Skip to main content
Update
Non-financial boards have been closed.

Non-financial boards have been closed but will continue to be accessible in read-only form. If you're disappointed, we understand. Thank you for being an active participant in this community. We have more community features in development that we look forward to sharing soon.

Fool.com | The Motley Fool Community
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 71
Last night I watched Obama's farewell address.

This morning I watched Trump's news conference.

This afternoon, just sitting here in my recliner, and with no warning at all, I suddenly burst into tears. I can't seem to stop crying.

I don't remember Mishele Obama's exact words - something to the effect that now we'll all know what it's like to live without hope.

I hope I get angry again soon. I much prefer feeling anger to this bitter disappointment and dread.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I am a very stoic person. Very German in my ability to persevere. I, too, am horrified with what is happening but have taken a fatalistic approach. I will keep doing what I have always done, perhaps get involved even more in politics in my area (in fact going to a rally January 20), but I am not going to let that sleaze bag Trump ruin my retirement, my life.

America deserves what it gets. Let them eat cake!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
People have been in despair for years. We need more than hope, we need action and it could come. See what happens after a couple years.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I hope I get angry again soon. I much prefer feeling anger to this bitter disappointment and dread.

That's how I feel. If I spend too much time contemplating what has happened and what is about to happen, I feel the bitter disappointment and dread. Anger is easier to deal with.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 38
...we need action and it could come. See what happens after a couple years.

Put a bunch of screaming monkeys in the cockpit of an airplane and you'll get action. Not just the amount, but also the kind of action you get is really, really important.

And we don't have to wait a couple of years. Trump's appointments have already been so horrific that we know what to expect. The adults have been ushered out of the cockpit and only screaming monkeys remain. This plane is going to crash and burn. We may not be able to predict the flight path. But the end result is obvious.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Trump's appointments have already been so horrific that we know what to expect.

What exactly is going to happen?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
What exactly is going to happen?

Read the rest of my post. I addressed that.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Read the rest of my post. I addressed that.

Airforce one is going to crash? <<sarcasm>>

What exactly will happen, bad stock market, higher unemployment, social security cuts???
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
What exactly will happen, bad stock market, higher unemployment, social security cuts???

Trade wars. Loss of jobs. Bad stock market. Higher unemployment. If proposed tax changes happen, corporations AND individuals lose major tax deductions (mortgage interest deduction goes away. Corporations lose tax deduction of interest paid on borrowed money). Could mean virtual destruction of US corporate bond market. If people can not deduct the interest paid on their mortgage, the new home market tanks. Kill builders/contractors goodbye, as well as appliances, forestry products companies, and every other business related to homes. Prices of homes fall--significantly. People who are first time home buyers exit market because there is no way they can afford a house.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"I am a very stoic person. Very German in my ability to persevere. I, too, am horrified with what is happening but have taken a fatalistic approach. I will keep doing what I have always done, perhaps get involved even more in politics in my area (in fact going to a rally January 20), but I am not going to let that sleaze bag Trump ruin my retirement, my life." - Lindytoes
---------------------------


And me? This life sux and then you die.

I don't want to get adjusted to this world. (Iris Dement)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7jYzS7zB98&list=RDA7jYz...


Art


"My Kingdom is not of this world." - Jesus answering Pilate, John 18:36
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Trump is going to have to work with the Democrats to save himself from being impeached by the Republicans.

intercst
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
If proposed tax changes happen, corporations AND individuals lose major tax deductions (mortgage interest deduction goes away. Corporations lose tax deduction of interest paid on borrowed money).

Deductions should go away. Everyone pay taxes straight out, no tax returns, no deductions, no tax maneuvers or loopholes. If you are supposed to pay 15% then that is it, done. A reduction in taxes for going in debt is nuts. The government rewarding people for taking out a loan? Taxes as a manipulation tool for what they deem as good or bad behavior has got to go.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 11
jerryjab, are you really concerned about the mortgage interest deduction??? Isn't it a tax break for the wealthy not the middle class? Despite benefitting from it, I would gladly see it done away with.

US median home costs $189,000. With a 20% down payment the average mortgage would be $151,200. With a 30 year fixed rate at 4%, that results in a $720 monthly payment, of which $500 is interest. So the average home results in only $6000 dollars worth of interest deduction/year. The standard deduction for a couple filling jointly is about $12,000. It seems very unlikely that they will be itemizing their deductions to take advantage of the mortgage interest. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that to take advantage of it a couple would need a mortgage of around $300,000+ on a $400,000+ plus home - and even then it will be only slightly better to itemize. People buying homes in that price range don't strike me as needing a tax break.

Assuming the above is correct, I don't see how the majority of home purchases would be affected by eliminating this deduction. And I doubt the upper middle class/wealthy buying $500,000+ homes will alter their purchases much based on tax issues.

Personally, I think eliminating this deduction would primarily result in a tax increase for the wealthy - a good place to start, no?

KB
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I disagree about about mortgage interest. That is a perk for more affluent buyers. People who might be influenced by that don't actually get it. They standard deduction is better for them.

Read an article on that a few years ago. Convinced me the mortgage interest deduction should be eliminated.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Trump is going to have to work with the Democrats to save himself from being impeached by the Republicans.

If he tried that they would impeach him for sure.

I'm sure you are aware that the Reps do not need a single Dem vote in the House. Not one. And they'll kill the filibuster in the Senate at the first sign Dems want to use it, so that's lost also.

We've got four years of greed and corruption coming. At the minimum.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I'm sure you are aware that the Reps do not need a single Dem vote in the House. Not one. And they'll kill the filibuster in the Senate at the first sign Dems want to use it, so that's lost also.

We've got four years of greed and corruption coming. At the minimum.



If this is truly the case, then I don't see why the Democrats don't just pack up and go home for the duration and leave them to the mess they are going to make. At least that way no one can blame the Democrats for any of it.

This is going to be the most corrupt, rotten, sleazy, traitorous, disgusting government ever in our history. We are in for a fall.


AM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
1poorguy writes,

And they'll kill the filibuster in the Senate at the first sign Dems want to use it, so that's lost also.

</snip>


That ship has sailed.

If you do it at the start of the new Congress, before "regular order" is established, it only takes 51 votes to end the filibuster. It takes 60 votes to change the rules mid-term, because any rule change is subject to a filibuster.

intercst
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
are you really concerned about the mortgage interest deduction??? Isn't it a tax break for the wealthy not the middle class?

In one sense, I would like to see TTT kill this middle class job creator. When the value of their homes go down, there will (once again) be lots of people with negative equity in their homes. This time, there is no way for the value of the house to go up because there are no sources of new buyers to bid up prices. Because rents also went up, that means people can not save to buy a house for cash.

A house used to be a form of forced savings over an extended period of time, which is why the reverse mortgage could work. People can be paid for the equity in their home while they still live in it. With a sharp reduction in the value of a home, people will get less because a home is worth less. So that changes the investment equation. Why spend six figures on an ongoing expense that will not appreciate significantly in price?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
If this is truly the case, then I don't see why the Democrats don't just pack up and go home for the duration and leave them to the mess they are going to make. At least that way no one can blame the Democrats for any of it.

If you recall, I suggested exactly that. Since they have zero power the best they can do (and they should do this) is point out everything the Reps are doing every step of the way. Getting the people riled-up apparently can have an effect (ref: recent ethics rules change that they backed-off on due to public outcry). That's the only power Dems have now.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
And they'll kill the filibuster in the Senate at the first sign Dems want to use it, so that's lost also.

No, they won't. McConnell's already said as much, and the Senate will be adopting their rules package pretty shortly. The GOP is perfectly happy to twist the knife about how Reid's curtailment of filibustering appointments has come back to bite the Democrats so quickly, but there's no plans to modify the filibuster rules for the 115th Congress.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Last night I watched Obama's farewell address.

This morning I watched Trump's news conference.

This afternoon, just sitting here in my recliner, and with no warning at all, I suddenly burst into tears. I can't seem to stop crying.


I have just one thing to say: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Why spend six figures on an ongoing expense that will not appreciate significantly in price?

Because you need a place to live and want a big house.

Here's the thing about houses as investments... they are, but they aren't. I didn't buy my house as an investment I bought it as a place to live where a landlord isn't badgering me with rules, the city isn't traipsing in whenever to do inspections on this or that, etc. It accruing in value would be nice and all but that's just the icing on the cake really. It's a piece of freedom.

If it was all about getting the most money I wouldn't have bought a house out in a rural area, I would have bought in Ann Arbor and sat on that investment! But, I didn't want to live in Ann Arbor anymore (the Townies, grrr! The taxes due to the Townies, grrr!) and I didn't want a landlord anymore (see paragraph above) and... I like mowing a lawn and tinkering around the house. I like being able to change my own oil in my car in my garage (landlords frown upon that in apartment parking lots). I like having more room. I like having 20 miles of cornfields between me and the Townies, etc.

It's not all about the investment. In fact much of the time it's mostly not about the investment really! People like owning impressive houses simply to own impressive houses.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
It's not all about the investment. In fact much of the time it's mostly not about the investment really! People like owning impressive houses simply to own impressive houses.

----------

We bought a cute house. It's not small (which is often what "cute" means) but it's still cute. It's in town. But the town is small.

I never again want to share a floor/wall/ceiling with any other human beings except us. If I hear music playing, I want it to be mine. If I want to paint the rooms purple with green polka-dots, I want the right to do that.

As you said - it's a kind of freedom you just don't have when you are renting. But it's definitely not an investment. It's a place to live. It's yours. It's private. It's freedom.

AM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Here's the thing about houses as investments... they are, but they aren't. I didn't buy my house as an investment

You just proved my point.

For most people, particularly families, WHERE they live MATTERS. You are not worried about family stuff particularly. But having kids go to a good school matters for the parents, so they can not just "pick some place and move in".
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I never again want to share a floor/wall/ceiling with any other human beings except us. If I hear music playing, I want it to be mine. If I want to paint the rooms purple with green polka-dots, I want the right to do that.

As you said - it's a kind of freedom you just don't have when you are renting. But it's definitely not an investment. It's a place to live. It's yours. It's private. It's freedom.


Exactly. I mean, it is an investment (anything you put money into is technically in investment of some sort) but it's a lot more than that.

When most people think of a house, their house, they aren't thinking about the "investment" portion of it unless that's all it is to them (like the house flippers, etc.) I would like to put in a garage door opener, not to enhance the value of the house (which it would) but because opening the door, driving out then getting out of the car to close the door every morning is tiresome. Besides, it isn't like I'm selling anytime soon, I just BOUGHT the house after all and it's not a flip, it's a home. Heck, in a perfect world I won't be selling this house at all, ever. So... it wouldn't make too much sense for me to think of it mostly as an investment. I barely have to think of it as an investment at all. In fact if I do fix it up too much that'll mean more taxes down the line... sort of an incentive to not go overboard!

Funny story with that last bit that people here may appreciate: Ann Arbor is a progressive town but there was a dust-up in the local paper about solar power. If you cover your house in solar panels you hope to save money in electric bills (or even make a bit by selling power back to the power company). The problem is that this raises the value of the home (considerably) which means you get to pay more in taxes, which offsets (or even could wipe out) any such savings. This is rubbing a lot of Townies the wrong way... they don't want to be financially punished for doing "the right thing" which would, all things being equal, actually save them money.

Just one of those interesting quirks about looking at a home as an investment. You have to sometimes of course (mostly because of property tax issues) but it matters most when you're selling it of course. If you don't plan to sell then it's less of a consideration. day-in and day-out. At least for most people.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
You are not worried about family stuff particularly. But having kids go to a good school matters for the parents, so they can not just "pick some place and move in".

That was a consideration, of course it's more about the community than the house itself for a lot of that. I mean, West Willow (part of Ypsilanti) wasn't a consideration at all. Sure, the houses there a dirt cheap... because it's a hellhole area full of gangs and prostitutes and such. Hell, they GIVE away homes there via Habitat for Humanity for a reason... it's the cheapest real estate in the county by far! Didn't want my kid going to school with gang bangers though.

Ann Arbor has great schools, some of the best in the state. It's also very expensive to live in Ann Arbor (ridiculously so compared to most anywhere else in the state.) HGTV's most recent "Dream House" giveaway was a house in Ann Arbor. I think the value of the house was $650K and it's smaller than my house. Worse, the taxes alone are $17k per year (which is more than I'm paying for my entire house payment per year, everything included!) I mean, if you can afford a house in A2 and the taxes then you can print money when you sell it and all but it isn't cheap to get into it at all. Well beyond my budget for anything but a shack! Some are willing to make that trade-off for the schools... not me.

So we moved where the schools are decent but the taxes are WAY lower (a mere fraction of what they would be in A2) and instead of going to school with gang bangers my son goes to school with farmer boys (and farm girls... lucky duck!) and trap shooters and hunters and such. Plus, we're 20 miles from Ann Arbor... which has all the culture and sports and dining and shopping options one could ever want. Sort of the best of both worlds. I can take advantage of the town without having to deal with the Townies as neighbors! We're both happier with that arrangement, lol!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<<1poorguy writes,

And they'll kill the filibuster in the Senate at the first sign Dems want to use it, so that's lost also.

</snip>

That ship has sailed.

If you do it at the start of the new Congress, before "regular order" is established, it only takes 51 votes to end the filibuster. It takes 60 votes to change the rules mid-term, because any rule change is subject to a filibuster.

intercst >>


Both Republican and Democratic SENATORS benefit enormously by the filibuster rule.

It pretty much eliminates the House of Representatives as a co equal decision making body. Almost all the time, it's the Senate that makes the critical decision on whether to make something a law.

Why would the Senate give up this enormous power?

Look at Democrats ---- they gort rid of the filibuster for approving Federal Judges except for the USSC. Now they regret it.

Democrats may refuse to vote on Trump's nominee for the USSC and get away with it because of the filibuster rule.

Suddenly, having a long term eight justices on the USSC doesn't look so bad!


Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
<<Trump's appointments have already been so horrific that we know what to expect.

What exactly is going to happen? >>


Liberals aren't going to get what they want. They will consider this to be a huge tragedy and outrage.

Much of the rest of the country will cheer.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"US median home costs $189,000. With a 20% down payment the average mortgage would be $151,200. With a 30 year fixed rate at 4%, that results in a $720 monthly payment, of which $500 is interest. So the average home results in only $6000 dollars worth of interest deduction/year. The standard deduction for a couple filling jointly is about $12,000. It seems very unlikely that they will be itemizing their deductions to take advantage of the mortgage interest. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that to take advantage of it a couple would need a mortgage of around $300,000+ on a $400,000+ plus home - and even then it will be only slightly better to itemize. People buying homes in that price range don't strike me as needing a tax break."

---

If you live in the DC suburbs, you're looking at $500K and up for a 'small home'....and taxes over $10,000 a year.

You can easily exceed the $12,000 deduction limit. Even condos in DC go for $300K plus...mostly plus.

My sis's house in Gaithersburg is $700,000 and the taxes are way over $10,000 a year.

Heck, many people in MA and CT and NJ pay $15,000 a year in taxes....

and that on a 'middle class' income......

Move to TX, and things are more reasonable. My house is about $270K now.....2400 sq feet, pool, 26 years old....taxes $4300....insurance about $1700 a year....... It has not been a 'good investment'. Barely 2.5% gain per year....keeping up with inflation, but just.

Then again, I bought a condo in Arlington in 1983 for $122K. Sold it 7 years later (company move, all transactions costs paid)...for $227K. Nice 'gain'. Back then I had to pay taxes on a lot of gain since TX home wasn't as expensive.......


- -----

my 2c worth

t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
He/she was hoping that the US would be transformed into Cuba or better yet Venezuela, the socialist paradise where everyone is at the same level- lousy, well everyone except the leadership...

sw
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Liberals aren't going to get what they want. They will consider this to be a huge tragedy and outrage.

Yeah, we aren't going to get competent governance.

Much of the rest of the country will cheer.

If the popular vote is indicative, it will be a decided minority of the country. And likely a shrinking minority as the Reps take away all their perks (Medicaid, Medicare, SS, etc...red states really suck up the social safety net).
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Forget the popular vote, that is meaningless. The election was not run on that basis. It is like deciding the winner of the World Series by adding up all the runs in all the games. Total nonsense...

sw
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Forget the popular vote, that is meaningless. The election was not run on that basis. It is like deciding the winner of the World Series by adding up all the runs in all the games. Total nonsense...

SP said, however, that Much of the rest of the country will cheer. In other words, we're not talking about the winner of the World Series, we're talking about the number of runs in all games. And that correlates directly with the popular vote.

Karen
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Nonsense.

If the contestants knew that the popular vote was the deciding factor, the whole election process would have been conducted differently.

Your candidate was a criminal and a liar, the winning candidate was also quite bad, but you lost and your candidate did not deserve to win anything...

sw
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Why spend six figures on an ongoing expense that will not appreciate in price?

Mebbe because they've been sold a bill of goods?

https://dqydj.com/real-estate-return-calculator-any-home/

There’s a weird belief – here in the Bay Area, certainly, but likely elsewhere as well (if our friends are to be believed) that in America, primary residences are the best investments that many people have made. For the vast majority of Americans in the vast majority of time periods, that is absolutely not the case. That’s right – with very few exceptions comprising limited time frames in certain metro areas near Washington, D.C. and in California – the change you lose in your couch cushions is returning more to you than the home you live in. Your home just really isn’t a good investment.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
SP said, however, that Much of the rest of the country will cheer. In other words, we're not talking about the winner of the World Series, we're talking about the number of runs in all games. And that correlates directly with the popular vote.

Well, it isn't even that indicative because the Dem vote was outsized in California (two Dem Sens on the ballot, etc.) and indeed California alone gave Hillary a larger overall vote margin than she had nationwide, etc.

Not sure you really want to hang your hat on that particular circumstance eh.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
There’s a weird belief – here in the Bay Area, certainly, but likely elsewhere as well (if our friends are to be believed) that in America, primary residences are the best investments that many people have made. For the vast majority of Americans in the vast majority of time periods, that is absolutely not the case.

My house isn't even close to my largest investment. It's worth about half of my retirement holdings alone. I've known people who did consider it their retirement investment and... that didn't turn out too well for them (they retired at the wrong moment in time).
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 46
Forget the popular vote, that is meaningless. The election was not run on that basis. It is like deciding the winner of the World Series by adding up all the runs in all the games. Total nonsense...

The popular vote tells you which candidate was most popular. That doesn't elect the President, but to deny that the majority opinion is important is absurd.

The electoral college construct is nothing like the World Series. I know you think this is a clever analogy, but it's not. It is stupid. Sports events are run by rules that define who wins and loses. There are no underlying principles that a baseball game or World Series is trying to preserve through those rules. Winners and losers would be very different if they played 6 innings or 12 innings instead of 9, or if they had 4 bases instead of 3, or if the mound was 55 feet from the plate instead of 60 feet 6 inches. The game could be defined any way they wanted. And the rules have been tweaked over the years to change details of how to win.

One of the principles democracy is built on is "1 person - 1 vote" (ie. equal representation for all). There was a compromise made to this principle to insure that ill-informed voters did not elect a demagogue. The framers didn't completely trust the electorate so they placed a layer between them and the final election. Smaller states were also concerned that they might not ever get representation if the vote were purely Democratic. In most cases this compromise has not impacted the 1 person - 1 vote principle. I'm aware of no time in our history when the electoral college actually protected America from a demagogue getting in office. Small states now enjoy more power per voter than large states because of this compromise. The democratic principle of 1 person - 1 vote is seriously shattered. It makes sense to re-visit this compromise at this time.

The World Series is not the same as the election of a President. That's really silly.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
tjscott0 posts,

For the vast majority of Americans in the vast majority of time periods, that is absolutely not the case. That’s right – with very few exceptions comprising limited time frames in certain metro areas near Washington, D.C. and in California – the change you lose in your couch cushions is returning more to you than the home you live in. Your home just really isn’t a good investment.

</snip>


That's been my observation. I would have bought a condo earlier if the rent vs. buy calculation was more favorable. But I was always able to get much better returns on my money in the stock market so I treated real estate as an expense to be minimized.

I didn't buy a condo until real estate prices had collapsed to the point where the purchase price was less than 6x the annual rent on the unit.

intercst
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
SG:"The popular vote tells you which candidate was most popular. That doesn't elect the President, but to deny that the majority opinion is important is absurd."

What, about 50/50? Hardly a rousing 'majority'. And of course, the popular vote really doesn't reflect what would be the popular vote if that was the criteria.

Why should repubs vote in CA? IT's going D no matter what. Same in MA, MD, NY, NJ, OR, and a few other D strongholds. They stayed home.

-- -------

SG "The electoral college construct is nothing like the World Series."

It sure is. YOu have to 'win' the 'game' in most of the states in the Union to be elected. Part of the reason for this is so elections aren't just held in the 10 most populous states.

If it were popular vote, CA, TX, NY, FL and six others would determine the outcome regardless of how WY, ID, CO, TN, MN, and others voted.

-----------

SG: " Sports events are run by rules that define who wins and loses. There are no underlying principles that a baseball game or World Series is trying to preserve through those rules. "

Well, actually, it's not much different. To get to the world series, you have to win more games than other teams. Then you have playoffs...... and finally ONLY two teams compete for the world series.

Sort of like primaries where candidates are selected from each party....by states voting in primaries.....then their representatives selecting their 'best' candidate to 'beat' the other team.

And in the WS, it is the team that wins 4 games, not the team that scores most runs or has the highest attendance at home games.

In the election, it is whoever gets 270 electoral votes. That's the rules.


----------




SG "Winners and losers would be very different if they played 6 innings or 12 innings instead of 9, or if they had 4 bases instead of 3, or if the mound was 55 feet from the plate instead of 60 feet 6 inches. "

So would the election if folks knew it was the 'popular vote' that counted....those R voters in CA would turn out in droves....same in MA and NJ And NY and FL......because now their vote would count.

---------


SG: "The game could be defined any way they wanted. And the rules have been tweaked over the years to change details of how to win."


Seven games. 3 outs per inning.....pretty much the same.

----------

SG: "One of the principles democracy is built on is "1 person - 1 vote" (ie. equal representation for all)."

The first fallacy in your statement is 'democracy'. We have a Constitutional Republic. Please repeat your pledge of allegiance to yourself.....'and to the Republic for which it stands'......

The second fallacy is obviously you flunked civics. The US Senate, one of the two houses of Congress, has exactly and only two Senators per state, regardless of how many votes. This is not 'one vote per person'. Nor was it ever intended to be.

Third fallacy is have 3 branches of government. The "executive" branch is selected by the electoral college process. The Judicial branch is selected by the Senate for lifetime appointments.

- - --------




SG:There was a compromise made to this principle to insure that ill-informed voters did not elect a demagogue. The framers didn't completely trust the electorate so they placed a layer between them and the final election. Smaller states were also concerned that they might not ever get representation if the vote were purely Democratic. In most cases this compromise has not impacted the 1 person - 1 vote principle. Small states now enjoy more power per voter than large states because of this compromise. The democratic principle of 1 person - 1 vote is seriously shattered. It makes sense to re-visit this compromise at this time.

Wrong in so many ways. Yes, the framers first of all didn't trust 'democracy', which tends to follow the 'trend of the moment' that might last six weeks or six months, then another trend takes over. Or a reaction to a tragedy. YOu betcha.

Smaller states were concerned....and the Framers came up with the US Senate, which I am sure you will agree, IN NO WAY IS ONE VOTE PER PERSON.

We don't live in a democracy. Democracy as such always fails. It fails because one party, or group of parties, that get 50.1% of the vote, then change all the rules so they stay in power forever.

And yes, small states enjoy 'more power' because they have 2 votes per state in the Senate....little WY has just as many votes as California!...... That's our system protecting 'states rights'....

And no...there is no reason to change the situation. It has worked for 200 years.

You lost the election fair and square. Your candidate ignored most states...thinking that winning in just 10 states was winning in the country.

we live in a diverse country. Libs always 'mouth' the word diversity...except when it goes against them. The non-lib 'diversity group' kicked their butts in 95% of the area of the country......the farmers, the factory workers, the assembly line folks, the ranchers,...all the folks that don't live in the 'elite' ivory towers , Kalifornia, Hollyweird, and other liberal bastions like DC and suburbs, and the top ten dem crime ridden cities across the nation.

The 'electorate' has spoken.

Oh...and if he went to a 'popular' vote, the election would never end. Recount after recount, fraud allegation after fraud allegation. What, we think 3 million illegal voters in CA voted in this election. How long would it take to validate all those votes? How much incentive to cook the books in every district in the country...... over 10,000 of them. Boxes of 'missing ballots' would show up. More than 100% of the eligible voters would turn out in Chicago.....as did this year in some districts...... what was it, about 10 votes that lost Al Gore the election in FL? The electoral college procedure tends to minimize that...... 3000 fradulent votes in Chicago , which is going D anyway, won't sway the election. It might if it were the popular count. The founders were VERY SMART.


t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
What, we think 3 million illegal voters in CA voted in this election.

Presumably, those illegals would have been Clinton voters, and with them out of the picture Trump wins California and therefore the electoral college in a landslide.

I would think investing and correcting this would be at the top of Pres. Trump's agenda. Massive election fraud is a big deal. I'm sure he'll get right on that, right?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
<<Forget the popular vote, that is meaningless. The election was not run on that basis. It is like deciding the winner of the World Series by adding up all the runs in all the games. Total nonsense...

SP said, however, that Much of the rest of the country will cheer. In other words, we're not talking about the winner of the World Series, we're talking about the number of runs in all games. And that correlates directly with the popular vote.

Karen >>


Much of the rest of the country WILL be cheering.

Of course, there are also plenty who will be gnashing their teeth and rending their clothing in anger and frustration. For the victors, that's a HUGE extra bonus to winning an election!

And I say that having been on the losing end of elections often enough. That anger and frustration was felt keenly when Obama won in 2008 --- a victory by a certified liberal who was committed to doing all kinds of outrageous stuff, and did.

I hated it when Bill Clinton won, too!


Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
And I say that having been on the losing end of elections often enough. That anger and frustration was felt keenly when Obama won in 2008 --- a victory by a certified liberal who was committed to doing all kinds of outrageous stuff, and did.

I hated it when Bill Clinton won, too!


I remember seeing you crying on Dr Phil about Bill Clinton, and then rioting in the streets in 2008 - how did you get away with burning down that pharmacy?? :)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
canonian: Deductions should go away. Everyone pay taxes straight out, no tax returns, no deductions, no tax maneuvers or loopholes. If you are supposed to pay 15% then that is it, done. A reduction in taxes for going in debt is nuts. The government rewarding people for taking out a loan? Taxes as a manipulation tool for what they deem as good or bad behavior has got to go.

Face palm, you didn't see that this is a gift to the banks and loan companies? And the real estate industry? Dressed up in fancy clothes so it looks like the middle class is benefiting.

CNC
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Face palm, you didn't see that this is a gift to the banks and loan companies? And the real estate industry? Dressed up in fancy clothes so it looks like the middle class is benefiting.

Thus my part about manipulation of people via taxation. I never go into who was befitting on the other side. I agree with your assessment. BUT if the government is lending money at 0% or near 0 then gives people a deduction they are losing $$$..
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I hated it when Bill Clinton won, too!

Me too. The first election I was old enough to vote in was Clinton/Dole in 1996. I was a college freshman at Michigan. Chalked with the College Republicans (I was a member) on the Diag for Dole (and got screamed at by a lesbian who was very offended that we chalked for Dole on the pink LGBT triangle thingy near the Diag... even then there were snowflakes who thought such things were "hate crimes", lol!) and voted in the Michigan Union (lived in West Quad right next door at the time).

Then Clinton won. So... we said "bummer" and went back to work.

/That wasn't the only way I "offended" liberals in college, had a "Bill Clinton Draft Dodger" doll with very long legs (get it, they could be used to block drafts under doors, ha!) that we used for "target practice" while playing hall hockey. Apparently that too was deemed a "hate crime" by some lefties, lol! Again, snowflakes have been "special" for a long time in Ann Arbor. No riots though. No crying. No "the country is doomed!" We weren't pathetic pansies.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<I hated it when Bill Clinton won, too!

Me too. The first election I was old enough to vote in was Clinton/Dole in 1996. I was a college freshman at Michigan. Chalked with the College Republicans (I was a member) on the Diag for Dole (and got screamed at by a lesbian who was very offended that we chalked for Dole on the pink LGBT triangle thingy near the Diag... even then there were snowflakes who thought such things were "hate crimes", lol!) and voted in the Michigan Union (lived in West Quad right next door at the time).
>>


Heh, heh! You Devil you! Don't you know that only liberals are allowed that kind of monkey wrenching?



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<<And I say that having been on the losing end of elections often enough. That anger and frustration was felt keenly when Obama won in 2008 --- a victory by a certified liberal who was committed to doing all kinds of outrageous stuff, and did.

I hated it when Bill Clinton won, too!

I remember seeing you crying on Dr Phil about Bill Clinton, and then rioting in the streets in 2008 - how did you get away with burning down that pharmacy?? :) >>


Heh, heh! When our new Attorney General takes office, I'm expecting that all the "legal" marijuana stores will be closed down. No doubt the Feds will seize delinquent supplies.

I'm hoping all that surplus MJ will be burned in public to make the point. Pot heads could attend and do deep breathing exercises.


Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top