Life is Golden
The Sage
Dream on, angry snowflake.
Why Trump Won
- Thread starter Life is Golden
- Start date
Dream on, angry snowflake.
Darth Omar
Russian asset
You can be corrupt as hell and never break a single law.
Giving debate questions to Hillary, for example.
if it survived the last 8 awful years it can survive Trump
Like Obama voters today? LMAO
no no no...Obama and Dems actually APPROVE of leaks now, with Manning's commutation...Obama a puppet now, too?
Last edited:
blacknwhite321
Verified User
You don't seem to understand... it doesn't matter! California's electoral votes were all going to go to Clinton anyway. That state was a lost cause for Republican resources. That was well known prior to the election. You are the one disingenuously pretending that the national popular vote is somehow relevant here... Trump ran and won an electoral campaign. He didn't run a popular vote campaign. If he had, he would've campaigned in different places, including California, and Republican voters who normally would've been dispirited because of the electoral college and lack of candidates for them to support in statewide races, would've showed up in much larger numbers because they would've viewed the value of their vote differently.
I have a strong confidence that Trump will win much more votes in 2020 than he did in 2016, because all the bad things Democrat hacks said about him leading up to the 2016 election will be seen as a series of politically-calculated lies as Trump genuinely improves the American economy. I've kept in mind that George W Bush won 11.5 million more votes in his re-election than his original run, while Obama won 3.5 million less votes in his re-election than his original run, even with a rise in voter population over that 4-year period.
Midas Whale67
Banned
We've sucked every last drop out of this one.
OldMercsRule
Verified User
Yup: Einstein, it's that pesky 'obsolete' Cornstitution that has made this REPUBLIC the most successful country in the history of mankind that you TARD infested moon bats wanna tear down.
The movement was the total number of states won....not the total number of socialists that cling together in places where the free shit is handed out like candy. Its a movement that started with the T-party and has simply grown stronger with each passing year....in 2010 the democrats lost the house to the republicans....in 2014 the democrats lost the senate to the republicans, in fact since Barry Soetoro has been in power the progressives of this nation have lost over 1000 political seats of power counting the state houses and state congresses.
But, its not a movement? Really? What do you call it? Its like placing a cold blooded animal into water and watching as he slowly dies.....when the opposite happens if the water is already hot...it attempts to jump out and dies a violent death. Progressivism is slowly dying....and this last election with the stupidity now being engaged by the left wing nuts might just be its swansong.
The major problem being the demonstrable fact that you characters are so stupid that you actually believe your own propaganda. Like Hillary will win and take at least 350 electoral college votes. Or the continued laughing at the Donald, as he kicked your ass time and time again. You were simply placed into cold water and the temperature began to rise slowly until....IT WAS TO LATE, you lost everything, the white house, the senate, congress, the supreme court, and the battle in the media. All once powerful tools...now all destroyed by the constant spewing of hate and violence.
Last edited:
"Both U.S. Senate candidates were Democrat, which massively dispirited California Republicans" b3 #18
"You don't seem to understand... it doesn't matter! California's electoral votes were all going to go to Clinton anyway. That state was a lost cause for Republican resources." b3 #46
What an amusing leap of misperception on your part b3.
Constrained understanding on my part plays no role in the matter.
YOU defined the issue as that "Both U.S. Senate candidates were Democrat".
Now YOU have changed the subject, claiming that's not the issue, but instead that it's California's Democrat majority that's the issue.
Here's a tip for you. "Words mean things." Rush Limbaugh
I responded to your posted words. That's not constrained understanding on my part. That's at best improperly defined issue statement on your part.
"Yup: Einstein, it's that pesky 'obsolete' Constitution that has made this REPUBLIC the most successful country in the history of mankind that you TARD infested moon bats wanna tear down." OR #48
I don't have the time to correct all the errors in this buffoonery.
Just a few highlights:
- My pseud is "sear". I'm flattered that you chose a name synonymous with genius to address me. Rightly so. But for clarity it's best that I be addressed as sear here. Thanks.
- You have inferred what I NEVER implied. I didn't condemn the entire Constitution. To the contrary. I've taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, and put my life on the line to do so. Please spare us your groundless sanctimony.
- Our Constitution has been amended dozens of times. Purging the anti-democratic electoral college is hardly anti-Constitution. To the contrary, it's entirely consistent with the "more perfect union" description enumerated in our Preamble.
Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.- inspired by Proverbs 17:28
“It’s not just whether your vote counts, but whether your vote counts equally. An electoral college vote in Wyoming was worth 71,000 voters. In Florida one electoral college vote was worth 238,000 voters. ... that not only violates one person, one vote; but also violates the principle of democracy ... “ law professor Lani Guinier
"You don't seem to understand... it doesn't matter! California's electoral votes were all going to go to Clinton anyway. That state was a lost cause for Republican resources." b3 #46
What an amusing leap of misperception on your part b3.
Constrained understanding on my part plays no role in the matter.
YOU defined the issue as that "Both U.S. Senate candidates were Democrat".
Now YOU have changed the subject, claiming that's not the issue, but instead that it's California's Democrat majority that's the issue.
Here's a tip for you. "Words mean things." Rush Limbaugh
I responded to your posted words. That's not constrained understanding on my part. That's at best improperly defined issue statement on your part.
"Yup: Einstein, it's that pesky 'obsolete' Constitution that has made this REPUBLIC the most successful country in the history of mankind that you TARD infested moon bats wanna tear down." OR #48
I don't have the time to correct all the errors in this buffoonery.
Just a few highlights:
- My pseud is "sear". I'm flattered that you chose a name synonymous with genius to address me. Rightly so. But for clarity it's best that I be addressed as sear here. Thanks.
- You have inferred what I NEVER implied. I didn't condemn the entire Constitution. To the contrary. I've taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, and put my life on the line to do so. Please spare us your groundless sanctimony.
- Our Constitution has been amended dozens of times. Purging the anti-democratic electoral college is hardly anti-Constitution. To the contrary, it's entirely consistent with the "more perfect union" description enumerated in our Preamble.
Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.- inspired by Proverbs 17:28
“It’s not just whether your vote counts, but whether your vote counts equally. An electoral college vote in Wyoming was worth 71,000 voters. In Florida one electoral college vote was worth 238,000 voters. ... that not only violates one person, one vote; but also violates the principle of democracy ... “ law professor Lani Guinier
OldMercsRule
Verified User
It would tear this very successful Republic apart if the fruit loop masses in NYC, LA, Chicago and other major dim wit Democrat cesspools were allowed to totally direct the leadership of this Republic.
I guess ya wanna outlaw the Senate as well, eh?
Look at those cesspools that have been led by dim wit Democrats fer decades. They are all nearly bankrupt, (unsustainable financially), have crime issues, and are the armpits of this Republic.
If ya wanna change the Constitution there is a process.
I guess that is why yer a scorched moon bat, that posts like a termite chompin' on his own house, eh?
burp...
Lightbringer
Loves Me Some Souls
Last time I was in the UK...in Liverpool...I saw a dude fucking a vending machine. I've never seen that in America.
Stay classy.
"It would tear this very successful Republic apart if the fruit loop masses in NYC, LA, Chicago and other major dim wit Democrat cesspools were allowed to totally direct the leadership of this Republic." OR #51
Your brief list includes key prosperity centers of the United States of America. So you don't want any of that pesky prosperity to leak out?
OR:
Perhaps you take me for a fool. That's fine. But the fact is I don't meet the minimum qualifications.
What you have posted may be an example of self-impressive expression.
But at its essence it is literally lower case anti-democratic. You are advocating for inequality under law.
"I guess ya wanna outlaw the Senate as well, eh?"
I understand the reference, and the distinction you're making between the differing ways we complement each house.
But no.
I don't deny the contradiction. I wouldn't lose much sleep if both houses of congress were populated by democratic process. But I'm willing to support the Constitution on it.
Why?
Consequence for one obvious reason:
electing our senators might be slightly less democratic, impure.
But it doesn't get us killed by the thousands the way the electoral college does.
The electoral college KILLS INNOCENT HUMANS including U.S. tax payers. I oppose the electoral college:
- for kind (anti-democratic)
- for degree (giving some voters more than three times the ballot power of otherwise ostensibly equal countrymen)
- for consequence.
The last time a Republican lost the vote but won the election he killed off thousands of us.
Let's see how many are killed off by the next one.
Your brief list includes key prosperity centers of the United States of America. So you don't want any of that pesky prosperity to leak out?
OR:
Perhaps you take me for a fool. That's fine. But the fact is I don't meet the minimum qualifications.
What you have posted may be an example of self-impressive expression.
But at its essence it is literally lower case anti-democratic. You are advocating for inequality under law.
"I guess ya wanna outlaw the Senate as well, eh?"
I understand the reference, and the distinction you're making between the differing ways we complement each house.
But no.
I don't deny the contradiction. I wouldn't lose much sleep if both houses of congress were populated by democratic process. But I'm willing to support the Constitution on it.
Why?
Consequence for one obvious reason:
electing our senators might be slightly less democratic, impure.
But it doesn't get us killed by the thousands the way the electoral college does.
The electoral college KILLS INNOCENT HUMANS including U.S. tax payers. I oppose the electoral college:
- for kind (anti-democratic)
- for degree (giving some voters more than three times the ballot power of otherwise ostensibly equal countrymen)
- for consequence.
The last time a Republican lost the vote but won the election he killed off thousands of us.
Let's see how many are killed off by the next one.
"The electoral college did Iraq?" a #55
You didn't know?
"Why not blame Cheney/Rumsfeld -not the representative democracy the founders designed?"
Are you 8?
It's called a "sequence of events".
Believe it or not, pulling a gun trigger isn't that big a deal.
It's what happens after that AS A RESULT that can have consequence.
a) Pull the trigger
b) the trigger trips the sear (yes. That's right. My pseud. Deliberately so. FOR THAT REASON)
c) the sear releases the hammer
d) the hammer strikes the firing pin
e) the firing pin detonates the primer
f) ...
k) after piercing soft tissue, the bullet shatters bone, sending bone shards through more soft tissue, jeapardizing muscular ability, vital organs, sensory organs, neural pathways, etc.
Pulling the trigger by itself is potentially quite inconsequential.
But when subsequent vents fall into line, it can be known as "the shot heard 'round the world", Arch Duke Ferdinand hits the ground, and the next thing you know there's a World War going on.
I haven't spared Cheney or Rumsfeld. But neither of them would have taken those offices in 2001 without the linchpin in the sequence of events, the metaphorical trigger pull if you like, the electoral college.
Remove the electoral college, and that entire unfortunate Bush administration cascade that followed vanishes with it.
Repeal the electoral college, or thousands more will needlessly die !!
You didn't know?
"Why not blame Cheney/Rumsfeld -not the representative democracy the founders designed?"
Are you 8?
It's called a "sequence of events".
Believe it or not, pulling a gun trigger isn't that big a deal.
It's what happens after that AS A RESULT that can have consequence.
a) Pull the trigger
b) the trigger trips the sear (yes. That's right. My pseud. Deliberately so. FOR THAT REASON)
c) the sear releases the hammer
d) the hammer strikes the firing pin
e) the firing pin detonates the primer
f) ...
k) after piercing soft tissue, the bullet shatters bone, sending bone shards through more soft tissue, jeapardizing muscular ability, vital organs, sensory organs, neural pathways, etc.
Pulling the trigger by itself is potentially quite inconsequential.
But when subsequent vents fall into line, it can be known as "the shot heard 'round the world", Arch Duke Ferdinand hits the ground, and the next thing you know there's a World War going on.
I haven't spared Cheney or Rumsfeld. But neither of them would have taken those offices in 2001 without the linchpin in the sequence of events, the metaphorical trigger pull if you like, the electoral college.
Remove the electoral college, and that entire unfortunate Bush administration cascade that followed vanishes with it.
Repeal the electoral college, or thousands more will needlessly die !!
blacknwhite321
Verified User
You are very confused. I did no such thing. It was your false premise that Hillary "winning" the popular vote carried some sort of weight (or extra meaning to it) that I was attacking. That remained the defining issue of everything I stated thereafter and continue to do in this thread. The popular vote means nothing when the presidential candidates are running an electoral campaign. And you moved the goal post by acting as though it was relevant why Republicans didn't "run" a candidate in California's U.S. Senate general election. That is not relevant in the slightest, because the state was already going to go "blue" and give all its electoral votes to Hillary. I only mentioned that there was no Republican running in any of California's statewide races to illustrate why the Republican voting turnout in that state was as low as it was, because California alone helped Hillary's popular vote tally eclipse that of Trump's. I wholeheartedly stand by my belief that Trump would've likely won the popular vote had that been the way presidents were decided, and how he campaigned.
"I did no such thing. It was your false premise that Hillary "winning" the popular vote carried some sort of weight (or extra meaning to it) that I was attacking." b3 #57
The opposite is true.
I observe that due to the electoral college, winning the popular vote does NOT. The "some sort of weight" verbiage you have introduced here is entirely your own.
" it was relevant why Republicans didn't "run" a candidate in California's U.S. Senate general election." b3 #57
I'll quote your words from post #50:
""Both U.S. Senate candidates were Democrat, which massively dispirited California Republicans" b3 #18" #50
This sentence presents cause and effect:
- The cause: "Both U.S. Senate candidates were Democrat" your EXACT words.
- The effect: "which massively dispirited California Republicans" b3 #18
Not sure what you hope to accomplish by backpedaling.
If you wish to revise or clarify your position, be my guest.
But please do not deny the literal meaning of the words you posted, which I've now quoted multiple times.
Perhaps you should learn that persons of integrity say what they mean, and mean what they say.
Your argument isn't with me. Your argument is with YOU.
The opposite is true.
I observe that due to the electoral college, winning the popular vote does NOT. The "some sort of weight" verbiage you have introduced here is entirely your own.
" it was relevant why Republicans didn't "run" a candidate in California's U.S. Senate general election." b3 #57
I'll quote your words from post #50:
""Both U.S. Senate candidates were Democrat, which massively dispirited California Republicans" b3 #18" #50
This sentence presents cause and effect:
- The cause: "Both U.S. Senate candidates were Democrat" your EXACT words.
- The effect: "which massively dispirited California Republicans" b3 #18
Not sure what you hope to accomplish by backpedaling.
If you wish to revise or clarify your position, be my guest.
But please do not deny the literal meaning of the words you posted, which I've now quoted multiple times.
Perhaps you should learn that persons of integrity say what they mean, and mean what they say.
Your argument isn't with me. Your argument is with YOU.
Airstrip One
Completely Effed
Is the popular vote to blame for Vietnam, since it gave LBJ the greatest popular landslide of all-time?
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
You are committing a logical fallacy. While it is plausibly true that if Bush were not elected we might not have gone to war with Iraq, you can never prove that definitively.
What is demonstrably false is your assumption that eliminating the electoral college will somehow prevent unnecessary wars. Forgive me but that is Deshtard stupid