Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

so they never read the actual document, they just game of telephone each other into an ever more histrionic fantasy and then they get panic attacks based on that fantasy? cool

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

it's the most rightoid thing I've ever seen libs do

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

And they've been doing it for years. They did it over the 'Don't Say Gay' bill in Florida as well.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I can't wait until Trump Derangement Syndrome makes it into the DSM-6.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Holy shit. I can't even imagine being so wingcucked you have to have yourself committed over some stupid shit some thinktank nerds cooked up. I'm so glad I got out of that cycle 20 years ago.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

That dude's been on the internet so long he's got to be at least 40. How do you not grow out of this shit at some point?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

He's gotta be closer to sixty

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

In that case, note that he's part of the exact same demographic that got really into the Q ARG last election, just on the other side of the horseshoe this time.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

These people are the ones that were inevitably going to obsess about something. Unfortunately politics overtook football in the US as the de facto us vs them obsession. In another world, Popehat would have been arguing with randos online about who the best wide receiver draft would be for the Packers this season.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Lol I haven't heard about him in years, didn't he used to be pretty normal?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

He was pretty normal, he just used to be a legal analysis guy. I haven't even thought about him in more than 10 years though, so probably he just went insane in 2016 like the other 75% of twitter people I guess.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The last time I thought about him was his post about just because there are limits to the 1A that is a fallacy to argue that your limits you are proposing are valid.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

πŸ€“πŸ€“ heres an argument 4 u bud: both sides r massive cute twinks πŸ‘ŒπŸ˜‚[1][2]

Citations:

1. True (2016)

2. Fact (1981)

lmao @ u πŸ‘ˆπŸ‘ˆπŸ‘ˆ You were put down, in the future please refrain from discussing subjects you have no education in

Snapshots:

https://twitter.com/SaladBarFan/status/1816556083768606904:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

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