Has a complete lack of self-awareness - check.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Printable View
Has a complete lack of self-awareness - check.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Ugh. OK, you have a point that the exact numbers are hard to come by. All I find is long ass report after long ass report about how it's hard to get good numbers on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Fine. We don't know the exact numbers. They're still the numbers from the past, which the new projection from Yale doesn't change.
It was a bad assumption on my part to say "we know the exact numbers." Seems like the kind of thing you don't really have to ask. One you got name, address, etc. to file the charges, you can pretty much figure out if they're a citizen of the US or not. I'd think by process of elimination, you eventually get to the illegal immigrant status, even if you never asked them. Just diligent background about who it is exactly that's getting their criminal record updated. Guess it's more complicated than that.
It's beside the point, though.
It's the Yale researchers who've said that the per capita rates are halved, not my dumb ass interpretation of it.
New data doesn't change old data. How ever many crimes were committed, that's a number. Whether or not we know it, it's a number from the past. New data can't change that number. How ever many crimes were committed, we thought it was from a population half the size we now think it is. Ergo, the rate is reduced by half, whether we know the exact value or not.
You follow?
With you on McCain, but not Kerry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
What a stiff. With his good posture, clear speech, and *puke* are those note cards? What kind of alpha needs note cards?
Dude. C'mon. That's not a visual I wanted in my life.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
You came up with this in your own head... you were like, ooohhh imagine gay Trump pegging gay nanners... that's worth sharing.
Look, I'm not kink shaming you, but keep this stuff out of the forum, please.
then ban me, spoon.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
lol
Don't worry he balances it out by damaging the other half of his brain reading r_TheDonaldQuote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
But look at that hair! That's gotta be worth a few alpha gorilla points right there.
can we have a referendum on that? 'cause I thought it was pretty funny.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
It's not about sex, it's about power.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
He's so alpha he's growing tits so he can be his own bitch.
https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images...qf_400x400.jpg
So it's not homophobic then.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
It's like tone creep. (Scope creep, but in the forum)Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Nanners shows up and moves everyone to a more aggressive tone, and then as the tone changes, it just snowballs.
Everyone keeps hitting a little harder until this place is just a bunch of people shouting in the same space.
That's not a fun hang-out.
Keep FTR great always. KFGA just doesn't have the same ring, does it?
Look at him showing that fried chicken who's boss with his knife and fork.
Attachment 1123
I never actually realized this before but the chicken and gravy is the only actual food in that image.
So was his dinner a bucket of chicken with gravy? That would certainly explain the hardening of the brain arteries.
If there's something you want me to read in the yale study, just post the quote. I'm not going fishing.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
The point is, you can't actually know what the illegal immigrant crime rate is. You don't know which criminals are illegal aliens, and which aren't. So you holding the numerator constant is flawed logic.
Let's say there are 3000 murders. And you have no idea the citizenship of the perpetrators. Then a statistician comes in and says "well, this bogus DHS study says there are 11 million illegal immigrants. And there are 330 million people in america. So 1/30 of the population is illegal aliens. 3000 murders x 1/30th of the population = 100 murders committed by illegals."
Now if the statistician had the Yale data he would say... There are 22 million illegals in a country of 330 million. That means 1/15 of the population is illegal aliens. 3000 murders x 1/15 = 200 murders committed by illegals
Notice I didn't change the number of crimes, I just changed the assumption about the citizenship of the perpetrators based on the Yale data.
Before the yale data, you could have deported everyone and expected to save 100 lives. But now you know that exporting all the illegals would save TWICE that many people.
You follow?
Also....let's be very very very very very clear about something. All of this math is hopelessly and illogically flawed. It presumes that an illegal alien starts out with a crime-count of -1 while every native born citizen starts at 0.
In other words, for this math to work, you have to ignore the fact that EVERY illegal alien has already committed a crime just by being here. For some reason folks think that's ok to dismiss from the math. I really don't get that.
Definitely not. The alpha initiates sexual conduct to consolidate bods with lower ranking members.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Mainstream media bills every democratic candidate as progressive. There are only 4 actual progressives in the run. The others are plants.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
It's not in the MSM interest to show a difference on progressivism at all, instead they strongly suggest for voters to resort to identity politics.
I'm not sure what this is about. I was referring to TYT calling themselves "progressives". Neither the MSM, nor any 2020 candidates are part of that equation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Looks pretty cut to meQuote:
Originally Posted by oskar
http://image.cagle.com/176720/750/strongman-trump.png
This is problematic for a number of reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
First, the assumption is made that the murder rate is equal among illegal immigrants and everyone else. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.
But more importantly, assuming an equal murder rate, you could lower the total number of murders by reducing the population in any number of ways. E.g., deporting any number of randomly chosen people, deporting anyone over 50, deporting all legal immigrants, or (eventually) by lowering the birthrate to zero so the population dies off.
So, if you randomly deport half of the US, you will have half the number of murders. Half the murder rate!
This is why murder rates are typically reported as x per 100,000 people.
What you've also forgotten to do is incorporate the fact that the census-reported population of (let's say) 330 million doesn't count illegals. So either you have 330+11 =341m people with x number of murders, or you have 330+22 =352m people with x murders. And with the larger number, the murder rate/100k is actually lower than with the smaller number. That's not an argument in favour of illegal immigration, but it does make a difference in any arguments about how dangerous illegals may or may not be (which actually depends on their intrinsic murder rate, not the national murder rate, but w/e).
No way his hands are that big.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
I gotta say, I like Bernie, but that's a really bad look for him. Gotta give credit when conservatives make a good point:
https://twitter.com/benshapiro/statu...397532674?s=20
Yeah, but you can't do that unless you know how many 100,000's there are, which you don't. So the rate is bunk.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Census data does include illegals. It's currently illegal to ask citizenship data on the census. So the illegals are included in total headcount. We just don't know how to differentiate them from the native population. The 330M remains constant.Quote:
What you've also forgotten to do....
And even if your math is right, which it isn't, my point to MMM would still be correct. And that point was that the yale data means that the number of crimes committed by illegal immigrants is higher than you thought.
Ugh, and he's got that planet-killing climate-changing re-usable bag with him too. What a monster.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
EDIT: This is not a shitpost. Please learn the truth about re-usable bags!!!!
Nor do you know the exact number of murders, so there.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
So you estimate number of murders, then you estimate population, then you calculate murders / 100k.
There are definitely people who don't show up on the census though, right? Are these more likely to be legals or illegals?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Sure, and if there's more blue-eyed people in the country than you thought, the number of crimes committed by blue-eyed people is higher than you thought. Doesn't mean any given blue-eyed person is more dangerous than they were before you got better at counting them.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Can't be bothered to actually read the link you posted as evidence for your own point?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
What was that phrase going around? Intellectually vapid? I think that applies.
"You have the same number of crimes but now spread over twice as many people as was believed before, which right away means that the crime rate among undocumented immigrants is essentially half whatever was previously believed."
Now either criticize the methodology of this study, or accept the results. Don't try to re-phrase the findings to suit your agenda. The researcher's findings are spelled right out in black and white.
Now... since you said the wall is good for America 'cause it will reduce crime... this new data has already halved what you thought the crime rate was. Does your opinion on the efficacy of this wall to "work" at its stated purpose is still the best use of our tax dollars at reducing crime? Or are you so steeped in confirmation bias that new data comes in and your position is unwavering?
While we're on it. Look at how all those projections level off around 2008. The rate of illegal immigrants entering the country is about the same as the rate of illegals leaving the country and has been for over a decade.
If the crime rate is half what we thought it was, and if the number of illegal immigrants has been stable for over a decade, then where is all this hysteria coming from do you think?
Does it really seem like it's rooted in a realistic threat to our way of life?
Dude. Whatever the number of crimes committed last year by illegal immigrants is not changed by our new understanding that there are more illegal immigrants than we thought there were last year.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
You work with numbers. This is not hard. Whether or not we know the exact number doesn't matter. New data can't change last year's data. It can change the analysis performed on last year's data, but it can't change the history, only how we understand the history.
That's not what the Yale statistician did, though, and its not what he said.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
We done on this, now?
You ready to accept that crime rates of illegal immigrants are already half what you thought they were when we started this conversation?
Do you still think this problem of illegal immigration poses a problem to Americans?
As poop pointed out. Given the assumption that murder rate is uniform across all members of society, legal or illegal, then the argument that you can ship 2x as many illegals and thwart 2x as many murders is equally true to any cross section of society. The assumption was that all members murder equally, so which subset you cull is irrelevant.
True.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Do you think this is relevant? Are you equating a non-violent 1-time offense to a pattern of ongoing behavior that degrades our society?
Can you walk me through that one?
Saying that illegal immigrants are bad for crime because of a 1-time non-violent offense is not remotely the same as saying, "they're drug dealers, criminals, rapists, ..."
I don't understand if you're trying to say these are commensurately bad for America. (Yes, that's a Trump quote, not what you said, but just correct if it doesn't meet your standard.)
Which version of the truth would you like us to learn Tucker?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
lol @ the top commentQuote:
Originally Posted by oskar
"ben you fucking got him. you absolutely got him. you nailed that bitch. i'm a conservative now, i don't believe in healthcare for all or free college or mitigating climate change, all because of this tweet. you ROASTED HIM. FUUUUUUUCK"
Do you really like Bernie? Or are you just nostalgic for the 2016 version of BernieQuote:
Originally Posted by oskar
To be fair, and assuming I understand this correctly, I think they're using a bit of bananalogic here. You don't know what their crimes rates are to begin with, so whatever number of crimes you attribute to illegals is already a wild guess. Half of a wild guess isn't really an informative figure is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I kinda liked this one myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Attachment 1124
Ok.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
^Bullshit. You never knew the number of crimes to begin with. You estimated it based on the size of population. Now that the size of population has changed, so has your estimate of the number of crimes. This is just an example of left-leaning academia confirmation biasing themselves into retardation. Let me know if the Yale guys explained how they are presuming to know the number of crimes committed by illegal aliens. Even you admitted no such data exists.Quote:
"You have the same number of crimes
Actually, no it didn't. And regardless of what the crime rate is numerically....I do know for sure that it's high enough for drug overdoses to cause a measurable downward effect on life expectancy. So you can play whatever mathematical magic you want. Even if I believed that the effect is only half as bad as I thought.....I still want the wall.Quote:
this new data has already halved what you thought the crime rate was.
Actually it does. You would be right if there was some mechanism by which we could know the citizenship of every offender. But we don't. SO we have to guess from population data. Then the population data changed. So we need a new guess.Quote:
Dude. Whatever the number of crimes committed last year by illegal immigrants is not changed by our new understanding that there are more illegal immigrants than we thought there were last year.
Finally you get it. It changes the analysis. Since we dont' know the number of crimes, we have to get it through analysis. And you just said the analysis changed. So the number of crimes changes.Quote:
It can change the analysis performed on last year's data
God I hope soQuote:
We done on this, now?
YeahQuote:
Do you still think this problem of illegal immigration poses a problem to Americans?
Only one subset is not protected by the constitution.Quote:
which subset you cull is irrelevant.
Why wouldn't it be?Quote:
Do you think this is relevant?
Social programs for illegal alien led households (key descriptive phrase) cost $116B a year. Enough for 4 walls. And that doesn't include depressed wages. Are you really trying to tell me that an illegal border crossing is a victimless crime?Quote:
Can you walk me through that one?
Back to blaming drugs on illegal aliens I see.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Funny how you're so confident in this figure while admitting every other number related to illegal immigrants is virtually impossible to know.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Actually I didn't say "every" other number is impossible to know. Just the numbers where it's illegal to ask, like on arrests and census.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
However, for stuff like medicaid, they can just tell by whether or not you have a social security number.
Do you have a figure for how much taxes are paid by illegal immigrants, either through federal/state taxes or sales taxes, etc?
I never said any specific number, and neither did nanners. He said that crimes by illegal immigrants is a reason he thinks the wall is a "best" use of our money to solve crime problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Whatever the number was at the beginning of the conversation, it's now half that.
Well, they pay the same sales tax as everybody else. And you can't pay federal/state taxes without social security number. If they're using a fake number, then they would pay tax but only if they have a legit job, and most legit jobs will verify your social security number. If it's a non-legit job; no tax.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
What probably happens alot is that the employer is a shady fuck and withholds taxes anyway, but then doesn't tell the gov't he's employing illegal immigrants and pockets the money himself.
I'm not buying the "but illegals pay taxes too" sob story man. They don't.
I think I heard recently it takes an average of 3 generations before an illegal immigrant bloodline becomes cash-flow positive for the country.
FYPQuote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I don't think it works that way, but w/e.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
MMM - If poop and I agree that you're wrong....you're wrong.
Apparently you can.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
https://www.irs.gov/individuals/indi...ication-number
I imagine so, yup. Employers also pay legals under the table sometimes.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Not sure why it's a 'sob story'. It seems like a legitimate question to me that there's no simple answer to. Or at least not a simple & correct one.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
I heard it's impossible to pay fed. tax without a SSN too.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Is the 2016 version of Bernie different from the 2020 version? Or the 1977 version for that matter?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
You don't get to pick and choose the conclusions of the research and still claim to an informed position. Either you refute it, and the 25M number goes out the window, or you accept it and the rate of crimes by illegal immigrants is halved. Those are 2 commensurate conclusions of the same research by the researcher who did it.
You don't get to take 1 part and not the other without compelling evidence the researcher was talking beyond the scope of the research when drawing conclusions about it.
Take your pick. You can't have it both ways.
Are you making a rational argument or an irrational one?
FFS, it's the link you provided as evidence to support your position.
So is your point illegal immigration is bad for crime? Or is it, "we have no idea how bad illegal immigration is for crime?"
'Cause you started out by saying it's bad for America, but now you seem to be saying there's no way to tell if/whether/how bad it is.
It's the direct quote from the author of the research. If you want to dig into the actual publication and examine his means and show that he's talking beyond the scope of the research, then I'm all ears. Otherwise... he's the expert that nanners chose and that's what the expert said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
lol, yeah I'm just saying that doesn't seem right on the face of it. Maybe in whatever context he said it it's right, but I don't really care enough to read the whole thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
When one of you presents a rational reason, and not a personal misgiving, for where the researcher is speaking beyond the bounds of his professional research, then hit me up.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
If you can find that he's been discredited in the past for similar, I'll drop it. Just let's all drop the 25M number too if that's the case.
If all you got is, "it feels funny." Then it's just an appeal to your authority vs. his authority.
Who's the alpha male in this little Q and A?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktdi_L0rYkk
FWIW, if she could stop grinning like she's forced at gunpoint to do a Mentos commercial, she might actually be a formidable candidate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Look at Spartacus's face. I swear, if there was a thought balloon next to his head, it would read "OMG I'd suck her farts"
Yeah, that face she does makes me want to punch her. Not as much as Hillary, but still.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
That said, her and Trump in a debate would be a massacre.
I hate to be cynical but I think this whole thing was lost the moment they let Barr get away with his act. They might not have had a chance either way. The judiciary system seems completely inept when it comes to dealing with a criminal president.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Impeachment will do nothing. It will NEVER pass senate. This is just going to serve to motivate the Trump base... even in bizarro world where Trump gets removed, they'll find someone more racist and more willing to be a sock puppet for lobbies in a millisecond.
This only serves to distract the Trump voters from seeing what they actually voted for which is: outrageous gifts to the super wealthy, to SA, to Israel. Extreme incompetence on even the mildest racist promises he got elected on. Couldn't even get wall budget passed when they had the white house, the house and the senate. Incompetence at the border to the point where their new plan is open borders. Incredible fiscal failure: record national debt aggregation during an economic upturn to pay for tax cuts for the super wealthy.
Total incompetence negotiating with NK, Iran and Russia. Total incompetence on healthcare 'we'll announce our secret plan after 2020'
The Trump team has successfully set the false narrative: 'Mueller looked for collusion. He found no collusion.' And MSM let them do it. You lost. Suck it up. Nobody will swing Trump voters. Senate will not move to impeach, and if they do, you're looking at the prospect of a Steven Miller presidency.
Her questioning was great, but this will only hurt Barr who got hired to take a punch and leave. He'll get a very cushy lobbying job alongside Rosenstein.
Yang 2020?Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Fair enough, but to your above points: I don't think the Ds should worry about trying to sway Trump's hardcore supporters. Look how difficult it is even to get a reasonably intelligent one on this forum to acknowledge the guy is a criminal retard failure of a president.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
What they need to do is mobilize everyone who doesn't want another four years of this shitshow and get them to vote. The midterms had a record turnout - they need another one in 2020 to make sure it has a similar outcome. I think if they can manage to do that, they can put up literally anyone and they will beat Trump.
Exactly that. They're not moving. Look at the comments on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wmn1rpoNQQ&t=72s
Every comment dunking on Napolitano, but not a single attack on the substance of what he said.
The MMM - nana argument is almost a carbon copy of an argument I had with Spoon. Spoon links a study, I quote a paragraph from the summary of the study he linked, Spoon says "this is not at all what it says"... alright then, you win I guess.
It's going to be difficult if you're evidence of a crime wasn't even in the Mueller report.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
As usual, the election is about the 6-8% in the middle. The other 47% on either side doesn't matter. What makes you think that if they are mobilized, they will vote Dem? You think a socialist trying to take away their insurance is going to win over a mere slimeball who doesn't? Cmon.Quote:
What they need to do is mobilize everyone who doesn't want another four years of this shitshow and get them to vote
And the R's gained in the Senate, where stuff actually matters. This is what you don't get. Trump *can't* be a failure. He stopped the "progressive" agenda. The conservatives control the supreme court and will continue to do so for the next 30 years. If Trump spends 8 years picking his nose and masturbating to Stormy Daniels porn....he's a massive massive massive success.Quote:
. The midterms had a record turnout
Even CNN is predicting the R's gain again in the senate.Quote:
- they need another one in 2020 to make sure it has a similar outcome.
You better hope it's not Biden. Do you really think he can survive a R superpac making a TV ad out of thisQuote:
I think if they can manage to do that, they can put up literally anyone and they will beat Trump
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dizji3k4e5w
I still wonderQuote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Here you go. 2016 Bernie = Populist 2020 Bernie = Fake WokeQuote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6psnbAXeiBE
This whole video actually does not go about Bernie's positions on anything, and is somehow accusing him of identity politics?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
I couldn't believe Tucker Carlson (and by extension his viewers who gullibly drink up this garbage) could be this stupid. I mean, I know he was stupid, but not to this super saiyan level of stupidity.
There is a whole wikipedia page solely dedicated to Bernie Sanders' policies. There are countless videos of him practicing what he has been preaching for literally forty years at least. His voting record is also in accordance with what he has been saying all this time. This is fact; you can't refute it as it is reality, and there are records of this shit everywhere to be found.
In fact, CNN tries to spin his record on a daily basis, trying to make it seem he did different and is now a hypocrite. Turns out Trump was really onto something when he called CNN fake news. Them broken clocks sure are right twice a day.
The problem and sad part is that the democratic establishment does practice identity politics. Which is why you have heard of names such as Buttigieg, Beto and Kamala. You know, people who you have no idea what their policies (nowhere to be found, likely they make shit up as they go along) are or their position on any subject is, but rather want you to vote for them because they are gay, a woman, or simply born-to-run (nvm losing to that turd Cruz).
Obviously Bernie is all about substance in the entirety of his campaigning, no fluff at all, yet this fact completely and totally passes by Tucker Carlson. What an idiot.
0:44Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
You really couldn't wait a minute?
What would you say is his signature accomplishment?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
And you can't use something he might do as president. Assume he dies in the next 20 minutes. It's likely. He's 432 years old. Very much on borrowed time.
Actually.....Beto has something now. It was another $15 or $20T for climate change on top of the Green New DealQuote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
We might have to take over 2/3 of the middle east to pay for this shit
Most of his criticisms of the establishment are spot on. But his solutions are buffoonery. Socialism doesn't fucking work. Even if you can tell me it kinda works somewhere, it won't work in America.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
You're not being fair to Tucker. First of all, it's not his job to pump Bernie's tires. Second of all, the segment wasn't about Bernie, it was about identity politics. Tucker shows how Bernie was basically forced at gunpoint to embrace the "woke" narrative if he wanted to cozy up to the DNC. That's just one part of the segment, but I used it to answer your question about why 2016 Bernie is different than 2020 Bernie.Quote:
completely and totally passes by Tucker Carlson. What an idiot
You seem to be perceiving the video as "Tucker's segment on Bernie". But it's not. And because of that perception you're probably watching it and saying "This guy won't talk about Bernie's policies because he's afraid!! So he's distracting with identity politics!!"
The segment was about identity politics
I saw the whole thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
It's just misrepresentation, misinformation and general bullshit.
Have you seen how 9/10 candidates in the democratic race now want to be labelled "progressive"? Pretty much all of them except Amy Klobuchar that I know of. I wonder why.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Have you seen how you totally didnt answer my question?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Thank you captain obvious, I kind of missed that. Maybe if I add a word to my answer it'll be clearerQuote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
The democratic establishment sure as hell does it. But Bernie doesn't. No one who would vote Bernie would vote because of identity politics, but rather for his policy positions. Most other candidates in the race (Exceptions are Tulsi, Warren and Yang) I can't say the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
I think you're grossly underestimating how close a Bernie voter is to a Trump voter. You clearly missed that part of the video too Captain Obvious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
I predict that a general-election version of Bernie sanders will have to play the IP angle quite hard to win the swing votes.
If that makes you wanna take down your Bern poster, I know how you feel. I went through a similar thing when I grew up and learned how slimy Roger Clemens is.
That is a false narrative, a false equivalency if you may, pushed by idiots. I have heard it before, by the likes of hacks such as Rachel Maddow etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
How? He is one of the only candidates who will definitely not have to play the identity politics card in order to win those votes. He would clubber Trump into submission with policy.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Trump is afraid of Bernie, hence he does not attack him. But the Democratic Establishment is even more afraid of Bernie, they are absolutely terrified. The fight right now is not at all vs Trump; it's against the Nancy Pelosi's, Chuck Schumer's, Brooke Baldwin's, Rachel Maddow's and even Steven motherfucking Colbert's of the world.
Bernie is still who he has been since forever. I didn't suddenly find out he was juiced up to oblivion to get K's.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Sidenote: CNN is pure propaganda. You must have seen the amount of fluff pieces they had for Buttipete. Like asking about his cat and shit. No real policy questions at all, ever. And yet Bernie, they try and try their damndest to get words out of his mouth to twist these. Gotcha journalism to the max. LOL.
Case in point:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shmbYZcrhLM
I think it's closer to 20% but w/e.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Take away their insurance? Is that the D platform now?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
He's a massive massive massive failure.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Oskar gave several reasons why. If you're best counter to that is the country didn't advance because he's president, that's not much is it?
And what about getting a couple of SCJs when you own the house and senate qualifies as a 'success'? Any president would have done that.
He may as well be masturbating to Stormy.
18 month ahead predictions are next to meaningless. Ask Wuf.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Is that the best they got? He came close to touching a girl with no breasts near where her breasts would be if she had any? He kissed a baby? Wow pedoparanoia must be high where you live.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Note as well that none of them are his own daughter.
If the Rs put that video up all I'd do is have a one minute video still of this photo
Attachment 1125
Inappropriate touching indeed.
Ending private insurance has been their platform since 2006. Read a newspaper man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Jack, I'm a little surprised you're *this* fired up about Bernie. He's not that impressive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Honestly, if I could list me top 100 priorities for this country, breaking up banks is probably way down in the 70's or lower. What's that gonna do to stop the suicide rate? What's that gonna do to fight the opioid crisis? Hows that gonna help laid-off manufacturing workers in Gary, Indiana? I feel like this is really about revenge and resentment. America doesn't need that.
Free college? I can't think of a more destructive economic policy. Truly. This goes back to my argument about the dangers of stratifying your society by IQ. If you wanna know more about that, scan my previous posts. It's in there.
I saw Bernie at the Fox News Town hall and they asked him about Trump's idea to ship the illegals to sanctuary cities. They asked him where he would send the illegals instead. And like a wind up doll he just started his rehearsed spiel about "We need comprehensive immigration reform.....don't demonize immigrants.....blah blah blah". Martha was like..."Dude, I asked you *where* you would send them?". And Bernie, like a wind up doll, repeated the exact same generic talking points...AGAIN. Martha pressed him, and then Bernie said "that's not a real question". In the end, ol' Bern reached into his 536 year old ass crack and pulled out some garbage idea about just simply building a new city at the border just for them. Great idea you schmuck.
Immigration is in the top 3 issues for about 80% of the electorate, and Bernie has no plan. None. And before you point me to bernie dot org backslash bullshit backslash i didnt write this myself dot html and say he has some kind of realistic immigration policy, just know that it doesn't count if he himself can't articulate it on TV.
Look Jack. I get that you like socialism, but Bernie is a buffoon. He's also older than most mountains. His age is a HUGE obstacle for him right now. Biden too. Yeah, you can be POTUS at 80, but can you POTUS at 84? 88?
He's also a bit of a cuck. Trump would pummel him in the general. Badly.
♫♪ Cos there aint do dobst I luv dis land ♪♫
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.12537ac29e3bQuote:
Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.
I know I've said repeatedly that I'm not playing the game where we impugn sources. But I'm making an exception. This link = FAILQuote:
Originally Posted by oskar
That link just takes me to a paywall. Post some words please.