Are you happy now IFFY? Start saying it: "President Hillary Clinton"

President of the United States of America Donald J. TrumP

ir·rel·e·vant, is just a victim of Recurring Extreme Trump Acceptance Resistance Disorder and the acronym of it... His case seems to be incurable...

ir·rel·e·vant, is just a victim of Recurring Extreme Trump Acceptance Resistance Disorder and the acronym of it... His case seems to be incurable...


Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

He's just a miserable liberal jerkoff. And stupid. Reminds me of Assmuncher.

You can bet that white liquid "cumming " from Rev's mouth shore ain't " soap " !!! Originally Posted by Rey Lengua

acid mucus?

ExNYer can be a bit prickly, but he is rather smart, so I give him a pass on his hatred of Trump.

Maybe the Trumpster will win him over!!

acid mucus? Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

" Cum " on DF, ya can't see the first emoticon wankin ????

This thread deserves a post-election BUMP!

I'm guessing Iffy is quite happy.

Can Rev-an-anus say: "President Donald Trump"?

Can Rev-an-anus admit HE is the shit-for-brains? Originally Posted by lustylad

Keep trying, Stalker Lad.

It looks like I was only off by one. Hillary couldn't beat ANY Republican - including Trump.

It doesn't change the fact that we could have had a better GOP President.

He will get superficial changes in immigration and trade agreements. Meanwhile, his tax cuts will increase the deficits and we will go deeper into debt.

It will be relatively easy to figure out if he is fucking up or not. Watch and see if he make any meaningful cuts in the military and reduces our overseas presence.

If that doesn't change, he isn't serious about looking out for America first and all he/we are doing is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

I would suspect the "author" would like to "have it back"!

But he probably doesn't realize what a "shit for brains" he is! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Nope. I was only off by ONE. Hillary couldn't beat ANY Republican - even Trump.

That does not change the fact that we could have had a much better candidate that would not have alienated so many people. You don't think there is at least ONE member of the GOP that could have pushed to shut the border, kill the trade deals, and reduce the military without having all the baggage of Trump?

The GOP could have pulled out another 2-3 million voters if a less odious person had been leading the ticket. And that could have won a lot more state and local races if GOP turn out had been higher.

As it turned out, Hillary won the popular vote. I guarantee her voters did not GOP on the rest of their ballots.

If the GOP voters who refused to vote for Trump had shown up, they might be able to shut down even filibusters.

And a REAL conservative would probably pick better Supreme Court nominees than Trump.

Let's see who he nominates.

Nope. I was only off by ONE. Hillary couldn't beat ANY Republican - even Trump.

wrong is wrong, son. if you fail the test .. you fail! you underestimated Trump.


That does not change the fact that we could have had a much better candidate that would not have alienated so many people. You don't think there is at least ONE member of the GOP that could have pushed to shut the border, kill the trade deals, and reduce the military without having all the baggage of Trump?

they did. Ted Cruz. bahahaaa at least on trade and illegals/immigration, Trump and Cruz are twins

The GOP could have pulled out another 2-3 million voters if a less odious person had been leading the ticket. And that could have won a lot more state and local races if GOP turn out had been higher.

As it turned out, Hillary won the popular vote. I guarantee her voters did not GOP on the rest of their ballots.

If the GOP voters who refused to vote for Trump had shown up, they might be able to shut down even filibusters.

dude stop. you are tarnishing your once decent rep as a reasonably intelligent poster .. u are just throwing shit out there now to defend a position u lost

i'll say unless u prove otherwise no party in modern history or ever has had such a super majority. and that's what u mean. a 2/3 majority of both houses by one party. i don't think either party has ever had such a super majority. and that's probably a good thing.

Trump has what he needs for his agenda .. control of both houses. he doesn't need a super majority to get his initiatives going.

And a REAL conservative would probably pick better Supreme Court nominees than Trump.

Let's see who he nominates. Originally Posted by Revenant

he didn't nominate his sister. are you happy now?

Nope. I was only off by ONE. Hillary couldn't beat ANY Republican - even Trump.

That does not change the fact that we could have had a much better candidate that would not have alienated so many people. You don't think there is at least ONE member of the GOP that could have pushed to shut the border, kill the trade deals, and reduce the military without having all the baggage of Trump?

The GOP could have pulled out another 2-3 million voters if a less odious person had been leading the ticket. And that could have won a lot more state and local races if GOP turn out had been higher.

As it turned out, Hillary won the popular vote. I guarantee her voters did not GOP on the rest of their ballots.

If the GOP voters who refused to vote for Trump had shown up, they might be able to shut down even filibusters.

And a REAL conservative would probably pick better Supreme Court nominees than Trump.

Let's see who he nominates. Originally Posted by Revenant

he didn't nominate his sister. are you happy now?
Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

No, I wasn't talking about 2/3rds of both houses. That is what you need to override a Presidential veto. That shouldn't be a problem since the GOP only needs a simple majority to pass legislation that Trump ought to be signing.

A filibuster occurs in the Senate and it takes 60 votes to stop it. The GOP doesn't have 60 Senators - only 52. And 11 of them refused to support Trump.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politi...ate-filibuster

So Trump needs to win all 52 Republicans and 8 Democrats in order to avoid major legislation being filibustered.

Repeal Obamacare? Supreme Court nominees? How does that look?

The GOP actually lost 2 seats in the Senate - shrinking from 54 to 52. Where was Trump's coattail?

https://ballotpedia.org/United_State...lections,_2016

If a less odious candidate had been nominated, the GOP might have gotten a LOT better turnout.

Not only might an alternative candidate have won the popular vote (for a change), but higher GOP turnout would have greater effect down ticket. So perhaps there would be 55 or 56 GOP Senators, another handful of House representatives, another governor or two, and a shitload more state offices.

But that didn't happen.

In 2018, the Democrats have to defend 25 Senate seats, the GOP only has to defend 8. So, the GOP has to pick up 9 Democratic seats while keeping all of the 8 it currently has.

If they had picked up 2 or 3 Senate seats in the 2016 election instead of losing 2, they would only need to pick up 5 or 6 Senate seats in 2018 to be filibuster proof.

These things make a difference.

YES! I'm HAPPY!... nyCUCKer and you are ir·rel·e·vant

YES! I'm HAPPY!... nyCUCKer and you are ir·rel·e·vant


Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

What a stupid, miserable fuck he is. But that's OK. We will get used to saying President TRUMP!!!!!!

What a stupid, miserable fuck he is. But that's OK. We will get used to saying President TRUMP!!!!!! Originally Posted by bambino

Yes Sir! MAGA! FUCKEM!

Keep giving us your analysis, Revananus. You were so right about the election results. Oh, wait. You lost. Here's my prediction. Trump will do just fine. He will do some things I like, and some I won't. But keep trying to prove the Trump Administration is a failure before it starts, just like you proved Hillary would win the election before she lost. We're not impressed with your analytical ability.