Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
57 Posts
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Parody or Not: Joss Whedon Edition rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: joss_whedon_=_democrat_drew [+] [View All]
Shawn Fox
United States
Richardson
Texas
flag msg tools
Question everything.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It was exactly my thought when I saw the nonsense this morning about potential voter fraud. I think voter fraud is very unlikely, but pointing out the possibility that Trump would commit voter fraud after talking about how the Democrats were doing it seemed pretty humorous to me.

That said, there is as much proof that the Republicans committed voter fraud as there has been for the various scandals the Republicans accused Clinton of committing, so certainly it seems like there should be a congressional investigation, or maybe 47 of them, just to make sure no fraud was committed.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
utoption2 wrote:
Silly democrats. They aren't creative enough to come up with their own theories for losing, so they have to co-op the Republican ideas.

Stop bitching, democrats, and start analyzing why you all really lost. Here's are some starter ideas: Your candidate was an elitist, out-of-touch, entitled, criminal, unlikeable person that very few really wanted to lead our country.
Actually I think the most compelling theory so far is that Hillary lost because they took Trump's twitter away for the last two weeks of the campaign.
22 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tom Patterson
United States
Brooklyn
New York
flag msg tools
What were you expecting?
badge
I have overtext 'cause everyone else was doing it.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
utoption2 wrote:

Silly democrats. They aren't creative enough to come up with their own theories for losing, so they have to co-op the Republican ideas.

Stop bitching, democrats, and start analyzing why you all really lost. Here's are some starter ideas: Your candidate was an elitist, out-of-touch, entitled, criminal, unlikeable person that very few really wanted to lead our country.


You might want to look up what "very few" means when the guy you back got less votes.
13 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Stone
United States
Texarkana
Texas
flag msg tools
May the bikini be with you!
badge
I destroy SJWs!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
galad2003 wrote:
Looking at Whedon's twitter page the Trump win has clearly fried his brain.


Perusing such locations as Youtube and, well...here, clear he is not alone.

If Trump Derangement Syndrome isn't fatal, it would seem for many, it certainly is a crippling condition.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marco Mann
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Considering the way Trump has been backtracking on everything he said in his campaign I expect Hilary Clinton to be announced as Secretary of State any day now.
12 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lee Fisher
United States
Downingtown
PA
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
utoption2 wrote:
TommyP wrote:
utoption2 wrote:

Silly democrats. They aren't creative enough to come up with their own theories for losing, so they have to co-op the Republican ideas.

Stop bitching, democrats, and start analyzing why you all really lost. Here's are some starter ideas: Your candidate was an elitist, out-of-touch, entitled, criminal, unlikeable person that very few really wanted to lead our country.


You might want to look up what "very few" means when the guy you back got less votes.


Nope. Considering the EC vote to be, "Very few" fits perfectly.

Sorry, silly Constitution, only the EC vote counts, TommyP. I know that Popular Vote is nice warm blankie for you, but it really means nothing, just ask Al Gore (I am still really pissed off about the 2000 election).

Why do we have to keep repeating ourselves about the Constitution and EC vote?


By any measure "very few really wanted to lead our country" is clearly false.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Grand Admiral Thrawn
United States
New Jersey
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
utoption2 wrote:
Drew1365 wrote:
Time again for Parody or Not: Joss Whedon Edition!







Silly democrats. They aren't creative enough to come up with their own theories for losing, so they have to co-op the Republican ideas.

Stop bitching, democrats, and start analyzing why you all really lost. Here's are some starter ideas: Your candidate was an elitist, out-of-touch, entitled, criminal, unlikeable person that very few really wanted to lead our country.

Are you so sure, comrade? In Post-Fact America, machine votes you!!!

Heh heh heh...



2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lee Fisher
United States
Downingtown
PA
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
utoption2 wrote:
lfisher wrote:
utoption2 wrote:
TommyP wrote:
utoption2 wrote:

Silly democrats. They aren't creative enough to come up with their own theories for losing, so they have to co-op the Republican ideas.

Stop bitching, democrats, and start analyzing why you all really lost. Here's are some starter ideas: Your candidate was an elitist, out-of-touch, entitled, criminal, unlikeable person that very few really wanted to lead our country.


You might want to look up what "very few" means when the guy you back got less votes.


Nope. Considering the EC vote to be, "Very few" fits perfectly.

Sorry, silly Constitution, only the EC vote counts, TommyP. I know that Popular Vote is nice warm blankie for you, but it really means nothing, just ask Al Gore (I am still really pissed off about the 2000 election).

Why do we have to keep repeating ourselves about the Constitution and EC vote?


By any measure "very few really wanted to lead our country" is clearly false.


How much of an EC differential would be convincing for you? The 2012 EC vote was pretty close to this years and 2012 was considered by the Blues to be a landslide! Geez.


EC has no connection to "very few really wanted to lead our country". Perhaps you should rephrase or express what you actually mean.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Grand Admiral Thrawn
United States
New Jersey
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm going to be looking hard for evidence of it, but it doesn't seem likely because:
a) I'm a poll worker and there's just so many different systems they'd be hard to hack. Some of it does occur with the Democrats in Cook County and Republicans with voter purge lists. Poll workers are extremely (!!!!!!!!!) incompetent and so mistakes are bound to happen just with them. I told you everyone I work with is a 90-year-old lady.
b) They would have to swing a lot of swing states and there were too many.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Grand Admiral Thrawn
United States
New Jersey
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

. . .

Mostly "we" (I'm not really a Democrat) lost because of the economy. Democrats need to run an appealing candidate with a message, who connects on the economy. It doesn't matter that Trump lies about fixing it because no one cares about the truth. Certainly not the dumb average American voter. He had a good message, stuck to it, a lot of it was truthful. Immigration and globalization and trade deals make peoples' lives really fucking suck. And he will fix it. Clinton had no message. Clinton also seemed to be elitist and out-of-touch. Doesn't matter if she was, just what she seemed. Obama had a message of Hope & Change. Doesn't matter if he delivers. Doesn't matter if he lies. Just convince the average mouth-breather, especially those who show up to the polls (conservatives and centrists and the elderly). See Edward Bernays for details.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_(book)

Of course, the endless GOP gerrymandering, gutting of the Voting Rights Act, Comey bullshit (my bad motherfuckas...see ya), and media giving Trump free air time didn't help any. But economy. It's the economy, stupid.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shawn Fox
United States
Richardson
Texas
flag msg tools
Question everything.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
utoption2 wrote:
How much of an EC differential would be convincing for you? The 2012 EC vote was pretty close to this years and 2012 was considered by the Blues to be a landslide! Geez.

I have to disagree with what you said here... 2008 was a landslide, 2012 was a sound thrashing, and 2016 was just a technical victory for the Republicans.

While the EC totals might look similar in 2012 vs 2016, in 2012, Obama got almost 10% more votes than Romney. Obama got over half of the total votes (51.1%) compared to Romney's 47.2%. A very clear victory no matter how you measure it.

This year, Trump got 46.4% of the total votes, less than the 47.2% that Romney got in 2012 when he was soundly beaten by Obama.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Stone
United States
Texarkana
Texas
flag msg tools
May the bikini be with you!
badge
I destroy SJWs!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sfox wrote:
utoption2 wrote:
How much of an EC differential would be convincing for you? The 2012 EC vote was pretty close to this years and 2012 was considered by the Blues to be a landslide! Geez.

I have to disagree with what you said here... 2008 was a landslide, 2012 was a sound thrashing, and 2016 was just a technical victory for the Republicans.

While the EC totals might look similar in 2012 vs 2016, in 2012, Obama got almost 10% more votes than Romney. Obama got over half of the total votes (51.1%) compared to Romney's 47.2%. A very clear victory no matter how you measure it.

This year, Trump got 46.4% of the total votes, less than the 47.2% that Romney got in 2012 when he was soundly beaten by Obama.


Nothing "technical" about it.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shawn Fox
United States
Richardson
Texas
flag msg tools
Question everything.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
tstone wrote:
sfox wrote:
utoption2 wrote:
How much of an EC differential would be convincing for you? The 2012 EC vote was pretty close to this years and 2012 was considered by the Blues to be a landslide! Geez.

I have to disagree with what you said here... 2008 was a landslide, 2012 was a sound thrashing, and 2016 was just a technical victory for the Republicans.

While the EC totals might look similar in 2012 vs 2016, in 2012, Obama got almost 10% more votes than Romney. Obama got over half of the total votes (51.1%) compared to Romney's 47.2%. A very clear victory no matter how you measure it.

This year, Trump got 46.4% of the total votes, less than the 47.2% that Romney got in 2012 when he was soundly beaten by Obama.


Nothing "technical" about it.

I already knew you were a moron, but I guess you just wanted to confirm it for everyone else to see. Clearly you have no idea what the term technical victory means.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lee Fisher
United States
Downingtown
PA
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
utoption2 wrote:
lfisher wrote:
utoption2 wrote:
lfisher wrote:
utoption2 wrote:
TommyP wrote:
utoption2 wrote:

Silly democrats. They aren't creative enough to come up with their own theories for losing, so they have to co-op the Republican ideas.

Stop bitching, democrats, and start analyzing why you all really lost. Here's are some starter ideas: Your candidate was an elitist, out-of-touch, entitled, criminal, unlikeable person that very few really wanted to lead our country.


You might want to look up what "very few" means when the guy you back got less votes.


Nope. Considering the EC vote to be, "Very few" fits perfectly.

Sorry, silly Constitution, only the EC vote counts, TommyP. I know that Popular Vote is nice warm blankie for you, but it really means nothing, just ask Al Gore (I am still really pissed off about the 2000 election).

Why do we have to keep repeating ourselves about the Constitution and EC vote?


By any measure "very few really wanted to lead our country" is clearly false.


How much of an EC differential would be convincing for you? The 2012 EC vote was pretty close to this years and 2012 was considered by the Blues to be a landslide! Geez.


EC has no connection to "very few really wanted to lead our country". Perhaps you should rephrase or express what you actually mean.


Well, keep it on with the cognitive dissonance. It doesn't really matter, just like my anger on January 20, 2001 didn't matter. The liberals have a lot to think about if they can ever leave the massive circle jerk-off that they are all in and keep denying the facts of the EC. If they can't they will lose not only in this election, but also in 2020. This country has had enough of the arrogant, ultra-liberal, elitist, ineffective leadership displayed by President Pencil-Neck and that was front and center two weeks ago.

Keep you heads in the sand, Libs.


Nobody is denying anything. If you want to be a dick, there are more accurate ways to do so.

If your point is "very few people" wanted Hillary to lead the country and even fewer wanted Trump but he still won so nyah nyah then point conceded.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shawn Fox
United States
Richardson
Texas
flag msg tools
Question everything.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
utoption2 wrote:
sfox wrote:
utoption2 wrote:
How much of an EC differential would be convincing for you? The 2012 EC vote was pretty close to this years and 2012 was considered by the Blues to be a landslide! Geez.

I have to disagree with what you said here... 2008 was a landslide, 2012 was a sound thrashing, and 2016 was just a technical victory for the Republicans.

While the EC totals might look similar in 2012 vs 2016, in 2012, Obama got almost 10% more votes than Romney. Obama got over half of the total votes (51.1%) compared to Romney's 47.2%. A very clear victory no matter how you measure it.

This year, Trump got 46.4% of the total votes, less than the 47.2% that Romney got in 2012 when he was soundly beaten by Obama.


Shawn:

I appreciate your analysis. I will simplify since we are getting wrapped up in details. Hillary got hammered in the EC. She and the Dems were clearly surprised by this, and I don't think that it was expected. The dems are better served analyzed why this happened rather than getting wrapped up in things that ultimately don't matter such as bitching about the popular vote differential. Analyzing the failed Presidency of Obama and it's impact on the vote would be a good place to start.

Dennis

You haven't been around here much recently, or maybe not paying much attention, but the Democrats already know why they lost. Democrat voters didn't vote, they stayed home. The reason is because Hillary was a shitty candidate. The next presidential election in 2020 will be a different story.

Some Republicans didn't vote either, but Trump managed to make up for it by getting others to vote, specifically the racists and the rust belt / anti immigration crowd (I don't mean to imply that those are the same people, although there is some overlap).
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lee Fisher
United States
Downingtown
PA
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
utoption2 wrote:
lfisher wrote:
utoption2 wrote:
lfisher wrote:
utoption2 wrote:
lfisher wrote:
utoption2 wrote:
TommyP wrote:
utoption2 wrote:

Silly democrats. They aren't creative enough to come up with their own theories for losing, so they have to co-op the Republican ideas.

Stop bitching, democrats, and start analyzing why you all really lost. Here's are some starter ideas: Your candidate was an elitist, out-of-touch, entitled, criminal, unlikeable person that very few really wanted to lead our country.


You might want to look up what "very few" means when the guy you back got less votes.


Nope. Considering the EC vote to be, "Very few" fits perfectly.

Sorry, silly Constitution, only the EC vote counts, TommyP. I know that Popular Vote is nice warm blankie for you, but it really means nothing, just ask Al Gore (I am still really pissed off about the 2000 election).

Why do we have to keep repeating ourselves about the Constitution and EC vote?


By any measure "very few really wanted to lead our country" is clearly false.


How much of an EC differential would be convincing for you? The 2012 EC vote was pretty close to this years and 2012 was considered by the Blues to be a landslide! Geez.


EC has no connection to "very few really wanted to lead our country". Perhaps you should rephrase or express what you actually mean.


Well, keep it on with the cognitive dissonance. It doesn't really matter, just like my anger on January 20, 2001 didn't matter. The liberals have a lot to think about if they can ever leave the massive circle jerk-off that they are all in and keep denying the facts of the EC. If they can't they will lose not only in this election, but also in 2020. This country has had enough of the arrogant, ultra-liberal, elitist, ineffective leadership displayed by President Pencil-Neck and that was front and center two weeks ago.

Keep you heads in the sand, Libs.


Nobody is denying anything. If you want to be a dick, there are more accurate ways to do so.

If your point is "very few people" wanted Hillary to lead the country and even fewer wanted Trump but he still won so nyah nyah then point conceded.


Lee: I removed that line of argument in the above. And I am sorry if you feel that someone is being a dick if they disagree with you. It seem to be a disease that many people in RSP and FB have. It is truly possible to read a rebuttal for what it is and not perceive that someone is being a dick. However, I hope that the liberals will ignore these messages so that they will no only lose this year, but also in 2018, 2020, and 2022.

Dennis


Thanks Dennis, I take it back
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shawn Fox
United States
Richardson
Texas
flag msg tools
Question everything.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
sfox wrote:
You haven't been around here much recently, or maybe not paying much attention, but the Democrats already know why they lost. Democrat voters didn't vote, they stayed home. The reason is because Hillary was a shitty candidate.


You're getting there. What made her a "shitty candidate"?

Quote:
The next presidential election in 2020 will be a different story.


In what way? How will the next candidate not be "shitty"?

The next candidate for the democrats needs to be a liberal, of course, instead of a conservative. Someone that cares more about the middle and lower classes than they do about the rich, or at least acts like it well enough to fool them (examples: Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan).
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Bartosh

Sunnyvale
California
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Are we really just going to do the Obama years and pre-election stuff backwards now? No self-awareness? My crazy conspiracy theories about the election were 100% sane, but look at this moron over here hur hur?

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg Michealson
United States
Maple Grove
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
tstone wrote:
galad2003 wrote:
Looking at Whedon's twitter page the Trump win has clearly fried his brain.


Perusing such locations as Youtube and, well...here, clear he is not alone.

If Trump Derangement Syndrome isn't fatal, it would seem for many, it certainly is a crippling condition.


So exactly like Trump Fawning Disorder then.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
True Blue Jon
United States
Vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
utoption2 wrote:
Your candidate was an elitist, out-of-touch, entitled, criminal, unlikeable person that very few really wanted to lead our country.


But doesn't that describe Trump too?
6 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tom Patterson
United States
Brooklyn
New York
flag msg tools
What were you expecting?
badge
I have overtext 'cause everyone else was doing it.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
utoption2 wrote:
TommyP wrote:
utoption2 wrote:

Silly democrats. They aren't creative enough to come up with their own theories for losing, so they have to co-op the Republican ideas.

Stop bitching, democrats, and start analyzing why you all really lost. Here's are some starter ideas: Your candidate was an elitist, out-of-touch, entitled, criminal, unlikeable person that very few really wanted to lead our country.


You might want to look up what "very few" means when the guy you back got less votes.


Nope. Considering the EC vote to be, "Very few" fits perfectly.

Sorry, silly Constitution, only the EC vote counts, TommyP. I know that Popular Vote is nice warm blankie for you, but it really means nothing, just ask Al Gore (I am still really pissed off about the 2000 election).

Why do we have to keep repeating ourselves about the Constitution and EC vote?


Nah, man, I get how the EC and constitution works, but... you do understand how people work, right? Saying "very few" people and then confusing that with the electoral college is why you have to keep explaining it. And no one else does, really, just you.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J.D. Hall
United States
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
utoption2 wrote:
lfisher wrote:
utoption2 wrote:
lfisher wrote:
utoption2 wrote:
lfisher wrote:
utoption2 wrote:
lfisher wrote:
utoption2 wrote:
TommyP wrote:
utoption2 wrote:

Silly democrats. They aren't creative enough to come up with their own theories for losing, so they have to co-op the Republican ideas.

Stop bitching, democrats, and start analyzing why you all really lost. Here's are some starter ideas: Your candidate was an elitist, out-of-touch, entitled, criminal, unlikeable person that very few really wanted to lead our country.


You might want to look up what "very few" means when the guy you back got less votes.


Nope. Considering the EC vote to be, "Very few" fits perfectly.

Sorry, silly Constitution, only the EC vote counts, TommyP. I know that Popular Vote is nice warm blankie for you, but it really means nothing, just ask Al Gore (I am still really pissed off about the 2000 election).

Why do we have to keep repeating ourselves about the Constitution and EC vote?


By any measure "very few really wanted to lead our country" is clearly false.


How much of an EC differential would be convincing for you? The 2012 EC vote was pretty close to this years and 2012 was considered by the Blues to be a landslide! Geez.


EC has no connection to "very few really wanted to lead our country". Perhaps you should rephrase or express what you actually mean.


Well, keep it on with the cognitive dissonance. It doesn't really matter, just like my anger on January 20, 2001 didn't matter. The liberals have a lot to think about if they can ever leave the massive circle jerk-off that they are all in and keep denying the facts of the EC. If they can't they will lose not only in this election, but also in 2020. This country has had enough of the arrogant, ultra-liberal, elitist, ineffective leadership displayed by President Pencil-Neck and that was front and center two weeks ago.

Keep you heads in the sand, Libs.


Nobody is denying anything. If you want to be a dick, there are more accurate ways to do so.

If your point is "very few people" wanted Hillary to lead the country and even fewer wanted Trump but he still won so nyah nyah then point conceded.


Lee: I removed that line of argument in the above. And I am sorry if you feel that someone is being a dick if they disagree with you. It seem to be a disease that many people in RSP and FB have. It is truly possible to read a rebuttal for what it is and not perceive that someone is being a dick. However, I hope that the liberals will ignore these messages so that they will no only lose this year, but also in 2018, 2020, and 2022.

Dennis


Thanks Dennis, I take it back


Thanks Lee. I look forward to informed dialogue with you in the future.

Warm regards,

Dennis

Get a room you two. You're scaring the children.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Reid
United States
Brooklyn
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
sfox wrote:
You haven't been around here much recently, or maybe not paying much attention, but the Democrats already know why they lost. Democrat voters didn't vote, they stayed home. The reason is because Hillary was a shitty candidate.


You're getting there. What made her a "shitty candidate"?


IMO, the fact that she was hated by a huge portion of the country before the election cycle even started. I never liked her as a candidate for exactly that reason. The "how and why" of her being hated was secondary to me...didn't matter whether I thought the hate was justified (I didn't). It was crappy to run someone so divisive. Pretty much the only way I figured she'd have won was if Trump ran. Turns out even that wasn't enough.

I always thought she'd have made a very good President. Just a bad candidate.

I didn't like Bernie either, for entirely different reasons. I'm actually on record of disliking every serious candidate that ran for POTUS this year.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh Adelson
United States
Columbia
South Carolina
flag msg tools
Well, I see the otherness of being other is otherwise contraindicated
badge
Who cares where it came from or whether it's correct or not? Certainly not me
Avatar
mbmb
Watching Drew pretend to be Socrates in here is fucking hilarious. Keep it up, Drew!
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Wesley
Nepal
Aberdeen
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mb
sauron_
-Hemlock Sherlmes: ~"The Rebuttler did THUS!"
3 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.