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.
BrokeLoser if you think REAL AMERICANS are only those who agree with you, then you're not a REAL AMERICAN.
I am an American, too.
Just as all low-life piece of shit's would love nothing more than to be overlooked and included in the percentages with productive people...all humans standing on this soil would love to be considered American…SORRY...it doesn't work that way. You must first act American to be considered a REAL American!
The Romans used to think they were special too, as did the Germans under Hitler's.
You are an American by an accident of birth. Nothing more. Having been born an American is no big deal. There are 300,000,000 million of you, and 63,000,000 of which were dumb enough to vote for Trump.
You're right...why take pride in anything...my complete existence is accidental now that I think about it.
Thank you for verifying exactly why you weirdos can't and won't be prideful, patriotic and likeminded with your fellow American.
Oh wait...you're a fucking Canadian...your opinion doesn't matter...haha
Isn't this U.S.messageboard.com? Isn't there a Canadian board that you can stalk people on...you might know something about the people of your own country? I'm thinking around here you're just another bitter foreigner looking in from the outside.
That's why we need to get rid of the winner-take-all electoral votes. Go down to tenths of a percent votes for each candidate. Then have a national runoff of the top two vote-getters, because few will ever get 50%. The way it is now, the minority view in an overwhelmingly Red or Blue state is disenfranchised. Also, we won't have this "a vote for Perot is a vote for Clinton" inhibition to minimize third candidates. So, in Florida in 2000, Bush would have taken roughly 12.4 electoral votes, Gore 12.3 and the other .3 vote would have gone to the other candidates.Didn't vote for Trump, but if I were in a state where my vote mattered, I probably would have. .
That's why we need to get rid of the winner-take-all electoral votes. Go down to tenths of a percent votes for each candidate. Then have a national runoff of the top two vote-getters, because few will ever get 50%. The way it is now, the minority view in an overwhelmingly Red or Blue state is disenfranchised. Also, we won't have this "a vote for Perot is a vote for Clinton" inhibition to minimize third candidates. So, in Florida in 2000, Bush would have taken roughly 12.4 electoral votes, Gore 12.3 and the other .3 vote would have gone to the other candidates.Didn't vote for Trump, but if I were in a state where my vote mattered, I probably would have. .
Wags Wearing WigsThat's why we need to get rid of the winner-take-all electoral votes. Go down to tenths of a percent votes for each candidate. Then have a national runoff of the top two vote-getters, because few will ever get 50%. The way it is now, the minority view in an overwhelmingly Red or Blue state is disenfranchised. Also, we won't have this "a vote for Perot is a vote for Clinton" inhibition to minimize third candidates. So, in Florida in 2000, Bush would have taken roughly 12.4 electoral votes, Gore 12.3 and the other .3 vote would have gone to the other candidates.Didn't vote for Trump, but if I were in a state where my vote mattered, I probably would have. .
An idea worthy of consideration I'd say. I believe it would require a constitutional amendment though and that's a big deal that those in power from both parties would most certainly resist.
Wags Wearing WigsThat's why we need to get rid of the winner-take-all electoral votes. Go down to tenths of a percent votes for each candidate. Then have a national runoff of the top two vote-getters, because few will ever get 50%. The way it is now, the minority view in an overwhelmingly Red or Blue state is disenfranchised. Also, we won't have this "a vote for Perot is a vote for Clinton" inhibition to minimize third candidates. So, in Florida in 2000, Bush would have taken roughly 12.4 electoral votes, Gore 12.3 and the other .3 vote would have gone to the other candidates.Didn't vote for Trump, but if I were in a state where my vote mattered, I probably would have. .
An idea worthy of consideration I'd say. I believe it would require a constitutional amendment though and that's a big deal that those in power from both parties would most certainly resist.
See how the 18th Century Constitution blocks progress? It should have been a temporary start-up document to be superseded by all subsequent legislation.
Imagine if the computer had a Constitution that said it was to be used for secretarial work, because that's all anybody thought it would be good for back at the beginning. Any advancement would have to have the approval of a nine-person tribunal or go through the long drawn-out process of getting amendment by the top brass at 50 major computer companies.
The Constitution takes away the voters' right to think for themselves. It is a self-appointed decision-maker. Our submissiveness to that Master carries over to all our other thinking; we have been set up to choose only between what is offered by the know-it-all media, few of which questioned the winner-take-all.
Wags Wearing WigsThat's why we need to get rid of the winner-take-all electoral votes. Go down to tenths of a percent votes for each candidate. Then have a national runoff of the top two vote-getters, because few will ever get 50%. The way it is now, the minority view in an overwhelmingly Red or Blue state is disenfranchised. Also, we won't have this "a vote for Perot is a vote for Clinton" inhibition to minimize third candidates. So, in Florida in 2000, Bush would have taken roughly 12.4 electoral votes, Gore 12.3 and the other .3 vote would have gone to the other candidates.Didn't vote for Trump, but if I were in a state where my vote mattered, I probably would have. .
An idea worthy of consideration I'd say. I believe it would require a constitutional amendment though and that's a big deal that those in power from both parties would most certainly resist.
See how the 18th Century Constitution blocks progress? It should have been a temporary start-up document to be superseded by all subsequent legislation.
Imagine if the computer had a Constitution that said it was to be used for secretarial work, because that's all anybody thought it would be good for back at the beginning. Any advancement would have to have the approval of a nine-person tribunal or go through the long drawn-out process of getting amendment by the top brass at 50 major computer companies.
The Constitution takes away the voters' right to think for themselves. It is a self-appointed decision-maker. Our submissiveness to that Master carries over to all our other thinking; we have been set up to choose only between what is offered by the know-it-all media, few of which questioned the winner-take-all.
Disagree... If the amendment process is too much for your idea to overcome, perhaps it's not as great an idea as you think.
Pass on the 'subsequent legislation' idea. .
Let's be blunt? I think that was part of the problem, too many blunts!
Here are my reasons in short and in no order:
To fight to restore law and order...he's done that
To bitch slap nut-job Liberals...he's done that
To govern on behalf of our best...he's done that
To fight to bring jobs back to the U.S....he's done that
To fight to secure our southern border...he's done that
To bring likeminded REAL American's back together...he's done that
To bitch slap crooked politicians that have refused to enforce our laws...he's done that
To restore shame in what should be shameful...he's done that
To restore American pride and patriotism...he's done that
To bring God back to our nation...he's done that
To fight to make our nation safer from foreign whacko's...he's done that
I barely give a shit about foreign policy, I barely give a shit about Hussein Care, I don't give a shit at all if he's blowin' Putin or the Chinese president or NATO.
Am I missing something here?
I'm having a real hard time wrapping my head around how or why anyone who voted Trump would feel disappointed....You didn't elect a Politician, you elected someone to operate outside the box in every way. Forget what you thought you knew about how a traditional President should operate and how a traditional President should act. There is nothing traditional about Trump...you knew that and you expected that.
Here are my reasons in short and in no order:
To fight to restore law and order...he's done that
To bitch slap nut-job Liberals...he's done that
To govern on behalf of our best...he's done that
To fight to bring jobs back to the U.S....he's done that
To fight to secure our southern border...he's done that
To bring likeminded REAL American's back together...he's done that
To bitch slap crooked politicians that have refused to enforce our laws...he's done that
To restore shame in what should be shameful...he's done that
To restore American pride and patriotism...he's done that
To bring God back to our nation...he's done that
To fight to make our nation safer from foreign whacko's...he's done that
I barely give a shit about foreign policy, I barely give a shit about Hussein Care, I don't give a shit at all if he's blowin' Putin or the Chinese president or NATO.
Am I missing something here?
I'm having a real hard time wrapping my head around how or why anyone who voted Trump would feel disappointed....You didn't elect a Politician, you elected someone to operate outside the box in every way. Forget what you thought you knew about how a traditional President should operate and how a traditional President should act. There is nothing traditional about Trump...you knew that and you expected that.
That's a helluva lot of words to explain that you voted for Trump because you're in idiot.
Yeah you retards said that about Trump as well.Trump was the least bad alternative of the four Choices available to me on election day. Trump has surprised me on the upside more times than he has surprised me on the downside but I would still prefer Cruz.
Hahahaha...Cruz. He's a joke in Texas now. So I wouldn't hold your breath hoping for him to run in 2020.
Cruz's Popularity Plummets In Texas - Political Wire : Political Wire
Cruz's Popularity Plummets In Texas - Political Wire
Cruz's Popularity Plummets In Texas. February 27, 2017 By Taegan ... A new University of Texas/Texas Tribune poll finds Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) with a dismal ...
Cruz Is Unpopular — Even in Texas | Pensito Review
www.pensitoreview.com/2017/02/28/cruz-is-unpopular-even-in-texas/
Feb 28, 2017 - A new University of Texas/Texas Tribune poll finds Sen. TedCruz (R-TX) with a dismal 38% to 39% approval rating. Among independents ...
I didn't vote for Your guy.Here are my reasons in short and in no order:
To fight to restore law and order...he's done that
To bitch slap nut-job Liberals...he's done that
To govern on behalf of our best...he's done that
To fight to bring jobs back to the U.S....he's done that
To fight to secure our southern border...he's done that
To bring likeminded REAL American's back together...he's done that
To bitch slap crooked politicians that have refused to enforce our laws...he's done that
To restore shame in what should be shameful...he's done that
To restore American pride and patriotism...he's done that
To bring God back to our nation...he's done that
To fight to make our nation safer from foreign whacko's...he's done that
I barely give a shit about foreign policy, I barely give a shit about Hussein Care, I don't give a shit at all if he's blowin' Putin or the Chinese president or NATO.
Am I missing something here?
I'm having a real hard time wrapping my head around how or why anyone who voted Trump would feel disappointed....You didn't elect a Politician, you elected someone to operate outside the box in every way. Forget what you thought you knew about how a traditional President should operate and how a traditional President should act. There is nothing traditional about Trump...you knew that and you expected that.
Wags Wearing WigsThat's why we need to get rid of the winner-take-all electoral votes. Go down to tenths of a percent votes for each candidate. Then have a national runoff of the top two vote-getters, because few will ever get 50%. The way it is now, the minority view in an overwhelmingly Red or Blue state is disenfranchised. Also, we won't have this "a vote for Perot is a vote for Clinton" inhibition to minimize third candidates. So, in Florida in 2000, Bush would have taken roughly 12.4 electoral votes, Gore 12.3 and the other .3 vote would have gone to the other candidates.Didn't vote for Trump, but if I were in a state where my vote mattered, I probably would have. .
An idea worthy of consideration I'd say. I believe it would require a constitutional amendment though and that's a big deal that those in power from both parties would most certainly resist.
See how the 18th Century Constitution blocks progress? It should have been a temporary start-up document to be superseded by all subsequent legislation.
Imagine if the computer had a Constitution that said it was to be used for secretarial work, because that's all anybody thought it would be good for back at the beginning. Any advancement would have to have the approval of a nine-person tribunal or go through the long drawn-out process of getting amendment by the top brass at 50 major computer companies.
The Constitution takes away the voters' right to think for themselves. It is a self-appointed decision-maker. Our submissiveness to that Master carries over to all our other thinking; we have been set up to choose only between what is offered by the know-it-all media, few of which questioned the winner-take-all.
Disagree... If the amendment process is too much for your idea to overcome, perhaps it's not as great an idea as you think.
Pass on the 'subsequent legislation' idea. .
Constitutionazis
I don't have any respect for political bullies. You bootlickers are pathetically slavish to the ruling class's Constitution, so despite your smug, self-important tough-guy act, you really don't have any respect for yourselves. You call the will of the majority "mob rule" only so you can feel superior to the majority, because the 1% (who actually despise you) tell you you are. If you feel that way about your fellow Americans, that contempt leads to treason, as your infallible father-figure plutocrats have been committing for over 200 years.
Wags Wearing WigsThat's why we need to get rid of the winner-take-all electoral votes. Go down to tenths of a percent votes for each candidate. Then have a national runoff of the top two vote-getters, because few will ever get 50%. The way it is now, the minority view in an overwhelmingly Red or Blue state is disenfranchised. Also, we won't have this "a vote for Perot is a vote for Clinton" inhibition to minimize third candidates. So, in Florida in 2000, Bush would have taken roughly 12.4 electoral votes, Gore 12.3 and the other .3 vote would have gone to the other candidates.
An idea worthy of consideration I'd say. I believe it would require a constitutional amendment though and that's a big deal that those in power from both parties would most certainly resist.
See how the 18th Century Constitution blocks progress? It should have been a temporary start-up document to be superseded by all subsequent legislation.
Imagine if the computer had a Constitution that said it was to be used for secretarial work, because that's all anybody thought it would be good for back at the beginning. Any advancement would have to have the approval of a nine-person tribunal or go through the long drawn-out process of getting amendment by the top brass at 50 major computer companies.
The Constitution takes away the voters' right to think for themselves. It is a self-appointed decision-maker. Our submissiveness to that Master carries over to all our other thinking; we have been set up to choose only between what is offered by the know-it-all media, few of which questioned the winner-take-all.
Disagree... If the amendment process is too much for your idea to overcome, perhaps it's not as great an idea as you think.
Pass on the 'subsequent legislation' idea. .
Constitutionazis
I don't have any respect for political bullies. You bootlickers are pathetically slavish to the ruling class's Constitution, so despite your smug, self-important tough-guy act, you really don't have any respect for yourselves. You call the will of the majority "mob rule" only so you can feel superior to the majority, because the 1% (who actually despise you) tell you you are. If you feel that way about your fellow Americans, that contempt leads to treason, as your infallible father-figure plutocrats have been committing for over 200 years.
Your logical fallacies aside, I still disagree with you.
Here are my reasons in short and in no order:
To fight to restore law and order...he's done that
To bitch slap nut-job Liberals...he's done that
To govern on behalf of our best...he's done that
To fight to bring jobs back to the U.S....he's done that
To fight to secure our southern border...he's done that
To bring likeminded REAL American's back together...he's done that
To bitch slap crooked politicians that have refused to enforce our laws...he's done that
To restore shame in what should be shameful...he's done that
To restore American pride and patriotism...he's done that
To bring God back to our nation...he's done that
To fight to make our nation safer from foreign whacko's...he's done that
I barely give a shit about foreign policy, I barely give a shit about Hussein Care, I don't give a shit at all if he's blowin' Putin or the Chinese president or NATO.
Am I missing something here?
I'm having a real hard time wrapping my head around how or why anyone who voted Trump would feel disappointed....You didn't elect a Politician, you elected someone to operate outside the box in every way. Forget what you thought you knew about how a traditional President should operate and how a traditional President should act. There is nothing traditional about Trump...you knew that and you expected that.
