Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on April 11, 2016, 05:35:23 AM
"This is all about corruption. Fraud. And this is about denying Americans the right to choose our next president! Ted Cruz allegedly swept Colorado but HOW did he do it? With a little help from his friends. Unbelievable."
http://endingthefed.com/breaking-massive-cruz-corruption-scandal-just-exposed-gop-elites-panic-vid.html
Post by: nddons on April 11, 2016, 06:16:12 AM
Post by: Lucifer on April 11, 2016, 06:24:21 AM
There is going to be considerable blow back from this event and not good for the GOP/RNC.
Post by: JeffDG on April 11, 2016, 06:33:11 AM
Quote
http://theresurgent.com/if-trump-doesnt-understand-156-year-old-political-rules-how-will-he-understand-the-presidency/
If Donald Trump cracks over a 156 year tradition of requiring a majority of delegates for the Republican nomination how is he going to understand the demands of the Presidency? If Trump claims he surrounds himself with top men and those top men advised him so poorly on the delegate issue, how can we be reassured he won’t make the same mistakes in a Presidential administration?
Post by: JeffDG on April 11, 2016, 06:38:55 AM
I see Colorado as the straw that broke the camels back. Disenfranchising up to a million voters while the party bosses make their choice sends a bad message regardless of who the candidates are.No disenfranchising happening at all.
There is going to be considerable blow back from this event and not good for the GOP/RNC.
In March, Colorado had a caucus, where they elected delegates to district and statewide conventions. Those district and statewide conventions selected delegates for the national convention last week. Trump lost.
These rules are neither new nor secret. Trump's people simply didn't think it important to learn them. Cruz's people did.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on April 11, 2016, 06:47:52 AM
Ethics don't appear to matter at this point.
Post by: nddons on April 11, 2016, 07:10:48 AM
So the fact that the State GOP was in on the deal as evidenced by their tweet makes no difference. These things keep adding up. First we told the Carson supporters he pulled out when he hadn't and sent out Voter Violation notices. Seems like Cruz can do no wrong no matter what he does, yet he is the example of Christianity in the campaign. ???You do understand that every state Republican primary is a function of that states' GOP, right?
Ethics don't appear to matter at this point.
Post by: JeffDG on April 11, 2016, 07:28:12 AM
So the fact that the State GOP was in on the deal as evidenced by their tweet makes no difference. These things keep adding up. First we told the Carson supporters he pulled out when he hadn't and sent out Voter Violation notices. Seems like Cruz can do no wrong no matter what he does, yet he is the example of Christianity in the campaign. ???So, who voted?
Ethics don't appear to matter at this point.
The delegates elected by the caucuses voted, that's who. Not the "state GOP".
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on April 11, 2016, 07:48:48 AM
You do understand that every state Republican primary is a function of that states' GOP, right?
So you are fine with the State GOP tweeting out "We Did It" #NeverTrump I wonder why they quickly deleted the tweet? Hmmmm.
Post by: JeffDG on April 11, 2016, 07:53:48 AM
So you are fine with the State GOP tweeting out "We Did It" #NeverTrump I wonder why they quickly deleted the tweet? Hmmmm.You did read that they said it was unauthorized access, right?
Trump might have done better had he actually had a rep at the convention. The man has no clue about the rules of the race, and keeps blaming the rules that he never bothered to learn.
Post by: nddons on April 11, 2016, 08:02:07 AM
You did read that they said it was unauthorized access, right?This is EXACTLY right. I'm sick of the smartest man in the room being the most unprepared man in the room, and then blaming others and threatening to sue to get his way. Is this the New York Values that some want in the White House?
Trump might have done better had he actually had a rep at the convention. The man has no clue about the rules of the race, and keeps blaming the rules that he never bothered to learn.
Trump already wants to change a 156 year old rule because it doesn't fit his desires to steal the nomination without a majority of delegates.
Post by: JeffDG on April 11, 2016, 08:08:19 AM
Trump already wants to change a 156 year old rule because it doesn't fit his desires to steal the nomination without a majority of delegates.My question for Trump: If someone buys 37% of one of your companies, does that make them a majority shareholder?
Post by: nddons on April 11, 2016, 08:46:34 AM
My question for Trump: If someone buys 37% of one of your companies, does that make them a majority shareholder?Absolutely. And donating to your Democratic opponent's presidential campaign is "just business."
Post by: nddons on April 11, 2016, 09:25:31 AM
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/04/trump-campaign-in-godwin-we-trust
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on April 11, 2016, 09:44:23 AM
You did read that they said it was unauthorized access, right?
Trump might have done better had he actually had a rep at the convention. The man has no clue about the rules of the race, and keeps blaming the rules that he never bothered to learn.
"Steve House, the Colorado GOP chairman, insisted his staff had nothing to do with the tweet and is now investigating."
Please show me where it says unauthorized access. Parsing words is what the Clintons do.
Post by: nddons on April 11, 2016, 09:47:16 AM
"Steve House, the Colorado GOP chairman, insisted his staff had nothing to do with the tweet and is now investigating."If his staff didn't send the tweet, and they are investigating who sent it, does it not imply that there was unauthorized access?
Please show me where it says unauthorized access. Parsing words is what the Clintons do.
Or do you think the CO GOP leadership all sat around vying to push the Tweet button to send the message?
Post by: JeffDG on April 11, 2016, 10:20:57 AM
Please show me where it says unauthorized access. Parsing words is what the Clintons do.Have you read the story?
(http://endingthefed.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/2-9.jpg)
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on April 11, 2016, 11:06:34 AM
Have you read the story?
(http://endingthefed.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/2-9.jpg)
Makes for good cover, doesn't it. I suppose they give out the login credentials to all sorts of folks in Colorado. ::)
Post by: JeffDG on April 11, 2016, 11:08:01 AM
Makes for good cover, doesn't it. I suppose they give out the login credentials to all sorts of folks in Colorado. ::)So, have you read the story? You seem to have missed a pretty prominent part of it.
Do you have evidence of them lying?
Post by: Bob Noel on April 11, 2016, 11:26:37 AM
Makes for good cover, doesn't it. I suppose they give out the login credentials to all sorts of folks in Colorado. ::)
meh - I'd like to think that the GOP folks are smarter than hillary.
Post by: Lucifer on April 11, 2016, 11:31:18 AM
meh - I'd like to think that the GOP folks are smarter than hillary.
I use to think that but more and more I'm convinced they are one in the same.
Post by: nddons on April 11, 2016, 12:19:38 PM
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/433915/donald-trump-lost-delegates-weak-ground-game
Post by: Little Joe on April 11, 2016, 03:22:40 PM
The saddest thing about the Trump at any cost, cabal is their absolute demand that everyone see it their way, all the time, no matter what.I'm not sure which side you are talking about.
Both?
Post by: nddons on April 11, 2016, 05:36:37 PM
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/04/yes-donald-colorado-did-vote-on-march-1
Post by: nddons on April 11, 2016, 07:42:34 PM
http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/2016/04/11/playing-rules-cruz-trump-wont-learn-reagan/
Post by: nddons on April 11, 2016, 09:07:22 PM
Where was Savage when Trump won 45% of the delegates but only received 37% of the popular vote? Is that "fair?"
Where was Savage when Trump won less than 50% of the popular vote in Florida, but won 100% of the delegates. Was that "fair?"
These celebrity Trump endorsers are truly deranged.
Post by: Lucifer on April 12, 2016, 05:41:20 AM
These celebrity Trump endorsers are truly deranged.
Says a Glenn Beck follower......... ::)
Post by: JeffDG on April 12, 2016, 06:10:55 AM
Says a Glenn Beck follower......... ::)Right on cue.
Post by: Gary on April 12, 2016, 06:18:26 AM
I use to think that but more and more I'm convinced they are one in the same.
:) Pretty much. The rhetoric is different but the concepts are the same.
Gary
Post by: nddons on April 12, 2016, 07:45:29 AM
"Wisconsin who were scared of the possibility of Trump as President were on to something. We should all be scared.
"Why? There is not room enough to list all the reasons. But Trump himself has demonstrated, over and over, how he lacks the depth of knowledge -- and sometimes any knowledge at all -- of complex life and death issues that are inescapable for any President of the United States.
"Ignorance is dangerous enough in itself. But ignorance on the part of an egomaniac, who announces that he is his own best advisor, is incorrigible ignorance. He can surround himself with the best minds in the country and it will not do any good if they are just there for window dressing."
- See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/04/the-voice-of-the-people-fallacy#sthash.ekWxRYVS.dpuf
Here's my question for Trump fans: With Trump clearly getting caught by surprise in various states' delegate rules, his desire to run this primary campaign on the cheap, relying on free coverage (including his SuperPAC, Fox News) and firing his states' advisors immediately after the conclusion of a primary, and generally having a very undisciplined and shoot-from-the-hip campaign, does he even want time nomination?
This is a serious question. If he got the nomination, he will need those advisors in those states, but he's been firing them. He is relying on populism, but not preparation. And if you think he really does want the nomination, are you comfortable he can conduct an effective general election campaign?
Post by: Lucifer on April 12, 2016, 07:48:38 AM
Post by: asechrest on April 12, 2016, 02:20:34 PM
Post by: nddons on April 12, 2016, 02:27:35 PM
I am so sick of talking heads prefacing every putred pontification with a demand that we "look" or "listen". It drives me batty.Wow. I've noticed that myself, and it drives me nuts. Politicians do it most of all.
Post by: asechrest on April 12, 2016, 02:51:33 PM
Wow. I've noticed that myself, and it drives me nuts. Politicians do it most of all.
And once you notice it you can't UN-notice it. It's epidemic!
Post by: nddons on April 12, 2016, 03:49:01 PM
And once you notice it you can't UN-notice it. It's epidemic!It's almost like Bill Clinton's bony finger point, or the politician's knuckle-pointing. Once you see it, you see it everywhere a politician gets in front of a TV camera.
Post by: JeffDG on April 12, 2016, 05:06:24 PM
And once you notice it you can't UN-notice it. It's epidemic!Look, I can unnotice it!
Post by: Number7 on April 12, 2016, 05:24:04 PM
Post by: nddons on April 12, 2016, 05:29:15 PM
Bernie Sanders constantly waiving his fingers, for every phrase of every speech is annoying as hell.How can you even watch him for more than two minutes?
For future purposes, here's his speech, Cliff Notes version:
Big money in politics bad. Oligarchy. Big corporations bad. Fracking causes water poisoning, global warming, and must be stopped in the US. [Cheers from the millennial morons.]. Healthcare is a RIGHT! Free healthcare. Free college tuition. The wealthy have to pay their fair share.
You're welcome.
Post by: Number7 on April 12, 2016, 05:31:15 PM
How can you even watch him for more than two minutes?
For future purposes, here's his speech, Cliff Notes version:
Big money in politics bad. Oligarchy. Big corporations bad. Fracking causes water poisoning, global warming, and must be stopped in the US. [Cheers from the millennial morons.]. Healthcare is a RIGHT! Free healthcare. Free college tuition. The wealthy have to pay their fair share.
You're welcome.
I wish there was an emoticon that properly describes the utter economic ignorance of Bernie Sanders. With one, we could just post it and not have to point out his outrageous lack of understanding.
Post by: nddons on April 12, 2016, 05:39:39 PM
I wish there was an emoticon that properly describes the utter economic ignorance of Bernie Sanders. With one, we could just post it and not have to point out his outrageous lack of understanding.If you have an iPhone 6 you can try these:
Or perhaps just this:
Post by: Mase on April 12, 2016, 05:46:25 PM
I wish there was an emoticon that properly describes the utter economic ignorance of Bernie Sanders. With one, we could just post it and not have to point out his outrageous lack of understanding.
Sanders went after Walmart, the modern incarnation of the devil, and the Walton family.
Mark Levin explained today why Sanders is full of it.
Post by: nddons on April 12, 2016, 06:02:19 PM
Sanders went after Walmart, the modern incarnation of the devil, and the Walton family.The entire leftist movement's foundation is built on envy, greed, and takings from others.
Mark Levin explained today why Sanders is full of it.
Post by: asechrest on April 12, 2016, 07:22:09 PM
Look, I can unnotice it!
Arrrrrgh!
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on April 12, 2016, 07:34:26 PM
Nothing would bring about revolution more quickly than having that come to fruition.
Post by: Dav8or on April 12, 2016, 08:30:28 PM
My personal belief is the path this country is headed down will not change without a revolution where the people take charge again and reboot things. I do not believe that the Republican party will let Trump be their nominee, even if he amasses the 1237 needed.
Nothing would bring about revolution more quickly than having that come to fruition.
Trump can always start his own party and pay for it with his own money. No revolution required.
Post by: nddons on April 12, 2016, 08:33:24 PM
My personal belief is the path this country is headed down will not change without a revolution where the people take charge again and reboot things. I do not believe that the Republican party will let Trump be their nominee, even if he amasses the 1237 needed.I totally disagree. Will Trump ruffle some feathers in Washington? Sure. Has he used the words "Constitution" or "Limited government" ever, even once, in his speeches, or given you any indication that he's a small government guy? Never, not once.
Nothing would bring about revolution more quickly than having that come to fruition.
Maybe he can't be "bought," but for his entire career he has proven that he is a "buyer." I see very little difference. He will continue governmental corruption, possibly like its never been done before.
No. Revolutions start by voting out incumbents, and cleaning house from the bottom up. The Constitution prevents an Executive from doing anything with the legislature, and all the executive can really do to the judicial branch is to stack the courts.
Power needs to go back to the states, and the people, for revolution to occur. What has Trump said that makes you think he will help that? Hell, he is even against giving federal land back to the states in which they reside, because he thinks the federal government can "protect" them.
He's a poser, not a revolutionary.
Post by: FastEddieB on April 13, 2016, 03:27:29 AM
Revolutions start by voting out incumbents...
Historically, is that really how revolutions start?
Or are you using "revolution" metaphorically?
Post by: nddons on April 13, 2016, 05:06:25 AM
Historically, is that really how revolutions start?If you want a peaceful revolution (which most are decidedly NOT) then in my opinion that's how it has to start in the US.
Or are you using "revolution" metaphorically?
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on April 13, 2016, 05:07:32 AM
I totally disagree. Will Trump ruffle some feathers in Washington? Sure. Has he used the words "Constitution" or "Limited government" ever, even once, in his speeches, or given you any indication that he's a small government guy? Never, not once.
Maybe he can't be "bought," but for his entire career he has proven that he is a "buyer." I see very little difference. He will continue governmental corruption, possibly like its never been done before.
No. Revolutions start by voting out incumbents, and cleaning house from the bottom up. The Constitution prevents an Executive from doing anything with the legislature, and all the executive can really do to the judicial branch is to stack the courts.
Power needs to go back to the states, and the people, for revolution to occur. What has Trump said that makes you think he will help that? Hell, he is even against giving federal land back to the states in which they reside, because he thinks the federal government can "protect" them.
He's a poser, not a revolutionary.
What I said was, the RNC will not allow Trump to be the nominee even if he reaches the 1237 threshold and in doing so Trumps backers, middle class, blue collar folks, will revolt.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on April 13, 2016, 05:09:06 AM
If you want a peaceful revolution (which most are decidedly NOT) then in my opinion that's how it has to start in the US.
No one os going to vote out incumbents. It is the old, my guy is okay thing.
Post by: nddons on April 13, 2016, 05:15:21 AM
What I said was, the RNC will not allow Trump to be the nominee even if he reaches the 1237 threshold and in doing so Trumps backers, middle class, blue collar folks, will revolt.If he gets 1237 on ballot #1, Trump will be our nominee, God forbid.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on April 13, 2016, 05:16:13 AM
All of those folks in D.C. believe that the rest of the country is just like where they live, unemployment doesn't exist, the economy is humming along and all is well.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on April 13, 2016, 05:18:09 AM
If he gets 1237 on ballot #1, Trump will be our nominee, God forbid.
You really think that the RNC, the "establishment" ,is going to let that happen? It goes against every fiber in their bones to allow someone that cannot be bought to be their Presidential candidate.
Post by: nddons on April 13, 2016, 08:09:06 AM
You really think that the RNC, the "establishment" ,is going to let that happen? It goes against every fiber in their bones to allow someone that cannot be bought to be their Presidential candidate.GOP.com. Read it. You can find the rules right in there.
I'm really tired of hearing about the boogie man. The RNC can't just change the rules. The Convention Rules Committee can change the rules, and the CRC is made up of 2 delegates from each state and territory, 112 delegates in total. Who do you think those delegates would support? Once the CRC out out a Rules Report, which is then voted upon by all 2,472 delegates. Once passed, the rules take effect immediately, and will last until the 2020 convention.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on April 13, 2016, 08:48:57 AM
Post by: nddons on April 13, 2016, 08:51:23 AM
You really do believe that stuff don't you?Can you show me when the Rules have been changed unilaterally and secretly in the past, say 50 years?
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on April 13, 2016, 08:53:27 AM
Post by: JeffDG on April 13, 2016, 09:13:46 AM
So you steadfastly believe the rules committee would not find a way to change the rules to somehow exclude Trump?Anything the Rules Committee recommends goes to the full convention for approval. The Rules Committee doesn't have the power to create rules on their own, simply to recommend same to the Convention.
The RNC has precisely zero say in the rules.
Post by: nddons on April 13, 2016, 09:25:56 AM
So you steadfastly believe the rules committee would not find a way to change the rules to somehow exclude Trump?That's not what you implied - you implied that the RNC can unilaterally change the rules to keep Trump out.
But fine, I'll play. Yes, in theory the rules committee can probably do anything they wish. But the changes need to be voted on by all delegates. That's how Rule 40(b) came out of the 2012 Convention. I understand that was pushed by Romney delegates to keep out wanna-bees who haven't run and won the majority of delegates from at least 8 states, and ironically would serve to keep Kasich, Ryan, and anyone else from securing the nomination, making this a strictly Trump-Cruz fight.
Do you think the Trump or Cruz delegates (when combined would clearly represent the majority of voting delegates) would allow a rule change getting rid of Rule 40(b)?
Post by: JeffDG on April 13, 2016, 09:39:33 AM
Do you think the Trump or Cruz delegates (when combined would clearly represent the majority of voting delegates) would allow a rule change getting rid of Rule 40(b)?Oh, C'mon.
You know that they will obviously thwart the 30-something percent majority that wants Trump. Conspicuously absent, as in all conspiracy theories, is who they are
Post by: Bob Noel on April 13, 2016, 09:49:35 AM
Oh, C'mon.
You know that they will obviously thwart the 30-something percent majority that wants Trump. Conspicuously absent, as in all conspiracy theories, is who they are
"They. I don’t know. That’s why they call them they. And them.”
Post by: JeffDG on April 13, 2016, 11:14:19 AM
Post by: Mr Pou on April 13, 2016, 11:37:21 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cf8PHhvVAAEkXk5.jpg:large)
This whole thing is the last straw for me on Trump. He claims to be "smaht", yet didn't have the brains to research each of the state's election processes, or at least assign it to a staff member? I always thought of Trump as using the laws his to best advantage, but the fact he didn't investigate these important areas tells me much. Done.
Post by: nddons on April 13, 2016, 12:31:16 PM
This whole thing is the last straw for me on Trump. He claims to be "smaht", yet didn't have the brains to research each of the state's election processes, or at least assign it to a staff member? I always thought of Trump as using the laws his to best advantage, but the fact he didn't investigate these important areas tells me much. Done.There can be no other conclusion that he would approach the general election in the exact same shoot-from-the-hip, Populist-talking way, against a driven yet flawed opponent who has had her eye on the Oval Office since 1972. It would be a bloodbath of record proportions.
Post by: Little Joe on April 13, 2016, 01:19:56 PM
This whole thing is the last straw for me on Trump. He claims to be "smaht", yet didn't have the brains to research each of the state's election processes, or at least assign it to a staff member? I always thought of Trump as using the laws his to best advantage, but the fact he didn't investigate these important areas tells me much. Done.I gotta admit,
it's troubling.
Post by: JeffDG on April 13, 2016, 01:34:27 PM
This whole thing is the last straw for me on Trump. He claims to be "smaht", yet didn't have the brains to research each of the state's election processes, or at least assign it to a staff member? I always thought of Trump as using the laws his to best advantage, but the fact he didn't investigate these important areas tells me much. Done.Things like this puts two of Trump's supposed strengths to the test.
1. He's a dealmaker
A deal ultimately comes down the terms and conditions of the deal. Trump has shown that he lacks the ability to understand clearly described rules that have been in place since at least last summer in Colorado.
2. He'll surround himself with the best people
Again, Trump had nobody in place in CO until it was far too late, and nobody bothered to fill him in on the rules of the game.
Post by: Lucifer on April 18, 2016, 05:49:01 AM
Post by: nddons on April 18, 2016, 07:38:37 AM
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/04/17/colorado-lawmakers-voted-scrap-election-are-ted-cruz-delegates/OH MY GOD! Do you mean to tell me that the people who voted on the rules for the caucus in Colorado had their favorite candidate, and it WASN'T Donald Trump?
How can that possibly be? It must be fraud!!!!! EVERYONE loves Donald.
The whining from the Trump campaign is really starting to look like childish excuses for a pathetic lack of work in flyover states.
Post by: Lucifer on April 18, 2016, 07:53:55 AM
OH MY GOD! Do you mean to tell me that the people who voted on the rules for the caucus in Colorado had their favorite candidate, and it WASN'T Donald Trump?
How can that possibly be? It must be fraud!!!!! EVERYONE loves Donald.
The whining from the Trump campaign is really starting to look like childish excuses for a pathetic lack of work in flyover states.
You like Ted Cruz because he uses the "rules" to gain delegates in an attempt to win the nomination in which he can't do by popular vote.
So, since you have stated you think this is "smart" and you want a President who knows how to "play the rule system", may I ask you this?:
ObamaCare (ACA) was passed by the House using procedural "rules" (reconciliation) instead of an up or down vote. Is this how you want your government run? Would a President Cruz look for ways to bypass Congress using "procedures" and 'rules" much the same as BHO has done?
Honest response please.
Post by: nddons on April 18, 2016, 08:10:10 AM
You like Ted Cruz because he uses the "rules" to gain delegates in an attempt to win the nomination in which he can't do by popular vote.I didn't like it, but that's the way it was passed. That's also the way that it can be overturned by the way, if men of courage chose to do so.
So, since you have stated you think this is "smart" and you want a President who knows how to "play the rule system", may I ask you this?:
ObamaCare (ACA) was passed by the House using procedural "rules" (reconciliation) instead of an up or down vote. Is this how you want your government run? Would a President Cruz look for ways to bypass Congress using "procedures" and 'rules" much the same as BHO has done?
Honest response please.
I'd rather have a president who knows the rules and plays within them than a bombastic blowhard who thinks that by shear force of his presence he can get things done, because, you know, he's a winner. And when that doesn't happen, he becomes a whiner.
By the way, I believe that BHO has not followed "procedures" and "rules." IMO he has unconstitutionally tried to make law and failed to enforce duly enacted laws, and a Congress that wasn't so fearful of impeaching the first black president should have already pushed him out off office.
It is moronic to equate Cruz' winning at the delegate game to Obama's usurpation of the democratic process. Not surprising however.
Post by: Lucifer on April 18, 2016, 08:54:12 AM
I didn't like it, but that's the way it was passed. That's also the way that it can be overturned by the way, if men of courage chose to do so.
By the way, I believe that BHO has not followed "procedures" and "rules."
Wait a minute, above you stated he has and that's just the way it is.
Post by: nddons on April 18, 2016, 09:02:38 AM
Oh grow up. That's an attempt at a "gotcha" statement worthy of a 6th grade civics class.
Wait a minute, above you stated he has and that's just the way it is.
Here's a refresher on how a bill becomes law:
http://kids.clerk.house.gov/grade-school/lesson.html?intID=17
You will note that a president's Constitutional involvement only comes into play once a bill passes both houses and hits his desk.
Post by: JeffDG on April 18, 2016, 09:11:40 AM
Here's a refresher on how a bill becomes law:Might have to dumb that down for the Trumpkins. Looks like about a 3rd Grade level, so they might need some of the smarter ones to explain it to the majority.
http://kids.clerk.house.gov/grade-school/lesson.html?intID=17 (http://kids.clerk.house.gov/grade-school/lesson.html?intID=17)
Post by: Lucifer on April 18, 2016, 09:18:16 AM
Oh grow up. That's an attempt at a "gotcha" statement worthy of a 6th grade civics class.
Here's a refresher on how a bill becomes law:
http://kids.clerk.house.gov/grade-school/lesson.html?intID=17
You will note that a president's Constitutional involvement only comes into play once a bill passes both houses and hits his desk.
But a "rule" (reconciliation) was used to get the ACA passed. Not a constitutional law, but a rule adopted by Congress. Had Congress followed the constitution the ACA would have died.
But you have stated you are all for using rules to seek an ends to a mean, correct?
Post by: nddons on April 18, 2016, 09:35:01 AM
But a "rule" (reconciliation) was used to get the ACA passed. Not a constitutional law, but a rule adopted by Congress. Had Congress followed the constitution the ACA would have died.What Constitution did Congress not follow?
But you have stated you are all for using rules to seek an ends to a mean, correct?
Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 provides:
"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."
If you can find where the Constitution requires that laws be passed with a supermajority in the Senate, I'd be very interested.
Post by: JeffDG on April 18, 2016, 09:43:49 AM
If you can find where the Constitution requires that laws be passed with a supermajority in the Senate, I'd be very interested.Well, if you're going to give me a softball like that!
First off, Article II, Section 2:
Quote
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;
Coupled with Article VI:
Quote
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;
So, the Constitution does say that a particular type of law (as Article VI says that treaties are the law of the land) requires a super-majority of the Senate to enact.
Post by: nddons on April 18, 2016, 11:49:42 AM
Well, if you're going to give me a softball like that!Ok, killjoy. You got me there with respect to treaties.
First off, Article II, Section 2:
Coupled with Article VI:
So, the Constitution does say that a particular type of law (as Article VI says that treaties are the law of the land) requires a super-majority of the Senate to enact.