Trump should say something antigun. I just want to see the left defend the second amendment.
(This was a meme i tried to post with nothing but a laughing guy in the background. Since all these anti trump memes are getting posted and pro trump ones denied i am posting it here in protest. I don't see how this is offensive enough to be blocked repeatedly compared to what's here since it's just text with an irrelevant background image.)
@Dephenistrator, Oh glory...he should publicly endorse Hilary Clinton as the Democratic candidate for 2020. Could you fvcking imagine?
@SimonPetrikov, you mean like he did for much of the early 2000s?
@SimonPetrikov, I'd be watching mulitple news networks with popcorn
@Dephenistrator, he just just embrace the title of King Troll and mess with everyone
@Dephenistrator, I want this so much. Please make this happen. Somehow.
@Dephenistrator, I mean most on the left support the second amendment, they just think there should be more strict regulations on it. To be clear, it’s already a regulated amendment, I can’t buy an M60, but so are others. I can’t tell fire in a movie theatre or perjure myself despite both being practices of free speech under the first amendment.
@SteveTheAlpaca, I appreciate your reasonable and well thought out opinions. Thank you for sharing.
@Dephenistrator, lord wivern left because of that very same problem. Im more in the middle but i wager i swing a little more left but I’d still love to see memes for both sides. Kinda lame how these fools give us uncut then don’t let us use it...
@AldoTheApache, yeah i hardly come on here too now but it's mostly because the news cycle is happening so fast now that i don't have time for funny pics. (This year is politically nuclear)
The anti trump bias almost made me abandon funny pics in 2016 because in 2012 i heard out trump's beliefs and knew so much of the media was lying.
I would love it if there was an equal amount of both sides or just whatever we post. Honestly probably better of no politics on here but since we went there it shouldn't be censored for one side. An open censored debate isn't a debate, it's propaganda. Thats kinda my angle on it. I love debating ideas and this new age of shutting down speech has been the most close minded thing I've seen in my time
What a deal maker. This man is the smartest, has the best memory the best incestual father daughter summer fever ever captured on tv. How could you dare whisper such mean things. How dare you say that this man has never bankrupted himself to not pay bills. How dare you say that Eric is not the worst son for this man
. This man will hold onto your wife's pu$$y for you. How dare you say he is a fu#%ing embarrassment? No seriously f$ck trump. "Go stand your ground" and kill the myth of American execptionalism with this weird brand of American fascism. If you can't understand this, please refer to Betsy devos, she doesn't understand either
@SaltyVanillaSteak, Mike pence tried to do a spicy reply but his wife said no.
@SaltyVanillaSteak, ya he’s a fascist but democrats want to pack the courts, add states willy nilly, abolish the filibuster, take away your second amendment right, have mandatory lockdowns, AND also censor credible news sources because they make their candidate look bad. but trumps the fascist
@My Opinion is Trash ,
Probably shouldn't bring up packing the courts unless you have a good rebuttal for Trump appointing and getting confirmed, federal judges at 1.33x the pace of Obama, G.W. Bush and Clinton, and at a higher pace than even Reagan.
And how he put forth his nomination in an election year (okay, fine. Still POTUS? Still a valid nomination) and how Republicans are the ones spitting on their own exact words from 4 years ago to pack this nominee onto the SC. They Could take their time and have a normal process and SC judge hearing, but no. They must ram her into the SC as quickly as possible in order to give their political agenda that likely involves distorting vote tallies the best chance in the court. Nearly all of the Senate Republicans went on record in 2016 and said that the American people should sway which way the court leans next. With 8 months before the election. Now, 2 months before the, they shjt on that idea because it's their boi! But sure, IT's tHu dEMs!1
@mas2de, 1. That isn't packing the court. 2. The Democrats are also pulling a 180 on their statements from then. 3. The president has a DUTY to nominate. The Senate has a DUTY to advise and consent. Only the Republicans fulfilled their duty in this completely. 4. The democrats changed the rules when it suited them. It backfired.
@mas2de, THAT. IS. NOT. PACKING. THE. COURT!
Stop conflating - fundamentally changing an entire branch of the US government, to appointing judges when there are open seats on the judiciary.
To say the latter has any relation whatsoever to “court packing” is a fkn lie. Stop it.
@mas2de, lol and if the Democrats controlled the Senate the same thing would have happened...
Oh please wuit defending hypocrisy. Who ever is president has the right to nominate, and who ever is the senate has the right to confirm or deny.
Just cause it's getting close to the next election doesnt mean you stop doing your job.
@phalcon , now who is defending hypocrisy? Check 2016. What did the Republican Senators say for most of a year? Don't trust me. Go check.
What are they saying now? What changed? Not their morals, just the party of the president. Had they not refused to do their job in 2016, none of this would be a problem rn and Trump would be getting his 2nd SCJ right now.
@KnickKnight, maybe I don't know everything here, but when did the democrats change their rules on this not as a reactionary thing? As in prior to 2015. In 2016 their push aligned with their job and Republicans refused to do their job and wouldn't even hear the nominee for 8 months. Now 2 months before the election an SCJ dies and they're already had hearings and the Senate Democrats are trying to use the same lines and quote from 2016 Republicans as a retaliatory measure.
Did this happen in 2008 too?
@big freedom, you're right. I was mistaken. What has occured since 2015 is court stacking. The courts have not been packed since FDR did it and it blew up in his face later.
A senate refusing to have hearings on judicial nominations is a Senate refusing to do it's job. Thus what they did in 2016, leaving 100 judges seats open, is against what they are obliged to do according to their job description in the US. Constitution. And of course there will be no recourse for the Republican's transgressions and Democrats are expected by ½ the country to roll over, abide by the rules when there is no accountability and not to stoop to the same levels and use others' words against them.
@mas2de, correct. The Republicans stopped the nomination (stupidly imho) and now are not stopping the nomination (correctly imho).
None of that is court packing.
“Republicans are destroying the country! To prove it, we need to destroy the country to prove how bad Republicans are” - democrats
@mas2de, republicans and democrats are hypocrites. What is annoying is when one party likes to claim that their sh#t don't stink. They ignore comments that are inconvenient. Or how damn rude they are in their responses. So what if democrats want to pack courts? If they win, they win. That's just the way it is. Republicans will do the same.
@mayora13, but packing the courts is stupid and bad period because it's just fvcking everything up to win for now. If packing the courts was allowed then the courts would themselves become political and everything would be a total shjtshow. Every 4 or 8 years they would say we have 0 judges, get everyone out, then say we have 10,000 federal judges again. Packing the courts leads to playing with America like it's a zero-sum game all for politics.
Stacking the courts is bad in the same vein. Now the next time we have a Repub POTUS and a Dem controlled Senate, the Democrats will declare that they have every right to block every judge appointed in the last x# of years before the vote just because it's R nominating them. Then the courts become political entirely based on which party has a Senate majority.
R 2013, 2016, in general: Changes the rules b/c F you we have the majority.
D when they have majority: plays by the new rules.
R: *surprised Pikachu face*
@mas2de, i say this not to be mean, but to be realistic. I think you are being naive about politics. I used to be like that too. But ever since the tea party and now trump, my approach to politics has changed greatly. There are some users that replied to you saying: it's not court packing, it's stacking, so it's ok. The outcome is the freaking same. So, if they are ok with it because they change one word and because it's their side doing it. I'm ok with it also, if it's my side doing it. That's what politics in America have become. As long as my side do it, it's ok.
@mas2de, first off it’s about checks and balances. so obama couldn’t get his crappy nomination approved bc they didn’t have the senate AND the senate didn’t think the judge would uphold the constitution. Presidents job is to appoint judges under the constitution. just bc he’s doing it and you don’t like it doesn’t mean you get to fundamentally damage the integrity of the institution. Stop looking at the checks and balances as a hurdle to your crappy socialistic policies
@mas2de, not hypocrite at all. The Republican where in charge of the Senate, they could refuse anyone they wanted for any reason.
Think if it was a democrat controlled senate it be any differnt than 2016?
They wouldn't approve her either.
@My Opinion is Trash ,
Checks and balances falls apart when it's all about identity politics and which side is "winning". When you have entire parties acting as bad actors. For over 200 years the US had a vast majority of people who believed in the union and doing what was actually best for the country. Now it's all about lining pockets and winning at any cost and fvck the rules. You're apparently just fine with that. All about your party and if it doesn't have your parties stamp of approval then it's "crappy" and "crappy socialistic policies." Good to know.
The Senate didn't hardly know shjt about that judge because they flat out refused to have hearings on the judges. 100 of them. So most of the Senate didn't even know their names much less how they would act as a judge. So if it's all about the party and every other opinion sucks, then you should go live in some dictatorial country that you agree with dear leader and let America be governed by laws and the people.
@phalcon , they would at least hold hearings. The Republican Senate with 3 Democrats in 2013 literally changed the rules on how to vote for federal judges so that they could have their way. In 2017 they changed the rules again that had stood since June 21 1788 so they could have their way with SC judges too. Because they only had a simple majority and could not get the 60 votes required by the Constitution.
The Senate can refuse to appoint a judge for any set of reasons that results in a vote of less than 60 senators voting yea on that nomination. It is their duty to have those hearings on that nomination though. The majority in 2016 refused to do their duty though and refused to hear the President's 100 Federal judge nominees.
There were rules and ways to do things for what used to be "the greatest deliberating body on Earth". Now it's just a bunch of retards yelling at each other and changing the rules when they can't win. In this case it is Republicans changing the rules for judges.
@mas2de, no rules have been changed. They are doing what they are allowed to do.
But then really after falsely accusing a man of gang rape just to try to get him disqualified...
Why should they play fair? They are playing fair, but but after that, what do you expect? Ultimately the republicans are playing by the rules, to their best advantage. The democrats arent even playing by the rules.
@phalcon , Lookup "nuclear option 2013 and 2016 senate justices"
The Republicans in the Senate changed the rules so they could win. Then they refused to do their job. Not they refuse to abide by what they said in 2016.
Whatever the Senate Democrats did or didn't do and whoever they did and didn't cuck for has no bearing on what the Senate Republicans did, and it shouldn't for a group like the US Senate because that makes it all party politics and we land out where we are today and where we're headed if they don't turn their shjt around.
@mas2de, it's as if the dems and the republicans switched roles this time. The dems mad the same arguments that the republicans did then and Vice Versa. The dems biggest problem is that they made the vote a simple majority but now the republicans have the majority.