PROBLEM ONE:
A man says things such as, "White folks are going down. And Satan is going down. And Farrakhan, by God's grace, has pulled the cover off of that Satanic Jew and I'm here to say your time is up, your world is through," and “The Jews don’t like Farrakhan, so they call me Hitler. Well, that’s a good name. Hitler was a very great man.” A future President and several members of Congress meet with the man who said these things and fail to publicly condemn him.
Another man says things such as, "Our clear goal must be the advancement of the white race and separation of the white and black races. This goal must include freeing of the American media and government from subservient Jewish interests," and "Did you ever notice how many survivors they have? Did you ever notice that? Everybody — every time you turn around, 15,000 survivors meet here; 400 survivors convention there. I mean, did you ever notice? Nazis sure were inefficient, weren't they? Boy, boy, boy!...You almost have no survivors that ever say they saw a gas chamber or saw the workings of a gas chamber.... they'll say these preposterous stories that anybody can check out to be a lie, an absolute lie." A future President never meets with this man (David Duke) but fails to publicly condemn him immediately upon being told that Duke endorsed him, claiming that he didn't know who Duke was.
MAINSTREAM MEDIA ANSWER TO PROBLEM ONE:
We're going to basically ignore the first one because we're twitterpated with Barack Obama, but obviously Donald Trump is a racist who is basically an orange version of David Duke.
MY ANSWER TO PROBLEM ONE:
All of these quotes are terrible, and both of these men, Louis Farrakhan and David Duke, are racist garbage human beings. However, somehow Barack Obama and several members of Congress who have met with Louis Farrakhan and faced little to no backlash from the media or otherwise for doing so, and were not forced to publicly condemn him. No one who intentionally met with this man without condemning his words should be in office. However, Donald Trump was lambasted for not condemning David Duke immediately upon being told that Duke had endorsed him for President. Donald Trump should have condemned Duke more quickly, but I'm sure glad he didn't meet with the guy and shake his hand.
BONUS SOLUTION TO PROBLEM ONE:
Let's lock Louis Farrakhan and David Duke in a room together. They both have the same view on Jews, so what can possibly go wrong? Heck, maybe they'll become friends.
PROBLEM TWO:
Katy Perry makes out with a 19-year-old male on American Idol. The 19-year-old had explained that he is a virgin who has never been kissed and is waiting for the right woman. He is not a willing participant in the act.
Any older guy ever makes out with a 19-year-old female anywhere. The 19-year-old had explained that she is a virgin who has never been kissed and is waiting for the right man. She is not a willing participant in the act.
MAINSTREAM MEDIA ANSWER TO PROBLEM TWO:
The Katy Perry thing is no big deal, though probably not a great move on her part, but who saves themselves like that anyway? That's weird. Like Mike Pence weird. And Lord knows how much we in the media hate Mike Pence. Oh, but if some older guy did that shit to a 19-year-old girl, it's because of toxic masculinity, and he should be brought up on career-ending charges. #METOO
MY ANSWER TO PROBLEM TWO:
That's a pretty messed up thing for Katy Perry to do, but yes, there is a double standard here, because the aggressor was a girl and the victim was a guy. It would be much worse if it were the other way around. That is a correct double standard, because contrary to mainstream media beliefs these days, men and women are different. But that doesn't make what Katy Perry did OK or any less wrong. It was harassment. I'm sure the guy will be OK though. I mean, dude, your first kiss was Katy Perry. You'll be fine.
BONUS SOLUTION TO PROBLEM TWO:
I think I would probably end up in jail if I forcibly kissed Katy Perry though. But seeing as she's not my type and I'm not the type to ever forcibly kiss anyone, I guess it's a theory I'll not test.
PROBLEM THREE:
A baker refuses to bake a cake for a gay wedding due to religious beliefs and gets fined a six-figure sum because of that.
A corporation refuses to sell rifles to anyone under 21 in their stores and is not fined because of that.
MAINSTREAM MEDIA ANSWER TO PROBLEM THREE:
The baker deserved to get fined because the baker is a homophobic piece of garbage. It doesn't matter what the baker's religious beliefs are. He must be forced to bake cakes for gay weddings, or his business and life should be destroyed. But isn't it great that stores like Walmart and Dick's are leading the way and not selling rifles to anyone under 21 while Congress allows the age for purchasing a rifle to remain at 18?
MY ANSWER TO PROBLEM THREE:
The baker should not have been fined and should not be forced to participate in something against his religious beliefs. Personally, I would have baked the cake, but that doesn't matter. And stores like Walmart and Dick's can decide not to sell rifles to anyone under 21 if they want to, because restricting businesses is not a good thing, although this case has nothing to do with religion and is an example of discriminating against a group of people because of their age, seeing as it is not illegal for 18-to-20-year-olds to buy rifles in many places.
BONUS SOLUTION TO PROBLEM THREE:
Gay couples should seek out minority-owned bakeries, specifically those owned by devout Muslims, for their wedding cakes whenever possible. Bakeries should also be required to offer a free gun with the purchase of any wedding cake.
PROBLEM FOUR:
A U.S. President congratulates President Vladimir Putin on winning a sham election in Russia. It's 2012.
A U.S. President congratulates President Vladimir Putin on winning a sham election in Russia. It's 2018.
MAINSTREAM MEDIA ANSWER TO PROBLEM FOUR:
2012: Crickets. 2018: OMG HOW CAN A U.S. PRESIDENT POSSIBLY DO SOMETHING THAT STUPID? COLLUSION! IMPEACH! MENTALLY UNFIT FOR OFFICE!
MY ANSWER TO PROBLEM FOUR:
Neither President Obama nor President Trump should have congratulated President Vladimir Putin on his victory in a sham election in Russia. Putin is not a good guy, and both U.S. Presidents should be equally chastised for congratulating him.
BONUS SOLUTION TO PROBLEM FOUR:
Presidents should instead make a joke about Putin's last name, which could involve either Poo-Tin or Put-In. Also they should condemn him for being terrible and holding sham elections.
PROBLEM FIVE:
Conservative Comedian Steven Crowder uploads a video to YouTube, which he also links to on Twitter and Facebook. Crowder's crew filmed the video in a public place and did not violate any privacy laws. The irreverent (and hilarious!) video follows 'Sven Computer' into a LGBTQ panel at SxSW. Sven identifies as a computer and people get upset with him and eventually kick him out of the panel. Twitter bans Crowder for a week and has his video removed from Facebook and YouTube almost immediately. The reason given is violation of privacy.
Meanwhile, prominent people on Twitter, including a Professor, share libelous (very fake) Steven Crowder tweets, which say terrible things about the Jews. Crowder reports this to Twitter. Twitter reviews Crowder's claim regarding the libelous tweets and decides that, despite their illegality, they are not a violation of Twitter's policies and can therefore stay up.
MAINSTREAM MEDIA ANSWER TO PROBLEM FIVE:
There hasn't been much mainstream media coverage on this one, but presumably they're cool with this because they think Crowder is alt-right (he's not).
MY ANSWER TO PROBLEM FIVE:
Crowder's video should have been left up since it violated no laws, nor was it a clear violation of Twitter policy, but the libelous tweets should have been taken off since libel is illegal, and Twitter can obviously figure out whether or not they are libelous since the tweets in question were screenshots of fake tweets that Crowder never actually tweeted.
BONUS SOLUTION TO PROBLEM FIVE:
I'm glad I'm not on Twitter, but clearly Crowder and his team need to infiltrate more snowflake-filled panels.
PROBLEM SIX:
A winning Presidential campaign utilizes Facebook to harvest data in 2012 and the media finds out about it.
A winning Presidential campaign utilizes Facebook to harvest data in 2016 and the media finds out about it.
MAINSTREAM MEDIA ANSWER TO PROBLEM SIX:
2012: President Obama and the people from his campaign are all geniuses.
2016: President Trump and the people from his campaign are all terrible people who violated the privacy of everyone. And also Facebook is terrible, should be held accountable, and needs to be fixed so this never happened again. Also, let's keep changing algorithms wherever possible to benefit Leftists and hurt Conservatives.
MY ANSWER TO PROBLEM SIX:
This is what happens on the Internet. Everywhere. Ever notice how the ads are really specific to you? A lot of smart Internet people are taking your information whenever you're online. It's amazing how I'm always seeing adds related to sports cards and memorabilia, and when I was looking for a new shed, how I was constantly seeing ads for sheds wherever I went on the Internet. It's like the Internet magically knows things about me. And as much as I love Opening Day for baseball, I was pretty annoyed today when Google kept alerting me on my phone about every single baseball game going on.
BONUS SOLUTION TO PROBLEM SIX:
Stay off the Internet if you want your data to be private.
PROBLEM SEVEN: Taken from an argument before the Supreme Court about attire that should and should not be allowed in polling places (https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2017/16-1435_f2ag.pdf):
JUSTICE ALITO: How about a shirt with a rainbow flag? Would that be permitted?
MR. ROGAN: A shirt with a rainbow flag? No, it would -- yes, it would be -- it would be permitted unless there was -- unless there was an issue on the ballot that -- that related somehow to -- to gay rights.
JUSTICE ALITO: How about a shirt that says "Parkland Strong"?
MR. ROGAN: No, that would -- that would be -- that would be allowed. I think -I think, Your Honor-
JUSTICE ALITO: Even though gun control would very likely be an issue?
MR. ROGAN: To the extent -
JUSTICE ALITO: I bet some candidate would raise an issue about gun control.
MR. ROGAN: Your Honor, the -- the -the line that we're drawing is one that is -is related to electoral choices in a -
JUSTICE ALITO: Well, what's the answer to this question? You're a polling official. You're the reasonable person. Would that be allowed or would it not be allowed?
MR. ROGAN: The -- the Parkland?
JUSTICE ALITO: Yeah.
MR. ROGAN: I -- I think -- I think today that I -- that would be -- if -- if that was in Minnesota, and it was "Parkland Strong," I -- I would say that that would be allowed in, that there's not -
JUSTICE ALITO: Okay. How about an NRA shirt?
MR. ROGAN: An NRA shirt? Today, in Minnesota, no, it would not, Your Honor. I think that that's a clear indication -- and I think what you're getting at, Your Honor -
JUSTICE ALITO: How about a shirt with the text of the Second Amendment?
MR. ROGAN: Your Honor, I -- I -- I think that that could be viewed as political, that that -- that would be -- that would be -
JUSTICE ALITO: How about the First Amendment?
(Laughter.)
MR. ROGAN: No, Your Honor, I don't - I don't think the First Amendment. And, You honor, I -
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: No -- no what, that it would be covered or wouldn't be allowed?
MR. ROGAN: It would be allowed.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: It would be?
MR. ROGAN: It would be. And -- and I think the -- I understand the -- the idea, and I've -- I've -- there are obviously a lot of examples that -- that have been bandied about here --
JUSTICE ALITO: Yeah, well, this is the problem. How about a Colin Kaepernick jersey?
MAINSTREAM MEDIA ANSWER TO PROBLEM SEVEN:
I didn't see too much coverage on this, but if the story above is an allegory, Mr. Rogan is basically the mainstream media.
MY ANSWER TO PROBLEM SEVEN:
You should be able to wear whatever you damn well please to a polling place. Heck, since no one under 18 can vote, show up naked if you want to. Just make sure you're carrying your ID.
BONUS SOLUTION TO PROBLEM SEVEN:
If the Supreme Court goes the wrong way on this, I will purchase an NRA shirt and show up to vote in November wearing that. And assless chaps.
