Not today Justin
official daine visual archive
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her
occasionally subtle
YOU ARE THE REASON
Misplaced Lens Cap
Aqua Utopia|海の底で記憶を紡ぐ

Kiana Khansmith
🪼
Doug Jones

roma★
Interview Vampire Daily

Game Changer & Make Some Noise
𓃗
Xuebing Du

Discoholic 🪩
Cookie Run:Kingdom Official!
The Stonewall Inn
Claire Keane
h
seen from United States
seen from Netherlands

seen from France

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Germany
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Türkiye

seen from Brazil

seen from Switzerland
seen from Croatia
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
@nyanide
This bird can bark
Dog: stop making fun of me I don’t sound like that ☹️
Dog: wow thats so loud and annoying who would do that all day for no rea— :(
Mr. Suttles’ GoFundMe
This go fund me is set up for my good friend Brandon Suttles. Brandon and his wonderfu… Katy Greene needs your support for Let’s help
Mr. Suttles has passed away this March, may he rest in peace.
“Murders people”
Well, guess we know how God feels about supporting a bunch of pedos and sexual predators that tried to murder a child.
Envy is such an ugly look. I’m saddened that he passed away, and saddened that he didn’t get the charity he needed. But envy is still an incredibly ugly look.
@ricwulf are you kidding me? Are you seriously fucking kidding me now? “EnVy Is SuCh An UgLy LoOk” HE HAD EVERY DAMN RIGHT TO BE THAT WAY. HE WAS DYING AND THIS FUCKING TERRIOST KILLED INNOCENT PEOPLE AND CHRISTIANS FUCKING CHRISTIANS GAVE HIM MONEY
I DONT CARE WHO THE FUCK YOU ARE OR WHAT YOU DO YOU HAVE SERIOUSLY GOT TO BE SO FUCKED UP TO EVEN SAY THAT
His family lost him. He needed the money so his family would be okay because money rly isnt fucking easy to make especially when your dying.
And then you. You stupid piece of crap come on here and say this.
How do you even look at yourself in the mirrior
This guy had every right to be envious
He was DYING
He needed money for his family, treatments, what ever
And he saw this FUCKING TERROIST getting money
from GODDAMN CHRISTIANS
PEOPLE WHO WERE SUPPOSED TO CARE AND LOVE ABOUT PEOPLE LIKE HIM NOT FUCKING TERRIOSTS
he had every right to be angry
But you
You have no right to get on the internet and say bullshit like that
Never
No go home
sit the fuck down
And rethink every life choice that lead you to commenting that absolute filth
That’s a lovely rant with absolutely no real basis or reality to it. For starters, Rittenhouse clear as day was defending himself against aggressors. They attacked him, not the other way around. Why? Because he put out the fire they just started to try and cause damage to the community Rittenhouse is a part of. Secondly, it’s all irrelevant because it’s still envious. What’s more, he was a pretty shitty Christian if envy was so easy to overcome him. Justified in those feelings? Sure. But it wasn’t just mere feelings, he felt entitled to the charity of others because someone else received charity that he personally didn’t agree with. I think you need to take your own advice. Better yet, go outside and talk to actual people. Because right now, you’re defending outright sin (envy is a sin), while trying to vilify a kid that was attacked by a pedophile, repeat abuser, and felon with an illegal firearm. Those latter three are, in your opinion, more important, all because Rittenhouse isn’t on your side. All because you didn’t get to see a hispanic kid get killed by violent thugs. Rethink yourself, and take a good long look at your own life and all the shortcomings that have resulted in your own bitterness and toxicity. Maybe step away from the partisan bullshittery while you’re at it too.
ANYWAY, having cancer doesn’t magically make you not an asshole - and this guy became an asshole the second he tried to make Kenosha all about himself when the two things weren’t even vaguely related. At all.
@ohlookitsthearkhamknight your screaming, hysterical little screed there is the same thing, a stupid person making it all about them. Your bullshit, clout seeking little rant up there serves no other purpose than to pat yourself on the back and virtue signal. You make me sick.
I couldn’t give two fucks about how god feels about it; seems to me folks spend a lot of time putting their own foolishness and bullshit on god, a convenient third party who doesn’t seem to be around to speak for themselves. Don’t use god as your fucking smoke screen for your own jealous complaints. Fuck you.
Kyle Rittenhouse’s need and this guy’s need were not mutually exclusive. Chances are, the people who donated to Rittenhouse didn’t even know Suttles even existed, because Suttles wasn’t plastered over every news station and ranted about on social media by retards calling him a “terrorist” for defending the town he worked in, and his own life. That’s all there is to it, one was an extremely polarizing event surrounding an ongoing political unrest, and the other was a guy with cancer. There are lots of guys with cancer. To his family, he was the world and their loss is not lessened by the fact that by and large, he was unknown by literally everyone else because his life and death weren’t politicized.
And you dumb fucks just can’t puzzle that out, apparently. Nor can you puzzle out that Rittenhouse doesn’t even fit the barest definition of a “terrorist”, while the people who attacked him do. The people who rioted and burned Kenosha do. He pedophile who tried to grab him, did. The repeat domestic abuser who assaulted him, did. The armed rioter who attempted to execute him in the street, did. Those were terrorists, not some kid who wanted to protect the town he fucking worked in from being burned down by a bunch of faggots who saw an opportunity to be bullies.
Brandon Suttles is an asshole for even trying to conflate these two issues. Getting cancer doesn’t change that. Dying doesn’t change that. Dude got pissed that he was dying and he chose to deal with it by taking to Twitter and making an ass out of himself, and what’s worse is he ended up making his death into some kind of political statement for absolute mongoloids to rally around, by spinning a false narrative as one of his last actions on this earth. Like this idiot:
Literally none of that happened in Kenosha, but here’s some mental giant just straight up lying because these retards get whipped up by other retards on Twitter.
Lots of people get cancer. Most of them manage to deal with it without being clowns, too bad this guy couldn’t. People with cancer can still say dumb shit on Twitter. People with cancer can still say dumb shit on Twitter to politicize their illness to get other dumb assholes to throw money at them.
Fuck anyone who rallies around this bullshit. Rittenhouse did nothing wrong. Seems to be you morons are more concerned that a kid drove 30 minutes to defend a place where he worked than you are that your “peaceful protest” attracted a pedophile, a woman beater, and an armed felon from much further away, who decided the best thing to do was loot, burn, and assault some folks “for justice”.
Rittenhouse did nothing wrong.
Sorry, my right to protect myself, my friends and my family is of greater value than your “feels”. Fuck your feelings, I’ll be keeping my guns, ammo and full capacity magazines. Don’t like how we do things here? You’re more than welcome to move to Mexico or Canada but I hear they only take people who will actually contribute to their society and leftists only contribute hurt feels and bad legislation.
You have no right to self defense. The second is about defense of state, not self. 200+ years of SCOTUS precedent tell us that (ignoring the effort by your ilk to pack the courts with constitutional extremists)
(Not my anon, but I saw this and was interested)
If there is no right to self defense, then how can you defend any other right you have?
Ah, yes. The constitution thats all about restricting the power of the fed, written by people who just used personally owned firearms to fight a revolution, randomly just said only the fed can have guns. Because that's not completely buttfucking retarded.
And where did I say that you illiterate muffinhead? LMAO You fucking gun humpers just HAVE to exaggerate and lie to attempt points and it's sad.
The last fucking thing you said you fedfag.
Anyone have that list of all the quotes by the founding fathers talking about how the second is specifically for self-defense against the state?
I do! But because OP is an authoritarian prick, it won't understand any of this.
A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…”
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.”
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
“On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823
“I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence … I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy.”
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.“
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
"To disarm the people…[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them.”
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788
“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.”
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
“…the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone…”
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”
- William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783
“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778
“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty…. The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803
“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves.”
- Thomas Paine, “Thoughts on Defensive War” in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775
“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833
“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty …. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.”
- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789
“For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion.”
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787
“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.”
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
“[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.”
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788
“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
Wait what happened
Remember when those two cops pushed over that old man and then just kept walking as he lay on the sidewalk unconscious and bleeding? Well, they got suspended. But then, then, 57 members of their squad resigned from their Emergency Response Team posts “in disgust,“ not because of what those cops did, but explicitly because they faced consequences for doing it.
Technically they resigned because the police union said they would stop protecting them in court for war crimes brutality charges, not solidarity
not sure if that’s better tho
“I quit because I’m not going to be legally protected for murdering the people I’m supposed to serve” isn’t the win they think it is
They’re police… Not EMTs. … When you call the police and someone is injured they do nothing and say the ambulance is on the way. What were the cops supposed to do? They didn’t step ON the man
I’m sorry, but are you telling me that basic first aid is not on the curriculum of a policeman? Aren’t everybody with a fucking driving licence supposed to know what to do to, at least some bare minimum, like checking if he swallowed his tounge, make sure he is breathing, put him in a stable position, stuff like that?
I assume there are procedures for riots that involve protecting the person and calling a medic. You’re also not supposed to move people with injuries like that, and any cop that wanted to attend to him would have to strip off their riot gear.
Also, they didn’t push him over. He walked up to them, stood in their way, even touched them, and they pushed him back. He stumbled for a few steps, and fell over on his own. Honestly, I thought he was taking a pratfall the first time I saw it. Old people have balance problems, apparently.
They clearly weren’t trying to harm him, unless you think pushing him a few feet away is “harm”. Certainly wasn’t what I’d call attempted “murder”, which just shows how people are misusing language for rhetorical purposes.
Pro tip: telling me that I am inherently a racist and a white supremacist is not a great way to convince me to support your cause
Using the word “gal” unironically does have a pretty strong correlation with being racist and classist tho so maybe accept some responsibility for that
Congratulations you just proved her point
I’m still wanting to believe this is sarcasm and the tone just didn’t translate well on text, but this is Tumblr...
Poe’s Law.
Or keep turning them over to remove violent instigators and keep the protesters as peaceful as possible
Get them plants and jackals out
Doesn't help when the cops are breaking property to blame on the real protesters too.
No it doesn’t. Catch it on camera whenever you can
People are rationalizing allowing rioters destroy the hood before our very eyes. Anon, you think this dude is white supremacy? Wild stuff.
Photo: When you think of a victim of domestic abuse, who comes to mind? Yet in 2010, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released data from its National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey — and one of the most shocking statistics wasn’t just the sheer total of victims of physical
Day 3 Manuary: Domestic Violence is NOT a gendered issue
The number of domestic violence incidents, in general, are appalling but the treatment of Male victims of DV is down right disgusting.
As of 2010, 21 states in the US have mandatory arrest laws when it comes to DV calls and an undocumented number of other police agencies adhere to an informal “mandatory” arrest rule. However, due to skewed training and language when talking about DV means that nearly all initial arrests for a DV call will be a male despite DV being perpetrated nearly 50/50 by both genders. [source] However, even with the mandatory arrest law/rule, when a man accuses his female partner, only about 41% of the time officers will ask if the man wants his partner arrested. In these incidents, 21% of officers will flat out refuse while 38% will say there is nothing they can do and left. [source]
Male DV victims exist and deserve the same services, protections, and understanding that female victims do.
If you or someone you know is a male in a violent relationship here are some resources to help.
http://www.helpguide.org/articles/abuse/help-for-abused-men.htm
http://www.batteredmen.com/bathelpnatl.htm
https://www.mensadviceline.org.uk/
This list is painfully short because a large number of sites all lead back to the same, limited, help lines. I also tried to steer away from sites that included dismissive language and disproven statistics because these “helplines” have a reputation of dismissive and blaming tactics towards male victims (aka: “are you sure you didn’t hit her first?” mentality that male victims shouldn’t have to deal with when trying to seek help).
Please know you are not alone. What your partner is doing to you is not ok. It is not love. It is not a “personality quirk” that you should “just live with.”
You. Deserve. Better.
This actually makes me glad that my dad didn’t call the police when my mom was pounding him with her fists and threatened him with a knife. It probably wouldn’t have done any good.
Despite dad being covered in cuts and bruises, my sister and I begging to be either with him or without mother, mother having previously put my brother up for adoption and dad only getting Sandi back because he found her in time; she still won custody. She didn’t even want us, hell she left us in a car which was on fire and told us to stay put while she waited in a bloody queue to get water in the nearby chippy, she was so devastated at the loss of the car that she kept it’s burnt out shell as a sort of shrine (got a picture somewhere), didn’t give a toss that we were still inside, didn’t even look away from her “baby” while some guy pulled us out because we more afraid of disobeying than burning alive. If anything she was disappointed that we got out, given that she told us to stay put and locked us in. She only kept us to spite dad.
What would it take for people to care, to take male victims and female perpetrators seriously?
Do you have a list of violent crimes perpetrated by self-proclaimed feminists and feminist groups? :)
Violent crimes? Only a few examples. One of which is their violent protest against Warren Farrell when he spoke in Toronto: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iARHCxAMAO0
Another would be this mob of pro-abortion Feminists in Argentina: http://www.lifesitenews.com/horror-mob-of-topless-pro-abort-feminists-attacks-rosary-praying-men-defend.html
Feminists disrupt a forum for battered men: http://youtu.be/qodygTkTUYM
Tumblr users sarah-bunny and feminism-is-your-friend harass and DOXX an Asexual rape victim: http://dontneedfeminism.tumblr.com/post/78589971327/abbeyxmae-serebrii
Tumblr user manhatingfeminist tells a user to kill themselves: http://dontneedfeminism.tumblr.com/post/78734991790/you-need-to-kill-yourself-lol
Tumblr user musemorplsunerd defends a woman who raped an 8 year old boy: http://dontneedfeminism.tumblr.com/post/81918411593/you-do-realize-that-8-year-olds-cannot-give-any-kind-of
Feminists threaten to kill woman for saying men need abuse shelters.
Feminists prevent a meeting about male suicide.
Feminists stage mock murders to scare men.
Feminist attacks male cartoonist and is hailed a hero of feminism.
Other than that, I’ll list some occasions of Feminist groups fighting against equality.
Father’s rights group want shared parenting (equal custody) to be the default if both parents want custody and neither parent is unfit.
The NOW fought against this. Multiple times. They also started a propaganda campaign against Father’s Rights Groups.
Men want protection against false rape allegations. They feel that a man’s life should not be ruined simply on the allegation of a woman who may be a vindictive liar. Currently, a woman can accuse a man of rape for no reason, and the man’s name is splashed in the paper and his life is ruined. So, they fought for laws granting men anonymity until charged with the crime of rape—not convicted, just charged.
Feminists fought against this as well.
Men want an end to the justice system favoring women simply because they are women, and giving men harsher sentences simply because they are men.
Feminists fought against this, arguing that no woman should be sent to jail, even women who had murdered multiple people.
Men want equal treatment when victims of domestic violence, and to not be arrested for the crime of “being male” under primary aggressor policies.
Feminists fought against this by trying to suppress evidence showing that half of domestic violence is done by women, by threatening the researchers with bomb threats, death threats, etc. Modern, younger feminists are doing it as well.
And sadly, they were successful in this effort of propaganda. For decades, and continuing today, violent men are (rightfully) convicted and punished by the state, while violent women are left to freely terrorize and harm their partners.
The feminist definition of domestic violence has skewed arrest and prosecution philosophies, resulting primarily in having only male batterers criminally pursued.
Men want female rapists to be arrested, charged, and convicted with rape. In Western countries, women are rarely punished when raping men, due to the biased legal system. In some countries, women cannot be punished when raping men, since rape is defined as a male-perpetrated crime.
Feminists fought against this in India, arguing that “there is a physicality [in] rape” and that it would make things “more complicated for judges.”
Feminists fought against this in Israel, claiming that changing the law would result in men filing false rape claims.
Men don’t want to be thrown in jail because they lost their jobs and temporarily cannot pay child support.
Feminists fought against this, trying to lower the amount to $5000 before a man is guilty of a felony for not paying child support. If a man loses a decent-paying job, he will now be a felon, go to jail, lose his right to vote, AND be unable to find future jobs—if he cannot regain an equal-paying job within a few months.
Men want equal economic support and help from the government. When the recession hit, male-dominated fields like construction lost millions of jobs, while female-fields like education and healthcare gained jobs. So the government proposed an economic stimulus for those fields.
Feminists successfully fought against this, arguing that it was discrimination to support men, and caused the government to give money to women who didn’t deserve it. Hundreds of professional feminists complained against the “sexism” of helping men (who had lost jobs) and not women (who had gained jobs).
A representative of the Michigan National Organization for Women testified in opposition to the Revocation of Paternity Act, which stopped the old law which stated that if a woman was married and cheated on her husband, the resulting child is considered to be legally the husband’s and the biological father had no legal rights to fight for custody or parenting time with his biological child.
In other words, the amendment would have “taken away” women’s rights, by treating women exactly the same as men.
Some may argue that these cases of feminists harming men is not “representative” of feminism. I ask you: Are there any cases of feminists helping men? No. Yet, there are many cases of feminists harming men.
It is reasonable to conclude from these facts that feminism fights to harm men.
i wonder what’s popping on twitter this morning
nvm
I finally figured out how to log back onto my account here some sketches I never uploaded because i couldn’t remember my log-in details
that’s just made up. OP loves in a delusional fantasy world of ideology.
teacher salaries are up
healthcare spending is up
gov spends more on social security than on military
where tf you been bro
This is one of those ‘sounds good, completely unsupported, actually totally wrong’ tweets.
why in the world are we still asking this question in 2019?
Trump: says and does racist things.
People: call Trump racist.
Journalists and politicians:
Ok but like
There’s no benefit in her going on live television and saying Trump is a racist without elaborating on the subject
What he’s asking is a leading question and sure, taking his ‘how can you say that’ out of context works well to make him seem like he supports Trump but that’s not how it was said in the interview. How it was said was to get her to continue to talk about why Trump is a racist
Don’t believe me? Skip ahead in this video to 0:15 seconds and listen to the entire thing in context.
She then goes on to ELABORATE on how he uses dogwhistles and his reaction to Charlottesville (by calling Nazi’s fine people) so people who tune in to the interview can draw connections to what she’s saying as opposed to just reacting, like op did, to the exact words that are said.
I think too many people on here fail to realize that news, real news, isn’t done by just saying shit. You have to be able to back it up and in order to do so, you need to be able to spell something out for people who don’t get it. And someone who already has been criticized by people for her views (including by people on here, bizarrely, because they keep things she’s said out of context) need to be able to get all the information out there.
*holds up a finger*
News also means looking at EVERYTHING involved.
‘calling Nazis fine people’ Trump specifically said there was GOOD and BAD people on both sides.Unless you can prove that everyone who was at Charlottesville that was politically right was a Nazi (or at least a majority): That’ just as disingenuous as saying everyone on the left in Charlottesville was a communist.
She also brings up the immgriants seeking asylum as ‘white supremacy’…except those people are rejected by OTHER, NON WHITE MAJORITY COUNTRIES. So it’s not an inherently racist thing.
And wanna talk about dogwhistles? ‘Charolettesvile, Nazi, White Supremacy’ are ALL dogwhistles. When they are said, they convene the message ‘be outraged, don’t think, blindly follow your anger’ to people on the left.Not helping is that dog whistle is an easily abusable term. To explain: you can interpret ANYTHING as a dog whistle and there’s damn near no way to disprove the claim since it requires you to state your intention behind the statement but the accuser can always just say your lying to cover up the dog whistle.Hell, I’m not even entirely sre the examples I gave can be considered dog whistles due to how a slight shift in intention can completely change the context.
She could have brought up evidence of her claims…but she doesn’t. The closest she can site is Neo Nazies killing a woman in Charolettesville but that one action isn’t indicative of everyone there.
Tl;Dr: This woman is saying ‘news’ the same CNN or Fox News gives ‘news”: Only in the most broad sense possible and any form of critical thinking breaks all three of them.
No, nononono. There is NO “good” Nazis. There are only the gullible and the truly evil. Trump is a racist. He made derogatory comments about Mexicans, his entire cabinet is lily-white, and if you bring up Omarosa, I point you to her book Unhinged where she unpacks years of his gaslighting and manipulation. Neo-Nazis are coming back and they are violent. Trump has basically given them casus belli to do whatever the fuck they want, up to and including murder.
You’re a fucking retard, you know that?
I love how it’s like testingforcake didn’t even read the previous response. They didn’t say Nazis were good people, moron. They said there were good people on both sides of the fighting. As in, people there to simply protest a decision peacefully who weren’t being violent assholes like the ACTUAL Neo Nazis and Antifa.
I seriously have no idea why idiots cannot grasp the complete obvious fact that not everyone there was there to start a riot. They just want to paint the people they dislike as the face of pure evil, regardless if they are actually a Nazi or not, which most of the time they aren’t.
They want to see everything in a black and white setting, when Charlottesvillewas a fucking disaster because people on both sides couldn’t be civil and protest peacefully. Thus making both the peaceful Left and the peaceful Right protesters look like fucking lunatics.
RIGHT? And I feel like it was spelled out in very plain fucking English, nobody said there were “good Nazis”
Trump literally said he wasn’t referring to the neo-Nazi types as “good people”.
Also, everyone going “how can you expect someone to justify hating Trump?” is displaying the exact sort of ideologue thinking that won him the Presidency. If you’re not willing to explain your views, how do you expect to convince people? And if you get defensive when someone asks, that just means you’re not actually confident in your position.
>They want to see everything in a black and white setting, when Charlottesvillewas a fucking disaster because people on both sides couldn’t be civil and protest peacefully. Thus making both the peaceful Left and the peaceful Right protesters look like fucking lunatics.
To be fair, only one side seems to have come to Charlottesville specifically intending to start a fight. Antifa supposedly went out of their way to track down the 88ers and confront them.
I also like now-existing’s hilarious implication that CNN isn’t anti-Trump, and AOC doesn’t count as a “politician”, and that there aren’t shedloads of politicans and press members calling Trump racist. >Including Anderson Cooper himself<. While defending AOC.
@testingforcake23 interesting.
Can you please link a video in which trump openly calls for nazis to kill people?
Or a video of him saying that nazis wont be held responsible if they murder people?
Or even simply a video in which he says he support nazis?
You know…… something to back up your claims?
I’m just amazed that someone actually made a post about Trump where Anderson Cooper looks like a Trump supporter. Anderson Cooper.
Tumblr will believe anything as long as it feeds the victim narrative.
Of course, anyone who thinks “please support your claim” is some kind of oppression is an idiot anyway.
ICE and the border patrol are fascists
When women used to be depressed or were not “taking care of their men” properly their husbands could send them to the psych ward for attitude adjustments. This was part of conditioning them to always wear a smile. They believed that if a woman saw herself smiling that it would become natural practice and that she would be “cured”. This often went along with shock therapies.
This gives a whole new level of creepiness to when random men tell you to smile.
People who talk about the 50s like they were this golden Era frighten me
Fake
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/1930s-housewife-smile-therapy/
Also, it would be yet another example of “feminists trying to appropriate the victimhood of women in the past”.
Also Bonus fun fact:
Smiling can trick your brain into happiness — and boost your health
I am both the girl and goku when I try to do jumping jacks.