"10 Things Trump Supporters Are Too Stupid To Realize"


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 447
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I appreciate the sentiment and in many ways agree, but I can't honestly say that the next round would be any different. America has many great people who would be capable of leading and doing it extre

The only poll that mattered was the one taken on November 8th.   His huge numbers from all his rallies didn't lie after all.   I am not necessarily happy he won, but I am estactic Clinton lo

UpperDeck, I agree - I think Ibbitson has it wrong...I doubt if Trump has done anything illegal with his taxes. I believe that the U.S. tax laws are in place to do as he has done. I recall seeing in t

Posted Images

On 10/4/2016 at 4:18 PM, deicer said:

Where they say Trump made a lot of money, he didn't.  He used loopholes not available to 'average' citizens to mitigate the fact that he failed in his business.

 

The truly disgusting thing about this whole election is the actions of the Democratic party. They could have gotten ANYONE elected other than Hillary Clinton. She knew the amount of dirt that was out there about her and her husband, a douchebag of epic proportions all on his own. No matter who is elected they will be out of office in two years.

What a despicable display, this will change the rules forever, guaranteed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

About 3 weeks ago this map showed Clinton winning close to 330 electoral seats. Today she sits at 252.  What's also telling is the brown line in the centre indicating all the States trending towards Trump. This race is far from over.

 

 

IMG_4013.PNG

Edited by Jaydee
Link to post
Share on other sites

Over 76,000 people on live feed watching his speech tonight from Michigan. This is only one of many feeds and does not include the sell out crowd at the speech. This is the largest number I have observed to date. Comey's announcement hasn't swayed too many supporters.  Hillary on the other hand only had 4000 watching her speech today. 

For some reason the numbers behind the polls are not representative of reality. One possible explanation I read was that the polling companies are not canvassing the hoards of new voters that have come out of the woodwork to support the Republicans because they are not in their data bases.

If nothing else, Tuesdays event will be the largest event in television history watched from every corner of the civilized world.

Interesting times we live in.

 

 

IMG_4018.PNG

Link to post
Share on other sites

What happens if neither front-runner receives the required electoral votes, as could very well happen with vote-splitting by independents?

Do they hold a run-off, dropping the lowest candidate(s)?

Or does each of the front-runners court those who split the vote?

Edited by Moon The Loon
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Moon The Loon said:

What happens if neither front-runner receives the required electoral votes, as could very well happen with vote-splitting by independents?

Do they hold a run-off, dropping the lowest candidate(s)?

Or does each of the front-runners court those who split the vote?

 

,If no candidate receives a majority of Electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most Electoral votes. Each state delegation has one vote. The Senate would elect the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most Electoral votes. Each Senator would cast one vote for Vice President. If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House."

 

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html#no270

Edited by Jaydee
Link to post
Share on other sites

The NP articles states, (my bolding),

Quote

Barring a major misreading of the polls — which as several recent elections and referenda in the Americas and Europe have demonstrated is possible — Clinton will win Tuesday’s election because she has the most votes in the electoral college, which is an arcane way to apportion support for the presidency on a state-by-state basis rather than according to the popular vote, which is likely to be far closer. 

What is coming is yet another review of the Electoral College system. There was a group of small-state Senators who rebuffed a move to eliminate the College in 1969. In 1977 President Carter proposed a constitutional amendment to eliminate the College. In 2000 there was discussion on the same project but it failed.

Among other reasons, (for fairness to smaller communities vice large voting blocks in the cities), the original Constitutional conception of the United States regarding the Electoral College was founded on the notion, expressed by Hamilton who described the people as a "great beast", as though they were incapable of making up their own mind.

The intention was likely honorable and meant to even out the powerful interests of larger states and urban areas with "dispassionate" voters committed to their candidate.

Eliminating the College would mean that a handful of states like California, New York, Texas and Florida would be the sole battlegrounds for the popular vote, leaving almost all other states without influence.

However, among the effects of the College is to limit the influence of third-party candidates, (which partly answers Moon's question regarding Electoral votes on another thread).

The United States has a far larger, existential mess to sort out before they tackle technical matters like the College. Neither party knows who or what the United States is today, and so they cannot know their way forward.

It is a situation rich and ripe for intervenors and the demagoguery of the "Alt-Right" kind to portray themselves as "The Way", and so those who remain informed by Enlightenment values and not, for example by quasi-libertarianism or religious fanaticism, will have to remain in the argument while the U.S. political economy caroms off the rails on the way to some form of stability.

 

Edited by Don Hudson
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote of the election campaign...

"Apparently, [Trump’s] campaign has taken away his Twitter. In the last two days, they had so little confidence in his self-control, they said, “We’re just gonna take away your twitter.” Now, if somebody can’t handle a Twitter account, they can’t handle the nuclear codes. If somebody starts tweeting at three in the morning because SNL made fun of you, then you can’t handle the nuclear codes."

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/11/06/obama-pounces-trump-handle-twitter-account-nuclear-codes.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, mo32a said:

To the moderators....

 

Please close and lock and then delete these political threads tomorrow so that nobody new every has to see the vexatious diatribe that occurred here.

Ah yes...finally a reflection of discourse in the year 2016 ...the PC police have finally arrived. So very sad.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jaydee said:

Ah yes...finally a reflection of discourse in the year 2016 ...the PC police have finally arrived. So very sad.

Jaydee - I share your <_<, but I'm not sure that it's your stuff Mo32a wants to suppress. I suspect he's more inclined to wish a pox on all houses?

IAC, WRT your lament about the polls further up the thread: There were the same doubts about their accuracy in 2012, in the light of huge Romney rally crowds etc. Re: your theory about not canvassing some cohorts, my understanding is that their data base starts with the voter rolls, so if names are not registered, they can't vote anyway.

They've gotten pretty sophisticated, but it's still just math, and the error factors are well-known - and frequently misunderstood and over-estimated. There are very few elections in which the average of polls is not borne out. e.g. Brexit was polled to be very close, and it was! It was the odds-makers and forecasters who thought they knew better that blew it - the very guys who downplayed the polls.

But all is not lost for you yet. As I noted on the other thread: when they distill the numbers down to something intuitive, HRC is a 40-yard field goal to win the game in the NFL. Definitely a losable proposition (God forbid ;))

Cheers, IFG :b:

Edited by IFG
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Jaydee said:

Ah yes...finally a reflection of discourse in the year 2016 ...the PC police have finally arrived. So very sad.

What's sad is the notion that political correctness explains everything people dislike about this campaign. Character matters. When you're willing to dismiss it for political reasons, well, what else are you willing to turn a blind eye to? Talk about your normalization of deviance.

Edited by J.O.
Link to post
Share on other sites

"What's sad is the notion that political correctness explains everything people dislike about this campaign. Character matters. When you're willing to dismiss it for political reasons, well, what else are you willing to turn a blind eye to? Talk about your normalization of deviance."

Exactly my point when it comes to Jay Z et al. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.