Win or Lose the Dems need to take a look in the mirror

[jfish26]

Both political parties have completely abandoned the notion of “let’s see if we can’t come together and do what’s best for the folks.” That ship has long sailed.

They don’t answer to the folks anymore. The folks are of no interest.

This is fucking lunacy. Biden is already (arguably very stupidly) talking about this. He ran on being everyone's president, not just for those who voted for him.

Your brain has turned to orange goo. Biden won the nomination, over the concerns of many progressives, because he's the work-together candidate.

[MICHHAWK]

I wonder when was the last time a presidential candidate did not campaign on “I will be the candidate for all the people. Not some of the people. But all of the people. I promise.” 19th century maybe.

[jfish26]

I wonder when was the last time a presidential candidate did not campaign on “I will be the candidate for all the people. Not some of the people. But all of the people. I promise.” 19th century maybe.

Or, up until the Trump campaign ended two days ago.

[pdub]

I wonder when was the last time a presidential candidate did not campaign on “I will be the candidate for all the people. Not some of the people. But all of the people. I promise.” 19th century maybe.

"If you take the blue states out, we're at a level that I don't think anybody in the world would be at. We're really at a very low level. But some of the states, they were blue states and blue-state-managed."

[twocoach]

I wonder when was the last time a presidential candidate did not campaign on “I will be the candidate for all the people. Not some of the people. But all of the people. I promise.” 19th century maybe.

I dont recall that being a claim that Trump ran on this year.

[jfish26]

This isn't wrong:

[Mjl]

This isn't wrong:

I think Pete could have had a shot in FL, OH,and IA, though he would have lost GA. All depends on how well the "Your dad was a communist" attack would have worked.

[Deleted User 289]

This isn't wrong:

I think Pete could have had a shot in FL, OH,and IA, though he would have lost GA. All depends on how well the "Your dad was a communist" attack would have worked.

Unless I am not understanding you correctly - and I'm probably NOT.....

Florida? WHAT????
I say that because Pete won 2.3% of the votes in the Florida primary. In other words, 97.7% of the people who voted in the Democratic primary in Florida did NOT want him to be the candidate.

Ohio? WHAT???
I say that because Pete won 1.7% of the votes in the Ohio primary. In other words, 98.3% of the people who voted in the Democratic primary in Ohio did NOT want him to be the candidate.

[Mjl]

This isn't wrong:

I think Pete could have had a shot in FL, OH,and IA, though he would have lost GA. All depends on how well the "Your dad was a communist" attack would have worked.

Unless I am not understanding you correctly - and I'm probably NOT.....

Florida? WHAT????
I say that because Pete won 2.3% of the votes in the Florida primary. In other words, 97.7% of the people who voted in the Democratic primary in Florida did NOT want him to be the candidate.

Ohio? WHAT???
I say that because Pete won 1.7% of the votes in the Ohio primary. In other words, 98.3% of the people who voted in the Democratic primary in Ohio did NOT want him to be the candidate.

You realize he had already dropped out by then... Right?

[ousdahl]

I...just did something I’ve never done before.

I reported a post on social media.


This fishing chick went all MAGA the past couple days, and she just posted some shit like “just wait cuz there’s about to be a CIVIL WAR and all you anti-2A socialist pussies will be sitting in your homes with nothing to protect yourselves but your dildos!”

I did it just as a precaution, I guess?

Cuz who knows how serious she is, and either way I doubt Zuck will do anything about it...it’s not like she posted something truly evil, like a nipple, right?

But should language like that be reported?

Or am I just being a pussy? *cluches dildo*

[PhDhawk]

I...just did something I’ve never done before.

I reported a post on social media.


This fishing chick went all MAGA the past couple days, and she just posted some shit like “just wait cuz there’s about to be a CIVIL WAR and all you anti-2A socialist pussies will be sitting in your homes with nothing to protect yourselves but your dildos!”

I did it just as a precaution, I guess?

Cuz who knows how serious she is, and either way I doubt Zuck will do anything about it...it’s not like she posted something truly evil, like a nipple, right?

But should language like that be reported?

Or am I just being a pussy? *cluches dildo*

Yes, you're a huge pussy.

Like Hope Solo style, where it's just lips on lips on lips.



Great, now I want Arby's.

[ousdahl]

bro you spilled the horsey sauce again.

[PhDhawk]

You think Arby's sauce would be good on wings?

[Deleted User 289]

I think Pete could have had a shot in FL, OH,and IA, though he would have lost GA. All depends on how well the "Your dad was a communist" attack would have worked.

Unless I am not understanding you correctly - and I'm probably NOT.....

Florida? WHAT????
I say that because Pete won 2.3% of the votes in the Florida primary. In other words, 97.7% of the people who voted in the Democratic primary in Florida did NOT want him to be the candidate.

Ohio? WHAT???
I say that because Pete won 1.7% of the votes in the Ohio primary. In other words, 98.3% of the people who voted in the Democratic primary in Ohio did NOT want him to be the candidate.

You realize he had already dropped out by then... Right?

Moron me is man enough to admit I did NOT recall he dropped out before the Ohio and Florida primaries so it makes much more sense now - and should have made sense to me when I made the post.....
Please add my previous post to the growing list of massively idiotic things I have posted.
Thank you!

[pdub]

If you look in the mirror in a dark/candle-lit room and chant illy over and over again, you can see both sides of the mirror.

[PhDhawk]

I know everyone is sick of Illy's bothsiderisms, but what's the opposite of that called? Is that like Ousdahilsm. When you excuse the behavior of your side because they're on your side and you condemn it when it's someone on the opposition.

You know, like in January there's a democrat senator who is caught having an affair with an escort on a park bench. Then in February there's a Republican congressman caught having an affair with a prostitute in the back of a van. Then all the board democrats want the Republican congressman burned at the stake, until Illy reminds them of a month earlier and then:

Ousdahl says it's not the same cause it was outside, rather than in a vehicle so it's ok, and says it's a bad comparison because one guy is in the house and the other is in the senate, and then diverts it to ask a question about what the precedent is for something irrelevant.

And then twocoach excuses the democrat senator because it was an escort rather than a prostitute, and that makes it ok because dirty hoe's carry STIs.

And then Sparko makes a reference to some ancient French dictator and how this all relates to the republicans causing a smokescrean so that they can get away with sexual assaults in the workplace.

[Cascadia]

I know everyone is sick of Illy's bothsiderisms, but what's the opposite of that called? Is that like Ousdahilsm. When you excuse the behavior of your side because they're on your side and you condemn it when it's someone on the opposition.

You know, like in January there's a democrat senator who is caught having an affair with an escort on a park bench. Then in February there's a Republican congressman caught having an affair with a prostitute in the back of a van. Then all the board democrats want the Republican congressman burned at the stake, until Illy reminds them of a month earlier and then:

Ousdahl says it's not the same cause it was outside, rather than in a vehicle so it's ok, and says it's a bad comparison because one guy is in the house and the other is in the senate, and then diverts it to ask a question about what the precedent is for something irrelevant.

And then twocoach excuses the democrat senator because it was an escort rather than a prostitute, and that makes it ok because dirty hoe's carry STIs.

And then Sparko makes a reference to some ancient French dictator and how this all relates to the republicans causing a smokescrean so that they can get away with sexual assaults in the workplace.

Never go full re.......

[Deleted User 89]

I know everyone is sick of Illy's bothsiderisms, but what's the opposite of that called? Is that like Ousdahilsm. When you excuse the behavior of your side because they're on your side and you condemn it when it's someone on the opposition.

You know, like in January there's a democrat senator who is caught having an affair with an escort on a park bench. Then in February there's a Republican congressman caught having an affair with a prostitute in the back of a van. Then all the board democrats want the Republican congressman burned at the stake, until Illy reminds them of a month earlier and then:

Ousdahl says it's not the same cause it was outside, rather than in a vehicle so it's ok, and says it's a bad comparison because one guy is in the house and the other is in the senate, and then diverts it to ask a question about what the precedent is for something irrelevant.

And then twocoach excuses the democrat senator because it was an escort rather than a prostitute, and that makes it ok because dirty hoe's carry STIs.

And then Sparko makes a reference to some ancient French dictator and how this all relates to the republicans causing a smokescrean so that they can get away with sexual assaults in the workplace.

that might be the dumbest thing you’ve ever posted

[PhDhawk]

I know everyone is sick of Illy's bothsiderisms, but what's the opposite of that called? Is that like Ousdahilsm. When you excuse the behavior of your side because they're on your side and you condemn it when it's someone on the opposition.

You know, like in January there's a democrat senator who is caught having an affair with an escort on a park bench. Then in February there's a Republican congressman caught having an affair with a prostitute in the back of a van. Then all the board democrats want the Republican congressman burned at the stake, until Illy reminds them of a month earlier and then:

Ousdahl says it's not the same cause it was outside, rather than in a vehicle so it's ok, and says it's a bad comparison because one guy is in the house and the other is in the senate, and then diverts it to ask a question about what the precedent is for something irrelevant.

And then twocoach excuses the democrat senator because it was an escort rather than a prostitute, and that makes it ok because dirty hoe's carry STIs.

And then Sparko makes a reference to some ancient French dictator and how this all relates to the republicans causing a smokescrean so that they can get away with sexual assaults in the workplace.

that might be the dumbest thing you’ve ever posted

So....it is "Ousdahlism"....or no?

[pdub]

I just wanted to make a joke about the thread title.