Uh.. sir, gotta interject... this is just dogshit. If you're not even willing to entertain an idea, than it is you who is being reactionary. You sound like some fucking lib who says "I wont' even entertain the idea of putting a muslim ban! It's just reactionary bullshit!". If it's a bad argument, make the counter argument and show it is one. That's how the movement of ideas works.



Same to you, mr. Iwontconsideroutrightbanninggunseventhoughlmanydevelopednationshavealreadydoneso



Because the southern bible thumpers on the right are not trying to be the fucking moral police with abortion or gay marriage. Any party that uses religion to further their political ambitions are, 100%, trying to act as a moral police. Not to say the left doesn't have its fair share of moral police, but its organization has been minimal and thus has had little effect.

Now this I have a problem with. Although I'm not sure of what their annual budget is, I really don't think allowing these scientists to attend the biggest meeting in their field would break the bank. Some schmuck said that capping the attendance saved the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of dollars. We could do that if we brought all our troops home, shrunk defense spending, and treated cannabis like alcohol. But no. I bet if it had something to do with the military industrial complex the entire DHS would be allowed to go.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/gover ... smsnnews11

So... no one's gonna talk about the fact that the Trump/Kim Jong-Un thing has literally turned into a "my dick is bigger than your dick" thing, but with launch buttons for nuclear weapons as the "dicks"?



I know there are no surprises here, but I mean... yeah. It's all too depressing and frightening to be amusing, but I'll give it a shot in the below paragraphs. We live in a world where tens of millions could lose their lives to the dick swinging of two of the worst world leaders to ever spout inane rhetoric.

This is gonna sound like humor, because it's all so absurd, but really: people get suspended and banned from Twitter all the time for absolute BS; for the shortcomings of the algorithms and bots that were designed to find and manage death threats and the like... and these two can threaten each other with nuclear genocide and nothing happens? If South Park got it right that Earth is just the site of the galaxy's favorite reality show, then this must be the greatest season of intergalactic television ever.

I used to be more politically minded, and would probably have had some wise thing to say back in the day. Then again, that person had no idea that the US would ever elect a president that actually takes the verbal barbs of North Korean leaders seriously. That should be on some kind of Presidential entrance exam...

How would you respond if the current prime minister of North Korea were to threaten nuclear attack on the United States?

Would you:
A) Safely dismiss it as empty posturing, as per presidential custom?
or
B) Engage in a one-on-one social media war?

If a candidate selects the latter option, they get shot on sight: for the safety of both American and Korean citizens; and on behalf of Twitter's already limited tolerability as a social media service.

With wishes for better days and a bad taste in my mouth,

– A real, live transgender woman

(Who is very grateful to live in Canada/have a few rights; and who has all the sympathy she can muster for the jaded trans population of the USA. May every revoked right; every act of verbal or physical violence; every murder and sexual assault; and every right you never had to begin with become a spear that will stab through the blackened hearts of your oppressors. Sorry, folks—just had to shed some light for a moment!)

Carry on.

I'm pretty sure everybody enjoyed ten days of peace and quite, actually, which is why nobody has bumped this thread until you just did.

I suggest putting these two in a caged death match. The loser dies, and the winner ALSO gets killed, just to be safe!

Oh man, the Bannon vs Trump shitshow is glorious!

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/03/full-statement-donald-trump-responds-to-steve-bannon-322279

No one is forcing you to click this thread.

Honestly, it'd be better for everyone, including yourself, if you stopped posting.

I have to wonder what Bannon's angle is here. Because I highly doubt he is saying all of these things just for the sake of being honest and candid.

Anyone enjoy bathing in Trumple tears and bewilderment and shock as much as I do? Head on over to the_donald subreddit and watch as Trump supporters come up with everything they possibly can think of to explain the fallout between their true love (Bannon) and the guy they claim is their #1 (Trump). Favorite conspiracy theory: this is all just an elaborate introduction to Trump's upcoming Fake News Awards!

I'm not laughing at it. Think about how bad things must be if Bannon and Trump are lashing out at each other like that.

The one thing Bannon and Trump have in common is how much better things would be if they both hanged themselves tonight, right at this moment.

Careful. Don't want the FBI to harass you

Woops! Guess that didn't work out as intended, huh?

I thought this statement stood out:



"Adversaries of Democracy."

That is the Trump administration to a big, shiny, golden T.

Degrade women and minorities? Marry/rape children in the way so many religions support?

Oh wait, it's the self-named "moral majority" that supports this stuff. It's almost like word "morality" has no fucking meaning at all anymore. Might as well call oneself "pro life" and then send bombs to doctors who perform abortions.

Not to mention overwhelmingly support the death penalty and institutional racism.

Read a genius article today about how the democrats' plan of running diet republicans has failed and will continue to fail: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/12/ ... -oblivious

If they democratic party doesn't find some principles to stand behind some time soon they're going to guarantee Trump a second term with full congressional control the whole time.

There's a great docu-series called "Death Row Stories". Episode after episode of people who were almost murdered by the state and later proven 100% innocent. It pissed me off to no end. Think about how many mouth-breathers you encounter on a day-to-day basis, then imagine how those same people are allowed to serve jury duty.

http://edition.cnn.com/2018/01/06/polit ... index.html

What I think is weird about Trump is that, after this disastrous year this clown has endured in the white house, he have went from more obvious child like statements like this to more and more outrageous stuff as the year progressed. Now, the circle have reached the starting point again. Yeah donald, you are very smart and very stabil, there is also no one who love women more than you and so on!

Unfortunately, I'm a pessimist, so I fear that this clown at least will ride out his entire period spouting bullshit time and again and potentially nuking a country along the way, but let's hope with all of our hearts that I'm wrong! And I haven't even talked about the fear of him winning another election!

You know things have gotten incredibly shitty when an Oprah presidency sounds like a reasonable improvement.

Trump's response tweets basically prove how stupid and unstable he really is.

Jury duty is the absolute pits just like Trump. I was called in aka "summoned" to jury duty. It was the pits and I never got the chance to serve on a jury anyways. Both the judge and the defense attorney did not sound like people you would even want to share a drink with. A week or so before the "summoning" the barber who was cutting my hair warned me about how all they ever do is waste time through the entire process. He was correct.

So Wikileaks leaked Fire and Fury in its entirety a couple days ago. I can't tell if the intent is to expand the book's reach even more or to undermine said reach by trying to diminish its sales. Also, there are more people who think that Wikileaks is still "on Trump's side" than I thought...

Either way, my guitarist emailed it to me and I'm gonna be reading it that way until I can buy it.

Republican Susan Collins says she will vote to reinstate Net Neutrality, likely meaning it will pass in the Senate. That said, it's still pretty much a lost cause because Trump will no doubt veto it, because he loves freedom and the internet very much and would never want to do anything to damage them in any way!

This is a very poor measure of the quality of a judge or a defense attorney.

Most libertarians actually support net neutrality. Without the free flowing of information, there can be no democracy. On one hand, though, I hope ISP's start fucking over the far-right and censoring neo-conservative outlets just to give me a sense of karma.

Actually, most libertarians oppose net neutrality on the grounds that ISPs should be able to control their delivery of content. Libertarians believe in the freedom of owners (of capital, property, intellectual property, land, etc) to do as they wish, not in "democracy" or "free flowing of information".

Thus why people like Paul Ryan support the recent gutting of net neutrality: http://thehill.com/policy/technology/33 ... neutrality

Paul Ryan isn't a real libertarian, though. I'm basing my statement on the countless comments I've read on the "Being Libertarian" Facebook page.

Well, I read twice as many comments as you saw that opposed net neutrality on "Being a REAL Libertarian".

Well sure but still my experience around these two individuals was not a very good one. You can say I didn't deserve it anyway and you may be correct however it's still not a experience I should have gone through.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... 342b5b1d40

Fucking disgusting but not surprising. He is a white supremacist and believes people who aren't white are inferior. There will be people rushing to defend him for no particular reason, claiming it doesn't have to do with race - they're idiots.

This.

Another reason why I hope he's the last tv star president with no fucking diplomatic experience or any sense of tact. It's quite possible that former presidents were bigger shitheads than they let on, but the POTUS isn't supposed to go around calling places "shithole countries" and how he doesn't think we should help them. But yeah, I'm sure it'll go over fine with his supporters in the KKK and the ones waving the Nazi flags that he refers to as "very nice people." [facepalm]

What a mess.

I was just saying. I made a pro-net neutrality comment on that Facebook page and got a ton of "likes" for it. I brought it up to illustrate that the majority of Americans are in support of net neutrality and it'll be reinstated before long, hopefully.

This President has seceded in the impossible. Screwing up in every possible way.

It was probably non-libertarians reading the page for laughs who "liked" your post. Most Americans do support net neutrality and most Americans aren't libertarians: not a coincidence.

John....most Americans are libertarians. They just don't know it. Ending wars for profit. No more spying. Audit and/or ending the fed. More civil liberties. Legalization of cannabis. No government intrusion into our sex lives (abortion, birth control, not homophobes, etc.) Small business friendly/ promoting entrepreneurs. Common sense immigration reform. Ending the police state. Etc.

Oh....and I am a libertarian that supports net neutrality.

None of those things are strictly libertarian, though. More like general freedoms and rights people should have. A far cry from what your average Randroid spouts.

Let's not forget that libertarians want to "cut government spending," a.k.a. kill the social safety nets and let poor people starve in the streets.

I'm guessing "liberty" means something different in American political doublespeak terms.