Jump to content

General US Politics


Ansem

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

And I disagree with @Balcerzak on this one. On paper, I don't think Rucker (the employee in question) should have said that to a customer but I don't think straight up firing him should be the action to take here as it sets a precedent suggesting that work environments are places where these racist and bigoted fucks are able to do as they please. Racism and Bigotry deserves nothing less than push-back and it needs to fucking end, if there's anything that deserves oppression, it is racist and bigoted fucks like this Trump nut and the Nazis running for office.

As Jane Elliot said, you're not born a bigot, it is learned and you can unlearn it. The US is not where it should be on Racism.

They cited protocols for dealing with unruly customers, something which the cashier didn't follow.  IMO, it should've been taken up to management - they, in turn, could tell the customer to get lost and never come back.  Had the managers sided with the customer, that's where playing the long game comes in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 14.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Why do you feel bad for Moore?

I feel a little bad because he is basically being made fun of and sort of bullied. I do think he deserve the consequences, but I prefer that he is punished through the justice system and not via YouTube.

1 hour ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

The Koch brothers led to Trump

I thought they never supported Trump, or at least did not donate anything to him.

Edited by XRay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, XRay said:

I thought they never supported Trump, or at least did not donate anything to him.

During the 2016 campaign, no, they pretty much said they hated Trump and Hillary and would've preferred Marco Rubio as the president. I say they led to Trump because they're among the biggest perpetrators of the bribery going on in our government and thus donors that can get their politicians to do as they please.

To the Koch brothers, getting the tax cuts and repealing Obamacare is what they wanted most from their politicians and in order to execute that with greater ease, they needed a Republican presidency to come in after the Democrats lost the house under Obama and although they didn't like Trump, it was clear that Trump had higher chances of winning the election than the other Republican candidates. They could've had the GOP they control simply remove Trump from the run but they knew that as long as the idiot getting elected under the Republican party wins, said idiot could be influenced to doing Koch's bidding as well as placing more Koch servants under the administration.

 A lot of Trump's first year was mostly spent on trying to repeal Obamacare and the Tax cuts because of the pressure that was put on them to do so. The Tax cuts effort succeeded and when it came time to negotiate DACA, CHIP and other things, Republicans has obviously spent too much time focused on the Tax Cuts that they couldn't get Trump to sign anything the government shutdown occurred earlier in the year despite the control the GOP has over the government.

The Koch brothers hate Trump because they know he's leading the GOP to ruin and thus the loss of Koch control over the government. Pushing the politicians they control to impeaching Trump is a dangerous move because the people that would vote GOP in the midterms are the Trump base that WANTS to keep him in as president and they may not have enough politicians to do that. The best play there is for them is pushing for more tax cuts before the midterm elections and then manipulate Democrats who are willing (and there are, Republicans are just MORE corrupt than the Dems) to take their money.

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

During the 2016 campaign, no, they pretty much said they hated Trump and Hillary and would've preferred Marco Rubio as the president. I say they led to Trump because they're among the biggest perpetrators of the bribery going on in our government and thus donors that can get their politicians to do as they please.

To the Koch brothers, getting the tax cuts and repealing Obamacare is what they wanted most from their politicians and in order to execute that with greater ease, they needed a Republican presidency to come in after the Democrats lost the house under Obama and although they didn't like Trump, it was clear that Trump had higher chances of winning the election than the other Republican candidates. They could've had the GOP they control simply remove Trump from the run but they knew that as long as the idiot getting elected under the Republican party wins, said idiot could be influenced to doing Koch's bidding as well as placing more Koch servants under the administration.

 A lot of Trump's first year was mostly spent on trying to repeal Obamacare and the Tax cuts because of the pressure that was put on them to do so. The Tax cuts effort succeeded and when it came time to negotiate DACA, CHIP and other things, Republicans has obviously spent too much time focused on the Tax Cuts that they couldn't get Trump to sign anything the government shutdown occurred earlier in the year despite the control the GOP has over the government.

The Koch brothers hate Trump because they know he's leading the GOP to ruin and thus the loss of Koch control over the government. Pushing the politicians they control to impeaching Trump is a dangerous move because the people that would vote GOP in the midterms are the Trump base that WANTS to keep him in as president and they may not have enough politicians to do that. The best play there is for them is pushing for more tax cuts before the midterm elections and then manipulate Democrats who are willing (and there are, Republicans are just MORE corrupt than the Dems) to take their money.

Ah, okay. That makes sense.

- - - - - - -

Dear Naga! I am not sure how trust worthy The Spectator is, but their article on Manafort is pretty crazy. It is one thing to have a cuckold fetish and enjoying it with your spouse, but forcing your spouse to do it when she does not want to is fucked up. I feel bad for his family.

Edited by XRay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks like it might be the same organization as The Spectator (UK) but geared towards US news. Spectator (UK) appear to lean conservative or "Right-center" and their reporting seems to be on the "high" end of factual. If this story is true, the fact that he hasn't taken a plea deal with Mueller makes more sense.

Didn't this already happen before?

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, XRay said:

Dear Naga! I am not sure how trust worthy The Spectator is, but their article on Manafort is pretty crazy. It is one thing to have a cuckold fetish and enjoying it with your spouse, but forcing your spouse to do it when she does not want to is fucked up. I feel bad for his family.

There's a LOT to learn about Manafort and the awful things he's done in his life. There's a really good podcast (Behind the Bastards) that goes into the details of his professional life, and there's some serious shit he's gotten away with. He founded and ran a lobbying and PR firm for dictators to get in good with the US government to help them receive funding and arms. Dude has a lot of blood on his hands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't intended to be a serious post, but this is really funny to me.

I love his videos. In the absence of the Southern Strategy, his history makes sense, but unfortunately the Southern Strategy was pretty major.

Edited by Lord Raven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ugh.... that guy. I remember this one interview he had with CNN.

Think he would've been better off if he stayed quiet after Trump pardoned him.

EDIT: @eclipse Seems the Trump Administration had no real consequence on the court order to reunite families by the specific deadline and now it seems the Trump Administration is trying to delegate that responsibility elsewhere.

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just read this opinion article about the left's perception of America on Fox, and it seems kind of weird. Like, I think the right has moved much farther to the right than the left has move to the left. At least in my eyes, the left (at least its establishment faction) has been pretty moderate and did not really move much. I guess this is just my reply, thoughts, and rant on the article and politics in general.

He started off with nostalgia, so I guess I will too. I grew up in the 90s as a kid and America seemed invincible back then. While I was not even conceived yet to witness the fall of the Soviet Union, I travelled quite a bit with my mother to visit family, and I do notice the desirability of the Dollar compared to the local currency. I agree that it is a nostalgic time, at least for an Asian in California. I guess you can say the same thing during the 00s when I was a teen too.

However, that time is not perfect, especially if you in another part of the country or not a model minority. The war on drugs is raging, and blacks and Latinos are disproportionately incarcerated. While I do not remember hearing about police brutality back then, I am not going to assume their record was great ten or twenty years ago since the media just spotlighted issue recently.

As a response to that, Black Lives Matter happened. From my view, the right's response to that is to trivialize their greivances and see their protesting as a threat to white dominance. I can sort of understand them trivializing the issue since whites do not experience being oppressed, but treating it as a threat is a dick move, and it goes from being simply ignorant on the issue to being malicious and hostile. Black Lives Matter want police accountability and being treated just like any other Americans whose lives seem to matter more to the police; I do not think that is too much to ask. The right spinning it as an attack on police is unwarranted in my opinion. Yeah, there were a few bad apples, but that is not what the movement as a whole stands for.

So in short, I agree that there was "limitless opportunity for all" during the Clinton years... if you are not black or Latino. Opportunity was definitely not distributed equally. Is the left trashing America for being generally supportive of Black Lives Matter? Hell no! Some police are outright killing innocent black people! How the fuck is that trashing America? And that Arpaio douche illegally profiled Latinos racially giving American cops a bad name!

As for the Trump bashing, I think it is 99% justified. I am not going to pretend all people are saints, so I would not fault Trump for having a private locker room talk and treating it as a joke, but if he is insulting Megyn Kelly's womanhood on national televison and making negative statements about Mexicans and genuinely believes he is in the right, that is really fucked up. For his Stormy Daniel fling, I think it is fine, unless he intentionally disregarded campaign laws multiple times, and it seems that way based on his butt kissing behavior towards Putin. His foreign policy is also a fucked up mess; the only things I accept or tolerate are his trade war with China, attempting to normalize relations with North Korea, and bombing Syria that one time with missiles. His tax policy is also terrible and is pretty much universally derided by most Americans for giving the rich a fat paycheck.

As for his rambling on his grandfather's immigrantion story and his pursuit of happiness in America, he does not recognize that he and his family does not face the same discrimination that minorities do (Trump's travel ban) and economic inequality and social immobility is rising and he is on the better end of that deal. His personal "hardship" is nothing compared to being shot by the police, having people fear you for simply being black and wanting to ask for change (I am guilty of this, a black man in New York showed me his ID once to ease my nerves when he wanted some change), and he has the privilege of being able to afford and attend school.

Okay, I think that is pretty much it. His dismissive attitude of the left just reeks of hubris, so I just wanted to vent a bit.

Edited by XRay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spoiler

The reasons were complex, but there was one thing above all else that planted me firmly in the Republican camp: the left’s need to constantly trash or see America in a negative light.

Well yes, if there's systemic issues that some people see and others don't -- for reasons ranging from "I don't want to shatter my current perceptions" to "I'm physically incapable of experiencing this" -- and nobody wants to help because thou doth complain too much, of course nothing gets done and of course people will undermine our country verbally (speaking out) or symbolically (taking a knee.)

That's the kind of badass freedom we live in. People changing their ideology or alliances because people protest too much is petty. Regardless, we as a society need to destroy the concept of left or right because ideology has a wild tendency to blind us to what's real or practical. I stopped considering myself a liberal, leftist, rationalist, or whatever, just a citizen contributing his part.

Regardless, I find the Republicans branding the Democratic party as leftist is beautiful because it continues to entrench us ideologically and against one another and it moves a certain type of person with a certain ideology to the Republican Party... Even though most of the Republican Party platform really doesn't support their views. Maybe a few do in concept and only in concept, but they're not a coalition of the political spectrum as the Democratic party is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, XRay said:

I just read this opinion article about the left's perception of America on Fox, and it seems kind of weird. Like, I think the right has moved much farther to the right than the left has move to the left.

I concur with the bolded and even go as far as saying that some on the right don't even understand the politics of the right and are just douchebags who want to play the victim and have their way, they side with the right because it's the political party that's more wiling to go along with what they want as evidenced by Neo-Nazis running as Republicans.

The article is an opinion piece and everyone's entitled to their opinion but opinions do have faults and this one reeks of turning a blind eye to current events, blowing its main talking point out of proportion ("the left’s need to constantly trash or see America in a negative light") and the common misconception that "pursuit of happiness" is exclusive to the US (seriously, what fucking year are these people living in?)

2 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

Well yes, if there's systemic issues that some people see and others don't -- for reasons ranging from "I don't want to shatter my current perceptions" to "I'm physically incapable of experiencing this" -- and nobody wants to help because thou doth complain too much, of course nothing gets done and of course people will undermine our country verbally (speaking out) or symbolically (taking a knee.)

That's the kind of badass freedom we live in. People changing their ideology or alliances because people protest too much is petty. Regardless, we as a society need to destroy the concept of left or right because ideology has a wild tendency to blind us to what's real or practical. I stopped considering myself a liberal, leftist, rationalist, or whatever, just a citizen contributing his part.

Exactly and people on the right always want to frame it all as just being attacks on America and nothing more when more often than not it is a call for the country to continue to improve for EVERYONE and uphold the values of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. If there's anything the US is best at these days, it might be setting up the worst election in a Democracy in history.

 

The people on the right who are just in it to hate people of color need to be dealt with, it is clear that some in the right are just in it for their stupid racism and hate and are willing to exercise it without reason even towards people on their political side.

Gem from Pence

Quote

Further, the Presidents repeated lies to the American people in this matter compound the case against him as they demonstrate his failure to protect the institution of the presidency as the ‘inspiring supreme symbol of all that is highest in our American ideals. Leaders affect the lives of families far beyond their own ‘private life’.

I guess in a sea of Trump scandals, it's easy to miss a beautiful opportunity to have this fucker sit down in an interview and be put on the spot with this beauty.

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always hated the notion that you can't talk trash about America and also be a patriot.

Generally when I talk trash about America, it's because I want America to be better. Comparing America negatively to other countries isn't me going "America is the worst, fuck America"(Well not always. Actually fuck America sometimes, too), it's me going "these other countries are doing really well, we should be doing just as good or better".

If anything, fuck the people who continue to let America be inadequate. There's no reason to take pride in our prison system, our health system, our education system, our goddamn system for picking politicians, etc.

Edited by Slumber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somewhere along the way, blind jingoism got mistaken for patriotism and Conservatives claimed the concept. Mainstream Conservatives are very good at controlling the narrative and marketing, all while claiming that the left are the ones doing so.

150931978633431.png

But it sort of got me thinking about the whole "censorship" deal (outwith the government, so colloquially used.)

A cartoonist was fired for submitting cartoons criticising the right and Trump after the newspaper was taken over by pro-Trump owners:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/15/business/media/pittsburgh-cartoonist-fired.html

When it comes to videos that are being censored, Conservatives outlets like PragerU like to claim that they are the only ones that are being deplatformed, while left-wing political channels have also seen either videos demonetised or vastly reduced revenue, while channels like PragerU claims is only happening to their political ideology.

Another Israeli cartoonist was fired over anti-Netanyahu cartoons:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/26/israeli-cartoonist-fired-over-animal-farm-netanyahu-caricature

Look at anyone protesting Israeli actions in general or being pro-Palestine and you would see how quickly they get shut down. Or if they support BDS, like I mentioned before, where there is an actual law pending to make it illegal to support by my reading. You don't even technically need to lean left to support BDS.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/720/text

Sometimes, making laws to crack down on protesting is very much more effective than single events:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/02/24/republican-lawmakers-introduce-bills-to-curb-protesting-in-at-least-17-states/?utm_term=.562db0d6d1a5

Religious fundamentalists, which tend to be right-wing, still want to ban various things for moral reasons to this day. You have elected Republicans like Rick Santorum that have signed pledges stating that they want to ban porn. They (elected Republicans) are generally in favour of (keeping) marijuana banned. Most of them are wanting to revert gay marriage. They want to keep abortion laws as strict as possible.

Speaking of which, here's both Steve Deace and Glenn Beck walking off the sets of an interview because they didn't like the questions they were asked. If a left-wing commentator did this, what do you think the response would be?
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/395870-conservative-radio-host-storms-off-hln-set-during-argument-over-religion
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/393854-glenn-beck-walks-out-of-cnn-interview-after-question-on-future-of-media

And well, the big one is college or school campuses. But I've seen this article (which admittedly, does require a little more research on my part. This source is cited well, but have not looked into the validity of such), and the results are actually quite interesting. It mostly seems to be high-profile Conservatives that are turned down from speaking, while the "minor" instances barely get any attention.
https://niskanencenter.org/blog/there-is-no-campus-free-speech-crisis-a-close-look-at-the-evidence/

The spreadsheet of the dataset is a decent bit to look through. Not exactly the flush of anti-liberal dismissal that I was expecting to see. 
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1eeTHZQOh9faZ2P3C_O3sVBuRAG1LzIZnsq6LB50NUHk/edit#gid=122618086

Yet, and I don't know if I just haven't seen it, I have not seen any of the traditional free speech warriors come out to protest these in outrage. And yet, the way that Conservatives talk about it, you would imagine that free speech issues not upheld by the government are a uniquely left-wing problem. No doubt, it's a problem, but the above stuff is absolutely not unheard of. And this is something that has propagated quite well.This is why if nothing else, Conservatives tend to be very good at marketing.

At least, the ones that want to continue this whole left-right divide. Intelligent ones as part of both will realise that everyone gets triggered by something, and if you are saying otherwise, you're most certainly lying and pretending your shit doesn't stink. And that's to say nothing of the authoritarian nature of some lefties, who I would prefer not to associate with.

Edited by Edgelord
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of shit people say and get in trouble for, what is everyone's take on the Sarah Jeong situation? Is she being racist? Should she be fired? is there significant difference between her case and Roseanne's? Do you have to be someone in power or does your race have to be the "privileged" one in the nation for you to be racist? 

I do think she's being racist in some of her tweets and the left is wrong to claim that none of her tweets are racist but I'm kind of indifferent as to whether or not she should be fired like Roseanne. Ultimately it's up to the company they work for whether or not they're fired but I don't see this case having as valid reasoning for employment termination as Roseanne did and the outcome just doesn't really matter barring these tweets and history being used to continue to bar her from finding work elsewhere. Oh and then there's the hypocrisy on the right for calling foul on her "anti-white" tweets while they defend Trump.

1 hour ago, Edgelord said:

Yet, and I don't know if I just haven't seen it, I have not seen any of the traditional free speech warriors come out to protest these in outrage. And yet, the way that Conservatives talk about it, you would imagine that free speech issues not upheld by the government are a uniquely left-wing problem. No doubt, it's a problem, but the above stuff is absolutely not unheard of. And this is something that has propagated quite well.This is why if nothing else, Conservatives tend to be very good at marketing.

Probably because it isn't convenient or useful for them. See an example with Charlie Kirk.

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Speaking of shit people say and get in trouble for, what is everyone's take on the Sarah Jeong situation? Is she being racist? Should she be fired? is there significant difference between her case and Roseanne's? Do you have to be someone in power or does your race have to be the "privileged" one in the nation for you to be racist? 

I do think she's being racist in some of her tweets and the left is wrong to claim that none of her tweets are racist but I'm kind of indifferent as to whether or not she should be fired like Roseanne. Ultimately it's up to the company they work for whether or not they're fired but I don't see this case having as valid reasoning for employment termination as Roseanne did and the outcome just doesn't really matter barring these tweets and history being used to continue to bar her from finding work elsewhere. Oh and then there's the hypocrisy on the right for calling foul on her "anti-white" tweets while they defend Trump.

It's a bit different than the Roseanne situation, since Sarah Jeong was more or less reacting to other people with a lot of those tweets. When you put them in a vacuum, they look way different. And to top it off, she never(As far as I'm aware) directly targeted somebody because of their race, which is a huge diverging point with Roseanne, who also was seemingly making those posts completely unprovoked.

Plus, yeah, it's up to the company. The NYTimes wants to keep Jeong, ABC didn't want to keep Roseanne. If the reverse happened, I don't know how I'd feel.

The whole deal is a sticky situation that I don't really want to try to tackle all that deeply, since honestly, it doesn't really affect me. My life as a white man doesn't feel any more in danger with Sarah Jeong at the NYTimes than it was before they hired her.

Edited by Slumber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Let he who has no sin cast the first stone."

IIRC, Roseanne's thing happened while she was at ABC.  Sarah's thing happened before she was hired.  I think Sarah is an interesting case of past social media being used against someone - something that I think will become more common in the future.  I also think that people who criticize her should have THEIR social media combed through as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Let he who has no sin cast the first stone."

IIRC, Roseanne's thing happened while she was at ABC.  Sarah's thing happened before she was hired.  I think Sarah is an interesting case of past social media being used against someone - something that I think will become more common in the future.  I also think that people who criticize her should have THEIR social media combed through as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/20/2018 at 7:48 PM, Lord Raven said:

Honestly I'm sorry for all of this aside but I just do not believe it is worthwhile or productive to talk about Trump supporters as if they were all brainwashed. Thats how this orange whale with tiny hands continues to thrive. I believe ultimately the government has colossally failed its people on all fronts and Trump is both a symptom and a result of all that. Government and public figures deserve verbal scrutiny like that but not necessarily civilians.

It may not be worthwhile or productive, but it is mostly true. The only exceptions are those who support Trump out of greed.  There are judges in this country who send mentally ill self-medicating people to prison to be tortured. They tortured my mom over a false drug arrest. They tortured my friend for a victimless crime. America is a very dark and insidious country that was born out of war, slavery, and genocide. The sickness that was there at the founding of this country is still alive.

Edited by expshare
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

Regardless, we as a society need to destroy the concept of left or right because ideology has a wild tendency to blind us to what's real or practical.

I am not sure if that is necessary. Right and left are convenient short hands, and I think most people are pretty moderate in most cases, or are at least willing to compromise.

14 hours ago, Slumber said:

If anything, fuck the people who continue to let America be inadequate. There's no reason to take pride in our prison system, our health system, our education system, our goddamn system for picking politicians, etc.

Sort of reminds that when somebody says they are nice or some vague positive quality, that immediately raises red flags and expectation is that they fall far short of that quality. I guess that also applies to politics when they say will make America great again, since America is laughing stock right now.

14 hours ago, Edgelord said:

And well, the big one is college or school campuses. But I've seen this article (which admittedly, does require a little more research on my part. This source is cited well, but have not looked into the validity of such), and the results are actually quite interesting. It mostly seems to be high-profile Conservatives that are turned down from speaking, while the "minor" instances barely get any attention.
https://niskanencenter.org/blog/there-is-no-campus-free-speech-crisis-a-close-look-at-the-evidence/

That is interesting. While I do not like conservative speakers, I do not think it is right for campuses to deny their speeches. However,  The article mentions that they do not have much data on right wing/religious schools, so it would be interesting to see how they compare to more well known/public schools.

13 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Speaking of shit people say and get in trouble for, what is everyone's take on the Sarah Jeong situation? Is she being racist? Should she be fired? is there significant difference between her case and Roseanne's? Do you have to be someone in power or does your race have to be the "privileged" one in the nation for you to be racist? 

I do think she's being racist in some of her tweets and the left is wrong to claim that none of her tweets are racist but I'm kind of indifferent as to whether or not she should be fired like Roseanne. Ultimately it's up to the company they work for whether or not they're fired but I don't see this case having as valid reasoning for employment termination as Roseanne did and the outcome just doesn't really matter barring these tweets and history being used to continue to bar her from finding work elsewhere. Oh and then there's the hypocrisy on the right for calling foul on her "anti-white" tweets while they defend Trump.

Probably because it isn't convenient or useful for them. See an example with Charlie Kirk.

I do think it is racist, but since it is from quite a while ago and it is not targeting a specific individual, I would give her a pass. As long as a person apologizes, I think the public humiliation is good enough and I do not think further punishment is necessary.

The context do also matter in my opinion, I have not read too deeply into it, but she claims she responding to harassment and that she is satiring their language. I personally have no problem with her retaliating that way, and I think an eye for an eye is perfectly justifiable. However, she does need to watch out since not everyone feels that way about responding in kind.

10 hours ago, eclipse said:

IIRC, Roseanne's thing happened while she was at ABC.  Sarah's thing happened before she was hired.

I think that is a big factor as well, although I think firing Roseanne seemed a bit harsh, since she did apologize. She is also a comedian, and I generally give them more leeway since you are not supposed to take their words too seriously.

- - - - - - -

Fuck you, Trump. You are nothing but a piece of nasty ass lard mixed with petroleum. I wish someone would shove a branding iron down your throat and ass to seal your pig holes up. I hope global warming will cause you bigly property damages so you would get a taste of what people are going through here in California.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen Miller is at it again. I'm not surprised about this in the slightest, just putting it out there and wondering if anyone actually is.

And then there's the Chris Collins bombshell that's posted everywhere and after about 8 months or so, the tease between the Trump-Mueller interview ends with Trump's lawyers saying no to the interview. Will Mueller Subpoena Trump and put Giuliani in further self-destruction? Find out next time on #FuckTrump.

Also, isn't the "Religious Liberty Task force" that Sessions wants to put forward a violation of the first amendment?

Trump's EPA allowing asbestos. Which country would benefit most from this? Russia. and they love it

Oh lordy there are MORE tapes and it's not from Cohen or Omarosa

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Stephen Miller is at it again. I'm not surprised about this in the slightest, just putting it out there and wondering if anyone actually is.

Not surprised about assholes being repulsive. That is a huge dick move to people who are practically no different from normal Americans at this point, with the only difference being that they are not technically American.

14 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Also, isn't the "Religious Liberty Task force" that Sessions wants to put forward a violation of the first amendment?

I think so, but I am not too sure. How I understand it is that the government should make no little to no reference to religion and have a hands off approach. I think that means the government should be religion-blind and basically have a "meh, who cares" attitude, which I assume it also means it cannot promote secularism either, or else that would mean the government is having a stance on religion.

14 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Trump's EPA allowing asbestos. Which country would benefit most from this? Russia. and they love it

Trump is already showing signs of being senile. Maybe it is best to let him install abestos in his own home to speed up the deterioration of his mind so it becomes abundantly clear that he is unfit to govern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, XRay said:

Trump is already showing signs of being senile. Maybe it is best to let him install abestos in his own home to speed up the deterioration of his mind so it becomes abundantly clear that he is unfit to govern.

Asbestos is actually crazy useful, and it's only dangerous if you breathe in the fibers. We still use it in a ton of things, the risk is usually only present if whatever it's used in is destroyed (like a building), splitting fibers and sending them airborne.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Johann said:

Asbestos is actually crazy useful, and it's only dangerous if you breathe in the fibers. We still use it in a ton of things, the risk is usually only present if whatever it's used in is destroyed (like a building), splitting fibers and sending them airborne.

I still do not want it to be near me though, and I definitely do not want it in my home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're bringing Asbsetos back!?!?!?!?

...omg...that's a toxic torts attorney's wet dream...

(There's guys who legit do nothing but litigate asbestos exposure cases, for plaintiffs who have developed mesothelioma. They're all gazillionaires.) 

 

 


Image result for nj asbestos attorney
 

 

 


^^^

No joke.

That is a standalone business-model for a multimillion dollar law firm

 

Edited by Shoblongoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...