The Political Discussion Thread

[Gatefan1976]

Let me interupt your delusions for a moment:

If he loses, he will be out.

Not by choice, and he as admitted as much with his talk of extending presidential terms. He knows that he will be destroyed the moment he is out of office, not by the dems, but by the legal system.

And look who's talking about not accepting the outcome.

Trump won, with help from the Russians. Just because they could not prove conspiracy to a legal level, they certainly did prove that Russia meddled in the election for the express purpose of aiding trump.
If you don't know the difference, I can't help you.

Of course, if he wins, many people will be convinced that he won by cheating.

When the moron gets on PUBLIC TV and admits he would look at anything a foreign government gave him in 2020, (something the FEC director pointed out was a crime) and the senate republicans are killing bills designed to tighten election security, Is it any wonder why eyebrows get raised? Aid from foreign governments is not oppo research, it's a violation of the emoluments clause of the constitution, no matter what trump thinks.
It's not one of your hair brained conspiracy theories, it's been done in public for crying out loud.

look where we are now; 2+ years down the road from 2016, and the left/Democrats STILL can't accept that they lost in 2016; they are still trying to undo the result of that election.

Do they have a time machine?
They cannot undo anything trump has done unless they retake the WH, and even then some of it they cannot. They can't change the SCOTUS, for example. If you want to look at undoing, look at what trump has done to Obama's policies. Even if the house impeached trump AND the senate found him guilty, control would go to pence, so the man would be removed, but not the agenda.

It never even enters their mind that enough of the people didn't like their ideas that they lost.

Because the "people" voted against him. the EC is not the people, it's the system.

[aretood2]

So I was wondering, what if US Reprasentatives were elected at large by state? SSo I decided to use the popular vote of the 2016 elections to get an estimate of what it would look like.

Total representatives in the US House 435 (218 needed for simple majority). I provided the popular vote in percentages then matched it with number of reps each party would get. I had to play around with the decimals tbh. In parenthesis are the actual current numbers by party. Notice that if we had representatives by percentage of the vote, Republicans would have less....but so would Democrats. Neither would have a majority and they would have to court Green and Libertarian representatives to pass anything forcing compromises no matter what.

Democratic 48.18% 212 (235)
Republican 46.09% 203 (198)
Libertarian 3.28% 15 (0)
Green 1.07% 5 (0)

But it's impractical to vote for representatives at large nationwide given the size of the US (Geographically and demographically). Maybe when I have more free time I could tally up each state and see what the numbers would actually look like based on the 2016 election. But for now I did two states, California and Texas.

In parenthesis I have the number of actual representatives by party today (That's post 2018 election). The Percentages are 2016 Election results (Maybe I should have looked up the 2018 elections for this whole thing? Maybe next time). Like above, I had to mess around a bit with the numbers because of the decimals.

Texas presidential - 36 Seats total
Republican 52.23% 19 (23)
Democratic 43.24% 15 (13)
Libertarian 3.16% 1
Green 0.8% 1

California Presidential - 53 Seats total
Democratic 61.73% 33 (46)
Republican 31.62% 17 (7)
Libertarian 3.37% 2 (0)
Green 1.96% 1 (0)

While Republicans lose seats in Texas they actually gain more than they lost in California. You also have 2 extra parties with reps. If I were to tally each state, we'd have way more than 15 Libertarians and 5 Greens in the house. Which means that Democrats and Republicans would have even less representatives.

Now take into account that if a political party can get significant representatives like shown above, they naturally end up getting more votes. As it is now, votes for 3rd parties are more protest votes than anything. But if people could actually get high ranking officials voted in via 3rd parties, the percentage of people voting for 3rd parties would increase. This means that you might even have a few 3rd party senators which has the effect of forcing compromise in the Senate.

At large votes for Congress gives rural democrats and urban republicans representation that they don't currently have. It also gives a voice to those who hate both parties and would rather vote Libertarian or Green...Or independent, this isn't even counting them. I can see independents forming a strong 3rd party.


The thing is, that having two parties is almost just as bad as having a one party state. In fact, in some states in the US that is the case. It's not very democratic. A system that allows and has multiple viable parties would be more democratic due to the forced use of compromise. In a Presidential system, we don't have to worry about forming coalition governments, the executive would still be separate thus avoiding some of the pitfalls of parliamentary systems (Like Israel's current situation).

[Annoyed]

So I was wondering, what if US Reprasentatives were elected at large by state? SSo I decided to use the popular vote of the 2016 elections to get an estimate of what it would look like.

Total representatives in the US House 435 (218 needed for simple majority). I provided the popular vote in percentages then matched it with number of reps each party would get. I had to play around with the decimals tbh. In parenthesis are the actual current numbers by party. Notice that if we had representatives by percentage of the vote, Republicans would have less....but so would Democrats. Neither would have a majority and they would have to court Green and Libertarian representatives to pass anything forcing compromises no matter what.

Democratic 48.18% 212 (235)
Republican 46.09% 203 (198)
Libertarian 3.28% 15 (0)
Green 1.07% 5 (0)

But it's impractical to vote for representatives at large nationwide given the size of the US (Geographically and demographically). Maybe when I have more free time I could tally up each state and see what the numbers would actually look like based on the 2016 election. But for now I did two states, California and Texas.

In parenthesis I have the number of actual representatives by party today (That's post 2018 election). The Percentages are 2016 Election results (Maybe I should have looked up the 2018 elections for this whole thing? Maybe next time). Like above, I had to mess around a bit with the numbers because of the decimals.

Texas presidential - 36 Seats total
Republican 52.23% 19 (23)
Democratic 43.24% 15 (13)
Libertarian 3.16% 1
Green 0.8% 1

California Presidential - 53 Seats total
Democratic 61.73% 33 (46)
Republican 31.62% 17 (7)
Libertarian 3.37% 2 (0)
Green 1.96% 1 (0)

While Republicans lose seats in Texas they actually gain more than they lost in California. You also have 2 extra parties with reps. If I were to tally each state, we'd have way more than 15 Libertarians and 5 Greens in the house. Which means that Democrats and Republicans would have even less representatives.

Now take into account that if a political party can get significant representatives like shown above, they naturally end up getting more votes. As it is now, votes for 3rd parties are more protest votes than anything. But if people could actually get high ranking officials voted in via 3rd parties, the percentage of people voting for 3rd parties would increase. This means that you might even have a few 3rd party senators which has the effect of forcing compromise in the Senate.

At large votes for Congress gives rural democrats and urban republicans representation that they don't currently have. It also gives a voice to those who hate both parties and would rather vote Libertarian or Green...Or independent, this isn't even counting them. I can see independents forming a strong 3rd party.


The thing is, that having two parties is almost just as bad as having a one party state. In fact, in some states in the US that is the case. It's not very democratic. A system that allows and has multiple viable parties would be more democratic due to the forced use of compromise. In a Presidential system, we don't have to worry about forming coalition governments, the executive would still be separate thus avoiding some of the pitfalls of parliamentary systems (Like Israel's current situation).

Isn't this whole scheme defeating the purpose of how the House is set up, where each representative represents the people in his district?
It sounds to me like you just want whichever party has the most statewide votes wins that state, much as the Senate is today.

[Annoyed]

Ungh. What an idiot.

She doesn't even have an inkling that she herself and her socialist allies are going to be the biggest factor in Trump's re-election in 2020.

AOC warns of 'very real risk' of Trump win in 2020, says frustration with Pelosi is 'quite real'

Granted, Trump is an extremely polarizing figure, you either like him or hate him, but outside factors such as the Kindergartner aside, he has an uphill fight ahead of him.

But AOC's socialist crap is going to drive voters right back into his arms.

[jelgate]

Still not seeing any facts just vague claims

[SGalisa]

Highlighted portion for reply...

Let me interupt your delusions for a moment:

Not by choice, and he as admitted as much with his talk of extending presidential terms. He knows that he will be destroyed the moment he is out of office, not by the dems, but by the legal system.

Trump won, with help from the Russians. Just because they could not prove conspiracy to a legal level, they certainly did prove that Russia meddled in the election for the express purpose of aiding trump.
If you don't know the difference, I can't help you.

When the moron gets on PUBLIC TV and admits he would look at anything a foreign government gave him in 2020, (something the FEC director pointed out was a crime) and the senate republicans are killing bills designed to tighten election security, Is it any wonder why eyebrows get raised? Aid from foreign governments is not oppo research, it's a violation of the emoluments clause of the constitution, no matter what trump thinks.
. . .

If it is deemed as a crime, then why didn't the DEMs and anti-Trumpers get penalized for accepting info from foreign countries from whipping up the whole "Trump Dossier" document, which was fabricated to begin with?! Those people --ALL of them!!!-- should be slapped with the same degree of criminal involvement they are attacking Donald Trump with. They're complaining about Trump accepting info, if a foreign country has "dirt" on his opponents or fellow politicians, when the DEMs / anti-Trumpers themselves *took* an actual document claiming "dirt" was on Trump's life, etc. AND had our USA TAX dollars spent on *investigating the whole thing.

Strong bit of hypocrisy there by every anti-Trump person on this planet if they supported any portion of that Dossier for the entire 2+plus years, while it went on, and *some* are still supporting hanging on to Trump being in cahoots with Russia, when mostly everyone --including the DEMs themselves-- knows it was Hilary Clinton's *dump Trump* ACE card in the rabbit hole.

Violation goes BOTH ways. DEMs started this charade long before Trump ever became POTUS.

[Gatefan1976]

Highlighted portion for reply...



If it is deemed as a crime, then why didn't the DEMs and anti-Trumpers get penalized for accepting info from foreign countries from whipping up the whole "Trump Dossier" document, which was fabricated to begin with?!

1: The Steele document was originally commissioned by Repubs, Hillary took over after.
2: Chris Steele is not a foreign Government.
3: The research was handed over to the FBI, the only reason we know about it is because it was leaked to the media
4: Many parts (but not all) of the Dossier have been confirmed.
In other words, it was LAWFUL.

Those people --ALL of them!!!-- should be slapped with the same degree of criminal involvement they are attacking Donald Trump with.

No, they should not, and you should learn the law.

They're complaining about Trump accepting info, if a foreign country has "dirt" on his opponents or fellow politicians, when the DEMs / anti-Trumpers themselves *took* an actual document claiming "dirt" was on Trump's life, etc.

Not from a foreign power. This is the key difference. Accepting "a thing of value" from a foreign power, be they enemy or ally for the goal of influencing your election is ILLEGAL and a VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION and a VIOLATION OF THE OATH OF OFFICE.
You and annoyed, for people claiming to love the constitution know very little about it, and less about your own legal system.
IF Hillary did what you claim she did, then sure, investigate her. I wouldn't even call it a witch hunt, just a fact of the legal due process, but she didn't, so your point is, pointless.

AND had our USA TAX dollars spent on *investigating the whole thing.

The Mueller investigation actually turned a profit on Paul Mannafort alone, money that went straight back in to the US government.
It was investigated because that's how you determine guilt or innocence, and the report determined trump's actions did not rise to the level of criminal conspiracy. If the moron would just shut his mouth about it, and stop tweeting about it, it would be done with, but he can't.
Ken Starr spent 6 years and spent 3 times the amount of money (YOUR BLESSED TAXPAYER MONEY) and got a single count of obstruction of justice with no underlying crime. Benghazi investigations cost 7 million and produced NOTHING, even with a 800 page report. Your concerns over taxpayer money are false.

Strong bit of hypocrisy there by every anti-Trump person on this planet if they supported any portion of that Dossier for the entire 2+plus years, while it went on, and *some* are still supporting hanging on to Trump being in cahoots with Russia, when mostly everyone --including the DEMs themselves-- knows it was Hilary Clinton's *dump Trump* ACE card in the rabbit hole.

Got anything to back that up?

Violation goes BOTH ways. DEMs started this charade long before Trump ever became POTUS.

Wrong.
Violation does NOT go "both ways", you either do it, or you don't. It's not a quid pro quo situation, no matter what you "believe" Repubs started the Steele Dossier by employing a multinational company to investigate trump, which was entirely legal, Hillary picked it up afterwards, ALSO entirely legal.
So no, the Dems didn't start it, the Republican presidential candidates of 2016 started it.

[Coco Pops]

Bolton has a bit of a war boner.

I'm not so sure Iran did anything to those oil tankers. Brings to mind the Gulf Of Tonkin where the US faked stuff to get into a fight. Or Cheney and his lies.

[Gatefan1976]

Boulton and Cheney have -always- had war boners dude.

[Coco Pops]

Boulton and Cheney have -always- had war boners dude.

Oh I know. Darth Cheney and his Iraq war boner... He and Tony Blair told lies.

BTW no mention of the guy who broke into AOC's office and let loose with a fire extinguisher. Geez just shows how bad security is for anyone there. But then she's not Republican so it won't matter.

[Chaka-Z0]

Bolton has a bit of a war boner.

I'm not so sure Iran did anything to those oil tankers. Brings to mind the Gulf Of Tonkin where the US faked stuff to get into a fight. Or Cheney and his lies.

The list of potential suspects is quite narrow, Iran being the first on top of it. Who else would it be? Guided missile technology, there's not that many countries that have it.

[Coco Pops]

The list of potential suspects is quite narrow, Iran being the first on top of it. Who else would it be? Guided missile technology, there's not that many countries that have it.

How about plain old sabotage?

[SGalisa]

1: The Steele document was originally commissioned by Repubs, Hillary took over after.
2: Chris Steele is not a foreign Government.
3: The research was handed over to the FBI, the only reason we know about it is because it was leaked to the media
4: Many parts (but not all) of the Dossier have been confirmed.
In other words, it was LAWFUL.

No, they should not, and you should learn the law.

Not from a foreign power. This is the key difference. Accepting "a thing of value" from a foreign power, be they enemy or ally for the goal of influencing your election is ILLEGAL and a VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION and a VIOLATION OF THE OATH OF OFFICE.
You and annoyed, for people claiming to love the constitution know very little about it, and less about your own legal system.
IF Hillary did what you claim she did, then sure, investigate her. I wouldn't even call it a witch hunt, just a fact of the legal due process, but she didn't, so your point is, pointless.

The Mueller investigation actually turned a profit on Paul Mannafort alone, money that went straight back in to the US government.
It was investigated because that's how you determine guilt or innocence, and the report determined trump's actions did not rise to the level of criminal conspiracy. If the moron would just shut his mouth about it, and stop tweeting about it, it would be done with, but he can't.
Ken Starr spent 6 years and spent 3 times the amount of money (YOUR BLESSED TAXPAYER MONEY) and got a single count of obstruction of justice with no underlying crime. Benghazi investigations cost 7 million and produced NOTHING, even with a 800 page report. Your concerns over taxpayer money are false.

Originally posted by SGalisa:

Strong bit of hypocrisy there by every anti-Trump person on this planet if they supported any portion of that Dossier for the entire 2+plus years, while it went on, and *some* are still supporting hanging on to Trump being in cahoots with Russia, when mostly everyone --including the DEMs themselves-- knows it was Hilary Clinton's *dump Trump* ACE card in the rabbit hole.

Got anything to back that up?

Wrong.
Violation does NOT go "both ways", you either do it, or you don't. It's not a quid pro quo situation, no matter what you "believe" Repubs started the Steele Dossier by employing a multinational company to investigate trump, which was entirely legal, Hillary picked it up afterwards, ALSO entirely legal.
So no, the Dems didn't start it, the Republican presidential candidates of 2016 started it.

Memory rewind...
Here's the scoop for those convenient *short-term memories* bouts.

"Memo: FBI Used Tainted Steele Dossier, Paid For By Hillary Clinton, As Reason To Spy On Trump "
Editorials (Investor's Business Daily, Inc.), 02/02/2018

. . .GOP members of the House Intelligence Committee, led by Chairman Devin Nunes, released the declassified memo Friday. . .
The memo's findings are, at minimum, disturbing and, at worst, suggest the law was broken. Assuming the memo's factual accuracy, it paints an unflattering picture of the Obama-era FBI and Justice Department and their conduct in investigating the Trump campaign.
. . .
Steele was paid $160,000 to create the Trump dossier for Fusion GPS. The Hillary Clinton presidential campaign and Democratic National Committee financed the work. So the FBI and Justice Department used opposition research from a presidential campaign to launch an investigation into that campaign's political opponent — a likely illegal use of federal government surveillance for political purposes.
. . .
Let us stipulate that this memo is itself a partisan product of a Republican-dominated committee of Congress. Democrats, for their side of the matter, have their own memo and claim that essential facts have been omitted from the GOP's. But none of the central facts of the memo, so far, have been disproved.
. . .
Being charitable, it's possible to conclude that, during an intensely contentious presidential campaign, Obama administration Justice and FBI officials innocently sought FISA warrants against a peripheral Trump campaign volunteer based on a document they knew — or should have known — was paid for by Hillary Clinton and the DNC. And that their decisions later to withhold information from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court were equally innocent of any malicious political intent.
. . .

And amazingly CNN reinforces the "Hillary Clinton paid for" angle. BTW, how can someone finance something if they weren't in control of it, to begin with? Steel would never have made the Dossier without the payment(s)... unless he's just so hateful against Trump, that it didn't matter when payment (might come) came.

"Clinton campaign, DNC helped fund dossier research"
By Eli Watkins, Dan Merica and Katelyn Polantz, CNN
Updated 8:31 PM ET, Wed October 25, 2017

Washington (CNN)The law firm for the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee has acknowledged its clients' role in paying for opposition research on Donald Trump that helped fund the now-infamous dossier of allegations about the now-President and Russia.
. . .

As for blaming this all on Republicans starting it... Oh, Senator John McCain...? yeah, well, McCain may have been listed as a "Republican" who received the info for the dossier, but McCain was also working for the DEMocratic agenda (to oust Trump as POTUS). He was originally a DEMocrat, turned Republican to upset the balance of the political scales, if need be... a RINO, in other words. So, McCain was basically an anti-Trumper to begin with, and wolfy DEMocrat at heart in Republican disguise. MOST RINO's do work that way... when they work for the DEM agenda instead.


Therefore, end result----DEMs are (mostly) responsible for this Dossier fiasco. Senator John McCain (R/former DEM) was just their "fall guy" who fell for it (the bait). The rest is history.

[Chaka-Z0]

BTW, how can someone finance something if they weren't in control of it, to begin with?

Easy, in a business only the primary shareholder has executive powers (51% or more of total stocks).

[Gatefan1976]

Memory rewind...
Here's the scoop for those convenient *short-term memories* bouts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump–Russia_dossier

In October 2015, Fusion GPS was contracted by conservative political website The Washington Free Beacon to provide general opposition research on Trump and other Republican presidential candidates. In April 2016, attorneys for Hillary Clinton's campaign and the DNC separately hired Fusion GPS to investigate Trump, while The Free Beacon stopped its backing in May of 2016.[2] In June 2016, Fusion GPS subcontracted Steele's firm to compile the dossier. Clinton campaign officials were reportedly unaware that Fusion GPS had subcontracted Steele, and he was not told that the Clinton campaign was the recipient of his research.[9][10][verification needed] Following Trump's election as president, funding from Clinton and the DNC ceased, but Steele continued his research and was reportedly paid directly by Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn R. Simpson.[11] While compiling the dossier, Steele passed information to both British and American intelligence services.[12][13]

The republicans started it. I never denied Hillary ran with it. What I said was that it was not illegal.
Keep moving them posts.

And amazingly CNN reinforces the "Hillary Clinton paid for" angle. BTW, how can someone finance something if they weren't in control of it, to begin with? Steel would never have made the Dossier without the payment(s)... unless he's just so hateful against Trump, that it didn't matter when payment (might come) came.

Because Hillary DID pay for it afterwards?
Not used to truth in reporting, are you?

As for blaming this all on Republicans starting it... Oh, Senator John McCain...?

Wasn't McCain, do some research.

yeah, well, McCain may have been listed as a "Republican" who received the info for the dossier, but McCain was also working for the DEMocratic agenda (to oust Trump as POTUS). He was originally a DEMocrat, turned Republican to upset the balance of the political scales, if need be... a RINO, in other words. So, McCain was basically an anti-Trumper to begin with, and wolfy DEMocrat at heart in Republican disguise. MOST RINO's do work that way... when they work for the DEM agenda instead.

You DO know Trump has been a democrat for most of his life, right?
But sure, let the conspiracy theories replace any form of sanity...……..

Therefore, end result----DEMs are (mostly) responsible for this Dossier fiasco. Senator John McCain (R/former DEM) was just their "fall guy" who fell for it (the bait). The rest is history.

Do you shadow write trump tweets?
This is as "factual" as most of his