Support NeoGAF

[Tarydax]

Well Bill Maher, shock surprise, learned absolutely nothing...

I would have thought that even a complete tool like Maher would have more self-awareness than, say, Donald Trump, but I guess not.

 

[Teggy]

Bill Maher in short: "I meant to do that."

 

[Kai Dracon]

I mean I'm only half kidding. The cry more stuff obviously kidding. But we can't do the platform thing. They really don't need us. I'm horrified by what twitter looks like these days. Twitter, Reddit, voat, etc. truly frightening and these people need to be invited into major debates and then not debated but actively mauled by all participants. I think wilmore kinda did that.

I think what most people mean when they protest "platforming" is that those things are not typically being done to the Milos. Instead of them being met by a Wilmore, they're being met by a Maher who is all but promoting them, people who are unprepared and easily manipulated, or at the very least by those mainly interested in preserving their reputation for "protecting equal speech". Who end up framing such people as merely having a racy opinion or two.

Maher just got stupid lucky that Milo had the one kind of dirt on himself that could make conservatives kick him to the curb. For the most part, he presented a masterclass in how to have Milo on your platform and do it wrong. (Again, without Wilmore there at the end.)

 

[Head of Vengarl]

Sure, and I don't doubt you making this point since you're right here making it. With Sanders, my issues are that he's had over a year to bone up on this subject, and he just plain can't (or won't) do it. If we're talking about him being misinterpreted on a topic that he's apparently been misinterpreted on for over a year, I'm going to move past "Maybe he just said it wrong" to "Maybe he just doesn't care that he said it wrong." The latter is going to make people in these groups feel understandably upset.

I've always said the problem with him on this is that he's got literally no training in this whatsoever. The guy comes from one of the whitest places in the country, with no real metro areas to speak of. Of course he sucks at talking about this; same reason Obama can't really relate to rural Southerners, since he never had to appeal to them. If Sanders had just started his career in a more diverse place, iron would've sharpened iron decades ago and he'd have shaped his language. But he never had to, so he didn't.

I'll be a lot more receptive to this populism push if 2 things happen: 1) it's got to be backed by some actual research and legitimate policy. I'm not voting for a catchphrase. And 2) it's got to come from someone who represents a big-tent area. People like Kander are rising stars (and should be, there's a lot for them to do), but with backgrounds like those, I'd expect worse turnout than Hillary got from minority groups, which essentially means betting that these people can make up for that decrease PLUS her decrease in white rural voters (the latter costing us the White House). We need national candidates to come from diverse areas; regional offices (Senate seats, Gov Mansions, etc...) should try to be more focused on demographics of the state.

Democratic has for the, for awhile, CAMPAIGNED on economic issues. They aren't exactly left economic populists, but they campaign on economic porosity for many Americans. From raising the minimum wage, increasing taxes on the wealthy, getting money out of politics, to a large infrastructure bill, etc . Perhaps, the Democrats don't do it in such away that Bernie does, which is fine, but you and many others need to understand that Bernie has been out of the Democrat circle for a very long time - he isn't a Dem and never was, he isn't going to see things the same way. The party is filled with minorities and women, people like Bernie really aren't part of the party. They have to cater to the people that is in the party. That doesn't mean that they don't care about working class folks either, because many of them make up the party too, but that also means they have to cater towards different groups. Nationally, it appears to be more balanced, especially since Obama did talk about issues that working and middle class people care about, he wasn't the "social justice warrior" that people give some liberals.

Now we got that part out of the why, another question that needs answered what is exactly is identity politics talking about minority issues that mostly effect minorities? If it is that why does that even concern you? The message was never for you and politicians are savvy enough to know what message to give to different people. Also considering that Democrats do talk about helping the middle class, I don't see the issue about talking about things that effect minority groups or trying to pass legislation that helps them.

Going by your definition:

.


The Democrats of course is for expanding and protecting civil rights, especially of people of different sexual orientation and identities . Though what rhetoric does it become 'identity politics'? If a politician identifies that there should be greater protections for people of different sexual orientation and gender identities, and is part of his/her platform is that playing identity politics?

Also is it identity politics if a politician talking to coal miners and promising to bring back jobs? Is it going to areas dominated by WWC and promising to bring back their jobs, not identity politics?

Because if identity politics is a bad strategy; then Donald Trump won by doing exactly that. Regardless, that definition is so broad, I say EVERY does exactly that and it works in spades.

"Identity politics" is usually meant in a way that the interest groups are taking antagonistic stances by focusing on where they differ rather than on common enemies/issues. Ultimately to all their detriment.

This is what broke up the New Deal Coalition. Things like busing drove a wedge between minority groups and working class whites who had been aligned if imperfectly until roughly 1966. Religion was used to drive a wedge between the lower classes and the academic classes. Vietnam/foreign policy. So on.

Searching for more articles on identity politics to help explain my pov has been enlightening.

Selected paragraphs from the article Identity politics vs. populist economics? It's a false choice – liberals need to look in the mirror:

Recall back in February, for example, when Hillary Clinton implied that her progressive opponent, Sen. Bernie Sanders, was sexist for claiming that she represented the establishment: ”Sen. Sanders is the only person who I think would characterize me, a woman running to be the first woman president, as exemplifying the establishment."

Though Clinton did not explicitly call Sanders sexist, her campaign was eager to paint the senator and his supporters as misogynists who opposed Clinton solely because she was a woman. The ”Bernie Bro" narrative — which portrayed Sanders supporters as a bunch of white sexist frat-boy types, harassing women and people of color online — was propagated by the Clinton campaign and sympathetic journalists. It was also discredited time and again, particularly by the fact that the Sanders-Clinton split was more of a generational divide than anything else — as evinced by Sanders' 37-point advantage among millennial women (ages 18 to 29) across 27 states and his popularity among younger black and Hispanic voters.

The kind of self-serving identity politics that we saw from the Clinton camp during the Democratic primaries leads into what has been the most contentious debate among Democrats and progressives since the election: Whether the party has become too preoccupied with the politics of identity and political correctness, while straying too far from a class-based politics that addresses the structural inequities of capitalism. Not surprisingly, the debate has been full of deliberate misinterpretations.

It is extremely troubling that appealing to young people, people of color, women and working-class whites is perceived as an either/or question, or that ”economic struggles" and the ”grievances of minorities and women" are seen as mutually exclusive. In reality, economic struggles and civil rights are deeply interconnected. Women and people of color, for example, are much more likely to suffer disproportionately from poverty and economic inequality, while young voters who care deeply about social issues are currently facing crushing student loan debt, a subpar job market and low social mobility.

This illustrates the real problem with modern liberalism. Not that it is too preoccupied with promoting diversity or ending all forms of discrimination — there is really no disagreement on the left that these are vitally important goals — but that these efforts and achievements are often used to mask or divert attention from the deeper structural problems of our economic and political systems.

The fact that Goldman Sachs has been a leader in promoting diversity and inclusivity in its workforce, for example, should not comfort anyone when the same firm committed massive fraud leading up to the financial crisis and is still led by the same CEO, who recently entered the billionaire's club. When Hillary Clinton gave her notorious $225,000 speeches for Goldman Sachs, it is reported that she lavished praise on the firm's diversity and the prominent roles played by women in its internal hierarchy. She did not, however, talk about Goldman's role in exacerbating the financial crisis or the way the firm committed massive securities fraud and reaped billions of dollars in profit, let alone the fact that none of the firm's top executives faced any criminal prosecution for their misdeeds.

This is the liberalism that failed to stop Trump. This is the liberalism that self-servingly exploited identity politics to protect an establishment candidate whose severe flaws were evident long before the 2016 campaign began. This is the liberalism that must be overcome, and the sooner the better.

and selected paragraphs from "Identity Politics" vs. Class-based Politics:

Just before he was murdered, one of the great leaders of the black liberation movement, Martin Luther King, Jr., wanted to move the Civil Rights Movement in a new, broader direction. It may have begun with his awakening about the injustice of the Vietnam War but it spread to his concern that America suffered from class-based problems as well as racism. His Poor People's Campaign reached out to black and white Americans and sought to unite them:

We believe the highest patriotism demands the ending of the war and the opening of a bloodless war to final victory over racism and poverty.

He recognized that ending de jure and even blatant de facto discrimination could only accomplish so much in a society dominated by class divisions that resulted from an inequitable, even destructive economic system.

The women's movement did not include a significant awareness of class issues. The GLBT movement has had a similar disinterest in class issues, at least among its most prominent leadership.

Having such a narrow focus within these groups have led to two sorts of problems. First, within those movements, the plight of poor women or poor GLBTs has received little attention. Second, a left composed of movements, each focused almost exclusively on its own liberation, has found it almost impossible to achieve solidarity, especially with working class people whose main concerns are class issues. That's left the field wide open for the Right to use "Identity Politics" based on religious fundamentalism and fear to keep the Left divided and ineffective.

A Left focused on class but oblivious to racism, sexism and heterosexism within its own ranks left itself weak and vulnerable to counterattack, and it suffered eventual defeat.

A Left divided into interest groups, each focused on liberating itself and only itself from oppression and ignoring class issues within its own ranks and in the broader society, is also weakened and will find it impossible to achieve broader solidarity and success.

Martin Luther King's vision of a broad and inclusive Left that didn't have an either/or approach to class on the one hand and racism, sexism and heterosexism on the other, should provide us with our model for the future. We are faced with an elite that is largely white, male and heterosexist, and it still pushes its patriarchal attitudes on the rest of society. But that elite is also a product of a Capitalist system that by its nature divides us into different classes with different levels of privilege and power.

Equality and unity can become realities in our society only if we work together against both.

So that's where I'm at. I guess I see identity politics as simply a way of pandering to people's skin color, sexual orientation, or religion -- i.e., "Vote for Democrats because we're the party that's cool with Islam and people of color!" I saw it as somewhat fatuous marketing strategy meant to make us (Democrats) feel good about ourselves. Overuse of that strategy also left us open to the (alt)right counter-tactic of "Vote for Republicans because we're the party that still cares about white people!" While I see identity politics as fractious, I view civil rights as an all-encompassing movement of human solidarity. And a major part of the fight for equality is economic. That's why Bernie's message resonated so powerfully, and that's why I think economy needs to be our main platform and that doesn't mean throwing minorities under the bus.

 

[Wilsongt]

Ya'll really need to give Maher and Scarborough a rest. They're both hacks who don't deserve your views.
It's like me coming in here posting shit from HA Goodman constantly. It's garbage, serves no purposes, and makes no logical sense.

 

[studyguy]

Ya'll really need to give Maher and Scarborough a rest. They're both hacks who don't deserve your views.
It's like me coming in here posting shit from HA Goodman constantly. It's garbage, serves no purposes, and makes no logical sense.

Also don't see the need to pin Maher to the wall, we knew he was the prototypical condescending liberal with his head up his own ass ages ago that conservatives paint us all as. That's not surprising.

Also speaking of HAH! GOOD MAN!
Yes, Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid U.S. Russian Uranium Deal - HA Goodman

"Someone has to beat the drum of Clinton corruption after she has disappeared!"

 

[Y2Kev]

I think what most people mean when they protest "platforming" is that those things are not typically being done to the Milos. Instead of them being met by a Wilmore, they're being met by a Maher who is all but promoting them, people who are unprepared and easily manipulated, or at the very least by those mainly interested in preserving their reputation for "protecting equal speech". Who end up framing such people as merely having a racy opinion or two.

Maher just got stupid lucky that Milo had the one kind of dirt on himself that could make conservatives kick him to the curb. For the most part, he presented a masterclass in how to have Milo on your platform and do it wrong. (Again, without Wilmore there at the end.)

I'm not sure. People were plenty unhappy before he went on and liberal icon Schahill cancelled his appearance because he's a loser.

 

[Valhelm]

The Nation put out a great article about the resurgent American left.

[Sanders'] frequent invocation of the 1 percent and its undeserved share of the national wealth is not only an argument about economic inequality; it is also an argument about political inequality. One cannot be an equal member of a polity if those with wealth have far more say and far more power in the political system. A political democracy requires an economic democracy.

By highlighting the inequalities born out of liberal policies, the writers and editors of The Future We Want assert that the kind of goals that liberals and socialists share—greater formal equality, more egalitarian representation, a political system that doesn't solely benefit elites—can only be realized through socialist means.

 

[dramatis]

So that's where I'm at. I guess I see identity politics as simply a way of pandering to people's skin color, sexual orientation, or religion -- i.e., "Vote for Democrats because we're the party that's cool with Islam and people of color!" I saw it as somewhat fatuous marketing strategy meant to make us (Democrats) feel good about ourselves. Overuse of that strategy also left us open to the (alt)right counter-tactic of "Vote for Republicans because we're the party that still cares about white people!" While I see identity politics as fractious, I view civil rights as an all-encompassing movement of human solidarity. And a major part of the fight for equality is economic. That's why Bernie's message resonated so powerfully, and that's why I think economy needs to be our main platform and that doesn't mean throwing minorities under the bus.

You're missing the point.

There are people who throw around the term "identity politics" like a pejorative—wanting to say "we should focus on class politics instead, not identity politics". From the perspectives of minorities, we've seen what this kind of roundabout talking is actually about: 'identity politics' is just a catchphrase being used by people like you who pretend that you're not actually talking about setting aside the basic civil rights of minorities in favor of your particular pet issue.

Do you get it? You can draw a line between your definition of 'identity politics' and 'civil rights' all you want, but we can hear the dog whistling. In the end you're only trying to convince yourself that you're the good guy by rejecting 'identity politics' and characterizing it as 'the bad shit that Democrats do'.

 

[tuxfool]

So that's where I'm at. I guess I see identity politics as simply a way of pandering to people's skin color, sexual orientation, or religion -- i.e., "Vote for Democrats because we're the party that's cool with Islam and people of color!" I saw it as somewhat fatuous marketing strategy meant to make us (Democrats) feel good about ourselves. Overuse of that strategy also left us open to the (alt)right counter-tactic of "Vote for Republicans because we're the party that still cares about white people!" While I see identity politics as fractious, I view civil rights as an all-encompassing movement of human solidarity. And a major part of the fight for equality is economic. That's why Bernie's message resonated so powerfully, and that's why I think economy needs to be our main platform and that doesn't mean throwing minorities under the bus.

The problem here is that past history has told all minorities that when a politician speaks of economic needs, minorities get thrown under the bus. No ifs and buts.

This is why they care that a politician understands this and does include them into the platform. Somebody that is tone deaf to these concerns, is worrisome.

 

[SenorArdilla]

The problem here is that past history has told all minorities that when a politician speaks of economic needs, minorities get thrown under the bus. No ifs and buts.

This is why they care that a politician understands this and does include them into the platform. Somebody that is tone deaf to these concerns, is worrisome.

People say "Why not do both?", but it's not that easy.

 

[sazzy]

this is great

https://twitter.com/TheIJR/status/834428789350400001

 

[metalslimer]

Bill Maher is a useless piece of shit. His arguments about trans bathrooms are so vapid that even I'm surprised he didn't have a better response

 

[Blader]

The more I read about McMaster, the more fucking relieved I am he'll be in the White House. What a complete 180 from Flynn. Between McMaster and Flynn, and Puzder and Acosta, I feel like we should be constantly fighting his first choices for jobs because his second choices seem to be immeasurably better.

 

[jtb]

Maher and Morning Joe are both fucking idiots. There. That was easy.

 

[Toxi]

When he said that transgender people have a ”psychiatric disorder," do you just move on from that?

Move on? It dominated the entire [online] segment. The other guests attacked him. When I say, ”That's not unreasonable" [to not want to share a bathroom with a transgender person] it's because women have said that to me: ”I want to know," or ”I'm not comfortable with someone in the bathroom, even if they, in their minds, have decided they are a woman." Doesn't that opinion count at all?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/arts/television/bill-maher-milo-yiannopoulos-interview.html

It counts about as much as the opinion that you're not comfortable with a gay person in the bathroom.

 

[Pixieking]

The more I read about McMaster, the more fucking relieved I am he'll be in the White House. What a complete 180 from Flynn. Between McMaster and Flynn, and Puzder and Acosta, I feel like we should be constantly fighting his first choices for jobs because his second choices seem to be immeasurably better.

Anyone who thinks Mattis won't last long will see that McMaster will last even less time. An anti-torture National Security Advisor? Trump will hound him out of the role as soon as is viable.

 

[SenorArdilla]

It counts about as much as the opinion that you're not comfortable with a gay person in the bathroom.

It's like telling your friends to be careful around gay men because they might want to rape them.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

People say "Why not do both?", but it's not that easy.

It actually is. Clinton did both, but wasn't credible on the economic side compared to Bernie.

 

[Zereta]

Maher and Morning Joe are both fucking idiots. There. That was easy.

I don't know, Morning Joe is alright sometimes. His constant need to balance what he/anyone else on his show says on Trump is disgusting and he needs to tone it down a little on his shows.

He was on Colbert last night and was great for the most part.

I watch Maher only for the guests. Jason Kander was on it, had to watch it because I need to watch everything future God King Lord Kander is on.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Bill Maher is a useless piece of shit. His arguments about trans bathrooms are so vapid that even I'm surprised he didn't have a better response

Maher's defense was I don't know much about trans issues and well I've heard that fear of men argument from other women, don't their opinions count too?

Yes Bill we should always consider the irrational fear of bigots.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

ADL got a bomb threat.

https://twitter.com/JGreenblattADL/status/834448036352909312

Can someone put these assholes sending these bomb threats into a hole?

 

[Wilsongt]

Americans need a crash course on Unions. Seriously.

 

[Blader]

Anyone who thinks Mattis won't last long will see that McMaster will last even less time. An anti-torture National Security Advisor? Trump will hound him out of the role as soon as is viable.

Mattis is also anti-torture and Trump has publicly said he will defer to Mattis on the issue (which he seems like a stunning abdication of part of a commander-in-chief's duty, but I'm not complaining). I don't think Trump will be chasing either of them out anytime soon. For one, I think, as a marketer and a showman, he understands and appreciates the optics of bleeding so many high-level people so quickly. Maybe more than that, though, he has too much respect for generals -- and is also too much of a coward himself -- to run them out or pressure them too hard, at least to their faces. It's possible that Bannon and his team may try to do an end run around them, though.

 

[jtb]

I don't know, Morning Joe is alright sometimes. His constant need to balance what he/anyone else on his show says on Trump is disgusting and he needs to tone it down a little on his shows.

He was on Colbert last night and was great for the most part.

I watch Maher only for the guests. Jason Kander was on it, had to watch it because I need to watch everything future God King Lord Kander is on.

Morning Joe is awful and Trump has only made him worse. He's a spineless sycophant begging for access, who puts other spineless beltway sycophants like Halperin on so they can all spout vapid cliches and Cilizza-level "analysis" of the "optics." zzzzzz

 

[Mr.Shrugglesツ]

The more I read about McMaster, the more fucking relieved I am he'll be in the White House. What a complete 180 from Flynn. Between McMaster and Flynn, and Puzder and Acosta, I feel like we should be constantly fighting his first choices for jobs because his second choices seem to be immeasurably better.

Yup, but Warren and some don't think so.

 

[Rebel Leader]

Americans need a crash course on Unions. Seriously.

But I'm told they're horrible.

 

[jtb]

Also, I can't get enough of this Wesley Morris quote on Seth MacFarlane and, of all things, Ted 2:

"MacFarlane would seem to identify as progressive, but he uses his liberalness conservatively, to berate what he thinks is normal or safe or established in American culture. His tolerance is tinged with intolerance."

Could describe so many so-called "liberals" that have this insurmountable problem with "identity politics."

 

[Valhelm]

Seth MacFarlane is one of those liberals who would start making anti-immigrant propaganda the minute Trump asked.

 

[Pixieking]

Mattis is also anti-torture and Trump has publicly said he will defer to Mattis on the issue (which he seems like a stunning abdication of part of a commander-in-chief's duty, but I'm not complaining). I don't think Trump will be chasing either of them out anytime soon. For one, I think, as a marketer and a showman, he understands and appreciates the optics of bleeding so many high-level people so quickly. Maybe more than that, though, he has too much respect for generals -- and is also too much of a coward himself -- to run them out or pressure them too hard, at least to their faces. It's possible that Bannon and his team may try to do an end run around them, though.

Yeah, actually, he really does have a thing for Generals, doesn't he? I still can't see him actually deferring to either Mattis or McMaster, though - Trump is to weaselly to not scapegoat other people. Plus, he loooooves the idea of torture. I do think, though, that it'll be after the next terrorist attack on US soil (that's committed by a non-white, obviously). *shrugs*

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Poll: More than half think Trump acted unethically or illegally in business conflicts

These numbers seem to suggest there is a group of people who state that they are embarrassed by Trump but refuse to disapprove of the job he's doing....

 

[Wilsongt]

These numbers seem to suggest there is a group of people who state that they are embarrassed by Trump but refuse to disapprove of the job he's doing....

The same people who wouldn't state publically that they would vote for him, but showed up at the polls?

 

[Abinash117]

Mattis is also anti-torture and Trump has publicly said he will defer to Mattis on the issue (which he seems like a stunning abdication of part of a commander-in-chief's duty, but I'm not complaining). I don't think Trump will be chasing either of them out anytime soon. For one, I think, as a marketer and a showman, he understands and appreciates the optics of bleeding so many high-level people so quickly. Maybe more than that, though, he has too much respect for generals -- and is also too much of a coward himself -- to run them out or pressure them too hard, at least to their faces. It's possible that Bannon and his team may try to do an end run around them, though.

Trump has said many things publicly.

 

[Dan]

The more I read about McMaster, the more fucking relieved I am he'll be in the White House. What a complete 180 from Flynn. Between McMaster and Flynn, and Puzder and Acosta, I feel like we should be constantly fighting his first choices for jobs because his second choices seem to be immeasurably better.

I'd had the same thought regarding the second choices being notable improvements. Goes to show how much the Grahams and McCains gave away by ultimately voting for the party and dismissing their own concerns about certain nominees.

 

[Abinash117]

Searching for more articles on identity politics to help explain my pov has been enlightening.

Selected paragraphs from the article Identity politics vs. populist economics? It’s a false choice – liberals need to look in the mirror:



and selected paragraphs from "Identity Politics" vs. Class-based Politics:



So that's where I'm at. I guess I see identity politics as simply a way of pandering to people's skin color, sexual orientation, or religion -- i.e., "Vote for Democrats because we're the party that's cool with Islam and people of color!" I saw it as somewhat fatuous marketing strategy meant to make us (Democrats) feel good about ourselves. Overuse of that strategy also left us open to the (alt)right counter-tactic of "Vote for Republicans because we're the party that still cares about white people!" While I see identity politics as fractious, I view civil rights as an all-encompassing movement of human solidarity. And a major part of the fight for equality is economic. That's why Bernie's message resonated so powerfully, and that's why I think economy needs to be our main platform and that doesn't mean throwing minorities under the bus.

Your post has failed to address any of my stances and concerns. I don't like arguing at articles, so please directly argue the stances in my post. The articles you used didn't not help. I can understand why you support the Dems using a more populists message, but that is not what I'm doing here.

Democratic has for the, for awhile, CAMPAIGNED on economic issues. They aren't exactly left economic populists, but they campaign on economic porosity for many Americans. From raising the minimum wage, increasing taxes on the wealthy, getting money out of politics, to a large infrastructure bill, etc . Perhaps, the Democrats don't do it in such away that Bernie does, which is fine, but you and many others need to understand that Bernie has been out of the Democrat circle for a very long time - he isn't a Dem and never was, he isn't going to see things the same way. The party is filled with minorities and women, people like Bernie really aren't part of the party. They have to cater to the people that is in the party. That doesn't mean that they don't care about working class folks either, because many of them make up the party too, but that also means they have to cater towards different groups. Nationally, it appears to be more balanced, especially since Obama did talk about issues that working and middle class people care about, he wasn't the "social justice warrior" that people give some liberals.

What are you thoughts in relation to these statements here?

Now we got that part out of the why, another question that needs answered what is exactly is identity politics talking about minority issues that mostly effect minorities? If it is that why does that even concern you? The message was never for you and politicians are savvy enough to know what message to give to different people. Also considering that Democrats do talk about helping the middle class, I don't see the issue about talking about things that effect minority groups or trying to pass legislation that helps them.

Going by your definition:


The Democrats of course is for expanding and protecting civil rights, especially of people of different sexual orientation and identities . Though what rhetoric does it become 'identity politics'? If a politician identifies that there should be greater protections for people of different sexual orientation and gender identities, and is part of his/her platform is that playing identity politics?

Also is it identity politics if a politician talking to coal miners and promising to bring back jobs? Is it going to areas dominated by WWC and promising to bring back their jobs, not identity politics?

Because if identity politics is a bad strategy; then Donald Trump won by doing exactly that. Regardless, that definition is so broad, I say EVERY does exactly that and it works in spades.

Also address these questions has they seem that they went unanswered.

 

[Hellwarden]

People are annoyed with Bill Fucking Maher for being a self-congratulatory piece of shit?

Have they ever watched literally anything he's been in?

 

[chadskin]

Spicey Time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRPe4j34HdE

 

[smokeymicpot]

People are annoyed with Bill Fucking Maher for being a self-congratulatory piece of shit?

Have they ever watched literally anything he's been in?

Nope. Calling for him to get fired is even funnier. It is not gonna happen. All this does will boost his ratings. Friday's show will be fun to watch.

 

[Veritigo_X]

About the GA-6 special election, anyone think there's a chance Ossoff could get above 50% in the jungle primary? The Republicans are currently split between something like 10 candidates and Dems are clearing the way for Ossoff.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

People are annoyed with Bill Fucking Maher for being a self-congratulatory piece of shit?

Have they ever watched literally anything he's been in?

It's a pipe dream to see that shit get canned, but part does feel like a alt-right whataboutism now that Milo is done.

 

[Mr.Shrugglesツ]

Now it's not about "trust." lol

re: spicer talking about cabinet nominations

 

[IggyChooChoo]

About the GA-6 special election, anyone think there's a chance Ossoff could get above 50% in the jungle primary? The Republicans are currently split between something like 10 candidates and Dems are clearing the way for Ossoff.

Is there no second round if someone gets over 50%?

 

[Wilsongt]

Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), whose district is just over 100 miles away from the U.S.-Mexico border, referenced the illicit drug trade in a discussion Wednesday with CNN’s Brianna Keilar on President Donald Trump’s proposed border wall.

ADVERTISING

“The reality, Brianna, is that we have to measure all of the costs, ancillary and otherwise, and make the best decision that we can. But I can suggest to you that there are national security implications here for a porous border,” Franks said. “We sometimes used to make the point that if someone wanted to smuggle in a dangerous weapon, even a nuclear weapon, into America, how would they do it? And the suggestion was made, ‘Well, we'll simply hide it in a bale of marijuana.’”

 

[Blader]

These numbers seem to suggest there is a group of people who state that they are embarrassed by Trump but refuse to disapprove of the job he's doing....

Probably voters who like the EOs he's signing or the people he's appointing, but also think he needs to spend less time sniping on Twitter or watching cable news.

 

[studyguy]

'Better ask what will Trump say about the Oscars'

Who the fuck was that asking the question. They deserve a slap.

Also bale of weed will definitely nuke some people, but not in the way some people think.

 

[Owzers]

These people should be thanking trump for his health care plan.

Spicer...can't stand ya.

 

[studyguy]

This healthcare press conference is fucking retarded. Dodging the facts like this assuages absolutely 0 concerns from people worried about their health.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

This healthcare press conference is fucking retarded. Dodging the facts like this assuages absolutely 0 concerns from people worried about their health.

>_>

 

[studyguy]

Side eye me for a word when the man is literally telling people who are concerned over the status of their healthcare being repealed is a non-issue.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Yes, I will side-eye.

Spicer referred to a “professional protester manufactured base.” Wow. They’re still trying the 'dismiss them' road.

I am the greatest jobs creator God ever put on Earth. Shouldn't Trump be happy that I'm going to lower the unemployment rate to 3% with all of this paid protesting?

https://twitter.com/Toure/status/834468328844427264