ForumGarden

spot;1502339 wrote: It's a euphemism for all military matters. Nobody has a War Department any longer but that lack never stopped a war.

Regarding your "judging by the secret comuniques between himself & Russia", where may I find a copy so as to judge?
EXCLUSIVE: FBI 'Granted FISA Warrant' Covering Trump Camp's Ties To Russia

Trump: I Will Absolutely Use a Nuclear Weapon Against ISIS

FourPart;1502507 wrote: EXCLUSIVE: FBI 'Granted FISA Warrant' Covering Trump Camp's Ties To Russia


That's one of Louise Mensch's pseudo-news propaganda sites, you know.

What it publishes is not necessarily the truth. That's why we tend to quote reliable news outlets.

That particular piece of mud-flinging is discussed here: https://jackpineradicals.com/boards/top ... ost-311450 with links back to various prior public denials.

You might as well have quoted from the National Enquirer. This is Snopes on the value of Heat Street stories:Both outlets single-sourced their claims from a 15 July 2016 article published by the HeatStreet web site. That outlet chose the hours after the Nice attack to dredge up old claims from an inquiry that occurred in March 2016, with the only marginal relevance to the claims being another outbreak of carnage and a frightened public. Nothing more occurred between the March 2016 inquiry and the July 2016 spate of claims to warrant republication of unvetted rumor in a time of international grief and worry.

http://www.snopes.com/france-covered-up ... n-victims/



As for the second link to "real news right now" - what was the point? It's blatantly fictional. It's made up. It's cobblers. It's not "news", it's "fiction". News is what real newspapers of good repute publish. "Real news right now" is click-bait toilet paper. They make up "satire" which is fictional. http://www.snopes.com/tag/real-news-right-now/

tude dog;1502503 wrote: Naw, she put herself over a barrel.

She is free to speak freely as she wants.

I see no reason she should get special treatment to protect her from her criminal acts.


Thanks, tude, you have changed my thinking. I don't concur as she did nothing illegal. And you are also right--we are all free to speak freely. How's the Mrs. taking all this? I only ask because I care! :-6

Bruv;1502506 wrote: What is your new President elect position on abortion, gun laws, Obamacare, LGBT issues ?

I think I know, but how will that work in a modern country ?


Fortunately his opinion is not the final answer on any of those subjects.

We still have the current laws. It will take congress to make any changes on any of those subjects.

He claimed during campaigning to be agaist abortion, and says that women who have one should be punished. At least for now, Roe v Wade still stands.

He claims he will see to abolishing all "gun-free" zones. Local laws still rule and that is not, yet, a federal jurisdiction.

He claims he wants to repeal all aspects of "ObamaCare" That will be up to Congress. We will see.

He claims to be against the LGBT friendly laws that have been implemented. We shall see.

I still have some hope that the person ranting and raving for the last year is not really the person we will get on January 20, 2017.

We can only hope

Everyone loves democracy,............. until it turns against them,.......... but its still democracy

Suck it up!

Actually a famous think tank woman i watched on telly reckons this will be the last president. Im not sure what she meant by that, except to say i dont think it was literal. I think she meant people will see its not the president who really calls the shots. It will be layed to bare .

Personally i think Trump is going to struggle with this position. He's used to being the boss and ordering people around. I dont think he understands (well he will shortly) that he isnt his own man anymore . He is an object of the people. Take for instance his body guards..... he doesnt call the shots. They have their orders, and he'll just have to lump it......... its going to be difficult for him.

And to be honest, him sitting there with Obama, he looked very very nervous.

He's upset women, racial groups etc etc domestically. But Americans have to understand he has upset entire countries. Thats not a good thing.

I was watching telly this morning and the morning presenters were going through all the names our politicans called him. My favourite was "drop kick". **** i laughed. There were others just as good.

LarsMac;1502520 wrote: Fortunately his opinion is not the final answer on any of those subjects.

We still have the current laws. It will take congress to make any changes on any of those subjects.

He claimed during campaigning to be agaist abortion, and says that women who have one should be punished. At least for now, Roe v Wade still stands.

He claims he will see to abolishing all "gun-free" zones. Local laws still rule and that is not, yet, a federal jurisdiction.

He claims he wants to repeal all aspects of "ObamaCare" That will be up to Congress. We will see.

He claims to be against the LGBT friendly laws that have been implemented. We shall see.

I still have some hope that the person ranting and raving for the last year is not really the person we will get on January 20, 2017.

We can only hope


And, it remains to be seen whether he will work with the Republicans in Congress or fight with them. And it remains to be seen how actively he will do the work of a president and if he will delegate most of it to someone else. A former employee said that Trump sees himself as more a chairman of the board than a CEO and didn't like to get involved in details.

The Donald pretty damn quick better hold some press conferences to state his "real" or reformed positions now that he's Prez, elect on the controversial issues mentioned in above posts.

He needs to calm down the protesters now, or we'll never make it to inauguration day. He better modify and or water down his campaign rhetoric to what he really can legally, morally, justifiably, and realistically do. :-3

Am i the only one thinking assasination risk?

LarsMac;1502520 wrote: Fortunately his opinion is not the final answer on any of those subjects.

We still have the current laws. It will take congress to make any changes on any of those subjects.

.....................................

I still have some hope that the person ranting and raving for the last year is not really the person we will get on January 20, 2017.

We can only hope


I have always thought the figure head leaders were just that, being under the control of the grey men in suits that really run things.

Or maybe that over states it.......the grey men are the people that have to negotiate between the powerful groups, about what is possible in the real world, compromising until a palatable to all solution is found.

And that is a worry, when the visionary leader does comes along, the person that could change our lives for the better, they have to battle against the machinery.

The same machine that throws up these two presidential candidates, the machinery that hopefully will protect us from the excesses of the likes of Trump.........but also robs us of revolutionary aims of proper leaders

Wandrin;1502522 wrote: And, it remains to be seen whether he will work with the Republicans in Congress or fight with them.


You really think so?

I think he'll have the most delighted baying mob of right-wing legislators you've ever imagined, once it sinks in that they own Washington for the next two years. The 2018 mid-term elections don't look like the Democrats stand much chance of regaining control of the Senate either:



You're in for boom-time economics until the debt repayments become due, after which I expect the USA's credit rating will be on a par with Argentina's.

magentaflame;1502528 wrote: Am i the only one thinking assasination risk?


Mike Pence is worse than Trump, without the blabbering.

AnneBoleyn;1502514 wrote: Thanks, tude, you have changed my thinking. I don't concur as she did nothing illegal. And you are also right--we are all free to speak freely. How's the Mrs. taking all this? I only ask because I care! :-6


I went to be early, my usual time. I think she stayed up late enough to find out the result. Of course, I was up early and could see as soon she walked in the room I best be on my best behavior and cater to her. We haven't spoken of the election since. Especially since we could barely be civil before, I never brought it up.

I am just glad I could honestly tell her I didn't vote for him.

I suspect that Pence is really the one pulling the strings.

I've heard that is also a possibility of the Electoral College overturning the vote due to the fact that Hillary got the majority of the Popular vote - i.e. more people actually voted for her than voted for Trump, by quite a majority. I couldn't help but compare that to the matter of the minority PLP trying to overthrow the majority vote regarding Jeremy Corbyn - only in reverse. It seems to be the minority that have got Trump into position, where if the PLP had got their way, they would have put Owen Smith into place as Labour Leader. It would be very interesting if the decision is reversed, seeing as the final outcome is not yet official.

Winning the popular vote just means a million or so Trump supporters didn't bother to vote in places like California where they knew he couldn't possibly win. If they'd been told the popular vote counted then they'd have voted, and then he'd have won that too. First you set the rules and then people vote on the basis of the rules you've set, not on some hypothetical game you invent afterwards.

AnneBoleyn;1502536 wrote: Mike Pence is worse than Trump, without the blabbering.
No idea who he is, i have some homework.

spot;1502550 wrote: Winning the popular vote just means a million or so Trump supporters didn't bother to vote in places like California where they knew he couldn't possibly win. If they'd been told the popular vote counted then they'd have voted, and then he'd have won that too. First you set the rules and then people vote on the basis of the rules you've set, not on some hypothetical game you invent afterwards.


I demur.

People without conviction don't vote.

Explain the drop in black votes for Hillary after Obama did so well with blacks. It's not like she wasn't going to continue his failed policies.

tude dog;1502555 wrote: Explain the drop in black votes for Hillary after Obama did so well with blacks.


Hillary Clinton was a deeply flawed politician, you needn't tell me, I'm fully aware of the fact. She was a mass killer.

President Obama is among the Elect of God and stands alongside Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela but that's no excuse to then vote for Hillary Clinton when he leaves office.

tude dog;1502543 wrote: I went to be early, my usual time. I think she stayed up late enough to find out the result. Of course, I was up early and could see as soon she walked in the room I best be on my best behavior and cater to her. We haven't spoken of the election since. Especially since we could barely be civil before, I never brought it up.

I am just glad I could honestly tell her I didn't vote for him.


You didn't? You were saying you would not. I am so glad you are true to your word. That's what bothered me--thinking you were not being true to your word; not being true to yourself. :-6

Why is it that the call always seems to go up about the people who didn't vote having any effect on anything? You could just as easily split the non-voters to have hypothetically have voted 50:50 for either party, and the outcome would be the same. You can't just assume which way a voter would have voted simply by the fact that he/she didn't use their vote. In my opinion, someone who is eligible to vote & doesn't use that right has no right to complain about the outcome afterwards. The fact remains that more people voted for Hillary than voted for Trump. That is not a matter of making up rules. It is a statement of fact. Now the outcome is that the majority vote takes on a different result because of a system that is not representative of the voters wishes. As with the Corbyn / Smith election if the PLP (equivalent of Electoral College) had their way, then the election result would have been moot, as they had already selected the winner. Fortunately, try as they might, it wasn't allowed to work that way.

Could it be the election systems are wrong for the time ?

Both the US and UK can end up having more votes against the elected party, and that can't be right......can it ?

Bruv;1502578 wrote: Could it be the election systems are wrong for the time ?

Both the US and UK can end up having more votes against the elected party, and that can't be right......can it ?


Agree here, the USA should do away with the Electoral Vote, (EV) it is ridiculous when the higher popular vote count is discounted by and being over ridden by the EV!



My single vote in my small state (because small state, only warranted "7" Electoral votes) so did not carry as much weight as a single vote of someone in California, a "large state", and because large, state it warranted "55" Electoral votes!



Electoral votes suck, and are outdated and unfair!

Bruv;1502578 wrote: Both the US and UK can end up having more votes against the elected party, and that can't be right......can it ?


What would be wrong would be first having the election, and afterwards deciding the basis of who won and who lost.

What's right is deciding the rules first, and then having the election on the basis of those pre-announced rules, and then working out who won by applying them. How can anyone think the reverse would be fair?

Here's an alternative voting rule system - for the four years from one election to the next, draw one extra winner in the national lottery each time there's a draw who doesn't win money, but wins the right to vote. On election night they all get together in a conference centre and shout Aye or Nay for each candidate and then it's first past the post becomes President. Proper accountable voting and the sale of lottery tickets gets a boost. It's no more arbitrary a set of rules than the Electoral College or your proposed alternative of a simple national majority of qualified electors.

spot;1502587 wrote: What would be wrong would be first having the election, and afterwards deciding the basis of who won and who lost.

What's right is deciding the rules first, and then having the election on the basis of those pre-announced rules, and then working out who won by applying them. How can anyone think the reverse would be fair?

Here's an alternative voting rule system - for the four years from one election to the next, draw one extra winner in the national lottery each time there's a draw who doesn't win money, but wins the right to vote. On election night they all get together in a conference centre and shout Aye or Nay for each candidate and then it's first past the post becomes President. Proper accountable voting and the sale of lottery tickets gets a boost. It's no more arbitrary a set of rules than the Electoral College or your proposed alternative of a simple national majority of qualified electors.


I refer you to my other post HERE

I have never suggested overturning the brexit or US election vote.

And I know we had the chance to go for some alternative system, but I still feel the time has come to either energise the electorate or tweak the system to better reflect their feelings.

Bruv;1502591 wrote: I have never suggested overturning the brexit or US election vote.I was responding to your " that can't be right......can it ".

FourPart;1502548 wrote: I suspect that Pence is really the one pulling the strings.

I've heard that is also a possibility of the Electoral College overturning the vote due to the fact that Hillary got the majority of the Popular vote - i.e. more people actually voted for her than voted for Trump, by quite a majority. I couldn't help but compare that to the matter of the minority PLP trying to overthrow the majority vote regarding Jeremy Corbyn - only in reverse. It seems to be the minority that have got Trump into position, where if the PLP had got their way, they would have put Owen Smith into place as Labour Leader. It would be very interesting if the decision is reversed, seeing as the final outcome is not yet official.


Pence is a pinhead. He would have trouble finding the strings.

The count so far gives Hillary a 400k vote advantage.

The real problem is that the media projected the Electoral votes, even though they have not even be cast, yet.

But then the electoral college has changed recently. now, most states have declared that the electors should all vote for the candidate that receives the majority vote in that state. That was not the case, until recently. In theory, the electors could vote for another candidate. At this point, though, I do not believe that anyone wants the Sh!# storm that would result from that.

cars: "Agree here, the USA should do away with the Electoral Vote, (EV) it is ridiculous when the higher popular vote count is discounted by and being over ridden by the EV!"

ok, cars, please sign the petition I offered!

lars: "But then the electoral college has changed recently. now, most states have declared that the electors should all vote for the candidate that receives the majority vote in that state."

According to the information listed in the petition I offered for signature the elector can change his/her vote, but then will be subject to a fine, not the death penalty for an act of treason!

Anne, would you have felt hard done by if Donald Trump had lost but then been shoehorned in by renegade Electoral College turncoats?

Just saw this on line this morning.

All is not lost for Hillary lovers.

On December 19th, the Electors of the Electoral College will cast their ballots.

If they all vote the way their states voted, Donald wins.

However, they can vote for Hillary if they choose, even in states where that is not allowed, their vote would still be counted.

So again, it Ain't over till it's over, or until the fat lady sings, which occurs first!



However, it it were to happen that the Electors voted for Hillary, and she won, then the riots would continue with Trump supporter's! :-2

By that stage I'd be wondering where the likes of Alexander Haig had got to.

Referring to his... "im in charge" comment?

That's what Generals are for when things go too far, I thought.

spot;1502650 wrote: That's what Generals are for when things go too far, I thought.


Reagan is the first USpresident i was aware of and had any education about. That education formed my views about voting and why i would never ever vote. He totally screwed America to the capitalist extent that could never be reversed no matter who was in power and other western countries would follow suit. Thatcher screwed you guys and our government began rolling back a lot of what Whitlam did here.

Capitalism went on a rampage along with conservativism. For some time now the two party system may as well be one.

cars;1502638 wrote: Just saw this on line this morning.

All is not lost for Hillary lovers.

On December 19th, the Electors of the Electoral College will cast their ballots.

If they all vote the way their states voted, Donald wins.

However, they can vote for Hillary if they choose, even in states where that is not allowed, their vote would still be counted.

So again, it Ain't over till it's over, or until the fat lady sings, which occurs first!



However, it it were to happen that the Electors voted for Hillary, and she won, then the riots would continue with Trump supporter's! :-2


Dream on.

I would not be shocked if there were on or two scoundrels not honor their word.

Don't count on much more.

Faithless elector

Heard a comment from an economist the other day, about Trump returning manufacturing to the US.

The one thing which astounded me when i was in America was how cheap clothing was. This economist was saying, that if Americans wanted to keep their cheap products but at the same time want manufacturing to return then they better be prepared to work for $2 an hour.

The thing is..... Trump wants to return manufacturing to the US but have it heavily automated and mechanicized. How is that going to help long term employment?

I held back to see how he was going to start out, but now that he has appointed Bannon to his chief for the transition team, I think we can see where he is going with this.

And now it seems Rudy Giuliani is his lead candidate for Secretary of State.

What could POSSIBLY go wrong with THAT?

I just hope all the people who enabled Mr Trump, and helped put him in office live long enough to actually realize their mistake.

magentaflame;1502655 wrote: Heard a comment from an economist the other day, about Trump returning manufacturing to the US.

The one thing which astounded me when i was in America was how cheap clothing was. This economist was saying, that if Americans wanted to keep their cheap products but at the same time want manufacturing to return then they better be prepared to work for $2 an hour.


I don't think so.

The machines require skilled persons who merit a decent pay. They replace what in foreige countries requires hundreds of people.

magentaflame;1502655 wrote: The thing is..... Trump wants to return manufacturing to the US but have it heavily automated and mechanicized. How is that going to help long term employment?


Because we can produce products cheaper.

Would be nice if you could eh? But industry doesnt work that way. You employ more people on the floor than tech dudes keeping those machines going. And one technical team monitoring an automated self correcting computer system does not create jobs

Click Link if you dare!



[LAST DAY TO ORDER] POTUS - TRUMP

Cars, it depends on how it all pans out.... they could be worth millions one day...

Or

Evidence when the feds burst through you door and ransack your house.

Yes people! One day there just may be the......burning of the Trumps! The merchandise could be needed for the effigies!

spot;1502602 wrote: Anne, would you have felt hard done by if Donald Trump had lost but then been shoehorned in by renegade Electoral College turncoats?


spot, every thought I unfortunately have of him who will not be named causes projectile vomiting from delicate me. He is a sick phuk & I want no part of him.

AnneBoleyn;1502563 wrote: You didn't? You were saying you would not. I am so glad you are true to your word. That's what bothered me--thinking you were not being true to your word; not being true to yourself. :-6


Truth be told, the night before I told Mrs.Dog I changed my mind and was going to vote for the Trumphole.

It is hard for me to not vote, much less due my duty to vote against Hillary. Never experienced this before where the decision literally happened in the voting booth.

It was not a conscious decision but one “Unencumbered by the thought process.

There REALLY needs to be a "None of the Above" option on the ballot.

If that one gets the most votes everyone on this list goes home and we find someone else.



Or we change the rules so that the winner must carry a majority of the total number of registered voters, rather than a majority of the votes cast.

The highest voter turnout in my lifetime was 1960 with 62.8% turnout. 31.5% of the qualified voters elected JFK.

In the history of the republic, a majority of qualified voters has NEVER elected a president. Seems to me it's time that changed.

I agree, Lars, but how would you ever get anything like that through congress, let alone through 3/4 of the states?

LarsMac;1502702 wrote: There REALLY needs to be a "None of the Above" option on the ballot.

If that one gets the most votes everyone on this list goes home and we find someone else.



Or we change the rules so that the winner must carry a majority of the total number of registered voters, rather than a majority of the votes cast.

The highest voter turnout in my lifetime was 1960 with 62.8% turnout. 31.5% of the qualified voters elected JFK.

In the history of the republic, a majority of qualified voters has NEVER elected a president. Seems to me it's time that changed.


I agree there ought to be some sort of change, but the question is........................what has happened to warrant a change, the US and UK system has worked for centuries, why is it not working now ?

Bruv;1502707 wrote: I agree there ought to be some sort of change, but the question is........................what has happened to warrant a change, the US and UK system has worked for centuries, why is it not working now ?


A majority of people seem to feel disenfranchised. We see all of the big money influence in the legislature, and we feel that we have no real voice. We see the machinations that bring us unacceptable choices, and yet we are expected to choose one. Why bother?

The problem is that the people who can actually do something about it are the ones who most benefit from the way it is.

LarsMac;1502702 wrote: There REALLY needs to be a "None of the Above" option on the ballot.

If that one gets the most votes everyone on this list goes home and we find someone .


We have that!.......its putting a phallic drawing on the voting form .....its not counted, or the vote is spread equally between candidates....not sure.

Its gotten so bad that one whoopsy of a politician said their should be fines for doing that. Not sure how that would work....... but it goes to show how switched on that politician is.

One thing Trump stated in his campaigning, was that he believes in "Term Limits" for our politicians here. And so do I, currently "they" get their job and have it till they die!

They have no real incentive to do good for their constituents, what's good for us, the common people, doesn't apply to them. They should be "re-elected for each 4 year term.

cars;1502756 wrote: One thing Trump stated in his campaigning, was that he believes in "Term Limits" for our politicians here. And so do I, currently "they" get their job and have it till they die!

They have no real incentive to do good for their constituents, what's good for us, the common people, doesn't apply to them. They should be "re-elected for each 4 year term.I see in your side margin that you are an American, so I am rather puzzled by your statement.

The reps to which you're referring are re-elected every two or four years depending on the specific office. Many of them do keep their jobs for long periods, that is because the majority of voters approve of their representation, and that is why the OPPOSING party keeps asking for "term limits".

There are no ELECTED life terms of which I'm aware. There may be certain UN-ELECTED officials with open-ended terms. If you disapprove of those officials you can complain to their ELECTED superiors.

ADDED LATER: FDR is a perfect example. We was indeed "president for life". He still had to be re-elected every four years.