eagleb1

How do you know that? I guess you must be looking at it. I, on the other hand, have no idea what's happening in the gay apartments. I have no problem with them living the life they choose --- it just doesn't interest me.

Even in our unfair Electoral College system, a few thousand votes in some key swing states would have changed the outcome --- that's how. And, Republicans control a large number of states. They have used that control to Gerrymander voting districts to retain control. They have also used their control to suppress the votes of citizens who are likely to vote against them. Is that what you think of as a fair democratic process?

OMG why do I get involved in this. You may have received an A in civics, but you still don't understand the constitution. I'll just highlight a few of your comments that lead me to question your knowledge. You say "So by your thinking the five states with most population should elect our president". No, I say that it should be based on the entire population of the country. You refer to "the liberal judicial branch which now believes that they should legislate law instead interoperate law." What world are you living in? The Republicans have created a court system dominated by conservatives. They even managed to steal a Supreme Court seat that should have been filled by a Democratic nomination. And, what the hell does interoperate mean? You said "BTW asshole since you are throwing out insults." Is that the way you think educated grownups should debate an issue? And please point out any insults I've thrown out. If you think that correcting the mistakes you make is an insult then I'm guilty.

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.

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

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.

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.

OMG, I can't believe I'm allowing myself to get involved in this. A fetus is a potential life that can't survive out of the body that's hosting it at a risk to the host's life and well being. If you care that much about potential life, I assume you don''t masturbate or engage in sex with contraception. As to concern about babies, Progressives are not hypocrites. We care about potential mothers making long-term choices about the well being of every child they choose to bear considering all of consequences to their life and future. Compare that to the hypocrites who piously defend making a women carrying a fetus to viable life and then abandon them to a lack of healthcare. In addition to trying to destroy the ACA (aka Obamacare) they have allowed CHIP (the most important child healthcare program) to expire. I shouldn't have taken the bait to participate in this stupid controversy. I promise that I won't continue to waste my time with this.

Why are we still concerned that his supporters continue to defend him? Anyone who didn't recognize his incompetence both mentally and intellectually before the election is not going to be swayed by his unbelievable behavior now..

I thought we agreed a while ago that body shaming will not be permitted.

I'm probably going to do a head slap when I hear the answer, but what is VK?

Why do you continue to argue with an ignoramus? It's laughable how they continue to support positions against their own best interests because candidates hypocritically spout social positions they have been brainwashed to believe in.

What is it that you think we haven't been told? He has a hydrogen bomb and intercontinental ballistic capabilities. We're not sure that his H-bomb is small enough to fit on his ICBM, but we're told that there's a good chance it is or will be soon.

I respectfully disagree that we all know that it's a ruse. I suppose that you and Trump know more than all permanent members of the UN Security Counsel who support the agreement.

I'm not a lawyer but I respectfully disagree with many of Scalia's opinions. In this case, Steven's dissent makes more sense to me. The whole originalist concept is ridiculous when you consider two centuries of changes that couldn't possible have been anticipated by the founders.

The scary part is when you realize how many things it might be.

Gun lovers overlook that well regulated militia preamble.

Sadly, you are right about the racial element, but, still, they have to have the guns to do the killing. Years ago, a national magazine (Time?) posted the pictures of everyone who had died from guns in a particular week. The images were dramatic and sickening. There is a truism in statistics --- correlation doesn't prove causation. I don't know much of it is due to poverty or living conditions prevalent among racial groups.

I was curious about the CPRC which I assume is the Crime Prevention Research Center. One look at their website and it's clear what their bias is. Mass killings get attention, but don't define the total level of deaths due to guns. I was suspicious of the statistics shown because it conflicted with what I understand happened in Australia after a horrendous mass shooting. You can read about it here: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/10/australia-gun-control/541710/ Here is a comparison of gun death rates from CBS (I know ---- "fake news"): https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-u-s-gun-deaths-compare-to-other-countries/

I certainly appreciate that groomy lets us know what the participants are saying. I doubt that he is aware of the business economics from VH's experience and plans.

All this speculation about the best way to run this VH business is a joke. I spent half my career as a consultant on business matters . I wouldn't even speculate about what is the best business practice for a venture whose economics I have no idea about.

In my case it was self enforcing. A long, long time ago when I still smoked, I couldn't come near my wife if I had even smoked outside. It would just make her so sick.

This is too foolish to reply to but I'll try. Many people die from slipping in their bathroom. Maybe we should ban bathrooms. And, by the way, many of those auto deaths are because of DUI drivers, and we CAN do much more to protect those of us who drive (and walk) sober.

That is so far from reality that it leaves me speechless. One more thing. Who do think is more tolerant of LGBT rights?

You mean the left that brought us Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, the five day work week, overtime pay ...........?