Charlie Foley
Full Member
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2012
- Messages
- 19,345
At least he won something ^^
He’ll see “hands” and “small” in the same tweet and freak the feck out
At least he won something ^^
99/1 he’s out. He is going to potentially do a bunch of damage before then, but I am not worried about him peaceably remaining in power. Now, non-peacefully..... small chance but that’s the only way.50/50?
Please.50/50?
Is there anything Biden can do to Trump once he's President.
Like deporting him to the Ascenion Islands?
People was in awe of Ferguson because he lived up to his promises and was hugely successful. Trump was a utter failure, a BS artist and a deluded idiot, his followers are the same as him.That's fine but only believed in your echo chamber. Unfortunately 72m+ Americans don't agree or don't care. Lincoln project is an example of moral or ethical indignation not working to change the minds of those on the right. And until Democrats find a way to overcome this, Trumps base will remain strong.
SAF probably had faults and unsavoury personal characteristics, but I was so enamoured and in awe of him, I was blinded or didn't care. Trump is to his cult what Ferguson was to Manchester United fans.
Fixed it for youSecret cabal to the CIA director perhaps... Trump goes on a random canoe trip in the Appalachian, sinks the canoe cos he is such a fat ass and drowns live on tweet tv screaming ‘Collusion’
Fixed it for you
Damn, didn’t see this before. Good bottle of champagne, great producer.
I''ve had this chilled since Tuesday. Must say I'm tempted to just stick it up my arse and tweet it to @calodo2003.
Makes absolute sense. But this also illustrates everything that's gone wrong with social media, and even internet in general, the last decade.Would be interesting if someone did an analysis on him much ad revenue Twitter has made in last 5 years directly off Trump tweets. I think that’s where we’ll find the answer as to why Twitter allows for this.
Twitter was really struggling for technology and cultural relevance in 2015 and its top line revenue and financials were in disarray.
Trump single handedly made Twitter the premier and de facto social media platform for ‘official personal statements’, meaning that any and every serious individual or organisation worldwide had to have an account and use it for formal expression. Put simply, Twitter owes it’s very existence to Trump and loses so much credibility and relevance without him. Basically he can do whatever he wants on this platform.
They meet in the middle of December.I guess, whatever it is, this will finally be over by tomorrow as that is the date for the Electoral College to vote on the president, right? Would be good to finally seal Trump's doom.
oh .. Dec 14 ... not Nov... haha ... ok.. looks like the shit show continues. Thanks for the correction.They meet in the middle of December.
Someone’s about to be fired.
I don't get it. Unless legal challenges/evidence present themselves, what would be the point of going after the electoral college? I mean, isn't it ultimately because of this disproportionate system that he was ever elected in the first place?
I thought the same immediately. He's definitely petty enough.Ffs. He's a tyrant! It's not far fetched to think this is connected, is it?
Not every state has "faithless elector" laws so the mooted idea is to get electors to vote for him regardless of how the actual popular vote played out in the state. Legally speaking, it's a possibility because the constitution set up a frighteningly stupid system.I don't get it. Unless legal challenges/evidence present themselves, what would be the point of going after the electoral college? I mean, isn't it ultimately because of this disproportionate system that he was ever elected in the first place?
Not every state has "faithless elector" laws so the mooted idea is to get electors to vote for him regardless of how the actual popular vote played out in the state. Legally speaking, it's a possibility because the constitution set up a frighteningly stupid system.
Yeah, I can't imagine it happening either. But it would be "constitutional", which tells you all about how really fecked up the system is.Not going to happen. If that were to happen then surely all hell would break loose and someone would.. take matters into their own hands?
Yeah, I can't imagine it happening either. But it would be "constitutional", which tells you all about how really fecked up the system is.
Just saw this
But yeah, the whole EC system is pretty insane in this day and age.
The Supreme Court has already ruled on faithless electors after 2016, you can’t do it. The play they are mooting is to get Republican legislatures in the contested states to send alternative slates of electors, but it will just means an impasse similar to 1876 and if the matter doesn’t get resolved by Jan 20 then Pelosi becomes acting President.
The scenario when each state has a vote in the House only applies for an electoral tie/no one won a majority.
As much as liberals like to wallow in disaster porn, you guys need to take a chill pill. Michael Moore was on The Hill rambling about how Trump is an evil genius and Barr was pulling the strings stealing the election for him before Nov.3rd. It’s unhealthy.
I mean, add the words “trying to” in there and it’s not wrong.Michael Moore was on The Hill rambling about how Trump is an evil genius and Barr was pulling the strings stealing the election for him before Nov.3rd. It’s unhealthy.
The Supreme Court has already ruled on faithless electors after 2016, you can’t do it. The play they are mooting is to get Republican legislatures in the contested states to send alternative slates of electors, but it will just means an impasse similar to 1876 and if the matter doesn’t get resolved by Jan 20 then Pelosi becomes acting President.
The scenario when each state has a vote in the House only applies for an electoral tie/no one won a majority.
As much as liberals like to wallow in disaster porn, you guys need to take a chill pill. Michael Moore was on The Hill rambling about how Trump is an evil genius and Barr was pulling the strings stealing the election for him before Nov.3rd. It’s unhealthy.
It's not that simple though is it? SCOTUS only ruled that state laws that prohibit faithless electors are valid. If a state doesn't have those state laws, then electors can still do as they please.
As far as I'm aware, the Supreme Court ruling was about whether it's permissible for states to enact 'faithless elector' laws. As in, does a state have the right to punish an elector who votes differently than the popular vote results? The ruling was that yes, those laws are constitutional. It does not mean that all states must enact them and many of them didn't.The Supreme Court has already ruled on faithless electors after 2016, you can’t do it. The play they are mooting is to get Republican legislatures in the contested states to send alternative slates of electors, but it will just means an impasse similar to 1876 and if the matter doesn’t get resolved by Jan 20 then Pelosi becomes acting President.
The scenario when each state has a vote in the House only applies for an electoral tie/no one won a majority.
As much as liberals like to wallow in disaster porn, you guys need to take a chill pill. Michael Moore was on The Hill rambling about how Trump is an evil genius and Barr was pulling the strings stealing the election for him before Nov.3rd. It’s unhealthy.