Yes that will definitely happen. I just hope they'll accept our invitation back when the baby boomers stop working and we have a labor shortage.Quote:
Originally Posted by bleedXblue
Printable View
Yes that will definitely happen. I just hope they'll accept our invitation back when the baby boomers stop working and we have a labor shortage.Quote:
Originally Posted by bleedXblue
I always thought that awarding a state's electoral votes in proportion to the final vote count would bring out more voters in non-swing states. In Illinois, Republicans voting for president know their candidate has no chance of winning the state. Same thing with a red state voting for a Democrat. Having the electoral vote being proportional to each state's final vote count would bring out a lot of voters who would finally feel like their vote actually could make a difference.
I know this will never change since election reform is highly unlikely, but I do think it would do a better job of having all states and all votes matter on Election Day instead of having 10-12 states getting all of the attention during the campaigns.
I think the technology is there to do those randomly with computers now to meet all the criteria laid out by the Constitution (as interpreted by the Supreme Court). Of course, it will never happen, because there would be claims of bias or rigging by the writers of the program.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArizonaXUGrad
I think the logical thing to do is apply to enter the country under the laws that we have in place today? We want and need cheap labor in this country. We don't want this wild west scenario we have today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caf
Law and order.......
Pretty simple concept that the current administration couldn't get their hands around.
Colorado did put such an issue to their voters a few years ago, but it was voted down.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChicagoX
As to what you said earlier about redrawing the districts, this is why I've said that state and national elections in 2018 and 2020 are going to be paramount to Democrats if they want to start progress on that front.
That could be the one silver lining for the Dems. They should do well in gubernatorial races in '18 and '20 since they'll be the minority party and hopefully eliminate grossly unfair gerrymandering. I just hope they do this fairly and don't try to get retribution by drawing them up in their favor. There is no rhyme or reason why algorithms shouldn't be doing this instead of partial politicians.Quote:
Originally Posted by X-band '01
Guess it wouldn't be so bad except that your candidate vehemently supported it in tweets after 2012:Quote:
Originally Posted by GoMuskies
"The electoral college is a disaster for democracy" and He (Obama) lost the popular vote by a lot and won the election" (before all the votes were counted), oh, and "We should have a revolution in this country"
I think we can all agree we elected a chronic and habitual liar, but don't complain when he calls for revolution and people take to the streets. Usual pub double standard.
My candidate? LOL. No.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbiemcgee
Sorry. Trump has flip-flopped on just about every issue. Guess we'll see what's next for the flopper-in-chief.
You say these two sentences as if there's no middle ground. There is. Trump will find it and probably disappoint you.Quote:
Originally Posted by bleedXblue
Nope, just nope. The system is flawless. #RespectItQuote:
Originally Posted by ChicagoX
People living in Square miles do vote and square miles make up thing that are called "States". You might have heard of them. There are 50, not just 2.Quote:
Originally Posted by paulxu
The aggregate of the 50 states voted under our genius system. Hillary Clinton lost. #FactsOnly
No, no his opinion has "evolved"Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbiemcgee
+1. Suck it libs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Masterofreality
Actually its exactly what I expect from him..........Quote:
Originally Posted by Caf
Classic......he's not even in office yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbiemcgee
You're lying to yourself if you think it involves mass deportation.Quote:
Originally Posted by bleedXblue
If he could just deport the femi-nazis in Hollywood like Lena Dunham that would make me happy....oh and the KardashiansQuote:
Originally Posted by Caf
Actually, I'm agreeing with you........no way there is mass deportation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caf
I expect a period where illegals can come forward and voluntarily apply for citizenship.
If you don't, there should and hopefully will be swift consequences.
Haha yeah we're on the same page. My bad. Path to citizenship, new closed borders, everyone's happy (I think).Quote:
Originally Posted by bleedXblue
And yes XVille, someone please show Lena Dunham the door. Kind of impressive how far people can get into their own worlds.
This is finally starting to get some press after the election. For those of you that supported Trump: What are your thoughts on this? This ranked as one of my top several concerns RE: a Trump Presidency (after all the policy stuff). Fortunately it seems like he is backing off of many of his claims (Mexico paying for the wall, deportation force, Obamacare, Muslim ban) - but this feels like a very bad idea to me. This seems more like something that would take place in an Eastern European Oligarchy, not a Western Democratic Republic.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/13/news...cts/index.html
The situation is made even more dubious, IMO, by the failure to release tax returns. Much was made (not without validity) of accusations of pay-to-play politics with respect to the Clinton Foundation. This seems like an even worse conflict of interest, particularly when you consider his role as the President vs. her role as Secretary of State. Are we really OK with him having his kids run is businesses as long as they pinkie swear not to talk to him about it? Are we OK with having no visibility to those business dealings? Not knowing who is funding his ventures?
Trump can't simply turn over the operations to his kids. That would be a clear conflict. I'm sure he has trusted people he can turn the day to day operations over to. This is uncharted waters. I'm not sure if any presidents in recent memory had such varied business interests. For them, I think it was mostly investments, stocks, bonds, and passive interests in others entities. Those are easy to turn over to an advisory firm who can operate independently. That's much tougher when you're incredibly active in the running of the operations.
I heard something on one of the news programs this morning that the conflict of interest rules don't technically apply to the President like they do to cabinet members. No idea if that's true.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
The tax returns may have shown his involvement with the Russians. I don't think too many NYC banks wanted his business after he stiffed them so many times, so he may get his money from the Putin oligarchs.
Donald Trump Jr. pretty much covered that saying “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets.” He added, “we see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”
Clever move to get Secret Service protection from the Russian mob. They play by different rules than Wall Street banks.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbiemcgee
CNN?Quote:
Originally Posted by boozehound
Ha....ha...ha..aaaahahahahaha!
Good to see the Trump victory hasn't gone to your head.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew
CAF -Quote:
Originally Posted by Caf
If there is one thing we learned from this election, it's that CNN is just a corrupt as Crooked Hillary, the Clinton Foundation, Qatar, Donna Brazelle, Don Lemon, Chris Matthews, and Mick Cronin. For anyone to legitimately get their "news" from CNN, is laughable. I wouldn't trust them to deliver sports scores.
CNN stinks - not many people are going to challenge you on that. However, you can find this story and question on basically every news outlet. It's a valid question, boozehound set it up well, and a CNN link doesn't somehow invalidate it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamont Sanford
Watchdogs question Trump’s plans to keep his empire in the family
This mentality is a little frightening to me, and I hope it isn't widespread. CNN isn't Huffington Post. You can make a good argument that they slant their news to the left, but they don't generally report outright falsehoods. It's looking like it's going to be VERY easy for Trump to continue to manipulate the roughly 27% of the population that voted for him. He already has his propaganda minister in Steve Bannon, now he just needs to continually reinforce that Breitbart should be their source for the 'real' news, and that all other media is 'biased' and 'wrong'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caf
The thing that does give me hope, is that you generally need much more than a quarter of the people in your camp in order to actually seize control of a democratic republic. The question becomes how many of the roughly half of Americans who didn't vote will buy his message. If it under-indexes relative to the people who actually did vote (as I suspect it does), he may have closer to 35%-40% of the people's support, which still isn't really enough to seize power ala Vladimir Putin in Russia. If you can manage to control the media it gets much easier, but I think that would be difficult to do on a large enough scale in America.
I figure probably 20% of the people will believe literally everything he says, with the remainder of the population falling at various other places on the spectrum.
Thank you. See my above post for why this mentality frightens me. To wholesale discount CNN is a little ridiculous. It is, however, highly convenient when they are reporting on things you really don't want to address though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caf
Donald Trump has done a phenomenal job of convincing his supporters that every media outlet that reports negative things about him is biased and false, even in the face of video evidence to the contrary.
It's one thing to elect Donald Trump. It's another thing entirely to allow him free reign to do whatever he wants. That could be disastrous, particularly when you consider who he is taking advice from (I'm looking at you, Steve Bannon). The question RE: his business is legitimate and valid, and should be addressed. Unless we want to go full oligarchy here.
I thought the 60 Minutes interview he did last night was encouraging.
I think we're *all* going to be "sucking it" for the next four years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamont Sanford
CNN was colluding with the DNC and you're going to say they may slant a little left? What a joke.Quote:
Originally Posted by boozehound
POTUS Trump will have to figure out his biz above board b/c the unhinged leftist media is foaming at the mouth to find something on him. It's humorous you find my utter contempt (deserved) for CNN to be frightening while your fellow Progs/Dems/domestic terrorists are throwing violent temper tantrums in the streets of major cities.
Just curious -- what outlets do you rely upon for your information?Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew
The Progs/Dems/Domestic terrorists aren't in charge of the federal government. Get some thicker skin or move under a rock.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew
The Republican Party would call this "amnesty."Quote:
Originally Posted by bleedXblue
I agree. It seems he has made a complete 180 in attitude and presentation, pretty much overnight.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoMuskies
I just know I'm not sure what's worse, all the whiny anti Trump protesters who can't accept their candidate lost or all the whiny pro-Trump people complaining about them.
I think all these news people are corrupt. So, when I want to know what our new president thinks, I don't get the straight story from the news sites.
I get the straight story, straight from the horse's mouth (as it were).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSE-XoVKaXg
WaPo, NYT, WSJ, LA Times, Wash Times, Drudge and yes, Breitbart as well. When you read from a lot of sources it because very apparent how big of a joke CNN truly is.Quote:
Originally Posted by kyxu