Icant_kfed
Active member
Thanks a lot douchebag, I had gone so long without seeing some dumbass skierman comment in all caps
Elections are rigged
- Thread starter foolmetwice
- Start date
SteezyYeeter
Active member
14478804:Jems said:
haha! nice! i see what you did there
SteezyYeeter
Active member
14478812:skierman said:
haha! nice roast!
"Maybe if they put forward serious candidates and supported policies that actually helped the people, they would win more elections". yeah. i agree with that you fucking retard ?
14478731:SteezyYeeter said:
Lol how? There's so many gerrymandered districts out there in places like Texas, Florida, and Ohio... Ohio's supreme court sent back legislators 5 times to draw new maps and they just gaslit them and forced their gerrymanders through.
Not to mention the Electoral college is the only way Republicans have won the presidency for the last 30 years.
If Republicans went back to their milk-toast, bank manager, limited taxes, and fiscal responsibility approach, they'd win. Constantly. Just look at the NY republicans who won this cycle - theyre generally not MAGA types, but your traditional Bush Sr. type guys. But the party as a whole has been infected with crazy ass evangelicals who want the blood of heathens and conspiracy theorists who think the government is gonna come take their guns.
I mean, even in California, when there was a recall election for Gavin Newsom a couple years ago, republicans had a real shot if they coalesced with a socially liberal, fiscal conservative in Falkner - the exact type of guy who can win in a blue state... but instead, they jumped on the train of a crackpot conservative radio personality in Larry Elder and in the end it wasn't even a contest because people dont want a disingenuous nutcase.
SteezyYeeter
Active member
14478833:PacificRimJob said:
i don't really care enough to give you a bunch of statistics or research at all because chances are you don't give a shit right?
"republicans had a real shot if they coalesced with a socially liberal" why the fuck would we want a socially liberal candidate? this is the problem with the republicans, they're all libshit pussies. ex. a bill in montana, a supposedly "red state" that would have criminilized health workers who just let failed aborted babies die outside the womb DID NOT PASS. how tf is that a red state?
SteezyYeeter
Active member
14478871:bennie07 said:
i can make any claim i want and don't need to provide evidence if i don't feel like it. even if i did provide evidence, you would say it's "misinformation".
and if the elections weren't rigged then that map would be a lot more red "imo"
73% of people are dissatisfied with the way the democrats are running the country, yet the republicans weren't able to manage to flip any important seats? i'm not blaming all of this on the elections being rigged, the republicans don't know shit when it comes to being efficient politicians so i'm not surprised.
SteezyYeeter
Active member
14478885:skierman said:
haha! nice one!
14478848:SteezyYeeter said:
Lol well if the Republicans keep putting nutjob anti-abortion/anti-LGBTQ folks up as their candidates, theyre going to keep getting absolutely bodied in places like California, Oregon, and Washington. Theyre never going to compete in states with educated, diverse populations that want social freedoms for all.
I mean, Republicans are going to barely even achieve a majority in the house (Nobody is projecting them to get more than 220 or 221 - some are still giving the Democrats a shot in hell due to west-coast upsets) simply because they keep putting up these Maga dork candidates that lots of people really don't like.
Independent Voters in swing districts/swing states don't want that drama. They just don't.
They might want lower taxes and they might not want regulations as to how or where they build their shed on their property, they might even be pro-gun, but they dont care about these whackadoo maga policies and conspiracy theories. They want common sense and good ideas. Maga doesnt bring that - All they do is tout fear and fairytales.
You want Stats? well, we saw a ton of ticket-splitting this cycle - Warnock/Kemp, DeWine/Ryan, Lombardo/Cortez-Masto, etc. These are in states where there are plenty of independents who have total drama fatigue. They want their family safe, but they also dont want this trumpy dramatic shit anymore.
Not every state is chock full of non-educated, white, evangelicals like Oklahoma or Kentucky or Idaho... and the Republicans are going to continue to fail in elections they should win if they don't come closer to the mean of public opinon. Without partisan - even illegal gerrymandering in Ohio, Florida, Texas, etc - the Democrats would be in line for another trifecta... Republicans are winning on institutional advantages - not because people approve of their policies or lack thereof.
Trump is being blamed by conservative media for a reason. People are fuckin done.
SteezyYeeter
Active member
14478931:skierman said:
oh SNAP! that's a roast if i ever saw one!
SteezyYeeter
Active member
14478933:PacificRimJob said:
Mr. RimJob laying it down on the MAGA Republicans here! Ouch!
What "common sense and good ideas" do the liberals put forth? I'll admit that I don't know much about Trump's policy because frankly, I do not fucking care, but from what I know, none of it is all that ridiculous. If he didn't act the way he did, or have his ego, or any of that, he would have won in 2020 and people just wouldn't hate him as much.
Do you really think that Florida and Texas manipulated their elections? That's pretty goofy ahh. The only states that are manipulating elections are the ones that are taking days to weeks to count votes when states like Florida *checks notes* counts them in hours. And they've been telling us for weeks not to question anything about the elections results... is that not the littlest bit suspect?
14478960:SteezyYeeter said:
Democrats in swing states that had Abortion on the ballot absolutely won... Michigan being the biggest place - Democrats there knew people were NOT down with roe being struck down. Michigan's population is for the most part not southern evangelicals who clutch their pearls any time you mention babies. These are places where independents more often than not break towards pro-choice candidates, and democrats nation-wide ran on this platform. They intend to codify roe nationally, and it's generally a popular thing. Additionally, they passed some pretty popular things such as the infrastructure bill and Biden's decision to forgive student loans.
Republicans on the other hand, often ran on maga conspiracies - like the election being stolen - or on 'INFLATION BAD DEMOCRATS BAD' which just didnt work. They offered no policies or ideas for fixing inflation themselves, and the people in these swing districts called them on it.
Florida and Texas are heavily partisan gerrymandered. I did not say they manipulated their elections, I said they gerrymandered their districts. Ohio gerrymandered it so bad that their supreme court sent back the maps FIVE TIMES and the Ohio legislature found deadline loopholes to push their bad maps through.
Florida counts them in hours because by law, they are able to begin counting upon receiving the ballots - something they installed after the 2000 election fiasco. Places like Arizona, Nevada, and California cannot begin counting until the polls close, and they are places with a lot more mail-in ballots than Florida.
Comparing how Florida counts to how other states do it and calling conspiracy is just silly. There are reps for both parties at these ballot counting offices... if any funny business was happening, it would be easily caught.
SteezyYeeter
Active member
14478977:PacificRimJob said:
i'll admit the dems are way better at scaremongering than the repubs. got everyone traumitized over a little cough (now they now they can VERY EASILY control us), and got everyone thinking that women are going to be dropping left and right after roe got struck down, thinking that this literally means the death of all women. also have every scared that the earth is going to melt in 5 years due to global warming. i'll hand it to them, they've mastered the art.
"maga conspiracies" being that the election was stolen... but thinking trump's election was stolen well, that's true!!! the russians interfered!!1111 if you don't think that trump's election was strolen pls tell me bc i would have of respect for you if you did.
yes, mail in ballots are the problem. i don't think that should be a thing. another part of the genius plan that was covid.
14478981:SteezyYeeter said:
lol the Republicans whole entire schtick is fearmongering. Theyve built their whole brand on scaring rural white people for decades. They even scared you into thinking the democrats were doing covid lockdowns to control you like some kinda MKultra bullshit lol.
Anyway, youre lost. Good luck with your nonsense.
skierman
Active member
14478988:PacificRimJob said:
Republicans - "LOCK DOWNS ARE TAKING AWAY YOUR RIGHTS AND DEMOCRATS WILL NEVER GIVE THAT POWER UP!"
Republican states remove lock downs.
Republicans - "SEE!? LOCK DOWNS ARE TAKING AWAY YOUR RIGHTS AND DEMOCRATS WILL NEVER GIVE THAT POWER UP!"
Democrat states remove lock downs.
Republicans - "I PROMISE YOU LOCK DOWNS WILL TAKE AWAY YOUR RIGHTS AND DEMOCRATS WILL NEVER GIVE THAT POWER UP!"
iH8pow
Active member
If ballots not counted on election night were fraudulent, Boebert is stealing the fuck out of her election in Colorado. Both her and Lake were getting hammered in election night tallies. But days after the election they’re still counting at a snails pace and she pulls ahead? Clear fraud! She’s stealing the election from Frisch—stop the steal!!
i don’t buy the election fraud case one bit, but one thing about CO is ballots that are rejected by date/signature have a little over a week to make a correction. Any election within .5% goes to automatic recount, so if there was any ballot fuckery where politically biased election judges tossed out ballots with any political motivation, that could come to light in recount. Maybe Boebert wins, or maybe the recount shows 70% tossed ballots were dem votes
i don’t buy the election fraud case one bit, but one thing about CO is ballots that are rejected by date/signature have a little over a week to make a correction. Any election within .5% goes to automatic recount, so if there was any ballot fuckery where politically biased election judges tossed out ballots with any political motivation, that could come to light in recount. Maybe Boebert wins, or maybe the recount shows 70% tossed ballots were dem votes
14478960:SteezyYeeter said:
Granby_killdozer
Active member
14478988:PacificRimJob said:
And the democrats' entire schtick is getting offended over words while doing their own brand of fearmongering for urbanites. shut the hell up lmao.
SteezyYeeter
Active member
14478988:PacificRimJob said:
wow fuck you man ? i thought i'd read through your long ass storybooks and be cordial but fuck you. you're literally a pedophile.
SteezyYeeter
Active member
14479028:skierman said:
plz turn caps lock off
SteezyYeeter
Active member
14479039:theLiquor said:
but i suppose you think trump's election was stolen right?
14479044:Craw_Daddy said:
Democrats have definitely fearmongered certain disadvantaged groups.. namely women in this cycle - but then again, the fear of having your bodily autonomy taken away by evangelical red states after the supreme court decision doesn't need much additional fearmongering when laws are literally being made to take away your freedom.
and it showed. Anti-abortion shit got crushed in this cycle, and it didn't even need the Democrats to push that message very far.
SteezyYeeter
Active member
14479092:PacificRimJob said:
supressing women is based. i wish that abortion did supress women but alas it doesn't. feminism does though.
14479188:SteezyYeeter said:
Lol another Not-Take from this guy.
SteezyYeeter
Active member
14479190:PacificRimJob said:
r u saying feminism isn't based?
14479192:SteezyYeeter said:
I still don't get the meaning of the slang 'based'
but feminism is legit.
PsychicMigration
Active member
14476310:VTshredder69 said:
That one didn’t age well
SteezyYeeter
Active member
14479228:PacificRimJob said:
but you don't support the suppression of women?
SteezyYeeter
Active member
14479230:PsychicMigration said:
lol fr
14479232:SteezyYeeter said:
wtf are you talking about?
SteezyYeeter
Active member
14479235:PacificRimJob said:
Shut the fuck up you fucking misogynist pig
SteezyYeeter
Active member
14479245:Jems said:
you can find them on xvideos . com
14479238:SteezyYeeter said:
Easy there, mate...
SteezyYeeter
Active member
14479269:Jems said:
bruh i aint no FUCKING CHRISTIAN i'm a catholic ?
VTshredder69
Active member
14479230:PsychicMigration said:
fuckin right
14479311:SteezyYeeter said:
Lol
"I'm not a Fucking Muslim I'm Sunni!"
"I'm not Fucking Jewish! I'm Haredi!"
"I'm not Fucking Buddhist! I'm Mahayana!"
if you believe in Jesus Christ being the son of God, you're a Christian. Whether or not you utilize a crucifix, do the sign of the cross, believe in the Virgin Mary, read the bible, etc.. youre as much a Christian if you go to a Catholic church or an Evangelical church.
In fact, as a Catholic Christian, youre doing yourself a disservice by claiming youre not a Christian - WASP churches have sewn this bullshit into the American lexicon that Protestants are the only "Christians" and "Catholics" are something else entirely, when there can be nothing further from the truth.
iH8pow
Active member
Gonna find common ground—i also think feminism is self-oppressive to women as well. All i ever hear from feminism is how women can’t do this or that cuz chauvinism or whatever. Some people have a competitive spirit and are gonna do something just because you said they can’t so this attitude works great for them, but keep in mind how many also have the polar opposite personality. Most of us ski park and have experienced—if you doubt yourself coming into a jump or rail, you’re gonna fail. If you visualize yourself making it and having confidence—you succeed.
even though Kamala has the biggest head start being VP in current admin, I still hold the belief the first woman president will be a republican. Al Gore was the last VP to make a successful attempt at VP and he lost cuz of “hanging chads”. But if Kamala runs and loses, you absolutely know the narrative will be because “she lost because she’s a woman”. Such self-marginalizing bullshit from the left. There are so many female governors in office in red states, but for some reason we keep hearing how the right marginalizes women. Idk, seems like the right elects women because they’re the best candidate. Too often when i see women running on the left, it feels more about a pity vote for the women cuz if you don’t vote for someone like Kamala or Hillary, you’re clearly a chauvinistic pig—nothing to do with policy of course…
even though Kamala has the biggest head start being VP in current admin, I still hold the belief the first woman president will be a republican. Al Gore was the last VP to make a successful attempt at VP and he lost cuz of “hanging chads”. But if Kamala runs and loses, you absolutely know the narrative will be because “she lost because she’s a woman”. Such self-marginalizing bullshit from the left. There are so many female governors in office in red states, but for some reason we keep hearing how the right marginalizes women. Idk, seems like the right elects women because they’re the best candidate. Too often when i see women running on the left, it feels more about a pity vote for the women cuz if you don’t vote for someone like Kamala or Hillary, you’re clearly a chauvinistic pig—nothing to do with policy of course…
14479188:SteezyYeeter said:
VTshredder69
Active member
I was always so fucking right wing conservative and now that I am 30 i have realized that everything is fucking bullshit.
fuck politics. Fuck republicans. fuck democrats
AND FUCK ALL OF YOU
fuck politics. Fuck republicans. fuck democrats
AND FUCK ALL OF YOU
VTshredder69
Active member
14479412:Jems said:
Fuck it all dude. Libertarians or death
14479407:theLiquor said:
Yikes, I don't know where youre building your opinions from but it seems a bit backwards.. This seems like a conservative media talking point to me, as I have heard this sorta thing stated by conservative pundits for a while now. This claim that feminism somehow cries about how women aren't being elected simply because theyre women is old-hat and incorrect. Not to mention, feminists would laugh this notion out of the room.
There are people in the media who have made some bullshit claims like "maybe voters didnt vote for her because they dont see a woman as able president - blah blah" but that is not feminism and they are not feminists. Do not conflate the two as being one in the same lol.
Hillary lost because she lacked charisma and appealed only to the party base of the older generations. I mean, I was in my 20s at the time and she didnt appeal to me at all. I saw her as a bit of a warhawk, and a bit out of touch. Bernie Sanders came out and absolutely exposed her. He's far more authentic, far better received by the progressive wing, and knew how to talk to voters on a personal level, while Hillary failed to ever show that. Independent voters far more broadly liked Bernie's appeal, and polls showed it (it might have also helped that he wasnt actually a Democrat, but I digress)
She also had 20 years of republican lambasting as well as the legacy of her husband's presidency which had been villified by right wing pundits since he dominated presidential elections in the 90s. the republican house during those years was not the bipartisan house of Tip Oneil, it was the obstructionist house of Newt Gingrich, and he spent his whole time as speaker putting the clintons under constant investigation - all he could find was a blowjob - even though he was cheating on his own spouse. Her name was already poison to voters in places outside of democrat strongholds. Couple that with the stupid email investigations, and all the Benghazi crap, and your single-issue voter was never going to even listen to what her policies were.
Hillary also lost because she had a shitty campaign. It didn't do enough to appeal her broadly to enough likely voters, even though she had the disadvantage of a same-party term-out, and thought had it in the bag because Trump was seen as unelectable in Wisconsin or Michigan and her poorly skewed internal polls said so. Democrats' hubris absolutely played a part, and this was constantly talked about - even admitted to by Hillary herself.
The idea that 'voters just voted for Obama because he's black' or 'voters didnt vote for Hillary because she's a woman' or 'you can criticize them because of identity blah blah' is a complete joke and nobody serious believes that crap. That isn't feminism, i can promise you that.
Liberals and feminists are not upset that there are women who are Republicans in power - hell, feminists are stoked to hear stories like Alabama electing it's first female senator. Sure, democrats dont like that she won, but feminists are certainly not mad that she's a woman lol.
Kamala's issue isnt that she's a woman. Not at all. It's that she doesnt really deploy anything new or show any particular charisma that sets her apart from the pack. She is seen as somewhat inexperienced, and doesnt have the same hype as other female leaders within the party. She's the VP and probably gets less hype compared to Stacy Abrams for example. Kamala was brought on by Biden to appease the progressive wing of the party, who otherwise saw Biden as old and clunky - which lets be honest, he kinda can be. It worked. He got elected, and unlike Hillary's running mate - who you probably cannot even remember (seriously, right now I don't remember his name, I just remember he's from Virginia and I think he's a Senator still) at least she's memorable for something.
If Kamala runs and loses, It will not be because she's a woman. Idiots who are not actually feminists might claim that she lost because she's a woman, but it will be because she comes off as an inexperienced, wooden clone of other people in the party - Like another Hillary. Inauthentic and trying too hard to appeal broadly without a basis or without her own charisma. She'd be far better in a congressional seat, grilling republicans during hearings. She's good at that. If she had another 4 or 6 years of doing that, and had some high profile interactions that made headlines nationally, she might have the clout to stand on her own merit, but I dont think people know her well enough yet, despite her being nationally recognized in her position.
If the first female president is a Republican, feminists will be stoked. They might not like that she's a Republican, and upholds a lot of the status quo, or is anti-choice, but they will be stoked to finally have broken that glass ceiling. You don't hear feminists who are angry that Thatcher became the first female PM lol.
Besides, this idea that feminists are only democrats and none are conservative in any way is nonsense.
Feminists don't want participation trophies dude. They don't think they're better than males, or that females are superior. Feminists just want misogynists to fuck off, and for people to take women seriously. They want equal representation, and to be equally considered for jobs. Pretty simple.
**This post was edited on Nov 14th 2022 at 3:55:12pm
iH8pow
Active member
But I’ve heard Kamala and Hillary both say—their own words—blaming losses on misogyny. So maybe purely blaming feminism isn’t accurate, just saying I don’t hear losing republican candidates blaming their losses on being a woman (you just call it a stolen election now). And I completely agree with you the negative issues about Hillary and Kamala—and that’s what’s upsetting to me—hearing a leader blaming their own gender rather than self reflection where they went wrong. That’s not the quality of a leader, neither is claming election fraud
I disagree that dems picked Kamala as VP to appease the progressives—if they did that they woulda gone with Warren or Sanders. Biden and Kamala IMO are moderate politicians, and that’s why I like them and think they were the ideal ticket to get swing voters and beat Trump. I caucused for Sanders in 2015/16, but had it been Sanders or Warren vs Trump in 2020 I do think we may be in our second term of Trump. You can’t win swing voters with far left candidates.
if GOP can shake off their Trump and election denial reputation, I think democrats are in huge trouble for 2024. At least not as big of trouble had they lost midterms as much as feared
I disagree that dems picked Kamala as VP to appease the progressives—if they did that they woulda gone with Warren or Sanders. Biden and Kamala IMO are moderate politicians, and that’s why I like them and think they were the ideal ticket to get swing voters and beat Trump. I caucused for Sanders in 2015/16, but had it been Sanders or Warren vs Trump in 2020 I do think we may be in our second term of Trump. You can’t win swing voters with far left candidates.
if GOP can shake off their Trump and election denial reputation, I think democrats are in huge trouble for 2024. At least not as big of trouble had they lost midterms as much as feared