• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Did Trump insult widow of Niger GI?

And yet after the votes were cast you've done nothing but carry water for him while simultaneously yelling scoreboard

Wrong again. Please learn the difference between disagreement with you guys and support for him. We don't all look alike.
 
Who do you think was the most dangerous President ever and why?
 
And yet after the votes were cast you've done nothing but carry water for him while simultaneously yelling scoreboard

Pointing out farcical post-election derangement and conspiracy theories is disagreeing with you guys. It's not support for his agenda. I don't know what his agenda is.

The scoreboard matters so you guys will come back to Earth. Quit blaming the voters. He just beat you with your base from the 1970s and 1980s. It's not like they won't vote for a functional democrat party. They usually do, but they stopped. Why? Sudden onset ignorance? You can't actually think that, so what's the real answer? They might not have top 27 private school educations, but these are good people who want to work and provide for their families. There are rubes, but there aren't 63 million of them. Your top-down omniproviding government model isn't selling. Trump out-messaged Hillary, not because he has the right answers, but because he knew the right questions. He figured out what bothered people and spoke to those issues. Your candidate acted like that was beneath her. But it turns out "privilege, privilege, privilege and systemic racism" isn't a policy people will choose to vote for. Go back to those or get used to the scoreboard.

You will probably win next time, by picking a less polarizing candidate to run against Trump. Trump may self-destruct. Run Biden. Run somebody people outside your bubble will vote for. But quit blaming the Russians and the voters. The mirror is right over there.
 
Last edited:
The major problem with contemporary leftism is that it can't come together. Toeing the line? LOL Jesus, you two make some dumb arguments.
 
I also missed the last page of jhmd flailing around. Amusing stuff.
 
can't come together on what?

On anything. The moderates and the progressives can't coalesce behind a candidate. If they did, then the R candidate would pretty much have no chance.

The voters on the right fall in line. The voters on the left don't.
 
can't come together on what?

Chris's last two candidates dismissed tens of millions of their former voters as deplorable rubes who cling ignorantly to their faith.
Chris can't figure out why his party can't bring people together.
Enjoy your Chris, everyone.
 
Last edited:
You voted for somebody who wasn't even running for president who dismissed 47% of the population as moochers who would never vote for him. Enjoy your jhmd everybody.
 
You voted for somebody who wasn't even running for president who dismissed 47% of the population as moochers who would never vote for him. Enjoy your jhmd everybody.

You think your party's biggest problem is the lack of cohesion. Assuming you're right (spoiler: nope), maybe stop running divisive candidates? Just a thought.
 
Last edited:
Chris's last two candidates dismissed tens of millions of their former voters as deplorable rubes who cling ignorantly to their faith.
Chris can't figure out why his party can't bring people together.
Enjoy your Chris, everyone.

The most interesting part of the Clinton deplorables speech was the obviously approving response of her well-heeled audience. They really do think like that and then they can't figure out why they are seen as divisive and hostile to the general interest.

They certainly agree on one thing: the people who disagree with them are deplorable.
 
Every main candidate was divisive. In this day and age, it is pretty much impossible not to be divisive. Candidates that aren't divisive are that way because the attack machines haven't touched them.

That Clinton comment was taken out of context. It was a dumb thing to say but it clearly wasn't what she meant or what the right spun it to mean.

I am curious if there is the same sort of explanation about Romney's comment, because I don't really see one.
 
Last edited:
The most interesting part of the Clinton deplorables speech was the obviously approving response of her well-heeled audience. They really do think like that and then they can't figure out why they are seen as divisive and hostile to the general interest.

They certainly agree on one thing: the people who disagree with them are deplorable.

I have no idea why people in the middle of the country think democrats view them as bitter, deplorable, faith-clinging rubes.
Wherever would they get that idea?
 
Every main candidate was divisive. In this day and age, it is pretty much impossible not to be divisive. Candidates that aren't divisive are that way because the attack machines haven't touched them.

That Clinton comment was taken out of context. It was a dumb thing to say but it clearly wasn't what she meant or what the right spun it to mean.

I am curious if there is the same sort of explanation about Romney's comment, because I don't really see one.

Romney thinks the 47% of the country on public benefits won't vote for him, because the 47% of the country that is on benefits didn't vote for him.
 
Romney thinks the 47% of the country on public benefits won't vote for him, because the 47% of the country that is on benefits didn't vote for him.
Many of these same people consider Trump their hero. Maybe if Romney was a little less divisive he could have won the election. But you didn't seem to learn that lesson since you voted for him again when he wasn't even running for president
 
Last edited:
Back
Top