(10-24-2016 12:15 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  "I hate even more than the only candidates who had the brass to bring up the catastrophic state of entitlements (Christie, Johnson, Rand Paul) all lost convincingly and early."

-----> embrace that you live in an ideological niche, and that your group is unable to convince the rest of us that your way of thinking is superior. Embrace that most people believe entitlements, of some kind and to some degree, are deserved.

Embrace those things.

Your life will be happier, even if you choose to stay in the niche.


"... which achieves the same thing but with far more grace, elegance, and empowerment to the voter. "

IRV would've prevented Donald Trump from getting the nomination? Highly doubt that.

I'm just looking for how you've tried to build in some advantage for niche ideologies, by advocating this system.

You understand there is a quote function, right?

(10-24-2016 12:09 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-24-2016 12:07 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-24-2016 11:54 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-24-2016 11:46 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Yeah just a couple "gotchas". Dream on.

GJ is a nut case.


Wish there was a clip of his interview on Vice Nightly News from last week. He starts pounding his chest like a gorilla. I'm dead serious. The man is a child. He whines like a child. He has the intelligence of a child.


It's really no different than people supporting Trump: what they actually support is the ideology, which the candidate supposedly represents. The actual person is invisible to these people.

Maybe, but the same is true for Hillary. Basically, we deserve what we get for being stupid enough to nominate this group of turds as out POTUS candidates.

even the cons on here concede that HRC is still a good stateswomen and would never have screwed something like aleppo up.

lol, she can't even figure out how to send a secure email, much less do anything regarding a place no one had ever head of before. She's so terrible, just in other ways than Trump.

that post proves you live in an alternate reality.

(10-24-2016 12:26 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-24-2016 12:09 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-24-2016 12:07 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-24-2016 11:54 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-24-2016 11:46 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Yeah just a couple "gotchas". Dream on.

GJ is a nut case.


Wish there was a clip of his interview on Vice Nightly News from last week. He starts pounding his chest like a gorilla. I'm dead serious. The man is a child. He whines like a child. He has the intelligence of a child.


It's really no different than people supporting Trump: what they actually support is the ideology, which the candidate supposedly represents. The actual person is invisible to these people.

Maybe, but the same is true for Hillary. Basically, we deserve what we get for being stupid enough to nominate this group of turds as out POTUS candidates.

even the cons on here concede that HRC is still a good stateswomen and would never have screwed something like aleppo up.

lol, she can't even figure out how to send a secure email, much less do anything regarding a place no one had ever head of before. She's so terrible, just in other ways than Trump.

that post proves you live in an alternate reality.

Not at all. Anyone with any experience in anything related to classified info knows immediately that HRC is either lying or incompetent when it comes to handling secure info. Folks that just wish it away are the ones not living in reality. However, this isn't about facts anymore, it's a personality contest and, so far, HRC has pissed off less folks than Trump so she'll likely win. Like I said, we deserve what we get.

Rath,

I purposefully don't use the quote tags. I don't like nested quote boxes gunking up the thread.

I'm talking about her ability to deal in foreign policy and knowledge of international affairs. you talk about nothing but her email. again you prove my point with every single post you make.

(10-24-2016 12:30 PM)john01992 Wrote:  I'm talking about her ability to deal in foreign policy and knowledge of international affairs. you talk about nothing but her email. again you prove my point with every single post you make.

Wrong again. Her email is just one example of her incompetence. Of course everything else is just a "conspiracy".

(10-24-2016 12:55 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-24-2016 12:30 PM)john01992 Wrote:  I'm talking about her ability to deal in foreign policy and knowledge of international affairs. you talk about nothing but her email. again you prove my point with every single post you make.

Wrong again. Her email is just one example of her incompetence. Of course everything else is just a "conspiracy".

another post. another example of your proving my point correct.

(10-24-2016 12:30 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Rath,

I purposefully don't use the quote tags. I don't like nested quote boxes gunking up the thread.

They are for clarity of reading.

I think they detract from thread readability, if anything.

Because all of this is a reality show and the shrieking class requires a bandwagon.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

(10-24-2016 01:12 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I think they detract from thread readability, if anything.

LOL.

(10-24-2016 10:20 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  MUH NATE!!!!!!!!

What does that mean?

swagger,

It's beyond ridiculous when you have two people posting back and forth on a thread that keep quoting each other, and you have to scroll all the way through the stupid nested boxes 18 deep 19 deep 20 deep, when you could have simply hit the reply button without the quote!

And the quote boxes don't indicate which post number the (supposed) quote came from.

And the quote boxes don't disallow users from editing the (supposed) quote.

(10-24-2016 03:30 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  swagger,

It's beyond ridiculous when you have two people posting back and forth on a thread that keep quoting each other, and you have to scroll all the way through the stupid nested boxes 18 deep 19 deep 20 deep, when you could have simply hit the reply button without the quote!

And the quote boxes don't indicate which post number the (supposed) quote came from.

And the quote boxes don't disallow users from editing the (supposed) quote.

They don't need to indicate a post number when they post itself is quoted.

If you don't like large nested quotes ... simply delete them. They're like Russian dolls ... so delete the middle to leave the most recent outer shell.

Edited quotes would get busted and called out pretty quick. That's a straw man. I cannot recall it happening in over a decade here. Not saying it hasn't ... I just can't readily recall an instance.

(10-24-2016 03:06 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(10-24-2016 10:20 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  MUH NATE!!!!!!!!

What does that mean?

Nate Silver. The 538 blog guy who does polls. Basically the dems polling god.

I thought it was sexual innuendo

swagger,

But I can't stop someone else from leaving them all in. And why should I have to go through the pain of selecting and deleting?? More likely to miss a quote end tag and mess the whole thing up.

Oh please, you know darn well people edit quotes all the time with that FIFY crap, or they do the splicing crap, or they only quote a small piece of your post and leave off context. All should be dissallowed.

I don't think this is the proper place for this discussion.

What went wrong? Gary is a weed monkey and the more we get to know him, the more obvious it becomes. Bless his heart, but he has trouble maintaining his train of thought, he zones out and he forgets things. Most people have friends and/or family members that are heads. They recognize it when they see it. Plenty of people get along fine smoking pot on a regular basis, but no one wants them to be significant decision makers.