The Political Satire/Meme Thread
- Thread starter Danoff
- 13,896 comments
- 809,471 views
UKMikey
Premium
- 18,341
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
- 23,995
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
Muslims, anti-vaxxers and gays? That's pretty much a full house for Daily Mail bingo.
- 29,346
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
- 4,616
- SoCal
- GTP_MooCow
- 23,995
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
- 29,977
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
- 29,977
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
This won't change your mind.
He's a conservative social and political commentator who has made a career saying spectacularly stupid things that appeal to conservatives. Since getting dumped by Fox News, he's made a series of videos wherein, I gather, he's filmed at colleges sitting at a table with a sign that bears a provocative statement followed by the phrase "Change My Mind," nutpicking poli-sci majors and wannabe poli-sci majors who are unable to change his mind, effectively "owning" them.
You may have seen a screenshot from one of these videos as a meme template for other provocative statements. I'm pretty sure there was a crossover with the Bernie Sanders inauguration meme as well.
Last edited:
- 6,963
- South Africa
This guy is a piece of work. For some reason Youtube used to recommend his videos to me and I saw a couple of them (fell for clickbaity titles) and walked away feeling rather... what's the word... dirty?
His whole shtick is to talk real fast and throw lots of jargons and semi-smart sounding stuff in there. At least with Ben Shapiro (which I also get recommendations from Youtube's algorithm for some reason) I get a polite chuckle from how incessantly whiny he sounds but this guy... I can't believe he used to be a standup comedian.
- 29,977
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
I think he's talking about the entire effort to hold Trump accountable and any and all of those members of Congress whose intent is to do just that.
I think he's confusing the impeachment trial in the upper house of Congress--the Senate--with a criminal trial in a court of law. In an impeachment trial, there is no actual judge, rather there is an individual presiding over the proceedings. There is no actual jury, though voting members of the Senate will deliberate (or feign doing so) before voting whether to confict or acquit. There is no actual prosecution, and instead select members of the lower house of Congress--the House of Representatives--serve in an official capacity to make the case for conviction, the penalty of which may not exceed removal from office with the possibility of revocation of privileges typically afforded to a former office holder, to be determined by a subsequent vote in the Senate. Because there is no jeopardy to life and limb for the convicted, there is no standard of evidence and an individual who is acquitted, or even one who is convicted and stripped of privileges, may still be prosecuted for alleged criminal activity upon which they were tried in the Senate; the "double jeopardy" statute does not apply.
Since you bring up Cruz, Graham and Lee, there is no statute or precedent, that I'm aware of, that prohibits members of the Senate from serving the defense (basically the only point of commonality with a criminal trial) in an unofficial capacity, even if it seems super shady.
Obviously members of the jury in a criminal trial would be prohibited from having a role in the defense of the accused, so it's super weird (it's really not) that Crowder hasn't objected to the trio's involvement. I'd suggest cognitive dissonance, but that presupposes a degree of cognition on Crowder's part when he's basically an amoeba with a fanbase.
Similar threads
- Poll
