ADVERTISEMENT

OOTB's Political Thread . ..

The poast was about biases that were clearly demonstrated in different articles and sites. The poast demonstrated that clearly. I get the desire to not look like a complete tool when poasting here, though you've sprinted past that point already.
But the post's opening example was NOT demonstrating biases. Sorry for calling out something incorrect on a msg brd.

As you've seen there are zillions of good examples of bias, so there is no good reason to include ones that aren't actually bias unless you are trying to water-down (or even negate) the message you are trying to put out there.
 
LOL yeah, I rewatched Stripes recently and I almost used that one the other day. I don't know how far you've acted on your tendencies, but I can't argue with your willingness.
AlertFlawlessJunebug-size_restricted.gif
 
This should make you libs feel great about November- no less a source than the conservative rag NBC News.


In the last few weeks, Joe Biden has led President Donald Trump by a fairly consistent 8-point average in national polls and has maintained leads in more than enough battleground states to win the Electoral College, including Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — all states Trump won in 2016.

But there are signs Trump's ground operation is paying off when it comes to registering new voters in key states, an advantage that could become important if the race tightens before Nov. 3.

The Trump campaign has boasted that it knocks on more than a million doors a week, a claim that's impossible to independently verify. In sharp contrast, the Biden campaign had ditched a ground game for virtual outreach, citing Covid-19 concerns — even though academic research has routinely concluded door-to-door canvassing is the "most consistently effective and efficient method of voter mobilization." Only just now has the Biden campaign decided to restart its in-person voter contacts in some battleground states.

As deadlines approach, new data from the past few months shows Republicans have swamped Democrats in adding new voters to the rolls, a dramatic GOP improvement over 2016, even if new registrations have lagged 2016 rates across the board. It's a sign that in a pandemic, Democrats are struggling to seize traditional opportunities to pad their margins, such as the return of students to college campuses.

Of the six states Trump won by less than 5 points in 2016, four — Arizona, Florida, North Carolina and Pennsylvania — permit voters to register by party. In all four states, voter registration trends are more robust for the GOP than four years ago.
 
Last edited:
Lots of bias and good amount of hypocrisy in here, good stuff.

Also, wanna talk about the "paid family leave" one? Is it possible for one news site to have varying opinions on a topic? Example, can halloween be good (because of slutty costumes plus other fun) and bad (because of cavities) at the same time?
that's arguably the most blatant example. Is it possible that you don't understand what's being pointed out here? Your analysis is way off. Halloween can be both good and bad like anything else, and an article pointing out both sides of the coin is not in any way hypocritical. But if you say Halloween is Good in a headline, and then say Halloween is Bad right after Trump endorses Halloween, that's hypocrisy.
 
This should make you libs feel great about November- no less a source than the conservative rag NBS News.


In the last few weeks, Joe Biden has led President Donald Trump by a fairly consistent 8-point average in national polls and has maintained leads in more than enough battleground states to win the Electoral College, including Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — all states Trump won in 2016.

But there are signs Trump's ground operation is paying off when it comes to registering new voters in key states, an advantage that could become important if the race tightens before Nov. 3.

The Trump campaign has boasted that it knocks on more than a million doors a week, a claim that's impossible to independently verify. In sharp contrast, the Biden campaign had ditched a ground game for virtual outreach, citing Covid-19 concerns — even though academic research has routinely concluded door-to-door canvassing is the "most consistently effective and efficient method of voter mobilization." Only just now has the Biden campaign decided to restart its in-person voter contacts in some battleground states.

As deadlines approach, new data from the past few months shows Republicans have swamped Democrats in adding new voters to the rolls, a dramatic GOP improvement over 2016, even if new registrations have lagged 2016 rates across the board. It's a sign that in a pandemic, Democrats are struggling to seize traditional opportunities to pad their margins, such as the return of students to college campuses.

Of the six states Trump won by less than 5 points in 2016, four — Arizona, Florida, North Carolina and Pennsylvania — permit voters to register by party. In all four states, voter registration trends are more robust for the GOP than four years ago.
So, you think more people will vote for him than Biden? As opposed to the last election, where he got less votes than his opponent?
 
But the post's opening example was NOT demonstrating biases. Sorry for calling out something incorrect on a msg brd.

As you've seen there are zillions of good examples of bias, so there is no good reason to include ones that aren't actually bias unless you are trying to water-down (or even negate) the message you are trying to put out there.
Sure it was. You can keep saying it wasn't, but it won't change anything factual about it. Only you want to negate the message so you don't have to go around in your life doubting those that feed your own bias.

So I take it you would throw away the car, but keep your boyfriend then. That's not very consistent of you.
 
So, you think more people will vote for him than Biden? As opposed to the last election, where he got less votes than his opponent?

It's time to put this stupid popular vote issue to bed. Trump is not and did not campaign to win the popular vote- had he done so, he would have campaigned in states that were unwinnable in the electoral college.

I don't know why you idiots continue to think you are making some great point with this. No one GAF about the popular vote because the popular vote has nothing to do with winning the election.

Actually, I do know why you idiots think you are making some great point. It's because you are idiots.
 
But if you say Halloween is Good in a headline, and then say Halloween is Bad right after Trump endorses Halloween, that's hypocrisy.
Only if you the reader are wearing a tinfoil hat. I can't believe we are at a point were such simple things are demonized as politically timed or biased. Not everything in the world is about Trump or Biden. Sometimes they are simply about Paid family leave (or cavities).
Sure it was. You can keep saying it wasn't, but it won't change anything factual about it. Only you want to negate the message so you don't have to go around in your life doubting those that feed your own bias.

So I take it you would throw away the car, but keep your boyfriend then. That's not very consistent of you.
How were the slate articles and/or their timing an example of hypocrisy or bias?
 
this is one of my favorite gifs but it's hard to find; otherwise, I would have used it recently.

Glad to see you haven't completely turned yourself off to using women at least in some form.
Why are you glad to see that, Sadie? Would it make you feel better? Your pulse doing the cha-cha over this is okay. You turned me off when you offered to send me pictures of yourself in the shower. I have a hunch that neither men nor women are attracted to you.
 
It's time to put this stupid popular vote issue to bed. Trump is not and did not campaign to win the popular vote- had he done so, he would have campaigned in states that were unwinnable in the electoral college.

I don't know why you idiots continue to think you are making some great point with this. No one GAF about the popular vote because the popular vote has nothing to do with winning the election.

Actually, I do know why you idiots think you are making some great point. It's because you are idiots.
Awwww, I didn't mean to touch a raw nerve. But, nevertheless, he got less votes. He'll get fewer votes this time, too. If the popular vote had "nothing to do with winning the election", then why do people go and vote? Are you implying, or saying directly, that the citizens should not vote for president of the country?

And, it's entirely possible that all of this "biased media", and every other kind of backlash that Trump's assholic presence begs for, is very likely due to the fact that more people voted for his opponent than him, and so the antiquated system is no longer representing the will of the people. One way or the other, the majority rule will make its presence known.
 
Why are you glad to see that, Sadie? Would it make you feel better? Your pulse doing the cha-cha over this is okay. You turned me off when you offered to send me pictures of yourself in the shower. I have a hunch that neither men nor women are attracted to you.
yes, it would make me feel much better if you stopped acting like a phag just because you have no ability to argue anything successfully. But do what you want and I'll continue to respond accordingly.

And what turned you on or off matters little to me. You were asking for it and I obliged. You should be grateful.
 
Only if you the reader are wearing a tinfoil hat. I can't believe we are at a point were such simple things are demonized as politically timed or biased. Not everything in the world is about Trump or Biden. Sometimes they are simply about Paid family leave (or cavities).

How were the slate articles and/or their timing an example of hypocrisy or bias?

"How were the slate articles and/or their timing an example of hypocrisy or bias?"





 
yes, it would make me feel much better if you stopped acting like a phag just because you have no ability to argue anything successfully. But do what you want and I'll continue to respond accordingly.

And what turned you on or off matters little to me. You were asking for it and I obliged. You should be grateful.
Oh, I disagree... I see tons of success on my part. Especially after this gem above! You keep responding accordingly. You're doing an awesome job, sweetheart! And, for the record, I never asked for your shower porn... you offered.
 
@bluetoe you say "family leave" is the worst example, and I think you were pointing to the timing of the May30th article eight days after the analysis/article on Trump's paid-leave, but do you realize that May 30th article is from someone at the Cato institute and it is arguing against regulation?

This is the funny thing about these examples. One of the "bad articles" is written by a conservative judge, the other is written by a Cato institute fellow arguing for less regulation (which most conservative repubs would actually like).

In both cases we're seeing diversity of info and diversity of opinion. How is either hypocritical or displaying bias toward libs?
 
Awwww, I didn't mean to touch a raw nerve. But, nevertheless, he got less votes. He'll get fewer votes this time, too. If the popular vote had "nothing to do with winning the election", then why do people go and vote? Are you implying, or saying directly, that the citizens should not vote for president of the country?

And, it's entirely possible that all of this "biased media", and every other kind of backlash that Trump's assholic presence begs for, is very likely due to the fact that more people voted for his opponent than him, and so the antiquated system is no longer representing the will of the people. One way or the other, the majority rule will make its presence known.

And as usual, you start with a moronic assumption before going off on some boring manifesto that is designed to put the reader into a deep sleep.

What % of the population voted? And once you figure out the answer to that, you will realize you have no idea who the majority of the population favors.

With that, I am done responding to you. You already got me to do so twice today, which is two more than my limit.
 
Oh, I disagree... I see tons of success on my part. Especially after this gem above! You keep responding accordingly. You're doing an awesome job, sweetheart! And, for the record, I never asked for your shower porn... you offered.
LOL you're still asking for it, you oblivious phag. Maybe think less of my manmeat and things might clear up for you.
 
This should make you libs feel great about November- no less a source than the conservative rag NBC News.


In the last few weeks, Joe Biden has led President Donald Trump by a fairly consistent 8-point average in national polls and has maintained leads in more than enough battleground states to win the Electoral College, including Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — all states Trump won in 2016.

But there are signs Trump's ground operation is paying off when it comes to registering new voters in key states, an advantage that could become important if the race tightens before Nov. 3.

The Trump campaign has boasted that it knocks on more than a million doors a week, a claim that's impossible to independently verify. In sharp contrast, the Biden campaign had ditched a ground game for virtual outreach, citing Covid-19 concerns — even though academic research has routinely concluded door-to-door canvassing is the "most consistently effective and efficient method of voter mobilization." Only just now has the Biden campaign decided to restart its in-person voter contacts in some battleground states.

As deadlines approach, new data from the past few months shows Republicans have swamped Democrats in adding new voters to the rolls, a dramatic GOP improvement over 2016, even if new registrations have lagged 2016 rates across the board. It's a sign that in a pandemic, Democrats are struggling to seize traditional opportunities to pad their margins, such as the return of students to college campuses.

Of the six states Trump won by less than 5 points in 2016, four — Arizona, Florida, North Carolina and Pennsylvania — permit voters to register by party. In all four states, voter registration trends are more robust for the GOP than four years ago.

i pity the fool that knocks on my door promoting a politician.
 
And as usual, you start with a moronic assumption before going off on some boring manifesto that is designed to put the reader into a deep sleep.

What % of the population voted? And once you figure out the answer to that, you will realize you have no idea who the majority of the population favors.

With that, I am done responding to you. You already got me to do so twice today, which is two more than my limit.
So, you lead with your own moronic assumption! HAHA!

Why would anyone be talking about anyone OTHER than the people who voted. That should be obvious. What are you, an idiot or something? Surely not. That was one of your weaker comebacks. I got you twice, at least.
 
Last edited:
seriously? Why do you even bother.

I ask myself the same thing every time I engage with trump supporters.

The guy was bragging about how he doesn't wear a mask as often as Biden, and later that same week he tests positive. It would be pure comedy if it weren't for the fact that there are millions of Americans who worship the man's ignorance. So that makes it a little bit sad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: strummingram
I ask myself the same thing every time I engage with trump supporters.

The guy was bragging about how he doesn't wear a mask as often as Biden, and later that same week he tests positive. It would be pure comedy if it weren't for the fact that there are millions of Americans who worship the man's ignorance. So that makes it a little bit sad.
One day, like magic, it will just disappear!
 
  • Like
Reactions: uncboy10
@bluetoe you say "family leave" is the worst example, and I think you were pointing to the timing of the May30th article eight days after the analysis/article on Trump's paid-leave, but do you realize that May 30th article is from someone at the Cato institute and it is arguing against regulation?

This is the funny thing about these examples. One of the "bad articles" is written by a conservative judge, the other is written by a Cato institute fellow arguing for less regulation (which most conservative repubs would actually like).

In both cases we're seeing diversity of info and diversity of opinion. How is either hypocritical or displaying bias toward libs?
if you insist on seeing 'diversity' of thought and not hypocrisy of thought from the same self-contradictory source, there's nothing I can say that will sway you...so I'm not going to waste any time explaining what I'm sure you already understand but must deny.

I already explained that diversity of opinion is perfectly fine and a good thing. But a reversal of stated stance in reaction to the opposition is hypocrisy.
 
if you insist on seeing 'diversity' of thought and not hypocrisy of thought from the same self-contradictory source, there's nothing I can say that will sway you...so I'm not going to waste any time explaining what I'm sure you already understand but must deny.

I already explained that diversity of opinion is perfectly fine and a good thing. But a reversal of stated stance in reaction to the opposition is hypocrisy.
How are they self-contradictory?
One article says Trump will have a tough time pushing thru a paid-leave act because Republicans don't like that stuff. The other article is from a Cato institute saying that de-regulation would be better than adding more laws mandating paid-leave. How do these contradict?

And where is the reversal of stated stance? I don't think you've read any of the articles if you think there are reversals. Same way there is no reversal when I say Halloween slutty costumes rock while halloween candy rots teeth.
 
Question - If Trump was so sick that he had to drop of the race, the RNC would choose a new candidate for election day, is that right? Who would that likely be and who would you want it to be?

Just go with Pence or get interesting like Tulsi, Rubio... Roger Stone?

Edit- or is he on the ballot regardless? When's too late to swap?
 
I ask myself the same thing every time I engage with trump supporters.

The guy was bragging about how he doesn't wear a mask as often as Biden, and later that same week he tests positive. It would be pure comedy if it weren't for the fact that there are millions of Americans who worship the man's ignorance. So that makes it a little bit sad.
it doesn't make me sad, and I don't know why it should make you or anyone else sad. A man made a free choice. THAT should make any American not lost in his politically-oblivious complacency deleriously happy; that we still have the right to choose, before the left turns this country into a one world Orwellian nightmare.

Trump caught a virus that he might have caught anyway, just like the main promoter of mask-wearing, a medico type I linked the story about recently (in rebuttal to an opposing sort of post). He died. THAT is sad. Why? Because he died. Period.
 
Question - If Trump was so sick that he had to drop of the race, the RNC would choose a new candidate for election day, is that right? Who would that likely be and who would you want it to be?

Just go with Pence or get interesting like Tulsi, Rubio... Roger Stone?

Edit- or is he on the ballot regardless? When's too late to swap?

Haley would be my bet if they could choose right now.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT