SERIOUS Man. REAL SERIOUS. dAt EX-CEO of MEGACoffeeHouses and dAt NY RichieRich BBurg, ARE F**Kin IMPRESSIVE. And I HATE DEMs Like a mO fO. BUT These GUYs are TALKin' SENSE. REAL SENSE. MAN O LIVE. WHO'd a THUNK?

Message boards : Politics : SERIOUS Man. REAL SERIOUS. dAt EX-CEO of MEGACoffeeHouses and dAt NY RichieRich BBurg, ARE F**Kin IMPRESSIVE. And I HATE DEMs Like a mO fO. BUT These GUYs are TALKin' SENSE. REAL SENSE. MAN O LIVE. WHO'd a THUNK?
Message board moderation

Author	Message
MOMMY: He is MAKING ME Read His Posts Thoughts and Prayers. GOoD Thoughts and GOoD Prayers. HATERWORLD Vs THOUGHTs and PRAYERs World. It Is a BATTLE ROYALE. Nobody LOVEs Me. Everybody HATEs Me. Why Don't I Go Eat Worms. Tasty Treats are Wormy Meat. Yes Send message Joined: 16 Jun 02 Posts: 6895 Credit: 6,588,977 RAC: 0	Message 1977908 - Posted: 30 Jan 2019, 23:52:19 UTC As Long as They Talk GOoD BRAIN Sense and Don't Get ALL CORTEZZZeee, These DUDEs Will Give ORANGE a RUN fO dA MONEY!!!!! But Really, They GUNNA Say Some STUPID LEFTist SHAT and MAYBE BLOW IT. LET's SEE RUBEWorld STUNNED at ACTUAL BRAINIACs MAKin' SENSE OH OH OH OH So ORANGE YAPe May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!! ID: 1977908 ·

marmot Send message Joined: 15 May 99 Posts: 144 Credit: 1,220,664 RAC: 0	Message 1984556 - Posted: 11 Mar 2019, 15:38:45 UTC The coffee chain CEO isn't leftist at all. He's center right and designed to split the Republican base so a Democrat can win. ID: 1984556 ·

Sarge Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 25 Aug 99 Posts: 12273 Credit: 8,569,109 RAC: 79	Message 1984633 - Posted: 12 Mar 2019, 1:17:55 UTC - in response to Message 1984556. Last modified: 12 Mar 2019, 1:18:10 UTC The coffee chain CEO isn't leftist at all. He's center right and designed to split the Republican base so a Democrat can win. Shhh! Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes. ID: 1984633 ·

betreger Send message Joined: 29 Jun 99 Posts: 11361 Credit: 29,581,041 RAC: 66	Message 1984642 - Posted: 12 Mar 2019, 2:05:59 UTC - in response to Message 1984633. That's a nice concept if it were to work, I'm skeptical. ID: 1984642 ·

marmot Send message Joined: 15 May 99 Posts: 144 Credit: 1,220,664 RAC: 0	Message 1984680 - Posted: 12 Mar 2019, 5:45:22 UTC If it's Warren or Sanders vs Trump; maybe he has a chance to take the middle. Ross Perot 2.0. It'll be interesting especially if Greens and Libertarians field some charismatic people who know where Aleppo is. ID: 1984680 ·

betreger Send message Joined: 29 Jun 99 Posts: 11361 Credit: 29,581,041 RAC: 66	Message 1984681 - Posted: 12 Mar 2019, 5:55:55 UTC - in response to Message 1984680. I probably would like what you are smoking. ID: 1984681 ·

marmot Send message Joined: 15 May 99 Posts: 144 Credit: 1,220,664 RAC: 0	Message 1984687 - Posted: 12 Mar 2019, 6:23:42 UTC - in response to Message 1984681. 1992 election Clinton: 44,909,889 (43.0%) Dole: 39,104,545 (37.4%) Perot: 19,743,821 (18.9%) I wouldn't discount Howard Shulz potential effect on the 2020 election. ID: 1984687 ·

Sarge Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 25 Aug 99 Posts: 12273 Credit: 8,569,109 RAC: 79	Message 1984995 - Posted: 13 Mar 2019, 22:18:02 UTC - in response to Message 1984687. Last modified: 13 Mar 2019, 22:18:28 UTC 1992 election Clinton: 44,909,889 (43.0%) Dole: 39,104,545 (37.4%) Perot: 19,743,821 (18.9%) I wouldn't discount Howard Shulz potential effect on the 2020 election. That's 1996. Also note that, in 1992, Perot had about 19% of the popular vote but won no electors. Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes. ID: 1984995 ·

Gary Charpentier Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30639 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32	Message 1985022 - Posted: 14 Mar 2019, 1:14:34 UTC Do you hear that giant sucking sound now? The sound of China sucking airliners from Seattle? The sound of companies rushing money to offshore banks? ID: 1985022 ·

marmot Send message Joined: 15 May 99 Posts: 144 Credit: 1,220,664 RAC: 0	Message 1985090 - Posted: 14 Mar 2019, 13:49:10 UTC - in response to Message 1984995. 1992 election Clinton: 44,909,889 (43.0%) Dole: 39,104,545 (37.4%) Perot: 19,743,821 (18.9%) I wouldn't discount Howard Shulz potential effect on the 2020 election. That's 1996. No, that's the '92 results. Also note that, in 1992, Perot had about 19% of the popular vote but won no electors. He didn't have to win any electors to kill Dole's electoral count in key states. ID: 1985090 ·

Sarge Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 25 Aug 99 Posts: 12273 Credit: 8,569,109 RAC: 79	Message 1985199 - Posted: 15 Mar 2019, 0:30:33 UTC - in response to Message 1985090. 1992 election Clinton: 44,909,889 (43.0%) Dole: 39,104,545 (37.4%) Perot: 19,743,821 (18.9%) I wouldn't discount Howard Shulz potential effect on the 2020 election. That's 1996. No, that's the '92 results. Also note that, in 1992, Perot had about 19% of the popular vote but won no electors. He didn't have to win any electors to kill Dole's electoral count in key states. Dole wasn't the GOP nominee in '92, GHWB was. Dole was the GOP nominee in '96. Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes. ID: 1985199 ·

Gary Charpentier Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30639 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32	Message 1985200 - Posted: 15 Mar 2019, 0:43:53 UTC - in response to Message 1985199. Dole wasn't the GOP nominee in '92, GHWB was. Dole was the GOP nominee in '96. Don't we all love fake news! ID: 1985200 ·

Sarge Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 25 Aug 99 Posts: 12273 Credit: 8,569,109 RAC: 79	Message 1985206 - Posted: 15 Mar 2019, 1:22:55 UTC - in response to Message 1985200. Dole wasn't the GOP nominee in '92, GHWB was. Dole was the GOP nominee in '96. Don't we all love fake news! I haven't checked the percents of the popular vote. They may be from '92 and, if so, misattributing to Dole instead of Bush. I do seem to recall Perot running again in '96, but not getting close to 18% ,,, ? Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes. ID: 1985206 ·

Gary Charpentier Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30639 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32	Message 1985222 - Posted: 15 Mar 2019, 3:47:00 UTC - in response to Message 1985206. Dole wasn't the GOP nominee in '92, GHWB was. Dole was the GOP nominee in '96. Don't we all love fake news! I haven't checked the percents of the popular vote. They may be from '92 and, if so, misattributing to Dole instead of Bush. I do seem to recall Perot running again in '96, but not getting close to 18% ,,, ? FWIW https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_presidential_election ID: 1985222 ·

marmot Send message Joined: 15 May 99 Posts: 144 Credit: 1,220,664 RAC: 0	Message 1985239 - Posted: 15 Mar 2019, 7:05:23 UTC - in response to Message 1985206. Dole wasn't the GOP nominee in '92, GHWB was. Dole was the GOP nominee in '96. Don't we all love fake news! I haven't checked the percents of the popular vote. They may be from '92 and, if so, misattributing to Dole instead of Bush. I do seem to recall Perot running again in '96, but not getting close to 18% ,,, ? I copied the '92 results from the Wikipedia page and then went by memory on the candidate. Perot got 8.4% in '96. I'm more like my father where I'll remember your age and forget your name. He was still trying to do statistics while dying of dementia but called me 'that boy'. So replace Dole with Bush in '92 above. Perot's candidacy had an effect on the electoral map throwing the election to Clinton. Self reporting says he split the popular vote 38 to 38 BUT his supporters were overwhelmingly white and so he cut into the Bush white voter base and allowed black voters to tip states, where they had high populations, to Clinton. I'd like to see Nate Silver's fivethirtyeight.com go back in the data set and re-analyze the '92 election. ID: 1985239 ·

Sarge Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 25 Aug 99 Posts: 12273 Credit: 8,569,109 RAC: 79	Message 1985374 - Posted: 15 Mar 2019, 20:12:09 UTC - in response to Message 1985222. Dole wasn't the GOP nominee in '92, GHWB was. Dole was the GOP nominee in '96. Don't we all love fake news! I haven't checked the percents of the popular vote. They may be from '92 and, if so, misattributing to Dole instead of Bush. I do seem to recall Perot running again in '96, but not getting close to 18% ,,, ? FWIW https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_presidential_election I could have looked it up. I've double-checked my memory before. But I was deliberately testing my memory- only and implied this. Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes. ID: 1985374 ·

Gary Charpentier Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30639 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32	Message 1985378 - Posted: 15 Mar 2019, 20:53:58 UTC - in response to Message 1985374. Dole wasn't the GOP nominee in '92, GHWB was. Dole was the GOP nominee in '96. Don't we all love fake news! I haven't checked the percents of the popular vote. They may be from '92 and, if so, misattributing to Dole instead of Bush. I do seem to recall Perot running again in '96, but not getting close to 18% ,,, ? FWIW https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_presidential_election I could have looked it up. I've double-checked my memory before. But I was deliberately testing my memory- only and implied this. Was Wiki edited by a Russian? ;-) ID: 1985378 ·

marmot Send message Joined: 15 May 99 Posts: 144 Credit: 1,220,664 RAC: 0	Message 1985950 - Posted: 19 Mar 2019, 10:41:17 UTC - in response to Message 1985378. Dole wasn't the GOP nominee in '92, GHWB was. Dole was the GOP nominee in '96. Don't we all love fake news! I haven't checked the percents of the popular vote. They may be from '92 and, if so, misattributing to Dole instead of Bush. I do seem to recall Perot running again in '96, but not getting close to 18% ,,, ? FWIW https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_presidential_election I could have looked it up. I've double-checked my memory before. But I was deliberately testing my memory- only and implied this. Was Wiki edited by a Russian? ;-) Complex set of various factions take part in building consensus on those pages. ID: 1985950 ·

©2024 University of California

SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.