The real derangement syndrome, AOCDS

[Homerboy]

all that aside: "leave Climate Change to god" ...coming from the White House. ...holy fucking shit. These motherfucking terrorists can't be swept out of power soon enough. They need to be fucking Gitmo'd, to be honest.

Is Gitmo still a thing? If not, can we make a new one for all the Trump admin terrorists that are going to need their own special type of prison?

To be fair she said "higher power"
So that either means God, or Trump. They're crazy enough to put the 2 on a level playing field. It's hard/impossible to know who she is referencing.

 

[zinfamous]

To be fair she said "higher power"
So that either means God, or Trump. They're crazy enough to put the 2 on a level playing field. It's hard/impossible to know who she is referencing.

Nancy Pelosi, actually. She owns that bitch Trump right now.

 

[ivwshane]

all that aside: "leave Climate Change to god" ...coming from the White House. ...holy fucking shit. These motherfucking terrorists can't be swept out of power soon enough. They need to be fucking Gitmo'd, to be honest.

Is Gitmo still a thing? If not, can we make a new one for all the Trump admin terrorists that are going to need their own special type of prison?

In all honesty, I'd support torture if it involved trump and his administration, throw in some McConnell, Cheney, rumsfeld, John yoo, and some others and I'll even participate.

 

[Greenman]

The point of my remarks was that you've got a lot of nerve given the Party you support. And you just doubled down on it, too.

Given a divided Congress, it's safe to say that there will be no changes to the tax code until 2021 at the earliest. Mitch will keep the uber wealthy safe until then. It's probably not something you should personally worry about, anyway.

When & if such legislation is actually considered it will probably be every bit as specific as the GOP tax bill of 2017 if not more so.

I don't have a party

I assume you are referring to the ACA and the idea that no one read it is a myth. What the ACA did was available in clear, simple language to everyone for months. Of course you can’t get into all the details, but if you did it wouldn’t be plain, simple language anymore.

Seriously though, plenty of people vote for conservatives whose answer to the details is basically ‘fuck you’. Why is it that only one side needs to actually do the work and if anything they are punished for it electorally?

The ACA was 2300 pages the day it was passed. The final draft was released 3 days before the vote. As of 2016, there was an added 16,000 pages of regulations. That's a whole lot of words. I understand the 16,000 pages as clarifications, revisions, and direction about specific issues. But the original 2300 was still a pretty heavy read to do in 3 days.

Edit. That 2300 page number came from a conservative site, the Washington times.

 

[Jaskalas]

Points for Cortez.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1089233327918366723

 

[blankslate]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1092414531064786944

And another one gets twitter mauled by AOC....

At least we can count on a chuckle or a laugh every week or so it seems.


_____________

 

[Fenixgoon]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1092414531064786944

And another one gets twitter mauled by AOC....

At least we can count on a chuckle or a laugh every week or so it seems.


_____________

Damn she's good.
And apparently that person has not heard of the salary cap or what its purpose is.

 

[Greenman]

She does alright, but why does she think that Kaepernick is owed a job with the NFL?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

She does alright, but why does she think that Kaepernick is owed a job with the NFL?

She’s probably running with the team owners are colluding to not hire him.

I’m going to avoid this topic because it’s too far off topic

 

[fskimospy]

She does alright, but why does she think that Kaepernick is owed a job with the NFL?

She didn't say he was owed a job.

The two-step of the owners in this situation is very interesting to me. We all know that Kaepernick has more than enough talent to be a backup quarterback at a MINIMUM and more likely a lower tier starter. We all know the actual reason the owners don't want to hire him is that a non-trivial portion of their fans are a bunch of mouth breathing racists who don't like to see black people protesting. (the bar I watch Eagles games at in Brooklyn is full of them) So for the owners the best legal argument is that their fans are shitbags but that's a terrible business argument so instead they have to pretend he's not good enough at football even though everyone knows that's laughable bullshit.

Regardless, conservatives really need to learn to stop trying to go after AOC on Twitter. They are going to lose way more often than they win and it's just making her more popular.

 

[Greenman]

She didn't say he was owed a job.

The two-step of the owners in this situation is very interesting to me. We all know that Kaepernick has more than enough talent to be a backup quarterback at a MINIMUM and more likely a lower tier starter. We all know the actual reason the owners don't want to hire him is that a non-trivial portion of their fans are a bunch of mouth breathing racists who don't like to see black people protesting. (the bar I watch Eagles games at in Brooklyn is full of them) So for the owners the best legal argument is that their fans are shitbags but that's a terrible business argument so instead they have to pretend he's not good enough at football even though everyone knows that's laughable bullshit.

Regardless, conservatives really need to learn to stop trying to go after AOC on Twitter. They are going to lose way more often than they win and it's just making her more popular.

I would argue that his political stance on the field (no pun intended) reduces his value as a player. It's not just about who's the best, it's about who's the best and marketable. If his ability out weighed his political baggage, he'd have a job today (I'm assuming he doesn't, I don't know either way).
If one of my employees decided to make a political statement on the job that cost me clients, he'd be fired on the spot. There is only one person responsible for the position Kaepernick is in.

 

[Greenman]

She’s probably running with the team owners are colluding to not hire him.

I’m going to avoid this topic because it’s too far off topic

Have we ever stayed on topic? I'll accept a simple yes or no, I trust you.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Have we ever stayed on topic? I'll accept a simple yes or no, I trust you.

No

However I was thinking it belonged in the Kaepernick thread

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I would argue that his political stance on the field (no pun intended) reduces his value as a player. It's not just about who's the best, it's about who's the best and marketable. If his ability out weighed his political baggage, he'd have a job today (I'm assuming he doesn't, I don't know either way).
If one of my employees decided to make a political statement on the job that cost me clients, he'd be fired on the spot. There is only one person responsible for the position Kaepernick is in.

I agree with that summary but I also don’t think it’s impossible that the owners got together and all agreed to never hire the guy. That’s definitely a collusion thing like when Apple & Google agreed to not actively recruit each other’s employees. Same effect some had fewer job opportunities and that depressed advancements & pay.
I do 100% agree his taking a knee has effected his value, if he was a super star no problem but he’s not a superstar he’s a decent backup guy.

 

[fskimospy]

I would argue that his political stance on the field (no pun intended) reduces his value as a player. It's not just about who's the best, it's about who's the best and marketable. If his ability out weighed his political baggage, he'd have a job today (I'm assuming he doesn't, I don't know either way).
If one of my employees decided to make a political statement on the job that cost me clients, he'd be fired on the spot. There is only one person responsible for the position Kaepernick is in.

Sure, it was his choice to make a political statement and if the owners don’t want to employ him because of it that’s their business.

You will never see them admit to that though, which was my point. They continue with this absurd lie that it’s a football decision because they can’t admit their customers hate to see black people protest.

 

[Greenman]

Sure, it was his choice to make a political statement and if the owners don’t want to employ him because of it that’s their business.

You will never see them admit to that though, which was my point. They continue with this absurd lie that it’s a football decision because they can’t admit their customers hate to see black people protest.

Take out the word "black" and I'd agree with you. Pro sports is the one place that really doesn't see color. It's 100% about money and squeezing out every possible cent they can get.

 

[zinfamous]

I would argue that his political stance on the field (no pun intended) reduces his value as a player. It's not just about who's the best, it's about who's the best and marketable. If his ability out weighed his political baggage, he'd have a job today (I'm assuming he doesn't, I don't know either way).
If one of my employees decided to make a political statement on the job that cost me clients, he'd be fired on the spot. There is only one person responsible for the position Kaepernick is in.

What has Kapernick cost the NFL? They have made more money than at any other time for the last 3 consecutive years. This argument is flimsy.

 

[zinfamous]

Take out the word "black" and I'd agree with you. Pro sports is the one place that really doesn't see color. It's 100% about money and squeezing out every possible cent they can get.

uhhhh, since when?

 

[HomerJS]

Take out the word "black" and I'd agree with you. Pro sports is the one place that really doesn't see color. It's 100% about money and squeezing out every possible cent they can get.

NFL owners are conservative and conservatives don't like black people protesting no matter what form.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Take out the word "black" and I'd agree with you. Pro sports is the one place that really doesn't see color. It's 100% about money and squeezing out every possible cent they can get.

Not bloody likely.

 

[Greenman]

NFL owners are conservative and conservatives don't like black people protesting no matter what form.

You'll never be accused of painting with a narrow brush.

 

[Jhhnn]

NFL owners are conservative and conservatives don't like black people protesting no matter what form.

Given the demographics of the Pro Football fan base it's bad for business.

 

[HomerJS]

You'll never be accused of painting with a narrow brush.

If you can name anytime in history when conservatives approved of blacks protesting, by all means clue me in.

 

[fskimospy]

Take out the word "black" and I'd agree with you. Pro sports is the one place that really doesn't see color. It's 100% about money and squeezing out every possible cent they can get.

I never said anything about the people in the business caring about if Kaepernick was black, they care that the fans care because that’s bad for business. You know as well as I do that a significant portion of the NFL audience are mouth breathing racists who hate it when black people protest.

I go to games, I read about it online, I watch it in local townie bars. I love football. I could not even count the number of times I’ve heard complaints, exclusively from white people, about those protests.

 

[Jaskalas]

Regardless, conservatives really need to learn to stop trying to go after AOC on Twitter. They are going to lose way more often than they win and it's just making her more popular.

If only the media heeded that same lesson in 2016.