The Electoral College flaunting the will of the people never ends well!

[JoeB131]

Funny, I don't recall seeing you in the meeting. Were you hiding in the corner again?

Bush's comments have been well documented... He didn't give a fuck.

Basically, you would have caused a great deal of angst and frustration and done nothing to prevent the attacks. And this is with the benefit of hindsight. If you were in Bush's shoes and been confronted with dozens of potential threats every single day, you would have reacted in much the same manner as he did. You seem to think that the president faces no threats except the one that actually materializes.

Yawn, guy, I'd have rather have seen bush Try something, then I could sy, "Well, at least he tried".

He didn't try. That was the point. "You covered your ass, then". and went fishing.

That's not how it was implemented, was it? If attitudes were shifting, the best and least contentious way to implement something is to let attitudes shift until a majority accepts the idea, then let legislation follow. But that's not what democrats did. When the people voted against gay marriage, democrats went to court to overturn their express will and the majority vote. Sorry, but majority votes to democrats are only tools to be used when convenient and discarded when not useful.

yes, when the people vote for something that is BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL, you really really should take them to court.

Maybe they should have crafted laws that didn't openly violate the constitution.

Tissue? We did see a once proud political party (the DNC) reduced to a whimpering pile. I'm sure they'll come back at some point because these things are cyclical, but the amount of time it takes for that to happen is dependent on how much reflection they are willing to do. The longer they keep wailing about everything except the weakness of their candidate and ideas, the longer it will take to get back in power. Until they shed themselves of the Clintons, Pelosi, Reid, etc, they will have an uphill battle.

The Republicans have already started on that process, the democrats have yet to do so.

The Republicans supported a Nazi. That's nothing to be proud of. The Von Papen Republicans knew this was wrong and went along with it anyway.

But you stopped the mean old woman... that's the important thing.

 

[hadit]

There's no doubt about that. The manufacturing industry is shifting from manual labor to automation world wide, and the days of a guy coming out of high school, working shifts on the assembly line, putting his kids through college and retiring comfortably are gone. Might as well stop whining about "DEY SENT DA YOBS TA CHINA", because they would have disappeared anyway.

yet a whole lot of people voted for Trump on his promises to bring those jobs back.

Won't they be surprised?

They've been conditioned for years by the "DEY SENT ALL DA YOBS TER CHINER, I TELLS YA!!!" mantra we've heard.

Actually, he'll probably ride the growing economy to a second term. After 8 years of anemic performance under Obama, even a moderately growing economy will be exciting to the voters.

Not sure what you base any of that on besides wishful thinking. If anything, we are probably overdue for a recession. Most people are predicting one will happen in 2018.

Won't that be a kick in the nuts to Obama's legacy? His anemic, weak, slow "recovery" followed by another recession.

 

[Tom Horn]

We are hearing a lot of smoke from the Right Wing about the sanctity of the Electoral College, and how the Founders truly understood that the Will of the People could not be trusted.

Okay, so let's look at that. Let's look at the three times that someone became President because they won the electoral College while losing the Popular Vote.

1876- Rutherford B. Hayes. Won the electoral college because a commission awarded several states to him AFTER he promised to withdraw the remaining troops from the South and ended Reconstruction. As a result, the South was able to roll back the rights of African Americans with impunity and gave us 100 years of Jim Crow. Clearly one of the worst Presidents we've ever had.

1888 - Benjamin Harrison- Made good on a promise to pay lifetime benefits to Civil War Veterans, giving America its first "Billion Dollar Budget". Gave us a recession in 1890 that lead to the Panic of 1893 right before he left office,

2000 - George W. Bush - Ignored warnings of an imminent terror attack,giving us the worst terror incident in history. Went to war on a lie, killing 5000 Americans and a million Iraqis. Fumbled the response to a major hurricane, rendering a major city uninhabitable. And, oh, yes, gave us the worst recession in 80 years by letting his Wall Street Cronies run amok. easily the worst president ever.

So don't worry, guys. This time will be different! I'm sure the Game Show Host who kept a copy of Hitler's speeches next to his bed will do just fine. No, really.

 

[JoeB131]

Your cherry picking on Bush says everything about you. When you give 100% passes to Clinton 9/11 and Nagin on Katrina, how can people take you seriously? If Clinton was clean on 9/11, why did his former National Security Advisor feel compelled to go into the National Archives to steal and/or destroy documents pertaining to 9/11? Why did Clinton's Deputy Attorney General avoid the hot seat and hide behind the 9/11 Commission? Why is Ray Nagin in prison?

How do any of those things make Bush less culpable for his incompetence and corruption?

Bush was an awful president. He fucked up 9/11. He fucked up Katrina. He fucked up Iraq. He fucked up the economy.

 

[JoeB131]

Won't that be a kick in the nuts to Obama's legacy? His anemic, weak, slow "recovery" followed by another recession.

Not really. He got us out of recession and Trump put us right back into one. The commercials write themselves.

They've been conditioned for years by the "DEY SENT ALL DA YOBS TER CHINER, I TELLS YA!!!" mantra we've heard.

Conditioned by who? Hey, guy, a lot of the jobs did go to China. And Mexico. And Malaysia.

The problem is both parties have failed to do the things to make our economies competitive.

 

[Tom Horn]

Bush was an awful president. He fucked up 9/11. He fucked up Katrina. He fucked up Iraq. He fucked up the economy.

Clinton gave us 9/11 and the dot.com recession, Nagin gave us Katrina, the Taliban gave us Iraq when they chickened out before we were ready to stop stomping muslim ass.

 

[JoeB131]

That is public knowledge. We don't know of any covert things he might have done, because they are covert.

What should have he done? Shut down US airspace for months?

How about, "Upgrade security at the airports". How about, "Check with the flight schools and the FAA for any Arab sounding names.

You see, much like we always seem to find out that mass shooters are crazy people within hours of the shooting, we found out everything we needed to know about Mohammed Atta and his merry men within hours of the attack.

But the FAA STILL sent an extention of his credentials to him weeks after he crashed the planes into the buildings.

We know what Covert thing Bush did. he went fishing.

 

[JoeB131]

Clinton gave us 9/11 and the dot.com recession, Nagin gave us Katrina, the Taliban gave us Iraq when they chickened out before we were ready to stop stomping muslim ass.

The Taliban gave us Iraq? Really? I think you need to rethink that one.

 

[martybegan]

That is public knowledge. We don't know of any covert things he might have done, because they are covert.

What should have he done? Shut down US airspace for months?

How about, "Upgrade security at the airports". How about, "Check with the flight schools and the FAA for any Arab sounding names.

You see, much like we always seem to find out that mass shooters are crazy people within hours of the shooting, we found out everything we needed to know about Mohammed Atta and his merry men within hours of the attack.

But the FAA STILL sent an extention of his credentials to him weeks after he crashed the planes into the buildings.

We know what Covert thing Bush did. he went fishing.

1. What mechanism existed for that before the TSA?
2. That would be racist

You are a monday morning quarterback, nothing more or less.

 

[hadit]

Funny, I don't recall seeing you in the meeting. Were you hiding in the corner again?

Bush's comments have been well documented... He didn't give a fuck.

Basically, you would have caused a great deal of angst and frustration and done nothing to prevent the attacks. And this is with the benefit of hindsight. If you were in Bush's shoes and been confronted with dozens of potential threats every single day, you would have reacted in much the same manner as he did. You seem to think that the president faces no threats except the one that actually materializes.

Yawn, guy, I'd have rather have seen bush Try something, then I could sy, "Well, at least he tried".

He didn't try. That was the point. "You covered your ass, then". and went fishing.

You can only say that from hindsight because you know that 9/11 happened. Had Bush taken the measures you advocate and nothing happened, I can accurately predict that bilge that you would spew in his direction.

Now, the president is faced with many potential threats from many fronts every day. How exactly is he supposed to "try something" on each and every one of them? You know very well that if ALL you had was ONE potential threat on that one day that said someone is determined to attack the US and might use airplanes, you would have done precisely nothing, and people like you would be saying you didn't give a flying rat's patoot.

That's not how it was implemented, was it? If attitudes were shifting, the best and least contentious way to implement something is to let attitudes shift until a majority accepts the idea, then let legislation follow. But that's not what democrats did. When the people voted against gay marriage, democrats went to court to overturn their express will and the majority vote. Sorry, but majority votes to democrats are only tools to be used when convenient and discarded when not useful.

yes, when the people vote for something that is BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL, you really really should take them to court.

Maybe they should have crafted laws that didn't openly violate the constitution.

The idea of the popular vote electing the president is, as you say, "BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL", yet you harp on it like it's relevant. It's not, and underscores the reality that to democrats, the popular vote is just a tool. It's not sacred to them at all, so when they rant on about it, they're being dishonest.

Tissue? We did see a once proud political party (the DNC) reduced to a whimpering pile. I'm sure they'll come back at some point because these things are cyclical, but the amount of time it takes for that to happen is dependent on how much reflection they are willing to do. The longer they keep wailing about everything except the weakness of their candidate and ideas, the longer it will take to get back in power. Until they shed themselves of the Clintons, Pelosi, Reid, etc, they will have an uphill battle.

The Republicans have already started on that process, the democrats have yet to do so.

The Republicans supported a Nazi. That's nothing to be proud of. The Von Papen Republicans knew this was wrong and went along with it anyway.

I'd ask you to produce evidence that Trump is a Nazi, but I know you can't/won't, so I won't. Instead I will simply mock you for saying something so mindless and stupid. Consider yourself to be well and truly mocked.

But you stopped the mean old woman... that's the important thing.

It's a very important thing. She was a stumbling disaster and I'm happy that she won't be in the White House without a visitor pass.

 

[federalist50]

We are hearing a lot of smoke from the Right Wing about the sanctity of the Electoral College, and how the Founders truly understood that the Will of the People could not be trusted.

Okay, so let's look at that. Let's look at the three times that someone became President because they won the electoral College while losing the Popular Vote.

·
·
·​

2000 - George W. Bush - Ignored warnings of an imminent terror attack,giving us the worst terror incident in history.

Not that the rest of your post is much better, but this particular claim is so ridiculously easy to respond to.

Mr. Bush wasn't even inaugurated until 2001. He barely had time to settle into the role when the 9/11 attacks happened.

There was another terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, by those associated with the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack, in 1993; under Bill Clinton's watch; eight years before the 9/11 attacks. We knew, then, that there was an organized Islamist terrorist group, that for whatever reason, wanted to bring down the World Trade Center. They had made one attempt, and we had every reason to expect that there'd be another.

President Clinton's administration had from there to the end of his term, seven years, to address this threat. He did nothing, and predictably, another attack did occur, with devastating results. Though the attack finally happened early in the Bush Administration, it was the Clinton Administration's neglect that allowed it to happen.

Didn't every major intelligence agency in the world, including the CIA say that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling WMD's and didn't democrats such as Bill & Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Edwards, etc. all say the same thing? As far as 911 is concerned, I remember there being three times when the CIA had Osama bin Laden in their sights but could not find Bill Clinton (probably hiding in a closet with Monica) in time to approve! Whether or not invading Iraq was the right or wrong decession, it was a bipartisan decesion in the US.Senate!

 

[hadit]

Won't that be a kick in the nuts to Obama's legacy? His anemic, weak, slow "recovery" followed by another recession.

Not really. He got us out of recession and Trump put us right back into one. The commercials write themselves.

"Got us out of a recession". Not very fast and not very robustly. Plus, given the rantings of the Obama sycophants over the last 8 years, Trump's can just as successfully claim that any recession isn't his fault because Obama left things in such a weak state that he couldn't possibly prevent any problems. Besides, he might avert a recession and have a growing economy. That's why a Trump presidency is a crap shoot, while a Hillary presidency would have just been crap.

They've been conditioned for years by the "DEY SENT ALL DA YOBS TER CHINER, I TELLS YA!!!" mantra we've heard.

Conditioned by who? Hey, guy, a lot of the jobs did go to China. And Mexico. And Malaysia.

Sure they did, for the very same reason they're all going to be done by robots, economics. One of the things that killed the goose that laid the golden eggs was us making our corporate taxes the highest in the western world. Foolish, greed and envy driven policies failed. Who would have expected that?

The problem is both parties have failed to do the things to make our economies competitive.

Yup. Lowering corporate taxes would bring a lot of business our way. We're still a massive market if we'd just get out of our own way.

 

[JoeB131]

1. What mechanism existed for that before the TSA?
2. That would be racist

You are a monday morning quarterback, nothing more or less.

1) The Airports are STILL federal jurisdiction under the FAA. They could have assigned federal agents to them to supplement the Rent-a-guards the airlines were using.

2) No one would have cared, and it wouldn't be like you'd do that in the open. I'd like to know WHY were weren't checking every guy named Mohammed going to flight school.

 

[Dot Com]

So hows it going to end RINO..... errr..... Joey?

 

[martybegan]

1. What mechanism existed for that before the TSA?
2. That would be racist

You are a monday morning quarterback, nothing more or less.

1) The Airports are STILL federal jurisdiction under the FAA. They could have assigned federal agents to them to supplement the Rent-a-guards the airlines were using.

2) No one would have cared, and it wouldn't be like you'd do that in the open. I'd like to know WHY were weren't checking every guy named Mohammed going to flight school.

1) What agents? what protocols? what procedures? You forget you are talking about a federal bureaucracy here. and Each airport has other local controllers that could fight the FAA on anything that impacted passenger flow-through. The FAA may regulate airspace, the local agencies run the AIRPORTS.

2) Bullshit. Remember this is PRE 9/11. People would have screamed bloody murder, racism, and racism-y murder.

More monday morning quarterbacking.

 

[hadit]

1. What mechanism existed for that before the TSA?
2. That would be racist

You are a monday morning quarterback, nothing more or less.

1) The Airports are STILL federal jurisdiction under the FAA. They could have assigned federal agents to them to supplement the Rent-a-guards the airlines were using.

2) No one would have cared, and it wouldn't be like you'd do that in the open. I'd like to know WHY were weren't checking every guy named Mohammed going to flight school.

Because that's ethnic profiling, and that's bad, and stuff. Heck, we STILL won't do it, and if you had been president then, you wouldn't have either.

 

[JoeB131]

You can only say that from hindsight because you know that 9/11 happened. Had Bush taken the measures you advocate and nothing happened, I can accurately predict that bilge that you would spew in his direction.

Now, the president is faced with many potential threats from many fronts every day. How exactly is he supposed to "try something" on each and every one of them? You know very well that if ALL you had was ONE potential threat on that one day that said someone is determined to attack the US and might use airplanes, you would have done precisely nothing, and people like you would be saying you didn't give a flying rat's patoot.

The point is, the CIA told him that they were working on Hijacking, and Bush did... nothing.
Now, yeah, if nothing happened, I suppose people would claim racism or something. So what? The point is, he did something.

The idea of the popular vote electing the president is, as you say, "BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL", yet you harp on it like it's relevant. It's not, and underscores the reality that to democrats, the popular vote is just a tool. It's not sacred to them at all, so when they rant on about it, they're being dishonest.

Well, no, actually, it isn't. In fact, the 15th, 17th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendment ALL support the concept of one person, one vote. The thing is, the electors were never meant to be in a suciide pact with their candidate. They were expected to take things into account like < Hey, most people voted against this guy and he's a fucking Nazi".

I'd ask you to produce evidence that Trump is a Nazi, but I know you can't/won't, so I won't. Instead I will simply mock you for saying something so mindless and stupid. Consider yourself to be well and truly mocked.

So when his followers yell "Heil Trump" and he threatens to deport millions of people based on their race or religion, when is he "not a Nazi".... I mean, does he have to come out with a swastika armband to the strums of the Horst Wessel Lied to convince you?

 

[JoeB131]

1) What agents? what protocols? what procedures? You forget you are talking about a federal bureaucracy here. and Each airport has other local controllers that could fight the FAA on anything that impacted passenger flow-through. The FAA may regulate airspace, the local agencies run the AIRPORTS.

2) Bullshit. Remember this is PRE 9/11. People would have screamed bloody murder, racism, and racism-y murder.

More monday morning quarterbacking.

right, because people weren't totally afraid of Arabs until 911... no, really.

 

[martybegan]

You can only say that from hindsight because you know that 9/11 happened. Had Bush taken the measures you advocate and nothing happened, I can accurately predict that bilge that you would spew in his direction.

Now, the president is faced with many potential threats from many fronts every day. How exactly is he supposed to "try something" on each and every one of them? You know very well that if ALL you had was ONE potential threat on that one day that said someone is determined to attack the US and might use airplanes, you would have done precisely nothing, and people like you would be saying you didn't give a flying rat's patoot.

The point is, the CIA told him that they were working on Hijacking, and Bush did... nothing.
Now, yeah, if nothing happened, I suppose people would claim racism or something. So what? The point is, he did something.

The idea of the popular vote electing the president is, as you say, "BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL", yet you harp on it like it's relevant. It's not, and underscores the reality that to democrats, the popular vote is just a tool. It's not sacred to them at all, so when they rant on about it, they're being dishonest.

Well, no, actually, it isn't. In fact, the 15th, 17th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendment ALL support the concept of one person, one vote. The thing is, the electors were never meant to be in a suciide pact with their candidate. They were expected to take things into account like < Hey, most people voted against this guy and he's a fucking Nazi".

I'd ask you to produce evidence that Trump is a Nazi, but I know you can't/won't, so I won't. Instead I will simply mock you for saying something so mindless and stupid. Consider yourself to be well and truly mocked.

So when his followers yell "Heil Trump" and he threatens to deport millions of people based on their race or religion, when is he "not a Nazi".... I mean, does he have to come out with a swastika armband to the strums of the Horst Wessel Lied to convince you?

The CIA also probably told him there was a chance of other types of attacks as well, and other threats. You are guilty of confirmation bias, basically going back to the one warning that "got it right" and ignoring the sea of others that turned out wrong.

 

[JoeB131]

It's a very important thing. She was a stumbling disaster and I'm happy that she won't be in the White House without a visitor pass.

But you got the Nazi instead.. somehow, that's worse.

"Got us out of a recession". Not very fast and not very robustly. Plus, given the rantings of the Obama sycophants over the last 8 years, Trump's can just as successfully claim that any recession isn't his fault because Obama left things in such a weak state that he couldn't possibly prevent any problems. Besides, he might avert a recession and have a growing economy. That's why a Trump presidency is a crap shoot, while a Hillary presidency would have just been crap.

Uh, guy, the Recession of 2008 was the worst recession in 80 years. That we got out of it at all is pretty impressive.

No, Trump won't avert a recession. He doesn't have the skills, and the people he is surrounding himself with are a large part of the problem.

No one is going to buy "It's Obama's Fault" whenObama is leaving with 3% GDP growth and 4.6% unemployment.