Shooting fish in a barrel here:TheMudbrooker wrote: ↑ You really don't understand what Roe v. Wade is about, do you? It's a common enough misconception,
Roe vs Wade is all about misconceptions.
Thanks, and I'll accept another BPE for that one.
Shooting fish in a barrel here:TheMudbrooker wrote: ↑ You really don't understand what Roe v. Wade is about, do you? It's a common enough misconception,
Those poor fish........screwtape wrote: ↑Shooting fish in a barrel here:TheMudbrooker wrote: ↑ You really don't understand what Roe v. Wade is about, do you? It's a common enough misconception,
Roe vs Wade is all about misconceptions.
Thanks, and I'll accept another BPE for that one.
Well you are older than me, but I'm not sure by how much, probably a decade plus or minus a half a decade. But that doesn't invalidate my points about being old enough to having been fear mongered by the Democrats to vote since Reagan only to find time and again how their end time predictions never came about and they have behaved just as poorly and hypocritically as anyone and so now refusing to fall into their fear mongering trap again.screwtape wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 3:09 pmAre you?Guest_b8931fdb wrote: ↑ I'm old enough now....
Are you really?Guest_b8931fdb wrote: ↑So I am old enough....
But not old enough to sign up for an account?
Put up or shut up. We do like people to sign up so we can tell them to fuck off. Some of us are older than you, and it doesn't qualify us for any kind of preference. Age sometimes brings wisdom, but you'll have to forgive me for dismissing that if you live in any decade of lifespan less than my own, save you come up with better arguments than mine. Knowing when you're wrong and admitting it is the kind of wisdom I respect. So do join in with an account and show me and everyone else how we are wrong.
I am amazed that so many otherwise intelligent Pitters are going full Tea Party/DrumpyDrumpf on this situation. Recovered memories are bullshit. We wouldn't accept this shit from anyone else. Some of us sound like facilitated communication wackos.jugheadnaut wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 1:57 pmThe what-aboutism over the last couple of pages is getting painful. And lest I be what-abouted, I stipulate that it's become a major mode of argumentation on both sides.free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑ The first part of the quote was about the Vince Foster thing where Kavanaugh and his skeevy Republican pals tried to pin a murder on the Clintons because of some utterly shameful conspiracy theories. Even if those sex assault claims Party Barty O'Kavanaugh are false it still is less bad then trying to claim he committed murder.
Justifying bad behavior on your side by saying the other side has done similar things is exactly what what-aboutism is. But which argument is it? Is this a big smear job that's justified because what-about? Or has the balance of evidence proven that Kavanaugh's a 'massive prick' who should not be confirmed on that basis? If you believe the latter, you're even more a knee-jerk partisan hack than I previously thought.free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑jugheadnaut wrote: The what-aboutism over the last couple of pages is getting painful. And lest I be what-abouted, I stipulate that it's become a major mode of argumentation on both sides.
You have what aboutism mixed up with me saying that I'm not against retaliating with low blow if the other guy throws one first. I'm pointing out that this guy is a massive prick that is getting what he deserves.
This. So much this. Come back ethnostate, all if forgiven.jugheadnaut wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 1:57 pmThe what-aboutism over the last couple of pages is getting painful. And lest I be what-abouted, I stipulate that it's become a major mode of argumentation on both sides.free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑ The first part of the quote was about the Vince Foster thing where Kavanaugh and his skeevy Republican pals tried to pin a murder on the Clintons because of some utterly shameful conspiracy theories. Even if those sex assault claims Party Barty O'Kavanaugh are false it still is less bad then trying to claim he committed murder.
I doubt that extremely.There was probably a chance that if Ginsburg's seat opened up, a centrist would be nominated as a conciliatory gesture even if the GOP kept the Senate.
Maybe you are, and maybe you aren't: age isn't a guarantee of anything (other than joint pain, and I now know more about that than I ever wanted). Without that guarantee, all we can say is that one poster has less experience than another. When I was a teenager, I hated the arguments of adults who used anything like 'You will understand when you are old enough' as I knew from first principles I could not counter that. Didn't matter whether they were right or wrong, I could not counter that particular argument. I'll say it again - age doesn't matter if you are right.Guest_b8931fdb wrote: ↑ Well you are older than me, but I'm not sure by how much, probably a decade plus or minus a half a decade. But that doesn't invalidate my points about being old enough to having been fear mongered by the Democrats to vote since Reagan only to find time and again how their end time predictions never came about and they have behaved just as poorly and hypocritically as anyone and so now refusing to fall into their fear mongering trap again.
I can't, reasons, but none that violate the FT's rules as I understand them.
The FT has IP hashing, I have a dynamic IP that changes about three times a year, that's about the best I can do. That and that my pattern as anonymous user is to post tweets to illustrate points.
My understanding is that the advantage to the pit of getting an account is 1) making it easier for you to identify me, and 2) the fairness option that I acknowledge you do not have with anons to not see them at all. Re 2) which is the one option I may be abusing, I've been a bit more active in the past few days than usual, when I mostly lurk, but I haven't seen complaints I wonderize threads, so I'm going to stay this way for now.
And there was I thinking it was 'cos he was a King Crimson fan...Guest_b8931fdb wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 4:18 pmIt's strong evidencefree thoughtpolice wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 3:58 pmI didn't say that that I agreed with any claim that the Daily KOs article said about the yearbook claims. My reason for linking to the article is because they had a reproduction of his yearbook page. The Daily KOs is reliably a POS, kind of a leftwing Fox, so don't take that link as me endorsing them.Guest_b8931fdb wrote: ↑ How is writing in a yearbook "devil's triangle" which Kos describes as a threesome anything close to what Kos then says is "could be an admission of finding date rape cool"?
What on earth does a threesome have to do with date rape?
Checking, yes, the URL to this site IS "slymepit", not "rationalwiki".
What a 2 dude on one chick 3some has to do with the claims at hand is that he admits to doing it. It is a coincidence because it is an admission that he would be open to sharing his chick with his buddy, which is something that not all dudes are in to.
A non consensual threesome becomes date rape when one of the participants doesn't consent. Is there some kind of SJW taint to that?
a Kavanaugh like many high school kids lie about their sexual conquests
b Kavanaugh considers a drunk groping with failure to remove clothes foiled when buddy jumps on top of them a threesome (this is Ford's claim) and memorialized it in the yearbook as "devil's triangle"
c Kavanaugh and Judge totally did this many times in high school though no one can think of another (Kos' claim)
d Kavanaugh and Judge totally did this many times in high school though no one can think of another with many men not just Judge, (Avenatti's claim)
e Intelligent Design
f It's not strong evidence of anything
(re nym's and vs ip's, iirc, that's why the FT implemented ip hashing) (otherwise, I'd prefer not to discuss it and just say no thank you)
I don't think I was saying "I am old enough that I am right and you are wrong", I think I was saying "I am old enough I am not going to be complicit with the Dem's fearmongering anymore"screwtape wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 4:29 pmMaybe you are, and maybe you aren't: age isn't a guarantee of anything (other than joint pain, and I now know more about that than I ever wanted). Without that guarantee, all we can say is that one poster has less experience than another. When I was a teenager, I hated the arguments of adults who used anything like 'You will understand when you are old enough' as I knew from first principles I could not counter that. Didn't matter whether they were right or wrong, I could not counter that particular argument. I'll say it again - age doesn't matter if you are right.Guest_b8931fdb wrote: ↑ Well you are older than me, but I'm not sure by how much, probably a decade plus or minus a half a decade. But that doesn't invalidate my points about being old enough to having been fear mongered by the Democrats to vote since Reagan only to find time and again how their end time predictions never came about and they have behaved just as poorly and hypocritically as anyone and so now refusing to fall into their fear mongering trap again.
I can't, reasons, but none that violate the FT's rules as I understand them.
The FT has IP hashing, I have a dynamic IP that changes about three times a year, that's about the best I can do. That and that my pattern as anonymous user is to post tweets to illustrate points.
My understanding is that the advantage to the pit of getting an account is 1) making it easier for you to identify me, and 2) the fairness option that I acknowledge you do not have with anons to not see them at all. Re 2) which is the one option I may be abusing, I've been a bit more active in the past few days than usual, when I mostly lurk, but I haven't seen complaints I wonderize threads, so I'm going to stay this way for now.
Now, with respect to your issues.
1. Identification, I don't think our admin gives a damn about tracking you down. I do think he gives many damns about keeping your ID confidential.
2. 'Fairness' in that I do not know who you are? Come on - you think I care? I care only about what you can teach me something I do not already know. I don't think anyone here cares to dox you. Such a thing would not only be against all the history of the Pit, but also would be a bannable offense. I joined up when I was an active medical professional with a ridiculously fussy professional body that would cancel my license for any little reason that would erode their standing in my jurisdiction. They can't hurt me any more as I have surrendered my license on retiring with a diagnosis of leukemia. I don't know how long I will last, and I do hope you will go on beyond me. So join up with an actual username and have a lifetime, and a reputation, to exceed all those currently listed. I dare you!
I think K may have cowrote one of KCs best songs too. :drool:Pseudomonas wrote: ↑And there was I thinking it was 'cos he was a King Crimson fan...Guest_b8931fdb wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 4:18 pmIt's strong evidencefree thoughtpolice wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 3:58 pmI didn't say that that I agreed with any claim that the Daily KOs article said about the yearbook claims. My reason for linking to the article is because they had a reproduction of his yearbook page. The Daily KOs is reliably a POS, kind of a leftwing Fox, so don't take that link as me endorsing them.Guest_b8931fdb wrote: ↑ How is writing in a yearbook "devil's triangle" which Kos describes as a threesome anything close to what Kos then says is "could be an admission of finding date rape cool"?
What on earth does a threesome have to do with date rape?
Checking, yes, the URL to this site IS "slymepit", not "rationalwiki".
What a 2 dude on one chick 3some has to do with the claims at hand is that he admits to doing it. It is a coincidence because it is an admission that he would be open to sharing his chick with his buddy, which is something that not all dudes are in to.
A non consensual threesome becomes date rape when one of the participants doesn't consent. Is there some kind of SJW taint to that?
a Kavanaugh like many high school kids lie about their sexual conquests
b Kavanaugh considers a drunk groping with failure to remove clothes foiled when buddy jumps on top of them a threesome (this is Ford's claim) and memorialized it in the yearbook as "devil's triangle"
c Kavanaugh and Judge totally did this many times in high school though no one can think of another (Kos' claim)
d Kavanaugh and Judge totally did this many times in high school though no one can think of another with many men not just Judge, (Avenatti's claim)
e Intelligent Design
f It's not strong evidence of anything
(re nym's and vs ip's, iirc, that's why the FT implemented ip hashing) (otherwise, I'd prefer not to discuss it and just say no thank you)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... KHtvRCgmH8
Pseudomonas
How about you just sign off your contributions with a burner nym. That way we can say "fuck off burner nym", without smearing all anonymous guests.Guest_b8931fdb wrote: ↑ snip
> But not old enough to sign up for an account?
I can't, reasons, but none that violate the FT's rules as I understand them.
The FT has IP hashing, I have a dynamic IP that changes about three times a year, that's about the best I can do. That and that my pattern as anonymous user is to post tweets to illustrate points.
My understanding is that the advantage to the pit of getting an account is 1) making it easier for you to identify me, and 2) the fairness option that I acknowledge you do not have with anons to not see them at all. Re 2) which is the one option I may be abusing, I've been a bit more active in the past few days than usual, when I mostly lurk, but I haven't seen complaints I wonderize threads, so I'm going to stay this way for now.
And what if Congress, follow the overturning of Roe, passes a law that makes it a federal crime to have, or perform, an abortion?John D wrote: ↑... I am sick of Roe v Wade. I am of the opinion that the abortion topic would be best left to the states. This would improve the function of the Federal government by taking the abortion issue out of Federal politics. Maybe this is a silly idea on my part, but I can hope. Almost every state would maintain legal abortions. Some would have local battles to decide the issue. Some places (think North Dakota) would outlaw abortion fully and women would have to travel to seek an abortion. Most populous states would maintain the status quo. Let the people decide. Let the states compete with each other over who makes this work the best. I am basically pro-abortion, but I don't believe I should decide for women in other states. They can vote for what they want.... as it should be.
...
:o :o :o :lol: :lol: :lol:Lsuoma wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 4:02 pmThis. So much this. Come back ethnostate, all if forgiven.jugheadnaut wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 1:57 pmThe what-aboutism over the last couple of pages is getting painful. And lest I be what-abouted, I stipulate that it's become a major mode of argumentation on both sides.free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑ The first part of the quote was about the Vince Foster thing where Kavanaugh and his skeevy Republican pals tried to pin a murder on the Clintons because of some utterly shameful conspiracy theories. Even if those sex assault claims Party Barty O'Kavanaugh are false it still is less bad then trying to claim he committed murder.
They wont.... I mean... it's like saying what if a giant fucking meteor hits the earth. It wont.... and they wont. Why even entertain this stupid shit?some guy wrote: ↑And what if Congress, follow the overturning of Roe, passes a law that makes it a federal crime to have, or perform, an abortion?John D wrote: ↑... I am sick of Roe v Wade. I am of the opinion that the abortion topic would be best left to the states. This would improve the function of the Federal government by taking the abortion issue out of Federal politics. Maybe this is a silly idea on my part, but I can hope. Almost every state would maintain legal abortions. Some would have local battles to decide the issue. Some places (think North Dakota) would outlaw abortion fully and women would have to travel to seek an abortion. Most populous states would maintain the status quo. Let the people decide. Let the states compete with each other over who makes this work the best. I am basically pro-abortion, but I don't believe I should decide for women in other states. They can vote for what they want.... as it should be.
...
(Of course, if Roe was overturned, nobody would seriously consider doing that, right? But lets just entertain it as a hypothetical.)
Out of curiosity, what is the spirit of D&D?CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 2:35 pmAnd I hate his money going to Wizards of the Coast, a group of snivelling, self-righteous assholes. I had one lecture me on the spirit of D&D when I was playing before he was born.
These people are retarded. The US authorities tried to jail Polanski...he went to a place that wouldn't send him back.AndrewV69 wrote: ↑ Here in Canukistan, the CBC (The National) has been going gaga over Bill Crosby. Some people on the program (I am listening, not watching) appear to sound gleefully giddy about his conviction. Mentions of his age and net worth.
So while this was going on I thought to myself that someone is going to get bent out of shape about this. Sure enough:
There is more. Head over to his timeline and see for yourself.
I always viewed it as interactive storytelling. Rules were just a means of keeping the story interesting and unpredictable. Dungeon Master had the job of creating the background, players became the characters. Now there's enough rulebooks to make a lawyer cringe. All stats and flash, no heart. YMMV.HelpingHand wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 7:50 pmOut of curiosity, what is the spirit of D&D?CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 2:35 pmAnd I hate his money going to Wizards of the Coast, a group of snivelling, self-righteous assholes. I had one lecture me on the spirit of D&D when I was playing before he was born.
Asking as someone who likely was also playing before the WotCie was born. Keep in mind I lean toward roll playing with a heavy side of munchkinism. But with a dramatic self defeating twist -- I enjoyed my twinked combat machines going down in a blaze of glorious, well, glory.
Okay, since you admit you've been drinking, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, lol.John D wrote: ↑They wont.... I mean... it's like saying what if a giant fucking meteor hits the earth. It wont.... and they wont. Why even entertain this stupid shit?some guy wrote: ↑And what if Congress, follow the overturning of Roe, passes a law that makes it a federal crime to have, or perform, an abortion?John D wrote: ↑... I am sick of Roe v Wade. I am of the opinion that the abortion topic would be best left to the states. This would improve the function of the Federal government by taking the abortion issue out of Federal politics. Maybe this is a silly idea on my part, but I can hope. Almost every state would maintain legal abortions. Some would have local battles to decide the issue. Some places (think North Dakota) would outlaw abortion fully and women would have to travel to seek an abortion. Most populous states would maintain the status quo. Let the people decide. Let the states compete with each other over who makes this work the best. I am basically pro-abortion, but I don't believe I should decide for women in other states. They can vote for what they want.... as it should be.
...
(Of course, if Roe was overturned, nobody would seriously consider doing that, right? But lets just entertain it as a hypothetical.)
I don't know whether they would or not, but I doubt it as it would almost literally cause a civil war, and long before that it would be playing with dynamite hoping that all the pro-life conservative women and fence sitters wouldn't radicalize against the Republicans.some guy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 9:20 pm
But do you think the congressmen and women who passed the Hyde amendment were merely concerned about the Federal deficit; like, they were saying "We don't really care one way or the other if you get an abortion, we just don't want to pay for it."? That laws in states (like Texas) that make abortion clinics that do early term simple procedures effectively full blown hospitals (which they can't afford, so they shut down) are really in passing those laws for the health and safety of the women? It ain't just the Oklahomas and the Texas and the Missouri's and the North Dakota's that do that: an important post-Roe case was Casey, about a Pennsylvania restriction. It's a game of push right up to the limits of what Roe and it's prodigy allow, and then go over them in the hope that they give the SC a chance to further erode Roe.
So they could pass such a Federal law, or they could pass laws that in turn force states to pass them (think 55 mph speed limits: think drinking age of 21: all *state* laws the Feds effectively forced states to adopt). That doesn't mean they will succeed in doing so, but IMO they sure as hell will try, and keep trying, and the issue will be alive for decades to come. Completely overturning Roe will, IMO, make the abortion issue a much bigger part of Federal politics, not a lesser one.
So the Feds can make abortion illegal, but then they have to send troops to California, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, New Jersey, Washington State, Massachusetts, etc., to actually enforce it.If you've wondered just whether Colorado and Washington can make marijuana legalization stick in the face of federal law to the contrary, the Congressional Research Service has a (partial) answer for you. In a report dated April 5 of this year, the CRS concludes that states can't be dragooned into federal prohibitions. While the federal government can ban what it wants, the Tenth Amendment allows the states to opt out of participating in the law or assisting in enforcement in any way, leaving federal officials to do the heavy lifting themselves.
In State Legalization of Recreational Marijuana: Selected Legal Issues (PDF), authors Todd Garvey and Brian T. Yeh point out:
> Although the federal government may use its power of the purse to encourage states to adopt certain criminal laws, the federal government is limited in its ability to directly influence state policy by the Tenth Amendment, which prevents the federal government from directing states to enact specific legislation, or requiring state officials to enforce federal law. As such, the fact that the federal government has criminalized conduct does not mean that the state, in turn, must also criminalize or prosecute that same conduct.
Cort decisions have been clear on this point, add Garvey and Yeh, emphasizing that "under both Tenth Amendment and preemption principles, federal and state courts have previously held that a state’s decision to simply permit what the federal government prohibits does not create a 'positive conflict' with federal law."
This doesn't mean that engagers in activities formally forbidden by D.C. are home-free, however, since "the federal government remains free to expend its own resources to implement and enforce its own law, regardless of whether the state chooses to criminalize that same conduct." The authors acknowledge, however, that most of the would-be enforcers work at the state and local level, leaving the feds a tad short-handed when it comes to busting growers, sellers and smokers of marijuana.
free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 7:18 pmPresently the Harvest moon is rising over Texada Island, it calls for some some KC and a break from BK. :drool:
Starless will do.
One of the least discussed aspects of Roe is what a huge electoral boon it has been for Republicans. It radicalized the Evangelical vote, which used to not deviate from the general population substantially, making this huge bloc the single most likely to vote and vote overwhelmingly pro-GOP. It made the Catholic vote competitive after being sharply pro-Democratic previously. And it made it safe for pro-choice moderates and conservatives to vote Republican. Removing a controversial issue from the democratic marketplace has costs.Guest_b8931fdb wrote: ↑ I do think it goes back to the claim that the last thing Republican Politicans actually want is to elimate Roe V. Wode, because it just creates a nightmare for them and eliminates a fundraising avenue.
No problem.AndrewV69 wrote: ↑:o :o :o :lol: :lol: :lol:Lsuoma wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 4:02 pmThis. So much this. Come back ethnostate, all if forgiven.jugheadnaut wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 1:57 pmThe what-aboutism over the last couple of pages is getting painful. And lest I be what-abouted, I stipulate that it's become a major mode of argumentation on both sides.free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑ The first part of the quote was about the Vince Foster thing where Kavanaugh and his skeevy Republican pals tried to pin a murder on the Clintons because of some utterly shameful conspiracy theories. Even if those sex assault claims Party Barty O'Kavanaugh are false it still is less bad then trying to claim he committed murder.
Now that really is a bold statement.free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 11:28 am.
Trump played dirty and played the bully and won the election from a better, more experienced, albeit flawed opponent. Voters aren't going to respect someone that allows themselves to get pushed around anymore than the kids I went school with did.
"the majesty of freedom":Brive1987 wrote: ↑ Trump’s UN speech is a wonderful super-troll of hard liberal wankers.
https://www.vox.com/2018/9/25/17901082/ ... -full-text
It deserves to be shared.
Eh, not really. It's not hard to be better at being a President than Donald Trump.ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: ↑Now that really is a bold statement.free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 11:28 am.
Trump played dirty and played the bully and won the election from a better, more experienced, albeit flawed opponent. Voters aren't going to respect someone that allows themselves to get pushed around anymore than the kids I went school with did.
All Cage ever really needed was a movie to match his own screen presence.
Both fatally flawed in terms of honesty,criminality and personality issues. One just displays more subservience to the establishment than the other.Kirbmarc wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 3:51 amEh, not really. It's not hard to be better at being a President than Donald Trump.ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: ↑Now that really is a bold statement.free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 11:28 am.
Trump played dirty and played the bully and won the election from a better, more experienced, albeit flawed opponent. Voters aren't going to respect someone that allows themselves to get pushed around anymore than the kids I went school with did.
Someone should write one of those fake future/history books that supposes that Hillary did win the election.... and then write about what would happen. This would be a big money maker. Imagine the number of Republicans that would have gone after her in any way they could. It would have made the Obama vs. Republican congress look like a quiet sleepover. Haha.ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: ↑Both fatally flawed in terms of honesty,criminality and personality issues. One just displays more subservience to the establishment than the other.Kirbmarc wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 3:51 amEh, not really. It's not hard to be better at being a President than Donald Trump.ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: ↑Now that really is a bold statement.free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 11:28 am.
Trump played dirty and played the bully and won the election from a better, more experienced, albeit flawed opponent. Voters aren't going to respect someone that allows themselves to get pushed around anymore than the kids I went school with did.
Hillary is crooked but Trump is a crooked AND a complete idiot. Hillary wouldn't have started idiotic trade wars, or bickered with Canada and Germany for no good reason, or pulled out of the Paris agreement, or gutted the EPA, or gutted ACA, or wasted time with moronic travel bans and promises of a border wall which, lets's face it, is unlikely to be built anytime soon. She wouldn't have blabbed endlessly on twitter or exploited political polarization as much as Trump did. And I dare to say that she would have handled the Puerto Rico situation better than Trump, mostly to avoid backlash, of course, but still.ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 5:51 amBoth fatally flawed in terms of honesty,criminality and personality issues. One just displays more subservience to the establishment than the other.Kirbmarc wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 3:51 amEh, not really. It's not hard to be better at being a President than Donald Trump.ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: ↑Now that really is a bold statement.free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 11:28 am.
Trump played dirty and played the bully and won the election from a better, more experienced, albeit flawed opponent. Voters aren't going to respect someone that allows themselves to get pushed around anymore than the kids I went school with did.
The left: the nordic model of socialism seems to be a workable variant
Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑ Mandy is easily the stupidest, most annoying song evah...
*snort* + :lol:Ape+lust wrote: ↑ I'm pretty fucking annoyed with Torvalds right now.
https://i.imgur.com/uvGrFtH.jpg
Pretty much. Also:DrokkIt wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 7:30 amThe left: the nordic model of socialism seems to be a workable variant
The right: that's not socialism, it's capitalism with some social programs
The left: ok cool, can we have some capitalism with those kind of programs?
The right: FUCKING COMMIES REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE