Oh man, first time I'm seeing Jeff Dunham on the list. I was admittedly a fan when I was younger. Grew out of his act and also learned what a racist scumbag he is.

Only time I've ever laughed at anything from him was in Zohan, absolutely hilarious in that one. That being said, fucking terrible in literally everything else I've ever seen him in where he has a part that extends beyond being a quick cameo/side/background character.

What's wild is when I saw him in Scary Movie 3, I was like man, this guy is hilarious, definitely a future star, which ended up being true, and while I do like his stand-up to an extent, what I didn't expect was to end up hating him being in movies. Literally the same role in every movie. Seems like a nice dude, big fan of the person himself, but seeing him play the same character in every movie gets tiring.

Oddly, even though I've been a fan since the Rush of Blood album, the whole Viva la Vida era is the most nostalgic, or at the very least the one associated with the best memories since a lot of good things happened in my life at the time and every song on that album and the Prospekt's March EP (almost even moreso) take me back to that specific time period more than any of the other albums.

And look at the language.

You mean like this?

Answer: there is none you racist.

I can also see that we disagree on what makes Project 2025 so terrible because we have completely different political views as things that are currently in place that I think are wonderful, you think are not. Again I'm not completely against reform and dismantling/restructuring some things, I do think that our education system needs revamping, mainly education costs and student loan interest rates, I just don't trust Trump's team and the Heritage Foundation to be the ones to do it, and that's obviously due to having completely opposite political views as to how things should be.

That all being said, this conversation won't change either of our minds about anything. Neither of us will come out with a different opinion. I'm not suddenly going to be against my taxes going towards federal grants for college students because stupendousman on Reddit told me that I "don't advocate for ethical things", and you're not suddenly going to be okay with funding those grants because mxjxs91 on Reddit told you it helped him immensely to get through undergrad to be able to reach grad school and become a Doctor. No sense in either of us wasting our time carrying this on.

And you think that when that gets dismantled, that states and localities would be able to just suddenly foot the bill to keep funding things like schools in poverty areas that already don't have money as it is? Special Ed? Grants for people to go to college who otherwise might not be able to due to financial reasons (which was me when I was in college btw)? Etc. Yes it was handled at a local and state level before, but educational opportunities, programs, options and such have been vastly expanded since then, states and local governments will absolutely not be able to completely meet all of their current funding, and some might just straight up not even want to even if they have the money. So yea, sorry, I don't see how that's ethically good to take away expanded educational opportunities and options from people whether if it's based on where they live, their ethnicity, if they're special needs, if they're poor, etc.

Commerce, I mean sure, I'm not about it, but maybe that can be reorganized and restructured. My thing is I really don't trust these bastards to be the one to do it. NOAA falls into this category as well, and they want to dismantle it because they push climate change rhetoric? That's fucking ridiculous. Dismantling NOAA would just privatize weather and climate tracking, and fill it with like minded people, it says that directly. What could go wrong there? That's just one thing that falls within the Dept. of Commerce and that's their stance on it. This is the bad faith they're going into dismantling and restructuring these programs with. I wouldn't trust these fucks to dismantle a 6 block Jenga tower and rebuild it in their vision.

Okay, what are the Progressive ideas that he mentions that he's trying to parade as "good" vs. bad Project 2025 ideas?

I mean the only way P2025 flies is under Trump and a Conservative administration that has been openly very supportive of a lot of the content that's directly in the plan, and one of the main people involved in creating P2025 was on Trump's administration so yea, no shit he's being tied to it.

Okay, so John articulates how bad it would be to dismantle NOAA, dismantle the Dept of Education and Commerce, ban porn and arrest all involved with pornography, hire an army of like minded individuals who hate the government to dismantle it "on day 1", and that's only a few things he talks about.

So which one of those things are ethically good based on principle, and why?

Considering he doesn't think he committed any of the crimes that he's being charged and convicted for, and also saying he didn't try to rig the election despite literal audio existing of him trying to rig an election, I have a very slight hunch that he might be a habitual liar.

Okay, well the Project 2025 document is publicly available, I'll even provide a link: Project 2025

You now have the actual document he did his story on. So he's Liberal, implying that his bias is altering the facts and dangers of this document? Then use the actual document to expose him. Matter of fact it seems like there are several of you here. Form a group, tackle it together, expose how he and all of the clips of people (including Conservatives) are wrong about this, go for it.

What in the word salad are you talking about? This isn't about implementing an alternative to Project 2025, it's simply about how draconian Project 2025 is, and preventing any of it from ever happening. The sole subject discussed here is Project 2025.

Okay it's unethical, you nailed that point, and John Oliver does a good job pointing it out. There's something specifically that stands out as being wrong that you don't want to read 900+ pages to form an opinion on? Great! Each individual topic should only be a few pages, pretty reasonable. So what topic specifically is wrong with his breakdown? Shouldn't take long to expose.

And then look of videos of Trump supporting or not supporting various policies outline in the paper.

Ah yes, well known honest man and always true to his word, Donald Trump.

It would just be cool to have a candidate that could bring the GOTV energy and get people excited to vote for them, rather than other people that aren't him, comparing him to someone in a coma, and saying that's still a better option than Trump. That isn't exciting to anyone, even us. Like yea, I'd vote for pocket lint before Trump, but how is that enticing anyone that wasn't already planning on voting for Biden?

If Biden loses, the last fucking thing I want to hear is "it's all of the people who didn't votes' faults". No, it's the DNC's fault if "vote for this guy who we're going to compare to someone that's in a coma" is the best strategy they have to try to GOTV.

As a Catholic guy, Trump and all of these insane GOP nuts blatantly scream being the anti-Christ and his hateful followers. Anyone that claims to be a loving Christian/Catholic that listens to and follows these psychos, are using religion as an excuse to do legally be allowed to do terrible things.

It's ironic that these same people tend to be so hateful towards other religions, and want to prevent their ways and concepts such as Sharia Law from ever getting close to this country, meanwhile they're literally creating and supporting the exact same thing, but replacing Islam with Christianity as the excuse for it.

Every single word out of Putin's mouth regarding the Ukraine invasion has been an absolute lie. Anybody that genuinely thinks Putin will pull out of Ukraine if Trump wins, has to be pretty fucking stupid, or in other words, people who were already going to vote for Trump anyway.

I think we're good on this front.

I mean under the impression that Biden is staying in the race, that would be out of respect and the right thing to do/say, as all of the Governors at that recent meeting also said they're backing Biden and not running.............but like if he gracefully steps down or drops out, that changes things.

First person I thought of too.

She'd be ideal in my opinion. I'm not concerned about not having enough people that don't like Trump in this country to beat him, I'm concerned that enough people currently just won't vote because voting FOR Biden isn't exactly something to be excited about, and it'll screw us. Get someone young that can bring the energy and excitement to make people actually want to vote FOR someone and not simply go with the "vote against Trump" strategy. That fucked us in 2016, and seems like it will again in 2024.

I feel like a "first woman President" that's younger and understands the average person's struggle today, and isn't an widely already hated establishment figure would be a home run against Trump.

They shouldn't have even forced him into the 2020 election. Bernie was looking fucking great, then the DNC machine threw Biden in there, made everyone drop out, including Pete who was outperforming Biden, and throw their support behind him before Super Tuesday...... except conveniently leaving Warren in to split the Progressive vote.

I still voted Biden in the general of course, and will again this November, but this is fucked, the DNC is fully responsible for this bullshit.

This, we all know Biden actually does pretty well in office, we all like him enough to know he's a way better option than Trump, the issue is he isn't going to win with performances like this to the average person. Ask your average peer who isn't on Reddit and doesn't pay a lot of attention to politics what they think, they'll likely say "two old guys running us into the ground", or "one guy is insane, the other has dementia".

Those are the people we need to win over, and more needs to be done than "I screwed up, but we're just gonna win". That's such an out of touch statement unless there is an actual plan forward.

The fact that they unanimously think Biden is "far left" worries me, even Bernie was still pretty moderate at the end of the day and he was quite a bit more left than Biden.

Really don't trust their opinions on who and what they'd deem far left.

This, I don't get why people are saying she needs to be involved somehow. She is the current VP and with the discussion of Biden not being able to go another 4 years, the expectation is that Harris would take over at some point in the next 4 years if the Dem ticket doesn't change....................yet Trump is dominating Biden in the polls.

But sure, she clearly "needs" to be involved in the ticket.

Imagine if Biden said that (which he wouldn't, but imagine if he did).

Literally just hopped into this reddit to see if my camera was failing, just happened to me as well. Like really bright green and purple artifacts in several recent photos

What's unethical about this? I would expect anyone making a threat to the president to face consequences, even before this new immunity ruling.

There isn't a Commandment that would prevent that from happening, and even if there was, it still wouldn't stop anyone from doing it.

What would prevent the GOP from doing the same thing when they are back in power?

I mean they're going to do this whether Dems do it first or not.

Or literally any of the other countless porn sites that also exist, then again I wouldn't be surprised if the people behind that decision genuinely think that Pornhub is the only porn site that exists, and nobody should tell them otherwise.