OCinBuffalo

Let the idiocy commence: Oh please, by all that is Holy and right, please let Daily Kos and Move On and George Soros throw money at races like this one. They actually think that this proves something...in a race with 1 D and 11 Rs. Speaking of "If you want something done right, put the far left in charge of doing the opposite" anybody see this: Tom Reed Turns Town Hall Turmoil into Record Haul He raised $585,282 based on nothing more than backlash against these far left buffoons. He now has 2x the cash of any other Rep in upstate NY, ready for 2018, and it's only the first quarter. Great planning fellas. Even better execution. By all means Daily Kos guy "go get em!" :lol:

With 100% of Dekalb County in, which Hillary won win 57%...this Ossoff ends up with 58.6. Hillary still lost this district, and Mike Pompeo won the seat last time, with that 57% in Dekalb. So much for this being a devastating day for Trump, or really, having anything to do with Trump at all.

Well, if you were following the NYT times crack crew of analysts live blog? They were all hoping that the Braves game and the bad highways would either keep the turnout down, or up, I don't know: they are pretty incoherent. One thing they do seem to agree on is: the Progressive base's insistence on fighting every race, everywhere, is going to waste millions on unwinnable races, and the DNC can't do much to stop it. As one of the Federalist guy's said here :

32% in and he's at 53.9. That's just embarrassing for the early vote people. In fact, with 67% of the vote in, in a county Hillary won w/ 57%, he's now at 58.5. The county that Trump dominated is only 37% in. I'm calling this one right now: runoff in June.

4% reporting, and down to 60%. Yep, so far, the pattern is holding. It's really amazing, isn't it, that the early voting is so one-sided, and, when the election day votes come in, we go from 71 to 60 in under and hour. 11 points. Amazing.

Perfect. Then you are exactly the right person to ask the following: given your work with mental trauma, which I assume is also part of your job, how do you explain what I wrote in my OP? Why the lack of concern for the mental trauma of "gender confusion" amongst people who have real mental trauma going on? Explain the psychological machinations at work here. I understand why a nurse would want to get a headband with a flower on it for a girl cancer patient, and give it to her. In fact that act defines the word "nurse" quite well. I know because I have spent a lot of my professional life in the last 10 years working with nurses(and docs, and techs, and everybody else, including housekeeping and janitors at health care providers), all over this country and in 2 foreign countries. Why is it do you think, that if gender is merely a social construct, the nurse buys the headband? Is she simply propagating that social construct? Is she in fact participating in some level of gender oppression? Or, does she simply have her compassion setting at 10(like most real nurses do), and is therefore incapable of allowing deviant concerns/thoughts to override that compassion? I've asked plenty of nurses about this very thing. Sorry, but to a nurse: they all consider Tom's "y you're a guy" to be fact, and, they DO consider anything else a mental deficiency, if not illness. Perhaps they need more "in services"? You wanna tell them that? Because I sure as hell don't.

That's changed. Ossoff down to 63% in 20 minutes since you posted this. With less than 1% in everywhere: http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/georgia-house-special-election-district-6 EDIT: Which is another way of saying: the dead/mentally incompetent have once again, amazingly, all voted Democrat using the early ballot tactic. Now that the "early" votes are in...just like always...watch Ossoff's numbers drop.

That article is hilarious. It's written as some sort of serious coverage, yet, the premise is: "Let's go to the place who voted for Trump the most, and show how it's going to hurt them". That would be like me going to Chicago to investigate the effect of gun control laws. In both cases, you already know what you're going to find, so...why pretend it's "insightful journalism", and that "they are just following the story"? Easy. Because often times leftists aren't even aware how biased they are. This is because: below average IQ leading to an utter lack of self-awareness. Thought must come before compassion. Ask any Buddhist. I wonder if we will see a follow-up story in a year? How about 2? What if Trump does what I think he will, and Wyoming Country prospers? Just a little, perhaps(because NYS, and despite Trump's best efforts)? What if the number of food bank customers is cut in half? What does that do to the budget? What if Health care gets fixed and upstate NY counties don't keep having to pay for downstate Medicaid? NY == only state in the union where this happens...and...conveniently left out of the article? Why? All this talk of county budgets, and no mention of that fact? If Wyoming County was suddenly cut loose from having to subsidize Medicaid, via Federal Law? 2 things: Cuomo and every other down-state D would have a major problem on their hands, of their own creation, and they'd have to solve it...down-state. Wyoming County's budget would rocket to a surplus. They could afford 5 food banks, new snowplows, all sorts of stuff. ------- Also hilarious: not a single leftist article goes by where they can't stop talking about Trump's "controversial" tweets. My God does the media hate that Trump gets his message out unfiltered. They hate it that his tweets represent a existential threat to them. Who needs them if you can get what the POTUS thinks, directly on your handheld? The media has to cover it, every time he does it. So, the conversation, and the premise, always begins at a time and topic of Trump's choosing thus, the media always begins on the defensive. But, most importantly, and this matters far more to these hacks than anything, even their paychecks: Trump tweets mock and then eradicate their unearned power. They expected to have power coming out of college, just handed to them: as the media. Now? They actually have to earn it. As I've said for years, the internet is the best thing that happened to the media, and yeah, there's going to be some growing and some bad reporting on all sides, but, in the long term it's going to remove the 1st Amendment hiding place from the left, by giving that hiding place to everybody. Trump Tweeting is just a side-outcome of a much larger change.

This implies that you know many...I'm not gonna replicate that garbage acronym...and of the many you know, only a few made an immediate change. Tell us: how many do you know? How did you do your "gathering"?

But how is that possible? IF gender confusion, let's call it, is such an all-encompassing issue, how is it possible that it is ignored by kids: who have cancer, who are trying to cross to border to catch up with their mom, or Syrian refugees. We have been told that this is such an important issue, that bathroom policy must change, as well as a host of other things. We have a college kid in Michigan whose pronouns are now "Your majesty, His majesty", etc. (EDIT: I will never tire of laughing at that. Look it up. It's real.) How can it be such a huge deal, yet be totally ignored by people who have actual huge deals going on their lives?

Lies. Flat out lies. Pretending that NATO spending was: 1. common knowledge 2. on the tips of everybody's tongue as a problem is a flat out lie. Nobody said a word, beyond a few random R congressman, about NATO's spending/priority problems for a decade. Then, Trump comes along and makes it a front and center issue, and you are going to pretend that "you knew it all along". Horeschit! As far as the timing: you are going with "Oh wow, they made a new anti-terror command to make Trump and his supporters happy. Big deal.", as already having answered my question? Yeah, "Trump Supporters" have a direct line to NATO HQ, and, NATO HQ reports directly to: my mom and her facebook friends. Totally irrational. This is further evidence of how the left can't do anything real against Trump. They are too stupid, and too emotional, to be effective.

Yeah, I'm so unhinged that you can't answer simple questions like: where did you learn that it was 2% of GDP? And, why did the new Anti-Terror Command get created immediately after Trump called out NATO. "I'm so drunk" works for girls who want to get laid, not here. If you're too drunk right now, fine. I'll give you 48 hours to sober up, and then answer my F'ing questions.

1. Judging any behavior based on "this site" means you're already wrong. But, please continue. 2. I gave you a point by point description of how he played the NATO thing, and you, like a cello. How do you even know to say "2% of their GDP for defense"? Is that something you knew prior to the "OMG! Trump said NATO bad!" media freakout? Of course not. Do you even realize that I am right when I say that? Of course not. Right, you knew that NATO's financial requirements were 2%(not 3, or 5) of GDP(not some set figure based on population) and that most of NATO has owed $ since the 1990s, or in some cases, 80s...and it wasn't Trump that made you aware of that at all. 3. Explain why NATO created a specific Anti-Terror command after Trump called them obsolete? Explain the timing of that. Explain why, if they were fighting terror this whole time...the need for such a command to be created. You can't. Anything you say defies the facts and logic. 4. Ah yeah, the personal attack, the last refuge of the argument loser. See, I'm not calling you a name. You are in fact the loser of this argument. Whenever you get done talking, that's what you will be.

Yes, Anne Coulter...the populist? And you're talking about being "informed". The rest is rationalization. Trump always was reasonable and hyper-informed. He could not have conducted things the way he has otherwise. To wit: nobody was talking about NATO, until he called them out. Most leftists/media people insta-posted their usual Trump hate. But, that's not good enough, and the leftists/media had to think about how to prove him wrong. That's exactly what he wanted: them having to "think", and show their work in public. Everybody had to come up with why what he was saying was so bad. In the process of that "investigation", the fact that everybody but the UK, Poland, and Latvia, do not pay for their own national defense, yet, presume to lecture us on the value of socialism, came out. Every leftist in the entire West had to answer for that, and had no answer. It was left as a giant Trump win. NATO immediately began an Anti-terror command, which is a win for all of us. Mattis has since gone to NATO and told them to pay up. Now, all these freeloading European people have agreed to pay...and... Bingo! The deal is closed. Trump keeps up his end and says NATO's Ok...Now. Thus, you are clueless if you think Trump was uninformed about NATO. He was so well-informed, and so politically astute, that he put this entire thing together and executed it brilliantly: using one line, in one speech. In the long term it cost him nothing, and he gained a ton of political support, and got the $, because again: he was right. You're merely proving that you didn't get it during the campaign, you don't get it now, and it's getting more and more likely that you won't be getting it until around 2040, if ever. EDIT: The more responses like this I see, the more convinced I am that you and the rest of the left are simply incapable of laying a glove on Trump. You're too ignorant about Trump, and too arrogant to do anything about it.

Right, and the quickest exit is of course, writing a post.

What in the Sam hell makes you think that your response isn't intentionally being provoked, by Trump? (Christ this is a Pepe meme waiting to happen. Perhaps I will do it tonight.) This is exactly what I am talking about. Example: The #1 problem Trump had to deal with is: no government experience. It's what makes his election so "unprecedented", and "amazing" and "shocking", et al. Rather than trying to fight a losing battle with that problem, and therefore giving that issue to the left forever? He purposely confuses/diverts you instead, by creating and presenting other "problems" for himself. Then he solves them. Pissing off Ann Coulter, is just the latest of a 100+. Now, you're talking about Ann F'ing Coulter, of all people, not him. And, whether you know it or not, Trump just moved himself down on your list of people you don't like. Best of all it costs him: nothing. Every time he does this, he gains and loses nothing. Wait until the next thing happens that everybody knows is a win: then Coulter will be back on TV saying "I told you so". When are you going to get it? Better, when are you going to get that Trump is exactly the kind of thinker we need right now, to rat-F China? Iran? Russia? The Regressive/Fascist Left? You think Hillary Clinton or Ted Cruz or Mitt Romney is capable of this level of thought? Hell no. You think Befuddled Bernie is in Trump's league? Hell no. That's why those of us who saw it early, supported Trump immediately. Trump is not evolving. The only evolution going on here lies in the perceptions of the army of idiots who still don't understand Trump's game plan. The vast majority of Trump's supporters understand. Not everybody of course. But, almost everybody on the internet does. This is why Pepe The Frog is so hilarious. Pepe The Frog is merely our way of running Trump's game plan. We can do it too...and to this day, nobody gets it.

What a shocker: Trump has been in office for literally 6% of his term(86 days out for 1461, 86/1461 == 0.058 rounded to .06), and butthurt GG is doing a broken promises thread? What a great unintended commentary on "I can only see my way of doing things, and therefore, if each event doesn't follow my way, the goal will never work/happen", client-side thinking. Or, Romney thinking. Take your pick. I suggest we all remember the campaign, I know, that's painful for the STILL-butthurt. There were so many days, even just parts of days, where "Trump was done". Only to have some set of unforeseeable(to the butthurt, not to me) events come along and wipe out their absolute certainty. Often times the entire thing was clearly designed from end to end by Trump, and legions of idiots would get played...while I laughed. So: GG, when are you going to learn that your links above...are designed to provoke a response? How often does this pattern have to be repeated for you to get it? When are the butthurt going to learn: Trump is a lot better at his job than they are at theirs? They need to immediately stop projecting their standards of win/lose, fail/succeed, and their talent level onto him. Trump has proven, over and over, than he can get things done in conditions and situations where they can't. The root cause for underestimating Trump, is the overestimation of those observing/judging him in their own abilities. How many times does the "incompetent" Trump...need to win, for those calling him that to realize that he's been playing them from the start, and it's their competency that's being exposed as lacking?

...then why, every time I see the children's cancer commercials, do I see them go out of their way to portray girls...as girls? They give them head-bands with flowers or something similar. It must be tough to be a girl, and have no hair, and look exactly like the boys with cancer do. The whole thing is a crying shame of course(and this is not a discussion that requires reminding that cancer == bad, or any emoting that comes with that) However, putting aside the emotional for a second, and looking objectively at behavior, it seems there is always a serious effort to show a girl, as one. Next questions: is it that the girl with cancer wants the headband? Or, is it the parents/hospital staff's idea? Or both? In all cases, do enough image searches and you'll see that near-100% effort is made to distinguish a girls as girls, and making them feel "pretty". That's some heavy-duty psychological needs being met. Thus, when one adds the massive condition of cancer: there's no room left in the logic for gender confusion or, or much of anything else. If that is so, then the notion that genders are fluid, simply can't be right, because, for it to be valid, it must be true for all. It isn't true for children with cancer, clearly. Next, I wonder if there is a lot of gender confusion amongst the illegal children trying to cross our southern border? How about amongst the children being attacked in Syria? No. It seems the only place gender fluidity amongst children resides...is nice, safe spaces, where there's room for it.

Yet another way for NY to lead the nation in importing poor people, and exporting not just jobs, but entire companies. I can't wait to see 3 things: 1. how this is actually budget neutral 2. what happens to college tuition price 3. what happens to any cost-control efforts that might of been underway an NYS schools(yeah, as if, I know. But, there might have been somebody, at one school, trying to cut cost, who now has no way to get anybody to show up at their meeting)

It depends on whether said Americans get their entire history from Hollywood, or, from our leftist education system, or, from doing their own reading. Your question, about lumping German "units"...is invalidated by lumping "Americans". I assure you that there are plenty of Americans that know the difference between these "units". I can also assure you that the ones that do don't discuss it much. We'd rather laugh at the idiots who don't know the difference, and never correct them. It's funny to us. It's not limited to German units. Watch this: She's actually thinking: coyote the animal. This, essentially, is why Donald Trump is president. And, why we are giggling about it. Every time somebody says "we should be more like Europe"? It's usually somebody like this girl. You might want to consider asking her to stop representing you. For a very long time, I have been developing the "A-hole American Theory", which is the causal inverse of the "Ugly American" theory. We generally send our worst people overseas, unless there's a war. This is because: given a choice, Americans don't want to leave, and don't want to stay wherever they get sent. So, the best Americans stay here, and you never see them. However, our terrible people, by definition? We don't want them around here. If there's a new job in Berlin? We send, or conspire to send, the biggest a-hole in the office. Now he's your problem. Sorry, but, a-hole is a-hole, world-wide.

I wonder....where is TPS now, in 2017,...that Trump's populist movement, coupled with Steve Bannon's "destruction of the administrative state", have won...going away? I wonder if TPS sees Trump's well-known and quoted, literal, push back on the "wealthy corporate interests" who ship jobs out of the country and cheap(in some cases lethal) products in...fits with what he wrote above. I wonder what his current "caricature" looks like. Perhaps the liberal boogeyman who can't get over the fact that slowly cutting away the JFK Democrats from the party was a terrible idea, and, can't stop talking about Russia(which is about to kill them == as I write this, the "smoking gun" that proves there was "political surveillance", is about to turn on the Democrats like a mother-in-law...just like tax returns). Yappity, yappity, but here we are, again: I was right. I am right because giving Congress too much to sell, is now recognized as a BIGLY problem. Trump wouldn't be president otherwise. I am the boogeyman for all of you: because I always end up being right in the end. Consider: I have a database of every stupid thing any of you have ever written, and I simply lie in wait for your idiocy to disprove itself. Shall we discuss "The Surge" in Iraq again, etc.? In the end, the only person that was "captured", was TPS.

As some know, I don't follow college football. In fact I ignore it totally. The sum of 2016 college football I have watched is perhaps 10 minutes of game time. I have no team. I have no conference. College exists to provide NFL players, and all other discussion doesn't matter to me. For years, I have found that one can spend 3 hours attending to college football discussion, in college team terms, and learn nothing/end up exactly where the conversation began. Thus, for me, college football, unless it pertains to the draft, is a waste of time. Therefore, this is the 100% objective draft thread. Make your case. Show me something. Understand that I know stats quite well, so, please, avoid my annoyance and your embarrassment, in trying to play stat games. I have 0 reason to doubt you, and I have 0 reason to believe you. I can't agree or disagree. All I can do is: be convinced.

This is a camp thing. I mean, it's fun to talk about now, but, it shouldn't determine draft tactics. We can't pretend we have a guy we haven't seen do a thing in an NFL game. Loolk, Whaley has been proven right more often than wrong...especially if you believe that Buddy drafted EJ(who the F knows really?)

Great...too busy(edit: sleepy, high, drunk...pr desperate to distract from the content) to read...but not too busy to comment. Right. How about I dare you to find fault with a single word, using reason, mmm..K? Of course, when it's not "too late". Take your time.

Yeah. I mean, if you were to create a "ensure WNY tunes us out" plan...ESPN has been following it for 10 years. The bigger problem? This isn't just the WNY tune-out plan, it's essentially a plan that ensures tune-out for 80% of sports fans. It's funny, because, we can dance around the political parallels of ESPN's current condition, for the sake of this this board's safe-space rules, all day...it doesn't change the facts on the ground: ESPN is taking a beating, and the reason's are as obvious as looking at a map.