Jump to content

Trump, positive for COVID-19, says won't participate in virtual debate


snoop1130

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Fine. But we're both on record. But the definition of winning is actually winning. Not declaring victory on election night to suppress counting mail in votes, getting republican state legislatures to vote contrary to their people, etc. So staying in power and losing is not winning. I'm not predicting he will leave office. I'm predicting he is going to lose based on the votes, nationally and state, but may still in a fascist manner stay in power. 

Did you see/hear him say he won the second debate. Can't make up trump... Anyone wanting proof I have the link

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is even more funny, is Biden had already scheduled another event before he got the answer from Trump.  He booked a roundtable discussion with ABC because he knew Trump would not agree to a fair debate structure

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

There are hundreds of thousands of Americans locked up in private, for profit prisons, due to pot possessions.

Didn't she make a career out of sending people to prison for exactly this kind of thing?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ukrules said:

That's a 'yes' - everything she stood for just went out the window.


And if she had failed to do her job Trump's base would be condemning her with even greater enthusiasm.

 

When you are in the military you don't pick and choose what orders you will follow.  When you are a prosecutor you don't pick and choose what crimes you will prosecute.

 

Edited by heybruce
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, KarenBravo said:

In a rare truthful statement from Trump, he said that without the Electoral College, Republicans could never win a presidential election.

The founding fathers realised centuries ago that sometime in the future the more populous states might be able to elect a president despite that person not popular in a majority of less populated states. They were very wise and included a method to stop that happening. Now their foresight has borne fruit. Well done to the founding fathers making the popular vote irrelevant in presidential elections.

  • Confused 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The founding fathers realised centuries ago that sometime in the future the more populous states might be able to elect a president despite that person not popular in a majority of less populated states. They were very wise and included a method to stop that happening. Now their foresight has borne fruit. Well done to the founding fathers making the popular vote irrelevant in presidential elections.

Your grasp of history is weak.  The Founding Fathers realized that the Articles of Confederation effectively destroyed any hope of the 13 states ever being united into a nation capable of making treaties with other countries, enforcing contracts across state lines, and other basic functions of a national government.  They got together to write a constitution that allowed for a more centralized government, but of necessity made some concessions to states that feared majority rule.

 

The actual intent behind electors was to have informed people meet, discuss, and come to a consensus on a President from all the candidates.  It was a means to prevent an uninformed majority from making a foolish choice for President.  It was an epic fail.

 

The Founding Fathers assumed many factions and political parties, and warned against allowing a two party system to dominate politics in the US.  Unfortunately they failed to come up with a system of government that precluded that from happening.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, ukrules said:

Didn't she make a career out of sending people to prison for exactly this kind of thing?

Yes, and I did not approve of that. However, the world changes, the American people have let their feelings be known about that nonsense, and maybe she is realizing that. Politics is expedience, if nothing else. Change is good. The Trump administration is still vigorously pursuing federal ganga convictions. So, I would call it progress. No more dinosaur policies.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...