Kamala Harris Participates In A Historic Occasion.

... Who?? ... What's cooper??

#### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again

... Ye Christ! ... D.B. Hooper was a bloke from Perth
who used to HI-JACK all the threads years ago
on the other site.

... VP Kamala Harris was onley doing what she is supposed
to do. ... Just as VP Joe Biden did 8 years ago when
"Mean" Maxine Waters showed up on Certification Day
with her "fake electors" and Joe gaveled her down and
certifyed the election for Trump.

... Really nothing to be on about here, mates.

#### Salty

^^ As reasonable and truthful as the dumpster claiming on live TV that judge Cannon was kicked off his case.


Windmills, whales, and buckets of lies lol. Drip, drip, drip...it's rain you see

^^ As reasonable and truthful as the dumpster claiming on live TV that judge Cannon was kicked off his case.


Windmills, whales, and buckets of lies lol. Drip, drip, drip...it's rain you see Originally Posted by 69in2it69

if you say so

if you say so Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

I do in fact, say so. Also, Jack Smith (who he meant to name...old age kicking in) wasn't kicked off his case.

I do in fact, say so. Also, Jack Smith (who he meant to name...old age kicking in) wasn't kicked off his case. Originally Posted by 69in2it69

And yet, he is still “President Elect Trump”.

Winning!!

And yet, he is still “President Elect Trump”.

Winning!! Originally Posted by Jacky S

Yes, given the choice between two senile old guys the vote when to the one who can spew the most meaningless words compared to the one who loses words and struggles with a stutter. Maybe winning for him, but hardly for the country.

The GOP retained a majority in the House and wrested control of the Senate, so they are clearly in a position to dictate the agenda. Originally Posted by lustylad

There are just 53 republican Senators. You need 60 for real control in the Senate. The republicans will have to rely on Budget Reconciliation to get their partisan bills passed.

Yes, given the choice between two senile old guys the vote when to the one who can spew the most meaningless words compared to the one who loses words and struggles with a stutter. Maybe winning for him, but hardly for the country. Originally Posted by 69in2it69

Only one senile old guy in that choice, and we all saw who it was on national TV.

And that’s good. After the despicable campaign she and all of her cohorts ran, she deserves ridicule.
Originally Posted by Jacky S

Despicable campaign? The WSJ (Wall Street Journal) wrote that she won the only debate that Harris and Trump had. Most of the Republicans that post in this forum consider the WSJ a respectable source.

Despicable campaign? The WSJ (Wall Street Journal) wrote that she won the only debate that Harris and Trump had. Most of the Republicans that post in this forum consider the WSJ a respectable source. Originally Posted by adav8s28

Ok adav8, have it your way... Kamala ran a brilliant campaign... and lost all 7 swing states, the Electoral College and the popular vote.

Is that better?

Ok adav8, have it your way... Kamala ran a brilliant campaign... and lost all 7 swing states, the Electoral College and the popular vote.

Is that better? Originally Posted by lustylad

So, you agree with me the WSJ did write that Harris won the debate with Trump. Yes, she did lose all seven swing states. She only lost the 7 swing states by 700,000 votes. That is hardly a mandate. She lost Wisc by 28,000 votes. The election was much closer than what the talking heads at Fox News reported. Hannity, Laura "I can' get a date" Ingram, etc, etc are all guilty.

Didn't 15 million less people voted? She might have won if there was the same amount of mail in voting as there was in 2020. Her campaign may not have been great. However, it was not despicable.

So, you agree with me the WSJ did write that Harris won the debate with Trump. Yes, she did lose all seven swing states. She only lost the 7 swing states by 700,000 votes. That is hardly a mandate. She lost Wisc by 28,000 votes. The election was much closer than what the talking heads at Fox News reported. Hannity, Laura "I can' get a date" Ingram, etc, etc are all guilty.

Didn't 15 million less people voted? She might have won if there was the same amount of mail in voting as there was in 2020. Her campaign may not have been great. However, it was not despicable. Originally Posted by adav8s28

She might have won if there was the same amount of ILLEGAL MAIL IN VOTING as there was in 2020.

It is notable as States cracked down on Democrat ballot box stuffing how their popular vote decreased.

So, you agree with me the WSJ did write that Harris won the debate with Trump. Yes, she did lose all seven swing states. She only lost the 7 swing states by 700,000 votes. That is hardly a mandate. She lost Wisc by 28,000 votes. The election was much closer than what the talking heads at Fox News reported. Hannity, Laura "I can' get a date" Ingram, etc, etc are all guilty.

Didn't 15 million less people voted? She might have won if there was the same amount of mail in voting as there was in 2020. Her campaign may not have been great. However, it was not despicable. Originally Posted by adav8s28

.... All yer "sour grapes" aside, Kamala participated in
a Historic Occasion - her opponent Trump got MORE VOTES
than any other Republican in History!

See?... A Landslide! ...

#### Salty

See?... A Landslide! ...

#### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again

Salty, Trumps win in the 2024 election was not a landslide.

1. Trump won seven swing states by just 700,000 votes.

2. Trump did not get 50% of the popular vote.

3. Harris got the same number of Electoral College Votes (226) as HRC. The 2016 election was not considered a landslide win for Trump.

24 and 20 had the same results when adjusted for ~6 million harvested (fake) mail in ballots.