Random Politics

[Johnnie]

So these two shitbirds have been banging each other for a year.

[sancarlos]

Some people might say what they do in their private lives shouldn’t matter. Except they get so worked up about other people’s private lives…

[mister d]

Nice work, Texas.

[Giff]

Your turn, Florida!

[The Sybian]

I don’t know if it’s a statement about me or the GOP, but that’s two office holding GOP GILFs involved in a scandal in two days!

[brian]

The “Law and Order” party, folks!

[Nonlinear FC]

I feel like there's a chance we'll see a Boebert sex "tape" 5 or 6 years from now after she's voted out of office.

I mean, like a 10-15 percent chance... But definitely not zero.

[L-Jam3]

I feel like your percentages are a quarter of what they should be.

[Johnnie]

If they can railroad No Legs McGee, they can do the same to get. She needs to start taking about cocaine orgies, stat.

[DaveInSeattle]

I feel like there's a chance we'll see a Boebert sex "tape" 5 or 6 years from now after she's voted out of office.

I mean, like a 10-15 percent chance... But definitely not zero.

I'd put the percent chance way higher...and I wouldn't be at all surprised if it happens in the next month.

[DaveInSeattle]

[DaveInSeattle]

Oh, nothing to see here...just some book burning...

[Steve of phpBB]

Didn't those turn out to be empty boxes they were burning?

[mister d]

Not sure if that matters if they did mean it symbolically.

[Steve of phpBB]

Not sure if that matters if they did mean it symbolically.

I think that's a subjective issue, but when people say "MAGA is burning books," it matters to me whether MAGA is or is not burning books.

[DaveInSeattle]

Not sure if that matters if they did mean it symbolically.

I think that's a subjective issue, but when people say "MAGA is burning books," it matters to me whether MAGA is or is not burning books.

They said they were empty boxes because they didn't want the purchasing money going to the authors/publishers.

[mister d]

Not sure if that matters if they did mean it symbolically.

I think that's a subjective issue, but when people say "MAGA is burning books," it matters to me whether MAGA is or is not burning books.

If their intent is to make a show of book burning, it doesn't matter if there's a Catcher in the Rye in the fire. Same with hanging effigies; its the intended message that should be judged.

[rass]

Not sure if that matters if they did mean it symbolically.

I think that's a subjective issue, but when people say "MAGA is burning books," it matters to me whether MAGA is or is not burning books.

They said they were empty boxes because they didn't want the purchasing money going to the authors/publishers.

Holy shit they’re learning. This is a the raptors turning the doorknob moment.

[cerranoredux]

Not sure if that matters if they did mean it symbolically.

I think that's a subjective issue, but when people say "MAGA is burning books," it matters to me whether MAGA is or is not burning books.

You’re giving them points for being pussies and not actually burning any books when they want people to think they’re burning books?

That’s some subjective accounting.

[Steve of phpBB]

Not sure if that matters if they did mean it symbolically.

I think that's a subjective issue, but when people say "MAGA is burning books," it matters to me whether MAGA is or is not burning books.

You’re giving them points for being pussies and not actually burning any books when they want people to think they’re burning books?

That’s some subjective accounting.

Burning empty boxes and saying "we will burn books" is a bad thing. But it is not burning books.

I'm not giving anyone points. I'm just saying that facts matter.

[mister d]

It really doesn't. They're fighting against the content in the books, not the physical books themselves, so the act is the same regardless of what's physically in the fire. Its not like they're claiming they burned the oldest known Torah or some shit that can't be reproduced a million times over.

[Steve of phpBB]

It really doesn't.

Can you clarify?

Are you saying the specific difference doesn't matter in judging the moral reprehensibility of the act, because symbolically burning books is equivalent to actually burning books?

Or that it doesn't matter whether we describe the act correctly when we talk about it?

Because I'm mostly with you on the first option. My point only addresses the second issue - that we should accurately describe what they are doing.

[mister d]

I'm saying that a book burning is a symbolic act and whether 100% or 27% or 0% of the kindling is actual books they hate doesn't have any bearing on the event.

[L-Jam3]

Something that is secondarily aggravating about this is that the media, for better or for worse, strives for objectivity, and can't accurately express how fucked up this is. Like if there was a mainstream headline or news report that was written as:

GOP COPIES NAZI TACTICS

(AP, Missouri) In a display reminiscent to Kristallnacht, the first wide-spread Nazi attacks on Jews which led-off the Holocaust, Republicans Bill Eigel, who is running for Missouri Governor, and Nick Schroer, Missouri State Senator, symbolically burned with flamethrowers the words of those who they politically disagree with.

None of what I said was opinion; it was entirely factual. But because the mainstream media, for better or for worse, needs to at least try to be objective, they can't put it that way because they'd be attacked by both sides and likely internally reprimanded, as this would likely threaten their bottom line.

[DSafetyGuy]

Capitalism, huh?

[mister d]

[duff]

My point only addresses the second issue - that we should accurately describe what they are doing.

They are empowering their base to do the exact same thing but with real books. They are empowering their base to resort to violence against those they disagree. It has happened. It continues to happen. And no one with any type of voice or power is saying anything about it. As others have stated, it doesn't matter if there were books or not. It is the act they are displaying.

[Steve of phpBB]

I'm not sure I get the point. Is the poster saying that the Democratic Party or the Left should do more to polarize the UAW strike?

[Steve of phpBB]

My point only addresses the second issue - that we should accurately describe what they are doing.

They are empowering their base to do the exact same thing but with real books. They are empowering their base to resort to violence against those they disagree. It has happened. It continues to happen. And no one with any type of voice or power is saying anything about it. As others have stated, it doesn't matter if there were books or not. It is the act they are displaying.

Agreed. So why do we need to circulate misinformation about what they're doing, given that what they're doing is already bad?

[mister d]

Because it misinforms more than it clarifies.

[duff]

It is their intent to show themselves burning books. Who cares what they burn.

[rass]

First they came for the empty boxes, and I did not speak out...

[Ryan]

[DaveInSeattle]

For the record, the term "Jagoffs" has been woefully underused in today's politics.

[mister d]

He also used the phrase "grabbing hog" in a tweet. Or his body-double did.

[Johnnie]

General C.Q. Brown was confirmed as the newest Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff by an 83-11 vote.

The 11 'Nays'? All Republicans

Braun (R-IN)
Cruz (R-TX)
Hawley (R-MO)
Johnson (R-WI)
Lee (R-UT)
Lummis (R-WY)
Marshall (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Schmitt (R-MO)
Tuberville (R-AL)
Vance (R-OH)

CUNTS

[Baloney]

I'd wear it as a badge of honor that those chucklefucks were against me.

[DaveInSeattle]

Gold Bars?

[L-Jam3]

That’s some James Bond villain shit.

[mister d]

100 swamp bucks for whoever finds the first prominent "if they don't care about their politicians breaking laws, then we should circle the wagons around Menendez" take.