posted by Spock
It's ironic that all the people crying about Trump being a fascist and a threat to our Democracy......are themselves a fascist threat to democracy. The amazing ignorance of something like this is you'd give Trump an actual basis to invalidate/challenge the 2020 election results.
His supporters clearly don't care about any of this. So why don't you try actually doing your job, and beat him on policy.
posted by gutIt's ironic that all the people crying about Trump being a fascist and a threat to our Democracy......are themselves a fascist threat to democracy. The amazing ignorance of something like this is you'd give Trump an actual basis to invalidate/challenge the 2020 election results.
His supporters clearly don't care about any of this. So why don't you try actually doing your job, and beat him on policy.
It's funny that they write articles about what would happen if Trump didn't accept an election result, while they have Abrams and Gillum who never conceded and contend their elections were "stolen" from them. It's weird these firefighters never ask Abrams about this.
And Kamala Harris goes along with the charade.
https://www.newsweek.com/kamala-harris-voter-suppression-abrams-gillum-1415903
posted by gutSo why don't you try actually doing your job, and beat him on policy.
I feel like it's been awhile since actual policy was how anybody won the election. ;)
Still, I get the point you're trying to make. The people trying this nonsense are going to only cause problems for their own party.
posted by O-TrapI feel like it's been awhile since actual policy was how anybody won the election. ;)
True. I think one thing Trump is very good at is trolling the Dems into ridiculous statements and positions - they're self inflicting all kinds of damage.
I mean, Trump's name-calling is usually weak sauce, except for some reason it's REALLY effective at triggering liberals (who then scare people away with their crazy over-reaction).
posted by gutTrue. I think one thing Trump is very good at is trolling the Dems into ridiculous statements and positions - they're self inflicting all kinds of damage.
I mean, Trump's name-calling is usually weak sauce, except for some reason it's REALLY effective at triggering liberals (who then scare people away with their crazy over-reaction).
That part blows my mind. Trump actually sucks at trying to be witty. And yet, none of the ever-so-bright Democrats ever take him to task using that weakness. It's always an overreaction instead, which, as you said, is ineffective to the degree that it can actually hurt their own cause.
We're talking about a guy who has said, at least monthly, things that would have torpedoed anyone else's career. How he won an election ... Clinton's campaign really dropped the ball.
posted by gutSo the Ukraine/China stuff with Biden and his son is pretty interesting.
Very interesting. And with Biden's current campaign rhetoric concerning China one of those calls from world leaders Biden boasted about "begging" him to run to "save the world" from Trump", came from China.
Well, gee, this really isn't that surprising:
Apparently, IL is considering raising the registration fee on an electric vehicle from $18 to $1000....and raising the gas tax to 44 cents per gallon from 19. So if you do some rough math, the average "gas guzzler" would be paying something like $400 in gas tax.
I'd guess the main motivation is that EV owners are generally assumed to be wealthier - we need more money so let's go gouge the rich! There might be a lot of smug pricks driving EV's patting themselves on the back for saving the environment, but I'm guessing this is still going to piss them off.
It would basically act as a reverse-subsidy....most likely killing the EV market in IL.
posted by QuakerOats
41% of college students believe hate speech not protected under First Amendment...
I'm honestly not sure if I believe that metric.
Not that there might not have been some study, but I'm betting clear definitions of the term "hate speech" were not outlined.
My guess is that someone might think protecting hate speech under A1 would give rise to the legality of Person A ordering Person B to kill someone.
Of course, that could be shored up with a discussion on the differences between declarative and imperative statements, but I'm betting that's an elementary school lesson most of these kids only remembered long enough to take the test.
So to sum up,.....
1. Cauliflower is racist
2. Environmentalism is racist
3. She like to "walk around the district"......(as she looks around scared to death since she really isnt from there)
I'm out-of-pocket for 2 days and this entire forum goes to shit?!?
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ocasio-cortez-price-is-right/
Snopes is fact checking the Babylon Bee.
posted by supermanhttps://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ocasio-cortez-price-is-right/
Snopes is fact checking the Babylon Bee.
Well, they're referring to the Babylon Bee as the source, noting exhaustively that it's a satire site.
That's not really "fact checking the Babylon Bee."
posted by O-TrapWell, they're referring to the Babylon Bee as the source, noting exhaustively that it's a satire site.
That's not really "fact checking the Babylon Bee."
This is quite the spin zone. They definitely are fact checking the claim, that was "created" by Babylon Bee. Babylon Bee is obviously not the most prevalent satire site, but this would be akin to snopes fact checking a claim made by the Onion.
posted by like_thatThis is quite the spin zone. They definitely are fact checking the claim, that was "created" by Babylon Bee. Babylon Bee is obviously not the most prevalent satire site, but this would be akin to snopes fact checking a claim made by the Onion.
They're not fact-checking the source as though the source is trying to offer it up as legitimate. They rightly affirm the Babylon Bee as a satire site, so the only person they're actually fact-checking would be a person offering this story up as actual fact, which the source doesn't do, because it's a satire site.
And sure, that would apply to the Onion as well.
posted by O-TrapThey're not fact-checking the source as though the source is trying to offer it up as legitimate. They rightly affirm the Babylon Bee as a satire site, so the only person they're actually fact-checking would be a person offering this story up as actual fact, which the source doesn't do, because it's a satire site.
And sure, that would apply to the Onion as well.
The are still fact checking Babylon Bee's claim, which I think it would be fair to say they are fact checking Babylon. It's semantics, but your "correction" applied to superman's post comes off as way too picky imo.
With that being said, It says more about the people who asked snopes to verify the validity of this "claim," than it says about snopes itself. It would take an additional 5 seconds to see that Babylon Bee is satire website. Instead, I am sure snopes received numerous requests to verify the claim.
posted by like_thatThe are still fact checking Babylon Bee's claim, which I think it would be fair to say they are fact checking Babylon. It's semantics, but your "correction" applied to superman's post comes off as way too picky imo.
With that being said, It says more about the people who asked snopes to verify the validity of this "claim," than it says about snopes itself. It would take an additional 5 seconds to see that Babylon Bee is satire website. Instead, I am sure snopes received numerous requests to verify the claim.
Perhaps I misunderstood what superman was implying.
It appears obvious that Snopes knows that BB doesn't pass itself off as a credible source, so they're obviously not being critical of BB.
posted by O-TrapPerhaps I misunderstood what superman was implying.
It appears obvious that Snopes knows that BB doesn't pass itself off as a credible source, so they're obviously not being critical of BB.
People were sharing the picture from BB all over social media. I probably saw it 100 times. Everytime I saw it, it was "Haha, this is funny."
Snopes was fact checking it like they thought those people were serious. It's part of that whole idea where liberals try to paint conservatives as dumb hillbillies.
2.5 years in, liberals still do not know why Trump won.
But they are smart, ya know.
