Cannonpointer » 8 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ The evidence of whether the dem party is over. You don't seem to be reading his posts, either.
The fact is, this thread is speculative. But the speculation is not out of nowhere. There is good cause for a suspicion that the democrat party could be seriously damaged by this failure.
No deck has ever been more stacked, from the billions worth of star power to the billions worth of lawfare to the billions worth of fake news to the well remembered threats of street violence and press-driven/cop-ignored city burnings to the fixed debates in which the blowjob queen had the questions in advance, the mods on her side, and a prompter in her ear.
Trump still winning against all of that election interference and corruption has absolutely endangered the future of the party. Speculating on what they will do and whether it will mitigate the damage is a perfectly reasonable conversation.
Post the numbers, then you can dance away the heartache....Cannonpointer » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ You have demonstrated innumeracy over and over again, brown.
Yup.Blackvegetable » 13 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ America doesn't need a toothless sibling **** speaking for it.
Blackvegetable » 4 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ Post the numbers, then you can dance away the heartache....
@Blackvegetable*Huey » Yesterday, 1:05 pm » wrote: ↑ When Bush won in 04 it was the end of the Dems.
When Obama won it was the end of the Pubs.
When the GOP won the house in 2010 it was the end of the Dems.
In most elections of the last decade it was the end of the losing party.
Indeed. I have a commodity that is currently overvalued - that does help with relationships.Fuelman » 13 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ At today's egg prices that sounds like a good deal for the people you barter with. Quite resourceful.
You are stuck on this stupid idea that what the dems' voters did in the last election is some kind of evidence of what they will do in the next. That is not a well thought out position. People are a tad upset that a promised rout turned into a rout in the other direction. They trusted the corrupt, smirking machine holding all the cards to deliver - and it failed. NOW comes the reaction - not BEFORE the failure, you mediocre midwit.Blackvegetable » 12 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ How do you know?
Post the thread title, followed by the vote totals.
Tiny,*Huey » 9 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ I know that is what he wants. I am reading his posts. I suggested he read the entire discussion I had because he would of learned that I don't believe the dem party is over. I am about to show that to him. So it is a waste of time to get into a manufactured argument with him because he is embarrassed to admit he his wrong.
No.Cannonpointer » 6 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ You are stuck on this stupid idea that what the dems' voters did in the last election is some kind of evidence of what they will do in the next. That is not a well thought out position. People are a tad upset that a promised rout turned into a rout in the other direction. They trusted the corrupt, smirking machine holding all the cards to deliver - and it failed. NOW comes the reaction - not BEFORE the failure, you mediocre midwit.
Blackvegetable » 5 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ Tiny,
We KNOW many are your stands...
It is why I rarely ask you to do anything but confirm objective facts.
No, it's worse than that. He thinks the number of democrat votes in the last election testifies to the party's relevance in the next.FJB » 16 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ BV can't handle the fact that Trump won the popular vote and the electoral vote
Blackvegetable » 5 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ Tiny,
We KNOW many are your stands...
It is why I rarely ask you to do anything but confirm objective facts.
What a brilliant rejoinder to the first post which actually understood and responded thoughtfully to your feces, fruitcake.
Yeah, I realized that right after I responded to you. I DID read your posts, and I agree that nothing in those vote totals would confute a word you have uttered.*Huey » 14 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ I know that is what he wants. I am reading his posts. I suggested he read the entire discussion I had because he would of learned that I don't believe the dem party is over. I am about to show that to him. So it is a waste of time to get into a manufactured argument with him because he is embarrassed to admit he his wrong.
I do know.*Huey » 11 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ Actually, you didn't know because you refused to read the entire conversation. You got a well deserved curb stomping on this.
You have been running around demanding people post the numbers for weeks now. When are you going to learn to do it yourself? Next, I am NOT going to waste my time posting those numbers when it has nothing to do with my posts on the topic. No, idiot, the dem party is not dying. If you weren't so lazy you wouldn't have my time with this smack.
You want to discuss those nubers, YOU Post them. Then tell us how much they fell from 2020.
You aren't close.Cannonpointer » 10 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ What a brilliant rejoinder to the first post which actually understood and responded thoughtfully to your feces, fruitcake.
This is what earns you all that respect.
Blackvegetable » 9 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ I do know.
You ALWAYS take several stands on the same issue.
It is why, when confronted with your words, you are challenged to accept authorship.
I'm not that interested in sequential dismemberment....I'm aborting the entire premise informing the vast bulk of post election yapping.
Now you've been told.
post the number.
The number of people who voted dem to defeat LITERALLY HITLER CONVICTED RAPIST PUTIN PUPPET INSURRECTIONIST is not relevant to how many will defect now that the party proved itself ineffective against LITERALLY HITLER CONVICTED RAPIST PUTIN PUPPET INSURRECTIONIST.Blackvegetable » 24 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ Post the numbers, then you can dance away the heartache....