In Defense of Trump

[GH2001]

Kaos mentioned Hillary's dusty jizz canal. I think I just threw up a bit

Chiz - short answer to your question? Because it's Donald trump. It's who he is. It's who he will always be. It's his personality. Not sure why you guys are surprised. Not saying it's right or even not to the point where it cant be annoying but it's him. You've gotta get past at it at some point. Some felt the same about Obama in other ways. But in the end they are personality conflicts. And it's a complete waste of time to get bogged down in it.

[dallaswareagle]

Kaos mentioned Hillary's dusty jizz canal. I think I just threw up a bit

Chiz - short answer to your question? Because it's Donald trump. It's who he is. It's who he will always be. It's his personality. Not sure why you guys are surprised. Not saying it's right or even not to the point where it cant be annoying but it's him. You've gotta get past at it at some point. Some felt the same about Obama in other ways. But in the end they are personality conflicts. And it's a complete waste of time to get bogged down in it.

After a while, in the beginning, I think like most folks I had hoped he would be a difference maker, all that shit went out the window when he accused the cops of "acting foolishly" before he had all the facts. I wish that cop had told him to go fuck himself and would not be at the beer summit till he apologized for being wrong. (The first of many wrongs)

[wesfau2]

How many millions of illegal votes were there in California?  I dare you to define it.  Could it be two million?  Four million?  You betcha.   

Every. Single. Valid. Study. On. Voter. Fraud. Has. Produced. Bupkus.

There is no such terrifying problem.

There have been two instances of voter fraud uncovered in the 2016 election.  Both were women who voted for Trump multiple times.

[Kaos]

Every. Single. Valid. Study. On. Voter. Fraud. Has. Produced. Bupkus.

There is no such terrifying problem.

There have been two instances of voter fraud uncovered in the 2016 election.  Both were women who voted for Trump multiple times.

[dallaswareagle]

Every. Single. Valid. Study. On. Voter. Fraud. Has. Produced. Bupkus.

There is no such terrifying problem.

There have been two instances of voter fraud uncovered in the 2016 election.  Both were women who voted for Trump multiple times.

You really need to open your mind to something besides CNN, and MSNBC. Highly doubt all those extra votes were for trump.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/12/records-many-votes-detroits-precincts/95363314/   

Detailed reports from the office of Wayne County Clerk Cathy Garrett show optical scanners at 248 of the city’s 662 precincts, or 37 percent, tabulated more ballots than the number of voters tallied by workers in the poll books. Voting irregularities in Detroit have spurred plans for an audit by Michigan Secretary of State Ruth Johnson’s office, Elections Director Chris Thomas said Monday.

[AUChizad]

he was talking about as a Republican candidate.  geez.

You beat me to it.

George HW Bush had 426 in 1988.

Only ONE Republican since Reagan had less electoral college votes than Trump. Out of 2.

 

[Kaos]

George HW Bush had 426 in 1988.

Only ONE Republican since Reagan had less electoral college votes than Trump. Out of 2.

 

What difference, at this point, does it make?

[dallaswareagle]

What difference, at this point, does it make?

You need to be wearing green and screaming to make that point. Also lying about a video would help.

[Snaggletiger]

Every. Single. Valid. Study. On. Voter. Fraud. Has. Produced. Bupkus.

There is no such terrifying problem.

There have been two instances of voter fraud uncovered in the 2016 election.  Both were women who voted for Trump multiple times.

I don't see what a Hall of Fame Chicago Bears Linebacker has to do with any of this.

[chinook]

George HW Bush had 426 in 1988.

Only ONE Republican since Reagan had less electoral college votes than Trump. Out of 2.

 

oh...who's being naive, Chizad? 

[The Prowler]

What difference, at this point, does it make?

It makes a difference when President Cheeto continues to bring it up...even when no one asks him about it.

Also, he got 304 EC votes, not 306 (7 faithless voters total costed Trump 2 votes and Clinton 5).

[AUChizad]

What difference, at this point, does it make?

oh...who's being naive, Chizad? 

[Kaos]

You shit your pants over the silliest things. 

I agree with every decision he's made to date.  I don't care if he flops his electoral penis out on the table occasionally to see if it's grown.

[The Prowler]

You shit your pants over the silliest things. 

I agree with every decision he's made to date.  I don't care if he flops his electoral penis out on the table occasionally to see if it's grown.

So, you're saying that you're like the majority of inbred bama fans regarding their Lord Saban.

Gulp it down Kaos, gulp it down.

[AUJarhead]

George HW Bush had 426 in 1988.

Only ONE Republican since Reagan had less electoral college votes than Trump. Out of 2.

 

You mean republican winner, right?

Otherwise we would have had a two term Bush, a President Dole and McCain and Romney.

[CCTAU]

So, you're saying that you're like the majority of inbred bama fans regarding their Lord Saban.

Gulp it down Kaos, gulp it down.

One thing is for sure, with either one, you cannot argue with the results.

[AUChizad]

You mean republican winner, right?

Otherwise we would have had a two term Bush, a President Dole and McCain and Romney.

Obviously. That is what we're talking about.

[AUJarhead]

Obviously. That is what we're talking about.

So I'm supposed to infer for you, but not you for Trump.

Got it.

[AUChizad]

So I'm supposed to infer for you, but not you for Trump.

Got it.

I didn't think it was an "inference" since we were talking about comparing the electoral votes of PRESIDENTS, not people who LOST THE PRESIDENCY.

Also, duh shit no one who lost is going to have more electoral votes than someone who won...

[WiregrassTiger]

So I'm supposed to infer for you, but not you for Trump.

Got it.

Yeah buddy. Why don't you take your INFERENCE and sit on it.

Duh. Obviously, you don't know how to properly infer. Moran.