Nah. Sure, the outcome isn't determined solely by popular vote.
But it usually is. Only when elections are close within a couple
percent does the Electoral College introduce a quasi-random factor.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
She's Baaaaaaaack....Or Is She?
- Thread starter Revoltingest
- Start date
But it usually is. Only when elections are close within a couple
percent does the Electoral College introduce a quasi-random factor.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Drudge is the only source for the claim made in the OP. So it is pertinent that source has historically been a purveyor of RW gossip.
You’ve already admitted it’s an unsourced and unverified claim and I’ve already responded to the possibility of a Bloomberg-Hillary ticket multiple times. I’m not denying you your bucket of fried chicken just don’t expect me to pretend it’s celery.
So you missed the corroborating (to some extent) one I posted later, eh.
"Admitted" is a mischievous word.
"Prefaced" would be the honest choice.
Your acknowledgement was delayed, grudging, & minimal.and I’ve already responded to the possibility of a Bloomberg-Hillary ticket multiple times. I’m not denying you your bucket of fried chicken just don’t expect me to pretend it’s celery.
It was overshadowed by attacks upon one source, & ignoring the other.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
What was the other source? Yes, I did miss that. I thought the NY Post and CNBC and others were reporting that Drudge was reporting it but I could be mistaken.
Check post #104.
More time spent reading, & less objecting could be eye opening.
Now, before you object that it's not conclusive,
accept that I'm not claiming that. But a refusal
to deny something does suggest something.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Oh, yes I saw your Fox News article. I thought by “corroborating” you were saying there is a second source, besides Drudge, that claims someone in the Bloomberg campaign said BB is considering Hillary. There isn’t. What I said was Drudge is the only source for that claim, which remains true. Therefore it’s pertinent that he’s a purveyor of RW gossip / comfort food.
That’s not to say the Fox News article isn’t of interest. BB could have denied that he was considering Hillary and ruled her out entirely, but he didn’t. Personally I don’t read much into that. Even if the original story Drudge reported is false, or if it is only half-true, I wouldn’t expect BB to rule out any VP choice this early - there’s no upside, only downside to doing that this early. Fox News and other RW media could just keep asking about various VP candidates and force BB to deny or confirm each one ... maybe it’s because he is considering Hillary, or maybe it’s because it’s too early to be definitively answering such questions.
But one thing is clear to me: comparing a story by Drudge to the chances of Hillary running again is like comparing a rain dance to the chances of it raining. The only thing that was always certain, is that RW media like Drudge would be doing the rain dance and hoping for a Hillary-shaped thundercloud to form. I knew years ago that resurrecting Hillary would be a RW media theme in 2020, no surprises here.
That was special.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
That’s not an argument.
When a post covers well trodden ground, no argument is needed.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
You said I needed to read more and object less / implied I missed your Fox News article. That was a new claim. An incorrect one. Your FN article reinforced my point that Drudge is the only source of this RW meat mountain. Don’t forget a napkin!
I also responded to the point you made earlier about how BB didn’t rule out Hillary. (Hey, I like county fair food as much as anyone.)
It's OK for you to doubt stirrings of her return,You said I needed to read more and object less / implied I missed your Fox News article. That was a new claim. An incorrect one. Your FN article reinforced my point that Drudge is the only source of this RW meat mountain. Don’t forget a napkin!
but to bury your head in the sand is weak.
Or is it something other than sand....
Mr Spinkles
Mr
I am doing neither. I doubt the efficacy of a rain dance. That’s doesn’t mean I doubt there will be rain. There could be, for all I know.
Sorry for ruining your sundae by noticing it’s not a nutritious meal. Please continue. Let me know if there’s something about a BB-Hillary ticket I have ignored. You can have the last word (but between bites, please)
What is it with you lefties....if you aren't making something
sexual, it's something fecal. I must've struck a nerve.
It would help you to not treat disagreement so personally.
What game is that?
You blame Hillary for most everything wrong in America. You actually continue to blame her for the Bush wars.
How many times, on RF, have you referred to her vote to go to war with Iraq?
How many times have you referred to her expression of regret for believing the Republicans when they lied point blank about the causes of 9/11?
I also despised Clinton for that vote(among other things). I know she helped throw the gays under the bus when DOMA and DADT were politically expedient, and the lies they told the gay community during the election were no longer useful.
But the bottom line is that I see the evidence pointing to Clinton is better for the country than yet another Republican promising stuff they won't deliver, like freedom and an end to abortion.
You said you'd have voted for Sanders over Trump. I wanted Sanders platform. I supported Clinton because I think she could have delivered far more than Sanders.
You voted for Trump, the guy who promised to reignite conflict in the Middle East, because you think he's a peacenik.
Tom
If we discussed it openly, it would ruin the enjoyment of others.
Btw, I didn't want Sanders's platform.
Twas only that I preferred the results anticipated over Trump's.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
This is awkward .... I didn’t say anything sexual or fecal. Fruedian slip I guess?
You mean kinda like it w
It would be nice if I could tell when you were done editing.
Tom
You fruballed the sexual remark, & made the fecal remark.This is awkward .... I didn’t say anything sexual or fecal. Fruedian slip I guess?
But I don't suppose you'll suddenly become honest.
Mystery is good for you.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Huh? The last thing I remember saying is if there’s anything else about a BB-Hillary ticket I haven’t addressed, let me know, and I made a reference to a sundae. Now you’re babbling about me making things sexual and fecal (!)
Im just going to smile and back away slowly.