Jump to content

Huckleberry

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    11888
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    20

Posts posted by Huckleberry

  1. Just now, JBJ said:

    I'm actually agreeing with B_T.  When the rubber meets the road, today's anti-Trump voter is not going to be tomorrow's Democrat voter.

    Being pro-Trump or pro-Democrat is a false dilemma.

    That's because just like b_t you are missing the point entirely. The point is to get the current POTUS and more generally the current iteration of the GOP out of office. Not to pretend that the defectors are going to remain Democrat forever.

    I will be voting Democrat in elections to national office for the first time in my life this November. I am not going to pretend that I will continue voting Democrat indefinitely.

  2. 3 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

    The US has some of the worst voter participation rates in the developed world.  People who are eligible to vote but don't are a much larger pool of potential votes to net than country club Republicans grossed out by explicit racism and norm erosion.  A lot of work needs to be done to make voting easier to help tap into that though.

    Yeah, step one in that process is wresting control away from the political party that already actively attempts to suppress votes and is now headed by an authoritarian man with legitimate personality disorders.

    But sure, keep working on the little details instead of the big one. You know what would help with winning an election while the party in control is suppressing votes? Courting votes from people who won't have their votes suppressed (i.e. they're white so the GOP won't even think about it).

    • Like 1
  3. 9 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

    I'm going to take a page from Oatmeal and phrase this out in a more politically correct manner, not because I care about winning allies (a false dilemma), but because I am talking to a lot of different people right now and all of them are different.

    With as much fair-mindedness as I can muster, let me break this into groups.

    Group 1: Loyal GOP voters who will temporarily go Dem and then go right back to GOP.
    Group 2: Former loyal GOP voters who fell away over the course of time and are swimming in the centrist waters. 
    Group 3: Lifetime centrists.
    Group 4: Former loyal GOP voters who fell away over time and are swimming in the Dem waters.

    Groups 1 and 3 are essentially lost causes. Group 2 is kind of interesting, but meh. Group 4, let's talk.

    Are those fair groups?

    Anyway, for those of you just furious with me for not being so grateful ... look at how low on specifics you guys are. You're chock FULL of high-octane rhetoric about THE REPUBLIC'S FATE, but what are you even aiming for? What's your goal(s)? Seriously, please answer this, because I have no idea.

    OK, Donald John Trump is vanquished (How? Do you want impeachment? A GOP primary opponent in 2020? Assassination?)... now what? Is the threat actually dead?

    What it sounds like to me, and PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong, is that you want the left to help you defeat the Frankenstein's monster you built and then some praise from the Left for being brave enough to ask for help. (And that monster isn't Trump, it's the American conservative political movement that birthed him.)

    If you aren't willing to take a sincere, critical look at what created Trump, then I have no idea why the hell I should consider you an ally or give a shit about your supposed help.

    And fukkin LOL at the "you need us country club whites!"

    If by "you" you mean "centrist Dem kleptocrats", you're right.
    If by "you" you mean the left, lol no thanks but I guess it's fine come on if you can shut up and listen, which you can't physically do because you are convinced you are the axis around which all existence rotates.

    Also fukkin LOL at the idea that being born not-rich means that you can't possibly be an out-of-touch rich guy now.

     

     

     

    You missed me in your groupings (I've never been GOP and I'll never be Dem without a major shift in their economic platform but it's in no way due to centrism), but it's fairly irrelevant anyway. You're still being a dumbass posting stupid things like "and then some praise from the Left" which nobody ever asked for. But you keep on keepin' on.

  4. Clever quote , or some classic quote is essential , along with a long privacy statement, a few pictures of your kids...
     
     
    Never understood putting your email address in a signature, it’s already in your email dick.
    It does actually come in handy when the email is forwarded, replied to, forwarded again, replied to again, etc. and eventually a new person is added after the various email programs have removed the actual email address because you are in their contacts list.

    I still don't do it but I've gotten several people's email addresses like that because they did it.
  5. Why can't the left just be reasonable and accept my hysterical framing that conveniently allows me to absolve myself of responsibility by pretending the current "existential threat to the republic" is not a natural result of my worldview but is, instead, some kind of invading monster from another dimension that NEVER could've been predicted? boo hoo hoo
    Donald John Trump is not an existential threat to the Republic. The political and social movement behind him might be. You guys want to make it about Trump as a person because you're blind to the reality of how the actual threat grew.
    If you were actually trying to do anything more than troll hysterically you would recognize that the existential threat exists because that movement now has a public face who is POTUS. And I've given as much support to the GOP as you have so you're miles off the mark in another aspect of that predictably shallow response.
  6. Y'all are being pretty damn foolish if you expect b_t to be reasonable for even a little while.

    There is a potentially existential threat to the republic but he'll only take your help if you beg for forgiveness and don't talk just than that. He's as team first as the Republican idiots who got us here except he has a very small team. He mocks others who want to work with Democrats to address the current situation despite the fact that he's also a non-Democrat who wants to do the same.

    • Like 2
  7. China is the paper tiger. Russia, as Yuri has said in the video, puts the vast majority of it's resources into subversion. They have more success subverting the American people into defeating themselves rather than overtly defeating America. 
    How do they subvert? Divide and conquer, put the extremes from both sides on center stage and have them control the narrative.
    A delusional Gary Johnson voter believes his football forum is infiltrated with Russian bots because 1950s popular women's names skipped C. He's almost got it solved!
    24-sherlock-holmes-w529-h529-2x.jpg
    It's cute that you think I think you're actually Russian. You're about two steps behind but keep trying.
  8. 2 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

    You say that as if a world with fewer Russians in it is a bad thing.  Other than some hockey players, female tennis stars and buxom long-legged pornstars, the rest of them can get fucked.

    Well apparently the ones at the end of your list can, too.

    • Like 1
  9. 1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

    So what if they were given immunity? That means they could be compelled to testify. They can no longer use the Fifth Amendment.

    He has a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of immunity in the investigative and prosecutorial process. He's been told as much and still doesn't get it. zork is the most confounding poster on the boards because after years I still haven't figured out if he's playing games or if he really is as naive as he portrays himself to be.

  10. Sorry if there was a post on this already, but this:

    Dd1b4TEUQAAMaQC.jpg:large

    The 6th 2018 change. Does anyone have more details? This makes it seem like it might be worth it on onside kick attempts for the kickers to practice kicking the ball in the air instead of on the ground. The goal would be to kick the ball in the air and get it to land as close to 10 yards downfield with enough momentum to make it to the receiving team's restraining line. The receiving team is now prohibited from moving forward on the kick to block the players on the kicking team. This could be nuts on onside kicks unless there was a further clarification or I'm missing something.

  11. 1 minute ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

     

    I don't know if this is true but I assume it is because it is based on what should be the foundation of every analysis of Trump moving forward. He is pathological. A wise man had this to say yesterday:

    22 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

    The issue is that he's not a narcissist in the sense that the term is often used against self-centered jerks. He is literally a full-blown narcissist who cares about nobody but himself. It doesn't matter if it was Putin or Chavez. The actual political leanings don't matter. Whoever got the dirt on him then told him they could help him consolidate power because he's super awesome was going to be able to control him.

    You and many others just thought he was a sort of off-putting ass. No, he has a serious pathology.

  12. Just now, DiceHands said:

    This is such horse shit/

    He spent that entire press conference yesterday saying he believed putin.

    Him changing would to wouldnt makes ZERO FUCKING SENSE.

    It makes perfect sense. He is an idiot and he is controlled by whatever he's told last. The press conference yesterday was after a private meeting with Putin. Today's is after a private meeting with American advisors.

    He is a gullible idiot. He should not be allowed under any circumstances to meet in private with any foreigner.

  13. 5 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

    Of course 90% of Republicans support him.

    Will never drop below 80% as long as that (R) is by his name. Because so much of the populace is composed of team-first morons the best hope for the GOP to salvage some dignity is to dig up a bunch of clips of Trump championing liberal ideas and replay them on Fox News constantly. Show the Republican base that he's not actually a Republican.

    • Fuck You 1
  14. Well yeah, the problem with democracy and its approximations like ours is morons. There are lots and lots of morons. That's been known for centuries.

    The problem with dictatorships is dictators, the problem with monarchies is monarchs, etc. The problem with any form of governance is selfishness on the part of those who govern.

    • Like 5
    • Fuck You 1
  15. 19 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

    So one of the definitions is that supernatural means not material or physical, and my definition says that an object is supernatural iff it is not composed solely of physical particles or space of the universe.  Can you further explicate why these are clearly distinct?  Maybe give a counter example of an object that meets one definition but not the other?  

    You picked one half of one definition to make your point and intentionally excluded the other half of the same definition which says "not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural law" because it suited your purpose.

    Furthermore, human concepts are composed of physical particles of the universe anyway because they exist only in the minds of humans and are nothing more than electrical and chemical reactions in the brain. While those reactions are too complex for us to currently explain or even fully understand, in the end you are merely arguing for what can be crudely described as a God of the Gaps for the 21st Century.

  16. 1 minute ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

    Lol, hilarious. The Brits have a saying about women up to no good and trying to look innocent: "You'd think butter wouldn't melt in her mouth." 

    That wasn't Butina.

  17. On 7/15/2018 at 4:45 PM, Aphelion said:

    (1)  An object is supernatural if and only if it is not solely composed of the physical particles or space of the universe.  Υ(x) ⇔ ¬Φ(x)

     

    10 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

    "Of or relating to existence outside the natural world."  And also from the same link: "not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material;"  So the way in which we have been using the term is exactly in accordance with known and accepted definitions.

    No, I disagree that those are the same or in accordance. And to me it's quite clear that they are different definitions of the term. Also, I have a feeling when I hit Submit Reply that the formatting here is going to get all jacked up because of having multiple quotes then a response. So good luck to everyone reading this.

    Sweet, it formatted correctly somehow.

×
×
  • Create New...