Jennifer Holliday: "I sincerely apologize for my lapse of judgement"

[Strangebrew]

Yeah that's certainly how Trump won them.

No, trump went from being irrelevant to winning because of people like you, have some self-reflection and look at your own behaviour.
You think acting like a cunt, because conservatives used to act like cunts is somehow magically going to make people side with you?
Like i said, delusional.

Yeah nobody was doing that. Nope.

The few people did was drowned out by the shoutings of clinton shills behaving like rabid monkey's and media cooking up narratives that have no root in reality.
Unless you count celebrities standing there in jewel dressed whining about how oppressed they are because Trump won the election, lmao my fucking sides.

Its amazing that you, of all people, would try and take any kind of moral high ground. Truly.

Likewise.

[Masark]

Why are LGBT against Trump? Trump doesn't seem like someone who cares about LGBT.

His VP?

His proposed court appointees?

Since we're talking about gays. We still remember all the Democrats who voted yes on DOMA to preserve their seat, yes?

Yes, they should have blockaded that and have the Republicans shove through a constitutional amendment to ban it forever. A much better idea.

[KrazyK923]

No, trump went from being irrelevant to winning because of people like you, learn some self-reflection.
You think acting like a cunt, because conservatives used to act like cunts is somehow magically going to make people side with you?

Yeah back to ignoring you. I did nothing about/to/for Trump during the primary. I didn't really even discuss him until it was down to 4 or so.

But sure, enjoy your high horse on something you're not even factually correct about.

The few people did was drowned out by the shoutings of clinton shills behaving like rabid monkey's and media cooking up narratives that have no root in reality.

And a further example of you spouting bullshit. Plenty of us who didn't even really like Clinton talked about the difference in their policies. Far be it from me to expect you to actually pay attention.

[Strangebrew]

But sure, enjoy your high horse on something you're not even factually correct about.

I rather sit on my high-horse instead of being a Clinton shill who is so far up his own ass smelling his own feces that he can't even accept reality.

But you go on putting me on ignore, as if that is some big achievement to you when in reality it just show's you are exactly the kind of person i was talking about, you can't handle differating opinions.

[KrazyK923]

I rather sit on my high-horse instead of being a Clinton shill

...lol. This is how I know you have no idea wtf you're talking about. This'll be my last time speaking to you, so here goes: I spent the entire Democratic primary season talking about the faults of Clinton and why I was in favor of Sanders. Even after he lost and she won, I repeatedly talked about how I didn't particularly like Clinton as well as how I disagreed with a number of her policies, but since its only between two people, I was reluctantly voting for her against Trump.

But sure, CLINTON SHILL!!!!!

But you go on putting me on ignore, as if that is some big achievement to you when in reality it just show's you are exactly the kind of person i was talking about, you can't handle differating opinions.

Naw, its more just not engaging with somebody who isn't even using the facts.

[Crissi]

Quit the bickering, NOW. Put each other on ignore and be done with it.

[Dextroden]

Yeah back to ignoring you. I did nothing about/to/for Trump during the primary. I didn't really even discuss him until it was down to 4 or so.

But sure, enjoy your high horse on something you're not even factually correct about.



And a further example of you spouting bullshit. Plenty of us who didn't even really like Clinton talked about the difference in their policies. Far be it from me to expect you to actually pay attention.

Actually, you did. You did I find job reminding me that the party I'm registered for, and it's supporters, that demanded I vote Clinton are no better than the people they don't want me voting for.

Well done, sir.

[Fojos]

For a variety of reasons I think it's a problem that we assume an apology indicates overzealous persecution.

It's not an indication. We know there's overzealous persecution. It's not exactly new among the intersectional feminists and other BLM-followers. The right have these people as well. But since you feel you and these extremists fight the "good fight" you don't care what victims stand in your way.

[Dextroden]

His VP?

His proposed court appointees?




Yes, they should have blockaded that and have the Republicans shove through a constitutional amendment to ban it forever. A much better idea.

Yes, that's exactly what would have happened.

[Dextroden]

It's not an indication. We know there's overzealous persecution. It's not exactly new among the intersectional feminists and other BLM-followers.

People still like to pretend that those kind of people demand apologies for nothing or you are the scum of the earth to them don't exist.

[Spectral]

In the current year, no woman should be Trumpshamed!

[Fojos]

I hope that's not a personal "you."

So you don't feel you fight the "good fight"? The progressive narrative? Also;

I mean...you do realize most people just find the whole thing hilarious and are well aware its not true, right? Unless people are no longer able to laugh at absurd-on-its-face things since it's against the Glorious Leader this time.

Except when you read threads about it and look at how media was reporting it, they all seemed to see it as true.

[PC2]

Good choice, if she had performed lefties would've categorized her as an Uncle Tom.

[KrazyK923]

Except when you read threads about it and look at how media was reporting it, they all seemed to see it as true.

Where was any main stream outlet actually saying Trump likes watersports or actually paid people to piss on a bed that Obama would, one day, use? CNN? MSNBC? Fox? ABC? NBC?

Unless you're combining it with everything else in that document, then I'd say that's a far different conversation, even then most of those publications talked about how these were unverified claims.

[Venant]

"Trump's administration is being criticized, better bring up Hillary Clinton again!"

Its a trope at this point. Knee-jerk white knight defense.

Seems fair to point out that the democrats are no better on many of these issues than the Republicans, yet they are given a pass because groups seeking permanent victim status need to politically ally with *somebody*

The world is filled with those who seek personal power and wealth from exploiting causes like the LGBT movement or social justice in general, which is why you should be highly skeptical of such causes allying with any mainline political ideology.

[Spectral]

So you don't feel you fight the "good fight"? The progressive narrative? Also;

@Nixx? Nah, not really. You'd have to really be looking to take offense to find any of the characteristic belligerence of movement politics there.

[Fojos]

Where was any main stream outlet actually saying Trump likes watersports or actually paid people to piss on a bed that Obama would, one day, use? CNN? MSNBC? Fox? ABC? NBC?

Unless you're combining it with everything else in that document, then I'd say that's a far different conversation.

I'm looking at the whole deal. They still consider the whole part (the actual paper) completely true even knowing nothing has been verified. This is after accusing the other side of not being source-critical.

[KrazyK923]

Seems fair to point out that the democrats are no better on many of these issues than the Republicans, yet they are given a pass because groups seeking permanent victim status need to politically ally with *somebody*

Yeah you'd have an actual point if they still pushed that belief. Except they don't. They've roundly recanted their actions and statement.

I mean, you could have used them waiting so long to come around to marriage equality, flipping almost the day that the polls flipped to 51/49 in favor. Why didn't you use that point? I swear you guys are awful at criticizing her.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm looking at the whole deal. They still consider the whole part (the actual paper) completely true even knowing nothing has been verified. This is after accusing the other side of not being source-critical.

No they don't. CNN didn't even say this. MSNBC didn't say it. Certainly not Fox. Not ABC, not NBC. In fact, many of them explicitly talked about how all of this is unverified.

[Dextroden]

Yeah you'd have an actual point if they still pushed that belief. Except they don't. They've roundly recanted their actions and statement.

I mean, you could have used them waiting so long to come around to marriage equality. Why didn't you use that point? I swear you guys are awful at criticizing her.

- - - Updated - - -



No they don't. CNN didn't even say this. MSNBC didn't say it. Certainly not Fox. Not ABC, not NBC. In fact, many of them explicitly talked about how all of this is unverified.

I brought that up. Unlike Trump, Clinton is allowed to change stances. That's why people hold up Trump's shit about the war from the 90s but not her, or Obama's, aversion to gay marriage. And the whole "Super Predators" thing.

[Fojos]

Yeah you'd have an actual point if they still pushed that belief. Except they don't. They've roundly recanted their actions and statement.

I mean, you could have used them waiting so long to come around to marriage equality. Why didn't you use that point? I swear you guys are awful at criticizing her.

- - - Updated - - -



No they don't. CNN didn't even say this. MSNBC didn't say it. Certainly not Fox. Not ABC, not NBC. In fact, many of them explicitly talked about how all of this is unverified.

I should have been clear in stating I mean the comments you see from people in threads. In any case many of these publishers were legitimizing buzzfeed due to how they referenced them. The only one that actually showed disagreement with their conduct at first was MSNBC.