Deep Hurting posted:

Deep Hurting posted:

A: I've made it very clear, at least once even directly to YOU, that I'm at best cautiously optimistic about his chances, at this point, and you might say my enthusiasm is fairly curbed. YOUR tendency toward wildly exaggerated, unsupported, blanket assumptions about individuals based on your own irrational and often wrong beliefs about a group is not MY responsibility, though I suppose I could have fairly assumed (heh) as much from a Trump supporter. What can I say? Any argument between the two of us is that one Shmorky comic unironically, with you as the dumb and goddamn crazy guy.

B: You're moving goal posts right off the bat, in a single-sentence reply! Beautiful. "Pretending Bernie will win" neither means the same thing as "ideological purist in love with Bernie Panders [sic]," nor does either one necessarily follow from the other. And while I would make no claim to the latter when talking to you, because you've demonstrated that you don't know what words mean unless they're expressed in the most direct form with the fewest opportunities for misinterpretation, I would say that I do have some strong enough "ideological" beliefs that Sanders is closer to meeting than any other remotely viable candidates at this time. However, I'm not so concerned with "purity" that I would refuse to vote for Hillary (for example) to prevent Il Douche from coming within fewer than 500 yards of the White House, assuming it comes to that.

Now, the reason I compared you to Paradol Ex isn't because "Bernie Panders" is as awkward as "Baquack Obamailures," or even less-clever, but rather because you have the exact same smug, poo poo-eating pride about it, a "joke" that was never clever enough for you be proud of it in the first place, let alone repeat. If it's so clever, ask yourself: why is it you're the only one saying it with any notable frequency? Why hasn't it caught on? Maybe it's just because everyone else hates you, too, and they'd rather not use an apt turn-of-phrase than give you the satisfaction, but I suspect the reason is more benign. If a joke wasn't funny the first time, it doesn't get funnier with each successive repetition. Even Paradol Ex was at least inadvertently funny at his own expense, sometimes, but I have yet to see you manage even that. So yeah, the only person who should be offended by me comparing you to Paradol Ex is Paradol Ex. Think about that.

In short:

Immortan posted:

FYI you Bernouts are supposed have your meltdowns AFTER he officially drops out. And yes, Bernie Panders will inevitably betray his entire campaign message of "transparency" and "campaign finance reform" by endorsing in the general, shithead.

troubled teen posted:

You seem like a fun person.

Immortan posted:

Anyone thats not an ideologue is more susceptible to having fun.

Immortan posted:

And yes, Bernie Panders will inevitably betray his entire campaign message of "transparency" and "campaign finance reform" by endorsing in the general, shithead.

troubled teen posted:

This response actually makes you seem less fun now.

fishmech posted:

Immortan you better watch out or you'll be unflatteringly depicted in an editorial cartoon!

Matey posted:

this thread's still happening? the pop secret flavoratic debate is over y'all, butter sanders beat hillary caramelton

oystertoadfish posted:

no he didnt!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A Neurotic Jew posted:

Reason posted:

I really feel like a lot of the drive for gay marriage was done at the state level and very little was actually done by politicians, in fact Obama himself was pretty quiet on the issue until relatively recently.

quote:

I feel like a Bernie presidency would be more likely if we'd had another eight years of a republican president. Why? Because things would have been run into the ground faster than they were and Bernie's populist anti-capitalist message would be more easily accepted.

meristem posted:

It's the ingroup/outgroup bias in action - if things go bad, it's probably because of some Evil Outside Actor.

Deep Hurting posted:

A: I've made it very clear, at least once even directly to YOU, that I'm at best cautiously optimistic about his chances, at this point, and you might say my enthusiasm is fairly curbed. YOUR tendency toward wildly exaggerated, unsupported, blanket assumptions about individuals based on your own irrational and often wrong beliefs about a group is not MY responsibility, though I suppose I could have fairly assumed (heh) as much from a Trump supporter. What can I say? Any argument between the two of us is that one Shmorky comic unironically, with you as the dumb and goddamn crazy guy.

B: You're moving goal posts right off the bat, in a single-sentence reply! Beautiful. "Pretending Bernie will win" neither means the same thing as "ideological purist in love with Bernie Panders [sic]," nor does either one necessarily follow from the other. And while I would make no claim to the latter when talking to you, because you've demonstrated that you don't know what words mean unless they're expressed in the most direct form with the fewest opportunities for misinterpretation, I would say that I do have some strong enough "ideological" beliefs that Sanders is closer to meeting than any other remotely viable candidates at this time. However, I'm not so concerned with "purity" that I would refuse to vote for Hillary (for example) to prevent Il Douche from coming within fewer than 500 yards of the White House, assuming it comes to that.

Now, the reason I compared you to Paradol Ex isn't because "Bernie Panders" is as awkward as "Baquack Obamailures," or even less-clever, but rather because you have the exact same smug, poo poo-eating pride about it, a "joke" that was never clever enough for you be proud of it in the first place, let alone repeat. If it's so clever, ask yourself: why is it you're the only one saying it with any notable frequency? Why hasn't it caught on? Maybe it's just because everyone else hates you, too, and they'd rather not use an apt turn-of-phrase than give you the satisfaction, but I suspect the reason is more benign. If a joke wasn't funny the first time, it doesn't get funnier with each successive repetition. Even Paradol Ex was at least inadvertently funny at his own expense, sometimes, but I have yet to see you manage even that. So yeah, the only person who should be offended by me comparing you to Paradol Ex is Paradol Ex. Think about that.

In short:


She has a well-documented history of holding and acting upon Nixonian grudges, and the entire Republican structure has spent the last ~25 years doing everything it could to earn one. It's logical to conclude she would at least be likely to deliver the harvest one should expect from what they've sowed, though of course it's not a certainty, and I think a lot of people are probably overestimating it.

Math Debater posted:

This doesn't have to happen. And I would personally discourage Senator Sanders from endorsing Hillary Clinton if she wins the Democratic Party's nomination.

TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:

What in the gently caress are you going on about. Who the gently caress cares about Paradol loving ex in 2015.

Immortan posted:

Well, we wouldn't want that, given the way she's previously blamed cartoons and videos for systemic violence!

TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:

What in the gently caress are you going on about.

Brannock posted:

In nearly a decade on this website I don't think I've ever seen SAclopedia cited twice in the same post to try to lay a sick own on a person

Deep Hurting posted:

Hahaha he doesn't even know what you meant by that, fishmech, but that doesn't stop him from powering on through anyway!

Brannock posted:

In nearly a decade on this website I don't think I've ever seen SAclopedia cited twice in the same post to try to lay a sick own on a person

oystertoadfish posted:

this forum is extremely male and thinks centrism is boring/evil, not a surprise that when you look around here you don't see many of the hillary people