Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

The Boston Opinion of Why Trump Won

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Boston Opinion of Why Trump Won

    In a remarkable interview with the Boston Globe, Beantown Mayor Martin J. Walsh (D) explained that the electoral victory of Donald Trump was due in part to a backlash against the progress black people have made in America.
    http://www.theblaze.com/news/2016/12...-boston-mayor/

    I can't fathom exactly what progress black people have made under Obama. In fact, a good many of them have come to the realization that they have been nothing but pawns in the hands of Democrats for ages and are starting to realize that has not benefitted them at all. Trump got more black support than any Republican since the 60's. How a Mayor from the liberal Northeast can even claim such a thing with a straight face is amazing.

  • #2
    Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
    http://www.theblaze.com/news/2016/12...-boston-mayor/

    I can't fathom exactly what progress black people have made under Obama. In fact, a good many of them have come to the realization that they have been nothing but pawns in the hands of Democrats for ages and are starting to realize that has not benefitted them at all. Trump got more black support than any Republican since the 60's. How a Mayor from the liberal Northeast can even claim such a thing with a straight face is amazing.
    And as it says in the writing you cite.

    --------------------

    This is a sanitized and labyrinthine way of saying that Trumps supporters were racist, a charge leveled far too often by the mainstream media and those on the left.

    http://www.theblaze.com/news/2016/12...-boston-mayor/

    --------------------

    The left TRYING to claim "racism" all over again.

    First it was russia electing trump - that wasn't effective - so now let's try racism....

    A very childish accusation considering how excited so many, conservative & liberal alike, were to elect "Americas first black president."

    It couldn't be that mr. obama was a very bad "president" ... NO, IT HAD TO BE SOMETHING ELSE !!!

    Nonsense.


    --------------------

    As long as Democrats continue to blame the voters instead of understanding the grievances that drove them to embrace Trump, theyll continue their electoral losses.

    http://www.theblaze.com/news/2016/12...-boston-mayor/

    --------------------

    Exactly.

    --------------------

    ...

    Obama's priorities are anathema to most of the American people. He did not lift a finger to stop the genocide of Christians throughout the Middle East by ISIS but has imported tens of thousands of Muslim refugees, some of whom will most certainly terrorize us. He has allowed tens of thousands of migrants from Central America to enter the country and stay at taxpayer expense. He has released thousands of criminal illegal immigrants onto the streets of our communities where they daily commit more crimes. He has commuted the sentences of hundreds of violent criminals. Is it any wonder that the crime rate is rising in all major cities?

    He has forced abortion, gay marriage, transgender bathrooms, etc. on a population, the majority of which cherish their traditional values. He loathes both Christianity and Judaism and is tolerant only of Islam. The man, from day one, has set out to submarine, to adulterate, our nation, to make it into something it was never meant to be. He wanted to take us down a few pegs and he has.


    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...istration.html

    --------------------

    The only thing mr. obama has been effective at accomplishing has been to be a destructive force against America.

    And on his way out the door, he's going to do as much as he can to continue this
    .

    --------------------

    Barack Obama isnt known for humility, though rarely has his lack of grace been more on display than in his final hours in office. The nation rejected his agenda. The presidents response? To shove more of that agenda down the nations gullet.

    The proposed regulations and executive orders are directly related to parts of the president's agenda that have been rejected by Congress and the American people - most recently in the November presidential election. These "Midnight Regulations" are little more than a spiteful way for President Obama to give the middle finger to Trump and the American people.

    ...The point is for Mr. Obama to have his way and to swamp the Trump administration with a dizzying array of new rules to have to undo. That diverts manpower from bigger and better priorities.


    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...n_express.html

    ?


    • #3
      Joe Biden admits the moment when he realized Hillary Clinton would lose to Trump

      After watching a Donald Trump campaign rally in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, in October, Vice President Joe Biden says that was the moment he realized Donald Trump would defeat Hillary Clinton in Novembers election.

      Thats what the vice president told the Los Angeles Times in a recent interview.

      Son of a gun. We may lose this election, Biden told the Times, recounting his reaction after watching the rally from his White House office.

      Theyre all the people I grew up with. Theyre their kids. And theyre not racist. Theyre not sexist. But we didnt talk to them, the vice president added.

      Reflecting on Trumps connection with Americans throughout his campaign, and during that Pennsylvania rally in October, Biden attempted to diagnose Democrats inability to connect with middle America.

      My dad used to have an expression. He said, I dont expect the government to solve my problems. But I expect them to understand it, Biden said, adding that he doesnt believe Democrats are positioning themselves to understand the struggles of an awful lot of people.

      I was trying to be as tactful as I could in making it clear that I thought we constantly made a mistake of not speaking to the fears, aspirations, concerns of middle class people, Biden went on to comment, explaining his central message during his 83 campaign stops for Clinton.

      It was that message one that connected with middle-class voters that Biden wanted to bring to his own presidential campaign, he told the Times. However, Biden decided late last year not to run for the White House.

      ?


      • #4
        Kind of scary that it's Joe Biden pointing out some very real reasons democrats failed. Not only did they pick a bad candidate, BUT;

        "Theyre all the people I grew up with. Theyre their kids. And theyre not racist. Theyre not sexist. But we didnt talk to them,.."

        When they did, they called them names ! Like "deplorables," "racists," "sexist," "homophobe," "xenophobes," etc.

        "...adding that he doesnt believe Democrats are positioning themselves to understand the struggles of an awful lot of people.

        "..we constantly made a mistake of not speaking to the fears, aspirations, concerns of middle class people,"

        ?


        • #5
          The Bosto Globe used to be a paper of merit ad aa journal of record despite it's mostly liberal leanings but it has become a rag in the past couple years serving as a satelite rag to the once important NYT. It's analysis of electionn politics is meaningless prattle of someone trying to win their way to a better paying gig at the NYT.

          ?


          • #6
            Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post

            http://www.theblaze.com/news/2016/12...-boston-mayor/

            I can't fathom exactly what progress black people have made under Obama. In fact, a good many of them have come to the realization that they have been nothing but pawns in the hands of Democrats for ages and are starting to realize that has not benefitted them at all. Trump got more black support than any Republican since the 60's. How a Mayor from the liberal Northeast can even claim such a thing with a straight face is amazing.
            Race Baiter. That's about it. True, Republicans tried to prevent Obama from succeeding, (succeeding in destroying our country). A noble cause. Because he's Black? LOLOLOLOLOLOL. Very stale. And Hillary was not elected because she's a woman. Blah, Blah, Blah.

            Here we just heard another member of the racist based cult. Hard to believe in this day and age in America there are so many Bigot's like this mayor, bringing us back to the dark ages, judging people based on the color of their skin and not the merit of their actions. A detrimental trend returned to our country. Especially when we were all in, and trending in a productive directions.

            ?


            • #7
              Originally posted by msc View Post

              Race Baiter. That's about it. True, Republicans tried to prevent Obama from succeeding, (succeeding in destroying our country). A noble cause. Because he's Black? LOLOLOLOLOLOL. Very stale. And Hillary was not elected because she's a woman. Blah, Blah, Blah.

              Here we just heard another member of the racist based cult. Hard to believe in this day and age in America there are so many Bigot's like this mayor, bringing us back to the dark ages, judging people based on the color of their skin and not the merit of their actions. A detrimental trend returned to our country. Especially when we were all in, and trending in a productive directions.
              The republicans had to prevent Obama from succeeding not because he was a democrat. That was enough.

              ?


              • #8
                Originally posted by redrover View Post
                The republicans had to prevent Obama from succeeding not because he was a democrat. That was enough.
                We had to stop him because his definition of success would turn us into a banana republic.

                ?


                • #9
                  There is the third way. If a "none of the above" option were on all states' ballots, would both Trump and Clinton be losers? The defense or attack on Trump and Clinton misses the number of adults who could have voted, but chose not to. Considering the polls, the argument might be made that a majority of people would have chosen two different candidates.

                  Add the number who didn't vote for a prez candidate, to the number from either party who had to hold their nose while voting. Was that a majority vote for "none of the above"?

                  ?


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                    There is the third way. If a "none of the above" option were on all states' ballots, would both Trump and Clinton be losers? The defense or attack on Trump and Clinton misses the number of adults who could have voted, but chose not to. Considering the polls, the argument might be made that a majority of people would have chosen two different candidates.

                    Add the number who didn't vote for a prez candidate, to the number from either party who had to hold their nose while voting. Was that a majority vote for "none of the above"?
                    There were many many voters who did not vote in 2012 resulting in a second term for Obama because Romney was just a Democrat lite. There were not so many who sat out this election, they just switched their votes from Democrat to Republican. Many Obama voters voted for Trump.

                    ?


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post

                      There were many many voters who did not vote in 2012 resulting in a second term for Obama because Romney was just a Democrat lite. There were not so many who sat out this election, they just switched their votes from Democrat to Republican. Many Obama voters voted for Trump.
                      The last 20 or 30 years have been stagnant on the low side, as far as the percentage voting in prez elections. The US falls below many other developed republics in that regard. There is proof that a large number of people in this election were particularly disgusted by the candidates offered by the Big Two parties. Link:
                      In 14 states, more people voted in the Senate races than voted for president. The overall results show that nearly 2.4 million people nationwide cast ballots but left the presidential line blank.
                      http://www.businessinsider.com/trump...linton-2016-11

                      If we had a poll of people who voted for one of the two Big Candidates, but would have chosen "none of the above", we might be able to argue one way or another. The 2.4 million who specifically made no choice for prez, add a portion of the eligible voters who didn't vote, and everyone who was not polled on "none of the above", but would have chosen that option.

                      ---Would "none of the above" have defeated both Clinton and Trump?

                      ?


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by radcentr View Post

                        The last 20 or 30 years have been stagnant on the low side, as far as the percentage voting in prez elections. The US falls below many other developed republics in that regard. There is proof that a large number of people in this election were particularly disgusted by the candidates offered by the Big Two parties. Link:

                        http://www.businessinsider.com/trump...linton-2016-11

                        If we had a poll of people who voted for one of the two Big Candidates, but would have chosen "none of the above", we might be able to argue one way or another. The 2.4 million who specifically made no choice for prez, add a portion of the eligible voters who didn't vote, and everyone who was not polled on "none of the above", but would have chosen that option.

                        ---Would "none of the above" have defeated both Clinton and Trump?
                        http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment...lebration.html This considered class in the age of Trump.

                        ?


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by redrover View Post

                          http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment...lebration.html This considered class in the age of Trump.
                          Doubtful. And typical reactionary nonsense which is the same type of childish tantrum people claim to despise Trump for. Our electoral system has worked extremely well for over 200 years. We have become the preeminent world power electing our leaders under these rules (though I would argue that the 17th amendment---also a poorly considered populist reactionary decision--was a significant and bad shift). There is no need to change our voting system, there IS a need us to rip up our campaign finance "reforms" of the last 40 years and liberate candidates from the party apparatus and to a large extent from the corrupt media.

                          ?


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post

                            Doubtful. And typical reactionary nonsense which is the same type of childish tantrum people claim to despise Trump for. Our electoral system has worked extremely well for over 200 years. We have become the preeminent world power electing our leaders under these rules (though I would argue that the 17th amendment---also a poorly considered populist reactionary decision--was a significant and bad shift). There is no need to change our voting system, there IS a need us to rip up our campaign finance "reforms" of the last 40 years and liberate candidates from the party apparatus and to a large extent from the corrupt media.
                            I don't think there is anything wrong with our system or the media. I'm not ready to change the system just because America elected an idiot this time. There are always going to people who are willing to divulge all their personal information because the received an email sying they just won the Panamanian sweepstakes. suckers

                            ?

                            Working...
                            X