Jump to content

Longhornfan1024

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    2099
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Longhornfan1024

  1. They are doing this because there weren't actually any deliberations about how to address the virus. The meetings would have consisted of "we can't say that because it will upset Trump" and directives from the White House that "you have to minimize it and focus on the economy being strong."
  2. This is true. It's also true that it would be helpful to him if Bernie didn't keep labeling him as the establishment who wants to subvert the will of the people and hurt progressive causes. In an effort to bring undecided voters into his fold, Bernie is essentially reinforcing the worst of the instincts of his most ardent supporters and putting it into their minds that they can't vote for Biden in November. He can try to distinguish himself from Biden (it's not that difficult) while not torching the Democratic party in the process.
  3. I see that bt and the other bernie bros are already finding their excuse not to vote for Biden in the general. I guess M4A will be their single issue like abortion is for so much of the right. And they wonder why so many "centrists" claim that they are the flip side of the coin to Trumpers.
  4. Can someone clarify something for me? He keeps on talking about how they did a really good job and were on top of things because they stopped travel to and from certain parts of the world. I'm aware that the CDC has labeled certain countries, like China, level 2 or 3 for risk, which acts as advice not to travel to those destinations. But I'm not aware of an actual ban of travel by Americans to any countries because of COVID-19 concerns. Has an actual ban been put into place or is this Trump just being his usual stupid, lying self?
  5. Poors with their guns. I have robots with lasers attached to their arms, knees, shoulders, and eyes. Anyone tries to steal from my house and they get fucking disintegrated worse than if they had ebola.
  6. I mean, instead of beating around the bush just grow some balls and tell her "no, this is a fucking scam" in front of the lady's face.
  7. My high school used a 100 point scale for GPA. IIRC, they converted to a 4 point scale for college admissions.
  8. Congrats for the guy, but vodka is an awful liquor made for alcoholics who have no taste.
  9. Always the victim.
  10. I'm sure she reads this thread and your content is giving her the moral support she needs to continue.
  11. It's not what I don't get. It's what you don't get. I understood what you were trying to say. It just didn't make sense.
  12. Who is that dumbass and why do we care?
  13. You're dealing with workswithseed. It's a waste of time to try and find logic in his statement.
  14. Trump, Shumer, and Roberts can all be wrong here. Trump is wrong about just about everything he does and says, including his attacks on judges. Shumer shouldn't have threatened K and G. Roberts needs to understand that when he selectively shows outrage, he's hurting the legitimacy of the court as an apolitical body.
  15. If you're too dumb to understand the meaning of what you write, I can't help you there.
  16. Probably a good idea. I'm failing particularly hard at internet rule whatever: don't engage the troll.
  17. Through your first two sentences you are placing the Bork nomination and the Garland nomination in the same bucket of shit without providing any information regarding the scope of the bucket of shit or why each nomination process deserves to be in the bucket of shit. A person who understands what happened in both of those processes can reasonably respond by saying that the Bork process doesn't deserve to be placed in the bucket of shit whereas the Garland process does. That's what jimmy did, but you claim he made a strawman argument. You're now saying that your point was "politicization of the confirmation process is a multi-decade trend." That's a conclusion you're making without providing any reasoning other than, "well some people say that's a point that decline." When your writing is so unclear that you can't even articulate a reason that you came to a conclusion, you leave yourself open to any number of perfectly reasonable counter arguments to which you then respond "but I didn't say that."
  18. Or just stop believing in fairy tales.
  19. Preemptive attack by the aliens?
  20. I'd actually prefer Warren stay in what hopefully becomes a Democratic-majority Senate and help to push anti-corruption legislation then run again in 4 years after Biden chooses to retire after one term (though age might then be an issue). I'm not really sure who I think would be best as his VP. Harris sticks out the most to me, but it worries me that she didn't pick up much support in the primaries.
  21. White, college-educated man here with an Asian, college-educated wife (we both also have professional degrees). We both voted for Warren and are pivoting to Biden. Neither of us are happy about a bunch of old white guys duking it out on stage, but we're going to suck it up and vote. We're hopeful that Biden can provide a return to normalcy, re-establish sane U.S foreign policy, and rebuild the regulatory agencies that Trump has gutted. That's not near the progressive agenda that we would like, but it's at least realistic. Whereas we supported the progressive Warren because we mostly agreed with her policies and, importantly, she provided plans for implementing those policies, we don't feel like we can switch to the progressive Bernie because as far as we can tell his plan for implementation of his policies is to yell a lot and try to invoke a revolution.
  22. I always like it when anny throws out accusations that a poster is using logical fallacies without actually understanding the meaning of the supposed fallacy. It's particularly ironic given his appeal to authority when referencing brisket in his last response to me.
  23. Of course your post was unclear. It could have been interpreted as anything from all confirmations are political because they involve political parties to Bork and Garland were perfectly equivalent. As I said, you're either a terrible writer who doesn't understand how poorly he writes or you're purposefully being unclear because you're a bothsiding coward who doesn't have the balls to stand by his position. Given your shit trolling history, I will reasonably conclude that it was the latter.
  24. You're treating Bork's nomination as similar to Garland and Kavanaugh without actually providing detail regarding the similarities and differences or providing any context whatsoever. That way, you can both side the issue by making them seem similar and then when someone like jimmyjazz reasonably concludes that you intended to argue that the situations are the same you can respond with "but I didn't say that." It's a cowardly. If you have an argument to make, then make it with detail and clarity. Don't use ambiguity and a lack of clarity to leave yourself an out when someone makes a reasonable conclusion regarding your argument. That's a pussy's approach.
  25. You don't write as clearly as you think you do. Or perhaps you intentionally include ambiguities in your statements so that when you get called out for bothsiding an issue you can respond by cowardly trying to wiggle your way out of the obvious implications of your statement.
×
×
  • Create New...