ADVERTISEMENT

OOTB's Political Thread . ..

Didn’t address it? Was he gonna admit he likes tranny porn, nazis, and slavery before kicking off his political career? Seems like a bold move.
Agree that it would have been "bold", but it's no different than Tampon Timmy having to walk back his tough war service claims. Everyone appreciates for 24 years that he served a weekend a month and two weeks in the summer - amounting to well less than a year of actual service - but that's far different from having served for a full 24 years, carried a weapon of war in a war zone, or even flying over an actual war zone. His false claims of valor had to be addressed and they tarnish the service of everyone who has ever served in the reserves, guard, or active duty. But they addressed it, and with the media's ever willing assistance, he weathered the storm and no one even seems to care at this point. It doesn't make him any less of douche bag for making such claims to advance his political career, but they can at least now claim it's old news.

Robinson is no different in the sense that there is some previous bad, bad stuff in his history. The proverbial skeletons in the closet that HE certainly knew about. To not address it at some point and get in front of it was just stupid. It's the kind of stuff that you don't just hope that it never comes out and angle for the best when it does. Suppose he was elected and it came out later. It's the kind of stuff that causes resignations. I know almost nothing about the guy, but this choice speaks volumes to me in terms of his judgment on how to handle a really critical decision. Speaking of what I do know about him, if this were reversed, he had a D after his name, and the story had been reported by Fox, I feel certain that he'd be getting defended as falsely identified, a setup, or whatever. And, they'd most certainly be screaming an obvious 'ist or 'ism at play. And the thing is, the person who uttered such stuff would still be a dirtbag regardless of the letter behind the name.

Incidentally, I still think this was what Noem was after in her book and revelations about the dog incident. She screwed up big time from a national political standpoint. But, if she plans to run in '28, her speaking about it almost fully takes the wind out of their sails when they try to hammer her with it four years later.
 
see my previous post, and then give me examples of Trump doing 180's anywhere near as prolifically as Harris. Don't forget the border stance, BTW. As I have pointed out a number of times, a campaign ad in the previous election had her clearly stating that NO ONE WOULD BE TURNED AWAY who came to our border. She was literally throwing open the door to illegals.
I'm willing to be corrected on this but I believe her position was that asylum seekers should all be properly processed. None of those who present themselves and apply through proper channels should be turned away.

Which is not exactly the same thing you said and IS a very good position.

She also thought crossing the border without proper documentation - aka being an illegal - should not be a crime, but should be a civil offense.

Another very good position, and not the same thing as open borders.

If you are looking for folks who support open borders, direct your gaze toward libertarians and employers.
 
Probably next week, right?
I think they are planning on releasing it when KH does a press conference, sits for an interview with someone who isn't up her ass/when she answers an actual question/is subjected to follow-up of her gobbledygook, or she agrees to a debate at Fox or someone else that isn't a setup for her.

So, probably never.
 
Nobody has claimed the gal was smart. Don't you and the others get tired day after day having to defend this party? At what point do you say fvck it.
FIFY. See how stupid/partisan your response was? You can always pick on any given individual. Asking questions about Robinson, when I know almost nothing about him, is not defending anyone.
 
1. Coal mining
2. The wall
3. Obamacare
4. Middle class tax cuts
5. Crypto
6. Manufacturing
7. TikTok
8. Abortion
9. Releasing his taxes
10. Eliminating all federal debt
11. Infrastructure

Should we go on? The dude has no morals, no values. He's really a very unintelligent simpleton; as he will say anything if he thinks he can make some money then does a 180 turn if the opposite can make him more money.

I reckon you’re counting on no one paying you any attention. That’s the only explanation for why your poasts are so bad.
 
This is the thing with Trump, FOX, and Republicans.

Think of it in terms of a betting strategy....

In those cases where you have the MSM on one side and Trump, et al, on the other, you get to place a straight-up bet on which side's account is more correct. You aren't told the issue, you just know they differ.

How do you bet?

I'm not saying the Trump/Republican/FOX narrative will always lose. I'm just saying that you should bet against them every single time.

Yeah, that’s why you’re not a sharp.

You bet on the underdog and the payoff is bigger.
 
Did we already forget about the failed former president's pet project to stop online bullies? Of course she couldn't even stop her SINO so it's ended up being another failed joke while on office.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that Melania sat at the head of the table for a cabinet meeting as a de facto member at the first one held in almost a year. Appreciate the heads up. I'll also bet that when orange held such a gathering, it was attended by his VP as they are an actual part of the cabinet. But being awol seems to be the sop for her and her team. If you are too busy not appearing in public except when safe to do so and you are too busy trying to appear unrelating to the sitting president, I guess it would be a great idea to have the president's spouse run the meeting for you.
 
I feel certain there is context to this that changes the meaning of these actual words, but in my best imitation of acting like a D, lib, progressive, look what the Democratic nominee for vice president just ADMITTED:




 
  • Haha
Reactions: gunslingerdick
I think they are planning on releasing it when KH does a press conference, sits for an interview with someone who isn't up her ass/when she answers an actual question/is subjected to follow-up of her gobbledygook, or she agrees to a debate at Fox or someone else that isn't a setup for her.

So, probably never.
My idea of a debate....

Moderators: Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity for the Trump side plus Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell on the Harris side. (I seldom watch any of those, so if you have better suggestions, that's fine.)

Fact checkers: I don't have names, but give each of them a button and a dial. Whenever they hear a lie or evasion, they turn the dial to indicate how bad the lie was (evasions are always level 1) and then hit the button to deliver an electric shock at the specified level.

Fact-checker checkers: Also have a couple of these who can deliver shocks to any fact-checker they think has abused their position by mislabeling or misrating a lie.

Then pre-announce what topics will be covered and maybe even what questions will be asked. On the theory that we want to hear their positions, not just their campaign talking points and focus group jokes.
 
My idea of a debate....

Moderators: Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity for the Trump side plus Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell on the Harris side. (I seldom watch any of those, so if you have better suggestions, that's fine.)

Fact checkers: I don't have names, but give each of them a button and a dial. Whenever they hear a lie or evasion, they turn the dial to indicate how bad the lie was (evasions are always level 1) and then hit the button to deliver an electric shock at the specified level.

Fact-checker checkers: Also have a couple of these who can deliver shocks to any fact-checker they think has abused their position by mislabeling or misrating a lie.

Then pre-announce what topics will be covered and maybe even what questions will be asked. On the theory that we want to hear their positions, not just their campaign talking points and focus group jokes.

I don't understand the idea of fact-checking. Why do we feel compelled to spoonfeed the electorate? Why can't we have a debate and allow those watching to do their own research? Why must fact-checkers set the record straight? Let the candidates talk. Let them tell as many lies as they want and then the viewer can decide how much, if any, they care to fact-check on their own.
 
1. Coal mining
2. The wall
3. Obamacare
4. Middle class tax cuts
5. Crypto
6. Manufacturing
7. TikTok
8. Abortion
9. Releasing his taxes
10. Eliminating all federal debt
11. Infrastructure

Should we go on? The dude has no morals, no values. He's really a very unintelligent simpleton; as he will say anything if he thinks he can make some money then does a 180 turn if the opposite can make him more money.
Lame list. VALUES dude, flip-flopping on VALUES. That's the topic, not things he/she failed to achieve for whatever reason or simply refused to do. If you think any of your items still belongs on a list of flipped values, please resubmit with an explanation. Otherwise, it's obvious you're just throwing shit against the wall hoping some of it might stick.
 
I don't understand the idea of fact-checking. Why do we feel compelled to spoonfeed the electorate? Why can't we have a debate and allow those watching to do their own research? Why must fact-checkers set the record straight? Let the candidates talk. Let them tell as many lies as they want and then the viewer can decide how much, if any, they care to fact-check on their own.
or maybe have an even-handed fact-checking debate after the debate; not, of course, with the principals.

And what I would like to see is to keep the non-speaker off camera until it's his/her turn. Eliminate the theatrics. People judge so simply, they'll tune out the words and just watch the reactions. Enough with play-acting politicians.
 
I'm willing to be corrected on this but I believe her position was that asylum seekers should all be properly processed. None of those who present themselves and apply through proper channels should be turned away.

Which is not exactly the same thing you said and IS a very good position.

She also thought crossing the border without proper documentation - aka being an illegal - should not be a crime, but should be a civil offense.

Another very good position, and not the same thing as open borders.

If you are looking for folks who support open borders, direct your gaze toward libertarians and employers.
let me type it out again. When she was campaigning with Biden for the last election, she aired an add that had her clearly stating that 'anyone who came to our border would not be turned away.'

I have looked and looked for that ad to no avail, which leads me to believe that it has been relegated to a corner of Joe's garage; or else I would have long ago produced it. So I can't counter what you're saying with anything but my memory, but you can believe it was burned permanently into it. It was stunning and outrageous.

But what I can take issue with is the asylum thing itself. I'm not going to go round in circles uselessly over this either but I think if you checked, you'd find that the rules and requirements for seeking asylum have been interpreted wrongly by this crowd and purposely so.

And either way, I'm pretty sure you can't tell me with a straight face that the attitude over and concern with the flood of illegals has not become quite the reverse of what was being displayed until recently. If you can't agree with that obviousness, don't even bother replying with anything but a 'no'.
 
Why would someone put a teleprompter in a place where a person isn't looking of they were "hiding" something?

People who believe this nonsense have to be really gullible.
I tend to believe this is fake. I was looking at the words displayed and I did not see the words NOW CACKLE !

Or are you saying she wasn't trying to hide the use of the teleprompter? Sorry, too out of character.

Or do you suppose that what you see is a still photo, a frozen instant in time, and that at any other instant she might be looking almost anywhere? When we have more time, I'll see if I can explain the difference between a still photo and an action clip.
 
As in nearly all long-format interviews, the teleprompter is for the interviewer, not the interviewee. This is the case here and it can be proven at the end of the interview by comparing the words on the prompter to those delivered by Oprah Winfrey.
TELEPROMPTER COPY:
FOR THE AMERICA WE DESIRE AND DESERVE TO LIVE IN. TO FIND OUT MORE ABOUT HOW YOU

The lines delivered by Oprah:
"[W]e hope you keep fighting for us and the country we deserve to have. To find out more about how you can register"

Congratulations, pooptard. Once again you shared a tweet that was either irrelevant or nonsensical, or in this case both.

 
  • Like
Reactions: strummingram
I tend to believe this is fake. I was looking at the words displayed and I did not see the words NOW CACKLE !

Or are you saying she wasn't trying to hide the use of the teleprompter? Sorry, too out of character.

Or do you suppose that what you see is a still photo, a frozen instant in time, and that at any other instant she might be looking almost anywhere? When we have more time, I'll see if I can explain the difference between a still photo and an action clip.
Don't bother, Inspector. I did it for you.
 
I don't understand the idea of fact-checking. Why do we feel compelled to spoonfeed the electorate? Why can't we have a debate and allow those watching to do their own research? Why must fact-checkers set the record straight? Let the candidates talk. Let them tell as many lies as they want and then the viewer can decide how much, if any, they care to fact-check on their own.
That's just the way a liar like you would want it. "Make lying wrong again"
 
  • Wow
Reactions: strummingram
Yeah, that’s why you’re not a sharp.

You bet on the underdog and the payoff is bigger.
I'm just now reading Nate Silver's newest book on gambling. Which is the only reason why I know what "a sharp" is.

And you're right, I'm not a sharp.

But I am a reader. Which is why I paid attention to the "you get to place a straight-up bet" part.

I hope you pay more attention when you actually bet than when you comment on betting.
 
let me type it out again. When she was campaigning with Biden for the last election, she aired an add that had her clearly stating that 'anyone who came to our border would not be turned away.'
Not turning people away is not the same as an open border. "Get in line and wait your turn to be processed" is not turning people away. And that's her position.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT