It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to [email protected]
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
Sarah Silverman who got booed and she chastised the Bernie wing. "TO THE BERNIE OR BUST PEOPLE YOU'RE BEING RIDICULOUS".
Silverman in lecture mode is pretty much what I assume the leader of a HOA sounds like lecturing a homeowner who isn't "proudly" flying the American flag.
Install a massive Native American/Communist flag and assert dominance.
Is there any law in the US that the US flag must fly above other flags?
Because that would be awesome.
Giant 100 foot flagpole with a Soviet flag the size of a house, topped with one of those teeny tiny little American flags on toothpicks that weirdoes get for fourth of July parties. "I am following the law to the letter, any further attempt on your part to get me to modify my flagpole and what I'm flying on it is a violation of both the first amendment and the US flag code. Enjoy!"
Is Violating the Flag Code Illegal?
No. While the U.S. Flag Code is a federal law, guidelines are only stated within the voluntary and non-binding language such as, "should" and "custom," meaning there is no penalty for violating any of its provisions. This is because of the Supreme Court's act in declaring the law unconstitutional in United States v. Eichman.
Ah man, it's cute how they think people are still Bernie or bust and haven't moved on to being radicalized by genocide and the wanton violence of riot cops. It's like Bernie or bust was our last known position on their political radar, and they have very little inkling that we have fully left the radius of their comprehension.
They think we are still tantruming as party to their bullshit rather than having largely chosen Bust and moved on to effective action lol
they're going for less of a "Hollywood" vibe and pursuing more of a "Chicago Black Site" vibe.
You can take the cop off the beat but you can't take 'the need to disappear innocent civilians to a black site for endless beatings' out of the cop.
Replay of 1968 incoming?
Surprising they are learning
Maybe next they'll limit reporting of multi million dollar fundraisers
Instead of celebrities they are going to have border agents that look like thumbs, make testimonials like "Kamala has allowed me to do my job in securing the border" and then journalist report on the agent's multiple criminal investigations.
On one hand, celebrity endorsements don’t move votes so that’s smart.
On the other hand, they don’t dissuade votes either. It’s not like there’s voters out there going “Well I really like the Dem’s policies on the economy but they got George Clooney up there looking too smarmy so imma vote Trump.” They’re still misunderstanding political branding if they’re thinking that way.
I think she should give Mr. Beast Blinken’s job
SEO Genocide denialism and apologetics 
good move to be honest
I found YouTube links in your post. Here are links to the same videos on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Link 1:
Link 2:
I wish they were stupid enough to seek out every Hollywood endorsement they could get.
Too bad.