• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

2016 Presidential Election night discussion [Read #1397]

To think, the rust belt states rejected their Union leaders and Union roots.

They sure did. And they deserve all the union busting they got coming their way.
 

yep... I want to see where his biggest emphasis will be early. I kind of wish he'd start tomorrow just out of my curiosity.
 
Last edited:


privileges per the constitution are to be applied equally to all people by the government FOR things the government does ....like services

privileges per the constitution are not supposed to applied to the people by the government on the property that government does not own /render a service.

what we have been seeing a lot of is.......... government dictation over the property of Citizens for political agendas, and i know a lot of people who are tired of that
 
Last edited:

I see. So you don't want blacks sitting at lunch counters with whites any more.
 
Actually, Trump won the popular vote. I didn't vote for Trump. My vote was for Gary Johnson. However, I do see why Trump won this election. People are pissed and wanted change. At this point, I am going to take a wait and see attitude, and see if he does what he said he would do. For right now, Trump is my president, and I am going to give him a chance.

Danarhea, please check again. Trump did not win the popular vote.
 

Bill knows where that island is.
 
Re: 2016 Presidential Election night discussion [Read #758]


Indeed. There were some huge promises made and they're out of excuses now that they have the White House and both Houses of Congress.
 
They sure did. And they deserve all the union busting they got coming their way.

Oh I don't think that was their objective at alli
 
Re: 2016 Presidential Election night discussion [Read #758]

OK trumpettes... question.

What do you think Trumps first major action will be?
 
Oh I don't think that was their objective at alli

Doesn't matter. That's what they got. I'm sure their objective was to vote against hillary. But what sits in that seat isn't what you voted against but what you voted for.... and that's what they voted for.
 
I never understood that mentality on the left. Is something doesn't work, why is the solution to double down?

Hillary's move to the left was a failing strategy. How will moving to the far, far left improve any chance of taking the Presidency?

Sent from my LG-V930 using Tapatalk
 


I wasn't "indoctrinated" I thought (and still think) Trump was a terrible alternative as I don't think he can do the job (and Hillary could)..... but there is plenty of time to discuss that; now is not that time. Enjoy your moment.
 

Sanders would've stood a far better chance. Sanders had a message that resonated with the rust belt voters. Hillary did not.

Robby Mook took a page of of political history that was "Donna Brazille's tales on how to lose an election" and did the same thing. Had Hillary sit back on her heals and instead of putting out a message to the people of why they should vote FOR her and opted to pretend like Trump would sink himself and just run commercials about how bad trump was.
 

Hillary isn't really left at all.

During the primaries, polls all had Bernie (who is far further left) performing better vs Trump than Hillary.

Although I guess you can't necessarily trust polls.
 
Re: 2016 Presidential Election night discussion [Read #758]

And yet what about the Supreme Court? I agree that Trump likely wouldn't pursue those sorts of things, but who he nominates can result in changes without his involvement, or support. Right?

That's possible - I suppose anything's possible - but you'd have to agree that replacing Scalia with anyone other than a strict constitutional adherent would tip the balance that the Supreme Court has enjoyed the passed couple of decades. It is far more likely that a Republican President will appoint/nominate a justice who is on the outside a conservative but in practice a centrist than it is to have a Democrat President appoint/nominate a justice who on the outside is a liberal but in practice a centrist. All of the justice in the past 30 years who have been appointed that have moderated to the middle often or frequently have been those appointed by Reagan, Bush and Bush - those appointed by Clinton and Obama are liberal agenda disciples who never waiver. I'm pretty sure Trump's picks will be no different from those of his three Republican predecessors.
 
Hillary isn't really left at all.

During the primaries, polls all had Bernie (who is far further left) performing better vs Trump than Hillary.

Although I guess you can't necessarily trust polls.

**** no... not anymore.
 
I see. So you don't want blacks sitting at lunch counters with whites any more.

i will put it as simple as i can:

its is illegal for government to give Citizen [A] a privilege and force Citizen to honor the governments privilege.

government creates privileges and they are suppose to honor the privileges they create, ...not the people

this HAS the effect of government creating rights for people, and government cannot create rights.


example: if government told Citizen he must serve Citizen [A], then government is essential creating a right for Citizen [A] which he can exercise over Citizen and government cannot do that without violating the right of Citizen

and government has been doing this for years!
 
Just saw where 29 percent of Hispanics voted for Trump.
 
I wasn't "indoctrinated" I thought (and still think) Trump was a terrible alternative as I don't think he can do the job (and Hillary could)..... but there is plenty of time to discuss that; now is not that time. Enjoy your moment.

See, that is what I don't understand, how is an establishment candidate who was part of the problem going to correct what her resume says she couldn't do? The country wanted change, apparently you didn't. There is no way someone who helped create the problem even knew there was a problem thus wouldn't generate different results
 

seems reasonable!
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…