Trump is going to screw Biden over so hard

[Unregistered]

Oh really? Let's back down from your hyperbole of the entirety of political history because that would be shooting fish in a barrel and point out how you aren't even telling the truth about presidential elections.

In terms of percentage of electoral votes won, Trump ranks 46th out of 58 elections. He lost the popular vote to HRC by 2,868,686 votes. Only four other presidents have lost the popular vote and won the Electoral College.

In presidential elections, a landslide is generally agreed to be one in which the winning candidate secures at least 70 percent of the electoral votes. He won 306 out of 538 for 56.9% of the electoral votes.

Under that standard definition, the following presidential elections would qualify as Electoral College landslides:

1996: Democrat Bill Clinton won 379 electoral votes against Republican Bob Dole, who received only 159 electoral votes.
1988: Republican George H.W. Bush won 426 electoral votes against Michael S. Dukakis, who received only 111.
1984: Republican Ronald Reagan won 525 electoral votes against Democrat Walter Mondale, who got only 13 electoral votes.
1980: Reagan won 489 electoral votes against Democrat Jimmy Carter, who got only 49 electoral votes.
1972: Republican Richard Nixon won 520 electoral votes against Democrat George S. McGovern, who got only 17 electoral votes.
1964: Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson got 486 electoral votes against Republican Barry M. Goldwater, who got only 52 electoral votes.
1956: Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower got 457 electoral votes against Democrat Adlai Stevenson, who got only 73 electoral votes.
1952: Eisenhower got 442 electoral votes against Stevenson, who got only 89 electoral votes.
1944: Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt got 432 electoral votes against Republican Thomas E. Dewey, who got only 99 electoral votes.
1940: Roosevelt got 449 electoral votes against Republican Wendell L. Wilkie, who got only 82 electoral votes.
1936: Roosevelt got 523 electoral votes against Republican Alfred M. Landon, who got only 8 electoral votes.
1932: Roosevelt got 472 electoral votes against Republican Herbert C. Hoover, who got only 59 electoral votes.
1928: Republican Herbert C. Hoover got 444 electoral votes against Democrat Alfred E. Smith, who got only 87 electoral votes.
1924: Republican Calvin Coolidge got 382 electoral votes against Democrat John W. Davis, who got only 136 electoral votes.
1920: Republican Warren G. Harding got 404 electoral votes against Democrat James M. Cox, who got only 127 electoral votes.
1912: Democrat Woodrow Wilson got 435 electoral votes against Progressive Theodore Roosevelt, who got only 88 electoral votes.

So you're either mislead and will maturely own up to your mistake, or you are lying and won't.

Somebody is triggered. Talk about needing new material. I’m talking about that electoral map that is almost entirely red with just a tiny few blue stains on it. You wanna know why Dems want to abolish it so bad? Because they have no control over the election. They know that based on population alone, 4 states would potentially elect the next POTUS. That would not e a country by the people, of the people, for the people. I think you’re smart enough to know this. It would a government of 4 liberal heavy states. It’s no secret why “The Squad “ wants to throw it out like the rest of the constitution. And you libtards complain Trump is shredding our constitution? Morons. You and the rest of the clown show’s inability to accept the fact that the American voter rejected your cuckoo progressive agenda is precisely why the Dems are doing what ever they can to impeach Trump. Democrat Al Green summed up the liberal mantra best: “if we can’t beat him, then we impeach him”. You think the American, who voter for Trump, is sitting back watching all this is saying “gee, I think I’m gonna vote liberal next time? See ya in 2020!

[Unregistered]

Somebody is triggered. Talk about needing new material. I’m talking about that electoral map that is almost entirely red with just a tiny few blue stains on it.

Somebody appreciates facts and the truth.

Feel free to worship that red map Trump tweeted. You know. The one that:

* erroneously shows multiple counties won by Clinton as red, including Orange County, California; Washoe County, Nevada; Lake County, Minnesota; Gallatin County, Montana; and Whitman County, Washington.

* shows Trump won more landmass than Clinton as a lot of those red counties have tiny populations -- Last time I checked, land doesn't vote. Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming are 83 times the size of Los Angeles County in area despite having half as many voters for example.

* Showed Alaska as entirely red when an accurate representation is largely blue.

If the map were accurate, it would still be meaningless beyond the distortion caused by relative population density.

Because support for impeachment isn't predicated by previous vote tallies. Nixon won handily and look what happened to him.

Nice pivot away from the false claim that HRC suffered the worst upset in political history with another easily debunked piece of propaganda though. You were talking about the red map indeed. Yeah right. We all believe that.

Does it give you any pause that we're talking about verifiable numbers, not even opinions, and you still can't admit to being wrong? Care to rebut my claim that 2+2=4?

[Unregistered]

Democrat Al Green summed up the liberal mantra best: “if we can’t beat him, then we impeach him”.

That's funny coming from someone who admires the party of Newt Gingrich. Because we know the Republicans would never ever impeach a Democratic president, right? LOL!

[Unregistered]

Somebody appreciates facts and the truth.

Feel free to worship that red map Trump tweeted. You know. The one that:

* erroneously shows multiple counties won by Clinton as red, including Orange County, California; Washoe County, Nevada; Lake County, Minnesota; Gallatin County, Montana; and Whitman County, Washington.

* shows Trump won more landmass than Clinton as a lot of those red counties have tiny populations -- Last time I checked, land doesn't vote. Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming are 83 times the size of Los Angeles County in area despite having half as many voters for example.

* Showed Alaska as entirely red when an accurate representation is largely blue.

If the map were accurate, it would still be meaningless beyond the distortion caused by relative population density.

Because support for impeachment isn't predicated by previous vote tallies. Nixon won handily and look what happened to him.

Nice pivot away from the false claim that HRC suffered the worst upset in political history with another easily debunked piece of propaganda though. You were talking about the red map indeed. Yeah right. We all believe that.

Does it give you any pause that we're talking about verifiable numbers, not even opinions, and you still can't admit to being wrong? Care to rebut my claim that 2+2=4?

You should know by now that Trump loves and manufactures fake maps just as much as he loves and manufactures fake news - ie, the doctored fake map he rolled out at the hurricane news conference.

He's just a petulant and doltish I'm imbecile.

[Unregistered]

1. No
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Not Trumps problem. They need to put their big boy pants on.

Now please answer mine! I said please. 😄

I just want to make sure I'm reading this right. #1 was "Trump chose to side with Vladimir Putin over his own intelligence agencies on the subject of Russian interference in the 2016 election". This was at the Helsinki summit last summer, and was reported by nearly every major news organization, including Fox News. You are saying you don't believe any of those reports?

[Unregistered]

Hey hypocrite, You mean like Holder and ***** did for Obama??? https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...amas-wing-man/

Yes, I had a problem with it. Even though the IG cleared Holder of wrong-doing later, it didn't sit well with me at all. I didn't like it then and I don't like it off the charts now.

[Unregistered]

You should know by now that Trump loves and manufactures fake maps just as much as he loves and manufactures fake news - ie, the doctored fake map he rolled out at the hurricane news conference.

He's just a petulant and doltish I'm imbecile.

Nothing better demonstrates the idiocy of #45 than Sharpiegate. Not just what he did but how he doubles or triples down when he's shown to be incorrect (or just making sh it up or flat out lying)

[Unregistered]

Nothing better demonstrates the idiocy of #45 than Sharpiegate. Not just what he did but how he doubles or triples down when he's shown to be incorrect (or just making sh it up or flat out lying)

Textbook sociopath

[Unregistered]

Yes, I had a problem with it. Even though the IG cleared Holder of wrong-doing later, it didn't sit well with me at all. I didn't like it then and I don't like it off the charts now.

It's telling that the pro-Trump crowd likes to point out wrongdoing by the left and call the anti-Trump crowd hypocrites as if they support that behavior. When the anti-Trump crowd says wrongdoing should be punished regardless of political affiliation, the pro-Trumpers can't process that (I've never seen a comeback to that type of comment). They think everybody sees the world through partisan glasses, just like they do. Scary.

[Unregistered]

It's telling that the pro-Trump crowd likes to point out wrongdoing by the left and call the anti-Trump crowd hypocrites as if they support that behavior. When the anti-Trump crowd says wrongdoing should be punished regardless of political affiliation, the pro-Trumpers can't process that (I've never seen a comeback to that type of comment). They think everybody sees the world through partisan glasses, just like they do. Scary.

It's projection. They deny the hypocrisy within themselves by attributing it to others. Classic defense mechanism they can't seem to overcome.

[Unregistered]

It's telling that the pro-Trump crowd likes to point out wrongdoing by the left and call the anti-Trump crowd hypocrites as if they support that behavior. When the anti-Trump crowd says wrongdoing should be punished regardless of political affiliation, the pro-Trumpers can't process that (I've never seen a comeback to that type of comment). They think everybody sees the world through partisan glasses, just like they do. Scary.

agree. if a democrat would condition military aid on a "little favor" designed to dig up dirt on a political opponent, i think most republicans would consider the behavior serious and impeachable.

i am hoping for impeachment so i don't have to choose next november between a socialist and a criminal.

[Unregistered]

Trump is coming completely unglued

[Unregistered]

This has been public knowledge since spring of 2016. HRC's donors got the DNC out of debt. Everyone knows that. She didn't cut off money to Sanders, her campaign had a different fundraising agreement than his campaign did. Primary campaigns don't want the other campaigns to know what their financial agreements are. That's standard stuff. This is a dog bites man story, not a man bites dog story. Get back to us when you can explain joint fundraising agreements rather than parrot what some right wing blog told you.

OOPS!!!! You were saying something about joint funding agreements? According to NPR, HRC and some special ones.

https://www.newsweek.com/clinton-rob...brazile-699421

https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/04/polit...ile/index.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41850798

https://www.npr.org/2017/11/03/56197...th-dnc-in-2015

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/ele...linton-n817501

[Unregistered]

Trump is coming completely unglued

My phone just lit up like a Christmas tree with texts from people watching the press conference with the Finnish president. A lot of people telling me he's even worse than usual. That's hard to fathom.

[Unregistered]

OOPS!!!! You were saying something about joint funding agreements? ]

You're still trying to find a man bites dog story where there isn't one.

As much as party politics can be distasteful, why do you find it surprising political party leadership has a preference for some of its candidates (or one) over others? That's how they operate. Brazile herself, the source of your glee, admits there was nothing criminal going on. She just didn't like it.

I'll give you a more local example. The state parties in Florida do not fund candidates for our state House and Senate equally. It doesn't work that way. They tier their giving and fund safe seats first and then give to races that either start to look more competitive in polling or show that they can generate a substantial and growing donor base on their own with successive monthly financial reports. Counter-intuitive, but that's how it works. They don't give money to the ones who need it most, but the ones who look like more likely winners.

Also, keep in mind that Bernie Sanders ran as a Democrat, but he is an Independent. Why should the DNC not favor a lifelong member of their own party over an Independent?

Sorry babe, but you're grasping at straws with this one. I'm sure you can find something more worthwhile to foam at the mouth over.