Thanks for refuting that, poppy. I'm never sure if Wasabi is trolling or a neo-liberal apologist but I appreciate the debate nonetheless
Thanks for refuting that, poppy. I'm never sure if Wasabi is trolling or a neo-liberal apologist but I appreciate the debate nonetheless
It's been a while since I read the little snippet from Bernie and I don't remember everything. But, I do recall that what people were claiming Bernie was saying was not remotely close to reality. It was weird though. Kinda like LoneSage with the makeup thread.
You clearly disnt read his article.
He in no way said that women all fantasize about rape and violent sex.
What he did do was talk about a theoretical couple who both have violent sexual fantasies, the man masturbating to the idea of a tied up abused woman, his wife fantasizing about being gangbanged. Then they both finish their vanilla unfulfilling sex and resume normal life, go to church etc.
Hes talking about how the intersection of traditional gender roles and modern sexuality is confusing and sometimes taboo.
I mean you should actually read it if you're gonna bring it up like you know what you're talking about and its some ace in the hole.
Oh I read it. It was cringe. Like Wyo defending Alex Jones. Bernie claimed it was a joke in bad humor. But the saying about every joke having a bit of truth can be restated that every joke reflects the joker’s perception of truth.
I think he fucked up saying it was a joke. It wasnt a joke.
What it was is basically a bad essay version of my whitebread goofy bland basic frat boy friend from outside Memphis finding a leather bondage set with ball gag and everything in his very uptight Christian basic bland parents' suburban Memphis bedroom.
Its a bad essay version to answer the question "Why the fuck is my fat stretch pants wearing aunt all the sudden reading Fifty Shades of Grey???"
And the difference here is between she said he said, to simply Bernie said.
It’s not even hearsay.
Would anyone vote Biden if Trump wasn’t in office?
Now Libertarians steal votes from Democrats!
The only thing that will always be true is that a major party candidate is entitled to your vote, and to not vote for them is not a refutation of their candidacy. No! It is tantamount to treason.
So vote with your heart but vote right, or else.
Amash isn’t libertarian. Vote for him if you like what he stands for, which I guess is outcast arcane-republican ideals. We’re currently in the period of republican constitutional dismantling, where the goal is purely to force the removal of the founding father’s contract with the American people, which will be replaced by a contract they, and their sponsors (which will surprise most people as being the shit they consume most) approve. Amash didn’t fit with them. He doesn’t fit with the Dems either. But he’s not a libertarian.
If he ends up the Libertarian candidate what should I call him?
You’re talking about silencing a citizen because he is going to potentially upset the presumptive would be-winners chance at winning?
For better or worse, that’s not how democracy works.
I wonder if democrats regret not going with something like Beto O'Rourke when they had the chance.
You were taught wrong.