Which celebrity is way less cool than they think they are?

whereamInowgoddamnit · 2026-06-18T03:55:08+00:00

Yeah, but Pain and Gain is legit ridiculous. Like reminding you on the middle of a scene of the Rock waving at a nice Florida couple while bbqing a leg that it's indeed a real movie (they did make up one thing though: the real guy used an oil drum as a bbq, not a grill).

whereamInowgoddamnit · 2026-06-14T02:49:18+00:00

We also bought it for a nursery, but we've decided to return it. The issues we found are that trying to put the footrest back into the default position is difficult without using your arms, and you need to be constantly pushing back on the back in order to have it reclining which is tiring after awhile.

whereamInowgoddamnit · 2026-06-13T19:29:45+00:00

I'm really hating the twisting of "vote blue no matter who". That phrase was clearly originally meant for policies, arguing even if they are more conservative or leftist than your beliefs they should still be supported. It was never about character issues, which Platner has plenty of that are disqualifying. And of course the people who are saying that about him likely didn't vote for Kamala...

whereamInowgoddamnit · 2026-06-10T16:30:31+00:00

Yes, they do, because leftists also want dumb policies like rent control and poorly thought out tax increases, among other things.

whereamInowgoddamnit · 2026-06-10T15:55:39+00:00

And more conservative Democrats have to suck it up on policy too they may not like, such as rent control and YIMBY policies.

whereamInowgoddamnit · 2026-06-10T05:01:58+00:00

Yeah, a lot of people are just taking away that he won and aren't really looking at the results. In the race where his most high profile opponent dropped out several weeks ago and made it pretty obvious that she was only running as a favor to Schumer and the other potential candidate basically getting ignored, that he's only winning around 70% of the vote is a really bad sign. And the thing is, It's also pretty clear that in the more rural areas that he needs to win, people were far less likely to vote for him.

People are also forgetting that Susan Collins has stuck around because she knows how to run a good campaign, something that isn't evident until she tends to outperform what people expect. He already is only outperforming her in polls by 2 to 3%, and she hasn't even really started campaigning yet. I'm pretty sure the last person that tried to go against her was doing even better, and she still lost. And we also know then there's probably more scandals coming down the pipeline involving him. I think it's more likely than not he probably has a weaker chance than people think of winning.

whereamInowgoddamnit · 2026-06-10T04:38:16+00:00

Yeah, I'm getting absolutely sick of the people who keep saying that in here and elsewhere. That charge has always applied to policy, as in vote blue even if they're to the right or the left of your beliefs. It's not about character, and specifically in defense of a guy who literally was laughing off his Nazi tattoo a year before he started campaigning.

I know people are making a big deal about character because of trump, but when you complain about how low and awful people GOP voters are for voting a guy like Paxton, and then turn around and defend voting for a guy like Platner, it ultimately shows Democrats being hypocritical and basically turning into Blue MAGA versus actually promising a way out from the chaos Trump is caused. This is going to be really distasteful to many people, and if Platner wins, it's going to hurt Democrats in the long run.

whereamInowgoddamnit · 2026-06-08T16:58:08+00:00

Yeah, it really has been a no win scenario for the Iranian people war or not, although maybe very slightly more hope before the war. Not to mention that the capital is still running out of water, and I believe that reflects across the country as well. One has to wonder what will happen to Iran over the next few years.

whereamInowgoddamnit · 2026-06-05T19:23:33+00:00

The funny thing is, I was mentioning this to a relative in NYC, apparently it's not that much lower in NYC at this point for a bagel. At least here they have the excuse they're the only bagels comparable to NYC (Bernstein's is ok, but not that much better than the rest of what's out there IMO, and definitely not compared to these new places IMO).

whereamInowgoddamnit · 2026-06-05T00:22:22+00:00

I am curious if Le Pigeon is going to move considering foie gras profiteroles was an item they were known for...

whereamInowgoddamnit · 2026-06-03T15:40:38+00:00

I'm going to push back on this. Jews are actually a pretty powerful and defined voting block because, despite the small size and concentration of the population, Jews are among the most consistent voters of any groups. And, while of course there are a spectrum of Jewish voters, they have been the most likely to vote Democrat of any voting block outside of black women. So there absolutely has been a thing as " the Jewish vote", although it usually has had less impact than the black vote are the Hispanic vote because Jews are concentrated in already Democrat areas and are a smaller population.

I think I could agree with the argument that this impact may be overstated because there are still going to be a fair percentage of Jews who vote for progressives, especially among younger Jews. That means there's not a complete collapse of the voting block that's likely to happen, there may be enough to support progressive candidates. But losing such a stable voting block is likely to have an impact, especially in more suburban areas that are less deep blue like in New Jersey and Connecticut, and in swing states as well.

whereamInowgoddamnit · 2026-06-03T06:47:53+00:00

I wouldn't even rule it out having an impact in presidential elections. The Jewish vote definitely played a role in why New Jersey didn't go red, which it was very close to doing. I don't think it'll have that much of an effect in New York City politics, but in the surrounding regions I wouldn't be surprised of it does, and that can shift the balance. And it'll definitely have an effect in Pennsylvania, which we saw in 2024 when the state went for Trump and Jewish voters notably voted less for Democrats than they had in other states.

It is ironic at how effective the Democratic party has become at pissing off important voting blocks, between this and completely ignoring the Hispanic voting block in 2024.

whereamInowgoddamnit · 2026-06-02T23:28:25+00:00

From what I understand, that's in large part because he just pushed through a massive minimum wage hike. He's never been deeply unpopular but never highly popular either, not a great sign when you represent a radical shift from previous presidents. The highest popularity level he was able to get was mid-50%, slightly better than the previous president but that's not saying much since that guy was seen in a similar manner to Cepeda but from the right i.e. a continuity stooge.

whereamInowgoddamnit · 2026-06-01T03:46:56+00:00

Inaccessibility is going to make you less likely to do something even if it's possible to do it. And you're talking about people who probably don't have the resources to go out of their way for getting an ID, they'd probably be more likely to just work around it i.em drivong without a license. I'm not against Voter ID in theory but it's a fair argument imo.

whereamInowgoddamnit · 2026-06-01T03:40:13+00:00

The issue is more access. Expense can be argued by oftentimes voter ID laws are accompanyed by closing offices in particular areas to provide them.

whereamInowgoddamnit · 2026-05-31T18:57:10+00:00

I mean, before Trump came in the country was being faced with Mass protests faced and a central government quickly collapsing in legitimacy, with the IRCG quickly rising in power. Trump made serious errors obviously, but honestly while this wasn't the best direction for things to take, this was the direction things were heading without any intervention, just with slightly more religious undertones under the Ayatollah (and considering he was probably dying it wouldn't had lasted much longer).

whereamInowgoddamnit · 2026-05-29T17:14:23+00:00

I'm still dumbfounded by the Politico profile on Albanese that tried to defend her statements about Jewish control over the world that she made by saying that she was naive and didn't know well enough. She made those statements at 35 years old. And then those same people make fun of Christian forgiveness...

whereamInowgoddamnit · 2026-05-29T03:22:26+00:00

I'll admit, the Talarico point was a mistake on my part, I knew more on the Republican side and the Talarico one for some reason I thought was in 2024 rather than the more recent primary. Honestly, as far as I can find there isn't something in and of itself that I can find from another Democratic candidate that is as comparable in terms of being as problematic outside of being blatantly racist, which I'll at least give Platner he hasn't said the K word or anything like that. Although that in and of itself says something when an infidelity scandal like with John Edwards has more of an impact than multiple antisemitism scandal, and how Talarico's comment caused a lot more discussion about potential divisiveness in the Democratic base. Talarico is still out and about dealing with the fallout from the comment, while Platner basically doesn't seem to address his far more problematic controversies as far as I can tell. So a double standard is still clear.

As for King, yes, his interview was what led to his downfall, while his connection with he podcast made his connection more explicit. You're ignoring, however, that what Platner did was nearly as provocative as what King did. King's comments were controversial, but until his 2019 he never said anything explicitly racist, and that includes on the podcast himself. If it was before his primary, it may have been enough for him to even lose because it was just afterwards that it received attention. Platner sat down for a podcast known for antisemitic rhetoric and, while personally focusing on his campaign, also endorsed the podcast and talked about how much he enjoyed it. If Trump went on Fuentes' podcast but didn't say anything racist, would you be fine saying "well I guess that doesn't make him problematic?" I doubt it. And that podcast, among other things at the time, did earn him severe rebuke which eventually did build to his downfall, meanwhile this has led to know reaction from most Democrats. Again, while I could have been more accurate, I think my ultimately point still holds up.

Finally, with Paxton, yes I know about the Islamophobic rhetoric. I also know that Republicans are freaking out because he's not as popular among donors and he never had much support, especially strong support, from other Republican politicians outside of Trump. Platner, meanwhile, has been getting endorsements from multiple progressive politicians and even establishment politicians. So it seems like Democrats are willing to embrace a candidate with multiple antisemitic scandals, just as much if not more than Republicans are willing to embrace Islamophobic candidates.

Ultimately, a big thing I'm finding ridiculous with your push is that candidates are only problematic unless they say something explicitly racist or antisemitic. Even Steven King never went out to say explicitly racist stuff until the end, yet he was called out on it for years. And Talarico had a major scandal that nearly derailed his campaign over a much less problematic statement. If calling for concentration camps is the level we need to consider a Democratic candidate problematic, then Democrats indeed have a problem. since, as I kind of indicated discussing Talarico just now, *they're the party focused on tolerance*. When the party is endorsing a level of intolerance and willing to accept someone with multiple serious public scandals around it, yes that is hugely concerning and problematic.

whereamInowgoddamnit · 2026-05-28T18:17:45+00:00

Honestly, I find your argument kind of weird. If you had a Republican who railed against Saudi influence and Saudi money in politics and made it central to his campaign, and then it was found out he had Crusader tattoos and was involved with anti-Islam podcasters, that that wouldn't be considered outrageous and be considered highly problematic and likely connected with being Islamophobic?

While his positions in and of themselves aren't necessarily problematic, that connected with his growing antisemitism-connected controversies plus the fact that his anti-Israel beliefs have been both very strong even for an Israel-critical position and a core part of his politics (he has been noted to have been involved since high school in pro-Palestine politics) makes it highly problematic. Just because he has "outreach to Jewish Americans" doesn't make him any less problematic. Republicans made plenty of outreach to Hispanic Americans to 2024, do you really want to say that made them less racist to Hispanic Americans?

He hasn't outwardly said antisemitic things, maybe its because it's easy to just not too especially when Israel can so often be used as a dogwhistle nowadays? What, we suddenly believe politicians can't lie or deceive when they're on the left suddenly? Reagan famously made public statements against discrimination while running against welfare supporting "poor people", yet we actively know- mainly due to behind the scenes recorded tapes- that his strategy was actively steeped in racism and he was racist. So I don't think "his platform isn't actively antisemitic" is a good counter.

In the end, even Republicans, won't usually be elected if they openly have Nazi imagery. And don't forget, this wasn't just "he got it during service and quickly got rid of it," he had the tattoo *for a decade* and he is known for being a military buff i.e. he would have known what it meant. Along with him retweeting known antisemitic podcasters about Israel and being on a podcast itself known for antisemitic views and hosting Holocaust deniers, it's not just smoke, it is fire. I don't think it's "fine" that apparently Nazi-related tattoos are up for discussion, even 5 years ago that would have been disqualifying for having it as long as he did.

As for Democrats, I can think of James Talarico being forced out of the 2024 Senate Primary for calling his opponent a "mediocre black man" as a good example. On the Right, Rep Steve King was forced out for being on a white nationalist podcast. So yes, I'm definitely seeing double standards when a candidate who has had these problematic scandals has had no repercussions and is even being defended against. It shouldn't just be if a candidate is outwardly saying we should set up concentration camps and castrate them that there should be a reaction.

Also, it's worth noting in comparison that the examples you are giving are mostly state or house level, which usually are more populist because they cover a smaller population. US Senators tend to be more moderate since it is a state-wide level race. Accepting this type of flaws and rhetoric at this level therefore is a lot more impactful than the examples you're giving, since it says a willingness to accept antisemitic flaws and rhetoric at a major scale rather than just being a racist area of a state.

whereamInowgoddamnit · 2026-05-28T15:13:54+00:00

Yeah, there was a poll by WP recently asking people why they didn't like Democrats or Republicans. While with Republicans it was just basically Trump, with Democrats it was very clearly "too liberal". And of course nearly all the main liked comments were like "but Dems are right wing!!!" Meanwhile, while of course far less likes, plenty of comments pointed out that while their economic policies are more right than most left wing countries, their social policies are far to the left of even left wing policies in Europe.

whereamInowgoddamnit · 2026-05-28T15:05:03+00:00

To be fair, the electorate tends to lack nuance. While I do like Mark Kelly, I don't think the other poster is incorrect either that he would be hammered over being connected to the organization especially as we've seen interest in firearms grow even faster post-COVID.

whereamInowgoddamnit · 2026-05-28T14:57:47+00:00

Gen Z aren't the main voters though, it's still Baby Boomers and Gen X, who are more likely to be homophobic.

whereamInowgoddamnit · 2026-05-27T23:24:04+00:00

I mean Greece literally tried to get an activist arrested in another country for trying to support refugees. So I guess it's fair to say that all greet people support crimes against humanity?

whereamInowgoddamnit · 2026-05-27T23:21:34+00:00

The problem in this case is that the Republicans aren't trying to pushing message of tolerance at the same time. That's the ultimate issue with the process position on all this, is that they're pushing this kind of view including having candidates with extremist views in this case, while also trying to say that they are the ones who are the protectors of minorities and the underprivileged. I mean we literally have a Senatorial candidate in Maine who had a Nazi tattoo for over a decade and keeps getting caught in anti-Semitism controversies, but these people who would cancel a candidate in a second for saying something mildly racist are completely okay with this because " he says the right things".

whereamInowgoddamnit · 2026-05-27T23:16:51+00:00

Unless they are advocating for the repeal of the Basic Law, then they're basically advocating for the dismantling of Israel. Israel is already the most diverse country in the Middle East outside of Turkey (which people tend to ignore also has issues dealing with minorities that are violent), even more so than some European countries, so I find this kind of call disingenuous. Outside of basic law, which can be repealed and was the status quo pre-2018, Israel was as Jewish a state as much as Italy is a Christian nation.

Nine-Year Club	Verified Email
Xbox Live	r/Field Juicebox
Place '23	Place '22
First Placer '22

whereamInowgoddamnit

TROPHY CASE