Hey, Trump bashers
-
wrote on 29 Oct 2020, 22:02 last edited by
Someday I hope to meet a republican who is not selfish.
Just my luck, he or she will probably be stupid.
-
Someday I hope to meet a republican who is not selfish.
Just my luck, he or she will probably be stupid.
wrote on 29 Oct 2020, 22:06 last edited by@Copper said in Hey, Trump bashers:
Someday I hope to meet a republican who is not selfish.
Just my luck, he or she will probably be stupid.
And facetious
-
I don't think Boris strikes the rest of the world as a person of high class. You just can't have that hair and pretend to appeal to that.
wrote on 29 Oct 2020, 22:18 last edited by@Horace said in Hey, Trump bashers:
I don't think Boris strikes the rest of the world as a person of high class. You just can't have that hair and pretend to appeal to that.
He's upper class rather than high class, which might not make sense if you're not British. I'm not really sure what high class is. Obviously, Trump is pretty close to being the archetypal Ugly American, which apparently appeals to some people. I'm sure if he was running on the Democrat ticket half the people here would be calling him all kinds of names.
-
@Horace said in Hey, Trump bashers:
I don't think Boris strikes the rest of the world as a person of high class. You just can't have that hair and pretend to appeal to that.
He's upper class rather than high class, which might not make sense if you're not British. I'm not really sure what high class is. Obviously, Trump is pretty close to being the archetypal Ugly American, which apparently appeals to some people. I'm sure if he was running on the Democrat ticket half the people here would be calling him all kinds of names.
wrote on 29 Oct 2020, 22:22 last edited by@Doctor-Phibes said in Hey, Trump bashers:
@Horace said in Hey, Trump bashers:
I don't think Boris strikes the rest of the world as a person of high class. You just can't have that hair and pretend to appeal to that.
He's upper class rather than high class, which might not make sense if you're not British. I'm not really sure what high class is. Obviously, Trump is pretty close to being the archetypal Ugly American, which apparently appeals to some people. I'm sure if he was running on the Democrat ticket half the people here would be calling him all kinds of names.
Hed never make it to nomination on democrat ticket. They wouldnt put up with his amoral character. Something republicans could care less about. As long as their guy protects their money and keeps the mexicans out.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Hey, Trump bashers:
@Horace said in Hey, Trump bashers:
I don't think Boris strikes the rest of the world as a person of high class. You just can't have that hair and pretend to appeal to that.
He's upper class rather than high class, which might not make sense if you're not British. I'm not really sure what high class is. Obviously, Trump is pretty close to being the archetypal Ugly American, which apparently appeals to some people. I'm sure if he was running on the Democrat ticket half the people here would be calling him all kinds of names.
Hed never make it to nomination on democrat ticket. They wouldnt put up with his amoral character. Something republicans could care less about. As long as their guy protects their money and keeps the mexicans out.
wrote on 29 Oct 2020, 22:24 last edited by George K@nobodyssock said in Hey, Trump bashers:
Hed never make it to nomination on democrat ticket.
And the woman who Biden chose dropped out before the first primary. Talk about electability, LOL.
As long as their guy protects their money
Might want to investigate who is the "Party of the Rich" these days too...
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Hey, Trump bashers:
@Horace said in Hey, Trump bashers:
I don't think Boris strikes the rest of the world as a person of high class. You just can't have that hair and pretend to appeal to that.
He's upper class rather than high class, which might not make sense if you're not British. I'm not really sure what high class is. Obviously, Trump is pretty close to being the archetypal Ugly American, which apparently appeals to some people. I'm sure if he was running on the Democrat ticket half the people here would be calling him all kinds of names.
Hed never make it to nomination on democrat ticket. They wouldnt put up with his amoral character. Something republicans could care less about. As long as their guy protects their money and keeps the mexicans out.
wrote on 29 Oct 2020, 22:25 last edited by@nobodyssock said in Hey, Trump bashers:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Hey, Trump bashers:
@Horace said in Hey, Trump bashers:
I don't think Boris strikes the rest of the world as a person of high class. You just can't have that hair and pretend to appeal to that.
He's upper class rather than high class, which might not make sense if you're not British. I'm not really sure what high class is. Obviously, Trump is pretty close to being the archetypal Ugly American, which apparently appeals to some people. I'm sure if he was running on the Democrat ticket half the people here would be calling him all kinds of names.
Hed never make it to nomination on democrat ticket. They wouldnt put up with his amoral character. Something republicans could care less about. As long as their guy protects their money and keeps the mexicans out.
Teddy Kennedy seemed to do OK and he was a total scumbag.
-
@nobodyssock said in Hey, Trump bashers:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Hey, Trump bashers:
@Horace said in Hey, Trump bashers:
I don't think Boris strikes the rest of the world as a person of high class. You just can't have that hair and pretend to appeal to that.
He's upper class rather than high class, which might not make sense if you're not British. I'm not really sure what high class is. Obviously, Trump is pretty close to being the archetypal Ugly American, which apparently appeals to some people. I'm sure if he was running on the Democrat ticket half the people here would be calling him all kinds of names.
Hed never make it to nomination on democrat ticket. They wouldnt put up with his amoral character. Something republicans could care less about. As long as their guy protects their money and keeps the mexicans out.
Teddy Kennedy seemed to do OK and he was a total scumbag.
wrote on 29 Oct 2020, 22:25 last edited by -
wrote on 29 Oct 2020, 22:26 last edited by
In Massachusetts they think the Kennedy's walk on water, which is actually pretty ironic.
-
In Massachusetts they think the Kennedy's walk on water, which is actually pretty ironic.
wrote on 29 Oct 2020, 22:30 last edited by@Doctor-Phibes said in Hey, Trump bashers:
In Massachusetts they think the Kennedy's walk on water
Walk on water ≠ drive near water.
-
@nobodyssock said in Hey, Trump bashers:
Hed never make it to nomination on democrat ticket.
And the woman who Biden chose dropped out before the first primary. Talk about electability, LOL.
As long as their guy protects their money
Might want to investigate who is the "Party of the Rich" these days too...
wrote on 29 Oct 2020, 22:30 last edited by@George-K said in Hey, Trump bashers:
@nobodyssock said in Hey, Trump bashers:
Hed never make it to nomination on democrat ticket.
And the woman who Biden chose dropped out before the first primary. Talk about electability, LOL.
As long as their guy protects their money
Might want to investigate who is the "Party of the Rich" these days
Dont really need to investigate something that is plain as the sky is blue.
-
wrote on 29 Oct 2020, 22:38 last edited by
Well if rolling stone says so, that ends the discussion.
-
wrote on 29 Oct 2020, 22:39 last edited by
@Copper said in Hey, Trump bashers:
Well if rolling stone says so, that ends the discussion.
Especially nine years ago.
-
wrote on 29 Oct 2020, 22:42 last edited by
@Copper said in Hey, Trump bashers:
Well if rolling stone says so, that ends the discussion.
Typical retort. Dont like the message, shoot the messenger. You really do have much in common with trump. Fucking ostrich
-
@Copper said in Hey, Trump bashers:
Well if rolling stone says so, that ends the discussion.
Typical retort. Dont like the message, shoot the messenger. You really do have much in common with trump. Fucking ostrich
wrote on 29 Oct 2020, 22:51 last edited by@nobodyssock said in Hey, Trump bashers:
@Copper said in Hey, Trump bashers:
Well if rolling stone says so, that ends the discussion.
Typical retort. Dont like the message, shoot the messenger. You really do have much in common with trump. Fucking ostrich
Nothing like making your point with name-calling.
But, seriously, try to find something more current (it's not that hard) on wealth of Red vs Blue states and see how they lean politically.
Look at the big donors that contribute to political campaigns and see where the money goes. That's not hard either.
Slogans are easy, facts are a bit more difficult.
You can start here: https://capitalresearch.org/article/party-one-percent/
Top 300 zip codes nationwide (representing the top 1.4 percent of socio-economic status):
Democrats $71 million
Republicans $47 million
(60 percent Democratic)Big Four metropolitan areas’ zip codes in top 5 percent by socio-economic status:
Democrats $77 million
Republicans $42 million
(65 percent Democratic)Big Four central-city zip codes in top 5 percent of socio-economic status:
Democrats $48 million
Republicans $21 million
(70 percent Democratic)These data are powerful evidence that affluent Americans in the most elite locales contribute significantly more money to Democrats than Republicans. The data also show that Democrats raise a notable chunk of their campaign money in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. Democratic candidates and party officials attending affluent contributors’ fundraisers evidently have to spend a lot of time in airliners or private jets flying coast to coast across the country, while Republican candidates and party officials have to make significantly more fundraising stops, staggered across the giant landmass of America between the two coasts.
Half a century ago, many liberal commentators argued that Democrats, as the party whose policies allegedly represented the interests of lower-income Americans, had an unfair disadvantage in raising money for campaigns, because they couldn’t compete with Republicans for access to the checkbooks of the wealthy. The data presented here make clear that that argument, regardless of whether it was valid then, has no validity today.
-
@Copper said in Hey, Trump bashers:
Well if rolling stone says so, that ends the discussion.
Typical retort. Dont like the message, shoot the messenger. You really do have much in common with trump. Fucking ostrich
wrote on 29 Oct 2020, 23:00 last edited by@nobodyssock said in Hey, Trump bashers:
@Copper said in Hey, Trump bashers:
Well if rolling stone says so, that ends the discussion.
Typical retort. Dont like the message, shoot the messenger. You really do have much in common with trump. Fucking ostrich
Now I feel stupid
-
@George-K said in Hey, Trump bashers:
@nobodyssock said in Hey, Trump bashers:
Hed never make it to nomination on democrat ticket.
And the woman who Biden chose dropped out before the first primary. Talk about electability, LOL.
As long as their guy protects their money
Might want to investigate who is the "Party of the Rich" these days
Dont really need to investigate something that is plain as the sky is blue.
wrote on 29 Oct 2020, 23:07 last edited by@nobodyssock said in Hey, Trump bashers:
@George-K said in Hey, Trump bashers:
@nobodyssock said in Hey, Trump bashers:
Hed never make it to nomination on democrat ticket.
And the woman who Biden chose dropped out before the first primary. Talk about electability, LOL.
As long as their guy protects their money
Might want to investigate who is the "Party of the Rich" these days
Dont really need to investigate something that is plain as the sky is blue.
2011 article? Seriously?
-
@nobodyssock said in Hey, Trump bashers:
@Copper said in Hey, Trump bashers:
Well if rolling stone says so, that ends the discussion.
Typical retort. Dont like the message, shoot the messenger. You really do have much in common with trump. Fucking ostrich
Now I feel stupid
wrote on 29 Oct 2020, 23:09 last edited by -
@nobodyssock said in Hey, Trump bashers:
@Copper said in Hey, Trump bashers:
Well if rolling stone says so, that ends the discussion.
Typical retort. Dont like the message, shoot the messenger. You really do have much in common with trump. Fucking ostrich
Nothing like making your point with name-calling.
But, seriously, try to find something more current (it's not that hard) on wealth of Red vs Blue states and see how they lean politically.
Look at the big donors that contribute to political campaigns and see where the money goes. That's not hard either.
Slogans are easy, facts are a bit more difficult.
You can start here: https://capitalresearch.org/article/party-one-percent/
Top 300 zip codes nationwide (representing the top 1.4 percent of socio-economic status):
Democrats $71 million
Republicans $47 million
(60 percent Democratic)Big Four metropolitan areas’ zip codes in top 5 percent by socio-economic status:
Democrats $77 million
Republicans $42 million
(65 percent Democratic)Big Four central-city zip codes in top 5 percent of socio-economic status:
Democrats $48 million
Republicans $21 million
(70 percent Democratic)These data are powerful evidence that affluent Americans in the most elite locales contribute significantly more money to Democrats than Republicans. The data also show that Democrats raise a notable chunk of their campaign money in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. Democratic candidates and party officials attending affluent contributors’ fundraisers evidently have to spend a lot of time in airliners or private jets flying coast to coast across the country, while Republican candidates and party officials have to make significantly more fundraising stops, staggered across the giant landmass of America between the two coasts.
Half a century ago, many liberal commentators argued that Democrats, as the party whose policies allegedly represented the interests of lower-income Americans, had an unfair disadvantage in raising money for campaigns, because they couldn’t compete with Republicans for access to the checkbooks of the wealthy. The data presented here make clear that that argument, regardless of whether it was valid then, has no validity today.
wrote on 29 Oct 2020, 23:45 last edited by@George-K said in Hey, Trump bashers:
@nobodyssock said in Hey, Trump bashers:
@Copper said in Hey, Trump bashers:
Well if rolling stone says so, that ends the discussion.
Typical retort. Dont like the message, shoot the messenger. You really do have much in common with trump. Fucking ostrich
Nothing like making your point with name-calling.
But, seriously, try to find something more current (it's not that hard) on wealth of Red vs Blue states and see how they lean politically.
Look at the big donors that contribute to political campaigns and see where the money goes. That's not hard either.
Slogans are easy, facts are a bit more difficult.
You can start here: https://capitalresearch.org/article/party-one-percent/
Top 300 zip codes nationwide (representing the top 1.4 percent of socio-economic status):
Democrats $71 million
Republicans $47 million
(60 percent Democratic)Big Four metropolitan areas’ zip codes in top 5 percent by socio-economic status:
Democrats $77 million
Republicans $42 million
(65 percent Democratic)Big Four central-city zip codes in top 5 percent of socio-economic status:
Democrats $48 million
Republicans $21 million
(70 percent Democratic)These data are powerful evidence that affluent Americans in the most elite locales contribute significantly more money to Democrats than Republicans. The data also show that Democrats raise a notable chunk of their campaign money in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. Democratic candidates and party officials attending affluent contributors’ fundraisers evidently have to spend a lot of time in airliners or private jets flying coast to coast across the country, while Republican candidates and party officials have to make significantly more fundraising stops, staggered across the giant landmass of America between the two coasts.
Half a century ago, many liberal commentators argued that Democrats, as the party whose policies allegedly represented the interests of lower-income Americans, had an unfair disadvantage in raising money for campaigns, because they couldn’t compete with Republicans for access to the checkbooks of the wealthy. The data presented here make clear that that argument, regardless of whether it was valid then, has no validity today.
The hypocrisy here is mindnumbing. The resident redneck calls people names here on a daily basis here. Far worse names than ostrich. But his politics align with yours, thus the pass.
-
wrote on 29 Oct 2020, 23:51 last edited by
It's because the resident redneck is a lot smarter and more interesting than you. And you are literally incapable of proving that point wrong. But you'll flail away at it. Boy do you ever.
-
@George-K said in Hey, Trump bashers:
@nobodyssock said in Hey, Trump bashers:
@Copper said in Hey, Trump bashers:
Well if rolling stone says so, that ends the discussion.
Typical retort. Dont like the message, shoot the messenger. You really do have much in common with trump. Fucking ostrich
Nothing like making your point with name-calling.
But, seriously, try to find something more current (it's not that hard) on wealth of Red vs Blue states and see how they lean politically.
Look at the big donors that contribute to political campaigns and see where the money goes. That's not hard either.
Slogans are easy, facts are a bit more difficult.
You can start here: https://capitalresearch.org/article/party-one-percent/
Top 300 zip codes nationwide (representing the top 1.4 percent of socio-economic status):
Democrats $71 million
Republicans $47 million
(60 percent Democratic)Big Four metropolitan areas’ zip codes in top 5 percent by socio-economic status:
Democrats $77 million
Republicans $42 million
(65 percent Democratic)Big Four central-city zip codes in top 5 percent of socio-economic status:
Democrats $48 million
Republicans $21 million
(70 percent Democratic)These data are powerful evidence that affluent Americans in the most elite locales contribute significantly more money to Democrats than Republicans. The data also show that Democrats raise a notable chunk of their campaign money in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. Democratic candidates and party officials attending affluent contributors’ fundraisers evidently have to spend a lot of time in airliners or private jets flying coast to coast across the country, while Republican candidates and party officials have to make significantly more fundraising stops, staggered across the giant landmass of America between the two coasts.
Half a century ago, many liberal commentators argued that Democrats, as the party whose policies allegedly represented the interests of lower-income Americans, had an unfair disadvantage in raising money for campaigns, because they couldn’t compete with Republicans for access to the checkbooks of the wealthy. The data presented here make clear that that argument, regardless of whether it was valid then, has no validity today.
The hypocrisy here is mindnumbing. The resident redneck calls people names here on a daily basis here. Far worse names than ostrich. But his politics align with yours, thus the pass.
wrote on 30 Oct 2020, 00:03 last edited by@nobodyssock said in Hey, Trump bashers:
The resident redneck calls people names here on a daily basis here. Far worse names than ostrich. But his politics align with yours, thus the pass.
You inadvertently, I assume, missed the "fucking" in your comment.
So you criticize the person for doing exactly what you did? Is that what you're saying?
Be better.
If you can.
And thanks for not addressing any of my other points.
