is a growing feeling that the Marines are horning in on the Army's role and renown.It's effectively a deployable military branch that does healthcare instead of blowing shit up. Other than that, well, why have a Coast Guard when you have a Navy? Why have Marines when you have an Army? Why does the Navy have pilots when we have an Air Force?
United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps - Wikipedia
The navy has its own aviators - not pilots - because they use different aircraft in different situations. A naval aviator can land their aircraft on a runway but an air force pilot cannot perform carrier landings because that is a highly specialised skill unique to the navy.
As for the Coast Guard, honestly, after reading about them I find myself a little unclear as to why they exist since their duties have feet in both military and law enforcement and I'm of the opinion that the two service styles should be separate.
This is nothing short of a conscious, strategised escalation
- May 6, 2020
- 1,133
- 1,213
- 118
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- White Male
How hard is it to accept that sometimes, people you might agree with on other issues do abhorrent things?
Acceptance is for the weak.
So is paid paternity leave apparently.
Anyway, Tucker Carlson is a fucking cuntbag. Say this at least once a day, doctor's orders.
Without a doubt, the baggiest of cunts.
Still, I don't think it's about acceptance so much as maintaining a lie for the sake of personal gain.