Topic: How can you Trump supporters possibly justify this?
Anonymous A started this discussion 8 years ago #74,540
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 1 minute later[^] [v] #883,101
I support the law, regardless of Trump.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 8 years ago, 7 minutes later, 9 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #883,103
Anonymous B replied with this 8 years ago, 5 minutes later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #883,104
Meta joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 1 minute later, 16 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #883,106
"Hey let's violate America's border security what could possibly go wrong?"
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #883,113
Sheila LaBoof joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #883,118
piles of dead bodies
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 38 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #883,119
@OPeniskook !!OPZbEQMT1 joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 49 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #883,123
They say on the article that some illegal immigrants have been showing up with children that do not belong to them. They can't just let an adult cohabitate with a child that isn't theirs under government watch. If something were to happen to one of those kids, people would be outraged at our government for not validating the parent child relationship before allowing them to live together.
squeegee joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 22 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #883,127
i didn't read the article, but my opinion is that trump hasn't helped anything. at all.Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 30 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #883,128
@previous (squeegee)
Do you think that's a valid, well informed opinion, or is it just RRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE and typical of all Democrats?
Do you think that's a valid, well informed opinion, or is it just RRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE and typical of all Democrats?
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 15 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #883,131
squeegee replied with this 8 years ago, 10 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #883,134
@883,128 (I)okay, i'll bite. what has trump helped?
@previous (J)
it's amazing how quickly the memes are regurgitated. the one about democrats being a unified front of memes is most puzzling though, considering that's just a meme... it's like 64D projection.
Anonymous I replied with this 8 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #883,140
squeegee replied with this 8 years ago, 6 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #883,147
@previous (I)so then no, you can't name one single specific thing he's done to help anything. just. just more memes.
k
squeegee double-posted this 8 years ago, 54 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #883,149
going to go ahead and stand behind my valid, well formed opinion. thanks.Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 19 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #883,151
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 3 hours later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #883,165
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 2 hours later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #883,177
Well if the wetbacks don't want to lose their kids, stop trying to come here.
squeegee joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 1 hour later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #883,188
@883,151 (K)
So you can tell me what he's helped then?
@883,165 (L)
Or can you do that? I'm sure between the two of you you can find one thing trump has helped. I'll wait.
So you can tell me what he's helped then?
@883,165 (L)
Or can you do that? I'm sure between the two of you you can find one thing trump has helped. I'll wait.
(Edited 23 seconds later.)
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 1 hour later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #883,189
A moment of silence please because USA takes a few children away from parents. Yes that is wrong HOWEVER
USA in Vietnam killed 400,000 civilians many who were babies and kids. Agent orange and other USA atrocities; 500,000 children were born with birth defects.
Someone else can look up how many kids USA killed in Iraq. And did I leave out Korea police action killing babies?
USA in Vietnam killed 400,000 civilians many who were babies and kids. Agent orange and other USA atrocities; 500,000 children were born with birth defects.
Someone else can look up how many kids USA killed in Iraq. And did I leave out Korea police action killing babies?
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 8 years ago, 3 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #883,190
Anonymous P joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 4 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #883,191
squeegee replied with this 8 years ago, 48 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #883,198
Still waiting for someone, anyone, to tell me a single solitary thing trump has helped... you'd think trump supporters would be able to put their heads together and think of one thing his presidency has actually helped anyone with.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Green !BEERiVqJJw joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 2 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #883,199
squeegee replied with this 8 years ago, 6 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #883,203
@previous (Green !BEERiVqJJw)
Diplomacy with north korea... jury is still out on that one. I admit he's trying to do something, and credit will be given if peace is reached, but there's not peace yet. There's still plenty of time left for trump to fuck it up and help nothing.
Nice try, but the idea of future helpfulness isn't the same as actually having been helpful. Besides, isn't it Mike Pompeo who's doing the actual negotiating?
I guess trump gets credit for being helpful if he doesn't manage to personally fuck it up. But, it's far from resolved right now green.
Diplomacy with north korea... jury is still out on that one. I admit he's trying to do something, and credit will be given if peace is reached, but there's not peace yet. There's still plenty of time left for trump to fuck it up and help nothing.
Nice try, but the idea of future helpfulness isn't the same as actually having been helpful. Besides, isn't it Mike Pompeo who's doing the actual negotiating?
I guess trump gets credit for being helpful if he doesn't manage to personally fuck it up. But, it's far from resolved right now green.
squeegee double-posted this 8 years ago, 2 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #883,206
So what has trump actually done that's helpful and isn't just a promise to maybe be helpful one of these days.
Trump promises are worth about as much as his word. Maybe point out something has actually already done. At the moment it sounds like all you got is, "he makes libtards cry," and I gotta be frank with you, that's pretty pathetic and small. You're asked a direct question and all you can do is troll?
Before the election conservatives were crying about being disenfranchised and ignored, the coastal elites didn't "get it." And now we have exactly the opposite.
If all you guys have left is trolling, laughing, and mocking them that's not a very firm base to build a political platform on. You're going to be on the receiving end of your own political armageddon come November if y'all cant figure out how your guys are even helping anything.
Oh yeah, but librards are stupid, durrrr... I don't know anything else, duh.
Trump promises are worth about as much as his word. Maybe point out something has actually already done. At the moment it sounds like all you got is, "he makes libtards cry," and I gotta be frank with you, that's pretty pathetic and small. You're asked a direct question and all you can do is troll?
Before the election conservatives were crying about being disenfranchised and ignored, the coastal elites didn't "get it." And now we have exactly the opposite.
If all you guys have left is trolling, laughing, and mocking them that's not a very firm base to build a political platform on. You're going to be on the receiving end of your own political armageddon come November if y'all cant figure out how your guys are even helping anything.
Oh yeah, but librards are stupid, durrrr... I don't know anything else, duh.
(Edited 7 minutes later.)
Syntax replied with this 8 years ago, 2 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #883,207
@883,198 (squeegee)
Damn man as much as I despise totally despise the man I end up Conflicted. Qualcomm was about to be scooped up by a renegade corporation raider from Singapore.
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States recommended that this raid be stopped and Trump agreed and ordered Broadcom to cease and pull its dick out permanently.
Trump rules as a bully and creates Chaos. The stock market was rising and rising because of Obama quality leadership and there is frankly no way to buy low and sell high when the market keeps rising and is stable.
With Trump I got back in2 day trading and could pull 6 to 12 percent gains daily for a while. Stocks with real value good for long term holding took dives.
And of course his beyond stupid trickle down Tax cut. Good for filling my wallet and maybe even yours. Sure it is driving up national debt and making the rich richer - Anyway as I said Conflicted.
Yes immoral of me YET one wood be a fool not to take advantage of Trump Chaos.
Damn man as much as I despise totally despise the man I end up Conflicted. Qualcomm was about to be scooped up by a renegade corporation raider from Singapore.
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States recommended that this raid be stopped and Trump agreed and ordered Broadcom to cease and pull its dick out permanently.
Trump rules as a bully and creates Chaos. The stock market was rising and rising because of Obama quality leadership and there is frankly no way to buy low and sell high when the market keeps rising and is stable.
With Trump I got back in2 day trading and could pull 6 to 12 percent gains daily for a while. Stocks with real value good for long term holding took dives.
And of course his beyond stupid trickle down Tax cut. Good for filling my wallet and maybe even yours. Sure it is driving up national debt and making the rich richer - Anyway as I said Conflicted.
Yes immoral of me YET one wood be a fool not to take advantage of Trump Chaos.
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 8 years ago, 37 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #883,233
@883,199 (Green !BEERiVqJJw)
no, that was already widely known, merely overshadowed by the retardations of the other party however
no, that was already widely known, merely overshadowed by the retardations of the other party however
Anonymous L replied with this 8 years ago, 2 hours later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #883,277
Anonymous R joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 1 hour later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #883,312
@previous (L)
Getting out of TPP was grate and one of the few points I'd concede as a positive from his administration to date, but now he's doing an about-face on it. :/
Getting out of TPP was grate and one of the few points I'd concede as a positive from his administration to date, but now he's doing an about-face on it. :/
squeegee replied with this 8 years ago, 16 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #883,319
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/opinion/sunday/written-proof-that-the-presidents-lobbyist-ban-is-worthless.html
you mean the worthless ban that trump has written exceptions for his entire staff? great way to help himself, i guess. this just means whichever party controls the executive gets to flood the industry with their own lobbyists while no one else can get a waiver.
@previous (R)
that'll be helpful for china when we inevitably enter back in with worse terms than before. but i'll keep this on the wait and see list just in case his decision ends up being helpful to America in any way.
you mean the worthless ban that trump has written exceptions for his entire staff? great way to help himself, i guess. this just means whichever party controls the executive gets to flood the industry with their own lobbyists while no one else can get a waiver.
@previous (R)
that'll be helpful for china when we inevitably enter back in with worse terms than before. but i'll keep this on the wait and see list just in case his decision ends up being helpful to America in any way.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous S joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 6 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #883,323
@883,277 (L)Q: Why'd Eric Trump take down the mirror over his bed?
A: He couldn't get used to shaving on his back.
Anonymous T joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 15 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #883,327
@883,277 (L)
> how about his 5 year ban on lobbying?
It's a ban on executive branch officials lobbying after leaving their jobs. I might take that seriously if not for the waivers. The lobbyists that seem to be the problem are the ones writing tax bills that Congress passes without reading and then hands Trump to sign.
Also, you need to update your talking point image, because it is so out of date it is laughable. Trump has flipped on the TPP, isn't helping relations with China, the UK isn't fond of him, and he's not tough on North Korea anymore. The budget surplus numbers might have been true four months into 2017, but the GOP is now splashing around in deficit spending like a pig in mud. Maybe stick with mentioning things like consumer confidence or how many bills and executive orders Trump has signed without going into too much detail about them if you want to make Trump look like a dynamic leader.
> how about his 5 year ban on lobbying?
It's a ban on executive branch officials lobbying after leaving their jobs. I might take that seriously if not for the waivers. The lobbyists that seem to be the problem are the ones writing tax bills that Congress passes without reading and then hands Trump to sign.
Also, you need to update your talking point image, because it is so out of date it is laughable. Trump has flipped on the TPP, isn't helping relations with China, the UK isn't fond of him, and he's not tough on North Korea anymore. The budget surplus numbers might have been true four months into 2017, but the GOP is now splashing around in deficit spending like a pig in mud. Maybe stick with mentioning things like consumer confidence or how many bills and executive orders Trump has signed without going into too much detail about them if you want to make Trump look like a dynamic leader.
Anonymous L replied with this 8 years ago, 2 hours later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #883,373
@previous (T)
you're free to hop on t_d and look for a more recent list of fulfilled promises, its quite long
his voters seem happy but i guess they're all deluded and stupid cuz they watch fox instead of cnn
you're free to hop on t_d and look for a more recent list of fulfilled promises, its quite long
his voters seem happy but i guess they're all deluded and stupid cuz they watch fox instead of cnn
Anonymous T replied with this 8 years ago, 20 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #883,399
Anonymous L replied with this 8 years ago, 11 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #883,515
Anonymous U joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 25 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #883,527
@previous (L)
> why would i bother?
So you can't come up with anything. Ok, thanks retard, that'll be all.
> why would i bother?
So you can't come up with anything. Ok, thanks retard, that'll be all.
Anonymous L replied with this 8 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #883,528
Anonymous U replied with this 8 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #883,533
Anonymous L replied with this 8 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #883,548
@previous (U)
lol
so im a retard based on me not willing to provide more examples?
at least i don't have to resort to name calling
lol
so im a retard based on me not willing to provide more examples?
at least i don't have to resort to name calling
squeegee replied with this 8 years ago, 30 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #883,554
Anonymous U replied with this 8 years ago, 16 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #883,555
Anonymous L replied with this 8 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #883,556
@883,554 (squeegee)
i provided an example (read up) and i don't have to provide more because some troll ask for it
also the simple fact you can't even concede anything trump did right or hillary did wrong says enough
you got your mind made up and it won't be changed, so by bother with discourse?
i will revel in the knowledge trump is your president
i provided an example (read up) and i don't have to provide more because some troll ask for it
also the simple fact you can't even concede anything trump did right or hillary did wrong says enough
you got your mind made up and it won't be changed, so by bother with discourse?
i will revel in the knowledge trump is your president
Anonymous L double-posted this 8 years ago, 11 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #883,557
Anonymous U replied with this 8 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #883,558
squeegee replied with this 8 years ago, 25 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #883,561
@883,556 (L)
I have said numerous times that Hillary should go to jail. All that needs to be done is she needs to be convicted of a crime. I have never said Hillary is above the law, I have always maintained that she should be held accountable for her actions and that is the job of someone other than me. I am not a prosecutor nor an investigator. I do, however, believe in the rule of law.
It's not my fault either she's innocent, or the people prosecuting her were imbeciles. All I know is that she's been convicted of no crime and whatever investigation that's ongoing will get to the bottom of it. And if there's no investigation then maybe there's a reason for that.
Same with trump, his "crimes" still need to be proven, and he could totally be innocent. Like I've said numerous times, if either are guilty or either are innocent then I'm down with respecting the findings of the investigations.
That is the exact opposite of someone who has already made up their mind. Yes, I despise the guy but I'm willing to agree that he did nothing wrong. Just like Hillary, who I despise and cant seem to get convicted of anything. I figure she's dirty, but the law disagrees. Oh fucking well.
I figure trump is dirty but the law may not agree. Oh fucking well. I may doubt that, and have personal opinions, but I'm not so blind that I can't accept reality.
But keep attributing false beliefs to your opposition, fighting strawmen is super productive.
I have said numerous times that Hillary should go to jail. All that needs to be done is she needs to be convicted of a crime. I have never said Hillary is above the law, I have always maintained that she should be held accountable for her actions and that is the job of someone other than me. I am not a prosecutor nor an investigator. I do, however, believe in the rule of law.
It's not my fault either she's innocent, or the people prosecuting her were imbeciles. All I know is that she's been convicted of no crime and whatever investigation that's ongoing will get to the bottom of it. And if there's no investigation then maybe there's a reason for that.
Same with trump, his "crimes" still need to be proven, and he could totally be innocent. Like I've said numerous times, if either are guilty or either are innocent then I'm down with respecting the findings of the investigations.
That is the exact opposite of someone who has already made up their mind. Yes, I despise the guy but I'm willing to agree that he did nothing wrong. Just like Hillary, who I despise and cant seem to get convicted of anything. I figure she's dirty, but the law disagrees. Oh fucking well.
I figure trump is dirty but the law may not agree. Oh fucking well. I may doubt that, and have personal opinions, but I'm not so blind that I can't accept reality.
But keep attributing false beliefs to your opposition, fighting strawmen is super productive.
Anonymous V joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 17 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #883,564
@883,556 (L)
dont you just think it's like super le epic that presitrump is trolling all these libcucks so hard
dont you just think it's like super le epic that presitrump is trolling all these libcucks so hard
Anonymous L replied with this 8 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #883,574
@883,558 (U)
you're repeating yourself, you must be retarded
@previous (V)
also noticed the dnc is not mentioning daca anymore
did they suddenly stopped caring or something?
you're repeating yourself, you must be retarded
@previous (V)
also noticed the dnc is not mentioning daca anymore
did they suddenly stopped caring or something?
Anonymous L double-posted this 8 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #883,576
@883,561 (squeegee)
> But keep attributing false beliefs to your opposition, fighting strawmen is super productive.
i genuinely feel bad for you, you're a victim of polarisation
> But keep attributing false beliefs to your opposition, fighting strawmen is super productive.
i genuinely feel bad for you, you're a victim of polarisation
(Edited 26 seconds later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #883,579
@883,574 (L)
SCOTUS kicked the can down the road. The reason it was in the news was because Trump decided it was unconstitutional and picked a mostly arbitrary date for it to end. As that date was approaching, it was kind of a do or die moment (Dems even shut down the government over it if you remember), but since it now has no clear expiration date, it is no longer the most important item on the calendar at the moment. It's not because Dems don't care about DACA. If you were to take a private vote, all Dems and most Republicans would support making DACA permanent, but because Trump is against it and repubs don't want to defy him and risk losing their seats, it's politically dead in the water. Not because of Dems but because of politically skittish Republicans.
SCOTUS kicked the can down the road. The reason it was in the news was because Trump decided it was unconstitutional and picked a mostly arbitrary date for it to end. As that date was approaching, it was kind of a do or die moment (Dems even shut down the government over it if you remember), but since it now has no clear expiration date, it is no longer the most important item on the calendar at the moment. It's not because Dems don't care about DACA. If you were to take a private vote, all Dems and most Republicans would support making DACA permanent, but because Trump is against it and repubs don't want to defy him and risk losing their seats, it's politically dead in the water. Not because of Dems but because of politically skittish Republicans.
(Edited 24 seconds later.)
Analyst II replied with this 8 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #883,581
@883,574 (L)
> also noticed the dnc is not mentioning daca anymore
They have no need to waste time and energy on DACA until the Courts make a final decision.
> also noticed the dnc is not mentioning daca anymore
They have no need to waste time and energy on DACA until the Courts make a final decision.
Anonymous L replied with this 8 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #883,588
deferred action implies that the action that is being deferred will eventually happen
im curious if the supreme court thinks what obama did was constitutional
im curious if the supreme court thinks what obama did was constitutional
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 8 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #883,593
@previous (L)
Possibly. Obama followed DACA with DAPA, which was similar and divided the Supreme Court, eventually getting rescinded by Trump. With Gorsuch in there, it most likely would be held unconstitutional. With Garland in there it likely would have been held constitutional.
Possibly. Obama followed DACA with DAPA, which was similar and divided the Supreme Court, eventually getting rescinded by Trump. With Gorsuch in there, it most likely would be held unconstitutional. With Garland in there it likely would have been held constitutional.
Anonymous L replied with this 8 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #883,594
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
that last part is an assumption that can't be proven either way
sneaky bastard
that last part is an assumption that can't be proven either way
sneaky bastard
Analyst II replied with this 8 years ago, 14 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #883,595
@883,593 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Gorsuch just ruled against Justice dept and Trump.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/04/17/supreme-court-immigration-law-threatening-deportattosses-out-immigration-law-leading-deportatio/840229001/
Gorsuch just ruled against Justice dept and Trump.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/04/17/supreme-court-immigration-law-threatening-deportattosses-out-immigration-law-leading-deportatio/840229001/
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 8 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #883,600
@883,594 (L)
It's a counterfactual but it seems plausible to me. Not hard to see Garland siding with the liberals and not hard to see Gorsuch siding with the conservatives.
@previous (Analyst II)
Yes but on originalist grounds. I don't think DACA/DAPA are justifiable on those terms.
It's a counterfactual but it seems plausible to me. Not hard to see Garland siding with the liberals and not hard to see Gorsuch siding with the conservatives.
@previous (Analyst II)
Yes but on originalist grounds. I don't think DACA/DAPA are justifiable on those terms.
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
Anonymous L replied with this 8 years ago, 14 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #883,605
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
besides it doesn't really matter because its theoretical
in reality trump put that guy there and most likely another within his term
it will be a few generations before it will be "liberal" again
i put that in quotes cuz i do believe in liberalism, but the real one
not the whole PC/antifa/etc shit thats happening now
thats not liberal to me, its a new kind of fascism where any dissenting voices will be silenced by any means necessary
don't forget the us is one of the few countries with real free speech, if it disappears there it'll disappear everywhere
besides it doesn't really matter because its theoretical
in reality trump put that guy there and most likely another within his term
it will be a few generations before it will be "liberal" again
i put that in quotes cuz i do believe in liberalism, but the real one
not the whole PC/antifa/etc shit thats happening now
thats not liberal to me, its a new kind of fascism where any dissenting voices will be silenced by any means necessary
don't forget the us is one of the few countries with real free speech, if it disappears there it'll disappear everywhere
Anonymous V replied with this 8 years ago, 22 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #883,871
@previous (L)
> besides it doesn't really matter because its theoretical
> in reality trump put that guy there and most likely another within his term
> it will be a few generations before it will be "liberal" again
>
> i put that in quotes cuz i do believe in liberalism, but the real one
> not the whole PC/antifa/etc shit thats happening now
> thats not liberal to me, its a new kind of fascism where any dissenting voices will be silenced by any means necessary
> don't forget the us is one of the few countries with real free speech, if it disappears there it'll disappear everywhere
oh no the libcuckfascists are taking away our freedoms
> besides it doesn't really matter because its theoretical
> in reality trump put that guy there and most likely another within his term
> it will be a few generations before it will be "liberal" again
>
> i put that in quotes cuz i do believe in liberalism, but the real one
> not the whole PC/antifa/etc shit thats happening now
> thats not liberal to me, its a new kind of fascism where any dissenting voices will be silenced by any means necessary
> don't forget the us is one of the few countries with real free speech, if it disappears there it'll disappear everywhere
oh no the libcuckfascists are taking away our freedoms
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 8 years ago, 8 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #883,971
enough fag talk
talk real man stuff god damn it
talk real man stuff god damn it
Anonymous L replied with this 8 years ago, 1 day later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #884,499
@883,871 (V)
well in a way they are when they call for boycots of shows they don't like
contacting advertisers to get opinions they don't agree with removed from tv/internet
to them your freedom of speech ends when they start to disagree with you or feel "hurt" by it
thats a slippery slope to me
well in a way they are when they call for boycots of shows they don't like
contacting advertisers to get opinions they don't agree with removed from tv/internet
to them your freedom of speech ends when they start to disagree with you or feel "hurt" by it
thats a slippery slope to me
(Edited 27 seconds later.)
Anonymous X joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 2 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #884,511
Anonymous V replied with this 8 years ago, 6 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #884,543
@884,499 (L)
> well in a way they are when they call for boycots of shows they don't like
> contacting advertisers to get opinions they don't agree with removed from tv/internet
> to them your freedom of speech ends when they start to disagree with you or feel "hurt" by it
> thats a slippery slope to me
aw. it's hard when people don't agree with you huh!
> well in a way they are when they call for boycots of shows they don't like
> contacting advertisers to get opinions they don't agree with removed from tv/internet
> to them your freedom of speech ends when they start to disagree with you or feel "hurt" by it
> thats a slippery slope to me
aw. it's hard when people don't agree with you huh!
Anonymous T replied with this 8 years ago, 2 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #884,568
@884,499 (L)
I don't think that's just the left bro. There are plenty of people trying to start boycotts because they got their feelings hurt by a Super Bowl commercial that looked pro-immigration or a drawing on a Starbuck's holiday cup that made them think about lesbians or because some lady said mean things on The View.
But fuck capitalism and fuck those people trying to vote with their dollar, right?
I don't think that's just the left bro. There are plenty of people trying to start boycotts because they got their feelings hurt by a Super Bowl commercial that looked pro-immigration or a drawing on a Starbuck's holiday cup that made them think about lesbians or because some lady said mean things on The View.
But fuck capitalism and fuck those people trying to vote with their dollar, right?
Anonymous X replied with this 8 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #884,569
@previous (T)
> I don't think that's just the left bro. There are plenty of people trying to start boycotts because they got their feelings hurt by a Super Bowl commercial that looked pro-immigration or a drawing on a Starbuck's holiday cup that made them think about lesbians or because some lady said mean things on The View.
>
> But fuck capitalism and fuck those people trying to vote with their dollar, right?
Fuck you, antifa. Burn in Hell communist.
> I don't think that's just the left bro. There are plenty of people trying to start boycotts because they got their feelings hurt by a Super Bowl commercial that looked pro-immigration or a drawing on a Starbuck's holiday cup that made them think about lesbians or because some lady said mean things on The View.
>
> But fuck capitalism and fuck those people trying to vote with their dollar, right?
Fuck you, antifa. Burn in Hell communist.
Anonymous T replied with this 8 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #884,570
Anonymous X replied with this 8 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #884,571
Anonymous Z-1 joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 7 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #884,575
Trump Trump bo Brump banana fanna fo Frump Fee fie foe Frump Truuuump!
FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 39 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #884,581
Anonymous T replied with this 8 years ago, 1 hour later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #884,604
Anonymous L replied with this 8 years ago, 9 hours later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #884,692
@884,543 (V)
so its ok to shut down opinions simply because you disagree with them?
so much for freedom of speech
@884,568 (T)
> whataboutism as a retort
also do you have some examples where conservaties try to shut down tv shows because they disagree with the opinions expressed by contacting advertisers?
so its ok to shut down opinions simply because you disagree with them?
so much for freedom of speech
@884,568 (T)
> whataboutism as a retort
also do you have some examples where conservaties try to shut down tv shows because they disagree with the opinions expressed by contacting advertisers?
Anonymous T replied with this 8 years ago, 36 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #884,700
@previous (L)
> also do you have some examples where conservaties try to shut down tv shows because they disagree with the opinions expressed by contacting advertisers?
Yeah, see the above example of The View. There are several conservative blogs that list advertisers for the show and are calling for boycotts or the firing of Joy Behar. That happened a few months ago, and there are still active Facebook groups about it. You can find similar stuff about The Oscars, Black-ish, or the NFL going on recently.
The point of the conservative examples is that it's not some liberal conspiracy to control the media. People of all political stripes boycott stuff, and no one is infringing on your free speech by not buying things.
> also do you have some examples where conservaties try to shut down tv shows because they disagree with the opinions expressed by contacting advertisers?
Yeah, see the above example of The View. There are several conservative blogs that list advertisers for the show and are calling for boycotts or the firing of Joy Behar. That happened a few months ago, and there are still active Facebook groups about it. You can find similar stuff about The Oscars, Black-ish, or the NFL going on recently.
The point of the conservative examples is that it's not some liberal conspiracy to control the media. People of all political stripes boycott stuff, and no one is infringing on your free speech by not buying things.
Anonymous L replied with this 8 years ago, 2 hours later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #884,714
@previous (T)
the NFL shit was wrong and the rest is wrong too
besides i would hate it if the view would stop, its a great source of entertainment
and not to put in more whataboutism but i think the left worse than the right at this
just look at berkley or other campuses where milo or ben shapiro tried to speak
i hope we can agree that trying to shut out opinions or views by any means just because you don't like them or whatever is bad
the NFL shit was wrong and the rest is wrong too
besides i would hate it if the view would stop, its a great source of entertainment
and not to put in more whataboutism but i think the left worse than the right at this
just look at berkley or other campuses where milo or ben shapiro tried to speak
i hope we can agree that trying to shut out opinions or views by any means just because you don't like them or whatever is bad
Anonymous L double-posted this 8 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #884,715
@884,700 (T)
> and no one is infringing on your free speech by not buying things
the goal of contacting advertisers is to get shows of the air
one could argue its a form of censorship
> and no one is infringing on your free speech by not buying things
the goal of contacting advertisers is to get shows of the air
one could argue its a form of censorship
Anonymous V replied with this 8 years ago, 4 hours later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #884,756
@884,692 (L)
> so its ok to shut down opinions simply because you disagree with them?
yes, it is!
> so much for freedom of speech
I'm not your government!
> so its ok to shut down opinions simply because you disagree with them?
yes, it is!
> so much for freedom of speech
I'm not your government!
Anonymous V double-posted this 8 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #884,757
Anonymous L replied with this 8 years ago, 1 day later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #885,421
@884,756 (V)
so if i get you banned here because i don't agree with you you're ok with that?
so if i get you banned here because i don't agree with you you're ok with that?
(Edited 13 seconds later.)