★UNITED STATES PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION 2016★

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Candles, Jun 16, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. vipervicki

    vipervicki Member

    Messages:
    2,610
    Likes Received:
    130
    Trophy Points:
    0
    wrong again this was already known and agreed upon by republicans and he said it on the campaign trail and yes it will be repealed and replaced, just because 2 sentences are being included doesn't mean he is not repealing and replacing it with something else which we already know what that is.
    but ofc it being replaced cant happen over night which would hurt people, its going to be a gradual replacement so people are not w/o coverage.
     
  2. Donald Trump

    Donald Trump Member

    Messages:
    933
    Likes Received:
    70
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I did watch it, and it does do that. If it didn't prevent mob rule... Clinton would be the President. It is meant to protect every individual state's rights to choose and have representation for the presidency. It does do just that.

    Also, Paradox, if you had actually followed any of Donald Trump's policies regarding Obamacare you would realize this isn't a backtrack in the slightest. He has publicly said he wants to keep small parts of it in a new bill, but he wants to repeal large swaths of it, so in a sense editing it so it's not the horrendous mess it is now. You are, again, listening to the MSM which had it all wrong about Trump from day 1, I'm still not gonna listen to them since they lost my trust completely. They are, again, trying to peddle shit to get us to not believe Trump.
     
  3. vipervicki

    vipervicki Member

    Messages:
    2,610
    Likes Received:
    130
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree with DT the MSM is trying to hurt trump as usual and treating the protesters as a grass roots movement when its known that its soros who orchestrated these planned protests and paying the protestors.. you can even find ads on craigs list for being a paid protestor.
     
  4. vipervicki

    vipervicki Member

    Messages:
    2,610
    Likes Received:
    130
    Trophy Points:
    0
    http://abcnews.com.co/donald-trump-protester-speaks-out-i-was-paid-to-protest/
    Donald Trump Protester Speaks Out: “I Was Paid $3,500 To Protest Trump’s Rally”

    "As for who these people were affiliated with that interviewed me, my guess would be Hillary Clinton's campaign," Horner said. "The actual check I received after I was done with the job was from a group called 'Women Are The Future'.

    "I was given $3,500 to protest Donald Trump's rally in Fountain Hills," said 37-year-old Paul Horner. "I answered a Craigslist ad about a group needing actors for a political event. I interviewed with them and got the part."

    "Almost all of the people I was protesting with I had seen at my interview and training class. At the rally, talking with some of them, I learned they only paid Latinos $500, Muslims $600 and African Americans $750. I don't think they were looking for any Asians. Women and children were paid half of what the men got and illegals received $300 across the board. I think I was paid more than the other protesters because I was white and had taken classes in street fighting and boxing a few years back"

    “During training we were taught chants to shout like ‘Dump Trump’ and ‘Trump Is A Racist’, things like that. We were told how to respond to anti-Trump comments too. If a Trump supporter said something about how great his wall will be, the Latinos in our group would say, ‘We’re just going to tunnel underneath it.’ They even gave me a shirt to wear at the rally which said ‘F*ck Donald Trump’ along with a sign to hold that said ‘Make America White Again’.”

    Soros is doing the same thing now with these violent protestors, they are not a grass roots protest.
     
  5. ScardyBob

    ScardyBob Member

    Messages:
    3,457
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Vox has a nice article explaining the electoral colleges as basically a compromise with the slave states. It makes sense, with the electoral college they could count their slaves towards their representation without needing to give them the right to vote, which would be required under a direct popular vote. One more constitutional compromise with America's original sin.
     
  6. vipervicki

    vipervicki Member

    Messages:
    2,610
    Likes Received:
    130
    Trophy Points:
    0
    nope not edit it will be replaced itll be private insurance with open state borders, have all the tax and fine mandates removed etc etc..ofc people who cant afford it even at low costs will be taken care of by the govt with medicaid and such as they always have, even before Obamacare, again you are listening to the retarded MSM
     
  7. Paradox

    Paradox I am a gigantic asshole who loses people's hard wo

    Messages:
    6,926
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You're misunderstanding me, what I Gathered from this forum Vicki was hoping or thinking trump would erase obama care and make a new trump care.
    All I'm saying is that trump is no longer ERASING obame care but editing it. I'm not saying its good or bad Im just saying he's editing instead of building from 0.
    Meaning you and me are talking bout the same thing and on the same page but you think Im on a different one.
     
  8. vipervicki

    vipervicki Member

    Messages:
    2,610
    Likes Received:
    130
    Trophy Points:
    0
    http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-reason-for-the-electoral-college/
    The reason that the Constitution calls for this extra layer (electoral College), rather than just providing for the direct election of the president, is that most of the nation’s founders were actually rather afraid of democracy. James Madison worried about what he called "factions," which he defined as groups of citizens who have a common interest in some proposal that would either violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole. Madison’s fear – which Alexis de Tocqueville later dubbed "the tyranny of the majority" – was that a faction could grow to encompass more than 50 percent of the population, at which point it could "sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens." Madison has a solution for tyranny of the majority: "A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospeciand promises the cure for which we are seeking."

    As Alexander Hamilton writes in "The Federalist Papers," the Constitution is designed to ensure "that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications." The point of the Electoral College is to preserve "the sense of the people," while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen "by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice."
     
  9. Donald Trump

    Donald Trump Member

    Messages:
    933
    Likes Received:
    70
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yea, coming from Vox the "news" organization that says we still have to pay slave reparations.

    Sorry, but that is not the case. The compromise you are thinking of is the 3/5 compromise, where slaves were counted as 3/5ths of a person so they got more representation in Congress. The electoral college was made way back in the day for a few reasons, mainly to block mob rule. Why? Because, they saw that there were many different states, with many different styles of economy, over a large region they ruled. Granted, it is now even larger and it is even more true to this day.

    Think about it like this, if we went to a Popular Vote, New York City has a population of roughly 8.5 million. If we went to a straight popular vote and EVERYONE in New York City voted, they could rule out ALL of these states even if EVERYONE in these states voted the exact opposite way:
    New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming, and Maine.

    That is 1 city ruling over a majority of states. Now, why is this bad... What do you think the legislation of each of these states pertains to? It pertains to the industry that they have. What does the legislation of New York City have? Idk, probably lowering taxes etc, but it would be a TERRIBLE idea to have New York City alone being able to rule over 8 states. These states have their own issues, and if a presidential candidate only campaigned in the cities these state issues would never be addressed. It would be a total disaster to have policies promised to New Yorkers to be seen on the federal level in Montana, Wyoming, Iowa, Minnesota etc, we can't allow that to happen.

    Another thing to note is, the electoral college does reward based on population already, so New york and California already get more say than Wyoming, but at least Wyoming gets some say in the issues that are present to them. This prevents rule of the mob and protects the production centers of the US rather than the consumers, because production is a lot more important than consuming it. By getting rid of the EC, say goodbye to any of the food producing/goods producing states having any say in how they are governed by the president.
     
  10. Paradox

    Paradox I am a gigantic asshole who loses people's hard wo

    Messages:
    6,926
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    0

    If I can paraphrase your first paragraph is to prevent 1 group of people that have suddenly grown beyond 50 procent of the population to decide whats best for the 100 procent
    and your second paragraph is to overrule democracy by having the electoral college go against the people and vote who ever they want ( which has never happend).

    Don't get me wrong but there's a few objections I can think of
    1. Thats kinda fucking stupid that your "corrupt"politicians can overrule democracy by voting rogue, like really fucking stupid.
    2. In a 2 party system its always going to be a faction with more than 50 percent??
    3. DT said its to prevent a majority public to controle all the states
    "It is meant to protect every individual state's rights to choose and have representation for the presidency. It does do just that"
    but like said in the video a few states could controle it because the electoral seats are population dependant.

    The entire system seems very anti democratic and very counter productive to what DT says it does.
    There are so many better ways to achieve what you guys suggests it does.
    Idk why you are defending such a broken system.
    Let me be clear, I'm not attacking the values which the system is built for, Im just saying your system is really bad at protecting those values.
     
  11. Donald Trump

    Donald Trump Member

    Messages:
    933
    Likes Received:
    70
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't think your attacking it.

    If it isn't protecting the states rights, then how come DT won this election while Hillary won the popular vote? Donald Trump won more individual states, as it should be, and Hillary won a majority of the popular vote BECAUSE of California and New York. Those two states are the biggest population centers in the US, and can run up the POPULAR vote tally for the democrats immensely while the rural states always go for Trump. Yes they get a bigger say in the presidency, but the other states still get a voice and can propel their candidate towards victory.

    Also, I agree we need laws in all 50 states, not just 27, that bind the Electoral College voters to the states decision. It's protecting the masses from ruling over other individual states problems.
     
  12. Paradox

    Paradox I am a gigantic asshole who loses people's hard wo

    Messages:
    6,926
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I dont think in this scenario its cause and effect.
    Let's say theoretically DT won 70 million votes and hillary 40 million. But because hillary won 51/49 in the big states and DT won 90/10 procent in other states hillary won.
    ( hillary winning rural states ofcourse ). That means 40 million people in rural states get to decide for 110 million. Makes absolutely no sense.

    Atm the electoral college is protecting the masses from ruling over individual states problems but that's more an accident than anything else honestly. Theres better ways to guarantee it without this retardation.
     
  13. complete_

    complete_ lamer

    Messages:
    6,436
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Teacher Accused of Telling Students Their Parents Will Be Deported
    http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/l...-Trump-Deportation-Immigration-400851681.html
    includes audio!
    Students yelling 'cotton picker,' heiling Hitler at this local school
    http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/edu...cker_heiling_hitler_at_this_local_school.html
     
  14. vipervicki

    vipervicki Member

    Messages:
    2,610
    Likes Received:
    130
    Trophy Points:
    0
    the popular votes aren't completely counted yet and this isn't the first nor will it be the last time someone loses the election with getting more popular votes.
     
  15. vipervicki

    vipervicki Member

    Messages:
    2,610
    Likes Received:
    130
    Trophy Points:
    0
    if that's true complete the sub was most likely a democrat because that's what they do instill fear and lies into people. protesters are paid and fake and violent and its not going to change one thing, the majority of people spoke with their votes and all the paid/fake protesters wont change a thing
     
  16. complete_

    complete_ lamer

    Messages:
    6,436
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ah yes the teacher was paid by hillary after her loss and he decided to take the hit to his job and career because she paid him in charity money
     
  17. vipervicki

    vipervicki Member

    Messages:
    2,610
    Likes Received:
    130
    Trophy Points:
    0
    While speaking to the Associated Press on Thursday, Oprah Winfrey admitted that she was in disbelief at Donald Trump's win and Hillary Clinton's shocking defeat on Tuesday.

    But the media mogul was seemingly so impressed by the President-elect's meeting with President Obama that her feelings took a different turn, as she tweeted, "Everybody take a deep breath! Hope Lives!"

    Winfrey went on to explain the reasoning behind her optimism: "I could sense, maybe I'm wrong, but I could sense from Donald Trump's body language even when he came out for the acceptance speech, that brotha has been humbled by this world thing."

    Winfrey's comments have not been received well online, as several people, including Patton Oswalt (who tweeted "Oprah what the f---ck? This is not one of my favorite things") and W. Kamau Bell, have taken to Twitter to express their disappointment in Winfrey's new point of view. Many former Oprah followers responded to her comments, was was understood by several people as tone-deaf or condescending.
     
  18. Grantrithor

    Grantrithor Member

    Messages:
    9,820
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    America is a plutocracy not a democracy or republic.
     
  19. vipervicki

    vipervicki Member

    Messages:
    2,610
    Likes Received:
    130
    Trophy Points:
    0
    all the dems are doing is showing the world what they are really like and just as they were rejected in the election, their violence and trickery and lies will continue to be rejected by the majority until they get their act together.
     
  20. Paradox

    Paradox I am a gigantic asshole who loses people's hard wo

    Messages:
    6,926
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You really need to get off your oppinion that literally all news involving bad republicans is fake.
    There are bad people in general. Bad democrats, bad republicans bad everyone.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page