Yzermandius19

Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand, Julian Castro, Elizabeth Warren and Tulsi Gabbard are not two-term POTUS material. Trump will wipe the floor with whoever the Dems pick in 2020, because the Dems are going to run a donkey, just like the GOP did in 2012 when they ran Romney, just like the DNC did in 2006 when they ran Kerry, just like the GOP did when they ran Dole in 1996, just like the DNC did in 1984 when they ran Mondale, just like the DNC did in 1972 when they ran McGovern, etc. etc.

OAC is not old enough to run for POTUS, she can't run in 2020.

Ford was never elected, like you say. Obama had the same advantage in 2012 that Trump will have in 2020, the opposition party had no bench, and had no two-term POTUS waiting in the wings to unseat him, and the one they did have, kept his powder dry until he was running against a non-incumbent. Trump has the same advantages in 2020 and will win for pretty the same reasons that Obama won in 2012, the opposition will run a donkey candidate who can't win and any potential two-term Democrat POTUS will keep their powder dry until 2024, instead of running against an incumbent. This dynamic is why incumbent POTUS's so rarely lose elections.

Only six incumbent POTUS's who choose to run for a second term, lost that re-election bid, and all of them lost to a POTUS who would serve two-terms. 1828 - Andrew Jackson def. John Quincy Adams 1868 - Ulysses S. Grant def. Andrew Johnson 1888 - Grover Cleveland def. Benjamin Harrison 1912 - Woodrow Wilson def. William H. Taft 1980 - Ronald Reagan def. Jimmy Carter 1992 - Bill Clinton def. George H.W. Bush The DNC doesn't have two-term POTUS waiting in the wings to knock off Incumbent Trump, they are screwed.

He hasn't folded yet, the anonymous sources just say he did, you are jumping the gun. But if he does fold, then yeah, he'll look like an idiot for doing so. Also, his approval rating being low won't matter, because the approval rating of the Democrat who runs against him will be even lower, just watch. Trump doesn't need to be Usain Bolt to win in 2020, he just has to outrun the Democrat running against him, and he will, with ease. Incumbent POTUS' only lose to two-term presidents, and the Democrats don't have one of those on their bench, so they are screwed.

Trump's approval rating remains in the early-mid 40's, and if you think the Democrats shutting down the government over refusing to give in on a minuscule amount of wall funding is supported by the people, then you're not very intelligent.

Except this time the party shutting the government down had the advantage and caved. Trump may be more stubborn than most Republicans, but if the anonymous sources are to be believed, he's about to fold a winning hand to Democrats who were obviously bluffing, and that's an epic fail, regardless of whether most chicken shit Republicans would have caved even sooner.

Hitler had an 89% approval rating, post-Reichstag, the Germans loved him like Americans loved Bush right after 9/11. Pretending like Hitler wasn't popular in Germany, is simply ahistorical nonsense.

If Trump is backing down, like the anonymous sources claim he is going to, that's an epic fuck up, the Democrats would then know he doesn't have the courage of his convictions on wall funding, and won't stand his ground as long as they wait out a government shutdown he's already proven can get him to cave. If he backs down now, he won't get a penny for the wall.

Sounds like they got nothing on him, and are just desperately fishing for more leads, Mueller's hail mary if you will. I bet Stone gets a slap on the wrist at best, but it's already mission accomplished.

There are already laws against nutjobs getting guns in the US. The new laws being proposed in America aren't going to do anything extra to prevent that from happening, that is just what the gun grabbers claim so ignorant people think it's a good idea to grab guns. People who think gun control is lame, they also care about their children too, they just aren't naive enough to think new gun control laws are going to protect them, unlike some other people. /shrugs Have a nice day.

The "wrong" people are Blacks in America, and Indians in Canada. Actually keeping guns out of the hands of the wrong people is not what gun control is about at all, that's just what gun control supporters say, to make others feel like they are on the side of righteous.

In America, it's to keep the Blacks disarmed, in Canada, it's to keep the Indians disarmed. What good meaning dimwits have been tricked into thinking about what gun control is for, irrelevant, the results speak for themselves, and their good intentions aren't saving any fucking lives.

I'm not American, but the right to keep and bear arms being a constitutionally protected right, is something that Americans should be proud of, leading the world in school shootings is unrelated, regardless of how many Second Amendment Haters think otherwise.

Because of their culture, not because they didn't have strict enough gun control, and that shooting will likely happen in a big city, with lots of strict gun control, whether it happens in a red or blue state. The media making these shooters famous does more to exacerbate the issue than gun laws, Dougie knows.

You are now at the point where you don't deep dive into the data, while actually thinking you're a know-it-all. The only one embarrassing themselves is you. Most of the per capita gun deaths occur in the big cities, and Republicans are at their weakest in big cities, these are facts.

Nah Bergevin is legit one of the worst GMs in hockey, he was giving Chiarelli and Dorion a run for their money.

Which areas of those red states have the highest per capita deaths? The bluest areas of those states red states, and of the blue states with the highest per capita deaths among blue states, the bluest areas of those blue states are where those per capita deaths are highest.

The blue states have blue areas too, and the bluest areas, with the most gun control, have more per capita gun deaths than the red portions of those blue states with less gun control. The red states have blue areas, and the bluest areas, with the most gun control, have more per capita gun deaths than the red portions of these red states with less gun control. Critical thinking, you don't even know what it is.

Where do most of the per capita gun deaths take place in Alaska? The bluest portions of the state with the most gun control, keep the laughs coming.

It's hilarious how lefties are blaming the red states for having more gun deaths, when those are deaths that happen predominantly in the bluest portions of those states that have more gun control than the rest of the state, which is far less violent with less gun control. Real funny stuff.

To wit, blame the people, not the guns.

I live in Hamilton, Ontario. It is just a coincidence that red states have more gun deaths, it's the southern honor culture thing, has nothing to do with the gun laws. Also Vermont has some of the laxest gun laws in America, very strict my ass. New Hampshire ain't shooting itself up left or right either, less gun control does not equal more shootings. There is a much bigger correlation between places where violent death is more prevalent in general and gun deaths, than between gun control laws and gun deaths.

The rule is that more gun deaths happen in areas with more gun control not less. What areas of states have the highest numbers of mass shootings? The areas of the state with the most gun control, whether it's a red state or blue state, that is the rule. Vermont having less gun control isn't making it more dangerous, and if Vermont adopted California style gun control, it would not be a safer place. Cultural issue, not a legal issue.

Vermont has little gun control, not a lot of gun deaths. Correlation doesn't equal causation, cultural issue, not a legal issue, it's a southern thing, and a big city thing, not a second amendment thing.