But he at least had the most votes.
Who is going to win this election in November?
- Thread starter fonzob1
- Start date
- Status
Freedom is offensive to some Christians. That's why they try so hard to get rid of it. If people are free, they might think differently than them.
It is amazing to me how people treat events. Take the Republican platform. Is there anything on this platform that has not been tried in the past? Everything on that list has been tried by some Republican-controlled government in the past. Yet, we discuss the platform as if it is divorced from history. It is not.
This platform is a statement of what the Republicans want to achieve, and what they have tried to achieve with moderate success. The danger is underestimating the zeal that the Republicans have in bringing out about their agenda. They are like a dog - once they have a bone, they never let go.
As a liberal, I found myself appalled by some of the attitude in my side of the aisle. I watched a film with Stephanie Miller. She is a liberal talk radio celebrity. In the film, they described the liberals as the advanced party and as the party on the right side of history. Saying you are more advanced than someone else is a red flag. And, who decides what is the right side of history? Many on the right believe we are on the wrong side of history, that they are on the right side of history.
I am done with the Clintons and their coterie of the party. They were a good thing for our party; however, that was in the '90s. Now, they are harmful to the body of the party. Their friends have done damage to our party and have led our party into this mess. DWS - the former leader of the DNC - was a catastrophe for our party. I have been against her for over a year, believing she was unfit as the leader of the DNC. She should have been ousted after the brutal '14 election, in which we lost ground.
I received an e-mail from an organization named Common Ground. Here is a relevant excerpt from the e-mail:
Here is the full text: https://www.sfcg.org/divided-we-fall/
This platform is a statement of what the Republicans want to achieve, and what they have tried to achieve with moderate success. The danger is underestimating the zeal that the Republicans have in bringing out about their agenda. They are like a dog - once they have a bone, they never let go.
As a liberal, I found myself appalled by some of the attitude in my side of the aisle. I watched a film with Stephanie Miller. She is a liberal talk radio celebrity. In the film, they described the liberals as the advanced party and as the party on the right side of history. Saying you are more advanced than someone else is a red flag. And, who decides what is the right side of history? Many on the right believe we are on the wrong side of history, that they are on the right side of history.
I am done with the Clintons and their coterie of the party. They were a good thing for our party; however, that was in the '90s. Now, they are harmful to the body of the party. Their friends have done damage to our party and have led our party into this mess. DWS - the former leader of the DNC - was a catastrophe for our party. I have been against her for over a year, believing she was unfit as the leader of the DNC. She should have been ousted after the brutal '14 election, in which we lost ground.
I received an e-mail from an organization named Common Ground. Here is a relevant excerpt from the e-mail:
Here is the full text: https://www.sfcg.org/divided-we-fall/
Your version of the golden rule is close to the red devil than the Son of David. But never mind keep faking the Christian label no one is beyond redemption.
'Thou shalt not commit adultery'....Mr Trump likes this commandment so much he decided to break it
Matthew 5:27-28
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery. 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
I believe wanting to grab female pussy applies here...
How heavy is the stone you want to throw?
I was reading this year about how the South viewed the North during the Civil War. In their written and visual media, the Southern writers and artists depicted a North ruled by Demons. Lincoln was called a demon and described as demonic for opposing secession and for having his troops commit total war in the South.
Freedom thought is offensive to some Liberals.
That's why they try so hard to get rid of it. If people had freedom of thought, they might think differently than Liberals.
Liberals haven't tried to pass laws to limit the freedom and lives of Conservatives.
This is just ridiculously stupid.
You're taking the Borg collective conscience a little far here.
Trump actually came out with one if his most frightening comments to date recently.
He was asked during an interview whether he regretted some of his rhetoric during his campaign.
"No, I won"
Was his response.
Staggering. The end justifies the means whatever the cost huh Donald ?
He was asked during an interview whether he regretted some of his rhetoric during his campaign.
"No, I won"
Was his response.
Staggering. The end justifies the means whatever the cost huh Donald ?
It's not ridiculous or stupid. There are numerous examples, almost daily, of people being shouted down, censored, even threatened, because they refuse to conform to whatever current trend in language or behavior. A professor in Toronto comes to mind.
I could list a veritable plethora of examples, but I don't have the time or the inclination. You guys are smart. Hopefully smarter than I am. I know I'm probably not the smartest guy in my neighborhood, and I find this stuff all the time. It's not that hard.
To quote Penny from Big Bang, "I go outside and I talk to people."
I'm sure the (liberal) separation of Church and State is seen as limiting religious freedom (to indoctrinate and oppress others).
Do you have an example that's in America?
There's also a major difference arguing with people and actually passing laws to limit their freedom. Conservatives in my state have made it legal to discriminate against me, now they want it to be a national law. Explain to me why this is okay, but me calling a Conservative an idiot is wrong?
Speaking as a Brit, and I have tried a few quick googles to answer them, I have a couple of questions:
I know that voters actually electors onto the Electoral College, rather than the President directly, and that the size of the Electoral College mirrors the sum of Congressmen and Senators. I have also established that electors are individuals (i.e. its not just a computational device). Doe the Electoral College do anything other than confirm the result of the election? Does it exist as bodies of people (I gather it never meets in its entirety)?
Living in the UK I had the breakfast news on when they started reporting that Clinton had made her concession phonecall. At the time Trump had 244 seats, or electors, or whatever the phrase is (what is the correct term?) Obviously 244 is less than 270 so why on earth would Clinton have chosen that moment to concede (yes she was clearly losing by that point, but she equally hadn't lost)? Was her decision to concede electorally-relevant (if a miracle had occurred and she'd gone on to win the how-ever many extra seats she needed would her concession have been nullified, or would the concession have nullified the result).
In a similar vein: ALL of the commentary I've EVER heard of the US elections imply that each result is settled when enough of the new outlets "call" it. Surely this can't be correct? (by way of comparison, in the UK every candidate for the seat is gathered onto a stage and the results (exact number of votes) is read out by an official known as a Returning Officer.
Has Clinton said anything publicly since the election?
Given all the talk on here about how there'd be rioting on the streets if Trump won, why has there been no discussion about the "pro-Hillary" riots?
Sorry if I've missed the answers to any of these, and thanks in advance,
dJE
I know that voters actually electors onto the Electoral College, rather than the President directly, and that the size of the Electoral College mirrors the sum of Congressmen and Senators. I have also established that electors are individuals (i.e. its not just a computational device). Doe the Electoral College do anything other than confirm the result of the election? Does it exist as bodies of people (I gather it never meets in its entirety)?
Living in the UK I had the breakfast news on when they started reporting that Clinton had made her concession phonecall. At the time Trump had 244 seats, or electors, or whatever the phrase is (what is the correct term?) Obviously 244 is less than 270 so why on earth would Clinton have chosen that moment to concede (yes she was clearly losing by that point, but she equally hadn't lost)? Was her decision to concede electorally-relevant (if a miracle had occurred and she'd gone on to win the how-ever many extra seats she needed would her concession have been nullified, or would the concession have nullified the result).
In a similar vein: ALL of the commentary I've EVER heard of the US elections imply that each result is settled when enough of the new outlets "call" it. Surely this can't be correct? (by way of comparison, in the UK every candidate for the seat is gathered onto a stage and the results (exact number of votes) is read out by an official known as a Returning Officer.
Has Clinton said anything publicly since the election?
Given all the talk on here about how there'd be rioting on the streets if Trump won, why has there been no discussion about the "pro-Hillary" riots?
Sorry if I've missed the answers to any of these, and thanks in advance,
dJE
Sorry, you keep saying this but I don't know where you are or what laws you refer to. Can you provide facts?
If you are being discriminated against, you have legal recourse. No one's Constitutional rights should be violated. Help me out here.
<--- See the profile pic? You cannot argue with Trump supporters. You can't. Forget reasoning. Time to fight.
I'm a transgender woman. Any protections I currently have are from executive orders made during Obama's presidency. Republicans are now promising to fight every advancement we've made and make it legal for me to be discriminated against. That means I can be fired because of who I am. That can already happen in my state. I have to carefully study any job I try to work for to make sure they won't fire me. Generally limiting me to stuff like Starbucks because they're more progressive than other businesses. They don't pay well, so I'm greatly limited in what I can do. They want to pack the Supreme Court with Conservatives who will almost certainly rule against my rights. So I don't have much hope for the future right now.
That's the kind of thing that's got us to this point. No one tries to talk to the other side, find out why they think the way they do, and find a common ground.
Obama was elected twice, and Democrats held both houses of Congress for a good part of that time. In those years I heard every day how they couldn't get anything done because of those damned Republicans. At the time, they could have done anything without support from the right side of the aisle. They even found a way to pass Obamacare without a single Republican vote, but still they blamed the lack of progress on those damned Republicans.
So, what does it mean, "time to fight?"
Disclaimer: I am not a member of the GOP. I didn't leave the party, the party left me.
- Status
Similar threads
