martin wrote:

djsunyc wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/pharris830/status/798950139935109122

dang, didn't realize this was the math

Is that the math, or that the tweet?
I trust nothing thru social media.

For the most part I am for the electoral college but that math opens me up to question it.
Not the undesired result (In my wheelhouse).
I can't imagine it gets changed anytime soon.

Nalod wrote:

martin wrote:

djsunyc wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/pharris830/status/798950139935109122

dang, didn't realize this was the math

Is that the math, or that the tweet?
I trust nothing thru social media.

For the most part I am for the electoral college but that math opens me up to question it.
Not the undesired result (In my wheelhouse).
I can't imagine it gets changed anytime soon.

not hard to look up:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)

Looks about right?

meloshouldgo wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:
I don't think I've had a strong stance against immigrants here. I'm not really even for building a wall separating us with Mexico, but at least fixing the fence.
What are you alluding too with my stance on immigrants? I do think that we need to vet/background check (as best we can) immigrants coming in from States where there are terrorists and America is involved with bombing, droning, etc. I'm pretty sure this happens anyway. Is there something wrong with this?

Hillary pushed Obama into Libya - 30,000 dead. She voted for Iraq and was for Afghanistan. She seems to have an aggressive stance in general. She has a very aggressive stance on Russia with the Wikileaks emails, and had no evidence. She might not start a war right away, but her cold war was already under way. Me and others, quite a few, really were worried about war with Russia eventually. Quite a few people here in Germany said the same thing, a bit of an undercurrent.

This thread gets pretty emotional (it seems) at times. And I do try to be careful usually, sometimes it is tongue and cheek with joking, I get that. But with protests happening, be it George Soros supported/funded or not, I do not want to help divide the country further. Me or anyone "for" Trump and what not, are not an enemy. We have to learn to get along better. Even though he may have policies and such that we don't like (and I've stated what I don't like), it seems things are starting to get out of control. I'll take responsibility in general, but where this may go is really ugly.

You have said immigrants are a problem. Legal immigrants are fully vetted when they enter the US. Illegal immigrants can't be vetted. If you want all illegal immigrants send back because they can't be vetted that's fine. It's a low priority problem to fixate on in my opinion.

You keep saying people dying in Lybia is Hillary'S fault. This is pure baseless right wing talking point. Without war Gaddafi would have slaughtered people. Libya's inability to govern itself after the war is not an US problem. The Libyan ambassador to the UN has said so himself. I have more faith in that country's ambassador than I have in your empty right wing talking points.

She voted for the war in Iraq because she was like everyone else intentionally lied to by Bush and the neocons ruining the country. It wasn't a smart thing to do, but it doesn't make her war happy it makes her gullible.

Your only accusation that had any substance is that she blamed the Russian Govt for wikileaks. To make that into a potential threat to start a war with Russia is just plain stupid.

Where have I said that immigrants are a problem? The only thing I remember saying is that it is dangerous to allow people into the country from States supporting or having terrorism.
And regarding illegal immigrants being sent back, even then I would put a condition on that - violent offenders, hate crimes, etc. (nothing small like Cannabis use, etc.)

We are not the world police. It is not our job to go into other countries and destabilize them. It is CLEAR that Obama didn't want to go in Libya and just as clear that Hillary was a driving force. Hillary was told by senior military people what would happen and it did. If my president can't listen to war experts, so to speak, no thanks. That IS war happy.
Who went to prison for those 1 million dead in Iraq, the false information? Exactly...

This is where it gets back to you leaving questions unanswered- I asked before and will ask again.

1. Do you seek Bush and Neocons being put in jail or is it Hillary that you are obsessed with? You have more than 20 posts about Hillary on Iraq war and zero posts asking for Republicans to be held accountable - looks a little lopsided to me

2. What expertise do generals have in deciding whether to go to war or not? Their expertise is military not political. We go to war for political reasons. When we are in war you can ask why we are nor listening to them

3. You even said the president should listen to senhor cabinet members about going to war. Then you criticize Hillary for giving that advice and Obama for taking it.

I have run out patience with this discussion, rehashing this with you is not very interesting. I

1. First, we got to go after Hillary. That is this current event, so to speak. That is the diamond in the rough, right in front of our noses, very good paper trail (emails). And yes, we need to have a justice team put together to look at Bush and the neocons, but this king of stuff gets presidents killed. Look at some of the changes Kennedy was doing when he was assassinated: US Treasury notes (quite a few billion in cirulation) then - interest paid back to the people (he knew economics, money), working with Russia to end cold war and be cooperative, talk of ending Vietnam, lowered the amount of oil to be kept in US oil reserves (that pissed off big oil), Going after the mafia with his brother as SOS (I think), Refused a false flag terror attack (Operation Northwoods), Said he was gonna break the CIA up into a million little pieces (as they were giving him false information), and more. But he went to far, tried to change a system that was much much deeper than he knew (or that he could do anything against.)

Trump is a businessman, the corruption going on really stands out to him as he is big time builder, he knows "business" at that level. I'm not sure what he did that might have been illegal, but if he really wants to change America, he knows the loopholes to take out, which he already has mentioned.

2. Well, I can say, war for political reasons really reminds me of that Krishnamurti quote, something like "It is no sign of health to be well adjusted to a sick society." If you give me an immoral law, I will use my heart to answer it, not the law. Sometimes you have to do what is right, like those people who don't want to fight for the State, or the like.

3.I think we should separate "listening to" from "near demanding" or "pushing". Hillary wanted that war badly. 30,000 people were killed, more destailization came to the middle east. More immigration problems, more death, more suffering, water treatment facilities destroyed, their gold backed currency destroyed and a western bank installed. I think that is all "legal" but I don't want to live in that world. And it is a waste of our money.

Patience is patience. It seems like I disagree with you, give some pretty common reasons for doing so, much of it verifiable. But you give some verifiable reasons too. We have to weigh this data. (E.g. - You seem to side with something being "technically legal" but don't look into the corruption that was behind it - e.g. Iraqi false information). That is ok, people disagree, after all, look at the vote, relative to our Country.

I reply to posts and post new information. Honestly, just don't converse with me if it is not to your liking (I'll still reply to your posts if stg catches my eye and if what I write really makes no sense, it isn't taken in anyway, no harm and vice versa.) Nothing personal. You don't even have to say anything derogatory like you just did about patience and this discussion, rehashing, not interesting. You don't need to degrade, just leave conversing with me.

First go after Hillary for the war on Iraq because it's her fault that Bush lied through his teeth and waged war? And then there is some incoherent babbling about treasury note and interest rate? Are you serious?

I asked what political expertise generals have and I got some completely irrelevant quote about being sick?

Dude put the bong down and slowly walk away from the keyboard.

No, not go after Hillary for the war in Iraq. That showed her character and decision making. Go after Hillary for what those Wikileaks showed. And while you are at it, go after Comey, podesta, etc.

The Kennedy information is there to show you about what trying to do too much change to a corrupt system gets you. Do you not see that if Trump does what he says, that parts of this system, will be renovated, to put it nicely? Most presidents that get killed or shot but live (e.g. Reagan), tried to change the Federal Reserve (the private bank that makes decisions for our country's economic system. And guess what, those who own it are all globalists.) Trump is stepping into the fire trying to audit it and he is jumping into the fire, if he tries to drastically change anything or expose corruption.

None of these bankers have been put in jail for stealing from the American people. Those responsible for pushing for an invasion of Iraq, need to be identified...
We got a place to start looking, sort of makes sense. Hmmm, who owns these companies and where did they "hear" about the WMD? What "intelligence" gave them this?:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/798909206728474624

Try to put this picture together, the picture of what it means to take down deep corruption. You thought I was making this about Clinton? Ever hear the expression "The Revolution won't be on television?" (I don't mean a violent one in this case.) Hillary will just be one in many stones to fall, but a very big one. Not sure the country can handle this tbh, but if some of what we read, just some, is true, she is going to jail. And those emails point to much much bigger corruption that will take time to look into. It might actually unite the Country if the evidence is totally clear. We have enough, with probably more coming, though Wikileaks seems quiet for a few weeks now, hmmmm. There are many groups on the net, large groups, that are going through those emails released, with a fine comb. They will be able to database it and let it speak. We have the software to expose them, and I'm not talking a database. Something doesn't make sense (Still) to me, regarding the 2 weeks before and leading up to the election.

djsunyc wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/pharris830/status/798950139935109122

Fraction magic anyone?

Expert of voter fraud in Bev Harris says Hillary tried to steal election but lost. Start at 3:30 mark:: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is5GrQwevhg
Votes were held back in Detroit, Wisconson, Michigan and Milwaukee, PE, and a bit more.
13% of illegals admit they vote, and quite a few were caught this election. http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/poll-13-of-illegal-aliens-admit-they-vote/
Soros connected to voting machine in 16 States.
5 or so States are still not releasing the scanned images of the ballots as required by law. (Indiana, Virginia, Washington st., Utah, Kansas)
There is evidence Hillary Stole 5 States but still lost (and yeah, MSM is dying now -The NY Times have issued and apology for their coverage)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrqZvzGZuCo

I welcome a recount but I think there is a reason Clinton hasn't asked for one. Hillary Cheated and still lost.

http://www.votefraud.org/
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/

holfresh wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

holfresh wrote:

martin wrote:

djsunyc wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/pharris830/status/798950139935109122

dang, didn't realize this was the math

Yes, been saying that and both put two senators to represent their constituency equally in the Senate..So a citizen in Wyoming have a more weight in choosing a Supreme Court Justice as well than one from California because they all vote to please their constituency...

Yeah the Senate is even more absurd. 39 mil Californians have two Senators and 600K Wyomingites have 2 Senators. So each vote in Wyoming is worth about 60 times as much for the Senate as a vote in California.

Right and the absurdity continues when you add the other less densely populated States who send 2 Senators to Washington as well...Kentucky with a population of 4.4 million send Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul...Both of whom have a huge impact of policy and Kentucky is 1.3% of the population versus California 12%...

But people look at the electoral map and see a sea of red and think it all makes sense..But it doesn't on the ground..

Vmart wrote:

djsunyc wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/pharris830/status/798950139935109122

You know a lot of people are crying over this but Hillary didn't work hard enough to win Wyoming. These electoral were there for her to take. While Trump was flipping States from blue to red. She didn't work hard enough to win. Trump simply out worked her. The rules of engagement were set this is not a popularity contest it's about strategy to get to 270.
Enough with the popular vote crap. You guys don't know what the middle of America goes through. They are the bread and butter of this country.

What is this bread and butter thing..I'm paying some really high(notional) taxes in this country...Some dude has more voting say so than I do, then I need to know why and what is bread and butter...

Vmart wrote:

djsunyc wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/pharris830/status/798950139935109122

You know a lot of people are crying over this but Hillary didn't work hard enough to win Wyoming. These electoral were there for her to take. While Trump was flipping States from blue to red. She didn't work hard enough to win. Trump simply out worked her. The rules of engagement were set this is not a popularity contest it's about strategy to get to 270.
Enough with the popular vote crap. You guys don't know what the middle of America goes through. They are the bread and butter of this country.

earthmansurfer wrote:

djsunyc wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/pharris830/status/798950139935109122

Fraction magic anyone?

Expert of voter fraud in Bev Harris says Hillary tried to steal election but lost. Start at 3:30 mark:: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is5GrQwevhg
Votes were held back in Detroit, Wisconson, Michigan and Milwaukee, PE, and a bit more.
13% of illegals admit they vote, and quite a few were caught this election. http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/poll-13-of-illegal-aliens-admit-they-vote/
Soros connected to voting machine in 16 States.
5 or so States are still not releasing the scanned images of the ballots as required by law. (Indiana, Virginia, Washington st., Utah, Kansas)
There is evidence Hillary Stole 5 States but still lost (and yeah, MSM is dying now -The NY Times have issued and apology for their coverage)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrqZvzGZuCo

I welcome a recount but I think there is a reason Clinton hasn't asked for one. Hillary Cheated and still lost.

http://www.votefraud.org/
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/

meloshouldgo wrote:So far the only corruption around wikileaks is basically a figment of your imagination. You and Fox and Friends.There's already been TWO FBI INQUIRIES, both have cleared her of any crime.

The problem here isn't her corruption it's that you have decided on her guilt, and now you will troll the end of the Internet to find tweets and opinion pieces to "prove" her guilt to yourself and others.

And then if anyone dates to challenge that you are convinced they are part of the conspiracy. Comey found her innocent of actual crimes so now he needs to be investigsted.

You cant even articulate what she is guilty of but you are sure she is guilty.

Whenever people ask you for specifics you hide behind ton of double talk and then you - Reset, rinse and repeat

Read the Wikileaks and connect the dots, it is quite clear, many articles have already done it for you. The emails implicate the FBI (Comey) and yet you are using him as a reason not to look? lol
A fairly famous prosecutor says he could charge her with 15 crimes.

Giuliani: ‘You’d have to be almost stupid’ not to see that Hillary Clinton broke the law

]“There’s no question anymore as to whether or not Hillary Clinton, [Huma] Abedin, and [John] Podesta violated the law,” Giuliani told Fox News anchor Sean Hannity. “You’d have to be almost stupid not to realize it.”

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/11/02/giuliani-youd-almost-stupid-not-see-hillary-clinton-broke-law-407467

No hiding, listen to him lay it out. He mentions the laws by name.

The problem is a corrupt system and corrupt media, and you don't seem to be questioning them nor investigating the source material. Just taking their word.
No harm in looking deeper and questioning - keeps people honest.

No generic BS - point out the actual crime

I am not asking about Huma Abedin, I am asking what laws Hillary broke. I am also asking that you point out exactly what the classified material was and when it was classified that is before or after her sharing it.

Go ahead connect the dots.