Trump's First Year: An Amazing Success

Oh, really???

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...lamb-6327.html

Here's a poll I find interesting. You like Axios, don't you? They're a libtard millennial outfit...

https://www.axios.com/axios-surveymo...cfe5065a3.html

All of those "Unknown Republican candidates" are doing pretty good.

This may have something to do with it...

https://www.axios.com/republican-eco...source=sidebar

There is some good news for you, AD(D), and LM though. I hear they now have a cure for your particular strain of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Unfortunately, it's a suppository...

http://www.safemedication.com/safeme...toriesProperly

You shove it up your ass!!! Originally Posted by gfejunkie

I cited one poll which was in your link -- the Emerson poll which polled likely voters from 3/1-3/3 and WAS the most recent poll as of my post. The Gravis poll which was even more recent has Saccone in the lead by 3 points, within the margin of error. AND THIS IS A DISTRICT WON BY TRUMP BY 20% IN 2016!!!! A narrow loss by Lamb will look just as bad as a win by Lamb.

Regarding your second link -- I have been saying all along that based on the number of Democrats and Republicans up for reelection in 2016 in the Senate, I would predict Republicans to pick up 1 or 2 seats.

Regarding your 3rd link, again I've been saying all along that Trump has done well with the economy in this country. Unfortunately for Trump that is not the sole criterion upon which voters will cast their ballots in November showing support or lack of support for Trump. He has failed, as I cited in my post #516 in so many other areas. I forgot to mention in that post his ridiculous "solution" for the country's infrastructure -- have the states and cities pay for it. Let's see how that works.

So you continue to focus on the one area in which Trump has done well, the economy, and disregard his failure elsewhere. And we'll see what voters thing in November.

I would be willing to bet that had Trump won the popular vote by, give or take, around 3 million votes, and yet that antichrist traitor bitch had won enough electoral votes to win the presidency, that Austin Dude would be perfectly fine with that ..... hell he'd probably be the biggest supporter on this board in favor of the electoral college system ..... but, as I have stated before in other posts (here comes the history lesson) ..... the founding fathers knew EXACTLY what they were doing, and for this very reason ..... did you know that a Presidential candidate can win the electoral college by carrying ONLY 11 states in an election? ..... for those who don't believe me, count them .....California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina, and New Jersey total exactly 270 electoral votes, the number needed to win, and I guess fuck the voters of the other 39 states ..... so the system was set up to ensure the STATES elected the president, it was never intended to be a popular vote wins contest ..... and actually this is the 4th time a president has been elected who did not win the popular vote, but you change the system to that and the wishes of the voters in those other 39 states become irrelevant .....

Oh, really???

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...lamb-6327.html

Here's a poll I find interesting. You like Axios, don't you? They're a libtard millennial outfit...

https://www.axios.com/axios-surveymo...cfe5065a3.html

All of those "Unknown Republican candidates" are doing pretty good.

This may have something to do with it...

https://www.axios.com/republican-eco...source=sidebar Originally Posted by gfejunkie

I love when the Trump circle jerk of stupidity try to call someone out for not knowing how polls work and the post a poll as a defense and not know how polls work. The article you had showed Gravis Poll had Saccone at +12 in January and now he is +3 and the Emerson Poll now has Lamb at a +3. And since you are suppose to know how polls work, you do know what the margin of error is right? 3. So basically a race that was strongly Saccone’s in January is now a toss up? And this is a red seat too. Come on smart guy, you can do better than this to defend against that. It’s almost like you’ve given up on pretending there isn’t a blue wave coming? I mean Trump has started admitting it some too so maybe y’all have been given the ok now.

Yeah just imagine how those voters will feel when they start having to pay more for goods. Which will bring down any relief they got with the tax cut. The economy has been doing well and Republicans have been losing special election after special election. It’s almost as if the voters don’t care about the economy huh. You know a person shouldn’t stay in an abusive relationship just because the another person buys them nice things. That’s to say, the economy has been doing well but Trump has been horrible. He has insulted foreign countries with his racism, he has insulted Americans with his racism. He hasn’t drained any swamp, it’s actually worse under him (see what his cabinet does on our dime). He refuses to defend our country from attacks from Russians (and that’s according to his own people). He refuses to impose sanctions that he’s legally bound to do. Nepotism. Constant turn over at an alarming rate. Paying off porn stars before the election. And the list goes on and continues to grow. So yeah they will be fighting some tough battles in a few states, and so will the Republicans. Notice that they didn’t say anything about the House. Maybe look up how that’s looking.

[QUOTE=Chateau Becot;1060581573]

And speaking of chaos in the White House -- Gary Cohn, Trump's top economic advisor, quit yesterday because of Trump's stance on tariffs. And because of the chaos the DJIA futures are down about 200 points. Love that chaos!!!
QUOTE]


200 points...? lol....whatta stupid statement.

Thirty years ago a 200 point drop would be real news and reason for concern....but not today when the market's hovering around 25,000.

For the record, that's not even 1% of the Dow, dumbass. Cohn didn't step down over that nor Trump's stance on tariffs. Cohn had completed the job he 'd been originally hired to do and it was time for him to move on.

The only chaos going on here is the hurricane of libturd BS swirling in the pea brains of anyone who refers to themselves as a progressive. Bwahahaaha!
Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Idiot. It's just a coincidence that Cohn resigns immediately after Trump announces the tariffs???? One of the dumbest statements I've read on this forum.

"Gary Cohn, the top economic adviser to U.S. President Donald Trump and a voice for Wall Street in the White House, said on Tuesday he would resign, a move that came after he lost a fight over Trump’s plans for hefty steel and aluminum import tariffs."

Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1GI2ZS

"Cohn, a free trade proponent and Goldman Sachs veteran, had been counseling the president against his proposal to impose a 25 percent tariff on steel and 10 percent tariff on aluminum imports."

Source: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/...114229647.html

"Cohn, the director of the National Economic Council, has been the leading internal opponent to Trump’s planned tariffs on imports of steel and aluminum, working to orchestrate an eleventh-hour effort in recent days to get Trump to reverse course. But Trump resisted those efforts, and reiterated Tuesday he will be imposing tariffs in the coming days.

Source: http://time.com/5188746/gary-cohn-do...p-resignation/

A 1% drop in the DOW is NOT insignificant when you're talking about one's investments. One week of 1% drops per day is a 5% loss in investments. When you look at the rises and falls in the DJIA recently, 200 points is quite a bit.

I would be willing to bet that had Trump won the popular vote by, give or take, around 3 million votes, and yet that antichrist traitor bitch had won enough electoral votes to win the presidency, that Austin Dude would be perfectly fine with that ..... hell he'd probably be the biggest supporter on this board in favor of the electoral college system ..... but, as I have stated before in other posts (here comes the history lesson) ..... the founding fathers knew EXACTLY what they were doing, and for this very reason ..... did you know that a Presidential candidate can win the electoral college by carrying ONLY 11 states in an election? ..... for those who don't believe me, count them .....California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina, and New Jersey total exactly 270 electoral votes, the number needed to win, and I guess fuck the voters of the other 39 states ..... so the system was set up to ensure the STATES elected the president, it was never intended to be a popular vote wins contest ..... and actually this is the 4th time a president has been elected who did not win the popular vote, but you change the system to that and the wishes of the voters in those other 39 states become irrelevant ..... Originally Posted by 00 gauge

Where did I say get rid of the electoral college? The Trump circle jerk of stupidity keeps growing. The other guy bought up the electoral college not me. Trump would never win that much of the popular vote so I wouldn’t care.

But to your logic… so it’s better to have the STATES elect the president and not the PEOPLE? That’s kinda odd to say. Your logic is just so flawed. You harp on the wishes of the voters in this hypothetical 39 states, yet you are spitting in the face of the wishes of the people in those states you made where a majority of the population lives. North Dakota has a population of less than 800,000 people and Montana has a population of 1 million. Those people’s voices are heard through their Congressmen. But to say that they count more than the 39 million people in California is stupid. It’s idiotic to talk about states and not talk about the people. There is a mechanism for ensuring that states like Montana and North Dakota have their say. Congress is a co-equal branch of government and they can represent the voices and hopes of the “39 states”. They have two senators no matter how small the population so they have equal say in the Congress too. So that defense is foolish. Maybe come up with a better way of defending your stance.

I would be willing to bet that had Trump won the popular vote by, give or take, around 3 million votes, and yet that antichrist traitor bitch had won enough electoral votes to win the presidency, that Austin Dude would be perfectly fine with that ..... hell he'd probably be the biggest supporter on this board in favor of the electoral college system ..... but, as I have stated before in other posts (here comes the history lesson) ..... the founding fathers knew EXACTLY what they were doing, and for this very reason ..... did you know that a Presidential candidate can win the electoral college by carrying ONLY 11 states in an election? ..... for those who don't believe me, count them .....California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina, and New Jersey total exactly 270 electoral votes, the number needed to win, and I guess fuck the voters of the other 39 states ..... so the system was set up to ensure the STATES elected the president, it was never intended to be a popular vote wins contest ..... and actually this is the 4th time a president has been elected who did not win the popular vote, but you change the system to that and the wishes of the voters in those other 39 states become irrelevant ..... Originally Posted by 00 gauge

I don't understand your post. You correctly point out that a candidate can become POTUS by winning only 11 states. Then you make the statement that "you change the system to that and the wishes of the voters of the other 39 states become irrelevant."

But the system in this country, the electoral college, is what is in place and as you say allows for the voters in 11 states to make the voters in the other 39 states irrelevant.

Please explain.

Sorry, I should do a better job of proofreading ..... what I meant to say was if you change the system to a winner-takes-all popular vote contest, then all a candidate would have to do is campaign in those states that would give him the majority of electoral votes to win ..... how would you suppose the voters from those 39 states would feel about that? ..... they could vote against that candidate but surely their candidate couldn't win ..... and my point was that the electoral college was set up the way it was to guard against that very thing from happening (campaining only in the least number of states to secure a victory) .....the founding fatheres were wise beyond their years, and they correctly believed that all STATES should have an equal say in who gets elected, and this was the best way to ensure that equal say .....

I should also mention to those of you who are older. Trump promised that he would not take away Medicare benefits. Another lie???

Trump released his 2019 budget last week, and it included $266 billion in cuts to Medicare, which provides health insurance to 58 million Americans 65 and older and people with certain disabilities.


Howard Gleckman, a contributor for Forbes, breaks down the proposed changes: What Trump’s Budget Would Mean For Seniors


— Medicare drug benefit would be restructured to reduce costs for some beneficiaries but raise them for others.


“Trump has proposed eliminating cost-sharing for seniors with very high prescription drug costs, but at the same time he’d increase out-of-pocket expenses for many others, especially those who have significant costs but have not quite reached the threshold where medicine would be free ($8,418 this year).”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.4a71bd120f73

So let's see what happens to that fantastic income tax break that we just got if Trump's budget is approved.

Sorry, I should do a better job of proofreading ..... what I meant to say was if you change the system to a winner-takes-all popular vote contest, then all a candidate would have to do is campaign in those states that would give him the majority of electoral votes to win ..... how would you suppose the voters from those 39 states would feel about that? ..... they could vote against that candidate but surely their candidate couldn't win ..... and my point was that the electoral college was set up the way it was to guard against that very thing from happening (campaining only in the least number of states to secure a victory) .....the founding fatheres were wise beyond their years, and they correctly believed that all STATES should have an equal say in who gets elected, and this was the best way to ensure that equal say ..... Originally Posted by 00 gauge

Either way, as you pointed out, voters in a limited number of states can swing the election whether we use the electoral system or popular vote system. Candidates need only campaign in 11 states and win them in order to secure victory under the electoral system.

They are really bad.

Ha!

No, you stupid fuck. You know nothing about polls, their methodology or how their results can and do bounce around. And common sense tells us it is not only possible, it's LIKELY for an incoming President's approval rating to increase during the 3 months between Election Day and the Inauguration. It happens all the time (look up the actual record for odumbo, Bush, Clinton) because most Americans want a new President to succeed, whether they voted for him or not.

Bill Clinton was elected in 1992 with only 43% of the popular vote - yet his approval rating averaged 56% during his first 3 months in office. Look it up.

You keep saying Trump lost the popular vote by "a lot". You rounded up 2.87 million. That sounds like a lot, until you realize close to 136 million votes were cast in the 2016 Presidential election. You're afraid to talk in percentages, which is what really counts. Trump received 46.1% of the vote versus versus 48.2% for hildebeest and 5.7% for third-party candidates. So Trump won with a higher percentage than Bill Clinton did in 1992. Common sense, which you clearly lack, tells us it is easily possible, even LIKELY, that Trump's approval rating may have seen a post-election bounce, just as Bill Clinton's did.

Oh, and one more thing - those approval ratings include everyone of voting age in their polling sample, not just those who actually cast a ballot on Election Day. So you're looking at apples and oranges. But that's a common-sense methodology issue that your pea brain is too tiny to grasp. Originally Posted by lustylad

"He(Obama)lost the popular vote by a lot and won the election.We should have a revolution in this country!"

"The phoney(sic) electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation.The loser won."

"More votes equals a loss.Revolution."

"We can't let this happen.We should march on Washington.Our country is totally divided".

"Let's fight like hell and stop this great and disgusting injustice.The world is laughing at us."

" The election is a total sham and a travesty.We are not a democracy."

"The electoral college is a disaster for democracy."

Donald Trump Nov 6 2012

Guys, I'm not like Trump and his minions. I must confess that I spoke too fast. Originally Posted by Austin Dude

So you're saying Trump and his minions (unlike you) think carefully before they open their mouths? Ummm... ok! Point well taken.

I said Ohio when I meant Wisconsin. Yes Ryan represents a district in Ohio but he is a Wisconsin boy. Originally Posted by Austin Dude

You're still getting it wrong. Don't you know how to google these things? Ryan represents a district in Wisconsin, not Ohio. His only tie to Ohio is that he went to college there. Maybe you're confusing him with the previous speaker, John Boehner, whose district was in Ohio. I don't know. I only know you fuck up the facts every time you post.

Boy I'm sorry, I didn't think me misspeaking on that one thing made the idiotic move by Trump any better. But I should have know that it would to the circle jerk of stupidity that is the Trump people on this board. Guess what? It's an idiotic move. His own people are saying it is an idiotic move. Trying to play gotcha doesn't make it any less of an idiotic move. Originally Posted by Austin Dude

Who said anything about Trump's move? Not me. Slapping tariffs on steel and aluminum imports may or may not be an "idiotic move". Much depends on how it plays out. All I know is you are too much of a fucking idiot to opine one way or the other. You know even less about economics than you do about polls. If Trump was a free trade advocate, you would be a protectionist. You, millsy, are the poster child for why our politics are so broken.

Here is an intelligent and non-partisan analysis. There's plenty of thoughtful commentary out there, millsy. But you'll never find it because you are ignorant, you speak too fast, and you're unwilling to step outside your hyper-partisan libtard bubble and weigh the pros and cons in an objective fashion.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/07/o...trade-war.html

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign...-favor-of-dems

Gonna be fun times when people like Liddle Donnie and Jared Kushner are called back to speak the the House Intel Committee when Adam Schiff is the chairman. They won't be allowed to exert a fake privilege and they will have to take the fifth a lot.

Score!! Keep America Great!

... And, 'Little Rocket Man' just blinked.

SCORE! Originally Posted by gfejunkie