I would expect you to question everything that threatens your world view. Actually, you'd be more inclined to deny it to your dying day.
OOTB's Political Thread . ..
- Thread starter BillyL
- Start date
We've had nothing but so called experts thus far. How has that been working out for everybody?
Missing 20 million votes? That's under the assumption that those votes were real in 2020. See, that's the rub.
Everybody? I don't know. Is everybody here to answer that?
I mean, I know you're suffering more than anyone. Life is terrible for you, now, and you deserve people with no idea what they're doing to be in charge. I was just hoping for real ringers... like Hogan... Professional celebrities who only know how to entertain people. Oz was a pretty good choice. I want Mike Lindell in some kind of secretary of something job.
Why take your sick child to the doctor? So what if he has a... medical degree! He probably got that from some government agency. Take the kid down to the mechanic and let him tinker with his tonsils.
Indulge an old fart..
I am genuinely interested in everyone's views on women in combat. I have very strong feelings due to personal experiences, however I am curious if the lines are as definitively drawn as they are on most issues discussed here.
I am genuinely interested in everyone's views on women in combat. I have very strong feelings due to personal experiences, however I am curious if the lines are as definitively drawn as they are on most issues discussed here.
I've never been in combat, so I defer to those who have had experience in it. I know a few women personally who served in the military, but they were in the Navy.
When I see film depictions like Hacksaw Ridge, or All Quiet On The Western Front, I don't think "why weren't women allowed to fight with these guys?" But, there's a history bias in that context.
I remember watching an HBO Special that James Gandolfini engineered called "Alive Day." It was about amputee vets from Iraq. There was a woman from Camden, SC, I think. She'd lost both legs below the knees. And another woman lost her arm up to her shoulder, I think. They both seemed like they were up to the challenge.
how in the world anyone could decide some women couldn’t do it is probably why i never thought about it…if the topic ever comes up i immediately think of “suck my dick master chief!”
*sigh*
Ok, fine. How has the expert thing been working for you and the people you know?
I get it. I know that when I’m having a gender issue, I turn to those with gender studies degrees for help.
I view it kinda like I'd view sports. Caitlin Clark probably could have been a prolific scorer on a men's HS team, but would that have screwed up comraderie, cohesion, gelling? I have no idea though, never been there thank God.
There aren't any women SEAL's yet though I think one passed the tests, but there is a woman in delta force (and obviously army rangers). I'd love to hear the opinions of all her cohorts.
Nite one, when a large % of votes still hadn't been counted out west, some maga-morons were comparing Harris' vote totals to Biden's 2020 81 million votes. It was like 61 at the time, 66 another yelling "see, no way Biden's # we're legit, where were these 15 or 20 million"
I'm doing fine.
I'm lucky that the trans people haven't burned my crops and killed my livestock.
lol, reality is what threatens your crazy-quilt world view. It takes only a small dose to scare you into running off to see Alice in Wonderland where things seem more logical to you. I'm pretty sure you've never come back from there with anything that threatens my world view.
against it in general, but then it depends on the role. Absolutely against them being grunts on the ground. To me that's just about as sensible as allowing biological men to play on women's sports teams.
Over two weeks later and they're still counting votes, lol. Maybe the process can be fixed next time but I doubt it.
Tightest margin of victory since Gore-Bush? This was a bigger blowout than either of the prior two Trump elections and Bush-Kerry. Assuming we're talking about what constitutes a "victory"; the EC. Pollsters got clowned again.
Trump got more total votes than Harris. Over 50% of the people that voted for a viable candidate and didn't torch their vote like @tarheel0910
Imagine what would happen if the people who wanted another choice actually voted for another choice. I guess that two party dick taste too good for you guys.
I never served, so my opinion is worth what you paid for it. But...
If they want to go into combat, that's great, provided they don't endanger others. They should be able to meet the same physical requirements and abilities that anyone else would have to. I wouldn't want to get stuck in a foxhole with someone who couldn't meet the standard of being there.
I find this type of statement to be rather humorous. First, I fully acknowledge that you well may be correct. But the question is, how on earth would you know? How can you make such a statement of fact/opinion? Is there some sort of rating or ranking service upon which you are relying and, if so, how is it that you can assure yourself that they themselves aren't "peddling propaganda"?
The main thing to consider though is how would you even be able to voice an educated position on the issue? You have routinely stated that you do NOT watch any of the so-called news services. Thus, you would have no basis to even make a comparison. And your postings on such things are 99% of the time to YouTube or others doing alleged comedy routines about news events. And if we've learned anything, those comedians/programs are part of the domination of media by the left agenda - so the jokes and routines aren't exactly what one would consider neutral or right leaning. That doesn't mean they aren't hilarious (Triumph is one of the funniest shticks ever done), but it doesn't make them news sources either.
Fox definitely has their leanings and they play to their audience. Since there are so many on the other side of things, it explains their huge audience as they are the one main "opposing" source that's carried on all the cable/tv services. But they are no better at "peddling" their leanings than anyone else. All your statement really demonstrates is your false flag of neutrality because Fox tends to be well right of where you really are and everyone else is just fine from your view. But just because you fully agree with them, that doesn't mean they aren't peddling or aren't really, really good at it.
Not picking a fight or anything, just asking that you take a step back and consider the circumstances around your belief before making such a sweeping statement. The mere fact that they had to pay a shit ton of money because they once chased a narrative that was false doesn't etch something in stone.
I didn't serve either, so what do I know? My friends that did are mixed on the issue and there always seems to be a breakdown on lines of age. Older tend to be against it and younger are fine with it. I guess where I fall on it is that anyone in any given role needs to be capable of doing that role. So that would apply regardless of any particular characteristic. Figuring out those standards and making them consistent regardless of sex or other characteristics would seem to be the challenge in today's environment.
To those saying Trump will never get his nominees confirmed, interesting opinion piece in Politico from someone who isn't exactly Orange friendly. Highlights:
“The last time a nominee was rejected on the floor of the Senate was in 1989.”
“Trump has consistently demonstrated his capacity to intimidate Republican legislators into doing his bidding.”
“[T]he Republican majority in the next Senate is wholly different from the majority Trump faced in his first term…”
https://www.politico.com/news/magaz...6b83-75a8-486b-9b08-3fe1d6a16220&nlid=2758340
“The last time a nominee was rejected on the floor of the Senate was in 1989.”
“Trump has consistently demonstrated his capacity to intimidate Republican legislators into doing his bidding.”
“[T]he Republican majority in the next Senate is wholly different from the majority Trump faced in his first term…”
https://www.politico.com/news/magaz...6b83-75a8-486b-9b08-3fe1d6a16220&nlid=2758340
Oh good. The amount of bitching and moaning you do has led me to believe otherwise.
I'd love to get away from the two party system. It's a paradox - not many people will vote for a 3rd/no party candidate that doesn't have a chance, and 3rd/no party candidates will never have a chance if not many people are willing to vote for them.
There's no way you believed whoever you voted for had a chance to get even 0.5% of the vote, right? If we could get some version of ranked choice voting then other candidates would be viable. I'd like to see that happen and would almost certainly have a non D or R as my top choice, but until then I see it as a waste. I don't believe that it proves some point, but some do.
You hear me bitching about the current administration's cabinet? I don't think so.
Ahh, pre-emptively bitching and moaning? Got it. You can never get started early enough!
Looks like the report is going to come out anyway, but good call on him pulling his name. I assumed he would continue with his stubborn ways. Glad he is out of the way now.
I've got another stalker.
I said CURRENT administration. The ones with the alleged experts. They're doing fine by me.
I want to go ahead and start fretting over the cabinet that the 2028 President-elect is putting together. Why wait for them to suck? I’ll just assume it and start the hand wringing now!
If one of them was trans you'd be hoping for another insurrection. Maybe a reichstag fire.
I knew my vote would never win, but that's no different than voting Republican in Massachusetts or Democrat in Mississippi. I'm happy knowing I didn't contribute to the problem. Especially when two horrible candidates were my options.
A part of me wonders if he's picking ridiculous people thinking they will drop out. Then he can pick someone who's a little less ridiculous, making people feel ok with the new person since it's not the other person.
Similar threads
