bullets13

well, what's your explanation as to why the republicans just sucked it up historically. this article isn't saying anything that's not being said plenty of other places.

right. the republicans shouldn't do what it takes to get the votes. just blame the voters and talk about how stupid they are. it's a brilliant concept, and seems to be working phenomenally well.

perfect example of what's wrong with the republican party right now. show why they're not succeeding, and the response is "but, but, but, the democrats!" The democrats are awful, their party is in disarray, and the republicans did everything possible to ensure that they didn't take advantage of that. Wait until after the midterms to ban abortion, and keep a lid on Trump and the right makes massive gains. Nah, lets just torpedo the midterms and then blame everything on the "stupid voters."

yeah, republicans never, ever, ever do anything underhanded or crooked to win elections. come on, man. you're smarter than this. that said, you can't honestly believe that if republicans could find away to endorse democratic candidates with low chances of winning that they wouldn't do it "out of fairness." they'd jump all over it, and republicans everywhere would support it. Just because you pretend it's not that way doesn't make it fact. I've seen an overwhelming majority of politicians on both sides do anything they can get away with to win, and an overwhelming majority of their supporters let underhanded behavior slide on their side, while setting the other side on fire for doing the same things.

How Trump, infighting and flawed candidates limited Republican gains (msn.com) Lots to unravel in this article, but a lot of good information.

If republicans used the same strategies successfully the majority of the posters in this thread would be high fiving and celebrating. That's not an opinion, it's a fact. And speaking of facts, it's hard to be mad about democrats finding success by endorsing republicans who echo Trump's election claims. I don't really think it should be considered a dirty trick at all. If Trump didn't have so much support from the right for his claims and behavior, there wouldn't be a scourge of candidates acting the same way (losing elections).

And you can't forget the trumpiest trumpism ever, which came out of these midterms: “I think if they win, I should get all of the credit, and if they lose, I should not be blamed at all,” Trump told NewsNation, adding: “But it will probably be just the opposite.”

Just shows what it took to get Trump's support, and also how delusional he is to think that voicing that stance is all it takes to win, even though nearly every candidate he endorsed that was in a competitive race lost.

“Don Bolduc was a very nice guy, but he lost tonight when he disavowed, after his big primary win, his longstanding stance on Election Fraud in the 2020 Presidential Primary,” Trump wrote on Truth Social, per Mediaite. “Had he stayed strong and true, he would have won easily. Lessons Learned!!!”

here's where i'll disagree a bit. Yes, WOS has had a terrible season by their standards, and yes, they've not responded well at all to the new coach. But this is still the same talent that they fielded last year. 2-3 years from now, if things don't turn around, then yes, it'll be "in name only." but right now this team is full of kids who've had success in the program, and full of kids with a ton of talent. So there is still a chance that they catch some spark and win this game.

you see what you want to see, that much is clear. It's not who backed who, but why. The Donald backed poor candidates who were willing to toe the orange line and claim election fraud. Those weak candidates won nominations based on his support, but lost elections the right should've and would've won had they put forward decent candidates. Instead of acknowledging this, it's just more of the same "low information voter" nonsense. It would take some low information voters to elect some of the nutballs that Trump backed.

it's a different situation completely. across the country republicans ran out a string of less-qualified, more extremist candidates that were backed by trump solely because they fed into his election denial. The majority of the candidates he endorsed that were involved in tight races lost, whereas many of those races would've gone to the right had a traditional republican candidate been on the ballot. if you choose not to understand that, then that's fine. but ignoring the obvious is what cost us the red wave in the first place.

The red tsunami ran into the orange road block. If trump had put his time and influence into backing the best candidates instead of the best election deniers, the red wave would’ve come to fruition. Democrats won almost every major election where trump backed someone. In most cases, his influence was enough to get his pick on the ballot, but also a kiss of death in the actual election. For all of their dumb choices and terrible policies, the dems correctly saw this coming, and their gamble to help endorse election deniers has paid off by greatly reducing the amount of seats the republicans were able to flip.

No. 1 Linebacker Anthony Hill Announces His De-Commitment (msn.com)

Lumberton fans will be excited to know that their team has finally entered the "Bullets13 Poll That Doesn't Mean Anything" top-10 rankings at #10.

District 9: Jasper is 2nd at 7-3 with close losses to highly ranked teams (10-0 franklin, 9-1 newton, 10-0 Silsbee), and HF is 3rd at 7-3 with three 1-score losses to great teams, two highly ranked (10-0 Lumberton, 10-0 Silsbee, and 7-3 Jasper). District 10: Brookshire Royal is 2nd at 9-1. That said, their schedule is awful. All of these houston teams are so weak that even a team with good record from playing other houston teams still isn't very good. A perfect example is this: BR's best win on paper this year is against Houston Furr. Furr is 8-2 on the season. But last year Furr was 7-3, and in the first round played Stafford, who was okay. Stafford beat them 50-7. Royal has played one good team, Bellville, who IMO would fit right in amongst the top 3 of District 9. Royal lost 48-3. Can you imagine if Silsbee had beaten HF and Jasper 48-3? Sealy is 3rd at 6-4. and has exactly zero wins over teams with winning records. That said, they've played a tougher schedule than Royal, and IMO are better than Royal, even though Royal beat them. I'd rather HF play Royal in the first round than Sealy, but I think Jasper and HF would beat both teams, regardless of who played who. To be honest, WOS finishes 2nd in District 10, possibly first, if Bellville falls victim to the big bad boogeyman mentality.

Royal has played an insanely easy schedule. Two teams with a winning record. Squeaked by 6-4 Sealy 13-10 (Sealy got to beat all the same terrible teams in their district), and lost to Bellville 48-3. I think HF wins comfortably.

If he rips the Republican Party apart, it really doesn’t matter how good of a president he WAS.

He wasn’t a bad president, but the only thing he cares about is Trump. He doesn’t care about voters, he doesn’t care about the Republican Party, he only cares about himself. Anyone who thinks differently is looking through orange colored glasses.

The thing about politics is, regardless of who wins the debate, most people are going to vote for their side. That’s why fetterman, who currently has the cognitive ability of a potato, is still neck in neck with Dr. Oz.

Bingo. Look at the support being thrown behind Herschel Walker. Is he honestly a good candidate? But he’s still way better than the alternative, and even if he wasn’t, we’d still support him to get a Republican in office.

Didn’t bow hunt this year, but killed a really good buck this morning with my rifle

Congrats, bobcat! I’ll take second considering I haven’t even done pickems in several years

If I’m not mistaken our leader just dropped a perfect game, and I hit 24 and somehow lost ground. Hopefully I missed something.

!!:0/49/F