"Trump Money"

[pleasurem]

What does that picture mean? Nothing

He was not ready to be President, you’re an idiot if you think otherwise!!!

[Austin Ellen]

Did anybody watch the debates? I thought Bloomberg was suppose to be there. Does anybody have a pick on who can take on Trump? Trump is about to run the tables so it will be very exciting.

[Dev Null]

Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

Did anybody watch the debates? I thought Bloomberg was suppose to be there. Does anybody have a pick on who can take on Trump? Trump is about to run the tables so it will be very exciting.

Try to keep up. You might recall that it's already been discussed on this forum that Bloomberg is skipping Iowa and New Hampshire due to his late start in the campaign and focusing instead on Super Tuesday primaries.

But I suppose if someone has the retention of a goldfish, then that little plastic castle is a surprise every time.

[stikiwikit]

Originally Posted by Dev Null

Try to keep up. You might recall that it's already been discussed on this forum that Bloomberg is skipping Iowa and New Hampshire due to his late start in the campaign and focusing instead on Super Tuesday primaries.

But I suppose if someone has the retention of a goldfish, then that little plastic castle is a surprise every time.

You bad, man,,you bad!! ( of course you have a soft target)

[stikiwikit]

"then that little plastic castle is a surprise every time."


DN, if a ( fake) attempt to be fair , it might be that the castle has a wall around it ( that Mexico is going to pay for)

[Austin Ellen]

Ouch. This little snowflake is getting mad. Apparently, the Big T got to you. Can't answer the question,huh? God, I love Trump. He brings out the idiocy of libtards every time. Thank you valued poster.

Originally Posted by Dev Null

Try to keep up. You might recall that it's already been discussed on this forum that Bloomberg is skipping Iowa and New Hampshire due to his late start in the campaign and focusing instead on Super Tuesday primaries.

But I suppose if someone has the retention of a goldfish, then that little plastic castle is a surprise every time.

[Precious_b]

Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

Did anybody watch the debates? I thought Bloomberg was suppose to be there. Does anybody have a pick on who can take on Trump? Trump is about to run the tables so it will be very exciting.

Any persons that qualify can take on the incumbent.

Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

Ouch. This little snowflake is getting mad. Apparently, the Big T got to you. Can't answer the question,huh? God, I love Trump. He brings out the idiocy of libtards every time. Thank you valued poster.

Can *YOU* answer the question that you've been dodging all these weeks/months: When is Mexico going to pay for the Wall? Every "answer" you have given I have responded (and you got a bonus answer from me above.)

So ellen, quit asking others about new business UNTIL you take care of old business: Tell/Show the policy when Mexico will pay for the Wall OR show us the proof you've sent $$$ to pay OR, and this is the biggy you have stuck in your throat (Like republicans won't say who was the last President that left a surplus in the Treasury)admit trump lied.

People, want to see an old lady dance? Just watch for her reply.

[SecretE]

Originally Posted by Dev Null

Try to keep up. You might recall that it's already been discussed on this forum that Bloomberg is skipping Iowa and New Hampshire due to his late start in the campaign and focusing instead on Super Tuesday primaries.

But I suppose if someone has the retention of a goldfish, then that little plastic castle is a surprise every time.

There was talk about how Bloomberg could have qualified for the debate, based on some alternative arbitrary metric being used by the DNC, this past week. I thought he was going to be there too, even though he had no intention of campaigning in IA or NH. Probably a smart move. No one, besides Klobuchar, helped their campaign efforts any this past debate. Let them weed themselves out and come in looking like "the rational one" when the dust clears.

[SecretE]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I agree with you almost 100%. I don't think he will come closer in the popular vote than he did in 2016.

Even with the voter roll cleanup efforts going on nationwide?

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

If Trump loses Michigan and Pennsylvania and does not win any state that he lost in 2016, the Democratic candidate only has to win 1 other battleground state in order to win the electoral vote. Arizona, Florida, Wisconsin, NC, or Ohio.

If he lost both PA and MI, he'd have exactly 270 votes, the minimum to win the election. He could even lose that one Maine vote he got in 2016, and there would be chaos with a 269-269 tie...allowing the current House to "vote in" the new President and the current Senate to vote in the Vice President.

However, the 2024 Electoral Map may favor Red States a lot more, and de-power states like PA and MI in favor of NC and TX...
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/mee...ensus-n1110546

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Some polls in NH have Trump marginally ahead though.

The Libertarian Party pushed hard for members to move to that state. I wonder if there is another LP "spoiler" candidate like a Gary Johnson, who could siphon enough votes away from Trump, if that may tilt the favor to the Dem nominee.

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Less than 9 months to go. Should be interesting.

Agreed.

[Dev Null]

Originally Posted by SecretE

There was talk about how Bloomberg could have qualified for the debate, based on some alternative arbitrary metric being used by the DNC, this past week.

I heard about that on NPR, but it was a non-starter.

https://www.npr.org/2020/01/26/79967...c-debate-stage

To make the New Hampshire debate, candidates must register at 5% or more in four qualifying national or early-state polls released between Dec. 13, 2019, and Feb. 6; or at least 7% in two early-state polls during that period. And they have to get 225,000 unique donors from at least 20 states.

Alternatively, a candidate could make the debate stage by garnering at least one delegate from the Feb. 3 Iowa caucuses.

Billionaire former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has reached the polling threshold to qualify for the New Hampshire debate, but because he's self-funding his campaign, he's not going to hit the donor requirement.

And since he wasn't on the ballot in Iowa, he didn't win any delegates at the Iowa caucus.

[Dev Null]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLz6ydbq3D8

YouTube tags not working for this video, so it won't embed in the post.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by SecretE

Even with the voter roll cleanup efforts going on nationwide?

If he lost both PA and MI, he'd have exactly 270 votes, the minimum to win the election. He could even lose that one Maine vote he got in 2016, and there would be chaos with a 269-269 tie...allowing the current House to "vote in" the new President and the current Senate to vote in the Vice President.

However, the 2024 Electoral Map may favor Red States a lot more, and de-power states like PA and MI in favor of NC and TX...
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/mee...ensus-n1110546

The Libertarian Party pushed hard for members to move to that state. I wonder if there is another LP "spoiler" candidate like a Gary Johnson, who could siphon enough votes away from Trump, if that may tilt the favor to the Dem nominee.

Agreed.

There is nothing to support the allegations that there is significant voting by those not legally registered to vote. None at all other than Trump's unsupported OPNION.

https://www.factcheck.org/2016/10/tr...-fraud-claims/

My statement was Trump, assuming he did not win any state he lost in 2016, had to lose Michigan, Pennsylvania, and one other state in order to lose the 2020 election. Correct or incorrect?

Yes, Texas will pick up 2 or 3 additional electoral votes after the 2020 census. Why? More people, most of whom vote Democratic, are moving into the state each year. In 2012 Romney recieved 57.2% of the popular vote. In 2016 Trump received 52.2% of the popular vote. In the 2018 midterms Democrats picked up 2 Texas House seats,several state House and Senate seats, and O'Rourke lost to Cruz by 2.7%. a seat Cruz won in 2012 by 16%.

The point is Texas, the 2nd largest state in the country, is turning more red each year. Trump won Texas by 9% in 2016. I bet his winning margin in 2020 will be quite a bit less. And in 2024 I would not be surprised at all if Texas supported a Democrat for POTUS. That would mean California, NY and Texas, 3 of the 4 states with the most electoral votes, would make it very, very difficult for a Repulican to win the office of POTUS. And the other most populous state, Florida, is always up for grabs.

3rd pary candidates always make elections more "interesting".

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by Precious_b

...quit asking others about new business UNTIL you take care of old business: ...

You're just none to good at bossing people around, trying to bully them to dance to the beat of your own drum. But, I believe in you kid. You got potential. (not really) Maybe you just need to hone your skill. Here's what I recommend: Borrow somebody else's cat and try ordering it around - repeatedly. Or as John Madden said: Practice, practice, practice.

[Austin Ellen]

Like I said earlier - Trump will start to run the tables. That means he is looking to pick up 2 states - N.H. and Minnasota, appealing to AA's ( he mentioned it in the State of the Union speech) and pick up suburban womens vote by focusing on anti crime and border security. Which equals win. Very exciting.

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

There is nothing to support the allegations that there is significant voting by those not legally registered to vote. None at all other than Trump's unsupported OPNION.

https://www.factcheck.org/2016/10/tr...-fraud-claims/

My statement was Trump, assuming he did not win any state he lost in 2016, had to lose Michigan, Pennsylvania, and one other state in order to lose the 2020 election. Correct or incorrect?

Yes, Texas will pick up 2 or 3 additional electoral votes after the 2020 census. Why? More people, most of whom vote Democratic, are moving into the state each year. In 2012 Romney recieved 57.2% of the popular vote. In 2016 Trump received 52.2% of the popular vote. In the 2018 midterms Democrats picked up 2 Texas House seats,several state House and Senate seats, and O'Rourke lost to Cruz by 2.7%. a seat Cruz won in 2012 by 16%.

The point is Texas, the 2nd largest state in the country, is turning more red each year. Trump won Texas by 9% in 2016. I bet his winning margin in 2020 will be quite a bit less. And in 2024 I would not be surprised at all if Texas supported a Democrat for POTUS. That would mean California, NY and Texas, 3 of the 4 states with the most electoral votes, would make it very, very difficult for a Repulican to win the office of POTUS. And the other most populous state, Florida, is always up for grabs.

3rd pary candidates always make elections more "interesting".

[Precious_b]

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

You're just none to good at bossing people around, trying to bully them to dance to the beat of your own drum. But, I believe in you kid. You got potential. (not really) Maybe you just need to hone your skill. Here's what I recommend: Borrow somebody else's cat and try ordering it around - repeatedly. Or as John Madden said: Practice, practice, practice.

Excuse me. I had to get off the floor from laughing.

Is that your mandle, ellen? Maybe you forgot you were replying to me from it. Well. I'll assume i'm talking to ellen since it is the only question (I can remember) that I have been asking her and she knows what the answer is but won't say it. But I will. She knows trump lied. And it sticks in her craw. Ah. Two times useless here she is. With *supposedly* double the mandle (if this is her asking since I have not asked this account that question.)