***Official Political Discussion Thread***

Plenty of rich Republicans hire illegal immigrants for construction, landscaping, cooking, babysitting, etc. It's the broke uneducated ones that think illegal immigrants are stealing their jobs (when in reality they're just too dumb or lazy to get one), which is why people like Donald Trump can exploit that fear for votes.
 
Last edited:
Life comes at you fast

1000

1000
 
Went and looked at his Twitter feed


I like this Joe Walsh guy... He taking shots at ERRBODY

:pimp:

Upon further review, I recant my statement.

This ***** on some right wing ********.

He said there's a war on cops. Nah, B
 
Last edited:
Went and looked at his Twitter feed


I like this Joe Walsh guy... He taking shots at ERRBODY

:pimp:

I would suggest you do more research into the man before making a comment like that.

Also, did this tweet also endear you to him............



You looking a lil funny in the light famb.


Edit: :lol: :smh:
 
Last edited:
^^^^

It needs to be stated that I edited my post BEFORE that was posted...

So y'all make sure y'all know dat.

:nerd:
 
Never ceases to amaze me the way Ninja double downs on incorrect facts/points or straight up moves on to his next terrible talking point ...but the last couple pages he done turned it up another notch :lol:
 
Never ceases to amaze me the way Ninja double downs on incorrect facts/points or straight up moves on to his next terrible talking point ...but the last couple pages he done turned it up another notch
laugh.gif
It never gets old seeing him post articles he clearly doesn't read or fails to understand 
laugh.gif
 

Speaking of an honest discussion, I would appreciate being a little more generous when you characterize my points. I did not present voter suppression as a bs issue (my bad if it came off that way), or say that the media needs to talk about hillary's emails more. Honestly, I don't even want to counter these points because it's a waste of time and will take 30 back and forths on positions that I do not hold, to prove that I don't.

--

Yes, the blatantly arrogant clinton campaign. It is so funny that they based their campaign decisions on an algorithm that they would "unveil" after the election, it's really a perfect characterization of that campaign.

The ones lauded for their "ground game" turning away activists and volunteers because "it wasn't scientific". The ones that popped champagne on election day because they were just always one step ahead with their data. Mook and co need to have their feet held to the fire for deluding themselves to such degree. More blame should be placed here than anyone and anything else. link

Michigan operatives relay stories like one about an older woman in Flint who showed up at a Clinton campaign office, asking for a lawn sign and offering to canvass, being told these were not “scientifically” significant ways of increasing the vote, and leaving, never to return. A crew of building trade workers showed up at another office looking to canvass, but, confused after being told there was no literature to hand out like in most campaigns, also left and never looked back.

On the morning of Election Day, internal Clinton campaign numbers had her winning Michigan by 5 points. By 1 p.m., an aide on the ground called headquarters; the voter turnout tracking system they’d built themselves in defiance of orders — Brooklyn had told operatives in the state they didn’t care about those numbers, and specifically told them not to use any resources to get them — showed urban precincts down 25 percent. Maybe they should get worried, the Michigan operatives said. Nope, they were told. She was going to win by 5. All Brooklyn’s data said so. In at least one of the war rooms in New York, they’d already started celebratory drinking by the afternoon, according to a person there. Elsewhere, calls quietly went out that day to tell key people to get ready to be asked about joining transition teams.

Clinton camp didn't publicly call for the recount, they let Stein do the lifting. I wonder, why did they leak out misleading information (which the professor of the report said was mischaracterized)?

Then you have Podesta, another asshat, crying out for an electoral briefing, because he gave away his email password. He did this thanks to the Clinton IT guy saying "yeah this is a legit email, change your pw immediately" in response to a phishing email. This IT guy now says that was a typo. You can't make this stuff up.
 
Last edited:

Speaking of an honest discussion, I would appreciate being a little more generous when you characterize my points. I did not present voter suppression as a bs issue, or say that the media needs to talk about hillary's emails more. Honestly, I don't even want to counter these points because it's a waste of time and will take 30 back and forths on positions that I do not hold, to prove that I don't.

--

Yes, the blatantly arrogant clinton campaign. It is so funny that they based their campaign decisions on an algorithm that they would "unveil" after the election, it's really a perfect characterization of that campaign.

The ones lauded for their "ground game" turning away activists and volunteers because "it wasn't scientific". The ones that popped champagne on election day because they were just always one step ahead with their data. Mook and co need to have their feet held to the fire for deluding themselves to such degree. More blame should be placed here than anyone and anything else. link

Michigan operatives relay stories like one about an older woman in Flint who showed up at a Clinton campaign office, asking for a lawn sign and offering to canvass, being told these were not “scientifically” significant ways of increasing the vote, and leaving, never to return. A crew of building trade workers showed up at another office looking to canvass, but, confused after being told there was no literature to hand out like in most campaigns, also left and never looked back.

On the morning of Election Day, internal Clinton campaign numbers had her winning Michigan by 5 points. By 1 p.m., an aide on the ground called headquarters; the voter turnout tracking system they’d built themselves in defiance of orders — Brooklyn had told operatives in the state they didn’t care about those numbers, and specifically told them not to use any resources to get them — showed urban precincts down 25 percent. Maybe they should get worried, the Michigan operatives said. Nope, they were told. She was going to win by 5. All Brooklyn’s data said so. In at least one of the war rooms in New York, they’d already started celebratory drinking by the afternoon, according to a person there. Elsewhere, calls quietly went out that day to tell key people to get ready to be asked about joining transition teams.

Clinton camp didn't publicly call for the recount, they let Stein do the lifting. I wonder, why did they leak out misleading information (which the professor of the report said was mischaracterized)?

Then you have Podesta, another asshat, crying out for an electoral briefing, because he gave away his email password. He did this thanks to the Clinton IT guy saying "yeah this is a legit email, change your pw immediately" in response to a phishing email. This IT guy now says that was a typo. You can't make this stuff up.

-I never said you categorized voter suppression as a BS issue. I suggest you read my sentence again. I said it is BS to make it seem like Hillary supporters are just talking about voter suppression because of the election. So don't ask for generosity in one breath, and misrepresent my comment in another. Thank you

-If this election was a normal election, Clinton wins, and the campaign look like geniuses. It wasn't so they have egg on their face. You seem more than willing before (go read your post in here before the election) and after the election to downplay the damage Russia and Comey did to Clinton. Because they get in the way on ******** on the Clinton campaign.

The mistakes made by the campaign were not historical, what they had to work against was.
 
Last edited:
This reminds me of whenever a really good team loses in the championship, whether it's GSW last year or the 18-0 Patriots losing in the Super Bowl. Suddenly that one loss invalidates all their other success, at least in the mind of the myopic critic.
 
This reminds me of whenever a really good team loses in the championship, whether it's GSW last year or the 18-0 Patriots losing in the Super Bowl. Suddenly that one loss invalidates all their other success, at least in the mind of the myopic critic.

Like when the bills went to the super bowl 4 straight times while the garbage team was at home watching them lose
 
This reminds me of whenever a really good team loses in the championship, whether it's GSW last year or the 18-0 Patriots losing in the Super Bowl. Suddenly that one loss invalidates all their other success, at least in the mind of the myopic critic.

Exactly
 
Last edited:
This reminds me of whenever a really good team loses in the championship, whether it's GSW last year or the 18-0 Patriots losing in the Super Bowl. Suddenly that one loss invalidates all their other success, at least in the mind of the myopic critic.

And we saw they ***** AGAIN in the Superbowl and whupped them a second time.

**** the Patriots. And the Cowboys.
 
Back
Top Bottom