jumperalex @ jumperalex @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

160

Joined

2 yr. ago

not all heroes wear capes!!!

How would one implement these filters but EXCLUDE certain things ... like say ... filter anything with "MAGA" but allow it if there's also mention of "Leopards" is still allowed? :)

Yeah I know and I agree with that you say. My conflict is with the FAFO part of my brain. I'm not proud of it. Knowing and admitting is half the battle.

But come one, you have to taste at least a little bit of the irony; no? ;-)

I hear ya. But Vance is ineffective with no real charm. He won't be able to rally the rubes like Trump does. I also don't think Vance is nearly as slimy as Trump. But that isn't credit to Vance, it's an indictment of Trump. HE is still worse than we can possibly imagine. Vance really did at least grow up poor and then serve in the military and THEN shit all over them; but he knows. Trump has no idea and more ego and delusions of superiority than imaginable.

I could be wrong, reasonable people can disagree. Love and respect!

One can't find the button to push. The other pushes every single fucking button they can find.

Yeah my atheist brain is about to explode here with so many competing thoughts.

Or less if nature takes her course.

Exactly. His crowds weren't small, they just couldn't see him.

You must not be paying attention to the reports out of Ukraine and how both sides are resorting to fiber feeds to avoid all the jamming. It isn't really even a new concept as it existed way back in the Vietnam War days on the TOW missile; albeit it using wire not fiber optics. Oh yeah and the TOW is currently in use in the Ukraine war right now apparently if you believe wikipedia; but I can't back that one up myself.

ETA: actually there's this https://web.archive.org/web/20230331103558/https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1637833178579607552 but seems to be the non-wire guided model. Go figure ;-)

Allow me to make a modest proposal...

It is a non-zero number, you can be sure of that.

No, we made the mistake of doing everything thing we could to make them get vaccinated.

Next time we know better.

A modest proposal, let's eat judges ...

don't forget to skip the avocado toast

Hmmm perhaps I wasn't totally clear. I have never claimed Kamala ran a great campaign. Or that her and the Dems did a great job engaging a very vocal part of the party concerned with what's happening in Gaza or the US's policy in Gaza.

I have however been attempting to consistently argue that 1) they had a LOT of other constituencies to court so it was never as simple as "Gaza policy bad = lost election; Gaza policy good = win election", 2) the general election protest vote (or abstention) is going to find out here fairly soon if their protest was worth it once Trump takes office and 3) That so far, Trumps rhetoric SINCE THE ELECTION, and his appointment choices are not giving great indications that he intends to do anything to stop the dying of innocents.

But we might just find out that the most recent developments concerning a cease fire agreement preempts us all Finding Out just what Trump might do in Gaza.

Not an apples to apples comparison of primary elections and general election. Regardless that isn't an argument against my point that an 11% undecided vote is hardly a "fairly significant public statement". The point you're addressing is if I said 11% hardly made a difference. Which I didn't.

Sure I wish we had those votes, though I don't think "the gaza protest vote" would have won the election for Kamala if it went the other way. Way too many other reasons she lost.

I also hope you don't find yourself wishing you had those votes go to Kamala as well. Which is to say, I hope you don't realize the leopard has eaten your face, because that would mean the incoming administration actually enacting policy that moves the needle in the direction of less violence in Gaza.

We'll both find out the answer in the coming months if it was really worth it or not.

I don't agree that 11% undecided in the primary is a "fairly significant public statement", I mean, literally 11% is like, you know, small. Nor does a lack of policy change during the election cycle (which has a lot more factors than just Gaza to consider) immediately mean Kamala wouldn't be open to changing tactics post election. But we'll never know because, like I said, Trump won and now we get to find out if voting for him was net good or net bad for the Gaza cause.

But I can appreciate the emotional investment you have in "both sides-ing" this and ignoring the material differences between a narcissist that is already talking about lifting arms restrictions to Israel and Kamala.

Weather you agree with me or not is immaterial. On the issue of both parties being the same, you're wrong. See how easy that is to say and it means nothing to an actual debate?

-Cheers

I didn't ask which has the different policy now (ignoring my opinion about the truth of your assertion) but which is most likely to be responsive to public opinion; and I'd add, which one actually cares about the plight of others and which is an unofficially diagnosed narcissist.

But I'm fairly certain we won't agree and sadly we'll never know what Kamala coulda/woulda done. But with trump we're about to Find Out. I hope we're both wrong about him.

Exactly.

And the real irony is that of the two candidates, which one is most likely to respond to post-election pressure to adjust the policies?

Sure sure sure, Trump can be influenced by money and flattery, but the people that are going to pay and flatter him are not exactly the ones arguing to save the lives of innocent civilians.

So the irony remains, of the two candidates to choose from, the people complaining about what is happening in Gaza picked the one least likely to do anything helpful once elected ("do" as opposed to what they said to get elected).