Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Gets Ready for the Flood Of Lefty Freak Out Tears....AGAIN!

Democrats have no spines

How would impeaching him change this? They wouldn't be able to remove him.


Does impeachment disqualify him from 2020?

All they are doing is emboldening Trumps Voting Base. They are just showing it by Showing their true colors.

If this happens the suicide hotlines needs to add like 100,000 employees.

Trump still creating New Jobs!!!!

Hell I could've told you this. Forcefully removing Trump by impeachment or Trump being assassinated or otherwise being incapacitated in some way is the only way Trump will not still be serving as President till 2025. Of course dems can also try cheating which they are already doing by resorting to underhanded tactics I mention in a thread I posted very recently.


Simply put, they know damn well they can't beat him on a level playing field.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Hell I could've told you this. Forcefully removing Trump by impeachment or Trump being assassinated or otherwise being incapacitated in some way is the only way Trump will not still be serving as President till 2025. Of course dems can also try cheating which they are already doing by resorting to underhanded tactics I mention in a thread I posted very recently.


Simply put, they know damn well they can't beat him on a level playing field.


A professor, or statistician (Possibly at fivethirtyeight) actually claimed the numbers in 2016 indicated Hillary was cheating.

Originally posted by cdtm
A professor, or statistician (Possibly at fivethirtyeight) actually claimed the numbers in 2016 indicated Hillary was cheating.

Brah we all know Bill is the cheater.

Zing!

Ohhh Snap!

I wouldn't be surprised. Politics isn't about policies anymore. It's a cult of personality. And the democrats have no one with a personality.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Trump still creating New Jobs!!!!


Where and how?

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
I wouldn't be surprised. Politics isn't about policies anymore. It's a cult of personality.

It's not "anymore", kinda always been that way

Trump will likely lose the election but win the Presidency, just as he did in 2016

Lost the election, my ass. Please come back to reality , dude. I know it's painful for all you anti-Trumpers to admit the truth because of your massive-level bitterness and butthurt but facts are facts. He wouldn't be president if he had lost now would he? He won and won royally at that. He had like 70-80 more ec votes than that b*tch did lol. That is not '"losing" unless of course you're one of those idiot leftists who think the russians altered the votes at the voting machines lmao.

You can be certain he'll win again in 2020 as well.


I'm so sick of all you know-it-alls who're always making these bs predictions even after all the times you've all been proven wrong.


You all said he'd never run. He did. Then you all said he'd never become the republican nominee. He did. Then you all said he'd never beat Hillary. He did and it wasn't even close, and no, Russia had zero to do with it.



So yeah, when you sit there and smugly (and stupidly) say "Trump will likely lose in 2020" it just makes me .


You might as well go ahead and say it's likely Hell will freeze over in 2020 as well or that pigs will fly. No intelligent person who knows what all happened in 2016 takes that crazy assertion (that Trump will "likely lose" seriously.

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
Trump will likely lose the election but win the Presidency, just as he did in 2016

Our elections are decided by the electoral college. He won the election.

Yep... and in other news, water is wet.

Originally posted by Surtur
Our elections are decided by the electoral college. He won the election.

Yes, a long outdated system that needs to go. I could accept Trump of he won the majority but given he lost by some 3 million votes means he is not the choice of the people.

Senators were originally chosen by state legislative bodies, they changed that. Under our current system why do we even vote for President, there's no point. The person who wins an election should be the won who has the most votes, time to apply that to the President as well.

Sore losers sure do love to make excuses for losing and blaming everyone and everything but themselves (in Hillary's case) or the horrible candidate they were supporting (in her supporters' case) don't they?

I often wonder how many of the people who are against the EC would be in favor of it if Hillary had lost the popular vote, but still managed to win the election thanks to the EC.

I can just imagine the kind of articles we'd see from the left leaning media outlets, headlines like "Why the EC just proved it still matters" and "The EC did its job", etc. lol

Originally posted by Surtur
I often wonder how many of the people who are against the EC would be in favor of it if Hillary had lost the popular vote, but still managed to win the election thanks to the EC.

I can just imagine the kind of articles we'd see from the left leaning media outlets, headlines like "Why the EC just proved it still matters" and "The EC did its job", etc. lol


Oh, no doubt.

Originally posted by Surtur
I often wonder how many of the people who are against the EC would be in favor of it if Hillary had lost the popular vote, but still managed to win the election thanks to the EC.

I can just imagine the kind of articles we'd see from the left leaning media outlets, headlines like "Why the EC just proved it still matters" and "The EC did its job", etc. lol

Not me, didn't like Hillary either but that's not the point. An election should be about who gets the most votes. But then the entire American political system is a sham anyway, and not because Trump "won", and it's much bigger than just who's President. Democrats are no better.

No the idea of the system America was intended for was a devolved system of power with a federal government for a specific purpose and the state governments to take up everything else so policy could be made closest to the people.

The idea behind both the senate and the electoral college was the protection of state interests from the encroachment of the federal government.

The problem we’re in now is that the federal government has seized a disproportionate level of power and now want to make every single ****ing issue a national issue instead of letting California do what California wants on healthcare and Texas do what Texas wants to do on healthcare for example. Everything has to be ****ing federal instead of state populations all having their general interests met by their own governments.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
No the idea of the system America was intended for was a devolved system of power with a federal government for a specific purpose and the state governments to take up everything else so policy could be made closest to the people.

The idea behind both the senate and the electoral college was the protection of state interests from the encroachment of the federal government.

The problem we’re in now is that the federal government has seized a disproportionate level of power and now want to make every single ****ing issue a national issue instead of letting California do what California wants on healthcare and Texas do what Texas wants to do on healthcare for example. Everything has to be ****ing federal instead of state populations all having their general interests met by their own governments.

What bothers me is that some on the same side that seems to be complaining over the EC and go on about the popular vote seem to have no problem with ranked choice voting.

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
Not me, didn't like Hillary either but that's not the point. An election should be about who gets the most votes. But then the entire American political system is a sham anyway, and not because Trump "won", and it's much bigger than just who's President. Democrats are no better.

So for example, if a HOA consisted on 10 houses. 3 houses had 6 people living in each and the other 7 only had 2 people living in them.

You would be ok if the people living in those 3 houses set all the rules for the HOA? after all, the people living in them would have 18 votes to the other houses 14 votes.

Originally posted by Silent Master
So for example, if a HOA consisted on 10 houses. 3 houses had 6 people living in each and the other 7 only had 2 people living in them.

You would be ok if the people living in those 3 houses set all the rules for the HOA? after all, the people living in them would have 18 votes to the other houses 14 votes.


New Yorkers are used to it.


There's a reason why New York State and New York City have different rules for gun regulation. Because the capital of the state does not control the state.

Originally posted by Silent Master
So for example, if a HOA consisted on 10 houses. 3 houses had 6 people living in each and the other 7 only had 2 people living in them.

You would be ok if the people living in those 3 houses set all the rules for the HOA? after all, the people living in them would have 18 votes to the other houses 14 votes.

Turn it around, you seem to be ok with the minority making the rules, it is about the number of houses, it's about the number of people. If smaller states are allowed to decide then it's time for the USA to dissolve

Originally posted by Emperordmb
No the idea of the system America was intended for was a devolved system of power with a federal government for a specific purpose and the state governments to take up everything else so policy could be made closest to the people.

The idea behind both the senate and the electoral college was the protection of state interests from the encroachment of the federal government.

The problem we’re in now is that the federal government has seized a disproportionate level of power and now want to make every single ****ing issue a national issue instead of letting California do what California wants on healthcare and Texas do what Texas wants to do on healthcare for example. Everything has to be ****ing federal instead of state populations all having their general interests met by their own governments.

This was decided during the Civil War. The interests of the nation as a whole come before the interests of individual states. The constitution isn't perfect, something the founding fathers knew very well, that's why amendments are allowed. The Senate is now elected by direct vote, the President needs to be too.

How do you feel about ranked choice voting?

Originally posted by Surtur
How do you feel about ranked choice voting?

Opposed

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
Turn it around, you seem to be ok with the minority making the rules, it is about the number of houses, it's about the number of people. If smaller states are allowed to decide then it's time for the USA to dissolve

You didn't answer the question.

Just to be clear. The houses represent states and the people in the houses represent population.

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
Turn it around, you seem to be ok with the minority making the rules, it is about the number of houses, it's about the number of people. If smaller states are allowed to decide then it's time for the USA to dissolve


Wrong.


It's not, nor was never, about the number of people. The United States of America is just that: A coalition lf independent states, held together by a loose central government.


State rights take precedence, and each state is unto a nation all its own.

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
Turn it around, you seem to be ok with the minority making the rules, it is about the number of houses, it's about the number of people. If smaller states are allowed to decide then it's time for the USA to dissolve

If I flip it around I find it much less disturbing than SM's example. You don't?

Originally posted by Silent Master
You didn't answer the question.

Just to be clear. The houses represent states and the people in the houses represent population.


Not really a fair comparison. HOAs are not the same as countries anymore than a country is a "business", which it isn't. When it comes to America the country each state has the right to elect it's own representatives and senators. They represent local constituencies. The President is supposed to represent the entire country so the majority of absolute voters should decide.

Originally posted by Surtur
If I flip it around I find it much less disturbing than SM's example. You don't?

You find it less disturbing when the majority decides?

Just like the President of the HOA is supposed to represent the entire HOA. so should those three houses have the only say in electing the HOA president?

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
You find it less disturbing when the majority decides?

In the scenario you had 10 homes with 3 out of those 10 wielding more power than the other 7. That doesn't bug you?

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
You find it less disturbing when the majority decides?


I find it disturbing if people in Las Vegas or New York City get to decide how Spingfield, Vermont gets to live, yes. As they would, if we subscribed to your asinine "Tyranny of the majority" philosophy.

It's sad that our education system has failed us in regards to teaching students that we are a Constitutional Republic, not a damn democracy.


Truth is that true democracies suck ass. Our FF's understood this and so gave us a republic instead which is clearly the superior government type. If we did away with EC and went to a pure democracy and had pop vote deside the election then states like New York and California would always decide the winner; and if that happened, I guarantee you that eventually it would cause another civil war unless the fed government allowed those states who were unsatified with the new system to secede from the union. People in Georgia, S. Carolina, and Oklahoma, for example, don't live the same way that people in NY and Cal do and eventually they'd get fed-up with being ignored by presidential candidates and having those so-called "progressive" states' way of life constantly imposed on them. The EC is here to stay folks. Pretty sure the only way it could be legally done away with is if two-thirds of the states voted to do away w/it & that will never happen.



So instead of crying and b*tching about the EC, your presidential candidates need to adopt a strategy that tries to win the EC vote...or if you wanna just keep crying about it that's fine too because I know it'll never be abolished no matter how loudly you protest it.

Originally posted by Surtur
I often wonder how many of the people who are against the EC would be in favor of it if Hillary had lost the popular vote, but still managed to win the election thanks to the EC.

Good news: I don't suffer from TDS and I still think Rank Choice Voting (RCV) is far superior to the EC.

And if Hillary won?

RCV still better.

If RCV was in place, neither Trump nor Hillary would have won.

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
This was decided during the Civil War.

It was decided during the creation of the US Constitution when the Articles of Confederation were found to be too weak to keep the nascent USA together.

The interests of the nation taking precedence over the states is known as the Supremacy Clause.

The Civil War stuff you're talking about is the "right of succession" or nullification. Madison smacked that down before the Civil War so the debate was already settled. Revolting was the ground for secession from the Southern States due to oppression...of their rights to own and enslave black people.

Originally posted by cdtm
Wrong.


It's not, nor was never, about the number of people. The United States of America is just that: A coalition lf independent states, held together by a loose central government.


State rights take precedence, and each state is unto a nation all its own.

If you're talking the Articles of Confederation, yes, you're correct. If you're talking about the US Constitution, no, you're wrong.

You gave a create description of the issues with the Articles of Confederations. Issues that were directly addressed by the US Constitution.

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
You find it less disturbing when the majority decides?


If the majority decides on something that removes or oppresses the rights of the minority, this is known as majoritarianism and is a bad thing.

If the minority decides on something that removes or oppresses the rights of the majority, this is known as minoritarianism and is a bad thing.


Optimally, majority decisions should grant more rights or protect rights more securely. Or....decide representation in leadership via RCV.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Good news: I don't suffer from TDS and I still think Rank Choice Voting (RCV) is far superior to the EC.

And if Hillary won?

RCV still better.

If RCV was in place, neither Trump nor Hillary would have won.



Yes, but you also don't go on about "muh popular vote".

Originally posted by dadudemon
If you're talking the Articles of Confederation, yes, you're correct. If you're talking about the US Constitution, no, you're wrong.

You gave a create description of the issues with the Articles of Confederations. Issues that were directly addressed by the US Constitution.


Yes, I agree they went too far with the power divide. The intent was still always about state sovereignty. Unfortunately, judge's being only human, have done a lot of "interpreting" on both sides of the aisle.


Either way, the important point is that America is more or less a division of tiny countries. This was true then, and is true to this day, as any foreign visitor will notice if they visit different states and take in the vastly different cultures and social norms/needs.

A majority vote on, say, gun control is simply stupid, since people in New York City and Vermont are nothing alike, in terms of environment, culture, needs, problems, ect..

Originally posted by dadudemon
It was decided during the creation of the US Constitution when the Articles of Confederation were found to be too weak to keep the nascent USA together.

The interests of the nation taking precedence over the states is known as the Supremacy Clause.

The Civil War stuff you're talking about is the "right of succession" or nullification. Madison smacked that down before the Civil War so the debate was already settled. Revolting was the ground for secession from the Southern States due to oppression...of their rights to own and enslave black people.


Absolutely.

And it may be offensive to say this, but slavery and economics were linked, so in essence the war was as much about the North attacking the Souths industry, as it was about freeing an enslaved people.


One can argue that attack took prominence over the welfare of people, as high level politics often do.

The issue of slavery had absolutely zero to do with why Lincoln initially chose to invade the south. Lincoln is on record saying that if he could've ended the war without freeing the slaves he would've. It wasn't until the people in the north were getting tired of the costs of the war (in money and lives) that Lincoln decided to conveniently use the moral issue of slavery to get the citizens re-interested in defeating the south. That was the real reason for the Emancipation Proclamation that he issued (which only officially "freed" the slaves in the south, btw; not any of them in loyal union states). Lincoln also had a plan to ship freed slaves back to Africa or Central America and it probably would've been implemented if he had not been assassinated so soon after the war. So slavery was really only an issue when Lincoln conveniently wanted it to be.

Lol @ DDM coming in and ***** slapping everyone.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It was decided during the creation of the US Constitution when the Articles of Confederation were found to be too weak to keep the nascent USA together.

The interests of the nation taking precedence over the states is known as the Supremacy Clause.

The Civil War stuff you're talking about is the "right of succession" or nullification. Madison smacked that down before the Civil War so the debate was already settled. Revolting was the ground for secession from the Southern States due to oppression...of their rights to own and enslave black people.


Nice try, but that's a lie. Southerners were not fighting for a right to own slaves. They were fighting for the right to govern themselves. And no, nobody "smacked it down" lol. States do have a legal right to secede I don't give a shit what Madison said.


https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2017/08/26/how-we-know-the-so-called-civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Nice try, but that's a lie. Southerners were not fighting for a right to own slaves. They were fighting for the right to govern themselves. And no, nobody "smacked it down" lol. States do have a legal right to secede I don't give a shit what Madison said.


https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2017/08/26/how-we-know-the-so-called-civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/

Breaking News: The American Civil War wasn't about Slavery.

Get the printing presses hot, eThneoLgrRnae has fundamentally changed US History with this breaking new version of History.

Kansas-Nebraska act, Dred Scott vs Sanford, the delicate balance of the 3/4 Compromise? None of those mattered. We really should applaud eThneoLgrRnae for changing History with his new information.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Breaking News: The American Civil War wasn't about Slavery.

Get the printing presses hot, eThneoLgrRnae has fundamentally changed US History with this breaking new version of History.

Kansas-Nebraska act, Dred Scott vs Sanford, the delicate balance of the 3/4 Compromise? None of those mattered. We really should applaud eThneoLgrRnae for changing History with his new information.


As an absolute phrase, you're right to call him out.



One could argue the case that, say, gun regulation was never about regulating guns at all. Given that the issue took root after black Americans protested in mass, one could argue gun rights were a facade to disarm black Americans.



Apply this to the civil war, and you have a conflict between the North and South. A conflict full of animus, hatred, and spite. One where freeing slaves just happens to destroy the economy of Southerners, while doing little to the more industrialized North.


Yes, slavery was a major issue of the civil war. I'm not sure it was the "main" issue.


I mean, since when has politics ever put individual human life ahead of "political interests"?

No, he isn't right. He's wrong as you are. And what did he call me out on exactly? Being right? lol Oooookay.


Again, southerners were not fighting to keep slavery. A very tiny percentage of those who lived in the south owned slaves. They were fighting to govern themselves; not because they thought Lincoln would abolish slavery but because of the unfair outrageously high tariffs that were being placed on them.


Simply put, the real reasons for the civil war were economic issues, not moral ones.


He's also wrong about states supposedly not having a right to secede.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
No, he isn't right. He's wrong as you are. And what did he call me out on exactly? Being right? lol Oooookay.


Again, southerners were not fighting to keep slavery. A very tiny percentage of those who lived in the south owned slaves. They were fighting to govern themselves; not because they thought Lincoln would abolish slavery but because of the unfair outrageously high tariffs that were being placed on them.


Simply put, the real reasons for the civil war were economic issues, not moral ones.

He's also wrong about states supposedly not having a right to secede.


Didn't I say economic issues?


And how much of the southern economy did that small percentage of slave owners produce? If they were major lynch pins in their revenue stream, I don't see how anything I said is wrong.

Even if I realize there was other economic factors outside of slavery, but this doesn't address how slavery was important to the south, and so a viable target for the North.

Originally posted by cdtm
Didn't I say economic issues?


And how much of the southern economy did that small percentage of slave owners produce? If they were major lynch pins in their revenue stream, I don't see how anything I said is wrong.

Even if I realize there was other economic factors outside of slavery, but this doesn't address how slavery was important to the south, and so a viable target for the North.


What you're not getting though is that Lincoln had no plans to officially abolish slavery till he decided it was convenient in 1863 after those in the north were getting tired of the costs of the war. Northerners at first thought the war would be over very quickly and that's why they supported it. They didn't realize the resistance the south would put up and how it would drag on for years.


The fact that AL had no intention of abolishing slavery before the war started was not some big secret either. Those in the south knew of his pro-slavery statements he made before war began so why would they feel the need to fight for slavery if Lincoln had no intention of abolishing it? It doesn't make any sense whatsoever. No, as I said in previous post, it was the unfair skyrocket-high tariffs that were placed on them that they felt the need to secede and govern themselves.


It had zero to do with keeping slavery.

Originally posted by cdtm
As an absolute phrase, you're right to call him out.



One could argue the case that, say, gun regulation was never about regulating guns at all. Given that the issue took root after black Americans protested in mass, one could argue gun rights were a facade to disarm black Americans.



Apply this to the civil war, and you have a conflict between the North and South. A conflict full of animus, hatred, and spite. One where freeing slaves just happens to destroy the economy of Southerners, while doing little to the more industrialized North.


Yes, slavery was a major issue of the civil war. I'm not sure it was the "main" issue.


I mean, since when has politics ever put individual human life ahead of "political interests"?

I made a typo that I cannot correct. It was the 3/5 compromise and I'm very buttmad I cannot edit my post.




Also, I don't know if I can argue against your point because it is more abstract than the actual reason we had a Civil War. The most direct and overt reason was slavery. It truly was. But you're answering the "whys" of slavery.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Again, southerners were not fighting to keep slavery. A very tiny percentage of those who lived in the south owned slaves. They were fighting to govern themselves; not because they thought Lincoln would abolish slavery but because of the unfair outrageously high tariffs that were being placed on them.

Yeaaaah, gonna need a citation on that, home-skillet.

Why? Does the use of Extreme Caps Upset You that Much?

Or is it something Else?

He thinks quoting me in big bold letters somehow makes his argument more credible lol.


It doesn't


Every single thing I said in the quote he posted is true. No amount of posting in oversized font is gonna make it false either.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yeaaaah, gonna need a citation on that, home-skillet.

You're probably not going to get a valid one.

Originally posted by Robtard
You're probably not going to get a valid one.

Oh Muh Gawerd! Robbie is YELLING!

He is Triggered!!!!!

Quick Somebody Get a Mod in here to Protect Us!

Cause We all Crybabies now!!!!!!



HAHAHAHAH!

Yeah... another day, another post triggering robbie. Shocker.

Originally posted by Robtard
You're probably not going to get a valid one.


Yeah, that's what it looks like. Rather disappointing. I keep getting my hopes up that he will positively engage in conversation and he does...then he disappoints.

Just remember eTLR...KMC is a a very Hypocritical Place. Robbie probably is sending the Mods a lot of angry lefty piss filled PM's right now so....Just Saying...

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Just remember eTLR...KMC is a a very Hypocritical Place. Robbie probably is sending the Mods a lot of angry lefty piss filled PM's right now so....Just Saying...




Wouldn't really surprise me if he were.

After all, it's an "educated guess. Based on who he is." lmao

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae


Wouldn't really surprise me if he were.

I'm sending 11, right now, as I type. But they are poop-filled for more oomph.

The KMC Mods don't respond as fast to Poop Filled PM's. They get to much enjoyment out of them and get distracted while rolling around in it.

Sorry, I don't take seriously or feel like taking the time to respond to people who feel the need to quote me in huge oversized letters as if they are friggin' yelling at me.

Just keep that in mind if (when) they Ban You for being the One that Did It....cause that is how KMC works.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yeah, that's what it looks like. Rather disappointing. I keep getting my hopes up that he will positively engage in conversation and he does...then he disappoints.

Get used to it

^Poor robbie... still triggered like the fragile little snowflake he is and always will be lol.

I feel for the PM function. Such anger it must be subjected too.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Sorry, I don't take seriously or feel like taking the time to respond to people who feel the need to quote me in huge oversized letters as if they are friggin' yelling at me.

Translation:

"I GOT CALLED OUT FOR SPREADING FALSE INFORMATION THAT RACIST SOUTHERNERS OFTEN TOUT AS FACT AND NOW MY FEELINGS ARE A BIT HURT."

*reported for yelling*

Originally posted by Flyattractor
*reported for yelling*




Surely there's some kind of forum rule against that kind of rude behavior lol.

Never try to point out the rules..

Robtard of all people is triggered by this event? lol.

mp_Uuz9k7Os

LoL @ Trumpers

Originally posted by Robtard
mp_Uuz9k7Os

LoL @ Trumpers

Actually, he's wrong by his own measures. Also, based on NYT's contempt for Trump in that video, they are clearly not coming from a place of honesty.



The economy is recovering from the COVID-19 crisis at nearly unprecedented record levels. Strong short-term economy. True. This one is so True that it alone should grant 2 keys to Trump and it may get Trump re-elected, alone, as the economy recovers. It's that drastic/serious. We are basically compression 10 times the unemployment recovery over 9 years into just a few months.

There's also a strong "long-term" economy as trade improves, energy improves, and the economy improves. The NASDAQ is frequently hitting record numbers and the top tech companies in America are hitting records. In fact, the COVID-19 crisis may have popped the artificial bubble you and I were talking about. Which could make the economy even stronger long-term than without a Crisis. True

The scandal key: false but it worked out in Trump's favor, repeatedly, which is a good thing for Trump bad terrible for Biden. Nuance to this key on this one.

Which removes 3 keys from Biden. And puts 3 more keys for Trump.



Be sure and gloat if I'm wrong. But I'm warning everyone that unless Democrats and other Lefties turn out in record numbers for Biden, Trump has had his re-election clenched from the beginning. Considering the lack of enthusiasm for Biden, this is likely not going to happen. Especially as Trump enjoys consistently good approval ratings these last few weeks.