That reminds me, I need to check for new episodes of Have I Got News For You. Ian Hislop is one of the wittiest people on television today and the banter between him and Paul Merton is always epic.
As in, yeah, she should've know better than to accept that position. Clearly she didn't realize that she's being hired for being the next ivanka doll, she must've figured that she was in because she was so competent.
Now I'm asking the real question - WHO GAVE HER THAT OFFER? Couldn't they have predicted that she would fail so miserably BEFORE she was picked for the job? Or was the ivanka factor just wayyy too important?
You can say that about any politician who supports improving relations with any country.
If Nixon was a Chinese asset, how would his behavior look different? If Jefferson was a French asset, how would his behavior look different?
Or really anyone who supports policies that benefit someone else, like, perhaps the Civil War benefitted Mexico or someone by weakening the US with internal strife so then, what, should we conclude that the abolitionist movement was driven by Mexican assets? Should we assume that people who protested the Vietnam War were Soviet assets? Should we assume that people protesting the Iran War are Iranian assets? It's ridiculous.
The question isn't whether someone's actions are consistent with some hidden motives or conspiracy theory, but whether they're consistent with things that are already out in the open. It isn't really necessary to come up with these speculations to explain why Trump does things when his motivations are explainable through things that are factual and plain to see.
I'm going to disagree slightly with your comparisons. Trump is openly admiring Putin and his policies, doing business with him directly and not through diplomats or proper house procedures. Actively weakening the US to the benefit of only our "adversaries", especially Russia.
If you laid down proof that Nixon or Jefferson were literal assets, I'd still be surprised. If you did the same for trump, I'd say "what else is new".
He repeatedly and transparently spreads Russian propaganda on his shitty xitter clone when he's not busy posting ai slop and treasonous garbage.
If you laid down proof that Nixon or Jefferson were literal assets, I’d still be surprised. If you did the same for trump, I’d say “what else is new”.
That's literally just your opinion. There are plenty of people on the right who "wouldn't be surprised," if it turned out that, for example, BLM protests were funded by China or someone. Because in their opinion, they went against the national interest, and in their opinion, there wasn't a legitimate grievance for them to be organic.
I don't think there's ever been a labor movement or an anti-war movement in any time in any country that wasn't accused of being foreign assets. Because things like striking for higher wages causes economic disruption which benefits the enemy, and being a conscientious objector reduces the potential strength of the military and benefits the enemy. But there's simpler explanations which are that people oppose war because war sucks and want higher wages because money can be exchanged for goods and services. This demonstrates that the logic is flawed.
Trump is openly admiring Putin and his policies
That doesn't indicate that he's a Russian asset, at best it indicates that he's a Russophile. It is possible for a person to support Putin and his policies without coercion being involved, is it not? There are people out there who support all sorts of things, many of them, very bad things. But supporting a bad thing doesn't mean they're secretly being controlled by some foreign puppetmaster. It means that they disagree with me, either in terms of what effects the policies will produce or in terms of whether they value those effects positively or negatively.
I don't understand why it's so difficult for y'all to understand that some people just think differently from you and have different perspectives. Or maybe you do understand and this whole "Russian asset" thing is performative, I can't really tell.
I actually quite like Private Eye when it isn't being transphobic or homophobic or promoting vaccine misinformation. It does more good journalism around corruption than you'd think. But I think "libs" is an entirely accurate description of what they are.
If they ever stop they might leave themselves enough cognitive capacity to critically think about their political life and the actual results their philosophy has brought them, and then they wouldn't be liberals anymore. So the Lib Leaders make sure the chorus never goes silent, just rotates from Russia bad to China bad to DPRK bad and back to Russia again. They'll probably add the Sahel states to the list once enough Libs figure out where they are.
33 replies
Private Eye nails it again.
That reminds me, I need to check for new episodes of Have I Got News For You. Ian Hislop is one of the wittiest people on television today and the banter between him and Paul Merton is always epic.
Is she already gone, the lettuce won.
5 days. She lasted 5 days. The lettuce is still crisp and green.
That's 0.454 Scaramuccis.
Fired in five days,
Less than a Scaramucci,
All the best people!
You're quite fast at that. 😄
lavrovs equivalent, witkoff is trying to frame putins war as not a war,.
Hot take, we're being too harsh on her.
As in, yeah, she should've know better than to accept that position. Clearly she didn't realize that she's being hired for being the next ivanka doll, she must've figured that she was in because she was so competent.
Now I'm asking the real question - WHO GAVE HER THAT OFFER? Couldn't they have predicted that she would fail so miserably BEFORE she was picked for the job? Or was the ivanka factor just wayyy too important?
ughh libs and their "oRanGe mAn iS RuzZiAn AsSet ruZzia BAD" russophobic propaganda
Doubt your rage bait attempt will work on anyone at this point
since when is posting facts "rage bait" haha
Weak come back, I suggest you go cry somewhere
can you do it again i the funny random capital letters? i found it more convincing
do you not know spongecase meme?
We have better humour on the liberal side
Haha, your face is rage bait, I am troll too
Yup. Lemmy.ml user
Tell me, if Trump WERE a Russian asset, how would his behavior be different?
You can say that about any politician who supports improving relations with any country.
If Nixon was a Chinese asset, how would his behavior look different? If Jefferson was a French asset, how would his behavior look different?
Or really anyone who supports policies that benefit someone else, like, perhaps the Civil War benefitted Mexico or someone by weakening the US with internal strife so then, what, should we conclude that the abolitionist movement was driven by Mexican assets? Should we assume that people who protested the Vietnam War were Soviet assets? Should we assume that people protesting the Iran War are Iranian assets? It's ridiculous.
The question isn't whether someone's actions are consistent with some hidden motives or conspiracy theory, but whether they're consistent with things that are already out in the open. It isn't really necessary to come up with these speculations to explain why Trump does things when his motivations are explainable through things that are factual and plain to see.
Also, if he were a Russian asset, he probably wouldn't have armed Ukraine in his first term.
I'm going to disagree slightly with your comparisons. Trump is openly admiring Putin and his policies, doing business with him directly and not through diplomats or proper house procedures. Actively weakening the US to the benefit of only our "adversaries", especially Russia.
If you laid down proof that Nixon or Jefferson were literal assets, I'd still be surprised. If you did the same for trump, I'd say "what else is new".
He repeatedly and transparently spreads Russian propaganda on his shitty xitter clone when he's not busy posting ai slop and treasonous garbage.
That's literally just your opinion. There are plenty of people on the right who "wouldn't be surprised," if it turned out that, for example, BLM protests were funded by China or someone. Because in their opinion, they went against the national interest, and in their opinion, there wasn't a legitimate grievance for them to be organic.
I don't think there's ever been a labor movement or an anti-war movement in any time in any country that wasn't accused of being foreign assets. Because things like striking for higher wages causes economic disruption which benefits the enemy, and being a conscientious objector reduces the potential strength of the military and benefits the enemy. But there's simpler explanations which are that people oppose war because war sucks and want higher wages because money can be exchanged for goods and services. This demonstrates that the logic is flawed.
That doesn't indicate that he's a Russian asset, at best it indicates that he's a Russophile. It is possible for a person to support Putin and his policies without coercion being involved, is it not? There are people out there who support all sorts of things, many of them, very bad things. But supporting a bad thing doesn't mean they're secretly being controlled by some foreign puppetmaster. It means that they disagree with me, either in terms of what effects the policies will produce or in terms of whether they value those effects positively or negatively.
I don't understand why it's so difficult for y'all to understand that some people just think differently from you and have different perspectives. Or maybe you do understand and this whole "Russian asset" thing is performative, I can't really tell.
It's not an American newspaper you moron there's no "libs" involved
I actually quite like Private Eye when it isn't being transphobic or homophobic or promoting vaccine misinformation. It does more good journalism around corruption than you'd think. But I think "libs" is an entirely accurate description of what they are.
It's left wing. The Democrats are center right by global standards
If they ever stop they might leave themselves enough cognitive capacity to critically think about their political life and the actual results their philosophy has brought them, and then they wouldn't be liberals anymore. So the Lib Leaders make sure the chorus never goes silent, just rotates from Russia bad to China bad to DPRK bad and back to Russia again. They'll probably add the Sahel states to the list once enough Libs figure out where they are.
It’s a satirical headline, it’s not that serious
You are responding to an .ml user.
I’m aware