Actually, states like California and New York have had their massive overspending and high taxes, especially high property taxes, subsidized by a lot of red states who could not lower their federal taxes as much as the high tax states because their itemized property taxes were so much lower.

But, I wonder if you believe that gerrymandering is a threat to democracy, do you believe that states like California are also a danger to democracy: "There were two Democrats — and zero Republicans — running to replace Sen. Barbara Boxer. There were no Republicans on the ballot for House seats in nine of California's congressional districts.

At the state level, six districts had no Republicans running for the state senate, and 16 districts had no Republicans running for state assembly seats."

And that becomes possible by parties transforming our system of government from a Constitutional Republic to an administrative state.

So very, very much, if not all, of the discussions on this political forum are about, not restricting the federal government to its constitutional limitations, but about how the federal government can solve our "problems" by asserting powers not given to it in our Constitution.

We have been led to this administrative form of government by Progressives in both parties, but mostly led by the Democrat Party.
So now, late into the transformation, Progressives are afraid that Trump will somehow be the tyrant that Washington warned us of.

That is not funny, but it is laughable. The Progressives have been tyrannically destroying and transforming our system of government for a century. Anyone who is honest and objective should be able to see that we are on the brink of the Progressive dream of making the Constitution totally irrelevant.

And most Americans have unconsciously come to accept that our government, as it is, is how it's supposed to be.

Fear of Trump is a fear of the very thing that Progressivism has created.

Ironically, Trump actually, so far, is more constitutionally oriented than the Progressives.

She won by nearly 2m votes in NY as well.

So flip it around and say had she won just Texas she'd be POTUS. It was close...3 swing states and 80,000 votes.

If only she was clever enough to know that electoral math means she didn't need to spend any time in NY or CA, and she had spent some meaningful time in places like NC and WI, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Even if you eliminate the Texas vote along with the California vote, Trump would still have won the popular vote. The California difference is too huge to compare it with anything else.

And, the Democrats are definitely gunning for Texas. And they can depend on the California method to take Texas. California is now a majority Latino State in population. Texas is steadily moving in that direction. Perhaps, Texas has staved off being overcome by leftists because so many from the right side have moved there (from California, e.g.). But birth rate demographics will probably overcome that edge. Which means that the Republican Party will continually have to keep moving left to stay in power.

Kiss the Republic goodbye. Unless somehow Latinos, all of a sudden, realize that the Constitution is more important than cultural dominance.

I wonder how small trumps #^&#^&#^&#^& really is? 4” ? 5”? Maybe his military parade will make his #^&#^&#^&#^& seem bigger ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I always appreciated the fact that you are a deep thinker

I don’t think he can get it that deep. That’s the problem.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I like what you did there, not capitalizing Trump's name and Capitalizing #^&#^&#^&#^&. A fine grammatical touch. :kewl:

Hey, how about solving the NK problem--publically de-pants Trump and Kim mung ungry or whatever his name his, and the biggest #^&#^&#^&#^& wins!!

Kim not hung is probably lacking in the inter-#^&#^&#^&#^&inental ballistic missle department as well.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ahhhh...the old "Popular Vote" argument.

The popular vote means nothing, zip, zilch, nada, bupkis.

It has absolutely no bearing on who gets elected in a presidential election. It's created by the media to give people something to bitch about.

Who wins the World Series? The team who scores the most runs or the team who wins the most games?

This simple concept is completely lost on the Butt hurt brigade......and Hillarys campaign managers.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Some of our looney lefty contributors are letting the cheese slide off of their crackers. Not sure any saw the memo about Trump WINNING the election. Let's call a truce; one side takes off their vagina hat and the other stop wondering when Hillary gets prosecuted. This time loop thing is getting tiresome. Jeff, it wasn't close at all. I understand you coming unglued initially but it's time to put on your best big boy pants and stop petting puppies in a safe space.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But her emails!!!!!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He won.. I accept that 1 vote or the 1 electoral vote .. water under the Bridge..

its his current actions From the press to the FBI to Immigrants to the DOJ EPA energy Dept the list is endless and the icing holding the Military up as a scared Cow(that can not be touched ) all intended actions to Burn the place down.. are what Disturb me. and the support from his fringe right base and others willing to bring the gas and matches to help.. who cant see today.. but are all ready predicting re election

I just picture him throwing out this idea to his Cabinet lets have a Military Parade .. and they all responded Dilly !!! Dilly !!!

:laugha:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 48% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Fifty-one percent (51%) disapprove.

President Trump has a stronger approval rating today than media darling Barack Obama did back in 2010 on this same day.

Back on February 7, 2010 Barack Obama had an approval rating of 44% while 56% of likely voters disapproved of the far left president.

You have been critical of Trump calling his opponents treasonous. Can I ask, is it only wrong when Trump does it? Corey Booker said those who called for the release of the Nunes memo were treasonous. Howard Dean said Senator Tom Cotton was acting treasonous for criticizing the Iran nuclear deal.

So is it only a problem for you, when Republicans do it? Is it too much to ask that we have one set of rules and standards, which apply equally to all of us?

Turns out, people actually like it when their paychecks get bigger. Shocking but true.

Are those 2 former Presidents? You continue to compare what 1 or 2 Dems. say or compare what Pres. Obama said 1 or 2 times to what our current President says hundreds of times and somehow you think that is the same. How is that having a set of rules when you compare what someone did one time with what someone does mulitple times?

Pres. Trump is a vile, petty, sad man. There is no comparing him to any other politician of any party.

Another Trumper will be leaving the WH today - beating his wives. I got a good laugh yesterday reading Kelly's statements about him. Kelly was supposed to be the "grownup" in the room and he is no better than the rest of this admin.

pretty snarky :bl:

Oh, I see. So by some logic, it's ok for US Senators and Governors/presidential candidates to label people as traitors, but that right is forfeited when one becomes president. That makes all kinds of sense. All kinds of sense.

"what 1 or 2 Dems. say "

I didn't pick 1 or 2 obscure names out of democratic registration lists. Obama was a POTUS, and he said "Republicans gotta stop just hatin' all the time". Hilary said we are deplorable and irredeemable. But it's only problematic when a Republican acts in this regard.

"when you compare what someone did one time with what someone does mulitple times?"

You're all over the place. First you said Trump acted inappropriately because he is president, and presidents (unlike everyone else) shouldn't label people as traitors. Now you are saying that it's only unethical to call someone a traitor if they do it multiple times?

So what's the standard? Who can label their opponents as traitors, and who can't? And who can do it how many times before it's unethical?

Anything to protect your side, anything to bash the other side. It's a joke. And it's why Trump won.

"Pres. Trump is a vile, petty, sad man. "

I agree he's vile and petty. So was Hilary. She's not anywhere near as outwardly vulgar or crass or sophomoric as Trump. But I can make a compelling case, based on irrefutable facts, that she's vile and petty. But she has a (D) after her name, so you don't call her out on it.

Anyway, I look forward to your telling us who can use the word traitor, and how many times, so we can clear that up and apply it fairly and consistently.

I just did tell you. So if somone shoots a Dem. and says they did it bc they are a traitor does Trump deserve blame for it?

This isn't totally true. I believe we have after a few wars and Kennedy might have done a parade with military gear. That being said, these days I think a parade just to chest thump and stroke Trump's ego is pretty offensive to most.

We'll file this under things you just made up.

Look at the electoral map and actual vote counts. Trump managed to flip three critical swing states (that Obama won) by less than a few percent. That cost Clinton the race...it was very close.

Love the comment by one of the Republican's commenting on the parade, stating confidence is silent and insecurity is loud. Very fitting I thought, because this POTUS has shown he is insecure and vain. To bitch about military support and spending issues, only to want to put a very costly parade together is just so wrong. The Russians need to, the North Koreans need to and China possibly might need to, we don't need to strut our stuff to prove to anyone who has the bigger penis.

I think it has more to do w/your vile statements.

And Hilary won NV, CO, MN, NH, and ME by a narrow margin - "less than a few percent".

Spence, if you speculate on what would have happened if Trump lost all the states that were decided by less than a few percent, and assume Hilary kept all the states that she won by less than a few percent, I will concede she would have won. What I don't concede, is that there's any value whatsoever, in considering that hypothetical. "If" my aunt had wheels she'd be a tea cart.

They each took a handful of states by a few percent. Trump didn't win all the close calls.

"C Trump had practically nothing to do with it. He takes all of the credit for a great economy that he inherited. I've always said Pres. have less impact on the economy than they get credit for"

Then why not just celebrate the fact that unemployment is low for blacks? Why does he have to have anything to do with acknowledging that low black unemployment is a result that regardless of who did what, is worth celebrating and uniting around?

"I'm willing to give POTUS credit/blame after a year.
"

You can start the clock whenever you want on giving him credit/blame. Many business leaders will say there was a boost in confidence that began when he won. Confidence matters. Not saying there was zero confidence in Obama, but Trump injected more business confidence than Hilary would have.

"Did Cotton send a letter to Iranian leaders saying ignore any deal Pres. Obama signed because it would be voided"

Not exactly. He said that any deal was not permanent. But your point is valid, he was clearly undermining the president. And Trump also has a valid point, when he says that certain Democrats at the DOJ, likely allowed their personal biases to influence investigations. They were also undermining our free and fair election process, unless you see nothing concerning about the things we know so far.

"I think it has more to do w/your vile statements."

I don't make unsubstantiated criticisms, and I often concede my side is wrong and the other side is right.

I sympathize with you Jeff, but the "actual vote counts" part makes it seem as though you lack an understanding of the process. I like to think you are more intelligent than that but you keep trying to prove me wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Parade is a generally stupid idea. But keep up all this pseudo Nationalism / Fascism stuff and you will have 4 more years to apply it.

Like those people that are looking for volunteers to lie down in front the parade tanks like it is Tienanmen Square (ya know - REAL Oppression).

Yeh! That'll show American who is sane.

Yep - she was a real bastion of Truth. So Trustworthy PresidentSlimeball beat her.

Using the criteria of previous military parades you must actually win first. So that would exclude Kennedy, and everyone after with the possible exception of Regan/Bush Cold War (that got again screwed up) or Bush the Elder for PG1.

:rotflmao:

Didn't make it up. It's a fact.

He was exactly correct.

I live in a very high tax state. High state taxes, high local taxes, high sales taxes. I deduct that.

People who live, for example, in FL and the Carolinas, can't make that same deduction, because their state/local taxes aren't high enough

The feds need what they need from all of us. So to offset the high SALT deductions in high-tax states (which are liberal states), people in other states have to pay more. They absolutely pay higher federal income taxes, to subsidize the SALT deductions which we enjoy, and which are not available to them.

I would just love to see you try and make that wrong.

I'd love to see a study of that then. Just because you have high deductions doesn't mean you contribute net less...because you also have very high taxable incomes.

Clinton won CO by 5 points, that's a decent margin. As for the others, they represent very few electoral votes compared to the super thin margins in PA (.7%), WI (.7%) and MI (.3%).

Simple fact is Clinton could have easily won had she not had the FBI continuing to drag her through the mud just days before the election.

I hate to just hammer one point but i think this discussion is due to the inability of moderates to get thru the primaries and get elected. This is how we ended up with Hillary, Bernie and Trump and the more moderates fell by the wayside.
This is really important to our democracy
Gerrymandering Squeezes out the Political Middle
A major victim of partisan gerrymanders and closed party primaries is the moderate middle – moderate voters and centrist politicians willing to work with the other side. Moderates and centrists get squeezed out by gerrymandering. Southern Republicans manipulated district maps to kill off conservative southern Democrats and northern Democrats did the same to moderate House Republicans in the Northeast.

This system has accelerated the rise to power of extremists. This happens largely because in most gerrymandered districts, primary elections have become more decisive than the general election, and in primaries the de facto power of decision rests with the party faithful.

Typically, primary turnout is low, sometimes extremely low. In the 2014 mid-term elections, Republican primary turnout nationwide was 8.9% of the elctorate; for Democrats, it was 14.5%. In seven state primaries, turnout fell below 4%. Such tiny turnouts give enormous leverage to hardcore partisan voters, well-funded special interest groups and more extreme, ideological candidates



Because primary voters often differ significantly in the views from average voters, there is often a disconnect between the broad electorate and the politicians who win primaries and get elected. In recent years, the widespread victories of partisan extremists fuels gridlock in Washington.

“The combination of closed party primaries, gerrymandering of districts and money – that’s why the system is broken,” says eight-term, former Oklahoma Republican Congressman Mickey Edwards. “This problem is deep, deep. The political system is more and more disconnected from the country. We have a system where what the majority of the voters might prefer doesn’t matter because the parties control the process, the parties limit their choices.”

everyone thinks they are a "moderate"....and....Trump wasn't even a politician and he got elected President....:uhuh:

you don't know this...and it doesn't matter

SALT deductions are disproportionately available in certain states - liberal, high tax states. Everyone else's tax rates are higher than they would be, if those deductions did not exist.

Agreed 100%.