I suppose you have a point. ACDC just finished a tour and it was also sold out. I just didn’t think GNR were ever that big in the first place but I’m not the target market

Let’s be real, GNR aren’t really in their prime…

I live in Italy. We have plastic bags made out of plant material. They feel flimsy but they get the job done. They’re not very reusable though.

I don’t know how people got that take from Tropic Thunder when they explicitly make reference inside the movie to how messed up and wrong it was. Like, that was the joke. RDJ was playing a character so full of himself that took method acting to it’s extreme. Am I missing something? Id love to be educated

Sort of. It’s a mixed bag is what I’m saying. It’s just not as impactful as we all imagine it to be. Some politicians are very corrupt obviously. But it’s not this prevalent “corporations own congress” kinda thing.

Access to influence policy and legislation. But they seem to get mixed results. There have been a few studies that looked at the actual effects of lobbying. I may have to dig around but i can track them down. It’s very interesting because it upturned what my assumptions were about lobbying.

It seems they find candidates that are already somewhat aligned and work no push the scale further. Like, someone like Latimer wouldn’t need a lot to push the scale in favor of AIPAC objectives.

It’s very interesting to read up on this.

I used to think lobby groups are influential in determining the outcome of these elections but I think the reality is they align themselves with candidates that are slated to more likely win. Sometimes they even fund both candidates. Money just doesn’t seem to translate to effective victory. Look at Bloomberg in 2016. That guy spent an ungodly amount of money on his campaign - - - more than all the candidates combined or something close.

Cory Bowman was already waning in popularity. From your article:

Bowman had several compounding low-level mistakes and scandals that could easily be hammered home to voters, like pulling the fire alarm at the Capitol or his controversial hip-hop lyrics. Beyond that, Latimer is a popular politician who has represented most of the district’s voters for years. Add in more money than any group has ever spent on a congressional primary by an enormous margin, and you have the conditions for a win.

I think it all depends. I’m not saying AIPAC is not influential. I just don’t think it’s so clear cut. I think the money in more to get access. The reality is Israel is popular with boomers, and Dem boomers vote. We are starting to see a shift with younger voters but it’s just not there yet.

Fair enough.

Yea. The UN confirmed most of the occupied lebanese territories from the six day war were returned. Yes, I know some areas of Sheeba Farms are still contested.

I’m curious, if all the Sheeba Farm territories were completely returned tomorrow do you think Hezbollah would retire?

It was a mumbled yes. After Mehdi asked her ten times. Only to be followed by ‘but but but’. Gotta be careful what we say about Putin, right? No problem with Biden though. Clear and emphatic out of the gate YES

Why can’t it be a yes full stop? The same way she did for two others?

What triggered the six day war, Kronos? Be specific.

It’s yes but with an excuse. It’s not a hard yes. It shouldn’t be like pulling teeth. She seems to have no difficulty saying that for Biden. What gives?

Why can’t it be yes, full stop? The same way she did for Biden and Netanyahu?

Saying yes with no many qualifiers is insane level of weaseling.

Heres a simple example:

“did you rape that woman” “yes”

vs

“yes she was asking for it”

Is not the same. That’s what she’s doing.

Saying yes then loading it with ten thousand qualifiers is not a clear yes. Nice try though.

Wrong. Her answer is ‘yes’ followed by a million qualifiers. Because for sugar daddy Putin we need to use the softest padded gloves. We’re not stupid. The ruse is up.

How come she can give a clear yes for Biden but Putis it has to be surrounded by a million qualifiers? Multiple times.

We all watched the interview. What are you trying to prove.

Give the full exchange. I watched the full interview. She said “we condemn his actions”. She never could in a full sentence condemn him. It’s gotta be loaded with qualifiers, and even THEN nothing of value comes out of her mouth. It shouldn’t be like pulling teeth. It’s a simple yes/no.

I only responded to you in this manner because your comment is downstream from OPs catchphrase comment (90% of Lemmy and socia media these days). Soundbytes that sound good, but ultimately mean nothing.

It’s likely you were asking in good faith. I could have spent a lot of time typing up a thoughtful and comprehensive response only to find out later you really are here only for more memes. Then I would have lost a lot of time and it would have limited productivity.

It’s not personal, but after dozens of typed out discussions that end in “lmao. Genocide Joe tho America Imperialism bad” I’ve learned that unless someone starts the thread or convo with specifics it will only linger in the realm of memes.

Again, sorry if you feel singled out. I’m just building a stronger filter. And I urge others to do the same. We should all be pushing harder for specifics. I urge you to do the same when arguing with people online. Have the conversation grounded in specifics and not memes.

To summarize: If someone starts with claims that are essentially memes, they should not get detailed responses. Once people start talking specifics we can match the energy.

If you personally want to have a convo with me my dms are open.

Mind telling me how Israel is a table democracy? Or how they create stability? Maybe you can tell me why the middle east is a destabilized region to begin with?

You’re asking a rhetorical question in the hopes of getting a gotcha. Because, again, all you guys do is swim in catchphrases and vibes. Your primary goal here is not to deepen any kind of understanding. If you did, you would be a lot more honest in your questions. You’d open up with a clear argument, based on specifics, with dates, people, events etc.

No one is obligated to give you an essay on the last 75 years of ME geopolitics if all you do is start is with catchphrases and gotchas.

You want a nuanced discussion that delves into the specifics of the geopolitics of the region? Start a thread that’s not just diluted meaningless sentences, such as this nugget:

Why should the US president be in regular contact with the perpetrator of an ongoing genocide?

It’s hopeless, because you guys will bounce back and forth between one catchphrase or buzz sentence without opening a book, or a wikipedia page, or an article, or anything. And you want us to come here and write essays to explain or refute these meaningless sentiments. It’s all vibes. You start threads with vibes, you get vibes.