I'll be honest, I preferred Clinton to Obama in 08. Clinton's actually pretty conservative. The problem is she's a sellout. Sellout out to big industry and banks. Sellout to the LGBT after backing traditional marriage. But if she had won in 08, things wouldn't be this bad. Black people probably wouldn't be so emboldened about behaving like, well I can't use the n-word, but that basically. Gay marriage wouldn't have busted a dam. ACA.
Your guy won the electoral college. Congrats. Let's all pray he doesn't destroy the country. I for one am concerned that if Trump actually did all the things he promised, it would be catastrophic. So, I am deeply apprehensive and worried for the future. If you call that a meltdown, well so be it.
Complaining about the electoral college at this stage seems really petty to me. Democrats need to do a better job of convincing people in rural towns that they have a better platform for them and the country.
I stated the constitution cares about it, not the EC. You all are saying surface area doesn't matter. This analogy has been used already; When a team goes into the Finals seven game series, the coach and team strategies and prepares to win the championship not by accumulating the most points in the series, but by getting to four wins first. If points only mattered, teams would build around pure offensive players and not focus on defense. Presidential candidates do the same thing. They ignore 40 of the states and concentrate and pander only to the swing states. Trumps strategy was to snipe MI, WI and Penn. and he succeeded (thanks to liberal arrogance) If we were to divide and split the EC's according to the popular vote in each state, candidates would campaign very very differently. This is why the rhetoric about Hillary winning the popular vote is absolutely pointless.
You are going to find out that Trump is a sellout as well. He and the conservatives may as well start trying to compromise with whatever Democrat wins in 2020 if they try to take away LGBT rights. It's what I mean that while people may have voted for him they didn't vote for EVERYTHING the GOP party may want to do. It's wise if the GOP plays their cards right and realizes where pulbic opinion stands on each issue instead of trying to ram everything down our throats. I don't think any one of us are right now though. Some said that the country rejected liberalism and I don't know how you can say that when more people voted for it.
No, with the electoral college Surface Area does not matter. http://uspolitics.about.com/od/CampaignsElections/a/How-Electoral-Votes-Are-Distributed.htm But this is exactly how EC voters vote. By whoever wins the popular vote in each state almost all states use the winner takes all and only two states don't. The electoral college is for 'fly over' america so that candidates would have to campaign for every state's vote...that really doesn't happen. Instead the same swing states are always where the real battle is. I agree if the system was changed then campaigns would look much different.
This is what I mean about liberals are too concerned about social progressivism. Your first concern is about LGBT rights, not about the many other problems that affect everyone in this country. You would elect a candidate who would not touch LGBT but sell completely out to big money. If you would bother to look around, only the extreme right care about gay marriage. Its not going anywhere. Neither is Roe vs Wade. What you should focus on is that we finally have an anti-establishment President. We should use this to our advantage and curtail the corruption in Washington. If we are to get term limits in Congress, the time is now. If we are to put term limits on the Supreme Court, the time is now. But yes, most know Trump is a sell out. If it doesn't untether Obamacare from the private industry, I will be very disappointed.
You are right, I care about the rights of people more than money and the economy and other things. For me the rights of the people comes first before everything. You are right about that and I take no shame in that. So yes, my first concern is for LGBT people as I have a cousin that is a lesbian and I would like it very much if she had all her rights. So yes, the rights of people are very important to me. I did look around and one step down from the president I see Mike Pence. I'm going to head out here before the game so I don't have time to go through how he feels about the LGBT community. Now like I said, I don't think he will take those rights away because quite frankly they will be handing the reigns over to the DNC 2020 if they do and they all realize that no matter how much some of them bluster about traditional marriage. As for this. I hope he is. The first person he should reach out to on this issue is the one and only Bernie Sanders and Warren who are always ready and eager to get money out of politics and corruption as well. I don't believe him though and I think I'm right not to put my trust in him with rumors of who he has surrounded himself with. So I'm in a wait and see mode with that but I highly doubt with who he has surrounded himself with already that they will be as enthusiastic about ending corruption when they are corrupt themselves.
Erm, what? You were offended by my use of the word empty, so I changed to a different word. Are you admitting your reaction to my post was disingenuous?
She has a very impressive career history those who have stated she has no executive experience clearly hasn't read anything about her.
Liberals have a very hard time with being color blind. The just can't let go of the racism deep down inside them. It is really sad and pathetic when you think about it. This country will never get past being racist until liberals learn to be colorblind like conservatives have.
People who live cramped in one small area matter to that one small area and people that live more spread out matter to that one area. If there are 50 different areas (for the sake of conversation) and 30 of those 50 agree to something, you can say most of the areas agreed with it. Now if 2 areas have a LOT more people than the other 48....they still only make up 2 areas. Their opinion isn't more valid than those elsewhere. The raw numbers simply don't matter in the least.
It matters if your argument is that the country rejected progressives or liberalism...because more of the country voted for it. As in more people voted for it than against it.
More of the country = 30 of 50 states. As I've just spelled out for you, the raw population number means less than nothing.
No, it doesn't. You said that the BULK of the country voted against the democrats. The bulk means MOST of the country. You are basically counting surface area over people. It's time you admit that you were just wrong there. A farmer in Texas vote doesn't count more than someone living in an apartment. And how are we literally arguing that Kamala Harris isn't qualified to be president when Trump just won. Sometimes I swear.
Also your argument isn't how the EC works so it makes no sense. New York holds more weight than Alaska for a reason.
The law gives the attorney general supervision over all legal matters in which the state is an interested party.Meaning she was the big boss
