foo fighter wrote:
And Trump beat Hillary and undoes Obama's mistakes. You lose.
Lost to Hillary in the popular vote, BIGLY. Trump is still angry that he lost.
The next president, and congress, will undo 100% of the little that Trump accomplishes, AND put back all of the Obama stuff. Do try to keep up.
poo tosser wrote:
foo fighter wrote:And Trump beat Hillary and undoes Obama's mistakes. You lose.
Lost to Hillary in the popular vote, BIGLY. Trump is still angry that he lost.
The next president, and congress, will undo 100% of the little that Trump accomplishes, AND put back all of the Obama stuff. Do try to keep up.
The Electoral College is the only thing that matters and stop claiming that it matters. The Titans scored the most touchdowns in the NFL last season (look it up). It doesn't count, you fool.
You lose again.
foo fighter wrote:
The Electoral College is the only thing that matters and stop claiming that it matters. The Titans scored the most touchdowns in the NFL last season (look it up). It doesn't count, you fool.
You lose again.
Cool story bro.
foo fighter wrote:
poo tosser wrote:Lost to Hillary in the popular vote, BIGLY. Trump is still angry that he lost.
The next president, and congress, will undo 100% of the little that Trump accomplishes, AND put back all of the Obama stuff. Do try to keep up.
The Electoral College is the only thing that matters and stop claiming that it matters.
Tell that Trump who the lose matters to so much.
its_baddude wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:The problem is that you are treating children like criminals for something their parents did. Other cultures do that. Americans don't.
So your saying any kid that comes here illegally we should adopt? What happens when people take not of that and try to sneak in their kids illegally for a better life?
We have good policies in place for those kinds of situations. You are just trying to muddy the waters and justify your hard-hearted position.
What we are talking about are people who were brought here as children and have lived here most of their lives. You are saying we should round up innocent, productive young people and force them to go a country they have never known. That is cruel.
L L wrote:
Trump agreed with Pelosi and Schumer?
That means nothing without Republican votes.
I guess the top Republicans are going along with this.
So what do we think of this?
The debt ceiling got bumped up for three months worth of debt - which had do be done at minimal.
They got money for Hurricane Harvey relief - which was a no brainer
This was the Democrat offer - with all Democrats on board.
Paul Ryan said it was ridiculous.
But Trump suddenly agreed to it. And it seems McConnell and Ryan then sheepishly went along.
Was this Trump being the great negotiator or caving in quickly?
The Republicans wanted to leverage those two needs but extend the debt ceiling longer and throw in spending cuts and maybe work tax reform in one package.
Now they can't say give us this and we'll give you that because Trump already gave them that.
Not used to seeing the president siding with the opposing party over his party on anything.
Since Obama's name wasn't on it I guess it was OK for Trump.
L L wrote:
Not used to seeing the president siding with the opposing party over his party on anything.
Since Obama's name wasn't on it I guess it was OK for Trump.
That's a specific quality that Trump brings as POTUS. He has very little loyalty to a party. This is a big reason many independents were swayed his way.
We all need to stop thinking in terms of the BS "two party system." Stop. STOP. IT is the problem. The establishment supports it. The media supports it. Why do you think that is? You think it's because that's what's best for the country?
stop claiming wrote:
foo fighter wrote:The Electoral College is the only thing that matters and stop claiming that it matters.
Tell that Trump who the lose matters to so much.
Haha- one person is POTUS, and the other just wrote a book about the loss.
The reason that a two party system is good is that it almost guarantees majority opinion rules.
If a person or party gets more than half the votes then they represent the opinions and desires of more than half the country.
If you had four major parties then you could win power with 30% of the vote and have 70% of the country opposed to your views.
Here is what just happened:
You had a president who was elected with 46% of the vote agree with the opinions of the opposing party that has less than 50% membership in both houses and that decision is what is going to go into effect.
I'm just pointing out that it is strange.
I actually agree that the one positive of Trump is that he really isn't a Republican and has no loyalty to their agenda.
He's just anti-Obama (and a racist, bigoted, lying sack of sh!t)
L L wrote:
The reason that a two party system is good is that it almost guarantees majority opinion rules.
If a person or party gets more than half the votes then they represent the opinions and desires of more than half the country.
If you had four major parties then you could win power with 30% of the vote and have 70% of the country opposed to your views.
Here is what just happened:
You had a president who was elected with 46% of the vote agree with the opinions of the opposing party that has less than 50% membership in both houses and that decision is what is going to go into effect.
I'm just pointing out that it is strange.
I actually agree that the one positive of Trump is that he really isn't a Republican and has no loyalty to their agenda.
He's just anti-Obama (and a racist, bigoted, lying sack of sh!t)
this is how a republic is supposed to work. We elect representatives and they make decisions for us.
I don't see the problem or even anything particularly strange.
L L wrote:
The reason that a two party system is good is that it almost guarantees majority opinion rules.
If a person or party gets more than half the votes then they represent the opinions and desires of more than half the country.
If you had four major parties then you could win power with 30% of the vote and have 70% of the country opposed to your views.
Here is what just happened:
You had a president who was elected with 46% of the vote agree with the opinions of the opposing party that has less than 50% membership in both houses and that decision is what is going to go into effect.
I'm just pointing out that it is strange.
I actually agree that the one positive of Trump is that he really isn't a Republican and has no loyalty to their agenda.
He's just anti-Obama (and a racist, bigoted, lying sack of sh!t)
You can't really "win power" with 30% of the vote. Unless you mean that each party has a candidate and the candidate from the 30% party wins the election. Even then, they would need to ally with another party in Congress in order to get any sort of legislation passed.
Maybe not strange but out of the ordinary.
It is out of the ordinary for a US president to align with the opposing party againss his own party.
You can't disagree with that.
I'm not talking about reaching across the isle to make a bargain.
But standing on the other side of the isle and going completely against your party.
Someone give an example where this has happened before.
Not with the last several presidents, at least.
Not since cable TV
L L wrote:
Maybe not strange but out of the ordinary.
It is out of the ordinary for a US president to align with the opposing party againss his own party.
You can't disagree with that.
I'm not talking about reaching across the isle to make a bargain.
But standing on the other side of the isle and going completely against your party.
Someone give an example where this has happened before.
Not with the last several presidents, at least.
Not since cable TV
agreed on that, although presidents have sometimes taken stances unpopluar with their party. Clinton and welfare reform comes to mind, althouigh I'd have to review the facts of the case. Reagan and amnesty, too, I'd guess. Obama and anything to acellerate the mideast wars.
Count Chocula wrote:
You can't really "win power" with 30% of the vote. Unless you mean that each party has a candidate and the candidate from the 30% party wins the election. Even then, they would need to ally with another party in Congress in order to get any sort of legislation passed.
From the president's side you can win power with 30% of the vote with four or more major parties.
Sure, in Congress you cannot.
In Congress, if the top party had only 30% of the members, you'd have to have alliances to get anything passed.
But you would have no idea of the pulse of the country and what the majority would want in that case.
It would really be up to the politicians with no voter input.
Two party seems to give a bit more clarity on what the public wants.
L L wrote:
Count Chocula wrote:You can't really "win power" with 30% of the vote. Unless you mean that each party has a candidate and the candidate from the 30% party wins the election. Even then, they would need to ally with another party in Congress in order to get any sort of legislation passed.
From the president's side you can win power with 30% of the vote with four or more major parties.
Sure, in Congress you cannot.
In Congress, if the top party had only 30% of the members, you'd have to have alliances to get anything passed.
But you would have no idea of the pulse of the country and what the majority would want in that case.
It would really be up to the politicians with no voter input.
Two party seems to give a bit more clarity on what the public wants.
I suppose that's true, though I think it's hard to define exactly what 'the public' wants. Party A might have 30% of the vote and want to ally with Party D, which is an extreme environmentalist party. But someone who voted for Party A would not necessarily support an environmentalist agenda.
Perhaps a many-party system allows more of the public to have their concerns addressed, rather than in a two-party system where they can be completely shut out if their party does not win. But a two-party system allows the 'winners', aka the majority, to have more of their concerns addressed.
L L wrote:
Maybe not strange but out of the ordinary.
It is out of the ordinary for a US president to align with the opposing party againss his own party.
You can't disagree with that.
...
If you're a Democrat this will seem strange. Republican presidents stab their base in the back all the time.
DiscoGary wrote:
L L wrote:Maybe not strange but out of the ordinary.
It is out of the ordinary for a US president to align with the opposing party againss his own party.
You can't disagree with that.
...
If you're a Democrat this will seem strange. Republican presidents stab their base in the back all the time.
the thing is...the republicans HAVE to stab their base in teh back. Because shutting down the government, war crimes, voter suppression, racial discrimination, crazy gerrymandering...all the things the GOP base wants...are not legal or possible or wise.
eric a blair wrote:
DiscoGary wrote:If you're a Democrat this will seem strange. Republican presidents stab their base in the back all the time.
the thing is...the republicans HAVE to stab their base in teh back. Because shutting down the government, war crimes, voter suppression, racial discrimination, crazy gerrymandering...all the things the GOP base wants...are not legal or possible or wise.
Nope. Wrong. I could explain why it happens but you would not understand it.
DiscoGary wrote:
L L wrote:Maybe not strange but out of the ordinary.
It is out of the ordinary for a US president to align with the opposing party againss his own party.
You can't disagree with that.
...
If you're a Democrat this will seem strange. Republican presidents stab their base in the back all the time.
You just got stabbed in the back. And you immediately switched you view to match what Trump did. That trait of your is one followers of dictators have; same as followers of Hitler--he could do no wrong.
Has DFF been finally banned?