liberal vermin hypocrisy exposed in a clear and concise manner

[Herman]

[Herman]

[Herman]

[Herman]

It is bad enough Walz is an uber progtard. But, he is also a fraudster, a pathological liar, and a hypocrite.

[Herman]

[Prof Emeritus at Fawk U]

It is bad enough Walz is an uber progtard. But, he is also a fraudster, a pathological liar, and a hypocrite.

Wow, early January and I'm not sure which one of these posts qualifies for post of the year.   

[Herman]

[Herman]

We love our unvetted immigrants."
"We can't have unvetted federal agents coming into Minnesota!  Can't just let anyone in!"
- Progtards 2026

 

[Herman]

[Herman]

When ICE acts under a Trump administration, the outrage is instant, intense, and morally absolute. Orange Man Bad, therefore the act itself must be proof of systemic evil.

Yet when the RCMP, acting under Justin Trudeau's federal authority, used mounted police to charge a crowd in Ottawa — knocking down a grandmother who posed no threat to officers or anyone else — where was that same outrage?

She didn't die, thankfully. But anyone being trampled by a horse carries a very real risk of death or catastrophic injury. And unlike the Good case, this woman wasn't ramming officers with a vehicle or presenting an immediate physical threat. She was standing at a peaceful protest.
So here's the honest question:
Why was one incident framed as unforgivable state violence, while the other was brushed off as "unfortunate," "necessary," or "contextual"?
Is it because one can be pinned to Trump — someone you already despise — while the other happened under Trudeau, someone you broadly support?
Is it because outrage feels safer when it aligns neatly with existing political teams?

If your reaction was "this is horrifying" when Trump's government was involved, but "well, it's complicated" when Trudeau's government was, that's not a coincidence. That's selective moral outrage.

[Herman]

I knew it.

[Herman]