Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Face the facts folks, this country is now left sided and it's going further that way each day. Hillary will win and once she's in office there will never be a so called "republican" in office again. So start learning how to gain the system and take advantage of whatever you can take advantage of. I just hope those who vote for Trump don't vote the party line and instead vote against (or just don't vote for) Long Island republicans who put Hillary to shame when it comes to being a liar.
I don't think the country leans left as a whole. I actually think the country leans right. The problem is that the right has put up an ideologue with no experience or practical advice who is pushing centrist conservatives away in the Presidential election. This is also an issue in other electoral contests, but is often remediated (or even necessitated) by gerrymandering (and is a problem on both sides of the isle). That, plus the GOP has largely eschewed traditional conservative economic and anti-government policy in favor of extreme social and authoritarian positions that appeal to an ever-shrinking base of far right social conservatives.
The problem isn't that the country is mostly "left-sided". It's that the brand of "conservatism" being peddled by the GOP isn't one with which most Americans identify.
Yes you are correct, you do not need and ID for a hospital, however, they do ask for an insurance card and that was what I was referring to. They will treat you in the absence of one but they do ask for it.
Once again, the right to bear arms is also a basic right, however you have to produce ID to buy a gun legally, so that argument is shot full of holes.
Kudos on the pun! LOL
I get where you are coming from here. Although, I'm tempted to mention the gun show or online loopholes to acquire guns without ID (real actual ID). In the end, some type of voter ID law will win out. It's only a matter of time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarhead8286
I am surprised this entire thread has not been moved to a political forum. I will steer clear of the Trump/Clinton discussion, but will bite on the Constitutional statement.
I am not an American by birth, but love reading and discussing the Constitution and hope that either one of our two flawed candidates would do since they will be swearing to protect, defend, and uphold it.
Please tell me which part exactly do we don't like nor understand? The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment forbids the government from establishing an official religion and prohibits the government from favoring any one religion over another. I do not see anywhere in the Constitution where it states that a religion shall be removed from the public square.
Freedom to practice any religion is a core tenet of the Constitution, as well. There is no issue. My commentary was on the very specific concept that church and state are separate. What a candidate "believes" is part of their make-up and consideration for candidacy. I understand that this is ultimately a philosophical discussion, not really a Constitutional debate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEPLimey
...
The problem isn't that the country is mostly "left-sided". It's that the brand of "conservatism" being peddled by the GOP isn't one with which most Americans identify.
It's no longer about left v right. It's about have vs have not. Unfairly advantaged vs unfairly screwed. Corporatism vs middle class growth. Trickle down vs trickled on.
Both parties are completely out of touch. Anyone arguing abortion, race and birth certificates is part of the problem.
If it were left v right it would be Clinton vs Cruz. Trump isn't attracting "conservatives." He's attracting angry, downward spiraling middle class who have no clue who to really blame (like themselves for voting in wingnuts year after year) except "Washington, the tarnished ghetto on the Hill" and perceived "liberals" (really moderates who have a clue what actually affects their lives politically and economically). And of course, they are the ones who should decide the election. The small sliver of moderates still left undehydrated from excessive vomiting from watching this election play out.
As it is it is Trump vs Sanders. (Except Hil had Bernie wacked so it's Trump v Clinton). Have vs Have.
This is the kind of Talmudic reasoning that repels normal people. Both Trump and Sanders were referring to, in essence, the U6 unemployment rate, although they apparently got slightly different numbers from different sources. If they're citing nearly the same number, how can Sanders be "mostly true" but Trump is"mostly false"?
Trump referred to "the unemployment rate." Oh the humanity!
But so did Bernie, who only prefaced it with the word "real." No problem!
But it's far from an isolated incident. I just browsed their front page and saw this doozy:
Quote:
At one point in the third presidential debate in Las Vegas, Hillary Clinton said, "He also went after a disabled reporter, mocked and mimicked him on national television."
The implication is that he mocked a reporter for being disabled, which the article focuses on:
Quote:
Julie Reiskin, executive director of the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition, an advocacy group, said that Trump "clearly was mocking his disability. That was very, very obvious, because he disagrees with all kinds of people at other times, and he doesn't use that voice or wave his arms like that." (Reiskin said she was giving her view since her nonprofit group can't endorse or oppose candidates.)
But they then admit that Trump has done the same kind of arm-flailing routine to mock others who do not have a disability:
Quote:
However, neither of these examples support Trump’s denial in the debate. In the videos, Trump was clearly mocking both Cruz and the unnamed general. In fact, the video about the general -- produced by a Trump supporter -- says explicitly that he was mocking the general.
In other words, the most you could say about these bits of evidence is that they demonstrate that Trump is an equal-opportunity mocker. They don’t help refute Clinton’s charge that Trump mocked Kovaleski.
Except, that wasn't the charge, Politifact. She charged that he mocked a disabled reporter, implying that his disability was part of the mockery. It wasn't. Trump was correct in denying that. So Politifact moves the goal posts, saying, "well, he still made fun of the guy, even if it wasn't for being disabled".
Well i think especially after today's corruption arrests - having someone in office that is truly independent of these political party people and someone who doesn't need favors from corrupt business pseudo wanna be political power players is a refreshing option and one way to get off the path of political favoritism and corruption is to make the choice to chose to get off the damn train - clinton is just more of the same political corrupt favoritism
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
[/img]
