Forum Thread

The DNC

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 16 - 30 of 65 Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Not according to you at the beginning of the race when you were so thrilled about Trump being the nominee. You said he was such a bad pick that Barney the Dinosaur could beat him. And you were right except for the Trump phenomenon that I tried to explain from the very beggining. Don't be so hard on yourself.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote:

    Not according to you at the beginning of the race when you were so thrilled about Trump being the nominee. You said he was such a bad pick that Barney the Dinosaur could beat him. And you were right except for the Trump phenomenon that I tried to explain from the very beggining. Don't be so hard on yourself.

    Yes, I remember that Jared said she would win for sure by 90%.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    So did damn near every media source,both print and cable , said the same thing as Jared, along with many of the GOP members themselves, this was a very unusual race , where policies took a backseat to inflammatory rhetoric,plus a little skulduggery from both parties had a very strong influence on the electorate, Trump knew how to exploit this factor ,while both major parties hadn't a clue. Bottom line is Trump wins.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: Not according to you at the beginning of the race when you were so thrilled about Trump being the nominee. You said he was such a bad pick that Barney the Dinosaur could beat him. And you were right except for the Trump phenomenon that I tried to explain from the very beggining. Don't be so hard on yourself.

    I admit that I never believed a nominee who lost by nearly three million votes would become our 45th President.

    Trump deserves credit for getting "disenfranchised" white people angry enough to vote for him in the swing states, but that doesn't mean the Democratic Party should follow his lead.

    I actually have morals and would rather lose every single national election over having to pander to an angry old white man who is upset that black people can sit next to him on a bus.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    pr Wrote: Jared, your response is exactly why we are going to have Donald Trump for President for the next 4 years! You just don't seem to get it. The Democrats have failed the country, wheather you believe it or not. If they didn't fail Trump wouldn't have had a chance.

    I sometimes wonder if certain so called liberals are living in an alternate universe in the same way many Republicans are.

    How have the Democrats failed the country? President Obama had two years of full Democratic control. In those two years he passed healthcare reform, dug the country out of the worst recession in 80 years, and brought tens of thousands of troops home from Iraq. He also was able to confirm two young and liberal Supreme Court Justices and reshaped the Federal Courts in his image.

    Republicans won (or should I say Democrats sat on their ass) the House in 2010 and prevented any and every piece of major legislation from even being considered, let alone voted on. They also redrew the district maps that virtually guarantees a Republican dominated House through 2020 if not beyond.

    And you blame the Democrats for that?! Seriously man. That is just nuts.

    I think that every single person (young and old) needs a damn civics lesson. The willful ignorance by so many people in this country truly astounds me.

    common people arent sitting around enjoying liberal justices, and when they go for a surgery, it's hard for them to convince themselves that Obamacare is helping them when they can't afford their premiums.

    What people are looking at are stagnate wages, and good jobs disappearing. democrats aren't doing enough to convince working class people that they're on their side.

    And you talk about the 3 million votes. it's important to note that Clintons lead came from the coasts. Trump beat her nearly everywhere else.. does California know what's best for wisconsin? think about that

    Clinton should have crushed trump but look where we are now.. republicans control everything. white house, congress, senate, most of the states..and you don't think democrats need an overhaul???

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    ThePeopleSay Wrote: common people arent sitting around enjoying liberal justices, and when they go for a surgery, it's hard for them to convince themselves that Obamacare is helping them when they can't afford their premiums.

    What about the people who were denied surgery in the first place because they had a preexisting condition like depression or heart disease?

    People love to hate Obamacare, but often forget that we used to have a healthcare system that allowed for profit insurance companies to determine who lives or dies based off how much that human being will effect their bottom line.

    ThePeopleSay Wrote: What people are looking at are stagnate wages, and good jobs disappearing. democrats aren't doing enough to convince working class people that they're on their side.

    And yet people in right leaning states are voting for Republican politicians who ship their jobs overseas and against Democrats who want to invest in programs that would actually help them. Do you blame Democrats or Republicans for that?

    ThePeopleSay Wrote: And you talk about the 3 million votes. it's important to note that Clintons lead came from the coasts. Trump beat her nearly everywhere else.. does California know what's best for wisconsin? think about that

    Who cares where her votes came from? Should someone in California or New York have to move to Montana in order to have their voice heard? Roughly three million more American citizens cast their vote for her over Donald. Does that not matter?

    ThePeopleSay Wrote: Clinton should have crushed trump but look where we are now.. republicans control everything. white house, congress, senate, most of the states..and you don't think democrats need an overhaul???

    No. I think we need to get rid of the Electoral College and have apolitical bodies draw Congressional districts after each census.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    If we get rid of the electoral college how will we prevent the more heavily populated states from running roughshod over the the less populated areas.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: If we get rid of the electoral college how will we prevent the more heavily populated states from running roughshod over the the less populated areas.
    The same question can be flipped. Why should less populated areas be able to overrule the majority of voters in America?
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    America?
    The electoral college protects the concept of a country and that is the purpose of Senatorial apportioning, to protect the concept of a country and that is why is not a reciprocity
    johnnycee Wrote: If we get rid of the electoral college how will we prevent the more heavily populated states from running roughshod over the the less populated areas.
    The same question can be flipped. Why should less populated areas be able to overrule the majority of voters in America?
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Looking at all the replies on this subject, then I'm convinced that this country is indeed now an "banana republic" without any "common sense" whatsoever or has an clear direction on anything and keeps repeating the same mistakes over and over again because of antique"rules" which don't fit the times or the diversity of the country in certain area's. Congratulations. As long as we keep our heads in the sand nothing will happen to our advantage; the "billionaires" and the "military" will rule as selected by Trump; not us (the "middle class, nor the "poor") The DNC is in critical condition in the hospital and needs lots of surgeries, therefore the "rules" of the GOP will apply and not of the near dead DNC patient.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    I was under the impression that the Electoral college was designed to prevent either side from dominating the other, a certain amount of fairness was needed and this is what the Jefferson group came up with.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote:

    I was under the impression that the Electoral college was designed to prevent either side from dominating the other, a certain amount of fairness was needed and this is what the Jefferson group came up with.

    The truth is far more sinister and depressing. The electoral college was a compromise to get the southern states to sign on to the Constitution. It should have been done away with after the Civil War.

    Imagine how our government would react if another country held elections like ours where someone won millions more votes than another candidate but the other candidate still "won" the election. Hell - we've invaded other countries over less.

    We truly are the worlds biggest hypocrites when it comes to elections.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Doing away with the electoral college sets the groundwork for civil war. There can be no argument for eliminating the electoral college that doesn't apply to Senatorial apportionment.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    The AFL-CIO deciding support for chairman of DNC and the following was excerpted:
    "There is a faction at the Federation that seems to want to push our movement further and further to the left. That is a recipe for disaster as the most recent election results just showed "
    Seems you can get any answer you want like the above that is false.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: Doing away with the electoral college sets the groundwork for civil war. There can be no argument for eliminating the electoral college that doesn't apply to Senatorial apportionment.

    What does Senatorial apportionment have to do with the electoral college? What is Senatorial apportionment in the first place? Apportionment only pertains to the House of Representatives, not the Senate.

    And I strongly disagree that getting rid of the electoral college will set a groundwork for civil war. I'm not sure that tens of millions of people will take arms against the government if the government has the audacity to actually let the people decide who should lead them.