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

https://www.al.com/resizer/gr2Ao2N8Y67n2oTAH8yPQDaYvCc=/700x0/smart/advancelocal-adapter-image-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/image.al.com/home/bama-media/width600/img/opinion/photo/2-27mightymouthtrumpjpg-5fbe4f376847fe46.jpg

Ah, of course... more pretend winning from those on the left. How adorable.

I do expect Trumpets to scream "fake news!" as well after Trump loses in 2020. So it's no surprise here.


"There were 100,000 or more voters who voted Republican generally but didn't vote for Bevin... that was the difference in the race," -snip

Which is telling.

Originally posted by Robtard
I do expect Trumpets to scream "fake news!" as well after Trump loses in 2020. So it's no surprise here.


"There were 100,000 or more voters who voted Republican generally but didn't vote for Bevin... that was the difference in the race," -snip

Which is telling.

Just out of curiosity, if Trump wins in 2020 do you think democrats will accept it? Or do you think they'll try to blame Russia, etc.?

Democrats have accepted that Trump won in 2016, this happened in 2016 right after the election. Russia meddling in 2016 to help Trump is also another accepted fact, as is Russian meddling in 2020 to help Trump again.

But this seems like a deflection from the topic of Dems winning last night.

Originally posted by Robtard
Democrats have accepted that Trump won in 2016, this happened in 2016 right after the election. Russia meddling in 2016 to help Trump is also another accepted fact, as is Russian meddling in 2020 to help Trump again.

But this seems like a deflection from the topic of Dems winning last night.

The ones who haven't tried to blame russia, jim comey, jill stein, etc. have accepted Trump won. But that's not all democrats.

Yes or no do you think democrats will sadly try to blame Russia if he wins in 2020?

Btw: and of course if Trump loses...that is just based on merit and not any outside influence, correct?

Originally posted by Surtur
Just out of curiosity, if Trump wins in 2020 do you think democrats will accept it? Or do you think they'll try to blame Russia, etc.?


There is no "if", Surtur. He's going to win and democrats know that all too well which is why they're trying so hard to illegally remove him on this impeachment BS. And yes, of course when he wins in even more epic fashion next time the crybabies on the left will be crying "Russia!! Russia!! Russia!!" yet again.

Originally posted by cdtm
https://www.al.com/resizer/gr2Ao2N8Y67n2oTAH8yPQDaYvCc=/700x0/smart/advancelocal-adapter-image-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/image.al.com/home/bama-media/width600/img/opinion/photo/2-27mightymouthtrumpjpg-5fbe4f376847fe46.jpg

Forced laughter.

fee-fees?

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
There is no "if", Surtur. He's going to win and democrats know that all too well which is why they're trying so hard to illegally remove him on this impeachment BS. And yes, of course when he wins in even more epic fashion next time the crybabies on the left will be crying "Russia!! Russia!! Russia!!" yet again.

All I know is there can be no unequivocal acceptance of the results if a democrat wins, but not if trump wins. That won't fly.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg


That cartoonist nailed it.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
fee-fees?


Yes, your fee-fees are obviously still hurt Trump is president and Hillary ain't even after three years lol.

I've laughed at some Trump jokes before, but this just seems to recycle the cliches.

Originally posted by Robtard
That cartoonist nailed it.

it will always stay relevant.

I don't Twitter, but apparently "#moscowmitchisnext" is spreading.

I would so love it if shitbag McConnell loses in 2020.

Originally posted by cdtm
https://www.al.com/resizer/gr2Ao2N8Y67n2oTAH8yPQDaYvCc=/700x0/smart/advancelocal-adapter-image-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/image.al.com/home/bama-media/width600/img/opinion/photo/2-27mightymouthtrumpjpg-5fbe4f376847fe46.jpg

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Yes, your fee-fees are obviously still hurt Trump is president and Hillary ain't even after three years lol. dur

Seems Republicans in Kentucky have an opportunity to steal Beshear's win after all.

Originally posted by Robtard
Seems Republicans in Kentucky have an opportunity to steal Beshear's win after all.

I decided to google search this issue. I am being inundated with extreme amounts of pro-Democrat, anti-GOP, anti-Trump propaganda with the results.

Despite that, there's clearly a dispute. And a legitimate one, at that. 5000 votes is a very close race. If even one polling place, which is heavily GOP, is proven to have conveniently malfunctioned and turned people away from voting, as claimed, this could change the election outcome.

Double voting, voting when you are not eligible (but not criminal), and the extremely rare voter fraud, all added together, can add up to quite a few improper votes.


This research says 1 in 4000 votes are double votes:

https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/morse/files/1p1v.pdf


That's far more than I thought. But not enough in Kentucky to change the outcome of the election. The only way to do that would be to "close" a voting site that was in a heavy GOP district AND for those voters to be turned away AND not get to vote. If that situation, as claimed, is true, yes, this can greatly change the outcome of the election.



This is simple: ask everyone who got turned away to come forward. Verify them in a special voting session against the existing voting records to ensure they don't get to double vote. Done. Argument over.

Edit - I really like that paper. It covers a lot of the research around voting fraud and why Americans should stop being complacent with "voting is safe! hardly any voting fraud!" No. It's not. We don't really know how bad it is. It's anywhere from a little bit (enough to be concerned about) to a lot (disastrously terrible).

Odd, I didn't get that at all in my google search.

Here's one from a staunch Right news outlet: Republican-controlled Kentucky Legislature could decide outcome of gubernatorial election

Originally posted by Robtard
Odd, I didn't get that at all in my google search.

Here's one from a staunch Right news outlet: Republican-controlled Kentucky Legislature could decide outcome of gubernatorial election

Washington Examiner did not show up in my first page of results. What did you google?


Also, reading that article, it was written well and fairly. Odd that it is a right-leaning website. Of all the articles I read, it presented the story with the least amount of bias and was not cringe-inducing amounts of bias. I just want the facts, quotes, and direction. I don't want all that other bias-adjectivvy stuff and editorializing.

They have several failed fact checks. Unlike that right-leaning site I posted yesterday that was rated highly for factuality. You can be a biased site but still stick to the fact - nothing wrong with that.

How undemocratic of you.

Originally posted by Robtard
How undemocratic of you.

Am I undemocratic? Or does the system not actually serve the people because it is controlled by two warmongering corportist parties?


Let's go with the latter according to SCIENCE!

5tu32CCA_Ig


Edit - I do not support the "democratically elected" two-party, corrupt, candidates. It's likely that the third party candidate cost the GOP candidate the election. If rank choice voting was an option, the third party candidate is likely to have won the election.

The EXTREMELY strong need for a viable 3rd (and 4th) party to exist doesn't do away with a valid election that's already happened.

*does the harlem shake*

8vJiSSAMNWw

Political parties are mirror images of each other. Same shit with a new face full of contingencies, scape goats, and control over the lives of people.

Originally posted by Robtard
The EXTREMELY strong need for a viable 3rd (and 4th) party to exist doesn't do away with a valid election that's already happened.

*invalid


Almost all are invalid while the duopoly exists.

Guy trying to vote in the Mississippi primary race and his vote gets changed on the machine to Tate Reeves instead.

https://twitter.com/STaylorRayburn/status/1166347828152680449

Something really needs to be done with these older machines.

America's f*cking weird.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
America's f*cking weird.


Still far better than Canada, bud.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Canada Not a real word, guy.

"Trumper" is a portmanteau of "Trump" and "supporter", even some Trumpers refer to themselves as such with pride. The Trump admin routinely uses "Trumper" and "never Trumper" as well.


Now "Trumpet", sure, that's meant to be derogatory.

Originally posted by Stoic
Political parties are mirror images of each other. Same shit with a new face full of contingencies, scape goats, and control over the lives of people.

This right here.

Originally posted by Robtard
"Trumper" is a portmanteau of "Trump" and "supporter", even some Trumpers refer to themselves as such with pride. The Trump admin routinely uses "Trumper" and "never Trumper" as well.


Now "Trumpet", sure, that's meant to be derogatory.

Yeah and some black guys refer to themselves as the N word, so it's okay for others to call them it I guess.

You *do* use it in the derogatory sense though so it's not the same. You will lie of course and claim otherwise

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
a search under your name produced no results for your anger at the president for calling all democrats "human scum". please explain why one is okay and the other disgusts you. let me guess: fee-fees?

Because you're so consistent?

Spoiler alert: you aren't.

Originally posted by Surtur
Yeah and some black guys refer to themselves as the N word, so it's okay for others to call them it I guess.

Besides, you *do* use it in the derogatory sense. You will lie of course and claim otherwise

If you want to say that the "N word" and "Trumper" are comparable considering America's history, you go on right ahead. But you're just beinga silly assclown and pretend victim again.

Originally posted by Robtard
If you want to say that the "N word" and "Trumper" are comparable considering America's history, you go on right ahead. But you're just beinga silly assclown and pretend victim again.

I'm using the logic you put forth. If you don't like it maybe don't use the logic. Or do you want special rules? Ask for them and I shall grant them.

If you don't like it we can shift to the term "deplorable". Some people tried to take back this word and refer to themselves are deplorables. It doesn't mean if some whiny leftist comes along and calls them deplorable it takes on the same connotation.

So you do use the word "trumper" in a derogatory sense, it's okay. Don't even bother feigning ignorance it's not worth it and nobody will believe you who isn't naive as hell.

No, you're conflating two things that are not comparable and trying to be the victim again. "Trumper" is not comparable to the "N-word". Deal with it and accept to put your foot in your mouth, or don't and continue to embarrass yourself. I hope you pick the latter.

Originally posted by Surtur
Because you're so consistent?

Spoiler alert: you aren't.

so basically:

eliminationist rhetoric by the president aimed at the entire left:

people on the internet saying "Trumper" 😠🤮😱😵😫🤒

and the reason for your clownish situational ethics: special fee-fees

Originally posted by Robtard
No, you're conflating two things that are not comparable and trying to be the victim again. "Trumper" is not comparable to the "N-word". Deal with it and accept to put your foot in your mouth, or don't and continue to embarrass yourself. I hope you pick the latter.

Son I'm applying your logic. If you don't like it, we aren't gonna apply it to any word. Have a nice day

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
so basically:

eliminationist rhetoric by the president aimed at the entire left:

people on the internet saying "Trumper" 😠🤮😱😵😫🤒

and the reason for your clownish situational ethics: special fee-fees

Rob wants special rules right now, here is a chance to show you're consistent and call it out. Special rules are bad, right? Hold on one second *pops meds meant for helping with sea sickness* Okay spin away.

As to the rest of your post, Rage has never come off as someone who is pro Trump but hey try to paint him with that brush anyways cuz feelings.

you can't address the point because you're a babyman? okay, babyman.

You have no point. If you're even half familiar with the persons posts they are not pro Trump. You have no "gotcha" here you clown. You're just mad he dared question your boyfriend. Get over it.

So you picked the latter and will continue to embarrass yourself. Sorry, "Trumper" is not comprable to the "N-word", no matter how you spin-it-to-win-it again.

I even gave you an alternative example, but hey ignore it cuz your fee fee's are hurt.

And btw special rules are now okay, precedent set.

Your strawman is just that.

My logic is that "Trumper" is a portmanteau of "Trump" and "supporter".

Anyhow, 'Trumper" is not comparable to the "N word". Are you trying to be Chris Cuomo now.

I used your logic of "it's not derogatory because people refer to themselves as Trumpers".

I get it, you want special rules.

That was an addition to the main point; not the main point, it was support. The main point: "Trumper" is a portmanteau of "Trump" and "supporter". -Robtard

Your piecemealing of what I said won't change that and it won't deflect away that you compared "Trumper" to the use of the "N word". Your words, sport. Continue to embarrass yourself.

I also never once said the N word is equal to the word Trumper. I merely took your logic and applied it to an extreme example to show the stupidity of it.

And all this is pointless because *you* do use the word in a derogatory fashion.

You directly implied it, actually.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
so basically:

eliminationist rhetoric by the president aimed at the entire left:

people on the internet saying "Trumper" 😠🤮😱😵😫🤒

and the reason for your clownish situational ethics: special fee-fees

Yup

Nope.

you guys really need to create better memes.

https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson_MP

I helped.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
eliminationist rhetoric by the president aimed at the entire Democratic Party with very few exceptions:



This would be much more accurate. I'm supposedly on the left. There are tons of great ideas and people on the left.

Democrats are on the authoritarian right but pretend to be left.

the f*ck does that have to do with what I said

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
the f*ck does that have to do with what I said

I know you're confused but if you calm down a bit, sober up, and read it again, you'll understand.

oh I get it, you're being chimpy. carry on then...

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
Oh I get it, you're being normal and I'm suffering from stanky buttholery and buttholishess. Carry on then. Also, love you. I need a hug.

Search your feelings. Cheese is delicious.

cool. the afternoon is approaching so your e-gang should be waking up soon to assist you.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This would be much more accurate. I'm supposedly on the left. There are tons of great ideas and people on the left.

Democrats are on the authoritarian right but pretend to be left.


There is no such thing as an "authoritarian right." Authoritarians are always on the left. The further you go on the right it doesn't become more authoritarian, it becomes less and less government. That is the opposite of authoritarianism. Hitler, Mao, and Stalin were all authoritarians and they were all on the left (despite what leftists wanna believe about Hitler).


The current day leftists are not "pretending to be left", they are the true left. Unlike the "alt-right" which is not part of the real right and has much more in common with the authoritarian left than they do with the right.


Yeah, I'm sure you'll dispute this now but it doesn't matter because it's the truth and nothing you say will change that.

Recounting has started in Kentucky, more than 50 districts have reported no change in results.

Originally posted by Robtard
Recounting has started in Kentucky, more than 50 districts have reported no change in results.

He conceded this afternoon:

https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/2019/11/14/recanvass-kentucky-governors-race-between-bevin-and-beshear-begins/4189206002/

People sure seemed to be in favor of recounts once trump won.

And as for whining over people not accepting results: Stacey Abrams. Denounce her or walk away from the convo.

Originally posted by dadudemon
He conceded this afternoon:

https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/2019/11/14/recanvass-kentucky-governors-race-between-bevin-and-beshear-begins/4189206002/


Good for him then, saved some face. Nothing wrong with asking for a recount in a close or even somewhat close race. Just don't be bitter and shitty about it.


Thanks Trumpers!

Moscow Mitch is next

Yeah don't be bitter about the results of an election.

Hey, how'd the dems react to losing in 2016? Practiced what they preached, did they?

Originally posted by Surtur
Yeah don't be bitter about the results of an election.

Hey, how'd the dems react to losing in 2016? Practiced what they preached, did they?

Did anyone really ask for a recount of 2016? I don't recall that happening, seems you're grasping at shit-straws again. Trump won in 2016, so be less bitter, guy.

Oh nice try. A for effort.

I'm so sorry this is happening to you

That's not gonna work here

2020, here we come

Originally posted by Robtard
2020, here we come


Yep, here we come 2020... and you had better hope that the democrats succeed in their little coup to remove Trump because if they don't they're due for an ass whoopin' of epic proportions in the 2020 election.


Until then though, I'm going to continue to rub in the fact that Trump is president and Hillary ain't.

Originally posted by Surtur
Yeah don't be bitter about the results of an election.

Hey, how'd the dems react to losing in 2016? Practiced what they preached, did they?

Originally posted by Robtard
Did anyone really ask for a recount of 2016? I don't recall that happening, seems you're grasping at shit-straws again. Trump won in 2016, so be less bitter, guy.

Yeah, there was a massive recount push. They wanted to overturn the outcome of the election.

Actual recounts were done:

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=2016+presidential+election+recount&s=g

a group of computer scientists, cyber security experts, and election monitors raised concerns about the integrity of the election results. They urged the campaign staff of Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, who had conceded the campaign on November 9, to petition for a recount in three key states: Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. When the Clinton campaign declined to file for recounts, Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein agreed to spearhead the recount effort on November 23, on the grounds that unspecified "anomalies" may have affected the election's outcome. -snip


Did not know Jill Stein did that.

Originally posted by Robtard
a group of computer scientists, cyber security experts, and election monitors raised concerns about the integrity of the election results. They urged the campaign staff of Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, who had conceded the campaign on November 9, to petition for a recount in three key states: Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. When the Clinton campaign declined to file for recounts, Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein agreed to spearhead the recount effort on November 23, on the grounds that unspecified "anomalies" may have affected the election's outcome. -snip


Did not know Jill Stein did that.

And many Dems blamed Jill for Hillary losing the election. Was a pity. She wasn't...that bad. Jill would have probably been a better president than either Trump or Hillary.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And many Dems blamed Jill for Hillary losing the election. Was a pity. She wasn't...that bad. Jill would have probably been a better president than either Trump or Hillary.

Yeah the lie that Jill Stein played a role in costing her the election just seems to keep enduring.

I hate seeing people whine about third party candidates. It's as if they feel one of the two parties is *owed* our votes.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And many Dems blamed Jill for Hillary losing the election. Was a pity. She wasn't...that bad. Jill would have probably been a better president than either Trump or Hillary.


To be fair, Hillary supporters have been known to be crybabies.

Why Republicans lost another deep-red state in Louisiana governor's election

For the second time this month, Republican President Donald Trump failed to carry a Republican gubernatorial candidate across the finish line in a deep-red state. Last time, Kentucky was the stage. This time it was Louisiana. -snip

*giggle*