ADVERTISEMENT

OOTB's Political Thread . ..

So it's a good thing that 2000 absentee ballots were sent out with the same barcode?

It's those kind of stances that have earned you such respect around here.
Are you ignoring, deflecting or evading my curiosity which was spawned by you failing to grasp what the article describes?
 
Are you ignoring, deflecting or evading my curiosity which was spawned by you failing to grasp what the article describes?

I know exactly what the article is about: intentionally cheating or sheer incompetence. Nevermind that these things are happening in Swing States. I'm sure that's coincidental.
 
I can't imagine anyone thinking this charge will grow legs and get anywhere but it certainly won't earn Trump-Vance any new voters either, and right now that is what they desperately need most.

I disagree on both counts.

Trump's internal polling is saying he's in great shape. Could his team be wrong? Sure. But I don't think so. Look at the campaign's actions. It would appear they feel good about where they stand. Trump is taking time for rallies in deep blue areas. Why is that? The logical conclusion is that he feels good about where he is everywhere else.

As for how this hardly-known-about, frivolous lawsuit is impacting undecideds, sure, it could potentially keep the pet-eating illegals from voting for him but outside of that, I doubt it has much effect.
 
I disagree on both counts.

Trump's internal polling is saying he's in great shape. Could his team be wrong? Sure. But I don't think so. Look at the campaign's actions. It would appear they feel good about where they stand. Trump is taking time for rallies in deep blue areas. Why is that? The logical conclusion is that he feels good about where he is everywhere else.

As for how this hardly-known-about, frivolous lawsuit is impacting undecideds, sure, it could potentially keep the pet-eating illegals from voting for him but outside of that, I doubt it has much effect.
Meh. Whether you are deliberately doing it to be caustic or doing it because you don't know any better, the fact that you're still calling the immigrant Haitians in Ohio illegal in my eyes undermines the rest of your message. In other words, your contention has no validity.
 
Meh. Whether you are deliberately doing it to be caustic or doing it because you don't know any better, the fact that you're still calling the immigrant Haitians in Ohio illegal in my eyes undermines the rest of your message. In other words, your contention has no validity.

Geeze, I softened my language for your benefit. If you don’t like that, you’d really hate to hear how I refer to them when I’m not toning it down.
 
If Donald Trump spent half as much time coming up with actual policy ideas as he does coming up with new grifts, he might not be so far behind in the polls.

 
Last edited:
…he might not be so far behind in the polls.


puppet-awkward.gif
 
If Donald Trump spent half as much time coming up with actual policy ideas as he does coming up with new grifts, he might not be so far behind in the polls.

Lol at you saying "actual policy". Can you name any of Kamala's?
 
Lol at you saying "actual policy". Can you name any of Kamala's?
You can read about them here:

Don't bother me again.
 
You can read about them here:

Don't bother me again.
Again you get an lol. More and more government handouts. No way that would cause more and more inflation. She could write her policy stances on a bubble gum wrapper and have room left. No wonder she is the worst VP in history. Were you and @joeydavid groomed at the same place?
 
Yeap, the Biden mafia is not happy.
a weaponized system of justice gone haywire? Now they're even eating their own?

courtesy of the Goo Goo Dolls...Sympathy (no, really. Look at my tears))

"We're taught to lead the life you choose (all I wanted)
You know your love's run out on you (all I wanted)
And you can't see when all your dreams aren't coming true, oh, yeah
It's easy to forget, yeah
When you choke on the regrets, yeah
Who the hell did I think I was?

And stranger than your sympathy
And all these thoughts you stole from me
And I'm not sure where I belong
And nowhere's home and no more wrong"
 
This is exactly the point. You connect two things that are not causally related. The supposed problem are the standards set by the UK, not what everyone else is doing. For example, had Hitler honored the peace agreement and not attacked England, America never enters the war, Europe is never rescued and there never is a European Union formed because it's all known as Germany. So, under your logic, it's Hitler who should be credited with setting the EU standards on pesticides so high.

The issue is that the UK (arguably) needs to set their pesticide standards higher, not that withdrawing from the EU caused anything. What if the UK set their own standards higher than the UK? Would the article then be crediting Brexit with making their food safer? The headline should complain about the pesticide standards being too low, not withdrawing from the EU.
lol, we've just witnessed classic @blazers here Take any circumstance that lends itself, and the pretzel maker goes to work twisting an ordinary bit of dough into a toxic pretzel disguised as a tasty snack. He (and his ilk) is relentless in the production of the irrationally contrived smear.

Give him credit though, he's pretty skilled at his craft. You have to be vigilant or he'll slip the high hard one in on you because he generally includes a kernel of truth, irrelevant as it might be, in the ingredients.

Idiots like @Heels Noir and this new dolt just offer us 'beer' out of their bedpans. No one I know of has ever fallen for it, except of course @prlyles. And he isn't really fooled. He willingly drinks from the bedpan and says ' now don't YOU look stupid'.
 
I can't imagine anyone thinking this charge will grow legs and get anywhere but it certainly won't earn Trump-Vance any new voters either, and right now that is what they desperately need most.
that's where you're wrong and you of course are being purposely wrong in order not to admit that this is a backfire for you. Even just considering allowing illegals and improperly processed immigrants the opportunity to participate in what should only be a legitimate citizens right, along with the arrogance of the (dem-inspired/initiated) suit, is what so many fence-sitters need to send them to the right side of things. This exemplifies the rational fear and resentment that Trump's campaign is highlighting.

Felon doing felon things.

"The 15,000 to 20,000 Haitian immigrants who have arrived in Springfield over the past several years, in many cases after being recruited to local jobs, have been granted Temporary Protected Status to be in the U.S. legally."

lol, look at these dummies in YOUR article. That doesn't say 5,000. They can't count either, I guess. I assume you'll be contacting them to point out the error.
 
For example, had Hitler honored the peace agreement and not attacked England, America never enters the war, Europe is never rescued and there never is a European Union formed because it's all known as Germany. So, under your logic, it's Hitler who should be credited with setting the EU standards on pesticides so high.
Hitler never agreed to not attack England, he agreed to not invade Poland. When he did, England and France declared war on Germany. America didn't enter the war until Pearl Harbor was attacked and Germany declared war on the United States.
 
Hitler never agreed to not attack England, he agreed to not invade Poland. When he did, England and France declared war on Germany. America didn't enter the war until Pearl Harbor was attacked and Germany declared war on the United States.
prlyles schooling the uneducated. Yes!

giphy.webp
 
  • Like
Reactions: blazers
If Donald Trump spent half as much time coming up with actual policy ideas as he does coming up with new grifts, he might not be so far behind in the polls.

It's going to take more than a "Big Tent" to save Truth Social the stock is tanking. It will be interesting to see when Trump bales out and leaves the MAGA investors with nothing but a bunch of worthless stock.
 
I disagree on both counts.

Trump's internal polling is saying he's in great shape. Could his team be wrong? Sure. But I don't think so. Look at the campaign's actions. It would appear they feel good about where they stand. Trump is taking time for rallies in deep blue areas. Why is that? The logical conclusion is that he feels good about where he is everywhere else.
The logical conclusion is he can't draw people anywhere else. People are tried of listening to him, and the deep blue areas only come to make fun of him, as you well know.
 
IDGAF if you remain ignorant. It's actually entertaining that you post an article then announce your own misunderstanding repeatedly.

Still unwilling to tackle the article and my misunderstanding? Cool. Don’t ever stop being you.
 
Hitler never agreed to not attack England, he agreed to not invade Poland. When he did, England and France declared war on Germany. America didn't enter the war until Pearl Harbor was attacked and Germany declared war on the United States.
and @pooponduke didn't say he did. He said Britain was subsequently attacked by Germany because Hitler broke the agreement that pooponduke referred to, and he is perfectly correct in saying that.. If Hitler had not attacked Poland thereby breaking the peace agreement, Britain would have had no reason to declare war. If Britain doesn't go to war, Hitler doesn't attack it. And we don't aid Britain's war effort because there would not have been one to aid. And if we don't aid a British war effort, Hitler would not necessarily have declared war on us. We would just be left duking it out with the Japs, unless Germany declared war on us because of Germany's alliance with Japan, and that is just conjecture and immaterial to what pooponduke is making a valid point of..

Britain MIGHT have ended up going to war if Hitler had left Poland alone and instead invaded France, but Britain did not have a pact with France as they did with Poland...so that's again just conjecture and immaterial to poopondukes perfectly valid point.

Conclusion; there was no reason for you to butt in and erroneously try to correct what needed no correcting. But it did garner you a favorable comment from your equally ignorant and misguided buttbuddy, so you do have that to be proud of.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pooponduke
and @pooponduke didn't say he did. He said Britain was subsequently attacked by Germany because Hitler broke the agreement that pooponduke referred to, and he is perfectly correct in saying that.. If Hitler had not attacked Poland thereby breaking the peace agreement, Britain would have had no reason to declare war. If Britain doesn't go to war, Hitler doesn't attack it. And we don't aid Britain's war effort because there would not have been one to aid. And if we don't aid a British war effort, Hitler would not necessarily have declared war on us. We would just be left duking it out with the Japs, unless Germany declared war on us because of Germany's alliance with Japan, and that is just conjecture and immaterial to what pooponduke is making a valid point of..

Britain MIGHT have ended up going to war if Hitler had left Poland alone and instead invaded France, but Britain did not have a pact with France as they did with Poland...so that's again just conjecture and immaterial to poopondukes perfectly valid point.

Conclusion; there was no reason for you to butt in and erroneously try to correct what needed no correcting. But it did garner you a favorable comment from your equally ignorant and misguided buttbuddy, so you do have that to be proud of.
Yeah, OK. You're such a loser and dumb as shit to boot
 
  • Haha
Reactions: bluetoe
Again you get an lol. More and more government handouts. No way that would cause more and more inflation. She could write her policy stances on a bubble gum wrapper and have room left. No wonder she is the worst VP in history. Were you and @joeydavid groomed at the same place?
she's disastrously ignorant, and lacks common sense to boot. In other words, she's a libtard.

Business can be complex in detail when it needs to be, but at the level she needs to be operating in, nothing could be simpler. You develop a product or service that you hope the buying public will desire, and provide it to them in exchange for money. Duh. The primary goal is to take in more money in sales than it takes to produce those sales. The difference between what comes in and what goes out is profit (or loss), and that's primarily the only reason one would even have a business.

I want businesses to make money, because I want them to be able to produce what I desire. I don't concern myself with how much they are making, I just decide if what they are selling is reasonably affordable to me. If it isn't, I don't buy it. If a commodity is important to me but the prices are steep, I do with less of something that is not as important. The very last thing that would cross my mind is to demand that the business sell to me at what I think is a 'fair' price.

The greater the profit the better. In order to maximize profit, you take in as much as possible and you outlay as little as possible. Duh. There is no moral limit as to how much profit is too much profit. If a company is raking it in, competition will spring up to take its share. In so doing, prices will moderate accordingly, assuming there is no collusion to fix prices. If a consumer finds the product to be unaffordable, said consumer is free to open a competing business. Free....as in freedom, the concept that we should cherish and that liberals seek to constrain.

The main sort of common sense that always seems to escape the libs is that any burden placed on a business MUST be passed on to the consumer in the form of a higher price, If the business is to remain healthy or make enough profit to justify providing the product or even just to survive.

Price gouging? It's a joke that the ignorant have even conceived of the concept. Supply and demand is the exceedingly simple concept that needs to be understood and respected by everyone before they get out of middle school.. Prices are determined by the above factors, and competition from other producers keeps them in check if the system isn't artificially manipulated by idiots sticking their commie noses where they don't belong..

So when dillweed libtards yammer away about corporations/business paying their fair share of taxes and not gouging with prices, who's to say what a fair share is and who's to say what amounts to gouging? Not Kamala Harris, she's too dumb to understand and too political to care that if you raise taxes on business so that they pay their 'fair share', you're for all intents and purposes taxing the consumer through higher prices... which you then stupidly seek to control because you declare that it's gouging.

Meanwhile, the higher that prices are driven up by liberal tinkering, the less competitive businesses are in the global market. The less competitive they are globally, the less able they are to contribute to the economy.

If you want to control inflation, just stop burdening the system with liberal idiocy. Let Trump come back and apply the common sense we need.
 
she's disastrously ignorant, and lacks common sense to boot. In other words, she's a libtard.

Business can be complex in detail when it needs to be, but at the level she needs to be operating in, nothing could be simpler. You develop a product or service that you hope the buying public will desire, and provide it to them in exchange for money. Duh. The primary goal is to take in more money in sales than it takes to produce those sales. The difference between what comes in and what goes out is profit (or loss), and that's primarily the only reason one would even have a business.

I want businesses to make money, because I want them to be able to produce what I desire. I don't concern myself with how much they are making, I just decide if what they are selling is reasonably affordable to me. If it isn't, I don't buy it. If a commodity is important to me but the prices are steep, I do with less of something that is not as important. The very last thing that would cross my mind is to demand that the business sell to me at what I think is a 'fair' price.

The greater the profit the better. In order to maximize profit, you take in as much as possible and you outlay as little as possible. Duh. There is no moral limit as to how much profit is too much profit. If a company is raking it in, competition will spring up to take its share. In so doing, prices will moderate accordingly, assuming there is no collusion to fix prices. If a consumer finds the product to be unaffordable, said consumer is free to open a competing business. Free....as in freedom, the concept that we should cherish and that liberals seek to constrain.

The main sort of common sense that always seems to escape the libs is that any burden placed on a business MUST be passed on to the consumer in the form of a higher price, If the business is to remain healthy or make enough profit to justify providing the product or even just to survive.

Price gouging? It's a joke that the ignorant have even conceived of the concept. Supply and demand is the exceedingly simple concept that needs to be understood and respected by everyone before they get out of middle school.. Prices are determined by the above factors, and competition from other producers keeps them in check if the system isn't artificially manipulated by idiots sticking their commie noses where they don't belong..

So when dillweed libtards yammer away about corporations/business paying their fair share of taxes and not gouging with prices, who's to say what a fair share is and who's to say what amounts to gouging? Not Kamala Harris, she's too dumb to understand and too political to care that if you raise taxes on business so that they pay their 'fair share', you're for all intents and purposes taxing the consumer through higher prices... which you then stupidly seek to control because you declare that it's gouging.

Meanwhile, the higher that prices are driven up by liberal tinkering, the less competitive businesses are in the global market. The less competitive they are globally, the less able they are to contribute to the economy.

If you want to control inflation, just stop burdening the system with liberal idiocy. Let Trump come back and apply the common sense we need.
atn57nds0suc1.jpeg
 
she's disastrously ignorant, and lacks common sense to boot. In other words, she's a libtard.

Business can be complex in detail when it needs to be, but at the level she needs to be operating in, nothing could be simpler. You develop a product or service that you hope the buying public will desire, and provide it to them in exchange for money. Duh. The primary goal is to take in more money in sales than it takes to produce those sales. The difference between what comes in and what goes out is profit (or loss), and that's primarily the only reason one would even have a business.

I want businesses to make money, because I want them to be able to produce what I desire. I don't concern myself with how much they are making, I just decide if what they are selling is reasonably affordable to me. If it isn't, I don't buy it. If a commodity is important to me but the prices are steep, I do with less of something that is not as important. The very last thing that would cross my mind is to demand that the business sell to me at what I think is a 'fair' price.

The greater the profit the better. In order to maximize profit, you take in as much as possible and you outlay as little as possible. Duh. There is no moral limit as to how much profit is too much profit. If a company is raking it in, competition will spring up to take its share. In so doing, prices will moderate accordingly, assuming there is no collusion to fix prices. If a consumer finds the product to be unaffordable, said consumer is free to open a competing business. Free....as in freedom, the concept that we should cherish and that liberals seek to constrain.

The main sort of common sense that always seems to escape the libs is that any burden placed on a business MUST be passed on to the consumer in the form of a higher price, If the business is to remain healthy or make enough profit to justify providing the product or even just to survive.

Price gouging? It's a joke that the ignorant have even conceived of the concept. Supply and demand is the exceedingly simple concept that needs to be understood and respected by everyone before they get out of middle school.. Prices are determined by the above factors, and competition from other producers keeps them in check if the system isn't artificially manipulated by idiots sticking their commie noses where they don't belong..

So when dillweed libtards yammer away about corporations/business paying their fair share of taxes and not gouging with prices, who's to say what a fair share is and who's to say what amounts to gouging? Not Kamala Harris, she's too dumb to understand and too political to care that if you raise taxes on business so that they pay their 'fair share', you're for all intents and purposes taxing the consumer through higher prices... which you then stupidly seek to control because you declare that it's gouging.

Meanwhile, the higher that prices are driven up by liberal tinkering, the less competitive businesses are in the global market. The less competitive they are globally, the less able they are to contribute to the economy.

If you want to control inflation, just stop burdening the system with liberal idiocy. Let Trump come back and apply the common sense we need.
Dear Diary...
 
and @pooponduke didn't say he did. He said Britain was subsequently attacked by Germany because Hitler broke the agreement that pooponduke referred to, and he is perfectly correct in saying that.. If Hitler had not attacked Poland thereby breaking the peace agreement, Britain would have had no reason to declare war. If Britain doesn't go to war, Hitler doesn't attack it. And we don't aid Britain's war effort because there would not have been one to aid. And if we don't aid a British war effort, Hitler would not necessarily have declared war on us. We would just be left duking it out with the Japs, unless Germany declared war on us because of Germany's alliance with Japan, and that is just conjecture and immaterial to what pooponduke is making a valid point of..

Britain MIGHT have ended up going to war if Hitler had left Poland alone and instead invaded France, but Britain did not have a pact with France as they did with Poland...so that's again just conjecture and immaterial to poopondukes perfectly valid point.

Conclusion; there was no reason for you to butt in and erroneously try to correct what needed no correcting. But it did garner you a favorable comment from your equally ignorant and misguided buttbuddy, so you do have that to be proud of.
I'm glad one person here can/bothers to read. And further, that same person is capable of following the point of a discussion without attempting to be petty on a non-relevant component.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Archer2 and bluetoe
Also, while I'm thinking about it, just want to say that I hope everyone here is fairing well with the crazy weather going on and the issues created, even if you are just getting slammed with heavy rains.
 
I'm glad one person here can/bothers to read. And further, that same person is capable of following the point of a discussion without attempting to be petty on a non-relevant component.

OK, if you say that's what you was trying to say fine but here is what you said:

"For example, had Hitler honored the peace agreement and not attacked England, America never enters the war,"

You could replace "England" with "Poland" and your post would be perfectly fine. Even if Hitler had not attacked Poland we really don't know if he would have declared war on the US or not following Pearl Harbor.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT