you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]BobOki 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Biden is a shit president who has done shit all and literally has fallen asleep during multiple events and is an embarrassment on the global stage as he stammers through speeches and smells children. Trump was a shit president who did little helpful to anyone but the rich and was an embarrassment on the global stage with his mouth.

We should have a truthful post about both these shit ass parties, the fucking delusional morons who are all in on either camp, and how these partisan politics are ruining the country while we make excuses for all the new ways the rich fuck you in the ass.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Biden is a shit president who has done shit all

As is normal for democratic presidents, he's seen a drop in unemployment compared to Trump.

They've made gains in marriage equality, with health insurance, with antidiscrimination and is holding back some of the federatlist society's assault on reproductive rights.

And he's made some good resourcing changes. He's freed federal prisoners who were imprisoned for marijuana possession.

And he's doing his job. He's not playing more golf than professional golf players, he's not spending 2 hours a day in "executive time" and he's able to understand his intelligence briefings.

But certainly the most important thing he's doing, and the reason why he was elected is that hes not Trump:

There's not a criminal in the white-house. He's not put his children in positions of power. He's not pouring taxpayer's money into his own businesses. He's not got people using official channels to push partisan propaganda. He's not threatening our friends in NATO, he's not taking military secrets to unsecured locations and getting billions of dollars of saudi money mysteriously. He's rebuilding some of the damage Trump did to the Iran nuclear deal, he's not sinking trade deals with our friends and handing economic control to China. He's not cozying up with the dictators Kim Jong Un, Vladimir Putin or Xi. He's not sinking global efforts to limit damage from climate change, he's not allowing increased pollution when IQ levels are dropping in the US.

And he's restoring confidence to the justice department. He's gone out of his way to allow prosecutions against his family to proceed. He's not turned over the chief justice to a partisan hack who forced the halting of investigations against him, smoothed the release of the findings of his crimes with the press by not releasing the report until the press cycle had digested his thoroughly misleading summary, and probably force the department to pursue a bullshit story about Burisma that appears to be based on a single confidential human source that is Rudy Giuliani.

His family didn't receive a stack of trademarks in China after he met with Xi, he hasn't sold presidential pardons for $2 million each.

He's arrogance doesn't get in the way of him communicating with the public. He doesn't draw on a map of a cyclone path with a sharpie.

And he's not lied: He hasn't claimed that he won't take a salary when he does. He hasn't obstructed justice.

[–]BobOki 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

looks at the wall of text trying to dick suck a rich person

No thanks, keep your delusions and let me know when those rich old white children sniffers send you all that money you must think you will get for defending them. The rest of us will be back here, laughing at your partisan ass.

p.s. Last I checked it was 100% ok and encouraged by the current administration to discriminate against white males, so maybe stop spreading that hypocritical propaganda.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

looks at the wall of text trying to dick suck a rich person

Sorry. What's your point here?

p.s. Last I checked it was 100% ok and encouraged by the current administration to discriminate against white males, so maybe stop spreading that hypocritical propaganda.

I'm not familiar with discrimination against white males. Where do you check to see the percentage of how ok it is?

[–]BobOki 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Point is I see you defending a rich politician. Gross.

If you are not familiar, I assume either you are all in, or you live under a rock and have not seen technology past the rotary phone. There is no other way you could not have it shit all in your face without just lying.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Point is I see you defending a rich politician. Gross.

It's not gross to defend someone against false attacks. Especially in politics where an attack against one person is support for an opponent. Who, in this case, is probably worth a few hundred times more.

If you are not familiar, I assume either you are all in, or you live under a rock and have not seen technology past the rotary phone.

White males aren't a particularly at risk group for discrimination. Especially in the white-house. Of the 45 presidents, 44 have been white males, and the other was an unusually great orator.

What group are white males at a disadvantage to because of discrimination?

Where do you check to see the percentage of how ok it is?

[–]BobOki 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

TIL, the white house is how we decide what is or is not discrimination. What a weasely way to completely avoid the topic while acting like you were actually talking about it by saying something UTTERLY not related in any way at all. Thats not even a strawman it's so laughably bad.

So, were we are is you continue to comment literally nothing of substance to anything I say, can't even properly use a starwman, and are just blatantly poisoning the well. We are done here sir.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

TIL, the white house is how we decide what is or is not discrimination.

You were talking about the current administration. I assumed you meant the white house.

Which administration were you talking about?

What a weasely way to completely avoid the topic

It's always projection.

The question you keep weasling out of was: "Where do you check to see the percentage of how ok it is?"

This is the third time I've asked.

[–]BobOki 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Your question is a straw man, why would anyone give any time or effort into a logical fallacy? If you have to use those, or usually shortly after ad hominen attacks, which you have not really done but just saying usually that is next, you lost the debate before it started. Do better.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Your question is a straw man, why would anyone give any time or effort into a logical fallacy?

Really. So when you said: "p.s. Last I checked it was 100% ok and encouraged by the current administration to discriminate against white males, so maybe stop spreading that hypocritical propaganda."

Where did you check, and how did you get the 100%?