I recently went to see an angry contrarian comic who hates the Democrats supported liberal PC culture. Reminded me a lot of Trump because complained a lot for not being able to use the word c*nt openly. Bobby Slayton was the name. His best joke was a turd joke. Do you have a good conservative comic you can recommend? You, Trumpers like to make fun of people - is there someone who is at least good at it?
Dennis Miller maybe? He is American probably not under 60. thinking maybe all these guys but young comedians are a dying breed since pc culture won’t allow comedy.
There are young white guys doing comedy just fine. They are just not conservative because they want to have healthy intimate relationships with people and not have to order mail order bride (eg Trump) or marry a gold digger (eg Dennis Miller). I personally like John Mulaney. PC culture is about the golden rule and integrity - it is not a bad thing.
Dave Chappelle is not a conservative but hates liberal pc culture. Ricky Gervais recently went off on it as well, while also a Democrat. It's also wise to not come out as a Conservative if you're in the entertainment industry so there might be some closet conservatives out there.
more impeachment appreciation!! "How history will view Trump's impeachment": https://theweek.com/articles/894075/how-history-view-trumps-impeachment excerpt: Loser: John Bolton. Trump's former national security adviser could have volunteered to testify about the Ukraine scandal while House committees were still taking impeachment testimony. He didn't. Instead, he waited until the case had gone to an uninterested Senate — and until he had a forthcoming book to promote. Bolton is the impeachment equivalent of the guy who reaches for the restaurant bill after you've already given your credit card to the waiter. He could've been Trump's John Dean. Instead, he's just a wannabe warmonger without a portfolio.
I heard Dave Cheppelle bombed recently in Chicago from a friend who went to see him. But that sounds like someone I'd want to check out on YouTube. Thanks. Ricky is not American so can't relate.
The problem I have with this argument that he eventually gave the money and no investigation into Biden was announced there for no crime was committed is this: We all know Murder is a serious crime. But if someone tries to commit murder and fails - we don't say, "hey no harm done!" let them walk. It's still a serious crime. If a terrorist plots but doesn't execute - they are still terrorists. Trump didn't execute his plan, but he still planned it and put things into motion. He only stopped when his plot was made public by a whistleblower. Only then, the day after it hit the press, did he release the funds. It isn't about corrupt intent. It's about corrupt acts. He's still guilty of criminal behavior here.
Those are grown adult proffesionals with degrees literally making the argument that you can plan a bank robbery, you can be loaded with firearms and heading towards the bank with your plans in your car and get caught before executing the robbery and that in itself wouldn't be prosecutable. Grown adult humans with education literally making that argument on the WSJ. ****ing Christ. What the hell has Trump done to so many sensible humans?
No one will admit to their mistake willingly. Dale Carnegie mentions it some 85 years ago. (and I'm sure greek philosophers ruminated on the fact too at one point or other). Will they start civil war over it, like the GOP senators are suggesting to justify their vote. I seriously doubt it.
Glad to have done the doomed impeachment. It was the morally right and Constitutionally mandated thing to do. Had the Democrats shrunk from it, I'd be utterly cynical by the time we got to election day. It was not otherwise the politically optimal choice -- probably it'd have hurt Trump more if the House had pressed the subpoenas in courts and let the drip of news continue for months. So while they had the easier road compared to Republicans, they still made a sacrifice of their own best interest to do the right thing and I appreciate that. Guess what I'm trying to say is that impeachment is a consummate professional and I hope he retires a Rocket. Seems to me that stand-up is enjoying a boom time because the format is well-suited for on-demand streaming services like Netflix and Youtube. Re PC culture, if it keeps you from being a successful comic, you probably aren't creative enough to be successful anyway. It's like saying the sonnet format keeps people from being successful poets.
I normally disagree with misery likes company, but I have a lot of enjoyment watching that knucklehead
more impeachment appreciation in the Washington Post: "The key impeachment verdict is in. And no, it didn’t come from the Senate." https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...40237e-4853-11ea-8124-0ca81effcdfb_story.html The key impeachment verdict is in. And no, it didn’t come from the Senate. By David Von Drehle Columnist Feb. 5, 2020 at 4:34 p.m. EST If, next January, Donald Trump takes the presidential oath for a second time — an unwelcome prospect to me — his road to reelection will have started in these busy, perhaps fateful, few days of early February, when Trump’s audacious flair for self-promotion converged with the bumbling of Democrats to produce an explosive campaign launch. There was the verdict on impeachment. No, not the Senate’s verdict, which was as predictable as tomorrow’s sunrise — especially after House Democrats made the disastrous decision to halt their investigation and present a gapingly incomplete record to unwelcoming Senate Republicans. There was just no time to seek court orders for further evidence, the Democrats urgently explained. And then they frittered away a whole month before presenting their articles of impeachment. The key verdict is the one rendered by the court of public opinion. According to the venerable Gallup Organization, Trump’s approval rating was a dismal 39 percent around the time news broke of his shady dealings with Ukraine. The last president below 40 percent at that point in his first term was Jimmy Carter, who was bounced after one term. By the end of the impeachment debacle, though, Trump was at 49 percent — the highest level of his presidency so far and at least three points higher than President Barack Obama could claim in early February of his reelection year. Some on the left have talked about impeaching Trump again. You have to wonder if they’re secretly on his payroll. Onto this smoldering rubble the Iowa Democratic Party tossed a gasoline bomb. Their shocking inability to tabulate the results of Monday’s caucuses — nearly 48 hours after the voting, only 75 percent of the precincts were in — blew a giant hole in the party’s claims to hyper-competence. Swing voters might be susceptible to the message that a party unable to count votes in Keokuk should not be encouraged to redesign the entire economy. When, eventually, the votes are counted, Democrats should be chagrined by the mediocre turnout. All those candidates spending all those millions, all the field offices and paid staff, and all the talk about anti-Trump energy produced only the usual attendance on caucus day. Then there’s Trump. His State of the Union speech was a lethally effective exploitation of the presidential bully pulpit. Did he overstate his accomplishments? Yes. Did he understate the record of his predecessor? Yes. Is that unusual in a campaign-year State of the Union? No. But no previous address so cunningly adapted the ancient ritual of a formal speech to the visceral medium of television. A former TV star himself, Trump understands that people don’t just listen to what the president says. They also watch the reactions of the people in the room. He engineered the speech to force his opponents to react in potentially self-defeating ways. Some examples. Rather than give the usual conservative lip service to school choice, Trump illustrated the issue by introducing a young African American girl in the gallery and announcing that she was getting a scholarship to attend her preferred school. What would House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and her fellow Democrats do, applaud for the happy child and risk offending their public-school-teacher base or sit on their hands and look like a bunch of Scrooges? Rather than deliver the Republican boilerplate on abortion, Trump introduced a pro-life mom and her 2-year-old daughter, who was born barely halfway to term. Advances in extreme neonatology kept her alive. How would Democrats react to this cute little darling whose existence blurs the distinction between life in and out of the womb? Rather than poke the usual verbiage at the wing of the Democratic Party that embraces the label of “democratic socialism,” Trump introduced Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaidó, whose quest to unseat his country’s socialist government had the entire Congress on its bipartisan feet. Now Democrats are left to explain why ousting socialists is good policy for Venezuela while electing them — the democratic variety, anyway — is right for the United States. Viewers were left to wonder: Why wouldn’t Pelosi applaud money for historically black colleges and universities? What’s her beef with a serviceman who returns from deployment to hug his kids? Where’s her feeling for the brother of a man killed by an undocumented criminal? All of these visuals could be explained in policy terms, but as Ronald Reagan once confided to his diary, “If you’re explaining, you’re losing.” I won’t be surprised if the next Gallup poll finds a Trump bump from the confluence of these events. If so, he’ll be in positive territory for the first time — a position of relative strength for which Democrats will share a large part of the blame. They misjudged impeachment, mismanaged Iowa and unwittingly co-starred in a Trump infomercial. The great mistake of 2016 was to underestimate Trump as an innovative campaign force. Time is running out to avoid a repeat.
where did I imply that? Spoiler: this should help https://www.talkenglish.com/grammar/prepositions-on-at-in.aspx
