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.
I voted today. Just got back. They bounced me around the sector but went I did.
Parking lots in both places, the one I thought I needed to be at and the one they sent me to, were rather empty but maybe others voted early.
He won by the majority of the rules that have been in effect for centuries. Both sides knew those rules.
Now, if you want to change it, amend the Constitution, hold a Constitutional Convention, or hold a coup. Otherwise, don't try to say otherwise to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Thank you.
Huh? This comment is even more bizarre than some of the others. We were talking about representation, not who did or didn't win. As long as you brought it up, once a candidate is inaugurated, shouldn't he represent 100% of the people and not just his base? I've never seen any POTUS go out on the campaign trail after being elected (the "thank you" tour) and again a month after he was sworn in, but Trump has been on the campaign trail since 2015 and hasn't stopped.
When Trump stood with the Republican Congressman celebrating a victory (although the bill hasn't even passed the Senate) they did not represent the majority of Americans. 20 Republicans voted against the bill, by the way. 217 voted yes. So, along with the 193 voted by Democrats, a total of 213 voted against the bill. Sure, it's true that 217 is more than 213, but not by much.
Anyway, I have no idea what "amending the Constitution" has to do with this topic. If you want to go off on a tangent, I can post tweets in which our president said that the EC is "a disaster." That was before he won and called it "genius." So he wanted to change the Constitution until it benefited him.
...... As long as you brought it up, once a candidate is inaugurated, shouldn't he represent 100% of the people and not just his base?.......
Then you have not been paying attention.
President Obama should have stayed out of the election instead of to fly around Hillary Clinton on AF 1 on the campaign trail.
Now, in truth, one can't really fault him for that since other sitting Presidents have been out campaigning for their parties as well.
I would love to see a president represent all the people, but whether it is Trump or Obama or Bush or whoever, that doesn't seem to be the way it works.
Last edited by TamaraSavannah; 05-06-2017 at 06:16 PM..
Lets not kid ourselves though. The ruling class doesnt care about race. They care about class. Voting for people based on their skin color and not asking ourselves whether they are ready to stand up for the workers and the disabled against the big money ruling class is a recipe for continued slide towards a Mexican style plutocracy, rule by wealth.
Go anyplace and there will probably be a majority of one "special minority/ethic group/color" there. Yes, different people live all over and some places are more mixed than others but still, much of the time whatever gathering is in effect attracts a certain type of person and that's what you will probably see the most of. There is nothing good or bad about a mix of people or a homogeneity. What IS bad is the expectation that every group be mixed, and often by a specific formula/percentage, in order to seem ok. All white or all male will get negative responses but everything else is a-ok? That's ridiculous.
Huh? This comment is even more bizarre than some of the others. We were talking about representation, not who did or didn't win. As long as you brought it up, once a candidate is inaugurated, shouldn't he represent 100% of the people and not just his base? I've never seen any POTUS go out on the campaign trail after being elected (the "thank you" tour) and again a month after he was sworn in, but Trump has been on the campaign trail since 2015 and hasn't stopped.
When Trump stood with the Republican Congressman celebrating a victory (although the bill hasn't even passed the Senate) they did not represent the majority of Americans. 20 Republicans voted against the bill, by the way. 217 voted yes. So, along with the 193 voted by Democrats, a total of 213 voted against the bill. Sure, it's true that 217 is more than 213, but not by much.
Anyway, I have no idea what "amending the Constitution" has to do with this topic. If you want to go off on a tangent, I can post tweets in which our president said that the EC is "a disaster." That was before he won and called it "genius." So he wanted to change the Constitution until it benefited him.
How is it possible for any congressman or president to represent the entire population in this country, politically? We are very divided on political issues. Do you think the Democrats represent conservative views? Those in office should just follow our laws and what is in the best interests of this nation as a whole.
Go anyplace and there will probably be a majority of one "special minority/ethic group/color" there. Yes, different people live all over and some places are more mixed than others but still, much of the time whatever gathering is in effect attracts a certain type of person and that's what you will probably see the most of. There is nothing good or bad about a mix of people or a homogeneity. What IS bad is the expectation that every group be mixed, and often by a specific formula/percentage, in order to seem ok. All white or all male will get negative responses but everything else is a-ok? That's ridiculous.
How's that any different than the GOP's reliance on older and/or less well educated Whites? Nearly 90% of Republicans are White in a country that's only 68% White ... and dropping with each passing day.
Where do you live on Long Island, Mr. Anti-White? It's a simple question. Why won't you answer it? I'm sure we all know why.
How is it different? Because the GOP ins't relying on racial/ethnic replacement, that's why. Obviously.
That looks little like "my" America. I've never seen someone wearing one of those Saudi Keffiyeh head wraps in the real world. My town is 90% white. My office (fortune 100, tech industry) is about 80% men and 60% Indian, in one of the whitest highly populated counties, next door to one of the whitest big cities in the US. So the picture of "Trumps America" looks far more like mine than yours does.
The picture of "Trump's America" looks far more like her neck of the woods, too. There's a simple formula: anyone white person who crows on about diversity and how much they don't like white people lives in a very white community, has a very white social circle, and sends her kids to very white schools. Bank on it.
Here are some pictures of Trump vs Clinton/Bernie crowds. Notice how different they look? Which rallies actually represent what America looks like???
Man, you are obsessed with this meaningless, pointless argument. All right man, we know: you have a problem with white people. So go move to Detroit, or the Mississippi Delta or some other place where there are few white people to be found. What else can we tell you? And take that guy from Long Island with you. I'm sure he would last about, oh, thirty seconds there.
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.
