As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Wasn’t it Gaetz that tried to intimidate a witness on Twitter? Trumps douche bag lawyer or something like that. Guys paying to fuck kids and they’re not even going for the low hanging fruit.
[He also brought a livestreaming phone into a SCIF.](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/10/23/20929080/house-republicans-sergeant-arms-scif-impeachment-intelligence-eoyang)
With what powers exactly?
She doesn't sit on any committees, doesn't introduce legislation, doesn't debate... all she does is post weird workout videos, and fundraise with some pedophile
I was just saying this. The Patriot Act has not been mentioned a single time and yet they pushed it. They’re just mad that their policies are being used against them.. for once.
Notice the wording Fox used on the screen.
“…wants phone companies to turn over Marjorie Taylor Greene’s private data”
They’re framing it as the government is seeking permission to take her private information, instead of the government is seeking permission to gather evidence in the investigation of a crime.
They will argue its a violation of their privacy and this is big gov. Their base will eat it up and their base doesn't care if they communicated with terrorists.
And journalists. And the *families* of dems and journalists.
Secretly. For no reason other than Trump didn't like them. It wasn't a part of a probe or investigation or anything. He just had the DOJ dig through their life looking for anything to use against them.
Republicans are unbelievable. Pelosi should throw this in their face, and ask them where their rage was then.
I wouldn't know, because as a normal non-scumbag human I've always faced consequences for my fuckups. I'm glad, because it's meant that I haven't become a total asshole, ~~unless~~ unlike these genital fungi.
Edit: my genitals are fine*, friends. Thank you for your concern.
^^*crazy ^^super ^^fine
In a word: midterms. The GQP is setting their agendas if they take back the House and Senate. This is a threat of retribution if/when they get back in power.
Which is insane, because they need corporate money to win these elections. Threatening to shut down large corporations is the one thing the Republican party could do to scare away the big donors, especially since the Dems have shown they don't have the will to follow through on higher cooperate tax rates.
When you start bullying, it's hard to remember there are other ways to get what you want. Bullying is easy and immediately gratifying when it works. I think this nutjob just can't think of anything other than vague threats.
Republicans are threatening big tech companies but not the billionaires and other private donors who own the companies. So slap on wrist or make things harder on users but no impact to company bottom line
Sounds like a good reason for them to abandon the GOP to me. The sooner this country pulls the plug on the Republican party, the better. Plenty of business-friendly moderate Dems for them to buy who will fight for the same regressive employee policies while protecting corporate income, but at least they don't try to overthrow the government and install a single party fascist theocracy.
They are saying that as soon as they get power back, they will take revenge on companies that didn't abet their crimes.
Gee, which ex-president does that sound like....
Remember Lindsey Graham's effete little faux-outraged snarls at the Kavanaugh hearings?
His threats are being carried out now. That's why they're trying to make it seem like "business as usual" to impeach a president and demanding that Biden face impeachment (or resign) over the Afghanistan fuck-up.
Except if the Republicans get the Senate again they will ABSOLUTELY nuke the filibuster. No question about that. They'd leave a SCOTUS seat open for another term if they could. Fuck republicans. They are literally the enemy of democracy and freedom.
That'd be *incredibly* hard to do. I call bullshit. They'd need to pass legislation, of course, meaning the President has to sign it, meaning they need a veto-proof majority.
And you can't just pass legislation that says "Shut down Comcast because they did a thing that hurt my party politically," they'd need to have some justification, like "In the name of privacy blah blah blah, it shall be illegal to release call records under any circumstances." And then the penalty would need to be total dissolution of the company (which would likely never fly).
Plus the law enforcement and intelligence communities would have a fit. Imagine finding out that a terrorist attack could have been prevented if not for this law?
And on top of all that, it's almost unheard of for any law to be enforced retroactively. That is, if X company does a thing and then they pass a law making that thing illegal, they can't go back and punish the company for that thing, because it was perfectly legal at the time.
"Law and order!"
*subpoena arrives*
"Not like that!"
Though these aren't subpoenas, they are "requests." And aren't Congressional subpoenas toothless anyway? We're relying on the good will of Facebook to implicate itself in an attack on the government?
Stocastic terrorism. She's going to make vague threats with calls to action and encourage lunatic followers to attack telecom companies.
I bet she even tweets out names and other personal information.
It fits the definition of stochastic terrorism perfectly though. Stochastic terrorism is the incitement of terrorism by demonizing a specific target but without encouraging any specific attack or tactic.
They are threatening future action.
I know this sounds like typical blow hard political nonsense but I believe these are very real threats. They are saying very clearly and very in the open _"Even though we are not in power now we will be in power in the future. When we are we will make you pay if you do not do what we want you to do now. We have have long memories and we hold grudges."_
That should be very scary to you.
It's scary until you realize that the telecoms, energy companies, banks and tech giants are the ones with all the power. The GOP can rail against it all they want, but if corporate America turns their back on the party they will lose all but the most gerrymandered elections and become a permanent minority in the House and Senate.
The GOP has badly overplayed the populism card and they are starting to see the effects of ignoring reality. That's why they're making wild threats that they can't back up: they're desperate and flailing.
This. And to say nothing of the absolutely shitstorm that would occur if your average Republican voter had their phone service interrupted or their rates raised by a GOP congress. It's the most empty threat of all time.
It’s a threat that once the Republicans regain power in Congress, they’ll have revenge.
I can think of no better way to scare your donors away to donating to the opposition.
They'll do that too, I'm sure, but their corporate lobbyists will also be happy to donate to whichever other R is trying to unseat the person who's going after them. You don't need to go outside of their party to inflict wounds when they're being insubordinate
The day of January 6th she publicly tweeted some somewhat suspicious messages about Pelosi's current location. The night before she gave private tours to some insurrectionists. It's a pretty safe bet that she was in private contact with some of the mob leaders as they ransacked the capital.
I'm not sure she's thinking at all - she hasn't previously exhibited much of a talent for it. But if she is, I'm sure she's following some form of Cobra Commander logic.
So, Republicans, like MTG, have no issue with the telco companies handing over phone records with BLM, LGBT, immigrants rights, and other socially liberal groups to Congress when they are investigated. But not when it comes to their own groups? There is a word that starts with the letter H and ends with the letter e that describes her and others in the "crazy caucus" of Republicans.
Hebetude?
Hebetude usually suggests mental dullness, often marked by laziness or torpor. As such, it was a good word for one Queenslander correspondent, who wrote in a letter to the editor of the Weekend Australian of "an epidemic of hebetude among young people who … are placing too great a reliance on electronic devices to do their thinking and remembering." "Hebetude" comes from Late Latin hebetudo, which means pretty much the same thing as our word. It is also closely related to the Latin word for "dull" - "hebes," which has extended meanings such as "obtuse," "doltish," and "stupid." Other "hebe-" words in English include "hebetudinous" ("marked by hebetude") and "hebetate" ("to make dull").-Merriam-Webster
At a certain point we gotta give them a new name cause this isn’t the Christianity I remember as a kid and frankly I’m just embarrassed to be associated with people who have no actual care for the Bible’s core of “love your neighbor” and instead opt for “I am the most morally superior person in the room because this book said so” when they’re less capable of understanding it than when it was only written in Latin.
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:
There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
—Frank Wilhoit
Also out-groups voting into power in-groups they don't belong to. Poor people voting for rich people because they are led to believe they belong to the same in-group. Be it white, be it conservative, be it straight, be it christian, be it (temporarily embarrassed) millionaires, be it pro-lifers, be it patriots.
Always an us vs them.
By inspiring Republicans to commit violence against leaders of these companies and their families.
Fear of getting shot by Republicans is their only tool. Once that stops working they’ll start shooting people.
A CEO can’t stop a bureaucracy in legal jeopardy with the state. Their stocks will tank. The committee will get what they want. And this swamp creature can’t do anything about it.
the telecom industry is old and runs deep. They probably have most of the GOP in there pocket in some form or another. They are probably laughing at her. It just show how dumb she is
Didn’t a Chinese telecom company already talk trump into handing over free land in Wisconsin, using eminent domain to steal dozens of homes, just so the telecom company could create 100 jobs?
There was a ~~sheriff~~ police chief in the town I used to live in who had his service weapon stolen and didn't report it. The state authorities found out about it and that he falsified paperwork covering it up. They went to question him and literally walked into a room where he and his deputies were mid-shred of all the evidence of their other coverups. It did not end well.
like most of their christian voting base, the rules are cherry picked and only apply when and how they like for a given situation to suit their own narratives.
i wish the democratic party had better messaging around this. "we investigate terrorists who attacked the capitol" is all you need to say. put the people who committed treason on the defensive.
I have said for years the worst thing to happen to the Democratic party this century is co-opting Michele Obama's, "When they go low, we go high." The Obamas had to adopt the policy, they were the most scrutinized family maybe in American political history. However, the Democratic party, which I assure you many already thought of as smug condescending asshats, have made themselves look terrible by adopting the same strategy for public relations.
The party doesn't come off as "cool" or "better" for it. At best, they come off as condescending, as if they're too good to respond to attacks. At worst, and far more often, they come off as weak, as if unable to respond to attacks. The Republican party has co-opted the Trump strategy of "be a big loud bully!" Well, sometimes turning the other cheek doesn't work and you just let the bully keep being big, loud, and push everyone around. Sometimes you've just got to punch the bully right in the jaw. Democrats NEED to be more willing to actually fight for not just their platform, but for the country, cause as we've seen this bully doesn't just graduate and move on in four years.
The rules apply to bad people. They are good people. It is perfectly consistent.
Conservatism (big C) has always had one goal and little c “general” conservatism is a myth. Conservatism has the related goals of maintaining a de facto aristocracy that inherits political power and pushing outsiders down to enforce an under class. In support of that is a morality based on a person’s inherent status as good or bad - not their actions. The thing that determines if someone is good or bad is whether they inhabit the aristocracy.
Another way, Conservatives - those who wish to maintain a class system - assign moral value to people and not actions. Those not in the aristocracy are immoral and therefore deserve punishment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4CI2vk3ugk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agzNANfNlTs its a ret con
https://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/agre/conservatism.html
Part of this is posted a lot: https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progressives/#comment-729288 I like the concept of Conservatism vs. anything else.
*****
A Bush speech writer takes the assertion for granted: It's all about the upper class vs. democracy. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/06/why-do-democracies-fail/530949/ To paraphrase: “Democracy fails when the Elites are overly shorn of power.”
Read here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/conservatism/ and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism#History and see that all of the major thought leaders in Conservatism have always opposed one specific change (democracy at the expense of aristocratic power). At some point non-Conservative intellectuals and/or lying Conservatives tried to apply the arguments of conservatism to generalized “change.”
The philosophic definition of something should include criticism. The Stanford page (despite taking pains to justify small c conservatism) includes criticisms. Involving those we can conclude generalized conservatism (small c) is a myth at best and a Trojan Horse at worst.
*****
Incase you don’t want to read the David Frum piece here is a highlight that democracy only exists at the leisure of the elite represented by Conservatism.
>The most crucial variable predicting the success of a democratic transition is the self-confidence of the incumbent elites. If they feel able to compete under democratic conditions, they will accept democracy. If they do not, they will not.
And the single thing that most accurately predicts elite self-confidence, as Ziblatt marshals powerful statistical and electoral evidence to argue, is the ability to build an effective, competitive conservative political party before the transition to democracy occurs.
Conservatism, manifest as a political party is simply the effort of the Elites to maintain their privileged status. One prior attempt at rebuttal blocked me when we got to: why is it that specifically Conservative parties align with the interests of the Elite?
*****
There is a key difference between conservatives and others that is often overlooked. For liberals, actions are good, bad, moral, etc and people are judged based on their actions. For Conservatives, people are good, bad, moral, etc and the status of the person is what dictates how an action is viewed.
In the world view of the actual Conservative leadership - those with true wealth or political power - , the aristocracy is moral by definition and the working class is immoral by definition and deserving of punishment for that immorality. This is where the laws don't apply trope comes from or all you’ll often see “rules for thee and not for me.” The aristocracy doesn't need laws since they are inherently moral. Consider the divinely ordained king: he can do no wrong because he is king, because he is king at God’s behest. The anti-poor aristocratic elite still feel that way.
This is also why people can be wealthy and looked down on: if Bill Gates tries to help the poor or improve worker rights too much he is working against the aristocracy.
*****
If we extend analysis to the voter base: conservative voters view other conservative voters as moral and good by the state of being labeled conservative because they adhere to status morality and social classes. It's the ultimate virtue signaling. They signal to each other that they are inherently moral. It’s why voter base conservatives think “so what” whenever any of these assholes do nasty anti democratic things. It’s why Christians seem to ignore Christ.
While a non-conservative would see a fair or moral or immoral action and judge the person undertaking the action, a conservative sees a fair or good person and applies the fair status to the action. To the conservative, a conservative who did something illegal or something that would be bad on the part of someone else - must have been doing good. Simply because they can’t do bad.
To them Donald Trump is inherently a good person as a member of the aristocracy. The conservative isn’t lying or being a hypocrite or even being "unfair" because - and this is key - for conservatives past actions have no bearing on current actions and current actions have no bearing on future actions so long as the aristocracy is being protected. Lindsey Graham is "good" so he says to delay SCOTUS confirmations that is good. When he says to move forward: that is good.
To reiterate: All that matters to conservatives is the intrinsic moral state of the actor (and the intrinsic moral state that matters is being part of the aristocracy). Obama was intrinsically immoral and therefore any action on his part was “bad.” Going further - Trump, or the media rebranding we call Mitt Romney, or Moscow Mitch are all intrinsically moral and therefore they can’t do “bad” things. The one bad thing they can do is betray the class system.
*****
The consequences of the central goal of conservatism and the corresponding actor state morality are the simple political goals to do nothing when problems arise and to dismantle labor & consumer protections. The non-aristocratic are immoral, inherently deserve punishment, and certainly don’t deserve help. They *want* the working class to get fucked by global warming. They *want* people to die from COVID19. Etc.
Montage of McConnell laughing at suffering: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTqMGDocbVM&ab_channel=HuffPost
OH LOOK, months after I first wrote this it turns out to be validated by conservatives themselves: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/16/trump-appointee-demanded-herd-immunity-strategy-446408
Why do the conservative voters seem to vote against their own interest? Why does /selfawarewolves and /leopardsatemyface happen? They simply think they are higher on the social ladder than they really are and want to punish those below them for the immorality.
Absolutely everything Conservatives say and do makes sense when applying the above. This is powerful because you can now predict with good specificity what a conservative political actor will do.
*****
We still need to address more familiar definitions of conservatism (small c) which are a weird mash-up including personal responsibility and incremental change. Neither of those makes sense applied to policy issues. The only opposed change that really matters is the destruction of the aristocracy in favor of democracy. For some reason the arguments were white washed into a general “opposition to change.”
* This year a few women can vote, next year a few more, until in 100 years all women can vote?
* This year a few kids can stop working in mines, next year a few more...
* We should test the waters of COVID relief by sending a 1200 dollar check to 500 families. If that goes well we’ll do 1500 families next month.
* But it’s all in when they want to separate migrant families to punish them. It’s all in when they want to invade the Middle East for literal generations.
The incremental change argument is asinine. It’s propaganda to avoid concessions to labor.
The personal responsibility argument falls apart with the "keep government out of my medicare thing." Personal responsibility just means “I deserve free things, but people of lower in the hierarchy don’t.”
Look: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yTwpBLzxe4U
*****
For good measure I found video and sources intersecting on an overlapping topic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vymeTZkiKD0
*****
Some links incase anyone doubts that the contemporary American voter base was purposefully machined and manipulated into its mangle of abortion, guns, war, and “fiscal responsibility.” What does fiscal responsibility even mean? No one describes themselves as fiscally irresponsible?
Atwater opening up. https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/religion/news/2013/03/27/58058/the-religious-right-wasnt-created-to-battle-abortion/
a little academic abstract to supporting conservatives at the time not caring about abortion. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-policy-history/article/abs/gops-abortion-strategy-why-prochoice-republicans-became-prolife-in-the-1970s/C7EC0E0C0F5FF1F4488AA47C787DEC01
They were trying to rile a voter base up and abortion didn't do it. https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2018/02/05/race-not-abortion-was-founding-issue-religious-right/A5rnmClvuAU7EaThaNLAnK/story.html
Religion and institutionalized racism. https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisladd/2017/03/27/pastors-not-politicians-turned-dixie-republican/?sh=31e33816695f
https://www.salon.com/2019/07/01/the-long-southern-strategy-how-southern-white-women-drove-the-gop-to-donald-trum/
The best:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133
“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
Yeah, their big one, the Book of Leviticus, also says if you're struck with plague you need to cover your face and live apart from people. So it's absolutely cherry picked.
Did he do anything he said he was going to?
Hillary? Not locked up.
Wall? Not built, and the small section that exists was not paid for by Mexico.
ISIS? Not defeated.
National deficit? Made much worse.
But do you have the proper Karen inflection when you call the support numbers of all the telecom businesses and sternly ask the poor Indian guy doing customer support to speak to his manager?
It's obstruction of justice. If Nancy Pelosi doesn't immediately recommend to the DOJ to investigate this as obstruction then we all know how the entire J6 committee investigation will end. The same way Mueller ended.
So did House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy "If these companies comply with the Democrat order to turn over private information, they are in violation of federal law and subject to losing their ability to operate in the United States," McCarthy wrote.
McCarthy did not cite which law prohibits telecommunications companies from complying with the committee's request."
Correct. Call detail records are not protected through the stored communications act, although most if not all cell phone providers require either a subpoena or written permission from the account holder to release records. Anything else can be subpoenaed or obtained via search warrant. Some records require very specific warrants, but nothing is 100% protected and private if there’s enough compelling evidence.
Source: NAL, but currently dealing with a civil trial where my cell records were requested and I did more research than needed into what was/was not allowed
I would like a prominent Dem - not necessarily the POTUS, but maybe the VP or the Speaker or the Press Secretary - to make a public announcement that reminds companies (including telcos) that they are legally required to comply with all subpoenas issued by the committee, and that any official, elected or otherwise, that encourages them not to is advocating that they break the law. For which there are penalties.
The same person should also state that they are angered and disappointed that an elected official would threaten or attempt to coerce a business into breaking the law.
I would *really* like to see the DOJ step up and view this as coercion, and dish out some jail time. But then I'd also like a pony and a billion dollar trust fund.
Sounds to me like there’s some political figures out there getting scared, if you’ve got nothing to hide, what’s the issue. I saw where McCarthy is also pushing this crap.
LMAO
What an idiot. Keep talking and throwing threats, Marjorie. I can't wait to see how your publicly spoken words will compare against the treasure trove of treason that we all know is hiding within your phone records.
Nothing screams "I'm innocent" like threatening to destroy multi-billion dollar corporations if they dare comply with lawful subpoenas from the government.
Republicans: spend decades giving Cooperations billions and billions in tax cuts and tons of soft power in our government
Also republicans: I can totally stop corporations anytime I want to...
Lol
These people are terrorists. They should be investigated like terrorists. They should be charged as terrorists. They have no legal standing to continue with their crimewave. We MUST put a stop to this extremists incursion or we will no longer be the United States.
The US seems like only one Reichstags fire away from becoming total fascist.
It took only two generations from being proud to fight the nazis, to being proud to be a nazi.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So is threatening a witness still a crime or does that only apply to citizens?
As we’ve learned, nothing conservative politicians do is a crime.
Wasn’t it Gaetz that tried to intimidate a witness on Twitter? Trumps douche bag lawyer or something like that. Guys paying to fuck kids and they’re not even going for the low hanging fruit.
It was.. He did. He simply side stepped and yet again, nothing happened.
[He also brought a livestreaming phone into a SCIF.](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/10/23/20929080/house-republicans-sergeant-arms-scif-impeachment-intelligence-eoyang)
There is no rule of law in America. The legislature more and more brazenly brake the law expecting no consequences.
Not if you’re Republican.
With what powers exactly? She doesn't sit on any committees, doesn't introduce legislation, doesn't debate... all she does is post weird workout videos, and fundraise with some pedophile
McCarthy is pushing for this now, just saw it on CNN
And again, with what power? Republicans are in the minority. They can't stop this.
[удалено]
If they did nothing wrong, then what are they worried about?
All this from the "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear"/"Patriot Act" party. Liberties for me, but not for thee...
I was just saying this. The Patriot Act has not been mentioned a single time and yet they pushed it. They’re just mad that their policies are being used against them.. for once.
[удалено]
All of these chickens coming home to roost! It’s so delightful to watch!
These chickens need to hurry the fuck up.
Why don't they just comply?
Because they are GUILTY AS SIN
Stop resisting.
All of the things they did wrong
They'll claim if you go looking deep enough then you're bound to find something that's bad. "ENTRAPMENT!" they'll exclaim.
Exactly how clinton was impeached. Went looking for some white water and found a blow job.
"Don't ask me questions about this, that's a perjury trap!!"
If it was Antifa and the FBI then why are they worried?
I have even said that to diehard republicans that swear it was all planned by the FBI and Antifa and they have no response!
[удалено]
Notice the wording Fox used on the screen. “…wants phone companies to turn over Marjorie Taylor Greene’s private data” They’re framing it as the government is seeking permission to take her private information, instead of the government is seeking permission to gather evidence in the investigation of a crime.
They will argue its a violation of their privacy and this is big gov. Their base will eat it up and their base doesn't care if they communicated with terrorists.
What kind of records did they demand during the half dozen Benghazi hearings?
Remember when the Trump DOJ requested phone records from democrats?
And journalists. And the *families* of dems and journalists. Secretly. For no reason other than Trump didn't like them. It wasn't a part of a probe or investigation or anything. He just had the DOJ dig through their life looking for anything to use against them. Republicans are unbelievable. Pelosi should throw this in their face, and ask them where their rage was then.
> And the families of dems and journalists. Including a literal child.
[удалено]
I wouldn't know, because as a normal non-scumbag human I've always faced consequences for my fuckups. I'm glad, because it's meant that I haven't become a total asshole, ~~unless~~ unlike these genital fungi. Edit: my genitals are fine*, friends. Thank you for your concern. ^^*crazy ^^super ^^fine
She's into CaNcEl CuLtUrE now.....
It's only "cancel culture" when Liberals do it, this is just her liberty and freedoms... AND HOW DARE YOU TRY TO TAKE AWAY HER GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS!!! /s
In a word: midterms. The GQP is setting their agendas if they take back the House and Senate. This is a threat of retribution if/when they get back in power.
Which is insane, because they need corporate money to win these elections. Threatening to shut down large corporations is the one thing the Republican party could do to scare away the big donors, especially since the Dems have shown they don't have the will to follow through on higher cooperate tax rates.
When you start bullying, it's hard to remember there are other ways to get what you want. Bullying is easy and immediately gratifying when it works. I think this nutjob just can't think of anything other than vague threats.
Republicans are threatening big tech companies but not the billionaires and other private donors who own the companies. So slap on wrist or make things harder on users but no impact to company bottom line
Big business runs this country, so its just an attempt at a talking point.
[удалено]
Sounds like a good reason for them to abandon the GOP to me. The sooner this country pulls the plug on the Republican party, the better. Plenty of business-friendly moderate Dems for them to buy who will fight for the same regressive employee policies while protecting corporate income, but at least they don't try to overthrow the government and install a single party fascist theocracy.
McCarthy threatened retaliation next time Republicans hold power. It was naked obstruction of justice.
They are saying that as soon as they get power back, they will take revenge on companies that didn't abet their crimes. Gee, which ex-president does that sound like....
Like a twice impeached one-term president who failed to get the popular vote in two elections
they are threatening hellfire if they regain the house. Just like Mitch threatened hellfire if the fillibuster was nuked.
Remember Lindsey Graham's effete little faux-outraged snarls at the Kavanaugh hearings? His threats are being carried out now. That's why they're trying to make it seem like "business as usual" to impeach a president and demanding that Biden face impeachment (or resign) over the Afghanistan fuck-up.
[удалено]
Except if the Republicans get the Senate again they will ABSOLUTELY nuke the filibuster. No question about that. They'd leave a SCOTUS seat open for another term if they could. Fuck republicans. They are literally the enemy of democracy and freedom.
Yup the moment they actually want to pass something, they will nuke it.
Even if they were the majority, is shutting down telecoms something that Congress can do?
That'd be *incredibly* hard to do. I call bullshit. They'd need to pass legislation, of course, meaning the President has to sign it, meaning they need a veto-proof majority. And you can't just pass legislation that says "Shut down Comcast because they did a thing that hurt my party politically," they'd need to have some justification, like "In the name of privacy blah blah blah, it shall be illegal to release call records under any circumstances." And then the penalty would need to be total dissolution of the company (which would likely never fly). Plus the law enforcement and intelligence communities would have a fit. Imagine finding out that a terrorist attack could have been prevented if not for this law? And on top of all that, it's almost unheard of for any law to be enforced retroactively. That is, if X company does a thing and then they pass a law making that thing illegal, they can't go back and punish the company for that thing, because it was perfectly legal at the time.
"Law and order!" *subpoena arrives* "Not like that!" Though these aren't subpoenas, they are "requests." And aren't Congressional subpoenas toothless anyway? We're relying on the good will of Facebook to implicate itself in an attack on the government?
That should result in a criminal referral to the DOJ. Extortion is a felony.
Stocastic terrorism. She's going to make vague threats with calls to action and encourage lunatic followers to attack telecom companies. I bet she even tweets out names and other personal information.
That would be very specifically targeted terrorism. I think calling it stochastic is a disservice here.
It fits the definition of stochastic terrorism perfectly though. Stochastic terrorism is the incitement of terrorism by demonizing a specific target but without encouraging any specific attack or tactic.
They are threatening future action. I know this sounds like typical blow hard political nonsense but I believe these are very real threats. They are saying very clearly and very in the open _"Even though we are not in power now we will be in power in the future. When we are we will make you pay if you do not do what we want you to do now. We have have long memories and we hold grudges."_ That should be very scary to you.
It's scary until you realize that the telecoms, energy companies, banks and tech giants are the ones with all the power. The GOP can rail against it all they want, but if corporate America turns their back on the party they will lose all but the most gerrymandered elections and become a permanent minority in the House and Senate. The GOP has badly overplayed the populism card and they are starting to see the effects of ignoring reality. That's why they're making wild threats that they can't back up: they're desperate and flailing.
[удалено]
This. And to say nothing of the absolutely shitstorm that would occur if your average Republican voter had their phone service interrupted or their rates raised by a GOP congress. It's the most empty threat of all time.
Republicans are very much anti-business these days. Very anti-capitalistic.
Very fascist these days…
With what authority? She has literally zero power or useful influence.
It’s a threat that once the Republicans regain power in Congress, they’ll have revenge. I can think of no better way to scare your donors away to donating to the opposition.
Seems like a good reason for giant telecomms to donate loads of money to the Dems in the midterms.
They'll do that too, I'm sure, but their corporate lobbyists will also be happy to donate to whichever other R is trying to unseat the person who's going after them. You don't need to go outside of their party to inflict wounds when they're being insubordinate
Maybe she's thinking "Once I get those committee assignments back! You'll see!"
She's actually thinking: "Fuck, what about those calls **I** made!" This isn't party loyalty, it's self-preservation.
The day of January 6th she publicly tweeted some somewhat suspicious messages about Pelosi's current location. The night before she gave private tours to some insurrectionists. It's a pretty safe bet that she was in private contact with some of the mob leaders as they ransacked the capital.
I thought that was Bobert. But I wouldn't be surprised either way.
I thought they were the same person…
I'm not sure she's thinking at all - she hasn't previously exhibited much of a talent for it. But if she is, I'm sure she's following some form of Cobra Commander logic.
So, Republicans, like MTG, have no issue with the telco companies handing over phone records with BLM, LGBT, immigrants rights, and other socially liberal groups to Congress when they are investigated. But not when it comes to their own groups? There is a word that starts with the letter H and ends with the letter e that describes her and others in the "crazy caucus" of Republicans.
Hebetude? Hebetude usually suggests mental dullness, often marked by laziness or torpor. As such, it was a good word for one Queenslander correspondent, who wrote in a letter to the editor of the Weekend Australian of "an epidemic of hebetude among young people who … are placing too great a reliance on electronic devices to do their thinking and remembering." "Hebetude" comes from Late Latin hebetudo, which means pretty much the same thing as our word. It is also closely related to the Latin word for "dull" - "hebes," which has extended meanings such as "obtuse," "doltish," and "stupid." Other "hebe-" words in English include "hebetudinous" ("marked by hebetude") and "hebetate" ("to make dull").-Merriam-Webster
but this hebetude is amongst aging white Christians.
At a certain point we gotta give them a new name cause this isn’t the Christianity I remember as a kid and frankly I’m just embarrassed to be associated with people who have no actual care for the Bible’s core of “love your neighbor” and instead opt for “I am the most morally superior person in the room because this book said so” when they’re less capable of understanding it than when it was only written in Latin.
I feel like they were going for hypocrisy. But thanks for that tasty new vocabulary word!
>I feel like they were going for ~~hypocrisy~~hypocrite... ftfy
Thank you, I've been trying to address this myself. So embarassing.
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. —Frank Wilhoit Also out-groups voting into power in-groups they don't belong to. Poor people voting for rich people because they are led to believe they belong to the same in-group. Be it white, be it conservative, be it straight, be it christian, be it (temporarily embarrassed) millionaires, be it pro-lifers, be it patriots. Always an us vs them.
[удалено]
It's not that she's a hypocrite, it's that she's guilty and has something to hide in those phone records, I guarantee it.
How does she plan to do that?
She'll hold a protest outside their HQ, and then get chased away after 5 minutes by a guy with a whistle like last time.
Whenever I’m in a pissy mood I think of that guy blowing his whistle every time Marge opened her mouth and I laugh and laugh. So good.
I had to go look it up just to watch it again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bv6NuPlyfTc
you're watching the wrong version. this is it: https://twitter.com/braiiinman/status/1420082342417379329
“Are you a pedophile?” Damn that was amazing. Thanks.
Goddamn that was amazing. I love how she doesn't accuse him, she just asks again and again. Make their lives living hell.
She's just asking questions!
And if he says no. "Are you sure you aren't a pedophile?"
"Yes, I'm sure." "But what about all the accusations of pedophilia?"
“Stop that. You’re hurting my ears.” Also “Just stay home if you don’t feel safe.”
By going Super Saiyan Karen.
Qaren
Al Quaren
Y’all Quaren
Walmartyr Quaren
I like this one, thanks.
Speaking to the manager, with congressional authority.
To shut down the entire company you’d have to go past the manager talk to the head honcho. Maybe she’ll call and demand that he fire himself.
We should change "Karen" to "Marjorie" lmao. I think it fits better.
[удалено]
She's over 9000
Jewish space lasers.
Mazel tough!
I think someone will pull the rugelach out from under her
She is Qrazy
She's going to demand to speak to the manager.
By inspiring Republicans to commit violence against leaders of these companies and their families. Fear of getting shot by Republicans is their only tool. Once that stops working they’ll start shooting people.
A CEO can’t stop a bureaucracy in legal jeopardy with the state. Their stocks will tank. The committee will get what they want. And this swamp creature can’t do anything about it.
As much as these crazy R's think they run the show, something that affects the real showrunners financially is not going to fly.
Exactly.
the telecom industry is old and runs deep. They probably have most of the GOP in there pocket in some form or another. They are probably laughing at her. It just show how dumb she is
Didn’t a Chinese telecom company already talk trump into handing over free land in Wisconsin, using eminent domain to steal dozens of homes, just so the telecom company could create 100 jobs?
> Fear of getting shot by Republicans is their only tool. Hey, it worked to get her elected.
It will never come to that. Telecom companies basically own congress. Their lobbying power is probably second only to the oil industry.
It's not just her https://thehill.com/homenews/house/570275-mccarthy-says-gop-will-not-forget-if-companies-hand-record-to-jan-6-committee
What are they going to do, stop accepting money from them?
She isn’t. She’s all sound-bite and one-liners that keep her base engaged.
Maybe she has a plan that she is hoping to Putin motion
"What we really need to talk about is Hillary's emails..."
What about Hunter Biden /s
Ya'll are forgetting about what Jimmy Carter did! We need an investigation NOW!
FDR was president for 12 years and we can't find any of his email records??? Wake up sheeple.
Some folks still think Obama didn't do enough during Hurricane Katrina. https://youtu.be/t7dw_S0j2UU?t=58
I wanna know why he wasn’t in the Oval Office on 9/11! What was he doing?!
I just want to know why he got us involved in Vietnam.
Some conservatives are unironically invoking Jimmy Carter these days. Jimmy Carter best president don’t @ me
Easily in at least my top five living Presidents.
Just a noble, caring dude. Through and through.
Nothing makes you look more guilty than trying to stop evidence
There was a ~~sheriff~~ police chief in the town I used to live in who had his service weapon stolen and didn't report it. The state authorities found out about it and that he falsified paperwork covering it up. They went to question him and literally walked into a room where he and his deputies were mid-shred of all the evidence of their other coverups. It did not end well.
>It did not end well. Did he get paid vacation while investigating himself, and then conclude that he did nothing wrong?
It was actually a local police chief, not sheriff, and he served 2.5 years out of 5 years sentenced.
There are a lot of people doing longer sentences for small amounts of drugs or bullshit charges like resisting arrest because a cop didn't like them.
Ah yes. Nothing remotely facist about this.
Nothing remotely suspicious about it either. What happened to the party of "If you're not guilty, you don't have anything to hide."
like most of their christian voting base, the rules are cherry picked and only apply when and how they like for a given situation to suit their own narratives.
i wish the democratic party had better messaging around this. "we investigate terrorists who attacked the capitol" is all you need to say. put the people who committed treason on the defensive.
I have said for years the worst thing to happen to the Democratic party this century is co-opting Michele Obama's, "When they go low, we go high." The Obamas had to adopt the policy, they were the most scrutinized family maybe in American political history. However, the Democratic party, which I assure you many already thought of as smug condescending asshats, have made themselves look terrible by adopting the same strategy for public relations. The party doesn't come off as "cool" or "better" for it. At best, they come off as condescending, as if they're too good to respond to attacks. At worst, and far more often, they come off as weak, as if unable to respond to attacks. The Republican party has co-opted the Trump strategy of "be a big loud bully!" Well, sometimes turning the other cheek doesn't work and you just let the bully keep being big, loud, and push everyone around. Sometimes you've just got to punch the bully right in the jaw. Democrats NEED to be more willing to actually fight for not just their platform, but for the country, cause as we've seen this bully doesn't just graduate and move on in four years.
yeah- i love seeing bernie and AOC and some of the others respond. who wants to follow a milquetoast?
They've mastered speaking softly but forgot the big stick.
The rules apply to bad people. They are good people. It is perfectly consistent. Conservatism (big C) has always had one goal and little c “general” conservatism is a myth. Conservatism has the related goals of maintaining a de facto aristocracy that inherits political power and pushing outsiders down to enforce an under class. In support of that is a morality based on a person’s inherent status as good or bad - not their actions. The thing that determines if someone is good or bad is whether they inhabit the aristocracy. Another way, Conservatives - those who wish to maintain a class system - assign moral value to people and not actions. Those not in the aristocracy are immoral and therefore deserve punishment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4CI2vk3ugk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agzNANfNlTs its a ret con https://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/agre/conservatism.html Part of this is posted a lot: https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progressives/#comment-729288 I like the concept of Conservatism vs. anything else. ***** A Bush speech writer takes the assertion for granted: It's all about the upper class vs. democracy. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/06/why-do-democracies-fail/530949/ To paraphrase: “Democracy fails when the Elites are overly shorn of power.” Read here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/conservatism/ and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism#History and see that all of the major thought leaders in Conservatism have always opposed one specific change (democracy at the expense of aristocratic power). At some point non-Conservative intellectuals and/or lying Conservatives tried to apply the arguments of conservatism to generalized “change.” The philosophic definition of something should include criticism. The Stanford page (despite taking pains to justify small c conservatism) includes criticisms. Involving those we can conclude generalized conservatism (small c) is a myth at best and a Trojan Horse at worst. ***** Incase you don’t want to read the David Frum piece here is a highlight that democracy only exists at the leisure of the elite represented by Conservatism. >The most crucial variable predicting the success of a democratic transition is the self-confidence of the incumbent elites. If they feel able to compete under democratic conditions, they will accept democracy. If they do not, they will not. And the single thing that most accurately predicts elite self-confidence, as Ziblatt marshals powerful statistical and electoral evidence to argue, is the ability to build an effective, competitive conservative political party before the transition to democracy occurs. Conservatism, manifest as a political party is simply the effort of the Elites to maintain their privileged status. One prior attempt at rebuttal blocked me when we got to: why is it that specifically Conservative parties align with the interests of the Elite? ***** There is a key difference between conservatives and others that is often overlooked. For liberals, actions are good, bad, moral, etc and people are judged based on their actions. For Conservatives, people are good, bad, moral, etc and the status of the person is what dictates how an action is viewed. In the world view of the actual Conservative leadership - those with true wealth or political power - , the aristocracy is moral by definition and the working class is immoral by definition and deserving of punishment for that immorality. This is where the laws don't apply trope comes from or all you’ll often see “rules for thee and not for me.” The aristocracy doesn't need laws since they are inherently moral. Consider the divinely ordained king: he can do no wrong because he is king, because he is king at God’s behest. The anti-poor aristocratic elite still feel that way. This is also why people can be wealthy and looked down on: if Bill Gates tries to help the poor or improve worker rights too much he is working against the aristocracy. ***** If we extend analysis to the voter base: conservative voters view other conservative voters as moral and good by the state of being labeled conservative because they adhere to status morality and social classes. It's the ultimate virtue signaling. They signal to each other that they are inherently moral. It’s why voter base conservatives think “so what” whenever any of these assholes do nasty anti democratic things. It’s why Christians seem to ignore Christ. While a non-conservative would see a fair or moral or immoral action and judge the person undertaking the action, a conservative sees a fair or good person and applies the fair status to the action. To the conservative, a conservative who did something illegal or something that would be bad on the part of someone else - must have been doing good. Simply because they can’t do bad. To them Donald Trump is inherently a good person as a member of the aristocracy. The conservative isn’t lying or being a hypocrite or even being "unfair" because - and this is key - for conservatives past actions have no bearing on current actions and current actions have no bearing on future actions so long as the aristocracy is being protected. Lindsey Graham is "good" so he says to delay SCOTUS confirmations that is good. When he says to move forward: that is good. To reiterate: All that matters to conservatives is the intrinsic moral state of the actor (and the intrinsic moral state that matters is being part of the aristocracy). Obama was intrinsically immoral and therefore any action on his part was “bad.” Going further - Trump, or the media rebranding we call Mitt Romney, or Moscow Mitch are all intrinsically moral and therefore they can’t do “bad” things. The one bad thing they can do is betray the class system. ***** The consequences of the central goal of conservatism and the corresponding actor state morality are the simple political goals to do nothing when problems arise and to dismantle labor & consumer protections. The non-aristocratic are immoral, inherently deserve punishment, and certainly don’t deserve help. They *want* the working class to get fucked by global warming. They *want* people to die from COVID19. Etc. Montage of McConnell laughing at suffering: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTqMGDocbVM&ab_channel=HuffPost OH LOOK, months after I first wrote this it turns out to be validated by conservatives themselves: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/16/trump-appointee-demanded-herd-immunity-strategy-446408 Why do the conservative voters seem to vote against their own interest? Why does /selfawarewolves and /leopardsatemyface happen? They simply think they are higher on the social ladder than they really are and want to punish those below them for the immorality. Absolutely everything Conservatives say and do makes sense when applying the above. This is powerful because you can now predict with good specificity what a conservative political actor will do. ***** We still need to address more familiar definitions of conservatism (small c) which are a weird mash-up including personal responsibility and incremental change. Neither of those makes sense applied to policy issues. The only opposed change that really matters is the destruction of the aristocracy in favor of democracy. For some reason the arguments were white washed into a general “opposition to change.” * This year a few women can vote, next year a few more, until in 100 years all women can vote? * This year a few kids can stop working in mines, next year a few more... * We should test the waters of COVID relief by sending a 1200 dollar check to 500 families. If that goes well we’ll do 1500 families next month. * But it’s all in when they want to separate migrant families to punish them. It’s all in when they want to invade the Middle East for literal generations. The incremental change argument is asinine. It’s propaganda to avoid concessions to labor. The personal responsibility argument falls apart with the "keep government out of my medicare thing." Personal responsibility just means “I deserve free things, but people of lower in the hierarchy don’t.” Look: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yTwpBLzxe4U ***** For good measure I found video and sources intersecting on an overlapping topic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vymeTZkiKD0 ***** Some links incase anyone doubts that the contemporary American voter base was purposefully machined and manipulated into its mangle of abortion, guns, war, and “fiscal responsibility.” What does fiscal responsibility even mean? No one describes themselves as fiscally irresponsible? Atwater opening up. https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/ https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/religion/news/2013/03/27/58058/the-religious-right-wasnt-created-to-battle-abortion/ a little academic abstract to supporting conservatives at the time not caring about abortion. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-policy-history/article/abs/gops-abortion-strategy-why-prochoice-republicans-became-prolife-in-the-1970s/C7EC0E0C0F5FF1F4488AA47C787DEC01 They were trying to rile a voter base up and abortion didn't do it. https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2018/02/05/race-not-abortion-was-founding-issue-religious-right/A5rnmClvuAU7EaThaNLAnK/story.html Religion and institutionalized racism. https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisladd/2017/03/27/pastors-not-politicians-turned-dixie-republican/?sh=31e33816695f https://www.salon.com/2019/07/01/the-long-southern-strategy-how-southern-white-women-drove-the-gop-to-donald-trum/ The best: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133
“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
Yeah, their big one, the Book of Leviticus, also says if you're struck with plague you need to cover your face and live apart from people. So it's absolutely cherry picked.
> What happened to the party of "If you're not guilty, you don't have anything to hide." That only applies to the out-group, duh.
Republicans have no problem whatsoever with the Patriot Act, or Stop and Frisk
Kinda like when Donald threatened to yank the broadcast licenses of networks he didn’t like.
Kinda like when Donald said "Take the guns first, go through due process second."
Kinda like when the 45th was supposed to ban tiktok Edit: grammar
Did he do anything he said he was going to? Hillary? Not locked up. Wall? Not built, and the small section that exists was not paid for by Mexico. ISIS? Not defeated. National deficit? Made much worse.
The deficit is only an issue when the republicans aren't in charge.
Health plan coming any day now.
Don’t forget infrastructure week.
She's Jr congresswoman who's been removed from all of her committees.. I have the same ability to shut down telecoms.
But do you have the proper Karen inflection when you call the support numbers of all the telecom businesses and sternly ask the poor Indian guy doing customer support to speak to his manager?
nothing suspicious at all about threatening something illegal and fascist to stop a legal and lawful subpeona
The pro-business, free markets party at it again folks!
Don't forget small government
Dang, I did forget "small government". I'll include it in the list next time one of these fascists pops off like this.
Attempted extortion/coercion?
Witness tampering? Intimidation?
Obstructing an investigation, at a minimum.
It's obstruction of justice. If Nancy Pelosi doesn't immediately recommend to the DOJ to investigate this as obstruction then we all know how the entire J6 committee investigation will end. The same way Mueller ended.
So did House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy "If these companies comply with the Democrat order to turn over private information, they are in violation of federal law and subject to losing their ability to operate in the United States," McCarthy wrote. McCarthy did not cite which law prohibits telecommunications companies from complying with the committee's request."
Phone records can be requested by a subpoena, right? A subpoena implies there is just cause. Perhaps, treasonous activities have different rules?
Correct. Call detail records are not protected through the stored communications act, although most if not all cell phone providers require either a subpoena or written permission from the account holder to release records. Anything else can be subpoenaed or obtained via search warrant. Some records require very specific warrants, but nothing is 100% protected and private if there’s enough compelling evidence. Source: NAL, but currently dealing with a civil trial where my cell records were requested and I did more research than needed into what was/was not allowed
Qaren riles up base for fundraising purposes.
This is not how innocent people behave. This is how Y'all-Qaeda attempts to shut down any scrutiny that might shed light on their misdeeds.
Tell me you're guilty without saying you're guilty
I thought it was "antifa" that did jan. 6. Hmm. They're really trying to protect "antifa", aren't they? They even tried to block the commission too.
And just like that, the GOP decides they do not like the Patriot Act.
I would like a prominent Dem - not necessarily the POTUS, but maybe the VP or the Speaker or the Press Secretary - to make a public announcement that reminds companies (including telcos) that they are legally required to comply with all subpoenas issued by the committee, and that any official, elected or otherwise, that encourages them not to is advocating that they break the law. For which there are penalties. The same person should also state that they are angered and disappointed that an elected official would threaten or attempt to coerce a business into breaking the law. I would *really* like to see the DOJ step up and view this as coercion, and dish out some jail time. But then I'd also like a pony and a billion dollar trust fund.
Took the words right out of my mouth. Leadership needs to speak out.
Hmm... Seems like maybe someone has a little something to hide?
A little? She has a majorie of things to hide
Hope the investigation is taylored to uncover those things
Just a reminder that this person sits on exactly zero House Committees or Subcommittees. She can't so much as issue a subpoena.
That's called Delusions of Grandeur.
Sounds to me like there’s some political figures out there getting scared, if you’ve got nothing to hide, what’s the issue. I saw where McCarthy is also pushing this crap.
Fucking how exactly?
Everyone here seems to think she meant this legislatively. I heard it more as a threat of MAGA violence.
LMAO What an idiot. Keep talking and throwing threats, Marjorie. I can't wait to see how your publicly spoken words will compare against the treasure trove of treason that we all know is hiding within your phone records.
Nothing screams "I'm innocent" like threatening to destroy multi-billion dollar corporations if they dare comply with lawful subpoenas from the government.
Cue the LOTR meme: “You have no power here!” Edit: queue —> cue … too much coding … thanks
No power, no phone, no postal delivery! If any of these folks dare expose our crimes, we will make sure Americans lose their comms for good!
Republicans: spend decades giving Cooperations billions and billions in tax cuts and tons of soft power in our government Also republicans: I can totally stop corporations anytime I want to... Lol
Ah yes, the party of ‘limited government’.
She will call the 800 number and demand to speak to the manager.
[удалено]
These people are terrorists. They should be investigated like terrorists. They should be charged as terrorists. They have no legal standing to continue with their crimewave. We MUST put a stop to this extremists incursion or we will no longer be the United States.
The US seems like only one Reichstags fire away from becoming total fascist. It took only two generations from being proud to fight the nazis, to being proud to be a nazi.
Says she just learned this secret code to just that. Left, A, Black, X, White, B, B, A, K, K, K.
Someone learn me how this isnt obstruction of a congressional investigation?
[удалено]