Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 247: Election Night 2019!

Topic List	Page List: 1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
LordoftheMorons 11/11/19 7:00:44 PM #402:	Kinda hard to imagine SCOTUS ruling presidential term limits unconstitutional when the 22nd Amendment explicity institutes said term limits! --- Congrats to Advokaiser for winning the CBX Guru Challenge! <cite>LordoftheMorons posted [p:929996822] in Politics C... [t:78137127]...</cite> <quote>Kinda hard to imagine SCOTUS ruling presidential term limits unconstitutional when the 22nd Amendment explicity institutes said term limits! </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 11/11/19 7:08:49 PM #403:	I think an American dictator would do better to appoint himself to the Supreme Court 5 times. Then simply rule by judicial decree, declaring anything opposed to him to be unconstitutional. --- September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013 Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest! <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:929997164] in Politics C... [t:78137127]...</cite> <quote>I think an American dictator would do better to appoint himself to the Supreme Court 5 times. Then simply rule by judicial decree, declaring anything opposed to him to be unconstitutional.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ChaosTonyV4 11/11/19 7:23:29 PM #404:	From the Center for Economic and Policy Research: http://cepr.net/publications/reports/bolivia-elections-2019-11 The paper presents a step-by-step breakdown of what happened with Bolivias vote counts (both the unofficial quick count, and the slower official count), seeking to dispel confusion over the process. <b>The report includes the results of 500 simulations that show that Moraless first-round victory was not just possible, but probable, based on the results of the initial 83.85 percent of votes in the quick count.</b> For the record, the vote totals that the OAS claim were "inexplicable and showed tampering" just continued the trend of the first 83.85% of the vote, so yeah, I think the opinion that Morales shouldn't have run for another term is valid, but he was legally allowed to and had enough support to win, so here we are. --- Phantom Dust. "I'll just wait for time to prove me right again." - Vlado <cite>ChaosTonyV4 posted [p:929997805] in Politics C... [t:78137127]...</cite> <quote>From the Center for Economic and Policy Research: http://cepr.net/publications/reports/bolivia-elections-2019-11 <quote>The paper presents a step-by-step breakdown of what happened with Bolivias vote counts (both the unofficial quick count, and the slower official count), seeking to dispel confusion over the process. <b>The report includes the results of 500 simulations that show that Moraless first-round victory was not just possible, but probable, based on the results of the initial 83.85 percent of votes in the quick count.</b></quote> For the record, the vote totals that the OAS claim were "inexplicable and showed tampering" just continued the trend of the first 83.85% of the vote, so yeah, I think the opinion that Morales shouldn't have run for another term is valid, but he was legally allowed to and had enough support to win, so here we are. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
xp1337 11/11/19 7:26:23 PM #405:	Hey, if you guys want to remember how terrible it is here! https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/11/climate/epa-science-trump.html The EPA is preparing to institute a new proposal that is going to "significantly limit the scientific and medical research that the government can use to determine public health regulations." Basically, they're going to require scientists to turn over all their raw data including confidential medical records before the study can be considered. Which, as the article points out, is likely to make enacting new clean air and water rules far more difficult because many studies that detail links to health concerns rely on collecting personal health information with the assurance of confidentiality agreements. The "coolest" part? They're making it so this proposal will apply retroactively so they could use it to justify rolling back rules already in place. The article contains a lot of details but basically landmark studies conducted going decades back that are the foundation for air-quality laws, mercury poisoning, lead in paint, etc. could all become inadmissible under this when they come up for renewal. unsurprisingly scientists and physicians are against this. NYT reports that a 1993 Harvard study that linked polluted air to premature deaths and serves as the foundation of the nation's air-quality laws (as well as a 1995 study supporting that conclusion) appear to be the inspiration for this proposal. --- xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out? <cite>xp1337 posted [p:929997928] in Politics C... [t:78137127]...</cite> <quote>Hey, if you guys want to remember how terrible it is here! https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/11/climate/epa-science-trump.html The EPA is preparing to institute a new proposal that is going to "significantly limit the scientific and medical research that the government can use to determine public health regulations." Basically, they're going to require scientists to turn over all their raw data including confidential medical records before the study can be considered. Which, as the article points out, is likely to make enacting new clean air and water rules far more difficult because many studies that detail links to health concerns rely on collecting personal health information with the assurance of confidentiality agreements. The "coolest" part? They're making it so this proposal will apply retroactively so they could use it to justify rolling back rules already in place. The article contains a lot of details but basically landmark studies conducted going decades back that are the foundation for air-quality laws, mercury poisoning, lead in paint, etc. could all become inadmissible under this when they come up for renewal. unsurprisingly scientists and physicians are against this. NYT reports that a 1993 Harvard study that linked polluted air to premature deaths and serves as the foundation of the nation's air-quality laws (as well as a 1995 study supporting that conclusion) appear to be the inspiration for this proposal.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LordoftheMorons 11/11/19 7:31:12 PM #406:	xp1337 posted... Hey, if you guys want to remember how terrible it is here! https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/11/climate/epa-science-trump.html The EPA is preparing to institute a new proposal that is going to "significantly limit the scientific and medical research that the government can use to determine public health regulations." Basically, they're going to require scientists to turn over all their raw data including confidential medical records before the study can be considered. Which, as the article points out, is likely to make enacting new clean air and water rules because many studies that detail links to health concerns rely on collecting personal health information with the assurance of confidentiality agreements. The "coolest" part? They're making it so this proposal will apply retroactively so they could use it to justify rolling back rules already in place. The article contains a lot of details but basically landmark studies conducted going decades back that are the foundation for air-quality laws, mercury poisoning, lead in paint, etc. could all become inadmissible under this when they come up for renewal. unsurprisingly scientists and physicians are against this. NYT reports that a 1993 Harvard study that linked polluted air to premature deaths and serves as the foundation of the nation's air-quality laws (as well as 1995 study supporting that conclusion) appear to be the inspiration for this proposal. Fucking disgusting --- Congrats to Advokaiser for winning the CBX Guru Challenge! <cite>LordoftheMorons posted [p:929998132] in Politics C... [t:78137127]...</cite> <quote>xp1337 posted... </cite> <quote>Hey, if you guys want to remember how terrible it is here! https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/11/climate/epa-science-trump.html The EPA is preparing to institute a new proposal that is going to "significantly limit the scientific and medical research that the government can use to determine public health regulations." Basically, they're going to require scientists to turn over all their raw data including confidential medical records before the study can be considered. Which, as the article points out, is likely to make enacting new clean air and water rules because many studies that detail links to health concerns rely on collecting personal health information with the assurance of confidentiality agreements. The "coolest" part? They're making it so this proposal will apply retroactively so they could use it to justify rolling back rules already in place. The article contains a lot of details but basically landmark studies conducted going decades back that are the foundation for air-quality laws, mercury poisoning, lead in paint, etc. could all become inadmissible under this when they come up for renewal. unsurprisingly scientists and physicians are against this. NYT reports that a 1993 Harvard study that linked polluted air to premature deaths and serves as the foundation of the nation's air-quality laws (as well as 1995 study supporting that conclusion) appear to be the inspiration for this proposal.</quote>Fucking disgusting </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 11/11/19 7:33:01 PM #407:	Hey, if you guys want to remember how terrible it is here! https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/11/climate/epa-science-trump.html The EPA is preparing to institute a new proposal that is going to "significantly limit the scientific and medical research that the government can use to determine public health regulations." Basically, they're going to require scientists to turn over all their raw data including confidential medical records before the study can be considered. Which, as the article points out, is likely to make enacting new clean air and water rules because many studies that detail links to health concerns rely on collecting personal health information with the assurance of confidentiality agreements. The "coolest" part? They're making it so this proposal will apply retroactively so they could use it to justify rolling back rules already in place. The article contains a lot of details but basically landmark studies conducted going decades back that are the foundation for air-quality laws, mercury poisoning, lead in paint, etc. could all become inadmissible under this when they come up for renewal. unsurprisingly scientists and physicians are against this. NYT reports that a 1993 Harvard study that linked polluted air to premature deaths and serves as the foundation of the nation's air-quality laws (as well as 1995 study supporting that conclusion) appear to be the inspiration for this proposal. Can the EPA people go on a tour of China and see how bad air pollution can get? They can also see how nice airports can be while they're there. And, we can defund all those scientists who are spending billions to tell us what anyone could learn with a couple thousand dollars to spend on a round trip flight to China and a few hotel stays. --- September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013 Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest! <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:929998199] in Politics C... [t:78137127]...</cite> <quote><quote>Hey, if you guys want to remember how terrible it is here! https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/11/climate/epa-science-trump.html The EPA is preparing to institute a new proposal that is going to "significantly limit the scientific and medical research that the government can use to determine public health regulations." Basically, they're going to require scientists to turn over all their raw data including confidential medical records before the study can be considered. Which, as the article points out, is likely to make enacting new clean air and water rules because many studies that detail links to health concerns rely on collecting personal health information with the assurance of confidentiality agreements. The "coolest" part? They're making it so this proposal will apply retroactively so they could use it to justify rolling back rules already in place. The article contains a lot of details but basically landmark studies conducted going decades back that are the foundation for air-quality laws, mercury poisoning, lead in paint, etc. could all become inadmissible under this when they come up for renewal. unsurprisingly scientists and physicians are against this. NYT reports that a 1993 Harvard study that linked polluted air to premature deaths and serves as the foundation of the nation's air-quality laws (as well as 1995 study supporting that conclusion) appear to be the inspiration for this proposal.</quote> Can the EPA people go on a tour of China and see how bad air pollution can get? They can also see how nice airports can be while they're there. And, we can defund all those scientists who are spending billions to tell us what anyone could learn with a couple thousand dollars to spend on a round trip flight to China and a few hotel stays.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Paratroopa1 11/11/19 7:50:27 PM #408:	the US is such a fucking shithole <cite>Paratroopa1 posted [p:929998946] in Politics C... [t:78137127]...</cite> <quote>the US is such a fucking shithole</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
pyresword 11/11/19 7:51:09 PM #409:	So like, I don't know the state of medical research right now, but if data is not already sufficiently transparent so as to allow it to be independently verified, then that is a huge fucking problem. The fact that this could apparently apply retroactively is atrocious, but if we ignore that aspect of the proposal for a moment, I don't see why this shouldn't have unanimous support? Surely there must be some way to sufficiently anonymize data so as to make it accessible without compromising privacy. And even if there isn't, at least to me this is an instance where transparency concerns are much much more important than privacy concerns. (Though I guess in that case this would be an argument for first reforming the way privacy laws work for medcial studies and only then putting through a transparency bill like this) --- Oh woops. Putting Advokaiser in my sig like this until I think of something more clever <cite>pyresword posted [p:929998978] in Politics C... [t:78137127]...</cite> <quote>So like, I don't know the state of medical research right now, but if data is not already sufficiently transparent so as to allow it to be independently verified, then that is a huge fucking problem. The fact that this could apparently apply retroactively is atrocious, but if we ignore that aspect of the proposal for a moment, I don't see why this shouldn't have unanimous support? Surely there must be some way to sufficiently anonymize data so as to make it accessible without compromising privacy. And even if there isn't, at least to me this is an instance where transparency concerns are much much more important than privacy concerns. (Though I guess in that case this would be an argument for first reforming the way privacy laws work for medcial studies and only then putting through a transparency bill like this)</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Paratroopa1 11/11/19 7:53:02 PM #410:	pyresword posted... but if we ignore that aspect of the proposal for a moment "it would be great if the thing they proposed wasn't the thing they proposed" they're using the appearance of a reasonable policy proposal to do unreasonable things and that's the entire point <cite>Paratroopa1 posted [p:929999067] in Politics C... [t:78137127]...</cite> <quote>pyresword posted...</cite> <quote>but if we ignore that aspect of the proposal for a moment</quote> "it would be great if the thing they proposed wasn't the thing they proposed" they're using the appearance of a reasonable policy proposal to do unreasonable things and that's the entire point</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
pyresword 11/11/19 7:55:28 PM #411:	The way I'm interpreting the analysis of this both from this topic and from the NYT article is that people think the central proposal of the bill is fundamentally bad and that the retroactive application is just the icing on the cake. If I've misunderstood then yes my post should have been worded differently. --- Oh woops. Putting Advokaiser in my sig like this until I think of something more clever <cite>pyresword posted [p:929999174] in Politics C... [t:78137127]...</cite> <quote>The way I'm interpreting the analysis of this both from this topic and from the NYT article is that people think the central proposal of the bill is fundamentally bad and that the retroactive application is just the icing on the cake. If I've misunderstood then yes my post should have been worded differently.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
xp1337 11/11/19 8:04:42 PM #412:	I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but scientific studies don't just go "Hey guys, air pollution is bad, trust us. We talked to a lot of people and did stuff and we're sure of it." they explain their methodology even if they don't give you all the raw data so that it can be independently replicated by other researchers to see if they can get the same results. (Like the 1995 American Cancer Society analysis that confirmed the 1993 Harvard study, as an example.) If a scientific study refused to lay out how they did things so the study could be replicated... it would cease to be a scientific study. Like this is one of the first things taught about the scientific method. ...Am I wrong how this all works? The Trump administration/GOP/fossil fuel industries are using the transparency argument as their pretext here... but I don't see how that flies here. It sounds like just that, a pretext. If they were truly concerned about the results being erroneous they could conduct their own study trying to replicate the results and showing it doesn't. Hell, the fossil fuel industry basically has made an industry out of that concept with climate change. Though I suspect that the fact that they can't just use that as an option underlines how they can't actually get a true scientific study that passes muster to accomplish even that so this is their play instead - to undercut the existing studies. Hell, the article even notes they considered a version of the proposal that would leave "foundational studies" like 1993 Harvard one alone and yet opted not to. --- xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out? <cite>xp1337 posted [p:929999566] in Politics C... [t:78137127]...</cite> <quote>I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but scientific studies don't just go "Hey guys, air pollution is bad, trust us. We talked to a lot of people and did stuff and we're sure of it." they explain their methodology even if they don't give you all the raw data so that it can be independently replicated by other researchers to see if they can get the same results. (Like the 1995 American Cancer Society analysis that confirmed the 1993 Harvard study, as an example.) If a scientific study refused to lay out how they did things so the study could be replicated... it would cease to be a scientific study. Like this is one of the first things taught about the scientific method. ...Am I wrong how this all works? The Trump administration/GOP/fossil fuel industries are using the transparency argument as their pretext here... but I don't see how that flies here. It sounds like just that, a pretext. If they were truly concerned about the results being erroneous they could conduct their own study trying to replicate the results and showing it doesn't. Hell, the fossil fuel industry basically has made an industry out of that concept with climate change. Though I suspect that the fact that they can't just use that as an option underlines how they can't actually get a true scientific study that passes muster to accomplish even that so this is their play instead - to undercut the existing studies. Hell, the article even notes they considered a version of the proposal that would leave "foundational studies" like 1993 Harvard one alone and yet opted not to.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Paratroopa1 11/11/19 8:06:50 PM #413:	xp1337 posted... I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but scientific studies don't just go "Hey guys, air pollution is bad, trust us. We talked to a lot of people and did stuff and we're sure of it." they explain their methodology even if they don't give you all the raw data so that it can be independently replicated by other researchers to see if they can get the same results. (Like the 1995 American Cancer Society analysis that confirmed the 1993 Harvard study, as an example.) If a scientific study refused to lay out how they did things so the study could be replicated... it would cease to be a scientific study. Like this is one of the first things taught about the scientific method. ...Am I wrong how this all works? The Trump administration/GOP/fossil fuel industries are using the transparency argument as their pretext here... but I don't see how that flies here. It sounds like just that, a pretext. If they were truly concerned about the results being erroneous they could conduct their own study trying to replicate the results and showing it doesn't. Hell, the fossil fuel industry basically has made an industry out of that concept with climate change. Though I suspect that the fact that they can't just use that as an option underlines how they can't actually get a true scientific study that passes muster to accomplish even that so this is their play instead - to undercut the existing studies. Hell, the article even notes they considered a version of the proposal that would leave "foundational studies" like 1993 Harvard one alone and yet opted not to. said it better than I could and I would like to add that the head of the EPA, Andrew Wheeler, is a coal lobbyist and a climate change denier <cite>Paratroopa1 posted [p:929999671] in Politics C... [t:78137127]...</cite> <quote>xp1337 posted...</cite> <quote>I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but scientific studies don't just go "Hey guys, air pollution is bad, trust us. We talked to a lot of people and did stuff and we're sure of it." they explain their methodology even if they don't give you all the raw data so that it can be independently replicated by other researchers to see if they can get the same results. (Like the 1995 American Cancer Society analysis that confirmed the 1993 Harvard study, as an example.) If a scientific study refused to lay out how they did things so the study could be replicated... it would cease to be a scientific study. Like this is one of the first things taught about the scientific method. ...Am I wrong how this all works? The Trump administration/GOP/fossil fuel industries are using the transparency argument as their pretext here... but I don't see how that flies here. It sounds like just that, a pretext. If they were truly concerned about the results being erroneous they could conduct their own study trying to replicate the results and showing it doesn't. Hell, the fossil fuel industry basically has made an industry out of that concept with climate change. Though I suspect that the fact that they can't just use that as an option underlines how they can't actually get a true scientific study that passes muster to accomplish even that so this is their play instead - to undercut the existing studies. Hell, the article even notes they considered a version of the proposal that would leave "foundational studies" like 1993 Harvard one alone and yet opted not to.</quote> said it better than I could and I would like to add that the head of the EPA, Andrew Wheeler, is a coal lobbyist and a climate change denier</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
pyresword 11/11/19 8:39:52 PM #414:	Well, the conditional I started with was that this was a problem "if it's not able to be independently verified". If the reality is that researchers provide enough the data to fully explain their methodology as well as provide their post-analysis data (or whatever relevant metrics summarize their data set as a whole--I don't know how this field works), then I would not say this is a huge problem but really it's still not ideal. Though, in that case I might say it's a problem for the research body to work out internally rather than a place for the government to step in. I am pretty sure that in my field of study (experimental physics) if there was an instance of a research group refusing to provide raw data upon request, that they would be looked at with suspicion for the rest of their careers. Because if they aren't showing the raw data, the only thing that can really mean is that the raw data does not actually present as compelling a case as the researchers are leading you to believe. Of course, my field does not have any of these privacy issues to deal with, but my point is that sometimes I do believe there is a need for raw data to be presented in order to verify a study. Basically, I am skeptical of the long-term viability of a research field when researchers fundamentally cannot be held to that level of accountability because no one is ever able to look at the raw data obtained by any other research group. Though, one thing I will clarify is that"raw data" means something very different in experimental physics as compared to, say, fields of social science in which the way studies typically work is by just sampling very large numbers of people and then doing basic statistical analysis of the results. If this type of climate change research operates in the latter regime than probably the status quo is fine. --- Oh woops. Putting Advokaiser in my sig like this until I think of something more clever <cite>pyresword posted [p:930001152] in Politics C... [t:78137127]...</cite> <quote>Well, the conditional I started with was that this was a problem "if it's not able to be independently verified". If the reality is that researchers provide enough the data to fully explain their methodology as well as provide their post-analysis data (or whatever relevant metrics summarize their data set as a whole--I don't know how this field works), then I would not say this is a huge problem but really it's still not ideal. Though, in that case I might say it's a problem for the research body to work out internally rather than a place for the government to step in. I am pretty sure that in my field of study (experimental physics) if there was an instance of a research group refusing to provide raw data upon request, that they would be looked at with suspicion for the rest of their careers. Because if they aren't showing the raw data, the only thing that can really mean is that the raw data does not actually present as compelling a case as the researchers are leading you to believe. Of course, my field does not have any of these privacy issues to deal with, but my point is that sometimes I do believe there is a need for raw data to be presented in order to verify a study. Basically, I am skeptical of the long-term viability of a research field when researchers fundamentally cannot be held to that level of accountability because no one is ever able to look at the raw data obtained by any other research group. Though, one thing I will clarify is that"raw data" means something very different in experimental physics as compared to, say, fields of social science in which the way studies typically work is by just sampling very large numbers of people and then doing basic statistical analysis of the results. If this type of climate change research operates in the latter regime than probably the status quo is fine.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LordoftheMorons 11/11/19 9:26:37 PM #415:	Trump is now saying that he will release the transcript (by which I assume he means call summary) of the first, and therefore most important cal he had with Zelensky: https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1194035922066714625?s=21 This is no way changes what was said in the other call Who wants to bet theres some more really bad shit in this call that Trump cant see because everything he does is by definition perfect? --- Congrats to Advokaiser for winning the CBX Guru Challenge! <cite>LordoftheMorons posted [p:930003259] in Politics C... [t:78137127]...</cite> <quote>Trump is now saying that he will release the transcript (by which I assume he means call summary) of the first, and therefore most important cal he had with Zelensky: https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1194035922066714625?s=21 This is no way changes what was said in the other callWho wants to bet theres some more really bad shit in this call that Trump cant see because everything he does is by definition perfect?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LordoftheMorons 11/11/19 10:20:18 PM #416:	https://twitter.com/brianstelter/status/1194090575093518336?s=21 lmao again --- Congrats to Advokaiser for winning the CBX Guru Challenge! <cite>LordoftheMorons posted [p:930005724] in Politics C... [t:78137127]...</cite> <quote>https://twitter.com/brianstelter/status/1194090575093518336?s=21 lmao again </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Paratroopa1 11/11/19 10:21:18 PM #417:	wow, spicer finally got voted off DWTS? I actually normally watch the show but I decided not to watch this year because of his presence, and sure enough he got absurdly far and the show has turned into a joke <cite>Paratroopa1 posted [p:930005758] in Politics C... [t:78137127]...</cite> <quote>wow, spicer finally got voted off DWTS? I actually normally watch the show but I decided not to watch this year because of his presence, and sure enough he got absurdly far and the show has turned into a joke</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ChaosTonyV4 11/11/19 10:35:26 PM #418:	https://www.newsweek.com/parents-teenager-killed-us-diplomats-wife-say-donald-trump-offered-have-treasury-write-them-1470743 Trump reportedly offered the parents of that teenager killed by a diplomats wife a check. --- Phantom Dust. "I'll just wait for time to prove me right again." - Vlado <cite>ChaosTonyV4 posted [p:930006436] in Politics C... [t:78137127]...</cite> <quote>https://www.newsweek.com/parents-teenager-killed-us-diplomats-wife-say-donald-trump-offered-have-treasury-write-them-1470743 Trump reportedly offered the parents of that teenager killed by a diplomats wife a check. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Nelson_Mandela 11/12/19 11:26:19 AM #419:	So the Bolivian "coup" only happened after the military refused Morales's orders to attack protesters. But Tony and Cyclo give a pass to any socialist autocrat, so it's probably just right-wing propaganda! --- "A more mature answer than I expected."~ Jakyl25 "Sephy's point is right."~ Inviso <cite>Nelson_Mandela posted [p:930027594] in Politics C... [t:78137127]...</cite> <quote>So the Bolivian "coup" only happened after the military refused Morales's orders to attack protesters. But Tony and Cyclo give a pass to any socialist autocrat, so it's probably just right-wing propaganda!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DeepsPraw 11/12/19 11:37:07 AM #420:	socialist autocrats fucking rule. easily the best sort of leader around --- pepsi for tv-game <cite>DeepsPraw posted [p:930027994] in Politics C... [t:78137127]...</cite> <quote>socialist autocrats fucking rule. easily the best sort of leader around </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ChaosTonyV4 11/12/19 12:38:32 PM #421:	Nelson_Mandela posted... So the Bolivian "coup" only happened after the military refused Morales's orders to attack protesters. But Tony and Cyclo give a pass to any socialist autocrat, so it's probably just right-wing propaganda! That sure sounds like propaganda! Cite your source! --- Phantom Dust. "I'll just wait for time to prove me right again." - Vlado <cite>ChaosTonyV4 posted [p:930030612] in Politics C... [t:78137127]...</cite> <quote>Nelson_Mandela posted... </cite> <quote>So the Bolivian "coup" only happened after the military refused Morales's orders to attack protesters. But Tony and Cyclo give a pass to any socialist autocrat, so it's probably just right-wing propaganda!</quote> That sure sounds like propaganda! Cite your source! </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mr Lasastryke 11/12/19 12:54:02 PM #422:	SmartMuffin posted... Coulter wouldn't vote with Trump, lol. She wants someone who will actually stop immigration. coulter literally called trump "the best thing that happened to america," and that was after her wall criticisms she's just a troll without any convictions --- Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta <cite>Mr Lasastryke posted [p:930031348] in Politics C... [t:78137127]...</cite> <quote>SmartMuffin posted...</cite> <quote>Coulter wouldn't vote with Trump, lol. She wants someone who will actually stop immigration.</quote> coulter literally called trump "the best thing that happened to america," and that was after her wall criticisms she's just a troll without any convictions</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 11/12/19 12:58:25 PM #423:	Mr Lasastryke posted... SmartMuffin posted... Coulter wouldn't vote with Trump, lol. She wants someone who will actually stop immigration. coulter literally called trump "the best thing that happened to america," and that was after her wall criticisms she's just a troll without any convictions Yeah, unless she wants to run for office herself she's not going to get anyone tougher on immigration than Trump. --- September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013 Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest! <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:930031558] in Politics C... [t:78137127]...</cite> <quote>Mr Lasastryke posted...</cite> <quote>SmartMuffin posted...</cite> <quote>Coulter wouldn't vote with Trump, lol. She wants someone who will actually stop immigration.</quote> coulter literally called trump "the best thing that happened to america," and that was after her wall criticisms she's just a troll without any convictions</quote> Yeah, unless she wants to run for office herself she's not going to get anyone tougher on immigration than Trump.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
HeroDelTiempo17 11/12/19 2:25:42 PM #424:	pyresword posted... Well, the conditional I started with was that this was a problem "if it's not able to be independently verified". If the reality is that researchers provide enough the data to fully explain their methodology as well as provide their post-analysis data (or whatever relevant metrics summarize their data set as a whole--I don't know how this field works), then I would not say this is a huge problem but really it's still not ideal. Though, in that case I might say it's a problem for the research body to work out internally rather than a place for the government to step in. Late and my understanding of how this aspect of medical research works is admittedly limited, but from what I understand the research community already has this handled. There is still a peer review process and the medical records should still be subject to that- they are just kept as confidential as possible outside of that. No need to release them to the public or government. In addition there are strict regulations for things like clinical trials for safety and ethical purposes. It isn't perfect but this is still going through the same peer-review process as other fields. This is a sham. --- DPOblivion was far more determined than me. <cite>HeroDelTiempo17 posted [p:930035525] in Politics C... [t:78137127]...</cite> <quote>pyresword posted... </cite> <quote>Well, the conditional I started with was that this was a problem "if it's not able to be independently verified". If the reality is that researchers provide enough the data to fully explain their methodology as well as provide their post-analysis data (or whatever relevant metrics summarize their data set as a whole--I don't know how this field works), then I would not say this is a huge problem but really it's still not ideal. Though, in that case I might say it's a problem for the research body to work out internally rather than a place for the government to step in.</quote> Late and my understanding of how this aspect of medical research works is admittedly limited, but from what I understand the research community already has this handled. There is still a peer review process and the medical records should still be subject to that- they are just kept as confidential as possible outside of that. No need to release them to the public or government. In addition there are strict regulations for things like clinical trials for safety and ethical purposes. It isn't perfect but this is still going through the same peer-review process as other fields. This is a sham. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LordoftheMorons 11/12/19 2:26:07 PM #425:	Jesus Christ. Nikki Haley is dousing any remaining credibility she may have had in gasoline on this book tour: https://twitter.com/brianstelter/status/1194233662985973760?s=21 --- Congrats to Advokaiser for winning the CBX Guru Challenge! <cite>LordoftheMorons posted [p:930035540] in Politics C... [t:78137127]...</cite> <quote>Jesus Christ. Nikki Haley is dousing any remaining credibility she may have had in gasoline on this book tour: https://twitter.com/brianstelter/status/1194233662985973760?s=21 </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LordoftheMorons 11/12/19 2:28:16 PM #426:	Erdogan threatening Europe with the release of ISIS members a day before he visits the White House: https://twitter.com/blakehounshell/status/1194234335622303744?s=21 --- Congrats to Advokaiser for winning the CBX Guru Challenge! <cite>LordoftheMorons posted [p:930035637] in Politics C... [t:78137127]...</cite> <quote>Erdogan threatening Europe with the release of ISIS members a day before he visits the White House: https://twitter.com/blakehounshell/status/1194234335622303744?s=21 </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LordoftheMorons 11/12/19 2:34:48 PM #427:	The Roger Stone trial should be bigger news: https://twitter.com/anthony/status/1194281715847573504?s=21 --- Congrats to Advokaiser for winning the CBX Guru Challenge! <cite>LordoftheMorons posted [p:930035937] in Politics C... [t:78137127]...</cite> <quote>The Roger Stone trial should be bigger news: https://twitter.com/anthony/status/1194281715847573504?s=21 </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 11/12/19 2:49:52 PM #428:	Mayor Pete takes first in an Iowa poll! --- September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013 Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest! <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:930036583] in Politics C... [t:78137127]...</cite> <quote>Mayor Pete takes first in an Iowa poll!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 11/12/19 2:50:27 PM #429:	Why hasn't Trump issued a complete pardon for Julian Assange yet? --- September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013 Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest! <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:930036613] in Politics C... [t:78137127]...</cite> <quote>Why hasn't Trump issued a complete pardon for Julian Assange yet?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Nelson_Mandela 11/12/19 2:53:39 PM #430:	red sox 777 posted... Mayor Pete takes first in an Iowa poll! He's going to be Biden's VP. Book it now! --- "A more mature answer than I expected."~ Jakyl25 "Sephy's point is right."~ Inviso <cite>Nelson_Mandela posted [p:930036769] in Politics C... [t:78137127]...</cite> <quote>red sox 777 posted...</cite> <quote>Mayor Pete takes first in an Iowa poll!</quote> He's going to be Biden's VP. Book it now!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 11/12/19 2:55:35 PM #431:	Nelson_Mandela posted... red sox 777 posted... Mayor Pete takes first in an Iowa poll! He's going to be Biden's VP. Book it now! Biden isn't getting elected. He lived in Scranton like 60 years ago. Trump delivered big tax cuts for the working class just 2 years ago. --- September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013 Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest! <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:930036855] in Politics C... [t:78137127]...</cite> <quote>Nelson_Mandela posted...</cite> <quote>red sox 777 posted...</cite> <quote>Mayor Pete takes first in an Iowa poll!</quote> He's going to be Biden's VP. Book it now!</quote> Biden isn't getting elected. He lived in Scranton like 60 years ago. Trump delivered big tax cuts for the working class just 2 years ago.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LordoftheMorons 11/12/19 2:57:46 PM #432:	red sox 777 posted... Why hasn't Trump issued a complete pardon for Julian Assange yet? You'd think he'd have more loyalty to a fellow rapist who committed crimes to help him win an election! --- Congrats to Advokaiser for winning the CBX Guru Challenge! <cite>LordoftheMorons posted [p:930036952] in Politics C... [t:78137127]...</cite> <quote>red sox 777 posted... </cite> <quote>Why hasn't Trump issued a complete pardon for Julian Assange yet?</quote>You'd think he'd have more loyalty to a fellow rapist who committed crimes to help him win an election! </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 11/12/19 3:00:07 PM #433:	I demand that complete pardons be issued to Julian Assange and Edward Snowden and that both receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom along with an oceanfront house on Nantucket island. --- September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013 Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest! <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:930037066] in Politics C... [t:78137127]...</cite> <quote>I demand that complete pardons be issued to Julian Assange and Edward Snowden and that both receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom along with an oceanfront house on Nantucket island.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Nelson_Mandela 11/12/19 3:21:49 PM #434:	red sox 777 posted... Nelson_Mandela posted... red sox 777 posted... Mayor Pete takes first in an Iowa poll! He's going to be Biden's VP. Book it now! Biden isn't getting elected. He lived in Scranton like 60 years ago. Trump delivered big tax cuts for the working class just 2 years ago. VP nominee --- "A more mature answer than I expected."~ Jakyl25 "Sephy's point is right."~ Inviso <cite>Nelson_Mandela posted [p:930037991] in Politics C... [t:78137127]...</cite> <quote>red sox 777 posted...</cite> <quote>Nelson_Mandela posted...</cite> <quote>red sox 777 posted...</cite> <quote>Mayor Pete takes first in an Iowa poll!</quote> He's going to be Biden's VP. Book it now!</quote> Biden isn't getting elected. He lived in Scranton like 60 years ago. Trump delivered big tax cuts for the working class just 2 years ago.</quote> VP nominee</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Suprak the Stud 11/12/19 3:36:32 PM #435:	New Hampshire: https://poll.qu.edu/new-hampshire/release-detail?ReleaseID=3648 Biden 20 Warren 16 Buttigieg 15 Sanders 14 Eff. Iowa: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/ Buttigieg 22 Biden 19 Warren 18 Sanders 13 EFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF Interestingly enough, Buttigieg's surge seems to be coming not at the expense of Biden but Warren. Could just be some minor fluctuation in the polls, but this is not a fun trend. --- Moops? "I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion." <cite>Suprak the Stud posted [p:930038613] in Politics C... [t:78137127]...</cite> <quote><quote>New Hampshire: https://poll.qu.edu/new-hampshire/release-detail?ReleaseID=3648 Biden 20 Warren 16 Buttigieg 15 Sanders 14</quote> Eff. <quote>Iowa: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/ Buttigieg 22 Biden 19 Warren 18 Sanders 13</quote> EFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF Interestingly enough, Buttigieg's surge seems to be coming not at the expense of Biden but Warren. Could just be some minor fluctuation in the polls, but this is not a fun trend.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LordoftheMorons 11/12/19 3:38:34 PM #436:	A senior official in the state department not only faked a Harvard degree, but also a TIME magazine cover: https://twitter.com/kathrynw5/status/1194300538260774912?s=21 Just following in the bosss example, I guess! --- Congrats to Advokaiser for winning the CBX Guru Challenge! <cite>LordoftheMorons posted [p:930038714] in Politics C... [t:78137127]...</cite> <quote>A senior official in the state department not only faked a Harvard degree, but also a TIME magazine cover: https://twitter.com/kathrynw5/status/1194300538260774912?s=21 Just following in the bosss example, I guess! </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LordoftheMorons 11/12/19 3:41:03 PM #437:	Suprak the Stud posted... Eff. EFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF Interestingly enough, Buttigieg's surge seems to be coming not at the expense of Biden but Warren. Could just be some minor fluctuation in the polls, but this is not a fun trend. Makes sense since their support is both coming predominantly from college educated white people. --- Congrats to Advokaiser for winning the CBX Guru Challenge! <cite>LordoftheMorons posted [p:930038828] in Politics C... [t:78137127]...</cite> <quote>Suprak the Stud posted... </cite> <quote>Eff. EFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF Interestingly enough, Buttigieg's surge seems to be coming not at the expense of Biden but Warren. Could just be some minor fluctuation in the polls, but this is not a fun trend.</quote>Makes sense since their support is both coming predominantly from college educated white people. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Suprak the Stud 11/12/19 3:47:41 PM #438:	That's actually a very good point. Biden and Sanders both have very different bases, and even though Warren and Buttigieg are much further apart in policy than Biden/Buttigieg or Warren/Sanders, it is highly possible they share the largest overlap in their base. --- Moops? "I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion." <cite>Suprak the Stud posted [p:930039111] in Politics C... [t:78137127]...</cite> <quote>That's actually a very good point. Biden and Sanders both have very different bases, and even though Warren and Buttigieg are much further apart in policy than Biden/Buttigieg or Warren/Sanders, it is highly possible they share the largest overlap in their base.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LordoftheMorons 11/12/19 3:56:51 PM #439:	There was a 538 thing a while ago that had overlaps on policy between Warren/Sanders and Biden/Harris, and overlaps in identity with Biden/Sanders and Warren/Harris. Buttigieg has probably (a little less cleanly) replaced Harris in that kind of dynamic. --- Congrats to Advokaiser for winning the CBX Guru Challenge! <cite>LordoftheMorons posted [p:930039497] in Politics C... [t:78137127]...</cite> <quote>There was a 538 thing a while ago that had overlaps on policy between Warren/Sanders and Biden/Harris, and overlaps in identity with Biden/Sanders and Warren/Harris. Buttigieg has probably (a little less cleanly) replaced Harris in that kind of dynamic. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
HeroDelTiempo17 11/12/19 4:03:09 PM #440:	Suprak the Stud posted... That's actually a very good point. Biden and Sanders both have very different bases, and even though Warren and Buttigieg are much further apart in policy than Biden/Buttigieg or Warren/Sanders, it is highly possible they share the largest overlap in their base. If you look at the cross tabs, Bernie and Biden are sharing the same base (lower income, not college educated) but differ ideologically. Buttigieg and Warren overlap on college educated voters and also Buttigieg's supporters don't seem to consider themselves as conservative as Biden's. So yeah, checks out also ugh Tulsi with 6% I think this is a qualifying December debate poll for her --- DPOblivion was far more determined than me. <cite>HeroDelTiempo17 posted [p:930039757] in Politics C... [t:78137127]...</cite> <quote>Suprak the Stud posted... </cite> <quote>That's actually a very good point. Biden and Sanders both have very different bases, and even though Warren and Buttigieg are much further apart in policy than Biden/Buttigieg or Warren/Sanders, it is highly possible they share the largest overlap in their base.</quote> If you look at the cross tabs, Bernie and Biden are sharing the same base (lower income, not college educated) but differ ideologically. Buttigieg and Warren overlap on college educated voters and also Buttigieg's supporters don't seem to consider themselves as conservative as Biden's. So yeah, checks out also ugh Tulsi with 6% I think this is a qualifying December debate poll for her </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Nelson_Mandela 11/12/19 4:06:02 PM #441:	Suprak the Stud posted... New Hampshire: https://poll.qu.edu/new-hampshire/release-detail?ReleaseID=3648 Biden 20 Warren 16 Buttigieg 15 Sanders 14 Eff. Iowa: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/ Buttigieg 22 Biden 19 Warren 18 Sanders 13 EFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF Interestingly enough, Buttigieg's surge seems to be coming not at the expense of Biden but Warren. Could just be some minor fluctuation in the polls, but this is not a fun trend. If these numbers hold (they won't), you can pretty much coronate Biden after NH. --- "A more mature answer than I expected."~ Jakyl25 "Sephy's point is right."~ Inviso <cite>Nelson_Mandela posted [p:930039890] in Politics C... [t:78137127]...</cite> <quote>Suprak the Stud posted...</cite> <quote><quote>New Hampshire: https://poll.qu.edu/new-hampshire/release-detail?ReleaseID=3648 Biden 20 Warren 16 Buttigieg 15 Sanders 14</quote> Eff. <quote>Iowa: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/ Buttigieg 22 Biden 19 Warren 18 Sanders 13</quote> EFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF Interestingly enough, Buttigieg's surge seems to be coming not at the expense of Biden but Warren. Could just be some minor fluctuation in the polls, but this is not a fun trend.</quote> If these numbers hold (they won't), you can pretty much coronate Biden after NH.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Nelson_Mandela 11/12/19 4:06:32 PM #442:	Also these polls don't include Bloomberg LOL --- "A more mature answer than I expected."~ Jakyl25 "Sephy's point is right."~ Inviso <cite>Nelson_Mandela posted [p:930039912] in Politics C... [t:78137127]...</cite> <quote>Also these polls don't include Bloomberg LOL</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LordoftheMorons 11/12/19 4:18:14 PM #443:	The SPLC got hold of Stephen Miller's 2015-2016 emails to Brietbart: https://twitter.com/RVAwonk/status/1194316047383433227 --- Congrats to Advokaiser for winning the CBX Guru Challenge! <cite>LordoftheMorons posted [p:930040391] in Politics C... [t:78137127]...</cite> <quote>The SPLC got hold of Stephen Miller's 2015-2016 emails to Brietbart: https://twitter.com/RVAwonk/status/1194316047383433227 </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
HeroicSpiderPig 11/12/19 4:20:51 PM #444:	I still think Biden should choose Gillum. --- Congrats on Advokaiser for winning the 2018 Guru Contest! Yesmar <cite>HeroicSpiderPig posted [p:930040520] in Politics C... [t:78137127]...</cite> <quote>I still think Biden should choose Gillum. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Forceful_Dragon 11/12/19 5:22:55 PM #445:	Yang got qualifying poll #2 for December, just 2 to go. It's frustrating though because he's had so many within 1% Still plenty of time though. --- ~C~ FD https://imgur.com/dGDfxaw <cite>Forceful_Dragon posted [p:930043276] in Politics C... [t:78137127]...</cite> <quote>Yang got qualifying poll #2 for December, just 2 to go. It's frustrating though because he's had so many within 1% Still plenty of time though.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LordoftheMorons 11/12/19 6:34:20 PM #446:	Trump has discussed firing the Intelligence IG that reported the whistleblower's complaint to Congress: https://twitter.com/MarkWarner/status/1194372288772235266 --- Congrats to Advokaiser for winning the CBX Guru Challenge! <cite>LordoftheMorons posted [p:930046318] in Politics C... [t:78137127]...</cite> <quote>Trump has discussed firing the Intelligence IG that reported the whistleblower's complaint to Congress: https://twitter.com/MarkWarner/status/1194372288772235266 </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 11/12/19 6:36:45 PM #447:	LordoftheMorons posted... Trump has discussed firing the Intelligence IG that reported the whistleblower's complaint to Congress: https://twitter.com/MarkWarner/status/1194372288772235266 Drain the swamp! --- September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013 Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest! <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:930046433] in Politics C... [t:78137127]...</cite> <quote>LordoftheMorons posted...</cite> <quote>Trump has discussed firing the Intelligence IG that reported the whistleblower's complaint to Congress: https://twitter.com/MarkWarner/status/1194372288772235266 </quote> Drain the swamp!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Nrrr 11/12/19 7:08:51 PM #448:	Thank God Mexico has a fairly left wing president right now, so that Evo has been able to get out safely, but things are going to get dark for the indigenous people that remain. The woman who just declared herself president unconstitutionally is an extremely anti-Morales facist politician whose husband is a Columbian uribista. At the very least I think we can expect that there are going to be a lot of disappearances of indigenous leaders, a bunch of facist gangs who intimidate voters making the next election illegitimate, but its likely gonna be even worse than that. <cite>Nrrr posted [p:930047781] in Politics C... [t:78137127]...</cite> <quote>Thank God Mexico has a fairly left wing president right now, so that Evo has been able to get out safely, but things are going to get dark for the indigenous people that remain. The woman who just declared herself president unconstitutionally is an extremely anti-Morales facist politician whose husband is a Columbian uribista. At the very least I think we can expect that there are going to be a lot of disappearances of indigenous leaders, a bunch of facist gangs who intimidate voters making the next election illegitimate, but its likely gonna be even worse than that. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
xp1337 11/12/19 7:59:50 PM #449:	LordoftheMorons posted... The Roger Stone trial should be bigger news: https://twitter.com/anthony/status/1194281715847573504?s=21 Trump stated in written answers, made under oath, to Mueller that he did not recall discussing Wikileaks with Stone. time to add perjury to the pile will laugh when some reporter asks graham or some other GOP member that was there during Clinton's impeachment if perjury is impeachable --- xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out? <cite>xp1337 posted [p:930049916] in Politics C... [t:78137127]...</cite> <quote>LordoftheMorons posted...</cite> <quote>The Roger Stone trial should be bigger news: https://twitter.com/anthony/status/1194281715847573504?s=21 </quote> Trump stated in written answers, made under oath, to Mueller that he did not recall discussing Wikileaks with Stone. time to add perjury to the pile will laugh when some reporter asks graham or some other GOP member that was there during Clinton's impeachment if perjury is impeachable</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ChaosTonyV4 11/12/19 8:11:58 PM #450:	Nrrr posted... Thank God Mexico has a fairly left wing president right now, so that Evo has been able to get out safely, but things are going to get dark for the indigenous people that remain. The woman who just declared herself president unconstitutionally is an extremely anti-Morales facist politician whose husband is a Columbian uribista. At the very least I think we can expect that there are going to be a lot of disappearances of indigenous leaders, a bunch of facist gangs who intimidate voters making the next election illegitimate, but its likely gonna be even worse than that. Not a coup, everything is fine. If Morales didn't want indigenous people and socialists disappeared, he shouldn't have taken part in an election for another term. --- Phantom Dust. "I'll just wait for time to prove me right again." - Vlado <cite>ChaosTonyV4 posted [p:930050359] in Politics C... [t:78137127]...</cite> <quote>Nrrr posted... </cite> <quote>Thank God Mexico has a fairly left wing president right now, so that Evo has been able to get out safely, but things are going to get dark for the indigenous people that remain. The woman who just declared herself president unconstitutionally is an extremely anti-Morales facist politician whose husband is a Columbian uribista. At the very least I think we can expect that there are going to be a lot of disappearances of indigenous leaders, a bunch of facist gangs who intimidate voters making the next election illegitimate, but its likely gonna be even worse than that.</quote> Not a coup, everything is fine. If Morales didn't want indigenous people and socialists disappeared, he shouldn't have taken part in an election for another term. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SmartMuffin 11/12/19 8:53:58 PM #451:	https://twitter.com/NickJFuentes/status/1194421942582951939 America First is absolutely clowning and humiliating the "conservative" movement, but the left can't/won't cover it, because it's embarrassing to them that some rando 21 year old managed to do something they've been failing at for decades. --- SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - https://imgur.com/W66HUUy http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/ <cite>SmartMuffin posted [p:930051984] in Politics C... [t:78137127]...</cite> <quote>https://twitter.com/NickJFuentes/status/1194421942582951939 America First is absolutely clowning and humiliating the "conservative" movement, but the left can't/won't cover it, because it's embarrassing to them that some rando 21 year old managed to do something they've been failing at for decades.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 247: Election Night 2019! (+) Yeah! (+)

Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 247: Election Night 2019!