Sean Mooney

Watch out though for noted Internet tough guy utilit99....he is going to make you drool if you try to slice his throat.

Poor utilit99....he better find a new job soon.

Decision Desk HQ has more than you: 216-204 in favor of Republicans.

Most recent update I saw said Democrats would probably end up gaining 1 seat but still be down 3 overall Glad you got past the media blackout,

So there is a minor loophole that could potentially be exploited, and I've seen some debate of this prior to Trump so it isn't a reactionary thing in this instance. The amendment reads: So the argument has been made that- in this case- that Vance could run for President in 2028 with Trump as his Vice President pick. Vance wins, and then at some point steps aside or down from the position. At that point, Trump would become President and he was not technically voted into office. Vance was voted in. There is some scholarly debate about it and there is some talk that language in the 25th amendment would be invoked to prevent it. Additionally to note- if Trump were to choke on a Big Mac and die in 2025- Vance would take over as President but then could only be elected to 1 more term as President. If Trump choked on the Big Mac and die in 2028 then Vance could become President and run for two terms. I would say there is a non-zero chance that at some point Trump floats amending the constitution so he can run to win a 3rd term.

I didn't put myself into this.....

Not about me....abstract "I" Apply intent all you want. I can't control that, and I accept that. I also accept that you will apply intent without regard, so by all means, have at it......its a behavior I am aware exists in abundance for those who might lean right in their view of the world.

Media blackout? https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=71e700b366dfacef&q=2024+house+election&tbm=nws&source=univ&tbo=u&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjK8evGps2JAxXfEVkFHevvLkQQt8YBKAB6BAglEAE&biw=1707&bih=781&dpr=1.13&safe=active&ssui=on

I wasn't talking about me. I was talking about "I" in an abstract way referring to all people who might discuss something like this.

Geez dude. You told me I jumped the gun and inserted myself into a discussion when you weren't talking about me- despite many direct shots- and then when I ask you to clarify what "you" you are referring to you can't answer. Just trying to make sure I don't make the error again.

Not at all. I just want to make sure I know in which manner I should respond.

Which "you" is this referring to now?

What is a win on a message board worth?

I assume this post is about "you" (everyone) and not "you" (me). Good try though.

I don't defend liars...I'm not defending you

I appreciate that you don't see the irony of your stance on this when you are making an argument about the dishonesty of the Biden people.

There are pieces there that make it not about a "universal you" and a personal one. You can see them. maybe one day you will actually have your own honest assessment within yourself.

I suggest you re-read some of the comments you made and reassess

I do not believe you are being truthful. I think you know you are not as well but do not want to cede ground.

This is what you said: The article I linked to was in response to: I gave you an article that shows many times it was reported- well before the debate. Maybe you want to rethink what you are saying?

When you say this: and this: that is not about the people performing the acts. that is directed at me. I'm not "inserting myself into it" And it is bullsh!t that you want to try and pretend different. Maybe you can have plausible deniability on the others, but these two are targeted.

I gave you an article that points to a number of pieces written before the debate that talk about Biden decline. You say "That article was written after the debate" and then you give me a Google search where the first few pages (at least) are from after the debate as well. Dude- you were directly addressing me in those comments using "you." And then after delivering 5 comments that are directly addressing me and saying "you need to self reflect," "your decision making is wrong" "you seem smart," "you need to change how you take in information to win" you say "Well this isn't about you." Do you not see how big of a condescending douche you come off in that? Not to mention when we are reaching the same conclusion...

See this is what you are missing about what I've been saying all morning. I also say those people can go fock themselves. You think they can because they were lying the whole time. I'm saying perhaps they weren't lying the whole time- perhaps they were seeing something we weren't, perhaps they were delusional- and instead are lying right now. In both of those scenarios (mine or yours) they are lying because it is advantageous to them to be lying at this point considering Biden is done as a political entity after January 20th,2025.

I mean I wasn't the one saying this in the thread....this all seems to be directly making it about me. Do you want to rethink some of these direct statements?

1.) Cool. It's been around for 6 years. 2.) Excuses for what? It is saying the media was reporting on Biden's mental acuity and offers many examples. 3.) Again cool. It also presents an example of MSNBC chyron trying to hide some stuff about Trump. It provides examples and mentions from, and links to, articles written by the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, NBC News, and NPR from September of 2022. It talks about a column from 2023 in the Times. It mentions writings from February of 2024 in the Post and Times. It talks about a piece written in 2023 about Biden in the Times and how it led to the Times being bashed so much a reporter at Politico stepped in with his own essay criticizing the pushback as false. I can seemingly rightly assume you didn't actually read the piece. Again, I did some research and showed examples of what I've seen. Now what you got?