Brian Fantana

Holy fuck how are you so consistently this dumb?

Yeah I am sure it's next to impossible to do accurately before the season starts, but his algorithm always seems to work out in the end.

You know, I'm actually genuinely curious why you are the way you are. You consistently and very weirdly act like you have some sort of leverage or influence over how I post, despite that fact that the same exact interaction happens every time: I'm going to post exactly how I always have, and you're inevitably going to act like a toddler about it, which will cause me to simply laugh at/mock you and continue posting. You'd think you would have learned by now, but I guess that's hoping for too much. I understand that your brain only has one speed and it forces you to be an ultra aggro meathead about everything, but man I really hope things get better for you soon.

e: I mean, who let this SMoodle post here?

Mostly using the results of the last 5 years. Even by his own admission it doesn't mean much until conference play starts.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/10/16/kamala-harris-israel-gaza-lebanon/ Israel complicates election’s final stretch, an issue Democrats hoped would fade Benjamin Netanyahu’s escalating assaults in Gaza and Lebanon have become a growing vulnerability for Kamala Harris amid her bid for the presidency. Spoilering this because it's long and paywalled:

@statsman with regard to right of return, I think that most people support a two-state solution. Your assertion that Jews would become a minority in Israel only really applies if a single state is the solution. I generally consider any discussion with regard to a one-state solution as fundamentally unserious. The bolded illustrates the issue I often have with your posting on the topic, because you are completely blind to the fact that this absolutely applies to Israel as well. You simply don't apply the same standard of behavior to them because they're not Arabs.

Days since Helobious was a weird incel: 0

The flip side of this is his interview with Dr. Sanjay Gupta, where he got pretty debate-lordy and somewhat combative. The conversation centered mostly around the COVID vaccines. He can get this way if the topic at hand is one of his few true hot buttons, but I don't think there's much risk of that with anything he and Harris would talk about.

No, that isn't what I'm saying. Within the spaces he exists, aka the right/right leaning influencer space, the MMA space, the broad podcasting space which leans heavily right wing overall, the anti-vaxxer/conspiracy theory kook space, etc etc Kamala Harris is not a well known figure (beyond clips/sound bites from their favorite content creator). She's more well known now, because she's the candidate, but before that I guarantee you at least 60% of those people couldn't name Biden's VP off the top of their head. Don't take my word for it, you can just go look at worldwide Google trends over the past 5 years or whatever the fuck. Regardless, it's not really worth arguing about. The overall point is it's beneficial for her to get her face and voice in front of Joe's very large [and very ignorant about her and her politics] audience, and not in the form of clips or sound bites broken down by their favorite talking heads. Her going on the show doesn't lend Rogan any clout, he's already got that locked down. The point is to generate clout for her in the minds of his audience. Yeah, you're not wrong, that's the reason I believe it's a slam dunk for her to go on Rogan. Those bros you speak of, there are a lot of them. And there are also a lot of people that watch both of those podcasts that aren't meatheads, but people who aren't necessarily as online and/or plugged into the political sphere as most of us are, and only base their opinions on what they see in mainstream American media. Like you said, most of those people are voting Trump, or at least leaning Trump. That whole sphere Rogan and Schulz inhabit contains millions of Americans, and you're not trying to reach the willfully ignorant bros that wanna turn themselves into a ninja turtle like Rogan has, you're trying to reach the politically ignorant [but not complete asshole] "normie" that has a Trump sign in his yard because most of his friends/family do, and might tune into Rogan because he has a UFC fighter on that they like or whatever the fuck, and might just tune in and watch Kamala Harris have a conversation with a person they [think they] relate to before their eyes and consider voting for her.

You liked the first post and yet decided to argue with me even though I'm essentially saying the exact same thing @Chuckie Finster is with slightly different wording, so I'm a little confused. He is absolutely more well known/famous in the space he inhabits than Kamala Harris is.

Sure, but the average "centrist" normie/bro would have barely been aware of her existence prior to Joe stepping down. Also, you're giving the average American way too much credit. Either way, this is an irrelevant point to argue because it's still a great idea for her to get in front of Joe's very large normie audience, especially since Trump has been trying to hit the normie/lean conservative podcast circuit (Theo Von, Andrew Schulz, etc) in desperation. One upping him this way would be devastating to him.

In normie circles? Absolutely.

Normie/lean conservative podcaster comedian with a podcast with a large audience.

I agree with you in principle, but she can't possibly offer Joe Rogan any more validation than he already has. He is way more famous than she is. If she was going on Fresh & Fit, or going to sit down with Andrew Tate or some shit, sure, but this is a good idea. Trump's idea to go sit down with Andrew Schulz was good as well, but this would one up him in a pretty significant way that I don't know if his ego could handle.

I honestly think this is a slam dunk for her if they actually decide to do it.

Some related reporting https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/14/attacks-by-hezbollah-and-iran-showed-a-degree-of-israeli-vulnerability-what-now

Yeah this is literally what I thought it was. That's what I get for staying up too late. I'll take the L on that one, totally my bad.

I thought it was an editorial. I can see that I was mistaken now, my fault, I take it back!

Dude, literally everyone here that pays attention, no matter their perspective on all this, has repeatedly told you to stop using WSJ as a source. Seriously, be better. This is a shitpost.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/netanyahu-israel-un-peacekeepers-lebanon-hezbollah/ Stuff going on today. Luckily it doesn't seem anyone was killed, so that's a plus. This is a classic, straight out of the IDF greatest hits playbook. Claim that whatever humanitarian group you're shooting at is sheltering the enemy so you can have an excuse to keep shooting at them. Provide no evidence whatsoever, knowing that most Western media will simply parrot your claim without any pushback.

He's getting hate for not bothering to spend the barest minimum effort to understand the various actors involved and implying it's ok to shoot at them because they suck at their job or they're affiliated with the UN or whatever the fuck. He could try, just once, to not be so fucking lazy and dumb and try to engage in good faith once or twice and he'd be fine.