| Author | Message | ||
     Aesquire |
Rangel wrote the draft bill that failed to pass then accused Republicans of wanting to draft folk. Evil man. No truth in him. | ||
| Ducbsa |
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/12/14 /dont-make-russians-like-used-democrats-least/ | ||
| Njloco |
They ( the Regressive's ) have no morales, they have no shame, they are only interested in their Regressive agenda. As per above mentioned bet, I collected my $100 from one of them ( Regressives ) yesterday, I told him he should have paid me $90 before the election, he said " he had no idea that Trump even had a chance " I told him " that was due to him only listening to the Regressive main stream media and their polls. | ||
| Sifo |
 | ||
| Carbonsteel |
You can't flip that around on Liberals, they really do hate white people. | ||
| Fb1 |
 Image source: https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/12/19/it s-officially-official-donald-trump-wins-electoral- college-vote/ | ||
| Fb1 |
This day in history:
| ||
| Fb1 |
Awesome: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssiPmFIgoRM | ||
| Hootowl |
Word is there were more 'unfaithful electors' not voting for Hillary than Trump. I love it when a scheme backfires. | ||
| Court |
>>>Word is there were more 'unfaithful electors' not voting for Hillary than Trump. That appears accurate from news accounts I was seeing during the day. I thought that was fitting. | ||
| Torquehd |
I'm not smart on all of this electoral college stuff, according to http://www.electoral-vote.com/ "On Jan. 6, 2017, the House and Senate will meet in the House chamber to count the electoral votes. The president of the Senate, Joe Biden, will then announce the results and ask if anyone has an objection. If no one does, Donald Trump will be declared the 45th president. If someone objects, there will be a discussion about the matter and ultimately a vote if need be." Is "discussion" the same as a filibuster in this case? I wonder how long the regressives can drag this out. I presume they will fight it as long as there is a chance, however minute it may be. (and of course, will continue to fight it after he's been inaugurated) You know, reflecting on why our forefathers established the electoral college system, I arrive at the conclusion that the vote of one country boy from flyover country is worth more than the vote of one city boy. Unless that country boy lives in NY or on the west coast. | ||
| Ratbuell |
They could probably filibuster, but...by the looks of things, there's nobody who would. Reports are (at the moment) that the only "defector electors" went FROM Hillary TO Donald. Only one elector abandoned Donald. One. Nationwide. | ||
| Madduck |
Trump lost two electors from Texas Killary lost four electors from Washington One elector from Maine,Minnesota and Colorado refused to vote Killary and were replaced by other electors. Killary set a record for faithless electors that had lasted over 100 years. | ||
| Hootowl |
WA state law doesn't give the electors the option to not vote for the candidate who won the popular vote in the state. It's my understanding that the state is pressing charges. It's a civil offense, though, and only carries a maximum penalty of $1000. Too bad. It chaps my hide that these arseholes think they don't have to vote the way they the law says they have to. Don't want to play by the rules? Don't volunteer to be an elector. | ||
| Macbuell |
Just another example of how the people of the country have lost perspective. Everyone now thinks they are special and are therefore not bound to the same rules that everyone was bound to for years. Everyone passes, everyone gets a trophy, everyone has a million facebook friends, everyone is a twitter and instagram rock star .... everyone is SO self important. No one is bound by duty. | ||
| Xdigitalx |
Calif embassy in Moscow? Calexit?? | ||
| Torquehd |
So will California fly their state crest on a confederate flag? | ||
| Aesquire |
Broken Promises.  | ||
| Ducbsa |
In case you had any doubts regarding Snopes as an unimpeachable source on what news is fake for FB, see this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4042194/Fa cebook-fact-checker-arbitrate-fake-news-accused-de frauding-website-pay-prostitutes-staff-includes-es cort-porn-star-Vice-Vixen-domme.html | ||
| Ducbsa |
"And people wonder why Trump won." http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/first-world-prob lems-trump-and-the-correspondents-dinner/article/2 610279 | ||
| Crusty |
"And people wonder why Trump won." Not everyone. | ||
| Hootowl |
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/26/rnc-cla rifies-part-christmas-message-after-social-media-c riticism.html This from the folks who openly painted Obama as the next coming, and published photos of his haloed image. It has to be projection. They would do it, so they assume their enemy would as well. | ||
| Court |
 | ||
| Fb1 |
^ Nice. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443398/donal d-trump-turkey-erdogan-tougher-stance | ||
| Fb1 |
This thread is an appropriate place for this:
Source, more: http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2017/01/here-they -are-2016-fabulous-50-blog.html#more The Conservative Treehouse: https://theconservativetreehouse.com/ | ||
| Mtnmason |
"The Last Refuge.. understood that conventional candidates (even the likes of Ted Cruz) would be seen as Beltway insiders" This aggravates me to no end as it points to the shear ignorance of so many voters who are, in fact, still on my (our) side of the fence. Long before the liberal's laughed out loud on TV at the prospect of Trump making a viable run; indeed, long before any candidate had even thrown their hat in the ring; , I'd resolved to support the candidate that was most hated by both sides of the aisle. Cruz fit the bill completely. That he had an Hispanic surname was icing on the cake in an age of identity politics. Seemingly out of nowhere, the promise of a true constitutionalist in the People's House was hi-jacked by a blow-hard celebrity real estate mogul. The time has long passed for me or anyone else to lament about what could've been with Cruz. His Bible-thumping while on the campaign trail was a bit off-putting to me but not so much that I couldn't look past it. I think there's a lot of misinformation out there as to what he did or did not say regarding TPP. Either way, Cruz's future in national politics remains bright. A SCOTUS appointment would be fitting but I think he could do the country even more good from the desk in the oval office. The pulled quote from the Doug Ross article just causes me to bristle as it indicates the direction in which we're headed. That so many people decided to embrace Trump solely based on his outsider status is somewhat cause for concern; at least to me as it seems to indicate how little people actually pay attention to what happens in DC. Cruz was the outsider who had already worked his way in! His ACA filibuster was legendary. He was one of only a small handful of Republicans that threw their full weight against the Obama machine. That he knew full well the machinations of the establishment hacks gave him even more poise to bring about change; at least more so than Trump who seems to me a bit more susceptible to the whole "go along to get along" meme that has for so longed plagued Capitol Hill. (I realize that this seems anathema to Trump's character, and while I applaud his treatment of the media, I also understand that he will not be able to have his way in such a manner with Senators and House reps, be they D or R; long standing establishment or no). Unlike my preferred candidate, I got behind Trump when he won the nomination. Cruz's antics at the RNC angered me to the point of almost dismissing him entirely and even today leaves a sour taste. Cruz had his reasons for taking such a stance, and surely his actions continue to mold people's opinions about him. I genuinely hope that the Donald exceeds all expectations. I hope that everyone who for so long wished to see a non-establishment type/non career politician in the White House is able to gloat. But what then? Can we no longer count on a stellar candidate winning a primary if they had served any number of terms in the House or Senate? Will former state executives be considered too "conventional", to use Ross's word? Worse yet, will the Democrats seize on this in 2020 and run some celebrity type who can take back some of the votes lost in middle America? As much of a bullet as we dodged by narrowly defeating a Dem candidate who would've been in jail were there an (R) by her name, I'm still a bit leery about some of the precedent that this last election cycle may have set. Trump's victory coupled with the Brexit vote and the decision made by the Italian people signifies a serious blow to the globalist collective agenda, yet I can't help but feel as though we have been somewhat thrust into the unknown in terms of how presidential elections may shape out in the future. | ||
| Arbalest |
I understand you are all giddy with the outcome of the election. I REALLY want to be wrong about the next four years. Get back to me in six months. Let's see how things are going. You can't blame anything on the liberals now. The whole show is yours. | ||
| Strokizator |
Yeah, just like Obama didn't spend 8 years blaming his poor economic performance on Bush or 6 years blaming the Republican Congress for obstructing his agenda. | ||
| Hootowl |
It's not going to get fixed in four years. It has taken decades to get where we are. Reps don't have enough votes in the senate to end debate, and Ryan has vowed (and so far has held to that vow) to adhere to regular order in the House, unlike his predecessors. This gives the party not in the majority significant power over the legislative process. That's the way it's supposed to be. The dems threw away the rule book when they were in power, and gave us Obamacare. Ryan has restored order (the House was not in session when the Dems staged their unauthorized sit-in...and they took video, which, when the House is not in session, is against the rules...but, they're dems, so the press looks the other way). Ryan is looking to punish them for the rule violation, but anything he metes out will be viewed as political retribution by the press, and thus by all the low information voters out there. No, draining the swamp is going to take years, maybe decades. The very idea of doing something unethical needs to be abhorrent to members of government, including unelected ones, and right now it isn't. It's going to take a long time for that attitude, and what exactly constitutes "unethical" in their minds, to change. |
