TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
Sounds like it could be the name of a short-lived UK comedy about chavs on housing estates.Ok, I'm sorry for not being up on the slang, but what the hell are "backroom offenders"?
Sounds like it could be the name of a short-lived UK comedy about chavs on housing estates.Ok, I'm sorry for not being up on the slang, but what the hell are "backroom offenders"?
Like how Hitler worked with the U.K. and France when they gave him Czechoslovakia? You are a worthless, spineless ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ ◊◊◊◊!Shaheen: "We've heard from a number of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle that they're willing to come to the table, they're willing to work with us once the govt is open to get this done. We've heard the same thing from the White House. So now we'll see if they're really gonna work with us."
Off-topic; should be in the "what happens when Trump dies" thread.Time for a new party?
I think he meant "bathroom offenders," the people who flushed documents down the toilet.Ok, I'm sorry for not being up on the slang, but what the hell are "backroom offenders"?
The problem with a new party is the way presidential elections are decided. Without some process like run-off elections or ranked-choice ballots, you might get a case where vote splitting allows someone to get power without getting anywhere near a majority.Time for a new party?
The problem with a new party is the way presidential elections are decided. Without some process like run-off elections or ranked-choice ballots, you might get a case where vote splitting allows someone to get power without getting anywhere near a majority.
Now, that could be a good thing or a bad thing. If the 'new party' were on the political right then they would take votes away from the republicans (leading to a better chance for the democrats to win.) On the other hand, if this 'new party' were on the left, you would have regular vote splits between the democrats and this new party, leading to regular republican wins.
Is this "Go to work without pay, or we'll dock your wages whilst the GOP Congress critters get paid for not working?"Posted on Truth Social this morning:
View attachment 65720
This is the American president. Communicating via a social media site. In my mind this totally ties in with another discussion here:
Enough is enough! How do we stop this insanity?!?![]()
According to split-ticket.org, (which also claims that Perot did not hurt Bush):Wait a minute, some folks seem to believe Ross Perot actually helped get Clinton elected with his third-party shenanigans.
He actually sounded a little like the fat clown too, especially when he was asked what his plans were.
He answered with something like, there are smart people out there with good plans, and we'll find them.
bulwarkonline
Trump: "We had a guy named Buttigieg. Boot-edge-edge they say is the best way. Just say two 'edges' like off the edge of a cliff — which is where they were taking us, by the way."
According to split-ticket.org, (which also claims that Perot did not hurt Bush):
"Perot drew most of his support from the younger elements of Generation X (25–29), which can be partially explained by youth disillusionment with the status quoof the two-party system."
I can vouch for that, since that was my group in 1992 and why I voted third party as a protest to the 2-party system, not cause I thought Perot was a better candidate. It's only in recent years, when one choice (Trump) is obviously an existential crisis, that I have reluctantly voted for the mainstream party.
No, most were independents like me. But 51% would have picked Clinton as a second choice, according to this analysis:Ok, but the stats say:
Clinton go 44,909,806 votes, Bush got 39,104,550, while Perot got 19,743,821.
Do you really believe those 19 million votes were democrats?
He looks awful. He's losing weight fast. Hurry up and drop you ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ waste of oxygen!“I was sort of like a hot guy. I was hot as a pistol. I think I was hotter than I am now, and I became president. Okay. I don’t know. I said to somebody, was I hotter before or hotter now? I don’t know. Who the hell knows?”
View attachment 65725
No, most were independents like me. But 51% would have picked Clinton as a second choice, according to this analysis:
Split-ticket
Donald Trump has threatened legal action against the BBC, following criticism over how a speech the US president made was edited and used in a Panorama documentary.
His legal team has given the BBC a deadline of 14 November to make a "full and fair retraction" of the documentary - or face being sued for $1bn (£760m).
![]()
BBC chair Samir Shah apologises for Panorama Trump edit
The BBC's director general and head of news both resigned on Sunday after criticism of the programme.www.bbc.co.uk