"Immediately Repeal and Replace . . . "
- Thread starter Y.A.G Si Ye Nots
- Start date
I never realized New York was considered fly-over country. Lots of red in New York, particularly close to Corning.
yep, this shit again. makes you libs cry every.single.fvcking.time.Christ, not this shit again....
"but, but, but, but we got 100,000,000,000 votes in LA, NYC, and Chicago..."
yeah, gotta love that one.
my response: "we won!" when i say that, i don't necessarily mean "we won" getting trump elected. i see it more as "we won" making sure hillary didn't.
cheetos:
34 of 36 first day promises broken...........FAIL
travel ban.......FAIL
repeal obamacare...............FAIL
replace obamacare........SUPER FAIL
you cons tired of winning yet?
34 of 36 first day promises broken...........FAIL
travel ban.......FAIL
repeal obamacare...............FAIL
replace obamacare........SUPER FAIL
you cons tired of winning yet?
it was a win simply keeping crooked hillary out. libs constantly crying over it is just icing on the cake.
it was a win simply keeping crooked hillary out. libs constantly crying over it is just icing on the cake.
cheetos:
34 of 36 first day promises broken...........FAIL
travel ban.......FAIL
repeal obamacare...............FAIL
replace obamacare........SUPER FAIL
a cheetos voter complaining about hillary being crooked....bwaaaaahaha!!
what Greed and your stereotypical Liberals can't seem to grasp is the fact that every day Hillary is not POTUS makes up in spades for ANY promise Trump doesn't keep.
if my life stays exactly the same over the next 4 years (in comparison to the previous 8) it will still be MONUMENTALLY better for the foreseeable future with 2 GoP SCOTUS judges.
walls
taxes
healthcare
threat of the day (ISIS)
all will go through the wringer every 4 to 8 years depending on the POTUS.
if my life stays exactly the same over the next 4 years (in comparison to the previous 8) it will still be MONUMENTALLY better for the foreseeable future with 2 GoP SCOTUS judges.
walls
taxes
healthcare
threat of the day (ISIS)
all will go through the wringer every 4 to 8 years depending on the POTUS.
Yes, 20+ percent of something is a significant part. If you have a 20+ percent chance to die if you get in a car today, are you getting in a car today? If you bet $1 million and have a 20+ percent chance that you will lose the bet, are you going to do it?
How can you not see that you are arguing my point! The modern Republican party switched their platform between the late 1800s and no later than about 1920. You claimed that "the Dem party owned all these 'uneducated'" for about 50-60 years before they realized the Dems didn't have their best interests in mind. So, even at the very lowest for your sake, that means 60 years added to 1920 puts it at 1980. That means the Dems haven't had that vote since, at the very latest, 1980. That means it's been over 35 years . . . and that is the very best possible scenario for you according to your own words.
If you use the lower end of your estimate (50 years) and add that to just the median time of the Republican platform switch (1900), that puts the switch of the uneducated in fly-over country to 1950. That means they switched from supporting the Dems over 65 years ago.
How can you not see that your own argument is supporting what you contested of mine? That's twice you have done it with different arguments in this discussion.
A 24 year old and a 110 year old sit in a room to have a conversation. Would the two having the conversation consider the 24 year old to having been around a considerable part of the 110 year olds life??
Would a 86 year old grandparent take retirement advice from their month old grandchild?
You raise a valid point. My "50-60 year" assertion greatly underestimates the number of years Dems actually had the uneducated vote. It does appear that Dems Most likely owned the uneducated 80+ years you essentially pointed out earlier. At the very least I should have stated 75-85 years after reading the article.
Your life nor any other will be monumentally better under trump, it will not be even an iota better in any way for you. It's obvious from the con posters on the board that they prefer lies over any thing else. Always. When you attempt to justify your support for Cheetos because you say Hillary is crooked, you prove you are 100% malarkey. 100%.
If you told that 110 year that they were going to live another 24+ years, would they consider that a long time? Yep.
24+ years is a long time in the context the phrase "long time" was used.
As are all of my points.
This is good. Here is what it comes down to:
You claim that I am not "as steeped in politics" as I claim to be because I claimed that it has been "a long time" since the uneducated in fly-over country have supported the Dems.
You claim that it took those uneducated fly-overs 50-60 years to realize that Dems didn't hold their best interest (which would have put the transition period at between 1950-1960, approximately).
You then stand by a source you provided showing that this transition occurred within the last 24 years. In other words, your original comment was off by about 300%.
Yet, I am the one you accused of not being "steeped in politics" because you don't think my use of "a long time" befits 24+ years, yet your argument was off by 300%.
Again, get some rest this week and regroup.
No reason to rest or regroup. 86 years out of 110 is far more significant than 24 years no matter who looks at a calendar.
The 300% error you point to, strengthens my original assertion that uneducated voters supported dems for far longer than Repubs. Additionally, the 300% error you suggest also assumes that the date of a repub platform change automatically converted demographics at a specific date/time. Which is most likely just as inaccurate. A false premise on your part, that I chose not to argue about because it ultimately reinforced my original opinion (years of Uneducated Dems over years of Uneducated Repubs).
What the fvck are you even arguing? Nobody has claimed otherwise. 86 is more significant than 24. There was never any disagreement about that, and it didn't have anything to do with what either of us has argued.
Once again, that was never a point of contention. There was never any disagreement about if the uneducated fly-overs supported Dems or Republicans longer. My comment, which you contested, was that it has been a long time since the uneducated fly-overs supported the Dems. According to your own source, it has been at least 24 years. That is a long time in this context.
These things you are throwing out there now have absolutely nothing to do with what I stated or what you contested of mine. You're just trying to muddy the waters now with irrelevant information.
This is exactly why I keep saying you need to take a break and get some rest this week.
If "lib" means someone who likes maps that actually represent statistical reality, sure I am a lib I guess. It does make me cry to think you are educated yet believe dirt and corn vote. I also wouldn't brag about winning all the places with declining, usually older, populations. Like it or not, our demographics are trending away from rural areas.
And I say "not this shit again" because during your long absence from the board we already went over this shit, because nerdy maps are more cool than non-nerdy maps.
Exactly. Which is why my original comment wasn't contestable; wasn't meant to be contestable, because there was nothing to debate within the context of my answer to your question to the board.
You began immediately debating the semantics of Repubs vs Dems uneducated "not a long time" in your first reply back to me. Why? I don't know because it continues to be an attempt to counter an argument that was never being made.
Again, you actually opened up the "not a long time" part of the discussion. This allowed me to continue the thread by providing an article, by a liberal political writer no less, essentially making the point with data and explanations of why the current change in voter demographics has occurred "RECENTLY". Again, you wanted to continue to argue semantics on the number of years "recently" constitutes within the article, while also ignoring my acknowledgement that this part of the discussion had nothing to do with my first answer/reply to your question/assertion.
So desperate were you to be right, you then introduced the irrelevant 110 year repub platform timeframe, in order to use %'s related to the recent 24 year period discussed in the article. Again, your attempts at proving a semantic "right" based on your opinion of "not a long time", resulted in the 86 years out of 110 year period discussion you now claim to be confused about.
The funny thing is I've only "thrown out" responses to new premises you initially introduced throughout the thread. Premises that ultimately had zero relevance to the answer I gave to your initial question at the very beginning.
Go back and read the thread. You made the comment inferring that my claim that the uneducated flyovers haven't supported the Dems in a long time was wrong. That's incorrect on your part. It isn't as incorrect as the 300% you missed the target on earlier, but it's wrong nonetheless.
Here you go again. That's why I typed you out a timeline of those "wasted words". Now you want to ignore how the conversation actually progressed and what you introduced into the discussion. That's fine. You...in fact, asserted an "not in a long time" as a irrelevant rebuttal to my answer to your original question.
For someone who supposedly wasn't sure why I was replying to years and % debates, you've seemed to come back full circle in reintroducing them.
I can't even follow your circles. Where did I say I wasn't sure why you were replying to year and percentages? You're past the point of grasping now.
You claimed that the uneducated working man has supported Dems for years. That's just false. In fact, the part you stressed is 300% false.
oh, i wasn't "absent", per se, I was around and did take note of the maps that were shared . . . which could be why i shared again after seeing the fits thrown over the original postings. i'll let you figure that one out.
i guess enough dirt and corn voted to keep hillary out of the white house, which is all i cared about. what stifles me regarding your kind is you obviously believe it's okay for 3 or 4 metropolises to determine the fate of the entire nation. fvck that. i'm tickled shitless the corn and dirt spoke loud.
I think the point that was made originally was that the map you linked is deceptive. It gives the appearance that the Trump victory was far more significant than it actually was. Trump won the election with electoral votes. He deserves to be president. But the victory was not as significant as the map implies. He lost the popular vote by millions. The margin of victory in electoral votes could easily shift in the next election. Gloat now because that feeling of victory might very well be fleeting.
Also, since you are fairly new to the board, I'll tell you that I did not vote for Hillary. I've voted conservatively in every presidential election since 1976. So if you believe that my comments are partisan you would be incorrect.
The thing I don't understand is how some of you guys can watch this sitting president and still support him. He is an absolute embarrassment. He is inarticulate. His tweeting is juvenile and not presidential. He is struggling to take advantage of a republican controlled senate and house. For the life of me I can't understand why you guys are still beating your chest over the victory. It's time to judge him for his actions and accomplishments as a president and stop the five month touchdown dance. It's like the only thing important to you is to rub the victory in the face of liberals. I can see why some of you are still holding onto the victory though. This guy is giving you nothing else to celebrate.
Nah, this victory is going to stay with our team for at least 45 more months. We have our own channel, and we're going to gloat and rub your noses in the victory.
It's the same feeling I had when the Wicked Witch of the West melted during Wizard of Oz.
I was going to type an elegant reply but GK beat me to it. But I will add this: not only is a basic county map deceptive, it is also meaningless. Last I checked, presidential candidates do not get points by who wins the most counties. And candidates campaign accordingly. But hey, if you want to believe Trump won by targeting the UP of Michigan or some county in Kansas with exactly two paved roads, well go on with your bad self.
careful the "you" guys comments. personally, i think he's a jackass. the entire of idea of him and his actions being "presidential" is a bit laughable IMO, but, nevertheless, he's still a jackass. i didn't vote for him, and i damn sure wasn't voting for that conniving cvnt. no way, no how. i'm wayyyyy more happy she didn't get elected than i am that he did. make no mistake, my victory laps are for one reason only, and i think i've spelled that out.
as for him losing by "millions of votes". yes, he did. and, if not for a couple small geographical areas in the overall united states, hillary wouldn't have come close to having more total votes. see, that's what's so great about the electoral process. it takes the ability for the president to be elected based on the popular vote of a couple small geographical areas and gives power to 95+% of the rest of the nation. ain't it grand?
well, then, see my response to GK.
you seem to be a bit shortsighted when it comes to what the map actually portrays. it's not about the counties trump won. i see it more as an indicator of the overall geographical areas that supported each candidate. obviously, she didn't have as much support across this great nation as was thought. and, i love it. fvck her.
at the end of the day, i'll take another victory lap. i'm tickled to death those that was "with her" lost.
The man has been president for just over 2 months. Even Obama couldn't be accurately judged for "accomplishments" after only holding the office for 2 months. No President can.
It took Obummer over a year to pass his signature ("accomplishment") ACA legislation with both houses in Dem power, despite the law having been written years prior.
Would you rather a new bill blindly "pass so we can find out" what's in it as we did 7 years ago?
I generally agree with you regarding Trumps tweets and articulation of policy plans. But I also know that if it wasn't for teleprompters and prepared speeches, Obama would have more than often appeared like a babbling idiot too. There is actual video of it.
The only geographic areas I find interesting with this election are pockets of the rust belt. And they are a hell of a lot more populated than Bumfvck, Great Plains.
no surprise there. you guys that was with her seem to refuse acknowledgement that if not for just one county in the US, she loses popular vote by more than she wins. take away just 88 counties of the more than 3100 counties within the United States (<3% of the total), and she loses by over 11 million votes. like i said earlier, that electoral college, ain't it grand?
i agree with some, maybe even a lot, of that. but you can't heap all the blame on Trump. especially the "not taking advantage" of Congress part. there are MANY Gop'ers in Washington that have and will continue to do everything in their power to work against him. it doesn't matter the issue or his plan for resolution. if it makes him appear successful, they will work against it.
case in point, Ted Poe leaving the Freedom Caucus earlier this week. "Some only want to be the party of 'no' & would've voted against the 10 commandments."
I told you guys weeks ago that cheetos has no political capital to spend. He alienated nearly everyone from both parties. This is what you get when you want someone who has no governing experience but think the business world has provided him with something to take the place of it. Add that on top of his lying and actually not caring about this nation and you get an incompetent disaster for a president. Take your victory laps.
Good that he alienated them all. That was the whole point in him winning. Both sides took it on the chin.
Similar threads
