Kansas Crimson

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Thu Nov 05, 2020 10:17 am 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.

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Thu Nov 05, 2020 10:37 am 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.

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Thu Nov 05, 2020 10:37 am 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.

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Thu Nov 05, 2020 10:37 am 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 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 05, 2020 12:54 pm This isn't wrong:

Mjl wrote: ↑Thu Nov 05, 2020 1:07 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 05, 2020 12:54 pm 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.

Grandma wrote: ↑Thu Nov 05, 2020 4:05 pm

Mjl wrote: ↑Thu Nov 05, 2020 1:07 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 05, 2020 12:54 pm 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.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Nov 05, 2020 4:14 pm 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*

Mjl wrote: ↑Thu Nov 05, 2020 4:06 pm

Grandma wrote: ↑Thu Nov 05, 2020 4:05 pm

Mjl wrote: ↑Thu Nov 05, 2020 1:07 pm

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?

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Thu Nov 05, 2020 4:45 pm 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.

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Thu Nov 05, 2020 4:45 pm 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.

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Thu Nov 05, 2020 4:52 pm

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Thu Nov 05, 2020 4:45 pm 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