aaronotg.bsky.social
thoughts thoughts thoughts
536 posts
37 followers
42 following
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
$1000 donation to any dem who tells her at these hearings to go fuck herself.
comment in response to
post
He is legitimately one of the most exciting politicians the democrats have had in a while (especially when looking at new faces) and it's wild that much of the party is hesitant or refuses to acknowledge that.
comment in response to
post
Jesus christ. Ask him fucking questions.
"What is the legal authority the president claims?"
comment in response to
post
Former teacher, 100%.
We need to normalize failure and destigmatize it. There is nothing wrong with failing, it's an opportunity to learn! Being perfect is never the goal. Learning is the goal. And as long as it's happening, progress is being made.
comment in response to
post
Jake Tapper looking at this and being like, "Yep, totally normal presidential behavior."
comment in response to
post
And as an aside, given how often this administration is underestimated when it comes to the destruction they cause, I'm just personally more inclined to assume some of the worst outcomes. (And all of this is besides the point that *selling public land to offset taxes for the rich is so stupid*.)
comment in response to
post
Even your own link contains the line "many other National Forest and Bureau of Land Management properties could be nominated for sale and development", which sounds pretty similar to what OP was describing.
No one actually said anything about NPs until you did. 🤷
comment in response to
post
I can understand a desire to avoid hyperbole, but I don't know, this just comes across as pedantic. OP's original post wasn't "they're going to sell the National Parks" (although I wouldn't put it past Rs to do so), it was "lands like the Teton National Forest".
comment in response to
post
Isn't that sort of just semantics? Maybe it wasn't in the original bill, but it was added to it. So if the bill passes, the land is for sale. Which was sort of the whole point of OP's original comment, no?
comment in response to
post
100%
It's wanting to build a country where *all* people are cared for. Not performative displays or words while people hurt.
comment in response to
post
But to your question, I think abortion, gay rights, trans rights--all of these could be discussed from the perspective of "it's not the government's business to tell you how to live your life" and that, hypothetically, *should* create conflict within conservative circles.
comment in response to
post
The problem here is it seems to assume some sort of logical foundation when it's all too clear that people who vote R will do so despite conflicting ethos.
There's no reason a small-government conservative should be in agreement with the religious conservative; they are fundamentally at odds.
comment in response to
post
And designing a lot such that the line for the drive through blocks your ability to get to a parking space.
Like, this is so absurd I legit wonder if the place was closed to foot traffic or something.
comment in response to
post
Honestly don't even understand how this is a debate. Trains rule.
comment in response to
post
And she represents the fourth largest city in WA (Vancouver) which is filled with Portland, OR commuters!
comment in response to
post
Lol. She starts her tweet with "Full transparency..."
Like, girl, "full transparency" needs to be followed by something slightly embarrassing but also cute ("Full transparency... I sleep with socks on").
Not, "full transparency I'm a fucking dumbass".
comment in response to
post
Dog, the bears? Like, I get it. You're mad at the steelers, but you don't need to punish yourself.
comment in response to
post
"he praised the “menu that shoots holes in the idea that conservatives tend to gather around steak...'"
...
"After initially vowing never to have burgers and fries on his menu, Hutchins yielded to popular demand, at least halfway: Butterworth’s now serves a resplendent platter of beef-tallow fries."
comment in response to
post
"Party of law and order"
comment in response to
post
Yes. Yes. Yes.
comment in response to
post
This was so massively evident during the Walz/Vance debate. The number of people in the press who said Vance won despite telling an insane amount of lies was mind boggling.
Like, the Ds aren't going to be able to out-message *lies*.
comment in response to
post
First time I've played FMK and I choose myself for the latter.
comment in response to
post
Like, just a drastic difference of what the purpose of work is (to help sustain a community/economy by providing goods and services vs to increase capital of a select few).
comment in response to
post
Dog, don't give them ideas. Next week's headline will be "Why Biden's Age Prevented Trump from Learning Anything".
comment in response to
post
He's the fucking autopen. 🤦
comment in response to
post
I remember when we punished lying.
comment in response to
post
I'm starting to think all this uproar about "freedom" and "masculinity" by Republicans just might be performative! 🤔
Can't be certain though. At least we all know we can rely on extensive coverage that Joe Biden was and (checks notes) is old.
comment in response to
post
Also, it's insanely frustrating when people cite public behavior as justification for ignoring good or needed legislation.
There are many, many instances where public behavior would make for terrible policy decisions.
comment in response to
post
What sort of asinine, toddler logic is this? Your job is to build trust and improve those rates, not cite your own ineffectiveness and planted skepticism as proof that the public doesn't think we should have booster shots.
Jesus christ. 🤦
comment in response to
post
Fucking joke of a headline.
I'm not angry at Biden.
I'm angry at Trump and Republicans.
And that's the general feeling of every Democrat I know.
comment in response to
post
That's an interesting way of putting it because yeah, at times it seemed like she was staking out a viewpoint opposite of Klein's clear favorite.
comment in response to
post
Ah got it! Yeah, I do like the discussions!
And I thought the same, but found her positions more agreeable (right to repair, focus on strengthening the consumer, etc) but coupled with a weird assumption that these ideas were only present in rural communities? It was so weird!
comment in response to
post
I can't tell if this is an agreement post or a mocking post. Hoping the former!
But yeah, I found her answers so odd! She seemed to have a real issue with cities, urbanism, and modernity that I didn't fully get!
comment in response to
post
Jake Tapper about to write a new forward: "Here's why Biden's cancer caused Trump to win."
comment in response to
post
Her distaste of urbanity and modernism is so weird.
comment in response to
post
If he came across as lecturing, I feel like that's only because her answers were bad, evasive, or nonsensical.
comment in response to
post
Seriously! Like, what percentage of her constituents don't have trash service like her...?
comment in response to
post
She's this weird blend of some issues that are super agreeable but also seems to only think rural communities care about them (like the longevity of appliances).
comment in response to
post
I absolutely didn't understand why she seemed to hate cities/modernity so much.
Like, if her having to haul her trash to a dump makes her happier, great. But seemingly not understanding that not everyone wants that *and* there are benefits to not doing that was wild.
comment in response to
post
Listening to her on Ezra Klein's show it was so weird how much disdain she had for modernity or urbanism or cities.
Ezra: What do you think about Biden's electric car plan that fosued on building in the US?
MGP: I don't (aka rural communities don't) buy new cars.
???
comment in response to
post
Ah, the same Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson who had their reporting called out for being inaccurate by *the person involved in their reporting*?
bsky.app/profile/capi...
comment in response to
post
I guess just add this to the list of shit to thank Republicans for? Make politics a circus, end up with clowns.
comment in response to
post
Knowing Texas, I assume they're now trying to simply kill women before they're even pregnant?
comment in response to
post
No, he didn't.
comment in response to
post
Dog, she's not a cunt because she's a woman.
She's a cunt because she does things like send innocent people to life imprisonment in a foreign country with no due process and then refuses to even acknowledge their existence when family members ask "are they alive?".
Like, if that's not cunty...?
comment in response to
post
Biden's culpability in Trumps election is *nothing* compared to the media's.
I love The New Yorker, but this perspective is laughable.
Trump was not, and still is not, being held accountable. (How much talk of Biden's age did we get and compare that to the lack of outcry about Trump sleeping.)