If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Here’s Rothdawg acknowledging you won, the day of, unlike some of you pussies did in 2016.
605 Turf Lane
Conshohocken PA 19428
Hey friend, can you deny this? Hilary conceded, Trump isn't... it's the difference between an adult and a petulant child...a real pussy move if you ask me.
Oh, and BTW, since 1988, GOP has won the popular vote twice out of nine presidential elections...
Hey friend, can you deny this? Hilary conceded, Trump isn't... it's the difference between an adult and a petulant child...a real pussy move if you ask me.
Oh, and BTW, since 1988, GOP has won the popular vote twice out of nine presidential elections...
Not conceding because he has not lost yet, media does not decide who wins and loses the voters do.
Not conceding because he has not lost yet, media does not decide who wins and loses the voters do.
To my surprise, I agree with dumbfather. Who cares whether the President concedes? Who cares when? This President has done nothing "regular way," why would this be any different? The only thing I have a problem with and it's a big problem is the narrative that there was absolutely unequivocally fraud in the election. I've looked at a lot of the detail on these cases and except for one, they are (in the words of the King, not King Slag), "a joke." The only exception is the PA case about the change in counting ballots that were received after election day. Changing the statute without changing the statute is consititutionally questionable and the SCOTUS won't allow it. You could argue that the fundamental right of voting would allow them to change it but as a judicial conservative, I would say it was not constitutional. Having said that, the counties didn't count those votes anyway and there weren't enough of them to change a thing, so...
Let the President do his thing, let him bring the goods in court if he's got them. But you'll already notice the bleating sheep are already switching the narrative to "the Deep State won't allow a fair count" instead of the previous "there was definite fraud." The former is unprovable. The latter is entirely disprovable.
To my surprise, I agree with dumbfather. Who cares whether the President concedes? Who cares when? This President has done nothing "regular way," why would this be any different? The only thing I have a problem with and it's a big problem is the narrative that there was absolutely unequivocally fraud in the election. I've looked at a lot of the detail on these cases and except for one, they are (in the words of the King, not King Slag), "a joke." The only exception is the PA case about the change in counting ballots that were received after election day. Changing the statute without changing the statute is consititutionally questionable and the SCOTUS won't allow it. You could argue that the fundamental right of voting would allow them to change it but as a judicial conservative, I would say it was not constitutional. Having said that, the counties didn't count those votes anyway and there weren't enough of them to change a thing, so...
Let the President do his thing, let him bring the goods in court if he's got them. But you'll already notice the bleating sheep are already switching the narrative to "the Deep State won't allow a fair count" instead of the previous "there was definite fraud." The former is unprovable. The latter is entirely disprovable.
If everyone jumped the gun like you, there would be 17 million dead minks today.
Comment