We’re paying reparations to Russia/putin now, might as well keep our money home.
We’re paying reparations to Russia/putin now, might as well keep our money home.
Bone spurs
Flagpole wrote:
L L wrote:
What’s with this hang up on California?
Almost 4.5 million people in California voted for Trump and he didn’t get a single electoral vote out of that.
He got 4.6 million votes in Texas and got 36 electoral votes from them. And he wouldn’t have won without Texas.
Kind of weird, huh?
Just a way to try to minimize a populate vote loss. It's a stupid argument. If we take Texas out of it, Al Gore would have been elected President. We have to include all states...not pick and choose what we want.
Wow, that's low even for you LL. You are just plain stupid or a liar, which is it? Or is it both?
The point the poster made, which you and Flagpole were incapable of comprehending is quite easy.
In California, HRC won by over 4.1 million votes MORE than Trump.
Your lame example which would only fool an inept liberal is just that, lame.
Trump received 4,685,047 votes
HRC received 3,877,868 votes
Trump received 807,179 more votes in Texas than HRC did.
In California, HRC received 4,269,978 more votes than Trump. No one state had anything even close to that, not one, not even New York.
I expected Flagpole to pull up the Gore argument as he's a little off his rocker. And LL, he's the one who says, welcome to 2019 don't go back but forwards. But, let's play his game.
Bush won Texas by 1,365,893 more votes than Gore. That is decisive, but not dominate. HRC received over 3 times that many votes in California!!!!!
Reverse just one state besides California, just one, and show me how the popular vote would have swung the election results to Trump winning (the popular vote). You can't. HRC won New York by 1.7+ million votes and that would have done nothing. HRC won one state by over 4.2 million votes.
So, your comparisons aren't comparisons at all, and you both have failed. By your thinking, we can just go around and reverse everything and claim he would have won, she would have won, he would have won, she would have won, etc...
Flagpole hasn't made much of any sense on his last few months of posting as he knows now that his predictions are going to be proven embarrassingly wrong. For you LL to bring up Texas from 2000!!!! and still be wrong, you're starting to lose it as well. HRC won the popular vote by about 2%. California is what did it, one state out of 50.
Trump won over 10 states that HRC was suppose to dominate. He won them by the Electoral College and Popular Vote. When that happened, many of you started to crap your pants.
When he won Florida, Flagpole and LL were cussing at the tv and throwing their rubber bricks as well. Then Ohio, Wisconsin, etc...and you all panicked. Then when it was all over, you said let's wait and see the popular vote results. Then you started crying foul, but not one of you mentioned anything about it BEFORE the election, you were confidant that she'd clean Trump's clock. Sorry, it didn't happen, but...you can thank California for the small margin over Trump in the popular vote. 2% is laughable. Trump wiped her off the map in the Electoral College.
That day, November 8th, 2016 you two got zero sleep that night. LL admitted months ago that he was upset. I went to bed with a huge smile on my face and it was still there when I woke up in the morning.
Thanks California, Trump won fair and square by the system that the Democrats have always touted as fair, but you helped to make liberals even more angry. I'm running the Big Sur this April. I will arrive from the Midwest to California with a smile, a big smile:)
So
I disagree with your assessment. There will be some diehards who will stick with Trump no matter what, but he will not stay above 40% approval regardless of what is in this report. If the report exonerates him (which it won't do) that is a different deal. And also, not everyone liked Reagan either.
L L wrote:
So
Looks like you got beat LL!
The guy with facts comeback with one word, So?
It's your way of telling the poster, I was wrong, forgive me. LOL!!!! You just got beaten with pure facts.
Thanks whoever posted this, good stuff!
So?
Hillary Clinton IS a criminal wrote:
Investigations on Hillary and finding nothing? You're mentally incapable of thinking for yourself. Stay a liberal, don't change.
Investigations into Hillary show that she actually is NOT a criminal. So, you know better than trained investigators and our justice system?
If YOU think she is guilty of crimes that she hasn't had to pay for, then go hire a lawyer and have at her, brother.
AND, Alan is correct...you are deflecting.
I don’t buy it. He only has the support of this people because he is on their team. Do you think he would have won as an independent? Like I said, the stars aligned perfectly for him in 2016, he would not have been able to pull that off in any previous election. He high jacked a broken party and faced a weakened opponent.
Of course I agree he fooled enough Americans into voting for him, but that was not planned or strategic, that was just Trump being his normal a$$hole self. He pulled it off because there he didn’t have to do anything different, he was in the right place at the right time.
What he does is not salesmanship, it’s pure puffery. Sure, it had the same effect but the election is a one time transaction involving 40% in each side that are going to vote their party ticket no matter who is the candidate. Where is the evidence of his amazing salesmanship since he took office? Nowhere.
Would you call a one hit wonder the greatest musician of all time?
Let’s give him full credit for stoking people’s emotion and contrasting himself from his opponents. He has no credibility so no one trusts him and only the dumbest of the bunch will buy into his vision in the long run.
Do you think he could have been a career politician using his sales formula? I think absolutely not. People buy the bull once because there are always idiots who do but that stops eventually. Any career politician is a better salesman than him - they last. Any of the dozens of real estate tycoons are better salesmen than him - look at their deal making track records and look at his. I won’t go into TV because I think again he lucked out on the reality tv train, but I do give him credit for using that to boost his brand. That is different than salesmanship.
He’s not talented, he’s persistent. As persistent as the beggars I walk past everyday, but they don’t own real estate, have money to pay off porn stars, or have a chance to run for President and make it to the WH because they weren’t born rich. His tactics work because he already had money and the Trump name. That’s how he’s gotten away with establishing some level of credibility. No matter what he says there are a lot people that will believe him because he can ride in on a helicopter and they see his name on a NYC high rise. Those beggars constantly spewing conspiracies on the street and giving each other financial advice don’t have his money or his brand so nobody gives a flying fk, but if they did they would be much more persuasive and strangers would listen and even deal with them no matter how stupid they sound. That’s what we are dealing with here.
Flagpole wrote:
Hillary Clinton IS a criminal wrote:
Investigations on Hillary and finding nothing? You're mentally incapable of thinking for yourself. Stay a liberal, don't change.
Investigations into Hillary show that she actually is NOT a criminal. So, you know better than trained investigators and our justice system?
If YOU think she is guilty of crimes that she hasn't had to pay for, then go hire a lawyer and have at her, brother.
AND, Alan is correct...you are deflecting.
Here is one crime she committed: One law, 18 U.S. Code § 1924, forbids “unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material.” It carries up to five years in prison, with a five-year statute of limitations.
She was also asked to turn over her hard drive and e-mails. Instead she destroyed 10s of 1000s of emails, some of which had classified info on them. She also smashed the hard drive into smithereens and used other methods to make the information on it unretrievable.
Sally Vix wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Investigations into Hillary show that she actually is NOT a criminal. So, you know better than trained investigators and our justice system?
If YOU think she is guilty of crimes that she hasn't had to pay for, then go hire a lawyer and have at her, brother.
AND, Alan is correct...you are deflecting.
Here is one crime she committed: One law, 18 U.S. Code § 1924, forbids “unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material.” It carries up to five years in prison, with a five-year statute of limitations.
She was also asked to turn over her hard drive and e-mails. Instead she destroyed 10s of 1000s of emails, some of which had classified info on them. She also smashed the hard drive into smithereens and used other methods to make the information on it unretrievable.
She also violated the Espionage Act. That the FBI chose, for political reasons, not to pursue charges does not mean she did not commit the crimes.
1) First of all, not a topic I care too much about.
2) The Gore comparison is accurate. Gore already won the popular vote, but if you take away any number of single states away from Bush (but why would you as they are all part of the US), then Gore wins the election. I was accepting of Bush winning, but my point here is that it is silly to look at any of the results by eliminating the state of your choosing. The results are the results...popular vote or electoral college.
3) I do NOT know my predictions will be embarrassingly wrong. I stand by all of them. Such hope on your part.
4) I have never before seen a President and his minions be so obsessed three calendar years after the election about how that election went...all the way down to the detail of specific states. It is weird beyond belief.
5) I still don't understand how a President's victory in an election means that he can't be held accountable for crimes he committed, especially when some of those crimes had to do with helping him win that election (his two felony campaign finance law violations do that already).
6) Odd that you get joy from someone being upset. You should have some self-reflection and discover why that is. It is not a good trait, brother. When Trump is made to face the music for his crimes, I will be glad that justice has been served, and I will be glad that white supremacy will have taken a big hit, but I will not feel any joy over anyone who feels they still haven't been heard by the government...as misplaced as their feelings might be.
The reason for Graham’s a$$kissing has been confirmed by him: “If you don’t want to get re-elected, you’re in the wrong business.” He is up for re-election in 2020. Of course, he has cherry picked the issues to maximize his poll numbers. For example, instead of defending McCain, he has simply said he thinks it’s a bad idea for Trump to criticize him - nice hedge.
This whole argument against the popular vote is that California has a lot of people and currently 2/3 usually vote Democrat.
What if there were 12 million votes in California and the Democrat won by only 500 votes but got all of the 55 electoral votes?
And what if the Republican won the popular vote but lost the election because of California's 55 electoral votes all went to the Democrat?
Imagine this:
The Republican leads the popular vote by 5 million votes.
All states are decided except for California.
The R leads the D in electoral votes 268 to 215.
They finally tally California and the Dem wins by 5 votes, gets the 55 electoral votes and wins 268 to 270.
You wouldn't want the popular vote to win then?
Or how about a more realistic situation.
In 2020 all states vote the same as 2016 except for PA, WI and MI which flip to the Dems by the same slim margins so they win the election.
But Trump wins the popular vote because more California Republicans vote, and he increases his lead in Texas and every other red state.
You wouldn't want the popular vote to win then?
Sally Vix wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
Here is one crime she committed: One law, 18 U.S. Code § 1924, forbids “unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material.” It carries up to five years in prison, with a five-year statute of limitations.
She was also asked to turn over her hard drive and e-mails. Instead she destroyed 10s of 1000s of emails, some of which had classified info on them. She also smashed the hard drive into smithereens and used other methods to make the information on it unretrievable.
She also violated the Espionage Act. That the FBI chose, for political reasons, not to pursue charges does not mean she did not commit the crimes.
she wasn't prosecuted because civilians are virtually never prosecuted for being sloppy with the data. You'll only find 1-2 civilians prosecuted for being sloppy...hundreds of others just get slaps on the wrist and nothing more. That's why comey said no prosecutor would pursue a case against HRC.
Trollminator wrote:
The reason for Graham’s a$$kissing has been confirmed by him: “If you don’t want to get re-elected, you’re in the wrong business.” He is up for re-election in 2020. Of course, he has cherry picked the issues to maximize his poll numbers. For example, instead of defending McCain, he has simply said he thinks it’s a bad idea for Trump to criticize him - nice hedge.
yeah, both graham and sasse just outright said about their support for Spanks: 'i'm a politician and I need to break my word and my honor in order to get reelected. Sorry not sorry.'
At least they are honest about it.
agip wrote:
Trollminator wrote:
The reason for Graham’s a$$kissing has been confirmed by him: “If you don’t want to get re-elected, you’re in the wrong business.” He is up for re-election in 2020. Of course, he has cherry picked the issues to maximize his poll numbers. For example, instead of defending McCain, he has simply said he thinks it’s a bad idea for Trump to criticize him - nice hedge.
yeah, both graham and sasse just outright said about their support for Spanks: 'i'm a politician and I need to break my word and my honor in order to get reelected. Sorry not sorry.'
At least they are honest about it.
To be fair, politicians on both sides of the aisle do this. The situation here though is that we have never had such a criminal President, and the Republicans are not standing up for what they really know is right. The Democrats don't have such a dilemma in their past, so there is no knowing if they would stand up to such horribleness if faced with it. All we can do is judge those during the crisis time, and right now Republicans are appropriately being judged harshly.
Sally Vix wrote:
Here is one crime JARED committed: One law, 18 U.S. Code § 1924, forbids “unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material.” It carries up to five years in prison, with a five-year statute of limitations.
FIXED That for you. After Trump whined bigly about Hillary using insecure methods to communication with foreign powers, Jared has been caught using insecure WhatsApp to communicate with foreign powers.
LOCK Jerod UP!
AND
LOCK Ivanka UP! Because she is doing the same thing.
Flagpole wrote:
agip wrote:
yeah, both graham and sasse just outright said about their support for Spanks: 'i'm a politician and I need to break my word and my honor in order to get reelected. Sorry not sorry.'
At least they are honest about it.
To be fair, politicians on both sides of the aisle do this. The situation here though is that we have never had such a criminal President, and the Republicans are not standing up for what they really know is right. The Democrats don't have such a dilemma in their past, so there is no knowing if they would stand up to such horribleness if faced with it. All we can do is judge those during the crisis time, and right now Republicans are appropriately being judged harshly.
rarely do politicians completely flip like this. Sasse has tried to set himself out as a 'constitutional conservative' and has for years made a pet issue complaining how the legislative branch has surrendered to the executive. Graham obviously thinks spanks is a complete moran and enemy of the people (cause he's said that many times), and Tillis put an op-ed piece in the paper saying trump was grabbbing power unconstitutionally.
All three flipped in a heartbeat when the GOP told them to flip or else. That kind of servitude and surrender is rare.
I'm particularly hurt by Sasse...I defended the guy for years. But he's just another Spanker, with no moral or ethical backbone.
agip wrote:
Trollminator wrote:
The reason for Graham’s a$$kissing has been confirmed by him: “If you don’t want to get re-elected, you’re in the wrong business.” He is up for re-election in 2020. Of course, he has cherry picked the issues to maximize his poll numbers. For example, instead of defending McCain, he has simply said he thinks it’s a bad idea for Trump to criticize him - nice hedge.
yeah, both graham and sasse just outright said about their support for Spanks: 'i'm a politician and I need to break my word and my honor in order to get reelected. Sorry not sorry.'
At least they are honest about it.
In general I am not particularly positive on the notion of term limits. And they certainly are not the panacea that many seem to think they are.
That said, “If you don’t want to get re-elected, you’re in the wrong business.” screams out for the raison d'être for term limits. As a public servant, one's "business" should be serving the public interest - not serving one's own.