Some of these are still rumored, I think.
Homan seems great, Zeldin and Miller are good as well. Not super familiar with the rest.
I know some people have come around on Rubio, but I still don't like or trust him. He's better than he was, it seems, but he's still Marco Rubio.
Thanks, guys.
Holy crap. I've seen more attractive trannies. YIKES!
Also, that shirt is epic, you love to see it. And that picture of Nick is hilarious.
Man, I love everything about this, from purely a humor standpoint.
It doesn't help that studios like to double up, so a bunch of the blacks they're pushing are going for the Modern Beauty Standards™, or are trans, or are ultra-flamboyant gays.
It would be a little easier for a woman, since that somehow has diversity points, but it seems like it would be really hard for a 'straight man' (the role, not the sexuality...although that too) to make it in the current climate.
All the woke nonsense has made it harder for any serious actors, of any race, to rise to prominence, at least on their merits. Especially men.
They missed an opportunity to pick the ugliest black lady they could find, as they often do. Or a tranny.
Compared to the usual casting of fish-eyed mutant freaks, she is at least pretty. Not that that's saying much, or that it makes it forgivable.
Not that it exactly makes me Nostradamus or anything, but I called this a thousand miles away.
It's the Netflix special. I didn't watch the first season, but some people seemed to like it, despite some race swapping and stuff. I'm assuming it was relatively decent, and apolitical. That's how they often operate in the first season of a new show. Then they hit you with full woke/communism/TDS in Season 2.
Also: Nitter Link
I just think it's funny that the party of 'tax the rich...and the middle class...and everyone else' whine about how tariffs are taxes, and will increase prices, and how taxing them will just trickle down to the consumers.
Now, I'm no expert on this, but it is somewhat true. It is a tax, it will raise prices. But, the thing is, it also brings back money into the US; it will raise wages (especially in conjunction with mass deportations and the psychological effect alone reducing further illegal immigration), and keep more wealth circulating in our country, instead of flowing overseas to, sometimes literally, fund slavery. It will help US companies compete with foreign countries. Eventually (hopefully we get another Republican next election, as it will need some time to truly flourish), it will more than normalize. More US manufacturing, higher wages; all that is good.
Also, if Trump is serious about lowering taxes (and I have no reason to think he isn't, since he did it last time), it could offset tariffs almost immediately.
So, yes, tariffs are a tax, and will raise prices. But if done well, it's really a nonissue, even in the short term, and a big potential net positive in the mid to long term.
Also, as somewhat of a libertarian, I have to break with them on this issue. Again, not an expert, but it seems to me that this is more libertarian autism, and them letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
They love to whine about how tariffs are "war," economic and financial war. And, well, that's somewhat true, but conflating it with a hot war is incredibly stupid. Also, all nations are (or should be) in a natural state of competition. Each nation are (or should be) involved in making life for their people better. If foreign countries are taking jobs, the government should try to dissuade that to some extent, as well as reduce the regulatory and tax burdens on domestic production. Especially when we have the resources needed to churn out massive domestic industry.
One of a nation's prime areas of influence is, of course, the border. It's one of the things that defines a nation. Tariffs are, to some extent, government meddling in the economy, which can often be disastrous. But, it's not exactly meddling in domestic economy; it's just giving your own people a boost compared to foreign imports. I think that's fine. Again, not an expert though.
It's real, but maybe a bit muddled.
Here's the ABC7 article.
ABC News has it more ambiguous, where it sounds like they might be the victims. Which is really screwy since it's the exact same article.
This one makes it sound like they're the victims:
Three people have been charged in a series of alleged Iran-linked murder plots, with one of them accused of trying to assassinate President-elect Donald Trump, and others targeting an Iranian-American activist and two Jewish Americans living in New York, according to a criminal complaint unsealed Friday in New York.
Farhad Shakeri, Carlisle Rivera and Jonathan Loadholt are charged with murder-for-hire, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. Rivera and Loadholt have been arrested, while Shakeri, who the FBI described as an "asset" of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, is believed to be in Tehran.
So it's very unclear, and the two would be identical articles are different.
Also, from Fox, it sounds like the Jews may have tried to murder the Iranian. I have no idea what's going on.
Federal prosecutors have also charged and arrested Carlisle Rivera, 49, of Brooklyn, New York; and Jonathon Loadholt, 36, of Staten Island, New York, "in connection with their alleged involvement in a plot to murder a U.S. citizen of Iranian origin in New York."
Sounds to me like three were arrested; two Jews and an Iranian, as mentioned, but for different things.
But, again, it's so muddied I don't know for sure.
I was criticizing Dom's bitchy tone, which is how he always acts when people call out his moderator decisions.
Congrats, you've gone full sperg and now instead of being the one who would type "Don't make me Defend Dom", others now have to because you're being hyperbolic...
Again, I don't think I'm doing that and, even though my frustration with Dom has grown massively since he flipped out on me one too many times, and said all sorts of heinous shit about me, I'll still defend him when I think it's deserved. I think I even defended him somewhat recently still.
And again, I used the meme on purpose, to point out double standards. He was being a whiny victim while decreeing that people here couldn't talk to each other, and blaming them for it. I just find that moronic.
We're about free speech, and Dom keeps doing a bunch of shit that stifles that.
You're free to disagree, but I don't think I 'full sperged,' and I still stand by all my principles.
That was far from my main point; I just found it funny.
I also even gave a potential reason: "Now, that parent could have also been reported"
I'm all for keeping an eye on how things are run here but don't go becoming the very thing you call out by staring into the abyss too much.
I don't think I did anything close to that, but I'm always willing to be corrected.
The post is explicitly invoking the stereotype that it is the inherent trait of jews that they will always claim to be victims while attacking others.
Yeah, because that's exactly what happened here; Jews did attack others, then claim to be victims.
He insinuates that this incident is an extension of that with the Twitter post alleging that there is a jewish media campaign to protect jewish violence. That that hooliganism is the attack, where the jews will claim they are the victims.
Again, that's what seemed to be happening.
And you're the one saying 'inherent.'
See, I just stated all those things openly, that some Jews did exactly that. That's not against the rules. I'm not saying all Jews. Neither was btbw; you chose to read it that way.
...under no circumstance should intent or context be considered relevant to any enforcement action...
Not exactly, but rules/laws do need clear and equal enforcement. If you're always trying to glean intent, that's naturally going to bias you. There are people you don't like; they'll get banned, while people saying the exact same things won't. Exact thing happened in this instance. btbw's comment was essentially a mirror of the one right before that, on which no action was taken. You go out of your way to ban btbw and others.
You will continue to berate and insult me because you do not believe that moderation should ever consider intent and context.
Up until rather recently, I've been nothing but polite to you; I just disagreed with you. I've disagreed with you from the very, very start, because our rules are retarded and no one wants them. I've always been polite. And I started this post off polite as well.
You've said I'm your enemy, and that I essentially want you dead. You've said others here want you did in much more explicit terms.
You just always want to turn it into you being the victim, when the vast majority of people disagree with you, and tell you as such.
I see it as completely irrational and intentionally building holes into rules so that they effectively cease to exist.
Whereas you do the exact opposite; your haphazard enforcement of the rules is barely distinguishable from just banning whoever you want. People you don't like have worse "intent" and thus get ridiculous year long bans for posting basic comments or posts.
My "letter of the law" approach would work infinitely better than your "feels" approach.
No, I'm saying you're acting the victim because people are objecting to your nonsense, while you censor and make up rules and dictates to people here. You ban people you don't like, because you don't like them, so you imagine the worst possible motives for them.
Plus, I just wanted to meme a bit to show how inconsistent your enforcement is.
You:
I banned him for 128 days for the initial conniving merchants comment.
Then for 256 days for the "cry out as they strike you" post.
Now...also you:
Kienan. Stop. Look at the times of my actions before screaming that I'm a dumbass and that I'm lying.
7:53 AM - I removed the "crying out" post, ban for 128 days
8:05 AM - I removed the "conniving merchants" comment, ban for 256 days
Yeah. You're a dumbass.
You're now saying the opposite, while agreeing with what I said, while saying I'm wrong.
The actual fuck is wrong with you?
This is laughably ridiculous, even by your standards.
You've got this a bit backwards. I banned him for 128 days for the initial conniving merchants comment. Then for 256 days for the "cry out as they strike you" post.
No, you've got it backwards, dumbass.
"Cries out in pain," 4:53 AM.
"Conniving merchants," 5:05 AM
And the other guy's "Cool it" comment, 5:04 AM, then edited four hours later.
Those are your comment times, but you can see the removal times as well. Same as the comments, but one minute later each. "Cries out" was banned first. It's right there in the logs.
Not sure why you'd lie. Especially when it doesn't even matter. Neither ban was justified, and you're acting a fool again.
How had he "asserted that hooliganism is an inherent aspect of jews," because he pointed out additional context to some whiny Jews saying they were attacked for being Jews?
Where did he say anything was "inherent?"
Very true.