ADVERTISEMENT

White House announces it will not comply with illegitimate and unconstitutional impeachment inquiry

I think it made her look horrible. She tossed Tillerson and Kelly under the bus without any proof only to make herself look good. What did she accomplish? Disagreeing about policy (which Kelly claims) is not "undermining the president". I've lost all respect that I had for her. Snitch.

I think you're missing the bigger picture. Few people are happy with the status quo and see that things need to change. How can we ever expect things to change if government employees supersede the goals of elected officials? They are comfortable with what has always been, even though people want change and vote accordingly.
 
I think you're missing the bigger picture. Few people are happy with the status quo and see that things need to change. How can we ever expect things to change if government employees supersede the goals of elected officials? They are comfortable with what has always been, even though people want change and vote accordingly.
The people didn't vote for Trump, the states did. To prevent confusion please in the future clarify that these individuals are going against the states wishes and not the peoples because the people wanted something else and voted accordingly. We are a republic after all.
 
Did anybody else catch the Nikki Haley interview? She implicated Rex Tillerson in trying to undermine the president. That's pretty disconcerting. If trump's own SOS is capable of this, just think about where the State Dept in general is. Some of you guys were calling it a conspiracy theory when I said the state dept was complicit in trying to "get" trump but every week something new comes out that proves it to be true.

There's two ways to look at this though. I don't disagree with your statement - that actors in government intentionally undermining the President is bad. But we also have to ask ourselves, if the President's personal appointees - a guy who ran one of the largest corporations in the world a highly respected General - have come to the conclusion that POTUS is this big of a threat - isn't that a huge deal too? We can argue about what they should or shouldn't do in that particular situation, but if that's their conclusion it's remarkable.
 
I think you're missing the bigger picture. Few people are happy with the status quo and see that things need to change. How can we ever expect things to change if government employees supersede the goals of elected officials? They are comfortable with what has always been, even though people want change and vote accordingly.
The government employees are suppose to advise the elected officials. If Trump's advisors tell him it's not a good idea to change 70 years of a policy, that shooting illegals in the legs may not be a good idea or that Greenland isn't for sale, that isn't superseding the elected officials goals. It's trying to have sound, coherent, thought out policy. Nicki should express her concerns with the POTUS instead of trying to trash a 4 star general or the ex-CEO of Exxon in order to sell more books. She's trash.
 
The people didn't vote for Trump, the states did. To prevent confusion please in the future clarify that these individuals are going against the states wishes and not the peoples because the people wanted something else and voted accordingly. We are a republic after all.

America is in big trouble if this happens in 2020. Last time, 3 million more people chose the chicken over the fish but they still got the fish.
 
Nicki should express her concerns with the POTUS instead of trying to trash a 4 star general or the ex-CEO of Exxon in order to sell more books. She's trash.
I had put Nikki squarely into the Tillerson /Kelly/ Maddog camp of well-intentioned professionals who were trying to keep the ship afloat despite their boss's batsh*t crazy antics. But throwing Kelly and Tillerson under the bus has really soured me on her.

This was a calculated political play on her part, one with little downside and quite a bit of upside. She knows she's in prime position to be the heir of the Trump legacy. As horrible a President as Trump is, the support of his Red Hat minions is a big deal. This will give her a leg up on her two future rivals, Pence and Sass. Pence is Mister Dullsville and Sass is a confirmed No-Fan-of-Trump guy.
 
The only thing keeping this country together is the electoral college. Take that away and four to five cities control the presidency.
Are you kidding me? People live in those cities because they have resources. State lines are arbitrary and the mountain states have way too much power. Keep denying the people what they want, we've seen how that movie ends already.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DaShuckster
Are you kidding me? People live in those cities because they have resources. State lines are arbitrary and the mountain states have way too much power. Keep denying the people what they want, we've seen how that movie ends already.
Why have states at all then? Why let the states choose their own adventures through this American civilization?

Just because state lines were negotiated well before you existed does not make them arbitrary. We were created as a union of states for a reason. There were checks and balances against populism for a reason. We are a republic and not a democracy for a reason. States had rights and autonomy for a reason. We decentralized from a strong federal government for a reason.

Even back at the founding they understood that states with access to coastal trading would have more population than the other states. They set up a system to even that out. It hasn’t changed, except that now you have those same states embracing systems of government dependence and encouraging massive illegal immigration to bolster their populations even more. It’s no wonder that those states are pushing for a straight popular vote. It’s also wrong that they can flaunt one of the few Constitutionally granted federal powers to fill their state with people whose descendants will all be citizens of those states while also trying to alter or go around the Constitutional protection against that very thing.

And you say the mountain states have too much power. They are pretty much powerless to stop it and will be subject to the whims of California and New York soon enough, whether this generation or the next.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
Are you kidding me? People live in those cities because they have resources. State lines are arbitrary and the mountain states have way too much power. Keep denying the people what they want, we've seen how that movie ends already.
a sad commentary that people dont even know why our country was set up the way it was anymore. the education system in this country has been broken for a very long time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sir Galahad
a sad commentary that people dont even know why our country was set up the way it was anymore. the education system in this country has been broken for a very long time.

Nice try buddy. You don't understand how this country was set up. 40% of the US population lives on the shoreline (that number is growing) and that impacts the electoral college. This is a country whose Constitution was built for a country that bordered water, not one with vast swaths of unoccupied land. The people are not truly represented in the executive branch or the Senate.
 
Nice try buddy. You don't understand how this country was set up. 40% of the US population lives on the shoreline (that number is growing) and that impacts the electoral college. This is a country whose Constitution was built for a country that bordered water, not one with vast swaths of unoccupied land. The people are not truly represented in the executive branch or the Senate.
you should look up what a republic is. hint, its different than a democracy on purpose.
 
Why have states at all then? Why let the states choose their own adventures through this American civilization?

Just because state lines were negotiated well before you existed does not make them arbitrary. We were created as a union of states for a reason. There were checks and balances against populism for a reason. We are a republic and not a democracy for a reason. States had rights and autonomy for a reason. We decentralized from a strong federal government for a reason.

Even back at the founding they understood that states with access to coastal trading would have more population than the other states. They set up a system to even that out. It hasn’t changed, except that now you have those same states embracing systems of government dependence and encouraging massive illegal immigration to bolster their populations even more. It’s no wonder that those states are pushing for a straight popular vote. It’s also wrong that they can flaunt one of the few Constitutionally granted federal powers to fill their state with people whose descendants will all be citizens of those states while also trying to alter or go around the Constitutional protection against that very thing.

And you say the mountain states have too much power. They are pretty much powerless to stop it and will be subject to the whims of California and New York soon enough, whether this generation or the next.

When the constitution was written, every state bordered the Atlantic Ocean. They did not set up a system to even that out. We decentralized from a strong federal gov't 240 years ago, but over time that federal gov't has grown stronger and now dictates policy to the states. So now a minority of people from remote interior states can pack the Senate and control the executive branch which dictates policy and selects judges for the majority.

Coastal states aren't encouraging massive illegal immigration, that's your paranoia.
 
You really should look up the definition instead of relying on talking points.

[roll][roll][roll][roll][roll][roll][roll][roll][roll][roll][roll][roll][roll][roll][roll]

omg thank you for that laugh this morning! im pretty tired after staying awake for that mnf game last night. that really made me feel better.

and here i thought firm liked minorities to have their voices heard. turns out he doesnt care about the minority of people living in the 'vast swaths of unoccupied lands' to have their voices heard. now that is a joke.
 
[roll][roll][roll][roll][roll][roll][roll][roll][roll][roll][roll][roll][roll][roll][roll]

omg thank you for that laugh this morning! im pretty tired after staying awake for that mnf game last night. that really made me feel better.

and here i thought firm liked minorities to have their voices heard. turns out he doesnt care about the minority of people living in the 'vast swaths of unoccupied lands' to have their voices heard. now that is a joke.

Since you are being lazy today, I'll explain the difference. A republic is designed to protect the right of the minority. It does not give the minority power over the majority by consistency thwarting the will of the people.
 
Since you are being lazy today, I'll explain the difference. A republic is designed to protect the right of the minority. It does not give the minority power over the majority by consistency thwarting the will of the people.
you are coming around. that is correct. im glad we dont have that today either.
 
When the constitution was written, every state bordered the Atlantic Ocean. They did not set up a system to even that out. We decentralized from a strong federal gov't 240 years ago, but over time that federal gov't has grown stronger and now dictates policy to the states. So now a minority of people from remote interior states can pack the Senate and control the executive branch which dictates policy and selects judges for the majority.

Coastal states aren't encouraging massive illegal immigration, that's your paranoia.
The founders understood the country would expand. Also, not all of those states were trading powers and they had a division of specialties even then.

As for your last comment, do you really think that sanctuary cities, providing healthcare, education, driver’s licenses, other welfare and now voting rights are not incentives for more illegal immigration?
 
you are coming around. that is correct. im glad we dont have that today either.

Yes, we have that today. 46% of the voting population picked Trump. Trump then nominated 2 Supreme Court justices which got confirmation by senators that represent 44% of the population. That's minority rule.
 
The founders understood the country would expand. Also, not all of those states were trading powers and they had a division of specialties even then.

As for your last comment, do you really think that sanctuary cities, providing healthcare, education, driver’s licenses, other welfare and now voting rights are not incentives for more illegal immigration?

Employment (money) is an incentive for illegal immigration. They aren't being provided anything that they or their employer isn't taxed for (emergency care, education, driver's licenses).
 
Yes, we have that today. 46% of the voting population picked Trump. Trump then nominated 2 Supreme Court justices which got confirmation by senators that represent 44% of the population. That's minority rule.
2 so far. remember hes probably going to be around until jan 2025. ;-)
 
2 so far. remember hes probably going to be around until jan 2025. ;-)

And if he's re-elected by another minority and then nominates more Supreme Court justices with a senate that represents a minority of the population, this experiment is done.
 
And if he's re-elected by another minority and then nominates more Supreme Court justices with a senate that represents a minority of the population, this experiment is done.
how is it done? what is going to end it? do you see a civil war brewing?

also, what if he wins by a majority in 2020? it is possible.
 
Employment (money) is an incentive for illegal immigration. They aren't being provided anything that they or their employer isn't taxed for (emergency care, education, driver's licenses).
Their employer isn’t taxed for driver’s licenses. As for employment, there are a good number of them working under the table and aren’t getting taxed at all. But for those that have EIN’s, sure they get taxed. But that doesn’t change the fact that all of it is even more incentive for people to come here illegally and the states that are extending benefits are incentivizing over states that aren’t. Those are largely Democrat-lead states and are lead by California and New York.

Also, all immigrants draw disproportionately from the treasury for a generation or two. This is more prevalent when they are taking low-skilled and low-paid jobs. It’s not a 1-for-1 contribution for illegals.
 
Their employer isn’t taxed for driver’s licenses. As for employment, there are a good number of them working under the table and aren’t getting taxed at all. But for those that have EIN’s, sure they get taxed. But that doesn’t change the fact that all of it is even more incentive for people to come here illegally and the states that are extending benefits are incentivizing over states that aren’t. Those are largely Democrat-lead states and are lead by California and New York.

Also, all immigrants draw disproportionately from the treasury for a generation or two. This is more prevalent when they are taking low-skilled and low-paid jobs. It’s not a 1-for-1 contribution for illegals.

The user pays for the driver's license. If you want to talk about worker's getting paid under the table, you need to look at the southern states with high a population of farm workers.
 
The user pays for the driver's license. If you want to talk about worker's getting paid under the table, you need to look at the southern states with high a population of farm workers.
Agree. All part of the same problem.
 
how is it done? what is going to end it? do you see a civil war brewing?

also, what if he wins by a majority in 2020? it is possible.

I think it probably starts with California over a state vs fed issue. The war would probably be economic.
 
Nice try buddy. You don't understand how this country was set up. 40% of the US population lives on the shoreline (that number is growing) and that impacts the electoral college. This is a country whose Constitution was built for a country that bordered water, not one with vast swaths of unoccupied land. The people are not truly represented in the executive branch or the Senate.
Man just when i think you cant get any stupider...

tell us how a state like wyoming who gets 3 electoral votes is screwing over California and its 57? In fact california still has more say in who becomes president than Nevada, montana, utah, both dakotas, nebraska, wyoming, new mexico, iowa, oklahoma, idaho, kentucky, and alaska combined. Without that minimal representation candidates would only pander to LA, NYC, and Chicago and wouldnt care about anyone else.
 
Man just when i think you cant get any stupider...

tell us how a state like wyoming who gets 3 electoral votes is screwing over California and its 57? In fact california still has more say in who becomes president than Nevada, montana, utah, both dakotas, nebraska, wyoming, new mexico, iowa, oklahoma, idaho, kentucky, and alaska combined. Without that minimal representation candidates would only pander to LA, NYC, and Chicago and wouldnt care about anyone else.
Typical Trumper, tossing out insults before reading anything.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/observ...l-college-explanation-popular-vote-loses/amp/


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...te-and-its-going-to-get-worse/?outputType=amp



https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/2010_census/cb12-50.html
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DaShuckster
Typical lefty, deflecting without anything factual other than hearsay. Try to learn something today about the history of this country
th
 
Typical lefty, deflecting without anything factual other than hearsay. Try to learn something today about the history of this country

All you had to say is that you want to stay inside your bubble.
 
Man just when i think you cant get any stupider...

tell us how a state like wyoming who gets 3 electoral votes is screwing over California and its 57? In fact california still has more say in who becomes president than Nevada, montana, utah, both dakotas, nebraska, wyoming, new mexico, iowa, oklahoma, idaho, kentucky, and alaska combined. Without that minimal representation candidates would only pander to LA, NYC, and Chicago and wouldnt care about anyone else.

I don't get this logic. 4.5 million people in California voted for Trump, yet Clinton got all 55 electoral votes. Using your logic, Trump has no reason to care about anyone in California because he has zero chance of carrying the state in the existing system. If it's a national popular vote, then a supporter in Wyoming has equal value to a supporter in California.

Only a few critical swing states really matter in today's environment. With a national popular vote, every voter nationwide would be equally valuable.

I"m not arguing against the electoral college, just that I don't see how your logic makes any sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: firm_bizzle
If we make any change to the system, I would rather be to go towards a parliamentary one. The president has far too much power right now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
I don't get this logic. 4.5 million people in California voted for Trump, yet Clinton got all 55 electoral votes. Using your logic, Trump has no reason to care about anyone in California because he has zero chance of carrying the state in the existing system. If it's a national popular vote, then a supporter in Wyoming has equal value to a supporter in California.

Only a few critical swing states really matter in today's environment. With a national popular vote, every voter nationwide would be equally valuable.

I"m not arguing against the electoral college, just that I don't see how your logic makes any sense.
I think it’s pretty easy to understand. No Presidential candidate would spend a minute in states with low population. California, Florida, Texas, NY and a few others would determine the president.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
ADVERTISEMENT