Richard Saunders

Not here to troll, but to engage

[Richard Saunders @1776PoorRichard]

@jaketapper Why is THE WHITE HOUSE discussing which private citizens should be fired? Are there even ANY examples of past presidents doing this. #UnfitForOffice

[Richard Saunders @1776PoorRichard]

@gbennettpost @chrislhayes @realDonaldTrump Did they have to pay for their tickets?

[Richard Saunders @1776PoorRichard]

@samstein If it weren’t for double standards, The Republicans wouldn’t have any standards at all.

[Richard Saunders @1776PoorRichard]

@myfox8 ITT - Haters gonna hate

[Richard Saunders @1776PoorRichard]

@RedState Franklin Graham will also be quite surprised when he ends up in hell. You can spread a gospel of love and spew the politics of hate.

[Richard Saunders @1776PoorRichard]

@SenatorBurr @JournalNow Deficits?

[Richard Saunders @1776PoorRichard]

@RepMarkMeadows Deficits?

[Richard Saunders @1776PoorRichard]

@CurbApplFxrs @Station1DC @FulkNerra1 @Calvert701 @JoeNBC This the worst circular argument ever. See above: POLLING and PREDICTING are different things. The POLLS were right (she got 2-3% MORE votes). The PREDICTIONS favored here at 70-90% chance of winning (which is NOT a zero chance for Trump

[Richard Saunders @1776PoorRichard]

@RedState You do know that there are liberal Christians?!? Stop spreading hate, it’s Christmas time 🎄!

[Richard Saunders @1776PoorRichard]

@Slate How much do you have to hate your own country to willingly cover up the illegal actions of a presidential campaign? How is this. Partisan issue?

[Richard Saunders @1776PoorRichard]

@CurbApplFxrs @FulkNerra1 @Station1DC @Calvert701 @JoeNBC It’s not, but it is in the venue of a discussion on polls. Different topic.

[Richard Saunders @1776PoorRichard]

@CurbApplFxrs @Calvert701 @JoeNBC Nope pundits gave him a 20-30% chance of hitting 270. But again prognostication is entirely different from polling. It’s like you people are purposely conflating the two.

[Richard Saunders @1776PoorRichard]

@ElliotStone17 @myfox8 So that’s a no then. It seems like an easy question. What Republican policy is actually backed by science/evidence.

[Richard Saunders @1776PoorRichard]

@FulkNerra1 @Station1DC @Calvert701 @JoeNBC fewer people voted for HIM than HER. That is the definition of MINORITY

[Richard Saunders @1776PoorRichard]

@mervpilgrim @Calvert701 @JoeNBC That article was 3 WEEKS before the election. You seem to be selectively picking an article from before the Comey letter.

[Richard Saunders @1776PoorRichard]

All Trump supporters and Trump himself do is cry about anything and everything. https://t.co/KWvP46f6nO

[Richard Saunders @1776PoorRichard]

@Calvert701 @JoeNBC That actually makes no sense. The polls said 3% and the final vote tally was 3%. The polls were correct. If what you said were true then polls would have said HRC up 5% or more. Why is this so hard for you people to understand or are you being intentionally obtuse?

[Richard Saunders @1776PoorRichard]

@myfox8 Are there ANY republican ideas that are actually based on science? Hence why they don’t like science-based or evidence-based. Based on the available evidence the Republican Party is allergic to facts.

[Richard Saunders @1776PoorRichard]

Most aggregates gave her a 60-80% chance of winning which still left a 30% chance for Trump to win. What’s the problem? https://t.co/R36oVUl7Gy

[Richard Saunders @1776PoorRichard]

@Calvert701 @JoeNBC Polls suggested she would win the national vote by about 3%. She won the national vote by about 3%. What’s the problem?

[Richard Saunders @1776PoorRichard]

@Calvert701 @JoeNBC Polls suggested she would win the national vote by about 3%. She won the national vote by about 3%. What’s the problem?