monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@MontereyJack,

Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and FDR very much existed. Pretending that they didn't exist is silly.

Falsely accusing everyone of racism is silly.

You cannot point out any errors in my logic.

My description of BLM goons is 100% accurate. They exist only to try to prevent police officers from defending themselves when black people try to murder them.

I am not wrong to challenge all of your untrue statements.

What I provided are facts. Facts are not opinions no matter how much the left finds them inconvenient.

http://patcrosscartoons.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/the-facts1.jpg

2 Replies

Jefferson was elected in 1800, and that was the Democratic-Republican Party. No other party won the presidential election until 1828, when Jackson's Democratic Party won. But there effectively was no other party. The Federalists won the 1796 election (John Adams), but no other Federalist was even a contender thereafter. When Jackson lost the 1824 election in the House of Representatives, there had been four candidates, and they were all Democratic-Republicans.

Lincoln was succeeded by Andrew Johnson, who was his second running mate, and a member of the National Union Party, but declared himself a Democrat (as he had been before running with Lincoln) in 1868. Grant became Presidnet in 1869, and the Republicans held the White House until the inauguration of Grover Cleveland in 1885--a period of 16 years.

The only 20 year run, after 1828, was the Franklin Roosevelt-Harry Truman run from 1933 until 1953. As the United States was effectively a one party state from Jefferson's inauguration in 1801 until Jackson created the Democratic Party and was inaugurated in 1829, the Roosevelt-Truman run is the only time in American history when one party in a multi-party state held the White House for 20 years.

As usual, Oralloy shoots his mouth off without actually knowing what the hell he's talking about.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Jefferson was elected in 1800, and that was the Democratic-Republican Party. No other party won the presidential election until 1828, when Jackson's Democratic Party won.

So the party held the White House for 28 years.

Setanta wrote:

Lincoln was succeeded by Andrew Johnson, who was his second running mate, and a member of the National Union Party, but declared himself a Democrat (as he had been before running with Lincoln) in 1868. Grant became Presidnet in 1869, and the Republicans held the White House until the inauguration of Grover Cleveland in 1885--a period of 16 years.

Johnson did not win a presidential election. He only served out the remainder of Lincoln's second term.

The Republicans won the presidential elections in 1860, 1864, 1868, 1872, 1876, and 1880. That's a 24 year run.

Setanta wrote:

The only 20 year run, after 1828, was the Franklin Roosevelt-Harry Truman run from 1933 until 1953.

So, twenty years then.

Setanta wrote:

As usual, Oralloy shoots his mouth off without actually knowing what the hell he's talking about.

As usual, nobody here can point out a single thing that I am wrong about.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Your statements are 100% false. Demonstrating against bad shootings that killed innocent people is in no way logically equivalent to advocating killing co[s. That is one of the most bogus exam[les of misuse of supposed logic I have ever encountered. And you keep talking about twenty year cycles when you clarly have no idea what xharacterizes a cycle.CYCLE, ORALLOY, CYCLE. Not a random period of 20 years so your prediction of 20 years of trumpies is totally factless.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

They aren't facts, they're false opinions. They aren't inconvenient, they're simply wrong.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

As Monty Python says, blinkered philistine pig-ignorance. Stop your self-preening. It's disgusting.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

No. Facts aren't wrong. The left may not like that facts are true, but true they remain.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Since I am 100% correct in every respect, it is proper for me to state that fact.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Since you are 100% wrong in every aspect, it is proper for me to state that fact.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Your "prediction" is based on a non-existent cycle ,, and ignores virtually all of the relevant data, which means it's basically not worth the electrons it took to post it.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Your statements are 100% false.

Wrong. Everything that I said is completely true.

MontereyJack wrote:

Demonstrating against bad shootings that killed innocent people is in no way logically equivalent to advocating killing cops.

BLM goons are demonstrating against justified shootings where police officers (and a neighborhood watch captain) defended themselves from black people who tried to murder them.

MontereyJack wrote:

That is one of the most bogus examples of misuse of supposed logic I have ever encountered.

Technically, a statement of fact is different from a statement of logic.

I do make statements of logic when appropriate. But here I am making factual statements.

MontereyJack wrote:

And you keep talking about twenty year cycles when you clarly have no idea what xharacterizes a cycle.CYCLE, ORALLOY, CYCLE. Not a random period of 20 years so your prediction of 20 years of trumpies is totally factless.

The idea that a prediction can be factless is silly.

It's a prediction. It might turn out right, and it might turn out wrong. But trying to claim that a prediction is or isn't factual is silly.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Since you are 100% wrong in every aspect, it is proper for me to state that fact.

You're bluffing. I call your bluff. You cannot point out a single thing that I am wrong about.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Your "prediction" is based on a non-existent cycle ,, and ignores virtually all of the relevant data, which means it's basically not worth the electrons it took to post it.

That's what you said in 2013 too. But look who's President.

Check back with me after election day 2032 and let's see whether the Republicans have just won for the fifth time in a row.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

So if you predict that the sky tomorrow will be green with purple polka dots I can't call that silly? That's silly.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Since it's looking fairly unlikely that they'll win in 2020, there's little chance that we'll have to wait til 2032 to prove you wrong.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

I don't bluff. I've proved you wrong. If in your density you refuse to admit it, that's on you.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

You are bluffing. You've failed again to list a single fact that I am wrong about.

Your next post won't list any facts that I am wrong about either.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Since it's looking fairly unlikely that they'll win in 2020, there's little chance that we'll have to wait til 2032 to prove you wrong.

That's what you said about the 2016 election back in 2013.

In 2029 you'll be saying that the fact that the Republicans won the previous four elections doesn't mean they will win in 2032.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

So if you predict that the sky tomorrow will be green with purple polka dots I can't call that silly? That's silly.

You could call it silly. But it wouldn't make much sense to say the prediction was not factual.

Predictions and facts are two different things.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

If a prediction is based on some facts, it might not be silly, depending om the facts. Since yours have no factual basis they are both non-factual and silly.

1 Reply

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know