Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Case in point.
Your hate and judgment is noted. It is also reveals more about yourself than it does others.
Awww.....you sad you lost big league snowflake?Case in point.
Your hate and judgment is noted. It is also reveals more about yourself than it does others.
yeah because talking about women's pussies isn't misogynistic. Talking about Kelly having her period isn't misogynistic. Saying a judge shouldn't have to rule on a Trump Uni because he has a latino surname isn't racist. Saying that the Muslim mother of a fallen soldier isn't allowed to speak because of who she is, isn't racist.
The only person spouting hate in this election was your hero. Oh, ad his followers....
Good Lord. That's like the Geico commercial about reading one's auto insurance where it says "blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah"! Fucking lawyers, man.Except there is no such EO
They know so much that isn't so....
Executive Order 13489 -- Presidential Records
While I agree about proportionally the problem is akin to term limits for Congressman; what happens when only a few states do it? Aren't they hampered compared to other states?No, I don't want to change the constitution. The states determine how electoral votes are allocated. It would be a simple matter to have those votes determined proportionally. Of course, in recent history, only Democrats have had their elections stolen twice (Gore and Clinton) . After it effects the right it will be changed. Until then, we have a faulty election process.
Comey's two unprecedented statements , even after he was advised that it would be improper to make them, gave the false impression of guilt. Voters were left to believe there was actual guilt. The Hatch Act is officially An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities, and specifically forbids the use of offices in the executive branch to intentionally effect elections. No one can deny that his unprecedented, and unnecessary statements directly effected the voters decisions.
[
Yes he is our president now either we like it or not. We just have to see the results of his promises.
1. Force deportation of illegals
2. Mexico will pay for the wall
3. Bring back jobs from overseas.
4. Trade & tariffs
5. Get rid of NAFTA & TPP
6. Scrap Iran deal
7. Ban muslims
8. Repeal Obamacare.
9. Jobs for black inner cities
10. Unite our country.
It will be a no brainer for Trump to get the economy back on track. After Obama's failures that will be child's play. Just lower taxes and reduce some of the stupid regulations and the economy will be off and running.
Trump is going to have to prioritize his battles because he has a lot of Obama's damage to undo.
Hopefully he will pull it off and if he does the American people will see how toxic the Democrats have been for this country.
I will be very happy to see his success and accomplishments. So will see.
BTW........ you start blaming already?
True but not the whole picture. Trump had almost double the "earned media" coverage that Hillary had. Trump was a master at manipulating the media to get attention on himself without having to whore himself at Goldman Sachs.
You forgot to include all the millions of dollars of free advertising that all the networks gave him.
While I agree about proportionally the problem is akin to term limits for Congressman; what happens when only a few states do it? Aren't they hampered compared to other states?No, I don't want to change the constitution. The states determine how electoral votes are allocated. It would be a simple matter to have those votes determined proportionally. Of course, in recent history, only Democrats have had their elections stolen twice (Gore and Clinton) . After it effects the right it will be changed. Until then, we have a faulty election process.
Comey's two unprecedented statements , even after he was advised that it would be improper to make them, gave the false impression of guilt. Voters were left to believe there was actual guilt. The Hatch Act is officially An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities, and specifically forbids the use of offices in the executive branch to intentionally effect elections. No one can deny that his unprecedented, and unnecessary statements directly effected the voters decisions.
Disagreed on your accusations of Comey....and both the President and Congress agrees that Comey didn't commit "Pernicious Political Activities". Isn't Comey in the Judicial Branch?
Dude, if you want to blame Comey for formerly Democratic blue collar workers turning Blue States Red, go for it, but I think you will be proven wrong in the months to come.
Disagreed. Do the math.Proportional vote assignment wouldn't disadvantage any state. It would just make the selection more fair for whoever received the most votes.
I believe states that institute term limits would be at a disadvantage. The longer a member is in congress, the more effective he can be. That's why states will never do it on their own. The federal government doesn't' have the authority to do it. That's just another example of the crazy things Trump promised that is not possible to be done. He doesn't even know how our government works.
The president and congress have no decision on what Comey did was legal. That is purely a law enforcement matter, but I expect nothing will come of it.
Hillary received more votes, so what anybody in any particularly colored state did shouldn't matter.
Disagreed. Do the math.Proportional vote assignment wouldn't disadvantage any state. It would just make the selection more fair for whoever received the most votes.
I believe states that institute term limits would be at a disadvantage. The longer a member is in congress, the more effective he can be. That's why states will never do it on their own. The federal government doesn't' have the authority to do it. That's just another example of the crazy things Trump promised that is not possible to be done. He doesn't even know how our government works.
The president and congress have no decision on what Comey did was legal. That is purely a law enforcement matter, but I expect nothing will come of it.
Hillary received more votes, so what anybody in any particularly colored state did shouldn't matter.
Consider California, Texas and Florida with 55, 38 and 29 electoral votes respectively. In 2016, California's 55 votes went to Clinton and Texas and Florida's combined 67 votes went to Trump; Trump wins. If Texas and Florida had their electoral votes divided proportionally and California did not, Texas' votes would have been divided 20.14/16.34 Trump/Clinton and Florida 14.24/13.86 while Clinton would have reaped all of California's vote giving her the win with 55+16.34+13.86=85.2 versus Trump's 16.34+14.24=34.38, nearly 3 to 1.
If California's votes were proportional, it would be 18.32 Trump, 33.83 Clinton yielding 52.7 total for Trump and 64.03 Clinton, resulting in a much more even split. Factor in other states with may or may not proportion and it will equally distort the vote. While you seem concerned about being "fair" to your candidate, I think it's more important to be fair to voters: We, the People. Either proportionment should be nationwide or not at all.
Your mistake is in assuming that the founding fathers thought there was some inherent goodness in democracy.Disagreed. Do the math.Proportional vote assignment wouldn't disadvantage any state. It would just make the selection more fair for whoever received the most votes.
I believe states that institute term limits would be at a disadvantage. The longer a member is in congress, the more effective he can be. That's why states will never do it on their own. The federal government doesn't' have the authority to do it. That's just another example of the crazy things Trump promised that is not possible to be done. He doesn't even know how our government works.
The president and congress have no decision on what Comey did was legal. That is purely a law enforcement matter, but I expect nothing will come of it.
Hillary received more votes, so what anybody in any particularly colored state did shouldn't matter.
Consider California, Texas and Florida with 55, 38 and 29 electoral votes respectively. In 2016, California's 55 votes went to Clinton and Texas and Florida's combined 67 votes went to Trump; Trump wins. If Texas and Florida had their electoral votes divided proportionally and California did not, Texas' votes would have been divided 20.14/16.34 Trump/Clinton and Florida 14.24/13.86 while Clinton would have reaped all of California's vote giving her the win with 55+16.34+13.86=85.2 versus Trump's 16.34+14.24=34.38, nearly 3 to 1.
If California's votes were proportional, it would be 18.32 Trump, 33.83 Clinton yielding 52.7 total for Trump and 64.03 Clinton, resulting in a much more even split. Factor in other states with may or may not proportion and it will equally distort the vote. While you seem concerned about being "fair" to your candidate, I think it's more important to be fair to voters: We, the People. Either proportionment should be nationwide or not at all.
Non proportional vote allotment is inherently unfair. It has hurt Democrats in the past, but it is just as likely to hurt Republicans in the future. The purpose of a vote is to give an accurate representation of all the voters. Not to give an advantage to either side.
While I agree about proportionally the problem is akin to term limits for Congressman; what happens when only a few states do it? Aren't they hampered compared to other states?No, I don't want to change the constitution. The states determine how electoral votes are allocated. It would be a simple matter to have those votes determined proportionally. Of course, in recent history, only Democrats have had their elections stolen twice (Gore and Clinton) . After it effects the right it will be changed. Until then, we have a faulty election process.
Comey's two unprecedented statements , even after he was advised that it would be improper to make them, gave the false impression of guilt. Voters were left to believe there was actual guilt. The Hatch Act is officially An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities, and specifically forbids the use of offices in the executive branch to intentionally effect elections. No one can deny that his unprecedented, and unnecessary statements directly effected the voters decisions.
Disagreed on your accusations of Comey....and both the President and Congress agrees that Comey didn't commit "Pernicious Political Activities". Isn't Comey in the Judicial Branch?
Dude, if you want to blame Comey for formerly Democratic blue collar workers turning Blue States Red, go for it, but I think you will be proven wrong in the months to come.
That is why proportional voting cannot be done by a single state. They have to do so as a group and go to national popular vote rather than proportional in the individual state itself. The simplest way to institute it would be for enough states to come together representing 270+ electoral votes and then agree as a group to give their EC votes to the presidential candidate that garners the popular vote. I believe as few as 13 states could do this and ensure that the candidate with the popular vote wins the election.Disagreed. Do the math.Proportional vote assignment wouldn't disadvantage any state. It would just make the selection more fair for whoever received the most votes.
I believe states that institute term limits would be at a disadvantage. The longer a member is in congress, the more effective he can be. That's why states will never do it on their own. The federal government doesn't' have the authority to do it. That's just another example of the crazy things Trump promised that is not possible to be done. He doesn't even know how our government works.
The president and congress have no decision on what Comey did was legal. That is purely a law enforcement matter, but I expect nothing will come of it.
Hillary received more votes, so what anybody in any particularly colored state did shouldn't matter.
Consider California, Texas and Florida with 55, 38 and 29 electoral votes respectively. In 2016, California's 55 votes went to Clinton and Texas and Florida's combined 67 votes went to Trump; Trump wins. If Texas and Florida had their electoral votes divided proportionally and California did not, Texas' votes would have been divided 20.14/16.34 Trump/Clinton and Florida 14.24/13.86 while Clinton would have reaped all of California's vote giving her the win with 55+16.34+13.86=85.2 versus Trump's 16.34+14.24=34.38, nearly 3 to 1.
If California's votes were proportional, it would be 18.32 Trump, 33.83 Clinton yielding 52.7 total for Trump and 64.03 Clinton, resulting in a much more even split. Factor in other states with may or may not proportion and it will equally distort the vote. While you seem concerned about being "fair" to your candidate, I think it's more important to be fair to voters: We, the People. Either proportionment should be nationwide or not at all.
It's mixed. For investigations, it's DOJ.No, the FBI is part of the executive branch. They are an enforcement branch - not a court.
You forgot to include all the millions of dollars of free advertising that all the networks gave him.
You forgot to include all the millions of dollars of free advertising that all the networks gave him.
Were the networks paying Trump for their ratings boosts? Wasn't free.
