emoji-award-marseymagarentfree

Libtards have taken to running over children to own Drumf supporters

https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/1905644904509796403
54
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I'm sure that little girl will understand; bro was owning the chuds.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I'm sure the judge will understand why the guy recording wasn't an accessory to the crime; bro was owning the libs.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Are you referencing the Seinfeld finale?

:marseyboomer:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

"BUT JUDGE HE STARTED IT"

Why are libs still stuck in the child mentality?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

https://media.tenor.com/HJoFOl00YEMAAAAx/trump-no.webp

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

What's this gif about

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Trump was showing him an infographic on the show Street Sharks

https://media.tenor.com/1AJ-fjVtquYAAAAx/jawesome-street.webp

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Trump showing an axios reporter the covid number (total deaths) the reporter being like "NO, show me per-capita". They argued for a bit about how per-capita does or doesn't matter.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

why would he be an accessory

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Intent.

If the lib had intentionally hit those two, then the chud he is arguing with is innocent because they are two seperate instances. The chud would be clear because the lib always intended on hitting the mom and daughter and the chud played no part in that decision.

However, the lib hit them accidentally. The chud was intentionally distracting the driver (illegal) and is therefore a party to the crime (hitting a mom and daughter by accident because the lib was distracted).

When you are driving, you are accountable for your actions while driving.

Chud is open to be procecuted for his involvement because he isn't a white women :marseyfoidretard: and therefore has agency in the eyes of the law (he will likely be hit with a lesser charge).

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

this is a joke right yer doing a bit

:quote: actually he's responsible because he was filming and made them run people over! :quote:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Correct. Everyone, including you, are more responsible for the child being run over than the man who ran them over. That's just how felonies work, you see.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

people need to know about this!

:quote: officer, it's not my fault! did you see the butt on that woman?! she's the reason i ran over a group of nuns! she was wearing yoga pants! :quote:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Frick

Case closed :marseygiveup:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

That's how felonies work :marseyshrug:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

why would he be an accessory

"screaming and recording out your window when agitating other drivers, in transit, is not against any law" :marseypaintretard:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

people get arrested every day for yelling at people. every day!

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

context is very important here. if you distract a driver is not free speech

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

that's what i told the cops when i got in a wreck. it wasn't my fault. it was the woman jogging in yoga pants. she distracted me! she also got charged with a crime that day.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.



Link copied to clipboard
Action successful!
Error, please refresh the page and try again.