Jump to content

After Comey’s Testimony, America Needs a Trump Exit Plan


AUUSN

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

Yes I do.  He was not elected by a majority of American voters and his popularity has declined even further.

Simple facts.

In no way does he represent "the American people".  He represents maybe 20% of the people - the certified wing nuts.  He's an embarrassment to the rest of us.

Simple facts are your team lost even though they may have had more runs. America doesn't do fuzzy math. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply
40 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Weak maybe. Even likely. Butthurt? Likely. Bad guy? IDK. Maybe. I'm thinking Lynch is the one most resembling a "bad guy" in this Matter.

You would. Word choice that significant can bring down the Republic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

You would. Word choice that significant can bring down the Republic.

I eagerly await your explanation for that statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, 80Tiger said:

Neither was Bill Clinton-twice. The majority of American voters voted against Bill Clinton but he easily won the electoral college.

He got more votes than EITHER of the other two candidates by a LARGE margin.  You can't add votes for two candidates to oppose one. Totally different than the fact Hillary had more votes than trump and lost. Bill was by far the most popular candidate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Sarcasm 

Weasel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

You're deep.

For shallow Hal, yes. Congrats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Yeah, Comey's the bad guy here.:-\

 

Roman%20Reigns%20bad%20guy_zpss6pt9yax.g

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, 80Tiger said:

Your statement was that Trump was not elected by the majority of the Americans. The same holds true for Bill Clinton. He was not elected by the majority of Americans. Twice. More people voted against him than for him. He had no mandate from the majority of Americans. That means the majority of American people did not give him authority to carry out his policies or actions.

I addressed that.  

The contention on the table is whether or not Trump represents the "American people".  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎6‎/‎9‎/‎2017 at 6:58 PM, alexava said:

He got more votes than EITHER of the other two candidates by a LARGE margin.  You can't add votes for two candidates to oppose one. Totally different than the fact Hillary had more votes than trump and lost. Bill was by far the most popular candidate. 

Homer's statement was that the majority of Americans did not vote for Trump, which is true. It is also true that the majority of Americans did not vote for Clinton-twice. And when you are talking about "majorities", yes you can add the total opposition votes to indicate that a candidate did not win the majority of the votes. It's called math.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/9/2017 at 6:15 PM, AUFAN78 said:

Simple facts are your team lost even though they may have had more runs. America doesn't do fuzzy math. 

 

Irony

That's exactly what America does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, 80Tiger said:

Homer's statement was that the majority of Americans did not vote for Trump, which is true. It is also true that the majority of Americans did not vote for Clinton-twice. And when you are talking about "majorities", yes you can add the total opposition votes to indicate that a candidate did not win the majority of the votes. It's called math.

No, it does not follow that someone who voted for a candidate other than Clinton would not have voted for Clinton had that candidate not run.  

In fact, it doesn't follow they would have voted at all if their candidate had not been running.

You are making a logical error.  Math is all about logic.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

No, it does not follow that someone who voted for a candidate other than Clinton would not have voted for Clinton had that candidate not run.  

In fact, it doesn't follow they would have voted at all if their candidate had not been running.

You are making a logical error.  Math is all about logic.

 

All those are suppositions and not fact. It cannot be proven one way or the other whether people would have voted for him or not. It does prove that the majority of the people were looking to not vote for him and that is what happened. That is an indisputable fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 80Tiger said:

All those are suppositions and not fact. It cannot be proven one way or the other whether people would have voted for him or not. It does prove that the majority of the people were looking to not vote for him and that is what happened. That is an indisputable fact.

Actually those are statements of fact.

You need to read what I actually wrote. I made no suppositions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Members Online

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...