Trump and his cabinet/buffoonery- Get your bunkers ready!

[Larry]

1 minute ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

This thread is getting dumb now.  

 

By "now", you mean "about 2 hours and four pages ago"?  

[NoCalMike]

11 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

More that that...the GOP has devolved to the level of supporting him. Some good conservatives have no party to vote for now and apparently only stick around to laugh at the car crash (and pretend that they aren't partly responsible for it). They are. They drove up to the cliff and jumped out as it was going over.

 

Right plus the fact of what most of these seem GOPers were saying about Trump quite openly in public in front of cameras, until he won the primary.  They weren't even shy about their thoughts on Trump being an idiotic con man.  Kelly Anne when she was still part of Ted Cruz's campaign called him a liar straight up.  

[Llevron]

Just now, tshile said:

You gave him hell after he admitted he mistook you for someone else

 

that was real big and cool of you

 

props

 

You are the perfect example of always taking the high road ain’t ya? This is why I like to argue with you. You can’t help but wade into the mud with me and then claim to come out clean on the other end. 

 

Im just not afraid to admit I’m petty as ****

[PeterMP]

37 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

I took the test and it said I'm 100% not responsible. It was posted here long ago.

 

That's the thing - you and others seem to think eveyrone else is at fault. You haven't realized you supported a ****ty candidate that lost to an even ****tier candidate. I told you guys during he primaries she sucked and got a bunch of nonsense from everyone about it.

 

Turns out she sucked.

 

But yeah blame me, the guy that had nothing to do with either one of them winning primaries. 

 

Definitely shield all the HRC voters from responsibility. 

 

Like I said, you got off easy the first time. You've all been allowed to waltz around pissing and moaning for 2 years now about how everyone else is to blame. If you do it again I'm going to ridicule all of you every day for the next 4 years for it.

 

There would have been no good Democratic candidate last time.

 

You are ignoring the unprecedented interference in our election (by the Russians and people also looking to make a quick buck off low informed voters).

 

How can you say Trump was a bad candidate when he easily swept through the Republican field?

 

Were they all bad too?

 

Maybe you are wrong about what you are considering bad.

 

The problem wasn't the quality of HRC (or the other Republican candidates).  It was the willingness of the voters to ignore reality (and believe lies) (fueled by Russian (and others)) propaganda enabled by social media in a previously unprecedented manner.

 

Are we really arguing that Trump was a bad candidate, but everybody else that ran against him was worse, and then that same bad candidate has eliminated any real challenge to him this year?

 

Explain to me the logistics of how that happened.

 

Maybe Trump (and the Russians) actually know what they are doing?

[TradeTheBeal!]

Probably a real good time to send another couple of Benjis to Liz.

[Mr. Sinister]

27 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

I took the test and it said I'm 100% not responsible. It was posted here long ago.

 

That's the thing - you and others seem to think eveyrone else is at fault. You haven't realized you supported a ****ty candidate that lost to an even ****tier candidate. I told you guys during he primaries she sucked and got a bunch of nonsense from everyone about it.

 

Turns out she sucked.

 

But yeah blame me, the guy that had nothing to do with either one of them winning primaries. 

 

Definitely shield all the HRC voters from responsibility. 

 

Like I said, you got off easy the first time. You've all been allowed to waltz around pissing and moaning for 2 years now about how everyone else is to blame. If you do it again I'm going to ridicule all of you every day for the next 4 years for it.

 

Yeah? No

 

We had a  choice. We made it. What did you do? Think about that while you're recording yourself running around in your Rocky getup, shadowboxing.

[tshile]

7 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

You are the perfect example of always taking the high road ain’t ya? This is why I like to argue with you. You can’t help but wade into the mud with me and then claim to come out clean on the other end. 

 

Im just not afraid to admit I’m petty as ****

 

I started as messing with you to show you how silly you were being with non 

 

the difference is he admitted a mistake and you seem oblivious to yours even though you have a picture of it you marked up cause you thought you were being clever. 

 

Some people dont know how words work. Is what it is. 

[Mr. Sinister]

Some people don't know how accountability works, either

[tshile]

14 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

There would have been no good Democratic candidate last time.

That’s a good point I haven’t considered often enough 

 

as for the rest of your post

 

i measure a candidate by how they get votes. Because ultimately that’s what the game is about.

 

if you normalize vote counts to percentage of eligible voters, and go a little further by recognizing some states count and others don’t... both candidates are in the bottom 1/3 of vote getting historically for their party. It’s been a while but I’m pretty sure it’s like bottom 1/6 but I’m considering that maybe I have how bad it was wrong

 

And no I’m not ignoring the interference. Trump was a historically bad candidate too. And he still won. Which makes hillay’s  loss ****ing hilarious and pathetic (if you ignore the real world implications of trump being president for a minute, and just think about how awful Clinton had to be to accomplish that despite being the chosen one)

 

but you’re right. The dnc rigged it for Hillary from the jump (that decision was made in the 2008 primaries.) that part was definitely 100% Democrats fault. 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

I’m just going to be in my room listening to my Will Smith CD. Let me know when you guys are done.

[Llevron]

15 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

I started as messing with you to show you how silly you were being with non 

 

the difference is he admitted a mistake and you seem oblivious to yours even though you have a picture of it you marked up cause you thought you were being clever. 

 

Some people dont know how words work. Is what it is. 

 

Honestly we can keep doing this if you like but multiple people have already exclaimed how annoying this has become for them. I get a lot of fun out of arguing with you but now it’s at the cost of others enjoyment and I’m starting to feel like a dick.

 

I know you were messing with me to try and prove a point. I think your point is invalid. Do we really have to keep it going? 

 

Also so there is no mistake in that picture. I am happy to admit I’m consistently bringing this twitter thing up because it’s my favorite example of you feeling so righteous about some **** you just made up. That you refused to admit you made up. And the excuse you made up for it. It just makes me happy 😊 

 

I think we understand each other here 

[PeterMP]

19 minutes ago, tshile said:

That’s a good point I haven’t considered often enough 

 

as for the rest of your post

 

i measure a candidate by how they get votes. Because ultimately that’s what the game is about.

 

if you normalize vote counts to percentage of eligible voters, and go a little further by recognizing some states count and others don’t... both candidates are in the bottom 1/3 of vote getting historically for their party. It’s been a while but I’m pretty sure it’s like bottom 1/6 but I’m considering that maybe I have how bad it was wrong

 

And no I’m not ignoring the interference. Trump was a historically bad candidate too. And he still won. Which makes hillay’s  loss ****ing hilarious and pathetic (if you ignore the real world implications of trump being president for a minute, and just think about how awful Clinton had to be to accomplish that despite being the chosen one)

 

but you’re right. The dnc rigged it for Hillary from the jump (that decision was made in the 2008 primaries.) that part was definitely 100% Democrats fault. 

 

Okay, so there seems to be a basic flaw of your thinking.  Let's say, I have two really good candidates and they drive record turnout (which didn't happen, but just for the sake of argument) and they split the vote evenly.  You are going to conclude they are both worse candidates then somebody that ran against a bad candidate, but got a lot of votes.  The nature of the closeness of the election keeps either candidate from getting a large total of the over all vote.

 

For a sports analogy, if two good teams play one another, and the score is close (and even in basketball let's say it is "low") that isn't really evidence that the two teams aren't good.

 

But I'd still like to see your math on that.  You seem to be implying that voter turnout was historically bad, which isn't true.

 

 

It wasn't a great year for turnout, but it wasn't historically bad either.

 

(And just to be clear, some of the reason why it wasn't higher was because efforts by Republicans to make it harder for minorities to vote.

 

So partly, you are claiming Hillary was a bad candidate because things the state of NC did to make it harder for minorities to vote.

 

Which is garbage.)

 

And the DNC did not "rig" the primary for Hillary.  Yes, members of the DNC favored an actual Democrat vs. an independent that had no real interest in representing the Democratic party and was/is just using its infrastructure to run for President.

 

But what the totality of their actions certainly appear to be very minimal to zero in terms of actually affecting out comes.

 

People voted.  Votes were counted.  Hillary won in a landslide.  Sanders was never (and isn't this year) going to win the Democratic nomination because he's not done enough to cultivate voters in the African American community (and he had even done less 4 years ago).

[tshile]

 

 

21 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

For a sports analogy, if two good teams play one another, and the score is close (and even in basketball let's say it is "low") that isn't really evidence that the two teams aren't good.

 

Sports analogy isn't applicable. We didn't have two good teams facing off, each with decades of history, in a game that was one game in a season of 16 games (and if it's a meaningful game, more).

 

We had one candidate with decades building a political resume, and one candidate that showed up to try to boost the value of his name and somehow wound up in the general election (this is the part I blame republicans for immensely, this is by far the gravest offense of the entire situation)

 

If you had the patriots roll into town with all their history and play a brand new football team with no history, for one game, and then never play again. Any game ever, that was it, one and done. (and it be a really important game that gets to pick scotus judges, federal judges, etc) you'd be able to create a analogies.  Unfortunately you can't do any of that because it doesn't exist in sports. But it's what happened in 2016.

 

 

21 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Okay, so there seems to be a basic flaw of your thinking.  Let's say, I have two really good candidates and they drive record turnout (which didn't happen, but just for the sake of argument) and they split the vote evenly.  You are going to conclude they are both worse candidates then somebody that ran against a bad candidate, but got a lot of votes.  The nature of the closeness of the election keeps either candidate from getting a large total of the over all vote.

 

no.... i'm measuring them against how previous candidates for their party did collecting votes; keeping in mind there are landslides, there are spoiler candidates, there are platform shifts, etc. It's done with the understanding that there's other candidates. 

 

You really think I would measure the candidates the way you described? Come on man.

 

21 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

You seem to be implying that voter turnout was historically bad, which isn't true.

 

No....

 

 

21 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

And the DNC did not "rig" the primary for Hillary.

 

That's cute. 

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

[Springfield]

Awful testy in here today.

 

The board wouldn’t lean so far left if most of the conservatives didn’t get banned for one thing or another over the years.  We used to have a pretty strong contingent of right wingers during the Bush years but they all got weeded out for this reason or that (never their fault of course).

 

We are left with a message board that’s a sum of its parts.  The reasonable people, mostly liberals, remained.

[thegreaterbuzzette]

Ok I only went 5 pages back at @TheGreatBuzz advice.

 

I think you all need to put down the measuring tape and stick it back on your pants....geez.

 

 

Quote

Some dyke wins some soccer games wearing her nation's flag and says she won't visit the racist, homophobic asshole in the White House..."Why do you hate America?"

**** that noise @nonniey don't come in here playing that "Woe is the persecuted majority" bull****.

1- please don't use that term. 

2 - mods....how can I not say ****pit but that word gets thru?

 

4 hours ago, @SkinsGoldPants said:

He's a fake American, a fake Christian, and a fake man.

.....and a fake tan

 

4 hours ago, tshile said:

 

Many of us, myself included, have commented on how nice it would be if we could take a large chunk of this country and be done with it. 

 

You can pretend it doesnt happen but everyone here knows you read these threads often enough to know it happens. 

Right, but he did. You joined the conversation and now want to get bent out of shape that you don’t get to define it? Seems silly. 

That is way out of context. When one says they wish they could get rid of AIDs, it means they want to treat the sickness, not kill all those infected.

 

2 hours ago, The Evil Genius said:

Again, the fault for Trump lies in everyone who failed to stop him. At every level. Like or not, you were presented with either HRC or Trump. You chose Trump. But yeah, blame the HRC voters. 🙄

I stand behind my opinion that no matter how bad of a choice Trump is (I didn't vote for him) that had HRC been elected there'd be just as much (be it different) anger and badness in the world. 

[LadySkinsFan]

Which term, dyke? As one, I'm not offended. Besides, it's not a word that's subject to the "stars" .

[TheGreatBuzz]

9 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

Which term, dyke? As one, I'm not offended.

If you have read the name change thread, you know it's not only about if a single person is offended. 

 

9 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

Besides, it's not a word that's subject to the "stars" .

Edit:  nevermind.  Got it now.

[thegreaterbuzzette]

6 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

Which term, dyke? As one, I'm not offended. Besides, it's not a word that's subject to the "stars" .

As a ****lover I'm not offended by the word ****, but it still gets stars. Others aren't offended by racial slurs either. But some are. 

 

I believe in equal opportunity application of stars. 

[PeterMP]

35 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

 

 

Sports analogy isn't applicable. We didn't have two good teams facing off, each with decades of history, in a game that was one game in a season of 16 games (and if it's a meaningful game, more).

 

We had one candidate with decades building a political resume, and one candidate that showed up to try to boost the value of his name and somehow wound up in the general election (this is the part I blame republicans for immensely, this is by far the gravest offense of the entire situation)

 

If you had the patriots roll into town with all their history and play a brand new football team with no history, for one game, and then never play again. Any game ever, that was it, one and done. (and it be a really important game that gets to pick scotus judges, federal judges, etc) you'd be able to create a analogies.  Unfortunately you can't do any of that because it doesn't exist in sports. But it's what happened in 2016.

 

 

 

no.... i'm measuring them against how previous candidates for their party did collecting votes; keeping in mind there are landslides, there are spoiler candidates, there are platform shifts, etc. It's done with the understanding that there's other candidates. 

 

You really think I would measure the candidates the way you described? Come on man.

 

 

No....

 

 

The sports analogy doesn't have to do with history.  It has to do with your way of looking at the total.  Good turn out split evenly between two candidates is that neither of them was a good candidate.

 

That's certainly what you've described.  If it isn't, then let's see where your numbers come from.

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bH38j6_e8yA9xq8OMlyLOL6h_iTS7ABQMKNxzFgKBDo/edit#gid=435419492

 

(voter eligible turnout)  Would honestly only look from 1972 (Civil Rights Voting Legislation is in place and pretty well established (was still pretty new in 1968)).

 

2016- 60.1% of the VEP voted.

 

Hillary got 48.2% of the vote.

 

So she got 29.2% of the possible vote.

Obama 2012 29.94%

Obama 2008: 32.5%

Kerry 2004: 25.54%

Gore 2000: 26.23%

Clinton 1996: 25.44

Clinton 1992: 24.98%

Dukakis 1988: 24.08%

 

So, she did better than everybody Obama going back to 1998.

 

Now, you did throw in the idea of looking at certain states and maybe you saw something going back further.

 

But you made up a claim, back it up.

 

And it is the truth about the primary being rigged.

[LadySkinsFan]

Stars = banned words.

[Simmsy]

9 hours ago, tshile said:

 

Is there a study you got that from?

I think its true as well, I don't think our views actually shift. I think what is considered right or left is what shifts. I'm a progressive, that is considered extremely far to the left, but will that be the case in 30 years? Hell, I might be considered a centrist in 2050.

[TheGreatBuzz]

@thegreaterbuzzette

 

****.

 

Yup.  That's starred also.

[Burgold]

I think one of the reasons that people no longer buy the "I'm not responsible" line of excuse-making is because we saw in Virginia that elected officials were literally decided by the drawing of straws (or cutting of decks) The numbers were that close. So, every vote really did matter. A protest vote actually turned out to be a vote for the greater evil in many cases. It turned out that a protest vote was in actuality a vote for interment camps and so that the  Alex Jones, Steve Bannon types could become a power and influence over the country and its policy. It was a vote to lower our air quality, or food quality, to enact trade wars, to help Russia, North Korea, and Iran achieve their designs (the latter two nuclear) while ****ting on our allies.

 

As for the 2016 Presidential campaign, Hillary was not a bad candidate. She ran a bad campaign and was the victim of a successful thirty year smear campaign not only by her political rivals, but by our nation's foreign enemies. That said, Is anyone really trying to sell that a person who was a Senator, Secretary of State, accomplished lawyer, and someone who has not only never been found guilty, but exonerated of every wrong other than her husband being a philanderer is unqualified? She was smart, understood the law and our policies, and had a deep grasp on many, many issues. She had every box you needed ticked off her resume except that she wasn't warm, fuzzy, and male.

 

I mean we were both there when people called Hillary villainous for "standing by her man" while waving off Donald's many affairs and settlements in accusations of child rape.

[tshile]

5 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

Good turn out split evenly between two candidates is that neither of them was a good candidate.

 

That's certainly what you've described

No. This is twice I’ve specifically said no to this. 

6 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

Now, you did throw in the idea of looking at certain states and maybe you saw something going back further.

Yup.