Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber kmax87
    You've got Kevin
    14 Nov '16 13:28
    Given that Hillary will have a larger popular vote margin over Trump than Gore had over Bush, and given that electoral college votes are not proportional to population, the notion that the country has gone overwhelmingly red and has delivered Trump a sweeping mandate, is the ultimate big lie.

    If the truth instead, is that the country is a blend of red and blue electorally and nothing more than myriad shades of purple graphically, then Trumps "victory" is nothing more than the slenderest of margins across a few marginal states, states big on rural and low density and then the truth hits you, the notion that Trump won in a landslide is pure BS and the nation, the country as a whole, rather than being divided is actually very close, neck and neck together on most issues and the idea that Trump with GOP congressional majority will irrevocably change the political and legal landscape is pure fantasy.

    Your opinions please pundits.....
  2. 14 Nov '16 13:32
    Originally posted by kmax87
    Given that Hillary will have a larger popular vote margin over Trump than Gore had over Bush, and given that electoral college votes are not proportional to population, the notion that the country has gone overwhelmingly red and has delivered Trump a sweeping mandate, is the ultimate big lie.

    If the truth instead, is that the country is a blend of red and ...[text shortened]... y change the political and legal landscape is pure fantasy.

    Your opinions please pundits.....
    Even if he won the popular vote Trump would not have a mandate. Whether 49% or 51% of the popular voted for him make zero difference. He won and he will be president. He will probably get some but not very many of the things done that he desires -- like all presidents.
  3. 14 Nov '16 13:50 / 1 edit
    Trump has a mandate to place Bible believing Christians in all corners of the government.

    Mwhahahahaha!!

    Unless he is grabbing women's crotches, but I think that his only common sense.
  4. 14 Nov '16 14:06 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by whodey
    Trump has a mandate to place Bible believing Christians in all corners of the government.

    Mwhahahahaha!!

    Unless he is grabbing women's crotches, but I think that his only common sense.
    Christians have no place in a secular government, Jesus clearly stated that his Kingdom is NO PART of this world. Furthermore history shows that early Christians did not take civic office or join the army.

    The Early Church and the World, Professor C. J. Cadoux writes: “Up to the reign of Marcus Aurelius at least [161-180 C.E.], no Christian would become a soldier after his baptism.”

    “Early Christianity was little understood and was regarded with little favor by those who ruled the pagan world. . . . Christians refused to share certain duties of Roman citizens. . . . They would not hold political office.” (On the Road to Civilization A World History, A. K. Heckel and J. G. Sigman, 1937, pp. 237-8)

    The Encyclopedia of Religion states: “The early church fathers, including Tertullian and Origen, affirmed that Christians were constrained from taking human life, a principle that prevented them from participating in the Roman army.”

    In his book, E.w. Barnes’ careful review of all the information available goes to show that, until the time of Marcus Aurelius [Roman emperor from 161 to 180 C.E.], no Christian became a soldier; and no soldier, after becoming a Christian, remained in military service.The Rise of Christianity (London, 1947), E. W. Barnes, p. 333.

    The book ‘The Early Christian Attitude to War’ says: “Inasmuch as they [Jesus teachings] ruled out as illicit all use of violence and injury against others, clearly implied [was] the illegitimacy of participation in war . . . The early Christians took Jesus at his word, and understood his inculcation of gentleness and non-resistance in their literal sense. They closely identified their religion with peace; they strongly condemned war for the bloodshed which it involved.”

    “They refused to take any active part in the civil administration or the military defence of the empire. . . . it was impossible that the Christians, without renouncing a more sacred duty, could assume the character of soldiers, of magistrates, or of princes.” History of Christianity (New York, 1891), Edward Gibbon, pp. 162, 163.

    “The behavior of the [early] Christians was very different from that of the Romans. . . . Since Christ had preached peace, they refused to become soldiers,” Our World Through the Ages.

    And ‘The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,’ by Edward Gibbon, states: “[Early Christians] refused to take any active part in the civil administration or the military defense of the empire. . . . It was impossible that the Christians, without renouncing a more sacred duty, could assume the character of soldiers.”

    The Catholic Herald of London stated: “The first Christians . . . took Jesus at His word and refused to be conscripted into the Roman army even if the penalty was death. Would the whole of history have been different if the Church had stuck to its original stand? . . . If the churches of today could come out with a joint condemnation of war . . . , which would mean that every member would be bound in conscience to be, like the Christians, a conscientious objector, peace might indeed be assured. But we know that this will never happen.”

    “Zealous Christians did not serve in the armed forces or accept political offices.”– World History, The Story of Mans Achievements (River Forest, Ill; 1962) Habberton, Roth and Spears, p. 117.

    “While among Romans it was considered the highest honor to possess the privileges of Roman citizenship, the Christians announced that they were citizens of heaven. They shrank from public office and military service.” Persecution of the Christians in Gaul, A.D. 177 by F.F.G. Guizot, former prime minister of France, Vol. III of The Great Events by Famous Historians (New York; 1905), Rossiter Johnson, ed, p. 246.

    “The Christians were strangers and pilgrims in the world around them; their citizenship was in heaven; the kingdom to which they looked was not of this world. The consequent want of interest in public affairs came thus from the outset to be a noticeable feature in Christianity. Christianity and the Roman Government.” (London; 1925), E. G. Hardy, Principal of Jesus College, Oxford, p. 39.

    “The emperors disliked Christianity because it seemed unpatriotic and un-Roman.” The Course of Civilization, Volume One, (New York; 1961), p. 144.

    http://dominicanewsonline.com/news/homepage/features/commentary/early-christianity-politics-and-war/
  5. 14 Nov '16 14:33 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Christians have no place in a secular government, Jesus clearly stated that his Kingdom is NO PART of this world. Furthermore history shows that early Christians did not take civic office or join the army.

    The Early Church and the World, Professor C. J. Cadoux writes: “Up to the reign of Marcus Aurelius at least [161-180 C.E.], no Christian would ...[text shortened]... ://dominicanewsonline.com/news/homepage/features/commentary/early-christianity-politics-and-war/
    Christians have no place in government? The hell you say!

    I thought Obama and Hillary were both Christians. LOL.

    As for Trump.............well.................he's from New York so cut the guy some slack. It's not like his New York mind can generate a shred of moral fiber.

    Nuff said.
  6. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    14 Nov '16 14:51
    Originally posted by kmax87
    Given that Hillary will have a larger popular vote margin over Trump than Gore had over Bush, and given that electoral college votes are not proportional to population, the notion that the country has gone overwhelmingly red and has delivered Trump a sweeping mandate, is the ultimate big lie.

    If the truth instead, is that the country is a blend of red and ...[text shortened]... y change the political and legal landscape is pure fantasy.

    Your opinions please pundits.....
    As far as I'm concerned, the word "mandate" doesn't mean anything in this context. He'll have control over the military, foreign policy, the administrative agencies and the power to veto legislation. Nothing else matters. Do you suppose Presidents behave differently based on their victory margins? I doubt it. They do what they think is best. If Trump's ideas work, people will like him. Otherwise, people will hate him and Republicans will get creamed in 2018. Same as if he won the popular vote by 5 points.
  7. 14 Nov '16 14:58
    Originally posted by sh76
    As far as I'm concerned, the word "mandate" doesn't mean anything in this context. He'll have control over the military, foreign policy, the administrative agencies and the power to veto legislation. Nothing else matters. Do you suppose Presidents behave differently based on their victory margins? I doubt it. They do what they think is best. If Trump's ideas wo ...[text shortened]... te him and Republicans will get creamed in 2018. Same as if he won the popular vote by 5 points.
    What they are really implying is, if a President has enough votes they should be able to rule by edict.

    It is every left wingers wet dream
  8. 14 Nov '16 15:20
    Originally posted by kmax87
    Given that Hillary will have a larger popular vote margin over Trump than Gore had over Bush, and given that electoral college votes are not proportional to population, the notion that the country has gone overwhelmingly red and has delivered Trump a sweeping mandate, is the ultimate big lie.

    If the truth instead, is that the country is a blend of red and ...[text shortened]... y change the political and legal landscape is pure fantasy.

    Your opinions please pundits.....
    If it was the other way around you would have the other side complaining. It doesn't look like we have a good voting system set up right now.
  9. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    14 Nov '16 15:22
    Originally posted by whodey
    What they are really implying is, if a President has enough votes they should be able to rule by edict.

    It is every left wingers wet dream
    I think what the OP is driving at is that the electoral college system sometimes throws up results where the candidate with the popular vote fails to win and that maybe needs to be replaced with something more representative as it undermines the office of President if people have any justification in saying that an election victory is flawed.
  10. 14 Nov '16 15:25
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    I think what the OP is driving at is that the electoral college system sometimes throws up results where the candidate with the popular vote fails to win and that maybe needs to be replaced with something more representative as it undermines the office of President if people have any justification in saying that an election victory is flawed.
    What the hell. Why not?

    After all, the Founding Fathers tried to protect the rights of individual states from being dictated to by other states who had greater populations, but now that it is commonly accepted that states have no rights, go for it!!
  11. Standard member KellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    14 Nov '16 16:06
    Originally posted by kmax87
    Given that Hillary will have a larger popular vote margin over Trump than Gore had over Bush, and given that electoral college votes are not proportional to population, the notion that the country has gone overwhelmingly red and has delivered Trump a sweeping mandate, is the ultimate big lie.

    If the truth instead, is that the country is a blend of red and ...[text shortened]... y change the political and legal landscape is pure fantasy.

    Your opinions please pundits.....
    I believe he does have a mandate, and that is to real in the government from being an
    out of control spending machine, and restore the rule of law instead of this two tier class
    of those above the law and the rest of us.
  12. 14 Nov '16 16:08
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    I believe he does have a mandate, and that is to real in the government from being an
    out of control spending machine, and restore the rule of law instead of this two tier class
    of those above the law and the rest of us.
    Trump has promised smaller government revenues and increased government spending.
  13. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    14 Nov '16 17:30
    Originally posted by whodey
    What the hell. Why not?

    After all, the Founding Fathers tried to protect the rights of individual states from being dictated to by other states who had greater populations, but now that it is commonly accepted that states have no rights, go for it!!
    The Framers would have been confused by an assertion that States had "rights"; a political subdivision has legitimate powers, but only individuals have rights.

    Why voters in small States right to vote should count more than the same right of voters in large States is difficult to fathom. Granted the Framers compromised on the Senate, but the Constitutional Convention record doesn't show that they thought the EC was a critically necessary part of the overall scheme.

    There have been several amendments already changing the Presidential selection process so the anti-tinkering argument lacks force unless you think Obama should have been allowed to run for a third term.
  14. Standard member KellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    14 Nov '16 17:34
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Trump has promised smaller government revenues and increased government spending.
    Yea right.

    Our government along with almost all others look at getting enough by simply getting more
    money from the tax payers, while the other way would be to spend less requiring less
    money to operate.
  15. 14 Nov '16 17:37
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    Yea right.

    Our government along with almost all others look at getting enough by simply getting more
    money from the tax payers, while the other way would be to spend less requiring less
    money to operate.
    Trump's word is only worth something until it's not, but you can read his positions on his web site. Increases in spending on infrastructure and the military, cuts in taxes. Whether Congress will play along we'll have to see. My suspicion is that they will give him the tax cuts and increases in phallic compensation toys, but not (all of) the infrastructure spending.