ADVERTISEMENT

OOTB's Political Thread . ..

................................BLAZERS..............................HEELS NOIR.....................................PRLYLES
Stooges-with-Curly-highlight-860.jpg
That there is hi-larious, but why can't you dream up your own original ideas to come back with? Why are you always taking the kernel of my joke (in this case the Stooges) and imitating it to make it your own? Have you no creativity?

And your post would have been more effective if only you could have figured out how to remove the dot leaders between our names at the top.
 
I love how you two have decided that since RFK is now Team Trump, he will take orange down and Kamelblow never ever wanted his supporters and turned him down.

I wonder where that super secret info is coming from????
Kamala had first crack at RFK and his supporters and she turned them down. First, because they're as deranged as Trump and his supporters and second, because she already acquired all of those Nikki Haley voters instead.
 
Still climbing . . .

Harris lead over Trump
July 24 - +0.8
July 31 - +1.2
August 7 - +1.9
August 14 - +2.6
August 21 - +3.3
August 23 - +3.5
August 24 - + 3.6
 
That there is hi-larious. if only you could have figured out how to remove the dot leaders between our names at the top.
I knew you'd like it. Mocking your posts is too easy, it's almost like I have to do it. And just so you know, mockery of your dull humor is the point. I'm not 'stealing' your 'creativity', I'm making fun of it. Hi-larious, right?

The 'dot leaders' were added by me to maintain the spacing between the names so that they would be positioned properly. Without the dots, the words want to collapse together in sentence form. If there's a better way to do that, I'd appreciate the help because almost certainly there'll be many more opportunities to poke fun atchoo.
 
I'm not quite sure what you are asking. Which numbers about what?

But it sounds like this is the kind of conversation we should be having on this board - instead of the endless pissing contests and name-calling.

My rule #1 is to pay the bills. No deficit. No borrowing. Except maybe in the case of a declared emergency.

Cutting spending doesn't pay today's bills. It can shrink tomorrow's bills, but anybody who only wants to cut spending isn't being serious. Set the budget on course to pay all the bills; then talk about cuts.

I wouldn't mind seeing a rational, reasonable balanced budget amendment, but I doubt we could ever get one.

My sister used to run a home-based business. I vaguely recall her saying that her business had to show a profit every so often if she wanted to take deductions other years. Or something like that. I wasn't paying much attention. IIRC, she had to show a profit once every 3 years or 2 out of 5 years.

The thought being that a balanced budget amendment might want to include a minimal, hard requirement to balance the budget every so often.
The number for fairness. People say the rich don't pay their fair share. I can't decide if I agree with someone about fair share if I don't know what that number is. It's impossible to have a discussion about numbers without having numbers to discuss.

@Hark_The_Sound_2010 did a good job talking about it yesterday and I mostly agree with him, so you can just put me in his camp.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hark_The_Sound_2010
Kamala had first crack at RFK and his supporters and she turned them down. First, because they're as deranged as Trump and his supporters and second, because she already acquired all of those Nikki Haley voters instead.
if she wins, First Crack is probably what they'll call the simple whore.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Hark_The_Sound_2010
Paranoid? There wasn't the slightest hint of paranoia in what he said. It was also delivered in a very funny way, especially given the content of the material. I will agree that there's a little cynicism... very little. He tried his best to tell the truth with enough comedy thrown in to make it palatable. It's hardly my favorite one of his takes. It's not pleasant. But, he told it like it is.
I went back and watched it again just to be sure I wasn't making some snap judgement...and I wasn't. That you can't recognize the progressive paranoia and minimize the cynicism in his act is telling, given how much you let him speak for you. In the clip, he's basically just delivering a cynical tirade of bitterness and paranoia ('they', the members of 'the club', are out to stick a dick up your ass kind of thing); Humor, which is what a comedian needs in order to be entertaining, has taken a waayyy back seat. Too bad really, because I enjoy his prior stuff for the most part, wherein he is actually funny and entertaining..
 
I just need a number before I can form an opinion on if that will work. Nobody seems to be able to tell me the number. I suspect they just want a bumper sticker slogan and don't actually know what fair is.
I think you're asking too much, trying to get them to deal with numbers. Let's try to get them to deal in facts first.
 
I went back and watched it again just to be sure I wasn't making some snap judgement...and I wasn't. That you can't recognize the progressive paranoia and minimize the cynicism in his act is telling, given how much you let him speak for you. In the clip, he's basically just delivering a cynical tirade of bitterness and paranoia ('they', the members of 'the club', are out to stick a dick up your ass kind of thing); Humor, which is what a comedian needs in order to be entertaining, has taken a waayyy back seat. Too bad really, because I enjoy his prior stuff for the most part, wherein he is actually funny and entertaining..
It's a big club... and you ain't in it. You and I are not in the big club.


The big money donors... The ones that are now funding the Kamala Harris show (they were not going to fund Joe), and then the Carnegie estate throwing money at Trump after the RFK endorsement.

This is an oligarchy, and has been for a long time. You have the illusion of choice.
 
It's a big club... and you ain't in it. You and I are not in the big club.


The big money donors... The ones that are now funding the Kamala Harris show (they were not going to fund Joe), and then the Carnegie estate throwing money at Trump after the RFK endorsement.

This is an oligarchy, and has been for a long time. You have the illusion of choice.
yeah, I got it the first time.

I certainly won't argue the basis for complaint, but IMO it's overstated.
 
I'm sure you would. Maybe someday when I'm feeling ultra-generous I will instruct you on how to lose those pesky dot leaders and while I'm at it, I'll show @gunslingerdick how to modify the size of his memes.
generous? I'm trying to help you. I'm only asking for help so you can stop whining about it.
 
yeah, I got it the first time.

I certainly won't argue the basis for complaint, but IMO it's overstated.
Well... You have to downplay it. You've got too much of your identity attached to this "America" charade to accept that you don't really matter. You still get to argue incessantly with "the left" and/or Liberals. In fact, Peter Thiel and Peter Mellon pay for that infighting to keep going so no one is too bummed about not being in the club with them.
 
Well... You have to downplay it. You've got too much of your identity attached to this "America" charade to accept that you don't really matter. You still get to argue incessantly with "the left" and/or Liberals. In fact, Peter Thiel and Peter Mellon pay for that infighting to keep going so no one is too bummed about not being in the club with them.
see what I mean about you revealing your own paranoia through Carlin's? No, I'm sure you don't. You can and will believe what you want, but you're as usual reading way too much into things, and coming to overly dramatic conclusions. There really is such a thing as politically left vs. right, and which of those you support actually matters in not just a superficial or self-satisfying way. The choices we are presented with might be largely the workings of your puppetmasters, but we do still have a choice to make.

BTW, you always harp on the left vs. right thing but I'm not sure I've ever seen you delineate the realm of what exists outside that of left vs. right. Maybe I missed it or just didn't put it together in my mind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Archer2
see what I mean about you revealing your own paranoia through Carlin's? No, I'm sure you don't. You can and will believe what you want, but you're as usual reading way too much into things, and coming to overly dramatic conclusions. There really is such a thing as politically left vs. right, and which of those you support actually matters in not just a superficial or self-satisfying way. The choices we are presented with might be largely the workings of your puppetmasters, but we do still have a choice to make.

BTW, you always harp on the left vs. right thing but I'm not sure I've ever seen you delineate the realm of what exists outside that of left vs. right. Maybe I missed it or just didn't put it together in my mind.
Maybe so
 
I knew you'd like it. And just so you know, mockery of your dull humor is the point. I'm not 'stealing' your 'creativity', I'm making fun of it. Hi-larious, right?
You people can't tell the truth if your life depended on it.
 
Kamala had first crack at RFK and his supporters and she turned them down. First, because they're as deranged as Trump and his supporters and second, because she already acquired all of those Nikki Haley voters instead.
Again, how is it you think you know this to be fact? Because it was reported as a result of the Harris campaign saying so?

If I had asked you on Thursday night about 6 or 7, you'd likely have told us that Beyonce was going to make a surprise appearance as the DNC's "special guest" as well. Why? Because the Harris campaign was leaking it to reporters all day (to get higher ratings allegedly, maybe Bey just got pissed for some reason and told them to pound sand, I have no idea). When confronted about the lack of a "special guest" as had been promised, they claimed it was Kackula all along.

So now we are supposed to believe their campaign that they turned him down? Make no mistake, I'm not saying that RFK didn't reach out to her people, but that doesn't mean they got first crack and turned him down. Her people wouldn't even meet his people and for all we know, his demands could have been way too high for them. Like maybe asking for an apology for the bullshit they pulled with him. We simply don't know the conditions under which he proposed a meeting. That doesn't mean she turned him down, it means she wouldn't meet his demands and we'll never know the truth either way because her campaign is one big lie. Lastly, unless you are referring to Haley voters who were D's in open primaries, don't kid yourself. They aren't supporting Kackula.

Now, I've got to go finish my wonderful supper that my wonderful wife prepared. We're having a main course of joy and hope for dessert.
 
Again, how is it you think you know this to be fact? Because it was reported as a result of the Harris campaign saying so?

If I had asked you on Thursday night about 6 or 7, you'd likely have told us that Beyonce was going to make a surprise appearance as the DNC's "special guest" as well. Why? Because the Harris campaign was leaking it to reporters all day (to get higher ratings allegedly, maybe Bey just got pissed for some reason and told them to pound sand, I have no idea). When confronted about the lack of a "special guest" as had been promised, they claimed it was Kackula all along.

So now we are supposed to believe their campaign that they turned him down? Make no mistake, I'm not saying that RFK didn't reach out to her people, but that doesn't mean they got first crack and turned him down. Her people wouldn't even meet his people and for all we know, his demands could have been way too high for them. Like maybe asking for an apology for the bullshit they pulled with him. We simply don't know the conditions under which he proposed a meeting. That doesn't mean she turned him down, it means she wouldn't meet his demands and we'll never know the truth either way because her campaign is one big lie. Lastly, unless you are referring to Haley voters who were D's in open primaries, don't kid yourself. They aren't supporting Kackula.

Now, I've got to go finish my wonderful supper that my wonderful wife prepared. We're having a main course of joy and hope for dessert.
Are you really this upset because Trump got himself a reject?
 
Wow! this is dead on.

"The man is the love child of Andrew Dice Clay and the Wizard of Oz. There is nothing behind the curtain but demeaning jokes and a lifetime supply of spray tan."
 
MAGA should be proud.

He really wasn't trying to denigrate MOH recipients maliciously... I don't think. It's hard to be sure because he lacks empathy. I think He was trying to schmooze the widow of the oligarch, Sheldon Adleson. His ineloquent messaging is so spontaneous and unfiltered... and revealing of how he really thinks... that he managed to offhandedly denigrate both MOH AND MOF award recipients. He believes that it's better to be rewarded and not get killed. That's abundantly clear. That kind perspective undermines the entire philosophy of valor and sacrifice associated with the MOH.
 
Are you really this upset because Trump got himself a reject?
You know, it is the ultimate of ironies that you constantly rail on Trump for doing things like name calling when it is your go to move for everything and everyone.

More importantly, do you really think that no one notices that you never seem to be able to answer an actual, direct question without resorting to some sort of diversion, like name-calling? You see, the idea here is if you take a position or stake a claim, you should be able to defend it, not just go all third grade with a word you heard your cousin use once.
 
More importantly, do you really think that no one notices that you never seem to be able to answer an actual, direct question without resorting to some sort of diversion, like name-calling?
When I call RFK a reject I am merely referencing his rejection from the Kamala team. I wouldn't say that is exactly name-calling, at least not in the way you're insinuating.

reject
noun
: a rejected person or thing
especially : one rejected as not wanted, unsatisfactory, or not fulfilling requirements
 
Bringing rfk on board def helps trump dispel the whole “weird” accusation
That was funny.

Three things come to mind, however. When yourself and everyone around you keep getting accused of something or described a certain way by someone, eventually you realize that you aren't that thing, but the norm. Which goes to the old saying. . . .

When you point a finger, there are three pointing back at you. . . .

Lastly, the whole "weird" thing is just another example of the entire D complex projecting.
 
When I call RFK a reject I am merely referencing his rejection from the Kamala team. I wouldn't say that is exactly name-calling, at least not in the way you're insinuating.

reject
noun
: a rejected person or thing
especially : one rejected as not wanted, unsatisfactory, or not fulfilling requirements
Which merely goes back to your narrative and inability to address what I had referenced and questioned. Thanks for proving my point without knowing you were proving my point. Now go back to sleep.
 
At least JD Vance can take comfort in knowing that he isn't the weirdest member on the team..
Other than being a parrot for the team, tell us o great soothsayer, what exactly is so "weird" about JD Vance? The fact that he grew up poor, signed up for the marines and actually served in a combat theater, served his full term of commitment, came home, used the GI Bill, and went to Yale law school, then graduated and became a success in the private sector, then went into politics? Or is it that he married a minority woman of another faith and they've had three kids together. He is the American Dream. I guess that's what's weird to you and your perspective.
 
When I call RFK a reject I am merely referencing his rejection from the Kamala team. I wouldn't say that is exactly name-calling, at least not in the way you're insinuating.

reject
noun
: a rejected person or thing
especially : one rejected as not wanted, unsatisfactory, or not fulfilling requirements

Can you provide something of credibility to back up that RFK approached the Harris campaign?

Thanks.
 
Can you provide something of credibility to back up that RFK approached the Harris campaign?

Thanks.
Aug. 15, 2024

RFK Jr. tried to meet with Kamala Harris' campaign about possible cabinet position, sources say​

Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. attempted to reach out to Vice President Harris about a Cabinet position if she wins in November, a Democratic official confirmed to The Hill.

The effort to join a future Harris administration, which was first reported by The Washington Post, was unsuccessful.

 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: nctransplant
Which merely goes back to your narrative and inability to address what I had referenced and questioned.
Maybe it's because your post was all over the place. In the first sentence you pretty much accuse me of fabricating what many other Americans heard and read, and in the next you accusedf me of believing Beyonce was going to be a surprise guest at the DNC.

That is the first I've heard of the Beyonce bit (it's not like I was glued to the tube listening to every word throughout the four nights of the DNC broadcast), and had I been aware that that was the rumor I would have been phoning in my complaint to the Democratic National Committee and demanding they bring back Stevie Wonder instead.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Hark_The_Sound_2010
Aug. 15, 2024

RFK Jr. tried to meet with Kamala Harris' campaign about possible cabinet position, sources say​

Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. attempted to reach out to Vice President Harris about a Cabinet position if she wins in November, a Democratic official confirmed to The Hill.

The effort to join a future Harris administration, which was first reported by The Washington Post, was unsuccessful.

"Democratic National Committee spokesperson Matt Corridoni told The Hill in a statement."

I guess you missed reading the part where @gunslingerdick asked you to "provide something of credibility to back up" your claims. I hate to tell you, but a DNC spokesperson or someone from the hyena's campaign are the polar opposite of credible. But just like your candidate, keep on swallowing.

credible
adjective
cred·i·ble ˈkre-də-bəl
Synonyms of credible
1
: offering reasonable grounds for being believed or trusted
credible evidence
a credible source
 
Maybe it's because your post was all over the place. In the first sentence you pretty much accuse me of fabricating what many other Americans heard and read, and in the next you accusedf me of believing Beyonce was going to be a surprise guest at the DNC.

That is the first I've heard of the Beyonce bit (it's not like I was glued to the tube listening to every word throughout the four nights of the DNC broadcast), and had I been aware that that was the rumor I would have been phoning in my complaint to the Democratic National Committee and demanding they bring back Stevie Wonder instead.
I didn't accuse you of anything besides regurgitating the company line from kacula's campaign and asked you for an actual source versus rhetoric provided after the fact. It's not like two weeks ago they came out with the info that they expected RFK to drop out because he had come to them asking for xyz and they turned him down when all that supposedly happened.

I then gave an example to you of why her campaign should not be trusted. This is basic level math my man, not even algebra, geometry, or calculus. I'm sorry you find it so challenging. No wonder you latched onto the concept of only thinking orangemanbad.
 
"Democratic National Committee spokesperson Matt Corridoni told The Hill in a statement."

I guess you missed reading the part where @gunslingerdick asked you to "provide something of credibility to back up" your claims. I hate to tell you, but a DNC spokesperson or someone from the hyena's campaign are the polar opposite of credible. But just like your candidate, keep on swallowing.

credible
adjective
cred·i·ble ˈkre-də-bəl
Synonyms of credible
1
: offering reasonable grounds for being believed or trusted
credible evidence
a credible source
Who WOULD you believe?
 
Who WOULD you believe?
I don't know. Maybe if Kackles sat down for a long form interview and answered questions with follow-ups on this that could be confirmed through secondary sources. Maybe they could just ask RFK, I'm sure he'll be getting interviewed. Oh, wait. Here's what he had to say about that (and, remember, in this day and age, we have more media than we've ever had):

"When Ross Perot ran, in the 10 months that he ran he had 34 appearances on the networks. I had two appearances in 16 months, so I was blocked out of the networks and I was blocked out of the debate. I had no path to victory."
 
  • Like
Reactions: gunslingerdick
I don't know. Maybe if Kackles sat down for a long form interview and answered questions with follow-ups on this that could be confirmed through secondary sources. Maybe they could just ask RFK, I'm sure he'll be getting interviewed. Oh, wait. Here's what he had to say about that (and, remember, in this day and age, we have more media than we've ever had):

"When Ross Perot ran, in the 10 months that he ran he had 34 appearances on the networks. I had two appearances in 16 months, so I was blocked out of the networks and I was blocked out of the debate. I had no path to victory."
Do you believe that RFK Jr really found a dead bear?

That ****er is looney tunes. I wouldn't believe anything he had to say.

I'm not sure that Harris' campaign would be trusted by MAGA world, either.

If you don't know who or what you would trust, that's a conundrum for you, not me.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT