Hillary Rodham Clinton Next President Of The United States.
- Thread starter D.B. Cooper
- Start date
wineguy999
Registered
- Joined
- May 9, 2009
- Messages
- 1,304
- Likes
- 1,781
I believe Congress will work harder than ever to keep a president in check.
TomAtAlki
Registered
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2008
- Messages
- 2,065
- Likes
- 1,502
You do realize the congress (both senate and house) are republican majority, mostly radical republicans.
T/
TomAtAlki
Registered
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2008
- Messages
- 2,065
- Likes
- 1,502
[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)] "clown-shoes, Keystone-Kop farce"[/background]
TomAtAlki
Registered
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2008
- Messages
- 2,065
- Likes
- 1,502
If it takes Radical Republicans to get spending under control, reform welfare (again) and try to sort out the mess Obama allowed the Middle East and the whole Syria/Egypt/Russia thing to devolve into (even though I agree that Bush started us down the path - just that Obama did even worse than Bush in my opinion), then I'll take it. It will be nice, from my point of view, to have someone in control of things who can work together to get the country working again, to get production up again, and maybe even bring some of the money back in that has fled the country in terror of being "stolen" to pay for things that the government has no business being involved in.
The only thing I can say to people who were hoping very much (or were convinced by listening to their "fair" media too much) that Clinton was going to continue Obama's policies: I hope you understand now what we thought of Obama and his policies and why conservatives tried to block them.from happening. Unfortunately, it seems many can only see such opposition through a race filter and we were racists for not falling in line with Obama and giving him what he wanted. But just like you all think the end of the world is coming with Trump as President, that all Republicans are greedy, evil, racist pigs who apparently want to enslave the poor and sun themselves in the rage of the same, I, personally, finally feel some hope that maybe we won't piss all the country's money down an ever-widening hole of social programs and regulations that inhibit business (thus the creation of jobs - for EVERYONE, not just "minorities") and whose policies continue keep the very people they are supposed to help as angry clients of the State so the Democrats can continue to have their voter base.
And for those who say that you will oppose everything Trump does, well, that's pretty harsh to me, even while it is absolutely your right to do so. But even the infrastructure spending program he's proposing? Really? Even renegotiation of some of the trade deals that haven't been so good for us? Even some Democrats have said they would work with Trump when it went along with things that Democrats want too, both of those things I mentioned being on the list, I thought.
When does standing on principle (no matter how wrong-headed in my opinion) interfere with doing good for the country as a whole?
But with all this opposition being planned by Democrats, after a sign that a good portion of the citizenry is tired of the status quo, where Democrats are losing House and Senate seats and governors and state congress seats, I think it's a great idea. I wish Democrats would go on with the exact same policies and methods for attempting to achieve those policy objectives that they've been doing for the last 8 years.
A lot of people would benefit from that, in my opinion. Just not "orthodox" Democrats.
As far as what has been said of the Electoral College: as has been mentioned by others, in many places, the College was not created ONLY to keep people from losing their minds and electing a criminal or a traitor (which Trump is not, in my opinion, even though he is certainly a bit unusual and mouthy and says things that should be considered first). It was meant to provide a calming influence, specifically to take direct democratic decision-making out of the people's hands. As the founders were quite worried about the American public destroying the country by voting themselves all manner of benefits, for example.
I can also see, whether intended or not, that it keeps one group of concentrated voters from becoming too strong, unless it is a true nation-wide change. The President is elected by voters in smaller blocks than just the entire population at once, leading up to bigger blocks and not by individuals (i.e., starting in precincts, then counties, then states). The hugely populated and hugely Democratic West Coast and parts of the East coast would otherwise rule the country because of these concentrations. And in fact, they did rule the country in 2008 until 2010, when they began losing seats at all levels of government, and state-by-state (not individual persons) in 2016, they also lost the presidency.
And that's the deal right there. The US is not supposed to be a federal tyranny of individuals, or two parties even, who has the most voters nationally. It is supposed to be individualized at the State level. Each State casts their ballot for the President, not all the individual people of the entire country. It is the same with many things truly Federal, like changing the Constitution, for example.
Personally, I understand (at least I think I do) and support the Electoral College and would continue to do so even if people whom I didn't support ended up in office because of it. And in fact, I didn't support Bush in 2000 (I was still quite liberal at the time and very mistaken about Gore) and once the hanging chads were decided, I didn't think that the Electoral College should have been abolished because Gore won the popular vote and Bush won the Electoral College (the margin of individual, popular votes doesn't mean anything to me).
It's the STATES that choose the president, not the individual voters. It is called the United States of America, not the Amalgamated Blob of America. It's been that way for a long time. The country is not a popular democracy although it is founded on democratic principles. The States are supposed to be a lot stronger than they are, thanks to people like the current run of Democrat leadership (started with Lincoln, as a Republican - both parties have responsibility for this) who continue to make the federal government stronger and stronger, and presidents who continue to make the office of the Presidency stronger as Congress sits back and refuses to chastise the sitting presidents who do so.
The very fact is, if people weren't trying to dictate so much crap at a federal level, the country wouldn't be trying to tear itself apart. It's being stretched in different directions as two main groups of people, who have very different primary bases of voters, vie for power over all. If California wants to be socialistic - let them! As long as what they are doing doesn't go against the Constitution. Why try to force the rest of the country to follow suit when they obviously don't want to?
If people want to change the Constitution to get rid of the Electoral College, I say go for it - but I will be one fighting against it, and to tell the truth I don't think it stands a chance in hell of getting passed. In fact, I doubt it could even get to the point where it is voted on by the States.
But apparently we'll see if I'm right, as some Democratic congressmen have already started a movement to propose an amendment. Whatever it takes to win, seems to me.
The only thing I can say to people who were hoping very much (or were convinced by listening to their "fair" media too much) that Clinton was going to continue Obama's policies: I hope you understand now what we thought of Obama and his policies and why conservatives tried to block them.from happening. Unfortunately, it seems many can only see such opposition through a race filter and we were racists for not falling in line with Obama and giving him what he wanted. But just like you all think the end of the world is coming with Trump as President, that all Republicans are greedy, evil, racist pigs who apparently want to enslave the poor and sun themselves in the rage of the same, I, personally, finally feel some hope that maybe we won't piss all the country's money down an ever-widening hole of social programs and regulations that inhibit business (thus the creation of jobs - for EVERYONE, not just "minorities") and whose policies continue keep the very people they are supposed to help as angry clients of the State so the Democrats can continue to have their voter base.
And for those who say that you will oppose everything Trump does, well, that's pretty harsh to me, even while it is absolutely your right to do so. But even the infrastructure spending program he's proposing? Really? Even renegotiation of some of the trade deals that haven't been so good for us? Even some Democrats have said they would work with Trump when it went along with things that Democrats want too, both of those things I mentioned being on the list, I thought.
When does standing on principle (no matter how wrong-headed in my opinion) interfere with doing good for the country as a whole?
But with all this opposition being planned by Democrats, after a sign that a good portion of the citizenry is tired of the status quo, where Democrats are losing House and Senate seats and governors and state congress seats, I think it's a great idea. I wish Democrats would go on with the exact same policies and methods for attempting to achieve those policy objectives that they've been doing for the last 8 years.
A lot of people would benefit from that, in my opinion. Just not "orthodox" Democrats.
As far as what has been said of the Electoral College: as has been mentioned by others, in many places, the College was not created ONLY to keep people from losing their minds and electing a criminal or a traitor (which Trump is not, in my opinion, even though he is certainly a bit unusual and mouthy and says things that should be considered first). It was meant to provide a calming influence, specifically to take direct democratic decision-making out of the people's hands. As the founders were quite worried about the American public destroying the country by voting themselves all manner of benefits, for example.
I can also see, whether intended or not, that it keeps one group of concentrated voters from becoming too strong, unless it is a true nation-wide change. The President is elected by voters in smaller blocks than just the entire population at once, leading up to bigger blocks and not by individuals (i.e., starting in precincts, then counties, then states). The hugely populated and hugely Democratic West Coast and parts of the East coast would otherwise rule the country because of these concentrations. And in fact, they did rule the country in 2008 until 2010, when they began losing seats at all levels of government, and state-by-state (not individual persons) in 2016, they also lost the presidency.
And that's the deal right there. The US is not supposed to be a federal tyranny of individuals, or two parties even, who has the most voters nationally. It is supposed to be individualized at the State level. Each State casts their ballot for the President, not all the individual people of the entire country. It is the same with many things truly Federal, like changing the Constitution, for example.
Personally, I understand (at least I think I do) and support the Electoral College and would continue to do so even if people whom I didn't support ended up in office because of it. And in fact, I didn't support Bush in 2000 (I was still quite liberal at the time and very mistaken about Gore) and once the hanging chads were decided, I didn't think that the Electoral College should have been abolished because Gore won the popular vote and Bush won the Electoral College (the margin of individual, popular votes doesn't mean anything to me).
It's the STATES that choose the president, not the individual voters. It is called the United States of America, not the Amalgamated Blob of America. It's been that way for a long time. The country is not a popular democracy although it is founded on democratic principles. The States are supposed to be a lot stronger than they are, thanks to people like the current run of Democrat leadership (started with Lincoln, as a Republican - both parties have responsibility for this) who continue to make the federal government stronger and stronger, and presidents who continue to make the office of the Presidency stronger as Congress sits back and refuses to chastise the sitting presidents who do so.
The very fact is, if people weren't trying to dictate so much crap at a federal level, the country wouldn't be trying to tear itself apart. It's being stretched in different directions as two main groups of people, who have very different primary bases of voters, vie for power over all. If California wants to be socialistic - let them! As long as what they are doing doesn't go against the Constitution. Why try to force the rest of the country to follow suit when they obviously don't want to?
If people want to change the Constitution to get rid of the Electoral College, I say go for it - but I will be one fighting against it, and to tell the truth I don't think it stands a chance in hell of getting passed. In fact, I doubt it could even get to the point where it is voted on by the States.
But apparently we'll see if I'm right, as some Democratic congressmen have already started a movement to propose an amendment. Whatever it takes to win, seems to me.
jeff1234
Registered
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2012
- Messages
- 1,102
- Likes
- 798
Watching Trump I'm reminded of a negotiating class that I took a few years ago. These experts recommended opening with a totally wild, crazy, outrageous demand.
That gives you plenty of room to back up and also give your opponent a sense that you're going to aggressively pursue your own best interests and get you a better deal in the end.
I have no idea if this is what Trump is thinking or if it will help him get better deals but this sure seems like what he's doing. ie: 'We're going to build a wall' and 'We will deal directly with Taiwan'.
That gives you plenty of room to back up and also give your opponent a sense that you're going to aggressively pursue your own best interests and get you a better deal in the end.
I have no idea if this is what Trump is thinking or if it will help him get better deals but this sure seems like what he's doing. ie: 'We're going to build a wall' and 'We will deal directly with Taiwan'.
Ries
Registered
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2008
- Messages
- 3,563
- Likes
- 4,892
I havent heard anyone say they will oppose "everything" Trump does.
Only the bad stuff.
What appointee do you think is really good, and will do great things for america?
What Tweet from Trump do you think best represents his intelligent, presidential way of communicating policy?
What do you think is the best way for Trump to deal with potential conflict of interest problems?
What do you think of Putin?
Only the bad stuff.
What appointee do you think is really good, and will do great things for america?
What Tweet from Trump do you think best represents his intelligent, presidential way of communicating policy?
What do you think is the best way for Trump to deal with potential conflict of interest problems?
What do you think of Putin?
Macanudo
Registered
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2009
- Messages
- 716
- Likes
- 562
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/history/understanding-islam/
I have asked why is Russia our enemy when they are no longer communist, but nobody can answer that question. The response is usually, “They are Russian.” There is this same residual issue between Islam and Christianity in many circles that people cannot explain. The Turks effectively conquered Constantinople in 1453 and created the Ottoman Empire. Through different rulers, the objectives changed over the centuries. Sometimes the object was isolation and at other times it was conquest mode. This is true of the United States. The objectives change with administrations. Therefore, you cannot really label a people one way or the other.
The attempt to conquer Europe and the failure to take Vienna, which was was the seat of the Holy Roman Empire, in 1683 left a instinctive flavor in the mouths of Western leaders and forever made the Ottoman empire the enemy until they wiped it out in World War I. It took one Political Cycle of 224 years to complete the fall of the Ottoman empire, and the West therein laid the seeds for what we face today — the unintended consequences.
It was the West who installed power in the hands of various groups, including the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia. They were fighting an old enemy and did not comprehend the full scope of their nation building shifting the center of gravity in global Islam from the Turks to the Arabs. Both the Dutch and French attempted to prevent their Muslim subjects from deferring to the caliph of the Ottoman empire in their public prayers. It was the West who shifted the religious power from the Turks to the Arabs. That has resulted in the fragmentation of Islam where we have different groups with different interpretations and objectives.
This is really a consequence of those who run the military and their desire for nation building.
I have asked why is Russia our enemy when they are no longer communist, but nobody can answer that question. The response is usually, “They are Russian.” There is this same residual issue between Islam and Christianity in many circles that people cannot explain. The Turks effectively conquered Constantinople in 1453 and created the Ottoman Empire. Through different rulers, the objectives changed over the centuries. Sometimes the object was isolation and at other times it was conquest mode. This is true of the United States. The objectives change with administrations. Therefore, you cannot really label a people one way or the other.
The attempt to conquer Europe and the failure to take Vienna, which was was the seat of the Holy Roman Empire, in 1683 left a instinctive flavor in the mouths of Western leaders and forever made the Ottoman empire the enemy until they wiped it out in World War I. It took one Political Cycle of 224 years to complete the fall of the Ottoman empire, and the West therein laid the seeds for what we face today — the unintended consequences.
It was the West who installed power in the hands of various groups, including the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia. They were fighting an old enemy and did not comprehend the full scope of their nation building shifting the center of gravity in global Islam from the Turks to the Arabs. Both the Dutch and French attempted to prevent their Muslim subjects from deferring to the caliph of the Ottoman empire in their public prayers. It was the West who shifted the religious power from the Turks to the Arabs. That has resulted in the fragmentation of Islam where we have different groups with different interpretations and objectives.
This is really a consequence of those who run the military and their desire for nation building.