Originally posted by FreakyKBH Your subjectivity notwithstanding, any foreknowledge of the questions prior to the debate ought to have been immediate removal and dismissal from the same.
Those are the rules, technically.
But this wasn't a scored event, was it?
The damage she did to herself and her alleged integrity--- culminating in the severe beating she took at the polls--- were en ...[text shortened]... he furthest we can remove her from any influence is still not far away enough.
Reprehensible.
The "severe beating" where she got about 3 million more votes than her opponent?
Originally posted by KazetNagorra About 3 million more.
In all of your worldly travels, Herr Doktor, have you ever been exposed to the fact that the US elections for president are decided by an electoral college?
Or have you been immune to such revelations?
How'd the old hag do in that vote, you know: the one that decides who's going to get to sit in that chair?
Originally posted by FreakyKBH In all of your worldly travels, Herr Doktor, have you ever been exposed to the fact that the US elections for president are decided by an electoral college?
Or have you been immune to such revelations?
How'd the old hag do in that vote, you know: the one that decides who's going to get to sit in that chair?
Only 10 winning Presidential candidates got a lower percentage of the Electoral College than Trump (out of 54).http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/war-is-peace-freedom-is-slavery-trump-won-in-a-landslide/
Originally posted by no1marauder Only 10 winning Presidential candidates got a lower percentage of the Electoral College than Trump (out of 54).http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/war-is-peace-freedom-is-slavery-trump-won-in-a-landslide/
That seems like it might be significant.
How many presidents were left-handed?
How many presidents had more than five letters in their last names?
Why, all but ten of them!
That's gotta mean something, right?
Originally posted by FreakyKBH That seems like it might be significant.
How many presidents were left-handed?
How many presidents had more than five letters in their last names?
Why, all but ten of them!
That's gotta mean something, right?
It is "significant" to a claim that HRC received a "severe beating" while receiving three million more of the popular vote.
Originally posted by no1marauder It is "significant" to a claim that HRC received a "severe beating" while receiving three million more of the popular vote.
Again, I must remind the gentle readers how the US decides its presidents based upon the results of the electoral college.
Regarding the manner in which the US decides its president every four years, the candidate Hilary Rodham Clinton was decidedly trounced by one DJ Trump.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH Again, I must remind the gentle readers how the US decides its presidents based upon the results of the electoral college.
Regarding the manner in which the US decides its president every four years, the candidate Hilary Rodham Clinton was decidedly trounced by one DJ Trump.
Handily.
Yes, if narrowly winning is severely beating then Trump severely beat Clinton.
However, in common English usage, the phrase "severely beaten" usually refers to a one-sided, overwhelming victory.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH 306 to 232, numbnuts.
Again:
Only 10 winning Presidential candidates got a lower percentage of the Electoral College than Trump (out of 54).http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/war-is-peace-freedom-is-slavery-trump-won-in-a-landslide/
"Trounced"? Hardly. A shift of a few tens of thousands of votes (out of more than 130 million) in three States changes the result.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH 306 to 232, numbnuts.
As far as Electoral College victories go, that one is fairly narrow. See no1's link.
A mere 100,000 votes in the right places or a slight shifting of state boundaries would've granted Clinton the win. Your attempted historical revisionism notwithstanding, Trump's victory was narrow.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra As far as Electoral College victories go, that one is fairly narrow. See no1's link.
A mere 100,000 votes in the right places or a slight shifting of state boundaries would've granted Clinton the win. Your attempted historical revisionism notwithstanding, Trump's victory was narrow.
70 is the difference, since you seem to be math challenged.
Bush v Gore?
Five.
Is it the largest ever?
Obviously not.
But, just for giggles, do some actual research into the topic.
There has been an ebb and flow of selection: some years with a clear line of demarcation between the two main parties with other years complete and utter landslides one party or the other.
Since 1992, it's been pretty much of a crap shoot.
If you want to take away votes in order to make the picture look more rosy for the old hag, you'll have to take away those votes which saw the lever pulled by dead people and illegal immigrants.
Originally posted by no1marauder Since you know that the accusation is that Donna Brazile gave one or perhaps a few more debate questions to the Hillary campaign before a March debate with Bernie Sanders, you already know the answer and also know that you are lying as usual. She trounced Trump at the debates because he conducted himself like a borderline lunatic not because of any non-existent leaking of debate questions.
What a repulsive partisan troll you are.
So I'm to believe that Donna gave Hillary only one or so questions? Really? So they were going to cheat but with only one question? Oh, and somehow only giving one debate question, assuming that was the case, was not cheating?
it sure was nice getting a look inside the Dim party with these e-mails. And if they were not true, why did Donna resign? I do realize that even as dim witted as the left is they now know to keep their cheating and lying off their private servers. Now it is back to demagoguery and lying with impunity.
Are you smoking pot now? I do realize your Dim buddies are trying to get it legalized in as many states as they can cuz they sure need the dead head voters.
Originally posted by whodey What a repulsive partisan troll you are.So I'm to believe that Donna gave Hillary only one or so questions? Really? So they were going to cheat but with only one question? Oh, and somehow only giving one debate question, assuming that was the case, was not cheating?
it sure was nice getting a look inside the Dim party with these e-mails. And if they we ...[text shortened]... rying to get it legalized in as many states as they can cuz they sure need the dead head voters.
This idiotic rant doesn't change any facts, so my original post remains unrefuted.
Perhaps in the interest of transparency, the RNC would be willing to make public all e-mails sent and received from its officials. Maybe you should be shouting for that.
What influenced the election more?
02 Jan '17 17:55
Back to Top