jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (59 posts)

On Second Thought - There is No Deep-state

  1. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 3 months ago

    No deep state - Its all right in front of you !

    Obviously the Trump Obstruction is laid  naked  for all to see .  The establishment on both sides in DC , WITH  what I had always thought [ rightfully so ]was a leftist media -  Leftist and Right  media collusion ,    though ,--Even Fox News --, which  is about half and half  obstructing , Is fighting Trump front and center !

    Now Why ?     Here's the part most don't get or don't want to get ,  Trump IS THE  PEOPLES  surprise for Washington D.C.s  continued  gridlock ,  spending frenzies and  obstruction of progress .  Congress and Senate of BOTH parties  are totally taken aback by the peoples choice in theNov. elections ,   By the creation of the electoral College what happened in November was never supposed to happen   The established fat , lazy , career  criminals   were always supposed to have their finger on the election machine from the back side !       

    Thee  established right lost
    The established left lost
    Their established media lost
    Chuck Schummer , Paul Ryan lost

    Now , all of the above are Obstructing Pres. Trump . All of them .  Does anyone here believe that the will of the people electing Trump is worth fighting for ?

    1. Credence2 profile image86
      Credence2posted 3 months ago in reply to this

      No, he is not the will of the people just the result of an anomaly regarding the Electoral College. This will have to be scrapped if it continues to give too much representation to the relatively insignificant.

      1. ahorseback profile image47
        ahorsebackposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        That "relative insignificance "    being the majority of America ?  What problem is it you have with elections other than  you can't  have another govmint' raise ?

        1. Credence2 profile image86
          Credence2posted 3 months ago in reply to this

          Does that mean no more grass to graze in your meadow?

      2. GA Anderson profile image84
        GA Andersonposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        "... too much representation to the relatively insignificant."

        Geez Cred! Do you understand how elitist and snobbish, and, and .... blubblub... bblubbblub ... (imagine Lewis Black with hands and head shaking), that sounds?

        What the hell happened? Are you trying to validate the rants you are responding to?

        GA

        1. PrettyPanther profile image84
          PrettyPantherposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          I'm with credence on this one. The small states get greater representation in the Senate, relative to
          population. Everyone gets equal, geographical representation in the House. The president serves the entire country and should be elected by individual votes. The electoral college failed us. That is not elitist; it is logical and a more accurate representation of the voter's wishes.

          1. GA Anderson profile image84
            GA Andersonposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            It would be logical if our nation was a Democracy, but we are not, and you know that, so it is not logical.

            ps. Are you with him on the "hayseeds" perspective also?

            GA

            1. PrettyPanther profile image84
              PrettyPantherposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              No, but I have to question the judgment of those who voted for him. He is not just incompetent, he is dangerously unfit, both emotionally and intellectually. Over half the voters could clearly see it. Others, not so much. I know some people will believe I'm dismissing those voters simply because their politics run  counter to mine. Not so. I couldn't stand GWB, but he was within the bounds of normal. I seriously question the judgment of anyone who thinks our current president is within the bounds of normal.

              With regard to your comment about what is logical. No, if we were a pure Democracy, each state would not be represented by two senators regardless of population. That, I believe, is compensation enough for the less populated areas.

              One last note. A large portion of our electorate is sadly undereducated and unable to discern fact from propaganda. Many are also exceedingly tribal. These segments intersect in larger numbers in rural America, for many reasons, but in large part because of the lack of exposure to a wide variety of cultures and ideas. I resent that this small but significant segment has a disproportionate say in who will be president, given that they are already given a greater voice in the Senate.

              1. ahorseback profile image47
                ahorsebackposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                Just a couple reasons why democrats failed incredibly though ;

                Corruption , Lies , cheating , stealing , leaking , more lies  and  even death at the DNC ,  buying votes with promises of free immigration policies , laying waste to the first amendment , you actually purchased  $  the mainstream media , celebrated the Snowden leaks , the Assange Wiki parade  colluded with  foreign governments through the Clinton Foundation criminal Dynasty ,  Obama loaded down the federal courts and  affected influence  by corrupting the IRS to target conservatives ,  the border patrol  to influence the Hispanic  votes ,  corrupted the high schools and colleges leadership to gain new liberal votes , paraded , rioted and justified the  killing of  cops , walked all over the whole BLM  uprising ,.............I could go on .......bottom line
                You Still Lost .

                  Okay , lets even call it the "Hayseed Factor "   But WHO  they are, is the one segment of the American population that has not only seen more than once throughout our history  but fully recognizes  the incredible corruption of Promises made  , and never once delivered by the Democratic party of America .

                Might want to change your tack .

              2. GA Anderson profile image84
                GA Andersonposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                PrettyPanther, You offer a couple good discussion points. One would be that you have inserted your definition of normal as the definition of normal, and the second is your idea that small states receive disproportionate Senate representation.

                The first point is undeniably arguable, because it is only your, (and those like-minded folks you allude to), opinion of what normal is. An athlete's normal calorie intake might be 5000 calories. Would you consider that a normal intake for you? A Japanese-American might think it perfectly normal to bow as a greeting, and sit on the floor for every meal. Would you consider that as normal for you?

                As to your Senate representation opinion, why do you think small states have greater representation? The Senate is a chamber of state representation, not population representation - that is the House's purpose. So in the Senate every state has equal representation. How do you justify declaring it unequal, with the small states benefiting? A state is a state. That was the original design. Similar to your contention that a person is a person - one vote per person.

                But... we have made progress, I can agree with you that some voters, (or even voter segments), are politically "under-educated,"  I just can't go along with rest of your last paragraph's description. Too many of your attributions are just your opinion, and obviously my opinion says your opinion is wrong. And of course my opinion is right, right?.

                ps. I was on my toes this time - I saw the "under-educated" use, (even if it was misspelled) ;-)

                GA

                1. PrettyPanther profile image84
                  PrettyPantherposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                  Obviously, there is no one definition of normal. However, in the field of psychology, there are certain basic parameters that loosely define normal and Honest Don scoots or surpasses the edges on quite a few of them. You can agree with me or not, but I know I am correct on this point. ;-)

                  Yes, Senators represent the states in which they are elected. Likewise, the President represents the country in which he is elected. So, tell me again why we need to give some states a greater proportionate say in electing a person to represent the United States of America?

                  As for the rest, yes, my opinion.

                  1. ahorseback profile image47
                    ahorsebackposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                    So it WOULD be fair if primarily liberal majority city population centers elected the president in each election?

                  2. GA Anderson profile image84
                    GA Andersonposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                    I don't have to tell you again... you almost got it on your own:

                    " the United States of America,"

                    you just stopped a little short...

                    " the United States of America

                    Now if the Senate is an equal representation of the states, and the House is a proportional representation of the citizens, then your real beef is with the electoral college, and all that other stuff about disproportionate representation in the Senate was just you clutching for rationalization, right?

                    I even agree with you that our president represents our country - all of it, and our country is a republic of states. So what if we just have the Senate, as representatives of the states, elect the president. And the states can decide who to vote for by polling their citizens. That would be fair and equal representation wouldn't it? One state - one vote?

                    GA

            2. Credence2 profile image86
              Credence2posted 3 months ago in reply to this

              We are not a democracy? So what are we when a handful of rural states can rule the day and have their choice over areas of greater population?

              1. GA Anderson profile image84
                GA Andersonposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                Credence2, that is just your angst speaking, and I think you know that. Your handful of "rural states" was 30 states, (and not all rural states), 60% of all states. That qualifies as a majority, not a handful -
                and it was a larger majority than the one you tout as the legitimate vote winner. And since our nation is a republic of states - not people, then it was in fact, the majority of states that ruled the day.

                Isn't that the way it is supposed to be? Isn't that the way we were constitutionally designed to be? Aren't you a supporter of our Constitution?

                GA

                1. Credence2 profile image86
                  Credence2posted 3 months ago in reply to this

                  Credence2, that is just your angst speaking, and I think you know that.
                  ------------------------------------------------
                  What about your angst, GA, angst in assuming that popular sovereignty represents 'mob rule'
                  What is it about conservatives and fear of popular sovereignty? From them we always need a paternalistic referee to keep the 'rabble' out of line as they will run off with the store? We have the Bill of Rights that provide basic protections against tyranny from the majority. But that does not apply to politics. Conservatives are afraid of female presidents, popular election of senators, resisted extending the franchise  to others whenever it was called for. Why does this stuff come from the right, each and every time?
                  ---------------------
                  Your handful of "rural states" was 30 states, (and not all rural states), 60% of all states. That qualifies as a majority, not a handful -
                  and it was a larger majority than the one you tout as the legitimate vote winner. And since our nation is a republic of states - not people, then it was in fact, the majority of states that ruled the day.
                  -----------------------------------
                  Maybe, people should be electing the President and not states, just like Senators should be popularly elected and not appointed. The closer to the people, the better the accountability to them.
                  -------------------------------
                  Isn't that the way it is supposed to be? Isn't that the way we were constitutionally designed to be? Aren't you a supporter of our Constitution?
                  ---------------------------------------
                  Yes, but the Constitution can be amended. There were plenty of things that have changed since the Constitution's creation, and there are likely to be more in the wings

                  1. GA Anderson profile image84
                    GA Andersonposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                    Credence, you have me a bit worried. You must have had a brain fart. Surely you know that our Senators are elected by popular vote, and not appointed!

                    But as for my angst, I have none. Let me explain why I think pure democracy is nothing more than mob rule. I will use a smaller than national example, but the difference is just a matter of scale

                    Take a neighborhood association of 49 home owners. Each home owner gets one vote. Representative representation, in the form of one vote per home, ensures the majority will of the home owners controls their community. But, if every occupant of those homes had a vote, then that would be pure democratic rule. The chances of majority home owner control could be jeopardized.

                    Now say a 50th property joins the association, a condo building with 100 units. Each occupied by 4 drug-using, drug-selling armed thugs.

                    Now, under one vote per property, the home owners still have a fair representation of their wishes. But... by popular sovereignty, those 400 thugs could now control the governing of the community.

                    The home owners association charter also had a "Bill of Rights," and like our Constitution, it too had mechanisms to change the charter. And by the power of their popular vote majority, those thugs changed that Bill of Rights to their liking.

                    Do those 99 home owners still have control of their community? Can you see this as an example of mob rule?

                    To finish, and as I also mentioned to Prettypanther, yes, our Constitution can be changed, and that is how to legitimize your complaints. Until those changes occur, our system is working exactly as designed, and your criticisms are not valid

                    As also mentioned to PrettyPanther, if you consider the basics of our Constitution, and not the adjective details, I don't think anything has drastically changed. We still face the governmental and national issues that prompted our Constitution, and were specifically addressed in our Constitution. And we still face, perhaps even more direly, the same human foibles that our governmental structure, and Bill of Rights was designed to protect us from.

                    In other words, the room might have been redecorated, new paint, new curtains, new technology, but the basics of the room and its occupants are the same now as they were then.

                    We have had interesting discussions about this before, and I would enjoy talking with you about just what basic changes you think have occurred that merit abandoning our representative form of government.

                    GA

          2. ahorseback profile image47
            ahorsebackposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            Too bad you don't love in a full democracy , Got to go find you one ?

        2. Credence2 profile image86
          Credence2posted 3 months ago in reply to this

          I am with Panther.

          I capitulated to the idea of the Electoral College earlier for the following reasons

          1. The process has been established by the Constitution
          2. It helps to keep the peace among the varied states
          3. Instances where the Electoral College result was contrary to the popular vote were rare.

          Well, no 3 is changing in nature, what once occurred every other century, is now down to every other election cycle. That's my problem with it now.

          I never intend to say disparaging words about my fellow citizens who reside in rural areas. But, I do not want them to have representation in the electoral process beyond their numbers. With the changes as of late, I am forced to subscribe to the idea of one man/one vote.

          1. ahorseback profile image47
            ahorsebackposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            What you're missing entirely is the definition of a Republic , that which we are ,   America is a grouping of equally powerful , individual states . 
            Might try a dictionary

            Of course to liberals ;
            Lose a hard fought , incredibly  corrupted game
            Change the rules .

            Liberals just can't stand it that a "hayseed" has the same equal representation in government . There is something wrong with that huh ?

            1. Credence2 profile image86
              Credence2posted 3 months ago in reply to this

              I cant stand the idea of the vote of 1 man having more weight than the vote of 100. When it comes to votes and choice, yes, California trumps Wyoming.

              1. ahorseback profile image47
                ahorsebackposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                And California would trump the rest of the nation in electing liberals in  every major election .     But somehow that's a your definition of democracy ? Come on get serious,......
                - Check out the major population center numbers in America
                - Who controls them 
                - How they always Vote
                - How that would square against the vastly significant state  representation of our Republic .

                This is why your democratic lead cities are all in such economic turmoil. for one thing  One controlling ideology .
                I sure am glad that liberals tend to love urbanity and crowds ....... sorry ,a little dig there.

                1. colorfulone profile image87
                  colorfuloneposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                  We are going to see how bad it can get in Illinois by the 30th if they cannot come up with a budget for a third straight year. 

                  Illinois State Official: "We Are In Massive Crisis Mode, This Is Not A False Alarm"
                  http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-1 … alse-alarm

                  Anybody want to move to Illinois?  They may have to end the welfare state and tell people they have to get a job to eat, and of course they want to raise taxes.  $15.1 Trillion in debt.  That's Obama's home State. 

                  Chicago Taxi Industry Near Collapse
                  http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-1 … g-collapse

                  I don't know of any laws where a State can file for bankruptcy.  But, residents are about to find out about all the fraud and corruption by government officials and want to kill them.

                2. Credence2 profile image86
                  Credence2posted 3 months ago in reply to this

                  And California would trump the rest of the nation in electing liberals in  every major election .     But somehow that's a your definition of democracy ? Come on get serious,.....

                  If the majority of the electorate under the rules of popular sovereignty want that, then so be it.

                  Yes, urban dwellers vote heavily Democratic, but California has rural areas as well, they vote. It is certainly not democratic to have 1 vote take precedence over 100. Rightwingers get as much representation as they can organize through agreement and coalitions around their arcane ideas. Being rural does not have to be the only qualification for being conservative, you could be some evangelical, a fiscal conservative, a military sabre rattler, etc. Do you homework and get these disparate groups together and win elections without having them given to you because those of the Green Acres are upset, and want disproportionate representation.

                  What GOP run city is so exemplary then?

                  While the progressive position is generally superior to that of the conservatives, I live in a rural area and some of my best friends are rural dwellers.

                  1. GA Anderson profile image84
                    GA Andersonposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                    Oh my gawddd!

                    "... some of my best friends are..."

                    Look around bud, try to grab a tree branch or root, or something... on your way down.

                    GA

                3. PrettyPanther profile image84
                  PrettyPantherposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                  Wyoming, with a population of just over half a million, gets two votes in the Senate, as does California, which has a population of almost 40 million. Rural areas already receive greater representation via the Senate, and the House provides direct, geographic representation for all areas, urban and rural. Since the president is elected to represent the entire country, he/she should be elected by the entire country: one citizen, one vote.

          2. GA Anderson profile image84
            GA Andersonposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            So you have come to the belief that mob rule is the only fair rule? That minority protections are secondary considerations? Are you saying you can accept something that you declare is wrong, as fair - as long as it never happens?

            Is that what you are saying Cred?

            GA

  2. colorfulone profile image87
    colorfuloneposted 3 months ago

    Yes, the will of the people that helped get President Trump elected is important and worth the fight every inch of the way.  The President needs our support and our voices.

    In the Deep State there are factions. Just to keep it simple, there are the good guys (the patriots) and the bad guys (the NWO).  The patriots are behind Trump 100%, along with 63 million loyal voters (and growing).  BTW, there are a lot of good people in the Deep State. ... Then, there is the Shadow Government that Obama put in place, that aren't worthy to be dog catchers.

    President Trump cannot be over-thrown.  Its just a bunch of noise we are hearing from the resistance crowd so they can make their constituents think they are doing their job so they can maybe get their votes again.  Which is laughable!  ... And, they are obstructing real progress.  Some are scared they will be going to prison I suppose.

    Fox News has its deep-pocket shills, but it also has many honest journalists that haven't sold out to wicked rulers in high places.

  3. colorfulone profile image87
    colorfuloneposted 3 months ago

    https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13575222.jpg

    "relative insignificance"? ... oh yeah, I can see that now!

    1. ahorseback profile image47
      ahorsebackposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      The left  would be perfectly happy with a monthly check , a dictator that pleases their image of "leadership " and a promise of more to come to them  yearly .

      Kind of like any country in Eastern Europe    .

      1. Credence2 profile image86
        Credence2posted 3 months ago in reply to this

        We are talking about population not a display of hayseeds on some sort of map. Elections are decided by numbers not dayglow geographic maps.

        1. colorfulone profile image87
          colorfuloneposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          Donald J. Trump won the Electoral College with 304 votes.
          Hillary Clinton won 227 votes.
          According to NYT --  A landslide.

          1. Credence2 profile image86
            Credence2posted 3 months ago in reply to this

            Yep, you won 'this time'. But, next time there will be no overthrow, nothing so rash. This will be just a failure to gather enough votes for a second term. We are working toward that end within all legal parameters to insure this. This is no different from the experience of George HW Bush in 1992. We will get the people to see the 'bill of goods' that they bought into with Donald Trump. And if he keeps screwing up and staying on the radar, he may be out before that. It will be his failure to comply with the laws that will do that, not me.

            1. ahorseback profile image47
              ahorsebackposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              And with George HW Bush , you smiled all the way to Clinton Mafia Land , impeachment , sexy mistress' , the crooked fingered , " I did not have sexual............. AND THEN Hilary ran ; yeaaa .........
              You really did good !

        2. ahorseback profile image47
          ahorsebackposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          Take another look at that map ........please , I mean , Its got to be quite painfully clear just how  loud the rest of the nation spoke out against you and all your DNC corruption , Clinton , CNN ,Wasserman  Shultz , Donna Brazille
          remember them ?

          "The DNC was broke until I infused it with millions in loans " ,Hilary
          Maybe you can buy a few more federal judges to muck up another false charge .
          Oh , I don't know , ..........hey ,here's another impeachment charge  for you !

          Charge Trump with donating his services for nothing to the US presidents official duties.
          Looking at Washington DC , Senate , Congress  ,liberal  courts ---THAT has to be  Crime

  4. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 3 months ago

    When I look at that map I often think ,  Why do I debate these losers ?

  5. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 3 months ago

    Pure democracy would work fine as long as it serves someones idea of THEIR  Ideology , Let them lose just one election  and watch the latest designs of a modern  electoral college  come back to the surface .

    For instance the 2016 election  surprise to liberals !

    Liberals  having lost the house ,the senate , congress , governors , legislators over a thousand US seats 
    across America , Shall we then let the electoral's elect all of them or only popular vote , both  ? Why don't we simply FIT the process to support liberals ?

    Liberals ;"It all depends on who loses what seat  "?

  6. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 3 months ago

    "Wisdom "  is a selective term when it comes to wealth re-distribution . For instance ,  If we can have what you have I am wise ,   If we can get you to surrender all your wealth for us  , you  are  wise .  If we can get all the rich guy has , all that the taxpayers will be forced to surrender and all that I can beg ,borrow or steal , .......
    We are all wise !

  7. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 3 months ago

    IF,   the EC were to be eliminated or altered , America would become a nation lead by the politics of four cities political ideologies , All liberal   , NYC  ,  LA ,  Chicago ,  DC.......?  Even if it were ten or thirty cities , would that be your solution , And that may be fine with the fringe left but here's a question , If you want a totalitarian leadership , why don't you all go to  Moscow ,  Beijing ,  Mexico City , and  leave America as a working election process   ?

    You lost the election [ over one thousand  dem. seats total ] , Get over it .

    You should be developing a ideology that attracts people not repels them .

 
working