Last edited:
US US Politics General - Discussion of President Biden and other politicians
- Thread starter SeniorFuckFace
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2021
mandatorylurk
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2019
I would like to know the real polling in GA with Kemp vs Perdue, it seems like the Trump suppression also works with primaries, especially with Kemp as the golden RINO child for the media.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2020
Some law professor is on Bloomberg saying Ketanji Brown Jackson's public defense of pedos is a good thing, because "muh multiple perspectives".
Edit: "MUH QANON!"
Edit: "MUH QANON!"
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2019
Georgians don't know that he endorsed Perdue, which works to produce articles about Trump's waning influence and Election Twitter's sperging that he needs to do rallies quick.
Totally the state's apparatus blocking his influence out. Strange especially in the case of Perdue, who was their golden boy two years ago as a U.S. senator.
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2020
>unironically defending pedos getting out of jail sooner as a good thing
Bloomberg law professor,
Edit: @Meat Target
Edit: "MUH QANON!"
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2020
Baris 2024 rematch poll:
Without leaners:
Trump: 45%
Biden: 36%
Someone else: 14%
Undecided: 5%
With leaners (taking out the undecided column):
Trump: 47%
Biden: 40%
Someone else: 13%
Without leaners:
Trump: 45%
Biden: 36%
Someone else: 14%
Undecided: 5%
With leaners (taking out the undecided column):
Trump: 47%
Biden: 40%
Someone else: 13%
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2020
They slandered Brett Kavanaugh without an iota of credible evidence. Now they have the nerve to pissy about what Jackson is on record having said and done.
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2020
And all because she was nominated by a president with a D next to his name, and she's the right skin color.
>mfw:
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2019
All three = democrat/DNC propaganda arms. When you're over the target, you catch flak. Look at the histrionics over the Florida anti-grooming bill.
SneedEyeMitch
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2021
How does it go, you're more upset that people exposed the crime rather than the actual crime that's been committed?
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2020
Edward Snowden says that that is when you know you are being ruled by criminals.
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2020
It really was. They thought that un-person’ing him would (1) silence the incoming (at the time) administration’s loudest critic, which would take some of the spotlight away from Biden’s failures. It was also thought that doing so would (2) suffocate the MAGA movement in the crib, turn public opinion against, reinforce that the 45 presidency was a major aberration, and consign Trump to history’s dustbin.
They made a serious miscalculation. At this point, they’re wishing that Trump had his account so that ALL of the media’s attention would be focused on him (“OMG LOOK WHAT BLUMPHF TWEETED TODAY!!”). Essentially, they’d use him as a sideshow/lightning rod and put the spotlight on him in order to distract from Biden’s fuckups and throw ink at the GOP in general. What started as denying Trump a bully pulpit to target them has now evolved into wanting to give it back to him because “the adults in the room” are fucking up so horribly and need the distraction.
They might toy with the idea of giving it back to him, should he run in 2024, hoping the bait would work and he’d run his mouth and alienate possible support. But there’s a problem: Pols and the media blasted the iNSurReCTiONiSt! and dANgeR tO DEmOcrACy! angle so hard (enough to justify banning Trump from the virtual public square) that there’s no way for them to walk it back. Two choices: Either they keep the former leader/candidate for the free world banned (terrible optics), or they give his Twitter back to him while offering some bullshit explanation to the masses about caring about free speech/democracy, totally dismissing their original justification/rhetoric about the guy being 200x more dangerous than an amalgamation of Hitler and satan.
If Trump runs again, him not having Twitter might result in him being more measured in his remarks, unlike the alienation that his tweeting led to. He could play some “new leaf” statesman angle. And when he gets censored for saying innocuous things that any normie finds true (especially if he says “they’re gonna censor this..” beforehand, like in the Nelk Boys podcast), he reaps the benefits of being martyred by the Big Tech juggernaut that winds up looking more nefarious than him the more they censor.
They REALLY didn’t think this through
.There’s a very deliberate reason for increasing her visibility and positioning her the way that they are…
Never forget.
…Aaaaaannnd there it is. It’s becoming increasingly clear that they see this woman and her ilk to be the future of the democrat party. They are clearly puffing her up to be the eventual standard-bearer.
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2019
We live in a simulation. Looking like it might be time for 91 million to teach some people a lesson.
Raoul_Duke
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2021
Oh god, they want to prop up the Stay Puft Chocolate Marshmellowman as the fucking face of the Democrats? Fucking hell, it really is going to get worse, isn't it?It really was. They thought that un-person’ing him would (1) silence the incoming (at the time) administration’s loudest critic, which would take some of the spotlight away from Biden’s failures. It was also thought that doing so would (2) suffocate the MAGA movement in the crib, turn public opinion against, reinforce that the 45 presidency was a major aberration, and consign Trump to history’s dustbin.
They made a serious miscalculation. At this point, they’re wishing that Trump had his account so that ALL of the media’s attention would be focused on him (“OMG LOOK WHAT BLUMPHF TWEETED TODAY!!”). Essentially, they’d use him as a sideshow/lightning rod and put the spotlight on him in order to distract from Biden’s fuckups and throw ink at the GOP in general. What started as denying Trump a bully pulpit to target them has now evolved into wanting to give it back to him because “the adults in the room” are fucking up so horribly and need the distraction.
They might toy with the idea of giving it back to him, should he run in 2024, hoping the bait would work and he’d run his mouth and alienate possible support. But there’s a problem: Pols and the media blasted the iNSurReCTiONiSt! and dANgeR tO DEmOcrACy! angle so hard (enough to justify banning Trump from the virtual public square) that there’s no way for them to walk it back. Two choices: Either they keep the former leader/candidate for the free world banned (terrible optics), or they give his Twitter back to him while offering some bullshit explanation to the masses about caring about free speech/democracy, totally dismissing their original justification/rhetoric about the guy being 200x more dangerous than an amalgamation of Hitler and satan.
If Trump runs again, him not having Twitter might result in him being more measured in his remarks, unlike the alienation that his tweeting led to. He could play some “new leaf” statesman angle. And when he gets censored for saying innocuous things that any normie finds true (especially if he says “they’re gonna censor this..” beforehand, like in the Nelk Boys podcast), he reaps the benefits of being martyred by the Big Tech juggernaut that winds up looking more nefarious than him the more they censor.
They REALLY didn’t think this through
There’s a very deliberate reason for increasing her visibility and positioning her the way that they are…
Never forget.
View attachment 3083830
…Aaaaaannnd there it is. It’s becoming increasingly clear that they see this woman and her ilk to be the future of the democrat party. They are clearly puffing her up to be the eventual standard-bearer.
View attachment 3083846
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 18, 2020
One of the most timelessly immutable laws of the universe: it can always get worse and often will
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2019
I wonder if they shot those President-of-Earth scenes a second time, with a different actor? Would allow a decision on which to use as late as possible. Anyone know what the lead time from shooting to broadcast generally is for something like this?
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2020
Yup. Patrice O’Neal (RIP) pointed this out- Ever notice how every black woman on TV/media is a sassy, LaNeisha type?
Intelligent, articulate black women (let’s use Candace Owens and Antonia Okafor as examples) don’t seem to sell that well, whereas the caricaturish sheboons do. There’s something about the sass that people (especially low class [but also high class] blacks and women) are drawn to, much like how gays are drawn to feminine-centric shit and The Golden Girls. These women are everything that the black community should hate, yet they enshrine them as part of the broader enshrinement of nigger culture.
Stacey Abrams fits the bill as far as appearance and attitude are concerned. Plus, she assembled (I refuse to say ‘authored’) several books under a pseudonym, so they can falsely try to paint her as an intellectual.
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2019
She's black, and female, and most importantly, a Democrat. You aren't allowed to hold her to any form of standard, what do you think she is, being chosen based on merit?
Raoul_Duke
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2021
Holy shit, everyday just proves Uncle Ted for the madness and insanity that is modernity.
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2013
Any politican worth their salt not attached to the swamp should ask the hard question: "Why is Ketanji Brown Jackson supporting Child Porn? Why does she support sexual child abuse?"
Of course, if anyone did, they'd get slandered in the news like we see here. Saying its a conspiracy, russian propaganda, q-anon nonsense.
- Status