Search results

1. As I told you... from wikipedia... Since then, 19 presidential elections have occurred in which a candidate was elected or reelected without gaining a majority of the popular vote.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States'_presidential_plurality_victories so 19 times the candidate...

I agree... (some were also for him and some were anti hillary and some were anti politician and millions don't care anymore or never did) and that thought was the main reason I argued with Piezoe. I don't really care about the definition of majority here vs a parliamentary system. My point is...

you said... to AAA "You do understand, don't you, that Trump is one of five minority Presidents in the Nation's history" I looked it up... you were wrong. There have been 19 elections where the winner won without gaining a majority of the votes. (since they started recorded elections in the...

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Lake-Tahoe-full-capacity-water-snowmelt-fill-11305741.php#photo-13353690 Tahoe is brimming, nearly full for the first time in 11 years, and stunningly beautiful in all its blue-water glory. The above gallery of images taken over the past month are ample...

so not only are you using the wrong definition of majority for the US system... you are changing the word you used from minority to majority in hopes you can confuse all the readers? look your argument was meaningless. the winner 19 times has had less than the majority vote per the us...

I will say that was the one of the rare times I saw a guest out debate 3 fox news hosts including tucker carlson. but... in a way she just limited the argument to one that is pretty clear. When should removed the kids and the emotions and pretty much the moral argument and just stuck with...

did you read your citation piezoe? if you scroll down in the very citation you provided - you see the US definition... 1.3 US The number by which votes for one candidate are more than those for all other candidates together. so while your usage may have been correct in a parliamentary...

numbnutz.... it was your argument.... that regulation is the argument you provided for excuse the fact her team delted the arguments. If don't find that argument persuasive but... I ripped your argument by pointing out... they were to review each email... not just look at the heading...as you...

1. your bullshit excuse of a regulation .. does not apply to subpoenaed emails... and 2. You just proved Hillary and her team did not follow regulation when they criminally destroyed evidence.. Her and her team were required to review each message before destroying it or moving it...

what the hell are you doing rewriting history again... joint program... I gave you the history. Obama had spoken about single payer during the campaign but his insurance company paymasters had him and the leadership facedown their party and take it out. Obamacare passed without a single...

wow what lies you tell. you have no idea if she destroyed solely private emails or not. related emails or not. I would to see you give us a quote from anyone that can confirm that in light of the process or lawyer supposedly followed which did not include reading the emails ... especially...

I already read the books and took profitable ideas. one author gary smith was here for a while (the one who wrote about living the dream)I told him I made six figures off idea he spoke about in his book. I also made six figures for a year or two front running buy or sell programs -- off an...

you lie your ass off. who told you it was only personal emails... the drives were bleached. evidence was destroyed all over the place. who pays you to tell such lies?

your argument is wrong o 1. FACTS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States'_presidential_plurality_victories The popular vote in an American presidential election was first fully recorded and reported in the election of 1824.[1] Since then, 19 presidential elections have occurred in which...

You are right. its time for my rant... We must have a voucher system for basic coverage and competition across state lines. So the consumer has control of where to spend their money so the insurance companies have reasons to keep the consumer's experience healthy. If a person or company...

I put 2 guys tied for 1st on my list. One, I did not know his wife. He was a scientist I used to speak with. The other was not married, he was a priest. If you wished to acquire knowledge- being a priest with a genius IQ in foggy bottom in DC was just about the perfect. That priest knew...

Single payer is going to happen... I just think the sellout on the hill better realize they will get their political careers handed to them again if they screw those who work for a living again. just remember how many democrats lost their jobs on the hill and around the country because of...

no substance there. basically a a harvard law prof he gave up his impartiality and gravitas a long time ago... speculating that a person could be compelled to testify. Which is true.. but either tribe or the author left an important point out. a court could only compel testimony if the court...

this is interesting.. why would a person not be able to plead the fifth if there are other things they have not been pardoned for? If they are pardoned for any actions they ever took... then I suppose they would have no reason to plead the 5th. If not... then the 5th would likely be a good...

The 2nd smartest guy I ever met once told me he would only marry a really intelligent women. I asked why. He said because then she would know he was always correct.