banner

/baw/ - General Discussion

The archives have been restored! You can check them here.

Please use this thread to report any bugs.

Mods & Janitors: If you've forgotten your login details but would like to continue helping, please e-mail me: anonymoose.chan@gmail.com

radio
8MB jpg, 8MB png, 8MB gif, 8MB mp3, 12MB swf, 8MB webm, 8MB mp4
421 posts, 50 images, 1 audio, 4 videos (total attachments: 55)
412325
Politics Thread 14: Shitlord Edition
savepng606.73KB
screen_shot_2016-05-01_at_1.34.05_pm.png
678459
replyreportdelete
412329
Anonymous
:/
replyreportdelete
412335
Anonymous
A fitting op for our times
replyreportdelete
412339
Anonymous
>412325
What subtle satire.
replyreportdelete
412343
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>House Republicans this week reinstated an arcane procedural rule that enables lawmakers to reach deep into the budget and slash the pay of an individual federal worker — down to $1 — a move that threatens to upend the 130-year-old civil service.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/house-republicans-revive-obscure-rule-that-could-allow-them-to-slash-the-pay-of-individual-federal-workers-to-1/2017/01/04/4e80c990-d2b2-11e6-945a-76f69a399dd5_story.html
replyreportdelete
412350
Anonymous
Are libs using the shitskin meme?

>412343
>130-year
Wow it's almost the exact timeframe for when America started sucking.
replyreportdelete
412351
Slowmobile
>412350
>Are libs using the shitskin meme?
That's a bit of a stretch, now.
replyreportdelete
412352
Anonymous
savepng23.726KB
php3obiH5
602407
Final Electoral College count.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?421237-1/joint-session-congress-certifies-donald-trump-next-us-president&live=

Overview:
- Ron Paul got more Electoral Votes than Jeb.
- Democrats submit dozens of objections to Trumps EC votes, but fail to present them in proper written format because they are fucking stupid. Biden is forced to tell them to shut the fuck up. I bet SJWs will stop trying to make pathetic low-effort faceboob memes about Biden now.
- A black lady is told to be quiet.
- Another black lady got her mike cut for yelling over the president.
- Biden almost cries of embarrassment at his own party every time he has to shut them up.
- Some black guy got ejected from the garbage disposal airlock the room.
- More blacks try rioting in the chamber and also get thrown out into the gutter.
- Biden says "no debate, it's over" in the saddest voice ever, chamber erupts in laughter.
- Paul Ryan giggling to himself in the background through the whole thing.
- President-Elect Donald Trump has passed all hurdles of the executive and legislative branches.
- Only way to stop Trump now is to convince every federal judge in the united states not to administer the oath of office.
there's still a path to victory! we're ready for her!
- A Hillary-promised ECV votes for an endangered eagle for president instead.
- Another votes for a duke.
- Biden ends it by trying to grope Paul Ryan, who blocks his groping attempt with a sideways hip block, and breaks off the hug.

Dow Jones surges in response.

>412350
Nah it's just their retarded low-effort meme about "shitlords". They think it's funny, but its a kindergarten level insult like poopface or boogerbreath.
replyreportdelete
412353
Anonymous
Sorry my bad, it's not an endangered eagle, it's some Indian chick with a retarded name. Fate Mottled Eagle or something.

I'm sure the vote was supposed to go to Hillary though, so obviously another case of SJW betraying each other and eating their own.
replyreportdelete
412355
Anonymous
>412343
extra ominous with the transition team trying to get the names of people working on climate research and gender equality
replyreportdelete
412357
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>412355

As well as a list of government employees working on research into violent extremist groups within the US, last I heard.
replyreportdelete
412358
Anonymous
savepng610.575KB
phploYpBp
13661096
>412355
Feminist glacier technology.
>412357
Moonman research.

What a huge loss for this country, how will our economy ever recover.
replyreportdelete
412359
Anonymous
savejpg58.723KB
C1g0l6XXcAEvW3L.jpg
509783
>Wikileaks trying the McCarthyist trick of guilt by association, using the weakest definition of association.
>failing at it
replyreportdelete
412360
Anonymous
>proximity graphs

We already have /pol/ infographics about who is Jewish or not.

If there is one thing 2016 has taught me, it's that the plucky upstarts are bad and the illuminati know best.
replyreportdelete
412362
Anonymous
>412360
>the illuminati know best
New World Order pls go
replyreportdelete
412363
Anonymous
>412360
I mean hey
https://psmag.com/the-new-blood-libel-5fd5f8cca136#.8nctin4g7
it's nothing new
replyreportdelete
412364
Anonymous
savejpg61.152KB
react (2).jpg
450600
>412359
>ive never seen that murder weapon before officer
Great defense.
replyreportdelete
412366
Anonymous
>412364
>denial is conclusive evidence
Great irrationality.
replyreportdelete
412367
Anonymous
>412363
Oh okay so I'm not the only one who spent all last year thinking of Dreyfus.
replyreportdelete
412368
Anonymous
>412364

pssst, bro, check the spelling on the names in that tweet.

its okay we know you're a bit special, dude.
replyreportdelete
412369
Anonymous
>412368
One is linkedin...
replyreportdelete
412370
Anonymous
>412359
Hilariously, WL deleted not only the creepy doxx tweet but the one where they falsely identified this guy.
replyreportdelete
412371
Anonymous
WL was usurped by one guy who is so libertarian he turned into a fascist, the other founders left in disgust.
replyreportdelete
412372
Anonymous
>412369
He means:
>David Kaye
>David Keye
are most likely two different people. Wikileaks is accusing user David Kaye of being former official David Keye
replyreportdelete
412379
Anonymous
>412372
Really reflects well on Wikileaks' dedication to the Truth at all Costs(TM) that they can't even be bothered to do simple fact-checking.
replyreportdelete
412381
Anonymous
>412379
>412372
>412370
I'm still not seeing the problem, Wikileaks misspelled his name, what does that have to do with anything?

https://twitter.com/davidakaye
>website link: law.uci.edu/faculty/full-t…
http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/kaye/
Prof. Kaye began his legal career with the U.S. State Department

Him saying "I don't know who that is" is fucking retarded, he's an old friend of Hillarys.

Chain of failure posts by retarded anons who so desperately cling to the idea that their wicked witch of the west isn't wicked, that they're willing to shit on a transparency agency that has published shit to embarrass everyone. They've published shit that embarrassed Russia, Iraq, Lybia, the Bush admin, the Obama admin, the NSA, the FBI, the Dems, the GOP, fucking everyone.
replyreportdelete
412382
Anonymous
http://money.cnn.com/interactive/news/kfile-trump-monica-crowley-plagiarized-multiple-sources-2012-book/

>In the book, Crowley lifted an entire section on Keynesian economics from the IAC-owned website Investopedia.

Embarrassing.
replyreportdelete
412383
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>412382

Trump does not care about this. If anything, it might even make him like her more.
replyreportdelete
412385
Anonymous
2016 is going to go down in history as the year America asked itself if Trump was trolling or retarded and wrongfully decided "trolling"
replyreportdelete
412386
Anonymous
>412385
Those aren't mutually exclusive possibities, though. He's dumb, but thrives on being underestimated by appearing even dumber.
replyreportdelete
412387
Anonymous
>412385
That was deep, maaaaaan...
replyreportdelete
412388
Anonymous
>412385
>Trump is to blame for Trump being elected
//youtube.com/watch?v=HyT7vXdyieMyoutube thumb
replyreportdelete
412392
Anonymous
Shocking nobody, Congress is trying to rush the cabinet appointments ahead of the ethics and background reviews.
replyreportdelete
412393
Anonymous
>412388
>Trump is to blame for Trump being elected
I'm sure the DNC picking* an unelectable individual had nothing to do with it.

*Instead of relying on the wishes of Democrat voters.
replyreportdelete
412394
Anonymous
>412393
>Instead of relying on the wishes of Democrat voters.

What is this object talking about? The Sanders zealots are still angry that people who *weren't* democrats didn't get to vote in the primaries.
replyreportdelete
412395
Anonymous
>412394
>What is this object talking about? The Sanders zealots are still angry that people who *weren't* democrats didn't get to vote in the primaries.
Regardless of your feelings on Sanders, the Primary system has set things up such that we would have a purer democratic experience if we were a single party state than we do as a two party state. Thanks to the primary system, the only people we get to vote for are those who were deemed worthy by donors in the shadow primary that precedes the public primaries (that is to say, the round where prospective candidates go around asking the country's millionaires and billionaires for permission to run in the form of begging for campaign donations, ensuring that the person who wins the race will always be someone who works for the wealthy first--or else they won't get to run for reelection), and then less than half the country gets any say in who the candidates they get to vote on are.

This election is a pretty good example of why that's bad: the majority of the country hated *both* candidates. I'm not talking "hated one candidate and found the other one to be the lesser of two evils," I mean the majority of people in the country thought that either choice was a net loss for the country. That's not something that happens in a democracy. That's something that happens when you only get to choose from people who have been deemed acceptable by the Powers That Be.

And it's something that happened because the primary system--even without any dishonest behavior on the parts of the people in charge--keeps a lot of people from having any say in who they get to vote for at all. At least in a one-party system with open primaries, we'd all get to choose from the entire field of candidates. Under the two parties-plus-primaries system, we get shit like 2016, where a fucking Reality TV Star who knows absolutely nothing about foreign or domestic policy and has absolutely no experience, talent, skill, or knowledge relevant to being president managed to become the most powerful man in the world.

At this point I would welcome a single party state, even if it were the a party of lunatics like the Republicans. Because if everyone were required by law to be Republicans, but all Republicans were allowed to vote in the primaries, then the Republican Primaries would become the actual race for President, and everyone would be eligible, and they would have to follow the will of the "Republican" voters. It would be like we didn't have political parties at all. And then we might actually get representatives that represent the interests of the majority rather than representatives that represent the most dedicated trolls.
replyreportdelete
412396
Anonymous
>412393
https://newrepublic.com/article/135472/no-dnc-didnt-rig-primary-favor-hillary
replyreportdelete
412398
Anonymous
Democratic voters sided overwhelmingly with Hillary, in fact. Bernie was popular with the youth but had no traction with minorities, and the youth don't vote.
replyreportdelete
412399
Anonymous
savepng421.381KB
Untitled.png
34921300
>412395
>This election is a pretty good example of why that's bad: the majority of the country hated *both* candidates.
One of them just traveled less, had fewer and less effective rallies, and thus won less states, and thus less electoral votes.

In 4 years the democract candidate needs to visit all 50 states multiple times per month, hold frequent rockstar-level rallies, or the Democratic party is going to get assfucked by Trump again.

We don't live in direct democracy lads, no one does.

>412396
This took 5 minutes.

You're a disgrace.
replyreportdelete
412400
Anonymous
>412396
Hey remember how tim kaine stepped down as DNC chair and recommended debbie wasserman schultz as chair? Isn't it funny that hillary took tim as vice president, and when debbie got fired she immediately got hired by the hillary campaign? or perhaps re-hired lol. Also remember when donna brazile, an interim DNC chair between tim kaine and debbie wasserman shultz, served as bill clintons advisor in 1992? Isn't it funny during 2016 while working at the CNN as a commentator, she stole some questions from the CNN hosted debate and gave them to hillary ahead of time? Fun times in the ole nest of snakes.

>412399 (checked)
It's also an article from July, before the most damning shit came out. He has to go back in time to get to his safe place.
replyreportdelete
412401
Anonymous
This is why I told you not to talk to the Trumpets. It's a waste of your time.
replyreportdelete
412403
Anonymous
>412400
>(checked)
kek'd :^)
replyreportdelete
412404
Anonymous
>412401
Stop shitposting please
replyreportdelete
412406
Anonymous
>412401
>Trumpets
What is it with these lame ass insults? Don't you have any imagination?
replyreportdelete
412407
Anonymous
>412406
why can't this thread be more humorous, rather than srs bsns?
replyreportdelete
412408
Anonymous
>412401
They're just mad that people continue to disrespect their man who would be king.
replyreportdelete
412409
Anonymous
>412399
>In 4 years the democract candidate needs to visit all 50 states multiple times per month
Not really. There's no reason for a Democratic candidate to visit California or New York, nor places like Utah, Kansas, Alabama, or Mississippi. The electoral college is still going to make those people's opinions irrelevant to anyone campaigning for president for the foreseeable future.
replyreportdelete
412410
Anonymous
>412406
It's not politically correct to call them "retarded" anymore. And no one gets their jimmies rustled by someone being politically incorrect toward them than a Trump supporter.
replyreportdelete
412411
Anonymous
>412409
Fortunately, once the Republicans have broken everything, again, the Rust Belt and Florida will be back where they belong and we can get back to fixing things, AGAIN.
replyreportdelete
412413
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>412411

Not unless the Supreme Court stays in a 5-4 conservative split until 2020. A conservative-heavy SCOTUS can help hold back progress - or reverse it - for decades. (The GOP wants a conservative SCOTUS so as to dismantle Roe v Wade once and for all, for starters.) One of the reasons I voted for Clinton was because she would have tipped the scales in favor of a progressive-leaning SCOTUS.
replyreportdelete
412417
Anonymous
>412408
>They're just mad that people continue to disrespect their man who would be king.
>their man who would be king.
>would be king
>would
>he still hasnt won!!! there's a path to victory for hillary! we're ready!!!
The man who is the mountain king.
//youtube.com/watch?v=XvyRIgPImOYyoutube thumb

>412409
>There's no reason for a Democratic candidate to visit California or New York, nor places like Utah, Kansas, Alabama, or Mississippi.
Bwahaha this is how you lost the rust belt, you were CERTAIN it would go democrat and Trump chipped away at that security with multiple rallies. If yours is the mindset in the democratic party, I guess we'll have 8 years of Trump, and maybe even another GOP bobblehead at the end of it like Reagan-Bush.

>412410
Yeah but if you call someone retarded, who won against you, you're just insulting yourself.
replyreportdelete
412418
Anonymous
>412413
At present all they'll get is a replacement for Scalia, who given Trump is liable to be a corporate stooge but socially liberal (or at least not a threat to OvH or RvW) though who knows if they'll be activist or originalist.

Trump will be terrible, but not as terrible as the people who voted for him thinking that president=king believe, and whatever else is to be said of him he is set to squabble with Ryan and McConnell on a wide variety of issues.

What's important now is two things: get our ground game back on track so we can be ready to pin all their fuckups on them, and drop this bipartisan horseshit that only gets us spit on by them, it's time to say no, no, no at every turn because clearly it works.
replyreportdelete
412420
Anonymous
>412417
She would have won the rust belt without Comey and the Russians. People forget about Three counties in three states had a big impact.
replyreportdelete
412421
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>412418

>At present all they'll get is a replacement for Scalia, who given Trump is liable to be a corporate stooge but socially liberal (or at least not a threat to OvH or RvW) though who knows if they'll be activist or originalist.

All things considered, that could still do just as much damage as a more conservative Justice than even Scalia. Same-sex marriage and abortion rights are big targets. They will need defending. But those issues do not make up the entire Republican platform. Assaults on the separation of church and state, gun control measures, and the strength of organized labor are all things that a conservative-leaning Supreme Court could rule on in a way that pleases Republicans (and their voter base). With control of all three branches of the federal government, the Republicans have two years - minimum - to enact policy, have the President sign it, and have the Supreme Court declare it legal. Two years is a lot of time to do a lot of things that will require a lot of cleaning up. (And all this assumes the United States will still even be a thing by the 2018 mid-term elections.)

>Trump will be terrible, but not as terrible as the people who voted for him thinking that president=king believe

He will enable the Republican-controlled Congress to pass whatever it wants. He will allow his incoming cabinet to use their offices to push dangerous policies onto Americans and promote dangerous ideas both here and abroad. He will drag the country into a war - possibly even a nuclear war - just by using Twitter.

Donald Trump will be worse than a king. At least a king makes a pretense of giving damn about people other than himself.

>get our ground game back on track so we can be ready to pin all their fuckups on them

That will not be difficult. The GOP controls a majority of state legislatures, a majority of governorships, both chambers of Congress, and the executive branch of the federal government. (It will soon control the Supreme Court, too.) If they fuck up, they have no one to blame for it but themselves; only their policies will be the ones getting pushed through, and they cannot blame the Democrats for that. (Though I suspect they will try.)

>drop this bipartisan horseshit that only gets us spit on by them, it's time to say no, no, no at every turn because clearly it works

Too long has the left - and the Democrats - believed that the GOP will compromise for the general welfare of the American public. That lie must be laid to rest.

The GOP will do everything possible to keep Democrats from getting any political power back; the defenses of gerrymandering and voter ID laws are proof enough of that. The left can no longer accept the idea that Republicans will ever compromise in any way. That way lies madness.

That only gets into part of the problem, though. As much as liberals mock the idea of "economic anxieties" as the main reason for Trump's victory, the left - or the DNC, at least - has ignored the economic plight of millions of Americans. Hillary did not push hard enough for a raise to the minimum wage, nor did she ever touch on the loss of sociopolitical power within the organized labor movement. If the left is to regain any political sway in the midterms, Democrats must address those issues in ways that speak to both sides of the aisle.

They must also do that in ways that speak to more than "the White working class". The kind of "economic anxieties" faced by that demographic are not the same as those faced by, say, Black working class people. Men have differing "anxieties" than women. Intersectional politics matters now more than ever. The left cannot win elections without broad support, and it cannot count on left-leaning demographics to just give their vote to Democrats any more. If the Democrats want a diverse coalition of voters, it must actually make an effort to reach those voters, or their cause is lost.
replyreportdelete
412422
Anonymous
But many White voters don't want better lives or a better nation. They want to hurt people at home and abroad that they hate, and don't really care what happens to the roads, schools or wages in their region. Brownback, Walker, Jindal.

These are not people that can be understood. Only overpowered.
replyreportdelete
412423
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>412422

>But many White voters don't want better lives or a better nation.

No, they do want better lives and a better nation. But those kinds of White people that you describe want those things at the expense of others. If other people must suffer - or even die - to achieve "betterness", well, that is a price those White people are willing to "pay".

This logic is not unique to conservatives, but it is most prominent in conservative circles. Hell, it even pops up in the debate about healthcare and the Affordable Care Act. The GOP wants to repeal at least parts of the ACA, and if people lose their healthcare coverage (or their lives) while the Republicans work out a feasible replacement, so be it. "Those people should not have gotten sick," this logic will say. "They should have taken better care of themselves. It was their responsibility, they handled it wrong, and now they have to pay the price."
replyreportdelete
412424
Anonymous
>412417
>The man who is the mountain king.

Presidents aren't kings. Something you Trump shitlords ought to try to remember.
replyreportdelete
412425
Anonymous
>412417
>Bwahaha this is how you lost the rust belt, you were CERTAIN it would go democrat and Trump chipped away at that security with multiple rallies.
You're completely stupid if you think California or New York are going to go red any time in the near future, and completely dishonest if you're seriously trying to say that the "safe states" like those are anything comparable to the rust belt (for instance, I never heard anything about the Rust Belt being "sure things" for Clinton. I got most of my polling from Five Thirty Eight, who were very vehement about the fact that Clinton's "firewall" was incredibly tenuous and that her chances of winning were only about four out of five). But then again, you voted for Trump, so I guess we already knew both those things.
replyreportdelete
412426
Anonymous
>412423
>No, they do want better lives and a better nation
No, there are quite a lot of white people whose greatest wish politically is for them not to have to change in any way. "South Park Libertarians" are of this variety--whatever political position doesn't require them to give a shit about anything or make any changes in their own behavior is the "correct" stance to take, and everyone else with desires to make things different in any way--including those trying to improve things--are the biggest enemies to right-thinking people imaginable.
replyreportdelete
412427
Anonymous
>412426
The only way to improve things is to be a Randian (male) inventor or scientist who dazzles the ungrateful vermin with boons and wonders!
replyreportdelete
412428
Anonymous
>412427
Nah, not for South Park libertarians. Regular libertarians, sure, but the South Park libertarians' primary "motivator" is laziness and apathy, not Randian avarice.
replyreportdelete
412429
Anonymous
Mitch McConnell is a huge hypocrite, surprising nobody:

https://thinkprogress.org/mitch-mcconnell-confirmation-ethics-hypocrisy-2c75b671d694#.lxvcfnnia
replyreportdelete
412430
Anonymous
>412428
>South Park libertarians
Unless the show changed greatly since I last saw it, I thought that meant:
>"Conservatives are totally retarded, liberals are totally retarded, mid-ground is the only sane answer."
replyreportdelete
412432
Anonymous
>412430
Yeah, exactly. Golden mean fallacy is easily the laziest and most nihilistic political philosophy imaginable. It is the position of a person who has found their comfort zone and wants to make sure no one else interferes with it by daring to change things. "Gays should be able to marry because it doesn't affect me, but we shouldn't do anything about climate change because that would require me to either pay more for products or start recycling, and doing shit or caring about anything is gay." That's South Park in a nutshell.
replyreportdelete
412435
Anonymous
https://twitter.com/HelenKennedy/status/818522209283178498

Pale thing that is depending on Obamacare/ACA is happy that Obamacare is getting repealed until someone informs him Obamacare and the ACA are the same thing.

The pale thing probably thought that Obamacare was something the government only gave to women who won't sleep with nice guys and blackety-blacks.

What was that thing about the IQ levels of various ethnicities again?
replyreportdelete
412436
Anonymous
>412420
>without Comey and the Russians
What, zero blame on her for running a private server and backroom dealing at the DNC?

I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids!
replyreportdelete
412438
Anonymous
>412435
At least the repeal will kill tons of rednecks.
replyreportdelete
412439
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>412438

I know you think that is funny, but as someone who lives in what could be called part of "Redneck Country", even I feel bad about that. No one should have to die because our fucking government cannot work out a comprehensive, feasible plan for national healthcare.
replyreportdelete
412440
Slowmobile
>412439
They were being serious.
replyreportdelete
412441
Anonymous
>412439
They voted to kill others, it is fitting that they in turn die. No mercy for those who rejected all offered aid and decided to destroy themselves and others.
replyreportdelete
412442
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>412441

>They voted to kill others, it is fitting that they in turn die.

Would you prefer to execute Trump voters or merely torture them into suicide? I mean, as long as you think they should die, you can at least be honest about your preferred method of death for them.
replyreportdelete
412443
Anonymous
>412442
I don't have to do anything, and attempts to guilt are pointless. I voted and campaigned for the people that actually would help those idiots, and they committed suicide out of spite.

They're already dead despite my trying to save them.
replyreportdelete
412444
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>412443

So you would let people die all because of who they voted for? I am upset by the idea of President Donald Trump as any other decent human being, but I did not lose my basic sense of empathy when he won the election. Why should anyone have to die because he won? Why should we just let bodies pile up because of who our next president will be?

I understand your frustration with Trump voters. But as much as I believe they made a mistake that will have long-lasting consequences upon this country, I do not similarly believe they should have to die for that mistake. Their lives should not be a sacrifice upon which the Altar of Trump is built, no matter how much you want to stack their skulls at Capitol Hill and yell at the Republicans. Holy fucking shit, do you not even have a sense of humanity left in you any more? I am a liberal SJW cuck asshole (or so others have said), and even I cannot fathom letting people die over their political opinions, much less trying to justify it as a good and righteous thing.
replyreportdelete
412445
Anonymous
>412444
You're entire premise is based on a false assertion.
>Let
This one, specifically. I cannot "let" them die. I, in fact, did everything I could to stop that. They, by contrast, handed three guns to Ryan, McConnell, and Trump, and said "shoot me!"

They're beyond my help now. They will suffer the consequence of their actions.
replyreportdelete
412446
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>412445

And you will let the repeal of the ACA go through without voicing any opposition to that repeal? You will not fight for a better healthcare system - or push Congress to put forth a better healthcare law and reform the industry? You will not do whatever you can to help the downtrodden and the poor who will suffer the most from a Trump presidency, to help those with whom you both agree and disagree?

You will sit by and do nothing but watch in smug satisfaction as millions of people lose their insurance, their access to healthcare, and even their lives - and all because you voted against Trump?
replyreportdelete
412447
Anonymous
>412446
We. Do. Not. Have. Any. Branch. Of. Government.

We CANNOT help them now. We'll voice our dissent sure, and the Republicans will bury it. What help we can offer outside of power is better used on those that actually deserve it. Let the Rust Belt learn their lessons, and the real Red states burn.
replyreportdelete
412448
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>412447

>We CANNOT help them now.

What you mean to say is that you cannot - will not - help them because you want to sit back and watch the world burn all so you can crow about how you did not vote for the guy who started the fire. You could get off your ass and involve yourself in protests and community organizing and doing anything you can (within reasonable and legal limits, natch) to obstruct and deny Republicans a mandate to do whatever they want. But you would rather save your precious sense of smug satisfaction at watching people with whom you share a political disagreement die. I cannot understand anyone that heartless - and I refuse to try. So sit on your ass, snarf down your favorite snack food, and keep laughing at the thought of people dying. It is about all you ever planned to do in the first place, you hateful fucking monster.
replyreportdelete
412449
Anonymous
>412448
Listen you smug fuck, I AM involved in organization and charity work. I work in campaigning for my candidates, I call my representatives, I aid the homeless. I help those who I am able to help. Brother Jimmy Joe, his cousin wives, and his fellow knights? Can't help them. Tried. Had all federal political power taken from us in response. Bob Johnson and the good ol' boys of the Steel Union? Decided that a NYC real estate mogul was more their ally than the middle class worker's daughter. They're beyond us.

>Mandate
Lol the Republicans don't give a fuck about having a mandate, their entire political philosophy is about excising the underclasses and serving the rich.
replyreportdelete
412450
Anonymous
savepng36.155KB
health insurance.png
950511
>412439
>No one should have to die because our fucking government cannot work out a comprehensive, feasible plan for national healthcare.
Thank god Trump is going to make a comprehensive, feasible plan for national healthcare.
replyreportdelete
412451
Anonymous
AND FURTHERMORE, their deaths, which again, we tried to stop them from rushing towards, now can only benefit us when we're out of power. Not only does it have the inherent benefit of one less Republican, it's all on the GOP's head. Maybe after Cletus' incest tree has been trimmed a bit, he'll finally realize the Republicans aren't his allies.
replyreportdelete
412452
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>412449

>They're beyond us.

That is not reason enough to give up on trying to help them. That is not a good enough reason for me to want them dead, no matter how much I may disagree with their politics. I will not lose my empathy for others because of their politics or who they voted for last November, and I will not let go of the idea that I can help others even when the political party I tend to vote for has little-to-no political power right now. That is not who I am, and that is not who I want to be.

I do not hope for a sweeping Democrat victory in the midterms; instead, I plan to do whatever I can, given all my limitations, to help make that victory happen. And if that victory were to happen, I would not ask for the Democrats to "destroy red states" or let Trump voters die as a form of political revenge. I would instead ask for the Democrats to help everyone, even Republican voters, as much as possible. That is the humane thing to do. If Republican voters refuse that help, so be it - but I would not feel right if that help were not offered at all.

I have no illusions about how Republican voters will vote against their own interests. Democratic voters - and the political left at large - can do only what we should do no matter who is in charge: help our neighbors as best we can, fight as hard as possible for a better society, and organize like a motherfucker so that communities can elect people who will actually do right by them.

Cynicism is easy; anyone can say "well these people voted for Trump, time to watch them all die, ha ha". If you want to be cynical, go right ahead. I cannot stop you. I can only ask that you reconsider your cynicism and your defeatist attitude. Yes, liberals, progressives, and the Democrats lost big this past November - we got knocked the fuck out. So are you giving up, or are you getting up off the goddamn ground?
replyreportdelete
412453
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>412451

That you see the loss of human life as a chance to gain political "points" is disgusting. What the actual fuck.
replyreportdelete
412455
Anonymous
>412452
>I do not hope for a sweeping Democrat victory in the midterms; instead, I plan to do whatever I can, given all my limitations, to help make that victory happen. And if that victory were to happen, I would not ask for the Democrats to "destroy red states" or let Trump voters die as a form of political revenge. I would instead ask for the Democrats to help everyone, even Republican voters, as much as possible. That is the humane thing to do. If Republican voters refuse that help, so be it - but I would not feel right if that help were not offered at all.
Help them yes, and one of the best ways to help them will be to ensure they can't hurt themselves by suppressing their votes. I'm not suggesting we don't take care of their health either, that's the Republican policy tyvm.
>Cynicism is easy; anyone can say "well these people voted for Trump, time to watch them all die, ha ha". If you want to be cynical, go right ahead. I cannot stop you. I can only ask that you reconsider your cynicism and your defeatist attitude. Yes, liberals, progressives, and the Democrats lost big this past November - we got knocked the fuck out. So are you giving up, or are you getting up off the goddamn ground?
I never stopped fighting, I've just accepted that playing fair with cheats is a losing game so tactics need to change.
>412453
It's called playing the game Stone. We got our asses handed to us, it's time to wall up, look to our supporters, and be as obstructionist as possible, BECAUSE IT WORKS. If the Republicans want a policy that simultaneously ravages their base and makes them vulnerable to conversion? So much the better, we can use that to get power back and actually help people.
replyreportdelete
412456
Anonymous
savepng392.295KB
phpei2iN3
800450
>412455
>obstructionist as possible, BECAUSE IT WORKS.
Except it doesn't. There is a reason why McCain and R-Money didn't win. Why no one voted for Jeb, or Cruz, or the other GOP elite in the primaries. There is a reason GOP practically fractured into the Renegade Party because people voted for an outsider like Trump.

All that obstructionism does is make people hate you, and 4 (or 8) years later, vote for an outsider that crushes the party.

In your case it sure as hell won't be Hillary or Michelle that wins the next Democrat election, it'll be some outsider like Faith Spotted Eagle or Beyonce or Jim Webb The Grenade Democrat.

The Democratic party needs to fucking die so it can be reborn.
replyreportdelete
412457
Anonymous
>412456

Obstructionism payed off huge dividends for Republicans in Congress. The party is stronger than it ever has been, based off the relatively simple strategy of breaking the system and then campaign that the system is broke and only you can fix it.
replyreportdelete
412458
Slowmobile
y i k e s
replyreportdelete
412459
Anonymous
savegif1.372MB
costanza7.gif
264264
>412457
>The party is stronger than it ever has been
>nearly breaking in half
>a full two thirds of the party being against their president
Bill Clinton broke the system with NAFTA, although not without help from 1st Bush.
replyreportdelete
412460
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>412455

>suppressing their votes

Disenfranchising people because you do not like how they vote is a horrible strategy, and wanting to do that makes you no better than the Republicans who try to disenfranchise racial minorities and the poor from voting because they are non-White, poor, or both.

>I'm not suggesting we don't take care of their health either, that's the Republican policy tyvm.

This entire chain of replies started when you suggested that you were more than happy to watch Republican voters die because of the way they voted. Your expressed disdain for those people suggests you would not want to take care of their health if you were given the chance.

>I never stopped fighting, I've just accepted that playing fair with cheats is a losing game so tactics need to change.

You can say that without also saying you would be happy with people on "the other side" dying just to make "playing the game" easier.

>We got our asses handed to us, it's time to wall up, look to our supporters, and be as obstructionist as possible, BECAUSE IT WORKS.

As the Republicans have proved, all that pure obstructionism does is stop everything from working. While that might be the goal of Republicans - to stop the processes of government from working long enough to make Democrats look bad - it cannot become the long-term strategy of the political left. Democrats should obstruct bills and policies on principle; if a law or a policy would harm more than it would help, Democrats should toss up every wall they can. But trying to stop everything the GOP or Trump wants to do out of pure partisanship would land us in further political quagmire. The process has always been the most important part of our government; abandoning that in favor of immediate results when "your side" is in power puts us in a position like the one we are in today.

>If the Republicans want a policy that simultaneously ravages their base and makes them vulnerable to conversion? So much the better, we can use that to get power back and actually help people.

So if a policy decision from the GOP results in the deaths of American citizens - for example, Texas defunding Planned Parenthood clinics and spiking maternal mortality rate as a result - you care more about scoring political points for "your side" from those deaths than in the deaths themselves? I know that we cannot avoid talking about those deaths in these kinds of conversations, but we do not have to use the facts of those deaths only as a political ploy. Those people that died were actual people, goddamn you; they were not some abstract idea that you can use to "win" a "game". Have a little more respect for their lives - even if they might have had no respect for yours.
replyreportdelete
412461
Anonymous
>412460
>Disenfranchising people because you do not like how they vote is a horrible strategy, and wanting to do that makes you no better than the Republicans who try to disenfranchise racial minorities and the poor from voting because they are non-White, poor, or both.
That's exactly the point, the Republicans already DO it to us, we have no reason not to respond in kind.
>This entire chain of replies started when you suggested that you were more than happy to watch Republican voters die because of the way they voted. Your expressed disdain for those people suggests you would not want to take care of their health if you were given the chance.
I want them to experience the consequences of removing their own healthcare and that of others. My support is constantly aimed at universal healthcare, as you might imagine from the fact that I'm targeting them for, among other things, destroying our closest equivalent.
>You can say that without also saying you would be happy with people on "the other side" dying just to make "playing the game" easier.
'Happy' is less the word than 'unfazed.' This is what they asked for, why should I waste my sympathies?
>As the Republicans have proved, all that pure obstructionism does is stop everything from working. While that might be the goal of Republicans - to stop the processes of government from working long enough to make Democrats look bad - it cannot become the long-term strategy of the political left. Democrats should obstruct bills and policies on principle; if a law or a policy would harm more than it would help, Democrats should toss up every wall they can. But trying to stop everything the GOP or Trump wants to do out of pure partisanship would land us in further political quagmire. The process has always been the most important part of our government; abandoning that in favor of immediate results when "your side" is in power puts us in a position like the one we are in today.
No, the Republicans proved that obstructionist actions deliver you every branch of the government successively. That the Democrats don't resort to dirt or have party discipline is what got us here.
>So if a policy decision from the GOP results in the deaths of American citizens - for example, Texas defunding Planned Parenthood clinics and spiking maternal mortality rate as a result - you care more about scoring political points for "your side" from those deaths than in the deaths themselves? I know that we cannot avoid talking about those deaths in these kinds of conversations, but we do not have to use the facts of those deaths only as a political ploy. Those people that died were actual people, goddamn you; they were not some abstract idea that you can use to "win" a "game". Have a little more respect for their lives - even if they might have had no respect for yours.
No, what I care about is using the thing we can't help with as best we can to eventually seize the power to be able to do something about it. The Austin Dems should be exploiting every dead woman on the Republican's hands, and we should be doing the same on the national scale.
replyreportdelete
412462
Anonymous
savejpg158.507KB
C1wN2MKXgAEe822.jpg
9001200
>412429
https://twitter.com/SenSchumer/status/818544880658108416
replyreportdelete
412463
Slowmobile
>412461
>the Republicans already DO it to us
>us
Out of curiosity, which minority group(s) do you consider yourself a part of?
replyreportdelete
412464
Anonymous
>412463
Democrat, also fuck off Slowpoke.
replyreportdelete
412465
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>412461

>the Republicans already DO it to us, we have no reason not to respond in kind

If Democrats want to have the high ground over Republicans and their policies, getting down into the shit and trying to fight dirty is the wrong way to do it. The left can do better than that. The left needs to do better than that.

>I want them to experience the consequences of removing their own healthcare and that of others. My support is constantly aimed at universal healthcare, as you might imagine from the fact that I'm targeting them for, among other things, destroying our closest equivalent.

And if people die as a result, hey, more points for your side, eh?

I am well aware that voting has consequences, and a repeal of the ACA will have dire consequences for millions of people. But I do not have to wish death upon those with whom I disagree to acknowledge that, nor do I have to be gleeful that they may die because of the way they voted. Liberals and progressives should not be celebrating this sort of thing because it might help them win future elections.

>This is what they asked for, why should I waste my sympathies?

If you want to help bridge the gap between the left and the right and engender bipartisan change in government and politics, acting as if the deaths of the people on "the other side" are nothing more than "points" in a "game" does not help your cause. (It also makes you come off as a bit of a heartless sociopath.)

>the Republicans proved that obstructionist actions deliver you every branch of the government successively

The Republicans gummed up the processes of government for years. They blamed their behavior on Barack Obama and the Democrats. They convinced their voter base that the government was broken and needed Republicans to fix it - despite Republicans having broken it in the first place. What they did was convince the GOP voter base that the results of government was more important than the processes; what they did not do was mention how they made sure those processes could not produce results of any kind.

If the left is to win back any political power, it cannot be done by being that obstinate. Obstruction on principles, not on partisanship, is what the Democrats need to do until the midterms. Or would you rather see the Democrats be blamed for a government shutdown and any ensuing economic chaos?

>The Austin Dems should be exploiting every dead woman on the Republican's hands

They should mention the spike in the maternal mortality rate, yes. But that should be a prelude to pointing out the benefits of funding Planned Parenthood, not an excuse to paint Republicans as murderers (which would be true exploitation of those deaths). Democrats cannot and will not win back political power with name-calling and finger-wagging alone; the success of Donald Trump's campaign proves as much.
replyreportdelete
412466
Slowmobile
>412464
Any others, or just that one?
Again, only curious.
replyreportdelete
412467
Anonymous
>If Democrats want to have the high ground over Republicans and their policies, getting down into the shit and trying to fight dirty is the wrong way to do it. The left can do better than that. The left needs to do better than that.
The high road doesn't deliver results, ergo it is worthless. Our ends are morally superior to theirs, they do in fact justify the means we use to crush them.
>And if people die as a result, hey, more points for your side, eh?
It is the result of their own actions.
>I am well aware that voting has consequences, and a repeal of the ACA will have dire consequences for millions of people. But I do not have to wish death upon those with whom I disagree to acknowledge that, nor do I have to be gleeful that they may die because of the way they voted. Liberals and progressives should not be celebrating this sort of thing because it might help them win future elections.
Celebrate? No. Use? Yes. The next election is always the most important thing.
>If you want to help bridge the gap between the left and the right and engender bipartisan change in government and politics, acting as if the deaths of the people on "the other side" are nothing more than "points" in a "game" does not help your cause. (It also makes you come off as a bit of a heartless sociopath.)
I don't want to bridge it. I have no desire to compromise with the people that destroyed the consensus in the first place. Republicans are not partners in governance, they are enemies of the nation and must be defeated.
>If the left is to win back any political power, it cannot be done by being that obstinate. Obstruction on principles, not on partisanship, is what the Democrats need to do until the midterms. Or would you rather see the Democrats be blamed for a government shutdown and any ensuing economic chaos?
They wouldn't be, Trump would. Whatever happens, the public believes it to be the presidential party's fault.
>They should mention the spike in the maternal mortality rate, yes. But that should be a prelude to pointing out the benefits of funding Planned Parenthood, not an excuse to paint Republicans as murderers (which would be true exploitation of those deaths). Democrats cannot and will not win back political power with name-calling and finger-wagging alone; the success of Donald Trump's campaign proves as much.
Do both. Clearly and briefly demonstrate the importance of healthcare and the costs of lacking it as often as possible. ALSO paint the Republicans as murderers, because they are.
replyreportdelete
412468
Anonymous
>412466
LGBTQ, the Republicans threaten me directly and often, no I am not black and thus not their primary voter suppression target, no that isn't actually relevant to the point, yes you should fuck off Slowpoke
replyreportdelete
412469
Slowmobile
>412468
Just interesting to me that a genocidal white man considers himself So Different, is all. ✌
replyreportdelete
412470
Anonymous
>412468
>no I am not black and thus not their primary voter suppression target
They also target young people, especially college students, and any poor/lower middle class people living in the city in large amounts. It may not be to the degree they try to disenfranchise black people, but they are definitely targeting pretty much all millenials, specifically because millenials rarely vote republican.
replyreportdelete
412471
Anonymous
>412469
when did I say I was white
replyreportdelete
412472
Anonymous
or, for that matter, when did I say anything about being "so different?" I said that Republican abuse voter suppression and that we should do the same
replyreportdelete
412473
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>412467

>Our ends are morally superior to theirs, they do in fact justify the means we use to crush them.

If Democrats act no better than Republicans, they forgo any assumption of moral superiority.

>It is the result of their own actions.

So what? I do not consider that a viable excuse for leaving behind base-level human empathy.

>Celebrate? No. Use? Yes.

You may as well celebrate those deaths if you only ever plan to think of them in terms of political power-plays.

>I have no desire to compromise with the people that destroyed the consensus in the first place.

Normally, I might agree with you. But I have grown into something of a realist as of late, and as such, I know that the left needs to bridge that gap. Democrats have to acknowledge and address the issues of Republican voters, even if doing so only gets the party minor gains, because ignoring those issues will not help. Treating Republican voters like radioactive waste to be dumped in a landfill called "Middle America" will not help. Democrats do not need to concede on everything to bridge that divide - compromise should not be a death sentence, after all - but they do need to look for some form of middle ground with Republican voters and work towards reaching it.

>They wouldn't be, Trump would.

No, Democrats would be blamed for a government shutdown - at least by Republicans. Any stoppage of the processes of government in the next two-to-four years would be blamed on the Democrats and their "obstructionist tactics".

>Clearly and briefly demonstrate the importance of healthcare and the costs of lacking it as often as possible. ALSO paint the Republicans as murderers, because they are.

The Clinton campaign, the Democratic party, and the left in general painted Donald Trump as a sexist, racist, sociopathic monster of a human being who is unqualified to be the president of a business, much less the country - but Trump won anyway. Name-calling and finger-wagging might feel good in the moment. They might even be effective if used with precision and rarity. But they are no longer an effective political strategy for the left.
replyreportdelete
412475
Anonymous
savejpg145.946KB
hahahahaha.jpg
960639
>412462
What the fuck is that frog thing in the response?
https://twitter.com/JordanUhl/status/818579966895869952
Is this what liberals think is a good meme?
replyreportdelete
412476
Anonymous
>412473
>The Clinton campaign, the Democratic party, and the left in general painted Donald Trump as a sexist, racist, sociopathic monster of a human being who is unqualified to be the president of a business, much less the country - but Trump won anyway. Name-calling and finger-wagging might feel good in the moment. They might even be effective if used with precision and rarity. But they are no longer an effective political strategy for the left.

You're taking the redcaps' meme magic about "That's why Hilary lost!" more seriously than it deserves. Trump won because Hilary was a candidate who was almost as unpopular as Trump was, and Democratic voters were not enthusiastic enough about supporting her to bother showing up. More can be blamed on the fact that Clinton's supporters were openly dismissive and insulting toward the "losers" in the primaries, thus making them not feel as invested in Hilary's win, than in the fact that they were pointing out that Donald Trump is an idiot.
replyreportdelete
412477
Anonymous
>If Democrats act no better than Republicans, they forgo any assumption of moral superiority.
Tactics are tactics, and we ours aren't working.
>So what?
So we need not treat them with any undue pity.
>You may as well celebrate those deaths if you only ever play to think of them in terms of political power-plays
what is this thread about Stone?
>Normally, I might agree with you. But I have grown into something of a realist as of late, and as such, I know that the left needs to bridge that gap. Democrats have to acknowledge and address the issues of Republican voters, even if doing so only gets the party minor gains, because ignoring those issues will not help. Treating Republican voters like radioactive waste to be dumped in a landfill called "Middle America" will not help. Democrats do not need to concede on everything to bridge that divide - compromise should not be a death sentence, after all - but they do need to look for some form of middle ground with Republican voters and work towards reaching it.
This is rewarding Republicans for their tantrums. I'm sure we could reach some Republicans if we compromised on abortion and thereby fed women to the right wing machine, or if we compromised on gun rights and pretended that shootings aren't a problem in America, but that's compromising on the ENDS which is even worse than compromising on the means (Which we need to do).
>No, Democrats would be blamed for a government shutdown - at least by Republicans. Any stoppage of the processes of government in the next two-to-four years would be blamed on the Democrats and their "obstructionist tactics".
Who gives a fuck about Republican voters? They blamed us for the REPUBLICANS shutting down the government. I'm talking about people like Rust Belters who actually switch sides (what would also be helpful: making unions be a thing again).
>The Clinton campaign, the Democratic party, and the left in general painted Donald Trump as a sexist, racist, sociopathic monster of a human being who is unqualified to be the president of a business, much less the country - but Trump won anyway. Name-calling and finger-wagging might feel good in the moment. They might even be effective if used with precision and rarity. But they are no longer an effective political strategy for the left.
They should not be the entirety but they should not be excluded either. "We shouldn't politicize a tragedy!!!" is a right wing tactic to steal initiative from the left and you can't fucking backstab us with it.
replyreportdelete
412478
Anonymous
>412477
>Tactics are tactics, and we ours aren't working.
Calling electors and threatening to kill their kids if they don't vote for the "right" candidate?

Having a Democrat president who is supposed to represent 100% of Americans turn around and campaign for only 1 political candidate?

Cheating at debates? Rigging internal DNC votes?

Come on.

Their tactics are actually worse at the moment, which is why the party is hemorhagging members to third parties and the right.
replyreportdelete
412479
Anonymous
Oh and as another point, Stone: there's also the possible angle of "change nothing."

The election came down to the wire in a few key areas which ultimately turned out a mediocre electoral lead that ran against a clear popular lead. There's plenty of argument to make that if the DNC runs someone the RNC hasn't been lying about for 30 years on a similar platform they'd be able to take it, especially since the Republicans will inevitably be a disaster and deliver nothing.
replyreportdelete
412480
Anonymous
>412479
> if the DNC runs someone the RNC hasn't been lying about for 30 years
>RNC
>lying about
It's funny the way you're lowkey admitting that practically every democrat candidate was not elbow, but shoulder deep in the sewer of corruption.
replyreportdelete
412481
Anonymous
>412479
Yeah, let's not forget: more Americans voted for Hilary Clinton than for Donald Trump, in numbers that set a record for the most ridiculous Popular/Electoral split in history. This election was about as far from a referendum on Democrats or Republicans as it could possibly be. All this election proved is that you do actually have to play all nine innings even when your opponent appears to be a laughable buffoon.
replyreportdelete
412483
Anonymous
savejpg81.146KB
hillary-queen-of-memes.jpg
1715650
political TL;DR for the election, from the perspective of a manchild:

>Trump becomes a fucking meme
>Hillary, not to become outdone, fails to secure an election she should have won by default (in the sense that her opposition was Trump), truly becoming the meme queen in an impressive display of irony
>Trump doesn't pull through in his electoral promise to make anime real
replyreportdelete
412485
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>412476

>More can be blamed on the fact that Clinton's supporters were openly dismissive and insulting toward the "losers" in the primaries, thus making them not feel as invested in Hilary's win, than in the fact that they were pointing out that Donald Trump is an idiot.

If you want to play that game, I can go along with it. But before you throw another pitch, remember how Bernie Sanders spent practically his entire primary campaign talking about how he was "the revolution". Remember how he talked about how he was the best candidate for the Democrats, how he was the one who deserved the nomination, how he planned to change Washington like no one else could. Now remember how, up until the last month or so of Hillary's national campaign, he did practically nothing to convince his supporters that they should vote for Hillary. Maybe having more of those Bernie Bros voting for Clinton could have helped, or maybe it would have made no difference - but either way, Bernie Sanders did not give enough of a damn to help Clinton when she needed that support, and that had to affect the outcome.

>412477

>I'm sure we could reach some Republicans if we compromised on abortion and thereby fed women to the right wing machine, or if we compromised on gun rights and pretended that shootings aren't a problem in America, but that's compromising on the ENDS which is even worse than compromising on the means (Which we need to do).

I never said to compromise on everything - just not on principles. We can still try to look for some sort of middle ground where Republicans might come to our side on the issue. Compromise means finding the best way to help the most amount of people. If our principles tell us not to budge on a specific stance, we should not budge. But if you can help people by giving up some ground to pass a law, and such compromise does not violate your principles, you should at least consider moving. As an example: I would stand against a law that raises taxes on the poor and lowers taxes on the wealthy, but I would consider voting for a law that lowers taxes on the poor and leaves the taxes of the wealthy at current rates. I would not consider that a violation of my principles; I should think we would prefer to help the poor than leave them to oblivion.

>Who gives a fuck about Republican voters?

Republicans, for starters. And I hate to tell you this, but Republican voters live in this country, too. We are stuck together. We all must look out for each other, even when some of us refuse to look out for even ourselves. That is how a civilized society works best.

>They should not be the entirety but they should not be excluded either.

Which is why I said name-calling and finger-wagging should be used with precision and rarity. A single, well-timed, well-put-together attack ad can do a lot of damage. But they should not be the focus of a campaign, as they were with Hillary's. (Her campaign ran more TV ads about Trump's bullshit than they did about her actual policy stances.) The left needs to campaign on being a force of change; it does not need to be the party of "I told you so" after the Republicans ruin everything, no matter how good that kind of campaign might make you or I feel.

>"We shouldn't politicize a tragedy!!!" is a right wing tactic to steal initiative from the left and you can't fucking backstab us with it.

We cannot avoiding politicizing tragedies, but the left could stand to use more tact when doing so. In the wake of a mass shooting, painting conservatives as murderers because the GOP supports lax gun control laws will not help the cause of passing stronger gun control laws. (Finding a way to counteract the NRA's detestable bullshit would help, though.) Turning something like Sandy Hook into a "who do we blame" exercise will solve nothing. We have to offer actual solutions for these issues, even if they are not the "best" solutions right now.

>412479

>Oh and as another point, Stone: there's also the possible angle of "change nothing."

Changing nothing could work, sure. But 2016 proved that "the White working class" can still sway elections. The Democrats largely ignored the concerns of that demographic, and Trump was able to all but sweep them as a demographic because they felt he spoke to them. The left cannot afford to alienate those people any more. Finding a way to address the issues of differing demographics - including White people - without sacrificing one demographic (e.g., trans people) for the sake of others will be the most important part of the DNC's rebuilding phase over the next few years.
replyreportdelete
412487
Anonymous
Some food for your brain:
//youtube.com/watch?v=XyUcfYsd8n0youtube thumb
replyreportdelete
412488
Anonymous
>412481
>more Americans voted for
Which doesn't fucking matter, America is a union of states.

>All this election proved is that you do actually have to
Visit as many states and cities as possible instead of just those with epilepsy medical centers nearby.

>412487
It goes back to the old truism: If someone draws a swastika, no one thinks it's Hindu.

BLM is already on record saying kill white people, white lives dont matter, whites are filthy subhumans and so on.

Ergo when these kidnappers use the same language...
replyreportdelete
412489
Anonymous
savejpg83.644KB
phpBF7Y5Z
580870
>412487
Racism is race + privilege, /pol/kun. It is impossible for a black person to commit a hate crime against a white person, by definition. Or even any crime.
replyreportdelete
412490
Anonymous
Speaking of race, we've got some hot and spicy race theories from the Grand Wizard himself! Let's go back to good old bad days!

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/jeff-sessions-1924-immigration/512591/?utm_source=feed
replyreportdelete
412491
Anonymous
>412488
>BLM is already on record saying kill white people, white lives dont matter, whites are filthy subhumans and so on.

And Whites are on record killing innocent black people in a church.

Oh wait that was one insect called Dylann Roof.
replyreportdelete
412492
Anonymous
So mr sessions, does laws against conflicts of interest apply to the president

jefferson: yeah I guess so

under what situation should the

J: I'm not going to answer that

is it a conflict of interest if the president vetoes laws that hurt is business interest since he refuses to use a blind trust

J: I won't answer that

is it a conflict of interest if foreign governments offer him sweet heart deals on his land deals for favors

J: I won't answer that

will you put forward a special prosecutor if there is a conflict of interest

J: I won't answer that.

man, nice to see that swamp getting drained out huh?
replyreportdelete
412493
Anonymous
He also thinks the president-elect actually committed sexual assault. Which will make things interesting the next time any US official tells another country it should let women drive cars or marry whoever they want etc.

Oh, and a vaccine skeptic is going to be handling vaccines.

What was that again about the IQ levels of various races?
replyreportdelete
412494
Anonymous
>412485
>I never said to compromise on everything - just not on principles. We can still try to look for some sort of middle ground where Republicans might come to our side on the issue. Compromise means finding the best way to help the most amount of people. If our principles tell us not to budge on a specific stance, we should not budge. But if you can help people by giving up some ground to pass a law, and such compromise does not violate your principles, you should at least consider moving. As an example: I would stand against a law that raises taxes on the poor and lowers taxes on the wealthy, but I would consider voting for a law that lowers taxes on the poor and leaves the taxes of the wealthy at current rates. I would not consider that a violation of my principles; I should think we would prefer to help the poor than leave them to oblivion.
That's not a compromise, easing the burden on the poor is Democrat policy.
>
Republicans, for starters. And I hate to tell you this, but Republican voters live in this country, too. We are stuck together. We all must look out for each other, even when some of us refuse to look out for even ourselves. That is how a civilized society works best.
Deflection, you're ignoring the point that no, we have no reason to give a fuck what Republican voters think because they will only ever vote Republican. Our base and swing voters are the only ones that matter.
>Which is why I said name-calling and finger-wagging should be used with precision and rarity. A single, well-timed, well-put-together attack ad can do a lot of damage.
Your surrender is noted.
>We cannot avoiding politicizing tragedies, but the left could stand to use more tact when doing so. In the wake of a mass shooting, painting conservatives as murderers because the GOP supports lax gun control laws will not help the cause of passing stronger gun control laws. (Finding a way to counteract the NRA's detestable bullshit would help, though.) Turning something like Sandy Hook into a "who do we blame" exercise will solve nothing. We have to offer actual solutions for these issues, even if they are not the "best" solutions right now.
Blame is part of countering. It has to be made clear that this is the fault of their bad policy.
>Changing nothing could work, sure. But 2016 proved that "the White working class" can still sway elections. The Democrats largely ignored the concerns of that demographic, and Trump was able to all but sweep them as a demographic because they felt he spoke to them. The left cannot afford to alienate those people any more. Finding a way to address the issues of differing demographics - including White people - without sacrificing one demographic (e.g., trans people) for the sake of others will be the most important part of the DNC's rebuilding phase over the next few years.
Which just leads back to my original point: the left didn't alienate these people, they just preferred lies to the truth. They'll suffer the consequences of that and LEARN god damn it.
replyreportdelete
412495
Anonymous
Some people can ONLY get happier at the expense of others.

Some people CAN get happier at no expense to others.

Some people can ONLY get happier when others are doing better.

The first crowd will always vote republican and cannot be reached. Their neurologies are hardwired for fear of variety and change, hostility and sadism towards the weak or different, and atavistic devotion and unquestioning obeisance towards the strong and similar.
replyreportdelete
412496
Anonymous
>412491
>Prima: BLM, an organization, is on record as promoting racism and has members that killed white people.
>Secunda: A white dude killed black people.

Um.... on what level is that a fucking response to the previous statement? It's a complete non sequitur.

>Prima: My pipes are rusted and leaking.
>Secunda: Foxes don't have access to grapes.

>412493
Yeah shame on America for trying to promote equality.

You people are fucking insane.
replyreportdelete
412497
Anonymous
>412495
>liberals want free shit
>vote for it at expense of others
>blame others for being self centered
Yeah it's the charitable conservatives that are evil, not the thieving liberals that reach into other peoples pockets.

>412496
Trying to explain to liberals that a race, sex, or sexual orientation is not an organization or a nation is like explaining quantum physics to a hummingbird.

It's just not going to work.

These people think they're actually the good guys.... after ruining countless lives of people theyre purporting to help. Nothing they do ever fucking works.
replyreportdelete
412498
Anonymous
>412495
I'll never understand the Republican mindset of just not caring about other people.
replyreportdelete
412499
Anonymous
>412498
I'll never understand the way Democrats claim to care about other people, but end up fucking them up anyway.

Please stop trying to help us, you are shite at it.
replyreportdelete
412500
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>412494

>That's not a compromise, easing the burden on the poor is Democrat policy.

So? Political purity tests are rampant these days, and lots of liberals would see the compromise of "ease taxes on the poor, leave the rich alone" as "not liberal enough" because it left the rich alone. All-or-nothing partisan bullshit is a big part of why we are in our current mess. Continuing that kind of bullshit for the sake of feeling superior will not help fix said mess.

>we have no reason to give a fuck what Republican voters think because they will only ever vote Republican

In terms of trying to sway them into voting for liberal politicians and policies? No, we have no reason to care. But the anxieties and fears of Republican voters are real (well, most of them are real). Left unchecked, those fears will…well, I hate to quote Yoda here, but it is true: Their fears will lead to anger, then hate, then suffering. Trump won because he saw the fear and anger of "Middle America" and told them "I will solve all your problems and make you feel awesome and give you all ten-inch dicks". (Paraphrasing there.) Democrats may not be able to convince Republican voters to switch parties, but addressing the woes of those voters alongside the woes of other demographics cannot hurt the progressive cause.

>Your surrender is noted.

I have not surrendered. Do not assume my empathy for other people, even if it is only base-level empathy, means I will let you punch me in the face and get away with it. Perhaps I still retain some of my optimism (I have always been a bit of a dreamer), but I believe a more positive campaign can outdo a campaign full of attack ads and playground-level name-calling.

>Blame is part of countering.

It can only go so far before it devolves into meaningless bickering, though. Blame does not solve problems and, if overused, it creates partisan gridlock. Rather than focusing on who to blame for a tragedy, we should all be focusing on ways to prevent another one from happening. That means addressing lax gun control measures, American gun culture, our broken mental health system, domestic extremist groups, and, yes, economic anxieties.

Preventing another Sandy Hook will not be as simple as enabling tighter background checks on gun purchases - and yelling at Republicans will not help get them on board with policies meant to address gun violence.

>the left didn't alienate these people, they just preferred lies to the truth

Even if those people hate Democrats, they still deserve to live in a society that does not abandon them because of their political beliefs. They deserve to have their (real) fears and anxieties addressed. They deserve base-level empathy, if nothing else.

>412498

Oh, Republicans care about other people. Really! They do!

Those people just happen to be wealthy White men (and the occasional wealthy White woman).
replyreportdelete
412502
Anonymous
savejpg59.188KB
C12NzkXXAAAWtLZ.jpg
511385
Well, now we know old donny boy likes everything Golden.

How much you think it costs to get into his private pee parties?
replyreportdelete
412503
Anonymous
>412500
>So? Political purity tests are rampant these days, and lots of liberals would see the compromise of "ease taxes on the poor, leave the rich alone"
Is defunding the left and therefore betraying it, so they'd be right.
>In terms of trying to sway them into voting for liberal politicians and policies? No, we have no reason to care. But the anxieties and fears of Republican voters are real (well, most of them are real). Left unchecked, those fears will…well, I hate to quote Yoda here, but it is true: Their fears will lead to anger, then hate, then suffering. Trump won because he saw the fear and anger of "Middle America" and told them "I will solve all your problems and make you feel awesome and give you all ten-inch dicks". (Paraphrasing there.) Democrats may not be able to convince Republican voters to switch parties, but addressing the woes of those voters alongside the woes of other demographics cannot hurt the progressive cause.
Middle America doesn't matter, as a body. Only the Rust Belt and Florida, which are the betrayals that cost the election.
>I have not surrendered.
You conceded its use and thus the point.
>It can only go so far before it devolves into meaningless bickering, though. Blame does not solve problems and, if overused, it creates partisan gridlock.
Republicans caused partisan gridlock. Giving them an inch is giving them a mile.
>Preventing another Sandy Hook will not be as simple as enabling tighter background checks on gun purchases - and yelling at Republicans will not help get them on board with policies meant to address gun violence.
Nothing will do that, only overpowering them and creating widesweeping measures will.
>Even if those people hate Democrats, they still deserve to live in a society that does not abandon them because of their political beliefs. They deserve to have their (real) fears and anxieties addressed. They deserve base-level empathy, if nothing else.
The Rust Belt does deserve to have its issues addressed, and only we can do that. They will learn this.
replyreportdelete
412504
Anonymous
savejpg118.738KB
C12LoN3WgAA5kMd[1].jpg
1200842
https://twitter.com/moshesiegel/status/818964241348722688

me on the left
replyreportdelete
412505
Anonymous
>412502
where can I read all of these
replyreportdelete
412508
Anonymous
Democratic president that reflects left America is loved by everyone and is a true classy mensch with more charm, wit and warmth than any president in two generations, without a single scandal or moment of low morals.

Republican president that reflects rural, White America is more embarrassing than the last republican president even before his urinauguration.

There are two nations. One modern, urban and positive, one infantile, rural and disgusting.
replyreportdelete
412509
Anonymous
>FBI applied for FISA warrant to monitor Trump team members over irregular contacts with Russians

You people embraced a White traitor faster than you ever embraced a Black man who worked his way to high office from humble beginnings.
replyreportdelete
412510
Anonymous
>412502
Let me guess, Russia told Trump that Hillary let them buy American Uranium stocks.

>they try to buy trump
>trump refuses
Fucking lol the report merely supports the stellar reputation Trump already has.
replyreportdelete
412511
Anonymous
>412510
Several departments had to sign that decision. But a person from an inferior culture can't be expected to know this.
replyreportdelete
412512
Anonymous
>412509
>Black man who worked his way to high office from humble beginnings.
His white half of the family is rich plantation owners that screwed their slaves. Through them Obama is related to James Madison, Harry S. Truman, Lyndon B. Johnson, Jimmy Carter, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush.

His fathers side of the family is also very influential for the country they come from, for example Obama Senior was the chief economist in Kenya. As well his stepfathers, Mr. Soetoro was an important geologist working for big oil in Indonesia, and his family was part of the ruling class after colonial rule ended.

A supermajority of people in Obamas family had university degrees and all were upper middle class or upper class in their respective countries.

On top of these advantages, he got a free ride at Harvard.

I don't get where the hell you get these fantasies from. Where did you get the impression that Obama was poor or disadvantaged? Who is telling you these lies?
replyreportdelete
412513
Anonymous
None of that mattered to Obama's situation, however.
replyreportdelete
412514
Anonymous
>412513
But it matters that Trump is related to a racist via a roman peasant over 2000 years ago.
replyreportdelete
412515
Anonymous
>chief economist in Kenya

whoa, a regular rockefeller
replyreportdelete
412516
Anonymous
>412514
No, it matters that he is 100 % a racist. Like his dad.
replyreportdelete
412517
Anonymous
>412516
Yeah just like Obama is a Muslim Reptilloid, check your tinfoil at the door.

>412515
I wish my dad was part of the elite in any country.
replyreportdelete
412518
Anonymous
Lol the lawyer daring people to look at his passport as denial proof even though that wouldn't prove shit about going to Prague because you can enter the schengen from any country and only show your US passport once.
replyreportdelete
412519
Anonymous
A quick few points worth noting:

-There are TWO different things floating around at the moment. One is a classified two page addendum to the previous agency release given to Trump and Obama. We do not know the contents save that it concerns election meddling. The 35 page brief, replete with pissing, is an unverified collection of claims collected by an MI6 agent starting last summer. As BuzzFeed, who released it, notes this could be anything, remain calm and await further updates from the government (which is taking it seriously, it came up in Sessions' hearing)

-/pol/ is attacking the release by claiming it's anon prank planned in November and by releasing fake pages of it, believe neither point

-the South Korean government fell last year because it was revealed to be run by a TV psychic so yes, crazier things do happen than a rich man cavorting with prostitutes and working with foreign governments
replyreportdelete
412520
Anonymous
>412519
Do you think it's more likely that an MI6 agent collected data on American elections implicating Russia in meddling, then handed the information over to BUZZFEED!

OR

That the blank unsourced pages were typed out by a /b/tard, printed out, snapped with an iphone and sent to buzzfeed who printed them for clickbait like they do anything else.
replyreportdelete
412521
Anonymous
>412519
>/pol/ is attacking the release by claiming it's anon prank planned in November and by releasing fake pages of it, believe neither point

Yeah, David Corn wrote about this back in October and we had stuff like the letter Harry Reid sent to Comey warning him about Trump/Russia connections back in August

my thoughts are this: a vanilla sex tape would not do much to Trump by this point; what's there would have to be really, really bad. Like underage boys or Trump screaming Ivanka's name

and even if Trump gets ousted at the end of all this, we still have Pence, and Paul Ryan if HE'S out, and we'll still have bad shit like an anti-vaxxer chairing a vaccine safety panel to deal with
replyreportdelete
412522
Anonymous
>412520
Sorry Ivan, your covers aren't working today.
replyreportdelete
412523
Anonymous
savejpg85.631KB
trump125.jpg
860960
>412519
People think it's ridiculous because it is ridiculous. Piss showers is as retarded as claiming Michelle Obama is a transsexual, it's a retarded slur rumor which has no basis in fact and is designed to do damage before it fades from view. Have a look:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3259984-Trump-Intelligence-Allegations.html

Would a real agent highlight the most tabloidworthy pieces of info? Or would he highlight crimes etc?

It's just another in a long line of pathetic attempts to slander Trump, which always fail for one simple reason: People in America are desperate for jobs and are willing to elect a baby eating spider demon to presidency if it puts food on their table.

This won't really change the mind of anyone who supports Trump, and will probably swing more people to the Trump camp. Like every such attempt someone on the outside will see it, recognize it for what it is, and be disgusted by the tactics of anti-Trump crowd.

This is how his base grew from literally nothing.
replyreportdelete
412524
Anonymous
Apparently Comey the Coward was personally handed the documentation by McCain so now we know why the First Bureau of Ivanization turned on Trump.
replyreportdelete
412526
Anonymous
savejpg51.68KB
phpmwWzaU
1200276
Liberals actually believe this.
replyreportdelete
412527
Anonymous
>412524
It's like Comey and McConnell are competing to see who's the biggest POS in all this
replyreportdelete
412528
Anonymous
>412526
No, they don't, because that's not in the documentation. Neither is the anime one, save it.
>412527
No I mean he started to actually doing his job when McCain showed up in his office and read him the riot act. It's why the FBI got in line with the CIA and NSA. The FBI is also now applying for FISA warrants for Trump associates en masse.
replyreportdelete
412531
Anonymous
>412523
>People in America are desperate for jobs
Unemployment is lower than it's been in more than a decade.
replyreportdelete
412532
Anonymous
>412500
If you want to play that game, I can go along with it. But before you throw another pitch, remember how Bernie Sanders spent practically his entire primary campaign talking about how he was "the revolution". Remember how he talked about how he was the best candidate for the Democrats, how he was the one who deserved the nomination, how he planned to change Washington like no one else could. Now remember how, up until the last month or so of Hillary's national campaign, he did practically nothing to convince his supporters that they should vote for Hillary. Maybe having more of those Bernie Bros voting for Clinton could have helped, or maybe it would have made no difference - but either way, Bernie Sanders did not give enough of a damn to help Clinton when she needed that support, and that had to affect the outcome.

No, there's no "maybe" about it. Clinton lost because Democrats stayed home, not because there were more republicans. You've just gotten into a sad sack mentality and are pouting rather than dealing with facts because it's easier to throw yourself a pity party than to actually continue working on a problem that's difficult and relies, to some extent, on random chance.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/registered-voters-who-stayed-home-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/
replyreportdelete
412533
Anonymous
savepng142.948KB
black guys and cops.png
699424
replyreportdelete
412534
Anonymous
savejpg12.864KB
debt.jpg
300187
>412531
In other words unemployment is still higher than its been since before the recession.

Also that "recovery" has not taken place anywhere except in certain districts. The job growth happened by stealing tax money from certain areas, and pumping it into others. And even that wasn't enough, he had to increase debt by a ridiculous amount.

I'm supposed to be impressed with it?

He'd have created more jobs by literally giving money to people to count clouds.

The point of fact is that the majority of the country hasn't seen the wasteful and expensive "recovery" you're talking about, that is why Trump won.
replyreportdelete
412535
Anonymous
>412534
>The point of fact is that the majority of the country hasn't seen the wasteful and expensive "recovery" you're talking about
Actually, it has. That's why the majority of voters voted against Trump.
replyreportdelete
412539
Anonymous
>412535
Majority of the country, not majority of the voters.

Clearly you're breeding enough eloi in the megacities, close enough to get all the government aid you want, that the EC has never been more important. It won't stop being important either since the EC is harder to change than the 2nd amendment and you have no hope of doing that.

Enjoy losing elections on this one issue you keep ignoring, it will always be 100% the Democrat partys and voters fault no matter what boogeyman you invent, because you are making a conscious decision to ignore more than half the states.
replyreportdelete
412540
Anonymous
savejpg237.758KB
deficit.jpg
1280720
>b-but an anon on /pol/ said WE made up the story!

Does it really matter at this point? We live in a post-facts universe. Just look at>412534

You phrase things in a way to mislead people, or you just lie wholesale and it sticks. People thought Obama was a muslim born in Kenya long after he produced birth certificates and proof was presented he goes to a Christian church. /pol/ knows this (being the folks who stir the pot at such "bastions of truth" like infowars) and wouldn't dare put out anything to harm their God-Emperor of Memes, so it's more likely just a desperate smokescreen to defend him.

Is Trump paying Russian Prostitutes real? Maybe. It doesn't matter. He has to live with this indignity, and many more will be heaped upon them whether they are true or not, and voters will believe them whether they are true or not. That's the world we live in now. That's the post-facts world republicans and the alt-right have helped create, they're just surprised to see it turn against them.
replyreportdelete
412541
Anonymous
>412540
You've lived in a post facts universe all your life.

LEAVE YOUR GATED COMMUNITY SAFE ZONES MOTHERFUCKER
replyreportdelete
412544
Anonymous
>412541

I live in rural heartland America, but I suppose that doesn't fit your narrative of folks who disagree with you.
replyreportdelete
412545
Anonymous
savejpg263.146KB
hahahaha24325.jpg
1197948
>412544
>I live in rural heartland America
Fucking lol! No imagination!
replyreportdelete
412546
Anonymous
>Press conference

White people elected a child. Everyone else balked, but the Whites wanted an actual child.
replyreportdelete
412547
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>412546

Well, White Republicans did, anyway. At least in the largest numbers.
replyreportdelete
412548
Anonymous
Buzzfeed just tacitly confirmed MSM is actually a real thing and that media colludes with one another.

>412547
>im a good white boy!
>plz dont lynch me massa!
House cracker.
replyreportdelete
412549
Anonymous
>412548
>media colludes with one another.

Good. The media will always have enemies and need to work together to destroy stupidity and falsehood.
replyreportdelete
412550
Anonymous
savejpg54.55KB
wapo.jpg
431768
>412548
>msm forces "fake news" meme to go after far more accurate bloggers
>trump calls msm fake news
>everyone cheers
>msm realizes the meme is backfiring
>tfw
300 years from now the MSM will be taught about to little Jimmy in Lunar Hab Seven as an example of 20th century barbarism.
replyreportdelete
412552
Anonymous
>412550

I believe you mean "Trump staffers" cheer. It's okay. You did your best.

Also: IT ALL COMES TUMBLING DOWN

http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/mattis-hasc-cancelled-confirmation
replyreportdelete
412553
Anonymous
>412552
Oh wow literally
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-press-conference-paid-staffers-media-233496
What is this E3
replyreportdelete
412554
Anonymous
>412553

See, that's the difference between Jeb and Trump. Jeb asks people to clap, Trump just pays people to clap.
replyreportdelete
412555
Anonymous
Reporters really need to get in the habit of asking yes/no questions; Trump clearly can't keep up with multi-part q's and it leaves him free to go on his his rambling non-answer tangents.

If there are future pressers and they aren't just limited to Fox/Breitbart/RT I guess
replyreportdelete
412556
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>412555

I am convinced that Trump cannot even handle yes/no questions, at least on a consistent basis.
replyreportdelete
412557
Anonymous
>412547
>Well, White Republicans did, anyway. At least in the largest numbers.

You don't get out of it that easily. The majority of whites voted for Trump. If you were to separate by age group, millenials didn't, but if you look at whites as a voting block the way people look at black people, hispanics, etc., Trump got the White Vote(TM). It was in fact the entire reason he won--his support among all other groups was laughably low.
replyreportdelete
412558
Anonymous
>412539
>Clearly you're breeding enough eloi in the megacities, close enough to get all the government aid you want, that the EC has never been more important.
You really misunderstood that story if you think welfare recipients are the eloi. The eloi were the useless effete with cushy lifestyles who the morlocks used as a food source because they were useless for anything else. They're the billionaire class, not the working class that you strive so hard to demonize.
replyreportdelete
412559
Anonymous
>412539
>Majority of the country, not majority of the voters.

The majority of people who cast votes in the elections voted for Hilary, yes. Or are you trying to push this meme that "voters" only refers to members of the Electoral College, and pretending that when people refer to "voters" they're not talking about the millions of Americans who go to the voting booths on Election Day?

God you people rely on meme magic for everything, don't you?
replyreportdelete
412561
Anonymous
Twilight Zone Reached, FOX DEFENDING CNN
https://twitter.com/yashar/status/819306390888075265
replyreportdelete
412562
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>412561

Soon you will come to know, when the bullet hits the bone.
replyreportdelete
412563
Anonymous
savepng211.66KB
Untitled.png
840592
>412561
Only idiots who believe there's such a thing as "our" media or "their" media would be surprised by this. The MSM is an engine of globalism, there's nothing diverse or good about it.

>412559
The majority of the country is counted by state, not by individual voter in each state added together. Read a book.

I didn't say voters... I said the majority of the country. As in each state voted, and the majority of states voted for Trump.

America is a union of states, fuckwad.
replyreportdelete
412564
Anonymous
>Only idiots who believe there's such a thing as "our" media or "their" media would be surprised by this. The MSM is an engine of globalism, there's nothing diverse or good about it.
And those who doubt, I ask you, why did every media source line up behind Bush twelve years ago?
replyreportdelete
412565
Anonymous
Globalism is good though. Homogeneous crowds make decisions like dumb cunts, large diverse populations have a shared common wisdom.

Look at Trump. He is bad in every single way and lacks redeeming qualities. And he is liked by people who dislike globalism. Trudeau is an excellent, intelligent man with evidently superior genes and personality, and he appoints only the best people to his cabinet. Trump appoints only men who rape their wives, men who work for lobbyists and banks, and anti-vaxxers. And Trudeau is a globalist.

In short, if you ever hear about a person being raped, killed, or struck with a terrible loss, before you extend any sympathy or help etc. you should ask yourself whether they voted for Clinton or not. Only Clinton voters should be treated like humans.
replyreportdelete
412566
Anonymous
>412565
This but unironicly
replyreportdelete
412567
Anonymous
>412563
>The majority of the country is counted by state, not by individual voter in each state added together.
This is the stupidest thing you've ever said. And that's saying something. You think you get to redefine words based on what's most convenient to you, but you don't. "Majority of the country" means the majority of people in the country. Not "The majority of states as weighted by their number of representatives and senators combined but with no attention paid to population or resources." If people meant that, they would say it.

>America is a union of states, fuckwad.
A union, not a confederation. Which means it's one single nation, and we are all in the same country, idiot. You *lost* the Civil War, remember? This is not a confederation of sovereign nations under a trade agreement like the EU. It is a single country with a population of ~350 million. Of those 350 million people, most of them voted against Donald Trump.
replyreportdelete
412568
Anonymous
savepng279.328KB
phpRp8Pv1
604508
>412565
>Globalism is good though.
No. Globalism is a way to sneak slavery past people. It's single handedly responsible for the stagnation in wages in America.

>Trudeau is an excellent, intelligent man with evidently superior genes and personality
Oh my fucking god.
replyreportdelete
412570
Anonymous
>412568
No, only Republicans and Whites' war on unions caused wage stagnation. Plus they made education and healthcare more expensive, hurting aggregate demand. All because they want to hurt gays, bomb sandniggers and make out with zygotes

We need more opioid epidemics, droughts and tornados.
replyreportdelete
412571
Anonymous
Also, fucking automation. The wage pressure is nine tenths a result of productivity increases reducing demand on labor.
replyreportdelete
412573
Anonymous
>412571
Automation isn't a "problem" though, it's ultimately the long term solution to Work being a thing. The problem is adapting a social net to account for that.
replyreportdelete
412576
Anonymous
savejpg120.182KB
tumblr_ojn12ewL341qf5yxvo1_1280.jpg
640641
oh mah gawd

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handkerchief_code
replyreportdelete
412577
Anonymous
>412573
The social safety net isn't a problem either--we could afford it if we really had a mind to. We've got more than enough resources and more than enough machinepower (and manpower) to provide for everyone in this country. The problem is that there is an entire class of people who would sooner strangle an infant with their bare hands than allow a system where people can live without having to toil to survive unless they were born wealthy.

Many of the people who are in that class are, ironically, the people who would benefit most under that system, as a sort of extrapolation of Crab in the Bucket Mentality.
replyreportdelete
412578
Slowmobile
Man, f TERFs.
replyreportdelete
412579
Anonymous
>412578
Given it's you, I'm surprised you limit yourself with the TER qualifier when saying that.
replyreportdelete
412582
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>412577

It is pretty much the "fuck you, got mine" mentality writ large.
replyreportdelete
412583
Anonymous
>412582
Worse than that, it's a "I didn't get mine, so I don't want anyone else to get it either."
replyreportdelete
412585
Anonymous
savepng804.488KB
whatsametafor?.png
11741466
An apt metaphor for Trump.
replyreportdelete
412586
Slowmobile
>412579
You'd be surprised, I dated a (trans-inclusive) radfem for over a year.
replyreportdelete
412587
Anonymous
>412586
Sure you did
replyreportdelete
412588
Anonymous
savejpg94.759KB
C1_91JcUsAAeNPV.jpg
1192517
https://twitter.com/bubbaprog/status/819632340272054272

This is getting too on the nose
replyreportdelete
412590
Anonymous
>412570
>Plus they made education and healthcare more expensive, hurting aggregate demand. All because they want to hurt gays, bomb sandniggers and make out with zygotes
What the fuck are you talking about. None of this is related to wage stagnation.

>412571
Automation started in 1800s, not 1970s, it has nothing to do with wage stagnation either.

>412585
>the paper is the wrong size (not legal)
An apt metaphor for the Democratic party.

>412588
PUTIN hacked CSPAN!!!!!
replyreportdelete
412592
Anonymous
>412586

Speakin' of Feminism, guess where it's legal to beat your wife (and your kids, what, it's strong family values!):

http://www.politico.eu/article/domestic-violence-russia-decriminalize/
replyreportdelete
412593
Anonymous
>412592
fun fact, there's a Russian saying "he beats her, he loves her"
replyreportdelete
412594
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>412593

That sounds like something a fundamentalist Christian would say, too.
replyreportdelete
412599
Anonymous
>412592
Because they already have an assault law on the books, and doubling or tripling on the same crime makes no sense. They even explain it in the article, if you beat your kid you get prison time, but if someone else beats your kid they get tried under the assault law (which is administrative). It makes no fucking sense.

Only in common law can you get charged 100 times for one crime, or have laws which don't apply the same to everyone.

>A Change.org petition opposing the new law gathered over 174,000 signatures after it was launched Tuesday.
>libshits actually think clicking a button on a random website is going to change russian duma decision
It's not even change.gov, it's change.org. It doesn't even have the vague threat of political pressure.
replyreportdelete
412600
Anonymous
Up to six Goldman Sachs alumni in the Trump administration now
replyreportdelete
412601
Anonymous
>412600
I bet some of them are McDonalds or newspaper delivery alumni.

Some might even be lemonade stand alumni, the fucking cunts.
replyreportdelete
412602
Anonymous
>412599
Got to find ways to make the lives of criminals who attack women less burdensome, eh? It'd be just terrible if wife-beaters were inconvenienced by having an alternate, greater charge for spousal abuse.

After all, it's not like the context of assaulting someone in their own home and while under the trust of a domestic life makes an assault against one's spouse worse than an assault against a stranger, nor like domestic abuse creates different issues that aren't adequately addressed with assault laws.

Oh wait, it's exactly like that. My bad, I must have been won over by /pol/-kun's "brilliant" arguments.
replyreportdelete
412603
Anonymous
>412601
your arguments are getting more and more nonsensical as the days go by
replyreportdelete
412604
Anonymous
If you beat someone that lives with you, you're not just hurting them physically but ruining their home as well. That means you're not just violent, but willing to make someone's life dysfunctional and hurt someone that has been good to you. Extra charge.
replyreportdelete
412609
Anonymous
>412599
>if you beat your kid you get prison time, but if someone else beats your kid they get tried under the assault law
Dang, it's almost like parents are expected to keep their children away from neigbors who are known to be violent, but can't act as parents at all if they don't live with their own children.
replyreportdelete
412610
Anonymous
savepng361.534KB
l6pkTGc.png
523592
>412601

>October: REEE CLINTON IS IN THE POCKET OF GOLDMAN SACHS

>January: REEEEEEE STOP MENTIONING HOW TRUMP IS FILLING HIS CABINET WITH GOLDMAN SACHS
replyreportdelete
412611
Anonymous
>412603
None of these people actually work at Goldman Sachs, they just used to. Goldman Sachs is a huge company with millions of employees, almost everyone who finished business is going to work for a company as retarded as that at some point. These people got fired from Goldman Sachs... It's like saying an ex McDonalds burger flipper is somehow going to be a secret plant for McDonalds.

The difference here is that Hillary is taking money directly from Goldman Sachs, the corporation.

>412602
So you think if a a husband hits a wife he should be charged with a higher crime, than if some random person does the same thing?

Why are you trying to find ways to make the lives of criminals who attack women less burdensome, eh?

>After all, it's not like the context of assaulting someone in their own home and while under the trust of a domestic life makes an assault against one's spouse worse than an assault against a stranger, nor like domestic abuse creates different issues that aren't adequately addressed with assault laws.
This is the funniest thing I've ever read. Feelings don't come into law, I can't feel safe at a park, get assaulted, and then expect the criminal get extra punishment because I felt safe at that park.

You didn't even think it through, what about homeless people? Do they not get the protection of your shitty low-IQ idea? What about people who aren't married but live together, is their home feeling less safe? Do they feel less trust in their domestic life?
replyreportdelete
412612
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>412611

>None of these people actually work at Goldman Sachs, they just used to. […] It's like saying an ex McDonalds burger flipper is somehow going to be a secret plant for McDonalds.

A burger flipper fired from his local McDonald's does not have nearly the same kind of power and influence within society and politics as a former Goldman Sachs executive. The situations have a vast power differential that you ignore in a naked (and worthless) attempt to bolster your argument.

>The difference here is that Hillary is taking money directly from Goldman Sachs, the corporation.

Technically, the former executives who are now part of Trump's cabinet also took money from Goldman Sachs.

>you think if a a husband hits a wife he should be charged with a higher crime, than if some random person does the same thing?

Yes.

An attack by a complete stranger is a frightening experience. It can be as damaging, physically and psychologically, as an incident of domestic violence. But there is key difference between the two: Domestic violence often leads to further instances of domestic violence.

Men and women who have escaped abusive relationships will tell you that the average abusive relationship does not just end after a single act of violence. Physical abuse can be, and often is, repeated for the sake of making the abused party docile and afraid of acting "out of turn". When physical abuse is combined with psychological abuse, it can create a situation where an abused person believes escape is nigh-impossible. A random attack by a complete stranger in a public place does not, on its own, lead to that sort of situation, no matter how traumatic the attack may be.

As was said, domestic violence creates issues that simple assault laws do not address. Revoking domestic violence laws means revoking policies and systems that exist to help victims of domestic violence escape their horrible situations. What good can come of that?
replyreportdelete
412613
Anonymous
I can't wait for the Republicans to talk about how they bravely and patriotically destroyed Obamacare while the spiteful and evil Democrats destroyed the ACA, and then for Republican voters to believe this.
replyreportdelete
412614
Anonymous
>412612
Technically millions of grandmas in stock with Goldman Sachs took money from it too, retard. The reason why GS is evil is the political influence they have by buying politicians, and using that to siphon tax money. There is no way this could be possible with Trump, and I'm loling at the fact that GS lost hundreds of millions on Shillary.

Also I am fully clothed you sick bastard.

>But there is key difference between the two: Domestic violence often leads to further instances of domestic violence.
No it doesn't, what the hell are you talking about? If you report the first instance and they go to jail, how does it continue? Even on the off chance that the wife was kept chained to a bed or something, and she eventually reported it, all of the instances of domestic abuse would be counted as separate in court.

>that exist to help victims of domestic violence escape
How does sentencing a dude twice help a domestic violence victim escape?

Instead of being a fucking retard and doubling down on assault charges, why not simply create an agency whose purpose is resettling, providing mental health care for, or otherwise caring for domestic violence victims.

Like all liberals you have good intentions but you are so fucking retarded and full of your own self-righteous fart huffing that you are willing to hurt everyone involved as well as the entire system of law within which you reside just to perform ZERO BENEFIT for the actual victim.
replyreportdelete
412617
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>412614

>Technically millions of grandmas in stock with Goldman Sachs took money from it too, retard.

Again: Those grandmothers do not have the same sociopolitical clout as former Goldman Sachs executives.

>The reason why GS is evil is the political influence they have by buying politicians, and using that to siphon tax money.

And now that former Goldman Sachs executives are either already in or soon to be in important positions of power within the Trump administration, said former executives can look out for their former company (and their rich friends therein).

>There is no way this could be possible with Trump

You lack both the clairvoyance to see that far into the future and the power to force Trump into keeping any sort of promise he made during his campaign.

>If you report the first instance and they go to jail, how does it continue?

This tells me that you have never heard testimonials from long-term domestic abuse victims. Victims can (and often do) drop charges against their abusers so they can, in their mind, avoid making the abuse worse. Even if the charges are not dropped, an abuser can sometimes charm their way into a lesser sentence - a slap on the wrist, as opposed to a stiff jail sentence - then go right back to abusing their victim once the sentence is over. As I said, a single act of random violence does not often lead these kinds of abusive situations. We treat domestic violence differently because it can (and does) often lead to those situations.

>How does sentencing a dude twice help a domestic violence victim escape?

An abuse victim may lack the resources - money, time, or even a support network of relatives and friends - that can help them leave an abusive situation. Longer sentences for domestic abusers can give victims more time to gather resources (some from the state, some from their support network) that will ultimately help them escape the situation. Court orders and name changes are not given out for free, after all.

>why not simply create an agency whose purpose is resettling, providing mental health care for, or otherwise caring for domestic violence victims

Victims services agencies do exist, but they themselves may lack the resources to do all of those things - and more - for every victim of a violent crime, domestic abuse or otherwise. If you want such agencies to be more efficient and do more for victims, ask your politicians to funnel more money into those agencies.

>you are willing to hurt everyone involved as well as the entire system of law within which you reside just to perform ZERO BENEFIT for the actual victim

You have failed to make a case against treating domestic abuse as worse than "regular" assault. You have not proven how the benefits of domestic violence legislation are outweighed by any potential "harm". If you want me to get behind your idea - if you want to persuade me into giving the smallest of fucks about it - you will have to do better than calling me names and emphasizing your text.
replyreportdelete
412618
Anonymous
>412614
>good intentions but you are so fucking retarded and full of your own self-righteous fart huffing
top heh
>homeless man
>leftist solution - take money from working class causing half of them to become homeless; make a womens shelter/non functioning website/community fitness center <insert failed program here> with the money
>leftist solution - demolish the system and replace it with anarchy, feudalism, communism, <insert failed system here>
>right wing solution: employ him. he gets money and experience out of it, he can then leverage his experience to earn even more money.
replyreportdelete
412619
Anonymous
savepng34.878KB
idLgzOp.png
8081604
replyreportdelete
412620
Anonymous
>412618
>>good intentions but you are so fucking retarded and full of your own self-righteous fart huffing

And here we see more evidence that this is just a kid who mistook South Park for erudite polysci.
replyreportdelete
412622
Anonymous
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/betsy-devos-omitted-125000-political-donation-from-senate-disclosure-form/2017/01/13/7a82c368-d9ba-11e6-9f9f-5cdb4b7f8dd7_story.html?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.e0adba43e1b6
replyreportdelete
412623
Anonymous
>412618
>>right wing solution: employ him. he gets money and experience out of it, he can then leverage his experience to earn even more money.
How many people have you employed, exactly?
replyreportdelete
412624
Anonymous
>412621
>Hope your entire family dies tomorrow. Idiot.
Why are you here?

At least try to be civil.
replyreportdelete
412625
Anonymous
>412621
Because a homeless person is unemployable. They smell bad, look horrible, clothes all fucked up, and don't even have a phone to get called back on. Often they have health or mental issues that they can't pay treatment for.

People in poverty have obstacles to employment.

It would be better to use tax money to help them get rid of these obstacles, instead of using tax money on HUD or so Obama can blow $2 million on each terrorist he trains in Syria.
replyreportdelete
412626
Anonymous
>412625
>People in poverty have obstacles to employment.
Unrelated by related:

Is plus4chan for or against the decriminalization (or lowering of penalty) for the possession of the most common illicit drugs?
In most western countries I've seen, users of these drugs have many major obstacles in entering the workforce and recovering from addiction. The harsh penalties in some countries even drive users into near poverty, so that they experience similar employment difficulties to homeless people.

On the other hand, drug are bad okay?.
replyreportdelete
412630
Anonymous
>412626
Normal guy here, it would depend on:
1. danger of drug to physical health, such as cardiovascular damage by cocaine, krokodil... etc.

2. danger of drug to mental health, such as MDMA damage is visible 12 years later in the brain.

Even the worst drugs, like the ones mentioned above, should be legal. As long as their health effects are researched, and the user is waned of them on each packaging.

3. danger of drug impacting non-users, such as smoking drugs being banned in public places.

Also drug tests with one strike rule, if you drive high on weed you lose your license forever. Also I'd like brain scans for people who want to vote, if you have brain damage from drug use, fuck you, you don't get to choose who leads the country.

>inb4 alcohol and tobacco
Same applies for them.
replyreportdelete
412633
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>412630

>I'd like brain scans for people who want to vote

How would you pay for such an expensive plan? Who will get tested — entire communities, people with histories of drug possession, or only people who have been medically treated for drug addiction? If only the third group would be tested, how would you get the records necessary to force those people into getting a brain scan that may disenfranchise them? Will people with brain damage from conditions unrelated to drugs be allowed to vote? If these scans find previously unknown conditions (e.g., tumors), will the person scanned be given access to affordable medical care in exchange for giving up their right to vote? If a person refuses a scan, how would your plan treat that refusal — automatic disenfranchisement or legal proceedings that could end with disenfranchisement? How would you spin this plan to the public? How would you spin it to politicians on the liberal side of the aisle? (We all know conservatives would go for this in a heartbeat.) What do you believe the Supreme Court would think of your attempt to disenfranchise people over their drug use? If the Supreme Court signed off on your plan, what would stop you from eventually targeting people who have brain damage from smoking cigarettes or drinking alcohol?
replyreportdelete
412638
Anonymous
>412630
I think this is quite reasonable. I disagree with the voting point though.
replyreportdelete
412639
Anonymous
>412633
>Who will get tested
You already know who he wants tested before they're allowed to vote, Stone. Anyone who disagrees with him--same as everyone else who wants to put new barriers in the way of voting.
replyreportdelete
412640
Anonymous
>412633
We already use a sobriety test for voters - if they're drunk and disorderly, or high and disruptive, they get thrown out. This is the equivalent of an MRI from the 1800s, I just think we can do better now.

>How would you pay for such an expensive plan?
Redirecting money from Democrat nipple-waxing fund and Republican testicle hair grooming clubs. It's just a small MRI machine people stick their heads in, takes a second, nothing gets used up, the cost is minimal, there is no need for force since they can't vote without it, and there are already small portable MRI machines being designed for battlefields.

>If these scans find previously unknown conditions (e.g., tumors), will the person scanned be given access to affordable medical care in exchange for giving up their right to vote?
Congrats you found a ridiculously useful benefit that completely justifies this system beyond anything else I could have said. It would also help spot mental health disorders before they got out of control and shot up a school.

>How would you spin it to politicians on the liberal side of the aisle?
I tell their insurance company masters that they'll get to administer the tests. Literally every liberal will fall in line.

>disenfranchisement
Big word for such a small guy. How is this disenfranchisement? Drug users are already disenfranchised by being thrown into prison for drug use, and then not being able to vote as a convict.

>what would stop you from eventually targeting people who have brain damage from smoking cigarettes or drinking alcohol?
THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION IS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE POST YOU ARE REPLYING TO

>412638
Seriously if high people are voting the country will collapse in literally one election.

It would allow very bad people to run campaigns where they do nothing but distribute large amounts of highly addictive drugs to people.

This is a dystopian nightmare world, lets not work towards that ok?

>412639
Oh fuck off you non-contributor. Go toot a kazoo.
replyreportdelete
412641
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>412640

>We already use a sobriety test for voters - if they're drunk and disorderly, or high and disruptive, they get thrown out.

Preventing a disorderly voter from voting in a single election because of their behavior is not a ban on their voting in future elections. You are not talking about tossing someone in a jail cell for a night because they went on a drunken bender; you are talking about permanent and irrevocable disenfranchisement.

>there is no need for force since they can't vote without it

Herein lies an ethical question that you might want to address: How would you convince a medical professional to administer a medical exam for an explicit non-medical purpose? I cannot believe that any doctor worth a damn would carry out a medical examination of a person's brain for the sole purpose of robbing someone of their voting rights.

>Congrats you found a ridiculously useful benefit that completely justifies this system beyond anything else I could have said.

If you believe healthcare at the cost of voting rights is a "benefit", that says more about you than you might think.

>I tell their insurance company masters that they'll get to administer the tests.

And when the government has to raise taxes every four years to cover the predictably rising costs of MRI voting tests, how would you spin that to voters?

>How is this disenfranchisement?

You are suggesting that people with brain damage from drug use be barred from exercising their voting rights. That kind of brain damage does not just "go away". Because that brain damage persists, people who fail even one MRI voting test would all but be barred from voting in the future. (And I notice that you did not address the question of what you would do if people refused the test, nor did you address what would happen if people who had brain damage not related to drugs failed the test.)

But more to the point, you are suggesting that a person's voting rights should be tied to their medical history and the hope that they have a "proper" brain. I would agree that someone not of sound mind should be barred from voting. Anyone can agree with that. But I disagree with the idea that anyone who has an "abnormal" brain but is otherwise a functioning, rational person should be robbed of their right to vote.

>Drug users are already disenfranchised by being thrown into prison for drug use, and then not being able to vote as a convict.

Convicts serving time for felonies should have their right to vote revoked while in prison. If they leave prison, that right should be returned to them.

>THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION IS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE POST YOU ARE REPLYING TO

And I will remind you that alcohol and cigarettes are legal substances in the United States. Someone who smokes or drinks should not have their right to vote revoked over the mere fact that they imbibe those substances. Your plan would do exactly that, all based on the idea that any brain damage suffered from those substances somehow makes a person unfit to vote. (You have never stated how significant an amount of brain damage must be present for disenfranchisement, after all.)

>if high people are voting the country will collapse in literally one election

You are not talking about people voting while high. You are talking about taking away a person's voting rights based on their taking a medical test to determine whether they have even a hint of brain damage.

>It would allow very bad people to run campaigns where they do nothing but distribute large amounts of highly addictive drugs to people.

Well, we allowed Donald Trump to distribute a shitload of nostalgia for a Perfect White America that never existed, so...shit.

>This is a dystopian nightmare world

The dystopian nightmare is forcing people to take a medical test for the sole purpose of determining whether they deserve the right to vote —  and basing that outcome only on arbitrary guidelines about brain damage that may or may not have the approval of medical professionals and mental health specialists.
replyreportdelete
412642
I realize it's easy to fight a strawman but that doesn't make you right.
>412641
>permanent and irrevocable disenfranchisement
Where did I say that? I only said permanent taking away of a drivers license for endangering people. Learn to read.

>How would you convince a medical professional to administer a medical exam for an explicit non-medical purpose? I cannot believe
Believe.

>If you believe healthcare at the cost of voting rights is a "benefit", that says more about you than you might think
>that a person's voting rights should be tied to their medical history
Says a guy who a few threads ago said taking away the 2nd amendment for "mental health" reasons is valid. So I guess whatever it says about me it also says about you.

>And when the government has to raise taxes every four years to cover the predictably rising costs of MRI voting tests, how would you spin that to voters?
Why would it be predictably rising? If anything costs should be decreasing, with software we can cut doctors and operators out of the equation.

>I would agree that someone not of sound mind should be barred from voting.
So stop talking then. We aren't talking about level of brain damage that causes them to forget a few days. We're talking about significant damage here.

>robbed of their right to vote.
I don't think it's called robbery when you give something up of your own free will. No one is forcing them to use drugs, it's a valid choice they make as an adult. As long as they know the health risks and risks to their voting ability, where the hell is the issue? They're actually deciding not to vote.

>Convicts serving time for felonies should have their right to vote revoked while in prison. If they leave prison, that right should be returned to them.
Drug users with significant brain damage to not be legally liable should have their right to vote revoked while using drugs. If they stop and rehab, they can do it.

>I will remind you that alcohol and cigarettes are legal substances in the United States.
So? The same would be true of cocaine and MDMA in this scenario

>over the mere fact that they imbibe those substances
Not over that mere fact. If they keep their use low, or use substances which aren't as damaging to the brain, they won't have problems. I doubt someone could OD on coffee, crash their temporal lobe and lose the ability to make rational decisions.

>Well, we allowed Donald Trump to distribute a shitload of nostalgia for a Perfect White America that never existed, so...shit.
I see the salt is still flowing strong.

>The dystopian nightmare is forcing people to take a medical test for the sole purpose of determining whether they deserve the right to vote
Then don't give people the right to enjoy drugs. To have a functional system you can have banned drugs, or legal drugs + brain damage testing. Pick

>arbitrary guidelines about brain damage that may or may not have the approval of medical professionals and mental health specialists.
Where are you getting this from? What makes you think medical professionals and mental health specialists would be EXCLUDED from this?
replyreportdelete
412643
Anonymous
This whole idea is almost as stupid as the "Drug Test Welfare Recipients" plan that was so dumb even Rick Scott couldn't keep pretending it was a workable idea. And Rick Scott's the guy who is so dumb he turned away free federal money and jobs to make a high speed rail program because he didn't want Obama to have a win by revitalizing Florida's economy.

So what I'm getting at is--you're dumber than Rick Scott. And that's quite a feat.
replyreportdelete
412644
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>412642

>Where did I say that?

Your entire idea of "stop people from voting if they have brain damage" would ensure that someone with brain damage — which does not just go away — could not ever vote again if they fail even one MRI voting test. You should pay more attention to what is implied by the things you say.

>Says a guy who a few threads ago said taking away the 2nd amendment for "mental health" reasons is valid.

My reasoning on that subject involves actual mental health standards — and the fact that allowing a mentally ill person to own a firearm is a dangerous concept with easy-to-imagine consequences.

>Why would it be predictably rising?

The American healthcare system loves to profit. If it wants to increase its profit margins on this front, it will increase costs before an election, bill both the federal government and state governments, and watch as those governments raise taxes to pay for the increased costs of a system intended to stop people from exercising their right to vote. If you think insurance companies and healthcare providers would not do that, you have far more faith in the American healthcare system than I.

>We aren't talking about level of brain damage that causes them to forget a few days.

You never specified the severity of brain damage necessary to revoke someone's voting rights. I had to work under the assumption that any brain damage (drug-related or otherwise) would be enough to disenfranchise someone.

>I don't think it's called robbery when you give something up of your own free will.

If a legally-mandated MRI voting test determines you should be stripped of your right to vote based only on an arbitrary reading of a brain scan by a medical professional forced to administer the test for an explicitly non-medical purpose? I would call that "robbing someone of their voting rights".

>As long as they know the health risks and risks to their voting ability, where the hell is the issue?

You have still failed to make a strong case as to why a person's voting rights should be tied to their medical history, especially if that person has an "abnormal" brain but is otherwise a functional, rational adult.

>If they stop and rehab, they can do it.

But they would still have the brain damage. They would never be able to regain their voting rights under your plan because of that one simple fact.

>The same would be true of cocaine and MDMA in this scenario.

Last I checked, people in the United States can still be arrested for possession of either cocaine or MDMA.

>I doubt someone could OD on coffee, crash their temporal lobe and lose the ability to make rational decisions.

What if someone has a tumor on their brain? How should that affect their voting rights, especially if there is a chance the tumor is tied to cancer and has a chance of returning? Sure, the tumor might not be caused by drug use, but it could make someone just brain damaged enough to fit within the arbitrary "take their voting rights away" guildelines.

>I see the salt is still flowing strong.

And it will continue to flow for as long as I want. If you have a problem with that, I suggest finding a way to filter out my posts.

>To have a functional system you can have banned drugs, or legal drugs + brain damage testing.

We already have legal drugs without MRI voting tests (alcohol and cigarettes, remember?). Last I checked, the system works pretty well in light of that fact.

>What makes you think medical professionals and mental health specialists would be EXCLUDED from this?

For starters, it is a plan meant only to exclude people from exercising their voting rights. I have to assume that the Republicans who might pass such a measure would want the guidelines written in a way that leans in favor of banning people from voting, rather than in favor of any sort of medical purpose this test might have.
replyreportdelete
412645
I realize it's easy to fight a strawman but that doesn't make you right.
>412644
>which does not just go away
It's possible to heal brain damage.... jesus christ I'm done with you.
replyreportdelete
412646
Anonymous
>412645
>It's possible to heal brain damage.... jesus christ I'm done with you.
Sweetie, we only told you that so you wouldn't lose hope.
replyreportdelete
412647
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>412646

You really should avoid lying to the mentally disabled.
replyreportdelete
412648
Anonymous
fucking hell every time I try to discuss something an argument made of long posts ensues, quickly devolving into short, snide insults.

I know this shouldn't be a surprise.
replyreportdelete
412649
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>412648

>greentext quote of your post

[wall of text about why this happens]
replyreportdelete
412650
Anonymous
>412649
>[wall of text about why this happens]
That just the kind of thing I would expect a stupid Leftist like you to say.
replyreportdelete
412651
Slowmobile
>412645
>It's possible to heal brain damage
Nnnnot exactly, neurons generally don't undergo mitosis.
replyreportdelete
412652
Anonymous
>412648
>fucking hell every time I try to discuss something
most commonly your fantasies of codified disenfranchisement
replyreportdelete
412654
Anonymous
>412652
>disenfranchisement
Wrong anon, anon.

I'm the anon who disagreed with that anon.
replyreportdelete
412655
Anonymous
>412654
Then we can both solve this issue by not responding to /pol/ suspects.
replyreportdelete
412656
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>412650

[rabble rabble rabble]
replyreportdelete
412663
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
http://www.wptv.com/news/national/running-over-protesters-on-roadways-could-soon-be-legal-in-north-dakota

Anyone who tries to justify or defend this bill can rot in the deepest circle of Hell.
replyreportdelete
412664
Anonymous
>412651
They don't have to, they can reroute around damage. Also most drug damage is sub cellular, like a membrane transfer protein wearing out or being blocked. It can be replaced or unplugged naturally over time, removing the damage.

>412663
Protesting, using your 1st amendment rights, is never a problem. However if you infringe on other peoples rights or destroy their property, that's not a protest. It's a riot, and it infringes on other peoples rights.

>can rot in the deepest circle of Hell
Yes those of us who disagree are actually demons in human form, it's completely moral to kill us, you don't even have to feel guilty.
replyreportdelete
412665
Slowmobile
>412664
>they can reroute around damage.
Brain plasticity is a lot more limited than you seem to think.
>It can be replaced [...] naturally over time
Fried dendrites usually don't get "replaced."
There's a reason TBIs are an enormous deal man, an overwhelming percentage of brain damage is permanent.
replyreportdelete
412666
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>412664

>those of us who disagree are actually demons in human form, it's completely moral to kill us

I am actually against the death penalty, and I would not consider it morally righteous to kill you because you believe a peaceful protestor walking on a roadway should have their lives taken for doing so.
replyreportdelete
412668
Anonymous
>412666
Driving a vroom-vroom (together with naming their kids Aprylle or Jason Brayden III, smacking said kids and making those gross rapturous hand things in church is like 80 % of republican culture.
replyreportdelete
412669
Anonymous
>412664
>Protesting, using your 1st amendment rights, is never a problem. However if you infringe on other peoples rights or destroy their property, that's not a protest. It's a riot, and it infringes on other peoples rights.
Interesting you should bring this up today of all days.

So tell us how we should've dealt with Martin Luther King's "riots," Anon.
replyreportdelete
412670
Anonymous
>412643
Oh hey look another druggie liberal that wants to steal welfare money from poor people.

Real evil of you gent.
replyreportdelete
412673
Anonymous
savejpg59.343KB
phpc4jzkq
1400700
>412666
>a peaceful protestor
>stop cops
>stop firemen
>stop ambulances on their way to the hospital
>stop regular people who simply must be somewhere fast, or their life is ruined
>surround cars of regular people, smash them, drag people out of cars and punch them
>peaceful
These acts actually aren't peaceful or protected by constitution.

I don't understand how you can justify being against this law.

>412668
>naming their kids Aprylle or Jason Brayden III
Well that's vaguely racist.
replyreportdelete
412677
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>412673

>These acts actually aren't peaceful or protected by constitution.

And if peaceful protestors like the Standing Rock Sioux actually do those things, let them be arrested for their illegal actions. They should not be thought of as unliving things to be destroyed and tossed into the garbage because they are protesting something while on an open roadway. They are as human as you or I; they deserve fair treatment under the legal system, no matter how much you may disagree with whatever they are protesting or how annoyed you may be by their tactics.
replyreportdelete
412678
Anonymous
>412677
>let them be arrested
>Standing Rock Sioux
Whoa how dare you say they should be arrested! After 2000 years of White Heteronormative Patriarchal oppression! Go rot in the deepest circle of Hell you monster!
replyreportdelete
412679
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>412678

You first.
replyreportdelete
412683
Anonymous
T U M B L I N G D O W N

http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/16/media/kfile-crowley-out/index.html
replyreportdelete
412684
Anonymous
>Getting rejected by a fucking cover band

Mmmm, delicious.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/bruce-springsteen-cover-band-drops-out-of-donald-trump-party-w461203
replyreportdelete
412685
Anonymous
>412683
>cnn
>412684
>rollingstone
Wew.
replyreportdelete
412686
Anonymous
savepng306.143KB
798.png
593540
>412685

>damage control
replyreportdelete
412687
Anonymous
>If a news source I've been instructed to scream at describes how something that happened happened, then it's still Fake News
replyreportdelete
412688
Anonymous
savejpg82.469KB
php52X8WJ
496516
>412602
lol picrelate

>412685
I can understand CNN, they're biased but at least they try not to lie too openly. Agree about rolling stone though. It's a tabloid, I don't get why anyone would post that, it's like posting Gawker or something.
replyreportdelete
412690
Anonymous
Uh oh, someone got caught with his hands in the cookie jar!
http://boingboing.net/2017/01/13/james-okeefe-caught-trying-t.html

Attempting to incite riots at your own boy's inauguration? Naughty Jamesy.
replyreportdelete
412691
Anonymous
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/nobody-wants-to-buy-them-frustrated-scalpers-losing-big-money-trying-to-sell-inauguration-tickets/

haha

http://www.newsru.com/russia/16jan2017/peskov.html

meanwhile russia's saying they just might not go through with nuclear disarmament even if the яркий человек lifts sanctions

solid dealmaking by the don
replyreportdelete
412692
Fakenewsatopia!
>412690
>hoax videos about acorn
Are people aware this ended in prosecutions?

>unnamed donors
>no raw audio/video
lol ok.

>412691
Right lets do investigative journalism because the tabloids you're posting won't.

>‘Nobody wants to buy them’: Frustrated scalpers losing big money trying to sell inauguration tickets
>"I thought they would be in demand," Rosenberg, a Democrat, said.
>a Democrat
Yeah if the tabloid called RAWSTORY typed "inauguration ticket" into ebay, they would realize they're going for $500-700, more than the already inflated price he said he paid for them ($400???). Inauguration tickets for Obama sold for $44. Anyone expecting Trump not to fill a stadium is going to be a sad leftist.

Your second retardation seems to be a case of you thinking that Google translate doesn't exist:
>Moscow reacted to the statement by the President-elect of the USA Donald Trump, who did not rule out a possible removal of the anti-Russian sanctions in response to the signing of a bilateral agreement on the reduction of nuclear capabilities. The Kremlin, in turn, want to wait for the inauguration of Trump, scheduled for 20 January, and only after the inauguration of billionaire willing to engage in dialogue on this topic.
Ergo they're saying they're waiting until Trump is inaugurated before any concrete deal is made, because assasination by you salty cucks is still very much a danger.
replyreportdelete
412693
Anonymous
>412692
>Yeah if the tabloid called RAWSTORY typed "inauguration ticket" into ebay, they would realize they're going for $500-700, more than the already inflated price he said he paid for them ($400???). Inauguration tickets for Obama sold for $44. Anyone expecting Trump not to fill a stadium is going to be a sad leftist.

When I put "inauguration ticket" into ebay and hit "completed listings" to see tickets that actually sold, most of the hits that aren't memorabilia from previous elections appear to have zero bids on them. I do see one or two where people actually paid ridiculous prices for tickets though. Not really a surprise that there would be a couple of affluent MAGA bros with more money than sense though--we saw that in November.
replyreportdelete
412694
Anonymous
>412692
>Anyone expecting Trump not to fill a stadium is going to be a sad leftist.

Well of course he'll fill a stadium. We already know how much he values the services of professional seat-fillers:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-press-conference-folders-business-plan-empire-blank-fake-handover-donald-jr-eric-a7523426.html
replyreportdelete
412695
Anonymous
In response to that law about running down protestors with your car:

>“I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens Councillor or the Ku Klux Klanner but the white moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says, “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can’t agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by the myth of time; and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.”
--Martin Luther King Jr.
replyreportdelete
412697
Anonymous
savewebm2.996MB
1484632935004.webm
480852
In response to that law about assaulting car drivers during your riot:

>Yeah, mother fucker, sup nigga? Gangsta Rap, nigga! Nigga Nigga Nigga Nigga Nigga Nigga Nigga I'm 100% nigga! Nigga Nigga Nigga Nigga Nigga Nigga Nigga I'm 200% nigga! Nigga Nigga Nigga Nigga Nigga Nigga Nigga why do police hate niggas? Nigga Nigga Nigga Nigga Nigga Nigga Nigga they hate us cause our dicks is bigga! Nigga Nigga Nigga Nigga Nigga Nigga Nigga why do you call yourself a nigga? Nigga Nigga Nigga Nigga Nigga Nigga Nigga cause im a mother fucking nigga! Nigga Nigga Nigga Nigga Nigga Nigga Nigga why do you drink so much beer? Nigga Nigga Nigga Nigga Nigga Nigga Nigga I don't drink beer I drink liqua! Cause I'm a nigga! Im a motherfuckin nigga man, I ain't all that african american shit Fuck that im a nigga, I ain't mixed, I'm a nigga! N-I-G-G-A, nigga, you already know....
-- Du-Rag
replyreportdelete
412698
Anonymous
>412693
>ugguuuu no way trump sells tickets for hundreds of times more than obamasan!
>412694
>the room is filled with trump staffers, just dont expect us to pan over them with our dozens of cameras!
Hey whatever helps you sleep at night.
replyreportdelete
412699
Anonymous
>412698
No, I absolutely believe Trump can sell a few tickets like that. Trump supporters tend to be rich and stupid, and rich, stupid people are easy to get loads of money out of. Doesn't mean he's going to sell out, just means he's going to get a few diehard tryhards to thank him for ripping them off.
replyreportdelete
412700
Anonymous
>412697
rude.

https://soundcloud.com/random-intelligence/the-ngga-song-clean-sing-along-version
replyreportdelete
412703
Anonymous
White Nationalists being sad and frustrated makes me happy.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/16/politics/white-nationalists-trump-losing-faith/index.html

Also featured:

>Jack Posobiec, another of the DeploraBall's organizers, has been accused of creating a "Rape Melania" sign in order to create bad publicity for anti-Trump protesters.

It's been said time and again, if Trump people accuse the other side of something, it's because they're definitely doing it themselves.
replyreportdelete
412704
Anonymous
savejpg63.912KB
The Four Chans.jpg
500309
>412703
>white nationalists
>/b/
>alternative right
>4chan
>Breitbart
You're unironically using the people who thought 4chan was a team of four chinese hackers as your default analysts for the world around you.

Might want to not do that.
replyreportdelete
412705
Anonymous
>412699
>if trump inauguration tickets are of low value, that means he is a loser with no popular support
>if trump inauguration tickets are of high value, that means his supporters are rich and stupid
Keep making these rhetorical loops in your head where you always win.

Meanwhile we'll be winning outside your head, in reality.
replyreportdelete
412707
Anonymous
>412705

Winning so hard that cabinet nominees are dropping like flies.
replyreportdelete
412708
Anonymous
>412707
>trump cabinet nominee quits over plaigerism scandal
This is bad

>obama cabinet approved secretary doesnt quit over running guns to mexican cartel
This is good.

So what you're saying, is if she stayed in her position despite the scandal, it would have been ok. The only wrong thing she did is stepping down. What kind of metal approach to life is this... you're only doing the wrong thing if you admit it?
replyreportdelete
412709
Anonymous
>412708

And yet you are the one claiming to be winning because your president got elected despite a wide variety of scandals.
replyreportdelete
412710
Anonymous
>412709
And despite losing the election.
replyreportdelete
412711
Anonymous
savejpg56.35KB
phpFaXeR7
650577
>412704
Top Heh

//youtube.com/watch?v=kRcdmbC0HHsyoutube thumb

The leftist posters here are my primary source of humor for the day.
replyreportdelete
412712
Anonymous
You're going into Syria and Trump wants a plan for war with Iran (because Russia wants a massive increase in oil prices, and Netanyahu the bribe-taker wants to humiliate a Muslim nation and doesn't want the ignominy of a Muslim nation building a harmless nuclear reactor after his screaming about their evil intentions).

Remember how the mere suggestion of a no-fly zone would lead to WWIII with Russia and Trump would stop the world police doctrine?
replyreportdelete
412713
Anonymous
>“You are messing with the president of the United States,” the contact wrote, adding that Tiffany “is used to a certain lifestyle and you don’t understand that.”

http://www.teenvogue.com/story/marla-maples-tiffany-trump-inauguration-day-hairstylist-controversy
replyreportdelete
412714
Anonymous
http://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/general-motors/2017/01/17/gm-invests-america-trump-tweets/96655138/
>"GM to invest $1 billion in U.S. after pressure from Trump"
>The company simultaneously said the investments had been in the planning stages for some time -- denying it was in response to pressure from Trump -- while also saying "this was good timing" to make the announcement.

why are they still doing this
replyreportdelete
412715
Anonymous
>412714
Contact them. Complain TO your press and your representatives. You have to make them responsible to you.
replyreportdelete
412716
Anonymous
>412703
No one needs to hope she gets raped. Anyone female close to Trump is going to be raped, sooner or later.
replyreportdelete
412717
Anonymous
savejpg47.9KB
C2ZwuhAUUAAQfav.jpg
712400
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/17/us/politics/obama-commutes-bulk-of-chelsea-mannings-sentence.html

hmm
replyreportdelete
412718
Anonymous
>412716
um, excuse me
only the hot ones
replyreportdelete
412719
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>412717

1.) I am glad to hear about Manning's commutation. Her treatment in prison, from all the reports I have read, was bordering the line on torture.

2.) Assange will never let himself be extradited.
replyreportdelete
412720
Anonymous
>412718
Rape is often more about having power over someone than it is about being sexually attracted to them, especially with someone like Trump. For example, when he raped Ivana, it wasn't because he was so turned on by her, it was because she upset him and he had to show her who was boss.
replyreportdelete
412721
Anonymous
If Manning still is one of those "Fight the NwO, fight the man, the people must be told, fifth of November" assholes who would happily support Trump because he "shakes things up", she should be kept locked up.
replyreportdelete
412722
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>412721

Do you really believe a person should be thrown in a military prison and subjected to treatment that borders on actual torture because of a mere political belief?
replyreportdelete
412723
Anonymous
>412722
"borders" nothing. The UN considers solitary confinement for more than 20 or so hours a day to be torture, full stop.
replyreportdelete
412724
Anonymous
>412722
I think by the end of 2019 you'll want to do worse to every Trump voter and non-voter.
replyreportdelete
412725
Anonymous
>412722
Not that anon, but I think she should be in prison because that was her justly earned sentence for an act of treason and espionage. The confinement I am against as per
>412723
's statement. Obama's commutation is an unnecessary showing of mercy where simply putting her in a women's prison for the rest of her 35 years would do. But that's his legal prerogative, and is not going to be nearly as galling as Trump allowing Comrade Snowden back into the country.
replyreportdelete
412726
Anonymous
>412725
She committed a lesser crime than a man who has recently been put forward as a member of Trump's cabinet.
replyreportdelete
412727
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>412726

And Manning's crime did not even result in any deaths.
replyreportdelete
412728
Anonymous
>412726
I mean you don't have to tell me that, I think Trump, most of his cabinet, and the entire Republican leadership are bigger traitors than Manning, but that doesn't make her not a traitor.
replyreportdelete
412729
Anonymous
>That feeling when you have a BA in poly sci and no experience in teaching & learning but get put in charge of educational policy and try to bluff it at your congressional hearings.

//youtube.com/watch?v=oF8wEH2ixakyoutube thumb
replyreportdelete
412730
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>412729

It is both amusing and pitiful when the comedian is one of the smartest people in the room.
replyreportdelete
412731
Anonymous
>412717
>tortures her for almost a decade
>commutes sentence on last day
>s..sorry guys... im still a good president right?!
>REMEMBER MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
Fucking lol.

The sad thing is this will work on 99% of leftists because of idpol nonsense and goldfish-tier memory.

>412721
Here comes the 1%...
replyreportdelete
412732
Anonymous
If ten really hacky, really unfair and really biased lefty commentators came together and tried to come up with Betsy Fucking DeVos and her crowd, they would not even be able to come up with these caricatures.
replyreportdelete
412733
Anonymous
savepng323.852KB
b36153ea28ca4c049616d321118a2416058a9acc31858e96...
896507
ACLU demands that police shut off their camera when facing Anti-Trump protesters

In an attempt to generate more false flags and cry harder about police x-ism, ACLU is demanding that police shut off all of their recording equipment during the Trump inauguration protests. If this works, expect there to be cases of evil racist cops with zero camera evidence to support it, so stock up on supplies for the incoming race riots.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-future/why-are-dc-police-keeping-their-body-cameras-during-inauguration-and-womens-march
http://www.northcrane.com/2017/01/17/aclu-forces-the-washington-dc-police-to-turn-off-body-cameras-while-observing-trump-protesters/

Some leftists about to find out the hard way the cameras are there for their protection.
replyreportdelete
412734
Anonymous
They also released pamphlets where they advise people on how to riot properly and deal with police.

https://www.acludc.org/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/aclu_8.5_x_11_trifold_v21.pdf

Some of this could have come in handy for the dead BLM martyrs before their encounters with cops.
replyreportdelete
412735
Anonymous
As if the police don't already "accidentally" damage them or turn them off when they want to get away with crime.
replyreportdelete
412736
Anonymous
Are we all forgetting that Manning is a Russian agent?
replyreportdelete
412737
Anonymous
>412733
holy shit that second site lmao
replyreportdelete
412738
Anonymous
>412733
>https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-future/why-are-dc-police-keeping-their-body-cameras-during-inauguration-and-womens-march

>It’s not an ACLU “demand,” it’s actually DC law.
>Of course, none of this means that the police cannot turn on their cameras during the inauguration or march if something goes down. The policy of the DC police, like most, stipulates that officers are to turn their cameras when engaged in “police actions” such as calls for service, pursuits, searches, stops, etc. Thus, if a fight breaks out, or some larger disturbance, the cameras would go on.

That's from the article itself. I know you're retarded but did you expect nobody to actually go to the link? Or did it use a bunch of big words and you got too frustrated to read it? Or did you just cut and paste what some other jackhole posted on /pol/ and didn't bother reading it yourself?
replyreportdelete
412739
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>412734

>riot properly

A peaceful assembly of people is not a "riot", no matter how much you may want peaceful protestors dead for daring to discomfort or inconvenience you. Did you even read the pamphlet? One of the first pieces of advice is "get a permit". That is not a suggestion for lawless violent action; that is the ACLU telling people to protest on the legal up-and-up. Hell, everything in that pamphlet is advice designed to help people avoid getting arrested for protesting, even if they are not actually breaking the law. I can only assume that you dislike the pamphlet just because it was released by the ACLU.

>412733

>It’s not an ACLU “demand,” it’s actually DC law. True, the ACLU of DC supported and encouraged adoption of that law, but the wider District of Columbia community as represented by its city council agreed with us. And that law is not absolute[.]

>We supported that law for very good reasons. There is a long history of law enforcement compiling dossiers on peaceful activists exercising their First Amendment rights in public marches and protests, and using cameras to send an intimidating message to such protesters: “we are WATCHING YOU and will REMEMBER your presence at this event.”

>[N]one of this means that the police cannot turn on their cameras during the inauguration or march if something goes down. The policy of the DC police, like most, stipulates that officers are to turn their cameras when engaged in “police actions” such as calls for service, pursuits, searches, stops, etc. Thus, if a fight breaks out, or some larger disturbance, the cameras would go on.

Maybe actually read the article next time instead of throwing an apoplectic fit of rage over a headline.

>412736

Last I checked, Chelsea Manning is an American citizen who leaked information about American actions in Iraq to WikiLeaks. Unless you mean to imply that everyone who has ever leaked information to or worked for WikiLeaks is an agent of the Russian government, you might want to offer more evidence to back up your claim.
replyreportdelete
412740
Anonymous
>412739
>Maybe actually read the article next time instead of throwing an apoplectic fit of rage over a headline.

Hey now, that's not fair--much like the person they voted for, people who vote Trump are illiterate.
replyreportdelete
412741
Anonymous
https://twitter.com/NoahShachtman/status/821563189489975296

A new member of the White House paid White people to assault black people.

Remember how the left turns groups against one another with identity politics and the right only sees the individual? If you honestly believe that, I hope you have many kids and that they all die before twelve.
replyreportdelete
412742
Anonymous
>412736
You might be thinking of someone else (Snowden?)

I'm no WL scholar but I think Manning's been out of the game since before Assange hijacked it
replyreportdelete
412743
Anonymous
>412739
>A peaceful assembly of people is not a "riot",
A peaceful assembly of people doesn't result in law breaking...

>412741
>A new member of the White House paid White people to assault black people.
>The newest member of the Trump White House is being sued for hiring white thugs to attack blacks.
One of these things is not like the other.

>Remember how the left turns groups against one another with identity politics
Yeah considering they sued a guy for a bogus claim just so they could racebait about it.
replyreportdelete
412744
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>412743

>A peaceful assembly of people doesn't result in law breaking

Tell that to the people arrested last month at the North Carolina State Assembly. Despite protesting without resorting to violence, they were arrested for "disturbing the peace" or somesuch violation of the law for speaking, chanting, and even singing in the Assembly's chambers.
replyreportdelete
412745
Anonymous
>412743
I can't even tell what you're trying to accomplish here. I sort of doubt even you know at this point.
replyreportdelete
412746
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>412745

Welcome to the world of Donald Trump.
replyreportdelete
412747
Anonymous
>412744
NOT COMITTING ASSAULT IS NOT THE BENCHMARK OF A PEACEFUL PROTEST! YOU CAN INFRINGE ON OTHER PEOPLES RIGHTS, HARM PEOPLE, PROPERTY AND ESSENTIAL SERVICES WITHOUT EVER USING VIOLENCE!

IM GOING TO PROTEST YOUR RETARDATION BY STEALING YOUR COMPUTER AND AS LONG AS I DONT PUNCH YOU THEN ITS TOTALLY FINE ACCORDING TO YOU!

HOW FUCKING DUMB..... JESUS LORD AND SAVIOR GRANT ME STRENGTH....
replyreportdelete
412748
Anonymous
>412747
guys, you broke sergei
replyreportdelete
412749
Anonymous
>412744
Wait is this related to the people Biden ejected during the electoral vote counts?

>speaking, chanting, and even singing in the Assembly's chambers.
If this isn't actually allowed in the assembly chambers, then it's not a violation of free speech laws to eject or arrest them for it.

For example you can't walk into a murder trial and disrupt the proceedings since it infringes on the defendants right to a speedy judgment. In fact if you do that the judge will throw you in jail.

>412745
Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it won't affect you, or that no one else does. Case in point >412746
replyreportdelete
412750
Anonymous
>412747
Friend, your ushanka is on too tight, you must replace it.
replyreportdelete
412751
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>412747

A peaceful protest is one where the protestors themselves do not resort to violence, possibly not even in self-defense. A peaceful protestor can still break the law while peacefully protesting (e.g. violating noise ordinances, obstructing traffic), but so long as they do not use violence, they are still considered "peaceful".

The people arrested for protesting the NC General Assembly last month all protested peacefully. They sang, chanted, and yelled so as to disrupt the Assembly's business for brief periods. Even after some protestors (and a journalist or two) were arrested, the remaining protestors stayed peaceful and generally followed the orders of police. You may consider their tactics annoying and ineffective, but those protestors were peaceful in that they caused no violence, nor did they use violence as part of their message.

A protestor's most effective tactic is to shake up the status quo — that is, to peacefully disrupt the everyday machinations of society and government in an effort to gain attention for a pet cause. Black civil rights activists did this when they staged sit-ins at whites-only lunch counters or refused to sit at the back of the bus. They broke the law, sure, but they did so in a peaceful, non-violent way. And yes, that approach resulted in violence being visited upon them by both the police and hateful racists (who were sometimes one and the same). When such violence was laid bare to the American people — as it was when footage of the police violence at Selma was aired on national television — it helped spur the passage of the Civil Rights Act into law.

You can disagree with peaceful protesting tactics (plenty of people within the Civil Rights Movement disagreed with King's non-violent approach), but they are ultimately peaceful.
replyreportdelete
412753
Anonymous
>412751
>A peaceful protest is one where the protestors themselves do not resort to violence
No, it isn't.

>they are still considered "peaceful".
No they aren't.

It is not peaceful to block vital infrastructure or steal things. It is not peaceful or a justified expression of the First to use loudspeakers to bully people and disturb those around you.

>sang, chanted, and yelled so as to disrupt the Assembly's business
This is the very opposite of a peaceful protest.

> Black civil rights activists did this when they staged sit-ins at whites-only lunch counters or refused to sit at the back of the bus.
Can you even spot the difference? These blacks didn't prevent others from using those services. They didn't yell at or chase away people, this would be considered peaceful.
replyreportdelete
412754
Anonymous
>412753
>No, it isn't.
Yes, it is.
>No they aren't.
Yes, they are.
>It is not peaceful to block vital infrastructure or steal things. It is not peaceful or a justified expression of the First to use loudspeakers to bully people and disturb those around you.
Yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is.
>Can you even spot the difference? These blacks didn't prevent others from using those services. They didn't yell at or chase away people, this would be considered peaceful.
They did all of these things, actually.
replyreportdelete
412755
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>412753

>It is not peaceful to block vital infrastructure.

That is what sit-ins at Whites-only counters in the Civil Rights Movement did: blocked White people from using an existing infrastructure (i.e., Whites-only counters in restaurants) to gather attention for an issue of vital importance (i.e., desegregation). Peaceful protests are non-violent; only assholes think they need to be "convenient" as well.

>It is not peaceful or a justified expression of the First to use loudspeakers to bully people and disturb those around you.

It actually is. Again, the whole point of a peaceful protest is to use non-violent ways of disrupting the status quo as a way of drawing attention to a sociopolitical cause. Marching in the streets and chanting slogans, standing on a street corner with a megaphone, sitting in at a politician's office or a government building — all are peaceful ways of protesting, even if you consider them "annoying" or "too disruptive". (If someone breaks the law with one of these methods, they are likely prepared for an arrest. Lots of peaceful protestors accept that fact.)

>This is the very opposite of a peaceful protest.

Did you expect people to stand silent and watch as the Republican-controlled NCGA flaunted its newfound power to screw over both Democrats and the citizens of North Carolina? A peaceful protest is a protest devoid of violence; it is not "peaceful" in the sense that people are quiet and respectful and looking out for your peace of mind. A peaceful protest is not "convenient" — for you or for them.

If you cannot fathom the idea of a peaceful protest that is anything beyond a person sitting still and doing nothing, say so. At least I can understand that.
replyreportdelete
412756
Anonymous
I think we can all agree that peaceful protests are a goal when your antagonists are normal people, and that being mean, disruptive and aggressive is good when your antagonists are evil and acting in bad faith. Because in the latter case, you will be demonized and depicted as worse than Hitler no matter what you do so you might as well grab some attention.

Remember that sometimes it is not about winning hearts and minds by following the rules. Sometimes it's about actively delegitimizing your opponent by brazenly showing that yes, you are not going to follow every rule and be polite in opposition to them because you recognize the evil and bad faith in your opponent. It also sets a precedent for further resistance in the same tone and tells other people that *their* anger and willingness to resist in a "rude" manner is not isolated. It will be very important to show to other people that their hate, anger and craving for justice and sabotage of the evil administration is not exclusive to them. Normalize being uncouth.
replyreportdelete
412761
Anonymous
>412756
>Normalize being uncouth.
I think Humpty Trumpty has already done that.
replyreportdelete
412763
Anonymous
>412761
But all his critics must play nice and be mature citizens. That is the problem.
replyreportdelete
412764
Anonymous
savewebm1.383MB
sjw.webm
960540
>412761
>412763
>harass people on line
>harass people in public
>sent libelous letters to their employers
>disrupt roads, services, government functions
>shove their filthy mitts into everyones private personal business
>demand we have to like the same things they like and do the same things they do
The Left has started this war through their shitty behavior.
replyreportdelete
412765
Anonymous
savewebm1.199MB
bane.webm
640360
But they merely adopted shitposting. We were born in it, molded by it. We didn't see polite behavior until we were grown, and by then it was nothing to us but blinding.
replyreportdelete
412766
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>412764

>The Left has started this war through their shitty behavior.

Funny. I thought conservatives started what you call a "war" by trying to keep alive the systemic oppression of anyone who is not a wealthy able-bodied white cisgender heterosexual Christian male. I mean, unless you want to erase the switch in political alignments of the two major political parties after the Dixiecrats abandoned the Democratic Party in favor of the GOP and its "Southern strategy".
replyreportdelete
412767
Anonymous
>412764
>412765

WE ARE ANONYMOUS

WE DON'T FORGIVE

WE DON'T FORGET!

lol you are such a fucking tool
replyreportdelete
412768
Anonymous
savegif1.341MB
6918545a946f30d4a191aeade88144e8.500x200x22.gif
500200
>412767
No you retard, it's "the fire rises". Learn to meme or get the fuck out.
replyreportdelete
412769
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>412768

NOW IS NOT THE TIME FOR HARSH CRITICISM, ANON. THAT COMES LATER!
replyreportdelete
412770
Anonymous
http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/01/why-doesnt-donald-trump-have-his-own-desk-at-mar-a-lago.html

his propaganda staging is terrible
replyreportdelete
412771
Anonymous
savejpg589.515KB
C2e0tyKXAAMIk4f.jpg
1049748
>412770
It's not even the same part of the building... Fuck you for making me think on your behalf.
replyreportdelete
412772
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>412771

https://twitter.com/70Ceeks/status/821832223775199232

Compare the two images at their full width. Notice all the similar details. (Also notice the perspective on the pic on the right; it would be hiding part of the wall circled in purple on the pic on the right.)
replyreportdelete
412773
Anonymous
>412771
Taking a macro off /pol/ isn't thinking.

God I'm glad many of you are going to die when the GOP abolishes healthcare.
replyreportdelete
412774
Anonymous
How dare anyone doubt that His Orangeness, master of oratory, is writing his own inaugural address in Sharpie

In other news, turns out the IC including the FBI has been investigating Kremlin ties to Trump's campaign since April, independently of Steele

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article127231799.html
replyreportdelete
412775
Anonymous
>412773
Susan Collins is not on board with repeal without replace.

Not even all of the GOP thinks it can make 18 million Mericans subject to death or bankruptcy without getting into trouble.

My bet: they'll rename it but will try to kill off the high-risk pool to placate the low-risk majority. The old cunts will be on Medicaid and will remain loyal.
replyreportdelete
412776
Anonymous
>412772
Notice the dissimilar details, idiot. The wall behind Trump literally lacks a hole and is shaped differently.

What's more likely, that Trump sealed up a hole in the wall in Maro Lago and tiled over it just to take a photo, or that there are two similar tables in the building and you're wrong.

>412773
>Taking a macro off /pol/
I literally made it just now, in 30 seconds.

Check the exif before you wreck yourself.
replyreportdelete
412777
Anonymous
>412776
The photos are a year apart, and everyone here wouldn't spend one dollar to save you from a slow painful death if their dollar was the only available recourse in the world.
replyreportdelete
412778
Anonymous
>412777
>The photos are a year apart
Then what is the basis for you ingrates claiming he's using someone elses desk?

>everyone here wouldn't spend one dollar to save you from a slow painful death if their dollar was the only available recourse in the world
What a rude thing to say to someone who pays your welfare check, it would be my dollar anyway :^)
replyreportdelete
412779
Anonymous
>412778
>Then what

The basis is that Donald is an infantile sociopath

>IPAYTAX

Most people pay taxes. You are to people what Cheesecake Factory is to winning marathons.
replyreportdelete
412780
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>412778

>Then what is the basis for you ingrates claiming he's using someone elses desk?

For starters, damn near every other significant detail in the image looks similar, right down to the patterns on the wall and the "shelf" part of the wall sitting right behind the chair. That you cannot grasp the idea of perspective and depth is your problem, not mine. Then again, what you think really does not matter — if Donald Trump shot someone in the head on live television, you would claim that Barack Obama did it.

But here is where your fantasy ends: as of this Friday, Donald Trump will be the next president of the United States. After his inauguration, Republicans will have control of both the executive and legislative branches of government. (Assuming the Supreme Court nominations go as planned, they will own the judicial as well.) Republicans will also have a majority control of governorships and state legislatures around the country. So as of this Friday, Democrats can no longer be blamed for the results of whatever the Republicans do in the next two years. Obama? Clinton? They can no longer be the scapegoats for a party that has all the power.

And look at all the wonderful decisions that Trump and the GOP are making already! Rick Perry, who once championed for the abolishment of the Energy Department, is now aiming to become the head of a department he thought was an ambassadorship for the oil and gas industry. Betsy DeVos, a rich woman who has never worked in a public school and has pushed for public funding of private (and religious) schools, is gunning for the top spot in the Department of Education. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, an on-the-record racist who has criticized civil rights laws of all kinds, could be named US Attorney General and placed in charge of defending civil rights in federal court. Ben Carson, a neurosurgeon who once turned down a position in Trump's administration on the grounds of being unqualified, could be the new head of Housing and Urban Development — a position for which his only qualification seems to be "he is Black". And those are just off the top of my head; given enough time, I could put together an entire separate post on this subject.

All of that pales in comparison to the platform of the GOP, though. The at-least-partial repeal of the Affordable Care Act without a politically (or economically) viable replacement? First order of business. Overturning Roe v Wade and turning women's reproductive rights back nearly a century? That is a big one, and it could finally happen with a heavily-conservative Supreme Court. Overturning Obergefell v Hodges so the icky fags will have their "special rights" revoked? Goddamn right, the GOP wants it. ("Defense of traditional marriage" is in the platform.) Pushing trans people out of public life with bathroom bills and other anti-trans laws? Positioning Christianity as the national religion in every way short of officially breaking down the wall between church and state? Making sure the wealthy keep as much money as possible while placing a much higher tax burden on the poor (and all without a raise in the minimum wage)? Check, check, motherfucking check. Do not think I am exaggerating here; if anything mentioned here is not explicitly part of the GOP's platform, it is part of the conservative ideology that now controls our government.

And the Democrats can do virtually nothing to stop it. They lack the power to do so. All the demonizing of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Elizabeth Warren, every major Democrat still left in office after the election, and even liberal Americans as a voting demographic — all that shit gave Republicans all of the power…but it also gave them all of the responsibility. The GOP gets two years to all but pass every law and enact every policy it has ever wanted to put into play; if — when — the country goes to shit after the 20th of January 2017, Republicans will be the politicians at whose feet we must lay the blame.

You can go back to your fantasy world where Donald Trump is God and everything he does is infallible and perfect. If anything, we would all prefer you stay there and leave us the hell alone; at least then, you would be doing everyone — including yourself — the biggest possible favor.
replyreportdelete
412781
Anonymous
savejpg30.338KB
camojncouch.jpg
400300
Veritas uncovers Antifa turds trying to shut down all ingress points into the cities during the inauguration.

//youtube.com/watch?v=xIjbkYLI1nYyoutube thumb

>412780
Do you see Jesus in bread too? Just because something is similar doesn't make it the same.

>That you cannot grasp the idea of perspective and depth is your problem
But you're the one who can't grasp it... There's a line of tiled with text, then two lines of tiles to the left of it, and then the weird wall change fore the secretarys desk and A LACK OF wall change for Trumps desk. I can't believe you picked #1:
>What's more likely, that Trump sealed up a hole in the wall in Maro Lago and tiled over it just to take a photo, or that there are two similar tables in the building and you're wrong.
Just because #2 might mean you're wrong. That's some serious narcissism.

>But here is where your fantasy ends
No my friend, J20 is when my both of our dreams begin, you're welcome fellow dreamer.
replyreportdelete
412782
Anonymous
>412781
>Veritas

Hey James have you been with a woman yet or did you discover the real you in prison?
replyreportdelete
412783
Anonymous
>412782
Hey Obama have you been with a woman yet or has Michael broken you for the gentler sex?
replyreportdelete
412784
Anonymous
>412783
The NASCARlings have had eight years to hate the guy and his wife but still can't come up with anything better.

Meanwhile, I'm trying to come up with a kind of torture I think is too extreme to inflict on people who even *think* Obama is not a hundred times more of a man, president and citizen than Trump is.
replyreportdelete
412785
leg thumbs
>Obama is not a hundred times more of a [...] citizen
Tell that to the people bitching about his birth certificate.

I indubitably prefer Obama, but Trump is much more American than Obama could ever be: Trump is fat, obnoxious, self-important, capitalist as fuck, has terrible foreign policy.
replyreportdelete
412787
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>412781

>I can't believe you picked #1 […] [j]ust because #2 might mean you're wrong.

I can believe it because I have a sense of depth and perspective. You keep living in your fantasy world, though. I hope you have fun there, thinking Trump is God.
replyreportdelete
412788
Anonymous
>412784
>a hundred times more of a man, president and citizen than Trump
Read this comment last night, I've been laughing the whole night until noon the next day.
replyreportdelete
412789
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/314991-trump-team-prepares-dramatic-cuts

You know, when I think of things the federal government could do to cut its spending, defunding support for the arts and cutting support for the department that oversees our nuclear weapons would not be the top two items on my list.
replyreportdelete
412790
Anonymous
lol CNN is just put out an assassination hit on Trump!

//youtube.com/watch?v=1vFxbNZ8q4gyoutube thumb
replyreportdelete
412791
Anonymous
>412790
i'm sure they did and that's not just an insane interpretation of that clip
replyreportdelete
412792
Anonymous
>412789
More than half of republican voters will hear about that and spend the next four years thinking the deficit has gone down, no matter how much the defense budget grows and how many tax cuts are given to the nobility.

"They cut food stamps for blah people and stopped giving money to lesbian modern artists so the deficit has gone down. The deficit went down because Trump does business good. Trump didn't ever went bankrupt ever and if he done did it's because he smart."
replyreportdelete
412793
Anonymous
>412792
>412789
Uh not to sound too conservative here, but you guys are in a recession with massive debt, why are you funding art? I'm a sculptor and I certainly don't think my art should come at the expense of someones healthcare, thats neither responsible nor sustainable.
replyreportdelete
412794
Anonymous
Art is 0.02% of the federal budget. And people's healthcare will be destroyed anyway. I can only pray Trump voters do most of the dying and suffering.
replyreportdelete
412795
Anonymous
>412794
It doesn't matter what percentage it is, that money can still help someone or be used more constructively. Best case scenario and theres nothing to fix in your own country, just donate the extra budget to charities in the third world.
replyreportdelete
412796
Anonymous
>412793
>Uh not to sound too conservative here, but you guys are in a recession
No, no we aren't.
>Massive debt
Government debt isn't your checking account. The government can essentially defer its payments to whatever time it feels most appropriate, particular the US because it is the cornerstone of the world financial system. This is a big part of the reason why Macroeconomics is voodoo to most people. As long as the market THINKS that the US can eventually equalize and the US makes token payments to keep programs going the debt doesn't actually matter for operation. That's why the Republican shutdown was the action of the last 8 years that actually did the most damage globally, because it was the US refusing to pay out even on credit.
replyreportdelete
412797
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
savejpg32.197KB
Discretionary Spending.jpg
620459
>412793

The combined budget for the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting will be around $750 million this year. All of that money would fund the Pentagon — which has a budget of nearly $600 billion — for eleven hours. The money going to the NEA, NEH, and CPB is proportionally miniscule compared to the country's biggest expenditure (military spending), and I can bet that it is nowhere near as much as the government spends on healthcare programs.
replyreportdelete
412798
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
Additional point: Do not think the Trump administration or the GOP wants to get rid of federal arts funding only to save money. (As pointed out already, that amount is proportionally miniscule in regards to the full budget.) The planned cuts to support for the arts are most likely a stealth strike against artists themselves — specifically liberal/progressive artists who will be critical of the incoming government. Since the arts are often seen as "a liberal thing", conservatives are more likely than liberals to cut support for the arts. (And in a conservative mindset, nobody should have time for the arts, what with all this damned work to be done.)
replyreportdelete
412801
Anonymous
Fascists and nationalists prize ugliness, tackiness and lack of creativity very highly. If it were up to them all movies would be like old James Bond movies and all music would be buttrock and country.
replyreportdelete
412802
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>412801

>all music would be buttrock and country

OH GOD NO.
replyreportdelete
412803
Anonymous
Trump said Clinton was unfit because of an ongoing FBI investigation.

I think he could rape a woman on stage and most of the GOP would say he didn't and demand nothing was done when he pardons himself. They are that kind of people.
replyreportdelete
412804
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
I checked Twitter one last time before logging out for the next few days (too much bullshit happening this weekend, not enough mental stamina to deal with all of it). Saw this thread or tweetstorm or whatever you want to call it:

https://twitter.com/alexandraerin/status/822268864276955136

That whole thread could scare you. That whole thread should scare you.
replyreportdelete
412807
Anonymous
savegif281.9KB
phps5mhty
1190877
>412798
>412801
>weeee leftists are soooooo artistic loooook at our aaaaarrt
The only worthwhile art that ever existed came from conservatives. Think about that while you listen to all about that basss while your nice conservative neighbor listens to beethoven.
replyreportdelete
412808
Anonymous
savepng484.758KB
phpw5rTZm
1123527
>412804
>should
Hahaha dude I'm so psyched, we're having a party toniiiiight!!!!! HAHAHA

Don't get scared I put in a good word with the Right Wing Death Squads for you James.
replyreportdelete
412809
Anonymous
savemp3814.846KB
phpGcNh06
128kbps44.1kHz52s
mp3
Ah jesus dude im scrolling through your shit... you are a living stereotype.

Barbara Streisand? Fucking really?

Do you have that annoying corporate leftist clapping/whistling soundtrack permanently running inside your head?
replyreportdelete
412811
Anonymous
>412807
Beethoven was left wing (for the time). Hence his famously scratching out his dedication to Napoleon when the latter abandoned Republican government and crowned himself Emperor.
replyreportdelete
412813
Anonymous
Pissboy still thinks crime is higher than ever. Probably because the proportion of Whites is lower than ever.
replyreportdelete
412814
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>412807

>The only worthwhile art that ever existed came from conservatives.

Yes, because when I think of high art, I think of films like "God's Not Dead".
replyreportdelete
412815
Anonymous
Conservatives don't have artists. They have craftsmen. The very concept of artistic expression runs counter to the mind set of conservatives.
replyreportdelete
412817
Anonymous
savejpg178.735KB
C2oeje9UoAAvrBo[1].jpg
9221200
Ok, he was great, I'll miss him, this next presidency will be a shitshow

but this is a little ridiculous
replyreportdelete
412818
Anonymous
savewebm563.931KB
obama2.webm
640360
replyreportdelete
412819
Anonymous
When SJWs, feminazis and non-Whites get their way, the president is a wonderful example of a man.

When Whites get their way, we get a criminal, racist rapist who is not good at anything and has the mind of a child. I don't understand why I'm supposed to be afraid of IS when I'm already surrounded by malicious third-world troglodytes.
replyreportdelete
412820
Anonymous
And so Trump's first order of business is to make it harder for poor people to buy houses
replyreportdelete
412821
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>412819

President Obama was not perfect (especially in regards to foreign policy and military drone strikes), but he was a far better person than Donald Trump has ever been or ever will be. How many sex or ethics scandals did Obama have before or during his time in the White House, again?

Donald Trump will be lucky to serve his entire four-year term — and that "luck" is dependent on whether the Republicans have the testicular fortitude to impeach the Cheetoh-in-Chief.
replyreportdelete
412822
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/01/20/white-house-website-promotes-melania-trumps-modeling-and-jewelry-line/

It took the Trump family less than a day to convert government websites into advertisements.
replyreportdelete
412823
Anonymous
>412819
>When Whites get their way, we get a criminal, racist rapist who is not good at anything and has the mind of a child.
That's about the size of it yes.
replyreportdelete
412824
Anonymous
savejpg36.298KB
phpxrfaIO
792415
OLE OLEEEEEE OLE OLEEEEEE, WEEEEE AAAAREEE THE CHAAAAAAAMPIONS, NOOOO TIME FOR LOOOOOSERS CUZ WEEE ARE THE CHAMPIOOOOOONS,

>412822
>biography listing where she worked and what brands she runs
>this is an advertisement
You're just salty Michelle never accomplished anything with her life and had a blank biography page :^)

>412820
>And so Trump's first order of business is to make it harder for poor people to buy houses
You realize that's what caused the 2008 recession? Poor people need to rent apartments, not buy houses they can't afford and crash the real estate market.

Enjoy the economic stability and the destruction of your narrative (with commentary by yours truly) over the next 8 years!
replyreportdelete
412826
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>412824

Given how eager you are to celebrate the Obamas leaving the White House, I would say you are as salty as I am. You will never admit to it, of course, but you are salty as fuck that a Black man was President and a Black couple was as classy as any other First Family before them (if not classier).

Now you have a President who likes to grope women without waiting for consent and has more ethics violations in his first hour in office than most Presidents have in their entire terms. Classy as fuck, right?
replyreportdelete
412827
Anonymous
>412826
I'm not saulty about him being black, you giant anal orifice, I'm salty about him being an terrorist supporting marxist asshole who shat all over this country and the world. Millions of people in north africa and middle east had to suffer through unspeakable horrors because of this idiot. He robbed his own country blind and sold it to domestic corporations or international interests. He effectively eliminated us from the space age and gave up our greatest contribution to humanity - the information age itself - to third world dictators.

The laundry list of his failures is as long as the media has been silent about it. You reducing all of this to race shows the magnitude of divisions Obama has sown in this country, and is EXACTLY why we needed Trump.

>President who likes to grope women
"And they let you do it
- Trump tape on CONSENT

Maybe if you repeat the lie enough times you'll believe it... but no one else will.
replyreportdelete
412828
Anonymous
>412824
>uninstalling obama
Bastards parting gesture was to pardon four leaders of a Cartel organization with the proviso that they start a war on our border.
>Cesar Moreno Sr.
>Eduardo Moreno
>Lazaro Moreno
>Luis Moreno
Now that he's no longer in power to silence people, the truth will come out.

Glad the traitor in chief is relegated to the dustbin of history, where he belongs.
replyreportdelete
412829
Anonymous
>412827
>412828
god, you people are cult victims
replyreportdelete
412830
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>412827

>"And they let you do it" - Trump tape on CONSENT

What I am about to tell you is something you need to learn. I ask that you pay close attention and re-read this whole post several times, because I will not repeat this post (in this thread, at least) and I will not expect you to grasp things on your first readthrough.

Donald Trump is a wealthy White man. (Not "Bill Gates wealthy", but wealthy enough.) His wealth gives him an inordinate amount of power and influence in society. His being a White man also gives him an inordinate amount of privilege in society — privilege that allows him to say and do things that both women of any race and non-White men would generally not be allowed to say or do without severe consequences.

One of those things he is allowed to do is act like a sexual predator with few or no consequences.

He is on tape saying he kisses and gropes women without waiting for them to give consent. He has walked into the dressing room of underage beauty pageant contestants while they were either naked or half-naked. He has leered at young girls and openly imagined what they would look like as adults. He has talked, on numerous occasions, about the idea of dating his own daughter if she were not his daughter.

And what consequences has he suffered for his actions? How has society punished him for his transgressions, his willingness to all but admit that he is a sexual predator who views women as objects to be tossed away when they get too old or useless for him? It has seen fit to give him the most powerful political office in the world.

People with the power and privilege of Donald Trump do not have to worry about women consenting to sex with them because that power and privilege is a warning. "Let me kiss you, grope you, and fuck you," the warning says, "and if you say I assaulted or raped you, I will ruin your life. It will be my word, my reputation, my money and power against yours." A woman need not be drugged or openly coerced into sex with a man like Trump; she need only be convinced that letting him do what he wants and staying quiet about it will be better for her life in the long term.

After all, what woman would want to go through a lengthy investigation of her entire life if she speaks out against a socially powerful man like Donald Trump? What woman would want to put herself on trial by saying Donald Trump assaulted or raped her? His wealth and privilege would turn any investigation or trial or lawsuit about his actions into an exploration of whether his accuser is a worthless slut. His power would see to it that, even if she were to somehow win even a marginal victory by some form of divine intervention, her life would be ruined forever by everything his legal team does to her during any trial.

And as many victims of sexual assault and rape will tell you, saying "no" can often lead to worse behavior by the attacker. A man who only wanted to rape a woman might wrap his hands around her throat and strangle her if she vocally resists; "letting" him carry out the rape without protest may be the only way she stays alive long enough to even report getting raped. The same goes for people of power and privilege: Saying "no" might not only make the attacker more violent, it may even lead them to later use that power as a way of hurting the victim even more.

A man like Donald Trump — a man of immense wealth who wields inordinate amounts of societal privilege and power — knows that he can get away with the non-consensual groping of a woman because society, by and large, does not give a shit that he gropes women. He knows that women "let" him do it because women are pre-emptively coerced by his prior displays of power and influence into "behaving".

He does not need to ask for explicit consent. He coerces it simply by being who he is.
replyreportdelete
412831
Anonymous
Just for the record, because we were talking about attendance numbers earlier, both Obama Inaugurations had a larger attendance than Trump's. While the first one was a historic event and therefore an outlier (1.8 million), the second one still had 1 million attendees, while Trump's only had 7-900k.
replyreportdelete
412832
Anonymous
>412829
I mean yeah, this is news to you?
replyreportdelete
412833
Anonymous
>412830
There's not really much point trying to explain consent to Trump supporters. If they believed women had feelings or mattered they wouldn't have voted for Trump in the first place.
replyreportdelete
412834
Anonymous
Also, on the subject of women's rights and sexual assault, on the day of the Inauguration, the Trump Administration's incarnation of the DoJ has already made moves to eliminate Violence Against Women protections.
replyreportdelete
412837
Anonymous
>412828
>Bastards parting gesture was to pardon four leaders of a Cartel organization with the proviso that they start a war on our border.
Somewhat relevant, I heard that he pardoned (or severely shortened the sentence of) Chelsea Manning. Now that is how to piss off Trump and his supporters properly; Chelsea (formerly known as Bradley) is a trans woman and a Snowden-grade military whistleblower.
replyreportdelete
412838
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
Saw this linked elsewhere.

https://twitter.com/MrTrunney/status/822580347409932290

Look at him about to cry after he stumbles away. Look at the fucking Neo-Nazi about to cry.
replyreportdelete
412839
Anonymous
savepng94.631KB
¿¿¿.png
243207
>412833
>Women who support Trump believe women don't have feelings or matter
replyreportdelete
412840
Anonymous
>412839
Women, LGBT people and non-Whites who voted Trump don't deserve their identities, because they don't think they deserve equal rights and aren't ready to defend themselves. You can't be a proud woman or proud black man and vote Trump.
replyreportdelete
412841
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>412839

Any woman who willingly and knowingly voted for Trump did so knowing about his treatment and opinions of women. Their only concern was themselves, because if they were concerned about women in general, they would not have voted for a man whose administration and political party despises the autonomy of women in virtually every way. Their opinions do not matter any more.
replyreportdelete
412842
Anonymous
>412841
And this is what I was talking about with the rust belt Quislings. Trump will demonstrate to them the consequences of betrayal.
replyreportdelete
412843
Anonymous
>412839
Women who voted for Trump consider their whiteness more important than their womanhood, and voted for white supremacy.
replyreportdelete
412844
Anonymous
>412843
that and anti-abortionism
replyreportdelete
412847
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
savegif2.747MB
qEuxYVe.gif
640360
The guy who assaulted Richard Spencer should be arrested for assault. It is only fair.

That said: I feel absolutely no pity or sorrow for that Neo-Nazi fuck because he got punched in the face.
replyreportdelete
412848
Anonymous
Nazis: We'd like to exterminate you.
*eats shit super hard it's so good I could watch it forever*
Nazis: HOW COULD YOU ASSAULT A FELLOW HUMAN BEING?
replyreportdelete
412849
Anonymous
savegif753.923KB
shrugs.gif
500339
>412847
Apparently he got punched on at least two separate occasions today.
replyreportdelete
412850
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>412848

At the end of that video, it looks like that Neo-Nazi shitstain is actually about to cry, and that is the only truly good thing about this shitty, shitty day. That look on his face is going to carry me through this weekend.

As Mike Tyson said, "Everybody has a plan 'til they get punched in the mouth."
replyreportdelete
412851
Anonymous
>412850
My favorite is the people torn about it being all, "b-b-but won't that just make them more likely to be violent" and I'm just like "what the fuck do you think the endgame for them is, politely asking everyone else to leave?"
replyreportdelete
412852
Anonymous
>412851
I like the people sneering at the libruls encouraging violence in response to "differing opinions", like advocating for black genocide is any regular political belief
replyreportdelete
412853
Anonymous
>412852
Well to be fair

it's not an uncommon one these days

(I hope Milo eats it next)
replyreportdelete
412854
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>412851

Peaceful protests are all well and good, and more power to people who do peaceful protests for the purpose of affecting change. But peaceful protests generally do not affect Neo-Nazi fucks like him. They do not scare people who are intent on violent action as a way of silencing dissent (or just as a way of getting rid of "undesirables").

You cannot solve all problems with violence, but sometimes you have to deal with a stubborn son of a bitch who thinks he can. And when dealing with those kinds of assholes, violence is often the only language they understand.
replyreportdelete
412855
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>412852

I also consider it amusing that the same kinds of people who were bitching for eight years about Obama being a secret Kenyan Muslim terrorist suddenly want liberals to "stop being angry" and work with them, the Republicans, and Trump.

Nah. Fuck that shit.
replyreportdelete
412856
Anonymous
savejpg58.23KB
C2p6AipWgAITFeR.jpg
540765
replyreportdelete
412857
Anonymous
>412855
It's good to know you've come to your senses on this.

Accept no deals with Republicans. Do not compromise with Republicans. If a Republican loses coverage they voted away, offer them no pity or succor. Reject all poisoned offerings by Republicans. They have no plans that will work, we'll get our spot back eventually, in the meantime we just have to keep saying "no" and watching them flounder all their newfound powers and die.
replyreportdelete
412859
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>412857

The Republicans wanted all the power. Now they have the power — and the responsibility that goes with it. If the GOP fails to govern the country in a way that makes everyone better off than they were on the 19th of January 2017, it is the GOP alone that holds responsibility for such a failure. Any conservative who says otherwise has rejected reality.
replyreportdelete
412860
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
And for the record, I still advocate for bipartisanship and working with conservatives who are not fatalistic "fuck you, got mine" assholes who think politics is a zero-sum game where one "side" must win at the expense of everyone else. Any conservative willing to listen to and learn from other perspectives — any conservative still willing to compromise on policy and process if it means getting a better result for the general welfare of America — is a conservative I would like to work with.

But these zero-sum fuckheads who think their perspective is the only perspective that matters can fuck right off. I have ideas about how I think America can best advance forward into the 21st Century, but I am not foolish enough to believe my opinions and my ideas are the best ideas — or that they are even good ideas. The whole point of compromise, of politics as a whole, is to gather ideas together, figure out which of them are good for the general welfare of as many people as possible, and decide how to best implement those ideas as government policy.

For the past eight years, the Tea Party Republicans have scorched the earth that is Congressional politics. I would hope that they are not surprised when the Democrats refuse to help start another fire.
replyreportdelete
412861
Anonymous
>412860
>And for the record, I still advocate for bipartisanship and working with conservatives who are not fatalistic "fuck you, got mine" assholes who think politics is a zero-sum game where one "side" must win at the expense of everyone else
If you find some, let us know.
replyreportdelete
412862
Anonymous
in the meantime
https://twitter.com/prttybadtweeter/status/822620848897069056
replyreportdelete
412863
Anonymous
This is what happens when you meme outside of the safety of a keyboard. If you're going to talk shit, expect to get hit. You try and push people's buttons, to get an emotional reaction out of them, and they will respond, violently. It's why police have to protect real-life shit posters like Westbro Baptist Church.
replyreportdelete
412864
Anonymous
man

how weird is it that the one thing the cops AREN'T likely to do in the coming years is try and take our crops?
replyreportdelete
412866
Anonymous
>412862
>412863
I can't play twitter videos (I don't know why). Can someone explain?
replyreportdelete
412867
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>412863

Spencer was not actually saying anything overtly provocative just before he was punched. He was not trying to incite violence against others or espouse any sort of hateful message. Now, I will agree that his general ideology is hateful and deserves as much shit as anyone can give. But that alone does not excuse his getting punched.

Let us have no illusions here: Spencer and his Neo-Nazi fuckhead friends will use that punch as an excuse to intensify their rhetoric. We may feel some inner satisfaction at seeing Spencer get decked in the face, but that smugness does not help liberals change minds. If anything, celebrating that act of violence may make things worse.

We want to see people like Spencer get what they "deserve" — to see their hateful ideology reputed in the most direct and viscerally satisfying way possible. But violence for the sake of violence, violence done only to make us "feel better", does not accomplish much in the long term. What should matter more in six months: that punch, or the work of protestors, dissenters, and political activists dedicated to keeping Trump and the GOP in check? What do we risk by celebrating that act of violence, or by giving in to our worse impulses and dehumanizing people like Spencer?
replyreportdelete
412869
Anonymous
>412867
>Let us have no illusions here: Spencer and his Neo-Nazi fuckhead friends will use that punch as an excuse to intensify their rhetoric.
>412851
replyreportdelete
412870
Anonymous
>412867
>Spencer was not actually saying anything overtly provocative just before he was punched

That's the thing though, most likely he wasn't getting punched spur-of-the-moment. It is far more likely someone saw him, recognized him from things he's said and typed earlier, and punched him, or they found out where he was going to be in public and tracked him down to punch him.

I recognize that Spencer has the right to freedom of speech, that's why I brought up the Westbro Baptist Church. They too have the freedom of speech, and choose to exert it in such a way that they know will be incredibly inflammatory and make people mad. They however have the sense to get police protection, because no matter how high-minded your laws are, many people work on emotions, and that's something you'd think neo-nazis like Spencer who make their trade in exploiting those emotions would have realized. So, I certainly have no sympathy for him whatsoever.
replyreportdelete
412871
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>412869

I meant more in the sense that they will now be more willing to openly call for violence than they would have been if Spencer had gone un-punched.

Do not mistake my post for a complete condemnation of Spencer getting an alt-right to the face. He is still a Neo-Nazi fuckhead, and I have no sympathy for him. But on the other hand, he was assaulted without provocation, and that is not something I want to completely condone, either. It is a tough position to consider, moreso because Spencer is a Neo-Nazi; his ideology makes him an "easy" or "deserving" target, but he is still a person. If he had been shot instead of punched, what kind of conversation would we be having? How far is "too far" with regards to violence against Neo-Nazis like Spencer? How do we balance the satisfaction of seeing a Neo-Nazi punched in the face with basic empathy for other people — in other words, how do we avoid becoming as inhuman towards Neo-Nazis as they are towards everyone that Neo-Nazis hate?
replyreportdelete
412872
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>412870

The Westboro wingnuts ask for police protection? I assumed they refused that sort of thing on the grounds that they want people to assault them (that gives the wingnuts standing to sue the assaulters).

I know the police show up to Westboro protests because of a likelihood of provocation leading to violence, but I did not think the Westboro nutjobs themselves asked for such protection.
replyreportdelete
412873
Anonymous
>412871
>If he had been shot instead of punched, what kind of conversation would we be having? How far is "too far" with regards to violence against Neo-Nazis like Spencer? How do we balance the satisfaction of seeing a Neo-Nazi punched in the face with basic empathy for other people — in other words, how do we avoid becoming as inhuman towards Neo-Nazis as they are towards everyone that Neo-Nazis hate?
Being soft on Nazis doesn't work. If he got shot there'd be zero reason to give a fuck beyond the propaganda angle.
replyreportdelete
412877
Slowmobile
>412871
This post is too soft.
>412873
This post is too hard.
replyreportdelete
412882
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>412873
>412877

See, this is part of the issue I am having. You cannot debate Nazism; there is no merit in the ideology, and there is no sense in pretending a Nazi can be debated into believing otherwise. Even I am not foolish enough to believe otherwise. But the only "solution" to Nazism cannot be violence — even just non-lethal violence. It can be a tool in stopping Nazism from coming to power (and an important one at that), but it cannot be the only tool.

They want us to act like the worthless inhuman scum they believe we are. It gives them more fuel for their propaganda. We can act better than that; we are better than them. And while seeing a smug prick like Spencer get his jaw jacked is as satisfying as watching a action movie villain get what they have coming to them, it cannot be our one and only option for dealing with Nazism. Shit, an entire group of Neo-Nazis and white supremacists threatened an entire town, and that town peacefully protested the Neo-Nazis as a show of solidarity with its small Jewish population[1]. (The cowards never showed up in town, and it is probable that they never will.) Resistance to Nazism is not just about punching Neo-Nazis dickheads in the face — it is about making their ideology obsolete and powerless.

[1] https://www.yahoo.com/news/how-the-tiny-montana-ski-town-of-whitefish-defeated-its-neo-nazi-trolls-and-became-a-national-model-of-resistance-225557686.html
replyreportdelete
412884
Anonymous
>412882
Alternatively: fuck that, there is nothing more American than killing Nazis, the only good Nazi is a dead Nazi, and killing Nazis is the best proven solution to a Nazi problem.
replyreportdelete
412885
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
https://www.popehat.com/2017/01/21/on-punching-nazis/

See, this is the kind of nuanced view on the issue that I can respect (and hopefully learn from).
replyreportdelete
412887
Anonymous
>412856
People who post images like this are usually fascist themselves, they just don't have enough self-awareness to realize it.
replyreportdelete
412890
Anonymous
>412885
>primary assumption and conclusion is that the guy being punched always deserves being punched
>nuanced view
What the hell?

If someone insults you or says something shitty to you, you don't get to punch them. Insult them back all you want, but you don't get to cross that line. If someone punches your friend, you don't get to punch them. You call the police, who do the punching for you, because this is how we've structured our society to be the most fair. Any modification of this system is inherently LESS fair, and you are a bad person for wanting things to be LESS fair.

Physical violence against a person is only ok in response to physical violence from that specific person towards you specifically, and only as long as it takes them to stop attacking you. If you break this one simple rule, you WILL deal with the consequences and punishment meted out for doing something immoral, wrong, and against the precepts of our society.
replyreportdelete
412896
Anonymous
savepng1.241MB
phpgFNhQG
1280960
spoiler
AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHA! THIS IS YOUR HERO!

>412851
>"what the fuck do you think the endgame for them is, politely asking everyone else to leave?"
Actually our plan is to arrest criminals and deport them, instead of just freeing them on the streets or ignoring their crimes which is what Obama did.

Though if you keep being retarded about it we'll pretty much be forced to defend ourselves and shoot you morons that bring fists to funfights.
You meaning rich white hipsters because lets face it none of you cucks are actual mexicans.
Mark my words leftists will be crying about a Trump supported defending themselves with a gun and putting one of you baklava wearing coward leftist in the ground when you punch people from behind and run away.
replyreportdelete
412897
Anonymous
savejpg179.53KB
phpcAKBiO
15591041
Aaaaaand what do you know, Trump supporting Chinaman gives an Antifa cuck a proper response.

https://vid.me/V3JL

The look on his dumb fucking face
>I CANT BELIEVE YOU SHOT ME
LELELELELELEL
replyreportdelete
412987
Anonymous
>412890
>If someone punches your friend, you don't get to punch them. You call the police, who do the punching for you
No, you can totally protect others on their behalf.
replyreportdelete


File selected.
top