Election Meddling

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-03-20 10:55:57

Terraformer wrote:

So Tom, let me get this straight. I shouldn't complain if I don't vote;

That would be like complaining that the ship was sinking but doing nothing about it. The ship is sinking, but it hasn't sunk, maybe you can do something about it

I shouldn't complain if I do,

If you do, you will be complaining to some other voter. What I do is say, "Barack Obama isn't my President because I didn't vote for him, things have gone terribly, so I was right, you should have listened to me!" That is what I would say.

but don't vote for someone with any chance of winning;

Where did I say that?

and I shouldn't complain if I vote for anyone with a chance of winning, even if I don't want them to be President.
Yeah. Really.

You could vote for a hard line communist, but he doesn't have a chance of winning so you would be wasting your vote. If you want to vote against somebody, say for instance Donald Trump, then the most likely way of stopping Trump would be to vote for the other candidate that is second most likely to win, and in this election that is likely to be Ted Cruz. Hillary could probably be President if all the other candidates suddenly died and she was the only one left. Being a dishonest crook doesn't help. Maybe the Democrats don't have a better choice in this race, but the American People as a whole probably do. A billionaire or a Senator who keeps his promises is probably a better choice that Hillary Clinton.

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2016-03-20 10:58:13)

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-03-20 11:06:25

SpaceNut wrote:

Then the vote is for whom we feel to be the lesser of the evils between those that get the nod for each party that we perceive that they have, as in a liar is still a liar for either of the top 2 candidates as its only the difference of what we feel is the more severe lie to create.....in this case cadidate alignment with followers mouth pieces, other lower candidate vote givers to the leader and actions that speak louder to the sistuation of a liar for whom we will vote for....The raw action that helps the people is the one we must trust and that does not mean the one with the most money...

If you vote for a liar, you might not be getting who you think you are voting for. She is a liar after all, you don't really know which promises she'll keep and which ones she is only saying because she thinks it will get her your vote. Once Hillary is elected, she feels no obligation to keep the promises she made to get her there, she is a liar after all. She lied about Benghazi even though she probably knew she was going to run for President, but she felt that the American People are so dumb that all it would take would be a clever ad campaign and having the press on her side to make her President even after that, so far those two factors have made her the leading candidate of the Democratic Party, I'm not so sure this is going to work for her in the General Election. The thing is, if you vote for a liar, you have to trust that she has your interests at heart, even though she will probably say things and promise anything to get elected. Chances are Hillary might not be as left wing as she currently pretends, because Bernie Sanders is to her left, so she is probably saying thing she doesn't believe just to take away Sanders voters so she gets nominated.

RobertDyck · 2016-03-20 11:42:14

I could suggest the United States fix its political process. Many Americans realize the problem with campaign finances. Jimmy Carter said he would not be able to run today. Hillary Clinton made an election promise to reverse Citizens United; she said if necessary she would initiate a Constitutional amendment. However, that's not the only problem.

Notice the media talks about a "brokered convention" as if it's a bad thing. It isn't, that's how party nomination conventions are supposed to work. It hasn't worked for decades. Candidates campaign through the media, gaining delegates state by state. Partially due to the extreme expense of campaigning, candidates drop out before the convention. Canada has a similar system, but delegate selection votes are held in every province and territory on the same day. That means very few candidates drop out. Most of the candidates make it all the way to the convention. In Canada, delegates are required to declare which candidate they support. They can declare no support for any candidate, and ask members of their electoral district to vote for them as a delegate anyway. Some do, although most support a candidate. Delegates are required to vote for the candidate for whom they declared support, but only for the first vote. After the first vote they're free to change their vote to anyone they want. If one candidate gets more than 50% of the vote, then that candidate is the winner, he/she becomes the party nominee. If no one single candidate wins 50%, then the single candidate with the least votes is eliminated, and the delegates vote again. This continues, eliminating one candidate at a time, until only one stands. All the delegate votes are held on one day. Notice the difference: multiple candidates and multiple votes. That means candidates have to win votes from delegates for other candidates. What that does is tone down the rhetoric. Candidates don't tear at the throat of other candidates from the same party. There is a little negative campaigning, but very little compared to what we see in the United States.

At the convention, candidates bargain. Candidates tell other candidates "If you quit now and throw your support to me, then when I'm Prime Minister, I will give you a key position in my government". Typical positions are cabinet minister, the American equivalent would be Secretary of (whatever).

I'm sure the media won't like this, because it means the convention will be actually relevant. Candidates won't spend as many millions of dollars each on advertising. But campaign spending is part of the problem.

So the one change I am suggesting, is make all delegate selection votes occur in every state and every territory on the same day.

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-03-20 16:48:08

RobertDyck wrote:

I could suggest the United States fix its political process. Many Americans realize the problem with campaign finances. Jimmy Carter said he would not be able to run today. Hillary Clinton made an election promise to reverse Citizens United; she said if necessary she would initiate a Constitutional amendment. However, that's not the only problem.

Actually, Jimmy Carter would be able to run, the US Constitution mentions no maximum age for running for President, and since Jimmy Carter only served for 1 term from 1977-1981, he could run for another! There is nothing stopping Jimmy Carter from throwing his hat in the ring, obviously if he started now, he'd have to run as a third party candidate, and you know what? He'd probably beat Hillary Clinton, because Jimmy Carter is seen as a more honest person than Hillary! In fact it was his honesty that propelled him to the Presidency in the wake of the Nixon-Watergate scandal! Hillary Clinton is a sort of "Democrat Nixon", she comes with a scandal even before being elected. So I think a Jimmy Carter third party candidacy would actually be a good thing. You know he would split off the more moderate liberals from the Hillary camp, and Hillary would be left with the Bernie Sanders voters, and Donald Trump would probably make a generous donation to the Carter candidacy, because having Carter in their would help him win!

Notice the media talks about a "brokered convention" as if it's a bad thing. It isn't, that's how party nomination conventions are supposed to work. It hasn't worked for decades.

Problem is the grassroots conservatives have had a bad experience with insiders that promise them one thing while campaigning and failing to follow through once elected!

Candidates campaign through the media, gaining delegates state by state. Partially due to the extreme expense of campaigning, candidates drop out before the convention. Canada has a similar system, but delegate selection votes are held in every province and territory on the same day. That means very few candidates drop out. Most of the candidates make it all the way to the convention. In Canada, delegates are required to declare which candidate they support. They can declare no support for any candidate, and ask members of their electoral district to vote for them as a delegate anyway. Some do, although most support a candidate. Delegates are required to vote for the candidate for whom they declared support, but only for the first vote. After the first vote they're free to change their vote to anyone they want. If one candidate gets more than 50% of the vote, then that candidate is the winner, he/she becomes the party nominee. If no one single candidate wins 50%, then the single candidate with the least votes is eliminated, and the delegates vote again. This continues, eliminating one candidate at a time, until only one stands. All the delegate votes are held on one day. Notice the difference: multiple candidates and multiple votes. That means candidates have to win votes from delegates for other candidates. What that does is tone down the rhetoric. Candidates don't tear at the throat of other candidates from the same party. There is a little negative campaigning, but very little compared to what we see in the United States.
At the convention, candidates bargain. Candidates tell other candidates "If you quit now and throw your support to me, then when I'm Prime Minister, I will give you a key position in my government". Typical positions are cabinet minister, the American equivalent would be Secretary of (whatever).
I'm sure the media won't like this, because it means the convention will be actually relevant. Candidates won't spend as many millions of dollars each on advertising. But campaign spending is part of the problem.
So the one change I am suggesting, is make all delegate selection votes occur in every state and every territory on the same day.

RobertDyck · 2016-03-20 17:18:29

SpaceNut wrote:

We do agree that the american political system is broken and that the electoral college system has out lived its original purpose but a total populous vote is another that must be weighed as well as with the voter fraud, voter denial of services turning away voters, voter elligibility to vote are all issues to be corrected at the same time that we do a reform of the system....

Canada has a federal election authority, it's simply called Elections Canada. The United States has state laws for presidential elections. All hodgepodge, inconsistent. Checking... Section 1 of the Constitution governs the President, clauses 2, 3 & 4 states how elections are run. The Twelfth Amendment changed how "electors" are chosen. The "electors" being the college of electors. So changing this requires a constitutional amendment.

I wonder how much could be changed without an amendment? Canada has federal laws regarding federal elections. The Commissioner of Elections investigates complaints and files charges. Tampering with an election, such as removing a ballot box, stuffing a ballot box, falsifying ballots, etc., are serious criminal charges. The US has voting machines. News reports stated the 2004 presidential election had several "anomalies". One voting location had more ballots cast than the number of registered voters. Another voting machine was set to "test", so absolutely every ballot cast was just gone. That entire poll had no votes. These are criminal actions, and have to be treated as such.

In Canada, if a Member of Parliament is found to be involved in election fraud, that invalidates his/her election. One member did spend more than the law allows, he wasn't permitted to enter the House of Commons. That means he wasn't permitted to exercise his authority or duties as a Member of Parliament. That same individual was later taken to jail, they made a point of putting him in shackles: handcuffs and ankles shackled together, with a chain between ankles and handcuffs. He as taken to an armoured prison transport van to transport him from the Parliament building to the Remand Centre (jail awaiting trial). The media pointed out that was not necessary, but they did this to make a point. This MP acted as he was above the law, so this was the Commissioner of Elections flexing his muscle.

The Canadian 2011 election had several "anomalies". The same party as that MP and conducted "robo-calls". This is an automated device that calls a list of phone numbers and plays a recorded message. Normally candidates record a message themselves, calls are made to every voter in that candidate's electoral district. However, in 2011 some "robo-calls" claimed to be from Elections Canada (the federal election authority) telling voters that their polling location changed. I received a live call from a call centre, so I got one. And yes, I did talk to the office of the Commissioner of Elections about this. When I got the call (day before the election) I was surprised, I wasn't expecting this, didn't know how to handle it. The person told me my polling location was changed to Glenelm School. I told her no it hasn't, I received a printed voter ID card that states it's at Lord Selkirk School, and I worked with the Liberal candidate so got the entire list of all voting locations for the entire electoral district. I spoke with the Return Officer for my electoral district. My polling location has not changed. Furthermore, I voted at the advanced poll, so I had voted already anyway. It turned out those calls were made to all voters who had said they intended to vote for someone other than the Conservative candidate. The individual responsible for the calls in one electoral district (not my district) was arrested, criminal charges. Everyone said others had to be involved, and it had to go higher than some young guy in his early 20s. This was obviously a scape goat. But he was responsible for the calls in that one district, so he was convicted.

The way presidential elections were run in years 2000 & 2004 made the US look like a banana republic. One individual who was involved with "election anomalies" said he has no intent to stop. That statement was on TV news.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2016-03-20 20:11:20)

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-03-21 08:13:35

RobertDyck wrote:

Tom Kalbfus wrote:
Actually, Jimmy Carter would be able to run
In the interview I saw, Mr. Carter said he wouldn't be able to raise the money necessary today, and wouldn't be inclined to even try. He feels the amount of money required is just wrong. That was the point.

Well , has he asked Donald Trump? Donald Trump could do a fund raiser for Jimmy Carter, he could say, that he doesn't need the money for his own election, but if Trump supporters raised money for Jimmy Carter and got him into the race, that would split the Democratic vote. There are probably a lot of Democrats that don't trust Hillary, think Sanders is too much of a Socialist, but would never vote for a Republican, those people might vote for Jimmy Carter.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:
and you know what? He'd probably beat Hillary Clinton
Interesting. So you'll vote Jimmy Carter for president?

No, I was thinking you might, since you keep on bringing him up.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:
Problem is the grassroots conservatives have had a bad experience with insiders that promise them one thing while campaigning and failing to follow through once elected!
No shit! Most politicians do that. In Canada in 1984, some voters organized something called the "Rhinoceros Party". It was formally registered as a political party, they fielded candidates. Their major election promise was to break all of their election promises. The Rhinoceros candidate in my riding (before they changed the name to "electoral district"), was a local comedian who dressed up in a clown outfit and wore a "one man band". It was total satire, intended to highlight how much candidates lie. But since they registered as a political party, they were given time at debates, and even air time on CPAC (Canadian equivalent to C-SPAN). They dissolved after the Liberals actually fulfilled most of their election promises following the 1993 election. (Most)

The main difference between the Canadian Left and the American Left, is that the American Left hates their own country, while the Canadian Left hates America, they can still do good things for Canada, since their hatred is directed towards the United States, not their own country. An American leftists who gets elected, will do anything he can to sabotage his own country, and that is what Obama has done!

RobertDyck · 2016-03-22 10:10:16

Rigged USA Elections Exposed
YouTube video is dated 2 Mar 2006, but the link showed in Facebook today. Caption from YouTube (spelling mistake is there).

Computer Programmer testifies that Tom Feeney (Speaker of the Houe of Florida at the time, currently US Representative representing MY district ) tried to pay him to rig election vote counts.

RobertDyck · 2016-03-22 17:50:23

Well, the Liberal government tabled their first budget today. It increases spending, with a $29.4 billion deficit. I was shocked when they promised a deficit during the election campaign. They promised it would be no larger than $10 billion. Now it's practically triple that. Conservatives had promised to cut spending and reduce government, but actually increased spending and increase government. When the Conservative Party of Canada was elected in 2006, they inherited a $17.4 billion surplus from the previous Liberal government. Their first budget promised to reduce the surplus, not by cutting taxes, but increasing spending. Well, they did. They quickly turned a surplus into the largest deficit in Canadian history. Now the Liberals under Justin Trudeau have increased spending even further.

Rock - Hard Place

SpaceNut · 2016-04-15 18:06:15

RobertDyck wrote:

Ooh! Fight!

Duck, bob and weave... keep the gloves up...counter punch....

RobertDyck · 2016-09-21 13:04:11

Blame liberals for everything. I got news for you, when Republicans are in power the deficit is even larger than under Democrats. Same thing happens in Canada: Conservatives talk about reducing the size of government, balancing the budget, reducing the debt, reducing taxes. But once they're elected, they do the opposite. Conservatives were elected in Canada in January 2006. According to the Parliamentary budget officer, on 17 March 2011 the federal debt equalled its previous all-time high, and the number of individuals hired in the federal civil service was 14% more than election day 2006. Bill Clinton did a lot of things wrong, but the federal budget was balanced in year 2000. George W. ran the US into deficit within 2 weeks after his inauguration, long before 9/11. He ran up the deficit, mushroomed military spending. Under George W. Bush the Republican Congress they ran the US economy into the ground and caused the banking system collapse. Yes, Congress likes to blame bank executives. But Congress demanded banks find a creative way to fund the federal government deficit. The junk mortgage scam was what they came up with. They just obeyed orders from Congress, it was the Republican Congress who were the source of the problem.

We in Canada have our own problems, but they're not as bad as problems you guys have. No we aren't going to join.

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-09-21 23:44:02

RobertDyck wrote:

Blame liberals for everything. I got news for you, when Republicans are in power the deficit is even larger than under Democrats.

The Debt the Obama Administration incurred is greater than all previous presidents combined from George Washington to George W. Bush!

Same thing happens in Canada: Conservatives talk about reducing the size of government, balancing the budget, reducing the debt, reducing taxes. But once they're elected, they do the opposite.

You mean pseudo-conservatives like Mitch McConnell and John Boehner? I believe what you are referring to is career politicians. Parliamentarian systems seem to encourage career politicians as you have to be a member of parliament to be elected Prime Minister. If you don't already draw a salary as a Parliamentarian, then you can't run for Prime Minister! Seem unfair doesn't it? How can you change they system if you are part of the system. Everybody in Parliament is pursuing their career, they want to keep their jobs, the whole purpose of what they do in Parliament is all about keeping their jobs! Trump by contrast is an Amateur Politician, he never got elected to anything! Wha professional politicians are good at is getting elected, they arn' good at doing anything else, they can't solve problems, but they can blame others for preventing them from solving problems.

Conservatives were elected in Canada in January 2006. According to the Parliamentary budget officer, on 17 March 2011 the federal debt equalled its previous all-time high, and the number of individuals hired in the federal civil service was 14% more than election day 2006. Bill Clinton did a lot of things wrong, but the federal budget was balanced in year 2000. George W. ran the US into deficit within 2 weeks after his inauguration, long before 9/11. He ran up the deficit, mushroomed military spending. Under George W. Bush the Republican Congress they ran the US economy into the ground and caused the banking system collapse. Yes, Congress likes to blame bank executives. But Congress demanded banks find a creative way to fund the federal government deficit. The junk mortgage scam was what they came up with. They just obeyed orders from Congress, it was the Republican Congress who were the source of the problem.
We in Canada have our own problems, but they're not as bad as problems you guys have. No we aren't going to join.

That was the Democrats idea. You know George H. W. Bush said he'd vote for Hillary Clinton, so that shows you what kind of conservative he is, that is, he isn't one! No big surprise there, he did after all call Reagan's tax cut plan, "Voodoo Economics".

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-11-09 22:10:50

Interesting how the election turned out. Everyone was so sure that Hillary would win and Trump would lose, right up to election night, it was so depressing that I took a nap in the middle of the day. I figured that they were all lying, and giving false polls to dispirit Republicans, and low and behold, Trump won!

elderflower · 2016-11-10 05:33:57

At every election I am horrified at how many very dumb people there are in the world. They don't agree with me!

SpaceNut · 2016-11-10 19:10:22

The media on both sides have been filtering news to area locals, reporting only what they want, supressing news on both....There has been drivers running over opposing people in the name of there candidates. Shooting not only before, during the polling and even after in the name of strong emotions from each side of hate. Burning of churches some with people in them with the vote for Trump written on there walls.....There is talk of seccession from several states as a result of Trump winning. This election from both candidates being so vile that we are turning the clocks back on prejudice to a near civil war conditions as we see it in the rioting, protestings and so much more on both sides of the coin.

I thought we all came here to create something more than going around in circles in the iss and that we all had a dream of greatness to do something more.

Void · 2016-11-10 20:34:30

It's not time for the civil war yet.
Have some faith, but don't be silly.

If I was sure I would say more. The circle thing is being messed up by Trumph. He is eccentric is he not? My savior??? Not so much.

The republic has to succeed in the kingdom of balance. The elites, drew too much power off of their master cards. Now they get a spanking. We, comprehend how to be decent across realms, they do not.

I hated Trumph. Not my kind of guy, not who momy or dady would tell me to consider, but I am so tired of these filthy intrusive alien monsters, that I had to.

Maybe it will work. Can't have that eternal circle anyway, eccentric is how we get from A to B. (Sorry, a male thing).

I am designed to provide benefit. I am male.

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-11-11 01:35:08

SpaceNut wrote:

The media on both sides have been filtering news to area locals, reporting only what they want, supressing news on both....There has been drivers running over opposing people in the name of there candidates. Shooting not only before, during the polling and even after in the name of strong emotions from each side of hate. Burning of churches some with people in them with the vote for Trump written on there walls.....There is talk of seccession from several states as a result of Trump winning. This election from both candidates being so vile that we are turning the clocks back on prejudice to a near civil war conditions as we see it in the rioting, protestings and so much more on both sides of the coin.

I thought we all came here to create something more than going around in circles in the iss and that we all had a dream of greatness to do something more.

The Media has been mostly on Clinton's side. You know how I can tell? The polls on November 8th all pointed to a Clinton victory, and then the actual results of the election were tallied and Trump won! Now why with all these polls did they err on the side of a Clinton victory? That is because the media taking these polls wanted to see Clinton win, people who suggested that there was a hidden Trump vote were derided as crackpots, until the actual results came it, and then the Media pretended to be "shocked" at this "come from behind" victory for Trump! Yeah right! I don't believe it!

I have not heard any talk of secession, there are some riots in various big cities, but the military is not supporting them, as parts of the Military did during the Southern Rebellion called the Civil war from 1861 to 1865. the rioters are just being sore losers.

SpaceNut · 2016-11-11 20:41:17

The poll numbers from the primary were used to create the electoral fake numbers before the election.....

A slight tip in the balance as D.C. votes to become 51st state

November 10, 2016, 10:18 PM| Could the nation's capital could become the country's newest state? Voters in Washington, D.C. passed a measure in favor of become the 51st state in the union. But Congress must approve the measure for it to take place. CBSN's Elaine Quijano has more.

Here is what was elected......
N.C. KKK chapter plans Trump victory parade

Trump built his campaign message around bold vows to, among other things, force Mexico to pay for a massive border wall, fully repeal the Affordable Care Act and ban Muslims from entering the United States. Trump and advisers hedge on major pledges, including Obamacare and the wall

Terraformer · 2016-11-12 16:06:22

Well, Trump isn't quite there yet, and the *constitution* doesn't require that he becomes President. But if the electoral college don't vote for him, it would de-legitimise the US government and basically end the republic, so they don't have much choice in the matter...

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-11-12 17:28:55

I don't think there are a lot of Trump electors that are fond of Hillary and are willing to overlook her scandals and legal troubles to change their vote for Trump over to Hillary, so I don't see much chance of that happening. If the Republicans somehow agree to impeach him, then you'd have President Mike Pence, would you rather he be President? I don't think that's going to happen. Now lets talk about what Trump is going to do in space. Perhaps there is a hint on how he'd handle infrastructure projects, instead of funding them directly, he'd get private enterprise to fund them in exchange for tax credits. So if SpaceX were to fund a mission to Mars, then they'd get to deduct the cost from their business taxes. Would that work? Lets say SpaceX owes X amount of taxes for example, so they launch a mission to Mars that costs X dollars, and for that, they eliminate their taxes for that year! Does that sound good? Payment in kind I think is what its called.

RobertDyck · 2016-11-12 19:21:22

Terraformer wrote:

Well, Trump isn't quite there yet, and the *constitution* doesn't require that he becomes President. But if the electoral college don't vote for him, it would de-legitimise the US government and basically end the republic, so they don't have much choice in the matter...

That's an exaggeration. It wouldn't de-legitimize the US government. However, it would take a lot more than one or two faithless electors. It would take 21 faithless or unpledged electors, plus a recount in Michigan to reverse their result. That's a lot. Wikipedia claims there have been no unpledged electors since 1964.

SpaceNut · 2016-11-12 20:09:12

Tom I did not post democratic propaganda as it will..... Earlier this year, Trump received an endorsement from the Imperial Wizard of the Rebel Brigade of the Ku Klux Klan

The Loyal White Knights are planning the parade for Dec. 3, according to a post on the Pelham, N.C., group’s website advertising a “Victory Klavalkade Klan Parade.”

http://ktla.com/2016/11/10/ku-klux-klan … -carolina/

http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/ … 608851.php

On Thursday, Klu Klux Klan Imperial Wizard of the United Dixie White Knights, Brent Waller told a local news site in the state of Mississippi that President-elect Donald Trump must fulfill his pledges to build a wall between the United States and Mexico and deport illegal immigrants. Waller said, "We must right the ship in the next four years as we may never get another chance to secure a future for our race and children.

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-11-13 07:28:37

From the Klu Klux Klan Imperial Wizard's point of view, he had to choose from what he considered the "lesser of two evils" David Duke wasn't running for President, so his choice was the same as ours, he could have chosen Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. A lot of KKK members are rural blue collar workers, most of the countryside has gone for Donald Trump, and aside from their racist agenda, the candidate which benefits them the most they figure in terms of jobs, would be Donald Trump, not Hillary Clinton. I don't think its a great surprise that the KKK would endorse Trump, but it has nothing to do with White Supremacy, after all both candidates are white. A racist is not on the ballot, so they get to pick what they consider the best between the two. Because a racist endorses Trump does not mean that Trump is a racist, that is faulty logic.

SpaceNut · 2016-11-13 08:22:22

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Trump
http://www.vice.com/read/all-the-eviden … th-the-kkk
http://www.celebtricity.com/donald-trum … anonymous/

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/us/post-e … index.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/post-trump- … d-schools/

http://www.msnbc.com/thomas-roberts/wat … 5905987619

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/racist … li=BBnb7Kz

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-11-14 08:34:11

Frederick Christ "Fred" Trump (October 11, 1905 – June 25, 1999) was an American real estate developer and philanthropist, and the father of United States Appeals Judge Maryanne Trump Barry as well as businessman and President-elect of the United States, Donald Trump.
Trump's development company built and managed single-family houses in Queens, barracks and garden apartments for U.S. Navy personnel near major shipyards along the East Coast, and more than 27,000 apartments in New York City.
During his business career, Trump was investigated by a U.S. Senate committee (1954) for profiteering from public contracts, was investigated by the U.S. Justice Department's Civil Rights Division (1973) for civil rights violations — and was the subject of numerous critiques by noted folk icon Woody Guthrie.[1][2][3][4]

That is of course Fred Trump, but being investigate is not the same thing as being found guilty. Various Democrats were members of the Klan including the famous Woodrow Wilson, who was President of the United States during World War I.

Donald Trump is not known to be a racist, he has been a public figure and was host of the Apprentice, if he was a member of or a supporter of the Klan, I'm sure the subject would have come up long before he ran for President. Now as I said before, the Klan supporting him is not the same thing as Trump supporting the Klan. The fact that we're "Finding out" about Trump "being a racist" only after he started running for President indicates that it was most likely made up by the Clinton campaign, and Hillary Clinton is not the most honest source for this "News", she is a pathological liar, has made up stories about being under sniper fire in Bosnia, she has no qualms about telling a fib when it suits her purpose. In any case, even if Trump was a racist, at this point he would still be President, it didn't stop Woodrow Wilson after all, and he was a racist! The time for campaigning is over with, the election has been decided, we have to come together as a nation now and decide where we are to go from here. The United States has had many racist presidents in the past, and it will survive this one too, assuming he was racist, which I am not.

SpaceNut · 2016-11-14 20:34:30

The times are different than when they were in office.

KKK leader: Bannon reaffirms Trump's hard-line promises

So because he does not denounce racism or the actions from kkk plus others, he is condoning it to happen in light that he took their endorsement of there followers which he did not say no thanks and that he would condemn those that have those beliefs.

He did give his first 5 Takeaways From Donald Trump's '60 Minutes' Interview but then he went the other way with his comments on twitter.....

Maryland church vandalized with racist pro-Trump message

On “60 Minutes” on Sunday night, President-elect Trump said he is saddened to hear that minorities are being harassed after the presidential campaign. When asked if he had a message for those committing acts of racism and violence in his name, Mr. Trump replied: “Stop it.”

Stop it children, stop it...Not..

I would say get the dam Cops out there and catch them to be able to lock them up for there crimes.....

So this must not be true either....
Racist Post About Michelle Obama Causes Backlash

Black Veteran Berated, Insulted by Chili’s Restaurant on Veteran’s Day

So there is no corelation to Trumps message and the occurances,
FBI: Hate Crimes Against Muslims up by 67 Percent in 2015

I also do not see that we should have all the fear but when the actions of racist people target to do harm, there is a problem....

yes it does go both ways
Black teens beat white Trump supporter: Where is President Obama now?

Its along shot for sure.....
Two presidential electors to colleagues: Dump Trump

Washington's Bret Chiafolo and Colorado's Michael Baca hope at least 37 of their GOP colleagues will abandon Trump and force the House into picking the next president

The anti Trump protests are about several fears and 1 is of deportation....
LAPD will not help deport immigrants under Trump, chief says

Still going strong...
'We're Not Going Anywhere': Millennials March Against Trump

The Next Stage: Will Anti-Trump Marches Become a Movement?

Pretty sad how an innocent picture with what could have been a star can go bad... Mom says she’s getting death threats over Hillary photo

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2016-03-20 10:55:57

Election Meddling

#2 2016-03-20 11:06:25

Re: Election Meddling

#3 2016-03-20 11:42:14

Re: Election Meddling

#4 2016-03-20 16:48:08

Re: Election Meddling

#5 2016-03-20 17:18:29

Re: Election Meddling

#6 2016-03-21 08:13:35

Re: Election Meddling

#7 2016-03-22 10:10:16

Re: Election Meddling

#8 2016-03-22 17:50:23

Re: Election Meddling

#9 2016-04-15 18:06:15

Re: Election Meddling

#10 2016-09-21 13:04:11

Re: Election Meddling

#11 2016-09-21 23:44:02

Re: Election Meddling

#12 2016-11-09 22:10:50

Re: Election Meddling

#13 2016-11-10 05:33:57

Re: Election Meddling

#14 2016-11-10 19:10:22

Re: Election Meddling

#15 2016-11-10 20:34:30

Re: Election Meddling

#16 2016-11-11 01:35:08

Re: Election Meddling

#17 2016-11-11 20:41:17

Re: Election Meddling

#18 2016-11-12 16:06:22

Re: Election Meddling

#19 2016-11-12 17:28:55

Re: Election Meddling

#20 2016-11-12 19:21:22

Re: Election Meddling

#21 2016-11-12 20:09:12

Re: Election Meddling

#22 2016-11-13 07:28:37

Re: Election Meddling

#23 2016-11-13 08:22:22

Re: Election Meddling

#24 2016-11-14 08:34:11

Re: Election Meddling

#25 2016-11-14 20:34:30

Re: Election Meddling

Board footer