Author Topic: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)  (Read 335419 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
« Reply #3275 on: November 17, 2016, 10:33:07 AM »
I think it is interesting that we're not seeing any news accounts from inside Hillary's election night war room. I seem to recall similar stories for Romney, McCain, Kerry, etc. I find it hard to believe there wasn't a single journalist there.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline Dugout DickStone

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 51510
  • BSPAC
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
« Reply #3276 on: November 17, 2016, 10:34:46 AM »
makes you think

Offline chum1

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 21917
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
« Reply #3277 on: November 17, 2016, 10:38:33 AM »
During election night coverage, it was reported on TV that the Clinton campaign kicked out all journalists when things started looking really bad for them.

Offline 420seriouscat69

  • Don't get zapped! #zap
  • Wackycat
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63922
  • #1 rated - gE NFL Scout
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
« Reply #3278 on: November 17, 2016, 10:39:58 AM »
During election night coverage, it was reported on TV that the Clinton campaign kicked out Killed all journalists when things started looking really bad for them.

Offline MakeItRain

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 44895
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
« Reply #3279 on: November 17, 2016, 10:48:05 AM »
That 70 year old woman is a real rough ridin' uggo, amirite.

Online CNS

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 36687
  • I'm Athletes
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
« Reply #3280 on: November 17, 2016, 10:49:23 AM »
I heard a podcast this morning that noted Hill won the pop vote(not news) but that she did so by only winning 500 counties country wide.  That is a shockingly low number of counties to win as a major candidate, imo, and also is a shockingly low number of counties that you can win and still win the pop vote. 

I guess the latter is my KS coming out.  Pop density like that is slightly mind blowing to me.  I mean, KS has like 100 counties.  Hill won 5x the counties that KS has and still won the pop vote. 

Offline 420seriouscat69

  • Don't get zapped! #zap
  • Wackycat
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63922
  • #1 rated - gE NFL Scout
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
« Reply #3281 on: November 17, 2016, 10:52:45 AM »
That 70 year old woman is a real rough ridin' uggo, amirite.
OMG!  :love:

Offline MakeItRain

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 44895
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
« Reply #3282 on: November 17, 2016, 11:05:52 AM »
That 70 year old woman is a real rough ridin' uggo, amirite.
OMG!  :love:

I know what you're thinking, I thought the same thing after I hit post, wrong punctuation. :facepalm:

Offline 420seriouscat69

  • Don't get zapped! #zap
  • Wackycat
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63922
  • #1 rated - gE NFL Scout
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
« Reply #3283 on: November 17, 2016, 11:20:48 AM »
No, just watching a former Berner (turn hillster) defend Hillary because ppl are positioning questions about her health is adorable.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2016, 11:58:49 AM by WackyCat08 »

Offline MakeItRain

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 44895
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
« Reply #3284 on: November 17, 2016, 11:47:28 AM »
No, just watching a former Berner (turn hipster) defend Hillary because ppl are positioning questions about her health is adorable.

I not sure who I caucused for has anything to do with mocking a moron for laughing at the appearance of an old woman, but whatever you're certainly smarter than I am.

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
« Reply #3285 on: November 17, 2016, 11:51:57 AM »
I heard a podcast this morning that noted Hill won the pop vote(not news) but that she did so by only winning 500 counties country wide.  That is a shockingly low number of counties to win as a major candidate, imo, and also is a shockingly low number of counties that you can win and still win the pop vote. 

I guess the latter is my KS coming out.  Pop density like that is slightly mind blowing to me.  I mean, KS has like 100 counties.  Hill won 5x the counties that KS has and still won the pop vote.

Which is one reason why the electoral college is a good thing.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline 420seriouscat69

  • Don't get zapped! #zap
  • Wackycat
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63922
  • #1 rated - gE NFL Scout
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
« Reply #3286 on: November 17, 2016, 12:01:14 PM »
No, just watching a former Berner (turn hipster) defend Hillary because ppl are positioning questions about her health is adorable.

I not sure who I caucused for has anything to do with mocking a moron for laughing at the appearance of an old woman, but whatever you're certainly smarter than I am.
I love it when one of the biggest bullies on this blog determines when it's right to be sentimental and when to call ppl dumb rough ridin' POS. Your resume really is dumbfounding. I hope you have a great day, MIR

Offline MakeItRain

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 44895
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
« Reply #3287 on: November 17, 2016, 12:09:35 PM »
No, just watching a former Berner (turn hipster) defend Hillary because ppl are positioning questions about her health is adorable.

I not sure who I caucused for has anything to do with mocking a moron for laughing at the appearance of an old woman, but whatever you're certainly smarter than I am.
I love it when one of the biggest bullies on this blog determines when it's right to be sentimental and when to call ppl dumb rough ridin' POS. Your resume really is dumbfounding. I hope you have a great day, MIR

Bully, lol. How sensitive millennial of you. Butch up. No matter how inferior I make you feel, you can take solace in knowing that I wasn't in NHS.

Offline 420seriouscat69

  • Don't get zapped! #zap
  • Wackycat
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63922
  • #1 rated - gE NFL Scout
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
« Reply #3288 on: November 17, 2016, 12:12:59 PM »
Just calling a spade a spade, champ.

Offline sys

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 40528
  • your reputation will never recover, nor should it.
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
« Reply #3289 on: November 17, 2016, 12:13:40 PM »
she did so by only winning 500 counties country wide.  That is a shockingly low number of counties to win as a major candidate, imo, and also is a shockingly low number of counties that you can win and still win the pop vote.

would this surprise you if you divorced it from political context though?  like if someone asked you what % of the us population lives in the 100 largest cities, what would you guess?  and if they asked you how many counties encompass the 100 largest cities?
"experienced commanders will simply be smeared and will actually go to the meat."

Online star seed 7

  • hyperactive on the :lol:
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 64044
  • good dog
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
« Reply #3290 on: November 17, 2016, 12:26:34 PM »
I heard a podcast this morning that noted Hill won the pop vote(not news) but that she did so by only winning 500 counties country wide.  That is a shockingly low number of counties to win as a major candidate, imo, and also is a shockingly low number of counties that you can win and still win the pop vote. 

I guess the latter is my KS coming out.  Pop density like that is slightly mind blowing to me.  I mean, KS has like 100 counties.  Hill won 5x the counties that KS has and still won the pop vote.

Which is one reason why the electoral college is a good thing.

You essentially support a system that tells city dwellers they only get 3/5ths of a vote
Hyperbolic partisan duplicitous hypocrite

Offline Emo EMAW

  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 17891
  • Unrepentant traditional emobro
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
« Reply #3291 on: November 17, 2016, 12:27:42 PM »
I heard a podcast this morning that noted Hill won the pop vote(not news) but that she did so by only winning 500 counties country wide.  That is a shockingly low number of counties to win as a major candidate, imo, and also is a shockingly low number of counties that you can win and still win the pop vote. 

I guess the latter is my KS coming out.  Pop density like that is slightly mind blowing to me.  I mean, KS has like 100 counties.  Hill won 5x the counties that KS has and still won the pop vote.

Which is one reason why the electoral college is a good thing.

You essentially support a system that tells city dwellers they only get 3/5ths of a vote

The city dwellers do this to themselves.  Time to take some responsibility.

Online star seed 7

  • hyperactive on the :lol:
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 64044
  • good dog
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
« Reply #3292 on: November 17, 2016, 12:29:43 PM »
Yeah, votes for a national office should totally be given different weights depending on where you live within the nation.
Hyperbolic partisan duplicitous hypocrite

Offline Mrs. Gooch

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9975
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
« Reply #3293 on: November 17, 2016, 12:37:09 PM »
Yeah, votes for a national office should totally be given different weights depending on where you live within the nation.

It should be based on how much land you own. Only land owners should vote....maybe just white male landowners.

Offline sys

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 40528
  • your reputation will never recover, nor should it.
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
« Reply #3294 on: November 17, 2016, 01:14:23 PM »
it should be based on act/sat/gre scores.
"experienced commanders will simply be smeared and will actually go to the meat."

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37111
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
« Reply #3295 on: November 17, 2016, 01:16:39 PM »
I heard a podcast this morning that noted Hill won the pop vote(not news) but that she did so by only winning 500 counties country wide.  That is a shockingly low number of counties to win as a major candidate, imo, and also is a shockingly low number of counties that you can win and still win the pop vote. 

I guess the latter is my KS coming out.  Pop density like that is slightly mind blowing to me.  I mean, KS has like 100 counties.  Hill won 5x the counties that KS has and still won the pop vote.

Which is one reason why the electoral college is a good thing.

You essentially support a system that tells city dwellers they only get 3/5ths of a vote

That isn't really how it works, though. Rural and urban votes are equal in swing states. Neither matter in deep red or blue states.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37111
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
« Reply #3296 on: November 17, 2016, 01:17:18 PM »
it should be based on act/sat/gre scores.

yes

Offline Mrs. Gooch

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9975
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
« Reply #3297 on: November 17, 2016, 01:17:27 PM »
it should be based on act/sat/gre scores.

I can get behind this idea.

Offline 420seriouscat69

  • Don't get zapped! #zap
  • Wackycat
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63922
  • #1 rated - gE NFL Scout
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
« Reply #3298 on: November 17, 2016, 01:17:35 PM »
it should be based on act/sat/gre scores.
Yeah, that ACT score really turned out to be a deal breaker for me. I just have a silly little Masters underneath my belt, but can barely form complete sentences without drooling all over myself. So sad.

Online star seed 7

  • hyperactive on the :lol:
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 64044
  • good dog
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary 2016? (Now Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch)
« Reply #3299 on: November 17, 2016, 01:19:15 PM »
I heard a podcast this morning that noted Hill won the pop vote(not news) but that she did so by only winning 500 counties country wide.  That is a shockingly low number of counties to win as a major candidate, imo, and also is a shockingly low number of counties that you can win and still win the pop vote. 

I guess the latter is my KS coming out.  Pop density like that is slightly mind blowing to me.  I mean, KS has like 100 counties.  Hill won 5x the counties that KS has and still won the pop vote.

Which is one reason why the electoral college is a good thing.

You essentially support a system that tells city dwellers they only get 3/5ths of a vote

That isn't really how it works, though. Rural and urban votes are equal in swing states. Neither matter in deep red or blue states.

So then it's exactly how I said it works?
Hyperbolic partisan duplicitous hypocrite