themeatbridge

She learned this lesson, but is she actually a better person? Is she rethinking all of her odious stances and actions? I’m ready to applaud someone becoming a better person, even if she still has work to do on herself, but I’m also skeptical of any politician who sees the writing on the wall and makes a strategic course correction.

“No one will ever replace my husband, but…”

-words uttered by no faithful widow, ever.

Those kids are not pure enough for his constituents. He will deliberately lose custody and then whine ahout how the system is biased against fathers.

A crime. He’s prepared to commit a crime.

Because so many Americans hate America and what it stands for. They hate anyone who isn’t like them, and they like that it bothers you. They enjoy your frustration and your confusion, because it gives them a feeling of power they would otherwise never experience on their own merits.

Regan was corrupt, selfish, racist piece of shit who was terrible for the economy. But he would have vomited to see what Trump is doing.

I think it’s one of those apocryphal quotes that gets misattributed to different people. Most commonly Ledru-Rollin, as Pumpkin Escobar mentioned.

“Check where my people are going so that I might lead them there.”

For years, I had my own headcanon for the Labyrinth movie. In the scene, the young Sarah correctly solves the riddle, passes through the correct door, says “This is a piece of cake!” and then she immediately falls down a pit of doom. This confused me, because she got the answer right. So I reasoned that the guards were both liars, and because they both participated in explaining the rules, they were lying about the rules.

It was only a few years ago that I read in an interview that the Labyrinth (or Jareth) dropped her down the hole because she said it was a piece of cake. It was her arrogance that set her back, not that she got the riddle wrong.

But now it still bothers me that the liar, whichever one he is, helps explain the rules of the scenario. If he always lies, then she can’t trust that either of them ever tells the truth. The rules have to be described separately, like on a sign or by a disinterested third party. Or you could phrase it differently, like “One of us will answer your question truthfully, and one of us will answer your question dishonestly.” That way you avoid saying that they always lie, and specify that the lie will only be in response to the one question.

Fuck, I’ve had too much coffee. How the fuck did I get up on this soapbox? Why are you still reading? Go do something productive.

For sure, there have been events that affected all Americans in various ways, good and bad, but the context of the conversation is events that would encourage a general labor strike. The moon landing, world wars, the Great Depression, the Macarena, big things happen. I probably could have been clearer by saying that nothing in history has unified the American working class as a singular political group to use our power as a labor force to exert pressure to stop oligarchical abuses by means of a general strike, but that seems overly pedantic.

It’s never happened before because the working class has never been unified nationwide before. Soybean farmers in Utah are not connected to teachers in Boston or steelworkers in Pittsburgh or auto manufacturers in Michigan or nurses in San Diego. There’s never been a singular cause that affected all of those groups of people at the same time.

If it ever could happen, it would be because the President was a colossal dipshit who fucked every aspect of the economy across the country, except that would almost certainly cause the legislature to put an end to such rampant and corrupt tyranny.

Right?

I fully believe that this is an attempt to proactively delegitimize any attempts to prosecute former Trump officials for their actual crimes. You can just hear the dipshit chorus of “You protested when we prosecuted Comey and James, and now you’re trying to do the exact same thing to us!”

Yeah, this is a weird way to frame this story. Did he also “lose” at Jeopardy and the NLDS? Just because he said he wanted to win doesn’t mean he was either nominated or considered.

Polling matters not to a narcissist.

Like, Imagine you had a van. The van has passengers, and you’re one of them, but you’re way in the back. The driver can’t hear you and doesn’t care what you want or where you want to go. Then a new driver comes in and takes the van offroad. They drive in the wrong direction, and they keep hitting potholes and pedestrians and shit. Some of the people in the back are hootin and hollerin like it’s some awesome roller coaster, and also they hate the pedestrians and like when they are killed. And you’re like, please, just stop.

And then the driver threatens to turn the car off.

I mean, yeah, you need the aircon, and it would be nice to be going somewhere, but the driver is definitely not going in the right direction, and the longer he drives, the more damage he does to the van.

Right now the government is worse than shut down. It’s actively doing bad things. I’d rather the government start doing good things, but that’s not currently an option available to me.

The worst part about irrelevant lore tidbits like this is that you know some sweaty dweeb thought of it whilst masturbating.

Don’t go back.

Those Americans would vote for a woman as long as she said that women, minorities, and immigrants are inferior to them.

He falsely said Trump wasn’t entirely above the law.

I’m not going around in circles with you. There are 435 congressional reps in the house, plus 33 senate races. Examples are provided in the article.

You’re not interested in a good faith discussion, so I’m going to ignore you from here on. Maybe someone else can help you.