I’m not suggesting it, the post title is suggesting it. They mention the $2.90 fare, as if to show what a pitifully low amount of money they were killed over, which suggests that had it been over a more reasonable sum of money, maybe the shooting would’ve been more understandable. Maybe had it been in the process of stealing a $100 million Van Gogh it would’ve been different.
I know the amount in this situation is ridiculously low… but is there an acceptable amount where shooting would have been justified? How much money should it take for a cop to be able to open fire on a suspect? $50? $100? $1000? 10,000? 1,000,000? What’s the cut-off?
“It’s just horrible – so surprising to see it here. But we have to get over it. We have to move forward.”
-Trump in response to a school shooting in Iowa, the day after the shooting, back in January 2024.
Trump needs to get over being shot at, that’s the America that him and the GOP have created. If he doesn’t like it… maybe consider some sort of way to control access to guns so that unhinged individuals can’t get them… something like… I don’t know, gun control?
I don’t know, I can breathe out using my butt, but I’m so straight nothing goes in my butt, not even air.
Big Boob Nurses 17
I got banned from r/entertainment because I said I thought Lizzo’s outfit she wore at her DC/crystal flute appearance was ugly. Nothing about her or about Madison’s crystal flute or any of that, just that I thought her outfit was ugly.
Office supplies or gaming stuff
I’m not looking to buy either, that’s so weird… but I do have some to sell. They don’t ask questions do they? I just need to get these off my hands, literally, I’ve been carrying these bags around for awhile. Human skulls are heavy.
“I knew I got there too late, but they didn’t even acknowledge me to tell me what I already knew and which was completely obvious due to the locked door and lack of acknowledgement. How rude!”
That seemed like the entirely right answer. It was a bullshit question that didn’t need dignified with a response.
Who could’ve predicted that fascists would act like such Nazis?
That’s cool, she wasn’t real either.
Oh shit, is that a requirement?
I work in a company that seems to have mostly women in management roles and the area I work in has mostly women in our area as well. The things I’ve heard women say about men though would get any guy shit-canned within a day if he were to say anything like that about women. Women can straight-up say things like, “I hate men” or “Men are such assholes” or “What is wrong with men?” or “Guys are so stupid!” or “My husband is such a fucking idiot” or saying blatantly sexual shit about men that they have crushes on or find attractive. It’s just a joke to them, like whatever. Meanwhile, if a guy were to say anything even remotely approaching to what I’ve heard in our office, they would be gone like nothing, there’s just no tolerance for that.
And don’t get me wrong, I’m not offended by women saying sexist things like that or talking sexually about guys, I don’t give a shit, I’ve heard worse from other guys. That doesn’t bother me and I’m not looking to get anybody in trouble over it, I just want tolerance from both sides. What bothers me is that men aren’t afforded that same courtesy and aren’t allowed to talk the same way. Women can talk shit at work all they want about men because “Fuck the patriarchy, old white men are ruining everything, etc”, but whooo, if a guy says anything remotely out of line about women, they will be reported like that 🫰.
“women are extremely reluctant to criticize other women”
You should listen to women talk more, they’re extremely enthusiastic to talk shit about each other.
I actually do agree with some of your points though, but on that point, I’ve rarely seen a woman reluctant to talk trash about another woman when given a chance (maybe more in he said/she said situations is what you’re referring to).
You mean money launderers, criminals, and foreign governments are openly spending more than any other industry?
I had sex once.
It’d be nice if there was some sort of objective, quantitative “score” that could be attached to each candidate’s performance (or as objective as it can be). Something at the end of the night you could point to and be like, “Yeah, they’re a goddamn liar-mouth.” Something either candidate could point to as a “win” without resorting to just soundbites that get blasted the whole week after and people are like, “Oh snap, they said that!” Like, an actual way to tell how honest either candidate seemed during their “performance”. I’m sure Trump would lie his ass off and his base would be like, “Well of course ABC is going to say Trump lied, they’re owned by woke Disney!”, but at the very least we’d have some sort of tracking of how much they lied during a debate.
How would real-time fact checking even work? Would the moderators actually do their job for once and call it out, or would they just do little VH1/“Pop Up Video”-style graphics where they would highlight whether they would try to correct the record on certain things being said?
Seems like he was just exercising his right to bear arms, is Trump against the Second Amendment now?