I'll take "Things that never happened" for $1000, Alex. But okay, it's college Klan members. Alabammer gunna Alabammer. Got it.
My official take on Tuesday's results . . .
- Thread starter torbee
- Start date
I'll take "Things that never happened" for $1000, Alex. But okay, it's college Klan members. Alabammer gunna Alabammer. Got it.
Your first sentence said “this will be my last politics related post for a while”, then it said something after that.
I think he was talking about that second thing in your first sentence.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 98,740
- 206,694
- 113
I'll say it one more time so everyone understands, maybe I didn't articulate it correctly the first time: I will not - for some time - be posting new political threads.
I likely will still comment on some of the threads here and there however, as I am not abandoning caring about politics or my country.
OK, whatevs.
But my point was, you're still talking about the "no more political posts" part of your first sentence.
...while we were talking about the remainder of your first sentence:
"it is now abundantly clear a majority of American voters cannot think rationally about governance."
All of which I have no desire to argue with you about. Just pointing out that that's what hexumhawk's post to you on the previous page was about, you misconstrued it. I pointed that out, you misconstrued my post also.
Last edited:
You seem to be suffering from false consensus effect & confirmation bias psychology.
you are overestimating how many people share your opinion on a topic, while the majority holds a different view.
People often use their own perspective as a reference point and assume others think similarly, which can lead to misperceptions about the majority opinion. you may try looking in the mirror and or going to therapy along with medication
you are overestimating how many people share your opinion on a topic, while the majority holds a different view.
People often use their own perspective as a reference point and assume others think similarly, which can lead to misperceptions about the majority opinion. you may try looking in the mirror and or going to therapy along with medication
Being in sync with the majority is not necessarily a good thing.
but being convinced that you & only you know better than the majority is a bit delusional at least & exudes moral superiority.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 98,740
- 206,694
- 113
I don't give a shit who agrees with my opinion. I am just sharing it via written essay.
You really just need to grab that feces hurling monkey gif that somebody posted yesterday under the Planet of the Apes thread and utilize it liberally going forward.
Agreed but the GOP hasn't done anything either thus my post. I guess complaining about the working class workers' situations is enough to make them believe that the GOP is actually is doing something for them, yet they aren't and will ride Biden bringing inflation down and handing over a good economy for Trump.
If Trump would have won four years ago, I'd bet the country would be worse off than it is now and the love fest for Trump wouldn't exist.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 98,740
- 206,694
- 113
I think this is one of the best post-election follow ups I've read as it pertains to the failures and shortcomings of the Democrats since 2016. Most of this is spot on:
Democrats Deserved to Lose
They have tried to do a zillion different things and done them badly, at great expense.By Josh Barro
By electing Donald Trump again, the American electorate has made a bad decision, one that will expose our country to unreasonable risks in areas from foreign policy to public health. Fiscal policy will get worse—budget deficits will become even larger, keeping interest rates high, and programs that provide health care to the poor and elderly are likely to be trimmed back to finance tax cuts for rich people. Abortion rights are likely to be further restricted by a hostile administration that uses the powers of the FDA and the Department of Justice to make abortion harder to provide. And we’ll have another four years under Trump’s exhausting, mercurial, and divisive leadership, making our politics nastier and stupider.
I wish the election had gone the other way. I am annoyed. That said, when Trump won eight years ago, I was much more than annoyed. I was really upset and shocked. This time is different, because Americans have been through this before, and I expect we’ll get through it again. But it’s also different because there’s a big part of me that feels Democrats deserved to lose this election, even if Trump did not deserve to win it.
I write this from New York City, where we are governed by Democrats and we pay the highest taxes in the country, which doesn’t mean we receive the best government services. Our transportation agencies are black holes for money, unable to deliver on their capital plans despite repeated increases in the dedicated taxes that fund them, because building a subway line here costs four times as much per mile as it does in France, and because union rules force the agency to overstaff itself, inflating operating costs. Half of bus riders don’t pay the fare, and MTA employees don’t try to make them. Emotionally disturbed homeless people camp out on the transit system—the other day, I was on a bus where one shouted repeatedly at another passenger that he was a “******.” And even though police are all over the place (at great taxpayer expense), they don’t do much about these disturbances, and I can’t entirely blame them since our government lacks the legal authority to keep troubled people either in jail or in treatment. The city cannot stop people from shoplifting, so most of the merchandise at pharmacies is in locked cabinets. A judge recently said the city can’t even padlock the illegal cannabis stores that have popped up all over the place—that’s apparently unconstitutional, and so years into what was supposed to be the “wokest” legal cannabis regime in the country, our government still can’t figure out how to make sure that people who sell weed have a license to do so, even though they’ve done that with regard to alcohol forever.
Ever since the COVID shutdowns, Democrats here have stopped talking very much about the importance of investing in public education, but the schools remain really expensive for taxpayers even as families move away, enrollment declines, and chronic absenteeism remains elevated. Currently, we are under a state-court order to spend billions of our dollars to house migrants in Midtown hotels that once housed tourists and business travelers. Housing costs are insane because the city makes building anything very hard—and visiting here is really expensive, too, partly because so many hotels are now full of migrants, and partly because the city council made building new hotels functionally illegal. And as a result of all of this, New York is shedding population—the state will probably lose three more congressional districts in the next reapportionment. And where are people moving to? To Sun Belt states, mostly run by Republicans, where building housing and growing the economy is still possible.
Meanwhile, the voters of New York have just adopted an equal-rights amendment to the state constitution, which was put on the ballot by the Democrat-controlled state legislature. One effect of this amendment is to create a state constitutional right to abortion. Of course, abortion was already legal in New York, and a state constitutional provision will not override any new federal laws or regulations that Republicans might impose with their new control in Washington. This is exactly the sort of brain-dead symbolism that exemplifies the Democrats who rule our state: They pat themselves on the back for a formalistic, legal declaration of the rights of the people who live here, and meanwhile, people of all races and identities flee New York for other, officially less “inclusive” places where they can actually afford a decent quality of life.
I am unfortunately a Democrat, but as someone who lives in a place that is governed very badly by Democrats, I can easily understand why “Can you imagine what incompetent, lunatic shit those people will do if they get control of the government?” would fall flat as an argument against Republicans. It doesn’t surprise me that the very largest swings away from Democrats in this post-COVID, post–George Floyd, post-inflation election occurred in blue states. The gap between Democrats’ promise of better living through better government and their failure to actually deliver better government has been a national political problem. So when Republicans made a pitch to change all this (or even burn it all down), it didn’t fall flat.
Right before Election Day, Ross Douthat wrote a column for The New York Times that left me quite uneasy. It was about the campaign signs he was seeing all over New Haven that read Harris-Walz 2024: Obviously. Douthat started with a point that’s almost tautological: Because the election appeared close, by definition neither candidate was the obvious choice. And he looked at why the decision would not be obvious to so many voters, writing:
Many voters believe these promises were broken. Of course, the most politically significant aspect of the instability has been post-COVID inflation—a global problem that has taken out incumbent governments of the right and left all over the world. Inflation is mostly not Democrats’ fault, though they did exacerbate it by overstimulating the economy with the American Rescue Plan, and then they failed to focus early enough on inflation as the key economic problem of this administration.
To be precise, the ARP, passed in early 2021, constituted an unnecessary $2 trillion stimulus that mostly produced inflation rather than real GDP growth. Then, throughout 2022, even as inflation started to bite, Democrats were still looking for every way they could find to spend as much money as possible to satisfy interest-group constituencies. Even the so-called Inflation Reduction Act, which was supposed to reduce inflation by reducing the deficit, is currently increasing the deficit by tens of billions of dollars a year and, if left unchanged, will continue to do so through 2027. The deficit reduction does not begin until 2028, far too late to be politically relevant for Joe Biden’s Democrats.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 98,740
- 206,694
- 113
The other big destabilizer is the migrant crisis, which was born out of this administration’s fecklessness—Biden rapidly reversing Trump’s immigration executive orders upon entering office without any plan for controlling the border and apparently without realizing that migrants are smart, and will be more likely to come if you make clear that coming very likely means they will get to stay. (A failure to consider incentives is a running theme when Democrats fail.) Democrats did not pivot to enforcement until far too late—and not until after Texas Governor Greg Abbott made the crisis a blue-state issue by bussing migrants here en masse to fill Democrats’ hotels and consume Democratic budgets.
On the “insanity” front, Douthat cites the political movement in the aftermath of George Floyd’s murder, responses to COVID, and trans-youth medicine—all areas where liberals’ moral fervor has caused them to lose sight of whether the ideologically driven courses they had taken were actually producing the intended positive effects. Democrats know they paid a price for “Defund the police” and they have mostly learned their lesson, or at least they will now, because several high-profile “progressive” prosecutors lost their blue-city posts this week. On the COVID restrictions, Democrats have not really reckoned with how off-putting a lot of the busybody moralizing was, but this issue will likely simply fade with time.
As for trans issues, I have been skeptical about their political salience—although I don’t believe that Lia Thomas belonged on the Penn women’s swim team, I also can’t imagine casting a vote based on my views about that story. But Kamala Harris’s 2019 declaration to the ACLU that she would have the government pay for gender-affirming surgeries for prisoners and people held in immigration detention became a major attack line against her in this campaign. That’s because it highlights several problems with the party’s image all at once: Here was the Democratic nominee, bowing to pressure from interest groups to look for ways to spend your tax dollars on the most bespoke concern of a criminal, or of a noncitizen who isn’t even supposed to be here, before thinking about you and your interests. But the truly grim irony about the political cost of this promise is that, of course, the federal government that only got seven electric-vehicle-charging stations built in two years has performed zero transgender surgeries on detained migrants. That’s the Democrats in a nutshell: the party that promises trans surgeries for undocumented immigrants but doesn’t deliver them.
And all of this is why I think Democrats’ approach to the cost-of-living issues that have dominated this campaign has fallen so flat. The Democratic argument is, more or less, “look at all my programs”—all of the things I’m going to have the government do to make life easier for you. In some cases, they have a clear track record to run on: The Affordable Care Act has gotten more popular over time, and the expanded subsidies that reduce the premiums most Americans pay to buy individual plans on the exchanges have increased enrollment. But mostly, I think Americans look around at how it goes when the government actually tries to help, and they have a healthy skepticism about how helpful the government is really going to be, and about whether the benefits are really going to flow to them. Democrats are making too many promises; they have tried to do a zillion different things and done them badly at great expense, as was the approach with the moribund Build Back Better Act. They instead need to pick a few things for the government to do really well, with a focus on benefits to the broad public rather than to the people being paid to provide the services.
Although I think Harris should have picked Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro as her running mate, I don’t think choosing him would have changed the outcome. But Shapiro is a popular swing-state governor who will be a front-runner for the 2028 nomination. And Shapiro’s signature policy achievement is rebuilding a highway underpass. There is a lesson here: When government focuses on its core responsibilities and delivers on them quickly, efficiently, and with a laser focus on making sure people can go about their lives as normal, the voters reward that. You don’t need a grand vision; you need to execute.
Winning the next federal election is important. For that reason, it is important that Democrats get the voters to believe they deserve to win that election. They have two years to work on it before the midterms.
On the “insanity” front, Douthat cites the political movement in the aftermath of George Floyd’s murder, responses to COVID, and trans-youth medicine—all areas where liberals’ moral fervor has caused them to lose sight of whether the ideologically driven courses they had taken were actually producing the intended positive effects. Democrats know they paid a price for “Defund the police” and they have mostly learned their lesson, or at least they will now, because several high-profile “progressive” prosecutors lost their blue-city posts this week. On the COVID restrictions, Democrats have not really reckoned with how off-putting a lot of the busybody moralizing was, but this issue will likely simply fade with time.
As for trans issues, I have been skeptical about their political salience—although I don’t believe that Lia Thomas belonged on the Penn women’s swim team, I also can’t imagine casting a vote based on my views about that story. But Kamala Harris’s 2019 declaration to the ACLU that she would have the government pay for gender-affirming surgeries for prisoners and people held in immigration detention became a major attack line against her in this campaign. That’s because it highlights several problems with the party’s image all at once: Here was the Democratic nominee, bowing to pressure from interest groups to look for ways to spend your tax dollars on the most bespoke concern of a criminal, or of a noncitizen who isn’t even supposed to be here, before thinking about you and your interests. But the truly grim irony about the political cost of this promise is that, of course, the federal government that only got seven electric-vehicle-charging stations built in two years has performed zero transgender surgeries on detained migrants. That’s the Democrats in a nutshell: the party that promises trans surgeries for undocumented immigrants but doesn’t deliver them.
And all of this is why I think Democrats’ approach to the cost-of-living issues that have dominated this campaign has fallen so flat. The Democratic argument is, more or less, “look at all my programs”—all of the things I’m going to have the government do to make life easier for you. In some cases, they have a clear track record to run on: The Affordable Care Act has gotten more popular over time, and the expanded subsidies that reduce the premiums most Americans pay to buy individual plans on the exchanges have increased enrollment. But mostly, I think Americans look around at how it goes when the government actually tries to help, and they have a healthy skepticism about how helpful the government is really going to be, and about whether the benefits are really going to flow to them. Democrats are making too many promises; they have tried to do a zillion different things and done them badly at great expense, as was the approach with the moribund Build Back Better Act. They instead need to pick a few things for the government to do really well, with a focus on benefits to the broad public rather than to the people being paid to provide the services.
Although I think Harris should have picked Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro as her running mate, I don’t think choosing him would have changed the outcome. But Shapiro is a popular swing-state governor who will be a front-runner for the 2028 nomination. And Shapiro’s signature policy achievement is rebuilding a highway underpass. There is a lesson here: When government focuses on its core responsibilities and delivers on them quickly, efficiently, and with a laser focus on making sure people can go about their lives as normal, the voters reward that. You don’t need a grand vision; you need to execute.
Winning the next federal election is important. For that reason, it is important that Democrats get the voters to believe they deserve to win that election. They have two years to work on it before the midterms.
And then replying to everyone who disagrees with you telling them you dont give a shit...
Now there is the old Torbee folks! Well reasoned, very well spoken and kept his partisanship in check. Welcome back!
- Sep 13, 2002
- 98,740
- 206,694
- 113
It's called arguing and debating. How dumb are you?
Wait, don't bother answering, you are a Trump voter. We already know.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 98,740
- 206,694
- 113
- Sep 13, 2002
- 98,740
- 206,694
- 113
One party nominated a felon.
One nominated a prosecutor.
More proof of how stupid you people are..
Yet the stupid ones are controlling all three houses after killing it in the election, so how smart are you guys really?
- Sep 13, 2002
- 98,740
- 206,694
- 113
Be embarrassed by yourself because your side did this to yourselves for in the end the country said **** off to your radical liberalism.
And like the author of that tweet said, you're clueless to why.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 98,740
- 206,694
- 113
Nah.
I’m just following up on what HL Mencken said 100 or so years ago:
“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”
You dipshits did it TWICE 😂
What can I say, sometimes the morons win.
But you guys still lost and to morons.
So what does that make you guys, the losers to morons.....twice.
I liked your post because I think you raise some valid points, although I don't agree with all of them. I also think Torbee raises some valid points. First, where we differ. I do think that what happens in Washington can and does have very real impacts on us and also the people we care about. I am pretty disappointed that this nation saw fit to elect a person like Trump again, but I am not wallowing in a puddle of my own tears. I have never cared for the guy, I think this great country deserves a far more serious and disciplined leader, and his behavior after his 2020 defeat confirmed for me that I would never support his elevation to any position of power.
I agree that a vote for Trump doesn't in itself make one a bad person. I agree with the notion that this too shall pass, but I admit that I struggle to understand how so many of my fellow Americans can be so comfortable with a person like Trump wielding so much power. I don't expect the wholesale collapse of our democratic republic, but he has tested its limits and I worry that he will continue to do so. I pray that this administration has some serious and committed public servants in it to constrain some of what I view as Trump's negative impulses and lack of maturity or discipline. Nonetheless, I respect the right of my fellow citizens to make their own decisions, as flawed as I think those may be.
I am not a member of either party, as neither represents all of my views, but I agree with a fair number of conservative proposals, especially at the federal level which I think should adhere in many aspects to the more limited role envisioned by the framers. I suspect if we all weren't sorted by media and partisan interests, and our own willingness to fall for it, into these red and blue jerseys, we would actually agree on a majority of policy positions. That to me is the most unfortunate aspect of our current reality.
I agree with your conception of American exceptionalism. We are exceptional as a nation among nations for many reasons, especially the promise of continually improving through the voice of the people, but we are far from perfect. It's an important difference and I suspect why the framers put the somewhat oxymoronic phrase "a more perfect union" into our Constitution's preamble.
But perhaps most of all, I agree with the spirit of your post. This message board is a tiny microcosm of American life, and most of us have anonymous screen names. But even in person, we have lost a lot of our ability to have civil and reasoned discussions about policy or world events, instead retreating back to the ideological space where we feel most comfortable and sure. There is little about human existence that is simple, easy, or comfortable. I think this media diet provides a refuge for many of us from the pain that comes with being human in this world that often evades our understanding.
If nothing else, I guess I am encouraged by the passion for this country and it's future that is shown on this board. Except for the obvious trolls on either side, I can't imagine anyone expending such effort if they didn't truly care about our country and it's people, even if the policy and candidate preferences vary widely.
I appreciate your post, and I hope that this board can have some civil and even productive discussions. Anyway it's past time for Hawkeye football. Enjoy the game Hawk fans.
Last edited:
Well, reading through the board this morning, just forget it. Enjoy the hate and division.
Twice with Trump.
Twice more with W.
Hmm, do you think part of the reason why Mittens and McCain lost is because they weren't dumb enough for their base?
Letters from an American
Heather Cox Richardson
Nov 09, 2024
Social media has been flooded today with stories of Trump voters who are shocked to learn that tariffs will raise consumer prices as reporters are covering that information. Daniel Laguna of LevelUp warned that Trump’s proposed 60% tariff on Chinese imports could raise the costs of gaming consoles by 40%, so that a PS5 Pro gaming system would cost up to $1,000. One of the old justifications for tariffs was that they would bring factories home, but when the $3 billion shoe company Steve Madden announced yesterday it would reduce its imports from China by half to avoid Trump-promised tariffs, it said it will shift production not to the U.S., but to Cambodia, Vietnam, Mexico, and Brazil.
There are also stories that voters who chose Trump to lower household expenses are unhappy to discover that their undocumented relatives are in danger of deportation. When CNN’s Dana Bash asked Indiana Republican senator-elect Jim Banks if undocumented immigrants who had been here for a long time and integrated into the community would be deported, Banks answered that deportation should include “every illegal in this country that we can find.” Yesterday a Trump-appointed federal judge struck down a policy established by the Biden administration that was designed to create an easier path to citizenship for about half a million undocumented immigrants who are married to U.S. citizens.
Meanwhile, Trump’s advisors told Jim VandeHei and MIke Allen of Axios that Trump wasted valuable time at the beginning of his first term and that they will not make that mistake again. They plan to hit the ground running with tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, deregulation, and increased gas and oil production. Trump is looking to fill the top ranks of the government with “billionaires, former CEOs, tech leaders and loyalists.”
After the election, the wealth of Trump-backer Elon Musk jumped about $13 billion, making him worth $300 billion. Musk, who has been in frequent contact with Russian president Vladimir Putin, joined a phone call today between President-elect Trump and Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky.
In Salon today, Amanda Marcotte noted that in states all across the country where voters backed Trump, they also voted for abortion rights, higher minimum wage, paid sick and family leave, and even to ban employers from forcing their employees to sit through right-wing or anti-union meetings. She points out that 12% of voters in Missouri voted both for abortion rights and for Trump.
Marcotte recalled that Catherine Rampell and Youyou Zhou of the Washington Post showed before the election that voters overwhelmingly preferred Harris’s policies to Trump’s if they didn’t know which candidate proposed them. An Ipsos/Reuters poll from October showed that voters who were misinformed about immigration, crime, and the economy tended to vote Republican, while those who knew the facts preferred Democrats. Many Americans turn for information to social media or to friends and family who traffic in conspiracy theories. As Angelo Carusone of Media Matters put it: “We have a country that is pickled in right-wing misinformation and rage.”
In The New Republic today, Michael Tomasky reinforced that voters chose Trump in 2024 not because of the economy or inflation, or anything else, but because of how they perceived those issues—which is not the same thing. Right-wing media “fed their audiences a diet of slanted and distorted information that made it possible for Trump to win,” Tomasky wrote. Right-wing media has overtaken legacy media to set the country’s political agenda not only because it’s bigger, but because it speaks with one voice, “and that voice says Democrats and liberals are treasonous elitists who hate you, and Republicans and conservatives love God and country and are your last line of defense against your son coming home from school your daughter.”
Tomasky noted how the work of Matthew Gertz of Media Matters shows that nearly all the crazy memes that became central campaign issues—the pet-eating story, for example, or the idea that the booming economy was terrible—came from right-wing media. In those circles, Vice President Kamala Harris was a stupid, crazed extremist who orchestrated a coup against President Joe Biden and doesn’t care about ordinary Americans, while Trump is under assault and has been for years, and he’s “doing it all for you.”
Investigative reporter Miranda Green outlined how “pink slime” newspapers, which are AI generated from right-wing sites, turned voters to Trump in key swing state counties. Republican strategist Sarah Longwell, who studies focus groups, told NPR, “When I ask voters in focus groups if they think Donald Trump is an authoritarian, the #1 response by far is, ‘What is an authoritarian?’”
In a social media post, Marcotte wrote: “A lot of voters are profoundly ignorant. More so than in the past.” That jumped out to me because there was, indeed, an earlier period in our history when voters were “pickled in right-wing misinformation and rage.”
In the 1850s, white southern leaders made sure that voters did not have access to news that came from outside the American South, and instead steeped them in white supremacist information. They stopped the mail from carrying abolitionist pamphlets, destroyed presses of antislavery newspapers, and drove antislavery southerners out of their region.
Elite enslavers had reason to be concerned about the survival of their system of human enslavement. The land boom of the 1840s, when removal of Indigenous peoples had opened up rich new lands for settlement, had priced many white men out of the market. They had become economically unstable, roving around the country working for wages or stealing to survive. And they deeply resented the fabulously wealthy enslavers who they knew looked down on them.
In 1857, North Carolinian Hinton Rowan Helper wrote a book attacking enslavement. No friend to his Black neighbors, Helper was a virulent white supremacist. But in The Impending Crisis of the South: How to Meet It, he used modern statistics to prove that slavery destroyed economic opportunity for white men, and assailed “the illbreeding and ruffianism of the slaveholding officials.” He noted that voters in the South who did not own slaves outnumbered by far those who did. "Give us fair play, secure to us the right of discussion, the freedom of speech, and we will settle the difficulty at the ballot-box,” he wrote.
In the North the book sold like hotcakes—142,000 copies by fall 1860. But southern leaders banned the book, and burned it, too. They arrested men for selling it and accused northerners of making war on the South. Politicians, newspaper editors, and ministers reinforced white supremacy, warned that the end of slavery would mean race war, and preached that enslavement was God’s law.
When northern voters elected Abraham Lincoln in November 1860 on a platform of containing enslavement in the South, where the sapped soil would soon cut into production, southern leaders decided—usually without the input of voters—to secede from the Union. As leaders promised either that there wouldn’t be a fight, or that if a fight happened it would be quick and painless, poor southern whites rallied to the cause of creating a nation based on white supremacy, reassured by South Carolina senator James Chesnut’s vow that he would personally drink all the blood shed in any threatened civil war.
When Confederate forces fired on Fort Sumter in April 1861, poor white men set out for what they had come to believe was an imperative cause to protect their families and their way of life. By 1862 their enthusiasm had waned, and leaders passed a conscription law. That law permitted wealthy men to hire a substitute and exempted one man to oversee every 20 enslaved men, providing another way for rich men to keep their sons out of danger. Soldiers complained it was a “rich man’s war and a poor man’s fight.”
By 1865 the Civil War had killed or wounded 483,026 men out of a southern white population of about five and a half million people. U.S. armies had pushed families off their lands, and wartime inflation drove ordinary people to starvation. By 1865, wives wrote to their soldier husbands to come home or there would be no one left to come home to.
Even those poor white men who survived the war could not rebuild into prosperity. The war took from the South its monopoly of global cotton production, locking poor southerners into profound poverty from which they would not begin to recover until the 1930s, when the New Deal began to pour federal money into the region.
Today, when I received a slew of messages gloating that Trump had won the election and that Republican voters had owned the libs, I could not help but think of that earlier era when ordinary white men sold generations of economic aspirations for white supremacy and bragging rights.
LMAO! You're an idiot, like most of you echo chamber libtards, there is no accountability for the stupidity you support and why Trump just won. You've been consistently lied to for years about Trump and you've done no self-reflection, nor will you ever do so.This will likely be my last politics-related post for awhile as it is now abundantly clear a majority of American voters cannot think rationally about governance.
So I'll stick to sports, booze, fishing and other topics that interest me for the time being.
But in case you are wondering what my take is on what just happened, feel free to read it here:
Who are we?
The "American Experiment" is entering a dangerous part of the laboratorytorybrecht.substack.com
It's pathetic and I feel sorry for your lack of ability to come back to reality. Glad you're going away, maybe life will teach you a lesson soon and you'll come back a better person for it.
This will likely be my last politics-related post for awhile as it is now abundantly clear a majority of American voters cannot think rationally about governance.
So I'll stick to sports, booze, fishing and other topics that interest me for the time being.
But in case you are wondering what my take is on what just happened, feel free to read it here:
Who are we?
The "American Experiment" is entering a dangerous part of the laboratory
Not reading but is the thesis how you were dead ass wrong? That you are out of touch with reality? That you have no clue what you are talking about and people shouldn’t listen to you about politics ever again?
Something along those lines I’m assuming, right?
Agree totally on Trump and Dubya; definitely not Mensa material.
But if you think Bathhouse Barry and Joey B are any different you’re delusional.
The bar has been set low and the idiocy is systemic.
Similar threads
