Chump for President

[BraveUlysses]

For fucks sake.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cuckold

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cuck

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cucking_stool

Now let's get back on topic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuckservative

[marshallnoise]

OMG everything is racist! Even if all you do is let your wife cheat on you!

Back on topic: This will get overturned by the supreme court.

[decay]

Lol the term has nothing to do with race, absolutely nada

...and that is the best defense you can come up with for the usage of such a repugnant term?

[mrsleeve]

are you sure you know what it is? (I wouldn't suggest looking it up if you are at work).

I am very sure I know what it is, I really dont think you do. IIRC the term traces to the 15th century and the Cuckoo bird that would lay its eggs in another birds nest and make that bird raise it. So when your wife would screw around on you and have their lovers kid and you raise it, the term cuckold was applied to that situation. Now its more applied to a weird sexual fetish, where the wife fucks other guys with the partner present and watching during the encounters, and minus the child rearing.

Race has nothing to do with it.............. If that is what trips a couples trigger, who gives a fuck, who am I to tell them what they can do as concenting adults with other consenting adults. Its not "repugnant" unless you disagree with the practice based on some moral objection. I frankly dont care and its not something I would really be into.


Edit: I see exodus has gone about helping you guys out already

[Farbin Kaiber]

Baahahahahahahaah... the concept that a sexual proclivity is repugnant* coming from the self-professed tolerant side is pretty ironic.

Me personally, I'm all for letting lobster-porn-professor do her thing however she deems, as long as she isn't doing it against adult consent, or against children.


(EDIT:* A term to describe a sexual proclivity is repugnant)

[mrsleeve]

I thought thats what I just said.................... LOL

[flyboyx]

This thread is in the shitter right now. I'm now going to make a feeble attempt to get us back on course.

The word: pussy

One.....two......three......Discuss!

[decay]

Baahahahahahahaah... the concept that a sexual proclivity is repugnant* coming from the self-professed tolerant side is pretty ironic.

i never agreed it doesn't have racist overtones.

and anyway, aren't the alt-righters using it as a shaming term the people you're really talking about here? i find their *use* of the term repugnant; could have been more clear there.

[flyboyx]

come on man. lets take this in another direction already. i think we have the word in question discussed ad nauseam.

[decay]

fine. can we talk about how trump's staffers are directly in violation of the law for plugging his daughter's clothing line?

[flyboyx]

sure. personally, in the grand scheme of things, i really won't get too worked up over that. we have a bazillion other things that are about 50x more critical than getting upset over this sort of thing.


i have been trying to watch the news sparingly as of late because i am getting tired of seeing liberals completely lose their minds over minutia. Headline: TRUMP SNEEZED!!!!! THE WORD ENDS TOMORROW!!!!!!! or TRUMP SCRATCHED HIS NUTS!!!!! RUSSIA IS GOING TO INVADE!!!!!! jesus christ.

this reminds me of how people bitch about one bad call being the reason their favorite sports team lost.

do i love trump? no. but he is indeed the better of two evils if you consider what the other alternative was. do liberals not see how fucked up this government is? at least the guy is trying to fix all the jacked up shit resulting from (say) 30+ years of career politicians passing bills and referendums that were based on self serving agenda.

for better or worse, that comb over fucker is working his ass off. there has to be some semblance of respect in that.

[decay]

sure. personally, in the grand scheme of things, i really won't get too worked up over that. we have a bazillion other things that are about 50x more critical than getting upset over this sort of thing.

ok, so where i disagree there is there is a really good reason these rules are in place, and this could be testing the waters to see if they can get away with such flagrancy.

or we just have a cabinet full of fucking idiots who don't know the rules of their jobs.

at least the guy is trying to fix all the jacked up shit

uh... what is he trying to fix, so far? i'm not being contrarian here, there are a couple of decisions i've agreed with (mattis as secdef and the supreme court nominee is a strict constitutionalist which basically makes him the swing vote if appointed).

but yeah, let's talk about actions taken and their intended outcomes?

[flyboyx]

so, by your standard, being an un-convicted and unfortunately untouchable felon for sending thousands of classified emails over unsecured personal servers (not to mention anthony weiner's kiddie porn machine) is somehow better and less illegal?

i just feel like liberals can completely overlook the hugest, most massive deficiencies in their candidate and turn the tiniest little thing in their opposing candidate into the equivalent of word war 3.

there is no objectivity. its like: hey! this guy is a conservative! i hate conservatives! HE PICKED HIS NOSE!!! THE WORLD IS GONNA STOP SPINNING!!!!

[decay]

ok, i tried to show some objectivity by recognizing where choices i thought were right were made, and you've ignored that, as well as my question.

you're not allowed to guide the discussion anymore :P

[flyboyx]

lol