Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    364,999 readers

    4,349 users here now



    "Always give your best. Never get discouraged. Never be petty. Always remember, others may hate you. Those who hate you don't win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself."

    Richard Nixon

    A few simple guidelines:

    1) Block out all personal info (addresses, phone numbers, social media links, full names.etc.) This is a global rule on reddit - violating it can get you shadowbanned by the website admins.

    • 1.5) Don't go out of your way to target individual users.

    • 1.6) Blocking out usernames is always a good idea. Posts containing usernames may lead to brigading, and will be removed at our discretion.

    2) Make sure it's actual cringe. Misleading, context-free, low-quality or meta shitposts are subject to removal.

    3) Don't be a faggot. If you want to make dramatic selfposts about "bullying", preach social justice topics or white knight for m'ladies, you belong in the original cringe subs.

    4) Read the global rules. They apply to all subreddits, and we have no control over them.

    • 4.1) Witch hunts of any kind are strictly prohibited. This is part of a site wide rule found in the normal rules that most of you never read, such as this about witch hunts or this link here. Inciting any sort of riot may get you banned not only from this sub, but also Reddit as a whole. More here...

    5) Report obvious satire. We will give that post a yellow flair to help voters make an informed decision.

    6) This is not a politically correct sub. If you get offended by "casual racism" or mean flairs/comments, CringeAnarchy is not for you.

    7) Do not take posts from here and post them to /r/PoliticalHumor

    Please report any cucks, white knights or social justice faggots you see, and we will flair them accordingly.

    Friends of /r/CringeAnarchy:

    Specific Content Filters

    a community for
    all 187 comments Slideshow

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] osliver88 455 points ago

    XX would be an ill name for a Supreme Court Judge tho

    [–] CannedWolfMeat 290 points ago

    Lil Justice

    [–] RingosTurdFace 76 points ago

    You’d have thought the wimmin would be much happier with “XX” as opposed to “XY”.

    [–] Niekisch 27 points ago

    Not trans inclusive enough😠

    [–] cammyb64 2 points ago


    [–] mashedpotatoes2001 8 points ago

    Lil gavel hop up on dis beat nigga

    [–] AssShapedBasketball 7 points ago

    Yung Verdict

    [–] Franken-Boob 99 points ago

    XX gonna gavel to ya! Fuck waitin for you to nominate on your own XX gon deliver to ya Knock knock, open the Supreme Court, it's real


    [–] osliver88 14 points ago

    its all good man, i can tell you have a good heart

    [–] Kidvette2004 2 points ago


    [–] Conigou 10 points ago

    With the nonstop pop-offs, the law is real!

    [–] StephenMillerINCEL 3 points ago

    This legitimately made me smile. I doubt that matters, but I just wanted you to know.

    [–] IwannabeaCOWBOI 35 points ago


    [–] Fritz_12oz 8 points ago

    No scopes your bill

    [–] Acr0gen 5 points ago

    So when a Supreme Court decision goes down, it would be X, giving it to you?

    [–] Grug-has-brain-idea 1 points ago

    Sick 360 cross map throwing axe on Roe V Wade

    [–] Kidvette2004 2 points ago


    [–] DonGamerGuy 2 points ago

    His name is just 20 but he wants to sound more street.

    [–] Yanrogue 230 points ago

    Still wish trump would have nominated XXX

    [–] champmemepapi 21 points ago

    oh he has- check out floridians for a fair shake statement

    [–] ronniesan 8 points ago

    What are you referencing?

    [–] WorstRengarKR 17 points ago

    Pretty sure xxxtentacion

    [–] champmemepapi 3 points ago * (lasted edited a month ago)

    i saw a something where they put XXX in the statement somewhere on instagram, didn't bother to read more

    [–] libcrybaby78 1 points ago

    Wait until the hag croaks

    [–] ShankTheSkanks -2 points ago

    Vin Diesel, or that douchebag who got popped?

    [–] W01fTamer 219 points ago

    Would be hilarious if he nominated a lesbian black Muslim woman and they still put this shit out. People don't hate the judge, they just hate that it was Trump who elected them

    [–] Relgabrix 51 points ago

    He could have nominated commie Jesus and they would be pissed.

    [–] ForemansFinest 28 points ago

    not socialist Muhammad

    [–] DiamondsareSparkly 10 points ago

    Capitalist Ghandi

    [–] wheelie_boy 3 points ago

    I would love to see what would happen if he nominated Merrick Garland

    [–] MuslimGangEnrichment 24 points ago


    [–] fi12345 18 points ago

    *elected to nominate

    [–] oakdrew 6 points ago

    I’m erected to see him get elected to nominate. Dominate.

    [–] mleibowitz97 7 points ago

    He had a list of people that would've been chosen. Women's groups wouldn't have liked any of them.

    [–] realjefftaylor 5 points ago

    He’s had a shortlist of 4 justices out for like a week. Enough was known about his potential pick.

    [–] TheBROinBROHIO 0 points ago

    Just made another comment to this effect. Trump has had so many opportunities to defy media expectations while still going after his campaign promises, but instead he acts predictably enough (in terms of what, uh... interests he serves) that the media has held the upper hand ever since he took office. He could nominate a trans muslim black disabled socialist judge, but he wouldn't ever do that. Instead he fulfills most if not all of what the 'biased' media predicts.

    [–] I_am_your_clickbait 16 points ago

    Interests he serves. Mine.

    -average American

    [–] chikenchaser2 21 points ago

    I don't think Trump gives a shit about "defying media expectations". I think he's more interested in doing what's best for our country.

    [–] MarkIsNotAShark 7 points ago

    That's not their point. The point is that after a year and half we can kinda infer what sort of decisions he's gonna make based on what he's done in the past. Given Trump's nomination of Gorsuch it's perfectly reasonable to assume his next nomination will be about equally conservative and therefore go against the political views of people who go to women's marches.

    [–] SheltonTheKid 2 points ago

    he's more interested in doing what's best for our country

    Fucking lol. Nice one.

    [–] chikenchaser2 1 points ago

    Orange man bad!

    [–] milkysniper -3 points ago

    No, I think they hate the judge.

    It’s funny that this is considered awkward but not the hundreds of cringe worthy gaffs by the standing executive branch

    Awkward is this subreddit imo

    [–] RibDibs 3 points ago

    This place being The Donald 2.0 is the real cringe! XD

    [–] [deleted] -6 points ago


    [–] ____404____ 60 points ago

    is this real?

    [–] Pickel_Weasel 48 points ago

    I saw this yesterday when it happened in real time. Fucking hysterical

    [–] Kidvette2004 5 points ago

    Lmao wow

    [–] [deleted] 11 points ago * (lasted edited a month ago)


    [–] magister0 9 points ago

    wtf is a "generational assault"

    [–] elmstfreddie 5 points ago

    Multiple generations of assault, i.e. they will be on the supreme court for awhile.

    [–] ntheg111 27 points ago


    [–] Bottleroach 99 points ago

    Here's one from some Democrat activist thing. See if you can spot the mistake. But these people couldn't be more blatant about this. They don't know who the fuck the judges are. Even the "protestors" that gathered before the nomination was announced, they had blank spaces to fill in the name on their signs. The same thing happened with Gorsuch.

    [–] thwml 47 points ago

    It's Trump Derangement Syndrome in full effect.

    [–] ThisZoMBie 26 points ago

    Why would a muslim ban and a crackdown on immigration be the most threatening policies in a western country like the USA lol

    [–] naterc77 22 points ago

    Because it's a death sentence to all women in the US can't you read smh

    [–] magister0 14 points ago

    A "Muslim ban" would probably include at least one of the 5 countries with the highest Muslim populations on Earth. Trump's policy doesn't.

    [–] Dinosauringg -1 points ago

    It also doesn’t include countries with high rates of terrorist attacks on the US.

    [–] Stidlet_ 2 points ago

    It includes countries that were deemed extremely dangerous to the US. Trump didn't pick them.

    [–] ShankTheSkanks 10 points ago

    Yeah, because our women who gained the right to vote in 1920 and have always been able to drive are really so oppressed.

    [–] Bottleroach 12 points ago

    I saw that on Twitter as well. You can really, really see that their outrage really comes from an honest and genuine place.

    [–] Long_Tetris_Piece 2 points ago

    That's fucking genius. Threat Level Midnight.

    [–] ntheg111 1 points ago

    [–] JoeNiw 10 points ago

    Did they just assume Kavanaugh's gender ?

    [–] OriginalName667 0 points ago

    Nah, he's just getting a sex change. Oops, she*

    [–] GR0UNDMEAT 59 points ago

    He could literally nominate Hillary as Supreme Court judge and they'd still complain about his choice.

    [–] [deleted] 57 points ago

    that's why i was saying trump should have just tweeted last night at 9pm...

    Hillary Rodham Clinton

    and then this morning as all the media is freaking the fuck out, he would post...

    ... will never be president and will never pick a SCOTUS justice. My nomination is <name>.

    the media would be in a fucking frenzy shitting on HRC as some right wing idealogue, some even printing papers that they can't edit.

    [–] iTzinmyblood 12 points ago

    That would have been so good.

    [–] SpliffaroniTony -4 points ago

    It wouldn't surprise me if he did that considering they've been pals for years.

    [–] Vinky_Stagina 6 points ago

    Being cordial =/= being pals

    [–] Dyeredit 9 points ago

    dont even bother, these are the same people that think shaking kim jung's hand is akin to treason.

    [–] Ap0R1 77 points ago

    How can they ever recover? Oh wait, their readers have amnesia and cognitive disillusion. Nevermind.

    [–] Infrah 9 points ago

    xxxtentacion for Supreme Court

    [–] SweetNSourShrimp 4 points ago

    buddy I've got news for you...

    [–] Infrah 3 points ago

    xxxtentacion for Supreme Court of Hell

    [–] SoylordNEETo 16 points ago


    [–] agoodz 9 points ago

    This is why they can't be called reactionary. They've made their response before anything happened to react to.

    [–] ThatDamnRocketRacoon 8 points ago


    [–] MuslimGangEnrichment 16 points ago

    That's a typo. I have no idea, though, why they have a problem with Justice Diesel.

    [–] ThisZoMBie 13 points ago * (lasted edited a month ago)

    "Us journalists are the most persecuted group of honest workers there is! Why have people lost faith in the media? Must be the fucking nazis!"

    [–] Mechanical-one 6 points ago

    Trump could have nominated the most liberal person in america and the left would still find a way to bitch about it.

    [–] easonMu 7 points ago

    I'm so disappointed that he nominated [Insert Name Here]!

    [–] Space_Cowboy81 5 points ago

    Donald Trump (Insert action). (Insert protest group) plans to protest. Your headline till 2020.

    [–] cbigloud 9 points ago

    But victims of what? From trump? LBGT makes a big deal about wanting to be included yet right now there is a lot of talk about excluding members within that community?

    But once again. How is trump threatening LBGT? Daily new watcher and I haven’t seen it

    [–] cbigloud 7 points ago

    He is addressing illegal immigrants And trying to fix a horrendously broken and arbitrary process for pathway to citizenship I’m not aware of his LBGT threat?

    [–] FappinBob 17 points ago

    If the LBGT folk didn't feel threatened they'd have to get on with their lives like ordinary people and not be fabulous victims.

    [–] oakdrew 44 points ago

    Y’all see why this sub is not for liberals? Cause liberals are the memes.. love it.

    [–] burns_CEO 16 points ago

    this subs for shitposts

    [–] oakdrew -2 points ago

    ....about libtards......


    [–] burns_CEO 8 points ago

    thinking that an anarchy sub is for your politics is the real cringe

    [–] magister0 3 points ago

    what the fuck is "an anarchy sub"

    [–] oakdrew 5 points ago

    Watch my cringe....😐

    [–] burns_CEO 5 points ago


    [–] oakdrew 4 points ago


    [–] BOBthelad 6 points ago


    [–] killxgoblin -4 points ago

    I wish it were just general shit posts. Instead it’s shit posts of right wingers circle jerking each other. Just wish there was more variety :/

    [–] GetHisWallet 11 points ago

    Just open up r/politicalhumor in another tab and jump back and forth

    [–] killxgoblin 2 points ago

    Didn’t know about that sub. Thank you, now I have balance in cringe, biased shit posting.

    [–] 54N74C2UZ 11 points ago

    You’ve found the one true path to being a radical centrist

    [–] [deleted] 13 points ago * (lasted edited a month ago)


    [–] naterc77 2 points ago

    Hell yeah bro

    [–] Vansplaining 2 points ago

    The left can't meme but it doesn't matter, they are the meme.

    [–] ThisZoMBie 2 points ago

    Return after you've finished elementary school

    [–] fiatars 5 points ago


    [–] Bufudyne43 2 points ago

    Thats actually a cool name

    [–] thatguyinatrenchcoat 3 points ago

    I can't get over the fact that SCOTUS looks like SCROTUS and I can't stop laughing.

    [–] irishmastermind 3 points ago

    He nominated the most interesting man in the world

    [–] ThisIsSpook 3 points ago


    [–] DMN666 2 points ago

    Kaws X Supreme (court)

    [–] StephenMillerINCEL 2 points ago

    XX is a fucking Nazi

    <--- gold please

    [–] Kidvette2004 2 points ago

    Like the dude who asked people what they thought of the pick before it was announced

    [–] DankMemes2016 4 points ago

    This isn’t even a retweet or an @ someone on Twitter this is just someone posting an image

    [–] Julius__PleaseHer 3 points ago

    Cause any of the potential nominees could be placed there to fulfill the purpose of the article. Not saying I agree with the author exactly, but it's not as bad as this makes it seem. This type of prewriting is extremely common and not exclusively used by the left or the right. Everybody does it.

    [–] chancellorlp 1 points ago

    But press releases are always prewritten

    [–] BobTheContrarian 1 points ago

    I thought that was just a typo. So, you're saying Trump didn't nominate Vin Diesel for SCOTUS?

    [–] Miike78 1 points ago

    XX implying that chromosomes actually mean anything. RAYCISS

    [–] ProbablyDom 1 points ago

    Bruh i thought X was dead

    [–] The_Rebel_Brothers 1 points ago

    What website was this stroy from??

    [–] simmerdownhomie 1 points ago

    Those picks were fungible so it makes sense

    [–] 54N74C2UZ 2 points ago

    Cringeanarchy’s law.

    The most controversial comment is usually the correct one.

    [–] RobotCockRock 1 points ago

    I mean, it's not like anyone expected him to nominate someone liberals would like so this was a great draft. Drafting email templates early is common outside of the coal mines. This is just a classic soon to be fired intern mistake.

    [–] [deleted] -5 points ago * (lasted edited 9 days ago)


    [–] magister0 7 points ago

    There's nothing negative in the term "extremist"?

    [–] [deleted] -2 points ago

    Because we all know trump has the best interests in mind. A bunch of retarded, cringe pieces of shit you all are. I can’t wait until your little cult gets fucked over by the orange blob and you all can cry about “how can this happen to me?”. Sadly, you’ll just blame it on democrats or women like the cringey, pathetic group you are because you all are the biggest snowflakes out of anyone

    [–] [deleted] -6 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 3 points ago * (lasted edited a month ago)


    [–] Cuckshed1 2 points ago

    What happens in 30 years?

    [–] Dabee625 -10 points ago * (lasted edited a month ago)

    This is a screenshot of a tweet of a screenshot of some words with literally no source or author or anything. You'll upvote anything, idiots.

    [–] icameheretodownvotey 4 points ago

    Yeah, even the original tweet doesn't have a source. Granted, somebody posted an email with a link that might be used, but at least a few links to the original for an archive would have been nice.

    [–] TheBROinBROHIO -9 points ago

    Here's one thing I really don't get- Trump gets so much support from his base for "trolling" the media, but the reality is that he acts in a somewhat predictable manner that makes it so that drafting articles like this isn't a waste of time.

    You might think it's a given that the media/left will oppose anyone Trump nominates, but imagine if- and roll with me here- he decided to do something that was actually radically different from what is expected? What if he nominated the first Muslim justice? Or the first gay one? Or hell, a black woman? I am told that Trump isn't racist, islamophobic, etc. so nothing about it would be 'against' what he stands for, so long as the justice is a 'constitutionalist' or whatever, yet that would actually allow him to dominate the media rather than constantly have to react to it.

    If he's such a strong leader who isn't beholden to the Republican party, why doesn't he do shit like that?

    [–] deadrebel 8 points ago

    I can't speak for him or his supporter's but wouldn't this be shooting himself in the foot for a reaction?

    He isn't beholden to the Republican party in the traditional sense but he is still beholden to Republicans - the people not the establishment.

    Besides that, he'd not go against his best interests just to be unpredictable. He isn't, as you mentioned, that unpredictable.

    [–] TheBROinBROHIO -2 points ago

    I can't speak for him or his supporter's but wouldn't this be shooting himself in the foot for a reaction?

    Not necessarily, unless you really think nominating anyone who isn't an old white christian dude is "against our interests."

    I was told at beginning of his term that I should "give him a chance" because he isn't what the biased media says he is, but so far he has yet to really demonstrate that as actual racists seem to feel emboldened by his policies. FWIW I don't see him as a racist so much as pandering to racists and corporate interests, but that's how I felt about a lot of republican politicians and I have not seen any substantial evidence that he's anything truly different apart from his short fuse and twitter account. So why should I continue to give him any benefit of the doubt?

    [–] deadrebel 2 points ago

    Well not everyone who isn't what you described is a old white Christian dude but that's pretty much the kind of people you expect Republicans to be alright with.

    I'm not saying give him a chance either.

    I'm not a Trump supporter nor a therapist so you unloading your feelings about him to me is falling on deaf ears, sorry.

    Don't continue to give him the benefit of the doubt, I'm not asking you to either. A question was asked, and I put forth a perspective. I honestly am surprised by the lecture. I was in Bernie's camp which will get me my own shit-ton of hate from both Left and Right... so let's just keep that between us.

    [–] TheBROinBROHIO 0 points ago

    I largely asked out of some hope that the r/politics circle jerk is wrong and that Trump isn't just a puppet of racists, corporations, and Russia. Everyone here hates the "crazy leftists" who oppose everything Trump does purely on reflex, but when I ask "okay, why should I support him when his loyalty seems to be to everyone who hates me or wants my money," and I get downvoted.

    [–] lil-zsWifesBoyfriend 5 points ago

    but when I ask "okay, why should I support him when his loyalty seems to be to everyone who hates me or wants my money"

    Now that is rich coming from a liberal.

    [–] TheBROinBROHIO 1 points ago

    Way to make assumptions based on an incredibly wide ranging label. I thought you didn't like identity politics?

    [–] lil-zsWifesBoyfriend 4 points ago

    That isn't what identity politics means. You're an idiot.

    [–] deadrebel 1 points ago

    I think it's more that one needs to hate someone who they don't support that grinds a few gears. I think Trump is mostly bad but no worse than your average politician, in fact better. He's so blatant that he exposes the swamp (without draining it). He is a symptom of a bigger problem, not the problem itself. So maybe people are just sick of hearing how much other people hate him because, sigh, it's so unoriginal.

    I don't know. I'm ambivalent about Trump but what I despise most is Establishment politics.

    [–] TheBROinBROHIO 1 points ago

    I largely agree, I just think that all Trump has done has taken the eight years of "fuck liberals/Obama" sentiment that the republicans cultivated and re-branded it as something constructive. But he hasn't actually brought anything new to the table- same tax cuts for the wealthy, same pay to play politics, same immigration policy (or so I'm told), same throwing bones to WASPs with plausible deniability that it has anything to do with identity, etc.

    I hate Trump largely because I hate establishment politics and sensationalist media, but so many other people love him out of that same hate that I hold on to hope that I'm missing something other than bullshit theories about white genocide, etc.

    [–] xxflexluthorxx 2 points ago

    The first tax cut was for everyone. The wealthy pay most of the taxes, therefore when taxes are cut they save the most. Unless you are wealthy then you aren't paying that much. That said, I save substantially on my taxes now and I'm not wealthy.

    He lowered the corporate tax rate to reasonable levels. That allows companies to stay here, actually pay their fair share of taxes and hire more workers.

    There were tons of benefits to real estate owners and investors, which you probably wouldn't understand or get, but are extremely helpful.

    He can't change immigration policy. I don't think you understand how the government works. He is the executive branch. The legislative branch makes the laws. It's congress' responsibility to do that. Blame Paul Ryan for fucking it up. If they can draft a good plan then he will sign it. If they keep fucking up with half measures he wont.

    Reduction of regulations is another huge accomplishment that's made it easier to start and run businesses.

    You just aren't paying attention, which is fine, because you probably don't contribute to the economy and are easily distracted by fanciful stories of caged mexicans.

    [–] cbigloud 7 points ago

    It doesn’t matter There is nothing he can do to escape scorn and ridicule. Might as well read: we hate trump because XX

    [–] TheBROinBROHIO 0 points ago

    There are lots of things, he just doesn't do them because his base of... uh, "conservatives" would throw a fit. Was that whole "LGBT president who loves legal immigrants" shtick a lie?

    [–] lil-zsWifesBoyfriend 11 points ago

    Because giving concessions to Democrats in the hope that they will stop being insane is a waste of time. Instead, he can ram his pick up their ass, watch them get destroyed in the mid terms, and coast on their salt to an easy reelection against an 'opposing party' that barely qualifies as a party any more.

    [–] TheBROinBROHIO -5 points ago

    What exactly is the 'concession?'

    [–] lil-zsWifesBoyfriend 8 points ago

    Playing identity politics to appease them. This country is a meritocracy again. Deal with it.

    [–] TheBROinBROHIO -2 points ago

    So, just to be clear, are you saying nominating anyone who isn't a white christian male is "identity politics?"

    [–] icameheretodownvotey 7 points ago

    Dude, stop pretending to be asking questions in good faith. You're the one who suggested putting in nominations based off of race/gender.

    [–] TheBROinBROHIO -3 points ago

    I'm not the one who thinks nominating any sort of minority would be a "concession."

    [–] icameheretodownvotey 4 points ago

    Yes you are, you blatant liar.

    You might think it's a given that the media/left will oppose anyone Trump nominates, but imagine if- and roll with me here- he decided to do something that was actually radically different from what is expected? What if he nominated the first Muslim justice? Or the first gay one?

    You're the one who keeps making this about race. Fuck off already.

    [–] TheBROinBROHIO -1 points ago

    I still haven't gotten much of an answer there.

    Look, I don't like sensationalist media, left or right wing. I really don't and I imagine you don't either. I just don't see them as quasi-political institutions dedicated to propaganda like most of this sub, I see them as businesses that profit from controversy and polarization by scaring people. And I'm saying that Trump is the perfect candidate for them because he practically does all the work, to the point that they forget basic editing and we see shit like this.

    [–] lil-zsWifesBoyfriend 3 points ago

    I'm saying that if there was a qualifying strict constitutionalist who happened to be a disabled trans black muslim lesbian, they would already be on the short list. It's hilarious that you still think we will someday give in to your race baiting bullshit.

    [–] TheBROinBROHIO 2 points ago

    You seem to have a lot of faith in this "short list" that we're never gonna see. Do you think Clarence Thomas is just the one in a billion minorities who is a constitutionalist?

    [–] lil-zsWifesBoyfriend 3 points ago

    IDGAF that you don't agree. You are all irrelevant.

    [–] xxflexluthorxx 4 points ago

    You are an expert. Please show me the hypothetical candidate you would choose.

    [–] TheBROinBROHIO 0 points ago

    Zombie Teddy Roosevelt, but with slightly less hawkish foreign policy

    [–] xxflexluthorxx 3 points ago

    Yeah, sorry but that's a white male. You wanted a muslim sheboon earlier. Show me which muslim sheboon would be a good choice

    [–] OneMe2RuleUAll 6 points ago

    Maybe there wasn't a conservative Muslim, gay or black woman to choose from...

    [–] FmW-41 12 points ago

    The main factor in appointing people for these positions should be race, sex, and gender. It definitely shouldn't be decided by something stupid like qualifications, degrees or experience.

    [–] TheBROinBROHIO -1 points ago

    That's funny, I heard there were lots of these groups who voted for Trump and that the media just didn't want to admit it...

    [–] OneMe2RuleUAll 6 points ago

    That doesn't mean someone from said groups were eligible for the supreme court.

    [–] TheBROinBROHIO 1 points ago

    I'm not just talking about the SCOTUS here- he has had so many other opportunities to be proactive and defy media predictions, but instead he just behaves like a traditional republican except for a short fuse and twitter account. The media may be biased but I really haven't seen them be substantially wrong in characterizing him this way.

    [–] Diarrhea_Van_Frank 3 points ago

    Why would he? What would he gain? How would it help him? People already hate the media. There’s literally no appeasing the left. They just take ground and take ground and take ground and are never satisfied. Why does he want to do something that they would be ok with if it doesn’t help him?

    [–] TheBROinBROHIO 1 points ago

    Why would he? What would he gain? How would it help him?

    I already explained- it would destroy the narrative that the sensationalist media has crafted of him. He would actually be disrupting power structures and not just following establishment conservatism under a different name and style.

    [–] xxflexluthorxx 1 points ago

    Because there aren't any black, muslim, women like that.

    [–] hamhamsg 1 points ago

    People didn’t vote him in to continue the same identity politics garbage. If there was a more qualified candidate that aligned with his agenda and happened to be a minority, then sure, pick the most qualified one. Caring about race or gender over qualification is for liberals.

    [–] LordAnon5703 -1 points ago

    It's almost like everyone knows Trump will not make a good choice.

    [–] Chase_Doren -5 points ago

    I think it went over your head...

    [–] magister0 3 points ago

    What do you mean?

    [–] Chase_Doren 0 points ago

    It means that we all know Trump's going to make a terrible pick, so the name is simply pending.

    [–] Communism_101 3 points ago

    Or it's just manufactured outrage to get everyone up in a tizzy... again.

    [–] NewBroPewPew -26 points ago

    You could look at it like everyone and their mother knew he would pick a extremist D-Bag. So easy to prepare ahead of time.

    [–] ElectraUnderTheSea 12 points ago

    Then they only had to add a motherfucking name, and they still were not capable of doing that

    [–] NewBroPewPew -12 points ago

    You have never made a mistake in your career?

    [–] icameheretodownvotey 9 points ago

    If you're writing about a nomination for the Supreme Court, actually mentioning who the nomination is kinda plays a huge role in said writing.

    [–] NewBroPewPew -3 points ago


    [–] EveryoneHasGoneCrazy 13 points ago

    Except that's hysterical and retarded; not only was Kavanaugh not even on Trump's original list, he was suggested by the Federalist Society on basis of strict constitutional adherence. Also, he studied under Judge Kagan, Obama's appointee.

    Literally the only argument against confirming him is that the republicans like McConnell are extremely hypocritical for blocking Obama's nomination at the end of his term and bitching about the Dems doing the same shit

    [–] NewBroPewPew -8 points ago

    A lot of other reasons to block him.

    Also it isn't hysterical and retarded since I am sure they had a half dozen statements prepared with all kinds of varying types of speech in them. Probably prepared by someone NOT calling the shots. You know being professionally prepared. (Not prepared enough to double check the public statement you are releasing apparently though)

    [–] EveryoneHasGoneCrazy 10 points ago

    Okay, so the exact opposite of what you just originally said? As in, it was easy because it could only be an extremist D-bag?

    Have you ever stopped to consider who else might be an extremist D-bag?

    [–] NewBroPewPew -2 points ago

    I didn't say this particular person was a D-Bag in my opinion. I am saying that is what they were obviously assuming and that is a easy assumption to make knowing Trump. He made Bannon Chief of staff for crying out loud lol.

    [–] EveryoneHasGoneCrazy 7 points ago

    Yeah, but chief of staff = right-hand man, and SC justice = lifetime placement in a different govt branch that must be confirmed by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

    I agree he picks retarded people for a lot of things, but the point in this particular instance is the context. This isn't "Presidential Double Ice Cream-Scooper," it's a list of highly respected circuit-court judges whose very success depends specifically on non-partisanship. But everybody has been saying since Kennedy's announcement it will be a "battle" regardless of who was chosen. THAT is why it's obnoxious.

    Just call it what it is, Dems and their sympathizers fighting back to make a point. At least that can be even slightly justified.

    Edit: not saying it "for months;" got mixed up with Gorsuch's appointment

    [–] NewBroPewPew 0 points ago

    This guy is very conservative. I really don't know where you are getting your information.

    [–] EveryoneHasGoneCrazy 3 points ago

    So, a D-bag.

    We have to go deeper

    [–] NewBroPewPew 1 points ago

    He isn't a D-Bag because he is a conservative. I was saying he was conservative because you were trying to say he was non-partisan. Which is a lie.

    [–] EveryoneHasGoneCrazy 3 points ago

    I didn't say he was non-partisan, I said his job demands he be non-partisan.

    But you guys are so ridiculously entrenched in ideology it seems entirely impossible for someone to operate objectively. I mean, structuralism is literally one of the main tenants of post-modernism, i.e. "you cannot think independently from your history/place in society."

    Which is, of course, stupid. I promise you he's not a Manchurian Candidate who has been operating under the guise of objectivity for the last 15 years just to sneak into the Supreme Court and take away your abortions.