The Political Satire/Meme Thread

[Dennisch]

 

[Joey D]

Do you have a problem with Pence's peaceful protest of Kaepernick's action?

I had a problem with it only because that show of his cost the taxpayers money it didn't need to be spending. If he'd paid for all the security and what not out of his own pocket, then by all means walk out.

 

[BobK]

I had a problem with it only because that show of his cost the taxpayers money it didn't need to be spending. If he'd paid for all the security and what not out of his own pocket, then by all means walk out.

I see your point, and somewhat agree with it, but wouldn't he have had pretty much the same size security detail no matter where he went in public?

 

[Joey D]

I see your point, and somewhat agree with it, but wouldn't he have had pretty much the same size security detail no matter where he went in public?

I can't remember off hand how much it all cost, but it was something like $300,000 or there about. Yes, he'd need a security detail no matter where he went, but if I recall correctly they needed a bunch of stuff in the stadium that added to the cost.

It just seemed like a really expensive way to make a statement. He never had any intention of staying at the game and made many people jump through hoops and shell out money for a few minutes.

 

[Spacegoat]

Just a quick follow up on this.

 

[Joey D]

I wish I could take credit for this, but someone beat me to it:

 

[Sander 001]

Do you have a problem with Pence's peaceful protest of Kaepernick's action?

He ignored pleas for help against oppression and brutality and now he tries to pretend he's virtuous and honourable. He's a two faced POS who is too stupid to understand he's part of the problem.

 

[Liquid]

 

[Dennisch]

E. Taking all credit when it's finally over.

 

[Liquid]

 

[Stotty]

 

[Dotini]

View attachment 926051

Taking the premise for granted;
Probably C, but slightly possible D.
A and B ruled out.

If the premise is not granted, then a nullity or non sequitur.

 

[Touring Mars]

View attachment 926051

Not very fair, since God is presumably one of his phone-a-friends...

 

[BobK]

He ignored pleas for help against oppression and brutality and now he tries to pretend he's virtuous and honourable. He's a two faced POS who is too stupid to understand he's part of the problem.

So because he's a stupid POS he's not allowed to protest anything?

Wow, you're really all for First Amendment rights but only if you agree with what's being said, right?

BTW you never did answer @Joey D's question. Why is that?

 

[Sander 001]

So because he's a stupid POS he's not allowed to protest anything?

Wow, you're really all for First Amendment rights but only if you agree with what's being said, right?

BTW you never did answer @Joey D's question. Why is that?

Sure he's allowed to but
freedom of expression has never meant freedom from responsibility. It seems he's too much of a coward to take responsibility for his action\inaction\incompetence.

Besides, free speech laws afford protection against the government; he's the vice president, he doesn't get to pretend to be a victim of his own government.

 

[Leo Thorne]

 

[TexRex]

So because he's a stupid POS he's not allowed to protest anything?

You're doing it again. It isn't actually necessary to use the "you're saying" part to employ that particular bad faith debate tactic. It's enough to misrepresent remarks as something they are not.

If a statement is ambiguous, maybe ask for clarification outright (which may mean repeating your question again) instead of putting your own little twist on it and asking if your interpretation is correct.

That particular response isn't so ambiguous, however. It was itself a blatant dodge of the question you asked, but there was no mention of right to protest. Instead, it was an allegation that an individual is two-faced.

Wow, you're really all for First Amendment rights but only if you agree with what's being said, right?

You or I--indeed anyone else--may be critical of anything anyone says and doing so doesn't infringe on rights afforded to them by the First Amendment. The First Amendment holds that Congress may pass no law. It's all about protection from abuse of power.

It isn't this complicated.

 

[Joey D]

 

[TexRex]

I'm not sure I understand this. Why is China supposed to bee pleased people are supposedly no no longer talking about it?

 

[Joey D]

I'm not sure I understand this. Why is China supposed to bee pleased people are supposedly no no longer talking about it?

The Chinese government hive mind is just happy there's no longer any buzz about it.

 

[TexRex]

The Chinese government hive mind is just happy there's no longer any buzz about it.

But why are they supposed to be happy about it? I get that they actively engaged in deception, but is it not being headline news actually something they can be reasonably said to desire?

Also, the world doesn't stop turning so easily. People aren't not talking about coronavirus just because something else is happening. People aren't even not talking about it in the United States where that something else is happening.

As an aside, I appreciate your additions. I didn't know for sure what I slipped into my response would be noticed.

 

[Carbonox]

I think China being happy that Hong Kong isn't being talked about much would be more accurate.

 

[Joey D]

But why are they supposed to be happy about it? I get that they actively engaged in deception, but is it not being headline news actually something they can be reasonably said to desire?

Also, the world doesn't stop turning so easily. People aren't not talking about coronavirus just because something else is happening. People aren't even not talking about it in the United States where that something else is happening.

As an aside, I appreciate your additions. I didn't know for sure what I slipped into my response would be noticed.

I think they're just happy the focus is off them for the moment since I get the feeling the Chinese government doesn't want to talk about it. They also like to deflect anytime it comes up too by saying it's a US conspiracy or some other asinine thing. They're also probably happy that the unrest in the US and now many places in the Western World is also taking away the spotlight from Hong Kong too.

 

[TexRex]

I think they're just happy the focus is off them for the moment since I get the feeling the Chinese government doesn't want to talk about it. They also like to deflect anytime it comes up too by saying it's a US conspiracy or some other asinine thing. They're also probably happy that the unrest in the US and now many places in the Western World is also taking away the spotlight from Hong Kong too.

Okay, that seems like a whole lot to read into the situation but I'm not going to beat a dead horse any longer. I think the most I can get behind without more information is that China, as a world power having not the best relationship with the United States (or any other world power apart from Putin Russia), may be pleased with this disruption and the instability that results from it.

 

[Sander 001]

 

[UKMikey]

 

[VolkswagenX]

 

[Rage Racer]

 

[Sander 001]

 

[Sander 001]