Random Politics & Religion #14

Neither of you understand the term carpetbagger.

Slore is closer to correct depending on just which Clinton.

Sure, if the only employee was Trump himself.

Highly likely it's somebody on the board of directors, and the "self dealing" is use of personal assets in the charity.

That "check the box" question doesn't exactly state that any wrongdoing happened, it just provides IRS an opportunity to follow up with another question and *** taxes if needed.

If any laws were broken, they are not felonies (tax laws, unless intent is proven, which in this case intent is nonexistence as the foundation actually reported such dealings and it wasn't found out through an IRS audit, is not felonious, and any penalties would be tax + 5% interest assessed). I know you are hoping to impeach Trump, but man, you got to understand that you cannot impeach a president because of what shoes he is wearing today!

oooo.... paged!!!

Denied!

If we can't impeach him for the shoes he's wearing today, can impeach him or the shoes he'll wear tomorrow?!

All joking aside, If by any legal means he's been deemed unfit or ineligible for office, you still can't impeach him because the crime has to happen *WHILE OFFICE*. Successful prosecutions of federal crimes would prohibit him from taking office *IF COVICTED*, and as much of a buffoon I think he is, or acts like, that doesn't disqualify him from the shoes he has to fill.

For whatever reason, he won the majority of the electoral college votes, and enough of the popular votes, to make him the president-elect. He's done something no other candidate has done in a very long time - he shook up the election process and somehow managed to get people to look on the political climate in America a whole lot closer than they've done in the past 40 or 50 years. If not longer. He's managed to expose the brazen callousness of both party establishments - quite possibly without intending to, so now, if people pay attention to it long enough, and take it to heart, we can create political climate change we can believe in!

You need to use the right one Rav!

Don't make me audit you!

Depends on which one you are referring to. One would be a scalawag.

Also missed the part where self dealing is using charitable funds for personal assets not personal assets for charitable funds.

I almost feel sorry for them all. The ones in charge know they cannot win on their ideas.

They are quickly approaching the bottom of the barrel with the "=ism" accusations. The majority really is getting tired of being the whipping post.

Apples and pears. We don't know for sure what the majority is, because the voting population isn't necessarily representative of the public at large. And, if recent polls are any indication, traditional methods of finding out what the majority thinks aren't exactly accurate.

They haven't finished tallying California's votes. As it stands more votes from the the state of California than 33 states combined.

Something people to need to consider before making fun of the strongest economy in the union and 6th strongest globally saying "wtf" at the rest of the nation.

I don't mean combined but what is left to count (2.8M) is more than what was casted in 33 states. Which is still says a lot about the strength of the "half the country" rhetoric or lack there of.

Yay a triple. But something to think about when we talk about who voted, how many voted, where the "majority" is and how much a vote is worth.

Which is precisely the reason the founders created the Electoral College system. It's a balance to ensure fairness across the nation and prevent large populous states from dominating everyone else. It's a part of the checks and balances designed to prevent tyranny and a despotic government from forming. More important even then the first ten amendments. The only thing I'd be willing to change about the EC system is to do away with the "winner takes all" that many states have, it really should be based on congressional district with the majority winner of that state taking the two senate votes. This would make every district important to winning elections.

Strongest economy in the union? It depends on what metric you're using. Overall ratings from 2016 place California in 3rd, behind Washington (2nd) and Utah (1st). If you're talking GDP, well no duh. High-population areas that aren't third-world countries tend to have high GDPs, it's not that special. California doesn't get a pass for being stupid.

Guess I'll do a quad like my weed smoking days:

You guys are going to love/roll your eyes at this: Several computer scientist are suggesting the Clinton campaign request a recount based on a pattern in the data.



Based on your bias implications of hack or implications of desperation. Only time will tell.

Your vote is worthless on a national level, your States vote on the other hand is important. Your part of a Republic, if you don't like it then move away already. Didn't you promise to do that anyway...

Get over it, your team lost, it wasn't stolen from you, the system wasn't unfair, your Queen and High Priestess didn't get cheated, you didn't get cheated. Simply put, the policies and actions of the vocal left are unpalatable to the silent majority, specifically the rural voters. You would understand this if you actually had rural friends and spent some time among them. The thing that makes them the most angry isn't the political positions, most thing Trump is a buffoon, it's that every time a concern of the rural voters is brought up the liberal left attacks them personally. They get called every name in the book, racist, homophobe, Islamophobe, misogynist, stupid and not worth anyone's time. You treat someone like that often enough, on national TV no less, they are going to lash back and in this case they did.

The liberal party in the USA has a lot of apologies to start making about their conduct, and so far they haven't even thought to do so. The conservative right might be a bunch of idiots, but at least they don't bully and shame good honest hardworking people into silence. The message from the liberal left is loud and clear, if your not a Women, Black, or Hispanic then you are irrelevant. They were playing identity politics hardcore and it bit them in the ***.

Does the government represent people or does it represent territory?

I just like putting things out there to provoke thought.

But the data is something to consider before saying "the 'majority' has spoken so tough titty"

Because when people say that, that's got nothing to do with the EC.

I for one don't need a US civics lesson but thanks for the lecture. Your tone on the matter of which you wrote is ironic to say the least. The anger is palatable.

It depends on how you count revenue. California is home of Silicon Valley which is where a ***ton of Tech startups happened. Both Apple and Facebook are located there not to mention the behemoth that is Google. Then you have Hollywood's entertainment industry which is it's own beast. Those contribute heavily to California's large economy on paper. The rest of the USA's large industries / business's are scattered around different states with the exception of the financial capital in New York.

So yes when you add up everything California is the worlds 6th largest economy, but take that with a grain of salt because their economy is connected to the rest of the USA's. It's also why things like the Electoral College and Senate are more important now then ever before. Without those safeguards the coastal area's would dominate the rest of the USA and result in another Civil War, or something similar enough happening.

Civil war? Now who's being the alarmist?

It represents States, which are miniature Countries themselves. Your State government represents people who them elect individuals to go to a Republic Congress to represent your States citizens. We call these elected individuals Senators and Representatives. States pass their own laws, elect their own executive and legislative authorities and appoint their own judicial authorities. In almost every way they act as independent countries, they even have their own part-time Military and Defense budgets.


The contents of your posts would say otherwise. Most Liberal in the US have no clue why or how the government works, they just WANT THEIR WAY AND WANT IT NOW!. They would happily dismantle all civil rights in order to turn their agenda into reality. Only after those civil rights are lost would they realize that it could be turned against them.

The checks and balances that are embedded into the US Constitution are extremely important to maintaining a civil and fair country. They aren't relics of the pre-Socialist/Marxist/Communism unenlightened age. The founders were extremely distrustful of big powerful governments with sweeping powers because they (rightly) believes that a government will use any and all powers granted, regardless of the measure, means or purpose granted, to repress it's citizens and ensure it's own survival and growth.

What is this last night story time?

It's not alarmist, it's serious. What do you think will happen if a small number of states gain absolute rule over the majority of states? Do you think all those rural people are going to just accept all the ***liberals will force down their throats? The only thing keeping the US together is the fact that the government changes every decade or so and that people can always look forward to getting another shot while the government knows it won't last. Imagine what would happen if one side (either one) gained absolute power to pass whatever law they wanted and do whatever they pleased. BTW that's kinda what started the Civil War in the first place, it was all about economics and representation in the Government.

The EC was also not supposed to be a contest between two political parties, binomial choice was not the intention.

And let's not act like this system hasn't been revised over the years.

Like I've said before, let's go back to the original plan where the runner up becomes vice-president. Maybe our country and politicians would learn how to compromise better.