Trump's Greatest Quotes

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Thu Nov 16, 2017 3:12 pm

I mean, obviously y'all have seen this one already, but it has to go here:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 1954297857" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

maz89 · Post by **maz89** » Thu Nov 16, 2017 3:31 pm

It makes more sense when you see it like this:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DOaHj9PXcAEUTqF.jpg:large

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Tue Dec 12, 2017 7:21 pm

jesus christ lmfao

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 2053053441" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Wed Dec 13, 2017 5:06 am

Well, he is right about Don Lemon.

Post by **Gendo** » Wed Dec 13, 2017 1:38 pm

Trump had an amazingly not-immature Tweet after last nights election results.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Wed Jan 03, 2018 3:53 am

Yeah, anyone who still supports this guy should probably be forcefully euthanized at this point.

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTr ... 7022420992" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Sat Jan 06, 2018 3:09 pm

I can't even

you guys I can't even

I can't

this simply cannot be what our reality has become

we are so far beyond parody at this point that... what is even the point of continuing the human race after this

nothing will matter after this

https://www.mediaite.com/online/trump-g ... le-genius/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Sat Jan 06, 2018 5:25 pm

Aliens are going to decide this earth experiment was a bad idea and just burn the whole fucking place.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Sat Jan 06, 2018 5:57 pm

That "like" just utterly broke me. Utterly and completely.

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Sat Jan 06, 2018 7:34 pm

The alt-right is turning on Bannon. Let that sink in - Steve Bannon is not right-wing enough for the Nazi political movement he helped start. These are the people who elected Trump and these people breed faster than normal people. Are you scared yet?

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Sun Jan 07, 2018 2:58 pm

Well, they've always existed. Only sixty years ago their views were basically mainstream and normal. The alt-right is a reaction of impotent rage against a wave of social progressivism. It's not that they can't do damage, but ultimately they're a blip on the radar. America is more liberal than it's ever been by far, even under Trump. The alt-right is less scary and more just pathetic.

And the alt-right breeds? Lol. I'm pretty sure most of them have never touched a woman in their lives.

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Sun Jan 07, 2018 3:42 pm

Today's alt-right includes people like the Duggars - 19 kids before her uterus finally dried up. They'll easily end up with 200 grandchildren.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Sun Jan 07, 2018 3:47 pm

More hog feed?

Post by **Gendo** » Sun Jan 07, 2018 4:22 pm

Yeah the first 5 minutes of Idiocracy (the only great part of the movie) is giving a plausible reason why the world keeps getting dumber and dumber; in that smart people are too smart to have too many kids.

Anakin McFly · Post by **Anakin McFly** » Mon Jan 08, 2018 3:17 am

omg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DS01u5bUQAA7w7J.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DS02Fu8V4AAxMYn.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DS02J5GVoAEhdNk.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DS02NowVwAAs7Nt.jpg

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Mon Jan 08, 2018 4:21 am

Meh.

People need to stop trying to imitate Trump, it's clear that no one can do it properly. And those last two are just straight up xenophobic.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Sat Jan 20, 2018 12:16 am

BREAKING: Donald Trump comes out as an antinatalist

https://twitter.com/ToddDracula/status/ ... 5993879558" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BruceSmith78 · Post by **BruceSmith78** » Sat Jan 20, 2018 3:43 am

Lol, that's great stuff.

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Sat Jan 20, 2018 8:36 am

This world would be a lot better place if we eliminated everybody who was born in the ninth month.

Anakin McFly · Post by **Anakin McFly** » Mon Jan 22, 2018 6:22 am

I went to r/antinatalism and believe that its existence is contributing to the net suffering of the world. Just a few minutes on there and the depression is creeping back in along with the existential dread I try very hard to get rid of.

Are antinatalists depressed because of antinatalism, or are they antinatalists because they are depressed? So many people on that sub are actively suicidal.

edit: wtf https://www.wikihow.com/Live-As-an-Antinatalist

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:08 pm

Lol, they stole my Trump joke.

It's not surprising that a sub devoted to the philosophy that says life sucks would attract a bunch of depressed people who hate life. It'd be surprising if it was any different, really.

People are antinatalist for a whole bunch of reasons. Depression is only one of many.

Anakin McFly · Post by **Anakin McFly** » Tue Jan 23, 2018 3:06 am

I agree, though as a philosophy itself it's very depressing. I find that the way it (or David Benatar) defines suffering and pleasure is too simplistic and mathematical, and doesn't account for things like how suffering can sometimes amplify pleasure or create it where previously there was none - e.g. the amount of pleasure a starving person gets from a bland meal vs someone who's never hungered being faced with that same meal. Or how a quadriplegic being able to move again would likely experience a lot of pleasure from the simple act of lifting an arm, whereas that pleasure would never come into being for someone who's always been able-bodied. Even on much smaller scales, it's an amazing feeling to get a drink after hours of thirst. (I don't really like the term 'pleasure' either, because happiness is much more than pleasure, and happiness can also exist in the absence of pleasure or the midst of suffering. Conversely, pleasure can sometimes itself be a form of suffering.)

I agree with Benatar's claim that most pleasure is really just the relief of suffering, but I instead see it as how suffering (as a concept, not specific instances of extreme suffering of which we all know many) is necessary for pleasure. Some of the happiest people I know are people who have gone through terrible traumas, because it turned normal life into heaven by comparison and every day of freedom brings them levels of ecstasy that more privileged others will never have the fortune to experience. It also greatly minimises the impact of the smaller sufferings of daily life that might incapacitate many others - if you've just escaped being brutally tortured and raped for years, it's hard to get mad about being stuck in traffic. This doesn't discount how many instead develop PTSD and may never return to normal, but I find it significant how it seems that in order to attain the highest levels of happiness, wisdom, compassion, courage, resilience, peace, suffering needs to exist, and the complete elimination of suffering would mean the loss of all those things. Most antinatalists would still consider it a worthwhile swap, but I don't think it's that black and white, and I agree with the criticism of the asymmetry of the philosophy where a lack of suffering is considered good but a lack of pleasure/happiness is not considered bad; both would be neutral, and at the moment I'd consider a universe filled with both happiness and pain to be better than there being no universe at all.

I also find that my response to the above comparison sometimes differs depending on whether or not I'm depressed.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Tue Jan 23, 2018 7:17 am

Anakin McFly wrote:I agree, though as a philosophy itself it's very depressing. I find that the way it (or David Benatar) defines suffering and pleasure is too simplistic and mathematical, and doesn't account for things like how suffering can sometimes amplify pleasure or create it where previously there was none - e.g. the amount of pleasure a starving person gets from a bland meal vs someone who's never hungered being faced with that same meal. Or how a quadriplegic being able to move again would likely experience a lot of pleasure from the simple act of lifting an arm, whereas that pleasure would never come into being for someone who's always been able-bodied.

That doesn't necessarily mean pleasure can't be quantified and/or measured, or that there isn't an objective level to it that people can feel. The pleasure a person gets from a drink after days of thirst is qualitatively more than one would get otherwise, just like a mild deprivation felt by someone who doesn't have those often registers far more negatively and therefore feels objectively worse (to that person) than the same thing happening to someone who's used to it, but inherent hedonic scaling tendencies like these don't undercut "mathematical" conceptions of the pleasure/pain axis, they just complicate it.

Anakin McFly wrote:Even on much smaller scales, it's an amazing feeling to get a drink after hours of thirst. (I don't really like the term 'pleasure' either, because happiness is much more than pleasure, and happiness can also exist in the absence of pleasure or the midst of suffering. Conversely, pleasure can sometimes itself be a form of suffering.)

I agree, there aren't really any good words to use. I think "contentment" is best.

Anakin McFly wrote:I find it significant how it seems that in order to attain the highest levels of happiness, wisdom, compassion, courage, resilience, peace, suffering needs to exist, and the complete elimination of suffering would mean the loss of all those things.

Some people consider this a pretty damning indictment of life. Wouldn't it be great if people could attain all that without having to go through some horrific trauma? I always thought it was funny that, when I say that life is shitty because there's so much suffering in it all the time, people would sometimes respond that all that suffering is necessary for happiness as if that just didn't reinforce my point about life's said shittiness.

I don't think antinatalism is particularly depressing. Existence is depressing, with how stupid, hideous, pointless, meaningless, and random it is. I think antinatalism is just a clear-headed and reasonable response to that. Speaking personally, finding out about antinatalism, and coming to terms with the idea that life is basically just fundamentally bad and that I don't have to rationalize or justify or sugar-coat any of the awful crap about it, gave me a lot of peace of mind. It was impossible for me to look at life and say that it was decent and okay, so I just stopped trying and accepted that it was bad. Paradoxically that helped me out a lot with my mental health problems, and now I'm basically doing okay.

Anakin McFly · Post by **Anakin McFly** » Wed Jan 24, 2018 2:46 am

The pleasure a person gets from a drink after days of thirst is qualitatively more than one would get otherwise

I doubt it's just qualitative, since it possibly results in a greater release of endorphins and other happy chemicals that can be quantitatively measured. There's also how certain things may cause a release of stress hormones or cause depression for one person but have no effect on another who's used to that, and who may actually find it a step up and gain endorphins from it.

Some people consider this a pretty damning indictment of life. Wouldn't it be great if people could attain all that without having to go through some horrific trauma?

True, but I think it isn't objectively possible, because suffering is not just the cause of those good things but an inherent part of them. It would be logically impossible to be brave in a world without danger. One could argue for alternate virtues that don't require suffering, but maybe it's simply impossible for such things to exist. So the question then is whether the good things make the bad things worth it, and many people seem to think so, like mothers who eagerly undergo the pain of childbirth for a wanted child, or people who undergo painful training in order to be good at something.

One mental image that sticks in my head is of this girl who had bitten off all her fingers by her teenage years and poked out her eyes (hopefully a hospital fixed that) because she was physically unable to feel any pain. Likewise, a lot of the damage from leprosy is not due to the disease itself but rather how the lack of pain means a lot of small accidents and injuries that patients do not notice until it's too late. One neurological attempt to fix this gave them a warning light whenever they would usually feel pain, but it didn't work; nothing was as effective as keeping people safe than something which hurt, because it instantly stops you from continuing. Something that didn't hurt wouldn't have that same immediate effect. No pain or suffering means no consequences for actions like running out onto oncoming traffic. If people in that scenario were mortal, everyone would die very quickly and life would end. If they were immortal, they would end up with an extremely chaotic or directionless world which would be a form of suffering in itself. imo Second Life didn't take off for that reason.

In short, I don't think that suffering in itself is bad (and that it can be good, which throws the mathematics off), but only that an excess of suffering is bad. So even if suffering is fundamentally inherent to existence, that wouldn't necessarily make existence itself inherently bad, because there's so much more to existence than suffering. Consciousness could be considered a good thing. The fact that conscious beings even exist is amazing in itself. Things can be good and bad independent of pleasure and suffering.

In order for no suffering to be a positive, something needs to exist to experience that lack of suffering, or else we could just as well consider the infinity of non-existing people who are currently not suffering. If their lack of suffering is good (rather than neutral), then surely the infinite amount of that goodness would outweigh the finite amount of suffering in the world. But that's not the case, suggesting that non-existence is not good, but neutral.

Speaking personally, finding out about antinatalism, and coming to terms with the idea that life is basically just fundamentally bad and that I don't have to rationalize or justify or sugar-coat any of the awful crap about it, gave me a lot of peace of mind.

Yeah, I understand that, although I think that life (and existence) as a whole is fundamentally good even though it includes many things that are fundamentally and inexcusably bad. My views still waver a lot though, and I'm glad you've found that peace.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Wed Jan 24, 2018 4:07 am

I reject the idea that suffering has any inherent redemptive value. Hedonic scaling means that pleasure/happiness feels better after extended periods of deprivation (hence suffering) (and that they dissipate after extended periods), but that's just a cause of our evolved brains; it's not necessarily an inherent truth about existence or an unalterable property of life. It could be another way. For example, the pleasure one gets from direct electrical stimulation of the brain's reward circuits doesn't dissipate after a period of time; it remains just as blissful after two hours as it does after two minutes. This is because hedonic adaptation is a specific thing physical parts of the brain do which electrical stimulation of that sort can override. So suffering can and often does intensify and strengthen positive feelings, but it often doesn't, when it does it doesn't do so reliably, and it's not technically required. You're right that courage is a virtue that can't exist in a world without danger, but ultimately I don't consider courage to have inherent worth; it's just instrumental, considered worthy because we happen to need it in a world full of dangers. Its loss in a hypothetical world without dangers wouldn't necessarily be bad. Same thing with resilience, and (to a lesser extent) compassion. Happiness is to a large extent objective, not dependent on suffering or sadness to give it weight. Suffering as you said can give it weight, but it doesn't necessarily have to, and millions of people manage to be reliably and meaningfully and consistently happy without it. That's my biggest problem with attempting to justify suffering in this way: life doesn't allocate it in a fair or balanced or proportionate way. Usually suffering just happens for no reason and for no benefit. And even if it did, it's possible to be happy without it.

Pain is also not necessary. People always point to special cases where people injure themselves through inability to feel pain as a justification for pain, but that doesn't follow. Conditions like pain asymbolia let you experience pain without the subjective unpleasantness of it, so you're aware of physical danger but it doesn't actually hurt. Even our regular bodies do something like that: your brain jerks your hand away from a burnt stove before you're even consciously aware of it, and only after does the pain start to build. Theoretically our bodies could just automatically jerk away from all danger like it does then; it's only because evolution is horrific that we're stuck with pain. So... down with pain! It's 100% bad.

I'm not sure how to respond to your second-to-last paragraph. I guess I can just say I don't really care about infinite non-suffering, no matter how good or neutral it may be. Since I'm a negative utilitarian, when I compare it to suffering it doesn't matter much to me one way or the other.

Anakin McFly · Post by **Anakin McFly** » Wed Jan 24, 2018 7:47 am

This is because hedonic adaptation is a specific thing physical parts of the brain do which electrical stimulation of that sort can override.

Oh, ok. That's interesting.

Usually suffering just happens for no reason and for no benefit.

I agree, hence not talking about specific instances of suffering but suffering as a general phenomenon.

Conditions like pain asymbolia let you experience pain without the subjective unpleasantness of it, so you're aware of physical danger but it doesn't actually hurt.

Yep, but those with pain asymbolia have the same problems as those who do not experience pain, where a lack of concern for avoiding pain results in the same ill effects of harm. The unpleasantness/hurt is the crucial component.

I'm inclined towards negative utilitarianism but not antinatalism for similar reasons: just as the increase of Person A's happiness in and of itself does nothing to decrease Person B's suffering, the non-existence of Person A also does nothing to decrease Person B's suffering.

It may prevent additional suffering and thus reduce cumulative suffering from what it would otherwise be, but I don't think suffering can be calculated across different people. I think a world where one person is brutally tortured and millions of others are happy would be considered to contain greater suffering than a world where everybody experiences one tragedy (rape, murder, disease, disability, etc) but is otherwise fine, even though their cumulative suffering would be quantitatively far higher than the first example. If I had a choice to eliminate all suffering from one of those worlds, I'd go with the first one, even though more suffering per capita could be eliminated with the second one.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Wed Jan 24, 2018 3:18 pm

Anakin McFly wrote:
Usually suffering just happens for no reason and for no benefit.
I agree, hence not talking about specific instances of suffering but suffering as a general phenomenon.

So am I, though? My point is that suffering as a general phenomenon is worthless and has no redemptive value.

Anakin McFly wrote:
Conditions like pain asymbolia let you experience pain without the subjective unpleasantness of it, so you're aware of physical danger but it doesn't actually hurt.
Yep, but those with pain asymbolia have the same problems as those who do not experience pain, where a lack of concern for avoiding pain results in the same ill effects of harm. The unpleasantness/hurt is the crucial component.

It's easy for me to imagine a world where we can be protected from bodily harm without the unpleasantness component. As I said, our bodies often jerk away from harmful stimuli before we're even consciously aware of it, let alone feel pain from it. I can imagine some type of system where it's basically just magnetic repulsion or something similar. When people suffer huge shocks, like a fall or a stabbing, they often don't even consciously perceive pain until a few moments later. The brain actually suspends the feeling of pain in an emergency because it would be an obstacle to escaping danger. Some robots are built to be able to avoid physical damage well enough without the "hurt" component, so it's possible in principle for the informational aspect of pain to be conserved while eliminating the subjective aspects. My point is that there's no reason to think unpleasant/hurting is inherently necessary for survival (and even if it was, that would just bolster my point that life is bad).

A relevant paragraph from a paper on consciousness:

…One could imagine a conscious nervous system that operates as humans do but does not suffer any internal strife. In such a system, knowledge guiding skeletomotor action would be isomorphic to, and never at odds with, the nature of the phenomenal state — running across the hot desert sand in order to reach water would actually feel good, because performing the action is deemed adaptive. Why our nervous system does not operate with such harmony is perhaps a question that only evolutionary biology can answer. Certainly one can imagine such integration occurring without anything like phenomenal states, but from the present standpoint, this reflects more one's powers of imagination than what has occurred in the course of evolutionary history.

http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=791" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Anakin McFly wrote:I'm inclined towards negative utilitarianism but not antinatalism for similar reasons: just as the increase of Person A's happiness in and of itself does nothing to decrease Person B's suffering, the non-existence of Person A also does nothing to decrease Person B's suffering.

It may prevent additional suffering and thus reduce cumulative suffering from what it would otherwise be, but I don't think suffering can be calculated across different people. I think a world where one person is brutally tortured and millions of others are happy would be considered to contain greater suffering than a world where everybody experiences one tragedy (rape, murder, disease, disability, etc) but is otherwise fine, even though their cumulative suffering would be quantitatively far higher than the first example. If I had a choice to eliminate all suffering from one of those worlds, I'd go with the first one, even though more suffering per capita could be eliminated with the second one.

I agree with this. I'm not sure how it's an argument against antinatalism, though.

Post by **Gendo** » Wed Jan 24, 2018 3:48 pm

What happened to this thread?

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Wed Jan 24, 2018 4:57 pm

I made a joke, and the rest is history

BruceSmith78 · Post by **BruceSmith78** » Wed Jan 24, 2018 7:00 pm

Gendo wrote:What happened to this thread?

I'm digging it. I tried to have some version of this conversation, and I fucked it up and ended up feeling like a jerk. Anakin is doing a far superior job of exploring this ideology with DA.

Anakin McFly · Post by **Anakin McFly** » Thu Jan 25, 2018 1:39 am

What happened to this thread?

covfefe

so it's possible in principle for the informational aspect of pain to be conserved while eliminating the subjective aspects.

I agree this works for the examples you mention, but not for others - like avoiding an accident. Your brain can't cause you to jerk away from it in that instance, and it's the fear of harm that acts to protect you instead. If it's merely informational, you may know that something is bad for you, but it may not stop you - look at the number of cigarette smokers fully aware that it's very bad for them. But if they were to get a small electric shock every time they tried to smoke, chances are they would quit pretty quickly. So if that's representative of what people do when things are bad for them but don't directly hurt, a world without unpleasant pain would be one filled with self-destructive behaviour. Desires can easily override knowing something will harm you. If you were starving, and something poisonous tasted neutral, you'd probably just eat it even if you knew it was poisonous.

I agree with this. I'm not sure how it's an argument against antinatalism, though.

Antinatalism is concerned with not adding to cumulative suffering. Whereas if the concern is eradicating individual extremes of suffering, having a hundred people be born and get punched in the face vs ten people born and punched in the face will make no difference to that one person in extreme agony. But having a hundred people instead of ten also greatly increases the chance of someone being able to do something to save that one person. This is especially so if they will be born into a position of influence and a community with a passion for justice, where their existence will likely be able to significantly alleviate suffering. (The remaining 99 would continue to live okay lives that result in a mild preference for existing, as is the case for the vast majority of people.)

Antinatalism thus ignores how adding lives doesn't necessarily add net suffering but can sometimes reduce it. While each additional life is also a chance at another Hitler, overall that there have been more people whose lives were extraordinarily beneficial compared to those whose lives caused extraordinary suffering; the fact that humanity has morally progressed since the Stone Age is testament to that.

I would agree with a selective antinatalism in cases where one's child is likely to lead a life of unusual suffering, such as in the case of severe birth defects or while its parents are in a concentration camp. But conversely, if there's a good likelihood that your child will alleviate rather than cause suffering in the world, I'd consider it a moral imperative to have that child, and teach them accordingly. I know parents whose kids give me immense hope for the future, and I think their lives are eventually going to ease a lot of suffering in the world around them. I'm glad they exist.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Wed Jan 31, 2018 10:32 pm

When our bodies jerk away from harmful stimuli, that's physiological, not cognitive. It would be like your hands jerking away from cigarettes as if they were a hot stove. Or if they just had some kind of pulse that repels you. No electric shock necessary.

I am strongly opposed to using children as a means to an end as a matter of principle, no matter how good those ends are. If we want to reduce suffering, a much better option would be to make use of the people who are already here instead of gambling with the well-being of new ones. We can reduce suffering with the world the way it is through activism and technology and whatnot. People shouldn't be under an obligation to have children just because others have decided that there's a good chance those children will be morally superior.

maz89 · Post by **maz89** » Thu Feb 01, 2018 8:56 am

DA's position reminds me of a particular MM track: "If life's not beautiful without the pain/ Well, I'd just rather never ever even see beauty again"

Anakin McFly · Post by **Anakin McFly** » Sat Feb 03, 2018 2:42 am

That, too, sounds painful.

I was once on medication that had the unexpected side effect of killing off all my emotions. I couldn't feel anything. No sadness or anger or regular suffering, but also no happiness, even in situations when I should have been ecstatic. All the tiny joys of daily life were lost - even small comforts like getting into shade after a long time in the hot sun. There was a thing I'd been looking forward to for ages, and when it came, I felt nothing, except this distant agony that it was all wasted on me. And I decided that if this was permanent, I would definitely kill myself. And I didn't feel anything about that, either, including the grief at what my parents would feel which would normally have stopped me. I'd been depressed and suicidal before, but that complete lack of joy was far worse, even in the corresponding absence of pain.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Wed Feb 07, 2018 2:22 am

Sounds great!

Anakin McFly · Post by **Anakin McFly** » Thu Feb 08, 2018 10:34 am

You wouldn't be able to think that it's great, though, which is the point. There would be no sense of relief at the end of suffering, because relief is also a positive feeling; and that's where the problem lies, because the end of suffering is inherently a very happy thing, and cannot exist in a world without happiness. A world without happiness would thus not be a neutral world but a suffering one. Similarly, you cannot have a world without suffering that is not happy.

(Are you getting any treatment for your depression, by the way?)

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Thu Feb 08, 2018 4:25 pm

I was kidding, and no, I am not.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Mon Feb 26, 2018 9:31 pm

lol, this guy

http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... hout-a-gun" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Mon Feb 26, 2018 9:57 pm

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Sat Mar 10, 2018 12:50 am

I've been slacking on this! Don't worry, I got it covered now.

https://twitter.com/Ugarles/status/971774808542339072" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://twitter.com/pattymo/status/971044954939248640" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Sat Mar 10, 2018 1:10 am

I am horribly disappointed with that last one, no Yoda or Karate Kid memes. Also, stop deleting your posts. I HAVE SPOKEN.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Tue Mar 13, 2018 8:30 pm

awwww you really do want to see my posts

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Fri Mar 23, 2018 11:05 pm

Sometimes I love this guy. I really do.

https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/976897010820440064" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He actually said the free speech on college campuses thing that conservatives keep bleating about is "highly overblown", based on the idea that he's actually popular everywhere in America. God.

Lol

https://twitter.com/ParkerMolloy/status ... 4838768640" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This kind of stuff helps distract me from the horror of John Bolton being national security adviser.

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Sat Mar 24, 2018 12:49 am

Sometimes I wonder if Trump is living in some sort of time distortion and whenever he answers a question he's actually answering a question from three weeks earlier. Then I think to myself "Nah, he's just an imbecile."

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Wed Aug 12, 2020 7:37 pm

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 7952567307" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

bringing this thread back

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Wed Aug 12, 2020 7:39 pm

"check out this jerk" lol

Raxivace · Post by **Raxivace** » Fri Aug 14, 2020 12:18 pm

DA do you have any thoughts on Biden picking Harris for VP?

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Fri Aug 14, 2020 3:01 pm

I just think it's amusing, in a very dark and sick way, that the two most recent popular nation-wide protest movements were against male sexual harassment/entitlement and police brutality/systemic racial oppression, respectively, and the Democratic ticket is now led by a boorish, entitled serial sexual harasser (and possible abuser) and a corrupt prosecutor with a reputation for upholding brutality and systemic racial oppression.

Raxivace · Post by **Raxivace** » Sat Aug 15, 2020 2:28 am

Yeah it really makes me wonder just who the hell exactly the Democrats are trying to appeal to anymore.

Live even from a detached game theory perspective they're just so baffling these days.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Sat Aug 15, 2020 4:57 am

Serious answer: They're trying to appeal to Republicans. That's their actual strategy. Millions of traditional Republican voters are currently fleeing the GOP like a sinking ship and they're trying to draw them in.