Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 minute ago, Js1 said:

She will win 65% of the vote bc she’s a Republican and she’s a Huckabee. 

She will govern like a fatter, stupider Trump, embarrass the state and get re-elected in 2026 with 75% of the vote because Arkansas is full of fat fucking retards who vote Republican. 

Yup

Posted

Doesn’t matter. The Huckabees are not yet finished grifting the taxpayers. Feed bags and slop ain’t cheap. 

  • Haha 1
Posted
12 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

Honestly, every election year that passes without Arkansas electing a literal mountain of biscuits and gravy should be taken as a win.

Huckabee Sanders, Yoder to raise money against Davids | The Kansas City Star

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, horn4life said:

Well, like her father, perhaps it is a job she could grow into?

Great point, but I’d have to say that no job is too big for her.

Posted
1 hour ago, Js1 said:

She will win 65% of the vote bc she’s a Republican and she’s a Huckabee. 

She will govern like a fatter, stupider Trump, embarrass the state and get re-elected in 2026 with 75% of the vote because Arkansas is full of fat fucking retards who vote Republican. 

Home of Walmart. Check

Ranked #42 for Education: Check

Ranked #49 for Healthcare: Check

Ranked #43 for the Economy: Check

Ranked #47 for Infrastructure: Check

Ranked #32 for Opportunity: Check

Ranked #21 for Fiscal Stability: Check

Ranked #47 for Crime: Check

Home of the Duggar Family and their 19 Children and however many grandchildren all of whom were home-schooled:

 

Your percentage may be low.

 

Posted
21 minutes ago, Lou said:

Does she think she’s setting herself to be the republican presidential nominee is 4-8 years?

She thinks there’s money to be made just by running for office, raising donations, and paying family members to work on her campaign. And she might win. Then there’s even more money to be made. 

Posted
3 hours ago, aggie08 said:

Honestly, every election year that passes without Arkansas electing a literal mountain of biscuits and gravy should be taken as a win.

FAT-NAKED-ARKANSAS-FAN.gif

 

  • Haha 1
Posted

The Republican Party has reached the point where the only qualification that's allowed (let alone required) is creating agitprop for the base.  Sanders is going to win the state, bigly, and she has done nothing but work on campaigns or continue campaigning by other means. 

Posted
12 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

The Republican Party has reached the point where the only qualification that's allowed (let alone required) is creating agitprop for the base.  Sanders is going to win the state, bigly, and she has done nothing but work on campaigns or continue campaigning by other means. 

It is just that campaign experience that is going to propel her into office. She's got to have a series of connections from her work both for her dad and for the former president.

Pretty sad; I won't comment further on her looks, but as a known liar in the Mueller investigation, among other things, she has no business serving in office.

Posted
13 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

but will she run with the patriot party ?

She ain't going to run with anybody. Waddle maybe, but not run.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
54 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Does anyone remember which poster it was, I think on shaggy, who referred to her as "easy on the eyes"? I still chuckle at that. 

From the thread that is titled the same on that site:

 

image.png.30a866b201d292a3a243dc535f09b2cb.png

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted

I think her campaign is absolutely counting on push back by the media and the left.  She needs that validation that the left is "their" opponent, the trumpy right needs a fight because they don't really have any platform.  I would hope the media wouldn't give her that fuel and free airtime, but who are we kidding.  She's easy to dunk on, so they will, and the right will be able to crank up the outrage machine and protect 'Murica from radical socialism.  In Arkansas.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
14 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Home of Walmart. Check

Ranked #42 for Education: Check

Ranked #49 for Healthcare: Check

Ranked #43 for the Economy: Check

Ranked #47 for Infrastructure: Check

Ranked #32 for Opportunity: Check

Ranked #21 for Fiscal Stability: Check

Ranked #47 for Crime: Check

Home of the Duggar Family and their 19 Children and however many grandchildren all of whom were home-schooled:

 

Your percentage may be low.

 

Nah, 65% is what the current guy in 2018 got running for his second term.  He only got 55% running his first time in 2014 (in a better Republican year).  Trump only managed 62.4%. 

I may have actually overestimated what she'll get.  But she'll win. 

Posted

As a group can I challenge us to refrain from the misogyny though of commenting superficially on physical looks? It's not okay when people do it to Kamala and it's not okay here. It's obvious that she is obese and has physical traits that aren't typically thought of as a standard of beauty. There is plenty to attack about her ugliness of personality, maybe, or how you think her politics is disgusting.

For the record, I'm not trying to be one-sided here; I think it's not okay to objectify the other way too, like people who only say positive things about AOC because they perceive her to be attractive in a young, petite way and not anything to do with her politics or abilities or history.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

She's a lying, Trumpy, demagogue.  She's the perfect GOP candidate, she will waltz to a win in Arkie, and she's already a frontrunner for POTUS in 24 or 28.

Because we live in fucking hell.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
Does anyone remember which poster it was, I think on shaggy, who referred to her as "easy on the eyes"? I still chuckle at that. 
Maybe they meant "she's lazy on the eye"?
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
31 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

As a group can I challenge us to refrain from the misogyny though of commenting superficially on physical looks? It's not okay when people do it to Kamala and it's not okay here. It's obvious that she is obese and has physical traits that aren't typically thought of as a standard of beauty. There is plenty to attack about her ugliness of personality, maybe, or how you think her politics is disgusting.

For the record, I'm not trying to be one-sided here; I think it's not okay to objectify the other way too, like people who only say positive things about AOC because they perceive her to be attractive in a young, petite way and not anything to do with her politics or abilities or history.

I think most of us are in the "once you've objectively proven yourself to be a shitbag, personal appearances are no longer off the table" crowd.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 3
Posted
11 minutes ago, Bevo Num1 said:
5 hours ago, Red Five said:
Does anyone remember which poster it was, I think on shaggy, who referred to her as "easy on the eyes"? I still chuckle at that. 

Maybe they meant "she's lazy on the eye"?

Maybe they meant she’s so fat that she’s easy to see even by the visually impaired. 

Posted
47 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

As a group can I challenge us to refrain from the misogyny though of commenting superficially on physical looks? It's not okay when people do it to Kamala and it's not okay here. It's obvious that she is obese and has physical traits that aren't typically thought of as a standard of beauty. There is plenty to attack about her ugliness of personality, maybe, or how you think her politics is disgusting.

For the record, I'm not trying to be one-sided here; I think it's not okay to objectify the other way too, like people who only say positive things about AOC because they perceive her to be attractive in a young, petite way and not anything to do with her politics or abilities or history.

Challenge accepted she's ugly. 

Couldn't even make it through a whole sentence. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Posted
1 hour ago, DonkeyCigars said:

As a group can I challenge us to refrain from the misogyny though of commenting superficially on physical looks? It's not okay when people do it to Kamala and it's not okay here. It's obvious that she is obese and has physical traits that aren't typically thought of as a standard of beauty. There is plenty to attack about her ugliness of personality, maybe, or how you think her politics is disgusting.

For the record, I'm not trying to be one-sided here; I think it's not okay to objectify the other way too, like people who only say positive things about AOC because they perceive her to be attractive in a young, petite way and not anything to do with her politics or abilities or history.

She's a lying cunt, and she's ugly on the inside as well as the outside.   

  • Hook 'Em 1


×
×
  • Create New...