Poll of the Day > How is Trump's Approval rating still at 45%?

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
darkknight109 04/25/19 5:22:27 AM #210:	mooreandrew58 posted... polls are never 100% accurate. Of course they're not - they're accurate to a specific error (the exact number varying based on the number of people polled and the methodology, but usually around +/- 2%) to a specific degree of confidence (usually 95%). --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:921021814] in How is Tru... [t:77368084]...</cite> <quote><cite>mooreandrew58 posted...</cite> <quote>polls are never 100% accurate. </quote> Of course they're not - they're accurate to a specific error (the exact number varying based on the number of people polled and the methodology, but usually around +/- 2%) to a specific degree of confidence (usually 95%).</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BUMPED2002 04/25/19 8:49:49 AM #211:	St_Kevin posted... This is amazing! That's means 55% disapproves! --- SpankageBros <cite>BUMPED2002 posted [p:921025912] in How is Tru... [t:77368084]...</cite> <quote><cite>St_Kevin posted...</cite> <quote>This is amazing!</quote> That's means 55% disapproves!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
St_Kevin 04/25/19 8:51:09 AM #212:	Augh! Lol --- [:D] That Canadian Emperor Guy King of ** posts and memes [:)]** <cite>St_Kevin posted [p:921025950] in How is Tru... [t:77368084]...</cite> <quote>Augh! Lol </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
The_tall_midget 04/25/19 8:16:33 PM #213:	Any time now! DA DRUMPF IS GOING TO BE IMPEACHED! -Delusional idiot --- New York is just another example that when you put socialists in charge, that they could run out of sand in the desert and say it wasn't implemented properly. <cite>The_tall_midget posted [p:921059652] in How is Tru... [t:77368084]...</cite> <quote>Any time now! DA DRUMPF IS GOING TO BE IMPEACHED! -Delusional idiot</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Behaviorism 04/25/19 8:19:32 PM #214:	Where do they poll people? I have never been polled about president approval in my life --- Sarah Logan got screwed at Wrestlemania 35. I'm rooting for her <3 <cite>Behaviorism posted [p:921059783] in How is Tru... [t:77368084]...</cite> <quote>Where do they poll people? I have never been polled about president approval in my life</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
mooreandrew58 04/25/19 8:33:17 PM #215:	darkknight109 posted... mooreandrew58 posted... polls are never 100% accurate. Of course they're not - they're accurate to a specific error (the exact number varying based on the number of people polled and the methodology, but usually around +/- 2%) to a specific degree of confidence (usually 95%). thing is you might get completely different results if you go to a different area. thats what kills me about politcal polls, I never see any around where I live. but go into the city, you'll see them. i'm sure some polling places are better about making sure they cover a variety of demographics, but it doesn't always happen. some i'm sure intentionally skew the results by focusing on one area. its why I never really trust it. not to mention all the people who just refuse to take them. the few times say my mom when I was growing up got a survey over the phone done for a poll she'd usually hang up on them unless they offered money (some have. usually like 5 bucks) --- Cid- "looks like that overgrown lobster just got served!" Bartz-"with cheese biscuts AND mashed potatoes!" <cite>mooreandrew58 posted [p:921060419] in How is Tru... [t:77368084]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>mooreandrew58 posted...</cite> <quote>polls are never 100% accurate. </quote> Of course they're not - they're accurate to a specific error (the exact number varying based on the number of people polled and the methodology, but usually around +/- 2%) to a specific degree of confidence (usually 95%).</quote> thing is you might get completely different results if you go to a different area. thats what kills me about politcal polls, I never see any around where I live. but go into the city, you'll see them. i'm sure some polling places are better about making sure they cover a variety of demographics, but it doesn't always happen. some i'm sure intentionally skew the results by focusing on one area. its why I never really trust it. not to mention all the people who just refuse to take them. the few times say my mom when I was growing up got a survey over the phone done for a poll she'd usually hang up on them unless they offered money (some have. usually like 5 bucks)</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#216	Post #216 was unavailable or deleted.
darkknight109 04/25/19 10:22:48 PM #217:	mooreandrew58 posted... thing is you might get completely different results if you go to a different area. Yes, which is why good polls will poll in many different areas rather than just one. mooreandrew58 posted... some i'm sure intentionally skew the results by focusing on one area Skew usually happens through methodology (i.e. how the data is manipulated) rather than in how it is gathered. Rasmussen, for instance, is notoriously bad for that. mooreandrew58 posted... its why I never really trust it. You should, because they're pretty accurate. I mean, if you want proof all you need to do is compare poll results to electoral results. What you find is that the "big", national elections usually see an average error in the range of ~+/-4% from what the polls called, while smaller, state-level or representative-level races usually manage ~+/-5%. And they usually get the "who is going to win" question right about 80% of the time. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:921065842] in How is Tru... [t:77368084]...</cite> <quote><cite>mooreandrew58 posted...</cite> <quote>thing is you might get completely different results if you go to a different area. </quote> Yes, which is why good polls will poll in many different areas rather than just one. <cite>mooreandrew58 posted...</cite> <quote>some i'm sure intentionally skew the results by focusing on one area</quote> Skew usually happens through methodology (i.e. how the data is manipulated) rather than in how it is gathered. Rasmussen, for instance, is notoriously bad for that. <cite>mooreandrew58 posted...</cite> <quote>its why I never really trust it. </quote> You should, because they're pretty accurate. I mean, if you want proof all you need to do is compare poll results to electoral results. What you find is that the "big", national elections usually see an average error in the range of ~+/-4% from what the polls called, while smaller, state-level or representative-level races usually manage ~+/-5%. And they usually get the "who is going to win" question right about 80% of the time.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ClarkDuke 04/25/19 10:55:53 PM #218:	mooreandrew58 posted... darkknight109 posted... mooreandrew58 posted... polls are never 100% accurate. Of course they're not - they're accurate to a specific error (the exact number varying based on the number of people polled and the methodology, but usually around +/- 2%) to a specific degree of confidence (usually 95%). thing is you might get completely different results if you go to a different area. thats what kills me about politcal polls, I never see any around where I live. but go into the city, you'll see them. i'm sure some polling places are better about making sure they cover a variety of demographics, but it doesn't always happen. some i'm sure intentionally skew the results by focusing on one area. its why I never really trust it. not to mention all the people who just refuse to take them. the few times say my mom when I was growing up got a survey over the phone done for a poll she'd usually hang up on them unless they offered money (some have. usually like 5 bucks) a Podunk town doesn't represent the views of the majority, if you want to be polled - move, ok? --- https://imgur.com/qL0DHFI https://imgur.com/JL9rRLt https://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ <cite>ClarkDuke posted [p:921067380] in How is Tru... [t:77368084]...</cite> <quote><cite>mooreandrew58 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>mooreandrew58 posted...</cite> <quote>polls are never 100% accurate. </quote> Of course they're not - they're accurate to a specific error (the exact number varying based on the number of people polled and the methodology, but usually around +/- 2%) to a specific degree of confidence (usually 95%).</quote> thing is you might get completely different results if you go to a different area. thats what kills me about politcal polls, I never see any around where I live. but go into the city, you'll see them. i'm sure some polling places are better about making sure they cover a variety of demographics, but it doesn't always happen. some i'm sure intentionally skew the results by focusing on one area. its why I never really trust it. not to mention all the people who just refuse to take them. the few times say my mom when I was growing up got a survey over the phone done for a poll she'd usually hang up on them unless they offered money (some have. usually like 5 bucks)</quote> a Podunk town doesn't represent the views of the majority, if you want to be polled - move, ok?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
mooreandrew58 04/26/19 6:12:12 AM #219:	ClarkDuke posted... mooreandrew58 posted... darkknight109 posted... mooreandrew58 posted... polls are never 100% accurate. Of course they're not - they're accurate to a specific error (the exact number varying based on the number of people polled and the methodology, but usually around +/- 2%) to a specific degree of confidence (usually 95%). thing is you might get completely different results if you go to a different area. thats what kills me about politcal polls, I never see any around where I live. but go into the city, you'll see them. i'm sure some polling places are better about making sure they cover a variety of demographics, but it doesn't always happen. some i'm sure intentionally skew the results by focusing on one area. its why I never really trust it. not to mention all the people who just refuse to take them. the few times say my mom when I was growing up got a survey over the phone done for a poll she'd usually hang up on them unless they offered money (some have. usually like 5 bucks) a Podunk town doesn't represent the views of the majority, if you want to be polled - move, ok? so you saying the vast majority of the actual landscape of the country should be ignored because so little of the popluation lives there? cause thats what i'm hearing. I don't want to be polled I wish polls whouldn't exist. when it comes to elections. the election itself is the poll. anything beforehand is just trying to make other voters think "well my candiditate won't win ayways so why bother" edit" i'm drunk as fuck so sorry if it being about elections was off topic --- Cid- "looks like that overgrown lobster just got served!" Bartz-"with cheese biscuts AND mashed potatoes!" <cite>mooreandrew58 posted [p:921078777] in How is Tru... [t:77368084]...</cite> <quote><cite>ClarkDuke posted...</cite> <quote><cite>mooreandrew58 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>mooreandrew58 posted...</cite> <quote>polls are never 100% accurate. </quote> Of course they're not - they're accurate to a specific error (the exact number varying based on the number of people polled and the methodology, but usually around +/- 2%) to a specific degree of confidence (usually 95%).</quote> thing is you might get completely different results if you go to a different area. thats what kills me about politcal polls, I never see any around where I live. but go into the city, you'll see them. i'm sure some polling places are better about making sure they cover a variety of demographics, but it doesn't always happen. some i'm sure intentionally skew the results by focusing on one area. its why I never really trust it. not to mention all the people who just refuse to take them. the few times say my mom when I was growing up got a survey over the phone done for a poll she'd usually hang up on them unless they offered money (some have. usually like 5 bucks)</quote> a Podunk town doesn't represent the views of the majority, if you want to be polled - move, ok?</quote> so you saying the vast majority of the actual landscape of the country should be ignored because so little of the popluation lives there? cause thats what i'm hearing. I don't want to be polled I wish polls whouldn't exist. when it comes to elections. the election itself is the poll. anything beforehand is just trying to make other voters think "well my candiditate won't win ayways so why bother" edit" i'm drunk as fuck so sorry if it being about elections was off topic</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kyuubi4269 04/26/19 6:21:22 AM #220:	mooreandrew58 posted... so you saying the vast majority of the actual landscape of the country should be ignored because so little of the popluation lives there? Yes, that is in fact how your voting system works. --- Doctor Foxx posted... The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted [p:921078949] in How is Tru... [t:77368084]...</cite> <quote><cite>mooreandrew58 posted...</cite> <quote>so you saying the vast majority of the actual landscape of the country should be ignored because so little of the popluation lives there? </quote> Yes, that is in fact how your voting system works.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
mooreandrew58 04/26/19 6:24:09 AM #221:	Kyuubi4269 posted... mooreandrew58 posted... so you saying the vast majority of the actual landscape of the country should be ignored because so little of the popluation lives there? Yes, that is in fact how your voting system works. not really otherwise trump wouldn't have gotten elected. --- Cid- "looks like that overgrown lobster just got served!" Bartz-"with cheese biscuts AND mashed potatoes!" <cite>mooreandrew58 posted [p:921078993] in How is Tru... [t:77368084]...</cite> <quote><cite>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>mooreandrew58 posted...</cite> <quote>so you saying the vast majority of the actual landscape of the country should be ignored because so little of the popluation lives there? </quote> Yes, that is in fact how your voting system works.</quote> not really otherwise trump wouldn't have gotten elected.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kyuubi4269 04/26/19 6:32:11 AM #222:	mooreandrew58 posted... Kyuubi4269 posted... mooreandrew58 posted... so you saying the vast majority of the actual landscape of the country should be ignored because so little of the popluation lives there? Yes, that is in fact how your voting system works. not really otherwise trump wouldn't have gotten elected. California votes left hard because the right wing rural people occupying the other half are sparse. If you live in the middle of nowhere, your votes are invalidated by the cities. --- Doctor Foxx posted... The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted [p:921079127] in How is Tru... [t:77368084]...</cite> <quote><cite>mooreandrew58 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>mooreandrew58 posted...</cite> <quote>so you saying the vast majority of the actual landscape of the country should be ignored because so little of the popluation lives there? </quote> Yes, that is in fact how your voting system works.</quote> not really otherwise trump wouldn't have gotten elected.</quote> California votes left hard because the right wing rural people occupying the other half are sparse. If you live in the middle of nowhere, your votes are invalidated by the cities.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 04/26/19 6:42:00 AM #223:	mooreandrew58 posted... so you saying the vast majority of the actual landscape of the country should be ignored because so little of the popluation lives there? Geography doesn't vote, people do. The fact that Republican voters live in a much larger area of the country means absolutely nothing because they're also way, way, way more spread out. People already tried the "whoever owns the most land wins" thing - it's called feudalism and it turned out to be a pretty shitty way of governing. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:921079303] in How is Tru... [t:77368084]...</cite> <quote><cite>mooreandrew58 posted...</cite> <quote>so you saying the vast majority of the actual landscape of the country should be ignored because so little of the popluation lives there? </quote> Geography doesn't vote, people do. The fact that Republican voters live in a much larger area of the country means absolutely nothing because they're also way, way, way more spread out. People already tried the "whoever owns the most land wins" thing - it's called feudalism and it turned out to be a pretty shitty way of governing.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
mooreandrew58 04/26/19 6:41:49 PM #224:	Kyuubi4269 posted... mooreandrew58 posted... Kyuubi4269 posted... mooreandrew58 posted... so you saying the vast majority of the actual landscape of the country should be ignored because so little of the popluation lives there? Yes, that is in fact how your voting system works. not really otherwise trump wouldn't have gotten elected. California votes left hard because the right wing rural people occupying the other half are sparse. If you live in the middle of nowhere, your votes are invalidated by the cities. thats why we have the electoral college. so the 3 biggest cities don't decide every election. --- Cid- "looks like that overgrown lobster just got served!" Bartz-"with cheese biscuts AND mashed potatoes!" <cite>mooreandrew58 posted [p:921108470] in How is Tru... [t:77368084]...</cite> <quote><cite>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>mooreandrew58 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>mooreandrew58 posted...</cite> <quote>so you saying the vast majority of the actual landscape of the country should be ignored because so little of the popluation lives there? </quote> Yes, that is in fact how your voting system works.</quote> not really otherwise trump wouldn't have gotten elected.</quote> California votes left hard because the right wing rural people occupying the other half are sparse. If you live in the middle of nowhere, your votes are invalidated by the cities.</quote> thats why we have the electoral college. so the 3 biggest cities don't decide every election.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TyVulpine 04/26/19 6:46:23 PM #225:	mooreandrew58 posted... Kyuubi4269 posted... mooreandrew58 posted... Kyuubi4269 posted... mooreandrew58 posted... so you saying the vast majority of the actual landscape of the country should be ignored because so little of the popluation lives there? Yes, that is in fact how your voting system works. not really otherwise trump wouldn't have gotten elected. California votes left hard because the right wing rural people occupying the other half are sparse. If you live in the middle of nowhere, your votes are invalidated by the cities. thats why we have the electoral college. so the 3 biggest cities don't decide every election. But allowing the candidate lose the popular vote yet still win doesnt reflect the will of the people. --- Fall down, go boom... Life is like a box of chocolates. Most of it is crap. <cite>TyVulpine posted [p:921108690] in How is Tru... [t:77368084]...</cite> <quote><cite>mooreandrew58 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>mooreandrew58 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>mooreandrew58 posted...</cite> <quote>so you saying the vast majority of the actual landscape of the country should be ignored because so little of the popluation lives there? </quote> Yes, that is in fact how your voting system works.</quote> not really otherwise trump wouldn't have gotten elected.</quote> California votes left hard because the right wing rural people occupying the other half are sparse. If you live in the middle of nowhere, your votes are invalidated by the cities.</quote> thats why we have the electoral college. so the 3 biggest cities don't decide every election.</quote> But allowing the candidate lose the popular vote yet still win doesnt reflect the will of the people.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
mooreandrew58 04/26/19 6:50:14 PM #226:	TyVulpine posted... mooreandrew58 posted... Kyuubi4269 posted... mooreandrew58 posted... Kyuubi4269 posted... mooreandrew58 posted... so you saying the vast majority of the actual landscape of the country should be ignored because so little of the popluation lives there? Yes, that is in fact how your voting system works. not really otherwise trump wouldn't have gotten elected. California votes left hard because the right wing rural people occupying the other half are sparse. If you live in the middle of nowhere, your votes are invalidated by the cities. thats why we have the electoral college. so the 3 biggest cities don't decide every election. But allowing the candidate lose the popular vote yet still win doesnt reflect the will of the people. we don't go be a complete democracy aka mob rule. we have it set up so all areas get somewhat of a voice even if they have a lower population. goes way back to when the states argued about not having enough power because they had smaller populations I believe. --- Cid- "looks like that overgrown lobster just got served!" Bartz-"with cheese biscuts AND mashed potatoes!" <cite>mooreandrew58 posted [p:921108845] in How is Tru... [t:77368084]...</cite> <quote><cite>TyVulpine posted...</cite> <quote><cite>mooreandrew58 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>mooreandrew58 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>mooreandrew58 posted...</cite> <quote>so you saying the vast majority of the actual landscape of the country should be ignored because so little of the popluation lives there? </quote> Yes, that is in fact how your voting system works.</quote> not really otherwise trump wouldn't have gotten elected.</quote> California votes left hard because the right wing rural people occupying the other half are sparse. If you live in the middle of nowhere, your votes are invalidated by the cities.</quote> thats why we have the electoral college. so the 3 biggest cities don't decide every election.</quote> But allowing the candidate lose the popular vote yet still win doesnt reflect the will of the people.</quote> we don't go be a complete democracy aka mob rule. we have it set up so all areas get somewhat of a voice even if they have a lower population. goes way back to when the states argued about not having enough power because they had smaller populations I believe.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Monopoman 04/26/19 6:51:29 PM #227:	Dude never did win the popular vote he lost by roughly 3 million votes, he was lucky to get close wins in many key states and thanks to the stupid electoral college he was given the presidency. Notice how the last two times Republicans have won the presidency for their first term they have lost the popular vote in both cases. We don't use an electoral college for any other election like governor, mayor, etc... but for some reason the presidency is where it still is front and center. <cite>Monopoman posted [p:921108891] in How is Tru... [t:77368084]...</cite> <quote>Dude never did win the popular vote he lost by roughly 3 million votes, he was lucky to get close wins in many key states and thanks to the stupid electoral college he was given the presidency. Notice how the last two times Republicans have won the presidency for their first term they have lost the popular vote in both cases. We don't use an electoral college for any other election like governor, mayor, etc... but for some reason the presidency is where it still is front and center.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
mooreandrew58 04/26/19 6:52:51 PM #228:	Monopoman posted... Dude never did win the popular vote he lost by roughly 3 million votes, he was lucky to get close wins in many key states and thanks to the stupid electoral college he was given the presidency. Notice how the last two times Republicans have won the presidency for their first term they have lost the popular vote in both cases. We don't use an electoral college for any other election but for some reason the presidency is where it still is front and center. and i'm not arguing that. just saying its still legit cause thats how the system was designed to work. its not perfect but it would suck to just let 3 major cities have pretty much the only voice that matters. they have no fucking clue what I need or want where I live. --- Cid- "looks like that overgrown lobster just got served!" Bartz-"with cheese biscuts AND mashed potatoes!" <cite>mooreandrew58 posted [p:921108950] in How is Tru... [t:77368084]...</cite> <quote><cite>Monopoman posted...</cite> <quote>Dude never did win the popular vote he lost by roughly 3 million votes, he was lucky to get close wins in many key states and thanks to the stupid electoral college he was given the presidency. Notice how the last two times Republicans have won the presidency for their first term they have lost the popular vote in both cases. We don't use an electoral college for any other election but for some reason the presidency is where it still is front and center.</quote> and i'm not arguing that. just saying its still legit cause thats how the system was designed to work. its not perfect but it would suck to just let 3 major cities have pretty much the only voice that matters. they have no fucking clue what I need or want where I live.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TyVulpine 04/26/19 7:00:44 PM #229:	mooreandrew58 posted... Monopoman posted... Dude never did win the popular vote he lost by roughly 3 million votes, he was lucky to get close wins in many key states and thanks to the stupid electoral college he was given the presidency. Notice how the last two times Republicans have won the presidency for their first term they have lost the popular vote in both cases. We don't use an electoral college for any other election but for some reason the presidency is where it still is front and center. and i'm not arguing that. just saying its still legit cause thats how the system was designed to work. its not perfect but it would suck to just let 3 major cities have pretty much the only voice that matters. they have no fucking clue what I need or want where I live. Neither does Trump. All he cares about is golfing at his private country club and paying himself to rent golf carts from himself on the taxpayer dime and profiting off it. --- Fall down, go boom... Life is like a box of chocolates. Most of it is crap. <cite>TyVulpine posted [p:921109283] in How is Tru... [t:77368084]...</cite> <quote><cite>mooreandrew58 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Monopoman posted...</cite> <quote>Dude never did win the popular vote he lost by roughly 3 million votes, he was lucky to get close wins in many key states and thanks to the stupid electoral college he was given the presidency. Notice how the last two times Republicans have won the presidency for their first term they have lost the popular vote in both cases. We don't use an electoral college for any other election but for some reason the presidency is where it still is front and center.</quote> and i'm not arguing that. just saying its still legit cause thats how the system was designed to work. its not perfect but it would suck to just let 3 major cities have pretty much the only voice that matters. they have no fucking clue what I need or want where I live.</quote> Neither does Trump. All he cares about is golfing at his private country club and paying himself to rent golf carts from himself on the taxpayer dime and profiting off it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
mooreandrew58 04/26/19 7:07:07 PM #230:	TyVulpine posted... mooreandrew58 posted... Monopoman posted... Dude never did win the popular vote he lost by roughly 3 million votes, he was lucky to get close wins in many key states and thanks to the stupid electoral college he was given the presidency. Notice how the last two times Republicans have won the presidency for their first term they have lost the popular vote in both cases. We don't use an electoral college for any other election but for some reason the presidency is where it still is front and center. and i'm not arguing that. just saying its still legit cause thats how the system was designed to work. its not perfect but it would suck to just let 3 major cities have pretty much the only voice that matters. they have no fucking clue what I need or want where I live. Neither does Trump. All he cares about is golfing at his private country club and paying himself to rent golf carts from himself on the taxpayer dime and profiting off it. and i'm out of this. not here to talk about the politicians themselves. the candidates we where given both kinda sucked. main thing i'll give trump credit for is actually trying to follow through on a campaign promise. (can't recall if he succeeded or not, think he settled for less but ultimately did get it.) --- Cid- "looks like that overgrown lobster just got served!" Bartz-"with cheese biscuts AND mashed potatoes!" <cite>mooreandrew58 posted [p:921109549] in How is Tru... [t:77368084]...</cite> <quote><cite>TyVulpine posted...</cite> <quote><cite>mooreandrew58 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Monopoman posted...</cite> <quote>Dude never did win the popular vote he lost by roughly 3 million votes, he was lucky to get close wins in many key states and thanks to the stupid electoral college he was given the presidency. Notice how the last two times Republicans have won the presidency for their first term they have lost the popular vote in both cases. We don't use an electoral college for any other election but for some reason the presidency is where it still is front and center.</quote> and i'm not arguing that. just saying its still legit cause thats how the system was designed to work. its not perfect but it would suck to just let 3 major cities have pretty much the only voice that matters. they have no fucking clue what I need or want where I live.</quote> Neither does Trump. All he cares about is golfing at his private country club and paying himself to rent golf carts from himself on the taxpayer dime and profiting off it.</quote> and i'm out of this. not here to talk about the politicians themselves. the candidates we where given both kinda sucked. main thing i'll give trump credit for is actually trying to follow through on a campaign promise. (can't recall if he succeeded or not, think he settled for less but ultimately did get it.)</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TyVulpine 04/26/19 7:09:34 PM #231:	mooreandrew58 posted... TyVulpine posted... mooreandrew58 posted... Monopoman posted... Dude never did win the popular vote he lost by roughly 3 million votes, he was lucky to get close wins in many key states and thanks to the stupid electoral college he was given the presidency. Notice how the last two times Republicans have won the presidency for their first term they have lost the popular vote in both cases. We don't use an electoral college for any other election but for some reason the presidency is where it still is front and center. and i'm not arguing that. just saying its still legit cause thats how the system was designed to work. its not perfect but it would suck to just let 3 major cities have pretty much the only voice that matters. they have no fucking clue what I need or want where I live. Neither does Trump. All he cares about is golfing at his private country club and paying himself to rent golf carts from himself on the taxpayer dime and profiting off it. and i'm out of this. not here to talk about the politicians themselves. the candidates we where given both kinda sucked. main thing i'll give trump credit for is actually trying to follow through on a campaign promise. (can't recall if he succeeded or not, think he settled for less but ultimately did get it.) What campaign promise? Build the wall? Nope Make Mexico pay for it? Nope Repeal and replace Obamacare? Nope (Republicans have nothing to replace it with either) Defeat ISIS within 30 days of taking office? Nope Not go golfing? Nope Not leave the White House while in office because he would be so busy? Nope --- Fall down, go boom... Life is like a box of chocolates. Most of it is crap. <cite>TyVulpine posted [p:921109646] in How is Tru... [t:77368084]...</cite> <quote><cite>mooreandrew58 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>TyVulpine posted...</cite> <quote><cite>mooreandrew58 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Monopoman posted...</cite> <quote>Dude never did win the popular vote he lost by roughly 3 million votes, he was lucky to get close wins in many key states and thanks to the stupid electoral college he was given the presidency. Notice how the last two times Republicans have won the presidency for their first term they have lost the popular vote in both cases. We don't use an electoral college for any other election but for some reason the presidency is where it still is front and center.</quote> and i'm not arguing that. just saying its still legit cause thats how the system was designed to work. its not perfect but it would suck to just let 3 major cities have pretty much the only voice that matters. they have no fucking clue what I need or want where I live.</quote> Neither does Trump. All he cares about is golfing at his private country club and paying himself to rent golf carts from himself on the taxpayer dime and profiting off it.</quote> and i'm out of this. not here to talk about the politicians themselves. the candidates we where given both kinda sucked. main thing i'll give trump credit for is actually trying to follow through on a campaign promise. (can't recall if he succeeded or not, think he settled for less but ultimately did get it.)</quote> What campaign promise? Build the wall? Nope Make Mexico pay for it? Nope Repeal and replace Obamacare? Nope (Republicans have nothing to replace it with either) Defeat ISIS within 30 days of taking office? Nope Not go golfing? Nope Not leave the White House while in office because he would be so busy? Nope</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
mooreandrew58 04/26/19 7:11:56 PM #232:	TyVulpine posted... mooreandrew58 posted... TyVulpine posted... mooreandrew58 posted... Monopoman posted... Dude never did win the popular vote he lost by roughly 3 million votes, he was lucky to get close wins in many key states and thanks to the stupid electoral college he was given the presidency. Notice how the last two times Republicans have won the presidency for their first term they have lost the popular vote in both cases. We don't use an electoral college for any other election but for some reason the presidency is where it still is front and center. and i'm not arguing that. just saying its still legit cause thats how the system was designed to work. its not perfect but it would suck to just let 3 major cities have pretty much the only voice that matters. they have no fucking clue what I need or want where I live. Neither does Trump. All he cares about is golfing at his private country club and paying himself to rent golf carts from himself on the taxpayer dime and profiting off it. and i'm out of this. not here to talk about the politicians themselves. the candidates we where given both kinda sucked. main thing i'll give trump credit for is actually trying to follow through on a campaign promise. (can't recall if he succeeded or not, think he settled for less but ultimately did get it.) What campaign promise? Build the wall? Nope Make Mexico pay for it? Nope Repeal and replace Obamacare? Nope (Republicans have nothing to replace it with either) Defeat ISIS within 30 days of taking office? Nope Not go golfing? Nope Not leave the White House while in office because he would be so busy? Nope I said he tried. if you read, you'll say I was unsure if he got it. but he really did push on the wall. yeah I knew from the start mexico was never going to pay for it. i'm not that naive. --- Cid- "looks like that overgrown lobster just got served!" Bartz-"with cheese biscuts AND mashed potatoes!" <cite>mooreandrew58 posted [p:921109744] in How is Tru... [t:77368084]...</cite> <quote><cite>TyVulpine posted...</cite> <quote><cite>mooreandrew58 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>TyVulpine posted...</cite> <quote><cite>mooreandrew58 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Monopoman posted...</cite> <quote>Dude never did win the popular vote he lost by roughly 3 million votes, he was lucky to get close wins in many key states and thanks to the stupid electoral college he was given the presidency. Notice how the last two times Republicans have won the presidency for their first term they have lost the popular vote in both cases. We don't use an electoral college for any other election but for some reason the presidency is where it still is front and center.</quote> and i'm not arguing that. just saying its still legit cause thats how the system was designed to work. its not perfect but it would suck to just let 3 major cities have pretty much the only voice that matters. they have no fucking clue what I need or want where I live.</quote> Neither does Trump. All he cares about is golfing at his private country club and paying himself to rent golf carts from himself on the taxpayer dime and profiting off it.</quote> and i'm out of this. not here to talk about the politicians themselves. the candidates we where given both kinda sucked. main thing i'll give trump credit for is actually trying to follow through on a campaign promise. (can't recall if he succeeded or not, think he settled for less but ultimately did get it.)</quote> What campaign promise? Build the wall? Nope Make Mexico pay for it? Nope Repeal and replace Obamacare? Nope (Republicans have nothing to replace it with either) Defeat ISIS within 30 days of taking office? Nope Not go golfing? Nope Not leave the White House while in office because he would be so busy? Nope</quote> I said he tried. if you read, you'll say I was unsure if he got it. but he really did push on the wall. yeah I knew from the start mexico was never going to pay for it. i'm not that naive.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Monopoman 04/26/19 7:30:47 PM #233:	mooreandrew58 posted... TyVulpine posted... mooreandrew58 posted... TyVulpine posted... mooreandrew58 posted... Monopoman posted... Dude never did win the popular vote he lost by roughly 3 million votes, he was lucky to get close wins in many key states and thanks to the stupid electoral college he was given the presidency. Notice how the last two times Republicans have won the presidency for their first term they have lost the popular vote in both cases. We don't use an electoral college for any other election but for some reason the presidency is where it still is front and center. and i'm not arguing that. just saying its still legit cause thats how the system was designed to work. its not perfect but it would suck to just let 3 major cities have pretty much the only voice that matters. they have no fucking clue what I need or want where I live. Neither does Trump. All he cares about is golfing at his private country club and paying himself to rent golf carts from himself on the taxpayer dime and profiting off it. and i'm out of this. not here to talk about the politicians themselves. the candidates we where given both kinda sucked. main thing i'll give trump credit for is actually trying to follow through on a campaign promise. (can't recall if he succeeded or not, think he settled for less but ultimately did get it.) What campaign promise? Build the wall? Nope Make Mexico pay for it? Nope Repeal and replace Obamacare? Nope (Republicans have nothing to replace it with either) Defeat ISIS within 30 days of taking office? Nope Not go golfing? Nope Not leave the White House while in office because he would be so busy? Nope I said he tried. if you read, you'll say I was unsure if he got it. but he really did push on the wall. yeah I knew from the start mexico was never going to pay for it. i'm not that naive. The dude does try you have that right, this is basically like hiring a guy to build you a deck on your house he comes out does a shitty job and you can't even stand on it because it's not built well enough to even take a couple people standing on it, you then pay the guy anyways because hey he tried! <cite>Monopoman posted [p:921110455] in How is Tru... [t:77368084]...</cite> <quote><cite>mooreandrew58 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>TyVulpine posted...</cite> <quote><cite>mooreandrew58 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>TyVulpine posted...</cite> <quote><cite>mooreandrew58 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Monopoman posted...</cite> <quote>Dude never did win the popular vote he lost by roughly 3 million votes, he was lucky to get close wins in many key states and thanks to the stupid electoral college he was given the presidency. Notice how the last two times Republicans have won the presidency for their first term they have lost the popular vote in both cases. We don't use an electoral college for any other election but for some reason the presidency is where it still is front and center.</quote> and i'm not arguing that. just saying its still legit cause thats how the system was designed to work. its not perfect but it would suck to just let 3 major cities have pretty much the only voice that matters. they have no fucking clue what I need or want where I live.</quote> Neither does Trump. All he cares about is golfing at his private country club and paying himself to rent golf carts from himself on the taxpayer dime and profiting off it.</quote> and i'm out of this. not here to talk about the politicians themselves. the candidates we where given both kinda sucked. main thing i'll give trump credit for is actually trying to follow through on a campaign promise. (can't recall if he succeeded or not, think he settled for less but ultimately did get it.)</quote> What campaign promise? Build the wall? Nope Make Mexico pay for it? Nope Repeal and replace Obamacare? Nope (Republicans have nothing to replace it with either) Defeat ISIS within 30 days of taking office? Nope Not go golfing? Nope Not leave the White House while in office because he would be so busy? Nope</quote> I said he tried. if you read, you'll say I was unsure if he got it. but he really did push on the wall. yeah I knew from the start mexico was never going to pay for it. i'm not that naive.</quote> The dude does try you have that right, this is basically like hiring a guy to build you a deck on your house he comes out does a shitty job and you can't even stand on it because it's not built well enough to even take a couple people standing on it, you then pay the guy anyways because hey he tried!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
mooreandrew58 04/26/19 7:33:30 PM #234:	Monopoman posted... mooreandrew58 posted... TyVulpine posted... mooreandrew58 posted... TyVulpine posted... mooreandrew58 posted... Monopoman posted... Dude never did win the popular vote he lost by roughly 3 million votes, he was lucky to get close wins in many key states and thanks to the stupid electoral college he was given the presidency. Notice how the last two times Republicans have won the presidency for their first term they have lost the popular vote in both cases. We don't use an electoral college for any other election but for some reason the presidency is where it still is front and center. and i'm not arguing that. just saying its still legit cause thats how the system was designed to work. its not perfect but it would suck to just let 3 major cities have pretty much the only voice that matters. they have no fucking clue what I need or want where I live. Neither does Trump. All he cares about is golfing at his private country club and paying himself to rent golf carts from himself on the taxpayer dime and profiting off it. and i'm out of this. not here to talk about the politicians themselves. the candidates we where given both kinda sucked. main thing i'll give trump credit for is actually trying to follow through on a campaign promise. (can't recall if he succeeded or not, think he settled for less but ultimately did get it.) What campaign promise? Build the wall? Nope Make Mexico pay for it? Nope Repeal and replace Obamacare? Nope (Republicans have nothing to replace it with either) Defeat ISIS within 30 days of taking office? Nope Not go golfing? Nope Not leave the White House while in office because he would be so busy? Nope I said he tried. if you read, you'll say I was unsure if he got it. but he really did push on the wall. yeah I knew from the start mexico was never going to pay for it. i'm not that naive. The dude does try you have that right, this is basically like hiring a guy to build you a deck on your house he comes out does a shitty job and you can't even stand on it because it's not built well enough to even take a couple people standing on it, you then pay the guy anyways because hey he tried! a lot of presidents have been known to simply just not even try what they said they'd do though. think one was famous for saying "no new taxes" then added in some new taxes. I was just giving credit for making the attempt. not praising him, just giving credit. i'm undecided on how I feel about a wall though. i'm all for slowing up illegal immigration just not sure its the best use of the money vs how many it would actually stop. --- Cid- "looks like that overgrown lobster just got served!" Bartz-"with cheese biscuts AND mashed potatoes!" <cite>mooreandrew58 posted [p:921110575] in How is Tru... [t:77368084]...</cite> <quote><cite>Monopoman posted...</cite> <quote><cite>mooreandrew58 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>TyVulpine posted...</cite> <quote><cite>mooreandrew58 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>TyVulpine posted...</cite> <quote><cite>mooreandrew58 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Monopoman posted...</cite> <quote>Dude never did win the popular vote he lost by roughly 3 million votes, he was lucky to get close wins in many key states and thanks to the stupid electoral college he was given the presidency. Notice how the last two times Republicans have won the presidency for their first term they have lost the popular vote in both cases. We don't use an electoral college for any other election but for some reason the presidency is where it still is front and center.</quote> and i'm not arguing that. just saying its still legit cause thats how the system was designed to work. its not perfect but it would suck to just let 3 major cities have pretty much the only voice that matters. they have no fucking clue what I need or want where I live.</quote> Neither does Trump. All he cares about is golfing at his private country club and paying himself to rent golf carts from himself on the taxpayer dime and profiting off it.</quote> and i'm out of this. not here to talk about the politicians themselves. the candidates we where given both kinda sucked. main thing i'll give trump credit for is actually trying to follow through on a campaign promise. (can't recall if he succeeded or not, think he settled for less but ultimately did get it.)</quote> What campaign promise? Build the wall? Nope Make Mexico pay for it? Nope Repeal and replace Obamacare? Nope (Republicans have nothing to replace it with either) Defeat ISIS within 30 days of taking office? Nope Not go golfing? Nope Not leave the White House while in office because he would be so busy? Nope</quote> I said he tried. if you read, you'll say I was unsure if he got it. but he really did push on the wall. yeah I knew from the start mexico was never going to pay for it. i'm not that naive.</quote> The dude does try you have that right, this is basically like hiring a guy to build you a deck on your house he comes out does a shitty job and you can't even stand on it because it's not built well enough to even take a couple people standing on it, you then pay the guy anyways because hey he tried!</quote> a lot of presidents have been known to simply just not even try what they said they'd do though. think one was famous for saying "no new taxes" then added in some new taxes. I was just giving credit for making the attempt. not praising him, just giving credit. i'm undecided on how I feel about a wall though. i'm all for slowing up illegal immigration just not sure its the best use of the money vs how many it would actually stop.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TyVulpine 04/26/19 8:10:25 PM #235:	Monopoman posted... mooreandrew58 posted... TyVulpine posted... mooreandrew58 posted... TyVulpine posted... mooreandrew58 posted... Monopoman posted... Dude never did win the popular vote he lost by roughly 3 million votes, he was lucky to get close wins in many key states and thanks to the stupid electoral college he was given the presidency. Notice how the last two times Republicans have won the presidency for their first term they have lost the popular vote in both cases. We don't use an electoral college for any other election but for some reason the presidency is where it still is front and center. and i'm not arguing that. just saying its still legit cause thats how the system was designed to work. its not perfect but it would suck to just let 3 major cities have pretty much the only voice that matters. they have no fucking clue what I need or want where I live. Neither does Trump. All he cares about is golfing at his private country club and paying himself to rent golf carts from himself on the taxpayer dime and profiting off it. and i'm out of this. not here to talk about the politicians themselves. the candidates we where given both kinda sucked. main thing i'll give trump credit for is actually trying to follow through on a campaign promise. (can't recall if he succeeded or not, think he settled for less but ultimately did get it.) What campaign promise? Build the wall? Nope Make Mexico pay for it? Nope Repeal and replace Obamacare? Nope (Republicans have nothing to replace it with either) Defeat ISIS within 30 days of taking office? Nope Not go golfing? Nope Not leave the White House while in office because he would be so busy? Nope I said he tried. if you read, you'll say I was unsure if he got it. but he really did push on the wall. yeah I knew from the start mexico was never going to pay for it. i'm not that naive. The dude does try you have that right, this is basically like hiring a guy to build you a deck on your house he comes out does a shitty job and you can't even stand on it because it's not built well enough to even take a couple people standing on it, you then pay the guy anyways because hey he tried! And then when it collapses, he blames you for the shitty construction. --- Fall down, go boom... Life is like a box of chocolates. Most of it is crap. <cite>TyVulpine posted [p:921112019] in How is Tru... [t:77368084]...</cite> <quote><cite>Monopoman posted...</cite> <quote><cite>mooreandrew58 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>TyVulpine posted...</cite> <quote><cite>mooreandrew58 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>TyVulpine posted...</cite> <quote><cite>mooreandrew58 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Monopoman posted...</cite> <quote>Dude never did win the popular vote he lost by roughly 3 million votes, he was lucky to get close wins in many key states and thanks to the stupid electoral college he was given the presidency. Notice how the last two times Republicans have won the presidency for their first term they have lost the popular vote in both cases. We don't use an electoral college for any other election but for some reason the presidency is where it still is front and center.</quote> and i'm not arguing that. just saying its still legit cause thats how the system was designed to work. its not perfect but it would suck to just let 3 major cities have pretty much the only voice that matters. they have no fucking clue what I need or want where I live.</quote> Neither does Trump. All he cares about is golfing at his private country club and paying himself to rent golf carts from himself on the taxpayer dime and profiting off it.</quote> and i'm out of this. not here to talk about the politicians themselves. the candidates we where given both kinda sucked. main thing i'll give trump credit for is actually trying to follow through on a campaign promise. (can't recall if he succeeded or not, think he settled for less but ultimately did get it.)</quote> What campaign promise? Build the wall? Nope Make Mexico pay for it? Nope Repeal and replace Obamacare? Nope (Republicans have nothing to replace it with either) Defeat ISIS within 30 days of taking office? Nope Not go golfing? Nope Not leave the White House while in office because he would be so busy? Nope</quote> I said he tried. if you read, you'll say I was unsure if he got it. but he really did push on the wall. yeah I knew from the start mexico was never going to pay for it. i'm not that naive.</quote> The dude does try you have that right, this is basically like hiring a guy to build you a deck on your house he comes out does a shitty job and you can't even stand on it because it's not built well enough to even take a couple people standing on it, you then pay the guy anyways because hey he tried!</quote> And then when it collapses, he blames you for the shitty construction.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ClarkDuke 04/27/19 11:01:08 PM #236:	TyVulpine posted... Monopoman posted... mooreandrew58 posted... TyVulpine posted... mooreandrew58 posted... TyVulpine posted... mooreandrew58 posted... and i'm not arguing that. just saying its still legit cause thats how the system was designed to work. its not perfect but it would suck to just let 3 major cities have pretty much the only voice that matters. they have no fucking clue what I need or want where I live. Neither does Trump. All he cares about is golfing at his private country club and paying himself to rent golf carts from himself on the taxpayer dime and profiting off it. and i'm out of this. not here to talk about the politicians themselves. the candidates we where given both kinda sucked. main thing i'll give trump credit for is actually trying to follow through on a campaign promise. (can't recall if he succeeded or not, think he settled for less but ultimately did get it.) What campaign promise? Build the wall? Nope Make Mexico pay for it? Nope Repeal and replace Obamacare? Nope (Republicans have nothing to replace it with either) Defeat ISIS within 30 days of taking office? Nope Not go golfing? Nope Not leave the White House while in office because he would be so busy? Nope I said he tried. if you read, you'll say I was unsure if he got it. but he really did push on the wall. yeah I knew from the start mexico was never going to pay for it. i'm not that naive. The dude does try you have that right, this is basically like hiring a guy to build you a deck on your house he comes out does a shitty job and you can't even stand on it because it's not built well enough to even take a couple people standing on it, you then pay the guy anyways because hey he tried! And then when it collapses, he blames you for the shitty construction. that's Donald, ok? --- https://imgur.com/qL0DHFI https://imgur.com/JL9rRLt https://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ <cite>ClarkDuke posted [p:921161509] in How is Tru... [t:77368084]...</cite> <quote><cite>TyVulpine posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Monopoman posted...</cite> <quote><cite>mooreandrew58 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>TyVulpine posted...</cite> <quote><cite>mooreandrew58 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>TyVulpine posted...</cite> <quote><cite>mooreandrew58 posted...</cite> <quote> and i'm not arguing that. just saying its still legit cause thats how the system was designed to work. its not perfect but it would suck to just let 3 major cities have pretty much the only voice that matters. they have no fucking clue what I need or want where I live.</quote> Neither does Trump. All he cares about is golfing at his private country club and paying himself to rent golf carts from himself on the taxpayer dime and profiting off it.</quote> and i'm out of this. not here to talk about the politicians themselves. the candidates we where given both kinda sucked. main thing i'll give trump credit for is actually trying to follow through on a campaign promise. (can't recall if he succeeded or not, think he settled for less but ultimately did get it.)</quote> What campaign promise? Build the wall? Nope Make Mexico pay for it? Nope Repeal and replace Obamacare? Nope (Republicans have nothing to replace it with either) Defeat ISIS within 30 days of taking office? Nope Not go golfing? Nope Not leave the White House while in office because he would be so busy? Nope</quote> I said he tried. if you read, you'll say I was unsure if he got it. but he really did push on the wall. yeah I knew from the start mexico was never going to pay for it. i'm not that naive.</quote> The dude does try you have that right, this is basically like hiring a guy to build you a deck on your house he comes out does a shitty job and you can't even stand on it because it's not built well enough to even take a couple people standing on it, you then pay the guy anyways because hey he tried!</quote> And then when it collapses, he blames you for the shitty construction.</quote> that's Donald, ok?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 04/29/19 2:13:06 AM #237:	mooreandrew58 posted... and i'm not arguing that. just saying its still legit cause thats how the system was designed to work. Debatable. It's how the system works, but not really how it was designed to work. Recall that if no candidate wins an absolute majority of electoral college votes then the matter goes to congress; the House of Representatives picks the president and the Senate selects the vice president (from the top three candidates who received at least one electoral college vote). But here's the thing - this system was expected to be the norm, not a weird hypothetical tie-breaker rule for a one-in-a-million situation where the electoral college is tied. Based on notes, essays, and comments published at the time the constitution was being written, it was clear that the constitution's framers didn't really intend for the electoral college to pick the president; instead, they expected that the electoral college would put forward a list of names and that congress would then pick the president. Which, incidentally, is how most democracies do it - the legislature is elected directly by the people and they pick the executive; as an example, in Westminster democracies (UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, et al) parliament is elected and they get to choose who the prime minister is (which, at least in theory, could be anyone, but in practice is almost always the leader of whichever party gets the most votes). Notably, since the legislature is responsible for picking the executive, they also have the right to replace them - prime ministers can be tossed out and replaced without any elections taking place if they lose the confidence of parliament. Anyways, the electoral college picking the president was assumed to be a once-in-a-lifetime event. What the founders hadn't counted on is the founding of political parties and the coalescence of votes around just a handful of candidates. It was intended that a large number of people would step forward and contest the presidency - none of them were likely to win an absolute majority of the electoral college, so instead congress would now have a short-list of the best candidates and would pick the one they felt was the most suitable for office. But as soon as it became a one-on-one fight in the 1800s, the whole system stopped working as intended and a mechanism that was originally intended as a safety valve to ensure that a candidate so overwhelmingly popular could not be denied office instead became the normal way to pick a president, distorting the popular vote and, arguably, corrupting the intent of the constitution. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:921211754] in How is Tru... [t:77368084]...</cite> <quote><cite>mooreandrew58 posted...</cite> <quote>and i'm not arguing that. just saying its still legit cause thats how the system was designed to work.</quote> Debatable. It's how the system works, but not really how it was designed to work. Recall that if no candidate wins an absolute majority of electoral college votes then the matter goes to congress; the House of Representatives picks the president and the Senate selects the vice president (from the top three candidates who received at least one electoral college vote). But here's the thing - this system was expected to be the norm, not a weird hypothetical tie-breaker rule for a one-in-a-million situation where the electoral college is tied. Based on notes, essays, and comments published at the time the constitution was being written, it was clear that the constitution's framers didn't really intend for the electoral college to pick the president; instead, they expected that the electoral college would put forward a list of names and that congress would then pick the president. Which, incidentally, is how most democracies do it - the legislature is elected directly by the people and they pick the executive; as an example, in Westminster democracies (UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, et al) parliament is elected and they get to choose who the prime minister is (which, at least in theory, could be anyone, but in practice is almost always the leader of whichever party gets the most votes). Notably, since the legislature is responsible for picking the executive, they also have the right to replace them - prime ministers can be tossed out and replaced without any elections taking place if they lose the confidence of parliament. Anyways, the electoral college picking the president was assumed to be a once-in-a-lifetime event. What the founders hadn't counted on is the founding of political parties and the coalescence of votes around just a handful of candidates. It was intended that a large number of people would step forward and contest the presidency - none of them were likely to win an absolute majority of the electoral college, so instead congress would now have a short-list of the best candidates and would pick the one they felt was the most suitable for office. But as soon as it became a one-on-one fight in the 1800s, the whole system stopped working as intended and a mechanism that was originally intended as a safety valve to ensure that a candidate so overwhelmingly popular could not be denied office instead became the normal way to pick a president, distorting the popular vote and, arguably, corrupting the intent of the constitution.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nedrith 04/29/19 3:44:59 AM #238:	mooreandrew58 posted... a lot of presidents have been known to simply just not even try what they said they'd do though. think one was famous for saying "no new taxes" then added in some new taxes. I was just giving credit for making the attempt. not praising him, just giving credit. i'm undecided on how I feel about a wall though. i'm all for slowing up illegal immigration just not sure its the best use of the money vs how many it would actually stop. A lot of times it's not a lack of trying on the other president's jobs. It's a matter of a lot of back the scene negotiation that we don't see. A normal president for example would have worked with lawmakers in the background, made deals, counted votes and tried to get the wall built. You might not have seen or heard about any of it but they would have tried. The thing is, a lot of the things Trump said he would do were all fantasies, a lot more plain lies. He knew that Mexico was never going to pay of the wall. There was no way in hell he was going to defeat ISIS quickly, he knew nothing of the situation. Not go golfing as he hit on Obama many times for going golfing. He didn't even try not to, he basically set the record for the most days golfing. All at of course places that are owned by him that could only serve to enrich him while the taxpayers pay for the trip there. I will give it to the fact that he did do a few campaign promises, although all of them are ones that can be done through executive order. Most of them are sadly international ones as well and will only serve to weaken our position globally. A lot of the "wins" that Trump is given credit for weren't even his. Getting Neil Gorsuch confirmed was all the senates and most of the effort predates trump, blocking Merrick Garlands nomination. Sadly that win is also a loss for the US as the nuclear option was required to be used which is only a bad thing for the country's future. <cite>nedrith posted [p:921213431] in How is Tru... [t:77368084]...</cite> <quote><cite>mooreandrew58 posted...</cite> <quote> a lot of presidents have been known to simply just not even try what they said they'd do though. think one was famous for saying "no new taxes" then added in some new taxes. I was just giving credit for making the attempt. not praising him, just giving credit. i'm undecided on how I feel about a wall though. i'm all for slowing up illegal immigration just not sure its the best use of the money vs how many it would actually stop.</quote> A lot of times it's not a lack of trying on the other president's jobs. It's a matter of a lot of back the scene negotiation that we don't see. A normal president for example would have worked with lawmakers in the background, made deals, counted votes and tried to get the wall built. You might not have seen or heard about any of it but they would have tried. The thing is, a lot of the things Trump said he would do were all fantasies, a lot more plain lies. He knew that Mexico was never going to pay of the wall. There was no way in hell he was going to defeat ISIS quickly, he knew nothing of the situation. Not go golfing as he hit on Obama many times for going golfing. He didn't even try not to, he basically set the record for the most days golfing. All at of course places that are owned by him that could only serve to enrich him while the taxpayers pay for the trip there. I will give it to the fact that he did do a few campaign promises, although all of them are ones that can be done through executive order. Most of them are sadly international ones as well and will only serve to weaken our position globally. A lot of the "wins" that Trump is given credit for weren't even his. Getting Neil Gorsuch confirmed was all the senates and most of the effort predates trump, blocking Merrick Garlands nomination. Sadly that win is also a loss for the US as the nuclear option was required to be used which is only a bad thing for the country's future.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Phantom_Nook 04/29/19 11:53:50 AM #239:	Fox State Media, that's how. --- Posted with GameRaven 3.5.1 <cite>Phantom_Nook posted [p:921224127] in How is Tru... [t:77368084]...</cite> <quote>Fox State Media, that's how.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ParanoidObsessive 04/29/19 11:56:41 AM #240:	darkknight109 posted... People already tried the "whoever owns the most land wins" thing - it's called feudalism and it turned out to be a pretty shitty way of governing. And the last time people had a problem over a few larger and more populated states forcing their will on everybody else, we fought a war over it. History's funny like that. --- "Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76 "POwned again." --- blight family <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted [p:921224245] in How is Tru... [t:77368084]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>People already tried the "whoever owns the most land wins" thing - it's called feudalism and it turned out to be a pretty shitty way of governing.</quote> And the last time people had a problem over a few larger and more populated states forcing their will on everybody else, we fought a war over it. History's funny like that. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 04/29/19 12:56:34 PM #241:	ParanoidObsessive posted... And the last time people had a problem over a few larger and more populated states forcing their will on everybody else, we fought a war over it. If you think that's the last time people had a problem over the larger states pushing issues that the smaller ones opposed, there's about 150 years of history you may want to brush up on... --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:921226585] in How is Tru... [t:77368084]...</cite> <quote><cite>ParanoidObsessive posted...</cite> <quote>And the last time people had a problem over a few larger and more populated states forcing their will on everybody else, we fought a war over it.</quote> If you think that's the last time people had a problem over the larger states pushing issues that the smaller ones opposed, there's about 150 years of history you may want to brush up on...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ParanoidObsessive 04/29/19 1:10:56 PM #242:	Hey, if you get to drastically oversimplify complex issues in favor of a pithy retort, then I also get to drastically oversimplify complex issues in favor of a pithy retort. --- "Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76 "POwned again." --- blight family <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted [p:921227203] in How is Tru... [t:77368084]...</cite> <quote>Hey, if you get to drastically oversimplify complex issues in favor of a pithy retort, then I also get to drastically oversimplify complex issues in favor of a pithy retort. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 04/29/19 1:14:49 PM #243:	ParanoidObsessive posted... Hey, if you get to drastically oversimplify complex issues in favor of a pithy retort, then I also get to drastically oversimplify complex issues in favor of a pithy retort. "How much land you own doesn't matter in elections" isn't an oversimplification of a complex issue, it's literally how democracy works. You don't get extra votes for having more land, more money, more kids, more friends in government, etc. - if you are an adult citizen, you get one vote and only one vote, end of story. Trying to say "Yeah, well, Republicans have more land," as moore did is about as relevant to a discussion of political trends as saying, "Yeah, well, more Democrats like the colour blue". --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:921227364] in How is Tru... [t:77368084]...</cite> <quote><cite>ParanoidObsessive posted...</cite> <quote>Hey, if you get to drastically oversimplify complex issues in favor of a pithy retort, then I also get to drastically oversimplify complex issues in favor of a pithy retort. </quote> "How much land you own doesn't matter in elections" isn't an oversimplification of a complex issue, it's literally how democracy works. You don't get extra votes for having more land, more money, more kids, more friends in government, etc. - if you are an adult citizen, you get one vote and only one vote, end of story. Trying to say "Yeah, well, Republicans have more land," as moore did is about as relevant to a discussion of political trends as saying, "Yeah, well, more Democrats like the colour blue".</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TyVulpine 04/29/19 1:48:29 PM #244:	Republicans dont really have more land anyway as most of it is uninhabited desert, mountains, forest, rivers, etc. --- Fall down, go boom... Life is like a box of chocolates. Most of it is crap. <cite>TyVulpine posted [p:921228818] in How is Tru... [t:77368084]...</cite> <quote>Republicans dont really have more land anyway as most of it is uninhabited desert, mountains, forest, rivers, etc.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 05/06/19 6:49:59 AM #245:	OhhhJa posted... Honestly, I cant wait until the full report drops so we can lay this bullshit to rest This post aged well. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:921523378] in How is Tru... [t:77368084]...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>Honestly, I cant wait until the full report drops so we can lay this bullshit to rest</quote> This post aged well.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
The_tall_midget 05/06/19 7:10:45 AM #246:	darkknight109 posted... OhhhJa posted... Honestly, I cant wait until the full report drops so we can lay this bullshit to rest This post aged well. As does anything the unhinged people suffering from TDS say and do. But who cares about that shit! Drumpf is going down any minute now! --- "If masculinity was toxic, children growing without fathers would be better off. Unfortunately, criminals often come from single mother households." <cite>The_tall_midget posted [p:921523696] in How is Tru... [t:77368084]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>Honestly, I cant wait until the full report drops so we can lay this bullshit to rest</quote> This post aged well.</quote> As does anything the unhinged people suffering from TDS say and do. But who cares about that shit! Drumpf is going down any minute now!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 05/06/19 3:33:55 PM #247:	The_tall_midget posted... darkknight109 posted... OhhhJa posted... Honestly, I cant wait until the full report drops so we can lay this bullshit to rest This post aged well. As does anything the unhinged people suffering from TDS say and do. But who cares about that shit! Drumpf is going down any minute now! Sure, sure. Meanwhile, 375 former federal prosecutors - Democrats and Republicans both - just signed a statement saying that the evidence in the Mueller report meets the standards for Obstruction of Justice and if they'd ever encountered someone without the legal protections of the presidency who had that sort of evidence against them, they would absolutely file charges. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:921540246] in How is Tru... [t:77368084]...</cite> <quote><cite>The_tall_midget posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>Honestly, I cant wait until the full report drops so we can lay this bullshit to rest</quote> This post aged well.</quote> As does anything the unhinged people suffering from TDS say and do. But who cares about that shit! Drumpf is going down any minute now!</quote> Sure, sure. Meanwhile, 375 former federal prosecutors - Democrats and Republicans both - just signed a statement saying that the evidence in the Mueller report meets the standards for Obstruction of Justice and if they'd ever encountered someone without the legal protections of the presidency who had that sort of evidence against them, they would absolutely file charges.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TyVulpine 05/06/19 3:56:56 PM #248:	The_tall_midget posted... darkknight109 posted... OhhhJa posted... Honestly, I cant wait until the full report drops so we can lay this bullshit to rest This post aged well. As does anything the unhinged people suffering from TDS say and do. But who cares about that shit! Drumpf is going down any minute now! Just like Hillary is going to jail any minute now! And Obama too! --- Fall down, go boom... Life is like a box of chocolates. Most of it is crap. <cite>TyVulpine posted [p:921541176] in How is Tru... [t:77368084]...</cite> <quote><cite>The_tall_midget posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>Honestly, I cant wait until the full report drops so we can lay this bullshit to rest</quote> This post aged well.</quote> As does anything the unhinged people suffering from TDS say and do. But who cares about that shit! Drumpf is going down any minute now!</quote> Just like Hillary is going to jail any minute now! And Obama too!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SunWuKung420 05/06/19 4:01:40 PM #249:	Imagine using an urban dictionary term to try to make your argument. --- I'd rather die helping others survive than be all alone, UNSCATHED, after all others have fallen -DEC <cite>SunWuKung420 posted [p:921541402] in How is Tru... [t:77368084]...</cite> <quote>Imagine using an urban dictionary term to try to make your argument.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 05/06/19 4:20:07 PM #250:	SunWuKung420 posted... Imagine using an urban dictionary term to try to make your argument. Assuming you're referring to that reference to TDS, it's not an urban dictionary term. However, it's also not the hot-and-edgy term so many Trump supporters think it is. It's literally a 16 year old meme that has been applied to virtually every conservative politician of any notable prominence over the last decade and a half (and I always find it entertaining when someone has clearly heard it for the first time and starts using it everywhere thinking it's some new, biting commentary). The original "Derangement Syndrome" was Bush Derangement Syndrome and it was as dumb a term then as it is today, especially given that its propagators seem remarkably quiet about its use when a Democrat is in power, despite the fact that it is equally applicable to detractors of Democrat politicians (which is to say that any politician will have a small group of people that disagree with them about everything as a knee-jerk reaction rather than based on any actual analysis or genuinely held belief, but that group is almost always far, far smaller than their supporters like to pretend). --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:921542154] in How is Tru... [t:77368084]...</cite> <quote><cite>SunWuKung420 posted...</cite> <quote>Imagine using an urban dictionary term to try to make your argument.</quote> Assuming you're referring to that reference to TDS, it's not an urban dictionary term. However, it's also not the hot-and-edgy term so many Trump supporters think it is. It's literally a 16 year old meme that has been applied to virtually every conservative politician of any notable prominence over the last decade and a half (and I always find it entertaining when someone has clearly heard it for the first time and starts using it everywhere thinking it's some new, biting commentary). The original "Derangement Syndrome" was Bush Derangement Syndrome and it was as dumb a term then as it is today, especially given that its propagators seem remarkably quiet about its use when a Democrat is in power, despite the fact that it is equally applicable to detractors of Democrat politicians (which is to say that any politician will have a small group of people that disagree with them about everything as a knee-jerk reaction rather than based on any actual analysis or genuinely held belief, but that group is almost always far, far smaller than their supporters like to pretend).</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Lobomoon 05/06/19 9:07:10 PM #251:	46% Not bad. --- 'Anyone can make war but only the most courageous can make peace' - President Donald J Trump <cite>Lobomoon posted [p:921553712] in How is Tru... [t:77368084]...</cite> <quote>46% Not bad.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BlackScythe0 05/06/19 9:11:10 PM #252:	I don't understand how this shitrag isn't in the 30s. It's literally doing the same shit Nixon did. This fighting of all the subpoenas is insane. <cite>BlackScythe0 posted [p:921553877] in How is Tru... [t:77368084]...</cite> <quote>I don't understand how this shitrag isn't in the 30s. It's literally doing the same shit Nixon did. This fighting of all the subpoenas is insane.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 05/08/19 9:14:12 PM #253:	darkknight109 posted... 375 former federal prosecutors - Democrats and Republicans both - just signed a statement saying that the evidence in the Mueller report meets the standards for Obstruction of Justice and if they'd ever encountered someone without the legal protections of the presidency who had that sort of evidence against them, they would absolutely file charges. And we're up to 800 now. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:921646437] in How is Tru... [t:77368084]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>375 former federal prosecutors - Democrats and Republicans both - just signed a statement saying that the evidence in the Mueller report meets the standards for Obstruction of Justice and if they'd ever encountered someone without the legal protections of the presidency who had that sort of evidence against them, they would absolutely file charges. </quote> And we're up to 800 now.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
The_tall_midget 05/09/19 12:42:39 AM #254:	darkknight109 posted... darkknight109 posted... 375 former federal prosecutors - Democrats and Republicans both - just signed a statement saying that the evidence in the Mueller report meets the standards for Obstruction of Justice and if they'd ever encountered someone without the legal protections of the presidency who had that sort of evidence against them, they would absolutely file charges. And we're up to 800 now. DRUMPF GOIN DOWN ANY MINUTE nao!!111!)!1SHIFT+ONE --- "If masculinity was toxic, children growing without fathers would be better off. Unfortunately, criminals often come from single mother households." <cite>The_tall_midget posted [p:921654107] in How is Tru... [t:77368084]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>375 former federal prosecutors - Democrats and Republicans both - just signed a statement saying that the evidence in the Mueller report meets the standards for Obstruction of Justice and if they'd ever encountered someone without the legal protections of the presidency who had that sort of evidence against them, they would absolutely file charges. </quote> And we're up to 800 now.</quote> DRUMPF GOIN DOWN ANY MINUTE nao!!111!)!1SHIFT+ONE</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 05/09/19 1:49:19 AM #255:	The_tall_midget posted... darkknight109 posted... darkknight109 posted... 375 former federal prosecutors - Democrats and Republicans both - just signed a statement saying that the evidence in the Mueller report meets the standards for Obstruction of Justice and if they'd ever encountered someone without the legal protections of the presidency who had that sort of evidence against them, they would absolutely file charges. And we're up to 800 now. DRUMPF GOIN DOWN ANY MINUTE nao!!111!)!1SHIFT+ONE It's adorable that you still think I'm pushing for Trump's ouster, when for years now I've said that I hope that he doesn't get impeached or otherwise removed, because the voters need to do their damn job and take out the trash themselves - they created this mess, they need to fix it. Fortunately, given that the Republican senators might collectively have one or two spines maximum, it looks like I'm going to get my wish. It's also somewhat telling that your only response to a bipartisan group of almost 1000 legal professionals saying that the president did something flagrantly illegal is to basically post memes. This is something that should be of serious concern to you, regardless of your partisan leaning, but clearly you're content putting tribalism above principle, even if it means someone is breaking the fucking law and getting away with it. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:921656013] in How is Tru... [t:77368084]...</cite> <quote><cite>The_tall_midget posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>375 former federal prosecutors - Democrats and Republicans both - just signed a statement saying that the evidence in the Mueller report meets the standards for Obstruction of Justice and if they'd ever encountered someone without the legal protections of the presidency who had that sort of evidence against them, they would absolutely file charges. </quote> And we're up to 800 now.</quote> DRUMPF GOIN DOWN ANY MINUTE nao!!111!)!1SHIFT+ONE</quote> It's adorable that you still think I'm pushing for Trump's ouster, when for years now I've said that I hope that he doesn't get impeached or otherwise removed, because the voters need to do their damn job and take out the trash themselves - they created this mess, they need to fix it. Fortunately, given that the Republican senators might collectively have one or two spines maximum, it looks like I'm going to get my wish. It's also somewhat telling that your only response to a bipartisan group of almost 1000 legal professionals saying that the president did something flagrantly illegal is to basically post memes. This is something that should be of serious concern to you, regardless of your partisan leaning, but clearly you're content putting tribalism above principle, even if it means someone is breaking the fucking law and getting away with it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
The_tall_midget 05/09/19 2:15:52 AM #256:	darkknight109 posted... It's adorable that you still think I'm pushing for Trump's ouster, when for years now I've said that I hope that he doesn't get impeached or otherwise removed, because the voters need to do their damn job and take out the trash themselves - they created this mess, they need to fix it. Fortunately, given that the Republican senators might collectively have one or two spines maximum, it looks like I'm going to get my wish. It's also somewhat telling that your only response to a bipartisan group of almost 1000 legal professionals saying that the president did something flagrantly illegal is to basically post memes. This is something that should be of serious concern to you, regardless of your partisan leaning, but clearly you're content putting tribalism above principle, even if it means someone is breaking the fucking law and getting away with it. What? No! I mean, you have all those fantastic, unbiased people clearly proving that what happened was obstruction of justice. This HAS to mean that DRUMPF is going down this time. For realsies! Someone as unbiased and intelligent as you cannot be wrong! I have full confidence in people like you. --- "If masculinity was toxic, children growing without fathers would be better off. Unfortunately, criminals often come from single mother households." <cite>The_tall_midget posted [p:921656524] in How is Tru... [t:77368084]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote> It's adorable that you still think I'm pushing for Trump's ouster, when for years now I've said that I hope that he doesn't get impeached or otherwise removed, because the voters need to do their damn job and take out the trash themselves - they created this mess, they need to fix it. Fortunately, given that the Republican senators might collectively have one or two spines maximum, it looks like I'm going to get my wish. It's also somewhat telling that your only response to a bipartisan group of almost 1000 legal professionals saying that the president did something flagrantly illegal is to basically post memes. This is something that should be of serious concern to you, regardless of your partisan leaning, but clearly you're content putting tribalism above principle, even if it means someone is breaking the fucking law and getting away with it.</quote> What? No! I mean, you have all those fantastic, unbiased people clearly proving that what happened was obstruction of justice. This HAS to mean that DRUMPF is going down this time. For realsies! Someone as unbiased and intelligent as you cannot be wrong! I have full confidence in people like you.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 05/09/19 3:18:23 AM #257:	The_tall_midget posted... I mean, you have all those fantastic, unbiased people clearly proving that what happened was obstruction of justice. I sure do. I mean, this is a collection of prosecutors, people whose job it was to press charges against people like Trump. Pretty sure they know much better than you do about when charges are warranted or not. The_tall_midget posted... Someone as unbiased and intelligent as you cannot be wrong! I have full confidence in people like you. And so you should. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:921657688] in How is Tru... [t:77368084]...</cite> <quote><cite>The_tall_midget posted...</cite> <quote>I mean, you have all those fantastic, unbiased people clearly proving that what happened was obstruction of justice.</quote> I sure do. I mean, this is a collection of prosecutors, people whose job it was to press charges against people like Trump. Pretty sure they know much better than you do about when charges are warranted or not. <cite>The_tall_midget posted...</cite> <quote>Someone as unbiased and intelligent as you cannot be wrong! I have full confidence in people like you.</quote> And so you should.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
The_tall_midget 05/09/19 3:23:33 AM #258:	darkknight109 posted... And so you should. Absolutely! Which is why, with such geniuses as the democrats and people like you proving... whatever it is you're proving, that Trump is finally going gown soon. FOR REAL THIS TIME! --- "If masculinity was toxic, children growing without fathers would be better off. Unfortunately, criminals often come from single mother households." <cite>The_tall_midget posted [p:921657756] in How is Tru... [t:77368084]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>And so you should.</quote> Absolutely! Which is why, with such geniuses as the democrats and people like you proving... whatever it is you're proving, that Trump is finally going gown soon. FOR REAL THIS TIME!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 05/09/19 3:36:22 AM #259:	The_tall_midget posted... with such geniuses as the democrats and people like you proving... whatever it is you're proving That Trump has committed crimes both before and during his time in office? The_tall_midget posted... that Trump is finally going gown soon. You seem oddly insistent on this. Well, before you've said he was going "down", not turning into a woman's eveningwear, but you still seem awfully obsessed with this idea. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:921657958] in How is Tru... [t:77368084]...</cite> <quote><cite>The_tall_midget posted...</cite> <quote>with such geniuses as the democrats and people like you proving... whatever it is you're proving</quote> That Trump has committed crimes both before and during his time in office? <cite>The_tall_midget posted...</cite> <quote>that Trump is finally going gown soon. </quote> You seem oddly insistent on this. Well, before you've said he was going "down", not turning into a woman's eveningwear, but you still seem awfully obsessed with this idea.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Poll of the Day > How is Trump's Approval rating still at 45%? (+) Yeah! (+)

Poll of the Day > How is Trump's Approval rating still at 45%?