Jump to content
Gorth

US Elections 2016

Recommended Posts

The crazy thing is I'm pretty convinced Hillary Clinton is the 'wrong' candidate.  She's got a ton of baggage with her.  I could see a Rand Paul or John Kasich beating her in CA.

 

 

 

The crazy thing is I'm pretty convinced Hillary Clinton is the 'wrong' candidate.  She's got a ton of baggage with her.  I could see a Rand Paul or John Kasich beating her in CA.

Neither of those guys are gonna be the nominee in this cycle and I don't see Rand making it past the primary in 2020. I agree about Hillary being the wrong candidate though, and could see someone like Kasich or Romney 2.0 beating her.

 

Its interesting you guys feel Clinton would be beaten by the likes of Kaisch, it not the first time I have heard that

 

On what evidence do you have to support this, lately various polls and even the last Presidential election have got the predictions wrong. I remember I was in the USA 1 week before the  last election and everyone was predicting Romney would win ....and he didn't 


"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

 

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The crazy thing is I'm pretty convinced Hillary Clinton is the 'wrong' candidate.  She's got a ton of baggage with her.  I could see a Rand Paul or John Kasich beating her in CA.

 

 

 

The crazy thing is I'm pretty convinced Hillary Clinton is the 'wrong' candidate.  She's got a ton of baggage with her.  I could see a Rand Paul or John Kasich beating her in CA.

Neither of those guys are gonna be the nominee in this cycle and I don't see Rand making it past the primary in 2020. I agree about Hillary being the wrong candidate though, and could see someone like Kasich or Romney 2.0 beating her.

 

Its interesting you guys feel Clinton would be beaten by the likes of Kaisch, it not the first time I have heard that

 

On what evidence do you have to support this, lately various polls and even the last Presidential election have got the predictions wrong. I remember I was in the USA 1 week before the  last election and everyone was predicting Romney would win ....and he didn't 

 

 

Your memory stinks and doesn't conform to the actual facts.  The majority of polls were predicting an Obama victory.  Here's a brief summary of 2012 from RealClearPolitics:  

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

 

or better still, this one :

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2012

 

Just look at the 2012 post convention polls and particularly the ones right before the election. 

 

 

As for 2016 here are the poll summaries from RealClearPolitics    :

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html

 

Summary  (which covers up to 5 different polls) is Clinton leads Trump and trails against Rubio, Kasich and Cruz.  

Edited by kgambit
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I remember I was in the USA 1 week before the  last election and everyone was predicting Romney would win ....and he didn't 

 

Then you weren't looking at all the right places at all.

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20121029234812/http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/29/oct-28-in-swing-states-a-predictable-election/?hp

 

538/Nate Silver had Obama at a 74.6% chance of winning with 50.4% of the vote exactly one week before the Election. He was off by 0.2%, winning with 50.6% of the popular vote.


"Things are funny...are comedic, because they mix the real with the absurd." - Buzz Aldrin.

"P-O-T-A-T-O-E" - Dan Quayle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The crazy thing is I'm pretty convinced Hillary Clinton is the 'wrong' candidate.  She's got a ton of baggage with her.  I could see a Rand Paul or John Kasich beating her in CA.

 

 

 

The crazy thing is I'm pretty convinced Hillary Clinton is the 'wrong' candidate.  She's got a ton of baggage with her.  I could see a Rand Paul or John Kasich beating her in CA.

Neither of those guys are gonna be the nominee in this cycle and I don't see Rand making it past the primary in 2020. I agree about Hillary being the wrong candidate though, and could see someone like Kasich or Romney 2.0 beating her.

 

Its interesting you guys feel Clinton would be beaten by the likes of Kaisch, it not the first time I have heard that

 

On what evidence do you have to support this, lately various polls and even the last Presidential election have got the predictions wrong. I remember I was in the USA 1 week before the  last election and everyone was predicting Romney would win ....and he didn't 

 

 

Your memory stinks and doesn't conform to the actual facts.  The majority of polls were predicting an Obama victory.  Here's a brief summary of 2012 from RealClearPolitics:  

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

 

or better still, this one :

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2012

 

Just look at the 2012 post convention polls and particularly the ones right before the election. 

 

 

As for 2016 here are the poll summaries from RealClearPolitics    :

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html

 

Summary  (which covers up to 5 different polls) is Clinton leads Trump and trails against Rubio, Kasich and Cruz.  

 

 

 

 

 I remember I was in the USA 1 week before the  last election and everyone was predicting Romney would win ....and he didn't 

 

Then you weren't looking at all the right places at all.

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20121029234812/http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/29/oct-28-in-swing-states-a-predictable-election/?hp

 

538/Nate Silver had Obama at a 74.6% chance of winning with 50.4% of the vote exactly one week before the Election. He was off by 0.2%, winning with 50.6% of the popular vote.

 

No my memory is fine :lol: But I was at a convention and everyone there was saying Romney would win..okay so I'm wrong about that one

 

What about the Iowa Republican caucus....pollsters and media were horribly wrong ?

Edited by BruceVC

"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

 

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 I remember I was in the USA 1 week before the  last election and everyone was predicting Romney would win ....and he didn't 

 

Then you weren't looking at all the right places at all.

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20121029234812/http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/29/oct-28-in-swing-states-a-predictable-election/?hp

 

538/Nate Silver had Obama at a 74.6% chance of winning with 50.4% of the vote exactly one week before the Election. He was off by 0.2%, winning with 50.6% of the popular vote.

 

No my memory is fine :lol: But I was at a convention and everyone there was saying Romney would win..okay so I'm wrong about that one

 

What about the Iowa Republican caucus....pollsters and media were horribly wrong ?

 

 

Media was wrong, but most of them are hacks who really don't know anything about how polling works. 538 knows this and they generally throw away polls that have anything to do with caucii, as the polling data leading up to them are full of noise and doesn't accurately reflect the people who are actually going to go out and caucus. 


"Things are funny...are comedic, because they mix the real with the absurd." - Buzz Aldrin.

"P-O-T-A-T-O-E" - Dan Quayle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about the Iowa Republican caucus....pollsters and media were horribly wrong ?

Not really, Going into Iowa nobody quite knew who was the leader. There was a heavy suggestion of Trump but Carson, Jeb and Cruz all had decent support with everyone kinda laughing off Trump.

 

The reason you got that sense of "Romney was almost the winner" was because that's what SOLD for CNN, Fox, and MSNBC. They wanted you to tune in till midnight eastern time for you to see the results. They did the same in 2008 even though that was a MUCH more lop sided fight. Simply because that earned them ratings that meant money. A lot of the issues we see in our modern political system is because this stupid stuff SELLS, if we actually voted based on who would run the country best, Clinton would be almost a shoe in because she can wheel and deal better than most CEO's. Instead we're told that being able to "have a beer" with your candidate is more important.


Victor of the 5 year fan fic competition!

 

Kevin Butler will awesome your face off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What about the Iowa Republican caucus....pollsters and media were horribly wrong ?

Not really, Going into Iowa nobody quite knew who was the leader. There was a heavy suggestion of Trump but Carson, Jeb and Cruz all had decent support with everyone kinda laughing off Trump.

 

The reason you got that sense of "Romney was almost the winner" was because that's what SOLD for CNN, Fox, and MSNBC. They wanted you to tune in till midnight eastern time for you to see the results. They did the same in 2008 even though that was a MUCH more lop sided fight. Simply because that earned them ratings that meant money. A lot of the issues we see in our modern political system is because this stupid stuff SELLS, if we actually voted based on who would run the country best, Clinton would be almost a shoe in because she can wheel and deal better than most CEO's. Instead we're told that being able to "have a beer" with your candidate is more important.

 

Funny enough I was in Vegas and I did watch MSNBC and Fox only because we don't get them in SA and yes they both seemed very confidant Romney would win

 

Fox was particular embarrassing  ...I promise you they had this guest who was some sort of actuary or economist who came on and  "could prove that Obama would lose.....he was 100 % certain "   :biggrin:


"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

 

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

What about the Iowa Republican caucus....pollsters and media were horribly wrong ?

Not really, Going into Iowa nobody quite knew who was the leader. There was a heavy suggestion of Trump but Carson, Jeb and Cruz all had decent support with everyone kinda laughing off Trump.

 

The reason you got that sense of "Romney was almost the winner" was because that's what SOLD for CNN, Fox, and MSNBC. They wanted you to tune in till midnight eastern time for you to see the results. They did the same in 2008 even though that was a MUCH more lop sided fight. Simply because that earned them ratings that meant money. A lot of the issues we see in our modern political system is because this stupid stuff SELLS, if we actually voted based on who would run the country best, Clinton would be almost a shoe in because she can wheel and deal better than most CEO's. Instead we're told that being able to "have a beer" with your candidate is more important.

 

Funny enough I was in Vegas and I did watch MSNBC and Fox only because we don't get them in SA and yes they both seemed very confidant Romney would win

 

Fox was particular embarrassing  ...I promise you they had this guest who was some sort of actuary or economist who came on and  "could prove that Obama would lose.....he was 100 % certain "   :biggrin:

 

You missed 2008 where Karl Rove basically refused to accept the reality of Obama's victory.

 

  • Like 1

Victor of the 5 year fan fic competition!

 

Kevin Butler will awesome your face off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

What about the Iowa Republican caucus....pollsters and media were horribly wrong ?

Not really, Going into Iowa nobody quite knew who was the leader. There was a heavy suggestion of Trump but Carson, Jeb and Cruz all had decent support with everyone kinda laughing off Trump.

 

The reason you got that sense of "Romney was almost the winner" was because that's what SOLD for CNN, Fox, and MSNBC. They wanted you to tune in till midnight eastern time for you to see the results. They did the same in 2008 even though that was a MUCH more lop sided fight. Simply because that earned them ratings that meant money. A lot of the issues we see in our modern political system is because this stupid stuff SELLS, if we actually voted based on who would run the country best, Clinton would be almost a shoe in because she can wheel and deal better than most CEO's. Instead we're told that being able to "have a beer" with your candidate is more important.

 

Funny enough I was in Vegas and I did watch MSNBC and Fox only because we don't get them in SA and yes they both seemed very confidant Romney would win

 

Fox was particular embarrassing  ...I promise you they had this guest who was some sort of actuary or economist who came on and  "could prove that Obama would lose.....he was 100 % certain "   :biggrin:

 

 

I certainly hope you're not relying on the talking heads on CNN, MSNBC, or FOX News for predictions regarding the Election...let alone anything of importance.

  • Like 1

"Things are funny...are comedic, because they mix the real with the absurd." - Buzz Aldrin.

"P-O-T-A-T-O-E" - Dan Quayle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

What about the Iowa Republican caucus....pollsters and media were horribly wrong ?

Not really, Going into Iowa nobody quite knew who was the leader. There was a heavy suggestion of Trump but Carson, Jeb and Cruz all had decent support with everyone kinda laughing off Trump.

 

The reason you got that sense of "Romney was almost the winner" was because that's what SOLD for CNN, Fox, and MSNBC. They wanted you to tune in till midnight eastern time for you to see the results. They did the same in 2008 even though that was a MUCH more lop sided fight. Simply because that earned them ratings that meant money. A lot of the issues we see in our modern political system is because this stupid stuff SELLS, if we actually voted based on who would run the country best, Clinton would be almost a shoe in because she can wheel and deal better than most CEO's. Instead we're told that being able to "have a beer" with your candidate is more important.

 

Funny enough I was in Vegas and I did watch MSNBC and Fox only because we don't get them in SA and yes they both seemed very confidant Romney would win

 

Fox was particular embarrassing  ...I promise you they had this guest who was some sort of actuary or economist who came on and  "could prove that Obama would lose.....he was 100 % certain "   :biggrin:

 

 

I certainly hope you're not relying on the talking heads on CNN, MSNBC, or FOX News for predictions regarding the Election...let alone anything of importance.

 

 

I guess I gave Bruce too much credit for thinking he might have been basing his observations on creditable sources.     :fdevil:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

What about the Iowa Republican caucus....pollsters and media were horribly wrong ?

Not really, Going into Iowa nobody quite knew who was the leader. There was a heavy suggestion of Trump but Carson, Jeb and Cruz all had decent support with everyone kinda laughing off Trump.

 

The reason you got that sense of "Romney was almost the winner" was because that's what SOLD for CNN, Fox, and MSNBC. They wanted you to tune in till midnight eastern time for you to see the results. They did the same in 2008 even though that was a MUCH more lop sided fight. Simply because that earned them ratings that meant money. A lot of the issues we see in our modern political system is because this stupid stuff SELLS, if we actually voted based on who would run the country best, Clinton would be almost a shoe in because she can wheel and deal better than most CEO's. Instead we're told that being able to "have a beer" with your candidate is more important.

 

Funny enough I was in Vegas and I did watch MSNBC and Fox only because we don't get them in SA and yes they both seemed very confidant Romney would win

 

Fox was particular embarrassing  ...I promise you they had this guest who was some sort of actuary or economist who came on and  "could prove that Obama would lose.....he was 100 % certain "   :biggrin:

 

 

I certainly hope you're not relying on the talking heads on CNN, MSNBC, or FOX News for predictions regarding the Election...let alone anything of importance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What about the Iowa Republican caucus....pollsters and media were horribly wrong ?

Not really, Going into Iowa nobody quite knew who was the leader. There was a heavy suggestion of Trump but Carson, Jeb and Cruz all had decent support with everyone kinda laughing off Trump.

 

The reason you got that sense of "Romney was almost the winner" was because that's what SOLD for CNN, Fox, and MSNBC. They wanted you to tune in till midnight eastern time for you to see the results. They did the same in 2008 even though that was a MUCH more lop sided fight. Simply because that earned them ratings that meant money. A lot of the issues we see in our modern political system is because this stupid stuff SELLS, if we actually voted based on who would run the country best, Clinton would be almost a shoe in because she can wheel and deal better than most CEO's. Instead we're told that being able to "have a beer" with your candidate is more important.

 

Funny enough I was in Vegas and I did watch MSNBC and Fox only because we don't get them in SA and yes they both seemed very confidant Romney would win

 

Fox was particular embarrassing  ...I promise you they had this guest who was some sort of actuary or economist who came on and  "could prove that Obama would lose.....he was 100 % certain "   :biggrin:

 

 

I certainly hope you're not relying on the talking heads on CNN, MSNBC, or FOX News for predictions regarding the Election...let alone anything of importance.

 

 

I guess I gave Bruce too much credit for thinking he might have been basing his observations on creditable sources.     :fdevil:

 

:lol: You getting cheeky young man

 

Guys lets just put this to bed once and for all, we dont get Fox or MSNBC in SA so yes CNN is one of my authoritative sources of political commentary

 

Now I have to assume you guys don't watch CNN or you only watch the local US CNN....do you watch the international CNN? Its VASTLY different to local US CNN. They have numerous guests and highly informed commentators who are objective and get the political predictions normally right

 

You guys must know people like Wolf Blitzer, Anderson Cooper and John King....these are the types of people who comment on the US politics. They live, eat and sleep politics and to suggest they uninformed is patronizing :)


"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

 

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: You getting cheeky young man

 

Guys lets just put this to bed once and for all, we dont get Fox or MSNBC in SA so yes CNN is one of my authoritative sources of political commentary

 

Now I have to assume you guys don't watch CNN or you only watch the local US CNN....do you watch the international CNN? Its VASTLY different to local US CNN. They have numerous guests and highly informed commentators who are objective and get the political predictions normally right

 

You guys must know people like Wolf Blitzer, Anderson Cooper and John King....these are the types of people who comment on the US politics. They live, eat and sleep politics and to suggest they uninformed is patronizing :)

 

 

They are fine as news anchors but the guests they allow to opine run the gamut from credible to outright kooky. But mostly, what's on these news shows is utter tripe and their election coverage is garbage. And for emphasis --GARBAGE. Let's be frank, they may live, eat, and sleep politics --but I wouldn't trust them to analyze policy nor would I pay heed to their editorials.  Cable news is a game to them where networks and personalities try to one up with each other and their competitors in order to be the first one to report...anything! Who's HOT TAKE and soundbyte will make the cycle?

Edited by Leferd

"Things are funny...are comedic, because they mix the real with the absurd." - Buzz Aldrin.

"P-O-T-A-T-O-E" - Dan Quayle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What about the Iowa Republican caucus....pollsters and media were horribly wrong ?

Not really, Going into Iowa nobody quite knew who was the leader. There was a heavy suggestion of Trump but Carson, Jeb and Cruz all had decent support with everyone kinda laughing off Trump.

 

The reason you got that sense of "Romney was almost the winner" was because that's what SOLD for CNN, Fox, and MSNBC. They wanted you to tune in till midnight eastern time for you to see the results. They did the same in 2008 even though that was a MUCH more lop sided fight. Simply because that earned them ratings that meant money. A lot of the issues we see in our modern political system is because this stupid stuff SELLS, if we actually voted based on who would run the country best, Clinton would be almost a shoe in because she can wheel and deal better than most CEO's. Instead we're told that being able to "have a beer" with your candidate is more important.

 

Funny enough I was in Vegas and I did watch MSNBC and Fox only because we don't get them in SA and yes they both seemed very confidant Romney would win

 

Fox was particular embarrassing  ...I promise you they had this guest who was some sort of actuary or economist who came on and  "could prove that Obama would lose.....he was 100 % certain "   :biggrin:

 

 

I certainly hope you're not relying on the talking heads on CNN, MSNBC, or FOX News for predictions regarding the Election...let alone anything of importance.

 

 

I guess I gave Bruce too much credit for thinking he might have been basing his observations on creditable sources.     :fdevil:

 

:lol: You getting cheeky young man

 

Guys lets just put this to bed once and for all, we dont get Fox or MSNBC in SA so yes CNN is one of my authoritative sources of political commentary

 

Now I have to assume you guys don't watch CNN or you only watch the local US CNN....do you watch the international CNN? Its VASTLY different to local US CNN. They have numerous guests and highly informed commentators who are objective and get the political predictions normally right

 

You guys must know people like Wolf Blitzer, Anderson Cooper and John King....these are the types of people who comment on the US politics. They live, eat and sleep politics and to suggest they uninformed is patronizing :)

 

 

And you're crawfishing ........  

 

First your source was "everyone", then it was "everyone at a convention", then MSNBC and Fox and now it is CNN.   Let me know when you decide where you want to land with your "source" for the facts, okay?    That sort of flexibility is worthy of Donald Drumpf.   

Edited by kgambit
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

What about the Iowa Republican caucus....pollsters and media were horribly wrong ?

Not really, Going into Iowa nobody quite knew who was the leader. There was a heavy suggestion of Trump but Carson, Jeb and Cruz all had decent support with everyone kinda laughing off Trump.

 

The reason you got that sense of "Romney was almost the winner" was because that's what SOLD for CNN, Fox, and MSNBC. They wanted you to tune in till midnight eastern time for you to see the results. They did the same in 2008 even though that was a MUCH more lop sided fight. Simply because that earned them ratings that meant money. A lot of the issues we see in our modern political system is because this stupid stuff SELLS, if we actually voted based on who would run the country best, Clinton would be almost a shoe in because she can wheel and deal better than most CEO's. Instead we're told that being able to "have a beer" with your candidate is more important.

 

Funny enough I was in Vegas and I did watch MSNBC and Fox only because we don't get them in SA and yes they both seemed very confidant Romney would win

 

Fox was particular embarrassing  ...I promise you they had this guest who was some sort of actuary or economist who came on and  "could prove that Obama would lose.....he was 100 % certain "   :biggrin:

 

 

I c

:lol: You getting cheeky young man

 

 

 

 

What about the Iowa Republican caucus....pollsters and media were horribly wrong ?

Not really, Going into Iowa nobody quite knew who was the leader. There was a heavy suggestion of Trump but Carson, Jeb and Cruz all had decent support with everyone kinda laughing off Trump.

 

The reason you got that sense of "Romney was almost the winner" was because that's what SOLD for CNN, Fox, and MSNBC. They wanted you to tune in till midnight eastern time for you to see the results. They did the same in 2008 even though that was a MUCH more lop sided fight. Simply because that earned them ratings that meant money. A lot of the issues we see in our modern political system is because this stupid stuff SELLS, if we actually voted based on who would run the country best, Clinton would be almost a shoe in because she can wheel and deal better than most CEO's. Instead we're told that being able to "have a beer" with your candidate is more important.

 

Funny enough I was in Vegas and I did watch MSNBC and Fox only because we don't get them in SA and yes they both seemed very confidant Romney would win

 

Fox was particular embarrassing  ...I promise you they had this guest who was some sort of actuary or economist who came on and  "could prove that Obama would lose.....he was 100 % certain "   :biggrin:

 

 

I certainly hope you're not relying on the talking heads on CNN, MSNBC, or FOX News for predictions regarding the Election...let alone anything of importance.

 

I guess I gave Bruce too much credit for thinking he might have been basing his observations on creditable sources.     :fdevil:

 

 

Guys lets just put this to bed once and for all, we dont get Fox or MSNBC in SA so yes CNN is one of my authoritative sources of political commentary

 

Now I have to assume you guys don't watch CNN or you only watch the local US CNN....do you watch the international CNN? Its VASTLY different to local US CNN. They have numerous guests and highly informed commentators who are objective and get the political predictions normally right

 

You guys must know people like Wolf Blitzer, Anderson Cooper and John King....these are the types of people who comment on the US politics. They live, eat and sleep politics and to suggest they uninformed is patronizing :)

 

 

And you're crawfishing ........  

 

First your source was "everyone", then it was "everyone at a convention", then MSNBC and Fox and now it is CNN.   Let me know when you decide where you want to land with your "source" for the facts, okay?    That sort of flexibility is worthy of Donald Drumpf.   

 

No you didnt read my post properly and now you accusing me of inconsistency....you see Kgambit how people misunderstand me  :shrugz:

 

I said when I was the USA 1 week before the election I watched Fox and MSNBC because we dont get them in SA

 

But in SA I watch CNN, BBC, Sky and Al-Jazera...but we dont get Fox or MSNBC   


"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

 

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyways, the moral of the story is to not rely on television news as the primary source to gauge as to who will win an election. They are all about the hot take. Most of the talking heads (whether people literally off the streets or so called "experts") don't know what they're talking and you'll be too confused to filter out who knows their **** from those who don't.

Edited by Leferd
  • Like 2

"Things are funny...are comedic, because they mix the real with the absurd." - Buzz Aldrin.

"P-O-T-A-T-O-E" - Dan Quayle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread was growing really fast... nothing like sex, lies and presidential elections to motivate people :lol:

 

More election stuff here

 

:skull:


“He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.” - Albert Einstein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...