" Most American voters won't vote for the lesser of two evils,"

Yes they will, but only up to a certain threshold where both of the two evils annoy them.

Harris, like Mrs Clinton, probably annoyed more people by coming across as wishy washy rather then taking a clear position either way that would have offended one group or the other.

" they just stay home (because they're idiots)"

Stupid comments like this also annoy voters when they're made on behalf of certain candidate. Well done on helping get your opposition elected, twice.

Reminder to the illiterate media: Taiwan is officially called the Republic of China.

Also, the 'X' and 'ZH' letters in pinyin do not sound the way many journalists pronounce them.

"After all that is known about President Trump, how is it possible to defame him?"

There's a higher bar for public figures (as there should be), but it's not like they should have no protection at all against these types of torts, especially in egregious cases where completely fabricated evidence was broadcast as part of a "news" documentary.

"We need to stop this fascist, bawling ape from doing this."

I'm not optimistic you'll be able to, especially since much of the opposition consists of people posting memes on the internet rehashing many of the same things that no one cared about in 2016.

At this point I have no idea if the OP actually believes in what he posted or is trolling for fun, but the rest of you are really going in hard on the "when they go dumb, we go dumber" motif and have fallen into the trap that every magatroll wants you to.

It's a shame that many people either don't take police brutality seriously, or only seem to do so when they can politicize it.

You might as just come out say you want to expel all Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, and any other ethnic group that doesn't assimilate enough to your satisfaction

"Who are not 'most people', as I said."

You're using the exact same logic that Hitler did when he tried to eliminate what "most people" in his society knew were "bad" and purge anyone who didn't agree. Your position is repugnant is indefensible.

"One can safely assume that most people in the world will equate a swastika to Nazi Germany before they do older origins, and usually they will be correct concerning modern references."

You've been educated many times about how the symbol continued to be used by many millions of people of different faiths around the world. You're just wallowing in your pig ignorance and implicitly advocating for the ethnic cleansing of any group that doesn't bow down to the misappropriation of their symbol. Hitler would have been proud of useful idiots like you.

"Judaism does not equal Israel, and vice versa."

Exactly my point. People who equate all swastikas with Nazi Germany are just as pig ignorant as those who equate the Star of David with the Israeli flag, or all Christians with the Spanish Inquisition, or all Muslims with Islamic extremists, etc.

On a related tangent, the BBC have apparently the lost the rights to the first four episodes of Doctor Who that were first broadcast in 1963, due to a dispute with the writer's estate. The writer's son was asking for an extremely high amount of money for them to be able to repeat or release the episodes on their streaming site. Not as much as what Trump is asking, but they said no. Now he's apparently threatening to sell (or maybe even give) the episode rights to Russia, to get back at the BBC.

The swastika is no more of a hate symbol than the Star of David. Of all the stuff that one could spend political capital on to oppose in the current admin, this is a stupid hill to die on. Especially since they're still prohibited, along with other potentially divisive symbols, in the workplace.

"fentanyl is not protected by the Second Amendment."

And? The Constitution gets subverted all the time in the name of national security, especially since the phrase "WMD" entered the lexicon.

"the US should execute homeless people and bomb the UN Headquarters."

POSTED BY JOHNNY_HOTSAUCE AT 2025-12-09 05:37 PM

You actually wrote that.

" Trump is
the UK Prime Minister"

Cool story, bro.

" Trump never said that."

I just quoted your own words.

Since the allegations are specifically about public comments that Trump made, I think the BBC has a lot more to lose in discovery than he does.

The US president alleged the broadcaster "intentionally, maliciously, and deceptively" edited his 6 January speech before the insurrection, in an episode of Panorama just over a year ago.

The Panorama edit, taken from sections of his speech almost an hour apart, suggested Trump told the crowd: "We're going to walk down to the Capitol and I'll be there with you, and we fight. We fight like hell."

[The edited sections of his speech omitted words in which Trump also called for peaceful protest.]

In Trump's complaint against the BBC, his legal team writes: "The BBC, faced with overwhelming and justifiable outrage on both sides of the Atlantic, has publicly admitted its staggering breach of journalistic ethics, and apologized, but has made no showing of actual remorse for its wrongdoing nor meaningful institutional changes to prevent future journalistic abuses.

"sentinel is pointlessly determined to die on his apples and oranges hill."

Really, was that supposed to be a sensible retort? I guess that's your way of conceding the argument, since you can't counter what I wrote.

'The flavor is "Whatabout."'

Says the clown who kicked of the handgun whataboutism in comment #9.

The case is about the editing and misrepresentation of his public comments, which the BBC have already acknowledged . Of course they should try to get it dismissed with as much bluster as they can, but I don't see it ending well for them either way.

" Declaring an opiate as a WMD is one of the least wild takes the Trump admin has had."

I'm calling BS. This Iike declaring "assault weapons" to be WMDs so the army can enforce gun control.

If I Overdose it only kills me.

If I buy a gun and go on a shooting spree it affects dozens of people.

If you cut and distribute the drug with ill or reckless intentions, it can just as easily kill dozens of people.

If your or someone else's kid got into your stash, it would just as easily kill them as a loaded handgun.

A differing view:

"Guns when used as intended are purposefully deadly."

No more true than saying 100% of abortions are intended to be deadly, or that hard drugs are deadly when mixed or contaminated with other drugs or filler, or sold to addicts with no self control.

But even if we took that at face value, criminalizing guns doesn't make them any safer than criminalizing the other two things.