i actually really like this...
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article90545862.html
Sunday, July 24, 2016
j reacts to bloomberg as reaction to giuliani (hillary is a neo-con....)
i would highly advise that the clinton campaign requests that bloomberg not publicly endorse clinton.
i know she's running on the right and everything. but, bloomberg doesn't excite anybody she needs to swing. he just irritates progressive voters. it's one thing to focus on trying to win missouri, it's another to go out of your way to poke northeastern liberals in the eye like that.
new york is not in play. well, unless she bleeds dramatically to stein. which is what something like this facilitates.
my guess is it's some kind of reaction to giuliani or something.
nobody cares what rudy giuliani thinks, says or does. he's widely seen as a fringe idiot.
she's better off ignoring him.
that's what everybody else does.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B--WKtgngBg
http://downtrend.com/robertgehl/bloombergs-poll-shows-people-hate-michael-bloomberg
wait.
did she want giuliani?
ugh. just point me to the nearest fucking wall...
you know what it is, though? it's all this neo-con bullshit out of 9/11, this idea that america needs an enemy to fight against. it's right out of fucking leo strauss. so, because she buys into all that nonsense, she sees the giuliani endorsement as a threat.
there's no other rational reason why she should care what giuliani thinks at all. the state is not in play. he's not actually particularly popular, or well regarded by anybody beside the lunatic fringe on the right. it's just the narrative that came out after 9/11 about how he was some kind of leader. when? between spraying the city with malathion and pushing racial profiling from city hall? nobody actually thinks that. it was just some bullshit floated on fox news.
in fact, he's been eaten alive by somebody with some actual influence on popular opinion: jon stewart. stewart destroyed the guy. he couldn't get elected dog catcher after the hatchet job stewart did on him.
but, she doesn't have any kind of meaningful connection to popular opinion. she just gets her perspectives from these shielded right-wing think tanks, and they never really dropped the bullshit.
ok, ok - it's very deductive of me to conclude that she's bringing in bloomberg to counteract giuliani. but, i mean, do you have a better explanation? both as to why she would want to be seen in public with bloomberg, and why she would think what giuliani thinks is at all important, if the connection is actually accurate?
it's consistent, anyways. and hillary is in fact consistent - both when she's lying and when she isn't.
but, note something else: she's reacting. she's not leading. again.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/25/michael-bloomberg-no-chance-of-being-president-third-party-candidate-alienate-voters
i know she's running on the right and everything. but, bloomberg doesn't excite anybody she needs to swing. he just irritates progressive voters. it's one thing to focus on trying to win missouri, it's another to go out of your way to poke northeastern liberals in the eye like that.
new york is not in play. well, unless she bleeds dramatically to stein. which is what something like this facilitates.
my guess is it's some kind of reaction to giuliani or something.
nobody cares what rudy giuliani thinks, says or does. he's widely seen as a fringe idiot.
she's better off ignoring him.
that's what everybody else does.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B--WKtgngBg
http://downtrend.com/robertgehl/bloombergs-poll-shows-people-hate-michael-bloomberg
wait.
did she want giuliani?
ugh. just point me to the nearest fucking wall...
you know what it is, though? it's all this neo-con bullshit out of 9/11, this idea that america needs an enemy to fight against. it's right out of fucking leo strauss. so, because she buys into all that nonsense, she sees the giuliani endorsement as a threat.
there's no other rational reason why she should care what giuliani thinks at all. the state is not in play. he's not actually particularly popular, or well regarded by anybody beside the lunatic fringe on the right. it's just the narrative that came out after 9/11 about how he was some kind of leader. when? between spraying the city with malathion and pushing racial profiling from city hall? nobody actually thinks that. it was just some bullshit floated on fox news.
in fact, he's been eaten alive by somebody with some actual influence on popular opinion: jon stewart. stewart destroyed the guy. he couldn't get elected dog catcher after the hatchet job stewart did on him.
but, she doesn't have any kind of meaningful connection to popular opinion. she just gets her perspectives from these shielded right-wing think tanks, and they never really dropped the bullshit.
ok, ok - it's very deductive of me to conclude that she's bringing in bloomberg to counteract giuliani. but, i mean, do you have a better explanation? both as to why she would want to be seen in public with bloomberg, and why she would think what giuliani thinks is at all important, if the connection is actually accurate?
it's consistent, anyways. and hillary is in fact consistent - both when she's lying and when she isn't.
but, note something else: she's reacting. she's not leading. again.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/25/michael-bloomberg-no-chance-of-being-president-third-party-candidate-alienate-voters
at
19:59
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to bernie sanders' reaction to tim kaine
"He is a very nice guy." - bernie sanders on tim kaine
but, bernie. what do you think about his policies?
"He is a very nice guy."
hey, i had a mom too. i get it.
but, bernie. what do you think about his policies?
"He is a very nice guy."
hey, i had a mom too. i get it.
at
19:33
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
what you're describing is kind of not what christianity is about, actually. at least not the american/calvinist variety.
part of the problem here is that "christianity" is impossibly vague. the different denominations are drastically different. you can't just throw "christianity" out there like it has some encompassing meaning. you've gotta be a lot more specific.
it's really just a buzz word. and people will assign just about whatever they want to it.
that's not recent, either. it's not just post-reformation. they had heretics all over the place from day one. it took them several centuries just to come up with a basic creed, and that didn't even really stick. nobody's really ever been sure what the term means.
part of the problem here is that "christianity" is impossibly vague. the different denominations are drastically different. you can't just throw "christianity" out there like it has some encompassing meaning. you've gotta be a lot more specific.
it's really just a buzz word. and people will assign just about whatever they want to it.
that's not recent, either. it's not just post-reformation. they had heretics all over the place from day one. it took them several centuries just to come up with a basic creed, and that didn't even really stick. nobody's really ever been sure what the term means.
at
15:45
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
jessica
either they got hacked, or somebody pulled funding.
i mean, if this isn't a hack, it really opens up some questions about who is running this channel. this is right-wing trash.
Giuliana Rexic
Right-wing trash? It's factual. Thousands of women are being maimed by these implants.
jessica
it's just slut-shaming bullshit.
Giuliana Rexic
WTF are you talking about?
jessica
this shit has been going on for fifty years. it's just the latest iteration of the 'contraception is unsafe' meme that the right has been pushing since the pill was patented.
Giuliana Rexic
I see. I'll let the Essure victims know that!
jessica
these people made an informed choice regarding a statistically safe means of contraception and unfortunately had to deal with an obscure defect. they're not victims of anything except bad luck. again: this right-wing catholic propaganda to make contraception seem unsafe is very longstanding.
Giuliana Rexic
They couldn't have made an informed choice when they weren't given the true risks of the product. You're all over the place.
jessica
again: this is a safe product. there's some chance you're going to get hit by lightning, but that doesn't mean you refuse to leave the house. you're dealing with the same kind of probabilities that you get with vaccination, or, in fact, with the birth control pill.
that information is available - and it's the consumer's responsibility to do that research, once the risks have been published. says who? says five hundred years of british legal jurisprudence.
so, why are they pushing this? again: it's the same bullshit that's been going on for fifty years.
what i'm pointing out is that the video is pushing a right-wing, catholic conspiracy theory. it is the same right-wing conspiracy theory you hear from people like alex jones: population control. eugenics. and, when i see that rfk, jr works for this channel, that is very suspicious.
either they got hacked, or somebody pulled funding.
i mean, if this isn't a hack, it really opens up some questions about who is running this channel. this is right-wing trash.
Giuliana Rexic
Right-wing trash? It's factual. Thousands of women are being maimed by these implants.
jessica
it's just slut-shaming bullshit.
Giuliana Rexic
WTF are you talking about?
jessica
this shit has been going on for fifty years. it's just the latest iteration of the 'contraception is unsafe' meme that the right has been pushing since the pill was patented.
Giuliana Rexic
I see. I'll let the Essure victims know that!
jessica
these people made an informed choice regarding a statistically safe means of contraception and unfortunately had to deal with an obscure defect. they're not victims of anything except bad luck. again: this right-wing catholic propaganda to make contraception seem unsafe is very longstanding.
Giuliana Rexic
They couldn't have made an informed choice when they weren't given the true risks of the product. You're all over the place.
jessica
again: this is a safe product. there's some chance you're going to get hit by lightning, but that doesn't mean you refuse to leave the house. you're dealing with the same kind of probabilities that you get with vaccination, or, in fact, with the birth control pill.
that information is available - and it's the consumer's responsibility to do that research, once the risks have been published. says who? says five hundred years of british legal jurisprudence.
so, why are they pushing this? again: it's the same bullshit that's been going on for fifty years.
what i'm pointing out is that the video is pushing a right-wing, catholic conspiracy theory. it is the same right-wing conspiracy theory you hear from people like alex jones: population control. eugenics. and, when i see that rfk, jr works for this channel, that is very suspicious.
at
15:13
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to how dangerous and radical (right...) that picking tim kaine actually is
i just want to reject this idea that tim kaine is a "safe" pick. if that argument is directed anywhere, it's at the left of the democratic party. what tim kaine suggests to me is that clinton is going to be aggressively pursuing republicans. this isn't about playing defense, it's about positioning herself in such a way that she can credibly convince conservatives that she's more aligned with them.
this is what a two party system does. if you're going to uphold a two-party system, this is what you're going to get. the democrats are never going to fight on their left because they're never going to be threatened on the left. there has to be another party there.
the reason this is so predictable is because the system necessitates it. in a two-party system, all elections are fought in the center and the nominee of the party is obligated to focus her efforts on winning votes on the other side of the aisle. that's how the system works.
again: don't keep upholding this system, then expect it to do something it's not designed to do. if you want the democrats to swing left, you have absolutely no choice but to create a party on the left for it to compete with.
this is what a two party system does. if you're going to uphold a two-party system, this is what you're going to get. the democrats are never going to fight on their left because they're never going to be threatened on the left. there has to be another party there.
the reason this is so predictable is because the system necessitates it. in a two-party system, all elections are fought in the center and the nominee of the party is obligated to focus her efforts on winning votes on the other side of the aisle. that's how the system works.
again: don't keep upholding this system, then expect it to do something it's not designed to do. if you want the democrats to swing left, you have absolutely no choice but to create a party on the left for it to compete with.
at
09:15
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
23-07-2016: closing inri011, working through may/98 and defining inri012
tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/nope-2
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/i-think-i-feel-much-better-now
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/slipping-away
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/weedin-the-yard
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/wish-r2d2-mix
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/the-phantom-of-the-washing-machine
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/nope-2
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/i-think-i-feel-much-better-now
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/slipping-away
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/weedin-the-yard
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/wish-r2d2-mix
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/the-phantom-of-the-washing-machine
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
at
03:14
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)