Trump Speech at Coast Guard Graduation

[cammando]

Kind of like the people who tied MLK to communists and produced doctored photos of him in some communist garb. You are welcome to judge each as you will but most of the charges I've read vs Mandela were fabricated by the government to get rid of him.

Mandela's cause was definitely just... Just not the saint most folks thought he was...

[Sportsaholic Mamaw]

Or maybe some individuals wanted him to run as a clear moral difference to Trump and HRC.

 

Yes, he did declare that he was a true conservative. Don't believe that was his reason to run in a limited area. Did he ever decide one person to be his V.P., Mindy Finn or Nathan Johnson? Either of them were on ballots in his limited number of states. Still not a shot at your vote. Every American decides for themselves who they will vote for.

[Sportsaholic Mamaw]

You can tell them and tell them, but they will not listen. They will have to see.

 

Yes, JJ you are right. I had quit posting altogether, but at some point the lies just mount and there is a limit for anyone.

[Sportsaholic Mamaw]

I'll never understand why so many are so quick and willing to speak openly about what basically amounts to discounting or even disenfranchising voters based on where they live. I guess the fly over state voters are the only ones that should count. Let's just take the next step and not even allow folks who live in the "pockets" we don't like, to not even vote.

 

No, I just believe for every legal registered American, one person one vote. No matter where you live presidential elections are decided by the EC and the votes are set for each state, not by popularity, period. Just happened that the rust belt states went for Candidate Trump because they wanted change. What voter was disenfranchised?

[Jesse James]

I would like to know what voters were disenfranchised also.

[rjs4470]

No, I just believe for every legal registered American, one person one vote. No matter where you live presidential elections are decided by the EC and the votes are set for each state, not by popularity, period. Just happened that the rust belt states went for Candidate Trump because they wanted change. What voter was disenfranchised?

 

Again, putting words in my mouth. I said so many are so quick and willing to speak openly about what basically amounts to discounting or even disenfranchising voters based on where they live. It was a common theme echoed on this board, where you often heard several giving reasons why we should ignore what places like California, Chicago or the large East Coast cities should have to say in the process. Those types of comments and statements are in essence a call to minimize what others believe/want based solely on where they live. You even said yourself

"President Trump is who the people voted for and wanted to win. At least legal registered Americans in the fly over states"

, which to sounds a lot like the the "People" in the non flyover areas aren't as important. Now I'm guessing that's not what you mean. But that's how it can come across.

 

I never said people were disenfranchised. I do believe there are quite a few who ok with the disenfranchising of voters, and it doesn't take much to find posts saying as much on this board.

[rjs4470]

I would like to know what voters were disenfranchised also.

 

Read my post again. Never said anyone was disenfranchised.

[Sportsaholic Mamaw]

Again, putting words in my mouth. I said so many are so quick and willing to speak openly about what basically amounts to discounting or even disenfranchising voters based on where they live. It was a common theme echoed on this board, where you often heard several giving reasons why we should ignore what places like California, Chicago or the large East Coast cities should have to say in the process. Those types of comments and statements are in essence a call to minimize what others believe/want based solely on where they live. You even said yourself , which to sounds a lot like the the "People" in the non flyover areas aren't as important. Now I'm guessing that's not what you mean. But that's how it can come across.

 

I never said people were disenfranchised. I do believe there are quite a few who ok with the disenfranchising of voters, and it doesn't take much to find posts saying as much on this board.

 

No, that's just how you chose to misinterpret my statement. I also said one person one vote, period.Forget it. Now I remember why I stopped posting. :taz:

[rjs4470]

Do they have a different English language dictionary than the rest of us? Or is their purpose to misinterpret our statements and post inane questions hoping we just quit? So then they can dominate any thread? Like they do MSM news.

 

Really?? That's almost exactly the way I feel. I have no desire to make you quit posting, nor to dominate any thread. Ive been polite, and this all started with me pointing out that the statement "Trump is what the people wanted" is not necessarily true when you consider nearly 75 million people voted against him. That's not opinion, that's not MSM spin, that's fact. And a big reason why there's so much opposition and a high degree of scrutiny that he's receiving. And admittedly, that's probably where I should have left it and not let myself get dragged into the electoral college wormhole you brought into the discussion.

 

And you can be direct with me...no need for the passive aggressive post above. If you think I'm being inane, just tell me;). If I'm wrong, I'll own it. But just be prepared to continue to hear polite discussion from me.

[Sportsaholic Mamaw]

Really?? That's almost exactly the way I feel. I have no desire to make you quit posting, nor to dominate any thread. Ive been polite, and this all started with me pointing out that the statement "Trump is what the people wanted" is not necessarily true when you consider nearly 75 million people voted against him. That's not opinion, that's not MSM spin, that's fact. And a big reason why there's so much opposition and a high degree of scrutiny that he's receiving. And admittedly, that's probably where I should have left it and not let myself get dragged into the electoral college wormhole you brought into the discussion.

 

And you can be direct with me...no need for the passive aggressive post above. If you think I'm being inane, just tell me;). If I'm wrong, I'll own it. But just be prepared to continue to hear polite discussion from me.

 

O.K. POTUS Trump is who the people wanted according to the vote from the EC, period. You were wrong according to the EC. One person, one vote. You only affect the count for the state you are voting in at the polling station. No one disenfranchised, their vote was counted in their state. That nasty little wormhole of the EC saved our country from making a huge mistake, my thought only, no need to discuss. I shall return to politeness also. Candidate Trump won and all others lost. Period.

[rjs4470]

O.K. POTUS Trump is who the people wanted according to the vote from the EC, period. You were wrong according to the EC. One person, one vote. You only affect the count for the state you are voting in at the polling station. No one disenfranchised, their vote was counted in their state. That nasty little wormhole of the EC saved our country from making a huge mistake, my thought only, no need to discuss. I shall return to politeness also. Candidate Trump won and all others lost. Period.

 

Again, never disputed the EC. I also never said the EC was bad. I just simply offered a reason as to why you're hearing so much chirping and opposition to Trump. That has nothing to do with the EC. 75 million people can make a pretty loud voice. The EC was never part of my argument. I'm not sure why you keep focusing on justifying it. It's not relative to what I'm saying.

 

And once again, I don't believe, nor did I say anyone was disenfranchised. Please re-read my posts. I simply pointed out that there were many comments made the could be likened to some folks on this board being ok with disenfranchisement.

 

I'm not sure what I need to say to make this clearer. I'll try one more time, without the side note of disenfranchisement which is not really part of my point.

 

In short...lots of people voted against Trump, more than the number that voted for him. It's no surprise then that he is facing so much scrutiny and opposition, and that this scrutiny and opposition is very persistent.

[Jesse James]

There is a great divide. Been saying it and always get blown off. I can tell you for 100% that the divide between me and the 75 Million people who voted for Hillary cannot be mended to where I will compromise my beliefs. I agree with everything Mama said. Biggest thing I agree with is if the liberal Left pull this impeachment stuff your side is throwing around, then you dont want what will come next. Nobody does.

[Sportsaholic Mamaw]

There is a great divide. Been saying it and always get blown off. I can tell you for 100% that the divide between me and the 75 Million people who voted for Hillary cannot be mended to where I will compromise my beliefs. I agree with everything Mama said. Biggest thing I agree with is if the liberal Left pull this impeachment stuff your side is throwing around, then you dont want what will come next. Nobody does.

 

Well said.

[Sportsaholic Mamaw]

Again, never disputed the EC. I also never said the EC was bad. I just simply offered a reason as to why you're hearing so much chirping and opposition to Trump. That has nothing to do with the EC. 75 million people can make a pretty loud voice. The EC was never part of my argument. I'm not sure why you keep focusing on justifying it. It's not relative to what I'm saying.

 

And once again, I don't believe, nor did I say anyone was disenfranchised. Please re-read my posts. I simply pointed out that there were many comments made the could be likened to some folks on this board being ok with disenfranchisement.

 

I'm not sure what I need to say to make this clearer. I'll try one more time, without the side note of disenfranchisement which is not really part of my point.

 

In short...lots of people voted against Trump, more than the number that voted for him. It's no surprise then that he is facing so much scrutiny and opposition, and that this scrutiny and opposition is very persistent.

 

A loser's side can refuse to accept the outcome but this is much more than that. My thoughts only but I feel there is a concentrated effort by our Intelligence Depts. career holdovers, Deep State and an almost shadow type government of Mr. Obama's recent trip overseas and his former employees. When President Trump returns from his trip, he should request polygraphs from every person in the Whitehouse to find the leakers and fire them on the spot, let the chips fall where they may. As President he can do this to find the problem. Sorry, I guess I got diverted from thread topic. But I think there is more to this than loser opposition. And I have yet to read one iota of evidence that withstands the light of day that he has done anything illegal.

[rockmom]

Since Mamaw is able to come out and post, I'm breaking my silence as well.

 

I don't want President Trump impeached. I want him to serve out every single day of his term, and when the next election comes around, I want him to lose the election. I think (ironically) he's less dangerous than Mike Pence. As much as I may disagree philosophically with many Republican politicians, I do have a measure of confidence that they won't allow a total destruction of the Constitution.

 

It has been supremely interesting to watch people who lamented that former President Obama's experience was as Community Organizer and thus not prepared to be POTUS, so staunchly defend President Trump's lack of experience as refreshing. I have learned a lot.