The4thEstate wrote: ↑Sat Nov 30, 2019 2:03 amRi-i-i-ight, we have Democrats declaring themselves "The Resistance" on the day Trump takes his oath of office -- not to mention Obama holdovers trying to pull off a coup with the Russia collusion hoax -- and yet, Trump is the one who's dividing Americans.
No, actually I'd say that nearly all elected Democrats in Congress have taken that stance. Look at how many of them in the House of Representatives (all but 2) voted yes on the impeachment inquiry.brian ross wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 11:13 pmWhat you mean is that you have "some, extremist Democrats" declaring themselves the resistance, 4E. What do the overwhelming majority of Democrats think on that?
That's more than "some" ... although it could be said that nearly all of them are "extremists."
We'll find out next November. But I think the majority of Americans are getting bored with the Democrats' unrelenting 4-year attempt to find some way of removing Trump from office that doesn't involve facing him in an election.
Based on what, exactly? The fact that he has the audacity to defend himself against bogus charges concocted by the Democrats?brian ross wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 11:13 pmSee what I mean, he is dividing American society. He has set out to deliberately divide American society.
Here's a crazy idea: How about if the Democrats stopped devoting every nanosecond of the day to trying to remove him, and simply dedicated themselves to working with him for the common good of America and its citizens? Think that might make the country a little less divided?
So what ... it's called the Electoral College, and it's been the way Americans elect their president since the '80s.brian ross wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 11:13 pmRemember, he LOST the popular election for President. Hilary gained nearly 3 million MORE votes than Trump. Are you really surprised at his unpopularity? Really?
The 1780s.
Besides, 3 million votes might seem like a big deal to you, but in the U.S. we had close to 130 million votes cast for the two leading candidates. So it was 48 percent to 46 percent ... and even that doesn't tell the whole story, because a smart candidate pursues the presidency by observing the rules of the game. When electoral votes count, it's more strategic to visit smaller states than concentrate on the major population centers -- as Trump demonstrated. Hillary didn't even go to Wisconsin -- is it any wonder she lost there?
There's plenty of murkiness about Obama's past, and in retrospect it's obvious that America's major media, which cheerleads for the Democrats, didn't investigate it with 1/1000th the vigor they put into trying in vain to link Trump to the silly Russian collusion fairy tale.brian ross wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 11:13 pmAmerica has, since the election of Bush junior become more, not less polarised. When Obama was elected, many American citizens refused to accept he was even American - something Trump played on with the "Birther movement", for several years. He has helped polarise American society and your refusal to accept that suggests what about your bIases?
Do I believe Obama wasn't born in the U.S.? Not necessarily, but I wouldn't bet my life that he was, either. This 2012 article covers some of the unresolved mystery of Obama's past:
https://www.investors.com/politics/edit ... in-secret/
Calling me "unreasonably biased" is in itself unreasonably biased.brian ross wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 11:13 pmYour refusal to even acknowledge that you are unreasonably biased against the Democrats suggests what about your objectivity? Mmmm?