Jump to content

Joe Biden 2022: Enter Dark Brandon

Longboard Horn

By Longboard Horn
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

gmr548

gmr548 16580

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, TurkeyChew said:

I think the distinction is that, a party evolving and morphing to what it's constituents want (polling) is the job, versus a single politician changing to remain in power or to get elected for the sake of being elected.

A single politician (he used Beto as an example) who will change stances and oscillate based upon polling is someone without integrity/honesty/steadfast belief. That person is an opportunistic politician versus the political body which is being a good steward of constituency. 

In the individual case if you say and get elected because you believe A but the tide turns and now B is in fashion, by changing to B just to remain elected means you are a power-hungry politician and not a true representative. The individual who believes B should then be elected.

Did I get that right?

For starters, he brought up Beto on guns as a deflection from the original issue of COVID restrictions in blue states. But sure, let's stick with gubernatorial candidates, because it's a fantastically stupid take there too.

The Beto greivance basically boils down to him having differing stances on guns as a candidate for two different offices with two different constituencies. I don't think that's inherently unreasonable. I think it would perfectly fair to say something like "Yeah, as a Senator from Texas I would have been much more measured in my support for gun control legislation given the strongly held beliefs on that front by voters in Texas. I'd have limited my support to *insert items with overwhelming  public support* in an effort to balance the need to solve a significant problem while still representing the will of voters in Texas. But yes, as President, where I would be representing the whole of the nation instead of simply the state of Texas, I would have signed a comprehensive gun control package if Congress - a body elected by the entire nation - put it on my desk." And I'd probably also add now, "And let's be real, as Governor of Texas, no such bill is ever going to be on my desk, so I would rather focus my energy on issues where there's a real opportunity for progress."

Now, instead he gave a stupid red meat soundbite with the AR-15 bit, gave off the impression that he is an opportunist regardless of whether or not he is (I think he is to a degree, even among politicians, but I also view him as better than the alternative), and generally poisoned the well. But conceptually, I don't think there's anything wrong with him pivoting on the issue. The inability to comprehend or process that kind of nuance is the kind of thing that leads to radicalization and polarization; of course, that doesn't absolve O'Rourke specifically for fumbling on the issue/message.

Which brings us to your point on an individual politician shifting from A to B on an issue with the general public. What you're essentially saying, or at least synthesizing if it isn't your personal belief, is that any politician that has ever changed their mind in the face of shifting public opinion is compromised as an opportunist and should no longer hold office. That is a patently ridiculous stance, and again, exactly how you end up with radical ideologues who are allergic to any sort of good faith discussion or compromise on both sides of the aisle.

It's also simply a hilarious stance to take using Beto O'Rourke of all people as the example, given Greg Abbott's waffling on COVID policy throughout the pandemic and the various recent efforts to appease the GOP electorate as it's grown more extreme.

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 8.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Foosters
Foosters
TexEx15
TexEx15

SLOW. CLAP.

HenryJames
HenryJames

Posted Images

gmr548

gmr548 16580

Posted
Posted
Just now, Bravo said:

The problem with it and it is quite simple is it is such a dramatic shift compared to previous statements which are you to really believe? 

No shit. That's why I said he fumbled the message, came off as an opportunist, and poisioned the well. That changes absolutely nothing about the larger issue being discussed. Thanks for your lame ass attempt at cherry picking. Brilliant contribution.

I rarely neg at all and never do on this subforum, but this is such an exemplary example of a low IQ, bad faith shitpost that I barely have a choice. Bravo, Bravo! Now maybe you can stick to starting troll threads at 3am?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
fattyflattie

fattyflattie 4639

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

No shit. That's why I said he fumbled the message, came off as an opportunist, and poisioned the well.

So he’s either not smart enough to explain away like you did in 90 seconds, or he’s telling us who he really is, as they say.  Either way, he seems much better suited to local politics, where he can strong arm policies to help with the inlaws real estate portfolio. 
 

Feel free to take a stab at Abrams’ pure disregard for Covid policies anytime you want. I love the spin.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TurkeyChew

TurkeyChew 383

Posted
Posted
38 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

For starters, he brought up Beto on guns as a deflection from the original issue of COVID restrictions in blue states. But sure, let's stick with gubernatorial candidates, because it's a fantastically stupid take there too.

The Beto greivance basically boils down to him having differing stances on guns as a candidate for two different offices with two different constituencies. I don't think that's inherently unreasonable. I think it would perfectly fair to say something like "Yeah, as a Senator from Texas I would have been much more measured in my support for gun control legislation given the strongly held beliefs on that front by voters in Texas. I'd have limited my support to *insert items with overwhelming  public support* in an effort to balance the need to solve a significant problem while still representing the will of voters in Texas. But yes, as President, where I would be representing the whole of the nation instead of simply the state of Texas, I would have signed a comprehensive gun control package if Congress - a body elected by the entire nation - put it on my desk." And I'd probably also add now, "And let's be real, as Governor of Texas, no such bill is ever going to be on my desk, so I would rather focus my energy on issues where there's a real opportunity for progress."

Now, instead he gave a stupid red meat soundbite with the AR-15 bit, gave off the impression that he is an opportunist regardless of whether or not he is (I think he is to a degree, even among politicians, but I also view him as better than the alternative), and generally poisoned the well. But conceptually, I don't think there's anything wrong with him pivoting on the issue. The inability to comprehend or process that kind of nuance is the kind of thing that leads to radicalization and polarization; of course, that doesn't absolve O'Rourke specifically for fumbling on the issue/message.

Which brings us to your point on an individual politician shifting from A to B on an issue with the general public. What you're essentially saying, or at least synthesizing if it isn't your personal belief, is that any politician that has ever changed their mind in the face of shifting public opinion is compromised as an opportunist and should no longer hold office. That is a patently ridiculous stance, and again, exactly how you end up with radical ideologues who are allergic to any sort of good faith discussion or compromise on both sides of the aisle.

It's also simply a hilarious stance to take using Beto O'Rourke of all people as the example, given Greg Abbott's waffling on COVID policy throughout the pandemic and the various recent efforts to appease the GOP electorate as it's grown more extreme.

 

Quick disclaimer: this wasn't an argument I put forth or made. You responded as confused and my response was an attempt to clarify, as I understood the post. Clearly having the OP clarify firsthand is best.

That said, I agree with almost everything you said. I think that in the bold there are times when a politician truly changes their mind/stance in the face of new information or a change of heart or what have you and there are times when politicians change their mind/stance based on polls and probabilities to win elections. I think it's up to the discernment and wisdom of voters to figure out which is which.

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TurkeyChew

TurkeyChew 383

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Inflation is a world wide challenge. What Dem policy are you holding responsible for inflation?

If you disregard that you have to take the good with the bad (e.g. you take credit for when the economy does well even though it's outside of a President's control) I'm not sure that any politician/President would have been able to avoid this PR headache as you state.

That said, spending trillions on "human infrastructure" probably wouldn't have helped. I don't think you'll see many people lining up to thank Joe Manchin (or any GOPers) for helping Biden stay out of his own way on that one.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Blotto

Blotto 23511

Posted
Posted
40 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Inflation is a world wide challenge. What Dem policy are you holding responsible for inflation?

I'm sure @Bravo 's response will be well grounded in economic theory and will clearly distinguish which federal government policies contributing to inflation started while Trump was running the show and which originated under Biden.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Blotto

Blotto 23511

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Bravo said:

I've covered this exact question multiple times. Go back through my posts here. I don't have the energy to regurgitate it for you again. 

Fair enough. Based on your post, I just figured out you could use the site's search features to search  by both "author" and keywords, so I see that you have posts in January where you attribute current inflation to policies originated under Trump and continued by Biden.  Thats a fair take.

Dumping that headline in a thread about Biden with no context rather than dumping it in a thread specifically about inflation however gave the impression you felt  differently than what you posted two weeks ago. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shakahorn

shakahorn 1645

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think they are functionally fairly interchangeable, but historically, a crack pipe is just a glass tube and you put steel wool or brillo in it as a "filter" and rocks in one end and heat.  While a meth pipe has a round "bowl."  The small functional difference being that crack comes in fairly large chunks, while meth more resembles a powder.

Christ, the internet is so full of right-wing propaganda on this you can't even find pix.

Also disturbing, in a pearl-clutching way, some harm reduction kits include heroin "works."

The reality of this is almost all harm-reduction strategies are cringey to those of us not deeply immersed in street-drug culture.  

Much like weed or tobacco, crack is typically smoked by applying a flame directly to the rock and then inhaling.  Steel wool, or a few screens is needed to keep the melting rock from 'running away' before it is completely vaporized.  You can use a simple straight glass tube (preferred by crackheads), glass pipes or even glass bongs that could also be used for weed or tobacco.

Meth is typically smoked by melting the rock with indirect heat and inhaling the smoke created by the melting process.  Crystal meth, the preferred medium for smoking, come in rocks as well and look like big pieces of salt.

This is a meth pipe.  4'' Thick Incense Burners - 20 pieces| AAA Glass Pipes 

Put the crystal in the bowl, heat from the bottom, and when smoke appears, inhale.  A simple cigarette lighter can be used for meth.  Crack is better with a stronger flame, such as a small torch lighter or a q-tip dipped in rubbing alcohol or high-proof liquor, such as 151 rum.

Purveyors of meth pipes, like the one in the link, often call them 'incense burners' to get around drug paraphernalia laws.  While one could easily smoke tobacco out of a crack pipe, especially one that isn't just a straight glass tube, it would be difficult to argue that one can smoke tobacco out of a meth pipe.

Of course, a seasoned drug addict could smoke their drug of choice out of just about anything with just about anything.  Tinfoil and matches?  No problem.  But it always drives me nuts in the movies when actors smoke crack like it's meth.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
washparkhorn

washparkhorn 9939

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, TurkeyChew said:


That said, spending trillions on "human infrastructure" probably wouldn't have helped. I don't think you'll see many people lining up to thank Joe Manchin (or any GOPers) for helping Biden stay out of his own way on that one.

Guess which humans received the bulk of that spending. 


image.thumb.png.ebe2a7878994ca35ed35a39734628064.png

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
4doorsMoreWhores

4doorsMoreWhores 107

Posted
Posted
On 2/9/2022 at 1:56 PM, jimmyjazz said:

Really?  Record profits justify price hikes? 

I think the causality is the other way around.  I mean, I couldn't give a fuck what Sandy Soccer pays for her shitty grande half-lat almond smoothie, but when it skews closer to the every-day man on the street companies (the WalMarts, etc.) then that sucks.  (No accusation against WalMart, I don't pay attention to their quarterly reports.)

You don't have a strong grasp of how economics works, do you?

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
4doorsMoreWhores

4doorsMoreWhores 107

Posted
Posted
17 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

Beto is a great guy.  Married a billionaire’s daughter and has never had a real job. Never worked.  He’s everything about white privilege you dipshits profess to hate. 
 

I watched that little weasel lie in person yesterday about wanting to confiscate guns. What a loser

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
gmr548

gmr548 16580

Posted
Posted
So he’s either not smart enough to explain away like you did in 90 seconds, or he’s telling us who he really is, as they say.  Either way, he seems much better suited to local politics, where he can strong arm policies to help with the inlaws real estate portfolio. 
 
Feel free to take a stab at Abrams’ pure disregard for Covid policies anytime you want. I love the spin.  

lol you first quoted me trying to deflect with talking about Beto individually, and now again with Abrams.

At least Beto was tangentially related to the “Democrats are shitty people because they change their position based on public opinion” hot take. The Abrams thing just isn’t at all. It’s kind of sad to see you sit here and try to find something that makes sense without actually having to produce a substantive response.

But honestly, while sad, it’s not surprising. I’m a moron for responding to you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
4doorsMoreWhores

4doorsMoreWhores 107

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, gmr548 said:


lol you first quoted me trying to deflect with talking about Beto individually, and now again with Abrams.

At least Beto was tangentially related to the “Democrats are shitty people because they change their position based on public opinion” hot take. The Abrams thing just isn’t at all. It’s kind of sad to see you sit here and try to find something that makes sense without actually having to produce a substantive response.

But honestly, while sad, it’s not surprising. I’m a moron for responding to you.

Abrams is a fat, worthless piece of shit

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites
fattyflattie

fattyflattie 4639

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, gmr548 said:

lol you first quoted me trying to deflect with talking about Beto individually, and now again with Abrams.

I gave 3 examples. Beto and his flavor of the day politics that depend on who he’s talking to, and how he’s polling at the moment.   Stacy A and her blatant disregard for either the seriousness of Covid and it’s spread to others, or her need to show that rules are for thee, not for me.  If it was one pic, I’d think it might have been a slip. But of course, it was not.  My third example was Joe B and his inability to control his racial “gaffes” over the last 40 years. The policies he supported throughout his entire career tell me everything I need to know about his view of minorities.  The “gaffes” are just lagniappe. Covid was super duper cereal until those midterms starting looking suspect, now it’s cater to what the voters wanted all along.  Weird. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Satchel

Satchel 6938

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

I gave 3 examples. Beto and his flavor of the day politics that depend on who he’s talking to, and how he’s polling at the moment.   Stacy A and her blatant disregard for either the seriousness of Covid and it’s spread to others, or her need to show that rules are for thee, not for me.  If it was one pic, I’d think it might have been a slip. But of course, it was not.  My third example was Joe B and his inability to control his racial “gaffes” over the last 40 years. The policies he supported throughout his entire career tell me everything I need to know about his view of minorities.  The “gaffes” are just lagniappe. Covid was super duper cereal until those midterms starting looking suspect, now it’s cater to what the voters wanted all along.  Weird. 

How exercised were you when Trump, mindful of his own COVID, refused to be tested before his debate with Biden, just days before he was hospitalized with COIVID with which he almost died?

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Goofyboy

Goofyboy 3293

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
shit-buff-out.gif

And I would still vote for him over the shit stain Trump. Biden is a boring centrist that isn’t going to do much other than steer the ship. The fact he got some semblance of an infrastructure bill through was amazing. He’s getting a court pick. I’ll take it over the GQP and insurrectionists any day of the week.
  • Hook 'Em 10
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
maninblack

maninblack 7974

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Goofyboy said:


And I would still vote for him over the shit stain Trump. Biden is a boring centrist that isn’t going to do much other than steer the ship. The fact he got some semblance of an infrastructure bill through was amazing. He’s getting a court pick. I’ll take it over the GQP and insurrectionists any day of the week.

lol-haha.gif

  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
washparkhorn

washparkhorn 9939

Posted
Posted (edited)

5D28047F-D4F2-407E-BE77-3AFE9C3C7471.thumb.jpeg.6eaa8e7e677f266678a543e81b2c3fec.jpeg
 

note the first sentence. I don’t expect the trumpers to understand. The RNC sent out this erroneous talking point. 

56% of those who disapprove of Biden’s performance believe he has done nothing right.  
 

And trumpers backing an erroneous CNN report was not on my bingo card.   CNN admitted their report was mishandled when broadcast. Do better.

Edited by washparkhorn
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31471

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

5D28047F-D4F2-407E-BE77-3AFE9C3C7471.thumb.jpeg.6eaa8e7e677f266678a543e81b2c3fec.jpeg
 

note the first sentence. I don’t expect the trumpers to understand. The RNC sent out this erroneous talking point. 

56% of those who disapprove of Biden’s performance believe he has done nothing right.  
 

And trumpers backing an erroneous CNN report was not on my bingo card.   CNN admitted their report was mishandled when broadcast. Do better.

Of course.  Trump types, which basically means all Republicans now, seek out "news" and information that reinforces whatever their views are.

Sure, the librul, lamestream media is guilty of shading things, and omitting coverage of adverse information, but they don't just make shit up or completely distort it.

Google any of the latest right wing talking points and you'll get a thousand hits repeating whatever it is.  And all they are really doing is copypasta, without any regard for truth or nuance.  The source may be a fucking tweet, but the right-wing internet will repeat it more than a thousand times.

I can't think of a single "liberal" issue that ever got that kind of monolithic coverage.

As someone recently said:  You're not supposed to agree with the news.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...