Politics

[Royal27]

Hey, your are not allowed to bring out the Hillary gun. NO tradesies.

I guess that is probably the sad part. When we have to rationalize our choices because the alternative is worse. (doesn't matter which side of the equation you're on)

Can we get a candidate for office, don't care what office, that is actually a leader that a landslide of people could get behind.
I'm delusional, I know. Maybe I'm still asleep.

Like I said, I'm happy not to trade!

Totally agree.... And no, we can't it seems. The world is too complex and there is too even of a split between people who want to work and people who don't .

 

[jeanes]

Hey, you are not allowed to bring out the Hillary gun. NO tradesies.

I guess that is probably the sad part. When we have to rationalize our choices because the alternative is worse. (doesn't matter which side of the equation you're on)

Can we get a candidate for office, don't care what office, that is actually a leader that a landslide of people could get behind.
I'm delusional, I know. Maybe I'm still asleep.

I wish there were a "leader" everyone could support but I can't think of who it would be. Hillary is the main reason Trump was elected, IMO. Also, people don't seem to be able to unite unless they are directly threatened. I truly wish there was a person I could vote for because they were the best candidate rather than the least objectionable. Oh, well, wish in one hand and spit in the other and see which one fills up first.

 

[sgt_zim]

Hey, you are not allowed to bring out the Hillary gun. NO tradesies.

I guess that is probably the sad part. When we have to rationalize our choices because the alternative is worse. (doesn't matter which side of the equation you're on)

Can we get a candidate for office, don't care what office, that is actually a leader that a landslide of people could get behind.
I'm delusional, I know. Maybe I'm still asleep.

No offense intended...

But this is not an insignificant problem. As long as the view is held that politicians are, or should be, "leaders," we will continue down this highway to hell. Leaders "do things."

I know precisely what you mean by leadership, and you and I line up very closely on what is meant by it.

Barry Goldwater had the right ideas on leadership, as did Reagan. So did our founders, who mostly did very little in the way of being "leaders" after they were elected - here I'm thinking in particular of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe. And also of Calvin Coolidge and to a lesser extent Warren Harding.

What I do not want is the sort of "leadership" provided by Woodrow Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Carter, Clinton, the Bushes, Nixon, and Obama. It was Wilson's "leadership," after all, that gave us the Federal Reserve, and the 16th and 17th amendments. I would trade everything I have, and start over from scratch, if we could do away with those 3 abominations and the sort of "leadership" that paved the way for them.

 

[BRICKBURN]

I don't even take offence at your spelling of the word Offence.

 

[Brent in Az]

Yep.

 

[markm]

Yep.View attachment 272711

Man isn't this the truth it's the biggest circus going full of clowns

 

[Brent in Az]

Donkey.

 

[BC.Pat]

Just curious to get some Canadian's perspective on the Justin Trudeau / Jody Wilson Raybould / SNC Lavalin situation that has been going on for a week or so.

: was noting this got some traction is the US media. JFT ( the F doesn't stand for fabulous) is a privileged prince that caught with his hand in the cookie jar. As for SNC ; it is widely known in engineering circles they are crooked. They operate with a wink & a envelope as their standard operating procedure. I'm not a fan of Mrs Wilson Raybold but she seems credible to me.
Just my 2 cents
Pat

 

[Hogpatrol]

 

[Ray B]

Just look-up the definition of the prefixes PRO & CON; Then place each in front of GRESS and it will be apparent why there is no PROgress in CONgress.

 

[Brent in Az]

Just look-up the definition of the prefixes PRO & CON; Then place each in front of GRESS and it will be apparent why there is no PROgress in CONgress.

The Lunatic left, are now attacking the electoral college. Ironic, how they only care about it, when they lose.

 

[lwaters]

The electoral college protects low population stated. If they didn't have it California, New York, and Texas could control the country.

 

[Brent in Az]

The electoral college protects low population stated. If they didn't have it California, New York, and Texas could control the country.

Exactly. The electoral college, is what protects us from becoming a one party state.

 

[Hank2211]

The Lunatic left, are now attacking the electoral college. Ironic, how they only care about it, when they lose.

This is a common refrain among losers - the rules (which have stood the test of time) are wrong. So they must be changed. You might recall that Harry Reid was told he would regret it when he changed Senate rules to do away with the filibuster on judicial appointments to all courts except the SCUS. When the Republicans did the same for that court, the chickens came home to roost. Lots of examples.

The electoral college was put in place for a number of reasons, but one was to ensure that population (the "tyranny of the majority") was not the only determining factor in political life. The Senate was set up, of course, for this very reason. So you need not only 50.1% of the population to make a law (House) but also (generally) 50.1% of the sates as well (Senate). Lot of sense there.

 

[Brent in Az]

This is a common refrain among losers - the rules (which have stood the test of time) are wrong. So they must be changed. You might recall that Harry Reid was told he would regret it when he changed Senate rules to do away with the filibuster on judicial appointments to all courts except the SCUS. When the Republicans did the same for that court, the chickens came home to roost. Lots of examples.

The electoral college was put in place for a number of reasons, but one was to ensure that population (the "tyranny of the majority") was not the only determining factor in political life. The Senate was set up, of course, for this very reason. So you need not only 50.1% of the population to make a law (House) but also (generally) 50.1% of the sates as well (Senate). Lot of sense there.

Elizabeth Warren(fauxcohontas), made a statement recently, how the Republicans stole a SCOTUS seat away from Obama.

Yes we did, and it was a beautiful political move.

Warren, conveniently didn't mention all of Harry Reid's dirty tricks.

 

[Hogpatrol]

From what I understand, it would take a constitutional amendment to get rid of the electoral college and that sure as hell isn't going to happen. Back in the day, these people were called feeble minded and morons. I think the shoe still fits.

 

[Hogpatrol]

I can't wait for the first Democratic candidate debate. They'll prove once again the old adage, "Better to remain thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt".

 

[Brent in Az]

Another tactic being brandished by some of these whacko Blue states, is trying to remove Trump from the state ballot in 2020.

Disturbing, how the Democrats claim to be champions of Democracy, yet, they try and destroy it at every turn. Sore losers.

 

[Wheels]

This is a common refrain among losers - the rules (which have stood the test of time) are wrong. So they must be changed. You might recall that Harry Reid was told he would regret it when he changed Senate rules to do away with the filibuster on judicial appointments to all courts except the SCUS. When the Republicans did the same for that court, the chickens came home to roost. Lots of examples.

The electoral college was put in place for a number of reasons, but one was to ensure that population (the "tyranny of the majority") was not the only determining factor in political life. The Senate was set up, of course, for this very reason. So you need not only 50.1% of the population to make a law (House) but also (generally) 50.1% of the sates as well (Senate). Lot of sense there.

Very well put. Especially for a non American.

Would love to have you teach a high school civics class. If we still had them.

 

[jeanes]

What about the push to allow 16 year olds to vote?