Jump to content

The Next President is...


disgruntledemployee

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Kinda of like when Hillary continued to refuse to accept the results of the election.

 

I must’ve missed it in there: Where’s the part where she advocated suspension of the constitution, encouraged her supporters to storm the capitol, and suggest hanging the VP? C’mon man, yeah Hillary sucks (or maybe doesn’t….have to ask Bill), but Trump is objectively on another level of awful. While I disagree with a lot of the tone & hyperbole you insist on constantly posting about the Biden admin, I can understand why you don’t like him. So support a better conservative candidate rather than tacitly defend Cheetos for brains with “whatabout” arguments. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Prozac said:

I must’ve missed it in there: Where’s the part where she advocated suspension of the constitution, encouraged her supporters to storm the capitol, and suggest hanging the VP? C’mon man, yeah Hillary sucks (or maybe doesn’t….have to ask Bill), but Trump is objectively on another level of awful. While I disagree with a lot of the tone & hyperbole you insist on constantly posting about the Biden admin, I can understand why you don’t like him. So support a better conservative candidate rather than tacitly defend Cheetos for brains with “whatabout” arguments. 

When the other candidate continues to question the legitimacy of the election, I would say that is more than hyperbole.  When did Trump say storm the capital, please show me that.  Now if you want to fault him for his comments about the VP, for saying "stop the steal", or for not being a leader and stepping forward sooner to stop what was happening I completely agree, but when you fabricate facts you lose all credibility.   "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." 

AGAIN, I've said i don't support Trump, and as I predicted he would use the Twitter files to concoct another lunatic rant which includes suspending the Constitution.  Here is what I simply don't understand, if all the warriors on this forum swore an oath to the Constitution how can you be so nonchalant about the possibility that an American Presidential Election was influenced and likely tampered with by a big tech company, and that elements of the FBI played a part in that.  Do you hate the Orange man that much that you will simply turn a blind eye? 

For the 1000th time I want Trump to go away, but I want justice and the integrity of our system more than anything.

  • Like 6
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Here is what I simply don't understand, if all the warriors on this forum swore an oath to the Constitution how can you be so nonchalant about the possibility that an American Presidential Election was influenced and likely tampered with by a big tech company, and that elements of the FBI played a part in that.  Do you hate the Orange man that much that you will simply turn a blind eye? 

For the 1000th time I want Trump to go away, but I want justice and the integrity of our system more than anything.

Simple, their guy won. What’s the harm in a little help from social media companies if it prevented DJT from remaining in office. It’s all okay because it was done to “preserve” democracy. 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

When the other candidate continues to question the legitimacy of the election, I would say that is more than hyperbole.  When did Trump say storm the capital, please show me that.  Now if you want to fault him for his comments about the VP, for saying "stop the steal", or for not being a leader and stepping forward sooner to stop what was happening I completely agree, but when you fabricate facts you lose all credibility.   "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." 

AGAIN, I've said i don't support Trump, and as I predicted he would use the Twitter files to concoct another lunatic rant which includes suspending the Constitution.  Here is what I simply don't understand, if all the warriors on this forum swore an oath to the Constitution how can you be so nonchalant about the possibility that an American Presidential Election was influenced and likely tampered with by a big tech company, and that elements of the FBI played a part in that.  Do you hate the Orange man that much that you will simply turn a blind eye? 

For the 1000th time I want Trump to go away, but I want justice and the integrity of our system more than anything.

Still not buying the whole “media is stacked against us” argument. The problem with today’s conservatives is that they’ve decided the only way to win is to make sure their voters are perennially pissed off enough to show up at the polls. They prefer to fight boogeymen vs come up with a coherent platform. The media hates us, immigrants are taking your jobs and murdering you, Hillary’s emails, Hunter’s laptop, Slick Willy’s Oval Office hummer, CRT, pronouns, and on, and on, and on. Don’t you guys ever get tired of yelling at the TV? You know which Republican candidates reliably get independent and even Democratic voters to turn out for them? The ones who can actually articulate the policies they support vs just shitting on the other side to rile up the MAGA hats. Guys like Brian Kemp will win you elections because they can convince voters of all stripes that their way is better & they do it without continually insulting liberals or debasing themselves in the name of culture wars. Spend less time whining about your nephew’s man-bun or Rachel Maddow’s Adam’s apple and more time supporting good candidates & you might be surprised. And yes, I fully acknowledge that most of what I just said can be just as easily levied at Democrats. I wish there were better D candidates too. I just happen to lean on the side of thinking that the Ds have been slightly less bad than the Rs lately. The bar is low. It shouldn’t take too much effort to raise it. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Here is what I simply don't understand, if all the warriors on this forum swore an oath to the Constitution how can you be so nonchalant about the possibility that an American Presidential Election was influenced and likely tampered with by a big tech company, and that elements of the FBI played a part in that.  Do you hate the Orange man that much that you will simply turn a blind eye?

Because we disagree on the facts of what happened, just like many on the right do with Russian election interference in 2016.

State actors, parties, corporate interests, lobbying groups, etc. have always influenced American elections...it's what you do in a democracy! Ideally you limit foreign interference almost entirely and you try to keep domestic political wrangling to a manageable level and within understood and reasonable rules. Good people can disagree what those are, e.g. dark money, campaign finance reform, fairness doctrine, foreign ownership of media companies, etc.

Tech companies and especially social media companies do hold a lot of power over the collective conversation, not unlike traditional media. There should be standards of acceptable conduct, I totally agree on that. Is what Twitter did a gross violation of standards of acceptable conduct? I'm not nearly as sure as you are.

The Hunter laptop story was widely reported and available freely and openly to anyone who cared to type www.nypost.com into their browser windows. The government in no way suppressed The New York Post or banned people from reading their reporting, reposting it, talking about it, or developing their own stories based on their reporting. Look at China especially or Iran or Russia for examples of true state repression of information, it's many orders of magnitude different than what you see here or in other Western capitalist democratic societies.

Both campaigns in 2020 made requests to social media companies (legacy media companies) when they believed stories published about their candidate were misleading, unfair or false. Sometimes the media and tech companies put out corrections or disclaimers or retractions and sometimes they did not. I do not agree that "the Twitter files" is some smoking gun bombshell. This story about Hunter and his laptop has been around now for more than two years, and no made-up GOP polling (e.g. MRC) should convince you that the story has more legs than it has received in the open information environment. Their "polling methodology" of saying that oh if only people had known about this story (faints back onto a strategically placed couch), Trump would have gotten 300+ EVs is incredibly laughable. We don't need to speculate about a past event, it happened! We know the results for real, not just for make-believe!

The GOP talked quite a bit about Hunter and his laptop at the end of the campaign and Joe Biden still won the 2020 Presidential election. It wasn't the October Surprise some were hoping for and I'm sorry that didn't work out for y'all the way Hillary's emails did - better luck next time.

That's how patriotic Americans who are all working more or less toward the same goals (being a strong, prosperous American nation that is a key leader in a peaceful and cooperative world) can approach this topic. 🇺🇸

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Prozac said:

You know which Republican candidates reliably get independent and even Democratic voters to turn out for them? The ones who can actually articulate the policies they support vs just shitting on the other side to rile up the MAGA hats. Guys like Brian Kemp will win you elections because they can convince voters of all stripes that their way is better & they do it without continually insulting liberals or debasing themselves in the name of culture wars.

💯 to this specifically.

Someone else on here who is right-leaning said their red-lines for supporting a candidate were (sic) "transing teens, CRT in the military, and vaccine mandates." Lol, my man, those are incredibly niche issues if you ask me and really small potatoes in terms of your big-ticket items.

My top policies when looking for Democratic candidates in a primary in particular, and at general election candidates overall, are continued broad & deep economic growth, accelerating the transition to clean American-made energy and related technologies, maintaining the U.S. as a leader in international affairs with both hard & soft power, and making our healthcare system work both better and cheaper for all Americans.

IMHO comparable topics on the right might be keeping taxes & regulations low and streamlined, reforming/limiting immigration and ensuring tight border security, reducing the national debt, and maintaining a strong and generously-funded military.

So much of this culture war BS is just so small and inconsequential compared to the issues above and I can't bring myself to give more than half a shit about any of it. And yes people on the left do it too...needless focus on race over any other topic, trying to push non-mainstream gender and sexual norms on society at large, etc. etc. None of us should be wasting so much of our breathe on this small-ball and I'd happily go back to the days of debating about the tax & spending plans of Mitt Romney vs Barack Obama, which trust me I heavily overindulged in 😅

Edited by nsplayr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 to this specifically.
Someone else on here who is right-leaning said their red-lines for supporting a candidate were (sic) "transing teens, CRT in the military, and vaccine mandates." Lol, my man, those are incredibly niche issues if you ask me and really small potatoes in terms of your big-ticket items.
My top policies when looking for Democratic candidates in a primary in particular, and at general election candidates overall, are continued broad & deep economic growth, accelerating the transition to clean American-made energy and related technologies, maintaining the U.S. as a leader in international affairs with both hard & soft power, and making our healthcare system work both better and cheaper for all Americans.
IMHO comparable topics on the right might be keeping taxes & regulations low and streamlined, reforming/limiting immigration and ensuring tight border security, reducing the national debt, and maintaining a strong and generously-funded military.
So much of this culture war BS is just so small and inconsequential compared to the issues above and I can't bring myself to give more than half a shit about any of it. And yes people on the left do it too...needless focus on race over any other topic, trying to push non-mainstream gender and sexual norms on society at large, etc. etc. None of us should be wasting so much of our breathe on this small-ball and I'd happily go back to the days of debating about the tax & spending plans of Mitt Romney vs Barack Obama, which trust me I heavily overindulged in 

When you two are done giving each other a reach-around…


Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network mobile app
  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nsplayr said:

My top policies when looking for Democratic candidates in a primary in particular, and at general election candidates overall, are continued broad & deep economic growth, accelerating the transition to clean American-made energy and related technologies, maintaining the U.S. as a leader in international affairs with both hard & soft power, and making our healthcare system work both better and cheaper for all Americans.

You must be exhausted looking for someone, with a (D) after their name, who makes any of those policies a priority.  How do you even mine that information out of a candidate who’s party has been tirelessly combatting the horrific racism of daylight savings time, ensuring their neighbors, in the PTA, are on terrorist watch lists, and isn’t hopelessly perplexed by the complexities of X and Y chromosomes??

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm currently enjoying the Reddit storm of progressive pro-labor types going fucking nuts that Joe Biden averted the railway strike. Its like they can't comprehend that a democratic president would do something that is anti-union. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nsplayr said:

Because we disagree on the facts of what happened, just like many on the right do with Russian election interference in 2016.

Fact - Big Tech suppressed the laptop story.

Fact - The FBI was meeting with Big Tech Weekly

1 hour ago, nsplayr said:

Tech companies and especially social media companies do hold a lot of power over the collective conversation, not unlike traditional media. There should be standards of acceptable conduct, I totally agree on that. Is what Twitter did a gross violation of standards of acceptable conduct? I'm not nearly as sure as you are.

Of course you are not nearly as sure, because it didn't happen to your side.  Please tell me one negative story about trump or his kids that was suppressed by Big Tech. 

2 hours ago, nsplayr said:

The Hunter laptop story was widely reported and available freely and openly to anyone who cared to type www.nypost.com into their browser windows. The government in no way suppressed The New York Post or banned people from reading their reporting, reposting it, talking about it, or developing their own stories based on their reporting.

Dear god, do you actually believe what you just typed.  First, as you well know the attention span of the average American is at an all time low.  Most Americans now get their news from social media.   Additionally, we are completely politically bifurcated, it is the independents who decided most elections and the independents didn't know to go to the NY Post.  Not only did they stop users from posting the story, they stopped it from being DM'd or shared on both Twitter and Facebook.  Seriously brother, you are a smart dude, you have to understand how this suppressed the story.  A story that was TRUE!

2 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Their "polling methodology" of saying that oh if only people had known about this story (faints back onto a strategically placed couch), Trump would have gotten 300+ EVs is incredibly laughable. We don't need to speculate about a past event, it happened! We know the results for real, not just for make-believe!

Here is the money shot, you can't even comprehend that something nefarious might have happened.  Sorry brother but I want to know the truth. Put aside your hate for the orange man and think about the long-term impacts on democracy and our way of governance. 

 

2 hours ago, nsplayr said:

The GOP talked quite a bit about Hunter and his laptop at the end of the campaign and Joe Biden still won the 2020 Presidential election. It wasn't the October Surprise some were hoping for and I'm sorry that didn't work out for y'all the way Hillary's emails did - better luck next time.

So flippant about the implications, anything for victory?  As long as the Big Guy gets his 10% and you get rid of the orange man all is well...really sad, REALLY sad.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ViperMan said:

Watched this a bunch, and I've yet to hear him call for a riot, coup, or insurrection. Now, it's some Dem's turn to post the part where he does. I'll wait.

I'm waiting too

Edited by ItnStln
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/3/2022 at 11:55 AM, ClearedHot said:

As the Twitter files finally see the light of day it is more and more obvious that Big Tech, the DNC and the FBI changed the outcome of the election...and they continue to shape the social media narrative.

If you want to criticize the FBI, go ahead, but you've got no case complaining about Twitter/'BigTech' or the DNC.

You're upset that the DNC was trying to manipulate things in their favor?  That's literally their reason for existence.  Same as the RNC.  They're private organizations and can do whatever they like within bounds of the law.  Is it scummy?  Sure.  Is being a scumbag illegal?  Unfortunately not.

As for Twitter, we all know conservative Citizens United has established that corporations have the same rights as a person when it comes to political support.  They're free to write a billion dollar check to a SuperPAC of their choice for the expressed intent of electing their preferred candidate.  Running a business in a way that subtly supports a particular candidate or party is much less direct than monetarily funding a campaign, and it's just as legal.  So let's not throw terms like 'freedom of speech' around where they don't belong.

You know damn well MSNBC/Fox News/etc run their organizations with a policy of the same kind of "information suppression" so why are you singling out 'BigTech' as a boogeyman?

Do laws need to change to account for the information age?  Maybe.  Is Citizens United kicking themselves for setting a precedent that currently favors their political opponents (through support of pinko commie lib media), probably.  But there is no scandal with the DNC or 'BigTech'.

The only thing that's clear is that last week Trump, for any slow learners that hadn't figured it out a decade ago, literally and explicitly declared himself an enemy of the Constitution.  And since that's a bit of a conflict with the commissioning oath nobody on this forum will ever sing his praises again.  Right....guys?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mark1 said:

If you want to criticize the FBI, go ahead, but you've got no case complaining about Twitter/'BigTech' or the DNC.

Have you ever heard of 230?  Of course there is a case when they hide behind 230. 

As for the FBI, it should be far more than criticism, the depths of rot are actually frightening.  Just curious, have you looked at anything Elon has released?  By name they have the FBI agent that met with Big Tech weekly SPECIFICALLY said there would be an October surprise and it would have something to do with Hunter Biden.  They knew about the laptop, they knew it was real yet they put their fingers on the scales that at least impacted the election.  I don't care which side of the aisle you are on, that should make your blood boil as an American.

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

They knew about the laptop, they knew it was real yet they put their fingers on the scales that at least impacted the election.  I don't care which side of the aisle you are on, that should make your blood boil as an American.

100% right.  The FBI had in their possession proof of multiple felonies. Instead of investigating or prosecuting, they hid those crimes and even deceived tech companies into thinking it was Russian disinformation so they would silence investigative journalists.  This is deeply partisan criminal behavior, and clearly not an isolated incident.
 

We have the largest and most advanced law-enforcement agency in the history of the world orchestrating third party First Amendment suppression, at massive scale, to manipulate citizens and change election outcomes.  Is there a more serious scandal in American history?  

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Girls, girls...it wasn't just the DNC that acted to suppress the laptop story...more than 50 MAJOR intelligence officials came out in unison - WITHOUT EVIDENCE (or maybe with???) - and stated that it was a Russian hoax. That was false. Those same officials are eerily quiet right now. Accountability much anyone?

The number of officials who have gotten it wrong and felt zero (0) need to go back and correct the record or publicly re-evaluate their thinking over the past number of years is sickening, and it portends very, very bad things for the future of our country because not only do the PTB not care about having gotten it wrong, this shows they no longer care what us proles think, and it demonstrably proves that they are not politically neutral. Politically neutral entities have no reason to not go back and correct the record. Amirite?

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/hunter-biden-story-russian-disinfo-430276

Generally speaking, heads of TLAs don't all speak out together about things that "aren't a big deal." It was and IS a big deal.

I invite you to conduct a brief thought-experiment. Imagine for one minute that the propaganda you're steeped in is invisible to you. What does the world look like?

14 hours ago, nsplayr said:

The government in no way suppressed The New York Post or banned people from reading their reporting, reposting it, talking about it, or developing their own stories based on their reporting. Look at China especially or Iran or Russia for examples of true state repression of information, it's many orders of magnitude different than what you see here or in other Western capitalist democratic societies

Are you sure about that 5 minutes!!??

image.jpeg.c543ca683c841d7bbe03174a75fdd017.jpeg

Stated differently: The TRUTH “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” Makes you think.

Edited by ViperMan
Clarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Prozac said:

Still not buying the whole “media is stacked against us” argument. The problem with today’s conservatives is that they’ve decided the only way to win is to make sure their voters are perennially pissed off enough to show up at the polls. They prefer to fight boogeymen vs come up with a coherent platform.

Your post reads like an invitation to becoming better-informed. If that's an authentic feeling, you might consider checking out this podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/all-things-re-considered-with-peter-boghossian/id1650150225

It's from a (previously) liberal professor who has witnessed the change in tone and tenor in the conversation that has taken place inside American universities (and bled over) over the last 10 years. He was one (of many) who have been subjected to the increasingly illiberal attitudes and actions that are finding aid and comfort in our society. At times it has some hokey elements, but overall it is sharp and on point.

Boghossian and his co-host correctly identify the broader trend in some of our cultural institutions (i.e. NPR) that are working to enable such illiberal attitudes, that being: lies are now espoused and propagated as truth, and these lies are in turn used to enable illegitimate power. He and his co-host pick through numerous stories and how they were reported on NPR. He then contrasts their reporting with what actually happened and lays bare the striking contrast between those two things. A podcast with this type of meta-reporting is something which was sorely overdue, and deserves much accolade.

Case in point: the Kyle Rittenhouse saga. NPR worked overtime casting that story in a false light. They systematically dive into the details, how easy it was to get it right, and how NPR got it so exceptionally wrong: to listen to NPR is to become misinformed. Their reporting is conducted in a soothing, breathy tone, and in delectable, oh so perfectly-enunciated English, but it is largely a disinformation network. Your complaint about Republican over-focus on "dog whistle" issues is fair, but it's also wholly incomplete. There are real constitutional issues that were on trial in the court of public opinion, which are not diminished by the other "issues" you raised. NPR played (and plays) a major part in the mosaic of propaganda that makes up our information space.

For my part in the mid 2010s, I underwent the same transformation as espoused in many of the show's featured vignettes with regard to NPR. I listened to it everyday on the way to work - yes, I am an ex-NPR acolyte - but somewhere in there it just became insufferable. I couldn't point at any one thing, but my belief is that their transformation coincided directly with the 2016 presidential election.

Wrapping up: it's all well and good if you don't believe the "media is stacked against us" argument, but there's a source for you that lays it out in black and white. To all my conservative friends: it's a good podcast in that it goes far deeper than just shouting at the TV and yelling "get off my lawn." In short, it's actual reporting.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ViperMan said:

Your post reads like an invitation to becoming better-informed. If that's an authentic feeling, you might consider checking out this podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/all-things-re-considered-with-peter-boghossian/id1650150225

It's from a (previously) liberal professor who has witnessed the change in tone and tenor in the conversation that has taken place inside American universities (and bled over) over the last 10 years. He was one (of many) who have been subjected to the increasingly illiberal attitudes and actions that are finding aid and comfort in our society. At times it has some hokey elements, but overall it is sharp and on point.

Boghossian and his co-host correctly identify the broader trend in some of our cultural institutions (i.e. NPR) that are working to enable such illiberal attitudes, that being: lies are now espoused and propagated as truth, and these lies are in turn used to enable illegitimate power. He and his co-host pick through numerous stories and how they were reported on NPR. He then contrasts their reporting with what actually happened and lays bare the striking contrast between those two things. A podcast with this type of meta-reporting is something which was sorely overdue, and deserves much accolade.

Case in point: the Kyle Rittenhouse saga. NPR worked overtime casting that story in a false light. They systematically dive into the details, how easy it was to get it right, and how NPR got it so exceptionally wrong: to listen to NPR is to become misinformed. Their reporting is conducted in a soothing, breathy tone, and in delectable, oh so perfectly-enunciated English, but it is largely a disinformation network. Your complaint about Republican over-focus on "dog whistle" issues is fair, but it's also wholly incomplete. There are real constitutional issues that were on trial in the court of public opinion, which are not diminished by the other "issues" you raised. NPR played (and plays) a major part in the mosaic of propaganda that makes up our information space.

For my part in the mid 2010s, I underwent the same transformation as espoused in many of the show's featured vignettes with regard to NPR. I listened to it everyday on the way to work - yes, I am an ex-NPR acolyte - but somewhere in there it just became insufferable. I couldn't point at any one thing, but my belief is that their transformation coincided directly with the 2016 presidential election.

Wrapping up: it's all well and good if you don't believe the "media is stacked against us" argument, but there's a source for you that lays it out in black and white. To all my conservative friends: it's a good podcast in that it goes far deeper than just shouting at the TV and yelling "get off my lawn." In short, it's actual reporting.

Thanks for a reasoned & polite response. I’ll give that podcast an open minded listen. FWIW, I was also an NPR listener for a long time (surprise 😎), and I too realized at some point that it’s bias went past “leaning left” to something more approximating “promoting the left”. I don’t listen much anymore (save for old episodes of “Car Talk” - those guys were great). Unfortunately, the America we now inhabit seems to have fully embraced partisan media. I’m not happy about that either & I think the left leaning media of the 90s and earlier bears a lot of the blame for refusing to address its own blind spots and creating the conditions for blatantly right wing media sources to thrive. Alas, this is one of those cases where the train has left the station & writhing against the current status quo fits more into the “Lord, grant me the strength to accept the things I cannot change” category than it’s worth getting riled up about. Where I do take issue is when people complain about the bias of a source they don’t agree with while defending their own favorite outlet as sacrosanct. Yeah, CNN sucks. That doesn’t automatically mean that Newsmax is telling the truth. All of that to say, the only thing most of us here can control is who we vote for. But we have more agency than we think. We can get involved at a grassroots level and support good candidates from the get go. It might take patience, but it’s probably gonna be far more effective than continually bitching about how the networks that DJT constantly threatened and shat on didn’t give him fair coverage in the last election. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TreeA10 said:

Doesn't look like either side has a whole lot of trust in the media but definite Republicans less than Democrats. 

https://issuesinsights.com/2022/12/05/media-tailspin-continues-as-trust-hits-record-lows-ii-tipp-poll/

 

The only way you fix trust is more government intervention.   Lol

Break, Break

The new cool thing to do is bash Twitter, quit said media platform and then rejoin it when you figure out that no one cares that you quit.  I guess we'll have to censor it.  

Good job.  I'm glad our government is on top of more censorship.  Meanwhile, I just watched another homeless man shit where we're supposed to walk.    Good job Mr. President! 

Support free speech!  Unless I don't agree, then it's too dangerous.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...