we have a president who has no qualms about being treasonous to get elected

[jbander]

Oh Trump has his core supporters. Exactly what percentage they make up of the total electorate is hard to say. One could look at the favorable ratings which is approximately 38% and say they make up Trump's core support. Or one could look at the total 46% of the vote Trump received in the general election, subtract the 50% whom exit polls said their reason for voting for Trump was being anti-Clinton, not necessarily for Trump. That leaves you with 23%. So is it 23%, 38% and 46% of the total electorate make up Trump's core supporters? I would estimate his core supporters make up around 35% give or take of the total electorate. But that is just a guesstament..

That number is close and dropping daily as more and more charges come in for this scum bag..

 

[Aberration]

Do you even have the slightest clue what your talking about this is the definition of a traitor "a person who betrays a friend, country, principle, etc." This is the definition of Treason "the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government." So for example if you are a traitor to your friend, or philosophy tell me how that could possibly be called treason. You just can't admit that your completely totally wrong , but I can, you have no clue and everyone knows it her. You only look foolish when you can't be wrong about anything. This whole argument is based on the fact that I said I was wrong. take a lesson and go away.

You didnt say he was a traitor to his friends. You didnt say he was a traitor to a philosophy. You said, and I quoted you, that he was a traitor to his country. Which is the very definition of treason.

There is no argument. Yes you said you were wrong. And you were. And you still are.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Renae]

Saved probably nothing from scum bags deregulation of everything from silicosis regulation to coal being able to dump tailings into rivers again. The cost of health care and lost productivity, balances that in total or most of it anyway. and add in the number of death increases in the industry he deregulated and I have to wonder what bull**** are you trying to sell us, Money over everything else????. Why would I care about Sanctuary Cities, I really don't support the immigration regulation laws but thats just me. not my party and we are talking about me aren't we. Your comment is nonsense and easy to dump on, democrats have a lot of practice because it's only party rhetoric that has been around for years, and since they control what you think and what you say., we listen to this nonsense all the time. It is easy to roll right over it. Like I said it's nonsense.

Got it, you aren't intellectually honest. Thank you for making it clear that abiding by the laws only matters when you can make some hackery claim.

 

[Perotista]

That number is close and dropping daily as more and more charges come in for this scum bag..

The biggest change hasn't been with Republicans or Democrats, their approval/disapproval, like/dislike has remained fairly constant since the end of January. The big change has come with independents who by the way went to Trump 46-42 with 12% voting third party. Since the end of January independents approval/disapproval have fallen from 40/34 positive to 36/48 negative. 16% of independents are still in the unsure or undecided column. This shouldn't have come as a surprise. Most independents didn't like Trump to begin with, they just disliked him a bit less than Clinton. With Clinton out of the way, independents are free to voice their displeasure.

 

[jbander]

Now stupidity is treasonous? Go hunt down all those morons and turn them into the FBI.

Telling the Russian what was a government secret that wasn't even distributed to many others he let the Russian ambassador know and the Russian people because he would only allow Russian media in the office. Now that can't be described as anything other then stupid. The only stupid people that I'm concerned about is Scum Bag and all the people stupid enough to vote for the hate candidate.

 

[fmw]

Telling the Russian what was a government secret that wasn't even distributed to many others he let the Russian ambassador know and the Russian people because he would only allow Russian media in the office. Now that can't be described as anything other then stupid. The only stupid people that I'm concerned about is Scum Bag and all the people stupid enough to vote for the hate candidate.

Good you got that off your chest.

 

[jbander]

Got it, you aren't intellectually honest. Thank you for making it clear that abiding by the laws only matters when you can make some hackery claim.

Don't be ridiculous , I respect the law and I respect the supreme court,t even though I don't like their decisions. Your going over the edge just a little bit. Where does it say I have to like a law. All you have is ridiculous nonsense , your done here. I have no respect for you at all, and I have no time for you, your full of it. You now have two choices move on or be ignored.

 

[Renae]

Don't be ridiculous , I respect the law and I respect the supreme court,t even though I don't like their decisions. Your going over the edge just a little bit. Where does it say I have to like a law. All you have is ridiculous nonsense , your done here. I have no respect for you at all, and I have no time for you, your full of it. You now have two choices move on or be ignored.

You don't respect the law. You have no outrage at Sanctuary Cities, which are politically driven subversions of federal law. You have shown your hackery, and it is laughable.

 

[jbander]

What we have now is a direct result of our two major parties nominating two candidate that outside of their core supporters no one wanted either on to become our next president. The election probably came down to 8 million voters, 6% of those who voted that disliked the choices give so much they decided to vote third party. To vote for a person, a candidate they knew nothing about, a candidate that had no money to run political ads, a candidate with no name recognition, completely unknown, whom these voters knew had no chance to win. Yet and only because their last name wasn't Trump or Clinton, they voted third party whether than be forced to choose between the most horrible candidates the two major parties nominated. Who knows how many stayed home rather than make that choice. All they asked for was a decent candidate where none was provided.

We have whom we have as president due to choices and decisions made by the two major parties during the primaries. Each party nominated whom they wanted, their choice. Now we have to live with the choices the two major parties made. Both major parties are responsible for this. Don't believe me?

One in Four Americans Dislike Both Presidential Candidates

One in Four Americans Dislike Both Presidential Candidates | Gallup

Now that wouldn't be correct would it. Clinton got 2.5 million more votes then the scum bag did. That dam well makes it the majority of voters.

 

[Perotista]

Now that wouldn't be correct would it. Clinton got 2.5 million more votes then the scum bag did. That dam well makes it the majority of voters.

One has to take into consideration that the Democratic base is larger than the Republican base. In 2012 the Democratic base made up 35% of the electorate to 30% for the Republicans. The rest were independents, non-affiliated, third party members. Obama won by 4 points, he won the Democratic base 92-7 over Romney with 1% voting third party. Obama's four point win is within one point of the 5 point margin in which the Democratic base outnumbered the Republican one.

Last November the Democratic base had shrunk to 30% of the electorate, the Republican base shrunk to 27% with the rest being independents, non-affiliated or third party. The loss of 8 points between the two parties was probably due to the dislike factor of both candidates which my referenced showed you. More importantly the margin between the two bases also shrunk, from 5 points to 3 points. Hillary won the Democratic base 89-8 over Trump, 3% voting third party. She also won the popular vote as you pointed out, but by 2 points instead of 4. Once again her two point margin was but one point shy of the 3 margin the larger Democratic base boasted.

Hillary over all did 3 points worst than Obama, Trump one point worst than Romney. The third party vote increased from 1.5% in 2012 to 6% in 2016, a four fold increase. Once again attributed to the dislike of both candidates. Although there are tons of numbers to prove it, the one thing I find it impossible to do is to get through to both Trump and Hillary supporters how disliked both candidates were by America as a whole. All one had to do was look at the candidates favorable numbers on election day, 38% for Hillary, 36% for Trump. The lowest favorable rating of any candidate which began keeping track of in 1956 was Barry Goldwater at 43% in 1964. Both Trump and Clinton shattered his record.

To find another candidate who ran for the presidency that was below 50% favorable, one has to go back to G.H.W. Bush in 1992 who was at 46%. The second lowest ever before 2016. But Trump and or Clinton supporters will never admit that 60% or above of America as a whole had a negative view of their candidate. Only our two party system prevented both from losing last November. One had to win no matter how disliked each was. Last November's election, it my opinion with numbers to back it up, was outside of the avid Clinton and Trump supporters, an election where the rest of the voters voted for the candidate they least wanted to lose. Not for the one they wanted to win.

 

[jbander]

The biggest change hasn't been with Republicans or Democrats, their approval/disapproval, like/dislike has remained fairly constant since the end of January. The big change has come with independents who by the way went to Trump 46-42 with 12% voting third party. Since the end of January independents approval/disapproval have fallen from 40/34 positive to 36/48 negative. 16% of independents are still in the unsure or undecided column. This shouldn't have come as a surprise. Most independents didn't like Trump to begin with, they just disliked him a bit less than Clinton. With Clinton out of the way, independents are free to voice their displeasure.

Your building a case without solids. 6% is nothing, Wallace 13.5 .1972, John Anderson 6.6 in 1980, Ross Perot 18.9% 1992 , Ross Perot 8% in 1996.

 

[holbritter]

Saved probably nothing from scum bags deregulation of everything from silicosis regulation to coal being able to dump tailings into rivers again. The cost of health care and lost productivity, balances that in total or most of it anyway. and add in the number of death increases in the industry he deregulated and I have to wonder what bull**** are you trying to sell us, Money over everything else????. Why would I care about Sanctuary Cities, I really don't support the immigration regulation laws but thats just me. not my party and we are talking about me aren't we. Your comment is nonsense and easy to dump on, democrats have a lot of practice because it's only party rhetoric that has been around for years, and since they control what you think and what you say., we listen to this nonsense all the time. It is easy to roll right over it. Like I said it's nonsense.

The democrats control what you think and what you say?

 

[Perotista]

Your building a case without solids. 6% is nothing, Wallace 13.5 .1972, John Anderson 6.6 in 1980, Ross Perot 18.9% 1992 , Ross Perot 8% in 1996.

It is under the circumstances. Wallace was a regional candidate, basically confined to the south. Wallace won five states, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Georgia and Alabama. He also raised a lot of money, most of it spent in the south. Wallace had name recognition, media coverage, lots of media coverage, was well known. Anderson, didn't have that much money. But his being in a debate with Reagan gave him name recognition nationwide, he also had media coverage. Like Wallace people know who he was and what he stood for.

Perot, he had money. He spent 300 million of his own money back in 1992. He appeared in all three of the presidential debates, his message about the national debt was well publicized in the media. As was him. People know who they were voting for when they pulled the lever for him. In 1996, Perot wasn't allowed in the debate, hence his stature and vote getting ability dropped from 19% to 8%. He didn't get much media coverage in 96, the media focused on Clinton and Dole.

In 2016, unlike Wallace, Anderson and Perot, Johnson, Stein, Castle, other third party candidates had no name recognition, no media coverage, participated in no debates, no one knew who they were. They were totally ignored by the media, no political advertisement, no nothing. The only reason one would vote for a third party candidate one didn't know, had no idea what they stood for, was their last name wasn't Trump or Clinton. Six percent is nothing. Give that six percent to Clinton and she would have had 54% instead of 48% of the total vote. 6% for no nothings in 2016 is very significant. 1.5% for no nothings in 2012, 1.4% for no nothings in 2008, 1.0% for no nothings in 2004. See a pattern here.

To make matter worst, money if you will, Clinton spent 1.4 billion dollars, Trump 957.6 million, the most any third party candidate spent was Gary Johnson who spent 3 million. That makes Johnson and the others no nothings. No way to get their message out.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/campaign-finance/

 

[jbander]

It is under the circumstances. Wallace was a regional candidate, basically confined to the south. Wallace won five states, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Georgia and Alabama. He also raised a lot of money, most of it spent in the south. Wallace had name recognition, media coverage, lots of media coverage, was well known. Anderson, didn't have that much money. But his being in a debate with Reagan gave him name recognition nationwide, he also had media coverage. Like Wallace people know who he was and what he stood for.

Perot, he had money. He spent 300 million of his own money back in 1992. He appeared in all three of the presidential debates, his message about the national debt was well publicized in the media. As was him. People know who they were voting for when they pulled the lever for him. In 1996, Perot wasn't allowed in the debate, hence his stature and vote getting ability dropped from 19% to 8%. He didn't get much media coverage in 96, the media focused on Clinton and Dole.

In 2016, unlike Wallace, Anderson and Perot, Johnson, Stein, Castle, other third party candidates had no name recognition, no media coverage, participated in no debates, no one knew who they were. They were totally ignored by the media, no political advertisement, no nothing. The only reason one would vote for a third party candidate one didn't know, had no idea what they stood for, was their last name wasn't Trump or Clinton. Six percent is nothing. Give that six percent to Clinton and she would have had 54% instead of 48% of the total vote. 6% for no nothings in 2016 is very significant. 1.5% for no nothings in 2012, 1.4% for no nothings in 2008, 1.0% for no nothings in 2004. See a pattern here.

To make matter worst, money if you will, Clinton spent 1.4 billion dollars, Trump 957.6 million, the most any third party candidate spent was Gary Johnson who spent 3 million. That makes Johnson and the others no nothings. No way to get their message out.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/campaign-finance/

It means nothing, there was 32 other candidates and all that made up 6% ,like I said it means nothing. Simply go back and look at votes through the years for alternative candidates . It will show you that 6% means nothing, what can I say.

 

[annotator]

He even gave up locations of our nuclear subs. Trump maybe a "Clear and Present Danger"

 

[iguanaman]

We have people who have no qualms about petulantly throwing around the accusation of treason.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

What do you call selling out your country in exchange for an unfair advantage in the election then? That is the elephant in the room isn't it? Let's say that things like that were discussed between Trump associates and known Russian agents and the FBI has tapes of the conversations that is iron clad proof. What should we do? Ignore it because Hillary sent a few classified e-mails?

 

[TurtleDude]

Now we find out that he is also treasonous because of stupidity. Brag it up with the Russians and telling them how smart he is and how informed he is , and subliminally how stupid he is. A absolute idiot. Can't wait to see the excuses from the right, while their main attack on Hillary was 1/10th what this is. You can't make this stuff up. Your turn now blind right.

6 months later, still mad Hillary lost. The TURDS is strong in this one

 

[iguanaman]

6 months later, still mad Hillary lost. The TURDS is strong in this one

Still banking on that tax cut?.....Not his year.

 

[TurtleDude]

Still banking on that tax cut?.....Not his year.

one thing is for sure-no clinton crime family tax increase. BTW WTF does that have to do what I said. its fun watching the hysterical decompensation of the Trump haters. I wonder what the mental health will be of those victims in 3.5 years-or better yet. 2021? judicial commitment to mental hospitals? Drug abuse? suicide? I suspect no matter the answer, it won't be pretty

 

[Koke]

What do you call selling out your country in exchange for an unfair advantage in the election then? That is the elephant in the room isn't it? Let's say that things like that were discussed between Trump associates and known Russian agents and the FBI has tapes of the conversations that is iron clad proof. What should we do? Ignore it because Hillary sent a few classified e-mails?

What if it turns out all of the claims about Trump and Russia were just unsubstantiated claims and your a **** flinging monkey?

 

[Vetplus40]

What if it turns out all of the claims about Trump and Russia were just unsubstantiated claims and your a **** flinging monkey?

We have a POTUS who would be dating his daughter if it wasn't illegal. Nothing related to Trump surprises me anymore...............

 

[Koke]

We have a POTUS who would be dating his daughter if it wasn't illegal. Nothing related to Trump surprises me anymore...............

dang incestuous Russian cheeto Hitler can't surprise me anymore he's the worst ur right man.

 

[holbritter]

What do you call selling out your country in exchange for an unfair advantage in the election then? That is the elephant in the room isn't it? Let's say that things like that were discussed between Trump associates and known Russian agents and the FBI has tapes of the conversations that is iron clad proof. What should we do? Ignore it because Hillary sent a few classified e-mails?

How exactly has he sold out our country?

 

[holbritter]

We have a POTUS who would be dating his daughter if it wasn't illegal. Nothing related to Trump surprises me anymore...............

That is an ignorant comment and a lie. Shame on you.

 

[holbritter]

dang incestuous Russian cheeto Hitler can't surprise me anymore he's the worst ur right man.

This is exactly what happens. Someone says something, it gets twisted into a lie, and people who don't think for themselves pass around the lies. Words matter. What he said was he would probably date her if she wasn't his daughter. A big difference than if it wasn't illegal. So you can cut your "incestuous" idea out of the many things you hate about Trump.

Why make a big deal of it? Because the twisting of words happens constantly, and it's just wrong.