One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Democrats V**e ot Abolish Obsolete Impeachment Procedure
Page <<first <prev 4 of 9 next> last>>
Jan 9, 2019 09:27:23   #
lindajoy Loc: right here with you....
 
JFlorio wrote:
You are gonna put some of the libs on here in a tizzy until the figure out its satire.


But is it satire??? Pelosi and schumer are serious in their endeavor, yes?? Ashair brain as it is, no less~~

Reply
Jan 9, 2019 09:33:43   #
lindajoy Loc: right here with you....
 
Seth wrote:
A Supreme Court justice is supposed to be guided by the letter of the Constitution, not by what he believes to be "right" or "just" according to his/her personal political beliefs.

Conservative leaning justices, BECAUSE they are conservatives, tend to do just that because it was what the founders invented SCOTUS for to begin with.

Ginsburg and the other "progressives," however, let their mares-eat-oats and does-eat-oats liberal dogmas guide their decisions, and that is not what the founders intended.

The purpose of the E*******l College was and is to make sure that Americans in every segment of America have a voice in electing presidents. The founders were a hell of a lot smarter than anyone fielded by today's Democrats. They knew that it was human nature that a) the large coastal states would inevitably have the most concentrated of U.S. populations, along with the most people of academic background, that b) such people have a tendency for what is today called "progressive" thinking and would be most likely, seeing themselves as an intellectual elite, to try and enact change, not necessarily a good thing, according to the fiat of their "progressive" political beliefs, and that c) due to their sheer numbers could nullify the v**es of Americans living throughout the rest of the country.

In other words, the E*******l College prevents "mob rule." It is a sound principle.

Your talk of impeachment is purely politically motivated; Trump has done nothing to deserve impeachment, in fact his administration thusfar has seen nothing of the magnitude of Fast & Furious, B******i, the IRS kerfuffle, Hillary's pay-to-play stint as SecState, Uranium One, treaties signed without consent of the Congress and other fun things that occurred on Obama's watch, all conveniently ignored by an irresponsible left wing mainstream media.

The only reason Trump is under constant assault as he is? Because he won the e******n that "belonged to Hillary" according to a system that's served this country well for most of our history.

The only thing you've posted above that I agree with is that parties should be careful about enacting policies that might come full circle, and interestingly enough, the party that needs most to heed that advice is the Democrats, since they're the folks who keep straying from the norms for the convenience of the moment.

From where I sit, that in itself is one of many indicators that the Democratic Party is no longer fit to lead the country: they are incapable of evaluating the long term consequences of actions for which they are responsible, whether it is setting bad precedent or obligating the taxpayer to indelible long term economic disasters.
A Supreme Court justice is supposed to be guided b... (show quote)


Not only well said but reasoned with fact..
Thank You~~ :
This assuredly true~~”The only reason Trump is under constant assault as he is? Because he won the e******n that "belonged to Hillary" according to a system that's served this country well for most of our history.”

Reply
Jan 9, 2019 09:36:25   #
Morgan
 
lindajoy wrote:
Exactly why I enjoy reading your well thought out posts... An uncanny ability to speak your position without derogatory name calling etc ...

I like your idea of arming our borders with military and the boom effect for the towns an added plus... Of course many here will tell you Trump can’t use our military to build strength against the i******s~~ I’m not even speaking of the wall yet~~

From funding impact of Military budgets to have to convince Pentagon lawyers that the situation there constitutes a threat to national security, a true national emergency, and not a law enforcement etc...

We must remember the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the use of federal troops for law enforcement under most circumstances... Where threat of attack is suspected military can ve used temporarily.. Left to a judgement call of Eminent attack, by the time they ruled on it that attack may well be under way...

Soooo, close the borders down entirely, let no one in for as long as it takes to get our nation secure!!! Can we do that much???
Exactly why I enjoy reading your well thought out ... (show quote)




That's a beautiful really, what a joke, not derogatory to who...you? His quote:

"dim-o-craps and their moonbatty apparatchiks,"

I guess you would like being called a c*******t, maybe you shouldn't try so hard to kiss ass, it's very t***sparent.

Reply
 
 
Jan 9, 2019 09:42:01   #
lindajoy Loc: right here with you....
 
JFlorio wrote:
The e*******l College was established so all of America had a say in an e******n. A pure Democracy is "mob" rule. Period. Minorities have very little say in a true Democracy. so those white Men, who by the way were brilliant, designed a system where the minority v**er all over the country has a say.
https://www.historycentral.com/e******ns/E*******lcollgewhy.html


Exactly, J... Nor did we hear any objection to the E*******l College when the dems were winning~~Hypocrisy at its finest..

Reply
Jan 9, 2019 09:43:24   #
Morgan
 
Seth wrote:
I have... And have.

And observed that it worked just fine and will continue to work just fine as long as we don't allow you worshippers at the altar of "wh**ever it takes to destroy this awesome nation" to do what Obama tried to do and "fundamentally change it."


Ok let me make this crystal clear, if it wasn't a living document, not one word, not one change would have been added since its creation. We have had amendments since it's inception and from all the years thereof...That makes it a LIVING Document! PERIOD.

Reply
Jan 9, 2019 09:51:46   #
JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida
 
Morgan's a waste of time. She thinks talking eloquently wins the point. She is constantly wrong then goes to the lefty playbook. She's the smartest in the room and insults everyone else.
Seth wrote:
It's not a "living" Contitution. It's the Constitution, period, and unlike you l*****ts seem to think, it's not a "list of suggestions," either.

Reply
Jan 9, 2019 09:53:55   #
JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida
 
No it makes it an amended document. Wasn't made to change on a whim. Look at the steps that must be done to amend the Constitution. The Founders took change seriously. Exactly why I believe in stronger States Rights.
Morgan wrote:
Ok let me make this crystal clear, if it wasn't a living document, not one word, not one change would have been added since its creation. We have had amendments since it's inception and from all the years thereof...That makes it a LIVING Document! PERIOD.
Ok let me make this crystal clear, if it wasn't a ... (show quote)

Reply
 
 
Jan 9, 2019 09:58:58   #
buffalo Loc: Texas
 
lindajoy wrote:
Exactly why I enjoy reading your well thought out posts... An uncanny ability to speak your position without derogatory name calling etc ...

I like your idea of arming our borders with military and the boom effect for the towns an added plus... Of course many here will tell you Trump can’t use our military to build strength against the i******s~~ I’m not even speaking of the wall yet~~

From funding impact of Military budgets to have to convince Pentagon lawyers that the situation there constitutes a threat to national security, a true national emergency, and not a law enforcement etc...

We must remember the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the use of federal troops for law enforcement under most circumstances... Where threat of attack is suspected military can ve used temporarily.. Left to a judgement call of Eminent attack, by the time they ruled on it that attack may well be under way...

Soooo, close the borders down entirely, let no one in for as long as it takes to get our nation secure!!! Can we do that much???
Exactly why I enjoy reading your well thought out ... (show quote)


Thank you! However, I think the Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the use of federal troops for law enforcement against US citizens. Illegal invaders are not citizens. so I think trumpy would be within his authority to station troops along the US/Mexico border to stop the invasion.

I posted on another thread (Wall Nuts) about the consequences of what a wall would do to all the farmers and ranchers along the border and the disruption and distruction of their lifestyles and livelihoods.

Reply
Jan 9, 2019 10:03:29   #
JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida
 
I'd like to see a wall where feasible and I'd like to see any citizen with arable, land be able to veto said wall on his land. I believe if a farmer is having hip property over run he might be for it. I******s are already disrupting their livelihood.
buffalo wrote:
Thank you! However, I think the Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the use of federal troops for law enforcement against US citizens. Illegal invaders are not citizens. so I think trumpy would be within his authority to station troops along the US/Mexico border to stop the invasion.

I posted on another thread (Wall Nuts) about the consequences of what a wall would do to all the farmers and ranchers along the border and the disruption and distruction of their lifestyles and livelihoods.

Reply
Jan 9, 2019 10:28:40   #
lindajoy Loc: right here with you....
 
Morgan wrote:
Look it up...and think


The Constitution and Bill of Rights stand as so written..
Amendments (very difficult to do for a reason)may be added but they do not change the foundation of the Constitution-or Bill of Rights..

Likewise we are A republic not a federal republic democrat anything..
The left believes if they claim it as such long enough that by attrition it will be adopted...It will not..

The "republic" is mentioned is in Article IV, Section 4. "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government." It does not say democracy at all.

Lest we forget Benjamin Franklin reply when asked what sort if government we were ~~a republic, if you can keep it...

Reply
Jan 9, 2019 11:30:49   #
PJT
 
Right on, Seth

Reply
 
 
Jan 9, 2019 11:32:55   #
buffalo Loc: Texas
 
JFlorio wrote:
I'd like to see a wall where feasible and I'd like to see any citizen with arable, land be able to veto said wall on his land. I believe if a farmer is having hip property over run he might be for it. I******s are already disrupting their livelihood.


Then why is the vast majority of border ranchers and farmers against the wall?

http://www.infoplease.com/arts-entertainment/writing-and-language/most-widely-spoken-languages-world

"If you take away access to the Rio Grande, you take away the water for 50,000 acres of irrigated farmland, not to mention the drinking water for cattle and migratory path for wildlife."

http://occupydemocrats.com/2017/04/03/10000-conservative-ranchers-just-came-trumps-wall/

http://newrepublic.com/article/141711/texas-doesnt-want-trumps-wall-either

That doesn't necessarily mean they are against securing the border and stopping the invasion.

Reply
Jan 9, 2019 12:17:57   #
buffalo Loc: Texas
 
lindajoy wrote:
Pelosi comment at the end of this article is exactly why it will never happen nor will uprooting the e*******l college!!!

But go ahead and try ~~~ppfffttt


Article in Moonbattery site:

Why Democrats Want to Abolish E*******l College

If today’s radicalized Democrats seize sufficient power, it won’t be a matter of enduring a few years of poor government while we wait for the pendulum to swing back. They plan to inflict irreversible damage. One example is demographic t***sformation resulting from the open border. Another is their assault on the E*******l College:

Desperate to bring the Tyranny of the Majority to our representative democracy, on the first day Democrats assumed control of the House of Representatives, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) submitted a bill to k**l the e*******l college.

Tyranny of the majority was a major concern of the Founding Fathers, who set up a democratic republic, not a democracy. They did not want a system that would allow 51% to ens***e the other 49%, or cities to lord it over less densely populated areas.

Without the e*******l college, p**********l candidates would naturally concentrate on where people are concentrated: urban areas. The rest of the country would be left unrepresented.

Amending the Constitution won’t work. There is too much resistance to such a ham-fisted power play by densely populated, l*****t-dominated states like California and New York. So they have devised an end run around the Constitution called National Popular V**e, which is intended to impose direct popular v**e by interstate compact.

Already alarmed back in 2015, E*******l College expert Tara Ross explained why this venerable institution is so crucial:

http://youtu.be/LXnjGD7j2B0

The purpose of progressivism is to centralize power in the fist of an ideologically homogenous elite. The Constitution is their primary obstacle. Their war on it did not start with the E*******l College, nor will it end there.

Progressives struck a blow against the ingenious system set up by the Founders when they passed the 17th Amendment. Consequently, Senators are now elected by popular v**e instead of state legislatures. This undermines a primary purpose of the Senate, which is to represent states as government entities, thereby balancing the centralized power of the federal government. Today’s progressives want to inflict worse damage by doing away with the Senate altogether.

Reply
Jan 9, 2019 12:25:06   #
Morgan
 
lindajoy wrote:
Exactly, J... Nor did we hear any objection to the E*******l College when the dems were winning~~Hypocrisy at its finest..


Is that a fact, Hypocrisy at it's finest, then tell me oh wise one, when would have that been?

Because it's been n-e-v-e-r...There have been only five US presidents in history have been elected despite losing the popular v**e: John Quincy Adams in 1824, Rutherford Hayes in 1876, Benjamin Harrison in 1888, George W. Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump this November.
We really can't include Adams as a Democrat since he was on the Democrat/Republican party ticket along with every other candidate running in that e******n and that had to go to Congress because technically no one won the e*******l v**e that year out of four, it came down to three and then one was selected,Adams.

So tell me, where's the Hypocrisy, Linda?

Reply
Jan 9, 2019 12:38:42   #
buffalo Loc: Texas
 
Morgan wrote:
Is that a fact, Hypocrisy at it's finest, then tell me oh wise one, when would have that been?

Because it's been n-e-v-e-r...There have been only five US presidents in history have been elected despite losing the popular v**e: John Quincy Adams in 1824, Rutherford Hayes in 1876, Benjamin Harrison in 1888, George W. Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump this November.
We really can't include Adams as a Democrat since he was on the Democrat/Republican party ticket along with every other candidate running in that e******n and that had to go to Congress because technically no one won the e*******l v**e that year out of four, it came down to three and then one was selected,Adams.

So tell me, where's the Hypocrisy, Linda?
Is that a fact, Hypocrisy at it's finest, then tel... (show quote)



Hence the reason for the E*******l College. You just disproved your own argument. LOL

Reply
Page <<first <prev 4 of 9 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.