Dear Democrats: It's Time To (Finally) Declare: If Anybody's A "Real American," It's Us

by Ben Reilly Fri Jan 20, 2017 4:19 am

Of course, every American citizen is a real American.

Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin kicked off the debate over whether some Americans are more "real" than others in 2008:

You don't have to live in a small town or vote Republican to love your country and be a "real American." Obviously.

But we see a strain of the same narrative in the most recent election -- "America has spoken." No, it hasn't -- nearly three million more real Americans voted for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump.

But if we don't reject the narrative that some Americans are more "real" than others, and instead try to decide based on the available evidence which party is that of "real" Americans, what conclusion might that lead to?

Let's look at some social issues. The Democratic Party is the party of gay rights, racial equality, religious tolerance and government assistance for the poor. Are those values American values?

Gay rights:

Dear Democrats: It's Time To (Finally) Declare: If Anybody's A "Real American," It's Us Jwowsa1ks020ehlt19i1la

Dear Democrats: It's Time To (Finally) Declare: If Anybody's A "Real American," It's Us Jwowsa1ks020ehlt19i1la

Racism's a little harder to calculate, but generally a racist society disapproves of interracial marriages. So:

Dear Democrats: It's Time To (Finally) Declare: If Anybody's A "Real American," It's Us Iz9s4ieareep_q3xhp2edg

Dear Democrats: It's Time To (Finally) Declare: If Anybody's A "Real American," It's Us Iz9s4ieareep_q3xhp2edg

Religious tolerance (in this poll, "tolerant" means taking a live-and-let-live attitude toward other religions, "integrated" means respecting and seeking to learn more about other religions, and "isolated" means being intolerant of and incurious about other religions:

Dear Democrats: It's Time To (Finally) Declare: If Anybody's A "Real American," It's Us 20030318_1

Dear Democrats: It's Time To (Finally) Declare: If Anybody's A "Real American," It's Us 20030318_1

Government assistance for the poor:

Dear Democrats: It's Time To (Finally) Declare: If Anybody's A "Real American," It's Us Divided-Views-of-Govt-Aid-to-Poor

Dear Democrats: It's Time To (Finally) Declare: If Anybody's A "Real American," It's Us Divided-Views-of-Govt-Aid-to-Poor

So we see that on those issues, the Democratic Party reflects the attitude of most Americans. But what about other, perhaps more controversial issues?

What about universal health care, which Democrats favor?

Dear Democrats: It's Time To (Finally) Declare: If Anybody's A "Real American," It's Us Chart2

Dear Democrats: It's Time To (Finally) Declare: If Anybody's A "Real American," It's Us Chart2

What about stricter gun control, which Democrats favor?

Dear Democrats: It's Time To (Finally) Declare: If Anybody's A "Real American," It's Us Guncontrol

What about abortion rights, which Democrats favor?

Dear Democrats: It's Time To (Finally) Declare: If Anybody's A "Real American," It's Us Lr-ihjzmlkarrrl5ccpy2w

Dear Democrats: It's Time To (Finally) Declare: If Anybody's A "Real American," It's Us Lr-ihjzmlkarrrl5ccpy2w

The Democratic Party is easily more in touch with the majority of Americans on all these issues, and more. But is there another way to judge how "American" a person or a party is?

Let's look at what the American people look like:

Dear Democrats: It's Time To (Finally) Declare: If Anybody's A "Real American," It's Us Us-population-by-race-ethnicity_1394327

Dear Democrats: It's Time To (Finally) Declare: If Anybody's A "Real American," It's Us Us-population-by-race-ethnicity_1394327

Now let's look at a Democratic political rally:

Dear Democrats: It's Time To (Finally) Declare: If Anybody's A "Real American," It's Us Gettyimages-542155438

Dear Democrats: It's Time To (Finally) Declare: If Anybody's A "Real American," It's Us Gettyimages-542155438

That looks about right. How about a Republican rally?

Dear Democrats: It's Time To (Finally) Declare: If Anybody's A "Real American," It's Us 38f6ed0742

Finding a non-white person in that photo is like a Where's Waldo book.

It's time for Democrats to take back the narrative. If you buy into the silly notion that some Americans are more American than other Americans, supporters of the Democratic Party obviously more accurately reflect what America really is than the Republican Party does.

by Independent Thoughts Fri Jan 20, 2017 6:42 am

Ben wrote:It's time for Democrats to take back the narrative.

You had the narrative for 8 looooooong years. Boy, those years were long...
America heard the narrative loud and clear, and that's why the election map looked like someone had doused it with red paint.

The Liberal path has led to ruin and destruction. Everyone is tired of it. While people are trying to find jobs and feed their families, the Democrats are rallying about who gets to use which bathroom. We have a naive president that thinks ISIS is a junior varsity team. We have more Democrats that pay attention to the temperature in the Arctic than they pay attention to the poverty rate back home -- which reached an all-time high under Obama's watch. As the election results have shown, over the past 6 years, nobody wants anymore of that.

You keep bringing up "popular vote". That only works if you and your friends are deciding what movie to watch or what restaurant to eat at. In America, our founding fathers left us 2 indelible items: The Constitution, and the Electoral College. They foresaw a time when a tiny, itsy-bitsy pocket of lefties in 3 states would try to mandate the law for the country and said, "Hell no! This country isn't founded on cry-babies that burn our flag or disrespect our heritage! We'll create an Electoral College to prevent a small group of wackos from influencing the nation."

But, there is one solution that many Liberals have threatened to act upon: If Trump won election, they would move to Canada.

I think it's kind of extreme, but hey it also sounds like a win-win proposition: Liberals move to the country whose healthcare system they've always envied, and they can burn the American flag without catching sideways glances. Additionally, those of us living in America can become more productive because we don't have to take times out of our busy days to cater to emotionally high-maintenance Liberals that are still butt hurt.

Dear Democrats: It's Time To (Finally) Declare: If Anybody's A "Real American," It's Us Moving-canada-politics-1457403949

Dear Democrats: It's Time To (Finally) Declare: If Anybody's A "Real American," It's Us Moving-canada-politics-1457403949

by Independent Thoughts Fri Jan 20, 2017 7:08 am

After what happened to Bernie, I think the Democratic Party is pretty much DOA.

Dear Democrats: It's Time To (Finally) Declare: If Anybody's A "Real American," It's Us Image_31-500x500

Dear Democrats: It's Time To (Finally) Declare: If Anybody's A "Real American," It's Us Image_31-500x500

by Eilzel Fri Jan 20, 2017 7:19 am

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:
Ben wrote:It's time for Democrats to take back the narrative.

You had the narrative for 8 looooooong years. Boy, those years were long...
America heard the narrative loud and clear, and that's why the election map looked like someone had doused it with red paint.

The Liberal path has led to ruin and destruction. Everyone is tired of it. While people are trying to find jobs and feed their families, the Democrats are rallying about who gets to use which bathroom. We have a naive president that thinks ISIS is a junior varsity team. We have more Democrats that pay attention to the temperature in the Arctic than they pay attention to the poverty rate back home -- which reached an all-time high under Obama's watch. As the election results have shown, over the past 6 years, nobody wants anymore of that.

You keep bringing up "popular vote". That only works if you and your friends are deciding what movie to watch or what restaurant to eat at. In America, our founding fathers left us 2 indelible items: The Constitution, and the Electoral College. They foresaw a time when a tiny, itsy-bitsy pocket of lefties in 3 states would try to mandate the law for the country and said, "Hell no! This country isn't founded on cry-babies that burn our flag or disrespect our heritage! We'll create an Electoral College to prevent a small group of wackos from influencing the nation."

But, there is one solution that many Liberals have threatened to act upon: If Trump won election, they would move to Canada.

I think it's kind of extreme, but hey it also sounds like a win-win proposition: Liberals move to the country whose healthcare system they've always envied, and they can burn the American flag without catching sideways glances. Additionally, those of us living in America can become more productive because we don't have to take times out of our busy days to cater to emotionally high-maintenance Liberals that are still butt hurt.

Twisted narrative.

The truth.

A marginal number (a matter of thousands) in a few states swung Red, and that decided the fate of the country.

It's only because liberals tend to live in the nicer places like California and New England that the vote is so imbalanced that the Republicans ever even get a shot.

by 'Wolfie Fri Jan 20, 2017 8:02 am

Just looking at the ongoing silliness and outright Teabagger lies being peddled by the non-working, non-voting schoolkid Ivanka "Independent Thoughts" troll on here, is there anybody out there who still believes that (s)he isn't a single subject spammer ???

Dear Democrats: It's Time To (Finally) Declare: If Anybody's A "Real American," It's Us 3758365944

Dear Democrats: It's Time To (Finally) Declare: If Anybody's A "Real American," It's Us 3758365944

by nicko Fri Jan 20, 2017 9:25 am

The only true Americans are the "red" Indians that the immigrants massacred ?

by Independent Thoughts Fri Jan 20, 2017 8:24 pm

Eilzel wrote:It's only because liberals tend to live in the nicer places like California and New England...

You're thinking of the top 1% of Liberals. I really don't picture the Occupy Wall Street Liberals as the Beverly Hills or Martha's Vineyard types.

I'm glad you brought up Liberal demographics, though, because it's yet another area where Liberal policies have woefully failed.

America's ten most dangerous cities—as measured by federal crime statistics—have one highly notable feature in common: All are led politically by Democratic mayors. Most, in fact, have been controlled by Democrats for a very long time. For example, Detroit, which in 2015 ranked as the nation's most dangerous city, has not had a Republican mayor since 1961. The second most dangerous city in 2015 was Oakland, California, a Democrat stronghold since 1977. Third was Memphis, in Democratic hands since 1991. Fourth was St. Louis, which has been led exclusively by Democratic mayors since 1949. Fifth was Cleveland, where no Republican has been mayor since 1989. Sixth was Baltimore, Democrat-led since 1967. Seventh was Milwaukee, which has elected only Democratic mayors since 1908. Eighth was Birmingham, which has been Democrat-run since 1975. Ninth was Newark, a Democrat bastion since 1933. And tenth was Kansas City, Missouri, which has not seen a Republican mayor in a quarter-century.arter-century.

FBI's Released a List of the 10 Most Violent Cities in the US And They All Have One Thing in Common

by Guest Fri Jan 20, 2017 8:45 pm

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:
Eilzel wrote:It's only because liberals tend to live in the nicer places like California and New England...

You're thinking of the top 1% of Liberals. I really don't picture the Occupy Wall Street Liberals as the Beverly Hills or Martha's Vineyard types.

I'm glad you brought up Liberal demographics, though, because it's yet another area where Liberal policies have woefully failed.

America's ten most dangerous cities—as measured by federal crime statistics—have one highly notable feature in common: All are led politically by Democratic mayors. Most, in fact, have been controlled by Democrats for a very long time. For example, Detroit, which in 2015 ranked as the nation's most dangerous city, has not had a Republican mayor since 1961. The second most dangerous city in 2015 was Oakland, California, a Democrat stronghold since 1977. Third was Memphis, in Democratic hands since 1991. Fourth was St. Louis, which has been led exclusively by Democratic mayors since 1949. Fifth was Cleveland, where no Republican has been mayor since 1989. Sixth was Baltimore, Democrat-led since 1967. Seventh was Milwaukee, which has elected only Democratic mayors since 1908. Eighth was Birmingham, which has been Democrat-run since 1975. Ninth was Newark, a Democrat bastion since 1933. And tenth was Kansas City, Missouri, which has not seen a Republican mayor in a quarter-century.arter-century.
FBI's Released a List of the 10 Most Violent Cities in the US And They All Have One Thing in Common

Sorry but how are you making a scientific view point around crime based on who is in charge?

That is liking saying more people will commit crime based on who holds office, which is blatantly absurd.
What you have to ask is whether this areas always had high crime rates. You have to look at many other aspects of what leads to crime, like populations and the rise in populations to the level of poverty.
You have to also argue that crime was low under republican control averaging the population increase, the absurd gun laws etc.

The reality is it would not matter who was in charge, as many aspects lead to crime.

Its also very misleading your view point when you look at Republican controlled cities that also have high crime rates. What you have is high crime rate throughout the US being an issue. Trying to make a political statement off this is failing to understand crime in he first place

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/12/deadliest-cities-gun-control-laws-congress-chicago

by Independent Thoughts Fri Jan 20, 2017 10:21 pm

Your link compares cities that have representatives in support of gun control vs those that don't. The cities that support gun control out-pace those that don't, by over 2-to-1. You make another point well for me, but I'm not solely focusing on gun-related violence. I'm speaking violence in general.

Thorin wrote:...how are you making a scientific view point around crime based on who is in charge?

When Bush was President and screwed up, everyone let him know it and bashed him hard for it.
When a Democrat mayor of a corroding city isn't doing his job, suddenly the tone is, "What's who's in charge have anything to do with failure?"

Seriously?? You don't see anything fundamentally wrong with that statement?

by Guest Fri Jan 20, 2017 10:28 pm

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:Your link compares cities that have representatives in support of gun control vs those that don't. The cities that support gun control out-pace those that don't, by over 2-to-1. You make another point well for me, but I'm not solely focusing on gun-related violence. I'm speaking violence in general.

Thorin wrote:...how are you making a scientific view point around crime based on who is in charge?

When Bush was President and screwed up, everyone let him know it and bashed him hard for it.
When a Democrat mayor of a corroding city isn't doing his job, suddenly the tone is, "What's who's in charge have anything to do with failure?"

Seriously?? You don't see anything fundamentally wrong with that statement?

Yes I see everything wrong with your statement.
Leaders have a duty to help prevent crime, but they cannot stop all crime.

They can ensure a better life for people, to reduce things like poverty, ensure health care, gun laws ect, but to make out a political argument based off Democrat and Republican off crimes is scientifically absurd.
The reason it is absurd and even more so is because you are basing this on the fallacy of humans. Who's political views will greatly vary and even more so when nobody in the entire history of humanity has been able to eradicate crime. So yes we can blame people for their failings and where they have failed to do more to help combat crime, but to make such a poor political argument between two rival political groups is poor to say the least.

All my link did was place your poor reasoning into perspective, because all you did was be selective over crime in the US in certain cities. Never taking into account many factors like, population, over crowding, poverty, unemployment etc. Hence to make such a political argument is yet again misdirection and only looking to blame. It does not look to solve the problems of crime, but only ever look to point score. You would think on the issue of crime both Political groups could come together to actually tackle this, but it never happens, as they do what you are doing now. Looking to blame each other.

by Independent Thoughts Fri Jan 20, 2017 10:48 pm

Thorin wrote:They can ensure a better life for people, to reduce things like poverty, ensure health care, gun laws ect,...

I agree.

Thorin wrote:Never taking into account many factors like, population, over crowding, poverty, unemployment etc.

To the contrary, all those factors are taken into account because they are factors that directly lead to high crime and violence. Every one of those factors scored dismally low in the Democratic-run cities, as well. The correlation is there -- you simply have to connect the obvious dots.

by Guest Fri Jan 20, 2017 11:02 pm

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:
Thorin wrote:They can ensure a better life for people, to reduce things like poverty, ensure health care, gun laws ect,...

I agree.

Thorin wrote:Never taking into account many factors like, population, over crowding, poverty, unemployment etc.

To the contrary, all those factors are taken into account because they are factors that directly lead to high crime and violence. Every one of those factors scored dismally low in the Democratic-run cities, as well. The correlation is there -- you simply have to connect the obvious dots.

You claim the correlation is there but I showed you high levels of crime in Republican run cities.
The biggest factor for crime in the US is its gun and drug laws.

Its failed war on drugs, where they should decriminalize. You would think after Prohibition would have taught them that. So I can go back many years on crime in the US and you will see high levels of crime dependent on the problems facing the US. To claim a correlation based off political parties has no bases when there has been a difference in overall leadership and the senate over laws and policies passed that can and do effect the entire nation, over countless decades. Which the leadership and Senate is where the buck stops when things go wrong locally with job losses and wealth. So again your reasoning is poorly thought out and again is ignoring the main issues of crime itself and their causes.

What you have to prove is that under Republican controlled cities there is very little crime. The reality is you cannot do that, but crime is high throughout the US, specially in populated areas.

by eddie Fri Jan 20, 2017 11:05 pm

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Just looking at the ongoing silliness and outright Teabagger lies being peddled by the non-working, non-voting schoolkid Ivanka "Independent Thoughts" troll on here, is there anybody out there who still believes that (s)he isn't a single subject spammer ???

I have certainly considered it.

by Ben Reilly Sat Jan 21, 2017 7:23 am

2009 vs. 2017. Where are you, America?

Dear Democrats: It's Time To (Finally) Declare: If Anybody's A "Real American," It's Us GTY-RT-obama-trump-inauguration-jef-170120_4x3_992

Dear Democrats: It's Time To (Finally) Declare: If Anybody's A "Real American," It's Us GTY-RT-obama-trump-inauguration-jef-170120_4x3_992

by eddie Sat Jan 21, 2017 10:11 am

I heard on the radio yesterday that they couldn't even give the tickets away!

by Guest Sat Jan 21, 2017 12:31 pm

It really doesn't matter what people say or how much they protest or complain - he is President and that is that .

by Guest Sat Jan 21, 2017 12:33 pm

eddie wrote:I heard on the radio yesterday that they couldn't even give the tickets away!

I would have had one if they were giving them away Razz

by Original Quill Sat Jan 21, 2017 4:06 pm

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:It really doesn't matter what people say or how much they protest or complain - he is President and that is that .

Um...make that "minority president"...just so we're clear should the question of a mandate come up.

by Ben Reilly Sat Jan 21, 2017 4:33 pm

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:It really doesn't matter what people say or how much they protest or complain - he is President and that is that .

Not even close to true.

by 'Wolfie Sun Jan 22, 2017 1:52 am

Ben Reilly wrote:
Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:
It really doesn't matter what people say or how much they protest or complain - he is President and that is that .

Not even close to true.

VoD obviously doesn't even understand the very concept of "democracy"...

by Eilzel Sun Jan 22, 2017 3:47 am

Tbf VoD conservative voters have bitched about Obama for 8 years. And at least he knew proper English Razz

by Raggamuffin Sun Jan 22, 2017 11:56 am

Ben Reilly wrote:
Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:It really doesn't matter what people say or how much they protest or complain - he is President and that is that .

Not even close to true.

How is it not true? Are you saying that he's not the President?

by Raggamuffin Sun Jan 22, 2017 12:01 pm

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:
Not even close to true.

VoD obviously doesn't even understand the very concept of "democracy"...

Why do you say that? Are you suggesting that the US presidential elections have always been undemocratic since the start of electoral college system?

by Original Quill Sun Jan 22, 2017 5:26 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

VoD obviously doesn't even understand the very concept of "democracy"...

Why do you say that? Are you suggesting that the US presidential elections have always been undemocratic since the start of electoral college system?

Yes. Isn't that obvious? The US has never met the issue...only side-stepped it. The reason why it has not been a greater issue, is it comes up so infrequently that someone loses the popular vote and yet wins the electoral collage. But this time the difference is so glaring--a 3-million vote deficit, and nearly 10-million if you throw in those who voted libertarian and green party and not Trump--that some reasonable minds have to question the legitimacy.

When you add to that the fact that the Russians probably mechanically hacked the voting machines in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, you certainly must conclude that the US is closer to a Russian dictatorship than a western democracy.

by Ben Reilly Sun Jan 22, 2017 6:07 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:
Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:It really doesn't matter what people say or how much they protest or complain - he is President and that is that .

Not even close to true.

How is it not true? Are you saying that he's not the President?

I'm saying that it does matter what people say and how much they protest. Government ignores the public at its own peril.

by nicko Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:08 pm

Are you going to smash windows, set cars on fire, throw things at the police? Wont make a bit of difference,Trump is president, so you can stamp your feet as much as you want. Your as much as a threat to him as a flea on an Elephants arse!!

by eddie Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:11 pm

I think some of you are missing the point. When the public are upset, they protest. It's called Freedom of speech and getting your voice heard.

It seems a lot of you cannot grasp the concept of protesting.

by Original Quill Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:31 pm

nicko wrote:Are you going to smash windows, set cars on fire, throw things at the police? Wont make a bit of difference,Trump is president, so you can stamp your feet as much as you want. Your as much as a threat to him as a flea on an Elephants arse!!

No, not at all. People are going to exhale and simply sit down. They are not going to pick-up for this president.

Who is going to carry the load, make the cars, fix the streets, go to war...indeed, build the wall? Not the 25% who voted Trump in...they are disaffected drug addicts, bums, n'ere-do-wells, Breitbart keyboard warriors who need the aid of 'alternative facts' in order to exist. The really serious people, who live in today's real, reality, are just going to sit on the hill beside the highway, and say Let's see you do it.

The explanation, if you don't get it, is this: Trump did nothing but divide a nation. A divided nation is a deflated nation. You need expectations and enthusiasm to wake a nation up, get it on its feet, and get to work. When you figure in the Libertarians and Green Party voters, Donald Trump lost by 10-million votes. That's 10-million people who have little or no incentive to get up in the morning. They don't share the dream...or worse, they believe it's the dream of racists, pussy-grabbers, the rich and the liars.

Follow the numbers. How many people share in the Trump dream to Make America White Again!?

by Guest Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:59 pm

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:
Ben wrote:It's time for Democrats to take back the narrative.

You had the narrative for 8 looooooong years. Boy, those years were long...
America heard the narrative loud and clear, and that's why the election map looked like someone had doused it with red paint.

The Liberal path has led to ruin and destruction. Everyone is tired of it. While people are trying to find jobs and feed their families, the Democrats are rallying about who gets to use which bathroom. We have a naive president that thinks ISIS is a junior varsity team. We have more Democrats that pay attention to the temperature in the Arctic than they pay attention to the poverty rate back home -- which reached an all-time high under Obama's watch. As the election results have shown, over the past 6 years, nobody wants anymore of that.

You keep bringing up "popular vote". That only works if you and your friends are deciding what movie to watch or what restaurant to eat at. In America, our founding fathers left us 2 indelible items: The Constitution, and the Electoral College. They foresaw a time when a tiny, itsy-bitsy pocket of lefties in 3 states would try to mandate the law for the country and said, "Hell no! This country isn't founded on cry-babies that burn our flag or disrespect our heritage! We'll create an Electoral College to prevent a small group of wackos from influencing the nation."

But, there is one solution that many Liberals have threatened to act upon: If Trump won election, they would move to Canada.

I think it's kind of extreme, but hey it also sounds like a win-win proposition: Liberals move to the country whose healthcare system they've always envied, and they can burn the American flag without catching sideways glances. Additionally, those of us living in America can become more productive because we don't have to take times out of our busy days to cater to emotionally high-maintenance Liberals that are still butt hurt.

great post

by Guest Sun Jan 22, 2017 8:07 pm

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:
Not even close to true.

VoD obviously doesn't even understand the very concept of "democracy"...

I understand it very well - it's the cry babies that don't

by Original Quill Sun Jan 22, 2017 9:03 pm

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:
WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

VoD obviously doesn't even understand the very concept of "democracy"...

I understand it very well - it's the cry babies that don't

Who is crying? Those who didn't vote for Trump are going to work hard to make him fail, so that we can have a monument to point to when someone asks what he did.

I fact, I hazard to guess that even those who voted for Trump will contribute to that cause...worthless chumps that they are.

by Guest Sun Jan 22, 2017 9:15 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:

I understand it very well - it's the cry babies that don't

Who is crying? Those who didn't vote for Trump are going to work hard to make him fail, so that we can have a monument to point to when someone asks what he did.

I fact, I hazard to guess that even those who voted for Trump will contribute to that cause...worthless chumps that they are.

That's so adult of you and what a great role model you must be lol - don't you think the millions of people who voted for him will be somewhat dischuffed with your plan ?

How about if Hilary had won and that happened would you be thinking that is fair ?
I think you're crying and throwing a tantrum just like the kids here that didn't like the Brexit vote .

I have never seen such bad losers like this with you and the Remoaners here , i suspect the same will happen if Le Pen gets elected too it seems to the latest behaviour pattern , spoiled brats come to mind .

by Tommy Monk Sun Jan 22, 2017 10:01 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:

I understand it very well - it's the cry babies that don't

Who is crying? Those who didn't vote for Trump are going to work hard to make him fail, so that we can have a monument to point to when someone asks what he did.

I fact, I hazard to guess that even those who voted for Trump will contribute to that cause...worthless chumps that they are.

Those who didn't vote for Trump should put that aside now... he is president... and although they may not like the person in the position... they should still respect and support the position of president, and now try to work with him in a positive/supportive way that will help bring everyone closer together and allow them more opportunities to exert influence etc... and will also be in the best interests of the nation as a whole for best chances of presidential/country success rather than having a large group of the population trying to undermine their president and scupper the chances of success that will only really be more damaging overall against the nation as a whole.

by Original Quill Sun Jan 22, 2017 10:20 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Who is crying? Those who didn't vote for Trump are going to work hard to make him fail, so that we can have a monument to point to when someone asks what he did.

I fact, I hazard to guess that even those who voted for Trump will contribute to that cause...worthless chumps that they are.

Those who didn't vote for Trump should put that aside now... he is president... and although they may not like the person in the position... they should still respect and support the position of president, and now try to work with him in a positive/supportive way that will help bring everyone closer together and allow them more opportunities to exert influence etc... and will also be in the best interests of the nation as a whole for best chances of presidential/country success rather than having a large group of the population trying to undermine their president and scupper the chances of success that will only really be more damaging overall against the nation as a whole.

Tommy. Root for the other team? Haven't you ever been to a football game?

One doesn't root for the glory of the game, fcs. You want the other side to lose, so...ipso facto your side wins. What do you want us to root for? Pussy-grabbing? Screwing blacks? Mocking the disabled? Golden showers? Hating Mexicans? Screwing the middle class...rich getting richer? All of the thinks we despise? Frigid day in hell when I root for evil.

by Tommy Monk Sun Jan 22, 2017 10:35 pm

The competition is over...

Nobody likes a bad loser...

by Original Quill Sun Jan 22, 2017 10:51 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:The competition is over...

Nobody likes a bad loser...

The competition has only begun. It's never over.

Nobody likes a bad person...a pussy-grabber, a mocker of the disabled, a racist. a misogynist, a war-monger, a traitor, a guy who likes to get peed on...nobody likes a morally bad person.

To draw an analogy, why do you thing the church continues? Isn't it because evil exists...and the fight must continue?

by Tommy Monk Sun Jan 22, 2017 11:04 pm

Don't you realise that the more you run down the winner of the election... you are just telling everyone how much worse the alternative was...!?

lol!

by Original Quill Sun Jan 22, 2017 11:12 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

Don't you realise that the more you run down the winner of the election... you are just telling everyone how much worse the alternative was...!?

She got 3-million more votes. You do the math.

by Tommy Monk Sun Jan 22, 2017 11:20 pm

And...?

by veya_victaous Sun Jan 22, 2017 11:26 pm

well with 2 day of rhetoric, the morning show presenters are already saying things like "Look if China and the USA do come to blows we need to look out for Australia not Trump."

Basically Trump could well be the driver for Australia to become eastern and remove itself form the western alliance (since trump has said he may not honor it)
Plus good chance we will start making our own nukes, since again Trump has said he will not honor the nonproliferation treaty. we have everything we need to make nukes we only don't because of that treaty.

Economically we need China far more than we need the USA and with the USA economy likely to enter decline with Trumps insular politics (combined with Brexit) means it may well be the end of Western dominance.

by Fred Moletrousers Mon Jan 23, 2017 1:28 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

Don't you realise that the more you run down the winner of the election... you are just telling everyone how much worse the alternative was...!?

She got 3-million more votes. You do the math.

Surely, that is immaterial so far as the legitimacy of Trump's Presidency is concerned?

In any democracy that is based on a system of electoral constituencies of varying geographical areas and their respective varied population sizes it will always be theoretically, indeed factually, possible for a candidate with numerically inferior nationwide public support to achieve the highest political office by democratic means.

I know that your system is somewhat different to ours in the UK, mainly because elect your Head of State (our own is hereditary) and you also elect your upper chamber, whereas our own House of Lords comprises members who are either politically appointed or have a seat in the legislature simply because one of their ancestors, for instance, came over from France with William the Conqueror, killed a lot of peasants and their chieftain and nicked their land, getting a fancy title from the new King to go with it.

But both our countries are democracies, in your case since you kicked us out and became independent before going on to elect George Washington as your first President in the 1780s.

Sure, your Constitution - of which you are so rightly proud - has evolved greatly since then, but it still governs the system under which your President and Head of State is elected every four years, and since your Constitution demonstrably exists by consent of the people, that must make Trump your legitimate President...regardless of who he is and what he is.

by 'Wolfie Mon Jan 23, 2017 1:38 pm

And, that's also : Why "gerrymanders" aren't "democratic"....

When Adolf Hitler was first elected, he received just over 33% of the vote..
Next time around, he got 36%..

Trump did even better -- he only needed 25.4% of voters to support him.
Demonstrating that the "Electoral College" system is a gerrymander by another name..

Many people will never learn what true 'democracy' really means -- and will really take -- to deliver a truly fair, and more_representational, administration/executive.

Even when expressed in a "first past the post" basis, Donnie got less than 48% of the two-horse popular vote -- before those "Electoral College" distortions were factored in...

Just another good reason why voting in Federal_level elections should be compulsory !!! pirat

by Original Quill Mon Jan 23, 2017 3:00 pm

Fred Moletrousers wrote:Surely, that is immaterial so far as the legitimacy of Trump's Presidency is concerned?

In any democracy that is based on a system of electoral constituencies of varying geographical areas and their respective varied population sizes it will always be theoretically, indeed factually, possible for a candidate with numerically inferior nationwide public support to achieve the highest political office by democratic means.

But it is not a democracy. The US is caught between being a federation and an anticipated democracy, but it never completed the process. You can see in the Senate that the nation has moved from state appointed senators to fully elected senators…a tendency toward democracy. But the presidential race is a horse of a different color.

The president is not democratically elected. S/he is still appointed by a federated system. It's just that we have ignored the occasional anomaly for the sake of...well, being polite. But Mr. Trump rather trampled on politeness in politics.

The electoral college is a vestige of slavery days. Southern states, being rural, cash-cropping economies, were peopled by few whites and lots of slaves making the economy work. When it came time to vote for a constitution, the southern states balked at a popular vote because it automatically disenfranchised them in the numbers. The compromise was to give southern states a population base including slaves at 2/3 vote per slave; not that the slaves could vote, mind you, but the base was calculated in that way. The electoral college was set up to reflect that.

Of course we no longer have slavery, but we still have the electoral college. There is never any incentive to change it, because in each case the party having the power to change it has just successfully run the gauntlet and the outcome favors them. The other thing that minimizes the sentiment for change is that in most races it hasn’t mattered…the candidate with the popular vote also won the electoral college.

Occasionally—such as the election year 2000—the candidate losing the popular vote wins the electoral college, and there is a bit of an uproar among the electorate. But usually the candidate losing the electoral college defers and politely recedes into the background, not realizing he is doing the nation a disservice. See, Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000).

But never has the margin of loss been a deficit of 3-million votes...make that 10-million if you count Libertarians and Green Party votes. This amazing disparity, and the raw unpopularity of the succeeding candidate, Donald Trump, has led many to take the position that he is not legitimate. And they are right, have always been right, and will always be right…but only this election year have they decided to not be polite, and draw a line.

The US had to draw the line sometime. Since politeness was what made us ignore the problem in elections past, the lack of civility of Mr. Trump no doubt contributed to an overall incivility this time. But unquestionably, the astounding numbers this time are what mobilized the opposition. The form taken is to deny legitimacy to Mr. Trump. It's a small, but subtly meaningful step. Trump will technically occupy the role, and even have statues erected in his image...but he will never have the people declare him the legitimate president. Nor will he ever have the people work on his behalf, or lift a finger in any cause of his.

by Ben Reilly Mon Jan 23, 2017 3:17 pm

Beyond all the pussyfooting about procedures and proportional representation, you have the actual outcome -- a member of the wealthy elite became the U.S. head of state and commander of its military forces in defiance of the will of the overwhelming majority. You have a de facto oligarchy, not democracy, when that happens.

Democracy is the control of a nation by the majority of its citizens. Thus, Trump's ascendancy was not democratic, by definition.

This thread wasn't created to discuss Trump's illegitimacy, however. It was created to discuss which of the two major parties represents "real America," or as I more precisely defined that silly concept, typical America.

Democrats represent the majority of Americans' views on most of the issues most important to Americans. Republicans are supported by atypical Americans, who hold minority views.

http://www.rollcall.com/news/opinion/im-a-coastal-elite-from-the-midwest-the-real-bubble-is-rural-america

by Original Quill Mon Jan 23, 2017 3:39 pm

Ben wrote:Democrats represent the majority of Americans' views on most of the issues most important to Americans. Republicans are supported by atypical Americans, who hold minority views.

I have to question that. It has nothing to do with Trump's success in the electoral college. But the Republican success in Congress shows a nation leaning decidedly to the right.

by Eilzel Mon Jan 23, 2017 3:40 pm

The greatest success of Conservative politicians was convincing poorer/working class people that rich business men have their best interests at heart.

by Ben Reilly Mon Jan 23, 2017 3:48 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Ben wrote:Democrats represent the majority of Americans' views on most of the issues most important to Americans. Republicans are supported by atypical Americans, who hold minority views.

I have to question that. It has nothing to do with Trump's success in the electoral college. But the Republican success in Congress shows a nation leaning decidedly to the right.

See my OP -- the polls clearly indicate a left-leaning nation (at least in terms of American politics).

Quill, you know the congressional districts are gerrymandered!

For everyone else:

http://www.salon.com/2016/06/05/the_gop_screwed_themselves_the_brilliant_gerrymander_that_gave_republicans_the_congress_and_created_donald_trump/

by Original Quill Mon Jan 23, 2017 4:30 pm

Ben wrote:Quill, you know the congressional districts are gerrymandered!

I have to say that I've seen some recent studies that question the effectiveness of gerrymandering. It has some effect, but not necessarily determinative. It depends upon what you compare it to, because it contemplates states of affairs that never were.

Some evidence suggests that Democrats are scapegoating the fact of gerrymandering to avoid considering real alternatives. Like Republicans did following the 2012 election.

A case in point: all districts have women in them. Unlike blacks or Mexicans, you can't find pockets that are predominately female, so as to set aside and 'pack' them into districts. If liberal numbers are left-leaning on the national (homogeneous) level, you would expect to see a moderating effect in gerrymandered districts...at least on women's issues. Women are in all districts, and in the same proportion everywhere. Yet with women, we still find the same conservative leanings. And seriously, women are no small part of the total constituency. So this suggests, in some small way, that it's not a gerrymandering effect that is putting Republicans in Congress.

by eddie Mon Jan 23, 2017 8:12 pm

Gerrymandering:

In the process of setting electoral districts, gerrymandering is a practice intended to establish a political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating district boundaries. The resulting district is known as a gerrymander (/ˈdʒɛriˌmændər/); however, that word can also refer to the process. The term gerrymandering has negative connotations.

In addition to its use achieving desired electoral results for a particular party, gerrymandering may be used to help or hinder a particular demographic, such as a political, ethnic, racial, linguistic, religious, or class group, such as in U.S. federal voting district boundaries that produce a majority of constituents representative of African-American or other racial minorities, known as "majority-minority districts". Gerrymandering can also be used to protect incumbents.

For anyone who didn't know what the actual heck that was.

by Tommy Monk Mon Jan 23, 2017 11:06 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

Don't you realise that the more you run down the winner of the election... you are just telling everyone how much worse the alternative was...!?

She got 3-million more votes. You do the math.

Ukip got 3 million votes... more than the combined total votes of the snp/lib dems/greens and most of plaid cmmry added in too...!!!

Check out how many seats in parliament each party got...

I don't remember any uk lefties or US democrats complaining about how unfair the voting system was here in uk... and arguing that Ukip should have won so much more because of the many more votes they got etc...

by Sponsored content