If I recall all he did is insist that if you have a p*nis between you legs that you use the men's room.
He did it for the safety of women. That's not an unreasonable demand considering that it has been the norm in society for 5000 years and it has worked well.
I don't have a problem with a man dressing up like a woman or being a homosexual. You can live your life any way you please as long as you don't infringe on me or anyone else. But it's gone too far ......men should use the men's room and women should use the women's room. If a public venue wants to create a third bathroom facility for 'none of the above'........fine. But I am still using the men's room.
I completely disagree with that. She has continuously had scandal after scandal, even if she wasn't convicted of anything.
Peter
Its true - he is indeed vulgar, coarse, ignorant braggart who has alienated so many of their favourite interest groups - but in a democratic vote he won.
The anti-Trump street protests are idiotic - angry they may be but do they really think their interests are best served by over-turning the democratic process? Now that's what I call ignorant.
. He has also expressed admiration for strongmen such as Russian President Vladimir Putin, with whom he has promised to forge a closer relationship based on mutual respect.
I can't help thinking of just what happened. I mean is there a possibility that it didn't really happen ? How could so many intelligent and informed people be so wrong ? OK in the scenes of smoke and mirrors it looks undeniable but what if his ole buddy Vlad in the Kremlin and his hacker boys somehow fixed the election machines ?
Now I am not saying they did but it is an outside possibility. Just in the key states would be enough to tip the balance. Perhaps the Coney island man would like to have a look or maybe not unless he is paid enough. Politics is a dirty business as everyone knows. The machines are probably antiquated too and able to be fixed.
Just a thought guys but no proof I regret to say. The conspiracy theorists could run with this one and Hillary might yet win.
Depends on how one defines "democratic". Clinton won the popular vote, so "democratically" she won, just as Gore did in 2000. But that's not how we elect our presidents. Not that it matters in practical terms. But it is important to remember that half the country voted for her. We are split right down the middle.
Maybe there was a majority of votes cast by the electorate in favour of Hillary Clinton: it doesn't matter now. The democratic decision had already been taken that the Electoral College system elects the President. Now is the wrong time for protesters to be crying foul over the system they were happy with when they were ahead in the polls.
By all means, protest, but protest things which should be put right, not a system everyone agreed was acceptable pre-election day.
Maybe there was a majority of votes cast by the electorate in favour of Hillary Clinton: it doesn't matter now. The democratic decision had already been taken that the Electoral College system elects the President. Now is the wrong time for protesters to be crying foul over the system they were happy with when they were ahead in the polls.
By all means, protest, but protest things which should be put right, not a system everyone agreed was acceptable pre-election day.
Errrmmm.... that's a little rich. Democracy means we are free to protest anytime we want. No right or wrong time.
Actually, few people agreed. Part of the problem is that the winners have little motivation to change it and the losers are not in a position to do so. There is also the matter of amending the Constitution, which we needn't go in to.
But we've been through this before, particularly in the sixties, and we'll go through it again. Age gives one a particular perspective, as I believe you know.
I think the final whistle in this game has gone so its too late now to change the rules. Maybe Hillary had more time of possession, but it was Trump who got the points.
Clinton: 228. Trump: 279. That was easy, next question!Depends on how one defines "points".
Brexit isn't really comparable because we voted to leave a broken system we didn't like, that showed no interest or willingness to change and would only go from bad to worse as time went by. By contrast, no one knows what to expect from Trump. Politically, he's unknown and has no form. If his term in office is a total disaster - however one might define that - then it may serve as a salutary lesson for all Americans (and the rest of the world) in future elections. Obviously, that's what the democrats will hope for, so that they will be re-elected with a landslide victory next time. It could be argued that the greater danger is that Trump actually makes a half decent job of it, thereby reinforcing the idea that voting for 'extreme' candidates with unsavory views and attitudes is a good idea.No one should be surprised by the reactions to close elections. Brexit provides an excellent example.
Not a little rich at all. It is rich of the Democrats who piously criticised Trump before the election for criticising the electoral system, but now they wear the same coat.
Protest yes, but in order to gain decisions that should be enacted, i.e. protest with intelligence and integrity. Can these people in the streets seriously think democracy is served by overturning a decision because they don't like the result they just got?
You really know nothing about transgender issues, do you?
Clinton: 228. Trump: 279. That was easy, next question!
Brexit isn't really comparable because we voted to leave a broken system we didn't like, that showed no interest or willingness to change and would only go from bad to worse as time went by.
So when your government care more about minority group non issues...then you know for certain they have lost the plot and need to be ousted.
America has chosen to reprioritize. It has a chance now to deal with it's real issues. Economy and jobs.