I got shingles wrote:
Clinton is
Irrelevant.
Putin's influence and
TRumps immaturity are of great concern
Of course Putin has some influence because he is the president of Russia.
Trump is great because he doesn't back down from intimidation.
I got shingles wrote:
Clinton is
Irrelevant.
Putin's influence and
TRumps immaturity are of great concern
Of course Putin has some influence because he is the president of Russia.
Trump is great because he doesn't back down from intimidation.
54re wrote:
I got shingles wrote:Clinton is
Irrelevant.
Putin's influence and
TRumps immaturity are of great concern
Of course Putin has some influence because he is the president of Russia.
Trump is great because he doesn't back down from intimidation.
right, except when he does. Like giving back the properties Obama seized from Russia in response to their messing with our election.
eric a blair wrote:
54re wrote:Of course Putin has some influence because he is the president of Russia.
Trump is great because he doesn't back down from intimidation.
right, except when he does. Like giving back the properties Obama seized from Russia in response to their messing with our election.
The Orange Preivfefe is Putin's biotch.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C5bOYSAWAAE9nAG.jpgWait Wait What? wrote:Oh, and I seem to remember a certain someone on these boards who endlessly touted the brilliance of the electoral college voting system (which has apparently now morphed into "not a rational voting scheme").
Who was that? I really don't remember.
FWIW, I have always been against the outmoded electoral college.
When it comes to the president, every person's vote should count equally no matter where you happen to live. I've never heard a cogent argument against that basic principle.
eric a blair wrote:
right, except when he does. Like giving back the properties Obama seized from Russia in response to their messing with our election.
He didn't back down when the "grab p*ssy" video was used to try to destroy him. All cuckservative politicians would have surrendered at that point.
Crash Economy .. Buy Low wrote:
Trump's game is crash the economy to let him and his rich pals to buy low. Then sell when they 'fix' things. The rich become richer. The poor poorer. The US becomes an easy take over for a dictator if Trump himself does not live long enough to anointed himself that position.
Why do that when his position gives access to buying low elsewhere and pushing his products in otherwise impossible locations and markets for Americans to do business in? Although if what you suggest was a little easier to achieve I'm sure he'd be looking into it.
54re wrote:
Clinton is an idiot. She had weaponized the mainstream media machine completely against Trump and she complains about the new internet media being weaponized against her.
No you're an idiot for believing in conspiracy theories
54re wrote:
eric a blair wrote:right, except when he does. Like giving back the properties Obama seized from Russia in response to their messing with our election.
He didn't back down when the "grab p*ssy" video was used to try to destroy him. All cuckservative politicians would have surrendered at that point.
Very true. More than anything, that's what convinces me that Trump will never resign.
TroLLminator wrote:
54re wrote:Clinton is an idiot. She had weaponized the mainstream media machine completely against Trump and she complains about the new internet media being weaponized against her.
No you're an idiot for believing in conspiracy theories
Hillary's claim isn't a conspiracy theory?
54re wrote:
eric a blair wrote:right, except when he does. Like giving back the properties Obama seized from Russia in response to their messing with our election.
He didn't back down when the "grab p*ssy" video was used to try to destroy him. All cuckservative politicians would have surrendered at that point.
Incorrect. Trump was and still is held to the lowest ethical and moral standards by his voters. Career politicians could not survive such scandals. Has nothing to do with backing down, but you already know that.
Where is Trump's plan to deal with what he now won't say -- radical Islamic terrorism? Terror attacks are on the rise, Trump has fractured longstanding relationships with allies, sowing doubt that the US can even respond. As far as I can see, the plan is to alienate our allies and leak intelligence. I'm sure that's a plan for success.
TroLLminator wrote:
Incorrect. Trump was and still is held to the lowest ethical and moral standards by his voters. Career politicians could not survive such scandals. Has nothing to do with backing down, but you already know that.
Incorrect. Bill Clinton is a real harasser of women and likely a rapist.
Fat hurts wrote:
FWIW, I have always been against the outmoded electoral college.
When it comes to the president, every person's vote should count equally no matter where you happen to live. I've never heard a cogent argument against that basic principle.
The electoral college is more efficient in getting fast results.
You don't have to count all of the votes. As soon as a candidate has an insurmountable lead in a state, all of its electoral votes go to hat person.
In one night you have the president elect.
If it was straight popular vote it could take weeks to get the final tally and declare the president elect.
If you look at this past election, I believe Hillary had fewer votes the morning after the election than what Donald eventually had after all of the votes were in.
A recount of the whole country would be very difficult to pull off.
I prefer a straight popular vote and agree that the current system doesn't give meaning to everyone's vote.
But it would be hard to do.
You'd have to have federal election booths, not run by the states. Good luck getting that done.
Not to mention an amendment to the Constitution which is impossible in today's political climate.
L L wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:FWIW, I have always been against the outmoded electoral college.
When it comes to the president, every person's vote should count equally no matter where you happen to live. I've never heard a cogent argument against that basic principle.
The electoral college is more efficient in getting fast results.
You don't have to count all of the votes. As soon as a candidate has an insurmountable lead in a state, all of its electoral votes go to hat person.
In one night you have the president elect.
Ahem, wrong. Once a candidate has an insurmountable popular vote lead NATIONALLY, that person is determined to be the president. Almost ALL other nations go with an efficient popular vote. The US is the antiquated outlier.
K K wrote:
Ahem, wrong. Once a candidate has an insurmountable popular vote lead NATIONALLY, that person is determined to be the president. Almost ALL other nations go with an efficient popular vote. The US is the antiquated outlier.
Hence the UNITED STATES. Other nations are not such united states.
Efficiency of the vote count is a very weak argument for keeping the antiquated electoral system. Each state has recount mechanisms in place if they are needed. I don't see a real problem there.
The system could be changed without a constitutional amendment. But we need a few more states to join the interstate compact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compacthttps://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2008/popular-vote.htmlhttps://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2016/popular-vote.htmleric a blair wrote:
Wait Wait What? wrote:Actually, they do.
Clinton received 5% fewer votes than Obama had 8 years earlier when there were 6% fewer potential voters. That is, 11% fewer people (relative to voting age population) voted for Clinton on her first try than voted for Obama on his.
11% !!!!
That is when a swing of 2 - 3 % is very significant and often is enough to change the outcome of an election..
not according to Wikipedia
by that source
Obama: 65.91 million votes
HRC: 65.85 million votes
There may be something to the argument that the US voting population is up a little since 2012, but not a lot. Seems more like 3% than the 6% you claim.
provide your numbers or reconsider your conclusions.
Obama: 69.3 million votes
Clinton: 65.8 million votes
The US voting population is up 6% since 2008.
Please learn to read before posting again.
so anyone else dubious that Comey will actually testify next week? I can't see old donald sitting by and listening, when he could break more norms and ethical violations by cancelling it.
But if comey does testify and says Trump asked him to back off...what does that mean? All alone that might not be obstruction, but then firing him later...
If the special counsel wants some documents and the trump admin "can't find it" because they shredded it...that might be enough.
If, of course. Ossoff wins.
Wait Wait What? wrote:
eric a blair wrote:https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2008/popular-vote.htmlhttps://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2016/popular-vote.htmlnot according to Wikipedia
by that source
Obama: 65.91 million votes
HRC: 65.85 million votes
There may be something to the argument that the US voting population is up a little since 2012, but not a lot. Seems more like 3% than the 6% you claim.
provide your numbers or reconsider your conclusions.
Obama: 69.3 million votes
Clinton: 65.8 million votes
The US voting population is up 6% since 2008.
Please learn to read before posting again.
look back a page - 2 minutes after posting that I accepted your numbers in a second post. I was looking at 2012, you were looking at 2008.
I’m a D2 female runner. Our coach explicitly told us not to visit LetsRun forums.
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
RENATO can you talk about the preparation of Emile Cairess 2:06
adizero Road to Records with Yomif Kejelcha, Agnes Ngetich, Hobbs Kessler & many more is Saturday