romney likes this

A few years ago, I worked giving out samples at Costco for a year, and these were the best/weirdest things that happened to me:

Around Halloween, a man and woman walked by my cart, with a little boy who was crying as if he was losing part of his soul. They all had strong and beautiful Indian accents. The man said, “Son, what’s wrong? Son, what’s bothering you?” and his wife sighed and said, “He thinks we won’t let him be a ladybug for Halloween.” The father straightened up and said, “Son, of course you can be a ladybug! You can be whatever you want!” and they slowly got the boy to stop crying. It was one of the most heartwarming moments I’ve ever seen.

An elderly man with a long and greasy beard stole my opened bottle of Tabasco sauce that I was using, and proceeded to tilt it over his mouth and drink as much as he could. He then made a noise like “Whee-hee!” and said, “You can’t say you’re from Georgia, unless you can do that!” while I stared on with a horrified face.

(I’m not even in Georgia, and now, I hope to never be.)

A cart rushed by me, two children clinging to the sides of it, and a third pushing it as the other two yelled, “Faster, faster!” A minute later, a very frazzled mother ran in and said, “Have you seen my children?!” I pointed, and she ran off again.

A toddler chose me specifically to tell a story to, about how one time he went to a swimming pool, and there was a slide he really liked, and he went down it a bunch of times. His mom gave me a look of “I’m so sorry,” as the kid spoke, but she should not have been sorry. It was awesome.

A middle-aged man in a suit tried convincing me (while I was shutting down my cart and trying to avoid him) that Obama was the Antichrist, and that the whole world was run by someone called “The Black Pope” who was baptizing space aliens, and that’s why he liked Mitt Romney better. I countered by telling him that Mitt Romney’s real first name is “Willard,” and that made him dumbfounded enough that I could escape and clock out.

By the way im DEFINITELY not saying that you should only be attracted to the most boring ass things like missionary mitt romney style like, idk if this makes sense but someone wanting to fuck the creature from the black lagoon is 100000% less creepy to me than someone really into hentai because its not like people are pressuring people to grow scales in every advertisement ever. Thats unrealistic on purpose, hentai where its girls with waists small enough to fit into a thimble is just really fucked up because it encourages misogyny real bad among a whole litany of other shit

anonymous asked:

James Comey's "Lordy" reminded me of Jon Hamm on Kimmy Schmidt. "I believe in Gosh, and his son Jeepers."

oh my god YES, i’d suggest hamm to play comey in a biopic but hamm looks too much like mitt romney for that to happen

Me @ any teacher who acts like they have their shit together 100% of the time.




These are Donald Trump’s tweets from the 2012 election, during a brief point where it looked like Romney was carrying the popular vote (before the west coast was counted). If you read them without that context, it looks like he’s admitting his own failure now, encouraging people to deny his inauguration.

It’s worth posting just for that, never mind his hypocrisy on display.

Do I expect Trump to feel any dissonance between his accepting victory now and his calls for revolution because he (wrongly, oh so wrongly) thought Romney won the popular vote in 2012?

Of course not, what a stupid question.

cons: if i dont get 10 hours of sleep per day my mental health bombs like Mitt Romney in the election

pros: sleep prevents early death

cons: sleep prevents early death

anonymous asked:

Don't you know that even mentioning that Antifas are violent makes you a nazi? All of the sudden Antifa is the defenders of the free world to both the left and right. Its really gross how people are so scared of being called racist that they can't even say the truth. This country is dead.

Trump placed some of the blame for the Charlottesville violence on the “alt-left” which outraged his critics and motivated them to defend violent left-wing thugs. They were quick to state that only one side was to blame for the violence and even went as far as excusing and even celebrating Antifa’s violence.

Don Lemon said that what the leftists did was “messy” but ultimately well-intentioned because they were standing up against fascists. CNN also excused the violence because it was “standing up against hate.” This is an all too familiar theme among the left. 

Hillary Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon and CNN host Chris Cuomo, decided to go even one step further and compare Antifa to the brave Americans who stormed Normandy on D-Day. It’s beyond comprehension.

What was most surprising to me though was seeing Republicans defend the same people who want them wiped out. Mitt Romney argued violent leftists were morally righteous. “No, not the same. One side is racist, bigoted, Nazi. The other opposes racism and bigotry. Morally different universes.” 

Marco Rubio took a similar tone,“When entire movement built on anger and hatred towards people different than you, it justifies and ultimately leads to violence against them.” Virginia gubernatorial candidate Ed Gillespie claimed those who say violent words are committing an even more serious offense those who actually commit violence.

At first glance, self-described “anti-fascists” may appear as a pretty cool group. Antifa’s new Republican sympathizers might think these guys only target white supremacists and neo-Nazis. But that’s absolutely not the case. In fact, Antifa targets plenty of Republicans and conservatives and their objective is to destroy everything that Republicans love, such as our government, the flag, the Constitution, patriotism, the military, the police, capitalism, gainful employment - you name it, they in their own words are prepared to die to end it all and replace it with a communist society. 

Refuse Fascism was among the left-wing groups at the Charlottesville rally and urged violence against the white nationalists. Another anarchist group that was there, CrimethInc, say “We must identify the forces underlying their laws and their order. Patriarchy, policing, capitalism, and the state. We have to work together to reimagine the world without them. We need to make this country ungovernable,” They declare. “We need to do what the German people should have done when Hitler was elected.”

Another far-left group there was the Workers World Party, a group of marxists who have declared their support for Kim Jong Un’s dictatorship in North Korea and have has consistently published propaganda-like screeds supporting Venezuela’s regime. The communist group “sent many of its members to beat up those who marched there,” according to a post recapping the group’s proud violence. The group took credit for organizing the vandals who toppled a city-owned Confederate statue in Durham, North Carolina this week.

Workers’ World’s stated goals are classic Marxism, including igniting an international socialist revolution and “the shutdown of the Pentagon and the use of the war budget that is the funding for the Department of Defense.” They believe: “Those in the ruling establishment want to continue to dominate most of the world behind a veil of ‘democracy’ and ‘human rights’” and they conclude their messages in very North Korea style, “ “Long live the independent struggle of this new progressive movement against the fascists, the cops and the capitalist establishment!”

These are the nutjobs who are being defended and are being painted as ‘honorable anti-racist citizens’, most bizarrely by certain Republicans who are so afraid of being called racists their idea of condemning white nationalists means justifying violent attacks against them. Since when is it okay for somebody to assault somebody else because someone claims he’s a Nazi? Well ever since the left told us we’re racists if we oppose it. Apparently, as long as violent leftists label their victims “fascists,” or “Nazis” they are free to set fires, destroy property and beat civilians bloody, all with love in their hearts.

Republicans and Democrats can make a point of condemning the alt-right without justifying the continuous violence and rioting of ISIS-wanna-be thugs. It makes no sense to congratulate a group that wants to cause harm to you for simply having different views. Or as they would say, “Nazi” views. In their endless pursuit of press approval, Republicans like Mitt Romney showed how pathetic they are of the threat of left-wing violence. By equating them to the Americans of D-Day or saying they just stand up to hate, all we’re doing is encouraging more political violence. We need to condemn all political violence as both ends of the scale are just as violent, dangerous and repulsive as each other, which is exactly what Trump did and was called racist for it. How stupid can we be?

anonymous asked:

"It's just cishets!" Do you only say aces? So you use the ace flag? If so, no it ain't. Ace means all of us acespecs. The age flag represents all of us

Exactly! You can’t say it’s just cishet aces when you use just ace or the ace flag or make those stupid fucking ace mood boards with like Mitt Romney or whatever fucking bigot they used for it (like thanks for using someone who wants me dead for that btw!)

remember when mitt romney was gonna be the worst president candidate ever but now donald trump came along and mr romney feels like an angel

GOP governors are being so stupid about the syrian refugees 

well what to expect from a bunch of people who wouldn’t know their heads from their asses 

and bobby jindal what is he even? human disappointment personified 

anonymous asked:

Do you think that John mccain would have been a good president

I worried about his judgment after Senator McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate – although I recognized the political advantages to having someone like her on the ticket in 2008 – but I certainly don’t think the country would have gone into a death spiral with McCain in the White House. I’m glad that Obama won, however, and if the only two things that Obama had accomplished were the Affordable Care Act and ordering the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, I’d say his election was worth it.

I’m passionate in my personal political beliefs, and I always want the candidate that I support (and the candidate whose beliefs and aims come closest to mirroring mine), but I’m not one of those people who automatically believe that the country is doomed if the other candidate wins the election. Although it is rapidly eroding, I still have faith in our political system, and still have hopes that (most) of our leaders truly want to work hard at actually governing the nation. That’s why I can look at the 2012 election, for example, and say that I’m glad Obama was re-elected and that he will likely accomplish more that I support than his opponent would have. Yet, I can also say that we wouldn’t have been doomed to catastrophic failure if Mitt Romney had won the race. Romney was a proven success as a an executive in business and politics, and I think he’s genuinely a good man and dedicated public servant who probably would have been a good President despite whatever political disagreements I might have found with him. When we immediately dismiss candidates or leaders from the opposite party, we suffocate any possibility of finding bipartisan answers to the questions we all face, regardless of which party we registered with. That straight-up eliminates our ability to have a government that actually governs with good faith. That’s a huge part of the problem within the current political climate.

Now, of course, there are exceptions. I’m totally willing to support the effort of political leaders from the opposing party if I truly believe they have the capacity (and the good intention) to govern. I don’t need to support or believe in their ideology to respect and appreciate their hard work as public servants trying to do what they see as right and managing the government as needed. That’s why I can say that I believe Mitt Romney probably would have been a good President if he had won the election, or that John McCain wouldn’t have burned the country to the ground if he had won. There are light years separating public servants like Romney or McCain from ill-suited, unqualified promoters and dangerous demagogues like Donald Trump, Ben Carson, or Carly Fiorina. It’s the same reason why I frequently take the time to highlight Paul Ryan’s reasonable leadership and why we need more public servants – on both sides of the spectrum – like Speaker Ryan, who recognizes that his first responsibilities are to his constituents in Wisconsin and the American people as a whole, and that his allegiance to his political party or to a specific party ideology are clearly further down the line.

Like imagine a guy puts a gun to your head and shouts ‘Give me your wallet!’ and you do, but it’s full of spaghetti. It’s like that.
—  Bob Schofield

On Anger and Surrealism

a conversation with Bob Schofield


“Bob,I read your review of Open City. I’m three quarters through that book but have to shelve it for now–I was reading it as consideration for the finale novel to a class I’m teaching this fall: ‘International Cultures in American Literature.’ You’re the second person to tell me the ending twist ripples back through the book–I still don’t know what that ending is, but I’ve sadly concluded that the adult-inner-city students in this course just aren’t going to make it through the abstract, distant, plotless style–which I love. But the wildcard is the ending–so maybe I’ll kick myself later.

At any rate, I was struck by your review, particularly your connection with anger and surrealism. I’d love to explore these ideas with you further, in light of my conversation with viperslang.

It strikes me that surrealism’s success since WWII has been in its international underground murmuring–especially in third world and communist/ post-communist countries. I think it would be interesting to articulate whether and how surrealism arises in places where there is “anger”–the racial, political kind that you allude to.

Have you ever heard of Black Dog of Fate? It’s the memoir of Peter Balakian, English prof and Armenian American, and interestingly the nephew of Anne Balakian, the scholar of surrealism. In that book he wrestles with how his aunt can “elevate” the suffering of her Armenian experience into the symbolic-aesthetic realm of surrealist poetry.

Perhaps the dislocating, incongruous, and forceful disruption of surrealist juxtaposition gets at the cultural experience of displaced, colonized, and marginalized peoples. Perhaps the need to turn the anger into something beautiful is at the root of the alchemical transformation of incongruity into the “marvelous.”

Or(and) perhaps we’re all delusional.

My question for you is, is “intent” also a construct exclusive to an experience of cultural coherence, continuity and power? Is there a facetious exclusivity and blindness in the “mainstream” or “quietist” school’s penchant for intentional and craft-based writing?

Or, what if any thought along these lines have come up in your discussions with viperslang or reflections on Cole?“



“I’m excited for you to pick Open City back up one day. I could see how it might be a little difficult to teach. Very abstract, yeah. I’d really love to hear what you think whenever you do finish it though.

I read your conversation with viperslang. I thought it was very cool, very enlightening. Thanks for bringing me into it. I’m going to check out this Balakian book, which sounds interesting. I’m not too familiar with much third world surrealism (Haha now I expect a reading list! The trap is sprung!!) But I’ve read some Bulgakov, also Daniil Kharms, who both fit the profile, I think.

I agree that the surreal offers a strong avenue of expression for marginalized and displaced people, and in all sorts of different ways. Like you say, I do think it recreates those experiences. The effects of chance and non sequitir within the language can be made to roughly parallel an irrational, or at least highly unjust, distribution of power/agency in a person’s day-to-day life.

But I think it goes beyond that. I think it also gives them a chance to RECLAIM that agency. It opens a space for them to create an object as fractured and complex as the world around them, something truly of their own hand, their own making, and they are given the freedom to sink into it. Finally OWN it in a real way.

I think there’s power in that. It’s the ugly sort of beauty that comes with being the underdog, which I think is what you’re saying about ‘anger being the root of alchemical transformation of incongruity into the marvelous.’ It’s precious because there’s so much futility. But you do it anyway.

Some might call that escapism. I think that’s only the case if you stay in it forever. If you never step back outside it, then yes, it’s a shell. It’s a crutch. But if you take it out and face the world, then it’s more of a cocoon. Or a vessel. Alchemical transformation indeed.

I also think the surreal can be used as an act of defiance, and a damn useful one at that. In any oppressor/oppressed or maginalizing/marginalized type situation, the big danger is always the powers that be coopting the little guy’s mode of discourse. It’s an arms race of words. Just look at how absolutely toothless satire/irony has become in late capitalism. It’s ineffectual because it’s too easy to translate. What you have is basically a one-move reversal of meaning, the simplest thing in the world to reverse engineer, and once that happens the powers that be are playing along like it was their idea. I think of like Mitt Romney or somebody going on SNL and slapping everybody’s back with a big shit eating grin on his face like he’s been in on it the whole time, yucking it up because, as we all know, he’s such a FUN GUY!

But back to surrealism, which I think is a far more versatile tool in this kind of social dogfight. It works so well because it’s the slipperiest of fish. When done with skill, you are saying everything, and yet nothing. No one can lay a finger on you, because it’s all nonsense, and so it becomes hard for the other person to counterattack. Too much weirdness.

Like imagine a guy puts a gun to your head and shouts ‘Give me your wallet!’ and you do, but it’s full of spaghetti. It’s like that.

In my opinion this kind of surrealism is simultaneously the most passive and most aggressive of passive aggressions, the alpha and the omega, because there’s always still meaning in there. It’s not just noise. Intent has always been slipped in underneath. And since that meaning flows from intuitive leaps, it’s exponentially more meaning than the author could ever have foreseen/intended. A bit like how an H-bomb starts with tiniest subatomic reaction, then half a second later it’s ‘Helllllllo, mushroom cloud!’

As you and viperslang discussed in your exchange, I think there’s always some kind of ‘intent,’ so I wouldn’t say it’s solely a construct of cultural coherence. But I’d be willing to bet big money that the amount of faith a writer actually places in their own intent roughly corresponds to how secure that place is within a hierarchical social power structure. Like it’s easy to think you’ve got it all figured out when you’re king of the world, and no one’s going to tell you ‘NO!’ But as for the rest of us, we’re just cobbling shit together, trying to see what sticks.”

i feel the need to preserve this important piece of fandom history from 2012, because the OP seems to have deleted and wank like this is too good to be forgotten

I’m going to give you “social justice” bloggers a choice and give you a deal. I don’t roleplay Jim for nothing, and now I have a hostage.

The hostage is my right. My prerogative. I am 19 years old and eligible to vote. Let’s carry on.

As I see, a lot of “social justice” bloggers on Steven Moffat’s tag are obsessed with a couple of things. One is “feminism”, the other is LGBT rights, and to a lesser extent I see other “liberal” values (like yelling racism) being touted about. Over a fucking TV show. Well since you guys want to be in a position of changing the world so badly, I decided I’ll go ahead and give you something else. That isn’t complaining about Steven Moffat in your sad, desperate lives.

I am sick of seeing people call Steven Moffat sexist when we have so many more sexist people. Sick of seeing these “Social Justice” bloggers treat his writing like he’s a domestic violence criminal. Sick of seeing “queer” people act like he’s homophobic because he likes lesbians when they go on and on about Sherlock and John fucking in every position and every straight character (male) takes it up the ass on their blog.

So I’m going to give you guys a choice. I have my hostage. I AM GIVING YOU 24 HOURS TO SHUT UP, AND FOR 24 HOURS, I WANT THE MOFFAT TAG TO BE FREE OF ANY HATE.

And if I see any hate on the Moffat tag at all, I will vote for Mitt Romney.

I would like to see how you feel knowing you have lost one vote to your dreaded enemies.

All because you tried to be “social justice” when you didn’t have to be and didn’t give a shit about the bigger picture or real social justice.

This is a threat.

Female!Jim out.

*Plus I’m a cis woman myself and capable of having children, obviously I don’t WANT to vote for Romney but it’s like the Moffat haters don’t really care if he wins?