- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Known Russia hawks John McCain & Lindsey Graham urge Trump to punish Russia
Posted on 1/8/17 at 12:48 pm to NC_Tigah
Posted on 1/8/17 at 12:48 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:It's still recent so I'll cut you some slack. You're a smart, successful guy. It'll dawn on you soon or later that this election wasn't some singular defining moment in human history. The president-elect won fair and square, but he also won 3M fewer voters to an unpopular, unappealing lazy candidate with a weak record and a string of well-timed leaks dogging her. I have the social intelligence to understand that won't be well-received, but let's take it easy. Two years ago the clowns on this board were talking secession and saying a white guy would never win again.
Really?
Because they never once saw it during the campaign.
Those kinds of mercurial swings are not very appropriate for middle-aged men.
5
Posted on 1/8/17 at 1:03 pm to Navytiger74
quote:
It'll dawn on you soon or later that this election wasn't some singular defining moment in human history.
quote:All fine and good. The issue you raised was potential "leverage" exerted by Graham-McCain over the Russian issue. I'm simply saying there maybe no such actual "leverage" existent amongst the majority populus.
The president-elect won fair and square, but he also won 3M fewer voters to an unpopular, unappealing lazy candidate with a weak record and a string of well-timed leaks dogging her. I have the social intelligence to understand that won't be well-received
Posted on 1/8/17 at 1:09 pm to Navytiger74
quote:
but he also won 3M fewer voters to an unpopular, unappealing lazy candidate with a weak record and a string of well-timed leaks dogging her.
All thanks to super liberal, out of touch, (coastal) California where she won the state by something like 4+ million votes (and no telling how many illegals voted). The only state in the country where Hillary gained more votes than Obama.
And nearly every single day was operation destroy Trump day by the media. Over 90% of the coverage was negative. It eventually backfired on them, but that wasn't the intent. The intent was to destroy him as much as possible, so I don't want to hear any excuses.
This post was edited on 1/8/17 at 1:11 pm
Posted on 1/8/17 at 2:20 pm to Navytiger74
Navytiger74 quoted that Donald Trump had 3 million fewer votes than Hillary Clinton. It is amazing to me that supposedly intelligent people cannot understand that if winning the majority of votes was the way to win the election then Trump would have used a very different strategy.
Trump understood that winning a majority of ELECTORAL VOTES was what was constitutionally required to win, therefore he concentrated on winning as many STATES as he could to get their electoral votes.
Can't you stupid people understand that if necessary to win by winning the popular vote, Trump would have spent more time in California and New York? He was never going to win those 2 states but more campaigning there would have lessened Clinton's margin of victory? California accounted for most of Clinton's margin in the popular vote and it could have been narrowed considerably. He could have gotten more votes in New York too and lessened her margin there. Again, Trump was never going to win those 2 states but he could have, definitely, gotten more popular votes by campaigning more and harder in both IF IT WAS NECESSARY.
Navytiger74, I thought you were smarter than to swallow that crap about 'Hillary won the popular vote."
Trump understood that winning a majority of ELECTORAL VOTES was what was constitutionally required to win, therefore he concentrated on winning as many STATES as he could to get their electoral votes.
Can't you stupid people understand that if necessary to win by winning the popular vote, Trump would have spent more time in California and New York? He was never going to win those 2 states but more campaigning there would have lessened Clinton's margin of victory? California accounted for most of Clinton's margin in the popular vote and it could have been narrowed considerably. He could have gotten more votes in New York too and lessened her margin there. Again, Trump was never going to win those 2 states but he could have, definitely, gotten more popular votes by campaigning more and harder in both IF IT WAS NECESSARY.
Navytiger74, I thought you were smarter than to swallow that crap about 'Hillary won the popular vote."
Posted on 1/8/17 at 9:10 pm to Navytiger74
quote:
he also won 3M fewer voters to an unpopular, unappealing lazy candidate with a weak record and a string of well-timed leaks dogging her.
This really doesn't mean anything considering that 3 million came in California and New York.
Posted on 1/9/17 at 8:53 pm to Navytiger74
quote:
It's still recent so I'll cut you some slack. You're a smart, successful guy. It'll dawn on you soon or later that this election wasn't some singular defining moment in human history. The president-elect won fair and square, but he also won 3M fewer voters to an unpopular, unappealing lazy candidate with a weak record and a string of well-timed leaks dogging her. I have the social intelligence to understand that won't be well-received, but let's take it easy. Two years ago the clowns on this board were talking secession and saying a white guy would never win again.
Those kinds of mercurial swings are not very appropriate for middle-aged men.
BLAM.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News