Reply
Honored Social Butterfly

Liberals refuse to see themselves as hypocrites

Too often the pseudo title of "peaceful protesters" is portrayed by the media while the camera shows attacks on free speech. Not only are the attacks printed and verbal, but increasingly physicial attacks. 

 

Washington Post;

For too long, the liberal left has been hiding behind a guise of compassion and inclusivity. They claim to care about the forgotten man and pretend to have tolerance for people of all backgrounds, races, religions and political beliefs. Yet, time and time again, their actions prove otherwise.

 

The camera doesn't lie but liberals do. Do anything to anyone who dares disagree. Attack-attack-attack.  To put it crudely, it is no longer clear what liberalism means. Through madern times Freedom has traditionally been the creedo of liberals. However there is good freedom and bad freedom. The good... was to enhance the positive freedom of the dispossessed. However... the bad interwoven into their fabric. Liberals are increasinly ignoring the common good and enbrassing the exploitation others. 

 

Look at how those who are judged by liberals and what liberals produce today. A vile list of malignant words meant to intimidate and smear good people. It's a "machine gun" vocabulary that indiscriminately hits everyone but with intended result... to verbally mame. The fruit of liberalism is what? I'm at a loss if  anything good is produced. Apparently the American voter thinks the same way.


Libs are nuttier than squirrel poop
0 Kudos
342 Views
295
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@Fishslayer777 wrote:
So it's safe to assume you do not support pardons. I do. Presidents & Governors use their authority to do so at their pleasure.

It's the law

So is obeying court orders but that did not seem to matter, did it?

Honored Social Butterfly

Some people are obssessed with Hillary, who has nothing to do with this discussion, because she's ancient history and will never return as a Presidential candidate.

 

Here's one fact which should concern every American. During the 2016 election both candidates visited the same 12 states which were classified as "Swing States". They never visited the other 38 states, thereby making the votes of citizens in 38 states essentially useless in a Presidential election. 

 

Is that the kind of system we want? I don't think so. Intelligent people want everybody's vote to count and the only way to ensure that is doing away with the archaic electoral college.

Honored Social Butterfly

"In much the same way, the liberal left opposes the electoral college NOW and wishes it tore down"

 

Wrong! Almost all intelligent people support doing away with the archaic Electoral College, which was good for the horse and buggy era, but irrelevant in the 21st century.

Recognized Social Butterfly


@CriticalThinking wrote:

"In much the same way, the liberal left opposes the electoral college NOW and wishes it tore down"

 

Wrong! Almost all intelligent people support doing away with the archaic Electoral College, which was good for the horse and buggy era, but irrelevant in the 21st century.


Your adjective says it all.

0 Kudos
132 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@CriticalThinking wrote:

"In much the same way, the liberal left opposes the electoral college NOW and wishes it tore down"

 

Wrong! Almost all intelligent people support doing away with the archaic Electoral College, which was good for the horse and buggy era, but irrelevant in the 21st century.


Not necessarily intelligent people, mostly those who are still in denial that Hillary lost, but she was supposed to win because it was 'her time'.

0 Kudos
163 Views
108
Report
Recognized Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@CriticalThinking wrote:

"In much the same way, the liberal left opposes the electoral college NOW and wishes it tore down"

 

Wrong! Almost all intelligent people support doing away with the archaic Electoral College, which was good for the horse and buggy era, but irrelevant in the 21st century.


Not necessarily intelligent people, mostly those who are still in denial that Hillary lost, but she was supposed to win because it was 'her time'.


3million votes tell me Hillary is the peoples choice.  Not the politicians choice.  That is not denial but fact.  The People spoke and the politicians didn't listen and now Trump's polls are about as low as they can get.  TRUMP and his minions know this or they would have shut up about Clinton after the election.  WHY continue to beat a dead horse?  Maybe guilt?

 

0 Kudos
127 Views
107
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@creppelrm wrote:



3million votes tell me Hillary is the peoples choice.  Not the politicians choice.  That is not denial but fact.  The People spoke and the politicians didn't listen and now Trump's polls are about as low as they can get.  TRUMP and his minions know this or they would have shut up about Clinton after the election.  WHY continue to beat a dead horse?  Maybe guilt?

 


Three million votes from liberal states tell me if popular votes counted, then California and liberal states would continually elect the President.  Note that the electoral vote came from the Heartland of America.

0 Kudos
116 Views
75
Report
Recognized Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@creppelrm wrote:



3million votes tell me Hillary is the peoples choice.  Not the politicians choice.  That is not denial but fact.  The People spoke and the politicians didn't listen and now Trump's polls are about as low as they can get.  TRUMP and his minions know this or they would have shut up about Clinton after the election.  WHY continue to beat a dead horse?  Maybe guilt?

 


Three million votes from liberal states tell me if popular votes counted, then California and liberal states would continually elect the President.  Note that the electoral vote came from the Heartland of America.


So are you saying the "Heartland" should be more important than the coasts regardless of where people live.  I am glad you believe in Democracy only for those who hold the same views you do.

Honored Social Butterfly


@sp362 wrote:


So are you saying the "Heartland" should be more important than the coasts regardless of where people live.  I am glad you believe in Democracy only for those who hold the same views you do.


You might say that...especially since one state shouldn't exclusively elect the President of the United States.  You are saying that California should exclusively do so?

0 Kudos
140 Views
73
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:


So are you saying the "Heartland" should be more important than the coasts regardless of where people live.  I am glad you believe in Democracy only for those who hold the same views you do.


You might say that...especially since one state shouldn't exclusively elect the President of the United States.  You are saying that California should exclusively do so?


I am saying that what the majority of voters in America vote for should be the outcome ....... period.


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
Honored Social Butterfly


@ChasKy53 wrote:


I am saying that what the majority of voters in America vote for should be the outcome ....... period.


For what should be the outcome and not their personal preferences?  No kidding?  And larger states with more popular votes should be the ones doing that?  Stick it to states like Rhode Island, etc with less popular votes?  Why waste money on elections in every states, just let California, etc elect people like Clinton.

0 Kudos
261 Views
10
Report
Recognized Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:


I am saying that what the majority of voters in America vote for should be the outcome ....... period.


For what should be the outcome and not their personal preferences?  No kidding?  And larger states with more popular votes should be the ones doing that?  Stick it to states like Rhode Island, etc with less popular votes?  Why waste money on elections in every states, just let California, etc elect people like Clinton.


You will have to explain the math of how 12% of the population (even assuming all 12% voted exactly the same way) could decide an election without help from the 88% of the Country.

Honored Social Butterfly


@sp362 wrote:



You will have to explain the math of how 12% of the population (even assuming all 12% voted exactly the same way) could decide an election without help from the 88% of the Country.


Still waiting for sources that says what I have posted about the reason the electoral system was written into the Constitution is incorrect.

0 Kudos
447 Views
1
Report
Recognized Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:



You will have to explain the math of how 12% of the population (even assuming all 12% voted exactly the same way) could decide an election without help from the 88% of the Country.


Still waiting for sources that says what I have posted about the reason the electoral system was written into the Constitution is incorrect.


Do you just refuse to read what others have to say?  Where did I say that your historical contexts were incorrect?  The entire point that I have been making is that has outlived its usefulness, is antiquated, unfair and needs to go away.  Citing why it was included when I have already told you on numerous occasions that I know why it was there just demonstrates that you refuse to engage in a rational discussion.  As an example of something as incorrect you stated that large States such as California, Washington and Oregon would decide the election if it was popular vote.  Washington and Oregon could not be considered "large" States.  Oregon is actually small and Washington is about average.

0 Kudos
442 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:


I am saying that what the majority of voters in America vote for should be the outcome ....... period.


For what should be the outcome and not their personal preferences?  No kidding?  And larger states with more popular votes should be the ones doing that?  Stick it to states like Rhode Island, etc with less popular votes?  Why waste money on elections in every states, just let California, etc elect people like Clinton.


The simple majority of the popular vote should elect our president it's the only way to have every individual's vote count. You seem to have a problem with where these individuals may live at. That seems prejudiced. California is a small percentage of our population so get off of the "let California elect our president" rot.


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
Honored Social Butterfly


@ChasKy53 wrote:

@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:


I am saying that what the majority of voters in America vote for should be the outcome ....... period.


For what should be the outcome and not their personal preferences?  No kidding?  And larger states with more popular votes should be the ones doing that?  Stick it to states like Rhode Island, etc with less popular votes?  Why waste money on elections in every states, just let California, etc elect people like Clinton.


The simple majority of the popular vote should elect our president it's the only way to have every individual's vote count. You seem to have a problem with where these individuals may live at. That seems prejudiced. California is a small percentage of our population so get off of the "let California elect our president" rot.


With 50 states, California is roughly 11.5% of the total U.S. population.  You don't think they have clout and represent a small part of our population?

0 Kudos
409 Views
4
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:


I am saying that what the majority of voters in America vote for should be the outcome ....... period.


For what should be the outcome and not their personal preferences?  No kidding?  And larger states with more popular votes should be the ones doing that?  Stick it to states like Rhode Island, etc with less popular votes?  Why waste money on elections in every states, just let California, etc elect people like Clinton.


The simple majority of the popular vote should elect our president it's the only way to have every individual's vote count. You seem to have a problem with where these individuals may live at. That seems prejudiced. California is a small percentage of our population so get off of the "let California elect our president" rot.


With 50 states, California is roughly 11.5% of the total U.S. population.  You don't think they have clout and represent a small part of our population?


"They" (kind of separative in nature, isn't it) have"clout" now with the electoral vote system, they carry a large number of votes. But, 'they' didn't decide this past election, did they?

 

Popular vote reflects what the majority of Americans want. Why would anyone think that to not be democratic and fair? Oh yes ..................... because some are in the minority of what Americans as a whole want and prefer to go against something that is purely democratic, like the popular vote is.

 

 


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
Honored Social Butterfly


@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:


I am saying that what the majority of voters in America vote for should be the outcome ....... period.


For what should be the outcome and not their personal preferences?  No kidding?  And larger states with more popular votes should be the ones doing that?  Stick it to states like Rhode Island, etc with less popular votes?  Why waste money on elections in every states, just let California, etc elect people like Clinton.


The simple majority of the popular vote should elect our president it's the only way to have every individual's vote count. You seem to have a problem with where these individuals may live at. That seems prejudiced. California is a small percentage of our population so get off of the "let California elect our president" rot.


With 50 states, California is roughly 11.5% of the total U.S. population.  You don't think they have clout and represent a small part of our population?


As you say, California has roughly 11.5% of the total US population and provided approximately 12% of the voters in the last election so what is the problem? Why shouldn't everyone's vote be worth the same as everyone else's?

Honored Social Butterfly


@Snoopy48 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:


I am saying that what the majority of voters in America vote for should be the outcome ....... period.


For what should be the outcome and not their personal preferences?  No kidding?  And larger states with more popular votes should be the ones doing that?  Stick it to states like Rhode Island, etc with less popular votes?  Why waste money on elections in every states, just let California, etc elect people like Clinton.


The simple majority of the popular vote should elect our president it's the only way to have every individual's vote count. You seem to have a problem with where these individuals may live at. That seems prejudiced. California is a small percentage of our population so get off of the "let California elect our president" rot.


With 50 states, California is roughly 11.5% of the total U.S. population.  You don't think they have clout and represent a small part of our population?


As you say, California has roughly 11.5% of the total US population and provided approximately 12% of the voters in the last election so what is the problem? Why shouldn't everyone's vote be worth the same as everyone else's?


Because we don't follow "your rules" but instead the Constitution.

Honored Social Butterfly


@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@Snoopy48 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:


I am saying that what the majority of voters in America vote for should be the outcome ....... period.


For what should be the outcome and not their personal preferences?  No kidding?  And larger states with more popular votes should be the ones doing that?  Stick it to states like Rhode Island, etc with less popular votes?  Why waste money on elections in every states, just let California, etc elect people like Clinton.


The simple majority of the popular vote should elect our president it's the only way to have every individual's vote count. You seem to have a problem with where these individuals may live at. That seems prejudiced. California is a small percentage of our population so get off of the "let California elect our president" rot.


With 50 states, California is roughly 11.5% of the total U.S. population.  You don't think they have clout and represent a small part of our population?


As you say, California has roughly 11.5% of the total US population and provided approximately 12% of the voters in the last election so what is the problem? Why shouldn't everyone's vote be worth the same as everyone else's?


Because we don't follow "your rules" but instead the Constitution.


I never proposed any 'rules'. I simply asked the question as to why some people's votes should be worth more than others.

Honored Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:


I am saying that what the majority of voters in America vote for should be the outcome ....... period.


For what should be the outcome and not their personal preferences?  No kidding?  And larger states with more popular votes should be the ones doing that?  Stick it to states like Rhode Island, etc with less popular votes?  Why waste money on elections in every states, just let California, etc elect people like Clinton.


Times have changed and now  you see all Democratic Govt. elected by the people. Yes sometimes through a vote for a party. People now count and we are the only country who does not follow that rule. We do follow the rule for all other elected Offices. The person with the highest vote wins. We now have the reverse of what the founders created. They wanted to make sure the educated voters elected the President. Their system has shown it no longer works so it is time to change it. The winner of the popular vote is elected. If that were in place we would have a President mentally up to the job, rather than one who is mentally impaired and not up to the job who is destroying the country. All of this due to the people who voted for him, and for the most part are now in the group our founders did not want to have the vote for fear something like this might happen.

Recognized Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:


So are you saying the "Heartland" should be more important than the coasts regardless of where people live.  I am glad you believe in Democracy only for those who hold the same views you do.


You might say that...especially since one state shouldn't exclusively elect the President of the United States.  You are saying that California should exclusively do so?


Two major flaws with your logic:

1.  California is only 12% of the population, it is IMPOSSIBLE for California alone to exclusively select a President.

2.  You are assuming that ALL of California will vote for the same person and the vote will not be split.  (Remember, Trump did not bother to campaign in California so we really don't know what the vote would have been had he chosen to do so.)

Honored Social Butterfly


@sp362 wrote:


Two major flaws with your logic:

1.  California is only 12% of the population, it is IMPOSSIBLE for California alone to exclusively select a President.

2.  You are assuming that ALL of California will vote for the same person and the vote will not be split.  (Remember, Trump did not bother to campaign in California so we really don't know what the vote would have been had he chosen to do so.)



You keep giving your opinion, not factual information...look at the 2016 results of the popular vote by state: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016#Results_by_state


0 Kudos
158 Views
59
Report
Recognized Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:


Two major flaws with your logic:

1.  California is only 12% of the population, it is IMPOSSIBLE for California alone to exclusively select a President.

2.  You are assuming that ALL of California will vote for the same person and the vote will not be split.  (Remember, Trump did not bother to campaign in California so we really don't know what the vote would have been had he chosen to do so.)



You keep giving your opinion, not factual information...look at the 2016 results of the popular vote by state: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016#Results_by_state



What you are stating is your OPINION that all future elections will be the same as 2016.  I am sorry that you do not understand basic math.  Do you realize that voters in Alaska, Delaware, Washington DC, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Nebraska, New Mexico, West Virginia, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, Nevada, Utah, Connecticut, Oklahoma and Oregon all have Presidential votes that are more powerful than yours?

Honored Social Butterfly


@sp362 wrote:



What you are stating is your OPINION that all future elections will be the same as 2016.  I am sorry that you do not understand basic math.


You refuse to look at sources?  You are the one going on opinion.  And yes, if the popular vote was used, it could and probably would, swing elections.  The 2016 elections is just an example of what could happen in the future. 

 

Until you will start using factual information instead of opinion, then there is no use continuing this.  But if many posts here are examples, those enspousing liberal opinions refuse to let go....

0 Kudos
187 Views
57
Report
Recognized Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:



What you are stating is your OPINION that all future elections will be the same as 2016.  I am sorry that you do not understand basic math.


You refuse to look at sources?  You are the one going on opinion.  And yes, if the popular vote was used, it could and probably would, swing elections.  The 2016 elections is just an example of what could happen in the future. 

 

Until you will start using factual information instead of opinion, then there is no use continuing this.  But if many posts here are examples, those enspousing liberal opinions refuse to let go....


Yes, I feel like I am trying to have a conversation about Algebra with somebody who can't add.  You continue to bring up 2016 when I am trying to have a larger discussion that appears to be above your head.

Honored Social Butterfly


@sp362 wrote:


Yes, I feel like I am trying to have a conversation about Algebra with somebody who can't add.  You continue to bring up 2016 when I am trying to have a larger discussion that appears to be above your head.


One cannot predict the future, but one can study the past.  You still refuse to provide sources proving me wrong about the reasons for the electoral system.  You are doing good dancing around that.

0 Kudos
187 Views
55
Report
Recognized Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:


Yes, I feel like I am trying to have a conversation about Algebra with somebody who can't add.  You continue to bring up 2016 when I am trying to have a larger discussion that appears to be above your head.


One cannot predict the future, but one can study the past.  You still refuse to provide sources proving me wrong about the reasons for the electoral system.  You are doing good dancing around that.


Exactly what part of "it has outlived its usefulness" did you not understand.  Basic Math and Algebra.

Honored Social Butterfly


@sp362 wrote:

.

Exactly what part of "it has outlived its usefulness" did you not understand.  Basic Math and Algebra.


We are not discussing either Basic Math nor Algebra.

0 Kudos
386 Views
53
Report
Recognized Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

.

Exactly what part of "it has outlived its usefulness" did you not understand.  Basic Math and Algebra.


We are not discussing either Basic Math nor Algebra.


And you refuse to read what I wrote.  All you want to do is tell me I an wrong and use fuzzy logic to back up your position.  That approach is the definition of obstinance and narrow mindedness.  Obviously I was using Math and Algebra as an example.  I am sorry if you do not understand the concepts.

cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Does AARP donate to political parties or endorse candidates?

AARP is strictly non-partisan and always has been. We never endorse or donate to candidates, political parties or political action committees.

Learn more.

AARP Members Only Games

Play members only games, like FIll Ins, Lumeno, 2048 and a collaborative, multiplayer Let's Crossword.

Play Now
AARP Members Only Games Logos
AARP Rewards

Solve Crosswords. Earn Rewards. Activate AARP Rewards to earn points for games, quizzes and videos. Redeem for deals and discounts.

Get started with AARP Rewards now!
/html/assets/Rewards-program-badge-355x224.png