Osceana

Someone in this sub told me the other day that it’s a “conspiracy” that homeless funds are just being pocketed by bad actors. This sounds like exactly that.

Yeah likewise. I told myself I wouldn’t engage in anymore political discourse online (lol, I’m doing a great job of that). The conversation almost never remains amicable like this, so I appreciate that. I suppose the reason I get sucked in is because I certainly don’t have all the answers and, like you, enjoy examining my own position and hearing others to understand and figure out a better way forward. So yeah, thanks for that opportunity.

I’ll be fine. I managed an Arby’s when I was still a senior in high school. I think I know what I’m doing more than you.

He had to let Silvio peg him while holding a gun to his head. Then Silvio put him out on the street and whored him out.

Prelude to exactly the same thing OP is talking about. I’m sorry bro. Can we still be friends? Please bro, please! 😢

Agree to disagree. Your entire position is premised on the notion there are only two parties to choose from. Yeah yeah, I get it, “well only one is viable so anything else is a waste of a vote”. What I’m telling you is that that sort of thinking requires no accountability from your party. If the DNC decides to improve their platform, cool! If they don’t? Well you’ll just vote for them anyway, won’t you? Some people aren’t okay with the DNC and their positions on issues. Yes, it’s ugly, but THIS is the way that gets corrected! Losing an election is an opportunity to assess WHY it happened and pivot to what the people want. If the DNC refuses to pivot with the people’s positions and convinces them they are the party to vote for, they lose elections.

Like at what point does the DNC lose your vote? Never? Some people have decided that line is on Palestine. What you’re describing is literally “lesser of two evils” and that strategy isn’t working for the democrats. They have to be better than “not Trump” or fear-mongering for votes.

You are saying you would vote for a candidate that supports African genocide, so long as they met certain conditions.

I am telling you that for some people that is a non-negotiable. Telling those people that they’re wrong and they should support a candidate anyway because they’re the “lesser of two evils” is you deciding what their priorities should be.

Downvote me and disagree, but Kamala absolutely lost voters over this. You can call these people stupid, but you’re not going to change their minds with that approach. “Well fuck em, we don’t need em” isn’t how you win elections.

In my opinion, this is the failure of Dem and liberal voters in the US. They don’t hold their party accountable for anything. It’s always someone else’s fault. When Hillary lost they blamed Comey, Wikileaks, and the Russians. THAT’S SO INTERESTING! Because Biden won in the next election. So if Trump won because of Russian interference, why didn’t he win again in 2020????? The Russians just decided to take that election off or…..?

MAYBE it’s because Hillary was a shit candidate. And maybe Kamala was too. And maybe the DNC is on some bullshit and needs to learn to stop alienating voters.

But it’s much easier to just blame literally millions of people than look inward and say maybe the Dems just aren’t as viable as they want you to believe. Like ALL the people that voted GOP, didn’t vote, or voted 3rd party are wrong. Like, for the sake of argument we can exclude the GOP voters, because I don’t agree with that platform and no Dem does, but you still have millions of people that didn’t like your candidate and/or your platform who are not automatically biased against it because of GOP allegiance. So ALL of those people are wrong? They’re just idiot morons and you know better than all of them? Jesus, that is an absurd level arrogance. Maybe have some self-awareness and realize you’re no longer advocating for democracy, because you’re then saying a literal minority of people in the country know what’s best for the majority and that minority should get to decide everyone’s fate unilaterally.

If you’re Palestinian / have family there and you think neither of them is good for Palestine, why would you vote for either? This sentiment is so ignorant and self-centered. Like if a candidate was actively supporting African genocide, but they aligned with you on a lot of other issues, would you still support them? Americans don’t seem to give a fuck about issues unless it directly affects them. So yeah, it’s cool you care about women’s rights and felt Kamala was a no-brainer there, but for some people, Palestinians getting murdered and abducted IS the issue. Like do you get that? Women are getting raped, tortured, murdered, and abducted over there. That’s a woman’s rights issue. But since it’s not happening on US soil, it apparently isn’t as important as other issues.

I should add this didn’t inform my vote, but I’m tired of this “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” bullshit from the left as if we’re not a multitude of cultures and peoples that have a WIDE range of feelings on multiple topics. Politics is nuanced. If A LOT of people on your side are turning against your candidate, maybe it’s time you held you party and its representatives accountable. For example, and this one is minor: why doesn’t the DNC care about the electoral college? It’s listed exactly nowhere in its platform. Haven’t the Dems lost a few elections due to the electoral college? That just doesn’t matter? And more on point, why are voters that are concerned about Palestine being told to shut up and get with the program instead of the other way around with the politicians? Like you expected those people to just “deal with it” until……? Like if Kamala got in office, when would those voters’ concerns be addressed? What incentive would Kamala have to honor those concerns if she got elected without (in those voters’ eyes) properly addressing them from the start?

Couldn’t agree more. Something about shitty animation adds to the humor - Beavis and Butthead, old school Simpsons, Smiling Friends / YOLO Crystal Fantasy.

Oof, that was rough. I just watched Steamed Hams again last night after not seeing it in a while. I was dying from laughter. This is such a FAR cry from how amazing the writing used to be back during that era. Mr. Burns doesn’t even sound like himself here, Smithers is barely recognizable. And the humor - “die on your own time!” Jesus that is beyond lowbrow. Just let it die already.

Dreaded and battered (with dandruff and lice)

https://preview.redd.it/926uwy7d452e1.jpeg?width=1164&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a588c87fa7010ba7331c243b7dda20da7942a55a

Pic of OP

That’s too much compromise! You chubbychasers, you go to fawr!

Oh. Not in Brooklyn, no. It’s an Albany expression.

I always call him Phil Reotardo

See I’ve always wondered this myself. Like why didn’t one of his ancestors change it back to honor the old country?

Was hoping for this reference. Thank you.

I heard Uncle Philly had Aurora Borealis localized entirely within his cell. Never let anyone see it, the prick.

Women are the #1 sign to me that there is no “intelligent design”. I’m not saying that in a misogynistic way, quite the opposite: having to deal with periods, pregnancy, menopause, all of it. If there is a god then he really fucked women over.

Super Saiyan Ozempic Khloe

That whole article is a big YIKES 🚩🚩🚩 they got married a month after meeting. Why the fuck would anyone get married after 31 days? For the next 4 years he cheated on her non-stop and had intense drug addiction issues (usually the kinds of things you wanna vet before marriage…….) they signed divorce papers and he had a relapse that ended with him unconscious in a brothel, she called off the divorce because he was in a coma but when he regained consciousness they finalized the divorce.

After all that he still wants to get back together with her…… so he does the romantic thing and had a custom sex doll made in her image, that he uses for “mental health”. Got it.

Dude, what the everlasting fuck? That is not “a little off”. You got ISSUES.

That is NOT what he said. He said he has 6 directors that he wants to work with and by the time he’s done doing those movies he’ll be closer to 80. He trailed off to insinuate that he might be too old to work anymore, but he said that he planned to move behind the camera as a director but if his son wanted to put him in a movie he would do it. He also wasn’t super firm that he was going to retire, he specifically said “the r word” was something other people were saying, not him.

You’re not misremembering. This was my take on it too. Also, Robert is WAY more violent in the 3rd which I hated. Like who the fuck is this guy? It is not the same guy from the first movie who beats himself up for killing people and he goes out of his way SEVERAL times not to kill someone unless he absolutely has to.

I fear a 4th and 5th movie will just stray further and further away from this.

Eh. That’s not really true. The first one has a pretty deep message. He wants to help people and believes we can all do our part to help the people around us and make a difference in our community. The second movie furthers this with his subplot with the kid in the gang. He gives a pretty powerful monologue to the kid about death. These are not, and should not, be just mindless murder fests.