Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If it were not important, you wouldn't be up all night arguing about it....
So tell us, why do you care?
Just getting damn tired of all the whining about it. It's nothing but a weapon of mass distraction, keeping the conversation on irrelevant crap. If you want to talk about something historical, how about losing 2 times when the hildabitch was looking forward to a coronation each time, now that's historic! Nite Nite.
Lets see, you whined about Obama for 8 years. What I'm stating--that Ms. Clinton got more votes than the small fraction of a man who won the Presidency--is actually a statement of fact; there is no whining to it.
Amazingly; you're the only one who is "keeping the conversation" going. Its just an inconvenient truth you'll have to live with.
Since we don't chose a President by who got the most votes, Candy...what difference does it really make?
Donald Trump won the Presidency under our election rules and THAT is an inconvenient truth that YOU'LL have to live with!
Don't remember disputing that. Just pointing out how Hillary got more votes than your messiah; and did so in an election cycle historically not kind to the party occupying the oval office.
Well thank you for pointing out that Hillary won more popular votes than Trump, Candy! Now would you like to explain why that means anything since we don't elect our President by who gets the most popular votes? You're acting like a football team that thinks they should have won because they gained more yards than their opponent. It's not how a winner is determined. Both sides understood the rules before the contest took place. Both sides planned their strategies accordingly. Trump's was successful...Clinton's was not! Deal with it...
Just getting damn tired of all the whining about it. It's nothing but a weapon of mass distraction, keeping the conversation on irrelevant crap. If you want to talk about something historical, how about losing 2 times when the hildabitch was looking forward to a coronation each time, now that's historic! Nite Nite.
Lets see, you whined about Obama for 8 years. What I'm stating--that Ms. Clinton got more votes than the small fraction of a man who won the Presidency--is actually a statement of fact; there is no whining to it.
Amazingly; you're the only one who is "keeping the conversation" going. Its just an inconvenient truth you'll have to live with.
Since we don't chose a President by who got the most votes, Candy...what difference does it really make?
Donald Trump won the Presidency under our election rules and THAT is an inconvenient truth that YOU'LL have to live with!
Don't remember disputing that. Just pointing out how Hillary got more votes than your messiah; and did so in an election cycle historically not kind to the party occupying the oval office.
Well thank you for pointing out that Hillary won more popular votes than Trump, Candy! Now would you like to explain why that means anything since we don't elect our President by who gets the most popular votes? You're acting like a football team that thinks they should have won because they gained more yards than their opponent. It's not how a winner is determined. Both sides understood the rules before the contest took place. Both sides planned their strategies accordingly. Trump's was successful...Clinton's was not! Deal with it...
Well, if you had bothered to read the thread, you would have seen this put out by your fellow messiah worshiper:
"Yes, he asked everyone to vote for Hillary. To keep his legacy going. How did that turn out for him?”
I answered that Hillary got more votes than Mr. Trump. And you guys go ape shit as if it wasn’t the case and attempt to rationalize it as if there is a strategy that would deliver more popular votes than electoral votes out there….
Lets see, you whined about Obama for 8 years. What I'm stating--that Ms. Clinton got more votes than the small fraction of a man who won the Presidency--is actually a statement of fact; there is no whining to it.
Amazingly; you're the only one who is "keeping the conversation" going. Its just an inconvenient truth you'll have to live with.
Since we don't chose a President by who got the most votes, Candy...what difference does it really make?
Donald Trump won the Presidency under our election rules and THAT is an inconvenient truth that YOU'LL have to live with!
Don't remember disputing that. Just pointing out how Hillary got more votes than your messiah; and did so in an election cycle historically not kind to the party occupying the oval office.
Well thank you for pointing out that Hillary won more popular votes than Trump, Candy! Now would you like to explain why that means anything since we don't elect our President by who gets the most popular votes? You're acting like a football team that thinks they should have won because they gained more yards than their opponent. It's not how a winner is determined. Both sides understood the rules before the contest took place. Both sides planned their strategies accordingly. Trump's was successful...Clinton's was not! Deal with it...
Well, if you had bothered to read the thread, you would have seen this put out by your fellow messiah worshiper:
"Yes, he asked everyone to vote for Hillary. To keep his legacy going. How did that turn out for him?”
I answered that Hillary got more votes than Mr. Trump. And you guys go ape shit as if it wasn’t the case and attempt to rationalize it as if there is a strategy that would deliver more popular votes than electoral votes out there….
Duh, that's the strategy your queen bitch lost by, LMAO. So yeah, it does exist. LOL Gore made the same mistake.
he's flailing hard. and getting no where fast. All he is ensuring is another mid term win for conservatives. ouch, these dufos's don't learn at all.Guess Obama is regretting now that he didn't lead and comprise with Congress.. He thought Hillary would win and leave his EOs intact...
Stupid liberals never think ahead..
Gingrich: Obama in 'desperate frenzy' to leave legacy
President Obama’s final spree of policy changes and initiatives is part of a “desperate frenzy” to leave a legacy which will largely be reversed, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich told “Fox News Sunday.”
"His legacy is like one of those dolls that, as the air comes out of it, shrinks and shrink and shrinks,” Gingrich said. “The things he’s done this week will be turned around … He’s in this desperate frenzy.”
Even while the first family is on vacation in Hawaii, Obama has had an active week, designating vast swaths of the Arctic and Atlantic oceans as off limits to future oil leases while planning more detainee transfers out of Guantanamo Bay and other moves.
Gingrich, though, said the bulk of Obama’s legacy stems from executive actions, “almost all of which will be repudiated by Trump.”
Since we don't chose a President by who got the most votes, Candy...what difference does it really make?
Donald Trump won the Presidency under our election rules and THAT is an inconvenient truth that YOU'LL have to live with!
Don't remember disputing that. Just pointing out how Hillary got more votes than your messiah; and did so in an election cycle historically not kind to the party occupying the oval office.
Well thank you for pointing out that Hillary won more popular votes than Trump, Candy! Now would you like to explain why that means anything since we don't elect our President by who gets the most popular votes? You're acting like a football team that thinks they should have won because they gained more yards than their opponent. It's not how a winner is determined. Both sides understood the rules before the contest took place. Both sides planned their strategies accordingly. Trump's was successful...Clinton's was not! Deal with it...
Well, if you had bothered to read the thread, you would have seen this put out by your fellow messiah worshiper:
"Yes, he asked everyone to vote for Hillary. To keep his legacy going. How did that turn out for him?”
I answered that Hillary got more votes than Mr. Trump. And you guys go ape shit as if it wasn’t the case and attempt to rationalize it as if there is a strategy that would deliver more popular votes than electoral votes out there….
Duh, that's the strategy your queen bitch lost by, LMAO. So yeah, it does exist. LOL Gore made the same mistake.
You’re speculating on Ms. Clinton’s strategy. She thought she had states that were wrapped up…wrapped up. She did not. There is no strategy to win popular votes while not winning electoral votes since one is based on the other. Your argument is the same as the one that holds the rooster responsible for the sunrise—he crows and the sun rises…so he must have planned it that way; right?
Don't remember disputing that. Just pointing out how Hillary got more votes than your messiah; and did so in an election cycle historically not kind to the party occupying the oval office.
Well thank you for pointing out that Hillary won more popular votes than Trump, Candy! Now would you like to explain why that means anything since we don't elect our President by who gets the most popular votes? You're acting like a football team that thinks they should have won because they gained more yards than their opponent. It's not how a winner is determined. Both sides understood the rules before the contest took place. Both sides planned their strategies accordingly. Trump's was successful...Clinton's was not! Deal with it...
Well, if you had bothered to read the thread, you would have seen this put out by your fellow messiah worshiper:
"Yes, he asked everyone to vote for Hillary. To keep his legacy going. How did that turn out for him?”
I answered that Hillary got more votes than Mr. Trump. And you guys go ape shit as if it wasn’t the case and attempt to rationalize it as if there is a strategy that would deliver more popular votes than electoral votes out there….
Duh, that's the strategy your queen bitch lost by, LMAO. So yeah, it does exist. LOL Gore made the same mistake.
You’re speculating on Ms. Clinton’s strategy. She thought she had states that were wrapped up…wrapped up. She did not. There is no strategy to win popular votes while not winning electoral votes since one is based on the other. Your argument is the same as the one that holds the rooster responsible for the sunrise—he crows and the sun rises…so he must have planned it that way; right?
Speculating, hardly. Just pointing out results, results that only marginal regressive candidates have accomplished recently. What it proves is you can only take people for granted for so long before they start feeling neglected. You folks based your campaign on outdated false assumptions, please continue to do so in the future.
Well thank you for pointing out that Hillary won more popular votes than Trump, Candy! Now would you like to explain why that means anything since we don't elect our President by who gets the most popular votes? You're acting like a football team that thinks they should have won because they gained more yards than their opponent. It's not how a winner is determined. Both sides understood the rules before the contest took place. Both sides planned their strategies accordingly. Trump's was successful...Clinton's was not! Deal with it...
Well, if you had bothered to read the thread, you would have seen this put out by your fellow messiah worshiper:
"Yes, he asked everyone to vote for Hillary. To keep his legacy going. How did that turn out for him?”
I answered that Hillary got more votes than Mr. Trump. And you guys go ape shit as if it wasn’t the case and attempt to rationalize it as if there is a strategy that would deliver more popular votes than electoral votes out there….
Duh, that's the strategy your queen bitch lost by, LMAO. So yeah, it does exist. LOL Gore made the same mistake.
You’re speculating on Ms. Clinton’s strategy. She thought she had states that were wrapped up…wrapped up. She did not. There is no strategy to win popular votes while not winning electoral votes since one is based on the other. Your argument is the same as the one that holds the rooster responsible for the sunrise—he crows and the sun rises…so he must have planned it that way; right?
Speculating, hardly. Just pointing out results, results that only marginal regressive candidates have accomplished recently. What it proves is you can only take people for granted for so long before they start feeling neglected. You folks based your campaign on outdated false assumptions, please continue to do so in the future.
Well, now you’re talking about something totally different.
Results do not expose a strategy. Like did you plan on being a loser who goes around calling women “bitches” when you began your pathetic life or is it where you ended up? I would like to think you didn’t plan on being the jerk you are.
Well, if you had bothered to read the thread, you would have seen this put out by your fellow messiah worshiper:
"Yes, he asked everyone to vote for Hillary. To keep his legacy going. How did that turn out for him?”
I answered that Hillary got more votes than Mr. Trump. And you guys go ape shit as if it wasn’t the case and attempt to rationalize it as if there is a strategy that would deliver more popular votes than electoral votes out there….
Duh, that's the strategy your queen bitch lost by, LMAO. So yeah, it does exist. LOL Gore made the same mistake.
You’re speculating on Ms. Clinton’s strategy. She thought she had states that were wrapped up…wrapped up. She did not. There is no strategy to win popular votes while not winning electoral votes since one is based on the other. Your argument is the same as the one that holds the rooster responsible for the sunrise—he crows and the sun rises…so he must have planned it that way; right?
Speculating, hardly. Just pointing out results, results that only marginal regressive candidates have accomplished recently. What it proves is you can only take people for granted for so long before they start feeling neglected. You folks based your campaign on outdated false assumptions, please continue to do so in the future.
Well, now you’re talking about something totally different.
Results do not expose a strategy. Like did you plan on being a loser who goes around calling women “bitches” when you began your pathetic life or is it where you ended up? I would like to think you didn’t plan on being the jerk you are.
LMAO, I give people the respect they've earned, you can continue to shower the criminal bitch with all the love and adoration you chose, I'll pass. Got things to do, ba bye.
Duh, that's the strategy your queen bitch lost by, LMAO. So yeah, it does exist. LOL Gore made the same mistake.
You’re speculating on Ms. Clinton’s strategy. She thought she had states that were wrapped up…wrapped up. She did not. There is no strategy to win popular votes while not winning electoral votes since one is based on the other. Your argument is the same as the one that holds the rooster responsible for the sunrise—he crows and the sun rises…so he must have planned it that way; right?
Speculating, hardly. Just pointing out results, results that only marginal regressive candidates have accomplished recently. What it proves is you can only take people for granted for so long before they start feeling neglected. You folks based your campaign on outdated false assumptions, please continue to do so in the future.
Well, now you’re talking about something totally different.
Results do not expose a strategy. Like did you plan on being a loser who goes around calling women “bitches” when you began your pathetic life or is it where you ended up? I would like to think you didn’t plan on being the jerk you are.
LMAO, I give people the respect they've earned, you can continue to shower the criminal bitch with all the love and adoration you chose, I'll pass. Got things to do, ba bye.
Now that is funny…. I noticed you didn’t deny any of it.
Your comment would actually apply, IF he was seeking a "legacy", like Obama is. He is not.Guess Obama is regretting now that he didn't lead and comprise with Congress.. He thought Hillary would win and leave his EOs intact...
Stupid liberals never think ahead..
Gingrich: Obama in 'desperate frenzy' to leave legacy
President Obama’s final spree of policy changes and initiatives is part of a “desperate frenzy” to leave a legacy which will largely be reversed, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich told “Fox News Sunday.”
"His legacy is like one of those dolls that, as the air comes out of it, shrinks and shrink and shrinks,” Gingrich said. “The things he’s done this week will be turned around … He’s in this desperate frenzy.”
Even while the first family is on vacation in Hawaii, Obama has had an active week, designating vast swaths of the Arctic and Atlantic oceans as off limits to future oil leases while planning more detainee transfers out of Guantanamo Bay and other moves.
Gingrich, though, said the bulk of Obama’s legacy stems from executive actions, “almost all of which will be repudiated by Trump.”
And Gingrich’s legacy was what? Getting owned by Bill Clinton, resigning in disgrace from the House and losing to Mitt Romney (who Obama beat).
Anyone who thinks our country is in better shape now,Compromise with congress? It is hard sometimes to gauge the depths of dumbness among the right wingers in America, were you asleep these past eight years. But that said Obama did great things for lots of Americans. Of course the corporate puppets are trained fools that follow the code. Wingnuts stay calm big money will be back soon telling you what to think next.
President Barack Obama will go down as one our very best presidents, there is no doubt of that. Will the conservatives and others disagree, of course, but any review of the past eight years and his accomplishments will prove them wrong.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ma...tures/obamas_top_50_accomplishments035755.php
One of the great ones. Obama Is One of the Greatest Presidents of All Time. Here’s Why
