Thread Starter
Printable View
Thread Starter
How come there is not a Thread for this Election?
Here is a good movie based on a True story about Southern Boys fighting in Mississippi. Fighting for the Rich or not?
[URL]http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1124037/?ref_=nv_sr_3[/URL]
It is about land owners that did not have enough Slaves to fight for the South in Their place.
I forgot to add I voted in our early elections.
The choices are Shady, Insane, Clueless, Who? and a few more Whos?
I voted for the Big "M" on the ballot. Maybe it will pass this time.
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;448111]How come there is not a Thread for this Election?[/QUOTE]I do not think that anyone wants to comment about two chronic liars and two criminals. That is a bad pair to draw to. Sane people just want to vomit. My dos centavos worth.
Tres3.
Wondering about: I wonder if we will see an immediate correction in the peso/dollar with the FBI now reporting that the new batch of emails showed no criminality? If stock futures are an indication I'm thinking that yes, my dollars will be worth more pesos on Monday.
Bad news; One of them is going to get elected on Tuesday.
Unless of course this happens:
What happens if no presidential candidate gets 270 Electoral votes?
If no candidate receives a majority of Electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most Electoral votes. Each state delegation has one vote. The Senate would elect the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most Electoral votes. Each Senator would cast one vote for Vice President. If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House.
[QUOTE=DaddyRulz;448115]Wondering about: I wonder if we will see an immediate correction in the peso/dollar with the FBI now reporting that the new batch of emails showed no criminality? If stock futures are an indication I'm thinking that yes, my dollars will be worth more pesos on Monday.
Bad news; One of them is going to get elected on Tuesday.
Unless of course this happens:
What happens if no presidential candidate gets 270 Electoral votes?
If no candidate receives a majority of Electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most Electoral votes. Each state delegation has one vote. The Senate would elect the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most Electoral votes. Each Senator would cast one vote for Vice President. If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House.[/QUOTE]As mind boggling as it may seem, do not expect the ARS to collapse anytime soon against the USD; there are many billions of USD entering the market via the "blanqueo" (more than $6 billion USD cash deposited so far) and the government is actually doing all they can to prevent the ARS from appreciating against USD. Just as significant in the ARS "strength" are the 27% short term yields on ARS denominated securities vs. 0% yields on similar USD denominated securities.
I like hilary very muchh , kises babysss ❤️❤️❤️.
How awesome would seeing this tomorrow be?
This is going to be fun to watch.
The Republic is saved!
The Major News Media outlets have been exposed by Wikileaks as the DNC's lackeys!
ObamaCare, Obama's signature legislative achievement, has collapsed under it's own onerous weight as predicted and will be repealed!
Obama's "legacy" which is based upon Executive Orders will be erased with the stroke of a pen as it was created!
A victory or Reaganisque proportions!
Rejoice my Brothers the King is Dead - Long live the President!!
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;448129]The Republic is saved!
The Major News Media outlets have been exposed by Wikileaks as the DNC's lackeys!
ObamaCare, Obama's signature legislative achievement, has collapsed under it's own onerous weight as predicted and will be repealed!
Obama's "legacy" which is based upon Executive Orders will be erased with the stroke of a pen as it was created!
A victory or Reaganisque proportions!
Rejoice my Brothers the King is Dead - Long live the President!![/QUOTE]I think he's saying that it's time to end the hate.
[QUOTE]Hillary has worked very long and very hard over a long period of time, and we owe her a major debt of gratitude for her service to our country.
I mean that very sincerely. Now it is time for America to bind the wounds of division, have to get together. To all Republicans and Democrats and independents across this nation, I say it is time for us to come together as one united people.
-President Elect, Donald T Trump[/QUOTE]
From the cover of Time Magazine.
Canada has a matching service if anyone wants to leave the country. It is called MapleMatch.
http://www.maplematch.com/
My liberal brothers on this board are a bit like the CNN talking heads this morning, they just can not rap their heads around the fact Clinton lost and Trump won.
Today these same liberal brothers are now calling some of Trump’s central themes of this campaign “hate”, the repeal of the catastrophe of ObamaCare and rescinding Obama’s executive orders which circumvented the legislative process.
Trump was both humble and conciliatory in his speech last night after winning the election. He called for unity and even complimented Clinton, but at no time did he retreat from his central campaign promises. We have yet to hear from Clinton. Tell me is it true she was in a state of shock, unable to address her followers, mumbling “but I’m entitled” over and over?
Trump’s defeat of Clinton is on the order of magnitude of Reagan / Carter. Gentlemen look at the county map, the country is nearly all RED with only the liberal bastions on the east the left coast being blue with a couple of other states. Gentlemen look at the Electoral College, this was no “close” race, this was a repudiation of the last 8 years and the promise of 4 more of the same under Clinton.
I am certain from now until January 20, 2017, Obama is going to have writer’s cramp signing all the blanket pardons he will have to issue before leaving office.
To paraphrase the immortal and conciliatory words of the liberal messiah, Barak Hussain Obama, after his election “We won, you lost, get use to it”.
This liberal brother is going to be a gracious loser, and hope that Trump can indeed achieve some positive things for the US. I was sort of surprised, but not all that surprised. Hey, if the Cubs can win the World Series, anyone can win anything. I'm in Europe so I did not watch the election due to the time change, but I had a funny feeling when I woke up, and I dicked around for quite a while before checking the results. I heard the stock futures market took a huge dump overnight, as did the dollar, and the MX peso. But the stock market is way up as of this minute, and the dollar is up against the euro, and I don't care about the MX peso.
So to my conservative brethren, I say, congratulations on your victory. I guess the Dems picked up 1 Senate seat and maybe 2 but one was still too close to call. So not enough to repeal the ACA, I wouldn't think. As Daddy Rulz said, it will be fun to watch what happens. I won't be there and only care about what happens in the financial markets. After a nasty campaign with two rather unpopular candidates, at least the election did not end up in the House of Representatives. Obama has reached out to Trump. Trump was gracious to Clinton. That's not all that bad of a start, if you think about it. So best of luck going forward to both my liberal and conservative friends who will have to live under the results.
I just wish my conservative friend Punter 127 had hung around long enough to see it. For those who don't know, he passed away last month. He was a reasonable conservative, one you could talk to.
Really sorry to hear he passed away.
Wish all our bothers the best in the coming year.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;448132]
Trumps defeat of Clinton is on the order of magnitude of Reagan / Carter. Gentlemen look at the county map, the country is nearly all RED with only the liberal bastions on the east the left coast being blue with a couple of other states. Gentlemen look at the Electoral College, this was no close race, this was a repudiation of the last 8 years and the promise of 4 more of the same under Clinton.
[/QUOTE]I do not intend to participate in any discussion on the essence of the political issues at stake. I’d just like to point out, from a purely mathematical perspective, that yesterday’s results are very different from those of the Carter/Reagan 1980 election.
HRC won the popular vote with 47.7% vs 47.5%. Reagan got 50,7% vs Carter’s 41% (independent Anderson got 6,6%).
The following article models what the outcome would have been if only 1% of the vote would have been casted for HRC instead of for Trump. Such a shift would not have affected the outcome in 1980.
[URL]http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-a-difference-2-percentage-points-makes/[/URL]
[URL]http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-popular-vote/[/URL]
There are riots going now around the country in all states.
Today I told high school kids marching down Shattuck Avenue in Berkeley shouting Fuck Trump. I yelled at them that this is a Blue Stats, that it was not the Bay Area and California that voted for Trump, but the Red States and go to the Red States and protest.
Jackson why are you so quite? How do the Independents feel?
I told you your political Threads would lose you members. You did not listen. I am sure you lost a lot of friends over it.
Trump talked about Rigged elections. Bull Shit, but check his taxes. Hundreds of people are suing for wages he said he would pay.
He says he is for bringing back the jobs. Meanwhile he has a workers strike at his Casino in Las Vegas.
It should be a popular vote always. As Andrew Jackson and Ben Franklin said. Watch what you are voting for. The Republic may be taken over for your not watching it, sort of.
[QUOTE=Local;448136]I do not intend to participate in any discussion on the essence of the political issues at stake. Id just like to point out, from a purely mathematical perspective, that yesterdays results are very different from those of the Carter/Reagan 1980 election.
HRC won the popular vote with 47.7% vs 47.5%. Reagan got 50,7% vs Carters 41% (independent Anderson got 6,6%).
The following article models what the outcome would have been if only 1% of the vote would have been casted for HRC instead of for Trump. Such a shift would not have affected the outcome in 1980.
[URL]http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-a-difference-2-percentage-points-makes/[/URL][/QUOTE]
"It should be a popular vote always.".
Yep. And I would say that no matter who won or lost in the electoral college.
I looked this morning and they are still counting votes. We will see who ends up with what.
We get this whining from the loser about this issue every time it happens. If it was such a problem then why has it not been corrected before this election?.
Are you trying to tell me neither Trump nor Clinton had any idea the Electoral College was the determining factor and not the popular vote when this started? The main stream media sure as hell did as all I heard for months was how the Democrats had the advantage when it came to the Electoral College.
The unrest is in 25 cities, mostly Blue states and a lot of it is about no free college tuition, screw these spoiled rotten fragile little snow flakes - I paid for mine when I went and they can pay for theirs.
You did not see this type of conduct in 2012 or 2016 from the Republicans - so what's with all these cry baby Democrats?
Democrats had the advantage in the Electoral College and the main stream news media on their side and working with the DNC from the jump and they still lost.
Stop quibbling and making excuses - YOU LOST! GET OVER IT!
Well, call me whatever you want but the electoral college system will not change because that would require a constitutional amendment, and why would the less populous states vote to give up their disproportionate influence? But if you know the history behind it, you know it's not necessary any more. Personally, I would also like to see run-offs so that whoever eventually gets elected has a majority and not just a plurality. Any system that you can't explain to educated Europeans has got to be a little strange. I said the same thing when Benjamin Harrison was elected.
[QUOTE=Dickhead;448141]Well, call me whatever you want but the electoral college system will not change because that would require a constitutional amendmen.[/QUOTE]Just as changing the electoral college would require a constitutional amendment, so too would a change in the Senate that took away the two senators per state. There are pundits who think this system is elitist, but I do not think that they have read the Constitution or Federalist Papers. Democracy and majority rule is wonderful, but the founders also wanted to provide some protection for the minority. They deliberately included the requirement that a super-majority is required to amend the Constitution. The losers (I did not like Clinton or Trump) seem to always claim that the electoral college is archaic, but many historical events have proven the founders very wise. All one has to do is look at the many basket case countries that do not have a super-majority protection and/or an independent Federal Judiciary in their constitution. I think that the founders were very wise.
Tres3.
[QUOTE=Dickhead;448133]I guess the Dems picked up 1 Senate seat and maybe 2 but one was still too close to call. So not enough to repeal the ACA, I wouldn't think[/QUOTE]You are technically correct that Obamacare cannot be outright repealed without being subject to a filibuster requiring 60 votes. However, any part of the law requiring taxpayer funds and imposing taxes can be repealed through a budgetary process known as reconciliation. This is the process that was used when Obamacare was originally passed. The senate version was passed with Senator Ted Kennedy's support. He died and Scott Brown was elected to replace him. When the house version passed, the Democrats no longer had a filibuster proof majority. In their infinite wisdom they rammed it through with reconciliation (which is not subject to filibuster rules).
The Republicans have already "repealed" Obamacare before and had President Obama veto it. Their repeal also used the reconciliation process. It removed the Medicaid expansion, federal subsidies, removed funding for the federal and state exchanges, eliminated the tax penalties for failure to obtain insurance, repealed the taxes to support it, etc... So essentially Obamacare would be in a comma, brain dead and incapable of any function. The laws enabling it would still be in existence, but no implementation to operate.
I was never a supporter of Obamacare and was proved correct. My premiums will go up 35% next year and I am one of the fortunate ones. With that said, there were some provisions that made sense. The covering of those under 26 on their parents plan was a good idea and wasn't responsible for any of the cost problems. The coverage of preexisting conditions was good in the abstract, but horrible in implementation.
Mandating all kinds of minimum coverage was a primary cost driver. When you remove choice and actuarial basis, it is no long insurance. Is it any surprise to have a death spiral. Health insurance needs to go back to actually being insurance instead of some socialist utopian dream of social justice.
Actually I was just typing too fast and meant not enough to PREVENT repealing Obamacare. I am comfortable and fine with requiring a super-majority of states to ratify amendments. And I'm not real fond of two senators per state, but I can live with it. Even giving each state one senator provides some measure of protection for the less populous states, right? Just not as much. But I do believe in one person, one vote, so that's the issue I have with the Electoral College, since it's a national election. It was largely based on the time it took mail to be delivered.
While I do favor some form of national health insurance, which every civilized country seems to have, I was not fond of the individual mandate, and was well aware of the adverse selection that would occur. I will be blunt and say that it enabled me to retire early, but why did I deserve to retire early? I did not. I just got lucky because they did not put in any means testing, and because I am or was an accountant and understood how to game the law, and because I had made the decision to have Roth IRAs instead of regular IRAs. Of course, when I retired early (right at 55), that opened up a job for someone who most likely needed it worse than I did, so I don't feel inherently evil. I did put in my 40 years because I started working full time when I was 15.
My second-favorite judge (after the legendary Oliver Wendell Holmes) was Learned Hand, and he said: "Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands."
Now whether a given tax law is good or bad, that's another story for another day and another discussion board, probably.
Quote by: Judge Learned Hand
(1872-1961), Judge, U. S. Court of Appeals
Source: in the case of Gregory v. Helvering 69 F.2d 809, 810 (2d Cir. 1934), aff'd, 293 U.S. 465, 55 S.Ct. 266, 79 L.Ed. 596 (1935)
The premiums are going up mainly in the states that have Republican Controlled government.
California has Democratic controlled government. So they set a limit on how much in the Insurance companies can raise the rates. 5% is all they can raise it.
Maybe you might think about moving.
[QUOTE=SpiritRider;448146]You are technically correct that Obamacare cannot be outright repealed without being subject to a filibuster requiring 60 votes. However, any part of the law requiring taxpayer funds and imposing taxes can be repealed through a budgetary process known as reconciliation. This is the process that was used when Obamacare was originally passed. The senate version was passed with Senator Ted Kennedy's support. He died and Scott Brown was elected to replace him. When the house version passed, the Democrats no longer had a filibuster proof majority. In their infinite wisdom they rammed it through with reconciliation (which is not subject to filibuster rules).
The Republicans have already "repealed" Obamacare before and had President Obama veto it. Their repeal also used the reconciliation process. It removed the Medicaid expansion, federal subsidies, removed funding for the federal and state exchanges, eliminated the tax penalties for failure to obtain insurance, repealed the taxes to support it, etc... So essentially Obamacare would be in a comma, brain dead and incapable of any function. The laws enabling it would still be in existence, but no implementation to operate.
I was never a supporter of Obamacare and was proved correct. My premiums will go up 35% next year and I am one of the fortunate ones. With that said, there were some provisions that made sense. The covering of those under 26 on their parents plan was a good idea and wasn't responsible for any of the cost problems. The coverage of preexisting conditions was good in the abstract, but horrible in implementation.
Mandating all kinds of minimum coverage was a primary cost driver. When you remove choice and actuarial basis, it is no long insurance. Is it any surprise to have a death spiral. Health insurance needs to go back to actually being insurance instead of some socialist utopian dream of social justice.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=SpiritRider;448146] The coverage of preexisting conditions was good in the abstract, but horrible in implementation.
[/QUOTE]Before Obamacare, people I know went to the County hospital and had surgery done. After the bill for the surgery came, they would just file bankruptcy. So in the end, taxpayers were paying for it anyway.
People were also using the emergency rooms as their primary healthcare providers.
Trump campaigned on repealing and replacing Obamacare. Anybody have a link to what they are thinking about to replace it?
Fairwarning. The writer of this article is very liberal. I have seen him speak publically on Dodd-Frank.
[URL]http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-repealing-obamacare-20161110-story.html[/URL] I hope you can get past the paywall.
[QUOTE=BigBossMan;448150]Before Obamacare, people I know went to the County hospital and had surgery done. After the bill for the surgery came, they would just file bankruptcy. So in the end, taxpayers were paying for it anyway.
People were also using the emergency rooms as their primary healthcare providers.
Trump campaigned on repealing and replacing Obamacare. Anybody have a link to what they are thinking about to replace it?[/QUOTE]He will replace it with Trump Care. That's when you promise to pay the doctor but you don't pay him, tie him up in litigation, then declare bankruptcy. That's how has run everything else he has gotten his hands on.
The primary failing of ObamaCare was the one size fits all approach. Everyone's policy had to include drug rehab, psyc benefits, and for women maternity benefits (for 70 year old women - right) rather the folks wanted them or not. So instead of letting folks purchase the insurance they wanted the liberal elite once again decided they knew better and forced this albatross on the nation. Those are your cost drivers gentlemen.
The second failing of ObamaCare is the liberal elite's failure to ever consider normal human behavior.
National healthcare? Right - the welfare and medicaid systems work so well, not.
Which brings me to one of favorite rants - the elite's are always talking about Medicare and Social Security are going bankrupt (you know the programs the folks who worked and their employers paid for via payroll taxes), never do you hear about welfare and Medicaid running out of money.
My answer is to totally shut down the Federal Medicaid and Welfare Programs and turn them over to the states. If the taxpayers in the individual states want to fund the welfare state they are free to do so (The Peoples Republic of Southern California comes to mind) and if not then to not do so.
Protesters - wow anyone remember the protests by Republicans in 2008 and 2012? Probably not because they did not happen. Now we have the spoiled rotten kids out in the streets raising hell. So we live in a democracy so long as it goes the way the want? Gentlemen that is not democracy that's anarchy.
I'm with Reagan on this one.
[URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggUeDa48V4g[/URL]
Trump received 23% of the vote in LA County. Orange County voted in favor of a Democratic presidential candidate for the first time since 1936.
Every tax proposal increase passed by a wide majority.
What people fail to understand is that California is very competitive. The population is highly transitory. When you can no longer compete than you move out. Toyota just moved to Texas given 20 years of tax breaks but the building they were in was immediately filled. It makes no sense to have the back office for the car dealerships located in Southern California. Especially since Toyota now manufactures most it cars sold in the US in the US. We have lost several industries over the last thirty years. Aerospace manufacturing, car factories, furniture making, cut and sew apparel, and mortgage banking have disappeared. Even with the high tax structure, Southern California is a living laboratory of Schumpeter's creative destruction principles.
[URL]http://www.economist.com/news/business/21709564-cheaper-location-tech-companies-takes-los-angeles-booms-startup-hub[/URL]
Will Obama pardon Hillary? Since she, like Nixon, has not been charged a pardon is tantamount to an admission of guilt.
But how can he, after all he said she had done nothing wrong. If he does, how about Bill and Chelsea, they are into the corrupt Foundation up to their necks?
If there are no pardons, will there be a special prosecutor appointed?
Don B.
[QUOTE=DonB;448157]Will Obama pardon Hillary? Since she, like Nixon, has not been charged a pardon is tantamount to an admission of guilt.
But how can he, after all he said she had done nothing wrong. If he does, how about Bill and Chelsea, they are into the corrupt Foundation up to their necks?
If there are no pardons, will there be a special prosecutor appointed?
Don B.[/QUOTE]No matter what happens, I do not think any of the Clintons will do any jail time. They know where too many bodies are buried.
Tres3.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;448154]Protesters - wow anyone remember the protests by Republicans in 2008 and 2012? Probably not because they did not happen. Now we have the spoiled rotten kids out in the streets raising hell. So we live in a democracy so long as it goes the way the want? Gentlemen that is not democracy that's anarchy.[/QUOTE]Brotherman I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the 1st amendment. It's a right of a citizen in the US to protest. Obviously that doesn't include destruction of private property, violence, blocking streets ect. Those are crimes not protest, doesn't matter if it's "spoiled rotten kids" or spoiled rotten ranchers used to grazing their cattle on government land for free. But protest? They can hold up all the signs saying Trump sucks that they want as long as they want. It also means the KKK (who I personally abhor) can do the same thing. It also means the during the campaign the Trump organization could throw people out of the halls they rented for rallies.
I don't think it's right to denigrate people for wanting to be involved in a country that had a 35% (I think) voter turnout.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;448154]My answer is to totally shut down the Federal Medicaid and Welfare Programs and turn them over to the states. If the taxpayers in the individual states want to fund the welfare state they are free to do so (The Peoples Republic of Southern California comes to mind) and if not then to not do so.[/QUOTE]I'd be cool with that, and not putting in means testing for the Medicaid expansion was insane. So, a lot of states are raising their minimum wages, and states have different tax structures, and US citizens can choose to live in any state. This liberal is fine with that.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;448154]The primary failing of ObamaCare was the one size fits all approach. Everyone's policy had to include drug rehab, psyc benefits, and for women maternity benefits (for 70 year old women - right) rather the folks wanted them or not. So instead of letting folks purchase the insurance they wanted the liberal elite once again decided they knew better and forced this albatross on the nation. Those are your cost drivers gentlemen.
The second failing of ObamaCare is the liberal elite's failure to ever consider normal human behavior.
National healthcare? Right - the welfare and medicaid systems work so well, not.
Which brings me to one of favorite rants - the elite's are always talking about Medicare and Social Security are going bankrupt (you know the programs the folks who worked and their employers paid for via payroll taxes), never do you hear about welfare and Medicaid running out of money.
My answer is to totally shut down the Federal Medicaid and Welfare Programs and turn them over to the states. If the taxpayers in the individual states want to fund the welfare state they are free to do so (The Peoples Republic of Southern California comes to mind) and if not then to not do so.
Protesters - wow anyone remember the protests by Republicans in 2008 and 2012? Probably not because they did not happen. Now we have the spoiled rotten kids out in the streets raising hell. So we live in a democracy so long as it goes the way the want? Gentlemen that is not democracy that's anarchy.
I'm with Reagan on this one.
[URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggUeDa48V4g[/URL][/QUOTE]Of course the Republicans did not riot......they could not.....they had to go to work.
[QUOTE=Dickhead;448141]Well, call me whatever you want but the electoral college system will not change because that would require a constitutional amendment, and why would the less populous states vote to give up their disproportionate influence? But if you know the history behind it, you know it's not necessary any more. Personally, I would also like to see run-offs so that whoever eventually gets elected has a majority and not just a plurality. Any system that you can't explain to educated Europeans has got to be a little strange. I said the same thing when Benjamin Harrison was elected.[/QUOTE]The electoral college was and is a brilliant means to distribute representation around the country and to ensure (to some degree) that all geographical portions of the country have some representation. This was a huge concern during drafting of the Constitution (as chronicled in the Federalist papers). I think that we need it more now, than ever. Without getting into the weeds of policy, I think it would be fair to say that flyover country has been pretty well ignored, over the last 8+ years. Without the electoral college, the northeast and west coast only need a handful of additional votes to win an election. A couple of those cycles and flyover country will be boxed out of DC for good.
This was on the Morning Joe.
[URL]http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/michael-moore-donald-trump-president-republican/2016/11/11/id/758427/[/URL]
Gary.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;448154]
Protesters - wow anyone remember the protests by Republicans in 2008 and 2012? Probably not because they did not happen. Now we have the spoiled rotten kids out in the streets raising hell. So we live in a democracy so long as it goes the way the want? Gentlemen that is not democracy that's anarchy.
[/QUOTE]But you conveniently ignore the Republicans who vowed to protest with violence if Trump lost. This ex Congressman is just one of many. [URL]http://www.salon.com/2016/10/27/joe-walsh-defends-if-trump-loses-im-grabbing-my-musket-tweet-it-means-protesting/[/URL].
And the Republicans demand that Trump is respected as the elected President. How does that compare with the Congress and Senate treating Obama with total contempt and obstructing his every move since he gained office. And not to even consider his very mainstream choice for the Supreme Court. Then there's McCain and co who vowed not to consider any candidate for the court proposed by Clinton if she won. And the 'the people' did not vote for Trump, Clinton won the popular vote. The antiquated electoral college system won it for him. Time for a constitutional amendment on that score as its produced W Bush and now Trump. I would not have voted for either candidate, but there's a whole shit load of double standards coming from the right.
Clinton is blaming Comey for her loss. She neglects to mention that Comey would not even be in the picture if she had not installed the private email server in her home. She also neglects to mention that she was so unpopular that any of the other top three Republicans who lost to Trump in the primaries could have beaten her. Trump was the only candidate where she had a chance to win, and she still lost. For Clinton it is always someone else's fault. She is never to blame. I disliked both Trump and Clinton, but probably disliked Clinton more.
As to the protesters, under the First Amendment they have a right to protest, but the First Amendment does not give them the right to break the law.
Tres3.
[QUOTE=Tres3;448166]Clinton is blaming Comey for her loss. She neglects to mention that Comey would not even be in the picture if she had not installed the private email server in her home. She also neglects to mention that she was so unpopular that any of the other top three Republicans who lost to Trump in the primaries could have beaten her. Trump was the only candidate where she had a chance to win, and she still lost. For Clinton it is always someone else's fault. She is never to blame. I disliked both Trump and Clinton, but probably disliked Clinton more.
As to the protesters, under the First Amendment they have a right to protest, but the First Amendment does not give them the right to break the law.
Tres3.[/QUOTE]I think everybody agrees that this was a corrupt and rigged election. That is common ground for both sides although the reasons why the election was rigged are different. The FBI feeding inside information to the Trump campaign will never be investigated because Giuliani was the conduit. Why was the letter released on a Friday? Probably the same reason the sex tape was released on a Friday. It was coordinated.
[QUOTE=BigBossMan;448167]The FBI feeding inside information to the Trump campaign will never be investigated because Giuliani was the conduit. [/QUOTE]How do you know Guilani was the "conduit"? Do you have proof? There have already been so many "twisting of the facts" and outright lies by both candidates, that we do not need more from some disgruntled poster. Put up or shut up.
Tres3.
[QUOTE=Tres3;448168]How do you know Guilani was the "conduit"? Do you have proof? There have already been so many "twisting of the facts" and outright lies by both candidates, that we do not need more from some disgruntled poster. Put up or shut up.
Tres3.[/QUOTE]He said two days before the Comey letter that there was going to be a big surprise in a couple of days and he was laughing. What was the surprise if it was not the Comey letter?
Kellyanne Conway said on this morning's talk shows that the system is rigged. Everybody agrees with her.
It does not have to be true. The appearance of rigging is enough.