ADVERTISEMENT

OOTB's Political Thread . ..

Its almost like he brought it up. Y’all just virtue signal for the shittiest causes.

Y’all? WTF? I don’t give two shits about the causes and I didn’t bring up shit in regards to the Civil War. But you pounced on it like a tiger to red meat. Gotta get your online virtue points up!

I’d be happy to get back to the mess the Democrats are and to hear more theories on where PawPaw is.
 
  • Love
Reactions: pooponduke
What meltdown is that?

Do y’all really think the left isn’t armed? Do you think a bunch of hillbillies with AR15s can do much of anything?

Imagine spending a small fortune on guns and ammo to be blown up by an 18 year old flying a $500 drone.
If you'll stop conflating about three different subjects (one of them falsely representing what was said), I'll be happy to engage each of them (just can't promise it'll be in the next ten minutes, but I'm sure Blaze is happy you have taken up his cause for him).

As to just this one, "Do you think a bunch of hillbillies with AR15s can do much of anything?" Afghanistan says "Hello" to the full might of both the military of Russia and the US.
 
I cant wait for the absolute meltdown when Harris wins

She has almost zero chance of winning.

200w.gif
 
Well, how about you first admitting the fundamental basis of the entire discussion is flawed because no one is a threat to democracy since what we have is a Constitutional republic? And as such, the entire campaign smear and use of phrases and words like existential threat to democracy is simply treats for the sheep.


Explain to me- how is that not a threat to democracy?

Now Trump tried to preempt a loss in 2016 by saying the election was rigged, then shut up when he won (in a real shit way too. I mean hes lost by millions of votes in the popular vote)

Then he attempts to stop the 2020 election after he lost both the electoral college and the popular vote by millions.

Then calls for the suspension of the Constitution.

If you'll stop conflating about three different subjects (one of them falsely representing what was said), I'll be happy to engage each of them (just can't promise it'll be in the next ten minutes, but I'm sure Blaze is happy you have taken up his cause for him).

As to just this one, "Do you think a bunch of hillbillies with AR15s can do much of anything?" Afghanistan says "Hello" to the full might of both the military of Russia and the US.

So theyll have to hide in mountain ranges away from all centers of power? How will they get their diabetes medication?

War has changed in the last 10 years. Ukraine has proven the cheap drone is a fundamental shift in warfare akin to the introduction of the airplane.
 
  • Like
Reactions: blazers
yet those same concepts and all those primary voters don't seem to apply to him and the D's.
Primary voters cannot force someone to stay in a job. Primary voters don't pick the nominee, they dictate what the delegates should do. But he's free to retire at any point, which obviously unlocks or resets the delegates convention's ballot/nominee process.

Do you have proof that undemocratic backroom dealings forced him at gunpoint to step aside? He willingly did so, IMO for the sake of preventing Trump round 2 (he'll basically be beating him twice by NOT staying in). But what if he was ousted via 25th, or died? The same process involving delegates would occur. The process is moving quickly cuz Harris has an overwhelming amount of support, so effectively you could say she's already wrapped it up.

To one of your points, if he doesn't show his face (at least a video) soon it will be very strange.
 


Explain to me- how is that not a threat to democracy?

Now Trump tried to preempt a loss in 2016 by saying the election was rigged, then shut up when he won (in a real shit way too. I mean hes lost by millions of votes in the popular vote)

Then he attempts to stop the 2020 election after he lost both the electoral college and the popular vote by millions.

Then calls for the suspension of the Constitution.
And how'd that work out? Link for me if you would when the Constitution was actually suspended. Is Joe not our president? Did he not move into the WH when he was scheduled to do so? Stop trying to run around screaming with your stocking and panties at your ankles. You're gonna fall and get hurt.

Actual history is a bitch.
 
And how'd that work out? Link for me if you would when the Constitution was actually suspended. Is Joe not our president? Did he not move into the WH when he was scheduled to do so? Stop trying to run around screaming with your stocking and panties at your ankles. You're gonna fall and get hurt.

Actual history is a bitch.
“doesnt count what he says when hes not the President” is definitely a choice there lol.

So, let me get this straight, you are completely FINE with your candidate saying that in response to losing a fair election? And that statement doesn’t reflect a threat to democracy?
 
War has changed in the last 10 years. Ukraine has proven the cheap drone is a fundamental shift in warfare akin to the introduction of the airplane.
Actually, Ukraine is a really good example of what can be done to resist a military effort of a much larger scale against the little guy. But thanks for playing, don't forget to pick up your consolation prize at the door.

Perhaps we should just make a massive drone buy and take over all those problem countries in the middle east, China, Russia, etc.? I mean, since it's that simple apparently. Of course, if we do it to China, where would we get our drones in the future?
 
Hey remember when Pence wouldnt trust anyone but his personal SS detail when Trump attempted a coup?
No, can't say I do. Must have missed the entire coup thing. As far as the individual agents on actual protection details, beyond admiration for them. As to Cheatle, guess she's going back to guarding Quaker Oats.
 
Actually, Ukraine is a really good example of what can be done to resist a military effort of a much larger scale against the little guy. But thanks for playing, don't forget to pick up your consolation prize at the door.

Perhaps we should just make a massive drone buy and take over all those problem countries in the middle east, China, Russia, etc.? I mean, since it's that simple apparently. Of course, if we do it to China, where would we get our drones in the future?
I’ll take my chances against the notoriously tech savvy conservative movement.
 
No, can't say I do. Must have missed the entire coup thing. As far as the individual agents on actual protection details, beyond admiration for them. As to Cheatle, guess she's going back to guarding Quaker Oats.
Easy to miss things with your head in the sand. No big deal- its just democracy at stake.
 
“doesnt count what he says when hes not the President” is definitely a choice there lol.

So, let me get this straight, you are completely FINE with your candidate saying that in response to losing a fair election? And that statement doesn’t reflect a threat to democracy?
Well, it is a choice because it's what people do that matter. Recruits can say they love them some Carolina, but if the NIL is double at dook, they are gonna be wearing the wrong shade of blue. Trump pontificates constantly and says stuff that is absurd. He is, after all, a politician and one of the best self marketers we've ever witnessed.

Of course, I'll still be waiting for the actual link where Biden didn't become our president and our Constitution was suspended by Trump or anyone for that matter (unless you want to go back to the endless Civil War discussion and the actual suspension of the Constitution by Lincoln. Again, actual history is a bitch).

Incidentally, just because you've only been here for ten seconds, be careful making generalizations about things like my candidate and it being a fair election. I have ragged on Trump and his being a narcissitic ahole plenty of times. But, between the two choices of policies for our country as it stands, he is who I will vote for against Harris in the upcoming election. It doesn't make him my candidate. As to the election, Biden was elected and he is our president. Whether there were shenanigans and issues with the last election are irrelevant. But it doesn't make your representation that it was "fair" as if it was etched in a third tablet. Go back and read through the hundreds of pages where all this has been discussed ad nauseum.
 
Primary voters cannot force someone to stay in a job. Primary voters don't pick the nominee, they dictate what the delegates should do. But he's free to retire at any point, which obviously unlocks or resets the delegates convention's ballot/nominee process.

Do you have proof that undemocratic backroom dealings forced him at gunpoint to step aside? He willingly did so, IMO for the sake of preventing Trump round 2 (he'll basically be beating him twice by NOT staying in). But what if he was ousted via 25th, or died? The same process involving delegates would occur. The process is moving quickly cuz Harris has an overwhelming amount of support, so effectively you could say she's already wrapped it up.

To one of your points, if he doesn't show his face (at least a video) soon it will be very strange.
But he hasn't retired. That's the whole point. You are just pushing your narrative. If he resigned today and said he's just done because it's a job that deserves more energy, time, etc., I'm with you (and even that it actually a stretch in light of everything we have been witnessing for months and months and months and months, but I'm with you nonetheless). It is simply inconsistent to say that he is capable for the remainder of the term and is all in for the next four, but he now wants to retire in January. He's been yelling at everyone otherwise for the last two years while running for the next four - particularly after you all began ganging up on him after the debate. Don't piss on my boots and tell me it's raining. This is polling, money, and downvoting. Which I understand, but it sure doesn't give one much faith in the entire primary process of an entire party.
 
Another day, another statement from Joe (this time about Cheatle and her decades of service). The politically smart thing would have been to fire her or forced her to resign immediately making clear there was no alternative.

Which raises a question. Other than himself as it relates to the next election, who has Joe ever fired?

Trump fires everyone. Joe fires no one. Seems we need someone in between those points.
 
But he hasn't retired. That's the whole point.
Announcing his retirement in advance vs 'retiring with no notice' makes no difference on the process of delegates/convention/nominees.
It is simply inconsistent to say that he is capable for the remainder of the term and is all in for the next four, but he now wants to retire in January. He's been yelling at everyone otherwise for the last two years while running for the next four - particularly after you all began ganging up on him after the debate. Don't piss on my boots and tell me it's raining. This is polling, money, and downvoting. Which I understand, but it sure doesn't give one much faith in the entire primary process of an entire party.
You are changing the argument to something about capability, when the original point is me LMFAO that you other right-wingers are crying about "appointed" and how the process is undemocratic.
 
If you voted for Biden in the primary, you also voted for Harris. They go together. If one has to step down, the other is replaced. That's why they had a president and vice-president from the start. Just in case something happens, there's the next in line in the administration.
 
Announcing his retirement in advance vs 'retiring with no notice' makes no difference on the process of delegates/convention/nominees.

You are changing the argument to something about capability, when the original point is me LMFAO that you other right-wingers are crying about "appointed" and how the process is undemocratic.
The Trumpers are up in arms about Joe's apparent decision to remain in office until January. That's a whole lot of anxiety coming from so few.
 
Is that a nervous stutter I'm detecting?
You guys can put on a brave face, but the reality of the Democrats knee-capping themselves will eventually break through.

Trump is a malignancy on the American political body. But, only the Democratic Party could totally blow it like they have during this election cycle. When I see Democratic supporters buddy-up with former neo-cons like Bill Kristol and David Frum... and many others... it kinda eases my mind a little when I acknowledge a 2nd Trump presidency is on the way. The whole thing stinks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hark_The_Sound_2010
Its almost like you didnt read anything. Plenty of primary sources there for you.

I’m still waiting in the proof that states had the right to leave. You wont be able to find it because it doesnt exist- its a real lost cause, get it?

Why does every reputable institution of higher learning teach it my way? Didnt address that either. Unless you mean to say essentially every reputable historian that covers the civil war are just peddling opinions and only YOU know the “fact”- all the while ignoring primary sources.


“Defensive first shot” LOL

Now its blatantly obvious you didn’t go to UNC but I’m having a hard time believing you went to any college.

Did your soul searching happen while you were under a white robe?

You are seriously whats wrong with this country. Confident ignorance
you just aren't very smart I guess. But maybe you just aren't very forthright in admitting that you're wrong..

I jaywalk across the street where there is no crosswalk. Where can I find it written that walking across the street that way is permissible? I can't because no such permission exists, because it is presumed to be permissible unless some prohibition is in place. What I can find fairly easily is that prohibition, a regulation that I am required to cross the street at the crosswalk.

I have already informed your dumb ass that you can't find something that doesn't exist. But if there is a stated prohibition against a State leaving the Union, you should be able to produce that as I have asked you to do. All I've gotten from you so far is your avoidance of admitting that there is no such stated or even implied prohibition. Your argument here has devolved into the usual dog chasing his tail in order to keep from admitting what is apparent.

So let me ask you this. I have pointed out to you that such a prohibition was hastily created after the movement to secession began. You can verify that easily. IF a prohibition against leaving the Union already existed, why was this new law necessary? Hmmm?
 
lol, while logic, reason, and just plain common sense befuddles those who seek to identify and create causes to take heroic little stances for. Virtue-signaling is what matters in life. Sometimes they even post videos because they can't express thoughts of their own.. Where's George Carlin? Evidently George Carlin died before he touched on the subject of slavery.


Keep defending the worst of humanity to get points with your cult members.

The government and people of the southern states seceded from the United States, and killed more American soldiers than all the other wars combined, in order to protect and perpetuate the institution of chattel slavery. They all admitted to it. Why the United States "fought" the traitors, at that time, is irrelevant. No slavery, no war.
 
you just aren't very smart I guess. But maybe you just aren't very forthright in admitting that you're wrong..

I jaywalk across the street where there is no crosswalk. Where can I find it written that walking across the street that way is permissible? I can't because no such permission exists, because it is presumed to be permissible unless some prohibition is in place. What I can find fairly easily is that prohibition, a regulation that I am required to cross the street at the crosswalk.

I have already informed your dumb ass that you can't find something that doesn't exist. But if there is a stated prohibition against a State leaving the Union, you should be able to produce that as I have asked you to do. All I've gotten from you so far is your avoidance of admitting that there is no such stated or even implied prohibition. Your argument here has devolved into the usual dog chasing his tail in order to keep from admitting what is apparent.

So let me ask you this. I have pointed out to you that such a prohibition was hastily created after the movement to secession began. You can verify that easily. IF a prohibition against leaving the Union already existed, why was this new law necessary? Hmmm?
This mother****er talking about jay walking while I provided primary sources.

This is the Republican version of the intelligentsia folks
 
Its almost like he brought it up. Y’all just virtue signal for the shittiest causes.
lol I did bring it up; and if you noticed, I even hinted in a post to someone else that I was baiting you. I was baiting you because I had you figured to be just another virtue-signaler with a big mouth and nothing to back it up. I was right.

You don't argue with logic and understanding because you aren't capable of that. All you can do is cite opinions that align with yours. Those opinions are simple-minded and biased because...slavery.

I won't wrongly accuse you of not reading as you have wrongly accused me. I accuse you of reading and purposely failing to address what you have read. Figures.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT