No, I'm done. Just trying to keep the meltdown to a minimum, the rest is up to you. I wouldn't call 306 an electoral college landslide either by the way.
No, I'm done. Just trying to keep the meltdown to a minimum, the rest is up to you. I wouldn't call 306 an electoral college landslide either by the way.there is no set number for a landslide victory for the elecotral college, but a couple sites I saw said for the electoral college it's getting 70% or 375.
but you don't need a set number to realize that Trumps approx. 300 Electoral votes is not an OVERWHELMING victory - which is what defines landslide. it's just common sense.
amongst Trump's transgressions, you are right, it is trivial. He has lied or exaggerated far far worse things and many times also. Regardless, I'm just pointing out his obvious exaggeration here and you find it important enough to keep defending.
you tell us. The left kept going after trump for the same thing.You realize that recounts are totally compatible with accepting the outcome of an election, right? I mean why on earth would anyone think otherwise?
and the left claiming Russia hacked the election isn't dangerous?trump is dog whistling out his peeps with that illegals voting thing. Dangerous man.
you tell us. The left kept going after trump for the same thing.
No, they didn't.
umm but they did. Revisionist history yet again on your part there eski, no surprise though.
No one has claimed anything. And even if there were such a claim it would generally be important to our democracy to investigate it peacefully.and the left claiming Russia hacked the election isn't dangerous?
I think some people called it an electoral landslide in 2012. Just my opinion, I'm sure it means a lot to you, that this is a trivial and ridiculous thing to criticize him for because there is no set definition as to what a landslide in the EC actually is.
I already said I wouldn't consider 306 EC votes as an EC landslide so yeah, not sure why you posted this. Trump was talking about an electoral college landslide anyway, not the popular vote margin I was referring to back then.According to your 2012 post, you considered a 10 point margin to be a landslide and you claimed that if Romney won by 8 points it would nearly be a landslide.
So according to your own definition of what YOU consider a landslide, trump didn't even come close!
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=threads/some-polls-now-have-romney-ahead.2275000/page-34#post-34165847
I await your total buckshatting of this thread now.
I already said I wouldn't consider 306 EC votes as an EC landslide so yeah, not sure why you posted this. Trump was talking about an electoral college landslide anyway, not the popular vote margin I was referring to back then.
That isn't what he said. He said he won in an electoral college landslide. I disagree that 306 qualifies but since there is no set definition it isn't something I'd harp on him about.So to be clear, trump saying he won in a landslide is pure bullshit according to you? Correct?
That isn't what he said. He said he won in an electoral college landslide. I disagree that 306 qualifies but since there is no set definition it isn't something I'd harp on him about.
I did earlier. I think he shouldn't have said what he said about the 3 million alien voters. So I would harp on him about that.Of course not!/s Is there anything you'd harp on trump about? I'm just curious where your line of acceptable bullshit lies.
I did earlier. I think he shouldn't have said what he said about the 3 million alien voters. So I would harp on him about that.
According to your 2012 post.
2012
Two thousand f*cking twelve.
Ain't that like the "progressive" left to dig back into history as far as possible to find any dirt to throw in their desperate attempts to discredit someone instead of debating facts. They had to go back to 2005 for Trump gloating about how many women will quickly consent to anything a celebrity might want, including the famous kitty-grab.
Weeeeak.
2012
Two thousand f*cking twelve.
Ain't that like the "progressive" left to dig back into history as far as possible to find any dirt to throw in their desperate attempts to discredit someone instead of debating facts. They had to go back to 2005 for Trump gloating about how many women will quickly consent to anything a celebrity might want, including the famous kitty-grab.
Weeeeak.
Uh oh! Sounds like someone been triggered!
no one? people in this thread did. The 'scientists' behind the recall did.No one has claimed anything. And even if there were such a claim it would generally be important to our democracy to investigate it peacefully.
No they definitely didn't. It's funny that you're going to engage in revisionist history while accusing others of doing it though.
Anyone who thinks that someone who requests or endorses a recount isn't accepting the results of an election needs to go back to civics class. A recount's purpose is to ensure that the results of the election are correctly determined. It has nothing to do with accepting or not accepting those results.
Trump indicated that he would potentially not accept the results of the election. Clinton has never indicated such.
Lol you're complaining that someone went back to the last election to see your stance on election results? Really? That the measure they used to show your hypocrisy was the last time the subject came up?2012
Two thousand f*cking twelve.
Ain't that like the "progressive" left to dig back into history as far as possible to find any dirt to throw in their desperate attempts to discredit someone instead of debating facts. They had to go back to 2005 for Trump gloating about how many women will quickly consent to anything a celebrity might want, including the famous kitty-grab.
Weeeeak.
stop being a victim. Grow a dick.
no one? people in this thread did. The 'scientists' behind the recall did.
So did you vote in this past general election?2012
Two thousand f*cking twelve.
Ain't that like the "progressive" left to dig back into history as far as possible to find any dirt to throw in their desperate attempts to discredit someone instead of debating facts. They had to go back to 2005 for Trump gloating about how many women will quickly consent to anything a celebrity might want, including the famous kitty-grab.
Weeeeak.