Quote:

DESPERATE: DEMOCRAT CALLS FOR TRUMP IMPEACHMENT, CLAIMS RUSSIA FED HIM THE TERM ‘CROOKED HILLARY’ Four days before inauguration Congresswoman brings the stupid  :D A Democratic Congresswoman has called for Donald Trump to be impeached on the grounds that he coined the term ‘crooked Hillary’ in collusion with the Russian government, even suggesting that the Kremlin was feeding Trump such lines to use during his campaign. California Congresswoman Maxine Waters was egged on by MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews to explain why Trump’s presidency is ‘not legitimate’. Matthews and Waters then engaged in some of the most dumb speculation ever aired on a broadcast.

struth.... are these Democrats retarded?   ;D

Ah. Maxine Waters.  Well there's a voice not many people listen to anymore.

A blast from the past -- 2011, actually...
TOP 10 LISTS
Top 10 Outrageous Maxine Waters Quotes
Human Events | Saturday Aug 27, 2011 3:01 AM

http://humanevents.com/2011/08/27/top-10-outrageous-maxine-waters-quotes-2/

My favorite little plum was this one:
Rodney King rebellion:   During the “Why can’t we all just get along” riots in her congressional district, Waters excused the wonton violence, as her constituents were intent on burning down the city.   The Los Angeles Times quoted her saying:   “If you call it a riot, it sounds like it was just a bunch of crazy people who went out and did bad things for no reason.   I maintain it was somewhat understandable, if not acceptable.   So I call it a rebellion.”

If Trump has achieved one thing so far, it is to make the Democrats and the Republicans act like gibbering idiots.

As a member of the "Cannonball Party", I'm enjoying it.
a significant portion of the country wanted someone to do a cannonball into the pool and mess up the status quo," said Farley, who advises Wall Street brokerages on regulation and arbitration issues.

"The cannonball party is not united. They're progressives and conservatives, but they're fed up with the status quo and all they know is that anything is better than what we got."
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-wallstreet-parties-idUSKBN1332UG

issuevoter wrote on Jan 18^th, 2017 at 7:21am:

If Trump has achieved one thing so far, it is to make the Democrats and the Republicans act like gibbering idiots.

the New Age Civil WAR..

only now theres nothing CIVIL about it..

lets hope Trump stops playing their  [childish]game and gets on with the job he has been given..

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Jan 18^th, 2017 at 6:38am:

Quote: DESPERATE: DEMOCRAT CALLS FOR TRUMP IMPEACHMENT, CLAIMS RUSSIA FED HIM THE TERM ‘CROOKED HILLARY’ Four days before inauguration Congresswoman brings the stupid  :D A Democratic Congresswoman has called for Donald Trump to be impeached on the grounds that he coined the term ‘crooked Hillary’ in collusion with the Russian government, even suggesting that the Kremlin was feeding Trump such lines to use during his campaign. California Congresswoman Maxine Waters was egged on by MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews to explain why Trump’s presidency is ‘not legitimate’. Matthews and Waters then engaged in some of the most dumb speculation ever aired on a broadcast. struth.... are these Democrats retarded?   ;D

yes, they are retarded.

Only question is, how retarded are they?

I suggest they are full 'tards.

cods wrote on Jan 18^th, 2017 at 7:56am:

and gets on with the job he has been given..

.... OF DRAINING THE SWAMP

There are Leftist Retards that say that America
didn't want Trump.....Really!?

The Truth...................They Can't Handle the Truth!!!!!





Counties that voted for Trump  in Red
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C0nOvMKUcAEjMgo.jpg

Precisely why the American Founding Fathers despised democracy, & created an Electoral College for
Presidential Elections!

Panther wrote on Jan 18^th, 2017 at 10:27am:

There are Leftist Retards that say that America didn't want Trump.....Really!? The Truth ...................They Can't Handle the Truth !!!!!

neither can you ... Hillary got 2.5  million more votes than thrump ... all the pretty pictures in the world won't change that.

John Smith wrote on Jan 18^th, 2017 at 10:30am:

Panther wrote on Jan 18th, 2017 at 10:27am: There are Leftist Retards that say that America didn't want Trump.....Really!? The Truth ...................They Can't Handle the Truth !!!!! neither can you ... Hillary got 2.5  million more votes than thrump ... all the pretty pictures in the world won't change that.

[size=11][font=Georgia][i]Yes, she most certainly did.....I never denied that she did......in a few of those little blue boxes in New York & California. The American Founding Fathers actually foresaw that, & in their wisdom decided that in Presidential (National) Elections, the Electoral College would decide on the victor, not the popular vote. So it is, so it was, & so it shall be ........ until, & only if, there is a ratified Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

blah blah blah ... don't quote to me how their system works. The fact remains, the majority of americans voted for hillary.

John Smith wrote on Jan 18^th, 2017 at 10:47am:

blah blah blah ... don't quote to me how their system works. The fact remains, the majority of americans voted for hillary.

http://www.33sm.ml/smileys/violin4qi3.gif That makes no difference whatsoever.

And, in America.......because America isn't a Democracy.........America is ruled by a Constitution, not a majority! 

So, the TRUTH is, a plurality means JACK SQUAT in Presidential Elections!.......full stop......period.

It's over......the Fat Lady has sung!    

http://www.onesmiley.netne.net/smileys/He%20Did%20It%20005.gif   On Friday, January 20^th, 2017 at 12:00 Noon ...... U.S. Eastern Standard Time ...... Donald Trump will become President Donald J. Trump, the 45^th President of the United States of America.  :)  ;)

John Smith wrote on Jan 18^th, 2017 at 10:47am:

blah blah blah ... don't quote to me how their system works. The fact remains, the majority of americans voted for hillary.

Nope quite a lot didn't vote at all. Of those who voted, most voted for Hillary. But only 58% voted. So her share probably amounted to 30%.

AuntieM wrote on Jan 18^th, 2017 at 7:03am:

Waters excused the wonton violence

Did they throw wontons at each other? ;)

Panther wrote on Jan 18^th, 2017 at 10:27am:

There are people that say that America didn't want Trump.....Really!?

Really.

More people wanted Hillary.

Only 63 million people voted for Trump.

However, 66 million voted for Clinton.

American voters quite clearly did not get the President they wanted.

This is an indisputable fact.

(rounded up numbers)

what do you win for winning the "popular" vote?  :-/

https://i.imgsafe.org/ec1011be14.png

Didn't see a word anything! http://www.33sm.ml/smileys/laughing024.gif http://www.33sm.ml/smileys/laughing024.gif http://www.33sm.ml/smileys/laughing024.gif http://www.33sm.ml/smileys/laughing024.gif http://www.33sm.ml/smileys/laughing024.gif http://www.33sm.ml/smileys/laughing024.gif http://www.33sm.ml/smileys/laughing024.gif http://www.33sm.ml/smileys/laughing024.gif  http://www.33sm.ml/smileys/ignorea.gif

lee wrote on Jan 18^th, 2017 at 10:57am:

John Smith wrote on Jan 18th, 2017 at 10:47am: blah blah blah ... don't quote to me how their system works. The fact remains, the majority of americans voted for hillary. Nope quite a lot didn't vote at all.

then they don't count.

Panther wrote on Jan 18^th, 2017 at 10:53am:

... That makes no difference whatsoever.

no one said it did ... but if you are going to criticise someone for saying something, at least make sure you get it right.

John Smith wrote on Jan 18^th, 2017 at 11:21am:

Panther wrote on Jan 18th, 2017 at 10:53am: ... That makes no difference whatsoever. no one said it did ... but if you are going to criticise someone for saying something, at least make sure you get it right.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C0nOvMKUcAEjMgo.jpg

Outside of some highly populated pockets of New York & California, Donald Trump swept America in the 2016 Presidential Election......Thereby winning the Election according to the Law of the Land.....The United States Constitution.

Panther wrote on Jan 18^th, 2017 at 11:30am:

John Smith wrote on Jan 18th, 2017 at 11:21am: Panther wrote on Jan 18th, 2017 at 10:53am: ... That makes no difference whatsoever. no one said it did ... but if you are going to criticise someone for saying something, at least make sure you get it right. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C0nOvMKUcAEjMgo.jpg Outside of some highly populated pockets of New York & California, Donald Trump swept America in the 2016 Presidential Election......Thereby winning the Election according to the Law of the Land.....The United States Constitution.

nothing to brag about there..that merely worries most americans a lot.

Agnes wrote on Jan 18^th, 2017 at 11:36am:

Panther wrote on Jan 18th, 2017 at 11:30am: John Smith wrote on Jan 18th, 2017 at 11:21am: Panther wrote on Jan 18th, 2017 at 10:53am: ... That makes no difference whatsoever. no one said it did ... but if you are going to criticise someone for saying something, at least make sure you get it right. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C0nOvMKUcAEjMgo.jpg Outside of some highly populated pockets of New York & California, Donald Trump swept America in the 2016 Presidential Election......Thereby winning the Election according to the Law of the Land.....The United States Constitution. nothing to brag about there..that merely worries most americans a lot.

Please, provide a link to corroborate your "....worries most Americans....."    imaginary factoid.  ;)

Working for the dole (welfare...food stamps, etc...) will probably shake up quite a few Americans, & non-Americans alike, when that might be reinstituted after the past 8 year hiatus. :)

issuevoter wrote on Jan 18^th, 2017 at 7:21am:

If Trump has achieved one thing so far, it is to make the Democrats and the Republicans act like gibbering idiots.

He's risen the bar, no?

Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 18^th, 2017 at 8:09am:

cods wrote on Jan 18th, 2017 at 7:56am: and gets on with the job he has been given.. .... OF DRAINING THE SWAMP

And then filling it with piss.

miam miam

John Smith wrote on Jan 18^th, 2017 at 11:20am:

lee wrote on Jan 18th, 2017 at 10:57am: John Smith wrote on Jan 18th, 2017 at 10:47am: blah blah blah ... don't quote to me how their system works. The fact remains, the majority of americans voted for hillary. Nope quite a lot didn't vote at all. then they don't count.

:D :D :D :D :D :D

If it was based on the most votes Trump said he would have campaigned differently. The fact that it was based on electoral college votes, Trump campaigned to that end. Trump out-manouvoured his opponents.

Panther wrote on Jan 18^th, 2017 at 11:17am:

https://i.imgsafe.org/ec1011be14.png Didn't see a word anything! http://www.33sm.ml/smileys/laughing024.gif http://www.33sm.ml/smileys/laughing024.gif http://www.33sm.ml/smileys/laughing024.gif http://www.33sm.ml/smileys/laughing024.gif http://www.33sm.ml/smileys/laughing024.gif http://www.33sm.ml/smileys/laughing024.gif http://www.33sm.ml/smileys/laughing024.gif http://www.33sm.ml/smileys/laughing024.gif  http://www.33sm.ml/smileys/ignorea.gif

How do you do that?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 18^th, 2017 at 1:49pm:

If it was based on the most votes Trump said he would have campaigned differently. The fact that it was based on electoral college votes, Trump campaigned to that end. Trump out-manouvoured his opponents.

Nobody is denying that.

In fact, I congratulated him on it as soon as it was clear that he would win.

The point is, though, more people voted for Clinton.

Yes, he may be the POTUS, but that's not what the majority of people who voted wanted.

https://s25.postimg.org/lu0adjszj/15078639_10155214293576729_3736938476724385291_n.jpg

Fuzzball wrote on Jan 18^th, 2017 at 2:43pm:

https://s25.postimg.org/lu0adjszj/15078639_10155214293576729_3736938476724385291_n.jpg

;D

lee wrote on Jan 18^th, 2017 at 11:00am:

AuntieM wrote on Jan 18th, 2017 at 7:03am: Waters excused the wonton violence Did they throw wontons at each other? ;)

Lol. And that's just part of why only 6% of Americans trust the media -- the bimbos can't spell.

http://www.snopes.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/virginia-democrat.jpg

http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/10/Screen-Shot-2016-10-29-at-9.34.00-PM-640x480.jpg
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2016/10/27/2-investigators-chicago-voters-cast-ballots-from-beyond-the-grave/

'Voter fraud'? California man finds dozens of ballots stacked outside home
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/03/voter-fraud-california-man-finds-dozens-ballots-stacked-outside-home.html
“The [California] secretary of state’s website does not track the IP addresses of the people who register to vote,” Harmeet Dhillon, a former state party official, told the Los Angeles Times. “You could literally register hundreds or thousands of people from the same computer … There is more security on the websites that I shopped on Black Friday than there is on the secretary of state’s website.”

Trumps nominee to lead homeland security is interesting. Instead of draining the swamp Trump has invited an alligator to feel right at home.

General Kelly is highly regarded, even among Democrats who oppose Trump.
McCaskill will vote for Trump defense and homeland security nominees, but other votes will be watched
WASHINGTON • In the first announcement of what will be a much-watched process, Sen. Claire McCaskill said over the weekend that she will vote for Donald Trump’s nominees for secretary of defense and director of homeland security.

“After one-on-one meetings and public Senate hearings, I’ve again decided to not let party labels get in the way of good public service,” McCaskill said in a statement issued by her office. She said she would vote for Gen. James Mattis to head the Pentagon, and Gen. John Kelly to become the new secretary of Homeland Security.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/mccaskill-will-vote-for-trump-defense-and-homeland-security-nominees/article_02170dcd-ba63-5763-9c38-5a5b11378faf.html

Choosing two of America’s finest leaders
With nominees Gen. James Mattis and Gen. John Kelly, the nation can rest easy
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/12/james-mattis-john-kelly-are-two-of-americas-finest/

Perhaps the whole of the GOP rabble should be kicked out of congress and senate.

All they did was obstruct Obama and conduct partisan vendettas against Hillary Clinton and failed in the most wretched fashion.

http://thefederalistpapers.integratedmarket.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/C6C5CABB-FEE6-450B-B301-AF04A2AA7C92.jpg

Evidence Hillary Clinton Broke Federal Laws And Jeopardized National Security, No Charges Recommended... WTF, FBI?!
07/11/2016 01:14 pm ET | Updated Jul 11, 2016
FBI Director James Comey gave a press conference on Tuesday, July 5th, discussing in surprising detail the three main aspects of the investigation: What they did (a lot). What they found (she broke the law and jeopardized national security). What they recommend (nothing).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/d-c-rutledge/fbi-clinton-was-extremely_b_10818458.html

finally, a rational, unbiased take on things, from Scotland
https://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/AAEAAQAAAAAAAAcyAAAAJDIwZjhlMDg5LTIyYTAtNDYzNy05MGM2LWNiODIzZWI2YzA5Yg.jpg

https://youtu.be/VCLRokEP75c
Said Gowdy in a hearing, “What would she have had to do to warrant your recommendation for prosecution?” Comey tried to cover for himself by saying that there would have to be proof of her intent. Gowdy ripped him apart.

Said Trey, “But the way to prove that is whether or not someone took steps to conceal or destroy what they’ve done. That is the best evidence you have that they knew it was wrong, that they lied about it.” Comey acted like he didn’t buy that, so Trey continued, ” … you have to prove it by circumstantial evidence such as whether or not the person intended to set up an e-mail system outside the State Department.”
Concluded Trey, “I think you would agree with this, Director — false exculpatory statements are gold in a courtroom. I would rather have a false exculpatory statement than a confession. I would rather have someone lie about something and it be provable that that is a lie, such as that I neither sent nor received classified information. Such as that I turned over all of my work related e-mails. All of that to me goes to the issue of intent.”
http://truthfeed.com/trey-gowdy-drops-a-truthbomb-with-new-proof-that-comey-and-clinton-broke-federal-laws-together/26767/

The following are 11 federal laws that Hillary Clinton and her associates have been accused of violating, whether at The State Department or in connection with The Clinton Foundation:

U.S. Code § 798 – Disclosure of classified information
U.S. Code § 1031 — Major fraud against the United States
U.S. Code § 371 – Conspiracy to commit a federal offense
U.S. Code § 1924 – Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
U.S. Code § 2071(b) — Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
U.S. Code § 1346 — Definition of “scheme or artifice to defraud”
U.S. Code § 641 – Public money, property or records
U.S. Code § 1343 – Fraud by wire, radio or television
U.S. Code § 1505 – Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees
U.S. Code § 1519 — Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations
18 U.S. Code § 793 — Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

As the nation is well aware, FBI director James Comey recently reopened the federal investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails.

In July, Comey stunned many political observers by holding a pre-emptive press conference and ticking off a damning string of violations—only to dismiss them on non-existent legal grounds that Mrs. Clinton did not “intend” to break the law.

Contrary to that assertion, and due to his decision not to pursue indictment not being determined in a court of law, the following laws may potentially have been broken by Mrs. Clinton, in connection with:

Her usage of an illicit private email server while at the State Department;
The sending and receiving of classified information on unsecured channels;
Obstruction of justice, lying under oath, or destruction of government property;
Misleading or concealing information from federal agents conducting an official investigation;
Abusing a government office for private gain, such as vis-à-vis The Clinton Foundation;
Engaging in quid pro quo arrangements that risk the national security of the United States;
Otherwise engaging in a “cover-up.”
Hillary Clinton has given a number of statements to the public about her private email server that have turned out to be demonstrably false, even if simply based on FBI Director Comey's testimony. Further disturbing details about the case came out later in the form of the bureau's redacted notes on the email case.

In one exchange before Congress, Comey denied that Hillary Clinton had “broken the law,” but said any government agents who did what she did would be “in big trouble.”

A powerful GOP Senator, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, has gone further than saying Hillary Clinton will be “in big trouble.”

The Chairman of Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee listed two federal statutes in particular that Hillary Clinton potentially violated—18 U.S. Code 793 (f) and 18 U.S. Code 2071. These codes deal with “the willful destruction or removal from proper custody of information relating to national defense.”

The “high crimes and misdemeanors” would constitute basis for impeachment if applicable at the time of a hearing, should Mrs. Clinton become president.

Update: FBI sources are telling Bret Baier of Fox News that an indictment is “likely” in the Hillary Clinton email case.
http://ijr.com/wildfire/2016/11/727129-11-federal-laws-hillary-clinton-is-accused-of-breaking-the-last-one-is-a-doozy/

AuntieM wrote on Jan 19^th, 2017 at 1:28am:

The following are 11 federal laws that Hillary Clinton and her associates have been accused of violating, whether at The State Department or in connection with The Clinton Foundation: U.S. Code § 798 – Disclosure of classified information U.S. Code § 1031 — Major fraud against the United States U.S. Code § 371 – Conspiracy to commit a federal offense U.S. Code § 1924 – Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material U.S. Code § 2071(b) — Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally U.S. Code § 1346 — Definition of “scheme or artifice to defraud” U.S. Code § 641 – Public money, property or records U.S. Code § 1343 – Fraud by wire, radio or television U.S. Code § 1505 – Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees U.S. Code § 1519 — Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations 18 U.S. Code § 793 — Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information As the nation is well aware, FBI director James Comey recently reopened the federal investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails. In July, Comey stunned many political observers by holding a pre-emptive press conference and ticking off a damning string of violations—only to dismiss them on non-existent legal grounds that Mrs. Clinton did not “intend” to break the law. Contrary to that assertion, and due to his decision not to pursue indictment not being determined in a court of law, the following laws may potentially have been broken by Mrs. Clinton, in connection with: Her usage of an illicit private email server while at the State Department; The sending and receiving of classified information on unsecured channels; Obstruction of justice, lying under oath, or destruction of government property; Misleading or concealing information from federal agents conducting an official investigation; Abusing a government office for private gain, such as vis-à-vis The Clinton Foundation; Engaging in quid pro quo arrangements that risk the national security of the United States; Otherwise engaging in a “cover-up.” Hillary Clinton has given a number of statements to the public about her private email server that have turned out to be demonstrably false, even if simply based on FBI Director Comey's testimony. Further disturbing details about the case came out later in the form of the bureau's redacted notes on the email case. In one exchange before Congress, Comey denied that Hillary Clinton had “broken the law,” but said any government agents who did what she did would be “in big trouble.” A powerful GOP Senator, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, has gone further than saying Hillary Clinton will be “in big trouble.” The Chairman of Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee listed two federal statutes in particular that Hillary Clinton potentially violated—18 U.S. Code 793 (f) and 18 U.S. Code 2071. These codes deal with “the willful destruction or removal from proper custody of information relating to national defense.” The “high crimes and misdemeanors” would constitute basis for impeachment if applicable at the time of a hearing, should Mrs. Clinton become president. Update: FBI sources are telling Bret Baier of Fox News that an indictment is “likely” in the Hillary Clinton email case. http://ijr.com/wildfire/2016/11/727129-11-federal-laws-hillary-clinton-is-accused-of-breaking-the-last-one-is-a-doozy/

and yet...

not any of that matters to a leftist retard...

because the leftist Retard always votes for a leftist party even if that means losing the country that they live in...

they are mental..

I'd be perfectly happy if we prioritized getting Mr Soros' $7 billion in back taxes first, however.

If a normal person owed even .01% that much for so many years, they would have been put in jail and lost their home by now.

AuntieM wrote on Jan 19^th, 2017 at 6:46am:

I'd be perfectly happy if we prioritized getting Mr Soros' $7 billion in back taxes first, however. If a normal person owed even .01% that much for so many years, they would have been put in jail and lost their home by now.

it will be interesting to see who gets rounded up and brought to justice..

Panther wrote on Jan 18^th, 2017 at 10:45am:

John Smith wrote on Jan 18th, 2017 at 10:30am: Panther wrote on Jan 18th, 2017 at 10:27am: There are Leftist Retards that say that America didn't want Trump.....Really!? The Truth ...................They Can't Handle the Truth !!!!! neither can you ... Hillary got 2.5  million more votes than thrump ... all the pretty pictures in the world won't change that. [size=11][font=Georgia][i]Yes, she most certainly did.....I never denied that she did......in a few of those little blue boxes in New York & California. The American Founding Fathers actually foresaw that, & in their wisdom decided that in Presidential (National) Elections, the Electoral College would decide on the victor, not the popular vote. So it is, so it was, & so it shall be ........ until, & only if, there is a ratified Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

IN THEIR WISDOM??? get your hand off it. Their 'wisdom' included slavery, no rights for women and executing homosexuals.  There was little wisdom and the electoral system was designed around a 18th century america, not a 21st century one.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 19^th, 2017 at 7:42am:

IN THEIR WISDOM??? get your hand off it. Their 'wisdom' included slavery, no rights for women and executing homosexuals.

How very 21st century PC of you. Expecting 18th century values to be in line with current ones.


longweekend58 wrote on Jan 19^th, 2017 at 7:42am:

the electoral system was designed around a 18th century america

Glad you acknowledge that. When was ours (Australia's) designed? Early 20th century.

https://s25.postimg.org/ih8l4ax6n/The_Janitor_From_Jekyll_Island.jpg

Back to doing the job he was good at.......

lee wrote on Jan 19^th, 2017 at 10:55am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 19th, 2017 at 7:42am: IN THEIR WISDOM??? get your hand off it. Their 'wisdom' included slavery, no rights for women and executing homosexuals. How very 21st century PC of you. Expecting 18th century values to be in line with current ones. longweekend58 wrote on Jan 19th, 2017 at 7:42am: the electoral system was designed around a 18th century america Glad you acknowledge that. When was ours (Australia's) designed? Early 20th century.

The point that you so easily ignore is that assuming that somehow these people 250 years ago foresaw a 21st century america is patently ridiculous.  Im not saying that an electoral college is necessary a bad idea. I am saying that because some ancient document set up a system which delivers what YOU want today, is not the definition of wisdom. It is a tad more complex than that.

lee wrote on Jan 19^th, 2017 at 10:55am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 19th, 2017 at 7:42am: IN THEIR WISDOM??? get your hand off it. Their 'wisdom' included slavery, no rights for women and executing homosexuals. How very 21st century PC of you. Expecting 18th century values to be in line with current ones. longweekend58 wrote on Jan 19th, 2017 at 7:42am: the electoral system was designed around a 18th century america Glad you acknowledge that. When was ours (Australia's) designed? Early 20th century.

banning slavery, giving rights to women and not executing homosexuals is hardly 21st century news. I is 20th century and the attitude itself was 19th century.

Things have changed since the days of the slave-owning Founding Fathers set up a system that you apparently support when it suits your desired outcome.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 19^th, 2017 at 7:42am:

........Their 'wisdom' included slavery, no rights for women and executing homosexuals.......

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Slavery, well the British passed on their finest accomplishments to the then colonies of the crown.....If you'd actually read the statements of the Founding Fathers you would know where they actually stood on those issues, mind you some were in favor......Women voted in most places (local elections) & they stood side by side with their menfolk, armed with musket in hand, or at the cannon, when snuffing out those coward Redcoat Officers, & you should provide validation (corroborating documentation)to that last dubious statement, where the Founding Fathers advocated such. In the 1700's "fudge packing" was quite illegal, & considered highly immoral everywhere in the world, except in His Majesty's British Royal Navy, where Cabin Boys   aka   "Peg Boys" were still the rage of course.

The US was set up with a Constitution as framework.

We have to consider, if any given position, fits within the constitution, or does not.

The existence of slavery doesn't negate the constitution. Sorry, kittens, but it doesn't.

Beginning in the 1830s, leading voices in the South, the foremost being John C. Calhoun, embraced slavery as what they called a “positive good,” and rejected any limits on slavery. These Southerners knew the Founders opposed slavery in principle—and also knew they had taken significant actions, for example with the Northwest Ordinance, to contain the institution and to roll it back wherever possible—but they thought that the Founders were wrong to do so.
None of the leading Founders ever declared slavery to be a just or beneficial institution. In fact, they hoped to see the slave trade eradicated, and eventually the entire institution of slavery made illegal.
George Washington Letter to Robert Morris
April 12, 1786 “...[T]here is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a
plan adopted for the abolition of it....”
John Adams Letter to Robert J. Evans
June 8, 1819 “...Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States. . . . I have, through my whole
life, held the practice of slavery in...abhorrence....”

AuntieM wrote on Jan 19^th, 2017 at 1:22pm:

Beginning in the 1830s, leading voices in the South, the foremost being John C. Calhoun, embraced slavery as what they called a “positive good,” and rejected any limits on slavery. These Southerners knew the Founders opposed slavery in principle—and also knew they had taken significant actions, for example with the Northwest Ordinance, to contain the institution and to roll it back wherever possible—but they thought that the Founders were wrong to do so. None of the leading Founders ever declared slavery to be a just or beneficial institution. In fact, they hoped to see the slave trade eradicated, and eventually the entire institution of slavery made illegal. George Washington Letter to Robert Morris April 12, 1786 “...[T]here is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it....” John Adams Letter to Robert J. Evans June 8, 1819 “...Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States. . . . I have, through my whole life, held the practice of slavery in...abhorrence....”

A very good read....thanks ;) https://online.hillsdale.edu/course/con101/part06/week-6-lecture

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 19^th, 2017 at 11:56am:

The point that you so easily ignore is that assuming that somehow these people 250 years ago foresaw a 21st century america is patently ridiculous.

Yep, it is what Constitutional Amendment is for. Who is ignoring what.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 19^th, 2017 at 11:58am:

banning slavery, giving rights to women and not executing homosexuals is hardly 21st century news. I is 20th century and the attitude itself was 19th century. Things have changed since the days of the slave-owning Founding Fathers set up a system that you apparently support when it suits your desired outcome.

Yep. And who said I was supporting it?

Then why bring up 19th and 20th century mores when discussing 18th century happenings?

AuntieM wrote on Jan 19^th, 2017 at 1:17pm:

The US was set up with a Constitution as framework. We have to consider, if any given position, fits within the constitution, or does not. The existence of slavery doesn't negate the constitution. Sorry, kittens, but it doesn't.

the point is that the US constitution was framed by slave-owners. It is worth remembering that before somehow claiming that it is a document of unending wisdom or Holy Writ.  it is people like King Trump who prior to the election said the electoral college was terrible because he thought it worked against him while now supporting it because it literally got him elected.

Just occasionally, a principled position would be a welcome relief.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 19^th, 2017 at 2:48pm:

AuntieM wrote on Jan 19th, 2017 at 1:17pm: The US was set up with a Constitution as framework. We have to consider, if any given position, fits within the constitution, or does not. The existence of slavery doesn't negate the constitution. Sorry, kittens, but it doesn't. the point is that the US constitution was framed by slave-owners. It is worth remembering that before somehow claiming that it is a document of unending wisdom or Holy Writ.  it is people like King Trump who prior to the election said the electoral college was terrible because he thought it worked against him while now supporting it because it literally got him elected. Just occasionally, a principled position would be a welcome relief.

the US constitution was framed by slave-owners....  https://i.imgsafe.org/6322caaba2.gif    agreed, a few were.


....Trump, who prior to the election, said the electoral college was terrible because he thought it worked against him while now supporting it because it literally got him elected. https://i.imgsafe.org/63231ab97e.gif



Your point, because Trump didn't like it mattered not.

It was the Law of the Land since 1788 & stands firm today, causing you to get your leftist lil soiled panties in a twist...... something you absolutely can not refute.


Now, that presently he supports it because through meeting the Law of the Land's legal requirements, which was but one factor that aided in his victory, it's still the Law of the Land.....always was.....& unless removed/redesigned/replaced by a Constitutional Process, that enables The American People, not the government, to alter via a Constitutional Amendment, the Electoral College will always be The Law of the Land causing you to get your leftist lil soiled panties in a tighter twist ......... something else you absolutely can not refute.



You shouldn't be having such a sissy fit over a law you have no possible way of changing, you should be looking in the mirror & asking yourself.....

why do facts I can't change make me so mad I want to gouge my own eyes out with a fork???!! 

Something you may, or may not, desire to refute. ;D ;D ;D

Panther wrote on Jan 19^th, 2017 at 3:15pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 19th, 2017 at 2:48pm: AuntieM wrote on Jan 19th, 2017 at 1:17pm: The US was set up with a Constitution as framework. We have to consider, if any given position, fits within the constitution, or does not. The existence of slavery doesn't negate the constitution. Sorry, kittens, but it doesn't. the point is that the US constitution was framed by slave-owners. It is worth remembering that before somehow claiming that it is a document of unending wisdom or Holy Writ.  it is people like King Trump who prior to the election said the electoral college was terrible because he thought it worked against him while now supporting it because it literally got him elected. Just occasionally, a principled position would be a welcome relief. the US constitution was framed by slave-owners....  https://i.imgsafe.org/6322caaba2.gif    agreed, a few were. ....Trump, who prior to the election, said the electoral college was terrible because he thought it worked against him while now supporting it because it literally got him elected. https://i.imgsafe.org/63231ab97e.gif Your point, because Trump didn't like it mattered not. It was the Law of the Land since 1788 & stands firm today, causing you to get your leftist lil soiled panties in a twist...... something you absolutely can not refute. Now, that presently he supports it because through meeting the Law of the Land's legal requirements, which was but one factor that aided in his victory, it's still the Law of the Land.....always was.....& unless removed/redesigned/replaced by a Constitutional Process, that enables The American People, not the government, to alter via a Constitutional Amendment, the Electoral College will always be The Law of the Land causing you to get your leftist lil soiled panties in a tighter twist ......... something else you absolutely can not refute. You shouldn't be having such a sissy fit over a law you have no possible way of changing, you should be looking in the mirror & asking yourself..... why do facts I can't change make me so mad I want to gouge my own eyes out with a fork???!!  Something you may, or may not, desire to refute. ;D ;D ;D

it was a constitution that SUPPORTED slavery. Defend that all you want, which apparently you want to do.

the point - which you have so gleefully ignored - is that some total clowns (you included) seem to think the US consitution is some pearl of wisdom which it is not. It is just another man-made document with all the flaws inherent in them. For one thing, they decided on a Presidential system of government, a system that has failed almost everywhere else in the world while the Westminster system they rejected flourishes.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 19^th, 2017 at 4:32pm:

Panther wrote on Jan 19th, 2017 at 3:15pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 19th, 2017 at 2:48pm: AuntieM wrote on Jan 19th, 2017 at 1:17pm: The US was set up with a Constitution as framework. We have to consider, if any given position, fits within the constitution, or does not. The existence of slavery doesn't negate the constitution. Sorry, kittens, but it doesn't. the point is that the US constitution was framed by slave-owners. It is worth remembering that before somehow claiming that it is a document of unending wisdom or Holy Writ.  it is people like King Trump who prior to the election said the electoral college was terrible because he thought it worked against him while now supporting it because it literally got him elected. Just occasionally, a principled position would be a welcome relief. the US constitution was framed by slave-owners....  https://i.imgsafe.org/6322caaba2.gif    agreed, a few were. ....Trump, who prior to the election, said the electoral college was terrible because he thought it worked against him while now supporting it. https://i.imgsafe.org/63231ab97e.gif Your point, because Trump didn't like it mattered not. It was the Law of the Land since 1788 & stands firm today, causing you to get your leftist lil soiled panties in a twist...... something you absolutely can not refute. Now, that presently he supports it because through meeting the Law of the Land's legal requirements, which was but one factor that aided in his victory, it's still the Law of the Land.....always was.....& unless removed/redesigned/replaced by a Constitutional Process, that enables The American People, not the government, to alter via a Constitutional Amendment, the Electoral College will always be The Law of the Land causing you to get your leftist lil soiled panties in a tighter twist ......... something else you absolutely can not refute. You shouldn't be having such a sissy fit over a law you have no possible way of changing, you should be looking in the mirror & asking yourself..... why do facts I can't change make me so mad I want to gouge my own eyes out with a fork???!!  Something you may, or may not, desire to refute. ;D ;D ;D .....it was a constitution that SUPPORTED slavery......

Source:      Ashland University      
Quote:

........a close examination of the Constitution and the attitudes of the Framers indicates that the Constitution was not a pro-slavery document. It was, however, a document that incorporated compromise of the opinions of the Framers and of each of the interests they represented. The Founding Fathers realized slavery was not an infinite institution, but that it would eventually die out. They therefore created a document that represented the Union as it stood in 1787, and also as it would stand in the future. Some provisions had to be made for slavery while also leaving the Constitution open to debate and change if and when slavery would be abolished. The most important point to remember is that the Constitution was established to uphold the perpetuation of the Union and the rights and liberties of its citizens.

On the above, I absolutely agree.....the Preservation of a Union was much more important than losing it all to the cursed Tyrannical British, over making any  Pro or Anti   Slavery points in endless debate in 1780's.

If the American People ever wanted to add to, or change any parts of the US Constitution, they can add or change any parts they wish .... The Constitution itself authorizes the precise procedures to do so. It has been done successfully 17 times in 240 years via Article V of the US Constitution.




Ending Slavery in the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution:



Quote:

Amendment XIII (1865) Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The Founding Fathers knew that the Constitution they proposed was not going to be the perfect document for all time infinitum, so they, noting the document shouldn't be taken lightly ...... changing with every whim ..... provided a process to go about making revisions when absolutely needed.

The process has seen the insertion of 17 ratified amendments, subsequent to the first 10 amendments known as the Bill of Rights, for a total of 27.




Now, all that said, Donald Trump was elected as prescribed by law.....period.

Quote:

DESPERATE DEMOCRAT CALLS FOR TRUMP IMPEACHMENT

The funny thing is that the betting agencies have it at even money.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 19^th, 2017 at 7:00pm:

Quote: DESPERATE DEMOCRAT CALLS FOR TRUMP IMPEACHMENT The funny thing is that the betting agencies have it at even money.

If you are familiar with the process, with a strong majority in both the House of Representatives, & the U.S. Senate .......... with 247 seats in the House of Representatives and 54 seats in the Senate, this 114^th Congress begins with the largest Republican majority since the 71st Congress of 1929–1931.

Under these conditions, the Impeachment of a Republican President, though never absolutely impossible,
is a virtual democRAT "Pipe Dream".   http://www.33sm.ml/smileys/hookah.gif http://www.33sm.ml/smileys/AcidTrip01.gif   :D  ;D