Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
lol. Says who, Marcos?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by reaverfan:
Trumptards:

The day will soon come when you'll be embarrassed to admit you voted for Trump and were stupid enough to believe all the propaganda you swallowed. It'll be worse than admitting you voted for Bush (which most Bush voters hate to do, now).

You will throw away your MAGA hat and hope no one remembers you wearing it. This burning shame will last the rest of your lives. You did it to yourselves through sheer arrogance and willful ignorance.

You're the butt of a very unfunny joke.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

you're arguing with the voices in your head. Because I certainly did not believe everything Trump campaigned on. I knew, and said often, that he was a loose cannon and that I disagreed with a lot of his promises.

---

Quote:

---

There has never been a president quite like Trump: the all-caps tweets; his obsession with election results and crowd sizes; his bragging, his boasting, his childish point-scoring. And yet journalists treat him like a normal politician instead of stating the obvious: Donald Trump is mentally unfit for the presidency. Almost half of the country agrees.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

As I've also posted many times before, on a PERSONAL level, I found the two candidates about on par, with a slight edge to Trump because he simply didn't have the time-in-office for that level of official corruption. But I'm simply more in agreement with where Trump wants this nation to go that with Hillary.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
....with a slight edge to Trump because he simply didn't have the time-in-office for that level of official corruption.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by reaverfan:
Trumptards:

The day will soon come when you'll be embarrassed to admit you voted for Trump and were stupid enough to believe all the propaganda you swallowed. It'll be worse than admitting you voted for Bush (which most Bush voters hate to do, now).

You will throw away your MAGA hat and hope no one remembers you wearing it. This burning shame will last the rest of your lives. You did it to yourselves through sheer arrogance and willful ignorance.

You're the butt of a very unfunny joke.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
....with a slight edge to Trump because he simply didn't have the time-in-office for that level of official corruption.

---

Well that theory got all shot to sh*t!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by whozit:

I'm voting for this guy

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

There has never been a president quite like Trump: the all-caps tweets; his obsession with election results and crowd sizes; his bragging, his boasting, his childish point-scoring. And yet journalists treat him like a normal politician instead of stating the obvious: Donald Trump is mentally unfit for the presidency. Almost half of the country agrees.

---

And Hillary, giggling like a little schoolgirl over We came, we saw, he died and wobbling, fainting, and grimacing her way thru her campaign ... which was run about as corruptly as any campaign ever was ... was any better?

As I've also posted many times before, on a PERSONAL level, I found the two candidates about on par, with a slight edge to Trump because he simply didn't have the time-in-office for that level of official corruption. But I'm simply more in agreement with where Trump wants this nation to go that with Hillary.

So buzz off, Hillarytard.



-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Neener, neener, neener! I'm rubber you're glue....you forgot to mention Obama.
Isn't that in your "contract" as a card-carrying member of the Idiot Brigade?
You may lose your membership and decoder ring.

Obviously you never stop to think (ha, ha, ha I just caught myself. I actually said "think," to you. How ironic!) whenever you get one of these crazy notions. It never fails, whenever someone correctly says that Trump is not only an imbecile, but a fucking moron....you guys pull Hillary out yer ass.
Well, that shows to go ya...all of you don't have brain one among ya!

Civil discourse indeed!
(LFB = low fucking budget)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Neener, neener, neener! I'm rubber you're glue....you forgot to mention Obama.
Isn't that in your "contract" as a card-carrying member of the Idiot Brigade?
You may lose your membership and decoder ring.

Obviously you never stop to think (ha, ha, ha I just caught myself. I actually said "think," to you. How ironic!) whenever you get one of these crazy notions. It never fails, whenever someone correctly says that Trump is not only an imbecile, but a fucking moron....you guys pull Hillary out yer ass.
Well, that shows to go ya...all of you don't have brain one among ya!

Civil discourse indeed!
(LFB = low fucking budget)

---

As much as you might like to put Hillary's memory in some black hole somewhere, you can't deny that she WAS the other major-party candidte in the last Presidential election! If the Democratic candidate had been at least a little more credible and not so gawd-awful, Trump might have lost. But since Hillary WAS the DNC candidate, it's perfectly valid to bring her up when discussing why people voted for who.

If the Dems run on something other than a more "kinetic" approach to Syria and on something more than identity politics and on less "welfare statism" they might win in 2020. In the meantime, the reason why Trump won wasn't because he was so fantastic (a major flaw in REAVERBOT's post) but because Hillary was so awful.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by reaverfan:
Trumptards:

The day will soon come when you'll be embarrassed to admit you voted for Trump and were stupid enough to believe all the propaganda you swallowed. It'll be worse than admitting you voted for Bush (which most Bush voters hate to do, now).

You will throw away your MAGA hat and hope no one remembers you wearing it. This burning shame will last the rest of your lives. You did it to yourselves through sheer arrogance and willful ignorance.

You're the butt of a very unfunny joke.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/02/22/essential-cons-that-define-t
rumps-success/

A real estate insider told me back in the 1980s that Trump’s win-at-all-costs father, Fred, “loves a crook and he loves a showman.” Donald Trump has built his extraordinary career by exhibiting the characteristics of both.

Here, in roughly chronological order, are the six essential cons around which Trump has built and sustained his success:

Con No. 1: To borrow billions, Trump lies to inflate his net worth.
He made certain that nobody could definitively counter his inflated-wealth con by ensuring that a comprehensive balance sheet could not be created by his accountants.

Con No. 2: To avoid taxes, Trump lies to deflate his net worth.
Trump’s attorneys audaciously deflate the value of his many golf courses to minimize local taxes. In his financial disclosures for the Trump National Golf Course Westchester, Trump valued the course at more than $50 million. But last year, his attorneys filed papers with the state declaring the ‘full market value’ of the course was far lower: about $1.4 million.

Con No. 3: To be a winner, Trump makes losers of those he does business with.
While most Americans expect to do what they promise in a signed contract, Trump sees contracts as mere jumping-off points for “negotiation.” Knowing that litigation is costly and can drag on for years, Trump’s business modus operandi for stiffed contractors has been, “You can negotiate with my lawyers for a settlement or sue me and see how long that takes!”

Con No. 4: To win in politics, Trump makes voters believe that his presidency benefits them.
That Trump frequently lies about something he himself has been recorded saying in the recent past makes no difference to his base.

Con No. 5: To avoid accountability, Trump makes the media, and truth, the “enemy of the people.”
When Trump insists on his own invented ‘facts,’ he makes reality-based political dialogue impossible.

Con No. 6: To stoke fear, Trump recasts perpetrators as victims.
“The Democrats,” Trump warned last October, “will open our borders to deadly drugs and ruthless gangs. The Democrats — and I say this — and I've dealt with it — the Democrats are the party of crime.” The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Jeez, you missed the message, again.

If Trump is so terrible, why did Hillary lose the election?

There is a 30% dyed-in-the-wool GOP vote. What happened t the other 70%? Why weren't they "with her" en masse? Clearly, Hillary lost a lot of independent voters and not a few Democrats too.

---

Quote:

---

https://www.forbes.com/sites/omribenshahar/2016/11/17/the-non-voters-w
ho-decided-the-election-trump-won-because-of-lower-democratic-turnout/#70caa2af53ab

An astonishing spectacle of the election aftermath is the false account of why Trump won. The accepted wisdom is that Trump succeeded in awakening a popular movement of anger and frustration among white, blue-collar, less educated, mostly male, voters, particularly in non-urban areas. Trump promised them jobs, safe borders, and dignity, and they responded by turning out in masses at his pre-election rallies and eventually at the ballots, carrying him to victory.

This story is mostly wrong. Trump did not win because he was more attractive to this base of white voters. He won because Hillary Clinton was less attractive to the traditional Democratic base of urban, minorities, and more educated voters. This is a profound fact, because Democratic voters were so extraordinarily repelled by Trump that they were supposed to have the extra motivation to turn out. Running against Trump, any Democratic candidate should have ridden a wave of anti-Trump sentiment among these voters. It therefore took a strong distaste for Hillary Clinton among the Democratic base to not only undo this wave, but to lose many additional liberal votes.
...
Take Michigan for example. A state that Obama won in 2012 by 350,000 votes, Clinton lost by roughly 10,000. Why? She received 300,000 votes less than Obama did in 2012. Detroit and Wayne County should kick themselves because of the 595,253 votes they gave Obama in 2012, only 518,000 voted for Clinton in 2016. More than 75,000 Motown Obama voters did not bother to vote for Clinton. They did not become Trump voters – Trump received only 10,000 votes more than Romney did in this county. They simply stayed at home. If even a fraction of these lethargic Democrats had turned out to vote, Michigan would have stayed blue.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Your focus is on the voters that Trump won. I think it should be on the voters Hillary lost.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Hillary lost because she lost critical democratic votes scattered across states she needed in order to win the electoral college, though she had 'excess' votes in CA and NY.

You would have understood that if you had bothered to read 3 measly paragraphs. And if you had kept in mind that the national popular vote doesn't elect the president, the electoral college does.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
Who are you kidding about you understanding?

In Pennsylvania, with 20 electoral votes ... It is very peculiar that 48.2% means Trump got 100% of the electoral votes. Apparently, Pennsylvania has never heard of runoff elections when nobody gets a majority.

In Michigan, with 16 electoral votes ... It is extremely peculiar that 47.3% means Trump got 100% of the electoral votes. Runoff election, anyone?

In Wisconsin, with 10 electoral votes ... How does 47.2% win 100% of the electoral votes?

In Florida, with 29 electoral votes ... Since when is not getting at least 50% will still get Trump 100% of the electoral votes?

If you go through the whole map, nobody got 50% in most of the states. But somebody got 100% of the electoral votes without any runoffs in any state. This is a seriously strange way to run a Democracy. Maybe bills should pass in Congress with less than 50% of the vote? Maybe Supreme Court decisions should be made with less than 50% of the vote?

One more: In Utah, Trump gets 45.1% of the popular vote. He gets 100% of the electoral vote. Nice and fair.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
Who are you kidding about you understanding?

In Pennsylvania, with 20 electoral votes ... It is very peculiar that 48.2% means Trump got 100% of the electoral votes. Apparently, Pennsylvania has never heard of runoff elections when nobody gets a majority.

In Michigan, with 16 electoral votes ... It is extremely peculiar that 47.3% means Trump got 100% of the electoral votes. Runoff election, anyone?

In Wisconsin, with 10 electoral votes ... How does 47.2% win 100% of the electoral votes?

In Florida, with 29 electoral votes ... Since when is not getting at least 50% will still get Trump 100% of the electoral votes?

If you go through the whole map, nobody got 50% in most of the states. But somebody got 100% of the electoral votes without any runoffs in any state. This is a seriously strange way to run a Democracy. Maybe bills should pass in Congress with less than 50% of the vote? Maybe Supreme Court decisions should be made with less than 50% of the vote?

One more: In Utah, Trump gets 45.1% of the popular vote. He gets 100% of the electoral vote. Nice and fair.

---

Maybe you can point out to me where in the Constitution it states a candidate needs to get 50%+ of the popular vote to win. In the meantime, stop whining to me about it. I didn't write it and I can't change it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
SECOND,
. . . why dont you learn some history before you go ignorantly mouthing off?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
On top of that, why don't Democrats remember to bring up the Electoral College when they actually win.

It's a proven fact. Go back in history and see that they never once bring it up after a Democrat wins president.

8 years of Obama, and nobody talked about it.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I don't remember Obama ever bringing up the Electoral College issue.

Do any of you guys and gals remember Obama ever bringing up the Electoral College issue?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
lol. December of 2016. WTF?

TOO LATE!

Thank you for proving my point, yet again, Second.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
lol. December of 2016. WTF?

TOO LATE!

Thank you for proving my point, yet again, Second.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

If your point is that Obama is too polite, you have a point. If your point is that Obama will always back down from a fight, even when he should fight to death, you have a point. As for me, I have actually bounced the heads of several Republicans on hard surfaces to remind them forcefully to not lie to me ever again or I will break their skulls. It worked, too, but that is why I am not President and why Obama got elected. He is too nice. He is too non-confrontational. But it is wise on his part because he had zero power over GOP controlled state legislatures changing how the Electoral College works:

In 2012, from Wisconsin to Pennsylvania, Republicans who control legislatures in states that supported President Barack Obama are considering changing laws that give the winner of a state's popular vote all of its Electoral College votes, too. They instead want Electoral College votes to be divided proportionally, a move that could transform the way the country elects its president.

Republican state legislators, governors and veteran political strategists are seriously considering making the shift as the GOP looks to rebound from presidential candidate Mitt Romney's Electoral College shellacking.

So far, Republicans have only advocated for the change in states that have supported Democrats in recent elections. The view is predictably different in states where the Republican nominee is a cinch to win.

www.foxnews.com/politics/republicans-want-to-change-laws-on-electoral-
college-votes-after-presidential-losses

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
Who are you kidding about you understanding?

In Pennsylvania, with 20 electoral votes ... It is very peculiar that 48.2% means Trump got 100% of the electoral votes. Apparently, Pennsylvania has never heard of runoff elections when nobody gets a majority.

In Michigan, with 16 electoral votes ... It is extremely peculiar that 47.3% means Trump got 100% of the electoral votes. Runoff election, anyone?

In Wisconsin, with 10 electoral votes ... How does 47.2% win 100% of the electoral votes?

In Florida, with 29 electoral votes ... Since when is not getting at least 50% will still get Trump 100% of the electoral votes?

If you go through the whole map, nobody got 50% in most of the states. But somebody got 100% of the electoral votes without any runoffs in any state. This is a seriously strange way to run a Democracy. Maybe bills should pass in Congress with less than 50% of the vote? Maybe Supreme Court decisions should be made with less than 50% of the vote?

One more: In Utah, Trump gets 45.1% of the popular vote. He gets 100% of the electoral vote. Nice and fair.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Maybe you can point out to me where in the Constitution it states a candidate needs to get 50%+ of the popular vote to win. In the meantime, stop whining to me about it. I didn't write it and I can't change it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
You are making the argument that the Federal Constitution lets states run their elections anyway they please.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
If you re-read my very brief post, I don't think you'll find a mention of states anywhere in it. You're not really addressing my post, which is about the Electoral College

No, you're just using a dishonest tactic called strawmanning in order to shift the argument off the FACT that the AUTHORITY of the ELECTORAL COLLEGE is enshrined in the CONSTITUTION - and argument you lost - and onto another incoherent rant.

---

Quote:

---

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons ...

---

Quote:

---

And they (meaning the Electors) shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each ...

---

Quote:

---

... which List they (meaning the Electors) shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted.

---

Quote:

---

The Person having the greatest Number of Votes (meaning of the Electors) shall be the President ...

---

Quote:

---

if there be more than one who have such Majority ...

---

Quote:

---

then the House of Representatives

---

Quote:

---

shall immediately chuse by Ballot

---

Quote:

---

if no Person have a Majority ... said House shall in like Manner chuse the President.

---

Quote:

---

In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President ...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

I think SECOND is going to be pissed to find out that, that despite all the ranting about how Electoral votes should being ratioed on popular votes, there's no room in the Constitution for a popular presidential vote at all.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I think we can classify SECOND's posts about theElectoral College as "wishing out loud that the Constitution was different, so that Trump would never have been elected".

It doesn't seem to rise to the level of advocating a Constitutional amendment, but is more in lime with rewriting history in a vain attempt to rewrite history.

Or, are you advocating for a Constitutional amendment, SECOND? I haven't been following your posts, have you made a specific proposal?

---

Quote:

---

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what," Romney said in the video. "All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.

"And I mean the president starts out with 48, 49 percent … he starts off with a huge number," Romney continued. "These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Why can't you admit that Hillary made a huge mistake, and that it cost her the election? (That, and that she's a warmonger who corrupted her stay as Scy State with an email scandal, and that the DNC ran roughshod over Bernie in an effort to crown her, and that she came across as not caring at all about America but simply appealed to identity-politics victims groups?)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Well, I noticed that you didn't address my main point, and only one of four ancillary points. Your post: not worth replying to in detail

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
The point has always been that Madison realized he had made a grotesque mistake when drafting the Constitution, but he only realized the mistake after he saw the Electoral College in action.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
The point has always been that Madison realized he had made a grotesque mistake when drafting the Constitution, but he only realized the mistake after he saw the Electoral College in action.

---

Your argument is with the other 38 people who ratified the Constitution - besides Madison, that is, in deference to his hindsight ...

... unless you're telling me that Madison was the sole author of, and authorized signatory to, the entire US Constitution.

In which case - what a guy!



(I'm curious if you realize what an idiot you're making of yourself as you endlessly whinge about the illegitimacy of the electoral college.)

---