Trump Attributes Kentucky Derby Outcome To 'Political Correctness'
The Kentucky Derby decision was not a good one. It was a rough & tumble race on a wet and sloppy track, actually, a beautiful thing to watch. Only in these days of political correctness could such an overturn occur. The best horse did NOT win the Kentucky Derby - not even close!
===================================================================
The 145th Kentucky Derby was one of the most memorable, being the first time in it's history that the horse that crossed the finish line first was disqualified. Maximum Security was ruled to have interfered with at least two other horses as the field neared the home stretch at Churchill Downs.
Trump's usual ignorance aside it was a sad turn of events for a couple reasons.
First of all Maximum Security ran a tremendous race. After leading at every call , he was briefly passed in upper stretch by Country House (who was declared the winner after the disqualification), but Maximum Security dug down deep and retook the lead and even opened it up a little at the finish. Considering that Maximum Security was considered a front runner, the ability to fight it out the length of the long CD stretch showed great heart.
Secondly, Maximum Security was not originally a blue blood horse. Last fall he ran in a maiden claiming race ( for sale) and could have been bought by another owner at that time for 16,000 dollars, which is a pittance for horses expected to do well in the Derby. In other words, at that time there were no Derby aspirations. So Maximum Security was originally an underdog in the Derby type setting.
Third, the owners have been racing horses for 40 years and had their chance to win their first Derby, and thought they had it, and clearly had the best horse.
As for Trump, political correctness had nothing to do with it. Maximum Security was a little frightened by the roar of the crowd as they turned for home , and drifted a few feet out of his own path and into the way of two other horses. This is never allowed by the rules. The only question was would the judges have the guts to call disqualification in the world's greatest horse race. They did.
Tags
Who is online
79 visitors
Leave it to the president* to advocate ignoring the rules.
Clearly, it was improper for the President to comment on the stewards decision (which was the right one), just as it was when we had a president who commented on every racial incident that made the national news. The decision was right and inevitable. However, there is one part of the President's tweet that was correct - "The best horse did NOT win the Kentucky Derby". Yup, Trump got that part right! But that's horse racing!
One thing not mentioned in that little summary up there is that when Maximum Security went wide on the turn (for whatever reason), he himself lost considerable ground, yet managed to finish first.
Sometimes it helps to be in front on a sloppy track.
It didn't help Maximum Security. He was in front the entire race and still got DQed for interfering.
Something scared him or he simply couldn't handle the turn. Those things fall into the category of racing luck. There is still enough skill left in picking winners combined with the most generous odds one can get on any sport to make the grand game of horse racing the best gambling game there is IMO.
Just because he is a horse's ass, doesn't mean he has any business commenting about horses.
It's interesting that Trump says the best horse did not win "not even close" since the 2nd place horse was declared the winner. And he was "close" , about a length and a half behind the horse that crossed the finish line 1st.
Ironically, it reminds of the presidential election. By Trump's standards the election was not even close and the decision went to the wrong runner. He lost the popular vote by more of a margin than Country House lost the Kentucky Derby.
I'm going to tell you this one more time: Hillary only won the popular vote due to California. If you remove California and Texas, as well as the two lowest state popular vote victory totals from both Hillary and Trump; Trump wins the popular vote by the almost the same exact amount that Hillary won.
EDIT: When I made that calculation, I used CNN's numbers.
What state a particular vote takes place in had absolutely nothing to do with the national popular vote. One could cherry pick an endless number of scenarios from across the country. For example, Why should we count the popular vote in Alabama Georgia and Mississippi? if the result is a questioning of the meaning of a popular national vote total?
You have ZERO point, and yet you keep making it, as do others.
EVERY vote has equal weight in a national popular vote total. To say that the California vote doesnt mean much is no different than saying that the votes in the states where Trump did particularly well dont mean much.
Yes, it does, when that state alone causes someone to win the popular vote. You eliminate California from the national vote, and Trump wins by a larger amount than Hillary won by. The reason for the Electoral College is to prevent large states from having a greater say in the Presidency than smaller states. Heck, that is why every state has only two Senators in the US Senate. California has the most Representatives, which is the ONLY place in government where state populations 100% matter. The Senate has no population requirements, so no matter what a state has 2 Senators. The Presidency is supposed to be a marriage of the two systems of population and existence, hence the Electoral College and why the Electoral College is set up the way it is.
California is not supposed to have much more power than Wyoming in electing the President. But, the only reason Hillary Clinton won the popular vote is because of California, we can directly point to that. I was not cherry picking the numbers, as I said, I took the two highest win totals: California and Texas, along with the two lowest win totals for BOTH candidates and eliminated them. I remember Wyoming being the state for Trump and think it was Vermont for Hillary. Trump wins the popular vote at that point by almost the EXACT SAME MARGIN as Hillary Clinton won the actual popular vote. When you can prove without a doubt that a single state gives the full margin of vote totals, it is foolish to try to change the system so that that one state can actually have the final say.
You simply don't understand what a national popular vote is. There are no "states" in a national popular vote.
Let me try to help you.
Hillary won the popular vote by 3 million. As far as you, or anyone else knows, those 3 million votes came from Illinois or New York, or even Florida or Ohio (states Trump won). We don't know and can't know where those three million votes came from because in a national popular vote count every vote is considered equal.
Tom, just stop. You have no case whatsoever.
That IS cherry picking, lol.
So, the United States of America does not exist in your mind, got it.
You see for there to be a national popular vote in the United States of America, the states must exist otherwise there are no States in the United States of America.
And, we can point out that the margin came from California, because Trump was leading the National Popular vote at 10pm Pacific Time, 11pm Mountain, 12am Central, or 1am Eastern Time, which was when the first popular vote counts were released from California, Oregon, and Washington.
About 5 hours and 34 minutes into the broadcast (start at 5:34:18), Wolf Blitzer points out that Trump is leading in the National Popular Vote. And, you can clearly see that Trump has a 48.3% to 47.2% lead at that point on their touchscreen's graphic.
You have no point. None at all.
What if they counted California's votes first? Then it would be votes on the east cost that would provide Clinton with her margin.
Think of a national vote like this. Everyone across the country who voted for Clinton gets a blue marble after they vote, and everyone who voted for Trump gets a red marble. Everyone puts their marble into a gigantic bowl. Examine that bowl and tell me which votes came from California.
That is what a national vote total is. Every vote is the same. I can't believe we are even talking about this.
You are trying to argue yourself out of a corner. You know that you are dead wrong here and have no recourse than to argue order of count, despite the fact the order is set by the actual timing of the rotation of the Earth. To start the count on the West Coast, the Earth's rotation would have to be reversed and the West Coast's (Pacific) time zone would have to be earlier than the East Coast's (Eastern) time zone.
The Electoral College is everyone puts their marble in the jar labelled for their state (except Nebraska and Maine whose jars are more like a daily pill box broken into districts plus 2 popular vote slots so everyone gets 2 marbles in those states [1 for their district and 1 for the total popular vote]). The Electors from that state promise to vote for whomever has the greater marble total from that state. Trump won the popular vote in more states than Hillary Clinton did, and in the process got a bigger electoral vote count. Hillary took the marbles from all her jars and said "Look my pile of marbles is bigger! I should be the winner." The point of the Electoral College is that it is the total of jars not marbles that win the Election. If you wanted the National Popular Vote count to be more influential, then you should actually be supportive of states going into a system similar to Nebraska and Maine instead of all being winner-takes-all.
You are desperate. Sorry to see that.
The rotation of the earth is irrelevant.
We could count the votes the next day, so that the time zones would play no part. There is no rule that the votes in the east must be counted first.
In a national popular vote, every vote counts equally towards the total, no matter the geographic location. Thats just the way it is.
It's almost like he wants to dilute the big states even more than they already are.
Where is the constitutional argument to remove California and Texas from the 2016 vote?
There is none, you are conflating an exercise to determine what gave Hillary her "margin of victory" in the Popular Vote with a move to eliminate the votes of two states. What do most statisticians do in any sort of study, they usually throw out the highest and lowest values and average the rest. What I did was throw out the highest state and lowest state in terms of margin of victory and calculated the popular vote from the remaining. That exercise shows that Trump would have won the National Popular Vote by the exact same margin that Hillary had.
Actually, I want to dilute the power of the big cities. Any movement for pushing the National Popular Vote over the Electoral College is essentially guaranteeing that the cities are the only places visited by politicians. If you really want to force politicians to carry entire states, you need to have the winner-take-all states change to a system similar to what is in Nebraska and Maine. Right now, there is no incentive for Presidential candidates to visit any place in California outside of San Francisco, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and San Diego or in Pennsylvania outside of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh or in Oregon outside of Portland, Salem, and Eugene. Change the system to districts based on Congressional districts and with 2 Electoral votes that are winner-take-all; and you will force politicians to visit Bend, Oregon; State College, PA; Redding, CA, etc. Remember, cities have much different needs than rural areas. BUT, both have needs and BOTH need to be listened to and acted upon to make sure this country stays united.
Are citizens who live in cities somehow "less American" than rural Americans? Are Californians somehow "less American" that citizens from small states? When you say "I want to dilute the power of big cities" what you're saying is "I want to dilute large numbers of Americans power because they choose to live in close proximity to each other! How dare they!". If conservatives can claim corporations are people and thus deserving of the same rights, then cities and States are the people they represent. We are better when we have more choice and more democracy, only those who know most people won't agree with them try and invent reasons why they should have more say or their votes should count for more. I want you to have your vote Tom, but I don't think you should get more than one vote regardless of where you live.
I'm going to tell you this one more time: California is still a state. In fact, it's a really popular one. Hate to melt your snowflake. Just kidding. I love to melt it.
So you're saying that all fraudulent votes should be counted?
Why don't you show us the multiple examples of this voter fraud. Hard to discuss a conservative wet dream.
Do you want to completely ignore the rural areas? That is what usually happens because the big cities always get what they want. When your state governor only has to win less than 20% of the counties to be elected, that means someone is not being listened to or represented. That's the way it is here in Oregon, the Democrat only has to win 7 counties out of 36 to be elected. The same goes for the election of the Electors for voting for President of the United States of America. Split it into districts and you may get 1 Elector from Eastern Oregon that is a Republican as that section of the state is usually hard core Republican and is represented by Walden in the House. My House district is represented by DeFazio, but that is due to Eugene/Springfield and Corvallis. In Pennsylvania, money would go to Pittsburgh and Philadelphia seemingly without regard to places like State College or Johnstown or Allentown. Remember, the President is supposed to represent ALL the people, so why should cities be the only determinant to who wins an election?
EDIT: Remember, both PA and OR are Winner-take-all states, so only the popular vote throughout the state determines who wins the Electors.
And, again, I'll point out California is not supposed to be deciding everything on its own and is the ONLY reason Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. I made the intellectual exercise to determine if any other state caused her to win by eliminating the highest and lowest state totals from both her and Trump. When that is done, Trump wins by almost the exact same amount that Hillary won the actual popular vote. In truth, you should be glad that we can point to a single state as being the margin of victory for Hillary Clinton in the popular vote, because it means that the Electoral system works by preventing ANY ONE state from deciding everything.
This is utter and complete and total nonsense. I'm actually shocked that you persist in this nonsense after it has been repeatedly pointed out to you how you are wrong.
California is 12 percent of the US population. They made 10 percent of the national popular vote.
146 million people voted for president in the US in 2016.
14 million of them were in California.
California comprised roughly ten percent of the national popular vote total. It DOES NOT MATTER that California's votes are counted last, it is utterly irrelevant.
132 million votes were cast for president outside of California. We have no way of knowing which if any of those provided Clinton with her 3 million vote win, because all 146 million votes are equal.
3 or 3 million, it does not matter who the people want. Only the EC votes count.
There's no irony, John. Any attempt to compare a horse race to US constitutional law (Electoral College) is beyond ludicrous.
Fact: Hillary lost in 2016. She and her followers have given us at least 30 reasons why she lost.
Fact: Dems have 22 candidates for 2020. Surely ONE of them will be capable of out-trumping Trump!
Less ridiculous than your president attributing the outcome of the Kentucky Derby to political correctness.
Trump is the POTUS, and since I'm a US citizen, yes, he is my president. Please forgive me for not knowing that you aren't a US citizen.
He is not acting as a president of all of us, so why would we feel like he is? He doesn't even pretend, he derides and insults absolutely everybody except that minority in his base. US citizen here, by the way.
You know, that would be a good point IF the "Not My President" stuff didn't start right after the election in November.
I think those are the echoes from Obama's presidency. When the gop starts things, they eventually get to be on the other side of it.
So when Democrats bitch about the things the GOP does, it is only because they themselves haven't done them yet ?
To me it is hilarious that any American citizen would say that Trump is not his/her president. It's like saying the White House is not located in the USA - such a person requires a mental examination. It's a provable TRUTH. I'm one of the few members of NT who can accurately and without equivocation say that Trump is not MY president. Although I did not vote for Justin Trudeau's Liberal Party, and it won the election in Canada making him the PM, I am not so obtuse or ignorant as to say he is not my Prime Minister.
LOL.
I always want to ask them when they renounced their citizenship, and when do they plan on leaving?
No, they bitch because its wrong. Then we get a traitor in office and they have no choice. If the tables were turned and this was Hillary, she would have been impeached before Mueller started his investigation. I know you don't see it and there is nothing to be done about it. Trump has diminished this country so much, and he constantly degrades our institutions, even with foreign adversaries. He is a liar who can't be trusted (liars can't be). And he is making money off our tax dollars and foreign governments. Its wrong. Do you not have standards or are you denying what he is doing?
I know what you mean. I've never felt that any US president was not my president.
Trump has NOT diminished this country nor is he degrading our institutions.
The Democrats and all their liberal fellow travelers are hard at work doing that right now.
Nothing you say is anywhere near the truth.
That would be hilarious if that was what anyone meant. The reality is Trump does not represent the majority of Americans, and I believe that is what most folk mean when they say Trump isn't their president. They are simply vocalizing the fact that Trump has qualities which are nearly the exact opposite of what most Americans consider "Presidential". He's a serial liar, serial adulterer who bends the knee to such disgusting pieces of shit as Putin and Kim Jong Un. He's an utter embarrassment to every American with even a sliver of pride and a civics education. And he isn't just a terrible President, he's a horrible human, one of the worst human beings on the planet, a true piece of shit painted gold. All most of his supporters do is point to his gold exterior claiming he must be smart if he's so shiny, they don't care he's nothing but a gold painted wet shit, most of them don't have a clue as to how the government is supposed to operate and what it actually does for them.
So, while I accept he is the President of the United States, and I am a united States citizen, he does not represent me or have my best interest at heart, he's a President for his base as those are the only ones he's shown any interest in appealing to. He certainly hasn't appealed to the educated working class and the majority of college graduates, all he's done is piss all over them, laugh and try to tell them it's raining. The vast majority of Americans do not approve of this President and have never approved of him. The majority did not vote for him. Those who he doesn't represent and who didn't vote for him and have never supported him obviously view him as a cancerous anomaly which Presidential Historians will no doubt document for years to come as they rank him the worst President in US history.
If that were true, does that excuse Democrats from doing the same things they bitched about the GOP doing?
Then this is wrong...…."When the gop starts things, they eventually get to be on the other side of it. "
So then it never was a question of right or wrong--just "payback". There is ALWAYS a choice.
Nothing more than pure speculation on your part.
Actually, the President represents all Americans. Whether a bunch of pissed-off, disgruntled people unaccepting of election results accepts the truth or not isn't really a big deal.
Trump won the election in the same way every President has--by garnering the required number of electoral votes. Doesn't really matter of opinion polls rate him high or low--he is STILL the President.
And yes, I know the great Mueller Report was supposed to be the thing to bring Trump down. But it has not. Should we expect those straight-laced, moral Democrats to file articles of impeachment soon, or will they just piss and moan because Mueller couldn't do what they wanted?
The turd only represents himself and his corrupt gang of thugs/gop/his cabinet. Oh, and Putin
Still just can't quite get over your beloved Abuela losing, eh?
Sad.
Oh no its NOT. It's looking at past behavior to predict future behavior. Conservatives have quite a body of behavior to refer to. You can stop that projection now. Watching their past actions is the proof, and if you think this time is different, you are the one who needs to show why.
And there we have it ... again ---> bemoaning the "popular vote" that doesn't matter in a presidential election.
I am not "bemoaning" anything, I'm stating a fact. The majority of Americans did not vote for him. That is a fact. And it's a fact that speaks not to whether he is President or not, that isn't in debate. It's a fact that speaks to whether or not the majority of Americans approve, agree or support this President which they clearly do not. And this President clearly doesn't care about the majority, he's too busy appealing to his 37% base supporters, a minority in America who has self identified as xenophobic, Islamophobic, homophobic, racist and sexist as they proudly declared themselves "deplorables" after Hillary narrowly defined the term.
Yes, Donald Trump is President, and he may sit in the chair that traditionally represents all Americans, but he has been derelict in his duty to reach across the isle and try to bring our nation together for all Americans. He has draw a line and lit it on fire and proclaimed everyone not on his side an enemy of "the people" but really just means an enemy of himself. He has disrespected every aspect of the Presidency, not even dumping a hot overfilled septic tank on the white house could demean and disrespect our constitutional Republic more. And that has nothing to do with relitigating the 2016 election. It has everything to do with Donald Trumps reprehensible behavior since even before taking office.
That isn't a requirement for election to the Oval Office.
Yes it is a fact--one that means little.
Opinion polls mean even less than the popular vote for President does.
There is no duty to reach across the aisle. Since he "was not your President" on the day after the election, what could he have done besides resigning that would have met with your approval?
It means little as to who is President, it means everything as to whether or not the majority feel he is representing them or meeting their needs. The President is supposed to be the highest service position in the government, not as a monarch, but a worker for the people. In this case, we have an inept buffoon who can't even do the job for his 37% and has to constantly lie about his record, from inauguration crowd size to how the economy is doing, always taking more credit than he deserves while taking zero responsibility for anything. According to this incompetent joke of a President "The buck stops with everybody" which is just more evidence of how slimy this disorganized crime boss playing 37% of Americans for fools really is.
How's about voting him out in 2020 instead of the constant drone of whining?
Prediction, speculation----one thing in common--lack of facts.
Democrats and Republicans both do the same thing and bitch when the other sides does it.
Pity you can't admit it and remain perched on your moral high horse.
That's true....although it is too late to prove it, you can rest assured that there were lots of fraudulent votes.
Right, "lots" without any evidence of such. Only spineless worms like Trump would claim 3 million votes were invalid simply based on the fact that they weren't for him. Prove it or accept the majority of AMERICANS did not, do not and never will support this joke of a President who will go down in history as the worst President in US history with consistently the lowest approval rating of any President. Just because you may have all the other toothless high school drop outs around the trailer park all agreeing with you and saying they voted Trump doesn't mean they're actually in the majority. And even if every trailer park felt the same way, they still don't represent the majority of Americans.
Do Democrats have a thing about the popular vote now? Do y'all not realize that it holds no importance to the way we actually elect Presidents?
It is like the losing side in football claiming they really won because they got more yards, even though they really lost 21-10.
That would be a lie. And the proof? Republicans tried to find all those votes and know what they came up with? More votes were denied by gop states than votes cast that shouldn't have been, its called voter suppression.
If votes are points, then it's more like a basketball game where team Clinton scored 122 points and team Trump scored 98 but at the end of the game after counting all the points, the referees adjust the score based on certain groups of fans from specific seat sections in the arena. And this time they awarded the Trump fan sections which they claimed were the loudest, bonus points. And those swing seats gave their collective 25 bonus points to team Trump making the final score 122 to 123 thus giving Trump the Presidency. Of course, it wasn't until later that we find out there were media loudspeakers rigged up by the Russians under the Trump seats artificially increasing the volume of the fans.
But since we can't go back and replay the game we'll just have to wait for the next one where Trump will get blown out of the water and no matter how loud his fans are or how loud the Russia speakers under them are, they will be smothered by a landslide of patriotic Americans voting against dishonesty, lies, ignorance and the mob-like tactics of this current disgrace in the oval office.
You know, for all the fucking bleating that I have heard about the evils of the EC, I don't recall Democrats whining like little bitches to change it when Obama won twice or when Clinton won twice.
Now it sounds like sour grapes from a bunch of disgruntled two-year-olds.
Tell you what--you keep that second-place "popular" vote trophy nice and shiny for Abuela, okay?
Both of them won the electoral college and popular vote totals so it wasn't ever even brought up.
Only four Presidents in our history have lost the popular vote but been declared the winners by electoral college, and every single one of them was a Republican. One other election in 1824 had congress rule who was the winner and it was at a time when all four candidates in the election identified with the Democratic-Republican Party. The winner, John Quincy Adams, had ties to the Federalists, Democratic-Republican party, anti-Masonic party, National republican party and eventually became a member of the Whig party.
The Democratic-Republican Party was an American political party formed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison around 1792 to oppose the centralizing policies of the new Federalist Party run by Alexander Hamilton.
That's right, just four Presidents in our 240+ year history have lost the popular vote meaning the majority of Americans did not support them or their agenda, but won the Presidency anyway through the electoral college. It's rare enough that it can truly be considered an anomaly, and the odds of it happening again in 2020 are simply so slim as to make their chances laughable. Sadly, since the chances aren't zero we will just continue to work towards eliminating such a stupid concept as representation by minority rule.
Exactly my point. The Democrats won the EC, so no big rush to change how we elect Presidents.
Now that a Democrat lost, time to change the rules!!!
I doubt that you can name any election where the majority of Americans voted for the President. Our turnout is simply too low for that to happen, and too many aren't eligible to vote.
All Presidents are declared winners by the EC.
And good luck with that whole Constitutional Amendment thingy!
I never said they weren't, I just pointed out it's only been an issue four times.
"good luck with that whole Constitutional Amendment thingy!"
As I've stated before, it would not require a constitutional amendment, just each State deciding how to apportion their electoral votes. Some have claimed the States would get sued if it ever effected an election outcome. That's possible, but I think it would be quickly settled in the courts that would rule in favor of States rights. The electoral college has been completely useless for 40 out of the last 44 elections. It's just plain stupid and anti-Democratic.
What I see as following our Constitution is seen as an issue by you.
We can agree to disagree.
A woman has some new friends over for dinner one night and her new friend is in the kitchen helping her prepare the meal. When the hostess starts to prepare a roast she places it on the cutting board and slices about an inch and a half off one end. The new friend, curious as to what she would use that part for, was aghast to see the woman simply discard it. She asked the hostess what was the purpose of cutting off that chunk of roast and throwing it away to which the hostess replied that she didn't know, her mother had always done it so she learned it from her and always cut the ends off the roast before setting it in the roasting pan. Now even more curious, the friend asked if she could find out what the purpose was so the hostess called her mother and asked "Why do we cut the end of the roast off Mom?" to which her mother replied "Well I don't know dear, that's how your grandmother always made roasts and I learned it from her.". So the woman calls up her grandmother and asks "Grandma, what's the purpose of cutting the end off the roast like you taught Mom to do and she taught me to do?" to which her grandmother replied "What? Why would you do a stupid thing like that for? I only cut the end off the roast 'cause the pan we owned was too small!".
My point is, why continue to do something stupid simply because it's tradition? The electoral college was partly created as a compromise for States that had relatively few white men compared to the large number of slaves but felt they should get the same representation as the more populous States to the North. Well that situation hasn't existed for over 150 years, why are we still kowtowing to some bigoted knuckle-draggers from the past. Each State no matter how big or small gets 2 Senators. That's their equal representation. To give the citizens of low population States triple the voting power of people in the high population States simply makes zero sense anymore, and it didn't make much sense back then other than to appease slave owners. So as much as I respect our constitution, I understand that our founders made many compromises just to get this nation off the ground with the intent we would continue to make it a "more perfect union". It's why we have adjusted and amended the constitution when we knew we must such as getting rid of slavery.
And they get that equal representation in one place - the US Senate. The other chamber allows for the population representation that you desire - The House of Representatives. I know, you want elections decided differently because Trump won in 2016. The Constitution provides for that change, but I doubt the required 36 or 37 states are going to vote to allow 2 or 3 states to decide who becomes President. Despite your little anecdotal story, that would not be progress. That would be change for the worse. Kind of like when the ancient Romans allowed the mob to vote!
Trump also won the electoral vote by more than Country House lost the Derby.
And Hillary won by the most popular votes while losing the electoral college. What's your freaking point?
My point is that the popular vote doesn't carry much weight. The EC does.
I find it hard to believe you missed that.
Which is why a majority of Americans now support doing away with the electoral college. Duh.
Well, then, good luck on your little Constitutional Amendment project.
Think you'll live long enough to ever even see it get voted on?
In the meantime, this: "My point is that the popular vote doesn't carry much weight. The EC does." couldn't be truer!
Duh!
I don't think I'll see it voted on, no. My point was that most Americans feel disenfranchised, and there are millions of them. I don't think the younger generations will stand for that very much longer. Sometimes you just need to read the words I write and not add in things in your head.
I highly doubt that.
Without a Constitutional Amendment, I don't see the laws changing despite whatever it is they may stand for.
Sometimes people post without snark.
Let me know when you start.
Why? Will you have trouble recognizing it all on your own?
The horse that got put up was not one of those interfered with. He simply ran second and thus got put up. He got the $3 million purse and his place in the history books, but not because he was best or even second best. If you think he was, there are two more 3 year old classic races coming soon (the Preakness & Belmont Stakes). He can prove it by winning one of those. Are you willing to back up those words, John? Or is it more, just of attempt to contradict everything Trump says?
After horses that more likely would have been second or third were interfered with. Yup, Trump got it right again. Country House was probably no better than 4th best!
Ironically, it reminds of the presidential election
I'm sure it does!
By Trump's standards the election was not even close and the decision went to the wrong runner. He lost the popular vote by more of a margin than Country House lost the Kentucky Derby.
John, why won't California let anyone see it's voter rolls?
When has that turd ever gotten anything 'right' or should I say correct?
More often than not, prove otherwise.
Start with North Korea and go on from there. Why don't you prove your point.
He never does. Just drops these turds everywhere.
Most of the time...The turds are on your side
Nope the toilet bowl on your side is slopping over with turds
Stay out of the men's room and you won't see it!
We smell it anyway, the stench goes a long way.
Of course playing by the rules, following the rules, and not cheating are correct, forget the politics or "political correctness".
Trump hates any truth, any rules, anything that reveals his own cheating. Whether it is revealed he uses illegals and foreign workers at his properties, whether it is revealed he cheats on his loans or cheats workers and contractors out of their hard earned pay, Trump cheats and hates to see any situation where the rules are enforced. Trump thinks rules, laws and accountability don't apply to him.
Strong opinions, but what evidence do you have that he does those things?
Pay attention to the asshole for a few decades and read public information, it ain't rocket science. Its called paying attention to life in real time. Not sure why you keep asking for 'proof' when you dismiss every piece so you can continue to push the Trump lies regardless. 'There are none so blind as those who will not see.'
Horse racing is now politicized, you can only laugh.