Take the L, Pussy (Documenting the Coup Until Trump Concedes)

[staboner 4955]

3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Well, you keep misreading my posts, which perhaps creates the disconnect.  I am not saying these things WILL happen -- with certainty, or even "more likely than not."  My concern is that these scenarios no longer reside in the land of "no fucking way, of course that's not even a possibility" to "well, fuck.....it's possible."  

The kind of things we're talking about are catastrophic, rising to the level of nation-ending.  They don't become unacceptable or alarming once they actually happen -- they become unacceptable and alarming when they cross the Rubicon from the land of "no way, no how" to the land of "well, we can actually see a scenario where these things could happen."  Going from a 0% chance to a 3% chance is alarming as fuck.

Imagine being on a 737, and the pilot comes  on to tell you "well, some shit just happened with the plane.....and our chances of dying in a crash went up from effectively 0% to 3%".....would your asshole pucker or not?  This is the goddamned United States.  We should not have ANY asshole puckering at the thought of how power will be transferred, but here we are.  A 3% chance of something this fucking bad is unacceptable, and is actually disastrous.  That's my point.  Not that these things WILL happen -- shit, the odds are still in our favor that they WON'T.  But when we see the odds on those things go from 0%, then to 3%, then to 6%.....yeah, pucker time.

here's the deal - the ingredients are here for fuckery and there is no mechanism I can see to fix it. going from 3% to 100% is easier than from 0% to 3% IMO

Just had a talk with wife on how relatives are getting off FB for Paler or wtf its called. trying to spin that as a positive. maybe that can get the cult closer to maximum operating numbers and then start the infighting. it is the only mechanism i can see that slows down the inevitable. don't see any other. obv wish the Democrats would look at reform across the government but that won't happen as we all know.

and this isn't over obviously. drop it like its hot

[TexasEd 8058]

2 hours ago, RPM said:

"Case levels are high because we do more testing"

No-one would lose if we don't keep score.

Students don't fail if we don't grade tests.

Women won't get pregnant if we get rid of pregnancy tests.

[Yuk 1489]

 

[UpperWestside 6081]

9 minutes ago, Yuk said:

 

There you go. There is not, and never will be, a human being he will not turn on once his ego is bruised and the narcissism takes over. I just accept that that is who Dotard is. He can spend the rest of his days stealing money from his cult and not all of us like he has done for four years and I am good with that. Obviously I am onboard with Letitia James bringing every state charge forward that she possibly can from money laundering to tax evasion to whatever she wants to nail him to the wall on. Just knowing he will not be in charge anymore in two months is a huge positive step forward.

[ChiTownDoc 21070]

1 hour ago, staboner said:

here's the deal - the ingredients are here for fuckery and there is no mechanism I can see to fix it. going from 3% to 100% is easier than from 0% to 3% IMO

Just had a talk with wife on how relatives are getting off FB for Paler or wtf its called. trying to spin that as a positive. maybe that can get the cult closer to maximum operating numbers and then start the infighting. it is the only mechanism i can see that slows down the inevitable. don't see any other. obv wish the Democrats would look at reform across the government but that won't happen as we all know.

and this isn't over obviously. drop it like its hot

Paler.  That’s exact what it should be called 😂

[conVINCEd 21468]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

I’m 42. Cannot remember anything before Reagan’s 2nd term. In your lifetime, do you think there’d be a higher % of people that would want a do-over on a President than Trump?  In my lifetime, that’s a resounding no. And I’m as conservative as they come. I detested Clinton’s behavior and did not like Obama’s policies. But I respected them as Presidents. I’ve never been more embarrassed as a Republican and American as I am with this motherfucker. 

I was annoyed at friends that voted for him with fervor in ‘16 as I didn’t vote, somewhat due to apathy knowing Hilary would win. I didn’t vote this year out of protest. He is everything wrong with humanity. 

It’s ok to cast a vote against everything wrong with humanity.

[Firemans4Horn 17773]

6 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

In your lifetime, do you think there’d be a higher % of people that would want a do-over on a President than Trump?  

They had a do over. And they still voted for him. And they now think the election was rigged and soon will be Pizzagating 3.0 and continue shooting up El Paso Wal Marts and Pittsburgh Synagogues. 

[conVINCEd 21468]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

First, my vote didn’t matter and I knew that prior to November 3rd. Second, had I known he was gonna act like this I would’ve voted for Biden. I wasn’t paying enough attention to how bad he is because I tried to tune him out. My bad. 

 

I disagree. Biden is not a strong candidate. His support must be waning post-election. 

Where do you live, if you don’t mind me asking?

[ndawg 1242]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

First, my vote didn’t matter and I knew that prior to November 3rd. Second, had I known he was gonna act like this I would’ve voted for Biden. I wasn’t paying enough attention to how bad he is because I tried to tune him out. My bad. 

Why did you vote for a candidate that you tried to tune out?

[Dahobbs 17407]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

First, my vote didn’t matter and I knew that prior to November 3rd. Second, had I known he was gonna act like this I would’ve voted for Biden. I wasn’t paying enough attention to how bad he is because I tried to tune him out. My bad. 

 

I disagree. Biden is not a strong candidate. His support must be waning post-election. 

Respect for the first part of that post. I appreciate you admitting the error. 

[Dahobbs 17407]

2 minutes ago, ndawg said:

Why did you vote for a candidate that you tried to tune out?

He didn't? Read his prior post. 

Edited November 14, 2020 by Dahobbs

[atomheartbevo 89304]

7 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Imagine being on a 737, and the pilot comes  on to tell you "well, some shit just happened with the plane.....and our chances of dying in a crash went up from effectively 0% to 3%".....would your asshole pucker or not?  

[gmr548 16427]

It’s ok to cast a vote against everything wrong with humanity.

Not when it has a R its name. Party > country.

[atomheartbevo 89304]

9 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Y'all realize that the chances of this ending up in a violent confrontation are going up by the minute, right?  That's the endgame.  If he refuses to accept the loss -- and he will refuse to accept the loss -- how does that play out any other way?

Oh, and for those of you thinking the Secret Service will just evict him.....what are you going to think when he deploys his loyalist CBP troops to the White House to "protect THEIR president?"  In the endgame, there are armed troops who support the regime present as well.

Those CBP folks are pretty fucking small in number when you look at the actual ones carrying a sidearm along a border or in an airport somewhere, and the vast majority of them are not in that job because they like Trump or were personally hired by him, but because it's a job, probably well-paying compared to their other options (and more job security/benefits due to being government) and come January 20th, Biden will be their boss, not Trump.   A lot of those CBP folks plan on retiring from government service at some point after a long career.  None of them want to piss that away because of one guy who was their boss for four fucking years out of 20 or 30 or 40 years of their careers.

None of them are going to go "holy shit, why am I here in a remote part of Arizona, I need to hop on a plane to DC and defend my Lord God Emperor King Trump."

There's no fleet of aircraft standing by to carry a few thousand CBP agents to DC to somehow defend Trump in a running gun battle, and if they all of the sudden started hopping on airplanes to get to DC, it would get noticed.  

9 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

And plenty of MAGA cosplayers with their ARs will show up on the streets of DC as well.  Again, we are facing a non-zero chance of running gun battles in DC to settle this.  That's where the GOP is taking us. 

If those idiots were going to try something, they missed their chance in Philly or Georgia or Arizona when they could have actually fucked with the system.  Them going on some kind of fucking Brisket-imagined version of the shootout from Heat is pretty minimal.  They also missed their chance when Obama was in office and Trump was telling them he was a fucking sleeper agent for Kenya or whatever.

For fuck's sake, they can't even open their fucking mouths without attracting federal informations.

Either you have drank too much tonight, or you have not drank enough.  John Roberts will not be swearing in Trump, he'll be swearing in Biden.  And federal employees are not going to rise up and defend Donnie, at the risk of their careers and lives.    Some schlub standing a watch in New Mexico is not making enough money for that shit, and he or she were not personally selected and knighted by Trump to defend him and America.  There is a vast difference between the rank-and-file who plan on being government employees for decades, versus a bunch of white-collar people who are only in the government as long as Trump is in office.  The rank-and-file schlub is not going to rake in hundreds of thousands of dollars, plus immeasurable contacts while Trump is in the Oval Office, which is why it's the fucking Kayleigh McWhateverthefuckhernameis out there on Fox News preaching up Trump.

 

[burntorangebongos 10681]

1 minute ago, Dr. Beeper said:

To clarify, Biden wasn’t a strong candidate. And given Trump’s post election antics, his support must be waning. If we did a post mortem in 1-10 years, he’ll be universally loathed. 

Fuck you in the face, Rex. Now you wish to exhibit rational thought but you voted for him so go DIAF. 

[Pato del Muerto 52232]

I have a feeling that in 20 years nobody will admit to being a trump voter in 2020.  By then, most everyone will have figured out they were duped, and will be too embarrassed to tell anyone. 

[ndawg 1242]

55 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

He didn't? Read his prior post. 

Oh damn, thanks for correcting me. Sorry @Dr. Beeper!

[Bateshorn 9853]

I’m just here for Rudy getting disbarred. 
 

 

[formermav43 4599]

12 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

I have a feeling that in 20 years nobody will admit to being a trump voter in 2020.  By then, most everyone will have figured out they were duped, and will be too embarrassed to tell anyone. 

My great-grandfather used to say that his vote was evidently the most powerful in the country, because he was the only person he knew to ever admit they voted for Hoover.

[Wanker Bob 379]

45 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

To clarify, Biden wasn’t a strong candidate. And given Trump’s post election antics, his support must be waning. If we did a post mortem in 1-10 years, he’ll be universally loathed. 

What democrat would you think would be a strong candidate

[TexArcher 37414]

25 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

I have a feeling that in 20 years nobody will admit to being a trump voter in 2020.  By then, most everyone will have figured out they were duped, and will be too embarrassed to tell anyone. 

I said right after the election in 2016 that in about 25 years, no one would admit to having voted for Trump.  It would be like trying to find someone who bought one of the 50 million albums Nickelback sold.  Yes, that's the actual number, somehow.

[Pato del Muerto 52232]

14 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

My great-grandfather used to say that his vote was evidently the most powerful in the country, because he was the only person he knew to ever admit they voted for Hoover.

Unlike 1928, we have terabytes of idiots at maga rallies, in Trump trains, and trump boat rallies. We have proof that a lot of people loved everything he did and said. 

[TwiceHorn 31085]

We probably need to draw a distinction between "faithless electors" and a complete legislative manipulation of its electors.

A faithless elector is appointed in the usual way, but votes "against" the appointment.  For example, in Texas, electors are appointed by the party that wins the popular vote in Texas.  It is therefore assumed that the elector will vote for that party's candidate.  If s/he does not do so, she is "faithless."  Some states have laws that both replace their vote and penalize them, others just penalize them.  Texas has 38 electoral votes and thus appoints 38 electors.  It neither penalizes nor invalidates the vote of faithless electors.  All 38 electors, or at least a majority of them, would have to be faithless to "turn" Texas' vote.

But all of the states' electoral schemes assume that there is a finalized or certified popular vote according to which the electors are appointed according to their scheme.  I think most do it by parties like Texas.

If there is no certified popular vote, I think it all falls apart.  The states have to appoint electors somehow by the safe harbor deadline or the electoral vote day at the very latest. 

Presumably, the legislature would pass some kind of law in a gotdam hurry that would appoint electors according to whatever scheme they can agree upon, the threat being that R-controlled legislatures would appoint R electors.

This is all in accordance with Article IIs requirements for the electoral college, as modified by the 12th Amendment.  None of that requires a popular election to dictate the appointment of electors by a state.  But it has assuredly become the custom of all 50 states and for a long time, at that.

However, it is thought that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment imposes a limitation on what states can do pursuant to Article II.  In fact, this was a central feature of Bush v. Gore.  It seems rather likely that whatever shenanigans led to a non-certified vote, or the post-election legislation to appoint electors, would be held unconstitutional under the EPC.  Still, I don't know where that leaves the state with those problems, or the electoral vote as a whole.

I think it is possible and possibly constitutional for a state to legislate that it will not choose electors in accordance with a popular vote, so long as that was done well in advance of a Presidential election.  Doing it after an election is a virtual non-starter, I think.

In any event, I think electoral shenanigans are unlikely.  If Trump tries it, he should be burned at the stake, along with his accomplices.

 

Edited November 14, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[UDontKnow 10439]

34 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

I said right after the election in 2016 that in about 25 years, no one would admit to having voted for Trump.  It would be like trying to find someone who bought one of the 50 million albums Nickelback sold.  Yes, that's the actual number, somehow.

I get your post. Trump voters in 2016 believed that a hero would save us and they weren't going to stand there and wait.

[WhatTheBuck 28696]

8 hours ago, Red Five said:

It was a 34-17 football game. Not a blowout, but also not really all that close. 

 

8 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

If Biden was Tom Herman the election would have been much closer. 

 

8 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

But the last 7 of the 34 was scored at the end of the game while running out the clock. 

If Biden was Ryan Day then he would've apologized for scoring the final TD and not taking a knee. 

[conVINCEd 21468]

2 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

 

 

If Biden was Ryan Day then he would've apologized for scoring the final TD and not taking a knee. 

I’ll take your problems.

[SaucyJack 3475]

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

/csb alert- cliff:

Mid 90s - Snorkeling/Diving off of Cozumel on private charter (bachelor party). End day by drinking at local bar then boarding public ferry back to mainland.

Beautiful sunset. Life is grand. Then darkness and gulf wind.

On second deck drinking at bar, got music going. Bartender cool and playing our shit. 

Flirting going on ( 3 Cowboy cheerleaders, who happened to know one of the guy's sisters,  totally coincidental, on the ferry). 

BAM!

Fucking tropical storm rolls up (who knew? apparently not these fuckers or our dumbasses).

Boat starts rocking like a hurricane; Hard, hard  rain sideways under roof.

Announcement: "please proceed to lower deck and be aware of all life preserver stations". Most everybody scurries downstairs to find life jackets.

Bartender says " I'm Out", and left.  Boat is tilting like a MF. 

I proceed to walk around the bar, play "The End" pour tequila shots and become bartender.

Next 35 minutes is nothing but FUCK IT, we got our gear, let's drink and rock!

Very, very surreal dancing with one of these chicks later  at 1 am in a Cancun club to "it ain"t over till it's over".

 

 

 

 

[WhatTheBuck 28696]

18 minutes ago, conVINCEd said:

I’ll take your problems.

Like a canceled football game? Oh, right, it's against Maryland.

[WhatTheBuck 28696]

I don't know what's going to happen. I just know there's nothing Trump won't try to hold on to power. There's no depth to which he won't sink to try to steal the election. I won't be able to rest easy until I see Biden inaugurated because I know Trump will never concede. The phrase, "It can't happen here" just doesn't apply in the Trump era as long as "It" is something negative that we never dreamed we'd see happen in 21st century America. 

[atomheartbevo 89304]

Trump is a bully, which means he's a coward deep down, hell, it's not even that deep - he's constantly projecting in his press conferences and on twitter.  His ego is so fucking fragile.

Trump fired people that he could, who weren't kissing his ass enough - the DOD officials who disagreed with him on Afghanistan.

BUT, who Trump is not firing is even more interesting - the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff just publicly declared that the military is loyal to the Constitution, not to any one person.  You have the Cybercommand guy running around putting up websites (indirectly) and pushing out retweets (directly) that claim Trump is lying.   And Chad Wolf, the Department of Homeland Security head, is running interference for the Cyber guy and refusing to fire him.  Trump is not going to fire the Chairman, and not going to fire Wolf, because he's afraid he'll get Congress on his ass.

His team has given up on Arizona, and it's sounding like the same in Nevada.  He's done, and even Fox News called it.  Lawsuits are easy for him to toss around - they cost him very little (his supporters are paying for them), and on the off chance he wins one, it could help him (but probably not enough to move the needle on votes).  More importantly, the lawsuits allow him to continue the notion that he's a victim, a martyr, the libs are stealing from him, The Deep State is stealing from him.

If you want to setup a new TV network (or take part of an ownership in one like say NewsMax), you've got to have a hook.  The election being stolen was the hook he needs to launch whatever TV venture he plans on doing.  He has to keep up his victim status.

I think the fact that he setup a PAC right after the election is pretty telling - he's moving on to the next con, and he can use the PAC to right some wrongs, with not only Democrats, but more importantly in his mind, Republicans who didn't kiss the ring enough.  Georgia Secretary of State is up for reelection in two years, and I expect Trump will fuck with him.

[atomheartbevo 89304]

3 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

I have a feeling that in 20 years nobody will admit to being a trump voter in 2020.  By then, most everyone will have figured out they were duped, and will be too embarrassed to tell anyone. 

In 20 years, most Trump supporters will be dead of old age.

[Pato del Muerto 52232]

6 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

In 20 years, most Trump supporters will be dead of old age.

You were seeing different people in the trucks and boats than I was then. Seems like his base is 35-50 year old men and their accoutrements of Karens. 

[SydneyCarton 47809]

7 hours ago, Dr. Beeper said:

I’m 42. Cannot remember anything before Reagan’s 2nd term. In your lifetime, do you think there’d be a higher % of people that would want a do-over on a President than Trump?  In my lifetime, that’s a resounding no. And I’m as conservative as they come. I detested Clinton’s behavior and did not like Obama’s policies. But I respected them as Presidents. I’ve never been more embarrassed as a Republican and American as I am with this motherfucker. 

I was annoyed at friends that voted for him with fervor in ‘16 as I didn’t vote, somewhat due to apathy knowing Hilary would win. I didn’t vote this year out of protest. He is everything wrong with humanity. 

Wait. You don’t have any memories before you were 6 years old? 

[Hookah Horns 3057]

6 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

We probably need to draw a distinction between "faithless electors" and a complete legislative manipulation of its electors.

A faithless elector is appointed in the usual way, but votes "against" the appointment.  For example, in Texas, electors are appointed by the party that wins the popular vote in Texas.  It is therefore assumed that the elector will vote for that party's candidate.  If s/he does not do so, she is "faithless."  Some states have laws that both replace their vote and penalize them, others just penalize them.  Texas has 38 electoral votes and thus appoints 38 electors.  It neither penalizes nor invalidates the vote of faithless electors.  All 38 electors, or at least a majority of them, would have to be faithless to "turn" Texas' vote.

But all of the states' electoral schemes assume that there is a finalized or certified popular vote according to which the electors are appointed according to their scheme.  I think most do it by parties like Texas.

If there is no certified popular vote, I think it all falls apart.  The states have to appoint electors somehow by the safe harbor deadline or the electoral vote day at the very latest. 

Presumably, the legislature would pass some kind of law in a gotdam hurry that would appoint electors according to whatever scheme they can agree upon, the threat being that R-controlled legislatures would appoint R electors.

This is all in accordance with Article IIs requirements for the electoral college, as modified by the 12th Amendment.  None of that requires a popular election to dictate the appointment of electors by a state.  But it has assuredly become the custom of all 50 states and for a long time, at that.

However, it is thought that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment imposes a limitation on what states can do pursuant to Article II.  In fact, this was a central feature of Bush v. Gore.  It seems rather likely that whatever shenanigans led to a non-certified vote, or the post-election legislation to appoint electors, would be held unconstitutional under the EPC.  Still, I don't know where that leaves the state with those problems, or the electoral vote as a whole.

I think it is possible and possibly constitutional for a state to legislate that it will not choose electors in accordance with a popular vote, so long as that was done well in advance of a Presidential election.  Doing it after an election is a virtual non-starter, I think.

In any event, I think electoral shenanigans are unlikely.  If Trump tries it, he should be burned at the stake, along with his accomplices.

 

I've also read election law attorneys saying that the legislatures can't change the elector selection scheme after the election. Edit: nevermind I missed where you covered that. 

Edited November 14, 2020 by Hookah Horns

[Hookah Horns 3057]

13 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Wait. You don’t have any memories before you were 6 years old? 

Wait. You remember politics from before you were 6 years old?

[SydneyCarton 47809]

5 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

Wait. You remember politics from before you were 6 years old?

He didn’t specify politics. It read weirdly like he spanned his memories by presidential terms. 
 

and yes I remember the Geneva Summit being a big deal when I was 5. 

[TexLonghorn 5577]

I was so surprised by Nixon resigning that I literally crapped my diaper.

[burntorangebongos 10681]

 

What the hell is Lou advocating exactly? Armed Insurrection? Retire this Grecian Formula'd old man already before he causes a trainwreck. What a fucking dipshit.

 

[Snake Diggity 4607]

7 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

You were seeing different people in the trucks and boats than I was then. Seems like his base is 35-50 year old men and their accoutrements of Karens. 

40% of his base are old whites.  100% of them will be dead in 20 years.  

40% of his base are middle aged whites.  Half of them will be dead in 20 years.  75% of those left will deny having voted for him.

The other 20% are young people and minorities of varying ages.  Some will be dead, most will deny having supported him.

In 20 years, my guess is that people who support  Trump (or his progeny/protégés) will be like people who supported David Duke in the 80s and 90s.  Fringe racists.

[WhatTheBuck 28696]

8 minutes ago, Snake Diggity said:

40% of his base are old whites.  100% of them will be dead in 20 years.  

40% of his base are middle aged whites.  Half of them will be dead in 20 years.  75% of those left will deny having voted for him.

The other 20% are young people and minorities of varying ages.  Some will be dead, most will deny having supported him.

In 20 years, my guess is that people who support  Trump (or his progeny/protégés) will be like people who supported David Duke in the 80s and 90s.  Fringe racists.

Ignorant old white racists have been dying off for hundreds of years and yet we still have no shortage of ignorant old white racists. 

Parenthood, how does it work?

[formermav43 4599]

14 minutes ago, Snake Diggity said:

40% of his base are old whites.  100% of them will be dead in 20 years.  

40% of his base are middle aged whites.  Half of them will be dead in 20 years.  75% of those left will deny having voted for him.

The other 20% are young people and minorities of varying ages.  Some will be dead, most will deny having supported him.

In 20 years, my guess is that people who support  Trump (or his progeny/protégés) will be like people who supported David Duke in the 80s and 90s.  Fringe racists.

I don’t think your math checks out.

[Guest]

11 hours ago, conVINCEd said:

It’s ok to cast a vote against everything wrong with humanity.

Meh...went that route in 2016.  Was convincingly proven to be horrific choice, even if I still feel it was right to vote AGAINST the other known quantity.'

Didn't repeat the mistake in 2020...

 

Our country will survive the Trump presidency, and it doesn't require his permission to kick his ass out of the White House, come January.

[SilasCoade 2620]

Just now, slorch said:

Meh...went that route in 2016.  Was convincingly proven to be horrific choice, even if I still feel it was right to vote AGAINST the other known quantity.'

Didn't repeat the mistake in 2020...

 

Our country will survive the Trump presidency, and it doesn't require his permission to kick his ass out of the White House, come January.

Clinton might be a terrible person but her presidency would have been infinitely better for America than Trump. Voting against a person you don't like is different than voting against someone unfit for office.

[mr.goodkat 464]

3 hours ago, Hookah Horns said:

Wait. You remember politics from before you were 6 years old?

thought this guy was the devil when i was 5-6 apparently he came to power in 79 i was 5 . also i was born the day tricky dick resigned 

[Doc Sam Beckett 5781]

In my first memories, they shot Kennedy, I went numb when I learned to see

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, Llogg said:

Clinton might be a terrible person but her presidency would have been infinitely better for America than Trump. Voting against a person you don't like is different than voting against someone unfit for office.

neither one of them were worth a fuck.  I voted the party line in 2016.  It wasn't unreasonable at the time.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Hookah Horns said:

Wait. You remember politics from before you were 6 years old?

My earliest political/ world events memory is watching reports of  the fall of Saigon.  I was 5.

Did it all make sense to me?  Of course not.  Basically I was hoping Americans were getting out alive, while being completely unaware of the other implications for all parties involved.

[SilasCoade 2620]

12 minutes ago, slorch said:

neither one of them were worth a fuck.  I voted the party line in 2016.  It wasn't unreasonable at the time.

It absolutely was unreasonable. As evidenced by the last 4 years.

[Bevo14 8226]

2 minutes ago, Llogg said:

It absolutely was unreasonable. As evidenced by the last 4 years.

Having someone whose biggest intellectual accomplishment wasn't passing a cognitive test might've been worth something. 

Edited November 14, 2020 by Bevo14

[BrickHorn 18134]

15 minutes ago, slorch said:

neither one of them were worth a fuck.  I voted the party line in 2016.  It wasn't unreasonable at the time.

Yes it was.

Edited November 14, 2020 by BrickHorn