VP Short List Chances

[ThreePointTakedown]

My guess for best chances at VP

1. Kari Lake, a spitting image of 45 and from a state they desperately need to win

2. Elise Stefanik, similar lunacy as Lake, but from a state they have no chance of winning. Might be a choice out of spite. Which would track. 

3. Just about everyone else is a legit politician that might work against the wishes of the orange one, at some point, because they understand the world as it is, or they are from a state that is already in the bag or are Ben Carson. 

[WrestlingRasta]

Could be a fun game to come up with a list of interview questions...

[mspart]

If it isn't Nikki, I'd be surprised. 

mspart

[billyhoyle]

 

[Offthemat]

 

[ThreePointTakedown]

9 hours ago, Offthemat said:

 

How is any party backing this person? 

What does it say about the principles of the party? 

[Offthemat]

6 hours ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

How is any party backing this person? 

What does it say about the principles of the party? 

You’d do well to heed his message. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

Just now, Offthemat said:

You’d do well to heed his message. 

This person is an idiot. An elected official should not be able to hold their job after saying some of the horrible things they have said. 

[Offthemat]

2 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

This person is an idiot. An elected official should not be able to hold their job after saying some of the horrible things they  have said. 

I don’t believe that is his proper pronoun.  
 

Thomas Sowell:

[…]

 

 

Self preservation is said to be the first law of nature, and this applies not only to human beings but also to organizations and movements. The March of Dimes was set up to fight polio but it did not disband when polio was wiped out by vaccines. Nor did civil rights organizations disband after civil rights laws were passed.

The fatal mistake made by those who imagine that they can appease movements and organizations with concessions is that concessions are incidental trophies for those who receive them, but unmet grievances are fundamental to their continued viability.

Back in the 1930s, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain thought that he could buy off Hitler with concessions to avoid war. More recently, both Israel and the Clinton administration discovered that offering even the most extraordinary concessions could not buy off Yasser Arafat. For either Hitler or Arafat to have made a lasting peace would have been to say that his grievances had now been met — and that would have been a devastating blow to the movement which provided his power.

Against this background, it may be easier to understand why a demand can be made and a crusade launched to get something that everyone knows in advance will not be given — reparations for slavery. No way are millions of white, Asian, and Hispanic Americans going to pay reparations for something that happened before their ancestors ever set foot on American Soil. Even those whites whose ancestors were here before the Civil War know that most of those ancestors — whether they lived in the North or the South — owned no slaves.

Seen in this light, the demand for reparations may seem like an exercise in futility. However, seen as a source of a lasting unmet grievance, it is a stroke of genius to keep blacks separated from other Americans and an aggrieved constituency to support black “leaders” in politics, organizations and movements.

This demand also mobilizes a certain amount of support or sympathy among whites, especially those in the media and in academia, where such support or sympathy costs nothing, and allows those who give it to relieve their own sense of guilt, while risking other people’s money — and national cohesion. Some white politicians can also benefit at little or no cost to themselves by expressing sympathy with the reparations cause or even voting for meaningless apologies for what others did centuries ago.

For these various groups, reparations is a win-win issue. For everyone else, including the vast majority of blacks, it is a lose-lose issue.

Blacks have already begun suffering losses from con men who have asked them to sign up for their individual shares of the reparations — and have then stolen their identity and used it to defraud them. But this is just a down payment on the losses from this futile crusade.

In a democracy, a minority that is no longer even the largest minority cannot afford to alienate, much less embitter, the majority which ultimately holds the political power in the country. Too often, unending demands and grievances from black leaders and spokesmen create the impression that most blacks want something for nothing. In reality, most blacks lifted themselves out of poverty before the civil rights laws or the welfare state programs took effect.

Not only do most whites not know this, neither do most blacks today, for their leaders have taken credit for this progress by depicting it as the fruits of their civil rights movements and political efforts. But the poverty rate among blacks fell by half between 1940 and 1960, before any of the major federal civil rights legislation or the vast expansion of the welfare state under President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs.

Between 1940 and 1960, black males’ number of years of schooling doubled. How surprising is it that doubling your education raises your income? In short, most blacks raised themselves out of poverty, but their leaders robbed them of this achievement and the respect it deserved — in the eyes of blacks and whites alike — by making it seem like a concession from the government and a product of agitation.

Pointing blacks in a direction from which little can be expected, and away from the enormous opportunities open today in the economy, is a formula for personal frustration, even if it benefits “leaders.” But then, that frustration is itself a benefit to “leaders,” who need a constituency with a sense of grievance.

[ThreePointTakedown]

Holy cow, I didn't even watch the video before posting my response... wow was I underselling his moronic-ness. 

They were treated like second class citizens so you could be here, treated as... still not equal citizens, you should be grateful! 

How can anyone, actually, believe that is a reasonable or justifiable thing to say? 

Granted its a complex issue, but shaming people, which is virtue signaling, for having mistreated ancestors and telling them they need to stay in their place and be happy about it, is wrong. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

29 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

I don’t believe that is his proper pronoun.  
 

Thomas Sowell:

[…]

 

 

Self preservation is said to be the first law of nature, and this applies not only to human beings but also to organizations and movements. The March of Dimes was set up to fight polio but it did not disband when polio was wiped out by vaccines. Nor did civil rights organizations disband after civil rights laws were passed.

The fatal mistake made by those who imagine that they can appease movements and organizations with concessions is that concessions are incidental trophies for those who receive them, but unmet grievances are fundamental to their continued viability.

Back in the 1930s, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain thought that he could buy off Hitler with concessions to avoid war. More recently, both Israel and the Clinton administration discovered that offering even the most extraordinary concessions could not buy off Yasser Arafat. For either Hitler or Arafat to have made a lasting peace would have been to say that his grievances had now been met — and that would have been a devastating blow to the movement which provided his power.

Against this background, it may be easier to understand why a demand can be made and a crusade launched to get something that everyone knows in advance will not be given — reparations for slavery. No way are millions of white, Asian, and Hispanic Americans going to pay reparations for something that happened before their ancestors ever set foot on American Soil. Even those whites whose ancestors were here before the Civil War know that most of those ancestors — whether they lived in the North or the South — owned no slaves.

Seen in this light, the demand for reparations may seem like an exercise in futility. However, seen as a source of a lasting unmet grievance, it is a stroke of genius to keep blacks separated from other Americans and an aggrieved constituency to support black “leaders” in politics, organizations and movements.

This demand also mobilizes a certain amount of support or sympathy among whites, especially those in the media and in academia, where such support or sympathy costs nothing, and allows those who give it to relieve their own sense of guilt, while risking other people’s money — and national cohesion. Some white politicians can also benefit at little or no cost to themselves by expressing sympathy with the reparations cause or even voting for meaningless apologies for what others did centuries ago.

For these various groups, reparations is a win-win issue. For everyone else, including the vast majority of blacks, it is a lose-lose issue.

Blacks have already begun suffering losses from con men who have asked them to sign up for their individual shares of the reparations — and have then stolen their identity and used it to defraud them. But this is just a down payment on the losses from this futile crusade.

In a democracy, a minority that is no longer even the largest minority cannot afford to alienate, much less embitter, the majority which ultimately holds the political power in the country. Too often, unending demands and grievances from black leaders and spokesmen create the impression that most blacks want something for nothing. In reality, most blacks lifted themselves out of poverty before the civil rights laws or the welfare state programs took effect.

Not only do most whites not know this, neither do most blacks today, for their leaders have taken credit for this progress by depicting it as the fruits of their civil rights movements and political efforts. But the poverty rate among blacks fell by half between 1940 and 1960, before any of the major federal civil rights legislation or the vast expansion of the welfare state under President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs.

Between 1940 and 1960, black males’ number of years of schooling doubled. How surprising is it that doubling your education raises your income? In short, most blacks raised themselves out of poverty, but their leaders robbed them of this achievement and the respect it deserved — in the eyes of blacks and whites alike — by making it seem like a concession from the government and a product of agitation.

Pointing blacks in a direction from which little can be expected, and away from the enormous opportunities open today in the economy, is a formula for personal frustration, even if it benefits “leaders.” But then, that frustration is itself a benefit to “leaders,” who need a constituency with a sense of grievance.

As soon as they correct me, I'll be happy to use their preferred one. 

Not gonna read it until you've proven that you have. 

[Ohio Elite]

9 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

As soon as they correct me, I'll be happy to use their preferred one. 

Not gonna read it until you've proven that you have. 

It was only a matter of time before you showed your true racist agenda!!  Bigot!!

[Offthemat]

44 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

As soon as they correct me, I'll be happy to use their preferred one. 

Not gonna read it until you've proven that you have. 

There them go again.  Them is ignorant and them insists on remaining ignorant.  And wrong.  

[JimmyBT]

White libtards can’t handle the truth when it’s a black man speaking it. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

15 hours ago, Ohio Elite said:

It was only a matter of time before you showed your true racist agenda!!  Bigot!!

Oh do tell? 

On the edge of my seat to see your explanation. Will you even attempt to answer that question? I doubt it, coward! If you do, will you make wild accusations with no evidence? Yes.  

Let me repeat.... COWARD! 

[ThreePointTakedown]

Let me apologies to all those on this board that have taken offense. If being courteous to a person and not assuming their pronouns is triggering for you and makes you lash out because you desperately need to put people in a box. Sucks to suck. 

If you post something but show no signs that you've absorbed it at all. There is no reason for me to either. I'm sorry you're so lazy! 

I hope you feel heard. If you need a hug or want to have a conversation. I'm here for you and whatever pronouns you use. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

7 minutes ago, JimmyBT said:

White libtards can’t handle the truth when it’s a black man speaking it. 

Like I said, your need to put someone in a box to simply things is astounding. You must be terrified with all the nuance going on around you. 

Best of luck with that. 

[JimmyBT]

[JimmyBT]

Only person that can put you in a box is you 

[JimmyBT]

Thomas Sowell wrote a book called Black Rednecks and White Liberals. In the book there is a quote that I find fitting for certain individuals that preach their agenda around here. 
 

“When people are presented with the alternatives of hating themselves for their failures or hating others for their success, they seldom choose to hate themselves”

 

Best of luck with that. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

6 hours ago, JimmyBT said:

Thomas Sowell wrote a book called Black Rednecks and White Liberals. In the book there is a quote that I find fitting for certain individuals that preach their agenda around here. 
 

“When people are presented with the alternatives of hating themselves for their failures or hating others for their success, they seldom choose to hate themselves”

 

Best of luck with that. 

Can I ask why this quote resonates with you so much? Is hate the only option. Why does this person feel that using that word will convey the message they want to send and what is that message? 

I don't hate anyone. A bad idea is just as easy to come across for everyone on the political spectrum.

Another quote:  "it so happens that the pervasive racism that black students supposedly encountered at every turn on campus and in town was not apparent to me during the four years that I taught at Cornell and lived in Ithaca." they said about  students at Cornell involved in a protest. Basically, he's saying they were lying because it didn't happen to a professor of the same university at the same time. So it couldn't possibly be true. But that's not how truth works. 

Still no reason to take this person seriously. Research appeal to authority and it might help you find better source material. 

[JimmyBT]

[ionel]

 Nicole Shanahan - 100%

[Paul158]

On 3/24/2024 at 11:32 PM, Offthemat said:

 

Wow. I love this guy. So refreshing.

[Offthemat]