|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 09 2016 13:05 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 13:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 09 2016 12:58 xDaunt wrote:On November 09 2016 12:55 TheYango wrote:
Can someone who supports Trump give me a positive spin on why I should be okay with Christie and Gingrich being a part of his administration?
Trump is a political neophyte. At this point, I'm willing to give it a shot. Some of his surrogates, however, that have a very real shot at being part of his administration already have...less-than-stellar track records in government. Because Christie, Gingrich, and Trump will all work with democrats to get shit done. Just confirming that you're being sarcastic, right? "Gingrich" and "work with democrats" seem like they don't go together at all. Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 13:05 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Wasn't Gingrich the entire architect behind the Contract With America that initiated obstructionism and not working with Democrats? Yes.
And Gingrich got a lot done with Clinton at the expense of liberal democrats in Congress.
Regardless, the key is Trump. Like I have been saying for a year or so, Trump is going to make deals in Washington to get things done. He will give things up to get what he really wants. There's going to be a return to more "bipartisan" normalcy under Trump.
|
On November 09 2016 13:07 BigFan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 13:05 Clonester wrote:On November 09 2016 13:05 BigFan wrote:On November 09 2016 13:04 StarStruck wrote:
CBC 191 to 172 for Clinton. wth what's with this jump? There wasn't any map change. How did she change 60 seats all of a sudden? ;; California. is California really 60 seats? That's nuts!
55 votes. Always go D, and she's gonna get a LOT of useless votes in the state.
|
On November 09 2016 13:07 Wolfstan wrote:
TYT is ranting fucking hard right now. Holy shit
Will there be highlights tomorrow?
|
On November 09 2016 13:07 Wolfstan wrote:
TYT is ranting fucking hard right now. Holy shit
Alex Jones' livestream is just listing people that are going to jail.
|
On November 09 2016 13:07 BigFan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 13:05 Clonester wrote:On November 09 2016 13:05 BigFan wrote:On November 09 2016 13:04 StarStruck wrote:
CBC 191 to 172 for Clinton. wth what's with this jump? There wasn't any map change. How did she change 60 seats all of a sudden? ;; California. is California really 60 seats? That's nuts!
it's 55 according to google
Oregon was called at the same time which is another 7 though
|
TLADT24920 Posts
Fair points, just never realized that California had so many seats.
|
I don't think you guys are giving it enough credit. It's extremely close right now.
|
|
|
On November 09 2016 13:09 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:
wish more people would come move to california and become proper californian libtards
I totally would if I had the economic resources to move. Issue with living in KY is that you can't get a decent enough job to build up enough economic capital to actually leave the area.
|
I do not get where you're getting those numbers from.
|
On November 09 2016 13:09 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 13:07 Wolfstan wrote:
TYT is ranting fucking hard right now. Holy shit
Alex Jones' livestream is just listing people that are going to jail.
Hahahaha, I'd expect nothing less from Alex the Great.
|
On November 09 2016 13:09 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:
wish more people would come move to california and become proper californian libtards
No, 10% of libtard Californians should move to North Carolina or Florida. Please
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On my drive home (at long last) I was looking for what I could use as my personal description of what's happening here. Ultimately, I came up with "the fuck-you to Hillary and the establishment that I was not willing to risk my own skin to send."
Trump is now favored to win, and we are favored to see four very interesting years. If that is what happens, I really hope that at the very least the Democrats understand exactly why it is that this happened. Their attitude towards this was absolutely not acceptable.
|
Was part of this Obamacare? It has to be right?
Obama has presided over a Democratic collapse at the local, state, and now maybe national level? People voted for Barack Obama, not his progressive vision.
And they hate Hillary. Let's not forget that.
|
Or they could just make it so it isn't winner-takes all. Allocate electorates based on % of popular vote per state
|
Cenk on TYT just made a profound point about the media and Clinton campaign about attacking Trump. All voters heard was he is not a politician. That and the mainstream media is on it's deathbed.
|
On November 09 2016 13:09 xDaunt wrote:
Regardless, the key is Trump. Like I have been saying for a year or so, Trump is going to make deals in Washington to get things done. He will give things up to get what he really wants. There's going to be a return to more "bipartisan" normalcy under Trump.
I'm just praying what you say is true.
|
On November 09 2016 12:59 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 12:53 Danglars wrote:On November 09 2016 12:48 xDaunt wrote:On November 09 2016 12:47 Clonester wrote:
NYTimes closes Ohio and predicts a +8% for Trump.
Seriously, from +3% for Obama...
Hillary Clinton is the worst candidate since 30 years. Which was also pointed out repeatedly in this thread for over a year, and which was also vehemently denied. We had quote chains at hundreds of words, not that she was some close call, but she was clearly a good candidate that just had enough s*** thrown at her by Republicans that tarnished her name somewhat. I'm wondering if there's anybody on the fence that will finally conclude that in THIS close of a race, something was more wrong with their girl than truthless scandals and an uninformed populace. My more nuanced position was that it was stupid to nominate someone who had been the target of a 20 year smear campaign, regardless of the whether or no the the accusations were true. Made the general election needlessly hard.
It's not even a more nuanced position. Her record was Hillary Clinton pulling a smear campaign on Hillary Clinton. Her conduct contained enough unforced errors to give the Jr High Reporting Team an easy job doing a 1 year reporting campaign on substantial accusations. I mean, where's the nuance between saying the accusations wouldn't have mattered and calling attention to an alleged smear campaign over decades, versus saying the accusations mattered on substance and the supposed targeting is pretty laughable given just how transparent her character has been.
|
On November 09 2016 13:10 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 13:09 zeo wrote:On November 09 2016 13:07 Wolfstan wrote:
TYT is ranting fucking hard right now. Holy shit
Alex Jones' livestream is just listing people that are going to jail. Hahahaha, I'd expect nothing less from Alex the Great.
If Trump wins, even that nutjob is a hero.
|
Burn it down... burn it down...
Anyway if there's any semblance of democracy left in 4 years let's hope the DNC chooses a candidate that's not a complete scumbag.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
