- May 29, 2012
- 41,108
- 24,135
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Are right wing elitists better?She had the popular vote, remember? Especially in blue states. You, among others, have continued to denigrate Trump voters when they complained about the elitist attitude of the left.
You might want to switch to a straw ‘cause you go some red stuff dribbling down your chin.I'm sure we already know and agree to that in principle. But one side is actually drinking it.
Are right wing elitists better?
I just checked the Electoral Vote totals. If she had won MI and WI, she still would have lost the Election by a 280-258 margin. If somehow she could have won PA and MI, she would have come very close, but Trump still would have won 270-268. Now if she could have won PA and MI and snared the one vote in the Northern Maine Congr District, then we would have had a 269-269 tie. However, the fact remains that in order to win outright, she needed all three normally Dem states that she lost: MI, PA and WI. Logically, she should have won MI. She only lost by about 10,000 votes and she really only devoted much time and money there near the end. As to WI, word has it that she never campaigned there even once. I do not know how much she spent on tv ads there, but the margin was less that 23,000 votes, so she probably could have won WI with time and resources. So, that leaves PA. The problem here is that she lost PA by 44,000, the largest margin of the three states and she spent the most time and money there by far. I doubt very much that Clinton could have done anymore that she did already to carry PA. The problem is that outside of Allegheny County, she got beat badly in traditionally Dem SW PA, no doubt due to her anti-coal message. She also lost traditionally Dem Wilkes Barre and barely carried traditionally Dem Scranton, both in NE PA coal country. It would appear that more than any other single factor, her anti-coal message cost her the Presidency. Yes, maybe, maybe..... if Comey had not come out near the end with his statement about more emails, maybe she could have barely carried PA, MI and WI. MI seems the most likely to have flipped, but WI and PA not so certain.
Sure, and Obama used almost the identical term to describe another African nation.The irony of the Left is that, they are the ones who have been saying how horrible these countries are that illegal aliens would be forced to return to! Trump is just agreeing with them!
The way that I would approach immigration from poorer countries is that people can come if individuals, churches, or charities can sponsor them. In other words, I see a need to separate individual compassion from government policy. Our government doesn't have emotions, unless we adopt a theoretical construct of the state as an individual.This is a very good point but misses a bigger point: as leader of the free world and leader of one of the countries that has benefitted immensely from global immigration regardless of source, the President should NEVER EVER EVER say ANYTHING even remotely like that!
I was troubled when I heard it, not because I think Haiti is a great place, it's not. Places like that are severely broken. Many sub-Saharan African nations are also horribly broken and certainly in those cases it is the wealthy West that helped do that when these countries were (often brutally) colonized by European powers in the 19th century and before.
The President of the US can have an opinion on the "quality" of various countries but he HAS to remember that there are ways to say things that make it more obvious we are a caring nation.
I would never vacation in Haiti or Nigeria or Niger etc. But that doesn't mean the people are somehow "bad", it means that we as the wealthiest nation on earth should work to make these places BETTER, not denigrate them with foul language.
Trump stood in judgement and execution of these countries. In doing so he revealed a stunning lack of compassion and an even more stunning lack of knowledge of world history.
Trump showed a darkness in his soul that few would find virtuous to reveal, even if they had it in there to some extent. It certainly does nothing GOOD in the world.
True, the Trump campaign would have thrown millions of dollars into legal challenges, as would Clinton had the margins been closer.That's a worthy analysis, but one fact needs to be understood, even if it sends chills up the spine of most people.
IF the electoral vote count had been as close as some of these "could have beens" that you outlined, the Democrats would probably have been able to steal the election. As it was, several electors in Texas defected while three or four Democrats threw their votes away in a symbolic gesture they never would have done if the count had been close. Recounts were started in three states, but you can believe that a dozen more would have been contenders if the margin were only a handful of (electoral votes). As it was, Republican electors were harassed and received death threats. I have no doubt that there would have been plans to waylay a few of them on the appointed day in order to keep them from getting to the state capitol(s). Many court challenges would have been filed. And that would have been only the start of it. But because the margin was as big as it was, the effort was muted.
Importantly, however, the general approach has not gone away. That's why I said that the Democrats will spring back into high gear with several proposals for ending free elections IF they gain control of the rest of the electoral machinery in the future--Congress and, with it, a few more Supreme Court appointments, plus the Presidency. When that happens, watch out.
People forget that the president is running a nation, not a Salvation Army soup kitchen.
He has a responsibility to see that the United States prospers, is protected from enemies, and is just. He is not supposed to discriminate against Americans because he has a soft heart for everyone in the rest of the world who admittedly would be better off they were here on our welfare rolls, treated for free in our emergency rooms, getting free education for their children although they have paid no school taxes, and so on.
And THAT is the kind of non-sequitur that is most unfair of all
, but which does keep his base loyal. That base does notice the difference between a simple policy disagreement and vengefulness on the part of those who wanted the other candidate to win the November, 2016 election.
The quote was the following:And it is not unfair to suggest that calling someone else's country a ____-hole is dark.
--not simply that his alleged comment was dark. You may get an 'A' for effort, but not for accuracy.Trump showed a darkness in his soul that few would find virtuous to reveal
Yet, Trump is a prime example of one, as they are coned by the Donald.No, which why people generally don't like them either.
Except when they vote for them and give them more money while complaining about elitists.
Yet, Trump is a prime example of one, as they are coned by the Donald.
I thought immigrants were only prohibited from running for POTUS. Once an immigrant becomes a citizen, can't they run for any other office?I'm not sure what to make of the outrage over Trump's comment. From a Christian standpoint, he shouldn't have said it. But Democratic leaders don't vacation in third-world countries. They all live in tony neighborhoods. They aren't forced to compete with immigrants for jobs. The rest of country is forced to compete with cheap immigrant labor, especially in urban areas.
Anyone who argues against this system is labeled a racist. Trump's comment was symbolic of the exasperation the working class.
No, Trump's insults are often direct at particular groups of people who don't happen to have white skin.Trump insults very particular groups of people, and it is usually directed at those who are seen as elitists (media, etc). Hillary swung at a broad, ill-defined group of citizens. While neither is morally superior, one is pretty standard, if much more blunt, while the other was like setting yourself on fire to get rid of a spider crawling on you.
--not simply that his alleged comment was dark. You may get an 'A' for effort, but not for accuracy.
Ted Kennedy immigration bill 1965:Sure, and Obama used almost the identical term to describe another African nation.
I don't recall a single poster here uttering a peep about it being undiplomatic, unpresidential, disgusting, or any of the rest of the characterizations that we're read on this thread with regard to Trump.
Yes, immigrants can ran for any office as citizens, except the presidency. My point is that those at top rung of social ladder have to compete with immigrants for blue collar work in construction and elsewhere. Meanwhile, the left establishment in the press, academia, and politics is insulated from the problems their advocacy and policy created. As is pointed out in the Devil's Pleasure Place, our modern left is akin to the old Soviets, who shopped in nice stores, lived in nice apartments, while the mass of the Soviet working class stood in line for food and lived in leaky apartments.I thought immigrants were only prohibited from running for POTUS. Once an immigrant becomes a citizen, can't they run for any other office?
It's important to go beyond isolated statements made my individuals. Even there, people may use racist talk, as of some my older relatives did (or do), but not really have hatred toward other races. Trump is known to have opened his country club in Florida to Jews, blacks and so on. I don't think he's racist. He talks like where he is from though, NYC.Anyone? I certainly wouldn't label someone a racist simply for arguing against the system. That would be ridiculous. I would, however, call someone a racist if they were using racist rhetoric during the argument. If it sounds like a duck, swims like a duck, and looks like a duck, I'm going to believe it's a duck.
Um, yeah. Wow.Meanwhile, the left establishment in the press, academia, and politics is insulated from the problems their advocacy and policy created. As is pointed out in the Devil's Pleasure Place, our modern left is akin to the old Soviets, who shopped in nice stores, lived in nice apartments, while the mass of the Soviet working class stood in line for food and lived in leaky apartments.
It's important to go beyond isolated statements made my individuals. Even there, people may use racist talk, as of some my older relatives did (or do), but not really have hatred toward other races. Trump is known to have opened his country club in Florida to Jews, blacks and so on. I don't think he's racist. He talks like where he is from though, NYC.
Glad we agree.Um, yeah. Wow.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?