monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

There have been three occurrences where a party has constantly won the White Hose for a period of at least 20 years.

White House.
Embarrassed

0 Replies

@oralloy,

read the rest of the definition; REGULARLY REPEATED IN THE SAME ORDER , no awkward 4, 8, or 12 year periods ocuring irregularly in your proposed cyclic period. We Ido have those non-20 year periods MOST OF THE TIME. In short, ther is no cycle. Ypu're wrong again. The concept has no predictive value as you try to pretend. In fact, based on Richard Nixon, even the concept of a 4 year cycle is not inevitable. Fail, oraloy, fail again.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

You are delusional, and can't see it; you are profoundly ignorant, especially of history, and won't acknowledge it. In short, you are not very bright, and that's why you are so often certain of things which in fact have never happened.

[mic drop]

2 Replies

tHIS DESERVES TO BE EMPHASIZED:

Quote:

a hundred of so citizens with more networth then the rest of society as a whole

0 Replies

@snood,

Quote:

[mic drop]

I see my first post did not last long. Funny how the truth is so offensive to certain people. Oh well. Laughing

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

read the rest of the definition; REGULARLY REPEATED IN THE SAME ORDER , no awkward 4, 8, or 12 year periods ocuring irregularly in your proposed cyclic period.

I have not proposed any regular repetition of anything. I have predicted that the Republicans will hold the White House for twenty years.

MontereyJack wrote:

You're wrong again.

You cannot point out a single place where I've ever been wrong. And I'm certainly not wrong to point out the reality that political parties can indeed continuously win presidential elections over a twenty year stretch.

MontereyJack wrote:

The concept has no predictive value as you try to pretend.

I am not pretending anything. I've made a prediction. You may not like that I've made a prediction, but I have done so.

Time will tell whether my prediction is right or wrong.

MontereyJack wrote:

Fail, oraloy, fail again.

That's what you said in 2013. Look who's President now.

0 Replies

@snood,

snood wrote:

Setanta wrote:
You are delusional, and can't see it; you are profoundly ignorant, especially of history, and won't acknowledge it. In short, you are not very bright, and that's why you are so often certain of things which in fact have never happened.
[mic drop]

My IQ is 170. What's yours?

I notice that you've also failed to point out a single thing that I am wrong about.

3 Replies

@oralloy,

How did you manage to cheat on your IQ test?

1 Reply

@oralloy,

We also have utterly demolished your concept of 20 year cycles, just one of the many things you've been wrong about.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

You cannot point out a single thing that I've ever been wrong about.

And no, history shows very clearly that political parties in the US can continuously win presidential elections over a 20 year period.

It happened with Thomas Jefferson.

It happened with Abraham Lincoln.

It happened with FDR.

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

Funy how you kep posting nonsense which people right;y regard as nonsense.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

I don't see you pointing out anything that coldjoint is actually wrong about.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Someone with an IQ of 170 would know the difference between fact and opinion. They would be capable of reason and have an extensive vocabulary. And most importantly they would know that nobody would ever believe their IQ was 170 if they posted the moronic drivel you post.

Your posts are testament to the fact your IQ falls well short of 170.

3 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

How did you manage to cheat on your IQ test?

I don't cheat. I really am a trillion times smarter than you are.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Someone with an IQ of 170 would know the difference between fact and opinion. They would be capable of reason and have an extensive vocabulary.

Indeed. And I do possess those characteristics.

izzythepush wrote:

And most importantly they would know that nobody would ever believe their IQ was 170 if they posted the moronic drivel you post.

Your refusal to accept reality is no reflection on my intellect.

izzythepush wrote:

Your posts are testament to the fact your IQ falls well short of 170.

The fact that you cannot point out anything that I am wrong about speaks for itself.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

There have ben 20 year RANDOM OCURENCES. They are far outweighed by non-20 year periods. You have sxplicitly predicted 20 years of trumists based on the 20 year CYCLE which does not exisr. You're wrong and your prediction has no evidence to back it up. It is in short pure fantasy. It is no doubt your wish fulfilment only, it is definitely not the country's.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Why are you talking about yourself in the third person?

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Ah, I se you repaced yourself with coldjoint when you edited your post. He;s as prone to eror as you are. very prone.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

you keep saying you're never wrong, and then you keep retreating to a schoolyard taunt worthy of an 8-year-old, which is mathematically and psychologically impossible. In short, another falsehood on your part. Add it to the list.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

I say no such thing. I do make errors on extremely rare occasions.

I'd be the smartest out of a random population of 10 million people. You'd be the smartest out of a random population of what size? I bet my 10 million dwarfs your number whatever it is.

0 Replies

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know