The Political Satire/Meme Thread

  • Thread starter Danoff
  • 14,020 comments
  • 830,590 views
At no point was the vaccine called a cure. That being said, a lot fewer people would be getting sick if there wasn't so much pushback against the vaccine in the first place.
There's this weird logic (that's not the appropriate word but it will have to do) on the right wherein the response to a dynamic situation has to be static and any change to the response is deemed to be hypocritical. This is no better illustrated than their highlighting early calls to reserve a limited supply of masks for those on the ground responding to the sick as reason to question mask use when they are readily available.

It's just super bad faith.
 
Why's it ok for them after a reinstated mask mandate? Oh yeah NBA=much money. What you about Obumas party the other day? The video of AOC asking everyone to put their mask on for a photo shoot while laughing and talking to them 2 minutes earlier...
Hypocrisy at its finest.
You seem incapable of not straw-manning every argument you get into, recently....

Edit*: To answer your question, I have not seen what the AOC thing is. However, yes, I do think the Obama party was unnecessary and incredibly bad optic given the widespread Delta variant. Suck on your hypocrisy with that.
 
Last edited:
You seem incapable of not straw-manning every argument you get into, recently....
I couldn't pinpoint when it started, but I know it's not recent. You're probably only recently picking up on it.

People who don't have a rational basis for their positions but don't want to reevaluate those positions are compelled to resort to these tactics. I bet it happens much more frequently but remains internalized.
 
Last edited:
20210816_200205.png
 
I feel like your signature couldn't be more relevant - and I say that as a compliment.
I should say that the image may have been faked. It's certainly believable that it's real. But I thought it was funny and I posted it.
 
TB
The sign said, "You've got to have a membership card to get inside"

And the sign said "Anybody caught trespassin' will be shot on sight"
"The sign said 'long-haired freaky people need not apply'"

That rules me out.
 
Last edited:
TB
So in your opinion, what would it have taken for the events in the US Capital on January 6th to escalate to the level of insurrection?

Insurrection Law and Legal Definition https://definitions.uslegal.com/i/insurrection/

Insurrection refers to an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government. It is a violent revolt against an oppressive authority. Insurrection is different from riots and offenses connected with mob violence. In insurrection there is an organized and armed uprising against authority or operations of government whereas riots and offenses connected with mob violence are simply unlawful acts in disturbance of the peace which do not threaten the stability of the government or the existence of political society.
The following is a case law defining Insurrection:
Insurrection means “a violent uprising by a group or movement acting for the specific purpose of overthrowing the constituted government and seizing its powers. An insurrection occurs where a movement acts to overthrow the constituted government and to take possession of its inherent powers.” [Younis Bros. & Co. v. Cigna Worldwide Ins. Co., 899 F. Supp. 1385, 1392-1393 (E.D. Pa. 1995)]
emphasis added

You think those guys intended on taking over anything? I mean, maybe the guy with the Viking hat wanted to run the War department. And the guy in Nancy's chair, I guess he could of been planning on running the legislative branch, but I kind of doubt it.

“worst attack on democracy since the Civil War" my ass
 

Insurrection Law and Legal Definition https://definitions.uslegal.com/i/insurrection/

Insurrection refers to an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government. It is a violent revolt against an oppressive authority. Insurrection is different from riots and offenses connected with mob violence. In insurrection there is an organized and armed uprising against authority or operations of government whereas riots and offenses connected with mob violence are simply unlawful acts in disturbance of the peace which do not threaten the stability of the government or the existence of political society.
The following is a case law defining Insurrection:
Insurrection means “a violent uprising by a group or movement acting for the specific purpose of overthrowing the constituted government and seizing its powers. An insurrection occurs where a movement acts to overthrow the constituted government and to take possession of its inherent powers.” [Younis Bros. & Co. v. Cigna Worldwide Ins. Co., 899 F. Supp. 1385, 1392-1393 (E.D. Pa. 1995)]
emphasis added

You think those guys intended on taking over anything? I mean, maybe the guy with the Viking hat wanted to run the War department. And the guy in Nancy's chair, I guess he could of been planning on running the legislative branch, but I kind of doubt it.

“worst attack on democracy since the Civil War" my ass
Interesting how we can read the exact same definition and come to two completely different conclusions.

It was just a riot that opposed the authority of the government and disrupted its operations, then?
 
No way was it organised. All those patriots showed up in the same place at the same time by cosmic chance.
Amazing how they showed up from all across America at the same time hours after Trumps post ain't it.
 
lol
Amazing how they showed up from all across America at the same time hours after Trumps post ain't it.
It would have taken just fifteen seconds to preempt clowning yourself the way you Trumpers so readily do.
It turns out they were actually just...you know...there already. There was a coordinated effort to get bodies on the Capitol lawn. They drove in, flew in, possibly even railed in specifically for that day, the day of the joint session of Congress. Some brought building supplies to construct a [likely] symbolic pillory. They were staying in hotels, motels and likely private residences rented out via apps...plus campers, of course. They were even active on dating apps, and at least two of the chuckle****s were caught because of their interactions on Bumble.
 
emphasis added

You think those guys intended on taking over anything? I mean, maybe the guy with the Viking hat wanted to run the War department. And the guy in Nancy's chair, I guess he could of been planning on running the legislative branch, but I kind of doubt it.

“worst attack on democracy since the Civil War" my ass
I know! It was mostly peaceful!
CB689417-3CBA-41F0-9304-A995EE9072BA.jpeg
 
I know! It was mostly peaceful!
View attachment 1074908
So you're sticking around.

You latch onto that phrase and use it facetiously, but the scene at the Capitol may very well have been mostly peaceful. It's hard to know just how many because cameras were obviously inclined to stay focused on the action, but anyone on the Capitol Mall complex (which is...like...really big, by the way) who declined to join in on the violence and remained outside was exercising a constitutionally protected right.

How do you people not just forget to breathe?

Edit:

20210817_221127.png
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Fake because it didn't succeed?
Seems to be literal argument being brought up.

Like arguing Richard Reid wasn't a terrorist attempting to blow up a plane; it was raining and his feet got too damp to actually ignite his shoe-bomb in the first place.
 
Last edited:
I know! It was mostly peaceful!
View attachment 1074908
Oh, look, it's you again. Same as before, whataboutism and deflection doesn't work here.

Why are you defending a group of people who forced their way into Congress in an effort to disrupt and/or stop a major part of the Democratic Process, many of whom very clearly went in with the intention to caputure, harm or even kill members of our government?
 
I know! It was mostly peaceful!
View attachment 1074908
That photo sure does accurately describe the worst of the capitol riots. It definitely got no worse than people walking through velvet ropes. This is, in no way, a complete misrepresentation of what we all know. [/s]

emphasis added

You think those guys intended on taking over anything? I mean, maybe the guy with the Viking hat wanted to run the War department. And the guy in Nancy's chair, I guess he could of been planning on running the legislative branch, but I kind of doubt it.

“worst attack on democracy since the Civil War" my ass
They were trying to keep trump in office so... yes, they were indeed trying to "run" something.
 
Last edited:
Back