|
Post by str8shooter on Nov 23, 2024 10:52:24 GMT -6
The seems to be some question by the left whether Trump has a mandate from the people. Many on the left are arguing pure voting numbers and saying that Biden had more votes and thus a greater mandate. They then say that Trump doesn't have a mandate and use the House of Representatives numbers to back their position. At the same time, they ignore that Trump swept the "Blue Wall." IMO, that is a manate that can not be questioned. Also, given the number of voters who left their party to vote for Trump, Trump's mandate seems certain.
As I have posted here on this site, I avoid discussing politics when in mixed crowds. However, I have decided to stand firm, if not be aggressive, when political discussion happen in my circles and I get pulled into the discussions. Recently, when getting a hair cut, this happened. It started when a group of guys sitting around made the comment that they knew how I voted. None of them had any idea that I was as Conservative as I am. In fact, some were shocked. I mentioned the mandate which was instantly denied by a couple there. It is my opinion that if Trump keeps his promises and/or does his best to impliment them, you will see those few "loyal Democrats" who have held on to the belief that the Democrats represent the working man come over to the Republicans and this mandate will only grow. JMHO!
|
|
abuxb
Junior Member
Posts: 177
|
Post by abuxb on Nov 23, 2024 12:29:02 GMT -6
The seems to be some question by the left whether Trump has a mandate from the people. Many on the left are arguing pure voting numbers and saying that Biden had more votes and thus a greater mandate. They then say that Trump doesn't have a mandate and use the House of Representatives numbers to back their position. At the same time, they ignore that Trump swept the "Blue Wall." IMO, that is a manate that can not be questioned. Also, given the number of voters who left their party to vote for Trump, Trump's mandate seems certain. As I have posted here on this site, I avoid discussing politics when in mixed crowds. However, I have decided to stand firm, if not be aggressive, when political discussion happen in my circles and I get pulled into the discussions. Recently, when getting a hair cut, this happened. It started when a group of guys sitting around made the comment that they knew how I voted. None of them had any idea that I was as Conservative as I am. In fact, some were shocked. I mentioned the mandate which was instantly denied by a couple there. It is my opinion that if Trump keeps his promises and/or does his best to impliment them, you will see those few "loyal Democrats" who have held on to the belief that the Democrats represent the working man come over to the Republicans and this mandate will only grow. JMHO! Quite possible. Combine the daily movement by the DNC and the party leaders in the power positions (Biden, Harris, Schumer, and Jeffries) away from the common principles of the average working man/woman who pays taxes and buys groceries and you can imagine an even bigger pot of Americans who can say "I didn't leave the Democrat Party; the Democrat party left me".
|
|
|
Post by stargatebabe on Nov 23, 2024 12:55:14 GMT -6
The seems to be some question by the left whether Trump has a mandate from the people. Many on the left are arguing pure voting numbers and saying that Biden had more votes and thus a greater mandate. They then say that Trump doesn't have a mandate and use the House of Representatives numbers to back their position. At the same time, they ignore that Trump swept the "Blue Wall." IMO, that is a manate that can not be questioned. Also, given the number of voters who left their party to vote for Trump, Trump's mandate seems certain. As I have posted here on this site, I avoid discussing politics when in mixed crowds. However, I have decided to stand firm, if not be aggressive, when political discussion happen in my circles and I get pulled into the discussions. Recently, when getting a hair cut, this happened. It started when a group of guys sitting around made the comment that they knew how I voted. None of them had any idea that I was as Conservative as I am. In fact, some were shocked. I mentioned the mandate which was instantly denied by a couple there. It is my opinion that if Trump keeps his promises and/or does his best to impliment them, you will see those few "loyal Democrats" who have held on to the belief that the Democrats represent the working man come over to the Republicans and this mandate will only grow. JMHO! Quite possible. Combine the daily movement by the DNC and the party leaders in the power positions (Biden, Harris, Schumer, and Jeffries) away from the common principles of the average working man/woman who pays taxes and buys groceries and you can imagine an even bigger pot of Americans who can say "I didn't leave the Democrat Party; the Democrat party left me". Jeffries may have been one to learn a lesson on election day. He appeared on The View and Hostin was trying to get him to admit that racism and misogyny were to blame for Harris losing and he wasn't buying the bullshit she was trying to sell! House Minority Leader, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., pushed back against the idea that "racism and misogyny" drove voters to support President-elect Trump this election during a Friday appearance on "The View."
Jeffries was asked by co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin what lessons his party needed to take away from this election, as members of his party continue to play the "blame game" for Vice President Kamala Harris' defeat. Jeffries argued that the primary takeaway from this election was that the high cost of living had put a huge burden on most Americans and made the American dream unattainable.
"[T]hat basic contract between everyday Americans and the country, which is that if you work hard and play by the rules, you should be able to provide a comfortable living for yourself for your family, purchase a home, educate your children, have access to health care, go on vacation every now and then and one day be able to retire with grace and dignity. That’s the American dream, but for far too many people it’s out of reach. That shouldn't be a Democratic or Republican issue. That’s an American issue that we should all address together," he continued.
Co-host Sunny Hostin told Jeffries she was still "struggling" to grasp how voters chose Trump over Harris. She asked him if he believed sexism and racism also played a role.
"Something that I’m still struggling with, and I’d love to hear your thoughts on, is how did a convicted felon resonate more with Americans than a hyper-qualified woman of color? Do you think that racism and misogyny played any part in this election?" she asked.
Jeffries doubled down on his answer that the economy was the dominant factor in this election.Read more @ www.foxnews.com/media/democratic-leader-jeffries-rebuffs-view-co-hosts-suggestion-racism-misogyny-cost-harris-electionBlue font is mine
|
|
abuxb
Junior Member
Posts: 177
|
Post by abuxb on Nov 23, 2024 14:57:12 GMT -6
Quite possible. Combine the daily movement by the DNC and the party leaders in the power positions (Biden, Harris, Schumer, and Jeffries) away from the common principles of the average working man/woman who pays taxes and buys groceries and you can imagine an even bigger pot of Americans who can say "I didn't leave the Democrat Party; the Democrat party left me". Jeffries may have been one to learn a lesson on election day. He appeared on The View and Hostin was trying to get him to admit that racism and misogyny were to blame for Harris losing and he wasn't buying the bullshit she was trying to sell! House Minority Leader, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., pushed back against the idea that "racism and misogyny" drove voters to support President-elect Trump this election during a Friday appearance on "The View."
Jeffries was asked by co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin what lessons his party needed to take away from this election, as members of his party continue to play the "blame game" for Vice President Kamala Harris' defeat. Jeffries argued that the primary takeaway from this election was that the high cost of living had put a huge burden on most Americans and made the American dream unattainable.
"[T]hat basic contract between everyday Americans and the country, which is that if you work hard and play by the rules, you should be able to provide a comfortable living for yourself for your family, purchase a home, educate your children, have access to health care, go on vacation every now and then and one day be able to retire with grace and dignity. That’s the American dream, but for far too many people it’s out of reach. That shouldn't be a Democratic or Republican issue. That’s an American issue that we should all address together," he continued.
Co-host Sunny Hostin told Jeffries she was still "struggling" to grasp how voters chose Trump over Harris. She asked him if he believed sexism and racism also played a role.
"Something that I’m still struggling with, and I’d love to hear your thoughts on, is how did a convicted felon resonate more with Americans than a hyper-qualified woman of color? Do you think that racism and misogyny played any part in this election?" she asked.
Jeffries doubled down on his answer that the economy was the dominant factor in this election.Read more @ www.foxnews.com/media/democratic-leader-jeffries-rebuffs-view-co-hosts-suggestion-racism-misogyny-cost-harris-electionBlue font is mine I took a look at that clip and you could well be correct. A question I have is whether or not Jeffries was simply trying to keep from looking as clueless as Hostin? Especially since Hostin had already provided that train of thought, there wasn't any reason for Jeffries to make it look as though he agreed 100%. I guess we all will just have to see what kind of propaganda Mr. Jeffries shares in the coming months once President Trump takes office.
|
|
|
Post by stargatebabe on Nov 23, 2024 18:31:18 GMT -6
Jeffries may have been one to learn a lesson on election day. He appeared on The View and Hostin was trying to get him to admit that racism and misogyny were to blame for Harris losing and he wasn't buying the bullshit she was trying to sell! House Minority Leader, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., pushed back against the idea that "racism and misogyny" drove voters to support President-elect Trump this election during a Friday appearance on "The View."
Jeffries was asked by co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin what lessons his party needed to take away from this election, as members of his party continue to play the "blame game" for Vice President Kamala Harris' defeat. Jeffries argued that the primary takeaway from this election was that the high cost of living had put a huge burden on most Americans and made the American dream unattainable.
"[T]hat basic contract between everyday Americans and the country, which is that if you work hard and play by the rules, you should be able to provide a comfortable living for yourself for your family, purchase a home, educate your children, have access to health care, go on vacation every now and then and one day be able to retire with grace and dignity. That’s the American dream, but for far too many people it’s out of reach. That shouldn't be a Democratic or Republican issue. That’s an American issue that we should all address together," he continued.
Co-host Sunny Hostin told Jeffries she was still "struggling" to grasp how voters chose Trump over Harris. She asked him if he believed sexism and racism also played a role.
"Something that I’m still struggling with, and I’d love to hear your thoughts on, is how did a convicted felon resonate more with Americans than a hyper-qualified woman of color? Do you think that racism and misogyny played any part in this election?" she asked.
Jeffries doubled down on his answer that the economy was the dominant factor in this election.Read more @ www.foxnews.com/media/democratic-leader-jeffries-rebuffs-view-co-hosts-suggestion-racism-misogyny-cost-harris-electionBlue font is mine I took a look at that clip and you could well be correct. A question I have is whether or not Jeffries was simply trying to keep from looking as clueless as Hostin? Especially since Hostin had already provided that train of thought, there wasn't any reason for Jeffries to make it look as though he agreed 100%. I guess we all will just have to see what kind of propaganda Mr. Jeffries shares in the coming months once President Trump takes office.Yep, I tried to give him, the benefit of the doubt but I just can't do it! He didn't learn anything - he just memorized something My guess is same shit, different day!
|
|
|
Post by Starbuck on Nov 24, 2024 9:40:26 GMT -6
The seems to be some question by the left whether Trump has a mandate from the people. Many on the left are arguing pure voting numbers and saying that Biden had more votes and thus a greater mandate. They then say that Trump doesn't have a mandate and use the House of Representatives numbers to back their position. At the same time, they ignore that Trump swept the "Blue Wall." IMO, that is a manate that can not be questioned. Also, given the number of voters who left their party to vote for Trump, Trump's mandate seems certain. As I have posted here on this site, I avoid discussing politics when in mixed crowds. However, I have decided to stand firm, if not be aggressive, when political discussion happen in my circles and I get pulled into the discussions. Recently, when getting a hair cut, this happened. It started when a group of guys sitting around made the comment that they knew how I voted. None of them had any idea that I was as Conservative as I am. In fact, some were shocked. I mentioned the mandate which was instantly denied by a couple there. It is my opinion that if Trump keeps his promises and/or does his best to impliment them, you will see those few "loyal Democrats" who have held on to the belief that the Democrats represent the working man come over to the Republicans and this mandate will only grow. JMHO! Under a correct reading and understanding of the constitution, no president ever has a "mandate". Only the voters possess that authority (which is why leftists work tirelessly to rig elections). What Trump actually has is an opportunity. Let's hope he does not throw it away as he did 4 years ago. He is not alone in that missed opportunity: Biden, Obama, and Bush each had one as well and all failed badly. If Trump is not as stupid and foolish as he was in hist first term and actually addresses the many abuses perpetrated in the DC sewer, the voters could exercise their mandate to continue in that direction in 2028.
|
|
abuxb
Junior Member
Posts: 177
|
Post by abuxb on Nov 24, 2024 16:18:56 GMT -6
The seems to be some question by the left whether Trump has a mandate from the people. Many on the left are arguing pure voting numbers and saying that Biden had more votes and thus a greater mandate. They then say that Trump doesn't have a mandate and use the House of Representatives numbers to back their position. At the same time, they ignore that Trump swept the "Blue Wall." IMO, that is a manate that can not be questioned. Also, given the number of voters who left their party to vote for Trump, Trump's mandate seems certain. As I have posted here on this site, I avoid discussing politics when in mixed crowds. However, I have decided to stand firm, if not be aggressive, when political discussion happen in my circles and I get pulled into the discussions. Recently, when getting a hair cut, this happened. It started when a group of guys sitting around made the comment that they knew how I voted. None of them had any idea that I was as Conservative as I am. In fact, some were shocked. I mentioned the mandate which was instantly denied by a couple there. It is my opinion that if Trump keeps his promises and/or does his best to impliment them, you will see those few "loyal Democrats" who have held on to the belief that the Democrats represent the working man come over to the Republicans and this mandate will only grow. JMHO! Under a correct reading and understanding of the constitution, no president ever has a "mandate". Only the voters possess that authority (which is why leftists work tirelessly to rig elections). What Trump actually has is an opportunity. Let's hope he does not throw it away as he did 4 years ago. He is not alone in that missed opportunity: Biden, Obama, and Bush each had one as well and all failed badly. If Trump is not as stupid and foolish as he was in hist first term and actually addresses the many abuses perpetrated in the DC sewer, the voters could exercise their mandate to continue in that direction in 2028. Much evidence shows that Melville doesn't really know the definition of the word mandate.
|
|
|
Post by str8shooter on Nov 24, 2024 17:29:32 GMT -6
Under a correct reading and understanding of the constitution, no president ever has a "mandate". Only the voters possess that authority (which is why leftists work tirelessly to rig elections). What Trump actually has is an opportunity. Let's hope he does not throw it away as he did 4 years ago. He is not alone in that missed opportunity: Biden, Obama, and Bush each had one as well and all failed badly. If Trump is not as stupid and foolish as he was in hist first term and actually addresses the many abuses perpetrated in the DC sewer, the voters could exercise their mandate to continue in that direction in 2028. Much evidence shows that Melville doesn't really know the definition of the word mandate. ... and the evidence of your statement is his first sentence.
|
|
|
Post by bedfordforrest on Nov 24, 2024 19:23:20 GMT -6
After the 2020 election where the Democrats won a tight presidential race, the Senate was split 50/50, and the Democrats controlled the house by a handful, they governed like they had a super majority in both houses and won the election by 300 electoral votes.
Trump has a mandate, and he's going to use it.
|
|
Nano
Junior Member
Posts: 327
|
Post by Nano on Nov 24, 2024 20:35:29 GMT -6
After the 2020 election where the Democrats won a tight presidential race, the Senate was split 50/50, and the Democrats controlled the house by a handful, they governed like they had a super majority in both houses and won the election by 300 electoral votes. Trump has a mandate, and he's going to use it. The last President with a true mandate was Reagan in his second term. He won every state but one and something like 55% of the vote. Barely winning half the vote isn't a mandate. The election, however, was a total and utter repudiation of the poisonous west coast progressivism that has turned the Democratic party into a laughingstock.
|
|
abuxb
Junior Member
Posts: 177
|
Post by abuxb on Nov 24, 2024 21:41:13 GMT -6
Much evidence shows that Melville doesn't really know the definition of the word mandate. ... and the evidence of your statement is his first sentence. Well said. His narcissism maybe knows no limits, but his vocabulary sure does.
|
|
|
Post by Starbuck on Nov 25, 2024 8:58:19 GMT -6
After the 2020 election where the Democrats won a tight presidential race, the Senate was split 50/50, and the Democrats controlled the house by a handful, they governed like they had a super majority in both houses and won the election by 300 electoral votes. Trump has a mandate, and he's going to use it. No, he does not, and your post illustrates my point. "Mandate" is a word tossed about by the media chattering class, and as in the norm, it is used inappropriately. You are correct - Biden over-played his hand. Because he - and the media - believed he could use not just the election, but more so Trump's behavior over the 2 months which followed, as a "mandate". And that fundamental misunderstanding of the word doomed him. Politicians do not have a mandate. Voters do. A mandate is a designated authority. The Founders, in the constitution, mandated that VOTERS select the course of the country every 4 years at the ballot box. That has never changed. The voters possess the mandate to direct the nation - not the politicians. It is the defining dynamic of our nation. The VOTERS OWN THE MANDATE - and the only thing leaders ever have is an opportunity. For Trump to truly succeed, he needs to understand that. And, I do think, based on how he ran his campaign, he does understand that on some level - even if he is not very eloquent in expressing it ("MAGA" taps into it, but is a simplistic view of a much more complex principle). The question is, does he have the self-discipline to operate within the voter's mandate? If he does, the voters may give the REPs another opportunity in 2028. If he does not, the voters will give the DEM's another opportunity. The voters own the mandate to do so.
|
|
|
Post by str8shooter on Nov 25, 2024 9:39:55 GMT -6
After the 2020 election where the Democrats won a tight presidential race, the Senate was split 50/50, and the Democrats controlled the house by a handful, they governed like they had a super majority in both houses and won the election by 300 electoral votes. Trump has a mandate, and he's going to use it. No, he does not, and your post illustrates my point. "Mandate" is a word tossed about by the media chattering class, and as in the norm, it is used inappropriately. You are correct - Biden over-played his hand. Because he - and the media - believed he could use not just the election, but more so Trump's behavior over the 2 months which followed, as a "mandate". And that fundamental misunderstanding of the word doomed him. Politicians do not have a mandate. Voters do. A mandate is a designated authority. The Founders, in the constitution, mandated that VOTERS select the course of the country every 4 years at the ballot box. That has never changed. The voters possess the mandate to direct the nation - not the politicians. It is the defining dynamic of our nation. The VOTERS OWN THE MANDATE - and the only thing leaders ever have is an opportunity. For Trump to truly succeed, he needs to understand that. And, I do think, based on how he ran his campaign, he does understand that on some level - even if he is not very eloquent in expressing it ("MAGA" taps into it, but is a simplistic view of a much more complex principle). The question is, does he have the self-discipline to operate within the voter's mandate? If he does, the voters may give the REPs another opportunity in 2028. If he does not, the voters will give the DEM's another opportunity. The voters own the mandate to do so. "The authority given to an elected group of people, such as a government, to perform an action or govern a country:" dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/mandate
|
|
|
Post by Starbuck on Nov 25, 2024 13:39:00 GMT -6
No, he does not, and your post illustrates my point. "Mandate" is a word tossed about by the media chattering class, and as in the norm, it is used inappropriately. You are correct - Biden over-played his hand. Because he - and the media - believed he could use not just the election, but more so Trump's behavior over the 2 months which followed, as a "mandate". And that fundamental misunderstanding of the word doomed him. Politicians do not have a mandate. Voters do. A mandate is a designated authority. The Founders, in the constitution, mandated that VOTERS select the course of the country every 4 years at the ballot box. That has never changed. The voters possess the mandate to direct the nation - not the politicians. It is the defining dynamic of our nation. The VOTERS OWN THE MANDATE - and the only thing leaders ever have is an opportunity. For Trump to truly succeed, he needs to understand that. And, I do think, based on how he ran his campaign, he does understand that on some level - even if he is not very eloquent in expressing it ("MAGA" taps into it, but is a simplistic view of a much more complex principle). The question is, does he have the self-discipline to operate within the voter's mandate? If he does, the voters may give the REPs another opportunity in 2028. If he does not, the voters will give the DEM's another opportunity. The voters own the mandate to do so. "The authority given to an elected group of people, such as a government, to perform an action or govern a country:" dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/mandateThat would apply to such things as a referendum on a state or local ballot: specific authority codifying an action. Presidential elections do no such thing. An election does NOT give authority for a specific action. It is factually correct that the only MANDATE granted to any president is done via the constitution or federal law. For example, the president has a mandate to act as commander-in-chief, fill vacancies in the executive branch during recess periods, to grant pardons for federal offenses, and more. He has been granted authority ("a mandate") as an elected official to perform those actions - just as the definition you posted above indicates. So again, it is factually and irrefutably true that the only mandate related to presidential elections was granted solely to the voters (see Articles 1 and 2). When presidents fail to understand that and pretend to have a mandate which is not theirs and does not exist, it leads to failure and corruption. Biden never had a mandate to suppress free speech, open the southern border, or weaponize the government against his enemies. In turn, Trump never had a mandate to shut down the economy over COVID, bribe state and local officials to disregard numerous rights (freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom from illegal seizure, etc.). When ANY president, regardless of party, claims the ability to usurp the governing mandate that actually only belongs to the voters, it is dangerous to the country. Words - and principles - have meaning. Trump most certainly was NOT given a mandate by winning the election. He was given an opportunity to serve. Nothing more. If voters like what he does with the opportunity, in 2028 the voters will use THEIR MANDATE (which they alone possess) to decide if a REP will remain in the oval office. This is a basic civics lesson, and it would be of great benefit of the nation if all politicians and voters (including those on internet forums) understood it.
|
|
|
Post by str8shooter on Nov 25, 2024 13:49:38 GMT -6
That would apply to such things as a referendum on a state or local ballot: specific authority codifying an action. Presidential elections do no such thing. An election does NOT give authority for a specific action. It is factually correct that the only MANDATE granted to any president is done via the constitution or federal law. For example, the president has a mandate to act as commander-in-chief, fill vacancies in the executive branch during recess periods, to grant pardons for federal offenses, and more. He has been granted authority ("a mandate") as an elected official to perform those actions - just as the definition you posted above indicates. So again, it is factually and irrefutably true that the only mandate related to presidential elections was granted solely to the voters (see Articles 1 and 2). When presidents fail to understand that and pretend to have a mandate which is not theirs and does not exist, it leads to failure and corruption. Biden never had a mandate to suppress free speech, open the southern border, or weaponize the government against his enemies. In turn, Trump never had a mandate to shut down the economy over COVID, bribe state and local officials to disregard numerous rights (freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom from illegal seizure, etc.). When ANY president, regardless of party, claims the ability to usurp the governing mandate that actually only belongs to the voters, it is dangerous to the country. Words - and principles - have meaning. Trump most certainly was NOT given a mandate by winning the election. He was given an opportunity to serve. Nothing more. If voters like what he does with the opportunity, in 2028 the voters will use THEIR MANDATE (which they alone possess) to decide if a REP will remain in the oval office. This is a basic civics lesson, and it would be of great benefit of the nation if all politicians and voters (including those on internet forums) understood it. Typical ME ville. He knows more than all of those who write dictionaries in this world. He knows more than politicans on both sides of the aisle. He knows more than the Amerian people. HE is an expert which means he doesn't know anything at all.
|
|