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.
Anyone else noticed that those who voted for Trump because he says what he means, have spent the last two years explaining he didn’t mean what he said?
Religious principles? WTF?? If you're suggesting there are actually some religious principle involved in this nonsense and that there is a joke hidden somewhere in the mess …. you're even further off the sanity path than Trump.
Quote:
Originally Posted by r small
Right. And we all know that Donald "two Corinthians" Trump has spent years studying the Scriptures.
TDS and not getting it definitely seems to be the issue here.
I don't think there are any conservatives that believe that except a few mentally ill ones perhaps.
You don't seem to be able to offer any criticisms on policy with Trump or show how he's wrong for this country.
Trump makes an obvious joke about being the chosen one, and you are having a meltdown about it. How is that good for you or good for the country. To me, your behavior is embarrassing.
You truly can't see he's making a joke here?
You would be wrong on your first point someone has already shown you that.
Since when do I have anything to prove to you? We’re not going to agree period.
A meltdown? you mean because I don’t agree with you. Again.
Joke? As he looks to the sky and holds his hands out. Yeah okay.
So people who don’t see or think like you do, that’s embarrassing? I wouldn’t go outside if I was you the world is filled with people who don’t think/believe as you do. So that seems to be the bases for your arguments, agree and see things my way..
There are ton of liberal partisan Trump haters on here who self describe as independent.
You appear to have a problem with elections if think my ideas are dangerous.
You haven't articulated how Trump's election has made anybody's life worse yet you make him out as a sinister person.
A politician can't be on every side of every issue. I'm not sure how you can deny that. People in this country have positions that are opposed to each other.
I never said when Obama and Clinton were president that they were supposed to do things that I wanted. I understand that is not reality and elections have consequences. It is child like to assert otherwise.
I will have to respectfully disagree with you with respect to elections. I absolutely respect them - that is exactly what my objection stems from. When someone is elected, s/he is elected by some subset of the electorate (majority or plurality, depending on the applicable rules) to govern/represent the electorate. In our form of government, those who did not vote for the elected official should accept the results - accept that the elected person is the legitimate official. On the side of the official, s/he should likewise understand that s/he represents the entire electorate. That is the bargain of the election.
If you go back to my original post, you will see I stated that I stated affirmatively that no person will agree with every position taken by a politician, and that it is unreasonable to think that would be the case. And of course making hard decisions means that a policy will have different impacts on different people. But the official has to keep the interests of all people in mind, not just those that elected him or her.
To suggest that a president represents only those that elected him or her only gives legitimacy to the "#NotMyPresident" movement. If a president only represents those who elected him or her then why should those that did not vote for him or her consider that person the president and follow the rule of law? That is why I say it is dangerous. The balance is that when someone is elected, s/he is not elected by unanimous vote. That will simply never, ever happen. But once the election is done, the president is the president of the entire electorate. Period. Even those who disagree.
I don't believe I have ever asserted that Trump is a sinister person. My discussion here has been on a more general level addressing the idea that an elected official should ignore the members of his or her electorate that did not vote for him or her. That's it. I simply don't think that is the way a democracy or republic works.
I will have to respectfully disagree with you with respect to elections. I absolutely respect them - that is exactly what my objection stems from. When somneone is elected, s/he is elected by some subset of the electorate (majority or plurality, depending on the applicable rules) to govern/represent the electorate. In our form of government, those who did not vote for the elected official should accept the results - accept that the elected person is the legitimate official. On the side of the official, s/he should likewise understand that s/he represents the entire electorate. That is the bargain of the election.
If you go back to my origianl post, you will see I stated that I stated affirmatively that no person will agree with every position taken by a politician, and that it is unreasonable to think that would be the case. Asn of course making hard decision means that a policy will have differnt imapcts on different people. But the official has to keep the interests of all people in mind, not just those that elected him or her.
To suggest that a president represents only those that elected him or her only gives legitimacy to the "#NotMyPresident" movement. If a president only represents those who elected him or her then why should those that did not vote for him or her consider that person the president and follow the rule of law? That is why I say it is dangerous. The balance is that when someone is electd, s/he is not elected by unanimous vote. That will simply never, ever happen. But once the election is done, the president is the president of the entire electorate. Period. Even those who disagree.
I don't believe I have ever asserted that Trump is a sinister person. My discussionb here has been on a mor general level addressing the idea that an elected official should ignore the members of his or her electorate that did not vote for him or her. That's it. I simplky don't think that is the way a democracy or republic works.
Wasn't your point that Trump isn't serving all of the people of this nation?
You implied other presidents served the entire nation but not Trump.
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.
you mean because I don’t agree with you. Again.
