are you mad i was right?
are you mad that trump lost? lol he didn't even gain any more after he paused vofes like a dumbass lol. take a l"trump can come back" delusion at its finest.now by trump supporters
the trump supporters have been real quiet lately...
electoral college. trump lost the popular vote. out votes don’t matter because of the electoral college. he should have never won in the first place and the only way we can get him out is if the blue voter turnout is high enough to swing the electoral vote in favor of biden you know the left has no compelling argument on their side, nor evidence or reason to support their positions. lacking anything credible the only thing left is insulting and spewing hate. so so sad to watch i honestly don't get the fact that all of a boxer's friends, crew, hangers-on, whatever you want to call them, are all bigging their guy up when he keeps winning, yet as soon as he loses, most, if not all of them desert him. it's fickle, and as if loyalty doesn't exixt to those people. michael moore was exactly the same. he had a load of guys around him. and then he got beat by george foreman, and the only 2 people left with him where teddy atlas and mm's head of security, a guy called flem.

i personally haven't abandoned pavlik, as i know he is great for the sport, and will rebound. hopkins, uncharecteristically, even praised pavlik after the fight, and told him that the middleweight division was his destiny. pavlik, so i heard, went into the fight with bronchitis, so if that is the case, losing to a future hall of famer in bernard hopkins with something as bad as that isn't so bad a deal, even though the loss would have dented his pride somewhat. i have no doubts that pavlik will be back. as far as future fights go, i hear paul williams is moving up, his reason being that he cannot make 147. he blew away middleweight andy kolle in about 95 seconds, and has a fight with verno phillips lined up for the ibf junior middleweight title. if pavlike decides to stick around at 160 for maybe another 18 months, a fight between pavlik and williams could be massive, and a real boost for the sport. a unification fight with abraham could be a contender for fight of the year, were it to happen. azulkrema what the f.u is wrong with you what do you mean you dont care? america jugo mal man y ganamos si pero hay que ganar jugando bien.the match was bad really, and i dont care if anyone gives thumbs down because they cant handle the truth.

my summary:
america play bad really bad, the jean we saw against chivas was nowhere to be found, esqueda echa aperder el unico gol de jugada buena que hizo america.ochoa si no es por el ref que marca fuera de lugar deja entrar un gol legitimo also another mala salida that luckily se la regresan en las manos.i think the game was very stuck in the midfield, avia pelotazo por aqui y por aya, every ball that tigres or america got was from a rebote.tigres played good for a moment and kikin se mira peligroso, but it was just a moment same with america.i saw de pinho play a lit better, cabanas too, but like i said both teams puro pelotazo. there is a void created by saddam's departure. right now, the public at large does not know how to serve it's best interests, has no idea how to repair and rebuild, or who to have confidence in to do these things. you have removed the bully from the playground, but you didn't get all of his weapons- each of the junior bullies got a hand full before you found them. 
if you think there unrest now, pull out and watch how the new bully gets into place. that void will be filled. the quicker you pull out, the quicker you will be back, if you are interested in the lives of the people in iraq.
no war is popular. but to cut and run, death will come quickly to thousands in the infighting you mention. this is a quagmire that bush will always be remembered for, and he will not overcome the unpopular position he has been given because of it. there is no way to win, but walking away would be much worse. i know , right . biden brings in a few sleepy retirees to nap with and trump draws overflow crowds .

talk about an " enthusiasm gap ". i think it may just be a public official/politician thing. democrats don't have to good of a record either i bet. i just think they were trying to be conservative in a roman catholic priest kind of way. even 0bama can't be that corrupt or so i thought. but i looked it up and you are correct. thanks. lose, surrender. don't forget george w. bush's white house, with the allegations against his vp.

harry truman had lots of support, early in his career, from a kansas city mob-ring. kennedy may have owed his presidency to the daley political machine in chicago (whose remnants are attempting to besmirch our current president elect). lbj may have been in deep with various members of the military-industrial complex (though i don't think he had anything to do with jfk's assassination). 

but these are all rumours. the gop has a lot of 'splainin' to do, especially when they always take the moral high ground!

btw, andrew johnson was acquitted (as was clinton), and grant's scandal was not teapot dome (that was harding) but various kick-backs and short-changing of the indians. and he was a republican. the question was about democratic party abuses, and i'm sure there are plenty there to go around. just no so's you'd notice.