the electorial votes (Page 7): Same ole, same ole lie. Once you discount all the 11 million illegals that voted in Kalifornia, Trump won the popular vote.

Nuclearian Loc: I live in a Fascist, Liberal State

rustex007 wrote:

Why is it?, that nobody is talking about the electoral votes, that's their fault, they're is the blunder, when they gave trump the presidency against the majority of popular votes and knowingly how trump was not an intellectual person capable to hold office

Same ole, same ole lie. Once you discount all the 11 million illegals that voted in Kalifornia, Trump won the popular vote.

Docadhoc Loc: Elsewhere

Nickolai wrote:

I'm not making it up its what the history books tell me. I wasn't there so I have to rely on history books If some one can prove the historians are wrong I'll admit I've been wrong

Nick, you must not understand what you read. I'll give you one example. You recently stated that our deficit has reduced consistently since 2010. We need go back only 2 years to see the deficit increased significantly in 2016 compared to 2015. You are wrong too frequently to be credible.

Nuclearian Loc: I live in a Fascist, Liberal State

rustex007 wrote:

No, just let them take responsibility for electing an ignorant crazy maniac as president and taking the country to the gutters.

Why so upset? Going to have to move out of your parents basement, and get a job? Us REAL Americans are tired of taking care of lazy worthless public leechers.

Docadhoc Loc: Elsewhere

Nickolai wrote:

https://youtu.be/7bdZvyxBPxA
Trump could not care less about blue collar working class people he cannot come close to relating to them but he was advised that if he was to win he would have to turn the rust belt fed so he fed into it with the bull about jobs, jobs, jobs, but he filled the swamp with billionaires

Why are you not angry that Hillary completely.ignored them? Where was her concern for them?

cesspool jones Loc: atlanta

Nickolai wrote:

https://youtu.be/7bdZvyxBPxA
Trump could not care less about blue collar working class people he cannot come close to relating to them but he was advised that if he was to win he would have to turn the rust belt fed so he fed into it with the bull about jobs, jobs, jobs, but he filled the swamp with billionaires

Why don't you STFU!....POS blithering fucking moron! If I only had 1 bullet and you and ISIS were standing in front of me....ISIS dude gets another day.

Nickolai

Larry the Legend wrote:

Bzzzt! Incorrect. Here's a rundown of how it all shakes out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGL8CiUtXF0

I'm quite aware that the US is not a democracy but a Republic and what Benjamin Franklin said I've seen this video before It's been said that the rich are different than you and me. What most Americans don't know is that they're also quite different from each other, and that which faction is currently running the show ultimately makes a vast difference in the kind of country we are.
Right now, a lot of our problems stem directly from the fact that the wrong sort has finally gotten the upper hand; a particularly brutal and anti-democratic strain of American aristocrat that the other elites have mostly managed to keep away from the levers of power since the Revolution. Worse: this bunch has set a very ugly tone that's corrupted how people with power and money behave in every corner of our culture. Here's what happened, and how it happened, and what it means for America now.
Michael Lind first called out the existence of this conflict in his 2006 book, Made In Texas: George W. Bush and the Southern Takeover of American Politics. He argued that much of American history has been characterized by a struggle between two historical factions among the American elite -- and that the election of George W. Bush was a definitive sign that the wrong side was winning.

For most of our history, American economics, culture and politics have been dominated by a New England-based Yankee aristocracy that was rooted in Puritan communitarian values, educated at the Ivies and marinated in an ethic of noblesse oblige (the conviction that those who possess wealth and power are morally bound to use it for the betterment of society). While they've done their share of damage to the notion of democracy in the name of profit (as all financial elites inevitably do), this group has, for the most part, tempered its predatory instincts with a code that valued mass education and human rights; held up public service as both a duty and an honor; and imbued them with the belief that once you made your nut, you had a moral duty to do something positive with it for the betterment of mankind. Your own legacy depended on this.Among the presidents, this strain gave us both Roosevelts, Woodrow Wilson, John F. Kennedy, and Poppy Bush -- nerdy, wonky intellectuals who, for all their faults, at least took the business of good government seriously. Among financial elites, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet still both partake strongly of this traditional view of wealth as power to be used for good. Even if we don't like their specific choices, the core impulse to improve the world is a good one -- and one that's been conspicuously absent in other aristocratic cultures.

Which brings us to that other great historical American nobility -- the plantation aristocracy of the lowland South, which has been notable throughout its 400-year history for its utter lack of civic interest, its hostility to the very ideas of democracy and human rights, its love of hierarchy, its fear of technology and progress, its reliance on brutality and violence to maintain "order," and its outright celebration of inequality as an order divinely ordained by God. But perhaps the most destructive piece of the Southern elites' worldview is the extremely anti-democratic way it defined the very idea of liberty. In Yankee Puritan culture, both liberty and authority resided mostly with the community, and not so much with individuals. Communities had both the freedom and the duty to govern themselves as they wished (through town meetings and so on), to invest in their collective good, and to favor or punish individuals whose behavior enhanced or threatened the whole (historically, through community rewards such as elevation to positions of public authority and trust; or community punishments like shaming, shunning or banishing).

Individuals were expected to balance their personal needs and desires against the greater good of the collective -- and, occasionally, to make sacrifices for the betterment of everyone. (This is why the Puritan wealthy tended to dutifully pay their taxes, tithe in their churches and donate generously to create hospitals, parks and universities.) In return, the community had a solemn and inescapable moral duty to care for its sick, educate its young and provide for its needy -- the kind of support that maximizes each person's liberty to live in dignity and achieve his or her potential. A Yankee community that failed to provide such support brought shame upon itself. To this day, our progressive politics are deeply informed by this Puritan view of ordered liberty.

In the old South, on the other hand, the degree of liberty you enjoyed was a direct function of your God-given place in the social hierarchy. The higher your status, the more authority you had, and the more "liberty" you could exercise -- which meant, in practical terms, that you had the right to take more "liberties" with the lives, rights and property of other people. Like an English lord unfettered from the Magna Carta, nobody had the authority to tell a Southern gentleman what to do with resources under his control. In this model, that's what liberty is. If you don't have the freedom to rape, beat, torture, kill, enslave, or exploit your underlings (including your wife and children) with impunity -- or abuse the land, or enforce rules on others that you will never have to answer to yourself -- then you can't really call yourself a free man.
When a Southern conservative talks about "losing his liberty," the loss of this absolute domination over the people and property under his control -- and, worse, the loss of status and the resulting risk of being held accountable for laws that he was once exempt from -- is what he's really talking about. In this view, freedom is a zero-sum game. Anything that gives more freedom and rights to lower-status people can't help but put serious limits on the freedom of the upper classes to use those people as they please. It cannot be any other way. So they find Yankee-style rights expansions absolutely intolerable, to the point where they're willing to fight and die to preserve their divine right to rule.

Once we understand the two different definitions of "liberty" at work here, a lot of other things suddenly make much more sense. We can understand the traditional Southern antipathy to education, progress, public investment, unionization, equal opportunity, and civil rights. The fervent belief among these elites that they should completely escape any legal or social accountability for any harm they cause. Their obsessive attention to where they fall in the status hierarchies. And, most of all -- the unremitting and unapologetic brutality with which they've defended these "liberties" across the length of their history.

Worried for our children Loc: Massachusetts

Nickolai wrote:

I'm quite aware that the US is not a democracy but a Republic and what Benjamin Franklin said I've seen this video before It's been said that the rich are different than you and me. What most Americans don't know is that they're also quite different from each other, and that which faction is currently running the show ultimately makes a vast difference in the kind of country we are.
Right now, a lot of our problems stem directly from the fact that the wrong sort has finally gotten the upper hand; a particularly brutal and anti-democratic strain of American aristocrat that the other elites have mostly managed to keep away from the levers of power since the Revolution. Worse: this bunch has set a very ugly tone that's corrupted how people with power and money behave in every corner of our culture. Here's what happened, and how it happened, and what it means for America now.
Michael Lind first called out the existence of this conflict in his 2006 book, Made In Texas: George W. Bush and the Southern Takeover of American Politics. He argued that much of American history has been characterized by a struggle between two historical factions among the American elite -- and that the election of George W. Bush was a definitive sign that the wrong side was winning.

For most of our history, American economics, culture and politics have been dominated by a New England-based Yankee aristocracy that was rooted in Puritan communitarian values, educated at the Ivies and marinated in an ethic of noblesse oblige (the conviction that those who possess wealth and power are morally bound to use it for the betterment of society). While they've done their share of damage to the notion of democracy in the name of profit (as all financial elites inevitably do), this group has, for the most part, tempered its predatory instincts with a code that valued mass education and human rights; held up public service as both a duty and an honor; and imbued them with the belief that once you made your nut, you had a moral duty to do something positive with it for the betterment of mankind. Your own legacy depended on this.Among the presidents, this strain gave us both Roosevelts, Woodrow Wilson, John F. Kennedy, and Poppy Bush -- nerdy, wonky intellectuals who, for all their faults, at least took the business of good government seriously. Among financial elites, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet still both partake strongly of this traditional view of wealth as power to be used for good. Even if we don't like their specific choices, the core impulse to improve the world is a good one -- and one that's been conspicuously absent in other aristocratic cultures.

Which brings us to that other great historical American nobility -- the plantation aristocracy of the lowland South, which has been notable throughout its 400-year history for its utter lack of civic interest, its hostility to the very ideas of democracy and human rights, its love of hierarchy, its fear of technology and progress, its reliance on brutality and violence to maintain "order," and its outright celebration of inequality as an order divinely ordained by God. But perhaps the most destructive piece of the Southern elites' worldview is the extremely anti-democratic way it defined the very idea of liberty. In Yankee Puritan culture, both liberty and authority resided mostly with the community, and not so much with individuals. Communities had both the freedom and the duty to govern themselves as they wished (through town meetings and so on), to invest in their collective good, and to favor or punish individuals whose behavior enhanced or threatened the whole (historically, through community rewards such as elevation to positions of public authority and trust; or community punishments like shaming, shunning or banishing).

Individuals were expected to balance their personal needs and desires against the greater good of the collective -- and, occasionally, to make sacrifices for the betterment of everyone. (This is why the Puritan wealthy tended to dutifully pay their taxes, tithe in their churches and donate generously to create hospitals, parks and universities.) In return, the community had a solemn and inescapable moral duty to care for its sick, educate its young and provide for its needy -- the kind of support that maximizes each person's liberty to live in dignity and achieve his or her potential. A Yankee community that failed to provide such support brought shame upon itself. To this day, our progressive politics are deeply informed by this Puritan view of ordered liberty.

In the old South, on the other hand, the degree of liberty you enjoyed was a direct function of your God-given place in the social hierarchy. The higher your status, the more authority you had, and the more "liberty" you could exercise -- which meant, in practical terms, that you had the right to take more "liberties" with the lives, rights and property of other people. Like an English lord unfettered from the Magna Carta, nobody had the authority to tell a Southern gentleman what to do with resources under his control. In this model, that's what liberty is. If you don't have the freedom to rape, beat, torture, kill, enslave, or exploit your underlings (including your wife and children) with impunity -- or abuse the land, or enforce rules on others that you will never have to answer to yourself -- then you can't really call yourself a free man.
When a Southern conservative talks about "losing his liberty," the loss of this absolute domination over the people and property under his control -- and, worse, the loss of status and the resulting risk of being held accountable for laws that he was once exempt from -- is what he's really talking about. In this view, freedom is a zero-sum game. Anything that gives more freedom and rights to lower-status people can't help but put serious limits on the freedom of the upper classes to use those people as they please. It cannot be any other way. So they find Yankee-style rights expansions absolutely intolerable, to the point where they're willing to fight and die to preserve their divine right to rule.

Once we understand the two different definitions of "liberty" at work here, a lot of other things suddenly make much more sense. We can understand the traditional Southern antipathy to education, progress, public investment, unionization, equal opportunity, and civil rights. The fervent belief among these elites that they should completely escape any legal or social accountability for any harm they cause. Their obsessive attention to where they fall in the status hierarchies. And, most of all -- the unremitting and unapologetic brutality with which they've defended these "liberties" across the length of their history.

I'm quite aware that the US is not a democracy but... (show quote)

You really shouldn't plagiarize, especially from fake news organizations like "alternet" http://www.alternet.org/story/156071/conservative_southern_values_revived%3A_how_a_brutal_strain_of_american_aristocrats_have_come_to_rule_america

- I sure hope our new member Rusty, isn't falling for your astounding ignorance.

America Only Loc: From the right hand of God

Nickolai wrote:

That is not a true statement there is no evidence of millions of fraudulent votes It is Complete Bull Shit Like the claim that Obama wiretapped Trump Tower Bull Shit

There is PLENTY of proof...and proof that a large number of idiots like you ARE registered to vote in more than one State.

Further, you have already had some of your fellow dip sticks state they had Trump under surveillance...so here you are spurting off your PIE HOLE lying again...spreading false statements. Have you EVER told the truth even one time in your life? NO, I am not talking about you stating you love to fornicate with Goats, I'm talking about the crap you post regarding politics or the economy, etc.

You are one of a few really messed up dung piles on this website. OH before you get to involved on posting more lies...you best go check your dishwasher machine...for your false teeth you put in for a wash!

America Only Loc: From the right hand of God

Nickolai wrote:

I'm quite aware that the US is not a democracy but a Republic and what Benjamin Franklin said I've seen this video before It's been said that the rich are different than you and me. What most Americans don't know is that they're also quite different from each other, and that which faction is currently running the show ultimately makes a vast difference in the kind of country we are.
Right now, a lot of our problems stem directly from the fact that the wrong sort has finally gotten the upper hand; a particularly brutal and anti-democratic strain of American aristocrat that the other elites have mostly managed to keep away from the levers of power since the Revolution. Worse: this bunch has set a very ugly tone that's corrupted how people with power and money behave in every corner of our culture. Here's what happened, and how it happened, and what it means for America now.
Michael Lind first called out the existence of this conflict in his 2006 book, Made In Texas: George W. Bush and the Southern Takeover of American Politics. He argued that much of American history has been characterized by a struggle between two historical factions among the American elite -- and that the election of George W. Bush was a definitive sign that the wrong side was winning.

For most of our history, American economics, culture and politics have been dominated by a New England-based Yankee aristocracy that was rooted in Puritan communitarian values, educated at the Ivies and marinated in an ethic of noblesse oblige (the conviction that those who possess wealth and power are morally bound to use it for the betterment of society). While they've done their share of damage to the notion of democracy in the name of profit (as all financial elites inevitably do), this group has, for the most part, tempered its predatory instincts with a code that valued mass education and human rights; held up public service as both a duty and an honor; and imbued them with the belief that once you made your nut, you had a moral duty to do something positive with it for the betterment of mankind. Your own legacy depended on this.Among the presidents, this strain gave us both Roosevelts, Woodrow Wilson, John F. Kennedy, and Poppy Bush -- nerdy, wonky intellectuals who, for all their faults, at least took the business of good government seriously. Among financial elites, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet still both partake strongly of this traditional view of wealth as power to be used for good. Even if we don't like their specific choices, the core impulse to improve the world is a good one -- and one that's been conspicuously absent in other aristocratic cultures.

Which brings us to that other great historical American nobility -- the plantation aristocracy of the lowland South, which has been notable throughout its 400-year history for its utter lack of civic interest, its hostility to the very ideas of democracy and human rights, its love of hierarchy, its fear of technology and progress, its reliance on brutality and violence to maintain "order," and its outright celebration of inequality as an order divinely ordained by God. But perhaps the most destructive piece of the Southern elites' worldview is the extremely anti-democratic way it defined the very idea of liberty. In Yankee Puritan culture, both liberty and authority resided mostly with the community, and not so much with individuals. Communities had both the freedom and the duty to govern themselves as they wished (through town meetings and so on), to invest in their collective good, and to favor or punish individuals whose behavior enhanced or threatened the whole (historically, through community rewards such as elevation to positions of public authority and trust; or community punishments like shaming, shunning or banishing).

Individuals were expected to balance their personal needs and desires against the greater good of the collective -- and, occasionally, to make sacrifices for the betterment of everyone. (This is why the Puritan wealthy tended to dutifully pay their taxes, tithe in their churches and donate generously to create hospitals, parks and universities.) In return, the community had a solemn and inescapable moral duty to care for its sick, educate its young and provide for its needy -- the kind of support that maximizes each person's liberty to live in dignity and achieve his or her potential. A Yankee community that failed to provide such support brought shame upon itself. To this day, our progressive politics are deeply informed by this Puritan view of ordered liberty.

In the old South, on the other hand, the degree of liberty you enjoyed was a direct function of your God-given place in the social hierarchy. The higher your status, the more authority you had, and the more "liberty" you could exercise -- which meant, in practical terms, that you had the right to take more "liberties" with the lives, rights and property of other people. Like an English lord unfettered from the Magna Carta, nobody had the authority to tell a Southern gentleman what to do with resources under his control. In this model, that's what liberty is. If you don't have the freedom to rape, beat, torture, kill, enslave, or exploit your underlings (including your wife and children) with impunity -- or abuse the land, or enforce rules on others that you will never have to answer to yourself -- then you can't really call yourself a free man.
When a Southern conservative talks about "losing his liberty," the loss of this absolute domination over the people and property under his control -- and, worse, the loss of status and the resulting risk of being held accountable for laws that he was once exempt from -- is what he's really talking about. In this view, freedom is a zero-sum game. Anything that gives more freedom and rights to lower-status people can't help but put serious limits on the freedom of the upper classes to use those people as they please. It cannot be any other way. So they find Yankee-style rights expansions absolutely intolerable, to the point where they're willing to fight and die to preserve their divine right to rule.

Once we understand the two different definitions of "liberty" at work here, a lot of other things suddenly make much more sense. We can understand the traditional Southern antipathy to education, progress, public investment, unionization, equal opportunity, and civil rights. The fervent belief among these elites that they should completely escape any legal or social accountability for any harm they cause. Their obsessive attention to where they fall in the status hierarchies. And, most of all -- the unremitting and unapologetic brutality with which they've defended these "liberties" across the length of their history.

I'm quite aware that the US is not a democracy but... (show quote)

He (this book writer) must have forgot to get into the Clinton Mafia, JFK/Bobby Kennedy, Teddy BOY the murdering drunk Kennedy, and a whole handful of other sheep dip dip stick democraps.....of course we can tell your author is a DEMOCRAP by what he writes...which takes all the honesty right the hell out of all the wasted dialog of what his agenda was attempting to create.

You just seem to love to find crap and post it on this website with hopes it will stick....sadly it is sticking alright....to the bottom of your shoes...like any horse droppings would.....

mouset783 Loc: Oklahoma

rustex007 wrote:

Why is it?, that nobody is talking about the electoral votes, that's their fault, they're is the blunder, when they gave trump the presidency against the majority of popular votes and knowingly how trump was not an intellectual person capable to hold office

That's exactly what this opp needs,another childish nut case.

Louie27 Loc: Peoria, AZ

rustex007 wrote:

Why is it?, that nobody is talking about the electoral votes, that's their fault, they're is the blunder, when they gave trump the presidency against the majority of popular votes and knowingly how trump was not an intellectual person capable to hold office

The people in the area of the Trump electoral votes are responsible for that. They found a person that had not lied to the American public while in the Federal government. Suck it up boy! Quit whinnying about your lying candidate not getting the nod from the people. The electoral vote count is what counts.

mouset783 Loc: Oklahoma

rustex007 wrote:

I believed that's what democracy means, the will o... (show quote)

Seems the Muslim slob was elected by the college twice. Any more stupid questions?

Ricko Loc: Florida

mouset783 wrote:

That's exactly what this opp needs,another childish nut case.

e

mouset-it is obvious that Nicky boy is nothing more than a left wing shill. He says he grew up at Age 50 and left the republican party to join the democrats. So it is reasonable to assume that it took him a longtime to grow up and 50years to become stupid enough to be sucked into the party of corruption. What more do we need to know? Send
him your condolences. lol America First !!!

Nickolai

cesspool jones wrote:

Thatâs funny because if you weren't working in the 80's, you were either dead, not born or locked up. That was because of Reagan. Why don't you look up a newspaper from 85 and count all the help wanted ads.Your computer don't go up that high. Anyone who pisses on trickle down theory is actually mentally fucking retarded...like you.

https://youtu.be/z5CCRI1vdwE

I was running my own contracting business in the 1980's The big real estate developers had conspired to break the construction unions and I was signatory to the Carpenters and Painters unions. I was forced to with draw in 1984 when the labor contract was up for renewal in order to survive the onslaught of non union contractors. The only laborers willing to work for non union wages were Mexicans. So I had to turn to them for the only source of labor.

this video has the charts that show how trickle down Reaganomics destroyed the middle class and did not work but we are being told its just what the doctor ordered. The memories of most Americans seem to be very short. Even when they are scammed they soon forget like babes in the woods and are ready for more

Nickolai

Nuclearian wrote:

Same ole, same ole lie. Once you discount all the 11 million illegals that voted in Kalifornia, Trump won the popular vote.

No Illegals voted in California In documented immigrants are ineligible to vote. Voters are required to register and non citizens are ineligible to register