Dennis Hof, Nevada's most famous pimp, wins GOP primary
- Thread starter dherd
- Start date
it's the trump-effect.
"It's all because Donald Trump was the Christopher Columbus for me," Hof told the Associated Press in a phone call. "He found the way and I jumped on it."
just like trump critic, mark sanford, fell to trump supported katie arrington in south cakalina.
"It's all because Donald Trump was the Christopher Columbus for me," Hof told the Associated Press in a phone call. "He found the way and I jumped on it."
just like trump critic, mark sanford, fell to trump supported katie arrington in south cakalina.
Mark Sanford is one of the biggest clowns in politics. Period. He is probably taking a hike on the Appalachian trail right now.
You deplorables act like that is a good thing. You deplorables are voting in pimps to run for office.
christ, we already have trump, what's a pimp?
the sooner you guys stop being offended by everything, the sooner you may have a chance of winning it back. as of now, people are voting for pimps to keep dems out (this guy is the fav in the general). how does that make you feel?
A wife beater won the Democratic primary in SC. The history of the Democratic Party continues.
Surely there is. Otherwise, the deplorables would have cared about cheeto's million dollar fine and multiple lawsuits for discriminating against blacks, his race-based actions/words against the Central Park Five, his boasting of sexually assaulting women, his boasting of having cheated on multiple wives, his fantasies of incest, his boasting of the size of his genitals during a presidential debate, and all of the other acts he has done. If no statute of limitations, deplorables wouldn't have voted for him.
I'm in no way defending Republicans, or Trump, but I find it extremely tone deaf when Democrats label themselves as progressive, or the exclusive party of higher morality. It's bullshit, and I was simply pointing that out to Buckeye.
just think, if the dems were smart enough to put a semi-decent candidate up for election, us deplorables wouldn't have had near the great year we've had . . . not only with the increase in our bank accounts, but also the never ending entertainment of bitching, crying and moaning from libs.
deplorables are happier, wealthier, and more entertained now than they would have been under dem control.
thanks, libs!!
deplorables are happier, wealthier, and more entertained now than they would have been under dem control.
thanks, libs!!
Oh, but we are. We are the party that fights for equal rights. We are the party that cares if people sexually assault others. We are the party that cares about helping others regardless of race, religion, or nationality. The same can't be said about the deplorables.
That's what you're told to think. Meanwhile, behind closed doors you have sexual deviants like Anthony Wiener, Eric Schneiderman, Ed Murray, Tony Cardenas, and John Conyers. 5 lawmakers in California have resigned due to sexual allegations in the last year. Your party places celebrity status on rapist Bill Clinton and woman killer Ted Kennedy. Democrats just announced they'll lean on Hollywood to help push them through November, do we need to go down that list of women abusing assholes? Your party doesn't care until they get caught, then they create a hashtag policy hoping it'll all go away. Is Bill still jet setting with pedophile Jeffrey Epstein?
I’m curious to who you think would be a decent democratic candidate. This should be good.
you're the mentally fukt in the head lib, you tell me who you'd rather have had or should get. i looked at a top list of dems the other day for the 2020 election and just what you said . . . "this should be good". hell, cons can only hope you dumbasses put someone like oprah on the ticket, there'd be no reason for trump to campaign.
Don’t turn this on me. You are the one that proposed better democratic candidates now answer the fvcking question snowflake.
turn it on you? hell, as mentally defunct lib, one would think you'd take it on yourself. shit, go with clinton again, maybe lying chuck, oprah would be a great one for you pansies. really isn't going to matter, you're going to lose even biglier next time around.
Nevada has chosen to have legal prostitution in a large part of the state. Thus, I see no problem with this, but it sure is against the morals of the "family values" wing of the party.
I'd have no problem if Colorado elects a pot entrepreneur. Actually, I would probably like that.
I'd have no problem if Colorado elects a pot entrepreneur. Actually, I would probably like that.
Actions of individual politicians or individuals members of a party do not make a party. The platform and what the party fights for is what makes the party.
You'll be wasting your time if you are trying to argue that the Democrats do not overwhelmingly vote in favor of things like racial, gender, homosexual, and religious equality far more than Republicans.
Don't like the options I provided, crybaby? Not surprised, but you don't have much better to choose from.
Washington (CNN)Democrats in Northern Wisconsin declared victory in a state Senate special election on Tuesday, the party's 43rd red-to-blue state legislative flip since President Donald Trump stepped into the White House last year
The district has traditionally been Republican, with the GOP incumbent who ran in 2014 winning with 62% of the vote.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/12/politics/democrats-flip-state-legislative-seats/index.html
Even this liberal is starting to figure out that the Dem party's use of identity politics is questionable.
https://theintercept.com/2018/06/12...g-and-thus-appears-cynical-and-opportunistic/
https://theintercept.com/2018/06/12...g-and-thus-appears-cynical-and-opportunistic/
The OP and my first and every post ITT was about individual shitbag politicians. But sure, change the argument to fit your needs.
I've never met a single lib or dem that admits their party has serious issues, but they're damn good at pointing fingers.
How long has it been since you smoked crack?
So, when you said "exclusive party," or "your party," or "history of the Democratic party," you were really just referring to individual politicians. Yeah, that makes sense.
And when you said "every post in this thread," you didn't really mean every post or even close to every post. Got it.
I understand context quite fine. You clearly were talking about the overall party with your comments.
I referenced multiple sexual/domestic abusers in the Democratic party, then pointed out your party and its supporters really don't give a shit about those individuals actions and how that's hypocritical to the way they present themselves to the public.
You'd rather argue semantics than admit your side has major issues it needs to address. There's nothing progressive about that.
bullshit, i've never witnessed rifle arguing semantics, nor any other trivial bullshit. take that back.
So your last claim that no post in this thread discussed the parties overall was inaccurate? Yeah, I already showed you that, but thanks for admitting it.
[QUOTE="HerdFan76, post: 545094, member: 1308]
You'd rather argue semantics than admit your side has major issues it needs to address. There's nothing progressive about that.[/QUOTE]
What are these "major issues" that need to be addressed? There are a thousand state and federal Democratic politicians. Individuals who may act hypocritical compared to what the party fights for do not equate to an entire party.
The Democratic party is the party that fights for equal rights for race, homosexuality, gender, etc. Your argument is that since a handful (out of a thousand) of Democratic politicians have had sexual indiscretions over the last 25 years, it means the party isn't the one that really fights for those things? You need to go back to the drawing board for your argument.
Why is this so hard for you to understand? Your party gave Bill Clinton celebrity status, they put him out front during the general election, he was the charisma behind Hillary's campaign. If your party really gave a shit about #MeToo he would have been ostracized, he wouldn't be allowed anywhere near the DNC, they would have treated him like a confederate general's statue. So, in this example, it does equate to your entire party.
So, wait: you are now admitting that you aren't just talking about individual politicians, but rather, you're now talking about the entire party even though you incorrectly claimed otherwise previously? Do you want to just go ahead and delete that post of yours so you don't have to keep getting called out for contradicting yourself?
It's hard to discuss any of this with you when you can't even decide on your own what line you're going to go with.
Wrong. You claimed you nor anyone else had made any posts about entire parties and that you were solely discussing individual politicians. I called you out on it and proved otherwise. You now want to go back to talking about entire parties.
I suggest reading through this thread again so you can decide which side you want to jump to for your next post.
You pushed the conversation in that direction, and I'm fine with that. Conversations evolve. Now it's you who wants to reverse course. So, instead of discussing the meat of the topic you just want to play wordy word games. I'm not going to waste my time going in circles with the valedictorian of How to Argue Semantics And Do Other Things Good Too University.
Again, I suggest reading the thread again. You were the one who introduced entire parties, multiple times, in this thread . . . even though you claimed you never did only to then admit that you did. Now, you're claiming I pushed the conversation to that, which is not the case.
Do you always have trouble what you just posted?
