comment
stringlengths 1
9.86k
| context
sequencelengths 0
530
|
|---|---|
>
It's a good thing the house is going to do investigation in to weaponization of the DOJ I'm sure they'll get to the bottom of it. | [
"Sorry, but even in this age of goldfish-brain news cycles, we cannot allow a certain development from last week to just fade into obscurity.\n\nThank you! This should have made a much, much bigger impact and it shouldn't disappear into the Trump news hole. Durham's investigation did exactly what Trumpians claimed the Russia investigation did -- while proving the Russia investigation didn't do those things! After an investigation that went on twice as long as the Russia investigation! And it found evidence of ADDITIONAL TRUMP FINANCIAL CRIMES! And Barr lied about the Durham investigation constantly! \nThis shouldn't have left the front page for weeks.",
">\n\n\nSorry, but even in this age of goldfish-brain news cycles, we cannot allow a certain development from last week to just fade into obscurity.\n\nIf Trump says Russia three times fast, 1/6 of the country will decide Trump is the real victim in this. \"Russia, Russia, Russia,\" Trump will say every time he mentions it, and his sycophants will nod and send him money.",
">\n\nAnd if Trump says Russia three times fast, 3/6 of the left will take that as confirmation, that trump was a sleeper agent for the Kremlin the whole time",
">\n\nI mean, just yesterday Trump publicly said he still believes Putin over the reports of the entire US intelligence apparatus. I don't think \"sleeper agent\" is the right description for someone who openly and actively promoted Russian interests over those of the United States.",
">\n\n\nI don't think \"sleeper agent\" is the right description for someone who openly and actively promoted Russian interests over those of the United States.\n\nLOL Kremlin \"screamer agent\" donald j trump.",
">\n\nThis isn't like a lot of Trump-news-Fatigue stories. \nIt's objectively much worse, the Attorney General (head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government), and his hand-picked hard-nosed prosecutor, John Durham mis-represented their investigation of the 2016 Russia investigation to the American Public... and then actively gave cover for Trump in the 2020 campaign to claim he was being persecuted.\n\nBy the summer of 2020, it was clear Durham's [investigation into the investigators of the 2016 Russian election interference and secret Trump support] had failed, and the Justice Department inspector general published a report that found no evidence the FBI was politically motivated in 2016. But Trump was absolutely losing it on Fox News, floating that Obama and Biden would be indicted for their offenses against him—\"the single biggest political crime in the history of our country\"—and the only way they wouldn't be was if his two pet prosecutors, Barr and Durham, decided to be \"politically correct.\" (God forbid!) Enter the Times:\nAgainst that backdrop, Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham did not shut down their inquiry when the search for intelligence abuses hit a dead end. With the inspector general’s inquiry complete, they turned to a new rationale: a hunt for a basis to accuse the Clinton campaign of conspiring to defraud the government by manufacturing the suspicions that the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia, along with scrutinizing what the F.B.I. and intelligence officials knew about the Clinton campaign’s actions.\nSo having failed to produce the goods in time to give Trump some political ammunition for the 2020 election, they just kept the investigation going with an entirely new focus? \nThey came up with nothing, so they started to work the name \"Clinton\" in there? How is that even the same investigation? It isn't, except for one crucial respect: It continued as a vehicle for Trump's shadowy accusations against his political opponents. As long as the investigation was \"ongoing,\" he had extra salt on his claims that anyone caught up in it was disgustingly corrupt.\nIn this respect, it's a lot like the Ukraine extortion that got Trump impeached the first time: He just wanted Zelenskyy to announce Ukraine was opening an investigation into the Bidens. The subtext, of course, was that Trump would do the rest.",
">\n\nYea, in the realm of our news i think this shit might on to something. I think we gotta start lookin hard into these timelines and all involved. \nwhat im interested in is the possible connections that NY fbi agent and this story has as the dude has been fingered as a potential leaker in said office in relation to clintons emails and comey in oct16 and the times article referenced durham was using shit russian intel. \nfollowing that trail it leads to deripaska and derkach, the former funded the fbi agent, the latter has been used by OAN to push the biden/bruisma narrative. Grassley and Johnson were close to subpoenaing derkach but dropped the investigation in sept20, they were also chastised for using bad russian intel. both are tied to manafort ghuliani et al.\nYea something fishy here. Especially with this story following the heels of the FBI agent arrest.",
">\n\nBurisma! No! They will not let it go",
">\n\nthey sure wont, that evolved into the laptop and its current iteration is \"twitter files\" screaming about a data scrapper and then circles back to a book from a guy goin on bout hunter/china. yea its that discombobulated",
">\n\nThe theory of Right-wing Projection is now established law.",
">\n\nIt's almost like he was projecting.",
">\n\nI think the biggest mistake everyone made was not realizing from the minute he came down that gaudy, trashy, gold escalator that literally everything that came out of his mouth was projection. He gave a roadmap to his lies and to his plans but we didn't realize he was literally telling us the truth.",
">\n\nI mean, I and tens of millions of other Americans realized on day 1.",
">\n\nNo, I really don't think that's accurate. 10s of millions of people already knew he was a liar, and probably broke, and insane, but it took a while before \"it's projection\" became the main response to anything he said and that literally every single thing he said was about him and the gop.\nEverything from \"Mexico isn't sending their best\" to \"Stolen election\" was about him.",
">\n\nIt is accurate though. The sky really fell for us the day he won, and we were all utterly and completely vindicated in the end. Sorry it took you a while to catch up. The good news for you: being right from the start ultimately ended up meaning nothing.",
">\n\n\nSorry it took you a while to catch up.\n\nAll I'm going to tell you is, never assume you know who you're talking to on the internet. 😂",
">\n\nthe whole investigations into biden is a witch hunt too.",
">\n\nEvery accusation is a confession.",
">\n\nNarcissists will often tell you exactly what they are doing by projecting it on to others.",
">\n\nIf Gym Jordan’s special committee on the weaponization of the DOJ is indeed righteous then the Durham investigation will be on the table for scrutiny. If not, well…",
">\n\nyep. we all watched it happen.",
">\n\nThis shouldn't have left the front page for weeks.",
">\n\nI think it’s long been known that any time a Republican is screaming about something being done to them, they are just numbing the public to an eventual revelation that they themselves were doing the same to someone else.",
">\n\nTrump was 100% colluding at some level with Russia. Barr knew it, Mueller knew it. Barr quickly squirreled away the Mueller Rpt to make sure none of it ever saw the light of day. At same time he launched this bogus witch hunt hoping to throw shade on someone, anyone and divert attention away from Trump."
] |
>
wonder how long till they start using the "just two more weeks" bit. | [
"Sorry, but even in this age of goldfish-brain news cycles, we cannot allow a certain development from last week to just fade into obscurity.\n\nThank you! This should have made a much, much bigger impact and it shouldn't disappear into the Trump news hole. Durham's investigation did exactly what Trumpians claimed the Russia investigation did -- while proving the Russia investigation didn't do those things! After an investigation that went on twice as long as the Russia investigation! And it found evidence of ADDITIONAL TRUMP FINANCIAL CRIMES! And Barr lied about the Durham investigation constantly! \nThis shouldn't have left the front page for weeks.",
">\n\n\nSorry, but even in this age of goldfish-brain news cycles, we cannot allow a certain development from last week to just fade into obscurity.\n\nIf Trump says Russia three times fast, 1/6 of the country will decide Trump is the real victim in this. \"Russia, Russia, Russia,\" Trump will say every time he mentions it, and his sycophants will nod and send him money.",
">\n\nAnd if Trump says Russia three times fast, 3/6 of the left will take that as confirmation, that trump was a sleeper agent for the Kremlin the whole time",
">\n\nI mean, just yesterday Trump publicly said he still believes Putin over the reports of the entire US intelligence apparatus. I don't think \"sleeper agent\" is the right description for someone who openly and actively promoted Russian interests over those of the United States.",
">\n\n\nI don't think \"sleeper agent\" is the right description for someone who openly and actively promoted Russian interests over those of the United States.\n\nLOL Kremlin \"screamer agent\" donald j trump.",
">\n\nThis isn't like a lot of Trump-news-Fatigue stories. \nIt's objectively much worse, the Attorney General (head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government), and his hand-picked hard-nosed prosecutor, John Durham mis-represented their investigation of the 2016 Russia investigation to the American Public... and then actively gave cover for Trump in the 2020 campaign to claim he was being persecuted.\n\nBy the summer of 2020, it was clear Durham's [investigation into the investigators of the 2016 Russian election interference and secret Trump support] had failed, and the Justice Department inspector general published a report that found no evidence the FBI was politically motivated in 2016. But Trump was absolutely losing it on Fox News, floating that Obama and Biden would be indicted for their offenses against him—\"the single biggest political crime in the history of our country\"—and the only way they wouldn't be was if his two pet prosecutors, Barr and Durham, decided to be \"politically correct.\" (God forbid!) Enter the Times:\nAgainst that backdrop, Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham did not shut down their inquiry when the search for intelligence abuses hit a dead end. With the inspector general’s inquiry complete, they turned to a new rationale: a hunt for a basis to accuse the Clinton campaign of conspiring to defraud the government by manufacturing the suspicions that the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia, along with scrutinizing what the F.B.I. and intelligence officials knew about the Clinton campaign’s actions.\nSo having failed to produce the goods in time to give Trump some political ammunition for the 2020 election, they just kept the investigation going with an entirely new focus? \nThey came up with nothing, so they started to work the name \"Clinton\" in there? How is that even the same investigation? It isn't, except for one crucial respect: It continued as a vehicle for Trump's shadowy accusations against his political opponents. As long as the investigation was \"ongoing,\" he had extra salt on his claims that anyone caught up in it was disgustingly corrupt.\nIn this respect, it's a lot like the Ukraine extortion that got Trump impeached the first time: He just wanted Zelenskyy to announce Ukraine was opening an investigation into the Bidens. The subtext, of course, was that Trump would do the rest.",
">\n\nYea, in the realm of our news i think this shit might on to something. I think we gotta start lookin hard into these timelines and all involved. \nwhat im interested in is the possible connections that NY fbi agent and this story has as the dude has been fingered as a potential leaker in said office in relation to clintons emails and comey in oct16 and the times article referenced durham was using shit russian intel. \nfollowing that trail it leads to deripaska and derkach, the former funded the fbi agent, the latter has been used by OAN to push the biden/bruisma narrative. Grassley and Johnson were close to subpoenaing derkach but dropped the investigation in sept20, they were also chastised for using bad russian intel. both are tied to manafort ghuliani et al.\nYea something fishy here. Especially with this story following the heels of the FBI agent arrest.",
">\n\nBurisma! No! They will not let it go",
">\n\nthey sure wont, that evolved into the laptop and its current iteration is \"twitter files\" screaming about a data scrapper and then circles back to a book from a guy goin on bout hunter/china. yea its that discombobulated",
">\n\nThe theory of Right-wing Projection is now established law.",
">\n\nIt's almost like he was projecting.",
">\n\nI think the biggest mistake everyone made was not realizing from the minute he came down that gaudy, trashy, gold escalator that literally everything that came out of his mouth was projection. He gave a roadmap to his lies and to his plans but we didn't realize he was literally telling us the truth.",
">\n\nI mean, I and tens of millions of other Americans realized on day 1.",
">\n\nNo, I really don't think that's accurate. 10s of millions of people already knew he was a liar, and probably broke, and insane, but it took a while before \"it's projection\" became the main response to anything he said and that literally every single thing he said was about him and the gop.\nEverything from \"Mexico isn't sending their best\" to \"Stolen election\" was about him.",
">\n\nIt is accurate though. The sky really fell for us the day he won, and we were all utterly and completely vindicated in the end. Sorry it took you a while to catch up. The good news for you: being right from the start ultimately ended up meaning nothing.",
">\n\n\nSorry it took you a while to catch up.\n\nAll I'm going to tell you is, never assume you know who you're talking to on the internet. 😂",
">\n\nthe whole investigations into biden is a witch hunt too.",
">\n\nEvery accusation is a confession.",
">\n\nNarcissists will often tell you exactly what they are doing by projecting it on to others.",
">\n\nIf Gym Jordan’s special committee on the weaponization of the DOJ is indeed righteous then the Durham investigation will be on the table for scrutiny. If not, well…",
">\n\nyep. we all watched it happen.",
">\n\nThis shouldn't have left the front page for weeks.",
">\n\nI think it’s long been known that any time a Republican is screaming about something being done to them, they are just numbing the public to an eventual revelation that they themselves were doing the same to someone else.",
">\n\nTrump was 100% colluding at some level with Russia. Barr knew it, Mueller knew it. Barr quickly squirreled away the Mueller Rpt to make sure none of it ever saw the light of day. At same time he launched this bogus witch hunt hoping to throw shade on someone, anyone and divert attention away from Trump.",
">\n\nIt's a good thing the house is going to do investigation in to weaponization of the DOJ I'm sure they'll get to the bottom of it."
] |
>
In two weeks. | [
"Sorry, but even in this age of goldfish-brain news cycles, we cannot allow a certain development from last week to just fade into obscurity.\n\nThank you! This should have made a much, much bigger impact and it shouldn't disappear into the Trump news hole. Durham's investigation did exactly what Trumpians claimed the Russia investigation did -- while proving the Russia investigation didn't do those things! After an investigation that went on twice as long as the Russia investigation! And it found evidence of ADDITIONAL TRUMP FINANCIAL CRIMES! And Barr lied about the Durham investigation constantly! \nThis shouldn't have left the front page for weeks.",
">\n\n\nSorry, but even in this age of goldfish-brain news cycles, we cannot allow a certain development from last week to just fade into obscurity.\n\nIf Trump says Russia three times fast, 1/6 of the country will decide Trump is the real victim in this. \"Russia, Russia, Russia,\" Trump will say every time he mentions it, and his sycophants will nod and send him money.",
">\n\nAnd if Trump says Russia three times fast, 3/6 of the left will take that as confirmation, that trump was a sleeper agent for the Kremlin the whole time",
">\n\nI mean, just yesterday Trump publicly said he still believes Putin over the reports of the entire US intelligence apparatus. I don't think \"sleeper agent\" is the right description for someone who openly and actively promoted Russian interests over those of the United States.",
">\n\n\nI don't think \"sleeper agent\" is the right description for someone who openly and actively promoted Russian interests over those of the United States.\n\nLOL Kremlin \"screamer agent\" donald j trump.",
">\n\nThis isn't like a lot of Trump-news-Fatigue stories. \nIt's objectively much worse, the Attorney General (head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government), and his hand-picked hard-nosed prosecutor, John Durham mis-represented their investigation of the 2016 Russia investigation to the American Public... and then actively gave cover for Trump in the 2020 campaign to claim he was being persecuted.\n\nBy the summer of 2020, it was clear Durham's [investigation into the investigators of the 2016 Russian election interference and secret Trump support] had failed, and the Justice Department inspector general published a report that found no evidence the FBI was politically motivated in 2016. But Trump was absolutely losing it on Fox News, floating that Obama and Biden would be indicted for their offenses against him—\"the single biggest political crime in the history of our country\"—and the only way they wouldn't be was if his two pet prosecutors, Barr and Durham, decided to be \"politically correct.\" (God forbid!) Enter the Times:\nAgainst that backdrop, Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham did not shut down their inquiry when the search for intelligence abuses hit a dead end. With the inspector general’s inquiry complete, they turned to a new rationale: a hunt for a basis to accuse the Clinton campaign of conspiring to defraud the government by manufacturing the suspicions that the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia, along with scrutinizing what the F.B.I. and intelligence officials knew about the Clinton campaign’s actions.\nSo having failed to produce the goods in time to give Trump some political ammunition for the 2020 election, they just kept the investigation going with an entirely new focus? \nThey came up with nothing, so they started to work the name \"Clinton\" in there? How is that even the same investigation? It isn't, except for one crucial respect: It continued as a vehicle for Trump's shadowy accusations against his political opponents. As long as the investigation was \"ongoing,\" he had extra salt on his claims that anyone caught up in it was disgustingly corrupt.\nIn this respect, it's a lot like the Ukraine extortion that got Trump impeached the first time: He just wanted Zelenskyy to announce Ukraine was opening an investigation into the Bidens. The subtext, of course, was that Trump would do the rest.",
">\n\nYea, in the realm of our news i think this shit might on to something. I think we gotta start lookin hard into these timelines and all involved. \nwhat im interested in is the possible connections that NY fbi agent and this story has as the dude has been fingered as a potential leaker in said office in relation to clintons emails and comey in oct16 and the times article referenced durham was using shit russian intel. \nfollowing that trail it leads to deripaska and derkach, the former funded the fbi agent, the latter has been used by OAN to push the biden/bruisma narrative. Grassley and Johnson were close to subpoenaing derkach but dropped the investigation in sept20, they were also chastised for using bad russian intel. both are tied to manafort ghuliani et al.\nYea something fishy here. Especially with this story following the heels of the FBI agent arrest.",
">\n\nBurisma! No! They will not let it go",
">\n\nthey sure wont, that evolved into the laptop and its current iteration is \"twitter files\" screaming about a data scrapper and then circles back to a book from a guy goin on bout hunter/china. yea its that discombobulated",
">\n\nThe theory of Right-wing Projection is now established law.",
">\n\nIt's almost like he was projecting.",
">\n\nI think the biggest mistake everyone made was not realizing from the minute he came down that gaudy, trashy, gold escalator that literally everything that came out of his mouth was projection. He gave a roadmap to his lies and to his plans but we didn't realize he was literally telling us the truth.",
">\n\nI mean, I and tens of millions of other Americans realized on day 1.",
">\n\nNo, I really don't think that's accurate. 10s of millions of people already knew he was a liar, and probably broke, and insane, but it took a while before \"it's projection\" became the main response to anything he said and that literally every single thing he said was about him and the gop.\nEverything from \"Mexico isn't sending their best\" to \"Stolen election\" was about him.",
">\n\nIt is accurate though. The sky really fell for us the day he won, and we were all utterly and completely vindicated in the end. Sorry it took you a while to catch up. The good news for you: being right from the start ultimately ended up meaning nothing.",
">\n\n\nSorry it took you a while to catch up.\n\nAll I'm going to tell you is, never assume you know who you're talking to on the internet. 😂",
">\n\nthe whole investigations into biden is a witch hunt too.",
">\n\nEvery accusation is a confession.",
">\n\nNarcissists will often tell you exactly what they are doing by projecting it on to others.",
">\n\nIf Gym Jordan’s special committee on the weaponization of the DOJ is indeed righteous then the Durham investigation will be on the table for scrutiny. If not, well…",
">\n\nyep. we all watched it happen.",
">\n\nThis shouldn't have left the front page for weeks.",
">\n\nI think it’s long been known that any time a Republican is screaming about something being done to them, they are just numbing the public to an eventual revelation that they themselves were doing the same to someone else.",
">\n\nTrump was 100% colluding at some level with Russia. Barr knew it, Mueller knew it. Barr quickly squirreled away the Mueller Rpt to make sure none of it ever saw the light of day. At same time he launched this bogus witch hunt hoping to throw shade on someone, anyone and divert attention away from Trump.",
">\n\nIt's a good thing the house is going to do investigation in to weaponization of the DOJ I'm sure they'll get to the bottom of it.",
">\n\nwonder how long till they start using the \"just two more weeks\" bit."
] |
>
Much to nobody's suprise. | [
"Sorry, but even in this age of goldfish-brain news cycles, we cannot allow a certain development from last week to just fade into obscurity.\n\nThank you! This should have made a much, much bigger impact and it shouldn't disappear into the Trump news hole. Durham's investigation did exactly what Trumpians claimed the Russia investigation did -- while proving the Russia investigation didn't do those things! After an investigation that went on twice as long as the Russia investigation! And it found evidence of ADDITIONAL TRUMP FINANCIAL CRIMES! And Barr lied about the Durham investigation constantly! \nThis shouldn't have left the front page for weeks.",
">\n\n\nSorry, but even in this age of goldfish-brain news cycles, we cannot allow a certain development from last week to just fade into obscurity.\n\nIf Trump says Russia three times fast, 1/6 of the country will decide Trump is the real victim in this. \"Russia, Russia, Russia,\" Trump will say every time he mentions it, and his sycophants will nod and send him money.",
">\n\nAnd if Trump says Russia three times fast, 3/6 of the left will take that as confirmation, that trump was a sleeper agent for the Kremlin the whole time",
">\n\nI mean, just yesterday Trump publicly said he still believes Putin over the reports of the entire US intelligence apparatus. I don't think \"sleeper agent\" is the right description for someone who openly and actively promoted Russian interests over those of the United States.",
">\n\n\nI don't think \"sleeper agent\" is the right description for someone who openly and actively promoted Russian interests over those of the United States.\n\nLOL Kremlin \"screamer agent\" donald j trump.",
">\n\nThis isn't like a lot of Trump-news-Fatigue stories. \nIt's objectively much worse, the Attorney General (head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government), and his hand-picked hard-nosed prosecutor, John Durham mis-represented their investigation of the 2016 Russia investigation to the American Public... and then actively gave cover for Trump in the 2020 campaign to claim he was being persecuted.\n\nBy the summer of 2020, it was clear Durham's [investigation into the investigators of the 2016 Russian election interference and secret Trump support] had failed, and the Justice Department inspector general published a report that found no evidence the FBI was politically motivated in 2016. But Trump was absolutely losing it on Fox News, floating that Obama and Biden would be indicted for their offenses against him—\"the single biggest political crime in the history of our country\"—and the only way they wouldn't be was if his two pet prosecutors, Barr and Durham, decided to be \"politically correct.\" (God forbid!) Enter the Times:\nAgainst that backdrop, Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham did not shut down their inquiry when the search for intelligence abuses hit a dead end. With the inspector general’s inquiry complete, they turned to a new rationale: a hunt for a basis to accuse the Clinton campaign of conspiring to defraud the government by manufacturing the suspicions that the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia, along with scrutinizing what the F.B.I. and intelligence officials knew about the Clinton campaign’s actions.\nSo having failed to produce the goods in time to give Trump some political ammunition for the 2020 election, they just kept the investigation going with an entirely new focus? \nThey came up with nothing, so they started to work the name \"Clinton\" in there? How is that even the same investigation? It isn't, except for one crucial respect: It continued as a vehicle for Trump's shadowy accusations against his political opponents. As long as the investigation was \"ongoing,\" he had extra salt on his claims that anyone caught up in it was disgustingly corrupt.\nIn this respect, it's a lot like the Ukraine extortion that got Trump impeached the first time: He just wanted Zelenskyy to announce Ukraine was opening an investigation into the Bidens. The subtext, of course, was that Trump would do the rest.",
">\n\nYea, in the realm of our news i think this shit might on to something. I think we gotta start lookin hard into these timelines and all involved. \nwhat im interested in is the possible connections that NY fbi agent and this story has as the dude has been fingered as a potential leaker in said office in relation to clintons emails and comey in oct16 and the times article referenced durham was using shit russian intel. \nfollowing that trail it leads to deripaska and derkach, the former funded the fbi agent, the latter has been used by OAN to push the biden/bruisma narrative. Grassley and Johnson were close to subpoenaing derkach but dropped the investigation in sept20, they were also chastised for using bad russian intel. both are tied to manafort ghuliani et al.\nYea something fishy here. Especially with this story following the heels of the FBI agent arrest.",
">\n\nBurisma! No! They will not let it go",
">\n\nthey sure wont, that evolved into the laptop and its current iteration is \"twitter files\" screaming about a data scrapper and then circles back to a book from a guy goin on bout hunter/china. yea its that discombobulated",
">\n\nThe theory of Right-wing Projection is now established law.",
">\n\nIt's almost like he was projecting.",
">\n\nI think the biggest mistake everyone made was not realizing from the minute he came down that gaudy, trashy, gold escalator that literally everything that came out of his mouth was projection. He gave a roadmap to his lies and to his plans but we didn't realize he was literally telling us the truth.",
">\n\nI mean, I and tens of millions of other Americans realized on day 1.",
">\n\nNo, I really don't think that's accurate. 10s of millions of people already knew he was a liar, and probably broke, and insane, but it took a while before \"it's projection\" became the main response to anything he said and that literally every single thing he said was about him and the gop.\nEverything from \"Mexico isn't sending their best\" to \"Stolen election\" was about him.",
">\n\nIt is accurate though. The sky really fell for us the day he won, and we were all utterly and completely vindicated in the end. Sorry it took you a while to catch up. The good news for you: being right from the start ultimately ended up meaning nothing.",
">\n\n\nSorry it took you a while to catch up.\n\nAll I'm going to tell you is, never assume you know who you're talking to on the internet. 😂",
">\n\nthe whole investigations into biden is a witch hunt too.",
">\n\nEvery accusation is a confession.",
">\n\nNarcissists will often tell you exactly what they are doing by projecting it on to others.",
">\n\nIf Gym Jordan’s special committee on the weaponization of the DOJ is indeed righteous then the Durham investigation will be on the table for scrutiny. If not, well…",
">\n\nyep. we all watched it happen.",
">\n\nThis shouldn't have left the front page for weeks.",
">\n\nI think it’s long been known that any time a Republican is screaming about something being done to them, they are just numbing the public to an eventual revelation that they themselves were doing the same to someone else.",
">\n\nTrump was 100% colluding at some level with Russia. Barr knew it, Mueller knew it. Barr quickly squirreled away the Mueller Rpt to make sure none of it ever saw the light of day. At same time he launched this bogus witch hunt hoping to throw shade on someone, anyone and divert attention away from Trump.",
">\n\nIt's a good thing the house is going to do investigation in to weaponization of the DOJ I'm sure they'll get to the bottom of it.",
">\n\nwonder how long till they start using the \"just two more weeks\" bit.",
">\n\nIn two weeks."
] |
>
Shocking absolutely no one. Just because he's a self agrandizing sociopath doesn't mean he can't also be a traitor. | [
"Sorry, but even in this age of goldfish-brain news cycles, we cannot allow a certain development from last week to just fade into obscurity.\n\nThank you! This should have made a much, much bigger impact and it shouldn't disappear into the Trump news hole. Durham's investigation did exactly what Trumpians claimed the Russia investigation did -- while proving the Russia investigation didn't do those things! After an investigation that went on twice as long as the Russia investigation! And it found evidence of ADDITIONAL TRUMP FINANCIAL CRIMES! And Barr lied about the Durham investigation constantly! \nThis shouldn't have left the front page for weeks.",
">\n\n\nSorry, but even in this age of goldfish-brain news cycles, we cannot allow a certain development from last week to just fade into obscurity.\n\nIf Trump says Russia three times fast, 1/6 of the country will decide Trump is the real victim in this. \"Russia, Russia, Russia,\" Trump will say every time he mentions it, and his sycophants will nod and send him money.",
">\n\nAnd if Trump says Russia three times fast, 3/6 of the left will take that as confirmation, that trump was a sleeper agent for the Kremlin the whole time",
">\n\nI mean, just yesterday Trump publicly said he still believes Putin over the reports of the entire US intelligence apparatus. I don't think \"sleeper agent\" is the right description for someone who openly and actively promoted Russian interests over those of the United States.",
">\n\n\nI don't think \"sleeper agent\" is the right description for someone who openly and actively promoted Russian interests over those of the United States.\n\nLOL Kremlin \"screamer agent\" donald j trump.",
">\n\nThis isn't like a lot of Trump-news-Fatigue stories. \nIt's objectively much worse, the Attorney General (head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government), and his hand-picked hard-nosed prosecutor, John Durham mis-represented their investigation of the 2016 Russia investigation to the American Public... and then actively gave cover for Trump in the 2020 campaign to claim he was being persecuted.\n\nBy the summer of 2020, it was clear Durham's [investigation into the investigators of the 2016 Russian election interference and secret Trump support] had failed, and the Justice Department inspector general published a report that found no evidence the FBI was politically motivated in 2016. But Trump was absolutely losing it on Fox News, floating that Obama and Biden would be indicted for their offenses against him—\"the single biggest political crime in the history of our country\"—and the only way they wouldn't be was if his two pet prosecutors, Barr and Durham, decided to be \"politically correct.\" (God forbid!) Enter the Times:\nAgainst that backdrop, Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham did not shut down their inquiry when the search for intelligence abuses hit a dead end. With the inspector general’s inquiry complete, they turned to a new rationale: a hunt for a basis to accuse the Clinton campaign of conspiring to defraud the government by manufacturing the suspicions that the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia, along with scrutinizing what the F.B.I. and intelligence officials knew about the Clinton campaign’s actions.\nSo having failed to produce the goods in time to give Trump some political ammunition for the 2020 election, they just kept the investigation going with an entirely new focus? \nThey came up with nothing, so they started to work the name \"Clinton\" in there? How is that even the same investigation? It isn't, except for one crucial respect: It continued as a vehicle for Trump's shadowy accusations against his political opponents. As long as the investigation was \"ongoing,\" he had extra salt on his claims that anyone caught up in it was disgustingly corrupt.\nIn this respect, it's a lot like the Ukraine extortion that got Trump impeached the first time: He just wanted Zelenskyy to announce Ukraine was opening an investigation into the Bidens. The subtext, of course, was that Trump would do the rest.",
">\n\nYea, in the realm of our news i think this shit might on to something. I think we gotta start lookin hard into these timelines and all involved. \nwhat im interested in is the possible connections that NY fbi agent and this story has as the dude has been fingered as a potential leaker in said office in relation to clintons emails and comey in oct16 and the times article referenced durham was using shit russian intel. \nfollowing that trail it leads to deripaska and derkach, the former funded the fbi agent, the latter has been used by OAN to push the biden/bruisma narrative. Grassley and Johnson were close to subpoenaing derkach but dropped the investigation in sept20, they were also chastised for using bad russian intel. both are tied to manafort ghuliani et al.\nYea something fishy here. Especially with this story following the heels of the FBI agent arrest.",
">\n\nBurisma! No! They will not let it go",
">\n\nthey sure wont, that evolved into the laptop and its current iteration is \"twitter files\" screaming about a data scrapper and then circles back to a book from a guy goin on bout hunter/china. yea its that discombobulated",
">\n\nThe theory of Right-wing Projection is now established law.",
">\n\nIt's almost like he was projecting.",
">\n\nI think the biggest mistake everyone made was not realizing from the minute he came down that gaudy, trashy, gold escalator that literally everything that came out of his mouth was projection. He gave a roadmap to his lies and to his plans but we didn't realize he was literally telling us the truth.",
">\n\nI mean, I and tens of millions of other Americans realized on day 1.",
">\n\nNo, I really don't think that's accurate. 10s of millions of people already knew he was a liar, and probably broke, and insane, but it took a while before \"it's projection\" became the main response to anything he said and that literally every single thing he said was about him and the gop.\nEverything from \"Mexico isn't sending their best\" to \"Stolen election\" was about him.",
">\n\nIt is accurate though. The sky really fell for us the day he won, and we were all utterly and completely vindicated in the end. Sorry it took you a while to catch up. The good news for you: being right from the start ultimately ended up meaning nothing.",
">\n\n\nSorry it took you a while to catch up.\n\nAll I'm going to tell you is, never assume you know who you're talking to on the internet. 😂",
">\n\nthe whole investigations into biden is a witch hunt too.",
">\n\nEvery accusation is a confession.",
">\n\nNarcissists will often tell you exactly what they are doing by projecting it on to others.",
">\n\nIf Gym Jordan’s special committee on the weaponization of the DOJ is indeed righteous then the Durham investigation will be on the table for scrutiny. If not, well…",
">\n\nyep. we all watched it happen.",
">\n\nThis shouldn't have left the front page for weeks.",
">\n\nI think it’s long been known that any time a Republican is screaming about something being done to them, they are just numbing the public to an eventual revelation that they themselves were doing the same to someone else.",
">\n\nTrump was 100% colluding at some level with Russia. Barr knew it, Mueller knew it. Barr quickly squirreled away the Mueller Rpt to make sure none of it ever saw the light of day. At same time he launched this bogus witch hunt hoping to throw shade on someone, anyone and divert attention away from Trump.",
">\n\nIt's a good thing the house is going to do investigation in to weaponization of the DOJ I'm sure they'll get to the bottom of it.",
">\n\nwonder how long till they start using the \"just two more weeks\" bit.",
">\n\nIn two weeks.",
">\n\nMuch to nobody's suprise."
] |
>
Remember that when it comes to the GOP, every accusation is a confession | [
"Sorry, but even in this age of goldfish-brain news cycles, we cannot allow a certain development from last week to just fade into obscurity.\n\nThank you! This should have made a much, much bigger impact and it shouldn't disappear into the Trump news hole. Durham's investigation did exactly what Trumpians claimed the Russia investigation did -- while proving the Russia investigation didn't do those things! After an investigation that went on twice as long as the Russia investigation! And it found evidence of ADDITIONAL TRUMP FINANCIAL CRIMES! And Barr lied about the Durham investigation constantly! \nThis shouldn't have left the front page for weeks.",
">\n\n\nSorry, but even in this age of goldfish-brain news cycles, we cannot allow a certain development from last week to just fade into obscurity.\n\nIf Trump says Russia three times fast, 1/6 of the country will decide Trump is the real victim in this. \"Russia, Russia, Russia,\" Trump will say every time he mentions it, and his sycophants will nod and send him money.",
">\n\nAnd if Trump says Russia three times fast, 3/6 of the left will take that as confirmation, that trump was a sleeper agent for the Kremlin the whole time",
">\n\nI mean, just yesterday Trump publicly said he still believes Putin over the reports of the entire US intelligence apparatus. I don't think \"sleeper agent\" is the right description for someone who openly and actively promoted Russian interests over those of the United States.",
">\n\n\nI don't think \"sleeper agent\" is the right description for someone who openly and actively promoted Russian interests over those of the United States.\n\nLOL Kremlin \"screamer agent\" donald j trump.",
">\n\nThis isn't like a lot of Trump-news-Fatigue stories. \nIt's objectively much worse, the Attorney General (head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government), and his hand-picked hard-nosed prosecutor, John Durham mis-represented their investigation of the 2016 Russia investigation to the American Public... and then actively gave cover for Trump in the 2020 campaign to claim he was being persecuted.\n\nBy the summer of 2020, it was clear Durham's [investigation into the investigators of the 2016 Russian election interference and secret Trump support] had failed, and the Justice Department inspector general published a report that found no evidence the FBI was politically motivated in 2016. But Trump was absolutely losing it on Fox News, floating that Obama and Biden would be indicted for their offenses against him—\"the single biggest political crime in the history of our country\"—and the only way they wouldn't be was if his two pet prosecutors, Barr and Durham, decided to be \"politically correct.\" (God forbid!) Enter the Times:\nAgainst that backdrop, Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham did not shut down their inquiry when the search for intelligence abuses hit a dead end. With the inspector general’s inquiry complete, they turned to a new rationale: a hunt for a basis to accuse the Clinton campaign of conspiring to defraud the government by manufacturing the suspicions that the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia, along with scrutinizing what the F.B.I. and intelligence officials knew about the Clinton campaign’s actions.\nSo having failed to produce the goods in time to give Trump some political ammunition for the 2020 election, they just kept the investigation going with an entirely new focus? \nThey came up with nothing, so they started to work the name \"Clinton\" in there? How is that even the same investigation? It isn't, except for one crucial respect: It continued as a vehicle for Trump's shadowy accusations against his political opponents. As long as the investigation was \"ongoing,\" he had extra salt on his claims that anyone caught up in it was disgustingly corrupt.\nIn this respect, it's a lot like the Ukraine extortion that got Trump impeached the first time: He just wanted Zelenskyy to announce Ukraine was opening an investigation into the Bidens. The subtext, of course, was that Trump would do the rest.",
">\n\nYea, in the realm of our news i think this shit might on to something. I think we gotta start lookin hard into these timelines and all involved. \nwhat im interested in is the possible connections that NY fbi agent and this story has as the dude has been fingered as a potential leaker in said office in relation to clintons emails and comey in oct16 and the times article referenced durham was using shit russian intel. \nfollowing that trail it leads to deripaska and derkach, the former funded the fbi agent, the latter has been used by OAN to push the biden/bruisma narrative. Grassley and Johnson were close to subpoenaing derkach but dropped the investigation in sept20, they were also chastised for using bad russian intel. both are tied to manafort ghuliani et al.\nYea something fishy here. Especially with this story following the heels of the FBI agent arrest.",
">\n\nBurisma! No! They will not let it go",
">\n\nthey sure wont, that evolved into the laptop and its current iteration is \"twitter files\" screaming about a data scrapper and then circles back to a book from a guy goin on bout hunter/china. yea its that discombobulated",
">\n\nThe theory of Right-wing Projection is now established law.",
">\n\nIt's almost like he was projecting.",
">\n\nI think the biggest mistake everyone made was not realizing from the minute he came down that gaudy, trashy, gold escalator that literally everything that came out of his mouth was projection. He gave a roadmap to his lies and to his plans but we didn't realize he was literally telling us the truth.",
">\n\nI mean, I and tens of millions of other Americans realized on day 1.",
">\n\nNo, I really don't think that's accurate. 10s of millions of people already knew he was a liar, and probably broke, and insane, but it took a while before \"it's projection\" became the main response to anything he said and that literally every single thing he said was about him and the gop.\nEverything from \"Mexico isn't sending their best\" to \"Stolen election\" was about him.",
">\n\nIt is accurate though. The sky really fell for us the day he won, and we were all utterly and completely vindicated in the end. Sorry it took you a while to catch up. The good news for you: being right from the start ultimately ended up meaning nothing.",
">\n\n\nSorry it took you a while to catch up.\n\nAll I'm going to tell you is, never assume you know who you're talking to on the internet. 😂",
">\n\nthe whole investigations into biden is a witch hunt too.",
">\n\nEvery accusation is a confession.",
">\n\nNarcissists will often tell you exactly what they are doing by projecting it on to others.",
">\n\nIf Gym Jordan’s special committee on the weaponization of the DOJ is indeed righteous then the Durham investigation will be on the table for scrutiny. If not, well…",
">\n\nyep. we all watched it happen.",
">\n\nThis shouldn't have left the front page for weeks.",
">\n\nI think it’s long been known that any time a Republican is screaming about something being done to them, they are just numbing the public to an eventual revelation that they themselves were doing the same to someone else.",
">\n\nTrump was 100% colluding at some level with Russia. Barr knew it, Mueller knew it. Barr quickly squirreled away the Mueller Rpt to make sure none of it ever saw the light of day. At same time he launched this bogus witch hunt hoping to throw shade on someone, anyone and divert attention away from Trump.",
">\n\nIt's a good thing the house is going to do investigation in to weaponization of the DOJ I'm sure they'll get to the bottom of it.",
">\n\nwonder how long till they start using the \"just two more weeks\" bit.",
">\n\nIn two weeks.",
">\n\nMuch to nobody's suprise.",
">\n\nShocking absolutely no one. Just because he's a self agrandizing sociopath doesn't mean he can't also be a traitor."
] |
>
Biden's Justice Department Goons oversaw and actual Witch Hunt while he screamed one with Hunter being tied to the Big Man and money laundering. It's a glorious thing. | [
"Sorry, but even in this age of goldfish-brain news cycles, we cannot allow a certain development from last week to just fade into obscurity.\n\nThank you! This should have made a much, much bigger impact and it shouldn't disappear into the Trump news hole. Durham's investigation did exactly what Trumpians claimed the Russia investigation did -- while proving the Russia investigation didn't do those things! After an investigation that went on twice as long as the Russia investigation! And it found evidence of ADDITIONAL TRUMP FINANCIAL CRIMES! And Barr lied about the Durham investigation constantly! \nThis shouldn't have left the front page for weeks.",
">\n\n\nSorry, but even in this age of goldfish-brain news cycles, we cannot allow a certain development from last week to just fade into obscurity.\n\nIf Trump says Russia three times fast, 1/6 of the country will decide Trump is the real victim in this. \"Russia, Russia, Russia,\" Trump will say every time he mentions it, and his sycophants will nod and send him money.",
">\n\nAnd if Trump says Russia three times fast, 3/6 of the left will take that as confirmation, that trump was a sleeper agent for the Kremlin the whole time",
">\n\nI mean, just yesterday Trump publicly said he still believes Putin over the reports of the entire US intelligence apparatus. I don't think \"sleeper agent\" is the right description for someone who openly and actively promoted Russian interests over those of the United States.",
">\n\n\nI don't think \"sleeper agent\" is the right description for someone who openly and actively promoted Russian interests over those of the United States.\n\nLOL Kremlin \"screamer agent\" donald j trump.",
">\n\nThis isn't like a lot of Trump-news-Fatigue stories. \nIt's objectively much worse, the Attorney General (head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government), and his hand-picked hard-nosed prosecutor, John Durham mis-represented their investigation of the 2016 Russia investigation to the American Public... and then actively gave cover for Trump in the 2020 campaign to claim he was being persecuted.\n\nBy the summer of 2020, it was clear Durham's [investigation into the investigators of the 2016 Russian election interference and secret Trump support] had failed, and the Justice Department inspector general published a report that found no evidence the FBI was politically motivated in 2016. But Trump was absolutely losing it on Fox News, floating that Obama and Biden would be indicted for their offenses against him—\"the single biggest political crime in the history of our country\"—and the only way they wouldn't be was if his two pet prosecutors, Barr and Durham, decided to be \"politically correct.\" (God forbid!) Enter the Times:\nAgainst that backdrop, Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham did not shut down their inquiry when the search for intelligence abuses hit a dead end. With the inspector general’s inquiry complete, they turned to a new rationale: a hunt for a basis to accuse the Clinton campaign of conspiring to defraud the government by manufacturing the suspicions that the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia, along with scrutinizing what the F.B.I. and intelligence officials knew about the Clinton campaign’s actions.\nSo having failed to produce the goods in time to give Trump some political ammunition for the 2020 election, they just kept the investigation going with an entirely new focus? \nThey came up with nothing, so they started to work the name \"Clinton\" in there? How is that even the same investigation? It isn't, except for one crucial respect: It continued as a vehicle for Trump's shadowy accusations against his political opponents. As long as the investigation was \"ongoing,\" he had extra salt on his claims that anyone caught up in it was disgustingly corrupt.\nIn this respect, it's a lot like the Ukraine extortion that got Trump impeached the first time: He just wanted Zelenskyy to announce Ukraine was opening an investigation into the Bidens. The subtext, of course, was that Trump would do the rest.",
">\n\nYea, in the realm of our news i think this shit might on to something. I think we gotta start lookin hard into these timelines and all involved. \nwhat im interested in is the possible connections that NY fbi agent and this story has as the dude has been fingered as a potential leaker in said office in relation to clintons emails and comey in oct16 and the times article referenced durham was using shit russian intel. \nfollowing that trail it leads to deripaska and derkach, the former funded the fbi agent, the latter has been used by OAN to push the biden/bruisma narrative. Grassley and Johnson were close to subpoenaing derkach but dropped the investigation in sept20, they were also chastised for using bad russian intel. both are tied to manafort ghuliani et al.\nYea something fishy here. Especially with this story following the heels of the FBI agent arrest.",
">\n\nBurisma! No! They will not let it go",
">\n\nthey sure wont, that evolved into the laptop and its current iteration is \"twitter files\" screaming about a data scrapper and then circles back to a book from a guy goin on bout hunter/china. yea its that discombobulated",
">\n\nThe theory of Right-wing Projection is now established law.",
">\n\nIt's almost like he was projecting.",
">\n\nI think the biggest mistake everyone made was not realizing from the minute he came down that gaudy, trashy, gold escalator that literally everything that came out of his mouth was projection. He gave a roadmap to his lies and to his plans but we didn't realize he was literally telling us the truth.",
">\n\nI mean, I and tens of millions of other Americans realized on day 1.",
">\n\nNo, I really don't think that's accurate. 10s of millions of people already knew he was a liar, and probably broke, and insane, but it took a while before \"it's projection\" became the main response to anything he said and that literally every single thing he said was about him and the gop.\nEverything from \"Mexico isn't sending their best\" to \"Stolen election\" was about him.",
">\n\nIt is accurate though. The sky really fell for us the day he won, and we were all utterly and completely vindicated in the end. Sorry it took you a while to catch up. The good news for you: being right from the start ultimately ended up meaning nothing.",
">\n\n\nSorry it took you a while to catch up.\n\nAll I'm going to tell you is, never assume you know who you're talking to on the internet. 😂",
">\n\nthe whole investigations into biden is a witch hunt too.",
">\n\nEvery accusation is a confession.",
">\n\nNarcissists will often tell you exactly what they are doing by projecting it on to others.",
">\n\nIf Gym Jordan’s special committee on the weaponization of the DOJ is indeed righteous then the Durham investigation will be on the table for scrutiny. If not, well…",
">\n\nyep. we all watched it happen.",
">\n\nThis shouldn't have left the front page for weeks.",
">\n\nI think it’s long been known that any time a Republican is screaming about something being done to them, they are just numbing the public to an eventual revelation that they themselves were doing the same to someone else.",
">\n\nTrump was 100% colluding at some level with Russia. Barr knew it, Mueller knew it. Barr quickly squirreled away the Mueller Rpt to make sure none of it ever saw the light of day. At same time he launched this bogus witch hunt hoping to throw shade on someone, anyone and divert attention away from Trump.",
">\n\nIt's a good thing the house is going to do investigation in to weaponization of the DOJ I'm sure they'll get to the bottom of it.",
">\n\nwonder how long till they start using the \"just two more weeks\" bit.",
">\n\nIn two weeks.",
">\n\nMuch to nobody's suprise.",
">\n\nShocking absolutely no one. Just because he's a self agrandizing sociopath doesn't mean he can't also be a traitor.",
">\n\nRemember that when it comes to the GOP, every accusation is a confession"
] |
>
It’s not an “ACTUAL WITCH HUNT” unless you’re hunting literal witches. | [
"Sorry, but even in this age of goldfish-brain news cycles, we cannot allow a certain development from last week to just fade into obscurity.\n\nThank you! This should have made a much, much bigger impact and it shouldn't disappear into the Trump news hole. Durham's investigation did exactly what Trumpians claimed the Russia investigation did -- while proving the Russia investigation didn't do those things! After an investigation that went on twice as long as the Russia investigation! And it found evidence of ADDITIONAL TRUMP FINANCIAL CRIMES! And Barr lied about the Durham investigation constantly! \nThis shouldn't have left the front page for weeks.",
">\n\n\nSorry, but even in this age of goldfish-brain news cycles, we cannot allow a certain development from last week to just fade into obscurity.\n\nIf Trump says Russia three times fast, 1/6 of the country will decide Trump is the real victim in this. \"Russia, Russia, Russia,\" Trump will say every time he mentions it, and his sycophants will nod and send him money.",
">\n\nAnd if Trump says Russia three times fast, 3/6 of the left will take that as confirmation, that trump was a sleeper agent for the Kremlin the whole time",
">\n\nI mean, just yesterday Trump publicly said he still believes Putin over the reports of the entire US intelligence apparatus. I don't think \"sleeper agent\" is the right description for someone who openly and actively promoted Russian interests over those of the United States.",
">\n\n\nI don't think \"sleeper agent\" is the right description for someone who openly and actively promoted Russian interests over those of the United States.\n\nLOL Kremlin \"screamer agent\" donald j trump.",
">\n\nThis isn't like a lot of Trump-news-Fatigue stories. \nIt's objectively much worse, the Attorney General (head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government), and his hand-picked hard-nosed prosecutor, John Durham mis-represented their investigation of the 2016 Russia investigation to the American Public... and then actively gave cover for Trump in the 2020 campaign to claim he was being persecuted.\n\nBy the summer of 2020, it was clear Durham's [investigation into the investigators of the 2016 Russian election interference and secret Trump support] had failed, and the Justice Department inspector general published a report that found no evidence the FBI was politically motivated in 2016. But Trump was absolutely losing it on Fox News, floating that Obama and Biden would be indicted for their offenses against him—\"the single biggest political crime in the history of our country\"—and the only way they wouldn't be was if his two pet prosecutors, Barr and Durham, decided to be \"politically correct.\" (God forbid!) Enter the Times:\nAgainst that backdrop, Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham did not shut down their inquiry when the search for intelligence abuses hit a dead end. With the inspector general’s inquiry complete, they turned to a new rationale: a hunt for a basis to accuse the Clinton campaign of conspiring to defraud the government by manufacturing the suspicions that the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia, along with scrutinizing what the F.B.I. and intelligence officials knew about the Clinton campaign’s actions.\nSo having failed to produce the goods in time to give Trump some political ammunition for the 2020 election, they just kept the investigation going with an entirely new focus? \nThey came up with nothing, so they started to work the name \"Clinton\" in there? How is that even the same investigation? It isn't, except for one crucial respect: It continued as a vehicle for Trump's shadowy accusations against his political opponents. As long as the investigation was \"ongoing,\" he had extra salt on his claims that anyone caught up in it was disgustingly corrupt.\nIn this respect, it's a lot like the Ukraine extortion that got Trump impeached the first time: He just wanted Zelenskyy to announce Ukraine was opening an investigation into the Bidens. The subtext, of course, was that Trump would do the rest.",
">\n\nYea, in the realm of our news i think this shit might on to something. I think we gotta start lookin hard into these timelines and all involved. \nwhat im interested in is the possible connections that NY fbi agent and this story has as the dude has been fingered as a potential leaker in said office in relation to clintons emails and comey in oct16 and the times article referenced durham was using shit russian intel. \nfollowing that trail it leads to deripaska and derkach, the former funded the fbi agent, the latter has been used by OAN to push the biden/bruisma narrative. Grassley and Johnson were close to subpoenaing derkach but dropped the investigation in sept20, they were also chastised for using bad russian intel. both are tied to manafort ghuliani et al.\nYea something fishy here. Especially with this story following the heels of the FBI agent arrest.",
">\n\nBurisma! No! They will not let it go",
">\n\nthey sure wont, that evolved into the laptop and its current iteration is \"twitter files\" screaming about a data scrapper and then circles back to a book from a guy goin on bout hunter/china. yea its that discombobulated",
">\n\nThe theory of Right-wing Projection is now established law.",
">\n\nIt's almost like he was projecting.",
">\n\nI think the biggest mistake everyone made was not realizing from the minute he came down that gaudy, trashy, gold escalator that literally everything that came out of his mouth was projection. He gave a roadmap to his lies and to his plans but we didn't realize he was literally telling us the truth.",
">\n\nI mean, I and tens of millions of other Americans realized on day 1.",
">\n\nNo, I really don't think that's accurate. 10s of millions of people already knew he was a liar, and probably broke, and insane, but it took a while before \"it's projection\" became the main response to anything he said and that literally every single thing he said was about him and the gop.\nEverything from \"Mexico isn't sending their best\" to \"Stolen election\" was about him.",
">\n\nIt is accurate though. The sky really fell for us the day he won, and we were all utterly and completely vindicated in the end. Sorry it took you a while to catch up. The good news for you: being right from the start ultimately ended up meaning nothing.",
">\n\n\nSorry it took you a while to catch up.\n\nAll I'm going to tell you is, never assume you know who you're talking to on the internet. 😂",
">\n\nthe whole investigations into biden is a witch hunt too.",
">\n\nEvery accusation is a confession.",
">\n\nNarcissists will often tell you exactly what they are doing by projecting it on to others.",
">\n\nIf Gym Jordan’s special committee on the weaponization of the DOJ is indeed righteous then the Durham investigation will be on the table for scrutiny. If not, well…",
">\n\nyep. we all watched it happen.",
">\n\nThis shouldn't have left the front page for weeks.",
">\n\nI think it’s long been known that any time a Republican is screaming about something being done to them, they are just numbing the public to an eventual revelation that they themselves were doing the same to someone else.",
">\n\nTrump was 100% colluding at some level with Russia. Barr knew it, Mueller knew it. Barr quickly squirreled away the Mueller Rpt to make sure none of it ever saw the light of day. At same time he launched this bogus witch hunt hoping to throw shade on someone, anyone and divert attention away from Trump.",
">\n\nIt's a good thing the house is going to do investigation in to weaponization of the DOJ I'm sure they'll get to the bottom of it.",
">\n\nwonder how long till they start using the \"just two more weeks\" bit.",
">\n\nIn two weeks.",
">\n\nMuch to nobody's suprise.",
">\n\nShocking absolutely no one. Just because he's a self agrandizing sociopath doesn't mean he can't also be a traitor.",
">\n\nRemember that when it comes to the GOP, every accusation is a confession",
">\n\nBiden's Justice Department Goons oversaw and actual Witch Hunt while he screamed one with Hunter being tied to the Big Man and money laundering. It's a glorious thing."
] |
>
Next time I go for a walk in the woods, I’m going to say I’m going on a witch hunt. | [
"Sorry, but even in this age of goldfish-brain news cycles, we cannot allow a certain development from last week to just fade into obscurity.\n\nThank you! This should have made a much, much bigger impact and it shouldn't disappear into the Trump news hole. Durham's investigation did exactly what Trumpians claimed the Russia investigation did -- while proving the Russia investigation didn't do those things! After an investigation that went on twice as long as the Russia investigation! And it found evidence of ADDITIONAL TRUMP FINANCIAL CRIMES! And Barr lied about the Durham investigation constantly! \nThis shouldn't have left the front page for weeks.",
">\n\n\nSorry, but even in this age of goldfish-brain news cycles, we cannot allow a certain development from last week to just fade into obscurity.\n\nIf Trump says Russia three times fast, 1/6 of the country will decide Trump is the real victim in this. \"Russia, Russia, Russia,\" Trump will say every time he mentions it, and his sycophants will nod and send him money.",
">\n\nAnd if Trump says Russia three times fast, 3/6 of the left will take that as confirmation, that trump was a sleeper agent for the Kremlin the whole time",
">\n\nI mean, just yesterday Trump publicly said he still believes Putin over the reports of the entire US intelligence apparatus. I don't think \"sleeper agent\" is the right description for someone who openly and actively promoted Russian interests over those of the United States.",
">\n\n\nI don't think \"sleeper agent\" is the right description for someone who openly and actively promoted Russian interests over those of the United States.\n\nLOL Kremlin \"screamer agent\" donald j trump.",
">\n\nThis isn't like a lot of Trump-news-Fatigue stories. \nIt's objectively much worse, the Attorney General (head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government), and his hand-picked hard-nosed prosecutor, John Durham mis-represented their investigation of the 2016 Russia investigation to the American Public... and then actively gave cover for Trump in the 2020 campaign to claim he was being persecuted.\n\nBy the summer of 2020, it was clear Durham's [investigation into the investigators of the 2016 Russian election interference and secret Trump support] had failed, and the Justice Department inspector general published a report that found no evidence the FBI was politically motivated in 2016. But Trump was absolutely losing it on Fox News, floating that Obama and Biden would be indicted for their offenses against him—\"the single biggest political crime in the history of our country\"—and the only way they wouldn't be was if his two pet prosecutors, Barr and Durham, decided to be \"politically correct.\" (God forbid!) Enter the Times:\nAgainst that backdrop, Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham did not shut down their inquiry when the search for intelligence abuses hit a dead end. With the inspector general’s inquiry complete, they turned to a new rationale: a hunt for a basis to accuse the Clinton campaign of conspiring to defraud the government by manufacturing the suspicions that the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia, along with scrutinizing what the F.B.I. and intelligence officials knew about the Clinton campaign’s actions.\nSo having failed to produce the goods in time to give Trump some political ammunition for the 2020 election, they just kept the investigation going with an entirely new focus? \nThey came up with nothing, so they started to work the name \"Clinton\" in there? How is that even the same investigation? It isn't, except for one crucial respect: It continued as a vehicle for Trump's shadowy accusations against his political opponents. As long as the investigation was \"ongoing,\" he had extra salt on his claims that anyone caught up in it was disgustingly corrupt.\nIn this respect, it's a lot like the Ukraine extortion that got Trump impeached the first time: He just wanted Zelenskyy to announce Ukraine was opening an investigation into the Bidens. The subtext, of course, was that Trump would do the rest.",
">\n\nYea, in the realm of our news i think this shit might on to something. I think we gotta start lookin hard into these timelines and all involved. \nwhat im interested in is the possible connections that NY fbi agent and this story has as the dude has been fingered as a potential leaker in said office in relation to clintons emails and comey in oct16 and the times article referenced durham was using shit russian intel. \nfollowing that trail it leads to deripaska and derkach, the former funded the fbi agent, the latter has been used by OAN to push the biden/bruisma narrative. Grassley and Johnson were close to subpoenaing derkach but dropped the investigation in sept20, they were also chastised for using bad russian intel. both are tied to manafort ghuliani et al.\nYea something fishy here. Especially with this story following the heels of the FBI agent arrest.",
">\n\nBurisma! No! They will not let it go",
">\n\nthey sure wont, that evolved into the laptop and its current iteration is \"twitter files\" screaming about a data scrapper and then circles back to a book from a guy goin on bout hunter/china. yea its that discombobulated",
">\n\nThe theory of Right-wing Projection is now established law.",
">\n\nIt's almost like he was projecting.",
">\n\nI think the biggest mistake everyone made was not realizing from the minute he came down that gaudy, trashy, gold escalator that literally everything that came out of his mouth was projection. He gave a roadmap to his lies and to his plans but we didn't realize he was literally telling us the truth.",
">\n\nI mean, I and tens of millions of other Americans realized on day 1.",
">\n\nNo, I really don't think that's accurate. 10s of millions of people already knew he was a liar, and probably broke, and insane, but it took a while before \"it's projection\" became the main response to anything he said and that literally every single thing he said was about him and the gop.\nEverything from \"Mexico isn't sending their best\" to \"Stolen election\" was about him.",
">\n\nIt is accurate though. The sky really fell for us the day he won, and we were all utterly and completely vindicated in the end. Sorry it took you a while to catch up. The good news for you: being right from the start ultimately ended up meaning nothing.",
">\n\n\nSorry it took you a while to catch up.\n\nAll I'm going to tell you is, never assume you know who you're talking to on the internet. 😂",
">\n\nthe whole investigations into biden is a witch hunt too.",
">\n\nEvery accusation is a confession.",
">\n\nNarcissists will often tell you exactly what they are doing by projecting it on to others.",
">\n\nIf Gym Jordan’s special committee on the weaponization of the DOJ is indeed righteous then the Durham investigation will be on the table for scrutiny. If not, well…",
">\n\nyep. we all watched it happen.",
">\n\nThis shouldn't have left the front page for weeks.",
">\n\nI think it’s long been known that any time a Republican is screaming about something being done to them, they are just numbing the public to an eventual revelation that they themselves were doing the same to someone else.",
">\n\nTrump was 100% colluding at some level with Russia. Barr knew it, Mueller knew it. Barr quickly squirreled away the Mueller Rpt to make sure none of it ever saw the light of day. At same time he launched this bogus witch hunt hoping to throw shade on someone, anyone and divert attention away from Trump.",
">\n\nIt's a good thing the house is going to do investigation in to weaponization of the DOJ I'm sure they'll get to the bottom of it.",
">\n\nwonder how long till they start using the \"just two more weeks\" bit.",
">\n\nIn two weeks.",
">\n\nMuch to nobody's suprise.",
">\n\nShocking absolutely no one. Just because he's a self agrandizing sociopath doesn't mean he can't also be a traitor.",
">\n\nRemember that when it comes to the GOP, every accusation is a confession",
">\n\nBiden's Justice Department Goons oversaw and actual Witch Hunt while he screamed one with Hunter being tied to the Big Man and money laundering. It's a glorious thing.",
">\n\nIt’s not an “ACTUAL WITCH HUNT” unless you’re hunting literal witches."
] |
>
Really misleading headline. No witches. Boring!!
Ha, when my daughter was 4 and Shrek was popular, I asked her if she wanted to see a video of the Monkees playing im a believer. Pulled it up on you tube and she got angry. Stormed off with "wah! Those aren't monkeys! Boring!!"
I did not intend to mislead her, but do acknowledge my role there. | [
"Sorry, but even in this age of goldfish-brain news cycles, we cannot allow a certain development from last week to just fade into obscurity.\n\nThank you! This should have made a much, much bigger impact and it shouldn't disappear into the Trump news hole. Durham's investigation did exactly what Trumpians claimed the Russia investigation did -- while proving the Russia investigation didn't do those things! After an investigation that went on twice as long as the Russia investigation! And it found evidence of ADDITIONAL TRUMP FINANCIAL CRIMES! And Barr lied about the Durham investigation constantly! \nThis shouldn't have left the front page for weeks.",
">\n\n\nSorry, but even in this age of goldfish-brain news cycles, we cannot allow a certain development from last week to just fade into obscurity.\n\nIf Trump says Russia three times fast, 1/6 of the country will decide Trump is the real victim in this. \"Russia, Russia, Russia,\" Trump will say every time he mentions it, and his sycophants will nod and send him money.",
">\n\nAnd if Trump says Russia three times fast, 3/6 of the left will take that as confirmation, that trump was a sleeper agent for the Kremlin the whole time",
">\n\nI mean, just yesterday Trump publicly said he still believes Putin over the reports of the entire US intelligence apparatus. I don't think \"sleeper agent\" is the right description for someone who openly and actively promoted Russian interests over those of the United States.",
">\n\n\nI don't think \"sleeper agent\" is the right description for someone who openly and actively promoted Russian interests over those of the United States.\n\nLOL Kremlin \"screamer agent\" donald j trump.",
">\n\nThis isn't like a lot of Trump-news-Fatigue stories. \nIt's objectively much worse, the Attorney General (head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government), and his hand-picked hard-nosed prosecutor, John Durham mis-represented their investigation of the 2016 Russia investigation to the American Public... and then actively gave cover for Trump in the 2020 campaign to claim he was being persecuted.\n\nBy the summer of 2020, it was clear Durham's [investigation into the investigators of the 2016 Russian election interference and secret Trump support] had failed, and the Justice Department inspector general published a report that found no evidence the FBI was politically motivated in 2016. But Trump was absolutely losing it on Fox News, floating that Obama and Biden would be indicted for their offenses against him—\"the single biggest political crime in the history of our country\"—and the only way they wouldn't be was if his two pet prosecutors, Barr and Durham, decided to be \"politically correct.\" (God forbid!) Enter the Times:\nAgainst that backdrop, Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham did not shut down their inquiry when the search for intelligence abuses hit a dead end. With the inspector general’s inquiry complete, they turned to a new rationale: a hunt for a basis to accuse the Clinton campaign of conspiring to defraud the government by manufacturing the suspicions that the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia, along with scrutinizing what the F.B.I. and intelligence officials knew about the Clinton campaign’s actions.\nSo having failed to produce the goods in time to give Trump some political ammunition for the 2020 election, they just kept the investigation going with an entirely new focus? \nThey came up with nothing, so they started to work the name \"Clinton\" in there? How is that even the same investigation? It isn't, except for one crucial respect: It continued as a vehicle for Trump's shadowy accusations against his political opponents. As long as the investigation was \"ongoing,\" he had extra salt on his claims that anyone caught up in it was disgustingly corrupt.\nIn this respect, it's a lot like the Ukraine extortion that got Trump impeached the first time: He just wanted Zelenskyy to announce Ukraine was opening an investigation into the Bidens. The subtext, of course, was that Trump would do the rest.",
">\n\nYea, in the realm of our news i think this shit might on to something. I think we gotta start lookin hard into these timelines and all involved. \nwhat im interested in is the possible connections that NY fbi agent and this story has as the dude has been fingered as a potential leaker in said office in relation to clintons emails and comey in oct16 and the times article referenced durham was using shit russian intel. \nfollowing that trail it leads to deripaska and derkach, the former funded the fbi agent, the latter has been used by OAN to push the biden/bruisma narrative. Grassley and Johnson were close to subpoenaing derkach but dropped the investigation in sept20, they were also chastised for using bad russian intel. both are tied to manafort ghuliani et al.\nYea something fishy here. Especially with this story following the heels of the FBI agent arrest.",
">\n\nBurisma! No! They will not let it go",
">\n\nthey sure wont, that evolved into the laptop and its current iteration is \"twitter files\" screaming about a data scrapper and then circles back to a book from a guy goin on bout hunter/china. yea its that discombobulated",
">\n\nThe theory of Right-wing Projection is now established law.",
">\n\nIt's almost like he was projecting.",
">\n\nI think the biggest mistake everyone made was not realizing from the minute he came down that gaudy, trashy, gold escalator that literally everything that came out of his mouth was projection. He gave a roadmap to his lies and to his plans but we didn't realize he was literally telling us the truth.",
">\n\nI mean, I and tens of millions of other Americans realized on day 1.",
">\n\nNo, I really don't think that's accurate. 10s of millions of people already knew he was a liar, and probably broke, and insane, but it took a while before \"it's projection\" became the main response to anything he said and that literally every single thing he said was about him and the gop.\nEverything from \"Mexico isn't sending their best\" to \"Stolen election\" was about him.",
">\n\nIt is accurate though. The sky really fell for us the day he won, and we were all utterly and completely vindicated in the end. Sorry it took you a while to catch up. The good news for you: being right from the start ultimately ended up meaning nothing.",
">\n\n\nSorry it took you a while to catch up.\n\nAll I'm going to tell you is, never assume you know who you're talking to on the internet. 😂",
">\n\nthe whole investigations into biden is a witch hunt too.",
">\n\nEvery accusation is a confession.",
">\n\nNarcissists will often tell you exactly what they are doing by projecting it on to others.",
">\n\nIf Gym Jordan’s special committee on the weaponization of the DOJ is indeed righteous then the Durham investigation will be on the table for scrutiny. If not, well…",
">\n\nyep. we all watched it happen.",
">\n\nThis shouldn't have left the front page for weeks.",
">\n\nI think it’s long been known that any time a Republican is screaming about something being done to them, they are just numbing the public to an eventual revelation that they themselves were doing the same to someone else.",
">\n\nTrump was 100% colluding at some level with Russia. Barr knew it, Mueller knew it. Barr quickly squirreled away the Mueller Rpt to make sure none of it ever saw the light of day. At same time he launched this bogus witch hunt hoping to throw shade on someone, anyone and divert attention away from Trump.",
">\n\nIt's a good thing the house is going to do investigation in to weaponization of the DOJ I'm sure they'll get to the bottom of it.",
">\n\nwonder how long till they start using the \"just two more weeks\" bit.",
">\n\nIn two weeks.",
">\n\nMuch to nobody's suprise.",
">\n\nShocking absolutely no one. Just because he's a self agrandizing sociopath doesn't mean he can't also be a traitor.",
">\n\nRemember that when it comes to the GOP, every accusation is a confession",
">\n\nBiden's Justice Department Goons oversaw and actual Witch Hunt while he screamed one with Hunter being tied to the Big Man and money laundering. It's a glorious thing.",
">\n\nIt’s not an “ACTUAL WITCH HUNT” unless you’re hunting literal witches.",
">\n\nNext time I go for a walk in the woods, I’m going to say I’m going on a witch hunt."
] |
>
After 20 witch hunts there’s probably a witch… | [
"Sorry, but even in this age of goldfish-brain news cycles, we cannot allow a certain development from last week to just fade into obscurity.\n\nThank you! This should have made a much, much bigger impact and it shouldn't disappear into the Trump news hole. Durham's investigation did exactly what Trumpians claimed the Russia investigation did -- while proving the Russia investigation didn't do those things! After an investigation that went on twice as long as the Russia investigation! And it found evidence of ADDITIONAL TRUMP FINANCIAL CRIMES! And Barr lied about the Durham investigation constantly! \nThis shouldn't have left the front page for weeks.",
">\n\n\nSorry, but even in this age of goldfish-brain news cycles, we cannot allow a certain development from last week to just fade into obscurity.\n\nIf Trump says Russia three times fast, 1/6 of the country will decide Trump is the real victim in this. \"Russia, Russia, Russia,\" Trump will say every time he mentions it, and his sycophants will nod and send him money.",
">\n\nAnd if Trump says Russia three times fast, 3/6 of the left will take that as confirmation, that trump was a sleeper agent for the Kremlin the whole time",
">\n\nI mean, just yesterday Trump publicly said he still believes Putin over the reports of the entire US intelligence apparatus. I don't think \"sleeper agent\" is the right description for someone who openly and actively promoted Russian interests over those of the United States.",
">\n\n\nI don't think \"sleeper agent\" is the right description for someone who openly and actively promoted Russian interests over those of the United States.\n\nLOL Kremlin \"screamer agent\" donald j trump.",
">\n\nThis isn't like a lot of Trump-news-Fatigue stories. \nIt's objectively much worse, the Attorney General (head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government), and his hand-picked hard-nosed prosecutor, John Durham mis-represented their investigation of the 2016 Russia investigation to the American Public... and then actively gave cover for Trump in the 2020 campaign to claim he was being persecuted.\n\nBy the summer of 2020, it was clear Durham's [investigation into the investigators of the 2016 Russian election interference and secret Trump support] had failed, and the Justice Department inspector general published a report that found no evidence the FBI was politically motivated in 2016. But Trump was absolutely losing it on Fox News, floating that Obama and Biden would be indicted for their offenses against him—\"the single biggest political crime in the history of our country\"—and the only way they wouldn't be was if his two pet prosecutors, Barr and Durham, decided to be \"politically correct.\" (God forbid!) Enter the Times:\nAgainst that backdrop, Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham did not shut down their inquiry when the search for intelligence abuses hit a dead end. With the inspector general’s inquiry complete, they turned to a new rationale: a hunt for a basis to accuse the Clinton campaign of conspiring to defraud the government by manufacturing the suspicions that the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia, along with scrutinizing what the F.B.I. and intelligence officials knew about the Clinton campaign’s actions.\nSo having failed to produce the goods in time to give Trump some political ammunition for the 2020 election, they just kept the investigation going with an entirely new focus? \nThey came up with nothing, so they started to work the name \"Clinton\" in there? How is that even the same investigation? It isn't, except for one crucial respect: It continued as a vehicle for Trump's shadowy accusations against his political opponents. As long as the investigation was \"ongoing,\" he had extra salt on his claims that anyone caught up in it was disgustingly corrupt.\nIn this respect, it's a lot like the Ukraine extortion that got Trump impeached the first time: He just wanted Zelenskyy to announce Ukraine was opening an investigation into the Bidens. The subtext, of course, was that Trump would do the rest.",
">\n\nYea, in the realm of our news i think this shit might on to something. I think we gotta start lookin hard into these timelines and all involved. \nwhat im interested in is the possible connections that NY fbi agent and this story has as the dude has been fingered as a potential leaker in said office in relation to clintons emails and comey in oct16 and the times article referenced durham was using shit russian intel. \nfollowing that trail it leads to deripaska and derkach, the former funded the fbi agent, the latter has been used by OAN to push the biden/bruisma narrative. Grassley and Johnson were close to subpoenaing derkach but dropped the investigation in sept20, they were also chastised for using bad russian intel. both are tied to manafort ghuliani et al.\nYea something fishy here. Especially with this story following the heels of the FBI agent arrest.",
">\n\nBurisma! No! They will not let it go",
">\n\nthey sure wont, that evolved into the laptop and its current iteration is \"twitter files\" screaming about a data scrapper and then circles back to a book from a guy goin on bout hunter/china. yea its that discombobulated",
">\n\nThe theory of Right-wing Projection is now established law.",
">\n\nIt's almost like he was projecting.",
">\n\nI think the biggest mistake everyone made was not realizing from the minute he came down that gaudy, trashy, gold escalator that literally everything that came out of his mouth was projection. He gave a roadmap to his lies and to his plans but we didn't realize he was literally telling us the truth.",
">\n\nI mean, I and tens of millions of other Americans realized on day 1.",
">\n\nNo, I really don't think that's accurate. 10s of millions of people already knew he was a liar, and probably broke, and insane, but it took a while before \"it's projection\" became the main response to anything he said and that literally every single thing he said was about him and the gop.\nEverything from \"Mexico isn't sending their best\" to \"Stolen election\" was about him.",
">\n\nIt is accurate though. The sky really fell for us the day he won, and we were all utterly and completely vindicated in the end. Sorry it took you a while to catch up. The good news for you: being right from the start ultimately ended up meaning nothing.",
">\n\n\nSorry it took you a while to catch up.\n\nAll I'm going to tell you is, never assume you know who you're talking to on the internet. 😂",
">\n\nthe whole investigations into biden is a witch hunt too.",
">\n\nEvery accusation is a confession.",
">\n\nNarcissists will often tell you exactly what they are doing by projecting it on to others.",
">\n\nIf Gym Jordan’s special committee on the weaponization of the DOJ is indeed righteous then the Durham investigation will be on the table for scrutiny. If not, well…",
">\n\nyep. we all watched it happen.",
">\n\nThis shouldn't have left the front page for weeks.",
">\n\nI think it’s long been known that any time a Republican is screaming about something being done to them, they are just numbing the public to an eventual revelation that they themselves were doing the same to someone else.",
">\n\nTrump was 100% colluding at some level with Russia. Barr knew it, Mueller knew it. Barr quickly squirreled away the Mueller Rpt to make sure none of it ever saw the light of day. At same time he launched this bogus witch hunt hoping to throw shade on someone, anyone and divert attention away from Trump.",
">\n\nIt's a good thing the house is going to do investigation in to weaponization of the DOJ I'm sure they'll get to the bottom of it.",
">\n\nwonder how long till they start using the \"just two more weeks\" bit.",
">\n\nIn two weeks.",
">\n\nMuch to nobody's suprise.",
">\n\nShocking absolutely no one. Just because he's a self agrandizing sociopath doesn't mean he can't also be a traitor.",
">\n\nRemember that when it comes to the GOP, every accusation is a confession",
">\n\nBiden's Justice Department Goons oversaw and actual Witch Hunt while he screamed one with Hunter being tied to the Big Man and money laundering. It's a glorious thing.",
">\n\nIt’s not an “ACTUAL WITCH HUNT” unless you’re hunting literal witches.",
">\n\nNext time I go for a walk in the woods, I’m going to say I’m going on a witch hunt.",
">\n\nReally misleading headline. No witches. Boring!!\nHa, when my daughter was 4 and Shrek was popular, I asked her if she wanted to see a video of the Monkees playing im a believer. Pulled it up on you tube and she got angry. Stormed off with \"wah! Those aren't monkeys! Boring!!\"\nI did not intend to mislead her, but do acknowledge my role there."
] |
>
It’s a damn shame the DoJ has been completely comprised and Merrick Meuller Barr Garland is just running distraction for Traitor Trump and his seditious Republicans destroying our country with lies. Fuck the DoJ. | [
"Sorry, but even in this age of goldfish-brain news cycles, we cannot allow a certain development from last week to just fade into obscurity.\n\nThank you! This should have made a much, much bigger impact and it shouldn't disappear into the Trump news hole. Durham's investigation did exactly what Trumpians claimed the Russia investigation did -- while proving the Russia investigation didn't do those things! After an investigation that went on twice as long as the Russia investigation! And it found evidence of ADDITIONAL TRUMP FINANCIAL CRIMES! And Barr lied about the Durham investigation constantly! \nThis shouldn't have left the front page for weeks.",
">\n\n\nSorry, but even in this age of goldfish-brain news cycles, we cannot allow a certain development from last week to just fade into obscurity.\n\nIf Trump says Russia three times fast, 1/6 of the country will decide Trump is the real victim in this. \"Russia, Russia, Russia,\" Trump will say every time he mentions it, and his sycophants will nod and send him money.",
">\n\nAnd if Trump says Russia three times fast, 3/6 of the left will take that as confirmation, that trump was a sleeper agent for the Kremlin the whole time",
">\n\nI mean, just yesterday Trump publicly said he still believes Putin over the reports of the entire US intelligence apparatus. I don't think \"sleeper agent\" is the right description for someone who openly and actively promoted Russian interests over those of the United States.",
">\n\n\nI don't think \"sleeper agent\" is the right description for someone who openly and actively promoted Russian interests over those of the United States.\n\nLOL Kremlin \"screamer agent\" donald j trump.",
">\n\nThis isn't like a lot of Trump-news-Fatigue stories. \nIt's objectively much worse, the Attorney General (head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government), and his hand-picked hard-nosed prosecutor, John Durham mis-represented their investigation of the 2016 Russia investigation to the American Public... and then actively gave cover for Trump in the 2020 campaign to claim he was being persecuted.\n\nBy the summer of 2020, it was clear Durham's [investigation into the investigators of the 2016 Russian election interference and secret Trump support] had failed, and the Justice Department inspector general published a report that found no evidence the FBI was politically motivated in 2016. But Trump was absolutely losing it on Fox News, floating that Obama and Biden would be indicted for their offenses against him—\"the single biggest political crime in the history of our country\"—and the only way they wouldn't be was if his two pet prosecutors, Barr and Durham, decided to be \"politically correct.\" (God forbid!) Enter the Times:\nAgainst that backdrop, Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham did not shut down their inquiry when the search for intelligence abuses hit a dead end. With the inspector general’s inquiry complete, they turned to a new rationale: a hunt for a basis to accuse the Clinton campaign of conspiring to defraud the government by manufacturing the suspicions that the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia, along with scrutinizing what the F.B.I. and intelligence officials knew about the Clinton campaign’s actions.\nSo having failed to produce the goods in time to give Trump some political ammunition for the 2020 election, they just kept the investigation going with an entirely new focus? \nThey came up with nothing, so they started to work the name \"Clinton\" in there? How is that even the same investigation? It isn't, except for one crucial respect: It continued as a vehicle for Trump's shadowy accusations against his political opponents. As long as the investigation was \"ongoing,\" he had extra salt on his claims that anyone caught up in it was disgustingly corrupt.\nIn this respect, it's a lot like the Ukraine extortion that got Trump impeached the first time: He just wanted Zelenskyy to announce Ukraine was opening an investigation into the Bidens. The subtext, of course, was that Trump would do the rest.",
">\n\nYea, in the realm of our news i think this shit might on to something. I think we gotta start lookin hard into these timelines and all involved. \nwhat im interested in is the possible connections that NY fbi agent and this story has as the dude has been fingered as a potential leaker in said office in relation to clintons emails and comey in oct16 and the times article referenced durham was using shit russian intel. \nfollowing that trail it leads to deripaska and derkach, the former funded the fbi agent, the latter has been used by OAN to push the biden/bruisma narrative. Grassley and Johnson were close to subpoenaing derkach but dropped the investigation in sept20, they were also chastised for using bad russian intel. both are tied to manafort ghuliani et al.\nYea something fishy here. Especially with this story following the heels of the FBI agent arrest.",
">\n\nBurisma! No! They will not let it go",
">\n\nthey sure wont, that evolved into the laptop and its current iteration is \"twitter files\" screaming about a data scrapper and then circles back to a book from a guy goin on bout hunter/china. yea its that discombobulated",
">\n\nThe theory of Right-wing Projection is now established law.",
">\n\nIt's almost like he was projecting.",
">\n\nI think the biggest mistake everyone made was not realizing from the minute he came down that gaudy, trashy, gold escalator that literally everything that came out of his mouth was projection. He gave a roadmap to his lies and to his plans but we didn't realize he was literally telling us the truth.",
">\n\nI mean, I and tens of millions of other Americans realized on day 1.",
">\n\nNo, I really don't think that's accurate. 10s of millions of people already knew he was a liar, and probably broke, and insane, but it took a while before \"it's projection\" became the main response to anything he said and that literally every single thing he said was about him and the gop.\nEverything from \"Mexico isn't sending their best\" to \"Stolen election\" was about him.",
">\n\nIt is accurate though. The sky really fell for us the day he won, and we were all utterly and completely vindicated in the end. Sorry it took you a while to catch up. The good news for you: being right from the start ultimately ended up meaning nothing.",
">\n\n\nSorry it took you a while to catch up.\n\nAll I'm going to tell you is, never assume you know who you're talking to on the internet. 😂",
">\n\nthe whole investigations into biden is a witch hunt too.",
">\n\nEvery accusation is a confession.",
">\n\nNarcissists will often tell you exactly what they are doing by projecting it on to others.",
">\n\nIf Gym Jordan’s special committee on the weaponization of the DOJ is indeed righteous then the Durham investigation will be on the table for scrutiny. If not, well…",
">\n\nyep. we all watched it happen.",
">\n\nThis shouldn't have left the front page for weeks.",
">\n\nI think it’s long been known that any time a Republican is screaming about something being done to them, they are just numbing the public to an eventual revelation that they themselves were doing the same to someone else.",
">\n\nTrump was 100% colluding at some level with Russia. Barr knew it, Mueller knew it. Barr quickly squirreled away the Mueller Rpt to make sure none of it ever saw the light of day. At same time he launched this bogus witch hunt hoping to throw shade on someone, anyone and divert attention away from Trump.",
">\n\nIt's a good thing the house is going to do investigation in to weaponization of the DOJ I'm sure they'll get to the bottom of it.",
">\n\nwonder how long till they start using the \"just two more weeks\" bit.",
">\n\nIn two weeks.",
">\n\nMuch to nobody's suprise.",
">\n\nShocking absolutely no one. Just because he's a self agrandizing sociopath doesn't mean he can't also be a traitor.",
">\n\nRemember that when it comes to the GOP, every accusation is a confession",
">\n\nBiden's Justice Department Goons oversaw and actual Witch Hunt while he screamed one with Hunter being tied to the Big Man and money laundering. It's a glorious thing.",
">\n\nIt’s not an “ACTUAL WITCH HUNT” unless you’re hunting literal witches.",
">\n\nNext time I go for a walk in the woods, I’m going to say I’m going on a witch hunt.",
">\n\nReally misleading headline. No witches. Boring!!\nHa, when my daughter was 4 and Shrek was popular, I asked her if she wanted to see a video of the Monkees playing im a believer. Pulled it up on you tube and she got angry. Stormed off with \"wah! Those aren't monkeys! Boring!!\"\nI did not intend to mislead her, but do acknowledge my role there.",
">\n\nAfter 20 witch hunts there’s probably a witch…"
] |
>
Trump was always the witch. | [
"Sorry, but even in this age of goldfish-brain news cycles, we cannot allow a certain development from last week to just fade into obscurity.\n\nThank you! This should have made a much, much bigger impact and it shouldn't disappear into the Trump news hole. Durham's investigation did exactly what Trumpians claimed the Russia investigation did -- while proving the Russia investigation didn't do those things! After an investigation that went on twice as long as the Russia investigation! And it found evidence of ADDITIONAL TRUMP FINANCIAL CRIMES! And Barr lied about the Durham investigation constantly! \nThis shouldn't have left the front page for weeks.",
">\n\n\nSorry, but even in this age of goldfish-brain news cycles, we cannot allow a certain development from last week to just fade into obscurity.\n\nIf Trump says Russia three times fast, 1/6 of the country will decide Trump is the real victim in this. \"Russia, Russia, Russia,\" Trump will say every time he mentions it, and his sycophants will nod and send him money.",
">\n\nAnd if Trump says Russia three times fast, 3/6 of the left will take that as confirmation, that trump was a sleeper agent for the Kremlin the whole time",
">\n\nI mean, just yesterday Trump publicly said he still believes Putin over the reports of the entire US intelligence apparatus. I don't think \"sleeper agent\" is the right description for someone who openly and actively promoted Russian interests over those of the United States.",
">\n\n\nI don't think \"sleeper agent\" is the right description for someone who openly and actively promoted Russian interests over those of the United States.\n\nLOL Kremlin \"screamer agent\" donald j trump.",
">\n\nThis isn't like a lot of Trump-news-Fatigue stories. \nIt's objectively much worse, the Attorney General (head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government), and his hand-picked hard-nosed prosecutor, John Durham mis-represented their investigation of the 2016 Russia investigation to the American Public... and then actively gave cover for Trump in the 2020 campaign to claim he was being persecuted.\n\nBy the summer of 2020, it was clear Durham's [investigation into the investigators of the 2016 Russian election interference and secret Trump support] had failed, and the Justice Department inspector general published a report that found no evidence the FBI was politically motivated in 2016. But Trump was absolutely losing it on Fox News, floating that Obama and Biden would be indicted for their offenses against him—\"the single biggest political crime in the history of our country\"—and the only way they wouldn't be was if his two pet prosecutors, Barr and Durham, decided to be \"politically correct.\" (God forbid!) Enter the Times:\nAgainst that backdrop, Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham did not shut down their inquiry when the search for intelligence abuses hit a dead end. With the inspector general’s inquiry complete, they turned to a new rationale: a hunt for a basis to accuse the Clinton campaign of conspiring to defraud the government by manufacturing the suspicions that the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia, along with scrutinizing what the F.B.I. and intelligence officials knew about the Clinton campaign’s actions.\nSo having failed to produce the goods in time to give Trump some political ammunition for the 2020 election, they just kept the investigation going with an entirely new focus? \nThey came up with nothing, so they started to work the name \"Clinton\" in there? How is that even the same investigation? It isn't, except for one crucial respect: It continued as a vehicle for Trump's shadowy accusations against his political opponents. As long as the investigation was \"ongoing,\" he had extra salt on his claims that anyone caught up in it was disgustingly corrupt.\nIn this respect, it's a lot like the Ukraine extortion that got Trump impeached the first time: He just wanted Zelenskyy to announce Ukraine was opening an investigation into the Bidens. The subtext, of course, was that Trump would do the rest.",
">\n\nYea, in the realm of our news i think this shit might on to something. I think we gotta start lookin hard into these timelines and all involved. \nwhat im interested in is the possible connections that NY fbi agent and this story has as the dude has been fingered as a potential leaker in said office in relation to clintons emails and comey in oct16 and the times article referenced durham was using shit russian intel. \nfollowing that trail it leads to deripaska and derkach, the former funded the fbi agent, the latter has been used by OAN to push the biden/bruisma narrative. Grassley and Johnson were close to subpoenaing derkach but dropped the investigation in sept20, they were also chastised for using bad russian intel. both are tied to manafort ghuliani et al.\nYea something fishy here. Especially with this story following the heels of the FBI agent arrest.",
">\n\nBurisma! No! They will not let it go",
">\n\nthey sure wont, that evolved into the laptop and its current iteration is \"twitter files\" screaming about a data scrapper and then circles back to a book from a guy goin on bout hunter/china. yea its that discombobulated",
">\n\nThe theory of Right-wing Projection is now established law.",
">\n\nIt's almost like he was projecting.",
">\n\nI think the biggest mistake everyone made was not realizing from the minute he came down that gaudy, trashy, gold escalator that literally everything that came out of his mouth was projection. He gave a roadmap to his lies and to his plans but we didn't realize he was literally telling us the truth.",
">\n\nI mean, I and tens of millions of other Americans realized on day 1.",
">\n\nNo, I really don't think that's accurate. 10s of millions of people already knew he was a liar, and probably broke, and insane, but it took a while before \"it's projection\" became the main response to anything he said and that literally every single thing he said was about him and the gop.\nEverything from \"Mexico isn't sending their best\" to \"Stolen election\" was about him.",
">\n\nIt is accurate though. The sky really fell for us the day he won, and we were all utterly and completely vindicated in the end. Sorry it took you a while to catch up. The good news for you: being right from the start ultimately ended up meaning nothing.",
">\n\n\nSorry it took you a while to catch up.\n\nAll I'm going to tell you is, never assume you know who you're talking to on the internet. 😂",
">\n\nthe whole investigations into biden is a witch hunt too.",
">\n\nEvery accusation is a confession.",
">\n\nNarcissists will often tell you exactly what they are doing by projecting it on to others.",
">\n\nIf Gym Jordan’s special committee on the weaponization of the DOJ is indeed righteous then the Durham investigation will be on the table for scrutiny. If not, well…",
">\n\nyep. we all watched it happen.",
">\n\nThis shouldn't have left the front page for weeks.",
">\n\nI think it’s long been known that any time a Republican is screaming about something being done to them, they are just numbing the public to an eventual revelation that they themselves were doing the same to someone else.",
">\n\nTrump was 100% colluding at some level with Russia. Barr knew it, Mueller knew it. Barr quickly squirreled away the Mueller Rpt to make sure none of it ever saw the light of day. At same time he launched this bogus witch hunt hoping to throw shade on someone, anyone and divert attention away from Trump.",
">\n\nIt's a good thing the house is going to do investigation in to weaponization of the DOJ I'm sure they'll get to the bottom of it.",
">\n\nwonder how long till they start using the \"just two more weeks\" bit.",
">\n\nIn two weeks.",
">\n\nMuch to nobody's suprise.",
">\n\nShocking absolutely no one. Just because he's a self agrandizing sociopath doesn't mean he can't also be a traitor.",
">\n\nRemember that when it comes to the GOP, every accusation is a confession",
">\n\nBiden's Justice Department Goons oversaw and actual Witch Hunt while he screamed one with Hunter being tied to the Big Man and money laundering. It's a glorious thing.",
">\n\nIt’s not an “ACTUAL WITCH HUNT” unless you’re hunting literal witches.",
">\n\nNext time I go for a walk in the woods, I’m going to say I’m going on a witch hunt.",
">\n\nReally misleading headline. No witches. Boring!!\nHa, when my daughter was 4 and Shrek was popular, I asked her if she wanted to see a video of the Monkees playing im a believer. Pulled it up on you tube and she got angry. Stormed off with \"wah! Those aren't monkeys! Boring!!\"\nI did not intend to mislead her, but do acknowledge my role there.",
">\n\nAfter 20 witch hunts there’s probably a witch…",
">\n\nIt’s a damn shame the DoJ has been completely comprised and Merrick Meuller Barr Garland is just running distraction for Traitor Trump and his seditious Republicans destroying our country with lies. Fuck the DoJ."
] |
>
God I wish they would hunt all the witches. Weak ass centrists. | [
"Sorry, but even in this age of goldfish-brain news cycles, we cannot allow a certain development from last week to just fade into obscurity.\n\nThank you! This should have made a much, much bigger impact and it shouldn't disappear into the Trump news hole. Durham's investigation did exactly what Trumpians claimed the Russia investigation did -- while proving the Russia investigation didn't do those things! After an investigation that went on twice as long as the Russia investigation! And it found evidence of ADDITIONAL TRUMP FINANCIAL CRIMES! And Barr lied about the Durham investigation constantly! \nThis shouldn't have left the front page for weeks.",
">\n\n\nSorry, but even in this age of goldfish-brain news cycles, we cannot allow a certain development from last week to just fade into obscurity.\n\nIf Trump says Russia three times fast, 1/6 of the country will decide Trump is the real victim in this. \"Russia, Russia, Russia,\" Trump will say every time he mentions it, and his sycophants will nod and send him money.",
">\n\nAnd if Trump says Russia three times fast, 3/6 of the left will take that as confirmation, that trump was a sleeper agent for the Kremlin the whole time",
">\n\nI mean, just yesterday Trump publicly said he still believes Putin over the reports of the entire US intelligence apparatus. I don't think \"sleeper agent\" is the right description for someone who openly and actively promoted Russian interests over those of the United States.",
">\n\n\nI don't think \"sleeper agent\" is the right description for someone who openly and actively promoted Russian interests over those of the United States.\n\nLOL Kremlin \"screamer agent\" donald j trump.",
">\n\nThis isn't like a lot of Trump-news-Fatigue stories. \nIt's objectively much worse, the Attorney General (head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government), and his hand-picked hard-nosed prosecutor, John Durham mis-represented their investigation of the 2016 Russia investigation to the American Public... and then actively gave cover for Trump in the 2020 campaign to claim he was being persecuted.\n\nBy the summer of 2020, it was clear Durham's [investigation into the investigators of the 2016 Russian election interference and secret Trump support] had failed, and the Justice Department inspector general published a report that found no evidence the FBI was politically motivated in 2016. But Trump was absolutely losing it on Fox News, floating that Obama and Biden would be indicted for their offenses against him—\"the single biggest political crime in the history of our country\"—and the only way they wouldn't be was if his two pet prosecutors, Barr and Durham, decided to be \"politically correct.\" (God forbid!) Enter the Times:\nAgainst that backdrop, Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham did not shut down their inquiry when the search for intelligence abuses hit a dead end. With the inspector general’s inquiry complete, they turned to a new rationale: a hunt for a basis to accuse the Clinton campaign of conspiring to defraud the government by manufacturing the suspicions that the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia, along with scrutinizing what the F.B.I. and intelligence officials knew about the Clinton campaign’s actions.\nSo having failed to produce the goods in time to give Trump some political ammunition for the 2020 election, they just kept the investigation going with an entirely new focus? \nThey came up with nothing, so they started to work the name \"Clinton\" in there? How is that even the same investigation? It isn't, except for one crucial respect: It continued as a vehicle for Trump's shadowy accusations against his political opponents. As long as the investigation was \"ongoing,\" he had extra salt on his claims that anyone caught up in it was disgustingly corrupt.\nIn this respect, it's a lot like the Ukraine extortion that got Trump impeached the first time: He just wanted Zelenskyy to announce Ukraine was opening an investigation into the Bidens. The subtext, of course, was that Trump would do the rest.",
">\n\nYea, in the realm of our news i think this shit might on to something. I think we gotta start lookin hard into these timelines and all involved. \nwhat im interested in is the possible connections that NY fbi agent and this story has as the dude has been fingered as a potential leaker in said office in relation to clintons emails and comey in oct16 and the times article referenced durham was using shit russian intel. \nfollowing that trail it leads to deripaska and derkach, the former funded the fbi agent, the latter has been used by OAN to push the biden/bruisma narrative. Grassley and Johnson were close to subpoenaing derkach but dropped the investigation in sept20, they were also chastised for using bad russian intel. both are tied to manafort ghuliani et al.\nYea something fishy here. Especially with this story following the heels of the FBI agent arrest.",
">\n\nBurisma! No! They will not let it go",
">\n\nthey sure wont, that evolved into the laptop and its current iteration is \"twitter files\" screaming about a data scrapper and then circles back to a book from a guy goin on bout hunter/china. yea its that discombobulated",
">\n\nThe theory of Right-wing Projection is now established law.",
">\n\nIt's almost like he was projecting.",
">\n\nI think the biggest mistake everyone made was not realizing from the minute he came down that gaudy, trashy, gold escalator that literally everything that came out of his mouth was projection. He gave a roadmap to his lies and to his plans but we didn't realize he was literally telling us the truth.",
">\n\nI mean, I and tens of millions of other Americans realized on day 1.",
">\n\nNo, I really don't think that's accurate. 10s of millions of people already knew he was a liar, and probably broke, and insane, but it took a while before \"it's projection\" became the main response to anything he said and that literally every single thing he said was about him and the gop.\nEverything from \"Mexico isn't sending their best\" to \"Stolen election\" was about him.",
">\n\nIt is accurate though. The sky really fell for us the day he won, and we were all utterly and completely vindicated in the end. Sorry it took you a while to catch up. The good news for you: being right from the start ultimately ended up meaning nothing.",
">\n\n\nSorry it took you a while to catch up.\n\nAll I'm going to tell you is, never assume you know who you're talking to on the internet. 😂",
">\n\nthe whole investigations into biden is a witch hunt too.",
">\n\nEvery accusation is a confession.",
">\n\nNarcissists will often tell you exactly what they are doing by projecting it on to others.",
">\n\nIf Gym Jordan’s special committee on the weaponization of the DOJ is indeed righteous then the Durham investigation will be on the table for scrutiny. If not, well…",
">\n\nyep. we all watched it happen.",
">\n\nThis shouldn't have left the front page for weeks.",
">\n\nI think it’s long been known that any time a Republican is screaming about something being done to them, they are just numbing the public to an eventual revelation that they themselves were doing the same to someone else.",
">\n\nTrump was 100% colluding at some level with Russia. Barr knew it, Mueller knew it. Barr quickly squirreled away the Mueller Rpt to make sure none of it ever saw the light of day. At same time he launched this bogus witch hunt hoping to throw shade on someone, anyone and divert attention away from Trump.",
">\n\nIt's a good thing the house is going to do investigation in to weaponization of the DOJ I'm sure they'll get to the bottom of it.",
">\n\nwonder how long till they start using the \"just two more weeks\" bit.",
">\n\nIn two weeks.",
">\n\nMuch to nobody's suprise.",
">\n\nShocking absolutely no one. Just because he's a self agrandizing sociopath doesn't mean he can't also be a traitor.",
">\n\nRemember that when it comes to the GOP, every accusation is a confession",
">\n\nBiden's Justice Department Goons oversaw and actual Witch Hunt while he screamed one with Hunter being tied to the Big Man and money laundering. It's a glorious thing.",
">\n\nIt’s not an “ACTUAL WITCH HUNT” unless you’re hunting literal witches.",
">\n\nNext time I go for a walk in the woods, I’m going to say I’m going on a witch hunt.",
">\n\nReally misleading headline. No witches. Boring!!\nHa, when my daughter was 4 and Shrek was popular, I asked her if she wanted to see a video of the Monkees playing im a believer. Pulled it up on you tube and she got angry. Stormed off with \"wah! Those aren't monkeys! Boring!!\"\nI did not intend to mislead her, but do acknowledge my role there.",
">\n\nAfter 20 witch hunts there’s probably a witch…",
">\n\nIt’s a damn shame the DoJ has been completely comprised and Merrick Meuller Barr Garland is just running distraction for Traitor Trump and his seditious Republicans destroying our country with lies. Fuck the DoJ.",
">\n\nTrump was always the witch."
] |
>
The corruption coming out of this administration just keeps on coming | [
"Sorry, but even in this age of goldfish-brain news cycles, we cannot allow a certain development from last week to just fade into obscurity.\n\nThank you! This should have made a much, much bigger impact and it shouldn't disappear into the Trump news hole. Durham's investigation did exactly what Trumpians claimed the Russia investigation did -- while proving the Russia investigation didn't do those things! After an investigation that went on twice as long as the Russia investigation! And it found evidence of ADDITIONAL TRUMP FINANCIAL CRIMES! And Barr lied about the Durham investigation constantly! \nThis shouldn't have left the front page for weeks.",
">\n\n\nSorry, but even in this age of goldfish-brain news cycles, we cannot allow a certain development from last week to just fade into obscurity.\n\nIf Trump says Russia three times fast, 1/6 of the country will decide Trump is the real victim in this. \"Russia, Russia, Russia,\" Trump will say every time he mentions it, and his sycophants will nod and send him money.",
">\n\nAnd if Trump says Russia three times fast, 3/6 of the left will take that as confirmation, that trump was a sleeper agent for the Kremlin the whole time",
">\n\nI mean, just yesterday Trump publicly said he still believes Putin over the reports of the entire US intelligence apparatus. I don't think \"sleeper agent\" is the right description for someone who openly and actively promoted Russian interests over those of the United States.",
">\n\n\nI don't think \"sleeper agent\" is the right description for someone who openly and actively promoted Russian interests over those of the United States.\n\nLOL Kremlin \"screamer agent\" donald j trump.",
">\n\nThis isn't like a lot of Trump-news-Fatigue stories. \nIt's objectively much worse, the Attorney General (head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government), and his hand-picked hard-nosed prosecutor, John Durham mis-represented their investigation of the 2016 Russia investigation to the American Public... and then actively gave cover for Trump in the 2020 campaign to claim he was being persecuted.\n\nBy the summer of 2020, it was clear Durham's [investigation into the investigators of the 2016 Russian election interference and secret Trump support] had failed, and the Justice Department inspector general published a report that found no evidence the FBI was politically motivated in 2016. But Trump was absolutely losing it on Fox News, floating that Obama and Biden would be indicted for their offenses against him—\"the single biggest political crime in the history of our country\"—and the only way they wouldn't be was if his two pet prosecutors, Barr and Durham, decided to be \"politically correct.\" (God forbid!) Enter the Times:\nAgainst that backdrop, Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham did not shut down their inquiry when the search for intelligence abuses hit a dead end. With the inspector general’s inquiry complete, they turned to a new rationale: a hunt for a basis to accuse the Clinton campaign of conspiring to defraud the government by manufacturing the suspicions that the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia, along with scrutinizing what the F.B.I. and intelligence officials knew about the Clinton campaign’s actions.\nSo having failed to produce the goods in time to give Trump some political ammunition for the 2020 election, they just kept the investigation going with an entirely new focus? \nThey came up with nothing, so they started to work the name \"Clinton\" in there? How is that even the same investigation? It isn't, except for one crucial respect: It continued as a vehicle for Trump's shadowy accusations against his political opponents. As long as the investigation was \"ongoing,\" he had extra salt on his claims that anyone caught up in it was disgustingly corrupt.\nIn this respect, it's a lot like the Ukraine extortion that got Trump impeached the first time: He just wanted Zelenskyy to announce Ukraine was opening an investigation into the Bidens. The subtext, of course, was that Trump would do the rest.",
">\n\nYea, in the realm of our news i think this shit might on to something. I think we gotta start lookin hard into these timelines and all involved. \nwhat im interested in is the possible connections that NY fbi agent and this story has as the dude has been fingered as a potential leaker in said office in relation to clintons emails and comey in oct16 and the times article referenced durham was using shit russian intel. \nfollowing that trail it leads to deripaska and derkach, the former funded the fbi agent, the latter has been used by OAN to push the biden/bruisma narrative. Grassley and Johnson were close to subpoenaing derkach but dropped the investigation in sept20, they were also chastised for using bad russian intel. both are tied to manafort ghuliani et al.\nYea something fishy here. Especially with this story following the heels of the FBI agent arrest.",
">\n\nBurisma! No! They will not let it go",
">\n\nthey sure wont, that evolved into the laptop and its current iteration is \"twitter files\" screaming about a data scrapper and then circles back to a book from a guy goin on bout hunter/china. yea its that discombobulated",
">\n\nThe theory of Right-wing Projection is now established law.",
">\n\nIt's almost like he was projecting.",
">\n\nI think the biggest mistake everyone made was not realizing from the minute he came down that gaudy, trashy, gold escalator that literally everything that came out of his mouth was projection. He gave a roadmap to his lies and to his plans but we didn't realize he was literally telling us the truth.",
">\n\nI mean, I and tens of millions of other Americans realized on day 1.",
">\n\nNo, I really don't think that's accurate. 10s of millions of people already knew he was a liar, and probably broke, and insane, but it took a while before \"it's projection\" became the main response to anything he said and that literally every single thing he said was about him and the gop.\nEverything from \"Mexico isn't sending their best\" to \"Stolen election\" was about him.",
">\n\nIt is accurate though. The sky really fell for us the day he won, and we were all utterly and completely vindicated in the end. Sorry it took you a while to catch up. The good news for you: being right from the start ultimately ended up meaning nothing.",
">\n\n\nSorry it took you a while to catch up.\n\nAll I'm going to tell you is, never assume you know who you're talking to on the internet. 😂",
">\n\nthe whole investigations into biden is a witch hunt too.",
">\n\nEvery accusation is a confession.",
">\n\nNarcissists will often tell you exactly what they are doing by projecting it on to others.",
">\n\nIf Gym Jordan’s special committee on the weaponization of the DOJ is indeed righteous then the Durham investigation will be on the table for scrutiny. If not, well…",
">\n\nyep. we all watched it happen.",
">\n\nThis shouldn't have left the front page for weeks.",
">\n\nI think it’s long been known that any time a Republican is screaming about something being done to them, they are just numbing the public to an eventual revelation that they themselves were doing the same to someone else.",
">\n\nTrump was 100% colluding at some level with Russia. Barr knew it, Mueller knew it. Barr quickly squirreled away the Mueller Rpt to make sure none of it ever saw the light of day. At same time he launched this bogus witch hunt hoping to throw shade on someone, anyone and divert attention away from Trump.",
">\n\nIt's a good thing the house is going to do investigation in to weaponization of the DOJ I'm sure they'll get to the bottom of it.",
">\n\nwonder how long till they start using the \"just two more weeks\" bit.",
">\n\nIn two weeks.",
">\n\nMuch to nobody's suprise.",
">\n\nShocking absolutely no one. Just because he's a self agrandizing sociopath doesn't mean he can't also be a traitor.",
">\n\nRemember that when it comes to the GOP, every accusation is a confession",
">\n\nBiden's Justice Department Goons oversaw and actual Witch Hunt while he screamed one with Hunter being tied to the Big Man and money laundering. It's a glorious thing.",
">\n\nIt’s not an “ACTUAL WITCH HUNT” unless you’re hunting literal witches.",
">\n\nNext time I go for a walk in the woods, I’m going to say I’m going on a witch hunt.",
">\n\nReally misleading headline. No witches. Boring!!\nHa, when my daughter was 4 and Shrek was popular, I asked her if she wanted to see a video of the Monkees playing im a believer. Pulled it up on you tube and she got angry. Stormed off with \"wah! Those aren't monkeys! Boring!!\"\nI did not intend to mislead her, but do acknowledge my role there.",
">\n\nAfter 20 witch hunts there’s probably a witch…",
">\n\nIt’s a damn shame the DoJ has been completely comprised and Merrick Meuller Barr Garland is just running distraction for Traitor Trump and his seditious Republicans destroying our country with lies. Fuck the DoJ.",
">\n\nTrump was always the witch.",
">\n\nGod I wish they would hunt all the witches. Weak ass centrists."
] |
>
The GOP way, accuse the Dems of doing what the GOP is actually doing | [
"Sorry, but even in this age of goldfish-brain news cycles, we cannot allow a certain development from last week to just fade into obscurity.\n\nThank you! This should have made a much, much bigger impact and it shouldn't disappear into the Trump news hole. Durham's investigation did exactly what Trumpians claimed the Russia investigation did -- while proving the Russia investigation didn't do those things! After an investigation that went on twice as long as the Russia investigation! And it found evidence of ADDITIONAL TRUMP FINANCIAL CRIMES! And Barr lied about the Durham investigation constantly! \nThis shouldn't have left the front page for weeks.",
">\n\n\nSorry, but even in this age of goldfish-brain news cycles, we cannot allow a certain development from last week to just fade into obscurity.\n\nIf Trump says Russia three times fast, 1/6 of the country will decide Trump is the real victim in this. \"Russia, Russia, Russia,\" Trump will say every time he mentions it, and his sycophants will nod and send him money.",
">\n\nAnd if Trump says Russia three times fast, 3/6 of the left will take that as confirmation, that trump was a sleeper agent for the Kremlin the whole time",
">\n\nI mean, just yesterday Trump publicly said he still believes Putin over the reports of the entire US intelligence apparatus. I don't think \"sleeper agent\" is the right description for someone who openly and actively promoted Russian interests over those of the United States.",
">\n\n\nI don't think \"sleeper agent\" is the right description for someone who openly and actively promoted Russian interests over those of the United States.\n\nLOL Kremlin \"screamer agent\" donald j trump.",
">\n\nThis isn't like a lot of Trump-news-Fatigue stories. \nIt's objectively much worse, the Attorney General (head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government), and his hand-picked hard-nosed prosecutor, John Durham mis-represented their investigation of the 2016 Russia investigation to the American Public... and then actively gave cover for Trump in the 2020 campaign to claim he was being persecuted.\n\nBy the summer of 2020, it was clear Durham's [investigation into the investigators of the 2016 Russian election interference and secret Trump support] had failed, and the Justice Department inspector general published a report that found no evidence the FBI was politically motivated in 2016. But Trump was absolutely losing it on Fox News, floating that Obama and Biden would be indicted for their offenses against him—\"the single biggest political crime in the history of our country\"—and the only way they wouldn't be was if his two pet prosecutors, Barr and Durham, decided to be \"politically correct.\" (God forbid!) Enter the Times:\nAgainst that backdrop, Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham did not shut down their inquiry when the search for intelligence abuses hit a dead end. With the inspector general’s inquiry complete, they turned to a new rationale: a hunt for a basis to accuse the Clinton campaign of conspiring to defraud the government by manufacturing the suspicions that the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia, along with scrutinizing what the F.B.I. and intelligence officials knew about the Clinton campaign’s actions.\nSo having failed to produce the goods in time to give Trump some political ammunition for the 2020 election, they just kept the investigation going with an entirely new focus? \nThey came up with nothing, so they started to work the name \"Clinton\" in there? How is that even the same investigation? It isn't, except for one crucial respect: It continued as a vehicle for Trump's shadowy accusations against his political opponents. As long as the investigation was \"ongoing,\" he had extra salt on his claims that anyone caught up in it was disgustingly corrupt.\nIn this respect, it's a lot like the Ukraine extortion that got Trump impeached the first time: He just wanted Zelenskyy to announce Ukraine was opening an investigation into the Bidens. The subtext, of course, was that Trump would do the rest.",
">\n\nYea, in the realm of our news i think this shit might on to something. I think we gotta start lookin hard into these timelines and all involved. \nwhat im interested in is the possible connections that NY fbi agent and this story has as the dude has been fingered as a potential leaker in said office in relation to clintons emails and comey in oct16 and the times article referenced durham was using shit russian intel. \nfollowing that trail it leads to deripaska and derkach, the former funded the fbi agent, the latter has been used by OAN to push the biden/bruisma narrative. Grassley and Johnson were close to subpoenaing derkach but dropped the investigation in sept20, they were also chastised for using bad russian intel. both are tied to manafort ghuliani et al.\nYea something fishy here. Especially with this story following the heels of the FBI agent arrest.",
">\n\nBurisma! No! They will not let it go",
">\n\nthey sure wont, that evolved into the laptop and its current iteration is \"twitter files\" screaming about a data scrapper and then circles back to a book from a guy goin on bout hunter/china. yea its that discombobulated",
">\n\nThe theory of Right-wing Projection is now established law.",
">\n\nIt's almost like he was projecting.",
">\n\nI think the biggest mistake everyone made was not realizing from the minute he came down that gaudy, trashy, gold escalator that literally everything that came out of his mouth was projection. He gave a roadmap to his lies and to his plans but we didn't realize he was literally telling us the truth.",
">\n\nI mean, I and tens of millions of other Americans realized on day 1.",
">\n\nNo, I really don't think that's accurate. 10s of millions of people already knew he was a liar, and probably broke, and insane, but it took a while before \"it's projection\" became the main response to anything he said and that literally every single thing he said was about him and the gop.\nEverything from \"Mexico isn't sending their best\" to \"Stolen election\" was about him.",
">\n\nIt is accurate though. The sky really fell for us the day he won, and we were all utterly and completely vindicated in the end. Sorry it took you a while to catch up. The good news for you: being right from the start ultimately ended up meaning nothing.",
">\n\n\nSorry it took you a while to catch up.\n\nAll I'm going to tell you is, never assume you know who you're talking to on the internet. 😂",
">\n\nthe whole investigations into biden is a witch hunt too.",
">\n\nEvery accusation is a confession.",
">\n\nNarcissists will often tell you exactly what they are doing by projecting it on to others.",
">\n\nIf Gym Jordan’s special committee on the weaponization of the DOJ is indeed righteous then the Durham investigation will be on the table for scrutiny. If not, well…",
">\n\nyep. we all watched it happen.",
">\n\nThis shouldn't have left the front page for weeks.",
">\n\nI think it’s long been known that any time a Republican is screaming about something being done to them, they are just numbing the public to an eventual revelation that they themselves were doing the same to someone else.",
">\n\nTrump was 100% colluding at some level with Russia. Barr knew it, Mueller knew it. Barr quickly squirreled away the Mueller Rpt to make sure none of it ever saw the light of day. At same time he launched this bogus witch hunt hoping to throw shade on someone, anyone and divert attention away from Trump.",
">\n\nIt's a good thing the house is going to do investigation in to weaponization of the DOJ I'm sure they'll get to the bottom of it.",
">\n\nwonder how long till they start using the \"just two more weeks\" bit.",
">\n\nIn two weeks.",
">\n\nMuch to nobody's suprise.",
">\n\nShocking absolutely no one. Just because he's a self agrandizing sociopath doesn't mean he can't also be a traitor.",
">\n\nRemember that when it comes to the GOP, every accusation is a confession",
">\n\nBiden's Justice Department Goons oversaw and actual Witch Hunt while he screamed one with Hunter being tied to the Big Man and money laundering. It's a glorious thing.",
">\n\nIt’s not an “ACTUAL WITCH HUNT” unless you’re hunting literal witches.",
">\n\nNext time I go for a walk in the woods, I’m going to say I’m going on a witch hunt.",
">\n\nReally misleading headline. No witches. Boring!!\nHa, when my daughter was 4 and Shrek was popular, I asked her if she wanted to see a video of the Monkees playing im a believer. Pulled it up on you tube and she got angry. Stormed off with \"wah! Those aren't monkeys! Boring!!\"\nI did not intend to mislead her, but do acknowledge my role there.",
">\n\nAfter 20 witch hunts there’s probably a witch…",
">\n\nIt’s a damn shame the DoJ has been completely comprised and Merrick Meuller Barr Garland is just running distraction for Traitor Trump and his seditious Republicans destroying our country with lies. Fuck the DoJ.",
">\n\nTrump was always the witch.",
">\n\nGod I wish they would hunt all the witches. Weak ass centrists.",
">\n\nThe corruption coming out of this administration just keeps on coming"
] |
>
A criminal asking for sympathy | [
"Sorry, but even in this age of goldfish-brain news cycles, we cannot allow a certain development from last week to just fade into obscurity.\n\nThank you! This should have made a much, much bigger impact and it shouldn't disappear into the Trump news hole. Durham's investigation did exactly what Trumpians claimed the Russia investigation did -- while proving the Russia investigation didn't do those things! After an investigation that went on twice as long as the Russia investigation! And it found evidence of ADDITIONAL TRUMP FINANCIAL CRIMES! And Barr lied about the Durham investigation constantly! \nThis shouldn't have left the front page for weeks.",
">\n\n\nSorry, but even in this age of goldfish-brain news cycles, we cannot allow a certain development from last week to just fade into obscurity.\n\nIf Trump says Russia three times fast, 1/6 of the country will decide Trump is the real victim in this. \"Russia, Russia, Russia,\" Trump will say every time he mentions it, and his sycophants will nod and send him money.",
">\n\nAnd if Trump says Russia three times fast, 3/6 of the left will take that as confirmation, that trump was a sleeper agent for the Kremlin the whole time",
">\n\nI mean, just yesterday Trump publicly said he still believes Putin over the reports of the entire US intelligence apparatus. I don't think \"sleeper agent\" is the right description for someone who openly and actively promoted Russian interests over those of the United States.",
">\n\n\nI don't think \"sleeper agent\" is the right description for someone who openly and actively promoted Russian interests over those of the United States.\n\nLOL Kremlin \"screamer agent\" donald j trump.",
">\n\nThis isn't like a lot of Trump-news-Fatigue stories. \nIt's objectively much worse, the Attorney General (head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government), and his hand-picked hard-nosed prosecutor, John Durham mis-represented their investigation of the 2016 Russia investigation to the American Public... and then actively gave cover for Trump in the 2020 campaign to claim he was being persecuted.\n\nBy the summer of 2020, it was clear Durham's [investigation into the investigators of the 2016 Russian election interference and secret Trump support] had failed, and the Justice Department inspector general published a report that found no evidence the FBI was politically motivated in 2016. But Trump was absolutely losing it on Fox News, floating that Obama and Biden would be indicted for their offenses against him—\"the single biggest political crime in the history of our country\"—and the only way they wouldn't be was if his two pet prosecutors, Barr and Durham, decided to be \"politically correct.\" (God forbid!) Enter the Times:\nAgainst that backdrop, Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham did not shut down their inquiry when the search for intelligence abuses hit a dead end. With the inspector general’s inquiry complete, they turned to a new rationale: a hunt for a basis to accuse the Clinton campaign of conspiring to defraud the government by manufacturing the suspicions that the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia, along with scrutinizing what the F.B.I. and intelligence officials knew about the Clinton campaign’s actions.\nSo having failed to produce the goods in time to give Trump some political ammunition for the 2020 election, they just kept the investigation going with an entirely new focus? \nThey came up with nothing, so they started to work the name \"Clinton\" in there? How is that even the same investigation? It isn't, except for one crucial respect: It continued as a vehicle for Trump's shadowy accusations against his political opponents. As long as the investigation was \"ongoing,\" he had extra salt on his claims that anyone caught up in it was disgustingly corrupt.\nIn this respect, it's a lot like the Ukraine extortion that got Trump impeached the first time: He just wanted Zelenskyy to announce Ukraine was opening an investigation into the Bidens. The subtext, of course, was that Trump would do the rest.",
">\n\nYea, in the realm of our news i think this shit might on to something. I think we gotta start lookin hard into these timelines and all involved. \nwhat im interested in is the possible connections that NY fbi agent and this story has as the dude has been fingered as a potential leaker in said office in relation to clintons emails and comey in oct16 and the times article referenced durham was using shit russian intel. \nfollowing that trail it leads to deripaska and derkach, the former funded the fbi agent, the latter has been used by OAN to push the biden/bruisma narrative. Grassley and Johnson were close to subpoenaing derkach but dropped the investigation in sept20, they were also chastised for using bad russian intel. both are tied to manafort ghuliani et al.\nYea something fishy here. Especially with this story following the heels of the FBI agent arrest.",
">\n\nBurisma! No! They will not let it go",
">\n\nthey sure wont, that evolved into the laptop and its current iteration is \"twitter files\" screaming about a data scrapper and then circles back to a book from a guy goin on bout hunter/china. yea its that discombobulated",
">\n\nThe theory of Right-wing Projection is now established law.",
">\n\nIt's almost like he was projecting.",
">\n\nI think the biggest mistake everyone made was not realizing from the minute he came down that gaudy, trashy, gold escalator that literally everything that came out of his mouth was projection. He gave a roadmap to his lies and to his plans but we didn't realize he was literally telling us the truth.",
">\n\nI mean, I and tens of millions of other Americans realized on day 1.",
">\n\nNo, I really don't think that's accurate. 10s of millions of people already knew he was a liar, and probably broke, and insane, but it took a while before \"it's projection\" became the main response to anything he said and that literally every single thing he said was about him and the gop.\nEverything from \"Mexico isn't sending their best\" to \"Stolen election\" was about him.",
">\n\nIt is accurate though. The sky really fell for us the day he won, and we were all utterly and completely vindicated in the end. Sorry it took you a while to catch up. The good news for you: being right from the start ultimately ended up meaning nothing.",
">\n\n\nSorry it took you a while to catch up.\n\nAll I'm going to tell you is, never assume you know who you're talking to on the internet. 😂",
">\n\nthe whole investigations into biden is a witch hunt too.",
">\n\nEvery accusation is a confession.",
">\n\nNarcissists will often tell you exactly what they are doing by projecting it on to others.",
">\n\nIf Gym Jordan’s special committee on the weaponization of the DOJ is indeed righteous then the Durham investigation will be on the table for scrutiny. If not, well…",
">\n\nyep. we all watched it happen.",
">\n\nThis shouldn't have left the front page for weeks.",
">\n\nI think it’s long been known that any time a Republican is screaming about something being done to them, they are just numbing the public to an eventual revelation that they themselves were doing the same to someone else.",
">\n\nTrump was 100% colluding at some level with Russia. Barr knew it, Mueller knew it. Barr quickly squirreled away the Mueller Rpt to make sure none of it ever saw the light of day. At same time he launched this bogus witch hunt hoping to throw shade on someone, anyone and divert attention away from Trump.",
">\n\nIt's a good thing the house is going to do investigation in to weaponization of the DOJ I'm sure they'll get to the bottom of it.",
">\n\nwonder how long till they start using the \"just two more weeks\" bit.",
">\n\nIn two weeks.",
">\n\nMuch to nobody's suprise.",
">\n\nShocking absolutely no one. Just because he's a self agrandizing sociopath doesn't mean he can't also be a traitor.",
">\n\nRemember that when it comes to the GOP, every accusation is a confession",
">\n\nBiden's Justice Department Goons oversaw and actual Witch Hunt while he screamed one with Hunter being tied to the Big Man and money laundering. It's a glorious thing.",
">\n\nIt’s not an “ACTUAL WITCH HUNT” unless you’re hunting literal witches.",
">\n\nNext time I go for a walk in the woods, I’m going to say I’m going on a witch hunt.",
">\n\nReally misleading headline. No witches. Boring!!\nHa, when my daughter was 4 and Shrek was popular, I asked her if she wanted to see a video of the Monkees playing im a believer. Pulled it up on you tube and she got angry. Stormed off with \"wah! Those aren't monkeys! Boring!!\"\nI did not intend to mislead her, but do acknowledge my role there.",
">\n\nAfter 20 witch hunts there’s probably a witch…",
">\n\nIt’s a damn shame the DoJ has been completely comprised and Merrick Meuller Barr Garland is just running distraction for Traitor Trump and his seditious Republicans destroying our country with lies. Fuck the DoJ.",
">\n\nTrump was always the witch.",
">\n\nGod I wish they would hunt all the witches. Weak ass centrists.",
">\n\nThe corruption coming out of this administration just keeps on coming",
">\n\nThe GOP way, accuse the Dems of doing what the GOP is actually doing"
] |
>
The GOP is just one giant projection. | [
"Sorry, but even in this age of goldfish-brain news cycles, we cannot allow a certain development from last week to just fade into obscurity.\n\nThank you! This should have made a much, much bigger impact and it shouldn't disappear into the Trump news hole. Durham's investigation did exactly what Trumpians claimed the Russia investigation did -- while proving the Russia investigation didn't do those things! After an investigation that went on twice as long as the Russia investigation! And it found evidence of ADDITIONAL TRUMP FINANCIAL CRIMES! And Barr lied about the Durham investigation constantly! \nThis shouldn't have left the front page for weeks.",
">\n\n\nSorry, but even in this age of goldfish-brain news cycles, we cannot allow a certain development from last week to just fade into obscurity.\n\nIf Trump says Russia three times fast, 1/6 of the country will decide Trump is the real victim in this. \"Russia, Russia, Russia,\" Trump will say every time he mentions it, and his sycophants will nod and send him money.",
">\n\nAnd if Trump says Russia three times fast, 3/6 of the left will take that as confirmation, that trump was a sleeper agent for the Kremlin the whole time",
">\n\nI mean, just yesterday Trump publicly said he still believes Putin over the reports of the entire US intelligence apparatus. I don't think \"sleeper agent\" is the right description for someone who openly and actively promoted Russian interests over those of the United States.",
">\n\n\nI don't think \"sleeper agent\" is the right description for someone who openly and actively promoted Russian interests over those of the United States.\n\nLOL Kremlin \"screamer agent\" donald j trump.",
">\n\nThis isn't like a lot of Trump-news-Fatigue stories. \nIt's objectively much worse, the Attorney General (head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government), and his hand-picked hard-nosed prosecutor, John Durham mis-represented their investigation of the 2016 Russia investigation to the American Public... and then actively gave cover for Trump in the 2020 campaign to claim he was being persecuted.\n\nBy the summer of 2020, it was clear Durham's [investigation into the investigators of the 2016 Russian election interference and secret Trump support] had failed, and the Justice Department inspector general published a report that found no evidence the FBI was politically motivated in 2016. But Trump was absolutely losing it on Fox News, floating that Obama and Biden would be indicted for their offenses against him—\"the single biggest political crime in the history of our country\"—and the only way they wouldn't be was if his two pet prosecutors, Barr and Durham, decided to be \"politically correct.\" (God forbid!) Enter the Times:\nAgainst that backdrop, Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham did not shut down their inquiry when the search for intelligence abuses hit a dead end. With the inspector general’s inquiry complete, they turned to a new rationale: a hunt for a basis to accuse the Clinton campaign of conspiring to defraud the government by manufacturing the suspicions that the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia, along with scrutinizing what the F.B.I. and intelligence officials knew about the Clinton campaign’s actions.\nSo having failed to produce the goods in time to give Trump some political ammunition for the 2020 election, they just kept the investigation going with an entirely new focus? \nThey came up with nothing, so they started to work the name \"Clinton\" in there? How is that even the same investigation? It isn't, except for one crucial respect: It continued as a vehicle for Trump's shadowy accusations against his political opponents. As long as the investigation was \"ongoing,\" he had extra salt on his claims that anyone caught up in it was disgustingly corrupt.\nIn this respect, it's a lot like the Ukraine extortion that got Trump impeached the first time: He just wanted Zelenskyy to announce Ukraine was opening an investigation into the Bidens. The subtext, of course, was that Trump would do the rest.",
">\n\nYea, in the realm of our news i think this shit might on to something. I think we gotta start lookin hard into these timelines and all involved. \nwhat im interested in is the possible connections that NY fbi agent and this story has as the dude has been fingered as a potential leaker in said office in relation to clintons emails and comey in oct16 and the times article referenced durham was using shit russian intel. \nfollowing that trail it leads to deripaska and derkach, the former funded the fbi agent, the latter has been used by OAN to push the biden/bruisma narrative. Grassley and Johnson were close to subpoenaing derkach but dropped the investigation in sept20, they were also chastised for using bad russian intel. both are tied to manafort ghuliani et al.\nYea something fishy here. Especially with this story following the heels of the FBI agent arrest.",
">\n\nBurisma! No! They will not let it go",
">\n\nthey sure wont, that evolved into the laptop and its current iteration is \"twitter files\" screaming about a data scrapper and then circles back to a book from a guy goin on bout hunter/china. yea its that discombobulated",
">\n\nThe theory of Right-wing Projection is now established law.",
">\n\nIt's almost like he was projecting.",
">\n\nI think the biggest mistake everyone made was not realizing from the minute he came down that gaudy, trashy, gold escalator that literally everything that came out of his mouth was projection. He gave a roadmap to his lies and to his plans but we didn't realize he was literally telling us the truth.",
">\n\nI mean, I and tens of millions of other Americans realized on day 1.",
">\n\nNo, I really don't think that's accurate. 10s of millions of people already knew he was a liar, and probably broke, and insane, but it took a while before \"it's projection\" became the main response to anything he said and that literally every single thing he said was about him and the gop.\nEverything from \"Mexico isn't sending their best\" to \"Stolen election\" was about him.",
">\n\nIt is accurate though. The sky really fell for us the day he won, and we were all utterly and completely vindicated in the end. Sorry it took you a while to catch up. The good news for you: being right from the start ultimately ended up meaning nothing.",
">\n\n\nSorry it took you a while to catch up.\n\nAll I'm going to tell you is, never assume you know who you're talking to on the internet. 😂",
">\n\nthe whole investigations into biden is a witch hunt too.",
">\n\nEvery accusation is a confession.",
">\n\nNarcissists will often tell you exactly what they are doing by projecting it on to others.",
">\n\nIf Gym Jordan’s special committee on the weaponization of the DOJ is indeed righteous then the Durham investigation will be on the table for scrutiny. If not, well…",
">\n\nyep. we all watched it happen.",
">\n\nThis shouldn't have left the front page for weeks.",
">\n\nI think it’s long been known that any time a Republican is screaming about something being done to them, they are just numbing the public to an eventual revelation that they themselves were doing the same to someone else.",
">\n\nTrump was 100% colluding at some level with Russia. Barr knew it, Mueller knew it. Barr quickly squirreled away the Mueller Rpt to make sure none of it ever saw the light of day. At same time he launched this bogus witch hunt hoping to throw shade on someone, anyone and divert attention away from Trump.",
">\n\nIt's a good thing the house is going to do investigation in to weaponization of the DOJ I'm sure they'll get to the bottom of it.",
">\n\nwonder how long till they start using the \"just two more weeks\" bit.",
">\n\nIn two weeks.",
">\n\nMuch to nobody's suprise.",
">\n\nShocking absolutely no one. Just because he's a self agrandizing sociopath doesn't mean he can't also be a traitor.",
">\n\nRemember that when it comes to the GOP, every accusation is a confession",
">\n\nBiden's Justice Department Goons oversaw and actual Witch Hunt while he screamed one with Hunter being tied to the Big Man and money laundering. It's a glorious thing.",
">\n\nIt’s not an “ACTUAL WITCH HUNT” unless you’re hunting literal witches.",
">\n\nNext time I go for a walk in the woods, I’m going to say I’m going on a witch hunt.",
">\n\nReally misleading headline. No witches. Boring!!\nHa, when my daughter was 4 and Shrek was popular, I asked her if she wanted to see a video of the Monkees playing im a believer. Pulled it up on you tube and she got angry. Stormed off with \"wah! Those aren't monkeys! Boring!!\"\nI did not intend to mislead her, but do acknowledge my role there.",
">\n\nAfter 20 witch hunts there’s probably a witch…",
">\n\nIt’s a damn shame the DoJ has been completely comprised and Merrick Meuller Barr Garland is just running distraction for Traitor Trump and his seditious Republicans destroying our country with lies. Fuck the DoJ.",
">\n\nTrump was always the witch.",
">\n\nGod I wish they would hunt all the witches. Weak ass centrists.",
">\n\nThe corruption coming out of this administration just keeps on coming",
">\n\nThe GOP way, accuse the Dems of doing what the GOP is actually doing",
">\n\nA criminal asking for sympathy"
] |
>
Trump has goons now haha | [
"Sorry, but even in this age of goldfish-brain news cycles, we cannot allow a certain development from last week to just fade into obscurity.\n\nThank you! This should have made a much, much bigger impact and it shouldn't disappear into the Trump news hole. Durham's investigation did exactly what Trumpians claimed the Russia investigation did -- while proving the Russia investigation didn't do those things! After an investigation that went on twice as long as the Russia investigation! And it found evidence of ADDITIONAL TRUMP FINANCIAL CRIMES! And Barr lied about the Durham investigation constantly! \nThis shouldn't have left the front page for weeks.",
">\n\n\nSorry, but even in this age of goldfish-brain news cycles, we cannot allow a certain development from last week to just fade into obscurity.\n\nIf Trump says Russia three times fast, 1/6 of the country will decide Trump is the real victim in this. \"Russia, Russia, Russia,\" Trump will say every time he mentions it, and his sycophants will nod and send him money.",
">\n\nAnd if Trump says Russia three times fast, 3/6 of the left will take that as confirmation, that trump was a sleeper agent for the Kremlin the whole time",
">\n\nI mean, just yesterday Trump publicly said he still believes Putin over the reports of the entire US intelligence apparatus. I don't think \"sleeper agent\" is the right description for someone who openly and actively promoted Russian interests over those of the United States.",
">\n\n\nI don't think \"sleeper agent\" is the right description for someone who openly and actively promoted Russian interests over those of the United States.\n\nLOL Kremlin \"screamer agent\" donald j trump.",
">\n\nThis isn't like a lot of Trump-news-Fatigue stories. \nIt's objectively much worse, the Attorney General (head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government), and his hand-picked hard-nosed prosecutor, John Durham mis-represented their investigation of the 2016 Russia investigation to the American Public... and then actively gave cover for Trump in the 2020 campaign to claim he was being persecuted.\n\nBy the summer of 2020, it was clear Durham's [investigation into the investigators of the 2016 Russian election interference and secret Trump support] had failed, and the Justice Department inspector general published a report that found no evidence the FBI was politically motivated in 2016. But Trump was absolutely losing it on Fox News, floating that Obama and Biden would be indicted for their offenses against him—\"the single biggest political crime in the history of our country\"—and the only way they wouldn't be was if his two pet prosecutors, Barr and Durham, decided to be \"politically correct.\" (God forbid!) Enter the Times:\nAgainst that backdrop, Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham did not shut down their inquiry when the search for intelligence abuses hit a dead end. With the inspector general’s inquiry complete, they turned to a new rationale: a hunt for a basis to accuse the Clinton campaign of conspiring to defraud the government by manufacturing the suspicions that the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia, along with scrutinizing what the F.B.I. and intelligence officials knew about the Clinton campaign’s actions.\nSo having failed to produce the goods in time to give Trump some political ammunition for the 2020 election, they just kept the investigation going with an entirely new focus? \nThey came up with nothing, so they started to work the name \"Clinton\" in there? How is that even the same investigation? It isn't, except for one crucial respect: It continued as a vehicle for Trump's shadowy accusations against his political opponents. As long as the investigation was \"ongoing,\" he had extra salt on his claims that anyone caught up in it was disgustingly corrupt.\nIn this respect, it's a lot like the Ukraine extortion that got Trump impeached the first time: He just wanted Zelenskyy to announce Ukraine was opening an investigation into the Bidens. The subtext, of course, was that Trump would do the rest.",
">\n\nYea, in the realm of our news i think this shit might on to something. I think we gotta start lookin hard into these timelines and all involved. \nwhat im interested in is the possible connections that NY fbi agent and this story has as the dude has been fingered as a potential leaker in said office in relation to clintons emails and comey in oct16 and the times article referenced durham was using shit russian intel. \nfollowing that trail it leads to deripaska and derkach, the former funded the fbi agent, the latter has been used by OAN to push the biden/bruisma narrative. Grassley and Johnson were close to subpoenaing derkach but dropped the investigation in sept20, they were also chastised for using bad russian intel. both are tied to manafort ghuliani et al.\nYea something fishy here. Especially with this story following the heels of the FBI agent arrest.",
">\n\nBurisma! No! They will not let it go",
">\n\nthey sure wont, that evolved into the laptop and its current iteration is \"twitter files\" screaming about a data scrapper and then circles back to a book from a guy goin on bout hunter/china. yea its that discombobulated",
">\n\nThe theory of Right-wing Projection is now established law.",
">\n\nIt's almost like he was projecting.",
">\n\nI think the biggest mistake everyone made was not realizing from the minute he came down that gaudy, trashy, gold escalator that literally everything that came out of his mouth was projection. He gave a roadmap to his lies and to his plans but we didn't realize he was literally telling us the truth.",
">\n\nI mean, I and tens of millions of other Americans realized on day 1.",
">\n\nNo, I really don't think that's accurate. 10s of millions of people already knew he was a liar, and probably broke, and insane, but it took a while before \"it's projection\" became the main response to anything he said and that literally every single thing he said was about him and the gop.\nEverything from \"Mexico isn't sending their best\" to \"Stolen election\" was about him.",
">\n\nIt is accurate though. The sky really fell for us the day he won, and we were all utterly and completely vindicated in the end. Sorry it took you a while to catch up. The good news for you: being right from the start ultimately ended up meaning nothing.",
">\n\n\nSorry it took you a while to catch up.\n\nAll I'm going to tell you is, never assume you know who you're talking to on the internet. 😂",
">\n\nthe whole investigations into biden is a witch hunt too.",
">\n\nEvery accusation is a confession.",
">\n\nNarcissists will often tell you exactly what they are doing by projecting it on to others.",
">\n\nIf Gym Jordan’s special committee on the weaponization of the DOJ is indeed righteous then the Durham investigation will be on the table for scrutiny. If not, well…",
">\n\nyep. we all watched it happen.",
">\n\nThis shouldn't have left the front page for weeks.",
">\n\nI think it’s long been known that any time a Republican is screaming about something being done to them, they are just numbing the public to an eventual revelation that they themselves were doing the same to someone else.",
">\n\nTrump was 100% colluding at some level with Russia. Barr knew it, Mueller knew it. Barr quickly squirreled away the Mueller Rpt to make sure none of it ever saw the light of day. At same time he launched this bogus witch hunt hoping to throw shade on someone, anyone and divert attention away from Trump.",
">\n\nIt's a good thing the house is going to do investigation in to weaponization of the DOJ I'm sure they'll get to the bottom of it.",
">\n\nwonder how long till they start using the \"just two more weeks\" bit.",
">\n\nIn two weeks.",
">\n\nMuch to nobody's suprise.",
">\n\nShocking absolutely no one. Just because he's a self agrandizing sociopath doesn't mean he can't also be a traitor.",
">\n\nRemember that when it comes to the GOP, every accusation is a confession",
">\n\nBiden's Justice Department Goons oversaw and actual Witch Hunt while he screamed one with Hunter being tied to the Big Man and money laundering. It's a glorious thing.",
">\n\nIt’s not an “ACTUAL WITCH HUNT” unless you’re hunting literal witches.",
">\n\nNext time I go for a walk in the woods, I’m going to say I’m going on a witch hunt.",
">\n\nReally misleading headline. No witches. Boring!!\nHa, when my daughter was 4 and Shrek was popular, I asked her if she wanted to see a video of the Monkees playing im a believer. Pulled it up on you tube and she got angry. Stormed off with \"wah! Those aren't monkeys! Boring!!\"\nI did not intend to mislead her, but do acknowledge my role there.",
">\n\nAfter 20 witch hunts there’s probably a witch…",
">\n\nIt’s a damn shame the DoJ has been completely comprised and Merrick Meuller Barr Garland is just running distraction for Traitor Trump and his seditious Republicans destroying our country with lies. Fuck the DoJ.",
">\n\nTrump was always the witch.",
">\n\nGod I wish they would hunt all the witches. Weak ass centrists.",
">\n\nThe corruption coming out of this administration just keeps on coming",
">\n\nThe GOP way, accuse the Dems of doing what the GOP is actually doing",
">\n\nA criminal asking for sympathy",
">\n\nThe GOP is just one giant projection."
] |
>
You'd actually have to be stupid to follow Trump in any capacity. Like actually mentally ill. | [
"Sorry, but even in this age of goldfish-brain news cycles, we cannot allow a certain development from last week to just fade into obscurity.\n\nThank you! This should have made a much, much bigger impact and it shouldn't disappear into the Trump news hole. Durham's investigation did exactly what Trumpians claimed the Russia investigation did -- while proving the Russia investigation didn't do those things! After an investigation that went on twice as long as the Russia investigation! And it found evidence of ADDITIONAL TRUMP FINANCIAL CRIMES! And Barr lied about the Durham investigation constantly! \nThis shouldn't have left the front page for weeks.",
">\n\n\nSorry, but even in this age of goldfish-brain news cycles, we cannot allow a certain development from last week to just fade into obscurity.\n\nIf Trump says Russia three times fast, 1/6 of the country will decide Trump is the real victim in this. \"Russia, Russia, Russia,\" Trump will say every time he mentions it, and his sycophants will nod and send him money.",
">\n\nAnd if Trump says Russia three times fast, 3/6 of the left will take that as confirmation, that trump was a sleeper agent for the Kremlin the whole time",
">\n\nI mean, just yesterday Trump publicly said he still believes Putin over the reports of the entire US intelligence apparatus. I don't think \"sleeper agent\" is the right description for someone who openly and actively promoted Russian interests over those of the United States.",
">\n\n\nI don't think \"sleeper agent\" is the right description for someone who openly and actively promoted Russian interests over those of the United States.\n\nLOL Kremlin \"screamer agent\" donald j trump.",
">\n\nThis isn't like a lot of Trump-news-Fatigue stories. \nIt's objectively much worse, the Attorney General (head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government), and his hand-picked hard-nosed prosecutor, John Durham mis-represented their investigation of the 2016 Russia investigation to the American Public... and then actively gave cover for Trump in the 2020 campaign to claim he was being persecuted.\n\nBy the summer of 2020, it was clear Durham's [investigation into the investigators of the 2016 Russian election interference and secret Trump support] had failed, and the Justice Department inspector general published a report that found no evidence the FBI was politically motivated in 2016. But Trump was absolutely losing it on Fox News, floating that Obama and Biden would be indicted for their offenses against him—\"the single biggest political crime in the history of our country\"—and the only way they wouldn't be was if his two pet prosecutors, Barr and Durham, decided to be \"politically correct.\" (God forbid!) Enter the Times:\nAgainst that backdrop, Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham did not shut down their inquiry when the search for intelligence abuses hit a dead end. With the inspector general’s inquiry complete, they turned to a new rationale: a hunt for a basis to accuse the Clinton campaign of conspiring to defraud the government by manufacturing the suspicions that the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia, along with scrutinizing what the F.B.I. and intelligence officials knew about the Clinton campaign’s actions.\nSo having failed to produce the goods in time to give Trump some political ammunition for the 2020 election, they just kept the investigation going with an entirely new focus? \nThey came up with nothing, so they started to work the name \"Clinton\" in there? How is that even the same investigation? It isn't, except for one crucial respect: It continued as a vehicle for Trump's shadowy accusations against his political opponents. As long as the investigation was \"ongoing,\" he had extra salt on his claims that anyone caught up in it was disgustingly corrupt.\nIn this respect, it's a lot like the Ukraine extortion that got Trump impeached the first time: He just wanted Zelenskyy to announce Ukraine was opening an investigation into the Bidens. The subtext, of course, was that Trump would do the rest.",
">\n\nYea, in the realm of our news i think this shit might on to something. I think we gotta start lookin hard into these timelines and all involved. \nwhat im interested in is the possible connections that NY fbi agent and this story has as the dude has been fingered as a potential leaker in said office in relation to clintons emails and comey in oct16 and the times article referenced durham was using shit russian intel. \nfollowing that trail it leads to deripaska and derkach, the former funded the fbi agent, the latter has been used by OAN to push the biden/bruisma narrative. Grassley and Johnson were close to subpoenaing derkach but dropped the investigation in sept20, they were also chastised for using bad russian intel. both are tied to manafort ghuliani et al.\nYea something fishy here. Especially with this story following the heels of the FBI agent arrest.",
">\n\nBurisma! No! They will not let it go",
">\n\nthey sure wont, that evolved into the laptop and its current iteration is \"twitter files\" screaming about a data scrapper and then circles back to a book from a guy goin on bout hunter/china. yea its that discombobulated",
">\n\nThe theory of Right-wing Projection is now established law.",
">\n\nIt's almost like he was projecting.",
">\n\nI think the biggest mistake everyone made was not realizing from the minute he came down that gaudy, trashy, gold escalator that literally everything that came out of his mouth was projection. He gave a roadmap to his lies and to his plans but we didn't realize he was literally telling us the truth.",
">\n\nI mean, I and tens of millions of other Americans realized on day 1.",
">\n\nNo, I really don't think that's accurate. 10s of millions of people already knew he was a liar, and probably broke, and insane, but it took a while before \"it's projection\" became the main response to anything he said and that literally every single thing he said was about him and the gop.\nEverything from \"Mexico isn't sending their best\" to \"Stolen election\" was about him.",
">\n\nIt is accurate though. The sky really fell for us the day he won, and we were all utterly and completely vindicated in the end. Sorry it took you a while to catch up. The good news for you: being right from the start ultimately ended up meaning nothing.",
">\n\n\nSorry it took you a while to catch up.\n\nAll I'm going to tell you is, never assume you know who you're talking to on the internet. 😂",
">\n\nthe whole investigations into biden is a witch hunt too.",
">\n\nEvery accusation is a confession.",
">\n\nNarcissists will often tell you exactly what they are doing by projecting it on to others.",
">\n\nIf Gym Jordan’s special committee on the weaponization of the DOJ is indeed righteous then the Durham investigation will be on the table for scrutiny. If not, well…",
">\n\nyep. we all watched it happen.",
">\n\nThis shouldn't have left the front page for weeks.",
">\n\nI think it’s long been known that any time a Republican is screaming about something being done to them, they are just numbing the public to an eventual revelation that they themselves were doing the same to someone else.",
">\n\nTrump was 100% colluding at some level with Russia. Barr knew it, Mueller knew it. Barr quickly squirreled away the Mueller Rpt to make sure none of it ever saw the light of day. At same time he launched this bogus witch hunt hoping to throw shade on someone, anyone and divert attention away from Trump.",
">\n\nIt's a good thing the house is going to do investigation in to weaponization of the DOJ I'm sure they'll get to the bottom of it.",
">\n\nwonder how long till they start using the \"just two more weeks\" bit.",
">\n\nIn two weeks.",
">\n\nMuch to nobody's suprise.",
">\n\nShocking absolutely no one. Just because he's a self agrandizing sociopath doesn't mean he can't also be a traitor.",
">\n\nRemember that when it comes to the GOP, every accusation is a confession",
">\n\nBiden's Justice Department Goons oversaw and actual Witch Hunt while he screamed one with Hunter being tied to the Big Man and money laundering. It's a glorious thing.",
">\n\nIt’s not an “ACTUAL WITCH HUNT” unless you’re hunting literal witches.",
">\n\nNext time I go for a walk in the woods, I’m going to say I’m going on a witch hunt.",
">\n\nReally misleading headline. No witches. Boring!!\nHa, when my daughter was 4 and Shrek was popular, I asked her if she wanted to see a video of the Monkees playing im a believer. Pulled it up on you tube and she got angry. Stormed off with \"wah! Those aren't monkeys! Boring!!\"\nI did not intend to mislead her, but do acknowledge my role there.",
">\n\nAfter 20 witch hunts there’s probably a witch…",
">\n\nIt’s a damn shame the DoJ has been completely comprised and Merrick Meuller Barr Garland is just running distraction for Traitor Trump and his seditious Republicans destroying our country with lies. Fuck the DoJ.",
">\n\nTrump was always the witch.",
">\n\nGod I wish they would hunt all the witches. Weak ass centrists.",
">\n\nThe corruption coming out of this administration just keeps on coming",
">\n\nThe GOP way, accuse the Dems of doing what the GOP is actually doing",
">\n\nA criminal asking for sympathy",
">\n\nThe GOP is just one giant projection.",
">\n\nTrump has goons now haha"
] |
>
Classic GOP playbook. Accuse others of what you are doing to take scrutiny off yourself. | [
"Sorry, but even in this age of goldfish-brain news cycles, we cannot allow a certain development from last week to just fade into obscurity.\n\nThank you! This should have made a much, much bigger impact and it shouldn't disappear into the Trump news hole. Durham's investigation did exactly what Trumpians claimed the Russia investigation did -- while proving the Russia investigation didn't do those things! After an investigation that went on twice as long as the Russia investigation! And it found evidence of ADDITIONAL TRUMP FINANCIAL CRIMES! And Barr lied about the Durham investigation constantly! \nThis shouldn't have left the front page for weeks.",
">\n\n\nSorry, but even in this age of goldfish-brain news cycles, we cannot allow a certain development from last week to just fade into obscurity.\n\nIf Trump says Russia three times fast, 1/6 of the country will decide Trump is the real victim in this. \"Russia, Russia, Russia,\" Trump will say every time he mentions it, and his sycophants will nod and send him money.",
">\n\nAnd if Trump says Russia three times fast, 3/6 of the left will take that as confirmation, that trump was a sleeper agent for the Kremlin the whole time",
">\n\nI mean, just yesterday Trump publicly said he still believes Putin over the reports of the entire US intelligence apparatus. I don't think \"sleeper agent\" is the right description for someone who openly and actively promoted Russian interests over those of the United States.",
">\n\n\nI don't think \"sleeper agent\" is the right description for someone who openly and actively promoted Russian interests over those of the United States.\n\nLOL Kremlin \"screamer agent\" donald j trump.",
">\n\nThis isn't like a lot of Trump-news-Fatigue stories. \nIt's objectively much worse, the Attorney General (head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government), and his hand-picked hard-nosed prosecutor, John Durham mis-represented their investigation of the 2016 Russia investigation to the American Public... and then actively gave cover for Trump in the 2020 campaign to claim he was being persecuted.\n\nBy the summer of 2020, it was clear Durham's [investigation into the investigators of the 2016 Russian election interference and secret Trump support] had failed, and the Justice Department inspector general published a report that found no evidence the FBI was politically motivated in 2016. But Trump was absolutely losing it on Fox News, floating that Obama and Biden would be indicted for their offenses against him—\"the single biggest political crime in the history of our country\"—and the only way they wouldn't be was if his two pet prosecutors, Barr and Durham, decided to be \"politically correct.\" (God forbid!) Enter the Times:\nAgainst that backdrop, Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham did not shut down their inquiry when the search for intelligence abuses hit a dead end. With the inspector general’s inquiry complete, they turned to a new rationale: a hunt for a basis to accuse the Clinton campaign of conspiring to defraud the government by manufacturing the suspicions that the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia, along with scrutinizing what the F.B.I. and intelligence officials knew about the Clinton campaign’s actions.\nSo having failed to produce the goods in time to give Trump some political ammunition for the 2020 election, they just kept the investigation going with an entirely new focus? \nThey came up with nothing, so they started to work the name \"Clinton\" in there? How is that even the same investigation? It isn't, except for one crucial respect: It continued as a vehicle for Trump's shadowy accusations against his political opponents. As long as the investigation was \"ongoing,\" he had extra salt on his claims that anyone caught up in it was disgustingly corrupt.\nIn this respect, it's a lot like the Ukraine extortion that got Trump impeached the first time: He just wanted Zelenskyy to announce Ukraine was opening an investigation into the Bidens. The subtext, of course, was that Trump would do the rest.",
">\n\nYea, in the realm of our news i think this shit might on to something. I think we gotta start lookin hard into these timelines and all involved. \nwhat im interested in is the possible connections that NY fbi agent and this story has as the dude has been fingered as a potential leaker in said office in relation to clintons emails and comey in oct16 and the times article referenced durham was using shit russian intel. \nfollowing that trail it leads to deripaska and derkach, the former funded the fbi agent, the latter has been used by OAN to push the biden/bruisma narrative. Grassley and Johnson were close to subpoenaing derkach but dropped the investigation in sept20, they were also chastised for using bad russian intel. both are tied to manafort ghuliani et al.\nYea something fishy here. Especially with this story following the heels of the FBI agent arrest.",
">\n\nBurisma! No! They will not let it go",
">\n\nthey sure wont, that evolved into the laptop and its current iteration is \"twitter files\" screaming about a data scrapper and then circles back to a book from a guy goin on bout hunter/china. yea its that discombobulated",
">\n\nThe theory of Right-wing Projection is now established law.",
">\n\nIt's almost like he was projecting.",
">\n\nI think the biggest mistake everyone made was not realizing from the minute he came down that gaudy, trashy, gold escalator that literally everything that came out of his mouth was projection. He gave a roadmap to his lies and to his plans but we didn't realize he was literally telling us the truth.",
">\n\nI mean, I and tens of millions of other Americans realized on day 1.",
">\n\nNo, I really don't think that's accurate. 10s of millions of people already knew he was a liar, and probably broke, and insane, but it took a while before \"it's projection\" became the main response to anything he said and that literally every single thing he said was about him and the gop.\nEverything from \"Mexico isn't sending their best\" to \"Stolen election\" was about him.",
">\n\nIt is accurate though. The sky really fell for us the day he won, and we were all utterly and completely vindicated in the end. Sorry it took you a while to catch up. The good news for you: being right from the start ultimately ended up meaning nothing.",
">\n\n\nSorry it took you a while to catch up.\n\nAll I'm going to tell you is, never assume you know who you're talking to on the internet. 😂",
">\n\nthe whole investigations into biden is a witch hunt too.",
">\n\nEvery accusation is a confession.",
">\n\nNarcissists will often tell you exactly what they are doing by projecting it on to others.",
">\n\nIf Gym Jordan’s special committee on the weaponization of the DOJ is indeed righteous then the Durham investigation will be on the table for scrutiny. If not, well…",
">\n\nyep. we all watched it happen.",
">\n\nThis shouldn't have left the front page for weeks.",
">\n\nI think it’s long been known that any time a Republican is screaming about something being done to them, they are just numbing the public to an eventual revelation that they themselves were doing the same to someone else.",
">\n\nTrump was 100% colluding at some level with Russia. Barr knew it, Mueller knew it. Barr quickly squirreled away the Mueller Rpt to make sure none of it ever saw the light of day. At same time he launched this bogus witch hunt hoping to throw shade on someone, anyone and divert attention away from Trump.",
">\n\nIt's a good thing the house is going to do investigation in to weaponization of the DOJ I'm sure they'll get to the bottom of it.",
">\n\nwonder how long till they start using the \"just two more weeks\" bit.",
">\n\nIn two weeks.",
">\n\nMuch to nobody's suprise.",
">\n\nShocking absolutely no one. Just because he's a self agrandizing sociopath doesn't mean he can't also be a traitor.",
">\n\nRemember that when it comes to the GOP, every accusation is a confession",
">\n\nBiden's Justice Department Goons oversaw and actual Witch Hunt while he screamed one with Hunter being tied to the Big Man and money laundering. It's a glorious thing.",
">\n\nIt’s not an “ACTUAL WITCH HUNT” unless you’re hunting literal witches.",
">\n\nNext time I go for a walk in the woods, I’m going to say I’m going on a witch hunt.",
">\n\nReally misleading headline. No witches. Boring!!\nHa, when my daughter was 4 and Shrek was popular, I asked her if she wanted to see a video of the Monkees playing im a believer. Pulled it up on you tube and she got angry. Stormed off with \"wah! Those aren't monkeys! Boring!!\"\nI did not intend to mislead her, but do acknowledge my role there.",
">\n\nAfter 20 witch hunts there’s probably a witch…",
">\n\nIt’s a damn shame the DoJ has been completely comprised and Merrick Meuller Barr Garland is just running distraction for Traitor Trump and his seditious Republicans destroying our country with lies. Fuck the DoJ.",
">\n\nTrump was always the witch.",
">\n\nGod I wish they would hunt all the witches. Weak ass centrists.",
">\n\nThe corruption coming out of this administration just keeps on coming",
">\n\nThe GOP way, accuse the Dems of doing what the GOP is actually doing",
">\n\nA criminal asking for sympathy",
">\n\nThe GOP is just one giant projection.",
">\n\nTrump has goons now haha",
">\n\nYou'd actually have to be stupid to follow Trump in any capacity. Like actually mentally ill."
] |
>
How can you objectively say this when everything Trump has said has come true about two years after he said it.... No Russia Collusion, Whether it was won fair or not, Democrats did change the election laws at the last second to help them win in 2020, Hunters Laptop... open your eyes... No president was ever persecuted unjustly as much as Trump... all because he wasn't part of the political elite... Watch, the minute Desantis beats him everything that Trump was labeled will move to Desantis which totally proves the point. | [
"Sorry, but even in this age of goldfish-brain news cycles, we cannot allow a certain development from last week to just fade into obscurity.\n\nThank you! This should have made a much, much bigger impact and it shouldn't disappear into the Trump news hole. Durham's investigation did exactly what Trumpians claimed the Russia investigation did -- while proving the Russia investigation didn't do those things! After an investigation that went on twice as long as the Russia investigation! And it found evidence of ADDITIONAL TRUMP FINANCIAL CRIMES! And Barr lied about the Durham investigation constantly! \nThis shouldn't have left the front page for weeks.",
">\n\n\nSorry, but even in this age of goldfish-brain news cycles, we cannot allow a certain development from last week to just fade into obscurity.\n\nIf Trump says Russia three times fast, 1/6 of the country will decide Trump is the real victim in this. \"Russia, Russia, Russia,\" Trump will say every time he mentions it, and his sycophants will nod and send him money.",
">\n\nAnd if Trump says Russia three times fast, 3/6 of the left will take that as confirmation, that trump was a sleeper agent for the Kremlin the whole time",
">\n\nI mean, just yesterday Trump publicly said he still believes Putin over the reports of the entire US intelligence apparatus. I don't think \"sleeper agent\" is the right description for someone who openly and actively promoted Russian interests over those of the United States.",
">\n\n\nI don't think \"sleeper agent\" is the right description for someone who openly and actively promoted Russian interests over those of the United States.\n\nLOL Kremlin \"screamer agent\" donald j trump.",
">\n\nThis isn't like a lot of Trump-news-Fatigue stories. \nIt's objectively much worse, the Attorney General (head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government), and his hand-picked hard-nosed prosecutor, John Durham mis-represented their investigation of the 2016 Russia investigation to the American Public... and then actively gave cover for Trump in the 2020 campaign to claim he was being persecuted.\n\nBy the summer of 2020, it was clear Durham's [investigation into the investigators of the 2016 Russian election interference and secret Trump support] had failed, and the Justice Department inspector general published a report that found no evidence the FBI was politically motivated in 2016. But Trump was absolutely losing it on Fox News, floating that Obama and Biden would be indicted for their offenses against him—\"the single biggest political crime in the history of our country\"—and the only way they wouldn't be was if his two pet prosecutors, Barr and Durham, decided to be \"politically correct.\" (God forbid!) Enter the Times:\nAgainst that backdrop, Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham did not shut down their inquiry when the search for intelligence abuses hit a dead end. With the inspector general’s inquiry complete, they turned to a new rationale: a hunt for a basis to accuse the Clinton campaign of conspiring to defraud the government by manufacturing the suspicions that the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia, along with scrutinizing what the F.B.I. and intelligence officials knew about the Clinton campaign’s actions.\nSo having failed to produce the goods in time to give Trump some political ammunition for the 2020 election, they just kept the investigation going with an entirely new focus? \nThey came up with nothing, so they started to work the name \"Clinton\" in there? How is that even the same investigation? It isn't, except for one crucial respect: It continued as a vehicle for Trump's shadowy accusations against his political opponents. As long as the investigation was \"ongoing,\" he had extra salt on his claims that anyone caught up in it was disgustingly corrupt.\nIn this respect, it's a lot like the Ukraine extortion that got Trump impeached the first time: He just wanted Zelenskyy to announce Ukraine was opening an investigation into the Bidens. The subtext, of course, was that Trump would do the rest.",
">\n\nYea, in the realm of our news i think this shit might on to something. I think we gotta start lookin hard into these timelines and all involved. \nwhat im interested in is the possible connections that NY fbi agent and this story has as the dude has been fingered as a potential leaker in said office in relation to clintons emails and comey in oct16 and the times article referenced durham was using shit russian intel. \nfollowing that trail it leads to deripaska and derkach, the former funded the fbi agent, the latter has been used by OAN to push the biden/bruisma narrative. Grassley and Johnson were close to subpoenaing derkach but dropped the investigation in sept20, they were also chastised for using bad russian intel. both are tied to manafort ghuliani et al.\nYea something fishy here. Especially with this story following the heels of the FBI agent arrest.",
">\n\nBurisma! No! They will not let it go",
">\n\nthey sure wont, that evolved into the laptop and its current iteration is \"twitter files\" screaming about a data scrapper and then circles back to a book from a guy goin on bout hunter/china. yea its that discombobulated",
">\n\nThe theory of Right-wing Projection is now established law.",
">\n\nIt's almost like he was projecting.",
">\n\nI think the biggest mistake everyone made was not realizing from the minute he came down that gaudy, trashy, gold escalator that literally everything that came out of his mouth was projection. He gave a roadmap to his lies and to his plans but we didn't realize he was literally telling us the truth.",
">\n\nI mean, I and tens of millions of other Americans realized on day 1.",
">\n\nNo, I really don't think that's accurate. 10s of millions of people already knew he was a liar, and probably broke, and insane, but it took a while before \"it's projection\" became the main response to anything he said and that literally every single thing he said was about him and the gop.\nEverything from \"Mexico isn't sending their best\" to \"Stolen election\" was about him.",
">\n\nIt is accurate though. The sky really fell for us the day he won, and we were all utterly and completely vindicated in the end. Sorry it took you a while to catch up. The good news for you: being right from the start ultimately ended up meaning nothing.",
">\n\n\nSorry it took you a while to catch up.\n\nAll I'm going to tell you is, never assume you know who you're talking to on the internet. 😂",
">\n\nthe whole investigations into biden is a witch hunt too.",
">\n\nEvery accusation is a confession.",
">\n\nNarcissists will often tell you exactly what they are doing by projecting it on to others.",
">\n\nIf Gym Jordan’s special committee on the weaponization of the DOJ is indeed righteous then the Durham investigation will be on the table for scrutiny. If not, well…",
">\n\nyep. we all watched it happen.",
">\n\nThis shouldn't have left the front page for weeks.",
">\n\nI think it’s long been known that any time a Republican is screaming about something being done to them, they are just numbing the public to an eventual revelation that they themselves were doing the same to someone else.",
">\n\nTrump was 100% colluding at some level with Russia. Barr knew it, Mueller knew it. Barr quickly squirreled away the Mueller Rpt to make sure none of it ever saw the light of day. At same time he launched this bogus witch hunt hoping to throw shade on someone, anyone and divert attention away from Trump.",
">\n\nIt's a good thing the house is going to do investigation in to weaponization of the DOJ I'm sure they'll get to the bottom of it.",
">\n\nwonder how long till they start using the \"just two more weeks\" bit.",
">\n\nIn two weeks.",
">\n\nMuch to nobody's suprise.",
">\n\nShocking absolutely no one. Just because he's a self agrandizing sociopath doesn't mean he can't also be a traitor.",
">\n\nRemember that when it comes to the GOP, every accusation is a confession",
">\n\nBiden's Justice Department Goons oversaw and actual Witch Hunt while he screamed one with Hunter being tied to the Big Man and money laundering. It's a glorious thing.",
">\n\nIt’s not an “ACTUAL WITCH HUNT” unless you’re hunting literal witches.",
">\n\nNext time I go for a walk in the woods, I’m going to say I’m going on a witch hunt.",
">\n\nReally misleading headline. No witches. Boring!!\nHa, when my daughter was 4 and Shrek was popular, I asked her if she wanted to see a video of the Monkees playing im a believer. Pulled it up on you tube and she got angry. Stormed off with \"wah! Those aren't monkeys! Boring!!\"\nI did not intend to mislead her, but do acknowledge my role there.",
">\n\nAfter 20 witch hunts there’s probably a witch…",
">\n\nIt’s a damn shame the DoJ has been completely comprised and Merrick Meuller Barr Garland is just running distraction for Traitor Trump and his seditious Republicans destroying our country with lies. Fuck the DoJ.",
">\n\nTrump was always the witch.",
">\n\nGod I wish they would hunt all the witches. Weak ass centrists.",
">\n\nThe corruption coming out of this administration just keeps on coming",
">\n\nThe GOP way, accuse the Dems of doing what the GOP is actually doing",
">\n\nA criminal asking for sympathy",
">\n\nThe GOP is just one giant projection.",
">\n\nTrump has goons now haha",
">\n\nYou'd actually have to be stupid to follow Trump in any capacity. Like actually mentally ill.",
">\n\nClassic GOP playbook. Accuse others of what you are doing to take scrutiny off yourself."
] |
>
The only thing that has changed at DOJ post Trump is a few portraits in the Lobby. | [
"Sorry, but even in this age of goldfish-brain news cycles, we cannot allow a certain development from last week to just fade into obscurity.\n\nThank you! This should have made a much, much bigger impact and it shouldn't disappear into the Trump news hole. Durham's investigation did exactly what Trumpians claimed the Russia investigation did -- while proving the Russia investigation didn't do those things! After an investigation that went on twice as long as the Russia investigation! And it found evidence of ADDITIONAL TRUMP FINANCIAL CRIMES! And Barr lied about the Durham investigation constantly! \nThis shouldn't have left the front page for weeks.",
">\n\n\nSorry, but even in this age of goldfish-brain news cycles, we cannot allow a certain development from last week to just fade into obscurity.\n\nIf Trump says Russia three times fast, 1/6 of the country will decide Trump is the real victim in this. \"Russia, Russia, Russia,\" Trump will say every time he mentions it, and his sycophants will nod and send him money.",
">\n\nAnd if Trump says Russia three times fast, 3/6 of the left will take that as confirmation, that trump was a sleeper agent for the Kremlin the whole time",
">\n\nI mean, just yesterday Trump publicly said he still believes Putin over the reports of the entire US intelligence apparatus. I don't think \"sleeper agent\" is the right description for someone who openly and actively promoted Russian interests over those of the United States.",
">\n\n\nI don't think \"sleeper agent\" is the right description for someone who openly and actively promoted Russian interests over those of the United States.\n\nLOL Kremlin \"screamer agent\" donald j trump.",
">\n\nThis isn't like a lot of Trump-news-Fatigue stories. \nIt's objectively much worse, the Attorney General (head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government), and his hand-picked hard-nosed prosecutor, John Durham mis-represented their investigation of the 2016 Russia investigation to the American Public... and then actively gave cover for Trump in the 2020 campaign to claim he was being persecuted.\n\nBy the summer of 2020, it was clear Durham's [investigation into the investigators of the 2016 Russian election interference and secret Trump support] had failed, and the Justice Department inspector general published a report that found no evidence the FBI was politically motivated in 2016. But Trump was absolutely losing it on Fox News, floating that Obama and Biden would be indicted for their offenses against him—\"the single biggest political crime in the history of our country\"—and the only way they wouldn't be was if his two pet prosecutors, Barr and Durham, decided to be \"politically correct.\" (God forbid!) Enter the Times:\nAgainst that backdrop, Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham did not shut down their inquiry when the search for intelligence abuses hit a dead end. With the inspector general’s inquiry complete, they turned to a new rationale: a hunt for a basis to accuse the Clinton campaign of conspiring to defraud the government by manufacturing the suspicions that the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia, along with scrutinizing what the F.B.I. and intelligence officials knew about the Clinton campaign’s actions.\nSo having failed to produce the goods in time to give Trump some political ammunition for the 2020 election, they just kept the investigation going with an entirely new focus? \nThey came up with nothing, so they started to work the name \"Clinton\" in there? How is that even the same investigation? It isn't, except for one crucial respect: It continued as a vehicle for Trump's shadowy accusations against his political opponents. As long as the investigation was \"ongoing,\" he had extra salt on his claims that anyone caught up in it was disgustingly corrupt.\nIn this respect, it's a lot like the Ukraine extortion that got Trump impeached the first time: He just wanted Zelenskyy to announce Ukraine was opening an investigation into the Bidens. The subtext, of course, was that Trump would do the rest.",
">\n\nYea, in the realm of our news i think this shit might on to something. I think we gotta start lookin hard into these timelines and all involved. \nwhat im interested in is the possible connections that NY fbi agent and this story has as the dude has been fingered as a potential leaker in said office in relation to clintons emails and comey in oct16 and the times article referenced durham was using shit russian intel. \nfollowing that trail it leads to deripaska and derkach, the former funded the fbi agent, the latter has been used by OAN to push the biden/bruisma narrative. Grassley and Johnson were close to subpoenaing derkach but dropped the investigation in sept20, they were also chastised for using bad russian intel. both are tied to manafort ghuliani et al.\nYea something fishy here. Especially with this story following the heels of the FBI agent arrest.",
">\n\nBurisma! No! They will not let it go",
">\n\nthey sure wont, that evolved into the laptop and its current iteration is \"twitter files\" screaming about a data scrapper and then circles back to a book from a guy goin on bout hunter/china. yea its that discombobulated",
">\n\nThe theory of Right-wing Projection is now established law.",
">\n\nIt's almost like he was projecting.",
">\n\nI think the biggest mistake everyone made was not realizing from the minute he came down that gaudy, trashy, gold escalator that literally everything that came out of his mouth was projection. He gave a roadmap to his lies and to his plans but we didn't realize he was literally telling us the truth.",
">\n\nI mean, I and tens of millions of other Americans realized on day 1.",
">\n\nNo, I really don't think that's accurate. 10s of millions of people already knew he was a liar, and probably broke, and insane, but it took a while before \"it's projection\" became the main response to anything he said and that literally every single thing he said was about him and the gop.\nEverything from \"Mexico isn't sending their best\" to \"Stolen election\" was about him.",
">\n\nIt is accurate though. The sky really fell for us the day he won, and we were all utterly and completely vindicated in the end. Sorry it took you a while to catch up. The good news for you: being right from the start ultimately ended up meaning nothing.",
">\n\n\nSorry it took you a while to catch up.\n\nAll I'm going to tell you is, never assume you know who you're talking to on the internet. 😂",
">\n\nthe whole investigations into biden is a witch hunt too.",
">\n\nEvery accusation is a confession.",
">\n\nNarcissists will often tell you exactly what they are doing by projecting it on to others.",
">\n\nIf Gym Jordan’s special committee on the weaponization of the DOJ is indeed righteous then the Durham investigation will be on the table for scrutiny. If not, well…",
">\n\nyep. we all watched it happen.",
">\n\nThis shouldn't have left the front page for weeks.",
">\n\nI think it’s long been known that any time a Republican is screaming about something being done to them, they are just numbing the public to an eventual revelation that they themselves were doing the same to someone else.",
">\n\nTrump was 100% colluding at some level with Russia. Barr knew it, Mueller knew it. Barr quickly squirreled away the Mueller Rpt to make sure none of it ever saw the light of day. At same time he launched this bogus witch hunt hoping to throw shade on someone, anyone and divert attention away from Trump.",
">\n\nIt's a good thing the house is going to do investigation in to weaponization of the DOJ I'm sure they'll get to the bottom of it.",
">\n\nwonder how long till they start using the \"just two more weeks\" bit.",
">\n\nIn two weeks.",
">\n\nMuch to nobody's suprise.",
">\n\nShocking absolutely no one. Just because he's a self agrandizing sociopath doesn't mean he can't also be a traitor.",
">\n\nRemember that when it comes to the GOP, every accusation is a confession",
">\n\nBiden's Justice Department Goons oversaw and actual Witch Hunt while he screamed one with Hunter being tied to the Big Man and money laundering. It's a glorious thing.",
">\n\nIt’s not an “ACTUAL WITCH HUNT” unless you’re hunting literal witches.",
">\n\nNext time I go for a walk in the woods, I’m going to say I’m going on a witch hunt.",
">\n\nReally misleading headline. No witches. Boring!!\nHa, when my daughter was 4 and Shrek was popular, I asked her if she wanted to see a video of the Monkees playing im a believer. Pulled it up on you tube and she got angry. Stormed off with \"wah! Those aren't monkeys! Boring!!\"\nI did not intend to mislead her, but do acknowledge my role there.",
">\n\nAfter 20 witch hunts there’s probably a witch…",
">\n\nIt’s a damn shame the DoJ has been completely comprised and Merrick Meuller Barr Garland is just running distraction for Traitor Trump and his seditious Republicans destroying our country with lies. Fuck the DoJ.",
">\n\nTrump was always the witch.",
">\n\nGod I wish they would hunt all the witches. Weak ass centrists.",
">\n\nThe corruption coming out of this administration just keeps on coming",
">\n\nThe GOP way, accuse the Dems of doing what the GOP is actually doing",
">\n\nA criminal asking for sympathy",
">\n\nThe GOP is just one giant projection.",
">\n\nTrump has goons now haha",
">\n\nYou'd actually have to be stupid to follow Trump in any capacity. Like actually mentally ill.",
">\n\nClassic GOP playbook. Accuse others of what you are doing to take scrutiny off yourself.",
">\n\nHow can you objectively say this when everything Trump has said has come true about two years after he said it.... No Russia Collusion, Whether it was won fair or not, Democrats did change the election laws at the last second to help them win in 2020, Hunters Laptop... open your eyes... No president was ever persecuted unjustly as much as Trump... all because he wasn't part of the political elite... Watch, the minute Desantis beats him everything that Trump was labeled will move to Desantis which totally proves the point."
] |
>
An issue that I have is that this self-absorbed and COMPLETE waste of space (not to mention time and money) most likely knows nothing about the actual Salem witch trials in the 1600s. The Salem 'Interrogation' of the accused seemed like it was due to a personal hatred and complete disregard of the 'witches' (they were almost all women). Mood swings? Witch! Introverted? Witch! Outspoken? Witch! Speaking about or showing concern towards anything of even slight importance? Witch! And all of this without one shred of any objective EMPIRICAL evidence of 'witchcraft'. It's not like the accused had any kind of recourse or any say in this. It surely didn't prevent the fact that they would soon be burned alive. BURNED! ALIVE!
TFG is guilty as shit, and we all know it. | [
"Sorry, but even in this age of goldfish-brain news cycles, we cannot allow a certain development from last week to just fade into obscurity.\n\nThank you! This should have made a much, much bigger impact and it shouldn't disappear into the Trump news hole. Durham's investigation did exactly what Trumpians claimed the Russia investigation did -- while proving the Russia investigation didn't do those things! After an investigation that went on twice as long as the Russia investigation! And it found evidence of ADDITIONAL TRUMP FINANCIAL CRIMES! And Barr lied about the Durham investigation constantly! \nThis shouldn't have left the front page for weeks.",
">\n\n\nSorry, but even in this age of goldfish-brain news cycles, we cannot allow a certain development from last week to just fade into obscurity.\n\nIf Trump says Russia three times fast, 1/6 of the country will decide Trump is the real victim in this. \"Russia, Russia, Russia,\" Trump will say every time he mentions it, and his sycophants will nod and send him money.",
">\n\nAnd if Trump says Russia three times fast, 3/6 of the left will take that as confirmation, that trump was a sleeper agent for the Kremlin the whole time",
">\n\nI mean, just yesterday Trump publicly said he still believes Putin over the reports of the entire US intelligence apparatus. I don't think \"sleeper agent\" is the right description for someone who openly and actively promoted Russian interests over those of the United States.",
">\n\n\nI don't think \"sleeper agent\" is the right description for someone who openly and actively promoted Russian interests over those of the United States.\n\nLOL Kremlin \"screamer agent\" donald j trump.",
">\n\nThis isn't like a lot of Trump-news-Fatigue stories. \nIt's objectively much worse, the Attorney General (head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government), and his hand-picked hard-nosed prosecutor, John Durham mis-represented their investigation of the 2016 Russia investigation to the American Public... and then actively gave cover for Trump in the 2020 campaign to claim he was being persecuted.\n\nBy the summer of 2020, it was clear Durham's [investigation into the investigators of the 2016 Russian election interference and secret Trump support] had failed, and the Justice Department inspector general published a report that found no evidence the FBI was politically motivated in 2016. But Trump was absolutely losing it on Fox News, floating that Obama and Biden would be indicted for their offenses against him—\"the single biggest political crime in the history of our country\"—and the only way they wouldn't be was if his two pet prosecutors, Barr and Durham, decided to be \"politically correct.\" (God forbid!) Enter the Times:\nAgainst that backdrop, Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham did not shut down their inquiry when the search for intelligence abuses hit a dead end. With the inspector general’s inquiry complete, they turned to a new rationale: a hunt for a basis to accuse the Clinton campaign of conspiring to defraud the government by manufacturing the suspicions that the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia, along with scrutinizing what the F.B.I. and intelligence officials knew about the Clinton campaign’s actions.\nSo having failed to produce the goods in time to give Trump some political ammunition for the 2020 election, they just kept the investigation going with an entirely new focus? \nThey came up with nothing, so they started to work the name \"Clinton\" in there? How is that even the same investigation? It isn't, except for one crucial respect: It continued as a vehicle for Trump's shadowy accusations against his political opponents. As long as the investigation was \"ongoing,\" he had extra salt on his claims that anyone caught up in it was disgustingly corrupt.\nIn this respect, it's a lot like the Ukraine extortion that got Trump impeached the first time: He just wanted Zelenskyy to announce Ukraine was opening an investigation into the Bidens. The subtext, of course, was that Trump would do the rest.",
">\n\nYea, in the realm of our news i think this shit might on to something. I think we gotta start lookin hard into these timelines and all involved. \nwhat im interested in is the possible connections that NY fbi agent and this story has as the dude has been fingered as a potential leaker in said office in relation to clintons emails and comey in oct16 and the times article referenced durham was using shit russian intel. \nfollowing that trail it leads to deripaska and derkach, the former funded the fbi agent, the latter has been used by OAN to push the biden/bruisma narrative. Grassley and Johnson were close to subpoenaing derkach but dropped the investigation in sept20, they were also chastised for using bad russian intel. both are tied to manafort ghuliani et al.\nYea something fishy here. Especially with this story following the heels of the FBI agent arrest.",
">\n\nBurisma! No! They will not let it go",
">\n\nthey sure wont, that evolved into the laptop and its current iteration is \"twitter files\" screaming about a data scrapper and then circles back to a book from a guy goin on bout hunter/china. yea its that discombobulated",
">\n\nThe theory of Right-wing Projection is now established law.",
">\n\nIt's almost like he was projecting.",
">\n\nI think the biggest mistake everyone made was not realizing from the minute he came down that gaudy, trashy, gold escalator that literally everything that came out of his mouth was projection. He gave a roadmap to his lies and to his plans but we didn't realize he was literally telling us the truth.",
">\n\nI mean, I and tens of millions of other Americans realized on day 1.",
">\n\nNo, I really don't think that's accurate. 10s of millions of people already knew he was a liar, and probably broke, and insane, but it took a while before \"it's projection\" became the main response to anything he said and that literally every single thing he said was about him and the gop.\nEverything from \"Mexico isn't sending their best\" to \"Stolen election\" was about him.",
">\n\nIt is accurate though. The sky really fell for us the day he won, and we were all utterly and completely vindicated in the end. Sorry it took you a while to catch up. The good news for you: being right from the start ultimately ended up meaning nothing.",
">\n\n\nSorry it took you a while to catch up.\n\nAll I'm going to tell you is, never assume you know who you're talking to on the internet. 😂",
">\n\nthe whole investigations into biden is a witch hunt too.",
">\n\nEvery accusation is a confession.",
">\n\nNarcissists will often tell you exactly what they are doing by projecting it on to others.",
">\n\nIf Gym Jordan’s special committee on the weaponization of the DOJ is indeed righteous then the Durham investigation will be on the table for scrutiny. If not, well…",
">\n\nyep. we all watched it happen.",
">\n\nThis shouldn't have left the front page for weeks.",
">\n\nI think it’s long been known that any time a Republican is screaming about something being done to them, they are just numbing the public to an eventual revelation that they themselves were doing the same to someone else.",
">\n\nTrump was 100% colluding at some level with Russia. Barr knew it, Mueller knew it. Barr quickly squirreled away the Mueller Rpt to make sure none of it ever saw the light of day. At same time he launched this bogus witch hunt hoping to throw shade on someone, anyone and divert attention away from Trump.",
">\n\nIt's a good thing the house is going to do investigation in to weaponization of the DOJ I'm sure they'll get to the bottom of it.",
">\n\nwonder how long till they start using the \"just two more weeks\" bit.",
">\n\nIn two weeks.",
">\n\nMuch to nobody's suprise.",
">\n\nShocking absolutely no one. Just because he's a self agrandizing sociopath doesn't mean he can't also be a traitor.",
">\n\nRemember that when it comes to the GOP, every accusation is a confession",
">\n\nBiden's Justice Department Goons oversaw and actual Witch Hunt while he screamed one with Hunter being tied to the Big Man and money laundering. It's a glorious thing.",
">\n\nIt’s not an “ACTUAL WITCH HUNT” unless you’re hunting literal witches.",
">\n\nNext time I go for a walk in the woods, I’m going to say I’m going on a witch hunt.",
">\n\nReally misleading headline. No witches. Boring!!\nHa, when my daughter was 4 and Shrek was popular, I asked her if she wanted to see a video of the Monkees playing im a believer. Pulled it up on you tube and she got angry. Stormed off with \"wah! Those aren't monkeys! Boring!!\"\nI did not intend to mislead her, but do acknowledge my role there.",
">\n\nAfter 20 witch hunts there’s probably a witch…",
">\n\nIt’s a damn shame the DoJ has been completely comprised and Merrick Meuller Barr Garland is just running distraction for Traitor Trump and his seditious Republicans destroying our country with lies. Fuck the DoJ.",
">\n\nTrump was always the witch.",
">\n\nGod I wish they would hunt all the witches. Weak ass centrists.",
">\n\nThe corruption coming out of this administration just keeps on coming",
">\n\nThe GOP way, accuse the Dems of doing what the GOP is actually doing",
">\n\nA criminal asking for sympathy",
">\n\nThe GOP is just one giant projection.",
">\n\nTrump has goons now haha",
">\n\nYou'd actually have to be stupid to follow Trump in any capacity. Like actually mentally ill.",
">\n\nClassic GOP playbook. Accuse others of what you are doing to take scrutiny off yourself.",
">\n\nHow can you objectively say this when everything Trump has said has come true about two years after he said it.... No Russia Collusion, Whether it was won fair or not, Democrats did change the election laws at the last second to help them win in 2020, Hunters Laptop... open your eyes... No president was ever persecuted unjustly as much as Trump... all because he wasn't part of the political elite... Watch, the minute Desantis beats him everything that Trump was labeled will move to Desantis which totally proves the point.",
">\n\nThe only thing that has changed at DOJ post Trump is a few portraits in the Lobby."
] |
> | [
"Sorry, but even in this age of goldfish-brain news cycles, we cannot allow a certain development from last week to just fade into obscurity.\n\nThank you! This should have made a much, much bigger impact and it shouldn't disappear into the Trump news hole. Durham's investigation did exactly what Trumpians claimed the Russia investigation did -- while proving the Russia investigation didn't do those things! After an investigation that went on twice as long as the Russia investigation! And it found evidence of ADDITIONAL TRUMP FINANCIAL CRIMES! And Barr lied about the Durham investigation constantly! \nThis shouldn't have left the front page for weeks.",
">\n\n\nSorry, but even in this age of goldfish-brain news cycles, we cannot allow a certain development from last week to just fade into obscurity.\n\nIf Trump says Russia three times fast, 1/6 of the country will decide Trump is the real victim in this. \"Russia, Russia, Russia,\" Trump will say every time he mentions it, and his sycophants will nod and send him money.",
">\n\nAnd if Trump says Russia three times fast, 3/6 of the left will take that as confirmation, that trump was a sleeper agent for the Kremlin the whole time",
">\n\nI mean, just yesterday Trump publicly said he still believes Putin over the reports of the entire US intelligence apparatus. I don't think \"sleeper agent\" is the right description for someone who openly and actively promoted Russian interests over those of the United States.",
">\n\n\nI don't think \"sleeper agent\" is the right description for someone who openly and actively promoted Russian interests over those of the United States.\n\nLOL Kremlin \"screamer agent\" donald j trump.",
">\n\nThis isn't like a lot of Trump-news-Fatigue stories. \nIt's objectively much worse, the Attorney General (head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government), and his hand-picked hard-nosed prosecutor, John Durham mis-represented their investigation of the 2016 Russia investigation to the American Public... and then actively gave cover for Trump in the 2020 campaign to claim he was being persecuted.\n\nBy the summer of 2020, it was clear Durham's [investigation into the investigators of the 2016 Russian election interference and secret Trump support] had failed, and the Justice Department inspector general published a report that found no evidence the FBI was politically motivated in 2016. But Trump was absolutely losing it on Fox News, floating that Obama and Biden would be indicted for their offenses against him—\"the single biggest political crime in the history of our country\"—and the only way they wouldn't be was if his two pet prosecutors, Barr and Durham, decided to be \"politically correct.\" (God forbid!) Enter the Times:\nAgainst that backdrop, Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham did not shut down their inquiry when the search for intelligence abuses hit a dead end. With the inspector general’s inquiry complete, they turned to a new rationale: a hunt for a basis to accuse the Clinton campaign of conspiring to defraud the government by manufacturing the suspicions that the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia, along with scrutinizing what the F.B.I. and intelligence officials knew about the Clinton campaign’s actions.\nSo having failed to produce the goods in time to give Trump some political ammunition for the 2020 election, they just kept the investigation going with an entirely new focus? \nThey came up with nothing, so they started to work the name \"Clinton\" in there? How is that even the same investigation? It isn't, except for one crucial respect: It continued as a vehicle for Trump's shadowy accusations against his political opponents. As long as the investigation was \"ongoing,\" he had extra salt on his claims that anyone caught up in it was disgustingly corrupt.\nIn this respect, it's a lot like the Ukraine extortion that got Trump impeached the first time: He just wanted Zelenskyy to announce Ukraine was opening an investigation into the Bidens. The subtext, of course, was that Trump would do the rest.",
">\n\nYea, in the realm of our news i think this shit might on to something. I think we gotta start lookin hard into these timelines and all involved. \nwhat im interested in is the possible connections that NY fbi agent and this story has as the dude has been fingered as a potential leaker in said office in relation to clintons emails and comey in oct16 and the times article referenced durham was using shit russian intel. \nfollowing that trail it leads to deripaska and derkach, the former funded the fbi agent, the latter has been used by OAN to push the biden/bruisma narrative. Grassley and Johnson were close to subpoenaing derkach but dropped the investigation in sept20, they were also chastised for using bad russian intel. both are tied to manafort ghuliani et al.\nYea something fishy here. Especially with this story following the heels of the FBI agent arrest.",
">\n\nBurisma! No! They will not let it go",
">\n\nthey sure wont, that evolved into the laptop and its current iteration is \"twitter files\" screaming about a data scrapper and then circles back to a book from a guy goin on bout hunter/china. yea its that discombobulated",
">\n\nThe theory of Right-wing Projection is now established law.",
">\n\nIt's almost like he was projecting.",
">\n\nI think the biggest mistake everyone made was not realizing from the minute he came down that gaudy, trashy, gold escalator that literally everything that came out of his mouth was projection. He gave a roadmap to his lies and to his plans but we didn't realize he was literally telling us the truth.",
">\n\nI mean, I and tens of millions of other Americans realized on day 1.",
">\n\nNo, I really don't think that's accurate. 10s of millions of people already knew he was a liar, and probably broke, and insane, but it took a while before \"it's projection\" became the main response to anything he said and that literally every single thing he said was about him and the gop.\nEverything from \"Mexico isn't sending their best\" to \"Stolen election\" was about him.",
">\n\nIt is accurate though. The sky really fell for us the day he won, and we were all utterly and completely vindicated in the end. Sorry it took you a while to catch up. The good news for you: being right from the start ultimately ended up meaning nothing.",
">\n\n\nSorry it took you a while to catch up.\n\nAll I'm going to tell you is, never assume you know who you're talking to on the internet. 😂",
">\n\nthe whole investigations into biden is a witch hunt too.",
">\n\nEvery accusation is a confession.",
">\n\nNarcissists will often tell you exactly what they are doing by projecting it on to others.",
">\n\nIf Gym Jordan’s special committee on the weaponization of the DOJ is indeed righteous then the Durham investigation will be on the table for scrutiny. If not, well…",
">\n\nyep. we all watched it happen.",
">\n\nThis shouldn't have left the front page for weeks.",
">\n\nI think it’s long been known that any time a Republican is screaming about something being done to them, they are just numbing the public to an eventual revelation that they themselves were doing the same to someone else.",
">\n\nTrump was 100% colluding at some level with Russia. Barr knew it, Mueller knew it. Barr quickly squirreled away the Mueller Rpt to make sure none of it ever saw the light of day. At same time he launched this bogus witch hunt hoping to throw shade on someone, anyone and divert attention away from Trump.",
">\n\nIt's a good thing the house is going to do investigation in to weaponization of the DOJ I'm sure they'll get to the bottom of it.",
">\n\nwonder how long till they start using the \"just two more weeks\" bit.",
">\n\nIn two weeks.",
">\n\nMuch to nobody's suprise.",
">\n\nShocking absolutely no one. Just because he's a self agrandizing sociopath doesn't mean he can't also be a traitor.",
">\n\nRemember that when it comes to the GOP, every accusation is a confession",
">\n\nBiden's Justice Department Goons oversaw and actual Witch Hunt while he screamed one with Hunter being tied to the Big Man and money laundering. It's a glorious thing.",
">\n\nIt’s not an “ACTUAL WITCH HUNT” unless you’re hunting literal witches.",
">\n\nNext time I go for a walk in the woods, I’m going to say I’m going on a witch hunt.",
">\n\nReally misleading headline. No witches. Boring!!\nHa, when my daughter was 4 and Shrek was popular, I asked her if she wanted to see a video of the Monkees playing im a believer. Pulled it up on you tube and she got angry. Stormed off with \"wah! Those aren't monkeys! Boring!!\"\nI did not intend to mislead her, but do acknowledge my role there.",
">\n\nAfter 20 witch hunts there’s probably a witch…",
">\n\nIt’s a damn shame the DoJ has been completely comprised and Merrick Meuller Barr Garland is just running distraction for Traitor Trump and his seditious Republicans destroying our country with lies. Fuck the DoJ.",
">\n\nTrump was always the witch.",
">\n\nGod I wish they would hunt all the witches. Weak ass centrists.",
">\n\nThe corruption coming out of this administration just keeps on coming",
">\n\nThe GOP way, accuse the Dems of doing what the GOP is actually doing",
">\n\nA criminal asking for sympathy",
">\n\nThe GOP is just one giant projection.",
">\n\nTrump has goons now haha",
">\n\nYou'd actually have to be stupid to follow Trump in any capacity. Like actually mentally ill.",
">\n\nClassic GOP playbook. Accuse others of what you are doing to take scrutiny off yourself.",
">\n\nHow can you objectively say this when everything Trump has said has come true about two years after he said it.... No Russia Collusion, Whether it was won fair or not, Democrats did change the election laws at the last second to help them win in 2020, Hunters Laptop... open your eyes... No president was ever persecuted unjustly as much as Trump... all because he wasn't part of the political elite... Watch, the minute Desantis beats him everything that Trump was labeled will move to Desantis which totally proves the point.",
">\n\nThe only thing that has changed at DOJ post Trump is a few portraits in the Lobby.",
">\n\nAn issue that I have is that this self-absorbed and COMPLETE waste of space (not to mention time and money) most likely knows nothing about the actual Salem witch trials in the 1600s. The Salem 'Interrogation' of the accused seemed like it was due to a personal hatred and complete disregard of the 'witches' (they were almost all women). Mood swings? Witch! Introverted? Witch! Outspoken? Witch! Speaking about or showing concern towards anything of even slight importance? Witch! And all of this without one shred of any objective EMPIRICAL evidence of 'witchcraft'. It's not like the accused had any kind of recourse or any say in this. It surely didn't prevent the fact that they would soon be burned alive. BURNED! ALIVE! \nTFG is guilty as shit, and we all know it."
] |
/u/donotholdyourbreath (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards | [] |
>
Unless every single poor person rich person relationship is based around the rich person paying the poor person for sex or companionship, you cannot say they are equivalent.
It really says something that you are comfortable making these broad generalizations about women. I'm sorry, poor people. | [
"/u/donotholdyourbreath (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards"
] |
>
I didn't say every. I said I don't see the difference where the rich is more willing to pay for sex or wine and dine the lady. Do these men not exist? And there are def some women who would fuck for riches. I don't see the immorality in that either | [
"/u/donotholdyourbreath (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nUnless every single poor person rich person relationship is based around the rich person paying the poor person for sex or companionship, you cannot say they are equivalent. \nIt really says something that you are comfortable making these broad generalizations about women. I'm sorry, poor people."
] |
>
You didn't say every, but you certainly implied it. Unless people are actively paying money for sex, it is not equivalent to a sugar relationship, because nothing is equivalent to a sugar relationship than paying money for sex. | [
"/u/donotholdyourbreath (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nUnless every single poor person rich person relationship is based around the rich person paying the poor person for sex or companionship, you cannot say they are equivalent. \nIt really says something that you are comfortable making these broad generalizations about women. I'm sorry, poor people.",
">\n\nI didn't say every. I said I don't see the difference where the rich is more willing to pay for sex or wine and dine the lady. Do these men not exist? And there are def some women who would fuck for riches. I don't see the immorality in that either"
] |
>
> I just fail to see the difference between normal relationships where the woman is more likely to fuck the man after receiving gifts and a relationship where the woman explicitly says 'i want x money for x time.'
A relationship is founded on the principle of equity, if not equality. Even if the poorer person cannot put in the same dollar amount, they should put in an equivalent amount of physical, emotional, or proportional money. For exampe, rich person takes them out for a nice dinner for a date, poorer person cooks a nice homecooked meal and does a 'home date night'. It isn't transactional - neither person is counting dollars and demanding the other person 'step up' because they aren't paying their way. Both recieve emotional and social fulfillment but there is no obligation for one to provide money in order to stay in the relationship etc. It can flow in either direction.
A sugar relationship is an explicitly transactional relationship - "give me money, a house, an nice car, clothes, experiences that are expensive for me and I will give you sex and companionship, If you don't do this, our relationship is over." At it's core, it's business. While a sugar baby might love the other person and vice versa, the core of the relationship is business and at the end of the day, it's contractual.
> I'm saying there are cases where the person is more likely staying in part for money/sex.
This is possible but the way you are stating your case implies that you think this is a fundamental of a relationship between two people of two different kinds of means. Why are you so sure this is the case? | [
"/u/donotholdyourbreath (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nUnless every single poor person rich person relationship is based around the rich person paying the poor person for sex or companionship, you cannot say they are equivalent. \nIt really says something that you are comfortable making these broad generalizations about women. I'm sorry, poor people.",
">\n\nI didn't say every. I said I don't see the difference where the rich is more willing to pay for sex or wine and dine the lady. Do these men not exist? And there are def some women who would fuck for riches. I don't see the immorality in that either",
">\n\nYou didn't say every, but you certainly implied it. Unless people are actively paying money for sex, it is not equivalent to a sugar relationship, because nothing is equivalent to a sugar relationship than paying money for sex."
] |
>
Nope. I don't think its fundamental. But I do think many ate transactional. Even if its not direct. As you said the person pays the bills, the other cooks. Are there people who do things even if he's broke or she's too sick to cook. Of course. But are there those that leave. sure. Hows it any different. At least the sugar one is honest.
Divorced happen when one is pulling their weight. But somehow we don't find it immoral if one drops the other for not doing anything | [
"/u/donotholdyourbreath (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nUnless every single poor person rich person relationship is based around the rich person paying the poor person for sex or companionship, you cannot say they are equivalent. \nIt really says something that you are comfortable making these broad generalizations about women. I'm sorry, poor people.",
">\n\nI didn't say every. I said I don't see the difference where the rich is more willing to pay for sex or wine and dine the lady. Do these men not exist? And there are def some women who would fuck for riches. I don't see the immorality in that either",
">\n\nYou didn't say every, but you certainly implied it. Unless people are actively paying money for sex, it is not equivalent to a sugar relationship, because nothing is equivalent to a sugar relationship than paying money for sex.",
">\n\n> I just fail to see the difference between normal relationships where the woman is more likely to fuck the man after receiving gifts and a relationship where the woman explicitly says 'i want x money for x time.' \nA relationship is founded on the principle of equity, if not equality. Even if the poorer person cannot put in the same dollar amount, they should put in an equivalent amount of physical, emotional, or proportional money. For exampe, rich person takes them out for a nice dinner for a date, poorer person cooks a nice homecooked meal and does a 'home date night'. It isn't transactional - neither person is counting dollars and demanding the other person 'step up' because they aren't paying their way. Both recieve emotional and social fulfillment but there is no obligation for one to provide money in order to stay in the relationship etc. It can flow in either direction. \nA sugar relationship is an explicitly transactional relationship - \"give me money, a house, an nice car, clothes, experiences that are expensive for me and I will give you sex and companionship, If you don't do this, our relationship is over.\" At it's core, it's business. While a sugar baby might love the other person and vice versa, the core of the relationship is business and at the end of the day, it's contractual. \n> I'm saying there are cases where the person is more likely staying in part for money/sex. \nThis is possible but the way you are stating your case implies that you think this is a fundamental of a relationship between two people of two different kinds of means. Why are you so sure this is the case?"
] |
>
In any sugar relationship, if the payments stop the relationship is over. If the sex stops, the relationship is over. Neither of these things are true in more traditional relationships, even if there is an income disparity.
Are you suggesting that in a traditional relationship, if the rich guy stopped paying to go out to eat, or stopped buying expensive presents, the poor girl would just up and leave, no questions asked? If so, you've got a twisted view of relationships.
Edit: Oh I see it now:
I'm gonna bet that under a lot of scenarios where the rich person is dating the much poorer person, the poorer person will leave the rich person if the rich person doesn't splurge on the poor person...I don't think the poor person would be fucking the rich person as much
Yep, you have a twisted view of relationships. I make a lot of money. Every relationship I've been in for the past 7 years, I've made more than twice what my partner did, at least, most of the time 4x or more. Never once have I incessantly "splurged" on the poor person or gave constant expensive presents. Never once has my partner expressed any discontent or withheld sex because of a perceived financial slight. I pay for most of the things we do together because I make most of the money. She pays for what she can, when she can, and we're all good. You're just wrong about this.
Now if you are talking about insane disparities, where we have a multi-millionaire dating a grocery clerk, yeah that virtually never happens, so why discuss the morality? | [
"/u/donotholdyourbreath (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nUnless every single poor person rich person relationship is based around the rich person paying the poor person for sex or companionship, you cannot say they are equivalent. \nIt really says something that you are comfortable making these broad generalizations about women. I'm sorry, poor people.",
">\n\nI didn't say every. I said I don't see the difference where the rich is more willing to pay for sex or wine and dine the lady. Do these men not exist? And there are def some women who would fuck for riches. I don't see the immorality in that either",
">\n\nYou didn't say every, but you certainly implied it. Unless people are actively paying money for sex, it is not equivalent to a sugar relationship, because nothing is equivalent to a sugar relationship than paying money for sex.",
">\n\n> I just fail to see the difference between normal relationships where the woman is more likely to fuck the man after receiving gifts and a relationship where the woman explicitly says 'i want x money for x time.' \nA relationship is founded on the principle of equity, if not equality. Even if the poorer person cannot put in the same dollar amount, they should put in an equivalent amount of physical, emotional, or proportional money. For exampe, rich person takes them out for a nice dinner for a date, poorer person cooks a nice homecooked meal and does a 'home date night'. It isn't transactional - neither person is counting dollars and demanding the other person 'step up' because they aren't paying their way. Both recieve emotional and social fulfillment but there is no obligation for one to provide money in order to stay in the relationship etc. It can flow in either direction. \nA sugar relationship is an explicitly transactional relationship - \"give me money, a house, an nice car, clothes, experiences that are expensive for me and I will give you sex and companionship, If you don't do this, our relationship is over.\" At it's core, it's business. While a sugar baby might love the other person and vice versa, the core of the relationship is business and at the end of the day, it's contractual. \n> I'm saying there are cases where the person is more likely staying in part for money/sex. \nThis is possible but the way you are stating your case implies that you think this is a fundamental of a relationship between two people of two different kinds of means. Why are you so sure this is the case?",
">\n\nNope. I don't think its fundamental. But I do think many ate transactional. Even if its not direct. As you said the person pays the bills, the other cooks. Are there people who do things even if he's broke or she's too sick to cook. Of course. But are there those that leave. sure. Hows it any different. At least the sugar one is honest. \nDivorced happen when one is pulling their weight. But somehow we don't find it immoral if one drops the other for not doing anything"
] |
>
I'm gonna bet that under a lot of scenarios where the rich person is dating the much poorer person, the poorer person will leave the rich person if the rich person doesn't splurge on the poor person...I don't think the poor person would be fucking the rich person as much
Your view is based on you think poor people are all assholes?
I just fail to see the difference between normal relationships where the woman is more likely to fuck the man after receiving gifts and a relationship where the woman explicitly says 'i want x money for x time'
You're entirely inventing these scenarios and relationship dynamics.
Do you see the difference between someone who is in a relationship because they're being paid and people in a relationship because they like the other person?
That's what you're asking but you're somehow assuming anyone poorer in a relationship with disparate finances is basically a prostitute, and the rich person is buying a partner not in a real relationship. | [
"/u/donotholdyourbreath (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nUnless every single poor person rich person relationship is based around the rich person paying the poor person for sex or companionship, you cannot say they are equivalent. \nIt really says something that you are comfortable making these broad generalizations about women. I'm sorry, poor people.",
">\n\nI didn't say every. I said I don't see the difference where the rich is more willing to pay for sex or wine and dine the lady. Do these men not exist? And there are def some women who would fuck for riches. I don't see the immorality in that either",
">\n\nYou didn't say every, but you certainly implied it. Unless people are actively paying money for sex, it is not equivalent to a sugar relationship, because nothing is equivalent to a sugar relationship than paying money for sex.",
">\n\n> I just fail to see the difference between normal relationships where the woman is more likely to fuck the man after receiving gifts and a relationship where the woman explicitly says 'i want x money for x time.' \nA relationship is founded on the principle of equity, if not equality. Even if the poorer person cannot put in the same dollar amount, they should put in an equivalent amount of physical, emotional, or proportional money. For exampe, rich person takes them out for a nice dinner for a date, poorer person cooks a nice homecooked meal and does a 'home date night'. It isn't transactional - neither person is counting dollars and demanding the other person 'step up' because they aren't paying their way. Both recieve emotional and social fulfillment but there is no obligation for one to provide money in order to stay in the relationship etc. It can flow in either direction. \nA sugar relationship is an explicitly transactional relationship - \"give me money, a house, an nice car, clothes, experiences that are expensive for me and I will give you sex and companionship, If you don't do this, our relationship is over.\" At it's core, it's business. While a sugar baby might love the other person and vice versa, the core of the relationship is business and at the end of the day, it's contractual. \n> I'm saying there are cases where the person is more likely staying in part for money/sex. \nThis is possible but the way you are stating your case implies that you think this is a fundamental of a relationship between two people of two different kinds of means. Why are you so sure this is the case?",
">\n\nNope. I don't think its fundamental. But I do think many ate transactional. Even if its not direct. As you said the person pays the bills, the other cooks. Are there people who do things even if he's broke or she's too sick to cook. Of course. But are there those that leave. sure. Hows it any different. At least the sugar one is honest. \nDivorced happen when one is pulling their weight. But somehow we don't find it immoral if one drops the other for not doing anything",
">\n\nIn any sugar relationship, if the payments stop the relationship is over. If the sex stops, the relationship is over. Neither of these things are true in more traditional relationships, even if there is an income disparity.\nAre you suggesting that in a traditional relationship, if the rich guy stopped paying to go out to eat, or stopped buying expensive presents, the poor girl would just up and leave, no questions asked? If so, you've got a twisted view of relationships.\nEdit: Oh I see it now:\n\nI'm gonna bet that under a lot of scenarios where the rich person is dating the much poorer person, the poorer person will leave the rich person if the rich person doesn't splurge on the poor person...I don't think the poor person would be fucking the rich person as much\n\nYep, you have a twisted view of relationships. I make a lot of money. Every relationship I've been in for the past 7 years, I've made more than twice what my partner did, at least, most of the time 4x or more. Never once have I incessantly \"splurged\" on the poor person or gave constant expensive presents. Never once has my partner expressed any discontent or withheld sex because of a perceived financial slight. I pay for most of the things we do together because I make most of the money. She pays for what she can, when she can, and we're all good. You're just wrong about this.\nNow if you are talking about insane disparities, where we have a multi-millionaire dating a grocery clerk, yeah that virtually never happens, so why discuss the morality?"
] |
>
I didn't say that. I said the scenarios where the poor person is with the rich in part for money isn't any less immoral
Most people I know complain about their partner not fucking them or buying them gifts. | [
"/u/donotholdyourbreath (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nUnless every single poor person rich person relationship is based around the rich person paying the poor person for sex or companionship, you cannot say they are equivalent. \nIt really says something that you are comfortable making these broad generalizations about women. I'm sorry, poor people.",
">\n\nI didn't say every. I said I don't see the difference where the rich is more willing to pay for sex or wine and dine the lady. Do these men not exist? And there are def some women who would fuck for riches. I don't see the immorality in that either",
">\n\nYou didn't say every, but you certainly implied it. Unless people are actively paying money for sex, it is not equivalent to a sugar relationship, because nothing is equivalent to a sugar relationship than paying money for sex.",
">\n\n> I just fail to see the difference between normal relationships where the woman is more likely to fuck the man after receiving gifts and a relationship where the woman explicitly says 'i want x money for x time.' \nA relationship is founded on the principle of equity, if not equality. Even if the poorer person cannot put in the same dollar amount, they should put in an equivalent amount of physical, emotional, or proportional money. For exampe, rich person takes them out for a nice dinner for a date, poorer person cooks a nice homecooked meal and does a 'home date night'. It isn't transactional - neither person is counting dollars and demanding the other person 'step up' because they aren't paying their way. Both recieve emotional and social fulfillment but there is no obligation for one to provide money in order to stay in the relationship etc. It can flow in either direction. \nA sugar relationship is an explicitly transactional relationship - \"give me money, a house, an nice car, clothes, experiences that are expensive for me and I will give you sex and companionship, If you don't do this, our relationship is over.\" At it's core, it's business. While a sugar baby might love the other person and vice versa, the core of the relationship is business and at the end of the day, it's contractual. \n> I'm saying there are cases where the person is more likely staying in part for money/sex. \nThis is possible but the way you are stating your case implies that you think this is a fundamental of a relationship between two people of two different kinds of means. Why are you so sure this is the case?",
">\n\nNope. I don't think its fundamental. But I do think many ate transactional. Even if its not direct. As you said the person pays the bills, the other cooks. Are there people who do things even if he's broke or she's too sick to cook. Of course. But are there those that leave. sure. Hows it any different. At least the sugar one is honest. \nDivorced happen when one is pulling their weight. But somehow we don't find it immoral if one drops the other for not doing anything",
">\n\nIn any sugar relationship, if the payments stop the relationship is over. If the sex stops, the relationship is over. Neither of these things are true in more traditional relationships, even if there is an income disparity.\nAre you suggesting that in a traditional relationship, if the rich guy stopped paying to go out to eat, or stopped buying expensive presents, the poor girl would just up and leave, no questions asked? If so, you've got a twisted view of relationships.\nEdit: Oh I see it now:\n\nI'm gonna bet that under a lot of scenarios where the rich person is dating the much poorer person, the poorer person will leave the rich person if the rich person doesn't splurge on the poor person...I don't think the poor person would be fucking the rich person as much\n\nYep, you have a twisted view of relationships. I make a lot of money. Every relationship I've been in for the past 7 years, I've made more than twice what my partner did, at least, most of the time 4x or more. Never once have I incessantly \"splurged\" on the poor person or gave constant expensive presents. Never once has my partner expressed any discontent or withheld sex because of a perceived financial slight. I pay for most of the things we do together because I make most of the money. She pays for what she can, when she can, and we're all good. You're just wrong about this.\nNow if you are talking about insane disparities, where we have a multi-millionaire dating a grocery clerk, yeah that virtually never happens, so why discuss the morality?",
">\n\n\nI'm gonna bet that under a lot of scenarios where the rich person is dating the much poorer person, the poorer person will leave the rich person if the rich person doesn't splurge on the poor person...I don't think the poor person would be fucking the rich person as much\n\nYour view is based on you think poor people are all assholes?\n\nI just fail to see the difference between normal relationships where the woman is more likely to fuck the man after receiving gifts and a relationship where the woman explicitly says 'i want x money for x time'\n\nYou're entirely inventing these scenarios and relationship dynamics. \nDo you see the difference between someone who is in a relationship because they're being paid and people in a relationship because they like the other person? \nThat's what you're asking but you're somehow assuming anyone poorer in a relationship with disparate finances is basically a prostitute, and the rich person is buying a partner not in a real relationship."
] |
>
Most people I know complain about their partner not fucking them or buying them gifts.
So your friends' anecdotal toxic relationships are your "evidence" for your belief?
Your title says there is no difference between a sugar relationship and a traditional relationship with an income disparity. Then you go on to make a ridiculous unsupported assertion that poor people are in it for the money.
So is your actual claim that relationships with an income disparity where the poor person is in it for the money are morally equivalent of sugar relationships?
If so, let me enlighten you that sugar relationships have traditionally been rich men who date younger women and spoil them with gifts and trips, not cash payments. So in reality, your relationship where the poor person is with the rich person for the money, IS a sugar relationship.
Now if you just want to basic it all the way down to poor people with rich people because their rich is morally equivalent to prostitution, we can have that discussion too, but I think you know they aren't. | [
"/u/donotholdyourbreath (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nUnless every single poor person rich person relationship is based around the rich person paying the poor person for sex or companionship, you cannot say they are equivalent. \nIt really says something that you are comfortable making these broad generalizations about women. I'm sorry, poor people.",
">\n\nI didn't say every. I said I don't see the difference where the rich is more willing to pay for sex or wine and dine the lady. Do these men not exist? And there are def some women who would fuck for riches. I don't see the immorality in that either",
">\n\nYou didn't say every, but you certainly implied it. Unless people are actively paying money for sex, it is not equivalent to a sugar relationship, because nothing is equivalent to a sugar relationship than paying money for sex.",
">\n\n> I just fail to see the difference between normal relationships where the woman is more likely to fuck the man after receiving gifts and a relationship where the woman explicitly says 'i want x money for x time.' \nA relationship is founded on the principle of equity, if not equality. Even if the poorer person cannot put in the same dollar amount, they should put in an equivalent amount of physical, emotional, or proportional money. For exampe, rich person takes them out for a nice dinner for a date, poorer person cooks a nice homecooked meal and does a 'home date night'. It isn't transactional - neither person is counting dollars and demanding the other person 'step up' because they aren't paying their way. Both recieve emotional and social fulfillment but there is no obligation for one to provide money in order to stay in the relationship etc. It can flow in either direction. \nA sugar relationship is an explicitly transactional relationship - \"give me money, a house, an nice car, clothes, experiences that are expensive for me and I will give you sex and companionship, If you don't do this, our relationship is over.\" At it's core, it's business. While a sugar baby might love the other person and vice versa, the core of the relationship is business and at the end of the day, it's contractual. \n> I'm saying there are cases where the person is more likely staying in part for money/sex. \nThis is possible but the way you are stating your case implies that you think this is a fundamental of a relationship between two people of two different kinds of means. Why are you so sure this is the case?",
">\n\nNope. I don't think its fundamental. But I do think many ate transactional. Even if its not direct. As you said the person pays the bills, the other cooks. Are there people who do things even if he's broke or she's too sick to cook. Of course. But are there those that leave. sure. Hows it any different. At least the sugar one is honest. \nDivorced happen when one is pulling their weight. But somehow we don't find it immoral if one drops the other for not doing anything",
">\n\nIn any sugar relationship, if the payments stop the relationship is over. If the sex stops, the relationship is over. Neither of these things are true in more traditional relationships, even if there is an income disparity.\nAre you suggesting that in a traditional relationship, if the rich guy stopped paying to go out to eat, or stopped buying expensive presents, the poor girl would just up and leave, no questions asked? If so, you've got a twisted view of relationships.\nEdit: Oh I see it now:\n\nI'm gonna bet that under a lot of scenarios where the rich person is dating the much poorer person, the poorer person will leave the rich person if the rich person doesn't splurge on the poor person...I don't think the poor person would be fucking the rich person as much\n\nYep, you have a twisted view of relationships. I make a lot of money. Every relationship I've been in for the past 7 years, I've made more than twice what my partner did, at least, most of the time 4x or more. Never once have I incessantly \"splurged\" on the poor person or gave constant expensive presents. Never once has my partner expressed any discontent or withheld sex because of a perceived financial slight. I pay for most of the things we do together because I make most of the money. She pays for what she can, when she can, and we're all good. You're just wrong about this.\nNow if you are talking about insane disparities, where we have a multi-millionaire dating a grocery clerk, yeah that virtually never happens, so why discuss the morality?",
">\n\n\nI'm gonna bet that under a lot of scenarios where the rich person is dating the much poorer person, the poorer person will leave the rich person if the rich person doesn't splurge on the poor person...I don't think the poor person would be fucking the rich person as much\n\nYour view is based on you think poor people are all assholes?\n\nI just fail to see the difference between normal relationships where the woman is more likely to fuck the man after receiving gifts and a relationship where the woman explicitly says 'i want x money for x time'\n\nYou're entirely inventing these scenarios and relationship dynamics. \nDo you see the difference between someone who is in a relationship because they're being paid and people in a relationship because they like the other person? \nThat's what you're asking but you're somehow assuming anyone poorer in a relationship with disparate finances is basically a prostitute, and the rich person is buying a partner not in a real relationship.",
">\n\nI didn't say that. I said the scenarios where the poor person is with the rich in part for money isn't any less immoral\nMost people I know complain about their partner not fucking them or buying them gifts."
] |
>
I just fail to see the difference between normal relationships where the woman is more likely to fuck the man after receiving gifts and a relationship where the woman explicitly says 'i want x money for x time'
I suppose the biggest difference is how abruptly it can stop. If you're in a proper relationship where the girl expects presents or whatever if you don't get her a present once or twice she's unlikely to break up with you immediately.
In a sugar relationship it's basically just prostitution and the second you stop paying her she leaves. So morally the difference is on the person expecting gifts.
In a sugar relationship she is absolutely only there for the money and will drop you like a turd the second you stop paying here this is morally worse than just being in a relationship with someone with more money and as a result expect them to spend that money on you to some degree.
Imagine dating someone and the second they drop give you money you're just out of their lives, isn't that pretty morally reprehensible? Where if you're in a proper relationship and they hit a financial bump you might end up eventually breaking up with them but not the same day, you'll give them a pass or two, try to help them get on their feet and then if things dry up for good maybe you'll leave but you'll still probably talk to them once in awhile. | [
"/u/donotholdyourbreath (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nUnless every single poor person rich person relationship is based around the rich person paying the poor person for sex or companionship, you cannot say they are equivalent. \nIt really says something that you are comfortable making these broad generalizations about women. I'm sorry, poor people.",
">\n\nI didn't say every. I said I don't see the difference where the rich is more willing to pay for sex or wine and dine the lady. Do these men not exist? And there are def some women who would fuck for riches. I don't see the immorality in that either",
">\n\nYou didn't say every, but you certainly implied it. Unless people are actively paying money for sex, it is not equivalent to a sugar relationship, because nothing is equivalent to a sugar relationship than paying money for sex.",
">\n\n> I just fail to see the difference between normal relationships where the woman is more likely to fuck the man after receiving gifts and a relationship where the woman explicitly says 'i want x money for x time.' \nA relationship is founded on the principle of equity, if not equality. Even if the poorer person cannot put in the same dollar amount, they should put in an equivalent amount of physical, emotional, or proportional money. For exampe, rich person takes them out for a nice dinner for a date, poorer person cooks a nice homecooked meal and does a 'home date night'. It isn't transactional - neither person is counting dollars and demanding the other person 'step up' because they aren't paying their way. Both recieve emotional and social fulfillment but there is no obligation for one to provide money in order to stay in the relationship etc. It can flow in either direction. \nA sugar relationship is an explicitly transactional relationship - \"give me money, a house, an nice car, clothes, experiences that are expensive for me and I will give you sex and companionship, If you don't do this, our relationship is over.\" At it's core, it's business. While a sugar baby might love the other person and vice versa, the core of the relationship is business and at the end of the day, it's contractual. \n> I'm saying there are cases where the person is more likely staying in part for money/sex. \nThis is possible but the way you are stating your case implies that you think this is a fundamental of a relationship between two people of two different kinds of means. Why are you so sure this is the case?",
">\n\nNope. I don't think its fundamental. But I do think many ate transactional. Even if its not direct. As you said the person pays the bills, the other cooks. Are there people who do things even if he's broke or she's too sick to cook. Of course. But are there those that leave. sure. Hows it any different. At least the sugar one is honest. \nDivorced happen when one is pulling their weight. But somehow we don't find it immoral if one drops the other for not doing anything",
">\n\nIn any sugar relationship, if the payments stop the relationship is over. If the sex stops, the relationship is over. Neither of these things are true in more traditional relationships, even if there is an income disparity.\nAre you suggesting that in a traditional relationship, if the rich guy stopped paying to go out to eat, or stopped buying expensive presents, the poor girl would just up and leave, no questions asked? If so, you've got a twisted view of relationships.\nEdit: Oh I see it now:\n\nI'm gonna bet that under a lot of scenarios where the rich person is dating the much poorer person, the poorer person will leave the rich person if the rich person doesn't splurge on the poor person...I don't think the poor person would be fucking the rich person as much\n\nYep, you have a twisted view of relationships. I make a lot of money. Every relationship I've been in for the past 7 years, I've made more than twice what my partner did, at least, most of the time 4x or more. Never once have I incessantly \"splurged\" on the poor person or gave constant expensive presents. Never once has my partner expressed any discontent or withheld sex because of a perceived financial slight. I pay for most of the things we do together because I make most of the money. She pays for what she can, when she can, and we're all good. You're just wrong about this.\nNow if you are talking about insane disparities, where we have a multi-millionaire dating a grocery clerk, yeah that virtually never happens, so why discuss the morality?",
">\n\n\nI'm gonna bet that under a lot of scenarios where the rich person is dating the much poorer person, the poorer person will leave the rich person if the rich person doesn't splurge on the poor person...I don't think the poor person would be fucking the rich person as much\n\nYour view is based on you think poor people are all assholes?\n\nI just fail to see the difference between normal relationships where the woman is more likely to fuck the man after receiving gifts and a relationship where the woman explicitly says 'i want x money for x time'\n\nYou're entirely inventing these scenarios and relationship dynamics. \nDo you see the difference between someone who is in a relationship because they're being paid and people in a relationship because they like the other person? \nThat's what you're asking but you're somehow assuming anyone poorer in a relationship with disparate finances is basically a prostitute, and the rich person is buying a partner not in a real relationship.",
">\n\nI didn't say that. I said the scenarios where the poor person is with the rich in part for money isn't any less immoral\nMost people I know complain about their partner not fucking them or buying them gifts.",
">\n\n\nMost people I know complain about their partner not fucking them or buying them gifts.\n\nSo your friends' anecdotal toxic relationships are your \"evidence\" for your belief?\nYour title says there is no difference between a sugar relationship and a traditional relationship with an income disparity. Then you go on to make a ridiculous unsupported assertion that poor people are in it for the money.\nSo is your actual claim that relationships with an income disparity where the poor person is in it for the money are morally equivalent of sugar relationships?\nIf so, let me enlighten you that sugar relationships have traditionally been rich men who date younger women and spoil them with gifts and trips, not cash payments. So in reality, your relationship where the poor person is with the rich person for the money, IS a sugar relationship.\nNow if you just want to basic it all the way down to poor people with rich people because their rich is morally equivalent to prostitution, we can have that discussion too, but I think you know they aren't."
] |
>
!delta that it can't compare to a normal relationship where she's just complaining or he's just complaining. But I don't see it as immoral if they both agreed to it. My therapist cares about me. But if I stop paying her she's not gonna like me enough to keep me around, even as a friend. | [
"/u/donotholdyourbreath (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nUnless every single poor person rich person relationship is based around the rich person paying the poor person for sex or companionship, you cannot say they are equivalent. \nIt really says something that you are comfortable making these broad generalizations about women. I'm sorry, poor people.",
">\n\nI didn't say every. I said I don't see the difference where the rich is more willing to pay for sex or wine and dine the lady. Do these men not exist? And there are def some women who would fuck for riches. I don't see the immorality in that either",
">\n\nYou didn't say every, but you certainly implied it. Unless people are actively paying money for sex, it is not equivalent to a sugar relationship, because nothing is equivalent to a sugar relationship than paying money for sex.",
">\n\n> I just fail to see the difference between normal relationships where the woman is more likely to fuck the man after receiving gifts and a relationship where the woman explicitly says 'i want x money for x time.' \nA relationship is founded on the principle of equity, if not equality. Even if the poorer person cannot put in the same dollar amount, they should put in an equivalent amount of physical, emotional, or proportional money. For exampe, rich person takes them out for a nice dinner for a date, poorer person cooks a nice homecooked meal and does a 'home date night'. It isn't transactional - neither person is counting dollars and demanding the other person 'step up' because they aren't paying their way. Both recieve emotional and social fulfillment but there is no obligation for one to provide money in order to stay in the relationship etc. It can flow in either direction. \nA sugar relationship is an explicitly transactional relationship - \"give me money, a house, an nice car, clothes, experiences that are expensive for me and I will give you sex and companionship, If you don't do this, our relationship is over.\" At it's core, it's business. While a sugar baby might love the other person and vice versa, the core of the relationship is business and at the end of the day, it's contractual. \n> I'm saying there are cases where the person is more likely staying in part for money/sex. \nThis is possible but the way you are stating your case implies that you think this is a fundamental of a relationship between two people of two different kinds of means. Why are you so sure this is the case?",
">\n\nNope. I don't think its fundamental. But I do think many ate transactional. Even if its not direct. As you said the person pays the bills, the other cooks. Are there people who do things even if he's broke or she's too sick to cook. Of course. But are there those that leave. sure. Hows it any different. At least the sugar one is honest. \nDivorced happen when one is pulling their weight. But somehow we don't find it immoral if one drops the other for not doing anything",
">\n\nIn any sugar relationship, if the payments stop the relationship is over. If the sex stops, the relationship is over. Neither of these things are true in more traditional relationships, even if there is an income disparity.\nAre you suggesting that in a traditional relationship, if the rich guy stopped paying to go out to eat, or stopped buying expensive presents, the poor girl would just up and leave, no questions asked? If so, you've got a twisted view of relationships.\nEdit: Oh I see it now:\n\nI'm gonna bet that under a lot of scenarios where the rich person is dating the much poorer person, the poorer person will leave the rich person if the rich person doesn't splurge on the poor person...I don't think the poor person would be fucking the rich person as much\n\nYep, you have a twisted view of relationships. I make a lot of money. Every relationship I've been in for the past 7 years, I've made more than twice what my partner did, at least, most of the time 4x or more. Never once have I incessantly \"splurged\" on the poor person or gave constant expensive presents. Never once has my partner expressed any discontent or withheld sex because of a perceived financial slight. I pay for most of the things we do together because I make most of the money. She pays for what she can, when she can, and we're all good. You're just wrong about this.\nNow if you are talking about insane disparities, where we have a multi-millionaire dating a grocery clerk, yeah that virtually never happens, so why discuss the morality?",
">\n\n\nI'm gonna bet that under a lot of scenarios where the rich person is dating the much poorer person, the poorer person will leave the rich person if the rich person doesn't splurge on the poor person...I don't think the poor person would be fucking the rich person as much\n\nYour view is based on you think poor people are all assholes?\n\nI just fail to see the difference between normal relationships where the woman is more likely to fuck the man after receiving gifts and a relationship where the woman explicitly says 'i want x money for x time'\n\nYou're entirely inventing these scenarios and relationship dynamics. \nDo you see the difference between someone who is in a relationship because they're being paid and people in a relationship because they like the other person? \nThat's what you're asking but you're somehow assuming anyone poorer in a relationship with disparate finances is basically a prostitute, and the rich person is buying a partner not in a real relationship.",
">\n\nI didn't say that. I said the scenarios where the poor person is with the rich in part for money isn't any less immoral\nMost people I know complain about their partner not fucking them or buying them gifts.",
">\n\n\nMost people I know complain about their partner not fucking them or buying them gifts.\n\nSo your friends' anecdotal toxic relationships are your \"evidence\" for your belief?\nYour title says there is no difference between a sugar relationship and a traditional relationship with an income disparity. Then you go on to make a ridiculous unsupported assertion that poor people are in it for the money.\nSo is your actual claim that relationships with an income disparity where the poor person is in it for the money are morally equivalent of sugar relationships?\nIf so, let me enlighten you that sugar relationships have traditionally been rich men who date younger women and spoil them with gifts and trips, not cash payments. So in reality, your relationship where the poor person is with the rich person for the money, IS a sugar relationship.\nNow if you just want to basic it all the way down to poor people with rich people because their rich is morally equivalent to prostitution, we can have that discussion too, but I think you know they aren't.",
">\n\n\nI just fail to see the difference between normal relationships where the woman is more likely to fuck the man after receiving gifts and a relationship where the woman explicitly says 'i want x money for x time'\n\nI suppose the biggest difference is how abruptly it can stop. If you're in a proper relationship where the girl expects presents or whatever if you don't get her a present once or twice she's unlikely to break up with you immediately. \nIn a sugar relationship it's basically just prostitution and the second you stop paying her she leaves. So morally the difference is on the person expecting gifts. \nIn a sugar relationship she is absolutely only there for the money and will drop you like a turd the second you stop paying here this is morally worse than just being in a relationship with someone with more money and as a result expect them to spend that money on you to some degree. \nImagine dating someone and the second they drop give you money you're just out of their lives, isn't that pretty morally reprehensible? Where if you're in a proper relationship and they hit a financial bump you might end up eventually breaking up with them but not the same day, you'll give them a pass or two, try to help them get on their feet and then if things dry up for good maybe you'll leave but you'll still probably talk to them once in awhile."
] |
>
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/GutsTheWellMannered (2∆).
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards | [
"/u/donotholdyourbreath (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nUnless every single poor person rich person relationship is based around the rich person paying the poor person for sex or companionship, you cannot say they are equivalent. \nIt really says something that you are comfortable making these broad generalizations about women. I'm sorry, poor people.",
">\n\nI didn't say every. I said I don't see the difference where the rich is more willing to pay for sex or wine and dine the lady. Do these men not exist? And there are def some women who would fuck for riches. I don't see the immorality in that either",
">\n\nYou didn't say every, but you certainly implied it. Unless people are actively paying money for sex, it is not equivalent to a sugar relationship, because nothing is equivalent to a sugar relationship than paying money for sex.",
">\n\n> I just fail to see the difference between normal relationships where the woman is more likely to fuck the man after receiving gifts and a relationship where the woman explicitly says 'i want x money for x time.' \nA relationship is founded on the principle of equity, if not equality. Even if the poorer person cannot put in the same dollar amount, they should put in an equivalent amount of physical, emotional, or proportional money. For exampe, rich person takes them out for a nice dinner for a date, poorer person cooks a nice homecooked meal and does a 'home date night'. It isn't transactional - neither person is counting dollars and demanding the other person 'step up' because they aren't paying their way. Both recieve emotional and social fulfillment but there is no obligation for one to provide money in order to stay in the relationship etc. It can flow in either direction. \nA sugar relationship is an explicitly transactional relationship - \"give me money, a house, an nice car, clothes, experiences that are expensive for me and I will give you sex and companionship, If you don't do this, our relationship is over.\" At it's core, it's business. While a sugar baby might love the other person and vice versa, the core of the relationship is business and at the end of the day, it's contractual. \n> I'm saying there are cases where the person is more likely staying in part for money/sex. \nThis is possible but the way you are stating your case implies that you think this is a fundamental of a relationship between two people of two different kinds of means. Why are you so sure this is the case?",
">\n\nNope. I don't think its fundamental. But I do think many ate transactional. Even if its not direct. As you said the person pays the bills, the other cooks. Are there people who do things even if he's broke or she's too sick to cook. Of course. But are there those that leave. sure. Hows it any different. At least the sugar one is honest. \nDivorced happen when one is pulling their weight. But somehow we don't find it immoral if one drops the other for not doing anything",
">\n\nIn any sugar relationship, if the payments stop the relationship is over. If the sex stops, the relationship is over. Neither of these things are true in more traditional relationships, even if there is an income disparity.\nAre you suggesting that in a traditional relationship, if the rich guy stopped paying to go out to eat, or stopped buying expensive presents, the poor girl would just up and leave, no questions asked? If so, you've got a twisted view of relationships.\nEdit: Oh I see it now:\n\nI'm gonna bet that under a lot of scenarios where the rich person is dating the much poorer person, the poorer person will leave the rich person if the rich person doesn't splurge on the poor person...I don't think the poor person would be fucking the rich person as much\n\nYep, you have a twisted view of relationships. I make a lot of money. Every relationship I've been in for the past 7 years, I've made more than twice what my partner did, at least, most of the time 4x or more. Never once have I incessantly \"splurged\" on the poor person or gave constant expensive presents. Never once has my partner expressed any discontent or withheld sex because of a perceived financial slight. I pay for most of the things we do together because I make most of the money. She pays for what she can, when she can, and we're all good. You're just wrong about this.\nNow if you are talking about insane disparities, where we have a multi-millionaire dating a grocery clerk, yeah that virtually never happens, so why discuss the morality?",
">\n\n\nI'm gonna bet that under a lot of scenarios where the rich person is dating the much poorer person, the poorer person will leave the rich person if the rich person doesn't splurge on the poor person...I don't think the poor person would be fucking the rich person as much\n\nYour view is based on you think poor people are all assholes?\n\nI just fail to see the difference between normal relationships where the woman is more likely to fuck the man after receiving gifts and a relationship where the woman explicitly says 'i want x money for x time'\n\nYou're entirely inventing these scenarios and relationship dynamics. \nDo you see the difference between someone who is in a relationship because they're being paid and people in a relationship because they like the other person? \nThat's what you're asking but you're somehow assuming anyone poorer in a relationship with disparate finances is basically a prostitute, and the rich person is buying a partner not in a real relationship.",
">\n\nI didn't say that. I said the scenarios where the poor person is with the rich in part for money isn't any less immoral\nMost people I know complain about their partner not fucking them or buying them gifts.",
">\n\n\nMost people I know complain about their partner not fucking them or buying them gifts.\n\nSo your friends' anecdotal toxic relationships are your \"evidence\" for your belief?\nYour title says there is no difference between a sugar relationship and a traditional relationship with an income disparity. Then you go on to make a ridiculous unsupported assertion that poor people are in it for the money.\nSo is your actual claim that relationships with an income disparity where the poor person is in it for the money are morally equivalent of sugar relationships?\nIf so, let me enlighten you that sugar relationships have traditionally been rich men who date younger women and spoil them with gifts and trips, not cash payments. So in reality, your relationship where the poor person is with the rich person for the money, IS a sugar relationship.\nNow if you just want to basic it all the way down to poor people with rich people because their rich is morally equivalent to prostitution, we can have that discussion too, but I think you know they aren't.",
">\n\n\nI just fail to see the difference between normal relationships where the woman is more likely to fuck the man after receiving gifts and a relationship where the woman explicitly says 'i want x money for x time'\n\nI suppose the biggest difference is how abruptly it can stop. If you're in a proper relationship where the girl expects presents or whatever if you don't get her a present once or twice she's unlikely to break up with you immediately. \nIn a sugar relationship it's basically just prostitution and the second you stop paying her she leaves. So morally the difference is on the person expecting gifts. \nIn a sugar relationship she is absolutely only there for the money and will drop you like a turd the second you stop paying here this is morally worse than just being in a relationship with someone with more money and as a result expect them to spend that money on you to some degree. \nImagine dating someone and the second they drop give you money you're just out of their lives, isn't that pretty morally reprehensible? Where if you're in a proper relationship and they hit a financial bump you might end up eventually breaking up with them but not the same day, you'll give them a pass or two, try to help them get on their feet and then if things dry up for good maybe you'll leave but you'll still probably talk to them once in awhile.",
">\n\n!delta that it can't compare to a normal relationship where she's just complaining or he's just complaining. But I don't see it as immoral if they both agreed to it. My therapist cares about me. But if I stop paying her she's not gonna like me enough to keep me around, even as a friend."
] |
>
The difference is in those types of relationships, usually one person is dishonest with the other to get what they actually want. If both people are aware that one gets x money for x amount of time, then it might be seen as unconventional, but not immoral. | [
"/u/donotholdyourbreath (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nUnless every single poor person rich person relationship is based around the rich person paying the poor person for sex or companionship, you cannot say they are equivalent. \nIt really says something that you are comfortable making these broad generalizations about women. I'm sorry, poor people.",
">\n\nI didn't say every. I said I don't see the difference where the rich is more willing to pay for sex or wine and dine the lady. Do these men not exist? And there are def some women who would fuck for riches. I don't see the immorality in that either",
">\n\nYou didn't say every, but you certainly implied it. Unless people are actively paying money for sex, it is not equivalent to a sugar relationship, because nothing is equivalent to a sugar relationship than paying money for sex.",
">\n\n> I just fail to see the difference between normal relationships where the woman is more likely to fuck the man after receiving gifts and a relationship where the woman explicitly says 'i want x money for x time.' \nA relationship is founded on the principle of equity, if not equality. Even if the poorer person cannot put in the same dollar amount, they should put in an equivalent amount of physical, emotional, or proportional money. For exampe, rich person takes them out for a nice dinner for a date, poorer person cooks a nice homecooked meal and does a 'home date night'. It isn't transactional - neither person is counting dollars and demanding the other person 'step up' because they aren't paying their way. Both recieve emotional and social fulfillment but there is no obligation for one to provide money in order to stay in the relationship etc. It can flow in either direction. \nA sugar relationship is an explicitly transactional relationship - \"give me money, a house, an nice car, clothes, experiences that are expensive for me and I will give you sex and companionship, If you don't do this, our relationship is over.\" At it's core, it's business. While a sugar baby might love the other person and vice versa, the core of the relationship is business and at the end of the day, it's contractual. \n> I'm saying there are cases where the person is more likely staying in part for money/sex. \nThis is possible but the way you are stating your case implies that you think this is a fundamental of a relationship between two people of two different kinds of means. Why are you so sure this is the case?",
">\n\nNope. I don't think its fundamental. But I do think many ate transactional. Even if its not direct. As you said the person pays the bills, the other cooks. Are there people who do things even if he's broke or she's too sick to cook. Of course. But are there those that leave. sure. Hows it any different. At least the sugar one is honest. \nDivorced happen when one is pulling their weight. But somehow we don't find it immoral if one drops the other for not doing anything",
">\n\nIn any sugar relationship, if the payments stop the relationship is over. If the sex stops, the relationship is over. Neither of these things are true in more traditional relationships, even if there is an income disparity.\nAre you suggesting that in a traditional relationship, if the rich guy stopped paying to go out to eat, or stopped buying expensive presents, the poor girl would just up and leave, no questions asked? If so, you've got a twisted view of relationships.\nEdit: Oh I see it now:\n\nI'm gonna bet that under a lot of scenarios where the rich person is dating the much poorer person, the poorer person will leave the rich person if the rich person doesn't splurge on the poor person...I don't think the poor person would be fucking the rich person as much\n\nYep, you have a twisted view of relationships. I make a lot of money. Every relationship I've been in for the past 7 years, I've made more than twice what my partner did, at least, most of the time 4x or more. Never once have I incessantly \"splurged\" on the poor person or gave constant expensive presents. Never once has my partner expressed any discontent or withheld sex because of a perceived financial slight. I pay for most of the things we do together because I make most of the money. She pays for what she can, when she can, and we're all good. You're just wrong about this.\nNow if you are talking about insane disparities, where we have a multi-millionaire dating a grocery clerk, yeah that virtually never happens, so why discuss the morality?",
">\n\n\nI'm gonna bet that under a lot of scenarios where the rich person is dating the much poorer person, the poorer person will leave the rich person if the rich person doesn't splurge on the poor person...I don't think the poor person would be fucking the rich person as much\n\nYour view is based on you think poor people are all assholes?\n\nI just fail to see the difference between normal relationships where the woman is more likely to fuck the man after receiving gifts and a relationship where the woman explicitly says 'i want x money for x time'\n\nYou're entirely inventing these scenarios and relationship dynamics. \nDo you see the difference between someone who is in a relationship because they're being paid and people in a relationship because they like the other person? \nThat's what you're asking but you're somehow assuming anyone poorer in a relationship with disparate finances is basically a prostitute, and the rich person is buying a partner not in a real relationship.",
">\n\nI didn't say that. I said the scenarios where the poor person is with the rich in part for money isn't any less immoral\nMost people I know complain about their partner not fucking them or buying them gifts.",
">\n\n\nMost people I know complain about their partner not fucking them or buying them gifts.\n\nSo your friends' anecdotal toxic relationships are your \"evidence\" for your belief?\nYour title says there is no difference between a sugar relationship and a traditional relationship with an income disparity. Then you go on to make a ridiculous unsupported assertion that poor people are in it for the money.\nSo is your actual claim that relationships with an income disparity where the poor person is in it for the money are morally equivalent of sugar relationships?\nIf so, let me enlighten you that sugar relationships have traditionally been rich men who date younger women and spoil them with gifts and trips, not cash payments. So in reality, your relationship where the poor person is with the rich person for the money, IS a sugar relationship.\nNow if you just want to basic it all the way down to poor people with rich people because their rich is morally equivalent to prostitution, we can have that discussion too, but I think you know they aren't.",
">\n\n\nI just fail to see the difference between normal relationships where the woman is more likely to fuck the man after receiving gifts and a relationship where the woman explicitly says 'i want x money for x time'\n\nI suppose the biggest difference is how abruptly it can stop. If you're in a proper relationship where the girl expects presents or whatever if you don't get her a present once or twice she's unlikely to break up with you immediately. \nIn a sugar relationship it's basically just prostitution and the second you stop paying her she leaves. So morally the difference is on the person expecting gifts. \nIn a sugar relationship she is absolutely only there for the money and will drop you like a turd the second you stop paying here this is morally worse than just being in a relationship with someone with more money and as a result expect them to spend that money on you to some degree. \nImagine dating someone and the second they drop give you money you're just out of their lives, isn't that pretty morally reprehensible? Where if you're in a proper relationship and they hit a financial bump you might end up eventually breaking up with them but not the same day, you'll give them a pass or two, try to help them get on their feet and then if things dry up for good maybe you'll leave but you'll still probably talk to them once in awhile.",
">\n\n!delta that it can't compare to a normal relationship where she's just complaining or he's just complaining. But I don't see it as immoral if they both agreed to it. My therapist cares about me. But if I stop paying her she's not gonna like me enough to keep me around, even as a friend.",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/GutsTheWellMannered (2∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards"
] |
>
So you agree sugar relationships aren't immoral then | [
"/u/donotholdyourbreath (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nUnless every single poor person rich person relationship is based around the rich person paying the poor person for sex or companionship, you cannot say they are equivalent. \nIt really says something that you are comfortable making these broad generalizations about women. I'm sorry, poor people.",
">\n\nI didn't say every. I said I don't see the difference where the rich is more willing to pay for sex or wine and dine the lady. Do these men not exist? And there are def some women who would fuck for riches. I don't see the immorality in that either",
">\n\nYou didn't say every, but you certainly implied it. Unless people are actively paying money for sex, it is not equivalent to a sugar relationship, because nothing is equivalent to a sugar relationship than paying money for sex.",
">\n\n> I just fail to see the difference between normal relationships where the woman is more likely to fuck the man after receiving gifts and a relationship where the woman explicitly says 'i want x money for x time.' \nA relationship is founded on the principle of equity, if not equality. Even if the poorer person cannot put in the same dollar amount, they should put in an equivalent amount of physical, emotional, or proportional money. For exampe, rich person takes them out for a nice dinner for a date, poorer person cooks a nice homecooked meal and does a 'home date night'. It isn't transactional - neither person is counting dollars and demanding the other person 'step up' because they aren't paying their way. Both recieve emotional and social fulfillment but there is no obligation for one to provide money in order to stay in the relationship etc. It can flow in either direction. \nA sugar relationship is an explicitly transactional relationship - \"give me money, a house, an nice car, clothes, experiences that are expensive for me and I will give you sex and companionship, If you don't do this, our relationship is over.\" At it's core, it's business. While a sugar baby might love the other person and vice versa, the core of the relationship is business and at the end of the day, it's contractual. \n> I'm saying there are cases where the person is more likely staying in part for money/sex. \nThis is possible but the way you are stating your case implies that you think this is a fundamental of a relationship between two people of two different kinds of means. Why are you so sure this is the case?",
">\n\nNope. I don't think its fundamental. But I do think many ate transactional. Even if its not direct. As you said the person pays the bills, the other cooks. Are there people who do things even if he's broke or she's too sick to cook. Of course. But are there those that leave. sure. Hows it any different. At least the sugar one is honest. \nDivorced happen when one is pulling their weight. But somehow we don't find it immoral if one drops the other for not doing anything",
">\n\nIn any sugar relationship, if the payments stop the relationship is over. If the sex stops, the relationship is over. Neither of these things are true in more traditional relationships, even if there is an income disparity.\nAre you suggesting that in a traditional relationship, if the rich guy stopped paying to go out to eat, or stopped buying expensive presents, the poor girl would just up and leave, no questions asked? If so, you've got a twisted view of relationships.\nEdit: Oh I see it now:\n\nI'm gonna bet that under a lot of scenarios where the rich person is dating the much poorer person, the poorer person will leave the rich person if the rich person doesn't splurge on the poor person...I don't think the poor person would be fucking the rich person as much\n\nYep, you have a twisted view of relationships. I make a lot of money. Every relationship I've been in for the past 7 years, I've made more than twice what my partner did, at least, most of the time 4x or more. Never once have I incessantly \"splurged\" on the poor person or gave constant expensive presents. Never once has my partner expressed any discontent or withheld sex because of a perceived financial slight. I pay for most of the things we do together because I make most of the money. She pays for what she can, when she can, and we're all good. You're just wrong about this.\nNow if you are talking about insane disparities, where we have a multi-millionaire dating a grocery clerk, yeah that virtually never happens, so why discuss the morality?",
">\n\n\nI'm gonna bet that under a lot of scenarios where the rich person is dating the much poorer person, the poorer person will leave the rich person if the rich person doesn't splurge on the poor person...I don't think the poor person would be fucking the rich person as much\n\nYour view is based on you think poor people are all assholes?\n\nI just fail to see the difference between normal relationships where the woman is more likely to fuck the man after receiving gifts and a relationship where the woman explicitly says 'i want x money for x time'\n\nYou're entirely inventing these scenarios and relationship dynamics. \nDo you see the difference between someone who is in a relationship because they're being paid and people in a relationship because they like the other person? \nThat's what you're asking but you're somehow assuming anyone poorer in a relationship with disparate finances is basically a prostitute, and the rich person is buying a partner not in a real relationship.",
">\n\nI didn't say that. I said the scenarios where the poor person is with the rich in part for money isn't any less immoral\nMost people I know complain about their partner not fucking them or buying them gifts.",
">\n\n\nMost people I know complain about their partner not fucking them or buying them gifts.\n\nSo your friends' anecdotal toxic relationships are your \"evidence\" for your belief?\nYour title says there is no difference between a sugar relationship and a traditional relationship with an income disparity. Then you go on to make a ridiculous unsupported assertion that poor people are in it for the money.\nSo is your actual claim that relationships with an income disparity where the poor person is in it for the money are morally equivalent of sugar relationships?\nIf so, let me enlighten you that sugar relationships have traditionally been rich men who date younger women and spoil them with gifts and trips, not cash payments. So in reality, your relationship where the poor person is with the rich person for the money, IS a sugar relationship.\nNow if you just want to basic it all the way down to poor people with rich people because their rich is morally equivalent to prostitution, we can have that discussion too, but I think you know they aren't.",
">\n\n\nI just fail to see the difference between normal relationships where the woman is more likely to fuck the man after receiving gifts and a relationship where the woman explicitly says 'i want x money for x time'\n\nI suppose the biggest difference is how abruptly it can stop. If you're in a proper relationship where the girl expects presents or whatever if you don't get her a present once or twice she's unlikely to break up with you immediately. \nIn a sugar relationship it's basically just prostitution and the second you stop paying her she leaves. So morally the difference is on the person expecting gifts. \nIn a sugar relationship she is absolutely only there for the money and will drop you like a turd the second you stop paying here this is morally worse than just being in a relationship with someone with more money and as a result expect them to spend that money on you to some degree. \nImagine dating someone and the second they drop give you money you're just out of their lives, isn't that pretty morally reprehensible? Where if you're in a proper relationship and they hit a financial bump you might end up eventually breaking up with them but not the same day, you'll give them a pass or two, try to help them get on their feet and then if things dry up for good maybe you'll leave but you'll still probably talk to them once in awhile.",
">\n\n!delta that it can't compare to a normal relationship where she's just complaining or he's just complaining. But I don't see it as immoral if they both agreed to it. My therapist cares about me. But if I stop paying her she's not gonna like me enough to keep me around, even as a friend.",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/GutsTheWellMannered (2∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThe difference is in those types of relationships, usually one person is dishonest with the other to get what they actually want. If both people are aware that one gets x money for x amount of time, then it might be seen as unconventional, but not immoral."
] |
>
Not If both people are fully aware of and consenting to the arrangement, then no. | [
"/u/donotholdyourbreath (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nUnless every single poor person rich person relationship is based around the rich person paying the poor person for sex or companionship, you cannot say they are equivalent. \nIt really says something that you are comfortable making these broad generalizations about women. I'm sorry, poor people.",
">\n\nI didn't say every. I said I don't see the difference where the rich is more willing to pay for sex or wine and dine the lady. Do these men not exist? And there are def some women who would fuck for riches. I don't see the immorality in that either",
">\n\nYou didn't say every, but you certainly implied it. Unless people are actively paying money for sex, it is not equivalent to a sugar relationship, because nothing is equivalent to a sugar relationship than paying money for sex.",
">\n\n> I just fail to see the difference between normal relationships where the woman is more likely to fuck the man after receiving gifts and a relationship where the woman explicitly says 'i want x money for x time.' \nA relationship is founded on the principle of equity, if not equality. Even if the poorer person cannot put in the same dollar amount, they should put in an equivalent amount of physical, emotional, or proportional money. For exampe, rich person takes them out for a nice dinner for a date, poorer person cooks a nice homecooked meal and does a 'home date night'. It isn't transactional - neither person is counting dollars and demanding the other person 'step up' because they aren't paying their way. Both recieve emotional and social fulfillment but there is no obligation for one to provide money in order to stay in the relationship etc. It can flow in either direction. \nA sugar relationship is an explicitly transactional relationship - \"give me money, a house, an nice car, clothes, experiences that are expensive for me and I will give you sex and companionship, If you don't do this, our relationship is over.\" At it's core, it's business. While a sugar baby might love the other person and vice versa, the core of the relationship is business and at the end of the day, it's contractual. \n> I'm saying there are cases where the person is more likely staying in part for money/sex. \nThis is possible but the way you are stating your case implies that you think this is a fundamental of a relationship between two people of two different kinds of means. Why are you so sure this is the case?",
">\n\nNope. I don't think its fundamental. But I do think many ate transactional. Even if its not direct. As you said the person pays the bills, the other cooks. Are there people who do things even if he's broke or she's too sick to cook. Of course. But are there those that leave. sure. Hows it any different. At least the sugar one is honest. \nDivorced happen when one is pulling their weight. But somehow we don't find it immoral if one drops the other for not doing anything",
">\n\nIn any sugar relationship, if the payments stop the relationship is over. If the sex stops, the relationship is over. Neither of these things are true in more traditional relationships, even if there is an income disparity.\nAre you suggesting that in a traditional relationship, if the rich guy stopped paying to go out to eat, or stopped buying expensive presents, the poor girl would just up and leave, no questions asked? If so, you've got a twisted view of relationships.\nEdit: Oh I see it now:\n\nI'm gonna bet that under a lot of scenarios where the rich person is dating the much poorer person, the poorer person will leave the rich person if the rich person doesn't splurge on the poor person...I don't think the poor person would be fucking the rich person as much\n\nYep, you have a twisted view of relationships. I make a lot of money. Every relationship I've been in for the past 7 years, I've made more than twice what my partner did, at least, most of the time 4x or more. Never once have I incessantly \"splurged\" on the poor person or gave constant expensive presents. Never once has my partner expressed any discontent or withheld sex because of a perceived financial slight. I pay for most of the things we do together because I make most of the money. She pays for what she can, when she can, and we're all good. You're just wrong about this.\nNow if you are talking about insane disparities, where we have a multi-millionaire dating a grocery clerk, yeah that virtually never happens, so why discuss the morality?",
">\n\n\nI'm gonna bet that under a lot of scenarios where the rich person is dating the much poorer person, the poorer person will leave the rich person if the rich person doesn't splurge on the poor person...I don't think the poor person would be fucking the rich person as much\n\nYour view is based on you think poor people are all assholes?\n\nI just fail to see the difference between normal relationships where the woman is more likely to fuck the man after receiving gifts and a relationship where the woman explicitly says 'i want x money for x time'\n\nYou're entirely inventing these scenarios and relationship dynamics. \nDo you see the difference between someone who is in a relationship because they're being paid and people in a relationship because they like the other person? \nThat's what you're asking but you're somehow assuming anyone poorer in a relationship with disparate finances is basically a prostitute, and the rich person is buying a partner not in a real relationship.",
">\n\nI didn't say that. I said the scenarios where the poor person is with the rich in part for money isn't any less immoral\nMost people I know complain about their partner not fucking them or buying them gifts.",
">\n\n\nMost people I know complain about their partner not fucking them or buying them gifts.\n\nSo your friends' anecdotal toxic relationships are your \"evidence\" for your belief?\nYour title says there is no difference between a sugar relationship and a traditional relationship with an income disparity. Then you go on to make a ridiculous unsupported assertion that poor people are in it for the money.\nSo is your actual claim that relationships with an income disparity where the poor person is in it for the money are morally equivalent of sugar relationships?\nIf so, let me enlighten you that sugar relationships have traditionally been rich men who date younger women and spoil them with gifts and trips, not cash payments. So in reality, your relationship where the poor person is with the rich person for the money, IS a sugar relationship.\nNow if you just want to basic it all the way down to poor people with rich people because their rich is morally equivalent to prostitution, we can have that discussion too, but I think you know they aren't.",
">\n\n\nI just fail to see the difference between normal relationships where the woman is more likely to fuck the man after receiving gifts and a relationship where the woman explicitly says 'i want x money for x time'\n\nI suppose the biggest difference is how abruptly it can stop. If you're in a proper relationship where the girl expects presents or whatever if you don't get her a present once or twice she's unlikely to break up with you immediately. \nIn a sugar relationship it's basically just prostitution and the second you stop paying her she leaves. So morally the difference is on the person expecting gifts. \nIn a sugar relationship she is absolutely only there for the money and will drop you like a turd the second you stop paying here this is morally worse than just being in a relationship with someone with more money and as a result expect them to spend that money on you to some degree. \nImagine dating someone and the second they drop give you money you're just out of their lives, isn't that pretty morally reprehensible? Where if you're in a proper relationship and they hit a financial bump you might end up eventually breaking up with them but not the same day, you'll give them a pass or two, try to help them get on their feet and then if things dry up for good maybe you'll leave but you'll still probably talk to them once in awhile.",
">\n\n!delta that it can't compare to a normal relationship where she's just complaining or he's just complaining. But I don't see it as immoral if they both agreed to it. My therapist cares about me. But if I stop paying her she's not gonna like me enough to keep me around, even as a friend.",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/GutsTheWellMannered (2∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThe difference is in those types of relationships, usually one person is dishonest with the other to get what they actually want. If both people are aware that one gets x money for x amount of time, then it might be seen as unconventional, but not immoral.",
">\n\nSo you agree sugar relationships aren't immoral then"
] |
>
But the abuse is the problem. Not the wealth.
The problem with wealth here is that the poor person is reliant on the rich person for survival much more than a normal relationship, which makes the poor vulnerable to coercion. Fear of losing their livelihood if they don't behave. That's the potential they're taking about. | [
"/u/donotholdyourbreath (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nUnless every single poor person rich person relationship is based around the rich person paying the poor person for sex or companionship, you cannot say they are equivalent. \nIt really says something that you are comfortable making these broad generalizations about women. I'm sorry, poor people.",
">\n\nI didn't say every. I said I don't see the difference where the rich is more willing to pay for sex or wine and dine the lady. Do these men not exist? And there are def some women who would fuck for riches. I don't see the immorality in that either",
">\n\nYou didn't say every, but you certainly implied it. Unless people are actively paying money for sex, it is not equivalent to a sugar relationship, because nothing is equivalent to a sugar relationship than paying money for sex.",
">\n\n> I just fail to see the difference between normal relationships where the woman is more likely to fuck the man after receiving gifts and a relationship where the woman explicitly says 'i want x money for x time.' \nA relationship is founded on the principle of equity, if not equality. Even if the poorer person cannot put in the same dollar amount, they should put in an equivalent amount of physical, emotional, or proportional money. For exampe, rich person takes them out for a nice dinner for a date, poorer person cooks a nice homecooked meal and does a 'home date night'. It isn't transactional - neither person is counting dollars and demanding the other person 'step up' because they aren't paying their way. Both recieve emotional and social fulfillment but there is no obligation for one to provide money in order to stay in the relationship etc. It can flow in either direction. \nA sugar relationship is an explicitly transactional relationship - \"give me money, a house, an nice car, clothes, experiences that are expensive for me and I will give you sex and companionship, If you don't do this, our relationship is over.\" At it's core, it's business. While a sugar baby might love the other person and vice versa, the core of the relationship is business and at the end of the day, it's contractual. \n> I'm saying there are cases where the person is more likely staying in part for money/sex. \nThis is possible but the way you are stating your case implies that you think this is a fundamental of a relationship between two people of two different kinds of means. Why are you so sure this is the case?",
">\n\nNope. I don't think its fundamental. But I do think many ate transactional. Even if its not direct. As you said the person pays the bills, the other cooks. Are there people who do things even if he's broke or she's too sick to cook. Of course. But are there those that leave. sure. Hows it any different. At least the sugar one is honest. \nDivorced happen when one is pulling their weight. But somehow we don't find it immoral if one drops the other for not doing anything",
">\n\nIn any sugar relationship, if the payments stop the relationship is over. If the sex stops, the relationship is over. Neither of these things are true in more traditional relationships, even if there is an income disparity.\nAre you suggesting that in a traditional relationship, if the rich guy stopped paying to go out to eat, or stopped buying expensive presents, the poor girl would just up and leave, no questions asked? If so, you've got a twisted view of relationships.\nEdit: Oh I see it now:\n\nI'm gonna bet that under a lot of scenarios where the rich person is dating the much poorer person, the poorer person will leave the rich person if the rich person doesn't splurge on the poor person...I don't think the poor person would be fucking the rich person as much\n\nYep, you have a twisted view of relationships. I make a lot of money. Every relationship I've been in for the past 7 years, I've made more than twice what my partner did, at least, most of the time 4x or more. Never once have I incessantly \"splurged\" on the poor person or gave constant expensive presents. Never once has my partner expressed any discontent or withheld sex because of a perceived financial slight. I pay for most of the things we do together because I make most of the money. She pays for what she can, when she can, and we're all good. You're just wrong about this.\nNow if you are talking about insane disparities, where we have a multi-millionaire dating a grocery clerk, yeah that virtually never happens, so why discuss the morality?",
">\n\n\nI'm gonna bet that under a lot of scenarios where the rich person is dating the much poorer person, the poorer person will leave the rich person if the rich person doesn't splurge on the poor person...I don't think the poor person would be fucking the rich person as much\n\nYour view is based on you think poor people are all assholes?\n\nI just fail to see the difference between normal relationships where the woman is more likely to fuck the man after receiving gifts and a relationship where the woman explicitly says 'i want x money for x time'\n\nYou're entirely inventing these scenarios and relationship dynamics. \nDo you see the difference between someone who is in a relationship because they're being paid and people in a relationship because they like the other person? \nThat's what you're asking but you're somehow assuming anyone poorer in a relationship with disparate finances is basically a prostitute, and the rich person is buying a partner not in a real relationship.",
">\n\nI didn't say that. I said the scenarios where the poor person is with the rich in part for money isn't any less immoral\nMost people I know complain about their partner not fucking them or buying them gifts.",
">\n\n\nMost people I know complain about their partner not fucking them or buying them gifts.\n\nSo your friends' anecdotal toxic relationships are your \"evidence\" for your belief?\nYour title says there is no difference between a sugar relationship and a traditional relationship with an income disparity. Then you go on to make a ridiculous unsupported assertion that poor people are in it for the money.\nSo is your actual claim that relationships with an income disparity where the poor person is in it for the money are morally equivalent of sugar relationships?\nIf so, let me enlighten you that sugar relationships have traditionally been rich men who date younger women and spoil them with gifts and trips, not cash payments. So in reality, your relationship where the poor person is with the rich person for the money, IS a sugar relationship.\nNow if you just want to basic it all the way down to poor people with rich people because their rich is morally equivalent to prostitution, we can have that discussion too, but I think you know they aren't.",
">\n\n\nI just fail to see the difference between normal relationships where the woman is more likely to fuck the man after receiving gifts and a relationship where the woman explicitly says 'i want x money for x time'\n\nI suppose the biggest difference is how abruptly it can stop. If you're in a proper relationship where the girl expects presents or whatever if you don't get her a present once or twice she's unlikely to break up with you immediately. \nIn a sugar relationship it's basically just prostitution and the second you stop paying her she leaves. So morally the difference is on the person expecting gifts. \nIn a sugar relationship she is absolutely only there for the money and will drop you like a turd the second you stop paying here this is morally worse than just being in a relationship with someone with more money and as a result expect them to spend that money on you to some degree. \nImagine dating someone and the second they drop give you money you're just out of their lives, isn't that pretty morally reprehensible? Where if you're in a proper relationship and they hit a financial bump you might end up eventually breaking up with them but not the same day, you'll give them a pass or two, try to help them get on their feet and then if things dry up for good maybe you'll leave but you'll still probably talk to them once in awhile.",
">\n\n!delta that it can't compare to a normal relationship where she's just complaining or he's just complaining. But I don't see it as immoral if they both agreed to it. My therapist cares about me. But if I stop paying her she's not gonna like me enough to keep me around, even as a friend.",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/GutsTheWellMannered (2∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThe difference is in those types of relationships, usually one person is dishonest with the other to get what they actually want. If both people are aware that one gets x money for x amount of time, then it might be seen as unconventional, but not immoral.",
">\n\nSo you agree sugar relationships aren't immoral then",
">\n\nNot If both people are fully aware of and consenting to the arrangement, then no."
] |
> | [
"/u/donotholdyourbreath (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nUnless every single poor person rich person relationship is based around the rich person paying the poor person for sex or companionship, you cannot say they are equivalent. \nIt really says something that you are comfortable making these broad generalizations about women. I'm sorry, poor people.",
">\n\nI didn't say every. I said I don't see the difference where the rich is more willing to pay for sex or wine and dine the lady. Do these men not exist? And there are def some women who would fuck for riches. I don't see the immorality in that either",
">\n\nYou didn't say every, but you certainly implied it. Unless people are actively paying money for sex, it is not equivalent to a sugar relationship, because nothing is equivalent to a sugar relationship than paying money for sex.",
">\n\n> I just fail to see the difference between normal relationships where the woman is more likely to fuck the man after receiving gifts and a relationship where the woman explicitly says 'i want x money for x time.' \nA relationship is founded on the principle of equity, if not equality. Even if the poorer person cannot put in the same dollar amount, they should put in an equivalent amount of physical, emotional, or proportional money. For exampe, rich person takes them out for a nice dinner for a date, poorer person cooks a nice homecooked meal and does a 'home date night'. It isn't transactional - neither person is counting dollars and demanding the other person 'step up' because they aren't paying their way. Both recieve emotional and social fulfillment but there is no obligation for one to provide money in order to stay in the relationship etc. It can flow in either direction. \nA sugar relationship is an explicitly transactional relationship - \"give me money, a house, an nice car, clothes, experiences that are expensive for me and I will give you sex and companionship, If you don't do this, our relationship is over.\" At it's core, it's business. While a sugar baby might love the other person and vice versa, the core of the relationship is business and at the end of the day, it's contractual. \n> I'm saying there are cases where the person is more likely staying in part for money/sex. \nThis is possible but the way you are stating your case implies that you think this is a fundamental of a relationship between two people of two different kinds of means. Why are you so sure this is the case?",
">\n\nNope. I don't think its fundamental. But I do think many ate transactional. Even if its not direct. As you said the person pays the bills, the other cooks. Are there people who do things even if he's broke or she's too sick to cook. Of course. But are there those that leave. sure. Hows it any different. At least the sugar one is honest. \nDivorced happen when one is pulling their weight. But somehow we don't find it immoral if one drops the other for not doing anything",
">\n\nIn any sugar relationship, if the payments stop the relationship is over. If the sex stops, the relationship is over. Neither of these things are true in more traditional relationships, even if there is an income disparity.\nAre you suggesting that in a traditional relationship, if the rich guy stopped paying to go out to eat, or stopped buying expensive presents, the poor girl would just up and leave, no questions asked? If so, you've got a twisted view of relationships.\nEdit: Oh I see it now:\n\nI'm gonna bet that under a lot of scenarios where the rich person is dating the much poorer person, the poorer person will leave the rich person if the rich person doesn't splurge on the poor person...I don't think the poor person would be fucking the rich person as much\n\nYep, you have a twisted view of relationships. I make a lot of money. Every relationship I've been in for the past 7 years, I've made more than twice what my partner did, at least, most of the time 4x or more. Never once have I incessantly \"splurged\" on the poor person or gave constant expensive presents. Never once has my partner expressed any discontent or withheld sex because of a perceived financial slight. I pay for most of the things we do together because I make most of the money. She pays for what she can, when she can, and we're all good. You're just wrong about this.\nNow if you are talking about insane disparities, where we have a multi-millionaire dating a grocery clerk, yeah that virtually never happens, so why discuss the morality?",
">\n\n\nI'm gonna bet that under a lot of scenarios where the rich person is dating the much poorer person, the poorer person will leave the rich person if the rich person doesn't splurge on the poor person...I don't think the poor person would be fucking the rich person as much\n\nYour view is based on you think poor people are all assholes?\n\nI just fail to see the difference between normal relationships where the woman is more likely to fuck the man after receiving gifts and a relationship where the woman explicitly says 'i want x money for x time'\n\nYou're entirely inventing these scenarios and relationship dynamics. \nDo you see the difference between someone who is in a relationship because they're being paid and people in a relationship because they like the other person? \nThat's what you're asking but you're somehow assuming anyone poorer in a relationship with disparate finances is basically a prostitute, and the rich person is buying a partner not in a real relationship.",
">\n\nI didn't say that. I said the scenarios where the poor person is with the rich in part for money isn't any less immoral\nMost people I know complain about their partner not fucking them or buying them gifts.",
">\n\n\nMost people I know complain about their partner not fucking them or buying them gifts.\n\nSo your friends' anecdotal toxic relationships are your \"evidence\" for your belief?\nYour title says there is no difference between a sugar relationship and a traditional relationship with an income disparity. Then you go on to make a ridiculous unsupported assertion that poor people are in it for the money.\nSo is your actual claim that relationships with an income disparity where the poor person is in it for the money are morally equivalent of sugar relationships?\nIf so, let me enlighten you that sugar relationships have traditionally been rich men who date younger women and spoil them with gifts and trips, not cash payments. So in reality, your relationship where the poor person is with the rich person for the money, IS a sugar relationship.\nNow if you just want to basic it all the way down to poor people with rich people because their rich is morally equivalent to prostitution, we can have that discussion too, but I think you know they aren't.",
">\n\n\nI just fail to see the difference between normal relationships where the woman is more likely to fuck the man after receiving gifts and a relationship where the woman explicitly says 'i want x money for x time'\n\nI suppose the biggest difference is how abruptly it can stop. If you're in a proper relationship where the girl expects presents or whatever if you don't get her a present once or twice she's unlikely to break up with you immediately. \nIn a sugar relationship it's basically just prostitution and the second you stop paying her she leaves. So morally the difference is on the person expecting gifts. \nIn a sugar relationship she is absolutely only there for the money and will drop you like a turd the second you stop paying here this is morally worse than just being in a relationship with someone with more money and as a result expect them to spend that money on you to some degree. \nImagine dating someone and the second they drop give you money you're just out of their lives, isn't that pretty morally reprehensible? Where if you're in a proper relationship and they hit a financial bump you might end up eventually breaking up with them but not the same day, you'll give them a pass or two, try to help them get on their feet and then if things dry up for good maybe you'll leave but you'll still probably talk to them once in awhile.",
">\n\n!delta that it can't compare to a normal relationship where she's just complaining or he's just complaining. But I don't see it as immoral if they both agreed to it. My therapist cares about me. But if I stop paying her she's not gonna like me enough to keep me around, even as a friend.",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/GutsTheWellMannered (2∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThe difference is in those types of relationships, usually one person is dishonest with the other to get what they actually want. If both people are aware that one gets x money for x amount of time, then it might be seen as unconventional, but not immoral.",
">\n\nSo you agree sugar relationships aren't immoral then",
">\n\nNot If both people are fully aware of and consenting to the arrangement, then no.",
">\n\n\nBut the abuse is the problem. Not the wealth.\n\nThe problem with wealth here is that the poor person is reliant on the rich person for survival much more than a normal relationship, which makes the poor vulnerable to coercion. Fear of losing their livelihood if they don't behave. That's the potential they're taking about."
] |
/u/telmasare (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards | [] |
>
There are lots of legitimate reasons to discount something:
It's about to go bad, and the retailer would rather sell it at a loss than throw it away.
It was a seasonal item and the season is over / almost over. Storing the item until next season is not feasible / cost effective.
A next generation version of the item has come out, and the previous generation version is no longer as valuable.
They've decided to stop carrying an item, and want to get rid of the stock they have.
Sometimes retailers will sell certain items at a loss to get people in the store looking at the other things they have for sale. | [
"/u/telmasare (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards"
] |
>
A next generation version of the item has come out, and the previous generation version is no longer as valuable.
For this case they should just lower the price, as happens with consumer electronics. No reason for a "sale" if the value will be lower permanently. | [
"/u/telmasare (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThere are lots of legitimate reasons to discount something:\n\nIt's about to go bad, and the retailer would rather sell it at a loss than throw it away.\nIt was a seasonal item and the season is over / almost over. Storing the item until next season is not feasible / cost effective.\nA next generation version of the item has come out, and the previous generation version is no longer as valuable.\nThey've decided to stop carrying an item, and want to get rid of the stock they have.\nSometimes retailers will sell certain items at a loss to get people in the store looking at the other things they have for sale."
] |
>
Discount is a price control tool. It is a tool to increase demand.
Businesses need it so they can get rid their inventory faster, for various reasons like expired items, or excessive supply.
For example, food industry usually cut food prices when it is the end of the day. It is better to cut the price than throw away the food. Throwing away food has its own cost + food production cost.
Banning "Discount" is also unrealistic. Businesses can just change the price overnight, that will lead to chaos or confusion. How do you solve this? | [
"/u/telmasare (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThere are lots of legitimate reasons to discount something:\n\nIt's about to go bad, and the retailer would rather sell it at a loss than throw it away.\nIt was a seasonal item and the season is over / almost over. Storing the item until next season is not feasible / cost effective.\nA next generation version of the item has come out, and the previous generation version is no longer as valuable.\nThey've decided to stop carrying an item, and want to get rid of the stock they have.\nSometimes retailers will sell certain items at a loss to get people in the store looking at the other things they have for sale.",
">\n\n\nA next generation version of the item has come out, and the previous generation version is no longer as valuable.\n\nFor this case they should just lower the price, as happens with consumer electronics. No reason for a \"sale\" if the value will be lower permanently."
] |
>
I remember market before online was much nice, you get what you were advertised for. Not this daily sales, exclusive discounts, overinflated prices etc stuff we get nowadays. | [
"/u/telmasare (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThere are lots of legitimate reasons to discount something:\n\nIt's about to go bad, and the retailer would rather sell it at a loss than throw it away.\nIt was a seasonal item and the season is over / almost over. Storing the item until next season is not feasible / cost effective.\nA next generation version of the item has come out, and the previous generation version is no longer as valuable.\nThey've decided to stop carrying an item, and want to get rid of the stock they have.\nSometimes retailers will sell certain items at a loss to get people in the store looking at the other things they have for sale.",
">\n\n\nA next generation version of the item has come out, and the previous generation version is no longer as valuable.\n\nFor this case they should just lower the price, as happens with consumer electronics. No reason for a \"sale\" if the value will be lower permanently.",
">\n\nDiscount is a price control tool. It is a tool to increase demand.\nBusinesses need it so they can get rid their inventory faster, for various reasons like expired items, or excessive supply.\nFor example, food industry usually cut food prices when it is the end of the day. It is better to cut the price than throw away the food. Throwing away food has its own cost + food production cost.\nBanning \"Discount\" is also unrealistic. Businesses can just change the price overnight, that will lead to chaos or confusion. How do you solve this?"
] |
>
Well, I saw your edit on the original post. Looks like you have changed your view, or at least wrote the title wrong so people misunderstood you. you might want to give delta, per subreddit rule, if your view really changed.
regarding the vague price stickers, It is indeed annoying. Tho, the producer put those stickers because it works! It increases their sales. if not, they will do something else or erase it.
Remember, business first priority is to make profit. costumer experience can come second.
btw, wait until you know other tool like using same price, but reduce the volume of the product. Business do it all the time especially during inflation. some buyer don't aware of this. | [
"/u/telmasare (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThere are lots of legitimate reasons to discount something:\n\nIt's about to go bad, and the retailer would rather sell it at a loss than throw it away.\nIt was a seasonal item and the season is over / almost over. Storing the item until next season is not feasible / cost effective.\nA next generation version of the item has come out, and the previous generation version is no longer as valuable.\nThey've decided to stop carrying an item, and want to get rid of the stock they have.\nSometimes retailers will sell certain items at a loss to get people in the store looking at the other things they have for sale.",
">\n\n\nA next generation version of the item has come out, and the previous generation version is no longer as valuable.\n\nFor this case they should just lower the price, as happens with consumer electronics. No reason for a \"sale\" if the value will be lower permanently.",
">\n\nDiscount is a price control tool. It is a tool to increase demand.\nBusinesses need it so they can get rid their inventory faster, for various reasons like expired items, or excessive supply.\nFor example, food industry usually cut food prices when it is the end of the day. It is better to cut the price than throw away the food. Throwing away food has its own cost + food production cost.\nBanning \"Discount\" is also unrealistic. Businesses can just change the price overnight, that will lead to chaos or confusion. How do you solve this?",
">\n\nI remember market before online was much nice, you get what you were advertised for. Not this daily sales, exclusive discounts, overinflated prices etc stuff we get nowadays."
] |
>
Remember, business first priority is to make profit. costumer experience can come second.
I mean don't you think when I said it should be against the law, I meant cause business should think that way ideal. If law can't control market, then we get a anarcho-capatalist society that only helps the rich only. | [
"/u/telmasare (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThere are lots of legitimate reasons to discount something:\n\nIt's about to go bad, and the retailer would rather sell it at a loss than throw it away.\nIt was a seasonal item and the season is over / almost over. Storing the item until next season is not feasible / cost effective.\nA next generation version of the item has come out, and the previous generation version is no longer as valuable.\nThey've decided to stop carrying an item, and want to get rid of the stock they have.\nSometimes retailers will sell certain items at a loss to get people in the store looking at the other things they have for sale.",
">\n\n\nA next generation version of the item has come out, and the previous generation version is no longer as valuable.\n\nFor this case they should just lower the price, as happens with consumer electronics. No reason for a \"sale\" if the value will be lower permanently.",
">\n\nDiscount is a price control tool. It is a tool to increase demand.\nBusinesses need it so they can get rid their inventory faster, for various reasons like expired items, or excessive supply.\nFor example, food industry usually cut food prices when it is the end of the day. It is better to cut the price than throw away the food. Throwing away food has its own cost + food production cost.\nBanning \"Discount\" is also unrealistic. Businesses can just change the price overnight, that will lead to chaos or confusion. How do you solve this?",
">\n\nI remember market before online was much nice, you get what you were advertised for. Not this daily sales, exclusive discounts, overinflated prices etc stuff we get nowadays.",
">\n\nWell, I saw your edit on the original post. Looks like you have changed your view, or at least wrote the title wrong so people misunderstood you. you might want to give delta, per subreddit rule, if your view really changed.\nregarding the vague price stickers, It is indeed annoying. Tho, the producer put those stickers because it works! It increases their sales. if not, they will do something else or erase it.\nRemember, business first priority is to make profit. costumer experience can come second.\nbtw, wait until you know other tool like using same price, but reduce the volume of the product. Business do it all the time especially during inflation. some buyer don't aware of this."
] |
>
no country bans the practice of discounts or vague stickers, because that's a fair way. Ultimately, buyer has the right to choose what they want. Buyer has the option to not buy.
I don't know where this conversation is going. are you here trying to debate? | [
"/u/telmasare (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThere are lots of legitimate reasons to discount something:\n\nIt's about to go bad, and the retailer would rather sell it at a loss than throw it away.\nIt was a seasonal item and the season is over / almost over. Storing the item until next season is not feasible / cost effective.\nA next generation version of the item has come out, and the previous generation version is no longer as valuable.\nThey've decided to stop carrying an item, and want to get rid of the stock they have.\nSometimes retailers will sell certain items at a loss to get people in the store looking at the other things they have for sale.",
">\n\n\nA next generation version of the item has come out, and the previous generation version is no longer as valuable.\n\nFor this case they should just lower the price, as happens with consumer electronics. No reason for a \"sale\" if the value will be lower permanently.",
">\n\nDiscount is a price control tool. It is a tool to increase demand.\nBusinesses need it so they can get rid their inventory faster, for various reasons like expired items, or excessive supply.\nFor example, food industry usually cut food prices when it is the end of the day. It is better to cut the price than throw away the food. Throwing away food has its own cost + food production cost.\nBanning \"Discount\" is also unrealistic. Businesses can just change the price overnight, that will lead to chaos or confusion. How do you solve this?",
">\n\nI remember market before online was much nice, you get what you were advertised for. Not this daily sales, exclusive discounts, overinflated prices etc stuff we get nowadays.",
">\n\nWell, I saw your edit on the original post. Looks like you have changed your view, or at least wrote the title wrong so people misunderstood you. you might want to give delta, per subreddit rule, if your view really changed.\nregarding the vague price stickers, It is indeed annoying. Tho, the producer put those stickers because it works! It increases their sales. if not, they will do something else or erase it.\nRemember, business first priority is to make profit. costumer experience can come second.\nbtw, wait until you know other tool like using same price, but reduce the volume of the product. Business do it all the time especially during inflation. some buyer don't aware of this.",
">\n\n\nRemember, business first priority is to make profit. costumer experience can come second.\n\nI mean don't you think when I said it should be against the law, I meant cause business should think that way ideal. If law can't control market, then we get a anarcho-capatalist society that only helps the rich only."
] |
>
Americans don't have a maximum price. We get manufacturer suggested retail price. Msrp. And the really annoying thing is our grocery stores will have something you always bought for $1.25 but inflation they raise the price to $2 and then put it in sale for $1.50. i agree on that.
But what about overstock? If a product is only good for a few more days it is often marked 40% off, so that the store won't eat the entire loss. Should that be banned? | [
"/u/telmasare (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThere are lots of legitimate reasons to discount something:\n\nIt's about to go bad, and the retailer would rather sell it at a loss than throw it away.\nIt was a seasonal item and the season is over / almost over. Storing the item until next season is not feasible / cost effective.\nA next generation version of the item has come out, and the previous generation version is no longer as valuable.\nThey've decided to stop carrying an item, and want to get rid of the stock they have.\nSometimes retailers will sell certain items at a loss to get people in the store looking at the other things they have for sale.",
">\n\n\nA next generation version of the item has come out, and the previous generation version is no longer as valuable.\n\nFor this case they should just lower the price, as happens with consumer electronics. No reason for a \"sale\" if the value will be lower permanently.",
">\n\nDiscount is a price control tool. It is a tool to increase demand.\nBusinesses need it so they can get rid their inventory faster, for various reasons like expired items, or excessive supply.\nFor example, food industry usually cut food prices when it is the end of the day. It is better to cut the price than throw away the food. Throwing away food has its own cost + food production cost.\nBanning \"Discount\" is also unrealistic. Businesses can just change the price overnight, that will lead to chaos or confusion. How do you solve this?",
">\n\nI remember market before online was much nice, you get what you were advertised for. Not this daily sales, exclusive discounts, overinflated prices etc stuff we get nowadays.",
">\n\nWell, I saw your edit on the original post. Looks like you have changed your view, or at least wrote the title wrong so people misunderstood you. you might want to give delta, per subreddit rule, if your view really changed.\nregarding the vague price stickers, It is indeed annoying. Tho, the producer put those stickers because it works! It increases their sales. if not, they will do something else or erase it.\nRemember, business first priority is to make profit. costumer experience can come second.\nbtw, wait until you know other tool like using same price, but reduce the volume of the product. Business do it all the time especially during inflation. some buyer don't aware of this.",
">\n\n\nRemember, business first priority is to make profit. costumer experience can come second.\n\nI mean don't you think when I said it should be against the law, I meant cause business should think that way ideal. If law can't control market, then we get a anarcho-capatalist society that only helps the rich only.",
">\n\nno country bans the practice of discounts or vague stickers, because that's a fair way. Ultimately, buyer has the right to choose what they want. Buyer has the option to not buy.\nI don't know where this conversation is going. are you here trying to debate?"
] |
>
"permanent discounts" and inflated MSRP stickers are already illegal.
to use your other example "20% more" is relative to industry standard packaging. if the industry norm for a can of juice is 200ml, if I give you 220, my packages are 20% larger.
also, discounts on multiple purchases are common because they ensure a minimum margin on the product. it's no different than "5 dollars off orders of 50 dollars or more" or "free shipping over 100 dollars purchased". the retailer can only afford the discount when they make a certain margin because they have fixed costs like employees and rent to cover. | [
"/u/telmasare (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThere are lots of legitimate reasons to discount something:\n\nIt's about to go bad, and the retailer would rather sell it at a loss than throw it away.\nIt was a seasonal item and the season is over / almost over. Storing the item until next season is not feasible / cost effective.\nA next generation version of the item has come out, and the previous generation version is no longer as valuable.\nThey've decided to stop carrying an item, and want to get rid of the stock they have.\nSometimes retailers will sell certain items at a loss to get people in the store looking at the other things they have for sale.",
">\n\n\nA next generation version of the item has come out, and the previous generation version is no longer as valuable.\n\nFor this case they should just lower the price, as happens with consumer electronics. No reason for a \"sale\" if the value will be lower permanently.",
">\n\nDiscount is a price control tool. It is a tool to increase demand.\nBusinesses need it so they can get rid their inventory faster, for various reasons like expired items, or excessive supply.\nFor example, food industry usually cut food prices when it is the end of the day. It is better to cut the price than throw away the food. Throwing away food has its own cost + food production cost.\nBanning \"Discount\" is also unrealistic. Businesses can just change the price overnight, that will lead to chaos or confusion. How do you solve this?",
">\n\nI remember market before online was much nice, you get what you were advertised for. Not this daily sales, exclusive discounts, overinflated prices etc stuff we get nowadays.",
">\n\nWell, I saw your edit on the original post. Looks like you have changed your view, or at least wrote the title wrong so people misunderstood you. you might want to give delta, per subreddit rule, if your view really changed.\nregarding the vague price stickers, It is indeed annoying. Tho, the producer put those stickers because it works! It increases their sales. if not, they will do something else or erase it.\nRemember, business first priority is to make profit. costumer experience can come second.\nbtw, wait until you know other tool like using same price, but reduce the volume of the product. Business do it all the time especially during inflation. some buyer don't aware of this.",
">\n\n\nRemember, business first priority is to make profit. costumer experience can come second.\n\nI mean don't you think when I said it should be against the law, I meant cause business should think that way ideal. If law can't control market, then we get a anarcho-capatalist society that only helps the rich only.",
">\n\nno country bans the practice of discounts or vague stickers, because that's a fair way. Ultimately, buyer has the right to choose what they want. Buyer has the option to not buy.\nI don't know where this conversation is going. are you here trying to debate?",
">\n\nAmericans don't have a maximum price. We get manufacturer suggested retail price. Msrp. And the really annoying thing is our grocery stores will have something you always bought for $1.25 but inflation they raise the price to $2 and then put it in sale for $1.50. i agree on that.\nBut what about overstock? If a product is only good for a few more days it is often marked 40% off, so that the store won't eat the entire loss. Should that be banned?"
] |
>
Why can't we just tell our respective governments to fuck off and allow the marketplace and individual businesses deal with it? It seems as though everytime gov gets involved they just make things worse. | [
"/u/telmasare (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThere are lots of legitimate reasons to discount something:\n\nIt's about to go bad, and the retailer would rather sell it at a loss than throw it away.\nIt was a seasonal item and the season is over / almost over. Storing the item until next season is not feasible / cost effective.\nA next generation version of the item has come out, and the previous generation version is no longer as valuable.\nThey've decided to stop carrying an item, and want to get rid of the stock they have.\nSometimes retailers will sell certain items at a loss to get people in the store looking at the other things they have for sale.",
">\n\n\nA next generation version of the item has come out, and the previous generation version is no longer as valuable.\n\nFor this case they should just lower the price, as happens with consumer electronics. No reason for a \"sale\" if the value will be lower permanently.",
">\n\nDiscount is a price control tool. It is a tool to increase demand.\nBusinesses need it so they can get rid their inventory faster, for various reasons like expired items, or excessive supply.\nFor example, food industry usually cut food prices when it is the end of the day. It is better to cut the price than throw away the food. Throwing away food has its own cost + food production cost.\nBanning \"Discount\" is also unrealistic. Businesses can just change the price overnight, that will lead to chaos or confusion. How do you solve this?",
">\n\nI remember market before online was much nice, you get what you were advertised for. Not this daily sales, exclusive discounts, overinflated prices etc stuff we get nowadays.",
">\n\nWell, I saw your edit on the original post. Looks like you have changed your view, or at least wrote the title wrong so people misunderstood you. you might want to give delta, per subreddit rule, if your view really changed.\nregarding the vague price stickers, It is indeed annoying. Tho, the producer put those stickers because it works! It increases their sales. if not, they will do something else or erase it.\nRemember, business first priority is to make profit. costumer experience can come second.\nbtw, wait until you know other tool like using same price, but reduce the volume of the product. Business do it all the time especially during inflation. some buyer don't aware of this.",
">\n\n\nRemember, business first priority is to make profit. costumer experience can come second.\n\nI mean don't you think when I said it should be against the law, I meant cause business should think that way ideal. If law can't control market, then we get a anarcho-capatalist society that only helps the rich only.",
">\n\nno country bans the practice of discounts or vague stickers, because that's a fair way. Ultimately, buyer has the right to choose what they want. Buyer has the option to not buy.\nI don't know where this conversation is going. are you here trying to debate?",
">\n\nAmericans don't have a maximum price. We get manufacturer suggested retail price. Msrp. And the really annoying thing is our grocery stores will have something you always bought for $1.25 but inflation they raise the price to $2 and then put it in sale for $1.50. i agree on that.\nBut what about overstock? If a product is only good for a few more days it is often marked 40% off, so that the store won't eat the entire loss. Should that be banned?",
">\n\n\"permanent discounts\" and inflated MSRP stickers are already illegal.\nto use your other example \"20% more\" is relative to industry standard packaging. if the industry norm for a can of juice is 200ml, if I give you 220, my packages are 20% larger.\nalso, discounts on multiple purchases are common because they ensure a minimum margin on the product. it's no different than \"5 dollars off orders of 50 dollars or more\" or \"free shipping over 100 dollars purchased\". the retailer can only afford the discount when they make a certain margin because they have fixed costs like employees and rent to cover."
] |
>
competition favors the consumer, if there was one price you would be paying the highest price imaginable, sellers/manufacturers will get together and inflate the price. | [
"/u/telmasare (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThere are lots of legitimate reasons to discount something:\n\nIt's about to go bad, and the retailer would rather sell it at a loss than throw it away.\nIt was a seasonal item and the season is over / almost over. Storing the item until next season is not feasible / cost effective.\nA next generation version of the item has come out, and the previous generation version is no longer as valuable.\nThey've decided to stop carrying an item, and want to get rid of the stock they have.\nSometimes retailers will sell certain items at a loss to get people in the store looking at the other things they have for sale.",
">\n\n\nA next generation version of the item has come out, and the previous generation version is no longer as valuable.\n\nFor this case they should just lower the price, as happens with consumer electronics. No reason for a \"sale\" if the value will be lower permanently.",
">\n\nDiscount is a price control tool. It is a tool to increase demand.\nBusinesses need it so they can get rid their inventory faster, for various reasons like expired items, or excessive supply.\nFor example, food industry usually cut food prices when it is the end of the day. It is better to cut the price than throw away the food. Throwing away food has its own cost + food production cost.\nBanning \"Discount\" is also unrealistic. Businesses can just change the price overnight, that will lead to chaos or confusion. How do you solve this?",
">\n\nI remember market before online was much nice, you get what you were advertised for. Not this daily sales, exclusive discounts, overinflated prices etc stuff we get nowadays.",
">\n\nWell, I saw your edit on the original post. Looks like you have changed your view, or at least wrote the title wrong so people misunderstood you. you might want to give delta, per subreddit rule, if your view really changed.\nregarding the vague price stickers, It is indeed annoying. Tho, the producer put those stickers because it works! It increases their sales. if not, they will do something else or erase it.\nRemember, business first priority is to make profit. costumer experience can come second.\nbtw, wait until you know other tool like using same price, but reduce the volume of the product. Business do it all the time especially during inflation. some buyer don't aware of this.",
">\n\n\nRemember, business first priority is to make profit. costumer experience can come second.\n\nI mean don't you think when I said it should be against the law, I meant cause business should think that way ideal. If law can't control market, then we get a anarcho-capatalist society that only helps the rich only.",
">\n\nno country bans the practice of discounts or vague stickers, because that's a fair way. Ultimately, buyer has the right to choose what they want. Buyer has the option to not buy.\nI don't know where this conversation is going. are you here trying to debate?",
">\n\nAmericans don't have a maximum price. We get manufacturer suggested retail price. Msrp. And the really annoying thing is our grocery stores will have something you always bought for $1.25 but inflation they raise the price to $2 and then put it in sale for $1.50. i agree on that.\nBut what about overstock? If a product is only good for a few more days it is often marked 40% off, so that the store won't eat the entire loss. Should that be banned?",
">\n\n\"permanent discounts\" and inflated MSRP stickers are already illegal.\nto use your other example \"20% more\" is relative to industry standard packaging. if the industry norm for a can of juice is 200ml, if I give you 220, my packages are 20% larger.\nalso, discounts on multiple purchases are common because they ensure a minimum margin on the product. it's no different than \"5 dollars off orders of 50 dollars or more\" or \"free shipping over 100 dollars purchased\". the retailer can only afford the discount when they make a certain margin because they have fixed costs like employees and rent to cover.",
">\n\nWhy can't we just tell our respective governments to fuck off and allow the marketplace and individual businesses deal with it? It seems as though everytime gov gets involved they just make things worse."
] |
>
What happens when a shop owner wants to get rid of supplies quickly? Maybe they need a cash influx or they need to liquidate stock for physical space reasons. | [
"/u/telmasare (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThere are lots of legitimate reasons to discount something:\n\nIt's about to go bad, and the retailer would rather sell it at a loss than throw it away.\nIt was a seasonal item and the season is over / almost over. Storing the item until next season is not feasible / cost effective.\nA next generation version of the item has come out, and the previous generation version is no longer as valuable.\nThey've decided to stop carrying an item, and want to get rid of the stock they have.\nSometimes retailers will sell certain items at a loss to get people in the store looking at the other things they have for sale.",
">\n\n\nA next generation version of the item has come out, and the previous generation version is no longer as valuable.\n\nFor this case they should just lower the price, as happens with consumer electronics. No reason for a \"sale\" if the value will be lower permanently.",
">\n\nDiscount is a price control tool. It is a tool to increase demand.\nBusinesses need it so they can get rid their inventory faster, for various reasons like expired items, or excessive supply.\nFor example, food industry usually cut food prices when it is the end of the day. It is better to cut the price than throw away the food. Throwing away food has its own cost + food production cost.\nBanning \"Discount\" is also unrealistic. Businesses can just change the price overnight, that will lead to chaos or confusion. How do you solve this?",
">\n\nI remember market before online was much nice, you get what you were advertised for. Not this daily sales, exclusive discounts, overinflated prices etc stuff we get nowadays.",
">\n\nWell, I saw your edit on the original post. Looks like you have changed your view, or at least wrote the title wrong so people misunderstood you. you might want to give delta, per subreddit rule, if your view really changed.\nregarding the vague price stickers, It is indeed annoying. Tho, the producer put those stickers because it works! It increases their sales. if not, they will do something else or erase it.\nRemember, business first priority is to make profit. costumer experience can come second.\nbtw, wait until you know other tool like using same price, but reduce the volume of the product. Business do it all the time especially during inflation. some buyer don't aware of this.",
">\n\n\nRemember, business first priority is to make profit. costumer experience can come second.\n\nI mean don't you think when I said it should be against the law, I meant cause business should think that way ideal. If law can't control market, then we get a anarcho-capatalist society that only helps the rich only.",
">\n\nno country bans the practice of discounts or vague stickers, because that's a fair way. Ultimately, buyer has the right to choose what they want. Buyer has the option to not buy.\nI don't know where this conversation is going. are you here trying to debate?",
">\n\nAmericans don't have a maximum price. We get manufacturer suggested retail price. Msrp. And the really annoying thing is our grocery stores will have something you always bought for $1.25 but inflation they raise the price to $2 and then put it in sale for $1.50. i agree on that.\nBut what about overstock? If a product is only good for a few more days it is often marked 40% off, so that the store won't eat the entire loss. Should that be banned?",
">\n\n\"permanent discounts\" and inflated MSRP stickers are already illegal.\nto use your other example \"20% more\" is relative to industry standard packaging. if the industry norm for a can of juice is 200ml, if I give you 220, my packages are 20% larger.\nalso, discounts on multiple purchases are common because they ensure a minimum margin on the product. it's no different than \"5 dollars off orders of 50 dollars or more\" or \"free shipping over 100 dollars purchased\". the retailer can only afford the discount when they make a certain margin because they have fixed costs like employees and rent to cover.",
">\n\nWhy can't we just tell our respective governments to fuck off and allow the marketplace and individual businesses deal with it? It seems as though everytime gov gets involved they just make things worse.",
">\n\ncompetition favors the consumer, if there was one price you would be paying the highest price imaginable, sellers/manufacturers will get together and inflate the price."
] |
>
There's also economy of scale. It's usually cheaper per unit to produce and sell 100 or 1000 units than it is to sell 1 unit. So as a seller, you can advertise a sale, order 100 items, and sell them in one day. These items are cheaper to produce, to ship, and to sell because you sell more in relation to your overhead and fixed costs. | [
"/u/telmasare (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThere are lots of legitimate reasons to discount something:\n\nIt's about to go bad, and the retailer would rather sell it at a loss than throw it away.\nIt was a seasonal item and the season is over / almost over. Storing the item until next season is not feasible / cost effective.\nA next generation version of the item has come out, and the previous generation version is no longer as valuable.\nThey've decided to stop carrying an item, and want to get rid of the stock they have.\nSometimes retailers will sell certain items at a loss to get people in the store looking at the other things they have for sale.",
">\n\n\nA next generation version of the item has come out, and the previous generation version is no longer as valuable.\n\nFor this case they should just lower the price, as happens with consumer electronics. No reason for a \"sale\" if the value will be lower permanently.",
">\n\nDiscount is a price control tool. It is a tool to increase demand.\nBusinesses need it so they can get rid their inventory faster, for various reasons like expired items, or excessive supply.\nFor example, food industry usually cut food prices when it is the end of the day. It is better to cut the price than throw away the food. Throwing away food has its own cost + food production cost.\nBanning \"Discount\" is also unrealistic. Businesses can just change the price overnight, that will lead to chaos or confusion. How do you solve this?",
">\n\nI remember market before online was much nice, you get what you were advertised for. Not this daily sales, exclusive discounts, overinflated prices etc stuff we get nowadays.",
">\n\nWell, I saw your edit on the original post. Looks like you have changed your view, or at least wrote the title wrong so people misunderstood you. you might want to give delta, per subreddit rule, if your view really changed.\nregarding the vague price stickers, It is indeed annoying. Tho, the producer put those stickers because it works! It increases their sales. if not, they will do something else or erase it.\nRemember, business first priority is to make profit. costumer experience can come second.\nbtw, wait until you know other tool like using same price, but reduce the volume of the product. Business do it all the time especially during inflation. some buyer don't aware of this.",
">\n\n\nRemember, business first priority is to make profit. costumer experience can come second.\n\nI mean don't you think when I said it should be against the law, I meant cause business should think that way ideal. If law can't control market, then we get a anarcho-capatalist society that only helps the rich only.",
">\n\nno country bans the practice of discounts or vague stickers, because that's a fair way. Ultimately, buyer has the right to choose what they want. Buyer has the option to not buy.\nI don't know where this conversation is going. are you here trying to debate?",
">\n\nAmericans don't have a maximum price. We get manufacturer suggested retail price. Msrp. And the really annoying thing is our grocery stores will have something you always bought for $1.25 but inflation they raise the price to $2 and then put it in sale for $1.50. i agree on that.\nBut what about overstock? If a product is only good for a few more days it is often marked 40% off, so that the store won't eat the entire loss. Should that be banned?",
">\n\n\"permanent discounts\" and inflated MSRP stickers are already illegal.\nto use your other example \"20% more\" is relative to industry standard packaging. if the industry norm for a can of juice is 200ml, if I give you 220, my packages are 20% larger.\nalso, discounts on multiple purchases are common because they ensure a minimum margin on the product. it's no different than \"5 dollars off orders of 50 dollars or more\" or \"free shipping over 100 dollars purchased\". the retailer can only afford the discount when they make a certain margin because they have fixed costs like employees and rent to cover.",
">\n\nWhy can't we just tell our respective governments to fuck off and allow the marketplace and individual businesses deal with it? It seems as though everytime gov gets involved they just make things worse.",
">\n\ncompetition favors the consumer, if there was one price you would be paying the highest price imaginable, sellers/manufacturers will get together and inflate the price.",
">\n\nWhat happens when a shop owner wants to get rid of supplies quickly? Maybe they need a cash influx or they need to liquidate stock for physical space reasons."
] |
>
Do you think that producers should have any impact on price, assuming that they sell to retailers and then retailers sell to the public? They made the item, why can they not do what they want with it? | [
"/u/telmasare (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThere are lots of legitimate reasons to discount something:\n\nIt's about to go bad, and the retailer would rather sell it at a loss than throw it away.\nIt was a seasonal item and the season is over / almost over. Storing the item until next season is not feasible / cost effective.\nA next generation version of the item has come out, and the previous generation version is no longer as valuable.\nThey've decided to stop carrying an item, and want to get rid of the stock they have.\nSometimes retailers will sell certain items at a loss to get people in the store looking at the other things they have for sale.",
">\n\n\nA next generation version of the item has come out, and the previous generation version is no longer as valuable.\n\nFor this case they should just lower the price, as happens with consumer electronics. No reason for a \"sale\" if the value will be lower permanently.",
">\n\nDiscount is a price control tool. It is a tool to increase demand.\nBusinesses need it so they can get rid their inventory faster, for various reasons like expired items, or excessive supply.\nFor example, food industry usually cut food prices when it is the end of the day. It is better to cut the price than throw away the food. Throwing away food has its own cost + food production cost.\nBanning \"Discount\" is also unrealistic. Businesses can just change the price overnight, that will lead to chaos or confusion. How do you solve this?",
">\n\nI remember market before online was much nice, you get what you were advertised for. Not this daily sales, exclusive discounts, overinflated prices etc stuff we get nowadays.",
">\n\nWell, I saw your edit on the original post. Looks like you have changed your view, or at least wrote the title wrong so people misunderstood you. you might want to give delta, per subreddit rule, if your view really changed.\nregarding the vague price stickers, It is indeed annoying. Tho, the producer put those stickers because it works! It increases their sales. if not, they will do something else or erase it.\nRemember, business first priority is to make profit. costumer experience can come second.\nbtw, wait until you know other tool like using same price, but reduce the volume of the product. Business do it all the time especially during inflation. some buyer don't aware of this.",
">\n\n\nRemember, business first priority is to make profit. costumer experience can come second.\n\nI mean don't you think when I said it should be against the law, I meant cause business should think that way ideal. If law can't control market, then we get a anarcho-capatalist society that only helps the rich only.",
">\n\nno country bans the practice of discounts or vague stickers, because that's a fair way. Ultimately, buyer has the right to choose what they want. Buyer has the option to not buy.\nI don't know where this conversation is going. are you here trying to debate?",
">\n\nAmericans don't have a maximum price. We get manufacturer suggested retail price. Msrp. And the really annoying thing is our grocery stores will have something you always bought for $1.25 but inflation they raise the price to $2 and then put it in sale for $1.50. i agree on that.\nBut what about overstock? If a product is only good for a few more days it is often marked 40% off, so that the store won't eat the entire loss. Should that be banned?",
">\n\n\"permanent discounts\" and inflated MSRP stickers are already illegal.\nto use your other example \"20% more\" is relative to industry standard packaging. if the industry norm for a can of juice is 200ml, if I give you 220, my packages are 20% larger.\nalso, discounts on multiple purchases are common because they ensure a minimum margin on the product. it's no different than \"5 dollars off orders of 50 dollars or more\" or \"free shipping over 100 dollars purchased\". the retailer can only afford the discount when they make a certain margin because they have fixed costs like employees and rent to cover.",
">\n\nWhy can't we just tell our respective governments to fuck off and allow the marketplace and individual businesses deal with it? It seems as though everytime gov gets involved they just make things worse.",
">\n\ncompetition favors the consumer, if there was one price you would be paying the highest price imaginable, sellers/manufacturers will get together and inflate the price.",
">\n\nWhat happens when a shop owner wants to get rid of supplies quickly? Maybe they need a cash influx or they need to liquidate stock for physical space reasons.",
">\n\nThere's also economy of scale. It's usually cheaper per unit to produce and sell 100 or 1000 units than it is to sell 1 unit. So as a seller, you can advertise a sale, order 100 items, and sell them in one day. These items are cheaper to produce, to ship, and to sell because you sell more in relation to your overhead and fixed costs."
] |
>
They should. That's why I think they should clearly state those prices, not in the vague way(like buy 1 get 1 free) they do now. | [
"/u/telmasare (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThere are lots of legitimate reasons to discount something:\n\nIt's about to go bad, and the retailer would rather sell it at a loss than throw it away.\nIt was a seasonal item and the season is over / almost over. Storing the item until next season is not feasible / cost effective.\nA next generation version of the item has come out, and the previous generation version is no longer as valuable.\nThey've decided to stop carrying an item, and want to get rid of the stock they have.\nSometimes retailers will sell certain items at a loss to get people in the store looking at the other things they have for sale.",
">\n\n\nA next generation version of the item has come out, and the previous generation version is no longer as valuable.\n\nFor this case they should just lower the price, as happens with consumer electronics. No reason for a \"sale\" if the value will be lower permanently.",
">\n\nDiscount is a price control tool. It is a tool to increase demand.\nBusinesses need it so they can get rid their inventory faster, for various reasons like expired items, or excessive supply.\nFor example, food industry usually cut food prices when it is the end of the day. It is better to cut the price than throw away the food. Throwing away food has its own cost + food production cost.\nBanning \"Discount\" is also unrealistic. Businesses can just change the price overnight, that will lead to chaos or confusion. How do you solve this?",
">\n\nI remember market before online was much nice, you get what you were advertised for. Not this daily sales, exclusive discounts, overinflated prices etc stuff we get nowadays.",
">\n\nWell, I saw your edit on the original post. Looks like you have changed your view, or at least wrote the title wrong so people misunderstood you. you might want to give delta, per subreddit rule, if your view really changed.\nregarding the vague price stickers, It is indeed annoying. Tho, the producer put those stickers because it works! It increases their sales. if not, they will do something else or erase it.\nRemember, business first priority is to make profit. costumer experience can come second.\nbtw, wait until you know other tool like using same price, but reduce the volume of the product. Business do it all the time especially during inflation. some buyer don't aware of this.",
">\n\n\nRemember, business first priority is to make profit. costumer experience can come second.\n\nI mean don't you think when I said it should be against the law, I meant cause business should think that way ideal. If law can't control market, then we get a anarcho-capatalist society that only helps the rich only.",
">\n\nno country bans the practice of discounts or vague stickers, because that's a fair way. Ultimately, buyer has the right to choose what they want. Buyer has the option to not buy.\nI don't know where this conversation is going. are you here trying to debate?",
">\n\nAmericans don't have a maximum price. We get manufacturer suggested retail price. Msrp. And the really annoying thing is our grocery stores will have something you always bought for $1.25 but inflation they raise the price to $2 and then put it in sale for $1.50. i agree on that.\nBut what about overstock? If a product is only good for a few more days it is often marked 40% off, so that the store won't eat the entire loss. Should that be banned?",
">\n\n\"permanent discounts\" and inflated MSRP stickers are already illegal.\nto use your other example \"20% more\" is relative to industry standard packaging. if the industry norm for a can of juice is 200ml, if I give you 220, my packages are 20% larger.\nalso, discounts on multiple purchases are common because they ensure a minimum margin on the product. it's no different than \"5 dollars off orders of 50 dollars or more\" or \"free shipping over 100 dollars purchased\". the retailer can only afford the discount when they make a certain margin because they have fixed costs like employees and rent to cover.",
">\n\nWhy can't we just tell our respective governments to fuck off and allow the marketplace and individual businesses deal with it? It seems as though everytime gov gets involved they just make things worse.",
">\n\ncompetition favors the consumer, if there was one price you would be paying the highest price imaginable, sellers/manufacturers will get together and inflate the price.",
">\n\nWhat happens when a shop owner wants to get rid of supplies quickly? Maybe they need a cash influx or they need to liquidate stock for physical space reasons.",
">\n\nThere's also economy of scale. It's usually cheaper per unit to produce and sell 100 or 1000 units than it is to sell 1 unit. So as a seller, you can advertise a sale, order 100 items, and sell them in one day. These items are cheaper to produce, to ship, and to sell because you sell more in relation to your overhead and fixed costs.",
">\n\nDo you think that producers should have any impact on price, assuming that they sell to retailers and then retailers sell to the public? They made the item, why can they not do what they want with it?"
] |
>
What if they have a shipment cancelled and have more than they bargained for, so they want to lower the price to get rid of it faster? What if they have a manufacturing problem and want to increase the price so that they do not run out of stock? What if they just want to apply a change to the price and see how it goes? What if a producer wants their product to cheaper for those who really need it, whether that be poorer people or people with a specific condition or what?
I think, based on your edit, what you actually have a problem with is false advertising. You complain about misleading info on a package about how much material is inside. I agree that is bad. But I think banning manufacturers from implementing any price changes or special deals is a bad way of solving that problem because it creates problems in the future as well. You should have tighter protections but making it totally illegal seems likely to have bad outcomes. | [
"/u/telmasare (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThere are lots of legitimate reasons to discount something:\n\nIt's about to go bad, and the retailer would rather sell it at a loss than throw it away.\nIt was a seasonal item and the season is over / almost over. Storing the item until next season is not feasible / cost effective.\nA next generation version of the item has come out, and the previous generation version is no longer as valuable.\nThey've decided to stop carrying an item, and want to get rid of the stock they have.\nSometimes retailers will sell certain items at a loss to get people in the store looking at the other things they have for sale.",
">\n\n\nA next generation version of the item has come out, and the previous generation version is no longer as valuable.\n\nFor this case they should just lower the price, as happens with consumer electronics. No reason for a \"sale\" if the value will be lower permanently.",
">\n\nDiscount is a price control tool. It is a tool to increase demand.\nBusinesses need it so they can get rid their inventory faster, for various reasons like expired items, or excessive supply.\nFor example, food industry usually cut food prices when it is the end of the day. It is better to cut the price than throw away the food. Throwing away food has its own cost + food production cost.\nBanning \"Discount\" is also unrealistic. Businesses can just change the price overnight, that will lead to chaos or confusion. How do you solve this?",
">\n\nI remember market before online was much nice, you get what you were advertised for. Not this daily sales, exclusive discounts, overinflated prices etc stuff we get nowadays.",
">\n\nWell, I saw your edit on the original post. Looks like you have changed your view, or at least wrote the title wrong so people misunderstood you. you might want to give delta, per subreddit rule, if your view really changed.\nregarding the vague price stickers, It is indeed annoying. Tho, the producer put those stickers because it works! It increases their sales. if not, they will do something else or erase it.\nRemember, business first priority is to make profit. costumer experience can come second.\nbtw, wait until you know other tool like using same price, but reduce the volume of the product. Business do it all the time especially during inflation. some buyer don't aware of this.",
">\n\n\nRemember, business first priority is to make profit. costumer experience can come second.\n\nI mean don't you think when I said it should be against the law, I meant cause business should think that way ideal. If law can't control market, then we get a anarcho-capatalist society that only helps the rich only.",
">\n\nno country bans the practice of discounts or vague stickers, because that's a fair way. Ultimately, buyer has the right to choose what they want. Buyer has the option to not buy.\nI don't know where this conversation is going. are you here trying to debate?",
">\n\nAmericans don't have a maximum price. We get manufacturer suggested retail price. Msrp. And the really annoying thing is our grocery stores will have something you always bought for $1.25 but inflation they raise the price to $2 and then put it in sale for $1.50. i agree on that.\nBut what about overstock? If a product is only good for a few more days it is often marked 40% off, so that the store won't eat the entire loss. Should that be banned?",
">\n\n\"permanent discounts\" and inflated MSRP stickers are already illegal.\nto use your other example \"20% more\" is relative to industry standard packaging. if the industry norm for a can of juice is 200ml, if I give you 220, my packages are 20% larger.\nalso, discounts on multiple purchases are common because they ensure a minimum margin on the product. it's no different than \"5 dollars off orders of 50 dollars or more\" or \"free shipping over 100 dollars purchased\". the retailer can only afford the discount when they make a certain margin because they have fixed costs like employees and rent to cover.",
">\n\nWhy can't we just tell our respective governments to fuck off and allow the marketplace and individual businesses deal with it? It seems as though everytime gov gets involved they just make things worse.",
">\n\ncompetition favors the consumer, if there was one price you would be paying the highest price imaginable, sellers/manufacturers will get together and inflate the price.",
">\n\nWhat happens when a shop owner wants to get rid of supplies quickly? Maybe they need a cash influx or they need to liquidate stock for physical space reasons.",
">\n\nThere's also economy of scale. It's usually cheaper per unit to produce and sell 100 or 1000 units than it is to sell 1 unit. So as a seller, you can advertise a sale, order 100 items, and sell them in one day. These items are cheaper to produce, to ship, and to sell because you sell more in relation to your overhead and fixed costs.",
">\n\nDo you think that producers should have any impact on price, assuming that they sell to retailers and then retailers sell to the public? They made the item, why can they not do what they want with it?",
">\n\nThey should. That's why I think they should clearly state those prices, not in the vague way(like buy 1 get 1 free) they do now."
] |
>
I guess you put my problem in better wording than me. And my stance as strick non-fluidity of prices from producers is kinda dump rationally. Thanks. Δ | [
"/u/telmasare (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThere are lots of legitimate reasons to discount something:\n\nIt's about to go bad, and the retailer would rather sell it at a loss than throw it away.\nIt was a seasonal item and the season is over / almost over. Storing the item until next season is not feasible / cost effective.\nA next generation version of the item has come out, and the previous generation version is no longer as valuable.\nThey've decided to stop carrying an item, and want to get rid of the stock they have.\nSometimes retailers will sell certain items at a loss to get people in the store looking at the other things they have for sale.",
">\n\n\nA next generation version of the item has come out, and the previous generation version is no longer as valuable.\n\nFor this case they should just lower the price, as happens with consumer electronics. No reason for a \"sale\" if the value will be lower permanently.",
">\n\nDiscount is a price control tool. It is a tool to increase demand.\nBusinesses need it so they can get rid their inventory faster, for various reasons like expired items, or excessive supply.\nFor example, food industry usually cut food prices when it is the end of the day. It is better to cut the price than throw away the food. Throwing away food has its own cost + food production cost.\nBanning \"Discount\" is also unrealistic. Businesses can just change the price overnight, that will lead to chaos or confusion. How do you solve this?",
">\n\nI remember market before online was much nice, you get what you were advertised for. Not this daily sales, exclusive discounts, overinflated prices etc stuff we get nowadays.",
">\n\nWell, I saw your edit on the original post. Looks like you have changed your view, or at least wrote the title wrong so people misunderstood you. you might want to give delta, per subreddit rule, if your view really changed.\nregarding the vague price stickers, It is indeed annoying. Tho, the producer put those stickers because it works! It increases their sales. if not, they will do something else or erase it.\nRemember, business first priority is to make profit. costumer experience can come second.\nbtw, wait until you know other tool like using same price, but reduce the volume of the product. Business do it all the time especially during inflation. some buyer don't aware of this.",
">\n\n\nRemember, business first priority is to make profit. costumer experience can come second.\n\nI mean don't you think when I said it should be against the law, I meant cause business should think that way ideal. If law can't control market, then we get a anarcho-capatalist society that only helps the rich only.",
">\n\nno country bans the practice of discounts or vague stickers, because that's a fair way. Ultimately, buyer has the right to choose what they want. Buyer has the option to not buy.\nI don't know where this conversation is going. are you here trying to debate?",
">\n\nAmericans don't have a maximum price. We get manufacturer suggested retail price. Msrp. And the really annoying thing is our grocery stores will have something you always bought for $1.25 but inflation they raise the price to $2 and then put it in sale for $1.50. i agree on that.\nBut what about overstock? If a product is only good for a few more days it is often marked 40% off, so that the store won't eat the entire loss. Should that be banned?",
">\n\n\"permanent discounts\" and inflated MSRP stickers are already illegal.\nto use your other example \"20% more\" is relative to industry standard packaging. if the industry norm for a can of juice is 200ml, if I give you 220, my packages are 20% larger.\nalso, discounts on multiple purchases are common because they ensure a minimum margin on the product. it's no different than \"5 dollars off orders of 50 dollars or more\" or \"free shipping over 100 dollars purchased\". the retailer can only afford the discount when they make a certain margin because they have fixed costs like employees and rent to cover.",
">\n\nWhy can't we just tell our respective governments to fuck off and allow the marketplace and individual businesses deal with it? It seems as though everytime gov gets involved they just make things worse.",
">\n\ncompetition favors the consumer, if there was one price you would be paying the highest price imaginable, sellers/manufacturers will get together and inflate the price.",
">\n\nWhat happens when a shop owner wants to get rid of supplies quickly? Maybe they need a cash influx or they need to liquidate stock for physical space reasons.",
">\n\nThere's also economy of scale. It's usually cheaper per unit to produce and sell 100 or 1000 units than it is to sell 1 unit. So as a seller, you can advertise a sale, order 100 items, and sell them in one day. These items are cheaper to produce, to ship, and to sell because you sell more in relation to your overhead and fixed costs.",
">\n\nDo you think that producers should have any impact on price, assuming that they sell to retailers and then retailers sell to the public? They made the item, why can they not do what they want with it?",
">\n\nThey should. That's why I think they should clearly state those prices, not in the vague way(like buy 1 get 1 free) they do now.",
">\n\nWhat if they have a shipment cancelled and have more than they bargained for, so they want to lower the price to get rid of it faster? What if they have a manufacturing problem and want to increase the price so that they do not run out of stock? What if they just want to apply a change to the price and see how it goes? What if a producer wants their product to cheaper for those who really need it, whether that be poorer people or people with a specific condition or what?\nI think, based on your edit, what you actually have a problem with is false advertising. You complain about misleading info on a package about how much material is inside. I agree that is bad. But I think banning manufacturers from implementing any price changes or special deals is a bad way of solving that problem because it creates problems in the future as well. You should have tighter protections but making it totally illegal seems likely to have bad outcomes."
] |
>
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/DuhChappers (13∆).
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards | [
"/u/telmasare (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThere are lots of legitimate reasons to discount something:\n\nIt's about to go bad, and the retailer would rather sell it at a loss than throw it away.\nIt was a seasonal item and the season is over / almost over. Storing the item until next season is not feasible / cost effective.\nA next generation version of the item has come out, and the previous generation version is no longer as valuable.\nThey've decided to stop carrying an item, and want to get rid of the stock they have.\nSometimes retailers will sell certain items at a loss to get people in the store looking at the other things they have for sale.",
">\n\n\nA next generation version of the item has come out, and the previous generation version is no longer as valuable.\n\nFor this case they should just lower the price, as happens with consumer electronics. No reason for a \"sale\" if the value will be lower permanently.",
">\n\nDiscount is a price control tool. It is a tool to increase demand.\nBusinesses need it so they can get rid their inventory faster, for various reasons like expired items, or excessive supply.\nFor example, food industry usually cut food prices when it is the end of the day. It is better to cut the price than throw away the food. Throwing away food has its own cost + food production cost.\nBanning \"Discount\" is also unrealistic. Businesses can just change the price overnight, that will lead to chaos or confusion. How do you solve this?",
">\n\nI remember market before online was much nice, you get what you were advertised for. Not this daily sales, exclusive discounts, overinflated prices etc stuff we get nowadays.",
">\n\nWell, I saw your edit on the original post. Looks like you have changed your view, or at least wrote the title wrong so people misunderstood you. you might want to give delta, per subreddit rule, if your view really changed.\nregarding the vague price stickers, It is indeed annoying. Tho, the producer put those stickers because it works! It increases their sales. if not, they will do something else or erase it.\nRemember, business first priority is to make profit. costumer experience can come second.\nbtw, wait until you know other tool like using same price, but reduce the volume of the product. Business do it all the time especially during inflation. some buyer don't aware of this.",
">\n\n\nRemember, business first priority is to make profit. costumer experience can come second.\n\nI mean don't you think when I said it should be against the law, I meant cause business should think that way ideal. If law can't control market, then we get a anarcho-capatalist society that only helps the rich only.",
">\n\nno country bans the practice of discounts or vague stickers, because that's a fair way. Ultimately, buyer has the right to choose what they want. Buyer has the option to not buy.\nI don't know where this conversation is going. are you here trying to debate?",
">\n\nAmericans don't have a maximum price. We get manufacturer suggested retail price. Msrp. And the really annoying thing is our grocery stores will have something you always bought for $1.25 but inflation they raise the price to $2 and then put it in sale for $1.50. i agree on that.\nBut what about overstock? If a product is only good for a few more days it is often marked 40% off, so that the store won't eat the entire loss. Should that be banned?",
">\n\n\"permanent discounts\" and inflated MSRP stickers are already illegal.\nto use your other example \"20% more\" is relative to industry standard packaging. if the industry norm for a can of juice is 200ml, if I give you 220, my packages are 20% larger.\nalso, discounts on multiple purchases are common because they ensure a minimum margin on the product. it's no different than \"5 dollars off orders of 50 dollars or more\" or \"free shipping over 100 dollars purchased\". the retailer can only afford the discount when they make a certain margin because they have fixed costs like employees and rent to cover.",
">\n\nWhy can't we just tell our respective governments to fuck off and allow the marketplace and individual businesses deal with it? It seems as though everytime gov gets involved they just make things worse.",
">\n\ncompetition favors the consumer, if there was one price you would be paying the highest price imaginable, sellers/manufacturers will get together and inflate the price.",
">\n\nWhat happens when a shop owner wants to get rid of supplies quickly? Maybe they need a cash influx or they need to liquidate stock for physical space reasons.",
">\n\nThere's also economy of scale. It's usually cheaper per unit to produce and sell 100 or 1000 units than it is to sell 1 unit. So as a seller, you can advertise a sale, order 100 items, and sell them in one day. These items are cheaper to produce, to ship, and to sell because you sell more in relation to your overhead and fixed costs.",
">\n\nDo you think that producers should have any impact on price, assuming that they sell to retailers and then retailers sell to the public? They made the item, why can they not do what they want with it?",
">\n\nThey should. That's why I think they should clearly state those prices, not in the vague way(like buy 1 get 1 free) they do now.",
">\n\nWhat if they have a shipment cancelled and have more than they bargained for, so they want to lower the price to get rid of it faster? What if they have a manufacturing problem and want to increase the price so that they do not run out of stock? What if they just want to apply a change to the price and see how it goes? What if a producer wants their product to cheaper for those who really need it, whether that be poorer people or people with a specific condition or what?\nI think, based on your edit, what you actually have a problem with is false advertising. You complain about misleading info on a package about how much material is inside. I agree that is bad. But I think banning manufacturers from implementing any price changes or special deals is a bad way of solving that problem because it creates problems in the future as well. You should have tighter protections but making it totally illegal seems likely to have bad outcomes.",
">\n\nI guess you put my problem in better wording than me. And my stance as strick non-fluidity of prices from producers is kinda dump rationally. Thanks. Δ"
] |
> | [
"/u/telmasare (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nThere are lots of legitimate reasons to discount something:\n\nIt's about to go bad, and the retailer would rather sell it at a loss than throw it away.\nIt was a seasonal item and the season is over / almost over. Storing the item until next season is not feasible / cost effective.\nA next generation version of the item has come out, and the previous generation version is no longer as valuable.\nThey've decided to stop carrying an item, and want to get rid of the stock they have.\nSometimes retailers will sell certain items at a loss to get people in the store looking at the other things they have for sale.",
">\n\n\nA next generation version of the item has come out, and the previous generation version is no longer as valuable.\n\nFor this case they should just lower the price, as happens with consumer electronics. No reason for a \"sale\" if the value will be lower permanently.",
">\n\nDiscount is a price control tool. It is a tool to increase demand.\nBusinesses need it so they can get rid their inventory faster, for various reasons like expired items, or excessive supply.\nFor example, food industry usually cut food prices when it is the end of the day. It is better to cut the price than throw away the food. Throwing away food has its own cost + food production cost.\nBanning \"Discount\" is also unrealistic. Businesses can just change the price overnight, that will lead to chaos or confusion. How do you solve this?",
">\n\nI remember market before online was much nice, you get what you were advertised for. Not this daily sales, exclusive discounts, overinflated prices etc stuff we get nowadays.",
">\n\nWell, I saw your edit on the original post. Looks like you have changed your view, or at least wrote the title wrong so people misunderstood you. you might want to give delta, per subreddit rule, if your view really changed.\nregarding the vague price stickers, It is indeed annoying. Tho, the producer put those stickers because it works! It increases their sales. if not, they will do something else or erase it.\nRemember, business first priority is to make profit. costumer experience can come second.\nbtw, wait until you know other tool like using same price, but reduce the volume of the product. Business do it all the time especially during inflation. some buyer don't aware of this.",
">\n\n\nRemember, business first priority is to make profit. costumer experience can come second.\n\nI mean don't you think when I said it should be against the law, I meant cause business should think that way ideal. If law can't control market, then we get a anarcho-capatalist society that only helps the rich only.",
">\n\nno country bans the practice of discounts or vague stickers, because that's a fair way. Ultimately, buyer has the right to choose what they want. Buyer has the option to not buy.\nI don't know where this conversation is going. are you here trying to debate?",
">\n\nAmericans don't have a maximum price. We get manufacturer suggested retail price. Msrp. And the really annoying thing is our grocery stores will have something you always bought for $1.25 but inflation they raise the price to $2 and then put it in sale for $1.50. i agree on that.\nBut what about overstock? If a product is only good for a few more days it is often marked 40% off, so that the store won't eat the entire loss. Should that be banned?",
">\n\n\"permanent discounts\" and inflated MSRP stickers are already illegal.\nto use your other example \"20% more\" is relative to industry standard packaging. if the industry norm for a can of juice is 200ml, if I give you 220, my packages are 20% larger.\nalso, discounts on multiple purchases are common because they ensure a minimum margin on the product. it's no different than \"5 dollars off orders of 50 dollars or more\" or \"free shipping over 100 dollars purchased\". the retailer can only afford the discount when they make a certain margin because they have fixed costs like employees and rent to cover.",
">\n\nWhy can't we just tell our respective governments to fuck off and allow the marketplace and individual businesses deal with it? It seems as though everytime gov gets involved they just make things worse.",
">\n\ncompetition favors the consumer, if there was one price you would be paying the highest price imaginable, sellers/manufacturers will get together and inflate the price.",
">\n\nWhat happens when a shop owner wants to get rid of supplies quickly? Maybe they need a cash influx or they need to liquidate stock for physical space reasons.",
">\n\nThere's also economy of scale. It's usually cheaper per unit to produce and sell 100 or 1000 units than it is to sell 1 unit. So as a seller, you can advertise a sale, order 100 items, and sell them in one day. These items are cheaper to produce, to ship, and to sell because you sell more in relation to your overhead and fixed costs.",
">\n\nDo you think that producers should have any impact on price, assuming that they sell to retailers and then retailers sell to the public? They made the item, why can they not do what they want with it?",
">\n\nThey should. That's why I think they should clearly state those prices, not in the vague way(like buy 1 get 1 free) they do now.",
">\n\nWhat if they have a shipment cancelled and have more than they bargained for, so they want to lower the price to get rid of it faster? What if they have a manufacturing problem and want to increase the price so that they do not run out of stock? What if they just want to apply a change to the price and see how it goes? What if a producer wants their product to cheaper for those who really need it, whether that be poorer people or people with a specific condition or what?\nI think, based on your edit, what you actually have a problem with is false advertising. You complain about misleading info on a package about how much material is inside. I agree that is bad. But I think banning manufacturers from implementing any price changes or special deals is a bad way of solving that problem because it creates problems in the future as well. You should have tighter protections but making it totally illegal seems likely to have bad outcomes.",
">\n\nI guess you put my problem in better wording than me. And my stance as strick non-fluidity of prices from producers is kinda dump rationally. Thanks. Δ",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/DuhChappers (13∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards"
] |
It blows my mind Republicans have been campaigning on cutting Social Security, and Medicare and junk that Boomers are now preparing to get or are already getting, and Boomers still support them completely. | [] |
>
I always assumed any cuts would be geared at future benefits for people that are only just starting to pay in.
And one might think, "well why would people want to deny others of a benefit that they enjoy themselves", but we already know the answer. | [
"It blows my mind Republicans have been campaigning on cutting Social Security, and Medicare and junk that Boomers are now preparing to get or are already getting, and Boomers still support them completely."
] |
>
I know I'm in the minority as an elder millennial, I've been working for the past 25 years with no vacations and smart investments so I am more or less financially set.
But if social security is cut for my generation I will quit my job on the spot. I'm not going to pay in one more dime. Fuck these boomers who want to destroy the future to enrich themselves. | [
"It blows my mind Republicans have been campaigning on cutting Social Security, and Medicare and junk that Boomers are now preparing to get or are already getting, and Boomers still support them completely.",
">\n\nI always assumed any cuts would be geared at future benefits for people that are only just starting to pay in.\nAnd one might think, \"well why would people want to deny others of a benefit that they enjoy themselves\", but we already know the answer."
] |
>
That fact that you mentioned no vacations to be financially sound scares me. Don’t do that… there is zero guarantee you’ll make it to retirement age in shape to enjoy it. Enjoy life now | [
"It blows my mind Republicans have been campaigning on cutting Social Security, and Medicare and junk that Boomers are now preparing to get or are already getting, and Boomers still support them completely.",
">\n\nI always assumed any cuts would be geared at future benefits for people that are only just starting to pay in.\nAnd one might think, \"well why would people want to deny others of a benefit that they enjoy themselves\", but we already know the answer.",
">\n\nI know I'm in the minority as an elder millennial, I've been working for the past 25 years with no vacations and smart investments so I am more or less financially set.\nBut if social security is cut for my generation I will quit my job on the spot. I'm not going to pay in one more dime. Fuck these boomers who want to destroy the future to enrich themselves."
] |
>
GenX here that followed the same strategy. My health is fucked.
On the bright side, I've probably saved enough for retirement because I'm going to die at my desk before I'm 60. | [
"It blows my mind Republicans have been campaigning on cutting Social Security, and Medicare and junk that Boomers are now preparing to get or are already getting, and Boomers still support them completely.",
">\n\nI always assumed any cuts would be geared at future benefits for people that are only just starting to pay in.\nAnd one might think, \"well why would people want to deny others of a benefit that they enjoy themselves\", but we already know the answer.",
">\n\nI know I'm in the minority as an elder millennial, I've been working for the past 25 years with no vacations and smart investments so I am more or less financially set.\nBut if social security is cut for my generation I will quit my job on the spot. I'm not going to pay in one more dime. Fuck these boomers who want to destroy the future to enrich themselves.",
">\n\nThat fact that you mentioned no vacations to be financially sound scares me. Don’t do that… there is zero guarantee you’ll make it to retirement age in shape to enjoy it. Enjoy life now"
] |
>
Not too late to change and start enjoying things now. Ive probably fucked myself over on retirement and that sucks but my body is failing hard and fast and I’m not even old age. I’m so glad I did a lot in my 20s and 30s because I am scared I’ll not make it to 50, let alone 60 | [
"It blows my mind Republicans have been campaigning on cutting Social Security, and Medicare and junk that Boomers are now preparing to get or are already getting, and Boomers still support them completely.",
">\n\nI always assumed any cuts would be geared at future benefits for people that are only just starting to pay in.\nAnd one might think, \"well why would people want to deny others of a benefit that they enjoy themselves\", but we already know the answer.",
">\n\nI know I'm in the minority as an elder millennial, I've been working for the past 25 years with no vacations and smart investments so I am more or less financially set.\nBut if social security is cut for my generation I will quit my job on the spot. I'm not going to pay in one more dime. Fuck these boomers who want to destroy the future to enrich themselves.",
">\n\nThat fact that you mentioned no vacations to be financially sound scares me. Don’t do that… there is zero guarantee you’ll make it to retirement age in shape to enjoy it. Enjoy life now",
">\n\nGenX here that followed the same strategy. My health is fucked. \nOn the bright side, I've probably saved enough for retirement because I'm going to die at my desk before I'm 60."
] |
>
No friends and no interests. And most of my money is in long-term retirement.
Plus, my medical bills would wipe me out if I quit my job. | [
"It blows my mind Republicans have been campaigning on cutting Social Security, and Medicare and junk that Boomers are now preparing to get or are already getting, and Boomers still support them completely.",
">\n\nI always assumed any cuts would be geared at future benefits for people that are only just starting to pay in.\nAnd one might think, \"well why would people want to deny others of a benefit that they enjoy themselves\", but we already know the answer.",
">\n\nI know I'm in the minority as an elder millennial, I've been working for the past 25 years with no vacations and smart investments so I am more or less financially set.\nBut if social security is cut for my generation I will quit my job on the spot. I'm not going to pay in one more dime. Fuck these boomers who want to destroy the future to enrich themselves.",
">\n\nThat fact that you mentioned no vacations to be financially sound scares me. Don’t do that… there is zero guarantee you’ll make it to retirement age in shape to enjoy it. Enjoy life now",
">\n\nGenX here that followed the same strategy. My health is fucked. \nOn the bright side, I've probably saved enough for retirement because I'm going to die at my desk before I'm 60.",
">\n\nNot too late to change and start enjoying things now. Ive probably fucked myself over on retirement and that sucks but my body is failing hard and fast and I’m not even old age. I’m so glad I did a lot in my 20s and 30s because I am scared I’ll not make it to 50, let alone 60"
] |
>
As someone else with no friends or interests I feel this
Except I have no investments. | [
"It blows my mind Republicans have been campaigning on cutting Social Security, and Medicare and junk that Boomers are now preparing to get or are already getting, and Boomers still support them completely.",
">\n\nI always assumed any cuts would be geared at future benefits for people that are only just starting to pay in.\nAnd one might think, \"well why would people want to deny others of a benefit that they enjoy themselves\", but we already know the answer.",
">\n\nI know I'm in the minority as an elder millennial, I've been working for the past 25 years with no vacations and smart investments so I am more or less financially set.\nBut if social security is cut for my generation I will quit my job on the spot. I'm not going to pay in one more dime. Fuck these boomers who want to destroy the future to enrich themselves.",
">\n\nThat fact that you mentioned no vacations to be financially sound scares me. Don’t do that… there is zero guarantee you’ll make it to retirement age in shape to enjoy it. Enjoy life now",
">\n\nGenX here that followed the same strategy. My health is fucked. \nOn the bright side, I've probably saved enough for retirement because I'm going to die at my desk before I'm 60.",
">\n\nNot too late to change and start enjoying things now. Ive probably fucked myself over on retirement and that sucks but my body is failing hard and fast and I’m not even old age. I’m so glad I did a lot in my 20s and 30s because I am scared I’ll not make it to 50, let alone 60",
">\n\nNo friends and no interests. And most of my money is in long-term retirement. \nPlus, my medical bills would wipe me out if I quit my job."
] |
>
“We’ve already begun work on a comprehensive budget, titled, ‘We hate Democrats Just Because.’ You’ll have it in two weeks.” | [
"It blows my mind Republicans have been campaigning on cutting Social Security, and Medicare and junk that Boomers are now preparing to get or are already getting, and Boomers still support them completely.",
">\n\nI always assumed any cuts would be geared at future benefits for people that are only just starting to pay in.\nAnd one might think, \"well why would people want to deny others of a benefit that they enjoy themselves\", but we already know the answer.",
">\n\nI know I'm in the minority as an elder millennial, I've been working for the past 25 years with no vacations and smart investments so I am more or less financially set.\nBut if social security is cut for my generation I will quit my job on the spot. I'm not going to pay in one more dime. Fuck these boomers who want to destroy the future to enrich themselves.",
">\n\nThat fact that you mentioned no vacations to be financially sound scares me. Don’t do that… there is zero guarantee you’ll make it to retirement age in shape to enjoy it. Enjoy life now",
">\n\nGenX here that followed the same strategy. My health is fucked. \nOn the bright side, I've probably saved enough for retirement because I'm going to die at my desk before I'm 60.",
">\n\nNot too late to change and start enjoying things now. Ive probably fucked myself over on retirement and that sucks but my body is failing hard and fast and I’m not even old age. I’m so glad I did a lot in my 20s and 30s because I am scared I’ll not make it to 50, let alone 60",
">\n\nNo friends and no interests. And most of my money is in long-term retirement. \nPlus, my medical bills would wipe me out if I quit my job.",
">\n\nAs someone else with no friends or interests I feel this\nExcept I have no investments."
] |
>
"2 minutes, Turkish" | [
"It blows my mind Republicans have been campaigning on cutting Social Security, and Medicare and junk that Boomers are now preparing to get or are already getting, and Boomers still support them completely.",
">\n\nI always assumed any cuts would be geared at future benefits for people that are only just starting to pay in.\nAnd one might think, \"well why would people want to deny others of a benefit that they enjoy themselves\", but we already know the answer.",
">\n\nI know I'm in the minority as an elder millennial, I've been working for the past 25 years with no vacations and smart investments so I am more or less financially set.\nBut if social security is cut for my generation I will quit my job on the spot. I'm not going to pay in one more dime. Fuck these boomers who want to destroy the future to enrich themselves.",
">\n\nThat fact that you mentioned no vacations to be financially sound scares me. Don’t do that… there is zero guarantee you’ll make it to retirement age in shape to enjoy it. Enjoy life now",
">\n\nGenX here that followed the same strategy. My health is fucked. \nOn the bright side, I've probably saved enough for retirement because I'm going to die at my desk before I'm 60.",
">\n\nNot too late to change and start enjoying things now. Ive probably fucked myself over on retirement and that sucks but my body is failing hard and fast and I’m not even old age. I’m so glad I did a lot in my 20s and 30s because I am scared I’ll not make it to 50, let alone 60",
">\n\nNo friends and no interests. And most of my money is in long-term retirement. \nPlus, my medical bills would wipe me out if I quit my job.",
">\n\nAs someone else with no friends or interests I feel this\nExcept I have no investments.",
">\n\n“We’ve already begun work on a comprehensive budget, titled, ‘We hate Democrats Just Because.’ You’ll have it in two weeks.”"
] |
>
It was 2 minutes 5 minutes ago | [
"It blows my mind Republicans have been campaigning on cutting Social Security, and Medicare and junk that Boomers are now preparing to get or are already getting, and Boomers still support them completely.",
">\n\nI always assumed any cuts would be geared at future benefits for people that are only just starting to pay in.\nAnd one might think, \"well why would people want to deny others of a benefit that they enjoy themselves\", but we already know the answer.",
">\n\nI know I'm in the minority as an elder millennial, I've been working for the past 25 years with no vacations and smart investments so I am more or less financially set.\nBut if social security is cut for my generation I will quit my job on the spot. I'm not going to pay in one more dime. Fuck these boomers who want to destroy the future to enrich themselves.",
">\n\nThat fact that you mentioned no vacations to be financially sound scares me. Don’t do that… there is zero guarantee you’ll make it to retirement age in shape to enjoy it. Enjoy life now",
">\n\nGenX here that followed the same strategy. My health is fucked. \nOn the bright side, I've probably saved enough for retirement because I'm going to die at my desk before I'm 60.",
">\n\nNot too late to change and start enjoying things now. Ive probably fucked myself over on retirement and that sucks but my body is failing hard and fast and I’m not even old age. I’m so glad I did a lot in my 20s and 30s because I am scared I’ll not make it to 50, let alone 60",
">\n\nNo friends and no interests. And most of my money is in long-term retirement. \nPlus, my medical bills would wipe me out if I quit my job.",
">\n\nAs someone else with no friends or interests I feel this\nExcept I have no investments.",
">\n\n“We’ve already begun work on a comprehensive budget, titled, ‘We hate Democrats Just Because.’ You’ll have it in two weeks.”",
">\n\n\"2 minutes, Turkish\""
] |
>
A Republican budget proposal, the advisers said, should specify whether Republicans would pursue savings through cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, health insurance subsidies, research or public safety spending.
In other words, you can’t just yell “stop the woke budget!” You have to point out exactly what money is allocated to those causes and then justify why.
We all know they won’t do this because they have nothing to point to. So they’ll decry “woke budget!” until the summer and then they will fuck over the country for cheap culture war points. | [
"It blows my mind Republicans have been campaigning on cutting Social Security, and Medicare and junk that Boomers are now preparing to get or are already getting, and Boomers still support them completely.",
">\n\nI always assumed any cuts would be geared at future benefits for people that are only just starting to pay in.\nAnd one might think, \"well why would people want to deny others of a benefit that they enjoy themselves\", but we already know the answer.",
">\n\nI know I'm in the minority as an elder millennial, I've been working for the past 25 years with no vacations and smart investments so I am more or less financially set.\nBut if social security is cut for my generation I will quit my job on the spot. I'm not going to pay in one more dime. Fuck these boomers who want to destroy the future to enrich themselves.",
">\n\nThat fact that you mentioned no vacations to be financially sound scares me. Don’t do that… there is zero guarantee you’ll make it to retirement age in shape to enjoy it. Enjoy life now",
">\n\nGenX here that followed the same strategy. My health is fucked. \nOn the bright side, I've probably saved enough for retirement because I'm going to die at my desk before I'm 60.",
">\n\nNot too late to change and start enjoying things now. Ive probably fucked myself over on retirement and that sucks but my body is failing hard and fast and I’m not even old age. I’m so glad I did a lot in my 20s and 30s because I am scared I’ll not make it to 50, let alone 60",
">\n\nNo friends and no interests. And most of my money is in long-term retirement. \nPlus, my medical bills would wipe me out if I quit my job.",
">\n\nAs someone else with no friends or interests I feel this\nExcept I have no investments.",
">\n\n“We’ve already begun work on a comprehensive budget, titled, ‘We hate Democrats Just Because.’ You’ll have it in two weeks.”",
">\n\n\"2 minutes, Turkish\"",
">\n\nIt was 2 minutes 5 minutes ago"
] |
>
It’s absolutely ridiculous. For the past decade at least, Republicans only goal has been to destroy faith in our institutions so they can point out how broken it is and how we need to vote them in to fix it. They are 100% willing to let the government default so they can point to it and say it’s all democrats fault. Doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. Their constituents religiously watch a single “news” source that tells them exactly what to believe. | [
"It blows my mind Republicans have been campaigning on cutting Social Security, and Medicare and junk that Boomers are now preparing to get or are already getting, and Boomers still support them completely.",
">\n\nI always assumed any cuts would be geared at future benefits for people that are only just starting to pay in.\nAnd one might think, \"well why would people want to deny others of a benefit that they enjoy themselves\", but we already know the answer.",
">\n\nI know I'm in the minority as an elder millennial, I've been working for the past 25 years with no vacations and smart investments so I am more or less financially set.\nBut if social security is cut for my generation I will quit my job on the spot. I'm not going to pay in one more dime. Fuck these boomers who want to destroy the future to enrich themselves.",
">\n\nThat fact that you mentioned no vacations to be financially sound scares me. Don’t do that… there is zero guarantee you’ll make it to retirement age in shape to enjoy it. Enjoy life now",
">\n\nGenX here that followed the same strategy. My health is fucked. \nOn the bright side, I've probably saved enough for retirement because I'm going to die at my desk before I'm 60.",
">\n\nNot too late to change and start enjoying things now. Ive probably fucked myself over on retirement and that sucks but my body is failing hard and fast and I’m not even old age. I’m so glad I did a lot in my 20s and 30s because I am scared I’ll not make it to 50, let alone 60",
">\n\nNo friends and no interests. And most of my money is in long-term retirement. \nPlus, my medical bills would wipe me out if I quit my job.",
">\n\nAs someone else with no friends or interests I feel this\nExcept I have no investments.",
">\n\n“We’ve already begun work on a comprehensive budget, titled, ‘We hate Democrats Just Because.’ You’ll have it in two weeks.”",
">\n\n\"2 minutes, Turkish\"",
">\n\nIt was 2 minutes 5 minutes ago",
">\n\n\nA Republican budget proposal, the advisers said, should specify whether Republicans would pursue savings through cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, health insurance subsidies, research or public safety spending.\n\nIn other words, you can’t just yell “stop the woke budget!” You have to point out exactly what money is allocated to those causes and then justify why.\nWe all know they won’t do this because they have nothing to point to. So they’ll decry “woke budget!” until the summer and then they will fuck over the country for cheap culture war points."
] |
>
While ironically calling everyone else around them sheep. Sighhh | [
"It blows my mind Republicans have been campaigning on cutting Social Security, and Medicare and junk that Boomers are now preparing to get or are already getting, and Boomers still support them completely.",
">\n\nI always assumed any cuts would be geared at future benefits for people that are only just starting to pay in.\nAnd one might think, \"well why would people want to deny others of a benefit that they enjoy themselves\", but we already know the answer.",
">\n\nI know I'm in the minority as an elder millennial, I've been working for the past 25 years with no vacations and smart investments so I am more or less financially set.\nBut if social security is cut for my generation I will quit my job on the spot. I'm not going to pay in one more dime. Fuck these boomers who want to destroy the future to enrich themselves.",
">\n\nThat fact that you mentioned no vacations to be financially sound scares me. Don’t do that… there is zero guarantee you’ll make it to retirement age in shape to enjoy it. Enjoy life now",
">\n\nGenX here that followed the same strategy. My health is fucked. \nOn the bright side, I've probably saved enough for retirement because I'm going to die at my desk before I'm 60.",
">\n\nNot too late to change and start enjoying things now. Ive probably fucked myself over on retirement and that sucks but my body is failing hard and fast and I’m not even old age. I’m so glad I did a lot in my 20s and 30s because I am scared I’ll not make it to 50, let alone 60",
">\n\nNo friends and no interests. And most of my money is in long-term retirement. \nPlus, my medical bills would wipe me out if I quit my job.",
">\n\nAs someone else with no friends or interests I feel this\nExcept I have no investments.",
">\n\n“We’ve already begun work on a comprehensive budget, titled, ‘We hate Democrats Just Because.’ You’ll have it in two weeks.”",
">\n\n\"2 minutes, Turkish\"",
">\n\nIt was 2 minutes 5 minutes ago",
">\n\n\nA Republican budget proposal, the advisers said, should specify whether Republicans would pursue savings through cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, health insurance subsidies, research or public safety spending.\n\nIn other words, you can’t just yell “stop the woke budget!” You have to point out exactly what money is allocated to those causes and then justify why.\nWe all know they won’t do this because they have nothing to point to. So they’ll decry “woke budget!” until the summer and then they will fuck over the country for cheap culture war points.",
">\n\nIt’s absolutely ridiculous. For the past decade at least, Republicans only goal has been to destroy faith in our institutions so they can point out how broken it is and how we need to vote them in to fix it. They are 100% willing to let the government default so they can point to it and say it’s all democrats fault. Doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. Their constituents religiously watch a single “news” source that tells them exactly what to believe."
] |
>
“We will block the government from paying debts until you cut spending 😈 What do you think of that Sleepy Joe?”
“What spending are you going to cut?”
“Medicare and social securi- uh- I mean no, NO WE WON’T DO THAT! We’ll cut uh… uh… educa- no… uh… the military budg- ahhh our lobbyists need that… we’re gonna cut… something WOKE!”
“Okay send me a budget.”
“agggghhhh FUCK YOU JOE!! FUCK YOU!”
Loving this new GOP that is both toothless and dumb. | [
"It blows my mind Republicans have been campaigning on cutting Social Security, and Medicare and junk that Boomers are now preparing to get or are already getting, and Boomers still support them completely.",
">\n\nI always assumed any cuts would be geared at future benefits for people that are only just starting to pay in.\nAnd one might think, \"well why would people want to deny others of a benefit that they enjoy themselves\", but we already know the answer.",
">\n\nI know I'm in the minority as an elder millennial, I've been working for the past 25 years with no vacations and smart investments so I am more or less financially set.\nBut if social security is cut for my generation I will quit my job on the spot. I'm not going to pay in one more dime. Fuck these boomers who want to destroy the future to enrich themselves.",
">\n\nThat fact that you mentioned no vacations to be financially sound scares me. Don’t do that… there is zero guarantee you’ll make it to retirement age in shape to enjoy it. Enjoy life now",
">\n\nGenX here that followed the same strategy. My health is fucked. \nOn the bright side, I've probably saved enough for retirement because I'm going to die at my desk before I'm 60.",
">\n\nNot too late to change and start enjoying things now. Ive probably fucked myself over on retirement and that sucks but my body is failing hard and fast and I’m not even old age. I’m so glad I did a lot in my 20s and 30s because I am scared I’ll not make it to 50, let alone 60",
">\n\nNo friends and no interests. And most of my money is in long-term retirement. \nPlus, my medical bills would wipe me out if I quit my job.",
">\n\nAs someone else with no friends or interests I feel this\nExcept I have no investments.",
">\n\n“We’ve already begun work on a comprehensive budget, titled, ‘We hate Democrats Just Because.’ You’ll have it in two weeks.”",
">\n\n\"2 minutes, Turkish\"",
">\n\nIt was 2 minutes 5 minutes ago",
">\n\n\nA Republican budget proposal, the advisers said, should specify whether Republicans would pursue savings through cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, health insurance subsidies, research or public safety spending.\n\nIn other words, you can’t just yell “stop the woke budget!” You have to point out exactly what money is allocated to those causes and then justify why.\nWe all know they won’t do this because they have nothing to point to. So they’ll decry “woke budget!” until the summer and then they will fuck over the country for cheap culture war points.",
">\n\nIt’s absolutely ridiculous. For the past decade at least, Republicans only goal has been to destroy faith in our institutions so they can point out how broken it is and how we need to vote them in to fix it. They are 100% willing to let the government default so they can point to it and say it’s all democrats fault. Doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. Their constituents religiously watch a single “news” source that tells them exactly what to believe.",
">\n\nWhile ironically calling everyone else around them sheep. Sighhh"
] |
>
They’re dumb but they aren’t toothless. They can still crater the economy or force this into the (corrupt and right wing) courts and come out with a win. | [
"It blows my mind Republicans have been campaigning on cutting Social Security, and Medicare and junk that Boomers are now preparing to get or are already getting, and Boomers still support them completely.",
">\n\nI always assumed any cuts would be geared at future benefits for people that are only just starting to pay in.\nAnd one might think, \"well why would people want to deny others of a benefit that they enjoy themselves\", but we already know the answer.",
">\n\nI know I'm in the minority as an elder millennial, I've been working for the past 25 years with no vacations and smart investments so I am more or less financially set.\nBut if social security is cut for my generation I will quit my job on the spot. I'm not going to pay in one more dime. Fuck these boomers who want to destroy the future to enrich themselves.",
">\n\nThat fact that you mentioned no vacations to be financially sound scares me. Don’t do that… there is zero guarantee you’ll make it to retirement age in shape to enjoy it. Enjoy life now",
">\n\nGenX here that followed the same strategy. My health is fucked. \nOn the bright side, I've probably saved enough for retirement because I'm going to die at my desk before I'm 60.",
">\n\nNot too late to change and start enjoying things now. Ive probably fucked myself over on retirement and that sucks but my body is failing hard and fast and I’m not even old age. I’m so glad I did a lot in my 20s and 30s because I am scared I’ll not make it to 50, let alone 60",
">\n\nNo friends and no interests. And most of my money is in long-term retirement. \nPlus, my medical bills would wipe me out if I quit my job.",
">\n\nAs someone else with no friends or interests I feel this\nExcept I have no investments.",
">\n\n“We’ve already begun work on a comprehensive budget, titled, ‘We hate Democrats Just Because.’ You’ll have it in two weeks.”",
">\n\n\"2 minutes, Turkish\"",
">\n\nIt was 2 minutes 5 minutes ago",
">\n\n\nA Republican budget proposal, the advisers said, should specify whether Republicans would pursue savings through cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, health insurance subsidies, research or public safety spending.\n\nIn other words, you can’t just yell “stop the woke budget!” You have to point out exactly what money is allocated to those causes and then justify why.\nWe all know they won’t do this because they have nothing to point to. So they’ll decry “woke budget!” until the summer and then they will fuck over the country for cheap culture war points.",
">\n\nIt’s absolutely ridiculous. For the past decade at least, Republicans only goal has been to destroy faith in our institutions so they can point out how broken it is and how we need to vote them in to fix it. They are 100% willing to let the government default so they can point to it and say it’s all democrats fault. Doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. Their constituents religiously watch a single “news” source that tells them exactly what to believe.",
">\n\nWhile ironically calling everyone else around them sheep. Sighhh",
">\n\n“We will block the government from paying debts until you cut spending 😈 What do you think of that Sleepy Joe?”\n“What spending are you going to cut?”\n“Medicare and social securi- uh- I mean no, NO WE WON’T DO THAT! We’ll cut uh… uh… educa- no… uh… the military budg- ahhh our lobbyists need that… we’re gonna cut… something WOKE!”\n“Okay send me a budget.”\n“agggghhhh FUCK YOU JOE!! FUCK YOU!”\nLoving this new GOP that is both toothless and dumb."
] |
>
There is no world where the debt ceiling doesn’t get raised. It will be raised. The GOP just wants to embarass themselves a bit beforehand it seems | [
"It blows my mind Republicans have been campaigning on cutting Social Security, and Medicare and junk that Boomers are now preparing to get or are already getting, and Boomers still support them completely.",
">\n\nI always assumed any cuts would be geared at future benefits for people that are only just starting to pay in.\nAnd one might think, \"well why would people want to deny others of a benefit that they enjoy themselves\", but we already know the answer.",
">\n\nI know I'm in the minority as an elder millennial, I've been working for the past 25 years with no vacations and smart investments so I am more or less financially set.\nBut if social security is cut for my generation I will quit my job on the spot. I'm not going to pay in one more dime. Fuck these boomers who want to destroy the future to enrich themselves.",
">\n\nThat fact that you mentioned no vacations to be financially sound scares me. Don’t do that… there is zero guarantee you’ll make it to retirement age in shape to enjoy it. Enjoy life now",
">\n\nGenX here that followed the same strategy. My health is fucked. \nOn the bright side, I've probably saved enough for retirement because I'm going to die at my desk before I'm 60.",
">\n\nNot too late to change and start enjoying things now. Ive probably fucked myself over on retirement and that sucks but my body is failing hard and fast and I’m not even old age. I’m so glad I did a lot in my 20s and 30s because I am scared I’ll not make it to 50, let alone 60",
">\n\nNo friends and no interests. And most of my money is in long-term retirement. \nPlus, my medical bills would wipe me out if I quit my job.",
">\n\nAs someone else with no friends or interests I feel this\nExcept I have no investments.",
">\n\n“We’ve already begun work on a comprehensive budget, titled, ‘We hate Democrats Just Because.’ You’ll have it in two weeks.”",
">\n\n\"2 minutes, Turkish\"",
">\n\nIt was 2 minutes 5 minutes ago",
">\n\n\nA Republican budget proposal, the advisers said, should specify whether Republicans would pursue savings through cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, health insurance subsidies, research or public safety spending.\n\nIn other words, you can’t just yell “stop the woke budget!” You have to point out exactly what money is allocated to those causes and then justify why.\nWe all know they won’t do this because they have nothing to point to. So they’ll decry “woke budget!” until the summer and then they will fuck over the country for cheap culture war points.",
">\n\nIt’s absolutely ridiculous. For the past decade at least, Republicans only goal has been to destroy faith in our institutions so they can point out how broken it is and how we need to vote them in to fix it. They are 100% willing to let the government default so they can point to it and say it’s all democrats fault. Doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. Their constituents religiously watch a single “news” source that tells them exactly what to believe.",
">\n\nWhile ironically calling everyone else around them sheep. Sighhh",
">\n\n“We will block the government from paying debts until you cut spending 😈 What do you think of that Sleepy Joe?”\n“What spending are you going to cut?”\n“Medicare and social securi- uh- I mean no, NO WE WON’T DO THAT! We’ll cut uh… uh… educa- no… uh… the military budg- ahhh our lobbyists need that… we’re gonna cut… something WOKE!”\n“Okay send me a budget.”\n“agggghhhh FUCK YOU JOE!! FUCK YOU!”\nLoving this new GOP that is both toothless and dumb.",
">\n\nThey’re dumb but they aren’t toothless. They can still crater the economy or force this into the (corrupt and right wing) courts and come out with a win."
] |
>
You’re going to be wrong. They’re that stupid | [
"It blows my mind Republicans have been campaigning on cutting Social Security, and Medicare and junk that Boomers are now preparing to get or are already getting, and Boomers still support them completely.",
">\n\nI always assumed any cuts would be geared at future benefits for people that are only just starting to pay in.\nAnd one might think, \"well why would people want to deny others of a benefit that they enjoy themselves\", but we already know the answer.",
">\n\nI know I'm in the minority as an elder millennial, I've been working for the past 25 years with no vacations and smart investments so I am more or less financially set.\nBut if social security is cut for my generation I will quit my job on the spot. I'm not going to pay in one more dime. Fuck these boomers who want to destroy the future to enrich themselves.",
">\n\nThat fact that you mentioned no vacations to be financially sound scares me. Don’t do that… there is zero guarantee you’ll make it to retirement age in shape to enjoy it. Enjoy life now",
">\n\nGenX here that followed the same strategy. My health is fucked. \nOn the bright side, I've probably saved enough for retirement because I'm going to die at my desk before I'm 60.",
">\n\nNot too late to change and start enjoying things now. Ive probably fucked myself over on retirement and that sucks but my body is failing hard and fast and I’m not even old age. I’m so glad I did a lot in my 20s and 30s because I am scared I’ll not make it to 50, let alone 60",
">\n\nNo friends and no interests. And most of my money is in long-term retirement. \nPlus, my medical bills would wipe me out if I quit my job.",
">\n\nAs someone else with no friends or interests I feel this\nExcept I have no investments.",
">\n\n“We’ve already begun work on a comprehensive budget, titled, ‘We hate Democrats Just Because.’ You’ll have it in two weeks.”",
">\n\n\"2 minutes, Turkish\"",
">\n\nIt was 2 minutes 5 minutes ago",
">\n\n\nA Republican budget proposal, the advisers said, should specify whether Republicans would pursue savings through cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, health insurance subsidies, research or public safety spending.\n\nIn other words, you can’t just yell “stop the woke budget!” You have to point out exactly what money is allocated to those causes and then justify why.\nWe all know they won’t do this because they have nothing to point to. So they’ll decry “woke budget!” until the summer and then they will fuck over the country for cheap culture war points.",
">\n\nIt’s absolutely ridiculous. For the past decade at least, Republicans only goal has been to destroy faith in our institutions so they can point out how broken it is and how we need to vote them in to fix it. They are 100% willing to let the government default so they can point to it and say it’s all democrats fault. Doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. Their constituents religiously watch a single “news” source that tells them exactly what to believe.",
">\n\nWhile ironically calling everyone else around them sheep. Sighhh",
">\n\n“We will block the government from paying debts until you cut spending 😈 What do you think of that Sleepy Joe?”\n“What spending are you going to cut?”\n“Medicare and social securi- uh- I mean no, NO WE WON’T DO THAT! We’ll cut uh… uh… educa- no… uh… the military budg- ahhh our lobbyists need that… we’re gonna cut… something WOKE!”\n“Okay send me a budget.”\n“agggghhhh FUCK YOU JOE!! FUCK YOU!”\nLoving this new GOP that is both toothless and dumb.",
">\n\nThey’re dumb but they aren’t toothless. They can still crater the economy or force this into the (corrupt and right wing) courts and come out with a win.",
">\n\nThere is no world where the debt ceiling doesn’t get raised. It will be raised. The GOP just wants to embarass themselves a bit beforehand it seems"
] |
>
In order for the debt ceiling to not be raised, and the US to default on its loans, the Republicans will need almost all their congresspeople to remain opposed to raising it. Even as it causes a recession and blows up all their stock portfolios.
The debt ceiling will be raised. But it doesn’t need to be for 6 months. The treasury says it can take extraordinary measures to
move money around and pay off debts until June. So the Republicans might just keep refusing to raise the debt ceiling and make a show out of it for a few months. | [
"It blows my mind Republicans have been campaigning on cutting Social Security, and Medicare and junk that Boomers are now preparing to get or are already getting, and Boomers still support them completely.",
">\n\nI always assumed any cuts would be geared at future benefits for people that are only just starting to pay in.\nAnd one might think, \"well why would people want to deny others of a benefit that they enjoy themselves\", but we already know the answer.",
">\n\nI know I'm in the minority as an elder millennial, I've been working for the past 25 years with no vacations and smart investments so I am more or less financially set.\nBut if social security is cut for my generation I will quit my job on the spot. I'm not going to pay in one more dime. Fuck these boomers who want to destroy the future to enrich themselves.",
">\n\nThat fact that you mentioned no vacations to be financially sound scares me. Don’t do that… there is zero guarantee you’ll make it to retirement age in shape to enjoy it. Enjoy life now",
">\n\nGenX here that followed the same strategy. My health is fucked. \nOn the bright side, I've probably saved enough for retirement because I'm going to die at my desk before I'm 60.",
">\n\nNot too late to change and start enjoying things now. Ive probably fucked myself over on retirement and that sucks but my body is failing hard and fast and I’m not even old age. I’m so glad I did a lot in my 20s and 30s because I am scared I’ll not make it to 50, let alone 60",
">\n\nNo friends and no interests. And most of my money is in long-term retirement. \nPlus, my medical bills would wipe me out if I quit my job.",
">\n\nAs someone else with no friends or interests I feel this\nExcept I have no investments.",
">\n\n“We’ve already begun work on a comprehensive budget, titled, ‘We hate Democrats Just Because.’ You’ll have it in two weeks.”",
">\n\n\"2 minutes, Turkish\"",
">\n\nIt was 2 minutes 5 minutes ago",
">\n\n\nA Republican budget proposal, the advisers said, should specify whether Republicans would pursue savings through cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, health insurance subsidies, research or public safety spending.\n\nIn other words, you can’t just yell “stop the woke budget!” You have to point out exactly what money is allocated to those causes and then justify why.\nWe all know they won’t do this because they have nothing to point to. So they’ll decry “woke budget!” until the summer and then they will fuck over the country for cheap culture war points.",
">\n\nIt’s absolutely ridiculous. For the past decade at least, Republicans only goal has been to destroy faith in our institutions so they can point out how broken it is and how we need to vote them in to fix it. They are 100% willing to let the government default so they can point to it and say it’s all democrats fault. Doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. Their constituents religiously watch a single “news” source that tells them exactly what to believe.",
">\n\nWhile ironically calling everyone else around them sheep. Sighhh",
">\n\n“We will block the government from paying debts until you cut spending 😈 What do you think of that Sleepy Joe?”\n“What spending are you going to cut?”\n“Medicare and social securi- uh- I mean no, NO WE WON’T DO THAT! We’ll cut uh… uh… educa- no… uh… the military budg- ahhh our lobbyists need that… we’re gonna cut… something WOKE!”\n“Okay send me a budget.”\n“agggghhhh FUCK YOU JOE!! FUCK YOU!”\nLoving this new GOP that is both toothless and dumb.",
">\n\nThey’re dumb but they aren’t toothless. They can still crater the economy or force this into the (corrupt and right wing) courts and come out with a win.",
">\n\nThere is no world where the debt ceiling doesn’t get raised. It will be raised. The GOP just wants to embarass themselves a bit beforehand it seems",
">\n\nYou’re going to be wrong. They’re that stupid"
] |
>
That would dominate the news cycles. Yawn. | [
"It blows my mind Republicans have been campaigning on cutting Social Security, and Medicare and junk that Boomers are now preparing to get or are already getting, and Boomers still support them completely.",
">\n\nI always assumed any cuts would be geared at future benefits for people that are only just starting to pay in.\nAnd one might think, \"well why would people want to deny others of a benefit that they enjoy themselves\", but we already know the answer.",
">\n\nI know I'm in the minority as an elder millennial, I've been working for the past 25 years with no vacations and smart investments so I am more or less financially set.\nBut if social security is cut for my generation I will quit my job on the spot. I'm not going to pay in one more dime. Fuck these boomers who want to destroy the future to enrich themselves.",
">\n\nThat fact that you mentioned no vacations to be financially sound scares me. Don’t do that… there is zero guarantee you’ll make it to retirement age in shape to enjoy it. Enjoy life now",
">\n\nGenX here that followed the same strategy. My health is fucked. \nOn the bright side, I've probably saved enough for retirement because I'm going to die at my desk before I'm 60.",
">\n\nNot too late to change and start enjoying things now. Ive probably fucked myself over on retirement and that sucks but my body is failing hard and fast and I’m not even old age. I’m so glad I did a lot in my 20s and 30s because I am scared I’ll not make it to 50, let alone 60",
">\n\nNo friends and no interests. And most of my money is in long-term retirement. \nPlus, my medical bills would wipe me out if I quit my job.",
">\n\nAs someone else with no friends or interests I feel this\nExcept I have no investments.",
">\n\n“We’ve already begun work on a comprehensive budget, titled, ‘We hate Democrats Just Because.’ You’ll have it in two weeks.”",
">\n\n\"2 minutes, Turkish\"",
">\n\nIt was 2 minutes 5 minutes ago",
">\n\n\nA Republican budget proposal, the advisers said, should specify whether Republicans would pursue savings through cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, health insurance subsidies, research or public safety spending.\n\nIn other words, you can’t just yell “stop the woke budget!” You have to point out exactly what money is allocated to those causes and then justify why.\nWe all know they won’t do this because they have nothing to point to. So they’ll decry “woke budget!” until the summer and then they will fuck over the country for cheap culture war points.",
">\n\nIt’s absolutely ridiculous. For the past decade at least, Republicans only goal has been to destroy faith in our institutions so they can point out how broken it is and how we need to vote them in to fix it. They are 100% willing to let the government default so they can point to it and say it’s all democrats fault. Doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. Their constituents religiously watch a single “news” source that tells them exactly what to believe.",
">\n\nWhile ironically calling everyone else around them sheep. Sighhh",
">\n\n“We will block the government from paying debts until you cut spending 😈 What do you think of that Sleepy Joe?”\n“What spending are you going to cut?”\n“Medicare and social securi- uh- I mean no, NO WE WON’T DO THAT! We’ll cut uh… uh… educa- no… uh… the military budg- ahhh our lobbyists need that… we’re gonna cut… something WOKE!”\n“Okay send me a budget.”\n“agggghhhh FUCK YOU JOE!! FUCK YOU!”\nLoving this new GOP that is both toothless and dumb.",
">\n\nThey’re dumb but they aren’t toothless. They can still crater the economy or force this into the (corrupt and right wing) courts and come out with a win.",
">\n\nThere is no world where the debt ceiling doesn’t get raised. It will be raised. The GOP just wants to embarass themselves a bit beforehand it seems",
">\n\nYou’re going to be wrong. They’re that stupid",
">\n\nIn order for the debt ceiling to not be raised, and the US to default on its loans, the Republicans will need almost all their congresspeople to remain opposed to raising it. Even as it causes a recession and blows up all their stock portfolios. \nThe debt ceiling will be raised. But it doesn’t need to be for 6 months. The treasury says it can take extraordinary measures to\nmove money around and pay off debts until June. So the Republicans might just keep refusing to raise the debt ceiling and make a show out of it for a few months."
] |
>
It will be produced right after their very beautiful health care plan. | [
"It blows my mind Republicans have been campaigning on cutting Social Security, and Medicare and junk that Boomers are now preparing to get or are already getting, and Boomers still support them completely.",
">\n\nI always assumed any cuts would be geared at future benefits for people that are only just starting to pay in.\nAnd one might think, \"well why would people want to deny others of a benefit that they enjoy themselves\", but we already know the answer.",
">\n\nI know I'm in the minority as an elder millennial, I've been working for the past 25 years with no vacations and smart investments so I am more or less financially set.\nBut if social security is cut for my generation I will quit my job on the spot. I'm not going to pay in one more dime. Fuck these boomers who want to destroy the future to enrich themselves.",
">\n\nThat fact that you mentioned no vacations to be financially sound scares me. Don’t do that… there is zero guarantee you’ll make it to retirement age in shape to enjoy it. Enjoy life now",
">\n\nGenX here that followed the same strategy. My health is fucked. \nOn the bright side, I've probably saved enough for retirement because I'm going to die at my desk before I'm 60.",
">\n\nNot too late to change and start enjoying things now. Ive probably fucked myself over on retirement and that sucks but my body is failing hard and fast and I’m not even old age. I’m so glad I did a lot in my 20s and 30s because I am scared I’ll not make it to 50, let alone 60",
">\n\nNo friends and no interests. And most of my money is in long-term retirement. \nPlus, my medical bills would wipe me out if I quit my job.",
">\n\nAs someone else with no friends or interests I feel this\nExcept I have no investments.",
">\n\n“We’ve already begun work on a comprehensive budget, titled, ‘We hate Democrats Just Because.’ You’ll have it in two weeks.”",
">\n\n\"2 minutes, Turkish\"",
">\n\nIt was 2 minutes 5 minutes ago",
">\n\n\nA Republican budget proposal, the advisers said, should specify whether Republicans would pursue savings through cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, health insurance subsidies, research or public safety spending.\n\nIn other words, you can’t just yell “stop the woke budget!” You have to point out exactly what money is allocated to those causes and then justify why.\nWe all know they won’t do this because they have nothing to point to. So they’ll decry “woke budget!” until the summer and then they will fuck over the country for cheap culture war points.",
">\n\nIt’s absolutely ridiculous. For the past decade at least, Republicans only goal has been to destroy faith in our institutions so they can point out how broken it is and how we need to vote them in to fix it. They are 100% willing to let the government default so they can point to it and say it’s all democrats fault. Doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. Their constituents religiously watch a single “news” source that tells them exactly what to believe.",
">\n\nWhile ironically calling everyone else around them sheep. Sighhh",
">\n\n“We will block the government from paying debts until you cut spending 😈 What do you think of that Sleepy Joe?”\n“What spending are you going to cut?”\n“Medicare and social securi- uh- I mean no, NO WE WON’T DO THAT! We’ll cut uh… uh… educa- no… uh… the military budg- ahhh our lobbyists need that… we’re gonna cut… something WOKE!”\n“Okay send me a budget.”\n“agggghhhh FUCK YOU JOE!! FUCK YOU!”\nLoving this new GOP that is both toothless and dumb.",
">\n\nThey’re dumb but they aren’t toothless. They can still crater the economy or force this into the (corrupt and right wing) courts and come out with a win.",
">\n\nThere is no world where the debt ceiling doesn’t get raised. It will be raised. The GOP just wants to embarass themselves a bit beforehand it seems",
">\n\nYou’re going to be wrong. They’re that stupid",
">\n\nIn order for the debt ceiling to not be raised, and the US to default on its loans, the Republicans will need almost all their congresspeople to remain opposed to raising it. Even as it causes a recession and blows up all their stock portfolios. \nThe debt ceiling will be raised. But it doesn’t need to be for 6 months. The treasury says it can take extraordinary measures to\nmove money around and pay off debts until June. So the Republicans might just keep refusing to raise the debt ceiling and make a show out of it for a few months.",
">\n\nThat would dominate the news cycles. Yawn."
] |
>
I'm still waiting for infrastructure week | [
"It blows my mind Republicans have been campaigning on cutting Social Security, and Medicare and junk that Boomers are now preparing to get or are already getting, and Boomers still support them completely.",
">\n\nI always assumed any cuts would be geared at future benefits for people that are only just starting to pay in.\nAnd one might think, \"well why would people want to deny others of a benefit that they enjoy themselves\", but we already know the answer.",
">\n\nI know I'm in the minority as an elder millennial, I've been working for the past 25 years with no vacations and smart investments so I am more or less financially set.\nBut if social security is cut for my generation I will quit my job on the spot. I'm not going to pay in one more dime. Fuck these boomers who want to destroy the future to enrich themselves.",
">\n\nThat fact that you mentioned no vacations to be financially sound scares me. Don’t do that… there is zero guarantee you’ll make it to retirement age in shape to enjoy it. Enjoy life now",
">\n\nGenX here that followed the same strategy. My health is fucked. \nOn the bright side, I've probably saved enough for retirement because I'm going to die at my desk before I'm 60.",
">\n\nNot too late to change and start enjoying things now. Ive probably fucked myself over on retirement and that sucks but my body is failing hard and fast and I’m not even old age. I’m so glad I did a lot in my 20s and 30s because I am scared I’ll not make it to 50, let alone 60",
">\n\nNo friends and no interests. And most of my money is in long-term retirement. \nPlus, my medical bills would wipe me out if I quit my job.",
">\n\nAs someone else with no friends or interests I feel this\nExcept I have no investments.",
">\n\n“We’ve already begun work on a comprehensive budget, titled, ‘We hate Democrats Just Because.’ You’ll have it in two weeks.”",
">\n\n\"2 minutes, Turkish\"",
">\n\nIt was 2 minutes 5 minutes ago",
">\n\n\nA Republican budget proposal, the advisers said, should specify whether Republicans would pursue savings through cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, health insurance subsidies, research or public safety spending.\n\nIn other words, you can’t just yell “stop the woke budget!” You have to point out exactly what money is allocated to those causes and then justify why.\nWe all know they won’t do this because they have nothing to point to. So they’ll decry “woke budget!” until the summer and then they will fuck over the country for cheap culture war points.",
">\n\nIt’s absolutely ridiculous. For the past decade at least, Republicans only goal has been to destroy faith in our institutions so they can point out how broken it is and how we need to vote them in to fix it. They are 100% willing to let the government default so they can point to it and say it’s all democrats fault. Doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. Their constituents religiously watch a single “news” source that tells them exactly what to believe.",
">\n\nWhile ironically calling everyone else around them sheep. Sighhh",
">\n\n“We will block the government from paying debts until you cut spending 😈 What do you think of that Sleepy Joe?”\n“What spending are you going to cut?”\n“Medicare and social securi- uh- I mean no, NO WE WON’T DO THAT! We’ll cut uh… uh… educa- no… uh… the military budg- ahhh our lobbyists need that… we’re gonna cut… something WOKE!”\n“Okay send me a budget.”\n“agggghhhh FUCK YOU JOE!! FUCK YOU!”\nLoving this new GOP that is both toothless and dumb.",
">\n\nThey’re dumb but they aren’t toothless. They can still crater the economy or force this into the (corrupt and right wing) courts and come out with a win.",
">\n\nThere is no world where the debt ceiling doesn’t get raised. It will be raised. The GOP just wants to embarass themselves a bit beforehand it seems",
">\n\nYou’re going to be wrong. They’re that stupid",
">\n\nIn order for the debt ceiling to not be raised, and the US to default on its loans, the Republicans will need almost all their congresspeople to remain opposed to raising it. Even as it causes a recession and blows up all their stock portfolios. \nThe debt ceiling will be raised. But it doesn’t need to be for 6 months. The treasury says it can take extraordinary measures to\nmove money around and pay off debts until June. So the Republicans might just keep refusing to raise the debt ceiling and make a show out of it for a few months.",
">\n\nThat would dominate the news cycles. Yawn.",
">\n\nIt will be produced right after their very beautiful health care plan."
] |
>
Infrastructure week is done. By democrats of course. | [
"It blows my mind Republicans have been campaigning on cutting Social Security, and Medicare and junk that Boomers are now preparing to get or are already getting, and Boomers still support them completely.",
">\n\nI always assumed any cuts would be geared at future benefits for people that are only just starting to pay in.\nAnd one might think, \"well why would people want to deny others of a benefit that they enjoy themselves\", but we already know the answer.",
">\n\nI know I'm in the minority as an elder millennial, I've been working for the past 25 years with no vacations and smart investments so I am more or less financially set.\nBut if social security is cut for my generation I will quit my job on the spot. I'm not going to pay in one more dime. Fuck these boomers who want to destroy the future to enrich themselves.",
">\n\nThat fact that you mentioned no vacations to be financially sound scares me. Don’t do that… there is zero guarantee you’ll make it to retirement age in shape to enjoy it. Enjoy life now",
">\n\nGenX here that followed the same strategy. My health is fucked. \nOn the bright side, I've probably saved enough for retirement because I'm going to die at my desk before I'm 60.",
">\n\nNot too late to change and start enjoying things now. Ive probably fucked myself over on retirement and that sucks but my body is failing hard and fast and I’m not even old age. I’m so glad I did a lot in my 20s and 30s because I am scared I’ll not make it to 50, let alone 60",
">\n\nNo friends and no interests. And most of my money is in long-term retirement. \nPlus, my medical bills would wipe me out if I quit my job.",
">\n\nAs someone else with no friends or interests I feel this\nExcept I have no investments.",
">\n\n“We’ve already begun work on a comprehensive budget, titled, ‘We hate Democrats Just Because.’ You’ll have it in two weeks.”",
">\n\n\"2 minutes, Turkish\"",
">\n\nIt was 2 minutes 5 minutes ago",
">\n\n\nA Republican budget proposal, the advisers said, should specify whether Republicans would pursue savings through cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, health insurance subsidies, research or public safety spending.\n\nIn other words, you can’t just yell “stop the woke budget!” You have to point out exactly what money is allocated to those causes and then justify why.\nWe all know they won’t do this because they have nothing to point to. So they’ll decry “woke budget!” until the summer and then they will fuck over the country for cheap culture war points.",
">\n\nIt’s absolutely ridiculous. For the past decade at least, Republicans only goal has been to destroy faith in our institutions so they can point out how broken it is and how we need to vote them in to fix it. They are 100% willing to let the government default so they can point to it and say it’s all democrats fault. Doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. Their constituents religiously watch a single “news” source that tells them exactly what to believe.",
">\n\nWhile ironically calling everyone else around them sheep. Sighhh",
">\n\n“We will block the government from paying debts until you cut spending 😈 What do you think of that Sleepy Joe?”\n“What spending are you going to cut?”\n“Medicare and social securi- uh- I mean no, NO WE WON’T DO THAT! We’ll cut uh… uh… educa- no… uh… the military budg- ahhh our lobbyists need that… we’re gonna cut… something WOKE!”\n“Okay send me a budget.”\n“agggghhhh FUCK YOU JOE!! FUCK YOU!”\nLoving this new GOP that is both toothless and dumb.",
">\n\nThey’re dumb but they aren’t toothless. They can still crater the economy or force this into the (corrupt and right wing) courts and come out with a win.",
">\n\nThere is no world where the debt ceiling doesn’t get raised. It will be raised. The GOP just wants to embarass themselves a bit beforehand it seems",
">\n\nYou’re going to be wrong. They’re that stupid",
">\n\nIn order for the debt ceiling to not be raised, and the US to default on its loans, the Republicans will need almost all their congresspeople to remain opposed to raising it. Even as it causes a recession and blows up all their stock portfolios. \nThe debt ceiling will be raised. But it doesn’t need to be for 6 months. The treasury says it can take extraordinary measures to\nmove money around and pay off debts until June. So the Republicans might just keep refusing to raise the debt ceiling and make a show out of it for a few months.",
">\n\nThat would dominate the news cycles. Yawn.",
">\n\nIt will be produced right after their very beautiful health care plan.",
">\n\nI'm still waiting for infrastructure week"
] |
>
Republicans: "Set Obfuscate Shield to maximum deflection power!" | [
"It blows my mind Republicans have been campaigning on cutting Social Security, and Medicare and junk that Boomers are now preparing to get or are already getting, and Boomers still support them completely.",
">\n\nI always assumed any cuts would be geared at future benefits for people that are only just starting to pay in.\nAnd one might think, \"well why would people want to deny others of a benefit that they enjoy themselves\", but we already know the answer.",
">\n\nI know I'm in the minority as an elder millennial, I've been working for the past 25 years with no vacations and smart investments so I am more or less financially set.\nBut if social security is cut for my generation I will quit my job on the spot. I'm not going to pay in one more dime. Fuck these boomers who want to destroy the future to enrich themselves.",
">\n\nThat fact that you mentioned no vacations to be financially sound scares me. Don’t do that… there is zero guarantee you’ll make it to retirement age in shape to enjoy it. Enjoy life now",
">\n\nGenX here that followed the same strategy. My health is fucked. \nOn the bright side, I've probably saved enough for retirement because I'm going to die at my desk before I'm 60.",
">\n\nNot too late to change and start enjoying things now. Ive probably fucked myself over on retirement and that sucks but my body is failing hard and fast and I’m not even old age. I’m so glad I did a lot in my 20s and 30s because I am scared I’ll not make it to 50, let alone 60",
">\n\nNo friends and no interests. And most of my money is in long-term retirement. \nPlus, my medical bills would wipe me out if I quit my job.",
">\n\nAs someone else with no friends or interests I feel this\nExcept I have no investments.",
">\n\n“We’ve already begun work on a comprehensive budget, titled, ‘We hate Democrats Just Because.’ You’ll have it in two weeks.”",
">\n\n\"2 minutes, Turkish\"",
">\n\nIt was 2 minutes 5 minutes ago",
">\n\n\nA Republican budget proposal, the advisers said, should specify whether Republicans would pursue savings through cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, health insurance subsidies, research or public safety spending.\n\nIn other words, you can’t just yell “stop the woke budget!” You have to point out exactly what money is allocated to those causes and then justify why.\nWe all know they won’t do this because they have nothing to point to. So they’ll decry “woke budget!” until the summer and then they will fuck over the country for cheap culture war points.",
">\n\nIt’s absolutely ridiculous. For the past decade at least, Republicans only goal has been to destroy faith in our institutions so they can point out how broken it is and how we need to vote them in to fix it. They are 100% willing to let the government default so they can point to it and say it’s all democrats fault. Doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. Their constituents religiously watch a single “news” source that tells them exactly what to believe.",
">\n\nWhile ironically calling everyone else around them sheep. Sighhh",
">\n\n“We will block the government from paying debts until you cut spending 😈 What do you think of that Sleepy Joe?”\n“What spending are you going to cut?”\n“Medicare and social securi- uh- I mean no, NO WE WON’T DO THAT! We’ll cut uh… uh… educa- no… uh… the military budg- ahhh our lobbyists need that… we’re gonna cut… something WOKE!”\n“Okay send me a budget.”\n“agggghhhh FUCK YOU JOE!! FUCK YOU!”\nLoving this new GOP that is both toothless and dumb.",
">\n\nThey’re dumb but they aren’t toothless. They can still crater the economy or force this into the (corrupt and right wing) courts and come out with a win.",
">\n\nThere is no world where the debt ceiling doesn’t get raised. It will be raised. The GOP just wants to embarass themselves a bit beforehand it seems",
">\n\nYou’re going to be wrong. They’re that stupid",
">\n\nIn order for the debt ceiling to not be raised, and the US to default on its loans, the Republicans will need almost all their congresspeople to remain opposed to raising it. Even as it causes a recession and blows up all their stock portfolios. \nThe debt ceiling will be raised. But it doesn’t need to be for 6 months. The treasury says it can take extraordinary measures to\nmove money around and pay off debts until June. So the Republicans might just keep refusing to raise the debt ceiling and make a show out of it for a few months.",
">\n\nThat would dominate the news cycles. Yawn.",
">\n\nIt will be produced right after their very beautiful health care plan.",
">\n\nI'm still waiting for infrastructure week",
">\n\nInfrastructure week is done. By democrats of course."
] |
>
Let’s be real, the Republican budget is a picture of Biden they drew a penis on with a Sharpie. | [
"It blows my mind Republicans have been campaigning on cutting Social Security, and Medicare and junk that Boomers are now preparing to get or are already getting, and Boomers still support them completely.",
">\n\nI always assumed any cuts would be geared at future benefits for people that are only just starting to pay in.\nAnd one might think, \"well why would people want to deny others of a benefit that they enjoy themselves\", but we already know the answer.",
">\n\nI know I'm in the minority as an elder millennial, I've been working for the past 25 years with no vacations and smart investments so I am more or less financially set.\nBut if social security is cut for my generation I will quit my job on the spot. I'm not going to pay in one more dime. Fuck these boomers who want to destroy the future to enrich themselves.",
">\n\nThat fact that you mentioned no vacations to be financially sound scares me. Don’t do that… there is zero guarantee you’ll make it to retirement age in shape to enjoy it. Enjoy life now",
">\n\nGenX here that followed the same strategy. My health is fucked. \nOn the bright side, I've probably saved enough for retirement because I'm going to die at my desk before I'm 60.",
">\n\nNot too late to change and start enjoying things now. Ive probably fucked myself over on retirement and that sucks but my body is failing hard and fast and I’m not even old age. I’m so glad I did a lot in my 20s and 30s because I am scared I’ll not make it to 50, let alone 60",
">\n\nNo friends and no interests. And most of my money is in long-term retirement. \nPlus, my medical bills would wipe me out if I quit my job.",
">\n\nAs someone else with no friends or interests I feel this\nExcept I have no investments.",
">\n\n“We’ve already begun work on a comprehensive budget, titled, ‘We hate Democrats Just Because.’ You’ll have it in two weeks.”",
">\n\n\"2 minutes, Turkish\"",
">\n\nIt was 2 minutes 5 minutes ago",
">\n\n\nA Republican budget proposal, the advisers said, should specify whether Republicans would pursue savings through cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, health insurance subsidies, research or public safety spending.\n\nIn other words, you can’t just yell “stop the woke budget!” You have to point out exactly what money is allocated to those causes and then justify why.\nWe all know they won’t do this because they have nothing to point to. So they’ll decry “woke budget!” until the summer and then they will fuck over the country for cheap culture war points.",
">\n\nIt’s absolutely ridiculous. For the past decade at least, Republicans only goal has been to destroy faith in our institutions so they can point out how broken it is and how we need to vote them in to fix it. They are 100% willing to let the government default so they can point to it and say it’s all democrats fault. Doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. Their constituents religiously watch a single “news” source that tells them exactly what to believe.",
">\n\nWhile ironically calling everyone else around them sheep. Sighhh",
">\n\n“We will block the government from paying debts until you cut spending 😈 What do you think of that Sleepy Joe?”\n“What spending are you going to cut?”\n“Medicare and social securi- uh- I mean no, NO WE WON’T DO THAT! We’ll cut uh… uh… educa- no… uh… the military budg- ahhh our lobbyists need that… we’re gonna cut… something WOKE!”\n“Okay send me a budget.”\n“agggghhhh FUCK YOU JOE!! FUCK YOU!”\nLoving this new GOP that is both toothless and dumb.",
">\n\nThey’re dumb but they aren’t toothless. They can still crater the economy or force this into the (corrupt and right wing) courts and come out with a win.",
">\n\nThere is no world where the debt ceiling doesn’t get raised. It will be raised. The GOP just wants to embarass themselves a bit beforehand it seems",
">\n\nYou’re going to be wrong. They’re that stupid",
">\n\nIn order for the debt ceiling to not be raised, and the US to default on its loans, the Republicans will need almost all their congresspeople to remain opposed to raising it. Even as it causes a recession and blows up all their stock portfolios. \nThe debt ceiling will be raised. But it doesn’t need to be for 6 months. The treasury says it can take extraordinary measures to\nmove money around and pay off debts until June. So the Republicans might just keep refusing to raise the debt ceiling and make a show out of it for a few months.",
">\n\nThat would dominate the news cycles. Yawn.",
">\n\nIt will be produced right after their very beautiful health care plan.",
">\n\nI'm still waiting for infrastructure week",
">\n\nInfrastructure week is done. By democrats of course.",
">\n\nRepublicans: \"Set Obfuscate Shield to maximum deflection power!\""
] |
>
But they drew it exaggeratedly large so they can see the joke. And now they unironically call him Big Dick Biden because they think he's acting like a huge dick. | [
"It blows my mind Republicans have been campaigning on cutting Social Security, and Medicare and junk that Boomers are now preparing to get or are already getting, and Boomers still support them completely.",
">\n\nI always assumed any cuts would be geared at future benefits for people that are only just starting to pay in.\nAnd one might think, \"well why would people want to deny others of a benefit that they enjoy themselves\", but we already know the answer.",
">\n\nI know I'm in the minority as an elder millennial, I've been working for the past 25 years with no vacations and smart investments so I am more or less financially set.\nBut if social security is cut for my generation I will quit my job on the spot. I'm not going to pay in one more dime. Fuck these boomers who want to destroy the future to enrich themselves.",
">\n\nThat fact that you mentioned no vacations to be financially sound scares me. Don’t do that… there is zero guarantee you’ll make it to retirement age in shape to enjoy it. Enjoy life now",
">\n\nGenX here that followed the same strategy. My health is fucked. \nOn the bright side, I've probably saved enough for retirement because I'm going to die at my desk before I'm 60.",
">\n\nNot too late to change and start enjoying things now. Ive probably fucked myself over on retirement and that sucks but my body is failing hard and fast and I’m not even old age. I’m so glad I did a lot in my 20s and 30s because I am scared I’ll not make it to 50, let alone 60",
">\n\nNo friends and no interests. And most of my money is in long-term retirement. \nPlus, my medical bills would wipe me out if I quit my job.",
">\n\nAs someone else with no friends or interests I feel this\nExcept I have no investments.",
">\n\n“We’ve already begun work on a comprehensive budget, titled, ‘We hate Democrats Just Because.’ You’ll have it in two weeks.”",
">\n\n\"2 minutes, Turkish\"",
">\n\nIt was 2 minutes 5 minutes ago",
">\n\n\nA Republican budget proposal, the advisers said, should specify whether Republicans would pursue savings through cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, health insurance subsidies, research or public safety spending.\n\nIn other words, you can’t just yell “stop the woke budget!” You have to point out exactly what money is allocated to those causes and then justify why.\nWe all know they won’t do this because they have nothing to point to. So they’ll decry “woke budget!” until the summer and then they will fuck over the country for cheap culture war points.",
">\n\nIt’s absolutely ridiculous. For the past decade at least, Republicans only goal has been to destroy faith in our institutions so they can point out how broken it is and how we need to vote them in to fix it. They are 100% willing to let the government default so they can point to it and say it’s all democrats fault. Doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. Their constituents religiously watch a single “news” source that tells them exactly what to believe.",
">\n\nWhile ironically calling everyone else around them sheep. Sighhh",
">\n\n“We will block the government from paying debts until you cut spending 😈 What do you think of that Sleepy Joe?”\n“What spending are you going to cut?”\n“Medicare and social securi- uh- I mean no, NO WE WON’T DO THAT! We’ll cut uh… uh… educa- no… uh… the military budg- ahhh our lobbyists need that… we’re gonna cut… something WOKE!”\n“Okay send me a budget.”\n“agggghhhh FUCK YOU JOE!! FUCK YOU!”\nLoving this new GOP that is both toothless and dumb.",
">\n\nThey’re dumb but they aren’t toothless. They can still crater the economy or force this into the (corrupt and right wing) courts and come out with a win.",
">\n\nThere is no world where the debt ceiling doesn’t get raised. It will be raised. The GOP just wants to embarass themselves a bit beforehand it seems",
">\n\nYou’re going to be wrong. They’re that stupid",
">\n\nIn order for the debt ceiling to not be raised, and the US to default on its loans, the Republicans will need almost all their congresspeople to remain opposed to raising it. Even as it causes a recession and blows up all their stock portfolios. \nThe debt ceiling will be raised. But it doesn’t need to be for 6 months. The treasury says it can take extraordinary measures to\nmove money around and pay off debts until June. So the Republicans might just keep refusing to raise the debt ceiling and make a show out of it for a few months.",
">\n\nThat would dominate the news cycles. Yawn.",
">\n\nIt will be produced right after their very beautiful health care plan.",
">\n\nI'm still waiting for infrastructure week",
">\n\nInfrastructure week is done. By democrats of course.",
">\n\nRepublicans: \"Set Obfuscate Shield to maximum deflection power!\"",
">\n\nLet’s be real, the Republican budget is a picture of Biden they drew a penis on with a Sharpie."
] |
>
Traceable accountability is garlic to the GOP vampire. | [
"It blows my mind Republicans have been campaigning on cutting Social Security, and Medicare and junk that Boomers are now preparing to get or are already getting, and Boomers still support them completely.",
">\n\nI always assumed any cuts would be geared at future benefits for people that are only just starting to pay in.\nAnd one might think, \"well why would people want to deny others of a benefit that they enjoy themselves\", but we already know the answer.",
">\n\nI know I'm in the minority as an elder millennial, I've been working for the past 25 years with no vacations and smart investments so I am more or less financially set.\nBut if social security is cut for my generation I will quit my job on the spot. I'm not going to pay in one more dime. Fuck these boomers who want to destroy the future to enrich themselves.",
">\n\nThat fact that you mentioned no vacations to be financially sound scares me. Don’t do that… there is zero guarantee you’ll make it to retirement age in shape to enjoy it. Enjoy life now",
">\n\nGenX here that followed the same strategy. My health is fucked. \nOn the bright side, I've probably saved enough for retirement because I'm going to die at my desk before I'm 60.",
">\n\nNot too late to change and start enjoying things now. Ive probably fucked myself over on retirement and that sucks but my body is failing hard and fast and I’m not even old age. I’m so glad I did a lot in my 20s and 30s because I am scared I’ll not make it to 50, let alone 60",
">\n\nNo friends and no interests. And most of my money is in long-term retirement. \nPlus, my medical bills would wipe me out if I quit my job.",
">\n\nAs someone else with no friends or interests I feel this\nExcept I have no investments.",
">\n\n“We’ve already begun work on a comprehensive budget, titled, ‘We hate Democrats Just Because.’ You’ll have it in two weeks.”",
">\n\n\"2 minutes, Turkish\"",
">\n\nIt was 2 minutes 5 minutes ago",
">\n\n\nA Republican budget proposal, the advisers said, should specify whether Republicans would pursue savings through cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, health insurance subsidies, research or public safety spending.\n\nIn other words, you can’t just yell “stop the woke budget!” You have to point out exactly what money is allocated to those causes and then justify why.\nWe all know they won’t do this because they have nothing to point to. So they’ll decry “woke budget!” until the summer and then they will fuck over the country for cheap culture war points.",
">\n\nIt’s absolutely ridiculous. For the past decade at least, Republicans only goal has been to destroy faith in our institutions so they can point out how broken it is and how we need to vote them in to fix it. They are 100% willing to let the government default so they can point to it and say it’s all democrats fault. Doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. Their constituents religiously watch a single “news” source that tells them exactly what to believe.",
">\n\nWhile ironically calling everyone else around them sheep. Sighhh",
">\n\n“We will block the government from paying debts until you cut spending 😈 What do you think of that Sleepy Joe?”\n“What spending are you going to cut?”\n“Medicare and social securi- uh- I mean no, NO WE WON’T DO THAT! We’ll cut uh… uh… educa- no… uh… the military budg- ahhh our lobbyists need that… we’re gonna cut… something WOKE!”\n“Okay send me a budget.”\n“agggghhhh FUCK YOU JOE!! FUCK YOU!”\nLoving this new GOP that is both toothless and dumb.",
">\n\nThey’re dumb but they aren’t toothless. They can still crater the economy or force this into the (corrupt and right wing) courts and come out with a win.",
">\n\nThere is no world where the debt ceiling doesn’t get raised. It will be raised. The GOP just wants to embarass themselves a bit beforehand it seems",
">\n\nYou’re going to be wrong. They’re that stupid",
">\n\nIn order for the debt ceiling to not be raised, and the US to default on its loans, the Republicans will need almost all their congresspeople to remain opposed to raising it. Even as it causes a recession and blows up all their stock portfolios. \nThe debt ceiling will be raised. But it doesn’t need to be for 6 months. The treasury says it can take extraordinary measures to\nmove money around and pay off debts until June. So the Republicans might just keep refusing to raise the debt ceiling and make a show out of it for a few months.",
">\n\nThat would dominate the news cycles. Yawn.",
">\n\nIt will be produced right after their very beautiful health care plan.",
">\n\nI'm still waiting for infrastructure week",
">\n\nInfrastructure week is done. By democrats of course.",
">\n\nRepublicans: \"Set Obfuscate Shield to maximum deflection power!\"",
">\n\nLet’s be real, the Republican budget is a picture of Biden they drew a penis on with a Sharpie.",
">\n\nBut they drew it exaggeratedly large so they can see the joke. And now they unironically call him Big Dick Biden because they think he's acting like a huge dick."
] |
>
Dems: "Kevin . . ."
14-time-loser Speaker of the House McCarthy: "No!"
Dems: "Kevin, be serious here . . ."
14-time-loser Speaker of the House McCarthy: "I doan wanna!
Dems: "C'mon now, Kevin . . ."
14-time-loser Speaker of the House McCarthy: "You can't make me!!! Just give me what my handlers want or I'm gonna turn on the space lasers!!!"
"Pew! Pew! Pew!" the Speaker added. | [
"It blows my mind Republicans have been campaigning on cutting Social Security, and Medicare and junk that Boomers are now preparing to get or are already getting, and Boomers still support them completely.",
">\n\nI always assumed any cuts would be geared at future benefits for people that are only just starting to pay in.\nAnd one might think, \"well why would people want to deny others of a benefit that they enjoy themselves\", but we already know the answer.",
">\n\nI know I'm in the minority as an elder millennial, I've been working for the past 25 years with no vacations and smart investments so I am more or less financially set.\nBut if social security is cut for my generation I will quit my job on the spot. I'm not going to pay in one more dime. Fuck these boomers who want to destroy the future to enrich themselves.",
">\n\nThat fact that you mentioned no vacations to be financially sound scares me. Don’t do that… there is zero guarantee you’ll make it to retirement age in shape to enjoy it. Enjoy life now",
">\n\nGenX here that followed the same strategy. My health is fucked. \nOn the bright side, I've probably saved enough for retirement because I'm going to die at my desk before I'm 60.",
">\n\nNot too late to change and start enjoying things now. Ive probably fucked myself over on retirement and that sucks but my body is failing hard and fast and I’m not even old age. I’m so glad I did a lot in my 20s and 30s because I am scared I’ll not make it to 50, let alone 60",
">\n\nNo friends and no interests. And most of my money is in long-term retirement. \nPlus, my medical bills would wipe me out if I quit my job.",
">\n\nAs someone else with no friends or interests I feel this\nExcept I have no investments.",
">\n\n“We’ve already begun work on a comprehensive budget, titled, ‘We hate Democrats Just Because.’ You’ll have it in two weeks.”",
">\n\n\"2 minutes, Turkish\"",
">\n\nIt was 2 minutes 5 minutes ago",
">\n\n\nA Republican budget proposal, the advisers said, should specify whether Republicans would pursue savings through cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, health insurance subsidies, research or public safety spending.\n\nIn other words, you can’t just yell “stop the woke budget!” You have to point out exactly what money is allocated to those causes and then justify why.\nWe all know they won’t do this because they have nothing to point to. So they’ll decry “woke budget!” until the summer and then they will fuck over the country for cheap culture war points.",
">\n\nIt’s absolutely ridiculous. For the past decade at least, Republicans only goal has been to destroy faith in our institutions so they can point out how broken it is and how we need to vote them in to fix it. They are 100% willing to let the government default so they can point to it and say it’s all democrats fault. Doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. Their constituents religiously watch a single “news” source that tells them exactly what to believe.",
">\n\nWhile ironically calling everyone else around them sheep. Sighhh",
">\n\n“We will block the government from paying debts until you cut spending 😈 What do you think of that Sleepy Joe?”\n“What spending are you going to cut?”\n“Medicare and social securi- uh- I mean no, NO WE WON’T DO THAT! We’ll cut uh… uh… educa- no… uh… the military budg- ahhh our lobbyists need that… we’re gonna cut… something WOKE!”\n“Okay send me a budget.”\n“agggghhhh FUCK YOU JOE!! FUCK YOU!”\nLoving this new GOP that is both toothless and dumb.",
">\n\nThey’re dumb but they aren’t toothless. They can still crater the economy or force this into the (corrupt and right wing) courts and come out with a win.",
">\n\nThere is no world where the debt ceiling doesn’t get raised. It will be raised. The GOP just wants to embarass themselves a bit beforehand it seems",
">\n\nYou’re going to be wrong. They’re that stupid",
">\n\nIn order for the debt ceiling to not be raised, and the US to default on its loans, the Republicans will need almost all their congresspeople to remain opposed to raising it. Even as it causes a recession and blows up all their stock portfolios. \nThe debt ceiling will be raised. But it doesn’t need to be for 6 months. The treasury says it can take extraordinary measures to\nmove money around and pay off debts until June. So the Republicans might just keep refusing to raise the debt ceiling and make a show out of it for a few months.",
">\n\nThat would dominate the news cycles. Yawn.",
">\n\nIt will be produced right after their very beautiful health care plan.",
">\n\nI'm still waiting for infrastructure week",
">\n\nInfrastructure week is done. By democrats of course.",
">\n\nRepublicans: \"Set Obfuscate Shield to maximum deflection power!\"",
">\n\nLet’s be real, the Republican budget is a picture of Biden they drew a penis on with a Sharpie.",
">\n\nBut they drew it exaggeratedly large so they can see the joke. And now they unironically call him Big Dick Biden because they think he's acting like a huge dick.",
">\n\nTraceable accountability is garlic to the GOP vampire."
] |
>
GOP: We want cut waste, fraud and abuse.
Prez: okay, show us specifics on what you think should be cut.
GOP: Waste, Fraud and Abuse!
They don’t want provide specific answers, because those will be unpopular. Biden asking for specifics, so he can hammer them on those specifics. | [
"It blows my mind Republicans have been campaigning on cutting Social Security, and Medicare and junk that Boomers are now preparing to get or are already getting, and Boomers still support them completely.",
">\n\nI always assumed any cuts would be geared at future benefits for people that are only just starting to pay in.\nAnd one might think, \"well why would people want to deny others of a benefit that they enjoy themselves\", but we already know the answer.",
">\n\nI know I'm in the minority as an elder millennial, I've been working for the past 25 years with no vacations and smart investments so I am more or less financially set.\nBut if social security is cut for my generation I will quit my job on the spot. I'm not going to pay in one more dime. Fuck these boomers who want to destroy the future to enrich themselves.",
">\n\nThat fact that you mentioned no vacations to be financially sound scares me. Don’t do that… there is zero guarantee you’ll make it to retirement age in shape to enjoy it. Enjoy life now",
">\n\nGenX here that followed the same strategy. My health is fucked. \nOn the bright side, I've probably saved enough for retirement because I'm going to die at my desk before I'm 60.",
">\n\nNot too late to change and start enjoying things now. Ive probably fucked myself over on retirement and that sucks but my body is failing hard and fast and I’m not even old age. I’m so glad I did a lot in my 20s and 30s because I am scared I’ll not make it to 50, let alone 60",
">\n\nNo friends and no interests. And most of my money is in long-term retirement. \nPlus, my medical bills would wipe me out if I quit my job.",
">\n\nAs someone else with no friends or interests I feel this\nExcept I have no investments.",
">\n\n“We’ve already begun work on a comprehensive budget, titled, ‘We hate Democrats Just Because.’ You’ll have it in two weeks.”",
">\n\n\"2 minutes, Turkish\"",
">\n\nIt was 2 minutes 5 minutes ago",
">\n\n\nA Republican budget proposal, the advisers said, should specify whether Republicans would pursue savings through cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, health insurance subsidies, research or public safety spending.\n\nIn other words, you can’t just yell “stop the woke budget!” You have to point out exactly what money is allocated to those causes and then justify why.\nWe all know they won’t do this because they have nothing to point to. So they’ll decry “woke budget!” until the summer and then they will fuck over the country for cheap culture war points.",
">\n\nIt’s absolutely ridiculous. For the past decade at least, Republicans only goal has been to destroy faith in our institutions so they can point out how broken it is and how we need to vote them in to fix it. They are 100% willing to let the government default so they can point to it and say it’s all democrats fault. Doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. Their constituents religiously watch a single “news” source that tells them exactly what to believe.",
">\n\nWhile ironically calling everyone else around them sheep. Sighhh",
">\n\n“We will block the government from paying debts until you cut spending 😈 What do you think of that Sleepy Joe?”\n“What spending are you going to cut?”\n“Medicare and social securi- uh- I mean no, NO WE WON’T DO THAT! We’ll cut uh… uh… educa- no… uh… the military budg- ahhh our lobbyists need that… we’re gonna cut… something WOKE!”\n“Okay send me a budget.”\n“agggghhhh FUCK YOU JOE!! FUCK YOU!”\nLoving this new GOP that is both toothless and dumb.",
">\n\nThey’re dumb but they aren’t toothless. They can still crater the economy or force this into the (corrupt and right wing) courts and come out with a win.",
">\n\nThere is no world where the debt ceiling doesn’t get raised. It will be raised. The GOP just wants to embarass themselves a bit beforehand it seems",
">\n\nYou’re going to be wrong. They’re that stupid",
">\n\nIn order for the debt ceiling to not be raised, and the US to default on its loans, the Republicans will need almost all their congresspeople to remain opposed to raising it. Even as it causes a recession and blows up all their stock portfolios. \nThe debt ceiling will be raised. But it doesn’t need to be for 6 months. The treasury says it can take extraordinary measures to\nmove money around and pay off debts until June. So the Republicans might just keep refusing to raise the debt ceiling and make a show out of it for a few months.",
">\n\nThat would dominate the news cycles. Yawn.",
">\n\nIt will be produced right after their very beautiful health care plan.",
">\n\nI'm still waiting for infrastructure week",
">\n\nInfrastructure week is done. By democrats of course.",
">\n\nRepublicans: \"Set Obfuscate Shield to maximum deflection power!\"",
">\n\nLet’s be real, the Republican budget is a picture of Biden they drew a penis on with a Sharpie.",
">\n\nBut they drew it exaggeratedly large so they can see the joke. And now they unironically call him Big Dick Biden because they think he's acting like a huge dick.",
">\n\nTraceable accountability is garlic to the GOP vampire.",
">\n\nDems: \"Kevin . . .\"\n14-time-loser Speaker of the House McCarthy: \"No!\"\nDems: \"Kevin, be serious here . . .\"\n14-time-loser Speaker of the House McCarthy: \"I doan wanna!\nDems: \"C'mon now, Kevin . . .\"\n14-time-loser Speaker of the House McCarthy: \"You can't make me!!! Just give me what my handlers want or I'm gonna turn on the space lasers!!!\"\n\"Pew! Pew! Pew!\" the Speaker added."
] |
>
Exactly and McCarthy is in an impossible position since he had to agree to a rules change in the House that would let a single member launch a challenge to his speakership. Hence his answer on Twitter which you nicely parroted. “Mr. President,” he wrote, “I received your staff’s memo. I’m not interested in political games. I’m coming to negotiate for the American people.” | [
"It blows my mind Republicans have been campaigning on cutting Social Security, and Medicare and junk that Boomers are now preparing to get or are already getting, and Boomers still support them completely.",
">\n\nI always assumed any cuts would be geared at future benefits for people that are only just starting to pay in.\nAnd one might think, \"well why would people want to deny others of a benefit that they enjoy themselves\", but we already know the answer.",
">\n\nI know I'm in the minority as an elder millennial, I've been working for the past 25 years with no vacations and smart investments so I am more or less financially set.\nBut if social security is cut for my generation I will quit my job on the spot. I'm not going to pay in one more dime. Fuck these boomers who want to destroy the future to enrich themselves.",
">\n\nThat fact that you mentioned no vacations to be financially sound scares me. Don’t do that… there is zero guarantee you’ll make it to retirement age in shape to enjoy it. Enjoy life now",
">\n\nGenX here that followed the same strategy. My health is fucked. \nOn the bright side, I've probably saved enough for retirement because I'm going to die at my desk before I'm 60.",
">\n\nNot too late to change and start enjoying things now. Ive probably fucked myself over on retirement and that sucks but my body is failing hard and fast and I’m not even old age. I’m so glad I did a lot in my 20s and 30s because I am scared I’ll not make it to 50, let alone 60",
">\n\nNo friends and no interests. And most of my money is in long-term retirement. \nPlus, my medical bills would wipe me out if I quit my job.",
">\n\nAs someone else with no friends or interests I feel this\nExcept I have no investments.",
">\n\n“We’ve already begun work on a comprehensive budget, titled, ‘We hate Democrats Just Because.’ You’ll have it in two weeks.”",
">\n\n\"2 minutes, Turkish\"",
">\n\nIt was 2 minutes 5 minutes ago",
">\n\n\nA Republican budget proposal, the advisers said, should specify whether Republicans would pursue savings through cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, health insurance subsidies, research or public safety spending.\n\nIn other words, you can’t just yell “stop the woke budget!” You have to point out exactly what money is allocated to those causes and then justify why.\nWe all know they won’t do this because they have nothing to point to. So they’ll decry “woke budget!” until the summer and then they will fuck over the country for cheap culture war points.",
">\n\nIt’s absolutely ridiculous. For the past decade at least, Republicans only goal has been to destroy faith in our institutions so they can point out how broken it is and how we need to vote them in to fix it. They are 100% willing to let the government default so they can point to it and say it’s all democrats fault. Doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. Their constituents religiously watch a single “news” source that tells them exactly what to believe.",
">\n\nWhile ironically calling everyone else around them sheep. Sighhh",
">\n\n“We will block the government from paying debts until you cut spending 😈 What do you think of that Sleepy Joe?”\n“What spending are you going to cut?”\n“Medicare and social securi- uh- I mean no, NO WE WON’T DO THAT! We’ll cut uh… uh… educa- no… uh… the military budg- ahhh our lobbyists need that… we’re gonna cut… something WOKE!”\n“Okay send me a budget.”\n“agggghhhh FUCK YOU JOE!! FUCK YOU!”\nLoving this new GOP that is both toothless and dumb.",
">\n\nThey’re dumb but they aren’t toothless. They can still crater the economy or force this into the (corrupt and right wing) courts and come out with a win.",
">\n\nThere is no world where the debt ceiling doesn’t get raised. It will be raised. The GOP just wants to embarass themselves a bit beforehand it seems",
">\n\nYou’re going to be wrong. They’re that stupid",
">\n\nIn order for the debt ceiling to not be raised, and the US to default on its loans, the Republicans will need almost all their congresspeople to remain opposed to raising it. Even as it causes a recession and blows up all their stock portfolios. \nThe debt ceiling will be raised. But it doesn’t need to be for 6 months. The treasury says it can take extraordinary measures to\nmove money around and pay off debts until June. So the Republicans might just keep refusing to raise the debt ceiling and make a show out of it for a few months.",
">\n\nThat would dominate the news cycles. Yawn.",
">\n\nIt will be produced right after their very beautiful health care plan.",
">\n\nI'm still waiting for infrastructure week",
">\n\nInfrastructure week is done. By democrats of course.",
">\n\nRepublicans: \"Set Obfuscate Shield to maximum deflection power!\"",
">\n\nLet’s be real, the Republican budget is a picture of Biden they drew a penis on with a Sharpie.",
">\n\nBut they drew it exaggeratedly large so they can see the joke. And now they unironically call him Big Dick Biden because they think he's acting like a huge dick.",
">\n\nTraceable accountability is garlic to the GOP vampire.",
">\n\nDems: \"Kevin . . .\"\n14-time-loser Speaker of the House McCarthy: \"No!\"\nDems: \"Kevin, be serious here . . .\"\n14-time-loser Speaker of the House McCarthy: \"I doan wanna!\nDems: \"C'mon now, Kevin . . .\"\n14-time-loser Speaker of the House McCarthy: \"You can't make me!!! Just give me what my handlers want or I'm gonna turn on the space lasers!!!\"\n\"Pew! Pew! Pew!\" the Speaker added.",
">\n\nGOP: We want cut waste, fraud and abuse. \nPrez: okay, show us specifics on what you think should be cut.\nGOP: Waste, Fraud and Abuse!\nThey don’t want provide specific answers, because those will be unpopular. Biden asking for specifics, so he can hammer them on those specifics."
] |
>
Going into a negotiation with a plan? Does uncle Joe even know republicans? | [
"It blows my mind Republicans have been campaigning on cutting Social Security, and Medicare and junk that Boomers are now preparing to get or are already getting, and Boomers still support them completely.",
">\n\nI always assumed any cuts would be geared at future benefits for people that are only just starting to pay in.\nAnd one might think, \"well why would people want to deny others of a benefit that they enjoy themselves\", but we already know the answer.",
">\n\nI know I'm in the minority as an elder millennial, I've been working for the past 25 years with no vacations and smart investments so I am more or less financially set.\nBut if social security is cut for my generation I will quit my job on the spot. I'm not going to pay in one more dime. Fuck these boomers who want to destroy the future to enrich themselves.",
">\n\nThat fact that you mentioned no vacations to be financially sound scares me. Don’t do that… there is zero guarantee you’ll make it to retirement age in shape to enjoy it. Enjoy life now",
">\n\nGenX here that followed the same strategy. My health is fucked. \nOn the bright side, I've probably saved enough for retirement because I'm going to die at my desk before I'm 60.",
">\n\nNot too late to change and start enjoying things now. Ive probably fucked myself over on retirement and that sucks but my body is failing hard and fast and I’m not even old age. I’m so glad I did a lot in my 20s and 30s because I am scared I’ll not make it to 50, let alone 60",
">\n\nNo friends and no interests. And most of my money is in long-term retirement. \nPlus, my medical bills would wipe me out if I quit my job.",
">\n\nAs someone else with no friends or interests I feel this\nExcept I have no investments.",
">\n\n“We’ve already begun work on a comprehensive budget, titled, ‘We hate Democrats Just Because.’ You’ll have it in two weeks.”",
">\n\n\"2 minutes, Turkish\"",
">\n\nIt was 2 minutes 5 minutes ago",
">\n\n\nA Republican budget proposal, the advisers said, should specify whether Republicans would pursue savings through cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, health insurance subsidies, research or public safety spending.\n\nIn other words, you can’t just yell “stop the woke budget!” You have to point out exactly what money is allocated to those causes and then justify why.\nWe all know they won’t do this because they have nothing to point to. So they’ll decry “woke budget!” until the summer and then they will fuck over the country for cheap culture war points.",
">\n\nIt’s absolutely ridiculous. For the past decade at least, Republicans only goal has been to destroy faith in our institutions so they can point out how broken it is and how we need to vote them in to fix it. They are 100% willing to let the government default so they can point to it and say it’s all democrats fault. Doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. Their constituents religiously watch a single “news” source that tells them exactly what to believe.",
">\n\nWhile ironically calling everyone else around them sheep. Sighhh",
">\n\n“We will block the government from paying debts until you cut spending 😈 What do you think of that Sleepy Joe?”\n“What spending are you going to cut?”\n“Medicare and social securi- uh- I mean no, NO WE WON’T DO THAT! We’ll cut uh… uh… educa- no… uh… the military budg- ahhh our lobbyists need that… we’re gonna cut… something WOKE!”\n“Okay send me a budget.”\n“agggghhhh FUCK YOU JOE!! FUCK YOU!”\nLoving this new GOP that is both toothless and dumb.",
">\n\nThey’re dumb but they aren’t toothless. They can still crater the economy or force this into the (corrupt and right wing) courts and come out with a win.",
">\n\nThere is no world where the debt ceiling doesn’t get raised. It will be raised. The GOP just wants to embarass themselves a bit beforehand it seems",
">\n\nYou’re going to be wrong. They’re that stupid",
">\n\nIn order for the debt ceiling to not be raised, and the US to default on its loans, the Republicans will need almost all their congresspeople to remain opposed to raising it. Even as it causes a recession and blows up all their stock portfolios. \nThe debt ceiling will be raised. But it doesn’t need to be for 6 months. The treasury says it can take extraordinary measures to\nmove money around and pay off debts until June. So the Republicans might just keep refusing to raise the debt ceiling and make a show out of it for a few months.",
">\n\nThat would dominate the news cycles. Yawn.",
">\n\nIt will be produced right after their very beautiful health care plan.",
">\n\nI'm still waiting for infrastructure week",
">\n\nInfrastructure week is done. By democrats of course.",
">\n\nRepublicans: \"Set Obfuscate Shield to maximum deflection power!\"",
">\n\nLet’s be real, the Republican budget is a picture of Biden they drew a penis on with a Sharpie.",
">\n\nBut they drew it exaggeratedly large so they can see the joke. And now they unironically call him Big Dick Biden because they think he's acting like a huge dick.",
">\n\nTraceable accountability is garlic to the GOP vampire.",
">\n\nDems: \"Kevin . . .\"\n14-time-loser Speaker of the House McCarthy: \"No!\"\nDems: \"Kevin, be serious here . . .\"\n14-time-loser Speaker of the House McCarthy: \"I doan wanna!\nDems: \"C'mon now, Kevin . . .\"\n14-time-loser Speaker of the House McCarthy: \"You can't make me!!! Just give me what my handlers want or I'm gonna turn on the space lasers!!!\"\n\"Pew! Pew! Pew!\" the Speaker added.",
">\n\nGOP: We want cut waste, fraud and abuse. \nPrez: okay, show us specifics on what you think should be cut.\nGOP: Waste, Fraud and Abuse!\nThey don’t want provide specific answers, because those will be unpopular. Biden asking for specifics, so he can hammer them on those specifics.",
">\n\nExactly and McCarthy is in an impossible position since he had to agree to a rules change in the House that would let a single member launch a challenge to his speakership. Hence his answer on Twitter which you nicely parroted. “Mr. President,” he wrote, “I received your staff’s memo. I’m not interested in political games. I’m coming to negotiate for the American people.”"
] |
>
President Joe knows that there isn't a single Republican in Congress who can even fake a detailed budget thing in Word/PDF | [
"It blows my mind Republicans have been campaigning on cutting Social Security, and Medicare and junk that Boomers are now preparing to get or are already getting, and Boomers still support them completely.",
">\n\nI always assumed any cuts would be geared at future benefits for people that are only just starting to pay in.\nAnd one might think, \"well why would people want to deny others of a benefit that they enjoy themselves\", but we already know the answer.",
">\n\nI know I'm in the minority as an elder millennial, I've been working for the past 25 years with no vacations and smart investments so I am more or less financially set.\nBut if social security is cut for my generation I will quit my job on the spot. I'm not going to pay in one more dime. Fuck these boomers who want to destroy the future to enrich themselves.",
">\n\nThat fact that you mentioned no vacations to be financially sound scares me. Don’t do that… there is zero guarantee you’ll make it to retirement age in shape to enjoy it. Enjoy life now",
">\n\nGenX here that followed the same strategy. My health is fucked. \nOn the bright side, I've probably saved enough for retirement because I'm going to die at my desk before I'm 60.",
">\n\nNot too late to change and start enjoying things now. Ive probably fucked myself over on retirement and that sucks but my body is failing hard and fast and I’m not even old age. I’m so glad I did a lot in my 20s and 30s because I am scared I’ll not make it to 50, let alone 60",
">\n\nNo friends and no interests. And most of my money is in long-term retirement. \nPlus, my medical bills would wipe me out if I quit my job.",
">\n\nAs someone else with no friends or interests I feel this\nExcept I have no investments.",
">\n\n“We’ve already begun work on a comprehensive budget, titled, ‘We hate Democrats Just Because.’ You’ll have it in two weeks.”",
">\n\n\"2 minutes, Turkish\"",
">\n\nIt was 2 minutes 5 minutes ago",
">\n\n\nA Republican budget proposal, the advisers said, should specify whether Republicans would pursue savings through cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, health insurance subsidies, research or public safety spending.\n\nIn other words, you can’t just yell “stop the woke budget!” You have to point out exactly what money is allocated to those causes and then justify why.\nWe all know they won’t do this because they have nothing to point to. So they’ll decry “woke budget!” until the summer and then they will fuck over the country for cheap culture war points.",
">\n\nIt’s absolutely ridiculous. For the past decade at least, Republicans only goal has been to destroy faith in our institutions so they can point out how broken it is and how we need to vote them in to fix it. They are 100% willing to let the government default so they can point to it and say it’s all democrats fault. Doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. Their constituents religiously watch a single “news” source that tells them exactly what to believe.",
">\n\nWhile ironically calling everyone else around them sheep. Sighhh",
">\n\n“We will block the government from paying debts until you cut spending 😈 What do you think of that Sleepy Joe?”\n“What spending are you going to cut?”\n“Medicare and social securi- uh- I mean no, NO WE WON’T DO THAT! We’ll cut uh… uh… educa- no… uh… the military budg- ahhh our lobbyists need that… we’re gonna cut… something WOKE!”\n“Okay send me a budget.”\n“agggghhhh FUCK YOU JOE!! FUCK YOU!”\nLoving this new GOP that is both toothless and dumb.",
">\n\nThey’re dumb but they aren’t toothless. They can still crater the economy or force this into the (corrupt and right wing) courts and come out with a win.",
">\n\nThere is no world where the debt ceiling doesn’t get raised. It will be raised. The GOP just wants to embarass themselves a bit beforehand it seems",
">\n\nYou’re going to be wrong. They’re that stupid",
">\n\nIn order for the debt ceiling to not be raised, and the US to default on its loans, the Republicans will need almost all their congresspeople to remain opposed to raising it. Even as it causes a recession and blows up all their stock portfolios. \nThe debt ceiling will be raised. But it doesn’t need to be for 6 months. The treasury says it can take extraordinary measures to\nmove money around and pay off debts until June. So the Republicans might just keep refusing to raise the debt ceiling and make a show out of it for a few months.",
">\n\nThat would dominate the news cycles. Yawn.",
">\n\nIt will be produced right after their very beautiful health care plan.",
">\n\nI'm still waiting for infrastructure week",
">\n\nInfrastructure week is done. By democrats of course.",
">\n\nRepublicans: \"Set Obfuscate Shield to maximum deflection power!\"",
">\n\nLet’s be real, the Republican budget is a picture of Biden they drew a penis on with a Sharpie.",
">\n\nBut they drew it exaggeratedly large so they can see the joke. And now they unironically call him Big Dick Biden because they think he's acting like a huge dick.",
">\n\nTraceable accountability is garlic to the GOP vampire.",
">\n\nDems: \"Kevin . . .\"\n14-time-loser Speaker of the House McCarthy: \"No!\"\nDems: \"Kevin, be serious here . . .\"\n14-time-loser Speaker of the House McCarthy: \"I doan wanna!\nDems: \"C'mon now, Kevin . . .\"\n14-time-loser Speaker of the House McCarthy: \"You can't make me!!! Just give me what my handlers want or I'm gonna turn on the space lasers!!!\"\n\"Pew! Pew! Pew!\" the Speaker added.",
">\n\nGOP: We want cut waste, fraud and abuse. \nPrez: okay, show us specifics on what you think should be cut.\nGOP: Waste, Fraud and Abuse!\nThey don’t want provide specific answers, because those will be unpopular. Biden asking for specifics, so he can hammer them on those specifics.",
">\n\nExactly and McCarthy is in an impossible position since he had to agree to a rules change in the House that would let a single member launch a challenge to his speakership. Hence his answer on Twitter which you nicely parroted. “Mr. President,” he wrote, “I received your staff’s memo. I’m not interested in political games. I’m coming to negotiate for the American people.”",
">\n\nGoing into a negotiation with a plan? Does uncle Joe even know republicans?"
] |
>
They're going to copy and paste last year's budget, and just reduce everything they don't like. | [
"It blows my mind Republicans have been campaigning on cutting Social Security, and Medicare and junk that Boomers are now preparing to get or are already getting, and Boomers still support them completely.",
">\n\nI always assumed any cuts would be geared at future benefits for people that are only just starting to pay in.\nAnd one might think, \"well why would people want to deny others of a benefit that they enjoy themselves\", but we already know the answer.",
">\n\nI know I'm in the minority as an elder millennial, I've been working for the past 25 years with no vacations and smart investments so I am more or less financially set.\nBut if social security is cut for my generation I will quit my job on the spot. I'm not going to pay in one more dime. Fuck these boomers who want to destroy the future to enrich themselves.",
">\n\nThat fact that you mentioned no vacations to be financially sound scares me. Don’t do that… there is zero guarantee you’ll make it to retirement age in shape to enjoy it. Enjoy life now",
">\n\nGenX here that followed the same strategy. My health is fucked. \nOn the bright side, I've probably saved enough for retirement because I'm going to die at my desk before I'm 60.",
">\n\nNot too late to change and start enjoying things now. Ive probably fucked myself over on retirement and that sucks but my body is failing hard and fast and I’m not even old age. I’m so glad I did a lot in my 20s and 30s because I am scared I’ll not make it to 50, let alone 60",
">\n\nNo friends and no interests. And most of my money is in long-term retirement. \nPlus, my medical bills would wipe me out if I quit my job.",
">\n\nAs someone else with no friends or interests I feel this\nExcept I have no investments.",
">\n\n“We’ve already begun work on a comprehensive budget, titled, ‘We hate Democrats Just Because.’ You’ll have it in two weeks.”",
">\n\n\"2 minutes, Turkish\"",
">\n\nIt was 2 minutes 5 minutes ago",
">\n\n\nA Republican budget proposal, the advisers said, should specify whether Republicans would pursue savings through cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, health insurance subsidies, research or public safety spending.\n\nIn other words, you can’t just yell “stop the woke budget!” You have to point out exactly what money is allocated to those causes and then justify why.\nWe all know they won’t do this because they have nothing to point to. So they’ll decry “woke budget!” until the summer and then they will fuck over the country for cheap culture war points.",
">\n\nIt’s absolutely ridiculous. For the past decade at least, Republicans only goal has been to destroy faith in our institutions so they can point out how broken it is and how we need to vote them in to fix it. They are 100% willing to let the government default so they can point to it and say it’s all democrats fault. Doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. Their constituents religiously watch a single “news” source that tells them exactly what to believe.",
">\n\nWhile ironically calling everyone else around them sheep. Sighhh",
">\n\n“We will block the government from paying debts until you cut spending 😈 What do you think of that Sleepy Joe?”\n“What spending are you going to cut?”\n“Medicare and social securi- uh- I mean no, NO WE WON’T DO THAT! We’ll cut uh… uh… educa- no… uh… the military budg- ahhh our lobbyists need that… we’re gonna cut… something WOKE!”\n“Okay send me a budget.”\n“agggghhhh FUCK YOU JOE!! FUCK YOU!”\nLoving this new GOP that is both toothless and dumb.",
">\n\nThey’re dumb but they aren’t toothless. They can still crater the economy or force this into the (corrupt and right wing) courts and come out with a win.",
">\n\nThere is no world where the debt ceiling doesn’t get raised. It will be raised. The GOP just wants to embarass themselves a bit beforehand it seems",
">\n\nYou’re going to be wrong. They’re that stupid",
">\n\nIn order for the debt ceiling to not be raised, and the US to default on its loans, the Republicans will need almost all their congresspeople to remain opposed to raising it. Even as it causes a recession and blows up all their stock portfolios. \nThe debt ceiling will be raised. But it doesn’t need to be for 6 months. The treasury says it can take extraordinary measures to\nmove money around and pay off debts until June. So the Republicans might just keep refusing to raise the debt ceiling and make a show out of it for a few months.",
">\n\nThat would dominate the news cycles. Yawn.",
">\n\nIt will be produced right after their very beautiful health care plan.",
">\n\nI'm still waiting for infrastructure week",
">\n\nInfrastructure week is done. By democrats of course.",
">\n\nRepublicans: \"Set Obfuscate Shield to maximum deflection power!\"",
">\n\nLet’s be real, the Republican budget is a picture of Biden they drew a penis on with a Sharpie.",
">\n\nBut they drew it exaggeratedly large so they can see the joke. And now they unironically call him Big Dick Biden because they think he's acting like a huge dick.",
">\n\nTraceable accountability is garlic to the GOP vampire.",
">\n\nDems: \"Kevin . . .\"\n14-time-loser Speaker of the House McCarthy: \"No!\"\nDems: \"Kevin, be serious here . . .\"\n14-time-loser Speaker of the House McCarthy: \"I doan wanna!\nDems: \"C'mon now, Kevin . . .\"\n14-time-loser Speaker of the House McCarthy: \"You can't make me!!! Just give me what my handlers want or I'm gonna turn on the space lasers!!!\"\n\"Pew! Pew! Pew!\" the Speaker added.",
">\n\nGOP: We want cut waste, fraud and abuse. \nPrez: okay, show us specifics on what you think should be cut.\nGOP: Waste, Fraud and Abuse!\nThey don’t want provide specific answers, because those will be unpopular. Biden asking for specifics, so he can hammer them on those specifics.",
">\n\nExactly and McCarthy is in an impossible position since he had to agree to a rules change in the House that would let a single member launch a challenge to his speakership. Hence his answer on Twitter which you nicely parroted. “Mr. President,” he wrote, “I received your staff’s memo. I’m not interested in political games. I’m coming to negotiate for the American people.”",
">\n\nGoing into a negotiation with a plan? Does uncle Joe even know republicans?",
">\n\nPresident Joe knows that there isn't a single Republican in Congress who can even fake a detailed budget thing in Word/PDF"
] |
>
Then they need to say in detail everything they don't like and by how much they would like to reduce it. | [
"It blows my mind Republicans have been campaigning on cutting Social Security, and Medicare and junk that Boomers are now preparing to get or are already getting, and Boomers still support them completely.",
">\n\nI always assumed any cuts would be geared at future benefits for people that are only just starting to pay in.\nAnd one might think, \"well why would people want to deny others of a benefit that they enjoy themselves\", but we already know the answer.",
">\n\nI know I'm in the minority as an elder millennial, I've been working for the past 25 years with no vacations and smart investments so I am more or less financially set.\nBut if social security is cut for my generation I will quit my job on the spot. I'm not going to pay in one more dime. Fuck these boomers who want to destroy the future to enrich themselves.",
">\n\nThat fact that you mentioned no vacations to be financially sound scares me. Don’t do that… there is zero guarantee you’ll make it to retirement age in shape to enjoy it. Enjoy life now",
">\n\nGenX here that followed the same strategy. My health is fucked. \nOn the bright side, I've probably saved enough for retirement because I'm going to die at my desk before I'm 60.",
">\n\nNot too late to change and start enjoying things now. Ive probably fucked myself over on retirement and that sucks but my body is failing hard and fast and I’m not even old age. I’m so glad I did a lot in my 20s and 30s because I am scared I’ll not make it to 50, let alone 60",
">\n\nNo friends and no interests. And most of my money is in long-term retirement. \nPlus, my medical bills would wipe me out if I quit my job.",
">\n\nAs someone else with no friends or interests I feel this\nExcept I have no investments.",
">\n\n“We’ve already begun work on a comprehensive budget, titled, ‘We hate Democrats Just Because.’ You’ll have it in two weeks.”",
">\n\n\"2 minutes, Turkish\"",
">\n\nIt was 2 minutes 5 minutes ago",
">\n\n\nA Republican budget proposal, the advisers said, should specify whether Republicans would pursue savings through cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, health insurance subsidies, research or public safety spending.\n\nIn other words, you can’t just yell “stop the woke budget!” You have to point out exactly what money is allocated to those causes and then justify why.\nWe all know they won’t do this because they have nothing to point to. So they’ll decry “woke budget!” until the summer and then they will fuck over the country for cheap culture war points.",
">\n\nIt’s absolutely ridiculous. For the past decade at least, Republicans only goal has been to destroy faith in our institutions so they can point out how broken it is and how we need to vote them in to fix it. They are 100% willing to let the government default so they can point to it and say it’s all democrats fault. Doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. Their constituents religiously watch a single “news” source that tells them exactly what to believe.",
">\n\nWhile ironically calling everyone else around them sheep. Sighhh",
">\n\n“We will block the government from paying debts until you cut spending 😈 What do you think of that Sleepy Joe?”\n“What spending are you going to cut?”\n“Medicare and social securi- uh- I mean no, NO WE WON’T DO THAT! We’ll cut uh… uh… educa- no… uh… the military budg- ahhh our lobbyists need that… we’re gonna cut… something WOKE!”\n“Okay send me a budget.”\n“agggghhhh FUCK YOU JOE!! FUCK YOU!”\nLoving this new GOP that is both toothless and dumb.",
">\n\nThey’re dumb but they aren’t toothless. They can still crater the economy or force this into the (corrupt and right wing) courts and come out with a win.",
">\n\nThere is no world where the debt ceiling doesn’t get raised. It will be raised. The GOP just wants to embarass themselves a bit beforehand it seems",
">\n\nYou’re going to be wrong. They’re that stupid",
">\n\nIn order for the debt ceiling to not be raised, and the US to default on its loans, the Republicans will need almost all their congresspeople to remain opposed to raising it. Even as it causes a recession and blows up all their stock portfolios. \nThe debt ceiling will be raised. But it doesn’t need to be for 6 months. The treasury says it can take extraordinary measures to\nmove money around and pay off debts until June. So the Republicans might just keep refusing to raise the debt ceiling and make a show out of it for a few months.",
">\n\nThat would dominate the news cycles. Yawn.",
">\n\nIt will be produced right after their very beautiful health care plan.",
">\n\nI'm still waiting for infrastructure week",
">\n\nInfrastructure week is done. By democrats of course.",
">\n\nRepublicans: \"Set Obfuscate Shield to maximum deflection power!\"",
">\n\nLet’s be real, the Republican budget is a picture of Biden they drew a penis on with a Sharpie.",
">\n\nBut they drew it exaggeratedly large so they can see the joke. And now they unironically call him Big Dick Biden because they think he's acting like a huge dick.",
">\n\nTraceable accountability is garlic to the GOP vampire.",
">\n\nDems: \"Kevin . . .\"\n14-time-loser Speaker of the House McCarthy: \"No!\"\nDems: \"Kevin, be serious here . . .\"\n14-time-loser Speaker of the House McCarthy: \"I doan wanna!\nDems: \"C'mon now, Kevin . . .\"\n14-time-loser Speaker of the House McCarthy: \"You can't make me!!! Just give me what my handlers want or I'm gonna turn on the space lasers!!!\"\n\"Pew! Pew! Pew!\" the Speaker added.",
">\n\nGOP: We want cut waste, fraud and abuse. \nPrez: okay, show us specifics on what you think should be cut.\nGOP: Waste, Fraud and Abuse!\nThey don’t want provide specific answers, because those will be unpopular. Biden asking for specifics, so he can hammer them on those specifics.",
">\n\nExactly and McCarthy is in an impossible position since he had to agree to a rules change in the House that would let a single member launch a challenge to his speakership. Hence his answer on Twitter which you nicely parroted. “Mr. President,” he wrote, “I received your staff’s memo. I’m not interested in political games. I’m coming to negotiate for the American people.”",
">\n\nGoing into a negotiation with a plan? Does uncle Joe even know republicans?",
">\n\nPresident Joe knows that there isn't a single Republican in Congress who can even fake a detailed budget thing in Word/PDF",
">\n\nThey're going to copy and paste last year's budget, and just reduce everything they don't like."
] |
>
Hmm... a detailed budget you say?
|Budget 2024|Amount|
:--|:--|
|Wokeness|$0|
|Awesomeness|$ALL|
Why yes, I'd love a prestigious committee assignment. I'm thinking... chair of Ways and Means? Thanks, Kev!! | [
"It blows my mind Republicans have been campaigning on cutting Social Security, and Medicare and junk that Boomers are now preparing to get or are already getting, and Boomers still support them completely.",
">\n\nI always assumed any cuts would be geared at future benefits for people that are only just starting to pay in.\nAnd one might think, \"well why would people want to deny others of a benefit that they enjoy themselves\", but we already know the answer.",
">\n\nI know I'm in the minority as an elder millennial, I've been working for the past 25 years with no vacations and smart investments so I am more or less financially set.\nBut if social security is cut for my generation I will quit my job on the spot. I'm not going to pay in one more dime. Fuck these boomers who want to destroy the future to enrich themselves.",
">\n\nThat fact that you mentioned no vacations to be financially sound scares me. Don’t do that… there is zero guarantee you’ll make it to retirement age in shape to enjoy it. Enjoy life now",
">\n\nGenX here that followed the same strategy. My health is fucked. \nOn the bright side, I've probably saved enough for retirement because I'm going to die at my desk before I'm 60.",
">\n\nNot too late to change and start enjoying things now. Ive probably fucked myself over on retirement and that sucks but my body is failing hard and fast and I’m not even old age. I’m so glad I did a lot in my 20s and 30s because I am scared I’ll not make it to 50, let alone 60",
">\n\nNo friends and no interests. And most of my money is in long-term retirement. \nPlus, my medical bills would wipe me out if I quit my job.",
">\n\nAs someone else with no friends or interests I feel this\nExcept I have no investments.",
">\n\n“We’ve already begun work on a comprehensive budget, titled, ‘We hate Democrats Just Because.’ You’ll have it in two weeks.”",
">\n\n\"2 minutes, Turkish\"",
">\n\nIt was 2 minutes 5 minutes ago",
">\n\n\nA Republican budget proposal, the advisers said, should specify whether Republicans would pursue savings through cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, health insurance subsidies, research or public safety spending.\n\nIn other words, you can’t just yell “stop the woke budget!” You have to point out exactly what money is allocated to those causes and then justify why.\nWe all know they won’t do this because they have nothing to point to. So they’ll decry “woke budget!” until the summer and then they will fuck over the country for cheap culture war points.",
">\n\nIt’s absolutely ridiculous. For the past decade at least, Republicans only goal has been to destroy faith in our institutions so they can point out how broken it is and how we need to vote them in to fix it. They are 100% willing to let the government default so they can point to it and say it’s all democrats fault. Doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. Their constituents religiously watch a single “news” source that tells them exactly what to believe.",
">\n\nWhile ironically calling everyone else around them sheep. Sighhh",
">\n\n“We will block the government from paying debts until you cut spending 😈 What do you think of that Sleepy Joe?”\n“What spending are you going to cut?”\n“Medicare and social securi- uh- I mean no, NO WE WON’T DO THAT! We’ll cut uh… uh… educa- no… uh… the military budg- ahhh our lobbyists need that… we’re gonna cut… something WOKE!”\n“Okay send me a budget.”\n“agggghhhh FUCK YOU JOE!! FUCK YOU!”\nLoving this new GOP that is both toothless and dumb.",
">\n\nThey’re dumb but they aren’t toothless. They can still crater the economy or force this into the (corrupt and right wing) courts and come out with a win.",
">\n\nThere is no world where the debt ceiling doesn’t get raised. It will be raised. The GOP just wants to embarass themselves a bit beforehand it seems",
">\n\nYou’re going to be wrong. They’re that stupid",
">\n\nIn order for the debt ceiling to not be raised, and the US to default on its loans, the Republicans will need almost all their congresspeople to remain opposed to raising it. Even as it causes a recession and blows up all their stock portfolios. \nThe debt ceiling will be raised. But it doesn’t need to be for 6 months. The treasury says it can take extraordinary measures to\nmove money around and pay off debts until June. So the Republicans might just keep refusing to raise the debt ceiling and make a show out of it for a few months.",
">\n\nThat would dominate the news cycles. Yawn.",
">\n\nIt will be produced right after their very beautiful health care plan.",
">\n\nI'm still waiting for infrastructure week",
">\n\nInfrastructure week is done. By democrats of course.",
">\n\nRepublicans: \"Set Obfuscate Shield to maximum deflection power!\"",
">\n\nLet’s be real, the Republican budget is a picture of Biden they drew a penis on with a Sharpie.",
">\n\nBut they drew it exaggeratedly large so they can see the joke. And now they unironically call him Big Dick Biden because they think he's acting like a huge dick.",
">\n\nTraceable accountability is garlic to the GOP vampire.",
">\n\nDems: \"Kevin . . .\"\n14-time-loser Speaker of the House McCarthy: \"No!\"\nDems: \"Kevin, be serious here . . .\"\n14-time-loser Speaker of the House McCarthy: \"I doan wanna!\nDems: \"C'mon now, Kevin . . .\"\n14-time-loser Speaker of the House McCarthy: \"You can't make me!!! Just give me what my handlers want or I'm gonna turn on the space lasers!!!\"\n\"Pew! Pew! Pew!\" the Speaker added.",
">\n\nGOP: We want cut waste, fraud and abuse. \nPrez: okay, show us specifics on what you think should be cut.\nGOP: Waste, Fraud and Abuse!\nThey don’t want provide specific answers, because those will be unpopular. Biden asking for specifics, so he can hammer them on those specifics.",
">\n\nExactly and McCarthy is in an impossible position since he had to agree to a rules change in the House that would let a single member launch a challenge to his speakership. Hence his answer on Twitter which you nicely parroted. “Mr. President,” he wrote, “I received your staff’s memo. I’m not interested in political games. I’m coming to negotiate for the American people.”",
">\n\nGoing into a negotiation with a plan? Does uncle Joe even know republicans?",
">\n\nPresident Joe knows that there isn't a single Republican in Congress who can even fake a detailed budget thing in Word/PDF",
">\n\nThey're going to copy and paste last year's budget, and just reduce everything they don't like.",
">\n\nThen they need to say in detail everything they don't like and by how much they would like to reduce it."
] |
>
ChatGOP. I’m calling it now. | [
"It blows my mind Republicans have been campaigning on cutting Social Security, and Medicare and junk that Boomers are now preparing to get or are already getting, and Boomers still support them completely.",
">\n\nI always assumed any cuts would be geared at future benefits for people that are only just starting to pay in.\nAnd one might think, \"well why would people want to deny others of a benefit that they enjoy themselves\", but we already know the answer.",
">\n\nI know I'm in the minority as an elder millennial, I've been working for the past 25 years with no vacations and smart investments so I am more or less financially set.\nBut if social security is cut for my generation I will quit my job on the spot. I'm not going to pay in one more dime. Fuck these boomers who want to destroy the future to enrich themselves.",
">\n\nThat fact that you mentioned no vacations to be financially sound scares me. Don’t do that… there is zero guarantee you’ll make it to retirement age in shape to enjoy it. Enjoy life now",
">\n\nGenX here that followed the same strategy. My health is fucked. \nOn the bright side, I've probably saved enough for retirement because I'm going to die at my desk before I'm 60.",
">\n\nNot too late to change and start enjoying things now. Ive probably fucked myself over on retirement and that sucks but my body is failing hard and fast and I’m not even old age. I’m so glad I did a lot in my 20s and 30s because I am scared I’ll not make it to 50, let alone 60",
">\n\nNo friends and no interests. And most of my money is in long-term retirement. \nPlus, my medical bills would wipe me out if I quit my job.",
">\n\nAs someone else with no friends or interests I feel this\nExcept I have no investments.",
">\n\n“We’ve already begun work on a comprehensive budget, titled, ‘We hate Democrats Just Because.’ You’ll have it in two weeks.”",
">\n\n\"2 minutes, Turkish\"",
">\n\nIt was 2 minutes 5 minutes ago",
">\n\n\nA Republican budget proposal, the advisers said, should specify whether Republicans would pursue savings through cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, health insurance subsidies, research or public safety spending.\n\nIn other words, you can’t just yell “stop the woke budget!” You have to point out exactly what money is allocated to those causes and then justify why.\nWe all know they won’t do this because they have nothing to point to. So they’ll decry “woke budget!” until the summer and then they will fuck over the country for cheap culture war points.",
">\n\nIt’s absolutely ridiculous. For the past decade at least, Republicans only goal has been to destroy faith in our institutions so they can point out how broken it is and how we need to vote them in to fix it. They are 100% willing to let the government default so they can point to it and say it’s all democrats fault. Doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. Their constituents religiously watch a single “news” source that tells them exactly what to believe.",
">\n\nWhile ironically calling everyone else around them sheep. Sighhh",
">\n\n“We will block the government from paying debts until you cut spending 😈 What do you think of that Sleepy Joe?”\n“What spending are you going to cut?”\n“Medicare and social securi- uh- I mean no, NO WE WON’T DO THAT! We’ll cut uh… uh… educa- no… uh… the military budg- ahhh our lobbyists need that… we’re gonna cut… something WOKE!”\n“Okay send me a budget.”\n“agggghhhh FUCK YOU JOE!! FUCK YOU!”\nLoving this new GOP that is both toothless and dumb.",
">\n\nThey’re dumb but they aren’t toothless. They can still crater the economy or force this into the (corrupt and right wing) courts and come out with a win.",
">\n\nThere is no world where the debt ceiling doesn’t get raised. It will be raised. The GOP just wants to embarass themselves a bit beforehand it seems",
">\n\nYou’re going to be wrong. They’re that stupid",
">\n\nIn order for the debt ceiling to not be raised, and the US to default on its loans, the Republicans will need almost all their congresspeople to remain opposed to raising it. Even as it causes a recession and blows up all their stock portfolios. \nThe debt ceiling will be raised. But it doesn’t need to be for 6 months. The treasury says it can take extraordinary measures to\nmove money around and pay off debts until June. So the Republicans might just keep refusing to raise the debt ceiling and make a show out of it for a few months.",
">\n\nThat would dominate the news cycles. Yawn.",
">\n\nIt will be produced right after their very beautiful health care plan.",
">\n\nI'm still waiting for infrastructure week",
">\n\nInfrastructure week is done. By democrats of course.",
">\n\nRepublicans: \"Set Obfuscate Shield to maximum deflection power!\"",
">\n\nLet’s be real, the Republican budget is a picture of Biden they drew a penis on with a Sharpie.",
">\n\nBut they drew it exaggeratedly large so they can see the joke. And now they unironically call him Big Dick Biden because they think he's acting like a huge dick.",
">\n\nTraceable accountability is garlic to the GOP vampire.",
">\n\nDems: \"Kevin . . .\"\n14-time-loser Speaker of the House McCarthy: \"No!\"\nDems: \"Kevin, be serious here . . .\"\n14-time-loser Speaker of the House McCarthy: \"I doan wanna!\nDems: \"C'mon now, Kevin . . .\"\n14-time-loser Speaker of the House McCarthy: \"You can't make me!!! Just give me what my handlers want or I'm gonna turn on the space lasers!!!\"\n\"Pew! Pew! Pew!\" the Speaker added.",
">\n\nGOP: We want cut waste, fraud and abuse. \nPrez: okay, show us specifics on what you think should be cut.\nGOP: Waste, Fraud and Abuse!\nThey don’t want provide specific answers, because those will be unpopular. Biden asking for specifics, so he can hammer them on those specifics.",
">\n\nExactly and McCarthy is in an impossible position since he had to agree to a rules change in the House that would let a single member launch a challenge to his speakership. Hence his answer on Twitter which you nicely parroted. “Mr. President,” he wrote, “I received your staff’s memo. I’m not interested in political games. I’m coming to negotiate for the American people.”",
">\n\nGoing into a negotiation with a plan? Does uncle Joe even know republicans?",
">\n\nPresident Joe knows that there isn't a single Republican in Congress who can even fake a detailed budget thing in Word/PDF",
">\n\nThey're going to copy and paste last year's budget, and just reduce everything they don't like.",
">\n\nThen they need to say in detail everything they don't like and by how much they would like to reduce it.",
">\n\nHmm... a detailed budget you say?\n|Budget 2024|Amount|\n:--|:--|\n|Wokeness|$0|\n|Awesomeness|$ALL|\nWhy yes, I'd love a prestigious committee assignment. I'm thinking... chair of Ways and Means? Thanks, Kev!!"
] |
>
If we could actually just go ahead and replace the entire Republican Party with ChatGPT actually, that would be a step up. At least the AI does it’s job. The GOP is the real do-nothing party. | [
"It blows my mind Republicans have been campaigning on cutting Social Security, and Medicare and junk that Boomers are now preparing to get or are already getting, and Boomers still support them completely.",
">\n\nI always assumed any cuts would be geared at future benefits for people that are only just starting to pay in.\nAnd one might think, \"well why would people want to deny others of a benefit that they enjoy themselves\", but we already know the answer.",
">\n\nI know I'm in the minority as an elder millennial, I've been working for the past 25 years with no vacations and smart investments so I am more or less financially set.\nBut if social security is cut for my generation I will quit my job on the spot. I'm not going to pay in one more dime. Fuck these boomers who want to destroy the future to enrich themselves.",
">\n\nThat fact that you mentioned no vacations to be financially sound scares me. Don’t do that… there is zero guarantee you’ll make it to retirement age in shape to enjoy it. Enjoy life now",
">\n\nGenX here that followed the same strategy. My health is fucked. \nOn the bright side, I've probably saved enough for retirement because I'm going to die at my desk before I'm 60.",
">\n\nNot too late to change and start enjoying things now. Ive probably fucked myself over on retirement and that sucks but my body is failing hard and fast and I’m not even old age. I’m so glad I did a lot in my 20s and 30s because I am scared I’ll not make it to 50, let alone 60",
">\n\nNo friends and no interests. And most of my money is in long-term retirement. \nPlus, my medical bills would wipe me out if I quit my job.",
">\n\nAs someone else with no friends or interests I feel this\nExcept I have no investments.",
">\n\n“We’ve already begun work on a comprehensive budget, titled, ‘We hate Democrats Just Because.’ You’ll have it in two weeks.”",
">\n\n\"2 minutes, Turkish\"",
">\n\nIt was 2 minutes 5 minutes ago",
">\n\n\nA Republican budget proposal, the advisers said, should specify whether Republicans would pursue savings through cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, health insurance subsidies, research or public safety spending.\n\nIn other words, you can’t just yell “stop the woke budget!” You have to point out exactly what money is allocated to those causes and then justify why.\nWe all know they won’t do this because they have nothing to point to. So they’ll decry “woke budget!” until the summer and then they will fuck over the country for cheap culture war points.",
">\n\nIt’s absolutely ridiculous. For the past decade at least, Republicans only goal has been to destroy faith in our institutions so they can point out how broken it is and how we need to vote them in to fix it. They are 100% willing to let the government default so they can point to it and say it’s all democrats fault. Doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. Their constituents religiously watch a single “news” source that tells them exactly what to believe.",
">\n\nWhile ironically calling everyone else around them sheep. Sighhh",
">\n\n“We will block the government from paying debts until you cut spending 😈 What do you think of that Sleepy Joe?”\n“What spending are you going to cut?”\n“Medicare and social securi- uh- I mean no, NO WE WON’T DO THAT! We’ll cut uh… uh… educa- no… uh… the military budg- ahhh our lobbyists need that… we’re gonna cut… something WOKE!”\n“Okay send me a budget.”\n“agggghhhh FUCK YOU JOE!! FUCK YOU!”\nLoving this new GOP that is both toothless and dumb.",
">\n\nThey’re dumb but they aren’t toothless. They can still crater the economy or force this into the (corrupt and right wing) courts and come out with a win.",
">\n\nThere is no world where the debt ceiling doesn’t get raised. It will be raised. The GOP just wants to embarass themselves a bit beforehand it seems",
">\n\nYou’re going to be wrong. They’re that stupid",
">\n\nIn order for the debt ceiling to not be raised, and the US to default on its loans, the Republicans will need almost all their congresspeople to remain opposed to raising it. Even as it causes a recession and blows up all their stock portfolios. \nThe debt ceiling will be raised. But it doesn’t need to be for 6 months. The treasury says it can take extraordinary measures to\nmove money around and pay off debts until June. So the Republicans might just keep refusing to raise the debt ceiling and make a show out of it for a few months.",
">\n\nThat would dominate the news cycles. Yawn.",
">\n\nIt will be produced right after their very beautiful health care plan.",
">\n\nI'm still waiting for infrastructure week",
">\n\nInfrastructure week is done. By democrats of course.",
">\n\nRepublicans: \"Set Obfuscate Shield to maximum deflection power!\"",
">\n\nLet’s be real, the Republican budget is a picture of Biden they drew a penis on with a Sharpie.",
">\n\nBut they drew it exaggeratedly large so they can see the joke. And now they unironically call him Big Dick Biden because they think he's acting like a huge dick.",
">\n\nTraceable accountability is garlic to the GOP vampire.",
">\n\nDems: \"Kevin . . .\"\n14-time-loser Speaker of the House McCarthy: \"No!\"\nDems: \"Kevin, be serious here . . .\"\n14-time-loser Speaker of the House McCarthy: \"I doan wanna!\nDems: \"C'mon now, Kevin . . .\"\n14-time-loser Speaker of the House McCarthy: \"You can't make me!!! Just give me what my handlers want or I'm gonna turn on the space lasers!!!\"\n\"Pew! Pew! Pew!\" the Speaker added.",
">\n\nGOP: We want cut waste, fraud and abuse. \nPrez: okay, show us specifics on what you think should be cut.\nGOP: Waste, Fraud and Abuse!\nThey don’t want provide specific answers, because those will be unpopular. Biden asking for specifics, so he can hammer them on those specifics.",
">\n\nExactly and McCarthy is in an impossible position since he had to agree to a rules change in the House that would let a single member launch a challenge to his speakership. Hence his answer on Twitter which you nicely parroted. “Mr. President,” he wrote, “I received your staff’s memo. I’m not interested in political games. I’m coming to negotiate for the American people.”",
">\n\nGoing into a negotiation with a plan? Does uncle Joe even know republicans?",
">\n\nPresident Joe knows that there isn't a single Republican in Congress who can even fake a detailed budget thing in Word/PDF",
">\n\nThey're going to copy and paste last year's budget, and just reduce everything they don't like.",
">\n\nThen they need to say in detail everything they don't like and by how much they would like to reduce it.",
">\n\nHmm... a detailed budget you say?\n|Budget 2024|Amount|\n:--|:--|\n|Wokeness|$0|\n|Awesomeness|$ALL|\nWhy yes, I'd love a prestigious committee assignment. I'm thinking... chair of Ways and Means? Thanks, Kev!!",
">\n\nChatGOP. I’m calling it now."
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.