@gorka said:

You know Pelosi is holding it up right?

May be held up indefinitely...until they could scrape up some other bullshit and try to make it stick. That's one theory.

Yet I bet you sit there believing that what these democrats have done was just, noble, and in accordance with the Constitution and the rule of law.

Either that or you want to believe it.

Either that or you don't believe it but don't want to admit it because it would put you on the same side as Cal.

Which is it?

Democrats win the White House in 2020 and they take the Senate with them. But then they will have completely forgotten any of these chickenshit charges.

WSS

@tour2ma said:

See y'all at the trial...

You know Pelosi is holding it up right?

May be held up indefinitely...until they could scrape up some other bullshit and try to make it stick. That's one theory.

Yet I bet you sit there believing that what these democrats have done was just, noble, and in accordance with the Constitution and the rule of law.

Either that or you want to believe it.

Either that or you don't believe it but don't want to admit it because it would put you on the same side as Cal.

Which is it?

@tour2ma said:

See y'all at the trial...

Biden’s?

@mld-woody said:

Trump isn't House

Also, he just told Christians they were the victims and he'd fight for them. Which is fucking hilarious. But as many on here have pointed out, people like playing the victim card.

What is your point exactly?

Yes people. Those segments of society seeking entitlements by way of victimhood.

Politicians however, primarily democrats have always played the victim card too...blacks, homos, women, trannies...are all victims right?  Trump played the victim card for Christians, so what?

The difference is that Trump comes through with his promises.

@mld-woody said:

Dr House. TV Show. Great Dr. with bad bedside manner.

Sigh.

Forum going to shit again.

@vambo said:

@mld-woody said:

Trump isn't House

Also, he just told Christians they were the victims and he'd fight for them. Which is fucking hilarious. But as many on here have pointed out, people like playing the victim card.

Trump isn't House? need a Woodrow translation please.

Bottom line....Trump made promises to evangelical Christians which he has kept and I look forward to voting for him again when he wins in 2020.

Also, he just told Christians they were the victims and he'd fight for them. Which is fucking hilarious. But as many on here have pointed out, people like playing the victim card.

@texasag1969 said:

Evangelicals Round 2. "Toxic" trumpy.

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/december-web-only/trump-evangelicals-editorial-christianity-today-president.html

Evangelical Christians make a mistake if they believe Trump himself is an evangelical Christian. He isn't. Evangelical Christian Mike Huckabee will tell you that. What Trump did in 2016 was he courted the evangelical Christian vote'  (which many other politicians didn't want to do). He told evangelical Christians they were being treated badly by the Obama administration and the democrats and he would fight for the things they believed in. So there is no way I as a Christian would say it is OK to approve of some of the things Trump has said and done. I have personally heard Trump say G-D in some of his speeches for instances as well as some of his tweets seem petty. But here is the deal for me as an evangelical Christian. I voted for president and not a pastor. This president I voted for has delivered in his promises to support the things evangelical Christians care about such as being pro life, pro Israel and supporting religious rights and freedoms.As for his personal flaws (which we all have) I pray for him. I look forward to voting for him again in 2020. 

BTW - Huckabee had the best illustration for Trump..He is a great doctor with bad bedside manner and that really sums up Trump IMO

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/december-web-only/trump-evangelicals-editorial-christianity-today-president.html

https://www.dailywire.com/news/alyssa-milano-has-new-plan-to-remove-trump-that-only-takes-seven-minutes-a-day-its-hilarious

@westside-steve said:

And as much as I loved Ronald Reagan I have to assign him some of the blame for strong-arming Ohio into the 21 year old drinking law which put thousands of rock and roll musicians and clubs out of business.

WSS

Didn’t they threaten to withhold federal highways money to force states into the agreement?

@logicisforsquares said:

Bingo. States rights are going the way of the buffalo and getting superseded more and more by overreaching federal law. 

And as much as I loved Ronald Reagan I have to assign him some of the blame for strong-arming Ohio into the 21 year old drinking law which put thousands of rock and roll musicians and clubs out of business.

WSS

@westside-steve said:

And while certain factors bemoan the mistaken idea that the executive branch is getting more and more power I think you're completely overlooking the fact that states are quickly losing whatever autonomy they ever had.

WSS

Bingo. States rights are going the way of the buffalo and getting superseded more and more by overreaching federal law. 

WSS

@logicisforsquares said:

They can adapt and learn how to produce products that other newly minted countries would want from them. As it stands, they are a drain.

The states aren’t 50 independent countries. They have one unified president. Have a state decide they want to defy federal law and see if the alphabet federal law enforcement orgs don’t come in and start arresting folks. 

 I didn't say they were entirely independent, otherwise things like succession would be a non issue and irrelevant.

 "State"  however is another word for independent country,  the State of Israel for example.  America is composed  of 50 states that are united. These United States have their own laws and leaders and are guaranteed states rights. In this way they are independent, otherwise states would be called "provinces". This by design by the Founders so as to prevent a one man makes all the rules monarchy as was in England.

States are guaranteed equal say in the election of a president. The founders shunned at the idea that a popular vote would decide a presidential election.  Considered it mob rule among a host of other really good reasons.

@gorka said:

Deal what? Makes no sense. Incidentally, the US is already broken up into countries. 50 of them, each with their own leaders and laws. Each with equal say so in the election of the president thanks to the genius of the Founders.

They can adapt and learn how to produce products that other newly minted countries would want from them. As it stands, they are a drain.

The states aren’t 50 independent countries. They have one unified president. Have a state decide they want to defy federal law and see if the alphabet federal law enforcement orgs don’t come in and start arresting folks. 

@logicisforsquares said:

Maps like that are just a good example of why the US needs to be broken up into several countries. There are distinct value, economic, etc differences between areas of the country. The South would be for the most part fucked because they are a drain on federal funds but they can deal.

Deal what? Makes no sense. Incidentally, the US is already broken up into countries. 50 of them, each with their own leaders and laws. Each with equal say so in the election of the president thanks to the genius of the Founders.

@mld-woody said:

Showing that map and going "See! Red!" has to be one of the lowest intelligence level things repeatedly posted on here, and that's saying something. Last time I checked a president was elected by people*, not square miles. I know you and others here are easily tricked by data and numbers but come on, this one should be easy.

There are ways to change the current system without screwing small states. But it's a big change, and people don't like change. Hell, we have an entire political party that's basically just against change. I don't expect anything to happen any time soon. But it's a newer idea that I think those in the younger generation can see. 

And Cal, it's good to see you completely missed the point. I'm not surprised. No shit people live in the red areas of a lot of square miles. The point is that map doesn't represent voters exactly. It just shows it in square miles. A few thousand people spread across North Dakota are going to look like more than 100,000 in a major city. I know you just see red and your brain shuts off. I get you'll just blindly follow your party. But shit, why that map isn't a good representation of voters isn't that difficult to understand

*Well not really, because the electoral college is outdated and broken

See those small squares in each of the states? Those are counties.

Overall Trump won approximately 2,600 counties to Clinton’s 500, or about 84% of the geographic United States. However, Clinton won 88 of of the 100 largest counties (including Washington D.C.). Without these 100 largest counties she would have lost by 11.5 million votes.

That's all Cal was trying to say. There is nothing "low intelligence" about posting this map.

What kind of change do you have in mind? The Obama kind of hope and change?

And Cal, it's good to see you completely missed the point. I'm not surprised. No shit people live in the red areas of a lot of square miles. The point is that map doesn't represent voters exactly. It just shows it in square miles. A few thousand people spread across North Dakota are going to look like more than 100,000 in a major city. I know you just see red and your brain shuts off. I get you'll just blindly follow your party. But shit, why that map isn't a good representation of voters isn't that difficult to understand