Why don't you dumbass liberals WAIT until Trump actually takes office before you say he's reneging

[JakeStarkey]

He is reneging on things the alt and far right right wanted, and he will keep on doing so. Yes, what you talk, you sound funny to the Board.

So you are upset because he reneged on things you didn't want.

You are being laughed at because he is reneging on you and your ilk in the swamp.

I've been laughed at before. It's not so bad. You are upset because Trump reneged on things you didn't want. That is priceless.

Trump is reneging on the far right and the alt right and their goals.

If you don't understand that, OK.

Ok, so what? What's it to you, Jake? Why do you care?

That's fine, ding. You don't get it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And, contrary to what the liars in the media are saying....he won the national popular vote, as well.

She lies. ^


A lot.

I never lie.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Citing a stupid RWNJ pages don't help you, nutcakes.

Especially ones that end their phony story with "And if you want to see Hillary behind bars make sure to LIKE our Facebook page!"

How about the quote in post #138.....from the Washington Post?







Yup.....Hillary lost by every single metric!!!

 

[paperview]

Citing a stupid RWNJ pages don't help you, nutcakes.

Especially ones that end their phony story with "And if you want to see Hillary behind bars make sure to LIKE our Facebook page!"

Now....watch me eviscerate you:

Study: Non-Citizen Votes May Have Tipped 2008 Election for Obama

"More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.

Estimated Voter Turnout by Non-Citizens
2008 2010
Self reported and/or verified 38 (11.3%) 13 (3.5%)
Self reported and verified 5 (1.5%) N.A.
Adjusted estimate 21 (6.4%) 8 (2.2%)
Because non-citizens tended to favor Democrats (Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample), we find that this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections. Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) won election in 2008 with a victory margin of 312 votes. Votes cast by just 0.65 percent of Minnesota non-citizens could account for this margin. It is also possible that non-citizen votes were responsible for Obama’s 2008 victory in North Carolina. Obama won the state by 14,177 votes, so a turnout by 5.1 percent of North Carolina’s adult non-citizens would have provided this victory margin."
Could non-citizens decide the November election?


What makes you Liberal low-life scum is not that you deny the voting by illegals...

....but that you know it's the truth.




And that's from the waaayyyyyy Liberal Washington Compost.



You ya' like them apples, paperweight?

The lying liar links to a page that shows this in the very first sentence:

Note: The post occasioned three rebuttals (here, here, and here) as well as a response from the authors. Subsequently, another peer-reviewed article argued that the findings reported in this post (and affiliated article) were biased and that the authors’ data do not provide evidence of non-citizen voting in U.S. elections.

Eviscerated.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Citing a stupid RWNJ pages don't help you, nutcakes.

Especially ones that end their phony story with "And if you want to see Hillary behind bars make sure to LIKE our Facebook page!"

Now....watch me eviscerate you:

Study: Non-Citizen Votes May Have Tipped 2008 Election for Obama

"More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.

Estimated Voter Turnout by Non-Citizens
2008 2010
Self reported and/or verified 38 (11.3%) 13 (3.5%)
Self reported and verified 5 (1.5%) N.A.
Adjusted estimate 21 (6.4%) 8 (2.2%)
Because non-citizens tended to favor Democrats (Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample), we find that this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections. Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) won election in 2008 with a victory margin of 312 votes. Votes cast by just 0.65 percent of Minnesota non-citizens could account for this margin. It is also possible that non-citizen votes were responsible for Obama’s 2008 victory in North Carolina. Obama won the state by 14,177 votes, so a turnout by 5.1 percent of North Carolina’s adult non-citizens would have provided this victory margin."
Could non-citizens decide the November election?


What makes you Liberal low-life scum is not that you deny the voting by illegals...

....but that you know it's the truth.




And that's from the waaayyyyyy Liberal Washington Compost.



You ya' like them apples, paperweight?

The lying liar links to a page that shows this in the very first sentence:

Note: The post occasioned three rebuttals (here, here, and here) as well as a response from the authors. Subsequently, another peer-reviewed article argued that the findings reported in this post (and affiliated article) were biased and that the authors’ data do not provide evidence of non-citizen voting in U.S. elections.

Eviscerated.

Let's get you on the record: you deny that illegals vote?


Speak up, dunce.

 

[therightsideofhistory]

so you're saying that the history of his campaign means nothing? his recent proclamations and vocal rolling back on his (always vague) policies mean nothing? that we just shouldn't listen until something is already in place after he has taken office? i for one listen and take what he said seriously because they are serious; it should not be treated with a laissez faire interpretation (which is foolish in my opinion). what are you voting for if not taking a candidate's campaign promises seriously?

 

[PoliticalChic]

so you're saying that the history of his campaign means nothing? his recent proclamations and vocal rolling back on his (always vague) policies mean nothing? that we just shouldn't listen until something is already in place after he has taken office? i for one listen and take what he said seriously because they are serious; it should not be treated with a laissez faire interpretation (which is foolish in my opinion). what are you voting for if not taking a candidate's campaign promises seriously?

"....what are you voting for if not taking a candidate's campaign promises seriously?"


To whom are your addressing this?

Did you take what Obama said, and promised, and then did the very opposite, as something to learn from????

Like this:

Here are some of his statements on the subject, going back to his first campaign for the presidency:


June 5, 2008, in Cairo: "I will continue to be clear on the fact that an Iranian nuclear weapon would be profoundly destabilizing for the entire region.It is strongly in America's interest to prevent such a scenario."


June 8, 2008, to AIPAC: "The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.... Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel."


October 7 2008, in the second presidential debate: "We cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. It would be a game-changer in the region. Not only would it threaten Israel, our strongest ally in the region and one of our strongest allies in the world, but it would also create a possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. And so it's unacceptable. And I will do everything that's required to prevent it. And we will never take military options off the table,"


November 7, 2008, press conference: "Iran's development of a nuclear weapon, I believe, is unacceptable. And we have to mount an international effort to prevent that from happening."


February 27, 2009, speech at Camp Lejeune: "(W)e are focusing on al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing a strategy to use all elements of American power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon; and actively seeking a lasting peace between Israel and the Arab world."


January 27, 2010, State of the Union address: "And as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: They, too, will face growing consequences. That is a promise."


July 1, /2010, at the signing of the Iran Sanctions Act: "There should be no doubt -- the United States and the international community are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."


May 19, 2011, speech on the Middle East: "Now, our opposition to Iran's intolerance and Iran's repressive measures, as well as its illicit nuclear program and its support of terror, is well known."


May 22, 2011, in an address to AIPAC: "You also see our commitment to our shared security in our determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.... So let me be absolutely clear -- we remain committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."


October 13,2011, press conference after meeting with South Korean president:"Now, we don't take any options off the table in terms of how we operate with Iran."


November 14, 2011, press conference: "So what I did was to speak with President Medvedev, as well as President Hu, and all three of us entirely agree on the objective, which is making sure that Iran does not weaponize nuclear power and that we don't trigger a nuclear arms race in the region. That's in the interests of all of us... I have said repeatedly and I will say it today, we are not taking any options off the table, because it's my firm belief that an Iran with a nuclear weapon would pose a security threat not only to the region but also to the United States."


December 8, 2011, press conference: (In response to question about pressuring Iran): "No options off the table means I'm considering all options."


December 16, 2011, speech to the General Assembly of the Union for Reform Judaism: "Another grave concern -- and a threat to the security of Israel, the United States and the world -- is Iran's nuclear program. And that's why our policy has been absolutely clear: We are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons...and that's why, rest assured, we will take no options off the table. We have been clear."


January 24, 2012, State of the Union address: "Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal."


March 2, 2012, interview with Goldblog: "I... don't, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say."


March 4, 2012, speech to AIPAC: "I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say That includes all elements of American power: A political effort aimed at isolating Iran; a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure that the Iranian program is monitored; an economic effort that imposes crippling sanctions; and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency."


March 5, 2012, remarks after meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu: "... I reserve all options, and my policy here is not going to be one of containment. My policy is prevention of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. And as I indicated yesterday in my speech, when I say all options are at the table, I mean it."


March 6, 2012, press conference: "And what I have said is, is that we will not countenance Iran getting a nuclear weapon. My policy is not containment; my policy is to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon -- because if they get a nuclear weapon that could trigger an arms race in the region, it would undermine our non-proliferation goals, it could potentially fall into the hands of terrorists.


March 14, 2012, remarks after meeting with David Cameron: "...And as I said in a speech just a couple of weeks ago, I am determined not simply to contain Iran that is in possession of a nuclear weapon; I am determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon -- in part for the reasons that David mentioned... We will do everything we can to resolve this diplomatically, but ultimately, we've got to have somebody on the other side of the table who's taking this seriously."


September 25, 2012, speech to the United Nations General Assembly: "Make no mistake: A nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained...the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."

Obama's Crystal-Clear Promise to Stop Iran From Getting a Nuclear Weapon



Is that what you mean?

 

[paperview]

Citing a stupid RWNJ pages don't help you, nutcakes.

Especially ones that end their phony story with "And if you want to see Hillary behind bars make sure to LIKE our Facebook page!"

Now....watch me eviscerate you:

Study: Non-Citizen Votes May Have Tipped 2008 Election for Obama

"More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.

Estimated Voter Turnout by Non-Citizens
2008 2010
Self reported and/or verified 38 (11.3%) 13 (3.5%)
Self reported and verified 5 (1.5%) N.A.
Adjusted estimate 21 (6.4%) 8 (2.2%)
Because non-citizens tended to favor Democrats (Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample), we find that this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections. Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) won election in 2008 with a victory margin of 312 votes. Votes cast by just 0.65 percent of Minnesota non-citizens could account for this margin. It is also possible that non-citizen votes were responsible for Obama’s 2008 victory in North Carolina. Obama won the state by 14,177 votes, so a turnout by 5.1 percent of North Carolina’s adult non-citizens would have provided this victory margin."
Could non-citizens decide the November election?


What makes you Liberal low-life scum is not that you deny the voting by illegals...

....but that you know it's the truth.




And that's from the waaayyyyyy Liberal Washington Compost.



You ya' like them apples, paperweight?

The lying liar links to a page that shows this in the very first sentence:

Note: The post occasioned three rebuttals (here, here, and here) as well as a response from the authors. Subsequently, another peer-reviewed article argued that the findings reported in this post (and affiliated article) were biased and that the authors’ data do not provide evidence of non-citizen voting in U.S. elections.

Eviscerated.

Let's get you on the record: you deny that illegals vote?


Speak up, dunce.

It's rare.

There's been a shitton of investigations, a heaping, hopping bowlful done - many by GOPpers trying to prove it (as well as independent investigations). When the results are in, they find when it comes to hard evidence, they are forced to conclude actual voter fraud is...rare.

(Voter suppression and absentee ballot abuses are where more issues arise, but the GOP doesn't seem to want to train their eyes there.)

 

[PoliticalChic]

Citing a stupid RWNJ pages don't help you, nutcakes.

Especially ones that end their phony story with "And if you want to see Hillary behind bars make sure to LIKE our Facebook page!"

Now....watch me eviscerate you:

Study: Non-Citizen Votes May Have Tipped 2008 Election for Obama

"More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.

Estimated Voter Turnout by Non-Citizens
2008 2010
Self reported and/or verified 38 (11.3%) 13 (3.5%)
Self reported and verified 5 (1.5%) N.A.
Adjusted estimate 21 (6.4%) 8 (2.2%)
Because non-citizens tended to favor Democrats (Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample), we find that this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections. Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) won election in 2008 with a victory margin of 312 votes. Votes cast by just 0.65 percent of Minnesota non-citizens could account for this margin. It is also possible that non-citizen votes were responsible for Obama’s 2008 victory in North Carolina. Obama won the state by 14,177 votes, so a turnout by 5.1 percent of North Carolina’s adult non-citizens would have provided this victory margin."
Could non-citizens decide the November election?


What makes you Liberal low-life scum is not that you deny the voting by illegals...

....but that you know it's the truth.




And that's from the waaayyyyyy Liberal Washington Compost.



You ya' like them apples, paperweight?

The lying liar links to a page that shows this in the very first sentence:

Note: The post occasioned three rebuttals (here, here, and here) as well as a response from the authors. Subsequently, another peer-reviewed article argued that the findings reported in this post (and affiliated article) were biased and that the authors’ data do not provide evidence of non-citizen voting in U.S. elections.

Eviscerated.

Let's get you on the record: you deny that illegals vote?


Speak up, dunce.

It's rare.

There's been a shitton of investigations, a heaping, hopping bowlful done - many by GOPpers trying to prove it (as well as independent investigations). When the results are in, they find when it comes to hard evidence, they are forced to conclude actual voter fraud is...rare.

(Voter suppression and absentee ballot abuses are where more issues arise, but the GOP doesn't seem to want to train their eyes there.)

Great!


You admit that it goes on.

Now.....what percent of the 30 million illegal aliens are you willing to agree vote illegally?

1%?

That means 1 in 100. Reasonable?

That means more than the 200,000 votes that CNN stated that Bill's wife won the popular vote by......


QED.....I never lie.

Trump won both popular vote and electoral college.



Eviscerated.

 

[therightsideofhistory]

so you're saying that the history of his campaign means nothing? his recent proclamations and vocal rolling back on his (always vague) policies mean nothing? that we just shouldn't listen until something is already in place after he has taken office? i for one listen and take what he said seriously because they are serious; it should not be treated with a laissez faire interpretation (which is foolish in my opinion). what are you voting for if not taking a candidate's campaign promises seriously?

"....what are you voting for if not taking a candidate's campaign promises seriously?"


To whom are your addressing this?

Did you take what Obama said, and promised, and then did the very opposite, as something to learn from????

Like this:

Here are some of his statements on the subject, going back to his first campaign for the presidency:


June 5, 2008, in Cairo: "I will continue to be clear on the fact that an Iranian nuclear weapon would be profoundly destabilizing for the entire region.It is strongly in America's interest to prevent such a scenario."


June 8, 2008, to AIPAC: "The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.... Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel."


October 7 2008, in the second presidential debate: "We cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. It would be a game-changer in the region. Not only would it threaten Israel, our strongest ally in the region and one of our strongest allies in the world, but it would also create a possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. And so it's unacceptable. And I will do everything that's required to prevent it. And we will never take military options off the table,"


November 7, 2008, press conference: "Iran's development of a nuclear weapon, I believe, is unacceptable. And we have to mount an international effort to prevent that from happening."


February 27, 2009, speech at Camp Lejeune: "(W)e are focusing on al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing a strategy to use all elements of American power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon; and actively seeking a lasting peace between Israel and the Arab world."


January 27, 2010, State of the Union address: "And as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: They, too, will face growing consequences. That is a promise."


July 1, /2010, at the signing of the Iran Sanctions Act: "There should be no doubt -- the United States and the international community are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."


May 19, 2011, speech on the Middle East: "Now, our opposition to Iran's intolerance and Iran's repressive measures, as well as its illicit nuclear program and its support of terror, is well known."


May 22, 2011, in an address to AIPAC: "You also see our commitment to our shared security in our determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.... So let me be absolutely clear -- we remain committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."


October 13,2011, press conference after meeting with South Korean president:"Now, we don't take any options off the table in terms of how we operate with Iran."


November 14, 2011, press conference: "So what I did was to speak with President Medvedev, as well as President Hu, and all three of us entirely agree on the objective, which is making sure that Iran does not weaponize nuclear power and that we don't trigger a nuclear arms race in the region. That's in the interests of all of us... I have said repeatedly and I will say it today, we are not taking any options off the table, because it's my firm belief that an Iran with a nuclear weapon would pose a security threat not only to the region but also to the United States."


December 8, 2011, press conference: (In response to question about pressuring Iran): "No options off the table means I'm considering all options."


December 16, 2011, speech to the General Assembly of the Union for Reform Judaism: "Another grave concern -- and a threat to the security of Israel, the United States and the world -- is Iran's nuclear program. And that's why our policy has been absolutely clear: We are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons...and that's why, rest assured, we will take no options off the table. We have been clear."


January 24, 2012, State of the Union address: "Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal."


March 2, 2012, interview with Goldblog: "I... don't, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say."


March 4, 2012, speech to AIPAC: "I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say That includes all elements of American power: A political effort aimed at isolating Iran; a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure that the Iranian program is monitored; an economic effort that imposes crippling sanctions; and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency."


March 5, 2012, remarks after meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu: "... I reserve all options, and my policy here is not going to be one of containment. My policy is prevention of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. And as I indicated yesterday in my speech, when I say all options are at the table, I mean it."


March 6, 2012, press conference: "And what I have said is, is that we will not countenance Iran getting a nuclear weapon. My policy is not containment; my policy is to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon -- because if they get a nuclear weapon that could trigger an arms race in the region, it would undermine our non-proliferation goals, it could potentially fall into the hands of terrorists.


March 14, 2012, remarks after meeting with David Cameron: "...And as I said in a speech just a couple of weeks ago, I am determined not simply to contain Iran that is in possession of a nuclear weapon; I am determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon -- in part for the reasons that David mentioned... We will do everything we can to resolve this diplomatically, but ultimately, we've got to have somebody on the other side of the table who's taking this seriously."


September 25, 2012, speech to the United Nations General Assembly: "Make no mistake: A nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained...the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."

Obama's Crystal-Clear Promise to Stop Iran From Getting a Nuclear Weapon



Is that what you mean?

i assume you are referring to the iran deal. you do realize that many political scientists believe that had not the iran deal been negotiated that war could have potentially broken out in the future right? that the iran deal ensures that iran does not employ R+D into enriching uranium (a necessary component to nuclear weapons) for a number of years, allows them to have a stake in the international markets and allowing for an economic reason not to invest in nuclear development?

 

[Kondor3]

Why don't you dumbass liberals WAIT until Trump actually takes office before you say he's reneging?

Premature ejaculation?

A common complaint amongst touchy-feely types, I hear.

 

[PoliticalChic]

so you're saying that the history of his campaign means nothing? his recent proclamations and vocal rolling back on his (always vague) policies mean nothing? that we just shouldn't listen until something is already in place after he has taken office? i for one listen and take what he said seriously because they are serious; it should not be treated with a laissez faire interpretation (which is foolish in my opinion). what are you voting for if not taking a candidate's campaign promises seriously?

"....what are you voting for if not taking a candidate's campaign promises seriously?"


To whom are your addressing this?

Did you take what Obama said, and promised, and then did the very opposite, as something to learn from????

Like this:

Here are some of his statements on the subject, going back to his first campaign for the presidency:


June 5, 2008, in Cairo: "I will continue to be clear on the fact that an Iranian nuclear weapon would be profoundly destabilizing for the entire region.It is strongly in America's interest to prevent such a scenario."


June 8, 2008, to AIPAC: "The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.... Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel."


October 7 2008, in the second presidential debate: "We cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. It would be a game-changer in the region. Not only would it threaten Israel, our strongest ally in the region and one of our strongest allies in the world, but it would also create a possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. And so it's unacceptable. And I will do everything that's required to prevent it. And we will never take military options off the table,"


November 7, 2008, press conference: "Iran's development of a nuclear weapon, I believe, is unacceptable. And we have to mount an international effort to prevent that from happening."


February 27, 2009, speech at Camp Lejeune: "(W)e are focusing on al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing a strategy to use all elements of American power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon; and actively seeking a lasting peace between Israel and the Arab world."


January 27, 2010, State of the Union address: "And as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: They, too, will face growing consequences. That is a promise."


July 1, /2010, at the signing of the Iran Sanctions Act: "There should be no doubt -- the United States and the international community are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."


May 19, 2011, speech on the Middle East: "Now, our opposition to Iran's intolerance and Iran's repressive measures, as well as its illicit nuclear program and its support of terror, is well known."


May 22, 2011, in an address to AIPAC: "You also see our commitment to our shared security in our determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.... So let me be absolutely clear -- we remain committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."


October 13,2011, press conference after meeting with South Korean president:"Now, we don't take any options off the table in terms of how we operate with Iran."


November 14, 2011, press conference: "So what I did was to speak with President Medvedev, as well as President Hu, and all three of us entirely agree on the objective, which is making sure that Iran does not weaponize nuclear power and that we don't trigger a nuclear arms race in the region. That's in the interests of all of us... I have said repeatedly and I will say it today, we are not taking any options off the table, because it's my firm belief that an Iran with a nuclear weapon would pose a security threat not only to the region but also to the United States."


December 8, 2011, press conference: (In response to question about pressuring Iran): "No options off the table means I'm considering all options."


December 16, 2011, speech to the General Assembly of the Union for Reform Judaism: "Another grave concern -- and a threat to the security of Israel, the United States and the world -- is Iran's nuclear program. And that's why our policy has been absolutely clear: We are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons...and that's why, rest assured, we will take no options off the table. We have been clear."


January 24, 2012, State of the Union address: "Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal."


March 2, 2012, interview with Goldblog: "I... don't, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say."


March 4, 2012, speech to AIPAC: "I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say That includes all elements of American power: A political effort aimed at isolating Iran; a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure that the Iranian program is monitored; an economic effort that imposes crippling sanctions; and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency."


March 5, 2012, remarks after meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu: "... I reserve all options, and my policy here is not going to be one of containment. My policy is prevention of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. And as I indicated yesterday in my speech, when I say all options are at the table, I mean it."


March 6, 2012, press conference: "And what I have said is, is that we will not countenance Iran getting a nuclear weapon. My policy is not containment; my policy is to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon -- because if they get a nuclear weapon that could trigger an arms race in the region, it would undermine our non-proliferation goals, it could potentially fall into the hands of terrorists.


March 14, 2012, remarks after meeting with David Cameron: "...And as I said in a speech just a couple of weeks ago, I am determined not simply to contain Iran that is in possession of a nuclear weapon; I am determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon -- in part for the reasons that David mentioned... We will do everything we can to resolve this diplomatically, but ultimately, we've got to have somebody on the other side of the table who's taking this seriously."


September 25, 2012, speech to the United Nations General Assembly: "Make no mistake: A nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained...the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."

Obama's Crystal-Clear Promise to Stop Iran From Getting a Nuclear Weapon



Is that what you mean?

i assume you are referring to the iran deal. you do realize that many political scientists believe that had not the iran deal been negotiated that war could have potentially broken out in the future right? that the iran deal ensures that iran does not employ R+D into enriching uranium (a necessary component to nuclear weapons) for a number of years, allows them to have a stake in the international markets and allowing for an economic reason not to invest in nuclear development?

"many political scientists believe that had not the iran deal been negotiated that war could have potentially broken out in the future right?"

Pleeeezzzzze!

You believe that hogwash?

The sanctions were strangling them.

1. This from the Left-leaning Brookings Institute...
"....the sanctions against Iran — and the context for them internationally and within Iran — have changed dramatically. Since 2010, the sanctions’ impact on Iran has been severe: its oil exports and revenues plummeted; the value of its currency eroded; trade disruptions shuttered businesses and exacerbated inflation. Quietly, a backlash emerged among Iran’s political elites against the country’s creeping isolation, and the June 2013 presidential election ushered in a moderate new president and the beginnings of a diplomatic breakthrough on the nuclear crisis — achievements that most observers attribute to the impact of sanctions."
Why “Iran Style” Sanctions Worked Against Tehran (And Why They Might Not Succeed with Moscow) | Brookings Institution



2. To give context to your understanding.....name the only 'religion' that Barack Hussein Obama has stood up for, shielded from criticism, defended and advanced.

Take your time.



Oh....btw.....welcome to the board and the battles.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

And, contrary to what the liars in the media are saying....he won the national popular vote, as well.

She lies. ^


A lot.

Clinton has consistently won the popular vote. PC is a liar.
Clinton's Lead in the Popular Vote Is Going to Get a Lot Bigger

She lies.

ALL. THE. TIME.

Clinton won the popular vote by more than a half million, and is likely to win by a couple more million.

Not that it matters to the election (we must abide by the EC vote), but can you imagine Trump's reaction to winning the popular vote by that margin and losing the electoral college?

It'd be day four of a non-stop tweetstorm from Orange Troll man, and his fucknut followers freaking out & busting their noodles in rage.

I sure put a burr under your saddle, huh?

Wannanother bag of oats?


Figure a million illegal aliens voted...as per Obama's instructions.

Turns out you're sort of an idiot-savant....without the savant.

Sounds like your skin is thinner than Donald's. Try not to bleed to death through your pores.

 

[therightsideofhistory]

so you're saying that the history of his campaign means nothing? his recent proclamations and vocal rolling back on his (always vague) policies mean nothing? that we just shouldn't listen until something is already in place after he has taken office? i for one listen and take what he said seriously because they are serious; it should not be treated with a laissez faire interpretation (which is foolish in my opinion). what are you voting for if not taking a candidate's campaign promises seriously?

"....what are you voting for if not taking a candidate's campaign promises seriously?"


To whom are your addressing this?

Did you take what Obama said, and promised, and then did the very opposite, as something to learn from????

Like this:

Here are some of his statements on the subject, going back to his first campaign for the presidency:


June 5, 2008, in Cairo: "I will continue to be clear on the fact that an Iranian nuclear weapon would be profoundly destabilizing for the entire region.It is strongly in America's interest to prevent such a scenario."


June 8, 2008, to AIPAC: "The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.... Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel."


October 7 2008, in the second presidential debate: "We cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. It would be a game-changer in the region. Not only would it threaten Israel, our strongest ally in the region and one of our strongest allies in the world, but it would also create a possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. And so it's unacceptable. And I will do everything that's required to prevent it. And we will never take military options off the table,"


November 7, 2008, press conference: "Iran's development of a nuclear weapon, I believe, is unacceptable. And we have to mount an international effort to prevent that from happening."


February 27, 2009, speech at Camp Lejeune: "(W)e are focusing on al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing a strategy to use all elements of American power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon; and actively seeking a lasting peace between Israel and the Arab world."


January 27, 2010, State of the Union address: "And as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: They, too, will face growing consequences. That is a promise."


July 1, /2010, at the signing of the Iran Sanctions Act: "There should be no doubt -- the United States and the international community are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."


May 19, 2011, speech on the Middle East: "Now, our opposition to Iran's intolerance and Iran's repressive measures, as well as its illicit nuclear program and its support of terror, is well known."


May 22, 2011, in an address to AIPAC: "You also see our commitment to our shared security in our determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.... So let me be absolutely clear -- we remain committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."


October 13,2011, press conference after meeting with South Korean president:"Now, we don't take any options off the table in terms of how we operate with Iran."


November 14, 2011, press conference: "So what I did was to speak with President Medvedev, as well as President Hu, and all three of us entirely agree on the objective, which is making sure that Iran does not weaponize nuclear power and that we don't trigger a nuclear arms race in the region. That's in the interests of all of us... I have said repeatedly and I will say it today, we are not taking any options off the table, because it's my firm belief that an Iran with a nuclear weapon would pose a security threat not only to the region but also to the United States."


December 8, 2011, press conference: (In response to question about pressuring Iran): "No options off the table means I'm considering all options."


December 16, 2011, speech to the General Assembly of the Union for Reform Judaism: "Another grave concern -- and a threat to the security of Israel, the United States and the world -- is Iran's nuclear program. And that's why our policy has been absolutely clear: We are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons...and that's why, rest assured, we will take no options off the table. We have been clear."


January 24, 2012, State of the Union address: "Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal."


March 2, 2012, interview with Goldblog: "I... don't, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say."


March 4, 2012, speech to AIPAC: "I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say That includes all elements of American power: A political effort aimed at isolating Iran; a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure that the Iranian program is monitored; an economic effort that imposes crippling sanctions; and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency."


March 5, 2012, remarks after meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu: "... I reserve all options, and my policy here is not going to be one of containment. My policy is prevention of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. And as I indicated yesterday in my speech, when I say all options are at the table, I mean it."


March 6, 2012, press conference: "And what I have said is, is that we will not countenance Iran getting a nuclear weapon. My policy is not containment; my policy is to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon -- because if they get a nuclear weapon that could trigger an arms race in the region, it would undermine our non-proliferation goals, it could potentially fall into the hands of terrorists.


March 14, 2012, remarks after meeting with David Cameron: "...And as I said in a speech just a couple of weeks ago, I am determined not simply to contain Iran that is in possession of a nuclear weapon; I am determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon -- in part for the reasons that David mentioned... We will do everything we can to resolve this diplomatically, but ultimately, we've got to have somebody on the other side of the table who's taking this seriously."


September 25, 2012, speech to the United Nations General Assembly: "Make no mistake: A nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained...the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."

Obama's Crystal-Clear Promise to Stop Iran From Getting a Nuclear Weapon



Is that what you mean?

i assume you are referring to the iran deal. you do realize that many political scientists believe that had not the iran deal been negotiated that war could have potentially broken out in the future right? that the iran deal ensures that iran does not employ R+D into enriching uranium (a necessary component to nuclear weapons) for a number of years, allows them to have a stake in the international markets and allowing for an economic reason not to invest in nuclear development?

"many political scientists believe that had not the iran deal been negotiated that war could have potentially broken out in the future right?"

Pleeeezzzzze!

You believe that hogwash?

The sanctions were strangling them.

1. This from the Left-leaning Brookings Institute...
"....the sanctions against Iran — and the context for them internationally and within Iran — have changed dramatically. Since 2010, the sanctions’ impact on Iran has been severe: its oil exports and revenues plummeted; the value of its currency eroded; trade disruptions shuttered businesses and exacerbated inflation. Quietly, a backlash emerged among Iran’s political elites against the country’s creeping isolation, and the June 2013 presidential election ushered in a moderate new president and the beginnings of a diplomatic breakthrough on the nuclear crisis — achievements that most observers attribute to the impact of sanctions."
Why “Iran Style” Sanctions Worked Against Tehran (And Why They Might Not Succeed with Moscow) | Brookings Institution



2. To give context to your understanding.....name the only 'religion' that Barack Hussein Obama has stood up for, shielded from criticism, defended and advanced.

Take your time.



Oh....btw.....welcome to the board and the battles.

thanks for the welcome i'm glad we can debate like this and discuss.

now then, i believe that a country under that kind of severe sanctions that trickled down to the individual level would have eventually exploded when they were backed into a corner. and in terms of Obama standing up for islam it's because that is one of the primary ways one battles homegrown terrorism, look at the example of france. they isolate their muslim population, they are relegated to slums, and so radical uprising become a reality. the answer is to assimilate, to separate radical islam from islam all together because when people hear "radical islam" they lose the radical part, and yell at muslims in the street, telling them to go back where they came from (when they were born and raised in the US).

 

[PoliticalChic]

And, contrary to what the liars in the media are saying....he won the national popular vote, as well.

She lies. ^


A lot.

Clinton has consistently won the popular vote. PC is a liar.
Clinton's Lead in the Popular Vote Is Going to Get a Lot Bigger

She lies.

ALL. THE. TIME.

Clinton won the popular vote by more than a half million, and is likely to win by a couple more million.

Not that it matters to the election (we must abide by the EC vote), but can you imagine Trump's reaction to winning the popular vote by that margin and losing the electoral college?

It'd be day four of a non-stop tweetstorm from Orange Troll man, and his fucknut followers freaking out & busting their noodles in rage.

I sure put a burr under your saddle, huh?

Wannanother bag of oats?


Figure a million illegal aliens voted...as per Obama's instructions.

Turns out you're sort of an idiot-savant....without the savant.

Sounds like your skin is thinner than Donald's. Try not to bleed to death through your pores.

You're attempting to change the subject because I thoroughly destroyed you?

That means you know I won?

Great.

 

[paperview]

Citing a stupid RWNJ pages don't help you, nutcakes.

Especially ones that end their phony story with "And if you want to see Hillary behind bars make sure to LIKE our Facebook page!"

Now....watch me eviscerate you:

Study: Non-Citizen Votes May Have Tipped 2008 Election for Obama

"More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.

Estimated Voter Turnout by Non-Citizens
2008 2010
Self reported and/or verified 38 (11.3%) 13 (3.5%)
Self reported and verified 5 (1.5%) N.A.
Adjusted estimate 21 (6.4%) 8 (2.2%)
Because non-citizens tended to favor Democrats (Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample), we find that this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections. Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) won election in 2008 with a victory margin of 312 votes. Votes cast by just 0.65 percent of Minnesota non-citizens could account for this margin. It is also possible that non-citizen votes were responsible for Obama’s 2008 victory in North Carolina. Obama won the state by 14,177 votes, so a turnout by 5.1 percent of North Carolina’s adult non-citizens would have provided this victory margin."
Could non-citizens decide the November election?


What makes you Liberal low-life scum is not that you deny the voting by illegals...

....but that you know it's the truth.




And that's from the waaayyyyyy Liberal Washington Compost.



You ya' like them apples, paperweight?

The lying liar links to a page that shows this in the very first sentence:

Note: The post occasioned three rebuttals (here, here, and here) as well as a response from the authors. Subsequently, another peer-reviewed article argued that the findings reported in this post (and affiliated article) were biased and that the authors’ data do not provide evidence of non-citizen voting in U.S. elections.

Eviscerated.

Let's get you on the record: you deny that illegals vote?


Speak up, dunce.

It's rare.

There's been a shitton of investigations, a heaping, hopping bowlful done - many by GOPpers trying to prove it (as well as independent investigations). When the results are in, they find when it comes to hard evidence, they are forced to conclude actual voter fraud is...rare.

(Voter suppression and absentee ballot abuses are where more issues arise, but the GOP doesn't seem to want to train their eyes there.)

Great!


You admit that it goes on.

Now.....what percent of the 30 million illegal aliens are you willing to agree vote illegally?

1%?

That means 1 in 100. Reasonable?

That means more than the 200,000 votes that CNN stated that Bill's wife won the popular vote by......


QED.....I never lie.

Trump won both popular vote and electoral college.



Eviscerated.

You don't get to make up shit like that out of thin air,without any proof, you fucknut.

Connies who run their tail off about this fail to understand there is a very big reason voter fraud is so rare: High risk, low return.

Not many people are motivated such they would risk large fines, being deported / prison time and a felony record for the sake of one extra vote, that likely would have very little effect on an election.

 

[PoliticalChic]

so you're saying that the history of his campaign means nothing? his recent proclamations and vocal rolling back on his (always vague) policies mean nothing? that we just shouldn't listen until something is already in place after he has taken office? i for one listen and take what he said seriously because they are serious; it should not be treated with a laissez faire interpretation (which is foolish in my opinion). what are you voting for if not taking a candidate's campaign promises seriously?

"....what are you voting for if not taking a candidate's campaign promises seriously?"


To whom are your addressing this?

Did you take what Obama said, and promised, and then did the very opposite, as something to learn from????

Like this:

Here are some of his statements on the subject, going back to his first campaign for the presidency:


June 5, 2008, in Cairo: "I will continue to be clear on the fact that an Iranian nuclear weapon would be profoundly destabilizing for the entire region.It is strongly in America's interest to prevent such a scenario."


June 8, 2008, to AIPAC: "The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.... Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel."


October 7 2008, in the second presidential debate: "We cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. It would be a game-changer in the region. Not only would it threaten Israel, our strongest ally in the region and one of our strongest allies in the world, but it would also create a possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. And so it's unacceptable. And I will do everything that's required to prevent it. And we will never take military options off the table,"


November 7, 2008, press conference: "Iran's development of a nuclear weapon, I believe, is unacceptable. And we have to mount an international effort to prevent that from happening."


February 27, 2009, speech at Camp Lejeune: "(W)e are focusing on al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing a strategy to use all elements of American power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon; and actively seeking a lasting peace between Israel and the Arab world."


January 27, 2010, State of the Union address: "And as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: They, too, will face growing consequences. That is a promise."


July 1, /2010, at the signing of the Iran Sanctions Act: "There should be no doubt -- the United States and the international community are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."


May 19, 2011, speech on the Middle East: "Now, our opposition to Iran's intolerance and Iran's repressive measures, as well as its illicit nuclear program and its support of terror, is well known."


May 22, 2011, in an address to AIPAC: "You also see our commitment to our shared security in our determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.... So let me be absolutely clear -- we remain committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."


October 13,2011, press conference after meeting with South Korean president:"Now, we don't take any options off the table in terms of how we operate with Iran."


November 14, 2011, press conference: "So what I did was to speak with President Medvedev, as well as President Hu, and all three of us entirely agree on the objective, which is making sure that Iran does not weaponize nuclear power and that we don't trigger a nuclear arms race in the region. That's in the interests of all of us... I have said repeatedly and I will say it today, we are not taking any options off the table, because it's my firm belief that an Iran with a nuclear weapon would pose a security threat not only to the region but also to the United States."


December 8, 2011, press conference: (In response to question about pressuring Iran): "No options off the table means I'm considering all options."


December 16, 2011, speech to the General Assembly of the Union for Reform Judaism: "Another grave concern -- and a threat to the security of Israel, the United States and the world -- is Iran's nuclear program. And that's why our policy has been absolutely clear: We are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons...and that's why, rest assured, we will take no options off the table. We have been clear."


January 24, 2012, State of the Union address: "Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal."


March 2, 2012, interview with Goldblog: "I... don't, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say."


March 4, 2012, speech to AIPAC: "I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say That includes all elements of American power: A political effort aimed at isolating Iran; a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure that the Iranian program is monitored; an economic effort that imposes crippling sanctions; and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency."


March 5, 2012, remarks after meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu: "... I reserve all options, and my policy here is not going to be one of containment. My policy is prevention of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. And as I indicated yesterday in my speech, when I say all options are at the table, I mean it."


March 6, 2012, press conference: "And what I have said is, is that we will not countenance Iran getting a nuclear weapon. My policy is not containment; my policy is to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon -- because if they get a nuclear weapon that could trigger an arms race in the region, it would undermine our non-proliferation goals, it could potentially fall into the hands of terrorists.


March 14, 2012, remarks after meeting with David Cameron: "...And as I said in a speech just a couple of weeks ago, I am determined not simply to contain Iran that is in possession of a nuclear weapon; I am determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon -- in part for the reasons that David mentioned... We will do everything we can to resolve this diplomatically, but ultimately, we've got to have somebody on the other side of the table who's taking this seriously."


September 25, 2012, speech to the United Nations General Assembly: "Make no mistake: A nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained...the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."

Obama's Crystal-Clear Promise to Stop Iran From Getting a Nuclear Weapon



Is that what you mean?

i assume you are referring to the iran deal. you do realize that many political scientists believe that had not the iran deal been negotiated that war could have potentially broken out in the future right? that the iran deal ensures that iran does not employ R+D into enriching uranium (a necessary component to nuclear weapons) for a number of years, allows them to have a stake in the international markets and allowing for an economic reason not to invest in nuclear development?

"many political scientists believe that had not the iran deal been negotiated that war could have potentially broken out in the future right?"

Pleeeezzzzze!

You believe that hogwash?

The sanctions were strangling them.

1. This from the Left-leaning Brookings Institute...
"....the sanctions against Iran — and the context for them internationally and within Iran — have changed dramatically. Since 2010, the sanctions’ impact on Iran has been severe: its oil exports and revenues plummeted; the value of its currency eroded; trade disruptions shuttered businesses and exacerbated inflation. Quietly, a backlash emerged among Iran’s political elites against the country’s creeping isolation, and the June 2013 presidential election ushered in a moderate new president and the beginnings of a diplomatic breakthrough on the nuclear crisis — achievements that most observers attribute to the impact of sanctions."
Why “Iran Style” Sanctions Worked Against Tehran (And Why They Might Not Succeed with Moscow) | Brookings Institution



2. To give context to your understanding.....name the only 'religion' that Barack Hussein Obama has stood up for, shielded from criticism, defended and advanced.

Take your time.



Oh....btw.....welcome to the board and the battles.

thanks for the welcome i'm glad we can debate like this and discuss.

now then, i believe that a country under that kind of severe sanctions that trickled down to the individual level would have eventually exploded when they were backed into a corner. and in terms of Obama standing up for islam it's because that is one of the primary ways one battles homegrown terrorism, look at the example of france. they isolate their muslim population, they are relegated to slums, and so radical uprising become a reality. the answer is to assimilate, to separate radical islam from islam all together because when people hear "radical islam" they lose the radical part, and yell at muslim's in the street, telling them to go back where they came from (when they were born and raised in the US).

Now that we're buds, I should appraise you of the slant shown in your choice of avi....
"The Right Side of History"....

1. Know who made that phrase infamojus?
One who not only lacks any understanding of history, and botches it when he tries to insert himself therein, can pretend he in an influence in same.

... this dunce, Obama, who has seen his policies and ideas fail literally dozens of times....and I mean 'literally' literally....actually mouths predictions about history, and how future events will support his backside, bankrupt blather.

a. "To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history,..." President Barack Obama's Inaugural Address


b."... the U.S. response to protests in Egypt that forced President Hosni Mubarak from power last Friday. Critics have faulted the U.S. for being too cautious in offering support to protesters in Cairo. The administration now appears to be placing itself on the side of those in the streets. "History will end up recording that at every juncture in the situation in Egypt, that we were on the right side of history," Obama said." Obama: U.S. Is 'On Right Side Of History' In Mideast [He said this gleefully anticipating the ascendancy of the Muslim Brotherhood.]

c. And, as Gaddafi was about to be pushed out....“I believe that Gaddafi is on the wrong side of history. I believe that the Libyan people are anxious for freedom and the removal of somebody who has suppressed them for decades now. We are going to be in contact with the opposition, ..."
Obama, Gaddafi, and the ‘wrong side of history’ [September 11, 2012, attack of a United States outpost inBenghazi, Libya, that left four Americans killed,....]

d. "Speaking more broadly about the then still young “Arab Spring” he said, “I think that the region will be watching carefully to make sure we’re on the right side of history.” When Vladimir Putin started carving up Ukraine, the president insisted that America wouldn’t actually do anything about it, but fear not -- because Putin is on the wrong side of history.The “long moral arc of the universe” -- another of Obama’s favorite phrases -- will “bend toward justice.”




2. "It’s a phrase Obama loves: He’s used it 15 times, in debates; at synagogues; in weekly radio addresses; at fundraisers. Obama is almost as fond of its converse, “the wrong side of history,” which he has used 13 times; staffers and press secretaries have invoked it a further 16." The Wrong Side of 'the Right Side of History'


"....telling someone they are on “the wrong side of history” means “You’re going to lose eventually, so why don’t you give up now?”



Another dunce tried it in this form: "The debate is over!"

 

[PoliticalChic]

Now....watch me eviscerate you:

Study: Non-Citizen Votes May Have Tipped 2008 Election for Obama

"More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.

Estimated Voter Turnout by Non-Citizens
2008 2010
Self reported and/or verified 38 (11.3%) 13 (3.5%)
Self reported and verified 5 (1.5%) N.A.
Adjusted estimate 21 (6.4%) 8 (2.2%)
Because non-citizens tended to favor Democrats (Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample), we find that this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections. Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) won election in 2008 with a victory margin of 312 votes. Votes cast by just 0.65 percent of Minnesota non-citizens could account for this margin. It is also possible that non-citizen votes were responsible for Obama’s 2008 victory in North Carolina. Obama won the state by 14,177 votes, so a turnout by 5.1 percent of North Carolina’s adult non-citizens would have provided this victory margin."
Could non-citizens decide the November election?


What makes you Liberal low-life scum is not that you deny the voting by illegals...

....but that you know it's the truth.




And that's from the waaayyyyyy Liberal Washington Compost.



You ya' like them apples, paperweight?

The lying liar links to a page that shows this in the very first sentence:

Note: The post occasioned three rebuttals (here, here, and here) as well as a response from the authors. Subsequently, another peer-reviewed article argued that the findings reported in this post (and affiliated article) were biased and that the authors’ data do not provide evidence of non-citizen voting in U.S. elections.

Eviscerated.

Let's get you on the record: you deny that illegals vote?


Speak up, dunce.

It's rare.

There's been a shitton of investigations, a heaping, hopping bowlful done - many by GOPpers trying to prove it (as well as independent investigations). When the results are in, they find when it comes to hard evidence, they are forced to conclude actual voter fraud is...rare.

(Voter suppression and absentee ballot abuses are where more issues arise, but the GOP doesn't seem to want to train their eyes there.)

Great!


You admit that it goes on.

Now.....what percent of the 30 million illegal aliens are you willing to agree vote illegally?

1%?

That means 1 in 100. Reasonable?

That means more than the 200,000 votes that CNN stated that Bill's wife won the popular vote by......


QED.....I never lie.

Trump won both popular vote and electoral college.



Eviscerated.

You don't get to make up shit like that out of thin air,without any proof, you fucknut.

Connies who run their tail off about this fail to understand there is a very big reason voter fraud is so rare: High risk, low return.

Not many people are motivated such they would risk large fines, being deported / prison time and a felony record for the sake of one extra vote, that likely would have very little effect on an election.

Vulgarity????

There is a simple explanation, so simple that even one such as you, with your limited ....ability....may understand your propensity:

Time and again, when folks realize they have been skewered, that they have no adequate response to truth that destroys their worldview, their most closely held beliefs, their language falls to the vulgar.

It's one of those hard to hide psychological tells....your anger at being bested leaks out as vulgarity.

That would be you.

 

[paperview]

And your stupid Trump line about there being 30 million illegal immigrants (that PC thinks are all eligible to vote! ) is another pile of her rotting manure lies. As usual.



The number of illegal immigrants in the United States is "30 million, it could be 34 million."
— Donald Trump on Friday, July 24th, 2015 in an interview on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."

Donald Trump wrongly says the number of illegal immigrants is 30 million or higher

"There are, to my knowledge, no credible, research-based estimates of 30 million," said Jeffrey Passel, an expert on Hispanic immigration at the Pew Research Center. "The 11-12 million range is broadly accepted by almost all researchers and immigration advocates (regardless of perspective).
...
The Department of Homeland Security says the number of illegal immigrants was about 11.4 million as of January 2012. Other independent groups that research illegal immigration put the number between 11 and 12 million. We found no compelling evidence that the number could as high as Trump said.

Trump has provided no proof that the number of illegal immigrants is triple the widespread consensus. We rate this claim Pants on Fire."

 

[paperview]

More PC Puss: "That means more than the 200,000 votes that CNN stated that Bill's wife won the popular vote by......"

No. Idiot. You have serious logic mechanisms broken..

And Clinton won the popular vote by more than a half million, and is likely to win by a couple more million.