Anyone still dislike Trump?

[AZST_bowhunter]

**** DJT. He's no friend of the Second Amendment. He's no friend of mine. He should be no friend of yours.

What has he done to mess with the second amendment??

What is your opinion on Reagan?

[jer_james]

He's absolute scum, and always has been in my opinion - Any Republican would have nominated similar minded judges. I dont understand why that's such a credit.

[Clay C]

He's absolute scum, and always has been in my opinion - Any Republican would have nominated similar minded judges. I dont understand why that's such a credit.

How so? I wish you guys would expound on this because I'm genuinely curious.

Meaning the scum part. I agree with you on the judge part.

[flywise]

**** DJT. He's no friend of the Second Amendment. He's no friend of mine. He should be no friend of yours.

Lol

[Clay C]

What has he done to mess with the second amendment??

What is your opinion on Reagan?

The ATF modified a legislative description in order to cover an item so that item could be banned. He has certainly done more harm to the 2nd Amendment than Obama did. In his defense, the NRA started the discussion. However he should never have gone through with it. Basically turned hundreds of thousands of gun owners into potential felons overnight. Further more offered no grandfathering, or compensation for destroyed/surrendered items. The whole thing is likely unconstitutional. Good luck getting any judge in today's society to have the balls to call it what it is though.

I get your point about Reagan. However with the way the Hughes amendment was added, he really had no choice. It wasn't like he signed an anti-gun bill. He signed a pro-gun bill with an anti gun addition. Definitely was not worth the trade off though. His later rhetoric leaves me to believe he was not very pro-gun.

[Clay C]

Lol

This. I never expected a guy from New York to have the same feelings about the 2nd amendment as I do. It's sad that we've come to that, but we have. Do I like, agree or trust him on the issue? No. Do I know we would have been worse off without him? Absolutely.

[Russ79]

My opinion of Donald Trump really hasn't changed- he is a rich, boorish person that is used to getting his own way that got his start because his daddy was rich, not because he earned it. I do think that the wording of some of his tweets are below the office of Presidency, but as stated above, that is the only way to bring attention to accomplishments getting done since the MSM won't reports facts. He didn't need this job but saw where the country was going and said "not on my watch if I can do something about it". If the Republicans can get their act together and find a way to cover pre-existing conditions for folks that need it they can burn the ACA to the ground- that is the only thing propping up Obamacare. And for the liberal minded I would ask- what has he done that has affected you in a negative way personally.

[Tony Pic]

This. I never expected a guy from New York to have the same feelings about the 2nd amendment as I do. It's sad that we've come to that, but we have. Do I like, agree or trust him on the issue? No. Do I know we would have been worse off without him? Absolutely.

Not all of NY is the same. That slime cuomo only won 7 of 52 counties.
What does that tell you?
Tells me if they had the electoral college that POS would not be Governor by a HUGE margin.

[Clay C]

Not all of NY is the same. That slime cuomo only won 7 of 52 counties.
What does that tell you?
Tells me if they had the electoral college that POS would not be Governor by a HUGE margin.
He passed a SAFE act making NYers criminals over night. He won't release the compliance stats...very small margin complied. NY ain't all bad. It is the city folk.

Oh I agree. Most of New York is full of great people. It is downright sad what NYC has done there.

[muzzlebrake]

Not all of NY is the same. That slime cuomo only won 7 of 52 counties.
What does that tell you?
Tells me if they had the electoral college that POS would not be Governor by a HUGE margin.

Why we have the Electoral College.

In their infinite wisdom, the United States' Founders created the Electoral College to ensure the STATES were fairly represented. Why should one or two densely populated areas speak for the whole of the nation?

The following list of statistics has been making the rounds on the Internet It should finally put an end to the argument as to why the Electoral College makes sense.

There are 3,141 counties in the United States.

Trump won 3,084 of them.

Clinton won 57. (let that sink in)

There are 62 counties in New York State.

Trump won 46 of them.

Clinton won 16.

But, Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.

In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens)

Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton won 4 of these counties; Trump only won Richmond)

Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.

These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.

The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.

When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.

Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc.) DO NOT and SHOULD NOT speak for the rest of our country!

And...it's been verified and documented that those aforementioned 319 square miles are where the majority of our nation's problems foment.

[BrianL]

Why we have the Electoral College.

In their infinite wisdom, the United States' Founders created the Electoral College to ensure the STATES were fairly represented. Why should one or two densely populated areas speak for the whole of the nation?

The following list of statistics has been making the rounds on the Internet It should finally put an end to the argument as to why the Electoral College makes sense.

There are 3,141 counties in the United States.

Trump won 3,084 of them.

Clinton won 57. (let that sink in)

There are 62 counties in New York State.

Trump won 46 of them.

Clinton won 16.

But, Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.

In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens)

Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton won 4 of these counties; Trump only won Richmond)

Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.

These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.

The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.

When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.

Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc.) DO NOT and SHOULD NOT speak for the rest of our country!

And...it's been verified and documented that those aforementioned 319 square miles are where the majority of our nation's problems foment.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-clinton-counties-won/

CLose but not by that margin as a few websites reported.

[mwk128]

Why we have the Electoral College.

In their infinite wisdom, the United States' Founders created the Electoral College to ensure the STATES were fairly represented. Why should one or two densely populated areas speak for the whole of the nation?

The following list of statistics has been making the rounds on the Internet It should finally put an end to the argument as to why the Electoral College makes sense.

There are 3,141 counties in the United States.

Trump won 3,084 of them.

Clinton won 57. (let that sink in)

There are 62 counties in New York State.

Trump won 46 of them.

Clinton won 16.

But, Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.

In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens)

Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton won 4 of these counties; Trump only won Richmond)

Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.

These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.

The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.

When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.

Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc.) DO NOT and SHOULD NOT speak for the rest of our country!

And...it's been verified and documented that those aforementioned 319 square miles are where the majority of our nation's problems foment.

The electoral college has its pros and cons but I never understand how people think this argument is valid. So do you believe that the vote of a farmer with 500 acres of land should count more than someone who lives in apartment in NYC, or a on a 1/4 acre lot in the suburbs? Land does not vote, people vote and each person no matter where they are from or if they are republican or Democrat should count the same.

[SaltwaterSlick]

Honest question. Can I ask why you despise him as a man?

Clay, I do not condone his sexual perversity, unfaithfulness to his wives. To me they are an abomination. He's morally bankrupt. He has an ego that is second do none and that character is offensive to me.

Doesn't keep him from being President and what we need to govern right now however...

[DRT]

At first lots of people disliked Trump. The only 3 real excuses heard were:

1. Hillary not in jail

2. Border not shut down (or the likes)

3. Trump isn't getting rid of ACA (Obamacare)





Of course those 3 excuses were AFTER he accomplished many things but we all sat here and said OK.. fair enough.



Now that he's fighting for all 3, does anyone still not like him?

Like him? Hell no. Like what he s working toward? Hell yes.

Gary

[flywise]

The electoral college has its pros and cons but I never understand how people think this argument is valid. So do you believe that the vote of a farmer with 500 acres of land should count more than someone who lives in apartment in NYC, or a on a 1/4 acre lot in the suburbs? Land does not vote, people vote and each person no matter where they are from or if they are republican or Democrat should count the same.

There are no con's the EC...only pros.
Like mentioned millions of times in millions of places if not.for the EC your vote would be a farce.