Unlike the two referenced conspiracy theory campaigns aimed at Hilary and Obama, the âuncommittedâ vote campaign in Michigan as an expression of opposition to the Biden administration policy on Israel/Hamas/Palestine/Gaza is a real issue. It has legs.
From what I've read so far about the "uncommitted" campaign in some cities in Wayne Co., Michigan, it's that they are asking their constituents to vote for no one in the Presidential race - not asking them to vote for Trump.
If Republicans are carping about any of Biden's foreign-war policy, it's about the financial support for Ukraine. Republicans support the financial and materiel aid to Israel by a very large percentage, and some have even adamantly opposed any discussion of a cease fire.
I say something thatâs likely obvious: the GOP developed an attack plan against Hillary (âshe drinks the blood of babiesâ) and Obama (ânot an American citizenâ).
Factually weak. Inciteful commentary. Your opinion. And utterly irrelevant in 2024. Yet you mention it here because ... GOP is the boogeyman for anything not going your way.
Steely_D wrote:
Now, the genesis of the âdonât vote for Biden because of Israel/Hamas/Palestineâ was most likely from the same GOP team.
And, like the âdonât get a vaccineâ movement, people latched onto it because it touched a nerve in them and now itâs spreading of its own accord. With it being out in the media, and people having a legitimate strong feeling one way or the other, itâs impossible to unring that bell.
I say something thatâs likely obvious: the GOP developed an attack plan against Hillary (âshe drinks the blood of babiesâ) and Obama (ânot an American citizenâ).
Now, the genesis of the âdonât vote for Biden because of Israel/Hamas/Palestineâ was most likely from the same GOP team.
And, like the âdonât get a vaccineâ movement, people latched onto it because it touched a nerve in them and now itâs spreading of its own accord. With it being out in the media, and people having a legitimate strong feeling one way or the other, itâs impossible to unring that bell.
You're assuming near-omnipotent levels of GOP media and political manipulation, and you're turning people's genuine beliefs into some kind of conspiracy theory. They aren't that clever and they don't have the media influence/access to pull something like this off.
This is a factional fight on the left, a legitimate one. The Democratic Party is a loose coalition of interests and grievances, and this one is flexing. When a faction is small enough (Anti-vaxxers, TERFs, Tulsi Gabbard) they get ejected and wind up an uncomfortable side show under the conservative tent. I very much doubt we'll be seeing Rashida Tlaib at CPAC.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Feb 28, 2024 - 8:17am
Steely_D wrote:
I say something thatâs likely obvious: the GOP developed an attack plan against Hillary (âshe drinks the blood of babiesâ) and Obama (ânot an American citizenâ).
Now, the genesis of the âdonât vote for Biden because of Israel/Hamas/Palestineâ was most likely from the same GOP team.
And, like the âdonât get a vaccineâ movement, people latched onto it because it touched a nerve in them and now itâs spreading of its own accord. With it being out in the media, and people having a legitimate strong feeling one way or the other, itâs impossible to unring that bell.
Unlike the two referenced conspiracy theory campaigns aimed at Hilary and Obama, the âuncommittedâ vote campaign in Michigan as an expression of opposition to the Biden administration policy on Israel/Hamas/Palestine/Gaza is a real issue. It has legs.
I say something thatâs likely obvious: the GOP developed an attack plan against Hillary (âshe drinks the blood of babiesâ) and Obama (ânot an American citizenâ).
Now, the genesis of the âdonât vote for Biden because of Israel/Hamas/Palestineâ was most likely from the same GOP team.
And, like the âdonât get a vaccineâ movement, people latched onto it because it touched a nerve in them and now itâs spreading of its own accord. With it being out in the media, and people having a legitimate strong feeling one way or the other, itâs impossible to unring that bell.
Been here long enough to see this happens every four years: philosophical and political differences turn into personal insults between RP members who all came here for the same reason: Williamâs incredible work.
Mercedes Schlapp. She and her husband Matt are the organizers and hosts of CPAC. Mercedes is also Trump's former White House director of strategic communications.
You need to spend more time learning about what you are commenting on, kcar. You like to come off as all knowing with your over the top copy and pasting stuff so much that I'm beginning to wonder if you even know what you are talking about anymore.
Or as Beaker suggested, you are a blatant troll, especially after all of the shit you put me through this past weekend. Indeed there are no other choices.
Based on my experience with you over the weekend and previously, my vote is that you are a troll and nothing more. Again, no one is as stupid as you pretend to be.
I honestly had no idea how "Mercedes" was and figured that since Beaker apparently knew who this woman was, I asked. I just wanted to know who she was. I've heard of her husband but only in context of being accused of sexual assault and/or harassment. The Schlapps aren't that important to me.
Kurt, if I "copy and paste" too much for your liking, that's because I feel obliged to back up the statements and claims I make here. Trolls don't post evidence from reliable sources to back up their posts.
You and I have diametrically opposed views of politics. We're going to disagree and think the other guy is completely blinkered. I suggested that you and I stop sparring for a while; I thought you agreed with that.
I was rude to you recently, I'll admit it. I offer you a tepid apology FWIW. I've tried to take you seriously and respond to your claims (yes with "copy and paste" among other things. Again, I'm a fan of facts.)
But frankly, you're pretty abusive here as well. Case in point: "Again, no one is as stupid as you pretend to be."
I don't know whether people (including me) were rude to you first or vice versa. I don't care. I'm just asking you to think about what you're bringing to the conversation.
OK, Iâll take credit/blame for the Mercedes post. As I said, itâs a RickRoll. Hardly the definitive anything. I think we all know how things stand with both these gents by now, but we continue to lob the froth-soaked tennis ball over the net, shouting âYOU CANâT BE SERIOUSâ every time it gets returned.
:thumbsup:
I know every public speaker has a hard time speaking plainly a lot of the time. This guy, though, seems to ping-pong from half-formed thought to disjointed aside as his style, and normal people have to listen and re-watch a few times to pick out the thread. lol You should be a little concerned if you understood immediately ;-)
I think the hacked-up clip is from the Independent, though, right? Liberal tabloid owned by Russians. Grain of salt, always.
edit: lol There's a noticeable change of cadence as he switches to addressing Mercedes. That's the tip off for me.
Meh. A hacked up clip is a hacked up clip. If it's nothing but a set of jump cuts, with minimal context, and it shows a politician in a bad light, you can pretty much guess that it's not an accurate depiction - doesn't matter the source.
I was watching Trump's get out the vote rally in S. Carolina on the 23rd. He decided to do it with no script - just winging it. When you tune in, at first it seems okay - even good. Then he rambles from one story to the next. And ramble, ramble he did. It gets old fast. I had to turn it off. Yes, he's likely to be your next pres, and once in office, the rambletron will most certainly go away. I guess it's different than a typical politician, reading the same canned speech, over and over again (which is a lot of what Trump did in 2016).
Why you folks waste your time on such nonsense, is beyond me. You're not convincing anyone here. The video the silly Dems are all screeching about is clearly conveniently edited. Here's a short clip, no edits, that reveals the hoax - I saw this clip the other day and knew immediately it wasn't deceptively edited - unlike the obvious jump cuts in the hoax vid clip.
:thumbsup:
I know every public speaker has a hard time speaking plainly a lot of the time. This guy, though, seems to ping-pong from half-formed thought to disjointed aside as his style, and normal people have to listen and re-watch a few times to pick out the thread. lol You should be a little concerned if you understood immediately ;-)
I think the hacked-up clip is from the Independent, though, right? Liberal tabloid owned by Russians. Grain of salt, always.
Why you folks waste your time on such nonsense, is beyond me. You're not convincing anyone here. The video the silly Dems are all screeching about is clearly conveniently edited. Here's a short clip, no edits, that reveals the hoax - I saw this clip the other day and knew immediately it wasn't deceptively edited - unlike the obvious jump cuts in the hoax vid clip.
It looked kind of choppy to me from the start (though his unedited speaking is often pretty disjointed), plus that URL seemed pretty dodgy. I didn't give it much credence. There are more than enough legitimate examples of his prattling.
It's not as if it came from a reputable news source - CDN/JW Player - some kind of free-access platform from what I could gather. Others here probably know more about it. I imagine there's a lot of disinformation of all flavors fed through such a platform.
Why you folks waste your time on such nonsense, is beyond me. You're not convincing anyone here. The video the silly Dems are all screeching about is clearly conveniently edited. Here's a short clip, no edits, that reveals the hoax - I saw this clip the other day and knew immediately it wasn't deceptively edited - unlike the obvious jump cuts in the hoax vid clip.
Upon further review, this is disinformation. Plain and simple.
It's not as if it came from a reputable news source - CDN/JW Player - some kind of free-access platform from what I could gather. Others here probably know more about it. I imagine there's a lot of disinformation of all flavors fed through such a platform.
Oh FFS. Even I know who Mercedes is, that she's in the audience, and that
Trump is addressing her. He wasn't addressing Melania. You're either vastly ignorant about the GOP, CPAC, and more — or you're a blatant troll. There are no other choices.
? Who the hell is Mercedes, then? I honestly don't know. Has Melania appeared in public recently, btw? I don't keep track of her doings but IIRC people were wondering where she was a while back. I don't think she's appeared on the campaign trail with him much if at all...
Mercedes Schlapp. She and her husband Matt are the organizers and hosts of CPAC. Mercedes is also Trump's former White House director of strategic communications.
You need to spend more time learning about what you are commenting on, kcar. You like to come off as all knowing with your over the top copy and pasting stuff so much that I'm beginning to wonder if you even know what you are talking about anymore.
Or as Beaker suggested, you are a blatant troll, especially after all of the shit you put me through this past weekend. Indeed there are no other choices.
Based on my experience with you over the weekend and previously, my vote is that you are a troll and nothing more. Again, no one is as stupid as you pretend to be.
Oh FFS.
Even I know who Mercedes is, that she's in the audience, and that
Trump is addressing her. He wasn't addressing Melania.
You're either vastly ignorant about the GOP, CPAC, and more â or you're a blatant troll. There are no other choices.
? Who the hell is Mercedes, then? I honestly don't know.
Has Melania appeared in public recently, btw? I don't keep track of her doings but IIRC people were wondering where she was a while back. I don't think she's appeared on the campaign trail with him much if at all...
That video is a spliced together misrepresentation of what he said. When I get a few, I'll locate the vid that shows what he said *before* that vid starts up.
I wouldn't waste my time. They have no interest in the proper context. They got their soundclip. That is what they will remember and care about and cite over and over again to justify their position(s).
