Jump to content



Photo

Where do we go from here?


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 Quasar

Quasar

    Dux Ducis

  • Administrators
  • 6,636 posts

Posted 25 October 2016 - 04:47 PM

So what happens next? Who can we trust? Who can we believe?

Clinton is so corrupt and lies about everything... everyone around her is exactly the same... not a single honest character driven person in sight...

The FBI & the DOJ are exactly the same... corrupted and owned by the Clinton crime family...

The main stream media... the same, corrupt... bought and paid for by the Clinton machine...

Where do Americans turn now?
  • jiyabird likes this

#2 averageguy

averageguy

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 219 posts

Posted 25 October 2016 - 06:55 PM

we turn the page on the politicians and start by putting a businessman in charge for awhile. the politicians worst fear is he can show us they aren't as needed as they want us to think they are. then we need to yell and scream at them till they accept term limits and pension cuts.....even if it takes something like national strikes...those things will take a lot of the power and money outta being a POL.....after that.......?



#3 Pesty Version 2

Pesty Version 2

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,953 posts

Posted 25 October 2016 - 07:13 PM

I do not think things are so hopeless. Quite the opposite. Of course there is corruption in places where power gathers because power attracts it. That doesn't mean that many who serve aren't good and decent people. I also do not believe in the statements about the 'owning' of the government agencies.  The Republican party has been in power in the Congress for the past 6 years ...before that power in the Presidency and Congress.  But,  they did not 'root out' some grave corruption of these agencies.  Why not?  

 

I do think that we've been fed corrosive propaganda for so long and so broadly that it has infected the way we talk to each other and our spirits.  I think we should give whoever winds up being our president a chance, along with the congress that comes on.   Our country has faced a lot worse things than

what we are facing now and come through because we fundamentally are a good people.  

 

I hope my favored candidate wins, but, if not, I will back the winner as the President and leader of our nation.  


Edited by Pesty Version 2, 25 October 2016 - 07:16 PM.


#4 Persona Non Grata

Persona Non Grata

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,664 posts

Posted 25 October 2016 - 07:36 PM

we turn the page on the politicians and start by putting a businessman in charge for awhile. the politicians worst fear is he can show us they aren't as needed as they want us to think they are.


Why a "businessman"? Public service is nothing like running a business. It's not about turning a profit. We can't just file bankruptcy and move on to the next endeavor if they fail. Public service is about serving the public. We need people who are devoted to their country. Like retired military. The understand the concept of sacrifice for the common good.

#5 RiverFox

RiverFox

    Resident Historian

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,645 posts

Posted 26 October 2016 - 04:08 PM



#6 Savile Row

Savile Row

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,922 posts

Posted 26 October 2016 - 04:19 PM

Breakfast Club

A message to the politicos!

 


Edited by Savile Row, 26 October 2016 - 04:20 PM.


#7 jiyabird

jiyabird

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,043 posts

Posted 28 October 2016 - 02:34 PM

Perhaps I have deviated a little from Quaser is saying...if so,please bear with me.

I have pretty much given up hope Mr. Trump will win...too many people think they know what is best for the rest of us and have imposed what power they have to force Hillary down our throats rather we like it or not.

It is a lose-lose situation.

If Mr. Trump would win there will be all out anarchy.

If Clinton wins...loss of all hope for many and the possible downfall of America and assured continuation of the Obama nightmare.

Many say if Mr. Trump wins they will leave the country and move to Canada or elsewhere.

Many say if Clinton wins they will leave the country and move to Canada or elsewhere.

Pretty presumptive of them to assume Canada or anywhere else will accept them.

They seem to forget you cannot just take up residence in another part of the world as easily as you do here.
Other countries have immigration procedures that help them control their economy...unlike our free for all give-aways here.
I looked at moving to either Scotland or England a few years ago. IT was going to prove to be very difficult, even though my grandparents were English. Australia is even more difficult to move to..
I have had an invitation to move in with a family in Singapore but think I will pass.

I also see these major problems facing our country and it's future and neither candidate
really talked about them and I wonder how they will handled:

People who's insurance premiums will be doubled or tripled in 2017 and unable to do anything about it...Obamacare.

Minimum wage being raised and all that implies, without addressing the trickle down effect that accompanies raising those wages.

Promising free college and all that implies without addressing the trickle down effect.

Increasing taxes on the rich and all that implies without addressing the trickle down effect.

BOTH candidates making promises that would be impossible to keep.

Neither candidate is worthy of being POTUS.

How America has become so screwed up by giving us these two as our only choices is disconcerting.

It is our own fault...we have allowed the liberal establishment to disrupt our society and bring us to this point.

I am not sure we will ever become the America we once were.

Regarding the election itself:



In 1980 the polls showed Carter at 45% and Reagan at 39% in November...62% Carter and 33% Reagan earlier in the year and Reagan won by a landslide.

The public is very unpredictable.

Add to the fact that cases of voter fraud are being reported nationwide and NOT in Mr. Trump's favor. When he voiced that prediction he was nearly booed off the stage...sad.

I had this very same concern in another topic but perhaps worded it differently...where DO we go from here?

People are scared, afraid...TERRIFIED.
Never thought these words would be used to described citizens of the United States of America.
All JMHO.
Even if Clinton ends up being POTUS she will never be MY president...just as Obama has never been MY president.
In order to be respected you need to deserve respect...neither of them do...especially Hi-liar-y.

Edited by jiyabird, 28 October 2016 - 02:43 PM.


#8 snowman

snowman

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,673 posts

Posted 02 November 2016 - 11:39 AM

Hillary should win this easily, and I suspect she will.  Too many sensible voters out there.

 

The thing that really bothers me about the GOP now, is how all of the whiney-old-white-men in the Senate are saying they will leave the Supreme Court spot open.  Remember  their lame excuse for not having a vote on Garland. --  they wanted the voters to have a say in the SC nominee (as if Obama wasn't elected by big majorities 2 time!!!)  And now they're saying when Hillary gets in office they will use this new tactic.

 

These men lie, cheat and steal to get their way. They must be voted out!



#9 Tina

Tina

    Tinacious

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,739 posts

Posted 02 November 2016 - 11:59 AM

Hillary should win this easily, and I suspect she will.  Too many sensible voters out there.

 

The thing that really bothers me about the GOP now, is how all of the whiney-old-white-men in the Senate are saying they will leave the Supreme Court spot open.  Remember  their lame excuse for not having a vote on Garland. --  they wanted the voters to have a say in the SC nominee (as if Obama wasn't elected by big majorities 2 time!!!)  And now they're saying when Hillary gets in office they will use this new tactic.

 

These men lie, cheat and steal to get their way. They must be voted out!

We haven't always had 9 justices.

 

I think our current Supreme Court is rotten and doesn't uphold their duty of checks & balances.

 

Then again, neither does Congress.  :pinch:


Edited by Tina, 02 November 2016 - 12:08 PM.

  • Quasar likes this

#10 snowman

snowman

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,673 posts

Posted 02 November 2016 - 12:31 PM

True enough, but since I've been around there have been 9.   Seems extremely cynical for the GOP to act this way.  If there was a good reason, then let's hear it.



#11 Quasar

Quasar

    Dux Ducis

  • Administrators
  • 6,636 posts

Posted 02 November 2016 - 01:18 PM

True enough, but since I've been around there have been 9.   Seems extremely cynical for the GOP to act this way.  If there was a good reason, then let's hear it.

 

The reason is very simple, however I'm certain that you won't agree. The court should not legislate... however via judicial activism that is precisely what it does. I'm fine with holding out for strict constitutionalism...  a smaller court might work better. Some times you have to break things in order to fix them... this may well be one of those times... 

 

I'm certain that the reason that you and others are so adamant that a judge be added is so that you can get a appointee for life by a liberal potus, in hopes that he or she will tilt the scales of justice more to the left. Otherwise... why does it matter? Why is eight not enough?

 

Size of the Court[edit]
Article III of the United States Constitution does not specify the number of justices. The Judiciary Act of 1789 called for the appointment of six justices, and as the nation's boundaries grew, Congress added justices to correspond with the growing number of judicial circuits: seven in 1807, nine in 1837, and ten in 1863.
 
In 1866, at the behest of Chief Justice Chase, Congress passed an act providing that the next three justices to retire would not be replaced, which would thin the bench to seven justices by attrition. Consequently, one seat was removed in 1866 and a second in 1867. In 1869, however, the Circuit Judges Act returned the number of justices to nine,[67] where it has since remained.
 
President Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to expand the Court in 1937. His proposal envisioned appointment of one additional justice for each incumbent justice who reached the age of 70 years 6 months and refused retirement, up to a maximum bench of 15 justices. The proposal was ostensibly to ease the burden of the docket on elderly judges, but the actual purpose was widely understood as an effort to pack the Court with justices who would support Roosevelt's New Deal.[68] The plan, usually called the "Court-packing Plan", failed in Congress.[69] Nevertheless, the Court's balance began to shift within months when Justice van Devanter retired and was replaced by Senator Hugo Black. By the end of 1941, Roosevelt had appointed seven justices and elevated Harlan Fiske Stone to Chief Justice.[70]
 

  • Col-Arthur likes this

#12 kelley

kelley

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,132 posts

Posted 02 November 2016 - 01:24 PM

The stitch in time that saved nine.

Edited by kelley, 02 November 2016 - 01:24 PM.


#13 snowman

snowman

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,673 posts

Posted 02 November 2016 - 01:26 PM

Quasar... do you really believe the folks on the right don't practice judicial activism?  That's a lot of hooey.



#14 Quasar

Quasar

    Dux Ducis

  • Administrators
  • 6,636 posts

Posted 02 November 2016 - 01:32 PM

Quasar... do you really believe the folks on the right don't practice judicial activism?  That's a lot of hooey.

 

I didn't say that. 

 

I simply want people that will enforce the law... not make it up as they go...

 

Obamacare for example... is unconstitutional and should have been struck down as such by the court. 


  • Beading Lady and CityBoy like this

#15 Col-Arthur

Col-Arthur

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 753 posts

Posted 02 November 2016 - 02:44 PM

 

The reason is very simple, however I'm certain that you won't agree. The court should not legislate... however via judicial activism that is precisely what it does. I'm fine with holding out for strict constitutionalism...  a smaller court might work better. Some times you have to break things in order to fix them... this may well be one of those times... 

 

I'm certain that the reason that you and others are so adamant that a judge be added is so that you can get a appointee for life by a liberal potus, in hopes that he or she will tilt the scales of justice more to the left. Otherwise... why does it matter? Why is eight not enough?

 

Size of the Court[edit]
Article III of the United States Constitution does not specify the number of justices. The Judiciary Act of 1789 called for the appointment of six justices, and as the nation's boundaries grew, Congress added justices to correspond with the growing number of judicial circuits: seven in 1807, nine in 1837, and ten in 1863.
 
In 1866, at the behest of Chief Justice Chase, Congress passed an act providing that the next three justices to retire would not be replaced, which would thin the bench to seven justices by attrition. Consequently, one seat was removed in 1866 and a second in 1867. In 1869, however, the Circuit Judges Act returned the number of justices to nine,[67] where it has since remained.
 
President Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to expand the Court in 1937. His proposal envisioned appointment of one additional justice for each incumbent justice who reached the age of 70 years 6 months and refused retirement, up to a maximum bench of 15 justices. The proposal was ostensibly to ease the burden of the docket on elderly judges, but the actual purpose was widely understood as an effort to pack the Court with justices who would support Roosevelt's New Deal.[68] The plan, usually called the "Court-packing Plan", failed in Congress.[69] Nevertheless, the Court's balance began to shift within months when Justice van Devanter retired and was replaced by Senator Hugo Black. By the end of 1941, Roosevelt had appointed seven justices and elevated Harlan Fiske Stone to Chief Justice.[70]
 

 

Finally!

I was confident someone would point this out.



#16 Hickory Huskers

Hickory Huskers

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 266 posts

Posted 03 November 2016 - 05:58 AM

I agree that Democratic judicial appointments have strayed too far from interpreting the constitution and into legislating their political views from the bench.  However, I have a hard time buying into one party just refusing to allow vacancies to be filled indefinitely, because all that's going to lead to is the other party doing it too and the Supreme Court whittling down until Kagan, Roberts and Sotomayor are the only three left.

 

Of course, if Clinton and Obama hadn't been stocking the court with justices who were legislating from the bench, we may not have Donald Trump within a hair of the Presidency right now. 


  • Quasar and CityBoy like this

#17 snowman

snowman

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,673 posts

Posted 03 November 2016 - 08:48 AM

I guess no one remembers Bush v. Gore.  Typical.



#18 Col-Arthur

Col-Arthur

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 753 posts

Posted 06 November 2016 - 09:50 AM

This might be worth looking into.

 

 

QUEEN OFFERS TO RESTORE BRITISH RULE OVER UNITED STATES

 

¨In an unexpected televised address on Saturday, Queen Elizabeth II offered to restore British rule over the United States of America.

Addressing the American people from her office in Buckingham Palace, the Queen said that she was making the offer “in recognition of the desperate situation you now find yourselves in.”

“This two-hundred-and-forty-year experiment in self-rule began with the best of intentions, but I think we can all agree that it didn’t end well,” she said.

The Queen urged Americans to write in her name on Election Day, after which the transition to British rule could begin “with a minimum of bother...”

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/queen-offers-to-restore-british-rule-over-united-states


  • jiyabird likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users