BillsFanNC Posted July 28 Posted July 28 Quick Legacy Media Guide to Acceptable Political Discourse | July 2024 Edition: - Labeling Americans that you disagree with as “Nazis” is expressly condoned — but usage of “cat ladies” to satirize a group of people is deeply offensive and dangerous and must be condemned. - Repeatedly casting your political opponent as “Hitler" is necessary and just dehumanization — but mispronouncing your political opponent's first name is grotesque dehumanization and a racist dog whistle that must not be allowed to stand. - A President announcing that he wants to name a Vice President because she fits into specific democratic categories is historic — but pointing out that a President named a Vice President because she fit into specific demographic categories is vile white supremacist misogyny that harkens back to the days of Jim Crow. - It’s perfectly valid to question if Trump was really hit by a bullet — but Republicans questioning why Joe Biden disappeared for several days are ginning up wild conspiracy theories and must be castigated as such. - It was a universally understood that titling Kamala as “The Border Czar,” was factual until a week ago — but now referring to her with that title is yet another conspiratorial lie cooked up by the Conservative Disinformation Machine. Will update this guide regularly as new Legacy Media Speech Controls are issued. 1
Scraps Posted July 28 Posted July 28 (edited) 36 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: Quick Legacy Media Guide to Acceptable Political Discourse | July 2024 Edition: - Labeling Americans that you disagree with as “Nazis” is expressly condoned — but usage of “cat ladies” to satirize a group of people is deeply offensive and dangerous and must be condemned. - Repeatedly casting your political opponent as “Hitler" is necessary and just dehumanization — but mispronouncing your political opponent's first name is grotesque dehumanization and a racist dog whistle that must not be allowed to stand. - A President announcing that he wants to name a Vice President because she fits into specific democratic categories is historic — but pointing out that a President named a Vice President because she fit into specific demographic categories is vile white supremacist misogyny that harkens back to the days of Jim Crow. - It’s perfectly valid to question if Trump was really hit by a bullet — but Republicans questioning why Joe Biden disappeared for several days are ginning up wild conspiracy theories and must be castigated as such. - It was a universally understood that titling Kamala as “The Border Czar,” was factual until a week ago — but now referring to her with that title is yet another conspiratorial lie cooked up by the Conservative Disinformation Machine. Will update this guide regularly as new Legacy Media Speech Controls are issued. Didn't JD Vance, running mate of convicted felon, adjudicated sexual molester, adjudicated persistent fraudtster and obvious snake oil selling conman Donald Trump call Trump Hitler? Edited July 28 by Scraps
Tommy Callahan Posted July 28 Posted July 28 Dems openly cheer on the fact the msm, fortune 500 and the elite donors create propaganda blitzes that target the uneducated and ignorant. The left. Act blue. Is the system. 1
Orlando Buffalo Posted July 28 Posted July 28 1 hour ago, Scraps said: Didn't JD Vance, running mate of convicted felon, adjudicated sexual molester, adjudicated persistent fraudtster and obvious snake oil selling conman Donald Trump call Trump Hitler? Before ever meeting Trump he did call him names, since meeting him he has changed his mind. Didn't Harris call Biden a racist after meeting hundred of times and then join him in his policies? 1
Scraps Posted July 28 Posted July 28 1 hour ago, Orlando Buffalo said: Before ever meeting Trump he did call him names, since meeting him he has changed his mind. Didn't Harris call Biden a racist after meeting hundred of times and then join him in his policies? JD Vance is a complete fraud. He wrote Hillbilly Ellegy as a memoir but he isn't from Appalachia. He sucked up the Peter Theil to run a venture capitalist firm, a common path of a Hillbilly. He started a non-profit to battle opioids but spent more on salary for his chief political advisor that battling opioid addiction. He was anti-Trump until he ran for senate and was mired in 4th place in the primary. He then sucked up to Trump figuring correctly that Magadonians can't think for themselves since they are a cult, ] And he read that right. As for what Harris might have said about Biden, who cares? Biden isn't running for office. 3 hours ago, Tommy Callahan said: Magadonians Dems openly cheer on the fact that Trump msm, fortune 500 and the elite donors creates propaganda blitzes that target the uneducated and ignorant. Fixed that for ya.
Orlando Buffalo Posted July 28 Posted July 28 1 hour ago, Scraps said: JD Vance is a complete fraud. He wrote Hillbilly Ellegy as a memoir but he isn't from Appalachia. He sucked up the Peter Theil to run a venture capitalist firm, a common path of a Hillbilly. He started a non-profit to battle opioids but spent more on salary for his chief political advisor that battling opioid addiction. He was anti-Trump until he ran for senate and was mired in 4th place in the primary. He then sucked up to Trump figuring correctly that Magadonians can't think for themselves since they are a cult, ] And he read that right. As for what Harris might have said about Biden, who cares? Biden isn't running for office. Since you obviously voted for Biden the first time around I am trying to figure out your standard. I am guessing I can figure out your "standard" from the next NYT headline.
Scraps Posted July 28 Posted July 28 3 minutes ago, Orlando Buffalo said: Since you obviously voted for Biden the first time around I am trying to figure out your standard. I am guessing I can figure out your "standard" from the next NYT headline. My standard is I will vote for the individual from either of the major parties who isn't a threat to our Republic.
Pokebball Posted July 28 Posted July 28 2 minutes ago, Scraps said: My standard is I will vote for the individual from either of the major parties who isn't a threat to our Republic. How many votes did Kamala get in the primary?
Scraps Posted July 28 Posted July 28 3 minutes ago, Pokebball said: How many votes did Kamala get in the primary? Doesn't matter. How the parties choose their nominees is up to the parties.
The Frankish Reich Posted July 28 Author Posted July 28 4 minutes ago, Pokebball said: How many votes did Kamala get in the primary? Just as many as Biden, because people voted for the Biden-Harris ticket. Your question would have been right on point if the Democrats hadn't all rallied to support Harris and instead had chosen a different candidate. But they didn't, and perhaps this was one reason why.
Scraps Posted July 28 Posted July 28 4 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Just as many as Biden, because people voted for the Biden-Harris ticket. Your question would have been right on point if the Democrats hadn't all rallied to support Harris and instead had chosen a different candidate. But they didn't, and perhaps this was one reason why. For some reason, it is lost on some people that Harris is just the presumptive nominee. Anyone could challenge her. The only problem is anyone who was considered a serious contender actually endorsed her. 1
B-Man Posted July 28 Posted July 28 3 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Just as many as Biden, because people voted for the Biden-Harris ticket. Your question would have been right on point if the Democrats hadn't all rallied to support Harris and instead had chosen a different candidate. But they didn't, and perhaps this was one reason why. Funny. If you look at the primaries ballot, it just says Biden. Now you can argue that they knew Harris would remain the running mate, but did they ? There was lots of talk in the spring among democrats. Joe got the votes, Kamala rode along. The more she keeps making appearances, the more her party will regret it. . 1 1
Orlando Buffalo Posted July 28 Posted July 28 56 minutes ago, Scraps said: For some reason, it is lost on some people that Harris is just the presumptive nominee. Anyone could challenge her. The only problem is anyone who was considered a serious contender actually endorsed her. You might want to talk with Tibs, when I point that out he tells me I don't understand the Dems. As for your "anyone not a threat to our Republic", you might want to to look at he people who made the rules of how to pick their candidates and then completely ignore the rules.
Scraps Posted July 28 Posted July 28 9 minutes ago, Orlando Buffalo said: You might want to talk with Tibs, when I point that out he tells me I don't understand the Dems. As for your "anyone not a threat to our Republic", you might want to to look at he people who made the rules of how to pick their candidates and then completely ignore the rules. How is the Democratic Party ignoring their rules?
Orlando Buffalo Posted July 28 Posted July 28 1 hour ago, Scraps said: How is the Democratic Party ignoring their rules? I thought you said it was an open primary, but the party is already stating she is the candidate, so is it open or she the candidate?
Scraps Posted July 28 Posted July 28 5 minutes ago, Orlando Buffalo said: I thought you said it was an open primary, but the party is already stating she is the candidate, so is it open or she the candidate? Is the party saying that or are they saying she is the presumptive nominee?
Orlando Buffalo Posted July 28 Posted July 28 10 minutes ago, Scraps said: Is the party saying that or are they saying she is the presumptive nominee? https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c51ywewzpz2o The party is calling her the nominee, which is impressive for a women who has never received one vote at all outside of California.
Scraps Posted July 28 Posted July 28 2 minutes ago, Orlando Buffalo said: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c51ywewzpz2o The party is calling her the nominee, which is impressive for a women who has never received one vote at all outside of California. The BBC does not determine who wins the nomination. The delegates do that. Until the vote is taken, she is the presumptive nominee.
Doc Posted July 28 Posted July 28 1 minute ago, Orlando Buffalo said: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c51ywewzpz2o The party is calling her the nominee, which is impressive for a women who has never received one vote at all outside of California. She didn't even make it to the California primary last time. Likely because she knew she'd lose. And of course she's the nominee. You think they want an open primary and to see Grewsom win it?
Scraps Posted July 28 Posted July 28 14 minutes ago, Doc said: She didn't even make it to the California primary last time. Likely because she knew she'd lose. And of course she's the nominee. You think they want an open primary and to see Grewsom win it? I think her potential serious challengers looked at the calendar, her serious advantages in the office she holds, organization and funding and decided to let her have the field this time. If she wins, great, Trump is defeated. If she loses, she is out of contention and the field is clearer in 2028.
Recommended Posts