What pisses me off is that Biden can just mumble something about hope and light and darkness and the media will say "Wow, so inspiring!" But when Trump talks about real issues like violence in our communities, he will be called "dark" and "divisive."
The RNC needs to coordinate which sound bites and talking points to push going out. Chop the best bits of the speech into 30-second ads and run them non-stop everywhere. You have to figure out how to bypass the fake news filter.
It wasn't terrible, mostly just boring. Designed for nostalgia types who miss when politics was all nice and fuzzy (lol when?). Some of it was pretty corny with all the platitudes and shit. Also dishonest stuff the media will give a pass (muh fine people, the idea that the US COVID response was worse than Europe's, etc).
It's not like torching people's businesses would have been justified either way. Rioters are responsible for themselves. Politicians should definitely be shamed for playing along and acting like the guy was a saint though.
These people claim to be talking about systemic issues but they're talking about individual cases 95% of the time. Often they have to lie (eg. Michael Brown, Rayshard Brooks) to do it. Other times (Breeona Taylor) they're completely unable to diagnose the root problem and insist that it's about punishing individual people. Her death was senseless but the cops were returning fire, and the boyfriend was shooting because anyone would shoot at armed strangers busting through their door in the dead of night with no notice. The real culprit is shit like no-knock warrants in the first place. The politicians and judges who come up with police state shit should be the ones in jail. Yet instead of following Rand Paul and going after real change so that won't happen again, it becomes all about punishing individual whites.
Censorship and political hysteria really slowed the ability of anyone to get the word out on this kind of stuff. I bet the average person still doesn't know the ventilator thing turned out to be wrong (or even harmful) because the media just forgot about it.
Roberts sucks, the only "conservative" issues he gives a shit about are protecting big business. Can't believe how little Republicans care about their ordinary constituents.
This fucker literally said in his ruling on that abortion restriction that the precedent was wrongly decided, but he was going to honor it anyway. Wtf? Might as well bring back Plessy vs. Ferguson while we're at it, that was "precedent" for decades.
The other day, Win made you log in to do anything. I think it's a tactic to get more people to sign up, I'd assume it would be eased off when a site is more established.
The main thing that made me not make a Parler account is they require giving them a phone number. No thanks
I think a strongly pro-life woman like Amy Coney Barrett would be best. Conservatives will cuck on abortion as long as it'd be an "all male majority removing women's rights" or whatever the narrative would be. People like Roberts whose only "conservative" views involve protecting big business betray what we need to actually protect our values and build a better future.
Trump's priority is probably picking people with a strong view on the unitary executive (basically, that the president is sovereign over all the stupid executive branch letter agencies, which aren't even in the Constitution). Considering all the trouble he's had breaking these careerist goons' hold on foreign policy, intelligence, military, etc. this is logical, but it could come back to bite us when the next Democrat is in office.
I think people have shown that they will tolerate a lot of this restrictive stuff if a disease is really all that serious. People mostly obeyed the orders and did their best to avoid unnecessary contact.
The trust issue begins when it becomes clear that this was sold as an apocalyptic scenario when it's really just a moderately bad germ. It shouldn't be ignored, but it's not the end of the world either. People should take the personal responsibility to make choices about what risks they're willing to take.
Then the final straw was when all the loudest STAY THE FUCK AT HOME voices shushed over the George Floyd protests. Some "experts" even said that racism was more important than the virus, so they forgot everything they'd been saying about how going outside was selfish and you were killing grandma. Churches are bad but 100,000 people marching inches apart is okay.
Some people go too far in acting like it's all fake, but there's been a lot of BS and zero accountability for the people who were telling us there was a 4-8% death rate for healthy people.
Based on information revealed about the original anonymous "whistleblower" complaint from the Ukraine probe, a common theory developed that he was a sometime CIA agent and leaker named Eric Ciaramella.
It's basically considered confirmed because of a dedicated and almost seamless censorship campaign by every major media outlet to prevent his name being mentioned, even in articles that were specifically about a major public figure saying his name. They would write something like "X mentioned a name that has sometimes been alleged to be the whistleblower by far right sources, which we will not print here." And they wouldn't provide a link. The "whistleblower's" attorneys never denied that he was Eric C, the guy's name was stricken from the record in Congressional proceedings, and news outlets falsely claimed that it was illegal to print his name. IIRC you couldn't say his name on Reddit, and Facebook and YouTube posts were being removed for it as well.
Ciaramella's identity was considered important because of apparent personal biases that could inform why the complaint was filed. It was also important because Democrats used the speshul anonymous whistleblower narrative to avoid questions about how and why the investigation began, and what kinds of people were responsible for it, similar to the way they avoided questions about the origin of the Russia probe. Ultimately Trump's innocence/guilt did not depend on whether one believed Ciaramella, but it became a useful example of the way coverage was being manipulated.
A couple articles about it can be found at RealClearInvestigations.
It looks like this is specifically for antibody tests, which are done after the fact. Though it implies that getting a cold could give you immunity to corona?
Also the whole "durr we don't know if immunity exists" is pure cringe. Every virus gives you immunity afterward, the only reason you can get the flu again is because the germs keep mutating and are eventually different from what you're immune to. It's possible you'd eventually not have your immunity to newer strains, but the idea that this could happen instantaneously is laughable.
"Falsely"
WTF? How is a radical leftist mob not evidence of a radical leftist mob? They don't even say some BS about how it's a matter of opinion or the riots aren't fully representative, they just call it false? The NYT is the fakest shit on the planet.