US US Politics General - Discussion of President Biden and other politicians

Status
Not open for further replies.
BidenGIF.gif
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Winner
  • Informative
Reactions: ThisIsGonnaBeGood, The Shredder, ActualCracker and 120 others
Click to expand...
Bog-standard Poster said:
I know this is OT and I'm sorry but WHY FUCK KIDS?!?

Buy fast cars, fly a jet, be a movie star, be a rockstar, take every drug known to man, travel the world, read the greats of literature, buy a KFC with a cinema inside and watch every film ever made, Snort coke off a super models tits, snort speed from a pornstars arsehole, learn to surf, hang-glide, knit sweaters, raise lions, shoot sheep, strangle kittens anything at all except FUCK CHILDREN.

The fuck is wrong with these people?
Click to expand...
I theorize to be the type of person that becomes incredibly wealthy, there has to be something wrong with you. It's why so many internet personalities are lolcows. The average person are typically slaves to their wants and desires. Now combine that person with a personality type of a confident leader that allows them to work their way into powerful positions. Its why people who are leaders that are also morally just are extremely rare and precious.
Basically they are sociopaths.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
Reactions: World Famous Quasi Payer, spiritofamermaid and Whoopsie Daisy
Dr. Ricearoni said:
Does anyone else think it's weird how focused on JD Vance they are? I don't remember Pence getting even half the flak and he wanted to electrocute the gays.

My personal theory is that because Kamala was/is the VP she has incorrectly identified him as her opponent and is too simpleminded to direct her ire to the person she's actually running against.
Click to expand...
Could also be that Trump's assassination attempt made them a little shy about going after him in their usual dire terms. Vance is more in their usual conservative smearing repertoire, which doesn't always work on Trump.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: aguywatchingitallburn, World Famous Quasi Payer, spiritofamermaid and 2 others
Jade Philosophies said:
Click to expand...
Oh yeah bro right wing grifter chicks are the thing. I wait until they hit the wall harder than Dale Earnhardt then go to town on the car wreck.

ForTheHoard said:
Jews argued with God and won. Muslims that argue with God are beheaded as apostates. They are not the same.
Click to expand...
Nah their prophet argued with Satan and lost, then tried to cover it up.
 
Bog-standard Poster said:
Mohammed was a peadophile, that's a given. But what was the religious justification for fucking a 9 year old?

What's the best thing about fucking twenty nine year olds? There's twenty of them
Click to expand...

Overly Serious said:
At the time? There was none, I think - Mohammed was a rich man in a culture where he could get away with it. The religious justification now? That the first pillar of Islam is that Mohammed is God's messenger and so he is an example of the perfect Muslim. Ergo, it is acceptable. To criticise it would be to criticise Mohammed.
Click to expand...
With the understanding that Islam is derived from very early Christianity before it was fully detached from modern day Judaism
"GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: A girl who is three years old is betrothed through intercourse; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: She must be three years and one day old.
The Gemara asks: What is the difference between their opinions, as both agree that she cannot be betrothed before the age of three? The Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai said: There is a difference between their opinions in the case of a girl on the eve of the first day of the fourth year of her life. According to Rabbi Meir, she can be betrothed through intercourse, as on this day three years are complete, whereas the Rabbis maintain that she cannot be betrothed in this manner, as she has not yet entered the first day of her fourth year."

"And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: There is a difference between their opinions with regard to the issue of whether thirty days in a year are considered equivalent to a year. Rabbi Meir maintains that thirty days in a year are considered equivalent to a year, and therefore a girl aged two years and thirty days is already considered like a three-year-old and may be betrothed through intercourse."

Source from the Talmud
I for one cannot understand why the Christian God would denounce and abandon Jews.
 
  • Horrifying
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Fatsuit Shinji, Zaryiu2, Seven Blasphemous Deaths and 13 others
Incredible Mister said:
Why is trump not orange anymore? every time i see him speak it makes me do a double take and wonder why he looks different.
Click to expand...

ForTheHoard said:
He's still the same color and still gets raccoon eyes from time to time from the goggles you wear during a spray tan.

I think he looks less orange to you because there's not a box screaming in your ear every 5 seconds that he's orange. If they go back to saying orange every 5th word, you'll probably notice it more.
Click to expand...
Trumps look pretty normal colored when you aint got a bitch in your eat telling you hes orange.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Fatsuit Shinji, Cemetery Support, Hweeks and 5 others
George Lucas said:
Nope. All that would lead to is Trump getting thrown in prison. Sorry conservatards, a new civil war isn’t go to save you. Buy your one way ticket to Asia while you still have your passport, because soon you’re getting REËDUCATED.

And Kamala isn’t going to debate Trump because she doesn’t need to. Her support continues to grow and all Trump can do is flail around and scream about how she HAS to debate. Well guess what? Nobody decides what Kamala’s gonna do except her. There’s a new boss in town boys, and my wife and her boyfriend are voting for her.
Click to expand...
Let me explain in simpler terms so that someone like you can understand: I was saying that unless Trump, or someone like him, gave a speech like that, there will never be a civil war. If he does that, there is a possibility of a civil war. This is the stupidest way to do a civil war and will almost certainly end in failure, because you should build up your army first so that when the other side finds out it's too late to stop it, but anything short of this will NEVER end in a civil war.
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Seven Blasphemous Deaths, spiritofamermaid, invisibult plus+ and 1 other person
Jade Philosophies said:
Yes, every government in the world is currently an oligarchy. Having 1 act of democracy doesn't make a government a democracy. Electing an oligarchy doesn't mean it's not an oligarchy. The definition isn't pointless, it's telling you that a group of people with power is an oligarchy. A dictionary definition: "a small group of people having control of a country or organization". Unless I've counted wrong the government of the USA is made up of 561 people. The actual Cabinet only 26 people. Even with the larger number of 561 that's still a small group of people compared to the population of 336 million (official numbers according to the government website). That is less than 0.0002% of the population controlling the other 99.9998%+ on all issues. Yet people against democracy will tell you that's better than potentially 50.1% of the population controlling the other 49.9%. On each issue separately.
Click to expand...
Based on your definition, what would not be an oligarchy. What method of governance wouldn't?
 
  • Like
Reactions: World Famous Quasi Payer
Meat Target said:
The average citizen doesn't have the time, the knowledge, the experience, or the fucks to give about every single issue in society.
Click to expand...

Then they don't have to vote on the issues they don't know enough about or don't give a fuck about. Having the option is better than just handing your power over to an oligarchy that most likely doesn't give a shit about you. And in the case of the UK and USA governments (and many more) are themselves controlled by a global oligarchy.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: World Famous Quasi Payer
Jade Philosophies said:
What's with all the Ann Coulter hate? Whenever I've seen clips of her she's pretty much always been based. Although I haven't seen her for a while.
Click to expand...
You haven't seen her in awhile. When she said Trump is going to win, that wasn't her in support of Trump, it was an observation if not a paid advertisement by Clintin's pied piper strategy. She spent the entirety of Trump's terms attacking him and deciding him for supporting and pursuing policies she advocated for. That is shill behavior, and now that we know book sales are TPTB money laundering and bribe operation it goes without saying Coulter is a uniparty asset.
 
  • Like
Reactions: argostug, World Famous Quasi Payer, spiritofamermaid and 1 other person
I've changed my mind about the Walz pick. It's actually brilliant. He's so terrible Republicans can't decide which line of attack to use on him. Stolen valor, giving licenses to illegals, supporting infanticide, grooming teenagers, getting rid of the First Amendment, letting Minneapolis burn. Is he the DSP of politicians?
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Feels
Reactions: The Great Horned Moth, Anasa Tristis, argostug and 17 others
Rykel22 said:
Not an expert, but I beleive the idea is she was a shill for what the Uniparty wants. In 2016, she promoted Trump, not because she wanted him to win, but because Clinton thought he was an easily beaten opponent
Click to expand...

But I'd seen Ann Coulter long before 2016. She seems to have been based for years and going against the establishment.
 
  • Dumb
Reactions: Drag-on Knight 91873
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back