donald trump for president

Quote by sundancer2004

Quote by patokl
Trump certainly knows the immigration status of the 64 new members of his Mar a Lago staff, for whom he was granted H2B visa last October. He still hires foreign workers, for jobs he claims he can't find Americans for. Yet since 2010, nearly 300 U.S. residents applied or were referred for jobs as waiters, waitresses, cooks and housekeepers there, but only 17 were hired.

Over the same time period, 500 visas for foreign workers were filed at Mar-a-Lago.

In Palm Beach County, Tom Veenstra, senior director of support services at CareerSource, a job placement service, took issue with Mr. Trump’s contention that he could not staff his clubs with locals. “We have hundreds of qualified applicants for jobs like those,” he said.

After a report by Reuters in July about Mr. Trump’s use of guest workers, executives from Mar-a-Lago met with recruiters from Mr. Veenstra’s agency, promising to request local workers for 50 positions.

But Mar-a-Lago sent over just a single job request, for a banquet server. Mr. Veenstra said CareerSource referred four applicants to the club, and one of them got the job.

Since then, Mr. Veenstra said, “we haven’t received any other job orders.”

That nearly 300 workers were interview and only were hired doesn't surprise me. A new walmart in NC interviewed over 500 fro 140 jobs, they couldn't pass the drug test nor background investigation.

"a businessman does not succeed by paying more for less."

Quote by sprite


actually, if you look at populations and how many electoral votes states get, CA's electoral votes are worth less than most other states. 508,344 people per electoral vote.

other states: Idaho. 284,628 people per electoral vote. North Dakota 174k per electoral vote, etc

Quote by sprite


btw, if you're in new york, your vote counts even less than that of Californias. 519k people per electoral vote.

Quote by sundancer2004


I hate to concur , but the phone tapping incident .............

Quote by sundancer2004
Trump won the popular vote in 31 states to her 19 and DC. 62% to here 38%

Trump led in the total popular vote for all states except California.

Hillary won California 5,860,714 or so to Trumps 3,151,821. 61.6% to 33.1%, exclusive of the other candidates

So California gave Hillary the popular vote for all states as claimed by the Democrats and the somewhat tower of pisa leaning press/media
Deduct her California vote from her national vote leaving her with 54,978,783 and deduct Trumps California vote from his national total, leaving him with 57,113.976, he wins in a landslide in the other 49 states, 51.3% to her 48.7%

So, in effect, Hillary was elected president of California and Trump was elected president of the rest of the country by a substantial margin.

This exemplifies the wisdom of the Electoral College to prevent the votes of any one heavily populated state from overriding the votes of the others.

Quote by sprite
You know, we can really stop debating this anytime now. the way things are going, in about another month, there's not going to be a lot to support. guy just seems to be hell bent on proving all his detractors right.

Quote by sundancer2004
Trump led in the total popular vote for all states except California.

...

So, in effect, Hillary was elected president of California and Trump was elected president of the rest of the country by a substantial margin.

This exemplifies the wisdom of the Electoral College to prevent the votes of any one heavily populated state from overriding the votes of the others.

Quote by sundancer2004
Trump won the popular vote in 31 states to her 19 and DC. 62% to here 38%

Trump led in the total popular vote for all states except California.

Hillary won California 5,860,714 or so to Trumps 3,151,821. 61.6% to 33.1%, exclusive of the other candidates

So California gave Hillary the popular vote for all states as claimed by the Democrats and the somewhat tower of pisa leaning press/media
Deduct her California vote from her national vote leaving her with 54,978,783 and deduct Trumps California vote from his national total, leaving him with 57,113.976, he wins in a landslide in the other 49 states, 51.3% to her 48.7%

So, in effect, Hillary was elected president of California and Trump was elected president of the rest of the country by a substantial margin.

This exemplifies the wisdom of the Electoral College to prevent the votes of any one heavily populated state from overriding the votes of the others.

Quote by Ruthie


Your logic is ridiculous. It's like saying if Texas, Florida and Pennsylvania were;t counted, Clinton would have won the electoral college. Clinton won the popular vote. That's the second time that the loser of the popular vote was elected President.

Quote by apptobebad
You could shut this one and then we could have brand new one called "What's he done now?"

Quote by hayley


giggles.. I see you have quoted the 'Golden Rule' ... that those with the gold should make the rules!.... most of the time they do.

Quote by MostPreciousLittle

Quote by MostPreciousLittle

Quote by hayley


well ... change the law? In this case the Constitution isn't it? Can be done.... let California introduce a a Bill or whatever they need to and let's get on with it. Or let them become 'The People's Republic Of California' as they are unaffectionately known.
I don't know exactly how long we have been using the Electoral College System, but if it isn't working then change it. Am sure if it is that horribly useless we can do better. Peeps just need to act to change things, not moan about them constantly. Now that brings us back to the Election....

Quote by Ruthie


Your logic is ridiculous. It's like saying if Texas, Florida and Pennsylvania were;t counted, Clinton would have won the electoral college. Clinton won the popular vote. That's the second time that the loser of the popular vote was elected President.

Quote by Seax


As Perry Mason used to say, "Irrelevant and immaterial". The national popular vote count has no place in our national election process. That process is set up per the Constitution and conducted on a state by state basis. The Constitution states just how many electoral college votes each state gets. The individual states get to decide how their electors are selected, and how they are required to vote, or not.

You can't say Trump is not the legitimate victor because he didn't win the popular vote. If the two campaigns were fighting over the popular vote, neither candidate would have ever set foot in New Hampshire, Vermont, Delaware or any of the other spots with low population. The election would have been about who won the most populous states, and that's where the campaign would have been fought out.

And that is why there's an Electoral College. Firstly to force someone to pay attention to the needs and desires of the smaller states. And secondly because without the compromise that set up the Electoral College, the smaller states would never have agreed to ratify the Constitution in the first place. Got it? No Electoral College -> no Constitution -> no United States of America.

Quote by Seax


As Perry Mason used to say, "Irrelevant and immaterial". The national popular vote count has no place in our national election process. That process is set up per the Constitution and conducted on a state by state basis. The Constitution states just how many electoral college votes each state gets. The individual states get to decide how their electors are selected, and how they are required to vote, or not.

You can't say Trump is not the legitimate victor because he didn't win the popular vote. If the two campaigns were fighting over the popular vote, neither candidate would have ever set foot in New Hampshire, Vermont, Delaware or any of the other spots with low population. The election would have been about who won the most populous states, and that's where the campaign would have been fought out.

And that is why there's an Electoral College. Firstly to force someone to pay attention to the needs and desires of the smaller states. And secondly because without the compromise that set up the Electoral College, the smaller states would never have agreed to ratify the Constitution in the first place. Got it? No Electoral College -> no Constitution -> no United States of America.

Quote by Seax
As Perry Mason used to say, "Irrelevant and immaterial". The national popular vote count has no place in our national election process. That process is set up per the Constitution and conducted on a state by state basis. The Constitution states just how many electoral college votes each state gets. The individual states get to decide how their electors are selected, and how they are required to vote, or not.

You can't say Trump is not the legitimate victor because he didn't win the popular vote. If the two campaigns were fighting over the popular vote, neither candidate would have ever set foot in New Hampshire, Vermont, Delaware or any of the other spots with low population. The election would have been about who won the most populous states, and that's where the campaign would have been fought out.

And that is why there's an Electoral College. Firstly to force someone to pay attention to the needs and desires of the smaller states. And secondly because without the compromise that set up the Electoral College, the smaller states would never have agreed to ratify the Constitution in the first place. Got it? No Electoral College -> no Constitution -> no United States of America.

Quote by Seax


As Perry Mason used to say, "Irrelevant and immaterial". The national popular vote count has no place in our national election process. That process is set up per the Constitution and conducted on a state by state basis. The Constitution states just how many electoral college votes each state gets. The individual states get to decide how their electors are selected, and how they are required to vote, or not.

You can't say Trump is not the legitimate victor because he didn't win the popular vote. If the two campaigns were fighting over the popular vote, neither candidate would have ever set foot in New Hampshire, Vermont, Delaware or any of the other spots with low population. The election would have been about who won the most populous states, and that's where the campaign would have been fought out.

And that is why there's an Electoral College. Firstly to force someone to pay attention to the needs and desires of the smaller states. And secondly because without the compromise that set up the Electoral College, the smaller states would never have agreed to ratify the Constitution in the first place. Got it? No Electoral College -> no Constitution -> no United States of America.

Quote by patokl
There was debate on which form the election process should get, and in the end, the choice was made for the electoral college. That much is true. However, that another choice would not have led to the foundation of the USA is pure speculation on your part. All the 13 states involved were working to create the union, and they probably would have anyway.

The intention of the electoral collage however was, that the electors would decide independently and individually. Hamilton, one of the main designers of the electoral college says this about it in Federalist 68:
"It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations."


The winner takes all strategy, that was adopted when the constitution was already in place, clearly goes against that, because it turns the elector into mindless pawns of the majority and it eliminates their possibility to analyse, and takes away their choice. Two of the main architects of the electoral college, Hamilton and Madison, strongly objected to that, and even tried to amend the constitution to forbid it. To no avail. The result is, that the electoral college of today is not what the framers of the constitution had in mind, when writing the constitution. They wanted electors who were free to think, analyse and choose, not straw men who were legally bound to blindly follow the majority.

Quote by amy1967

Quote by MostPreciousLittle


But no matter what goes wrong, it's always the liberals fault. Or Obama's or Hillary's. They are incapable of taking any sort of responsibilities for the world's biggest coward/narcissist. No matter what the giant orange King of the Cowards does. They live in a world of hatred that nothing will ever penetrate and they are totally incapable of change.


Even if it's the news and in right in our faces.

Quote by Seax


Well, in a way that's a relief. We just finished eight years where everything bad was George W. Bush's fault.

Pot, meet kettle!

Quote by WellMadeMale


I'm going to set the bar a little low here:

Tell us 3 good things which occurred during the Bush/Cheney administration, actual benefits for America - or hell, even just the world.

Tell us 10 bad things which occurred during the Bush/Cheney administration. Detriments.

There's a hell of lot more of the latter, so this should be pretty easy for you.