How Bernie Sanders would transform the nation

[pnwmystery]

The House can't pass a bill on it's own. The Senate must also pass it. The Republicans did not have a majority in the Senate, BY YOUR OWN STATEMENT.

So not even one Republican Congressman or President at all. But a unsourced "poll" by a libtard where the largest number of the respondents he CLAIMS are Republicans say "Legal"
Are you done embarrassing yourself yet?

Still you're pointing out straw men arguments and it's hilarious. An overwhelming majority of Republicans voted for it, it was pushed by a Republican administration, enacted by a Republican controlled House and then voted in under a split Senate, yet somehow as per your statement it was made by Democrats? Explain to me how this works.

As far as Public Policy Poll? It is one of the most accurate pollsters out there. http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/266615-study-finds-ppp-kos-the-most-accurate-pollsters-in-2012 (now watch, everyone, Red is going to go "IN 2012! It says in 2012! So it was ONLY ACCURATE in 2012!" ). Did I ever say a Congressman or President? No, I said "Republicans," thus so far my statement is still factual.

 

[Red1966]

And I said four times out of the 15 when there was an upset in NH or IA, it lead to great momentum for the upsetter. "The upset or weak showing by a front-runner [in NH] changes the calculus of national politics in a matter of hours, as happened in 1952 (D), 1968 (D), 1980 (R), and 2008 (D)." If you've ever read The Making of the Presidential Candidates which I'm pretty sure you haven't, but you're in luck as the piece I'm going to quote is available online, "a win in the New Hampshire primary increases a candidate's expected share of the total primary vote by a remarkable 26.8 percentage points. Even a second-place finish in New Hampshire (in a multi-candidate race) increases a candidate's final vote totals by 17.2 percent."

Oh, and I've been proving my sources over and over again and you keep pointing out straw men.

No, you said "more often than not". Liar. You've failed to provide sources most the time, and when you occasionally do, it's some libtard source of dubious veracity. Your claims that some non-elected candidate who couldn't garner Republican votes somehow represents all Republicans is the "strawman" arguement.
A candidate who is winning can be expected to win? Well, duh! Who would have thought a person getting the majority of votes would win the election? Your source is an idiot.

 

[pnwmystery]

No, you said "more often than not". Liar. You've failed to provide sources most the time, and when you occasionally do, it's some libtard source of dubious veracity. Your claims that some non-elected candidate who couldn't garner Republican votes somehow represents all Republicans is the "strawman" arguement.
A candidate who is winning can be expected to win? Well, duh! Who would have thought a person getting the majority of votes would win the election? Your source is an idiot.

Read it once more, because you clearly failed to comprehend.

Also my sources are not dubious, they're only dubious to you because you show an overwhelming confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance. You're the same person who'd say a peer review study didn't mean anything if it contrasted your belief.

 

[The_Herban_Legend]

 

[Red1966]

Still you're pointing out straw men arguments and it's hilarious. An overwhelming majority of Republicans voted for it, it was pushed by a Republican administration, enacted by a Republican controlled House and then voted in under a split Senate, yet somehow as per your statement it was made by Democrats? Explain to me how this works.

As far as Public Policy Poll? It is one of the most accurate pollsters out there. http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/266615-study-finds-ppp-kos-the-most-accurate-pollsters-in-2012 (now watch, everyone, Red is going to go "IN 2012! It says in 2012! So it was ONLY ACCURATE in 2012!" ). Did I ever say a Congressman or President? No, I said "Republicans," thus so far my statement is still factual.

Now you're misstating my position. I said Democrats had to have voted for it too in the Senate or it could not have possibly passed.You keep blathering "strawman", then bring up Herman Cain. That is your strawman. Who was mine? Democratic Senators?
Are you really trying to pretend you speak for me, now? " Red is going to go "IN 2012! It says in 2012! So it was ONLY ACCURATE in 2012!"
Are you really claiming "Republicans" who are not in any office at all somehow voted in the Patriot Act?

 

[ginwilly]

Still you're pointing out straw men arguments and it's hilarious. An overwhelming majority of Republicans voted for it, it was pushed by a Republican administration, enacted by a Republican controlled House and then voted in under a split Senate, yet somehow as per your statement it was made by Democrats? Explain to me how this works.

As far as Public Policy Poll? It is one of the most accurate pollsters out there. http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/266615-study-finds-ppp-kos-the-most-accurate-pollsters-in-2012 (now watch, everyone, Red is going to go "IN 2012! It says in 2012! So it was ONLY ACCURATE in 2012!" ). Did I ever say a Congressman or President? No, I said "Republicans," thus so far my statement is still factual.

Yes, the PA was a shitty pub bill but originally didn't include cell phones. That was added under dems and is a game changer. Without cell phones being tapped we had an illusion of privacy, dems put an end to that. So fuck both parties.

 

[Red1966]

Read it once more, because you clearly failed to comprehend.

Also my sources are not dubious, they're only dubious to you because you show an overwhelming confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance. You're the same person who'd say a peer review study didn't mean anything if it contrasted your belief.

Disagreeing is not "failing to comprehend" Your go-to statement that anyone disagreeing with you is biased or stupid shows what an closed minded zealot you are
Still trying to speak for me, I see.

 

[pnwmystery]

Now you're misstating my position. I said Democrats had to have voted for it too in the Senate or it could not have possibly passed.You keep blathering "strawman", then bring up Herman Cain. That is your strawman. Who was mine? Democratic Senators?
Are you really trying to pretend you speak for me, now? " Red is going to go "IN 2012! It says in 2012! So it was ONLY ACCURATE in 2012!"
Are you really claiming "Republicans" who are not in any office at all somehow voted in the Patriot Act?

No, no, this is what you posted.

Patriot Act = Republican
Voted in by Democrats

See that "Voted in by?" How am I misstating your position? You never said Democrats had to have voted for it too in the Senate, you simply tried to correct me by saying "Democrats voted for it!" which then implies that Republicans had very little to do with it. You then tried to argue against me saying that it wasn't the Republicans that pushed it, it was the Democrats because of the 50/50 Congress. I have no idea where you got that last bit.

 

[ChesusRice]

Disagreeing is not "failing to comprehend" Your go-to statement that anyone disagreeing with you is biased or stupid shows what an closed minded zealot you are
Still trying to speak for me, I see.

You got PWNed again

 

[Red1966]

She will be indicted, so she won't get the nomination.

Your advice to get a job is spot on, though. Free shit ain't coming.

She got the majority of votes in the 2008 Democratic convention and still couldn't get the nomination. Maybe running for office while in prison will do the trick?

 

[potroastV2]

Read it once more, because you clearly failed to comprehend.

NOW you're beginning to understand!

 

[Red1966]

No, no, this is what you posted.

Patriot Act = Republican
Voted in by Democrats

See that "Voted in by?" How am I misstating your position? You never said Democrats had to have voted for it too in the Senate, you simply tried to correct me by saying "Democrats voted for it!" which then implies that Republicans had very little to do with it. You then tried to argue against me saying that it wasn't the Republicans that pushed it, it was the Democrats because of the 50/50 Congress. I have no idea where you got that last bit.

No, saying "Democrats voted for it" means Democrats voted for it. The "Republicans had very little to do with it." is all yours. I got the last bit from your previous post where you said the Senate was split 50/50
You keeping making statements, then try to claim I said them.

 

[pnwmystery]

No, saying "Democrats voted for it" means Democrats voted for it. The "Republicans had very little to do with it." is all yours. I got the last bit from your previous post where you said the Senate was split 50/50
You keeping making statements, then try to claim I said them.

Read what you wrote once again. "Voted in by Democrats." Let that sink in for a second what it means. If you still don't get it, simply ask me, "What does voted in mean?" and I will gladly explain it to you since you fail to understand what you wrote.

 

[Red1966]

You got PWNed again

Yeah, and you are a good judge of that. The liar claims no Democrats voted for it when it obviously would have failed to pass if that were true, and somehow I got PWNed.

 

[Red1966]

Read what you wrote once again. "Voted in by Democrats." Let that sink in for a second what it means. If you still don't get it, simply ask me, "What does voted in mean?" and I will gladly explain it to you since you fail to understand what you wrote.

It means Democrats voted for it. Are you still trying to deny that? If Democrats didn't vote for it, it would not have passed the Senate.

 

[pnwmystery]

Yeah, and you are a good judge of that. The liar claims no Democrats voted for it when it obviously would have failed to pass if that were true, and somehow I got PWNed.

Nope, I never claimed this. I simply claimed that it was a Republican endeavor, which it was.

It means Democrats voted for it. Are you still trying to deny that? If Democrats didn't vote for it, it would not have passed the Senate.

Yet once again you did not write, "Democrats voted for it." You clearly wrote "Voted in by Democrats," and these two statements have different meanings. When we're speaking politics, and Acts of Congress, when one says voted in by [Democrats/Republicans] it means that they control the congress and they pushed it through, that it was their endeavor, and/or the other party did not vote for it.

 

[Red1966]

I don't think you know what a progrom actually is.

He said "pogrom", not "progrom"

 

[pnwmystery]

He said "pogrom", not "progrom"

I made a typo. Stop. the. fucking. presses. Can anyone ever forgive me?

Still doesn't change the statement or that he didn't quite know what a pogrom was. Are you that desperate to try to prove me wrong on something that you're pointing out a typo? I think jimmies have been rustled hehe.

 

[Red1966]

Hillary sent classified info to her lover or absconded to another country with terabytes of top secret info she then released?

No, Hilary murdered her lover, Vincent Foster. I might note that Patraeus "lover" had a top secrete security clearance.

 

[Red1966]

I made a typo. Stop. the. fucking. presses. Can anyone ever forgive me?

Still doesn't change the statement or that he didn't quite know what a pogrom was. Are you that desperate to try to prove me wrong on something that you're pointing out a typo? I think jimmies have been rustled hehe.

I've had no problem proving you wrong at any time. A typo is a mistake in printing, you just didn't know the word.