This is at LEAST the 7th time he's called her president (or president elect between the election and the swearing-in, or the presidential candidate prior to the election). But nope, just a gaffe from the gaffe machine. Doubt it's senility because he's been producing pretty epic gaffes for decades...the media has called him that privately for at least that long.
Are you accusing me of "ad hominem" attacking Republicans?
How so?
A genuine "Ad Hominem" attack would consist of claiming that someone was evil merely *because* they were Republican.
That's not anywhere even close to what I said.
My statement boils down to - in essence - the (simple and factual) observation that *anyone* who continues to affiliate with the Republican party does so either because they support what the Republicans are doing (evil), or because they are too stupid to know any better.
There's basically two options post-tRump: stupid or evil.
The Republican party *is* irremediably corrupt, and has been since they adopted the "Southern Strategy" post-Civil Rights/Voting Rights (1964/65).
tRump was the *final* end-point where anyone could credibly self-idenfity as a Republican without also (implicitly) outing him/herself as *stupid* or *evil*.
Let me put it this way:
Would you say that the statement "KKK members are evil" constituted an "ad hominem attack?
NOT if you're honest. The mere fact of openly affiliating with such an organization *necessarily* implies that one either *agrees* with what that organization is doing - or is simply *too stupid* to know any better.
At this point - post-tRump - one can only continue to affiliate with the Republican party out of *stupidity* or *malice*.
Nothing "ad hominem" about that, really - unless you're going to also claim that "not ALL Neo-nazis are racist! Some of them just like the weekend potluck suppers!"
The "Right" absolutely loves to portray Democrats as "damn dirty hippies". They've been milking that notion since the Clinton years. ("But I didn't inhale!") etc.)
So for the Biden administration to allow anybody to "get away with" having smoked weed/done edibles etc. is basically guaranteed to be spun as a "culture war" thing on the Right.
Now, given the fact that we're over 50 years out from the "Summer of Love", it isn't all that unlikely that "Grandma" and "Grandpa" were involved in the "Brown Acid" thing at the original Woodstock, or just into the whole "scene" back then, etc.
So, there's nothing particularly "countercultural" or subversive in the fact that Kamala smoked weed. We're *decades* past that point.
Anyway, the real substantive question is: who HASN'T had at least some involvement with Cannabis at some point over the last 50+ years or so?
At any rate: at this point, probably at least half of everybody involved with government/the military etc. have at least "experimented" with weed at some point over that 50 year period - but "we" still pretend otherwise, for "culture war" reasons.
It makes perfect sense to inconvenience a few staffers as a "symbolic" gesture toward the Prohibitionists - because it allows the Biden/Harris administration to *pretend* to actually give a shit about something which hasn't been "shocking" for at least 30 years.
The *real* question isn't whether Biden/harris inconvenienced a few staffers or not. The REAL question is: are they actually fucking with anybody in the states where weed (or other stuff) has been legalized/decriminalized etc.?
THAT is what we should be watching, in order to determine how much longer the Feds will keep pretending to give a shit about "potheads".
Without even mentioning the fact that they really are tracking them, via their cell phones, in order to get them to buy stuff.
This is at LEAST the 7th time he's called her president (or president elect between the election and the swearing-in, or the presidential candidate prior to the election). But nope, just a gaffe from the gaffe machine. Doubt it's senility because he's been producing pretty epic gaffes for decades...the media has called him that privately for at least that long.
it is his stutter
You forgot your ad hominem... oh never mind, that was the entire thing.
A misunderstanding? That's what they want you to think!!11!!!
I prefer "On a Pale Horse" by Piers Anthony
Time for Biden to go to upstate Yo Semite, which is near Thighland, I think.
Bragging about rises in the "slot rocket".
He's busy Rimmering.
East of Nipple.
Pretty sure we're gonna refer to Joe Biden as "Senile Hologram Joe Biden" from now on, though.
Still prefer OHJB.
I'm curious. Did Orange Foolius ever complete a single sentence (let alone a thought) in his four years in the White House?
Maybe just looking into the future.
Are you accusing me of "ad hominem" attacking Republicans?
How so?
A genuine "Ad Hominem" attack would consist of claiming that someone was evil merely *because* they were Republican.
That's not anywhere even close to what I said.
My statement boils down to - in essence - the (simple and factual) observation that *anyone* who continues to affiliate with the Republican party does so either because they support what the Republicans are doing (evil), or because they are too stupid to know any better.
There's basically two options post-tRump: stupid or evil.
The Republican party *is* irremediably corrupt, and has been since they adopted the "Southern Strategy" post-Civil Rights/Voting Rights (1964/65).
tRump was the *final* end-point where anyone could credibly self-idenfity as a Republican without also (implicitly) outing him/herself as *stupid* or *evil*.
Let me put it this way:
Would you say that the statement "KKK members are evil" constituted an "ad hominem attack?
NOT if you're honest. The mere fact of openly affiliating with such an organization *necessarily* implies that one either *agrees* with what that organization is doing - or is simply *too stupid* to know any better.
At this point - post-tRump - one can only continue to affiliate with the Republican party out of *stupidity* or *malice*.
Nothing "ad hominem" about that, really - unless you're going to also claim that "not ALL Neo-nazis are racist! Some of them just like the weekend potluck suppers!"
Here's the thing:
The "Right" absolutely loves to portray Democrats as "damn dirty hippies". They've been milking that notion since the Clinton years. ("But I didn't inhale!") etc.)
So for the Biden administration to allow anybody to "get away with" having smoked weed/done edibles etc. is basically guaranteed to be spun as a "culture war" thing on the Right.
Now, given the fact that we're over 50 years out from the "Summer of Love", it isn't all that unlikely that "Grandma" and "Grandpa" were involved in the "Brown Acid" thing at the original Woodstock, or just into the whole "scene" back then, etc.
So, there's nothing particularly "countercultural" or subversive in the fact that Kamala smoked weed. We're *decades* past that point.
Anyway, the real substantive question is: who HASN'T had at least some involvement with Cannabis at some point over the last 50+ years or so?
At any rate: at this point, probably at least half of everybody involved with government/the military etc. have at least "experimented" with weed at some point over that 50 year period - but "we" still pretend otherwise, for "culture war" reasons.
It makes perfect sense to inconvenience a few staffers as a "symbolic" gesture toward the Prohibitionists - because it allows the Biden/Harris administration to *pretend* to actually give a shit about something which hasn't been "shocking" for at least 30 years.
The *real* question isn't whether Biden/harris inconvenienced a few staffers or not. The REAL question is: are they actually fucking with anybody in the states where weed (or other stuff) has been legalized/decriminalized etc.?
THAT is what we should be watching, in order to determine how much longer the Feds will keep pretending to give a shit about "potheads".
Yeah, I know what you mean. I'm at work and I need to keep that shit under wraps, they already think I'm weird enough around here.