(10-08-2024, 01:05 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (10-08-2024, 01:00 PM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ]lololol
https://x.com/greg_price11/status/184368...083Ig&s=19
It’s a Russian disinformation platform! Kill it! Kill it!
![[Image: HILLARY_SCREAMING.jpg]](https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/HILLARY_SCREAMING.jpg)
While a Capital sentence might be a bit extreme in most cases, I agree with you in the unique example of Hillary Clinton.
(10-08-2024, 01:41 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (10-08-2024, 01:37 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]A party does not offer its candidates up as sacrificial lambs. That's my point. There are people who might avoid running because they think their party doesn't have enough of a chance that year, but probably less people think that way after 1992. Even so, those people don't hope for their candidate to lose. They still want their party's candidate to win.
We need to talk.
![[Image: 00mondale-walter1-videoSixteenByNineJumbo1600.jpg]](https://static01.nyt.com/images/2019/08/01/us/00mondale-walter1/00mondale-walter1-videoSixteenByNineJumbo1600.jpg)
Pre 1992.
Again, I put these bulky clauses and qualifiers in the things I say for a reason.
That said, Democrats wanted him to win and he wanted to win.
Yikes.. More fallout for Mr. Madam Vice President.
https://twitter.com/CollinRugg/status/18...M5FBA&s=19
NEW: Doug Emhoff's former colleagues have come forward, say he refused to promote women who didn't flirt with him & would brag about yelling at women.
Emhoff impregnated his nanny, is accused of assaulting his girlfriend, and now this.
According to the Daily Mail, Emhoff was a known misogynist as the managing director at Venable in LA.
Emhoff would scream at women and yell expletives at them and then brag about it with his male colleagues.
"What's worse was he bragged about it to the management at Venable and they were aghast. He's an a**hole. He told them how he "put her in her place". A misogynist, that's who does that," a staffer said.
Emhoff was "very flirty" and "if you weren't flirty back or didn't respond positively then you were on his s**t list," a female staffer said.
Venable was even sued by former legal secretary Marjan Rabbi in 2019 alleging s*x discrimination when she worked at the company.
In her lawsuit, she says Emhoff had a secretary in her 20s referred to as 'Katya' who was "unqualified" but was "hired because she was young, attractive, and friendly with the powerful men in the office."
Lol, those chose Mondale because they knew they COULDN'T win and didn't want to waste a promising future candidate. The same reason they chose Biden-Harris. The only difference was the fraudulent voting scheme enabled by the pandemic. Otherwise ti was exactly the same "nominate a candidate we can afford to lose because we know we can't win" strategy. Tacking on a female VP candidate they wanted to be rid of was just a bonus both times, though this time they've outsmarted themselves.
(10-08-2024, 02:37 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (10-08-2024, 02:13 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Lol, those chose Mondale because they knew they COULDN'T win and didn't want to waste a promising future candidate. The same reason they chose Biden-Harris. The only difference was the fraudulent voting scheme enabled by the pandemic. Otherwise ti was exactly the same "nominate a candidate we can afford to lose because we know we can't win" strategy. Tacking on a female VP candidate they wanted to be rid of was just a bonus both times, though this time they've outsmarted themselves.
Imagination is fun!
You would know, the entire reality in which you exist is a fantasy land of nonsense.
(10-08-2024, 01:37 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (10-08-2024, 12:14 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]To which events are you alluding?
A party does not offer its candidates up as sacrificial lambs. At least not for President. That's my point. There are people who might avoid running because they think their party doesn't have enough of a chance that year, but probably less people think that way after 1992. Even so, those people don't hope for their candidate to lose. They still want their party's candidate to win.
That would be true if there were 2 parties. There isn't, so as long as the winner is controlled, the uniparty and their controllers don't care which side wins.
Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk
(10-08-2024, 11:34 PM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ] (10-08-2024, 01:37 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]A party does not offer its candidates up as sacrificial lambs. At least not for President. That's my point. There are people who might avoid running because they think their party doesn't have enough of a chance that year, but probably less people think that way after 1992. Even so, those people don't hope for their candidate to lose. They still want their party's candidate to win.
That would be true if there were 2 parties. There isn't, so as long as the winner is controlled, the uniparty and their controllers don't care which side wins.
Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk
Imagination is fun!
There are indeed donors who don't really care who wins. Donors like this typically make small donations to both parties. These are typically large, multi-state corporations. For instance, Comcast. They need to have relationships at the state and local level as well as the national level so they carefully donate to the party they think will win at each level. When they're not sure, they donate to both. United Healthcare does the same.
But both parties get most of their money from donors who do care, and who only donate to their party.
I think Mikey is correct on this one. Don't get me wrong... they don't want to pitch heavy hitters on a potentially "losing" season, but they will do everything they can to try to get their candidate in, even if there's only a remote chance of winning. They have too much institutional power not to give it a serious run. Trump has institutional backing this time around, it seems.
Check X tomorrow, Walz may be in trouble.
Over the past few weeks there have been hints that Walz is a pedo teacher. Details are out that he took a boy to an Indigo concert in 1995 which involved a sleepover. Supposedly story being released tomorrow. Reports today that victims, plural, are talking to cops.
Who knows what is true but it's gaining traction. Walz has also confirmed certain parts of it and supposedly the investigator has timestamps documented from reaching out before they randomly confirmed things to other people.
Find it on your own for now but if it has substance, it will be everywhere but MSM tomorrow.
Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk
(10-13-2024, 01:37 AM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ]Check X tomorrow, Walz may be in trouble.
Over the past few weeks there have been hints that Walz is a pedo teacher. Details are out that he took a boy to an Indigo concert in 1995 which involved a sleepover. Supposedly story being released tomorrow. Reports today that victims, plural, are talking to cops.
Who knows what is true but it's gaining traction. Walz has also confirmed certain parts of it and supposedly the investigator has timestamps documented from reaching out before they randomly confirmed things to other people.
Find it on your own for now but if it has substance, it will be everywhere but MSM tomorrow.
Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk
What grown man takes a boy to an indigo girls concert? Talk about weird.
(10-13-2024, 01:37 AM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ]Check X tomorrow, Walz may be in trouble.
Over the past few weeks there have been hints that Walz is a pedo teacher. Details are out that he took a boy to an Indigo concert in 1995 which involved a sleepover. Supposedly story being released tomorrow. Reports today that victims, plural, are talking to cops.
Who knows what is true but it's gaining traction. Walz has also confirmed certain parts of it and supposedly the investigator has timestamps documented from reaching out before they randomly confirmed things to other people.
Find it on your own for now but if it has substance, it will be everywhere but MSM tomorrow.
Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk
Sad if true, but would it really surprise anyone?
(10-13-2024, 08:42 AM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ] (10-13-2024, 01:37 AM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ]Check X tomorrow, Walz may be in trouble.
Over the past few weeks there have been hints that Walz is a pedo teacher. Details are out that he took a boy to an Indigo concert in 1995 which involved a sleepover. Supposedly story being released tomorrow. Reports today that victims, plural, are talking to cops.
Who knows what is true but it's gaining traction. Walz has also confirmed certain parts of it and supposedly the investigator has timestamps documented from reaching out before they randomly confirmed things to other people.
Find it on your own for now but if it has substance, it will be everywhere but MSM tomorrow.
Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk
Sad if true, but would it really surprise anyone?
The only surprise would be that it only happened once.
(10-13-2024, 09:11 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-13-2024, 08:42 AM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ]Sad if true, but would it really surprise anyone?
The only surprise would be that it only happened once.
You don't say? The guy pushing tampons in the boys bathrooms maybe shady?