ADVERTISEMENT

OOTB's Political Thread . ..

I love when you start predicting politics. Do you fancy a wager?
I’m not taking food out of your family’s mouth, assuming you would even pay up. I’ve told you before, go get the attention you crave from someone else. You were born a loser and you will die one.
 
Last edited:
Let this sink in for a minute. Our last three choices for president are Trump, Clinton and Biden. @dadika13, you're the history major. Has there ever been a worse group in American history?

When you factor in a sitting President that lost the popular vote by 3 million to a candidate that was extremely unpopular in her own right and the President is now seemingly more unpopular 4 years later according to polling data it's hard to find worse. Biden actually helps the 3 of them in terms of being super duper qualified for the job on paper - he's just awful and probably getting worse by the day. So this one would probably be my runner up. They still have two more debates to get my top spot but it's gonna be tough...

Because 1852-1856 was an absolute shitshow. In 1852, you had Fillmore, the sitting President, lose his party's nomination then the guy he lost to get demolished by Franklin Pierce who wasn't even on his own party's ballot until the 35th go round in the nomination. Pierce filled his cabinet with supporters of his rival in the party, James Buchanan, who went on to win in 1856 and become our worst President ever. Pierce spent his 4 years in office drinking everything in Washington DC he could find and then didn't run in 1856 when we elected the worst President ever.

Oh and as another compromise to Buchanan, Pierce's VP was Rufus King, who was James Buchanan's gay lover (NTTAWWT) who contracted TB while in a gay brothel in Paris and died right after the nomination. This all actually happened.

So yeah, I'll give the 2016-2020 crew a runner up off the top of my head.
 
Last edited:
I’m not taking food out of your family’s mouth. I’ve told you before, go get the attention you crave from someone else. You were born a loser and you will die one.

giphy.gif
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Terror Beard
When you factor in a sitting President that lost the popular vote by 3 million to a candidate that was extremely unpopular in her own right and the President is now seemingly more unpopular 4 years later according to polling data it's hard to find worse. Biden actually helps the 3 of them in terms of being super duper qualified for the job on paper - he's just awful and probably getting worse by the day. So this one would probably be my runner up. They still have two more debates to get my top spot but it's gonna be tough...

Because 1852-1856 was an absolute shitshow. In 1852, you had Fillmore, the sitting President, lose his party's nomination then the guy he lost to get demolished by Franklin Pierce who wasn't even on his own party's ballot until the 35th go round in the nomination. Pierce filled his cabinet with supporters of his rival in the party, James Buchanan, who went on to win in 1856 and become our worst President ever. Pierce spent his 4 years in office drinking everything in Washington DC he could find and then didn't run in 1856 when we elected the worst President ever.

Oh and as another compromise to Buchanan, Pierce's VP was Rufus King, who was James Buchanan's gay lover (NTTAWWT) who contracted TB while in a gay brothel in Paris and died right after the nomination. This all actually happened.

So yeah, I'll give the 2016-2020 crew a runner up off the top of my head.
I hope the next two debates will give the moderator a way to turn the mikes off when their two minutes are up. Hell, put them in separate rooms and video their answers. Anything but the shit show how we saw last night.
 
It's not a cop out. Did you not read or understand my original post? Let me outline it for you.

1. I believe he said it based on the way he acts
2. I'm tired of anonymous sources
3. The media shouldn't use them
4. People should man up, put their name out there or shut up.

The point of the post was about the media. You actually agree with three out of the four on that list, but your ego and craziness won't allow you to compromise on anything so it's all or nothing with you. People like you, @prlyles , @blazers, etc are the problem. You can't compromise on anything. Trump is either all bad or all good. You guys have an issue living in the real world.

"...so it's all or nothing with you."

OF COURSE IT IS. We are choosing one side of the coin or the other. We have chosen the side we want, and you're wasting your time trying to get us to get all bent out of shape over how poorly polished our side is. We don't give a shit.

If you want real discussion, try telling us how our choice will be bad for the country while the other side will be better. That would be a welcome paradigm shift.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UNC71-00
"...so it's all or nothing with you."

OF COURSE IT IS. We are choosing one side of the coin or the other. We have chosen the side we want, and you're wasting your time trying to get us to get all bent out of shape over how poorly polished our side is. We don't give a shit.

I truely believe the above

If you want real discussion, try telling us how our choice will be bad for the country while the other side will be better. That would be a welcome paradigm shift.
You have already said to not waste our time, what would we want to discuss with you?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: dadika13
"...so it's all or nothing with you."

OF COURSE IT IS. We are choosing one side of the coin or the other. We have chosen the side we want, and you're wasting your time trying to get us to get all bent out of shape over how poorly polished our side is. We don't give a shit.

If you want real discussion, try telling us how our choice will be bad for the country while the other side will be better. That would be a welcome paradigm shift.

the coin Has “lose” stamped on both sides. We’re sick of y’all insisting otherwise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tarheel0910
the coin Has “lose” stamped on both sides. We’re sick of y’all insisting otherwise.

you have 3 options:

1) accept that you are losing and nothing will ever change
2) change your point of view so you believe you are winning.
3) don’t play
 
You have already said to not waste our time, what would we want to discuss with you?

I spelled it out clearly enough in my post that a five year old could understand, so I see why you're having a problem with it.

What you're actually saying is what I already know...you have nothing of substance to talk about; all you have to offer is your idiotic ongoing character assassination...which is exactly what I said to stop wasting our time with.

BTW, have I told you lately that you're a moron?
 
  • Like
Reactions: UNC71-00
the coin Has “lose” stamped on both sides. We’re sick of y’all insisting otherwise.
maybe so, but only the brainless refuse to recognize that one side is going to be chosen. How do you not understand how meaningless and vapid your 'both sides' posting habit is. You're like a parrot with only one line. Want a cracker?
 
The two party system has never proved to be more of a failure. I would love for people to wake up and demand a third party. The desire is there, voters are just too afraid to demand it, or should I say too lazy to do it.

I wish our first and maybe greatest President warned us this would happen...oh wait, he did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tarheel0910
Trump responded just as I hoped he would. The relentless one-sided push toward the left has to be countered, and having a trap question sprung on you and then unfairly hammered deserves exactly the kind of answer Trump gave. How fvcked up is it that the moderator refuses to let the President answer his question without trying to force him into a corner.

Wallace tries to argue that Antifa is just an idea, while 'white supremacy' must refer to a group...yet he won't name that group. I'm pretty sure there isn't a group called the 'White Supremes'. Maybe I'm wrong.

But the bigger point is that this is America, where you're supposed to be able to think and say any insane, crazy thing you want, as long as you don't trample on another person's rights. I haven't seen white supremacists starting riots and attacking those who oppose them philosophically. But Antifa and their ilk damn sure has. Where was the pressing question about them? The President has no business condemning groups that are acting lawfully. He does have a responsibility to condemn and act against those who don't. But the left turns their heads to lawbreaking when they're the ones doing it.
 
"...so it's all or nothing with you."

OF COURSE IT IS. We are choosing one side of the coin or the other. We have chosen the side we want, and you're wasting your time trying to get us to get all bent out of shape over how poorly polished our side is. We don't give a shit.

If you want real discussion, try telling us how our choice will be bad for the country while the other side will be better. That would be a welcome paradigm shift.

Nailed it.
 
The two party system has never proved to be more of a failure. I would love for people to wake up and demand a third party. The desire is there, voters are just too afraid to demand it, or should I say too lazy to do it.

Instead of your non stop incessant bitching and whining, why don't you start the 3rd party movement? Or are you too lazy to do it?
 
I have no doubt that the majority of what's reported is true when it comes to statements he makes behind closed doors. That being said, I'm really tired of all of this anonymous sources crap. Not just for Trump, but any news. It's horrible journalism and should only be reported in extreme circumstances like national security issues. Either go on the record or shut up.

I know @TarHeelNation11 was a journalism major. What is the general rule concerning anonymous sources? Seems like shit reporting to me, but maybe I'm wrong.
Anonymous sourcing is frowned upon unless it's absolutely necessary to tell the story. But textbook journalistic practices aren't really followed these days
 
It was like watching dook vs $tate b-ball game that goes into triple overtime with both teams shooting 12% and ends in a brawl with both teams forfeiting.

that would be extraordinarily entertaining. I would DVR that and watch it weekly until the day I die.
 
  • Like
Reactions: heelmanwilm
I gotta agree here. Everybody wants shit to be different but I don't see any of them doing anything other than crying on message boards. I think a lot of it is just a new brand of signaling. Instead of "virtue signaling" it's "intelligence signaling" Meaning, just like virtue signalers don't really care about what they're getting mad at, they just want people to think of them in a certain way, "intelligence signaling" is people acting like they're super involved and informed on political issues but really they don't care all that much. They just want people to think, "gosh, he's really got his finger on the pulse of politics in this country."

Things are how they are. We have a 2 party system. It's not perfect but it's not changing. I certainly don't care enough to change it. I got a life to live. And all the bluster from these "moderates" about how we need something different is just them "intelligence signaling". It's faux outrage at the current state of politics in our country.

guilty. I really dgaf anymore. I was determined to vote for one or the other but last night changed that. So maybe that’s “doing something about it”. I dont know. The system seems to be self destructing just fine on its own anyway.
 
I gotta agree here. Everybody wants shit to be different but I don't see any of them doing anything other than crying on message boards. I think a lot of it is just a new brand of signaling. Instead of "virtue signaling" it's "intelligence signaling" Meaning, just like virtue signalers don't really care about what they're getting mad at, they just want people to think of them in a certain way, "intelligence signaling" is people acting like they're super involved and informed on political issues but really they don't care all that much. They just want people to think, "gosh, he's really got his finger on the pulse of politics in this country."

Things are how they are. We have a 2 party system. It's not perfect but it's not changing. I certainly don't care enough to change it. I got a life to live. And all the bluster from these "moderates" about how we need something different is just them "intelligence signaling". It's faux outrage at the current state of politics in our country.

This little angry rant here reminds me of the scene from Idiocracy where Justin Long makes fun of Luke Wilson for speaking intelligently. After watching last night's debate, seems like we're not too far off.

9o61.gif
 
What's angry about it? I'm simply pointing out that you and people like you are phony. Nothing angry or contentious in that.

ETA - 😃, smiley face to indicate no anger in this poast

What's phony though?

I don't think most of us "moderates" have indicated that we know how to fix anything. I know it's shit and I know we're way too far down this rabbit hole to dig ourselves out. Presidential elections have been a battle of the lesser of two evils in like 90% of the elections since Monroe. I've never really claimed to care all that much anyway so you using "you don't care" as an attack is weird, I never said anything differently.

So if that's phony to you, then ok.
 
you've devolved as poaster.

Feelings are mutual.

Your daily whining here would indicate that you definitely care. If I'm misreading, then I guess that's on me.

This is literally all you poast. You just call out when you think someone is mad or whining because they don't agree with your feelings about Trump. Yet I'm the one who is devolving? Right.
 
Trump responded just as I hoped he would. The relentless one-sided push toward the left has to be countered, and having a trap question sprung on you and then unfairly hammered deserves exactly the kind of answer Trump gave. How fvcked up is it that the moderator refuses to let the President answer his question without trying to force him into a corner.

Wallace tries to argue that Antifa is just an idea, while 'white supremacy' must refer to a group...yet he won't name that group. I'm pretty sure there isn't a group called the 'White Supremes'. Maybe I'm wrong.

But the bigger point is that this is America, where you're supposed to be able to think and say any insane, crazy thing you want, as long as you don't trample on another person's rights. I haven't seen white supremacists starting riots and attacking those who oppose them philosophically. But Antifa and their ilk damn sure has. Where was the pressing question about them? The President has no business condemning groups that are acting lawfully. He does have a responsibility to condemn and act against those who don't. But the left turns their heads to lawbreaking when they're the ones doing it.
I read the first sentence. He responded by not alienating the people he knows will always have his back. I just hope the next two debates reveal even more severe/extreme levels of it. Alienating everyone except for his cult will be ideal.
 
Biden still yapping about the Proud Boys. I guess the 1st amendment only exists for lefty approved groups.
 
Biden still yapping about the Proud Boys. I guess the 1st amendment only exists for lefty approved groups.
Did they stifle the Proud Boys from reacting publicly? I hope not. I think it's great that the debate allowed Trump to secure the Proud Boys' votes... and undying support!
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT