Calling him a comedian is being overly generous.

Are you unfamiliar with the concept of humor?

I don’t even understand what you are trying to say

This really doesn’t surprise me at all. Being confused about things seems like a default for you.

Right, which is the second of the two options. I’m assuming this is also accompanied by you occasionally standing in front of a mirror saying: “I am not stupid. I am not a traitor. People like me.” Delusion’s a powerful thing.

the hate and rudeness I have received here guaranteed that I won’t vote Democrat. No way.

Which, in the eyes of rational people, makes you an idiot and a traitor. An idiot, because you’re letting your bruised ego get in the way of making the only rational choice in the upcoming election, potentially causing a much greater amount of harm in the future. And a traitor, because the person you’re most benefitting by your aforementioned idiocy is someone who has already committed treason against his country, and has stated on several occasions that he would like to do away with basic tenets of democracy if he gets elected.

So, you might balk at both labels, but both are accurate. If you don’t like it, you have two options: either change your behavior, or pretend that self-affirmations will actually alter reality.

Bro, a worm ate part of his brain, and then died because of mercury poisoning. Doing something blatantly obvious and stupid is par for the course for him now. Like, this is the same guy who chainsawed off the head of a beached whale and strapped it to his car’s roof.

Well that’s not true. You’re very pro-genocide, as long as it’s against Palestinians. That’s pretty political.

Man, I’m going to feel like a real dick if English isn’t your first language, but “not condoning” is very much not the same thing as “condemning”. For example, I would not condone anybody hurling insults at you, especially if I think they’re over the top. That being said, I wouldn’t condemn it either. Do you see the difference?

I’m not obligated to explain myself to you. :)

True - your obligation is merely to your own conscience. If you ever get tired of being a garbage human being, you’re going to have some serious soul searching to do.

I don’t have to explain anything to you or do anything of the sort.

Yup. Called it. No wonder you are acting like such a weasel. You are at the very least ok with it, and at most support it. But you don’t want anybody else to know that about you, so you’re trying to pretend you’re taking some kind of moral high ground.

You know what the moral high ground actually is? Condemning genocide. It’s possibly the most basic moral test that exists, and you failed it spectacularly. I stand by every negative thing I’ve said about you.

It’s not my job to condemn, support, or even comment on every article someone else posts

No, it certainly isn’t. But the fact that you declined to respond to OP, and chose to respond to someone criticising OP instead is very telling about your priorities.

Also, just to be clear, I do like Israel. My girlfriend is Jewish, and I’ve been there—it’s a beautiful place. That doesn’t mean I have to agree with their leaders or condone genocide.

Ok, crazy hypothetical time here… let’s say that we were discussing some other famous genocide. You can pick any one you’d like. And let’s say that some piece of shit posted an article on the channel you moderate saying that “hey - actually it’s not a genocide, it’s just, like, pre-emptive self defence, guys”, and someone calls that person out. If someone responds to that by saying: “Hey, I like <name_of_country>”, would you take that to mean “I really like the rivers and hills, and I have a passing familiarity with the place”, or would you not take the dumbest possible interpretation, and instead treat it as if instead of being a complete nonsequitor, it was in the context of the conversation to date? When you said: “I like Israel”, it was in the context of Israel committing a genocide. Who gives a shit if the place is pretty? The conversation had nothing to do with how scenic the country is, but rather how terrible their government is.

By implying–actually saying–that I support genocide is a gross distortion of the facts and you should feel icky about yourself.

You want me to feel icky about interpreting the things you said in the way that makes the most sense? Maybe in the future, if you don’t want to be misunderstood, be clear about what you’re talking about, and don’t try to weasel out of responsibility. Your entire whining response to me between that post and this boils down to you not taking responsibility for being obtuse.

I believe in diversity of opinion in that community.

Ah yes - classic liberal thinking: “People who deplore genocide and people who cheer it on should be equally heard!” Fuck you.

But don’t lie and say I support genocide.

Ok - condemn Israel, and condemn the poster who posted an apologetics piece about Israel’s genocide. I don’t give a shit how pretty you think the countryside of Israel is.

The article posted by the OP in that instance was a bullshit apologetic thinkpiece about how the people opposed to Israel’s genocide of Palestinians are just ignorant, which includes the re-framing of genocide into “self-defense”. You not only didn’t have a problem with that, but you essentially defended OP against someone who did - me. At no point did you condemn any of the morally bankrupt positions the article OP posted took, and then you went and said that you like Israel. Could just be that you said that just to antagonize me, and you don’t actually mean it. If that’s the case, then at the very best, you’re a disingenuous jackass who doesn’t take the genocide seriously. At worst, you’re a supporter of it.

Which is it?

It’s actually pretty funny that you and OP are seeing eye to eye on this, considering you want the US to stop funding Israel’s genocide, and OP is 100% cool with Israel’s genocide. Politics makes for some strange bedfellows, indeed.

This really is quite pathetic when you think about it. The primary duty of a political party is to get their candidate on the ballot in all 50 states. Fuckery in Nevada aside, the Green Party has only managed to get Stein on the ballot in 38 states. Like, it’d be one thing if they managed to get her on the ballot in all 49 other states and just got screwed in NV, but they completely failed to do their job in 11 other states besides Nevada. And when it comes down to it, the problem in NV is that they filed incorrect paperwork. Any organization that was on the ball would be triple checking everything to make sure that their primary job (get the candidate on the ballot) was done right.

Shit like this is why I can never take the Green party seriously. How do you expect to win the presidency if the residents from a quarter of the states in the Union don’t even have an option to vote for you? And if the party can’t even get their primary job done correctly, how can they even expect to attract good candidates?

It’s really not about him losing votes, though. Despite the fact that there are a truly mind-boggling number of idiot cultists out there who are for some reason devoted to this moron, there are not enough of them to win an election. Both candidates need to appeal to the vast pool of undecided or apathetic voters in order to win. In 2020, the Democrats won because that pool of people were highly motivated to oust Trump after living through 4 years of his presidency, but people have very short memories and even shorter attention spans, and so the Dems can’t really count on the same thing happening again in 2024.

When Trump was running against Biden at the beginning of this race, things were looking grim for the Democrats, because that group of morons who can’t be bothered to pay the slightest bit of attention to what’s happening in their government (apathetic & undecided voters) decided that they couldn’t really tell the difference between two senile, doddering old men, so Trump’s rambling incoherence wasn’t that big of a problem. Now that he’s facing someone more than 2 decades younger than him who still has the complete use of her mental faculties, it’s imperative for him to do SOMETHING to make himself not look like a shoeless old man in a hospital gown wandering between lanes of traffic after escaping from his rest home. This debate didn’t do that.

It’s amazing to me that anybody on his team was shocked he did so poorly. It just indicates to me that they’re absolutely shit at their jobs. Being a good advisor requires you to be able to recognize the difference between reality and fantasy, and anybody who thought Trump would do well in this debate after spending any amount of time actually listening to him has failed this most basic of tests.

I’m surprised that he did so well in the debate, actually. I mean, he still got absolutely bodied, but no microphones picked up the sound of him shitting himself this time, so he’s already showing an improvement over his debate performance with Biden.

Edit: it just occurred to me that Trump randomly shitting himself could be the reason his team were so gung ho for muted mics: it means that there’s 50% less chance he’ll drop a deuce while near a hot mic. If so, that’s a great strategy on their part.

I suppose the title isn’t exactly misleading, but it certainly left me with the impression that he had another sundowning moment where he gets off on a tangent and then a tangent to that tangent, and never gets back to the original point.

This wasn’t that. He was talking shit, obviously, but his drivel contained cogent points. It’s probably the most coherent I’ve seen him be in the last year or two. While he was speaking (and making one coherent point), he was interrupted by a mosquito, and then took a moment to mention how much he hates mosquitoes. Then, and this is the important bit, he went back to his original point. Everybody does this. Usually, it’s nothing more than just waving your hand around in front of your face and saying: “fucking mosquitoes!”, but it’s the same general principle nonetheless.

Contrast this with his whole shark / boat / battery scenario. Or his long, rambling diatribe about how powerful “nuclear” is. This is nothing.

50 bucks says that the instant that Arlington staffer’s info gets made public, s/he’ll be inundated with death threats from Cult 45ers.

By the way, on packing the Supreme Court … you may know this already. It’s unconstitutional.

The only things the constitution has to say on the matter of the supreme court are: there has to be one, the supreme court judges should be paid, and the president can appoint supreme court justices with the advice and consent of the senate. It is completely silent on matters of how many supreme court justices there should be, or how long their terms should be.

For all his many, many faults, Mitch McConnell is not a profoundly stupid man, so I’m sure he knows this. Since he very likely knows this already, he probably has a reason for lying to the public on the matter. If the president does appoint several more justices, it’s not like the Republicans can sue: no lower court would take the case, and the supreme court would already be packed with people who will actually be faithful to the constitution. So legal threats are a complete non-starter. That just leaves non-legal threats, which is what I think this is. I think Glitch is previewing the Republican strategy in the case of Harris getting more justices hired, which is they’ll stoke up the fear and hatred of their idiotic, mouth breathing supporters. It’s a thinly-veiled threat of treason.

“Average American president attempts 0.004 coups per year” factoid actually just a statistical error. Average American president attempts 0 coups per year. Traitors Donal, who dyes face orange & attempts over 0.25 coups each year, is an outlier adn should not have been counted.

Shit like this is why red flag laws were invented.