Jump to content

Mr Trump - All discussion here

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, JamesR123 said:

It comes under freedom of speech and is, by definition, not racist.

If it is done in all cases including to white Canadians or South Africans then I agree that it is not racist.

 

When it is done with not one, not two, not three but four non white female congresswomen, you can bet your bottom dollar that it is racist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, XXTickerXX said:

It's election season. He is now getting the Democrats to rally around an extreme left American hating, Israel hating Somali Muslim who loves Al Qaeda. 

Slanderous and frankly delusional.

Quote

Omar: "I took a terrorism class...every time the professor said 'al-Qaida' his shoulders went up.''

 

 

You're claiming this is evidence of what? What Trump and his lickspittles don't point out is that Congresswoman Omar said -

 

" what we know, and what Islam teaches us, and what I always say, is that love trumps hate." She also said, "Regardless of how hard Washington might get for me, or your neighborhoods might get for you, you have to always remember that we have a mission as humans to love one another, to care for our neighbors, to raise compassionate children, and to fully, every single day, show up and make sure that we are furthering justice."

 

The emboldened section reveals readily that she's a better human being than the amoral, moneygrubbing weasel Trump can ever be.

Edited by Halibut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stephen King - who knows a thing or two about horror - has his eye on the ball. In a tweeted response to news that border agents are going to start raiding homes in some Cities - 

"First, you stoke hatred and fear of minorities," wrote King. "Then you round them up and put them in camps.

"Next, you send out raiding parties to get those who have been driven into hiding," he continued. "The armbands come next right?"

 

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/books/2019/07/15/stephen-king-slams-donald-trump-twitter-armbands-come-next-right/1734332001/

Edited by Halibut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Magilla said:

Indeed.... clearly was too difficult for poor ole spill :hihi:

Difficult for you to understand democracy it seems. If the constitutional boundaries  were wrong before the vote why do you only mention it after Trump got voted in ?

Edited by spilldig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, spilldig said:

Difficult to understand how Hillory got more votes and didn't get in then. Explain.

The electorate in each State elect people( say nominees) who decide who becomes President. 

Big states vote in more nominees.

When a party wins a state (usually) all the nominees will be from that party,

As you cannot have fractions of nominees, some states are under and some are over represented.

Last time the Republican nominees won more over represented states.

So the actual number of Democrat voters was higher.

Edited by Annie Bynnol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Annie Bynnol said:

The electorate in each State elect people( say nominees) who decide who becomes President. 

Big states vote in more nominees.

When a party wins a state (usually) all the nominees will be from that party,

As you cannot have fractions of nominees, some states are under and some are over represented.

Last time the Republican nominees won more over represented states.

So the actual number of Democrat voters was higher.

Sounds very Democratic, lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is the way democracy works in pretty much every country including this one.  Off the top of my head, Switzerland is the only place that has a direct democracy.

 

It could happen here.  To get a majority you need to return 326 MPs.  Imagine a scenario in which the Tories got 326 MPS and Labour got 250.  All the Tories were elected on 51 percent of the vote, whereas all Labour winning MPs got over 90 percent of the vote.

 

Labour would have got my votes, but returned less MPs.

 

In recent elections, UKIP have returned very high percentages of the vote (up to 8%), but have got no representation.

 

Democracy can be a funny old game.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, melthebell said:

Sounds very Democratic, lol

It gets worse.

It is possible for the nominees to change their minds.

Each state has different voting rules.

Trump  with 62,979,63  or 46%  of the vote won a majority in 30 states to get 305 electoral votes plus 1 electoral vote from part of Maine.

Hillary Clinton with 65,844,610 or 48.1% of the votes  but only won 20 states and Washington, D.C. to get 232 electoral votes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Added to the above, the electoral college are not legally bound to follow the outcome of the vote.

 

They could just ignore the public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, JamesR123 said:

It is the way democracy works in pretty much every country including this one.  Off the top of my head, Switzerland is the only place that has a direct democracy.

 

It could happen here.  To get a majority you need to return 326 MPs.  Imagine a scenario in which the Tories got 326 MPS and Labour got 250.  All the Tories were elected on 51 percent of the vote, whereas all Labour winning MPs got over 90 percent of the vote.

 

Labour would have got my votes, but returned less MPs.

 

In recent elections, UKIP have returned very high percentages of the vote (up to 8%), but have got no representation.

 

Democracy can be a funny old game.

 

 

Comparing with the USA:

We don't have a President.

We don't have an elected second house.

We don't have a Federal system.

A President can only serve two years.

People have a say who becomes the elected leader not a tiny minority of unrepresentitive club members.

 

As for the Swiss system, it is specifically designed not to be a majority Democratic system

It is designed to  prevent the the German speaking urban areas from dominating the rural areas and other language and culturally different language groups. 

 

7 minutes ago, JamesR123 said:

Added to the above, the electoral college are not legally bound to follow the outcome of the vote.

 

They could just ignore the public.

Already said that.

Edited by Annie Bynnol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Annie Bynnol said:

USA:

 

9 minutes ago, JamesR123 said:

Added to the above, the electoral college are not legally bound to follow the outcome of the vote.

 

They could just ignore the public.

 

4 minutes ago, Annie Bynnol said:

Comparing with the USA:

We don't have a President.

We don't have an elected second house.

We don't have a Federal system.

A President can only serve two years.

People have a say who becomes the elected leader not a tiny minority of unrepresentitive club members.

 

Already said that.

I thought a President could stand for election twice, each term being 4 years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, hauxwell said:

 

 

I thought a President could stand for election twice, each term being 4 years. 

My mistake - I should have said two terms. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.