I'm afraid the Democrats are crybabies with this recounting thing. I knew Trump was going to win early this year itself. Not a shred of doubt. California is out of touch with the rest of the nation it is part of. Too many tacos.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why are trump supporters under the illusion that all non whites are illegal?
Illegals makeup at best 2 million of US population while Latinos makeup 50 million of US population according to some estimates
Tell that to the IraqisNon Hispanic whites don't go to other people's countries illegally. Only non whites do that.
Not all Hispanics are illegal many are US citizens
Calling them mostly illegals is over simplification and vilification of an ethnicityTrue. But many are. Millions are.
The second Iraq war was US invading a country over blatant lies and false accusitions and to take out all those in the region who dont play on their teamI don't usually comment on threads that are likely to be closed, but the US invasion of Iraq does and does not have legal justification. The US did authorize use of force against Iraq in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. Of course most of us would find this laughable at best. Like a criminal judge rendering their own crimes valid and ruling on their own case. The resolution enjoyed wide support within the US Congress and Senate and its passing shielded the US from any domestic legal actions. That the US does not ascribe to the ICC shields it from international legal action, by not accepting the court's jurisdiction over its affairs.
On an international scale there are conflicting views. Some arguments can be made for the UNSC - Russia and China included - having given legal justification and support for the US invasion of Iraq, others of course have a conflicting viewpoint.
It's debatable and still an ongoing debate, but the legality of the Second Iraq War can't tactically be dismissed as "illegal" since there's a case to be made for both sides and the debate hasn't yet been settled, though it wasn't with the support of Iraqis either. A lack of support from the population of the warred party does not render any action against them illegal by default, just as having their support doesn't make any actions legal either.
...
As for undocumented persons voting, it is the purview of the accusing party to provide proof to their claims. That would be Mr. Trump. I'm not holding my breath waiting for any such evidence.
You have to much faith. I'll bet he gets overthrown within his first year
If he continues with his loose talk, he might be impeached by the congress.
I'm afraid the Democrats are crybabies with this recounting thing. I knew Trump was going to win early this year itself. Not a shred of doubt. California is out of touch with the rest of the nation it is part of. Too many tacos.
Too many moronic liberals in California. Illegals too.
I'm an unabashed Trump man. But I must admit recently an American colleague of mine from Washington state who absolutely hates him told me something that I found difficult to overlook or digest. And has since then put me a bit off of the guy.
Is it true that in his younger days he had a case against him for raping a child? I mean, that is just out of the park man. Of course the case was not proven.
I'm amazed by the campaign on some networks - featuring Democratic members of Congress - to get the electors to not vote Trump and accede to the popular vote instead. I wonder how far the Dems will go with this.The point of that article is clear: That via popular votes Hillary Clinton would be President.
But equally valid is the point that since there are inevitable disparities in population concentration and wealth, and since wealth always means favorable influence in politics, there should be a compensatory device to that condition. Since the US is a federation, it made it easier for the Founders to come up with a device.
I pointed this out before, that every four yrs we have a national discussion on the EC, every four yrs there were always calls to abolish it, which would require a Constitutional Convention, and every time the 'nays' always got out-argued by the 'yeas'. The American public have repeatedly spoken 'yeas' and I predict the EC will be with US for the next hundred yrs.
New Recruit