Posts: 880
Threads: 18
Joined: May 2016
(12-02-2016, 05:24 PM)playwrite Wrote: (12-02-2016, 04:40 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (12-02-2016, 03:30 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: (12-02-2016, 03:16 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: (12-02-2016, 02:56 PM)Odin Wrote: The problem with your reasoning is that Clinton WAS the moderate.
The reason the left lost was because they thought Clinton was in any way moderate.
So the Left lost because they were right about something, then?
The left lost because the left isn't viewed as being moderate. Clinton lost because she associated herself to much as being with the left. Now that she's gone and traditional Democrats have no one left, you are free to move as far to the left as you'd like as long as you don't start seizing peoples property or start treating Americans like the Jews and the Bosnian's were treated in Europe. How many fascist minded blues live in California? How socialist minded blues live in California? How many communist minded blues live in California? How many American minded blues live in California? The way I see it, if we are going to have a civil war then let it be fought in your state and Playdudes state while the American states go about their business.
If that were to happen, going about your business would be standing in a soup line at the mercy of the Blue States' foreign aid to backward countries.
Once a t-bagger, and now a Trump Chump, all the same, Cynic, just another clueless sheeple being conned once again by your financial elite masters.
GDP is now over 3%, and we've reached full employment this past month. The exact opposite of the shit sandwich Bush left Obama. Let's see how long before the Orange Anus drives us back into the ditch this time. And how many of you Trump Chumps wise up.
Of for Chrissakes. Democrats lost because times were good, and white folks felt they could afford Republicans in charge. Last time, times were good (2000) folks elected a Republican too.
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
(12-02-2016, 05:24 PM)playwrite Wrote: (12-02-2016, 04:40 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (12-02-2016, 03:30 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: (12-02-2016, 03:16 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: (12-02-2016, 02:56 PM)Odin Wrote: The problem with your reasoning is that Clinton WAS the moderate.
The reason the left lost was because they thought Clinton was in any way moderate.
So the Left lost because they were right about something, then?
The left lost because the left isn't viewed as being moderate. Clinton lost because she associated herself to much as being with the left. Now that she's gone and traditional Democrats have no one left, you are free to move as far to the left as you'd like as long as you don't start seizing peoples property or start treating Americans like the Jews and the Bosnian's were treated in Europe. How many fascist minded blues live in California? How socialist minded blues live in California? How many communist minded blues live in California? How many American minded blues live in California? The way I see it, if we are going to have a civil war then let it be fought in your state and Playdudes state while the American states go about their business.
If that were to happen, going about your business would be standing in a soup line at the mercy of the Blue States' foreign aid to backward countries.
Once a t-bagger, and now a Trump Chump, all the same, Cynic, just another clueless sheeple being conned once again by your financial elite masters.
GDP is now over 3%, and we've reached full employment this past month. The exact opposite of the shit sandwich Bush left Obama. Let's see how long before the Orange Anus drives us back into the ditch this time. And how many of you Trump Chumps wise up.
If it were to happen, I'd be selling heating and air equipment and conducting business and contributing American tax dollars to the American states and participating in the American economy as usual as New York and Californian are stalled and their infrastructures are ravaged and torn apart by warring blues like Spain. Fascist minded blues and socialist mined blues and communist minded blues waging war with each other for power and destroying each other while we are separated doesn't sound bad to me. The Americans handled living through World War II and the destruction of most of Europe as they did it just fine. America isn't Europe. Once an American, always an American. The early American's created New York, what makes you think modern Americans couldn't do it again after the blues are done destroying themselves. To the blue victor comes American bombs and shells followed by an invasion to take back what was ours to begin with. We can restore the Statue of Liberty. Americans are capable people.
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
(12-02-2016, 02:21 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: There can be no further good arguments for the system designed to keep the slaveowners in power. Hillary Clinton won this election by about 3 million votes, and yet we are stuck with a tyrant because of the mistakes of 70,000 or so deceived Rust Belt victims. We could have had an intelligent, capable, experienced, compassionate, dedicated, moderate president, who would have acted on the actual concerns of ALL the people INCLUDING those in the Rust Belt; instead we are enslaved to the worst and most extremist "president" in our history, concerned only with himself; in order to protect the interests of 1789 slaveowners, and to allow a minority party to keep giving us the worst presidents in our history to benefit the 1%. There is no argument left for the electoral college at all. This is not some kind of fluke, like in the year 2000. This is a huge, indelible, creepy stain, both on the peculiar institution and on America.
We are stuck with it because of the greedy slaveowners who now rule Amerikkka. The only issue is what we do from here. There are only two answers. Resist, or leave. If you don't think the concerns of 9 million Californians matter, and those of 70,000 deceived voters in the Rust Belt are the only ones who do matter, that attitude is a good recipe for secession. Only 32% of California voters wanted the Drumpenfuhrer. We voted that way to send a powerful message. Message sent. We repudiate the Drumpenfuhrer, and he is not our president. We reject the CEO of America Inc.
I've never owned a slave or employed a slave or seen a slave during our lifetime. We heard you, Clinton won California by the same amount of votes as she's winning the popular vote. I feel for you. I felt the same way about Obama. I never viewed Obama as being my president either.
Posts: 1,970
Threads: 6
Joined: Sep 2016
(12-02-2016, 04:32 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: (12-02-2016, 01:48 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: (12-02-2016, 12:08 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: (12-01-2016, 07:06 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: (12-01-2016, 06:51 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Give it a year and Clinton will have 100% of the 100 million votes from California.
Ca is counting legally the legal votes from legal citizens. It takes a while to count 14 million plus votes and verify that they are legal votes. Red states that don't care about the people don't take as long, because their method is to make people wait in line while they show ID cards and do all the verification at the polling place.
I went to vote in person early at the registar. I was surprised the huge parking lots were full, and I asked an employee walking along about why the county building was so full, and he said "it's the election." Lots of people work at the registrar's office to make sure the vote is conducted and counted properly. I'm sorry you live in a state where they don't do this, but don't blame California, and please don't believe a word that our stupid president-elect says; he's a total dufus, a scumbag and a dirt ball. And those are kind words for him.
Today the Chron had Bay Area stats on vote by county. Trump was in the 15 - 30% range in the 9 counties. The most conservative was Solano, that was 30ish. SF and Alameda in the teens, most in the low 20s.
I reckon SoCal was similar. Hell, Clinton won Orange County. Freakin' Orange County! There were enough #NeverTrump Reps and Indies there to garner that result. OC does not have enough Dems for that result.
Warren just cannot accept the nauseating, visceral reactions that many here in CA had to Trump. We have a real divide now between the Far West and many other places.
I live in a sanctuary city which voted 10% Trump, in a state which voted 30% Trump. I know all about the nauseating, visceral reactions to Trump and also how irrational they are. Heck, I spent hours talking my dad down.
However OC presents a conundrum for your world view here. OC is not the typical "Country Club Republican Zone."
So what were some of the types of OC Reps who went for Trump? I don't know for certain, but anecdotally, I can name some examples who may provide some clues:
- An owner of a thriving small business in Santa Ana whose clientele ranges from scrappy Mexican migrants to wealthy old money people who live in Anaheim Hills.
- An immigrant from South Asia who has made a very good accounting of his professional engineering skills working on projects ranging from private parking structures to major transportation infrastructure
- Another immigrant from South Asia who's done a successful series of DoD focused tech start ups
- An immigrant from SE Asia who has a booming small entertainment company (think, videos for bands that you might encounter on YouTube)
- A former citrus orchardist who sold off land during the 1970s and became an early retired philanthropist.
Do you honestly believe that all of these people were irrational? Or perhaps, there were other reasons they opted, as I also did, to be among the #NeverTrump people on The Right.
They might all have been irrational, sure. It's hard to tell from the limited information provided.
Some might also have had rational reasons for voting against Trump. For example, if much of the clientele for one's business were composed of illegal aliens, one would have a very rational reason for voting against Trump. It would be a dollars and cents reason, though, not visceral nausea.
Pretty much by definition, voting based on a visceral reaction is irrational.
Posts: 1,970
Threads: 6
Joined: Sep 2016
(12-02-2016, 04:39 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: (12-02-2016, 03:16 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: (12-02-2016, 02:56 PM)Odin Wrote: The problem with your reasoning is that Clinton WAS the moderate.
The reason the left lost was because they thought Clinton was in any way moderate.
No, it's mostly because Clinton sucked in general as a candidate. Poor ability to connect (that's typically something hard wired into a person's brain, they either have it or they don't). Lots of baggage due to association with Slick Willie. Plus other issues (especially when compared with an obvious "knows how to energize and connect with the crowd" sales puke like Trump).
Now, speaking of polity and ideology, it was actually Clinton's perceived associations with corporate people, the Establishment, what have you - in other words, what revolutionaries and other radicals term "the oligarchy" - that also harmed her. In an election where it was all about crowds carrying pitchforks (figuratively speaking), someone as ordinary and milquetoast as Clinton had a serious headwind. Obviously she could not overcome it. It was anything but radicalism / New Left / Far Left ideology that did Clinton in.
You don't have to be radical to be extreme.
I agree that much of Clinton's extremism was in her degree of service to the establishment elites. The Democrats have been the party of "the oligarchy" for some time - just look how the centers of "the oligarchy", like New York City, are the bluest of blue. However, Clinton took sacrificing of the interests of the common man for the benefit of "the oligarchy" to the extreme.
Posts: 1,216
Threads: 29
Joined: May 2016
12-02-2016, 11:07 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-02-2016, 11:08 PM by Odin.)
(12-02-2016, 05:31 PM)playwrite Wrote: (12-02-2016, 04:39 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: (12-02-2016, 03:16 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: (12-02-2016, 02:56 PM)Odin Wrote: The problem with your reasoning is that Clinton WAS the moderate.
The reason the left lost was because they thought Clinton was in any way moderate.
No, it's mostly because Clinton sucked in general as a candidate. Poor ability to connect (that's typically something hard wired into a person's brain, they either have it or they don't). Lots of baggage due to association with Slick Willie. Plus other issues (especially when compared with an obvious "knows how to energize and connect with the crowd" sales puke like Trump).
Now, speaking of polity and ideology, it was actually Clinton's perceived associations with corporate people, the Establishment, what have you - in other words, what revolutionaries and other radicals term "the oligarchy" - that also harmed her. In an election where it was all about crowds carrying pitchforks (figuratively speaking), someone as ordinary and milquetoast as Clinton had a serious headwind. Obviously she could not overcome it. It was anything but radicalism / New Left / Far Left ideology that did Clinton in.
Clinton's popular vote victory over Trump is approaching and likely to exceed 3 million, close if not exceeding the margin that Bush bested Kerry with. This wasn't a question of Clinton's popularity with a majority of voters; it's that very few outside of Trump could believe so many people in the midWest would let themselves become Trump Chumps. Trump knew because all grifters know their marks.
From street hustlers to billion dollar a year hedge fund managers, my city is stuff with shXtheads like Trump. We tried to warn the chumps but they were too caught up in their Clinton Hate Derangement Syndrome.
Some of the Chumps have started growing a brain -
The Trump Faithful Are Already Expressing Buyer's Remorse
- but too bad, so sad, it's too late.
With the coming devastation to their health coverage, many of them are literally going to die as a result of being Trump Chumps. Maybe now what they had in mind for their drain the swamp meme, ey? 
A lot of that popular vote lead came from voters in California, and so was worth fuck-all because of the electoral college. We lost because of a few thousand voters in the rust belt. And why did we lose by a few thousand votes in the rust belt? Because Clinton could not shake off her past association with free trade deals.
Hopefully Keith Ellison can knock some sense into all the morons who didn't see this coming.
#MakeTheDemocratsGreatAgain
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
Reading those tweets Playwrite linked to, it's amazing the people can be so fooled. They wanted the things Hillary stood for, but voted for Trump, as if they didn't "know this man" as Keith Olberman said. Trump chumps; they've been had by all the lies about Hillary.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
12-03-2016, 05:06 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-03-2016, 05:07 PM by Eric the Green.)
![[Image: merling-baker-electoral-2016-11-fig-1.png?1479237221]](http://images.dailykos.com/images/328054/story_image/merling-baker-electoral-2016-11-fig-1.png?1479237221)
The Electoral College isn’t just undemocratic, as watching the second-place candidate in the popular vote become president-elect has reminded us. It’s also racially biased. Not just in the historical sense that it was founded on slavery, but concretely in the present day, as the graph above shows. Lara Merling and Dean Baker lay it out: The Electoral College, like the Senate, is biased toward small states. And guess what?
The states that are overrepresented in the Electoral College also happen to be less diverse than the country as a whole. Wyoming is 84 percent white, North Dakota is 86 percent white, and Rhode Island is 74 percent white, while in California only 38 percent of the population is white, in Florida 55 percent, and in Texas 43 percent. [...]
African American votes on average have a weight that is 95 percent as much as white votes, Hispanic votes are on average 91 percent, and Asian American votes, 93 percent as much of a white vote. In the Electoral College, white votes matter more.
And that’s one more reason for Republicans to defend the Electoral College.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/11/25...hite-power
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
12-03-2016, 05:12 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-03-2016, 07:17 PM by Eric the Green.)
(12-02-2016, 08:21 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: (12-02-2016, 04:39 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: (12-02-2016, 03:16 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: (12-02-2016, 02:56 PM)Odin Wrote: The problem with your reasoning is that Clinton WAS the moderate.
The reason the left lost was because they thought Clinton was in any way moderate.
No, it's mostly because Clinton sucked in general as a candidate. Poor ability to connect (that's typically something hard wired into a person's brain, they either have it or they don't). Lots of baggage due to association with Slick Willie. Plus other issues (especially when compared with an obvious "knows how to energize and connect with the crowd" sales puke like Trump).
Now, speaking of polity and ideology, it was actually Clinton's perceived associations with corporate people, the Establishment, what have you - in other words, what revolutionaries and other radicals term "the oligarchy" - that also harmed her. In an election where it was all about crowds carrying pitchforks (figuratively speaking), someone as ordinary and milquetoast as Clinton had a serious headwind. Obviously she could not overcome it. It was anything but radicalism / New Left / Far Left ideology that did Clinton in.
You don't have to be radical to be extreme.
I agree that much of Clinton's extremism was in her degree of service to the establishment elites. The Democrats have been the party of "the oligarchy" for some time - just look how the centers of "the oligarchy", like New York City, are the bluest of blue. However, Clinton took sacrificing of the interests of the common man for the benefit of "the oligarchy" to the extreme.
Calling her The Establishment was brilliant campaign deception, and the media fell for it hook, line and sinker. She does not serve the Establishment, although she made some money off of it. The Republicans are the party of the oligarchy, and have been for some time, yes. But reversing the truth in such a blatant way is always a favorite tactic of trickle-downers.
Hillary took sacrificing the interests of the oligarchy for the interests of the common man to new levels. Sanders would have done her one better. But now we have installed a member of the oligarchy to do its exclusive bidding. Thank you, deceivers, and deceived, for nothing!
Warren, you truly surpassed yourself with that one. Amazing!
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
Can Hillary still win? It's a long shot, but Stein is asking for a recount in PA, and more counties including Philly still have some votes to turn in. If it falls below .05% a recount is automatic. Otherwise maybe not. With the over 20,000 votes less in Trump's margin recently, it's possible. Michigan will recount unless Trump's lawyers can stop it; WI is going forward. Plus, at least 6 electors may flip. Who knows? My prediction could be right yet! (and then I'd have to re-correct my database backwards all over again! Lots of work!) Recounts galore. 2000 all over again. The only way Republicans can win, is this way.
It's funny tho; the lady who may have cost Hillary the election (depending on how you figure or analyze it), is now trying to save it for her. Ironies. Mr. Cobb tried this for Kerry in OH too in 2004. Oh well, my Green Party, what can I say 
Posts: 1,970
Threads: 6
Joined: Sep 2016
What's that? More counties in Philly have filled out more votes to turn in, you say?
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
More votes to count, silly. And you know if they are from Philly, that they will be Hillary votes.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
12-03-2016, 07:39 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-03-2016, 07:40 PM by Eric the Green.)
All kinds of things are possible, as well as letting Trump reduce our country to a banana republic forever. Maybe the electors flip and throw their support to Hillary, or to Mike Pence instead. Maybe it goes into the House, and they decide the same. Maybe Trump gets impeached if he clearly breaks the law in a major way, and Pence is president. And you know, Pence has a much lower horoscope score than Trump; that's an opening for possible recovery in 2020!
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
(12-02-2016, 01:48 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: (12-02-2016, 12:08 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: (12-01-2016, 07:06 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: (12-01-2016, 06:51 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: (12-01-2016, 06:28 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Wow, the margin is approaching 2%, has passed 2.5 million, and California has surpassed Hawaii in the % of the vote for Hillary.
Give it a year and Clinton will have 100% of the 100 million votes from California.
Ca is counting legally the legal votes from legal citizens. It takes a while to count 14 million plus votes and verify that they are legal votes. Red states that don't care about the people don't take as long, because their method is to make people wait in line while they show ID cards and do all the verification at the polling place.
I went to vote in person early at the registar. I was surprised the huge parking lots were full, and I asked an employee walking along about why the county building was so full, and he said "it's the election." Lots of people work at the registrar's office to make sure the vote is conducted and counted properly. I'm sorry you live in a state where they don't do this, but don't blame California, and please don't believe a word that our stupid president-elect says; he's a total dufus, a scumbag and a dirt ball. And those are kind words for him.
Today the Chron had Bay Area stats on vote by county. Trump was in the 15 - 30% range in the 9 counties. The most conservative was Solano, that was 30ish. SF and Alameda in the teens, most in the low 20s.
I reckon SoCal was similar. Hell, Clinton won Orange County. Freakin' Orange County! There were enough #NeverTrump Reps and Indies there to garner that result. OC does not have enough Dems for that result.
Warren just cannot accept the nauseating, visceral reactions that many here in CA had to Trump. We have a real divide now between the Far West and many other places.
I live in a sanctuary city which voted 10% Trump, in a state which voted 30% Trump. I know all about the nauseating, visceral reactions to Trump and also how irrational they are. Heck, I spent hours talking my dad down.
I feel for your Dad. Do you think possibly that people have a nauseating, visceral reaction to Trump because Trump is viscerally nauseating in the extreme? Given the fact that Trump IS that, such a reaction to it is perfectly natural.
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
(12-03-2016, 05:06 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
The Electoral College isn’t just undemocratic, as watching the second-place candidate in the popular vote become president-elect has reminded us. It’s also racially biased. Not just in the historical sense that it was founded on slavery, but concretely in the present day, as the graph above shows. Lara Merling and Dean Baker lay it out: The Electoral College, like the Senate, is biased toward small states. And guess what?
The states that are overrepresented in the Electoral College also happen to be less diverse than the country as a whole. Wyoming is 84 percent white, North Dakota is 86 percent white, and Rhode Island is 74 percent white, while in California only 38 percent of the population is white, in Florida 55 percent, and in Texas 43 percent. [...]
African American votes on average have a weight that is 95 percent as much as white votes, Hispanic votes are on average 91 percent, and Asian American votes, 93 percent as much of a white vote. In the Electoral College, white votes matter more.
And that’s one more reason for Republicans to defend the Electoral College.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/11/25...hite-power
We understand that the American system that's in place does not favor the blues politically. We understand that blues want to remove the American system that is in place. We understand it and understand why blues want do it and have a fairly good grasp of what types of systems they'd be replacing it with and so on. Why not, you ask... What's wrong, you ask...The answers are pretty simple once you understand that we understand and are aware of your sides political motives and intents relevant to the future of America.
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
(12-03-2016, 07:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: (12-02-2016, 01:48 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: (12-02-2016, 12:08 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: (12-01-2016, 07:06 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: (12-01-2016, 06:51 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Give it a year and Clinton will have 100% of the 100 million votes from California.
Ca is counting legally the legal votes from legal citizens. It takes a while to count 14 million plus votes and verify that they are legal votes. Red states that don't care about the people don't take as long, because their method is to make people wait in line while they show ID cards and do all the verification at the polling place.
I went to vote in person early at the registar. I was surprised the huge parking lots were full, and I asked an employee walking along about why the county building was so full, and he said "it's the election." Lots of people work at the registrar's office to make sure the vote is conducted and counted properly. I'm sorry you live in a state where they don't do this, but don't blame California, and please don't believe a word that our stupid president-elect says; he's a total dufus, a scumbag and a dirt ball. And those are kind words for him.
Today the Chron had Bay Area stats on vote by county. Trump was in the 15 - 30% range in the 9 counties. The most conservative was Solano, that was 30ish. SF and Alameda in the teens, most in the low 20s.
I reckon SoCal was similar. Hell, Clinton won Orange County. Freakin' Orange County! There were enough #NeverTrump Reps and Indies there to garner that result. OC does not have enough Dems for that result.
Warren just cannot accept the nauseating, visceral reactions that many here in CA had to Trump. We have a real divide now between the Far West and many other places.
I live in a sanctuary city which voted 10% Trump, in a state which voted 30% Trump. I know all about the nauseating, visceral reactions to Trump and also how irrational they are. Heck, I spent hours talking my dad down.
I feel for your Dad. Do you think possibly that people have a nauseating, visceral reaction to Trump because Trump is viscerally nauseating in the extreme? Given the fact that Trump IS that, such a reaction to it is perfectly natural.
I think they figure that they're going end being screwed by Trumps election big time. I suppose that he could have had a lot of emotion invested in Hilary winning too.
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
(12-03-2016, 07:01 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: What's that? More counties in Philly have filled out more votes to turn in, you say?
or a box old write in's from 2008'?
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
I think that I am going to get about the same feeling about Donald Trump that many Cubans got about Fidel Castro. The personality cult is already forming. The propaganda is numbing. Castro posed as a Robin Hood, and Trump is the Sheriff of Nottingham.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
(12-03-2016, 11:36 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (12-03-2016, 05:06 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
The Electoral College isn’t just undemocratic, as watching the second-place candidate in the popular vote become president-elect has reminded us. It’s also racially biased. Not just in the historical sense that it was founded on slavery, but concretely in the present day, as the graph above shows. Lara Merling and Dean Baker lay it out: The Electoral College, like the Senate, is biased toward small states. And guess what?
The states that are overrepresented in the Electoral College also happen to be less diverse than the country as a whole. Wyoming is 84 percent white, North Dakota is 86 percent white, and Rhode Island is 74 percent white, while in California only 38 percent of the population is white, in Florida 55 percent, and in Texas 43 percent. [...]
African American votes on average have a weight that is 95 percent as much as white votes, Hispanic votes are on average 91 percent, and Asian American votes, 93 percent as much of a white vote. In the Electoral College, white votes matter more.
And that’s one more reason for Republicans to defend the Electoral College.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/11/25...hite-power
We understand that the American system that's in place does not favor the blues politically. We understand that blues want to remove the American system that is in place. We understand it and understand why blues want do it and have a fairly good grasp of what types of systems they'd be replacing it with and so on. Why not, you ask... What's wrong, you ask...The answers are pretty simple once you understand that we understand and are aware of your sides political motives and intents relevant to the future of America.
Just from the nature of the system I talked about replacing, it would seem that you think our motives are to abolish slavery; and you'd be right.
Our difference is only that you resent poor people getting government benefits. Get over it.
Posts: 1,970
Threads: 6
Joined: Sep 2016
(12-04-2016, 12:13 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (12-03-2016, 07:01 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: What's that? More counties in Philly have filled out more votes to turn in, you say?
or a box old write in's from 2008'?
Exactly.
|
