You are so full of shit.
Nobody has bucked that system like Trump has.
Sucker.
You are so full of shit.
Nobody has bucked that system like Trump has.
I don't like her for the same reasons I don't like Hillary - she is too dedicated to the 2-party-and-the-rest-of-you-can-go-to-hell system.
Thomas later slightly changed her statement, saying: "I don't want to say he said 'go back to your country' or 'go back to where you came from,' but he was making those types of references is what I remember."Where's the "hoax" part?
You mean when Mexico put their own resources on their southern border to stop illegal immigration to the USA?Remember the good old days when we could point to our president and talk about their accomplishments? Got to admit I miss those days.
You mean when Mexico put their own resources on their southern border to stop illegal immigration to the USA?
Yeah, that'll never happen.
That would be almost like Mexico paying for a wall. lol.
Do you put the mayo on the outside of your sandwich?From Republican farmers in the midwest who depend on migrant labor at harvest time, to liberal millionaires on the California coast with lawns to mow, to Trump talking about building a meaningless wall across open desert as red meat to his base... when the talk stops and the rubber hits the road- the reason migrant labor is coming is because there is a massive demand for it.
Just saying no, or expecting Mexico to just say no as if that's some sort of solution... is hysterical. Trump want me to take him serious on this subject then he needs to offer serious solutions.
So how would you like to see it set up. No parties and everyone just votes, fundraises, etc... and members of congress just vote their districts. Or are you saying something more along the line of many political parties, and the government is constructed of coalitions of smaller parties?
Do you put the mayo on the outside of your sandwich?
Do you put the mayo on the outside of your sandwich?
This is an accident waiting to happen.The current system favors the adversarial behavior between two strong parties. In many states, R and D have conspired together to eliminate or limit the power of any upstart third parties or independent candidates.
My personal plan would require Constitutional amendments. One change would be to elect the President and Vice President separately - the current system occurred more or less by accident when the 12th Amendment revised the original method wherein the President was the man who got the most electoral votes and the VP he who got the second most, with unsatisfactory behavior in the event of ties or non-majority close calls. That's not too radical an idea - many states already elect Governor and Lieutenant Governor separately and often the results are split.
Another change would eliminate the winner-take-all practice in which one candidate for President gets all of that state's electoral votes (in principle, at least - there have been some "rogue" electors in the past). Two states, Maine and Nebraska, already have a clumsy system where a candidate could lose in the whole state but still win in one or more Congressional districts and thus get one electoral vote. It wouldn't take too much of a computer programmer to come up with a way to split California's 55 voters among all candidates who met a certain minimal level of support. Note that I am not in favor of a nationwide popular-vote election, since preserving each state's electoral votes limits electoral fraud in any state to that state's electors.
In larger states, say for those with 5 or more Congressmen, candidates would run either on a state-wide at-large ticket, or through a system of electoral lists in which each party or list wins a number of seats proportional to its votes statewide. That one needs some further thought, since it might eliminate or reduce the "localness" of your local Congressman.
Another idea - eliminate any office or financial advantage that Representatives or Senators get by party membership. They could still organize themselves as Majority or Minority/Opposition parties, but we taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for a fancier office and expanded staff budget for the Majority Leader.
Neither R nor D will support these ideas, since finishing second with some hope for the next election is better than just fading away.
The Bread is the border between your hands and the mayo, or mustard.I'm a 170 lbs of twisted steel and sex appeal. That doesn't happen when you're my age if you eat sandwiches with mayo on the inside or the outside.
The other benefit of being a plumber... you can eat what you want and even if you get so fat your ass hangs out, and it's like something people find endearing.
This is an accident waiting to happen.
Thank God nobody takes you seriously.
Got it.All of these ideas have been proposed by serious Americans looking to reduce the 2-party stranglehold under which we all suffer.
It also appears she has a history of making unsubstantiated racism claims. Here she is calling out a waitress and a “pool boy” at a Westin hotel for “#racist” behavior:He admitted calling her names. Where is the hoax?
The current system favors the adversarial behavior between two strong parties. In many states, R and D have conspired together to eliminate or limit the power of any upstart third parties or independent candidates.
My personal plan would require Constitutional amendments. One change would be to elect the President and Vice President separately - the current system occurred more or less by accident when the 12th Amendment revised the original method wherein the President was the man who got the most electoral votes and the VP he who got the second most, with unsatisfactory behavior in the event of ties or non-majority close calls. That's not too radical an idea - many states already elect Governor and Lieutenant Governor separately and often the results are split.
Another change would eliminate the winner-take-all practice in which one candidate for President gets all of that state's electoral votes (in principle, at least - there have been some "rogue" electors in the past). Two states, Maine and Nebraska, already have a clumsy system where a candidate could lose in the whole state but still win in one or more Congressional districts and thus get one electoral vote. It wouldn't take too much of a computer programmer to come up with a way to split California's 55 voters among all candidates who met a certain minimal level of support. Note that I am not in favor of a nationwide popular-vote election, since preserving each state's electoral votes limits electoral fraud in any state to that state's electors.
In larger states, say for those with 5 or more Congressmen, candidates would run either on a state-wide at-large ticket, or through a system of electoral lists in which each party or list wins a number of seats proportional to its votes statewide. That one needs some further thought, since it might eliminate or reduce the "localness" of your local Congressman.
Another idea - eliminate any office or financial advantage that Representatives or Senators get by party membership. They could still organize themselves as Majority or Minority/Opposition parties, but we taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for a fancier office and expanded staff budget for the Majority Leader.
Neither R nor D will support these ideas, since finishing second with some hope for the next election is better than just fading away.