“Trump destroyed Hillary in the electoral college”
His margin of victory in 3 key state was a combined 77,000. He barley won those states, yet you make it sound like it was a blowout.
Less people voted for Trump than Hillary and even less in total, yet the Cult acts as if the majority supports him. So delusional. Largest inauguration crowd. - Steven_Seagull
Um, don't recall anyone saying "majority" anything. But thanks for sharing! Great argument! Thats sound logic! Less people voted for Trump and even less in totality??? How do you get "even less" from "less"???
The delusion lies on the left because of it's utter hatred and contempt for Trump, nothing more, nothing less.
Difficult to see clearly when hate dominates ones thoughts. So I guess the bottom line is that even democrats and the left are tired of the crooked politicians that represent them if someone as "deplorable" as Donald J Trump could get elected over an American treasure like Billary!
BTW, Hillary won Minnesota by a paltry 43k votes. She won 9 of 87 counties. A state that hasn't gone red in decades... . Pretty sure that's a sign of some sort...
Oh, okay... well half of the voter turnout, how's that? BTW, might want to present actual stats when trying to counter point someone.... just saying
According to the United States Election Project, an average of 59.7 percent of eligible voters cast their ballots in 2016. Compare that to President Barack Obama‘s re-election in 2012, when 58.6 percent of eligible voters cast ballots—or 2000’s presidential election, which saw just 54.2 percent turn out to the polls. So more voters actually turned out than in the past 2 presidential elections.
Popular vote Trump - 62,984,825(not 40 mill). Hillary - 65,853,516
Clearly you can see that contrary to popular belief, Hillary barely edged Trump in the popular vote category by less than 3 million votes nationwide.
Trump destroyed Hillary in the electoral college turning several states Red for the first time in decades. Minnesota almost being one of them.
Proof positive that average Americans tired of politics as usual. - MnGump
Ok sorry, those numbers were off the top of my head. Still, 62 million votes is way less than half of votes actually casted. (3 million less than Hillary plus those who voted 3rd party,) and considering the percentage of people who actually voted is WAAAYYY less than "Half of the population" which you claim support trump.
Regarding the economy, you obviously ignored the fact that when Bush left office, we had a disaster of a housing market, record highs in unemployment and lows in job growth. To pretend that Obama didn't pull us out of that, and that trump has somehow magically fixed the economy in less than a year, even though it is agreed by all professionals that a President literally CANNOT have an impact on the economy in their first year, is just childish man
Location: AUSTON MATTHEWS IS A LEAF Joined: 03.03.2016
Oct 23 @ 1:12 PM ET
Ok sorry, those numbers were off the top of my head. Still, 62 million votes is way less than half of votes actually casted. (3 million less than Hillary plus those who voted 3rd party,) and considering the percentage of people who actually voted is WAAAYYY less than "Half of the population" which you claim support trump.
Regarding the economy, you obviously ignored the fact that when Bush left office, we had a disaster of a housing market, record highs in unemployment and lows in job growth. To pretend that Obama didn't pull us out of that, and that trump has somehow magically fixed the economy in less than a year, even though it is agreed by all professionals that a President literally CANNOT have an impact on the economy in their first year, is just childish man - gypsypunk01
Blame Clinton (D) for Bush Sr.’s (R) economy. Praise Bush Jr. (R) for Clinton’s (D) economy. Blame Obama (D) for Bush Jr.’s (R) economy. Praise Trump (R) for Obama’s (D) economy.
Location: The centre of the hockey universe Joined: 07.31.2006
Oct 23 @ 1:27 PM ET
Blame Clinton (D) for Bush Sr.’s (R) economy. Praise Bush Jr. (R) for Clinton’s (D) economy. Blame Obama (D) for Bush Jr.’s (R) economy. Praise Trump (R) for Obama’s (D) economy.
Location: say it aint so TARASENKO, YT Joined: 01.07.2008
Oct 23 @ 2:06 PM ET
Um, don't recall anyone saying "majority" anything. But thanks for sharing! Great argument! Thats sound logic! Less people voted for Trump and even less in totality??? How do you get "even less" from "less"???
The delusion lies on the left because of it's utter hatred and contempt for Trump, nothing more, nothing less.
Difficult to see clearly when hate dominates ones thoughts. So I guess the bottom line is that even democrats and the left are tired of the crooked politicians that represent them if someone as "deplorable" as Donald J Trump could get elected over an American treasure like Billary!
BTW, Hillary won Minnesota by a paltry 43k votes. She won 9 of 87 counties. A state that hasn't gone red in decades... . Pretty sure that's a sign of some sort... - MnGump
Ok sorry, those numbers were off the top of my head. Still, 62 million votes is way less than half of votes actually casted. (3 million less than Hillary plus those who voted 3rd party,) and considering the percentage of people who actually voted is WAAAYYY less than "Half of the population" which you claim support trump.
Regarding the economy, you obviously ignored the fact that when Bush left office, we had a disaster of a housing market, record highs in unemployment and lows in job growth. To pretend that Obama didn't pull us out of that, and that trump has somehow magically fixed the economy in less than a year, even though it is agreed by all professionals that a President literally CANNOT have an impact on the economy in their first year, is just childish man - gypsypunk01
LOL! Yeah man! I'm just childish because I'm not left leaning and I disagree with you! Jeez.
You want to continue to split hairs, fine... Hillary got 48%, Trump got 46%... wooo hooo! No that's not half of the US population, you're right, can't argue that... but it is essentially half of the votor turn out. You want to squabble about percentages when it's that close, by all means knock yourself out...
Bottom line is that both major party candidates got less than half the total votes tallied only separated by about 2.8 million votes. The difference of one medium to large metropolitan area. I guess if you, Hillary and her constituents want to celebrate winning the popular vote by just a little more than 2% of the vote total than by all means! #Moral victory
So whatever that's worth to you...
There is a HUGE difference between changing your mind and being wrong and being a homer.
Also I don't read your work religiously, I have never actually fully read one of your blogs because you drift off constantly into irrelevant topics. I also come for the chance to bash you and frankly you make it so easy with how bad your opinions are. I think I have been on this site for 5 years now, not 100% and I remember only 2 times I have ever agreed with something you said. Every other time its complete nonsense. - xShoot4WarAmpsx
Still, looks like you did an awful lot of research to prove a somewhat weak point to someone you don't read or respect, seems like a huge waste of your time if your opinion of him is so low.
Still, looks like you did an awful lot of research to prove a somewhat weak point to someone you don't read or respect, seems like a huge waste of your time if your opinion of him is so low. - Girouxsalem90
Never underestimate the amount of effort people will go through in order to one up someone else in a meaningless argument on the internet.
Unless you are counting 2 games as your sample size.
He has like 260 assists in 200 something games in the OHL.
If that isn't making your teammates better I don't know what is. - classic321
Yeah but Tanner said Strome hasn't played well enough to stick in the NHL because of his quality of linemates. What he did in the OHl is not relevant in that context.
Once traded he was the worst dman in the league. You actually go out in state in this article December 5th 2015 that the Coyotes should trade OEL. You also mention in that article that the team has 1 great player(OEL), two decent ones and some duds. Yandle was not traded until March of 2015 which means he was on this team.
2) In the first article about how Yandle was great you also mentioned and I quote "While I am happy to see Doan move on and play in the Playoffs and go for a Cup, I really want the Coyotes to keep Yandle, even though I admit I'm tempted to see what he could bring in."
Then in the link below you flip flop and basically refer to Doan as Canadian Jesus
LOL! Yeah man! I'm just childish because I'm not left leaning and I disagree with you! Jeez.
You want to continue to split hairs, fine... Hillary got 48%, Trump got 46%... wooo hooo! No that's not half of the US population, you're right, can't argue that... but it is essentially half of the votor turn out. You want to squabble about percentages when it's that close, by all means knock yourself out...
Bottom line is that both major party candidates got less than half the total votes tallied only separated by about 2.8 million votes. The difference of one medium to large metropolitan area. I guess if you, Hillary and her constituents want to celebrate winning the popular vote by just a little more than 2% of the vote total than by all means! #Moral victory
So whatever that's worth to you... - MnGump
You're not disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with reality.
Obama pulled us out of Bush's terrible economy.
It's literally impossible for a first year President to impact it.
Those are facts.
Thinking trump has magically saved the economy is not only childish but mind- numbingly stupid.
Wow! That is a lot of research work done out of pure spite alone. - Dcoms
LOL It looks harder than it was. I just googled James Tanner and [Insert players name]. Always came up as one of the top few but yes, pure uncontaminated spite!
Location: Pretentious Beer Snob, ON Joined: 06.22.2015
Oct 23 @ 5:50 PM ET
77,000 votes in 3 states. That’s it.
Proof positive that average Americans are idiots. - Steven_Seagull
Or proof positive that people really, reallllly hate Hillary. If Satan himself had been the Democrat nominee he'd be the POTUS right now (albeit, some might question whether Trump IS Satan).
You're not disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with reality.
Obama pulled us out of Bush's terrible economy. It's literally impossible for a first year President to impact it.
Those are facts.
Thinking trump has magically saved the economy is not only childish but mind- numbingly stupid. - gypsypunk01
I call bullpoop. Where did this one year thing come from? The first tick on my bullpoop detector is from the arbitrary figure of one year. If someone did some massive study on this, doesn't it seem more likely we'd have a messy number like 1 year, 2 months, and 10 days? Did they just round it to a year so it was easier to discuss in conversation?
The second tick on my bullpoop detector is because things that happen can impact the economy within a freaking day. Entire business sectors can be immediately impacted when a certain story breaks out, such as that a leader in said sector declares bankruptcy, or a lot of the biggest banks in the country are suddenly demanding a bailout to save them from collapse... There was a shift in the market as soon as Trump was elected. Was this coincidence? It might not have been intentional on his part, but it does prove it doesn't take some massive slow process spanning a whole year to have an impact on the market.
Last, the idea that only the president currently in power (or his party) is affecting the economy at all is incorrect. He doesn't rule with an iron fist. When deciding on important policies, not only his own party, but the other parties get a say.
A good example would be the collapse of the housing market in 2008.
Bush and his administration predicted the collapse could happen if mortgage companies didn't receive more regulation and oversight years before it occurred, yet was blocked from doing anything by the Democrats - despite Bush being president. One of the main people pushing back, was Democrat Barney Frank, who argued everything was fine and said the government should be encouraging the mortgage giants to do more to "get low income families into homes", which basically means offer loans to people that would have difficulty repaying them... Gee, that sure worked out well. Funny enough, he also mentioned in an offhand comment that "even if there was a problem, the federal government doesn't bail them out."
A quick search found a good video explaining it, which oddly enough was done by a Canadian I think? Anyway, the video is pretty enlightening.
The democrats prevented Bush and his administration from doing anything to prevent the housing market collapse, and then after it occurred they quickly got assistance from most main stream media to blame it all on Bush. Then Obama "saved the economy" by spending an approximate $831 Billion of taxpayer dollars to save the financial giants that his party was instrumental in allowing to fail in the first place. Unbelievable.
Or proof positive that people really, reallllly hate Hillary. If Satan himself had been the Democrat nominee he'd be the POTUS right now (albeit, some might question whether Trump IS Satan). - mjones242
Also if Satan himself ran as a Republican against Hillary, he would have won (after being lauded as the Christian candidate.) Because
A: she's a women and sexism still rules, (my teacher was an election judge and heard guys all day saying "I ain't having a female dog tell me what to do." Etc And
B: Grumble grumble emails grumble somehow led to everyone believing Hillary is a disgusting criminal. (But multiple people in the trump administration are using private email servers for classified intelligence and not a peep from republicans.)
I call bullpoop. Where did this one year thing come from? The first tick on my bullpoop detector is from the arbitrary figure of one year. If someone did some massive study on this, doesn't it seem more likely we'd have a messy number like 1 year, 2 months, and 10 days? Did they just round it to a year so it was easier to discuss in conversation?
The second tick on my bullpoop detector is because things that happen can impact the economy within a freaking day. Entire business sectors can be immediately impacted when a certain story breaks out, such as that a leader in said sector declares bankruptcy, or a lot of the biggest banks in the country are suddenly demanding a bailout to save them from collapse... There was a shift in the market as soon as Trump was elected. Was this coincidence? It might not have been intentional on his part, but it does prove it doesn't take some massive slow process spanning a whole year to have an impact on the market.
Last, the idea that only the president currently in power (or his party) is affecting the economy at all is incorrect. He doesn't rule with an iron fist. When deciding on important policies, not only his own party, but the other parties get a say.
A good example would be the collapse of the housing market in 2008.
Bush and his administration predicted the collapse could happen if mortgage companies didn't receive more regulation and oversight years before it occurred, yet was blocked from doing anything by the Democrats - despite Bush being president. One of the main people pushing back, was Democrat Barney Frank, who argued everything was fine and said the government should be encouraging the mortgage giants to do more to "get low income families into homes", which basically means offer loans to people that would have difficulty repaying them... Gee, that sure worked out well. Funny enough, he also mentioned in an offhand comment that "even if there was a problem, the federal government doesn't bail them out."
A quick search found a good video explaining it, which oddly enough was done by a Canadian I think? Anyway, the video is pretty enlightening.
- Thecakeisalie
It's a general rounded number that economists agree on.
It seems like you're talking about how wallstreet can be affected on the daily, whereas I'm talking about job growth, unemployment rates and national debt; metrics that are spread out over time and are more useful in determining how the economy is doing. Wallstreet can ping pong quite a bit without impacting underlying economic currents. Those things are obviously long-term and inherited from the previous administration, so people lauding trumps impact on those numbers are clearly delusional.
Also if Satan himself ran as a Republican against Hillary, he would have won (after being lauded as the Christian candidate.) Because
A: she's a women and sexism still rules, (my teacher was an election judge and heard guys all day saying "I ain't having a female dog tell me what to do." Etc And
B: Grumble grumble emails grumble somehow led to everyone believing Hillary is a disgusting criminal. (But multiple people in the trump administration are using private email servers for classified intelligence and not a peep from republicans.) - gypsypunk01
A) I guess we all better bow down to the wisdom of some former teacher of yours. If she says all the men are sexist it must be true. She couldn't have exaggerated, and surely her one experience is a good sample size for the entire country.
B) There is still new evidence coming out about the Clinton investigation. Just a few days ago we learned that Comey drafted a letter to exonerate Clinton before the investigation was even finished. People that worked under Comey have come forward with evidence including a copy of this letter.
Both officials said under oath that Comey circulated the first draft of a statement clearing Clinton in April or May of last year, even though Clinton wasn’t interviewed until July 2. Just three days later, Comey publicly cleared the Democratic nominee of any criminal charges.
You can find articles about this on many networks now. I easily found some on both CNN and the NY Post.
The idea that Hilary lost the election simply because of sexism is ridiculous. She lost because she insulted a huge portion of society and because many believed her to be an even worse human being than Trump.
It's a general rounded number that economists agree on.
It seems like you're talking about how wallstreet can be affected on the daily, whereas I'm talking about job growth, unemployment rates and national debt; metrics that are spread out over time and are more useful in determining how the economy is doing. Wallstreet can ping pong quite a bit without impacting underlying economic currents. Those things are obviously long-term and inherited from the previous administration, so people lauding trumps impact on those numbers are clearly delusional. - gypsypunk01
I see you ignored the third point, which is that sometimes the decisions made are not what the current President or his administration wants. But sure, keep blaming Bush for the 2008 collapse in spite of clear evidence the Democrats prevented him from doing anything about it even though he was raising alarms about the problem for years.
Location: avid reader of the daily douche news Joined: 03.14.2014
Oct 23 @ 6:58 PM ET
It's a general rounded number that economists agree on.
It seems like you're talking about how wallstreet can be affected on the daily, whereas I'm talking about job growth, unemployment rates and national debt; metrics that are spread out over time and are more useful in determining how the economy is doing. Wallstreet can ping pong quite a bit without impacting underlying economic currents. Those things are obviously long-term and inherited from the previous administration, so people lauding trumps impact on those numbers are clearly delusional. - gypsypunk01
so how long then is it before new policies are have a greater impact on these things than old policies?
