IdleRich

IdleRich
A common theme of Democrats struggling with basic administrative tasks, like counting ballots.
a) your statement appears to be completely unconnected to the bit you quoted... forget Dementia Joe, we've got Alzheimer Andrei
b) They counted fucking 81 million of them didn't they?
 

Leo

Well-known member
A common theme of Democrats struggling with basic administrative tasks, like counting ballots.

except there was no struggle. all pretty straightforward, according to dozens of Republican state election board officials and Trump-appointed judges who dismissed 59 frivolous lawsuits.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
I'd be up for loads of stricter controls on who can be an MP (or whatever) - abilities, lack of connections to firms and so on. In my world they would be banned from any such connections but would be paid more salary, also rules of going into a business connected to their portfolio would be much harsher (say... eight years) and very rigorously enforced, now they always find a way to slime themselves into related jobs with a tiny slap on the wrist.
But I'd like the rules to be applied equally, we can't have one loudmouth metaphorically wandering round Washington with his pants round his ankles waggling his dick in everyone's face (and his acolyte doing the same on dissensus) and then demand that the guy who comes along next can demonstrate that he can solve multivariate differential equations in his head "just to be safe like".
 

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
Staff member
A common theme of Democrats struggling with basic administrative tasks, like counting ballots.
Just to be clear, I intend to carry on relentlessly bullying you with these "laugh" reaction emojis for as long as you keep coming out with this nonsense.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
Obviously it was legit, it was checked and re-checked, re-counted, audited, tested in court more than sixty times; there was no evidence whatsoever of any fraud (apart from a couple of Republicans who voted twice) and the DOJ agreed, as did the man appointed to maintain election security. The election results were broadly in line with what the polls predicted and the historically unpopular impeached president who presided over hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths (I know you think that's a good thing but most disagreed) lost heavily to a boring but safe pair of hands who was in or near the leadership for decades without doing anything spectacularly great... but also not causing any colossal catastrophes either and who is able to say a sentence without stumbling or lying or just saying something stupid.
But cos you think it's funny to agree with the lying liar on his latest lie you discount all that. You prick.
 

Leo

Well-known member
I'd be up for loads of stricter controls on who can be an MP (or whatever) - abilities, lack of connections to firms and so on. In my world they would be banned from any such connections but would be paid more salary, also rules of going into a business connected to their portfolio would be much harsher (say... eight years) and very rigorously enforced, now they always find a way to slime themselves into related jobs with a tiny slap on the wrist.
But I'd like the rules to be applied equally, we can't have one loudmouth metaphorically wandering round Washington with his pants round his ankles waggling his dick in everyone's face (and his acolyte doing the same on dissensus) and then demand that the guy who comes along next can demonstrate that he can solve multivariate differential equations in his head "just to be safe like".

in theory, all this criteria exists in the sense that people should consider all these things when deciding who to vote for. in theory.

but people are easily persuaded or don't pay attention.
 
Top