fustakrakich's Journal: Democrat dweebs

What's the word for those so desperately grasping at straws, Bush, Cheney, Nader, anything at all avoid the truth in why they lose elections? They will not ever accept that it is because they suck. They put up weak candidates, Humphrey, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, that present no opposition to the other side, and demand we all play along. This is why republicans do, and Trump can win*. It is that simple. And people like me will always catch shit for seeing through the charade.

*personally I think it's intentional as part of their tag team methods

Well, since it is well documented I am the literary midget of Slashdot, I found an article, courtesy MH42 (a person who is either the most sincere, or the best troll in these parts. I kid, man. You're cool), That can explain my thoughts far better than I can, in spite of the minor quibbles I have over third party voting, and maybe one or two little things that would just be distraction from the overall message. See, I really do know how to compromise, where it is merited. So, enjoy, and STFU! you dumbasses! Full apologies to and in memory of our best friend Red. I hope he comes back some day, and Smith too, maybe then we will see the return of ,heheh, civility (the admirable direct talking kind, not the PC weenie shit that democrats and other conservatives push and will legislate given half a chance) in JournalLand.

And stay out of the dark alleys if you don't want to suffer a most painful death.

thank you, and good night ladies

moof

[Bill Dawg]

it is wrong to think of a vote not cast for Leading Contender A as a de facto vote cast for Leading Contender B.

It would only be wrong if there were some minimum number of votes, on its own, required to attain office. Say you needed at least 50.1% of the total population of the U.S. to vote for you to become prez. Sure, then abstaining from voting for Trump would have no effect on Hillary's elections chances. But since that's not the case, neither is what the author asserts.

the return of ,heheh, civility

<meta>I'm still reading your JE's, but I had stopped reading your replies to me. If you respond to this I'll view it, but will go back

Re:

[fustakrakich]

Obviously the message, right there in the subtitle, plain as day, bounced right off your skull. Why am I not surprised? I'm sure I'll get no less from the others. At least you provide a glance into the future on their expected reaction. Much appreciated...

I had stopped reading your replies to me

Is that supposed to relevant in any way? If all we get is more trolling clownish Trump crap, save your breath, or your keyboard, as the case may be. You will be taken seriously when the red nose comes off. That doesn

Re:

[Bill Dawg]

That doesn't mean you aren't always welcome here.

Good, because I wasn't going to stop responding to original posts by you, just replies (where your anti-social behavior manifests in making it personal). Enjoy our one-way conversations from now on, and being the only one reading the long, psychotic replies you type out to me.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

Trump voter - talking about psychotic - one of the more obvious cases of projection you are famous for.

:-) As they say, you are the funny. Other people read my shit also. They will see two psychos talking at each other. Fun for the whole family. So, what will you use as your secret proxy to communicate with me?

Congrats!

[Captain Splendid]

See, I really do know how to compromise, where it is merited.

It is sad to see a once proud pony reduced to the punchline [quoteinvestigator.com] of an old joke.