Bigger than Watergate

@layman,

If you leave out the People's Republic of California, where non-citizens vote by the millions and where Marxist communism is the prevailing political creed, and consider all the other 49 states, which comprise that vast majority of voters in this country, then Trump won the popular vote.

Leave it to cheese-eaters to claim that California should control the rest of the country, because that would be "true democracy," eh? Only a fool would espouse "true democracy."

0 Replies

I don't really care about whether this is a "pure" democracy or a representative one. I stand by my original statement:

Quote:

No one has ever been elected with such a high unpopularity rating before taking office.

And I stand by my followup as well:

Quote:

Well if Clinton had won, the honor would've been hers as she wasn't very popular either.

It just happened that in the last election cycle, neither candidate had a high personal approval rating.

1 Reply

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

I don't really care about whether this is a "pure" democracy or a representative one. I stand by my original statement:

Quote:
No one has ever been elected with such a high unpopularity rating before taking office.

You've overlooked Abe Lincoln, who, from day one, had a popularity rating of about half what Trump's was. Needless to say, he was regularly referred to as an inbred imbecilic ape, and much worse, in the main stream media of the day. And then all the "journalists" would toast each other for their superior insight and wisdom.

1 Reply

@layman,

Interesting...but sort of understandable within the historical context:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/PresidentialCounty1860Colorbrewer.gif/600px-PresidentialCounty1860Colorbrewer.gif

Quote:

Results by county explicitly indicating the percentage for the winning candidate. Shades of red are for Lincoln (Republican), shades of blue are for Douglas (Northern Democratic), shades of green are for Breckinridge (Southern Democratic), shades of yellow are for Bell (Constitutional Union), and shades of purple are for "Fusion" (Non-Republican/Democratic Fusion). South Carolina had no popular vote.

wiki
Weren't you one of the A2K crowd (I had to stop myself from saying "crybabies") calling for the head of Steven Colbert?

Quote:

To answer my own question, I have no doubt that there would be extreme MORAL OUTRAGE immediately streaming from the left, with charges of racism, homophobia, and moral degeneracy. The streets would be full of crowds demanding that the speaker be fired, and that his network be boycotted.

layman

I wonder how much outrage McClellan faced?

Quote:

Even the commanding general of his armies, George McClellan, called him the “original gorilla.”

1 Reply

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Weren't you one of the A2K crowd (I had to stop myself from saying "crybabies") calling for the head of Steven Colbert?

No, Hi, I definitely was not and told you so in no uncertain terms. Your memory/reading skills seems to need some work, eh? Take a minute to see what follows that post of mine that you hauled out, eh?

1 Reply

@layman,

Oh, I guess this wasn't you then:

Quote:

Typical hypocrisy from the cheese-eating lefties, eh? Would they be "cheering uproariously" if Rush Limbaugh had said this about Obama, ya figure?

Yeah, it's just so terrible to call a white president a "gorilla"! (Yeah I know you weren't criticizing Colbert, you were roasting the hypocritical cheese-eaters — the point is that this is another indication of Trump's potential greatness. Not only was he elected with a low approval rating and has low ratings in current opinion polls — like Lincoln, he was actually called a "gorilla"! Looks like Honest Abe will be having a run for the money when it comes to determining who's our greatest president.)

Hey, speaking of "Bigger than Watergate", remember the "Saturday Night Massacre"?

1 Reply

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Hey, speaking of "Bigger than Watergate", remember the "Saturday Night Massacre"?

If you're talking about the Cox firing, I just made a post about that in another thread.

"Impeach the Cox Sacker!"

0 Replies

Looks like this could be bigger than even watergate, sho nuff.

Word has been, for some time now, that it wasn't just Susan Rice operating on this deal.

Now some other names are coming out, including Clapper, Lynch, and Brennan. It all started before Trump was even a candidate, and much of it had nothing to do with national security, they say.

Quote:

Susan Rice's Reported Unmaskings Point to Larger Scandal Tuesday May 16, 2017

The story about Obama involvement and intelligence agency illegality, in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, as federal judge Richard Leon found in two lawsuits I brought a few years ago (see www.freedomwatchusa.org,) goes far beyond the actions of Rice, Clapper, Brennan and their comrades in the Obama administration.

As my client and whistleblower Dennis Montgomery is prepared to testify under appropriate circumstances that would protect the classified information he left the National Security Agency (NSA) and CIA with when he was a contractor, the government has been illegally spying on prominent Americans, like Trump, and others like yours truly, as well as the masses, for many years.

http://www.newsmax.com/LarryKlayman/susan-rice-unmasking-trump-surveillance/2017/04/03/id/782269/

Quote:

Our sources: The persons who did the unmasking is "very well known, very high up, very senior, in the intelligence world & is not in the FBI

It seems the spreading of names was done for “political purposes that have nothing to do with national security,” or foreign intelligence, but hurting Trump’s team, Housley noted.

"It had everything to do with hurting and embarrassing Trump and his team," according to his sources.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-03/report-mike-cernovich-reveals-natl-security-advisor-susan-rice-responsible-unmasking

2 Replies

@layman,

That's extraordinary. Could you imagine what would happen if the media actually cared about this?

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

I love the way you keep referring back to layman's posts trying to counteract the fact that almost everyone on here has him on Ignore due to his nonstop trolling.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

As my client and whistleblower Dennis Montgomery is prepared to testify...

Unlike MSM "sources," Dennis Montgomery does not insist on remaining anonymous.

And, unlike Susan Rice, he is willing to testify, under oath, subjecting himself to perjury charges if he lies, about the facts he is aware of.

Big differences, eh?

0 Replies

Susan Rice deserves to be fried.

1 Reply

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Honestly, the astonishment and defensiveness on the part of Republicans for the criticism directed at Trump is rather amusing.

Not at all. The Democrats are way out of line with all their lies and demagogy. It is getting time to crack down on them hard.

0 Replies

@shonabellefonte,

shonabellefonte wrote:

Susan Rice deserves to be fried.

At some point in this ongoing witch hunt against him, Trump will have to realize that his "bygones" attitude towards prosecuting past Democratic misdeeds is a mistake, and hopefully then we will see some of these Democrats packed off to prison where they belong.

0 Replies

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

I love the way you keep referring back to layman's posts trying to counteract the fact that almost everyone on here has him on Ignore due to his nonstop trolling.

Speaking for myself, when I reply to Layman it is because I think I have something relevant to add to a point he's just made.

Your characterization of him as trolling is very wrong. He is posting facts and making good points.

These facts and good points may well be uncomfortable to the Left because of how delusional and out of touch with reality the Left is. But I suggest that it is not good for the Left to be delusional and out of touch with reality. I recommend that liberals read and try to confront what he writes.

If liberals think that Layman is wrong about something, they should find it easy enough to confront him with the truth.

If liberals find that they have no answer to the points that he makes, that is a strong sign that they should start reassessing their perceptions.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote oralloy:

Quote:

Your characterization of him [Layman] as trolling is very wrong. He is posting facts and making good points.

YOU occasionally make a good point. And you do not resort continually to childish name-calling. Which is why I respond to you, and not him/her.

Layman's posts will almost be prefaced with childish name calling. He or she chooses a label that is seemingly not so bad, so it passes muster with the mods. He then proceeds to use the label ceaselessly, nonstop, over and over every day month after month. With the mods thus trained in Pavlovian fashion to ignore his label, Layman ploughs ahead. As a result, Layman ends up on a lot of Ignore lists. Which is why the righties make it a point to try to refer to Layman's posts in their post-so Layman will be taken off the members' Ignore lists.

2 Replies

@Blickers,

Quote:

Which is why the righties make it a point to try to refer to Layman's posts in their post-so Layman will be taken off the members' Ignore lists.

I can't think of a single more violent and malicious thing to do than to attempt to undermine a snowflake's "safe space." You should report this finding to the administrators IMMEDIATELY. If they refuse to help, call your college dean.

0 Replies

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

YOU occasionally make a good point. And you do not resort continually to childish name-calling. Which is why I respond to you, and not him/her.

Layman's posts will almost be prefaced with childish name calling. He or she chooses a label that is seemingly not so bad, so it passes muster with the mods. He then proceeds to use the label ceaselessly, nonstop, over and over every day month after month. With the mods thus trained in Pavlovian fashion to ignore his label, Layman ploughs ahead. As a result, Layman ends up on a lot of Ignore lists. Which is why the righties make it a point to try to refer to Layman's posts in their post-so Layman will be taken off the members' Ignore lists.

I'd like to think I always make good points.

You guys are seriously offended by the cheese eater label?? If you do find it that offensive, I guess it is your right to place him on ignore.

I for one had no idea if anyone had him on ignore until you spoke about it in this thread. When I reply to layman, my only goal is to add whatever point I am making. I strongly suspect that there is no conspiracy by anyone to thwart your ignore efforts. (If there is such a conservative conspiracy, no one invited me.)

I know that a lot of the leftists who only engage in name-calling, claim to have me on ignore. But since it seems confined to the ones who only engage in name-calling, I don't even worry about it. Better that they ignore me than spout name-calling.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Blickers wrote:
I love the way you keep referring back to layman's posts trying to counteract the fact that almost everyone on here has him on Ignore due to his nonstop trolling.

Theres some fine irony... I missed Blickers post because I have him ignored... Funny stuff...

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

... I missed Blickers post because I have him ignored... Funny stuff...

Each to his own, Gent, but I would never (automatically) ignore Blicky or his cheese-eating homeys. I wouldn't want to miss the laughs, ya know?

1 Reply

Bigger than Watergate

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know