PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: LevelWing on June 08, 2016, 05:32:59 PM
-
George W. Bush had 12 million votes in 2000. The Republican Party also set a party record this year in pre-convention state election turnout with over 28 million votes to date which is 139% of the record high voter turnout in 2008. This increase in votes can be attributed to Donald Trump.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/06/trump-trumps-wins-historic-race-record-fashion/
Between this and the Democratic turn out numbers being very low, I wonder what affect this will have on the general election?
-
Except that adjusted for population, Bush got more votes than Trump.
Plus more republican voters voted against Trump than any nominee in history.
-
Votes against recent R nominees:
Trump: 17 million
Romney: 9 million
McCain: 11 million
G.W. Bush: 7.5 million.
Historic numbers there.
-
To put Trump's "historic" vote total in perspective:
Trump (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/republican_vote_count.html): 13.3 million
Clinton (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_vote_count.html): 15.7 million
-
Here are the numbers of what Clinton received in 2008:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/06/devastating-hillary-clinton-received-1-5-million-fewer-votes-2016-2008-democrats-7-million-votes/
She received about 1.5 million votes less this time than last time.
-
Here are the numbers of what Clinton received in 2008:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/06/devastating-hillary-clinton-received-1-5-million-fewer-votes-2016-2008-democrats-7-million-votes/ (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/06/devastating-hillary-clinton-received-1-5-million-fewer-votes-2016-2008-democrats-7-million-votes/)
She received about 1.5 million votes less this time than last time.
And she received more than a million votes more than Trump did this year. Your point?
-
Trump - 13,300,472
Cruz - 7,637,262
Damn ;)
-
Except for both Obama and McCain at 47% each, Trump was the only nominee in 16 years to get less than 50%, where he got a whopping 44% of the GOP vote.
-
To put Trump's "historic" vote total in perspective:
Trump (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/republican_vote_count.html): 13.3 million
Clinton (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_vote_count.html): 15.7 million
How many of those 15.7 million votes were cast by someone other than the person registered to vote? In California there were tens of thousands of votes cast by dead people according to Drudge.
How many of those votes were cast multiple times by the same person, which is another staple of the democrat party?
-
Except for both Obama and McCain at 47% each, Trump was the only nominee in 16 years to get less than 50%, where he got a whopping 44% of the GOP vote.
Could the fact that he was running against 16 other candidates have diluted his vote total?
-
Could the fact that he was running against 16 other candidates have diluted his vote total?
Ya think?
-
Could the fact that he was running against 16 other candidates have diluted his vote total?
Romney ran against 11.
-
Romney ran against 11.
And Trump got almost twice as many votes as Romney.
-
Romney ran against 11.
Does that change the fact that 56% of us wanted someone other than Trump?
-
And Trump got almost twice as many votes as Romney.
Even drop the bottom 6, and Trump received substantially more votes against him than ANY OTHER CANDIDATE IN HISTORY.
If you are going to tout the count he got for himself (ignoring that adjusted for population Bush got more in 2000), then if you're not a hypocrite you have to accept that he got more votes against than anyone too.
-
Even drop the bottom 6, and Trump received substantially more votes against him than ANY OTHER CANDIDATE IN HISTORY.
If you are going to tout the count he got for himself (ignoring that adjusted for population Bush got more in 2000), then if you're not a hypocrite you have to accept that he got more votes against than anyone too.
I accept that. But we have two highly negative candidates. Hillary has her baggage too, even though the Democrats don't seem to mind as much as the Republicans. At this point though, I don't think the polls, or primary results have any real meaning. Only time will tell.
But I do suspect that we are going to see a President Clinton again.
-
But I do suspect that we are going to see a President Clinton again.
I don't. Clinton fatigue has set in with the democrats. Voter turnout for the DNC is down and she has struggled against a Vermont socialist. Take away the "super delegates" scam and she would be in serious trouble right now against Bernie.
Hillary is not Bill. Bill had charisma and was a natural politician. Hillary, as portrayed by one member here, is a doormat.
-
Trump - 13,300,472
Cruz - 7,637,262
What happened to your guy Stan and Jeff? He didn't do so well.
-
Trump - 13,300,472
Cruz - 7,637,262
What happened to your guy Stan and Jeff? He didn't do so well.
When one candidate suspends his campaign and the other doesn't, the one who doesn't gets more votes, and the one who suspends no longer gets votes.
Do you need me to diagram this for you?
-
What I see is that 1/3 of the voters in your total would rather vote for someone who isn't running than vote for Trump. If you included Kasich, that goes over 50% who would rather not vote for Trump, doesn't it? Yes, Trump is a candidate of the people...
The evil of two lessers indeed.
-
And Trump got almost twice as many votes as Romney.
I still question how many liberals voted for the donald.
Don't forget that the democrat primaries had a very low voter participation.
-
I still question how many liberals voted for the donald.
Don't forget that the democrat primaries had a very low voter participation.
I suspect many Ds voted for hm. But not as many as will vote for him in the general election, due to closed primaries.
-
When one candidate suspends his campaign and the other doesn't, the one who doesn't gets more votes, and the one who suspends no longer gets votes.
Do you need me to diagram this for you?
Like Florida maybe?
Trump - 1,077,221
Cruz - 403,640
Maybe Pennsylvania
Trump - 892,702
Cruz - 340,201
The races after Cruz suspended his campaign only account for a little over 2M of the difference.
Not to worry though, I'm hearing that there is now some kind of movement to overthrow Trump at the convention in favor of Cruz. Only problem now is Beck does not seem to be on board with that plan.
-
If Trump is overthrown at the convention, it won't be in favor of Ted Cruz.
I'd like to think that Trump would recognize what is going on around him, but I think the hubris of running for president makes him blind to his actual chances of winning. The media has started hedging on Donald, after the Republican convention, they will turn on him. No chance.
-
If Trump is overthrown at the convention, it won't be in favor of Ted Cruz.
This is true. It will be for some neutered, RINO, that will play by their rules to yet again grow government, and their respective pieces of the pie.
I voted for Cruz in the primary. He lost.
-
Trump shatters another record! Way to go Donnie!
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/283543-trumps-unfavorables-spike-in-poll
Donald Trump is viewed unfavorably by seven in 10 Americans in a new national poll.
Fully 70 percent of U.S. adults have an unfavorable view of the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, according to the ABC News/Washington Post poll released Wednesday, a 10-point increase since last month.
-
Trump shatters another record! Way to go Donnie!
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/283543-trumps-unfavorables-spike-in-poll
We have what, 4 weeks until the GOP Convention? If this trend doesn't reverse, and pronto, the Republican party will have to address what to do with a presumptive nominee who can't possibly win with such unprecedented high negatives.
-
We have what, 4 weeks until the GOP Convention? If this trend doesn't reverse, and pronto, the Republican party will have to address what to do with a presumptive nominee who can't possibly win with such unprecedented high negatives.
I'd imagine they have John McCain on standby.
-
I'd imagine they have John McCain on standby.
I would vote for a Mitt Romney in a New York minute. He's far more conservative than Trump will ever be.
-
I would vote for a Mitt Romney in a New York minute. He's far more conservative than Trump will ever be.
And he can't win an election. Great choice there pal.
-
And he can't win an election. Great choice there pal.
Says the guy who foisted someone with 70% unfavourables on us in the nomination process.
-
And he can't win an election. Great choice there pal.
1) He won more elections than the donald
2) I submit that Mitt Romney would have a better chance in this upcoming election than the donald.
-
1) He won more elections than the donald
2) I submit that Mitt Romney would have a better chance in this upcoming election than the donald.
Mitt has damaged himself with his anti Trump crusade. The moderates, independents and moderate democrats wouldn't touch him.
If Mitt had come out against Obama like he has Trump he would have won in 2012.
-
1) He won more elections than the donald
He has also lost more.
2) I submit that Mitt Romney would have a better chance in this upcoming election than the donald.
I'm sure he would, but he didn't run. And why should he? Conservatives didn't support him the last time he ran. Has he become more conservative since then?
-
He has also lost more.
So what? This isn't about losing.
I'm sure he would, but he didn't run. And why should he? Conservatives didn't support him the last time he ran. Has he become more conservative since then?
yep, a big thanks to all those f'n stupid conservatives that didn't vote for Romney. Those idiots helped give us 4 more years of Obama. Absolutely brilliant.
-
yep, a big thanks to all those f'n stupid conservatives that didn't vote for Romney. Those idiots helped give us 4 more years of Obama. Absolutely brilliant.
But they made a statement, and we have been told over and over here that is way more important.
And using some others pretzel logic, the conservatives that stayed home and didn't vote Romney had nothing to do with Obama being re elected.
-
But they made a statement, and we have been told over and over here that is way more important.
And using some others pretzel logic, the conservatives that stayed home and didn't vote Romney had nothing to do with Obama being re elected.
Same for those that voted for Gary Johnson. I suppose they had nothing to do with Obama getting elected.
-
Same for those that voted for Gary Johnson. I suppose they had nothing to do with Obama getting elected.
Of course not. ;D
-
I would vote for a Mitt Romney in a New York minute. He's far more conservative than Trump will ever be.
He couldn''t beat Obama, who was on the ropes. In fact, after a stellar first debate, he backed off, as though he was told to throw the fight. Something smelly there.
-
2) I submit that Mitt Romney would have a better chance in this upcoming election than the donald.
That's an awfully low bar.
-
He couldn''t beat Obama, who was on the ropes. In fact, after a stellar first debate, he backed off, as though he was told to throw the fight. Something smelly there.
True.
But not any smellier than Trump caving within days to the same gun prohibition scheme advanced by Obama, Hillary, and Bernie.
-
yep, a big thanks to all those f'n stupid conservatives that didn't vote for Romney. Those idiots helped give us 4 more years of Obama. Absolutely brilliant.
I'm a conservative who voted for Romney in 2012 and it didn't do any good. Now I'm being told to vote for Trump and the reason is "because Hillary". It didn't work in 2008 or 2012, why should I think it'll work in 2016? Especially for a guy who's struggling to retain Republican principles, let alone conservative ones.
-
And he can't win an election. Great choice there pal.
You know I would vote for him too. He probably can't win an election now, but I am convinced that he would have won in 2012 if it weren't for the famous "47% Video". As it was, the race was close and respectable. He was sabotaged by either an inside Democrat, or profiteer and the media. A cautionary tale to political candidates in the modern world- never let your guard down, always assume there is a camera, or microphone recording and never tell the truth, or how it really is.
-
I'm a conservative who voted for Romney in 2012 and it didn't do any good. Now I'm being told to vote for Trump and the reason is "because Hillary". It didn't work in 2008 or 2012, why should I think it'll work in 2016? Especially for a guy who's struggling to retain Republican principles, let alone conservative ones.
Romney didn't lose because you voted for him. Romney lost because not enough conservatives voted for him.
If because of that, even more conservatives don't vote for Trump, then we may as well just cancel the election and crown Hillary.
-
Romney didn't lose because you voted for him. Romney lost because not enough conservatives voted for him.
If because of that, even more conservatives don't vote for Trump, then we may as well just cancel the election and crown Hillary.
It's Romney's fault he lost, nobody else's. Just like if Trump loses it will be his fault, nobody else's. You can't get mad at people for voting their conscience. If people don't think that Trump best represents them, then why should they vote for him? "Because Hillary". Right, I got it. Sometimes people need more than that.
This election is going to be terrible.
-
Romney didn't lose because you voted for him. Romney lost because not enough conservatives voted for him.
If because of that, even more conservatives don't vote for Trump, then we may as well just cancel the election and crown Hillary.
It's subtle, but you've misplaced the blame. Romney lost because he didn't garner enough votes. If it was the automatic right of the Republican nominee to get the vote of all conservatives, we'd have no need for campaigning.
-
It's Romney's fault he lost, nobody else's. Just like if Trump loses it will be his fault, nobody else's. You can't get mad at people for voting their conscience. If people don't think that Trump best represents them, then why should they vote for him? "Because Hillary". Right, I got it. Sometimes people need more than that.
This election is going to be terrible.
Regardless of whether it was Romney's fault he lost, or if it will be Trumps fault if he loses, I was upset when Obama won and I will be upset if Hillary wins. The only thing I can do about it is to cast my vote, and to try to persuade others to vote the same way I do. And while I have no illusion that anything I say on an internet web site will have any influence on anyone, I will continue to voice my opinion.
Republicans lose elections like these because most Republicans are conscientious people that won't vote for anyone that they don't feels\ measures up. Democrats have no such debilitating morals. Or they at least have a much lower level of those morals and would prefer to vote for a criminal that a Republican, even if that Republican shares many of their values.
-
Regardless of whether it was Romney's fault he lost, or if it will be Trumps fault if he loses, I was upset when Obama won and I will be upset if Hillary wins. The only thing I can do about it is to cast my vote, and to try to persuade others to vote the same way I do. And while I have no illusion that anything I say on an internet web site will have any influence on anyone, I will continue to voice my opinion.
Absolutely. Convincing people is exactly what elections are about.
Republicans lose elections like these because most Republicans are conscientious people that won't vote for anyone that they don't feels\ measures up.
I don't see anything wrong with not voting for someone who doesn't share the same vision and values that you do. Sure, you won't ever get the "perfect" candidate, but there are some that don't even come close to sharing values, and in this election that's Donald Trump for many. McCain and Romney were compromises, many believe that Trump isn't anywhere close to being a compromise.
Democrats have no such debilitating morals. Or they at least have a much lower level of those morals and would prefer to vote for a criminal that a Republican, even if that Republican shares many of their values.
I'll assume you mean that Democrats don't have any issue voting for the "D" on the ticket, regardless of anything else, whereas Republicans actually have principles and stand by them. The way it reads, it looks like you're saying it's a bad thing that those against Trump won't cave and vote for him.
-
The way it reads, it looks like you're saying it's a bad thing that those against Trump won't cave and vote for him.
As I have said dozens of times, whether one sees it as a bad thing, or whether you feel any guilt about it is up to you. Not me.
_I_ think it will be a certain bad thing if Hillary wins. And in spite of Trumps brash statements, and in spite of his naievity, and in spite of some of his liberal views, past and present, I don't see him as bad for the country as Hillary.
If Hillary wins, by the end of her term, she will be wealthier than Trump claims to be now. And depending on how much of America she sells, she may be much wealthier. And the nation will be weaker, but the government will be stronger in its dominion over our daily lives.
-
As I have said dozens of times, whether one sees it as a bad thing, or whether you feel any guilt about it is up to you. Not me.
_I_ think it will be a certain bad thing if Hillary wins. And in spite of Trumps brash statements, and in spite of his naievity, and in spite of some of his liberal views, past and present, I don't see him as bad for the country as Hillary.
If Hillary wins, by the end of her term, she will be wealthier than Trump claims to be now. And depending on how much of America she sells, she may be much wealthier. And the nation will be weaker, but the government will be stronger in its dominion over our daily lives.
I didn't bring up guilt, you did. I will feel no guilt if I don't vote for Trump. He's barely better than Hillary and he just caved on the Second and Fifth Amendments, again, and I don't see anybody (except Acrogrimp on this site, anyway) calling him out for it. It's apparently alright for him to do that, "because Hillary".
I've not once disagreed with anything anybody has predicted about what Hillary would do. I think we're all in agreement on that.
-
Just curious on your signature
""The Constitution is not a living organism. It's a legal document and it says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say"
Justice Antonin Scalia"
Then why do we have amendments ?
-
Just curious on your signature
""The Constitution is not a living organism. It's a legal document and it says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say"
Justice Antonin Scalia"
Then why do we have amendments ?
why? because the legal document (Constitution) has a defined process for modifying it (btw - that defined process isn't legislation from the bench)
-
why? because the legal document (Constitution) has a defined process for modifying it (btw - that defined process isn't legislation from the bench)
THAT'S the point.
-
I didn't bring up guilt, you did.
Are you saying you have never brought up guilt before, as in saying that I (and others) are putting a guilt trip on you for not voting for Trump?
I would find those references for you, but I haven't mastered the search capability of PS yet.
-
Just curious on your signature
""The Constitution is not a living organism. It's a legal document and it says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say"
Justice Antonin Scalia"
Then why do we have amendments ?
Because amendments are supposed to be done per the process in Article V of said Constitution. However, most amendments we do these days are done via Article III.
-
Are you saying you have never brought up guilt before, as in saying that I (and others) are putting a guilt trip on you for not voting for Trump?
I would find those references for you, but I haven't mastered the search capability of PS yet.
I'm referring to this thread. I've brought it up in the past, and it is true that some people are trying to guilt non-Trump supporters into voting for him using the argument "because Hillary."
My point was that it seemed as if you had a problem with non-Trump supporters standing on principle, as if that's such a terrible thing. But it doesn't matter at this point, we've moved on. :)
-
I'm referring to this thread. I've brought it up in the past, and it is true that some people are trying to guilt non-Trump supporters into voting for him using the argument "because Hillary."
My point was that it seemed as if you had a problem with non-Trump supporters standing on principle, as if that's such a terrible thing. But it doesn't matter at this point, we've moved on. :)
The Spin Zone never moves on.
I have no problem with Trump supporters standing on principle. In fact, I compared that favorably with Democrats that have no principles. I have a problem with conservatives that don't admit that by not voting for Trump, they are making it easier for Hillary to win. And I will repeat; if conservatives truly see Trump as bad for America as Hillary would be, then I understand them not voting for him. It is the people that know that Hillary would be worse, but won't vote for Trump "on principle" thus enabling Hillary to win that I don't understand.
There are trade-offs with everything. Sometimes you have to make a choice. Sometimes that choice is harder than others, like when two good friends of mine were running for Mayor of our City. In the same election, two people I knew personally, and despised, were running for city council. I made a decision in both races, but they were both difficult.
-
The Spin Zone never moves on.
I have no problem with Trump supporters standing on principle. In fact, I compared that favorably with Democrats that have no principles. I have a problem with conservatives that don't admit that by not voting for Trump, they are making it easier for Hillary to win. And I will repeat; if conservatives truly see Trump as bad for America as Hillary would be, then I understand them not voting for him. It is the people that know that Hillary would be worse, but won't vote for Trump "on principle" thus enabling Hillary to win that I don't understand.
There are trade-offs with everything. Sometimes you have to make a choice. Sometimes that choice is harder than others, like when two good friends of mine were running for Mayor of our City. In the same election, two people I knew personally, and despised, were running for city council. I made a decision in both races, but they were both difficult.
I understand and agree with most of that.
I would like to see people hold Trump accountable for his actions and statements though. Instead he's given a free pass for some unknown reason.
-
I would like to see people hold Trump accountable for his actions and statements though. Instead he's given a free pass for some unknown reason.
Well, he's a liberal, and they are never held accountable for their actions, are they?
-
I understand and agree with most of that.
I would like to see people hold Trump accountable for his actions and statements though. Instead he's given a free pass for some unknown reason.
Well, how exactly would you suggest that we hold him accountable? By not voting, or by voting for Hillary,
If you are trying to say that nobody ever complains about Trump, I want some of what you are smoking. Trump has some of the highest unfavorability ratings in the history of electoral politics. Except for a few reporters at Fox, there are few media supporters on his side. He gets criticized for everything from his hair to when Soros pays agitators to get violent at his rallies. He doesn't get a free pass. But he does get an acknowledgement that he might not be as bad as some people portray him.
-
Trump shatters more records!!!
But it’s not just the overall unfavorable numbers — it’s the intensity of the antipathy toward Trump, and the lack of enthusiasm for him. In the ABC News/Washington Post poll, 56 percent of respondents had a “strongly unfavorable” opinion of Trump, compared to just 15 percent who had a “strongly favorable” opinion. In the Bloomberg poll, 51 percent had a “very unfavorable” opinion of Trump, with only 11 percent having a “very favorable” opinion.
...
Clinton’s image ratings are also “upside-down” — but compared with Trump, she’s more than likable enough. The ABC News/Washington Post poll pegs her favorable rating at 43 percent (25 percent strongly favorable), with 55 percent viewing her unfavorably (39 percent strongly unfavorable). That’s a new low-water mark for Clinton, though it’s still only a slight decline since the campaign began. (The Bloomberg poll was similar for Clinton: 43 percent favorable, 54 percent unfavorable.)
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/donald-trump-unfavorable-polls-224454#ixzz4BqXK1LGi
-
Well, how exactly would you suggest that we hold him accountable? By not voting, or by voting for Hillary,
If you are trying to say that nobody ever complains about Trump, I want some of what you are smoking. Trump has some of the highest unfavorability ratings in the history of electoral politics. Except for a few reporters at Fox, there are few media supporters on his side. He gets criticized for everything from his hair to when Soros pays agitators to get violent at his rallies. He doesn't get a free pass. But he does get an acknowledgement that he might not be as bad as some people portray him.
He's the one who has consistently been inconsistent on a number of issues, especially on the First, Second and Fifth Amendments. Explain to me how his positions on those aren't as bad as people are portraying him? If you can, try to do it without a "because Hillary" answer. That's always the default, attempting to compare to Hillary's position on the subject as if somehow it's always better.
Sometimes the decision isn't which is the lesser of two evils, it's more like being asked to choose your own method of death. Either way, you're still going to die, you just get to decide how you die, and lethal injection is better than the gas chamber.
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ClSVL_pVEAAHsn-.jpg)
-
Well, how exactly would you suggest that we hold him accountable? By not voting, or by voting for Hillary,
If you are trying to say that nobody ever complains about Trump, I want some of what you are smoking. Trump has some of the highest unfavorability ratings in the history of electoral politics. Except for a few reporters at Fox, there are few media supporters on his side. He gets criticized for everything from his hair to when Soros pays agitators to get violent at his rallies. He doesn't get a free pass. But he does get an acknowledgement that he might not be as bad as some people portray him.
You do it by denying or delaying support! It's not that difficult. THAT is something that even a narcissist like Trump should understand.
Instead, his supporters give him a pass because he talks tough and says a few things to feed the populist horde.
-
Instead, his supporters give him a pass because he talks tough and says a few things to feed the populist horde.
Paul Ryan does the exact same thing and you call him brilliant.
Hypocrites.
-
Paul Ryan does the exact same thing and you call him brilliant.
Hypocrites.
Yep. No difference between the two. Got it.
Is today's Kool Aid flavor grape or cherry?
-
Paul Ryan does the exact same thing and you call him brilliant.
Hypocrites.
Where are these people calling Ryan brilliant?
So many straw men...you should report a fire hazard to your insurance carrier.
-
Yep. No difference between the two. Got it.
Is today's Kool Aid flavor grape or cherry?
Can't deny it can you? Your hero Ryan gives Obama passes on everything and the conservatives rave what a great guy he is even while acting as a liberal.
Your ideology prevents you from seeing what's really happening.
-
Can't deny it can you? Your hero Ryan gives Obama passes on everything and the conservatives rave what a great guy he is even while acting as a liberal.
Your ideology prevents you from seeing what's really happening.
What does Trump's ass taste like?
-
What does Trump's ass taste like?
I'm guessing like an Orange Julius, given the apparent attraction.
-
What does Trump's ass taste like?
Good post Jeff.
:(
-
Good post Jeff.
:(
This is why he's on ignore. Individuals such as Jeff aren't worth wasting time over. Attempting to hold dialogue with a moron is futile.
-
This is why he's on ignore. Individuals such as Jeff aren't worth wasting time over. Attempting to hold dialogue with a moron is futile.
When was the last time you provided substantive input.
No, like a good liberal, you hurl ad hominem a from your safe-space where nobody can say things to hurt your, or your Orange God's, feels.
-
What does Trump's ass taste like?
Chicken.
-
Chicken.
Is that an answer to the question, or a personal retort?
-
This is why he's on ignore. Individuals such as Jeff aren't worth wasting time over. Attempting to hold dialogue with a moron is futile.
Says a guy who calls himself "Lucifer" and who's avatar is flipping us the bird. ::) That shit is lame. I don't like being flipped the bird, not by you or the red neck motherfucker idiot with the Calvin and Hobbs sticker on his truck showing Calvin flipping the bird to me. Seriously, look beyond the sound bites and speeches.
-
Says a guy who calls himself "Lucifer" and who's avatar is flipping us the bird. ::) That shit is lame. I don't like being flipped the bird, not by you or the red neck motherfucker idiot with the Calvin and Hobbs sticker on his truck showing Calvin flipping the bird to me. Seriously, look beyond the sound bites and speeches.
The "Ignore" function is his Safe Space.
-
Says a guy who calls himself "Lucifer" and who's avatar is flipping us the bird. ::) That shit is lame. I don't like being flipped the bird, not by you or the red neck motherfucker idiot with the Calvin and Hobbs sticker on his truck showing Calvin flipping the bird to me. Seriously, look beyond the sound bites and speeches.
But a guy who calls himself "Dav8or" is somehow "cool"? Since when did we start using numbers in words? Or is that a "California cool" thing to do?
Honestly Dave I consider most of your postings to be "lame" as they are left coast liberal mindset bullshit, but I do respect you right to your opinion since you act as an adult when posting. For your friend Jeff, he is an immature imbecile who's only purpose is to act like a petulant child on a play ground demanding constant attention. If Jeff could every bring himself to act like an adult and converse like one he could be added in the discussion, but like I've said before, I don't deal with morons or waste my time with them.
-
But a guy who calls himself "Dav8or" is somehow "cool"? Since when did we start using numbers in words? Or is that a "California cool" thing to do?
Honestly Dave I consider most of your postings to be "lame" as they are left coast liberal mindset bullshit, but I do respect you right to your opinion since you act as an adult when posting. For your friend Jeff, he is an immature imbecile who's only purpose is to act like a petulant child on a play ground demanding constant attention. If Jeff could every bring himself to act like an adult and converse like one he could be added in the discussion, but like I've said before, I don't deal with morons or waste my time with them.
Hang out in your safe-space. Your feels can't handle negative information about your Orange Lord. I get that. Many liberals can't handle information that contradicts their world-view, and you are no exception.
If you could ever actually contribute information to the conversation, I might give a shit if you had any respect for me. But you don't, so neither do I.
-
But a guy who calls himself "Dav8or" is somehow "cool"? Since when did we start using numbers in words? Or is that a "California cool" thing to do?
Honestly Dave I consider most of your postings to be "lame" as they are left coast liberal mindset bullshit, but I do respect you right to your opinion since you act as an adult when posting. For your friend Jeff, he is an immature imbecile who's only purpose is to act like a petulant child on a play ground demanding constant attention. If Jeff could every bring himself to act like an adult and converse like one he could be added in the discussion, but like I've said before, I don't deal with morons or waste my time with them.
Yet you're the first to respond to nearly every post in which he is critical of the Dear Orange Leader.
-
Yet you're the first to respond to nearly every post in which he is critical of the Dear Orange Leader.
Excuse me from participating in the forum. Would you like it better if I PM'd you first and asked permission to post in a thread?
And should we allow you to moderate each thread so that only your positions are justified and give no one else a chance to participate?
Ideologues can't stand others having an opinion different from their own.
-
If Jeff could every bring himself to act like an adult and converse like one he could be added in the discussion, but like I've said before, I don't deal with morons or waste my time with them.
Yet you're the first to respond to nearly every post in which he is critical of the Dear Orange Leader.
Excuse me from participating in the forum. Would you like it better if I PM'd you first and asked permission to post in a thread?
And should we allow you to moderate each thread so that only your positions are justified and give no one else a chance to participate?
Ideologues can't stand others having an opinion different from their own.
Oh my God. You're more childish and thin skinned than Trump!
You said you don't waste time with Jeff.
I pointed out that you respond every time Jeff posts something about Trump, showing that you do, in fact, waste time with Jeff.
Then you have a snowflake melt down because I pointed out your lie.
Go back to your safe zone.
-
Oh my God. You're more childish and thin skinned than Trump!
You said you don't waste time with Jeff.
I pointed out that you respond every time Jeff posts something about Trump, showing that you do, in fact, waste time with Jeff.
Please go back and show any post where I respond to Jeff. I have the petulant child on ignore because I don't waste my time with morons. On occasion I have made a response to someone else when they get involved in one of Jeff's inane diatribes.
Then you have a snowflake melt down because I pointed out your lie.
Go back to your safe zone.
Again, an ideologue is pissed off because he can't control the conversation. Please go show where I have lied.
-
I have the petulant child on ignore because I don't waste my time with morons I can't handle people who don't worship my Orange God and I need a safe space just like liberal college kids.. On occasion I have made a response to someone else when they get involved in one of Jeff's inane diatribes.
Again, an ideologue is pissed off because he can't control the conversation. Please go show where I have lied.
Fixed that for you.
-
And, in a shocking turn, it appears that a Democrat received 12 million votes from Democrats in the Republican primaries...
http://www.redstate.com/diary/creinstein/2016/06/25/12-million-democrats-voted-republican-primaries/
Using 2000 and 2008 as baselines, the conclusion was staggering. Trump only got about 3.3 million Republican Votes. The rest are Democrats, approximately 12 million of them.
Read the whole thing.
-
We wuz robbed.
And my vote for Sanders did naught.
-
And, in a shocking turn, it appears that a Democrat received 12 million votes from Democrats in the Republican primaries...
http://www.redstate.com/diary/creinstein/2016/06/25/12-million-democrats-voted-republican-primaries/
Read the whole thing.
A few grains of sodium chloride required; RedState is notoriously anti-Trump.
-
A few grains of sodium chloride required; RedState is notoriously anti-Trump.
Be my guest and poke holes in the analysis. If you read the article you'd see the author specifically called for people to challenge his analysis.
But I guess it's much easier to attack the source than the actual data.
-
Sorry to say this and I know I will be labeled over there, but just how dumb is this guy...
-
Sorry to say this and I know I will be labeled over there, but just how dumb is this guy...
Oh for fuck's sake!! This has to be scripted!! And they say he'd be better at foreign policy than Hillary. I'm pretty sure she knows the differences between Scotland and the UK. I wonder if Trump's supporters do?
-
Oh for fuck's sake!! This has to be scripted!! And they say he'd be better at foreign policy than Hillary. I'm pretty sure she knows the differences between Scotland and the UK. I wonder if Trump's supporters do?
Scotland is part of the UK. Though Scots did vote in majority to remain in the EU.
-
Oh for fuck's sake!! This has to be scripted!! And they say he'd be better at foreign policy than Hillary. I'm pretty sure she knows the differences between Scotland and the UK. I wonder if Trump's supporters do?
and yet, for all of the corrupt doormat's knowledge, she is still a complete f up. iow - knowledge does not bring competence or honesty or integrity or ability.
(and lest people think I'm a supporter of the donald, you have no evidence to support that erroneous belief)
-
Oh for fuck's sake!! This has to be scripted!! And they say he'd be better at foreign policy than Hillary. I'm pretty sure she knows the differences between Scotland and the UK. I wonder if Trump's supporters do?
Oh for fuck's sake. Please explain to me the difference between Scotland and the UK.
-
Oh for fuck's sake. Please explain to me the difference between Scotland and the UK.
Scotland is a country, within the United Kingdom...
-
Scotland is a country, within the United Kingdom...
Ok. You win the blue ribbon. But you aren't the one that claimed Scotland was not part of the UK.
-
Ok. You win the blue ribbon. But you aren't the one that claimed Scotland was not part of the UK.
The dumbassery of Trump's statement on Scotland and Brexit is pretty simple.
Scotland recently had a referendum on separating from the UK. One of the things that was determination was the fact that the Scots liked being EU members, and there was a risk that an independent Scotland would not be admitted to the EU.
Fast forward to last week. Every area of the UK voted to leave except London and Scotland. Scotland wants to remain in the EU, and may demand a repeat vote on independence.
So now, Donne steps in it by claiming that Scotland finally got what they want in the Brexit referendum, which they most assuredly did not. His lack of actual knowledge before shooting his mouth off is the (frequent and continuing) issue.
-
The Donald has had two big-time opportunities to look Presidential. Instead he wound up looking like a buffoon. Fortunately his new campaign manager seems to have convinced him to keep his big app shut. Then again, that's really done a number on all that free air time.
-
The only reason libs are offended that England vote themselves out of the EU is because libs LOVE to be told what to do, forced to comply and leaving the EU takes the boot of an unelected unaccountable cabal off of their throats.
-
The only reason libs are offended that England vote themselves out of the EU is because libs LOVE to be told what to do, forced to comply and leaving the EU takes the boot of an unelected unaccountable cabal off of their throats.
liberals apparently feel that Government is necessary to tell people what to do.
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ClSVL_pVEAAHsn-.jpg)
One must take into account the number of candidates vying for votes. While he did not achieve a majority he did receive the plurality and that's the statistical number one needs to consider IMHO. It is much easier to achieve 60% of the vote when the field is down to 2-3. Take a look at Trumps' numbers toward the end of the primary cycle to see the difference. I'm not arguing for Trump but rather the somewhat dishonest use of numbers which you did not create.
-
One must take into account the number of candidates vying for votes. While he did not achieve a majority he did receive the plurality and that's the statistical number one needs to consider IMHO. It is much easier to achieve 60% of the vote when the field is down to 2-3. Take a look at Trumps' numbers toward the end of the primary cycle to see the difference. I'm not arguing for Trump but rather the somewhat dishonest use of numbers which you did not create.
Romney had 11 people running against him. Trump barely cracked 60% in the final primaries unopposed.
-
Romney had 11 people running against him. Trump barely cracked 60% in the final primaries unopposed.
I'll have to go back and review the rate of people putting their campaigns on hold to make a 1:1 comparison. For example, Trump had 12 competitors for 15 primaries while Romney had 11 for 10 primaries (numbers are an example and not based on fact).
-
I'll have to go back and review the rate of people putting their campaigns on hold to make a 1:1 comparison. For example, Trump had 12 competitors for 15 primaries while Romney had 11 for 10 primaries (numbers are an example and not based on fact).
The rate of people putting their campaigns on hold is a function of the front-runner's support. If you get everyone to drop out after Iowa, that says something. If they hold on until CA, that says something else.
-
Let's see, Cruz got 25.1% of the votes and most certainly should be the guy because he'd be elected. ???
-
liberals apparently feel that Government is necessary to tell people what to do.
Liberalism is a mental disorder
-
Liberalism is a mental disorder
Liberalism is for those that think human nature can be legislated.
-
Liberalism is a mental disorder
I don't know about that, but it sure seems to make people stupid.
-
The Donald has had two big-time opportunities to look Presidential. Instead he wound up looking like a buffoon. Fortunately his new campaign manager seems to have convinced him to keep his big app shut. Then again, that's really done a number on all that free air time.
That's OK. Trump is worth $10 billion. We know that because he told us so. So he can self-fund his campaign with his nearly unlimited resources.
Oh, wait. Check that.
http://heatst.com/politics/rick-wilson-the-trump-scampaigns-only-chance-now-is-if-hillary-is-mauled-by-a-bear/
"Another reason donors are going to stay far back from the blast radius: Trump’s FEC report shows that fully 20% of his campaign spending goes to members of his family or businesses he owns, not at a cost to him, but a profit. After an FEC report that looks like it could be an exhibit in a RICO case, the idea of subsidizing Trump’s campaign and his various enterprises is repellent to donors. He spent more money buying hats for resale than he spent on polling. He spent more money on his private jet than he did for field operations."