President Joe Biden had conspiracy theorists in a tizzy after posting what appeared to be his reaction to the Kansas City Chiefs Super Bowl win on Sunday night.
“Just like we drew it up,” Biden posted on X alongside a photo of “Dark Brandon,” the meme created by hardcore—and very online—supporters of Donald Trump that Biden and his team loved so much they adopted it as their own.
The post was apparently referencing far-right conspiracy theories which posit the NFL and high-level government operatives conspired to rig the Super Bowl in Kansas City’s favor to give maximum exposure to a yet-to-be-announced endorsement from Chiefs star Travis Kelce and his girlfriend Taylor Swift.
something tells me the people *stationed* on the carrier also have homes (or could afford them with all the money the government doles out for them). and i didn’t say it was a panacea, just that it’s something he could do to address the record homelessness.
Oh, well, as long as something tells you that they could afford a home, then that must be true.
i have pretty good intuition.
all evidence to the contrary.
this is rhetoric, not a rebuttal
it’s a fact, and if you can’t rebut it, it means you’ve lost the argument.
how’s that for rhetoric?
it’s pure rhetoric. you still haven’t substantiated a claim that there is any evidence i don’t have pretty good intuition.
you have presented plenty of your own evidence for that claim
wrong
Sure. You and Trump.
this is some pretty ham-fisted pigeonholing
It’s not “ham-fisted pigeonholing” when both you and he believe you know things without looking them up.
what i’m saying is true or false regardless of anything trump has ever done. your attempt to associate me with him is the very definition of pigeonholing: you’re trying to discredit my claims by associating me with someone else. i think it’s worth further explicating that this is a form of ad hominem, which is expressly prohibited on lemmy.world and in this community
Feel free to report me if you like. When you do something Trump does all the time, I’m going to compare you with him. If you don’t want to be compared with Trump, don’t do something he’s famous for.
mastodon reports don’t get pushed to lemmy mods afaik
facing the consequences of your actions in not a state of victimhood.
being ad-hominemed isn’t a consequence of my actions, it’s a failing of my interlocutor to engage in good faith
if you don’t like being compared to Trump, stop doing things he does. But that’s not an ad hominem-- it’s a consequence of your actions.
blaming others for your poor behavior is engaging in bad faith. accusing them of what you, yourself, are doing is projection and hypocritical.
just like Trump
this whole comment is darvo bullshit
>if you don’t like being compared to Trump, stop doing things he does
this is straight up darvo abuse
and how would cramming a bunch of homeless people on an aircraft carrier help them? it’s not really designed to house civilians. and what would they do for work? there’s not exactly a transit system to get them to and from jobs, medical appointments, necessary social services, etc. They’d be stuck on the ship.
you should look into what life on an active naval vessel is like-- it’s not exactly conducive to either civilian life nor to taking care of a bunch of homeless people who have complex social, psychological, and medical needs. this wouldn’t solve any problems and owuld create a lot of new ones-- not to mention that we need those aircraft carriers.
air craft carries can certainly provide medical treatment and social services on site
not that type of help or for that number of people all at once for a sustained amount of time. but, sure, go ahead and provide evidence for you claims that battlefield medicine on a battleship is the same as long-term medical and psychiatric care provided to civilians.
>you claims that battlefield medicine on a battleship is the same as long-term medical and psychiatric care provided to civilians.
i didn’t say that. this is a strawman
you clearly implied it when you said that medical care would be available for them. i merely highlighted your profound ignorance on the subject.
the consequences of your actions are not a state of victimhood.
you inferred it. you’re now suggesting I implied it.
ah, the Reverse Gish-Gallop.
nice try
no. it’s just pedantry.
if being in ship is not a workable solution, he could always sell the ship to fund programs to relieve homelessness
it’s pretty telling that you can’t simply imagine a solution where more money is appropriated to fund such programs rather than the absurd notion of selling of critical military hardware.
>it’s pretty telling that you can’t simply imagine a solution where more money is appropriated to fund such programs rather than the absurd notion of selling of critical military hardware.
there’s no evidence i can’t imagine a solution such as that, only that i havent presented one here
and how many air craft carriers does one navy need? i think most countries get by without any.
your comments abound with such evidence.
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
to quote you:
no, this is basic logic.
more rhetoric
you clearly don’t know what that word means, lmao
either way, just because yo choose to ignore evidence doesn’t mean it’s not there.
> lmao
this smacks of an appeal to ridicule
>you clearly don’t know what that word means
wrong
>just because yo chosoe to ignore evidence doesn’t mean it’s not there.
you haven’t presented any evidence for your claim
there is no reason they need to work
uh… to support themselves by earning an income? being unable to afford housing is most often the reason they’re homeless in the first place.