Honestly, Joe Rogan can get people to believe some pretty weird stuff. For example, I believe the inside of his skull may just be packed with meat. Like, an actual pulsing node of meat. I know it sounds crazy, but if it were to be true for anyone it'd be him.
On fries I really only do ketchup. I use Sriracha on almost everything else that's primarily potato, but not fries. I used to use A1 steak sauce every so often a while back. I hadn't thought of that in years; might need to go pick up a bottle.
I'm not condoning this approach, but it may be possible to trick them if, say, the White Earth Nation were framed as some sort of militia group instead of a tribe. It's not like they're going to be looking it up to verify or anything.
Apparently I'm not as hip to the lingo as I could be. I had to look up everything besides LFG. Well, I knew what "big dick" meant, but I searched that anyway just for fun.
Hey, y'all remember how you were feeling about 4 weeks ago as the news media was eviscerating Biden over his debate performance? What a difference a month can make. I'm pretty jubilant this morning. As the kids say, LFG!!!
My guess is that the vaginal juice recipes are already there, they're just suffering a lack of the personnel with the SEO skills to get them to the first few pages.
I largely agree with this. That's different than saying that the two parties as they currently exist are mirror images of one another though.
As far as the content of your post, that's where the need for extended strategy comes in. Until enough progressives/leftists work their way into the structure of the Democratic party on a state and federal level what you're describing is unlikely to change. Bemoan the two party duopoly as much as you like, but it's a reality. The way to change it is to infiltrate it and fundamentally alter the mechanisms that perpetuate it. It's not going to work to just hope for one progressive/leftist at the top of the ticket, and complaining that the person at the top isn't progressive/leftist enough can frankly be met with, "well, yeah, not much of a surprise there." The Tea Party is the template. They completely turned their party to shit (well, more so anyway), but successfully infiltrated the party apparatus to reflect their political preferences. If the left does something similar we can actually make 3rd parties viable and no longer be beholden to the Democratic party, but that's most probably a decade+ long project if we're being honest about it. It's unfortunate that the left is as fractious as it is; it only makes something like this more difficult.
The phrase "hold your nose and vote for _______________" exists entirely because voters turn out for candidates who they aren't 100% with.
You'd agree that the 2020 primary is quite a bit different from the current scenario we're looking at, yeah? As the Brits say, chalk and cheese.
As far as prescriptive policy, yeah, I'd love to see more, and wish it were more politically viable. That's the point where we need to start talking about extended strategy, which the US citizenry needs to get a better grasp on if we're going to claw our way forward. In the mean time harm reduction is a valid mindset.
Neolibs have no policy objectives that differ from the republicans on non-social issues
That's just blatantly untrue. I don't see any Dem calling for disbanding the Department of Education. Stances on environmental protection are also starkly different between the two parties. Voting rights protections, abortion rights, access to medical treatment for transgendered people, funding of and access to Medicaid and food programs... how many more do you want?
I get the point of it is to be absurdly reductive, and to insinuate a reflexive, unthinking mindset where it doesn't matter what Trump does; the response will always be, "Orange Man Bad". Use of the "orange man bad" criticism ends up being more of an indictment of those who wield it though than it is of his critics. It's not like there's a failure to elaborate the specifics of each of his misdeeds. The information is out there and widely available to anyone who cares to take a look. That being the case, when specifics are given and Trump supporters or other malcontents dismiss it as "orange man bad" they are really displaying that they don't care to see why the complaint exists. It's a tactic of ignoring a legitimate problem, and hand waving it away under the pretense that there's nothing behind it. It's lazy and/or willful ignorance.
Beyond that, I don't think I've ever seen a Trump critic unironically use that phrase. If you'd like to see it though, here you go. Ultimately, this "criticism" fails to take into account that yeah, actually "orange man bad". Like, that's the legitimate reality of the situation. Trump is awful and he provides near endless examples of that. The guy is genuinely, unambiguously bad.
That lines up pretty well with my experience. I lived in Wisconsin for about 2-1/2 years. It's not a state that has nothing going for it. The structure is absolutely there for it to be a successful and enjoyable place that residents could have right to be proud of. With what I encountered though the phrase Wississippi was very apt. And yeah, it's because too many people there choose for it to be that way.
l'œuf dans le loaf
I've never actually called it that, but Imma roll with it.