Election 2016 (Page 75)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
2016-12-06 5:59 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by Rogillio Originally posted by Left Brain Me too. And not because he is a republican....because he is a Maverick and doesn't seems to going with his instincts. Obama pushed a social agenda. I think Trump is going to focus on business. I'm actually enjoying the hell out of Trump so far......is there anyone who thinks this is going to be business as usual? It's good for some companies to wonder if they can keep raping the federal govt. for our tax dollars......this is going to be so much fun. It's almost like he's a successful business guy or something. LOL Why did it take us so long to realize that we should run a country like a company? You fail to perform, you're fired. Want a good education, take government out of the equation. Want to help the economy? Help businesses with lower taxes and fewer regulations. |
|
2016-12-07 12:48 PM in reply to: Rogillio |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Trump should hang up a big "Mission Accomplished" banner over the White House. You guys are acting like he's already won the Super Bowl. He's still singing the National Anthem, and he hasn't even gotten to the tricky "And the rockets' red glare" part... |
2016-12-07 12:57 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Trump should hang up a big "Mission Accomplished" banner over the White House. You guys are acting like he's already won the Super Bowl. He's still singing the National Anthem, and he hasn't even gotten to the tricky "And the rockets' red glare" part... "Trump had widened his victory margin over Clinton in Wisconsin by 146 votes, with 23 of the state’s 72 counties having finished their recounts as of Tuesday. In those counties, Trump gained 105 votes and Clinton dropped 41 votes. Trump defeated Clinton in Wisconsin by about 22,000 votes." Wow, at this rate the recount effort is on track to accomplish ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! LOL He accomplished the mission of getting himself elected POTUS....I say that speaks to his ability to get things done. LB hates SP.....but she was able to get herself elected governor of Alaska...elected and reelected mayor of Wassail. I know all the ugly girls hate the homecoming queen...I get that. LOL Just kidding. |
2016-12-07 1:21 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Champion 15211 Southern Chicago Suburbs, IL | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Trump should hang up a big "Mission Accomplished" banner over the White House. You guys are acting like he's already won the Super Bowl. He's still singing the National Anthem, and he hasn't even gotten to the tricky "And the rockets' red glare" part... Must have gotten Aretha Franklin to sing it. |
2016-12-07 1:32 PM in reply to: crowny2 |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Election 2016 "The state of Michigan recount was just stopped, after the Michigan Court of Appeals agreed that Stein is not an “aggrieved candidate” and therefore the count must stop. This is because Stein received fewer than 1% of the vote, which made her statically irrelevant." I've been saying this all along. I'm no lawyer but it failed to see how she had standing to challenge the vote. She got zero electoral votes. Maybe we can chip in an get her a participation trophy..... |
2016-12-07 1:41 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Trump should hang up a big "Mission Accomplished" banner over the White House. You guys are acting like he's already won the Super Bowl. He's still singing the National Anthem, and he hasn't even gotten to the tricky "And the rockets' red glare" part... In all seriousness I think it's more about the contrast between him and Obama. Obama very much came to Washington on a mission and he accomplished it very well, but once we all started seeing that it was more about government growth and not economic growth we got frustrated. With Trump, he's equally on a mission, but his mission is to make life better for everyone through economic growth. He's pro workers, he's pro business, he's simply pro-American. It is definitely premature to put up the "mission accomplished" banner, but so far he's 100% living up to the hype of the campaign as far as I'm concerned. |
|
2016-12-07 1:58 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Election 2016 JMK - just a friendly reminder......you all said he didn't stand a chance to get nominated, then you said he didn't have a chance to beat Clinton, and in the middle swore we were all delusional to even consider he had a chance, not to mention racist, homophobic, etc, etc etc...... If it's ok, I think I'll not take serious any ideas of what he may, or may not, be capable of accomplishing from anybody on the left. Ya'll haven't been right about anything. LOL |
2016-12-07 2:08 PM in reply to: Left Brain |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by Left Brain JMK - just a friendly reminder......you all said he didn't stand a chance to get nominated, then you said he didn't have a chance to beat Clinton, and in the middle swore we were all delusional to even consider he had a chance, not to mention racist, homophobic, etc, etc etc...... If it's ok, I think I'll not take serious any ideas of what he may, or may not, be capable of accomplishing from anybody on the left. Ya'll haven't been right about anything. LOL That, LB, is an abject lie. No other word for it. Straight up. A lie. Once again, you seem to have me confused with a bunch of whiny millennials curled up under our desks and hoping it's all a bad dream. Honestly, for me personally, a Trump presidency will probably benefit me more than a Hillary presidency would have, so no tears have, or will be shed in the JMK household. I NEVER once said he didn't have a chance. In fact, I said over, and over again that I didn't think he was going to win, and that the polls didn't look good, but never did I say that he had no chance. And, as far as the accusation that I called you or anyone else on this board a racist or a homophobe, that's just a stupid thing to say. You're better than that. |
2016-12-07 2:22 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Left Brain That, LB, is an abject lie. No other word for it. Straight up. A lie. Once again, you seem to have me confused with a bunch of whiny millennials curled up under our desks and hoping it's all a bad dream. Honestly, for me personally, a Trump presidency will probably benefit me more than a Hillary presidency would have, so no tears have, or will be shed in the JMK household. I NEVER once said he didn't have a chance. In fact, I said over, and over again that I didn't think he was going to win, and that the polls didn't look good, but never did I say that he had no chance. And, as far as the accusation that I called you or anyone else on this board a racist or a homophobe, that's just a stupid thing to say. You're better than that. JMK - just a friendly reminder......you all said he didn't stand a chance to get nominated, then you said he didn't have a chance to beat Clinton, and in the middle swore we were all delusional to even consider he had a chance, not to mention racist, homophobic, etc, etc etc...... If it's ok, I think I'll not take serious any ideas of what he may, or may not, be capable of accomplishing from anybody on the left. Ya'll haven't been right about anything. LOL Man, you folks certainly get your knickers bunched up quick these days. LOL JMK....I clearly said "you all", you know, like Hillary called us all deplorable.....obviously I didn't mean you personally. Look, I'm still having fun with this....if you remember, I said that if Trump won I was was going to pull the covers over my head and laugh hysterically. Well, I'm still laughing. Sometimes I'm laughing so hard it interferes with my sarcasm/belittling/name-calling guiding system and it just comes out all wrong. I apologize if I offended you.......seriously. And yes, you've drove down the middle of the road during this whole deal, as you said. I think I have too, or at least tried to......but admittedly, my car is now off in a ditch after being blinded by tears of laughter......it may still take a few weeks to get it out. |
2016-12-09 9:49 AM in reply to: Left Brain |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 hahahaha |
2016-12-09 9:54 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 btw, did you guys see the house in Michigan passed voter a tough voter ID law after they discovered massive voter fraud in detroit? Another interesting stat I saw yesterday. Hillary is ahead in the popular vote by 2M nationally, but she won California (where anybody can vote without an ID) by 4M votes. That means in the other 49 states she lost the popular vote by 2M votes. |
|
2016-12-09 9:59 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by tuwood btw, did you guys see the house in Michigan passed voter a tough voter ID law after they discovered massive voter fraud in detroit? Another interesting stat I saw yesterday. Hillary is ahead in the popular vote by 2M nationally, but she won California (where anybody can vote without an ID) by 4M votes. That means in the other 49 states she lost the popular vote by 2M votes. you can't just subtract one of the largest states because they voted the other way man...she won the popular vote, which doesn't matter, but c'mon just admit that. |
2016-12-09 10:02 AM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by tuwood btw, did you guys see the house in Michigan passed voter a tough voter ID law after they discovered massive voter fraud in detroit? Another interesting stat I saw yesterday. Hillary is ahead in the popular vote by 2M nationally, but she won California (where anybody can vote without an ID) by 4M votes. That means in the other 49 states she lost the popular vote by 2M votes. you can't just subtract one of the largest states because they voted the other way man...she won the popular vote, which doesn't matter, but c'mon just admit that. I'm not denying it, I'm just showing an interesting stat. California represents 12% of the total population, yet they voted 100% more for Hillary than the rest of the US combined? They also just so happen to have set up a voting system that allows illegals to vote, but you don't see anything out of the ordinary? |
2016-12-09 10:05 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by tuwood btw, did you guys see the house in Michigan passed voter a tough voter ID law after they discovered massive voter fraud in detroit? Another interesting stat I saw yesterday. Hillary is ahead in the popular vote by 2M nationally, but she won California (where anybody can vote without an ID) by 4M votes. That means in the other 49 states she lost the popular vote by 2M votes. you can't just subtract one of the largest states because they voted the other way man...she won the popular vote, which doesn't matter, but c'mon just admit that. I'm not denying it, I'm just showing an interesting stat. California represents 12% of the total population, yet they voted 100% more for Hillary than the rest of the US combined? They also just so happen to have set up a voting system that allows illegals to vote, but you don't see anything out of the ordinary? it also happens to be one of the most liberal places in the country....I can start on how the states with voter suppression laws all vote republican too. |
2016-12-09 10:07 AM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by tuwood btw, did you guys see the house in Michigan passed voter a tough voter ID law after they discovered massive voter fraud in detroit? Another interesting stat I saw yesterday. Hillary is ahead in the popular vote by 2M nationally, but she won California (where anybody can vote without an ID) by 4M votes. That means in the other 49 states she lost the popular vote by 2M votes. you can't just subtract one of the largest states because they voted the other way man...she won the popular vote, which doesn't matter, but c'mon just admit that. I'm not denying it, I'm just showing an interesting stat. California represents 12% of the total population, yet they voted 100% more for Hillary than the rest of the US combined? They also just so happen to have set up a voting system that allows illegals to vote, but you don't see anything out of the ordinary? it also happens to be one of the most liberal places in the country....I can start on how the states with voter suppression laws all vote republican too. Do you believe illegals can and did vote in CA, or do you believe the numbers are completely based on US citizens in CA being more liberal than places like NY and IL? |
2016-12-09 10:11 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Hillary won the popular vote BECAUSE it doesn't matter! How many Trump supporters in CA and NY stayed home and didn't bother to vote because they knew that their vote for Trump was meaningless? Now, if the popular vote mattered those Trump supporters would have voted. About 60 million people in CA and NY. Let's say 60% are liberal and 40% conservative.....that's 24 million potential Trump voters. |
|
2016-12-09 10:26 AM in reply to: Rogillio |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by Rogillio Hillary won the popular vote BECAUSE it doesn't matter! How many Trump supporters in CA and NY stayed home and didn't bother to vote because they knew that their vote for Trump was meaningless? Now, if the popular vote mattered those Trump supporters would have voted. About 60 million people in CA and NY. Let's say 60% are liberal and 40% conservative.....that's 24 million potential Trump voters. same in every state. trust me, in Maryland tons of people stay home on both sides because everyone knows it will be a blue state, same in red states. that's a poor argument. |
2016-12-09 10:29 AM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by Rogillio Hillary won the popular vote BECAUSE it doesn't matter! How many Trump supporters in CA and NY stayed home and didn't bother to vote because they knew that their vote for Trump was meaningless? Now, if the popular vote mattered those Trump supporters would have voted. About 60 million people in CA and NY. Let's say 60% are liberal and 40% conservative.....that's 24 million potential Trump voters. same in every state. trust me, in Maryland tons of people stay home on both sides because everyone knows it will be a blue state, same in red states. that's a poor argument. But there's only like 30 democrats in the state of Nebraska... haha, just kidding |
2016-12-09 10:30 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by Rogillio Hillary won the popular vote BECAUSE it doesn't matter! How many Trump supporters in CA and NY stayed home and didn't bother to vote because they knew that their vote for Trump was meaningless? Now, if the popular vote mattered those Trump supporters would have voted. About 60 million people in CA and NY. Let's say 60% are liberal and 40% conservative.....that's 24 million potential Trump voters. same in every state. trust me, in Maryland tons of people stay home on both sides because everyone knows it will be a blue state, same in red states. that's a poor argument. But there's only like 30 democrats in the state of Nebraska... haha, just kidding I think we should do what Oregon does. mail a ballot to every citizen and be done with it. |
2016-12-09 10:49 AM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by Rogillio Hillary won the popular vote BECAUSE it doesn't matter! How many Trump supporters in CA and NY stayed home and didn't bother to vote because they knew that their vote for Trump was meaningless? Now, if the popular vote mattered those Trump supporters would have voted. About 60 million people in CA and NY. Let's say 60% are liberal and 40% conservative.....that's 24 million potential Trump voters. same in every state. trust me, in Maryland tons of people stay home on both sides because everyone knows it will be a blue state, same in red states. that's a poor argument. But there's only like 30 democrats in the state of Nebraska... haha, just kidding I think we should do what Oregon does. mail a ballot to every citizen and be done with it. I'm not a big fan of the mail ballots because I feel there's too many angles to cheat. However, I feel it's really more about the registration itself than it is the ballot side. For example how do they determine you're a citizen in order to get a ballot? |
2016-12-09 11:26 AM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by Rogillio Hillary won the popular vote BECAUSE it doesn't matter! How many Trump supporters in CA and NY stayed home and didn't bother to vote because they knew that their vote for Trump was meaningless? Now, if the popular vote mattered those Trump supporters would have voted. About 60 million people in CA and NY. Let's say 60% are liberal and 40% conservative.....that's 24 million potential Trump voters. same in every state. trust me, in Maryland tons of people stay home on both sides because everyone knows it will be a blue state, same in red states. that's a poor argument. The argument is that the popular vote is meaningless! We have absolutely NO IDEA what the popular vote would be if we did not have the electoral system. Not only would there be a lot more people voting (presumably) but the campaigns would be run differently. Much of rual CA is conservative...same with upstate NY. Popular vote is completely meaningless. |
|
2016-12-09 12:46 PM in reply to: Rogillio |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by Rogillio Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by Rogillio Hillary won the popular vote BECAUSE it doesn't matter! How many Trump supporters in CA and NY stayed home and didn't bother to vote because they knew that their vote for Trump was meaningless? Now, if the popular vote mattered those Trump supporters would have voted. About 60 million people in CA and NY. Let's say 60% are liberal and 40% conservative.....that's 24 million potential Trump voters. same in every state. trust me, in Maryland tons of people stay home on both sides because everyone knows it will be a blue state, same in red states. that's a poor argument. The argument is that the popular vote is meaningless! We have absolutely NO IDEA what the popular vote would be if we did not have the electoral system. Not only would there be a lot more people voting (presumably) but the campaigns would be run differently. Much of rual CA is conservative...same with upstate NY. Popular vote is completely meaningless. Yep. It's like saying, "If we'd made that field goal in the first quarter, we'd have won by two instead of losing by one". When in reality, making the FG would have changed the way both teams played the rest of the way, which would have changed the outcome altogether. |
2016-12-09 2:34 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Rogillio Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by Rogillio Hillary won the popular vote BECAUSE it doesn't matter! How many Trump supporters in CA and NY stayed home and didn't bother to vote because they knew that their vote for Trump was meaningless? Now, if the popular vote mattered those Trump supporters would have voted. About 60 million people in CA and NY. Let's say 60% are liberal and 40% conservative.....that's 24 million potential Trump voters. same in every state. trust me, in Maryland tons of people stay home on both sides because everyone knows it will be a blue state, same in red states. that's a poor argument. The argument is that the popular vote is meaningless! We have absolutely NO IDEA what the popular vote would be if we did not have the electoral system. Not only would there be a lot more people voting (presumably) but the campaigns would be run differently. Much of rual CA is conservative...same with upstate NY. Popular vote is completely meaningless. Yep. It's like saying, "If we'd made that field goal in the first quarter, we'd have won by two instead of losing by one". When in reality, making the FG would have changed the way both teams played the rest of the way, which would have changed the outcome altogether. Exactly. I like the analogy. |
2016-12-10 5:21 PM in reply to: Rogillio |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Dammit, Sarah--you were supposed to have been watching Russia! You had one job... |
2016-12-10 9:20 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Dammit, Sarah--you were supposed to have been watching Russia! You had one job... She's been spending too much time in St Louis messing around with LB. |
|
2016 - WTF Pages: 1 2 | |||
Election 2014 Pages: 1 2 3 | |||