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.
Weren't a lot of people here posting about the size of the crowds at President Trump's rallies during the election? And how those were evidence he was going to win?
I'm positive I can find posts like that. So downplaying the size of this crowd becomes hypocrisy.
Oh! So now they are going to make an impact in 2018/20 where were they this time around?
They were voting for Hillary, which is why she won the popular vote by 3 million I'd imagine. However, going forward, they were going to be a much power potent political force if they maintain this momentum. Trump is in deep doo doo.
If these kind of numbers show up for midterms, Trumpzis are going to have to work double time to rig the election or risk being swept out of office by a blue tidal wave.
Status:
"Let this year be over..."
(set 22 days ago)
Location: Where my bills arrive
19,219 posts, read 17,095,590 times
Reputation: 15538
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestCobb
They were voting for Hillary, which is why she won the popular vote by 3 million I'd imagine. However, going forward, they were going to be a much power potent political force if they maintain this momentum. Trump is in deep doo doo.
Yes but winning 3 or 4 heavily populated states does not win the presidency if it did then most states wouldn't have to vote because these few states populations would dictate every time.
I had a co-worker like Bill once. He loved the ladies and they loved him back. Clinton (and my coworker) is quite different from Trump. He is not a p-grabber like Trump. He admires women and would respect their space. Trump is abusive, a misogynist, who thinks his wealth gives him the right to assault others.
Did your lady's man co-worker shove a cigar in their ******* and *** on their dresses the way Bill did?
No need or reason to argue about this. If Trump and the Republicans want to believe that he had a huge turnout for his inauguration and that yesterday's march means nothing, that's fine. Let them believe what they will.
Yes but winning 3 or 4 heavily populated states does not win the presidency if it did then most states wouldn't have to vote because these few states populations would dictate every time.
It all depends on whether you believe each person's vote counts equally or whether some votes should count more than others.
If you believe that votes from less populated states should count more, this way works for you.
If you believe that some votes should count more than others, than purging voter roles of names that sound African-American or Hispanic works for you.
If you believe that some votes should count more than others, then making it difficult to vote in some areas, making it difficult for some voters to vote... works for you.
It all depends on your view of democracy.
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.
