Pardoning your son because he had a cross hair on him because he is your son is an abuse of power, no doubt. But corrupt? Nah. Just nepotism.

Pardoning people who attacked the capitol on behalf of your attempts to overturn an election you lost is blatant corruption.

While both are wrong, it’s equally wrong to try and equate them.

That’s actually neoliberal propaganda and not true.

“And I’ll prove this by just spouting empty propaganda!”

Source: my Russian propaganda, bro.

Yup. He knows how to sell shit to gullible rubes. He’s a dumb fuck otherwise, but the man has an uncanny genius when it comes to self promotion.

I don’t think I’ve ever heard this…I’ll probably check it out

The problem with this garbage type of reporting is that you can create any narrative you want. Social media is so big that it’s not hard to find a handful of posts, like what is being posted in their story, saying almost anything you need them to. Always going to be some insane person in some corner of the internet saying something completely batshit.

The article is really “we found some people on social media saying these things” and it’s being framed as “maga meltdown.” It’s fucking garbage.

I agree that social media has a large influence, but how does garbage journalism like this do anything other than add more fuel to the fire of “traditional media is now trash”?

I wouldn’t be surprised if they don’t, but I’m not as confident as you are, as the committee is split 5/5 and there are republicans calling for its release. Additionally, we’re two years out from any election, so they have a bit more freedom to act on their conscience rather than just bow before Trump.

However, none of this changes the fact that this article is about them meeting to discuss whether to release it. Something that is happening.

They are meeting to decide whether or not to release the report. This is quite literally something that is happening.

The mamas and papas make me want to punch myself when I hear them.

On Friday, Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson said he plans to request that the ethics panel does not release its report, saying that because Gaetz is no longer in Congress doing so would be a “terrible breach of protocol.”

This is the best part of the article, where Mike Johnson, a big supporter of the man who is all about breaking norms, all of a sudden cares about “breaches of protocol,” especially in a case where the guy obvious left congress to hide it, likely because he knew he was going to be tapped for this position.

This is the beauty of being a conspiracy theorist, it gives you free reign to believe anything you want.

Evidence comes out that someone you support has done something bad? “It’s a set up and/or manufactured! Where’s the proof!?” Same evidence comes out that someone you oppose has done something bad? “See! I told you so. When will people start listening to me!?! Of course it’s real because I think they are running defense for this person.” No evidence evidence exists for your theory? “((They)) are very good at hiding it!” Evidence that kind-of-sort-of-almost-supports-your-claim-if-you-look-at-it-at-just-the-right-angle-in-just-the-right-light (but not really, it just is vaguely similar) supports something you said earlier. “HA! i told you.”

You can always view/ignore the facts in such a way to confirm your position, if the facts are secondary to the narrative.

They say the same thing about the BLM protests.

The worst part about this is that it will take 20 years for the damages of this to become really apparent, and the dumb fucks who voted for trump will just blame whoever is currently in charge. Or claim that Democrats have some kind of disease gun.

Considering plenty of women voted for trump, and this protest is only directed at men, it seems there is a very large exception being made there.

If they said “none of the 4bs with any trump supporter regardless of sex,” that would be done without exception. But that’s not what is happening. It’s all men, regardless of their support for Trump. They are excepting guilty people, while including innocent people.

And, sure, if I supported their misandric protest, I should be expected to have a reciprocal sacrifice. However, considering their protest is irrationally targeting me because of my sex, I’m not really hot on “doing my part” for something I vehemently disagree with.

By justifying it, you’re justifying it for them too, as they believe they have the same or similar grievances. Regardless of who you think is more guilty.

This is literally what they’ve been saying for years. It’s amazing how much we are like the people we hate the most.

What I’m reading here is that you knew I was right all along, but it makes a better political slogan to pretend that it makes sense. That I can agree with.

Again with the tu quoque. Does your abandonment of the point to focus solely on ignorantly attacking what you imagine I do in real life mean you realize that I made a good point? I don’t disagree with what you say here, but, fuck, to spend this whole time shitting on men and making up the worst about me, and then turn around and demand I act in a certain way takes a lot of fucking nerve. If you want men to be allies, I suggest stop defending when people act like they are all guilty for Trump being elected.

If you are so intent upon discussion of this matter as being an issue of misandry, I certainly hope that you are as staunchly against misogyny and intend to do far more than just voting for Kamala to protect women in this country.

Tu quoque fallacy.

I will assume that you will consider this to be misandrist as well

Well, you’d be wrong because I wholeheartedly agree.

Trying to harp on the “misandry” part of this is not productive towards the goal of the protest which is the protection of women’s rights and lives against the coming onslaught.

I’m not trying to harp on anything. I called out some misandry, and then a bunch of people have jumped in to defend that prejudice. All I’ve done is defend my position. You act like I’m following 4B people around making sure to shout misandry any chance I get.

Refusing to engage in sex or relationships is not “shutting people out”, it’s exercising bodily and personal autonomy.

We both agree that they 100% have the right to do this. You don’t need to convince me of that. The thing is that these two things are not mutually exclusive; they are using the right to bodily and personal autonomy to shut people out. No amount of spin will change this. It’s the whole point of the protest, or at least ostensibly so.

Is a lesbian the equivalent of a racist for being entirely uninterested in men? Is an asexual person a bigot because they refuse to have sex with anyone?

I’ve been very clear about my position: they are blaming all men because of the actions of some men. That’s the misandry. Trying to equate this to (paraphrased) “you must thing lesbians are misandrists too!” is either just a disingenuous spin, or you aren’t trying to understand.

If women do not consent to be in relationships or have sex, that needs to be the end of the discussion without coercing them to change their minds by calling them bigots for their refusal to consent.

I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind. I’m just pointing out that their blatant misandry is misandry.