Flip Flop Killer

https://youtu.be/sCH9u6-C3mI

@newtboy and @fuzzyundies

I know you at least had an emoji on proselytizing but...

Discussion of Christmas is no more proselytizing than discussion of Hanukkah or Ramadan. And in discussion of any of the 3, referencing the actual religious origins isn't really an 'escalation'.

And I get it's 'fun' to point out, but I can't believe anyone seriously feeling the exact date being inaccurate as a 'credibility' issue.

And surely wouldn't the failure to note that Fauci from March 2020 probably agrees with Fauci months later be the real big concern. FOX news for pity sake still tries to run the narrative of Fauci flip-flopping on masks using this exact footage...

Same goes for any other Republican that said the same and now wants a blitzkrieg to install a non judge (before her recent appointment by Trump and a woman who intends to legislate based on the bible) at an accelerated speed not seen in history not the constitution, right? Of course that's right.
So you support immediately impeaching everyone who's followed suit. Cool.

It's going to be a 6-3 supreme court with 3 being sycophants not professionals.

Yes, it's his decision, which patriots make based on national best interest but the right flip flops their thinking based on what's politically expedient, what's best for them, and precedent or their solemn word means nothing if it doesn't help them today, they're willing dishonest, disingenuous hypocrites but you love that.

The court today is heavily conservative now, 5-3, and will stay 5-4 conservative without him filling the slot during an election. Can't you count to 8?

At least when they get the power, democrats are poised to add as many seats as necessary to balance it.

Tell me when it's been a 6-3 liberal court.
Tell me when a lame duck president has confirmed a court pick during an election.
Tell me when the last time you sucked off a 13 year old boy was.
Tell me!

Fair enough.
I think both mentioned ideologies bear some responsibility for zealous extremists from their groups. Disavowing them and their extremist views mitigates that responsibility, but doesn't erase it.
Mainstream Islam has done a better, more consistent job of late in disavowing Islamic extremists, the "right" flip flops from condemning right wing extremists to calling them "good people", "patriots" and "our base" while publicly creating, supporting, and repeating the extremist views and conspiracies repeatedly cited as the motives for terrorism.

1. I completely agree, assuming that he did do it.

2. If you spent all of your life in a field of endeavor and someone came to you saying, we would like to add you to (as you said) one of the most important roles in the USA and the absolute defining pinnacle of your life's career, would you feel perfectly fine if you did not get that position because of something you did as a drunken minor and never repeated again?

Now, assuming you would not feel fine with #2, how would you feel if you had that shot ruined because of a false claim? I am willing to bet Merrick Garland is still pretty salty over having it denied to him, which it shouldn't have been.

My biggest issue with this is that if this had been announced when it was first known, we could have had an investigation. If he had been proven to have done it, off with his head. But everything I am seeing continually points to delaying tactics designed around the midterms. The Democrats and Republicans both know that if a couple of seats flip flop, then neither one will get the candidate they want. So the Reps want to confirm Kavanaugh no matter what and the Dems want to delay no matter what. I don't think a single one of them on either side gives two shits about Dr. Ford, she is just a means to an end even if she is telling the truth.

Absolutely not.
Jones Jones is a lunatic who spouts pure insanity, and your chosen president believes the nonsense is news. Your ridiculous equivocation is absolutely insane.

You aren't the only conservative voice here, but you are a minority.

Your admitted fraud, pedophile (miss teen America), pedophile supporting (Roy Brown), incestuous (daughter lusting), adulterous (with his friend's wives), consummate liar, political flip flopping (see any interviews before 2000), Russian stooge, ally debasing, repeatedly failed businessman has debased American values, and your ilk have gone along hand in hand, erasing those values from your mind as he violated them.

Open borders exist only in Trump's deluded lies he sells you to get you riled up and unthinking. No one in power advocates open borders, that's just a bold faced lie. Your willingness to repeat it only demonstrates your gullibility and naivete.

To be fair, I'm sure that examples could be found of media personalities praising Obama/Clinton for similar stuff that they ragged Bush Sr./Jr. for. Best example off the top of my head might be Bush's "terrible war crimes" vs Obama's "brilliant use of drones".

Now, that all comes with a big disclaimer from me. I disliked Obama's expansion of drone bombing, flip-flop in in-office stance vs campaign stance on whistleblower protection, etc. But, I'd still personally evaluate Bush's, uh, miscues as overwhelmingly worse than Obama's. All I'm saying is that there have certainly been talking heads that have been hypocritical in the other direction before.

That being said, this clip takes it to a whole other level. This isn't nuanced, this is blatant. The only rational explanation is that Fox News simply is that biased, shamelessly so (no surprise to most of us). The problem is that Fox News' audience isn't particularly swayed by rational explanations.

I think clearing that "reality distortion field" is something that takes lots of time and lots of indisputable evidence. That's why I basically hope that Trump gets plenty of leash to try (and fail) to fulfill all of his ridiculous promises and self-hype. Nothing like a pointless and decaying border wall to serve as a reminder to be careful about who's cult of personality you get sucked into...

Perhaps that's why

I imagine it must be quite hard to make comfortable flip flops.

From the beginning of this series I've always wondered why he has never tried making primitive flip-flops. The calluses on his feet must be an inch thick.

This is a mindset of a child.

"Pussed out"? Presidents aren't the ones on the front lines. There's nothing courageous about sending other men to die.

But you know who really did puss out? Your boy Trump, when he dodged the draft. He was young, strong, and played football. But when it came time to serve... "boo, I have heel spurts!" Pussy.

And I thought we didn't want to start new wars... Or are we back on starting wars? With you right-wingers, every position changes with the wind.

And, out of all things, you wanted Obama to start an actual war with Russia??? Do you understand the calamity that a war with Russia would cause?

...And I thought your boy likes Putin and wants to restore relations... So Obama should've literally gotten us into a war with Russia, but Trump is great because he's tight with Putin and wants to restore relations? There's that flip-flopping from right wingers again... You people really don't think.

Is it the bit where she ineptly tries to be ironic by adding on pointless bits like "how to apply mascara"? Maybe the silly double entendres about screwing etc? Or the flip flop between "I'm just a helpless woman who can't do anything" to "Fuck sake people, of course I can do this"..?

Irony is only irony when it reverses expectations. Perhaps this would be hilarious to a person who honestly believes that she is the ditsy centerfold she spends half the video making out to be. Maybe if she maintained some sort of constant narrative rather than flipping between polar opposites, it wouldn't have landed so flat for me.

That being said, it's all subjective. I don't view women as incapable, subservient morons, so attempts to play up that view as the predominant one don't really get much traction with me...

She can change a tyre and make a decent end table, but she's a shit comedian.

This isn't "the media", this is some random dudes youtube channel with a whopping 168 subscribers.... hardly "media elite".

This has nothing to do with biased or unbiased reporting. It's simply showing that Trump is a liar.

Here's the thing: I don't mind people changing their minds... that's not "flip-flopping", that's re-evaluating the evidence. Changing your mind is a good thing (if you have been convinced by sound reason).

But Trump is a liar. He doesn't say he changed his mind, he flat-out denies every saying whatever in the first place! What's even more worrying is that he doesn't seem to realise that he's on the record. It's not just dishonest, it's incompetent.

Actually, I think most Sanders supporters would say the entire primary process has been a "mockery of democracy". (although that contention starts from the misunderstanding that the primaries are supposed to be purely democratic...they aren't, the parties are private clubs not government organizations, so they're under no requirement to be democratic)
That "mockery" starting with the super delegates declaring their votes for Clinton before a single actual vote was cast, and continuing through the media pretending they don't understand that super delegates are not counted in the delegate count to "secure the nomination" and claiming that Clinton has had it secured for a while now, even though they know clearly that they are repeating a lie, because until they actually vote at the convention, super delegates can change their minds, so their "votes" aren't actually votes yet....which is why they are never counted in the pre-convention vote totals, except this time.... it's a con game that they're winning. Similar to Trump, they're banking on the American people's ignorance and gulibility, and it's working.

That said, you have a good point. Either the super delegate system is terrible and undemocratic and should be eradicated, or it's a good tool for choosing the best candidate and should continue....but many respond as if they think it all depends on who it's benefiting today and they flip flop like a mud skipper. Those people can be ignored, because their 1/2 vote for counters their 1/2 vote against, as I see it.

What does the President actually do? A few main things:

Chief Diplomat for foreign relations.
Commander in Chief of the military. (although legislature has some checks on that)
Appointing Supreme Court justices.
Presidential Pardons.
Veto power over Legislative bills.

Anything on any Presidential candidate's agenda that doesn't fall under one of those headings is hot air. Considering that, which of the candidates would actually be a better president?

Chief Diplomat role: Hillary wins here, pretty handily. Trump is generally hated by anyone outside of the US. Bernie isn't as smooth and well connected as Hillary. Interestingly enough, this is one area where I think Obama really shines. He's a good talker, and he increased the level of respect that other countries viewed the US with. Some of that was having a very easy act to follow -- Bush and the wars sent us pretty close to rock bottom in terms of how the rest of the world saw us, but Obama is legit as a diplomat even without the bonus of simply being an extremely welcome reprieve from Bush.

Commander in Chief: This one is more open to interpretation, but I think Bernie wins here. He had the right view on Iraq wars when most didn't, and a totally solid track record for a long time. Clinton acts like she was always on the correct side of that also, but she voted for Bush's war when she was in the Senate. Bernie didn't. Whatever she says to try to justify that doesn't change the simple facts of it. Trump could be pretty apocalyptically bad as Commander in Chief, but on the other hand he'd have the legislature and Joint Chiefs to keep him in check if he was doing anything truly insane. I think he's definitely the worst of the three, but I think saying a vote for him is a vote to "let the world burn" is a bit overly dramatic.

Supreme Court appointments: Sanders wins here by a LANDSLIDE. He's got the right idea on all of the judicial topics of the time, and knows exactly how important this is. Hillary is a massive corporate tool. She knows who pays her, and she'd definitely be looking out for their interests when it comes to stuff like Citizens United challenges, etc. I even think that Trump would be massively better than Clinton in this area.

Pardons: I'm specifically thinking of Ed Snowden here. Trump and Clinton both say he is a "traitor". Sanders at least acknowledges that Snowden's revelations did a lot of good, but still says that he should come home and face a trial. So that makes me think he's the best of the three -- but Jill Stein of the Green party says she would pardon Snowden, which makes her my favorite on this particular hot-button issue for me.

Veto powers: Opinions are going to vary on this one. I think Sanders wins considering that he simply stands by his record in the Legislature, which I think he deserves to be proud of. Clinton is a flip-flopping weasel of a politician, and she could easily swing things in favor of her corporate overlords with her veto power. Trump is a wildcard, but the inherent nature of veto power means that he can't do anything truly crazy with it unilaterally -- the worst he could do is get veto-happy and grind the legislature to a standstill (which they tend to do all on their own anyway) or pass something terrible (which would be more the fault of the legislature).


Depending on how any individual voter evaluates those topics, and how the prioritize them, I think it is perfectly reasonable for someone to think that any of the candidates would make a better president than any of the others. Personally, I think Sanders is the best of the three, but honestly I'd prefer incompetent President Trump to very dodgy President Clinton.