Molly Ivans Would Be Smiling About A Democratic Texas

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

2 hours ago, The Bills Blog said:

That Russia conspired to sway the election in Trump's favor is a documented fact. Anyone claiming otherwise at this point is probably too far gone to engage in a reasonable discussion.

 

Look everyone! We have a new ###### to play with.

 

 

[3rdnlng]

7 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

Look everyone! We have a new ###### to play with.

 

 

It's called "fresh meat" but this one might have been left out in the sun a little too long.

[Azalin]

4 hours ago, The Bills Blog said:

It's cute how so many old Republicans are in denial about what's coming. Only once in the past 30 years have the people of the United States chosen a Republican president. Soon, not even the great wall that is the electoral college will be able to protect them anymore.

 

30 years ago was 1989, the year that Bush 41 took office. In 2000 Bush 43 took office, winning again in 2004. 2016 saw Trump win the presidency. That's four times in the last 30 years that the people of the United States chose a Republican president.

[DC Tom]

5 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

30 years ago was 1989, the year that Bush 41 took office. In 2000 Bush 43 took office, winning again in 2004. 2016 saw Trump win the presidency. That's four times in the last 30 years that the people of the United States chose a Republican president.

 

But the Supreme Court chose Bush 43, and the electoral college chose Trump.  Bush Sr. is the only Republican the people chose.

[The Bills Blog]

5 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

30 years ago was 1989, the year that Bush 41 took office. In 2000 Bush 43 took office, winning again in 2004. 2016 saw Trump win the presidency. That's four times in the last 30 years that the people of the United States chose a Republican president.

I was referring to the popular vote. I thought that was clear in the thread.

[DC Tom]

1 minute ago, The Bills Blog said:

I was referring to the popular vote. I thought that was clear in the thread.

 

1 minute ago, DC Tom said:

 

But the Supreme Court chose Bush 43, and the electoral college chose Trump.  Bush Sr. is the only Republican the people chose.

 

Told you, @Azalin.

 

Note: it wasn't clear from the thread.  It was clear from the fact that you're a numbskull.  THE PEOPLE DON'T CHOOSE THE PRESIDENT.

[The Bills Blog]

58 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

It's called "fresh meat" but this one might have been left out in the sun a little too long.

Wow. I'm just going to stand for decency and not stoop to the level of cyberbullying that seems to be cool around here.

2 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

 

Told you, @Azalin.

 

Note: it wasn't clear from the thread.  It was clear from the fact that you're a numbskull.  THE PEOPLE DON'T CHOOSE THE PRESIDENT.

Isn't it frowned upon to call people idiots and numbskulls, or are you exempt because you've been here a long time?

 

For anyone who needs official clarification, I was referring to the popular vote, and obviously I know that the popular vote does not currently choose the president. The point is that the people have voted a certain way all but once over the past 30 years.

[DC Tom]

4 minutes ago, The Bills Blog said:

Wow. I'm just going to stand for decency and not stoop to the level of cyberbullying that seems to be cool around here.

Isn't it frowned upon to call people idiots and numbskulls, or are you exempt because you've been here a long time?

 

If you need to ask, you really are an idiot.

[RochesterRob]

4 hours ago, The Bills Blog said:

There's actually one thing in there that might be worthy of a response. Are you saying that everyone's vote counting the same equates to mob rule? Curious how you would feel if the electoral college hadn't singlehandedly gotten Trump elected.

I concede that Trump may win again in 2020; I didn't suggest that he would be a one-term president. But, if he does win, that will undoubtedly be the last Republican hurrah for the foreseeable future. The country has changed and is changing too much for a Republican to win after 2020. They might be able to squeak out one more in 2020, but the fear, disinformation, racism, "rights" talk, and conspiracy theories will not be enough moving forward.

  The EC got Clinton two terms and Obama two terms so it's not rigged to automatically elect Republicans.  That aside you really do not want the Republicans to go extinct as a party as all political groups need straw men (opposition) to blame to appeal to the voter's more primal instincts.  Extinction of the Republicans will only lead to the extinction of the Democrats not far down the road.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, DC Tom said:

 

If you need to ask, you really are an idiot.

 

Cyberbully!!

[The Bills Blog]

2 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

If you need to ask, you really are an idiot.

In all seriousness, what is your deal? To be obtuse and act greater than? To rule an internet domain? I'd love to meet you in real life.

 

And, no, I'm not an idiot for not knowing your history. I don't really care what your history is though if you're not willing to treat people with basic decency and respect.

[DC Tom]

1 minute ago, RochesterRob said:

  The EC got Clinton two terms and Obama two terms so it's not rigged to automatically elect Republicans.  That aside you really do not want the Republicans to go extinct as a party as all political groups need straw men (opposition) to blame to appeal to the voter's more primal instincts.  Extinction of the Republicans will only lead to the extinction of the Democrats not far down the road.

 

He probably does want Republicans to go extinct.

 

If there's one thing extremists, left and right, have always managed to do, it's invent enemies.  Jacobins had the Vendee and the calendar, Nazis had the Jews, Soviets had the generals, doctors, Ukranian land-owners.  Khmer Rouge had the teachers.  Interahamwe had the Tutsis.  

 

Once the DSA bans the Republican Party as a hate group, they'll go after the bankers, rural America, "toxic" men, and anyone they label racist.  They will always have an opposition to invent.

Just now, The Bills Blog said:

In all seriousness, what is your deal? To be obtuse and act greater than? To rule an internet domain? I'd love to meet you in real life.

 

And, no, I'm not an idiot for not knowing your history. I don't really care what your history is though if you're not willing to treat people with basic decency and respect.

 

My deal is that, in all seriousness, you have already shown yourself to be a dim-witted person, and I see no reason to do anything other than insult you.

5 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

Cyberbully!!

 

Nobody asked you, Don Quixote.

[Azalin]

16 minutes ago, The Bills Blog said:

I was referring to the popular vote. I thought that was clear in the thread.

 

No, that wasn't clear at all. You could have been more specific. 

[Tiberius]

2 minutes ago, The Bills Blog said:

In all seriousness, what is your deal? To be obtuse and act greater than? To rule an internet domain? I'd love to meet you in real life.

 

And, no, I'm not an idiot for not knowing your history. I don't really care what your history is though if you're not willing to treat people with basic decency and respect.

I have called him an internet street gang leader before. If you take him too seriously, he wins.

[The Bills Blog]

2 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

My deal is that, in all seriousness, you have already shown yourself to be a dim-witted person, and I see no reason to do anything other than insult you.

Lol. These are direct personal insults that are not allowed (supposedly) on this forum, but I'm starting to detect that this place is corrupt and may not be worth trying to change. God bless you.

 

I know you'll have something smart, condescending, or insulting to say regardless of what I say here (classic cyberbullying), but no one has ever accused me of being dim-witted or lacking intelligence. Quite the contrary.

 

Typically, only weak people feel the need to belittle others.

[Azalin]

20 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

 

Told you, @Azalin.

 

 

Indeed you did.

[Tiberius]

9 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

He probably does want Republicans to go extinct.

 

If there's one thing extremists, left and right, have always managed to do, it's invent enemies.  Jacobins had the Vendee and the calendar, Nazis had the Jews, Soviets had the generals, doctors, Ukranian land-owners.  Khmer Rouge had the teachers.  Interahamwe had the Tutsis.  

 

Once the DSA bans the Republican Party as a hate group, they'll go after the bankers, rural America, "toxic" men, and anyone they label racist.  They will always have an opposition to invent.

Stop it! Your giving me a serious hard on! ?

[RochesterRob]

18 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

He probably does want Republicans to go extinct.

 

If there's one thing extremists, left and right, have always managed to do, it's invent enemies.  Jacobins had the Vendee and the calendar, Nazis had the Jews, Soviets had the generals, doctors, Ukranian land-owners.  Khmer Rouge had the teachers.  Interahamwe had the Tutsis.  

 

Once the DSA bans the Republican Party as a hate group, they'll go after the bankers, rural America, "toxic" men, and anyone they label racist.  They will always have an opposition to invent.

  I get that but to snare the simple minded it works best to have one word that encompasses a wide segment of people.  Guys like TBB will have trouble hating a candidate such as a lawyer who does not check any of the boxes you mentioned.  It requires a more complex thought process that most people lack.  

8 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Stop it! Your giving me a serious hard on! ?

  Remember to go to the ER if it lasts longer than 4 hours.

Edited August 13, 2019 by RochesterRob

[The Bills Blog]

3 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Calling you ignorant is not name calling. Calling you stupid would be. Ignorance implies you can learn and better yourself. 

 

 

I'm not tweaked. I'm a motivated, informed patriot who cares deeply about my country and the people in it. You included. 

 

When one of my fellow countrymen expresses ignorance (worse than that, programmed ignorance) I call it out not because I'm tweaked but because I'm pushing you to be better. To learn more about the subject you're opining on. 

 

We were founded on the right to disagree. And the views you've espoused here I deeply disagree with. 

 

 

I'm nothing if I'm not flexible and willing to change my opinion. I've proven that over and over on here with my history. 

 

What I won't abide is someone sharing falsehoods without the evidence or reasoning to support it. Which is what you have done and continue to do. You offer nothing to back up your claims, you run from any push back against it -- that's the sign of a weak argument/position. 

 

Get better information. Get a better argument. And maybe I'll change my mind -- which I often do when presented with new and compelling information. 

 

 

It's not. 

 

No serious polling backs it up.

 

You've been lied to -- repeatedly based on your comments on Russia -- by people who think you're too lazy to fact check their nonsense. 

 

 

The only one putting a time limit on this conversation is you. 

 

Another sign that you have a weak argument and know it. 

 

 

I have no problem with change. 

 

I have a big problem with violent revolution -- which is what you're unknowingly (or is it knowingly?) advocating for. 

I might PM you at some point to clarify a number of these points and discuss further. I do have material to present and I do think a discussion could be beneficial. I appreciate your openness.

[DC Tom]

4 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

Indeed you did.

 

What really worries me about channeling leftist idiocy isn't that I can do it so effectively.  It's that it doesn't hurt nearly as much as it should.  Even pretending to be this stupid should be painful.