Re: The far left progressives have to be isolated and eliminated.

by **Cameron** 2024-11-10, 09:58

Trapper Gus wrote:
kingstonlake wrote:Fine.

Let’s give Harris every vote Biden got in six swing states in 2020

Pennsylvania: Biden 2020 3,458,229 Trump 2024 3,511,865

Georgia: Biden 2020 2,473,633 Trump 2024 2,660,655

Michigan: Biden 2020 2,804,040 Trump 2024 2,809,330

Wisconsin: Biden 2020: 1,630,866 Trump 2024 1,697,514

Arizona: Biden 2020 1,672, 143 Trump 2024 1,575,300

Nevada: Biden 2020 703, 486 Trump: 728, 289

IT,s tHE PRoggRreSSives FAUlt

Seems to me to be a good illustration of how Trump & his campaign were outstanding politically.

All the "blame the Democratics" crowd keeps ignoring this, Trump et al are very good at campaigning.

That's your cope now? "Actually, Trump is a political genius and the Democrats did everything right."

Great analysis, Mr. Blue Wave.

by **Trapper Gus** 2024-11-10, 10:05

Cameron wrote:
Trapper Gus wrote:

Seems to me to be a good illustration of how Trump & his campaign were outstanding politically.

All the "blame the Democratics" crowd keeps ignoring this, Trump et al are very good at campaigning.

That's your cope now? "Actually, Trump is a political genius and the Democrats did everything right."

Great analysis, Mr. Blue Wave.

Trump et al are very good at running a campaign, yes. Anyone looking at the last three elections should be able to see that.

Harris was about as good a spokesperson for the Democratics as anyone could be, but people didn't bother to look at her because 8 years of MSM coverage of Trump, engineering by the Trump campaign, told people that the Democratics were the problem.

(I have seen some posters on here claiming that Harris was too moderate, as if someone proposing major changes to programs which would help the lower middle income voters is a moderate (not). The problem is not the Harris campaign, that was fine. The problem is that the Democratic messaging never gets to 50% of the voters like the Republican one does)

If you all want a solution then it is a ongoing always on the news attack on the Republicans with emotionally grabbing issues, which do not need to be true, just attention grabbing.

by **Cameron** 2024-11-11, 16:09

[tw]1855996033953591411[/tw]

by **DWags** 2024-11-11, 16:13

Cameron wrote:[tw]1855996033953591411[/tw]

Or, we can just look at the republicans main commercials during the campaign and ponder why they ran them.

Will we? Nah, we’re always, wtithiut doubt the smartest people in the room.

We got guys on here telling me I shouldn’t worry about political ads, and then in their next breath are saying they can’t remember one ad from Kamala Yet I can remember a couple specific ads From the Republicans I’ll let you figure out what they were about

It’s easy to say screw that, they didn’t help the Republicans But then, why were they running them so much?

by PennSpartan 2024-11-11, 16:24

Cameron wrote:[tw]1855996033953591411[/tw]

I always find it interesting when the left attacks corporations. As if they make their clothes by hand and grow vegetables and raise cattle in the backyard.

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2024-11-11, 16:36

PennSpartan wrote:
Cameron wrote:[tw]1855996033953591411[/tw]
I always find it interesting when the left attacks corporations. As if they make their clothes by hand and grow vegetables and raise cattle in the backyard.

It’s all or nothing always with you, huh? Nothing in the middle ever. Weird way to live bro

by **kingstonlake** 2024-11-11, 16:40

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
PennSpartan wrote:
I always find it interesting when the left attacks corporations. As if they make their clothes by hand and grow vegetables and raise cattle in the backyard.
It’s all or nothing always with you, huh? Nothing in the middle ever. Weird way to live bro

“Just a bartender”

by **Heat Miser** 2024-11-11, 21:32

The only people those ads worked on are DWags' "friends", the political consultants/commentators on the "news", and the Democratic party.

Nationally, 64% of voters recall seeing an anti-trans attack ad against Kamala Harris. But just 4%—dead last on this list— identify opposing surgeries for trans people and trans kids’ participation in sports as issues motivating them to vote. (This aligns with research Gallup found in September). In fact, when asked directly which candidate ”represents your views on transgender people,” voters pick Harris (52 to 40 percent).

New Post Election Poll: Equality Voters Overwhelmingly Backed Harris-Walz ticket; Anti-Trans Attack Ads Proved Ineffective with Broad Swath of Voters

ICYMI: New Survey Finds Anti-Trans Ads Ineffective, Disliked by Voters

by **Heat Miser** 2024-11-11, 21:39

And here's what happens when you tell part of your base to fuck off:

[tw]1854514365162201245[/tw]

by **DWags** 2024-11-11, 21:45

Heat Miser wrote:The only people those ads worked on are DWags' "friends", the political consultants/commentators on the "news", and the Democratic party.

Nationally, 64% of voters recall seeing an anti-trans attack ad against Kamala Harris. But just 4%—dead last on this list— identify opposing surgeries for trans people and trans kids’ participation in sports as issues motivating them to vote. (This aligns with research Gallup found in September). In fact, when asked directly which candidate ”represents your views on transgender people,” voters pick Harris (52 to 40 percent).

New Post Election Poll: Equality Voters Overwhelmingly Backed Harris-Walz ticket; Anti-Trans Attack Ads Proved Ineffective with Broad Swath of Voters

ICYMI: New Survey Finds Anti-Trans Ads Ineffective, Disliked by Voters

4%? Is that a good hunk of voters in states that were close?

What else did the republicans do to chip away at various voting groups. Frankly, I’d spend a good bit of money on those ads if it motivated 4% to vote. Are we missing the point again? I really don’t know. 4% here, 6% there add up quickly.

What about the Trump policy of paying for prisoners to go about getting surgery? That was somehow turned against Harris, and ads were made. Those aren’t trans kids playing in sports but I can see them appealing to the economic side in America.

We have to self scout and figure this out. If not a convicted felon and Rapist will beat us again.

by PennSpartan 2024-11-11, 21:48

Heat Miser wrote:And here's what happens when you tell part of your base to fuck off:

[tw]1854514365162201245[/tw]

Oh, please. Nobody, and I mean nobody gives a shit about Gaza in Pennsylvania. The far left progressives have to be isolated and eliminated. - Page 9 2803167989

The far left progressives have to be isolated and eliminated. - Page 9 2803167989

by **Heat Miser** 2024-11-11, 21:54

DWags wrote:
Heat Miser wrote:The only people those ads worked on are DWags' "friends", the political consultants/commentators on the "news", and the Democratic party.

Nationally, 64% of voters recall seeing an anti-trans attack ad against Kamala Harris. But just 4%—dead last on this list— identify opposing surgeries for trans people and trans kids’ participation in sports as issues motivating them to vote. (This aligns with research Gallup found in September). In fact, when asked directly which candidate ”represents your views on transgender people,” voters pick Harris (52 to 40 percent).

New Post Election Poll: Equality Voters Overwhelmingly Backed Harris-Walz ticket; Anti-Trans Attack Ads Proved Ineffective with Broad Swath of Voters

ICYMI: New Survey Finds Anti-Trans Ads Ineffective, Disliked by Voters

4%? Is that a good hunk of voters in states that were close?

What else did the republicans do to chip away at various voting groups. Frankly, I’d spend a good bit of money on those ads if it motivated 4% to vote. Are we missing the point again? I really don’t know. 4% here, 6% there add up quickly.

What about the Trump policy of paying for prisoners to go about getting surgery? That was somehow turned against Harris, and ads were made. Those aren’t trans kids playing in sports but I can see them appealing to the economic side in America.

We have to self scout and figure this out. If not a convicted felon and Rapist will beat us again.

I'd spend "a good chunk of the money" on things that weren't dead last on the list of things voters gave a shit about. I wouldn't be running around playing kissy face with Liz Cheney. I wouldn't make "opportunity economy" the cornerstone of my "plan". I would distance myself from Biden, who was largely unpopular. When asked what I'd do differently over the last 4 years, I'd have a better answer than "nothing". I wouldn't say "vote for me because I'm not the other guy".

by **Heat Miser** 2024-11-11, 21:55

PennSpartan wrote:
Heat Miser wrote:And here's what happens when you tell part of your base to fuck off:

[tw]1854514365162201245[/tw]
Oh, please. Nobody, and I mean nobody gives a shit about Gaza in Pennsylvania.

Proving your ignorance.

by **DWags** 2024-11-11, 22:35

Heat Miser wrote:
DWags wrote:

4%? Is that a good hunk of voters in states that were close?

What else did the republicans do to chip away at various voting groups. Frankly, I’d spend a good bit of money on those ads if it motivated 4% to vote. Are we missing the point again? I really don’t know. 4% here, 6% there add up quickly.

What about the Trump policy of paying for prisoners to go about getting surgery? That was somehow turned against Harris, and ads were made. Those aren’t trans kids playing in sports but I can see them appealing to the economic side in America.

We have to self scout and figure this out. If not a convicted felon and Rapist will beat us again.

I'd spend "a good chunk of the money" on things that weren't dead last on the list of things voters gave a shit about. I wouldn't be running around playing kissy face with Liz Cheney. I wouldn't make "opportunity economy" the cornerstone of my "plan". I would distance myself from Biden, who was largely unpopular. When asked what I'd do differently over the last 4 years, I'd have a better answer than "nothing". I wouldn't say "vote for me because I'm not the other guy".

Well republicans spent a lot of money on getting 4%. It’s ironic that beyond sports the transgender prison policy was a Trump policy but they were able to use it against Harris. 4% isn’t a small percentage

Is there any data that would tell us if Harris would have lost voters had she come out strongly against Israel? Or, is there data that says those voters with holding votes would have indeed voted for her. Or maybe did anyway?

You’re talking to the wrong guy here. I would have voted for Biden. I did vote for Harris. I would have voted for Newsom or Bernie. This election was too important imo to hold your vote. Not until Trump was dead and gone would I have withheld my vote. Not in 2024. But you’ve said it best, these people are going to find out right quick. The whole smash is coming. This is one big pivot coming.

by **Heat Miser** 2024-11-11, 22:46

DWags wrote:
Heat Miser wrote:
DWags wrote:

4%? Is that a good hunk of voters in states that were close?

What else did the republicans do to chip away at various voting groups. Frankly, I’d spend a good bit of money on those ads if it motivated 4% to vote. Are we missing the point again? I really don’t know. 4% here, 6% there add up quickly.

What about the Trump policy of paying for prisoners to go about getting surgery? That was somehow turned against Harris, and ads were made. Those aren’t trans kids playing in sports but I can see them appealing to the economic side in America.

We have to self scout and figure this out. If not a convicted felon and Rapist will beat us again.

I'd spend "a good chunk of the money" on things that weren't dead last on the list of things voters gave a shit about. I wouldn't be running around playing kissy face with Liz Cheney. I wouldn't make "opportunity economy" the cornerstone of my "plan". I would distance myself from Biden, who was largely unpopular. When asked what I'd do differently over the last 4 years, I'd have a better answer than "nothing". I wouldn't say "vote for me because I'm not the other guy".

Well republicans spent a lot of money on getting 4%. It’s ironic that beyond sports the transgender prison policy was a Trump policy but they were able to use it against Harris. 4% isn’t a small percentage

Is there any data that would tell us if Harris would have lost voters had she come out strongly against Israel? Or, is there data that says those voters with holding votes would have indeed voted for her. Or maybe did anyway?

You’re talking to the wrong guy here. I would have voted for Biden. I did vote for Harris. I would have voted for Newsom or Bernie. This election was too important imo to hold your vote. Not until Trump was dead and gone would I have withheld my vote. Not in 2024. But you’ve said it best, these people are going to find out right quick. The whole smash is coming. This is one big pivot coming.

If your relatives are getting slaughtered on the other side of the world with American made bombs, it might be near the top of your issue list.

Poll: Majority of Americans Say Biden Should Halt Weapons Shipments to Israel

Majority of Jewish voters open to partial arms embargo on Israel

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2024-11-11, 22:54

Heat Miser wrote:The only people those ads worked on are DWags' "friends", the political consultants/commentators on the "news", and the Democratic party.

Nationally, 64% of voters recall seeing an anti-trans attack ad against Kamala Harris. But just 4%—dead last on this list— identify opposing surgeries for trans people and trans kids’ participation in sports as issues motivating them to vote. (This aligns with research Gallup found in September). In fact, when asked directly which candidate ”represents your views on transgender people,” voters pick Harris (52 to 40 percent).

New Post Election Poll: Equality Voters Overwhelmingly Backed Harris-Walz ticket; Anti-Trans Attack Ads Proved Ineffective with Broad Swath of Voters

ICYMI: New Survey Finds Anti-Trans Ads Ineffective, Disliked by Voters

The only real question is if the Lincoln Project was ever real or if it was always a grift to funnel Democratic donations into inept advertising and to control Democratic messaging.

Kidding. Kinda.

by **DWags** 2024-11-11, 23:38

In many ways Stewart agrees with Heat here. Dems moving right and getting their ass beat.

[tw]1856185545036042438?s=46&t=o_-92Ldle66XHQBlJVUMFQ[/tw]

by PennSpartan 2024-11-12, 06:37

So what we have established is that the left didn’t vote for Harris. Is anyone surprised? They didn’t vote for Hillary either.

by **Heat Miser** 2024-11-12, 09:47

Here's what Pub Lite & Liz Cheney gets you:

[tw]1854252523688734727[/tw]

by TravelinMan 2024-11-12, 10:24

PennSpartan wrote:So what we have established is that the left didn’t vote for Harris. Is anyone surprised? They didn’t vote for Hillary either.

Why do Democrats hate women?!? The far left progressives have to be isolated and eliminated. - Page 9 502811600

by **Heat Miser** 2024-11-12, 16:59

Another case of the Pub Lite strategy fail:

The Real Reason Texas Isn’t Turning Blue

by **Cameron** 2024-11-13, 15:23

So What Does That Mean in Practice?

One reason why these discussions spiral into uselessness is that the veneer of “nonpartisanship” in mainstream media which causes them to focus on horse race analytics rather than on interrogating the morality of policy questions has seeped into the mind of the general public and now causes a great deal of election analysis to be amateur message analysis rather than substantive discussions of what humans need from politicians. If you find yourself thinking, “How should we change our messaging to win the next campaign?” I suggest you hit yourself hard on the head with a hammer a few times. That might knock you out of that frame. Recognize that the important question is what should be done to improve people’s lives, not what should be said. I am not James Fucking Carville, thank god. You can indulge in the sport of picking your favorite messaging as a balm to the election loss if you want, but be aware that the more time you spend on that, the less time you are spending thinking about changing the policies that change the world that change lives, which is the point of politics in the first place. Messaging is easy if you have actually fixed people’s problems.

I am not here to play messaging guru. What the Democrats should do substantively going forward is: Fix people’s problems. Attack the crisis of economic inequality. Tax the rich and send the money to the poor and working class and create universal public health care and child care and free education and strengthen the labor movement and restrict the power of capital and watch the nation’s deepest problems shrink, because the nation’s deepest problems stem from the fact that America allows capitalism to arrange everything for the benefit of capital, which results in an array of awful consequences for humanity.

Pissing off wealthy Democratic donors by raising taxes and gutting private health care industry profits by fighting for Medicare For All? Hard. Difficult. Likely to prompt serious political backlash. But “listening to” these desirable voting constituencies by trying to grab onto the same prejudices that Trump waved around to great effect? Cheap! Easy! Does not piss off any rich people! If you think I am being cynical here, consider the Bill Clinton on welfare and crime, and Barack Obama’s years opposing gay marriage. This is an old playbook for Democrats who believe themselves to be savvy. And you can be sure, quite sure, that the playbook is right this minute being passed around Capitol Hill as the key to scraping off just enough of those Trump voters to get the Democratic Party out of its current troubles.

by sεяεηιτλ 2024-11-13, 15:51

Cameron wrote:So What Does That Mean in Practice?

One reason why these discussions spiral into uselessness is that the veneer of “nonpartisanship” in mainstream media which causes them to focus on horse race analytics rather than on interrogating the morality of policy questions has seeped into the mind of the general public and now causes a great deal of election analysis to be amateur message analysis rather than substantive discussions of what humans need from politicians. If you find yourself thinking, “How should we change our messaging to win the next campaign?” I suggest you hit yourself hard on the head with a hammer a few times. That might knock you out of that frame. Recognize that the important question is what should be done to improve people’s lives, not what should be said. I am not James Fucking Carville, thank god. You can indulge in the sport of picking your favorite messaging as a balm to the election loss if you want, but be aware that the more time you spend on that, the less time you are spending thinking about changing the policies that change the world that change lives, which is the point of politics in the first place. Messaging is easy if you have actually fixed people’s problems.

I am not here to play messaging guru. What the Democrats should do substantively going forward is: Fix people’s problems. Attack the crisis of economic inequality. Tax the rich and send the money to the poor and working class and create universal public health care and child care and free education and strengthen the labor movement and restrict the power of capital and watch the nation’s deepest problems shrink, because the nation’s deepest problems stem from the fact that America allows capitalism to arrange everything for the benefit of capital, which results in an array of awful consequences for humanity.

Pissing off wealthy Democratic donors by raising taxes and gutting private health care industry profits by fighting for Medicare For All? Hard. Difficult. Likely to prompt serious political backlash. But “listening to” these desirable voting constituencies by trying to grab onto the same prejudices that Trump waved around to great effect? Cheap! Easy! Does not piss off any rich people! If you think I am being cynical here, consider the Bill Clinton on welfare and crime, and Barack Obama’s years opposing gay marriage. This is an old playbook for Democrats who believe themselves to be savvy. And you can be sure, quite sure, that the playbook is right this minute being passed around Capitol Hill as the key to scraping off just enough of those Trump voters to get the Democratic Party out of its current troubles.

How, exactly, can Democrats even hope to make people's lives better if they don't win? The truth is, Republicans are exceedingly good at making sure Democrats have no wins to improve lives. The one time where we could overcome Republican obstructionism, we got the ACA. That was swell. How do we get those circumstances again?

This cycle Biden got the inflation reduction act thru, but I bet repubs knew it was too complicated and wasn't going to work fast enough to save dems.

The truth isIts messaging. Its the only way. Through messaging. Its all trump had this election, it's basically all Republicans ever have. Any article telling you you can only do, to get the voters, is wrong. What you need is the right messaging and the right charismatic people delivering it. Harris had the wrong messaging and had the charisma of a toad. She and Biden also did very little messaging in the last 4 years to counter the Republican narratives. Big mistake, huge.

Get a more charismatic person up there, hire some good writers, hire a team of social media experts, hire a comedian to add in levity and to make people smile and laugh to add to the charisma, hammer Republicans on everything every day by creating bizzworthy political events. Hold 3 day rallies in Dearborn. Same for Detroit. Same for Saginaw and Flint. Make it an event that people have no option but to hear about it. Drop fliers from the sky, whatever it takes to get traction. And do it tomorrow through 2028. The Jon Stewart daily show is a model for success. Educate through entertainment.

by PennSpartan 2024-11-13, 16:09

sεяεηιτλ wrote:
Cameron wrote:So What Does That Mean in Practice?

How, exactly, can Democrats even hope to make people's lives better if they don't win?

Some Democrats care more about Palestine than winning American elections.

by sεяεηιτλ 2024-11-13, 16:38

PennSpartan wrote:
sεяεηιτλ wrote:

How, exactly, can Democrats even hope to make people's lives better if they don't win?
Some Democrats care more about Palestine than winning American elections.

We can have it all, all you gotta do is get up there, with a smile, and acknowledge the conundrum that is having Israel as our strong ally and the position of the Palestinian people. Acknowledge openly that we can promote peace in a way that we can all have what we want. We will not support Israel with further weapons but we will aid both sides with food and medical aid. We will also work closely with Palestine to identify and root out Hamas terrorists so that Palestinians can know peace. We will help Palestine prevent Hamas attacks on Israel and with Israel to defend against terrorist attacks on it's people. Together we can assist in eliminating conflict on the levant and bring prosperity to both sides in a difficult situation. Together we can have peace and friendship and strong mutually beneficial relationships. Mic drop

Acknowledge how difficult this situation is, draw a distinction between Palestinian people and Hamas, help the Palestinian people reclaim peace and control by getting rid of Hamas, help them with food and medical aid, all the while you just essentially promised Israel to help them actually win the war but without the destruction or weapons. Some American Muslims might not be swayed but many will be, most of them are pretty far removed from the region at this point and promising to work with the Palestinian people for peace would be a nice sentiment.

by **kingstonlake** 2024-11-13, 16:55

PennSpartan wrote:
sεяεηιτλ wrote:

How, exactly, can Democrats even hope to make people's lives better if they don't win?
Some Democrats care more about Palestine than winning American elections.

Then there’s the idiots that don’t care about either.

by PennSpartan 2024-11-13, 16:56

sεяεηιτλ wrote:
PennSpartan wrote:
Some Democrats care more about Palestine than winning American elections.

We can have it all, all you gotta do is get up there, with a smile, and acknowledge the conundrum that is having Israel as our strong ally and the position of the Palestinian people. Acknowledge openly that we can promote peace in a way that we can all have what we want. We will not support Israel with further weapons but we will aid both sides with food and medical aid. We will also work closely with Palestine to identify and root out Hamas terrorists so that Palestinians can know peace. We will help Palestine prevent Hamas attacks on Israel and with Israel to defend against terrorist attacks on it's people. Together we can assist in eliminating conflict on the levant and bring prosperity to both sides in a difficult situation. Together we can have peace and friendship and strong mutually beneficial relationships. Mic drop

Acknowledge how difficult this situation is, draw a distinction between Palestinian people and Hamas, help the Palestinian people reclaim peace and control by getting rid of Hamas, help them with food and medical aid, all the while you just essentially promised Israel to help them actually win the war but without the destruction or weapons. Some American Muslims might not be swayed but many will be, most of them are pretty far removed from the region at this point and promising to work with the Palestinian people for peace would be a nice sentiment.

Should we sing Kumbaya, too?

by TravelinMan 2024-11-13, 17:06

kingstonlake wrote:
PennSpartan wrote:
Some Democrats care more about Palestine than winning American elections.

Then there’s the idiots that don’t care about either.

Hey! You leave Bob out of this.

by **Heat Miser** 2024-11-13, 19:59

Just watched an hour long panel with Rashida Tlaib on immigration. Shockingly, she didn't say "death to America". Not even once. Hmmm...this is at odds with what I've been told about her by some people here. Go figure.

by **DWags** 2024-11-13, 20:13

I think she got many people up in arms by using the phrase “from the river to the sea, which some seem to believe calls for the destruction of Israel. But I’ve never heard her say “death to America”. It’s a pretty easy step for the racists in our country to change one phrase to the other and then have people believe she said it.

In April Fox News wanted her to condemn the chant in Dearborn. But she has never said it.

by **Trapper Gus** 2024-11-13, 20:16

TravelinMan wrote:
kingstonlake wrote:

Then there’s the idiots that don’t care about either.

Hey! You leave Bob out of this.

Oh Bob cares, he just doesn't let it overwhelm real life.

by TravelinMan 2024-11-13, 20:17

Heat Miser wrote:Just watched an hour long panel with Rashida Tlaib on immigration. Shockingly, she didn't say "death to America". Not even once. Hmmm...this is at odds with what I've been told about her by some people here. Go figure.

Huh. That’ll probably lose her votes with her constituents.

by **Heat Miser** 2024-11-13, 20:19

TravelinMan wrote:
Heat Miser wrote:Just watched an hour long panel with Rashida Tlaib on immigration. Shockingly, she didn't say "death to America". Not even once. Hmmm...this is at odds with what I've been told about her by some people here. Go figure.

Huh. That’ll probably lose her votes with her constituents.

I don't think she's worried. She got more votes than Harris in her district.

by TravelinMan 2024-11-13, 20:32

Heat Miser wrote:
TravelinMan wrote:

Huh. That’ll probably lose her votes with her constituents.

I don't think she's worried. She got more votes than Harris in her district.

Talk about a low bar!

by PennSpartan 2024-11-13, 20:36

Heat Miser wrote:
TravelinMan wrote:

Huh. That’ll probably lose her votes with her constituents.

I don't think she's worried. She got more votes than Harris in her district.

So proud to win the Muslim vote. The far left progressives have to be isolated and eliminated. - Page 9 3493939353

by **Trapper Gus** 2024-11-14, 08:30

Penn & TM talking nonsense again.

Since you represent the low information voters it makes sense

by TravelinMan 2024-11-14, 08:32

Trapper Gus wrote:Penn & TM talking nonsense again.

Since you represent the low information voters it makes sense

Did you tell Bob that we're now representing him? I don't think he's gonna be happy about that.

Oh hey - BTW - #BlueWave baby!

by **Trapper Gus** 2024-11-14, 09:10

TravelinMan wrote:
Trapper Gus wrote:Penn & TM talking nonsense again.

Since you represent the low information voters it makes sense

Did you tell Bob that we're now representing him? I don't think he's gonna be happy about that.

Oh hey - BTW - #BlueWave baby!

Bob is the smartest guy on here, you aren't mentally fit to wash his car.

by TravelinMan 2024-11-14, 09:16

Trapper Gus wrote:
TravelinMan wrote:

Did you tell Bob that we're now representing him? I don't think he's gonna be happy about that.

Oh hey - BTW - #BlueWave baby!

Bob is the smartest guy on here, you aren't mentally fit to wash his car.

Actually, I'm very good at washing cars. Interior, exterior, engine bay, paint correction - I'm not a half bad detailer. I find it very therapeutic. Kind of an instant gratification task.

by PennSpartan 2024-11-14, 16:08

Trapper Gus wrote:
TravelinMan wrote:

Did you tell Bob that we're now representing him? I don't think he's gonna be happy about that.

Oh hey - BTW - #BlueWave baby!

Bob is the smartest guy on here

by Sponsored content