I don't get to decide who my country is allied with or what we do to any grand extent, but it's still my country. I don't see much value in separating myself from it rhetorically. Just seems like a way of avoiding responsibility.
I didn't say I don't despise what these governments are doing. I think it's fairly typical to say "we" are allied with a particular country when your country is allied with said other country. It does, in fact, describe my geopolitical situation and that of others in my country.
I don't really understand the point of whatever it is you're doing here. I have to think that my meaning here was pretty obvious, and that my explanations were redundant next to my initial statement. Did you really need me to say that I do not personally decide who America is allied with?
The New York Times is US media. England is also allied with Israel. "America" is a commonly used name for the USA. And, finally, as a resident of America, it makes sense to say that "we" are allied with Israel. I did not expect anyone to read this as me personally handling our diplomacy.
I'm not talking about my personal relationship with any country. Israel is objectively an ally of America, and that has implications as concerns American news media.
This is, in fact, a consistent pattern in reporting that goes back forever. The negative behavior of client states is downplayed and underreported, while the negative behavior of our enemies is played up and treated as worse. It has nothing to do with some objective claim to reliability.
It's not a sliding scale of information trust. It's a sliding scale of, as you say, how allied we are with them. Israel isn't particularly trustworthy as dispensers of information, especially in recent contexts where they have been the aggressors. But they are our ally so we back their account.
Have you seen Cinderella III? I feel it is an important viewing experience, particularly in the context of stepsister advancement.
I feel like tobacco smells worse but also has less range and lingering capacity on it. Bit of a tossup as a result.
I know about this subject exactly what I've said. In particular, I provided evidence that he went on and praised the podcast of this awful guy. Pretty straightforward.
I'm operating off of the fact that he's an ex Blackwater mercenary who had a Nazi tattoo who keeps finding himself boosting Nazi shit. These pieces of information seem highly relevant. As in, they are all individually damning, but they are also mutually reinforcing in terms of how damning they are.
Why do you think he disagrees?
I believe you when you say the broader contents of the interview are normal. What, precisely, do you expect me to get out of seeing that in action? Why have you decided to be so aggressive about this arbitrary interview?
You are very odd. I really wonder why you think I'd be interested in spending an hour listening to Graham Platner talk to some weird asshole on a podcast. If I could simply funnel the information into my brain, I would, but it all seems deeply irrelevant.
I'm not listening to the interview because nothing about it sounds particularly interesting. I'm not even sure what it would mean for anything in the interview to "outweigh" that comment.
Made by Platner? I'm talking about the podcast guy. There's an article about him in my initial post.
I'm not commenting on the broader contents of the interview. I'm commenting on him doing it at all and saying he's a fan of the interviewer. If there is nothing in the rest of the interview that contradicts this, then I do not see the relevance.
Doing this is made worse by the reactionary having a small platform. It means Platner has less to gain while the podcaster has more to gain. It's also made worse when the specific type of reactionary nonsense aligns with other reactionary nonsense we know about the candidate.
Again, going on the podcast of a weird conservative or reactionary type doesn't have to be a big problem. What's a problem is when the Democrat in question says they're a fan of what's going on. Because they shouldn't be.
Lol I guess this Nazi isn't actually interested in talking about policy. Fun.
Out of the available options, I think it's preferable to pick this pretty normal seeming Democrat who is not funded by the Israel lobby and also isn't a likely Nazi and definite Blackwater mercenary.
Also, really gotta point out, while Platner is not running against Trump, he is also not running against Collins right now. He hasn't won the primary yet. He's running against Janet Mills, who, as far as I can tell, has taken no money from AIPAC.
Sinema is interesting because her shift was arguably more intense but I'm not sure there was anything to foreshadow it. And there also wasn't some clear cause later. Real bizarre.
Donald Trump (who Platner is not running against) supports the slaughter of Muslims. Platner went out and did it personally. Great pick, that guy. Love it when a candidate exclusively perpetrates American atrocities rather than cooperating with Israel's.
I often talk about policies. Having a Nazi tattoo and retweeting a Nazi and praising the podcast of some antisemitic conspiracy theorist just kinda overshadows that. As does, for example, being a Blackwater mercenary who went to the Middle East to slaughter Muslims for America.
I wonder if he's genuinely dismayed at his time as a Blackwater mercenary. Remains to be seen, I guess.
What the fuck are you talking about? Does polymarket have mind reading technology that we are as yet unaware of? The only way for this "bet" to be resolved is if Platner admits explicitly that he knew what a Totenkopf was. The likelihood of him doing that is basically nil no matter what he thinks.
I've gotta say, Susan Collins may well do some horrible stuff, but I have way lower expectation that she is a secret Nazi than I have for Platner.
I think it's fine for Buttigieg to go on Fox. I think it'd be real weird for him to go on a platform with the same politics as Fox but with pretty minimal reach. I think it'd be horrifying for him to go on either regular Fox or tiny Fox and tell them he loves their show.
I don't care if it was the most brilliant interview ever conducted. The guy he's talking to is some kinda horrible antisemitic conspiracy theorist, and Platner said he's a big fan. That's bad. It's especially bad for a candidate who had a Nazi tattoo until well into his campaign.
