Re: 2024 Election
Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2024 11:25 am
So much time between now and November.
Of course he’s trying to create a comedic effect by bringing in poppers. But he says that poppers are obviously not harmful enough to cause cancer because they are sold on every street corner. It’s a dumb argument, and he never warns, or even hints, that they can cause death or that they aren’t harmless.Kryptonic wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 10:45 amSure if that's what you want to take away but obviously you don't watch him enough to know when he's joking about something. Popper's are obviously not good for you.JeremyG wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 10:16 amHe talks about Kennedy’s dangerous theories. But then Oliver himself gives the impression that poppers must be harmless because they are sold everywhere in NYC and are no big deal?! The FDA says they are extremely dangerous and potentially fatal: https://www.fda.gov/food/alerts-advisor ... te-poppers
They may be sold everywhere, but legally they have to be marketed as nail polish remover or something similar, not to be ingested or inhaled!The FDA has observed an increase in reports of deaths and hospitalizations with issues such as severe headaches, dizziness, increase in body temperature, difficulty breathing, extreme drops in blood pressure, blood oxygen issues (methemoglobinemia) and brain death after ingestion or inhalation of nitrite “poppers.”
How many deaths could John Oliver cause by his reckless “endorsement” of poppers?
Comedian that uses HEAVY satire regularly starts using heavy satire and you look at it as reckless and dangerous? Also, RFK is goddamn Looney Tunes. Are you seriously saying you'd vote for him over Harris (or Trump)? Based on what, from a policy perspective?JeremyG wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 1:20 pmOf course he’s trying to create a comedic effect by bringing in poppers. But he says that poppers are obviously not harmful enough to cause cancer because they are sold on every street corner. It’s a dumb argument, and he never warns, or even hints, that they can cause death or that they aren’t harmless.Kryptonic wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 10:45 amSure if that's what you want to take away but obviously you don't watch him enough to know when he's joking about something. Popper's are obviously not good for you.JeremyG wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 10:16 amHe talks about Kennedy’s dangerous theories. But then Oliver himself gives the impression that poppers must be harmless because they are sold everywhere in NYC and are no big deal?! The FDA says they are extremely dangerous and potentially fatal: https://www.fda.gov/food/alerts-advisor ... te-poppers
They may be sold everywhere, but legally they have to be marketed as nail polish remover or something similar, not to be ingested or inhaled!The FDA has observed an increase in reports of deaths and hospitalizations with issues such as severe headaches, dizziness, increase in body temperature, difficulty breathing, extreme drops in blood pressure, blood oxygen issues (methemoglobinemia) and brain death after ingestion or inhalation of nitrite “poppers.”
How many deaths could John Oliver cause by his reckless “endorsement” of poppers?
Yes, based on two things:AmareIsGod wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 1:22 pmComedian that uses HEAVY satire regularly starts using heavy satire and you look at it as reckless and dangerous? Also, RFK is goddamn Looney Tunes. Are you seriously saying you'd vote for him over Harris (or Trump)? Based on what, from a policy perspective?JeremyG wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 1:20 pmOf course he’s trying to create a comedic effect by bringing in poppers. But he says that poppers are obviously not harmful enough to cause cancer because they are sold on every street corner. It’s a dumb argument, and he never warns, or even hints, that they can cause death or that they aren’t harmless.Kryptonic wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 10:45 amSure if that's what you want to take away but obviously you don't watch him enough to know when he's joking about something. Popper's are obviously not good for you.JeremyG wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 10:16 amHe talks about Kennedy’s dangerous theories. But then Oliver himself gives the impression that poppers must be harmless because they are sold everywhere in NYC and are no big deal?! The FDA says they are extremely dangerous and potentially fatal: https://www.fda.gov/food/alerts-advisor ... te-poppers
They may be sold everywhere, but legally they have to be marketed as nail polish remover or something similar, not to be ingested or inhaled!The FDA has observed an increase in reports of deaths and hospitalizations with issues such as severe headaches, dizziness, increase in body temperature, difficulty breathing, extreme drops in blood pressure, blood oxygen issues (methemoglobinemia) and brain death after ingestion or inhalation of nitrite “poppers.”
How many deaths could John Oliver cause by his reckless “endorsement” of poppers?
1992 Election ResultsNodack wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 7:53 pmJeremyG wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 1:34 pmYes, based on two things:AmareIsGod wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 1:22 pmComedian that uses HEAVY satire regularly starts using heavy satire and you look at it as reckless and dangerous? Also, RFK is goddamn Looney Tunes. Are you seriously saying you'd vote for him over Harris (or Trump)? Based on what, from a policy perspective?JeremyG wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 1:20 pmOf course he’s trying to create a comedic effect by bringing in poppers. But he says that poppers are obviously not harmful enough to cause cancer because they are sold on every street corner. It’s a dumb argument, and he never warns, or even hints, that they can cause death or that they aren’t harmless.
1. Policies better align with my political views (not perfectly—he’s certainly not a libertarian in all areas. I will probably vote for the LP candidate if they are on the AZ ballot and RFK is not)
2. Protesting the two-party system and taking away power from the two parties. He will have the 3rd most votes, and the more votes he gets, the more it will send a message to everyone in the country that an independent or third-party candidate can attract support and perhaps eventually win a national election.
Your point?Nodack wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 7:53 pm1992 Election Results
President George H.W. Bush (R) was defeated in his re-election bid by Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton (D) on November 3, 1992.
Clinton received 370 electoral votes, while Bush received 168 votes. The popular vote ended with Clinton receiving 43% of the vote, Bush receiving 37.4% of the vote, and independent candidate Ross Perot receiving 18.9% of the vote.
Perot didn’t win. I am pretty sure he didn’t help Bush.
No, but there wasn’t really any new info in it.
My point is that Perot had the best showing of any third party candidate I have ever seen and it didn’t start any new wave of third party voting after that.JeremyG wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 11:37 pmYour point?Nodack wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2024 7:53 pm1992 Election Results
President George H.W. Bush (R) was defeated in his re-election bid by Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton (D) on November 3, 1992.
Clinton received 370 electoral votes, while Bush received 168 votes. The popular vote ended with Clinton receiving 43% of the vote, Bush receiving 37.4% of the vote, and independent candidate Ross Perot receiving 18.9% of the vote.
Perot didn’t win. I am pretty sure he didn’t help Bush.
No, but there wasn’t really any new info in it.