*** Official Politics Shitposting Thread ***

[CoccoBill]

I love how Lord Saint Jesus Musk turned into Satan Beelzebub Musk the moment he began saying reasonable things about Trump.

No comment about that, but in general I don't object to judging people by their words and actions.

[wufwugy]

No comment about that, but in general I don't object to judging people by their words and actions.

Trump: "Food tastes good."

Anti-Trumper: "WTF I hate food now."

[CoccoBill]

Trump: "Food tastes good."

Anti-Trumper: "WTF I hate food now."

Not the same thing.

In the Musk example a deplorable word/action makes the person saying/doing it look bad. Correct.
In the Trump example a deplorable person makes the word/action look bad. Incorrect.

[wufwugy]

In theory. Musk is simply getting closer to Trump and the left is beginning to hate him because Trump is Literal Hitler therefore anything that doesn't go against Trump is bad. It's hilarious.

[CoccoBill]

https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/tr...1d5#.p9jmniujh

[wufwugy]

^^Puts infowars tinfoiling to shame.

[wufwugy]

I have peered into my crystal ball and have seen the future. Date: 1/31/2017. Time: 8:00 PM EST.

Trump: "I nominate Barack H. Obama to the Supreme Court."

Shitlibs: "wtf Obama sucks now!"

[wufwugy]

On a serious note, Trump should nominate Savage Uncle Nige' to the court. I would die from ecstasy heart attack.

[Poopadoop]

Nah he'll probably nominate one of his yuge donors.

Either that or one of his relatives.

[wufwugy]

Why not a yuge donor relative?

[Poopadoop]

He'll just nominate whoever Bannon tells him to. Alt-right ftw!

[wufwugy]

NO WAIT

He'll nominate himself!

[wufwugy]

The cucks will never see it coming!

[wufwugy]

I wonder how many nicknames Trump will dish out during his presidency.

#1: Fake Tears Chuck Schumer

He'll run roughshod over the opposition just because they're frightened dickless of getting a nickname. If Crooked was never branded Crooked, we'd have President Crooked today.

[wufwugy]

He just took crying off the table as a weapon Democrats can use against him. Now any time a politician cries, most people will instinctively think "fake tears."

[oskar]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...60143825666051

Wordsmith, lord of twitter, master of manipulation.

[wufwugy]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...60143825666051

Wordsmith, lord of twitter, master of manipulation.

Don't worry, I got ya, fam

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/...00675039592448

[BananaStand]

http://www.learnprogress.org/trump-f...mass-shooting/

Fake fuckin' news right there.

On his Facebook page (since taken down), Bissonet had “likes” for several far-right organizations and politicians, such as Donald Trump’s page and the page of French presidential candidate Marine Le Pen. These “likes” suggest that Bissonet might have allegedly carried out the attack in honor of far-right Islamophobia.

"suggestions" are news now.

A former classmate is claiming that Bissonet had “right-wing political ideas, pro-Israel, anti-immigration. I had many debates with him about Trump … He was obviously pro-Trump.”

Damning evidence!!!

If these allegations are true, then this attack is beyond a complete outrage. Trump’s dangerous actions can fuel dangerous consequences, and now lives have been lost consequently.

Heads up boys and girls, being pro-israel, and clicking an upward thumb on Trump's facebook page means that you're an extremist killer.

[CoccoBill]

https://www.facebook.com/MediaSurviv...2172470746683/

[BananaStand]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...re-muslim.html

Caught trying a little too hard to paint the travel ban as a muslim ban

[BananaStand]

So I think that unless he has a heart attack, Trump is gonna go 8 years. After that I couldn't possibly presume to compete with the popularity of Kanye, so I'm eyeing a run in 2032.

My platform has one plank. I plan on being president for about 15 minutes, and then resigning once I've finished signing an executive order to shut down American's high schools

When kids turn 14, they get jobs. Prior to that though, we're gonna take the money we save by not running high schools and put it back in to K through 8, which now runs 7am to 7pm. Obviously that takes more manpower and overhead, so we can re-employ all of the employees from the high school. $0 tax burden, 0 impact to unemployment.

I don't intend for kids to spend all that time in classrooms though. There will be adequate leisure time, physical education, etc. There may be some marginally increased classroom time, however, with so many staff, class sizes will be much smaller and kids will be much more engaged. We're gonna teach them in 8 years, what we used to teach in 12. And because they're there all day, they aren't on the street joining gangs, and they're not watching cartoons on the couch getting fat.

Then we're gonna allow these super-educated 14 years olds to get entry level jobs. Now that there are Americans who actually want those jobs, there will be no reason to support an underground economy of illegal workers. And since these kids are still living as their parents' dependent, we can pay them shit. So farmers and such won't be able to complain at the increased costs of hiring Americans over illegals. No wall, no travel bans, just the cold reality that there is nothing here for anyone who doesn't come correct.

While working, these kids will obviously have some independent study, or online coursework. Very little. Just enough to keep their minds learning and growing. And I'm not talking about having them work full time hours either. Just enough to grow a little 'work ethic'

Imagine that, an 18 year old with an education, a work ethic, and some money in the bank. Boom! College solved.

The reason college is so expensive, is because in the 90's, under Clinton, it was decided that higher education was a "right". Hence you had this outpouring of government spending in the form of student loans. This system was brutally raped by academic institutions. The board at Roody-Poo State University would sit around and try to figure out what to charge for tuition. Instead of calculating their cost and adding a profit margin like any other business, they simply asked "how much is the gov't giving each kid.....ok, that's what tuition costs". Then of course, Hoity-Toity Private College goes and charges 5x more. Now the whole system has been hyper-inflated. No more!!

If people have to pay for their own college, the market will determine the price. And kids will have money to spend on it, so the market will get things in order pretty quickly. The government can stop pouring money into over-burdensome student loans, and divert that money towards the existing national debt.

To review:
1) By extending school hours, I've eliminated the need for daytime childcare. That's up to five-figures of cash I'm putting back into American households
2) By consolidating school staff into 2/3 of the grade levels, I'm giving kids a better quality education
3) Less street violence, because kids are in school all day
4) Less childhood obesity because kids are kept active, and their access to junk food is controlled
5) Illegal Immigration - SOLVED
6) College tuition prices become manageable
7) Gov't student loan spending plummets
8) National debt is relieved
9) Because recent graduates are not burdened by debt, they are able to participate more in the economy, buy their first homes sooner, upgrade their car more often, etc etc etc. All that creates jobs
10) The unused high school buildings can become shelters for the homeless.

And I can accomplish all that with one simple order, shut down high schools.

I hope I can count on your vote

[Poopadoop]

Great idea. Now all you need is a plan to breed a generation of superkids who can do grade 12 studies when they're 13 years old.

[BananaStand]

Great idea. Now all you need is a plan to breed a generation of superkids who can do grade 12 studies when they're 13 years old.

Not really. The goal is to make a citizen who can handle entry level work. Someone who can be taught to function like a human being and earn money without needing his hand held until he's 26. That doesn't mean they need to pass 12th grade physics. I'm just trying to make good, useful citizens here. If they wanna learn shit, then they can save their money and go to college.

I heard a statistic once that said 30% of America's community college curriculums are remedial coursework anyway. We're teaching shit twice nowadays. I'd rather raise a kid who can learn, and then teach him something once.

[Poopadoop]

Nice try Fox News.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38821804

[BananaStand]

Nice try Fox News.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38821804

It seems to me the sequence of events here goes like this > Fox ran a story and a tweet consistent with reports they received about a Moroccan attacker > The reports were corrected to state the man was just a witness > Fox corrected their story, and tweeted a correction, both in a very timely manner.

They forgot to go back and delete the original tweet. Someone saw it, asked it to be fixed, and it was. That hardly seems like an intentional agenda to scapegoat a race of people.

Seems like evidence of bias when Fox's clerical error becomes a news, yet CNN can say Betsy DeVos "Lifted" her answers to senate inquiries. They don't even have the decency to use the word "allegedly", and they get to slide.

[BananaStand]

If you want "selective" reporting, try this on for size

http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/25/ab...d-like-attack/

In Fox's case, it's plausible, if not very likely, that they simply fell behind the timeline and reported old information incorrectly. In other words, a mistake. In this case, someone had to physically edit a video in a way that obviously changed it's tone and meaning.

How come this isn't front page news on all other mainstream media outlets?

[Poopadoop]

If you want "selective" reporting, try this on for size

http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/25/ab...d-like-attack/

In Fox's case, it's plausible, if not very likely, that they simply fell behind the timeline and reported old information incorrectly. In other words, a mistake. In this case, someone had to physically edit a video in a way that obviously changed it's tone and meaning.

How come this isn't front page news on all other mainstream media outlets?

1. I'm not arguing it's ok for the other side to do it either. So if they do it, yes it's bad too. And yes, I'm aware it goes on.

2. Saying biased reporting that confirms their views would piss conservatives off or harm their credibility with conservatives is lol. It's not like a conservative is sitting there 'OMG fucking Fox I'll never go to them for my right-wing news again. They just told me what I wanted to hear!'

2a. Fox's viewers don't have to be kool-aid drinkers, they just have to be willing to explain away any bias and/or bad reporting on their part, intentional or not.

[BananaStand]

2. Saying biased reporting that confirms their views would piss conservatives off or harm their credibility with conservatives is lol. It's not like a conservative is sitting there 'OMG fucking Fox I'll never go to them for my right-wing news again. They just told me what I wanted to hear!'

You're killing me here dude. Think about the assumptions you have to make in order for your statement above to be valid.

What views did Fox 'confirm' in this case? You're assuming that conservatives, gathered in the form of the largest cable news audience, have some kind of opinion that this crime was perpetrated by a Moroccan Muslim. Why would they WANT to hear that instead of the actual truth?

Let's say hypothetically that the Moroccan guy was in on it. And in the context of week-long national headlines about Muslim immigrants committing crimes, I would expect fox to devote a little more airtime to the Muslim man than they do the French man. I would also expect CNN and MSNBC to play up the French connection. This would be an example of what you're talking about where viewers thrive on confirmation bias and being told what they want to hear. It happens on both sides, which is why anyone who gets their info from just one news source, no matter how good it may be, is pretty much hopelessly uninformed.

However, what actually happened is not the same. Fox reported a complete falsehood. Doing so on purpose, would be silly. So it seems infinitely more plausible that it was merely an honest mistake.

If you want bias, how about the fact that the letter to Fox ranted about Trump's immigration order. How are the two stories connected if the only criminal is a Canadian in Canada?

Fox's viewers don't have to be kool-aid drinkers, they just have to be willing to explain away any bias and/or bad reporting on their part, intentional or not

I don't think that believing in the plausibility of an honest mistake makes anyone a Fox apologist. Frankly, if Fox were out to dupe people, I think they are smart enough to do it better than this.

[Poopadoop]

You're killing me here dude. Think about the assumptions you have to make in order for your statement above to be valid.

What views did Fox 'confirm' in this case? You're assuming that conservatives, gathered in the form of the largest cable news audience, have some kind of opinion that this crime was perpetrated by a Moroccan Muslim. Why would they WANT to hear that instead of the actual truth?

Cognitive dissonance. People prefer to hear things that confirm their previously held beliefs than things that don't.

Also, you keep harping on how they have the biggest audience, like that's somehow automatic proof they're objective. That's not how it works mate. Maybe they have the largest audience because the liberal audience is split among a number of other networks and Fox is the only MSM that caters to the right-wingers - ever think of that?

Let's say hypothetically that the Moroccan guy was in on it. And in the context of week-long national headlines about Muslim immigrants committing crimes, I would expect fox to devote a little more airtime to the Muslim man than they do the French man. I would also expect CNN and MSNBC to play up the French connection. This would be an example of what you're talking about where viewers thrive on confirmation bias and being told what they want to hear. It happens on both sides, which is why anyone who gets their info from just one news source, no matter how good it may be, is pretty much hopelessly uninformed.

However, what actually happened is not the same. Fox reported a complete falsehood. Doing so on purpose, would be silly. So it seems infinitely more plausible that it was merely an honest mistake.

How about the idea that it was done on purpose even though it seems silly, because they knew their viewers would find it easy to explain away such a thing as an 'honest mistake'. You're a good example of that happening right here and now.

If you want bias, how about the fact that the letter to Fox ranted about Trump's immigration order. How are the two stories connected if the only criminal is a Canadian in Canada?

The fact that other people are biased doesn't change the fact that Fox is biased, or make it somehow ok. Not sure why you keep bringing those things up. I'm talking about Fox News here, which you say is really good and objective. I'm saying it's not good or objective if they fuck up on things like this.

I don't think that believing in the plausibility of an honest mistake makes anyone a Fox apologist. Frankly, if Fox were out to dupe people, I think they are smart enough to do it better than this.

They only have to be smart enough to understand that their viewers are going to give them the benefit of the doubt no matter what they do.

In the end, it may have been an honest mistake. At the very least, it was a dumb mistake, and it's not to their credit that Fox News was the only one to make it.

My point, however, has still been nicely illustrated by your reaction to the argument. If they were to commit the dishonest action on purpose a great majority of their viewers wouldn't see it as such, and defend them the way you're defending them here.

[BananaStand]

you keep harping on how they have the biggest audience, like that's somehow automatic proof they're objective.

I don't think it's irrelevant that they have the most to lose by lying, or that more eyeballs means more scrutiny. I never said they were objective. Look at their page now, there are at least half a dozen links related to the riots at UC Berkely. Most other site's front page have one. Subjectively choosing which news stories appeal to your viewers most doesn't impugn their integrity as a news source. Reporting erroneous facts, does. That riot really happened. A Moroccan shooting a mosque didn't.

How about the idea that it was done on purpose even though it seems silly, because they knew their viewers would find it easy to explain away such a thing as an 'honest mistake'. You're a good example of that happening right here and now.

Why would you assume such sinister intentions in the first place? This kind of cynicism is really tinfoil-y. I think I'm an example of a fair minded person who embraces 'innocent until proven guilty', and is able to look at the entire picture and logically see that there is no motive to lie, and the contrived motive you're providing would contradict all of their other motives such as maintaining journalistic integrity, appeasing their sponsors, and upholding their reputation.

Sure they could 'get away with one' now and again if they were so inclined. But shitting on Morocco for no reason seems like a lousy way to spend their 'benefit of the doubt' capital.

The fact that other people are biased doesn't change the fact that Fox is biased, or make it somehow ok.

Don't conflate my argument. I'm not saying "well everybody does it too". I'm talking specifically, about the specific criticism, directed specifically at Fox News, in a specific piece of communication. It cites irrelevant and unrelated Trump policies. To me, that strongly suggests that the criticism of Fox News here is disingenuous, and opportunistic. "Hey look, Fox messed up, now let's pile on those right-wing fuckers with everything and the kitchen sink". That's why I cited the letter. That's what I'm seeing here.

Not sure why you keep bringing those things up. I'm talking about Fox News here, which you say is really good and objective. I'm saying it's not good or objective if they fuck up on things like this.

They reported the information they received from the police. The police changed their story, and Fox didn't fix it fast enough. As far as fuck ups go, I think that's pretty minor. And I don't think Fox is objective. That doesn't mean I also think they're outright nasty liars though.

If they were to commit the dishonest action on purpose a great majority of their viewers wouldn't see it as such.

Even if I were to stipulate this as true, wouldn't it wear out after a while? In this situation, we're not talking about bias, spin, or slant. The options here are honest mistake, or outright lie. If Fox made a habit of outright lying, they wouldn't be in this position they are in (#1), for as long as they have (20+ years). A pattern of blatant partisan dishonesty wouldn't fly for that long. People aren't that stupid.

So if Fox did do this on purpose, the question is "why". And "cause they can" just doesn't hold up as an explanation.

[wufwugy]

google image search "side of beef".

fucking amazing.

[Poopadoop]

I never said they were objective.

Good, then we agree on something at least.

Why would you assume such sinister intentions in the first place? This kind of cynicism is really tinfoil-y.

Ad hominem argument fail.

I think I'm an example of a fair minded person who embraces 'innocent until proven guilty', and is able to look at the entire picture and logically see that there is no motive to lie, and the contrived motive you're providing would contradict all of their other motives such as maintaining journalistic integrity, appeasing their sponsors, and upholding their reputation.

Pretty much makes my point again that their viewers will look for reasons to excuse them.

Sure they could 'get away with one' now and again if they were so inclined. But shitting on Morocco for no reason seems like a lousy way to spend their 'benefit of the doubt'.

Still making my argument for me.

Don't conflate my argument. I'm not saying "well everybody does it too". I'm talking specifically about the specific criticism directed specifically at Fox News. It cites irrelevant and unrelated Trump policies. To me, that strongly suggests that the criticism of Fox News here is disingenuous, and opportunistic. "Hey look, Fox messed up, now let's pile on those right-wing fuckers with everything and the kitchen sink". That's why I cited the letter. That's what I'm seeing here.

You can take the opportunity to find fault with how their mistake was pointed out to them. Doesn't have any relevance in terms of whether or why they made the mistake.

They reported the information they received from the police. The police changed their story, and Fox didn't fix it fast enough. As far as fuck ups go, I think that's pretty minor.

Well no, they didn't. We've been through this. The police reported two suspects, Fox reported the one and ignored the other. No-one else did this. At the very least it's selective reporting and misleading.

And I don't think Fox is objective. That doesn't mean I also think they're outright nasty liars though.

I hear you. And I'm not convinced they're outright nasty liars myself. I'm just saying it's a funny coincidence that they're the only ones who made that mistake.

[BananaStand]

Good, then we agree on something at least.

Awesome

Ad hominem argument fail.

Ad hominem yes. Argument no. It was a question. Why are you so cynical? Why would you, or anyone, assume nefarious intent?

Pretty much makes my point again that their viewers will look for reasons to excuse them.

Just because a good reason exists, doesn't mean it's 'looked for' or 'made up' by their viewers. And nevermind viewers for a minute, what incentive do their sponsors have to 'look for excuses'? Tiger Woods cheated on his wife and lost sponsors overnight. If Fox is really this dishonest and manipulative as a matter of policy, they'd be out of business.

Still making my argument for me.

How? If they have the ability to lie occasionally and get away with it, why would they choose this?

You can take the opportunity to find fault with how their mistake was pointed out to them. Doesn't have any relevance in terms of whether or why they made the mistake.

Agree to disagree I guess. Trying to strengthen a flimsy argument with irrelevant partisanship kinda makes the argument even more flimsy. Blowing up a conceivable honest mistake and painting it as a dishonest propaganda agenda kind of makes me feel more sympathetic to Fox. And if we're asking people to conclude whether or not this was a mistake, just based on their own perceptions, then efforts to influence those perceptions are totally relevant.

Well no, they didn't. We've been through this. The police reported two suspects, Fox reported the one and ignored the other. No-one else did this.

At the very least it's selective reporting and misleading.

Misleading and selective reporting is where I would invoke the "everybody does it" argument. We agree, they are not objective, and there is some incentive for them to appeal to their viewership by choosing which stories to report, and how. The topic of the week is "Muslim immigrants and terrorist attacks". If I had to guess, I'd say Fox's viewership supports the immigration pause. Reporting the story in a way that feeds into that is biased, but not dishonest. And it's certainly not out of the norm across all mainstream media outlets.

What would be wrong, dishonest, and out of the norm is if Fox was aware that the Muslim suspect was innocent, but reported that he was guilty anyway. And if you're going down that road, you need to provide a motive. Fox doesn't have a dog in this fight. It's not like their ratings will go up if the Muslim guy actually did it. However, they would know that being caught in an outright lie will hurt their credibility, and that affects their ratings for sure. Any reasonable person can see way more downside than upside to lying.

I hear you. And I'm not convinced they're outright nasty liars myself. I'm just saying it's a funny coincidence that they're the only ones who made that mistake.

Why's that a funny coincidence? A few posts back you yourself called attention to the fact that Fox is pretty much alone as the go to source for conservative viewership. Reporting "Muslim immigrant commits crime" during a week whose headlines have been debating this very thing, seems totally expected. It's only 'wrong' if they knew the guy was only a witness at the time of their report. Which seems like a paranoid and cynical accusation to make without any proof.

In fact, evidence to the contrary includes the fact that Fox DID update their story upon learning of the Muslim man's true role. This dust-up is actually in regards to a Tweet that Fox failed to retract. From what I read, it only got shared between some 1000-1500 people. I doubt that's even 1% of Fox's audience. In fact, I'm willing to bet that a massive percentage of Fox's viewership falls among generations that don't really use Twitter.

[OngBonga]

banana is going to send kids to school from 7am to 7pm and tell them to get a job when they're 14? I hope he's going to give these same 14 y/o kids the vote.

[BananaStand]

banana is going to send kids to school from 7am to 7pm and tell them to get a job when they're 14? I hope he's going to give these same 14 y/o kids the vote.

Why? I started working at 15. Couldn't vote until I was 18. There wasn't an election until I was 20.

and "school" isn't 12 hours long. It will be the same amount of classroom time, perhaps a little more. It's just interspersed throughout a 12 hour day rather than crammed into a 7 hour day. And the rest of the time will offer kids plenty to do, like extra gym class so kids stop getting so friggen fat.

I'm open to the idea of a 14 year old voting. If my plan works, they'll be smarter and more informed that most 18 year olds today, by far.

Or maybe we'll do something like give the kid and the parent a civic competency test of some kind. If the kid passes, and the parent doesn't, the kid gets to proxy-vote for his parent.

[BananaStand]

So this story wasn't widely reported yesterday, though it was 'around'. The only mainstream outlet that I could find featuring it prominently was NBC. They ran a story saying this lady wanted to come to America, couldn't, then died. It seems dubious that denial of access to America could kill a person, or that a transcontinental flight would have saved her life, but NBC ran the story anyway.

You could say Fox's lack of coverage here indicates bias. They don't want to criticize the President's policies or alienate their viewers who support the president's policies.

Or....perhaps they like their stories to be backed up with facts.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/02...ravel-ban.html

[OngBonga]

I was playing football age 15. If some cunt told me I had to get a job, he'd have got a right mouthful off me. What do you intend to do with children like me?

[Poopadoop]

[Poopadoop]

Fuck that Bill O'Reilly is dumb

[BananaStand]

Fuck that Bill O'Reilly is dumb

The guy is on for a full hour every weeknight and you had to go back five years to find an example of him losing a debate. Yeah, he's probably real fuckin dumb.

[Poopadoop]

The guy is on for a full hour every weeknight and you had to go back five years to find an example of him losing a debate. Yeah, he's probably real fuckin dumb.

Unlike you I don't watch him every night, so for all I know he just rants and raves at everyone he interviews.

And yeah he is fucking dumb cause he works for Fox.

[Savy]

I was playing football age 15. If some cunt told me I had to get a job, he'd have got a right mouthful off me. What do you intend to do with children like me?

Would the same not happen now you're 30ish?

[BananaStand]

I was playing football age 15. If some cunt told me I had to get a job, he'd have got a right mouthful off me. What do you intend to do with children like me?

Send them to Syria

From now on refugee admittance is on a TRADE-ONLY basis. One for one. We'll take in a Syrian, they take in one ungrateful brat.

[OngBonga]

Would the same not happen now you're 30ish?

"30ish"

Thanks, I'm 38 tomorrow.

And yes, probably. But that's besides the point... at 15, I'm a kid. At 38, I'm an adult. I can't say "fuck off, I'm just a kid" anymore, as much as I'd love to.

Send them to Syria

From now on refugee admittance is on a TRADE-ONLY basis. One for one. We'll take in a Syrian, they take in one ungrateful brat.

Right.

So, when you say to some American 15 y/o "get a job", and he replies "get fucked, I wanna play football", you're gonna take him into a war zone and dump him there?

I like how you refer to said child as "ungrateful", as if he should be grateful about the fact you've taken away his childhood by forcing him to go to 12 hours of school a day, and now want to take away his teenage years too, just so he can pay tax, boost the economy, and make you look like a good President, instead of some fucked up oppressive arsehole that thinks the nation's children are there for your Presidential benefit, and for the economic good of others.

I think you need a more serious means of dealing with twats like me, because this idea of yours might cost you a few votes.

[BananaStand]

at 15, I'm a kid. At 38, I'm an adult. I can't say "fuck off, I'm just a kid" anymore, as much as I'd love to.

So now you see the whole point of my agenda. We're making 15 year old adults now.

So, when you say to some American 15 y/o "get a job", and he replies "get fucked, I wanna play football", you're gonna take him into a war zone and dump him there?

Inner city streets are pretty much just as dangerous.

I like how you refer to said child as "ungrateful", as if he should be grateful about the fact you've taken away his childhood by forcing him to go to 12 hours of school a day,

Do you have kids? Because this sounds hopelessly out of touch. Households with one working parent are not nearly as commonplace as they used to be. The majority of middle class families have two working parents. That means, the kid has to do something when he gets out of school. For that, there are YMCA's, after school programs, day cares, camps, etc etc etc. What do these places all have in common? They're open til 7, and they cost money.

I'm simply subsidizing that practice with government dollars saved by not paying for high schools. I have 3 kids. They get out of school at 2 or 3 and they get bussed to a YMCA where there are lots of other kids, activities, etc. They stay there until 6 when I pick them up. My ex wife pays for it every week, and every month I send her $1,000 just to cover my half. Imagine if that money got put back into middle class households.

Kids are already out of the house for 12 hours at a time. That's the reality faced by a working class household. I'm just making it better, and free.

and now want to take away his teenage years too, just so he can pay tax, boost the economy, and make you look like a good President, instead of some fucked up oppressive arsehole that thinks the nation's children are there for your Presidential benefit, and for the economic good of others.

I'm not taking anything away. When I was 16 I pulled a 3.7 GPA, worked 20 hours per week at a supermarket, and played both Football (the good kind), and Lacrosse. What I'm proposing significantly cuts down on the amount of school hours a 16 year old needs every day, so if anything, I'm giving time back to teenagers, not taking it away.

Also, I'm not sure I specified anything about paying tax. I doubt these kids would pay anything on a low wage, part time job.

I think you need a more serious means of dealing with twats like me, because this idea of yours might cost you a few votes.

I think a popular exasperation with folks who wanna do nothing is what's going to get me elected.

[OngBonga]

I think a popular exasperation with folks who wanna do nothing is what's going to get me elected.

Here's where you haven't got to know me yet. I don't wanna do nothing. I want to grow weed, but the law stops me doing so. I'm de facto retired until they change the law.

[Poopadoop]

Send them to Syria

From now on refugee admittance is on a TRADE-ONLY basis. One for one. We'll take in a Syrian, they take in one ungrateful brat.

Sounds like a very authoritarian style of rule to me. Makes sense why you like Trump now.

[wufwugy]

I remember watching those years back. Loved em. Stewart is very convincing.

[wufwugy]

[wufwugy]

[BananaStand]

http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/...is-family.html

I don't know about this one.....I guess I feel bad for the guy and all. But a gofundme page seeking donations for limo repairs??

What ever happened to insurance?

[wufwugy]

I remember hearing about that. I'm guessing it got big because of the shitlib hypocrisy that Trump supporters love so much. Shitlibs riot against the guy they say wants to murder Muslims, and in doing so torch a Muslim's car.

[wufwugy]

The man is a philosopher genius

[wufwugy]

[Poopadoop]

http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-...led-it-w463995

[wufwugy]

http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-...led-it-w463995

Shitlib Sign #43: What somebody means doesn't matter as long as you can find a technical error. In that case, they are dogshit and you are brilliant.

What's Actually Going On #82: "Sorry to interrupt you while you're fixing America, but shitlibs are going bananas over something that doesn't matter. How should we respond?"

"Let the dog chase its tail."

[Poopadoop]

Shitlib Sign #43: What somebody means doesn't matter as long as you can find a technical error. In that case, they are dogshit and you are brilliant.

What's Actually Going On #82: "Sorry to interrupt you while you're fixing America, but shitlibs are going bananas over something that doesn't matter. How should we respond?"

No-one's going bananas over this, it's just funny 'cause it shows he's an idiot.

Kind of like how he tweeted his own password out before (twice).

"Let the dog chase its tail."

You forgot to attribute that to someone notable. Fake news bad, fake quotes ok.

[wufwugy]

fucking looool

http://imgur.com/a/FNzNE

[wufwugy]

roflcopter

[wufwugy]

Sadly I have confirmed that FBIanon is not telling the truth. Confirmation came via my impeccable Werewolf skills.

[CoccoBill]

http://www.vox.com/2017/2/14/1461731...ansparency-oil

Draining the swamp.

[BananaStand]

Holy Shit!! Need any more proof the democratic party is going down the toilet?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/music/news/...WL1?li=BBnb7Kz

[Savy]

Holy Shit!! Need any more proof the democratic party is going down the toilet?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/music/news/...WL1?li=BBnb7Kz

Look at the state of the GOP

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/16/po...ent-elections/

[BananaStand]

Look at the state of the GOP

Not seeing your point. If Trump can get elected President, and Kid Rock is a viable candidate for Senate, what does that say about their opposition?

[Savy]

Not seeing your point. If Trump can get elected President, and Kid Rock is a viable candidate for Senate, what does that say about their opposition?

Seriously though, the absolute state of it

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLIT...ates.announce/

[BananaStand]

Seriously though, the absolute state of it

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLIT...ates.announce/

Dude....how can you knock Arnold? Four decades...nothin but net!

[BananaStand]

Think democrats will get the message?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...WFz?li=BBnbcA1

[Savy]

Think democrats will get the message?

I think it'll be funny to see people who haven't even begun to understand what went on and will just start forcing through mental picks in various positions because they think that's what it was.

That being said of the cool as fuck people I could actually back running for a political role

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kane_(...#Personal_life

Unfortunately he'd come across more as a boring insurance person than the big red machine.

[Poopadoop]

I think it'll be funny to see people who haven't even begun to understand what went on and will just start forcing through mental picks in various positions because they think that's what it was.

That being said of the cool as fuck people I could actually back running for a political role

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kane_(...#Personal_life

Unfortunately he'd come across more as a boring insurance person than the big red machine.

Hulk Hogan would make a cool president imo. "What'dya gonna dooo when America invades youuu!"

[BananaStand]

Hulk Hogan would make a cool president imo. "What'dya gonna dooo when America invades youuu!"

Never happen. He'd say "brother" too many times and alienate both women and black people.

[Savy]

Hulk Hogan would make a cool president imo. "What'dya gonna dooo when America invades youuu!"

Trump v McMahon Wrestlemania 2018.

Also fucking lol at how similar her hand placement is on that kids chest compared to the whole Pizza related photo posted.

(I assume the photo is a joke of some kind I don't get really get so just ignore it)

[Poopadoop]

Trump v McMahon Wrestlemania 2018.

Also fucking lol at how similar her hand placement is on that kids chest compared to the whole Pizza related photo posted.

(I assume the photo is a joke of some kind I don't get really get so just ignore it)

She's obviously copping a feel of the girl's future breast. Fucking pizza eater.

[wufwugy]

Unnamed Democrat would get beaten as badly. Once the name comes and the attacks come, everything changes. Clinton was ahead of the field by like 35 points at this time in the cycle. Political pundits (you know, those guys who don't understand politics) thought she was unbeatable because of that.

[wufwugy]

Honestly I'm not sure if the Democrats could do better than Warren right now. They would have to abandon their identity politics and their leftism. That ain't gonna happen; those have always been the purpose of the party.

[BananaStand]

Honestly I'm not sure if the Democrats could do better than Warren right now. They would have to abandon their identity politics and their leftism. That ain't gonna happen; those have always been the purpose of the party.

Almost feels like a catch 22. Hillary tried for such broad-appeal that she ended up having no message. That hurt her. Warren has a message, and she still loses.