The Wienermobile hit a car Monday morning along Interstate 294 and its driver lost control and overcorrected, causing it to roll onto its side near the Chicago suburb of Oak Brook, Illinois State Police said.
Barack and Michele were not available for comment.
I wanted to re-approach this now that we've had some time for it to settle. I don't think Vance has been as much of an asset to Trump's campaign as a more mature figure -like Ben Carson, as Todd suggested- would be, or a more centrist figure -as I suggested- would be. I think even Chris Christy may have been a better choice for shoring up centrist votes.
Is Vance providing some benefit I'm not seeing? It still seems to me that he is meant to be the MAGA standard-bearer moving forward, but has had a luke warm start.
[This message has been edited by NewDustin (edited 08-22-2024).]
Is Vance providing some benefit I'm not seeing? It still seems to me that he is meant to be the MAGA standard-bearer moving forward, but has had a luke warm start.
Trump learned a valuable lesson from his first term. It is impossible for him to work well with anyone who does not 100% agree with and support him (se: Pence, Flynn, McMaster, Priebus, Scaramucci, Pompeo, Comey, etc, etc)
Vance is a sycophant "mini me". And I bet the MAGA core loves him.
[This message has been edited by BingB (edited 08-22-2024).]
Trump learned a valuable lesson from his first term. It is impossible for him to work well with anyone who does not 100% agree with and support him (se: Pence, Flynn, McMaster, Priebus, Scaramucci, Pompeo, Comey, etc, etc)
Vance is a sycophant "mini me". And I bet the MAGA core loves him.
There are way better sycophants that the former "America's Hitler" guy, though. Why Vance?
the RWNJ 's persecuted the man who invented computers and used them to win the war how was he rewarded sex crazed christian's drove him to kill himself
vance and his self righteous nuts would do it all over again as that is their core program the dark side is strong in the Gop esp in the nut christian factions vance is in
anyone who talks to tucker the assfaced clown is a darksider you love the lying darkside and post their lies here over and over with out a care if they are true
the big LIE is the Gop trademark and that face the tucker sports has never questioned any of the Gop lies he just repeats them endlessly as do you
anyone who talks to tucker the assfaced clown is a darksider you love the lying darkside and post their lies here over and over with out a care if they are true
the big LIE is the Gop trademark and that face the tucker sports has never questioned any of the Gop lies he just repeats them endlessly as do you
the RWNJ 's persecuted the man who invented computers and used them to win the war how was he rewarded sex crazed christian's drove him to kill himself
vance and his self righteous nuts would do it all over again as that is their core program the dark side is strong in the Gop esp in the nut christian factions vance is in
I'm not confused about who Alan Turing is, my entire career is built around the field he created. I'm also not unfamiliar with his persecution. I am confused that you said "people that killed Alan Turing" if you meant "people whose persecution drove him to suicide." I'm also confused that you'd use the persecution by 1950s British conservatives as your example. That seems like an out-of-left-field one to use.
I'm not confused about who Alan Turing is, my entire career is built around the field he created. I'm also not unfamiliar with his persecution. I am confused that you said "people that killed Alan Turing" if you meant "people whose persecution drove him to suicide." I'm also confused that you'd use the persecution by 1950s British conservatives as your example. That seems like an out-of-left-field one to use.
the very same mind set that religious conservatives had then is j d vance's regressive brand today
alan is a perfect example a war winning hero who killed by reading codes won the war and invented the computer but the bigots just could not stand his existence and vance IS THE VERY TYPE WHO would do it again HARDER THERE ARE REASONS TO FIGHT THE LIES
The group responsible was made up almost entirely of Protestant Evangelical Christians like you who formed many various organizations against racial equality and not just the KKK as there were semi-legal fronts of racism, but very much the same racists we have today. The same front was against women's suffrage; these are the same a-holes of the south and west we have today banning women from controlling their own bodies. And obviously alcohol in the form of the Anti Saloon League, later reborn as Mothers Against Drunk Drivers; read up as they are not only against drunk driving which 99% of people agree with, MADD also lobbies to restrict and heavily tax all alcohol to prevent anyone from drinking and are responsible for why you can pay taxes and/or die for your country but not have a cold beer after getting shot in the ass by an enemy if you are under the age of 21. MADD is also very much against you sitting at home and firing up a blunt while sitting on your back porch watching the sunset and thinking about your next purchase.
The group responsible was made up almost entirely of Protestant Evangelical Christians like you who formed many various organizations against racial equality and not just the KKK as there were semi-legal fronts of racism, but very much the same racists we have today. The same front was against women's suffrage; these are the same a-holes of the south and west we have today banning women from controlling their own bodies. And obviously alcohol in the form of the Anti Saloon League, later reborn as Mothers Against Drunk Drivers; read up as they are not only against drunk driving which 99% of people agree with, MADD also lobbies to restrict and heavily tax all alcohol to prevent anyone from drinking and are responsible for why you can pay taxes and/or die for your country but not have a cold beer after getting shot in the ass by an enemy if you are under the age of 21. MADD is also very much against you sitting at home and firing up a blunt while sitting on your back porch watching the sunset and thinking about your next purchase.
Originally posted by randye: September 18, 2023 is the date that ABC NEWS took over Nate Silver's 538, thereby divesting it of any shred of impartiality.
While I feel like I'm accommodating an intellectually dishonest covering of "if I don't like what it has to say than it's fake"...you don't have to take 538's word for it. You could ask...
...that's three non-partisan sources, one right-leaning source, and one left-leaning source, all with similar findings (adjusting for the pre-debate surge the 538 poll wouldn't be able to account for). Still, 'technically many.' Maybe one day he'll even get as far as "some people."
[This message has been edited by NewDustin (edited 10-07-2024).]
While I feel like I'm accommodating an intellectually dishonest covering of "if I don't like what it has to say than it's fake"...you don't have to take 538's word for it. You could ask...
...that's three non-partisan sources, one right-leaning source, and one left-leaning source, all with similar findings (adjusting for the pre-debate surge the 538 poll wouldn't be able to account for). Still, 'technically many.' Maybe one day he'll even get as far as "some people."
If the results are factual, that says a lot about the stupidity of the American voter.
I sincerely doubt the veracity of the polls.
Look to the polls of the past elections, and the results.
ND is just wasting everybody's time. Nothing he said is of any consequence.
Here is what I said:
Many Taylor Swift fans drive Subarus and own German Shepherds.
No, here is what you said: "Many are looking ahead to 2028 and the prospect of a Vance presidency."
What I did was point out that while you can technically use the word "many" for the people who would support a Vance Presidency, you could also technically use the words "way, way more" for the people who would not support a Vance Presidency. You're awfully dismissive of it having consequence, but I'm aware you think confounding information regarding any opinion you've already formed is a waste of your time. Given my goal here is to encourage critical questioning of previously-formed opinions, were this a conversation strictly between the two of us I'd be wasting my time too
quote
Originally posted by olejoedad:
If the results are factual, that says a lot about the stupidity of the American voter.
I sincerely doubt the veracity of the polls.
Look to the polls of the past elections, and the results.
I'll likely never cease to be astonished at the reverence and veracity that Leftists put on opinion polls.
They simply cannot come to a personal conclusion on anything unless they are assured that it's somehow a "consensus" of opinions.
It is an expression of the axiom that, for Leftists, opinions = facts.
I don't remember showing reverence to any one of these individual polls or it's veracity...but then again I'm not a "Leftist" so maybe you weren't referring to me? I feel like that statement needs clarification.
In any case, this is a conversation about the amount of people that support a candidate. A "personal opinion" on "how many people would support a JD Vance Presidency" without any basis outside of that opinion would be willful ignorance.
Originally posted by randye: I'll likely never cease to be astonished at the reverence and veracity that Leftists put on opinion polls.
They simply cannot come to a personal conclusion on anything unless they are assured that it's somehow a "consensus" of opinions.
It is an expression of the axiom that, for Leftists, opinions = facts.
well it would be better if the RWNJ LIE LESS
it is a right wing thing to not admit who or what they support
BuSh2 the rump project 25 wanting national abortion bans backing criminal police stealing random citizen cash on a whim never any real consequences for cop crimes \ wanting to give cop unlimited power [recent rump speech]
be up front with far less lying and less lying scum like rump/mini-me
Originally posted by NewDustin: Given my goal here is to encourage critical questioning of previously-formed opinions, were this a conversation strictly between the two of us I'd be wasting my time too
In any case, this is a conversation about the amount of people that support a candidate. A "personal opinion" on "how many people would support a JD Vance Presidency" without any basis outside of that opinion would be willful ignorance.
Actually, the thread is a conversation about Vance as a VP pick .
As to your second sentence, that would be a personal opinion, not willful ignorance.
And as always, you're just as entitled to your opinion as anyone else.
Actually, the thread is a conversation about Vance as a VP pick .
That's a fair point. I should have said "the post I was replying to."
quote
As to your second sentence, that would be a personal opinion, not willful ignorance.
I purposefully described a situation where someone would have to willfully ignore information that they know exists. If that's the process someone uses to form an opinion -and they are absolutely welcome to do so- than I'm being accurate by describing it as 'willfully ignorant.'
Just as with toast, bing, sourmash and a few others, anyone who has a different opinion than ND is willfully ignorant or not thinking critically (i.e. not intelligent). This is simply a more polite way of calling conservatives "rubes" or "RWNJ".
Years ago, Rush coined the term "seminar callers". This is the forum equivalent.
I don't remember showing reverence to any one of these individual polls or it's veracity...but then again I'm not a "Leftist" so maybe you weren't referring to me? I feel like that statement needs clarification.
In any case, this is a conversation about the amount of people that support a candidate. A "personal opinion" on "how many people would support a JD Vance Presidency" without any basis outside of that opinion would be willful ignorance.
Before Camala became VP, and before Lunch Box Joe dropped out, Camala had no support the be the next President.
It would be willful ignorance not to know this.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 10-09-2024).]
Originally posted by olejoedad: It is up to the individual to determine what information is factual, and what information is not.
You have confused "fact" and "opinion" here. What defines a "fact" is it's objectivity outside of individual perception; facts are not changed or determined by an individuals perceptions or opinions of them. What is factual for one person is factual for all people. If that's not the case, you are not dealing with facts, you are dealing with subjective opinions. People are absolutely entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to insist their opinions are "facts," or to redefine factual information so it is indistinguishable from opinion.
quote
Willfully ignorant, no matter how one minces it, is an insult.
I am willfully ignorant of what is currently going on in Pokemon culture. I am willfully ignorant of how many Kardashians there are, and what their individual names are. I am willfully ignorant of what heroin is like. I will be willfully ignorant of how George RR Martin finishes 'A Song of Ice and Fire' because screw that guy and abandoning your books' fans to finish a crap TV show.
[This message has been edited by NewDustin (edited 10-09-2024).]
