ADVERTISEMENT

OOTB's Political Thread . ..

David Brooks, on PBS News last night, opined that the Dems may regret not picking Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro as Kamala's VP.

Maybe, but you can bet the Rs would have been smearing him mercilessly. So who knows?

Shapiro might secure Pennsylvania, but also might lose Michigan. PA has 4 more Electoral College votes, so that could look like a smart tradeoff if the dust settles into a close EC win for Trump with Walz as VP instead of Shapiro.

OOTB's Political Thread . ..

"An aggregate of top polls as of today shows that Harris will defeat Trump in the Electoral College count by 270 to 268."

Explaining why Lindsey Graham went to Nebraska and tried to get them to go back to winner-take-all in the Electoral College.

If the Nebraska district that usually goes blue is subsumed by the red, then the EC vote will be 269-269 and the President will be selected by the House - meaning Trump wins.

OOTB's Political Thread . ..

"Illegal immigrants are eating all the best food and drinking all of the alcohol. They're causing all the traffic. They're stealing all the money. They're poisoning the blood. They're forcing all the children to get sex changes and abortions. Illegal immigrants are buying all the guns and breathing all of the air. You can't even go for a walk. They're like locusts, they fly from field to field, eating all the crops."
Nicely illustrating Michael Moore's point.

OOTB's Political Thread . ..

Here's Michael Moore's take. Could generate some fun discussion. Personally I'm not as optimistic as he is.

Right now, if you know how to really read the polls, or if you have access to the various private and internal polling being conducted by and shared only amongst the elites, Wall Street, and Members of Congress, then you already know that this election was over weeks ago. Trump simply refused to believe that “Sleepy Joe” was no longer his opponent and that there was instead “some woman” claiming she was “Black” who was now going to pummel him on Election Day. He soon became unhinged, ranted for hours about Hannibal Lecter, Haitians cannibalizing your pets, and a nonstop drone of oral diarrhea spewing misogyny, racism and essentially claiming that if he loses “it will be the Jews’ fault.”​

  • Haha
Reactions: Hark_The_Sound_2010

OOTB's Political Thread . ..

Racist Grandpap rambling about his delusions.

Login to view embedded media
"Illegal immigrants are eating all the best food and drinking all of the alcohol. They're causing all the traffic. They're stealing all the money. They're poisoning the blood. They're forcing all the children to get sex changes and abortions. Illegal immigrants are buying all the guns and breathing all of the air. You can't even go for a walk. They're like locusts, they fly from field to field, eating all the crops."

OOTB's Political Thread . ..

you're just a moron, of course, and a stulted, one-way sort of person....a message board hack, if you will. I don't think I just told anybody anything they don't already know, but I enjoy pointing it out anyway.

Credentials don't make someone a good journalist; how they conduct themselves and doing what a journalist should do is what matters. The phenomenon we have been witnessing for the past number of years now is yellow journalism disguised as what is ostensibly top-notch journalism just because the journalists are well-credentialed and have prestigious jobs. But they more and more conduct themselves like journalistic hacks and political hatchet men, taking it on themselves to force their agendas down our throats and pandering to a particular audience instead of trying to present unpainted reality for us to make of it what we will.

And that's the rub for me. Be a decent journalist and just let me have the black and the white of it, and not a force-fed version of what you think the world should be like and who the bad guys are who don't happen to see it that way. I don't care about left or right in that regard, just ask a question and get an answer and I'll take it from there. I'm smart enough to see when an answer has been avoided and when it has been qualified and I don't need to be insulted by some condescending , well-credentialed asshole who thinks only her view and scoring points with the leftist audience should be what matters. 'Ha, I'm a leftist heroine because I got in a shot at orange man'.

In this case, the answer being sought was a trap because the question of non-certification had already been likened to outright rebellion and the end of democracy by the usual media hacks and leftist zealots like you. A deaf and blind man could tell that that is what she was driving at. No one of right mind would blame Vance for qualifying the answer in skillfully dodging the trap.

And you and your ilk are oblivious to the fact that that is why Trump has so much support. You and other dolts talk about Trump cults, but the fact is that if there's a cult, it's the cult of being fed up with one-way journalism that happens to be AIMED at Trump...and leftist politicians and officials undemocratically weaponizing their positions.

So you ridicule my wisdom (while attempting your usual pathetic, low-life, ad hominem cheap shot) and ironically you display none yourself. You say I would react differently if the same tactic was used on Kamala Harris, yet we wouldn't know if that's true because the same tactic isn't used on Kamala Harris although if ever such a tactic was justified, it would be with her and her reluctance to face a tough question. All I want is fair and balanced reporting, not editorializing interviews. Not so with you, because fairness and honesty isn't in your playbook.

The truth is, you're just excusing this (predictably, of course) because it involved the Trump bid for the presidency that you always want to see put in a bad light..
66385c6fb3aec9797f899d3c0cffca7e.gif

Just How Stupid Are the People Running UNC Football

WE know that Dick Baddour was at best limp wrist totally controlled by basketball interests and most specifically Dean Smith. The real and smart football boosters faced Baddour to announce that Trirbush was going because of that AWFUL 2nd season (as he should have been), and then basketball boosters aligned with certain people in University Admin to persuade Baddour not to do that because it would make it look like UNC had its priorities wrong. So football got messed up again.

Then we had the Bunting fiasco. Just the hiring marked that those in charge were either stupid as the mint possibly stupid stones or else wanted to keep slapping UNC football down. Then when Bunting delivered, in his 2nd and 3rd seasons, the two worst back to back teams since Mack's 1-10 and 1-10 (WORST in UNC history (and the Admin and basketball boosters have never stopped loving Mack since then, booster boosters almost had him fired, but the old alum card was played - if we fire an alum for doing nothing wrong but losing then we send the wrong message - Bunting got a 4the season. Anybody with basic football sense knew that with Bunting UNC was dead on arrival. He might get more 6-5 and double minor bows but he would never produce a season with having - Not One!

And then in year 4 UNC got the high upset over Top 5 Miami, and Bunting suddenly was promoted by Admin and the AD's office as the greatest possible choice for UNC football - and that one game was all the proof needed.

Was that just retarded level stupidity, or was that intentional castration of UNC football? Hard to tell, even with all this hindsight. But it most assuredly was one of them.

So how stupid or pro-medicore UNC football are today's powers that will decide what to do? And if those two camps together provide a majority of the power brokers over athletics, UNC beating GT by 1 or by 2 in 3OT will mean they will not only keep Mack but maybe give him a raise.

What could be worse than Bunting for more than 3 years? Mack assured the job at least past 75.

OOTB's Political Thread . ..

More often than not, it does. Which further illustrates your ignorance.
to say 'more often than not' actually confirms my posit and shows your ignorance. If there is a 'more often' and a 'not', there is a distinction, and that distinction is determined by performance rather than credentials, which is exactly what I'm saying. Performance...that is, actual journalism and not just credentials...is what makes a journalist a good journalist or a poor one. I can't think of an example off the top of my head but there can be excellent journalists with no conducive background and no formal training whatsoever. By the same token, good journalists with excellent credentials and admirable track records can become trash overnight by performing poorly.. There are good examples of that with Dan Rather first coming to mind.

You've tried too hard once again.

OOTB's Political Thread . ..

Lulu Garcia-Navarro, whom you are suggesting is not a "decent journalist," studied at Georgetown University and received her master's degree in journalism from City University in London, and she is a 25-year veteran and winner of both the Edward R. Murrow Award and the Peabody Award. So we can now add journalism to the list of things you are completely ignorant about.

Anytime an interviewee avoids answering a simple, point-blank question by either trying to change the subject or answering the question with their own question, a good journalist will press the issue and ask the question as many times as necessary to get an answer. This is, in fact, an example of good journalistic discipline. I'm sure if a journalist uses this same tactic with someone like, say, Kamala Harris, for you that would validate the journalist as a professional in the field. But let a journalist ask tough questions repeatedly to JD Vance, who is obviously dodging the question, and suddenly the journalist is acting indecently.

For such an old man, you have little to no wisdom.
you're just a moron, of course, and a stulted, one-way sort of person....a message board hack, if you will. I don't think I just told anybody anything they don't already know, but I enjoy pointing it out anyway.

Credentials don't make someone a good journalist; how they conduct themselves and doing what a journalist should do is what matters. The phenomenon we have been witnessing for the past number of years now is yellow journalism disguised as what is ostensibly top-notch journalism just because the journalists are well-credentialed and have prestigious jobs. But they more and more conduct themselves like journalistic hacks and political hatchet men, taking it on themselves to force their agendas down our throats and pandering to a particular audience instead of trying to present unpainted reality for us to make of it what we will.

And that's the rub for me. Be a decent journalist and just let me have the black and the white of it, and not a force-fed version of what you think the world should be like and who the bad guys are who don't happen to see it that way. I don't care about left or right in that regard, just ask a question and get an answer and I'll take it from there. I'm smart enough to see when an answer has been avoided and when it has been qualified and I don't need to be insulted by some condescending , well-credentialed asshole who thinks only her view and scoring points with the leftist audience should be what matters. 'Ha, I'm a leftist heroine because I got in a shot at orange man'.

In this case, the answer being sought was a trap because the question of non-certification had already been likened to outright rebellion and the end of democracy by the usual media hacks and leftist zealots like you. A deaf and blind man could tell that that is what she was driving at. No one of right mind would blame Vance for qualifying the answer in skillfully dodging the trap.

And you and your ilk are oblivious to the fact that that is why Trump has so much support. You and other dolts talk about Trump cults, but the fact is that if there's a cult, it's the cult of being fed up with one-way journalism that happens to be AIMED at Trump...and leftist politicians and officials undemocratically weaponizing their positions.

So you ridicule my wisdom (while attempting your usual pathetic, low-life, ad hominem cheap shot) and ironically you display none yourself. You say I would react differently if the same tactic was used on Kamala Harris, yet we wouldn't know if that's true because the same tactic isn't used on Kamala Harris although if ever such a tactic was justified, it would be with her and her reluctance to face a tough question. All I want is fair and balanced reporting, not editorializing interviews. Not so with you, because fairness and honesty isn't in your playbook.

The truth is, you're just excusing this (predictably, of course) because it involved the Trump bid for the presidency that you always want to see put in a bad light..
  • Like
Reactions: Archer2
ADVERTISEMENT

Filter

ADVERTISEMENT