March 13, 2018 11:39 am at 11:39 am #1488133
How cool is that.
Now we start with the regular Trump debacle. He said she said he said she said.
Tillerson claims he never knew he was being fired and found out via Tweet. trump says they spoke about it.
Like what a retard. Never ends with this guy. I’m all for Trump, but seriously dude, get a grip and cut the garbage out. Act your age. Act like a President. This isn’t the Apprentice.
I hold Trump only did this to put a lady in charge of the CIA.
“No one hires women like me. I make them bigger and stronger. No one is like me. I defend women’s rights more than any president in history. Stronger. Faster. Bigger. Much bigger. And ALOT cheaper too. Right folks Much cheaper women. And way ahead of schedule too. And if the women complain, I will make the women 10 feet higher and Mexico will pay for those women”.March 13, 2018 12:49 pm at 12:49 pm #1488149
He had to fire him. He is not on the same page. Trump is trying to make peace with N. Korea and Russia. Tillerson wasn’t helping him in this regard!March 13, 2018 12:49 pm at 12:49 pm #1488150
Tillerson was fired by a twitMarch 13, 2018 4:26 pm at 4:26 pm #1488580
He knew he was done before the tweet he had the option to resign and chose not to.March 13, 2018 10:10 pm at 10:10 pm #1488974
Tillerson calls Trump a moron, and is not fired. Tillerson says something against Russia, and is fired. Putin is clearly pulling the strings.March 13, 2018 10:27 pm at 10:27 pm #1488983
Tillerson was disastrous as Secretary of State. He had no experience in government or in diplomacy. His reorganization decimated the diplomatic corps. Pompeo may be even worse. Trump is like a tinpot dictator who wants to be surrounded by yes-men, and Pompeo fits the bill perfectly.March 13, 2018 10:41 pm at 10:41 pm #1488995
BTW, if he was fired by a tweet, that fits into Trump’s pattern. He fired Comey by proxy as well. He allegedly told the New York Post he was divorcing his second wife, then gave her the news by showing her the headline.March 14, 2018 12:01 pm at 12:01 pm #1489293
The only “surprise” is that there are some who are still “surprised” by the Trumpkopf’s ongoing downward spiral and the ugliness surrounding his presidency. It was funny at one time…no longer. There is a difference between being “politically incorrect” or “non-traditional” than the vulgarity, crudeness and hate we are watching in real time.March 14, 2018 12:25 pm at 12:25 pm #1489313
Godolhadorah -“than the vulgarity, crudeness and hate we are watching in real time.”
And even with all that – he is still better than the alternative!
Hillary can’t even walk down a flight of steps with s/o holding her, but you libs want her to lead the Western World?!?March 14, 2018 12:41 pm at 12:41 pm #1489343
If libs actually wanted Hillary, she would have won.March 14, 2018 2:41 pm at 2:41 pm #1489604
@rebyidd23, they did. There’s a reason that she won the popular vote by 3 million.March 14, 2018 2:54 pm at 2:54 pm #1489618
shmerel: She didn’t win the popular vote. She lost it as no one won since no candidate received a majority of the popular vote. Clinton got 48.2% of the vote, which according to my math teacher, is less than a majority. Or as they say in English, a minority of the vote.March 14, 2018 3:59 pm at 3:59 pm #1489664
Chiefshmerel, even the people who voted for Hillary only did so because they hated Trump more.March 14, 2018 5:43 pm at 5:43 pm #1490317
Joseph, in English, that’s a majority. She got more votes than any other candidate.
RebYidd23, many people voted for a third party candidate. I remember Election Night, when Evan McMullin had a chance of winning Illinois. Stein got 1.2 million votes, and Johnson got about 3 million. So no, she won the popular vote.March 14, 2018 6:14 pm at 6:14 pm #1490604
smerel: In English that’s a minority, not a majority. It’s a plurality, but certainly not a majority.
That’s English 101 for you. Come back tomorrow for English 102.
To summarize, she did not win the popular vote. To “win” the popular vote you need at least 50% + 1 vote. She received 48.2%.March 14, 2018 6:38 pm at 6:38 pm #1490617
President Trump is well on his way to becoming the most productive president our nation has ever elected.March 14, 2018 11:12 pm at 11:12 pm #1490684
Joseph, she won the popular vote because she got a plurality. No one except you interprets “winning the popular vote” as requiring a majority.
Health, it seems to me we’ve had a president who couldn’t even stand unsupported and still managed to run the country.March 14, 2018 11:12 pm at 11:12 pm #1490686
kitzur_dot_net, what is his great production?March 14, 2018 11:12 pm at 11:12 pm #1490687
Donald Trump is a snivelling coward. Firing the nation’s most prominent diplomat via a banal tweet is indicative of where we are as a country.
The melachim are crying, bemoaning a glorious nation lost to an orange hued, chaucarian fraud peddling his fake vow of greatness.March 14, 2018 11:21 pm at 11:21 pm #1490693
YY, no she did not win the popular vote. No one but Democrats make that mathematically false claim. 48.2% is not winning the popular vote by any mathematical definition. A plurality is not a majority. Most American voters voted against Clinton.March 15, 2018 8:56 am at 8:56 am #1490799
It’s not exactly relevant to politics, but Trump’s skin tone has been fluctuating lately. He’s not consistently orange.March 15, 2018 11:46 am at 11:46 am #1490961
Joseph, please quote anyone — anyone — who agrees with your definition of winning the popular vote. In almost all U.S. elections (other than the presidential election, in which the popular vote doesn’t determine the winner), the candidate who gets a plurality wins.
FWIW, here’s what Wikipedia has to say: “Losing the popular vote means securing less of the national popular vote than the person who received either a majority or a plurality of the vote.”
RY23, it could be a new batch of makeup. When painting a room, they always recommend getting all your paint from the same lot. Or it could be he’s tired of being compared to a Cheeto or a tangerine.March 15, 2018 12:40 pm at 12:40 pm #1490988
YY, please quote any non-Democrat who agrees with your mathematically-challenged definition. And not the Democrat-heavy Wikipedia moderators-approved edits.
Every jurisdiction chooses who wins elections slightly differently. Many will have a runoff if no one gets 50%+1 vote. Including in New York City citywide primaries and in various other states, including statewide contests.March 15, 2018 12:40 pm at 12:40 pm #1490983
I don’t like to use analogies to the Shoah or other such tragic events but over the course of history, some of the world’s greatest tyrants and Rashaim ranging from those who grabbed power in developing nations and engaged in genocide of their opponents to a Putin in Russia who is more selective in his targeted assasinations have won the popular vote or majority vote (in some cases with 99%). Here the Trumpkopf won legally against a flawed candidate but even then couldn’t win even a plurality or majority of the vote. His behavior since taking office for many of us is an obscenity but he is still President.March 15, 2018 11:03 pm at 11:03 pm #1491653
Majority, plurality, enough with the semantics. The bottom line is Clinton got almost three million more votes than Trump. She didn’t win the presidency because of our electoral college system, but if it had gone strictly by national numbers she would have been in.
Trump is turning out to be a disaster because he doesn’t understand that he’s in a whole different environment, which has no relationship to either television or urban real estate. If he had surrounded himself with experienced advisors, he might have done a decent job, but that’s not what he’s doing – most of his picks are fellow rookies. Ben Carson is a wonderful, gifted neurosurgeon, but what does he know about housing? Tillerson was a competent, successful business executive, but what did he know about diplomacy? It’s not true that if you can run a business you can apply the same principles to running a government department. It’s two very different skill sets.
I feel sorry for Trump. He doesn’t seem to enjoy being president very much. But the real danger is for Israel. Who is going to defend us against the BDSers if not the US? If the US loses international credibility, we’ve lost our greatest supporter.March 15, 2018 11:07 pm at 11:07 pm #1491658
Who cares if Hillary won the popular vote? Maybe she would also have won if the presidential election was based on a game of Othello, but that’s not how we elect presidents.March 16, 2018 3:25 am at 3:25 am #1491699
The last time the losing candidate received more popular votes than electoral was in 2000 when Al Gore lost to George W Bush.
Then Senator Hillary Clinton said, “We must do something about reforming this outdated system. ”
Guess what? In sixteen years she didn’t do a thing, and it came back to haunt her.
Exactly what (candidate) Trump was saying, that she’d be a terrible president.March 16, 2018 3:32 am at 3:32 am #1491703
Midwest2: Five million (that’s 5,000,000) more Americans voted that Hillary should not be President than voted that she should be President. So she would not be in. If no one got a majority, as occurred in 2016, in a system where there’s no Electoral College then a runoff (or an “instant runoff” — google that) should occur to determine a winner – since no one won.
And like DY correctly pointed out, if the election had been based on a popular vote then the candidates would have campaigned FAR differently than they did. And the outcome would’ve been much different, and incomparable to the election we had based on the Electoral College. Both candidates would’ve heavily campaigned in deep red and deep blue States rather than only campaigning in swing States.March 16, 2018 9:10 am at 9:10 am #1491735
If the election system were different from the start, Trump and Clinton wouldn’t even have been born.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.