I'm honestly shocked how literally NOTHING stuck to him. He was made of fucking teflon. He said and did shit that - if anyone else had done it, at least in a previous election before this country became officially batshit crazy - NO candidate could have ever gotten away with.
Nobody. Fucking. Cared.
Liar and thief is only the beginning of Trump's legacy. It's going to be something we look back on (if we're able) with the same kind of shame as colonial slavery practices.
Some of us, anyways.
But his opponent was a GIRL who didn't even TRY VERY HARD TO BE SEXY. So basically they're equally evil.
He is a Republican. All is forgiven if you put an (R) beside your name.
Seriously, a more hypocritical group I have never seen. They would let a priest fuck their own kid up the ass if they thought it would piss off a hippie.
John Holmes Motherfucker
When Trump says that he intends to be the president of "all the people", what he means by that is that he expects "all the people" to kiss his lying ass. He's already expressed his shock and outrage that it doesn't seem to be playing out like that.
I am now convinced that any reasonably well spoken penile-american could have beaten this assclown. One can hope that, without the threat of a lady president to distract them, whatever passes for mainstream republicans will no longer be able to look away when Trump gets back to tripping over his over his own dick, like he did for most of the campaign, and, as far as I know, most of the last 70 years.
I suspect that's there's only one thing missing for a real fascist takeover in the US, and that's another 9/11 level terrorist event. That's when you know it's really all over.
haha you're shocked? SHOCKED?
So, if you were stranded on a desert island, and you had to choose between Gene Simmons or Ted Nugent to be your one and only companion, who would you choose?
And, secondly, how long before you commit murder via coconut and live the remainder of your life in total isolation?
I'd cut a deal with Gene and we'd double down on Ted and eat his corpse. After the food ran out, it'd be mano a mano. Frankly, they both look kind of gamey. Bad diets really spoil the meat.
I'd go with Mr Nugent. As an outdoorsman, he'd have useful skills. Gene Simons, I can't imagine he'd bring much to the table in such a situation, either in terms of direct contributions or things I could learn, so... sorry, Gene. Ted it is.
I would not murder either of them, because murder is unethical, and at any rate there are better ways to kill a man than with a coconut.
Ted Nugent so I could kill him and immediately steal his bow and arrow and personal survival kit and boot-holstered firearm (in case I decide to end it or I find out that I suck at archery).
That's the whole point, Homer. He's the larger threat and needs dealing with first.
Larger threat to what? There is plenty of room on the island, and the biggest danger in such a situation is not man, but nature. Mr Nugent has a very good skillset for wilderness survival - superior to mine, certainly - and of the two men listed, he would clearly be the better choice.
I am almost starting to wonder whether there is an ulterior motive behind this question; that what we are being asked is not "whom would you want with you on a desert island?", but rather, "whose politics could you put up with least?" And I truly hope that is not the case, because if it were, that raises the specter of _murdering people over their political views_... and, given what history teaches us & the way American society has been going, that sort of thinking is not going to end well for any of us!
Binro the Heretic
Nugent would force you to build the shelter and gather the resources.
Then he would kill you to make the resources last longer.
Also, he would eat you to make the food last longer.
You're overthinking this, Homer. It's about which of these guys would just cold try to kill you because they could, irrespective of outcome. Clearly, a deal could be struck with Simmons, asshole that he is. Nugent OTOH would try to kill you at the first opportunity because you are worth more to him dead than alive. Or just because he doesn't like you and there is no other force to check him. You've got to be realistic about The Nuge.
Lacking any discernible outdoorsmanship skills Gene would succumb to the elements soon enough, so the situation takes care of itself without further conflict.
But it's NOT about which of these guys would cold try to kill you. The question, as formulated, posits that it is YOU who would cold try to kill THEM.
If they initiated force, then obviously, I would fight back, even to the point of killing them. Self-defense is fine, but the initiation of violence...? And, of course, that principle goes both ways; if the Gene or Ted in your universe is trying to kill you, then perhaps the reason he is doing so, is because you were trying kill him FIRST? I mean, if you go onto this island ALREADY plotting to kill and eat Ted Nugent, then I think it is perfectly fair for Ted Nugent to kill and eat you.
I, myself, would simply co-operate with Gene or Ted (probably Ted) and we would prosper on the island, through mutual self-interest. Why is that not the obvious strategy?
Okay, I should have clarified that I was simply focusing on personality alone. I wasn't considering politics, though I wouldn't blame anyone for taking that into consideration.
I think I'd have to do Gene.
|Maggot Brain |
I like how he left off "all men" part from his "we the people" spiel.
|Scrotum H. Vainglorious |
I'd fuck them both up the ass.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|