Denny is the corn maze of debate spawn of my inebriation! How's Memaid mom? Still floppin' around? Tell her Sailor River still has some seaweed in a mojo bag in her memory!
It's not progress. The increase was from "I don't like Trump or Clinton" voters, not because anyone was impressed by your Johnson. And you didn't reach 5% to qualify for funding, so it'll be back to near zero next time. barfo
You don't recognize progress. Thanks for proving it again. The candidate with the most money was the LOSER.
Geez! This is not a good time, I know things are slow, but barfo talking about Denny's Johnson is too much.
Trump was the candidate with the most money - $5 or $10 billion, according to him. It's true that Clinton lost the election. But your Johnson wasn't up for the fight. I believe he finished in 8th place, behind Trump, Clinton, Colin Powell, Bernie Sanders, Faith Spotted Eagle, Ron Paul, and John Kasich.. LOSER, BIGLY. barfo
He didn't sell any buildings to pay for his campaign, did he? SMH My candidate wasn't expected to win, just do better than the last time (e.g. PROGRESS). Your candidate had the most faithless electors in the past 150 years or so. The FBI director must have really not wanted her to win after his investigation, eh? What other excuses do you have?
Thanks Obama (And this article was before the 2016 election!) http://www.npr.org/2016/03/04/46905...crushed-during-the-obama-presidency-heres-why The Democratic Party Got Crushed During The Obama Presidency. Here's Why When Obama took office, there were 60 Democratic senators; now there are 46. The number of House seats held by Democrats has shrunk from 257 to 188. There are now nine fewer Democratic governors than in 2009. Democrats currently hold fewer elected offices nationwide than at any time since the 1920s. The people saw it in action for 8 years and we all know the result. Did I say, Thanks Obama? Remember the good old days?
http://nypost.com/2016/12/25/obamas-legacy-is-a-devastated-democratic-party/ Obama’s legacy is a devastated Democratic Party As President Obama concludes his reign of error, his party is smaller, weaker and ricketier than it has been since at least the 1940s. Behold the tremendous power that Democrats have frittered away — from January 2009 through the aftermath of Election Day — thanks to Obama and his ideas: Democrats surrendered the White House to political neophyte Donald J. Trump. US Senate seats slipped from 55 to 46, down 16 percent. US House seats fell from 256 to 194, down 24 percent. Democrats ran the Senate and House in 2009. Next year, they will control neither. Governorships slid from 28 to 16, down 43 percent. State legislatures (both chambers) plunged from 27 to 14, down 48 percent Trifectas (states with Democrat governors and both legislative chambers) cratered from 17 to 6, down 65 percent. Since Franklin Delano Roosevelt, eight presidents have served at least two terms or bowed to their vice presidents due to death or resignation. Among them, Obama ranks eighth in total state legislative seats that his party preserved during his tenure. Obama has supervised the net loss of 959 such Democratic positions, down 23.5 percent, according to Ballotpedia, which generated most of the data cited here. This far outpaces the 843 net seats that Republicans yielded under President Dwight Eisenhower. ... Democrats can chant the soothing lie that this wholesale, multi-level rejection of their party stems from “structural racism,” the legacy of Jim Crow, the immortal tentacles of slavery, or whatever other analgesic excuse they can scrounge up. The same nation that they claim cannot outgrow its bigotry somehow elected and then re-elected Obama, quite comfortably. This deep-rooted repudiation is not of Obama himself, but of Obamaism, today’s Democratic gospel. Thanks Obama!
Thanks Obama! http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/can-the-democratic-party-survive/507116/ Does the Democratic Party Have a Future? The leaderless party is beset by structural disadvantages and policy defeats. Long, long ago, on Monday, when a Hillary Clinton victory seemed likely, the forecast for the Democratic Party looked grim. The party was confident that its aging candidate, the spouse of another former Democratic president, could win, and it was optimistic about winning control of the Senate. Clinton might serve (to borrow a phrase) as a bridge to the 2010s, but the next two elections would be much tougher: Democrats would be defending a lot of difficult Senate seats in 2018, and simple structural forces made it unlikely a President Clinton could hold the White House for two terms. Who would lead the party then? Instead, the nightmare has arrived early. All of those dangers still beset the party, but now without the bridge of a Clinton presidency to ease the blow. Donald Trump will enter the White House with a Republican Senate and a Republican House. Because President Obama was unable to get the Senate to vote on his appointee for an open Supreme Court seat, Trump will immediately have the chance to appoint a ninth member to the Court, breaking a 4-4 tie. At the state level, Republicans now control at least 34 governorships, the most since 1922, and ran up their advantage in state legislatures. The result is that much of the Barack Obama legacy, the most sweeping and impressive progressive program of social reform since Lyndon Johnson, is in peril. There are many places where Trump and the leaders of the Republican Congress disagree, but they have all pushed for the chance to dismantle two signature Obama achievements: the Affordable Care Act, which was the crowning if incomplete culmination of decades of Democratic effort; and both domestic and multilateral efforts to slow climate change. A conservative majority on the Court also throws long-settled precedents like Roe v. Wade into question.
Tee hee: http://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/tru...fighting-over-nazi-salutes-and-book-burnings/ "Alt-lite"? Lol.
Isn't there an "Obamagrets" thread or some such started by somebody? Maybe a moderator can sort out which posts go where.
Nice rhetorical move, but it doesn't actually prove much. (And these people are celebrating because they think they've shown up an actual minor. Perhaps they are actual minors too (they certainly act like it) in which case, why are we presenting their back-and-forth as somehow worth emulating?) What the OP is presumably talking about is people saying "I'm not a racist" when NOBODY HAS ACCUSED THEM of being a racist. That's what the whole "feel the need" business is about. If, on the other hand, (a) somebody came out and accused them personally of being a racist, and (b) they could immediately produce conclusive proof (like the OP being a minor disproves pedophilia) that they were not, then nobody would question "why they feel the need". But all of that is obvious if you give it a moment's thought, and now I feel stupid for wasting whole minutes of my life pointing it out. This is what passes for pwnage in the age of Trump. It's about on the level of "You're the puppet!"
