Gee, who could have predicted...

[007]

Firstly, it leads to only two parties. Two parties which are controlled by the rich for the rich. This isn't democracy.

Firstly, America is NOT a "democray." America is a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. Our Pledge of Allegiance does NOT say, "and to the DEMOCRACY, for which it stands," NO, it says, "and to the REPUBLIC, for which it stands." How many times do you progs need to be told that? Democracy is nothing more than MOB RULE. Is that what you want?

Secondly, I've seen better systems working elsewhere. Systems that lead to more voice, more control for the people.

Secondly, well then if you've seen better systems working elsewhere, then by all means, MOVE THERE.

That's like saying bread isn't food, it's bread.

Democracy is when people go out and elect their leaders. There are different levels of democracy, from pure democracy, like referenda, and there's democracy where people go and choose the people to make those decisions for them. The US is the latter.

A Republic merely means that the leader isn't a monarch. A democracy means that the leaders are elected by the people. Two different things. You can be a republic and a democracy.

No.

 

[paulitician]

Of course Democrats resorted to violence after they lost. They're criminals.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Maybe they're annoyed that this is the 2nd time in 16 years that they've lost an election by getting MORE votes than the other side.

You are a fucking cry baby.

Wow, insults.

Not really. I would bet a ton libs hated the EC when Bambams won huh? Clinton to? Bet if one searched past elections where their side lost the losing side wanted to do away with the EC. Sorry, it's bad enough as is, can't imagine how fucked it would be if California and New York got to decide who the president is.

Not really? What would you call hurling insults are people from behind a computer screen then?

I couldn't care less whether a ton of liberals did this, that or the other. I happen not to weigh a ton, therefore I am not a ton of liberals. I'd ask who the hell you think you're talking to when you reply to me, I am only one person and not all liberals.

Perhaps if you spent a little more time debating the person you're replying to, rather than some ghost you invented, you might not find the need to hurl insults so much, and actually develop an argument.

 

[frigidweirdo]

People often look for what they think the last president didn't have. Bush W. wasn't Clinton's messing around with women, Obama wasn't the not so bright guy, and Trump isn't the straight faced politician. It feels like it's always just going to be based on something that is ridiculous, rather than on whether they can do the job or not.

No, the celebs often don't get there because of their policies, they get there because the people want to be entertained, the wet themselves around famous people, and all other kinds of idiocies.

The problem with looking for the strong man is that sometimes strong isn't the best policy. You might think Obama is a wimp, personally I'm glad he spent the last 8 years trying (and sometimes failing miserably) to keep the US away from making a common enemy out of Muslims.

What Dubya did was not right, and it's caused so many problems, so much friction into a world that doesn't need any more. The more advanced we get as a species, surely the less we need to go making problems. But it would seem that the right revel in it, and it's their way of making sure politics fits their ideals, rather than the other way around.

I'm hoping that Trump is going to pull back and not make Muslims the enemy. Hitler did it with Jews, he got his way, Milosevic did it with the Kosovan Albanians, and the Croats and the rest, and these are only two examples among many. People just want to live life.

People vote for entertainers because they are familiar with them; like an old family friend sort of speak. If Hil-Liar didn't have a reputation, she would have never made it out of the primaries. But she's Bill's wife and that's all she needed.

Trump is the only person that was entertaining out of any celebrity. Arnold wasn't funny or entertaining as Governor. Ventura wasn't body slamming state representatives. Franklin wasn't telling jokes. Sonny never sang a song to Congress.

A familiar face is one that you're comfortable with. In a way, you feel like you know them personally. So when people go out to vote, they vote for celebrities regardless of policies or party.

Yeah, and it appears to be rather ridiculous. You wouldn't put a famous person in charge of your company simply because they're famous. It's democracy gone crazy. How would you tell a Chinese person now that they should strive for democracy? They'd just turn around and tell you to ef off.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Of course Democrats resorted to violence after they lost. They're criminals.

So... what are you suggesting? Oh, wait, let me guess, you're going to suggest that the left are just all the criminals.

There are many ways to look at this. Number one is poverty. Crime areas are more likely to be areas of poverty. The US govt hasn't done much to help poverty, certain state govts haven't done much either. The right certainly tries to prevent people crawling out of poverty. They have their areas where they feel safe, and then they get rich off of those people who live in poverty.

The reason the map is like this is because the right don't do anything for those who live in areas of poverty, and yet manage to squeeze into govt with a system that is unfairly biased towards the right.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Maybe they're annoyed that this is the 2nd time in 16 years that they've lost an election by getting MORE votes than the other side.

No, they are just assholes,

And maybe everyone is an asshole.

NOpe. And the libs have become completely dominated by them.

Well isn't this stimulating?

 

[frigidweirdo]

People often look for what they think the last president didn't have. Bush W. wasn't Clinton's messing around with women, Obama wasn't the not so bright guy, and Trump isn't the straight faced politician. It feels like it's always just going to be based on something that is ridiculous, rather than on whether they can do the job or not.

No, the celebs often don't get there because of their policies, they get there because the people want to be entertained, the wet themselves around famous people, and all other kinds of idiocies.

The problem with looking for the strong man is that sometimes strong isn't the best policy. You might think Obama is a wimp, personally I'm glad he spent the last 8 years trying (and sometimes failing miserably) to keep the US away from making a common enemy out of Muslims.

What Dubya did was not right, and it's caused so many problems, so much friction into a world that doesn't need any more. The more advanced we get as a species, surely the less we need to go making problems. But it would seem that the right revel in it, and it's their way of making sure politics fits their ideals, rather than the other way around.

I'm hoping that Trump is going to pull back and not make Muslims the enemy. Hitler did it with Jews, he got his way, Milosevic did it with the Kosovan Albanians, and the Croats and the rest, and these are only two examples among many. People just want to live life.

People vote for entertainers because they are familiar with them; like an old family friend sort of speak. If Hil-Liar didn't have a reputation, she would have never made it out of the primaries. But she's Bill's wife and that's all she needed.

Trump is the only person that was entertaining out of any celebrity. Arnold wasn't funny or entertaining as Governor. Ventura wasn't body slamming state representatives. Franklin wasn't telling jokes. Sonny never sang a song to Congress.

A familiar face is one that you're comfortable with. In a way, you feel like you know them personally. So when people go out to vote, they vote for celebrities regardless of policies or party.

I think you are both being unfair to people who vote for celebrities.

Celebrities have name recognition. That gets them their Voice to be HEard.

They tend to be comfortable talking in front of large audiences, and with TV. Two much needed skills.


They tend to be rich, and to have rich friends.


My understanding is that Arnold ran a good campaign with decent issues.

Why am I being unfair? Firstly, I'm not attacking the celebrities, they're just making the most of what they have. I'm attacking the mindless people who vote for them simply because they're famous.

So, Arnold had some decent issues. Sure, then again Reagan didn't have any, Trump had even less....

 

[frigidweirdo]

Firstly, it leads to only two parties. Two parties which are controlled by the rich for the rich. This isn't democracy.

Firstly, America is NOT a "democray." America is a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. Our Pledge of Allegiance does NOT say, "and to the DEMOCRACY, for which it stands," NO, it says, "and to the REPUBLIC, for which it stands." How many times do you progs need to be told that? Democracy is nothing more than MOB RULE. Is that what you want?

Secondly, I've seen better systems working elsewhere. Systems that lead to more voice, more control for the people.

Secondly, well then if you've seen better systems working elsewhere, then by all means, MOVE THERE.

That's like saying bread isn't food, it's bread.

Democracy is when people go out and elect their leaders. There are different levels of democracy, from pure democracy, like referenda, and there's democracy where people go and choose the people to make those decisions for them. The US is the latter.

A Republic merely means that the leader isn't a monarch. A democracy means that the leaders are elected by the people. Two different things. You can be a republic and a democracy.

No.

Stimulating.

 

[Darkwind]

Maybe they're annoyed that this is the 2nd time in 16 years that they've lost an election by getting MORE votes than the other side.

Maybe they should just grow up. It does not work that way. Never has it worked that way.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So... what are you suggesting? Oh, wait, let me guess, you're going to suggest that the left are just all the criminals.

There are many ways to look at this. Number one is poverty. Crime areas are more likely to be areas of poverty. The US govt hasn't done much to help poverty, certain state govts haven't done much either. The right certainly tries to prevent people crawling out of poverty. They have their areas where they feel safe, and then they get rich off of those people who live in poverty.

The reason the map is like this is because the right don't do anything for those who live in areas of poverty, and yet manage to squeeze into govt with a system that is unfairly biased towards the right.

Perhaps you can explain something here. How does anybody get rich of of other people being poor?

It's not the governments job to help poor people, it's up to individuals to help themselves.

What is poverty? Poverty means you don't have enough money.
Solution to poverty? Get more money.
How does one get money? Getting a job and earning it.
How does one keep the money they make? Don't do irresponsible things like having children you can't afford to support.

There, now everything is better.

"I cannot take to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, that grants Congress the right of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yeah, and it appears to be rather ridiculous. You wouldn't put a famous person in charge of your company simply because they're famous. It's democracy gone crazy. How would you tell a Chinese person now that they should strive for democracy? They'd just turn around and tell you to ef off.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I'd be willing to bet that half the people that vote don't even know WTF they are voting on. Yes, people do vote for celebrities, but I've met people that vote on candidates because they are the same gender, share the same ethnicity, the same race, just a number of things that have no relation to policy.

Trust me, I don't agree with it at all. In fact, if it were up to me, everybody would have to take a short and easy test before being allowed to vote in order to gauge their political knowledge. Nothing too hard, just very basic things like Who is the VP? What party does he belong to? What party is in leadership of the Congress? The Senate? Just simple things that any voter should know about.

The Republicans would welcome such a test, but the Democrats would die fighting against it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So... what are you suggesting? Oh, wait, let me guess, you're going to suggest that the left are just all the criminals.

There are many ways to look at this. Number one is poverty. Crime areas are more likely to be areas of poverty. The US govt hasn't done much to help poverty, certain state govts haven't done much either. The right certainly tries to prevent people crawling out of poverty. They have their areas where they feel safe, and then they get rich off of those people who live in poverty.

The reason the map is like this is because the right don't do anything for those who live in areas of poverty, and yet manage to squeeze into govt with a system that is unfairly biased towards the right.

Perhaps you can explain something here. How does anybody get rich of of other people being poor?

It's not the governments job to help poor people, it's up to individuals to help themselves.

What is poverty? Poverty means you don't have enough money.
Solution to poverty? Get more money.
How does one get money? Getting a job and earning it.
How does one keep the money they make? Don't do irresponsible things like having children you can't afford to support.

There, now everything is better.

"I cannot take to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, that grants Congress the right of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794

How do people get rich from other people being poor?

Well, it's simple. If I pay you $1 dollar an hour, instead of $10 dollars an hour, I save $9 dollars an hour on each employee.

The value of an employee isn't fixed. In China a person working in a factory might earn $400 a month, whereas an employee in the US might earn $2000 a month. Why the difference? Well, because of many reasons we can both figure out and know.

In the US some people will pay more and some will pay less. When the economy goes well, people don't find it hard to get a job, wages might go up, when the economy goes bad then they can pay less, and less. Setting up a system where they can continually pay less, where they make sure there is a large poor population, where they're not well educated, and therefore can't aspire to better jobs and more money, helps larger companies.

I'm just scratching at the surface here, but there is a concerted effort by the right, especially, to keep poor people poor.

You say it's up to individuals to help themselves. So why is it that the US govt is helping the rich people? Why is it the govt's job to help rich people to conduct business, but not their job to help poor people?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/18/nyregion/donald-trump-tax-breaks-real-estate.html?_r=0

"
A Trump Empire Built on Inside Connections and $885 Million in Tax Breaks"

Biggest beneficiary of federal tax breaks? You

"Tax expenditures" — those deductions, credits, exclusions, loopholes and other goodies that clutter up the tax code — now amount to nearly $1.2 trillion a year, the government says."

4 Big Companies That Pay Virtually No Income Tax

"
4 Big Companies That Pay Virtually No Income Tax"

This isn't me saying the govt should be the nanny of the poor people. What I'm saying is the govt helps the rich, how the hell are the poor ever going to make it in America, other than playing basketball or other sports, if the rich are playing on an uneven surface? You want them to help themselves. Well, they need equal education, they need opportunities, they need more than what they're getting. Right now poverty in the US is a disgrace. Poverty exists and always will exist, because it's relative. However poverty in the US is far worse than poverty in other first world countries. Crime is higher, incarceration rates are higher, dealing with mental illness is almost non-existent (and 50% of those in prison have some kind of mental health issue), education is worse for the poorest, opportunities are lower. Basically the poor are being used as cheap labor so the rich can get rich, far, far more than in other first world countries.

Solutions to the problems.

1) EDUCATION.
Kids go to school, and yet what do they learn? Do they learn how to be decent human beings? How to cook food properly? How to eat healthily? How to learn? How to use their brains? How to bring up children? How to be a good spouse?

No, the right spends a lot of effort saying that this is stuff that shouldn't be taught. Apparently we're supposed to just know this stuff. However even parents who are conscientious struggle to bring up kids as they would like. The right also encourages making money above all else, so, work 60 hours a week, then bitches and moans that the family structure is falling apart.

Do you see the problem here. Govt isn't helping, it's doing the contrary, it's causing problems in society and mostly this is right wing ideology at work. Trump wants to make more money, he wants to screw the environment, he won't deal with social issues, and nor will Congress. For the next 2 years at least nothing will be done. Kids will turn into adults and fumble around and make the same mistakes over and over, and then the right will say "It's up to individuals to solve this problem", yet we know they can't.

 

[NYcarbineer]

...libs would lose their fucking minds, call for the overthrow of the govt, call for the racist murders of whites, burn the American flag, and call for the assassination of the President - after demanding the GOP accept the outcome of the election - because they LOST and did not get their way?!

Actually, the question should be who DIDN'T see this coming?!

What happened to your prediction that Trump would win 400 electoral votes?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yeah, and it appears to be rather ridiculous. You wouldn't put a famous person in charge of your company simply because they're famous. It's democracy gone crazy. How would you tell a Chinese person now that they should strive for democracy? They'd just turn around and tell you to ef off.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I'd be willing to bet that half the people that vote don't even know WTF they are voting on. Yes, people do vote for celebrities, but I've met people that vote on candidates because they are the same gender, share the same ethnicity, the same race, just a number of things that have no relation to policy.

Trust me, I don't agree with it at all. In fact, if it were up to me, everybody would have to take a short and easy test before being allowed to vote in order to gauge their political knowledge. Nothing too hard, just very basic things like Who is the VP? What party does he belong to? What party is in leadership of the Congress? The Senate? Just simple things that any voter should know about.

The Republicans would welcome such a test, but the Democrats would die fighting against it.

Sorry to disappoint you, but if you think it's half the people.... it's probably somewhere in the region of 75% to 95%.

But here's the thing. How do you get people involved in politics? Perhaps by learning stuff at school, making it interesting, making it relevant, having kids think about it.

I actually watched the film Margaret about a month ago. There's an interesting part where the girl is in school, a Jewish school, and they have an Arab girl in the class and they're discussing stuff. Building up to such a thing and making it happen, does happen in some schools, but it should happen in all schools, and happen well.

The problem was, the girl then started attacking the Arab girl, typical of the nonsense we see on this forum daily.

But then again, most people seem to just want their life to be comfortable.

I had a conversation with a guy last Wednesday evening. It was heated, the guy's a prick of the first order. He's "cool", and was the sort of skinny jock at school, will bullshit his way through anything and everything, claims to have been in the top 1% of earners yet now does a job that doesn't earn him that much money at all. He's not a stupid guy, just often uses his intelligence to be cool, and to bully people like me who hate cool.
Anyway, he complained, he complained that he doesn't want to know about bad things when he goes on Facebook, doesn't want to hear people moaning about how Hillary won, or many other things. And a lot of people are like that. They ignore reality in order to feel happy. Ignorance is bliss, even for intelligent people.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Maybe they're annoyed that this is the 2nd time in 16 years that they've lost an election by getting MORE votes than the other side.

Maybe they should just grow up. It does not work that way. Never has it worked that way.

So, you wouldn't get annoyed if your side lost two elections when they could have won with a system that is fairer?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Solutions to the problems.

1) EDUCATION.
Kids go to school, and yet what do they learn? Do they learn how to be decent human beings? How to cook food properly? How to eat healthily? How to learn? How to use their brains? How to bring up children? How to be a good spouse?

No, the right spends a lot of effort saying that this is stuff that shouldn't be taught. Apparently we're supposed to just know this stuff. However even parents who are conscientious struggle to bring up kids as they would like. The right also encourages making money above all else, so, work 60 hours a week, then bitches and moans that the family structure is falling apart.

Do you see the problem here. Govt isn't helping, it's doing the contrary, it's causing problems in society and mostly this is right wing ideology at work. Trump wants to make more money, he wants to screw the environment, he won't deal with social issues, and nor will Congress. For the next 2 years at least nothing will be done. Kids will turn into adults and fumble around and make the same mistakes over and over, and then the right will say "It's up to individuals to solve this problem", yet we know they can't.

Okay, for one, the US spends more money per capita on education than any other industrialized country in the entire world, and we have little to show for it, so money is obviously not the problem. But if you wish to contend that it is, then maybe it's not the money, and it's the unions that keep bad teachers in school.

Secondly, when it comes to education, it's a family effort and not just the schools. But because leftists have promoted single-parent households for decades now, parents are not involved with their children's education. Their involvement stops after they shoo them onto to school bus. That's where the failure is.

I live in a black neighborhood, and statistically, over 70% of black kids are born out of wedlock. My former neighbor used to have a portable basketball hoop set up in his backyard. Kids from everywhere came here to play. They came here right after school and played well past dark. Okay, so where are the parents here? Why are their kids playing basketball instead of doing homework or preparing for the next day in school. Yeah, but money is the problem.....

Now you said something I find quite striking, and that is the government is helping the wealthy.

So I want to use a scenario here. Let's say you lived next door to me, and when you went out for your evening walk, I would go into your home and steal $100.00. I did this every single week. But after a while, I felt guilty, so I decide to only steal $75.00 a week from you instead. By doing so, did I just give you $25.00 a week?

The government is not giving the wealthy anything by taking less from them. It's their money to begin with. So how is taking less of THEIR money giving them anything?

This whole notion that all money belongs to government first, and whatever they allow us to keep is a gift from them to us is what's most disturbing about the liberal philosophy. It's just like you said about what companies pay people. They are not getting rich from the poor because the poor have no money to begin with. They are giving them jobs albeit low paying jobs, but better than no job at all.

 

[Darkwind]

Maybe they're annoyed that this is the 2nd time in 16 years that they've lost an election by getting MORE votes than the other side.

Maybe they should just grow up. It does not work that way. Never has it worked that way.

So, you wouldn't get annoyed if your side lost two elections when they could have won with a system that is fairer?

A mob is anything but fair.

We have never been a pure democracy, nor do we want to be one.

I get annoyed about a lot of things. You will not find Me out burning down My house because I'm annoyed at what others have done.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Solutions to the problems.

1) EDUCATION.
Kids go to school, and yet what do they learn? Do they learn how to be decent human beings? How to cook food properly? How to eat healthily? How to learn? How to use their brains? How to bring up children? How to be a good spouse?

No, the right spends a lot of effort saying that this is stuff that shouldn't be taught. Apparently we're supposed to just know this stuff. However even parents who are conscientious struggle to bring up kids as they would like. The right also encourages making money above all else, so, work 60 hours a week, then bitches and moans that the family structure is falling apart.

Do you see the problem here. Govt isn't helping, it's doing the contrary, it's causing problems in society and mostly this is right wing ideology at work. Trump wants to make more money, he wants to screw the environment, he won't deal with social issues, and nor will Congress. For the next 2 years at least nothing will be done. Kids will turn into adults and fumble around and make the same mistakes over and over, and then the right will say "It's up to individuals to solve this problem", yet we know they can't.

Okay, for one, the US spends more money per capita on education than any other industrialized country in the entire world, and we have little to show for it, so money is obviously not the problem. But if you wish to contend that it is, then maybe it's not the money, and it's the unions that keep bad teachers in school.

Secondly, when it comes to education, it's a family effort and not just the schools. But because leftists have promoted single-parent households for decades now, parents are not involved with their children's education. Their involvement stops after they shoo them onto to school bus. That's where the failure is.

I live in a black neighborhood, and statistically, over 70% of black kids are born out of wedlock. My former neighbor used to have a portable basketball hoop set up in his backyard. Kids from everywhere came here to play. They came here right after school and played well past dark. Okay, so where are the parents here? Why are their kids playing basketball instead of doing homework or preparing for the next day in school. Yeah, but money is the problem.....

Now you said something I find quite striking, and that is the government is helping the wealthy.

So I want to use a scenario here. Let's say you lived next door to me, and when you went out for your evening walk, I would go into your home and steal $100.00. I did this every single week. But after a while, I felt guilty, so I decide to only steal $75.00 a week from you instead. By doing so, did I just give you $25.00 a week?

The government is not giving the wealthy anything by taking less from them. It's their money to begin with. So how is taking less of THEIR money giving them anything?

This whole notion that all money belongs to government first, and whatever they allow us to keep is a gift from them to us is what's most disturbing about the liberal philosophy. It's just like you said about what companies pay people. They are not getting rich from the poor because the poor have no money to begin with. They are giving them jobs albeit low paying jobs, but better than no job at all.

Spending money on education doesn't equate to teaching the right things. It doesn't equate to directing the money in the right way or manner. How much just goes on paying for teachers and nothing else?

Yes, I'd say the Teaching Unions in the US are a major problem, just one of many major problems.

Yes, it is a family effort, and not just the schools. However when parents are encouraged to go out and work 60 hours a week, how much time do they have for this family effort?

How can you encourage too much work and then say it's all down to the family? That's right wing policy in many areas of the country. Is it going to work? Hell no. But they compartmentalize all that they say, and so they will avoid having to deal with the contradiction.

Poor parents, like maybe you live in a poor area if there is a 70% born out of wedlock statistic going on, they need to earn money. They're not earning enough to bring up their kids, there's only one of them in the family, again, where are they? Probably at work, if they're lucky and didn't lose their job.

But kids are growing up with this, and they'll pass this onto their kids. You start with such destruction of the family, and it keeps rolling UNLESS you do something about it. And the right won't do anything about it, the left might try to do something about it, but maybe it's not the right thing. The problems keep mounting. The underlying factor in all of this is the unwillingness to tackle the problems, by saying "everyone can make it in America" and "it's up to the family to solve the problems". Again, we're back to education. And then we're back to the right saying that it's all "indoctrination" if you teach anything other than "Jesus is you're best buddy".

I don't get your scenario.

I'll change your scenario to fit the topic we're discussing from my point of view.

You work for a company and they provide free meals. You lose your job, should you then still get those free meals? No,the meals weren't free, you had to work for them.

Rich companies pay taxes. Most people pay taxes? Why?

Infrastructure.
Security
Stability
Many services are provided.

In Russia in the 1990s the govt was almost dead. So there was no security. Rich people had to pay something like 30% of their income to a mafia to protect them, and even then their mafia might not be as good as another person's mafia. So what?

Large corporations aren't paying 30%, they're paying far, far less than this. In fact they're also being given money. They use a lot of the infrastructure, they make the most of the the military and foreign meddling by the US govt. How many US shareholders have made a ton of money because the US went to war in Iraq? Look at Halliburton, Shell, BP, all these companies which are international companies regardless of their base, and have many US shareholders. They're making money, from the lives of US servicemen and women, from the limbs of US servicemen and women, and from the tax dollars spent on the war.

To change your scenario, it's like I go out every evening, you take $100 a night, and yet I go round to your house every morning and I take your car for a spin, I use your internet, I use your phone, I eat your food, I do all of this. Are you stealing my money? Sure, because you didn't ask. Taking taxes isn't stealing, they asked, and you gave.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Maybe they're annoyed that this is the 2nd time in 16 years that they've lost an election by getting MORE votes than the other side.

Maybe they should just grow up. It does not work that way. Never has it worked that way.

So, you wouldn't get annoyed if your side lost two elections when they could have won with a system that is fairer?

A mob is anything but fair.

We have never been a pure democracy, nor do we want to be one.

I get annoyed about a lot of things. You will not find Me out burning down My house because I'm annoyed at what others have done.

Why do people keep talking about pure democracy? Did I say anything about pure democracy to you?

And who is "we"? You seem to have decided that you represent the whole country.

Same post, regurgitated over and over and over this last week. And no one ever replies properly to what I say.

 

[Vigilante]

Thank you President Trump!