normal v creep

US29wiI.png
 
Very old was fine for presidents, until Biden was dropped. Now the candidate should be young. A bunch of congress critters are also past 80, including Nancy Pelosi. Kamala's version of "normal" is fine, for now. Later if we learn something about her that makes her seem very abnormal, then normal will be too boring.
 
What we’re learning is that conservatives like to be feared. Pointing out that their proposals are cruel and dangerous has no effect on them. They like being offensive and hurting people. They laugh at appeals to decency. Appealing to the better angels of their nature only proves that you’re a triggered snowflake.

But they hate being called weird creepy losers. Which they are. Donald Trump has been a weird creepy loser his whole life. He has to pay women to have sex with him. You can see the revulsion in Melania’s face every time she’s forced to be around him.

The couch-fucker slur got immediate traction with JD Vance because he looks like such a little creep.
 
The couch-fucker slur got immediate traction with JD Vance because he looks like such a little creep.

No.

It got traction because the Left needed something horrible to say about Vance so they fabricated a slanderous lie and fed it to stupid ninnys like you to repeat and repeat and repeat.

And you went along with it, despite it being blatantly fake, because, YUM, Leftist spew tastes great and is less filling.
 
No.

It got traction because the Left needed something horrible to say about Vance so they fabricated a slanderous lie and fed it to stupid ninnys like you to repeat and repeat and repeat.

And you went along with it, despite it being blatantly fake, because, YUM, Leftist spew tastes great and is less filling.
We went with it because it's funny.
 
No.

It got traction because the Left needed something horrible to say about Vance so they fabricated a slanderous lie and fed it to stupid ninnys like you to repeat and repeat and repeat.

And you went along with it, despite it being blatantly fake, because, YUM, Leftist spew tastes great and is less filling.

There are much better reasons to oppose JD.

Vance said women shouldn’t leave violent marriages …

Every woman in America should see this video.

 
JD Vance is a vile person who believes vile things. Your defense of him speaks volumes about your character ... and is really creepy.


This is the foundation of your political views. No matter what, anyone in opposition to your ideology is a "vile person" even if that's a complete and total lie.

Again, a glimpse of the color of your character.

My character, OTOH, is unassailable. I protect the defenseless, I champion the underdog, I support truth over lies, and I stand for the law instead of supporting anarchy/chaos/social disobedience/temper tantrums.
 
You’re ignoring the fact that Vance says women shouldn’t leave violent marriages?
He's an ardent late-in-life convert to Catholicism. When kids get abused by their parents, priests ask the kids to ask themselves what THEY did to deserve this and what behaviors can they change to keep this from happening again?

Same thing with battered wives. Learn to make sammiches the way he likes them, maybe this wouldn't happen to you?
 
He's an ardent late-in-life convert to Catholicism. When kids get abused by their parents, priests ask the kids to ask themselves what THEY did to deserve this and what behaviors can they change to keep this from happening again?

Same thing with battered wives. Learn to make sammiches the way he likes them, maybe this wouldn't happen to you?


Poor rubbery, all those happy women in the world are ruthlessly oppressing him again.
 
As usual, the Left fabricates an out of context lie to wrongly smear someone.


https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2022...rting-abusive-marriages-after-viral-comments/


Once more shining a glaring light on the lack of character of those who espouse such lies.

No lies involved. The article you linked has the direct quote from the video:

“This is one of the great tricks that I think the sexual revolution pulled on the American populace, which is the idea that like, ‘well, okay, these marriages were fundamentally, you know, they were maybe even violent, but certainly they were unhappy — and so getting rid of them and making it easier for people to shift spouses like they change their underwear, that’s going to make people happier in the long term,’” Vance told the moderator

Vance specifically said women ought to stay in violent marriages for the sake of their kids (as if kids are safe in a violent family).

You can pretend he didn’t say it, but that just makes you look ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
No lies involved. The article you linked has the direct quote from the video:



Vance specifically said women ought to stay in violent marriages for the sake of their kids (as if kids are safe in a violent family).

You can pretend he didn’t say it, but that just makes you look ridiculous.


The quote is being taken out of context because he wasn't talking about women stuck in violent marriages but about THE CHILDREN in those marriages.

Also, if you actually READ THE ACTUAL FUCKING WORDS you'll notice that what you're trying to say he said, isn't exactly as you're making it out to be even without the missing context.

This is one of the great tricks that I think the sexual revolution pulled on the American populace, which is the idea that like, ‘well, okay, these marriages were fundamentally, you know, they were maybe even violent, but certainly they were unhappy — and so getting rid of them and making it easier for people to shift spouses like they change their underwear, that’s going to make people happier in the long term,’”


Show me where he's advocating that women remain in violent marriages in that quote. No extra words or paraphrases, show us where he advocated that women remain in a violent marriage.

Then there's this bit:

Maybe it worked out for the moms and dads, though I’m skeptical. But it really didn’t work out for the kids of those marriages,”

That bit, which was conveniently left out of your argument, indicates that Vance is discussing the children of divorced couples, and not "violent marriages."

So, not only do you LIE directly, you lie by omission and fabrication.
 
Very old was fine for presidents, until Biden was dropped. Now the candidate should be young. A bunch of congress critters are also past 80, including Nancy Pelosi. Kamala's version of "normal" is fine, for now. Later if we learn something about her that makes her seem very abnormal, then normal will be too boring.
I heard she likes to fuck couches.
 
The quote is being taken out of context because he wasn't talking about women stuck in violent marriages but about THE CHILDREN in those marriages.

Also, if you actually READ THE ACTUAL FUCKING WORDS you'll notice that what you're trying to say he said, isn't exactly as you're making it out to be even without the missing context.




Show me where he's advocating that women remain in violent marriages in that quote. No extra words or paraphrases, show us where he advocated that women remain in a violent marriage.

Then there's this bit:



That bit, which was conveniently left out of your argument, indicates that Vance is discussing the children of divorced couples, and not "violent marriages."

So, not only do you LIE directly, you lie by omission and fabrication.

As I predicted, you’re pretending Vance didn’t say it, and you look ridiculous.

In the quote, Vance is clearly talking about women in violent marriages, not “children of divorced couples”. 😆
 
Back
Top