transplantbillsfan

Doublewood 12 is probably like my 6th favorite. Try the Caribbean Cask!

Those are the Islay Scotches like Lagavulin in particular. Try the Highland Scotches. Glenlivet 12 is the best place to start if you haven't tried it. Around 30 bucks and damn good.

It's simple. Whisky is Scotch. Whiskey is everything else. What do you prefer and why? Personally, Scotch is far and away my preference. And Single Malt Scotch at that. I've tried Bourbon... I really notice that "corn mash" flavor and it almost tastes saccharine to me. Even the more expensive bottles I've bought sporadically just to try to be part of the converted. Canadian Whiskey is a little better, but largely the same. I have Irish roots so I always try some Irish Whiskey around St. Patrick's Day. Last year it was Green Spot, which I wasn't the biggest fan of. This year I'm trying Redbreast 12, which might be the best non-Whisky I've had... mostly because I think it's most similar to Scotch. That and Bushmills, which surprised me. The draw to Irish Whiskey seems to be that it's "smooth." I don't think I like "smooth" in my whiskey/whisky. I like the bite. The bite is where all the flavor is a lot of the time. Anyone else? Are there any crossover Whiskey/Whisky aficionados? So far my favorite candidates of top 5 that I've had would have to be (and notice they're all Scotches): Balvenie Carribean Cask Balvenie 15 year old Oban 14 Johnny Blue Glenlivet Nadurra Non Scotch: Redbreast 12 Bushmills Sounds funny but I really WANT to like a whiskey as much as a whisky... any suggestions?

What the hell... how'd you hear that conversation... are you stalking me?

So I was correct in my transcription. He literally states that he DOES kiss them. He DOES. I don't know how you're reading that otherwise when it's so obviously right there. And despite whatever you think you've learned about me over the years of posting, I'm not a prude. (good example of why our "Internet selves" are often mistaken for real identities) My buddies and I have partaken in enough "locker room banter", but it's associated with consensual acts or things that are just desires... but this isn't that.

Type in "access hollywood tape Donald Trump" on google or youtube. You'll find it easily. I transcribed that last night after listening to it. Admittedly I had a couple Sierra Nevada Hop Bullets (go ahead... call me a beer snob ) beforehand so maybe my transcription was wrong.

Did and does. I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait.

Oh puhleaze... There's a big difference between hugs of comfort or "violating personal space" and kissing or grabbing a woman's ***** on first meeting her. This unyielding defense of that is mind-boggling Upon immediately meeting them and also the inferred ***** grabbing Anyway... this has been fun... back to the main forum for a bit. Maybe I'll pop back in after the next primary

Welp... if Donald Trump says all that unsolicited kissing and insinuated ***** grabbing is allowable and acceptable because "they let you do it" then you must be absolutely right... he's a virtuous man

I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. Precisely what he said like a month before the Election. I'm sorry but is unwelcome kissing not assault in the world of PPP? And even though he doesn't actually state he does it, it's oddly specific that he says something like You can do anything. Grab 'em by the *****. The guy is just an utterly disgusting human being and this is a country with Puritanical roots that's always REALLY cared about the public persona of our Presidents because we've always basically wanted a "good guy" in office, even when many of our Presidents haven't been that. The country overlooked that in the lead up to the election for the sake of change. Now Trump is the Establishment PLUS he's a disgusting human being. "Good guy" is basically what Biden has built his career on. Can't wait for November.

Despite your protestations, the American people overlooked Trump being caught on tape admitting to sexually assaulting women when he greets them. If they did that because they "wanted change," then they will overlook Joe's bats in the attic if they aren't happy with that change. There's a reason Joe keeps throwing Obama's name out there every time he speaks publicly: it's going to get him elected. 8 years as Vice President to one of the most popular Presidents in history who's still INCREDIBLY popular and who was the most recent President before the new guy is literally the perfect opportunity for any Trump voter who now regrets his/her vote (and there are a lot of them out there, make no mistake) to go back to safe-ole-Joe, because they're familiar with him and they'll associate his new Presidency with the 8 years leading up to Trump. I would vote for Sanders, but I really didn't want him as the Democratic candidate. And I'm glad it's looking like he won't be.

Oh man... I never even thought about Michelle as his VP. If Biden picked Michelle as his VP and she accepted (frankly, I don't think she wants any part of politics), that would basically ensure Trump loses this Fall. At that point, you actually would get voters out enthusiastically supporting the Democratic nominee and his running mate.

Here's what it boils down to for me. As much as Joe may not be what he once was--although complaints of his mental deterioration are a bit hyperbolic--the electorate disregarded the fact that Trump was caught on tape saying he consistently sexually assaults women. Barring a heart attack or long hospital stay (which could possibly happen), the gaffes on the campaign trail and claims of dementia by the far-right will be overlooked by most of the electorate.

Sooooo where are these vast numbers of Democrats who have clearly stated they won't vote for the other candidate? I see you guys posting these individual tweets from people who say these things as though they're evidence of some larger movement. Anecdotal evidence is not evidence of a larger movement... So, where is your evidence that a majority of or even very large faction of Sanders supporters wouldn't vote for Biden? Historical norms are out the window as of 2016. You guys over here have acknowledged that yourselves. We'll find out in November. I just think you guys consistently and seriously have been misreading the pulse of the nation for the last God knows how many years since most of you here were also anti-Obama. Just make sure you've braced yourself for "Sleepy Joe" at the helm for 4 years. Don't worry, I've braced myself for the alternative.

8% difference in favor of the moderates while counting the most populated state in the Union, considered by far the most far-left state? Yes, you did.

I'll be just fine. Thank you though. Besides, I don't need emotional support animals if I have a good bottle of Single Malt Scotch.

And that number is with the most populus and far-left state in the country voting yesterday. Thanks for proving my point

You're underestimating how influential anti-Trump sentiment can be getting people out to vote. I know people like to point out how it didn't work with Bush, but hatred for Bush paled in comparison to hatred for Trump. You said yourself you'll go out and vote for Biden if he's the candidate. He's not the perfect candidate, but he's safe. His VP pick is going to be key as well. I really think it'll be either Kamala or maybe Stacey Abrams. I know the conspiracy theorists are saying it'll be Hillary. I doubt it. Joe and the Democratic party knows Joe is going to be in office for just one term and whoever is VP will then have to be able to maintain some enthusiasm to win the vote and take the reins. I think you spend too much time over here and the demonization of Joe is really rubbing off on you. There doesn't need to be enthusiasm for the Democratic candidate. It just needs to be someone who isn't so damn polarizing that the Independents still vote for him. That's Joe, not Bernie.

Not incorrect and this isn't just limited to that thread and our bet. This isn't about that thread or that bet, which is about the winner of the election in November. You're in this forum in almost every thread talking about almost every other issue, including the Democratic Primaries. And you are CONSTANTLY emphasizing how Biden is done in the context of the Democratic nomination. Here's just one instance that you seem to need reminding of: Are you seriously this fixated on not being wrong? You were wrong. It's okay. It happens. Maybe now that you've had a moment to practice being so obviously wrong, you'll be ready to suck it up and deal with it in November.

I'll repeat what I said to you before. Biden is more mentally fit than Trump. Honest question: You're over here chatting with everyone all the time. The narrative has very clearly been that the Democratic party has shifted so far to the left, will inevitably elect Sanders the Socialist, ensuring Trump gets into office. In the span of 24 hours that narrative has been pretty much flipped on its head with moderate Democratic voters across the country getting out to vote... outnumbering those "nutty Socialists." Can you yet acknowledge that it's looking more and more possible that the thing that will primarily get voters out in November is to vote against Trump and the more moderate the candidate (Biden) the more Independents will be in that camp?

I'll slide past the conspiracy theory of Pete and Amy being strong-armed out first to answer the question. No, Joe doesn't get those numbers with them in the race. That was why I said even Saturday that Sanders would win the nomination because there was too much fracturing of the moderate vote. But unlike 2016 when you had only 2 viable candidates almost the ENTIRE race, this Democratic primary has had 4 or 5 relatively viable candidates. But notice that one of the ridiculous narratives you guys have been pushing over here is being shot down and has been since the primaries started? You guys keep saying the Democratic party has shifted overwhelmingly too far to the left. That's clearly not the case as most of the Democratic voters are relatively moderate. It might be a more silent majority, but it's still the majority. Amy and Pete drew moderate voters in, along with Bloomberg. Naturally the answer of whether Biden would have done as well if Pete and Amy were still in is No. But neither of them had a chance at this point. There were no longer any indication they had anything other than a longshot to win the Democratic nomination unless their goal was to take it to a Brokered Convention and further divide the party. Doing that lowers the chances of beating Trump. I really, really think you guys have just been wildly underestimating how much beating Trump in November is motivation in itself.

Bullcrap. Total and utter bullcrap. I won't post the post from you I reposted here a few times already, but just Saturday you said Joe had "No chance," and then went on to gleefully asking what excuses I'd make for him yesterday when he had a poor performance. You've posted crap like that for months dude. Own it. You've been lied to for so long that you're dishing them out yourself now.

Being a little bit disingenuous, but okay. You've railed for months and months that Biden wouldn't be the nominee with little to no wiggle room. You were very, very wrong... saying "I underestimated Joe in early races" is just twisting the narrative as you tend to do. No, you totally misjudged him... not merely "underestimating" him in "the early races. But to each his own... I'm sure you're just nervous about November is all... and I understand why