(01-16-2017 01:22 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-16-2017 01:16 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(01-16-2017 01:02 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-16-2017 01:00 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(01-16-2017 12:57 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Where Obama and Hillary trying to win the popular vote or win the electoral college? They were, of course, trying to win the electoral college.

The rules were known to both sides before the game was played. Seems some of the losing team's fans don't even understand how this game is played.

The rules are as follows

In order to be elected President...

You must be able to win a majority of electoral votes in states with white majorities.

That's the rule.

There are no electoral votes IN a state. States assign their assigned electoral votes, as state law requires, to the winner of the state's popular vote, or by popular vote per congressional district and the two senatorial electoral votes to the statewide popular vote winner. Electoral votes per state are the total of the number of members of Congress that that state is allotted per the US Census every 10 years. Every state is, per the US Constitution, guaranteed 3 electoral votes; because every state is guaranteed, 2 Senators and 1 Representative.

Popular vote in each state determines, in general, who that state's entire electoral vote goes to, with two current exceptions. There is no nationwide election in the United STATES of America. There are 51 separate votes and then the states allot their electors according to their own laws and in general accordance to the winner of their state's election.

We are the United STATES of America. STATES elect the President and Vice-President according to their state laws and the will of their citizens.

This is basic US Civics. Did you not have that class or did you go to a "progressive" school where feel-good bull-**** taught you that you were owed something from other people for sucking down oxygen?

I'm fully aware of the way it works. But if you lose the popular vote, you don't get a honeymoon, and you don't get a legitimate popular mandate. Its possible that I was taught by the same civic teacher in high school as William H Pryor.

You guys did NOT convince a majority of people to support DJT. DJT has done everything possible to not convince minorities either. Nor are we going to respect the office anymore than DJT does. He is the President of the white nationalist movement first, because that is how he is governing.

A "mandate" is not required. The authority of the President of the United STATES of America is fully invested in Donald J. Trump's hands for at least the next four years starting at 12 noon this Friday.

THAT is the LAW.

(01-16-2017 01:22 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-16-2017 01:16 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(01-16-2017 01:02 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-16-2017 01:00 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(01-16-2017 12:57 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Where Obama and Hillary trying to win the popular vote or win the electoral college? They were, of course, trying to win the electoral college.

The rules were known to both sides before the game was played. Seems some of the losing team's fans don't even understand how this game is played.

The rules are as follows

In order to be elected President...

You must be able to win a majority of electoral votes in states with white majorities.

That's the rule.

There are no electoral votes IN a state. States assign their assigned electoral votes, as state law requires, to the winner of the state's popular vote, or by popular vote per congressional district and the two senatorial electoral votes to the statewide popular vote winner. Electoral votes per state are the total of the number of members of Congress that that state is allotted per the US Census every 10 years. Every state is, per the US Constitution, guaranteed 3 electoral votes; because every state is guaranteed, 2 Senators and 1 Representative.

Popular vote in each state determines, in general, who that state's entire electoral vote goes to, with two current exceptions. There is no nationwide election in the United STATES of America. There are 51 separate votes and then the states allot their electors according to their own laws and in general accordance to the winner of their state's election.

We are the United STATES of America. STATES elect the President and Vice-President according to their state laws and the will of their citizens.

This is basic US Civics. Did you not have that class or did you go to a "progressive" school where feel-good bull-**** taught you that you were owed something from other people for sucking down oxygen?

I'm fully aware of the way it works. But if you lose the popular vote, you don't get a honeymoon, and you don't get a legitimate popular mandate. Its possible that I was taught by the same civic teacher in high school as William H Pryor.

You guys did NOT convince a majority of people to support DJT. DJT has done everything possible to not convince minorities either. Nor are we going to respect the office anymore than DJT does. He is the President of the white nationalist movement first, because that is how he is governing.

You are a laugh a minute. Please keep the whining going. Great entertainment. Seeing you libs cry like a two year old about losing is truly priceless.

As I have said on here numerous times there isn't much more of a mandate needed than control of the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives, the overwhelming majority of Governorships, and the majority of state legislatures.

(01-16-2017 01:22 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  But if you lose the popular vote, you don't get a honeymoon, and you don't get a legitimate popular mandate.

You want a mandate? The Democrats have been losing elected offices all the way down the ballot since 2008. I'd call that a pretty good mandate.

(01-16-2017 01:57 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(01-16-2017 01:22 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  But if you lose the popular vote, you don't get a honeymoon, and you don't get a legitimate popular mandate.

You want a mandate? The Democrats have been losing elected offices all the way down the ballot since 2008. I'd call that a pretty good mandate.

Gerrymandered districts.

Presidency? Check.

Senate? Check.

House of Reps? Check.

Governorships? Check.

State Assemblies? Check

Supreme Court? Pending.

Mandate? Check.

(01-16-2017 12:44 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-16-2017 11:05 AM)appst89 Wrote:  

(01-16-2017 11:04 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-16-2017 11:02 AM)appst89 Wrote:  

(01-16-2017 10:57 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Other PE-OTUS's actually try to work with the other party and don't seek to exacerbate divisions.

The George Wallace 'thank you' rallies....not a good idea
The cabinet picks....are a terrible idea unless you wish to sow more discord
His response to conflicts of interest...are appalling.
His continued slavery to Putin...is appalling

You guys seem to say DJT will change....I don't see it. I see no reason to be gaslit.

If I see real and consistent evidence of DJT changing, I'll admit it...But even you guys cannot show that.

There is no consensus from DJT.

You mean like, "Elections have consequences," and, "They can go to the back of the bus?"

I have to give you credit though, I didn't think it was possible for the left to continue crying for this long. This is gonna be a fun eight years.

Yea, but Obama actually won the vote.

As did Trump.

Hillary won the most votes cast by people.

Now once that popular vote was bleached by a racist system that throws away the votes of minority voters....DJT got a majority of the 535 people, elected disproportionally, that elected him President.

Obama won the popular vote. Twice.

Bill Clinton never got a majority thanks to Ross Perot

(01-16-2017 02:05 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  President? Check.

Senate? Check.

Hose of Reps? Check.

Governorships? Check.

State Assemblies? Check

Supreme Court? Pending.

Mandate? Check.

Power? Check
Mandate? Nope.

(01-16-2017 02:03 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-16-2017 01:57 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(01-16-2017 01:22 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  But if you lose the popular vote, you don't get a honeymoon, and you don't get a legitimate popular mandate.

You want a mandate? The Democrats have been losing elected offices all the way down the ballot since 2008. I'd call that a pretty good mandate.

Gerrymandered districts.

Redistricting isn’t supposed to be predicated on the happiness of the party that loses the election.

(01-16-2017 02:03 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-16-2017 01:57 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(01-16-2017 01:22 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  But if you lose the popular vote, you don't get a honeymoon, and you don't get a legitimate popular mandate.

You want a mandate? The Democrats have been losing elected offices all the way down the ballot since 2008. I'd call that a pretty good mandate.

Gerrymandered districts.

Senate and Governor elections are statewide.

Enjoy being the party of New York and California.

So if a football team A gets more yards than football team B, but B scored more points... It's not fair that B won and A had to settle for second place?

Maybe, just maybe, the Demon-cratic party should have tried to get Electoral Votes instead of popular votes. That's the way it's always been, electoral votes, since, um, forever. So why all the whining about popular votes. You idjits need to get smart next time and try to get the electoral votes wherever they may be and not only in Libturd territories.

What a bunch of idiots and can't leave this out, crybabies.

(01-16-2017 02:32 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Maybe, just maybe, the Demon-cratic party should have tried to get Electoral Votes instead of popular votes. That's the way it's always been, electoral votes, since, um, forever. So why all the whining about popular votes. You idjits need to get smart next time and try to get the electoral votes wherever they may be and not only in Libturd territories.

What a bunch of idiots and can't leave this out, crybabies.

OH! They did try! They just did poorly at it.

I did not vote for Trump, but he is my President and I will support him until he gives me reason otherwise. Those that already hate the man do it out of spite and disdain since he beat the anointed one. All this other stuff is just continued confirmation bias. It's irrational, and in the long run, unhealthy.

(01-16-2017 10:57 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-16-2017 10:32 AM)banker Wrote:  Here's a couple of things:

1. No President elect has ever been reported on this way by the press. That's not because he's the only one ever to be like this, but because of their general disdain for the man. They didn't care about Hillary's conflicts, including her requirement by the POTUS not to take foreign government donations to her foundation, which she totally ignored. With Trump you have people reporting innuendo, with Hillary they wouldn't even report facts if it put her in a negative light. Therefore, you are getting a constructed view of Trump - all the bad, none of the good.

2. Trump is going to be a different kind of President then Obama was. He's a nationalist, not a globalist, which is why many voted for him. We tend to believe that the blustering from other nations is because they are positioning in a new reality, one where they don't always get their way when it comes to negotiations with the US.

3. I don't like how thin Trump's skin is, but with that said Obama was probably thinner, but no one ever portrayed him the way the lefty TV types portray Trump. It's not just SNL, but the late night crowd with Hollywood thrown in. Obama was the cool, slick brother as portrayed by the entertainment industry, so he didn't have to show his azz to often (but look at his smart azz "magic wand" comment concerning Trump).

4. The dude isn't even in office yet, so what's it going to take for the left to even give him a month to see what we've potentially got in the White House? Trump will be the 8th sitting POTUS since I have been old enough to vote. I have never seen any other President not get some type of honeymoon period to get settled in.

Other PE-OTUS's actually try to work with the other party and don't seek to exacerbate divisions.

The George Wallace 'thank you' rallies....not a good idea
The cabinet picks....are a terrible idea unless you wish to sow more discord
His response to conflicts of interest...are appalling.
His continued slavery to Putin...is appalling

You guys seem to say DJT will change....I don't see it. I see no reason to be gaslit.

If I see real and consistent evidence of DJT changing, I'll admit it...But even you guys cannot show that.

There is no consensus from DJT.

George Wallace thank you rallies?! How so?

Tom just went full John regarding his views on the EC.

Never go full John.

(01-16-2017 10:32 AM)banker Wrote:  Here's a couple of things:

1. No President elect has ever been reported on this way by the press. That's not because he's the only one ever to be like this, but because of their general disdain for the man. They didn't care about Hillary's conflicts, including her requirement by the POTUS not to take foreign government donations to her foundation, which she totally ignored. With Trump you have people reporting innuendo, with Hillary they wouldn't even report facts if it put her in a negative light. Therefore, you are getting a constructed view of Trump - all the bad, none of the good.

2. Trump is going to be a different kind of President then Obama was. He's a nationalist, not a globalist, which is why many voted for him. We tend to believe that the blustering from other nations is because they are positioning in a new reality, one where they don't always get their way when it comes to negotiations with the US.

3. I don't like how thin Trump's skin is, but with that said Obama was probably thinner, but no one ever portrayed him the way the lefty TV types portray Trump. It's not just SNL, but the late night crowd with Hollywood thrown in. Obama was the cool, slick brother as portrayed by the entertainment industry, so he didn't have to show his azz to often (but look at his smart azz "magic wand" comment concerning Trump).

Obama was bragging that everyone thought he was cool the other day. Even Trump isn't that narcissistic.

(01-16-2017 02:22 PM)gdunn Wrote:  So if a football team A gets more yards than football team B, but B scored more points... It's not fair that B won and A had to settle for second place?

We are arguing that in a democracy....the points should be votes.

You are arguing that the points should be some sort of odd and unequal distribution of the votes.

(01-16-2017 10:18 AM)Gakusei Wrote:  What could he do to lose your confidence?

I ask, because in the last week we've gotten threats from China, Mexico, and Germany (probably more, but those are off the top of my head).
I haven't heard anything from Mexico and Germany. And those aren't threats to our security. China is just repeating their long time stance. Tensions with Russia and our ally Turkey are eased. They shut Obama and Kerry out of the Syrian peace talks. Losing Turkey as an ally as Obama has made possible would be a serious geopolitical loss.

He's decided not to divest himself from his business interests.


Not a big concern as long as he's not involved. You would disqualify businessmen from ever being president. With the process we already discourage mentally normal people.


He's questioned whether the head of the CIA leaked classified information.

CIA director has gotten very partisan and into policy. He is really out of line and needs to be put in his place, which is to inform, not to set policy.

He's attacked a civil rights icon a couple days before MLK day.

Something you did 50-60 years ago doesn't protect you from being criticized for actions today. Lewis was the first to attack with a marginally treasonous comment. And the attack was that he hadn't done a lot for his district. I live in his district. A lot of it is really bad. And the nice parts are relatively high crime as well.


He's shown that he has the thinnest skin ever in how he can't take SNL skits. His transition team has hinted he might kick reporters out of the white house. And finally, his campaign is being investigated for ties to Russia by the Senate.
He's thin skinned and we already knew that. But if you believe he is a puppet of Russia, it simply means you are an idiot who believes any propaganda the DNC gives you. Its a pathetic effort that reflects badly on Democrats that they believe it.


I'd like to think that most people here are not simply zealots, and would at least be skeptical of the man at this point. I've never seen anything like this in my life, and at some point it seems like it's no longer about "draining the swamp" (did he really?) and now it's more about pissing everyone off that he can.

Anyways, I can imagine the responses. It's just an honest question.

Its an honest question and I'll give you an honest answer. Democrats act like an infectious form of mental illness has gotten into them. I've never seen such nonsense spouted by so many in all my life. It makes me aware how many people live in bubbles and are oblivious to the world around them.

(01-16-2017 10:57 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-16-2017 10:32 AM)banker Wrote:  Here's a couple of things:

1. No President elect has ever been reported on this way by the press. That's not because he's the only one ever to be like this, but because of their general disdain for the man. They didn't care about Hillary's conflicts, including her requirement by the POTUS not to take foreign government donations to her foundation, which she totally ignored. With Trump you have people reporting innuendo, with Hillary they wouldn't even report facts if it put her in a negative light. Therefore, you are getting a constructed view of Trump - all the bad, none of the good.

2. Trump is going to be a different kind of President then Obama was. He's a nationalist, not a globalist, which is why many voted for him. We tend to believe that the blustering from other nations is because they are positioning in a new reality, one where they don't always get their way when it comes to negotiations with the US.

3. I don't like how thin Trump's skin is, but with that said Obama was probably thinner, but no one ever portrayed him the way the lefty TV types portray Trump. It's not just SNL, but the late night crowd with Hollywood thrown in. Obama was the cool, slick brother as portrayed by the entertainment industry, so he didn't have to show his azz to often (but look at his smart azz "magic wand" comment concerning Trump).

4. The dude isn't even in office yet, so what's it going to take for the left to even give him a month to see what we've potentially got in the White House? Trump will be the 8th sitting POTUS since I have been old enough to vote. I have never seen any other President not get some type of honeymoon period to get settled in.

Other PE-OTUS's actually try to work with the other party and don't seek to exacerbate divisions.

Then why did you like Obama, the most divisive, unwilling to work with others president, perhaps ever.


The George Wallace 'thank you' rallies....not a good idea
The cabinet picks....are a terrible idea unless you wish to sow more discord

To quote the "divider in chief," Elections have consequences. I'm delighted with his cabinet choices. They are people who look like they will actually get things done. Discord is just Democrats throwing temper tantrums.


His response to conflicts of interest...are appalling.


Some questions there, but he's a lot better than Hillary ever was.


His continued slavery to Putin...is appalling




Mass insantity by the Democrats about Russia is appalling. Our mental health system is already inadequate.


You guys seem to say DJT will change....I don't see it. I see no reason to be gaslit.

If I see real and consistent evidence of DJT changing, I'll admit it...But even you guys cannot show that.

There is no consensus from DJT.

He's picking really good people. One of the most "discordant" was Tillerson who was recommended independently by Robert Gates and Condaleeza Rice. So the discord is all from the Democrats mass insanity and temper trantrums.

My opinion of Trump as gone up. He's controlled his tongue for the most part. He's picked good people who look like they will get things done. And while it wouldn't be my style, I do enjoy him not putting up with nonsense from the press. He's got Pence who makes them look bad without direct insults.

And if you remember, Trump was #17 out of #17 on my list. There are still a lot of those Republicans who I think would do a better job. But I may be pleasantly surprised.