- Time
- Post link
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
More tyrannical cops. Too many American police seem to think that we live in North Korea or the Soviet Union.
The Person in Question
This topic has been locked by a moderator.
More tyrannical cops. Too many American police seem to think that we live in North Korea or the Soviet Union.
The Person in Question
Irresponsible gun-owner, compulsive liar, violent assaulter of an elderly union worker, alleged comedian, and general all-around sack of shit Steven Crowder continues the right-wing trend of dishonestly comparing Parkland survivors to Hitler:
The Person in Question
How do these bogeymen catch your attention? He is annoying anyway.
The blue elephant in the room.
Because they’re loud, annoying, and have cult followings. The bogeymen are hard to miss.
.
How do these bogeymen catch your attention? He is annoying anyway.
He’s got a huge following, and recently a worshipful cult following, and he’s pissed me off for nearly ten years now. Everyone on Earth used to be fully aware of how stupid he is, but all of a sudden for some reason he’s considered a rational voice in the political sphere by many. Largely thanks to the rise of the alt-right I think.
The Person in Question
I’d drive myself to insanity if I cared about annoying liberal nitwits with dedicated fan bases. To each their own, I just don’t get the obsession with these personalities - that includes fans and detractors. Some time ago a liberal friend was complaining about Tomi Lahren and her influence. I regularly read a number of conservative sites and my response was, “who?” Literally never heard of her. I think these objectionable people get far more attention on the sites dedicated to the opposite politics, creating a skewed perception of how important they are.
The blue elephant in the room.
I’d drive myself to insanity if I cared about annoying liberal nitwits with dedicated fan bases. To each their own, I just don’t get the obsession with these personalities - that includes fans and detractors. Some time ago a liberal friend was complaining about Tomi Lahren and her influence. I regularly read a number of conservative sites and my response was, “who?” Literally never heard of her. I think these objectionable people get far more attention on the sites dedicated to the opposite politics, creating a skewed perception of how important they are.
Not really. People like Tomi Lahren and Alex Jones actually influence our nitwit of a president. He quoted Lahren’s “Caravan of immigrants” Fox & Friends segment and has contacted the psychopath Jones on multiple occasions.
The Person in Question
YEAH BUT WHAT ABOUT ALL THE LIBERAL NITWITS THAT MADE OBAMA DO DUMB SHIT?!?!?
YEAH BUT WHAT ABOUT ALL THE LIBERAL NITWITS THAT MADE OBAMA DO DUMB SHIT?!?!?
Who did Obama listen to that was as much of a dumbshit nitwit as Alex Jones or Tomi Lahren?
The Person in Question
YEAH BUT WHAT ABOUT ALL THE LIBERAL NITWITS THAT MADE OBAMA DO DUMB SHIT?!?!?
Who did Obama listen to that was as much of a dumbshit nitwit as Alex Jones or Tomi Lahren?
I know. I was asking a question to conservatives, specifically mrebo, by responding to your sarcastic comment.
The Person in Question
Trump is very smart at branding and controlling the media narrative.
Media is politics, then do the math 😃
Also, if he’s so great with the media, then why is he so historically unpopular? And why was he barely capable of even coming within 3,000,000 votes of winning the popular election? I don’t even know why I’m asking these questions.
Because 8 billion illegal criminals voted for Clinton in California, duh.
I love how right-wingers claim to love the electoral college now purely because it gives Republicans an advantage. They say, “Well, if it weren’t for the electoral college then people in California and New York’s votes would count for something.” Yeah, that’s how the democratic election of a representative works.
Well we’re a democratic republic, which I guess means that if you live in a more populous area, your voice matters less.
I know I’m being pedantic, but over-representation of rural areas is not in any way a by-product of a democratic republic. I know people say that all the time but they are all completely wrong. The fact that votes cast by people who live in less populated areas have more weight than votes cast by people in more populated areas is mostly just a function of how we chose to implement federalism in the US. There are other ways to implement federalism, and you can also have a democratic republic with no federalism at all, so that this is a non-issue. Democratic republics and our electoral college mess are apples and unicycles. There’s no link.
Technically you still have a little over-representation of areas with lower (or negative) population growth in a democratic republic (which tends to skew rural, but not always), due to the fact that the census is not continuous and is instead based on snapshots in time. But if that were the only issue we were struggling with, our democracy would be in good shape today.
One-third of Americans are too stupid to know about the Holocaust. Two-thirds of millennials are too stupid to know what Auschwitz was. This is horrifying ignorance.
The Person in Question
Trump is very smart at branding and controlling the media narrative.
Media is politics, then do the math 😃
Also, if he’s so great with the media, then why is he so historically unpopular? And why was he barely capable of even coming within 3,000,000 votes of winning the popular election? I don’t even know why I’m asking these questions.
Because 8 billion illegal criminals voted for Clinton in California, duh.
I love how right-wingers claim to love the electoral college now purely because it gives Republicans an advantage. They say, “Well, if it weren’t for the electoral college then people in California and New York’s votes would count for something.” Yeah, that’s how the democratic election of a representative works.
Well we’re a democratic republic, which I guess means that if you live in a more populous area, your voice matters less.
I know I’m being pedantic, but over-representation of rural areas is not in any way a by-product of a democratic republic. I know people say that all the time but they are all completely wrong. The fact that votes cast by people who live in less populated areas have more weight than votes cast by people in more populated areas is mostly just a function of how we chose to implement federalism in the US. There are other ways to implement federalism, and you can also have a democratic republic with no federalism at all, so that this is a non-issue. Democratic republics and our electoral college mess are apples and unicycles. There’s no link.
Technically you still have a little over-representation of areas with lower (or negative) population growth in a democratic republic (which tends to skew rural, but not always), due to the fact that the census is not continuous and is instead based on snapshots in time. But if that were the only issue we were struggling with, our democracy would be in good shape today.
Good write up, though I hope you know I was joking.
I know. I was asking a question to conservatives, specifically mrebo, by responding to your sarcastic comment.
Frink’s question has nothing to do with what I said. Again, obsessing over the personalities never seemed terribly worthwhile to me.
I don’t know that Trump even knows who Crowder is. I was curious why certain figures I consider marginal get your attention. If Frink wants to draw some sort of parallel with liberal nitwits to justify interest in conservative ones, he may explain.
The blue elephant in the room.
You were implying that “liberal nitwits” were doing the equivalent that people like Crowder or Tomi Lahren are doing. That’s not the case.
The Person in Question
Trump is very smart at branding and controlling the media narrative.
Media is politics, then do the math 😃
Also, if he’s so great with the media, then why is he so historically unpopular? And why was he barely capable of even coming within 3,000,000 votes of winning the popular election? I don’t even know why I’m asking these questions.
Because 8 billion illegal criminals voted for Clinton in California, duh.
I love how right-wingers claim to love the electoral college now purely because it gives Republicans an advantage. They say, “Well, if it weren’t for the electoral college then people in California and New York’s votes would count for something.” Yeah, that’s how the democratic election of a representative works.
Well we’re a democratic republic, which I guess means that if you live in a more populous area, your voice matters less.
I know I’m being pedantic, but over-representation of rural areas is not in any way a by-product of a democratic republic. I know people say that all the time but they are all completely wrong. The fact that votes cast by people who live in less populated areas have more weight than votes cast by people in more populated areas is mostly just a function of how we chose to implement federalism in the US. There are other ways to implement federalism, and you can also have a democratic republic with no federalism at all, so that this is a non-issue. Democratic republics and our electoral college mess are apples and unicycles. There’s no link.
Technically you still have a little over-representation of areas with lower (or negative) population growth in a democratic republic (which tends to skew rural, but not always), due to the fact that the census is not continuous and is instead based on snapshots in time. But if that were the only issue we were struggling with, our democracy would be in good shape today.
Good write up, though I hope you know I was joking.
Yeah, but it’s such a common statement I’m not sure you can deadpan it like that. I’m sure if elections were cancelled or votes were openly discarded, someone would say, “Well sure, if we were a Democracy this wouldn’t happen, but we’re a Democratic Republic so of course ballot boxes get dumped in the river.”
Trump is very smart at branding and controlling the media narrative.
Media is politics, then do the math 😃
Also, if he’s so great with the media, then why is he so historically unpopular? And why was he barely capable of even coming within 3,000,000 votes of winning the popular election? I don’t even know why I’m asking these questions.
Because 8 billion illegal criminals voted for Clinton in California, duh.
I love how right-wingers claim to love the electoral college now purely because it gives Republicans an advantage. They say, “Well, if it weren’t for the electoral college then people in California and New York’s votes would count for something.” Yeah, that’s how the democratic election of a representative works.
Well we’re a democratic republic, which I guess means that if you live in a more populous area, your voice matters less.
I know I’m being pedantic, but over-representation of rural areas is not in any way a by-product of a democratic republic. I know people say that all the time but they are all completely wrong. The fact that votes cast by people who live in less populated areas have more weight than votes cast by people in more populated areas is mostly just a function of how we chose to implement federalism in the US. There are other ways to implement federalism, and you can also have a democratic republic with no federalism at all, so that this is a non-issue. Democratic republics and our electoral college mess are apples and unicycles. There’s no link.
Technically you still have a little over-representation of areas with lower (or negative) population growth in a democratic republic (which tends to skew rural, but not always), due to the fact that the census is not continuous and is instead based on snapshots in time. But if that were the only issue we were struggling with, our democracy would be in good shape today.
Good write up, though I hope you know I was joking.
Yeah, but it’s such a common statement I’m not sure you can deadpan it like that. I’m sure if elections were cancelled or votes were openly discarded, someone would say, “Well sure, if we were a Democracy this wouldn’t happen, but we’re a Democratic Republic so of course ballot boxes get dumped in the river.”
Just to be clear though, the joke I was making was on the part of people using “democratic republic” as an excuse/explanation for why our current electoral college is such a good thing, but I can see how you interpreted it.
You were implying that “liberal nitwits” were doing the equivalent that people like Crowder or Tomi Lahren are doing. That’s not the case.
I stated that there are liberal nitwits (bogeymen is probably more accurate) but I don’t see the benefit in going on about them. Whether they are “equivalents” by some subjective standard doesn’t change the calculus for me. The extent to which they influence a leader is notable and there are valid criticisms to be made, I was only curious why they earn your attention.
The blue elephant in the room.
I think we know what this means.
The blue elephant in the room.
I don’t, but I also can’t tell what it’s doing in this thread.
Trump is very smart at branding and controlling the media narrative.
Media is politics, then do the math 😃
Also, if he’s so great with the media, then why is he so historically unpopular? And why was he barely capable of even coming within 3,000,000 votes of winning the popular election? I don’t even know why I’m asking these questions.
Because 8 billion illegal criminals voted for Clinton in California, duh.
I love how right-wingers claim to love the electoral college now purely because it gives Republicans an advantage. They say, “Well, if it weren’t for the electoral college then people in California and New York’s votes would count for something.” Yeah, that’s how the democratic election of a representative works.
Well we’re a democratic republic, which I guess means that if you live in a more populous area, your voice matters less.
I know I’m being pedantic, but over-representation of rural areas is not in any way a by-product of a democratic republic. I know people say that all the time but they are all completely wrong. The fact that votes cast by people who live in less populated areas have more weight than votes cast by people in more populated areas is mostly just a function of how we chose to implement federalism in the US. There are other ways to implement federalism, and you can also have a democratic republic with no federalism at all, so that this is a non-issue. Democratic republics and our electoral college mess are apples and unicycles. There’s no link.
Technically you still have a little over-representation of areas with lower (or negative) population growth in a democratic republic (which tends to skew rural, but not always), due to the fact that the census is not continuous and is instead based on snapshots in time. But if that were the only issue we were struggling with, our democracy would be in good shape today.
Good write up, though I hope you know I was joking.
I think he did, like when I responded seriously to Frink’s joke because I wanted to prove a point to people that actually think the way Frink was pretending to think.
The Person in Question
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/17/us/politics/supreme-court-deportations-trump.html
The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a law that allowed the government to deport some immigrants who commit serious crimes, saying it was unconstitutionally vague. The decision will limit the Trump administration’s efforts to deport people convicted of some kinds of crimes.
The vote was 5 to 4, with Justice Neil M. Gorsuch joining the court’s four more liberal members to form a bare majority, which was a first. Justice Gorsuch wrote that the law crossed a constitutional line.
“Vague laws,” he wrote in a concurring opinion, “invite arbitrary power.”
Justice Gorsuch had voted with the court’s conservative majority in February in a different immigration case, one that ruled that people held in immigration detention, sometimes for years, are not entitled to periodic hearings to decide whether they may be released on bail.
His vote in Tuesday’s case was not entirely surprising, though, as he has a skepticism of vague laws that do not give people affected by them adequate notice of what they prohibit.
Larry Kudlow, the president’s chief economic adviser, meanwhile, pinned the blame on Haley by stating that she “got ahead of the curve.”
“There might have been some momentary confusion about that,” he told reporters in West Palm Beach, Florida, on Tuesday.
“With all due respect, I don’t get confused,” Haley later responded in a statement of her own.
From her statement, it sounds like she did indeed give him all of the respect he was due.