Skip to main content

@bman posted:

Looking forward to seeing Trump and his flying monkeys try to weasel out of it this time!

The weaseling has already begun.  If Drumpf didn't want to cause a panic, then how do you explain the fear mongering about the non caravan? (rhetorical question for everyone except napacat)  

The problem is that his base isn't going anywhere, and that many of the thoughtful opposition are so weary of the onslaught of bullshit from the WH and enablers that we just don't know what to do any more.

Vote people.  Vote.  It's all we have left.

PH

Last edited by purplehaze
@purplehaze posted:

The weaseling has already begun.  If Drumpf didn't want to cause a panic, then how do you explain the fear mongering about the non caravan? (rhetorical question for everyone except napacat)  

The problem is that his base isn't going anywhere, and that many of the thoughtful opposition are so weary of the onslaught of bullshit from the WH and enablers that we just don't know what to do any more.

Vote people.  Vote.  It's all we have left.

PH

I find it interesting that it seems that those countries whose leaders were honest with their people are doing so much better than those who didn't. Because that allowed their people to understand and take steps to protect themselves. And speaking only for my own country, there was no panic at all. Much fear, followed by weary resignation, but no panic. 

@bman posted:

I find it interesting that it seems that those countries whose leaders were honest with their people are doing so much better than those who didn't. Because that allowed their people to understand and take steps to protect themselves. And speaking only for my own country, there was no panic at all. Much fear, followed by weary resignation, but no panic. 

Keep in mind that "panic" for the Trumpkin*  meant panic in the stock market. He doesn't give one rat's ass for the average American.

* Orange on the outside, hollow on the inside and thrown out after November 3.  Credit to irwin for the definition.

PH

Last edited by purplehaze
@napacat posted:

Not wanting to post a political message on the RIP thread in relation to the  great Justice Ginsberg....all Mitch needs to do is apologize for not holding a hearing on Merrick Garland and say he agrees with the Democrats position in 2016 and hold a hearing this time.  Very simple.  

Some things you can apologize for, like eating the last chocolate chip cookie that your wife wanted.  Maybe you'll get away with it.  

When you change the course of history, as Moscow Mitch did in 2016, there is no apology.   It is pure hypocrisy if they try and push this through.  But since the GOP is turning into a bunch of Fascists (Mitch, Barr, 45) it would not be surprising. 

@The Old Man posted:

Very simple; go fuck yourself.

Super classy bro. You totally won the internet argument about whose opinion is more important and life altering.  And your words...eloquent...succinct...and you still kept the moral high ground...just nailed it.  Keep posting this stuff...this will totally bring back everyone who used to come here to talk wine.  Stay gold ponyboy...stay gold.

13.  13 Justices.

Cory Gardner can go...

They genuinely don't care about democracy.  And it isn't like Trump is going to nominate a principled conservative like Roberts.  He is going to nominate a zealot who will be a partisan and legislate from the bench.  If things are at all close, Trump is going to sue to reverse the votes in some states and hope that the SC sides with him.  So maybe there won't be 13 justices, we'll just have a tyrant.  

But if Biden wins, and we take the Senate, 13 justices, welcome DC, Puerto Rico, Pacific Territories, you're now states.  

Fuck this shit.

Last edited by winetarelli
@azwiese posted:

  Keep posting this stuff...this will totally bring back everyone who used to come here to talk wine.  Stay gold ponyboy...stay gold.

I did not know it was my responsibility to bring people to this website. If, as I pointed out before, people can't figure out how to ignore my posts (even with the aid of my black and white avatar) that's their problem. For instance I'm going to ignore anything you write in response to this. It really isn't that hard to do.

Added:

One day when this national nightmare ends we can all sit around and talk about the joys of expensive wines. But right now, to not respond to the supporter of the racist and bigot in the WH, who was of course trolling, is wrong at this time. As for my language, we've already learned, sometime ago, that his reasoning and thinking powers are weak so there is no need to waste time anymore debating him.

Last edited by The Old Man
@The Old Man posted:

I did not know it was my responsibility to bring people to this website. If, as I pointed out before, people can't figure out how to ignore my posts (even with the aid of my black and white avatar) that's their problem. For instance I'm going to ignore anything you write in response to this. It really isn't that hard to do.

 

I didn't say it was your responsibility to bring people to the website.  Sorry that I wasn't clear.  I was trying to imply that you were driving people away.  Your posts are like diarrhea: they are everywhere, there is a lot of them, and they are all crap.  

But you are correct about ignoring you.  Most days I have no problem doing just that, but for whatever reason, your usual gibberish got under my skin today.  I need to be better than that.

@The Old Man posted:

I did not know it was my responsibility to bring people to this website. If, as I pointed out before, people can't figure out how to ignore my posts (even with the aid of my black and white avatar) that's their problem. For instance I'm going to ignore anything you write in response to this. It really isn't that hard to do.

Added:

One day when this national nightmare ends we can all sit around and talk about the joys of expensive wines. But right now, to not respond to the supporter of the racist and bigot in the WH, who was of course trolling, is wrong at this time. As for my language, we've already learned, sometime ago, that his reasoning and thinking powers are weak so there is no need to waste time anymore debating him.

Trump is the racist when Biden was great friends with KKK Robert Bird...and gets a pass...sure ok?  Biden has dwarfed into a fool...playing despicito to try and get the Spanish vote.  Shamelessly using his deceased family members in a healthcare add...just a a damn fool. 

@winetarelli posted:

13.  13 Justices.

Cory Gardner can go...

They genuinely don't care about democracy.  And it isn't like Trump is going to nominate a principled conservative like Roberts.  He is going to nominate a zealot who will be a partisan and legislate from the bench.  If things are at all close, Trump is going to sue to reverse the votes in some states and hope that the SC sides with him.  So maybe there won't be 13 justices, we'll just have a tyrant.  

But if Biden wins, and we take the Senate, 13 justices, welcome DC, Puerto Rico, Pacific Territories, you're now states.  

Fuck this shit.

Thank the Dems for the simple majority vote.  Reaping what the sow.  

@napacat posted:

Trump is the racist when Biden was great friends with KKK Robert Bird...and gets a pass...sure ok?  Biden has dwarfed into a fool...playing despicito to try and get the Spanish vote.  Shamelessly using his deceased family members in a healthcare add...just a a damn fool. 

And soon, mercifully, to be President in a landslide.  While the Dems hold the House and take over the Senate thanks to Trump.  All of which will last for the next 8 years because the Republican Party will tear itself apart once Trump is gone.  

@The Old Man posted:

Got it AZ? You think that I should engage him in an intellectual debate?

Quite the opposite.  You acknowledged that Napa was trolling, but you feel that you are required to feed him anyway.  But much worse, the nature of your reply did nothing but add to the partisan rancor and make it that iota more difficult for any undecided voter who happens to stumble upon this forum (assuming, of course, that such people exist and have an interest in wine) from taking any of the reasoned things that you say seriously.

And now I, for one, will be a man of my word and step away from this part of the discussion.

@sd-wineaux posted:

 But much worse, the nature of your reply did nothing but add to the partisan rancor and make it that iota more difficult for any undecided voter who happens to stumble upon this forum...

Oh gosh. First I have to worry about people not using the Wine Spectator forums because of me and all my "crap posts" and now I'm responsible if an undecided voter should happen to wander by, read my awful response to our known Trump troll, thereby making him vote for Trump? Are you serious? Is this a joke?

Last edited by The Old Man

I try to avoid the political discussions here, and maybe I'm making a mistake posting this, but can someone explain to me the thought process of our President pushing for a Covid vaccine to be authorized before Election Day?

It's pretty clear by now that the scientists and FDA want a possible longer wait period that would push a decision past Nov. 3rd.  The President clearly wants to be able to make an announcement sometime before the Election, as an "October Surprise" that a vaccine has received an emergency use authorization.

What does such an announcement get him?  Is anyone really going to change their minds about their vote based on such an announcement alone?  Is anyone going to really rush out and get a shot in the arm if all the doctors and scientists come out and say that the decision has been rushed and people should be cautious until more data has been received and analyzed.  Does anyone think that the President announcing a vaccine a few days before the Election will make rational people think the Pandemic is over and we can all thank the President for it?

What's the play here?

June 2020, The Old Man: "I'm afraid there's a chance that today's shit-show is a test for using the military if Trump loses, or looks like he's going to lose, the election. Everyday this paranoiac idea seems more possible."

Moronic Trump troll napacat posted:
"You are a paranoid fool!"

Sept. 24, 2020, “We’re going to have to see what happens,” he told a reporter during a news conference at the White House. “You know that I’ve been complaining very strongly [one of only two adverbs he knows] about the [mail-in] ballots and the ballots are a disaster. Get rid of the ballots and you’ll have a very peaceful — there won’t be a transfer, frankly. There will be a continuation."

Translation: Unless all the legitimate mail-in ballots are tossed, and he loses, he's not leaving.

Last edited by The Old Man
@Rothko posted:

I try to avoid the political discussions here, and maybe I'm making a mistake posting this, but can someone explain to me the thought process of our President pushing for a Covid vaccine to be authorized before Election Day?

It's pretty clear by now that the scientists and FDA want a possible longer wait period that would push a decision past Nov. 3rd.  The President clearly wants to be able to make an announcement sometime before the Election, as an "October Surprise" that a vaccine has received an emergency use authorization.

What does such an announcement get him?  Is anyone really going to change their minds about their vote based on such an announcement alone?  Is anyone going to really rush out and get a shot in the arm if all the doctors and scientists come out and say that the decision has been rushed and people should be cautious until more data has been received and analyzed.  Does anyone think that the President announcing a vaccine a few days before the Election will make rational people think the Pandemic is over and we can all thank the President for it?

What's the play here?

This may sound counterintuitive given that he won the election, but Trump isn't any better at politics than he is at governing. He won the election through a perfect storm of flukes, election interference and Hillary's overconfidence. So no surprise to me that he constantly says things that serve no political purpose or even hurt him. He just has no clue. 

@bman posted:

This may sound counterintuitive given that he won the election, but Trump isn't any better at politics than he is at governing. He won the election through a perfect storm of flukes, election interference and Hillary's overconfidence. So no surprise to me that he constantly says things that serve no political purpose or even hurt him. He just has no clue. 

Remember that Trump engineered his own "October surprise" by admitting on tape that he deliberately downplayed the seriousness of the Coronavirus. He is not a very bright guy. But he does have enough sycophants and enablers in Congress who no longer care about our democracy.

@Rothko posted:

I try to avoid the political discussions here, and maybe I'm making a mistake posting this, but can someone explain to me the thought process of our President pushing for a Covid vaccine to be authorized before Election Day?

It's pretty clear by now that the scientists and FDA want a possible longer wait period that would push a decision past Nov. 3rd.  The President clearly wants to be able to make an announcement sometime before the Election, as an "October Surprise" that a vaccine has received an emergency use authorization.

What does such an announcement get him?  Is anyone really going to change their minds about their vote based on such an announcement alone?  Is anyone going to really rush out and get a shot in the arm if all the doctors and scientists come out and say that the decision has been rushed and people should be cautious until more data has been received and analyzed.  Does anyone think that the President announcing a vaccine a few days before the Election will make rational people think the Pandemic is over and we can all thank the President for it?

What's the play here?

This I think is a foolish move.  Especially if they try and override the FDA.  Don't really see the point.  Granted, Trump is not making the vaccine...and  I don't think the companies making it would want to have it distributed if not confident in the efficacy.

@The Old Man posted:

June 2020, The Old Man: "I'm afraid there's a chance that today's shit-show is a test for using the military if Trump loses, or looks like he's going to lose, the election. Everyday this paranoiac idea seems more possible."

Moronic Trump troll napacat posted:
"You are a paranoid fool!"

Sept. 24, 2020, “We’re going to have to see what happens,” he told a reporter during a news conference at the White House. “You know that I’ve been complaining very strongly [one of only two adverbs he knows] about the [mail-in] ballots and the ballots are a disaster. Get rid of the ballots and you’ll have a very peaceful — there won’t be a transfer, frankly. There will be a continuation."

Translation: Unless all the legitimate mail-in ballots are tossed, and he loses, he's not leaving.

Pure mail in voting (Non-absentee) could be a potential disaster.  If this is what is pushed...they are just making it easier for your fears to come true.

And regarding Trump not accepting the outcome...so far the only one that has was Hillary in 2016 and the same Hillary told Biden to not concede this election no matter what.  Not troubling to you Old Man?????  Of course it isn't.  Because you're a hypocrite.  

@napacat posted:

Pure mail in voting (Non-absentee) could be a potential disaster.  If this is what is pushed...they are just making it easier for your fears to come true.

And regarding Trump not accepting the outcome...so far the only one that has was Hillary in 2016 and the same Hillary told Biden to not concede this election no matter what.  Not troubling to you Old Man?????  Of course it isn't.  Because you're a hypocrite.  

You're leaving out important context Napa, which proves again that you get your so-called "Facts" from questionable sources.  Hillary said Biden should not concede until all the votes are counted and legal challenges decided.  Here is the rest of her quote:

""“Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances, because I think this is going to drag out, and eventually I do believe he will win if we don't give an inch, and if we are as focused and relentless as the other side is,” ""

@bman posted:

You're leaving out important context Napa, which proves again that you get your so-called "Facts" from questionable sources.  Hillary said Biden should not concede until all the votes are counted and legal challenges decided.  Here is the rest of her quote:

""“Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances, because I think this is going to drag out, and eventually I do believe he will win if we don't give an inch, and if we are as focused and relentless as the other side is,” ""

This is the why bother to debate this person. He is truly an ignoramus.

"Pure mail in voting (Non-absentee) could be a potential disaster."

Why? I guess you'll have you have to take Barr's "logic" for it. There is no history or study that remotely suggests it'll be a problem.

"And regarding Trump not accepting the outcome...so far the only one that has was Hillary in 2016..."

I have no idea what you're talking about; Hillary conceded on election night. The only person who has said he won't accept the results (if he loses) is Trump.

As I said there is no point debating this person. He's a muddled thinker who will, in response to these responses, jump to some other unrelated point. The worst thing is he thinks he's makes good points, "Not troubling to you Old Man?????" (I like the high schooler's use of multiple question marks) when in reality it's never happened. A true dummkopf.

Done responding, sputter away.

Last edited by The Old Man
@The Old Man posted:

This is the why bother to debate this person. He is truly an ignoramus.

"Pure mail in voting (Non-absentee) could be a potential disaster."

Why? I guess you'll have you have to take Barr's "logic" for it. There is no history or study that remotely suggests it'll be a problem.

"And regarding Trump not accepting the outcome...so far the only one that has was Hillary in 2016..."

I have no idea what you're talking about; Hillary conceded on election night. The only person who has said he won't accept the results (if he loses) is Trump.

As I said there is no point debating this person. He's a muddled thinker who will, in response to these responses, jump to some other unrelated point. The worst thing is he thinks he's makes good points, "Not troubling to you Old Man?????" (I like the high schooler's use of multiple question marks) when in reality it's never happened. A true dummkopf.

Done responding, sputter away.

Oh Old Man...there is nothing wrong with the statement that mail in voting (non-Absentee) would be a disaster.  The Attorney General said the Dems are playing with fire here.  Are you saying you have a better instinct / knowledge than the AG?  Doubtful! (exclamation point for you).

@napacat posted:

Oh Old Man...there is nothing wrong with the statement that mail in voting (non-Absentee) would be a disaster.  The Attorney General said the Dems are playing with fire here.  Are you saying you have a better instinct / knowledge than the AG?  Doubtful! (exclamation point for you).

Anyone knows better than the AG!  No one with any credibility believes that mail in voting will be a disaster because it's gone on for decades with no meaningful issues. Trump knows he's gonna lose and so is trying to undermine the integrity of the election. And Barr is his shameless syncophantic facilitator. 

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×