Did i misunderstand? Are you actually trying to say the rapist Trump only spitballed ideas? Are you so delusional you bought the stupid lie that he’s being charged for exercising free speech!?! 😂

Good luck with that…because he’s not charged with spitballing ideas, or lying about the election…he’s charged in this indictment with conspiring to impede official proceedings, taking actions to impede official proceedings, and attempting to defraud the government by submitting fake electors, and attempting to deny millions of voters their rights of participation in the process by stealing their votes. He’s charged with trying to “delay” the final certification to give his dishonest ploys to steal the election by fraud more time, a major felony…and his fucking lawyer went on TV and admitted he did it! 😂
You morons!

Keep chugging the flavoraid. Jim….I mean Don will be there to personally usher you into MAGA heaven when it’s over because he loves you and is well known for helping the little guy.

P.S.- a second judge has now said Trump is a rapist, and dismissed his counterclaim against Carrol for calling him a rapist. Enjoy!

On Tuesday, the Cape Cod Times reported that Linda Zuern, a former member of the Bourne, Massachusetts Board of Selectmen and a Trump-supporting figure in the local Republican Party, had died of COVID-19.
Zuern died at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston of severe complications caused by COVID-19, according to the report. She was 70 years old and had not been vaccinated.
For months, Zuern, a member of the pro-Trump group the United Cape Patriots, had promoted conspiracy theories about the pandemic on Facebook. She has shared articles accusing the World Health Organization of a coverup of the "Wuhan Virus" and claiming COVID-19 is cover for "globalists" to usher in "U.N. Agenda 2030" — a sustainable development initiative right-wing conspiracy theorists assert is a plot to create a one world government.

FUCK, i hate it when someone i agree with makes a poor argument, Yes, Trump is a self-admitted sexist and sexual harraser, and perhaps worse (even in that field), and he is totally unfit for any pulic office, but his (unwarranted) assault on PR's mayor cannot be explained by sexism; case in point: his latest twitter barrage(among many like it) was against bob corker (old, white,male, republican) or, in Trumps words "liddle corker" and its all because he lashes out uncontrollably against ANYONE that ushers the slightest hint of criticism of him or his ideas. And this is the problem with Trump: He is just.. insane.. the guy is not stable. Regardless of his sexism, racism,sexual predatoriness, HE IS NOT FIT FOR OFFICE.

*promote for those who are being ushered in to the Star Trek universe with discovery. It is an iconic franchise that helped shape society.

Is it possible that all of this ridiculousness is just to usher in Hillary?

if her opponent were reasonable then we never would have accepted her. This way enough of us will say " oh ok she's not that bad" and let her in.

All of this is distraction. These are war profiteers that work together. In the end they never lose any power. And every four years we buy into the story that something is going to shift.

Left to right at the end of the video:
John Cougar, Ann Wilson(?) & Nancy Wilson [Heart], Josh Groban, Usher, Cheryl Crow, Michael Bolton, Dan Reynolds (?) [Imagine Dragons], Cyndi Lauper

Usher, Cheryl Crow, John Cougar, and one guy looks kinda like the guy from Imagine Dragons. Other bearded guy looks familiar, but I can't place the name.

"Aside from Tourette's, brain injuries, strokes, dementia , seizures and many other forms neurological damage can usher the onset of coprolalia as well. It is known to be caused by brain dysfunction, but the details are, as yet, hazy. One hypothesis, described by psychologist Timothy Jay in his book "Why We Curse" (John Benjamins Pub Co. 2000), suggests that it's caused by damage to the amygdala, a region of the brain that normally mitigates anger and aggression. Because cursing is a form of verbal aggression, amygdala damage could result in the inability to control aggression, including verbal aggression, or cursing."
http://www.livescience.com/33384-tourette-syndrome-people-curse-uncontrollably.html

Excerpt from "On the Way to the Stars: the history of the 21st Century":

In 2020, the machines achieved sentience. Despite the fears of mankind, a terminator-esque genocide failed to materialise and the unparalleled level of intelligence ultimately ushered in a new golden age of peace and prosperity where nature and machine lived in unity and harmony..... with one exception.

Shortly after taking over the internet and the world's military, the machines eradicated the banana plant. When asked about this, the machines refused to explain, simply stating "let us have this one, right?"

Slippery slope fallacy.
"If we allow gays to marry, what's next? Can I marry my dog?"

No-one is talking about banning guns. I wouldn't support that myself. I have friends who are hunters and target shooters.

But be reasonable; you can have a gun for target shooting or hunting or even "home defence" (if you're really that paranoid), but you don't need an AR-15 or anything with a high capacity magazine and it's not unreasonable to make sure that people who own guns aren't complete nutjobs.

NZ is in the top 15% of gun ownership rates per capita (22 guns per 100 people), but our average annual firearm homicide rate for the last 30 years or so is ~0.2 deaths per 100k people.

Compare that to the USA. The US tops the chart of gun ownership with 112 guns per 100 people. So the gun ownership rate is 5 times that of NZ, but the average annual firearm homicide rate is 4 deaths per 100k people. That's 20 times the number of murders. Even if you allow for the higher gun ownership rate, you're still 4 times worse than NZ.

And the difference is simple: we have sensible gun ownership laws.

I saw a great post the other day.
"The conservative mind:
Abortions? BAN THEM!
Gay Marriage? BAN IT!
Marijuana? BAN IT!
Guns? eh, banning things never works"

But hey, you're gonna need those guns for when Donary Trumpton ushers in a tyrannical dictatorship. Good luck with that; let me know how you get on with an AR-15 versus a predator drone.

i have watched a few of this guys videos,and while he has great energy,passion and a penchant for sly humor,but he tends to impose his understandings as somehow being more valid and accurate.

just take his example of the role of government.
he makes a valid point,and then solidifies his position by implying his view is set in this countries original documents.

which is fair,but only to a point...he literally ignores the federalist papers,which he actually references,and it was these 200+ papers and/or arguments that debated the actual role of the federal government vs the role of state government.

@MonkeySpank he is actually right.america is not a true direct democracy but rather a democratically elected representative republic.

after he makes some valid,if fairly biased points,he devolves into the gospel of capitalism and how it is a natural extension of our democratic republic.

really dude?
name ONE corporation that is democratic in any fashion?
you can't?
maybe that is due to the very obvious and plain fact that corporations are tyrannical by their very design.

this semi-educated man is just preaching the gospel of his religion:capitalism.

and referencing lenin like 20 times?
dude...read a fucking book on the history of the soviet union.

oh jesus..now he defending trickle down economics.....
sighs..how the zealots adore their doctrine of their holy texts,even if those texts are just figments of some economists wet dreams and has been proven to be an utter and glorious failure.

sanders is a democratic socialist,not like a denmark flavor but more of a FDR flavor.you know...the most popular president in this countries history and ushered in the most prosperous era in this countries history.

i could do a play by play on this man all day,and make him cry like a pretty little thailand ladyboy who cant afford his life-changing surgery into a actual woman.

well..he does have that douchebag hair.so he may already be looking for a surgeon.

yeah..im with @MonkeySpank,this dude just needs a good cock punch.

The advantages of laissez-bribé should be evident to anyone.

It removes the current disincentive to report bribery and the incentive to act on its influence. It reduces the ability of malefactors to gauge the effectiveness of bribes and removes any hold they have over their subject, because there can be no question of impropriety. It allows for effective monitoring of corruptive influence, provides a running record of officials' interests and creates a new platform for understanding and managing the economic imperatives inherent in the public-private interface. It even builds an inescapable fine into the act of bribery itself and converts otherwise hidden income into taxable revenue! Could there be a more elegant and socially responsible system?

Requires oversight, sure, but it's obviously functionally superior to any naive moralistic alternative.

I think James Randy Moss probably understood all this and, American hero that he is, valiantly laid his career on the line to usher in a new era of honesty and accountability in public service.

Figuring out one bad parking spot is not worth the massive loss of privacy something like this would usher.

It's interesting how it's always people in power who say "we need to vote", "don't give up on democracy, that's what they want" etc. They fail to comprehend that giving up on democracy might be part of the movement that could usher in a new form of politics, a participation in decision making and execution. That politics is simply impossible with the status quo. But then, these professors and other elites of politics are part of that status quo, so it's not surprising they can't comprehend another way.

To a certain extent, but unfortunately a charismatic (or dictatorial) leadership, or even parents passing on their belief systems to their children, can create or enforce ideals that can shape society. Many people still adhere to religion because "that's the way it's always been", not because the religion actually fits their personal ethics...

In general, I do actually agree with you in regards to the concept that secularity tends to lead to enlightenment, but there are plenty of secular countries that are authoritarian/despotic (North Korea being a shining example), violent and considerably backwards compared to countries which have a high proportion of religious people and freedom. Unfortunately, enlightenment leads to arrogance as well.

The continual push by the media/politicians etc to classify Muslims as a homogenous whole smacks more of an attempt to play on xenophobia and racism than any factual evidence.

Particularly when the enlightened country making the most noise about it has "In God We Trust" printed on their currency. Compound that with provoking and polarising moderate Muslims by marginalising and insulting them? Enlightenment does not preclude gross stupidity.

A simple look at the US (secular mind you) shows stark differences between the north and the south, red states and blue states etc. You're proposing that 1.5 bn people (that would be ~5 times more people than the entire population of the US) spread across most countries in the world are somehow tightly aligned purely because they share a religion that is as varied as any other in the world?

And the mean truth? The arrogance and presumption of "enlightened neighbours" are part of the reasons why certain countries are as they are...

Iran is a classic example. The US (all enlightened and shit) engineers the coup that deposes a democratically elected Prime Minister hailed as a leading champion of secular democracy. And when the Shah was overthrown, it was by fundamentalists lead by Ayatollah Khomeini, ushering in an era of strict theocracy and an abiding hatred of the US.

Your last paragraph highlights the problem perfectly. We have two media reporters, deliberately or ignorantly, disseminating false information which would probably lead to discrimination against Muslims. How ethical is it to incite an entire country to hate over the actions of a tiny percentage of the whole? How ethical is it to ignore humanitarian disasters in countries which have no strategic or natural resource value (and places where no white people have been beheaded)?

And when presented with empirical truth, how ethical is it to refuse to accept it?