I can’t wait for Democrats to accuse one of their own of being a Russian asset.
These are the poll options in Indiana. No write-ins. Write-ins have to fill out a form to declare it. There was no space to write in a candidate.
I would like to know who Rashida Tlaib thinks Hoosiers should vote for:
(I’m enjoying asking this of people who think it shouldn’t be Harris and not getting an answer.)
OP will engage in a ten hour discussion in the bad comments replying within seconds every time and not do one multiple choice question
I wouldn’t be surprised if OP has blocked this user. A lot of people have or just avoid engaging this person. Unpleasant interactions with this user is a known thing.
You’re probably right that OP has blocked this person (every sane comment has downvotes except in this chain!), but “unpleasant interactions?” I’m having unpleasant interactions with OP right now (I have put it on hold until they solve the multiple choice question above, though) and that individual sure can’t stop posting. Since I remain clearly unblocked, I have to conclude that OP blocked this person for some reason other than “unpleasant interactions.” Anyway if OP is curious about stuff they can’t see due to choosing to not see it, OP can log out of the account that’s choosing to not see the stuff.
I don’t think not endorsing is the same as saying vote for someone else. I won’t endorse McDonald’s but if I’m starving with no other option I would have to eat it.
There certainly are plenty of people here on Lemmy saying not to vote for her.
And so far not telling me who I should have voted for given my options.
I can’t wait for Democrats to accuse one of their own of being a Russian asset.
Why would they?
Because their strategy for responding to any criticism of Harris, Biden, or the Democrats is to accuse the critic of being a Russian asset.
I imagine right now they’re debating about whether they can credibly accuse of Rashida Tlaib of being a Russian asset without it backfiring on them.
I haven’t seen that response unless someone has credible connections to Russia, like Trump or Stein.
Also, her complaints are 100% valid.
Ironically you’re the one dismissing criticism of people supporting Russian interests in a completely unrelated post.
OP is also pushing the assumption: “Everyone is either 100% paid by Putin directly, or 100% totally fine.” This is a bad assumption. It’s totally fine to say “I, an internet poster, have no idea as to how many handshakes away from Putin this person is. They could be paid, or paid by a surrogate, or ten degrees of that, or they could have been fooled into sincerely believing RT talking points. However, their behavior and statements are useful idiot behavior and useful idiot statements, and I’m judging them appropriately.”
I haven’t seen that response unless someone has credible connections to Russia, like Trump or Stein.
I’ve seen people on Lemmy suggest that the Pope is a Russian asset.
https://lemmy.world/comment/12053409
Also, I’ve been called a Russian asset plenty of times, and I’m even banned from some subs for supposedly being a Russian asset, and I have no connections to Russia at all. I’ve never been to Russia, I have no family from Russia, and I don’t speak Russian.
Well, that’s quite shocking. Who could have expected her to not endorse someone who supports the ethnic cleansing of her ethnicity?
People need to remember that Rashiba Tlaib is Palestinian-American.
This is not some just some overseas event, but rather a severe personal grievance. It’s difficult to imagine a more pressing issue.
there’s a typical sneaky bullshitter strategy that sneaky bullshitters always use (i am using “bullshit” according to the wikipedia definition so it is civility, there’s no other way to communicate the idea). the strat is this: sneak an assumption in and treat it as a fact. then, start an argument about an unrelated thing. nobody argues about the assumption. kapow! the sneaky bullshitter has just sneakily pushed a bullshit idea and gotten away with it. can you find the assumption, internet posters?
It’s called “presupposing a frame”, and Innuendo Studios did a really good piece about it here.
Are you saying you don’t think Rashida Tlaib is one of the Democratic party’s own? Or that disinformation from the Russian government is real? Because I strongly disagree with the first one but strongly agree with the latter.
Side note: rhetorical questions are frequently very unhelpful for forthright communication.
Since this is down in the bad comments zone and my attempt at getting people to play “find the assumption” has failed I’m gonna just answer this (also I looked at your post history and you seem to be a real human). “I can’t wait for Democrats to accuse one of their own of being a Russian asset.” “Democrats to accuse one of their own of being a Russian asset.” “Democrats” “If you can solve the multiple choice question of which of the four candidates to vote for, you are a centrist/liberal (in the leftist sense)/duopoly/two-sides-of-the-same-coin-boi. No leftist/proper radical/cool tough guy who is very cool and tough like me would ever accuse Tlaib of being a Russian asset, so if you do, I am drawing myself as the Chad Leftist and you as the Soyjack Centrist” It’s the kind of openly silly opinion that, if you say it openly, people laugh at you, so OP simply assumes it and attempt to change the subject before anyone notices, thus normalizing it. A person not pushing an agenda who writes like a normal person would probably say “I can’t wait for you dumbdumbs/Lemmy to accuse Tlaib of being a Russian asset” or more likely just not bring it up at all. People are gonna accuse me of being silly but there’s simply no reason to bring it up and phrase it that way unless that’s what you’re attempting.
Ok, if I’m interpreting you correctly, you’re saying it would be absurd to call Tlaib a Russian asset, but no one has actually done that, and OP’s preemptive accusation that Democratic party spokespeople and/or us dumbdumbs will say that is a concealed and unfounded accusation? Because that I think I agree with (at least the unfounded part, I don’t know if there was intent to conceal or if this was just a clumsy but good faith effort at expressing an opinion you and I disagree with).
On the other hand, if you’re calling a Palestinian American lawmaker a Russian asset (e.g. unAmerican, fifth columnist, etc., which is all xenophobic John Bircher crap I’ve got no patience for) I’ve got a really strong disagreement with you, but it seems like that is the opposite of what you’re saying.
"[…] No leftist/proper radical/cool tough guy who is very cool and tough like me would ever accuse Tlaib of being a Russian asset, so if you do, I am drawing myself as the Chad Leftist and you as the Soyjack Centrist” It’s the kind of openly silly opinion that, if you say it openly, people laugh at you, so OP simply assumes it
Are you saying that I’m (sneakily) assuming that’s it’s ridiculous to accuse Tlaib of being a Russian asset? (I’m not trying to paraphrase you, I’m just genuinely not exactly sure of what you’re saying.)
I do believe it would be ridiculous to accuse Tlaib of being a Russian asset. I am not being sneaky about that. I will openly say it. Here, listen to me say it:
No leftist/proper radical/cool tough guy who is very cool and tough like me would ever accuse Tlaib of being a Russian asset.
look no offense but I’m speaking to the people you’re attempting to influence (mods removed a slightly different phrasing of this for civility reasons, let’s see if removing a key phrase is good enough)
If you think I have snuck in an unwarranted assumption, you should say what you think that is. Surely it would be to the benefit of the people you are speaking to.
(Or are you just broadly casting aspersions that you can’t substantiate?)
