President for life

[Bray Wyatt]

Just now, snafu said:

 

So does Obama's mother in law.

 

Didn’t Obama also hook up his buddy with making the Aca website, got paid lots of money, then the site ***** the bed on launch?

[Foxx]

23 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Not surprised you are happy with the divisiveness.  I appreciate the honesty to admit that.

 

I see that Trump has been under investigation pretty much what was it, Jul/Aug 2016?  The difference between us appears to be whether or not he deserved to be investigated or not. 

 

If you want to claim that Mueller uncovered absolutely nothing, as Trump repeats, then it will sure appear Don is the victim.  If you recall, the Russians and wikileaks were interfering at the time.  If you agree that there were several suspicious 2016 campaign contacts and lies about those contacts, he appears much more deserving of the original Russia investigation, and so not really a victim at all. 

 

If you think he is the victim of an unjustified Ukraine investigation, then I disagree again.  Again though, his supporters claim they have sufficient reason to believe Donny did nothing wrong.  They believe, even in the face of Repub Senators allowing the House proved the accusations, everyone is just picking on him for his skin color....orange..

 

serious question, Bob.

 

regardless of where information comes from, should not the truth see the light of day?

[TtownBillsFan]

31 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

So does Obama's mother in law.

 

And apparently every relative of Joe Biden's, out to first cousin, thrice removed!

[Bob in Mich]

1 minute ago, Foxx said:

serious question, Bob.

 

regardless of where information comes from, should not the truth see the light of day?

Well, on the surface, most would likely say yes.  I think we might agree though that in some more complex situations, that is not always the case.

 

It seems there could be circumstances such as personal privacy for instance, where not all truth should necessarily be made public.  I am sure too that there are probably other cases where the method used to obtain said truth may not be appropriate. 

 

A perfect example is the Trump/Ukraine issue where we just saw Trump trying to push the Biden investigation.  On the one hand, he innocently claims he is just trying to investigate corruption and learn the truth, while simultaneously he is attempting an illegal political smear.

[IDBillzFan]

16 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Not surprised you are happy with the divisiveness.  I appreciate the honesty to admit that.

 

 

Here's the thing about the divisiveness, in my eyes: it's not going away. 

 

The truth is, I never paid THAT much attention to politics and world affairs until 9/11. Two things happened then that opened my eyes.

 

First, I was embarrassed to realize it was the first I was hearing names like Bin Laden and al Qaeda. Many people around me knew who they were, and I was embarrassed to be standing in complete ignorance of this enemy; who they were, what they stood for, why they were attacking us, etc. That was Schwarzenegger movie stuff. Not real life. Very embarrassing personally.

 

Second, I remember watching Congress sing "God Bless America" that day and thinking our country had an "Aha" moment and would undoubtedly unite for years to come.

 

Unfortunately, they were no sooner done singing than I started hearing some Dems go after Bush. I remember hearing a little disdain for his megaphone moment, and then the criticisms seemed to creep in more and more each day. And it was then I realized that -- without question and proven often since that time -- that Democrats care more about being in power than they will ever care about this country, or its people.

 

They couldn't unite after 9/11. In fact, they found it necessary to quickly attack OUR leaders. It wrecked me.

 

So it's no wonder why, all these years laters, more Dems openly and unshamedly admit that America deserved what it gat, and that it was no big deal because "some people did some thing."

 

So yeah. Bring the divisiveness. I'm happy for it because it shows more people what I've learned from 9/11. That Democrats are the enemy and a giant pile of money-laudering schittbags.

 

[Nanker]

37 minutes ago, Gary Busey said:

 

I figured you wore the-dye. 

[Chef Jim]

4 hours ago, njbuff said:

 

What's a bruger?

 

 

A bagel.  He is a New Yawker after all. 

[Bob in Mich]

3 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Deek, I realize there is some humor in there but does the nepotism within the Trump family bother you at all?  I mean, i know Ivanka is not paid, but are you at all opposed to her flying around with her Dad and being included in events she obviously has no place?  She is clearly able to make business contacts, at the very least, with business deals almost a certainty?  If she gets a great business deal, might it be a 'gift' to help influence her dad?

 

What happened too with Don and Eric being political players full time these days.  Weren't they the ones running Trump business and weren't they supposed to be removed from government so as to prevent government actions being seen as possible conflicts of interest with the Trump organization?  What happened to that division?  Does that bother you?  It appears to be similar to your claims of Biden impropriety.

 

 

 

No actual comments or defense of the Trump nepotism?  Color me surprised that the Trump supporters are just fine with wrongdoing as long as it is their team. 

 

Do you guys ever see legitimacy in holding or pass interference calls against the Bills?  Likely just the other team is always cheating and the refs are always picking on us, eh?

[billsfan89]

I don't think Trump was talking literally unless there is some context to prove otherwise. But I do think that if he loses the 2020 election I wouldn't expect him to go out quietly and peacefully. He questioned the results of the 2016 election he won (3 million illegals voted) and said that there was voter fraud before the election even happened. Do you think if he loses he isn't going to question the results? 

[Foxx]

20 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

Well, on the surface, most would likely say yes.  I think we might agree though that in some more complex situations, that is not always the case.

 

It seems there could be circumstances such as personal privacy for instance, where not all truth should necessarily be made public.  I am sure too that there are probably other cases where the method used to obtain said truth may not be appropriate. 

 

A perfect example is the Trump/Ukraine issue where we just saw Trump trying to push the Biden investigation.  On the one hand, he innocently claims he is just trying to investigate corruption and learn the truth, while simultaneously he is attempting an illegal political smear.

sure, there are always exceptions to every rule.  i would venture that national security would be at the top of the list.

 

however, what we are really talking about here is the wikileaks dump and the hack of the DNC (which has been proven to have been a hands on event). nothing within them was i don't think considered national security and they revealed a whole lot of corruption within the hierarchy of the DNC.

 

i think we both understand that we differ on Trump pushing the Biden investigation. he is the top law enforcement official in the land. he would be neglectful if he didn't attempt to push an investigation when there is plenty of signs of illegality. i will admit that the appearance and the possibility of a personal stake in the investigation was possible. that however should not rule out the investigation from happening. he also probably did not follow the proper channels with regard to seeking such an investigation, however, again, that should not preclude one from commencing. i think we all understand that sleepy Joe and a good portion of his family have, at the least, the appearance of shady dealings.

Edited February 7, 2020 by Foxx

[GG]

13 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

I don't think Trump was talking literally unless there is some context to prove otherwise. But I do think that if he loses the 2020 election I wouldn't expect him to go out quietly and peacefully. He questioned the results of the 2016 election he won (3 million illegals voted) and said that there was voter fraud before the election even happened. Do you think if he loses he isn't going to question the results? 

 

If there's evidence of wrongdoing at the polls in November, of course he's going to question the results.  That's why the Electoral College was established and that's why there's 2.5 months between election and inauguration to resolve any outstanding questions.

[Bob in Mich]

10 minutes ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

Here's the thing about the divisiveness, in my eyes: it's not going away. 

 

The truth is, I never paid THAT much attention to politics and world affairs until 9/11. Two things happened then that opened my eyes.

 

First, I was embarrassed to realize it was the first I was hearing names like Bin Laden and al Qaeda. Many people around me knew who they were, and I was embarrassed to be standing in complete ignorance of this enemy; who they were, what they stood for, why they were attacking us, etc. That was Schwarzenegger movie stuff. Not real life. Very embarrassing personally.

 

Second, I remember watching Congress sing "God Bless America" that day and thinking our country had an "Aha" moment and would undoubtedly unite for years to come.

 

Unfortunately, they were no sooner done singing than I started hearing some Dems go after Bush. I remember hearing a little disdain for his megaphone moment, and then the criticisms seemed to creep in more and more each day. And it was then I realized that -- without question and proven often since that time -- that Democrats care more about being in power than they will ever care about this country, or its people.

 

They couldn't unite after 9/11. In fact, they found it necessary to quickly attack OUR leaders. It wrecked me.

 

So it's no wonder why, all these years laters, more Dems openly and unshamedly admit that America deserved what it gat, and that it was no big deal because "some people did some thing."

 

So yeah. Bring the divisiveness. I'm happy for it because it shows more people what I've learned from 9/11. That Democrats are the enemy and a giant pile of money-laudering schittbags.

 

 

I appreciate the reply.  Thx.  It seems you are saying that you came about your disdain of the Dems honestly.  Ok, fair enough.

 

Just one point though, the Dems, like the Repubs, are not an organization with a lone spokesperson.  I understand some Dems or lefties have said things that upset you and ruined you. We constantly hear from both sides, that the other side said something just awful. 

 

You might want to consider, just like there can be thoughtless statements made by righties, statements made by some on the left should not be attributed to all on the left.  Of course you may not like what Pelosi or Schumer says either, but at least they are spokespeople.  Both sides, in order to cool the hatred, ought to stop attributing every 'bad' statement made by any member of that group to every member of said group.  We should be able to converse without being painted by the stupidest claims by those in our camp

[billsfan89]

5 minutes ago, GG said:

 

If there's evidence of wrongdoing at the polls in November, of course he's going to question the results.  That's why the Electoral College was established and that's why there's 2.5 months between election and inauguration to resolve any outstanding questions.

 

The Electoral College was established because the founders didn't have an electronic system to send results near instantly (and personally I think it is stupid in this era but that's another question entirely.) I also think that without any evidence Trump is going to question the results. He questioned the results weeks before an election he won. He kept repeating this 3 million illegals voting line without any proof. Him and his party are the ones who called an election security bill partisan. This is going to get ugly. 

[Bray Wyatt]

8 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

The Electoral College was established because the founders didn't have an electronic system to send results near instantly (and personally I think it is stupid in this era but that's another question entirely.) I also think that without any evidence Trump is going to question the results. He questioned the results weeks before an election he won. He kept repeating this 3 million illegals voting line without any proof. Him and his party are the ones who called an election security bill partisan. This is going to get ugly. 

 

You think this is honestly the case?

[Buffalo_Gal]

10 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

The Electoral College was established because the founders didn't have an electronic system to send results near instantly (and personally I think it is stupid in this era but that's another question entirely.) I also think that without any evidence Trump is going to question the results. He questioned the results weeks before an election he won. He kept repeating this 3 million illegals voting line without any proof. Him and his party are the ones who called an election security bill partisan. This is going to get ugly. 

Search this subforum for voter fraud. Judicial Watch has been on it forcing the purge of voting rolls due to irregularities. There have been people convicted of voter fraud. Millions voting illegally? Quite possibly.
 

When you say “no proof” you mean proof you have not seen. Do you think it is possible that the head of a political party, the President of the United States, might, just might, have more access to information than you (and the “msm”) do?
 

As far as not accepting the results of an election? See Democrats 2016-2020.

 

The electoral college is not going away. Thank goodness. As someone who lives in NYS being governed by the lunacy of NYC, I would hate to see the country have to suffer the same way. (Family keeps us here... for now.)

Edited February 7, 2020 by Buffalo_Gal

[GG]

3 minutes ago, Bray Wyatt said:

 

You think this is honestly the case?

 

Unfortunately, I think he does ?

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

3 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

It's always fun when people try to make the "Trump is dividing the nation!" argument. It's not Trump, it's the establishment media complex and their lackeys who are doing the dividing, and the evidence is overwhelming. Does Trump counter punch? Yup, and that plays into the narrative that he's a "divider" because the establishment media will run the counter punch rather than the first volley of divisive attacks. 

 

* All Trump supporters are racist!

* All Trump supporters are Putin apologists! 

* All Trump supporters are ignorant hillbillies who aren't smart enough to vote! 

 

... And those were just the attacks in November '16. 

 

...pretty tough stuff for the fickle to comprehend......they need to be led by the nose with someone else doing their thinking and manipulating.....spittin' image of my extended family....I must b adopted....SMH.......

[billsfan89]

4 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Search this subforum for voter fraud. Judicial Watch has been on it forcing the purge of voting rolls due to irregularities. There have been people convicted of voter fraud. Millions voting illegally? Quite possibly.
 

When you say “no proof” you mean proof you have not seen. Do you think it is possible that the head of a political party, the President of the United States, might, just might, have more access to information than you (and the “msm”) do?
 

As far as not accepting the results of an election? See Democrats 2016-2020.

 

The electoral college is not going away. Thank goodness. As someone who lives in NYS being governed by the lunacy of NYC, I would hate to see the country have to suffer the same way. (Family keeps us here... for now.)

 

Why should there be affirmative action for a handful of states (Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and a handful of others) Candidates in the general don't step foot in 38 states unless it is to attend private fund raisers behind closed doors. How can you rightfully call that a just system when so many are locked out from the voting process and being heard. A conservative in California has just as much a right to have their vote heard as a liberal in Alabama. I don't know how anyone can from a principled perspective argue for a system where a person who doesn't win the most votes wins an election. Other than it helps a political party you like what justification do you have for prioritizing certain states over the majority of others? 

 

5 minutes ago, Bray Wyatt said:

 

You think this is honestly the case?

 

I was being hyperbolic and it came off bad. I know the electoral college was structured as a compromise between a parliamentary system and a straight popular vote system in addition to having pragmatic concerns about the ability to actually conduct a massive count like that. 

[Bob in Mich]

31 minutes ago, Foxx said:

 

 

however, what we are really talking about here is the wikileaks dump and the hack of the DNC (which has been proven to have been a hands on event). nothing within them was i don't think considered national security and they revealed a whole lot of corruption within the hierarchy of the DNC.

 

The DNC data was stolen through a hack by the Russians.  They then used wikileaks to release portions to the public at opportune moments to assist Trump's campaign, right?

 

So, it was really stolen private (idk, is the DNC a corp) corp data.  It may have revealed internal corruption at the DNC, but I don't think stealing and releasing corp information, even if revealing and interesting, should be sanctioned by us.

[billsfan89]

11 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Search this subforum for voter fraud. Judicial Watch has been on it forcing the purge of voting rolls due to irregularities. There have been people convicted of voter fraud. Millions voting illegally? Quite possibly.
 

When you say “no proof” you mean proof you have not seen. Do you think it is possible that the head of a political party, the President of the United States, might, just might, have more access to information than you (and the “msm”) do?
 

As far as not accepting the results of an election? See Democrats 2016-2020.

 

The electoral college is not going away. Thank goodness. As someone who lives in NYS being governed by the lunacy of NYC, I would hate to see the country have to suffer the same way. (Family keeps us here... for now.)

 

Trump alleges that not only millions vote illegally BUT they all voted for one political party. He alleged it well before an election he won and when pressed on evidence he couldn't provide it. I have not seen a credible non-partisan report that voter fraud is as wide spread as Trump claimed and is only happening in one direction. I don't trust a self professed conservative group like judicial watch who has been proven to spread misinformation. 

 

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/481224-iowa-secretary-of-state-disputes-viral-misinformation-about-voter

[billsfan89]

1 minute ago, Jaraxxus said:

 

"misinformation"

 

 

 

Do you have any proof that their information was accurate? Judicial Watch has an awful track record, the article I linked literally has quotes from direct sources. 

[Buffalo_Gal]

7 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Trump alleges that not only millions vote illegally BUT they all voted for one political party. He alleged it well before an election he won and when pressed on evidence he couldn't provide it. I have not seen a credible non-partisan report that voter fraud is as wide spread as Trump claimed and is only happening in one direction. I don't trust a self professed conservative group like judicial watch who has been proven to spread misinformation. 

 

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/481224-iowa-secretary-of-state-disputes-viral-misinformation-about-voter

You may want to check the lawsuits Judicial Watch has won. The court decisions would be the proof.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

...in this advanced age of technology, it is hard to believe a nationwide system cannot be rolled out, accurate, precise and real time results...problem is IMO that the "output is only as good as the input"......perhaps the honesty and integrity of those involved in the data collection comes into question (naw, NEVER-COUGH)......back to the "input"....fraudulent

registrations, illegals, corpses, etc.....damn Russians.....no way would anyone in the US employed in that sector would do anything illegal to benefit the political preferences, right?.....

 

Sincerely,

Hanging Chad

[Bob in Mich]

7 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Do you have any proof that their information was accurate? Judicial Watch has an awful track record, the article I linked literally has quotes from direct sources. 

 

https://apnews.com/f5f6a73b2af546ee97816bb35e82c18d/Report:-Trump-commission-did-not-find-widespread-voter-fraud

 

Trump's own commission could not find all this claimed voter fraud

 

From the article

(AP) — The now-disbanded voting integrity commission launched by the Trump administration uncovered no evidence to support claims of widespread voter fraud, according to an analysis of administration documents released Friday.

Edited February 7, 2020 by Bob in Mich

[Buffalo_Gal]

16 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Why should there be affirmative action for a handful of states (Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and a handful of others) Candidates in the general don't step foot in 38 states unless it is to attend private fund raisers behind closed doors. How can you rightfully call that a just system when so many are locked out from the voting process and being heard. A conservative in California has just as much a right to have their vote heard as a liberal in Alabama. I don't know how anyone can from a principled perspective argue for a system where a person who doesn't win the most votes wins an election. Other than it helps a political party you like what justification do you have for prioritizing certain states over the majority of others? 

 

 

I was being hyperbolic and it came off bad. I know the electoral college was structured as a compromise between a parliamentary system and a straight popular vote system in addition to having pragmatic concerns about the ability to actually conduct a massive count like that. 

erm, we do not live in a democracy 

[billsfan89]

3 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

You may want to check the lawsuits Judicial Watch has won. The court decisions would be the proof.

 

I am trying to find the percentage of lawsuits they have won (as a cursory search has turned up the fact that they sue a lot of people a lot of the time) and how many lawsuits they have won in regards to voter fraud. They have been involved in a lot of rather odious smears and lies from what I have seen. It doesn't seem like they are honest actors but rather a group looking to spread misinformation and clog up the government with lawsuits. 

1 minute ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

erm, we do not live in a democracy 

 

Go ahead and make a principled argument for a system of representative government where you give preferential treatment (aka affirmative action) to a small group of states and have a system where it is common for the person with the least amount of votes wins. If you like the system because it helps Republicans fine, support it on partisan lines but don't pretend you have any non-partisan justification for the system. 

[Buffalo_Gal]

Just now, billsfan89 said:

 

I am trying to find the percentage of lawsuits they have won (as a cursory search has turned up the fact that they sue a lot of people a lot of the time) and how many lawsuits they have won in regards to voter fraud. They have been involved in a lot of rather odious smears and lies from what I have seen. It doesn't seem like they are honest actors but rather a group looking to spread misinformation and clog up the government with lawsuits. 

Do a subforum search on the word watch. That should get you to some of their wins and losses. Their website is going to be mostly wins.

 

 

[Bray Wyatt]

2 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

I am trying to find the percentage of lawsuits they have won (as a cursory search has turned up the fact that they sue a lot of people a lot of the time) and how many lawsuits they have won in regards to voter fraud. They have been involved in a lot of rather odious smears and lies from what I have seen. It doesn't seem like they are honest actors but rather a group looking to spread misinformation and clog up the government with lawsuits. 

 

Go ahead and make a principled argument for a system of representative government where you give preferential treatment (aka affirmative action) to a small group of states and have a system where it is common for the person with the least amount of votes wins. If you like the system because it helps Republicans fine, support it on partisan lines but don't pretend you have any non-partisan justification for the system. 

 

What do you think would happen if we went to popular vote?? How would it be any different?

[billsfan89]

Just now, Buffalo_Gal said:

Do a subforum search on the word watch. That should get you to some of their wins and losses. Their website is going to be mostly wins.

 

 

 

Given the nature of this board I think their wins would be overrepresented. I am trying to figure out if there is another source that has a better picture. 

Just now, Bray Wyatt said:

 

What do you think would happen if we went to popular vote?? How would it be any different?

 

I think you would see candidates focused on turnout all across the country. I think you would see more turnout in states like California and Texas where minority political beliefs would have their votes count equally as people in Florida. I think you would see less focus on policy for places like Ohio and Florida where both parties try and over favor them so that they can win elections. There are numerous positives to getting rid of the popular vote. 12 states soak up a majority of the focus on election night and that locks out the other 38. 

[3rdnlng]

35 minutes ago, Bray Wyatt said:

 

You think this is honestly the case?

Back in the day few people could code.

[Buffalo_Gal]

2 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Given the nature of this board I think their wins would be overrepresented. I am trying to figure out if there is another source that has a better picture. 

I missed part of your earlier post, soooo...

 

JW Lies and smears!? They have been about the only entity that was able to take the Obama administration to court for paperwork and win. They do fight for FOIAs, against voter fraud, and have been pretty vigilant in getting the word out on both. Transparency and fairness seem to be their aim.

[Bray Wyatt]

2 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Given the nature of this board I think their wins would be overrepresented. I am trying to figure out if there is another source that has a better picture. 

 

I think you would see candidates focused on turnout all across the country. I think you would see more turnout in states like California and Texas where minority political beliefs would have their votes count equally as people in Florida. I think you would see less focus on policy for places like Ohio and Florida where both parties try and over favor them so that they can win elections. There are numerous positives to getting rid of the popular vote. 12 states soak up a majority of the focus on election night and that locks out the other 38. 

 

They would focus their campaign on the most populous states, which would just be the same ***** different toilet than what we got now.

 

Our government was formed so that the most populous states wouldnt control what the smaller states did, hence the bicameral congress. The electoral college is another example of that.

 

[/dev/null]

That's what I love about Lefty's.  All afraid that Trump will rule by executive fiat and set it up so he is always in power.  Basically afraid of Trump doing exactly what they wish they could do but are afraid to admit it

 

But if Trump or any other President tried to pull this, there's already a well documented legal response

 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[3rdnlng]

24 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

The DNC data was stolen through a hack by the Russians.  They then used wikileaks to release portions to the public at opportune moments to assist Trump's campaign, right?

 

So, it was really stolen private (idk, is the DNC a corp) corp data.  It may have revealed internal corruption at the DNC, but I don't think stealing and releasing corp information, even if revealing and interesting, should be sanctioned by us.

Per V.I.P.S. it was determined that the speed of the supposed "hack" could not have been done over the internet and had to be done by a direct transfer of information. In other words someone downloaded that information directly from a computer onto an external drive. 

[/dev/null]

3 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Per V.I.P.S. it was determined that the speed of the supposed "hack" could not have been done over the internet and had to be done by a direct transfer of information. In other words someone downloaded that information directly from a computer onto an external drive. 

 

And was subsequently killed in a botched robbery

[reddogblitz]

1 hour ago, Bob in Mich said:

No actual comments or defense of the Trump nepotism? 

 

This blew my mind when I found out about it and still does.  We have a nepotism law in this country for the President put in after the Kennedy administration but it doesn't apply in this case.

 

Might be a good thing for Ds to do now that impeachment is over is to tighten up the law so this doesn't happen again.

[3rdnlng]

18 minutes ago, Bray Wyatt said:

 

What do you think would happen if we went to popular vote?? How would it be any different?

The large states control the House while the smaller states have more of a say in the Senate in comparison to their population. The House was designed to represent the people while the Senate was designed to represent the states. 

[billsfan89]

12 minutes ago, Bray Wyatt said:

 

They would focus their campaign on the most populous states, which would just be the same ***** different toilet than what we got now.

 

Our government was formed so that the most populous states wouldnt control what the smaller states did, hence the bicameral congress. The electoral college is another example of that.

 

 

Right now it isn' like the smaller states get better represented than the larger ones in the electoral college. North Carolina, Ohio, Penn, Michigan and Florida (all key swing states) are states in the top 10 in terms of population. Other swing states like Virginia (12th), Minnesota (22nd) Wisconsin (20th) are well within the top half. The only smaller states that are in the swing states are Iowa (31st), Nevada (32nd) and New Hampshire (42nd.) 

 

So it isn't restoring power to the smaller states. You would see the national priorities shift in a major way if each state was given a say in the election. It would be completely different for our politics to get rid of preferring 12 states many of whom aren't small under represented states. 

[Bray Wyatt]

Just now, 3rdnlng said:

The large states control the House while the smaller states have more of a say in the Senate in comparison to their population. The House was designed to represent the people while the Senate was designed to represent the states. 

 

Right, they came up with this as the compromise of equal representation vs population based. 

[3rdnlng]

5 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

This blew my mind when I found out about it and still does.  We have a nepotism law in this country for the President put in after the Kennedy administration but it doesn't apply in this case.

 

Might be a good thing for Ds to do now that impeachment is over is to tighten up the law so this doesn't happen again.

Nobody from the Trump family is getting paid. Trump obviously has great faith in Ivanka and Jered Kushner and the items they've worked on have either been successes or show promise. Any other family members have stuck to the political side.