Flagpole wrote:
jesseriley wrote:
And don’t worry, trumpers. When trump loses & healthcare passes, we’ll get you the help you need.
Solid.
Replying to yourself???!!!???
Flagpole wrote:
jesseriley wrote:
And don’t worry, trumpers. When trump loses & healthcare passes, we’ll get you the help you need.
Solid.
Replying to yourself???!!!???
SiIly WilIy wrote:
Runningart2004 wrote:
Same arguments, different election.
The right is always a bunch crazy hillbillies clinging to guns and religion or old rich people out of touch/
The left is always a bunch of baby killing socialists.
The argument is the same in 2020 as it was in 2016, 2012, 2008, 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992.....
The voters who decide an election are typically uneducated about the issues and policy. They vote in gut and likeability. If Dems put up a candidate that has a likeability rating higher than Clinton they win. Policy doesn't matter.
Beyond that it's about making sure your strongest supporters, your base, gets to the polls.
And like I've said....100% chance Trump loses. It won't be close. If he wins I leave Letsrun.
Alan
OF COURSE YOU WILL- BECAUSE YOU'LL BE MOCKED LIKE FLAGPOLE DOES NOW ON A DAILY BASIS!!! You fools have been wrong for 3 years for Christ's sake!
But to your poor point- You omit the fact that Trump's strategy was to steal a large portion of the traditionally blue collar Democrat voters. That was the difference in 2016. If he doesn't do that, Hillary wins over Rubio with those same old BS arguments. Trump took several positions traditionally held by the Left, and then oddly didn't even put up a fight.I mean, the Democrats used to take pride in representing the blue collar/union/middle class voter. Now, it's all about skin color for them. It was a terrible decision.
And that's why 300-400 counties that voted for Obama at least once voted for Trump in 2016.
You are hanging on to reasons why Trump won in 2016. Those reasons are not applicable for 2020. Trump won by a narrow margin over a very flawed candidate and with huge help from Russia. The huge help from Russia might happen again, but none of the Democrat candidates is hated like Hillary was. She also made strategic errors that are not likely to be repeated by the 2020 Democrat nominee. We also have seen who Trump really is, and lots of Trump voters have said they made a mistake and will not vote for him again. He needed to gain new voters, not lose the ones he had.
Alan is right. Trump will lose in 2020.
Shameful that you defend and support dictator wannabe Trump.
There are only two reasons why someone would support the serial lying criminal Trump at this point:
1) JUST stupid.
2) Racist.
There are no other possibilities.
Amusementt wrote:
Remember Clownpole used to say "Mueller is coming"?
Hahaha haha ha hahaha
Yep. I USED to say that, and I still do, and I have explained several times why this is still the case.
Mueller is coming.
The clown is done.
Here’s some color on the impact and psychology of chronic lying from trump and his circle (which has grown to include the most powerful Rs). He can’t touch 50% in most approval ratings and voters from both parties believe he’s generally dishonest. It has to be hurting him but still why isn’t it clearly hurting him more? Most of it comes down to prior political bias and partly just loyalty to a leader they perceive is strong. And the justifications are?
- dishonesty is ok as long as “we” are winning
- that’s just trump being bombastic, he doesn’t really mean it
- it’s fine if he lies as long as he achieves some of the good conservative policies (the religious folks like this one)
- whattaboutisms...”but all politicians lie”, disregarding the fact that he’s on a whole other galaxy when it comes to lying in both frequency and severity
- right-wing media doesn’t fact check him (this is true)
- the GOP is collectively defending his lies, which makes supporters feel better about their vote
Flagpole wrote:
SiIly WilIy wrote:
OF COURSE YOU WILL- BECAUSE YOU'LL BE MOCKED LIKE FLAGPOLE DOES NOW ON A DAILY BASIS!!! You fools have been wrong for 3 years for Christ's sake!
But to your poor point- You omit the fact that Trump's strategy was to steal a large portion of the traditionally blue collar Democrat voters. That was the difference in 2016. If he doesn't do that, Hillary wins over Rubio with those same old BS arguments. Trump took several positions traditionally held by the Left, and then oddly didn't even put up a fight.I mean, the Democrats used to take pride in representing the blue collar/union/middle class voter. Now, it's all about skin color for them. It was a terrible decision.
And that's why 300-400 counties that voted for Obama at least once voted for Trump in 2016.
You are hanging on to reasons why Trump won in 2016. Those reasons are not applicable for 2020. Trump won by a narrow margin over a very flawed candidate and with huge help from Russia. The huge help from Russia might happen again, but none of the Democrat candidates is hated like Hillary was. She also made strategic errors that are not likely to be repeated by the 2020 Democrat nominee. We also have seen who Trump really is, and lots of Trump voters have said they made a mistake and will not vote for him again. He needed to gain new voters, not lose the ones he had.
Alan is right. Trump will lose in 2020.
Shameful that you defend and support dictator wannabe Trump.
There are only two reasons why someone would support the serial lying criminal Trump at this point:
1) JUST stupid.
2) Racist.
There are no other possibilities.
You are so dumb and so out touch with reality.
Flagpole wrote:
SiIly WilIy wrote:
OF COURSE YOU WILL- BECAUSE YOU'LL BE MOCKED LIKE FLAGPOLE DOES NOW ON A DAILY BASIS!!! You fools have been wrong for 3 years for Christ's sake!
But to your poor point- You omit the fact that Trump's strategy was to steal a large portion of the traditionally blue collar Democrat voters. That was the difference in 2016. If he doesn't do that, Hillary wins over Rubio with those same old BS arguments. Trump took several positions traditionally held by the Left, and then oddly didn't even put up a fight.I mean, the Democrats used to take pride in representing the blue collar/union/middle class voter. Now, it's all about skin color for them. It was a terrible decision.
And that's why 300-400 counties that voted for Obama at least once voted for Trump in 2016.
You are hanging on to reasons why Trump won in 2016. Those reasons are not applicable for 2020. Trump won by a narrow margin over a very flawed candidate and with huge help from Russia. The huge help from Russia might happen again, but none of the Democrat candidates is hated like Hillary was. She also made strategic errors that are not likely to be repeated by the 2020 Democrat nominee. We also have seen who Trump really is, and lots of Trump voters have said they made a mistake and will not vote for him again. He needed to gain new voters, not lose the ones he had.
Alan is right. Trump will lose in 2020.
Shameful that you defend and support dictator wannabe Trump.
There are only two reasons why someone would support the serial lying criminal Trump at this point:
1) JUST stupid.
2) Racist.
There are no other possibilities.
Trump actually won quite easily, with what, 306 electoral votes? He almost won Minnesota, too, if it weren't for stupid Gary Johnson. 306 to 232 is quite a defeat.
So you think the $5000 that Facebook said Russia spent on ads outweighed the entire mainstream media, every celebrity, every athlete, every major newspaper, a setup Russian conspiracy by the FBI/CIA, AND a major last-month push to paint Trump as a serial rapist?! Are you MAD, silly man? (Yeah, you mad.)
Trump isn't losing any support in the states that he stole from the Democrats. MI, OH, FL, and likely PA are gonna go his way again. Why? Because he's delivering RESULTS and at least attempting to following through on his promises, which politicians rarely do. And you guys just keep showing how obsessed you are with trying to defeat him. Did you watch the hearing yesterday? No one in their right mind would put that poor man up there knowing he wasn't going to expose anything new. It was a disaster. It was an act of desperation.
What do the Democrats even stand for at this point?
Mueller NOPE.
Clownpole DOPE.
Barr IS COMING.
Serious question: When Barr and Horowitz pull the curtain back on what we already know were the origins of the Russia Hoax, will you be man enough to admit you were wrong? Or will you continue to say Mueller is coming?
https://www.dec.ny.gov/images/administration_images/loon2065a.jpgFlagpole wrote:
Amusementt wrote:
Remember Clownpole used to say "Mueller is coming"?
Hahaha haha ha hahaha
Yep. I USED to say that, and I still do, and I have explained several times why this is still the case.
Mueller is coming.
The clown is done.
Sally Vix wrote:
Who the helll has no ID? Tell me how they can get exist with no ID. Quit calling me Lying Sally - you sack of .....
Lord in Heaven you are so stupid. I agree that people need to stop calling you a liar. You are just ignorant and stupid.
Racket wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
Yes, this developing story has been really interesting, though I haven't read the NYT article you are referring to.
Tiny's administration has been working hard to roll back fuel economy standards. They are trying to take away California's ability to set its own emissions standards, which affects other states that decide to follow California emissions (known as CARB states).
So Tiny wants to fight for dirty air, but that's not really what the auto makers want. They just want to be able to have the same standards nationwide. They want to be able to build a single car that they can sell everywhere instead of having one car for the CARB states and one for all the other states.
So it was in the automaker's interest to just side with California rather than endure a long legal battle between CARB states and Tiny's government. That means everyone will get cleaner air.
When Tiny loses, America wins.
California has had stricter emissions standards than the EPA for a while and it's basically the reason European cars get neutered before they're imported here. The whole thing is a huge state run pay-to-play racket of one waiver after another
It is definitely a racket, but at the same time, if you've ever been to Los Angeles and seen the pollution haze, you might be glad that racket is in place.
Smorbun wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
Who the helll has no ID? Tell me how they can get exist with no ID. Quit calling me Lying Sally - you sack of .....
Lord in Heaven you are so stupid. I agree that people need to stop calling you a liar. You are just ignorant and stupid.
Sally is clearly a liar. He continually makes assertions he knows are false.
Fat hurts wrote:
Smorbun wrote:
Lord in Heaven you are so stupid. I agree that people need to stop calling you a liar. You are just ignorant and stupid.
Sally is clearly a liar. He continually makes assertions he knows are false.
He can be quite Flagpolian at times.
My State/County wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
Most of the things on that list actually do not require a photo ID.
Where I live, of the 24 in the list, 15 do require a photo ID, 3 don't, and 6 I don't know.
Curious if you are counting buying alcohol as part of the 15 that do. I'm over 50 and haven't been carded in a bar for 30 years (and I've been in LOTS of bars because I'm a musician who has played in lots of bars...and I always buy ONE beer on gig nights). I was recently carded at Kroger when buying a bottle of wine by some punk who thought I would find it flattering. It's just ridiculous to card a guy in his 50s.
SiIly WilIy wrote:
Trump actually won quite easily, with what, 306 electoral votes? He almost won Minnesota, too, if it weren't for stupid Gary Johnson. 306 to 232 is quite a defeat.
Tiny's EC victory ranks 46th out of 58 presidential elections. So it's near the bottom in terms of electoral college wins.
Hello friend wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Solid.
Replying to yourself???!!!???
Nope! You think the witty and to-the-point jesseriley is me? I'll take that as a compliment I guess.
WEJO, DO AN IP CHECK, AND IF I LIE, BAN ME FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Flagpole wrote:
My State/County wrote:
Where I live, of the 24 in the list, 15 do require a photo ID, 3 don't, and 6 I don't know.
Curious if you are counting buying alcohol as part of the 15 that do. I'm over 50 and haven't been carded in a bar for 30 years (and I've been in LOTS of bars because I'm a musician who has played in lots of bars...and I always buy ONE beer on gig nights). I was recently carded at Kroger when buying a bottle of wine by some punk who thought I would find it flattering. It's just ridiculous to card a guy in his 50s.
Since we are talking about how people live without an ID, it's relevant that nothing on that list actually requires a photo ID except to legally drive a car, and arguably "Purchase nail polish at CVS".
I'm pretty sure you can do everything else, one way or another, without an ID.
Fat hurts wrote:
Sally is clearly a liar. He continually makes assertions he knows are false.
I am not sure about that. Sally makes comments that are not true, but I have seen no ability to learn along with an unbelievable level of ignorance from Sally. To think that everyone has a photo ID and not understand the socioeconomic reasons for that is mind-numbing. We are just dealing with an extra special level of stupid here.
Fat hurts wrote:
SiIly WilIy wrote:
Trump actually won quite easily, with what, 306 electoral votes? He almost won Minnesota, too, if it weren't for stupid Gary Johnson. 306 to 232 is quite a defeat.
Tiny's EC victory ranks 46th out of 58 presidential elections. So it's near the bottom in terms of electoral college wins.
CORRECT! It came down to about 70,000 votes spread over a few key states. Narrow victory, and perfect storm to achieve it.
Fat hurts wrote:
I'm pretty sure you can do everything else, one way or another, without an ID.
As if it matters anyway. Poor and uneducated people often don't have the most convenient or enjoyable lives as a result of being poor and/or uneducated. They just get by and do without.
Flagpole wrote:
My State/County wrote:
Where I live, of the 24 in the list, 15 do require a photo ID, 3 don't, and 6 I don't know.
Curious if you are counting buying alcohol as part of the 15 that do. I'm over 50 and haven't been carded in a bar for 30 years (and I've been in LOTS of bars because I'm a musician who has played in lots of bars...and I always buy ONE beer on gig nights). I was recently carded at Kroger when buying a bottle of wine by some punk who thought I would find it flattering. It's just ridiculous to card a guy in his 50s.
Thanks for the story...I guess.
County law requires a photo ID with proof of age to purchase alcohol.
Flagpole wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
I'm pretty sure you can do everything else, one way or another, without an ID.
Poor and uneducated people often don't have the most convenient or enjoyable lives as a result of being poor and/or uneducated.
That's both a poor and uneducated statement.
