Fucking torn apart.
-
wrote on 7 Nov 2020, 02:50 last edited by
If she got Ilhan Omar and the rest of the squad to help, they could hit 60 events! A Blue Wave!
-
@LuFins-Dad said in Fucking torn apart.:
You know the problem? The Dems that lost didn’t have AOC there to support them. I suggest she visit at least 15 re-election campaign events for her colleagues in 22.
She's going to probably run against Schumer in 2922.
Wouldn't an AOC win be glorious?
wrote on 7 Nov 2020, 02:50 last edited by@Jolly said in Fucking torn apart.:
@LuFins-Dad said in Fucking torn apart.:
You know the problem? The Dems that lost didn’t have AOC there to support them. I suggest she visit at least 15 re-election campaign events for her colleagues in 22.
She's going to probably run against Schumer in 2922.
Wouldn't an AOC win be glorious?
And in the spirit of Mik, as soon as she announces, I'm sending her a check!
-
wrote on 9 Nov 2020, 03:03 last edited by
AOC confirmed my opinion!
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/07/us/politics/aoc-biden-progressives.html
-
wrote on 9 Nov 2020, 03:05 last edited by
Go get 'em, tiger!
-
I’m surprised Spanberger won. Earlier on Tuesday the local network had projected her loss. I often think of @jon-nyc ’s earlier summary of the election...Trump was rejected, but so was the extreme left.
wrote on 9 Nov 2020, 11:32 last edited by@89th said in Fucking torn apart.:
I’m surprised Spanberger won. Earlier on Tuesday the local network had projected her loss. I often think of @jon-nyc ’s earlier summary of the election...Trump was rejected, but so was the extreme left.
Trump may wind up losing, but over 70 million votes does not quite fit the term rejected.
-
@89th said in Fucking torn apart.:
I’m surprised Spanberger won. Earlier on Tuesday the local network had projected her loss. I often think of @jon-nyc ’s earlier summary of the election...Trump was rejected, but so was the extreme left.
Trump may wind up losing, but over 70 million votes does not quite fit the term rejected.
wrote on 9 Nov 2020, 11:41 last edited by@Jolly said in Fucking torn apart.:
Trump may wind up losing, but over 70 million votes does not quite fit the term rejected.
Clearly the nation did not reject Ms. Clinton when she got 66 million votes compared to Trump’s 63 million votes back in 2016.
-
@Jolly said in Fucking torn apart.:
Trump may wind up losing, but over 70 million votes does not quite fit the term rejected.
Clearly the nation did not reject Ms. Clinton when she got 66 million votes compared to Trump’s 63 million votes back in 2016.
wrote on 9 Nov 2020, 12:03 last edited by@Axtremus said in Fucking torn apart.:
@Jolly said in Fucking torn apart.:
Trump may wind up losing, but over 70 million votes does not quite fit the term rejected.
Clearly the nation did not reject Ms. Clinton when she got 66 million votes compared to Trump’s 63 million votes back in 2016.
That might be the funniest post you ever made. It’s as if the last four years didn’t exist. Never in my life have I seen such a concerted effort to reject and unseat a President. Ax, reLly now, some introspection is warranted here.
-
@89th said in Fucking torn apart.:
I’m surprised Spanberger won. Earlier on Tuesday the local network had projected her loss. I often think of @jon-nyc ’s earlier summary of the election...Trump was rejected, but so was the extreme left.
Trump may wind up losing, but over 70 million votes does not quite fit the term rejected.
wrote on 9 Nov 2020, 12:04 last edited by@Jolly said in Fucking torn apart.:
@89th said in Fucking torn apart.:
I’m surprised Spanberger won. Earlier on Tuesday the local network had projected her loss. I often think of @jon-nyc ’s earlier summary of the election...Trump was rejected, but so was the extreme left.
Trump may wind up losing, but over 70 million votes does not quite fit the term rejected.
Fair, agreed. But the concept of a sitting President not winning re-election is not good.
-
@Jolly said in Fucking torn apart.:
@89th said in Fucking torn apart.:
I’m surprised Spanberger won. Earlier on Tuesday the local network had projected her loss. I often think of @jon-nyc ’s earlier summary of the election...Trump was rejected, but so was the extreme left.
Trump may wind up losing, but over 70 million votes does not quite fit the term rejected.
Fair, agreed. But the concept of a sitting President not winning re-election is not good.
wrote on 9 Nov 2020, 15:02 last edited by@89th said in Fucking torn apart.:
@Jolly said in Fucking torn apart.:
@89th said in Fucking torn apart.:
I’m surprised Spanberger won. Earlier on Tuesday the local network had projected her loss. I often think of @jon-nyc ’s earlier summary of the election...Trump was rejected, but so was the extreme left.
Trump may wind up losing, but over 70 million votes does not quite fit the term rejected.
Fair, agreed. But the concept of a sitting President not winning re-election is not good.
Have we ever had a President fight a world-wide pandemic and the most hostile press in the history of the country?
A hostile press is nothing new. Wasn't unusual for the first 125 years or so from America's founding, to have very hostile, competing newspapers in any decent sized town. In a large city, you might have as many as three or four, espousing their views. Many times, the paper proudly proclaimed their views in their name...The Natchez Democrat immediately comes to mind.
In Trump's case, he was fighting almost all of the MSM, and certainly everything on the East Coast. I've seen figures ranging from 5% to 15%, on voters casting votes based on erroneous hostile press. Whether that is true, I do not know.
In an election as close as we just had, the MSM downplayed the role of kingmaker.
Enjoy.
-
@Jolly said in Fucking torn apart.:
@89th said in Fucking torn apart.:
I’m surprised Spanberger won. Earlier on Tuesday the local network had projected her loss. I often think of @jon-nyc ’s earlier summary of the election...Trump was rejected, but so was the extreme left.
Trump may wind up losing, but over 70 million votes does not quite fit the term rejected.
Fair, agreed. But the concept of a sitting President not winning re-election is not good.
wrote on 9 Nov 2020, 15:14 last edited by George K 11 Sept 2020, 15:15 -
wrote on 9 Nov 2020, 15:15 last edited by
And he should have won.
-
wrote on 9 Nov 2020, 15:15 last edited by
-
wrote on 10 Nov 2020, 03:18 last edited by
Trump’s just the 2nd president in the last 39 years not to win re-election and the 4th in like 90 years.
I remember the state of the union address in January. Trump had his re-election locked down. I was very impressed. But he fumbled the pandemic big time, and it cost him plenty of votes. Turns out, he only needed a few of them to have won again. Oh well...
-
Trump’s just the 2nd president in the last 39 years not to win re-election and the 4th in like 90 years.
I remember the state of the union address in January. Trump had his re-election locked down. I was very impressed. But he fumbled the pandemic big time, and it cost him plenty of votes. Turns out, he only needed a few of them to have won again. Oh well...
wrote on 10 Nov 2020, 03:30 last edited by@89th said in Fucking torn apart.:
Trump’s just the 2nd president in the last 39 years not to win re-election and the 4th in like 90 years.
I remember the state of the union address in January. Trump had his re-election locked down. I was very impressed. But he fumbled the pandemic big time, and it cost him plenty of votes. Turns out, he only needed a few of them to have won again. Oh well...
I suspect if the Democrats had fielded a decent candidate, he'd have been trounced.
-
@89th said in Fucking torn apart.:
Trump’s just the 2nd president in the last 39 years not to win re-election and the 4th in like 90 years.
I remember the state of the union address in January. Trump had his re-election locked down. I was very impressed. But he fumbled the pandemic big time, and it cost him plenty of votes. Turns out, he only needed a few of them to have won again. Oh well...
I suspect if the Democrats had fielded a decent candidate, he'd have been trounced.
wrote on 10 Nov 2020, 11:10 last edited by@Doctor-Phibes said in Fucking torn apart.:
@89th said in Fucking torn apart.:
Trump’s just the 2nd president in the last 39 years not to win re-election and the 4th in like 90 years.
I remember the state of the union address in January. Trump had his re-election locked down. I was very impressed. But he fumbled the pandemic big time, and it cost him plenty of votes. Turns out, he only needed a few of them to have won again. Oh well...
I suspect if the Democrats had fielded a decent candidate, he'd have been trounced.
Name one.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Fucking torn apart.:
@89th said in Fucking torn apart.:
Trump’s just the 2nd president in the last 39 years not to win re-election and the 4th in like 90 years.
I remember the state of the union address in January. Trump had his re-election locked down. I was very impressed. But he fumbled the pandemic big time, and it cost him plenty of votes. Turns out, he only needed a few of them to have won again. Oh well...
I suspect if the Democrats had fielded a decent candidate, he'd have been trounced.
Name one.
wrote on 10 Nov 2020, 13:26 last edited by@Jolly said in Fucking torn apart.:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Fucking torn apart.:
@89th said in Fucking torn apart.:
Trump’s just the 2nd president in the last 39 years not to win re-election and the 4th in like 90 years.
I remember the state of the union address in January. Trump had his re-election locked down. I was very impressed. But he fumbled the pandemic big time, and it cost him plenty of votes. Turns out, he only needed a few of them to have won again. Oh well...
I suspect if the Democrats had fielded a decent candidate, he'd have been trounced.
Name one.
That is the problem (in both sides). The best candidates are too smart to want to go through the process. Lol
