# Electoral College Breakdown



## JoeB131 (Apr 19, 2020)

Because America is still a country that bizarrely uses an 18th century anachronism to pick presidents, we have to look at the state by state races. 

For sake of this argument, let's assume Biden will get all the states Hillary won for 232 Electoral votes.    Let's also assume for the argument that no matter how awful the economy gets, Trump will still 19 safe states, for a total of 123. 

That leaves us with the following states in play - WI, MI, PA, NC, AZ, FL, TX, IA, OH, and GA.  We can also put in there ME2 and NE2

So I will break them down into three groups.

The Ones Hillary Should have Won-  WI, MI, PA -  Because she didn't devote resources, because Comey sandbagged her, or because of Russian Shennanigans, Hillary lost these states.  So how is Biden doing there.

Well, he's leading in all three.









						RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - Wisconsin: Trump vs. Biden
					

RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - Wisconsin: Trump vs. Biden




					www.realclearpolitics.com
				












						RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Biden
					

RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Biden




					www.realclearpolitics.com
				












						RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - Michigan: Trump vs. Biden
					

RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - Michigan: Trump vs. Biden




					www.realclearpolitics.com
				




This is before the full effect of Trump's Recession are hit, and Biden's still ahead.  When these folks realize that not only won't they get Daddy's factory job back, they probably won't get to keep that service job they have, it WILL be worse. 

Those three will put him over 278, game over, man, game over.

But wait, there's more! 

Next up we have the three Hillary tried really hard for  - NC, AZ and FL

Biden is competitive in those, and has a firm lead in Arizona.









						RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - Florida: Trump vs. Biden
					

RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - Florida: Trump vs. Biden




					www.realclearpolitics.com
				












						RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - North Carolina: Trump vs. Biden
					

RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - North Carolina: Trump vs. Biden




					www.realclearpolitics.com
				












						RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - Arizona: Trump vs. Biden
					

RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - Arizona: Trump vs. Biden




					www.realclearpolitics.com
				




If he wins those three, he will be up to 333, actually better than Obama did in 2008.  Let's throw in Maine2 into that mix, and go with 334.

Then you have the Swinging for the Fences states.   These are states the Democrats could potentially win.  = IA, OH, TX and GA.  Not as much polling data on these from RCP.   But what little there is shows Biden could be competitive.   Probably a lot more after the bottom completely falls out of the economy.  That would bring him up to 413

he's withing 3 points in Texas









						RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - Texas: Trump vs. Biden
					

RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - Texas: Trump vs. Biden




					www.realclearpolitics.com
				




5 Points in Iowa









						RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - Iowa: Trump vs. Biden
					

RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - Iowa: Trump vs. Biden




					www.realclearpolitics.com
				




Actually LEADING Trump in Ohio.









						RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - Ohio: Trump vs. Biden
					

RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - Ohio: Trump vs. Biden




					www.realclearpolitics.com
				




Trailing him by 8 points in Georgia, but again- this assumes the economy collapses completely and Trump won't be so popular anymore.





Next up, we have


----------



## ReinyDays (Apr 19, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Because America is still a country that bizarrely uses an 18th century anachronism to pick presidents, we have to look at the state by state races.



Nitpick ... the Electoral College is a 13th Century anachronism ... it was used to elect the Holy Roman Emperor ...

And for the same reasons ... the system gave the German micro-states the same say in who the emperor is as the "biggies", Prussia and Bavaria ... the same here in the last Presidential election, Democrats can't focus on the Big States like California and New York ... they have to carry some Middle States as well ... Hillary went into Pennsylvania promising to shut down all the coal mines, she went into Michigan promising to make state tax-payers clean up Flint ... The Donald carried those EC votes ... the system worked as intended ...

As a liberal ... I think the 2016 election was correct ... We the People wanted the liberal initiatives scaled back ... so We the People are getting want we want ...


----------



## Ricky LIbtardo (Apr 19, 2020)

That was a lot of research to pump yourself up. But the reality is Bidum will forget he's running for President and the Democrats will throw all their cards in on the VP pick.


----------



## kyzr (Apr 19, 2020)

If I was Trump I would NOT be scared of Joe Biden.  Trump needs to be more presidential and get the economy back up before November and he's in.
Your polls are not scary because they don't show the margin of error, usually +/- 3% or so.

If I was Joe Biden or a democrat, what I would be worried about are the 2016 results vs the 2016 polls.  IMHO many democrats will swear that they will vote for Biden, but when in that voters booth they will vote for Trump to keep the good jobs coming back to the US.

Please remember that Joe Biden and Hunter Biden have a China Problem, in that Hunter got $1.5b from China to their fund.  Nice to have $1.5b to play with, huh??


----------



## BluesLegend (Apr 19, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> The Ones Hillary Should have Won-  WI, MI, PA -  Because she didn't devote resources, because Comey sandbagged her, or because of Russian Shennanigans, Hillary lost these states.



BECAUSE...Dem TAX increases, jobs killing policies, and threats to destroy entire industry sectors to appease stupid shit climate changers were unpopular in those states. Imbecile


----------



## blackhawk (Apr 19, 2020)

That is a very impressive display of theory, speculation and what if's and it makes good message board foder but that's all it is.


----------



## BluesLegend (Apr 19, 2020)

I pray most liberals are as deluded as this OP. Lets hope they continue to believe liberal policies are popular with voters.


----------



## ColonelAngus (Apr 19, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Because America is still a country that bizarrely uses an 18th century anachronism to pick presidents, we have to look at the state by state races.
> 
> For sake of this argument, let's assume Biden will get all the states Hillary won for 232 Electoral votes.    Let's also assume for the argument that no matter how awful the economy gets, Trump will still 19 safe states, for a total of 123.
> 
> ...



Tell you what Joe, lets make a bet. If Trump wins the election, you don’t post for a year from Election Day. If Biden wins, I won’t post for a year from Election Day.

Seems fair right?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 19, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Because America is still a country that bizarrely uses an 18th century anachronism to pick presidents, we have to look at the state by state races.
> 
> For sake of this argument, let's assume Biden will get all the states Hillary won for 232 Electoral votes.    Let's also assume for the argument that no matter how awful the economy gets, Trump will still 19 safe states, for a total of 123.
> 
> ...



*The Ones Hillary Should have Won-  WI, MI, PA -  Because she didn't devote resources, because Comey sandbagged her, *

It was outrageous! Dem crimes and corruption must remain hidden.
Dem crimes and corruption must never be exposed.

*or because of Russian Shennanigans,*

Russian memes on Facebook tricked many millions of Dems to vote for Trump.
Facebook and memes must be outlawed!!!


----------



## Toro (Apr 19, 2020)

I think these are the states that matter - WI, MI, PA, NC, AZ, FL.  And of those, the first three are most important.  

If Trump loses FL, there's no way he's going to win the election.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Apr 19, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> The Ones Hillary Should have Won-  WI, MI, PA -  Because she didn't devote resources, because Comey sandbagged her, or because of Russian Shennanigans, Hillary lost these states.






ReinyDays said:


> Hillary went into Pennsylvania promising to shut down all the coal mines, she went into Michigan promising to make state tax-payers clean up Flint ... The Donald carried those EC votes ...



  Apparently, JoeB131 thinks that Hillary should have been entitled to win those states specifically by going in and promising to screw them over; and that it is only because of the various absurd conspiracies that he alleges, that the voters in these states rejected her, rather than because she was a bad candidate, whose stated policy positions would have been harmful to those voters in ways that were obvious to them.



ReinyDays said:


> …the system worked as intended ...



  If you've paid enough attention to JoeB131, then surely you know of the deep contempt in which he holds this nation's Constitution, the rule of law under it, and the wise men who wrote it.  Even if he were to agree that the Electoral College worked exactly as intended, he doesn't agree with the intent, not with the principles on which that intent is based.

  Before the day is out, I predict that you will see him describe the great men who wrote the Constitution in vulgar and degrading terms, and openly express the opinion that the Constitution should simply be disobeyed, because he does not agree with it.


----------



## 22lcidw (Apr 19, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Because America is still a country that bizarrely uses an 18th century anachronism to pick presidents, we have to look at the state by state races.
> 
> For sake of this argument, let's assume Biden will get all the states Hillary won for 232 Electoral votes.    Let's also assume for the argument that no matter how awful the economy gets, Trump will still 19 safe states, for a total of 123.
> 
> ...


Tell us about the 18th century stuff again. But Rhode Island has two federal senators while South Dakota has the same.  Rhode Island is a pimple on South Dakota's ass.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Apr 19, 2020)

kyzr said:


> If I was Trump I would NOT be scared of Joe Biden. Trump needs to be more presidential and get the economy back up before November and he's in.
> Your polls are not scary because they don't show the margin of error, usually +/- 3% or so.



  The Democraps are pinning a lot of hope on the expectation that by November, voters will blame Trump for the economic disaster that the Democraps have deliberately created in relation to the COVID-19 hoax.  Truly, that is what it comes down to.  They are hoping that the American people are stupid enough to blame Trump for what anyone can see is the Democraps' doing.


----------



## Nostra (Apr 19, 2020)

Polls had Hitlery in an electoral landslide.

Oops!


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 19, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Because America is still a country that bizarrely uses an 18th century anachronism to pick presidents, we have to look at the state by state races.
> 
> For sake of this argument, let's assume Biden will get all the states Hillary won for 232 Electoral votes.    Let's also assume for the argument that no matter how awful the economy gets, Trump will still 19 safe states, for a total of 123.
> 
> ...





> For sake of this argument, let's assume Biden will get all the states Hillary won for 232 Electoral votes.


 Are those voters in those states really that stupid to vote for an Old, Rich, White Guy who gropes children and women?  Are they such dumbasses that all during the first 3 years of Trumps admin, the liberals did nothing for them but try to overthrow the election results of 2016?  I bet many of those states are fed up with dumbass liberal elites who still have their jobs, but didnt help those who lost their job during the Wuhan Virus pandemic that the left was always so far behind schedule.  You can keep on thinking that Sleepy Joe the groper is going to win, Joe, but like 2016 the result will be the same.


----------



## Missourian (Apr 19, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Because America is still a country that bizarrely uses an 18th century anachronism to pick presidents, we have to look at the state by state races.
> 
> For sake of this argument, let's assume Biden will get all the states Hillary won for 232 Electoral votes.    Let's also assume for the argument that no matter how awful the economy gets, Trump will still 19 safe states, for a total of 123.
> 
> ...


We need a Fiction Section.

This post could win a creative writing award.


----------



## Missourian (Apr 19, 2020)

Absolutely best case scenario for Biden...





It might not be PA...but at least one of those four...MI,  MN,  WI,  &  PA...stays red and the Invisible Man loses.

That's BEST CASE SCENARIO for Dems with The Invisible Man from Deleware who is running for Senate as their standard bearer.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 19, 2020)

I think this is what the map of 2020 is going to look like, with the way the liberals in Congress were such petulant children, i think Nan from San Fransicko is going to pass the gavel again, and it will be by a super majority.


----------



## Missourian (Apr 19, 2020)

andaronjim said:


> I think this is what the map of 2020 is going to look like, with the way the liberals in Congress were such petulant children, i think Nan from San Fransicko is going to pass the gavel again, and it will be by a super majority.


Biden makes the Mondale look stellar by comparison.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Apr 19, 2020)

I can't speak for the thousands of voters and municipalities in Pa.  giving up their bonus and royalty checks for the pleasure of voting for Slo Joe, but there is at least one of us in Ohio that wouldn't dream of it...


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Apr 19, 2020)

andaronjim said:


> I think this is what the map of 2020 is going to look like, with the way the liberals in Congress were such petulant children, i think Nan from San Fransicko is going to pass the gavel again, and it will be by a super majority.



  I wish I held that much hope for California.

  This is a state where the Democraps are in solid control of our government.  The Democrapic criminals who infest our government continue to openly screw over the people of this state, making not even any vestige of an effort to hide it, and too many of my fellow Californians keep voting these same criminals back into office over and over again.

  I keep hoping that one day, there will be an awakening; that the people of California will open their eyes and see what the Democraps who infest our state government are doing to us, and vote all of them out at the next election cycle, but it never happens.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 19, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Because America is still a country that bizarrely uses an 18th century anachronism to pick presidents, we have to look at the state by state races.
> 
> For sake of this argument, let's assume Biden will get all the states Hillary won for 232 Electoral votes.    Let's also assume for the argument that no matter how awful the economy gets, Trump will still 19 safe states, for a total of 123.
> 
> ...


Come November, people are going to be really, really pissed. 

They will look back over the last six months and ask......does Trump care about me?

If the answer is no....Trump can’t win


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 19, 2020)

Missourian said:


> Absolutely best case scenario for Biden...
> 
> View attachment 325313
> 
> ...


Biden has very strong connections with PA and will win easily
Throw in NV and Trump loses 

Arizona will be in play as it swings from solid red to blue. Trump only took AZ by 3.5 percent last time.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 19, 2020)

ColonelAngus said:


> Tell you what Joe, lets make a bet. If Trump wins the election, you don’t post for a year from Election Day. If Biden wins, I won’t post for a year from Election Day.
> 
> Seems fair right?



Nope.  We had a bunch of you right wingers promise that when Obama won in 2012, and not a fucking one of you got the fuck lost.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 19, 2020)

andaronjim said:


> Are those voters in those states really that stupid to vote for an Old, Rich, White Guy who gropes children and women? Are they such dumbasses that all during the first 3 years of Trumps admin, the liberals did nothing for them but try to overthrow the election results of 2016? I bet many of those states are fed up with dumbass liberal elites who still have their jobs, but didnt help those who lost their job during the Wuhan Virus pandemic that the left was always so far behind schedule. You can keep on thinking that Sleepy Joe the groper is going to win, Joe, but like 2016 the result will be the same.



Actually, no, it won't because NOW PEOPLE WILL BE LOOKING OUT FOR IT.  A lot of people stayed home or voted third party in 2016, because "Hillary had this".    

I'm not sure why you think winning on a technicality in 2016 proves anything.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 19, 2020)

Bob Blaylock said:


> The Democraps are pinning a lot of hope on the expectation that by November, voters will blame Trump for the economic disaster that the Democraps have deliberately created in relation to the COVID-19 hoax. Truly, that is what it comes down to. They are hoping that the American people are stupid enough to blame Trump for what anyone can see is the Democraps' doing.



Really? Did the Democrats ignore the problem for three months like Trump did?
Did the Democrats call it a hoax? 
Did the Democrats push quack cures or promise to have the country back open by Easter?  

No, Mormon Bob, Trump will get the blame because he deserves the blame.  But even if he didn't, it really wouldn't matter.  Jimmy Carter and Poppy Bush had shitty economies and crisis that were beyond their control, and THEY LOST ANYWAY.  

Hey, Mormon Bob, as long as I got you here, how about the way Trump is dissing Mitt Romney?  I mean, yeah, funny how he turned on one of your fellow cultists out of spite.


----------



## BluesLegend (Apr 19, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Are those voters in those states really that stupid to vote for an Old, Rich, White Guy who gropes children and women? Are they such dumbasses that all during the first 3 years of Trumps admin, the liberals did nothing for them but try to overthrow the election results of 2016? I bet many of those states are fed up with dumbass liberal elites who still have their jobs, but didnt help those who lost their job during the Wuhan Virus pandemic that the left was always so far behind schedule. You can keep on thinking that Sleepy Joe the groper is going to win, Joe, but like 2016 the result will be the same.
> ...



LMAO liberal denial ^^^. You people threw $1.2 billion in campaign war chest at Trump, enjoyed 90% pro Hillary free media coverage, hell you had 20% of the GOP rooting for Hillary and you still got your ass whooped bad. Good luck in 2020 with Biden


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 19, 2020)

kyzr said:


> If I was Trump I would NOT be scared of Joe Biden. Trump needs to be more presidential and get the economy back up before November and he's in.
> Your polls are not scary because they don't show the margin of error, usually +/- 3% or so.
> 
> If I was Joe Biden or a democrat, what I would be worried about are the 2016 results vs the 2016 polls. IMHO many democrats will swear that they will vote for Biden, but when in that voters booth they will vote for Trump to keep the good jobs coming back to the US.



Well, when you have 10% unemployment, you aren't doing a good job.  

The 2016 results just show a flaw in the system that won't be replicated.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 19, 2020)

BluesLegend said:


> LMAO liberal denial ^^^. You people threw $1.2 billion in campaign war chest at Trump, enjoyed 90% pro Hillary free media coverage, hell you had 20% of the GOP rooting for Hillary and you still got your ass whooped bad. Good luck in 2020 with Biden



Trump lost by 3 million votes against an unlikeable candidate.  

Now he's running against a LIKABLE candidate, and he's running a shitty economic record.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 19, 2020)

Bob Blaylock said:


> I keep hoping that one day, there will be an awakening; that the people of California will open their eyes and see what the Democraps who infest our state government are doing to us, and vote all of them out at the next election cycle, but it never happens.



Maybe you should move to Utah with the rest of your cult.


----------



## The VOR (Apr 19, 2020)

Ricky LIbtardo said:


> That was a lot of research to pump yourself up. But the reality is Bidum will forget he's running for President and the Democrats will throw all their cards in on the VP pick.


 That was an asinine response, but totally expected from you.


----------



## XponentialChaos (Apr 19, 2020)

This is going to come down to Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. 

All three have traditionally gone blue in the last several presidential elections except for 2016.  All three barely swung red in 2016 by less than 1 point.  All 3 swung back to blue in 2018 by at least 8 points. 

If Trump loses those three states, all else remaining equal, then Trump loses.


----------



## BluesLegend (Apr 19, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> > LMAO liberal denial ^^^. You people threw $1.2 billion in campaign war chest at Trump, enjoyed 90% pro Hillary free media coverage, hell you had 20% of the GOP rooting for Hillary and you still got your ass whooped bad. Good luck in 2020 with Biden
> ...



No Hillary got 4 million more votes than Trump in California but she lost by 1 million votes in the other 49 states and got her ass whooped in the EC. Go ahead win by 4 million more votes in California again or 40 million it doesn't matter.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 19, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> > LMAO liberal denial ^^^. You people threw $1.2 billion in campaign war chest at Trump, enjoyed 90% pro Hillary free media coverage, hell you had 20% of the GOP rooting for Hillary and you still got your ass whooped bad. Good luck in 2020 with Biden
> ...



*Now he's running against a LIKABLE candidate,*

What office is the likeable candidate running for again?


----------



## BluesLegend (Apr 19, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > BluesLegend said:
> ...



Chief creepy sniffer? Gaffe club president? Candidate most likely to challenge an 84 year old in his own party to a fist fight?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 19, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Because America is still a country that bizarrely uses an 18th century anachronism to pick presidents, we have to look at the state by state races.
> 
> For sake of this argument, let's assume Biden will get all the states Hillary won for 232 Electoral votes.    Let's also assume for the argument that no matter how awful the economy gets, Trump will still 19 safe states, for a total of 123.
> 
> ...



United States of America

It's right in the fucking title!!!


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 19, 2020)

BluesLegend said:


> No Hillary got 4 million more votes than Trump in California but she lost by 1 million votes in the other 49 states and got her ass whooped in the EC. Go ahead win by 4 million more votes in California again or 40 million it doesn't matter.



TRump will lose by 10 million next time and he'll lose most of the states I've listed in the OP.  

Again, you don't crash the economy and get an attaboy.


----------



## kyzr (Apr 19, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> kyzr said:
> 
> 
> > If I was Trump I would NOT be scared of Joe Biden. Trump needs to be more presidential and get the economy back up before November and he's in.
> ...


What flaw in the system?  
If there was a flaw it was the BULLSHIT MSM POLLS. 
In November the UE rate won't be 10%

The flaw you need to fix is Biden


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 19, 2020)

XponentialChaos said:


> This is going to come down to Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
> 
> All three have traditionally gone blue in the last several presidential elections except for 2016.  All three barely swung red in 2016 by less than 1 point.  All 3 swung back to blue in 2018 by at least 8 points.
> 
> If Trump loses those three states, all else remaining equal, then Trump loses.



I agree to a point.  Biden should avoid Hillary's mistake of neglecting GOTV efforts in those states.  

That said, winning some of the other states would be nice as well.  A clear mandate for change to reunite a badly divided country.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 19, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Because America is still a country that bizarrely uses an 18th century anachronism to pick presidents, we have to look at the state by state races.
> 
> For sake of this argument, let's assume Biden will get all the states Hillary won for 232 Electoral votes.    Let's also assume for the argument that no matter how awful the economy gets, Trump will still 19 safe states, for a total of 123.
> 
> ...



Biden had to take time off from his campaign in order to testify in Brennan's trial for sedition and treason...


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 19, 2020)

kyzr said:


> What flaw in the system?
> If there was a flaw it was the BULLSHIT MSM POLLS.
> In November the UE rate won't be 10%



Actually, it will be 10% next month.  And the one thing we know about the unemployment rate is that it takes a lot longer to go down than it does to go up.  For instance, it went from 5% to 10% in less than a year and half, but it didn't go back down to 5% until 2015 or so.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 19, 2020)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Biden had to take time off from his campaign in order to testify in Brennan's trial for sedition and treason...



Weird Beard Durhnam won't get his nonsense past a grand jury.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 19, 2020)

Bob Blaylock said:


> I keep hoping that one day, there will be an awakening; that the people of California will open their eyes and see what the Democraps who infest our state government are doing to us, and vote all of them out at the next election cycle, but it never happens.



But then you have to ask yourself WHY you all lost California?  

Your state GOP went full out racist when it supported things like Prop 63 and Homophobic with Prop 8.  Really, when your underlying message is "We hate you" to minorities and gays, you really never get to the discussion about supply side economics or limited government.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 19, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Biden had to take time off from his campaign in order to testify in Brennan's trial for sedition and treason...
> ...



"I never met the guy, I have no idea who this Walter Brenner guy is!"


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 19, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > I keep hoping that one day, there will be an awakening; that the people of California will open their eyes and see what the Democraps who infest our state government are doing to us, and vote all of them out at the next election cycle, but it never happens.
> ...



CA?  Voter Fraud keep the dems in power.  Less than 20,000,000 "registered voter" (Aka Illegals Aliens)  and over 5,000,000 mail in ballots.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 19, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Biden had to take time off from his campaign in order to testify in Brennan's trial for sedition and treason...
> ...



We'll see if Brennan gets offered a blindfold


----------



## fncceo (Apr 19, 2020)




----------



## whitehall (Apr 19, 2020)

There is nothing bizarre about the electoral college except when a republican wins the election. Some idiot lefties might consider the United States of America to be an anachronism but it is unique in the world where independent states make up a Union. No other country enjoys that concept. The intent of the electoral college, as anachronistic as it might seem to a-holes who were educated in front of the boob tube, is to insure that one state doesn't have unfair advantage over several other states because of it's population density.


----------



## my2¢ (Apr 19, 2020)

Regarding presidential elections I possess the Doris Day attitude of Que Sera, Sera.


----------



## ColonelAngus (Apr 19, 2020)

Where are you Joe?

If Joe Biden wins the election you do not post for a year.

If Orange Man wins I will not post for a year.

Let’s do it pussy.


----------



## BluesLegend (Apr 19, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> > No Hillary got 4 million more votes than Trump in California but she lost by 1 million votes in the other 49 states and got her ass whooped in the EC. Go ahead win by 4 million more votes in California again or 40 million it doesn't matter.
> ...



If your post wasn't a lie...well no you still wouldn't have a valid point never mind.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Apr 19, 2020)

BluesLegend said:


> No Hillary got 4 million more votes than Trump in California but she lost by 1 million votes in the other 49 states and got her ass whooped in the EC. Go ahead win by 4 million more votes in California again or 40 million it doesn't matter.



  In fact, here we see the genius of the Electoral College system.  No matter how big any one state is, it simply doesn't get to determine, by itself, the outcome of the entire election.  Hitlery Clinton could have got 100% of the vote in California, and it would not have changed the outcome.  She still needed to win enough other states, and get enough of their Electoral votes, to win.  And she didn't.

  Even by cheating, by welcoming in invading foreign criminals and letting them be counted in the population, toward Congressional and EC representation (which, by credible estimates, means that California has about nine more seats in the House, and nine more Electoral votes, than it legitimately should have), California wasn't able to dominate the election.

  Our bicameral Legislative Branch is based on this principle, and in turn, the Electoral College based on it, to assure that the needs of the smaller states are not ignored, in favor of a few really large states.  And this principles is more important today, than it was when it was first put into effect.


----------



## BluesLegend (Apr 19, 2020)

Bob Blaylock said:


> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> > No Hillary got 4 million more votes than Trump in California but she lost by 1 million votes in the other 49 states and got her ass whooped in the EC. Go ahead win by 4 million more votes in California again or 40 million it doesn't matter.
> ...



Exactly correct. 40 states would have no say or voice in anything, a handful of states would have total control and the corrupt politicians in Washington would kiss their ass. California could borrow and spend like there's no tomorrow and just demand the other 40 states bail out their pie in the sky government pensions. WAIT FOR IT...that's not a theory California already tried to do just that right after Obama was elected in 2008. Kind of shocked but Obama told them to pound sand, good for him.

That's the danger of a popular vote when the population is so concentrated in just a few states. Most likely after only a few years of popular vote presidential elections the country would break up with a majority of the smaller states forming a new country.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 20, 2020)

whitehall said:


> There is nothing bizarre about the electoral college except when a republican wins the election. Some idiot lefties might consider the United States of America to be an anachronism but it is unique in the world where independent states make up a Union. No other country enjoys that concept. The intent of the electoral college, as anachronistic as it might seem to a-holes who were educated in front of the boob tube, is to insure that one state doesn't have unfair advantage over several other states because of it's population density.



Uh, guy, we don't "enjoy" the Electoral College.  The anachronism means we get presidents the people didn't want who were clearly not up to the job.  

The thing is, if you live in a "Safe" state on either side, the candidates don't care about you.  That this WILL come down to three states is not a good thing, it means the needs of the other 47 are largely ignored.  

If a state has more people, it should have a bigger say because it's more important.  We'd be in really bad shape if everyone in California died of Covid-19.  We wouldn't notice if everyone in Wyoming died of Covid19.  

But there's more.  We all get angry about how every year we have "The lesser of two evils", but the reason why third parties never gain any traction is largely because of the Electoral College. So we end up with the candidates that are picked by New Hampshire and Iowa in the primaries, and then we end up with the president who is picked by maybe five or six swing states?  That's fucking nuts. 

Final point.  You wingnuts need to be a little less short-sighted.  At SOME point, Texas will become a blue state by virtue of Hispanic immigration/population growth.  Trump has lost Hispanics for the GOP for generations.  This will make it nearly impossible for you guys to win in the EC even if you DO somehow get a good candidate.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 20, 2020)

BluesLegend said:


> Exactly correct. 40 states would have no say or voice in anything, a handful of states would have total control and the corrupt politicians in Washington would kiss their ass. California could borrow and spend like there's no tomorrow and just demand the other 40 states bail out their pie in the sky government pensions. WAIT FOR IT...that's not a theory California already tried to do just that right after Obama was elected in 2008. Kind of shocked but Obama told them to pound sand, good for him.



Uh, let's get real. The BIG States end up subsidizing the small states.  How is this a good thing?


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 20, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > BluesLegend said:
> ...


POTUS

Trump ran on an “I hate Hillary” platform
People said .....I don’t like Trump, but I hate Hillary. 

Once Comey dropped his bombshell, Hillary never recovered


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 20, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> ColonelAngus said:
> 
> 
> > Tell you what Joe, lets make a bet. If Trump wins the election, you don’t post for a year from Election Day. If Biden wins, I won’t post for a year from Election Day.
> ...


And in 2010 the largest swing in the history of the US went from Demoncraps to Republicans.  Nan from San Fransicko is going to be the one that swings it all Republican again.  Thanks Blinkie Pelosi and your never ending impeachment...


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 20, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > There is nothing bizarre about the electoral college except when a republican wins the election. Some idiot lefties might consider the United States of America to be an anachronism but it is unique in the world where independent states make up a Union. No other country enjoys that concept. The intent of the electoral college, as anachronistic as it might seem to a-holes who were educated in front of the boob tube, is to insure that one state doesn't have unfair advantage over several other states because of it's population density.
> ...


Funny how a libtard always wants to get rid of the electoral college because they hate the midwestern states.  But if the majority of people voted for the President, they would all be thanking that the college was still in tact.  Just a bunch of hypocrites like Joe here


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 20, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > There is nothing bizarre about the electoral college except when a republican wins the election. Some idiot lefties might consider the United States of America to be an anachronism but it is unique in the world where independent states make up a Union. No other country enjoys that concept. The intent of the electoral college, as anachronistic as it might seem to a-holes who were educated in front of the boob tube, is to insure that one state doesn't have unfair advantage over several other states because of it's population density.
> ...



*If a state has more people, it should have a bigger say because it's more important.*

California has 55 electoral votes, Wyoming has 3. You should whine some more about Wyoming.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 20, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



*Once Comey dropped his bombshell, Hillary never recovered*

Yeah, that was awful!
Hillary's corruption should never be exposed.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 20, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> kyzr said:
> 
> 
> > What flaw in the system?
> ...


It will take a while to drop below 10 percent. A lot of businesses will not come back and the consumer market will take a while to recover.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 20, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Turns out there was no corruption 

Oops....my bad


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 20, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



You're right, that's why she kept her pay-to-play emails on a private, illegal server.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 20, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


She had all her emails on a private server and turned them over

Trump refused to turn over a single record. Not a one


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 20, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


*
She had all her emails on a private server *

Yes, she had classified government emails on a private, insecure server.

*and turned them over*

Except for the 30 thousand plus she had deleted.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 20, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



*She had all her emails on a private server and turned them over*

Some of which, mysteriously, ended up on Anthony Wiener's porn laptop.
Which was what the Comey "bombshell" was about.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 20, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Not exactly. 

They were just innocent correspondence with his wife. 
Coney jumped at nothing, stuck us with Trump


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 20, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



*Not exactly. *

There were no Hillary-government emails on Weiner's laptop? 
Tell me more!


----------



## XponentialChaos (Apr 20, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> > This is going to come down to Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
> ...



I think Iowa can flip.  Outside of Iowa and the big three mentioned earlier, I'm not too optimistic about the others.

But anything can happen and it will be very interesting to see how coronavirus moves the needle.  In my opinion, it shouldn't help Trump's chances, but I've learned not to underestimate the irrational devotion his supporters have for him.

So for that reason, I'll call it a wash for now and focus my attention on the big three.  Those 3, in my opinion, will determine this election.  Three traditionally blue states that Trump barely won, which appear to be reverting back to blue, and Trump is going to have to fight for deal life to hang on to them.


----------



## BluesLegend (Apr 20, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly correct. 40 states would have no say or voice in anything, a handful of states would have total control and the corrupt politicians in Washington would kiss their ass. California could borrow and spend like there's no tomorrow and just demand the other 40 states bail out their pie in the sky government pensions. WAIT FOR IT...that's not a theory California already tried to do just that right after Obama was elected in 2008. Kind of shocked but Obama told them to pound sand, good for him.
> ...



Now factor in military bases and Dem's in Dem run cities in red states fake news.


----------



## BluesLegend (Apr 20, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Ahaha the Comey excuse, thanks for the trip down memory lane.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 20, 2020)

BluesLegend said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Look at the polls before Comey and after Comey
Hillary dropped 4 points and never recovered


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 20, 2020)

BluesLegend said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > BluesLegend said:
> ...


Federal Dollars are still Federal Dollars


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 20, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



It's awful when people are reminded of Hillary's corruption.

Hillary's corruption must remain hidden.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 20, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > BluesLegend said:
> ...



Why after 25 years, has there not even been an indictment?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 20, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



They've kept her corruption (mostly) hidden.


----------



## BluesLegend (Apr 20, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Wrong, you idiots have tried to fly this false flag for decades its FAKE NEWS.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 20, 2020)

andaronjim said:


> And in 2010 the largest swing in the history of the US went from Demoncraps to Republicans. Nan from San Fransicko is going to be the one that swings it all Republican again. Thanks Blinkie Pelosi and your never ending impeachment...



Actually, what got them in trouble in 2010 was that the economy didn't get better fast enough.   

Midterms really don't indicate anything other than angry voters have more influence than happy ones in midterms.

The reality- in Midterms, only a few dozen races are really in play.  The real problem in 2010 was WHO lost. Mostly, it was all those DINO's who got voted in 2006 and 2008 because people were mad about the Iraq War, but they really didn't stand for anything.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 20, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes, she had classified government emails on a private, insecure server.



So what?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 20, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, she had classified government emails on a private, insecure server.
> ...



That's against the rules.


----------



## WelfareQueen (Apr 20, 2020)

I can't wait to revive this thread after election day.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Apr 20, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> ColonelAngus said:
> 
> 
> > Tell you what Joe, lets make a bet. If Trump wins the election, you don’t post for a year from Election Day. If Biden wins, I won’t post for a year from Election Day.
> ...


Easy, HR guy. Go review some resumes. Why are you swearing Let us wait for a VP pick and debates and then we can gauge the polls. LOL


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 21, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> That's against the rules.



Lots of shit is against the rules.  Again...So what?  Jared Kushner talking to foreign leaders about policies on WhatsApp is against the rules.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 21, 2020)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Why are you swearing Let us wait for a VP pick and debates and then we can gauge the polls. LOL



VP Picks and debates don't make any difference.   They really don't.  Bush picked Quayle, said stupid things during the debates, and he STILL won in 1988. 

The only thing that will matter is the economy, and the economy is going to suck by November....  

You all thought the Great Recession was bad, the "Great Lockdown" is going to be far worse.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 21, 2020)

BluesLegend said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > BluesLegend said:
> ...


Hardly, 
Federal money flows into red states


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 21, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > And in 2010 the largest swing in the history of the US went from Demoncraps to Republicans. Nan from San Fransicko is going to be the one that swings it all Republican again. Thanks Blinkie Pelosi and your never ending impeachment...
> ...


What got them in trouble, because your ability to remember things is very selective, is that Nan Fransicko, and Dirty Harry Reid behind closed doors and not one Republican support, went against the will of the people and created a broken healthcare system for you stupid liberals.  When the brown turd Oblummer signed it into law, that was the downfall of the Demoncrap party until 2018 when liberal states started recounting losses over and over, finding unfilled ballots in the trunks of their cars, until they won.  

ObamaCare architect: 'Stupidity' of voters helped bill pass


> *ObamaCare architect: 'Liberal Stupidity' of voters helped bill pass*




Thanks Oblummer....


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 21, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > Why are you swearing Let us wait for a VP pick and debates and then we can gauge the polls. LOL
> ...


Oblummer picked Good Ole Groper Joe Biden who said the brown turd was "clean and articulate" yet the turd still got elected.  That was one "Magic Negro".


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Apr 21, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > Why are you swearing Let us wait for a VP pick and debates and then we can gauge the polls. LOL
> ...


Yeah Palin really helped McCain. And debates didn’t help Trump win the nomination and the presidency. You are the most dishonest person on this board and a tattle tale. Still zero from the mods, who see you as a joke. Debates and VP picks don’t matter...what an idiotic statement to make. Par for the course for you, Captain HR.


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Apr 21, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Because America is still a country that bizarrely uses an 18th century anachronism to pick presidents, we have to look at the state by state races.
> 
> For sake of this argument, let's assume Biden will get all the states Hillary won for 232 Electoral votes.    Let's also assume for the argument that no matter how awful the economy gets, Trump will still 19 safe states, for a total of 123.
> 
> ...


/——/ Keep changing the rules until democRATS win.


----------



## BluesLegend (Apr 21, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Flows into red states...to...poor Dems living in red states. There I finished it for you.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 21, 2020)

BluesLegend said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > BluesLegend said:
> ...


What a moron

Who do you think those poor dirt farmers vote for?  Who does Appalachia vote for?


----------



## BluesLegend (Apr 21, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I triggered you with truth. Asshole liberal scum bash red states completely ignoring the millions of poor Democrats who live in those red states.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 21, 2020)

BluesLegend said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > BluesLegend said:
> ...


They call them rural for a reason

Actually, it is the major cities in those states that pay the taxes that support the rest of the state.


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 21, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Because America is still a country that bizarrely uses an 18th century anachronism to pick presidents, we have to look at the state by state races.
> ...


My main beef with the EC is that it is usually winner-take-all at the state level, I'd prefer to see the EC votes guided by the state's popular vote.  I have no idea who would be the winners or losers but anything that empowers voters I'm for.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 21, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


In that case, you essentially have a popular vote


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 21, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


Yeah, sure, and when the Republican wins , then that will need to be abolished.  You liberals believe that Democracy, where winner of popular vote takes all, only applies to the whole of the country, not the whole of each state.  You guys hate the fly over country.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 21, 2020)

andaronjim said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > ReinyDays said:
> ...


I don’t hate flyover states, but having visited most, I find them very dull


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 21, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > ReinyDays said:
> ...


Except not every state has the same number of EC votes/pop.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Apr 21, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> VP Picks and debates don't make any difference. They really don't. Bush picked Quayle, said stupid things during the debates, and he STILL won in 1988.
> 
> The only thing that will matter is the economy, and the economy is going to suck by November....
> 
> You all thought the Great Recession was bad, the "Great Lockdown" is going to be far worse.



  The Democraps have created this crisis, desperately hoping that Trump and Republicans in general will be blamed for it, and that the Democraps will benefit from it in the election.  They think, and are hoping, that the American people are stupid.

  I don't think it's going to work.  I think everyone can see which party it i that is responsible for turning an overhyped flue into an economic disaster, and which party is trying to control and mitigate this disaster.  We see Nanthy _“Marie Antoinette”_ Pelothi telling us all to eat cake, as she boasts of her life of idle luxury in her multi-million dollar mansion, eating $13/pint ice cream out of her $24,000 refrigerator, while we, the little people, wonder how long we're going to be able to obtain any food at all, or keep roofs over our heads.

  I think this play is going to backfire against the Democraps.  They should count themselves lucky if the worst that happens to them is merely being voted out of office en-masse.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 21, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > That's against the rules.
> ...



*Lots of shit is against the rules.  Again...So what?*

So that's why Comey announced he found Hillary's government emails on Weiner's porn computer.
It's a shame when Hillary breaks the rules and the voters find out.
Just awful.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 22, 2020)

andaronjim said:


> What got them in trouble, because your ability to remember things is very selective, is that Nan Fransicko, and Dirty Harry Reid behind closed doors and not one Republican support, went against the will of the people and created a broken healthcare system for you stupid liberals. When the brown turd Oblummer signed it into law, that was the downfall of the Demoncrap party until 2018 when liberal states started recounting losses over and over, finding unfilled ballots in the trunks of their cars, until they won.



If that argument was correct, then they would have beaten Obama in 2012.  They didn't.  

The thing is, most of those districts were already drawn to favor Republicans, and most of the Democrats who got voted out were the ones who didn't support ACA to start with.  Heck, they didn't even end the Iraq War like they promised they would.   We're still there.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 22, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> So that's why Comey announced he found Hillary's government emails on Weiner's porn computer.
> It's a shame when Hillary breaks the rules and the voters find out.
> Just awful.



The voters still voted for her by three million more votes than Trump.


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Apr 22, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > So that's why Comey announced he found Hillary's government emails on Weiner's porn computer.
> ...


/——-/ Another meaningless statistic.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 22, 2020)

Bob Blaylock said:


> The Democraps have created this crisis, desperately hoping that Trump and Republicans in general will be blamed for it, and that the Democraps will benefit from it in the election. They think, and are hoping, that the American people are stupid.



The American people are stupid.  Republicans keep bringing them recessions, and they keep getting voted back in after Democrats solve the problem. 



Bob Blaylock said:


> I don't think it's going to work. I think everyone can see which party it i that is responsible for turning an overhyped flue into an economic disaster, and which party is trying to control and mitigate this disaster. We see Nanthy _“Marie Antoinette”_ Pelothi telling us all to eat cake, as she boasts of her life of idle luxury in her multi-million dollar mansion, eating $13/pint ice cream out of her $24,000 refrigerator, while we, the little people, wonder how long we're going to be able to obtain any food at all, or keep roofs over our heads.



He isn't running against Pelosi...  Pelosi isn't on the ballot.  



Bob Blaylock said:


> I think this play is going to backfire against the Democraps. They should count themselves lucky if the worst that happens to them is merely being voted out of office en-masse.



The only people getting voted out of office en masse will be the Republicans.  It's the old cycle. A Republican goes in, messes up the economy by letting the rich run roughshod over the rest of us (Hoover, Bush-41, Bush-43, Trump) a Democrat comes along and fixes it, and a few years later, you guys use racism and religion to get dumb white people to vote to get screwed by the rich all over again.  Wash, Rinse, Repeat. 

You see, this probably wouldn't be so bad, if the other underlying problems weren't there.  Because Trump's rich buddies took all that money they got in tax breaks and ran up a bunch of debts, they are going to screw working people.  Those jobs won't be coming back when the businesses reopen in May.  In fact, they'll just end up firing more people to try to restore "profitability".


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 22, 2020)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Yeah Palin really helped McCain.



Yeah, actually, she did.  Check out the polling over 2008.  McCain was trailing Obama pretty much the whole time, but the week after he picked Palin, he managed to close the gap to within the margin of error.  

McCain didn't lose because of Palin. He lost because Bush tanked the economy and he was advocating continuing the Iraq War which was massively unpopular at that point.  



AzogtheDefiler said:


> And debates didn’t help Trump win the nomination and the presidency.



Trump flailed miserably in the debates and he lost by 3 million votes... so um, yeah, the Debates didn't help him at all.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Apr 22, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> The only people getting voted out of office en masse will be the Republicans. It's the old cycle. A Republican goes in, messes up the economy by … a Democrat comes along and fixes it,



  Nice story.  But it won't fly.

  It is obvious to nearly everyone, who is deliberately trying to trash the economy, using a cooked-up hoax over an overhyped flu as an excuse to do so; and who is trying to save the economy.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 22, 2020)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Nice story. But it won't fly.
> 
> It is obvious to nearly everyone, who is deliberately trying to trash the economy, using a cooked-up hoax over an overhyped flu as an excuse to do so; and who is trying to save the economy.



So those 45,000 dead people are just faking it, Mormon Bob?  

Bunch of malingerers.. 

Yes, people can tell who is trying to save the economy... and it isn't Trump.  









						RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Public Approval of President Trump's Handling of the Coronavirus
					

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Public Approval of President Trump's Handling of the Coronavirus




					www.realclearpolitics.com


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Apr 22, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> So those 45,000 dead people are just faking it, Mormon Bob?



  Once you filter out the fraud, being used to deceitfully pad the numbers, it's no worse than any other years' flu season.

  Should we be shutting down the economy every year, and keeping citizens under house arrest without due process of law, and trashing everyone's Constitutional rights, just because some people get sick, and allowing the corrupt pieces of shit who infest our government to seize more and more unjust power, every time some flu-like disease goes around?


----------



## Camp (Apr 22, 2020)

Tea bagger trumpoholics are spelling the doom for a Trump 2nd term.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 22, 2020)

Bob Blaylock said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > VP Picks and debates don't make any difference. They really don't. Bush picked Quayle, said stupid things during the debates, and he STILL won in 1988.
> ...


Yea the Democrats planned this global epidemic just to get Trump


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Apr 22, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...





Cellblock2429 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...





rightwinger said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


/----/* "Yea the Democrats planned this global epidemic just to get Trump"*
You're not that clever. What democRATs did was exploit the epidemic to harm Trump.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 22, 2020)

Cellblock2429 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Bob Blaylock said:
> ...



Trump is accountable for what he did and what he failed to do

Let the voters decide in November if he did a good job


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Apr 22, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah Palin really helped McCain.
> ...


He failed miserably? How did he beat 16 other candidates and garner the nomination? He had zero political experience and then he crushed Clinton in the general election. Votes are irrelevant. He didn’t campaign in blue states. Look at it this way. I am way more intelligent and successful than you. I likely pay triple the taxes you do but our votes count the same? How is that logical? Save me your diatribe about how the EC is unfair. Only unfair when your candidate loses.


----------



## candycorn (Apr 22, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Because America is still a country that bizarrely uses an 18th century anachronism to pick presidents, we have to look at the state by state races.
> 
> For sake of this argument, let's assume Biden will get all the states Hillary won for 232 Electoral votes.    Let's also assume for the argument that no matter how awful the economy gets, Trump will still 19 safe states, for a total of 123.
> 
> ...



Biden has no chance in TX or GA.  I doubt he has one in OH or IA.  

NC, FL...no chance in my view.

Biden has a good chance in AZ.

As for WI,MI, PA. If the DEMs show up at the polls, I think that they may flip back. You didn’t account for the DEMs being motivated. I think one of the reasons HRC lost was DEMs being over confident. That shouldn’t happen again in 2020. The problem is Biden is to Charisma what Superman is to Kryptonite; they both avoid it.

Also, VA is going to be a real dog fight.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 22, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > So that's why Comey announced he found Hillary's government emails on Weiner's porn computer.
> ...



Yes, California, with their new open primary rules, worked out very well for Hillary.
The rest of the country......less well.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 22, 2020)

candycorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Because America is still a country that bizarrely uses an 18th century anachronism to pick presidents, we have to look at the state by state races.
> ...


 Mostly agree

The wild card is we don’t know what shape the country will be in  come November. 

If Trump can sell himself as a savior, he will win
If he takes the blame, he and Republicans will lose big and Democrats will be left to pick up the pieces


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Apr 22, 2020)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> I likely pay triple the taxes you [JoeB131] do but our votes count the same?



  Triple nothing is nothing.  Triple a negative is a bigger negative.

  You might want to rethink that statement.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Apr 22, 2020)

Bob Blaylock said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > I likely pay triple the taxes you [JoeB131] do but our votes count the same?
> ...


LOL

He pays something I assume.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Apr 22, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes, California, with their new open primary rules, worked out very well for Hillary.
> The rest of the country......less well.



  One more way for a party in enough power to amplify its power and shut out the opposition.

  I was started, a few election cycles ago, when it came to casting a vote for a new Senator to succeed Barbara Boxer, to see that instead of having a choice between a Democrap and a Republican, to have two Democraps, each of them even more corrupt than Senator Boxer.  That's where we got Kamala Harris.  The other choice was Loretta Sanchez, a Congresscriminal who won the seat that she currently infests, a couple decades ago, by explicitly courting the votes of illegal aliens.  She defeated the incumbent, Bob Dornan, by fewer than a thousand votes.  A subsequent investigation solidly proved that there were at least seven or eight hundred votes cast in that election by illegal aliens, and there was evidence suggesting that the actual number may have been as much as four or five thousand.

  The Democraps in power created the open-primary system in California, and have crafted and manipulated it in such a way as to pretty much guarantee that Republican candidates will not make it to the main election.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Apr 22, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> If Trump can sell himself as a savior, he will win
> If he takes the blame, he and Republicans will lose big and Democrats will be left to pick up the pieces



  It's obvious enough to nearly everyone that it is the Demnocraps that have created this crisis, and furthermore, that they did so deliberately, with the hope and the intent of blaming it on Trump and the Republicans.  They deliberately harmed the economy, they deliberately harmed the country, they deliberately harmed the American people, all for the sake of seizing illegitimate power.

  At this point, I do not think that if he wanted to, if he intended to, President Trump could possibly screw up badly enough to end up getting the blame for the mess that everyone can clearly see that the Democraps maliciously created.

  This is going to backfire against the Democraps, to an unprecedented degree.  As I said before, the Democraps will be very lucky if the worst that happens to them after this is merely being voted out of office, _en-masse_.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Apr 22, 2020)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> He pays something I assume.



  I think anyone can tell, from his writings, from the attitude that he expresses on almost every subject, that he's a taker—someone who, ultimately, costs much more to our economy than he contributes.

 If your contribution to society was thrice his, then mathematically, that would make you three times the worthless, burdensome parasite.


----------



## HappyJoy (Apr 22, 2020)

Nostra said:


> Polls had Hitlery in an electoral landslide.
> 
> Oops!



Nope, the polls accurately predicted she would win the popular vote and she did.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Apr 22, 2020)

Bob Blaylock said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > He pays something I assume.
> ...


Oh my....LOL


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Apr 22, 2020)

HappyJoy said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> > Polls had Hitlery in an electoral landslide.
> ...


If the polls knew our president was elected via the EC and predicted her as the next President then why would they care about the popular vote, which is irrelevant?


----------



## HappyJoy (Apr 22, 2020)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Nostra said:
> ...



Because then you'd have to count on less reliable state polling.

How is it that wingnuts in 2020 still don't understand election polls?


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Apr 22, 2020)

HappyJoy said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...


All polling should be state polling. Why must you resort to name calling? Snowflake.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 22, 2020)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, California, with their new open primary rules, worked out very well for Hillary.
> ...



Yup, almost zero incentive for a Republican to vote in California when both Senate candidates are Dems and the Republican has zero chance of winning California's electoral college votes.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 22, 2020)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > AzogtheDefiler said:
> ...


Agree 
National polling is irrelevant. I don’t know why they even do it


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Apr 22, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...


Thank you. Finally we agree.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 22, 2020)

HappyJoy said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> > Polls had Hitlery in an electoral landslide.
> ...



*Nope, the polls accurately predicted she would win the popular vote and she did.*

They also, inaccurately, predicted she'd win the Electoral College.
With something like a 98% chance she'd do so, as late as election day.


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney (Apr 22, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Because America is still a country that bizarrely uses an 18th century anachronism to pick presidents, we have to look at the state by state races.
> 
> For sake of this argument, let's assume Biden will get all the states Hillary won for 232 Electoral votes.    Let's also assume for the argument that no matter how awful the economy gets, Trump will still 19 safe states, for a total of 123.
> 
> ...



Biden is not winning Texas...

He could win Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan and even Arizona but Texas is still off the table...


----------



## HappyJoy (Apr 22, 2020)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > AzogtheDefiler said:
> ...



State polling isn't as reliable and it's more expensive and time consuming. Polling for the popular vote gives you exactly that. I'd figure Democrats need to win the presidency by about 2 or 3 points to win the presidency due to built in advantages the EC give rural, smaller populated states. Kind of like with the massive amounts of gerrymandering the House Democrats have to endure and need to have a 5 or 6 point edge to hold onto the chamber.

Basically Republicans have a built in advantage, even in the senate where senators from smaller states represent a considerably smaller population therefore giving an undue amount of importance to an individual's vote if they are from smaller states. Then, if there is an imbalance in power for the presidency and senate that also tilts the balance of power in the judicial branch.

None of the above our forefather's realized in the system they had created considering the early states populations didn't vary nearly as much as they do now where California has almost 40 million people and Wyoming is less than a million. These large variances simply didn't exist during the founding of the country.

The GOP might as well wear a handicap placard around their collective necks.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Apr 22, 2020)

HappyJoy said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...


You know this because you have spoken with them via your Ouija board?


----------



## HappyJoy (Apr 22, 2020)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > AzogtheDefiler said:
> ...



I know this because state populations didn't vary by nearly as much.


----------



## HappyJoy (Apr 22, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Nostra said:
> ...



Those weren't polls, dipshit, they were predictions. Polls don't measure the odds of winning the presidency they measure popular opinion.

"Toddster", sounds like a legacy kid in the market for roofies.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Apr 22, 2020)

HappyJoy said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...


You are guessing and surmising. You don’t know. They also didn’t think African Americans would vote and that we would become a melting pot. Tough to speak for our founders. I agree that our system isn’t perfect. I do not like that people who can barely spell the word “cat” and do not pay taxes have as much voting power as I do. Such is life.


----------



## DGS49 (Apr 22, 2020)

The "common knowledge that HRC lost certain states because she didn't spend time campaigning there is simply not true.  When Trump goes out and about, and when most politicians go out and about, they improve their popularity.  But for Mrs. Clinton, the opposite is true.  The LESS visible she is, the more her personal favorability ratings rise.  This has been true since she was First Lady of Arkansas.

You could look it up.

But just think about it.  Is she a public speaker who inspires the masses?  Are you kidding?

Most of the votes she got were (a) because she has (presumably) a vagina, and (b) she was NOT Donald Trump.  That's it.


----------



## HappyJoy (Apr 22, 2020)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > AzogtheDefiler said:
> ...



Again, our state populations by most to least varied only by about 100k in 1790, where as now it's over 38 million. No, our forefathers never imagined just as many (maybe not all) non-white male land owners would thankfully be able to participate in our representative democracy.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Apr 22, 2020)

HappyJoy said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...


So you cannot speak for them. You’re guessing but I agree with you, our system is far from perfect.


----------



## HappyJoy (Apr 22, 2020)

DGS49 said:


> The "common knowledge that HRC lost certain states because she didn't spend time campaigning there is simply not true.  When Trump goes out and about, and when most politicians go out and about, they improve their popularity.  But for Mrs. Clinton, the opposite is true.  The LESS visible she is, the more her personal favorability ratings rise.  This has been true since she was First Lady of Arkansas.
> 
> You could look it up.
> 
> ...




Doesn't hold a lot of water since she won many of the states she went to and lost states that she took for granted and didn't campaign in hard enough. But, whatever.


----------



## HappyJoy (Apr 22, 2020)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > AzogtheDefiler said:
> ...



I don't speak for them just as you implied that you knew what they were thinking is also not you speaking for them.

They were short sighted on quite a few things, variances in population is only one.


----------



## 22lcidw (Apr 22, 2020)

HappyJoy said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> > Polls had Hitlery in an electoral landslide.
> ...


What did you expect? Half the people living in Central and South America voted for her! Plus a few Caribe Islands! I had a problem with communist Cuba though.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Apr 22, 2020)

HappyJoy said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...


Of course but overall they did a very good job IMO.


----------



## 22lcidw (Apr 22, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


There will be no picking up of anything. You have no answers. People are taxed out! They will establish a massive underground economy based on barter if need be.


----------



## HappyJoy (Apr 22, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



It's cheaper since you don't need to poll as many people.

It's quicker since a single national poll wouldn't require as many people as individually polling enough people from every state. By the time they were done the poll would probably be out of date. Also, more room for error as polling for the EC is more complicated.

National polls tell you exactly that in relatively short order. There are polls for individual states however many are few and far between, more likely to be off as compared to national polls and they tend to be infrequent.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 22, 2020)

HappyJoy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



*Those weren't polls, dipshit, they were predictions.*

Oh, they made state by state predictions without polling...…..LOL!
You're such a fucking moron.
*
Polls don't measure the odds of winning the presidency they measure popular opinion.*

Well, when the polls show you'll easily win enough states for more than 270 electoral votes, 
they did use them to predict the odds of winning the presidency. In Hillary's case....hilariously.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 22, 2020)

22lcidw said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


The country will be in economic shambles come November. 

If Trump has provided stable leadership in our time of trouble, he will be re-elected. 
If he is looked at as being in over his head.....he will not


----------



## HappyJoy (Apr 22, 2020)

22lcidw said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Nostra said:
> ...



I didn't realize people in Central and South America voted for our president.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Apr 22, 2020)

HappyJoy said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > AzogtheDefiler said:
> ...


Cheap and quick? This isn’t a search for chicks. We need to be accurate.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Apr 22, 2020)

HappyJoy said:


> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...


Me neither. Think our founding fathers knew that would be the case? You claim you know their thoughts.


----------



## HappyJoy (Apr 22, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Yes, assumptions are made when making predictions. That's why it's a prediction. 

*



			Polls don't measure the odds of winning the presidency they measure popular opinion.
		
Click to expand...

*


> Well, when the polls show you'll easily win enough states for more than 270 electoral votes,
> they did use them to predict the odds of winning the presidency. In Hillary's case....hilariously.



That's not what national polls do, they measure the preference for one candidate over another and anything beyond that is people who didn't conduct the poll trying to figure out what it all means. 

Bottom line, most people don't like Trump. Most polls showed that most people won't be voting for Trump. The election showed us that more people voted for Clinton than Trump.


----------



## HappyJoy (Apr 22, 2020)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



National polls are more accurate for what they poll.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 22, 2020)

HappyJoy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



*Yes, assumptions are made when making predictions. That's why it's a prediction. *

Yes, assumptions extrapolated from polls.

*That's not what national polls do, *

That's what individual state polls do. In this case, with less than perfect accuracy.

*Bottom line, most people don't like Trump. *

Based on people who responded to polls. So what?

*The election showed us that more people voted for Clinton than Trump.*

That and $10 will get Hillary another bottle of her favorite vodka.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Apr 22, 2020)

HappyJoy said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...


Obviously not when it comes to the general election.


----------



## eddiew (Apr 22, 2020)

kyzr said:


> If I was Trump I would NOT be scared of Joe Biden.  Trump needs to be more presidential and get the economy back up before November and he's in.
> Your polls are not scary because they don't show the margin of error, usually +/- 3% or so.
> 
> If I was Joe Biden or a democrat, what I would be worried about are the 2016 results vs the 2016 polls.  IMHO many democrats will swear that they will vote for Biden, but when in that voters booth they will vote for Trump to keep the good jobs coming back to the US.
> ...


Trump needs to be more presidential ???  You are fn kidding  The man has been a prk since birth  He can't change


----------



## HappyJoy (Apr 22, 2020)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > AzogtheDefiler said:
> ...



They accurately captured the popular vote. That Clinton received over 2% more than Trump. 

Where the prediction models went wrong is they made some bad assumptions off of more inaccurate state polls in the upper midwest. If there was a single EC poll based on 50 individual state polls it most likely would have shown Clinton winning.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 22, 2020)

HappyJoy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...








These state predictions weren't based on a national poll.


----------



## HappyJoy (Apr 22, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You're right, they were based on inaccurate state polling where there are problems in states that are close. This is a prime example why a national EC poll based off of individual state polling would be less accurate then just having a national poll that only measures the popular vote. 

You may not know the end game but you at least know who most Americans would vote for.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 22, 2020)

HappyJoy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



*You're right, they were based on inaccurate state polling *

Yup.

*This is a prime example why a national EC poll based off of individual state polling would be less accurate then just having a national poll that only measures the popular vote.*

As we've seen, popular vote doesn't make you President.

*You may not know the end game but you at least know who most Americans would vote for.*

Why bother?


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 22, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


State polling is poorly funded and is generally not current. That is why they got it so wrong on 2018. 

Polling should be conducted in only ten states. 
Polling people in NY, CA or Texas does no good


----------



## HappyJoy (Apr 22, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I think it's a more accurate representation as to who will win an election. However, there should be an understanding of the differences between the EC and popular vote. National polls also demonstrate how a candidate is doing with different demographics such as age, race, sex, religion and sometimes region.

National polls can also give insight into how a candidate is doing with their own base or are they making inroads into the other side's base. Over time they also show you trends, how is a candidate doing over time and how is a candidate doing over time with the demographics previously mentioned.

To me I find them interesting. Maybe in the same way a marketing firm will poll soup or auto brands. But there needs to be a basic understanding of what a poll can and cannot do. If you ever hear someone say a poll gives so and so a certain percentage chance of winning then you know it's not a poll. Anyway, polls tells more than who is going to win and I just wish more people understood their purpose.


----------



## Markle (Apr 22, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > The Democraps are pinning a lot of hope on the expectation that by November, voters will blame Trump for the economic disaster that the Democraps have deliberately created in relation to the COVID-19 hoax. Truly, that is what it comes down to. They are hoping that the American people are stupid enough to blame Trump for what anyone can see is the Democraps' doing.
> ...


----------



## HappyJoy (Apr 22, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



That's not entirely true. For example if you want to know how a candidate is doing among African Americans and how that trends over time and getting enough of a sample, where the person is located often times is secondary.


----------



## Markle (Apr 22, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> kyzr said:
> 
> 
> > What flaw in the system?
> ...



THANK YOU!  Good to see you finally acknowledging the fact failed former President Obama led the slowest recovery in modern history.


----------



## eddiew (Apr 22, 2020)

aghhhhh  I can't take it anymore This scumbag this pos is patting himself on the back for being the king of ventilators  All nations are congratulating him Have another rally you MF  Shake hands with all your SB supporters


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 22, 2020)

HappyJoy said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Not relevant 

You want to know how he is doing with Hispanics in Arizona
You want to know how he is doing with blacks in Pennsylvania and Michigan. 

How he does with blacks and Hispanics in California doesn’t matter


----------



## Markle (Apr 22, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Because America is still a country that bizarrely uses an 18th century anachronism to pick presidents, we have to look at the state by state races.
> 
> For sake of this argument, let's assume Biden will get all the states Hillary won for 232 Electoral votes.    Let's also assume for the argument that no matter how awful the economy gets, Trump will still 19 safe states, for a total of 123.
> 
> ...


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 22, 2020)

Markle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > kyzr said:
> ...


Slowest recovery that tripled the Stock Market and cut unemployment by five percent.


----------



## Markle (Apr 22, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Yep, over a period of eight years.


----------



## HappyJoy (Apr 22, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



What if you want to know how a candidate is doing with Hispanics across the country? 

Like I said earlier, state polling is expensive and often times not reliable. I don't think we shouldn't poll individual states but I think those polls need to be confirmed with a lot more other polls and there just isn't that many of them considering the scope of what they poll (bang for the buck).


----------



## HappyJoy (Apr 22, 2020)

Markle said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...



Name 3 Republican Presidents who were in office that got us out of a deeper ditch than the Great Recession.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 22, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



*Slowest recovery that tripled the Stock Market.*

8K to 20K isn't a triple.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Apr 22, 2020)

HappyJoy said:


> State polling isn't as reliable and it's more expensive and time consuming. Polling for the popular vote gives you exactly that.



  So what?  If a more difficult, time-consuming process is what it take to produce a more accurate result, then that's what it takes.

  There's nothing new or radical about this principle.  I suppose I shouldn't take it for granted than an unproductive parasite living in his mother's basement would understand this, but those of us who have experience working in the real world very clearly understand that it is usually more expensive and time consuming to do the job right, and that it is no gain to cut corners on time or money to do a poor job, that ends up producing a bad result.




HappyJoy said:


> Basically Republicans have a built in advantage, even in the senate where senators from smaller states represent a considerably smaller population therefore giving an undue amount of importance to an individual's vote if they are from smaller states. Then, if there is an imbalance in power for the presidency and senate that also tilts the balance of power in the judicial branch.



  If the Electoral College gives an _“unfair”_ advantage to Republicans, then it is only because Republicans, in line with the intent of the great men who set up this system, are paying attention to the needs of all Americans, and not just those living in a few small, densely-populated areas.

  They recognized that under a pure popular-vote democracy, that government would be dominated by just the one group, and the needs of the others would be completely disregarded.  That is exactly why they set up our bicameral legislature, the way they did, with the House to represent the people equally, and the Senate to represent the states equally, with the Electoral College set up to mirror this representation in electing the President.




HappyJoy said:


> None of the above our forefather's realized in the system they had created considering the early states populations didn't vary nearly as much as they do now where California has almost 40 million people and Wyoming is less than a million. These large variances simply didn't exist during the founding of the country.



  Which only means that the Electoral College system is more important, now, than it originally was.  Even more now than then, the situation has been set up where just a very small handful of densely-populated states would otherwise completely dominate the election, with the population of most of the country being, in effect, completely disenfranchised.

  If this suggests any need for change, it would be to go, not in the direction of eliminating the Electoral College in favor of the popular vote, but in the opposite direction, of giving even greater voice to the less densely-populated areas relative to the more densely-populated areas.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 22, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...


Ain’t no slow recovery ...is it?
No President has had a bigger gain


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Apr 22, 2020)

Markle said:


>



  Because he's JoeB131.  It's what he does.  It's what he is.

  You might as well ask a pig why it wallows in mud, or a flounder why it lies on the bottom on the sea.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 22, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



*Ain’t no slow recovery ...is it?*

Weakest recovery since WWII.

*No President has had a bigger gain*

Incorrect.


----------



## Jitss617 (Apr 22, 2020)




----------



## Jitss617 (Apr 22, 2020)

The way democrats dismiss the existence of traditional Americans.. is the reason why your going to get your ass kicked in 2020


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 23, 2020)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Once you filter out the fraud, being used to deceitfully pad the numbers, it's no worse than any other years' flu season.
> 
> Should we be shutting down the economy every year, and keeping citizens under house arrest without due process of law, and trashing everyone's Constitutional rights, just because some people get sick, and allowing the corrupt pieces of shit who infest our government to seize more and more unjust power, every time some flu-like disease goes around?



Oh, are we getting into Covid denial now?  the guy who thinks he's wearing magic underwear thinks all the doctors are lying to "pad" the numbers in a big old conspiracy to, um, do what, exactly?   You're getting into Dale Smith level of crazy here, bud.  

Place where I work, they've shut down three times because someone tested positive for Covid-19.  This isn't a joke.  It's why the big companies all shut down and started taking action LONG before the government did.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 23, 2020)

Jitss617 said:


> View attachment 326806



We've been  bombing  "terrorists"  for 40 years now.  How is that working out for us again? 

Yes, it's horrible. Obama gave Iran back the money we illegally stole from them. That bastard.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 23, 2020)

Jitss617 said:


> The way democrats dismiss the existence of traditional Americans.. is the reason why your going to get your ass kicked in 2020



Ward and June are a myth.  

Traditional Americans are dumb-ass white trash who bend over for the rich.  "I want to catch Covid!  They made me wait 10 minutes in line for groceries!"


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 23, 2020)

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> Biden is not winning Texas...
> 
> He could win Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan and even Arizona but Texas is still off the table...



Is it?  Beto O'Rourke got DAMNED CLOSE in the midterm to beating Ted Cruz.  And that was in a GOOD economy.  Texas is already taking a bit of an economic beating because the price of oil has bottomed out, there's a slow but steady increase in Hispanic voters.  

Now, I did put Texas in my "Swinging for the fences" category... but if the economy goes far enough south, it's plausible.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 23, 2020)

Markle said:


> THANK YOU! Good to see you finally acknowledging the fact failed former President Obama led the slowest recovery in modern history.



Well, no, the recovery from the Herbert Hoover Recession was slower than the recovery from the Dubya Bush Recession.  

It's amazing, you guys fuck up the economy time after time, and then whine we aren't fixing it fast enough for you.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 23, 2020)

Bob Blaylock said:


> If the Electoral College gives an _“unfair”_ advantage to Republicans, then it is only because Republicans, in line with the intent of the great men who set up this system, are paying attention to the needs of all Americans, and not just those living in a few small, densely-populated areas.



If the areas are "densely populated" they aren't small.   The real question is, why are we giving Wyoming more clout in the EC than California?  One person... One vote.  This isn't a complicated idea and it's how we elect EVERY OTHER OFFICE in this country from Senator down to Dog Catcher.  

Also, Mormon Bob, you need to be a little less short sighted.  At some point, Hispanic Immigration/population growth is going to flip Arizona and Texas to the Blue column.  Then it won't matter if you win the midwest or not.  

If you take all the Hillary States, add on to them AZ and TX, you can win FL, NC, PA, WI, MI, IA and OH and STILL lose.  



Bob Blaylock said:


> They recognized that under a pure popular-vote democracy, that government would be dominated by just the one group, and the needs of the others would be completely disregarded. That is exactly why they set up our bicameral legislature, the way they did, with the House to represent the people equally, and the Senate to represent the states equally, with the Electoral College set up to mirror this representation in electing the President.



Okay, once again, the Founding Slave Rapists didn't really trust the people and wanted the franchise to only be held by white, property-owning males.  They didn't want the people electing senators.  They didn't want black people voting at all and only counted them as 3/5th of a white person.  They didn't want women to vote (what a crazy idea! THeir job is to fuck their man into the Celestial Heaven and Make Babies!) 

The whole of our history is been to expand democracy, not detract from it.  



Bob Blaylock said:


> Which only means that the Electoral College system is more important, now, than it originally was. Even more now than then, the situation has been set up where just a very small handful of densely-populated states would otherwise completely dominate the election, with the population of most of the country being, in effect, completely disenfranchised.
> 
> If this suggests any need for change, it would be to go, not in the direction of eliminating the Electoral College in favor of the popular vote, but in the opposite direction, of giving even greater voice to the less densely-populated areas relative to the more densely-populated areas.



Uh, no, Mormon Bob. The reality is the thinly populated areas are already taking the productive areas for a ride. 

Blue states send more to Washington than they get back. Red states get more from Washington than they send. that's the end result of not letting the people decide these things.


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 23, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> > LMAO liberal denial ^^^. You people threw $1.2 billion in campaign war chest at Trump, enjoyed 90% pro Hillary free media coverage, hell you had 20% of the GOP rooting for Hillary and you still got your ass whooped bad. Good luck in 2020 with Biden
> ...


^ Dear JoeB131 although I do think Biden has a chance at beating Trump at his media trolling contest if he chooses either Harris or Obama to stir the pot, did it ever occur to you how the election would have changed that 3 million margin you cite had it been set up differently? That if you did announce that only popular votes will count, the whole Republican and Democratic party strategies would change to target the largest population cities and states. If you change the rules that much, announcing it as the policy will also change the results! You can't just assume the same results would still hold if the rules changed.
Mostly likely if rules change, this would affect entire campaign strategies and results.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 23, 2020)

emilynghiem said:


> ^ Dear @JoeB131 although I do think Biden has a chance at beating Trump at his media trolling contest if he chooses either Harris or Obama to stir the pot, did it ever occur to you how the election would have changed that 3 million margin you cite had it been set up differently?



Yes, I honestly believe that if we had a sensible system of direct voting, instead of this anachronism set up by slave rapists who didn't trust the people, we'd have a very different result.  Hillary would have listened to the doctors when they said that Covid-19 was a real threat. 



emilynghiem said:


> That if you did announce that only popular votes will count, the whole Republican and Democratic party strategies would change to target the largest population cities and states.



If they did that, the Republicans wouldn't be what they are.  The GOP has essentially developed a strategy of getting working class whites to vote against their own economic interests by playing on their racial, religious and sexual anxieties.  IF we had actual democracy, where the votes of white men were counted proportionally, they would be forced to actually try to appeal to women and minorities. 

Now, here's the thing.  White people who vote Democratic have often made a conscious choice to be liberal.  Minorities, less so.  They don't necessarily vote for Democrats because they want to reduce their carbon footprints or support a woman's right to choose. They vote for them because they know Republicans are going to make life more difficult for them.  

If you had direct democracy, Republicans would be forced to actually attempt to get minorities to vote for them.  They actually DID seem to get it in 2004, when George W. Bush made good faith attempts to reach out, raising black support to 11% and Hispanic Support to 44%.  He was also the only Republican to win the popular vote since his father in 1988.   

Trump went in the opposite direction, alienating minorities and playing full out racism.  It will probably take the GOP decades to undo the damage Trump has done.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 23, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


How is tripling the stock market and dropping unemployment by over five percent “weak”??


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 23, 2020)

emilynghiem said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > BluesLegend said:
> ...


Cities and states don’t vote. 
People do. 

Political strategies would change to get the most people to vote for you.


----------



## Markle (Apr 23, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> We've been bombing "terrorists" for 40 years now. How is that working out for us again?
> 
> Yes, it's horrible. Obama gave Iran back the money we illegally stole from them. That bastard.



As you know, pretty well.  Failed former President Barack Hussein Obama allowed ISIS to create a huge Caliphate in Iraq which he abandoned and Syria.







President Donald Trump has removed the entire Caliphate.

As you know too, the $150 BILLION we had frozen along with the $5.5 BILLION in pallets of cash was being held to pay compensation to the 52 American Hostages held by Iran for 444 days starting from November 4, 1979, to January 20, 1981.  Iran has yet to pay compensation.  It wasn't "their" money.









						They were hostages in Iran for 444 days. Decades later, they're waiting for compensation
					

A 2015 bill set aside money to compensate Iran hostages, their spouses and children. But only a fraction of the money has come through.




					www.latimes.com


----------



## Markle (Apr 23, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> Cities and states don’t vote.
> People do.
> 
> Political strategies would change to get the most people to vote for you.



As you know, the states do vote for the President of the United States.

To restore balance, we should repeal the 17th Amendment.  That was a major mistake.


----------



## Markle (Apr 23, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> > Biden is not winning Texas...
> ...



Yeah, Beto O'Rourke is quite a prize.  

Here is what he had to say just a few days ago after President Donald Trump announced a temporary immigration ban.



> Beto O'Rourke
> 
> *✔*@BetoORourke
> https://twitter.com/BetoORourke/status/1252635545982963712
> ...


https://twitter.com/BetoORourke/status/1252635545982963712

Beto, you should come to the rest of flyover country. There are plenty of American-born citizens who work on farms. It's not an abnormal thing. Stop running with the idea that white people are against doing hard labor. It's not the case.









						Beto Had a Total Meltdown Over Trump's Decision to Temporarily Halt Immigration
					

Facepalm.




					townhall.com
				




Can you even imagine the outrage and cries of RACISM had it been President Trump who made that statement?


----------



## HappyJoy (Apr 23, 2020)

Markle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Bruce_T_Laney said:
> ...




Wow, bravo, amazing job of not replying to the argument another post is making and using as many useless words as possible in the process.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 23, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 326806
> ...



* Obama gave Iran back the money we illegally stole from them.*

Are you saying we didn't give them back this money.....after they held our people hostage for 444 days?

Wow! We should thank Obama for ending our immoral act.

Thank goodness we had such a wise and noble leader.

And did I mention he was a weak and useless twat?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 23, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



*How is tripling the stock market*

He didn't.

*and dropping unemployment by over five percent “weak”??*

Don't be mad at me for pointing out Obama's weak economic performance.




Looks like 3.1%


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Apr 23, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Oh, are we getting into Covid denial now? the guy who thinks he's wearing magic underwear thinks all the doctors are lying to "pad" the numbers in a big old conspiracy to, um, do what, exactly? You're getting into Dale Smith level of crazy here, bud.



  They've been caught red-handed doing exactly that, counting as Coronavirus deaths, deaths that clearly had other causes unrelated to Coronavirus, but where the patient was either known or suspected to be infected with Coronavirus.

  They're not even trying to hide it.

How Accurate Is the Coronavirus Death Toll?

_At an April 7 news conference, Deborah Birx, MD, the response coordinator for the White House coronavirus task force, said, "There are other countries that if you had a pre-existing condition and let's say the virus caused you to go to the ICU and then have a heart or kidney problem -- some countries are recording that as a heart issue or a kidney issue and not a COVID-19 death. Right now ... if someone dies with COVID-19 we are counting that as a COVID-19 death."_​
  That articles go on to make a bunch of bullshit excuses for this blatant fraud, and to try to explain why it's not as blatantly deceitful as any sane person can see that it is.


  I'm not going to go looking for them now, but there are credible reports coming out of people dying from causes where no rational connection can be made between the Coronavirus and their cause of death, such as deaths from automobile accidents, criminal acts, drug overdoses, and so on; that are being counted as Coronavirus deaths.


  There's really no honest way to look at these reports, and conclude anything other than that the Coronavirus death counts are being deliberately and fraudulently overinflated.

  And the political motive for doing so is quite obvious enough.


----------



## Meathead (Apr 23, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Because America is still a country that bizarrely uses an 18th century anachronism to pick presidents, we have to look at the state by state races.
> 
> For sake of this argument, let's assume Biden will get all the states Hillary won for 232 Electoral votes.    Let's also assume for the argument that no matter how awful the economy gets, Trump will still 19 safe states, for a total of 123.
> 
> ...


Pre-emptive whining?


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Apr 23, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ward and June are a myth.
> 
> Traditional Americans are dumb-ass white trash who bend over for the rich.  "I want to catch Covid!  They made me wait 10 minutes in line for groceries!"


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 23, 2020)

Markle said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Cities and states don’t vote.
> ...


Based on the votes of individual citizens. 

Repealing the 17th amendment just opens the process up to political patronage and corruption


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 23, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Dropped from 10 percent down below 5 percent 

That is quite an economic recovery


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Apr 23, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> If the areas are "densely populated" they aren't small. The real question is, why are we giving Wyoming more clout in the EC than California?



  The needs of a farmer in Wyoming are very different than the needs of a banker in Los Angeles.

  If every individual vote was counted correctly, we'd have a government that catered exclusively to that banker, and ignored the needs of that farmer.

  Within California, we can see exactly what it was that the wise men who wrote the Constitution intended to prevent.

  California is, in almost every way, one of the most diverse states, if not THE most diverse state, in the country.  We have two of the biggest, densest cities, we have vast stretches of rural, lightly-populated farmland, and everything in between.  We've got one of the most corrupt and unaccountable state government, which, for the most part, promotes its own interests rather than that of the people of this state, but to the extent that it pays attention to the needs of the people, guess which populations it pays attention to, and which populations it ignores?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 23, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



7.8% when he took office.
Yes, quite a weak recovery.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 23, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


The question was....Recovery

We recovered from 10 percent unemployment


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 23, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



*The question was....Recovery*

Yeah, Obama's recovery was really weak.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 23, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


What was weak about nearly tripling the stock market, cutting the deficit in half and cutting unemployment by five percent?


----------



## Markle (Apr 23, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> Repealing the 17th amendment just opens the process up to political patronage and corruption



The states would then have a voice in Washington.  Unfunded mandates dumped on the states would not happen.  Our founders knew what they were doing by giving the states a voice in Washington.


----------



## Markle (Apr 23, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> What was weak about nearly tripling the stock market, cutting the deficit in half and cutting unemployment by five percent?



All failed former President Barack Hussein Obama deserves credit for is whatever increase in the market occurred once it had gotten back to normal, what it was at when the meltdown happened.

Slowest recovery in modern history.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 23, 2020)

Markle said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Repealing the 17th amendment just opens the process up to political patronage and corruption
> ...


The States have a voice in Washington
Two Senators and their allocation of Congressmen elected by We the People.......not selected in some back room out of sight from the public

True Democracy


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 23, 2020)

Markle said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > What was weak about nearly tripling the stock market, cutting the deficit in half and cutting unemployment by five percent?
> ...


You keep saying that but refuse to provide any numbers


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 23, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



*What was weak about nearly tripling the stock market*

The market (S&P 500) was up from 805 on the day he took office to 2139 on election day.

Up about 166%. And as you know, the stock market isn't the economy.

*and cutting unemployment by five percent?*

You don't want to look at the number in Jan 2009? 
If you look at his peak, 10% in October 2009, it took until November 2016, 85 months, to drop to 4.7%. So 5.3% drop in 85 months. But his GDP numbers sucked.

Reagan's unemployment peaked at 10.8% in November 1982 and by November 1988, it dropped to 5.3%. A 5.5% drop in 72 months. And Reagan had awesome GDP numbers.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 23, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



On almost every measure examined, the 2009-15 recovery since the recession ended in June of 2009 has been the meekest in more than 50 years.


Start with the broadest measure: growth in output. The chart with this editorial compares the Obama growth pace with that of the average recovery coming out of the last eight recessions, and with the Reagan recovery, and over the same number of months (77).


Democrats used to disparage the Reagan expansion as nothing special. Yet the growth rate over the first 25 quarters under Reagan was 34%, vs. 14.3% under Obama.


How much does this matter? If we had grown at an average pace, GDP in 2015 would have been about $1.8 trillion higher. Under the Reagan recovery, growth would have been $2.7 trillion higher.


It is certainly true that every recession is different in cause and consequences, so the JEC dug deeper into the numbers. It examined GDP growth on a per capita basis.


The Reagan recovery was abnormally strong in part because it happened as millions of baby boomers were swept into the workforce, adding to growth.


But even on a per capita basis, real GDP has grown only 9% vs. 18.8% for the average recovery. That is the lowest of any post-1960 recovery. The growth decline in this key gauge of living standards is alarming.









						Sorry, This Is Still The Worst Economic Recovery Ever
					

Growth: The president keeps congratulating himself on how the economy's doing, and Hillary Clinton just gave her former boss an 'A' for his handling of the nation's finances. Who said... Read More




					www.investors.com


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 23, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


You don’t understand the term recovery do you?

The stock markets is part of any recovery and an indicator of a growing economy. 
A five percent drop in unemployment is prestigious no matter how you measure it.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 23, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...


Apples and oranges

It was a different global economy


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 23, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



*You don’t understand the term recovery do you?*

I do. Obama's was the weakest since WWII.

*A five percent drop in unemployment is prestigious no matter how you measure it.*

Yup. Even if you have the weakest recovery since WWII.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 23, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




*Apples and oranges*

More like apples and really weak apples.


----------



## Markle (Apr 23, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I've posted many indicators over the years as has many news sources but hey, here's a golden oldie.


----------



## Markle (Apr 23, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



And, as you requested...








						Why the Slow Economic Recovery?
					

The slow economic recovery since 2009 has not hewn closely to the patterns set by previous recoveries. One explanation that matches the key facts of this recovery-less recovery is that the fixed costs of production have risen. Higher regulation, tight credit, and other costs affect small...




					www.heritage.org


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 23, 2020)

Markle said:


> As you know, pretty well. Failed former President Barack Hussein Obama allowed ISIS to create a huge Caliphate in Iraq which he abandoned and Syria.



And this was our problem, why?  They controlled a lot of desert, and that was about it.   

Now Iran controls ALL of Syria and Iraq...  how is this better?


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 23, 2020)

Bob Blaylock said:


> The needs of a farmer in Wyoming are very different than the needs of a banker in Los Angeles.
> 
> If every individual vote was counted correctly, we'd have a government that catered exclusively to that banker, and ignored the needs of that farmer.



As we should.   



Bob Blaylock said:


> California is, in almost every way, one of the most diverse states, if not THE most diverse state, in the country. We have two of the biggest, densest cities, we have vast stretches of rural, lightly-populated farmland, and everything in between. We've got one of the most corrupt and unaccountable state government, which, for the most part, promotes its own interests rather than that of the people of this state, but to the extent that it pays attention to the needs of the people, guess which populations it pays attention to, and which populations it ignores?



They're ignoring creepy Mormon Transplants from Utah?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 23, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > As you know, pretty well. Failed former President Barack Hussein Obama allowed ISIS to create a huge Caliphate in Iraq which he abandoned and Syria.
> ...


*
Now Iran controls ALL of Syria and Iraq...  how is this better?*

Wait, Iran is bad?

How much cash did Obama send them? What a useless twat, eh?


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Apr 23, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > The needs of a farmer in Wyoming are very different than the needs of a banker in Los Angeles.
> ...



  The great men who founded this country disagreed, and so do I, and so, I think, would most Americans, if they really thought about it.  This system of government was specifically designed to avoid the tyranny of the majority, and to assure the best chance that all Americans had their interests and needs represented in government, and not just those who could be grouped into majorities, over those who could not.


----------



## Markle (Apr 23, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> The States have a voice in Washington
> Two Senators and their allocation of Congressmen elected by We the People.......not selected in some back room out of sight from the public
> 
> True Democracy



The STATES have no voice in Washington.  That's not Democracy, that's a travesty.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 24, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Wait, Iran is bad?
> 
> How much cash did Obama send them? What a useless twat, eh?



He returned assets that were rightfully theirs.  We got assets that were ours returned as well.  That's what you do when you make an agreement. 

Now, they STILL have their assets back, but they now have a free hand to make nukes if they really want to.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 24, 2020)

Bob Blaylock said:


> The great men who founded this country disagreed, and so do I, and so, I think, would most Americans, if they really thought about it. This system of government was specifically designed to avoid the tyranny of the majority, and to assure the best chance that all Americans had their interests and needs represented in government, and not just those who could be grouped into majorities, over those who could not.



They weren't "Great Men", they were a bunch of Slave owners (which makes them irredeemably evil, Full fucking stop) who didn't want to pay their fair share in taxes for a war they instigated. (While the French and Indian War was part of the Seven Years War in Europe, the British did not want a war with France in North America until the colonists provoked one.) 

If the majority votes for something, it's not tyranny.  It's democracy.  

But let's get down to brass tacks.  We've had five elections where the Electoral Anachronism came up with a different result than we would have had if we had just left it to the popular vote.  

One was 1824, which resulted in the "Corrupt Bargain" between JQ Adams and Clay. The people revolted and put Andrew Jackson in power the next election. 

Next you had 1876, where  you had another corrupt bargain when "His Fraudelency" Rutherford B. Hayes gave away the victory in the Civil War and gave us 100 years of Jim Crow. (I know being part of a racist cult, this doesn't bother you, but it should bother the rest of us.) 

1888- Harrison stole the election from Cleveland, gave us a the Panic of 1893.  It was so bad they stopped calling them "Panics" and started calling them "Depressions".  (Then the GOP fucked it up again in 1929 and we stopped calling them "Depressions" and started calling them "Recessions". I guess with Trump, we'll need to come up with a new word.)  

2000- The people said Gore, the electoral Anachronism says Bush, we got two wars, two recessions, doubled the national debt, and a major city got wiped off the map.  

2016- The people said Hillary, the Electoral Anachronism gave us Trump.  26 million unemployed, 50,000 dead, a million people sick.  

At some point, maybe we need to trust the people and not just put some guy who is going to piss on everything.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 24, 2020)

Markle said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The States have a voice in Washington
> ...



Does the Senator and Congressman represent the State or the people in that State?

Think hard!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 24, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Wait, Iran is bad?
> ...



*He returned assets that were rightfully theirs.*

If we ever have assets that are going to be used by the terror supporting regime in Iran to support terror, and build nukes, we should definitely return them. 

*Now, they STILL have their assets back, but they now have a free hand to make nukes*

Because they stopped making nukes under Obama. DURR

One of the dumbest claims ever.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 24, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > The great men who founded this country disagreed, and so do I, and so, I think, would most Americans, if they really thought about it. This system of government was specifically designed to avoid the tyranny of the majority, and to assure the best chance that all Americans had their interests and needs represented in government, and not just those who could be grouped into majorities, over those who could not.
> ...



*If the majority votes for something, it's not tyranny.  It's democracy. *

The majority just voted to take all your stuff, because you're a whiney twat......…..

*2016- The people said Hillary, the Electoral Anachronism gave us Trump.  26 million unemployed, 50,000 dead, a million people sick. *

Hillary's vodka would have stopped the Chinavirus, eh?


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 24, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Wait, Iran is bad?
> ...


I sincerely hope that those returned assets are used by terrorists to murder you because you are that much of a self-hating American honky  asshole.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Apr 24, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> Does the Senator and Congressman represent the State or the people in that State?



  The intent was that the Congressmen would represent the people, and the Senators would represent the state.  That's why Congressmen are allocated based on population, while every state gets two Senators regardless of its population; and also why, until the Seventeenth Amendment, Senators were picked by the state legislatures rather than by a direct vote of the people.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Apr 24, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> [color=#a0a0a0[B]He returned assets that were rightfully theirs.[/B]
> 
> If we ever have assets that are going to be used by the terror supporting regime in Iran to support terror, and build nukes, we should definitely return them.
> 
> ...



  Remember who you're replying to.

  For anyone else, yes, those would be extraordinary dumb claims; but for JoeB131, they're pretty much at his usual level of dumbness.


----------



## Markle (Apr 24, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> Does the Senator and Congressman represent the State or the people in that State?
> 
> Think hard!



The Congressman represents the people and the Senator represents the people.  No one represents the state.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 24, 2020)

Markle said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Does the Senator and Congressman represent the State or the people in that State?
> ...



They represent the PEOPLE of the state, not the state politicians who appoint them. 

Let our representatives be answerable to the people, not the backroom politicians and power brokers


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 24, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> I sincerely hope that those returned assets are used by terrorists to murder you because you are that much of a self-hating American honky asshole.



Naw, I'll just hand over the Zionists, problem solved.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 24, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *He returned assets that were rightfully theirs.*
> 
> If we ever have assets that are going to be used by the terror supporting regime in Iran to support terror, and build nukes, we should definitely return them.



Uh, not our problem if they use those funds to rid the world of Zionists.     But even so, we really had no legal right to keep holding on to their money we had promised to return decades ago.  



Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Now, they STILL have their assets back, but they now have a free hand to make nukes*
> 
> Because they stopped making nukes under Obama. DURR
> 
> One of the dumbest claims ever.



The IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) said they were in compliance with the agreement.  But never mind, you aren't really interested in pesky things like "Facts".  




Bob Blaylock said:


> Remember who you're replying to.
> 
> For anyone else, yes, those would be extraordinary dumb claims; but for @JoeB131, they're pretty much at his usual level of dumbness.



Says the guy who thinks he's wearing Magic  Underwear.  DOn't worry, your Magic Mormon Undies will protect you from the nukes.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 24, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *He returned assets that were rightfully theirs.*
> ...



*Uh, not our problem if they use those funds to rid the world of Zionists.*

Or if they use it to kill Americans?

*But even so, we really had no legal right to keep holding on to their money*

Or any legal obligation to return it, especially if they spend money on terrorism and nukes.

*The IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) said they were in compliance with the agreement. *

Based on non-inspections, ignoring military facilities and their previous violations.
Real convincing, idiot.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 25, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Or any legal obligation to return it, especially if they spend money on terrorism and nukes.



Actually, the courts had ruled that money should be returned... numerous times. 



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Based on non-inspections, ignoring military facilities and their previous violations.



No, based on actual inspections.  

“Iran is implementing its nuclear commitments,” said Yukiya Amano, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), in March 4 remarks to the agency’s Board of Governors. Amano urged Tehran to continue adhering to the deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

The United States, which withdrew from the agreement in 2018, levied new sanctions on March 22 against Iran’s Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research, purported to employ staff from Iran’s past nuclear weapons research activities.

The IAEA quarterly report on Iran’s nuclear program, released publicly just days after Amano’s statement, contains additional details demonstrating that Iran is abiding by the deal’s terms. It notes that Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium is below the 300-kilogram cap set by the JCPOA and that Iran has not enriched uranium above the limit of 3.67 percent uranium-235, far below the 90 percent level considered useful for weapons purposes.

The report notes that the agency has had access to “all the sites and locations in Iran which it needed to visit.”






						IAEA Says Iran Abiding by Nuclear Deal | Arms Control Association
					






					www.armscontrol.org


----------



## LoneLaugher (Apr 25, 2020)

Have any RW nutbags come to this thread and offered their wet dream about how awesome it would be if the red states went to war with the blue states yet?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 25, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Or any legal obligation to return it, especially if they spend money on terrorism and nukes.
> ...



*Actually, the courts had ruled that money should be returned... numerous times.*

And no President had actually returned the money. Until that idiot Obama.

*No, based on actual inspections. *

How many facilities on military bases were inspected?

*The report notes that the agency has had access to “all the sites and locations in Iran which it needed to visit.”*

Because it didn't "need" to visit any military sites, eh?


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 25, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Because it didn't "need" to visit any military sites, eh?



Well, obviously they visited all the placed they needed to visit.  

If Trump had ANY evidence nuclear research was going on anywhere else, we'd have heard about it.  But even his own State Department conceded they were in compliance.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 25, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Because it didn't "need" to visit any military sites, eh?
> ...



*Well, obviously they visited all the placed they needed to visit. *

They visited all the places they wanted to visit that the Iranians felt like letting them visit.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 25, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Now, thanks to Trump, they can’t visit at all


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 25, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> They visited all the places they wanted to visit that the Iranians felt like letting them visit.



So where's your proof they were violating the agreement?  you don't have any.  

One more time, you guys INSISTED up and down Saddam had nukes, but he didn't.  5000 dead Americans and a million dead Iraqis later, you guys have to really have more convincing evidence before you try that shit again.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 25, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Iran objected to visiting military sites because it compromised their military security. We would not allow foreign nations to inspect our military sites. 
That in no way means those sites are being used to build nuclear weapons. 

We had access to many other locations where we could verify shipments, documentation, storage which could determine if a nuclear program was being conducted. 

Trump said he would do better. All he did was make sure we had no inspections


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 25, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Before, they were free to trade with everyone and we couldn't inspect their military bases.
Now they can only trade with a few countries and we can't inspect their military bases.

I wonder which scenario makes the mullahs happier?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 25, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > They visited all the places they wanted to visit that the Iranians felt like letting them visit.
> ...



*So where's your proof they were violating the agreement? * 

They never cheated before?
*
One more time, you guys INSISTED up and down Saddam had nukes, but he didn't. *

Nukes? Working nuclear weapons? Who insisted that? Link?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 25, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



*Iran objected to visiting military sites because it compromised their military security.*

Not only that, it would have uncovered nuclear work being done at military sites.

*We would not allow foreign nations to inspect our military sites.*

And?


----------



## Marion Morrison (Apr 25, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Because America is still a country that bizarrely uses an 18th century anachronism to pick presidents, we have to look at the state by state races.
> 
> For sake of this argument, let's assume Biden will get all the states Hillary won for 232 Electoral votes.    Let's also assume for the argument that no matter how awful the economy gets, Trump will still 19 safe states, for a total of 123.
> 
> ...


Holy fucking crying like a bitch, Batman!

Next up we have JoeB131, piece of fucking shit!

His butthurt is absolutely glorious! 

I revel in it!


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 25, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Before, they were free to trade with everyone and we couldn't inspect their military bases.
> Now they can only trade with a few countries and we can't inspect their military bases.
> 
> I wonder which scenario makes the mullahs happier?



Considering the other countries that made the deal with them are finding ways around our sanctions, the Mullahs are probably thrilled.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 25, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Before, they were free to trade with everyone and we couldn't inspect their military bases.
> ...



They're so thrilled that Trump left the deal, that they've been whining more than you.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 25, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> They're so thrilled that Trump left the deal, that they've been whining more than you.



That whining wins them international sympathy...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 25, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > They're so thrilled that Trump left the deal, that they've been whining more than you.
> ...



Sympathy with no one buying from or selling to them must be very satisfying.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 26, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Sympathy with no one buying from or selling to them must be very satisfying.



The Russians and Chinese are selling them plenty, because they are telling us to pound sand.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 26, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Sympathy with no one buying from or selling to them must be very satisfying.
> ...



So their economy must be doing fine......which explains why they whine more than you.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 26, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> So their economy must be doing fine......which explains why they whine more than you.



Again, it doesn't matter if they are or not. 

The thing is,- and I know youare stupid because you don't get this - the ONLY thing keeping them from making nukes was that treaty.   Now the treaty is gone, they can trade with other countries, and make all the nukes they want. 

You didn't think this through at all, did you?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 26, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > So their economy must be doing fine......which explains why they whine more than you.
> ...



*Again, it doesn't matter if they are or not. *

You said they were thrilled Trump left the deal, now it doesn't matter?

* the ONLY thing keeping them from making nukes was that treaty.*

If you think that non-treaty was stopping them, you're dumber than you first appeared.

* Now the treaty is gone, they can trade with other countries,*

Except for our sanctions.

*You didn't think this through at all, did you?*

It doesn't take much to see through your ignorance and naivete.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 26, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> If you think that non-treaty was stopping them, you're dumber than you first appeared.



Actually, it was...  they made an agreement, we broke it.  

More to the point, frankly, with no treaty, they have every incentive to make nukes.

Let's review. 

Saddam Gave up his Nukes. - DEAD
Qadaffy gave up his Nukes- DEAD
Kim kept his Nukes - Trump is kissing his ass... probably dead from his own bad life habits, but man, we didn't kill him, did we?


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Apr 26, 2020)

Closing this thread as the original topic is no longer being discussed


----------

