Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

halfmanhalfbronco

As if we needed more proof that Bernie Bros are insane.

Recommended Posts

On 1/14/2020 at 1:07 PM, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Everything about this was almost so cliche as to be parody.  The facial hair, the micro brews, no women around anywhere.  Angry, young, hetero, white man with plenty of income to blow on a night on the town getting shit faced on $8.00 IPA's.  Wants to fight everybody, burn shit down, and end private property.  The average Bernie supporter.

 

Except the "plenty of income part"  Bernie bros, to the extent they work at all, dominate those professions that require  the wearing of paper hats or holding of signs.

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”

-Richard Feynman

"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators."

-P.J. O’Rourke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

#whataboutism

^ Incorrectly used. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DoubleBlueGold said:

^ Incorrectly used. 

No, it's not.  It is bringing up something off topic to deflect from the conversation at hand (admittedly I am using the term conversation lightly).  If you were doing it attempting to point out my hypocrisy, well, I have taken as many shots about the cult of Trump supporters on this board as all but a few.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

No, it's not.  It is bringing up something off topic to deflect from the conversation at hand (admittedly I am using the term conversation lightly).  If you were doing it attempting to point out my hypocrisy, well, I have taken as many shots about the cult of Trump supporters on this board as all but a few.

 

The latter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That this anarchist is on Bernie's payroll is phucking unbelievable.  As I have said before, thank God for James O'Keefe, he is the greatest investigative journalist of our time.

 

Part 2:

 

110926run_defense710.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

So, #whataboutism.

Nah. More like much ado about nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, modestobulldog said:

 James O'Keefe, investigative journalist

lulz

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

#whataboutism

It's proof he is tone deaf on race.  Actually ignorant is a more apt description.  And once you realize he lacks any morals or understanding of race issues, you can understand his attitude toward the border and inability to speak out against the alt right.  The smirk and laughing in the crowd says it all.  In his mind he has no clue how stupid he looks to a large segment of the country.  He is a strange man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, DoubleBlueGold said:

Nah. More like much ado about nothing.

No, the fact a presidential front runner has so many +++++ing insane people gravitating to him or becoming radicalized after doing so is very much something.  Every bit as much something as your #whataboutisms 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, alum93 said:

It's proof he is tone deaf on race.  Actually ignorant is a more apt description.  And once you realize he lacks any morals or understanding of race issues, you can understand his attitude toward the border and inability to speak out against the alt right.  The smirk and laughing in the crowd says it all.  In his mind he has no clue how stupid he looks to a large segment of the country.  He is a strange man.

Feel free to start a thread about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The dynamics of #NeverWarren are interesting. You have Bernie supporters calling her a liar and say she's weaponizing sexism, but at the same time some supporters say they must support Warren if she receives the nomination to prevent a reelection of Trump.

That's got to be a hard freakin' pill to swallow. You believe your candidate was a victim of character assassination, but you must support the assassin because Trump is worse. What makes that even harder to swallow is that Sanders supporters already went through something like this with the DNC rigging the election for Clinton.

If this drags on, with neither the Warren nor the Sanders camp budging, the lack of votes from Bernie Bros will certainly result in Trump's reelection if the reelection were not already almost a foregone conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

#whataboutism

Whataboutism is a thing, but I don't think that this is an example. When the President is talking about political violence casually it normalizes it as a part of the conversation. I felt like it was a pretty appropriate response to "why are people feeling the need to talk about political violence despite our relative social and economic comfort level". 

23 hours ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Hey I love my micro brews and IPAs (or used to when I could drink).  It's just the idea of getting completely blitzed on them in public that is  soooooo Bernie bro.

Hey man when you don't have a lot of muscle mass and you only order the 11% ABV double imperials to show just how refined your palate is 2-3 of those bad boys get you blitzed

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, happycamper said:

Whataboutism is a thing, but I don't think that this is an example. When the President is talking about political violence casually it normalizes it as a part of the conversation. I felt like it was a pretty appropriate response to "why are people feeling the need to talk about political violence despite our relative social and economic comfort level". 

Hey man when you don't have a lot of muscle mass and you only order the 11% ABV double imperials to show just how refined your palate is 2-3 of those bad boys get you blitzed

Disagree, or there would not have been the sentence ending the post, dismissing the thirst for violence that permeates the Bernie campaign.  That sentence showed the clear intent behind the post was #whataboutism 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Disagree, or there would not have been the sentence ending the post, dismissing the thirst for violence that permeates the Bernie campaign.  That sentence showed the clear intent behind the post was #whataboutism 

I think you're blowing it out of proportion. This "thirst for violence" is about as real as calling buying one of those 1 month food buckets at sam's and a second brick of .22 rounds "a thirst for the apocalypse". Speech about political violence has been normalized at the highest level; thinking that essentially temp workers should be held to a higher standard of speech while drinking beer with their dumb little buddies than the President at a deliberately televised event is pretty incongruous. 

Furthermore, you're treating the question as if someone said "this is bad" and then someone posted Trump. Yes, that would have been whataboutism. That didn't happen and isn't even really the question - most people posting already have the very spicy take that "civil war is bad". Someone said "why do people feel the need to bring up political violence when we are all so comfortable". A video of the sitting President who has never not been a millionaire, who literally lives in a gilded palace when he isn't in the presidential mansion, and who runs through sexy ladies like shit through a goose bringing up political violence in speech is a pretty good response to "why do people feel the need to bring it up". It's now part of the accepted conversation. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, happycamper said:

I think you're blowing it out of proportion. This "thirst for violence" is about as real as calling buying one of those 1 month food buckets at sam's and a second brick of .22 rounds "a thirst for the apocalypse". Speech about political violence has been normalized at the highest level; thinking that essentially temp workers should be held to a higher standard of speech while drinking beer with their dumb little buddies than the President at a deliberately televised event is pretty incongruous. 

Furthermore, you're treating the question as if someone said "this is bad" and then someone posted Trump. Yes, that would have been whataboutism. That didn't happen and isn't even really the question - most people posting already have the very spicy take that "civil war is bad". Someone said "why do people feel the need to bring up political violence when we are all so comfortable". A video of the sitting President who has never not been a millionaire, who literally lives in a gilded palace when he isn't in the presidential mansion, and who runs through sexy ladies like shit through a goose bringing up political violence in speech is a pretty good response to "why do people feel the need to bring it up". It's now part of the accepted conversation. 

I thirst for the apocalypse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, happycamper said:

I think you're blowing it out of proportion. This "thirst for violence" is about as real as calling buying one of those 1 month food buckets at sam's and a second brick of .22 rounds "a thirst for the apocalypse". Speech about political violence has been normalized at the highest level; thinking that essentially temp workers should be held to a higher standard of speech while drinking beer with their dumb little buddies than the President at a deliberately televised event is pretty incongruous. 

Furthermore, you're treating the question as if someone said "this is bad" and then someone posted Trump. Yes, that would have been whataboutism. That didn't happen and isn't even really the question - most people posting already have the very spicy take that "civil war is bad". Someone said "why do people feel the need to bring up political violence when we are all so comfortable". A video of the sitting President who has never not been a millionaire, who literally lives in a gilded palace when he isn't in the presidential mansion, and who runs through sexy ladies like shit through a goose bringing up political violence in speech is a pretty good response to "why do people feel the need to bring it up". It's now part of the accepted conversation. 

That's exactly what happened.  I post this is bad and he posted Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...