What stupid thing did the GOP say or do this time? Episode 3!

Wheelimus

Administrator
Staff member
Council of Elders
Citizen
That should be an attack ad on the airwaves tomorrow. Hershel Walker could abort baby bald eagles and Republicans would still nominate them, they want the Senate that bad.
 

Rust

Slightly Off
Citizen
At this point, everyone already knows the Republicult are a bunch of literal monsters. There's really zero point in running an attack ad, because after the past 5 years anyone still willingly supporting them is in open collusion with what they stand for.

And it aint "small government/fewer taxes".
 

NovaSaber

Well-known member
Citizen
And another thing it isn't is "doing anything that helps the people who vote for them":
c5fc79392ccb79e9e93dc03e28fa8a6d31fd860d.jpg
 

Rhinox

too old for this
Citizen
And every opponent they have should run that night and day. Not that it will do any good because the little letter by their names means more to some than literally anything else.
Political parties are a cult at this point.
 

wonko the sane?

You may test that assumption at your convinience.
Citizen
The republicans are a cult, and the cultish adherence to a two party system means that everyone else winds up in the democrats. Consequently: the democrats aren't a cult, they're a sewer that LOOKS like a cult.
 

Pocket

jumbled pile of person
Citizen
And every opponent they have should run that night and day. Not that it will do any good because the little letter by their names means more to some than literally anything else.
Political parties are a cult at this point.
Always have been.

Anything that reduces a person's identity to a single label has always been bad for society, but society has also never given a wet fart whether things are good for them or not.
 

NovaSaber

Well-known member
Citizen
With more than two parties it would be much less likely for one to be defined solely by being "not the other one", though.

The fact that Republicans's cultishness forces Democrats to be "everyone else" makes "Democrat" a label defined by what one isn't...like "invertebrate". However, only about half of Democrats are actually spineless.
 

wonko the sane?

You may test that assumption at your convinience.
Citizen
With more than two parties it would be much less likely for one to be defined solely by being "not the other one", though.
*glares*

There were THREE seperatist parties in the recent quebec election. THREE. A mutliparty system might be a reasonable answer, but it also requires politicians whom are interested in more than personal power, wealth, and fame. So literally public servants.
 

The Mighty Mollusk

Scream all you like, 'cause we're all mad here
Citizen

2014-05-12.jpg
 

wonko the sane?

You may test that assumption at your convinience.
Citizen
Once again: he is a politician starring in a political add; there is LITERALLY nothing that requires him to tell the truth. No rules, laws, or anything. CAT LITTER has more oversight and less jive in it.

Someone should start a us goverment petittion to require political ads to adhere to truth in advertising laws.
 

Rust

Slightly Off
Citizen
He's not even a politician. He's a very ill man being denied the treatment he so desperately needs in order to be a prop to people who unironically call him a "good boy".
 

Pale Rider

...and Hell followed with him.
Citizen
He's a brain-damaged sock puppet for his party and his donors, and he'll vote whichever way they tell him to on any given legislation.

In essence, he's their ideal senator with the added bonus of being someone they can point to whenever they're accused of racism.
 
Last edited:

Pocket

jumbled pile of person
Citizen
Once again: he is a politician starring in a political add; there is LITERALLY nothing that requires him to tell the truth. No rules, laws, or anything. CAT LITTER has more oversight and less jive in it.

Someone should start a us goverment petittion to require political ads to adhere to truth in advertising laws.
I too want this, if only because I realize it would effectively mean politicians would just stop running ads altogether.
 

NovaSaber

Well-known member
Citizen
Considering the fact that there are ads for medication where 80% of the runtime is the legally-mandated list of known side effects, no, I don't think requiring honesty would stop political ads.
But it would make them less annoying, and more helpful for the small fraction of voters who actually use them to inform their vote.
 


Top Bottom