We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.

-=|Seriously, ☑️|=- • 4 years ago

It’s absolutely hilarious that the snowflakes in the 2016/17 GOP House had to pass ACTUAL RULES saying NOBODY CAN CALL PRESIDENT FUCKNUTSTAINGRIFTERSHITMONKEY any bad names! Because they KNEW it was going to happen as soon as the Dems took over again!

ryp • 5 years ago

We know who the anti-American congresspersons are, they're called the Republican Caucus.

ronbo • 4 years ago

Don't forget that the "centrist" Democrats who work WITH Republicans. Since when has the Republican party been the "center"?

Did you read the list of Democrats in the House who voted to prevent impeachment investigation? It's the Democratic leadership!

CNN, MSNBC and FOX are propaganda tools to create the illusion that we have a "left" and "right" balance. These sites are more "right" and "far-right". The DLC + Clintons have moved the Democratic party to the right.

Move left or wrap yourself in the stagnation of the status quo or worse. Appealing to Republicans has NEVER helped win elections... just the opposite. Ask "Single-payer will never, EVER come to pass" President Hillary.

Zyxomma • 5 years ago

If I were to go back where I came from, I'd have to move from Manhattan to Brooklyn. I won't do it! I just received my lease renewal letter today, and I'm staying put. Nyah-nyah-nyah, Republicans.

Bell the Blind Tiger MCD • 5 years ago

okay, this is a rule that needed to be suspended as it has nothing to do with decorum and everything to do with making sure than NOT every voice is heard. I'm good with it.

hoping they will now amend the rules to say that you can call a racist spade a racist spade.

Kyu • 5 years ago

I am so fucking tired of this ridiculousness. I don't want violence. I don't want anyone harmed. But if I have to read one more article about people pussyfooting around words while there are literally people in cages in this country, my head is going to explode.

m3bosha • 5 years ago

Frankly, I think NP probs knowingly "violated" that rule. She was there when the cons were in charge and stuck it in there. So she violates the rule, so now everyone know the cons stuck it in their to protect a certain shitboggen. And now with the dems in charge, she can shitcan the stupid rule. And, and she still got her resolution passed anyhow. Well played NP.

Geoff Alnutt • 5 years ago

Golly! Wasn't Trump co-author of The Golden Book Of Pussy. What a great story!

Littorally Speaking • 5 years ago

The answer, as always, to any Trumpublican objection to a violation of rules or protocol should be simply “Merrick Garland, motherfuckers.”

Zyxomma • 5 years ago
Khavrinen • 5 years ago

"There's a rule against calling the 'president' a racist. Who knew? (The Republicans who put it there in 2016!)"

It's almost like they saw this coming, or something.

smfh@@rollingmyeyes • 5 years ago

Why? Because he is thinskined lilly livered racist snowflake, and so are his racist followers!

Fuck the fucking Republicans, except who would want to?


Ethereal Fairy Natalie • 5 years ago

Not even with the 'shroom dick.

James 🌹🏡 • 5 years ago

Civility: The very argument conservative racists made in the Civil Rights Era. "If those uppity ni-CLANGS would just be civil, we could work this out."

Same thing with women's right to vote: If those hysterical suffragettes would just be civil, we could work this out.

Civility is meant to stifle discussion, not further it. That's why the GOP got their panties in a bunch when Rashida Tlaib used the word "fuck" at a private fundraiser. She wasn't civil.

Ethereal Fairy Natalie • 5 years ago
Pm Deering • 5 years ago


Werewolf • 5 years ago

Same with my narcissistic ex regarding custody-if I had just been civil and sat down and talked with her after her ultimatum, we could’ve worked something out. (Narrator: They could not, in fact, have vividly worked something out.)

LadyWoman • 5 years ago

How dare Democrats escalate this! It's almost as if the fact that Republicans won't say boo to this asshole no matter what he does means Democrats have to do these kinds of things. Weird how when people refuse to act we have to escalate...

Meccalopolis • 5 years ago

So incivil, she's lucky she wasn't caned.

Athaic • 5 years ago

Some supermassive asshole republican being busy pearl-clutching:

her words violated the rules of decorum, the very rules that ensure democracy's every voice can be heard as we carry out the people's business

But telling congresswomen to shut up and go back where they come from is in no way a breach of decorum and an attempt at stifling democracy.
Seriously, when are you people starting to guillotine them?

Kyu • 5 years ago

Trust me, I'm wondering.

peteywheats • 5 years ago

I guess it's still OK to steal a black President's Supreme Court picks tho.

Guest • 5 years ago
Bebecca • 5 years ago

the word" decorum" brought it to mind?

VandeGraf • 5 years ago

Pelosi does nothing, she gets flack. She makes a move, she gets flack. The one constant is that she gets flack. Unless she's lazy-- and the fact that she stands for reelection seems to indicate that she's not-- she might as well make moves.

King Beauregard 👂 • 5 years ago

Yeah. 90% of the people griping about Pelosi are spoiled entitled little shits who probably had more to do with installing Trump than they like to admit. All the sniping at the Democrats that Lefties excel at, serves primarily to convince people not to vote at all.

DDB9000 • 5 years ago

For what it's worth, I must say there actually are some of us who have problems with Pelosi but did nothing to install Trump

But I live in a town rife with fake liberals, faux progressives, and looney liberals whose chief ability, it would seem, is to throw those people whom they claim to care about, under the bus.
Like women, non-whites, LGBTQ+ people, disabled people, immigrants, and of course, the poors.

You know, the Berniebros, the Steinkampfers, the UWS Nixonians, etc.
And eventually they will be butthurt that their choice didn't win and vote in 2020 for Marianne Williamson on the Goop and Vaccine-Skeptic Party lines.
I do believe this shit will still happen, and I think it is a concern.

In 2016, I preferred Bernie, but knew he would have no chance of beating Trump, and so I voted for Hillary cause I'm not a fucking Purity Pony (that what all the kids are calling it today, right?).
Hopefully, these assholes won't pull that stunt again, but as many of them are well-off "liberal" white people whose lives Trump's actions rarely affect (as long as their maid Juanita isn't taken away), they may just pull another runner, and pull us down into a Trump shitpit larger than we can imagine now.

King Beauregard 👂 • 5 years ago

Well, I did allow for 10% of Pelosi critics who aren't fucked in the head.

And if pressed, I could come up with things to complain about where Pelosi is concerned. But she's doing a very difficult job and she's doing better than literally anyone else on this planet could, so I'm not inclined to gripe. Whereas most of her critics don't even have a firm grasp on success, failure, and planning.

KB did say 90%. I guess you belong to the other 10%.

I think that this whole thing has finally push me over my limit. I had to read a million people bitching about how the resolution used the word xenophobic instead of racist, and THIS is EXACTLY WHY the word xenophobic was chosen. I am done listening to people bitch about how Nancy isn't doing enough for the young, progressive side of the party. That side of the party, the side of which I am a member, needs to fall back and let someone who knows how things work fucking make them work.

There was not a single reason any of this should have come down on Pelosi, but she took it like a champion and has done so without so much as flinching. This was nothing but a huge waste of time and a bad distraction to what we really should have been talking about.

doktorzoom • 5 years ago

Wait, what? "I had to read a million people bitching about how the resolution used the word xenophobic instead of racist," ...?

It used the word "racist." It was right in the title of the resolution. For that matter, "xenophobic" isn't even in the resolution, though it would certainly fit, too.

Am I missing the point, or were you just hearing from a lot of people who weren't paying attention?

I was reading that the draft document used the the word xenophobic rather than the word racism.

When they start actually voting, I will start taking them more seriously.
Until then, they're just throwing shit at the walls and beating their chests. Even when I agree with em.

peteywheats • 5 years ago

She is a failure because she is not protecting the constitution of the USA from all enemies foreign and domestic. She is the number one protector of Donald Trump in the country. Not sure why you think the left would be satisfied with her for that shirking of duty and that normalization of white nationalism and treason.

What do you think she can do as long as the Treason Party controls the Senate?

(Here we go again...)

peteywheats • 4 years ago

Show that at least one party believes in the rule of law and that Trump should be impeached for his crimes. Stop letting what Republicans do or do not do define what Democrats should justly do.

Guest • 5 years ago
peteywheats • 4 years ago

You fuck yourself Trump-protector.

I was not asking you a question.

I liked the gavel-dropping guy.

disqus_lWwzrwNaw6 • 5 years ago

I just keep having this same dream: Chuck Todd has convened a panel representing diverse viewpoints (Peggy Noonan, Hugh Hewitt, Marc Thiessen, Ben Shapiro, and for some reason Roger Stone is there too), only it's 1933, and they're talking about the Nuremberg Laws, which Chuck has conceded are, yes, by some standards "controversial," but he wants the panel to avoid getting into the merits of the Laws.

"Let's avoid getting into the tall grass, and just stick to the key political question," says Chuck. "The Nuremberg Laws: are they working for the Nazis?" and the panel concludes that, say what you will, you have to admit that at the end of the day, Hitler's winning on optics.

Carolus Egregius Toddus probably would have thought the Triumvirate's proscription lists were "controversial," even after his name had been added to them.

(BTW, I'm making fun of his hairstyle)

Bindersfulohostbodies • 5 years ago

Clearly Trump’s remarks were racist as well as xenophobic. My question is, are there special protections for the office of President regarding his speech. Mainly, he’s speaking about the government. And technically he’s a government employee. What about sedition?

Marceline • 5 years ago

I love how she just says "I cleared my remarks with the Parliamentarian" then just walks off like.... https://media1.giphy.com/me...

tinyhandofdestiny • 5 years ago

Reclaiming my time...Trump is a racist. Without objection so ordered.

Lefty Wright • 5 years ago

Since the GOP likes picking nits so much, it looks like the resolution did not call Trump a racist. It called his tweets/comments racist. So the resolution sounds legit under the rules to me.

james • 5 years ago

Exactly. And Pelosi made that decision deliberately.

Chuck Dickens • 5 years ago

So, the party that whines about "house rules" just fucking shrugs their weak shoulders when their criminal friends ignore "house subponas".