Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

While i agree with the message he is conveying, the dangerous part is when he says that people are depending on congress to do things for 'us'......good lord, that's a scary way to live your life

 

11 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

  • Like (+1) 8
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

I was kind of impressed the way the entire world watched Schiff spend an entire day lying....undeniably lying...with every statement. I mean, even some of the dumbest leftists could very easily prove he was lying.

 

And yet at day's end, all the leftist media mouthpieces were talking about what a masterful job Schiff did. I read some check marks admitting they've spent their entire lives listening to prosecutors, and what they heard from Schiff yesterday was not only the best they've ever heard, it was epic and historic and will be remembered in history as a pivotal moment in American politics.

 

The left ain't that smart, but damn they can coordinate a message in record time.

 

 

 

Edited by IDBillzFan
  • Like (+1) 4
Posted
3 hours ago, RoyBatty is alive said:

 

Over time some cities have  had over 100% voter turnout, do the research, and that is BEFORE the incredibly added incentive to boost the votes by employing the total popular vote.   You eliminate the electoral college the incentive to cheat goes up exponentially.  Just wait til you see the voter turnout in NYC, LA, San Fran, Chicago, Detroit.  They wil magically all be in the 90% if not over 100%.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but this is what I found:

 

Cities lead the nation in many ways, but not in voter turnout

https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/campaign/309190-cities-lead-the-nation-in-many-ways-but-not-in-voter-turnout

Posted
1 minute ago, daz28 said:

I'm not saying you're wrong, but this is what I found:

 

Cities lead the nation in many ways, but not in voter turnout

https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/campaign/309190-cities-lead-the-nation-in-many-ways-but-not-in-voter-turnout

 

IMO cant go by one election, especially the Clinton-Trump, Democrats assumed they would win easily, the deomcratic turnout overall was weak compared to the avid Trump supporters.

Posted
44 minutes ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

I was kind of impressed the way the entire world watched Schiff spend an entire day lying....undeniably lying...with every statement. I mean, even some of the dumbest leftists could very easily prove he was lying.

 

And yet at day's end, all the leftist media mouthpieces were talking about what a masterful job Schiff did. I read some check marks admitting they've spent their entire lives listening to prosecutors, and what they heard from Schiff yesterday was not only the best they've ever heard, it was epic and historic and will be remembered in history as a pivotal moment in American politics.

 

The left ain't that smart, but damn they can coordinate a message in record time.

 

 

 

 

He's very well spoken for a deranged lunatic.

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
Just now, snafu said:

 

He's very well spoken for a deranged lunatic.

 

 

  We have all seen through our personal lives examples of people who were very well spoken but were proven to be morons when the content was analyzed.  The same with people that were loud and/or forceful.  Politicians are keenly aware that there is quite a swath of voters who cannot discern between eloquent speech and vapid comment.  Long term the republic hangs in the balance over this.  The well spoken fools will be back I'm afraid.

  • Like (+1) 2
Posted
3 minutes ago, RoyBatty is alive said:

 

IMO cant go by one election, especially the Clinton-Trump, Democrats assumed they would win easily, the deomcratic turnout overall was weak compared to the avid Trump supporters.

The article goes deeper than just 2016.  Here's a quote:

"Lack of voter turnout is a problem in nearly every city, not just every four years, but every year in local elections. According to an analysis from Portland State University, turnout in the nation’s largest 30 cities is a dismal 20 percent of the voting age population."

 

I couldn't find much hard data, but most articles and data seemed to be of this general consensus

Posted
On 1/21/2020 at 11:47 AM, snafu said:

Cue Ethel Merman:

 

There's no business like show business and I tell you it's so
Traveling through the country is so thrilling, standing out in front on opening nights
Smiling as you watch the theater filling, and there's your billing out there in lights
There's no people like show people, they smile when they are low
Angels come from everywhere with lots of jack, and when you lose it, there's no attack
Where could you get money that you don't give back? Let's go on with the show

 

Day three.

 

 

  • Like (+1) 3
Posted

I found this to be very interesting though, and it seems to show what little faith people have in the process itself.  Look at the chart above the article:

 

Even in the last presidential election, just 56 percent of could-be voters showed up to the polls. In fact, in hundreds of counties around the U.S., the number of eligible individuals who did not vote far outweighed the number of ballots actually cast for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton in 2016. If those millions of no-shows had picked “nobody” on the ballot—the effective choice of their abstention—“nobody” would have won in a landslide.

 

https://www.citylab.com/life/2018/11/voter-turnout-midterm-election-statistics-map/574939/

Posted
17 minutes ago, daz28 said:

I'm not saying you're wrong, but this is what I found:

 

Cities lead the nation in many ways, but not in voter turnout

https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/campaign/309190-cities-lead-the-nation-in-many-ways-but-not-in-voter-turnout


Different issue.

 

This is referencing percentage of the eligible voters who register, and then vote.

 

What’s being referenced in his argument is that in several counties the voter turnout has been larger than the population of registered voters.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:


Different issue.

 

This is referencing percentage of the eligible voters who register, and then vote.

 

What’s being referenced in his argument is that in several counties the voter turnout has been larger than the population of registered voters.

He specifically said cities, and even listed each of them.  Again, the data is elusive, so I'm not going to argue something that can't be proven, but when 20% of voting age people are voting I can't see what crazy math it would take to say that 100% of registered voters voted.

Posted
2 minutes ago, daz28 said:

He specifically said cities, and even listed each of them.  Again, the data is elusive, so I'm not going to argue something that can't be proven, but when 20% of voting age people are voting I can't see what crazy math it would take to say that 100% of registered voters voted.

What you'll find is that certain precincts in large democratic party controlled cities have 100+% voting. Philadelphia is one and so is Los Angeles County who had an extra 1.5 million voters on their rolls. Google and take a deep dive for yourself.

Posted
38 minutes ago, RoyBatty is alive said:

 

IMO cant go by one election, especially the Clinton-Trump, Democrats assumed they would win easily, the deomcratic turnout overall was weak compared to the avid Trump supporters.

Face it, we just out number you guys. 

---

 

In a brief tweet, Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.) explained, “Zelensky told Trump he needed military aid. Then Trump said, ‘I would like you to do us a favor, though.’ That same day, Michael Duffey sent an email directing military aid to be withheld. Now the White House is withholding Duffey’s emails. This is a cover-up.”

×
×
  • Create New...