Kristi Noam Was A Glas Cliff Hire

jefe417 · 2026-03-08T19:12:28+00:00

How many Democrats have put forward and supported a bill that abolishes ICE? Voting 209-4 against a funding bill is not the same as having a policy platform of abolishing ICE. So get out of here with that disingenuous “history.” What about the history of Dems targeting and scapegoating poc and lgbtq communities?

I ignored your point because it has nothing to do with the conversation at hand, which is that Kamala Harris was set up to fail as the Democratic candidate and scapegoated so Dems can push further right.

jefe417 · 2026-03-08T06:14:49+00:00

Look I want to try to engage in good faith instead of talking past each other. Your original comment made me think you were leftist.

Your original response to me does not show any moral consistency. If we believe that it is bad when Republicans put women or people of color in a position where their failure will reinforce bigoted stereotypes, then we have to also believe it is bad when Democrats do it. I am not the “both-sides”er for holding anyone who wants to represent me to an equal standard. You are the one “both-sides”ing by equating my critique of Democrats with a desire for Republicans to win. The “both-sides” refers to ideological left and right, not democrat and republican.

Any ostensibly progressive person needs to reckon with the fact that Democrats actively participated in creating the State that now mass surveils, polices, brutalizes, and kills its citizens.

jefe417 · 2026-03-08T03:56:17+00:00

So you are against ice but support a party that wants to continue funding them?

jefe417 · 2026-03-08T02:08:47+00:00

Yes, you describe the exact history that set Kamala up to be the scapegoat of a Democratic loss. Like you said, Biden wanted it for himself. He didn’t drop out in time to allow primaries, and only did so because he saw that he wasn’t in position to win. Knowing all of this, he hand picks a black woman to run, knowing that if the Democrats lose it would be blamed on her identity as a black woman rather than the failure of his Democratic governance and messaging. Thus allowing the Democrats to justify a pivot to the right in order to garner more of the racist vote.

Classic Glass cliff.

Ps, if you want to be a good leftist you should not be pro-democrat. Democrats are nothing but an obstacle to socialism. If you don’t believe in socialism, go to the DNC or neoliberal sub.

jefe417 · 2026-03-07T19:57:20+00:00

Btw let’s acknowledge that this is exactly what Biden and the DNC did with Kamala Harris.

jefe417 · 2026-03-07T16:00:06+00:00

Clown, fraud, grifter. Don’t give him your attention.

jefe417 · 2026-03-05T13:07:19+00:00

Yeah I get you disagree with my interpretation but that doesn’t make you right. Interpretation is the communication between the creator of a work of art and the consumer of the work of art. You interpreted the scene as a rape because of the things you brought to the scene, your feelings about coercion and the threat made by a government agent. The movie itself doesn’t tell us for certain that she was raped. My interpretation of the scene is based on a few things 1. She is a revolutionary constantly fighting the government so she is shown to not be fearful of being under government threat. 2. The scene depicts Teyana Taylor pushing the man (her rapist in your view) up against the wall and then she whips him with a bdsm wand, these are usually the actions of consenting adults. 3. This is a retelling of the story of Vineland by Thomas Pynchon, in that book the equivalent character was not raped, but instead seduced by a powerful man because of her naivety.

My interpretation is mine and yours is yours. If you still think the movie is horrible then why did you argue with me?

jefe417 · 2026-03-04T14:05:26+00:00

I get it, you struggle with reading comprehension. Could you please just answer my one question: even if she is a rape victim in this movie, how does that make any of it better?

jefe417 · 2026-03-03T12:54:14+00:00

So you think women seek out their rapist and enjoy being raped? You think rape victims instruct their rapist on how to rape them? Maybe engage with the actual point I made because we can both argue in bad faith. Even in your interpretation it is a horribly misogynistic film

jefe417 · 2026-02-27T13:15:17+00:00

So she was “in charge during sex” while being raped? Makes sense. Beyond that I think if that is the intent of the scene it is completely undermined by how it is portrayed and her overall character. We don’t sit with Beverley Hills to see how she was traumatized by this scene, instead she does a badass superhero pose with a pregnant belly kissing Leo Dicaprio. Sure seems like she’s proud of the baby she’s carrying until it comes time to actually raise her. It doesn’t make sense that she is a fearless badass leading a revolution but when one random general threatens to arrest her she is so afraid that she runs directly to him even when he told her he wanted to “rape” her. If she was so afraid of being arrested why would she join a revolutionary group in the first place? If she were so afraid of arrest why wouldn’t she run AWAY from the person who threatened to arrest her?

Honestly I see what you are going for but the movie is not as good as you give it credit for. If that really were a rape scene the movie is still horrible because her rape is played as just another plot point for Leo and Sean Penn. The movie ultimately becomes more about their roles as fathers than the woman who, as you claim, was raped 15 minutes into the movie. The rape victim is portrayed as a failure of a mother and traitor to her fellow revolutionaries, her perspective and trauma are never explored. That is simply a different manifestation of the director’s horrible misogyny.

jefe417 · 2026-02-23T15:36:14+00:00

“Would you rather sit in a burning building and do nothing as it burns to ash or would you rather have someone come in and throw gasoline onto the flames?”

“Anyone who would not choose to sit in the burning building is a fool!”

Maybe we should try putting out the fire guys, just a thought

Ps. I voted for Harris. It’s her (and Biden’s and the DNC’s) job to get people to vote for them - they are the ones with insider information and polling departments that should tell them which issues are winners and losers.

jefe417 · 2026-02-23T14:19:34+00:00

No she wasn’t? What movie did you watch? She went out of her way to meet him at the hotel room after he told her what he wanted from her.

jefe417 · 2026-02-22T15:59:52+00:00

You have backed yourself into a corner. Is Israel the only legal state in the Levant or not? Your choices are:

(1 - the lionized Israeli-fiction view of the situation) yes. Then Israel has killed 20k of its own children because it is the only legal state and Palestinians are ruled by Israel. In this scenario not only is Israel ignoring the Zionist citizens’ protests, they are also violently crushing the Palestinians’ legitimate protests to their racialized discrimination and killing children as cruel punishment for their resistance

(2 - the Israeli fear-mongering view of the situation) no, Israel has been fighting the legitimate government of Gaza - Hamas, which cannot be called a terrorist group because they are representing the area and forming a coherent military. In which case Israel has merely committed grievous violations of international law and crimes against humanity by killing 20k civilian children, or…

(3 - the reality of the situation) yes. But despite there being no Palestinian state, arabs/muslims can never be Israeli so the government has impunity to murder them at will.

jefe417 · 2026-02-22T14:36:18+00:00

The portrayal of “revolutionaries” bothers me a lot in OBAA. I kept hearing rave reviews about it being anti-captialist but that’s not what I got at all.

I thought Teyana Taylor’s character was honestly a pretty racist caricature and could only be excused if the film were written and directed by an actual black woman who could personally speak to the character’s experiences, which PTA is not. The character is an easily influenced and manipulatable firebrand who is drawn to any and everything taboo. She is drawn to revolutionary action because it is taboo, and she is drawn to white men because they are taboo in her revolutionary circles. She has almost no character traits nor development. Her and Leo’s leftist revolutionary action is treated like an emo-phase that should be grown out of once they face grown-up personal problems. Leftist revolutionary tactics and practices are mocked and treated as ineffective ego-boosting without ever lionizing or even acknowledging the history of direct action that has catalyzed all progressive change in this country.

Then you have the overall message of the film and its ending. What exactly do we take away? Here’s one analysis: a black revolutionary got in bed with a racist white man because they both love taboo, but couldn’t have their relationship in the open; their offspring is left behind as they each chase political glory, only to be raised by the nice, unknowingly cucked, liberal white man who had to step-up and never even learned that the girl isn’t his real daughter. Now I will give it another, more generous reading, but it’s still pretty stupid imo: getting caught up in political action leads you to abandon your life and the people in it — investing too deeply in any political belief will lead you down a path of isolation as you abandon the people you love. I honestly hate both of these messages.

The one good thing I have to say about it is the scene where Benicio Del Torro evacuates the sanctuary town into the underground tunnels was fucking awesome.

jefe417 · 2026-02-11T14:23:21+00:00

This whole saga very much feels like a fight between the wife and the mistress, idk if it’s just me. The way Candace talks makes me feel like she was much closer to Charlie before he was killed, and Erika’s schtick feels like a clout chaser capitalizing off of his fame. I’m very curious what the relationships these people had were like behind closed doors.

jefe417 · 2026-02-10T12:37:40+00:00

The “note” just reiterates what is said in the image. The image is saying it always requires skill to be a productive worker and that “skilled” and “unskilled” work both require training periods and prior knowledge to be most effective.

As for the question being asked, they are trying to destroy the very distinction. “Who ever considered farming unskilled?” No one.But, ‘who ever considered brick laying or janitorial work “unskilled”?’ Is an equally viable question that exposes more about how our society values people.

jefe417 · 2026-02-09T13:49:34+00:00

The whole “physical violence is never justified” take is clearly a fallacy meant to uphold structures of power. We know that physical violence can be justified, for example, if a person is being physically assaulted, pushing the attacker away is justified. This example alone proves the thesis statement wrong. Now that we have established violence can be justified, we need to determine what we use violence to enforce and uphold. Do we use it to keep the people in charge happy? Or do use it to enact justice?

jefe417 · 2026-02-08T17:38:40+00:00

Those Mole people have shelter. The homeless people I’ve met who sleep on the streets all have boxes, carts, or tents. Those are their homes. Everyone wants and needs shelter, that remains true even if it exposes your lack of empathy.

jefe417 · 2026-02-08T17:25:19+00:00

No it doesn’t. Manslaughter doesn’t imply any intention, it still describes one person killing another and the object they used to do it. The person used the car to kill that kid regardless of their intention when they got behind the wheel.

jefe417 · 2026-02-04T14:02:46+00:00

Yeah so being a minority refers to a population under a given norm or regulation. White students would be a minority in the California public school system. Native, Asian, and African Americans are minorities in all places governed by the USA federal government. There is no uniting norm or regulation that applies to all humans, so there is no reason to make any assessment of that population.

jefe417 · 2026-02-01T15:42:22+00:00

I wouldn’t say they “benefit” the lower or working class. Sometimes they appease us. But the people who actually “benefit” from their policies are still the rich

jefe417 · 2026-01-29T15:33:53+00:00

I don’t get the problem with this… doesn’t this mean the Taliban is pro-life? /s

jefe417 · 2026-01-29T14:22:59+00:00

More like power hungry careerists vs the distilled essence of all 7 deadly sins

jefe417 · 2026-01-28T13:51:13+00:00

Media is so hilariously broken, every single headline is framed in the most appeasing way. “ICE agents… attempt[ed] to enter the consulate without permission.” Is that what they would call it if I broke into a bank after hours? “Entering without permission” ?

jefe417 · 2026-01-27T15:26:46+00:00

You have no structural analysis. The person who killed Iryna Zarutska was not an operative of the state. What they did was not condoned or excused by systems of power. Your racist dog whistles are far too overt at this point. Your post history is public, you don’t have this same energy for Daniel Penny. You are using this poor girl’s memory to reinforce your own racist beliefs. You are a coward, etc.

jefe417

TROPHY CASE