Poll of the Day > Why does America still exist?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I mean, ever since Trump got elected it sounds like half the nation is about ready to start a revolution while race wars are starting up and people threaten to immigrate en-masse away to somewhere else in the world. How is America still surviving at this point? I'd think most other nations would have fallen into outright civil war at this point.
---

they put fluoride in our water so most of us are pretty docile
---

Unbridled9 posted...

I mean, ever since Trump got elected it sounds like half the nation is about ready to start a revolution

Ever heard of the vocal minority?
---

Watching the news and posting on the Internet I can see how you'd think that, but if you get out and talk to regular Americans it's pretty much business as usual over here.

Probably because 95% of the population is still continuing to live their lives normally while 5% of the countries assholes are going are starting shit.
---

Necro, but missed it the first time around >_>

Unbridled9 posted...

while race wars are starting up

Actually, they didn't just "start up," they've been going strong since America made the mistake of electing Obama who dumped kerosene on the fire. Things had been relatively quiet during the GWB years which followed massive riots during the Clinton years (with things like the LA riots helping to give rise to skinheads)

Unbridled9 posted...

people threaten to immigrate en-masse away to somewhere else in the world.

1) It's "emigrate." Immigrate means to enter a country, emigrate is to leave it.

2) Same empty threats that were made during the GWB and Obama years. Even the people we wished would leave didn't follow through.
---

Zeus posted...

Things had been relatively quiet during the GWB years

JFC you can't actually believe something so wrong
---

Y'all are awful at knowing how civil wars work.

PaddysPub posted...

they put fluoride in our water so most of us are pretty docile

NASA just released a highly resistant bacteria into the air above America using hot air balloons during the eclipse.
Seriously look it up
---

we have survived things worse than a unpopular president. we've survived several of those too. at one point Obama only had a 48% approval rating and I think Bush's sunk lower than that.
---

mooreandrew58 posted...

we have survived things worse than a unpopular president. we've survived several of those too. at one point Obama only had a 48% approval rating and I think Bush's sunk lower than that.

Like who?
I am genuinely curious what presidents have had a lower approval rating.

shadowsword87 posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

we have survived things worse than a unpopular president. we've survived several of those too. at one point Obama only had a 48% approval rating and I think Bush's sunk lower than that.

Like who?
I am genuinely curious what presidents have had a lower approval rating.

did I say lower. I simply said unpopular. if you fall below 50% approval rating that means more than half the country doesn't like them, thus making them unpopular.

what kills me though. is how accurate can these things be. i've never been asked by a poll if I liked the president. and two i'm willing to bet money they do these polls much more in cities where as you guessed it more democrats reside. they don't do these polls out in the rural country thats infested with republicans
---

and that was the funny part of the election all these polls showing hillary winning by a landslide. then everyones shocked she didn't well thats what happen when you skew the poll results
---

mooreandrew58 posted...

did I say lower. I simply said unpopular. if you fall below 50% approval rating that means more than half the country doesn't like them, thus making them unpopular.

Well if you don't want to be helpful, I just looked it up:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_approval_rating#Historical_comparison

mooreandrew58 posted...

what kills me though. is how accurate can these things be. i've never been asked by a poll if I liked the president. and two i'm willing to bet money they do these polls much more in cities where as you guessed it more democrats reside. they don't do these polls out in the rural country thats infested with republicans

That's literally what sampling is and there's an entire branch of mathematics that exists to help do sampling right.
It's very accurate if it's done right (which considering it's using the Gallup Poll, it's done right).

shadowsword87 posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

did I say lower. I simply said unpopular. if you fall below 50% approval rating that means more than half the country doesn't like them, thus making them unpopular.

Well if you don't want to be helpful, I just looked it up:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_approval_rating#Historical_comparison

mooreandrew58 posted...

what kills me though. is how accurate can these things be. i've never been asked by a poll if I liked the president. and two i'm willing to bet money they do these polls much more in cities where as you guessed it more democrats reside. they don't do these polls out in the rural country thats infested with republicans

That's literally what sampling is and there's an entire branch of mathematics that exists to help do sampling right.
It's very accurate if it's done right (which considering it's using the Gallup Poll, it's done right).

umm no its never done right. as said I never see them polling out here in the country. kind of ignoring an entire population of people that have a different mindset because of the lives they live versus city dwellers. and to think any group is unbiased is being a bit hopeful imo. a news company is seldom ever going to put out a story that goes against what they want to be the truth. and that goes for 99% of them and thats a generous number.. everyone knows fox news is biased but the other major networks are too. think it was CNN that got busted on showing some big Muslim rally and someone recorded it on their cell phone where they just had a handful of people crowded into a tiny are the camera really close up giving the illusion it was a large crowd

edit: and even if news network is truly unbiased you can't say the same for the reporters I bet, the ones who write the stories. and those who approve the stories. its almost impossible to find any individual who is unbiased and would actually push a story that went against what they are for
---

mooreandrew58 posted...

at one point Obama only had a 48% approval rating and I think Bush's sunk lower than that.

48% is mediocre. Trump is at 35%, which is pretty different.
Not only that, but presidents usually start at their highest approval rating and slowly drop over time. After all, when do people like you more than right after you campaigned, but before you've had time to fuck anything up?

All I'm saying is that it's not contentious in the least to say Trump is uniquely disliked by America. One side says that he deserves it, the other that it's all the result of an inconsistently incompetent, nationwide conspiracy between media organizations to keep Trump from being popular. So different explanations, but same conclusion.
---

mooreandrew58 posted...

umm no its never done right. as said I never see them polling out here in the country. kind of ignoring an entire population of people that have a different mindset because of the lives they live versus city dwellers. and to think any group is unbiased is being a bit hopeful imo.

http://www.gallup.com/201191/gallup-daily-tracking-work.aspx
From their website:

Gallup interviews U.S. adults aged 18 and older living in all 50 states and the District of Columbia using a dual-frame design, which includes both landline and cellphone numbers. Gallup samples landline and cellphone numbers using random-digit-dial methods. Gallup purchases samples for this study from Survey Sampling International (SSI). Gallup chooses landline respondents at random within each household based on which member had the next birthday. Each sample of national adults includes a minimum quota of 70% cellphone respondents and 30% landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas by time zone within region. Gallup conducts interviews in Spanish for respondents who are primarily Spanish-speaking.

Which means they literally dial random numbers and then ask their questions.

So if you're going to claim that it's bias against people who don't have phones... sure you caught them.

mooreandrew58 posted...

edit: and even if news network is truly unbiased you can't say the same for the reporters I bet, the ones who write the stories. and those who approve the stories. its almost impossible to find any individual who is unbiased and would actually push a story that went against what they are for

The Gallup Poll is third party and not affiliated with any news organization, they just all use it because it's the most accurate.
Even the government uses it.

In regards to Trump/Hilary I've said this to my parents and friends before. 'A sock puppet could have beaten Trump. Yet, somehow, the Democrats found the one person who couldn't.'
---

oh I know hes disliked. some of it deserved some of it shit being blown out of proportion. like him being blamed for that white nationalist thing. he didn't tell them to go do it, nor can he help the type of people who voted him in office (which plenty of non racist people voted for him believe it or not I know several) and the transgender military thing I think he mostly deserves the hate on, I understand the part about the military shouldn't pay for the surgeries but I don't think that should bar them joining
---

Unbridled9 posted...

In regards to Trump/Hilary I've said this to my parents and friends before. 'A sock puppet could have beaten Trump. Yet, somehow, the Democrats found the one person who couldn't.'

really didn't help what happened to bernie. they screwed him over and that left a bad taste in the mouth of many. they where too insistent they must have a female run for office imo. I didn't really care for the guy but I think he could have beat trump. and I say I don't care for him cause I didn't see how some of his plans would actually work, but I actually got a "I really want to help" vibe from the dude I don't get from any other politician

and as i've told other people i'd rather have a honest idiot in office than a intelligent but slimy person.
---

Revolution only happens when shit gets really awful for a good number of people. As long as people have money to spend, food to eat, and a warm place to sleep revolution is but a distant dream.
---

Miroku_of_Nite1 posted...

Revolution only happens when shit gets really awful for a good number of people. As long as people have money to spend, food to eat, and a warm place to sleep revolution is but a distant dream.

well heres part of the thing which is kind of funny, the side that hates trump so much is all for gun control. and largely doesn't like guns. so what are they going to revolt with? and yes I know plenty of Dems do own guns, but the majority I doubt do. where as my grandfather a staunch republican while he was alive, my friends joked that if a zombie apocalypse broke out they where going to his house btw before anyone else makes anymore assumptions on my part, i'm a middle of the road person. which is why you'll see me defend and attack both sides in a argument.

edit: in all seriousness though this country has gotten too lazy to revolt. its not like we are starving or they are lining us up killing us off. we still lead comfortable lives compared to a third world country.
---

mooreandrew58 posted...

I didn't really care for the guy but I think he could have beat trump.

He likely wouldn't have, in exactly the same way that Ron Paul never would have won had he got the nomination when he ran on the Republican side in the past.

Candidates like that tend to energize younger, Internet-savvy voters, but ultimately alienate a much larger portion of the mainstream voter-base. And as much as we can say Hillary lost the votes of disillusioned Sanders supporters, Sanders likely would have lost a fair number of disillusioned Hillary supporters as well. Because, keep in mind, more people DID vote for her in the primaries than voted for him (and she had her own fervid supporters who absolutely would have seen his success as a betrayal). He didn't have the divine mandate of the masses that she somehow usurped, no matter how much some people would like to paint it that way - and while he didn't have the same taint of past negative history on him that Hillary did, he still had enough issues that would have been easy for his opponents to exploit.

The real problem this time around wasn't that the Democrats ran Hillary, it's that pretty much ALL of their options were terrible. There really weren't any stand out candidates in the pack who had a chance in hell of winning the main election, which is why the primaries became such a mess and Hillary more or less claimed the mandate by force of will. Much like how the Republicans basically threw the last two elections away by fielding almost no one worthwhile, and the Democrats basically shot themselves in the foot in a can't-lose election before that - the disconnect between understanding what voters actually WANT (or claim to want, or believe that they want) and what is politically best "for the party" has resulted in a lot of head-thumpingly terrible decisions in terms of who runs and who gets marginalized.

Basically, politics in the US is and has been straight-up fucked for a while now, and who is sitting in the big comfy chair doesn't really matter when they're all idiots, assholes, or fools. No matter who wins, we all still lose.


---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

I didn't really care for the guy but I think he could have beat trump.

He likely wouldn't have, in exactly the same way that Ron Paul never would have won had he got the nomination when he ran on the Republican side in the past.

Candidates like that tend to energize younger, Internet-savvy voters, but ultimately alienate a much larger portion of the mainstream voter-base. And as much as we can say Hillary lost the votes of disillusioned Sanders supporters, Sanders likely would have lost a fair number of disillusioned Hillary supporters as well. Because, keep in mind, more people DID vote for her in the primaries than voted for him (and she had her own fervid supporters who absolutely would have seen his success as a betrayal). He didn't have the divine mandate of the masses that she somehow usurped, no matter how much some people would like to paint it that way - and while he didn't have the same taint of past negative history on him that Hillary did, he still had enough issues that would have been easy for his opponents to exploit.

The real problem this time around wasn't that the Democrats ran Hillary, it's that pretty much ALL of their options were terrible. There really weren't any stand out candidates in the pack who had a chance in hell of winning the main election, which is why the primaries became such a mess and Hillary more or less claimed the mandate by force of will. Much like how the Republicans basically threw the last two elections away by fielding almost no one worthwhile, and the Democrats basically shot themselves in the foot in a can't-lose election before that - the disconnect between understanding what voters actually WANT (or claim to want, or believe that they want) and what is politically best "for the party" has resulted in a lot of head-thumpingly terrible decisions in terms of who runs and who gets marginalized.

Basically, politics in the US is and has been straight-up fucked for a while now, and who is sitting in the big comfy chair doesn't really matter when they're all idiots, assholes, or fools. No matter who wins, we all still lose.

I remember seeing something about how the Dems literally fucked him over, basically he could have beat her but they wouldn't let him. but I see your point on disillusioned Hillary supporters mostly cause the "we have to have a female president" mentality... wonder if they would have had that same mentality had it been Sarah Palin running for office.

I seriously got into a argument with someone once who stated Hillary being female was a good enough reason to vote for her and nothing else.
---

I hate what this world has become. if you didn't vote for Obama you where a racist, if you didn't vote hillary you where a sexist
---

I think there is a factor which people don't take into account. That Bernie WAS assassinated. I.E. he was a threat to the party. A lot of the reason Trump won, as I understand it, was because he played renegade to not only the democratic order Obama built, but the Republican party as well. Had Bernie, a democrat who ultimately did not get party support, gotten the nomination over the 'clearly-in-bed-with-corruption' Hilary a lot of wind could have been removed from Trump's sails.
---

Unbridled9 posted...

I think there is a factor which people don't take into account. That Bernie WAS assassinated. I.E. he was a threat to the party. A lot of the reason Trump won, as I understand it, was because he played renegade to not only the democratic order Obama built, but the Republican party as well. Had Bernie, a democrat who ultimately did not get party support, gotten the nomination over the 'clearly-in-bed-with-corruption' Hilary a lot of wind could have been removed from Trump's sails.

true. and yeah people seem to forget that even fox news seemed to hate trump. I watched the election through them. (tried CNN I think but couldn't put up with michale moore's belly aching) and it was painfully obvious they hated trump but where trying to remain professional. one guy even betted his paycheck (or actually as he said if he where allowed to) that trump would preemptively claim he won and talk trash about hillary which he did neither.
---

mooreandrew58 posted...

my friends joked that if a zombie apocalypse broke out they where going to his house

and they would promptly get shot.

mooreandrew58 posted...

well heres part of the thing which is kind of funny, the side that hates trump so much is all for gun control. and largely doesn't like guns. so what are they going to revolt with?

Usually when leftist revolt the people on the right tend to get shocked that the leftist are armed. Spanish Civil War was started by a bunch of coffee sipping intellectuals. Some 80 men with little to no training started the Marxist Despotic Regime that is in Cuba. A couple of leftists went up to the mountains in Colombia and started the FARC.

The left might be anti-gun in terms of personal ownership but look at the history of them as organized movements. They have always preached armed peoples' militias.

Just because a 20 something liberal might wear skinny jeans, and be a vegan doesn't mean they wouldn't try to arm themselves if it came to it.
---

Miroku_of_Nite1 posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

my friends joked that if a zombie apocalypse broke out they where going to his house

and they would promptly get shot.

mooreandrew58 posted...

well heres part of the thing which is kind of funny, the side that hates trump so much is all for gun control. and largely doesn't like guns. so what are they going to revolt with?

Usually when leftist revolt the people on the right tend to get shocked that the leftist are armed. Spanish Civil War was started by a bunch of coffee sipping intellectuals. Some 80 men with little to no training started the Marxist Despotic Regime that is in Cuba. A couple of leftists went up to the mountains in Colombia and started the FARC.

The left might be anti-gun in terms of personal ownership but look at the history of them as organized movements. They have always preached armed peoples' militias.

Just because a 20 something liberal might wear skinny jeans, and be a vegan doesn't mean they wouldn't try to arm themselves if it came to it.

you obviously missed the part where I said not all of them. then later said in all seriousness and explained why I really thought no revolution would happen
---

mooreandrew58 posted...

Miroku_of_Nite1 posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

my friends joked that if a zombie apocalypse broke out they where going to his house

and they would promptly get shot.

mooreandrew58 posted...

well heres part of the thing which is kind of funny, the side that hates trump so much is all for gun control. and largely doesn't like guns. so what are they going to revolt with?

Usually when leftist revolt the people on the right tend to get shocked that the leftist are armed. Spanish Civil War was started by a bunch of coffee sipping intellectuals. Some 80 men with little to no training started the Marxist Despotic Regime that is in Cuba. A couple of leftists went up to the mountains in Colombia and started the FARC.

The left might be anti-gun in terms of personal ownership but look at the history of them as organized movements. They have always preached armed peoples' militias.

Just because a 20 something liberal might wear skinny jeans, and be a vegan doesn't mean they wouldn't try to arm themselves if it came to it.

you obviously missed the part where I said not all of them. then later said in all seriousness and explained why I really thought no revolution would happen

Yeah, sorry. It's late where I'm at.
---

Miroku_of_Nite1 posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

Miroku_of_Nite1 posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

my friends joked that if a zombie apocalypse broke out they where going to his house

and they would promptly get shot.

mooreandrew58 posted...

well heres part of the thing which is kind of funny, the side that hates trump so much is all for gun control. and largely doesn't like guns. so what are they going to revolt with?

Usually when leftist revolt the people on the right tend to get shocked that the leftist are armed. Spanish Civil War was started by a bunch of coffee sipping intellectuals. Some 80 men with little to no training started the Marxist Despotic Regime that is in Cuba. A couple of leftists went up to the mountains in Colombia and started the FARC.

The left might be anti-gun in terms of personal ownership but look at the history of them as organized movements. They have always preached armed peoples' militias.

Just because a 20 something liberal might wear skinny jeans, and be a vegan doesn't mean they wouldn't try to arm themselves if it came to it.

you obviously missed the part where I said not all of them. then later said in all seriousness and explained why I really thought no revolution would happen

Yeah, sorry. It's late where I'm at.

its ok. but I do stand by my point that those on the right side probably have more guns. the most heavily liberal areas of the country have the largest amount of gun control. but then again there are the criminals who don't give a fuck about the laws i suppose.
---

Most countries separate when cultures/races/etc. don't get along. Be it in Europe, Asia, Africa... America is not most countries though. I doubt it'll stay together forever...

Life is like a shit sandwich. The more bread you've got the less shit you feel like you're eating. As soon as the economy slows and the middle class begins to panic, it's all over and there won't be enough justification or power to keep the union together. I'm not talking "soon," but eventually.

Right now, there's little incentive to secede. Everything is basically fine.
---

PaddysPub posted...

they put fluoride in our water so most of us are pretty docile

+1. I'm a pacified drone of the United States.
---

Unbridled9 posted...

Had Bernie, a democrat who ultimately did not get party support, gotten the nomination over the 'clearly-in-bed-with-corruption' Hilary a lot of wind could have been removed from Trump's sails.

But a lot of people would have gone the other way as well, because there were certainly female voters for Hillary who would have been pissed that yet another old white man got the nod instead of a woman (ie, exactly the same sort of sexism outrage you heard after the election, with people overdramatically saying things like "What am I going to tell my daughter now?"), and because cries of "Socialist!" are still a pretty powerful thing in the US.

It absolutely wouldn't have been a case of him being able to unite the entire party behind him (unless he did something like make Hillary VP, but that might have been worse in some ways, and he doesn't seem like the type of person who would have agreed to it anyway) and preventing the dissension that hurt the Democrats during the election. There still would have been a divide, and it would have been extremely difficult for him to win against a strongly rhetoric-driven campaign.


---

Mead posted...

Zeus posted...

Things had been relatively quiet during the GWB years

JFC you can't actually believe something so wrong

Remember how Bush was Hitler and Not My President, and now that Trump's in office it's like No wait Trump is those things, never mind.
---

It hasn't existed for a while. Here's an article from 2012 in which a liberal explains why.
Each point he made then can easily be read as a criticism of liberals today.
https://www.prisonplanet.com/its-not-america-anymore.html
---

USA would see it as an invasion if America tried to put down Trump...
---

Foppe posted...

USA would see it as an invasion if America tried to put down Trump...

if they went about it the wrong way yes. we have ways to remove a president legally and while im sure some would be pissed I doubt it would cause a war.
---

Mead posted...

Zeus posted...

Things had been relatively quiet during the GWB years

JFC you can't actually believe something so wrong

Okay, post some major race riots that happened during the GWB years that came anywhere close to the LA Riots, Ferguson, etc. Because the GWB years were one of the few times when I could turn on the tv in any given week without hearing about a race riot. @Mead

shadowsword87 posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

we have survived things worse than a unpopular president. we've survived several of those too. at one point Obama only had a 48% approval rating and I think Bush's sunk lower than that.

Like who?
I am genuinely curious what presidents have had a lower approval rating.

I would assume Lincoln, since half the country tried to leave =p Granted, keep in mind that approval ratings only go back so far so, historically speaking, they're kinda meaningless in the grand scheme. (Although that'll change in another 50 or 100 presidents)

mooreandrew58 posted...

and that was the funny part of the election all these polls showing hillary winning by a landslide. then everyones shocked she didn't well thats what happen when you skew the poll results

Not sure it was ever predicted to be a landslide. Almost the entire time there seemed to be less than a 10-pt difference.

Unbridled9 posted...

In regards to Trump/Hilary I've said this to my parents and friends before. 'A sock puppet could have beaten Trump. Yet, somehow, the Democrats found the one person who couldn't.'

He was actually flying pretty high for a Republican. McCain and Romney couldn't move a crowd. Nobody was excited for McCain or Romney, which is why they were paired with more charismatic running mates (and, in the case of McCain, a conservative running mate since McCain had been leaning more moderate at the time; in fact, the big bills that Obama cited as having passed as a senator were generally ones McCain was involved in as well)
---

mooreandrew58 posted...

really didn't help what happened to bernie. they screwed him over and that left a bad taste in the mouth of many. they where too insistent they must have a female run for office imo. I didn't really care for the guy but I think he could have beat trump. and I say I don't care for him cause I didn't see how some of his plans would actually work, but I actually got a "I really want to help" vibe from the dude I don't get from any other politician

They didn't "screw" him over and the objections were less about gender than it was about him selfishly running as a Democrat at the last minute when he had snubbed the party all along. Hillary had been a loyal Democrat for nearly her entire very-long life and had raised considerable sums for the party. Bernie contributed nothing. In addition, Bernie Sanders's batshit plans would have less success than Trump's wall.

Keep in mind that the leaks broadly pertained to things *after* Bernie was mathematically eliminated but refused to drop out (the Kasich strategy) where he hopped to take it to a contested convention.

mooreandrew58 posted...

and as i've told other people i'd rather have a honest idiot in office than a intelligent but slimy person.

Jimmy Carter was an awful president. I'd rather take a Nixon.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Candidates like that tend to energize younger, Internet-savvy voters, but ultimately alienate a much larger portion of the mainstream voter-base. And as much as we can say Hillary lost the votes of disillusioned Sanders supporters, Sanders likely would have lost a fair number of disillusioned Hillary supporters as well. Because, keep in mind, more people DID vote for her in the primaries than voted for him (and she had her own fervid supporters who absolutely would have seen his success as a betrayal). He didn't have the divine mandate of the masses that she somehow usurped, no matter how much some people would like to paint it that way - and while he didn't have the same taint of past negative history on him that Hillary did, he still had enough issues that would have been easy for his opponents to exploit.

Also this. Sanders was as polarizing as Trump.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

The real problem this time around wasn't that the Democrats ran Hillary, it's that pretty much ALL of their options were terrible. There really weren't any stand out candidates in the pack who had a chance in hell of winning the main election, which is why the primaries became such a mess and Hillary more or less claimed the mandate by force of will.

Here's the thing: Hillary isn't even a bad candidate. Sure, she's been dogged by corruption and she dropped the ball on some key issues, but she was far more qualified than Obama ever was, she knew how to play the game, she had deep in-roads on both sides (well, less now with the Tea Party taking up a lot of real estate), etc. And, no matter how good the president is, you have completely insane factions with both parties who will torpedo whatever they try to do (albeit the Freedom Caucus is far more toxic, which is why it's easier for a Democrat to get things done than a Republican).

However, she wasn't exciting because she was a runner-up the last time the Dems fielded a president and, had Obama not run in 2008, she most likely would have claimed both the nomination and the election.

At any rate, given that the Republican field was a mess, it seemed like the inexorable result was Hillary over Jeb for the presidency. Then along came a Trump.
---

"Jimmy Carter was an awful president. I'd rather take a Nixon."

Nixon did keep all his campaign promises if I recall, so he was honest to a degree. and I don't recall him even being that involved in the scandal, just that he knew about it and didn't say anything is what got him thrown under the bus.
---

While the rest of the word grabs the popcorn and watches the reality show that is the United States. lol
---

mooreandrew58 posted...

Foppe posted...

USA would see it as an invasion if America tried to put down Trump...

if they went about it the wrong way yes. we have ways to remove a president legally and while im sure some would be pissed I doubt it would cause a war.

You got legal ways of removing a president of another country?
---

Foppe posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

Foppe posted...

USA would see it as an invasion if America tried to put down Trump...

if they went about it the wrong way yes. we have ways to remove a president legally and while im sure some would be pissed I doubt it would cause a war.

You got legal ways of removing a president of another country?

you mentioned USA and america. america is usually another name used for the USA or used for the north or south continents and they are continents not countries.
---

mooreandrew58 posted...

Foppe posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

Foppe posted...

USA would see it as an invasion if America tried to put down Trump...

if they went about it the wrong way yes. we have ways to remove a president legally and while im sure some would be pissed I doubt it would cause a war.

You got legal ways of removing a president of another country?

you mentioned USA and america. america is usually another name used for the USA or used for the north or south continents and they are continents not countries.

How else would USA see it as an invasion if I meant other US citizens?
---

Foppe posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

Foppe posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

Foppe posted...

USA would see it as an invasion if America tried to put down Trump...

if they went about it the wrong way yes. we have ways to remove a president legally and while im sure some would be pissed I doubt it would cause a war.

You got legal ways of removing a president of another country?

you mentioned USA and america. america is usually another name used for the USA or used for the north or south continents and they are continents not countries.

How else would USA see it as an invasion if I meant other US citizens?

look at what you said. how could I take it any other way. had you actually mentioned another country I might have understood you better.
---

mooreandrew58 posted...

"Jimmy Carter was an awful president. I'd rather take a Nixon."

Nixon did keep all his campaign promises if I recall, so he was honest to a degree. and I don't recall him even being that involved in the scandal, just that he knew about it and didn't say anything is what got him thrown under the bus.

Nixon was scandal-prone in general. He cut a great promo about a dog to deflect claims of corruption:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkers_speech

(Full speech is like half an hour, but the best part is the eponymous Checkers moment.)

One other thing I probably should tell you because if we don't they'll probably be saying this about me too, we did get something—a gift—after the election. A man down in Texas heard Pat on the radio mention the fact that our two youngsters would like to have a dog. And, believe it or not, the day before we left on this campaign trip we got a message from Union Station in Baltimore saying they had a package for us. We went down to get it. You know what it was?

It was a little cocker spaniel dog in a crate that he'd sent all the way from Texas. Black and white spotted. And our little girl—Tricia, the 6-year-old—named it Checkers. And you know, the kids, like all kids, love the dog and I just want to say this right now, that regardless of what they say about it, we're gonna keep it.
---

It's cause were the greatest freest country god ever put on the face of this Earth obviously.
---