tvc184

Surely this is your joke thread.

Slavery was 100% the issue in 1787? Refresh me on that history.

MSNBC was a great program on election day and the day after. I was hooked. I'll bet their ratings were up those days.

By your argument we need to do away with states and merely have a federal government like most countries.

I never said "more" relevant. Equal would be nice however and that is what the EC does. The conversation of "swing states" is a media diatribe. There are no swing states in an election. There are some that at any given moment in history tend to go one way or the other. CA for example will be almost impossible to get to vote for a Republican but Reagan got their vote twice. Swing state only implies that the vote in that state is close. Those states might that are close changes from election to election. It is much like in my childhood, the called the southern US the Solid South because they voted in a block Democratic. In the previous election I never knew that Wisconsin or Michigan were swing states but they turned out to be just that in this cycle. Don't be sucked in by media terms.

As has already been stated, if you win 3 baseball games 10-0 but lose 4 of them 1-0, you outscored your opponent at a devastating 30-4 pace....... but you lose the World Series. I agree on wishes that they matched up but to worry about the EC is to do away with the founding of the nation. Since this country was laid out by states' rights, lets just count the number of winning states regardless of size. Each state will then have equal representation. Trump wins 30-20.

Which is exactly what I said above.

I believe that you are entirely correct. I can't prove but I have seen such statements to reflect that belief. On Obama's original campaign website back in 2008 I was reading his stance on various issues. One was removal of handguns from private ownership. I wish I had screen shot it because it wasn't much later when it went away. Poof!, the evidence was gone. Obviously someone more wise than he or his staffer that put it there called his attention to the Bill Clinton assault weapon ban and the election results. The only thing keeping some or all guns being taken away is not enough support to get it through Congress. If they had carte blanche to act unilaterally, you can bet on severe or complete restrictions on firearms.

You quoted me and said "you guys". I have never said that and have made comments (usually in other forums) that it is stupid to say that a person isn't your president. You might hate him (or some time in the future, her) and say almost anything to support that hate other than a threat. The person is still "your" president. You can't opt out unless you wish to relinquish your citizenship and move to another country out of his control. You might not agree with my comments but your broad brush is incorrect in his case.

To overturn the EC would be to overturn the entire way and reason the country was formed as it was. Bear in mind this year when it was down to the wire Tuesday night they were saying correctly that New Hampshire might be the state that puts one side or the other over the top. To do away with EC makes NH irrelevant. Do you tell several entire states, sorry but you can never overcome the four big states so no need to vote? This country was set up as almost completely independent nations or states. Each was to have its own say on how they divide up their votes and so but the biggest state and the smallest state had the same power in Congress and have a chance to swing a presidential election. That is why we have legal marijuana in one state and not in another. That is why some states have the death sentence and others do not. That is why some states have a referendum process for the people to pass laws around the legislature (I think CA is an example) and others (like TX) do not. That is why we have the 10th Amendment. If a state does not like all of their votes going to a single person, that state can vote to allocate their EC votes as do two states.

I read that a day ago but didn't want to bring it up unless it came to pass. That would be great as it has absolutely no bearing on the outcome however it might end 1 of the 5,678 complaints that the Democrats have managed to generate.

In every other kind of vote that I have ever heard of, when one person gets less than 50% then there is a runoff. Bill Clinton had almost 60% of the country vote against him. Why no run off? I know the law does not allow for it but if popular vote counts, does it really? Can we run 20 people like LA does in the Senate races and if one guy (like Trump for example) only gets 15% of the vote, does he win with 85% of the country wanting someone else. I understand your point but to say it is completely different is a matter of perspective.

Our constitutional republic with set up so that each state is a essentially a different country. That is why laws can be so radically different between different states. The United States federal government was created for the common defense and for overall betterment of the separate countries/states and I allowing them to make their own basic laws. For that reason we are not a pure democracy. We are set up where states get to vote on what is important to their state. Whether you were talking about Rhode Island or California, they both have two senators. Rhode Island has just as much authority in the U.S. Senate is a huge state of California. The bigger states do you have representation based on population also by the House of Representatives. Our presidential and election is based on what the Independent states want. That is why constitutionally we pick the president based on states. If states want to divide their electoral college votes they are allowed to. It goes by what the citizens of the state what. Two states do you divide their vote. Our country was formed on strong states' rights. That is why we have the system that we have. Eleven times we have not had a winner by popular vote. If we want to change that then change the Constitution but good luck with that. I have a feeling that over half the country that are small states or are smaller population will not want to give up their authority and power.

I counted this one time and I believe this is the 11th presidential election in our history where the winner did not get a clear majority of the vote. That is one out of every four folks. Bill Clinton never got 50% of the vote. In his first election almost 60% of the people voted against him. Of course in his case it was because of a third-party candidate however it is what it is. Even in his reelection Bill Clinton did not get 50% of the vote. That does not matter because he's a Democrat.

Only if they were listening to something that was never said. For some reason I believe that is entirely true however. There are plenty of mind reading Democrats out there to believe everything is code. A person can say anything and yet the Democrats are so smart that they know there's an ulterior motive. With all the talk of conspiracy theories, the ultimate might be the belief that you can read someone's mind and that everything said by a conservative is evil and you're so perceptive that you know "what he really meant".

America is not great again. Hopefully this will help it head that way or at least stop some of the bleeding. In a little over a couple of months the divider in chief will be out of office. I am not sure if Trump will bring anyone together but if he simply sticks with national issues and stays out of local incidents might help.

You obviously do not understand. Race is always involved. If I am for something and you are against it, it has to be about melanin. The fact that I am against anyone that is against the Second Amendment (like Hillary) has to be based on skin color. While Hillary might be white, she has friends who are black so there you go. The fact that the last 8 years has added about 10 trillion dollars to the national debt and I think it needs to change is surely based on race, right? Obviously you simply don't get it. Medical marijuana, taxes, gun rights, forced healthcare at huge increases in premiums, a terribly unbalanced budget, etc., are all based on skin pigment. Consider yourself educated.

His father? John F. Kennedy's father help author appeasement to Hitler's Germany that led to WWII. An aide called him an anti-Semite who often called Jews a pejorative. Should JFK, who many Democrats point out as a historical great Democrat, be saddled by his father's actions? How about Robert Byrd? He was the longest serving senator in history. For 14 years he was the "leader" of the Democrats in the Senate. Was this guy's father a member of the KKK? I have no idea but does it really matter.... Robert Byrd was a member of the KKK as he admitted. No wait, did I say a member? He recruited over a 100 people to start a new chapter. We are not talking about some ancient history back in the 1800's but a guy that was in office until 7 years ago. Apparently being a KKK leader does not matter if you are a leading Democrat in a recent Senate. You seem to turn a blind eye when it is on your side of the aisle.

How quickly it turns. Several times on this forum and others where I post I saw comments about the demise of the Republican Party. It was over... finished. Of course the party held both houses for several years but there was glee that the Democrats would now rule without opposition. I was just watching MSNBC which is possibly the most liberal/progressive media in history. People like Chris Matthews who is possibly the epitome of those liberals and some other talking head were asking asking what is going to happen to the Democrats now. They have no immediate future and no up and coming stars. NBC has a headlines that says, "Democrats in disarray after Clinton's defeat". So we have gone from the end of the Republican Party to the Democratic Party now looking for some way to recover. In truth neither will end. The name at the top of the party might change the opposing ideas of conservatism and liberalism (and other isms) will still be there. It is still interesting to see how many people thought that conservatism would end with a Hillary win.

I heard some of the same nonsense about Reagan. I have a good friend that was in high school in 1980 in his first election. She came home one day literally upset and in tears about the upcoming WWIII. Her teacher put the fear of death in her with a statement like, "If Reagan wins we will be in a nuclear war". I told her it was to the contrary. People are afraid to poke a cornered bear for fear of the retaliation that will certainly come. If they poke Reagan, they knew the response was coming. The evil countries of the world respect strength. That respect is driven out of fear of what may happen. Libya found that out when a US serviceman was killed in a bombing in Europe and Reagan sent jets into Libya to bomb the dictator's own house. He escaped death when the Italians tipped him off shortly before the bombers hit. Reagan won his reelection in 1984 with a stunning 17 million vote popular vote win and an EC vote of 525 to 13. So much for the guy that was going to bring us to WWIII. His strength and military stance brought down the Soviet Union. I am not pretending that Trump will be Reagan but hopefully he will let it be known that he will not back down from a threat. Unlike Obama who drew the red line in the sand and when it was crossed... backed the line up. Everyone in the world knew that the USA was weak willed under Obama. I hope that Trump reverses that trend.

Completely. "Aren't you excited about the first female president?" Yeah, forget policies, what race and/or sex is the candidate. Of course her answer was emphatic..... "NO!!".

The claim of racism is merely a facade to try and justify hatred against him. It is always the ultimate trump card (no pun intended but it does fit neatly into this election). It is always the claim lately. If you vote against my side it is always due to race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. Why can't the other side simply accept that at least half the country does not like your policies?

Like Elijah Cummings said to the Republicans after Obama won his first term, "You don't understand, our side won!".

I cannot agree with this. I think the silent majority was from Nixon. During the anti-war protests and riots from his first term many said that Nixon was finished and he said the people that were not protesting was the silent majority. He was correct to the tune of a second term landslide. Of course he botched that term with the Watergate coverup but that is a different issue. I don't think the Reagan supporters were ever silent. He completely annihilated the competition in his reelection bid with a stunning margin.

He wasn't voted for because he is good or may be. In fact Trump really never got over about 35% support even among Republicans. He simply outlasted 16 other candidates (spreading their votes among many) because of star power. That was the primary. In the general election yesterday, it wasn't about Trump but about Hillary and how horrible of a candidate that she was. As I said to a few people yesterday, I am not elated about Trump being the president. I am ecstatic about Hillary not being the president. With that said, you are stretching the truth quite a bit. I guess that is not uncommon in political commentary. Trump did not disrespect Muslims. He said that he would suspend immigration from Muslim countries until a system was in place for them to be vetted. Trump has no issue with Hispanics but has a huge problem with illegal aliens and has said so emphatically. Unfortunately for Hillary and the Democrats, so does a majority of Americans. That is no disrespect for a culture but for a criminal act. I must have missed the part where he confessed to a sexual assault. You say he used a "loophole". Yeah, so do I every year when I pay my taxes. I use every loophole that the law allows. I can only assume by your comments that you merely pay all taxes possible and never even take the standard deduction. I commend you for paying 100% of your taxes without claiming any deductions. After all, we don't like people that take all deductions allowed by law do we? Talk about hypocritical....... Does he relate to the working class? I doubt it but I know that he hires many of them. What about the Clintons who claimed to be broken by legal fees and such when Bill left office only to be multi-millionaires now. I wonder how they related to the working class? Sorry but your arguments hold no water to at least half of this country and I suspect that had he had a (D) in front of his name, the other half would be all for it. I can remember a sitting president named Clinton that seduced a young intern into a sex act in his office while his wife was in the bedroom and most of the Dems at the time said it was merely between he and his wife. His sexual transgressions should not matter nor his lying under oath when question in a deposition or his lying to the American people about it. You see your complaints aren't about the actions but who is making them.