#tax payers are paying for animals to suffer.

[vodkaforeveryone]

“You shouldn’t judge people on their political views”

I’ve always been told that you shouldn’t judge people on their political views and I’ve always reluctantly agreed. You shouldn’t let politics come between on and other. Just like religion, it can be a dangerous thing to do, especially on a global scale.

Recently, my views on that has completely changed. In 2017 I think who you voted for and actually even if you voted at all, says a lot about you as a person. It speak volumes about your views on human and animal lives and how important you deem yourself to be.

I want to start of by saying that the differences between politics and religion is that religion doesn’t hurt anyone. The actual beliefs of the majority of religions do not hurt anybody (I say majority because there always an except to the rules and also extremists of religion do not count or speak for any religion) religion is also something you can escape from if you don’t like it and in the UK is not forced upon the masses. 

Anyway, the reason my view on judging people in their political views has changed is because of a conversation/argument I had with a member if my family. My cousin. They voted Tory, I voted Labour. Now at first, I wasn’t mad or annoyed that they voted this way. I mean, why wouldn’t they? They’re a 21 years old  white, straight, cis, male who is healthy physically and mentally. He’s had a good education and found a good job straight out of school. Why would labour speak to him? Maybe he doesn’t know. 

I started asking why he voted this way, these are some of his reason in short:

“Terrorism” 

“The unemployed are lazy, don’t contributed to the country and are taking advantage of the system”

“I don’t need the NHS because I have private healthcare.

When he said this, I started to become slightly annoyed. I wasn’t angry because chances are he is just uneducated about the reality of things. 

Oh, i forgot to mention my mom was also present. She voted Labour. 

The conversation was all over the place so I’m just going to explain things in sections but they did not necessarily happen in this order.

I’ll start with terrorism, everyone knows about the terror attacks that have happened in the UK. Among the obvious, it’s sad that it has given the Tories a perfect opportunity to use this when people are scared. 

Make Jeremy Corbyn out to be a sympathisers.  

Push the idea that terrorist are people fighting WITH and FOR their religion 

They are all foreigners (not white)

This way the British people, like my family member, think no one should be allowed into our country and labour is bad because they support these terrorist.

Jeremy Corbyn is not a terrorist sympathisers, he believes in peaceful talks and not fighting terror with terror. (the Tories are now in collation with the DUP who are Irish terrorist, anti-abortion, think the LGBTQ+ community is disgusting. Also Thersea May has been anti LGBTQ+ herself in the past)

Anyone that commits a terrorist attack is not doing it in the name of their religion because NO religion agrees with violence or killing.

Not all terrorist are foreigners and some of them are even white

In relation to the conversation, my family member said anyone that is known to the government to be a threat should be deported. If that would of been the law before, these terrorist attacks would have never happened. 

My mom and I asked him if he knew that the terrorist that committed these attacks were born and raised in the UK. You can’t deport someone from their own country. 

He then said that it doesn’t matter. Using himself as an example, he said if you knew i was going to commit a terrorist attack, you wouldn’t want me to be in the country, right?

I said no but the answer isn’t deporting you because apart from it being illegal, what country is going to want you? Why would another country take on someone like that? It’s impossible. Maybe you employ more people to keep a closer eye on these people. 

(I understand it is not as simple as just employing them but that feeds into another point that I’ll get onto later.)

He still insisted that there has to be some way of getting people born and raised in the UK out of the country, he doesn’t know how but there has to be some way. 

At this point, I understand that it is his stubbornness that is talking and he probably (I hope) knows that he is wrong but, I find this is the attitude of many people. They are so against the other party that they don’t want to admit that maybe they are being a little irrational and will stand with ludicrous views just the “prove a point”.

When it comes to terrorism we shouldn’t be filling people heads with the idea that all Muslims are bad and a person of colour is more likely to commit these acts. We shouldn’t be telling people that it’s coming from people who are foreign to our country. 

 To me that is passing blame and trying to deflect that, yes, a terrorist can and has been all these things but sometimes our “own people” can be just as horrifyingly disgusting and evil.

Instead of scaring people, educate them. Teach them that good and evil have no religion,colour, sex etc. Teach them to love one and other and listen to people who feel like they are not being heard. Reassure people that just because someone did something evil that you and everyone else understand that they do not speak for the majority. Ask people what you can do to make them feel like their communities are being included. 

If someone is capable of committing a terrorist attack it has nothing to do with their religion or colour. It has to do with them as a people. Hate is hate no matter what. There has been murderers and mass murderers throughout history that are not considered terrorist but to me, they are equally evil. They are individuals to the rest of society. 

I could watch the crime channel and from that assume that every white man is a rapist and are murders but I don’t think that because I know they don’t speak for the majority.

If the law was stopping people from other countries entering the UK, like my family members said, those terrorist attacks still would have happened because they were NOT committed by people from other countries. 

The Tories think that the answer is to exclude, deport and to go to war. Instead of including, welcoming and understanding. If you still think that the Tories are right then, you are part of the problem.

On to my second point. The NHS. The NHS  helps millions of people every day. From small injuries to serious illness.

Now, my family members opinion on this was “I don’t need the NHS because I have private health care”

Straight away my mom and I said yes, you have it now but not even a year ago you used the NHS when you hurt you shoulder. Your brother got his foot crushed by a forklift truck and was in hospital from several weeks, your Grandma broke her wrist and the NHS helped her. You Grandad had cancer and went in to a hospice NHS run for the last parts of his life and I have a chronic disease that almost took my life and the NHS saved me. I also need the NHS for my medication and other treatments related to my illness and will do for the rest of my life. If the NHS wasn’t there none of us could be afford medical help.  We are a working class family and sometimes struggle to pay the bills so there would be no way we could afford insurance.

He then said that he never said he as against the NHS and there is no way the tories are going to take the NHS away from us, we’re over reacting.

That to me made no sense. He had told us that he had read the Tories manifesto where they said they were going to privatise the NHS. But you don’t believe they’d, actually do it? Why and earth would you vote for someone you don’t believe would actually stick to what they have promised?

Anyway, I felt extremely insulted to be told that I was over reacting.  I said to him, the conservatives have already started to privatise some part of the NHS. So, yes they would actually do that.

I asked, do you realise that without the NHS millions of people would suffer so much. Not just me, who counts on the NHS to basically live but people all over the country and you want to take that away from them because you don’t actually believe it would really happen and you don’t need the NHS

Not only would it affect those who rely on the NHS to live but it would be responsible for people losing their jobs and it’s not just the NHS they want to privatise. Almost everything that you get for free, from tax payers money, you’d have to pay for and if you can’t afford it you don’t get it. And on top of that people would still have to pay taxes but instead of the money going back into the country it would go to the rich.

Rich people would become richer and poor people would become a lot poorer. 

Why wouldn’t you want things the be nationalised? The whole country benefits! The rich and the poor. It’s insane to me that anyone would think nationalising things is a bad idea. 

A lot of people say they don’t like labour because they want the rich to pay more taxes. To me that is incredibly selfish. I respect, you worked hard for that money but honestly you’d rather keep your £50,000 a year salary, after tax and have people suffer than maybe, now, earn £40,000 a year, which is still a lot of money and have the poor do a little better. Selfish.

People who are unemployed are lazy and taking advantage of the system.

Bullshit.

My cousin said he thinks that Job-seeker allowance is a bad thing and should be taken away. He said there are too many people taking advantage of it and are actually just lazy and don’t want to work.

The actual words our of his mouth “finding a job is easy”

I had to stop him right there. First off, several members of you family have relied on job-seekers in the past. I was on job-seeker allowance and I was so ashamed and disappointed, it made me depressed. It’s because of people shaming the unemployed that it made me so disgusted in myself that I couldn’t even find it in me to go the the job centre because I’d fear someone I knew who see me there. I wanted job so badly and I’d apply for jobs every day. I was not being lazy or taking advantage of anything. 

Again, I’m just one of many. So many people need job seekers because they have mental illness or a disability that makes it so that can’t work. 

and just like me there are people who are unemployed because they’ve just come out of school, they have no experience. It’s extremely competitive when every year people are finishing school and looking for the same jobs. Only one person can get each job and there are more people then there are jobs. We are not lazy. It’s a well known fact the the country has a job shortage. 

Some people may lose there jobs and become unemployed, they only have experience in that job so it limits what they can apply for. 

There are so many reasons why someone is unemployed, it’s not as simply as, you apply for job you get one and if you don’t you wont get one. 

Going back to the NHS, you take the NHS away, everyone that replies on it to keep them healthy so they can work, are unemployed if it’s gone. They are not being lazy. Or the opposite way around, you take away job seeker. Money that someone used to pay for medication. Now they can’t afford it. 

My mom ask, what if you suddenly became unable to do your job because you got you leg amputated for some reason or your company when under his response was “I’d just get a job in a call centre” because it’s really that easy.

There were a lot of other things like the LGBTQ+ community, racsim and sexism that feed into this and he had opinions on but I didn’t get that far because at this point, I was furious. 

I asked, so you think that the NHS and job seekers should be taken away because a small minority abuse. Instead of investing in the country to make more jobs, teaching people and becoming more aware of those who abuse the system and doing something about. You’d rather take the eaiser, heartbreaking, life destroying way and just stop it all and kick people out the country. 

Not even when a member of your own family tells you why taking away these things will hurt them, you still think no.

His words were “that sucks for you and them but there’s too many people taking advantage”  

I’d love to say that he is a small minority of Tory voters that think that way but he’s not. I’m not saying everyone who votes conservative thinks that way but I find it hard to believe that you have the same opinions as me and you’d still vote conservative. 

Together with the DUP they stand for rights for the whites and privilege. Nobody else.

There are so many other this corrupt and just plain wrong with this party but I’d literally be typing for the forever.

I saw this quote somewhere, but I don’t know who said it. 

“If you’re in a position where you are struggling, vote for who will help you. If you are well off vote for someone that will help the rest of us”

[thisdaynews]

AOC’s Sanders Endorsement Won’t Change 2020. But It Might Change the Democratic Party.

New Post has been published on https://thebiafrastar.com/aocs-sanders-endorsement-wont-change-2020-but-it-might-change-the-democratic-party/

AOC’s Sanders Endorsement Won’t Change 2020. But It Might Change the Democratic Party.

Susan Walsh/AP Photo

2020

Here’s what it signals: Even if Bernie won’t be with us forever, his socialist movement will be.

The anticipated endorsement of Bernie Sanders as her preferred candidate for president by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Saturday will not determine the winner of the Democratic presidential primary. Endorsements almost never matter. But this one does—for the future of the Democratic Party, not the future of its 2020 presidential campaign.

The timing of Ocasio-Cortez’s endorsement sends a sharp message to the party establishment and the progressive movement: We socialists are not here for Elizabeth Warren’s reformed capitalism. We socialists want socialism, and we’re not keeping quiet until we get it. Ocasio-Cortez seems to be telling us that Sanders and his movement will still be with us when he’s gone—and that she aims to be the one who leads it.

Story Continued Below

Ocasio-Cortez is making her move at a pivotal point in the race. Warren has eclipsed Sanders as not just the left-wing frontrunner, but the race’s frontrunner, leading or tied for the lead in most national and early state polls. Two weeks ago, Sanders suffered a heart attack, raising serious questions about whether his campaign could even continue. If Ocasio-Cortez didn’t see a significant difference between Warren and Sanders, or if she wanted to cozy up to Warren and be seen as part of her team, she would have great incentive to endorse Warren, urge her fellow socialists to join her, and help squelch any ideological skirmishing on the left.

Some progressive commentators worry that friction between Warren and Sanders—or more accurately, between Warren and Sanders supporters—is hurting the chances of progressives to sideline the party’s moderates and the donor class. “All you people squabbling at your desks about whether Warren or Sanders is scarier to big money are missing the damn point,” scoldedTimeeditor-at-large Anand Giridharadas on Twitter. “Together they make up a two-headed populist uprising against plutocracy.” Late last month,TheNation’s editor, D.D. Guttenplan, advised progressive voters not to choose between Warren and Sanders until absolutely necessary. Instead, “hope the two candidates maintain their truce, competing to outdo each other in the boldness of their ideas and the breadth and passion of their support,” he wrote.

Yet Ocasio-Cortez is choosing, provocatively so. To make the endorsement at this moment is to say: Not so fast, Elizabeth.

Both Warren and Sanders want big tax hikes on the wealthy and corporations, single-payer health insurance, free public college, easier union organizing and tougher trade deals. Both have eschewed hitting the large donor circuit, stress that their agendas are designed to empower the poor and working class, and threaten the power of consolidated wealth. Both have scoffed at bipartisan incrementalism.

However, if you are a committed socialist, the differences between Sanders and Warren are crucial. Nathan Robinson of the influential socialist magazineCurrent Affairslast month detailed his problems with Warren. Some were rooted in tactical concerns that she wouldn’t build a political operation to overwhelm the ruling class, as she’s a “law professor” and not a “movement-builder.” But at bottom, Robinson wrote, “I don’t like to say that I can’t trust Elizabeth Warren, but I can’t.” He pointed to this year’s State of the Union address: “Donald Trump promised that America would ‘never be a socialist country.’ Warren stood up andapplauded, as Bernie sat and fumed. This was a very clear ‘Which side are you on?’ moment.”

At a similar moment, Ocasio-Cortez has chosen to remind everyone of which side she’s on.

The differences are not strictly symbolic or theoretical. Take climate. Sanders envisions a truly massive federal government intervention to avert the climate crisis: a $16.3 trillion investment over 15 years, including the establishment of public ownership of electric utilities. Warren not only puts far less money on the table, but she also believes the profit motive can help protect the climate. Asked during the CNN climate forum whether she agreed with Sanders on public ownership, Warren stuck to her capitalistic guns. “Gosh, you know, I’m not sure that that’s what gets you to the solution,” she said, and added, “If somebody wants to make a profit from building better solar panels and generating better battery storage, I’m not opposed to that.”

Warren has echoed Sanders on single-payer health insurance, even weathering question after question about how much she would raise taxes to pay for it. But the fact that she hasn’t always held that position, and still hasn’t released her own detailed plan, leads some to challenge the depth of her commitment. The socialist hosts of the Chapo Trap House podcast torched Warren in June for having a plan for everything but health care. Said one, “All of sudden all the specificity and granular policy … goes out the window when it comes to one issue that directly challenges a key constituency of the Democratic elite.”

Sure, they both propose taxing wealth, not just annual income. But Sanders is more aggressive, with higher rates levied on a broader class of multimillionaires, bringing $1.75 trillion more in revenue over 10 years. And he is more rhetorically aggressive. “I don’t have a beef with billionaires,” said a somewhat charitable Warren in the last debate. Compare that with Sanders, who has said, “I don’t think that billionaires should exist.” Sanders has also acknowledged his wealth tax “does not eliminate billionaires” and that the day billionaires cease to be is “not tomorrow.” But it is clear he wants that day to come. His endgame is not her endgame.

Sanders put it plainly in a recent interview with ABC’s “This Week.” “Elizabeth, I think, as you know, has said that she is a capitalist through her bones,” he said. “I’m not.” (Her exact words were, “I am a capitalist to my bones” and she has also talked of her “love” of “what markets can do.”)

To some, this looks like semantics. The fact that Sanders does not have a platform of immediate government command over the entire economy has made some question not only the significance of his differences with Warren, but also why he even bothers to call himself a democratic socialist. Sanders even said in August: “The private sector is the sector of society which creates most of the wealth in America. And I want them to continue to do that” albeit checked and balanced by a “vibrant public sector.”

Still, by expressing a desire for government to own at least some of the means of production, and to place a ceiling on how much wealth individuals can accumulate, Sanders forces us to take his socialistic language seriously. Certainly, Ocasio-Cortez does.

Fox News’ Laura Ingraham views Ocasio-Cortez’s endorsement through the lens of crass political self-interest. “I keep thinking it’s really about a future presidential run for AOC,” Ingraham said. But if Ocasio-Cortez were primarily concerned with her own political ambition, the safer move would be to help the progressive with the best chance of winning the nomination get over the top, and be credited for helping to unify the party. An even safer move would be not to endorse at all.

The more obvious explanation is that Ocasio-Cortez wants to keep the socialist flame burning. Sanders is 78 years old and is in the twilight of his career. If the socialist movement that he has built is going to last, the torch must be passed. Ingraham may well be correct that Ocasio-Cortez wants to take that torch and eventually run for president herself. She would be just barely constitutionally eligible when she turns 35 in 2024. But her Sanders endorsement signals what kind of presidential campaign that would be—a direct descendant of the Sanders efforts that have put building a durable socialist movement in America above short-term electoral considerations.

That doesn’t mean Ocasio-Cortez will use the socialist torch to burn down the Democratic Party. She has said she will “support whoever the Democratic nominee is,” even if it’s Joe Biden, whom she politely criticized as someone who “does not particularly animate me.”

She told theNew York Timeslast month of her time in the House so far, “I think I have more of a context of what it takes to do this job and survive on a day-to-day basis in a culture that is inherently hostile to people like me.” TheTimesnoted she has “cut back on her appearances on behalf of Justice Democrats,” a left-wing organization that specializes in primary challenges, and replaced a publicly combative chief of staff with one who is “sober-minded.”

So Ocasio-Cortez is prepared to remain in the Democratic fold, but her endorsement of Sanders means she has no intention of shelving the socialist banner in the process. The Democratic Party’s big tent has long been filled with ideological tensions between moderates and progressives, but now there is also friction between progressives and socialists. And considering that Ocasio-Cortez is 48 years younger than Sanders, you can be sure that the socialist wing of the Democratic Party is not going away anytime soon.

Read More

[d2kvirus]

Dickheads of the Month: June 2018

As it seems that there are people who say or do things that are remarkably dickheaded yet somehow people try to make excuses for them or pretend it never happened, here is a collection of some of the dickheaded actions we saw in the month of June 2018 to make sure that they are never forgotten.

It somehow didn’t occur to Isabel Oakeshott that, when she has seen evidence of collusion between Arron Banks of Leave.EU and the Kremlin, the correct course of action is to report this to the relevant bodies immediately - not withhold the information for a year thinking it would make her look really, really important when she reveals this information in her next book - a book which may well have been released after the after the Electoral Commission’s investigations into Banks’ activities - which also happens to obliterate her defence of not knowing how important the information was if she was holding it off for her next book, so her haranguing of Carole Cadwalladr when Cadwalladr suggested these links now looks a whole lot more unpleasant as Oakeshott knew Cadwalladr was correct but had to maintain her pro-Leave psychosis anyway

Satan’s personal cheerleader Ann Coulter outdid everyone on the right not named Alex Jones by claiming, on national television no less, that every single child see crying as they were torn away from their parents to be locked in cages were actors and their tears weren’t real - which not only comes across as sociopathic with her smears, but the fact she’s cribbing InfoWars’ usual gamibit means she’s not even being original

Architect of Britain’s economy tanking Boris Johnson responded to legitimate worries of British businesses that Britait will hit them hard with the comforting response of “fuck business” - which shows that Johnson is still doing a fine job of justifying how we send £141k a year to pay his salary when it could literally be spent on anything else, let alone taking responsibility for him being the person responsible for this complete mess

In a blatant attempt to pull the wool over the license fee payers’ eyes, the BBC reported how the proposed £20bn funding increase for the NHS would be paid for by a tax increase - pretending that they didn’t report just 48 hours previously that the cost would be comfortably paid by this mythical “Brexit dividend” that they were banging on about at the time in spite of the fact people with the most basic understanding of economics or mathematics (as well as MPs on both sides of the aisle) calling this a complete fabrication used to try and dupe the taxpayer

Unofficial spokesman for the FBPE mob Eddie Marsan decided the best response to somebody having the temerity to suggest that acting as if Britait is the only notable thing to happen in British politics since 2010 and that nothing else matters at the voting booth by calling the person with such foolish ideas a “stupid, over privileged, hipster socialist” - and that’s a direct quote

Lover of all the creatures on God’s green earth (except women, homosexuals, the poor, the elderly, and animals at the receiving end of bloodsports) Christopher Chote proved himself to be a master of the political world by blocking a debate into making upskirt photography illegal - which would have at least won him a few friends with The Sun, given their habit of publishing upskirt photos taken of random female celebrities without their knowledge or consent

Having dragged himself back into the limelight by paying the dessicated husk of UKIP’s £30, Milo Yiannopoulos rapidly reminded everyone what an irresponsible dickhead when telling a journalist “I can’t wait for the vigilante squads to start gunning journalists down on sight” - and two days later, after somebody did just that in Maryland, the best he could come up with to defend what he said were how his words were something something twisted by the leftist agenda - rather than sounding remarkably like the threats that Brandon Griesemer sent to CNN back in January, the only difference being that Griesemer didn’t attempt a pathetic backtrack of “B-b-b-but I didn’t mean it, you leftist scum” when called out on it

So either Melania Trump is so brainless that it doesn’t occur to her that wearing a jacket bearing the slogan “I don’t really care” when going to visit one of her husband’s concentration camps for Mexican children could be seen as either grossly insensitive or outright antagonistic, or she knew exactly what she was doing which means that Ivanka isn’t the only one of the Trump women who the phrase “feckless cunt” applies to 

Tommy Robinson fanboy Jason Collins attempted to raise support for his boneheaded messiah by tweeting a photo purportedly showing the massive turnout for the Free Tommy protest in London - only for anyone capable of noticing landmarks to point out it was a photo from Liverpool taken in 2005 for their Champions League winners parade.  But apart from being the wrong city, the wrong decade and completely out of contest it proves...oh what’s the fucking point?

In response to the Argentine football team cancelling a friendly against Jerusalem in protest of Israel’s actions in Gaza, Israeli defence minister Avigdor Lieberman harrumphed about how "We will not yield before a pack of anti-Semitic terrorist supporters" - which is less a statement and more a high-scoring game of Zionist bingo

Britain’s answer to Ted Nugent Morrissey claimed that he was cancelling his entire tour because something something left-wing agenda, as opposed to the more commonly-accepted reason for him cancelling his tour (which is hardly unique, as he;s cancelled over 100 concerts since 2012) being related to lack of ticket sales due to tickets being priced at £75, which is double what several bands playing the same venues are charging

In response to Jimmy Durmaz conceding a last minute free kick that led to Germany winning the match in the last second, Sweden fans responded by racially abusing Durmaz on social media while sending death threats to him and his family

On a similar note, Columbia fans sent Carlos Sanchez’s death threats after his handball led to Columbia conceding a penalty and him being red carded - which, considering what happened to Andres Escobar after his own goal in the 1994 World Cup, is the sort of thing that shouldn’t be thrown around lightly

Completing the trifecta of football fans, fans from various African countries were quick to accuse the VAR system used in the World Cup of racism after Senegal failed to win a penalty after VAR rightly adjudged that the tackle from Columbia’s Davinson Sanchez (who also happens to be black, but that’s not important right now...) was fair.  Among the conspiratorial nonsense was a damning indictment of both these vocal idiots’ knowledge of geography or their memory spans

After literally years of horror stories predicting Russian fans committing acts of hooliganism and drowning matches under a tsunami of racist chants at their World Cup, it has to be pointed out that the most notable act of racism in the first two weeks of the tournament is Alan Sugar’s tweet about the Senegal team

Obnoxious host of Singled Out (no, not Jenny McCarthy, the other one) Chris Hardwick responded to accusations of being an abusive and controlling boyfriend by saying that Chloe Dykstra cheated on him, which not only failed to dismiss the accusations but also imply that Dykstra cheating on him meant it was perfectly okay for him to be an abusive and controlling boyfriend

Z-Pack spokesperson Chris Amann very kindly allowed his own incompetence to become a part of the legal record with his nuisance lawsuit against CM Punk & Colt Cabana which saw him attempt to claim loss of earnings and damage to his reputation in spite his remaining in the employ of WWE to this day, failing to even prove that Punk named him in the podcast in reference to what he was suing for, and hiring a lawyer who managed to submit the wrong evidence to trial on several occasions.  Suffice it to say Amann did not win - but he did draw attention to the fact he had an affair with a WWE employee...

Somehow it occurred to neither Chris Grayling nor the BBC that the chaos inflicted by Govia Thameslink on people using their Northern franchise was not unique, as those using their Southern franchise have suffered the exact same problems on a much larger scale but somehow this minor detail continued to be overlooked again and again and again

According to Priti Patel it is not acceptable to see rogue behaviour from government ministers.  Just a reminder: last year Priti Patel was sacked from the government for claiming to be on holiday when she was actually holding covert meetings with several Israeli officials, meetings she had not informed the government nor the Foreign Office about

It’s interesting that left-wing blogs such as Squawkbox, The Canary, Evolve Politics and Another Angry Voice all received micro donations of between 1p and 10p due to members of the FBPE mob and the usual Tory and UKIP trolls operating under the belief that donating so little money would cost the blogs money, when all they were actually doing was giving PayPal free money while giving those blogs plenty of free material - not just the story of people deludedly thinking they could bankrupt them with donations of a few pennies, but also how the supposedly left-wing FPBE mob are just as keen to silence opposing viewpoints as followers of Farage and Rees-Mogg 

In a remarkable lack of awareness, Butch Hartman stated that he loves anime but suggested that all animators should practise other art styles - which not only came across as remarkably condescending to a vast number of animators, but seemed oblivious to the fact that every single show he created uses the exact same art style 

For some reason Real Madrid thought the best way to prepare for Spain’s World Cup campaign would be to announce they had signed Spain coach Julen Lopetegui as their new manager just three days before Spain’s opening match.  The RFEF agreed that it was such a good idea that they promptly sacked Lopetegui the day after Real Madrid announced his signing - which of course drew the usual conspiratorial bollocks from Florentino Perez, who decided to play the victim rather than consider the concept that maybe not announcing Lopetegui as their coach on the eve of the World Cup might be a bloody stupid thing to do

So having torpedoed her comeback with a bunch of racist tweets, what has Roseanne Barr done since?  Attempt to blame it on being under the effects of Ambien and, when that failed to convince anyone who checked her post history, came up with some mealy-mouthed waffling saying that her tweet that compared  Valerie Jarrett to an ape was actually about anti-semitism, convincing precisely nobody

While promoting the forgettable fluff that is Ocean’s 8 Sandra Bullock stated that any and all criticism from male film critics could be ignored as the film is not for them.  Let me put this into perspective: when noted misogynist crackpot Sam Peckinpah never tried that line to dismiss any negative reviews from female reviewers such as Pauline Kael, yet Sandra Bullock attempts such obvious gatekeeping, this is the sort of things that people who believe that GamerGate was their Woodstock will pounce on

Special mention to both Nike and Adidas for their kit designs for the World Cup, where the two companies appear to be in a competition to take what should be a series of straightforward kits to design and instead decide to be “creative” and create something ugly

And finally, because of course it is, there’s the the only person who ever took advice about prison reform from Kim Kardashian Donald Trump - although he amazingly didn’t flip-flop on that decision like a petulant child, as opposed to a child he ripped away from their parents and locked inside a cage