Trump

[TeamsterGrrrl]

Here in Minnesota in the last few years we've twice done a hand recount of every ballot statewide, while we found a few mismarked ballots, we found zilch fraudulent voting.

[carlotpilot]

  put their women on pedestals and just sniff ???     probably would be the best damn thing that could happen

[kscarbel2]

1 hour ago, RowdyRebel said:

Every person's vote is NOT equal when illegals, ineligible voters, the deceased, and people registered in several jurisdictions are casting ballots...multiple ballots...not to mention the ballots that are "lost" or "misplaced". Each incident currently only affects a single state's outcome, NOT the national election. And if it's close? How expensive do you suppose a NATIONWIDE recount will be?

The system we have is there for a reason, and has served us well. EDUCATE yourself...unless you're desiring to see election fraud become a major issue rather than the localized problem it currently is. Given your posts in this thread, might even be a hint of sore loser thrown in too.

  Which of the three types of people am I ?

[RowdyRebel]

22 hours ago, kscarbel2 said:

  Which of the three types of people am I ?

The last paragraph you quoted answers your question...all of the above! You seem to lack understanding in the reasons behind why it was and still remains necessary, while failing to comprehend the problems that will arise from abolishing the electoral college...or perhaps you just don't care about those problems because it makes it easier for the corrupt political machines in the large cities to impact the national election instead of just their single state, or you have no interest in ensuring those of us in "flyover country" get to have our say. Or perhaps you would've preferred Hillary, and now wish to change the rules after the fact to affect the outcome in a manner which you deem beneficial to your own personal political leanings. Doesn't really matter, since the outcome is pretty much the same. You'd rather have an election that is easily corruptable where a clear winner may not be known without an insanely expensive recount...$0.30/ballot in some cases...times the nearly 130,000,000 votes cast nationwide...and a country that's already $20 Trillion in debt has to come up with ANOTHER $39,000,000 just to figure out who "won" a close race. Makes perfect sense to a liberal, I guess...win at any cost, even if you have to lie cheat and steal to get close enough to make changing the rules a feasible way to ensure the outcome you desire.

We are not a democracy. We never have been, and if this country wishes to remain strong, it never should become one.  

[TeamsterGrrrl]

Rowdy, you might want to remember that going to direct election instead of the obsolete Electoral College would turn election fraud into a much more challenging nationwide operation. With the Electoral College, election fraud would only need to occur in the 5 to 10 closely contested states. Also, you make the assumption that election fraud would occur at the polls. That's much too inefficient and has too high a risk of getting arrested... A real election fraudster pro would use the absentee ballot, allowing them to mass produce fake votes without having to go anywhere near the polls. 

[RowdyRebel]

The current system leaves the voting at the discretion of the states. Most states are "winner take all"...which is fine. Some states award 2 electors to the overall winner of the state, and then another elector to the winner of each congressional district. I happen to PREFER that second approach, as it minimizes the impact of voter fraud in the cities. Chicago is notorious for having the ballot boxes stuffed..."vote early, vote often". Philly. Did you really believe that there wasn't ONE SINGLE VOTER in 59 different precincts who pulled the lever for Romney in 2012? Or the same story in 9 different precincts in Cleveland? Let's not forget about the Black Panthers intimidating likely McCain voters in Philly 2008. No charges were pursued by the Obama Justice Dept...how is that different than what occurs in 3rd world dictatorships where the winner gets 98% of the vote because they know anyone who votes for the opposition party may not make it home?

Election fraud runs rampant enough when the elections are run by the states. Things NEVER improve when the federal government takes over. From education to health care, the federal government has proven inept at running anything well...and now you want to let them run the elections too? Screw that.

[1958 F.W.D.]

Yet another reason why Identification should be REQUIRED to cast a ballot. 

[TeamsterGrrrl]

Then how do we comply with the legal requirement to provide absentee ballots?

[1958 F.W.D.]

1 hour ago, TeamsterGrrrl said:

Then how do we comply with the legal requirement to provide absentee ballots?

Translation: "All my liberal buddies won't be able to stack votes that way"

[kscarbel2]

7 hours ago, RowdyRebel said:

The last paragraph you quoted answers your question...all of the above! You seem to lack understanding in the reasons behind why it was and still remains necessary, while failing to comprehend the problems that will arise from abolishing the electoral college...or perhaps you just don't care about those problems because it makes it easier for the corrupt political machines in the large cities to impact the national election instead of just their single state, or you have no interest in ensuring those of us in "flyover country" get to have our say. Or perhaps you would've preferred Hillary, and now wish to change the rules after the fact to affect the outcome in a manner which you deem beneficial to your own personal political leanings. Doesn't really matter, since the outcome is pretty much the same. You'd rather have an election that is easily corruptable where a clear winner may not be known without an insanely expensive recount...$0.30/ballot in some cases...times the nearly 130,000,000 votes cast nationwide...and a country that's already $20 Trillion in debt has to come up with ANOTHER $39,000,000 just to figure out who "won" a close race. Makes perfect sense to a liberal, I guess...win at any cost, even if you have to lie cheat and steal to get close enough to make changing the rules a feasible way to ensure the outcome you desire.

We are not a democracy. We never have been, and if this country wishes to remain strong, it never should become one.  

You stated:

There are 3 types of people advocating the dissolution of the electoral college: sore losers, the uneducated, and those who would like to see voter fraud in the cities affect the outcome of the entire election instead of only the individual states where it occurs.

I asked you:

Which of the three types of people am I ?

You replied that I am "all of the above". Apparently, you imply that I am multi-tasking.

In support of the concept of mutual respect, I take the time to read your thoughts. We all bring interesting points to the table in support of a healthy exchange of viewpoints.

That said, your guess is incorrect. I am not any of those three.

I'm struggling here. You adamantly support the burning* of the American flag, and state that the United States of America is not a democracy. I respect your opinions, of course, but respectfully disagree with them.

* http://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/45093-trump/?page=3  /  http://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/45093-trump/?page=4

 

 

[RowdyRebel]

You don't have to link to it, I freely admit to the fact that as much as I dislike seeing it and as much as I'd like to punch those who would do such a thing in the face, it IS their right to burn their own property as a means to protest and express their grievance with the policies and actions of the government...so long as burning is allowed (i.e. no "burn bans" or other prohibitions on open fires in general) at the location where the protest is taking place. If you feel you have the right to silence their protest, it would be hypocritical then for you to speak out against something (a regulation, law, or any other government action) that you disagree with. "Congress shall make NO LAW..."

Yes, I will adamantly defend the Constitution. I'm rather consistent in that regard, and I'm not ashamed of that fact.

[david wild]

Been wearing my Trump sticker since the election, funny after **** for brains got elected you could not find anyone that voted fro him, I get stopped all day about my sticker and all the people standing up to be counted as a voter for Trump, amazing can't find Obama or Clinton supporter but overwhelmed with Trump voters

[kscarbel2]

On 11/20/2016 at 9:24 AM, RowdyRebel said:

You don't have to link to it, I freely admit to the fact that as much as I dislike seeing it and as much as I'd like to punch those who would do such a thing in the face, it IS their right to burn their own property as a means to protest and express their grievance with the policies and actions of the government...so long as burning is allowed (i.e. no "burn bans" or other prohibitions on open fires in general) at the location where the protest is taking place. If you feel you have the right to silence their protest, it would be hypocritical then for you to speak out against something (a regulation, law, or any other government action) that you disagree with. "Congress shall make NO LAW..."

Yes, I will adamantly defend the Constitution. I'm rather consistent in that regard, and I'm not ashamed of that fact.

First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

There is no part of the first amendment that allows for any form of desecration of the United States flag. It's against the law, under 18 U.S. Code § 700, i.e. Desecration of the flag of the United States; penalties:

"Whoever knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon any flag of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both."

(reference - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/700)

The Necessary and Proper Clause within Article One of the U.S. Constitution that you "adamantly" defend clearly states" The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

One law made my congress prohibits desecration of the United States flag.

You can peaceably protest all you want (the right of the people to peaceably assemble), voicing your thoughts (freedom of speech) while doing somersaults if you like, but you can't burn the flag.

If you come to Macungie next June and illegally burn a flag in front of everyone, I don't think you'll make a lot of new friends.

[RowdyRebel]

Any law contrary to the Constitution is void. The Constitution states quite clearly that Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech. Congress did so anyway, and the courts have rejected every attempt to enforce that aspect of it. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and NO act of congress can overrule it. So yes, TECHNICALLY there is a law on the books, but it isn't worth the paper it's printed on because it violates the Constitution.

...and that is the difference between you and I. While I may find an action to be objectionable, disgusting, or even revolting, I support the right others may have to choose to do what I have chosen NOT to do. You seem to think that if YOU find an action objectionable, disgusting, or revolting, that NOBODY ought to be allowed to partake in that activity. I don't smoke, but I support the right of establishment owners to choose whether or not to allow it in their businesses. I vehemently oppose smoking bans despite the fact that I find the smell of cigarette smoke revolting. I have the right to choose not to enter smoke filled rooms. I don't burn flags, other than retiring them respectfully when they are worn beyond repair. I don't feel it is an appropriate way to demonstrate a dislike of a policy or action by the government...but I support the right of those who would feel otherwise to do so. I have the right NOT to watch it and to ignore their little protest. That's how it works in a republic, where the individual is sovereign and gets to make his own decisions. You've made it clear that you'd prefer a democracy, where majority rules and it's tough shit if somebody doesn't agree with the majority because they were outnumbered in the vote.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. I choose to err on the side of Liberty, because someday you'll find yourself in the position of the lamb and what right will you have to contest the vote if you denied that ability to everyone else who disagreed with you when you happened to be in the majority?

The Constitution says what it says, and no law can change it. Only through the amendment process can it be altered, which is difficult for a reason...to protect the voice of the lamb.

[TeamsterGrrrl]

Rowdy is (for once) correct- there's a case, Texas v. Johnson IIRC, that decided that flag burning is legal.

That still don't make it right, and flag burning is one of the most disgusting forms of "speech" imaginable. Painting swasticas and "Trump" on houses of worship is pretty disgusting too.

[RowdyRebel]

Painting things on ANY building you don't own or have legal control over is a crime. Paint whatever you want on your own building...even if it might "offend" someone. Your property, do with it as you please. If I don't like the way it looks, I can choose to not look at it.

I don't even care if I agree wholeheartedly with the message you paint, though, if you paint it on MY building, I'm going to press charges for vandalism. YOU don't have the right to paint YOUR message on MY building, just as I don't have the right to paint MY message on YOUR building.

YOUR building, do as you please. MY building, I'll do as I please. That's how property rights (also protected under the Constitution) work.

[david wild]

I find it disgusting for those that cannot speak English properly (dis and dat) can speak poorly of Trumps wife who can speak 5 different languages, you cannot speak about Obama's wife but it's OK to make fun of Trumps wife ?? Just a few years ago they wanted to teach ebonics because the blacks just can't grasp the English language even though they have been here for a couple hundred of years, but Trumps wife learns 5 different languages and the liberals ridicule her. Yeah you liberals your are a really bright bunch.  

[41chevy]

Well since some of the Progressive Democrats want to split off to form a Tea Party type group and are embracing the reborn Occupy Democrat group and enlisting Justine Tunny founder of Occupy Wall Street and Micah White (who penned the article that Justine Tunny followed) to form up an Occupy D.C. "army" and hinting of needing a 70's style Gorilla War against Trump and his supporters. That and both teamstergrrl and Ks's posts that basically point out the irreconcilable differences between each groups. Well maybe it is time to slug it out in the streets and let the survivors, winner, gangs, Isis or the U.N. sort out who wins what ever is left. Either that or tear it all down and start fresh.  

Edited November 23, 2016 by 41chevy

[david wild]

Trump has beat the odds all his life, the election was just another example off how he is under estimated, He is a fresh start, right now he is playing nice, sly like a fox, give him a chance, hell the country is doing better already and he hasn't even been sworn in yet. The rep. from the barge co. we use said biz inquiry is up, looks like some heavy transport jobs are looming, in fact we bid a job in PA. and was told flat out that the job was dependent on the election, job is on. those are 400,000 lbs tanks, so Trump is already turning this country around, just give him some time, Obama was there for 8 years and did nothing but make things worse, unless more welfare, more crime and more dead cops is what you call progress.

[mackey58]

We will see

[other dog]

On 11/18/2016 at 0:20 PM, RowdyRebel said:

The last paragraph you quoted answers your question...all of the above! You seem to lack understanding in the reasons behind why it was and still remains necessary, while failing to comprehend the problems that will arise from abolishing the electoral college...or perhaps you just don't care about those problems because it makes it easier for the corrupt political machines in the large cities to impact the national election instead of just their single state, or you have no interest in ensuring those of us in "flyover country" get to have our say. Or perhaps you would've preferred Hillary, and now wish to change the rules after the fact to affect the outcome in a manner which you deem beneficial to your own personal political leanings. Doesn't really matter, since the outcome is pretty much the same. You'd rather have an election that is easily corruptable where a clear winner may not be known without an insanely expensive recount...$0.30/ballot in some cases...times the nearly 130,000,000 votes cast nationwide...and a country that's already $20 Trillion in debt has to come up with ANOTHER $39,000,000 just to figure out who "won" a close race. Makes perfect sense to a liberal, I guess...win at any cost, even if you have to lie cheat and steal to get close enough to make changing the rules a feasible way to ensure the outcome you desire.

We are not a democracy. We never have been, and if this country wishes to remain strong, it never should become one.  

grrrr-

[ranchhopper]

The hypocracy of the left is just incredible wasn't the liberal news media howling mad how un-American it was over Trump stating he was not going to accept the results of the election if he thought there was rampant fraud. Lets see now we have a recount going to happen in Wisconsin electoral college voter intimidation offers to pay fines for switching votes whos the sore losers doing the un-American thing now.

[other dog]

I don't know if this is true, I think it is, but even if it's not it pretty much sums up how I feel-

https://victorialsanders.wordpress.com/2016/11/12/hate-didnt-elect-donald-trump-people-did/

And this map, I was looking for a picture of the map without any captions, shows the counties in the U.S. that supported Trump and those that supported Hillary. The red area supported Donald Trump- all of rural America, the heartland of America, the working class of America, the people who make America what it is, regardless of their skin color or what church they go to, for the most part they supported Donald Trump. So, if not for the electoral college, the majority of the thugs, criminals, miscreants, deadbeats,and city-slickers- er, uh, I mean population- that lives in the blue area could impose their will on the entire rest of the country, and that just ain't right.

 

 

[Joseph Moody Jr]

To answer RowdyRebel  question dealing with elections in the City of Philadelphia. I live and work in Philadelphia and those 59 voter district out of 1680 voter district will always vote Democratic. Those district in the city are in North and West Philadelphia and are 99.9% minority. Part of that area we call the Bad Lands. Another laugh is the story about the Black Panthers. They were at only one voter district in city not at other 1679 voter district. The conduct for which members of the New Black Panther Party were accused of voter intimidation took place on Election Day in November 2008, at a polling station in a predominantly African-American, Democratic voting district of Philadelphia. No complaints were filed by voters about the incident.

Edited November 24, 2016 by Joseph Moody Jr
spelling

[kscarbel2]

You don’t have to agree with the entire article (or any of it), but I myself liked Paul Ryan’s statement in the last paragraph.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Crony capitalism concerns reach new heights with rise of Trump

The Washington Post  /  November 23, 2016

Late in October 2015, shortly before he would become speaker of the House, Paul Ryan delivered a sermon on the subject of crony capitalism.

"This is a profound debate we are having," he told his colleagues in a floor argument over the federal Export-Import Bank, which has long been criticized by conservatives for helping American companies sell their products overseas by subsidizing loans. "It is about what kind of economy we are going to have. Are we going to reward good work or good connections?"

That question is suddenly much bigger, and much thornier, for Republicans, thanks to President-elect Donald Trump.

Trump is the head of a business empire that includes real estate developments and luxury resorts around the world. He had repeatedly said that he would turn the operations of that empire over to his children once he takes office. But in the days since his election, Trump and his associates have taken steps that mesh or risk meshing his business interests with his new position of power.

Trump has urged British politicians to fight wind farms that could threaten the views from one of his golf courses, and included his daughter Ivanka in diplomatic discussions with the leaders of Japan and Argentina. His new Washington hotel is courting business from foreign diplomats.

It's easy to imagine much larger - and more economically consequential - issues arising once Trump takes office. Some of America's biggest crusaders against crony capitalism warn that Trump could use his position to pressure foreign leaders to accommodate his company, or to bend U.S. regulations to favor his interests over competitors. He might not even need to ask for those favors; they might just appear.

"There's no way that someone dealing with a Trump business doesn't think, 'The guy behind the name is sitting in the White House,' " said Veronique de Rugy, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University who has long fought the Ex-Im Bank and the general issue of crony capitalism.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal's opinion pages this week, conservative columnist Holman Jenkins Jr. said Trump's administration could "swirl down a drain of cronyism."

"Foreign and domestic business interests will be lining up to partner with the Trump children believing it buys favor with the Trump administration," he wrote. "It can't be otherwise on our human planet."

Trump's policy initiatives pose a second threat, de Rugy says, including an infrastructure spending push that could be steered toward the president's friends or business associates. Ronald Klain, a former aide to President Barack Obama, warned Democrats recently that Trump's funding plan for infrastructure, which relies heavily on tax credits for private industry, would amount to "a massive corporate welfare plan for contractors."

Even Trump's much-celebrated-by-conservatives push for tax reform could, depending on the details, dramatically boost his companies.

Trump has largely dismissed those concerns. "The law's totally on my side," he told the New York Times Tuesday. "The president can't have a conflict of interest,"

Skewed government interests can, however, dampen an economy. That has been the case in Italy and Greece, and to an even greater extent in Russia. The diversion of resources to a president's businesses or his friends can chill competition, saddle consumers with fewer choices and higher prices, and erode incentives to work, innovate and invest.

"What's hard to see is the distortions in the capital markets from government intervention," de Rugy said, "or all the unseen victims of that intervention."

Or as Ryan put it on the House floor last year, under crony capitalism the "winner is the person with the connections, it is the company with power, and it is the company with clout. The loser is the person who is out there working hard, playing by the rules, not knowing anybody, not going to Washington, and hoping and thinking that the merit of their idea and the quality of their work is what will win the day."