We will have the very rich who can ride this out and the people that need the jobs or "serfs" and no in between. The country they always wanted. Soon why even pay them? They can shop at the Walmart or Amazon grocery with Walbucks and Amazon Dollars. And no insurance because if you get sick someone will line up to take your job.
So Trumpists think yelling about China covid-coverup will misdirect attention away from trumpist covid-coverup.We are so screwed. :-/Anyway, should be fukkin' heelarious watching DJT spout nonsense wrt none of us needing masks & mitigation to go back to work, while he is surrounded by his WH peeps now wearing masks. [supposedly they have to wear masks around him now 'cuz his valet got the covid]
I dunno, man. A magazine popularity contest is all well and good, but she started the race with a net-favorability in the low-30s and 95% name recognition. That is a statistic that actually matters ... under normal circumstances those *aren't* exactly the numbers of a strong candidate. Sure, any woman in politics faces headwinds male candidates don't, but on top of that Clinton was legitimately unpopular and uniquely polarizing.
You can't just ignore her historic unpopulaity as one of the primary reasons she lost. Typically selecting the most nationally polarizing politician in the party's entire stable *isn't* a traditional path to winning the presidency.
A candidate that 30% of the nation hates with the fire of 1000 suns is *traditionally* a third-rail that would causes a reflective party to consider someone who is not guaranteed to activate the entirety of the opposition's aligned voting base in a frenzied existential panic. That's just a fact.
There just isn't really much of a data-based case to support the idea Hillary Clinton was anything but a terrible candidate.
"If only the powers that be would retroactively change the rules in an arbitrary way so that this number that has been meaningless for over 2 centuries could somehow become fully relevant ... we would have WON, dammit."
Maybe if your party played the to win the actual game instead of targeting a meaningless benchmark ... you'd experience better results?
Check for explosives before you start that car, Biff.
Yeah, but this isn't as bad as the flu so it's cool.
Triggered this:
https://youtu.be/3L49j3sH8uk
just drink some bleach and you'll be fine.
We will have the very rich who can ride this out and the people that need the jobs or "serfs" and no in between. The country they always wanted. Soon why even pay them? They can shop at the Walmart or Amazon grocery with Walbucks and Amazon Dollars. And no insurance because if you get sick someone will line up to take your job.
I'm sure this was all staged for the Trumpers to open the economy.
So Trumpists think yelling about China covid-coverup will misdirect attention away from trumpist covid-coverup.We are so screwed. :-/Anyway, should be fukkin' heelarious watching DJT spout nonsense wrt none of us needing masks & mitigation to go back to work, while he is surrounded by his WH peeps now wearing masks. [supposedly they have to wear masks around him now 'cuz his valet got the covid]
I'm sure it would be awful. For about 3 minutes.
That cat...... is a hero.
https://www.youtube.com/wat...
Do Republicans really think they can gaslight America into not noticing grandma and uncle Joe are suddenly dead now?
As best I can tell ... that is literally the entire political strategy now. It is objectively insane.
Dude!
Bleach must be *injected* to cure Teh Wuhan. Are you trying to get people killed?
I dunno, man. A magazine popularity contest is all well and good, but she started the race with a net-favorability in the low-30s and 95% name recognition. That is a statistic that actually matters ... under normal circumstances those *aren't* exactly the numbers of a strong candidate. Sure, any woman in politics faces headwinds male candidates don't, but on top of that Clinton was legitimately unpopular and uniquely polarizing.
You can't just ignore her historic unpopulaity as one of the primary reasons she lost. Typically selecting the most nationally polarizing politician in the party's entire stable *isn't* a traditional path to winning the presidency.
A candidate that 30% of the nation hates with the fire of 1000 suns is *traditionally* a third-rail that would causes a reflective party to consider someone who is not guaranteed to activate the entirety of the opposition's aligned voting base in a frenzied existential panic. That's just a fact.
There just isn't really much of a data-based case to support the idea Hillary Clinton was anything but a terrible candidate.
"If only the powers that be would retroactively change the rules in an arbitrary way so that this number that has been meaningless for over 2 centuries could somehow become fully relevant ... we would have WON, dammit."
Maybe if your party played the to win the actual game instead of targeting a meaningless benchmark ... you'd experience better results?
totally agree. i used to think it was pretty funny until mr fuflans pointed out that it looked to be quite high up and no one has said if he was ok.
damn he's got the right camera angle too.
Yes they do because yes they can because yes they have before.