Nazis flee before Justice and Liberty, as like most 12 year olds they think girls will give them cooties.
The brave people of this thread will sure defeat the evil nazis by posting.
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. To wit, Trump's recent firing spree echoes the action of another time:
Time stamp that didn't translate in the auto-link: 2h26m34s
Nazism can't be beaten by allowing it to be normalized out of apathy, no matter how much you like to pretend that not giving a shit about what's going on around you is a virtue.
Daniel Ragsdale, the acting director of ICE, has been replaced by Thomas Homan.
Ragsdale was targeted by Breitbart last year.
Once again, Steve Bannon is using Donald Trump as a tool to destroy the government.
Trump is... Keeping Obama's protections of LGBT employees.
Good Donald. That's... A good Donald. Hm.
So let's see what the SCOTUS pick is like.
He does not need an EO to undo those protections.
He needs only to sign the First Amendment Defense Act, which Congress will pass.
Also: The statement's bit about protecting LGBTQ people from "violence and oppression" is a dogwhistle — "we will kill Muslims and say it was to protect you", in other words.
We'll always have laughing at Chris Christie
Jeez, it's almost like this administration is militarily incompetent.
That slow pan out at the end to reveal Giuliani is amazing
Gorsuch is another Scalia, and every D senator must stay mindlessly opposed until the filibuster is nuked, or face an immediate letter of condemnation from the rest. Mindless obstruction.
And for today's evening gutpunch...
>The brave people of this thread will sure defeat the evil nazis by posting.
Maybe if they smash passersby in the back of the head with a blunt object, like a padlock or a wrench.
Surely causing brain damage to strangers stops a political party from 1939, right?
>protections of LGBT employees.
IM ORGANIZING A PROTEST AGAINST THIS IN WASHINGTON GUYS WE CANT LET THIS NAZI GET AWAY WITH IT. HE ALSO CANCELLED TPP WHICH PISSED OFF SO MANY INNOCENT BABY CEO! TRUMP STOPPED LOBBYING, CAN YOU IMAGINE? NO PRESIDENT WAS THIS EVIL!
>IM ORGANIZING A PROTEST AGAINST THIS
So you plan to organize or join protests against the First Amendment Defense Act (a bill that will legalize anti-gay discrimination) either before Congress passes it or after Trump signs it?
Well, that sucks. Who came up with the pipeline anyway?
Also, this whole story reminds me of Hitchhiker's Guide. Why weren't people aware of the project before it was approved?
I imagine there was some opposition before the Native Americans started standing against it, but the whole "this pipeline will be running through Native American lands largely without their approval" thing and the subsequent protests raised visibility.
Likely because their tribal government screwed them over for quick cash. Yeah turns out that leaving native americans alone in reservations didn't mean they would exactly develop the best systems of government possible.
And now they're complaining to the federal government, blaming white people, and not holding their own tribal governments to account. So this will happen again.
This is very interesting to hear.
Can you back that up?
Right now all that oil is being transferred over rail, which is hundreds of times more dangerous and expensive. So a bunch of oil companies and banks got together to make a cheaper solution, and they followed
As for the pipeline it's actually outside of the reservation and the standing rock sioux are just being retarded. They're claiming extra land is theirs because of a treaty from 1851, but this treaty was nullified after Red Clouds war.
Short overview: Crow tribe held rights to a rich buffalo hunting ground. The Lakota invaded, took this territory, and ethnically cleansed the Crow. The Crow went to the US government for assistance, and the Indians actually won. Which changed their reservation boundaries slightly on one end (the end the pipeline is going through) and extended it greatly over the buffalo hunting grounds.
Sorry but they don't get to ignore a bunch of wars they fought and start off with 200% of the lands they agreed to. They signed away the rights to that land from a position of power after winning the war.
Jorge Castañeda Gutman threatens America with Cartel violence.
I think it's time we invade Mexico and overthrow their government.
It's a guess, I don't know anything about the problem.
The pipeline will leak, it will cause massive damage to innocent people, and taxpayers will take care of the bill.
It's a law of nature at this point. Trickle down never works. The media will always be called pro-left no matter how unfair it is to Democrats. Pipelines will leak.
>Right now all that oil is being transferred over rail, which is hundreds of times more dangerous and expensive
I'm guessing you got the whole "Pipelines are safer!" angle from the Fraser Institute, which is a Canadian conservative think-tank that actually took money from the tobacco industry while opposing second-hand smoke studies back in late 90s so... not exactly inspiring a ton of confidence here as people who are interested in the well-being of the population.
>The pipeline will leak
Well someone is pessimistic. Or... maybe someone is planning to make it leak. I think I'm going to archive this website in case an Eco Terrorist should blow up the pipeline. Just in case.
Bit tobacco and big oil are in it together? Never thought I'd see genuine hippie tinfoil again, I thought your drug fueled conspiracy theories ended in the 80s. Wonder what fresh powder is fueling them now.
>accusing anonymous image board posters of planning to sabotage the pipeline while calling them conspiracy theorists
Why do people still reply to /pol/-kun?
Because he's dumb and we're bored.
Would this have been better or worse than what Bannon/Miller would have come up with
>Most terrorism is committed by Islamic terrorists.
>Second most? Socialist eco terrorists.
>Now we're counting words? How many times did Obama say I, I, I, I, me, me, me, in his GTFO speech?
the deflection is strong in this one
They make it sound like the bombs are going off by themselves instead of Russia dropping them
Guess they're sticking by https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/760095370185674752
I meant back up that the n.americans' government betrayed their own people.
my, how convenient
The fuck are you on about? Do you not know who Frederick Douglass is either, Misha?
I know he's a black dude the leftists worship, I don't really care about him beyond that.
I assume it's some cliche, black guy being normal, reading books, writing books, dressing normally, you know like everyone else.
Leftists lose their shit at the sight of it, because deep down leftists are racist bigots and think far less of blacks, leftists think its exceptional when black people act normally.
Am I close?
I just want to thank /pol/-kun for making us all feel better about our own intelligence by showing off how little he knows about literally everything every time he talks. This latest Frederick Douglass thing is a fine example of him showing off how the rise of Trump is really just a symptom of the failure of public education to reach idiots,.
He was a former slave who escaped and became a leader of the abolitionist movement (not to mention a living argument against the idea that Black people were too dumb to be independent citizens). One minute of reading his Wikipedia entry could have told you that. You could not even bother to look him up on Wikipedia.
I would say you should feel ashamed, but we all know you have no sense of shame. You cannot feel embarassed or humiliated. You cannot even feel guilt. At this point, the only thing you seem to feel is nothing. Would you be willing to talk about how 4chan destroyed your sense of sincerity and made you a heartless shitposter who can only laugh at the pain and misery of others?
Yes, you are exactly right. Frederick Douglass is still alive, just like Trump and Spicer seem to think.
Fucker can't even get along with Australia
So remember how Clinton's no-fly zone in Syria would lead to threats of invading Mexico and a war with all of Islam and maybe even China?
And how Hillary was planning to give white nationalists and militia groups in the US free reign to do whatever by concentrating all anti-extremism efforts on "radical Islamic terrorism"?
At least you don't blindly follow one "side". Bravo, sire.
>He was a former slave who escaped and became a leader of the abolitionist movement
>a living argument against the idea that Black people were too dumb to be independent citizens
What do you know, I was right.
>You could not even bother to look him up on Wikipedia.
Because why should I fucking care?
All leftists heroes are essentially minorities doing normal things.
All leftists suffer from the bigotry of low expectations.
Remember when Mexico threatened to invade us with cartel? Remember when the middle east was totally destabilized? Remember when antifa and blm thugs are going around torturing folks beating people up in the streets?
You don't have to try hard to remember, it's happening as we fucking speak.
It's really quite curious how Trump supporters all seem to have problems with famous black people and those opposed to fascism.
>All leftists heroes are essentially minorities doing normal things.
Douglass escaped the slavery into which the majority of Black people were born or forced into at the time, became known as a great orator — better than even Northerners thought he could ever be because of his race — and helped lead the abolitionist movement. King marched against white supremacy and the gross mistreatment of Black people in America, knowing that he risked his life by doing so — oh, and he also preached non-violent resistance toward unjust laws and racist assholes like the cops that beat people at Selma. (A lot of people forget that "resistance" part.) You can look back on those things with the benefit of hindsight and say "that's normal behavior" or "you have low standards if you think that's heroic". But back in their respective times, Douglass and King did extraordinary things for men who were second- or even third-class citizens in a country built partially upon a disdain for Black people. You have expressed a grave ignorance of what those two men accomplished and who they were as both Black men and Americans. Find the courage to learn more about their lives, to learn why they are regarded as civil rights heroes and great Americans. Do not venerate them with blind (and vaguely racist) platitudes about "doing normal things" just so you can dilute their legacies and make them palatable for White people.
It's funny how you label a racist everyone who criticizes you for being immoral.
You have expressed a grave ignorance for the hundreds of thousands of European-Americans who didn't just talk about it, they fought and died to end slavery. None of these people are civil rights heroes, because their skin tone isn't dark enough for your expectations to be lowered.
Do you know how many British ships, and how much British gold was sunk into ending slave trade across oceans? Until 2007 Europeans have fought to stop African countries from practicing slavery, we bribed them until they officially stopped. Some Arab nations still OPENLY practice slavery. Which is ironic because you'll probably defend Africans, Arabs and Islam to your death, while spitting on the only culture to ever stop slavery. You want to fight fascism and slavery? Go to the Middle East and Africa, if you dare.
You're also probably misinformed enough to be surprised by this but, news flash, not all slaves are black throughout history. Blacks weren't all slaves even in America, where the majority of slaves were European or East Asian, two groups that are highest performing in American society today.
No credit for stopping slavery you started. No credit for not starting slavery in the first place.
Military officials say Trump ordered Yemen mission without enough intel, ground support or prep. That Benghazi came fast.
He didn't actually call you racist, you just inferred it because of the fact that you consider knowing important figures in civil rights history to be beneath you and are afraid that most rational people would consider that to be racist. Because deep in your heart even you know that your white supremacy isn't popular with the mainstream--it's why you come up with "secret terms" to mask your philosophy, like calling misogyny "Men's Rights" and calling racism "Ethnic Realism" and calling being sexually frustrated "GamerGate" and calling your fascist movement "the alt-right."
sorry but i'm not buying any history lessons from someone who doesn't even know who frederick douglass is
Don't forget calling sexism, misandry and mewling cynicism "evopsych".
Are you seriously ignorant enough to think Europeans started slavery?
>Military officials say Trump ordered Yemen mission without enough intel, ground support or prep.
Which military officials? SEAL team itself says that despite being able to abort, they entered knowing the situation had changed, and weren't ordered in. This is what they do.
Although I'm sure you'd be just fine if he went the Obama method and carpet bombed the place.
>american history is only history
Do you know who Julian Stachiewicz is?
>newborn babies are misandrist because they choose colors/toys according to gender
>newborn babies are sexist because they choose colors/toys according to gender
I don't get what mewling cynicism is about.
Funny how people I think you are also happen to be retarded. I'm not calling you retarded, just the entire group of people I think you're in. This would mean you're retarded by inference, I'm just not directly calling you that.
>You have expressed a grave ignorance for the hundreds of thousands of European-Americans who didn't just talk about it, they fought and died to end slavery.
Allow me to steal a line from Paul Heyman circa this past Monday: "Yeah, but."
Did a White American end slavery? Yeah, but the settlers, colonizers, Founding Fathers, and White Americans up to the time of emanicpation were the ones who forced Africans and their American-born descendants into slavery. Does Lincoln deserve the credit for freeing the slaves? Yeah, but White Americans as a whole do not deserve credit for one man freeing slaves into lives of third-class citizenry. Has America made strides toward better treatment of Black Americans? Yeah, but consider how many Black people had to suffer and die to win both their freedom and the basic civil rights that all White people were guaranteed by law before the Civil Rights Movement — and how many Black people still suffer at the hands of racist policing, racist politicians, racist policies, and racist White people who still think Black people should have to sit at the back of the bus (if they even think Black people should be on the bus to begin with).
Are you going to rebut this with a bunch of bullshit that furthers the idea of you being a white supremacist? Yeah, but no one here is going to take you all that seriously. Now go on and be a little Richard Spencer wannabe. Maybe you might convince us not to report you for being a blight upon these threads, you alt-whiner.
You don't really understand how inference works, so you? Not a surprise from someone who, given that he didn't know who Frederick Douglas is, probably didn't graduate high school.
>Military officials say Trump ordered Yemen mission without enough intel, ground support or prep.
Hoping this story blows up tomorrow. I'm afraid it's been overshadowed by the hoopla over him leaving unannounced for an "off-the-record" location that turned out to be the return of the Navy SEAL's remains.
And the golf club lawsuit he lost today.
And threatening war on Mexico
And putting Iran "on notice." And pooping his pants over Australia. And radio silence on the fighting in Ukraine.
You know, it's starting to seem like this Trump guy doesn't understand his job.
The more time you spend in this thread, the stronger that feeling gets.
He does not have to understand it. If he delegates power to people like Bannon, Trump would not need to carry it out in full. He needs only to look like the man in charge while his cronies do all the work. His ego needs the appearance of having power to survive.
He went to a prayer breakfast and asked people to pray for The Apprentice because ratings bad. And non-aggressively and casually told a chaplain "To hell with it" in response to something.
That raid that killed an 8-year old American and a SEAL? Obama refused because of discouraging intel.
I expect the BENGHAZI people to demand a full hearing withing the week.
Rival tribes captured and enslaved those Africans, and forced them into slavery, Europeans had nothing to do with it.
Lincoln did not "free the slaves", one man couldn't have possibly freed slaves against the wishes of ALL OTHER AMERICANS.
I've considered how many Africans had to suffer and die to win their freedom.
Now you consider how many Africans kept suffering and dying in Africa for centuries after African-Americans gained their freedom, because their fellow Africans would not die to free them.
Now you consider the far larger number of Europeans that had to suffer and die to win freedom for slaves everywhere and of all colors. Isn't it nobler to fight for someone elses rights than your own? One is altruism, the other is just self interest.
Actually non-blacks weren't guaranteed civil rights, as I said before most slaves were European and East Asian. European men did not have universal right to vote until 1870, when they received it along with men of other ethnicities.
European women were enfranchised at roughly the same period, starting in west coast in 1869 until the last state holdout in 1920.
In 1965 European-Americans gained the right to vote without paying a poll tax, along with African-Americans.
In 1971 European-Americans gained the right to vote after 18 years of age, along with African-Americans.
Most of the civil rights strides happened concurrently with all races and sexes, with a ridiculously small variance in time period for different group, in 99% of cases no variance at all.
And the civil rights movement didn't emancipate slaves, moron.
What's the number of unarmed blacks that get shot. What's the number of unarmed whites that get shot. What's the number of police interactions for each subgroup.
>racist White people who still think Black people should have to sit at the back of the bus
Do you want to have an honest discussion about the Leftist obsession with segregation?
Ironically also true of exposure to other hallucinogens.
>That raid that killed
The raid didn't kill the 8 year old girl or the SEAL, terrorists killed them both. The SEAL volunteered knowing the danger, and that girls mother took her into an Al Qaeda headquarters, I'm not seeing where Trump gets the blame for their deaths.
Also ironic considering you're perfectly fine with Obama executing that girls American father without a trial, where he actually does get the blame because it wasn't a terrorist that pulled the trigger but Obama ordering a drone operator to do it.
Just a question: Would it have been better if Trump bombed the place from a drone, Obama-style? Then there'd be no dead SEAL, and the girls remains (as well as a few hundred other civilians) would be vaporized so you wouldn't know about that.
Ignorance is bliss.
>Jerry Falwell Jr. to lead education task force, expected to focus on campus sexual assault regulations
White male incel libertarians and fascists are going to be real happy. Millions of White men that are left useless and unwanted (because women are allowed to have jobs and don't need to sell their bodies through marriage to low-grade men to survive) are going to be able to force their way into the gene pool.
Don't argue with Mr Stephen on politics, he is currently high on political debate, and "fighting the evil racist sexist nazis". It gives him purpose in life.
Yes, you are correct, but he will not listen.
>The SEAL volunteered knowing the danger
And ultimately Trump killed him by being unintelligent and unfit. Or rather, Trump's voters did by being unintelligent and unfit for democracy and American citizenship.
>Also ironic considering you're perfectly fine with Obama executing that girls American father without a trial, where he actually does get the blame because it wasn't a terrorist that pulled the trigger but Obama ordering a drone operator to do it.
I am. Drones are a bad business but still the best way to deal with terrorists from an ethical and economical standpoint. Don't be such a weakling.
>I expect the BENGHAZI people to demand a full hearing withing the week.
I don't expect this because I don't give them enough credit to assume they were motivated by anything but naked partisan politics.
>I expect the BENGHAZI people to demand a full hearing withing the week.
I'm sure Chaffetz will ha no I can't even finish this sentence
And of course, blame Obama, even though he deferred approval of the operation to the next administration in the hopes that they'd have gathered better intelligence and would deliberate their strategy. Too bad his successor turned out to be a manchild that doesn't have the patience to sit through Bloodsport.
I like how Trump okayed the mission over dinner, too. Remember "HILLARY SLEPT THROUGH BENGHAZI"?
So wait killing civilians and terrorists in a drone strike is morally different from killing civilians and terrorist with a SEAL strike? How?
Do you realize those SEALs recovered vital documents from the headquarters?
Benghazi is the State Department refusing to send protection to a beseiged embassy.
This is a SEAL dying while performing his duties.
If you think the second is a scandal you're fucking retarded.
It is a scandal because the cracker sent them in with insufficient intelligence because it thinks it knows more than the generals, and you other crackers and submental dirt-movers and liabilities believed it because it was White and wore a suit.
Also, an Osprey that could have paid for the NEA budget got destroyed.
>If you think the second is a scandal you're fucking retarded.
If you think an incompetent president getting SEALs killed unnecessarily because he doesn't understand basic strategy and doesn't listen to intelligence briefings isn't a scandal then you're an awful human being.
He was tweeting while the raid was going on, instead of being in the situation room.
When SJWs, the educated and non-Whites get their way, the president is admired all over the world and radiates dozens of positive qualities everywhere she goes.
When non-educated Whites prevail, the president is a treasonous, lazy, infantile rapist without a single redeeming quality that is only appreciated by the subhuman congregation of cultureless apes that call themselves "Russians". The White western part of the world is irrevocably lost and that is for the better. Evolutionary selection is coming for us.
>non-educated Whites prevail
If supposedly dump people got in power, where were the "smart" ones? Doesn't that make smart people into idiots?
Smart people are rare. The redeemable, non-retarded ones got duped by Comey.
>If supposedly dump people got in power, where were the "smart" ones?
Gerrymandered in such a way to ensure that three million of their votes got thrown away.
>This is a SEAL dying while performing his duties.
No, it's an incompetent sending troops into a mission that was doomed to fail from the start because he has no attention span and doesn't give a shit about doing his job if it's not immediately self-gratifying, which is why we have military officials leaking about it and laying the blame at his feet.
Please be more respectful towards the president, you racist.
Except the SEALs themselves say they volunteered, then decided to go forward with bad intel despite being able to abort.
Dead SEALs good enough for you to use as tools, but living ones aren't good enough for you to listen to?
>be more respectful towards the president
If criticizing Trump somehow equates to "treason", what were all those effigies of Obama with nooses around their necks — "mild suggestions about public policy"?
Come on, two wrongs don't make a right.
They make a left.
>two wrongs don't make a right.
It does all the time. For example, maceing White subhumans that don't deserve California and teaching Berkeley the financial and reputational costs of inviting nazis to campus ensured Milo couldn't tell the SS where the undocumented students are on stage. That's a "wrong" response to a wrong situation, resulting in something wonderful.
So retract, you milk-hearted cuntsoul.
On the other hand, it brought shitloads of attention to Milo, who will now be held up as something of a martyr of his cause.
(If Berkeley had never approved his appearance in the first place, however, he would not have gotten nearly as much attention. So that shit is on them.)
Arkansas just passed a law that will let a rapist sue his victim for having an abortion.
But let's make sure we fight radical islamists so they don't make life worse for our precious females.
>Please be more respectful towards the president, you racist.
As the BEST president (Teddy Roosevelt) said, criticizing, ridiculing, and in all ways disrespecting the president is not only the right of every American, but a form of patriotism.
It's no coincidence that the worst president (Donald Trump) is working so hard to undo the great work of the best president, like downsizing the national parks program.
The bill (now law) bans the most common form of abortion in the second trimester by turning the performance of such an abortion into a felony. Oh, and it gives a woman's spouse, parent, or guardian the right to sue an abortion provider to prevent the woman from ever having an abortion (and win monetary damages, if possible). And as implied by your post, the bill contains no exceptions for rape or incest. While the bill prohibits a father from winning monetary damages in the event of rape or incest, it does not prevent that father from suing to have the abortion stopped.
Under this law, a husband could rape his wife, file a lawsuit to force her into giving birth, and keep his parental rights if he is not convicted of raping her. And Arkansas just made sure that is now a situation that could actually happen. I can only hope the ACLU and other legal groups get that law stopped before it goes into full effect.
>So retract, you milk-hearted cuntsoul.
Alright, lets be honest, I agree. No one deserves California, hell itself has banned that punishment.
>Under this law, a husband could rape his wife, file a lawsuit to force her into giving birth, and keep his parental rights if he is not convicted of raping her.
Gee, who in the current administration would have a personal reason to want to see marital rape laws still allow him to push around the wife he raped but wasn't convicted for thanks to a technicality of law?
In the tiniest bit of fairness to the living Cheetoh, his being in office only emboldened the Arkansas legislature to pass this bill into law. He did not write it or personall help pass it. I understand the desire to rip on Trump for every little thing, but do not act as if he personally had something to do with this one. (That said, I doubt he would disapprove of this law.)
where were you when bowling green massacre was happen?
i was at home eating cereal when kellyanne ring
"green bowling is kill"
How dare she bring up the Bowling Green Massacre just to score political points. What a fucking bitch.
>a rapist could
>if he is not convicted of raping her.
Wow so if a criminal gets away with a crime, that's actually bad?
I didn't know that.
We should make a law that makes it illegal for criminals to get away with crimes!
This will incentivize juries and judges to declare rapists not guilty in case he seems like the only one ready to sue to save the fetus. Southern Christians, even judges, can't be trusted with any civic duty or decency.
This is your personal opinion, and weird conspiracy theory.
You realize just thinking about it doesn't actually make it real, right?
It is really not a conspiracy theory. If people who are anti-abortion will literally kill people to stop abortions, I can believe they would let a rapist go free to prevent an abortion — doubly so in a case of spousal rape.
How did a man with a golden apartment run as a populist and get people to believe him, again?
I get it.
We should disbar all christian judges because of anti abortion assaults, disbar all muslim judges because of islamic terrorism, disbar all jewish judges because of gaza, disbar all latino judges because of cartels, and disbar all black and female judges because of assata shakur.
Great plan, you're a genius, only white, male, atheist judges allowed.
Because people that look similar think the same thoughts.
The "pro-life" side of the abortion debate has a long history of going beyond mere debate. They have harassed women trying to get an abortion, bombed abortion clinics, and — in a few rare instances — actually killed abortion doctors. To believe that someone who is against abortion might help a rapist go free to prevent an abortion is not a stretch; it is an extrapolation of the varied lengths to which some people will go just so they can prevent abortions.
Even if this were not the case, a trial on spousal rape might still go in favor of the rapist. (A not-zero number of people believe you cannot rape your spouse, after all.) A situation where a husband can rape his wife and legally force her to birth the child conceived from that rape is no longer a frightening hypothetical or a relic of the past — not in Arkansas, anyway.
Man, pol kun is so consistently on the side of rapists. And he voted for a rapist. Really makes you wonder about his own proclivitissues.
Wonder if he's an actual incel or if he just never had a consenting partner.
Being a virgin is no excuse for being on the side of rapists, anon.
STICKING UP FOR THE LITTLE GUY
SENDING A MESSAGE TO WASHINGTON
And that message is, "Rob them. Rob them so blind. Do it while I am still in office and Pence will make sure you can keep robbing them after I'm gone."
Thank god. Kind of sick of Obama's corporatism.
Yes, welcome to a whole new era of ACTUAL corporatism, not that diet stuff of occasional bailouts and free trade.
Apparently all it took to destroy the left was find all the White males in it and teach them the words "corporatism" and "globalism", and suddenly they became more inane, irritating and cynical than the average libertarian.
Found the Sanders supporter who thinks Donna Brazile dissolved 3.7 primary votes for Bernie in acid. You feel like you're knowledgeable over there, throwing around terms from the Reddit's Non-normie Guide to Political Theory 101? You're the one who always kept up to date with current events and news in school while the other sheep talked about hanging out and going to movies together, right?
But you're right, some people on the left talk a bit too much about tiddies in videogames or toxic masculinity. You know who don't? Leftist politicians.
The reason I don't vote for rightwing politicians is not because I find their supporters so disgusting I want to jam their heads into the fryers at a fastfood place every time I have the misfortune of encountering them. It's because said politicians are dumb and want dumb or bad things.
What is retarded is the White guys who thinks preventing misogyny is a distraction and "identity politics" while giving cheaper college to poor people is NOT identity politics. How you're treated by society and the people around you is just as material as how much money you have.
If you're going to have a spergy fit and swear off the left forever the instant someone starts discussing stuff like racial inequality or birth control availability instead of "How do we get all the sad White dudes in the factory towns new 'proper' jobs so they can feel like men again?" then you don't have as much of a roadmap for the left as you think.
But burying neoliberalism and demanding higher taxes on the rich together with massive infrastructure investments and reeducation efforts, that I can get behind.
>some people on the left talk a bit too much about....toxic masculinity
That's something you can only really say when your life and freedoms aren't directly assailed by toxic masculinity. Or if you don't notice your life and freedoms being directly assailed by them--in many ways, men are affected the worst by the culture of toxic masculinity, but most men don't see their lives being affected that way. The same way so many women in the 40's didn't see society only seeing them as housewives and mothers as a problem, because most of them were raised and indoctrinated into that culture and saw it as natural and unchangeable.
As a man who wants the freedom to be my own person rather than being just another "bro," I find that feminism--and the people working toward it and not being swayed by people who try to belittle their accomplishments--to be doing far more to advance the cause of my own liberation from gender roles than so-called "men's rights" activists ever dreamed of. MRAs want to eliminate the advances we've made in freedom for men to be who they want to be because they think so little of men that they think we're all fucking neanderthals and those of us who aren't like themselves are only deluded by feminism into thinking that there's more to life than pussy. And even that seems to be more about gaining status amongst other bros than it is about what it purports to be about--I can respect a man slut. But I can't respect a man who uses his sex life as a bargaining chip for enhanced social status.
NOTHING that Trump supports is supported by the public, if explained to them in words they can understand. Repeal Dodd-Frank? Make it legal to poison your customers or their rivers? Make it possible for states to force women to carry rape-babies to term? The wall? None of it.
It's a big problem for democracy when appealing to the lowest instincts in the most degenerate and low-quality cohort of the electorate (White men and women without real educations) can give an exhaustively and thoroughly unpopular platform carte blanche, even in the extremely anti-democratic and racist system that the USA has picked.
You are correct and I am sorry for being sweeping.
When I say some on the left talk "a bot too much" about toxic masculinity, I should say "Some on the left are too focused on toxic masculinity or describe too much behavior as 'toxic masculinity' as if it applying a technical term to something makes you wise and competent".
I am a cishetero man, and living in the world of men that MRAs and /pol/-vermin want me to live in sounds like hell.
don't worry, you won't have to live in it long because there's no healthcare in it
Plus we're going to war with everyone.
And the banks and the rich are going to tank the economy for everyone but themselves. (Again.)
the one upside is if you can last long enough, you're probably going to see the hardest political pendulum swing you've ever imagined
Only if the left manages to get the votes of the LGBT-Americans, young women and non-Whites *without* appealing to them.
Because if you do that, millions of White men (especially the lonely and less wealthy ones) suddenly think they have a right to turn into murderous nazis.
If people actually show up, white men don't make up the majority of voters anymore. The issue with this last election wasn't that white people (because let's be honest here--the majority of white women also voted for Trump) were a majority that couldn't be fought. It was that the only people who showed up were the people who usually show up--older white people who have spare time and nothing better going on in their lives.
There's a fairly good chance that after the complete shitshow that the Trump Presidency is turning out to be, people are going to show up in 2020, and voter turnout is the worst thing for Republicans.
and this has served as enough of a wakeup call that the Dem base is finally putting guns to heads and making the Dems in Congress actually grow a spine, and with Ellison at the front of the DNC chair race the NDC's decrepit organizational skills won't command the DNC anymore
Now now, do not assume that White people were the only ones who showed up. Remember that voter suppression techniques and partisan gerrymandering also played a role.
>millions of White men
White men are like a third of the country, and a bit less of the voter base actually.
Also you're forgetting the legions of virginous cuckold Hillary missiles like Stone and YOURSELF, who I bet have a shade of skin slightly on the lighter side of talcum and at least a portion of an appendage resembling a penis.
Wait a minute.
How can I be both a virgin and a cuckold? Because, like, I am pretty damn sure I would need at least a girlfriend to be a cuckold and all. Can someone explain this logic to me? My brain is pretty fried right now thanks to the past couple of weeks.
...I want to be a Hillary missile now.
Same way Obama can be an atheist AND a muslim. Because words have no meaning to the alt-right.
It's fun how everyone on the right is pretending they are upset about drones all of a sudden. When you all actively support coal mine refuse in water and letting mentally ill people buy guns, it's pretty obvious civilian deaths is really not a big deal.
We've always been against drone strikes, Bush's support eroded because of it, his brother was unelectable because of it. In fact if Obama stopped drone strikes a lot more people would be on his side.
>support coal mine refuse in water
>letting mentally ill people buy guns
>civilian deaths is really not a big deal
Are you insane? Do you think conservatives mix in coal dust in their morning cereal because they think coal dust is cool? We disagree on the best way to preserve the environment, moron.
This is a whole new level strawman.....
>Do you think conservatives mix in coal dust in their morning cereal because they think coal dust is cool?
Well, conservative politicians get conservative voters to vote in favor of things that help companies pollute the environment, so…maybe?
>We disagree on the best way to preserve the environment, moron.
Preventing the environment from ever being polluted in the first place sounds like a good start.
You're misconstruing being against the EPA, a mismanaged incompetent out of control government agency which does shit like pic related, with helping companies "pollute the environment".
>Preventing the environment from ever being polluted in the first place sounds like a good start.
There are two ways to do that:
1. End industrialism, send us to the dark ages, kill 6.5 billion people.
2. Install filters everywhere.
>We disagree on the best way to preserve the environment, moron.
Like how when your unclefather conceived you without your auntmother's consent, the two were disagreeing on the definition of rape.
>You're misconstruing being against the EPA, a mismanaged incompetent out of control government agency which does shit like pic related, with helping companies "pollute the environment".
So you are against the government institution tasked with protecting the environment, but you want to protect the environment. What, do you want it privatized? Because I am pretty sure privatizing environmental protection is…not going to work out like you think it might.
It's like a video game boss having a meltdown
I'm just glad we're not living in an autocracy yet
>What, do you want it privatized?
They want everything privatized. They believe Free Market Jesus will solve all the world's problems based on....zero evidence in favor of that belief and numerous examples of it being untrue.
Because conservatives don't believe in evidence-based decisions.
>It's like a video game boss having a meltdown
Appropriate considering he's effectively Porky Minch.
Trying to live in a functioning nation that people want to impose trickle-down, supply-side and free market policies on is a bit like iving in a secular nation that ululating beardy pigfuckers want to force into Sharia. There is no real empiricism behind what they want the nation to emulate, but they don't actually care about what happens to the nation as long as they "win".
>So you are against the government institution tasked with protecting the environment, but you want to protect the environment.
Are you implying all government agencies fulfill their mandate perfectly? Be careful what you claim, your BLM/Antifa buddies might kill you for it.
>Because conservatives don't believe in evidence-based decisions.
Do ho ho, funny words coming from a big government socialist.
>Are you implying all government agencies fulfill their mandate perfectly?
I would be a fool if I said that. But if you believe privatizing the protection of the environment would be a better approach, you would be the bigger fool.
>Are you implying all government agencies fulfill their mandate perfectly? Be careful what you claim, your BLM/Antifa buddies might kill you for it.
Only an idiot lets the perfect become the enemy of the good. No solution is going to work perfectly. But of our long list of imperfect solutions, government agencies fulfill those mandates best in many cases.
>privatizing the protection of the environment
Where did anyone actually say that? You just pulled the accusation out of your ass and pretended that the discussion was about that.
Why do you enjoy raping hedgehogs Stone? Why? They're so innocent you monster!
Yeah the problem is it's not not even good. EPA has worsened environment significantly since it's creation. Besides they have way too much power for it to do any good, their own ignorance about the environment is hurting it.
Imagine if one EPA retard decides that cats are cute, and therefore feral cats should be protected.... feral cats that have made 33 species extinct so far. It's not even far fetched considering some other shit they've done.
For example - EPA protects mustangs (wild horses) which are an invasive species that endangers multiple native species. They protect mustangs because some EPA officials are (mentally) five year old girls that still like ponies.
This is your "good".
>Why do you enjoy raping hedgehogs Stone?
I dunno. When did you stop beating your wife?
So you admit that you beat your wife. Good to know, domestic abuser.
It is nice to see the democrats forced to put a little sand in their sack finally.
Hint: not actually him, was making joke.
Though really Stone, do you think that women would actually go near /pol/Lyn?
>"Forget that!" Trump says when O'Reilly presses him for data to prove that millions of people voted illegally.
Can we all agree that no non-lefty will ever be allowed to criticize any lefty for anything from now on?
The bit in that interview about Putin's critics turning up dead (read: being murdered by Putin's regime) and Trump brushing it off is…worrisome.
The main reason the non-left are trying to normalize Putin's dictatorship is both because they want to be on his good side and because they want to normalize his methods in advance of using them against their enemies and critics.
Now that Trump is pretending his travel ban is meant to make people safer and has screamed that judges are to be blamed if there is another terrorist attack, all it takes is one FSB-style operation and the GOP will be able to undo the constitution and the republic by subjugating the independent judiciary.
And Trump supporters will pat themselves on the back for subverting the rule of law despite the judiciary putting the US back on the same immigration/travel/visa standards of the past eight years.
(How many refugee-led terrorist attacks did we have over the past eight years, again?)
If my mother was as hopeful of winning the lottery as much as republicans are afraid of being killed by refugees, I wouldn't let her keep control of her savings.
They're not actually afraid of the refugees. Who could be? They're a tiny, tiny fraction of the population and most people are unlikely to ever meet a refugee, and those who do are unlikely to be that threatened by displaced families.
They're just using "fear of a terrorist attack" as the excuse for their bigotry. They don't give a shit about anything but the supremacy of the white, straight, christian anglosaxon males without accents.
>The main reason the non-left are trying to normalize Putin's dictatorship is both because they want to be on his good side and because they want to normalize his methods in advance of using them against their enemies and critics.
Now tell us why the left tried to normalize Putin's dictatorship.
Meh, a photo-op before Putin decided he wanted a Greater Russia. There is a difference between being blind-sided and trying to divide the world between Moscow and Washington again, which is what the non-left is happily doing but can't openly admit.
Trump orders out of control state full of deportables and defundables to harden the fuck up.
Riiight so when Trump does it, it's bad.
When Obama does it, it's good.
And you people wonder why you're not in charge anymore.
>lose popular vote in state
>throw hissy fit over it
>"threaten" to cut federal funding to state
>State provides Federal Government with a lion's share of its income
Mmm, another brilliant plan from bad hairpiece. What a fucking joke.
>state refuses to follow federal law
Obama threatened the same for multiple states that refused to force priests to marry gays. Obama actually followed through and denied funding to states that didn't sign up for Common Core, or refused to accept his retarded Unaffordable Care Act.
Let me guess though, this is another case of when Trump does it, it's bad - when Obama does it, it's good.
You're becoming predictable, and thus boring. Work on your troll skills.
/pol/-kun you should drop the emphatic bolding
i know you think you're dropping these hot GOTCHAs but it just makes you look even stupider
Pity /pol/-kun, he's merely furious that Cheeto isn't actually a King and that lies can't defeat the judiciary.
I thought you hated Obama, why do you keep justifying what Trump does with what Obama does?
Whataboutism is the key tenet of the Redcap faith. They have no actual reason to worship in the carrot demon, they can only point to other things and say that they disapprove it to justify trying to bring about the apocalypse.
>I thought you hated Trump's actions, why do you vilify them but glorify Obama's?
Obama tried to govern the country as a president. Trump is trying to rule it as a king.
>Trump is trying to rule it as a king.
And failing quite miserably at that.
So wait, Democrats lost because they "Whatabout" Bush and made excuses for Obama's actions...
...but you WON'T lose even though you are "wahtabout" Obama and making excuses for Trump's actions?
>And for eight years of Obama you were whatabouting Bush.
No, I absolutely wasn't. Nor were most people on the left.
You're not amongst your cronies here. You can't just rewrite reality and history to suit you here.
For the last few presidents of each party, 457 executive actions by republicans, 640 by democrats. Lately presidents on your side have been acting like kings. Trump could sign 410 orders and still be behind.
Obama acted like a king more than anything, fundamentally changing immigration, national health, education, banking, science and aerospace, transportation and our foreign policy for the worse.... appointing 45 people to replace elected officials for gods sake.
You don't even have the right to cry if Trump unilaterally replaces elected democrat Governors.
In fact every bit of power Trump has was put into his hands by Obamas unconstitutional actions, so like I said, enjoy the next 8 years.
>Lately presidents on your side have been acting like kings.
Gee, I wonder why Obama had to sign so many executive orders. I mean, it obviously has nothing to do with how the Republicans decided to stonewall Obama for nearly his entire presidency. Obviously.
>You don't even have the right to cry if Trump unilaterally replaces elected democrat Governors.
Governors, I am not worried about. The judiciary, on the other hand…well, Trump has already said he will blame that branch of government in the event of another terrorist attack within the US. Why would Trump supporters (and the GOP) object to removing the judiciary's power or independence if said supporters believe the judiciary must be held responsible for a terrorist attack?
>every bit of power Trump has was put into his hands by Obamas unconstitutional actions
So you have no problem with Trump using what you would call "unconstitutional" power, then?
>You don't even have the right to cry if Trump unilaterally replaces elected democrat Governors.
The courts would likely take umbrage with that.
The reason Obama's actions are okay is that he did objectively good things, elected as he was by real Americans, not wannabe-central Asians that want a stronk leader and glory to big brave fatherland. The more things are taken out of heartlanders' hands, the more grateful they should be.
>Bamer forced priests to marry gays
The constitution did that, says SCOTUS. Kill your family, then yourself.
Obergefell legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, but the ruling did not say "you can force a priest to solemnize your wedding". The Constitution does not allow the state to tell a priest that they must do that "or else". Please do not make arguments that have no basis in actual fact.
(And yes, I am aware of the law that says clergy cannot express support for a given political candidate, but that has to do with skirting campaign finance laws and the idea of a "captive audience". Clergy can still express support for specific ideas and values, then let the congregation make up their own minds.)
In point of fact, no priest has ever been forced to perform a wedding they didn't want to in the entire history of the United States (not by the government at least). Marriage rights are entirely the matter of secular authorities i.e. clerks, justices of the peace, etc, that DO have to perform the functions of state for our citizenry because they're government employees and not religious officials.
>Gee, I wonder why Obama had to sign so many executive orders. I mean, it obviously has nothing to do with how the Republicans decided to stonewall Obama for nearly his entire presidency. Obviously.
I hope you'll feel the same way when Trump signs 1000 executive orders because Democrat blockage.
>The courts would likely take umbrage with that.
Like they did to Obamas appointments of elected officials? I think not.
>The reason Obama's actions are okay is that he did objectively good things
Thank you for creating the American empire, truly. We will do objectively good things from now on.
>Thank you for creating the American empire
That was Truman, actually.
>Like they did to Obamas appointments of elected officials? I think not.
These officials were constitutionally provided governors?
>when Trump signs 1000 executive orders because Democrat blockage
The GOP controls both chambers of Congress. The Democrats refusing to vote for Trump's bullshit does not equal a "blockage" when they cannot block much of anything. Compare that to how Republicans used their majority control of just one chamber of Congress starting in 2010 to stonewall Obama. Oh, and last I checked, Trump has been signing EOs since damn near the immediate start of his term — he has not even had any proposed bill go through Congress, much less had one "blocked" by Democrats.
I certainly hope Democrats do try to block appointments that all presidents before got approved as a formality.
Bup bup bup, all blockage counts as blockage.
Including Democrats sending threats to electors, including Democrat congressmen trying to block the election, including the 24/7 vilification by liberal fake news...
>much less had one "blocked" by Democrats.
Including using Obama appointees to attempt to block executive orders despite the fact that his term expired.
The man is still controlling parts of the government after his term is over and you accuse TRUMP of being a nouveau king?
>Including using Obama appointees to attempt to block executive orders despite the fact that his term expired.
Do you think that every federal judge should be replaced when the president that appointed them leaves? Also the judge who properly shut down the order was a Bush appointee.
>Democrats sending threats to electors
>including Democrat congressmen trying to block the election
>including the 24/7 vilification by liberal fake news...
When you fuck up, you can expect to be called on it, and Trump never does anything but fuck up. It's to the point where even Fox struggles to defend him, which is hilarious to watch.
>I certainly hope Democrats do try to block appointments that all presidents before got approved as a formality.
A complete lie.
>Do you think that every federal judge should be replaced when the president that appointed them leaves?
Only those that were political appointments, and still take orders from the DNC.
And this means what exactly? He's rooted in exactly the same rot in Washington as Obama. Bush also leaked the tape, Bush fucking hates Trump.
>When you fuck up, you can expect to be called on it
Pic related. There is more to this than "fucking up", you know it.
>Only those that were political appointments, and still take orders from the DNC.
One scarcely need imagine what qualifies for such in your head.
>And this means what exactly?
That he's not an Obama appointee, which is what you were trying to argue. Trump's EO wasn't shot down because Obama is the secret puppetmaster of the judicial branch, it was shot down because it was unconstitutional. He's failed the appeal so far too, eat shit.
>A bunch of Republicans claimed the big scary dems were after them
>Guiz I broughtz a pretty picture from /pol/!
do you ever have any new tricks?
>Only those that were political appointments, and still take orders from the DNC.
So, to you, Republicans do not make political appointments, and thus Republican/conservative judges do not require replacement when the president that appointed them leaves office? Nah, fam, shit don't work that way. Republicans are as much politicians as Democrats no matter how much you believe otherwise. That you actually think Democrats are politicians and Republicans are infallible divine angels shows the kind of delusional thinking associated with cults, though. Did you drink your Kool-Aid today, son?
Retrumplicans, do you fucking hate Sean Spicer? I'm curious if his complete lack of the charisma of Trump's more colorful cabinet members are enough to make you dislike his....just fucking disgustingness.
>Guiz I broughtz a pretty picture from /pol/!
Do you think that's a photoshop? I got it from the google and double checked, those are real articles.
Not to interfere with your permanent amnesia and attempt to dehumanize your enemies, but Sean Spicer is just a press secretary, all press secretaries are this way.
>Republicans do not make political appointments
They absolutely do, and they will need to be removed as well. You seem to think this is a partisan issue. You seem to think Trump is... Republican. Despite being attacked by the republican establishment.
If he isn't republican why do they allow him to break the emoluments clause and kill a SEAL while failing to kill the target without a peep?
Enemy? I just think the guy is an exceptional schmuck.
>They absolutely do, and they will need to be removed as well.
You don't know how the judiciary works, do you?
DeVos got through, so now the boomers get to rape our kids' brains together with our environment and our geopolitical safety.
And to think, all the Democrats voted against her. What was that about "obstruction" again, /pol/-kun? Or did you forget that the Republicans still hold a majority in the Senate?
At least this will probably drive Trump's numbers further down and hurt some R Senators' reelection chances. DeVos really hit the "I only care if it directly affects me/my kids" crowd.
>Trump only agreed to botched Yemen raid because officials said Obama would never do it, intelligence sources say.
This is why SJWs are superior human beings.
>At least this will probably […] hurt some R Senators' reelection chances.
If by "some", you mean "the two Republicans who voted 'no' and forced Mike Pence to break the tie", then sure. (Incidentally, Mike Pence being the tie-breaker vote is why Republicans will still have a majority in the Senate even if a vote splits like the DeVos vote did.)
B-but voter fraud! Rigged elections!
Those two only broke ranks after a closed meeting, wherein it would have been determined that they had enough votes to make a show of it.
The agency is clearly compromised and needs to be drained.
Yeah. If they actually cared to stop DeVos, Collins and Murkowski could have voted against her in committee. But now they get to look like they tried taking a stand.
So, the left calls people racist too much, and all of the GOP supports silencing a senator because she reads a letter from Coretta Scott King during Black History Month.
Why did you bother fighting Hitler again?
>and all of the GOP supports silencing a senator because she reads a letter from Coretta Scott King during Black History Month
And one that was directly apropos to the question at hand, about the suitability of Sessions. They used a technicality of Senate rules that stops senators from criticizing other senators even though it wasn't in the context of criticizing him as a member of the senate but of vetting him for a position in the cabinet, which has no such protections.
And in the process, Mitch McConnell basically created the perfect rallying cry for both Elizabeth Warren in particular and women in general: "She was warned. She was given an explanation. Nevertheless, she persisted."
And the video Warren recorded of her reading King's letter outside the Senate chamber now has over three million views on Facebook.
I'm not sure what McConnell was trying to accomplish with this move.
Also, Sen. Jeff Merkley wound up reading the letter uninterrupted anyway.
>Also, Sen. Jeff Merkley wound up reading the letter uninterrupted anyway.
Well he has a penis.
Incidentally, that gag rule invoked against Warren? There is a nasty bit of precedent for it:
You're saying they shut the letter down because the author is black?
I don't know anything about this story, what was the content of the letter?
From what this poster >>413622 says it was a point of order, not an attempt to shut it down because the writer was black.
>I don't know anything about this story, what was the content of the letter?
Google things yourself.
Rule XIX says "no senator will accuse another of conduct unbecoming of a senator", and this letter is a textbook case of it.
The letter is basically a libel case waiting to happen.
It's a long sob story about how Sessions successfully prosecuted a few of her friends, in a case where Sessions actually didn't prosecute at all. The trial in question (Selma voter fraud case) was prosecuted by his two assistants.
>You're saying they shut the letter down because the author is black?
Or for saying Black people get to vote like White people. You can't really tell with non-leftists.
>Rule XIX says "no senator will accuse another of conduct unbecoming of a senator"
You do realize that the rule was invoked only to prevent Warren from reading aloud a letter from Coretta Scott King that accused Sessions of being a racist, right? I mean, Ted Cruz once called McConnell a "liar" on the Senate floor nearly two years ago, and nobody invoked Rule XIX then. This bit by McConnell was done for at least one of two reasons: Warren was a woman, or the Republicans wanted to prove they had a way to break Democrat filibusters.
But moreover, the rule was used to silence dissent and criticism of a cabinet appointee who also happens to be a sitting senator. It was a sleazy tactic used to silence Warren, and if the reaction to it is any indication, it backfired in a spectacular manner.
The rule was also created to protect an advocate of lynching from criticism, because that is the core of where the GOP came from and they're getting nostalgic.
Since POTUS on Twitter retweeted Trump's blubbering about Nordstrom, it is now officially USA policy that retailers must stock a Dear Leader's Family Member's clothing line regardless of demand.
Thanks, rurals. I hope the next meth/opioid epidemic coincides with a dustbowl and kills all of you.
Yemen Withdraws Permission for U.S. Antiterror Ground Missions
Good job, fucko.
>You do realize that the rule was invoked only to prevent Warren from reading aloud a letter from Coretta Scott King that accused Sessions of being a racist, right?
Yes I do realize that Warren broke a rule and got punished for it.
I'm sure Obama sending a warship to shell their country had nothing to do with it.
>I'm sure Obama sending a warship to shell their country had nothing to do with it.
Yeah, it literally didn't. How long are you going to fall back on your "b-b-b-but Obama" deflections?
>Warren broke a rule and got punished for it.
Do you even know why she broke the rule invoked to silence her? She was discussing the nomination of Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III to the position of US Attorney General. McConnell shut her up in the chamber because she dared to criticize an acting senator who was also being considered for a cabinet position. Why should legitimate discussion of a nominee's qualifications (including past actions and words) be stifled because he is a senator? What makes that "rule" worth defending? And why was another senator allowed to read, in full and without reprimand, the exact same letter that Warren tried to read?
If the letter reciting actual history was "accusing him off behavior unbecoming of a senator" isn't that a tacit admission that his behavior is unbecoming of a senator? And therfore probably unbecoming of a cabinet level position?
To be fair, he'd be in the cabinet of someone whose behavior is unbecoming of the presidency.
For as long as you keep being a hypocrite.
He's still a senator, and the rule still applies.
>because she dared to criticize
She didn't criticize, she insulted. Senators can be criticized by other senators without ASCRIBING MOTIVES.
She can't see inside other peoples heads, therefore any claim of what she thinks is going on in there is a pure and unvarnished insult... and no it doesn't matter what fanfiction she's reading from.
ALLOWED - "this act that he did is unprofessional"
ALLOWED - "he did this because of corruption <insert evidence here>"
NOT ALLOWED - "he did this because deep inside his mind, he's a cunt"
>"this act that he did is unprofessional"
It was certainly considered so in 86.
That you view the words of Coretta Scott King as "fanfiction" is far more of an insult than Senator Warren ascribing motives to the actions of Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III. There is more than enough evidence on the record about Sessions's actions and words to infer intent and motive from them. He is a flat-out racist; he has made that clear enough. There is little reason to believe he would defend a law such as the Voting Rights Act, given his opposition to the idea of black people voting in elections. And there is still the matter of Warren being silenced from reading the letter but other (male) senators being allowed to read the letter without rebuke.
Oh, and you failed to answer why discussion of Sessions's actions and words should be silenced in the chamber only because he is a sitting senator. Ted Cruz called Mitch McConnell a "liar" without reprimand, and "liar" is as much a claim of motive as anything Warren said about Sessions.
On the bright side, McConnell's reprimand of Warren was a nice Streisand Effect for her — at least a few million more people saw her reading the letter outside the chamber than would have ever seen her read the letter on the Senate floor. It also gave women in general a new rallying cry ("Nevertheless, she persisted"). Yeah, I would say all this worked out for the best in the end…as long as your name is not Mitch McConnell.
Let's be fair, 1986 was a more progressive and civilized time than 2016. We can't be holding ourselves to the civil rights standards of 1986.
And because the GOP is what it is, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III has been confirmed to the office of Attorney General by the Senate.
Like I said before: 1986 was a more civilized time.
But Democrats take advantage of black voters, remember? Welfare plantation and such.
I wish the Knockout Game was real.
Only one Democrat voted for Sessions: Joe Manchin of West Virginia, whose state went red in the national election.
Then let him be a marked man for the Primary Gun.
It is something to consider. So is this: http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2017/02/manchin-2
Deals with the devil for raw votes are literally why the Republicans are what they are now. If we hang onto Manchin, how are we any better than the right accepting the Dixiecrats and Moral Majority?
The main thing I have to consider is why that guy writes in such a convoluted manner.
This is the general point: Manchin is a conservative Democrat, but he still votes with Democrats often enough to be worth a damn to the party. He is also popular in West Virginia; if he is primaried, chances are high that whoever runs as a Democrat will lose to a Republican. (And West Virginia voted red in the national election; good luck making it blue again for another generation.)
This situation is a simple cost/benefit analysis — would taking down Manchin for the purpose of sending a message actually help the Democrats? How willing should Democrats/liberals/progressives be to boot Manchin out if doing so helps the Republicans keep its Senate majority?
Oh hey, so, remember the Dakota Access Pipeline?
The regime granted an easement for it. Now ETP is officially drilling into the ground so it can finish building the pipeline.
When — not if, when — an ecological disaster happens because of the DAPL, do you think Ol' 45 will blame Obama for it?
"Little Tommy" shitpost deleted: politics outside of politics thread.
>When — not if, when — an ecological disaster happens
How do you know for certain it will happen?
The company in charge has the worst record for spills of any major oil company.
First of all I asked Stone, not you. Unless you can read his mind or you ARE Stone without a trip, kindly fuck off.
Second of all, that wouldn't even make it certain, it's not how logic works. 100% of nukes dropped on civilians were dropped by America, that doesn't mean the next country to drop nukes on civilians will be America. Stone's claim that this pipeline WILL BURST is complete fiction unless he plans to burst it himself.
Third of all, which company in charge has the worst record for spills? Dakota LLC has obligations to 19 partners (5 energy providers and 14 banks). The chief hydrocarbon businesses involved are Energy Transfer Partners with Kelcy Warren as CEO, Sunoco Logistics Partners with Michael J. Hennigan as CEO, Phillips 66 with Greg Garland as CEO, Enbridge with Al Monaco as CEO, Marathon Petroleum with Gary R. Heminger as CEO. These corporations each are owned by stockholders, which elect a board of directors, which in turn elect a CEO, COO, CFO, CTO, CLO and so on. Itself, Dakota Access Company is fully owned by Bakken Holdings, which in turn owns a larger network of pipelines that includes other companies like CMS Energy and Duke Energy. This is before we get to the 19 banks which each have a CEO and dozens of owners.
You don't seem to comprehend the scale of this project.
So your post seems to be implying that you think that having more companies involved, and thus MORE potential points of failure, somehow makes it LESS likely to fail.
Your logic does not resemble our earth logic.
>Your logic does not resemble our earth logic.
Hey now, no need to call /pol/-kun an alien and insult all aliens in the process. Calling him an imbecile will work just as well.
9th Circuit Court unanimously declared the ban unconstitutional and reiterated that Due Process is not reserved for citizens alone.
Which means the need to stall Gorsuch is now even more of a basic criterion for any D in congress.
They can stall, but they cannot stall forever. The Senate will eventually put Gorsuch on the bench. Hell, the Democrats might even help him. (Why do you think Ol' 45 let Gorsuch make that "demoralizing the judiciary" remark without any kind of reprimand?)
>(Why do you think Ol' 45 let Gorsuch make that "demoralizing the judiciary" remark without any kind of reprimand?)
45 actually went out and said that the Democratic senator who reported this was lying, only to be corrected by a Republican senator.
Gorsuch is unlikely to get the super majority, Dems have been made to understand what awaits those who collaborate, but what is dead certain is that if they can't get the supermajority, R's will simply reduce the requirement to a simple majority.
fwiw the DNC and Schumer aren't buying Gorsuch's remarks
>They can stall, but they cannot stall forever.
Let's just do like the Republicans and stall until a Democrat is in the white house then.
I don't think the MSM will allow democrats to act like republicans. One party is expected to act like vermin, the other is expected to keep civilization functional.
Democrats should resist and say they will respect a republican president who wins the popular vote, has not bragged about sex crimes and did not ban black Americans from his buildings.
As I said above, not a thing that we will likely be allowed to do. Yes, if we hold the party line we can withhold a supermajority, but they could always just remove the requirement of a supermajority. Plus, barring an absurd upset, if that supermajority requirement stays? We're looking at a situation where neither party gives an inch and vacancies just start to accumulate until the SC has no quorum. 6 are needed, so only 3 more need to go, and in the meantime each one to drop would be a balance upset.
>I don't think the MSM will allow democrats to act like republicans. One party is expected to act like vermin, the other is expected to keep civilization functional.
Well we don't have the power to do anything even if we wanted to so here we are, forming into firing lines and even lining up our own goddamn Tea Party style primary wars because that's what it has fucking come to.
>we don't have the power to do anything even if we wanted to so
That does not mean we should give up hope or stop strategizing or roll over and play dead like the GOP expects us to. We can — and should — be organizing at the "lower levels", looking to get Democrats into as many different parts of government as possible. (School board elections are a good start.) And if we need a Tea Party-style "primary war" to scare Democrats into having a collective goddamned spine for once in their careers, so fucking be it. I would rather have Democrats who feel scared enough to act in the best interests of this country more than I would Democrats who do nothing but roll over for the GOP in the interests of "compromise".
I mean I'm not disagreeing you on any of that, I was referring to the notion that we should be helping keep society ticking: we do not have the ability to do that at the mo, not on the federal level. Yes, the states that ARE blue are also basically the ones that pay for everything else so we're critical in that sense but if the Republicans want to declare oxygen illegal or whatever goes through their diseased minds we have little direct power to stop them.
>I was referring to the notion that we should be helping keep society ticking: we do not have the ability to do that at the mo, not on the federal level.
So then we do it at the local and state levels. Why does everything have to begin and end at the federal level? The Democrats largely ignoring the lower-level shit is how the Republicans won so much power. You want the left to get the power back? Start looking at the lower levels and help Democrats get in power there.
(Also: "At the mo"? For God's sake, was it really that hard to type "moment"?)
>So then we do it at the local and state levels. Why does everything have to begin and end at the federal level? The Democrats largely ignoring the lower-level shit is how the Republicans won so much power. You want the left to get the power back? Start looking at the lower levels and help Democrats get in power there.
I already clearly said I supported all of this? What are you preaching at me for?
>(Also: "At the mo"? For God's sake, was it really that hard to type "moment"?)
Are you 80?
>I already clearly said I supported all of this? What are you preaching at me for?
Because all you keep doing is talking about the federal end of things as if that is the end-all, be-all of political power, and you keep talking in defeatist terms such as "we can't do anything". If you do not want to sound like you have given in to defeat and that only the federal branch of government matters, try not saying things that imply those ideas.
>Are you 80?
Are you the attached image?
>We're looking at a situation where neither party gives an inch and vacancies just start to accumulate until the SC has no quorum. 6 are needed, so only 3 more need to go, and in the meantime each one to drop would be a balance upset.
At this point, I'm fine with that. We're at the crisis point in this republic and people haven't acknowledged it yet. It might be time to force a constitutional convention by exploiting ever flaw in the system until everyone agrees that it must be fixed.
The new EO is foreboding but between the 9th district ruling and Chaffetz getting spanked at his town hall meeting, today wasn't so bad
>Chaffetz getting spanked at his town hall meeting
I saw a few clips of this. Oh my God, that was so good.
Remember when Flynn denied discussing sanctions with the Russian ambassador before the inauguration?
A forced constitutional convention would, ya know, come under Republican auspices because they control the states.
Admin comment on Pence and Flynn: "An administration official stressed that VP Pence based his comments on his conversation with Gen Flynn"
They're distancing themselves. Basically saying he done did a lying.
They won't in 2018, and it would probably take at least two years to make a constitutional convention happen.
>We're at the crisis point in this republic and people haven't acknowledged it yet.
We have been since Bush Sr., but don't worry, the crisis will be resolved.
Lol Trump is threatening Chaffetz into silence now.
Party Before Country, every time, those Republicans
Russia, in what must be the biggest blow in history to stupid White incels who think they were smarter than their high school peers because they didn't 'waste their time with parties and normie stuff', is thinking of handing over Snowden to the US for brownie points.
Which means they are very concerned about the corroboration of BuzzFeed's dossier from US officials, and the fact that General Flynn is taking the heat for his conversations with Russia regarding sanctions (talks poor, naive little Pence pinkie-promised never happened because nice Mr. Flynn wouldn't lie to him no sir).
Obama is out of office, the chance that Snowden will be executed without trial is much lower now, he probably asked to come home.
Wow. I mean altering the name of something to show how little respect you have for it is already a sign of a middle school mentality, but you can't even be clever with your middle school insults. You could've at least gone with something like "Buzzpeed" or "Bullfeed" or "Bunkfeed" or something, but you just went straight for the weakest shit you could pull.
Your mother would be so disappointed in you if she was still speaking to you.
"bro let's get our story straight are you a traitor or a chump who had no idea what was going on right beneath his nose"
>Their name is already a play on feeding you bullshit covered in flies, kind of hard to insult that.
And yet you tried! And failed. Miserably.
We live in a world where the President is attacking a state.
To be fair, he's not the first.
Attacking Australia on the other hand, that's a new one.
Did anyone else post this or do I get to be the first?
I hope I'm the first
IT'S LIKE POETRY, IT RHYMES
Psst. Look at the username; that is a parody account.
Odds are good there's a real tweet that's close enough given the sheer rate at which he ranted about Obama golfing, though.
>I don't recall any previous president having the stones to point out that Norks will be nuked if they do shit
Previous presidents haven't had rocks in their head, no.
>help the JSDF grow
The US has been encouraging Japanese military buildup for 20 years.
>letting norks throw tantrums is bad
>not letting norks throw tantrums is bad
lol ok Mr. Critical Theorist.
>The US has been encouraging Japanese military buildup for 20 years.
Actually it's been complaining. We tried to stop their construction of carriers several times.
Question /pol/-kun, what do you think happens if we nuke North Korea?
Also, what do you think the purpose of North Korean militaristic propaganda is?
>Question /pol/-kun, what do you think happens if we nuke North Korea?
I would ask you to be more specific, such as what site in North Korea would be targeted, but I'm afraid that level of detail might break your brain.
So I'll answer bluntly and then mock you when you nitpick:
1. A threat is removed.
2. The Russians and Chinese would complain about the fallout, because they have cities nearby, but we could minimize it by plotting wind currents before the strikes.
3. Retarded hippies like yourself would never shut up about it.
>Also, what do you think the purpose of North Korean militaristic propaganda is?
It's a bluff by an insane leadership of a failing socialist dictatorship that depends on us to bribe and feed them for survival. But hey, we've thrown trillions on the bonfire in Africa for no reason whatsoever, so we might as well spend a few billion on Norks on the off chance that they're crazy enough to push the button.
>I don't recall any previous president having the stones to point out that Norks will be nuked if they do shit
gosh and I thought Killary was the hawkish one
>I would ask you to be more specific, such as what site in North Korea would be targeted, but I'm afraid that level of detail might break your brain.
>So I'll answer bluntly and then mock you when you nitpick:
>1. A threat is removed.
>2. The Russians and Chinese would complain about the fallout, because they have cities nearby, but we could minimize it by plotting wind currents before the strikes.
>3. Retarded hippies like yourself would never shut up about it.
What's next to North Korea, /pol/-kun?
>It's a bluff by an insane leadership of a failing socialist dictatorship that depends on us to bribe and feed them for survival. But hey, we've thrown trillions on the bonfire in Africa for no reason whatsoever, so we might as well spend a few billion on Norks on the off chance that they're crazy enough to push the button.
Incorrect. NK Propaganda is not aimed at an outside audience at all, for the most part. It is crafted more or less entirely for an internal audience whose support of the regime must be massaged by continuing to believe that they are in a military struggle. Money that goes into North Korea doesn't go to the government, but to that internal audience that, and I know you struggle with this concept, is made up of human beings like us who need things like food and medical care that the government won't provide.
>is made up of human beings like us who need things like food and medical care that the government won't provide.
Nuke de grâce?
Difference between removing a known enemy in its nuclear infancy with no present threat to America, and actually starting a war with a major nuclear superpower.
>What's next to North Korea, /pol/-kun?
Answer is hidden in all that greentext you didn't read.
>Money that goes into North Korea doesn't go to the government
You are a fucking idiot. If North Korean leadership saves 2 billion dollars on feeding its people, because we paid for it, what do you think happens to that 2 billion dollars? It gets redirected to the military. Newsflash for politically naive hippies ALL AID IS MILITARY AID. If we stepped away North Korean government would be forced to choose between funding its oversized military, or feeding its people. If they choose feeding their people, then good, they've become a responsible country. If they choose funding their oversized military, they get overthrown by a hungry populace. Either way the problem is solved.
However taking out the leadership with surgical strikes happens to be the more moral solution.
>Difference between removing a known enemy in its nuclear infancy with no present threat to America, and actually starting a war with a major nuclear superpower.
Which is what nuking North Korea will do. Or nuking anyone for that matter. Nukes aren't actually to be used.
>Answer is hidden in all that greentext you didn't read.
It's not, actually.
>If they choose funding their oversized military, they get overthrown by a hungry populace.
No, no they don't. You know how we know this? Because this is the state of North Korea at all times. The populace believes that their deprivation is due to need, because they believe they're under military threat.
>However taking out the leadership with surgical strikes happens to be the more moral solution.
Ah yes, the famed "surgical" power of thermonuclear weaponry.
Yeah north korea is a nuclear superpower, sure.
>It's not, actually.
Is that why you put this ^ comment second to hide the fact that you didn't fucking read the post you're replying to? I'm not your social studies teacher, I actually read what you write, and I'll bend you over and fuck you with every mistake you make.
>It's not, actually.
Read a book, when food is scare rebellion is inevitable.
>Ah yes, the famed "surgical" power of thermonuclear weaponry.
Read two books.
Modern tactical nuclear weapons can fit in a space the size of a football, and only take out a few blocks. They can spew gamma radiation to kill all life yet leave the infrastructure undamaged, or produce low radiation and wipe out the infrastructure alone. They can be tuned to take out only an electrical grid without hurting infrastructure OR people, or they can be focused on a specific geographic location while damaging absolutely nothing outside of it.
The options are endless.
In news not having to do with nuclear weapons:
The article is brief, so it does not mention the idea that this bill (were it to become law) could technically be used to block custody of children born to same-sex parents.
>Yeah north korea is a nuclear superpower, sure.
China and Russia are, and despite how much you'd like to pretend otherwise no, they will not ignore your fat moron using nukes on their doorstep.
>Is that why you put this ^ comment second to hide the fact that you didn't fucking read the post you're replying to? I'm not your social studies teacher, I actually read what you write, and I'll bend you over and fuck you with every mistake you make.
Since you have never looked at a map in your life I'll fill in the mystery for you:
SOUTH Korea is next to North Korea you fucking idiot.
>Read a book, when food is scare rebellion is inevitable.
Yes it's been coming any day now... for decades.
>The options are endless.
And we don't select any of them, guess why
Killing every person in North Korea would be humanitarian if you ask me.
But if you don't think they have dead man's grip bunkers aiming all kinds of ordinance at South Korea and perhaps other nearby nations, then explain why you're so sure of that to Beijing's and Seoul's high command, and thye might listen.
>China and Russia are, and despite how much you'd like to pretend otherwise no, they will not ignore your fat moron using nukes on their doorstep.
I covered that in the post you didn't read bro, go back and do it. Third time saying this.
How fucking hard is it for you to complete a sentence?
Do you have dyslexia?
>Yes it's been coming any day now... for decades.
Maybe it would come faster if the West didn't undercut rebellion by calming things down every time, and perpetuating the misery of the place.
>I covered that
You didn't, actually.
>Maybe it would come faster if the West didn't undercut rebellion
Do you actually think anyone here buys into this horseshit you post?
Trump reportedly got call about North Korea during dinner at Mar-a-Lago and discussed it there in a public dining room.
Is there anything Clinton supposedly did or actually did that Trump has not already done or is doing now, but worse?
Can't his supporters just admit they hate women?
Some rando snapped a picture with their phone while it was happening.
Going back to the moon baby!
We haven't had a president support knowledge this much since Kennedy.
What's wrong with discussing business in the winter white house?
>Can't his supporters just admit they hate women?
No I love your mother, and she loves me.
>Going back to the moon baby!
Hell yeah, let's hear it for wasting money on nothing!
>What's wrong with discussing business in the winter white house?
For starters, there is the fact that the Mar-a-Lago is not an actual government building; it is a private resort that is still owned by Ol' 45, which means any business done there only makes him wealthier. (Why do you think they doubled the price of admission after he was elected?)
Then there is the matter of how the president is discussing classified information out in the open amongst regular jackoffs. Who knows what kind of information someone might see or overhear and (like that photo in >>413748) leak to the public, possibly because they do not like the president. How trusting should the government be — not just the executive branch toadies, but Congress as well — in letting Ol' 45 discuss state secrets where anyone can hear them?
Ol '45 probably thinks it is as easy as just shooting a rocket, boom, done. What has he and his regime actually done to support the fields of science and technology that would make another trip to the moon worth the cost?
>What has he and his regime actually done to support the fields of science and technology that would make another trip to the moon worth the cost?
He'll fund it with the money saved from defunding NASA's Earth Science Division.
See? So pro-science. That's what the March for Science is all about, saying thanks, Donald, for believing climate change doesn't real and vaccines cause autism, and filling the cabinet with climate change denialists and creationists, and silencing and intimidating government researchers.
You forgot about Betsy DeVos.
Uh...I do not think we, the general public, were meant to know this.
Nope. It's a tremendous security violation to id the football holder.
Source for this absolutely grotesque bullshit: https://theintercept.com/2017/02/13/oklahoma-lawmakers-want-men-to-approve-all-abortions/
i know you want to make us lower our prices, but what if instead you gave us tax cuts?
THE ART OF THE DEAL!
I thought The Intercept was against all this "identity politics" stuff and "reducing people to their identities" or whatever the comments section propaganda is.
But ISIS is worse so this is okay and voting for these people is magically no longer misogynist.
awww, poor babies
"We didn't vote for the party with a history of busting and weakening unions to watch them bust and weaken unions!"
I would play the world's smallest violin for them, but nah.
Businesses aren't taxable you idiot, it's a smokescreen.
I bet you think printing currency magically creates wealth.
I bet you think macroeconomics magically works the same as microeconomics.
Flynn resigned. Bye Flynn.
So. What did Trump know and when did he know it?
Everything and pretty much from stage one.
Yeah, I cannot imagine how the president's Russian handlers failed to tell him about Flynn's call.
I can't believe this is only week four.
>Most efficient president in history.
For sure. Less than a month in and he's already at the '73-74 "Nixon talking to paintings" stage of his rapid transit towards impeachment.
Trump expects Russia to return Crimea to Ukraine
BU... BUH... BUT HES A RUSSIAN SPY!!!
Trump can say whatever he wants to keep up appearances, especially right now. If Putin needs him to stop the sanctions, he will.
Why couldn't Pence resign? Agnew did.
Not couldn't as in impossible, couldn't as in not politically feasible. Losing Flynn disturbs the admin less than losing Pence, because even though Pence is an idiot, he brings with himself allegiance of a certain faction of the Republican party. Just like how Biden abusing little girls didn't even merit comment by Obama.
You sound like you're going to be disappointed when Trump doesn't genocide Mexicans.
>he brings with himself allegiance of a certain faction of the Republican party
Who gives a shit? We're in full fascism mode now, Trump can just tell the Republicans who depart with Pence that they're traitors the same way they're telling the press they're traitors for not repackaging Spicey's and Conway's lies.
Everyone who matters, because we aren't in full fascism mode.
Just going to keep plugging your ears any time someone points out what Daddy's up to, huh? He must really give you the good dick.
"Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials."
Happy fucking Valentine's, Republicans.
It seems suddenly upset and rushed in its trolling, doesn't it?
It does, yes. Angry and feeble trolling. Seen better on /pol/. SAD!
I hope they let Donald tweet in prison.
On the one hand, I'm sure that would be entertaining.
On the other hand, it would also be entertaining AND JUST if he wasn't able to get any attention that way.
So, the possible span of consequences range from people being executed for treason to impeachment and, on the very unlikely end, a new election.
We don't really have a mechanism for a new election in our constitution though. It's one of the big problems with our constitution that more modern democracies have dealt with better. If it came down to that, the effects on our republic would be....unpredictable. It might very well require the dissolution of our current government to rebuild from scratch.
Which could potentially be a great thing, because in a lot of ways, we need that. But I don't trust the people who would be making those decisions.
Puzder is out, which is good for every honest American worker. Apparently he got tired of the abuse, so he has something in common with his ex-wife and every person who has ever received a salary in one of his businesses.
Right now, it's like this: The Democratic voter base is pissed the fuck off, and Democrats do not get a "pass" because they (ostensibly) belong to the progressive/liberal side of American politics. If the Dems want to avoid getting protested, maybe they should consider things like "growing a fucking spine" and "listening to the base" that could have helped them in, oh, any election from the past eight years.
I do not want the Democrats to become as obstructive (and destructive) as the GOP. I would prefer both parties learned from this sort of bullshit and tried harder to work together and seek compromise. But that cannot happen until the GOP grows a brain and the Dems stop being a doormat for the GOP. If it takes Dems getting protested and primaried to grow a fucking spine, so be it.
Strongsville international adoption agency raided by FBI
Pizzagate update: Pizzagate still not real.
Oh look, Pizzafucker is back. Do you think he likes anchovies on his dick, or does he seem more like a pineapple kind of guy?
He's just mad that Flynn got his pants pulled down in front of the class, let him rave.
What's with the sexual imagery, do you have a thing for older dudes? Do you want to fuck this man?
"The leaks are real but the news about them is fake."
Is. Is that.
The news is that the leaks exist.
The leaks are the news. The news are the leaks.
"I want to find a friendly reporter"
"Look at how friendly he is"
Hahahah, wow, so folksy, so new and fresh.
lol 180 degree mental change in just a few months.
Remember when we were discussing DNC leaks? DC leaks? State department leaks?
He blamed the rise in anti-semitic attacks on Dem false flags. Evidence forthcoming, I'm sure.
Black Reporter: Will you meet with the Congressional Black Caucus?
Trump: "I would. You want to set up the meeting? Are they friends of yours?"
FUCK. ME. IN. HALF.
>Flynn, in FBI interview, denied discussing sanctions with Russian ambassador.
Oh dear, that is not the done thing let me tell you.
Harward's rejected the offer to take over as NSA. He seems like an upstanding and capable guy, so obviously not a good fit for this administration.
This will all be sorted out once Trump establishes the Secretariat of Truth. We have always been at war with Australia.
>Wall Street Journal: Kushner met with Time Warner execs to express Trump's "deep concerns" about CNN and has pushed the issue with CNN's boss Zucker.
But remember, lefties are the scary ones because they agree with each other too much about anthropogenic climate change and don't think hate speech is cool and rebellious.
Fox News is reporting Trump was fully briefed on the Flynn call with Russia after it happened--and allowed Pence to be lied to.
Oh me oh my.
When Fox News is shittalking a Republican POTUS, you know shit is fucked.
(Even Shep Smith had the balls to say Ol' 45 was a liar!)
Trumpocalypse Now (with Malcolm Turnbull)
I realize you think media is always supposed to be biased because you've come to expect lockstep behavior out of media, but actual journalists are supposed to be impartial. Questioning Trump is a good thing, as long as its on shit that matters. You know, not bullshit like >>413829 or >>413827 or >>413826.
Trump was clearly cleaning house. He was feeding false information to everyone including the VP, so he could see what information is leaked to the media. Now that the Russia talks are leaked to media, Trump knows Pence isn't the leak, because he didn't know about the talks with Russia.
>actual journalists are supposed to be impartial
I was talking about Fox News, which is "journalism" in much the same way this thread is "a healthy and reasoned political debate". And Fox News is hardly "impartial", given how it is practically the media wing of the GOP.
Never stop winning :D
I think the national guard can be ordered to do stuff in their state or the neighborign one with the governer's permission.
But, good lucking getting this done without tearing the country apart. if you think they'll only go after criminals or even focus on criminals, you're dumber than Glenn Greenwald.
Lol he's trying to deny it now. Which is weird, because AP asked for comment before publishing and rebuffed, so why wait?
Unless this was a "leak" intended to softpitch I suppose.
Anyone want to discuss CP law for the US and how it relates to written works? The law seems particularly vague with this subject since even though child pornography is defined as something visual -- "Child pornography is a form of child sexual exploitation. Federal law defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (persons less than 18 years old). Images of child pornography are also referred to as child sexual abuse images." (https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/child-pornography).
In one example a person was arrested for completely fictional depictions that he kept in a private journal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_v._Dalton).
In another court it was upheald that "Obscene material in book form is not entitled to any First Amendment protection merely because it has no pictorial content" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_obscenity_law#Obscene_texts) It's unknown how this affects writen contet on websites since red-rose-stories in 2005 was shut down of based upon depictions and not text.
Currently obscenity is defined as as something that fails all of these conditions:
The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
However the conditions are subjective and it would be possible to find juries or judges that disagree on all points depending upon the subject.
As a dissenting opinion to the ruling for this definition, Justice Douglas wrote:
"The idea that the First Amendment permits government to ban publications that are 'offensive' to some people puts an ominous gloss on freedom of the press. That test would make it possible to ban any paper or any journal or magazine in some benighted place. The First Amendment was designed 'to invite dispute,' to induce 'a condition of unrest,' to 'create dissatisfaction with conditions as they are,' and even to stir 'people to anger.' The idea that the First Amendment permits punishment for ideas that are 'offensive' to the particular judge or jury sitting in judgment is astounding. No greater leveler of speech or literature has ever been designed. To give the power to the censor, as we do today, is to make a sharp and radical break with the traditions of a free society. The First Amendment was not fashioned as a vehicle for dispensing tranquilizers to the people. Its prime function was to keep debate open to 'offensive' as well as to 'staid' people. The tendency throughout history has been to subdue the individual and to exalt the power of government. The use of the standard 'offensive' gives authority to government that cuts the very vitals out of the First Amendment. As is intimated by the Court's opinion, the materials before us may be garbage. But so is much of what is said in political campaigns, in the daily press, on TV, or over the radio. By reason of the First Amendment—and solely because of it—speakers and publishers have not been threatened or subdued because their thoughts and ideas may be 'offensive' to some."
What do you guys think about any of these?
People think it was either a trial balloon for actually using the National Guard as his deportation brownshirts or a situation where the White House baited the media with a "fake story" in order to discredit the media.
Incidentally, there is a word for that second notion. It is a Russian word — provokatsiya.
The "left" would love to legalize all that ;)
>Trump was clearly cleaning house. He was feeding false information to everyone including the VP, so he could see what information is leaked to the media. Now that the Russia talks are leaked to media, Trump knows Pence isn't the leak, because he didn't know about the talks with Russia.
Trump told 1 untrusted person this will happen. That untrusted person ran to the media, and revealed himself/herself.
Trump is BTFOing spies left and right.
Are you discussing cartoon pornography/erotica, or "IRL" stuff. In my opinion, the latter is atrocious and should not be legalized. Artistic merit may make it borderline ok (but probably not), but anything that is purposefully and solely pornographic should not be allowed.
Re: cartoon pornography, such as the stuff in /pco/
In my country, cartoon pornography depicting minors has been prosecuted successfully, at least twice (I believe the punishments were a solid fine and community service + good behaviour). I think they both had Simpsons porn involving the children, as well as some other stuff.
>https://media.8ch.net/cuckquean/src/1420258001923.pdf (Court Case document)
It seems there is a loophole (untested, due to a lack of court cases, but implied by the above judge's verdict) that is if a character is not a representation of a human (for example, a furry character), then it cannot be defined as a 'natural person' and therefore cannot be a victim of child pornography or abuse.
However, a character that is representative of a human, such as the characters on The Simpsons (despite their discolouration and disfigurement), can be defined as a 'legal person' and as a result, has human rights. Cool.
You totally deserved that ban
>Trump is BTFOing spies left and right.
I was about to make a shitpost, but I think you might be right there.
>Trump told 1 untrusted person this will happen. That untrusted person ran to the media, and revealed himself/herself.
>where the White House baited the media with a "fake story" in order to discredit the media
I mean this might be possible... if it weren't for the fact this isn't from some oral source but a full document.
Cali introducing state run single payer.
We wait to find out who else resigns of their own free will.
ah, so you're going with the "Flynn was all according to plan!!!!" defense
A modification of the Narcissist's Litany:
I didn't do that,
And if I did, you made me do it,
and if you didn't make me do it, it was only because the media was lying.
And if the media was telling the truth, then the contest was rigged,
And if the contest wasn't rigged, then I never wanted to win in the first place.
Ol' 45 has a new nickname for the Mar-a-Lago resort (through which he still makes money): "The Southern White House".
That, uh…that does not exactly have the best ring to it. For a variety of reasons.
Wasn't there some left-leaning people who were trying to argue that people were born pedophiles just like people are supposedly born gay or what-have-you?
Which country is that, if you don't mind sharing?
The IRL stuff that abuses children certainly is horrible. Although I have heard that some children go and stream themselves without any physical abuse and of their own free will (although I guess legally the only minor to have free will would be an emancipated minor). Of course that last one still would be illegal and have other complications such as the possibility of the people who watch it record it and then later in life it gets out that the kid did that, ruining their social life. Kids probably do this with instagram and sending photos over their phone as well. Another weird thing about the legality of CP is that if you took pictures of yourself in a sexual way before you were 18, you could possibly get charged for possessing CP of yourself.
I was more interested about the written kind without any images, because that has yet been untested in the US, to my knowledge at least. And the invasion of privacy with the guy who had the drawings in his journal seemed a little concerning. What's next, you can't wrongthink about the government in private journals?
Oh sure, because posting 10 year old copypasta that's about a paragraph long on a nsfw board without at topic totally should get me permabanned
>Which country is that, if you don't mind sharing?
Aus. It's in the attached court document. (not sure how on earth it got posted on that site but whatever)
>Kids probably do this with instagram and sending photos over their phone as well. Another weird thing about the legality of CP is that if you took pictures of yourself in a sexual way before you were 18, you could possibly get charged for possessing CP of yourself.
Teens sending nudes to each other is illegal, and a lot don't even realise the extent to which it is, and yes, even having suggestive pictures of yourself for non-medical purposes while underaged could technically get you arrested. (although I would guess (without proof) they would only go through with the prosecution if you distributed them).
Having graduated high school afters smartphones became a thing, I can confirm that many teens distribute suggestive and nude images of themselves. One kid even got famous for his (apparently unsolicited) dick pic.
>I was more interested about the written kind without any images
In my opinion, it's near-equivalent to the visual stuff. Yes, it may be fantasy and fiction, but it still encourages fantasy about actual children, and some (read: a small yet significant minority) might try to realise these fantasies with real children.
I see what you might be arguing, that it's (probably) not people distributing real acts of child abuse. Heck, one could even argue that it may provide a release, and alternative to looking at or committing real abuse. But nonetheless, it is still encouraging and re-enforcing those ideas.
I don't think it is on the same level as real depictions of abuse, but it is still potentially harmful.
You keep using the word 'copypasta', but I think it falls closer to a 'fapfic'. Again, 4chan doesn't want people posting such content on their website (especially for legal reasons: even if it's untested, they don't want to be the first). There are other imageboards for posting that stuff.
Also, being a 'copypasta' doesn't make it exempt from being bannable. People get permabanned for memes all the time.
>Teens sending nudes to each other is illegal, and a lot don't even realise the extent to which it is
Which is why there are now attempts being made to lessen the punishment for teens sending each other nudes of themselves. Sending a teenager to jail and slapping them with a lifetime listing on the sex offender registry because they sent a nude picture to someone they are dating does not do wonders for that teenager's future in society, it seems.
The Red Pill is a good movie.
What's it about? Is it fiction or non-fiction?
>Sending a teenager to jail and slapping them with a lifetime listing on the sex offender registry because they sent a nude picture to someone they are dating does not do wonders for that teenager's future in society, it seems.
I fully agree.
It's about the evil white supremacist patriarchs (the Men's Rights Movement). It's a documentary, and is available from pirates (where I got it).
Does Big Red pay rent to all the incels whose tiny, unloved heads she lives in?
Nah. She would probably be broke by now if she did.
Didn't speak to the mysterious person on the seat, but chuckled internally.
And then I pasted all their personal information online
There is nothing really personal in that photo, I made sure of that.
Just felt surreal to see such a (tiny) poster in front of me.
Are you not used to being around people who actually give a shit about people other than themselves?
If you keep thinking about someone who pisses you off long after they angered you or whatever, you are allowing them to "live" in your head "rent-free". In this case, we are referring to certain men ("involuntary celibates" or "incels") refusing to "evict" the red-haired woman in that photograph from their minds.
oh hey, turns out the CPAC has decided that yes, pedophilia is a red line
Oh, I am well aware you are the world's #1 altruist philanthropy champion.
And the best person on this board.
Stone is actually very charitable with other peoples money.