Trump is no pacifist. More likely he’s a reactionary isolationist
Trump needs to win, or at least to appear to win. If he can't bully you he will have someone fight you.
Sustained “alt news" aimed directly at his business empire.
I suspect that "actual news" exposing his business empire would do just as well. For some reason the media, supposedly beholden to the left, simply won't tackle it (with one or two exceptions, e.g. Farenthold; we'll have to see if they expand their efforts now).
Show me the correct numbers then.
The numbers that matter are:
- the actual vote totals in each state
- the actual states that contribute electors to the electoral college
Mr Asshole wants to give Trump's win extra legitimacy by only counting 44 states and dismissing the excess votes in the others as liberal elites whose votes aren't important.
Can you not see how that is dishonest? Why should Mr Asshole be taken seriously?
At this point I don't know if you're trolling or if you really don't understand the difference between real facts, selective presentation of facts with biased commentary, and fake facts. So as I have better things to do with my time than use it trying to explain to somebody who doesn't want an explanation, I won't waste it.
The conclusions are quite different from yours.
Well let's apply his logic to the question. His conclusions are different to mine, but he's an asshole so his opinion doesn't count as much as mine.
Trump narrowly won the popular vote in 44 states, and that Clinton won it , overwhelmingly in 6 states.
If this is true, then if Clinton won the six most valuable states the electoral college standings would be Clinton 176, Trump 362.
But among these 6 top states we have Texas, Florida, and Pennsylvania, all of which were won by Trump.
The provisional EC result at the moment is Clinton 232, Trump 306.
So on the face of it your second hand speculation is completely incorrect, easily refuted, and to repeat it here without bothering to do the most basic fact-checking yourself just exemplifies the problem Russell was posting about.
Because there's a difference between evidence and imaginary evidence.
Unfortunately, this decision ruled out all the 2016 mayoral candidates bar Chloe Swarbrick.
I like what you did there.
Chlöe might be even more interesting if you restored her umlaut though.
But apparently it's now a crime, subject to legal sanctions. When did that happen?
It wasn't a criminal investigation. The character alleged to have made homophobic statements was not the accused but the complainant.
Lack of comprehension is a defect which can be cured by education and training. It's not a crime either, but I recommend the treatment.
I appreciated the way the Obamas clearly decided about halfway through to spare his embarrassment by moving around a bit themselves, albeit in a low-key kind of way. I think that was a gracious thing to do.