Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 14:25:21 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2018 2:27:57 GMT
I didn't agree with almost anything President Obama did, and I couldn't in good consious vote for Hillary either. Never.could.have. But it really didn't matter because Hillary received the electoral votes from California without my vote for her. You may disagree, but I still absolutely believe the electoral college is still needed. If it wasn’t there, less dense mostly rural states, would have less respresentation in entirety. I agree with you--even though I live in a state where my vote will never count. |
|
|
|
Post by gmcwife1 on Apr 8, 2018 5:29:23 GMT
Same here. The man is one hot mess. While I absolutely disagreed with President Obama’s platform quite a bit of the time, I never thought he didn’t have the best interests of the country at heart. To me, Trump cares about Trump and “winning” when a majority of the time, the best legislative course means no one side “wins.” I didn't agree with almost anything President Obama did, and I couldn't in good consious vote for Hillary either. Never.could.have. But it really didn't matter because Hillary received the electoral votes from California without my vote for her. Hillary was taking Washington no matter how I voted, so it was nice I didn’t have to vote for either of them! |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 14:25:21 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2018 15:20:40 GMT
I didn't agree with almost anything President Obama did, and I couldn't in good consious vote for Hillary either. Never.could.have. But it really didn't matter because Hillary received the electoral votes from California without my vote for her. Hillary was taking Washington no matter how I voted, so it was nice I didn’t have to vote for either of them! Exactly. I live in California, and that is how I felt too. |
|
|
|
Post by katieanna on Apr 8, 2018 21:28:28 GMT
Nope. Not missing the point at all. I guess the powers that be in your state decided that it was more beneficial to everyone in the state to have people who had been vetted to meet state driving standards rather than having a ton of unlicensed drivers on the roads. I guess the decision was made that public safety outweighed political ideology. Maybe y'all need a march, LOL!  This, this, this. While each of us can look at what the ethics of laws should be, state government leaders are also in charge of budget which when you have a high number of undocumented workers providing either cheaper labor, or a significant contribution to the bottom line state revenue, it effects the "talk" legislative action for show, vs. the "action" legislative action that ultimately passes. So, if I'm understanding you correctly, the "bottom line" becomes the deciding factor. The law doesn't really matter as long as we get what we want...in this case, "cheap labor" and "a significant contribution to the bottom line state revenue." So, then, it sounds to me like we can just pick and choose to obey whatever laws suit us, and ignore those that are troublesome, inconvenient, or don't "contribute to the bottom line." If those coming here do not have to obey our immigration laws, what incentive for them is there to take any of our laws seriously? If I misunderstood you, I apologize. |
|
|
|
Post by megop on Apr 8, 2018 21:35:44 GMT
This, this, this. While each of us can look at what the ethics of laws should be, state government leaders are also in charge of budget which when you have a high number of undocumented workers providing either cheaper labor, or a significant contribution to the bottom line state revenue, it effects the "talk" legislative action for show, vs. the "action" legislative action that ultimately passes. So, if I'm understanding you correctly, the "bottom line" becomes the deciding factor. The law doesn't really matter as long as we get what we want...in this case, "cheap labor" and "a significant contribution to the bottom line state revenue." So, then, it sounds to me like we can just pick and choose to obey whatever laws suit us, and ignore those that are troublesome, inconvenient, or don't "contribute to the bottom line." If those coming here do not have to obey our immigration laws, what incentive for them is there to take any of our laws seriously? If I misunderstood you, I apologize. My bad I didn't fully explain. I'm referring to how lawmakers "talk" and take effective "action" regarding immigration laws. What use is it to make a law that ultimately doesn't received enough funding to enforce? To me, the "toughening on immigration" is just talk by legislators because action would screw up their state's economy and they know it. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 14:25:21 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2018 14:58:06 GMT
So, if I'm understanding you correctly, the "bottom line" becomes the deciding factor. The law doesn't really matter as long as we get what we want...in this case, "cheap labor" and "a significant contribution to the bottom line state revenue." So, then, it sounds to me like we can just pick and choose to obey whatever laws suit us, and ignore those that are troublesome, inconvenient, or don't "contribute to the bottom line." If those coming here do not have to obey our immigration laws, what incentive for them is there to take any of our laws seriously? If I misunderstood you, I apologize. My bad I didn't fully explain. I'm referring to how lawmakers "talk" and take effective "action" regarding immigration laws. What use is it to make a law that ultimately doesn't received enough funding to enforce? To me, the "toughening on immigration" is just talk by legislators because action would screw up their state's economy and they know it. I've learned, over the years, that politicians will say anything to get themselves elected. After they are elected they seem to have selective memory loss. (both sides here). |
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Apr 9, 2018 17:03:14 GMT
Maybe I didn't see it here but was there a discussion about the 2020 census and the question regarding whether you are a citizen?
|
|
|
|
Post by gmcwife1 on Apr 9, 2018 17:55:07 GMT
Maybe I didn't see it here but was there a discussion about the 2020 census and the question regarding whether you are a citizen? I don’t think you missed it, but it seems like any time we try to have meaningful discussions they get derailed  |
|
|
|
Post by mom on Apr 9, 2018 18:23:18 GMT
Maybe I didn't see it here but was there a discussion about the 2020 census and the question regarding whether you are a citizen? yeah, this wasn't discussed. SaveSave |
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Apr 9, 2018 20:53:23 GMT
I'm surprised. I just don't get the argument being made by the California AG that illegal immigrants should be counted in the census so that higher numbers of representatives in Congress can be apportioned to accommodate the.
|
|
|
|
Post by mamakoala on Apr 9, 2018 23:10:25 GMT
thoughts on cohen's office being searched?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 14:25:22 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2018 0:44:52 GMT
It's quite the sh!tshow. Considering Trump/The Trump Organization are Cohen's only clients, not looking so good. I'm going to be shocked (not!) if Trump goes down because of a porn chick. I keep expecting to wake up one morning and see Trump being taken out of the White House in either handcuffs or a straight jacket.  |
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Apr 10, 2018 1:16:26 GMT
I'm surprised. I just don't get the argument being made by the California AG that illegal immigrants should be counted in the census so that higher numbers of representatives in Congress can be apportioned to accommodate the. The census is to count ALL residents, not just citizens. There are many people living in our country who are not citizens but are here legally and all need to be counted. |
|
|
|
Post by megop on Apr 10, 2018 3:08:56 GMT
Hmmm. And see to me, in order to make any sort of meaningful change, a better idea of the level of people we are talking about here, is an excellent place to begin? Again. Are we going to "talk" answers, or address answers meaningfully? With this said, I absolutely have a high degree of distrust that should that be measured, it would used for political gain, so where does this leave, moderate thinking peeps like me? Just shaking my head at it all I'm afraid.
|
|
|
|
Post by refugeepea on Apr 10, 2018 3:20:07 GMT
thoughts on cohen's office being searched?  I can't believe it may be a porn star that brings him down before Russia does. I couldn't vote for Trump or Hilary in the election either. Another pea who's vote didn't matter. It would have been Republican. HOWEVER, there was a much higher percentage of third party votes. So I don't think it was mostly thrown away.  |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 14:25:21 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2018 3:48:58 GMT
I think, and have thought, that Cohen is certainly in trouble, but I have my doubts that this will bring Trump down. Not because I don’t want it to — I want justice whatever that may be in this case — but because I don’t think it’s a direct enough hit. I really have no idea, though, since so many things haven’t gone the way I thought they would for the last few years.
|
|
|
|
Post by cajeanne on Apr 10, 2018 3:50:35 GMT
thoughts on cohen's office being searched? . I couldn't vote for Trump or Hilary in the election either. Another pea who's vote didn't matter. It would have been Republican. HOWEVER, there was a much higher percentage of third party votes. So I don't think it was mostly thrown away. Can someone explain how this is possible? Didn't he have the affair before he was POTUS? I haven't been following it so I don't know any details. Didn't the left tell everyone that Clinton's affair with Monica was none of our business? I'm so confused.  |
|
|
|
Post by mom on Apr 10, 2018 3:54:41 GMT
I think, and have thought, that Cohen is certainly in trouble, but I have my doubts that this will bring Trump down. Not because I don’t want it to — I want justice whatever that may be in this case — but because I don’t think it’s a direct enough hit. I really have no idea, though, since so many things haven’t gone the way I thought they would for the last few years. This is where I fall. Is this going to be a headache for the American people? Yes. Do I think Cohen is in a shit hole? Oh yeah. Do I think Trump will go down? No. If anything it will keep him from running a second term. But I don't think he will be booted out over it. SaveSave |
|
|
|
Post by Skellinton on Apr 10, 2018 4:02:27 GMT
I can't believe it may be a porn star that brings him down before Russia does. I couldn't vote for Trump or Hilary in the election either. Another pea who's vote didn't matter. It would have been Republican. HOWEVER, there was a much higher percentage of third party votes. So I don't think it was mostly thrown away. Can someone explain how this is possible? Didn't he have the affair before he was POTUS? I haven't been following it so I don't know any details. Didn't the left tell everyone that Clinton's affair with Monica was none of our business? I'm so confused. If Trump orchestrated the payoff to Stormy and they can prove it was to influence the election that could be what brings him down. I don’t know that him just paying her off is enough, I am pretty sure they have to prove he was trying to influence the election with the payoff. You do realize the reason Bill was impeached was not because of the affair, but because he lied under oath? |
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Apr 10, 2018 4:04:58 GMT
I'm surprised. I just don't get the argument being made by the California AG that illegal immigrants should be counted in the census so that higher numbers of representatives in Congress can be apportioned to accommodate the. The census is to count ALL residents, not just citizens. There are many people living in our country who are not citizens but are here legally and all need to be counted. But, Congress is made to give representation to citizens. So people may be here legally but not entitled to have a say in who sits in Congress or to have the number of representatives a state has in Congress by those who are here illegally. It's also use to determine federal funding. So in effect, a state that declares itself a sanctuary state invites thousands of illegals into their state and then looks to get federal money to support them. Not cool. |
|
|
|
Post by mom on Apr 10, 2018 4:06:05 GMT
I can't believe it may be a porn star that brings him down before Russia does. I couldn't vote for Trump or Hilary in the election either. Another pea who's vote didn't matter. It would have been Republican. HOWEVER, there was a much higher percentage of third party votes. So I don't think it was mostly thrown away. Can someone explain how this is possible? Didn't he have the affair before he was POTUS? I haven't been following it so I don't know any details. Didn't the left tell everyone that Clinton's affair with Monica was none of our business? I'm so confused. The affair is not the issue. The issue is whether he used campaign funds to pay her off, whether he lied on the record, and if he broke any campaign laws. But the lying will be the worse of all of it (if it happened, but I am assuming it has/will.) SaveSave |
|
|
|
Post by ntsf on Apr 10, 2018 4:09:51 GMT
well.. the people who wrote the constitution felt many were here and not citizens.. and they wanted them counted, along with slaves...which gave more power to the slave states.. there were economic reasons to count everyone.. and we have had a level of immigrants ever since..
|
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Apr 10, 2018 4:10:20 GMT
This has never been much of a concern before. Let's see, Clinton lied "on the record" about Monica Lewinski, Andrew McCabe lied to Congress under oath...the list goes on. Lying under oath should be a crime; for everyone. But until perjury is a charge that is instituted across the board, I'm not going to get myself worked up if Trump did it.
|
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Apr 10, 2018 4:13:44 GMT
well.. the people who wrote the constitution felt many were here and not citizens.. and they wanted them counted, along with slaves...which gave more power to the slave states.. there were economic reasons to count everyone.. and we have had a level of immigrants ever since.. Well, the people who wrote the Constitution upheld slavery. However, that didn't stop us from changing that. I find people tend to shift on and off the "intent of the founders" argument depending on whether they believe in the particular issue at hand. |
|
|
|
Post by Skellinton on Apr 10, 2018 4:26:18 GMT
This has never been much of a concern before. Let's see, Clinton lied "on the record" about Monica Lewinski, Andrew McCabe lied to Congress under oath...the list goes on. Lying under oath should be a crime; for everyone. But until perjury is a charge that is instituted across the board, I'm not going to get myself worked up if Trump did it. Clinton was impeached for lying under oath. Your point? Or do you really think that wasn’t much of a concern? |
|
|
|
Post by ntsf on Apr 10, 2018 4:27:37 GMT
whether I agree with the founders or not (didn't say)...don't think we will get a change in the constitution on this any time soon or ever.. people are too invested in how it is now to want to change it. and the us was not just about its citizens....hard to say who were the citizens in the first 20 yrs.. it was everyone who got off the boat and declared it. we fought a war with england over it...
|
|
|
|
Post by peasapie on Apr 10, 2018 13:01:04 GMT
This has never been much of a concern before. Let's see, Clinton lied "on the record" about Monica Lewinski, Andrew McCabe lied to Congress under oath...the list goes on. Lying under oath should be a crime; for everyone. But until perjury is a charge that is instituted across the board, I'm not going to get myself worked up if Trump did it. Clinton and Nixon were impeached for lying under oath. |
|
|
|
Post by Skellinton on Apr 10, 2018 13:09:38 GMT
This has never been much of a concern before. Let's see, Clinton lied "on the record" about Monica Lewinski, Andrew McCabe lied to Congress under oath...the list goes on. Lying under oath should be a crime; for everyone. But until perjury is a charge that is instituted across the board, I'm not going to get myself worked up if Trump did it. Clinton and Nixon were impeached for lying under oath. Actually Nixon resigned rather then risk impeachment. But apparently lying is not anything to get worked up over, not like tan suits, sleeveless dresses or flip flops.  |
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Apr 10, 2018 13:12:02 GMT
This has never been much of a concern before. Let's see, Clinton lied "on the record" about Monica Lewinski, Andrew McCabe lied to Congress under oath...the list goes on. Lying under oath should be a crime; for everyone. But until perjury is a charge that is instituted across the board, I'm not going to get myself worked up if Trump did it. Clinton was impeached for lying under oath. Your point? Or do you really think that wasn’t much of a concern? Impeached, but not convicted. An impeachment is simply an accusation. As I said, lying under oath, if proven, should be grounds for immediate removal from public office. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 14:25:21 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2018 13:15:32 GMT
Just because I’m a stickler, Nixon was not impeached. He would have been for obstruction of justice, abuse of presidential powers, and hindrance of the impeachment process (the three articles of impeachment they were going to bring against him) but he resigned before proceedings could continue.
Two U.S. presidents were impeached, Johnson and Clinton, both acquitted.
|
|
