Trump tells progressive freshman congresswomen to 'go back' to their 'broken and crime infested' countries

FYI you can get a government id here for free if you cannot afford it.

And on the topic of the electoral college: our government is a federation of states. It was intentionally set up so that the bigger population states could not automatically decide for everyone else and leave smaller or less populated states with no voice. A microcosm of what it would be like if we went to one man one vote already goes on in my state of Pennsylvania, where Philadelphia is in charge of everything, though the east and west halves of the state are very different places with very different needs.
 
Buffy Summers said:
FYI you can get a government id here for free if you cannot afford it.

And on the topic of the electoral college: our government is a federation of states. It was intentionally set up so that the bigger population states could not automatically decide for everyone else and leave smaller or less populated states with no voice. A microcosm of what it would be like if we went to one man one vote already goes on in my state of Pennsylvania, where Philadelphia is in charge of everything, though the east and west halves of the state are very different places with very different needs.
Click to expand...
Maybe the solution is to have one person one vote for President and make sure every single state is represented through Congress and the Senate instead. It seems that those who care more about the world stage perhaps get more a voice on those issues while local concerns still get a strong voice. I can see the wisdom but I know that US news doesn't inform people of what's happening in the world but it does about their local issues a lot more.
 
One person one vote would mean that California and New York would basically choose the President. Which some people will like (lol) but it's not inherently more "fair" (for lack of a better word).
 
Name the Stars
Name the Stars
Don't forget Texas! And Florida!
Buffy Summers said:
One person one vote would mean that California and New York would basically choose the President. Which some people will like (lol) but it's not inherently more "fair" (for lack of a better word).
Click to expand...
Well, to be honest, I don't think any method is completely fair. It's all quite imperfect.
 
Buffy Summers quote:
Agreed, but one man one vote isn't perfect either.
Oh crap, here is a sorry from my side of the fence, I thought that women could vote as well.
 
white avenger said:
This keeps coming up again and again, and the answer is always the same. The President wins the election by receiving the largest number of electoral votes. That means that he is elected by winning the largest number of states. The number of popular votes that he receives is not a factor, and hasn't been since the founding of this nation. The purpose of the Electoral College is to assure that a few densely inhabited states don't wind up controlling the election, thereby setting themselves up as the only ones to whom a potential President is ultimately responsible. Without the College, states like California and New York would, in effect, control the White House, no matter who sat in the Oval Office. Great for California and New York, but the rest of the country can be pretty much dismissed.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is true, but the electoral college is also supposed to use the popular vote as a guide, because they are supposed to have the public's interests at heart. As I'm sure you know, our country was founded on the principle of government of the people, by the people and for the people. As for the 2016 election, States where, say, Hillary won the popular vote should have gone to her, and states where Trump won the popular vote should have gone to him. That would be the electoral college truly choosing whom the people wanted. However, obviously, this was not the case in the last election. And never has been, as you pointed out.

The electoral college is no longer needed or relevant. The reasons it was designed are no longer an issue.

Everyone knows that Hillary won the popular vote by almost 3 million votes. Clearly, she was the choice the majority of voters wanted.

It was really disappointing for a lot of people, including myself, that Hilary won the popular vote, but didn't win enough electoral votes. But you're right that is the system. And we must accept it.

In my ideal America, we are functioning as a true democracy, and in that case, whomever won the popular vote would be President.

That said, we are a federation, and not a Democracy, and a lot of people seem to be confused about this unfortunately.
 
Joan the Vampire Slayer said:
The electoral college is no longer needed or relevant. The reasons it was designed are no longer an issue.

Everyone knows that Hillary won the popular vote by almost 3 million votes. Clearly, she was the choice the majority of voters wanted.
Click to expand...

The electoral college is definitely needed and relevant; at least for now.

The "majority" of voters didn't want Hillary. (Unless we're counting those who were allowed to vote illegally)

Either way, what's done is done. We can only hope the next Presidential Election won't cause so much division amongst so many people.
 
Joan the Vampire Slayer
Joan the Vampire Slayer
Agreed on the last part for sure.
Joan the Vampire Slayer said:
Yes, this is true, but the electoral college is also supposed to use the popular vote as a guide,
Click to expand...

Granted, the electoral vote is supposed to reflect the popular vote, but only the popular vote of the individual state, not the entire nation. In this way, each state is allowed to have its say in who is elected President. If the President was elected strictly by popular vote, the decision could be completely controlled by about half a dozen of the most densely populated states, giving the smaller states no say whatsoever.
 
Joan the Vampire Slayer
Joan the Vampire Slayer
True. It's a flawed system. I don't know what the solution is to be honest. But what we're doing now is not working and many Americans are not happy with the system.
"Go back where you came from" is a racial insult used in the United States to target immigrants, or members of minority groups who are falsely regarded as immigrants. The phrase has a long history going back at least as far as 1798.[1] It is frequently directed at Asian-Americans.[2] Black Americans are often told "go back to Africa", despite the fact that on average, they have a longer family history in the United States than white Americans do.[3] The message conveys a sense that the person is "not supposed to be there, or that it isn't their place". The speaker is presumed to be a "real" American while the target of the remark is not.[4]

"Go back to where you came from" is deemed by the United States federal government and the court system to be discriminatory in the workplace. Its use has been accepted as evidence of workplace discrimination in cases brought before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)—a federal government agency that "enforces federal law to make sure employees are not discriminated against for their gender, sex, national origin or age".[5] EEOC documents specifically cite the use of the comment "Go back to where you came from", as the example of unlawful workplace conduct by co-workers and supervisors—along with the use of "insults, taunting, or ethnic epithets, such as making fun of a person's accent"—deemed to be "harassment based on national origin".[6][5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_back_where_you_came_from

It's often cited as an example of the "perpetual foreigner" stereotype. There's an automatic presumption that they're immigrants. Wikipedia's not ideal (and I think that particularly entry was written because of the POTUS' comments) but there are earlier, more academic sources.


This is quite interesting: Debunking the perpetual foreigner myth
 
nightshade
nightshade
Used in the UK too, not just an American term
As far as I'm aware the term, ' Go back to where you come from ', was used by the Nazi's against the Jews and is largely credited to them.
To say where it originated you'd have to consider the number of people who might have used the term and from what area the term was used.
 
ILLYRIAN said:
As far as I'm aware the term, ' Go back to where you come from ', was used by the Nazi's against the Jews and is largely credited to them.
To say where it originated you'd have to consider the number of people who might have used the term and from what area the term was used.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure. Both Hitler and Stalin persecuted Jews as “rootless parasites” or "rootless cosmopolitans", which sorta suggests there was nowhere for them to "go back to". However, that would still fall under the stereotype of "perpetual foreigner"...probably universal perpetual foreigner. Then there's the legend of the Wandering Jew...

I agree its use is contextual. Here's the original article on its history.
www.npr.org

'Go Back Where You Came From': The Long Rhetorical Roots Of Trump's Racist Tweets

When the president told several new congresswomen of color to "go back" to where they came from, he borrowed nativist language about as old as the country itself. Here's a little history.
www.npr.org www.npr.org
 
I honestly think that people should stop voting for him, because I don't feel that there has been any improvements during his presidency. People should stop expecting change when it's not even there. It's like expecting a grizzly bear to domesticate when it's true nature is to be a wild animal jerk.
 
I guess it depends on what’s important to you: The economy, unemployment, prison reform, holding other countries accountable for how they treat homosexuals, trade reform, have all improved under this administration.
 
Joan the Vampire Slayer said:
Nothing Trump says surprises me anymore...it kind of blows my mind that he's targeting immigrants now and people are supporting him still.
Click to expand...

ILLEGAL immigrants are being targeted. And I fully support this.

There is no more room for all of the illegals migrating here (and having countless babies). Tell me, who's supposed to pay for this? Have you even seen most of the public schools in California? The classrooms are overflowing with the anchor babies of illegals. Race wars are almost a daily occurance, because the Mexican kids now COMPLETELY outnumber the black ones (in historically black neighbourhoods, I might add). And since these "new arrivals" have been taught by their parents that they're "better" than blacks, all kinds of hell is unleashed on-campus.

The Los Angeles Unified School District is a complete mess these days. Classrooms are holding at least three times the students they were meant for. Teachers are SEVERELY overworked, exhausted, and underpaid. Precious education time is wasted on teaching students English.

Don't even get me started on the incredibly massive drain on our welfare system. A system that was originally meant for American citizens living in poverty. I'm STILL trying to figure out how illegals manage to get financial assistance when many Americans don't qualify for it. I mean, what the actual hell?
 
Joan the Vampire Slayer
Joan the Vampire Slayer
I'm not sure how to respond to this.
It is a worry about how America affords to financially assist people especially when many disturbingly rich American people refuse to pay the correct rate of tax.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom