Current Affairs Donald Trump POS: Judgement cometh and that right soon

Status
Not open for further replies.
The popular vote looks like being 600k in Clinton's favour. Where did this 2m figure come from the anti-Trumpsters kept repeating earlier in the thread? In terms of percentage, 600k is about a 1% difference between the two candidates in the popular vote.

There's a good reason why the popular vote doesn't win the election, for if it did you could get just a small handful of regions deciding who runs the entire country. This is why you often see lots of red and only a bit of blue on the outskirts on those US electoral maps: populous metropolitan areas vote a little more Democrat than the red team.


And this is hilarious, but has almost 4 million supporters:

https://www.change.org/p/electoral-...make-hillary-clinton-president-on-december-19

"We are calling on the Electors to ignore their states' votes and cast their ballots for Secretary Clinton. Why?

Mr. Trump is unfit to serve. His scapegoating of so many Americans, and his impulsivity, bullying, lying, admitted history of sexual assault, and utter lack of experience make him a danger to the Republic.

Secretary Clinton WON THE POPULAR VOTE and should be President."



Very much reminds us how Bremainers reacted after the Brexit vote. It's only democracy if their side wins, otherwise it's wrong and ways must be found to change the result.


In the meantime, Trump is talking about working with Russia, Assad & Iran to stop the bloodshed in Syria and stop supporting extremists, and he's revealed ambitions to finally end the conflict in Israel/Palestine to the benefit of hopefully everyone. Generally he wants to avoid conflict and have meaningful friendly and mutually beneficial relationships with other countries. He's also talking a lot about returning manufacture to US, creating many jobs for the working class. US has an awful lot of folk living in poverty, many people need this to work.


We look back to Obama's early tenure...all that hope and change...pre-emptively winning the Nobel Peace Prize...and who with a straight face can say US, and the wider world, are safer now than 8 years ago?


Give Trump a chance.

Just on the Israel Palestine peace deal his apparent support of settlements or at least tacit support is going to make that peace deal complicated you'd think .

As for working with Assad, Russia and Iran to 'stop bloodshed' in Syria in thinking that's certainly a way you could describe it if your looking to support his position , in sure your honest enough to say it's not the only way you could phrase a Syrian alliance with those .
 
Just on the Israel Palestine peace deal his apparent support of settlements or at least tacit support is going to make that peace deal complicated you'd think .

Personally I'm hoping Trump will go the two-state solution road, tho' that's also a quagmire as then it's all about using which borders (Israel would never accept 1967 borders, for example).


As for working with Assad, Russia and Iran to 'stop bloodshed' in Syria in thinking that's certainly a way you could describe it if your looking to support his position , in sure your honest enough to say it's not the only way you could phrase a Syrian alliance with those .

Aye, to stop bloodshed essentially meaning a quicker end to the conflict. Currently with the US Alliance supporting the Rebels there's no endgame in sight, more innocents die every year and many more are fleeing to Europe.

Ceasing the US-led support of the Rebels and instead supporting Russia (or leaving Russia to it) means a much quicker endgame, meaning less deaths and less refugees in the long-term.
 
the best we can all do is at least try not to spread misinformation.

as defined by "things i don't agree with???" this is an ongoing scholarly debate, not some click-bait hot-take. the best we can also do is to not slander people who hold different postitions

Will do that then. Sorry for asking.

lol no need to apologize... i personally would just need more persuasion that the word of some avatar on the internet
 
as defined by "things i don't agree with???" this is an ongoing scholarly debate, not some click-bait hot-take. the best we can also do is to not slander people who hold different postitions

Then it would've been better for you to word it to the effect of:

some scholars are debating whether...

or

personally I believe...


rather than stating it as if it were accepted history, which it plainly is not.


It's a bit like stating the FBI murdered Kennedy. Some scholars are still debating this too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top