Total posts: 28,020
-->
@HistoryBuff
I don't care about the host, but if that's the only platform allowed to talk about things, I will turn the volume down and just read the subtitles.
Created:
Only geniuses watch Jimmy Dore and think they are being informed
You don't need to be smart to know that RFK was being Hosted by Jimmy Dore. If you wanted to know what RFK is saying, that is where you would go. To a show where RFK is actually allowed to speak. If you didn't want to watch RFK speak, you don't have to watch the show. That's how free speech works.
Or you could go to a corporate comedian like Gutfeld or Stephen Colbert if you wanted to see one of the pre-selected corporate elite candidates talk. Again, you don't have to be smart to choose that.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
The Harvard/Harris poll says 4% says never heard of him.
Created:
F1_72 Now we will show you some names and groups. Please indicate if you have a favorable or unfavorable view of that person or group - or if you've never heard of them.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr
Ever Heard Of (Net) 1486... 72%
Very favorable 292... 14%
Favorable 668... 33%
Unfavorable (Sub-Net) ...26%
Unfavorable 287... 14%
Very unfavorable 239... 12%
Never heard of them 90 4%
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
What do you think about RFK's comments in the video I linked?
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Heres another interesting result:
DEM2024A If the Democratic presidential primary for the 2024 election was held today, who would you vote for?
Joe Biden 31%
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 26%
This should be hella worrying for Biden and the deep state. I expect to see some serious corporate media spin in the near future to reverse the damage.
But then again, too much attacking might have a "Trump effect" where negative press turns into greater exposure. It will be interesting to see how Biden handles it.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
You could also make the point the average voter doesn't know anything about Biden or Trump as well.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
I guess I can go look it up for you.
Created:
Created:
Posted in:
The people we would all expect to be the most supportive of any president are the people who worked closest to them
Simple thought exercise. Ask any random group of 44 currently unemployed government workers if they publicly support their former boss. I would be surprised if more than 4 publicly said "sure." These 44 former government servants questioned by NBC were not Trump's "close buddies." These people worked for Trump, not the other way around. Maybe you are used to the way things usually work in DC where appointed positions are used as rewards for the donor class instead of as advisors that serve at the pleasure of a president.
If you actually expected all 44 to say yes, then there's some serious corruption going on that you apparently approve of as the way things ought to be. The government shouldn't exist to jerk each other off. It is supposed to work for the non-elites, of which Trump has far more support than any former appointed government servant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
So if among this group Trump had almost no public support... That is incredibly odd.
odd to the point of it being a disingenuous claim. This is top tier Kathy Neumann "so what you really are saying is..."insert narrative""
Not talking to NBC or not publicly supporting Trump =/= does not support Trump, publicly or privately.
You are spinning pure fanfiction along with NBC here and presenting this as some kind of "evidence"
That is not something any honest and intellectually curious person can just brush off.
I just did, because fanfiction should not be taken seriously in an intellectual debate, honest or not.
Created:
Posted in:
The people we would all expect to be the most supportive of any president are the people who worked closest to them
Wrong and opposite. Can you back this opinion up with any source?
Let's try this one more time.
Yeah let's. Why do you care if the majority of Trump appointed officials refused to talk to NBC? Is it because they do not support NBC? Did you really expect most of them to respond and also say they support the president? We can extrapolate that would have been the case as NBC did not mention in the article a single person that responded to NBC in the negative about Trump. Big shocker there, I know.
One of these claims has to be true.
Created:
Posted in:
First of all, it wasn't a poll. I've explained this numerous times already, you continue to ignore it so you can repeat yourself over and over again
I actually agree with you. a sample size of 44 is nowhere near enough to get the pulse of American voters. I guess that's that then.
In the grand scheme of things, the views of former government appointees, including Cabinet members, won't be a concern of the general public. Here are some reasons why the general public doesn't give a crap.
- Limited Relevance to Daily Life: For the average citizen, the opinions of former Cabinet members do not have any impact on their daily lives or immediate concerns.
- Changing Landscape: Government appointees come and go with administrations, like dirty diapers. As their roles change or they leave office, their influence on policies and decisions diminishes or becomes dated and irrelevant.
- Diverse Perspectives: Cabinet members, like any group of individuals, can hold diverse and sometimes conflicting opinions. The views of one former Cabinet member may not represent the entire group or even their successor. Appointees are like assholes, everyone has them.
- Focus on Current Policies: The public tends to be more interested in the policies and actions of the present and dysfunctional current administration, rather than those of past officials of a loser president.
- Election Outcomes: Government appointees are typically chosen by elected officials, and their opinions may not carry the same weight as those of elected representatives. People never elected those crony appointees, so they probably don't care what they say; as the political appointees do not represent them.
- Public Trust and Skepticism: Some individuals may be skeptical about the motivations behind public statements made by former government appointees, considering potential political interests or personal agendas and also considering the pervasive antigovernmental sentiment among Trump supporters.
- Focus on Broader Issues: The general public may be more concerned about broader societal and economic issues that impact their well-being and livelihoods, such as WW3 or crippling inflation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Yeah, funny how America had a problem with that, yet also approved Kiev killing innocent people in the Donbas. The properly approved people have to die you know. The rest can suffer.
9 straight years of cratered land. And for what? So NATO doesn't have to say no to Expansion? None of that had to happen if NATO was ok with a buffer state.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WillyB
But I mean you bomb Ukraine and don’t expect a response?
Ukraine was bombing itself long before Russia joined in. Everyone wants to forget 2014 like it never happened. That was the US response to those bombings. Silence. Tacit approval.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WillyB
I'm not entirely convinced NATO is going to be satisfied with a buffer zone as that would mean an official end to NATO expansion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WillyB
I think the point is that Americans don't know how to put the gun down and work for actual peace. PLO doesn't either.
The American elites, like the PLO, don't simply want "land"
They want world hegemony, and the eradication of everything that is not "them"
land is just an afterthought and collateral.
Nowhere is this more apparent than what is happening in Ukraine. Much of the land has been blasted on both sides after 9 years of perpetual artillery strikes. Land is collateral to the supreme motivation for the war. The elimination of the other, whether it's Kiev, Donbas Russians, or Moscow Russians.
The proof is the endless war pictures of blasted wastelands for hundreds of square kilometers.
It's been 9 years since the start of the 2014 war in Donbas. That's a long time. Hundreds of thousands of artillery strikes to the land. Endless land mines. It's most definitely not about "land" anymore. There's no value to any of the land now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Let's pull back a hot minute and go to the heart of this thread. Whether you are basing your current opinion on this NBC poll is irrelevant for this question.
Why would 44 government appointees in any way, shape, or form -Arguably creatures of "the DC swamp"- accurately reflect the pulse of the American voter? Do you really believe average people care about government appointees much in the way they irrationally worship Hollywood celebrities'? Even abstractly?
I think, even if you were to parse the voters from both parties, you would have to conclude this isn't remotely true for any case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WillyB
USA was actually close to nuking china after ww2. Instead of the conventional Korean war.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The fact that you decided to fixate on NBC
I don't care about NBC. I care about manufactured polls. Do you know the methodology of their polling? How many answered? How many did not out of the 44?
What was the exact question(s)? What were the exact responses? These questions are far from irrelevant.
You are the one that started the thread with a quote describing an NBC poll of 44 people. It's you who fixated on NBC, not me.
And I only bring up NBC negatively because if you listen to the other side, they seem to be irrationally deranged against paid media narratives.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The only indication of the methodology of their poll is the statement "most refused to talk to NBC"
That could mean 30 didn't talk to them, maybe as many as 40 didn't talk to NBC. That matters.
Why would such a poll be given any relevance if not for an affirmation of a manufactured narrative?
This is why asking that question is highly relevant.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Regardless, I don't see how any of those defenses could legitimately be used in a courtroom by a man who is running for public office.
It's used routinely to keep him from being elected. It's possible there is some merit to the political slander.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
Biden says all of this is above his pay grade. I trust Joe Biden. How can you not trust a politician son of a used car salesman?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WillyB
Of course the colonised should end the violence rather than the colonisers,
In every war the USA "won", yes that's what happened. Both sides put their guns down, and the winner gets to choose to define what "evil" is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
@Sidewalker
If they give us back the $24 in beads, they can have Manhattan back.
It's actually happening lol!
Created:
Posted in:
But we're the ones with derangement syndrome...
Again, don't insult yourself to internet strangers. It is unhealthy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
It wasn't a poll. Why is this so difficult?
Because the article started out saying "we asked 44 people"
Why do you rely on difficult sources? Oh that's right. A paid narrative gets you hooked. That goes for the right as well as they eat up the deranged narrative that all paid news is out to insult them.
You never did answer why the majority of those 44 refused to talk to NBC. Quite telling on your part, as you seem to agree with me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WillyB
and putting your guns down etc is not the right thing to do if you’re fighting evil.
My point is that USA didn't have to stop at dropping 2 nuclear bombs. There was plenty of "evil" in the world left for the USA to conquer, but they chose to lower their guns instead..... well until Korea...Vietnam...etc...
Oh comeon man, you have to be American to understand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WillyB
Every peace starts with a lowered gun. In every situation. That's why it is called peace.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WillyB
Apartheid as in skin based classes? No. Israel has quite a few brown citizens from what I read tho.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
You can indict a ham sandwich.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Publicly doesn't mean "on NBC". Publicly means any public platform including Fox news, talk radio, social media, etc.
You don't know that. They specifically said the 4 people they talked to expressed support, as if that was the criteria. But then again, they purposely hid their methodology of the poll for obvious reasons.
Can you take an educated guess why the vast majority refused to talk to NBC?
Would you reasonably claim Republicans have "MDS" (Media Derangement Syndrome)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
any public capacity
You said "public capacity" in your first mention...not "any"
By being purposely vague and un-nuanced, a hate speech platform like NBC can cover their tracks while driving home the narrative they are paid to promote. If Republicans overwhelmingly choose to not associate with a hateful organization like NBC, then they can be said to not publicly engage by defining NBC as an outlet for the public.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Imagine granting Putin or Xi xin Ping the land of New Mexico in exchange for a "peaceful world." Why would the USA do that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
You don't find that a bit odd? Only 4 out of his entire cabinet? He has more cabinet members that have publicly stated they do not support him than the ones that have said they do.
I don't find it odd at all that only 4 people chose to talk to NBC, a known platform for hate speech. There's always a few people that give hate speech platforms second chances.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WillyB
Let’s just keep the apartheid going then
Then punish all the Arab states, all of which have closed their doors to Palestine refugees.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The methodology of the article implies by stating "most people did not respond" that the people that chose to not respond to NBC were put in the category of "not publicly supporting Trump"
Considering a platform for hate speech against Republicans is obviously motivated to use a methodology that makes that number as high as possible, it's extremely likely this methodology was used to push the narrative.
Created:
-->
@ebuc
Damn those virtual lake rapers.
Created:
Just thought I'd leave this here...
Sounds like a harbinger of number 2...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Thanks again for describing why we have Biden. Cause it isn't because of corruption, it's because Democracy "perfected" by crony elites is a failed system. Thanks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Well Trump IS a New York liberal at heart, so that explains some of it.
Also this:
"NBC News reached out to 44 of the dozens of people who served in Trump's Cabinet over his term in office. Most declined to comment or ignored the requests. A total of four have said publicly they support his run for re-election."
These people probably people hate NBC news a lot more than they hate Trump. For obvious reasons.
If NBC is a platform for hate speech against Republicans, these people contacted (probably cold contacted) will likely exercise their freedom to not associate with NBC.
If you want to accuse Republicans of some kind of derangement syndrome, it's their collective and often irrational hatred of corporate media calling them deplorable every day.
Created:
Posted in:
This has to be pointed out so that Americans do not elect the next Hitler.
We already have the next "Hitler."
Looks like you are 6 years too late to the party.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
There's no profit in those kinds of talking points. Let's talk about climate change and what you can sacrifice.
Created:
You’re not getting it.
irony.
Created:
-->
@Athias
In other words, there's no consistency in including lakes among legal persons and excluding zygotes/embryos/fetuses.
Oh I get it now. Functionally speaking, the same legal protections are given to non-persons as are to persons, so the distinction between the two is irrelevant when discussing legal protections.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I don't really care about the players involved when this is an indictment on an unfair and broken system of rules for thee but not for me.
Discretionary law enforcement should be safe, legal, and rare. Not the expected outcome.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Don't hate the player G. Hate the game.
Created:
-->
@Barney
Otherwise you are a complete and utter failure
Reported for insulting a moderator.
Created: