I'm not sure why this keeps getting thrown around.This thread is a sad reminder as to why the left stay losing.
Wait til you hear about the New York Times 😂
In trash them just as much. They have a bedbug on the team!
I'm not sure why this keeps getting thrown around.This thread is a sad reminder as to why the left stay losing.
Wait til you hear about the New York Times 😂
When Warren is a decent person who doesn't have these problematic views/issues?
Yes. It needs to be criticized. Because it keeps happening.
It really isn't as all of those things are demonstrably true? I mean do we need to bring up the Pow Wow Chow receipts (in which she also plagiarized all of the content she contributed?)Get this BS outta here.
Christ this is a toxic, nuclear level take.
Here is a small collection of quotes for those of you saying "A Rogan retweet isn't a big deal"
"We're in this weird fantasy world right now where people want to be so progressive and they want to be so open-minded and they don't want to be transphobic. So we're letting people say and do absolutely preposterous things," .... "But you're competing against women? You can go f— yourself,"
"'So I look at the iPhone app and it says, take me to this [movie theater]. The guy goes, "OK,", I go, "is that in a good neighbourhood?" He says, "yeah, yeah, yeah," he barely speaks English.
'He takes us there, we get out and we're giggling, "Oh, we're going to see Plant of the Apes." We walk into Planet of the Apes… we walked into Africa, dude. 'We walked in the door and there was no white people.' "
Yes, good takes all around.
Get this BS outta here.
Christ this is a toxic, nuclear level take.
You just keep denouncing the takes and acting incredulous. Maybe it would help if you actually explain to them why they are wrong.
Yes what Warren did was the exact same as knowingly dressing yourself in black face and claiming to be Trans Racial.It really isn't as all of those things are demonstrably true? I mean do we need to bring up the Pow Wow Chow receipts (in which she also plagiarized all of the content she contributed?)
Why is that bad? People should support whoever is going against Trump. A mannequin from a local mall is a better option than Trump.
Do you not see the numbers for Bernie and Yang supporters??Why is that bad? People should support whoever is going against Trump. A mannequin from a local mall is a better option than Trump.
It's definitely easy to become disillusioned when I like listening to Joe Rogan (I only listen to episodes with guests I'd find interesting, recently that'd include the Black Keys, RDJ, Ed Norton, Josh Homme, Snowden, etc.) - and people in this thread would label me as a terrible person or a racist, when I'm certainly not either of those things. I just find Joe has good guests on, and the conversations often come across like a conversation between friends, and Joe often asks the questions that I would want to ask - so they're usually great. The Black Keys episode was centered around their take on the music industry, and it was super insightful.
You think Trump will win either way?
I genuinely believe only Bernie can win because of his cantankerous nature when it comes to 1 on 1 versus Trump.
If you check out the "AOC says the Democratic party is centrist" thread, every other post is an official Take Review lolYou just keep denouncing the takes and acting incredulous. Maybe it would help if you actually explain to them why they are wrong.
(I'm not endorsing their takes. Just saying that repeatedly acting shocked at what they are saying isn't actually doing anything)
I quite clearly laid out a case of why the dems aren't rightwing/centrist.If you check out the "AOC says the Democratic party is centrist" thread, every other post is an official Take Review lol
Again, like.. LeBron James is one of the most popular and well-known basketball players.You can see the real split in this thread between those who live in the real world and those living in the internet bubble, and this place is a fucking bubble.
Joe "A chimpanzee can rip your face off" Rogan has the most popular podcast in the English speaking world, and people talking about how it's bad Bernie is giving him legitimacy? It's the other way around. NYT times and the rest sure won't give Bernie legitimacy to the general public.
I really hope we do get Bernie versus Trump because it's your only chance.
This is an unsubstantiated takeI quite clearly laid out a case of why the dems aren't rightwing/centrist.
I never said she dressed in black face and I never said she "claimed to be trans racial" wtfYes what Warren did was the exact same as knowingly dressing yourself in black face and claiming to be Trans Racial.
Yes what Warren did was the exact same as knowingly dressing yourself in black face and claiming to be Trans Racial.
What Warren did and what Rachael did are two completely different things.I never said she dressed in black face and I never said she "claimed to be trans racial" wtf
I said she pretended to be a different race, as in writing down Native American on forms, giving media anecdotes about her grandpa's "high cheekbones" proving her heritage, and doubling down on this even after her DNA test proved it all to be completely false in a botched campaign kickoff. I never said any of the stuff you said but what actually happened is bad, you don't need to make things up.
Well then hopefully you aren't defending Joe Rogan or Bernie retweeting him.she knowingly lied and misrepresented her race and heritage. everyone has their standards and limits, and to me thats something i can't abide by. i don't really intend on having a discussion about the severity of it or whether it kills her chances for the general public, or whether its a right talking point or anything.
I never compared her to Rachel Dolezal! But what she did is still bad! What you're saying has nothing to do with what I'm saying.What Warren did and what Rachael did are two completely different things.
Nevermind different person.I never compared her to Rachel Dolezal! But what she did is still bad! What you're saying has nothing to do with what I'm saying.
You can see the real split in this thread between those who live in the real world and those living in the internet bubble, and this place is a fucking bubble.
Well then hopefully you aren't defending Joe Rogan or Bernie retweeting him.
I don't wanna jump into the middle of this shit thread, but that's not necessarily true about endorsements not mattering.Again, like.. LeBron James is one of the most popular and well-known basketball players.
He endorsed Hillary and even campaigned for her in Ohio.
Fuck difference that made.
Same with all the other endorsements Clinton got, including from a lot of "moderate"/traditionally Republican newspapers. Didn't make a difference. Trump still got the votes of the people that read those things.
There's just no evidence, whether individually or in aggregate, that political endorsements from anyone, whether it's celebrities, newspapers, actors, actresses, athletes, or podcast hosts matter one way or the other.
What is known, on the other hand, is that Rogan is a racist and transphobe.
That he did shit like compare black people to apes. Like, direct, unabashed racism.
That THAT is the kind of person Rogan is.
I'd rather candidates, like... they don't necessarily have to call people like that out, but at the very least stay the fuck away from them.
Because that's the thing: there's no evidence endorsement matters. That no one, and I repeat, no one is going to vote because of Rogan.
Just like they didn't because of LeBron James.
Just like they didn't because of the New York Times or Washington Post.
Just like they didn't because of local newspapers.
That just isn't how people vote.
And like, a whole lot of these arguments seem rather predicated on that not being the case, on Rogan actually being able to "reach people."
But from where I'm sitting, I'm like... where's the evidence? I wanna see the receipts. Where's the actual evidence of this endorsement being "different"? Where's the evidence of, regardless of his follower count, regardless of his amount of subscribers or listeners or whatever, of people giving more of a single fuck of his thoughts on who to vote for President than they do LeBron James?
Because if they don't, and I haven't begun to seen people give any more evidence of this than just his numbers which is not evidence in the least more so than like NYT own subscriber numbers or the amount of people that tune in to watch LeBron play, if people don't care, then we're right back to Rogan really not being a good person, and so, if that's what we're left with... Well, it should be pretty easy to surmise my feelings from there.
Again, like.. LeBron James is one of the most popular and well-known basketball players.
He endorsed Hillary and even campaigned for her in Ohio.
Fuck difference that made.
Same with all the other endorsements Clinton got, including from a lot of "moderate"/traditionally Republican newspapers. Didn't make a difference. Trump still got the votes of the people that read those things.
There's just no evidence, whether individually or in aggregate, that political endorsements from anyone, whether it's celebrities, newspapers, actors, actresses, athletes, or podcast hosts matter one way or the other.
What is known, on the other hand, is that Rogan is a racist and transphobe.
That he did shit like compare black people to apes. Like, direct, unabashed racism.
That THAT is the kind of person Rogan is.
I'd rather candidates, like... they don't necessarily have to call people like that out, but at the very least stay the fuck away from them.
Because that's the thing: there's no evidence endorsement matters. That no one, and I repeat, no one is going to vote because of Rogan.
Just like they didn't because of LeBron James.
Just like they didn't because of the New York Times or Washington Post.
Just like they didn't because of local newspapers.
That just isn't how people vote.
And like, a whole lot of these arguments seem rather predicated on that not being the case, on Rogan actually being able to "reach people."
But from where I'm sitting, I'm like... where's the evidence? I wanna see the receipts. Where's the actual evidence of this endorsement being "different"? Where's the evidence of, regardless of his follower count, regardless of his amount of subscribers or listeners or whatever, of people giving more of a single fuck of his thoughts on who to vote for President than they do LeBron James?
Because if they don't, and I haven't begun to seen people give any more evidence of this than just his numbers which is not evidence in the least more so than like NYT own subscriber numbers or the amount of people that tune in to watch LeBron play, if people don't care, then we're right back to Rogan really not being a good person, and so, if that's what we're left with... Well, it should be pretty easy to surmise my feelings from there.
You're confusing me with someone else in this thread, go check my post history seriously. If you want to defend Warren defend what she did don't make things up and try to work an argument around how she isn't as bad as this other worse person who again, I didn't compare her to.
No I did not. I thought they were saying it was bad that they would support whoever the candidate is.
I mean, one of them is a verified transphobe and clearly says racist things but ok whatever.these are the same whataboutisms i always get. only 1 person among those 3 went around calling themselves cherokee. warren killed her chances with me and that's that.
This is how we win, whether you guys like it or not. The other candidates know this since THEY all tried to do what Bernie did. It's a valuable endorsement, way more so than NYTimes.
I'm not sure why this keeps getting thrown around.
In trash them just as much. They have a bedbug on the team!
So how can Bernie fans get upset at Pete, Biden or Clinton for palling around with CHUDs if that's, "just what you have to do to win"?
Trump has a very likely chance of winning reelection. To ignore an impressionable and numerous demographic of voters just screams foolishness to me.
So you'd prefer a Trump victory then?
I mean... Weren't you the one making the argument that this whole Rogan thing doesn't matter because it doesn't affect any of Sanders' own stances on various issues, that it's not like Sanders changed his position on anything, and that's why this doesn't matter?
So what, hypothetically, would be the difference if someone like say David Duke did endorse Sanders and Sanders accepted his endorsement. As long as Sanders didn't actually compromise his stances on any issues, under your own logic, what would be the problem with that? What exactly is the difference between accepting an endorsement from Joe Rogan and one from David Duke, in your mind?
Because as you yourself said, it doesn't matter unless Sanders actually compromises his position on any issues because of it, right/ That was your positon?
Because by the sounds of things, when it comes to one racist, aka David Duke, you realize that there would be more to it and that even if Sanders were to not in any way change his position on any issues as a result of that, it still would not be very cool to accept the endorsement of such an individual.
But yet for Rogan it is different? So what is the difference exactly?
Because it sounds like you're very close to realizing there's more to this than just whether it not this stuff affects Sanders policy positions, but you're only applying that for some people and not others and I'm curious as to why, since this is different to what you said to me earlier in the thread. What's the difference then because certainly this logic of "becoming more sympathetic to a progressive platform" would apply just as much to a hypothetical David Duke endorsement, that you could make the same hypothetical argument to defend it, use the exact same logic, but yet for some reason you nonetheless feel differently and that that wouldn't be the case/wouldn't be good enough for one, but is for the other. Why is that then?
So you and a few others attacked me for daring to say "I'll vote for Biden or Warren or anybody and "maybe" they'll drone strike but we'll get all this progressive stuff done.
And your big brain take is "let's use swamp nazi's and alt right shitheads as a reliable voting block to beat trump. Smash that subscribe button!"
Joe is left leaning and acknowledges man made climate change. I would bet there is more overlap between the Joe Rogan Podcast fans and Bernie supporters than most here would think. It seems odd to me that so many here think Joe is some Trump supporting conservative. I admit, I only listen to the episodes with guests I want to hear from, but I can't recall Joe saying a positive thing about Trump. If anything he seems blown away by the fact that Trumps incoherent babbling gets people excited.
that's not what lost the dems 2016.Purity tests will again lose elections for the Dems like they did in 2016 and era is leading the charge.
Let's be real: if the Democratic base was largely comprised of any other ethnicity besides black Americans people wouldn't be so willing to throw them under the bus.Joe "I am calling a room full of black people 'Planet of the Apes' " Rogan?
Funny how margalized people go right under the bus at a moments notice. David Duke has a large fanbase, I guess his endorsement would be fine as well?
This is just, wowIf he advertised a David Duke endorsement, I'd feel gross.
If David Duke decided to vote for a Jewish dude who says immigrants are great, is that not a good thing though?
Haven't read that, but just seeing AOC's name is in of itself interesting right off the bat.I don't wanna jump into the middle of this shit thread, but that's not necessarily true about endorsements not mattering.
If he advertised a David Duke endorsement, I'd feel gross.
If David Duke decided to vote for a Jewish dude who says immigrants are great, is that not a good thing though?