Follow
Donate to HeyBucket.com - Amount:

Welcome Anonymous !

Your Fastpitch Softball Bible
 

The Pub

Shooting at Ohio St

Off topic. Home for jokes and other misc. stuff.
Keep it reasonable.

by Sam » Mon Dec 12, 2016 8:23 pm

PDad wrote:
Sam wrote:
PDad wrote:
Sam wrote:You might want to exhibit some humility over the landslide win that wouldn't have happened without Wikileaks and the stupid democratic team surrounding the most seriously flawed candidate ever to run for president.

You might want to dial back on that - we can argue over who was the most flawed ever. Undisputed is they both had the highest unfavorable poll numbers ever, however that doesn't go back very far.

I don't recall anyone running that was under imminent threat of federal indictment for failure to protect sensitive Govt information and for selling access/participating in bribery of the State Department.

You got somebody more flawed?

A lot of us thought HRC should have been indicted, however the odds were very long against it because she avoided incriminating herself and was protected by the WH. Nixon in '72 was under the Watergate cloud that ultimately resulted in him resigning and being pardoned.

Losers of biggest landslides would count as more flawed candidates, at least in the context of those elections. I'm confident there are candidates that are/were more flawed on a personal level, especially when you consider independents and minor parties.


I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Clinton lost the primary on 2008 to an accomplish-less senator with no experience other than being a community organizer when she was supposed to run away with the nomination and the general election. She then proceeded to barely win the nomination this year when the primary was fixed by her party and lost the general election to a guy who had less political experience than Obama. The criminality she has engaged in was ignored by political hacks in the Justice Department but not by voters. Those of us in the DoD know full well that her State Department emails and attachments were classified and any regular person doing the same deeds would already be in jail. Her arguments about information sent to her being not marked as classified are the most laughable. She was a classification official, the top such person at the State Department. She is trained to recognize classified information and attach proper classification designation. The FBI allowed her to argue the unarguable. The circumstantial evidence of her selling her office is even more mountainous......but I digress.

Nixon won in a real landslide, losing only MA and Washington DC. Flawed, but his offenses involving the coverup have only been perfected by the Clintons.

Hillary is the most flawed because she lost twice, overcoming overwhelming odds that she would win all the above-referenced elections. One could even argue that she would have lost the primary this year to Sanders had there been an even playing field.

Perhaps our personal definitions of "flawed" vary.
Run your mouth when I'm not around
Its easy to achieve
You cry to weak friends that sympathize
- Pantera, Walk
User avatar
Sam
Premium Member
Premium Member
 
Posts: 3174
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 8:22 am
Location: Norco, California

by Skarp » Tue Dec 13, 2016 11:12 am

PDad wrote:I guess we'll have to take your word on publicly supporting Trump from the beginning since that was during your 2-year gap of not posting on here (i.e. Feb 2014 to Apr 26, 2016).

And what was I saying on April 26? You should know:

Skarp wrote:
PDad wrote:Do the Cruzers eventually get down to Bernie's $27 or MoveOn's $3 donations?

I'd love to hear Skarp's take on the other 4 candidates. Was he surprised a self-identified Socialist would challenge for the Dem nomination in 2016? Many of us figured it wouldn't happen until later.

My take on the other 4 candidates is that there are no other candidates. Trump is a man uniquely qualified for this task at this time. I thought he was going to be a joke too...until he started talking. I am now in absolute awe of the man. The media, the establishment, the billionaire donor class, the cancer of political correctness--he is single-handedly burning it ALL down.

Cruz is an abortion. Even supposing he could get elected (which he can't), he wouldn't be able to get anything done. His peers despise him, and he's got the popular appeal of a slug. Trump will go in with a mandate, and will have the ability to appeal directly to the electorate when congress tries to obstruct his agenda--much like Reagan was able to do.

Kasich isn't even worth talking about. Complete disaster, ala Bush, Rubio, etc.

Actually I did see a socialist coming, but I thought it would be Fauxcahontas--and I expected her to win the nomination. This was always going to be a populist election cycle. What is stunning is how completely clueless the establishment/pundits/media have been as this phenomenon has unfolded. These people have zero understanding of what it means to be a real person in the real world. They are yesterday's men, and they deserve to look as stupid as they do.

Hillary Clinton is a terminally flawed, uber-establishment candidate, and Donald Trump is an unparalleled master at identifying and branding flaws. He is the apotheosis of "alpha-male." The man doesn't even understand the concept of defense. We've got months of popcorn-munching joy ahead of us:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/27/democ ... baby-seal/

But maybe before he dropped out I was all-in for Jeb!, and I'm just lying about it now, to, you know, look really cool on Heybucket.
There is no charge for awesomeness
...or attractiveness.
User avatar
Skarp
Premium Member
Premium Member
 
Posts: 3141
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 6:10 pm

by Skarp » Tue Dec 13, 2016 11:26 am

PDad wrote:I call BS on your claim of "tens of thousands" since they started 21-25 years ago and Kasich is only responsible for 5 years (i.e. 2011-2015) and the annual number of ALL refugees since 2012 is 2,000.

Fair enough. I do have hyperbolic tendencies. That said, are you saying the annual number for ALL refugees is 2,000 for the U.S., or 2,000 for Ohio? Refugee Resettlement Watch has the total number for Ohio alone to be 21,230 in the last 10 years, and over 2,000 per year since 2012.

https://refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com/2015/07/18/lets-have-a-look-at-ohio/

That's about 21,230 too many by my count, and at least 1 too many by OSU's count. But, prior to last November, it was not nearly enough by the count of one John R. Kasich. Perhaps it's just that you agree(d) with him?
There is no charge for awesomeness
...or attractiveness.
User avatar
Skarp
Premium Member
Premium Member
 
Posts: 3141
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 6:10 pm

by Skarp » Tue Dec 13, 2016 12:04 pm

Sam wrote:You might want to exhibit some humility over the landslide win that wouldn't have happened without Wikileaks and the stupid democratic team surrounding the most seriously flawed candidate ever to run for president.

Well let's see, here's me in April, specifically referencing HRC's terrible flaws:

Skarp wrote:Hillary Clinton is a terminally flawed, uber-establishment candidate, and Donald Trump is an unparalleled master at identifying and branding flaws. He is the apotheosis of "alpha-male." The man doesn't even understand the concept of defense. We've got months of popcorn-munching joy ahead of us:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/27/democ ... baby-seal/


And here's you in October, gnashing your teeth over grabbed pooty:

Sam wrote:
Skarp wrote:
Sam wrote:Still taking bets? The media held onto the latest videotape until they thought Trump was gaining traction. We Conservatives picked the wrong guy with the right message. Now our country will suffer for generations, depending on how many Supreme Court justices she gets to appoint. Ryan and McConnell will continue to fold like cheap suits: open borders, jobs leaving the country, welfare for everyone, depressed wages, and terrorist attacks at home. Cruz would have destroyed her and had the coat tails to carry the house and the senate. Hate to say I told you so, but.......


But I'm the one who should show humility? Umm, okay...

By the way, when you said "We Conservatives picked the wrong guy with the right message," who were you proposing? There was no other candidate running on even a remotely similar set of issues.

Cruz would have been annihilated by Clinton. You think millions of working class whites across the rust belt would have crossed over to vote for that?? No way.
There is no charge for awesomeness
...or attractiveness.
User avatar
Skarp
Premium Member
Premium Member
 
Posts: 3141
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 6:10 pm

by Sam » Tue Dec 13, 2016 3:16 pm

Skarp wrote:
Sam wrote:You might want to exhibit some humility over the landslide win that wouldn't have happened without Wikileaks and the stupid democratic team surrounding the most seriously flawed candidate ever to run for president.

Well let's see, here's me in April, specifically referencing HRC's terrible flaws:

Skarp wrote:Hillary Clinton is a terminally flawed, uber-establishment candidate, and Donald Trump is an unparalleled master at identifying and branding flaws. He is the apotheosis of "alpha-male." The man doesn't even understand the concept of defense. We've got months of popcorn-munching joy ahead of us:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/27/democ ... baby-seal/


And here's you in October, gnashing your teeth over grabbed pooty:

Sam wrote:
Skarp wrote:
Sam wrote:Still taking bets? The media held onto the latest videotape until they thought Trump was gaining traction. We Conservatives picked the wrong guy with the right message. Now our country will suffer for generations, depending on how many Supreme Court justices she gets to appoint. Ryan and McConnell will continue to fold like cheap suits: open borders, jobs leaving the country, welfare for everyone, depressed wages, and terrorist attacks at home. Cruz would have destroyed her and had the coat tails to carry the house and the senate. Hate to say I told you so, but.......


But I'm the one who should show humility? Umm, okay...

By the way, when you said "We Conservatives picked the wrong guy with the right message," who were you proposing? There was no other candidate running on even a remotely similar set of issues.

Cruz would have been annihilated by Clinton. You think millions of working class whites across the rust belt would have crossed over to vote for that?? No way.


Cruz would not have shot himself in the foot numerous times, absorbing self-inflicted wounds that set the campaign back over and over again. Cruz would have had appeal and would have won more evangelicals in those areas, especially after Trump's Billy Bush tape was released. Cruz destroys Clinton because he would have prosecuted her during the debates instead of insulting her.

As far as the humility, I have already admitted that you got very lucky with your prediction. The rest of this is all shoulda coulda woulda.
Run your mouth when I'm not around
Its easy to achieve
You cry to weak friends that sympathize
- Pantera, Walk
User avatar
Sam
Premium Member
Premium Member
 
Posts: 3174
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 8:22 am
Location: Norco, California

by PDad » Tue Dec 13, 2016 3:39 pm

Skarp wrote:But maybe before he dropped out I was all-in for Jeb!, and I'm just lying about it now, to, you know, look really cool on Heybucket.

There you go! haha For all we know, you jumped on Trump's bandwagon after Super Tuesday or seeing a few debates.
User avatar
PDad
Premium Member
Premium Member
 
Posts: 3439
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 4:52 pm

by PDad » Tue Dec 13, 2016 4:43 pm

Skarp wrote:
PDad wrote:I call BS on your claim of "tens of thousands" since they started 21-25 years ago and Kasich is only responsible for 5 years (i.e. 2011-2015) and the annual number of ALL refugees since 2012 is 2,000.

Fair enough. I do have hyperbolic tendencies. That said, are you saying the annual number for ALL refugees is 2,000 for the U.S., or 2,000 for Ohio? Refugee Resettlement Watch has the total number for Ohio alone to be 21,230 in the last 10 years, and over 2,000 per year since 2012.

https://refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com/2015/07/18/lets-have-a-look-at-ohio/

That's about 21,230 too many by my count...

I take it math isn't one of your strong suits... "ALL" as in all nationalities, which is significant since the topic is Muslims.

The link to the 10-yr database doesn't work, however the article says 6,607 of the 21,230 were from Bhutan and I found those are predominantly Hindu, so they don't count. It is unknown how many of the rest were Muslims, especially since we're talking about refugees, which often aren't members of the country's ruling class. Kasich was Gov for less than half those 10 years, so that greatly reduces the total during his terms.

But, prior to September 2015, it was not nearly enough by the count of one John R. Kasich. Perhaps it's just that you agree(d) with him?

FTFY The rest is typical Trumpie rhetoric - heavy on the insults and light on accuracy. Bottom line is Kasich and his predecessors couldn't do anything about it.
User avatar
PDad
Premium Member
Premium Member
 
Posts: 3439
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 4:52 pm

by Skarp » Tue Dec 13, 2016 4:45 pm

Sam wrote:Cruz would not have shot himself in the foot numerous times, absorbing self-inflicted wounds that set the campaign back over and over again. Cruz would have had appeal and would have won more evangelicals in those areas, especially after Trump's Billy Bush tape was released. Cruz destroys Clinton because he would have prosecuted her during the debates instead of insulting her.

As far as the humility, I have already admitted that you got very lucky with your prediction. The rest of this is all shoulda coulda woulda.

"Cruz would have had appeal..." LULZ. Cruz is one of the most unappealing people on planet earth.

Your arguments don't add up. According to you, Trump was a horribly flawed candidate who only won because he faced an even more flawed candidate. According to you (in "shoulda woulda coulda" world), Cruz would have beaten Hillary worse than Trump did. But if Trump was himself so flawed, why didn't Cruz "prosecute" a winning case against him? Trump took the Ivy League debate champion to the frickin' woodshed, repeatedly. Why? Because Trump was consistently right on the issues. Trump stood up for Americans and American values. Cruz? He was busy blaming BLM street riots on Trump's rhetoric.

As far as evangelicals are concerned, a higher percentage turned out for Trump than for any candidate in decades. Trump won evangelicals 80-16, more even than Bush in 2004 (78-21). How many more do you expect Cruz would have received?

In any event, the election was won just as I predicted it would be: by persuading white working class voters in the rust belt--i.e., traditional Dem voters (union workers, etc.)--to cross over and vote Republican. These were issue voters, not character voters. For them it was about NAFTA, and immigration. It was about jobs. It was about stopping the destruction of their communities, and their way of life. Period. What was Cruz's compelling argument to those folks? Crickets.

You never understood how Trump could win, and you still don't understand why he in fact did win. There was nothing lucky about it.
There is no charge for awesomeness
...or attractiveness.
User avatar
Skarp
Premium Member
Premium Member
 
Posts: 3141
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 6:10 pm

by PDad » Tue Dec 13, 2016 4:57 pm

Hey Skarp, how about showing us when you and/or Trump started speaking out against Muslims coming to the US. I expect it to be 10-25 years ago given the criticism you're laying on others for back then.
User avatar
PDad
Premium Member
Premium Member
 
Posts: 3439
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 4:52 pm

by Skarp » Tue Dec 13, 2016 5:25 pm

PDad wrote:I take it math isn't one of your strong suits...

I don't have any strong suits. I just fumble and bumble around.

PDad wrote:
But, prior to November 2015, it was not nearly enough by the count of one John R. Kasich. Perhaps it's just that you agree(d) with him?

FTFY The rest is typical Trumpie rhetoric - heavy on the insults and light on accuracy. Bottom line is Kasich and his predecessors couldn't do anything about it.


I did fumble and bumble across this, however: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/11/17/john-kasich-shifts-his-stand-on-accepting-refugees/

Mr. Kasich, a moderate Republican presidential candidate, has struck a more inclusive tone than his rivals on immigration but has lurched to the right in recent days on the question of taking in Syrian refugees.

In September, Mr. Kasich said it was America’s responsibility to take in Syrians on humanitarian grounds.

“I wouldn’t say to these people, ‘You can’t come in,’ ” Mr. Kasich told Fox News.

“I mean, we’ve got the Statue of Liberty that says ‘Give us your tired, your poor.’ The people who want to be free.”

He expressed a bit more reticence later that month, emphasizing the need to thoroughly vet any refugees from Syria, but still expressing support for President Obama’s plan to accept 10,000 from the war-stricken country
.


I took the liberty of fixing that back for you.

PDad wrote:It is unknown how many of the rest were Muslims...

Yeah, there's a lot we don't know about them. But hey, come on in...the more the merrier!

But you know who we don't accept from the Middle East? The people actually persecuted there: http://www.newsweek.com/us-bars-christian-not-muslim-refugees-syria-497494
There is no charge for awesomeness
...or attractiveness.
User avatar
Skarp
Premium Member
Premium Member
 
Posts: 3141
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 6:10 pm

PreviousNext

Return to The Pub