Red Mosquito

PHATJ wrote:I hate Romney. I’d never vote for him and never would. Undecided on Rubio.

And I have also said I am a Trump supporter. That’s mostly because of circumstance and not desire. I know you can’t imagine anyone having thought processes that don’t mimic the mental retardation that it takes to be a Marxist, but I assure you it’s possible. It’s possible to vote for Trump, say he sucks and says idiotic things all the time, and still absolutely know he’s infinitely better than the far leftist politics that the Dems offer.

Romney and Rubio are obviously just placeholders for whichever fill-in-the-blank GOP also-ran you backed in 2016. I can't imagine giving a shit to keep track of your pre-Trump political preferences.

It is more than a little ironic that you would try to lecture a Marxist about what it means to support a lesser-evil candidate--plenty of experience with that one!--but once again, you've missed the point. It is not that voting for Trump necessitates your absolute fealty to him. I don't think anyone here has claimed that. It's that you repeatedly log in to the Red Mosquito message board to support, defend, rabble-rouse and carp for your jello-brained President but also like to claim that, well, no, you don't fully support him, your support is conditional, if only the Democrats weren't so awful, and so on. This is a situation I'm well-suited to discussing--for I too have voted for candidates I'm less than enthusiastic about. Not once have I logged into this board to defend Hillary fucking Clinton. In other words, these is no desire outside of circumstances.

Also, I know you have the vocabulary of a border collie but we could do without the r-word, thanks.

PHATJ wrote:

wease wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

wease wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

wease wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

wease wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

Mickey wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

Mickey wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

Mickey wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

digster wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

digster wrote:Again, this is where you always seem to get slipped up, PHATJ. The protestors are undoubtedly predominantely on the left side of the dial, but they're able to see past their partisanship in a way that you can't seem to do with yours. Their problem is with Donald Trump and Andrew Cuomo. They don't care as much about the letter after the name as you do. If they did, they'd be taking it easy on the avowed liberal running NYC. It's silly to say their ideology is in the center, but they're not shackled to partisanship in the way that you are.

I’m hardly shackled. I don’t always vote “R”. I’ve voted “I” several times. I actually strongly argued AGAINST Trump before his election. There were several candidates I preferred. This isn’t about political dogma in every respect for me. It’s about truth, reality, and moving forward in the best way possible.

Than I don't really know what your issue would be with protestors. If you're truly independent and not wanting it to be about parties, I'd think you'd find a lot of common ground with the person who wants both Trump and de Blasio to pack their bags. That person at least has shown they're willing to call out their own.

I have zero issue with Trump not being President. I don’t love him at all. I like him a million times better than anybody the Dems have paraded around over the last year. And he’s infinitely better than Biden. But there are plenty of people I’d much rather have the job.

PHATJ wrote:

Mickey wrote:Which, you know, fits a larger pattern of equivocation, a la "I'm not a fan of Trump but he's better than those Democrats." Did you vote for him? Do you post about how he's being mistreated by the media? Sorry bud, but you're a fan, or at least, a supporter. Politics doesn't happen in some imaginary ideal realm.

I’m a supporter for sure. That doesn’t mean I condone or believe all his rhetoric. It means I think he’s better than anything the left has to offer, and there are no other viable choices.

So which is it? Sounds like you have at least one issue.

Id rather many other republicans be president than Trump. I’d rather Trump than any of the potential Dems. Is that easy enough for you to understand?

Starting to sound like you actually have *many* issues with Trump not being president.

No, I don’t care about that at all. Like I clearly said, I do have issues with who would replace him.

But you can't waive a wand and put Mitt Romney or Marco Rubio in charge, bud. Which is fine--everyone here thinks you're a Trump supporter. You're the only one trying to tap-dance around this question by being like "well, I do not condone xyz, there are actually folks I prefer." No, there aren't--not among the set of people who have a viable chance of becoming president in the actual timeline of history, and not given your behavior on this board, which is constantly in support of your big wet boy. "I actually argued against Trump" doesn't account for much other than what I called it originally--equivocation.

I hate Romney. I’d never vote for him and never would. Undecided on Rubio.

And I have also said I am a Trump supporter. That’s mostly because of circumstance and not desire. I know you can’t imagine anyone having thought processes that don’t mimic the mental retardation that it takes to be a Marxist, but I assure you it’s possible. It’s possible to vote for Trump, say he sucks and says idiotic things all the time, and still absolutely know he’s infinitely better than the far leftist politics that the Dems offer.

Does that include your girlfriend’s employer?

My girlfriend works at the state level. And we regularly have political disagreements and discussions.

So, state libs are different than federal libs?

ABSOLUTELY. Get to know politics on a smaller level and it’s completely different.

Not in my state. ALL Republicans start their campaigns with “I support President Trump” here. If you’re not a Trump supporter, don’t even think you’ll be elected in Tennessee.

Cool story, bro. Guess what? 49 states aren’t Tennessee. I live in the North, we’re further along the evolutionary cycle than you guys.

Really? You’re going there?

As opposed to where? This is pretty tame.

Fuck you, cunt. I’m done with you.

Peeps wrote:

PHATJ wrote:So, now just openly calling me racist for no reason whatsoever, based on nothing I’ve ever said is appropriate? And you wonder why I could have possibly said something negative about you in the past? Hypocrite.

its like you never called anyone like knee tunes a racists


shut the fuck up man, now youre just a parody and a bad one at that

Peeps, you are nothing. Just nothing. You aren’t worth one more second of my time.

PHATJ wrote:

Peeps wrote:

PHATJ wrote:So, now just openly calling me racist for no reason whatsoever, based on nothing I’ve ever said is appropriate? And you wonder why I could have possibly said something negative about you in the past? Hypocrite.

its like you never called anyone like knee tunes a racists


shut the fuck up man, now youre just a parody and a bad one at that

Peeps, you are nothing. Just nothing. You aren’t worth one more second of my time.

well my guess is it took at least 78 seconds for you to hunt and peck out your response to there

neener neener neener

Rob wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:Imagine ascribing any positive qualities to a man like Donald Trump, let alone making the sweeping declaration that an entire political demographic cannot possibly rise above the sheer perfection that is Trump.

It’s that bad for the Dems. They’re truly awful. Imagine not seeing that even though it’s blatantly obvious.

Imagine not seeing how obvious it is when your (less than) half of the country can't see how blatantly obvious it is that your side has become a one-trick pony (own the libs).

The rest of the world can see it.

PHATJ wrote:

Rob wrote:

digster wrote:I have to say, I don't understand why you would want to pick a "fight" between Obama and Trump over the economic numbers. In terms of who saw more growth during his tenure, it's not close and it's not arguable. Now, if you want to say the numbers don't tell the whole story or need context (like this month; the highest job growth in history is good but means little if weighed against a job loss 10x larger the month before), you'd have better ground to stand on. But those numbers are what they are.

Really, people can google this stuff. The scariest thing these last few years isn't really Trump himself, but that you can show people evidence (NUMBERS) and they don't flinch.

You mean numbers like the lowest unemployment rates in the history of the country for women and blacks that happened under Trump’s administration?

No one's arguing that Trump's numbers are bad. You were the one who said Obama had "one with some of the most modest economic growth in recent history and massive unemployment numbers." During Obama's eight year tenure, unemployment fell from a height of 10% to 4.7%, compared to unemployment falling from 4.5% at Trump's inauguration to 3.6% prior to COVID-19. Even if you just take Obama's last four years, unemployment dropped about 3% compared to Trump's 1%.

Now is that Trump's fault? Eh. Are there mitigating circumstances? Probably. But the numbers are what they are, so when you start saying there was modest economic growth and massive unemployment numbers, these things are not hard to find. You can't just say unemployment numbers 'feel' a certain way.

wease wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

wease wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

wease wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

wease wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

wease wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

Mickey wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

Mickey wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

Mickey wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

digster wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

digster wrote:Again, this is where you always seem to get slipped up, PHATJ. The protestors are undoubtedly predominantely on the left side of the dial, but they're able to see past their partisanship in a way that you can't seem to do with yours. Their problem is with Donald Trump and Andrew Cuomo. They don't care as much about the letter after the name as you do. If they did, they'd be taking it easy on the avowed liberal running NYC. It's silly to say their ideology is in the center, but they're not shackled to partisanship in the way that you are.

I’m hardly shackled. I don’t always vote “R”. I’ve voted “I” several times. I actually strongly argued AGAINST Trump before his election. There were several candidates I preferred. This isn’t about political dogma in every respect for me. It’s about truth, reality, and moving forward in the best way possible.

Than I don't really know what your issue would be with protestors. If you're truly independent and not wanting it to be about parties, I'd think you'd find a lot of common ground with the person who wants both Trump and de Blasio to pack their bags. That person at least has shown they're willing to call out their own.

I have zero issue with Trump not being President. I don’t love him at all. I like him a million times better than anybody the Dems have paraded around over the last year. And he’s infinitely better than Biden. But there are plenty of people I’d much rather have the job.

PHATJ wrote:

Mickey wrote:Which, you know, fits a larger pattern of equivocation, a la "I'm not a fan of Trump but he's better than those Democrats." Did you vote for him? Do you post about how he's being mistreated by the media? Sorry bud, but you're a fan, or at least, a supporter. Politics doesn't happen in some imaginary ideal realm.

I’m a supporter for sure. That doesn’t mean I condone or believe all his rhetoric. It means I think he’s better than anything the left has to offer, and there are no other viable choices.

So which is it? Sounds like you have at least one issue.

Id rather many other republicans be president than Trump. I’d rather Trump than any of the potential Dems. Is that easy enough for you to understand?

Starting to sound like you actually have *many* issues with Trump not being president.

No, I don’t care about that at all. Like I clearly said, I do have issues with who would replace him.

But you can't waive a wand and put Mitt Romney or Marco Rubio in charge, bud. Which is fine--everyone here thinks you're a Trump supporter. You're the only one trying to tap-dance around this question by being like "well, I do not condone xyz, there are actually folks I prefer." No, there aren't--not among the set of people who have a viable chance of becoming president in the actual timeline of history, and not given your behavior on this board, which is constantly in support of your big wet boy. "I actually argued against Trump" doesn't account for much other than what I called it originally--equivocation.

I hate Romney. I’d never vote for him and never would. Undecided on Rubio.

And I have also said I am a Trump supporter. That’s mostly because of circumstance and not desire. I know you can’t imagine anyone having thought processes that don’t mimic the mental retardation that it takes to be a Marxist, but I assure you it’s possible. It’s possible to vote for Trump, say he sucks and says idiotic things all the time, and still absolutely know he’s infinitely better than the far leftist politics that the Dems offer.

Does that include your girlfriend’s employer?

My girlfriend works at the state level. And we regularly have political disagreements and discussions.

So, state libs are different than federal libs?

ABSOLUTELY. Get to know politics on a smaller level and it’s completely different.

Not in my state. ALL Republicans start their campaigns with “I support President Trump” here. If you’re not a Trump supporter, don’t even think you’ll be elected in Tennessee.

Cool story, bro. Guess what? 49 states aren’t Tennessee. I live in the North, we’re further along the evolutionary cycle than you guys.

Really? You’re going there?

As opposed to where? This is pretty tame.

Fuck you, cunt. I’m done with you.

wease, this is pretty silly of you, and emblematic of your like. You have no ability to take pushback. You have no ability to understand different perspectives. And when you get cornered you act like an emo shithead that can’t function in high school. Go be a pussy somewhere else then. I don’t care. I never asked you to get involved in these debates. And I don’t care if you talk to me or not.

PHATJ wrote:

wease wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

wease wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

wease wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

wease wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

wease wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

Mickey wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

Mickey wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

Mickey wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

digster wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

digster wrote:Again, this is where you always seem to get slipped up, PHATJ. The protestors are undoubtedly predominantely on the left side of the dial, but they're able to see past their partisanship in a way that you can't seem to do with yours. Their problem is with Donald Trump and Andrew Cuomo. They don't care as much about the letter after the name as you do. If they did, they'd be taking it easy on the avowed liberal running NYC. It's silly to say their ideology is in the center, but they're not shackled to partisanship in the way that you are.

I’m hardly shackled. I don’t always vote “R”. I’ve voted “I” several times. I actually strongly argued AGAINST Trump before his election. There were several candidates I preferred. This isn’t about political dogma in every respect for me. It’s about truth, reality, and moving forward in the best way possible.

Than I don't really know what your issue would be with protestors. If you're truly independent and not wanting it to be about parties, I'd think you'd find a lot of common ground with the person who wants both Trump and de Blasio to pack their bags. That person at least has shown they're willing to call out their own.

I have zero issue with Trump not being President. I don’t love him at all. I like him a million times better than anybody the Dems have paraded around over the last year. And he’s infinitely better than Biden. But there are plenty of people I’d much rather have the job.

PHATJ wrote:

Mickey wrote:Which, you know, fits a larger pattern of equivocation, a la "I'm not a fan of Trump but he's better than those Democrats." Did you vote for him? Do you post about how he's being mistreated by the media? Sorry bud, but you're a fan, or at least, a supporter. Politics doesn't happen in some imaginary ideal realm.

I’m a supporter for sure. That doesn’t mean I condone or believe all his rhetoric. It means I think he’s better than anything the left has to offer, and there are no other viable choices.

So which is it? Sounds like you have at least one issue.

Id rather many other republicans be president than Trump. I’d rather Trump than any of the potential Dems. Is that easy enough for you to understand?

Starting to sound like you actually have *many* issues with Trump not being president.

No, I don’t care about that at all. Like I clearly said, I do have issues with who would replace him.

But you can't waive a wand and put Mitt Romney or Marco Rubio in charge, bud. Which is fine--everyone here thinks you're a Trump supporter. You're the only one trying to tap-dance around this question by being like "well, I do not condone xyz, there are actually folks I prefer." No, there aren't--not among the set of people who have a viable chance of becoming president in the actual timeline of history, and not given your behavior on this board, which is constantly in support of your big wet boy. "I actually argued against Trump" doesn't account for much other than what I called it originally--equivocation.

I hate Romney. I’d never vote for him and never would. Undecided on Rubio.

And I have also said I am a Trump supporter. That’s mostly because of circumstance and not desire. I know you can’t imagine anyone having thought processes that don’t mimic the mental retardation that it takes to be a Marxist, but I assure you it’s possible. It’s possible to vote for Trump, say he sucks and says idiotic things all the time, and still absolutely know he’s infinitely better than the far leftist politics that the Dems offer.

Does that include your girlfriend’s employer?

My girlfriend works at the state level. And we regularly have political disagreements and discussions.

So, state libs are different than federal libs?

ABSOLUTELY. Get to know politics on a smaller level and it’s completely different.

Not in my state. ALL Republicans start their campaigns with “I support President Trump” here. If you’re not a Trump supporter, don’t even think you’ll be elected in Tennessee.

Cool story, bro. Guess what? 49 states aren’t Tennessee. I live in the North, we’re further along the evolutionary cycle than you guys.

Really? You’re going there?

As opposed to where? This is pretty tame.

Fuck you, cunt. I’m done with you.

wease, this is pretty silly of you, and emblematic of your like. You have no ability to take pushback. You have no ability to understand different perspectives. And when you get cornered you act like an emo shithead that can’t function in high school. Go be a pussy somewhere else then. I don’t care. I never asked you to get involved in these debates. And I don’t care if you talk to me or not.

You are nothing. Just nothing. You aren’t worth one more second of my time.

digster wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

Rob wrote:

digster wrote:I have to say, I don't understand why you would want to pick a "fight" between Obama and Trump over the economic numbers. In terms of who saw more growth during his tenure, it's not close and it's not arguable. Now, if you want to say the numbers don't tell the whole story or need context (like this month; the highest job growth in history is good but means little if weighed against a job loss 10x larger the month before), you'd have better ground to stand on. But those numbers are what they are.

Really, people can google this stuff. The scariest thing these last few years isn't really Trump himself, but that you can show people evidence (NUMBERS) and they don't flinch.

You mean numbers like the lowest unemployment rates in the history of the country for women and blacks that happened under Trump’s administration?

No one's arguing that Trump's numbers are bad. You were the one who said Obama had "one with some of the most modest economic growth in recent history and massive unemployment numbers." During Obama's eight year tenure, unemployment fell from a height of 10% to 4.7%, compared to unemployment falling from 4.5% at Trump's inauguration to 3.6% prior to COVID-19. Even if you just take Obama's last four years, unemployment dropped about 3% compared to Trump's 1%.

Now is that Trump's fault? Eh. Are there mitigating circumstances? Probably. But the numbers are what they are, so when you start saying there was modest economic growth and massive unemployment numbers, these things are not hard to find. You can't just say unemployment numbers 'feel' a certain way to you.

When you stop counting the unemployment of tens of thousands of people because they’ve been unemployed too long to even count anymore, and as a result unemployment numbers shrink as a reflection of that, those numbers are definitely not telling the entire story.

philpritchard wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

wease wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

wease wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

wease wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

wease wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

wease wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

Mickey wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

Mickey wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

Mickey wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

digster wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

digster wrote:Again, this is where you always seem to get slipped up, PHATJ. The protestors are undoubtedly predominantely on the left side of the dial, but they're able to see past their partisanship in a way that you can't seem to do with yours. Their problem is with Donald Trump and Andrew Cuomo. They don't care as much about the letter after the name as you do. If they did, they'd be taking it easy on the avowed liberal running NYC. It's silly to say their ideology is in the center, but they're not shackled to partisanship in the way that you are.

I’m hardly shackled. I don’t always vote “R”. I’ve voted “I” several times. I actually strongly argued AGAINST Trump before his election. There were several candidates I preferred. This isn’t about political dogma in every respect for me. It’s about truth, reality, and moving forward in the best way possible.

Than I don't really know what your issue would be with protestors. If you're truly independent and not wanting it to be about parties, I'd think you'd find a lot of common ground with the person who wants both Trump and de Blasio to pack their bags. That person at least has shown they're willing to call out their own.

I have zero issue with Trump not being President. I don’t love him at all. I like him a million times better than anybody the Dems have paraded around over the last year. And he’s infinitely better than Biden. But there are plenty of people I’d much rather have the job.

PHATJ wrote:

Mickey wrote:Which, you know, fits a larger pattern of equivocation, a la "I'm not a fan of Trump but he's better than those Democrats." Did you vote for him? Do you post about how he's being mistreated by the media? Sorry bud, but you're a fan, or at least, a supporter. Politics doesn't happen in some imaginary ideal realm.

I’m a supporter for sure. That doesn’t mean I condone or believe all his rhetoric. It means I think he’s better than anything the left has to offer, and there are no other viable choices.

So which is it? Sounds like you have at least one issue.

Id rather many other republicans be president than Trump. I’d rather Trump than any of the potential Dems. Is that easy enough for you to understand?

Starting to sound like you actually have *many* issues with Trump not being president.

No, I don’t care about that at all. Like I clearly said, I do have issues with who would replace him.

But you can't waive a wand and put Mitt Romney or Marco Rubio in charge, bud. Which is fine--everyone here thinks you're a Trump supporter. You're the only one trying to tap-dance around this question by being like "well, I do not condone xyz, there are actually folks I prefer." No, there aren't--not among the set of people who have a viable chance of becoming president in the actual timeline of history, and not given your behavior on this board, which is constantly in support of your big wet boy. "I actually argued against Trump" doesn't account for much other than what I called it originally--equivocation.

I hate Romney. I’d never vote for him and never would. Undecided on Rubio.

And I have also said I am a Trump supporter. That’s mostly because of circumstance and not desire. I know you can’t imagine anyone having thought processes that don’t mimic the mental retardation that it takes to be a Marxist, but I assure you it’s possible. It’s possible to vote for Trump, say he sucks and says idiotic things all the time, and still absolutely know he’s infinitely better than the far leftist politics that the Dems offer.

Does that include your girlfriend’s employer?

My girlfriend works at the state level. And we regularly have political disagreements and discussions.

So, state libs are different than federal libs?

ABSOLUTELY. Get to know politics on a smaller level and it’s completely different.

Not in my state. ALL Republicans start their campaigns with “I support President Trump” here. If you’re not a Trump supporter, don’t even think you’ll be elected in Tennessee.

Cool story, bro. Guess what? 49 states aren’t Tennessee. I live in the North, we’re further along the evolutionary cycle than you guys.

Really? You’re going there?

As opposed to where? This is pretty tame.

Fuck you, cunt. I’m done with you.

wease, this is pretty silly of you, and emblematic of your like. You have no ability to take pushback. You have no ability to understand different perspectives. And when you get cornered you act like an emo shithead that can’t function in high school. Go be a pussy somewhere else then. I don’t care. I never asked you to get involved in these debates. And I don’t care if you talk to me or not.

You are nothing. Just nothing. You aren’t worth one more second of my time.

I hear wease is looking for someone new to have a crush on, you should go find him. I think he’s crying in a bathroom stall somewhere around here...

PHATJ wrote:

digster wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

Rob wrote:

digster wrote:I have to say, I don't understand why you would want to pick a "fight" between Obama and Trump over the economic numbers. In terms of who saw more growth during his tenure, it's not close and it's not arguable. Now, if you want to say the numbers don't tell the whole story or need context (like this month; the highest job growth in history is good but means little if weighed against a job loss 10x larger the month before), you'd have better ground to stand on. But those numbers are what they are.

Really, people can google this stuff. The scariest thing these last few years isn't really Trump himself, but that you can show people evidence (NUMBERS) and they don't flinch.

You mean numbers like the lowest unemployment rates in the history of the country for women and blacks that happened under Trump’s administration?

No one's arguing that Trump's numbers are bad. You were the one who said Obama had "one with some of the most modest economic growth in recent history and massive unemployment numbers." During Obama's eight year tenure, unemployment fell from a height of 10% to 4.7%, compared to unemployment falling from 4.5% at Trump's inauguration to 3.6% prior to COVID-19. Even if you just take Obama's last four years, unemployment dropped about 3% compared to Trump's 1%.

Now is that Trump's fault? Eh. Are there mitigating circumstances? Probably. But the numbers are what they are, so when you start saying there was modest economic growth and massive unemployment numbers, these things are not hard to find. You can't just say unemployment numbers 'feel' a certain way to you.

When you stop counting the unemployment of tens of thousands of people because they’ve been unemployed too long to even count anymore, and as a result unemployment numbers shrink as a reflection of that, those numbers are definitely not telling the entire story.

So when you say "massive unemployment numbers" you mean "the narrative I believe that's not illustrated in the numbers."

Wait, so Josh thinks that Obama's unemployment numbers went down because people dropped out of the labor pool (which definitely did happen!), but that Trump's numbers are somehow not affected by this, even though they follow the same downward trajectory? Incredible, legendary stuff.

PHATJ wrote:

Mickey wrote:

PHATJ wrote:I live in the North, we’re further along the evolutionary cycle than you guys.

Imagine saying that this week.

Imagine not believing it.

Just FYI believing that "the north" is more evolved than "the south" is so historically ignorant that it *definitely* borders on racist.

Yeah, my point here is not that the numbers tell the whole story (I agree they don't). But I think an assessment of the two presidents' economic growth based on 'feel' is pretty thin.

digster wrote:Yeah, my point here is not that the numbers tell the whole story (I agree they don't). But I think an assessment of the two presidents' economic growth based on 'feel' is pretty thin.

Right! Like, go ahead, shit on Obama: for my money, the post-2008 economic recovery was by and large neoliberal dogshit, resulting in mostly 1%er gains, massive losses in black wealth, and increased worker precarity by way of gig-employment. The declining unemployment stat doesn't take into account people who have to work multiple jobs to make ends meet (i.e. uber drivers), or (yes) people dropping out of the labor market entirely (which might be reflected in something like the opioid epidemic). But you can't then turn around and say, well, Trump doesn't have this problem based on the same set of numbers. It is the apex of the kind of dogmatic, partisan thinking he's spent the last five pages claiming he doesn't actually subscribe to.

Mickey wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

Mickey wrote:

PHATJ wrote:I live in the North, we’re further along the evolutionary cycle than you guys.

Imagine saying that this week.

Imagine not believing it.

Just FYI believing that "the north" is more evolved than "the south" is so historically ignorant that it *definitely* borders on racist.

Again, it was a joke.

I obviously don’t believe in evolution, you silly monkey.

Mickey wrote:

digster wrote:Yeah, my point here is not that the numbers tell the whole story (I agree they don't). But I think an assessment of the two presidents' economic growth based on 'feel' is pretty thin.

Right! Like, go ahead, shit on Obama: for my money, the post-2008 economic recovery was by and large neoliberal dogshit, resulting in mostly 1%er gains, massive losses in black wealth, and increased worker precarity by way of gig-employment. The declining unemployment stat doesn't take into account people who have to work multiple jobs to make ends meet (i.e. uber drivers), or (yes) people dropping out of the labor market entirely (which might be reflected in something like the opioid epidemic). But you can't then turn around and say, well, Trump doesn't have this problem based on the same set of numbers. It is the apex of the kind of dogmatic, partisan thinking he's spent the last five pages claiming he doesn't actually subscribe to.

Take it to the Obama appreciation thread.

As much as I hate to invoke someone like Beto...true to form.

PHATJ wrote:

Mickey wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

Mickey wrote:

PHATJ wrote:I live in the North, we’re further along the evolutionary cycle than you guys.

Imagine saying that this week.

Imagine not believing it.

Just FYI believing that "the north" is more evolved than "the south" is so historically ignorant that it *definitely* borders on racist.

Again, it was a joke.

I obviously don’t believe in evolution, you silly monkey.

What's your favorite Bible verse?

verb_to_trust wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

Mickey wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

Mickey wrote:

PHATJ wrote:I live in the North, we’re further along the evolutionary cycle than you guys.

Imagine saying that this week.

Imagine not believing it.

Just FYI believing that "the north" is more evolved than "the south" is so historically ignorant that it *definitely* borders on racist.

Again, it was a joke.

I obviously don’t believe in evolution, you silly monkey.

What's your favorite Bible verse?

All of them.