1
Wtf_socialismreally 1 point ago +1 / -0

"Obviously the store has insurance!!!!"

3
Wtf_socialismreally 3 points ago +3 / -0

Even if they weren't, fuck them. We need to stop giving money to other countries unless it is part of a trade deal, period.

If you want to suck at the American teat, give up your sovereignty and become a U.S. territory.

2
Wtf_socialismreally 2 points ago +2 / -0

Where is the law that federal funds HAVE to be used for those things in those cities?

Not being facetious. Just curious why this would be the case.

3
Wtf_socialismreally 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yeah after them doing exactly this they and their fetishists can cry all they like. They were the ones who normalized this.

2
Wtf_socialismreally 2 points ago +2 / -0

Maybe the aid saves lives. Maybe it doesn't. But why are the lives of other countries our responsibility, and more important than the lives of our own?

Everyone else prioritizes -- as they should -- their own citizens over ours.

Besides, we can't help other people if we are drowning ourselves. Sometimes you have to save yourself before you dive back in.

4
Wtf_socialismreally 4 points ago +4 / -0

Administrative leave isn't enough. Flat out remove the positions and remove clearance.

Right now, Trump is being nicer than I would be. Who do these losers think they are?

3
Wtf_socialismreally 3 points ago +3 / -0

I don't believe anything until at least a fortnight has passed.

4
Wtf_socialismreally 4 points ago +4 / -0

It should be challenged. We need it to be made clear that other people can sign on our behalf, because that's not a security risk at all.

3
Wtf_socialismreally 3 points ago +3 / -0

Well, the things we see from Trump were clearly prepared ahead of time!

But damn I'm glad to see him do this work.

It's been nice to be able to unplug and do other hobbies since he won.

1
Wtf_socialismreally 1 point ago +1 / -0

Why did they choose to zoom in on the worst part of that video? Literally an inch to the left would have been better.

I would be very interested to see an investigation into what happened here.

1
Wtf_socialismreally 1 point ago +1 / -0

I'm not personally a fan of "at will", with the caveat that if you fire a person for no legitimate reason there is no way for them to understand what they did wrong and improve.

If a legitimate reason is stated, it's fine but I think there should be a responsibility to be up front with someone about why they're being let go as a point of mutual respect and decency.

Quick edit: In line with "at will", I also want to clarify that the use of legitimate means the real reason rather than some BS non-reason or no reason given whatsoever.

1
Wtf_socialismreally 1 point ago +1 / -0

This is actually the best way to handle it and removes a lot of the teeth from the action.

The media and Reddit will go full retard over it, but they're totally lost.

3
Wtf_socialismreally 3 points ago +3 / -0

I do not believe it is possible to help someone who does not want to be helped.

You can help people who seek more information than their own bubble, but they don't.

2
Wtf_socialismreally 2 points ago +2 / -0

I am unsure if it's the same for Pompeo, but apparently for Bolton he's on a hitlist from...Iran was it? Which caused him to be eligible for protection.

view more: Next ›