https://x.com/RabbiPoupko/status/2075230881560572121/video/1?s=46
“I don’t care if Bernie or AOC are secret NAZIS, as long as they vote for the right things.”
The decline and fall of the DFL in real time.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
https://x.com/RabbiPoupko/status/2075230881560572121/video/1?s=46
“I don’t care if Bernie or AOC are secret NAZIS, as long as they vote for the right things.”
The decline and fall of the DFL in real time.
13 comments:
If you're trying to suggest that I wouldn't care if somebody was engaged in bad behavior, of course I care. That's why your preferred king is clearly not qualified. It would never get my vote even if he was a Democrat. Character matters. Being a decent person matters.
Do you understand how ridiculous it is to suggest that progressives don't care if someone's a Nazi? Y'all are the ones that are embracing fascism not us. Y'all are the ones that are turning blind eyes to atrocious behavior that would never have been accepted in the past by conservatives, not us.
Dan
I'm suggesting that your concern for "bad behavior" would very likely be tempered by your desire to elect those who "vote the right way", and that you would rationalize your vote for the candidate with "bad behavior" by telling yourself that it was for the greater good.
Obviously, I'm drawing conclusions based on your words and actions as well as the words and actions of those you do support or who are on your political side. Just as obviously, we have no way of knowing what you would actually do when you get into the voting booth. It's possible that your vote always matches the standards you apply to others but I doubt it.
I understand how ridiculous it is for a literal progressive (who has enough clout to get interviewed) to actually say that they wouldn't care of Bernie or AOC was a "secret NAZI". It's incredibly stupid to say something like that when your words are being recorded for posterity.
Thank you for telling us that you didn't actually WATCH the video, without actually saying that you didn't watch.
Strangely enough, we've just had the DFL equivalent of the Tea Party where about 8 seriously liberal officeholders lost in their primaries to actual socalists, and where a guy who lied about virtually his entire backstory, and known history of SA and other "bad behavior" AND had a SS tattoo overwhelmingly won the DFL primary with the backing of DFL leaders , and you're making nonsense claims.
Craig...
"Lost in their primaries to actual socalists,"
Oh no!! Not actual socialism!! We are all doomed!! They're going to eat our cats and babies and dogs!
Don't demonstrate that you're ignorant. Democratic socialists are NOT Nazis, you simpleton liar. Come on, you can't be this stupid, this uneducated, this ignorant.
Those sort of objectively stupidly false claims and slanders may work for your type of people but the majority of the US is not as stupid as that. We're not as stupid as to not understand the difference between Mamdani and Hitler. Don't be stupid and don't slander and don't make false claims. Be better.
Craig...
"I'm suggesting that your concern for "bad behavior" would very likely be tempered by your desire to elect those who "vote the right way","
Your problem is that this is an astoundingly stupid false claim. I've never suggested anything like that and it is a damned lie. You're factually wrong and you should know better as I've abundantly made clear in our conversations over the years, I remind you I would not vote for Bill Clinton when he had done much less obvious misdeeds than your sexual predator that you keep voting for. It's a stupid and stupidly false claim.
No one votes for people that they think are bad people.
Whoops. Let me correct that. MOST people don't.
The GOP has proven themselves entirely willing to do that and shame on y'all. Shame on you. You see, I'm not you. Just because YOU are willing to vote for known sexual predators and corrupt idiots does not mean that other people are.
You're projecting.
Dan
I don’t even know where to start with the lies and falsehoods here. Which raises the question, “Why dignify the BS with a response?”, I’ll have to decide if it’s worth my time.
My opinion of your possible actions based on your previous behavior, isn’t a false claim in the least. It’s not even a claim. It’s an opinion based on observation.
Again, the video you’re ignoring makes exactly the claim that you say people don’t do.
If, like most rational people, I’m confronted with voting for a person who’s engaged in bad behavior running against someone else who’s engaged in bad behavior (because who hasn’t engaged in bad behavior), then I’ll vote for the one who is most aligned with my politics. Which, I suspect is how most people would vote.
In this case, I’m listening to the AMPLE evidence of DFL leader after DFL leader and MSM talking heads voluntarily imploring people to vote for Platner. These DFL luminaries are the people you support, advocating policies you support, speaking on the very MSM that you revere. The literal case (as in the video above) is “Vote for Platner so we can get control of the senate.
Pardon me if I don’t believe that you’d trade a vote for Platner to get Trump impeached. “By any means necessary”, right?
I’m not projecting, I’m listening to big shots on your side say what they said, ignore credible SA allegations (until he SAd a lib), and (once again) subvert the electoral process to anoint a candidate without a single popular vote.
FYI, Platner won the primary handily despite people knowing (or having access to knowing) every negative thing about Platner except the recent SA (liberal) accusation and they still voted for him.
I guess lots of ASPL will vote for a “bad person”.
Let’s also ignore the MSM’s complicity in perpetuating the false narrative and intentionally burying SA allegations against Platner.
Craig...
"Pardon me if I don’t believe that you’d trade a vote for Platner to get Trump impeached. “By any means necessary”, right?"
Again you're projecting. That you're willing to throw moral high ground away from partisan gain does not mean that other people are. If I have a choice of a Republican and a Democrat candidate where the Democrat candidate has credibly been accused of misdeeds, serious misdeeds like sexual assault, I would not vote for that Democrat. I would do a write-in vote or vote for a third party if there was one. I would not vote for a candidate with that level of moral problems.
I get that you are willing to do that but I'm not you. That you think everybody is as vulgar and base as you and self-serving and amoral does not mean that we are the same way. But great job with indicting yourself!
You and the modern GOP have demonstrated that you're willing to vote for GOP and so-called conservative candidates and get things done by any means necessary but I'm not y'all. I have lines that I will not cross. As does my family. As do my church friends. As do most of my colleagues.
Truly, man... You should get out and hang out with some progressive types. Maybe you'll learn we're just much better people than you are and maybe that will cause you to want to be better yourself.
Dan
No I’m not projecting, I’m drawing a conclusion based on what you’ve said and done over the years. It’s possible that I could be mistaken in my conclusion, but I’m willing to take that chance.
You’re making a claim which cannot be objectively proven, you probably believe your narrative, it’s possible that you will live out the principles you claim, although I personally doubt it.
In this case, I’m watching and listening to DFL leaders and the MSM do exactly what you pretend only the GOP does.
FYI, a vote for a third party or write in is effectively a vote for the side you oppose, so I’d encourage you to vote that way every time a DFL candidate who’s had bad behavior runs.
I’m surrounded by “progressive types”, most of whom are far to the left of you. It’s the time I spend around “progressive types” and interacting with you that pushes toward more conservative candidates. Every time I go into Minneapolis or St Paul and see exactly what progressive policies have given us, I’m pushed further right.
Or, I just listen and pay attention to the “progressive types” in the plethora of video clips I’ve been posting for years.
And just to repeat something that I've said many times, I don't get news from X or silly little sources like that. If you want to do a post where people understand what you're citing, you're going to have to cite the actual words and an actual source. X is not a credible source.
You're a journalism student, you claim. You should know better. Your journalism professors would be quite sad at this nonsense you do on a regular basis.
"Oh look here is a link to some page somewhere, it's not a link to an actual news source or anything. It's just an X.com or something. I'm going to write down some vague words referencing what may or may not have happened or been said on that source, which may or may not have anything to do with the real world. It won't make sense to anyone but that's what I'm going to do. And I'm going to do so with a grand sense of self-importance and making claims to indicate how smart I think I am and how stupid I think other people are."
Dan
I've addressed this so many times that I can only conclude that you've intentionally chosen to ignore my explanation or the your memory problems are getting worse.
That you choose not to watch actual video evidence, much of it from the news sources you revere, isn't my problem.
Yes, I did graduate with an actual degree in Mass Communication, which was what encompassed journalism at my 4 year university.
However, I live in 2026. In 2026 journalism isn’t arbitrarily limited to 3 broadcast networks, newspapers and magazines. Every one of those legacy media have an official presence on all sorts of alternative media sources. Further, due to the incredible advances in technology we can record video and audio from one medium and recreate it in another medium. It’s truly amazing.
But if you choose to live in your self appointed ignorance, that’s your choice. I’ll serve up video, audio, screenshots, and links but you choose to ignore those because of the middleman. You stupidly think that offering a link to Twitter, FB, IG, Tik Tok, or You Tube which contains information is somehow magically invalid because the material is part of another link. That’s you stupidly hiding from evidence of things that you won’t like, and this is your excuse.
For someone who presents themselves as so intelligent, this is such a bizarre way to hide your head in the sand.
Last thing on this idiocy.
It’s my blog, I post what I want, when I want and I do so in ways that are most efficient for me.
If you choose to ignore what I post for arbitrary and superficial reading, that’s your choice. The problem is that your choice leads you to make assertions directly contradicted in the video you choose not to watch. V
So much wrong and false in Dan's comments...as is so typical of him.
Beginning with his latest attacks on your sources, it is as you say. He simply dismisses that which will or has exposed negatives about his kind because the truth is revealed, not because of who is revealing it. PBS or NPR can say anything they want and Dan accepts it because it's PBS or NPR who presented it. FoxNews or OAN can say anything they regard as newsworthy and Dan rejects it because it's FoxNews or OAN who presented it. Dan does nothing to verify the former or prove false the latter. The former is true because of who reported it and the latter is false because of who reported it. Dan goes no deeper than that, and given his own claims to having a journalism background, that seems incredibly lacking in journalistic integrity.
And while that's indicative of his notorious dishonesty, it does affirm his claim of consistency in this way: It's another example of his tactic to "accentuate the positive" as Bing once sang, and "eliminate the negative" where his favored group, person, plan or ideology is concerned...and with great fervor...while doing exactly the opposite for those he disfavors. Indeed, those he favors have no negatives at all, while those he disfavors have no positives. He's doing it again with regard to journalistic sources. It's a lack of journalistic integrity with regard to journalistic sources, and oh so Dan.
And this ties together nicely with his claim of refusing to vote for the morally compromised or deficient. Not exactly compelling given the moral bankruptcy of the Democrat Party and all other leftists who've been running for office over the last few decades or more. They are the liars Dan accuses Trump of being, and I don't think pathological liar, Joe Biden has been the worst of them, given the seriousness of the falsehoods they tell, most of which Dan finds personally pleasing enough to repeat them himself (how many times will Dan bring up "grab 'em by the pu**y" before he'll demonstrate true embracing of true grace by acknowledging he never claimed he does that sort of thing (at least without consent)? Never. He certainly hasn't yet, because it means he'll have to at least accentuate that "positive" and he hates to strongly to do that.
And of course, as he pretends there's something wrong with us for selecting a flawed man over an incredibly worse woman in 2016 (because our primary choices failed to win the nomination), rather than selecting no one which would help her win, and then voting for him again after proving himself a really good president (demonstrably so) and supporting him while he continues being one, Dan will pretend he's worse than a man his own friends and associates admitted was an abusive sexual predator, a communist and one who rejected the teachings of the Christian faith except...as is common of the leftist...when it served his purpose: MLK JR. Someone whose efforts even other black leaders opposed as destructive to the black community.
Dan's a fake and a fraud and the true hypocrite here. He proves it constantly as if he's paid to do so.
Dan's problem with my "sources" is that he confuses the media channel (Twitter, FB, IG, etc) with the source. He's not sophisticated enough to understand that if someone posts a video taken from a CNN show, that the SOURCE is CNN. Likewise, he seems to think that if an MSM news department maintains and posts on social media that the SOURCE magically becomes the social media platform and not the MSM outlet. As I've said before, one reason why I post from social media is that it is an easy way for me to post video without having to find it elsewhere. Just as obviously, not everything I post from social media is "news", but it is easier for Dan to do a blanket dismissal rather then actually engage. As he's demonstrating, that often puts him in a position of arguing from a position of self imposed ignorance.
It's bizarre that the Platner situation is just the latest example of one of his revered MSM sources (NYT) choosing not to actually investigate one of the SA complaints and thereby providing support to Platner through false reporting. In Dan world, he'll trust the NYT despite all indications that it is not trustworthy, while dismissing everything with a Twitter link without knowing what it is.
As we know, Dan was prepared to vote for a mentally incompetent, lying, corrupt, candidate accused of improper sexual conduct with a family member because Trump did or said something decades ago.
While we'll never really know, I suspect that Dan would vote for a deeply flawed DFL candidate if he thought it would be beneficial for the ASPL agenda over a GOP candidate who is a much less flawed individual.
For example if the '28 POTUS race is Newsome v. Vance I think we know that he'll likely vote Newsome over Vance despite Newsome's personal and governmental failures.
As stated, he already votes for seriously flawed people, but ignores those flaws to elevate that which he think is commendable (though more often than not, that is not the case). He will find some way to denigrate the GOP offering, regardless of how insignificant it is to the welfare of the nation.
And never forget, Dan lauded that mentally incompetent, lying, corrupt, candidate accused of improper sexual conduct with a family member as more fit and beneficial to the nation for the presidency in 2020, who somehow improved the ticket by drafting for VP a totally moronic woman who got her start in government on her back with her legs spread and did not serve well at any point since. Dan TOTALLY supports candidates that I think are easily of far lower character than Trump has ever been. Trump is rather typical of most men. Those Dan supports go way beyond Trump in the "evil" category!
Post a Comment