dhp123166 Posted December 21, 2016 Report Share Posted December 21, 2016 What's this referring to? I said that maybe in future politicians will be more honest or careful of exposure of criminal ways because not much is hidden that the public can't find out about. I bet every time you are outside your house and get steamed at some douchebag for something, you pause before pulling your gun and shooting that cocksucker. Why? Because someone has a cell phone or there's a CCTV... somewhere. You might be more careful what you say on line because it's... forever. So about pardoning.... lets say you do something despicable and are pardoned for it. You are still despicable in the court of public opinion. Well, if Uncle Newt (a scumbag in his own right) had his way, in the future there will be no Presidential ethics problems because the laws would have been changed to allow for them! Hopefully this won't come to pass. I am sure you remember that Nixon chestnut "If the President does it, it is not illegal", sounds to me this is what Newt is proposing. Comparing street crime to white collar crime is apples and oranges bro'. Despicable in the court of public opinion didn't prevent G.Gordon Liddy from earning big bux on the speaker circuit after his sentence was commuted by Jimmy Carter... Link to comment
datzenmike Posted December 21, 2016 Report Share Posted December 21, 2016 He's still a douche but maybe he can live with it. Link to comment
racerx Posted December 21, 2016 Report Share Posted December 21, 2016 Anyone with a name newt is slick and slimy Link to comment
tr8er Posted December 21, 2016 Report Share Posted December 21, 2016 And this alone would account for Hillary's win in the popular vote! Explain. Link to comment
Dguy210 Posted December 21, 2016 Report Share Posted December 21, 2016 And this alone would account for Hillary's win in the popular vote! Hence the reason I posted it, Republicans also don't vote much in California because it is pointless. 1 Link to comment
Dguy210 Posted December 21, 2016 Report Share Posted December 21, 2016 Explain. California allows non-citizens to vote easily, such as illegal aliens, which California has shit tons of, they tend to support the political party that gives them free shit and doesn't deport them, i.e., the Democrats. There are about 2-3 million illegal immigrants in California. 5 Link to comment
tr8er Posted December 21, 2016 Report Share Posted December 21, 2016 California allows non-citizens to vote easily, such as illegal aliens, which California has shit tons of, they tend to support the political party that gives them free shit and doesn't deport them, i.e., the Democrats. There are about 2-3 million illegal immigrants in California. Right. Conservative news estimates 16% of them vote. About 11 mil illegals in the US. Half of which live in no voter ID states. Let's say 6 million. 16% is a bil under 1million. I'm willing to say 100% of them didn't vote for trump because it's common courtesy to presume they are sane. I doubt they all voted for Hillary, but let's say they did. That accounts for 1/3 of the discrepancy. Miscounted votes? Sorry, they tallied the other way in most counties. (Contested by trumps legal team wisely). Trump won. Awesome for those supporting him. Hillary lost, good aside from our constellation prize. But to boldly assert his win of the masses is misled logic. Enjoy your gobstopper, but leave the gum alone. Link to comment
tr8er Posted December 21, 2016 Report Share Posted December 21, 2016 Hence the reason I posted it, Republicans also don't vote much in California because it is pointless.Opposite is more true. I know many Dems who don't vote because Hawaii is so blue it doesn't matter. Link to comment
Draker Posted December 21, 2016 Report Share Posted December 21, 2016 Opposite is more true. I know many Dems who don't vote because Hawaii is so blue it doesn't matter. The only real way to know is if they audited it. I suspect voter fraud is high in California being they allow anyone to vote. Voter ID folks... 4 Link to comment
Dolomite Posted December 21, 2016 Report Share Posted December 21, 2016 Opposite is more true. I know many Dems who don't vote because Hawaii is so blue it doesn't matter.You don't know Cali at all. As a republican in a republican county, I can tell you most of us only vote when there's something important locally to vote for. The libtards come out in force for every election because they get off on pissing on anything to do with common sense. At the risk of sounding like a bigot, I assume that most people that can't speak English to the point of needing a translator aren't legal, I've seen way more that should be possible in polling places. And this is a republican county in the Sierras. I can only imagine how rampant it would be in the valley or socal where that shit is actually condoned. 1 Link to comment
tr8er Posted December 21, 2016 Report Share Posted December 21, 2016 You don't know Cali at all. As a republican in a republican county, I can tell you most of us only vote when there's something important locally to vote for. The libtards come out in force for every election because they get off on pissing on anything to do with common sense. At the risk of sounding like a bigot, I assume that most people that can't speak English to the point of needing a translator aren't legal, I've seen way more that should be possible in polling places. And this is a republican county in the Sierras. I can only imagine how rampant it would be in the valley or socal where that shit is actually condoned. I don't doubt it. But the numbers just don't add up to swinging the election. I expect far more than normal voted. A quick search, though not verified, states 20 million in the US are not fluent English speakers. Thus, anyone so bad with English that they need a translator (beyond "not fluent"), would likely be in the bottom half of those 20 million. With 11 million illegals, you would be right more than wrong is expect. You are probably still a bigot though... But who isn't. 2 Link to comment
Draker Posted December 21, 2016 Report Share Posted December 21, 2016 Regarding the assassination of the ambassador... it's curious that there happened to be an off duty AP photographer there.. camera ready and they didn't get shot. I'm not sure I'm guy in it and I bet you Russia isn't either. 2 Link to comment
VFR800 Posted December 21, 2016 Report Share Posted December 21, 2016 Regarding the assassination of the ambassador... it's curious that there happened to be an off duty AP photographer there.. camera ready and they didn't get shot. I'm not sure I'm guy in it and I bet you Russia isn't either. It was an opening for an art gallery and media were present as per such an event. Link to comment
Draker Posted December 21, 2016 Report Share Posted December 21, 2016 It was an opening for an art gallery and media were present as per such an event. How dare you make sense of the situation. Thanks. Didn't know that. 3 Link to comment
VFR800 Posted December 21, 2016 Report Share Posted December 21, 2016 How dare you make sense of the situation. Thanks. Didn't know that. 1 Link to comment
125 CSL Posted December 21, 2016 Report Share Posted December 21, 2016 Forgetting how badly cheating and corruption goes on from the DemocRat side. Think Detroit was the only city that double counted her vote? No recount has ever went in favor of a democRat for this very reason. The REAL question here is why do the spineless Republican'ts let it ride. 3 Link to comment
tr8er Posted December 21, 2016 Report Share Posted December 21, 2016 Forgetting how badly cheating and corruption goes on from the DemocRat side. Think Detroit was the only city that double counted her vote? No recount has ever went in favor of a democRat for this very reason. The REAL question here is why do the spineless Republican'ts let it ride. Again, where do you get this stuff. Check your sources before you accidentally educate another. Recounts have been in favor of both sides through history. Michigan ended up favoring Clinton by pennies in the recount as I understand it, but I give that no creed because there was obviously a ton of BS in that state. Regardless, check your facts. Link to comment
datzenmike Posted December 21, 2016 Report Share Posted December 21, 2016 Consolation prize ... not constellation. That's a group of stars 6 Link to comment
Dguy210 Posted December 21, 2016 Report Share Posted December 21, 2016 Right. Conservative news estimates 16% of them vote. About 11 mil illegals in the US. Half of which live in no voter ID states. Let's say 6 million. 16% is a bil under 1million. I'm willing to say 100% of them didn't vote for trump because it's common courtesy to presume they are sane. I doubt they all voted for Hillary, but let's say they did. That accounts for 1/3 of the discrepancy. Miscounted votes? Sorry, they tallied the other way in most counties. (Contested by trumps legal team wisely). Trump won. Awesome for those supporting him. Hillary lost, good aside from our constellation prize. But to boldly assert his win of the masses is misled logic. Enjoy your gobstopper, but leave the gum alone. Referring to bold: I never said that, at all. This is your interpretation of what I said. I was making a point about illegal immigrants, non-citizens, or non-eligible people being able to vote (which total more that the number you quoted). My point which you missed, backed up with empirical evidence mind you, was that California allows non-citizens to vote. Would this alter the amount of votes Hillary got? Potentially (I.e., "explain"). I also don't doubt some fuckery was going on, i.e., areas of Michigan counting more votes than people. Actually, they did not tally that way in most other counties, if you look at the areas with recounts, in every case Trump picked up a few minor votes, but it was statistically meaningless either way. But for you to assert she won the popular vote of the masses as a whole is misleading, because she only won it in 1 state, California, which is extremely liberal in the population centers, lacks voting controls, has a large Republican population that does not vote due to the pointlessness of it, and does not represent the will of the USA as a whole. So it is a matter of degrees. But to say I have this many votes, oh but some unknown are fake, is bullshit. Hillary beat Obama in votes only in California, with every other state giving her much lower numbers then what Obama got and you wonder why people question the result? This is the reason the electoral college exists, to give representation to the other states. However, I don't give two shits who won the popular vote because that has nothing to do with who wins the election. But allowing people who should not legally vote to vote, no matter who they vote for, is unconscionable. 4 Link to comment
125 CSL Posted December 21, 2016 Report Share Posted December 21, 2016 Again, where do you get this stuff. Check your sources before you accidentally educate another. Recounts have been in favor of both sides through history. Michigan ended up favoring Clinton by pennies in the recount as I understand it, but I give that no creed because there was obviously a ton of BS in that state. Regardless, check your facts. Drudge report. The guy dose not write any articles, just finds what is interesting. If you want a real picture of US politics it is not going to be from US reporter. British, Canadian, other English versions of other countries news. Mostly the best news come from British news who seem to take delight in pointing out our faults. 1 Link to comment
datzenmike Posted December 21, 2016 Report Share Posted December 21, 2016 It's entertainment to them in their boring world. Link to comment
tr8er Posted December 21, 2016 Report Share Posted December 21, 2016 If you want a real picture of US politics it is not going to be from US reporter. yup! 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts