2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

What I find remarkable is that while Harris was always the most likely pick for Biden’s running mate Trump, his campaign and his followers have not developed any response to her being the candidate for VP.

 

They have so far responded with racism, misogyny, petty name calling and of course a re-hash of their ‘Birther’ nonsense.

 

But beyond offensive personal attacks that only appeal to Trump’s dwindling base, they have nothing - absolutely zero arguments that the important swing and suburban voters will listen to.

 

Just the same old offensive attacks in an election in which a key questions voters are asking themselves is ‘Do we really want four more years of this?’

 

 

Agree, I posted similar.

With all these alpha male Americans and the "I am better then you" attitude. Not a chance.

20 minutes ago, simple1 said:

For a start I am not a US citizen, but view trump as very destructive on the world stage, including, IMO for US domestic matters. At this stage with trump the indicators are trump will again not win the majority of votes, but will have to see what happens with the Electoral College process.

 

Info on trump's false and misleading commentary is available though more than likely you will deny / deflect. One example of many...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veracity_of_statements_by_Donald_Trump

No deflection . . . I would dispute many instances where "fact-checkers" claim a lie but it's not a lie.

 

Just one example from Wiki . . . In May 2018, Trump developed and promoted the false[137][138] Spygate conspiracy theory[137][72]

 

Spygate is real.

 

BTW, Wikipedia is compromised.  I wouldn't trust their political entries in the least.  Do so at your own risk of being misled.

 

Edit:  O.K., so you're not a citizen.  But I don't see you calling out the Dems when they lie.

Edited August 14, 20205 yr by Tippaporn

1 hour ago, Tug said:

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

The Democrats always accuse you of exactly what they're doing.  Fact.

Projecting much???hummmm........

A timely post!  I just heard an excerpt from Cohen's book, that is what he said of DT.

 

 

I strongly suggest you get back on topic, which is about Clinton's remarks about sexist treatment.  

 

44 minutes ago, spiekerjozef said:

With all these alpha male Americans and the "I am better then you" attitude. Not a chance.

... and perhaps a few incels in the bunch.

 

 

Hillary can never accept when it is time to shut her snout. She has been doing this for years.

5 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

Hillary can never accept when it is time to shut her snout. She has been doing this for years.

Why, does she have less rights than others to speak?

47 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Why, does she have less rights than others to speak?

She has rights, but she is not doing anyone any favours, except perhaps Trump.

3 hours ago, Jack Mountain said:

Time that Harris take distance from Clinton. Remember Trump got elected thanks to Clinton.

Ummh, didn't she get rather a lot more votes than him?

57 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Why, does she have less rights than others to speak?

She has been quacking about it for many years already.  She will never stop for the perceived injustice that was done to her, nor will she admit to her personal server housing Government sensitive information.  She needs to just move on, but instead she will continue until she passes on and her headstone will read "I was robbed of being the President of the USA"

Edited August 14, 20205 yr by ThailandRyan

2 hours ago, simple1 said:

At this stage with trump the indicators are trump will again not win the majority of votes, but will have to see what happens with the Electoral College process.

If that were to happen again, and if the USA were to have a further four years of a President who had again conclusively lost the popular vote in a national election, then we could only conclude that democracy has ceased to play a part in the election of the President.

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Michael Cohen has credibility?  Too funny.

Waaaaayyy more than trump lol

16 minutes ago, ThailandRyan said:

She has been quacking about it for many years already.  She will never stop for the perceived injustice that was done to her, nor will she admit to her personal server housing Government sensitive information.  She needs to just move on, but instead she will continue until she passes on and her headstone will read "I was robbed of being the President of the USA"

‘Needs to move on’ you say.

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

‘Needs to move on’ you say.

Yes sir, I did not stutter. It was an affirmative.

6 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Yes, the lies have already begun.  Biden and Harris' come up with a number of them during their official campaign launch.  Here's Joe in  only one instance repeating the debunked lie about Trump's "very fine people" comment after Charlottesville (video starts at the relevant time):

 

 

And here's the debunking from FactCheck.org - Trump Has Condemned White Supremacists

 

Part of Trump's quote:

 

"It’s fine, you’re changing history, you’re changing culture, and you had people – and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally – but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people, but you also had troublemakers and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats – you had a lot of bad people in the other group too."

 

National Review - Kamala Harris Lies Repeatedly in First Speech as Biden’s Running Mate

 

Of course when Democrats lie it's okey-dokey.  No hypocrisy and nothing to see here, folks.  Dems and libs make such a fuss over Trump's "lies" and use that as a reason not to vote for Trump but they'll vote for Dem liars just the same.  You can't make this stuff up, folks.  LOL

Ah, now that’s not true, trump makes up stuff all the time. 

Edited August 14, 20205 yr by Bluespunk

"Clinton, a Democrat, lost in the electoral college to U.S. President Donald Trump in 2016 despite receiving more votes than him nationwide."

 

LOL, more whining about the electoral college. ????

Sad that the one of Trump's promises "of lock her up" wasn't kept!

48 minutes ago, DoctorG said:

Biden Hires Openly Violent, Racist, Misogynistic Marxist to Lead Arizona Digital Team,

Styxhexenhammer

Did he just leave team trump.

7 hours ago, stevenl said:

She has rights, but she is not doing anyone any favours, except perhaps Trump.

Well, you the saying...'no fury like a woman's scorn.'

3 hours ago, Kelsall said:

"Clinton, a Democrat, lost in the electoral college to U.S. President Donald Trump in 2016 despite receiving more votes than him nationwide."

 

LOL, more whining about the electoral college. ????

It is an entirely valid point - "whine" if you must.  Mrs Clinton emphatically won the popular vote in a nationwide poll. Not by a narrow margin, she polled some 2.8 million more votes than Mr Trump. I am not an American, and certainly not an American constitutional scholar, but I simply cannot see how it can be regarded as a democratic process if the candidate with a clear majority of votes is denied the Presidency by an appointed electoral college. I have heard the phrase "prevent the tyranny of the majority" quoted many times, but what you have had for the last four years has been, effectively, a tyranny of a minority - the man with 46% of the vote was awarded the Presidency, the woman who won 48% (however jaundiced one's view of her may be - and mine is very jaundiced) was denied it. I cannot believe that the Electoral College was established with the intention of producing such a perverse result. If Venezuela, or Zimbabwe, or virtually any other country held an election, and endorsed the person who lost as, effectively, the winner then the USA would be at the front of the queue to condemn it as a false election.

 

So yes, anyone who believes in the democratic process cannot help but be struck by the perversity of this decision, and Mrs Clinton and those who are supported her campaign are perfectly entitled to continue to "whine". If it happens again, which some suggest is a distinct possibility, then the whines will, rightly, be louder, deafening perhaps, and any claim that the USA may have to be a leading democracy will have been thoroughly trashed,

 

Perhaps that really does not bother some, both on this forum or within the USA? It bothers me, and I'm sure an awful lot of others throughout the world. I am politically conservative, (fellow Britons please note the small "c") and I believe that a democratic United States (although they may have made some terrible mistakes) has been central to the post WW2 "settlement" in the world. Take that away, and it leaves a vacuum which could be filled with many unsavoury regimes.

Edited August 14, 20205 yr by herfiehandbag

9 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

What I find remarkable is that while Harris was always the most likely pick for Biden’s running mate Trump, his campaign and his followers have not developed any response to her being the candidate for VP.

 

They have so far responded with racism, misogyny, petty name calling and of course a re-hash of their ‘Birther’ nonsense.

 

But beyond offensive personal attacks that only appeal to Trump’s dwindling base, they have nothing - absolutely zero arguments that the important swing and suburban voters will listen to.

 

Just the same old offensive attacks in an election in which a key questions voters are asking themselves is ‘Do we really want four more years of this?’

 

 

Seems like most have just given up as each new day appears so exhausting. Don't feel sorry for them...

16 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

It is an entirely valid point - "whine" if you must.  Mrs Clinton emphatically won the popular vote in a nationwide poll. Not by a narrow margin, she polled some 2.8 million more votes than Mr Trump. I am not an American, and certainly not an American constitutional scholar, but I simply cannot see how it can be regarded as a democratic process if the candidate with a clear majority of votes is denied the Presidency by an appointed electoral college. I have heard the phrase "prevent the tyranny of the majority" quoted many times, but what you have had for the last four years has been, effectively, a tyranny of a minority - the man with 46% of the vote was awarded the Presidency, the woman who won 48% (however jaundiced one's view of her may be - and mine is very jaundiced) was denied it. I cannot believe that the Electoral College was established with the intention of producing such a perverse result. If Venezuela, or Zimbabwe, or virtually any other country held an election, and endorsed the person who lost as, effectively, the winner then the USA would be at the front of the queue to condemn it as a false election.

 

So yes, anyone who believes in the democratic process cannot help but be struck by the perversity of this decision, and Mrs Clinton and those who are supported her campaign are perfectly entitled to continue to "whine". If it happens again, which some suggest is a distinct possibility, then the whines will, rightly, be louder, deafening perhaps, and any claim that the USA may have to be a leading democracy will have been thoroughly trashed,

 

Perhaps that really does not bother some, both on this forum or within the USA? It bothers me, and I'm sure an awful lot of others throughout the world. I am politically conservative, (fellow Britons please note the small "c") and I believe that a democratic United States (although they may have made terrible mistakes) has been central to the post WW2 "settlement" in the world. Take that away, and it leaves a vacuum which could be filled with many unsavoury regimes.

If the election had been based on the popular vote, Trump still would have won.  He would have run a different campaign designed to win the popular vote.

 

People want to change the rules after the election.  It's like a football team that loses the Super Bowl saying, "yeah they got more points, but we got more yardage."

20 minutes ago, Kelsall said:

If the election had been based on the popular vote, Trump still would have won.  He would have run a different campaign designed to win the popular vote.

 

People want to change the rules after the election.  It's like a football team that loses the Super Bowl saying, "yeah they got more points, but we got more yardage."

That is a pretty bold assumption. From memory Mr Trump's campaign was very largely based on very personal attacks on Mrs Clinton, leading chants of "lock her up" for example? I would have said that it was definitely aimed at the popular vote!

 

Anyway, you rather miss the main thrust of my post - why does not the popular vote have primacy over other considerations in electing the President?

Edited August 14, 20205 yr by herfiehandbag

12 hours ago, ThailandRyan said:

Why are they still beating a dead horse. Rhe system was set up fir the election trial College to elect the president. It never has been about the popular vote getting, especially in a rigged ballot system. I am neither a Democrat or a Republican, and I hate politics. Its not about what the other person has done in the past it is about what you can do and want to do. So tired of mudsligoing and skeletons in the closet approaches. Time to move on Hilary and put the past in the past and work toward a cohesive government that's of the people, by the people and for the people. 

Sadly it is never going to happen in our lifetime

If there is anything that can be counted upon with absolute certainty, it is that she will get sexist and misogynistic treatment from Trump and company. That is all he knows. 

 

It barely matters. Trump is making himself less relevant by the day. He is headed toward a resounding defeat. 7-10 million votes. An utter humiliation. 

13 hours ago, meechai said:

Nobody gets less sexist treatment than Hillary 5555 ????

 

Same as Pelosi they are judged solely by their evil deeds

 

 

 

If what you say is correct then Trump is in for a whole world of hurt.

 

After all the USA is an equal opportunities country, isn't it?

14 hours ago, meechai said:

Nobody gets less sexist treatment than Hillary 5555 ????

 

Same as Pelosi they are judged solely by their evil deeds

 

 

 

 

Hilary just can't accept that the American people rejected her for the evil corrupt person she is. She can't play the race card so she plays the feminist card. "It's because I'm a woman" - no sweetie, it's because your evil and got seen through!

 

"Clinton, a Democrat, lost in the electoral college to U.S. President Donald Trump in 2016 despite receiving more votes than him nationwide."

 

Same with Reuters. They always trip this old chestnut out. Somebody should explain the Electoral College system to them and tip them off that the US is a Republic not an absolute democracy. Same old same old tosh.

2 hours ago, herfiehandbag said:

It is an entirely valid point - "whine" if you must.  Mrs Clinton emphatically won the popular vote in a nationwide poll. Not by a narrow margin, she polled some 2.8 million more votes than Mr Trump. I am not an American, and certainly not an American constitutional scholar, but I simply cannot see how it can be regarded as a democratic process if the candidate with a clear majority of votes is denied the Presidency by an appointed electoral college. I have heard the phrase "prevent the tyranny of the majority" quoted many times, but what you have had for the last four years has been, effectively, a tyranny of a minority - the man with 46% of the vote was awarded the Presidency, the woman who won 48% (however jaundiced one's view of her may be - and mine is very jaundiced) was denied it. I cannot believe that the Electoral College was established with the intention of producing such a perverse result. If Venezuela, or Zimbabwe, or virtually any other country held an election, and endorsed the person who lost as, effectively, the winner then the USA would be at the front of the queue to condemn it as a false election.

 

So yes, anyone who believes in the democratic process cannot help but be struck by the perversity of this decision, and Mrs Clinton and those who are supported her campaign are perfectly entitled to continue to "whine". If it happens again, which some suggest is a distinct possibility, then the whines will, rightly, be louder, deafening perhaps, and any claim that the USA may have to be a leading democracy will have been thoroughly trashed,

 

Perhaps that really does not bother some, both on this forum or within the USA? It bothers me, and I'm sure an awful lot of others throughout the world. I am politically conservative, (fellow Britons please note the small "c") and I believe that a democratic United States (although they may have made some terrible mistakes) has been central to the post WW2 "settlement" in the world. Take that away, and it leaves a vacuum which could be filled with many unsavoury regimes.

 

Rather than waffle on and enlighten us all to your own personal view on democracy and absolute margins, why don't you invest on reading about the US Electoral College system and why the founding fathers thought this wise. You might also read about The Tyranny of the Majority.

 

Very few countries use a simple majority to elect their President, PM, Chancellor or whatever title. The UK certainly doesn't. 

 

 

55 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

If there is anything that can be counted upon with absolute certainty, it is that she will get sexist and misogynistic treatment from Trump and company. That is all he knows. 

 

It barely matters. Trump is making himself less relevant by the day. He is headed toward a resounding defeat. 7-10 million votes. An utter humiliation. 

would you like to make a bet on that ? i'll take those odds. 7 to 10 million more votes for joe *i can't put a coherent sentence together* biden ? 

 

the man needs to have a live in care provider never mind run for president.