Trump goes bonkers. Tweets about Psycho Joe and Crazy Mika.

a reply to: Kryties

Ok, no point and still a fail, good job.

a reply to: Kryties

But it tells us nothing. I mean, if we had a three way ballot with Trump, Clinton, and no president then no president won in a landslide.

Here's a pretty good breakdown of the "disabled reporter" hoax.
youtu.be...
With regard to the Tweets that everyone is so offended by - I'm guessing that, instead of standing up for himself, as the President, he should find a safe-space. I mean, that's what the entire millennial generation needs. Congress will need to modify "Land of the Brave, Home of the Free" to "Land of safe spaces, with the occasional terrorist attack"

a reply to: Kryties

Then do explain, mate. It's been a long morning.

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Kryties

...and ignore the part where the popular vote nationwide means less than nothing. You know that election.

Though the less than sixty percent turnout is extraordinarily disturbing. A direct result of less than sterling candidates--at least in part.

You kind of missed the point of my post mate.

To be fair, I think you missed the entire point of the US electoral system.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Kryties

...and ignore the part where the popular vote nationwide means less than nothing. You know that election.

Though the less than sixty percent turnout is extraordinarily disturbing. A direct result of less than sterling candidates--at least in part.

You kind of missed the point of my post mate.

To be fair, I think you missed the entire point of the US electoral system.

Yet more nonsense extruded from your rectum with no proof whatsoever.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: IAMTAT

Maybe even better than Reagan. Time will tell. Lol

Teddy Roosevelt set up targets with pictures of people he didn't like and shot them in the courtyard at the white house.

This is neither unprecedented or beyond the pale. This is the first republican we've had in ages that took the media to task and its working wonderfully. CNN is in tatters and it only took 6 months. MSNBC is probably next.

Exactly!

Imagine if twitter was available to presidents throughout history?

I can only imagine what would have been said.

originally posted by: kosmicjack
It's kind of stalkerish and disturbing really...

Oh, no, now I have to type "sadistic malignant narcissistic sociopath conman stalker"

The original def of a stalker, "a person who harasses or persecutes someone with unwanted and obsessive attention" seemed to imply a continued hunting, stalking, of a person. I say this particular tweet is a one-off. However, Trump has been known to act as a stalker, a sad, creepy stalker:

He paces. He prowls. He struts. His face is a mask pulled taut. His jaw is rigid from holding inside the rage that he knows he must keep locked up for the moment. .... And so, as this devilish woman speaks, he’s on the move behind her, nearby her, around her. He can’t stand still. Predators rarely do. But the rules of the game prevent him from going in for the kill.

source

Creepy sad.

a reply to: Kryties

The proof was your insistence that the popular vote had some sort of meaning.

a reply to: Kryties

Well, its kinda hard when you're throwing around the PV like it means something in the sense that it would have changed the outcomes of our election.

I akin the PV as a "participation" trophy, eh I like youuu but just don't think you have what it takes, so here, enjoy the pop vote 😂

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Kryties

...and ignore the part where the popular vote nationwide means less than nothing. You know that election.

Though the less than sixty percent turnout is extraordinarily disturbing. A direct result of less than sterling candidates--at least in part.

You kind of missed the point of my post mate.

To be fair, I think you missed the entire point of the US electoral system.

Yet more nonsense extruded from your rectum with no proof whatsoever.

Excuse me? I have no proof of the US electoral system? Are you sure of that?
As for proof you do not understand it and have missed it's entire point - that is in this thread in your own words, every time you complain about the union wide popular vote.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Kryties

Then do explain, mate. It's been a long morning.

It was in response to another persons post about Americans apparently overwhelmingly supporting Trump and a responders point that it may be true for ATS but not for the country.

Face it. Trump is going to go down in history as one of the all time great leaders, but there will probably be a whole lot written about his style, his use of social media, and his in-your-face battles with the media.

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: Arnie123

Ever watch anything besides CNN? Yeah, about those statistics? I refer you to the 2016 Presidential election, course you "selectively" forgot about that?

The one where only 59.7 percent of the American population voted and where Hillary won the popular vote?

You mean that election?

I love how you keep acting like everyone who did not vote would have voted for Hillary. Do you know how polls work - a relatively small number accurately predicts for an entire population. Guess what 60% is a lot more than a small sample.

I hate to break your world view, but science says the results would have been the same if everyone voted.

a reply to: UKTruth

Lately, I've been giving much thought to liberalism, as it was always looked upon as something sacred, at least to those of us who were raised under "fabulous" socialism/communism, which the left seems to be, well sort of, in love with in a perverted way. And I've come to a conclusion, that these people who are currently opposing conservatism are not liberals. They're far from it. They're bloody radicals, fanatics some would say.

They go against almost every single thing liberalism stands for. The most important thing being the freedom of speech. They seem to hate this one the most. You're not allowed to say anything that goes against their view, and it's almost immediately characterised as racist, and what not.

I'm not really sure what they are, but they are not liberals. They are radical fanatics.

a reply to: proximo

I'm doing nothing of the sort.

Here is the explanation AGAIN for those who cannot read properly:

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Kryties

Then do explain, mate. It's been a long morning.

It was in response to another persons post about Americans apparently overwhelmingly supporting Trump and a responders point that it may be true for ATS but not for the country.

a reply to: proximo

I would contend that if we had mandatory voting trump would have won by even more. Shy Tories is now a legitimate phenomenon in the usa.

originally posted by: queenofswords
Face it. Trump is going to go down in history as one of the all time great leaders, but there will probably be a whole lot written about his style, his use of social media, and his in-your-face battles with the media.

The POTUS shouldn't be "Battling" the media.

DICTATORS do that.

originally posted by: Nikola014
a reply to: UKTruth

Lately, I've been giving much thought to liberalism, as it was always looked upon as something sacred, at least to those of us who were raised under "fabulous" socialism/communism, which the left seems to be, well sort of, in love with in a perverted way. And I've come to a conclusion, that these people who are currently opposing conservatism are not liberals. They're far from it. They're bloody radicals, fanatics some would say.

They go against almost every single thing liberalism stands for. The most important thing being the freedom of speech. They seem to hate this one the most. You're not allowed to say anything that goes against their view, and it's almost immediately characterised as racist, and what not.

I'm not really sure what they are, but they are not liberals. They are radical fanatics.

You are 100% correct - the closest ideology of "liberal" progressives is that of Mussolini's Italy in the early 20th century. It should be noted that many elite types were in love with that ideology then too.