Trump Will be Impeached

[StnCld316]

25 minutes ago, BBsq69 said:

Possibly we've gone off topic and I am probably to blame as well.

Back on topic there was a program on Channel 4 UL last night about Trump and Russia which concluded that we don't (currently) if there was collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign but what we do know is that if there isn't then Trump has been doing is best to make it look like there is.
Whatever we might have to wait a few years before we can start taking the US seriously again. Of course the US is not the only country with bizarre politics at the moment but it does have the most bizarre of all. 

Politics are all fucked in every Country. No matter which way you Slice & Dice them they are all cut from the same cloth.

There is only 2 things in this World that every Human is Guaranteed and that's Death and Taxes.  They don't necessarily follow in that order.

[Howard]

Just throwing this out there...

I've owned numerous companies in 25+ years. I do everything by the book. Every employee (including my two sisters) sign employment contacts, NDAs (Non-Disclosure Agreements), termination/exit papers. Yet I've still been sued several times (I have won each suit or they were dropped before the court date). Insurance companies often want to settle these 'nuisance claims' (usually if they can be settled for under $30,000).  Of the three they wanted to settle, I said no (and I had to argue with them NOT to settle). In all, it has cost me over $120,000 in legal fees to defend my company's honor and integrity (and not one penny has gone to the accused or his/her attorney).

What I'm getting at is no matter how hard you try to do the right thing, laws allow for loop-holes & flexibility. There are attorney's (some call them vultures) who specialize in finding these loopholes (defense attorney's come to mind).

Getting political, go ahead and try and impeach Trump.  It will never get any further than it has now. But ya'll think impeachment means "you're fired".  Not at all - its only a censure (as Clinton's impeachment was). There is no proof (just hearsay) that Trump has done anything to be censured. It's unfortunate that the louder people scream and hollar remarks that have no basis, the more the uneducated believe them (and that's what Democrats holding office live for!).

Haters will be haters. Those that are, typically are Democrats as most think emotionally and not logically.  You didn't see Republicans act as Dems do now for the 8 years Obama was in office (probably because they were working vs mooching free stuff off the government). US citizens were lied to regarding the benfits of Obamacare (i.e. able to keep your doctor, coverage, reduction in premiums). Trump is right that Obamacare is (has been) imploding. The only thing that can save Obamacare as Obama designed it is for the government to give it more money (and hence YOUR taxes go up).

Yea...I'm throwing shade. Mostly because it annoys me how most liberals are clueless on how the economy (or business) works.

[eagleb1]

3 hours ago, Howard said:

Just throwing this out there...

I've owned numerous companies in 25+ years.

[....]

Yea...I'm throwing shade. Mostly because it annoys me how most liberals are clueless on how the economy (or business) works.

I'm a liberal and I'll match my knowledge of business against yours.  As I said before, I'm a CPA/MBA and am a retired partner of a big four CPA firm.  Most of my career was as a consultant and I headed up projects that you heard about if you're old enough.

Later, I ran a mail order company for 18 years.  We were NEVER sued by anyone.  What are you doing wrong?

You say that you're from the USA so I assume that you took a high school civics course.  Impeachment is not the equivalent of censure. It is the equivalent of an indictment and requires that two-thirds  of the Senate must vote to find you guilty.  If they don't, then you're innocent and it carries no implication of wrongdoing.

Of course the impeachment and conviction of Trump will never happen.  You could produce a smoking gun and a bloody knife and it wouldn't be enough to convince his faithful followers.  There is the 25th Amendment, though  ---- look it up.

Your statement that the Republicans didn't impede  Obama, caused me to do a spit take.  Where were you from 2010 to 2016 when the Republicans prevented enactment of any  Obama programs?  They even managed the unprecedented action of stealing a Supreme Court nomination. 

Yes, there were flaws in the roll-out of the ACA.  Have you ever been involved in  implementing a huge program?  It will never be perfect at first.  Just be sure that you have in place a system for quickly solving unanticipated problems.  As to keeping your own insurance, Obama should have been more clear in stating that was true unless your policy didn't meet the minimum requirements of the ACA such as no lifetime limit.

I could go on but I'm realistic enough to know that it won't change your opinion.  I guess that the best I could hope for is that readers who are on the fence will understand.

[Howard]

33 minutes ago, eagleb1 said:

I'm a liberal and I'll match my knowledge of business against yours.  As I said before, I'm a CPA/MBA and am a retired partner of a big four CPA firm.  Most of my career was as a consultant and I headed up projects that you heard about if you're old enough.

Later, I ran a mail order company for 18 years.  We were NEVER sued by anyone.  What are you doing wrong?

You say that you're from the USA so I assume that you took a high school civics course.  Impeachment is not the equivalent of censure. It is the equivalent of an indictment and requires that two-thirds  of the Senate must vote to find you guilty.  If they don't, then you're innocent and it carries no implication of wrongdoing.

Of course the impeachment and conviction of Trump will never happen.  You could produce a smoking gun and a bloody knife and it wouldn't be enough to convince his faithful followers.  There is the 25th Amendment, though  ---- look it up.

Your statement that the Republicans didn't impede  Obama, caused me to do a spit take.  Where were you from 2010 to 2016 when the Republicans prevented enactment of any  Obama programs?  They even managed the unprecedented action of stealing a Supreme Court nomination. 

Yes, there were flaws in the roll-out of the ACA.  Have you ever been involved in  implementing a huge program?  It will never be perfect at first.  Just be sure that you have in place a system for quickly solving unanticipated problems.  As to keeping your own insurance, Obama should have been more clear in stating that was true unless your policy didn't meet the minimum requirements of the ACA such as no lifetime limit.

I could go on but I'm realistic enough to know that it won't change your opinion.  I guess that the best I could hope for is that readers who are on the fence will understand.

Keep your pants on, Mr. CPA (we both know a college degree doesn't make someone successful). Nevertheless, so you know who you are addressing, I have an economics & computer science degree from UCLA.  Oh....I almost forgot to mention my MBA from the Andersen School of Management (also at UCLA). And more business experience on top of it all. So...you have been trumped (in more ways then one). But who is bragging (you opened the door - I'm closing it).  But that's neither here nor there.

More importantly (for the sake of this post), your first two paragraphs proves my point that liberals speak from emotion and not fact.  And that you assume I'm too young (highlighted in blue) further clarifies that most liberals (not all but definitely you) think insults, polluting facts and raising your voice makes what they say as being true.  A terrible example you give to all who are undecided on any issue. You would rather tell them what to believe then have them do their own research. 

Every business has different liabilities.  I am primarily a real estate developer & investor. But I also own/have owned several restaurants, radio stations, manufacturing,  print and direct mail facilities. Being a partner in a firm is not the same as employing people in service industries (and being exposed to various degrees of presumed liabilities). I know (employ) several partners of both CPA and law firms. You work for white collar folks (like me). You don't employ 'service industry' people. That's a job for your associates/underlings.

On to politics, I know better then argue with an emotional liberal. Your points mentioned are misconstrued but just not worth debating. It's not that what you say has or hasn't merit (that you have mis-quoted my original post and have made assumptions is proof of that).  It's that you so firmly believe the crap you spew (like most liberals), you don't see any other possibilities. You'd rather have a heart attack arguing your point then ever admit that 'hey, you're saying something that makes sense'. And there's little reason for me or any conservative to amuse you. The US voting public spanked you (liberals) last November and that's a pain you (liberals) have to endure for 3 more years (probably 7 more years).

Thankfully, the voting public saw through the crap Ms. Clinton was dishing out (deleted e-mails, Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation, to name a few) and voted the conservative ticket.  Trump no doubt isn't perfect (one would never hear a liberal say their candidate has faults) but the conservative agenda is a far better route for the country then continuing to give things away for (practically) free (i.e. Iran).

To sum things up, for those unfamiliar with US politics, keep this in mind:

Liberals are to premature ejaculation as conservatives are to endurance.

Liberals want everything NOW while conservatives know it takes endurance to get to the greater good.

 

Postscript:  As you've just read, I clearly got my message across without making absurd assumptions or insults.  A lesson liberals have yet to learn.

[SPYING 1]

12 hours ago, Howard said:

Keep your pants on, Mr. CPA (we both know a college degree doesn't make someone successful). Nevertheless, so you know who you are addressing, I have an economics & computer science degree from UCLA.  Oh....I almost forgot to mention my MBA from the Andersen School of Management (also at UCLA). And more business experience on top of it all. So...you have been trumped (in more ways then one). But who is bragging (you opened the door - I'm closing it).  But that's neither here nor there.

More importantly (for the sake of this post), your first two paragraphs proves my point that liberals speak from emotion and not fact.  And that you assume I'm too young (highlighted in blue) further clarifies that most liberals (not all but definitely you) think insults, polluting facts and raising your voice makes what they say as being true.  A terrible example you give to all who are undecided on any issue. You would rather tell them what to believe then have them do their own research. 

Every business has different liabilities.  I am primarily a real estate developer & investor. But I also own/have owned several restaurants, radio stations, manufacturing,  print and direct mail facilities. Being a partner in a firm is not the same as employing people in service industries (and being exposed to various degrees of presumed liabilities). I know (employ) several partners of both CPA and law firms. You work for white collar folks (like me). You don't employ 'service industry' people. That's a job for your associates/underlings.

On to politics, I know better then argue with an emotional liberal. Your points mentioned are misconstrued but just not worth debating. It's not that what you say has or hasn't merit (that you have mis-quoted my original post and have made assumptions is proof of that).  It's that you so firmly believe the crap you spew (like most liberals), you don't see any other possibilities. You'd rather have a heart attack arguing your point then ever admit that 'hey, you're saying something that makes sense'. And there's little reason for me or any conservative to amuse you. The US voting public spanked you (liberals) last November and that's a pain you (liberals) have to endure for 3 more years (probably 7 more years).

Thankfully, the voting public saw through the crap Ms. Clinton was dishing out (deleted e-mails, Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation, to name a few) and voted the conservative ticket.  Trump no doubt isn't perfect (one would never hear a liberal say their candidate has faults) but the conservative agenda is a far better route for the country then continuing to give things away for (practically) free (i.e. Iran).

To sum things up, for those unfamiliar with US politics, keep this in mind:

Liberals are to premature ejaculation as conservatives are to endurance.

Liberals want everything NOW while conservatives know it takes endurance to get to the greater good.

 

Postscript:  As you've just read, I clearly got my message across without making absurd assumptions or insults.  A lesson liberals have yet to learn.

Howard these liberals, socialist, communist can't be reasoned with, they have been brain washed !!! I've tried helping them, but you can;t help an ignorant

[eagleb1]

12 hours ago, Howard said:

[ ...[

Liberals are to premature ejaculation as conservatives are to endurance.

[ ... ]

Wow, you must have more time on your hands than I do, but I'll try to answer your most outrageous comments.

As to business experience, I said that as a liberal I would MATCH my business knowledge against yours  I concede that we both have much more business savvy than the vast majority of voters ---- liberal and conservative.

While it's true that a college degree is not a guarantee of success, when you graduate from a free city college and become a partner in a national CPA firm, that is some indication of your business ability.

You'll have to explain to me how my first two paragraphs are emotional and not simply facts.  My reference to age (I'm 82) was simply that some of my news-worthy projects were a long time ago.  The earliest was in 1964.

Just to clarify my experience, I did CPA type audits just long enough to qualify for the CPA exam.  Most of my public career involved consulting projects with major American companies as well as the U.S. and local governments.  The mail order company I ran for 18 years had over one million customers and hundreds of employees all of whom had decent health insurance and were treated with respect.

You again call me emotional when you contend I misquoted something in your original post.  I did paraphrase some of your remarks, but I certainly was not trying to mislead anyone.

While the Republicans "spanked" the Democrats in 2016 it was the Constitution and gerrymandering that did the damage.  Clinton got 3,000,000 more votes than Trump.  Nationally,  house Democrats got more votes then Republicans who nevertheless ended with a sizable majority.  So much for the basic democratic principle of one man one vote.

I'm not going to defend Clinton who has been accused of an outrageous list of misdeeds but has NEVER been charged with any and of course has never been convicted.  Your comment about Iran getting free stuff I assume relates to the cash we sent them.  I hope you understand better than Trump that we simply agreed to repay THEIR money to them.  Most of it was money they prepaid for military equipment that we didn't deliver.

Finally, I deny making absurd assumptions or insulting anyone. You ended saying "Liberals are to premature ejaculation as conservatives are to endurance."  I consider that an insult.

[Thestarider]

"While the Republicans "spanked" the Democrats in 2016 it was the Constitution and gerrymandering that did the damage.  Clinton got 3,000,000 more votes than Trump.  Nationally,  house Democrats got more votes then Republicans who nevertheless ended with a sizable majority.  So much for the basic democratic principle of one man one vote."

In actuality you state New York I believe elects it's electoral college members. 

The Twelfth Amendment requires each elector to cast one vote for president and another vote for vice president.^[3] In each state and the District of Columbia, electors are chosen every four years on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November, and then meet to cast ballots on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December.^[4] The candidates who receive a majority of electoral votes among the states are elected president and vice president of the United States when the Electoral College vote is certified by Congress in January.

Each state chooses electors, equal in number to that state's combined total of senators and representatives. There are a total of 538 electors, corresponding to the 435 representatives and 100 senators, plus the three electors for the District of Columbia as provided by the Twenty-third Amendment.  Based solely on Population.

This is what has been known forever in our country as equal and even representation, funny now people think it should be changed when they loose an election, instead of just accepting that they lost.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution states:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

[Thestarider]

4 minutes ago, Thestarider said:

"While the Republicans "spanked" the Democrats in 2016 it was the Constitution and gerrymandering that did the damage.  Clinton got 3,000,000 more votes than Trump.  Nationally,  house Democrats got more votes then Republicans who nevertheless ended with a sizable majority.  So much for the basic democratic principle of one man one vote."

In actuality you state New York I believe elects it's electoral college members. 

The Twelfth Amendment requires each elector to cast one vote for president and another vote for vice president.^[3] In each state and the District of Columbia, electors are chosen every four years on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November, and then meet to cast ballots on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December.^[4] The candidates who receive a majority of electoral votes among the states are elected president and vice president of the United States when the Electoral College vote is certified by Congress in January.

Each state chooses electors, equal in number to that state's combined total of senators and representatives. There are a total of 538 electors, corresponding to the 435 representatives and 100 senators, plus the three electors for the District of Columbia as provided by the Twenty-third Amendment.  Based solely on Population.

This is what has been known forever in our country as equal and even representation, funny now people think it should be changed when they loose an election, instead of just accepting that they lost.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution states:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

How is this not fair and equal representation ?

 

 

[eagleb1]

2 hours ago, Thestarider said:

How is this not fair and equal representation ?

 

 

Your bio doesn't say what country you're from, but your lack of understanding of U.S. election laws leads me to assume that either you're not American or your high school didn't require you to take a course in civics

Let's talk about the Senate.  The Constitution grants each state two Senators.  So Wyoming's Senators represent 300,0000 persons each.  California of course  also has two Senators which means that each represents 20,000,000.people.

The House is less skewed because representation is allocated based on Population.  However, each state has a minimum of one representative whether it's earned or not.

The Presidential election is skewed because the number of electors in each state is the total of their Representatives and Senators.  That is a major reason why we can elect a President who loses the popular vote  by millions

[Guest]

I do not know about the other elections, but your Presidential election is very strange as the winner in each state gets all the votes of that state. How can that be fair? If the winner gets the 52 % of votes from his/her supporters, why does the system force the 48 % that were against the winner to move to his/her side? Why have the electors at all and instead let direct votes to the candidates decide?

[Foamy T. Squirrel]

Technically,  Kalevipoeg, the Federal Government was created by a union of the separate sovereign States. In that process, the States delegated to the Federal Government responsibility for those functions that a Federal Government could do best: namely, protection of the borders, foreign policy and trade, and enforcement of the Bill of Rights.

 States decide how to settle how the elected "electors" affect the elections: each State can have all the electors count for the majority (Winner-Take-All), or they can assign the electors according to the various district votes (Proportional). It's up to the State legislature to decide this. If California was a "proportional" state, it would not affect the popular vote, but Clinton would have received even less electoral college votes than she did.

The US is not a democracy, it's technically a democratic-republic, and its offices at different levels are voted in by a mixture of direct and indirect voting.

This arrangement may seem confusing, just like the fact that all states have 2 senators regardless of population. The idea is to avoid a problem that plagues Canadians, where Toronto pretty much calls the shots for Alberta, the Yukon, and British Columbia, even though the needs, environments,  and life-styles of the people in rural provinces have nothing in common with Toronto's city dwellers.

An interesting article is here: https://medium.com/@djspacecamp/faithful-electors-if-every-state-split-electoral-college-votes-no-one-would-be-president-elect-786ec6fd3f6f

 

 

 

[eagleb1]

37 minutes ago, Foamy T. Squirrel said:

[ ...]  

 If California was a "proportional" state, it would not affect the popular vote, but Clinton would have received even less electoral college votes than she did.

[ ... ]

 

 

Let's not confuse the non-Americans.  If all states were proportional, I don't know for sure how it would have worked out.  Many of the swing states were very close so Clinton would have gained a considerable number of electors from them.  Considering that she won the popular vote by a fair number, she probably would have won an all-state proportional electoral college.