It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Real Reason Why Many of Us Supported Donald Trump...

page: 7
40
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Ok, so you think it's fair play to use a hardline left-wing source like Jezebel to undermine my legitimate argument?

So I guess you wouldn't mind if I decided to use an infowars source, to illustrate the stupidity of Trump supporters & hardline conservative ideologies then?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?




posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: headorheart

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: headorheart

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: whyamIhere

More people did not support Trump, than that did.


In California.


Clinton received 65,844,610 votes, or 48.2% of the total vote.

Trump received 62,979,636 votes, or 46.1% of the total vote.


Yes. The vast majority of those in California.

This is why we have an electoral college.


I don't like the electoral college. That is personal opinion. I am not saying I'm right, but I live in Illinois. Up until 2016, I always voted republican. My vote never counted. It didn't count in 2016 either since I wrote in, but that was my own choice. It was super frustrating know every election that my vote did not count. I think one person should equal one vote.


Your vote has always counted. One person does equal one vote. It's just that each vote (the popular vote) applies to the electors.



posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 05:38 PM
link   
I voted 3rd party “against” Bush SR. and Mitt Romney.

I don’t follow the Republican party line to a tee, though.

Hence my vote for Trump.
Less laws are good.
Legalization of marijuana and outlawing abortion are not his bag, baby.

The Weekly Standard, a bastion of historical Republican beliefs, struggles to say a good word about him.
Ignore his tweets, and his record represents the way many Americans feel.



posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: theantediluvian
That's one way of looking at it. Another way would be that the EC gives rural voters disproportionate sway, rigging the system in favor of the candidate who panders hardest to the minority living in the most sparsely populated areas.


...as opposed to the system the left wants which grants sway to the candidate who panders most to the minorities living in the most densely populated areas, I presume?


No?


originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: theantediluvian
What is the justification for this electoral affirmative action? Why does my vote for president count 1/3 as much as the vote of somebody living in Wyoming?


The US is a Republic of member states, not a Democracy for starters. It's part of the nation's founding and the only reason the idea of a "United States" got off the ground to begin with.


Oh, brother. Did you just "muh republic!" me? C'mon!

The US is both a republic and a (constitutional) democracy and the practical distinctions between the two (a republic and a constitutional democracy), if one wanted to even make them, have nothing to do with the "member states" bit.

To your point, it is true that two and a half centuries ago, in the early years following the Revolution, our nation was a loose confederation of very independent states and it was necessary to take measures so that no one or two of the larger states could dominate the federal government to the detriment of the rest.

A lot has changed since then. For instance, I'm guessing that you're probably (though, I mean that avatar) not going to argue that we should bring back slavery because it was necessary to preserve it to appease the slave-holding states in a time when wooden teeth were a thing.

The EC is a vestige of a bygone era that serves no use today aside from giving the presidential candidate of the more conservative party a baked in advantage. And despite all this blah blah blah about "our nation's founding" that's literally the only reason why right-wingers want it preserved.

Notice that if you start talking about the other intended function of the EC, conservative panties quickly twist. All that "this ain't no (direct) democracy" blather goes right out the window when they're scared that faithless electors might prevent their less-favored candidate from winning.



posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian




The EC is a vestige of a bygone era that serves no use today aside from giving the presidential candidate of the more conservative party a baked in advantage. And despite all this blah blah blah about "our nation's founding" that's literally the only reason why right-wingers want it preserved.


So stop crying about it and do something about it. But then that is the basic liberal problem. Go all emotional, howl at the moon but do nothing more substantial than protest marches or burning down the block.

Support a Constitutional amendment, move to another country or stop you whining. No intellectual argument here will change anything. I mean really? If you think that you can’t get over 2016 what’s it going to do to you after Trump wins 2020?



posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

So you're pissed because Hillary didn't win and you want to change the rules.




posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 06:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Ok, so you think it's fair play to use a hardline left-wing source like Jezebel to undermine my legitimate argument?

So I guess you wouldn't mind if I decided to use an infowars source, to illustrate the stupidity of Trump supporters & hardline conservative ideologies then?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?



Jezebel isn't much further left than
CNN
HuffPo
or MSNBC
plus their article was taken from a report by the Center for American Progress... a group funded by George Soros, once run by John Podesta, and deeply involved in the Wikileaks Clinton Email fiasco. In other words, as I said, most of the American politicians who use the "$80 a month isn't that much" shuck and jive are supported and walk in step with a policy think tank which used a *gasp* up to $50 per month expense for birth control as an unbearable expense which needed to be footed by tax payers. I didn't attack your legitimate argument, I just came right out and showed it to be illegitimate.

I honestly couldn't give a rat's ass what you do, say, or associate with Alex Jones and Infowars... the man doesn't represent an organization which funds politicians and sets partisan policy like CAP does, so any attempt to elevate him beyond his status of "ranting windbag who may be a CIA asset to identify low hanging fruit" would just be one displaying their own foolishness. Have at it, though.



posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: okrian

You keep saying "uneducated hicks" What's the deal? Are you scared of someone who is from rural america? Are you jealous? Seriously what is the deal? You talk about supporting equality but continue to use that pejorative to describe rural Americans. I'm guessing really you're about as supportive of equality as the democrats were when they created the KKK to target the GOP



posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 06:40 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Funny thing is, the only reason Trump won was Hillary ran a horrible campaign hardly or not at all campaigning in some states that trump managed to barely flip and that was the difference not the EC.


The EC is a vestige of a bygone era that serves no use today aside from giving the presidential candidate of the more conservative party a baked in advantage.


I also find this funny, since from the conservative perspective the 55 EC pts that california gives appears to give the left a built in advantage that forces the conservative candidate to run a near perfect campaign and typically still needs the DNC candidate to run a bad campaign.



posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Then we can eliminate the House of Representatives in your mind as well? That was the other half of the Great Compromise, you realize? The House being proportionally distributed based on population was the compromise granted the populous states in return for the Electoral college. If you're calling one outdated, may as well say the same about the one who only exists because of the EC, yes?


To your point, it is true that two and a half centuries ago, in the early years following the Revolution, our nation was a loose confederation of very independent states and it was necessary to take measures so that no one or two of the larger states could dominate the federal government to the detriment of the rest.


The fact that the country is so divided politically, economically, and ideologically proves not much has changed in those 242 years, man. You go to the midwest or southeast and tell a group of residents there how much better their lives would be if New York or California told them how it was going to be. Hell, just look at how they respond right now when that happens under our constrained, "limited detriment" system. Or, if you wish, look at how the jilted children in California, Oregon, and Washington have acted in response to the EC doing their job and electing Trump. America is barely united and you're pushing an idea which would further divide things... that's not smart.



posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 06:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: theantediluvian

I would figure it all boils down to state rights and equal representation in the legislature.



But I voted for Trump so I'm kinda slow and poop myself.






What people do not understand is each state in our republic is equal and so get 2 senators each to represent them. House members is divided by population and that is why one state may have at least 1 with about 1 more per 700,000 people in the state. To suggest we increase the 385 for population to something like 1500 it would make the 2 senators per state totally moot and no longer equal representation.



posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: headorheart

Subtract the illegals that voted and she lost by a landslide



posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 07:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: whyamIhere

More people did not support Trump, than that did.


In California.


... and the rest of America.


Nope. Since you're so interested in our electoral system, I suggest you get acquainted with how it works and why it is the way it is.

The lions share of votes for Hillary were the nearly 3 million votes cast for her in California.


... and each of those 3 million votes were cast by real actual people, not corporate entities like a state, a football team, a business or a party affiliation.

Democracy would demand that each person's vote has equal weight.

'California' is an arbitrary and artificial construct rather than a real person.

You can't marginalize the majority and then weigh that against a minority, that is NOT democracy, that is the enforced rule over the many by the few. In the US's case, due to the power of wealth, it is a plutocratic oligarchy.



posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 07:22 PM
link   
The real reason most of you voted for dump is you thought he would run the country like he did the apprentice.
Well you got your wish now live with it. Or continue to try and defend it.

Either way the people will suffer.



posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 07:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: chr0naut

You may want to check a county by county breakdown of 2016, and rethink that particular statement...

Here's a map for you.

The reason she lost was because she ignored fly-over country, the South, and rural America.


I suspect it would have been a landslide vote for Hillary if the voters didn't feel that she was a bit crooked.

But the majority of all Americans, including those ignored one you mentioned as well as Californians, voted against Trump.

Particular lobby groups having power over the absolute majority is not fair and democratic.

One person, 1 vote.

You can't marginalize the majority and claim 'fairness'.



posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: whywhynot

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: whywhynot

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: whyamIhere

More people did not support Trump, than that did.


It’s a good thing that we abide by the Constitution that governs our republic. It doesn’t matter what the popular vote totalled.


Yeah, I know, right.

Did you also know that Trump has issued five executive orders that have been blocked because they are unconstitutional?

Hand on heart.





So what? It takes awhile to drain the swamp of these leftest judges.

Love you Trump.


It isn't a swamp, it is the third arm of government.

And not all of the judges are leftist.



posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 07:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: whyamIhere

More people did not support Trump, than that did.


In California.


... and the rest of America.


Wrong. He won the majority of the United States.


No, he lost the popular vote.



posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 07:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
Stock market closes up over 600 points. Number one story at Fox News.

No mention whatsoever on CNN and MSNBC.

If it had closed down 600 points it would have been the lead Story on those anti America terrorist Networks.


US Economic activity has been rising, nearly linearly, in per-capita GDP, since the 50's. Not much change there attributable to Trump. The growth becomes even flatter in 2009 and this smoother growth extends into Trump's presidency.

If you look at percent change over the previous year, which is extremely variable and volatile, Trump still has to match two periods where Obama had larger peaks. Not to say that Obama came anywhere near as big in growth as happened several times from 1950 to 1985.



posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 08:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: StallionDuck

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: whywhynot

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: whyamIhere

More people did not support Trump, than that did.


It’s a good thing that we abide by the Constitution that governs our republic. It doesn’t matter what the popular vote totalled.


Yeah, I know, right.

Did you also know that Trump has issued five executive orders that have been blocked because they are unconstitutional?

Hand on heart.





Did you also know that the judges that were responsible for blocking Trump's executive order were from the heaviest of democratic states? Face it. They are so left it hurts. Dare ya to go to each judge that did this and see exactly who they are and what they stand for. I double dare ya.

Tell us the results while your at it. Then I'll tell ya what I find.




The judges rule on law. Their rulings are not supposed to be personal opinion.

If the constitution says one thing and Trump issues an EO that is unsupportable under the constitution or otherwise disagrees, then the EO is unconstitutional.

Similar with established law case law, which stands as a guide for future legal determination, in the case where something is legally ambiguous.

It isn't a preference vote, it is an analysis of legal compliance.



posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

www.thebalance.com...

One side variable which the media seems to ignore, the entirety of the Obama economy was "growing" during an unprecedented run of near zero Fed interest rates. 7 years of 0.25%, 1 of 0.50%, and another quarter percent increase right at the end of the Obama era. Since then, under Trump, the economy has grown steadily alongside 7 rate hikes, the latest bringing the rate to 2.25%. In practical terms, that means The Trump economy has grown at rates similar to the best Obama rates with 9 times the downward pressure on that growth. (0.25% versus 2.25%) that's a significant difference. The Fed had to keep the rates near zero for 7 years just to avoid crushing the fragile growth Obama oversaw. We will likely see more fed hikes in the coming quarters, and if we're sitting at 3-3.25% rates with a 3% growth rate at this time next year, then there's just no way to say the Trump economy hasn't outperformed Obama and the pre-Great Recession Bush years.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join