isthejeremy.bsky.social
632 posts
334 followers
50 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Sure, Trump is president for a second time so why not have things both exist and not exist at the same time, or not exist and not not exist. Why not.
comment in response to
post
Ah, you're right. I misread, my bad.
comment in response to
post
I would have thought the chance that negotiations may or may not take place would be 100%.
comment in response to
post
1) Neocon doesn't mean Jew, it was the title a group of conservatives favouring interventionist foreign policy took for themselves.
2) Witkoff's statement was completely insane, basically that Trump can just force a result by being Trump, and Levin doesn't even try to argue against that.
comment in response to
post
Because when you refuse to comment on the president's statements, you cede the entire news space to the president's sycophants.
comment in response to
post
Describing a president's statements as a temper tantrum is not normalising. Presidents do not normally perform tantrums. Showing abnormal behaviour is not normalising it.
Did I really need to explain this?
comment in response to
post
In the analogy Republicans are represented as a slam dunking dog, ie really good at government. That's bizarre.
It's more like Democrats are claiming the rules say dogs can't play basketball, meanwhile the dog has run off down the road with the ball and is now trying to hump it.
comment in response to
post
Tucker is a horrendous person and also deeply stupid. But he succeeds here in a way that mainstream media has failed for years, because Tucker's approach fits the modern communication age. Ask gotcha questions. Call out bullshit directly. Show when someone is lying and don't let it go.
comment in response to
post
Obama completed a deal with Iran without violence. Trump tore that deal up, and is now resorting to violence as he's unable to develop a new deal.
comment in response to
post
Sigh. No. My opinion is the conspiracy speculated about in that substack is vast in its scale, and we would need some kind of actual evidence of its existence before believing it is even remotely likely.
To claim all I said was "I don't think so" when I repeated actual reasons why was bad faith.
comment in response to
post
I read it and understood it just fine. What's clear is you want to believe in a certain story, and don't care that it doesn't make much sense, nor is indicated by the facts we've seen.
comment in response to
post
I literally just mocked you for thinking that. Because unless the billionaires are writing the code, there will have to be more than "a few people" involved in the conspiracy.
This is ridiculous. You are so committed to the story that you play all these tricks to deny it's obvious problems.
comment in response to
post
No. Cummings has nothing to do with anything. Shifting ownership of billion dollar companies to enact a coordinated conspiracy that rewrites the basic operating code of large computer systems just very obviously requires more than "a few people".
Arguing otherwise is just silly.
comment in response to
post
Read literally any of my replies. Ive explained repeatedly how silly this is. You can't just "off the books lone wolf" your way to moving such vast assets around, having code rewritten without thousands of people being involved.
This isn't a stupid movie.
comment in response to
post
Almost 50 people knew about the CREEP connection to Watergate, either before the break in or afterwards. That's the ones we know about, for a simple crime.
The idea that billion dollar companies could change hands to enact a plan to rewrite election software and involve just "a few people" is silly
comment in response to
post
You can buy a company without saying why, but co-ordinating it with fellow billionaires and GOP insiders requires massive coordination.
You think the billionaires are in there late at night, rewriting the code? You think their direct reports are doing it?
Come on.
comment in response to
post
That obviously depends on what is found. Because that's what you do when you care about evidence and about reality.
comment in response to
post
I know that billionaires can't co-ordinate purchasing massive companies to advance a national conspiracy with just "a few people". I know those billionaires can't direct those companies to distort their own basic operations with just "a few people".
And you know this too.
comment in response to
post
Disagree all you want. The idea that a billionaire can co-ordinate the purchase of a company with other billionaires and then direct that company to change its own basic operations with only "a few people" is just wrong.
Pretending you don't know that is embracing conspiracy fantasy over reality.
comment in response to
post
Nope. This conspiracy apparently involves billionaires using their control of companies to manipulate operations. Those directives don't go down company lines through "a few people". They don't get organised between billionaires through "a few people".
comment in response to
post
I'm not opposed to the recount. There is sufficient evidence of something weird happening and it's good to see what that was. People have a constitutional right to their votes being counted.
The problem is taking that weird thing and wildly speculating it was part of some national conspiracy.
comment in response to
post
I won't crow if it's confirmed. This isn't about trying to win something against other people on the internet. This is about getting people to respond to actual evidence, not just speculation based on what they wished was true.
comment in response to
post
The conspiracy is the speculation there was a vast plot to produce a manipulated vote tally, based on nothing but a listing of business connections.
That claim requires actual evidence. A bunch of loose connections ain't it.
That's how right wing conspiracy nuts work. Don't be like them.
comment in response to
post
It wasn't used effectively. People on the left said it repeatedly, the right ignored it and did whatever they wanted, and Trump just pretended he won the popular vote.
comment in response to
post
I saw it posted elsewhere today and read it. It's just conspiracy trash. Exactly like the nonsense that rotted the brains of so many on the right wing, it relies on connections as evidence, and then starts speculating from there.
The last thing we need is to devolve into something as bad as Trump.
comment in response to
post
Breaking federal law in a conspiracy that'd involve possibly hundreds of people... all for an empty talking point?
Trump and his people are brazen and incredibly stupid, but they're not that brazen and stupid.
There's 100m votes in every election. There will be odd things. It isn't a conspiracy.
comment in response to
post
This is stupid conspiracy nonsense. Why would anyone bother to fix votes in NY, which Harris won by 1.1 million votes?
What actually happened is this is an orthodox Jewish district which strongly follows religious leaders. The votes for Harris/Gillibrand matched those directions.
comment in response to
post
I felt bad for the Shermans, cleaned up and running beautifully, all for a crowd of dozens. Poor things killed Nazis and now they're reduced to parading for a tin pot nazi in front of dozens of people.
comment in response to
post
The places with successful socialist policies commit two grave sins - they aren't in forever war with America, and they mix in a lot of capitalism.
Tankies are just edgelords opposed to the current dominant force. So they embrace the most extreme alternative regardless of its brutal reality.
comment in response to
post
This could be cops clearing away the broken window so they can see to drive the car away. You'd need video of the window being originally broken to know.
There is likely a reason that part of the video wasn't shown.
comment in response to
post
Yes, and the replies should be direct and explicit. The need for qualifiers and context belonged to an old media age. In this new political and media environment what works is immediate, clear statements, especially ones with clear attacks on your opponents.
comment in response to
post
It's like if Goebbels had responded to Kristallnacht by doing an L with his thumb and finger on his forehead.
comment in response to
post
Oh look, the people that claimed to be so concerned about free speech when a twitter account could get blocked for spreading fake medical information is now fine about a journalist getting fired for stating an opinion on social media.
comment in response to
post
They always claim they were taken out of context, but never try to provide any context that might make their statements reasonable.
It's because there is no context. It's just an excuse.
comment in response to
post
I have one thing to tell you - Trump wanted this.
Every single thing Trump has done has been incredibly unpopular. He's losing special elections by an average of 16pts.
That's why he's doing this. Don't do it the way he wants.
comment in response to
post
For this post to make sense, one would have to believe that nothing changed the reach progressive posters had on twitter, and that instead they all just decided to leave one day.
Pure bad faith sophistry. Do better.
comment in response to
post
It took generations of corruption for Russia to get to this point, where it can churn through 1,000 casualties a day to barely advance against the poorest nation in Europe.
If Trump's cronies kept power for a few decades it'd likely end up like Russia.
comment in response to
post
What is always missing from the arguments with these forever on-line leftists who refuse to contribute to stopping Trump is that their left wing policies will never happen as long as they don't vote. Parties don't build policies for people who don't vote for them.
comment in response to
post
The link you provided gives a murder clearance rate of 61% (59% conviction), & rape clearance rate of 12% (12% convicted).
Your claim of 2% clearance rate for murder & rape is nonsense, as your own link proves.
There are serious issues with law enforcement. Making up nonsense doesn't help.