Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/emmyrossum/status/796969021103079424

you can go into policies and all that jazz but i feel that so many can't see the forest for the trees.

Trump won--now is time to give the guy some room over the next 6-9 months and see what he he can do. There was going to be protests one way or another--its all noise. Actions speak the loudest now.

BRIGGS wrote:This is all hibber jibber.

Trump won--now is time to give the guy some room over the next 6-9 months and see what he he can do. There was going to be protests one way or another--its all noise. Actions speak the loudest now.

when the knicks acquire players, do they people give them a clean slate? i think most knicks fans do. but then ultimately, has anyone really ever worked out for them the way they thought?

reub wrote:BREAKING NEWS FROM CANADA

The flood of Trump-fearing American liberals sneaking across the border into Canada has intensified in the past week. The Republican victory is prompting an exodus among left-leaning Americans who fear they'll soon be required to live according to the Constitution.

Canadian border residents say it's not uncommon to see dozens of sociology professors, liberal arts majors, global-warming activists, and "green" energy proponents crossing their fields at night.

"I went out to milk the cows the other day, and there was a Hollywood producer huddled in the barn," said southern Manitoba farmer Red Greenfield, whose acreage borders North Dakota. "He was cold, exhausted and hungry, and begged me for a latte and some free-range chicken. When I said I didn't have any, he left before I even got a chance to show him my screenplay, eh?"

In an effort to stop the illegal aliens, Greenfield erected higher fences, but the liberals scaled them. He then installed loudspeakers that blared Rush Limbaugh across the fields, but they just stuck their fingers in their ears and kept coming. Officials are particularly concerned about smugglers who meet liberals just south of the border, pack them into electric cars, and drive them across the border, where they are simply left to fend for themselves after the battery dies.

"A lot of these people are not prepared for our rugged conditions," an Alberta border patrolman said. "I found one carload without a single bottle of Perrier water, or any gemelli with shrimp and arugula. All they had was a Napa Valley cabernet and some kale chips.

Rumors are circulating about plans being made to build re-education camps where liberals will be forced to drink domestic beer and look for jobs that actually contribute to the economy.

In recent days, they've turned to ingenious ways of crossing the border. Some have been disguised as senior citizens taking a bus trip to buy cheap Canadian prescription drugs. After catching a half-dozen young vegans in blue-hair wig disguises, Canadian immigration authorities began stopping buses and quizzing the supposed senior citizens about Perry Como and Rosemary Clooney to prove that they were alive in the '50s.

"If they can't identify the accordion player on The Lawrence Welk Show, we become very suspicious about their age," an official said.

Canadian citizens have complained that the illegal immigrants are creating an organic-broccoli shortage, are buying up all the Barbara Streisand CD's, and are overloading the internet while downloading jazzercise apps to their cell phones.

"I really feel sorry for these folks, but the Canadian economy just can't support them," an Ottawa resident said. "After all, how many art-history majors does one country need?

How do they know these people professions? Are they wearing patches indicating their professions that reflects at night??..An American can get into Canada at the border crossing by just showing their passport or green card...

BRIGGS wrote:This is all hibber jibber.

Trump won--now is time to give the guy some room over the next 6-9 months and see what he he can do. There was going to be protests one way or another--its all noise. Actions speak the loudest now.

earthmansurfer wrote:TPP Dead, Trump not even in office yet. Just took a visit to the White House. Good sign of things to come.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/11/politics/tpp-congressional-leaders/index.html

Any of you see his tax reform plan? I've never seen anything like that regarding tax reform. We will see how much he gets done. Benefits people and companies.
Instead of trickle down economics, it looks like trickle up.

Snippet

Key Findings:
Mr. Trump’s tax plan would substantially lower individual income taxes and the corporate income tax and eliminate a number of complex features in the current tax code.
Mr. Trump’s plan would cut taxes by $11.98 trillion over the next decade on a static basis. However, the plan would end up reducing tax revenues by $10.14 trillion over the next decade when accounting for economic growth from increases in the supply of labor and capital.
The plan would also result in increased outlays due to higher interest on the debt, creating a ten-year deficit somewhat larger than the estimates above.
According to the Tax Foundation’s Taxes and Growth Model, the plan would significantly reduce marginal tax rates and the cost of capital, which would lead to an 11 percent higher GDP over the long term provided that the tax cut could be appropriately financed.
The plan would also lead to a 29 percent larger capital stock, 6.5 percent higher wages, and 5.3 million more full-time equivalent jobs.
The plan would cut taxes and lead to higher after-tax incomes for taxpayers at all levels of income.

Snippet

http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-donald-trump-s-tax-plan

What amazes me is that Republicans care about deficits and debt until they win the presidency..How are they going to pay for that..Weren't you asking me be about debt just a few day ago???

holfresh wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:

Welpee wrote:

djsunyc wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/796900183955095552

ARE YOU F CKING KIDDING ME?

what a f cking loser. lol.

The protesters are being "unfair to him" (in my best whiny voice), meanwhile wikileaks only hacked people associated with Dems and that was OK and he encouraged more?

This guy is going to be the most hyper-sensitive president in history. Not a good attribute for someone who can give the order for mass killings.

It's not fair. There was a fair election in which the rules have been well laid out for decades. So it seems the protesters went to an election only willing to accept it if they won.

People aren't only protesting the election but protesting the character of the man elected...He isn't worthy of the office...Ronald Reagan wore an overcoat to the Oval Office everyday he went to work...His very presence soils the institution..They don't see him a representative of the values that made this country great or this office special..The Presidency or Fist Lady will never be looked upon the same way again after this election..So they protest the man...

Just adding to what Bonn eloquently said...

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

The framers of the Constitution were afraid of a democracy (mob rule), that is the point. We are a Constitutional Republic. Slaves or no slaves, not the point.
Point about a few States essentially electing a president still stands.

You can argue that the system needs to be updated, sure, I am for that. But that would require a lot of discussion and finally agreement.

Mob rule?? What does that even mean??...I posted an article from Time Mag a few pages ago about how the electoral college came about...Do yourself a favor and read...And please do direct me to write ups about mob rule...

Ron Paul understands the constitution quite well.

The Electoral College vs. Mob Rule

November 1, 2004
[size=3]
Tuesday’s presidential election is likely to be relatively close, at least in terms of popular vote totals. Should either candidate win the election but lose the overall popular vote, we will be bombarded with calls to abolish the electoral college, just as we were after the contested 2000 presidential election. After all, the pundits will argue, it would be “undemocratic” to deny the presidency to the man who received the most votes.

This argument is hostile to the Constitution, however, which expressly established the United States as a constitutionally limited republic and not a direct democracy. The Founding Fathers sought to protect certain fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of speech, against the changing whims of popular opinion. Similarly, they created the electoral college to guard against majority tyranny in federal elections. The president was to be elected by the 50 states rather than the American people directly, to ensure that less populated states had a voice in national elections. This is why they blended electoral college votes between U.S. House seats, which are based on population, and U.S. Senate seats, which are accorded equally to each state. The goal was to balance the inherent tension between majority will and majority tyranny. Those who wish to abolish the electoral college because it’s not purely democratic should also argue that less populated states like Rhode Island or Wyoming don’t deserve two senators.

A presidential campaign in a purely democratic system would look very strange indeed, as any rational candidate would focus only on a few big population centers. A candidate receiving a large percentage of the popular vote in California, Texas, Florida, and New York, for example, could win the presidency with very little support in dozens of other states. Moreover, a popular vote system would only intensify political pandering, as national candidates would face even greater pressure than today to take empty, middle-of-the-road, poll-tested, mainstream positions. Direct democracy in national politics would further dilute regional differences of opinion on issues, further narrow voter choices, and further emasculate political courage.

Those who call for the abolition of the electoral college are hostile to liberty. Not surprisingly, most advocates of abolition are statist elites concentrated largely on the east and west coasts. These political, economic, academic, media, and legal elites overwhelmingly favor a strong centralized federal government, and express contempt for the federalist concept of states’ rights. They believe in omnipotent federal power, with states acting as mere glorified federal counties carrying out commands from Washington.

The electoral college threatens the imperial aims of these elites because it allows the individual states to elect the president, and in many states the majority of voters still believe in limited government and the Constitution. Voters in southern, midwestern, and western states- derided as “flyover” country-- tend to value family, religion, individual liberty, property rights, and gun rights. Washington elites abhor these values, and they hate that middle and rural America hold any political power whatsoever. Their efforts to discredit the electoral college system are an open attack on the voting power of the pro-liberty states.

Sadly, we have forgotten that states created the federal government, not the other way around. The electoral college system represents an attempt, however effective, to limit federal power and preserve states’ rights. It is an essential part of our federalist balance. It also represents a reminder that pure democracy, mob rule, is incompatible with liberty.[/size=4]

http://ronpaulquotes.com/Texas_Straight_Talk/tst110104.html

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:TPP Dead, Trump not even in office yet. Just took a visit to the White House. Good sign of things to come.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/11/politics/tpp-congressional-leaders/index.html

Any of you see his tax reform plan? I've never seen anything like that regarding tax reform. We will see how much he gets done. Benefits people and companies.
Instead of trickle down economics, it looks like trickle up.

Snippet

Key Findings:
Mr. Trump’s tax plan would substantially lower individual income taxes and the corporate income tax and eliminate a number of complex features in the current tax code.
Mr. Trump’s plan would cut taxes by $11.98 trillion over the next decade on a static basis. However, the plan would end up reducing tax revenues by $10.14 trillion over the next decade when accounting for economic growth from increases in the supply of labor and capital.
The plan would also result in increased outlays due to higher interest on the debt, creating a ten-year deficit somewhat larger than the estimates above.
According to the Tax Foundation’s Taxes and Growth Model, the plan would significantly reduce marginal tax rates and the cost of capital, which would lead to an 11 percent higher GDP over the long term provided that the tax cut could be appropriately financed.
The plan would also lead to a 29 percent larger capital stock, 6.5 percent higher wages, and 5.3 million more full-time equivalent jobs.
The plan would cut taxes and lead to higher after-tax incomes for taxpayers at all levels of income.

Snippet

http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-donald-trump-s-tax-plan

What amazes me is that Republicans care about deficits and debt until they win the presidency..How are they going to pay for that..Weren't you asking me be about debt just a few day ago???

Read it. But for starters people spend more, our GDP goes up and there is the tax money. (edit - I meant to add with taxes from consumer spending, as we all will have more money. Companies will too and they will hire more.) That is closer to how taxes were supposed to work (except back then there was no tax on labor.) Now they tax everything.

So what happened to Reagan and George Bush when they cut taxes and blew a massive hole into the budget and created massive deficits??..Where are all the phantom money that everyone was support to see from tax cuts...You get into office and deficits don't matter anymore then next you say it the democrats fault...The biggest spending presidents were Reagan and Bush then you tell people it was the Democrats and they believe it..Even you believe it...

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

The framers of the Constitution were afraid of a democracy (mob rule), that is the point. We are a Constitutional Republic. Slaves or no slaves, not the point.
Point about a few States essentially electing a president still stands.

You can argue that the system needs to be updated, sure, I am for that. But that would require a lot of discussion and finally agreement.

Mob rule?? What does that even mean??...I posted an article from Time Mag a few pages ago about how the electoral college came about...Do yourself a favor and read...And please do direct me to write ups about mob rule...

Ron Paul understands the constitution quite well.

The Electoral College vs. Mob Rule

November 1, 2004
[size=3]
Tuesday’s presidential election is likely to be relatively close, at least in terms of popular vote totals. Should either candidate win the election but lose the overall popular vote, we will be bombarded with calls to abolish the electoral college, just as we were after the contested 2000 presidential election. After all, the pundits will argue, it would be “undemocratic” to deny the presidency to the man who received the most votes.

This argument is hostile to the Constitution, however, which expressly established the United States as a constitutionally limited republic and not a direct democracy. The Founding Fathers sought to protect certain fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of speech, against the changing whims of popular opinion. Similarly, they created the electoral college to guard against majority tyranny in federal elections. The president was to be elected by the 50 states rather than the American people directly, to ensure that less populated states had a voice in national elections. This is why they blended electoral college votes between U.S. House seats, which are based on population, and U.S. Senate seats, which are accorded equally to each state. The goal was to balance the inherent tension between majority will and majority tyranny. Those who wish to abolish the electoral college because it’s not purely democratic should also argue that less populated states like Rhode Island or Wyoming don’t deserve two senators.

A presidential campaign in a purely democratic system would look very strange indeed, as any rational candidate would focus only on a few big population centers. A candidate receiving a large percentage of the popular vote in California, Texas, Florida, and New York, for example, could win the presidency with very little support in dozens of other states. Moreover, a popular vote system would only intensify political pandering, as national candidates would face even greater pressure than today to take empty, middle-of-the-road, poll-tested, mainstream positions. Direct democracy in national politics would further dilute regional differences of opinion on issues, further narrow voter choices, and further emasculate political courage.

Those who call for the abolition of the electoral college are hostile to liberty. Not surprisingly, most advocates of abolition are statist elites concentrated largely on the east and west coasts. These political, economic, academic, media, and legal elites overwhelmingly favor a strong centralized federal government, and express contempt for the federalist concept of states’ rights. They believe in omnipotent federal power, with states acting as mere glorified federal counties carrying out commands from Washington.

The electoral college threatens the imperial aims of these elites because it allows the individual states to elect the president, and in many states the majority of voters still believe in limited government and the Constitution. Voters in southern, midwestern, and western states- derided as “flyover” country-- tend to value family, religion, individual liberty, property rights, and gun rights. Washington elites abhor these values, and they hate that middle and rural America hold any political power whatsoever. Their efforts to discredit the electoral college system are an open attack on the voting power of the pro-liberty states.

Sadly, we have forgotten that states created the federal government, not the other way around. The electoral college system represents an attempt, however effective, to limit federal power and preserve states’ rights. It is an essential part of our federalist balance. It also represents a reminder that pure democracy, mob rule, is incompatible with liberty.[/size=4]

http://ronpaulquotes.com/Texas_Straight_Talk/tst110104.html

First of all Rand Paul is wrong about why it came about...Second Rand Paul is from Kentucky whose population is 4.5 mil people..Brooklyn and Queens combined to have more people yet they have two Senators...So of course he is going to talk his own book on why his residents should have a bigger vote impact then the average citizen...

Didn't Rand Paul set up his own dental association to become a dentist because he didn't want to follow the rules of the American Dental Association..

It's Ron Paul, not Rand Paul.

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

The framers of the Constitution were afraid of a democracy (mob rule), that is the point. We are a Constitutional Republic. Slaves or no slaves, not the point.
Point about a few States essentially electing a president still stands.

You can argue that the system needs to be updated, sure, I am for that. But that would require a lot of discussion and finally agreement.

Mob rule?? What does that even mean??...I posted an article from Time Mag a few pages ago about how the electoral college came about...Do yourself a favor and read...And please do direct me to write ups about mob rule...

Ron Paul understands the constitution quite well.

The Electoral College vs. Mob Rule

November 1, 2004
[size=3]
Tuesday’s presidential election is likely to be relatively close, at least in terms of popular vote totals. Should either candidate win the election but lose the overall popular vote, we will be bombarded with calls to abolish the electoral college, just as we were after the contested 2000 presidential election. After all, the pundits will argue, it would be “undemocratic” to deny the presidency to the man who received the most votes.

This argument is hostile to the Constitution, however, which expressly established the United States as a constitutionally limited republic and not a direct democracy. The Founding Fathers sought to protect certain fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of speech, against the changing whims of popular opinion. Similarly, they created the electoral college to guard against majority tyranny in federal elections. The president was to be elected by the 50 states rather than the American people directly, to ensure that less populated states had a voice in national elections. This is why they blended electoral college votes between U.S. House seats, which are based on population, and U.S. Senate seats, which are accorded equally to each state. The goal was to balance the inherent tension between majority will and majority tyranny. Those who wish to abolish the electoral college because it’s not purely democratic should also argue that less populated states like Rhode Island or Wyoming don’t deserve two senators.

A presidential campaign in a purely democratic system would look very strange indeed, as any rational candidate would focus only on a few big population centers. A candidate receiving a large percentage of the popular vote in California, Texas, Florida, and New York, for example, could win the presidency with very little support in dozens of other states. Moreover, a popular vote system would only intensify political pandering, as national candidates would face even greater pressure than today to take empty, middle-of-the-road, poll-tested, mainstream positions. Direct democracy in national politics would further dilute regional differences of opinion on issues, further narrow voter choices, and further emasculate political courage.

Those who call for the abolition of the electoral college are hostile to liberty. Not surprisingly, most advocates of abolition are statist elites concentrated largely on the east and west coasts. These political, economic, academic, media, and legal elites overwhelmingly favor a strong centralized federal government, and express contempt for the federalist concept of states’ rights. They believe in omnipotent federal power, with states acting as mere glorified federal counties carrying out commands from Washington.

The electoral college threatens the imperial aims of these elites because it allows the individual states to elect the president, and in many states the majority of voters still believe in limited government and the Constitution. Voters in southern, midwestern, and western states- derided as “flyover” country-- tend to value family, religion, individual liberty, property rights, and gun rights. Washington elites abhor these values, and they hate that middle and rural America hold any political power whatsoever. Their efforts to discredit the electoral college system are an open attack on the voting power of the pro-liberty states.

Sadly, we have forgotten that states created the federal government, not the other way around. The electoral college system represents an attempt, however effective, to limit federal power and preserve states’ rights. It is an essential part of our federalist balance. It also represents a reminder that pure democracy, mob rule, is incompatible with liberty.[/size=4]

http://ronpaulquotes.com/Texas_Straight_Talk/tst110104.html

First of all Rand Paul is wrong about why it came about...Second Rand Paul is from Kentucky whose population is 4.5 mil people..Brooklyn and Queens combined to have more people yet they have two Senators...So of course he is going to talk his own book on why his residents should have a bigger vote impact then the average citizen...

Didn't Rand Paul set up his own dental association to become a dentist because he didn't want to follow the rules of the American Dental Association..

It's Ron Paul, not Rand Paul.

Either on..Electoral College is skewed toward republican states..They have more power with less electorate..Whatever they are crooked and will always cheat to win..