Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 2:56:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2018 2:13:32 GMT
linkThe Hill... “ Connecticut passes bill giving electoral votes to presidential candidate who wins popular vote”“The Connecticut state Senate on Saturday voted in favor of a measure to give the state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote. The move puts the state in a position to become the 11th, in addition to Washington, D.C., to join an interstate compact to pool their electoral college votes for the candidate who wins the popular vote. The state Senate voted 21-14 in favor of the bill, with the support of three GOP lawmakers, The Guardian reported. The measure passed the state House on a 77-73 vote last month. Democratic Gov. Dannel Malloy is expected to sign the legislation, according to the report. With the addition of Connecticut's seven electoral votes, the compact would have 172 in total. For the compact to go into effect nationally, it would need 270 electoral votes - the number needed for a candidate to win the presidency. The nationwide effort to form the compact gained traction after former President George W. Bush won the election without winning the popular vote, and has revived after the 2016 election. President Trump won the Electoral College, but Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes.“ Did you guys know this was happening? The way I understand it, states are voting to give the winner of the popular vote the electoral college votes. Not just the winner of the popular vote for their state but the winner of the popular after all votes are counted in all states. In order for this to work enough states have to approve this that total at least 270 electoral college votes. With CT this pact now had 172 electoral college votes committed. Talk about changing things.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 2:56:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2018 2:15:35 GMT
Exactly who are you blaming for this supposed order to stay out? I've been accused a number of times of saying that, but I never said any such thing. No it wasn't you. It was a few women acting like they got stuck mentally in the eighth grade and said very specifically "stay off our threads". I can't remember who, but I'll find it. It may take me a little bit because the search feature doesn't work as well as it used to, but I'll find it. W I will be interested in seeing these comments.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 2:56:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2018 2:25:01 GMT
Stormy’s lawyer Michael Avenatti....
“Listen up: Not all cases are the same nor is the winning strategy. Here, the constant media/PR pressure has forced Trump, Cohen, et al. to make a series of huge errors and to make damaging admissions helpful to our case. This was not by accident. And we’re not changing. #basta”
&
Josh Marshall...
“He's right about this. Even if people rag on Avenatti's TV ubiquity, it's unquestionable that the aggressive media and legal posture has put Trump and Cohen off balance and forced a series of major errors that are now baked into the legal process going forward. No question.”
I don’t watch this guy on TV because he is in your face annoying. But it seems he has a plan and I have no doubt if he could, trump would do the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on May 7, 2018 3:25:32 GMT
Exactly who are you blaming for this supposed order to stay out? I've been accused a number of times of saying that, but I never said any such thing. No it wasn't you. It was a few women acting like they got stuck mentally in the eighth grade and said very specifically "stay off our threads". I can't remember who, but I'll find it. It may take me a little bit because the search feature doesn't work as well as it used to, but I'll find it. That's okay, no need. As long as you aren't thinking it was me.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 2:56:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2018 4:16:24 GMT
America is well and truly F(#$(*ed. I don't think I can wait until the kids are out of HS to find a saner place to live.
|
|
|
Post by peano on May 7, 2018 4:18:20 GMT
linkThe Hill... “ Connecticut passes bill giving electoral votes to presidential candidate who wins popular vote”“The Connecticut state Senate on Saturday voted in favor of a measure to give the state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote. The move puts the state in a position to become the 11th, in addition to Washington, D.C., to join an interstate compact to pool their electoral college votes for the candidate who wins the popular vote. The state Senate voted 21-14 in favor of the bill, with the support of three GOP lawmakers, The Guardian reported. The measure passed the state House on a 77-73 vote last month. Democratic Gov. Dannel Malloy is expected to sign the legislation, according to the report. With the addition of Connecticut's seven electoral votes, the compact would have 172 in total. For the compact to go into effect nationally, it would need 270 electoral votes - the number needed for a candidate to win the presidency. The nationwide effort to form the compact gained traction after former President George W. Bush won the election without winning the popular vote, and has revived after the 2016 election. President Trump won the Electoral College, but Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes.“ Did you guys know this was happening? The way I understand it, states are voting to give the winner of the popular vote the electoral college votes. Not just the winner of the popular vote for their state but the winner of the popular after all votes are counted in all states. In order for this to work enough states have to approve this that total at least 270 electoral college votes. With CT this pact now had 172 electoral college votes committed. Talk about changing things. I knew about it because I live in Connecticut. However what I read said it will be challenged as unconstitutional.
|
|
|
Post by 950nancy on May 7, 2018 4:20:20 GMT
I read the conservative thread but I don't think I have commented. They clearly want a place to discuss. Sometimes I read and have a reaction of shaking my head to WTF, but you know people do that here too. I recently changed my party affiliation and am trying to listen to both sides of things, but once I hear Trump speak, I just hear lies. I have lots of conservative friends who have definitely changed their minds about Trump in the last few months. They are slowly seeing that he is in it for himself. A few don't care, but at least they see the real guy.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 2:56:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2018 4:24:31 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 2:56:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2018 4:53:28 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 2:56:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2018 5:10:11 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 2:56:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2018 5:12:41 GMT
I don't know, but we could ask Obama AND Comey since they both did just that. You can save your outrage over bringing them up for a time when your side stops constantly doing it whenever it suits THEM. YOU can't have it both ways either. Hahaha....you are hilarious. If not predictable. Yeah, big deal, so is pretty much everyone here.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 2:56:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2018 5:14:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on May 7, 2018 6:12:23 GMT
Just to be clear, what I actually said—IN FULL—because context matters and we all know that Gia has issues with context...
“Gee...do we nasty mean liberals need to make “rules” or have “safe threads” where certain peas can’t be mean, call us names, or shut us down?
Go play in your own sandbox...”
My actual statement is not anything remotely close to telling conservatives that they cannot post on certain threads.
Not to leave out that it was in response to 2 snarky slams at liberal peas on that thread.
I’m not surprised at All—just another example of Gia twisting the words and meaning/context...a regular reoccurrence for her. Typical.
Smh
|
|
|
Post by Merge on May 7, 2018 11:01:39 GMT
Oh FFS. Our threads = threads started by us. Not threads where we are the only ones who can post, or threads where conservatives are expected to only respond with carefully chosen words that could not possibly upset anyone, and no disagreement or objections. You're really reaching to extrapolate that I said those are "liberals only" threads. Literally no one said, very specifically, to stay off liberal-started threads - as you claimed above. And if you actually read what I said on that thread instead of just picking out what you believe are the "gotcha" words, the context was an observation that conservatives were perfectly happy to have a thread just for them where they could bash us at will, without being challenged (which is what the conservative thread was doing at that time, and which continues to be the MO from time to time). There's nothing in that thread that implies the meaning you took from the simple word "our." But then there's the line in the start of the conservative thread (which exists nowhere in the anti-Trump threads) that explicitly states that is for conservatives to discuss things amongst themselves. Later it was clarified that liberals are allowed only if they conform to a behavior standard that is not enforced for conservative members, as shown by the vile name-calling tolerated by your members toward us. Rather than call out your member for not following the behavior expectation, you all just encouraged her to stop responding to my posts, as if I was the problem. Maybe you all are afraid of having her ire turned on you? Not sure. You have told me before that you will post what you want, where you want and how you want. I will do the same. And I will ignore those whose posts I don't wish to engage with. I suggest you do the same.
|
|
imsirius
Prolific Pea
Call it as I see it.
Posts: 7,661
Location: Floating in the black veil.
Jul 12, 2014 19:59:28 GMT
|
Post by imsirius on May 7, 2018 12:01:22 GMT
America is well and truly F(#$(*ed. I don't think I can wait until the kids are out of HS to find a saner place to live. That is ADORABLE. ADORABLE?! Wtf is wrong with her?
Will it be adorable if he grows up thinking shooting people is adorable? Holy fuck...I am so glad to live in Canada.
|
|
|
Post by sleepingbooty on May 7, 2018 12:09:23 GMT
America is well and truly F(#$(*ed. I don't think I can wait until the kids are out of HS to find a saner place to live. That is ADORABLE. ADORABLE?! Wtf is wrong with her? Will it be adorable if he grows up thinking shooting people is adorable? Holy fuck...I am so glad to live in Canada. *nopes out of this thread*
|
|
|
Post by Merge on May 7, 2018 13:04:43 GMT
Somebody I know - possibly one of you - posted the graphic in this article to FB. This page gives a detailed explanation of each of the pyramid levels. I would like to propose that we all do our best to limit our disagreements on this board to the top three lines of the pyramid. We may all recognize ourselves from time to time in the bottom tiers of the pyramid (I'll be the first to say that I'm guilty of responding to tone rather than substance, for example). But going forward, I'm going to do my best to hold myself to a higher standard. If we all do the same, I think it will keep the board less contentious while also maintaining a high level of discourse (that to me being an actual argument on the merits, which I find interesting and very necessary for the good of our country).
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 2:56:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2018 13:33:15 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 2:56:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2018 13:55:50 GMT
This from trump....
“The 13 Angry Democrats in charge of the Russian Witch Hunt are starting to find out that there is a Court System in place that actually protects people from injustice...and just wait ‘till the Courts get to see your unrevealed Conflicts of Interest!”
Prompted this response from PolitiFact....
“We looked at a similar claim by the president about the partisanship on the special counsel's team, and this is an incomplete analysis -- starting with the fact that Robert Mueller is a Republican. bit.ly/2HTJkEV”
Its been repeated over and over again that Mueller is a Republican, enough times that even trump should know this. But to admit that Mueller and a chunk of his team are Republicans does not fit trump’s narrative the Democrats are out to get him. So he lies.
This is the man the Republicans in Congress chose to protect. What does it say about them?
|
|
|
Post by crazy4scraps on May 7, 2018 15:06:55 GMT
America is well and truly F(#$(*ed. I don't think I can wait until the kids are out of HS to find a saner place to live. At the end, the woman says, “That is adorable!” Ahh, NO. That is just freaking stupid. The kid was playing with that gun like it was a toy. SMDH. I’m becoming completely convinced that some people have absolutely ZERO common sense.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 2:56:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2018 16:11:08 GMT
Kyle Griffin...
“Devin Nunes reportedly plans to urge lawmakers "this week" to hold Jeff Sessions in contempt of Congress for failing to hand over classified Russia probe materials, despite DOJ informing Nunes the info could pose grave implications for national security.”
This information from the on going Mueller investigation that Nunes wants so he can give to the president.
It’s amazing how low the GOP will go to protect a petty pathological liar who is a bully.
But it’s ok because “they won” and they need to do what they need to do to keep them in power.
|
|
pinklady
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,881
Nov 14, 2016 23:47:03 GMT
|
Post by pinklady on May 7, 2018 16:17:23 GMT
America is well and truly F(#$(*ed. I don't think I can wait until the kids are out of HS to find a saner place to live. Great a future school shooter in the making. Guess it’s NRA parents who make kids numb to guns, not video games.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 2:56:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2018 16:31:53 GMT
Kyle Griffin...
“Carter Page says his testimony before the Senate Intel Committee was literal torture: "Read the definition in [the U.N. Convention against Torture] ... if you had the full details of what they put me through you would probably understand," Page told Axios.”
I don’t know, I read a blurb this morning about CIA torture where they had the guy standing, naked with a bag over his head and brought in a drill and ran it suggesting they were going to use the drill on his naked body..
So unless the Senate Intelligence Committee resorts to that kind of questioning, I suggest you man up and answer the questions. Kind of like Hillary did for 11 hours.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 2:56:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2018 16:47:41 GMT
linkHow ethics has gone to hell in a hand basket in the trump administration.... Walter Shaub - “ Mar-a-Lago isn’t the ‘Winter White House.’ It’s just an embarrassing cash grab.” “The “Southern White House” is a nearly perfect symbol of the Trump administration’s ethical failings. President Trump has on a number of occasions tweeted or spoken the phrase “Southern White House” in reference to Mar-a-Lago, his private club in Palm Beach, Fla. Last month, for example, while sitting beside Japan’s prime minister in front of a television crew at Mar-a-Lago, he proclaimed that the club is “indeed” the Southern White House, boasting, “And again, many, many people want to be here. Many of the leaders want to be here. They request specifically.” But there is no “Southern White House.” The Confederate States of America claimed an executive mansion, first in Alabama and then in Richmond, but the Union’s victory in the Civil War ended that assertion. Other presidents had nicknames for their homes away from Washington, but those were private residences. President George W. Bush, for example, informally dubbed his private ranch in Texas the “Western White House” and even met foreign officials there, but it was a relatively private retreat. The ranch was a personal residence. Bush was not implying a link to government, and he definitely was not selling membership privileges with respect to the unassuming four-bedroom, single-story home on his ranch. Now, there is only the sitting president’s conflicting financial interest 1,000 miles south of the seat of government. In contrast to the homes of his predecessors, Trump’s ostentatious club is a commercial enterprise featuring guest suites, ballrooms, dining, a beach, pools, a spa, tennis courts, a “chip and putt” course, a fitness center and access to his affiliated golf courses. The phrase “Southern White House” is a transparent marketing pitch, connoting the availability of access to power for a price. Interested parties — be they captains of industry or agents of hostile foreign governments — can buy insider access to a place the president frequents. The initiation fee, which Trump doubled upon winning the election, is $200,000. He may belong to the people now, but the club belongs to him. Prospective purchasers can rest assured that their cash will still reach him.This “Southern White House” branding is part of a broader effort that aims to lend official sanction to the president’s properties. When a lobbyist announced at a White House meeting that he was a member of one of Trump’s clubs, Trump responded, “Very good, very good.” Hope Hicks once masterfully pitched Mar-a-Lago’s link to government as the fulfillment of destiny, writing in an email to a reporter that, “[T]he president looks forward to using the property as the Southern White House, as it was intended to be.” This allusion to what Mar-a-Lago “was intended to be” is a sinister distortion of history. Socialite Marjorie Merriweather Post donated the property to the federal government upon her death, in the hope, a friend of hers told the New York Times, that it might serve as a residence for hosting foreign dignitaries to rival those used for diplomacy in Europe. Exorbitant maintenance costs, however, led the government to return Mar-a-Lago to her foundation. Trump later bought the property and established his private club there. Post’s bequest could be read generously as an attempt to provide a venue for productive international relationships. Alternatively, one might cynically understand it as an elitist attempt to put American presidents and diplomats on a footing with sophisticated international counterparts. Either way, her plans became irrelevant when the government disowned the property, and they only withered further when Trump purchased it. Rather than establishing a second house of the people in Florida, he built a profitable leisure center for the privileged. The link between government and Trump’s financial interests is anything but normal. One popular definition holds that corruption is the misuse of entrusted authority for private gain. We entrust our leaders with great power, and it is their responsibility not only to use that authority solely for our benefit but also to demonstrate that they are using it solely for our benefit. Branding the president’s for-profit club as government-linked demonstrates the opposite.
Trump’s supporters might remind us that he is exempt from the primary criminal conflict of interest statute, 18 U.S.C. § 208, and most of the regulatory standards of conduct. This is true, but past presidents understood that their exemption from ethics requirements was not a reward for attaining high office; it was a practical necessity. The primary conflict of interest statute requires executive branch employees to recuse themselves from — meaning stay out of — any particular matters affecting their financial interests. A president simply cannot recuse from anything without shirking constitutional duties and depriving us of our chief executive official. The standards of conduct, which contain rules on such things as gifts, would be similarly difficult to apply to the president due to protocols of international diplomacy and other matters. Heads of state exchange gifts as signs of goodwill between nations, for instance. Past presidents knew, however, that it would be wrong to hold themselves to lower ethical standards than those to which they held their subordinates. After all, the whole idea of government ethics is to ensure that power is used for the benefit of the people, and nobody in our government has more power than our president. Accordingly, all past presidents who took office since enactment of the Ethics in Government Act in 1978 fulfilled the spirit of the primary conflict of interest law by either divesting their conflicting financial interests or establishing qualified blind or diversified trusts certified by the Office of Government Ethics. They also adhered as closely as practicable to the standards of conduct, including the provisions on misuse of position. Trump, who once pledged to “in no way have a conflict of interest with my various businesses,” failed to live up to this honorable tradition when he took office. Since then he has applied himself vigorously to monetizing the presidency. Making explicit the commingling of personal and public interests, the Trump Tower gift shop has been caught grotesquely hawking a Trump mug bearing the presidential seal, and the Trump Organization ordered tee markers with that seal for his golf courses. Each of his trips to his properties is an advertisement, inasmuch as the media must follow him and that he never misses an opportunity for promotion. Who could forget his recounting that his club was serving “the most beautiful piece of chocolate cake that you’ve ever seen” while he was bombing Syria? I would say Trump is getting the kind of advertising money can’t buy, but we taxpayers are paying tens of millions for him to spend almost a third of his days in office visiting his properties. Some of the money goes into his pocket. We learned last fall that the Secret Service had paid him over $150,000 in golf cart rental fees for the privilege of guarding his life while he golfs. Last month, Public Citizen issued a report finding that Trump’s businesses had billed $15.1 million to campaign, political committee and federal government sources since he first launched his presidential campaign. The spectacle of businesses, industry associations, politicians, political groups, charities and even countries booking events at his properties suggests that they are using his businesses to ingratiate themselves with him. Even if any have innocent motives, the appearance problem undermines government legitimacy all the same. Trump certainly hasn’t discouraged anyone looking to curry his favor. His businesses don’t refuse service to foreign governments. He has not pledged to stop visiting his properties, nor has he forbid his appointees from attending events at them. The White House doesn’t decline meetings with visitors who stay in his nearby Washington hotel, and sightings of White House staffers at the hotel’s bar are now commonplace. This profiteering sets a bad tone from the top. It tells the 2.8 million civilian federal employees who work for him that the man at the top doesn’t care about government ethics. This departure from our government’s norms creates a pressure that the government ethics program may not be able to withstand indefinitely, especially if Trump’s successor engages in similar behavior. We have already seen a trickle-down effect on his appointees, with two Cabinet officials ousted for ethics problems and accusations of unethical behavior against EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, as well as a growing list of scandals that seem to erupt weekly, sometimes daily, in this administration. We should hope that his behavior is an aberration and that future Republican and Democratic administrations will restore the ethical norms of government. In the meantime, the phrase “Southern White House” is a symbol of corruption that should set alarm bells ringing.”
It should set off alarm bells but we see the GOP in Congress turning a blind eye to this.
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on May 7, 2018 16:55:33 GMT
Going forward, please don’t mention the conservative thread on this thread and future catch all threads. If while peaking you see a topic there that isn’t here but would like talk about just bring it up but don’t mention where you got it from. I heard the story about the judge on the radio the day it was mentioned, but I didn't bother mentioning that- the Conservative thread just happened to be where I saw the link to the story. But I won't do that again, so as to not be accused of something I didn't mean to do!
|
|
|
Post by dewryce on May 7, 2018 16:57:39 GMT
Legal peas please help me understand. How is his talking a risk if he didn't do anything wrong and knows of no wrong doing?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 2:56:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2018 17:01:10 GMT
Going forward, please don’t mention the conservative thread on this thread and future catch all threads. If while peaking you see a topic there that isn’t here but would like talk about just bring it up but don’t mention where you got it from. I heard the story about the judge on the radio the day it was mentioned, but I didn't bother mentioning that- the Conservative thread just happened to be where I saw the link to the story. But I won't do that again, so as to not be accused of something I didn't mean to do! Yea the best way not to be accused of “cross thread insulting” is not to mention the you know who thread. Not that I believed we did any.
|
|
|
Post by sabrinae on May 7, 2018 17:02:46 GMT
Legal peas please help me understand. How is his talking a risk if he didn't do anything wrong and knows of no wrong doing? If he didn’t do anything wrong and can actually tell the truth then there isn’t any risk. Problem is Giuliani made a pretty good case for campaign finance violations when he appeared on Fox and gave more supporting evidence for obstruction in regards to firing Comey. His attorneys can’t seem to tell a consistent story. There’s no way Trump can remain consistent. The easy charge to get him on if he testifies is perjury/lying under oath. The same thing that lead to Clinton’s impeachment. There is no way Trump can consistently maintain a story— he illustrates that every day
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on May 7, 2018 17:11:07 GMT
Somebody I know - possibly one of you - posted the graphic in this article to FB. This page gives a detailed explanation of each of the pyramid levels. I would like to propose that we all do our best to limit our disagreements on this board to the top three lines of the pyramid. We may all recognize ourselves from time to time in the bottom tiers of the pyramid (I'll be the first to say that I'm guilty of responding to tone rather than substance, for example). But going forward, I'm going to do my best to hold myself to a higher standard. If we all do the same, I think it will keep the board less contentious while also maintaining a high level of discourse (that to me being an actual argument on the merits, which I find interesting and very necessary for the good of our country). I even think straight contradiction is fine. Without sass, name calling and stuff like that. I mean sometimes I jst want to say - “I’m not going to agree with you” without doing a research paper to support it. I don’t always have time to hunt down 3 supportive sources of documentation. But I’m not a journalist either I’m just here to chat on my lunch hour and I might not want to do a complete mini thesis to participate.
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on May 7, 2018 17:13:12 GMT
If he didn’t do anything wrong and can actually tell the truth then there isn’t any risk. I think their 'argument' is that the investigators could (somehow) 'force' trump into answering questions with lies- not that he MEANT to lie, of course, but that they could 'coerce' him INTO lying or they could confuse him sooooo much with their legalese that he misstates something-- at least that's how I've interpreted some of the conservative's reticence. The big, bad investigators would confuse meek, mild Donald Trump so, so much that he'd say something incriminating just because they 'got' him to do it.
|
|