Salty Clinton supporters: Hilary destroyed Bernie in the primaries so there's no way he'd have stood a chance against Trump with such scant support. ... Those bastard Bernie Bros screwed Hilary! They failed to support her and now we got President Trump! OMFG I'M SHAKING RIGHT NOW
It's literally everyone's fault but Clintons. Ya got Russians, Bernie, Bernie Bros, Trump, racists, white people, poor people, Julian Assange, stupid people, the MSM, Reddit, /r/politics, me, Obama, the moon, the electoral college (which every losing side bitches about).
I'm mostly okay with it. The more liberals talk this bullshit--hell, even the more trolls talk it--the less likely white people are to ever vote Democrat again.
That's what the left doesn't get. Normal, whitebread America doesn't give a shit if you say it 'ironically' or not. It'll have the same effect whether you mean it or not.
Did /u/20_TwentyTwo have a psychotic break? Not really sure why bernouts were relevant to the thread at all. I mean its ETS so they all loved the spergout but really m8 getting that mad over a totally unrelated group can't be healthy
I can get being a Bernibro, I mean sure hes a weak socialist idiot but I can see the appeal to the coddled, helicopter parented millennial snow flakes. Free college and stuff!
I can't get how anyone can be a Hilary supporter. I can understand being anti-Trump, but actually thinking Hilary was good and worthy?
What's hard to understand about it? None of the emails crap actually turned out to be anything worth mentioning - it was quite literally just "business as usual." The whole email server thing was bad, and I would've preferred she have been more up front about it rather than waiting until we called her out on it before apologizing... but at least she apologized for it (unlike the person who we ended up electing.)
At worst, I don't see Clinton as having more dirt than any of the other candidates we had in the primaries and she was damned sure far more qualified than all of the other candidates. Unless you have a very slash-and-burn attitude in regards to seeing conservative social policies enacted, I don't see how Clinton wasn't the obvious best choice we had for 2016. The Democrats didn't have anyone remotely qualified to contest her and the Republicans had such a weak spread that Donald Trump defeated them.
None of the emails crap actually turned out to be anything worth mentioning
You never read them then.
The whole email server thing was bad, and I would've preferred she have been more up front about it rather than waiting until we called her out on it before apologizing... but at least she apologized for it (unlike the person who we ended up electing.)
She let her maid print out classified information.
At worst, I don't see Clinton as having more dirt than any of the other candidates we had in the primaries and she was damned sure far more qualified than all of the other candidates. Unless you have a very slash-and-burn attitude in regards to seeing conservative social policies enacted, I don't see how Clinton wasn't the obvious best choice we had for 2016.
Umm I dont' think anyone of those others took millions from Arab states directly and indirectly, nor gave secret speeches for a total of some 23,000,000, nor did they try to set up an arrangement with the FBI as a quid pro quo for declassifying documents that would get her in trouble. She was inevitable because the system was corrupted in her favor.
The Democrats didn't have anyone remotely qualified to contest her and the Republicans had such a weak spread that Donald Trump defeated them.
If you read the emails (you didn't) you know know Clinton is part of the reason Trump won. They had their buddies in the press cover him more than they should have, and made him appear to be the #1 candidate to defeat. They did the same with Cruz too, which goes to show how effective they were, with those two the last standing Republicans.
The democrats rigged TWO primaries, directly in their case and indirectly with the Republicans.
I've read every single email that has been linked to me as "proof" of DNC/Clinton wrongdoing. NONE of them have contained any actual proof of anything other than what's literally business as usual for a political campaign.
Umm I dont' think anyone of those others took millions from Arab states directly and indirectly, nor gave secret speeches for a total of some 23,000,000, nor did they try to set up an arrangement with the FBI as a quid pro quo for declassifying documents that would get her in trouble. She was inevitable because the system was corrupted in her favor.
The system was corrupted in her favor, yet the FBI was arguably the biggest factor in her failing to become elected? How's that work? The FBI was serving her while also attacking her? That makes absolutely no sense.
I'm not sure how her work for her charity is relevant to her as a politician. She was a private citizen at the time, and was not at all involved in our government. I don't understand what you're driving at.
The democrats rigged TWO primaries, directly in their case and indirectly with the Republicans.
[Citation Needed]
You really should read those emails.
I've read every single email provided to me. Absolutely none of them contain any evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing, corruption, rigging, collusion, or whatever buzzwords you prefer.
I read the emails without bias and read them at face value. I do not make assumptions about "what they actually mean", because there is no supporting data to fuel such assumptions. Maybe you're the one that's having a problem digesting the content of those emails?
You are arguing against one of the most basic facets of animal behavior and psychology. "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours," is exhibited in all manner of animals.
If it's something we can hold them accountable for, we should. We should always expect better out of ourselves and especially our politicians. If we have evidence of them doing this, we absolutely should call them on it, and not simply accept it as "the way things have always been".
It is unfair, and it is unjust. Our politicians should support laws and regulations that benefit their constituents because it's the right thing to do, not because they owe someone a political favor, or can use that vote as a way to gain the favor. You're trying to normalize this behavior by pretending it's simply commerce, but trade has no business in political behavior. What works for a free market economy is not what works best for a democracy
Again: you are overwhelmingly, unrealistically idealistic. You would behave NO DIFFERENTLY than they would, because you would have to engage in this behavior if you wanted to be effective as a politician... or a businessman, or just about any other position of power or notoriety. I run my own business and you'd better fucking believe I'd be up shit creek without a paddle if I didn't engage in this behavior.
This behavior is COMPLETELY NORMAL AND EXPECTED. The GOP does it, the Democratic Party does it, the Independents do it. Local, state, federal all do it. Executive, judicial, legislative all do it. It's completely normal.
It's not unfair, and it's not unjust. They do this so that they can better serve the people. You could have all the best intentions in the world and it wouldn't matter for fuck all if you couldn't get elected in the first place! The media outlets need clicks and newspaper sales to stay in business, so they court the politicians and businessmen - if you give me exclusive access, I'll agree to not comment on certain things. The politicians need media attention that will cast them in a favorable light, so they'll agree to this. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. Completely normal!
Sometimes the exchange isn't even, sometimes one or the other had to call in a favor and now that favor's due. You can see this happening in one of the vaunted emails, where the paper in question offers Clinton staffers (it was in one of the "Podesta emails") a series of choices; two of them involved letting the paper publish an "embargoed" ("we would really prefer if you didn't report on this") story, while the third option gave the paper some substantial concessions in exchange for not running that "embargoed" story. In essence, the paper was bending the Clinton campaign over a barrel and asking them how they wanted it.
Thing is, at any time the papers or the politicians could do whatever they want anyway - and sometimes that happens. That'll be a stain against them in further relations with the others, but sometimes that's a cost worth paying.
This is all completely fucking normal. The only reason you think it's unfair or unjust is because you've never fucking paid attention to any of this ever before until Sanders recruited you into his little cult and told you it's bad, that it's why he lost. And like so many of the other ignorant political newbies he recruited into his cult, you just assumed he was telling you the truth.
Maybe this is news to you, but he wasn't telling you the truth.
No one is arguing that it's not normal, we're saying it shouldn't be, and that accepting it as the way things are, without any possibility of things being different, is defeatist. The fact that everyone does it, does not mean that's the way it should be.
Because we're not talking about driving a friend to the airport as long as they agree to help you move. We're talking about one of the most important jobs in the country, passing legislation that can impact millions of people, and not being willing to do that job unless they get theirs. Is it not enough that it's why they were put there, or that they're actually being paid? They're getting paid six figures and still that's not enough to do what's right?
This is not quid pro quo on the same level that exists in personal relationships and other areas. It's far more harmful, and far less human. Ultimately, even if my friend would not or could not help me move, I'd still take them to the airport. That's missing in politics
The problem is you're acting as though the people in question won't get out of bed unless they're offered some kind incentive. This is demonstrably false.
It's easy to see why you'd be so ardently against this behavior if you thought that it was a requirement for action, though. You're just simply ignorant of how a political machine (or successful business, for that matter) works - nothing wrong with that, everyone was ignorant at some point or another. I'd recommend you not make judgements or castigate others until you have a more comprehensive knowledge of the subject, however.
I know it's not a requirement, but it should never even come up. Ever. Vote for the legislation your constituents elected you to support, because they elected you to do it. Doing anything else is completely unjust. There should never be any quid pro quo at all required for them to vote for the best interests of their constituents and their country.
Are you trying to imply that every case of quid pro quo in Congress is some solution to myopic legislation, or are you just ok with it being partisan gamesmanship?
Neither. I am intelligent to recognize unrealistic idealism when I see it.
If you're just going to keep repeating yourself then I think we're done here. I clearly gain nothing by repeatedly explaining the way the world works to you.
Maybe this shouldn't be in politics? I swear dipshits like you watch one episode of house of cards and are suddenly convinced that this is how it must be down.
I've never watched House of Cards. I keep meaning to because everyone says it's really good but I end up using my free time on other stuff.
You are literally arguing against one of the most common facets of animal behavior. You help me out, and in return I'll help you out. It's a mutual exchange of services. It's not unfair, it's not unjust, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.
It's not corruption you fucking moron. It's normal behavior exhibited by even very simple animals.
You call it corruption because you've been told to call it corruption and because you are genuinely so utterly ignorant of how the world works, because your lily white ass has never had to actually exist in it before, you actually think those people told you the truth instead of taking advantage of an idiot when they saw one.
Hilary's entire campaign was swamped in scandals from literally being on Saudi Arabia's bankroll to declaring war on Russia live on stage. And that's just 2 things. The worst dirt they had on Drumpf that he wouldn't release his fucking tax returns.
blaming bernouts for the fact Hilary was a corrupt warmonger who let illegal immigrants (criminals) on stage live and accepted billions in donations from such progressive allies as saudi arabia
89 comments
n/a SnapshillBot 2017-01-10
No wonder you have an army of pretentious neckbeard losers following you around
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
n/a Ultrashitpost 2017-01-10
/u/20_TwentyTwo you realize that 4chan did a similar campaign before Trump got elected, right?
You sure are a big dummy
n/a WrongLetters 2017-01-10
Salty Clinton supporters: Hilary destroyed Bernie in the primaries so there's no way he'd have stood a chance against Trump with such scant support. ... Those bastard Bernie Bros screwed Hilary! They failed to support her and now we got President Trump! OMFG I'M SHAKING RIGHT NOW
It's literally everyone's fault but Clintons. Ya got Russians, Bernie, Bernie Bros, Trump, racists, white people, poor people, Julian Assange, stupid people, the MSM, Reddit, /r/politics, me, Obama, the moon, the electoral college (which every losing side bitches about).
n/a Strephyl 2017-01-10
i like how even republicans blame the other party for trump
n/a WrongLetters 2017-01-10
"This is why Trump won" is going to become the new "Thanks, Obama".
n/a JoeBidenBot 2017-01-10
It's okay people, don't all thank me at once.
n/a The_Reason_Trump_Won 2017-01-10
:)
n/a atakeonhooper 2017-01-10
it is literally white people's fault though
n/a wwyzzerdd 2017-01-10
http://i.imgur.com/HzS4F8M.gif
n/a Tehpolecat 2017-01-10
cute
n/a PM_ME_HAIRLESS_CATS 2017-01-10
These people need some fresh air away from their screens, or a tall glass of bleach.
n/a fourbet 2017-01-10
the left is just getting slaughtered in the meme war, is there any hope for them moving forward?
n/a Prince_Kropotkin 2017-01-10
liberals are but they always suck at memes
socialists have the best memes tbh
n/a The_Reason_Trump_Won 2017-01-10
n/a Prince_Kropotkin 2017-01-10
this is so boring get a better joke account
n/a The_Reason_Trump_Won 2017-01-10
n/a fourbet 2017-01-10
you're usually a bright lad but you're dead wrong here.
n/a lol-da-mar-s-cool 2017-01-10
Yeah, I dunno about that
She definitely incurred the wrath of Kek.
n/a onitsuka 2017-01-10
http://www.adl.org/combating-hate/hate-on-display/c/pepe-the-frog.html
n/a Prince_Kropotkin 2017-01-10
so? this clearly didn't swing the election even if people ranted about pepes
n/a Hammer_of_truthiness 2017-01-10
The faithless will be the first to face the reckoning praise kek
n/a ErisIsMyGoddess 2017-01-10
Underestimating the powers of memes. May Kek show you the way unbeliever.
n/a FreekyFreezer 2017-01-10
Call the best meme to ever exist a fascist logo and you are gonna lose every votinf. Fuck Hillary, heil Pepe!!!
n/a Prince_Kropotkin 2017-01-10
pepe is really not the best meme ever
n/a FreekyFreezer 2017-01-10
Yeah it is
n/a Malevolent_USB_Drive 2017-01-10
Wow what a deprived life you lead...
n/a Tooshortmyass 2017-01-10
Says the guy arguing about what the best meme is.
n/a Mexagon 2017-01-10
Pepe never wanted this, but you outraged nancies forced it.
n/a Alexlincoln2 2017-01-10
genocide and hatred are good memes tbh
n/a Prince_Kropotkin 2017-01-10
those are the worst memes tbh
n/a LSU_Coonass 2017-01-10
No they don't.
They just seized the memes of production
n/a ay_what_up 2017-01-10
socialists have the best memes and the worst everything else
n/a PoorLilMarco 2017-01-10
I'm an avid supporter of #NoWhiteDemocrats, #NoWhiteRepublicans and pretty much all forms of white genocide tbh
n/a NoWhiteDemocrats 2017-01-10
NoWhiteDemocrats (#NoWhiteDemocrats) is a fake outrage campaign created by 4chan's /pol/ and spread by online conservative and alt-right groups that hopes to make liberals appear racist, divide Democrats on racial lines, and (falsely) justify conservative outrage about racial issues. (Sources in link.)
n/a PoorLilMarco 2017-01-10
Holy shit hahaha they actually made a Reddit bot to combat 4chan
n/a subpoutine 2017-01-10
lol, wonder if it'll trigger twice in a comment chain.
#NoWhiteDemocrats
n/a NoWhiteDemocrats 2017-01-10
NoWhiteDemocrats (#NoWhiteDemocrats) is a fake outrage campaign created by 4chan's /pol/ and spread by online conservative and alt-right groups that hopes to make liberals appear racist, divide Democrats on racial lines, and (falsely) justify conservative outrage about racial issues. (Sources in link.)
n/a subpoutine 2017-01-10
Will you trigger multiple times to the same poster?
#NoWhiteDemocrats
n/a NoWhiteDemocrats 2017-01-10
NoWhiteDemocrats (#NoWhiteDemocrats) is a fake outrage campaign created by 4chan's /pol/ and spread by online conservative and alt-right groups that hopes to make liberals appear racist, divide Democrats on racial lines, and (falsely) justify conservative outrage about racial issues. (Sources in link.)
n/a subpoutine 2017-01-10
Sad!
#NoWhiteDemocrats
n/a NoWhiteDemocrats 2017-01-10
NoWhiteDemocrats (#NoWhiteDemocrats) is a fake outrage campaign created by 4chan's /pol/ and spread by online conservative and alt-right groups that hopes to make liberals appear racist, divide Democrats on racial lines, and (falsely) justify conservative outrage about racial issues. (Sources in link.)
n/a nanh 2017-01-10
Hey what is this no white Democrats thing about #NoWhiteDemocrats
n/a NoWhiteDemocrats 2017-01-10
NoWhiteDemocrats (#NoWhiteDemocrats) is a fake outrage campaign created by 4chan's /pol/ and spread by online conservative and alt-right groups that hopes to make liberals appear racist, divide Democrats on racial lines, and (falsely) justify conservative outrage about racial issues. (Sources in link.)
n/a wwyzzerdd 2017-01-10
And its banned #NoWhiteDemocrats #NoWhiteBots
n/a [deleted] 2017-01-10
[removed]
n/a fucked_my_shit_up 2017-01-10
Just reported it to /r/spam and got it shadowbanned lmao
n/a PoorLilMarco 2017-01-10
Doing God's work
n/a skivian 2017-01-10
This is why we can't have nice things
n/a LSU_Coonass 2017-01-10
This but not ironically
n/a FuckURedditor 2017-01-10
I'm mostly okay with it. The more liberals talk this bullshit--hell, even the more trolls talk it--the less likely white people are to ever vote Democrat again.
That's what the left doesn't get. Normal, whitebread America doesn't give a shit if you say it 'ironically' or not. It'll have the same effect whether you mean it or not.
n/a lol-da-mar-s-cool 2017-01-10
For anyone that didn't have time to read that wall of text:
n/a Hammer_of_truthiness 2017-01-10
Did /u/20_TwentyTwo have a psychotic break? Not really sure why bernouts were relevant to the thread at all. I mean its ETS so they all loved the spergout but really m8 getting that mad over a totally unrelated group can't be healthy
n/a The_Reason_Trump_Won 2017-01-10
n/a Chicup 2017-01-10
I can get being a Bernibro, I mean sure hes a weak socialist idiot but I can see the appeal to the coddled, helicopter parented millennial snow flakes. Free college and stuff!
I can't get how anyone can be a Hilary supporter. I can understand being anti-Trump, but actually thinking Hilary was good and worthy?
n/a _GameSHARK 2017-01-10
What's hard to understand about it? None of the emails crap actually turned out to be anything worth mentioning - it was quite literally just "business as usual." The whole email server thing was bad, and I would've preferred she have been more up front about it rather than waiting until we called her out on it before apologizing... but at least she apologized for it (unlike the person who we ended up electing.)
At worst, I don't see Clinton as having more dirt than any of the other candidates we had in the primaries and she was damned sure far more qualified than all of the other candidates. Unless you have a very slash-and-burn attitude in regards to seeing conservative social policies enacted, I don't see how Clinton wasn't the obvious best choice we had for 2016. The Democrats didn't have anyone remotely qualified to contest her and the Republicans had such a weak spread that Donald Trump defeated them.
n/a Chicup 2017-01-10
You never read them then.
She let her maid print out classified information.
Umm I dont' think anyone of those others took millions from Arab states directly and indirectly, nor gave secret speeches for a total of some 23,000,000, nor did they try to set up an arrangement with the FBI as a quid pro quo for declassifying documents that would get her in trouble. She was inevitable because the system was corrupted in her favor.
If you read the emails (you didn't) you know know Clinton is part of the reason Trump won. They had their buddies in the press cover him more than they should have, and made him appear to be the #1 candidate to defeat. They did the same with Cruz too, which goes to show how effective they were, with those two the last standing Republicans.
The democrats rigged TWO primaries, directly in their case and indirectly with the Republicans.
You really should read those emails.
n/a atakeonhooper 2017-01-10
I mean Hilldog wasn't great, but Trump wants to build a border wall with Mexico
that's the most retarded public works project I can think of
n/a Chicup 2017-01-10
More retarded than war with Russia?
n/a atakeonhooper 2017-01-10
about as retarded as a trade war with china and mexico
n/a Chicup 2017-01-10
There won't be a trade war. There will be a renegotiation.
n/a atakeonhooper 2017-01-10
I hope so.
n/a cuteman 2017-01-10
Y'all fucked the dog on Hope & Change with Obama so now you've got Trump.
n/a atakeonhooper 2017-01-10
trump seems retarded to me, something about the way he speaks
somethins off
n/a cuteman 2017-01-10
https://imgur.com/GzdCyHS
n/a atakeonhooper 2017-01-10
lol
n/a _GameSHARK 2017-01-10
I've read every single email that has been linked to me as "proof" of DNC/Clinton wrongdoing. NONE of them have contained any actual proof of anything other than what's literally business as usual for a political campaign.
The system was corrupted in her favor, yet the FBI was arguably the biggest factor in her failing to become elected? How's that work? The FBI was serving her while also attacking her? That makes absolutely no sense.
I'm not sure how her work for her charity is relevant to her as a politician. She was a private citizen at the time, and was not at all involved in our government. I don't understand what you're driving at.
[Citation Needed]
I've read every single email provided to me. Absolutely none of them contain any evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing, corruption, rigging, collusion, or whatever buzzwords you prefer.
I read the emails without bias and read them at face value. I do not make assumptions about "what they actually mean", because there is no supporting data to fuel such assumptions. Maybe you're the one that's having a problem digesting the content of those emails?
n/a Hellkyte 2017-01-10
Yeah but what about pog-gate?
n/a djangoman2k 2017-01-10
The fact that it's "business as usual" is the problem. Noe of that should be acceptable for any political party
n/a _GameSHARK 2017-01-10
You are arguing against one of the most basic facets of animal behavior and psychology. "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours," is exhibited in all manner of animals.
You're far too idealistic.
n/a djangoman2k 2017-01-10
If it's something we can hold them accountable for, we should. We should always expect better out of ourselves and especially our politicians. If we have evidence of them doing this, we absolutely should call them on it, and not simply accept it as "the way things have always been".
n/a _GameSHARK 2017-01-10
Hold them accountable for what?
It's a mutual exchange of services. This completely normal behavior in business, politics, and even in goddamn relationships!
It's not unfair, it's not unjust, it's completely normal.
n/a djangoman2k 2017-01-10
It is unfair, and it is unjust. Our politicians should support laws and regulations that benefit their constituents because it's the right thing to do, not because they owe someone a political favor, or can use that vote as a way to gain the favor. You're trying to normalize this behavior by pretending it's simply commerce, but trade has no business in political behavior. What works for a free market economy is not what works best for a democracy
n/a _GameSHARK 2017-01-10
Again: you are overwhelmingly, unrealistically idealistic. You would behave NO DIFFERENTLY than they would, because you would have to engage in this behavior if you wanted to be effective as a politician... or a businessman, or just about any other position of power or notoriety. I run my own business and you'd better fucking believe I'd be up shit creek without a paddle if I didn't engage in this behavior.
This behavior is COMPLETELY NORMAL AND EXPECTED. The GOP does it, the Democratic Party does it, the Independents do it. Local, state, federal all do it. Executive, judicial, legislative all do it. It's completely normal.
It's not unfair, and it's not unjust. They do this so that they can better serve the people. You could have all the best intentions in the world and it wouldn't matter for fuck all if you couldn't get elected in the first place! The media outlets need clicks and newspaper sales to stay in business, so they court the politicians and businessmen - if you give me exclusive access, I'll agree to not comment on certain things. The politicians need media attention that will cast them in a favorable light, so they'll agree to this. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. Completely normal!
Sometimes the exchange isn't even, sometimes one or the other had to call in a favor and now that favor's due. You can see this happening in one of the vaunted emails, where the paper in question offers Clinton staffers (it was in one of the "Podesta emails") a series of choices; two of them involved letting the paper publish an "embargoed" ("we would really prefer if you didn't report on this") story, while the third option gave the paper some substantial concessions in exchange for not running that "embargoed" story. In essence, the paper was bending the Clinton campaign over a barrel and asking them how they wanted it.
Thing is, at any time the papers or the politicians could do whatever they want anyway - and sometimes that happens. That'll be a stain against them in further relations with the others, but sometimes that's a cost worth paying.
This is all completely fucking normal. The only reason you think it's unfair or unjust is because you've never fucking paid attention to any of this ever before until Sanders recruited you into his little cult and told you it's bad, that it's why he lost. And like so many of the other ignorant political newbies he recruited into his cult, you just assumed he was telling you the truth.
Maybe this is news to you, but he wasn't telling you the truth.
n/a djangoman2k 2017-01-10
No one is arguing that it's not normal, we're saying it shouldn't be, and that accepting it as the way things are, without any possibility of things being different, is defeatist. The fact that everyone does it, does not mean that's the way it should be.
n/a _GameSHARK 2017-01-10
Why shouldn't it be this way? It's literally human nature. If everyone is doing it, I don't see what the problem is.
n/a djangoman2k 2017-01-10
Because we're not talking about driving a friend to the airport as long as they agree to help you move. We're talking about one of the most important jobs in the country, passing legislation that can impact millions of people, and not being willing to do that job unless they get theirs. Is it not enough that it's why they were put there, or that they're actually being paid? They're getting paid six figures and still that's not enough to do what's right?
This is not quid pro quo on the same level that exists in personal relationships and other areas. It's far more harmful, and far less human. Ultimately, even if my friend would not or could not help me move, I'd still take them to the airport. That's missing in politics
n/a _GameSHARK 2017-01-10
The problem is you're acting as though the people in question won't get out of bed unless they're offered some kind incentive. This is demonstrably false.
It's easy to see why you'd be so ardently against this behavior if you thought that it was a requirement for action, though. You're just simply ignorant of how a political machine (or successful business, for that matter) works - nothing wrong with that, everyone was ignorant at some point or another. I'd recommend you not make judgements or castigate others until you have a more comprehensive knowledge of the subject, however.
n/a djangoman2k 2017-01-10
I know it's not a requirement, but it should never even come up. Ever. Vote for the legislation your constituents elected you to support, because they elected you to do it. Doing anything else is completely unjust. There should never be any quid pro quo at all required for them to vote for the best interests of their constituents and their country.
n/a _GameSHARK 2017-01-10
Again: you are ignorant of how politics works and need to stop making pronouncements until you educate yourself on it.
You're focusing on the immediate. There is more at stake and more involved than the immediate.
n/a djangoman2k 2017-01-10
We all know how it works, and that's the problem.
Are you trying to imply that every case of quid pro quo in Congress is some solution to myopic legislation, or are you just ok with it being partisan gamesmanship?
n/a _GameSHARK 2017-01-10
Neither. I am intelligent to recognize unrealistic idealism when I see it.
If you're just going to keep repeating yourself then I think we're done here. I clearly gain nothing by repeatedly explaining the way the world works to you.
n/a djangoman2k 2017-01-10
You're right, there's nothing more to say
n/a _GameSHARK 2017-01-10
Well, it was fun while it lasted :P
n/a ErisIsMyGoddess 2017-01-10
Maybe this shouldn't be in politics? I swear dipshits like you watch one episode of house of cards and are suddenly convinced that this is how it must be down.
n/a _GameSHARK 2017-01-10
I've never watched House of Cards. I keep meaning to because everyone says it's really good but I end up using my free time on other stuff.
You are literally arguing against one of the most common facets of animal behavior. You help me out, and in return I'll help you out. It's a mutual exchange of services. It's not unfair, it's not unjust, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.
n/a Tooshortmyass 2017-01-10
So you're cool with trump picking all his buds for positions, right?
n/a _GameSHARK 2017-01-10
That's nepotism. Completely different.
n/a Tooshortmyass 2017-01-10
Holy shit lmao you trolling?
n/a _GameSHARK 2017-01-10
No. Do you honestly believe things are only ever black or white?
n/a Tooshortmyass 2017-01-10
I just like to give retards the benefit of the doubt.
n/a ErisIsMyGoddess 2017-01-10
Hahaha, you literally are retarded.
n/a FuckURedditor 2017-01-10
You're the cunt that's arguing 'corruption is fine, just ignore it...but only when my girl does it'.
Not a valid place to plant your feet.
n/a _GameSHARK 2017-01-10
It's not corruption you fucking moron. It's normal behavior exhibited by even very simple animals.
You call it corruption because you've been told to call it corruption and because you are genuinely so utterly ignorant of how the world works, because your lily white ass has never had to actually exist in it before, you actually think those people told you the truth instead of taking advantage of an idiot when they saw one.
n/a Peaches_0 2017-01-10
Hilary's entire campaign was swamped in scandals from literally being on Saudi Arabia's bankroll to declaring war on Russia live on stage. And that's just 2 things. The worst dirt they had on Drumpf that he wouldn't release his fucking tax returns.
n/a _GameSHARK 2017-01-10
Er, what?
n/a FreeRobotFrost 2017-01-10
Don't split the vote!
n/a lesboautisticweeabo 2017-01-10
/u/20_TwentyTwo
You did the are you fucking kidding me? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Also, why are you blaming the Bernie bros for this? /pol/ is imfamoulsy pro Trump you dumb bitch
n/a Peaches_0 2017-01-10