patrick.net

The Democrats are carrying on?? Did you miss all the quotes from Republicans?

Trump is pretty much alone in his musings that there were great people among the neo Nazis.

joeyjojojunior says

Trump is pretty much alone in his musings that there were great people among the neo Nazis.

Source?

lol--do you want me to post every quote from every other person on plant Earth to show that nobody else has said something similar?

How about you post any quote you can find saying something similar to prove me wrong? If you can't, let's assume I'm correct.

joeyjojojunior says

lol--do you want me to post every quote from every other person on plant Earth to show that nobody else has said something similar?

Bwahahahahahahah. You know you don't have shit because he never said it.

It's the job of the person making the assertion to prove his case, not the job of the person receiving it.

Fact-Check: "Trump mused that there were Great People among the Neo-nazis" Pants on Fire

How did your candidate do in Georgia, over there? Did the big anti-Trump wave begin to roll?

"Bwahahahahahahah. You know you don't have shit because he never said it or anything that could be construed as such.
It's the job of the person making the assertion to prove his case, not the job of the person hearing it to prove it.
Fact-Check: "Trump mused that there were Great People among the Neo-nazis" Pants on Fire"

Sorry, you weren't very clear. It read like you wanted me to prove that nobody else has said something similar. You want to me to post the heavily publicized quote from Trump?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/trump-blame-sides-charlottesville-article-1.3414369
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/trump-defends-white-nationalist-protesters-some-very-fine-people-on-both-sides/537012/

"How did your candidate do in Georgia, over there? Did the big anti-Trump wave begin to roll?"

A lot better than your "guarantee" that's for sure. Did you forget that? You guaranteed a 10 point win.

joeyjojojunior says

A lot better than your "guarantee" that's for sure. Did you forget that? You guaranteed a 10 point win.

Maybe I did, I don't recall saying that.

But if I did, losing the most expensive House race in history is still more of a fail than calling the win margin incorrectly.

Another special election lost by Dems. Please keep up the Social Justice and AltLeft Violence, you're sure to lose in 2018.

"Maybe I did, I don't recall saying that. But if I did, losing the most expensive House race in history is still more of a fail than calling the win margin incorrectly. Another special election lost by Dems. Please keep up the Social Justice and AltLeft Violence, you're sure to lose in 2018."

You keep believing that. That House seat is typically +20 Republican, so it's another data point showing a double digit swing to Dems.

And here's an article you can ignore and pretend that 538 isn't the smartest political coverage out there.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-sheer-number-of-democrats-running-for-congress-is-a-good-sign-for-the-party/

When is the Right going to start demanding these KKK hooded people be Doxxed at their events.

Those 4 or 5 at Saturdays staged Anarchy plot, were flanked by the Governors State Police so that his Optics psysops team wouldn't be knocked down and his resources outed.

When are people going to point out, that the Governor of Virginia paraded the KKK around escorted them away. Then funneled the BLM and the Consolidate the Right into the same bottle neck. While saying they did it to stop violence they purposely stood down and watched the pummeling.

Except that's not correct. He outperformed the typical Dem by 15 pats in the one on one election.

I am making a prediction. The house will be close but repu hands, but senate pick up 2-3 seats

joeyjojojunior says

"Bwahahahahahahah. You know you don't have shit because he never said it or anything that could be construed as such.

It's the job of the person making the assertion to prove his case, not the job of the person hearing it to prove it.

Fact-Check: "Trump mused that there were Great People among the Neo-nazis" Pants on Fire"

Sorry, you weren't very clear. It read like you wanted me to prove that nobody else has said something similar. You want to me to post the heavily publicized quote from Trump?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/trump-blame-sides-charlottesville-article-1.3414369

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/trump-defends-white-nationalist-p...

There were fine people on both sides. Not everyone there was a neo Nazi. This is the great media propaganda you need to shield yourself from. Think a little.

Not in the runoff

WineHorror says

There were fine people on both sides. Not everyone there was a neo Nazi. This is the great media propaganda you need to shield yourself from. Think a little.

Thank you.

joeyjojojunior says

Trump is pretty much alone in his musings that there were great people among the neo Nazis.

Boo. You can do better than simply conflating everyone there with the Nazis. Weak.

joeyjojojunior says

How did raising a fortune for Ossoff, the most expensive House Race in History, work out for the Democrats?

joeyjojojunior says

Except that's not correct. He outperformed the typical Dem by 15 pats in the one on one election.

Again joeyjoejoe repeats that Ossoff outperformed. Ossoff lost by a comfortable 4 points- against a fresh Republican face. All other races in the district in the past few cycles, since 2006, were between the Incumbent (Price) vs. the Democratic Challenger. So any example of a Dem Challenging a non-incumbent is more than a decade old. Unlike this election, the 2004 election was between the single republican primary winner, not a special election with 4 Republican Candidates (no primary first) none of whom had a near monopoly on Party and Big Donor Support, and one Democrat who received total support from the Party and the Big Donors.

There's a big ass difference between an incumbent re-election, or a regular election with a primary beforehand, and a special election where there is no runoff within the parties, and no incumbent.

Also, losing by a smaller margin is still losing.

rando says

WineHorror says

There were fine people on both sides. Not everyone there was a neo Nazi. This is the great media propaganda you need to shield yourself from. Think a little.

Thank you.

joeyjojojunior says

Trump is pretty much alone in his musings that there were great people among the neo Nazis.

Boo. You can do better than simply conflating everyone there with the Nazis. Weak.

He really can't do any better, I assure you.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

Again joeyjoejoe repeats that Ossoff outperformed. Ossoff lost by a comfortable 4 seats - against a fresh face. All other races in the district were between the Incumbent (Price) vs. the Democratic Challenger.

There's a big ass difference between an incumbent re-election, and a special election with no incumbent.

Also, losing by a smaller margin is still losing. Losing to a non-incumbent really isn't anything to write home about.

I'm just correcting all the misinformation you are spewing on this thread. Yes, Ossoff lost by 5 points in a district that is set up to be +20 pts for Republican in a neutral environment. You can pretend it's a good thing for Republicans, but deep down you know what it really means. It's like a Dem only winning by 5 points in DC--yes it would be a win, but it would not be a good sign.

rando says

Boo. You can do better than simply conflating everyone there with the Nazis. Weak.

So, what were the two sides Trump was referring to then? I'm not conflating everyone with Nazis-only assuming that one of the sides to which Trump referred was the Neo-Nazis.

Do you disagree that they were one of the two sides?

TwoScoopsMcGee says

How did raising a fortune for Ossoff, the most expensive House Race in History, work out for the Democrats?

Nice dodge.

WineHorror says

There were fine people on both sides. Not everyone there was a neo Nazi. This is the great media propaganda you need to shield yourself from. Think a little.

OK great--maybe you can answer. What were the two sides then?

joeyjojojunior says

I'm just correcting all the misinformation you are spewing on this thread. Yes, Ossoff lost by 5 points in a district that is set up to be +20 pts for Republican in a neutral environment. You can pretend it's a good thing for Republicans, but deep down you know what it really means. It's like a Dem only winning by 5 points in DC--yes it would be a win, but it would not be a good sign.

Again, it was +20 Republican during a Regular non-Special Election with an Incumbent (Price) for more than a decade. You're comparing regular elections with a primary and incumbent to a Special Election Free-for-all Election with multiple candidates from the same party running against each other as well as the opposite party, with a Runoff if nobody got 50%+.

Two very different circumstances.

Anyone endorse by anyone other than Trump will lose on guilt by association.
Make no mistake 2018, wont be a referendum to carry on as the Establishment wishes.
The Voters will be sending Trump some relief.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

Again, it was +20 Republican during a Regular non-Special Election with an Incumbent (Price) for more than a decade. You're comparing regular elections with a primary and incumbent to a Special Election Free-for-all Election with multiple candidates from the same party running against each other as well as the opposite party, with a Runoff if nobody got 50%+.

Two very different circumstances.

Again, that's incorrect. It's +20 Republican based on the demographics of the district. But, no matter how you cut it, it was another data point showing that the current political environment is pretty strongly favorable to Dems.

joeyjojojunior says

the current political environment is pretty strongly favorable to Dems.

Nominated.

Republicans control all three branches of the federal government, plus most of the states.

That can be called "favorable to Dems" only if you define "Dems" to mean "people who enjoy losing and being separated from power."

curious2 says

Nominated.

Republicans control all three branches of the federal government, plus most of the states.

That can be called "favorable to Dems" only if you define "Dems" to mean "people who enjoy losing and being separated from power."

Perhaps you don't understand the difference between the environment at the time when the politicians were elected vs. the environment now.

joeyjojojunior says

Perhaps you don't understand....

Perhaps you don't understand that the only polls that matter are called elections. All else is "light at the end of the tunnel," aka the delusional belief that Democrats did nothing wrong and don't need to change anything in order to win.

curious2 says

Perhaps you don't understand that the only polls that matter are called elections. All else is "light at the end of the tunnel," aka the delusional belief that Democrats did nothing wrong and don't need to change anything in order to win.

Nope-I understand. What would make you think I don't?

Dems did a lot wrong in 2016--most obviously nominating Hillary Clinton.

joeyjojojunior says

What would make you think I don't?

Your absurd assertion above.

curious2 says

Your absurd assertion above.

Clearly you don't understand. I refer to actual election results and not polls so your statement makes no sense.

joeyjojojunior says

Clearly you don't understand. I refer to actual election results and not polls so your statement makes no sense.

Here on earth, the actual election results were that Democrats lost all three branches of the federal government, plus most of the states. Clearly, you don't understand, and so your statements make no sense as anything other than pointless trolling.

Like I said earlier--you must not have a good understanding of the concept of time. Things have changed since November of 2016, and election results have shown that conditions are much more favorable to Dems now vs. Nov. of 16.

What happened one year ago isn't indicative of what would happen today.

joeyjojojunior says

you must not have a good understanding of the concept of time.

LOL - since you insist on getting the last word and insulting the intelligence of anyone who proves you wrong, go ahead, you're winning trolling on the Interwebs, while Republicans control the government.

LOL at you posting insults at me in the name of "giving me the last word" Giving the last world obviously isn't your strong suit.

Republicans do control the government. That is neither in dispute, nor am I saying otherwise. You could have said the same thing about Dems in 2009/10 but the 2010 midterms proved the environment wasn't good for them even though they controlled the President and both branches of Congress..

joeyjojojunior says

Republicans do control the government. That is neither in dispute, nor am I saying otherwise. You could have said the same thing about Dems in 2009/10....

You had previously denied the Democrats had power in 2009-11, and you had previously asserted that Democrats "won" in 2016. Are you now at least admitting Democrats had power 2009-11, and lost in 2016?

curious2 says

You had previously denied the Democrats had power in 2009-11. Are you now at least admitting they did have power at that time?

Are you admitting that who controls the branches of government doesn't control the current political environment?

We've been over this a million times already--why do you persist with it? Dems didn't have enough votes to overcome the filibuster.

Also--by the way--still haven't figured out how to give the last word yet, huh?

curious2 says

joeyjojojunior says

the current political environment is pretty strongly favorable to Dems.

Nominated.

Republicans control all three branches of the federal government, plus most of the states.

That can be called "favorable to Dems" only if you define "Dems" to mean "people who enjoy losing and being separated from power."

Republicans control it all, so why can't they own it? Why is it the only thing they can do is blame the liberals? It's because the world is fucked by design, when it's Republicans running the show.

I see Patrick has decided to use an alias. Good, it's a sign that some people might actually start thinking these things through, rather than carrying the water for the Oligarchy and their propaganda. They ought to be ashamed to flaunt their gullibility.