My prediction

[BackInTex]

They won pluralities. In Clinton's case, fairly comfortable pluralities. Trump did not. --Bob

Now you are moving off "will of the people" to "plurality". The majority will of the people in 1992 was NOT to have Bill Clinton as their president.

[flockofseagulls104]

They won pluralities. In Clinton's case, fairly comfortable pluralities. Trump did not. --Bob

Now you are moving off "will of the people" to "plurality". The majority will of the people in 1992 was NOT to have Bill Clinton as their president.

Good thing we are NOT a democracy.

[silverscreenselect]

[Just an observation: democrats always have schemes to get around things when they don't get their way legally.]

Unlike the Republicans:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01 ... ntial.html

I couldn't find any verification on this, but I seem to recall that a number of people were concerned immediately before the 2000 election that Bush would win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote (and Gore did significantly overperform the final 2000 popular vote polls that had him down an average of three points).

[flockofseagulls104]

[Just an observation: democrats always have schemes to get around things when they don't get their way legally.]

Unlike the Republicans:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01 ... ntial.html

I couldn't find any verification on this, but I seem to recall that a number of people were concerned immediately before the 2000 election that Bush would win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote (and Gore did significantly overperform the final 2000 popular vote polls that had him down an average of three points).

I am not a republican. Things like that are why I am not part of the party anymore. They act so much like democrats. And that is probably why so many people supported Trump in the primaries.

[Jeemie]

They won pluralities. In Clinton's case, fairly comfortable pluralities. Trump did not. --Bob

You said nothing about pluralities.

You said it was your duty to resist MINORITY governments.

[Bob78164]

They won pluralities. In Clinton's case, fairly comfortable pluralities. Trump did not. --Bob

You said nothing about pluralities.

You said it was your duty to resist MINORITY governments.

I think you're playing with words here. More people wanted Secretary Clinton to be President than wanted Trump. (Who will be in violation of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution from the moment he takes the oath of office.) I believe that more people wanted to be represented by Democrats in the House and the Senate than wanted to be represented by Republicans. Republicans control the government, but they have no mandate, they don't have popular support for the policies they plan to force down our throats, and they have no particular political legitimacy beyond the bare legal fact that they won.

It would be one thing if Republicans intended to govern modestly from the center, with respect for the views of those of us who constituted the majority of voters, but we all know that's not going to happen, particularly in light of Trump's hard-right Cabinet appointments. Republicans have spent the last eight years conducting a scorched-earth war against a government led by a Democratic President with considerably more political legitimacy. I'm fortunate that I have the combination of skills and (with my firm's support) resources to return the favor. So now it's my turn to step up and I have every intention of doing so. --Bob

[Bob78164]

And by the way, Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post put very well why I feel motivated to spend my time and talents opposing Trump, as well as politically and morally justified in doing so.

The people chose Hillary Clinton. But it’s the electoral vote that counts, not the popular vote, so Donald Trump will be president. And no, I’m not over it.

No one should be over it. No one should pretend that Trump will be a normal president. No one should forget the bigotry and racism of his campaign, the naked appeals to white grievance, the stigmatizing of Mexicans and Muslims. No one should forget the jaw-dropping ignorance he showed about government policy both foreign and domestic. No one should forget the vile misogyny. No one should forget the mendacity, the vulgarity, the ugliness, the insanity. None of this should ever be normalized in our politics.

The big protests that have followed Trump’s election should be no surprise. You can’t spend all those months trashing our nation’s values and then expect everyone to join you in a group hug. Trump made the bed in which he now must lie.

If a normal Republican had been elected, I could say the polite and socially acceptable thing, something like “I didn’t support So-and-So, but he will be my president, too, and I wish him success.” But I cannot wish Trump success in rounding up and deporting millions of people or banning Muslims from entering the country or reinstituting torture as an instrument of U.S. policy. In these and other divisive, cruel, unwise initiatives, I wish him failure.

I do hope he succeeds in avoiding some kind of amateurish foreign policy blunder that puts American lives or vital national interests at risk. And let me be clear that I am not questioning his legitimacy as president. When the results are certified and the electoral college casts its votes, Trump will be the nation’s duly chosen leader, ridiculous though that may be.

But he has not earned our trust or hope. Rather, he has earned the demonstrations that have erupted in cities across the country. He has earned relentless scrutiny by journalists, whom he shamelessly made into scapegoats during the campaign, and he has earned the constant vigilance of the public he now must serve.

We must watch Trump, and judge him, every single inch of the way.

--Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

They won pluralities. In Clinton's case, fairly comfortable pluralities. Trump did not. --Bob

You said nothing about pluralities.

You said it was your duty to resist MINORITY governments.

I think you're playing with words here. More people wanted Secretary Clinton to be President than wanted Trump. (Who will be in violation of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution from the moment he takes the oath of office.) I believe that more people wanted to be represented by Democrats in the House and the Senate than wanted to be represented by Republicans. Republicans control the government, but they have no mandate, they don't have popular support for the policies they plan to force down our throats, and they have no particular political legitimacy beyond the bare legal fact that they won.

It would be one thing if Republicans intended to govern modestly from the center, with respect for the views of those of us who constituted the majority of voters, but we all know that's not going to happen, particularly in light of Trump's hard-right Cabinet appointments. Republicans have spent the last eight years conducting a scorched-earth war against a government led by a Democratic President with considerably more political legitimacy. I'm fortunate that I have the combination of skills and (with my firm's support) resources to return the favor. So now it's my turn to step up and I have every intention of doing so. --Bob

Well Bob, your hypocrisy is in full view. You not only are emulating BJ in that, you now emulate SSS in stereotyping your opponents and in thinking you know the thoughts and motives of people you have never met. You've really downgraded yourself today.

Go for it.

[PanicinDetroit]

I never post in any of these threads, but this is just too much.

Did you poll every voter who cast their vote for Secretary Clinton? Of course not.

I would like to see your proof for this statement.

More people wanted Secretary Clinton to be President than wanted Trump.

I voted for Secretary Clinton and I did not want her to be President. I wanted Trump to be President even less. I do not think that I was the only voter who did so.

That is all.

[SportsFan68]

Flock wrote:

Oh, and I preict BJ's clairvoyance is as bad as his spelling.

. . .

Congress also has a Constitutional perogative. And it was reinforced by President Obama's precedent of ignoring the enforcement of laws passed by Congress.

How's yours?

Bwwahhaaahaaa

Sprots WINS!!!!!

Thanks, Saucy.

I thought I couldn't be surprised by anything on this Bored, but Flock did it with that self-deprecating reply.

[flockofseagulls104]

Flock wrote:



How's yours?

Bwwahhaaahaaa

Sprots WINS!!!!!

Thanks, Saucy.

I thought I couldn't be surprised by anything on this Bored, but Flock did it with that self-deprecating reply.

I always calls 'em like I see's 'em. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong and I will admit it.

[Jeemie]

They won pluralities. In Clinton's case, fairly comfortable pluralities. Trump did not. --Bob

You said nothing about pluralities.

You said it was your duty to resist MINORITY governments.

I think you're playing with words here. More people wanted Secretary Clinton to be President than wanted Trump. (Who will be in violation of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution from the moment he takes the oath of office.) I believe that more people wanted to be represented by Democrats in the House and the Senate than wanted to be represented by Republicans. Republicans control the government, but they have no mandate, they don't have popular support for the policies they plan to force down our throats, and they have no particular political legitimacy beyond the bare legal fact that they won.

It would be one thing if Republicans intended to govern modestly from the center, with respect for the views of those of us who constituted the majority of voters, but we all know that's not going to happen, particularly in light of Trump's hard-right Cabinet appointments. Republicans have spent the last eight years conducting a scorched-earth war against a government led by a Democratic President with considerably more political legitimacy. I'm fortunate that I have the combination of skills and (with my firm's support) resources to return the favor. So now it's my turn to step up and I have every intention of doing so. --Bob

Where's your evidence more people wanted to be represented by Dems in the House and Senate?

I'm not a Trump supporter, but you'd be more honest if you just said you're going to resist Trump because you don't like what his policies are shaping up to be rather than this BS that you're resisting because he's a minority candidate.

[flockofseagulls104]

You said nothing about pluralities.

You said it was your duty to resist MINORITY governments.

I think you're playing with words here. More people wanted Secretary Clinton to be President than wanted Trump. (Who will be in violation of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution from the moment he takes the oath of office.) I believe that more people wanted to be represented by Democrats in the House and the Senate than wanted to be represented by Republicans. Republicans control the government, but they have no mandate, they don't have popular support for the policies they plan to force down our throats, and they have no particular political legitimacy beyond the bare legal fact that they won.

It would be one thing if Republicans intended to govern modestly from the center, with respect for the views of those of us who constituted the majority of voters, but we all know that's not going to happen, particularly in light of Trump's hard-right Cabinet appointments. Republicans have spent the last eight years conducting a scorched-earth war against a government led by a Democratic President with considerably more political legitimacy. I'm fortunate that I have the combination of skills and (with my firm's support) resources to return the favor. So now it's my turn to step up and I have every intention of doing so. --Bob

Where's your evidence more people wanted to be represented by Dems in the House and Senate?

I'm not a Trump supporter, but you'd be more honest if you just said you're going to resist Trump because you don't like what his policies are shaping up to be rather than this BS that you're resisting because he's a minority candidate.

Well, when we said we didn't like Mr. Obama because of his policies, we were told we were racists. Maybe he doesn't want to be called a racist.

[flockofseagulls104]

For Bob:

http://100percentfedup.com/unhinged-pro ... ing-video/

She makes some cogent and reasoned arguments, just like yours. You may want to use some of her arguments in your future legal endeavors to harass President Trump. I'm ashamed to admit it because I try to keep up with most things, but I didn't know until now that this country belonged to her. It looks like she came pretty close to convincing someone to change their vote.

I hope it makes you feel better that someone shares your views.

[Jeemie]

Well, when we said we didn't like Mr. Obama because of his policies, we were told we were racists. Maybe he doesn't want to be called a racist.

I'll deal with your idiocy another day.

For now, I'll stick to just calling it idiocy because you know you weren't called racist "just" for disagreeing with Obama's policies.

Your kind of bullshit isn't helpful to the dialogue either.

And also, I didn't like the kids who joined in fights just to "pile on" in school, and I don't like them in political arguments either.

[Jeemie]

And Bob...good luck nailing Trump on the Emoluments Clause.

I get where you're going with that...I have low hopes it will stick.

Too much foreign money/influence in our government already as it is. A GOP-controlled Congress won't enforce it just because it seems more blatant with Trump, nor do I think a private lawsuit will get anywhere.

[flockofseagulls104]

For now, I'll stick to just calling it idiocy because you know you weren't called racist "just" for disagreeing with Obama's policies.

You know what. Never mind.

[Beebs52]

I WAS called a racist by someone who used to frequent the bored because I disagreed with whatever it was policywise at the time. I was quite peeved, or rather, incensed. So yes, people do do that.

[Spock]

I WAS called a racist by someone who used to frequent the bored because I disagreed with whatever it was policywise at the time. I was quite peeved, or rather, incensed. So yes, people do do that.

We (I use Mrs S's Facebook) recently unfriended somebody on Facebook-that I never thought we would unfriend. The first 47 times she posted stuff like "I didn't vote for Trump because he is a racist-You didn't support Obama because you are a racist" was kind of cute, but after that it got a little old.

What I found most interesting in her string of posts was one where she called Ben Carson a moron. It goes without saying that if Ben Carson were the Republican nominee the vast majority of Trump's voters would have happily voted for Carson (However, I do not think Carson would have won).

I do not impute my unfriended friend's lack of support (and namecalling) of Carson to racism. She disagrees with his policies-Fair enough. However, she refuses to grant her political opponents' the same freedom of thought.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Another one-Obama recently all, but called his opponents in southern states racists.
"“There are people who dislike me because they think I’m a liberal,” he added. “I think there’s a reason attitudes about my presidency among whites in Northern states are very different from whites in Southern states.”

One of the quintessential southern states is, obviously, South Carolina. It is never mentioned in the context of "Obama Opponents Racists" that the same white voters in South Carolina, who are strongly opposed to Obama on policy, voted strongly in 2014 for Senator Tim Scott, a Republican African-American senator.

Obviously, South Carolina republicans are able to look beyond race and vote for an African-American who holds similar views as they do.

[silverscreenselect]

I WAS called a racist by someone who used to frequent the bored because I disagreed with whatever it was policywise at the time. I was quite peeved, or rather, incensed. So yes, people do do that.

We (I use Mrs S's Facebook) recently unfriended somebody on Facebook-that I never thought we would unfriend. The first 47 times she posted stuff like "I didn't vote for Trump because he is a racist-You didn't support Obama because you are a racist" was kind of cute, but after that it got a little old.

I make it a point never to make or respond to political posts on Facebook or Twitter.

At least the political tweets I get are better than the constant click bait tweets ("I can't believe people actually posted these selfies. Number 12 will really shock you.") some people send me.

[silverscreenselect]

Another one-Obama recently all, but called his opponents in southern states racists.

I think that the problem is that the word "racist" has been overused far too much and lost its original meaning. At one time, not all that long ago (20-30 years), racist referred exclusively to those who thought one race was inherently superior or inferior to another, and it often carried a violent subtext. We're talking about the Klan and the southern police with fire hoses here.

Those whose beliefs were less pronounced or in some cases unconscious were referred to in terms like racially discriminatory or having a racial bias.

Now, the latter two terms have practically vanished from our vocabulary and the term racist is a catchall.

There are few of the first type of racists around any more, but when people are called racist, they often think to those Klan types and quite rightly get offended. But the fact remains that well-meaning people still perpetuate racial biases and stereotypes, sometimes without being aware of it. It shows up in study after study such as those in which white interviewees are viewed more favorably, not because the interviewer doesn't like blacks but because he (or she) feels that the white candidate "is a better fit with the company culture" or "seems like more of a team player" or something like that.

I really wish that some less divisive word would gain some traction so that people can recognize that bias and prejudgments exist without actual animosity.

[Jeemie]

I WAS called a racist by someone who used to frequent the bored because I disagreed with whatever it was policywise at the time. I was quite peeved, or rather, incensed. So yes, people do do that.

Idiots abound, and our own Bob Juch is one of them.

But Flock was trying to make it sound like everyone did that, when hardly anyone did.

[Beebs52]

I WAS called a racist by someone who used to frequent the bored because I disagreed with whatever it was policywise at the time. I was quite peeved, or rather, incensed. So yes, people do do that.

Idiots abound, and our own Bob Juch is one of them.

But Flock was trying to make it sound like everyone did that, when hardly anyone did.

You are right. There are massive aholes on both sides. Disengaging from crazy FB "shares" helps a lot. My particular instance was a pm so I was "whoa".

[flockofseagulls104]

I WAS called a racist by someone who used to frequent the bored because I disagreed with whatever it was policywise at the time. I was quite peeved, or rather, incensed. So yes, people do do that.

Idiots abound, and our own Bob Juch is one of them.

But Flock was trying to make it sound like everyone did that, when hardly anyone did.

Hardly anybody? We all seem to be in our echo chambers. I hear democrats and leftists throwing out the racist label every day. You say hardly anyone does. I guess I am just deplorable and irredeemable.
Just a sample....
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawk ... d-n1674131

[BackInTex]

I really wish that some less divisive word would gain some traction so that people can recognize that bias and prejudgments exist without actual animosity.

I agree. I also wish that everyone would realize these are normal and that without exception, everyone has them in some form to some extent.