Eredor

You've never been around SE US politics... have you?...

I'm not going to pretend that Islam is a peaceful religion as interpreted by most in the Middle East at the moment, but I don't think most of the people polled think of "violence in the name of Islam" would be a slaughter of civilians. They probably interpreted it as a holy war with willing combatants on the other side. Agreed. Make guns so that a person needs to have a basic knowledge of gun safety, have mental and physical stability, and a license so that an average citizen could have one if they so desired but limit the dangers from people unfit to own guns. http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/02/house_strikes_regulation_to_ke.html think some will find this interesting.

That's incorrect phrasing then. You can't say both when only one category has a possibility of being correct.

In the press conference Spicer said, "No one had numbers. Because the National Park Service, which controls the National Mall, does not put any out." Later in the press conference, he said, "This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, period!" Presenting something as truth that has no factual evidence to back it up has been a disturbing trend this election season with several candidates. I just hope people are smart enough to find the information and make their own decisions. I have no idea why Trump and his staff are making this into something. It's pretty obvious to anyone watching the time lapse that Obama's first inauguration drew a larger crowd, and Reagan's inauguration was larger than either of the two. The fact that Trump tried to present his inauguration as the largest ever concerns me. Nobody would have paid any attention to his own inauguration numbers if he hadn't claimed it as the largest, coming off petty and egocentric instead of presenting what most would consider to be a presidential manner since nobody cares about inauguration size unless the president does.

If you're using that excuse for Trump, you could say the same thing for Clinton since she's also a New Yorker... but we all know that argument is bullshit.

Bit early to say that Democrats will be obliterated in coming elections since the President's popularity usually is the determining factor on who wins those seats up for grabs. If Trump is a popular/good president, sure. If he isn't, then it will obviously shift back towards the Democrats.

Honestly, I think a change to the electoral college is warranted. As it stands now, it currently discourages the non-dominant party in each state from voting. A plausible change, in my opinion, would be to make the electoral college mostly proportional by making the electors who represent the House proportional and having the candidate who receives the plurality of votes receive the 2 votes from the electors who represent the Senate. Thoughts? I think that would give a definite advantage to whoever won the majority of states while also recognizing votes that typically don't matter in states that always vote one way, like New York, California, Alabama, while keeping the original sentiment behind the original electoral college system.

RIP Boemond. I wish this game could magically to back to SoA or 65 cap.