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.
Went to read the beginning of this thread and then the comments that follow to the end, but upon reading the opening comment, I feel no more need to read the rest...
AGREED!
In the name of keeping Americans safe from terrorism, Trump is generating more reason and opportunity for Americans to experience terrorism than ever before. What Trump has now decided to do, again to appease his religious right base, contrary to decades of effort on the part of the U.S. to find a peaceful end to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, contrary to all advice not to do so (even from our Arab allies), Trump seems intent on lighting the powder keg with total disregard for the lives who will pay the price of the violence.
North Korea, now with the Palestinians/Arab world. Trump will find a reason to generate conflict wherever he can...
Christian means christ follower. He IS christ. He can't follow himself, lol.
Re-read your bible, look at the many things that God did that people today think were horrific. God's actions need not fit into your little box of what "being christian" means.
God wants someone who is always bashing people? That alone makes me discount him. I don’t think my God would want someone so bombastic and the like. Comparing him to how Jesus acted is light years of difference. Yes, sometimes there are people like Saul, but I haven’t seen a shred of an indication of him becoming Paul-like. Just still acting like a Saul.
Exactly. I don't see the screams of illegality of all the territories the British gobbled up. This is just partisan BS from the UN and the sissy international community.
For that matter, all of the territories Islam has conquered to this day including Israel.
If the country disapproved of the House and Senate in the elections that followed that bill's passage, they sure didn't show it at the polls, where their disapproval actually counts. Seems they found the House and Senate to be following the will of the people and the states most agreeably, what with >90% incumbency rates across the board.
Your rebuttal is indicative of wanting it all ways on every issue. If the representative and Senators you vote for are not doing your will, why would you vote to reelect them? In the primaries, in the actual election, whenever? Greater than 90% incumbency rates when actual votes get counted are the only approval ratings any politician recognizes as valid.
The will of the people, therefore, is that regardless of our grumbling and griping, we have told the House and Senate quite clearly, every two years going back decades mind you, that whatever they do is cool by us because we'll reelect them >90% of the time no matter WTF they do.
Just look at how well rewarded the House and Senate were over the next 3 election cycles. Bang up job, so says the American voter and the >90% incumbency rates. And go look at some of those reelections, where the incumbents win by like 50 point margins. The're not just approved of, they're damn near worshiped as minor deities.
So the 92% average majority on the Jerusalem Embassy Act was indeed the will of the People and the States. Trump is simply following through on that will as expressed by a bill passed by the House and Senate. If the American people don't like it, they should consider actually voting according to their level of approval and disapproval, eh?
How ridiculous this effort to suggest the elections were somehow a direct result of approval related to our foreign policy specifically with respect to anything having to do with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. That's as much evidence that special interest money is keeping our representatives entrenched in Congress more than anything else, also hardly the "will of the people."
According to one poll, even a large percentage of Jews are against. Imagine "the will" of most Americans (the other 97% who are not jewish).
"Forty-four per cent of American Jews don’t support the US President Donald Trump’s suggestion of moving the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, the American Jewish Committee (AJC)’s survey revealed yesterday."
"Trump is a “pro-Israel” hawk surrounded by pro-settler hard-liners, so his instinct is to indulge Israel at the expense of its neighbors. This decision would do that and more. Despite his talk about wanting to make a deal between Israelis and Palestinians, Trump has obvious contempt for successful diplomacy that requires compromise, so telling him that recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital would destroy the chances of a peace agreement doesn’t mean anything to him. He is a fan of taking unilateral action, and he thinks that he can pressure others into making concessions by breaking existing U.S. commitments. On foreign policy, Trump has often made a point of doing the opposite of whatever Obama did, and insofar as Obama was perceived as being too “tough” on Israel Trump wants to go as far in the other direction as he possibly can. In the end, it is probably the desire for praise and flattery that matters most to him. There is no benefit for the U.S. to be had in any of this, but Trump is doing it just so that hard-liners will congratulate him for being an extremely “pro-Israel” president."
Excepting of course there's absolutely nothing suggesting Israel's capital had a major influence on those reelection numbers.
I never claimed it was.
I was countering the rebuttal to my claim that 92% bipartisan majorities in both the House and Senate on a particular bill represented the will of the people, and that by acting in accordance with that bill, Trump is indeed following the will of the people in accordance with his job description as laid out in the US Constitution. The rebuttal says that votes in the House and Senate do not reflect the will of the people, and approval polls are more accurate. I countered that with the reelection rates for the House and Senate following the legislative year that bill was passed so overwhelmingly.
So my claim was that if that bill (or any pass in 1994-1995 was not the will of the people, you sure wouldn't know it from the only approval "polls" that matter - the biannual elections. Seems that bill and everything else the House and Senate did met with pretty rock solid approval. Thus, it was indeed the will of the people.
If Americans are so dissatisfied with their representatives and Senators, they need to become much better at expressing it via their votes. Until then, the reelection rates tell both chambers of the Legislature that whatever they do is cool by us, because they're almost guaranteed to keep their job.
If Trump does anything pursuant to that 1995 public law, he will be following through on the will of the People and the States, as expressed via the overwhelming majority of their representation in the US House and US Senate. The current majority of people may not agree, and if they don't, they are less than a year away from being able to wreck the reelections of the entire House and a third of the Senate. How much you want to bet we see the same ridiculous incumbency rates that are virtually opposite from whatever today's opinion polls suggest?
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.
