Mike G

Presidential Debate #1

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Dog said:

I'm not a Proud Boy.

Yes, you're a Proud Dog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So moving on from the shitfight and "dog" pile about whether trump is a racist (he is for FTR), here's the scary thought of the day:

trump could still actually legitimately win.  Let that sink in for a moment......

in 2016, I and most other people though that any candidate that could fog a mirror could beat the orangeman with a bad toupe.  We were all wrong.  We could be wrong again that this is in the bag for Biden.  For one, most of the post-debate reporting suggests that any undecided voters were so turned off by the whole spectacle that they are most likely to just stay home.  Lot's of people interviewed on NPR over the last couple of days have said that while trump disgusted them, biden appeared weak and unpresidential.  So they are not interested in either.  But likely more importantly - just like in 2016, there are a LOT of people showing up in polls who are claiming to not plan to vote for trump but definitely will.  Same will likely happen with the exit polls as well.  

If that happens, I know that Joe will accept it eventually.  But I wonder if his more left wing followers will?  There could definitely be violence and chaos and rioting from the left, BLM and antifa in the wake of a shitstain win.  

Sadly, I think either way this goes - it will get ugly before it gets better.  The Trump v Biden Supreme Court case decision in late December will not settle anything, IMHO.  Hunker down, boyz and gurlz and stay safe.  Smoke em if you got em........  Just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

I condemn white supremacy. 

This is kind of stupid because it has to do with sneakers but back in 2016 a bunch of Neo Nazis proclaimed New Balance as The Official Shoes Of White People. One of their VPs had already praised Shitstain's 'election'. They had a softball pitch, easiest pitch ever to hit out the park. They could have just said, We're The Official Shoe Of All People. Didn't. Didn't condemn the Neos at all.

ASICS GT-2000s are hella comfortable, have anti-pronation stability and come in 12.5 EEEE.

BTW, I was told about the NB gaffe by an aerobics teacher who teaches at one of the few remaining military bases in the Bay Area. She dumped them too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

... trump could still actually legitimately win.  ...

If you accept the legitimacy of what he's doing then you can piss on your oath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jzk said:

Are you making shit up again?

Did you read the cite ?? 

Of course you did not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Olsonist said:

If you accept the legitimacy of what he's doing then you can piss on your oath.

WTF????  Why do you have to always make this a personal attack???  I was only observing that he could still win.  

I don't accept anything he has done.  But that wasn't what I was saying.  I'm simply suggesting that if he gets more EC votes than biden, provided there are not any ballot shenanigans, then he sadly is still the legitimately elected POTUS.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

WTF????  Why do you have to always make this a personal attack???  I was only observing that he could still win.  

I don't accept anything he has done.  But that wasn't what I was saying.  I'm simply suggesting that if he gets more EC votes than biden, provided there are not any ballot shenanigans, then he sadly is still the legitimately elected POTUS.  

You were saying that. I quoted it.

image.png.21c1c7d67df689cadf9c0e52e2e06725.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Burning Man said:

WTF????  Why do you have to always make this a personal attack???  I was only observing that he could still win.  

I don't accept anything he has done.  But that wasn't what I was saying.  I'm simply suggesting that if he gets more EC votes than biden, provided there are not any ballot shenanigans, then he sadly is still the legitimately elected POTUS.  

Yes, he could still win. 538 gave him a 21% chance yesterday.

but no, there won't be lefty uprisings. minor at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Olsonist said:

You were saying that. I quoted it.

image.png.21c1c7d67df689cadf9c0e52e2e06725.png

Yes, please do.  He could still legally win if he gets more EC votes than biden.  I said earlier in this thread that his statement during the debate regarding telling his supporters to "go INTO the polls and watch" should be an impeachable offense.  If a significant number of polling places are interrupted by voter intimidation, then no he would not be legitimate.  I very clearly said, however, that assuming there are no shenanigans at the polls or the counts - then he could still win.

Have your little semantics pissing contest by yourself, dick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

Yes, he could still win. 538 gave him a 21% chance yesterday.

but no, there won't be lefty uprisings. minor at best.

I hope you're correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

I hope you're correct.

If the undesirables pull off a legit Trump victory, they deserve everything they get. Too bad a lot of good folks are going to get dragged down by it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Burning Man said:

So moving on from the shitfight and "dog" pile about whether trump is a racist (he is for FTR), here's the scary thought of the day:

trump could still actually legitimately win.  Let that sink in for a moment......

in 2016, I and most other people though that any candidate that could fog a mirror could beat the orangeman with a bad toupe.  We were all wrong.  We could be wrong again that this is in the bag for Biden.  For one, most of the post-debate reporting suggests that any undecided voters were so turned off by the whole spectacle that they are most likely to just stay home.  Lot's of people interviewed on NPR over the last couple of days have said that while trump disgusted them, biden appeared weak and unpresidential.  So they are not interested in either.  But likely more importantly - just like in 2016, there are a LOT of people showing up in polls who are claiming to not plan to vote for trump but definitely will.  Same will likely happen with the exit polls as well.  

If that happens, I know that Joe will accept it eventually.  But I wonder if his more left wing followers will?  There could definitely be violence and chaos and rioting from the left, BLM and antifa in the wake of a shitstain win.  

Sadly, I think either way this goes - it will get ugly before it gets better.  The Trump v Biden Supreme Court case decision in late December will not settle anything, IMHO.  Hunker down, boyz and gurlz and stay safe.  Smoke em if you got em........  Just saying.

You, not someone else, said "trump could still actually legitimately win" and then, as if necessary, for emphasis you added, "Let that sink in for a moment......" I did and I concluded that you, not someone else, would accept the legitimacy of his 're-election'. You didn't say legally. You said legitimately. Those are your words and not someone else’s.

Let that sink in for a moment. What you say is always about you, and not about someone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mike G said:

Fox?

That one's easy.

His narcissism keeps him from ever admitting he doesn't know something.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Olsonist said:

You, not someone else, said "trump could still actually legitimately win" and then, as if necessary, for emphasis you added, "Let that sink in for a moment......" I did and I concluded that you, not someone else, would accept the legitimacy of his 're-election'. You didn't say legally. You said legitimately. Those are your words and not someone else’s.

Let that sink in for a moment. What you say is always about you, and not about someone else.

To clarify are you saying Trump can not legitimately win the election?  
I’m curious as to what,  if anything in your mind could make him legitimate?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mike G said:

Fox?

 

 

Big fight between the news division and the opinion side of FAUX news.  Most of the opinion side slammed Wallace after the debate.  They’re running the show right now.  Not many places for the news side to go to in this era so they’re staying for the paycheck.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Olsonist said:

You, not someone else, said "trump could still actually legitimately win" and then, as if necessary, for emphasis you added, "Let that sink in for a moment......" I did and I concluded that you, not someone else, would accept the legitimacy of his 're-election'. You didn't say legally. You said legitimately. Those are your words and not someone else’s.

Let that sink in for a moment. What you say is always about you, and not about someone else.

There could be trouble from that, but the odds are Trump will lose, so the greatest odds of civil unrest lays in the possibility that Trump tells his Proud BoySS that the new POTUS was installed by coup. That could get those guys off "Stand by" status.  Clearly his buddy Roger has been working to develop direct links.  Here he is flashing the white power sign with a bunch. Verified by Snopes. 

 RogerStoneProudBoys.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Olsonist said:

You, not someone else, said "trump could still actually legitimately win" and then, as if necessary, for emphasis you added, "Let that sink in for a moment......" I did and I concluded that you, not someone else, would accept the legitimacy of his 're-election'. You didn't say legally. You said legitimately. Those are your words and not someone else’s.

Let that sink in for a moment. What you say is always about you, and not about someone else.

 
 
 
 
 
le·git·i·ma·cy
/ləˈjidəməsē/
 
noun
  1. 1. 
    conformity to the law or to rules.
     

     
    assuming Your boy shitstain didn’t break any rules and got more EC votes than Biden, what would make his win “illegitimate”?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mark K said:

There could be trouble from that, but the odds are Trump will lose, so the greatest odds of civil unrest lays in the possibility that Trump tells his Proud BoySS that the new POTUS was installed by coup. That could get those guys off "Stand by" status.  Clearly his buddy Roger has been working to develop direct links.  Here he is flashing the white power sign with a bunch. Verified by Snopes. 

 RogerStoneProudBoys.jpg

Is that chump on the right the Tiki guy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, solosailor said:

Shoes 20 years of tax returns for a start.

Shoes??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Burning Man said:

Shoes??

All shoes matter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Is that chump on the right the Tiki guy?

Don't know, but here's another shot of Roger with a batch in Florida, again flashing the white power sign. 

 tarrio-stone.jpg

The guy on his left flashing the white power sign is considered the Proud BoySS national leader. Since he's afro-cuban it is being claimed that supposedly proves the Proud BoySS can't be racists.

 Takes the biscuit, doesn't it?  

 

 Edit to add: The FBI plant in this group made himself easy to spot here.... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Mark K said:

Edit to add: The FBI plant in this group is easy to spot

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

:lol:

 And at the Bureau... 

 HospitableBlissfulAnglerfish-size_restri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like Trump's going to chicken out of next debate.

Because it's so unfair.

I love his phrasing. "why would I allow?" who the fuck does he think he is?

Next one is a "town hall" style I believe with questions from the audience.

It would be amusing if Trump refused to attend and the they put a cardboard cut out on the podium for people to ask questions of.

And Biden takes floor. 

 "Why would I allow the Debate Commission to change the rules for the second and third Debates when I easily won last time?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Burning Man said:
le·git·i·ma·cy
/ləˈjidəməsē/
 
noun
  1. 1. 
    conformity to the law or to rules.
     
    assuming Your boy shitstain didn’t break any rules and got more EC votes than Biden, what would make his win “illegitimate”?

Political legitimacy is not limited to process. Fact is, political legitimacy has nothing to do with process since the government controls that process.

image.thumb.png.abf9485ff06f872c9ad2b4d2206bdd79.png

https://www.statesman.com/news/20201001/abbott-orders-counties-to-close-multiple-ballot-dropoff-sites

A better discussion of political legitimacy:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/legitimacy/

Indeed political legitimacy isn't even covered in the big C which is about process.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Instead, political legitimacy is covered in the Declaration of Independence. Hell, political legitimacy is the subject of the Declaration.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Not the majority of the EC. The consent of the governed. I suppose this is the point where you say Stolen elections matterда?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Looks like Trump's going to chicken out of next debate.

Because it's so unfair.

I love his phrasing. "why would I allow?" who the fuck does he think he is?

Next one is a "town hall" style I believe with questions from the audience.

It would be amusing if Trump refused to attend and the they put a cardboard cut out on the podium for people to ask questions of.

And Biden takes floor. 

 "Why would I allow the Debate Commission to change the rules for the second and third Debates when I easily won last time?"

I think the individual campaigns have a lot of say on the rules.  Big win for Biden if he bails though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Political legitimacy is not limited to process. Fact is, political legitimacy has nothing to do with process since the government controls the process.

image.thumb.png.abf9485ff06f872c9ad2b4d2206bdd79.png

https://www.statesman.com/news/20201001/abbott-orders-counties-to-close-multiple-ballot-dropoff-sites

A better discussion of political legitimacy:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/legitimacy/

Indeed political legitimacy isn't even covered in the big C which is about process.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Instead, political legitimacy is covered in the Declaration of Independence. Hell, political legitimacy is the subject of the Declaration.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

I suppose that this is the point where you say Stolen elections matterда?

As I said, have your semantics pissing contest with yourself. Dick. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Looks like Trump's going to chicken out of next debate.

Because it's so unfair.

I love his phrasing. "why would I allow?" who the fuck does he think he is?

Next one is a "town hall" style I believe with questions from the audience.

It would be amusing if Trump refused to attend and the they put a cardboard cut out on the podium for people to ask questions of.

And Biden takes floor. 

 "Why would I allow the Debate Commission to change the rules for the second and third Debates when I easily won last time?"

I think Biden should definitely show up and have a Q&A with the people without Trump there. That format likely suits him the best anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Burning Man said:

I think Biden should definitely show up and have a Q&A with the people without Trump there. That format likely suits him the best anyway. 

I might listen in to that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

As I said, have your semantics pissing contest with yourself. Dick. 

As I said, you can piss on your oath, Jeff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

As I said, you can piss on your oath, Jeff.

Not pissing on my oath in the slightest. IF he wins the election fair and square by winning more EC votes without any voting fuckery, then he is both the legitimate and legal POTUS.  Neither of us have to like it, and I won’t. But we both have to accept it. Just as Biden said he would accept it. If Joe accepts a loss as he said he would do, is he also pissing on his oath?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Dog said:
10 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Do you condemn white supremacy?

Totally

Do you recognize that groups like the Proud Boys, Patriot Prayer, and other right wing militias are racist, white supremacy advocates and a danger to citizens and our national security?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

Do you recognize that groups like the Proud Boys, Patriot Prayer, and other right wing militias are racist, white supremacy advocates and a danger to citizens and our national security?

In my opinion, they are a symptom of an ailment that can be managed by herd immunity, unless allowed to fester under the aegis of the *resident and his pet attorney general.

(I know the question was directed at the butt-scooting canine, but his opinion is essentially mandated by his handlers and not worthy of consideration.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Olsonist said:

Political legitimacy is not limited to process.

I would agree, and to simplify, political legitimacy is thought of as a BELIEF among citizens that the gummint has the right to make and enforce laws. 

Most people follow most laws & regs, most of the time, without coercion. 

That is why we stop for stop signs (usually), even when a state trooper with a gun is not standing right next to it. 

So legitimacy plus power is authority.  L + P = A 

Similarly, power is authority minus legitimacy.  Or, P = A - L 

And legitimacy is authority without power, or  L = A - P 

Pretty sure this logic is original with me - but I could well be wrong. 

This takes my back to my intro POL SCI teaching days . . 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Burning Man said:

IF he wins the election fair and square by winning more EC votes without any voting fuckery, 

i was under the impression that the voting college is by its very nature voting shit fuckery

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/30/2020 at 1:29 PM, Bus Driver said:

Oooooh.  A compound question threw him?  Maybe President Trump shouldn't use the word "smart".

Regardless, I will restate what I said, earlier - 

People have interpreted the President's words to mean he cannot, and will not, condemn white supremacy.  He had a chance.  A direct question was asked.  He didn't take that step.

Now, would be a good time to set the record straight.  I am just wondering when the President will want to shut up all the naysayers.  And, you know damned well he likes nothing more than to shut up those who criticize him.  Being a thin-skinned man-toddler.

Trump was asked the question, and his immediate response was "sure."  He said it twice.  Then he went on to attack the lie in the second part of the compound question.

Nothingburger, just like this whole line of criticism.  Trump is not a racist nor does he support white supremacy.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, jzk said:

Trump was asked the question, and his immediate response was "sure."  He said it twice. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

 

He said "sure" twice.  Then he attacked the lies in the question.

Nothingburger.  Just like you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jzk said:

He said "sure" twice.  Then he attacked the lies in the question.

Nothingburger.  Just like you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

 

If you ask a witness a yes/no question on the stand, is a yes/no answer good enough, or must they restate the question just so you can be sure of their answer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, jzk said:

If you ask a witness a yes/no question on the stand, is a yes/no answer good enough, or must they restate the question just so you can be sure of their answer?

If you do business with people beholden to the communist party, why do you lie?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, jzk said:

If you ask a witness a yes/no question on the stand, is a yes/no answer good enough, or must they restate the question just so you can be sure of their answer?

in the court of public opinion, you always have to answer easy questions.  Derp.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, phill_nz said:

i was under the impression that the voting college is by its very nature voting shit fuckery

The blessings of the enlightenment!  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

in the court of public opinion, you always have to answer easy questions.  Derp.

 

Answered twice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jzk said:

He said "sure" twice.  Then he attacked the lies in the question.

Nothingburger.  Just like you.

The Proud Boys did not hear him condemn them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, phill_nz said:

i was under the impression that the voting college is by its very nature voting shit fuckery

You are misinformed then.  Suggest you stick to talking about your sheep shagging country instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jzk said:

If you ask a witness a yes/no question on the stand, is a yes/no answer good enough, or must they restate the question just so you can be sure of their answer?

Except the question was not: "Do you condemn white supremacy?"  The question was "Will you condemn WS?"  It's not a yes or no only question, it sorta requires a follow on action if you say "sure".  If you say "sure", that then implies that you then need to actually condemn them.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Except the question was not: "Do you condemn white supremacy?"  The question was "Will you condemn WS?"  It's not a yes or no only question, it sorta requires a follow on action if you say "sure".  If you say "sure", that then implies that you then need to actually condemn them.  

It implies no such thing.  He is on record multiple times condemning such.  Just asking him that question is disrespectful.  Further, asking him the question bundled with a complete lie, and then bitching about how he went on to correct the lie is ridiculous.  

I don't support Trump.  I hope he loses.  But the idea that he is a white supremacist is ridiculous, even for this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jzk said:

It implies no such thing.  He is on record multiple times condemning such.  Just asking him that question is disrespectful.  Further, asking him the question bundled with a complete lie, and then bitching about how he went on to correct the lie is ridiculous.  

I don't support Trump.  I hope he loses.  But the idea that he is a white supremacist is ridiculous, even for this forum.

Open your eyes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jzk said:

It implies no such thing.  He is on record multiple times condemning such.  Just asking him that question is disrespectful.  Further, asking him the question bundled with a complete lie, and then bitching about how he went on to correct the lie is ridiculous.  

I don't support Trump.  I hope he loses.  But the idea that he is a white supremacist is ridiculous, even for this forum.

Dude!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Dude!  

Happy to discuss it with you if you can make a case.

Meanwhile, just to see where you stand on white supremacy, do you think Biden is a racist and a white supremacist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, jzk said:

Happy to discuss it with you if you can make a case.

Meanwhile, just to see where you stand on white supremacy, do you think Biden is a racist and a white supremacist?

No, I do not.  I believe people can change over time.  What you're glomming onto happened over 40 years ago.  There is nothing in Biden's past that I'm aware of to suggest he was a racist like some of his colleagues such as byrd, strom, helms, etc.  and even those guys tried to make amends for their past.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Burning Man said:

No, I do not.  I believe people can change over time.  What you're glomming onto happened over 40 years ago.  There is nothing in Biden's past that I'm aware of to suggest he was a racist like some of his colleagues such as byrd, strom, helms, etc.  

Sometimes they just lie for political advantage.

I know that's hard to believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

No, I do not.  I believe people can change over time.  What you're glomming onto happened over 40 years ago.  There is nothing in Biden's past that I'm aware of to suggest he was a racist like some of his colleagues such as byrd, strom, helms, etc.  and even those guys tried to make amends for their past.  

Its possible.  But I will just leave this here.  Biden describing Obama:

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, jzk said:

Its possible.  But I will just leave this here.  Biden describing Obama:

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."

If that's your Exhibit A of Biden's racism - I would suggest you just stop there and not cement your image as a complete idiot fuckwit here in PA.  It may not have been the most politically correct way to say what he was thinking, but there was nothing racist about that statement at all.  It was genuine admiration for the guy defying all odds.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

If that's your Exhibit A of Biden's racism - I would suggest you just stop there and not cement your image as a complete idiot fuckwit here in PA.  It may not have been the most politically correct way to say what he was thinking, but there was nothing racist about that statement at all.  It was genuine admiration for the guy defying all odds.  

How would he describe all of the mainstream African-Americans that came before Obama with respect to how "clean" and "bright" and "nice-looking" they are?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jzk said:

How would he describe all of the mainstream African-Americans that came before Obama with respect to how "clean" and "bright" and "nice-looking" they are?

Obama looked real nice to him, a better man than any he had met before so? Love is blind most of the time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, VhmSays said:

Obama looked real nice to him, a better man than any he had met before so? Love is blind most of the time. 

He didn't say better.  He said clean, bright, nice-looking and articulate.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jzk said:

He didn't say better.  He said clean, bright, nice-looking and articulate.  

So? Story book perfect wasn't he?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I am a long haired radical.  With a full beard someone said I looked like Jesus.  The Judge said no, Jesus was black.  

Don't judge a book by it's cover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

 It may not have been the most politically correct way to say what he was thinking, but there was nothing racist about that statement at all.  

JZK is super woke all of a sudden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As the local Reich blows up another perfectly decent thread . . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, jzk said:

How would he describe all of the mainstream African-Americans that came before Obama with respect to how "clean" and "bright" and "nice-looking" they are?

He was talking about presidential candidates. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton were not mainstream, Obama was. That was pretty obvious to everyone who desired to understand what he was saying, including the guy he said it about. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, jzk said:

How would he describe all of the mainstream African-Americans that came before Obama with respect to how "clean" and "bright" and "nice-looking" they are?

He was referring to a fucking presidential candidate, man. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

He was referring to a fucking presidential candidate, man. 

Who were the presidential candidates that were not "clean, bright, nice-looking, and articulate?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Burning Man said:

If that's your Exhibit A of Biden's racism - I would suggest you just stop there and not cement your image as a complete idiot fuckwit here in PA.  It may not have been the most politically correct way to say what he was thinking, but there was nothing racist about that statement at all.  It was genuine admiration for the guy defying all odds.  

Exhibit B: "Unless we do something about this, my children are going to grow up in a jungle, the jungle being a racial jungle with tensions having built so high that it is going to explode at some point. We have got to make some move on this."

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, jzk said:

Who were the presidential candidates that were not "clean, bright, nice-looking, and articulate?"

weak sauce man, weak sauce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jzk said:

Who were the presidential candidates that were not "clean, bright, nice-looking, and articulate?"

Gravel and Kucinich in 2008, why do you care?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Burning Man said:

You are misinformed then.  Suggest you stick to talking about your sheep shagging country instead.

nope

and

whats the point, most know what it's like already

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So y'all do understand that the Drumph intentionally 

blew up the entire prez debate process? 

Bring back the League of Women Voters to run it, sez I. 

They do not suffer crap from obnoxious punks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

So y'all do understand that the Drumph intentionally 

blew up the entire prez debate process? 

Bring back the League of Women Voters to run it, sez I. 

They do not suffer crap from obnoxious punks. 

Trump is going to blow up *any* debate because he thinks talking over the top of other people is winning. He thinks interjections are winning. He thinks that any disruptive tactic is winning.

At least one of the reasons why - he has zero ability to discuss actual ideas, policy, summarise the pluses and minuses and explain why he made the decisions he did, on the balance of shades of grey.

He's an idiot who won't read, probably can't read, and can't analyse anything let alone explain his analyses and the assumptions built into them.

And you guys elected him.

Want to control a Trump debate? Put both participants in soundproofed perspex boxes with timers on their microphones and an override button under the moderator's control.

Then he won't come because he can't do the only things he knows how to do, which is monster & bully his way to 'victory'.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ask any stutterer or speech therapist: he was trying to make Joe trip up on his words. 

Joe's constantly having to think/plan ahead; not only think about what to say, but also how to say it, and rephrasing on-the-fly, to avoid stuttering.  If you interrupt him, he has to start all over again.  Do it often enough, he'll run out of options, and trip up, or go silent for a bit. 

Then they can pretend it was senility; like when they accused him of forgetting Obama's name, awhile back, after he said "President my boss".

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

He's an idiot who won't read, probably can't read,

It’s worse actually. He needs reading glasses to read, but is so fucking vain he won’t wear them around people or where he’ll be photographed wearing them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hA25X5-2?format=jpg&name=small

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, phill_nz said:
On 10/2/2020 at 9:20 AM, Burning Man said:

You are misinformed then.  Suggest you stick to talking about your sheep shagging country instead.

nope

and

whats the point, most know what it's like already

No sorry, I'm not familiar with what it's like to fuck a sheep.  Or even a goat.  Pray tell enlighten us as to what's it's like?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

He's an idiot who won't read, probably can't read, and can't analyse anything let alone explain his analyses and the assumptions built into them.

And you guys elected him.

Blaming us lefties for electing the Drumph is like us blaming you 

for James Spithill getting his Ozzie clock cleaned by Peter Burling. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

E is next to W and the spell checked thought shoes was right.....   so yes, shoes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Burning Man said:
18 hours ago, phill_nz said:
On 10/3/2020 at 5:20 AM, Burning Man said:

You are misinformed then.  Suggest you stick to talking about your sheep shagging country instead.

nope

and

whats the point, most know what it's like already

No sorry, I'm not familiar with what it's like to fuck a sheep.  Or even a goat.  Pray tell enlighten us as to what's it's like?

comprehension not a strong point huh

 

bit strange as you were the one that wrote the original .. but ok .. i will step you through it

" Suggest you stick to talking about your sheep shagging country instead. "

the subject is the country

as for the disparaging bits ....  " I'm not familiar with what it's like to fuck a sheep.  Or even a goat."

i have no idea either

im guessing you would be the one to go to to ask what its like to be fucked by one of them though .. so enlighten us if you wish

it seems to hold great interest to you

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Burning Man said:

No sorry, I'm not familiar with what it's like to fuck a sheep.  Or even a goat.  Pray tell enlighten us as to what's it's like?

That's weak Jeff, it's lazy and tired.  Try harder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

Blaming us lefties for electing the Drumph is like us blaming you 

for James Spithill getting his Ozzie clock cleaned by Peter Burling. 

All those lefties who sat on their hands and refused to vote because Bernie wasn't on the paper - lack of actions also have consequences. They decided to opt out and accept whoever got elected. This is what you get. Except of course they didn't accept the result. Maybe this time they'll get off of their arses and actually vote.

Not possible here as everyone votes. I may not like the result sometimes but that's politics, I accept that the electorate has made a collective decision and live with it. No side in Oz has an absolute monopoly on good ideas or decent governance.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, phill_nz said:

comprehension not a strong point huh

 

bit strange as you were the one that wrote the original .. but ok .. i will step you through it

" Suggest you stick to talking about your sheep shagging country instead. "

the subject is the country

as for the disparaging bits ....  " I'm not familiar with what it's like to fuck a sheep.  Or even a goat."

i have no idea either

im guessing you would be the one to go to to ask what its like to be fucked by one of them though .. so enlighten us if you wish

it seems to hold great interest to you

 

 

Jeff's experience is limited to camels only, and being the receiver not the giver...

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites