Just as I find it funny that you get hysterical over the notion that a citizen should have to demonstrate qualification via identification to vote, yet encourage the nullification of that vote. Although I suppose there is a twisted sort of proggie logic there. As long as your vote literally means nothing, not much harm in allowing illegals to vote or in multiple votes.
And most electors are bound, for at least the first few ballots.
Um, that's the deficit for one month only. https://www.statista.com/statistics/220041/total-value-of-us-trade-balance-since-2000/My parents are hard core republicans and when we talk politics they get upset when I ask them to produce evidence to support their ridiculous notions which were spewed by the party faithful. Just like during the debate when Don stated that the trade deficit was 800b which is not true. He's only 760b off the mark using the most recent figures taken by the BEA. https://blog.bea.gov/category/trade-deficit/
It was up to nearly $800 billion. The Great Recession left people with less disposable income and hopefully a little more realistic grip on exactly how much cheap, disposable imported rap we really need.In 2015, the United States had a trade deficit of 531 billion U.S. dollars.
Nobody ever said "basically despotism", but thanks for trying to find yet another way to justify concentrating power into ever-fewer hands. In the name of fighting despotism, of course.First thing to remember is that your claims of multiple voting and illegal immigrants voting are nearly entirely fictitious.
Secondly, I'm not saying that was a better way to vote, I just found it amusing that you believe the constitution that you claim is such a good idea for us to follow was basically despotism for the first 100 years. Popularly electing state representatives that then form a national government is LESS democratic than what we have now but nationwide disenfranchisement? That's pure uneducated stupidity.
Also only slightly more than half of states have laws requiring the electors to vote as pledged and those laws are likely unconstitutional if anyone ever tried to enforce them. So yeah, your vote is meaningful at their leisure.
You are correct and I stand corrected. This article pegs the 2015 trade deficit at 531b https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-trade-deficit-causes-effects-trade-partners-3306276 but I can't seem to locate current data. I could take the figures from http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/balance-of-trade and add them to it to ballpark the value. Trade deficits are never healthy which is why we need to restore our domestic manufacturing so we can supply our own needs and export to meet everyone else's.Um, that's the deficit for one month only. https://www.statista.com/statistics/220041/total-value-of-us-trade-balance-since-2000/
Nobody ever said "basically despotism", but thanks for trying to find yet another way to justify concentrating power into ever-fewer hands. In the name of fighting despotism, of course.
My parents are hard core republicans and when we talk politics they get upset when I ask them to produce evidence to support their ridiculous notions which were spewed by the party faithful.
Trade deficits are fantastic to us. The only unhealthy part of it is that they can't last forever and will eventually come crashing on in.Trade deficits are never healthy which is why we need to restore our domestic manufacturing so we can supply our own needs and export to meet everyone else's.
Agreed.You are correct and I stand corrected. This article pegs the 2015 trade deficit at 531b https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-trade-deficit-causes-effects-trade-partners-3306276 but I can't seem to locate current data. I could take the figures from http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/balance-of-trade and add them to it to ballpark the value. Trade deficits are never healthy which is why we need to restore our domestic manufacturing so we can supply our own needs and export to meet everyone else's.
lol It's always amusing watching you declare victory. You are indeed a legend in your own mind, o great expert of all.I never tried to justify concentrating power in anyone's hands as I never agreed with the person you quoted, I was just pointing out that your latest paranoid fantasy about 'proggies' was based on basically no knowledge of how our government works.
As in the other thread, I can't help but notice you will not admit error here, you'll just double down on whatever weird fantasy you've concocted because...well... you're not a very honest person.
This is the hell the GOP built for themselves when they decided to embrace any lie, no matter how self-destructive, as long as it kept their angry base, angry. They painted themselves into this corner long ago, when they built a coalition of corporate interests and a "angry mob". The GOP candidates need them both to win, even to squeak a fifty percent plus one. And the way things are shaping up, they can't have both.
They thought they could control the mob and that the anger would only be expressed via voting. They've spent twenty years telling the angry mob that the truth doesn't matter as much as their angry emotions. It was inevitable that the angry mob would turn on themselves.
Agreed.
lol It's always amusing watching you declare victory. You are indeed a legend in your own mind, o great expert of all.
lol It's always amusing watching you declare victory. You are indeed a legend in your own mind, o great expert of all.
“Honestly, she should be locked up, she should be,” Trump said.
He accused Clinton of being “the vessel (of) a corrupt global establishment that’s raiding our country and surrendering the sovereignty of our nation.”
Trump portrayed the Nov. 8 election as an apocalyptic choice.
“This is not simply another four-year election,” he said. “This is a crossroads in the history of our civilization that will determine whether or not we, the people, reclaim control over our government. The political establishment that is trying to stop us is the same group responsible for our disastrous trade deals, massive illegal immigration, and economic and foreign policies that have bled our country dry.”
“This election will determine whether we remain a free country in the truest sense of the word or we become a corrupt banana republic controlled by large donors and foreign governments,” Trump said. “The election of Hillary Clinton would lead to the destruction of our country.”
"Dies ist nicht einfach ein weiterer vier Jahre Wahl", sagte er. "Dies ist eine Kreuzung in der Geschichte unserer Zivilisation, die bestimmen, ob oder nicht wir, die Menschen, um die Kontrolle über unsere Regierung. Das politische Establishment, das versucht, uns zu stoppen, ist die gleiche Gruppe verantwortlich für die katastrophale, massive illegale Einwanderung, und der Wirtschafts- und Außenpolitik, die unser Land bled Dry"
"Diese Wahl bestimmen, ob wir ein freies Land bleiben im wahrsten Sinne des Wortes, oder werden wir eine korrupte Bananenrepublik gesteuert durch große Geber und Regierungen", sagte Trump. "Die Wahl von Hillary Clinton würde dazu führen, dass die Zerstörung unseres Landes."
Not to go Godwin but...
Let's use the internets to translate the last two paragraphs of Hair Furor's words to another language:
Either way, it sounds horrible...
He's just too irrational and unstable.
The big problem is that most of his supporters are the same way and all he has done is to fuel them, encouraging them to keep on keeping on.
So my question is; when will we see the first trump cult follower go unhinged?
So my question is; when will we see the first trump cult follower go unhinged?
At Ohio fundraiser, Pres. Obama says Donald Trump came from years of a GOP “swamp of crazy.” https://t.co/DZbWydLgr1 pic.twitter.com/pQOrJEywyy
— ABC News (@ABC) October 14, 2016
So my question is; when will we see the first trump cult follower go unhinged?
Hmmmm....I thought they already were?
Do you have proof? And even if she had attacked his mistresses that would be perfectly understandable. History is full of drama between a woman and her husband's mistresses. But again, I have not seen any semi-credible report on Hillary's alleged schemes, and no woman actually accused Hillary of attacking them in some specificity. (generalized rants do not count)Her husband's lovers did not stand up in front on G-d and man, promising to forsake all others. Bill did. Hillary made the decision to lead the attacks on those women - some of which he groped very much against their will - and attempted to destroy them. That's on her.
"The true facts are these: Mrs. Trump did not encounter Ms. Stoynoff on the street, or have any conversation with her. The two are not friends and were never friends or even friendly," Harder wrote.
Harder wrote that if the article is not corrected within 24 hours, Melania would "consider her legal options."