Russia is now bombing Ukraine

[usagi]

the bulwark, bro.

[chenGOD]

2 hours ago, may be rude said:

i don't concede that he deliberately mislead people

lol abandon all hope, ye who enter this void of critical thinking.

2 hours ago, may be rude said:

the public and media were manipulated by the bush administration about iraq. kristol was possibly careless

lol Kristol and Kagan literally wrote letters to the Clinton and Bush administration urging them to invade Iraq. Kristol in particular wanted to send more troops to Iraq.

2 hours ago, may be rude said:

slandering the bulwark with 0 fucking awareness of it.

the slandering part deux!

Man, if you want to be a useful idiot for the neocons who got America in to the mess they're in in the first place, go right ahead, you don't need my permission. But I'm gonna call it out occasionally. Like you want the "right" to eat themselves, but no need to lick their boots in the process - don't get it twisted - they are no friend to any progressive (and yes it's hard to call the democrats progressive, but they're nowhere near as bad as the Republicans and you gotta keep pushing that overton window left instead of right).

 

2 hours ago, ignatius said:

were we talking about the bulwark? is bill kristol associated w/them?

Bill Kristol is one of the original (financial) supporters of the bulwark and he puts up opinion pieces there frequently. The bulwark claims to be non-partisan but many of its staffers/editors come from the Weekly Standard (the Murdoch-backed, Kristol-run neocon rag that put out the lies about Iraq) and has a very neocon world view, with the occasional centrist-right view on display.

[may be rude]

3 hours ago, ignatius said:

3 hours ago, may be rude said:

like do you even know anything about the bulwark?

?? were we talking about the bulwark? is bill kristol associated w/them? how many pages back was the bulwark mentioned?  i haven't watched much of their stuff. the bit i watched long ago didn't inspire me to dig in. sorta mainstreamy topic of the day talking points type coverage like cable news.  there's a handful of popular youtube channels that do that kind of thing and they often come across more or less the same w/minor differences... depending on where they fall left or right of center. 

but what are we talking about them for? 

yeah. same page. it was in the post chen was replying to. yeah kristol does a lot with the bulwark these days.

maybe wrong thread but tim miller and sarah longwell at the bulwark are great for us political horse race analysis and activism strategy. tim managed jeb bush's campaign and sarah longwell runs focus groups with voters. they put a lot on youtube and their podcast feed. 

Edited May 29 by may be rude

[may be rude]

32 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

3 hours ago, may be rude said:

i don't concede that he deliberately mislead people

lol abandon all hope, ye who enter this void of critical thinking.

just not gonna spend time doing a report for you. seems like a dubious claim though so i called that out.

32 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

3 hours ago, may be rude said:

the public and media were manipulated by the bush administration about iraq. kristol was possibly careless

lol Kristol and Kagan literally wrote letters to the Clinton and Bush administration urging them to invade Iraq. Kristol in particular wanted to send more troops to Iraq.

ok interesting. yeah i don't give a big fuck about defending kristol. my original point was that the video i posted was good and he's doing some good interviews with that channel. he's pretty sharp in some ways. and he does some good political analysis these days with some others who i like including the bulwark people. 

32 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

3 hours ago, may be rude said:

slandering the bulwark with 0 fucking awareness of it.

the slandering part deux!

Man, if you want to be a useful idiot for the neocons who got America in to the mess they're in in the first place, go right ahead, you don't need my permission. But I'm gonna call it out occasionally. Like you want the "right" to eat themselves, but no need to lick their boots in the process - don't get it twisted - they are no friend to any progressive (and yes it's hard to call the democrats progressive, but they're nowhere near as bad as the Republicans and you gotta keep pushing that overton window left instead of right).

i don't see you refuting that you know nothing about the bulwark and accept your tacit concession on that point

 

Edited May 29 by may be rude

[auxien]

28 minutes ago, may be rude said:

tim managed jeb bush's campaign and sarah longwell runs focus groups with voters. they put a lot on youtube and their podcast feed. 

lol that is definitely a record like none other. add in Kristol's grifting ass too? i'm sold.

[ignatius]

38 minutes ago, may be rude said:

tim managed jeb bush's campaign

[usagi]

34 minutes ago, may be rude said:

just not gonna spend time doing a report for you. seems like a dubious claim though so i called that out.

ok interesting. yeah i don't give a big fuck about defending kristol. my original point was that the video i posted was good and he's doing some good interviews with that channel. he's pretty sharp in some ways. and he does some good political analysis these days with some others who i like including the bulwark people. 

i don't see you refuting that you know nothing about the bulwark and accept your tacit concession on that point

 

you're not even good at this supreme infolord schtick of yours. you just got owned by someone who knows the actual facts and you're just like "mmk seemed suss idk but don't slander the bulwark" whatever tf that means. just admit you're a partisan hack who will vouch for anything that seems exploitable by your side, even when that means sucking up to neocon freaks. you're not all that different anyway.

[may be rude]

38 minutes ago, usagi said:

you're not even good at this supreme infolord schtick of yours. you just got owned by someone who knows the actual facts and you're just like "mmk seemed suss idk but don't slander the bulwark" whatever tf that means. just admit you're a partisan hack who will vouch for anything that seems exploitable by your side, even when that means sucking up to neocon freaks. you're not all that different anyway.

it's weird how you troll me here, man. and your takes never get better. you have bad takes. your post here is garbage that doesn't merit dissecting. it refutes itself for anyone who checks it. you're a troll. can you realize you're unconsciously trolling? i'm serious, do you kind of know that's what you're doing? do you know you're pretending to know shit you don't know? for likes/dopamine? it's chidlish bullshit. role playing. gambling that you're right. you're not. stop.

Edited May 29 by may be rude

[chenGOD]

2 hours ago, may be rude said:

i don't see you refuting that you know nothing about the bulwark and accept your tacit concession on that point

go see the last paragraph here:

I've read enough of the bulwark to know what it's about. I concede nothing, except that you are more than living up to your user name.

I did like the headline for this article:

Tucker and Ben Shapiro Pegged By Con Man Prostitute with Sham Story

[usagi]

55 minutes ago, may be rude said:

it's weird how you troll me here, man. and your takes never get better. you have bad takes. your post here is garbage that doesn't merit dissecting. it refutes itself for anyone who checks it. you're a troll. can you realize you're unconsciously trolling? i'm serious, do you kind of know that's what you're doing? do you know you're pretending to know shit you don't know? for likes/dopamine? it's chidlish bullshit. role playing. gambling that you're right. you're not. stop.

you missed your chance to tell me to fist my ass.

[may be rude]

12 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

I did like the headline for this article:

Tucker and Ben Shapiro Pegged By Con Man Prostitute with Sham Story

lol

12 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

2 hours ago, may be rude said:

i don't see you refuting that you know nothing about the bulwark and accept your tacit concession on that point

go see the last paragraph here:

I've read enough of the bulwark to know what it's about. I concede nothing, except that you are more than living up to your user name.

right you know about bill kristol from 20 years ago from before the bulwark existed. got it

[chenGOD]

I literally described the bulwark's political slant, who they have on staff, and what type of material they published. If you're going to argue, at least do so in good faith.

[may be rude]

29 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

I literally described the bulwark's political slant, who they have on staff, and what type of material they published. If you're going to argue, at least do so in good faith.

your post conveyed no familiarity with the bulwark, and seemed to just project based on impressions of one collaborator 20 years ago. you accuse me of bad faith but it's hard for me to believe you're not disingenuously covering your tracks. did you really have familiarity with the bulwark when you posted your slander? the bulwark in recent years is producing some of the best us political analysis. i think you reflexively want to discredit it for conservative association, not realizing the value of these more good faith conservative takers. whatever memory of bill kristol you have i invite you to check out some of his newer stuff.

the people at the bulwark are the ones watching for any sign of hope inside the republican party and sounding the alarm that it looks like the republican party as conservatives knew it does not seem to be coming back. it seems to have been consumed and to now be the party of trump. it's important to get these inside takes. 

Edited May 29 by may be rude

[usagi]

and then post them on WATMM.

[chenGOD]

44 minutes ago, may be rude said:

whatever memory of bill kristol you have i invite you to check out some of his newer stuff.

I have, and my point stands - he is a neocon who wants to regain control of the Republican party as he believes it should be. His views on foreign policy have not changed. Here he is in 2014 advocating for more US troops in Iraq: https://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/bill-kristol-john-heilemann-iraq-msnbc-107935 and a year after that defending the invasion in 2003 even knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction: https://www.mediamatters.org/bill-kristol/iraq-war-architect-bill-kristol-knowing-what-we-know-now-we-were-right-fight-iraq

And here he is in 2021 advocating for keeping troops in Afghanistan:

Do I think Ukraine has the right to defend itself, of course I do. I also disagree with many of Kristol's critics that NATO expansionism caused the Russian invasion (all the countries that became party to NATO did so on their own recognizance, and they were right to do so - look how Putin's Russia has treated the non-NATO country on its doorstep).

But let's not sugarcoat this - the man is a neocon, and in no way is acting in good faith. He wants America to be a strong superpower capable of invading and fighting multiple battles at the same time. And to see how he was a huge part of the problem in causing the morass of hatred that festers in the Trump party: https://crisismagazine.com/opinion/bill-kristol-was-the-standard

Now sure, maybe he's changed his views on abortion, LGBQT rights and so on - or maybe he's just pandering because he's so desperate to get rid of Trump. https://attackthesystem.com/2022/05/13/how-not-to-change-your-mind-the-curious-case-of-bill-kristols-ideological-transformation/

You don't need The Bulwark to watch "...for any sign of hope inside the republican party and sounding the alarm that it looks like the republican party as conservatives knew it does not seem to be coming back. it seems to have been consumed and to now be the party of trump..." you can see that playing out in plain sight. Siding with Kristol and his crew of neocons is going back to the times that made the present day possible.

p.s. you should really look up the definition of the word slander.

 

[usagi]

yeah well, you know, that's just like, your bad take, man.

[Alcofribas]

Chengo has slandered 

[may be rude]

6 hours ago, chenGOD said:

Do I think Ukraine has the right to defend itself, of course I do. I also disagree with many of Kristol's critics that NATO expansionism caused the Russian invasion (all the countries that became party to NATO did so on their own recognizance, and they were right to do so - look how Putin's Russia has treated the non-NATO country on its doorstep).

alright i'm glad we agree on this

6 hours ago, chenGOD said:

But let's not sugarcoat this - the man is a neocon, and in no way is acting in good faith. He wants America to be a strong superpower capable of invading and fighting multiple battles at the same time. And to see how he was a huge part of the problem in causing the morass of hatred that festers in the Trump party: https://crisismagazine.com/opinion/bill-kristol-was-the-standard

ok thanks for illuminating some aspects of his neocon history, that's interesting and i see your point. 

anyway i still think that the video i posted was good, even if the interviewer is someone peolpe don't like because he's a neocon. and i still think kristol has been doing some good interviews on his channel and has been doing some good work with others i follow who i think are good these days. but yeah i don't like that neocon stuff and that's a significant point

i'm still not seeing you refute that you were unfamiliar with the bulwark aside from the history of one contributor pre-bulwark, when you publicly tarnished their reputation in your post to me on the last page. mainly wanted to put a donk on defending the bulwark, specifically tim miller and sarah longwell who are putting out some really valuable insight lately. 

pretty sure i used "slander" correctly. you seemed to call the bulwark a clown school. it's not. and i don't think you were familiar with it when you said that because they're not that big and people who are familiar with it wouldn't call it that. you can slander an organization. 

Edited May 29 by may be rude

[ignatius]

8 hours ago, may be rude said:

the people at the bulwark are the ones watching for any sign of hope inside the republican party and sounding the alarm that it looks like the republican party as conservatives knew it does not seem to be coming back. it seems to have been consumed and to now be the party of trump. it's important to get these inside takes. 

to be fair. this is not an "inside take". this has been a common narrative in media outlets of all kinds for years now. News Hour on PBS has talked about this regularly from view points of the left/right weekly on dedicated segments with different guests since trump emerged from his golden toilet and gone down the escalator.

if you want a very sort of flat perspective from journalists i'd recommend the news hour on PBS. it's not perfect but i think it's the closest thing to unbiased journalism in that format. 

Edited May 29 by ignatius

[Alcofribas]

8 hours ago, may be rude said:

the people at the bulwark are the ones watching for any sign of hope inside the republican party and sounding the alarm that it looks like the republican party as conservatives knew it does not seem to be coming back.

do you want the replublican party to "come back" or do you want to destroy it? 

[chenGOD]

2 hours ago, Alcofribas said:

Chengo has slandered 

I’m a sick libelous fuck

[ignatius]

51 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

I’m a sick libelous fuck

... he said, pulling her hair. It wasn't the kind of dirty talk she was used to but she couldn't help but like it. Later during her appearance on Democracy Now she would have to fight distraction thinking about this line. It was disruptive because she could feel a smile or smirk breaking into the corner of her mouth while being asked about Putin's agenda in the Donbas region. She hoped no one noticed. 

Edited May 29 by ignatius

[chenGOD]

2 hours ago, may be rude said:

you publicly tarnished their reputation 

 

tarnished their reputation?

congrats you made me actually laugh out loud.

[Alcofribas]

30 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

 

tarnished their reputation?

congrats you made me actually laugh out loud.

your honor, my client - mr. chengo - did it for the rush, the adaptation, and the general backwardness of the act.

[may be rude]

14 hours ago, Alcofribas said:

do you want the replublican party to "come back" or do you want to destroy it? 

for my entire adult life the republican party has been a nefarious presence. i'd love it to suffer major losses in coming elections. it's a minority party that's inflated its power using money from the rich and corporations it panders to, along with deceitful tricks like gerrymandering. the dems having firm control of congress and the white house for several election cycles is extremely important for the climate issue, which threatens global civilization, directly or indirectly. firm dem control would also help to correct things like gerrymandering, dems tried passing the For The People Act which had a pretty clean solution for it.

what i want is the same thing everyone wants, peace and prosperity. to answer your question, i can't say because it's more steps down the road. first they need to lose. as they lose hard and continue to be a minority party, the political realignment and reconfiguration that we've been in will continue and we will see where we are. how many conservatives will start supporting moderate dems? will the dem moderates and progressives function more as separate parties, as the republican party shrinks? will the election losses on the right cause a cycling of new blood and some course correction, allowing it to remain viable as a conservative party? we'll see. 

in its current form, at the national level, it can't continue to have power. it's cancer, so much so that adversaries of the US are supporting it.

it would be nice if the saner republicans coalesced around denouncing maga, so i don't have to think it so much. on the other hand, if trump ultimately drags the republican party down with him, then that may be good. not trying to risk the orange autocracy though so trying to help the right find jesus seems ok for now

Edited May 30 by may be rude