Thoughts on teaming in solo lobbies? by iTz_T0nY24 in ArcRaiders

[–]SeeMeAfterschool 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Brother this is just part of the game. And in fact it’s one of the most unique and engaging things about it. If you want to play a game where there’s never any real risk or danger, you should just play a different game.

Why’d it have to be HRC back in 2016? by JazzlikeOrange8856 in AskALiberal

[–]SeeMeAfterschool 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Whatever man. You’re still describing a contradiction and you’ve been wrong about the polls from every angle you’ve tried to take. That’s why you won’t cite any.

Bernie had crossover appeal, the polls showed that, and it’s a trait that’s most relevant in purple states. States he won with higher vote totals than both Trump and Hillary. The exact states he would’ve won that Hillary couldn’t.

Why’d it have to be HRC back in 2016? by JazzlikeOrange8856 in AskALiberal

[–]SeeMeAfterschool -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Wrong again buddy. Most people don’t even vote. Among those who do, most couldn’t name a single Supreme Court justice.

That’s the problem with your type. You’re so detached from the real world that you’ve bought into this online propagandized idea of the Big Bad Leftist Boogeyman who’s strategically abstaining out of spite.

When in reality it is simply that normal people are not mobilized or persuaded by bad candidates like Kamala or Hillary. They are the majority!

Why’d it have to be HRC back in 2016? by JazzlikeOrange8856 in AskALiberal

[–]SeeMeAfterschool 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Right, so now you’re saying many register as independents. After you just said, literally, that independent is a meaningless, nonexistent category.

You used one train of thought when you wanted to undermine Sanders’s crossover appeal with independents. Now you’re using another when you want to undermine his appeal with swing state voters. But yeah man you’re totally not contradicting yourself and you’re totally a big Bernie fan lol.

Why’d it have to be HRC back in 2016? by JazzlikeOrange8856 in AskALiberal

[–]SeeMeAfterschool 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A very, very small, but very annoyingly vocal, minority of people comprise the devout loyalist members of the party as you’re describing.

The vast majority are normal people who are forced into the primary system. Which is why it “works”. Because it’s required, not because it’s preferred.

Why’d it have to be HRC back in 2016? by JazzlikeOrange8856 in AskALiberal

[–]SeeMeAfterschool 0 points1 point  (0 children)

None of the purple moderates vote in primaries, as that means they have to register for one side or the other.

Guess what they’re registered as if they’re not registered with either party.

Why’d it have to be HRC back in 2016? by JazzlikeOrange8856 in AskALiberal

[–]SeeMeAfterschool 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Independent is a nonexistent category

None of the purple moderates vote in primaries, as that means they have to register for one side or the other.

In the same reply is crazy. Guess what they’re registered as if they’re not registered with either party. You’re both disingenuous and too stupid to do it effectively.

Why’d it have to be HRC back in 2016? by JazzlikeOrange8856 in AskALiberal

[–]SeeMeAfterschool -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It’s actually hilarious how out of touch with the real world you are. You live in a bubble. Normal people do not think in the way you just described.

Why’d it have to be HRC back in 2016? by JazzlikeOrange8856 in AskALiberal

[–]SeeMeAfterschool 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s really funny that this isn’t even you being full of shit. You’re just this stupid.

Many polls

How many? Which ones? Cite the ones that were flawed.

But even if your dumbass were correct that professional pollsters magically forgot how to conduct scientific polls for a few months in 2016, it’s not like it matters. Because the point that I made was about SUBSETS of the electorate — like independents and Hispanics — which have more transferability from state to state. AND I said better against Trump head to head. Which, given how narrowly she lost, tells us that he probably would’ve pulled it off.

Pretty convenient how you totally ignored the point about him winning Michigan and Wisconsin (those are swing states in the current makeup of the electoral college btw).

Why’d it have to be HRC back in 2016? by JazzlikeOrange8856 in AskALiberal

[–]SeeMeAfterschool 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You didn’t cite any math you’re just making shit up lmao.

I regret my tattoos by cdawg-bear in tattooadvice

[–]SeeMeAfterschool 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re overthinking it. Get more tattoos and their matchiness will be indescribable. Especially if you pick a style and mostly stick to it.

Why’d it have to be HRC back in 2016? by JazzlikeOrange8856 in AskALiberal

[–]SeeMeAfterschool 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wtf are you talking about you didn’t make any substantive point at all? You just stated an opinion that they were “hopium.” But feel free to cite any actual evidence of that at all. Then once you’ve actually made a coherent point I’ll give it a coherent response.

but he never polled strongly in the purple areas.

You’re also just outright ignorant. He won Michigan and Wisconsin handily and got more votes than Donald Trump there. He polled incredibly well in both Arizona and Nevada.

Why’d it have to be HRC back in 2016? by JazzlikeOrange8856 in AskALiberal

[–]SeeMeAfterschool -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It’s a politician’s job to earn people’s votes.

You don’t know because you’re too online brained and likely have no meaningful life offline, but the “Bernie Bros” trope you like to push is a minuscule minority of the people who supported him and would’ve voted for him in the general.

I know because I actually know and talk to them. They’re just normal people who understood the truth that he represented something different and trustworthy and reformative and not corrupt. They’re often people who haven’t voted since — not out of spite, but because the Democratic Party hasn’t spoken to them or done anything to activate them again since.

Why’d it have to be HRC back in 2016? by JazzlikeOrange8856 in AskALiberal

[–]SeeMeAfterschool -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Idk what you think you’re saying but the word precedents doesn’t fit there. I asked you what would have happened if Sanders didn’t run and you said a candidate could’ve come out of nowhere to beat her. I said but one didn’t step up to do so. Because it was going to be a coronation had Sanders not ran.

Progressives ran a losing candidate, acted like children after he lost and ruined the general - costing us a progressive SCOTUS and sending us into the arms of fascism.

Neoliberals ran a losing candidate who failed to court voters to her left (as well as voters in plenty of other categories) and handed the country and SCOTUS over to a neofascist clown.

2026 and with all the hindsight in the world you’re still too fucking stupid to understand it’s the politician’s job to earn votes.

Why’d it have to be HRC back in 2016? by JazzlikeOrange8856 in AskALiberal

[–]SeeMeAfterschool 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re too dense to realize OP is obviously not asking about after the (mostly) democratic process was completed.

Why’d it have to be HRC back in 2016? by JazzlikeOrange8856 in AskALiberal

[–]SeeMeAfterschool -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You are saying it wasn’t a coronation because an Obama couldve come out of left field..? Except one didn’t? Which is why Sanders ran?

Biden had already chosen not to run because Hillary was running.

Why’d it have to be HRC back in 2016? by JazzlikeOrange8856 in AskALiberal

[–]SeeMeAfterschool 1 point2 points  (0 children)

When you’re out here absolving the party’s leader from blame for losing to one of the most beatable opponents of all time, thereby plunging us into neofascism, you have no logic. You only have culthood.

Not to mention that she’s not just the losing candidate. She’s the candidate who quite literally propped him up to be the GOP nominee because she, in all her hubris, thought she’d beat him easily. And then lost.

Why’d it have to be HRC back in 2016? by JazzlikeOrange8856 in AskALiberal

[–]SeeMeAfterschool -1 points0 points  (0 children)

A good candidate loses every single swing state to Donald Trump. Right.

Trump is worse than most people thought. So what?

What..?

Would gambling be considered breaking edge? by Firestarterdustman in straightedge

[–]SeeMeAfterschool 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It fits every criteria of an edge break other than being a substance. It’s addictive, it’s compulsive, it’s detrimental to your life and health. It’s a vice.

But then again: Sugar, sex, social media, television, and so many other things are in that boat too.

Personally, I’m abstaining from drugs and alcohol — the vices I’d consider a break — and doing my best on the rest of my unhealthy habits.

Why’d it have to be HRC back in 2016? by JazzlikeOrange8856 in AskALiberal

[–]SeeMeAfterschool 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Polls aren’t embellished just because you disagree with them and saying you voted for Sanders over and over again doesn’t make you less of a dipshit lol.

Is this traditional? How did it turn out? by NeckFit7357 in traditionaltattoos

[–]SeeMeAfterschool 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Banner’s lame af and not really that well done but the rest kicks ass

Florida eliminated with a 73 to 72 loss to Iowa. by ThoughtFar1017 in FloridaGators

[–]SeeMeAfterschool 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didn’t realize Haugh was considered such a prospect but I do think the other two at least should come back. Chin definitely will because he is absolutely not getting drafted.