Is anyone here in disagreement with the Republican prediction of gaining house seats?

cawacko said:
I understand. Democrats have never actually lost an election because Republicans only win by cheating.
Click to expand...

It has been a few years since they did. Nixon ,Reagan and Eisenhower did not have to cheat. However as demographics turn against them, the Repugs step up suppression.
 
LV426 said:
Since 2000 that's pretty much the case.
Click to expand...

Longer than that. The electoral college was designed way before 2000.

It was designed so that racist white slave owners could have help voting.

They new the America people wanted to end slavery and they were the minority. ….so they birthed the EC.
 
TTQ64 said:
Longer than that. The electoral college was designed way before 2000.

It was designed so that racist white slave owners could have help voting.

They new the America people wanted to end slavery and they were the minority. ….so they birthed the EC.
Click to expand...

Well I was referring to the most recent spat of Conservative cheating, and that really started with the 2000 Presidential Election.

I'm still not convinced Bush won Ohio in 2004, either.
 
LV426 said:
Well I was referring to the most recent spat of Conservative cheating, and that really started with the 2000 Presidential Election.

I'm still not convinced Bush won Ohio in 2004, either.
Click to expand...

I agree. I don't think they have ever really won and election.
 
Jarod said:
Are you denying Trump is a Republican?
Click to expand...

You said Republican hype. One person saying it is not 'hype' by the Party. It is not hype at all. You are a liar and now you are just throwing a fit of rage at being once again shown as the fool you are.

Why are you so full of hate and rage Garud?
 
LV426 said:
Since 2000 that's pretty much the case.
Click to expand...

So all governors in the South would be Democrats except for cheering? And no Republicans would win any senate seats except for cheating? And democrats would win also rural house seats except for cheating?

LBJ would definitely be jealous
 
cawacko said:
So all governors in the South would be Democrats except for cheering?
Click to expand...

I mean, dude...look at what Kemp's doing in my home state of GA right now. You think he just came up with these suppression tactics right off the top of his head? Nah, bruh. He had a blueprint.
 
as I recall, a "red wave" would be an election in which the demmycrats did NOT take control of the house and lost seats in the senate........I still believe that prediction.......
 
cawacko said:
LBJ was an amazing cheater.
Click to expand...

How so? He won by getting people to vote for him by creating the Great Society.

So if you think getting people to vote for you because they like your policies is cheating, then you're a pretty stupid person.
 
LV426 said:
How so? He won by getting people to vote for him by creating the Great Society.

So if you think getting people to vote for you because they like your policies is cheating, then you're a pretty stupid person.
Click to expand...

You're a pretty stupid person if you haven't read your political history. In your stupidity I'll assume you haven't read Robert Caro's series on LBJ. They are unbelievable and a must read for any political junkie. LBJ outright stole the 1948 Seante election in Texas. Had he lost that race his career would have been over. Instead he stole it and the rest is history. It's the second book of the series if you want to look it up.

(It's where he got his nickname Landslide Lyndon from)
 
cawacko said:
You're a pretty stupid person if you haven't read your political history. In your stupidity I'll assume you haven't read Robert Caro's series on LBJ. They are unbelievable and a must read for any political junkie. LBJ outright stole the 1948 Seante election in Texas. Had he lost that race his career would have been over. Instead he stole it and the rest is history. It's the second book of the series if you want to look it up.
Click to expand...

LOL! Stole it, how? You're talking about the Democratic Primary in 1948, not the actual Senate General Election.

So what we have here is another case of cawacko acting in bad faith by leaving out some pretty important details.

That's a pretty bad habit of yours, bruh. You do that a lot. You leave out exculpatory information to try and frame a debate in a more favorable light for your idiocy. So you leave things out deliberately because you hope people won't bother with due diligence.

That comes from an overbearing sense of entitlement and need for accommodation.

So you can take your bad faith argument and shove it up your ass.
 
cawacko said:
LBJ outright stole the 1948 Seante election in Texas.
Click to expand...

Some details you left out:

It was the primary for the Democratic nomination for the Senate, not the Senate election - so you might think you read things, but you don't. Looking at words on a page, and comprehending what those words mean when arranged in that order are two different things. It's possible someone like you would look at a word, but then not understand its meaning or context. But because you're a lazy fucking asshole, you try and skate by on your privilege.

Also, when you claimed to have rad this book about LBJ, did you miss the part where Stevenson also cheated in that 1948 election? Of course not. Because you didn't read the book. You're just pretending you did so you could win an argument on an anonymous message board.

Weak fuckin sauce.

And the other shitty thing about you is that you have to go back 70 years to 1948 to try and find a somewhat comparable, though not actually comparable, instance.

Your biggest problem is your shitty ego.
 
LV426 said:
Some details you left out:

It was the primary for the Democratic nomination for the Senate, not the Senate election - so you might think you read things, but you don't. Looking at words on a page, and comprehending what those words mean when arranged in that order are two different things. It's possible someone like you would look at a word, but then not understand its meaning or context. But because you're a lazy fucking asshole, you try and skate by on your privilege.

Also, when you claimed to have rad this book about LBJ, did you miss the part where Stevenson also cheated in that 1948 election? Of course not. Because you didn't read the book. You're just pretending you did so you could win an argument on an anonymous message board.

Weak fuckin sauce.

And the other shitty thing about you is that you have to go back 70 years to 1948 to try and find a somewhat comparable, though not actually comparable, instance.

Your biggest problem is your shitty ego.
Click to expand...

Oh wow, you have issues dude.

It was the primary but there was no Republican Party in Texas at that time. Whoever was the Democratic nominee was going to be the Senator. Or are you unfamiliar with how the South voted during that time period?

There were other stories of Johnson cheating in even school elections. Something you would know if you read. Hence my use of him as an analogy. You are accusing Republicans of doing something even a great cheater like LBJ would be envious of.

And idiot, he was called Landslide Lyndon after the 1948 election and not in a positive way (because he stole it and won by like 100 votes).
 
Last edited:
dear triggered nut-bags,

the math makes it impossible for the Senate to change hands, the math makes it likely the house will change hands

Having control of the house means nothing, except the dems will be able to whine louder, send ridiculous things to the Senate, where they will be trashed.

And even if something slips by the Senate by the narrowest of margins, to quote Obama, "Trump still has his pen"

make all the noise you want, but if you don't take the House, you will be ridiculed AGAIN, especially here as being wrong again.

But I'm sure you'll all find another poll to parade around,

Oh yea, and the Russia thing :rofl2:
you guys are the gift to comedy that just keeps on giving
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top