Unelected. Unlikeable. Unfit. Unreal. UnAmerican. Unwanted.

[bodysong]

Credit for this slogan goes to-

Fernand R. Amandi Verified Account
@AmandiOnAir

Unelected. Unlikeable. Unfit. Unreal. UnAmerican. Unwanted.
#UnwantedIvanka

4:31 AM - 1 Jul 2019 from Miami, FL

Who else does this slogan apply to ?

Unelected.

Unlikeable.

Unfit.

Unreal.

UnAmerican.

Unwanted.

#UnwantedTrumps

#UnwantedTrumpniks

trumpery

(TRUHM-puh-ree)

noun
1. Something showy but worthless.
2. Nonsense or rubbish.
3. Deceit; fraud; trickery.

 

[KeithD]

It applies to Donald (because it's increasingly clear the election was stolen for him), Donald jr, Eric, Ivanka, and just about everyone else in the Trump administration along with nearly every Republican member of Congress and a good many of the Republican governors and state officials in charge of election fraud (as they exercise it).

 

[Dumpington]

KeithD writes: "It applies to Donald (because it's increasingly clear the election was stolen for him)"

What's CLEAR is that the liberals on the far-left cannot accept reality, Keith - Trump has been in office now for two-&-a-half-years and they're STILL bitching about it! What's going to happen in November of 2020 when Trump easily wins re-election?

Unelected. - If Trump wasn't elected president in 2016 then WHY did Hillary Clinton formally concede the very next day?

Unlikeable. - Democrats certainly don't like him - but that only makes ME like him that much more!

Unfit. - Barack Obama said that Hillary was fit to be president, but the American people seemingly disagreed, didn't they?

Unreal. - To modern Democrats suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome, perhaps - but he's real enough to everybody else!

UnAmerican. - People who dislike/hate the United States (e.g. Megan Rapinoe) tend to also dislike/hate President Trump!

Unwanted. - After November of 2020, when Trump is re-elected, the libs will STILL say he's unwanted, but they'll be wrong - again!

 

[YDB95]

KeithD writes:


Unfit. - Barack Obama said that Hillary was fit to be president, but the American people seemingly disagreed, didn't they?

Right, which is why she won the popular vote by three million votes.

 

[BotanyBoy]

STILL crying about the popular vote?

States elect POTUS, not people.

Been that way for a while now.


That's why all the 2020 candidates who are trying to out leftist each other are just handing Trump the WH.....again.

(D)'s learned nothing in 2016.

They don't need to court the most radical voices they can find in the darkest blue areas of the country.

They need to court the centrist voters in the suburbs, yes including those evil white voters, but instead they are alienating them, good job.

 

[Dumpington]

YDB95 writes (about Hillary Clinton): "Right, which is why she won the popular vote by three million votes."

BotanyBoy responds: "States elect POTUS, not people."

You are both correct - it would seem as if the Democratic Party has accepted the fact that it can't change the U.S. Constitution and get rid of the Electoral College - and so angry Democrats have instead changed the rules in selected blue-states, enacting legislation that says the electoral votes of those states (see: National Popular Vote Interstate Compact) will go to the national popular vote winner instead of to the candidate who won that specific state!

The fifteen-states signing onto this are: Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii, Washington, Massachusetts, Vermont, California, Rhode Island, New York, Colorado, Delaware, New Mexico, Oregon, & the District of Columbia. ALL of these states (and D.C.) are together worth 196 electoral votes, and ALL of them voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 - so this compact wouldn't have changed a thing had it been in effect during our last presidential election!

The Democrats have a bad habit of changing the rules that end up biting them in their own asses! For example, when Harry Reid enacted the so-called "nuclear option" in the U.S. Senate to get Obama's federal judges passed (ending the need for a 60-vote filibuster-proof majority), he paved the way for President Trump using Reid's rules-changes to get both Neil Gorsuch & Brett Kavanaugh confirmed onto the U.S. Supreme Court!

And now it's the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact's turn! In November of 2000, Al Gore won the popular vote by 543,895. But four years later, the situation REVERSED itself, with Bush winning the popular vote by 3,012,166. Bush had added 11,577,160 more popular votes to his total in 2004 than he'd received in 2000!

If Trump does this same thing in 2020 - and it's very likely that he will - he will capture both the popular & electoral votes. But let's say for the sake of argument that Joe Biden (or Liz Warren, Kamala, or whomever) carries the EXACT SAME STATES that Hillary won in 2016 - well, under this new compact, the electors representing those fifteen states (and D.C.) will have to give their electoral votes to PRESIDENT TRUMP when the electoral college meets in December!

Trump would win 500-electoral votes if that happens - becoming only the 5th U.S. president in the history of our nation to reach that threshhold!

 

[KeithD]

Right, which is why she won the popular vote by three million votes.

Bingo. Facts are so inconvenient for Trumpettes. That's why they like to just ignore them and lie, lie, lie.

 

[Dumpington]

KeithD writes: "Bingo. Facts are so inconvenient for Trumpettes. That's why they like to just ignore them and lie, lie, lie."

Yes, it's time for some TRUTH, Keith!

In 2000, Al Gore defeated Texas Governor George W. Bush in the popular vote by 543,895, but Bush won the White House!

In 2004, President Bush defeated John Kerry by 3,012,166 - with Bush adding 11,577,160 MORE popular votes to what he won in 2000.

In 2012, Barack Obama became only the THIRD incumbent U.S. president running for re-election in the past half-century to receive FEWER popular votes the second time around, joining Jimmy Carter & George H.W. Bush in that category. Both Carter & Bush-41 had serious third-party challengers, whereas Obama did NOT! Yet for some truly bizarre reason, Barack received 3,580,921 FEWER popular votes the second time around!

In 2016, Mrs. Clinton won the popular vote by 3,645,776 - but CONCEDED DEFEAT the very next day because she lost in the all-important ELECTORAL COLLEGE!

The Democratic Party cannot get rid of the electoral college, and so fifteen of the states that Hillary won (and D.C.) passed the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, promising to give their state's electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote!

If President Trump wins the popular vote in his 2020 re-election effort, he'll pick-up 196 additional electoral votes from Hillary Clinton states, whether they vote for him or not!

If Trump loses the popular vote again, but hangs onto the same states he won in 2016, the electoal college outcome will be the exact same as it was last time. But that's unlikely. When Republican presidents run for re-election, they tend to do much better the second time around!

 

[bodysong]

Luna Sea
@MadamlunaSea

Dang

Ivanka even showed up in a meme

#revolutionarywarairports

#trumpparadefail

pic

(Princess Ivanka drummer girl trying to make
herself noticed.)

Jets are zooming, above their heads!

5:45 AM - 5 Jul 2019

 

[YDB95]

If President Trump wins the popular vote in his 2020 re-election effort, he'll pick-up 196 additional electoral votes from Hillary Clinton states, whether they vote for him or not!

No, he won't. That law only kicks in when states representing a majority of the electoral college (that's 270 electoral votes, Dumpington) ratify it.

 

[KeithD]

No, he won't. That law only kicks in when states representing a majority of the electoral college (that's 270 electoral votes, Dumpington) ratify it.

The Trumpettes here aren't known for their research capabilities. If building false premises on lies is good enough for Donald Trump, it's perfectly fine for them.

 

[YDB95]

The Trumpettes here aren't known for their research capabilities. If building false premises on lies is good enough for Donald Trump, it's perfectly fine for them.

I know. There are literally dozens of things Dumpington continues to repeat when I and several others have debunked them. That's why I didn't even bother responding to his silly comments about Obama getting fewer votes in his re-election, since there's absolutely nothing out of the ordinary about that.

 

[Boxlicker101]

No, he won't. That law only kicks in when states representing a majority of the electoral college (that's 270 electoral votes, Dumpington) ratify it.

It's not a law. Especially, it's not a Constitutional amendment. At most, some states might pass it as a law, but it would not be enforceable. Such a law might not even be Constitutional.

 

[bodysong]

Unbelieved

James Clapper, Obama's former director of national intelligence, was quick to refute Trump's lie.

In all the deliberations that I participated in on North Korea
during the Obama administration, I can recall no instance
whatever where President Obama ever indicated any interest
whatsoever in meeting with Chairman Kim.

From Obama's deputy national security advisor, Ben Rhodes, some stronger language.

Trump is lying. I was there for all 8 years. Obama never sought a meeting
with Kim Jong Un. Foreign policy isn't reality television it's reality.

Ben Rhodes, former deputy national security adviser to Obama, told CNN on Sunday:

"There's no mystery here:
it's just a lie with no supporting evidence and no basis in anything.
It's not even an exaggeration, it's just not true."

Susan Rice, former Obama national security adviser, wrote on Twitter:
"At the risk of stating the obvious, this is horse-sh*t."

"This probably comes as no surprise, but there's zero truth to
Trump's claim. It's utterly fabricated garbage," said Van Jackson,
author of On the Brink: Trump, Kim, and the Threat of Nuclear War,
who served as senior country director for Korea at the Department
of Defense under Obama.

Why ? Because news leaked out, that Trumpypants begged Kim Jong Un for a meeting.

 

[YDB95]

It's not a law. Especially, it's not a Constitutional amendment. At most, some states might pass it as a law, but it would not be enforceable. Such a law might not even be Constitutional.

Then you agree that what Dumpington said is incorrect, regardless of which one of us is correct.

And I didn't say it was an amendment. I don't think anyone did. What does that have to do with anything?

 

[KeithD]

Unbelieved

James Clapper, Obama's former director of national intelligence, was quick to refute Trump's lie.

In all the deliberations that I participated in on North Korea
during the Obama administration, I can recall no instance
whatever where President Obama ever indicated any interest
whatsoever in meeting with Chairman Kim.

A bit of a tilt here. During the primary phase of his first presidential campaign, in a debate with Hillary Clinton, he declared that he would go anywhere and meet any country's leader regardless of U.S. relations with that country. Clinton who, at that point, knew a hell of a lot more than he did about foreign affairs, gave him a dressing down on that issue. Voters seem to not have remembered that (or are as inexperienced in foreign relations as Obama was then), though. It was at that point I thought that although he had great potential to be president, he didn't have the experience for it yet.

 

[YDB95]

A bit of a tilt here. During the primary phase of his first presidential campaign, in a debate with Hillary Clinton, he declared that he would go anywhere and meet any country's leader regardless of U.S. relations with that country. Clinton who, at that point, knew a hell of a lot more than he did about foreign affairs, gave him a dressing down on that issue. Voters seem to not have remembered that (or are as inexperienced in foreign relations as Obama was then), though. It was at that point I thought that although he had great potential to be president, he didn't have the experience for it yet.

At worst, Obama was guilty of a comment that was easy to blow out of proportion. It's like when people from elsewhere say "In America everybody has a gun." Usually they don't literally mean everyone. It was a careless comment and he did deserve to be called on it, but it still doesn't rise to the level of actually meaning he wanted to meet with Kim or any variation thereof.

And one scarcely needs to mention how absolutely clueless Twitler has been about foreign policy for literally every moment of his term.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Then you agree that what Dumpington said is incorrect, regardless of which one of us is correct.

And I didn't say it was an amendment. I don't think anyone did. What does that have to do with anything?

In Post #10, you refer to a law. You also made a reference to ratification by a majority of the states, which is part of the way in which a proposal becomes a Constitutional amendment.

 

[YDB95]

In Post #10, you refer to a law. You also made a reference to ratification by a majority of the states, which is part of the way in which a proposal becomes a Constitutional amendment.

The term "ratify" does not necessarily mean it must be an amendment. If you read that into my comment, that's on you. The point is, the legislation - whatever it technically is - that Dumpington referred to will not take effect until it is passed by states representing a majority of the electoral college.

 

[BotanyBoy]

No, he won't. That law only kicks in when states representing a majority of the electoral college (that's 270 electoral votes, Dumpington) ratify it.

Then all those true blue Democrat run states will look like a bunch of virtue signaling partisan liars.

It's going to be great.

 

[Dumpington]

YDB95 writes: "No, he won't. That law only kicks in when states representing a majority of the electoral college (that's 270 electoral votes, Dumpington) ratify it."

WHAT are you talking about?

That's NOT a constitutional amendment that they're attempting to enact - that would be virtually impossible to get through, as liberals lack the necessary votes to even get it passed in the U.S. House & Senate! No, it's individual states saying that they will award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote! If Trump wins the 2020 popular vote (which is very likely), then all of these liberal states are promising to give him their electoral votes, even if he DIDN'T win in their individual states!

Boxlicker101 writes: "At most, some states might pass it as a law, but it would not be enforceable. Such a law might not even be Constitutional."

Exactly right! This legislation is a way for certain blue states to pretend to be serious about getting rid of the electoral college - only it's never going to happen! Can you imagine presidential electors from ultra-liberal California pledged to Joe Biden (or Kamala, or Liz Warren, or whomever) casting their votes instead for Donald Trump because their state legislature demanded they do so? Watch & see - they'll IGNORE it just like Democrats today currently ignore our nation's immigration laws!

YDB95 writes: "And I didn't say it was an amendment. I don't think anyone did. What does that have to do with anything?"

That's EXACTLY what you said when you implied that other states would need to ratify it first!

KeithD writes: "Clinton who, at that point, knew a hell of a lot more than he did about foreign affairs, gave him a dressing down on that issue."

I love the way that you're STILL talking-up Hillary Clinton, Keith - and I completely understand why - the current crop of Democratic Party presidential candidates is SO BAD I half-expect Mrs. Clinton to enter the 2020 nomination fight and run again in 2020!

BotanyBoy writes: "Then all those true blue Democrat run states will look like a bunch of virtue signaling partisan liars. It's going to be great."

Perhaps all of these blue states will want to hire YDB95 to explain that they never actually MEANT it when they promised to give their electoral votes to the popular vote winner? Either way, they're all going to look SO INCREDIBLY STUPID & hypocritical!

 

[bodysong]

David Weiss
@WeissyDOT Replying to @DevinCow

Ivanka discussing maintaining control of the airports
w our founding fathers #Revolutionary

WarAirportStories

#UninvitedIvanka

(pic)

8:18 PM - 4 Jul 2019

Devin Nunes’ cow
@DevinCow

The red zone is for loading and unloading muskets only

#Revolutionary

WarAirportStories

7:46 PM - 4 Jul 2019

 

[YDB95]

That's EXACTLY what you said when you implied that other states would need to ratify it first!

1. I didn't "imply" that other states would need to ratify it first; I said other states would need to ratify it first.
2. I was right: other states will indeed need to ratify it before it could take effect.
3. The term "ratify" does not automatically mean we're talking about an amendment.

Now, I fully expect you to ignore this the way you always ignore everything that debunks anything you want to believe is true, but...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

Proposed in the form of an interstate compact, the agreement would go into effect among the participating states in the compact only after they collectively represent an absolute majority of votes (currently at least 270) in the Electoral College.


In other words, unless states with an additional 74 electoral votes adopt the compact in the next year and a half (possible but unlikely), all states will cast their electoral votes for the candidate who wins those votes in 2020. It's got nothing to do with an amendment, which is completely unnecessary as the constitution does not tell states how to select its electors.

 

[bodysong]

This was not an acquittal of Trump.

It was a decision to replace a trial with an orchestrated political symphony
conducted by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

Moscow Mitch made good on his historic public promise December 12
that the Senate would maintain "total coordination with the White House
counsel" for the stated goal of killing impeachment. He's one formidable
grim reaper.

https://www.riverfronttimes.com/stl...he-tyranny-close-to-home/Content?oid=33026580