What will happen at the Democratic Convention?

[The Big Dog]

Yes, some people do have poor performances while contemplating past defeats and stsring future defeats straight in the eye. But they can always fall back on botox jokes.

Back in reality, Hillary got a lifetime of public service rewarded with kind words and support of the multitudes she helped throughout her career, made History as the first woman in America to be nominated to be President by a major party, and caused a bigger epidemic of heartburn in America since a nice black family moved into the White House.

Botox joke? It wasn't a joke.

 

[wareyin]

Bingo!



What indeed do ya know.

Thanks for having my back.

Interesting, you appear to be including the various colonies that did not rebel against the crown, yet you previously claimed that it was "also wrong" (not sure what you claimed was wrong about it, but then again, you are now claiming victory because you were shown to be wrong)

 

[NoahFence]

For those who suffer from HDS:

For you

Better get used to it, children.

 

[acbytesla]

Sadly, it doesn't matter. Die Hard Republicans will Vote for Trump because he's the nominee. No other reason. Same as how Die Hard Democrats will vote Hillary, because she's the nominee.

It only matters to the independents. And it seems that many of those don't like either candidate.

There are lots of Die Hard Republicans not voting for Trump this election. More than I've ever seen before.

This guy isn't going to get the votes of these Hard Core Republicans.

George H.W. Bush
George W. Bush
Barbara Bush
Jeb Bush
Mitt Romney
John Kasich
George Will
Joe Scarborough
Marco Rubio
Carly Fiorini

And many many more.

I belong to a Country Club where I'm a closet liberal and the Clintons have been described in the past by hard core Republicans as the first cousins of Lucifer. Last month, I heard one member going on about Trump and what an idiot Donald is. He said that he would vote for the devil himself over that "C" word (rhymes with bunt) Hillary. And now he's been taken up on the challenge. I know of people who have regularly donated to the GOP Presidential nominee who are now giving that money to GOP congressional candidates.

The Libertarian candidate is doing better than I've ever seen.

So no, I can't accept your premise.

 

[Megalodon]

I see the shoe fitted... but then it's easier with hoofs.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

well obviously because it was a British colony on contiguous North American soil that eventually joined the United States.

Then why doesn't the flag which symbolically represents the colonies uniting in a federation have 14 or 15 stripes? Because those colonies did not join the revolution and are thus not part of the group generally referred to as "the colonies" by American citizens. We don't count the Spanish colonies we eventually stole from Mexico either.


You've gone off on a historical nitpick utterly at odds with common use of language.

 

[Megalodon]

Then why doesn't the flag which symbolically represents the colonies uniting in a federation have 14 or 15 stripes? Because those colonies did not join the revolution and are thus not part of the group generally referred to as "the colonies" by American citizens. We don't count the Spanish colonies we eventually stole from Mexico either.


You've gone off on a historical nitpick utterly at odds with common use of language.

Well, it has to be tiring to be at odds with reality, so the change was probably needed.

 

[Stacko]

"Schooling" involves presentation of information, not chucking rocks at random pedestians.

Perhaps another perspective can help. Can you explain what 16.5 is talking about? Why should a reference to "the colonies" in a context of the United States include any number other than 13?

Also, why the hang up on including east and west Florida but not the Canadian British colonies if you're attempting to school people about North American British colonies at the time of the American revolution?

 

[Denver]

If this colony thing is the most significant point of contention in the speech, I guess she did better than I thought.

 

[FluffyPersian]

The Khizr Khan speech and in particular, the moment when he pulled out the constitution was the most memorable of the convention. They are the face of the anonymous Muslims whom Trump and his fans demonize. FWIW, the reporters on the NYT's live chat said that he wasn't speaking from a teleprompter.

 

[Tony Stark]

I see 16.5 doing a lot of schooling here. Unfortunately, I don't see a lot of learning.

LOL

 

[dudalb]

The white suit was a good idea too.
Now we have Hillary the White vs Sour-man.

I am SO Stealing that.

 

[Stacko]

If this colony thing is the most significant point of contention in the speech, I guess she did better than I thought.

It underscored who Hillary is. Workman like and policy oriented and she's not going to apologize for it.

 

[acbytesla]

well obviously because it was a British colony on contiguous North American soil that eventually joined the United States.

Are there any molehills you haven't turned into mountains?

You do know that even Republicans roll their eyes with this nitpick don't you?

 

[quadraginta]

"Schooling" involves presentation of information, not chucking rocks at random pedestians.

Perhaps another perspective can help. Can you explain what 16.5 is talking about? Why should a reference to "the colonies" in a context of the United States include any number other than 13?

Since it was a post of mine which set 16.5 off I guess I can help explain a bit.

Yes. There were thirteen British colonies who were the signers of the Declaration of Independence from Britain. This act led to the founding of the U.S.

The point I was interested in is that this is a somewhat Anglocentric view of the colonization of those territories which comprised that immediate geographic area. It does not reflect the fact that other nationalities founded colonies which were subsumed or taken by force of arms before the events which led up to the DoI. New Netherlands comes to mind. As does the French and Indian War.

This does not even take into account the large number of colonial settlers from other nationalities who did not actually establish a formal colony, but still had significant influences. Germans in Pennsylvania are a good example of this. As are the Palatine immigrants to New York. German settlers in the Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia prior to the Revolution were not insignificant either.

Even among the nominally "British" a noticeable percentage of them might have been less than impressed with that appellation. Scots, Irish, and perhaps especially Scotch Irish were rather over-represented among the most active of the revolutionaries.

By 1775 the actual English (and Welsh) amounted to slightly less than half of the settlers who comprised those thirteen original American colonies.

Of course, 20% of the remainder were African slaves, so I guess they don't really count.

 

[dudalb]

Since it was a post of mine which set 16.5 off I guess I can help explain a bit.

Yes. There were thirteen British colonies who were the signers of the Declaration of Independence from Britain. This act led to the founding of the U.S.

The point I was interested in is that this is a somewhat Anglocentric view of the colonization of those territories which comprised that immediate geographic area. It does not reflect the fact that other nationalities founded colonies which were subsumed or taken by force of arms before the events which led up to the DoI. New Netherlands comes to mind. As does the French and Indian War.

This does not even take into account the large number of colonial settlers from other nationalities who did not actually establish a formal colony, but still had significant influences. Germans in Pennsylvania are a good example of this. As are the Palatine immigrants to New York. German settlers in the Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia prior to the Revolution were not insignificant either.

Even among the nominally "British" a noticeable percentage of them might have been less than impressed with that appellation. Scots, Irish, and perhaps especially Scotch Irish were rather over-represented among the most active of the revolutionaries.

By 1775 the actual English (and Welsh) amounted to slightly less than half of the settlers who comprised those thirteen original American colonies.

Of course, 20% of the remainder were African slaves, so I guess they don't really count.

All true,but also sort of irrevelent to the point. Great Britain owned and ruled the colonies, that makes them British Colonies.

 

[dudalb]

One GOPer disgusted with his party put it beautifuuly:

The Democratic Convention was about loving the USA;the GOP Convention was about Loving Donald Trump.

 

[The Big Dog]

The Democratic Convention was about hating Donald Trump;the GOP Convention was about Loving Donald Trump.

Fixed that for you!

 

[quadraginta]

All true,but also sort of irrevelent to the point. Great Britain owned and ruled the colonies, that makes them British Colonies.

I don't disagree. Not in a legal or technical sense. I still think the description over-simplifies the actual conditions at the time.

Like I said. Very Anglocentric.

It wasn't meant to be a hugely important or telling point about anything in particular. Just a casual aside.

I'm impressed with what it devolved into, though.

 

[quadraginta]

One GOPer disgusted with his party put it beautifuuly:

The Democratic Convention was about loving the USA;the GOP Convention was about Loving Donald Trump.

Sad, but very true.