President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
Sure it did. I asked the question, posters brought up MAGA cult, said I was disconnected from reality for questioning the results of an election and that Republicans have been going on about it for 9 years or something.
And you think Democrats have also been going on about a "fixed" election for 9 years? Because I haven't heard any doing that.
Yes, I realize that. And it was a big mistake on their part IMO. But they were never a threat to democracy.
My sources tell me that the 2000 election was rigged: Ralph Nader was the legit winner.
My sources tell me that the 2000 election was rigged: Ralph Nader was the legit winner.
Actually, that is the one presidential election that we know for certain was stolen. It is possible he could have come out ahead anyway, but Florida was given to Bush by his brother who happened to be its governor (convenient, huh?) and the Supreme Court, which stopped the recount.
Actually, that is the one presidential election that we know for certain was stolen. It is possible he could have come out ahead anyway, but Florida was given to Bush by his brother who happened to be its governor (convenient, huh?) and the Supreme Court, which stopped the recount.
How can that guy not even know how poor his example is?
Actually, that is the one presidential election that we know for certain was stolen. It is possible he could have come out ahead anyway, but Florida was given to Bush by his brother who happened to be its governor (convenient, huh?) and the Supreme Court, which stopped the recount.
And Gore conceded before the full re-count and ruling after a week, because "he didn't want to undermine the confidence in American elections."
Man... what a different world, and it wasn't that long ago.
And Gore conceded before the full re-count and ruling after a week, because "he didn't want to undermine the confidence in American elections."
Man... what a different world, and it wasn't that long ago.
Nixon chose not to challenge his loss in 1960 for the same reason. Alleged massive voter fraud in Chicago gave Kennedy a close victory in Illinois.
Nixon chose not to challenge his loss in 1960 for the same reason. Alleged massive voter fraud in Chicago gave Kennedy a close victory in Illinois.
Different men, different times.
But from what I do understand, and I partially remember this, the whole dead people voting thing, etc... they did do recounts, but there wasn't enough fraud to justify a challenge or reverse results. But yes, we had presidents and politicians that actually cared about the perception of American voting, and did the right thing.
The Don is a Russian river, isn't it? Explains a lot.
Nixon chose not to challenge his loss in 1960 for the same reason. Alleged massive voter fraud in Chicago gave Kennedy a close victory in Illinois.
I've heard that as well, but Kennedy won in the electoral college by 84 votes, so I can't see how it would have mattered.
Since the Trump admin is obviously, and blatantly trying to take the blame away from Trump on the economy, and blame Biden (what's new), what do we think about this? This is another historic jobs number re-write by the BLS. And before Trump took office, there was mountains of domestic and international data, that all pointed to the US economy as strong. The Trump admin and Fox is already trying to say these new BLS revisions are proof that Trump inherited a weak economy.
President-elect Trump is inheriting a historically strong economy:
https://www.epi.org/blog/president-elect...
Benchmarking the U.S. economy that President Donald Trump is set to inherit:
Trump stepped into “a relatively strong economy”—experts were forecasting solid growth, moderate unemployment, and inflation around 3%, down from its previous high:
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/GettyImages-2194369511-67bc52efbebd46a2a0a825832ae255f7.jpg)
nice links, first ones from January though.
Perhaps most strikingly, the incoming Trump administration is inheriting extraordinarily fast real (inflation-adjusted) growth in the stock market. The stock market grew 28.8% over the past year, more than twice as fast as what was handed off to President Biden (the previous fastest pace at a presidential administration transition).
When will oliticians learn that they shouldn't be allowed to read bumbers? nubers go up, numbers go down.
The only thing they should be giving a rats swole ass about is, number of unesscessary deaths in a country, healthcare, education.
I deliberately used 2000 because it was a controversial election.
Most people believe that Bush didn't actually win the election; the joke is that I identified the real winner as Nader.
Thanks geezer but this was obvious and egregious precisely because it is even worse than what most people think (which you already deny)
At our local libraries, conservatives are actively now trying to ban books they disagree w/ or don't like. They also ran special elections in our city to try and ban books they thought were inappropriate for teens and kids, because some of them talked about... gasp... the changing body. Fortunately, just enough people in the city defeated them on this measure, but this is happening all over the country.
Convince me this isn't fascism, because it appears a lot of people feel empowered to be bully fascist in this country right now.
nice links, first ones from January though.
When will oliticians learn that they shouldn't be allowed to read bumbers? nubers go up, numbers go down.
The only thing they should be giving a rats swole ass about is, number of unesscessary deaths in a country, healthcare, education.
Corrrrrect. These are economic analysis points when he took office... which is in January.
Maybe I'm missing your point.
At our local libraries, conservatives are actively now trying to ban books they disagree w/ or don't like.
oh the humanity
Your response is a whataboutism for a privately owned book store?
Come on... think mcfly.
My response is that liberals want to ban or otherwise restrict just as many books as Republicans. That's just one example of many.
My response is that liberals want to ban or otherwise restrict just as many books as Republicans. That's just one example of many.
The article says they were protested by pro-Israel activists. Why do you think that means they were liberal?
Many liberals are pro-Palestine, certainly more than are Republicans.
My response is that liberals want to ban or otherwise restrict just as many books as Republicans. That's just one example of many.
Oh lord... that's not even close to true.
And do you understand the difference between private owner decisions, and public space laws?
These are public libraries where conservatives are actively banning books. No liberals have tried to ban books under the guise of protecting groups, when really it was about their own insecurities or prejudices.
The only liberal groups I've ever heard of having issues w/ books at public libraries were groups that had issues w/ books that literally attacked or perpetuated racist stereotypes. And even in those fringe cases, the proper steps were taken and librarians were involved in the process.
Conservatives in many cities have bypassed librarian review boards, created their own review boards, and banned books they deem inappropriate.
These are the ones that my city council banned. Look them up... they are harmless.
And the city council posted these signs around my community. Even right by schools:
The city council is hardcore MAGA. Books about puberty = porn to these people. They've lost their minds. They are not remotely rational anymore. This of course, isn't just about the books. It's about testing boundaries, and control for them.
Man oh man
I’ve tried my hardest to give Victor the benefit of some doubt but Jesus Christ lol
