rumitoid

Besides the fact that Trump lost the popular v**e by nearly 3m and had a narrow e*******l win due mostly to three districts in "swing states," he had FBI and former KGB support.

lolol "deep state," "anti-Trump FBI" Comey released days before the e******n that Hillary emails were being further investigated, prompting many Conservative media hosts and other Rightwing voices to question repeatedly why v**e for someone who was going to be "locked up." The Trump campaign was also being actively investigated at the time by Comey and the FBI for Russian collusion: A FACT NOT ANNOUNCED OR LEAKED TO THE MEDIA! (Please explain how anyone could possibly see those facts as a conspiracy to derail Trump?)

Russia created, and this has been proven and published, pro-Trump meetings for people to attend on social media, including thousands on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram; estimates on how many actually attended those meetings is unknown but they scored tens of thousands of "like."

Russian bots retweeted Donald Trump messages close to half-a-million times in the weeks leading up to the p**********l e******n, Twitter officials revealed to the Senate Judiciary Committee, CNN reports.

Some 50,000 of the automated accounts linked to Russia retweeted Trump 10 times more often than they retweeted messages from his rival, Hillary Clinton, Twitter detailed in a written statement this month expanding on testimony to the committee last fall.

The bots tweeted a total of some 2 million messages related to the e******n beginning in September 2016 to Nov. 15, according to Twitter.

he bots also retweeted and helped amplify other content seen as harmful to the Democrats — including information about hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee exposed on Wikileaks. When the hashtag #PodestaEmails was launched after Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s emails were hacked, the Russian bots were responsible for a stunning 5 percent of all the tweets on the hashtag, according to data provided by Twitter.

Twitter revealed the information as Senate and House committees continue to probe the extent of Russian interference in the U.S. p**********l e******n. American intelligence officials have concluded that bots under the control of the Kremlin were mobilized in a bid to sway the e******n toward a Trump victory.

More recently, Russian bots have artificially amplified the traffic of the hashtag #SchumerShutdown, which blames the Democratic Party for the recent government closure that was resolved early last week.

proud republican Loc: RED CALIFORNIA

You are SOOOOO funny!!!!

rumitoid

I am, I admit that, but I also speak the t***h...which you cannot handle. If you could handle the t***h, you would have an intelligent response, a well-reasoned argument to make what I said "funny."

proud republican Loc: RED CALIFORNIA

I told you and other of your ilk why President T***p w*n.He won because he was not a politician!!1..He wasnt BSer!!!He talked to the people not at the people!!! With President Trump its not business as usual!!!

rumitoid

Again, here are the irrefutable facts presented below. You can refuse to accept them but obviously you cannot refute them.

Besides the fact that Trump lost the popular v**e by nearly 3m and had a narrow e*******l win due mostly to three districts in "swing states," he had FBI and former KGB support.

lolol "deep state," "anti-Trump FBI" Comey released days before the e******n that Hillary emails were being further investigated, prompting many Conservative media hosts and other Rightwing voices to question repeatedly why v**e for someone who was going to be "locked up." The Trump campaign was also being actively investigated at the time by Comey and the FBI for Russian collusion: A FACT NOT ANNOUNCED OR LEAKED TO THE MEDIA! (Please explain how anyone could possibly see those facts as a conspiracy to derail Trump?)

Russia created, and this has been proven and published, pro-Trump meetings for people to attend on social media, including thousands on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram; estimates on how many actually attended those meetings is unknown but they scored tens of thousands of "like."

Russian bots retweeted Donald Trump messages close to half-a-million times in the weeks leading up to the p**********l e******n, Twitter officials revealed to the Senate Judiciary Committee, CNN reports.

Some 50,000 of the automated accounts linked to Russia retweeted Trump 10 times more often than they retweeted messages from his rival, Hillary Clinton, Twitter detailed in a written statement this month expanding on testimony to the committee last fall.

The bots tweeted a total of some 2 million messages related to the e******n beginning in September 2016 to Nov. 15, according to Twitter.

he bots also retweeted and helped amplify other content seen as harmful to the Democrats — including information about hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee exposed on Wikileaks. When the hashtag #PodestaEmails was launched after Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s emails were hacked, the Russian bots were responsible for a stunning 5 percent of all the tweets on the hashtag, according to data provided by Twitter.

Twitter revealed the information as Senate and House committees continue to probe the extent of Russian interference in the U.S. p**********l e******n. American intelligence officials have concluded that bots under the control of the Kremlin were mobilized in a bid to sway the e******n toward a Trump victory.

More recently, Russian bots have artificially amplified the traffic of the hashtag #SchumerShutdown, which blames the Democratic Party for the recent government closure that was resolved early last week.

proud republican Loc: RED CALIFORNIA

#F**ENEWS!!! And BTW it was Schumer's fault!!! He shouldnt of put DACA with budget bill together!!! So it is his fault!!

Loki Loc: Georgia

306 e*******l v**es to 232. Yep, that's "narrow" alright. Here are the states. How about the counties? Oh! Here they are......
We seem to have a different definition of narrow.

Your harpy lost. Deal with it.

rumitoid

Trump's e*******l win ranks 46th in 58 e******ns. That ranking does not appear to put him up there in the "wide" category. As you pointed out, "Yep, that's "narrow" alright." And he lost the popular v**e by almost three million v**es.

I h**e all the assumptions that come with your posts and most on the Right. I disliked Hillary and most of what she implied she stood for, which was probably just convenient for her base. I frequently criticized Obama here and in real life. Just stick to the facts.

Loki Loc: Georgia

The facts are as follows; Since 1789, the p**********l winner has been determined by the e*******l college, NOT the e*******l v**e. Should this process be not to your liking you have several options...
1). You can move to a country whose e*******l processes are more in tune with your tastes.
2). You can die.
3). You can begin the time consuming process of authoring a Constitutional Amendment abolishing the E*******l College.
In the interest of brevity and economy, I would recommend exercising option #1, or #2.

timofrock

At least you a
Admit what you say we are. H**er!!
"
I h**e all the assumptions that come with your posts and most on the Right."

rumitoid

Lol, that is so totally puerile besides not responding to my post. A little tantrum at being wrong? Nothing I said stated or suggested or vaguely hinted at displeasure with the E*******l College. Your response is a typical and very boring strategy of the Right to create a straw-man diversionary tactic. The proof of this is there in black and white with our exchanges. I never made a complaint about the E*******l College. A very cheap and disappointing response, Loki.

Loki Loc: Georgia

You certainly made a point about Trump's "narrow" victory. You made one about the loss of the popular v**e; (which is mostly the result of California.) You complain about everything else concerning the e******n. You make claims about President Trump with nothing but innuendo supplied by left wing pundits as your evidence. Oh, yes, a bit off the subject, but you recently authored a post claiming a book proved there is no individual right to bear arms and we are still waiting for the name of the book.

rumitoid

It is to my deep regret, seriously, that responding to you is a waste of time. I thought far better of you, actually counted on you to make a good and logical argument that might change my mind on a topic. Now you are like the rest: insult over facts.

I do not "make claims about President Trump with nothing but innuendo supplied by left wing pundits as your evidence." Unless the entire media is considered to be left wing pundits as well as Trump's tweets. It is not "f**e news" when Trump himself is the source of verifiable complaint.

"Oh, yes, a bit off the subject, but you recently authored a post claiming a book proved there is no individual right to bear arms and we are still waiting for the name of the book." Open your ears for a change, oh, and your eyes. Patrick J. Charles doesn’t keep readers in suspense as to his interpretation. In his introduction to Armed in America: A History of Gun Rights from Colonial M*****as to Concealed Carry, Mr. Charles states: “the Second Amendment was neither legally intended nor legally understood by the Founding Fathers as protecting a right to armed individual self-defense.”

o there you have it – if you buy into Charles’s detailed exegesis. Charles, a historian and legal scholar, spent almost 10 years digging deeply into the issue of gun rights. And he has written a credible record of what he learned, which led to his conclusions.

“Armed in America” painstakingly presents the historic context for the Second Amendment, which Charles says is necessary to understand its meaning. He includes a discussion of Article VII of the 1689 English Declaration of Rights, a “precursor" to the Second Amendment that “was intimately tied to Parliament’s powers over arming and arraying of the m*****a.”

Charles asserts, “To the Founding Fathers, a well-regulated m*****a indicated something far more specific... than an armed citizenry. [It] united the people in defense of their rights, liberties, and property .... as a common community.” Then he identifies the origins for what he views as misinterpretation of the Second Amendment. He says that “[i]n the 1840s, compulsory m*****a service gave way to volunteer m*****a companies...” At this point, “the right to arms was no longer seen as being indispensably intertwined with military service ... [but] gradually degenerated into a mere armed citizenry model – that is a right of law-abiding citizens to have and to keep arms.”

https://www.csmonitor.com/Books/Book-Reviews/2018/0126/Armed-in-America-asks-exactly-what-the-Founding-Fathers-intended-with-the-Second-Amendment

timofrock

[quote=rumitoid]It is to my deep regret, seriously, that responding to you is a waste of time. I thought far better of you, actually counted on you to make a good and logical argument that might change my mind on a topic. Now you are like the rest: insult over facts.

I do not "make claims about President Trump with nothing but innuendo supplied by left wing pundits as your evidence." Unless the entire media is considered to be left wing pundits as well as Trump's tweets. It is not "f**e news" when Trump himself is the source of verifiable complaint.

"Oh, yes, a bit off the subject, but you recently authored a post claiming a book proved there is no individual right to bear arms and we are still waiting for the name of the book." Open your ears for a change, oh, and your eyes. Patrick J. Charles doesn’t keep readers in suspense as to his interpretation. In his introduction to Armed in America: A History of Gun Rights from Colonial M*****as to Concealed Carry, Mr. Charles states: “the Second Amendment was neither legally intended nor legally understood by the Founding Fathers as protecting a right to armed individual self-defense.”

o there you have it – if you buy into Charles’s detailed exegesis. Charles, a historian and legal scholar, spent almost 10 years digging deeply into the issue of gun rights. And he has written a credible record of what he learned, which led to his conclusions.

“Armed in America” painstakingly presents the historic context for the Second Amendment, which Charles says is necessary to understand its meaning. He includes a discussion of Article VII of the 1689 English Declaration of Rights, a “precursor" to the Second Amendment that “was intimately tied to Parliament’s powers over arming and arraying of the m*****a.”

Charles asserts, “To the Founding Fathers, a well-regulated m*****a indicated something far more specific... than an armed citizenry. [It] united the people in defense of their rights, liberties, and property .... as a common community.” Then he identifies the origins for what he views as misinterpretation of the Second Amendment. He says that “[i]n the 1840s, compulsory m*****a service gave way to volunteer m*****a companies...” At this point, “the right to arms was no longer seen as being indispensably intertwined with military service ... [but] gradually degenerated into a mere armed citizenry model – that is a right of law-abiding citizens to have and to keep arms.”

https://www.csmonitor.com/Books/Book-Reviews/2018/0126/Armed-in-America-asks-exactly-what-the-Founding-Fathers-intended-with-the-Second-Amendment[/quote]










Preamble)
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.



Article [II] (Amendment 2 - Bearing Arms)
A well regulated M*****a, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


What part of " the people " do you not understand?
Not a question.......simpleton.
all that drivel.....for nothing.

timofrock

[quote=rumitoid]It is to my deep regret, seriously, that responding to you is a waste of time."





Almost forgot........