403
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] thesprongler@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

I toyed with the idea that their union was manufactured, but by the NFL, not for the purpose of endorsing Biden. They could easily do that on their own. Maybe two rich attractive successful people just actually like each other?

[-] limelight79@lemm.ee 2 points 6 months ago

A friend of mine wondered about that, too. It's hard to understand what the NFL could offer Swift, given how much money she already has, and how much she'd lose if she somehow pissed off her fans with a scheme.

I'm pretty sure it would have unraveled or ended by now, too. They definitely seem to be into each other at this point. Good for them, I hope they're both happy beyond their wildest dreams.

[-] Got_Bent@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago

Vivek Ramaswamy, who dropped out of the Republican primary race this month, shared his own conspiracy theory on X Monday, suggesting that... “an artificially culturally propped-up couple” whom he believes will reveal a “major presidential endorsement” this fall.

No but seriously. Enough about Tim Scott.

[-] Pratai@lemmy.ca 6 points 6 months ago

The same dipshits also think Ted (pedophile) Nugent is an American hero.

[-] callouscomic@lemm.ee 4 points 6 months ago

could be part of an orchestrated plot to drum up hype for the Democratic Party.

What if it was? Then what? Isn't that just marketing? Commercialization? I mean... what? Why even care?

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

There are many fine establishments that allow you to bet on the outcome of NFL games.

So all those conservatives are placing bets now, right?

[-] carl_dungeon@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

Man I never gave those people much credit, but I’m not sure what’s below giant fucking idiot… DJT maybe?

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

I mean..

They didn't really think that the Lions were ever going to win something, did they?

Like, thats the counterfactual, so...

[-] Capricorny90210@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

You mean THEY wouldn't let the Lions win anything. /s

[-] Monument 2 points 6 months ago

Even backing up to the quarterfinals, it’s clear to me that the whole thing was orchestrated to ensure no matter what, football fans would have to cheer for Taylor Swift, Union Auto Worker team, The Wire team, or Pinnacle of Capitalism Destroying a City team.

It’s alllll a psyop to make those poor impressionable football fans cheer for big city liberal things.

[-] Bumblefumble@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago

Well, it would have been the Ravens, but yes, let's all make fun of the Lions as is tradition.

[-] HawlSera@lemm.ee 3 points 6 months ago

I wasn't aware it worked like that, that because a certain team won, everyone has to do what Swift wnats...

In fact I'm sure it doesn't....

I know Conservative arguments don't often make sense, and by design are meant to be catchy slogans more than accurate precise arguments, but... shit sometimes they make it too obvious.

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

The Wonkette article on this was hilarious - and baffling. I still don't understand the post from that weird libsoftiktok lady.

ETA: this one: https://www.wonkette.com/p/super-bowl-rigged-and-stollen-for

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2024
403 points (93.7% liked)

politics

18601 readers
5086 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS