Obama: Trump ‘woefully unfit’ to be President

[MajarTheLion]

2 minutes ago, pgrahmm said:

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.....

 

Of course, we would have to add to that the cost of purchasing federal lands and relocating federal resources. I don't see how our federal government would want to finance so much to a "customer" whose finances are in such shambles.

[MajarTheLion]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

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

 

The election was never to be determined by the popular vote, so it's irrelevant. The Founding Fathers were FAR wiser than today's sour grapes leftists.

[MajarTheLion]

7 hours 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.

 

These people are hilarious. Using their logic, we should also give New York more senators than Alaska.

[MajarTheLion]

19 hours ago, heybruce said:

Is there any evidence of illegal actions or conflicts of interest?  Do you think the Russians wouldn't have uranium if that deal had not gone through?

 

Yes of course there are conflicts of interest. Bill Clinton and their foundation cashing in in Russia while Hillary's State Department approves a Russian takeover of 20% of our uranium production is an obvious conflict of interest. Whether or not they'd have uranium is irrelevant. It's the US uranium at issue. Even the New York Times has called BS on this scam.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

 

So you're cool with a Secretary of State getting money from foreign countries, including governments, while they serve the people of the US?

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-gave-millions-to-foundation-while-clinton-was-at-state-dept/2015/02/25/31937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html

Edited November 24, 2016 by MajarTheLion

[thaibeachlovers]

7 hours ago, Morch said:

 

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.

To begin with, Kushner cannot even be appointed to an official role in government as he's family.

Who said anything about an "official" position. He could go as a liason between the parties. Although nothing else has worked for decades you don't seem keen on solving the problem.

 

Remember the basketball player that got some hostages released by Nth Korea. Was he an official government appointee?

[MajarTheLion]

8 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

To begin with, Kushner cannot even be appointed to an official role in government as he's family.

Who said anything about an "official" position. He could go as a liason between the parties. Although nothing else has worked for decades you don't seem keen on solving the problem.

 

Remember the basketball player that got some hostages released by Nth Korea. Was he an official government appointee?

 

Didn't JFK get his brother the Attorney General gig? Has something changed since then? I'm not arguing the merits, just saying...

[Silurian]

Not only woefully unfit but also woefully uncommitted to performing presidential duties. Donald doesn't even attend the daily presidential briefings. No worries...Pence is attending them.

 

Donald Trump Has Attended Only Two Intelligence Briefings

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/donald-trump-has-attended-only-two-intel-briefings-steep-drop-n687916

 

Edited November 24, 2016 by Silurian

[Morch]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

To begin with, Kushner cannot even be appointed to an official role in government as he's family.

Who said anything about an "official" position. He could go as a liason between the parties. Although nothing else has worked for decades you don't seem keen on solving the problem.

 

Remember the basketball player that got some hostages released by Nth Korea. Was he an official government appointee?

 

It is not even clear if he could play an unofficial role such as you suggest. And for all your nonsense, no single is given regarding the merits of his involvement. And more even more nonsense with making it about my wishes. Nothing but inane deflections.

 

Edit to address the last bit: Rodman had a special relationship with Kim Jong-un. Kushner doesn't have anything of the sort going for him.

Edited November 24, 2016 by Morch

[Morch]

2 hours ago, MajarTheLion said:

 

Didn't JFK get his brother the Attorney General gig? Has something changed since then? I'm not arguing the merits, just saying...

 

The Anti-Nepotism Act was pretty much brought about in relation to this, 1967.

[Opl]

1 hour ago, Silurian said:

Not only woefully unfit but also woefully uncommitted to performing presidential duties. Donald doesn't even attend the daily presidential briefings. No worries...Pence is attending them.

 

Donald Trump Has Attended Only Two Intelligence Briefings

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/donald-trump-has-attended-only-two-intel-briefings-steep-drop-n687916

 

 

Quote from your link  " At the time, Trump told Hewitt he'd learn the difference between the two ( Hamas - Hezbollah) "when it's appropriate," and boasted, "I will know more about it than you know." "And believe me, it won't take me long," he added.

 

and it's the same for everything, he'll need coaching  for every single subject..there is no room for improvisation, . 1 term is not enough

D. Trump thinks he is a genius because he simply has no idea of the depth of his ignorance. 

 At 70 and + a few notions should have at least sedimented - Hamas and Hezbollah ...

Never mind ... Trump:" I'd love to make Israel-Palestine peace deal" 

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/11/trump-love-israel-palestine-peace-deal-161123060008778.html

 

The rest of the world must not let him be  leader of the free world .

POTUS but only POTUS

Edited November 24, 2016 by Opl

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, MajarTheLion said:

 

Yes of course there are conflicts of interest. Bill Clinton and their foundation cashing in in Russia while Hillary's State Department approves a Russian takeover of 20% of our uranium production is an obvious conflict of interest. Whether or not they'd have uranium is irrelevant. It's the US uranium at issue. Even the New York Times has called BS on this scam.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

 

So you're cool with a Secretary of State getting money from foreign countries, including governments, while they serve the people of the US?

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-gave-millions-to-foundation-while-clinton-was-at-state-dept/2015/02/25/31937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html

"Hillary's State Department approves a Russian takeover of 20% of our uranium production"

 

Nine government agencies approved this deal.  All donations legal, no evidence of influence buying or conflicts of interest.  Your links explain that the appearances are bad (much like Trump's refusal to release tax returns, refusal to give detailed financial statements, refusal to put assets in a blind trust) but there is no evidence of illegal activities.

 

Try reading the executive summary:    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/30/donald-trump/donald-trump-inaccurately-suggests-clinton-got-pai/

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, MajarTheLion said:

 

The election was never to be determined by the popular vote, so it's irrelevant. The Founding Fathers were FAR wiser than today's sour grapes leftists.

The Founding Fathers denied the vote to women, approved of slavery, counted slaves as three fifths of a person for purposes of the census and determining a state's number of representatives and electoral votes, and a lot of other things having to do with elections and human rights we no longer approve of.

 

The US Constitution has been a work in progress since it was written.  In view of the latest travesty of an election, a lot of people think it's time to reconsider the electoral college.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, MajarTheLion said:

 

Didn't JFK get his brother the Attorney General gig? Has something changed since then? I'm not arguing the merits, just saying...

Someone mentioned a 1967 law. That's after Kennedy died.

[thaibeachlovers]

24 minutes ago, heybruce said:

The Founding Fathers denied the vote to women, approved of slavery, counted slaves as three fifths of a person for purposes of the census and determining a state's number of representatives and electoral votes, and a lot of other things having to do with elections and human rights we no longer approve of.

 

The US Constitution has been a work in progress since it was written.  In view of the latest travesty of an election, a lot of people think it's time to reconsider the electoral college.

True. Now they have to get enough states to agree to change it. Good luck with that. 5555555

[thaibeachlovers]

50 minutes ago, Opl said:

 

Quote from your link  " At the time, Trump told Hewitt he'd learn the difference between the two ( Hamas - Hezbollah) "when it's appropriate," and boasted, "I will know more about it than you know." "And believe me, it won't take me long," he added.

 

and it's the same for everything, he'll need coaching  for every single subject..there is no room for improvisation, . 1 term is not enough

D. Trump thinks he is a genius because he simply has no idea of the depth of his ignorance. 

 At 70 and + a few notions should have at least sedimented - Hamas and Hezbollah ...

Never mind ... Trump:" I'd love to make Israel-Palestine peace deal" 

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/11/trump-love-israel-palestine-peace-deal-161123060008778.html

 

The rest of the world must not let him be  leader of the free world .

POTUS but only POTUS

Apparently Trump likes to delegate. That's why he is assembling clever people that DO know stuff.

Hopefully he will be more isolationist and stop the US stuffing up the rest of the world.

[thaibeachlovers]

56 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The Anti-Nepotism Act was pretty much brought about in relation to this, 1967.

I posted my, later reply before I saw this.

[Prbkk]

It won't be long before his supporters turn on him, realising they have been sold a pup. Some losing candidates have had wild and zany ideas and policies: but never before has the winner backed away from every core promise prior to inauguration. 

The man is a con artist: Don the Con as one poster put it.

But backing away has some merit, given that the proposals were borderline insane anyway. But for every piece of lunacy dropped from his platform another emerges: the latest being the suggestion that the son in law could play a key role in Middle East peace talks. Trump is borderline certifiable.

[Morch]

9 minutes ago, Prbkk said:

It won't be long before his supporters turn on him, realising they have been sold a pup. Some losing candidates have had wild and zany ideas and policies: but never before has the winner backed away from every core promise prior to inauguration. 

The man is a con artist: Don the Con as one poster put it.

But backing away has some merit, given that the proposals were borderline insane anyway. But for every piece of lunacy dropped from his platform another emerges: the latest being the suggestion that the son in law could play a key role in Middle East peace talks. Trump is borderline certifiable.

 

I dunno about "turn on him". Not even sure what it means, effectively. He's in for 4 years unless he resigns or impeached. Pride probably rules out the former. Impeachment will mean being entangled in something which cannot be ignore - which means a lot of time until such circumstances occur, investigated and matters brought to a head. Under such circumstances, will the GOP go for a weakened Trump or for a grateful Pence? Who knows.

 

And, if anything is to be learned from these elections, it is not to underestimate Trump's salesmanship, and the public's (at least a significant part of) discontent with old style politics.

 

This could be the new normal.

[MajarTheLion]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

The Anti-Nepotism Act was pretty much brought about in relation to this, 1967.

 

Thanks, I didn't know about that. Cool, let's open that door and see where it leads. I think it's a wonderful idea.

[MajarTheLion]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

The Founding Fathers denied the vote to women, approved of slavery, counted slaves as three fifths of a person for purposes of the census and determining a state's number of representatives and electoral votes, and a lot of other things having to do with elections and human rights we no longer approve of.

 

The US Constitution has been a work in progress since it was written.  In view of the latest travesty of an election, a lot of people think it's time to reconsider the electoral college.

 

Well yes of course, denying women the right to vote and slavery is just like the electoral college- to someone... somewhere.... I suppose.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

The Founding Fathers denied the vote to women, approved of slavery, counted slaves as three fifths of a person for purposes of the census and determining a state's number of representatives and electoral votes, and a lot of other things having to do with elections and human rights we no longer approve of.

 

The US Constitution has been a work in progress since it was written.  In view of the latest travesty of an election, a lot of people think it's time to reconsider the electoral college.

 

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

True. Now they have to get enough states to agree to change it. Good luck with that. 5555555

A few years of Trump and I'm sure there will be lots of people willing to make changes and prevent a similar disaster.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

The Founding Fathers denied the vote to women, approved of slavery, counted slaves as three fifths of a person for purposes of the census and determining a state's number of representatives and electoral votes, and a lot of other things having to do with elections and human rights we no longer approve of.

 

The US Constitution has been a work in progress since it was written.  In view of the latest travesty of an election, a lot of people think it's time to reconsider the electoral college.

 

33 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

 

Well yes of course, denying women the right to vote and slavery is just like the electoral college- to someone... somewhere.... I suppose.

I was replying to your post:

 

" The Founding Fathers were FAR wiser than today's sour grapes leftists."

 

The Founding Fathers were far from perfect, but they recognized this and included a means to change the constitution.  We may have to wait for the Trump disaster to become so apparent it can't be ignored, but this election may provide the motivation for this much needed change.

 

If you still can't see why that is a valid response to your post, you're on your own.  I can't make it any easier.

[Opl]

" It is “desirable,” Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 68, “that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of” president. But is “equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station.” These “men”—the electors––would be “most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.” And because of their discernment—because they possessed wisdom that the people as a whole might not—“the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/the-electoral-college-was-meant-to-stop-men-like-trump-from-being-president/508310/

 

So EC has to do what needs to be done, what it was meant for ! 

[Strange]

Just now, heybruce said:

 

A few years of Trump and I'm sure there will be lots of people willing to make changes and prevent a similar disaster.

 

The possibility of that happening is so minuscule its a non-issue. There is a reason the EC was developed, and of course there is always a way to spin it to favor however you feel about it. 

 

You can't play a game based on a certain set of rules, lose, then cry about the rules that were wholly agreed to, and say that its "Un-Fair". Then claim that the EC should be abolished because 2 million more people voted for HRC. The game was not played on the popular vote. 

 

You do not know and can not speculate how this election would have turned out if it was played by popular vote rules. Im inclined to think that trump still would have won. More people would vote. Im sure other people would think the same about HRC. 

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, Opl said:

So EC has to do what needs to be done, what it was meant for ! 

 

There is always a way to spin something isn't there? 

[MajarTheLion]

13 minutes ago, heybruce said:

 

I was replying to your post:

 

" The Founding Fathers were FAR wiser than today's sour grapes leftists."

 

The Founding Fathers were far from perfect, but they recognized this and included a means to change the constitution.  We may have to wait for the Trump disaster to become so apparent it can't be ignored, but this election may provide the motivation for this much needed change.

 

If you still can't see why that is a valid response to your post, you're on your own.  I can't make it any easier.

 

Great! So good luck changing the Constitution!

[MajarTheLion]

12 minutes ago, Opl said:

" It is “desirable,” Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 68, “that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of” president. But is “equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station.” These “men”—the electors––would be “most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.” And because of their discernment—because they possessed wisdom that the people as a whole might not—“the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/the-electoral-college-was-meant-to-stop-men-like-trump-from-being-president/508310/

 

So EC has to do what needs to be done, what it was meant for ! 

 

I'm sure they will, and get used to saying it: President Donald Trump.

 

Now I forget, what's the next step in grief after denial? It doesn't matter, really. I just hope the other four steps go better for you.

[lannarebirth]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

The Founding Fathers denied the vote to women, approved of slavery, counted slaves as three fifths of a person for purposes of the census and determining a state's number of representatives and electoral votes, and a lot of other things having to do with elections and human rights we no longer approve of.

 

The US Constitution has been a work in progress since it was written.  In view of the latest travesty of an election, a lot of people think it's time to reconsider the electoral college.

 

A Constitutional Convention is long overdue and I believe there have been efforts underway for some time to convene one. I doubt very much if a CC would dramatically change the EC but I think you'll see things like a Balanced Budget Amendment get a lot of attention. My main concern is the apparent dearth of wise persons to send.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Opl said:

" It is “desirable,” Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 68, “that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of” president. But is “equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station.” These “men”—the electors––would be “most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.” And because of their discernment—because they possessed wisdom that the people as a whole might not—“the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/the-electoral-college-was-meant-to-stop-men-like-trump-from-being-president/508310/

 

So EC has to do what needs to be done, what it was meant for ! 

Unfortunately it seems the EC has lead to the exact opposite of its intended purpose.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

 

The possibility of that happening is so minuscule its a non-issue. There is a reason the EC was developed, and of course there is always a way to spin it to favor however you feel about it. 

 

You can't play a game based on a certain set of rules, lose, then cry about the rules that were wholly agreed to, and say that its "Un-Fair". Then claim that the EC should be abolished because 2 million more people voted for HRC. The game was not played on the popular vote. 

 

You do not know and can not speculate how this election would have turned out if it was played by popular vote rules. Im inclined to think that trump still would have won. More people would vote. Im sure other people would think the same about HRC. 

This coming from a supporter of the candidate who was claiming the election was rigged and his supporters would riot if he wasn't elected.

 

The reason the Electoral College was developed was to prevent someone like Trump becoming president:

 

"The function of the College of Electors in choosing the president can be likened to that in the Roman Catholic Church of the College of Cardinals selecting the Pope. The original idea was for the most knowledgeable and informed individuals from each State to select the president based solely on merit and without regard to State of origin or political party."  http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_history.php 

 

Obviously it hasn't worked that way, and, considering all the changes in the US since the constitution was written, the Electoral College no longer serves any useful purpose.

 

When the UK chose Brexit by a margin of 52% to 48%, nobody challenged the results (at least nobody that has been taken seriously).  Even politicians that hate the idea are working to implement the stated will of the majority of the voters.

 

When two million more people, a clear majority, voted for the Democrats than the Republicans, the Republicans still "won" the Presidency, the Senate and the House of Representatives.  That indicates a major flaw in the system.  The EC is only part of the problem, shameless gerrymandering is also an issue.  Recognizing these things is not sour grapes, any more than calling for the abolition of slavery or other necessary changes to the constitution was sour grapes.