Matthew

I'm doubting the logic of what she claimed. Keep up bud. 🙂

That french song and dance production for a sporting event made me soo mad! 🙄

Yeah I give them credit for originality, though the pre-recorded bits were pretty lame. I felt like I was watching a commercial for a cruise or something.

I agree, and flight attendants deal with hundreds and hundreds of customers day in and day out and one of them accidently says "sir," the captain of the plane is not going to take the extrodinary step of banning the passenger. It's not impossible, but it's just extremely unlikely barely plausible. Clearly more ocurred that got her in trouble.

His age has been an issue for years, but biden attracted more attention about it. Now with biden out, trump gets the old man commentary. I don't see why you're so sad about it. If it's not a real issue of legitimate concern, it will go away.

Yep so now that we're all primed to compare age and mental faculties thanks to trump, trump now gets to be on the receiving end of those comparisons.

And maybe it was as simple as that, and maybe this person was unjustly treated as they claim. But it sounds like there was actually a whole dispute that occurred which the lady conveniently left out of her video performance aimed at her army of fellow Instagram karens.

I've so far never commented on anyone's age. But both candidates were old af and trump people made age the main issue and everyone was resigned to that reality. So now that's been the main issue for years, and biden is out, we're left with suddenly old af trump with unhinged tirades about sharks and other old man nonsense.

I read the article, watched the ladys video, and then went and read several other sources. Is your normal habit to just consume a piece of propoganda and then take it at face value?

Well as a method of journalism, attempts at fact-checking are certainty not immune to bias and inaccuracy. But the idea of picking specific factual statements made and doing a deep dive on the veracity of those statements is extremely valuable in a media landscape that otherwise operates like an echo chamber of contrived narratives. As one would expect, politicans and political hobbyists whose entire schtick revolves around made-up non-factual talking points tend to be the ones who ridicule fact checking generally as a practice.

Imagine trying to be outraged about this.

It's not new. A very large majority of democrats (like 80%) thought Biden was too old prior to him dropping out.

The whole pretext of this story seems fishy. Like when in the boarding process does anyone have a natural opportunity to refer to a flight attendant's gender? Seems more likely to be a Karen situation. According to the airline she was trying to bring extra carry-ons including an entire car seat onto the plane. An argument occurred so it's possible mom was saying angry things at them. The captain himself said she was barred from the flight. They rescheduled her for the next one. Then she makes a dramatic woe is me video for her 20k Instagram followers.

I've noticed that there is a certain kind of person who doesn't like "fact checking" as a concept.

Seems you're talking about people having opinions about shit, not democrats being ostracized from the political party because of different opinions, which is what you were previously asking about. As far as irrationality, I'm not sure any political viewpoint has a monopoly on that.

This may sound strange given the degree of right wing purity tests and RINO accusations etc, but no one in the Democratic Party is policing its members for their views. There is a policy consensus on many issues and some of them one agrees with and others one doesn't agree with. You're not forced to believe anything lest you get cast out. Literally the only thing Democrats have in common is that they aren't Republicans. About 20% of people who lean Democrat are against gay marriage. My wife is in this boat. Obviously most democrats are ok with gay people having freedom to get married. Those democrats wanting to use state power to discriminate against them will probably not have their views represented.

I think this is an important topic, despite everyone's best efforts here to trivialize it with nonsense examples. All political movements and parties and nations have the capacity for huge levels of actual political violence. I think there are two things to look for: 1. Political rhetoric that encourages popular violence or mobilizes for it. 2. Acceptance of popular political violence when it does occur. In history, left wing, right wing, centrist, and traditionalist movements have all done this. In the US right now the level of political violence is extremely low. Though fringe right wing terrorists in recent decades have done some attacks, those were not accepted by leaders on the right. Trump has come close to vaguely enouraging low level violence, but he's not a very serious person and even his own followers are accustomed too not taking what he he says seriously. Moderate left-leaning liberal and moderste right-leaning conservatives overwhelmingly denounce violence. There are far left wing socialists who like to use rhetoric about guillotines and promote gun ownership. Though leftists currently do not mobilize for actual violence in the way that the far right militia groups do. But again neither of these extremes enjoy much popular appeal though the far right nationalism is by far more prevalent.

How has this thread made it this far without anyone quoting republicans little napkin-length platform that they passed at their convention?

I love when right wing people are oblivious to their own projection. There is plenty to dislike about the Democratic party, how it operates, and it's consensus on certain issues. But it's a pretty big tent of different viewpoint and people who do not agree on fundamental issues. For example it has distinct left wing socialists camp and a centrist liberal capitalist camp. As well as caucuses of different labor and social groups. The republicans used to have a big tent coalition of different groups but the trump people gradually took over and have largely purged anyone who isn't a trump loyalist. Sounds a lot more like a cult to me.

That's your opinion. The SF government does an elaborate survey of their 7000-some homeless people every other year. Why they believe they unable to get a home (2022 data): - 39% Can't afford rent - 24% Not enough income - 17% Can't afford to move elsewhere - 15% No housing available Why they say they are homeless in the first place: - 21% Lost a job - 14% Eviction - 12% Alcohol/drugs - 9% Argument with family - 7% Mental health issue - 7% Parole/probation restrictions 1. San Fransisco's homeless overwhelmingly resided in California before becoming homeless. 71% specifically from SF. 2. It doesn't matter for your puposes if they rented for a year before becoming homeless. You're claiming that drug addict homeless people from across the US choose to flock to CA. Also there is an intense bureaucratic process for obtaining free housing is SF that prioritizes families. One cannot easily float in and get that. Nope There is not free housing available to everyone. And the main problem is housing costs. Addiction and mental health is a big issue for about 50% of them in SF but there are plenty of people who simply can't make enough money to afford outragously high rent.

Uh Oh. Maybe just misinformation, but already headlines about Trump regretting Vance. Supposedly because he was chosen to beef up base but now the the race might be closer and Vance does nothing to appeal to the middle. Is Donald Trump Getting Cold Feet Over JD Vance?

I think it's good news. A lot of people want ANY better option. Trump and Vance is an extremely unlikeable ticket so really any halfway normal decent person will do.

Point #14 is the only definitively socialist objective on the list. If you want to be generous then perhaps points #15 and #22. Most of it is overwhelmingly nationalist ideology with no overlap of socialism. Wealthy Germans and German corporations largely supported the Nazis and in turn the Nazis did not target them with their forced labor policies, nor attempt to liquidate the elite business and aristocracy classes. Capitalist finance and banking continued, though within the goals and parameters set by the state. Plausible, though I'm not aware of nazi policies or ideas about rent. Many societies, including most governments today regardless of economic philosophy, have engaged in rent control and limitations upon landlords. That statement doesn't make much sense. 20th century left wing communist parties were typically based on Marxist-Leninist socialism. Maybe the Nazis did create some kind of right wing ultra nationalist socialism in some way. But the socialist elements are pretty minimal, especially after the Nazis actually came to power.

She's making what appears to be a weak semantic argument based on a strict interpretation of the word "isolate." Again, they have mapped the entire genome of many viruses, which makes that entire argument completely irrelevant.

Keep in mind that the people literally living unsheltered on the streets and in parks are not necessarily representative of the total homeless population, a larger percentage of which is sheltered in some way. Living with friends, in cars, in homeless shelters, squatters, etc. About 40% of homeless people in any given night are unsheltered. Those with drug and severe mental health problems are probably far more likely to be chronically unsheltered, which might have skewed your observations.