Obama: Trump ‘woefully unfit’ to be President

[notmyself]

4 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Your opinion, unsupported by any fact, and off-topic. 

 

Some say that fairies exist but I do not believe it as it is unsupported. Some people say that a tree has a spiritual being but I do not believe it as it is unsupported. (It is also crazy but that is just my opinion). Some people think that the U.S. is democratic (uses the democratic system as in one person, one vote) but I don't believe it because it is unsupported. Some people thing there is a teapot orbiting the Earth but we cannot see it and I do not believe that to be to. Shall I continue?

[beechguy]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

In other words, there are allegations of conflicts of interest while HRC was Secretary of State, none proven. You have no evidence of conflicts of interest under the Clinton or Obama presidencies.

 

Accusing people of crimes then refusing to specify the crimes and instructing skeptics to google the subject is a lazy way to post, and a good way to destroy your credibility. 

Much like the credibility of people making accusations against Trump, and ignoring the Clinton connections.

 

Why should thaibeachlovers waste his time, you aren't going to accept it anyway.

[thaibeachlovers]

Just now, heybruce said:

In other words, there are allegations of conflicts of interest while HRC was Secretary of State, none proven. You have no evidence of conflicts of interest under the Clinton or Obama presidencies.

 

Accusing people of crimes then refusing to specify the crimes and instructing skeptics to google the subject is a lazy way to post, and a good way to destroy your credibility. 

Nit pick away. I have no interest in proving my "credibility" to you.

The conflicts have been posted many, many times. If you want to have others do your research for you, good luck with that, but I'm not playing your game.

[heybruce]

7 minutes ago, beechguy said:

Would Russia have uranium wasn't the point, but the connection with Bill/Hillary is. Have a look at the link thaibeachlovers posted, but as usual the liberals will have a difficult time accepting it.

I tried to look at the LA Times link, but didn't want to lower my security preferences enough to get access. Instead I looked at this http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/30/donald-trump/donald-trump-inaccurately-suggests-clinton-got-pai/  which blows large holes in the libelous uranium deal claims.

[thaibeachlovers]

11 minutes ago, heybruce said:

The President and Vice President are the only political offices that I am aware of that are not elected directly by the voters, and these offices are not far removed since electors required to vote as the voters in their state voted.

 

Care to provide the definition of democracy as "the rest of the world understands it"?

One vote per person directly for PM or other politicians. In the US it's a vote for the EC and they vote for the president. Perhaps I should have said "president" rather than "politicians".

 

Unfortunately Proportional Representation has made a mockery of "democracy" in countries that use that abortion of a system.

[heybruce]

9 minutes ago, notmyself said:

 

Some say that fairies exist but I do not believe it as it is unsupported. Some people say that a tree has a spiritual being but I do not believe it as it is unsupported. (It is also crazy but that is just my opinion). Some people think that the U.S. is democratic (uses the democratic system as in one person, one vote) but I don't believe it because it is unsupported. Some people thing there is a teapot orbiting the Earth but we cannot see it and I do not believe that to be to. Shall I continue?

With the exception of the electoral college, it is one person, one vote.  The electoral college system is well within the definition of democracy:

 

Definition of democracy

plural

democracies

1. 1 a :  government by the people; especially :  rule of the majority b :  a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

2. 2 :  a political unit that has a democratic government

3. 3 capitalized :  the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy — C. M. Roberts>

4. 4 :  the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority

5. 5 :  the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy

[thehelmsman]

A vote for Trump were cast by folks who are more scared of  Clinton's agenda than the unknown Trump. Globalization is a scary thought. It's bad manners to say "Merry Christmas", the pledge of allegiance is frowned upon. The Dems idea of helping folks is welfare. They love nothing more than to have the American people  reliant upon the government. Kids are being taught in school that the gov. owes them everything. How about teaching them that nothing is free in this world....nothing.

 

Having Trump in the White House gives me hope that we can turn things around. Show the folks that life is more than a cheap flat screen TV and a Happy Meal.

Edited November 23, 2016 by thehelmsman

[lannarebirth]

9 hours ago, heybruce said:

"Going with a straight popular vote is unfair and is a non-starter."

 

Interesting opinion, stated as fact.  Why do you think a minority should be allowed to choose the President?

 

From what I have read, the popular vote margin in this election is comprised entirely of excess votes over those needed to win, in 3 states. Illinois, California and New York, all with disproportionately high urban populations.  

 

Ideally, I think a majority should choose the president, unless that majority is concentrated in too few states too give a valid representation of the will of the people across all of America. Why do you think Wyoming has the same number of Senators as California?

[lannarebirth]

7 hours ago, Morch said:

 

What, then? If we don't see them they do not exist? If we ignore them they'll go away? Don't feed the trolls? Doesn't work all that well even in the relatively controlled environment of TVF.

 

According to the article this was a group of 300 people, half of whom were protesters. So 150 people. No, I don't think you should ignore them, but it seems to me it is a local issue. These people will be on the FBI's radar. I trust them to take what measures they deem necessary as they become necessary. Until that time we have to recognize that the free speech amendment applies to everyone, no matter how contemptible we may find that speech .  If they are thwarted in their right to speak the ACLU would certainly come to their defense and IMO that would give them an even higher profile. Protest sure, stifle speech, no.

Edited November 23, 2016 by lannarebirth

[heybruce]

10 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

From what I have read, the popular vote margin in this election is comprised entirely of excess votes over those needed to win, in 3 states. Illinois, California and New York, all with disproportionately high urban populations.  

 

Ideally, I think a majority should choose the president, unless that majority is concentrated in too few states too give a valid representation of the will of the people across all of America. Why do you think Wyoming has the same number of Senators as California?

I don't know what you consider "disproportionately high urban populations".  California has a great deal of diversity, both culturally and economically--high tech, oil production, entertainment, agriculture, military bases, etc. with three large urban areas, many smaller cities and towns, and lots of rural areas.  I'm not as familiar with Illinois and New York, but I know that there is a lot more to those two states than Chicago and New York City. 

 

Wyoming has the same number of senators  as California because of a compromise made while writing the constitution to allow small states more influence in the legislative branch of government.  One of the intents of the electoral college was to also give small states more influence in selecting a President.  However the constitution was written at a time when states were either industrial (which were protectionist at the time) or agricultural (dependent on international trade). 

 

Currently large states have diverse economies that better represent the interests of the country at large.  Maintaining the electoral college system gives excessive influence to small states that are more dependent on only one or two economic areas, usually agriculture or extraction industries.  Maintaining the electoral system gives these special interest states excessive influence on the selection of a President.

 

An interesting irony is that the agricultural states that largely supported Trump are very dependent on free trade.  Many of them are also dependent on immigrant labor.  If Trump actually lives up to his promises these voters will regret their choice.

[lannarebirth]

13 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I don't know what you consider "disproportionately high urban populations".  California has a great deal of diversity, both culturally and economically--high tech, oil production, entertainment, agriculture, military bases, etc. with three large urban areas, many smaller cities and towns, and lots of rural areas.  I'm not as familiar with Illinois and New York, but I know that there is a lot more to those two states than Chicago and New York City. 

 

Wyoming has the same number of senators  as California because of a compromise made while writing the constitution to allow small states more influence in the legislative branch of government.  One of the intents of the electoral college was to also give small states more influence in selecting a President.  However the constitution was written at a time when states were either industrial (which were protectionist at the time) or agricultural (dependent on international trade). 

 

Currently large states have diverse economies that better represent the interests of the country at large.  Maintaining the electoral college system gives excessive influence to small states that are more dependent on only one or two economic areas, usually agriculture or extraction industries.  Maintaining the electoral system gives these special interest states excessive influence on the selection of a President.

 

An interesting irony is that the agricultural states that largely supported Trump are very dependent on free trade.  Many of them are also dependent on immigrant labor.  If Trump actually lives up to his promises these voters will regret their choice.

 

I have no doubt that Trump voters will rue their choice, as will we all, but I think the process worked.

 

You make a good case for California forming its own country, but you run into the same problems you run into nationwide. How will the 9 million persons that don't live in the greater LA, SD SF, SAC areas feel about being controlled by the 30 million people who do? Look at the water rights issues they've had in CA and ask yourself if you'd like to see that played out on a national scale.

 

edit: What did you think about the apportionment of electors some states are adopting? I think that trend will grow.

Edited November 23, 2016 by lannarebirth

[heybruce]

11 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I have no doubt that Trump voters will rue their choice, as will we all, but I think the process worked.

 

You make a good case for California forming its own country, but you run into the same problems you run into nationwide. How will the 9 million persons that don't live in the greater LA, SD SF, SAC areas feel about being controlled by the 30 million people who do? Look at the water rights issues they've had in CA and ask yourself if you'd like to see that played out on a national scale.

 

edit: What did you think about the apportionment of electors some states are adopting? I think that trend will grow.

How does a minority feel about having government elected by the majority?  Probably the same way the majority feels about having a government elected by a minority, but at least there are fewer pissed off people when the majority vote wins.

 

The water rights problems have more to do with unfortunate legal precedents established long ago than elected government.

 

Apportioning electors according to the vote in the state will only work if all states do it.  If only red states did it then blue states would determine the outcome of every presidential election, and vice-versa.

[notmyself]

One man (human... person) one vote. That is it.

[Jingthing]

Well, here it is.

Unfit to be president. Remarkably fit to be what he's always been -- a CON MAN. 

 

How long before the white working class realizes Trump was just scamming them?

Quote

 

Imagine you’re one of those folks who went to Trump rallies and thrilled to his promises to take America back from the establishment, who felt your heart stir as he promised to torture prisoners, who got your “Trump That Bitch” T-shirt, who was overjoyed to finally have a candidate who tells it like it is. What are you thinking as you watch this?

If you have any sense, you’re coming to the realization that it was all a scam. You got played. While you were chanting “Lock her up!” he was laughing at you for being so gullible. While you were dreaming about how you’d have an advocate in the Oval Office, he was dreaming about how he could use it to make himself richer. He hasn’t even taken office yet and everything he told you is already being revealed as a lie.

 

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/11/23/how-long-before-the-white-working-class-realizes-trump-was-just-scamming-them/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.0426f64bdc89

[MajarTheLion]

8 hours ago, heybruce said:

Care to identify what conflicts of interest the Clinton or Obama families engaged in while in office?

 

Ever heard of Uranium One?

[MajarTheLion]

8 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Anything Clinton may have done that could be construed as a conflict of interest is dwarfed by the massive scale that Trump has already made clear he's about to embark on.  Such as his so-called "blind trust". 

 

What blind trust?

[Morch]

9 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The professional politicians haven't been able to fix it for at least 30 years. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Time to try something different.

 

Which is irrelevant to explaining why Kushner is deemed having any qualifications to address the situation, or how Trump's earlier statements do not figure into this. The funny bit would come if and when his involvement would become a reality and you taking an opposite position.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, MajarTheLion said:

 

What blind trust?

 

 

[Morch]

8 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

According to the article this was a group of 300 people, half of whom were protesters. So 150 people. No, I don't think you should ignore them, but it seems to me it is a local issue. These people will be on the FBI's radar. I trust them to take what measures they deem necessary as they become necessary. Until that time we have to recognize that the free speech amendment applies to everyone, no matter how contemptible we may find that speech .  If they are thwarted in their right to speak the ACLU would certainly come to their defense and IMO that would give them an even higher profile. Protest sure, stifle speech, no.

 

The reporting, by itself, does not not effect their freedom of speech, though.

 

[Andaman Al]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

 

Like Father like son! Lying through his teeth and also lacking in any real business acumen at all, another who has made it courtesy of Daddy.

[thaibeachlovers]

10 hours ago, heybruce said:

I don't know what you consider "disproportionately high urban populations".  California has a great deal of diversity, both culturally and economically--high tech, oil production, entertainment, agriculture, military bases, etc. with three large urban areas, many smaller cities and towns, and lots of rural areas.  I'm not as familiar with Illinois and New York, but I know that there is a lot more to those two states than Chicago and New York City. 

 

Wyoming has the same number of senators  as California because of a compromise made while writing the constitution to allow small states more influence in the legislative branch of government.  One of the intents of the electoral college was to also give small states more influence in selecting a President.  However the constitution was written at a time when states were either industrial (which were protectionist at the time) or agricultural (dependent on international trade). 

 

Currently large states have diverse economies that better represent the interests of the country at large.  Maintaining the electoral college system gives excessive influence to small states that are more dependent on only one or two economic areas, usually agriculture or extraction industries.  Maintaining the electoral system gives these special interest states excessive influence on the selection of a President.

 

An interesting irony is that the agricultural states that largely supported Trump are very dependent on free trade.  Many of them are also dependent on immigrant labor.  If Trump actually lives up to his promises these voters will regret their choice.

You appear to overlook the fact that the UNITED STATES are about ALL the states, not just the most populous ones. To allow more senators etc from more populous states would make them dominant and that must never be allowed. ALL states are equal, regardless of population or political preference. Very clever men, they that wrote the constitution.

The EC is the only way to prevent city people from monopolizing politics.

[thaibeachlovers]

42 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

Like Father like son! Lying through his teeth and also lacking in any real business acumen at all, another who has made it courtesy of Daddy.

And regardless of the sour grapes club, Trump moves on preparing to be PRESIDENT. 5555555555

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Which is irrelevant to explaining why Kushner is deemed having any qualifications to address the situation, or how Trump's earlier statements do not figure into this. The funny bit would come if and when his involvement would become a reality and you taking an opposite position.

LOL. Didn't everyone not liking Trump bleat on endlessly about him not having any qualification to be president? And yet, wait for it.................. Trump IS president elect.

 

I have no more idea than you as to whether Kushner would succeed or not, but like Trump, he should be given a chance to do so. Nobody else has succeeded and he can't make it worse. I have no intention of ignoring any faults that Trump may have and I have already been critical of him post election, and the same would apply to Kushner. Unlike the Clintonites that could never admit their heroine had feet of clay, I see the faults that Trump has in abundance.

[Morch]

13 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. Didn't everyone not liking Trump bleat on endlessly about him not having any qualification to be president? And yet, wait for it.................. Trump IS president elect.

 

I have no more idea than you as to whether Kushner would succeed or not, but like Trump, he should be given a chance to do so. Nobody else has succeeded and he can't make it worse. I have no intention of ignoring any faults that Trump may have and I have already been critical of him post election, and the same would apply to Kushner. Unlike the Clintonites that could never admit their heroine had feet of clay, I see the faults that Trump has in abundance.

 

Deflections is all you got.

 

Winning the elections did not make Trump any more qualified or worthy of the position he will assume.

 

To begin with, Kushner cannot even be appointed to an official role in government as he's family. Why should someone who's only qualification seems to be being Trump's son-in-law be given a chance to handle one of the most tricky political issues around? As for the "can't make it worse" - of course he can.

 

Your bogus blanket assertions regarding Clinton supporters views is drivel, at least when it comes to my own posts.

[heybruce]

15 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You appear to overlook the fact that the UNITED STATES are about ALL the states, not just the most populous ones. To allow more senators etc from more populous states would make them dominant and that must never be allowed. ALL states are equal, regardless of population or political preference. Very clever men, they that wrote the constitution.

The EC is the only way to prevent city people from monopolizing politics.

I'm not objecting to the distribution of Senators, I don't think it's ideal but it has had the unexpected result of limiting the damage done by gerrymandering of election districts that leads to a dysfunctional House of Representatives. 

 

"The EC is the only way to prevent city people from monopolizing politics."

 

Do you have evidence that city people are threatening to monopolize politics?  That there is no other method to prevent this hypothetical risk from occurring?  That allowing the majority to select the President will be bad for the country?  That giving small special interest states (economies dependent upon agriculture or resource extraction) disproportionate influence is good for the country?

 

The electoral college made George W. Bush president against the wishes of the majority; the results included two unfinished wars, North Korea with nuclear weapons, the economy in free-fall, etc.  The electoral college will now elect a man who is even less qualified than Bush.  I hope the country can survive.

[teatree]

Millennials shocked by racist Hillary quotes think they're from Trump:

 

 

 

Edited November 24, 2016 by teatree

[thaibeachlovers]

14 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I'm not objecting to the distribution of Senators, I don't think it's ideal but it has had the unexpected result of limiting the damage done by gerrymandering of election districts that leads to a dysfunctional House of Representatives. 

 

"The EC is the only way to prevent city people from monopolizing politics."

 

Do you have evidence that city people are threatening to monopolize politics?  That there is no other method to prevent this hypothetical risk from occurring?  That allowing the majority to select the President will be bad for the country?  That giving small special interest states (economies dependent upon agriculture or resource extraction) disproportionate influence is good for the country?

 

The electoral college made George W. Bush president against the wishes of the majority; the results included two unfinished wars, North Korea with nuclear weapons, the economy in free-fall, etc.  The electoral college will now elect a man who is even less qualified than Bush.  I hope the country can survive.

Erm, SCOTUS made Bush president by ending the recount.

[Andaman Al]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

And regardless of the sour grapes club, Trump moves on preparing to be PRESIDENT. 5555555555

I am making a comment on Trumps loathsome son nothing to do with a sour grapes club. Meanwhile when will you and your comrades be leaving the kindergarten?

[heybruce]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Erm, SCOTUS made Bush president by ending the recount.

SCOTUS would not have been involved if the election had been decided by the popular vote.

[pgrahmm]

17 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I have no doubt that Trump voters will rue their choice, as will we all, but I think the process worked.

 

You make a good case for California forming its own country, but you run into the same problems you run into nationwide. How will the 9 million persons that don't live in the greater LA, SD SF, SAC areas feel about being controlled by the 30 million people who do? Look at the water rights issues they've had in CA and ask yourself if you'd like to see that played out on a national scale.

 

edit: What did you think about the apportionment of electors some states are adopting? I think that trend will grow.

Side note....

 

California is currently $127,000,000,000.00 in debt according to a story posted yesterday.....

 

Not exactly a strong position to break away from the union.....It would take many years of fiscal responsible "management" to start to turn that ship around.....