Didn't need it. They had Fox News there to tell them exactly how to feel. The heathens and libruls were taking over 'Murica! Led by a black, Kenyan-born Muslim!
Who is going to win this election in November?
- Thread starter fonzob1
- Start date
- Status
Didn't need it. They had Fox News there to tell them exactly how to feel. The heathens and libruls were taking over 'Murica! Led by a black, Kenyan-born Muslim!
Call me when they actually pass laws that affect the ability to live your life, maybe then you'll understand.
A lot of this could be easily be turned around by substituting Dem for Repub, and MSNBC for FOX. That's not a great argument, and I think you know it.
You keep using that defense, but I see no citation of actual law.
Call me when they actually pass laws that affect the ability to live your life, maybe then you'll understand.
What about the idea for internment camps? Thought bubble or grand idea?
They'll be right next to the FEMA camps.
Only now with the kind of folks we have in this new cabinet, or likely to get that could happen too. "half laugh"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/higbie-japanese-internment-muslim_us_582d2f9fe4b099512f80f7b7
Wow, one guy. A "Trump supporter." I can spell sensationalism.
Call me after January 20, when the jackbooted thugs start rounding up the malcontents.
Seriously, y'all need to take a breath.
While Jon Stewart reminds us not to put all Trump supporters into the same basket (and he's right, even HRC spoke of only half), Bernie Sanders reminds us about some of Trump's social support and economic promises:
And now, another timely Lennon song:
Maybe you should pay attention then, North Carolina's HB2 affects my life. That's an actual law passed by Republicans that discriminates against people like me. Given that other states with Republican leaders have tried the same, it's reasonably to assume they'll try to pass it on a federal level. Pretty much any federal protection are due to executive orders signed during Obama's Presidency. I have to hope that Trump doesn't immediately get rid of all of them on his first day since so many Conservative judges and politicians are trying to fight them on the state level.
There, I'm done arguing with you about my right to exist and live my life with a reasonable expectation of peace and privacy. I'd advise you to actually look into what's going on in the real world.
Yes, you are the arbiter of what's going on in the real world. Yet you and the left listened to each other and were sure of your November victory.
Cross posted from elsewhere...
Let's break down some numbers...
Let's look at the big 5 states that swung his way to give him the White House.
Florida: Trump won all the electors by winning 49.06% of the vote. This was 120,000 more votes than Clinton.
Michigan: Trump won all the electors by winning 47.60% of the vote, or about 13,000 votes.
North Carolina: 49.9% of the vote wins them all. 170,000 vote win.
Pennsylvania: Trump won 48.84% of the state by 73,000 votes. Got all of them.
Wisconsin: 47.87% of the states voters voted for Trump - 28,000 votes.
These states accounted for 70 of of Trump's 306 Electoral Votes.
So, Trump didn't win a majority of the votes in *any* of those states. Granted, he won more than Clinton, but those 404,000 voters in those 5 states voted the way they did and that will overrides the 1,323,068 popular vote majority Clinton "won".
That's the system! Sound rigged? Nope! It's designed that way - for some reason. Proponents will say that's what the founders intended, but the Founders never said he had to be "you win 50.1% and you win all the electors." Each state can pick their own rules and the all or nothing rule didn't become the norm until the later 1800s.
(The Founders also intended the top two vote getters to be President and VP and didn't have parties so they didn't really have it all planned perfectly.)
So a man who won 42% of his party's primaries, a minority in enough of the right swing states, and came in second in the popular vote is planning his cabinet. That's our system.
That's his "mandate".
Enjoy your victory.
Let's break down some numbers...
Let's look at the big 5 states that swung his way to give him the White House.
Florida: Trump won all the electors by winning 49.06% of the vote. This was 120,000 more votes than Clinton.
Michigan: Trump won all the electors by winning 47.60% of the vote, or about 13,000 votes.
North Carolina: 49.9% of the vote wins them all. 170,000 vote win.
Pennsylvania: Trump won 48.84% of the state by 73,000 votes. Got all of them.
Wisconsin: 47.87% of the states voters voted for Trump - 28,000 votes.
These states accounted for 70 of of Trump's 306 Electoral Votes.
So, Trump didn't win a majority of the votes in *any* of those states. Granted, he won more than Clinton, but those 404,000 voters in those 5 states voted the way they did and that will overrides the 1,323,068 popular vote majority Clinton "won".
That's the system! Sound rigged? Nope! It's designed that way - for some reason. Proponents will say that's what the founders intended, but the Founders never said he had to be "you win 50.1% and you win all the electors." Each state can pick their own rules and the all or nothing rule didn't become the norm until the later 1800s.
(The Founders also intended the top two vote getters to be President and VP and didn't have parties so they didn't really have it all planned perfectly.)
So a man who won 42% of his party's primaries, a minority in enough of the right swing states, and came in second in the popular vote is planning his cabinet. That's our system.
That's his "mandate".
Enjoy your victory.
You are shifting the parameters. @urbandefault asked for a citation of an actual law which affected @Awesome Possum 's ability to live her life, and she gave an example which should have been obvious as much as it has been in the news (and no, not just the liberal media).
My mistake, I thought STR was talking about Democrats who endorsed Clinton.
That's not what I was talking about and you know it.
That's comparing apples and oranges, Rosa Parks peacefully protested a racist law. The people I refer to have an option to come to this country illegally, yet they don't. However, I will admit that that the immigration system needs to be fixed. But violating it is not the answer.
I am a supporter of LGBT rights. However, one reason that I have heard for HB2 is that men may use it to go into women's restrooms or fitting rooms by claiming to identify as a woman at that moment. It seems that this has happened, going by the link below. I do not think it happens as much as Republicans want to say, but more than what Democrats want to say.
My point is: the law just needs to be changed to prevent incidents like that and there would not be much to go against LGBT, especially Transgender, protection.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/m...n-swimming-pool-locker-says-transgender-law-a
Last edited:
What about the 10 to 11 million supposedly felonious acting illegal Mexican immigrants? Or the talk of a Muslim registry targeting immigrants and U.S. citizens, citing the WWll Japanese internment camps as an acceptable precedent?
I'm very concerned when my government targets segments of the population. Sure, deport illegal immigrants with an unsavory rap sheet, no complaints there. But how did Trump arrive at such a large number of people in the millions? Who is going to oversee this venture? Where are these people going to be detained and for how long? What are the potential abuses? How many U.S. Hispanic citizens are going to rounded up simply because they are guilty of being Hispanic?
What of the Muslim registry? Is being a certain religious denomination now so fearfully repugnant it merits mandatory registration with the government? Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of religion but isn't the idea of such a thing contrary to a free society that prizes freedom?
The agenda Trump and his cronies are stating for all the public to read is going to involve "jackbooted thugs rounding up the malcontents." Who's next? The LGBT community? The mentally ill? Jews? Non-Christians? Atheists?
Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) was a prominent Protestant pastor who emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps.
Niemöller is perhaps best remembered for the quotation:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure that story is a complete fabrication given the source. The whole idea that some men identify as a woman at that moment is such bullshit that I really can't begin to explain it to you and I find it extremely offensive. You know it at a very early age, about the same time you realize there is a difference between male and female. The law is a discrimination bill hiding behind protecting children from people who don't exist. It's already against law to harass or assault people in a restroom. I don't know if that's how it got sold to you, but it's a lie. It's completely absurd. It's saying we should discriminate against trans women (ignoring that trans men exist) because someone might pretend to be one. Assuming that someone did pretend to be a trans person, they could get past it by entering the women's room and claiming they're a trans man. They wouldn't even have to change clothes. The law assumes we're all guilty by default and I understand that you disagree with that. But that's what the law does and I'm glad that most people and companies have had such an extreme reaction against it. A similar bill almost got passed in my state, but Disney, AMC and Coca-Cola threatened to leave the state and our economy is apparently dependent on them, so it got pulled. So thank you Rick Grimes and Captain America, but other people aren't so lucky.
When a trans person is in a public restroom, the person most likely be attacked or harassed is the trans person. Surveys show it being about 70% of trans women facing some form of harassment or being attacked while using a public restroom.
http://www.npr.org/2016/05/15/47795...-person-uses-a-public-bathroom-who-is-at-risk
- Status
Similar threads
