salttee wrote:

treetreeseven wrote:

The United States political system is structured with limiting the effect as a goal. This is based in part on objections of James Madison but also shared by a number of the framers:

You mean "shared by a number of the farmers?" The United States is a much different country now than it was in the late 18th century. Most of the states that are benefiting from this nonsense didn't even exist when that compromise was made. You could make the case that some of the original 13 states should be grandfathered, but it is ludicrous that 250 citizens of Montana receive the same amount of pull in the higher chamber than 100,000 citizens of New York: and so on.

You hillbillies are full of shit.

(strikethrough added by me for emphasis)

Unequal representation (by population) in the Senate was built in by the framers (some of whom were also farmers) to prevent tyranny by the majority.

The electoral college was recently described in this forum as idiotic by a non-American who, just today, seems to approve election results in Germany where a "winner" is supported by 32.5%. That's pretty idiotic to me, so different strokes for different folks.

Over the course of 2+ centuries our Constitution has been altered many times.

Those who don't like the makeup of the houses of Congress, or who deplore the Electoral College, have the right to attempt to change the Constitution.

Good luck with that.

In the mean time you might try to clean up your rhetoric.

salttee wrote:

treetreeseven wrote:

The United States political system is structured with limiting the effect as a goal. This is based in part on objections of James Madison but also shared by a number of the framers:

You mean "shared by a number of the farmers?" The United States is a much different country now than it was in the late 18th century. Most of the states that are benefiting from this nonsense didn't even exist when that compromise was made. You could make the case that some of the original 13 states should be grandfathered, but it is ludicrous that 250 citizens of Montana receive the same amount of pull in the higher chamber than 100,000 citizens of New York: and so on.

You hillbillies are full of shit.

Yep, might as well move to North Korea snowflake.

Super80Fan wrote:

salttee wrote:

treetreeseven wrote:

The United States political system is structured with limiting the effect as a goal. This is based in part on objections of James Madison but also shared by a number of the framers:

You mean "shared by a number of the farmers?" The United States is a much different country now than it was in the late 18th century. Most of the states that are benefiting from this nonsense didn't even exist when that compromise was made. You could make the case that some of the original 13 states should be grandfathered, but it is ludicrous that 250 citizens of Montana receive the same amount of pull in the higher chamber than 100,000 citizens of New York: and so on.

You hillbillies are full of shit.

Yep, might as well move to North Korea snowflake.

You might as well move to New York City. Maybe you'd learn something.

BobPatterson wrote:

The electoral college was recently described in this forum as idiotic by a non-American who, just today, seems to approve election results in Germany where a "winner" is supported by 32.5%. That's pretty idiotic to me, so different strokes for different folks.

So, Bob, whom might that be? Might it be me you are referring to? And if so, where did this person approve the election results in Germany? And you think it is pretty idiotic that some people prefer not living in a "winner takes all" democracy? But more coalition orientated society? Ah well, indeed different strokes for different folks.

jetero wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

salttee wrote:

You mean "shared by a number of the farmers?" The United States is a much different country now than it was in the late 18th century. Most of the states that are benefiting from this nonsense didn't even exist when that compromise was made. You could make the case that some of the original 13 states should be grandfathered, but it is ludicrous that 250 citizens of Montana receive the same amount of pull in the higher chamber than 100,000 citizens of New York: and so on.

You hillbillies are full of shit.

Yep, might as well move to North Korea snowflake.

You might as well move to New York City. Maybe you'd learn something.

I'm from the NYC area. Most people there don't know what's good for them.

Super80Fan wrote:

jetero wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

Yep, might as well move to North Korea snowflake.

You might as well move to New York City. Maybe you'd learn something.

I'm from the NYC area. Most people there don't know what's good for them.

So you're from Yonkers.

I'm sure 5 million people appreciate your deciding for them "what's good for them."

Super80Fan wrote:

jetero wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

Yep, might as well move to North Korea snowflake.

You might as well move to New York City. Maybe you'd learn something.

I'm from the NYC area. Most people there don't know what's good for them.

And you know better? Why don't you expound on that.

This is sounding more and more like a bunch of kids on a playground.

330west wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

jetero wrote:

You might as well move to New York City. Maybe you'd learn something.

I'm from the NYC area. Most people there don't know what's good for them.

And you know better? Why don't you expound on that.

One name: De Blasio.

Super80Fan wrote:

330west wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

I'm from the NYC area. Most people there don't know what's good for them.

And you know better? Why don't you expound on that.

One name: De Blasio.

Obviously the vast majority of NYers disagreed. Next.

330west wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

330west wrote:

And you know better? Why don't you expound on that.

One name: De Blasio.

Obviously the vast majority of NYers disagreed. Next.

Of which he never was one, evidently. But, you know, one person, one vote.

BobPatterson wrote:

This is sounding more and more like a bunch of kids on a playground.

Bob, you let some of things being said on here go without being addressed without addressing the know-nothing stupidity, abject hypocrisy, and veiled prejudice behind it, it becomes normalized and acceptable. I'd rather go down fighting myself.

Super80Fan wrote:

jetero wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

This is sounding more and more like a bunch of kids on a playground.

Bob, you let some of things being said on here go without being addressed without addressing the know-nothing stupidity, abject hypocrisy, and veiled prejudice behind it, it becomes normalized and acceptable. I'd rather go down fighting myself.

Agreed. Some of these leftists are just as dangerous as the Nazi/KKK supporters.

Do you have nightmares about Hillary too?

jetero wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

This is sounding more and more like a bunch of kids on a playground.

Bob, you let some of things being said on here go without being addressed without addressing the know-nothing stupidity, abject hypocrisy, and veiled prejudice behind it, it becomes normalized and acceptable. I'd rather go down fighting myself.

Agreed. Some of these leftists are just as dangerous as the Nazi/KKK supporters.

jetero wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

jetero wrote:

Bob, you let some of things being said on here go without being addressed without addressing the know-nothing stupidity, abject hypocrisy, and veiled prejudice behind it, it becomes normalized and acceptable. I'd rather go down fighting myself.

Agreed. Some of these leftists are just as dangerous as the Nazi/KKK supporters.

Do you have nightmares about Hillary too?

Hillary is irrelevant. I actually laugh at all of the snowflakes on the right that talk about her/bring her up to defend Trump. No, there is a much serious issue going on with the left, and it's called "group-think".

Super80Fan wrote:

jetero wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

This is sounding more and more like a bunch of kids on a playground.

Bob, you let some of things being said on here go without being addressed without addressing the know-nothing stupidity, abject hypocrisy, and veiled prejudice behind it, it becomes normalized and acceptable. I'd rather go down fighting myself.

Agreed. Some of these leftists are just as dangerous as the Nazi/KKK supporters.

Yea, we can be c*nts.

So about New York ... care to explain how you know better? You cited de Blasio but didn't reference any policies.

Super80Fan wrote:

jetero wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

Agreed. Some of these leftists are just as dangerous as the Nazi/KKK supporters.

Do you have nightmares about Hillary too?

Hillary is irrelevant. I actually laugh at all of the snowflakes on the right that talk about her/bring her up to defend Trump. No, there is a much serious issue going on with the left, and it's called "group-think".

Which constitutes what exactly? As evidenced by what exactly? Please do enlighten us.

BTW nice to see you've finally switched out your avatar to an actual Super80, Fan.

330west wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

jetero wrote:

Bob, you let some of things being said on here go without being addressed without addressing the know-nothing stupidity, abject hypocrisy, and veiled prejudice behind it, it becomes normalized and acceptable. I'd rather go down fighting myself.

Agreed. Some of these leftists are just as dangerous as the Nazi/KKK supporters.

Yea, we can be c*nts.

So about New York ... care to explain how you know better? You cited de Blasio but didn't reference any policies.

- His policies involving the homeless population in NYC has increased the number of homeless people
- Increase in taxes on businesses and individuals in NYC
- Tensions between him and the NYPD + Governor Cuomo
- Is apparently "too good" to ride the Subway or other public transportation
- Although he was elected the mayor of NYC, apparently he wants his policies to go forward on a national scale

Just to name a few.

Super80Fan wrote:

- Although he was elected the mayor of NYC, apparently he wants his policies to go forward on a national scale

Why is that a sin? Shouldn't a politician think that measures good for a city or state would also be good for the nation?

I realize there might be exceptional cases such as bankruptcy or other extreme treatments of peculiarly local situations.

Meanwhile, back at the Office . . .

salttee wrote:

treetreeseven wrote:

The United States political system is structured with limiting the effect as a goal. This is based in part on objections of James Madison but also shared by a number of the framers:

You mean "shared by a number of the farmers?" The United States is a much different country now than it was in the late 18th century. Most of the states that are benefiting from this nonsense didn't even exist when that compromise was made. You could make the case that some of the original 13 states should be grandfathered, but it is ludicrous that 250 citizens of Montana receive the same amount of pull in the higher chamber than 100,000 citizens of New York: and so on.

You hillbillies are full of shit.

Yeah, no, I meant "framers."

The rest of your argument was going so well until your pointless little ad hominem there - which, I might add, is also a laughably off-target assumption.

Super80Fan wrote:

Hillary is irrelevant. I actually laugh at all of the snowflakes on the right that talk about her/bring her up to defend Trump. No, there is a much serious issue going on with the left, and it's called "group-think".

Hey man, not all of us want to eliminate the Electoral College

BobPatterson wrote:

This is sounding more and more like a bunch of kids on a playground.

Reince is back?

You people are really obsessed with Hillz.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Meanwhile, back at the Office . . .

What kind of loser works a desk job on a Sunday afternoon for only $475k?

BobPatterson wrote:

election results in Germany where a "winner" is supported by 32.5%. That's pretty idiotic to me, so different strokes for different folks.

She's the winner because a majority will choose her as Chancellor, not just because her party has 32.5%. If all the other parties agreed to support someone else, then Merkel wouldn't be Chancellor with these results. She will ally her party with other parties and get more than 50%.

So in the end she has a majority, and much more support than someone like Trump, who can't get anything done despite having supposedly more than 50% power in every branch.

Aesma wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

election results in Germany where a "winner" is supported by 32.5%. That's pretty idiotic to me, so different strokes for different folks.

She's the winner because a majority will choose her as Chancellor, not just because her party has 32.5%. If all the other parties agreed to support someone else, then Merkel wouldn't be Chancellor with these results. She will ally her party with other parties and get more than 50%.

So in the end she has a majority, and much more support than someone like Trump, who can't get anything done despite having supposedly more than 50% power in every branch.

Your point is well taken.

Nevertheless, Mr. Trump (whom I did not support) got an electoral majority in his own right. Mrs.Merkel did not.

If I could swap Mrs. Merkel for Mr. Trump, I would do so in a heartbeat.

BobPatterson wrote:

If I could swap Mrs. Merkel for Mr. Trump, I would do so in a heartbeat.

If I could swap the horrible system we have now for a parliamentary system, I would do so in a heartbeat.

Super80Fan wrote:

330west wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

Agreed. Some of these leftists are just as dangerous as the Nazi/KKK supporters.

Yea, we can be c*nts.

So about New York ... care to explain how you know better? You cited de Blasio but didn't reference any policies.

- His policies involving the homeless population in NYC has increased the number of homeless people
- Increase in taxes on businesses and individuals in NYC
- Tensions between him and the NYPD + Governor Cuomo
- Is apparently "too good" to ride the Subway or other public transportation
- Although he was elected the mayor of NYC, apparently he wants his policies to go forward on a national scale

Just to name a few.

Can I include 'Vision Zero'?

I miss Bloomberg.

BobPatterson wrote:

The electoral college was recently described in this forum as idiotic by a non-American who, just today, seems to approve election results in Germany where a "winner" is supported by 32.5%. That's pretty idiotic to me, so different strokes for different folks.

Well, the people that actually form the government will have a majority of well over 50% behind them, not 46% like yours.....

No "the loser tales it all" like currently in the US...

Best regards
Thomas

Super80Fan wrote:

jetero wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

This is sounding more and more like a bunch of kids on a playground.

Bob, you let some of things being said on here go without being addressed without addressing the know-nothing stupidity, abject hypocrisy, and veiled prejudice behind it, it becomes normalized and acceptable. I'd rather go down fighting myself.

Agreed. Some of these leftists are just as dangerous as the Nazi/KKK supporters.

How many "leftists" have DEMANDED a left only nation? How many "leftists" have tortured and killed Nazi/KKK only for the color of their skin? How are "leftist" just as dangerous? Because they want all legal citizens to vote? Because they want all legal citizens to have health care? Because they want all legal citizens to have education? Oh, the horror!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... 128d131c82

President Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner has used a private email account to conduct and discuss official White House business dozens of times, his lawyer confirmed Sunday......

lock him up, right?

best regards
Thomas

If you look at history the left killed way more people than the right. President Trump is an awesome president and his policy of national interest is spreading, even in Germany people want to be proud of their nation again and want illegal and criminal foreigners removed.

seahawk wrote:

If you look at history the left killed way more people than the right. President Trump is an awesome president and his policy of national interest is spreading, even in Germany people want to be proud of their nation again and want illegal and criminal foreigners removed.

We should outlaw the left then. Because all of the people who have voted Democrat have also killed people. Actually we do it all the time. That's part of our party platform. So sad Hillary isn't president so we couldn't kill more people, because, you know, that's in our veins. It's evidently very instinctive.Can't make an omelette without breaking eggs, right?

#AwesomePresident

Calling the democrats "left" is only possible in America.

BobPatterson wrote:

Nevertheless, Mr. Trump (whom I did not support) got an electoral majority in his own right. Mrs.Merkel did not.

I think you're comparing apples to onions.

Germany is, like several other western democracies, a parliamentary republic. The government is constituted of lawmakers from several political parties, all elected directly by the people.

While the Chancellor represents the party with the largest representation in the bundestag, she/he can only govern by making interest-based alliances with other parties.
The UK's system is very similar.

France, on the other hand, elects a President through a two-turn election which then forces the electorate to give an absolute majority to one of 2 candidates who fared best in a preliminary turn.

The US electoral technically resembles the German system in which several parties can present a candidate in the Presidential race and the absolute majority is not needed to win but, in reality, only 2 major parties ever seem to gather any momentum in the race anyway and you end up with a 2 horse race a bit like the French system (but without the absolute majority requirement).

But you know all this, and then some.

There is no major flaw in any of these systems. In fact, technically, a candidate could be elected President in the US with 36% of votes if it had a larger diversity of relevant political parties.

The major difference between the US system and most other western democracies is that in most democracies, 1 citizen = 1 vote. Not so in the US as the EC effectively acts as a filter and gives a louder voice to some citizens at the expense of some others. It is in fact based on the assumption that some people's vote should count less that others for whatever reason. I would say that a citizen should have the right to ask why his voice is any less important than that of another citizen somewhere else... And that's not even mentioning the 'winner-take-all' mechanism in most states.

Ironically, the EC was created in the days when it was feared the ill-educated and weak-minded majority of citizens could potentially vote for a dangerous populist with autocratic tendencies. It was meant to weed out potentially inadequate candidates. I think its creators would be pretty upset if they saw what happened last year. In fact, they'd probably be the ones demanding it would be debated and revisited.

The EC has failed to translate the popular vote into a President 4 times now, and twice in the last 20 years. I believe that is enough to question whether it is functioning as intended.

seahawk wrote:

If you look at history the left killed way more people than the right.

This is very possibly the most asinine comment in the annals of A.net forum history. It suggest that you view this topic as:

US Democratic Party = "Left" = Chairman Mao = Stalin = Pol Pot = 47M dead

US GOP = "Right" = Hitler = Franco = 29M dead

Ergo the "Left" is a bigger killer than the "Right". Do I have this correct? The incredible thing if yes is that you would lose a nationally televised debate against a head of cauliflower just by opening your mouth. The vegetable would win by default. But please Jesus tell me I have completely misconstrued your statement.

As I said calling the democratic party "left" is very American. Nobody else would agree on this. It is as ridiculous as putting the republicans in a line with Hitler.

seahawk wrote:

If you look at history the left killed way more people than the right. President Trump is an awesome president and his policy of national interest is spreading, even in Germany people want to be proud of their nation again and want illegal and criminal foreigners removed.

How, when, and where did "the left" kill way more people in the United States? How is tRump ans "awesome president?" There is nothing wrong with people being proud of their nation. There is nothing wrong with wanting illegal and criminal foreigners removed. However, the way Republicans and the minority president want to go about that could be seen as inhuman.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 92846.html

What about the European and Asians who have overstayed their visas and are here illegally? I have not heard one peep out of the right about them. Just the Mexicans.

seahawk wrote:

As I said calling the democratic party "left" is very American. Nobody else would agree on this. It is as ridiculous as putting the republicans in a line with Hitler.

Hitler had a very strong "Germany First" agenda. Hitler went after anyone who cast him in a bad light. Hitler made specific groups within Germany the enemy and got rid of them. Hitler demanded a strong military.

Tell me how that is not the current standard bearer of the GOP or the GOP itself?

wingman wrote:

seahawk wrote:

If you look at history the left killed way more people than the right.

This is very possibly the most asinine comment in the annals of A.net forum history. It suggest that you view this topic as:

US Democratic Party = "Left" = Chairman Mao = Stalin = Pol Pot = 47M dead

US GOP = "Right" = Hitler = Franco = 29M dead

Ergo the "Left" is a bigger killer than the "Right". Do I have this correct? The incredible thing if yes is that you would lose a nationally televised debate against a head of cauliflower just by opening your mouth. The vegetable would win by default. But please Jesus tell me I have completely misconstrued your statement.

Actually if you follow this forum enough, Hitler was also a Democrat because "socialist" was in the Nazi acronym. As was the KKK. And they all are now part of Antifa, which is odd considering they're fighting each other. I guess it's all a ruse.

Also, the righties have never killed anyone and everyone who votes Democrat are the real fascists.

Francoflier wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Nevertheless, Mr. Trump (whom I did not support) got an electoral majority in his own right. Mrs.Merkel did not.

I think you're comparing apples to onions.

Germany is, like several other western democracies, a parliamentary republic. The government is constituted of lawmakers from several political parties, all elected directly by the people.

While the Chancellor represents the party with the largest representation in the bundestag, she/he can only govern by making interest-based alliances with other parties.
The UK's system is very similar.

France, on the other hand, elects a President through a two-turn election which then forces the electorate to give an absolute majority to one of 2 candidates who fared best in a preliminary turn.

The US electoral technically resembles the German system in which several parties can present a candidate in the Presidential race and the absolute majority is not needed to win but, in reality, only 2 major parties ever seem to gather any momentum in the race anyway and you end up with a 2 horse race a bit like the French system (but without the absolute majority requirement).

But you know all this, and then some.

There is no major flaw in any of these systems. In fact, technically, a candidate could be elected President in the US with 36% of votes if it had a larger diversity of relevant political parties.

The major difference between the US system and most other western democracies is that in most democracies, 1 citizen = 1 vote. Not so in the US as the EC effectively acts as a filter and gives a louder voice to some citizens at the expense of some others. It is in fact based on the assumption that some people's vote should count less that others for whatever reason. I would say that a citizen should have the right to ask why his voice is any less important than that of another citizen somewhere else... And that's not even mentioning the 'winner-take-all' mechanism in most states.

Ironically, the EC was created in the days when it was feared the ill-educated and weak-minded majority of citizens could potentially vote for a dangerous populist with autocratic tendencies. It was meant to weed out potentially inadequate candidates. I think its creators would be pretty upset if they saw what happened last year. In fact, they'd probably be the ones demanding it would be debated and revisited.

The EC has failed to translate the popular vote into a President 4 times now, and twice in the last 20 years. I believe that is enough to question whether it is functioning as intended.

Nice explanation which is all true of course. Don't know if Bob will accept it, As far as I know, he can't take criticism on the American that well.

seb146 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

As I said calling the democratic party "left" is very American. Nobody else would agree on this. It is as ridiculous as putting the republicans in a line with Hitler.

Hitler had a very strong "Germany First" agenda. Hitler went after anyone who cast him in a bad light. Hitler made specific groups within Germany the enemy and got rid of them. Hitler demanded a strong military.

Tell me how that is not the current standard bearer of the GOP or the GOP itself?

You forget, they both have a side parting, like to over articulate words in their speeches and even have a similar gesture when giving a speech. I mena who could not find his speech about the NFL players awesome? "You are fired" with the trademark gesture - twice. I think it has potential for a movie award for the best comedic performance.

Francoflier wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Nevertheless, Mr. Trump (whom I did not support) got an electoral majority in his own right. Mrs.Merkel did not.

I think you're comparing apples to onions.

It's unavoidable when comparing different electoral systems.

Mrs.Merkel is in effect elected by parties. American Presidents are elected by States.

The direct vote for President is only at the State level.

I'd probably be as happy to live under a different system as I am under the one we now have.

Dutchy wrote:

Nice explanation which is all true of course. Don't know if Bob will accept it, As far as I know, he can't take criticism on the American that well.

Oh, my..........attack, attack!!

Have at it. Bob takes criticism as a compliment, and loves it when it is justified, based on fact. If you are being criticized you are not being ignored.

The are some people posting here who confuse criticism with personal attack. They cry for help because they cannot support their own weak positions.

Pity that.

BobPatterson wrote:

Francoflier wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Nevertheless, Mr. Trump (whom I did not support) got an electoral majority in his own right. Mrs.Merkel did not.

I think you're comparing apples to onions.

It's unavoidable when comparing different electoral systems.

Mrs.Merkel is in effect elected by parties. American Presidents are elected by States.

The direct vote for President is only at the State level.

I'd probably be as happy to live under a different system as I am under the one we now have.

Mrs. Merkel has a lot less individual power than the US president. The power lies with the parties in Parlement, who are directly elected, not with the Prime Minister's office. And since it is a coalition, not one party. The power truly lies with Parlement, because one party in the coalition could tumble the Prime Minister and her ministers.

In The Netherlands the most probable coalition has 76 seats out of the 150, so that means at any of the 76 members could vote against this coalition, which means the government would fall, so that means they have to take into account all the members opinion.

BobPatterson wrote:

Aesma wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

election results in Germany where a "winner" is supported by 32.5%. That's pretty idiotic to me, so different strokes for different folks.

She's the winner because a majority will choose her as Chancellor, not just because her party has 32.5%. If all the other parties agreed to support someone else, then Merkel wouldn't be Chancellor with these results. She will ally her party with other parties and get more than 50%.

So in the end she has a majority, and much more support than someone like Trump, who can't get anything done despite having supposedly more than 50% power in every branch.

Your point is well taken.

Nevertheless, Mr. Trump (whom I did not support) got an electoral majority in his own right. Mrs.Merkel did not.

If I could swap Mrs. Merkel for Mr. Trump, I would do so in a heartbeat.

Your system prevents the rise of smaller parties. The US should have at least 4 parties, 1 center-left (democrats), 1 center-right (GOP), 1 more to the left (socialists ?), and the Tea Party. Then Trump would have had a harder time getting a majority.

Trump blocked a cancer patient on Twitter.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 63636.html

What a CLASS ACT.

tommy1808 wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

The electoral college was recently described in this forum as idiotic by a non-American who, just today, seems to approve election results in Germany where a "winner" is supported by 32.5%. That's pretty idiotic to me, so different strokes for different folks.

Well, the people that actually form the government will have a majority of well over 50% behind them, not 46% like yours.....

No "the loser tales it all" like currently in the US...

Best regards
Thomas

Same as in NZ. We're finalising the count now, but the incumbent party got 46% of the vote. A majority voted for the big three opposition parties - who could form a government together.

Seems inherently more fair to me.

jetero wrote:

wingman wrote:

seahawk wrote:

If you look at history the left killed way more people than the right.

This is very possibly the most asinine comment in the annals of A.net forum history. It suggest that you view this topic as:

US Democratic Party = "Left" = Chairman Mao = Stalin = Pol Pot = 47M dead

US GOP = "Right" = Hitler = Franco = 29M dead

Ergo the "Left" is a bigger killer than the "Right". Do I have this correct? The incredible thing if yes is that you would lose a nationally televised debate against a head of cauliflower just by opening your mouth. The vegetable would win by default. But please Jesus tell me I have completely misconstrued your statement.

Actually if you follow this forum enough, Hitler was also a Democrat because "socialist" was in the Nazi acronym. As was the KKK. And they all are now part of Antifa, which is odd considering they're fighting each other. I guess it's all a ruse.

Also, the righties have never killed anyone and everyone who votes Democrat are the real fascists.

Nope. Never.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/13/us/b ... shire.html

Perhaps you and the rest of the GOP needs a history lesson on what fascism and fascists look like. Do some reading. Don't just rely on AM talk radio and Fox to tell you.

jetero wrote:

Trump blocked a cancer patient on Twitter.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 63636.html

What a CLASS ACT.

While Obama gave Biden money so he wouldn't have to sell his house because Beau had cancer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCbI1svgSoQ

maortega15 wrote:

jetero wrote:

Trump blocked a cancer patient on Twitter.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 63636.html

What a CLASS ACT.

While Obama gave Biden money so he wouldn't have to sell his house because Beau had cancer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCbI1svgSoQ

How much can Trump handle before all this disapproval starts to weigh on what's left of his mental health and thus impact his physical health? Just looking at him and knowing his eating habits it's highly likely it's more compromised than his quack doctor in NY indicated. I know it's awful to hope for this but is it at all possible or likely that he becomes too ill to perform his duties before his term is up?