Lurker > Kradek

"Look, mom, I don't want to fuck you, I just want to see you fuck a woman. It's not that weird, it's normal for guys to have these thoughts."

StealThisSheen posted...

Isn't she also the one that stalks child survivors of school shootings and yells at them?

Yeah, she stalked and harassed David Hogg. She's still harassing him, just virtually, I believe.

Ruvan22 posted...

Why did Garland initially want to support Trump in the defamation case?

There's no statements from Garland, it's just that it's his DOJ and he controls the operations, so if he didn't want the DOJ making this argument on behalf of Trump they wouldn't have.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/07/biden-justice-department-defends-trump-in-suit-over-rape-denial-492088

In the filing with the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the Justice Department insisted that it was not endorsing Trumps conduct toward the writer, E. Jean Carroll, even as it argued that a law governing suits against federal officials justified the governments move to take over the former presidents defense in the case.

In making and defending a Westfall Act certification the Department of Justice is not endorsing the allegedly tortious conduct or representing that it actually furthered the interests of the United States. Nor is a reviewing court making any such determinations in upholding the Departments certification, the acting head of the Justice Departments Civil Division, Brian Boynton, wrote in the new submission.

Boynton also adhered to the stance the Justice Department adopted in the case last September: that Trump was acting in the course of his official duties as president when he denied Carrolls rape allegations from more than two decades ago.

Speaking to the public and the press on matters of public concern is undoubtedly part of an elected officials job, Boynton added. Courts have thus consistently and repeatedly held that allegedly defamatory statements made in that context are within the scope of elected officials employment including when the statements were prompted by press inquiries about the officials private life.

The new brief amounts to a Biden administration ratification of the move that then-Attorney General William Barr made last year to assume Trumps defense in the case a move that drew widespread criticism over the deployment of government attorneys to fight the defamation suit Carroll filed after Trump denied her account of the alleged rape. But the more significant impact of Barrs move was that, if successful, it would almost certainly have scuttled the litigation.

A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment on which department leaders made the decision to stay the course in the Carroll suit, but a spokesperson for the White House said it played no role in the decision and emphasized that President Joe Biden had set a new standard.

So it is a policy that started in September 2020 and for some reason Garland's DOJ seemed to mindlessly continue because it was already in the process of happening, and part of the article points out that's a rather common occurrence for changing administrations. We see this often happen frequently with administrations keeping special investigators on a case from one admin to the next.

After spending most of the article's opening making it sound like it's Biden's administration pushing for this, that last paragraph I posted clearly outlines how Biden's admin is not endorsing this argument and says they have a different standard.

The article feels only slightly less disingenuous than Hur's report which early on chides Biden for his careless handling of the documents and condemns him, then on page 200 says there's no evidence he intentionally mishandled documents.

Glob posted...

People like owning nice things.

But they seem to only be nice because of an arbitrary value the community determines validates the product's price.

In that Trump Sneaker's threads people were posting some ugly ass shoes that I'm sure cost a lot of money.

Meanwhile compared to say jewelry, it's hard to think that the more expensive it gets the uglier/more nonsensical it gets.

Like, even with these Grinch's, the only appeal I see that sets it apart from a normal pair of Nike's is that it is a lime green and looks like it has scales. Does that justify a $1139 price tag? If you spent 1139 on jewelry the product would more accurately reflect the cost.

Yeah that sounds like some shit I'd expect to come out of Alabama.

I also would like to know wtf happened in this thread lol.

So I looked up these Kobe Grinch's, could someone explain to me why they're so expensive? Is it purely name recognition/branding? Because they're not ugly or anything, but I don't get where the $1139 price tag comes in.

They're coming for that.

Ultimately what these Christo-fascists want is to take away our ability to have family planning and any control over pregnancy.

Xatrion posted...

Gal and AOC can stay. I'm not cooking for a misandrist, however.

So you'd take someone who supports Israel's genocide of Palestinians over someone who writes a lot of break up songs?

Just more greatness from the "pro-worker party".

It's infuriating how successful right-wing lies about them being better for workers and the economy has entrenched itself in the U.S. narrative that even non-politically engaged people assume it as some truth whenever someone asks them what they know of the parties.

UnfairRepresent posted...

What would you serve them?

For Gal Gadot, humble pie.

CM_Ponch posted...

This will be the final sendoff to Conroy's Batman

Glad it's not Suicide Squad. What an ending he got in that game.

The party's political apparatus has always rallied behind the incumbent President.

I feel like people's irrational hatred for Biden (mostly, it's justified over us supporting Israel as we have) has made them forget that is how it always is.

They clearly wanted the DNC to endorse & support not-Biden, so they say it's a fake, rigged, or unfair primary, however it's been this way during all of our lifetimes.

The party stands behind the incumbent if they run for reelection.

Sure

These sacks of shit have done this in various states, a Dem governor comes in and the Republican legislature strips them of pretty much all power. When a Republican comes in they'll either overrule themselves through legislation or just agree with whatever the governor wants.

It's sickening and unfortunately all I can do is hope Dems do the same when the shoe is on the other foot. Taking the high road hasn't taken us anywhere useful, what actually helps us is neutering these Christo-fascist white supremacists from harming the country as much as they can be.

Man, I fucked up and selected yes because it was second and it usually goes yes/no in polls. That's on me, but also damn you Ocarina of Time owl.

Let me clarify: It was better when you were gone and you've got some mentally sick fanboys here who would periodically make threads dedicated to crying over the "loss" of you.

My suggestion, treat them like the rubes they are and try to swindle them out of money. You've got some weird celebrity status and those fools should be parted with their money.

Having said all that, I don't think your ban was justified and it's probably the right thing for them to rescind the verdict, however that doesn't change everything else I said.

Like $80 and I winced as the payment went through.

I don't know how y'all do it with $100+

mystic_belmont posted...

Elon doesn't have the liquid cash to do so.

Agreed, however that wasn't what my post or the one I was responding to was about.

thronedfire2 posted...

I feel like Donald Trump being bailed out by the richest man in the world would actually make both of them look much, much worse.

all Elon's questionable tweets would be major news and it would probably tank the value of his other companies even more

Trump could be bailed out by the biblical devil and I doubt it would hurt him much.

Hard to believe Elon bailing him out would measurably hurt the credibility of either.

Irony posted...

No shark will be cooler than the Gyo one

GASHUNK, the sound a shark makes when it kicks down a door.

That image inspired me to hunt it down and it became the first manga I ever read. Recently for my birthday my friend got me a hardcover with Gyo and 3 short stories I've read before.

Foppe posted...

...that is like his second transformation.

Fuck yes.

action52 posted...

Goddamn you made this whole topic just to push your stupid Merrick Garland conspiracy nonsense

What? No I'm venting my frustration about Garland. Don't go casting aspersions upon my intentions just because you have a stick up your ass on one thing I talked about out of many.

I only slightly believe he may be actively working against Biden because of the job he's done and decisions he's made, ultimately he's just really shitty at the job and unmotivated to do what's right because he's scared of seeming political, even though him doing that just ultimately still makes him seem political.

I would expect a Dem to appoint a Republican special investigator because of their neurotic need to seem impartial when doing investigations that nobody actually cares about nor appreciates, picking Trump-appointed people is never justified given the record they have and Hur demonstrated that with his hitjob of a report.

008Zulu posted...

Cock Holster Elon isn't willing to front?

It's actually quite telling how none of the ultra-wealthy who have undoubtedly financially benefitted from Trump's presidency have swooped in to save him.

The Koch brothers gave Walker a loan of 900m for his 2016 Presidential campaign that they asked for him to return after his laughably stupid campaign.

Even though the Kochs, and now the last Koch brother, allegedly hate Trump and are funding Haley, I'm just pointing out how there are certainly wealthy people who could easily pay this off for Trump and I think it's quite telling that the American oligarchy seems to be leaving Trump out to dry.

Lol that article was unhinged and I loved it.

CRON posted...

What the fuck were the victims of this scam expecting? Ignoring the fact that all of the promotional material was badly-generated AI (with typos everywhere) did they really expect production values exceeding the actual movie despite the scammers going out of their way to not explicitly give the event the same branding?

Wasn't expecting someone to defend this travesty lol.

mustachedmystic posted...

10% of $42 is $8.40

Did you mean 20%?

Foppe posted...

It is not any shark, it is the motherfucker shark!
He eats and kill all the fucking time.

The description makes it sound like it is multiple sharks. Like, not just Jaws, but also Deep Blue Sea sharks, and whatever horror movie sharks are famous.

I mean, if his ultimate spell turns out to be Sharknado, that might be the greatest thing ever written.

darkace77450 posted...

I was expecting Hawley to make a push for more power, but I hadn't considered Johnson. That corrupt piece or shit should be a co-conspirator in Smith's January 6 case, not the Senate Minority Leader.

Yeah, given Hawley's personality his lackluster push for power is quite surprising. Maybe he was truly embarrassed by the video of him fleeing the Jan 6th terrorists and the memes that came as a result around the time he was trying to talk up a book he wrote on masculinity.

Johnson being leader is terrifying, both a Russian asset and like you said should be a co-conspirator. It's disappointing that nobody seems to want to hold members of Congress who engaged in the insurrection accountable for their crimes and attempt at overthrowing democracy. They should be thrown out of Congress and instead they suffer the least consequences (none).

hockeybabe89 posted...

Well they can't replace him right now. According to Mitch, it's an election year.

Heh, funny joke, however they rushed through Barrett who was nominated 2 weeks before Trump lost the election. I know you know this, but for the people in the back, all he wanted to do was steal a seat from Obama/liberals and stack the court in their favor.

Sonixs posted...

Democrats are still in the high road mode. That's why Garland won't do shit. We need Dems to start being the true opposite of Republicans. Bending the rules but to do things for the betterment of society rather than what Republicans are doing it for.

Garland's not a Democrat, if that's what you're saying, nor does his interests align with theirs. He is a Federalist Society moderate/centrist. He didn't take action on Trump because he didn't want to be the first one to prosecute a former POTUS and wanted the country to just move on.

I heard people dismiss and disparage the Jan 6th committee as worthless & unnecessary because they assumed Garland was already investigating and that it would be a much better/thorough investigation, but, no, we now know he was literally doing nothing intentionally towards Trump and only started an actual investigation into him after the committee publicly embarrassed him for his inaction (that wasn't their intent, just the results of them publicly sharing all the things they learned).

That description is wild and I look forward to the anime.

Block_that_Kick posted...

And there it is. The GOP just blocked the bill to codify IVF protections.

Never believe their words. They are lying. If they get full control of the federal government next year, they will work to ban it.

https://twitter.com/BidenHQ/status/1762961379642810412

So I've learned more about this, and Ducksworth has proposed the same bill 2 times before and all 3 times the same Republican stopped it, because Ducksworth was asking for a unanimous consent resolution to avoid putting it on a docket/having discussion.

Takuya_Lee posted...

No he shouldn't. The DoJ should be independent of the President. The only reason an AG should be removed is if they are either breaking the law or actively helping someone do so.

Garland is the definition of dereliction of duty. He only opened an investigation into Trump because the Jan 6th Committee publicly embarrassed him and his inaction with all the things they shared with the public. We know for a fact that he wanted to do nothing in regards to Jan 6th because he was worried it would seem political, and of course now it does seem political A) To Republicans because it's happening during an election year and B) To Democrats because he intentionally did nothing for 2 years in the interest of not stirring the hornet's nest of domestic terrorists and not wanting to establish a precedent. He just wants to be a dude who's there doing the minimal amount of controversial work because he's a feckless asshole.

What you don't want is what Trump did, putting pressure on and telling the AG to be a political hack. Biden appointed Garland, he can remove him for literally not doing his job.

Garland also seemingly undermining Biden and his administration is also a justified reason, though does admittedly seem personally motivated.

bfslick50 posted...

I mean Biden could fire him today

He won't because he doesn't want it to seem like retribution for him appointing Hur to investigate his handling of documents, even though that absolutely should have been the last straw after Hur's report came out and he should have been fired.

Must be nice to be part of a Dem admin, some of the best job security I've ever seen. Nobody in corporate America or the Republican Party could get away with appointing a clearly biased person to embarrass the boss in front of the whole company.

Best hope is that 2nd term comes around he doesn't offer him the position again.

Unknown5uspect posted...

If his bullshit gets trump elected again he'd have set us back 200 years. Maybe that's the goal

I used to dismiss it as a conspiracy, however I am starting to think that Garland is actively working against Biden's admin.

After all the dude was/is a member of the Heritage Foundation. Good, honest, and decent people don't come from that organization.

I understand Biden's intentions of throwing him a bone after having his vote for SCJ stolen by McCon, however Biden really fucked up appointing him in hindsight.

kingdrake2 posted...

take job
take dog
break his jaw

maybe the first thing. there's no enjoyment from the rest.

It's not about enjoyment nor revenge. It's about addressing the discrepancies on how they are allowed to brutalize and execute us because they've been trained to see us as "me or them" adversaries with a legal system that ineffectually addresses their crimes against civilians.

The only way people like that would curb that behavior or think twice before brutalizing civilians is if they were treated equally in the same way they treat us. Putting them on paid administration leave and/or allowing them to be a cop in some nearby county/city after executing, raping, and assaulting civilians is clearly not doing anything.

So, yes, someone should pick him up and slam him against the ground, breaking his jaw. Perhaps we can have these alleged "good cops" I hear people talk about do it.

ClayGuida posted...

That Trump was acting as an official of the United States so he can't be held liable for anything.

CableZL posted...

The DoJ was originally standing in for Trump in the E. Jean Carroll lawsuit, but they reversed course on that at some point. I think it was around the time Trump decided to keep defaming her after he left office.

Man, I don't think I was aware of this.

Found an article on it, this was pretty early into Garland's tenure and just one more reason to despise the man.

Also boo Politico, kept trying to heavily push "The Biden administration supports/did this" in the article when it's very clear that Garland controls and operates the DOJ as Biden has been far too hands off at times when he actually should rein Garland in.

Necronmon posted...

Andrew Jackson outright mocked the Supreme Court when they overruled him on the stuff that lead to the Trail of Tears...and did not pay any price for it...so why can't we just dismiss a obviously corrupt court again?

By modern standards Jackson would be a Republican and Trump would absolutely ignore the Supreme Court if he gets another term.

ClayGuida posted...

iirc Garland's DOJ was arguing this in court, which is even worse.

Which part?

PurpleOutsider posted...

I wasn't saying it was the dems. I was responding to your topic, "If Republicans want to actually be useful". If Moscow Mitch didn't block it, he wouldn't have been AG in the first place.

Ah, but that's not their problem, it's our problem.

I'm sure they love how Garland has been fucking over Biden and taking it easy on Trump. Well, for the most part, if they were to move for impeachment it would be because they think Trump is unfairly targeted and assume it will stall/end the investigations.

I guess they are still winning by keeping him as AG.

Mostly I'm just beyond frustrated with this guy and wish Biden had kicked him out before he appointed a special prosecutor to investigate Biden's handling of the documents. It's one of the more disappointing things about Biden, he won't let people go who demonstrate they needed to be gone yesterday.

NoxObscuras posted...

He's threatened nuclear war several times already since he invaded Ukraine

For real.

CreekCo posted...

Im really unsurprised so many people posting here do not realize how serious this is.

They not only have the weapons to destroy the planet but also the capability and will to do so. This is a problem.

You just want us to capitulate to a murderous dictator who has already said that after he wins in Ukraine he's going to attack NATO allies, meaning at that point we will be in WWlll. History shows us that appeasing dictators accomplish nothing but a brief pause in their warmongering. We even have an example with Putin in 2014 when the world let him take Crimea from Ukraine hoping it was satiate him, and here we are.

texanfan27 posted...

Once this is over, likely by Putins death, Russia needs to be forced to disarm.

How would this even happen? They're not going to do it voluntarily and their invasion of Ukraine shows us that nobody would force them to do it because they'd be scared of a nuclear holocaust.

Russia will always be a problem because Russia fucking sucks and is a great example of why this species isn't worth saving.

Yes and I shut the door. Sometimes I prefer to use a stall if it's not the only one/busy because of the privacy, but also I don't like the vulnerable feeling that comes with a urinal (not being able to sense someone behind me type of vulnerable).

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


They would if they would cut the niceties bullshit.

Garland seems like he's almost actively working against Biden by allowing Trump appointed special prosecutors to make a mockery of the profession and then do absolutely nothing to them over it. Dems have this really stupid policy of putting Republicans into that position because they think Republicans will see it as "fair", but who the fuck cares about what they think? They don't return the favor when they're in power and there's absolutely no justification for putting Trump-appointed prosecutors in charge of anything even if he does need to fill that neurotic need that Dems think helps them seem impartial.

They call Biden "Sleepy Joe", however I've never seen someone more "asleep at the wheel" than Garland. Dude has to be woken up by a passenger just to finally inch forward on carrying out justice and enforcing the laws of our country.

PurpleOutsider posted...

They should've let him be on the Supreme Court.

That wasn't on Dems, McCon stole that seat from Obama 8 months until an election and it paid off. I hate them for doing it and think McCon should be arrested for such blatant dereliction of duty and partisan games undermining the POTUS, however can't argue they got the best outcome.

Sounds like some coke bender you were on.

Shadow_Don posted...

Those would be the same dipshits who plan on sitting this election because they think it will help people in Gaza.

There's definitely overlap.

darkace77450 posted...

He once claimed defaming E. Jean Carroll was part of his official duty as POTUS and thus presidential immunity meant he can't be sued. Thankfully justice was served in that case, at least.

Huh, don't remember him doing that, however it's definitely some shit he would do.

divot1338 posted...

Theyre not going to hear the case. Its a delay scam.

Two courts have heard the case and written exhaustively why it is flagrantly false. They have no need for briefs. They could rule on this today.

Yeah, when they stole the 2000 election for GWB it took them 3 days to decide that case and they rushed it through because Sandra Day O'C***or didn't want Gore replacing her.

They'd impeach Merrick Garland, Dems would support them, and the Senate would convict & remove him.

Fuck this guy, all of this legal stuff with Trump is only such a headache because the feckless sack of shit didn't want to pursue it and had to be shamed into action by the Jan 6th Committee unearthing so much information they shared with the public. Asshole set us back 2 years on this.

If/when Biden gets a 2nd term he needs to fire Garland day 1 with a scathing retort of how he's been one of the worst AG in U.S. history.

The justices are poised to proceed quickly, with Trumps court briefs due within three weeks and oral arguments set for the week of April 22. But it could take months for the court to issue an opinion.

Man, that's some choice wording

"They're going to proceed quickly, after they put it off for months and actually could have taken this up last September, when Jack Smith suggested they should because it's a country-defining case and they were all nah. But they're going to proceed quickly now!"

~narrator~ No, they're not.

EPR-radar posted...

The obvious point of the delay is to prevent Trump from being convicted of his crimes before the election.

So I sure hope that Smith and the judges (other than loose Cannon, who is a Trumpist lost cause) are prepared to do the trials quickly (and to hell with the DOJ nonsense about "not interfering with an election").

I hope Jack Smith, in a fuck you to the SC and DOJ "policy" is willing to have the trial up to and even on the day of the election. Imagine votes coming in and they've got to share the news reporting addressing him being in court.

masterpug53 posted...

Isn't Jesse Waters the guy whose parents called him on-air and practically begged him not to be this way?

Yes, she told him how proud she and his father were of him, and then nicely told him not to fuck it up with lies and conspiracies.

Will_VIIII posted...

Oh man is there a clip of this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-fUe6u0O4w

It starts about 18-20 seconds into the video.

Dark_Arbron posted...

A 2023 account saying theyre indifferent to Biden, being weirdly fixated on the most nothingest of nothingburgers, and defensively complains about being attacked for having an opinion when challenged?

Is this getting more common or are we just getting better at identifying it?

Sounds like a "normal" election year to me.

ssjevot posted...

I think the Bud Light thing is the only example I can think of where that happened. But that's basically due to their target demographic being exactly the type of people who would say go woke, go broke to begin with. I think when it's a mass appeal product like most movie or games, it's probably not very relevant. It's very dependent on what the demographic for your product is.

Also, a factoid a lot of people miss, is that Bud Light was pretty big in the gay community due to being a staple of gay bars in the 80s-now. But especially in the 80s & 90s I've heard how synonymous bud light was with the scene, so when they kowtowed to the extremists in their efforts to get those people back, much of the LGBT community disavowed them. And of course most of those right-wingers pissed off about Mulvaney weren't likely to come back just cause of it.