Handel wins GA 6 by 5%+

[Merc14]

7 hours ago, skyeagle409 said:

The numbers clearly show that Hillary got almost 3 million more votes than Trump and Trump's declining approval ratings prove that Trump is unfit to be president and he is seeing a decline in his support base that voted him in office.

Yeah, all in California where she spent money she should have been spending in Michigan. .  Yep, she got her majority so she'd have a referendum on her election as President and all she has to show for it is sad little men like you waving that bloodied flag like you won the election.  LMFAO  You keep crowing  skyninja but always remember you LOST the election an dyur constant, pathetic whine just hearkens back to that joyful day you sanctimonious, sore losers got kicked in the crotch.  .Watch this skyninja and enjoy and PLEASE, keep bragging that Hillary diverted money from the battleground states to CA and NY to pad teh popular vote, the memories are wonderful and once in a lifetime.  

 

Wonderful stuff and you always bring back that night when you cry "We won the popular vote!"  Someother sore lose does it too can't remember who it is but it is very telling that when you lose your gut reaction is to change the constitution to suit your desires.  Guess that oath you took was rather meaningless.  I'l remind you of this every time you trot your appeal to authority out to justify your outlandish claims.  

 

[Yamato]

1 hour ago, RavenHawk said:

You’re the self-proclaimed UM Constitutional expert. 

 

No I'm not a self proclaimed expert of anything.   I do understand the simplest of things about the rule of law, like Article 1 is reserved strictly for the Congress.  You start threads called "1.8.10" and you can't even figure out that it has nothing to do with Executive authority!    I know I had to teach you that, and you might have come away from the discussion thinking I thought I was an expert but no, I just knew enough to teach you something you obviously didn't know yet.

 

Quote

Show us where it says we are!

Show you where what says you are what?

[Yamato]

2 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

The EC is not flawed.  It does exactly what it is supposed to do.  People always attack the EC because of faulty programming.  Somewhere along the way, someone made us believe that we are a Democracy.  We are not.

Are you an authority over the dictionary now too?    See this is exactly the kind of thing you'd accuse me of, and just did frankly, but just watch.  Watch you come back in reply and act like you're an authority over the dictionary next...

Democracy

2. a state having such a form of government:

The United States and Canada are democracies.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/democracy?s=t

[Yamato]

1 hour ago, Merc14 said:

Yeah, all in California where she spent money she should have been spending in Michigan. .  Yep, she got her majority so she'd have a referendum on her election as President and all she has to show for it is sad little men like you waving that bloodied flag like you won the election.  LMFAO  You keep crowing  skyninja but always remember you LOST the election an dyur constant, pathetic whine just hearkens back to that joyful day you sanctimonious, sore losers got kicked in the crotch.  .Watch this skyninja and enjoy and PLEASE, keep bragging that Hillary diverted money from the battleground states to CA and NY to pad teh popular vote, the memories are wonderful and once in a lifetime.  

 

Wonderful stuff and you always bring back that night when you cry "We won the popular vote!"  Someother sore lose does it too can't remember who it is but it is very telling that when you lose your gut reaction is to change the constitution to suit your desires.  Guess that oath you took was rather meaningless.  I'l remind you of this every time you trot your appeal to authority out to justify your outlandish claims.  

 

 

Wondering if "skyninja" knows how you claim to be a USN RI-officer, backseat F-14 Tomcat, USS Eisenhower, East Mediterranean, mid-1980s?

*Caution advisory panel lights up*

Democrats!!!   2'oclock high!    *checks clock*

Another Democrat!  Front seat!

*Bearing Heading Indicator explodes*

Mayday!  Mayday!

*punches hand control unit -- short circuits -- this also caused by Democrats*

Punching out!  *pulls canopy jettison handle*  

*handle breaks off in hand -- canopy fails to jettison!*

*stall warning sirens blaring -- STALL!"

*token photograph of President Ronald Reagan falls off instrument cluster*

*incompetent Democrat pilot miraculously lands safely on deck anyway*

*Wakes from dream -- USS Eisenhower nowhere near E. Med. Sea -- Merc14 nowhere near USS Eisenhower*

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/fc/f7/ab/fcf7abc0874b0e0a7d2524f69e37f757.jpg

32 years later:

"I understand Muslims and Democrats better than you, because I was there."

[RavenHawk]

1 hour ago, Yamato said:

No I'm not a self proclaimed expert of anything.   I do understand the simplest of things about the rule of law, like Article 1 is reserved strictly for the Congress.  You start threads called "1.8.10" and you can't even figure out that it has nothing to do with Executive authority!    I know I had to teach you that, and you might have come away from the discussion thinking I thought I was an expert but no, I just knew enough to teach you something you obviously didn't know yet.

 

Show you where what says you are what?

 

1 hour ago, Yamato said:

Are you an authority over the dictionary now too?    See this is exactly the kind of thing you'd accuse me of, and just did frankly, but just watch.  Watch you come back in reply and act like you're an authority over the dictionary next...

Democracy

2. a state having such a form of government:

The United States and Canada are democracies.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/democracy?s=t

This is precisely the response that everyone has come to expect from you.  The ignorance and arrogance together is just over the top.  You never disappoint.

[Yamato]

9 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

 

This is precisely the response that everyone has come to expect from you.  The ignorance and arrogance together is just over the top.  You never disappoint.

Doesn't change the facts.  Article 1 doesn't authorize the President to do anything.  That Article is entirely reserved for the Congress.  A hard lesson for you, no doubt.   In fact I put the James Madison quote in my signature for your further learning needs.

It should be obvious to you that you're not the authority over the dictionary the same way I'm not an authority over you.   I see plenty of complaining over news sources, but arguing with the dictionary will take arrogance and ignorance to a whole new level.

[RavenHawk]

8 hours ago, Yamato said:

Doesn't change the facts.  Article 1 doesn't authorize the President to do anything.  That Article is entirely reserved for the Congress.  A hard lesson for you, no doubt.   In fact I put the James Madison quote in my signature for your further learning needs.

Sigh…  You seem to be referencing a thread from years ago.  You can’t seem to let go?  The reason why is simple.  You were totally embarrassed and taken to school.  Your current reply is another example of you not understanding the conversation and you go off on illogical tangents.  I guess you do that to compensate your lack of knowledge.  I guess you think if you can divert a topic then it’ll make you sound like you know something.  But as many point out here, you end up spouting gibberish most of the time.  We were taught to never poke a caged animal with a stick.  It was cruel.  In this case, it is enjoyable.

[Bama13]

13 hours ago, Yamato said:

If we're not a Democracy, why are so many people voting on my alienable rights?

Wait let me condense that

Why are so many people voting?

The US is a Federal Republic.

A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.” 

[Yamato]

4 hours ago, Bama13 said:

The US is a Federal Republic.

A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.” 

We're a Constitutional Republic.   Which means we have a Constitution.   Which means we're a country with a rule of law, not a gang of barbarian thugs who go around the world as if that's not the case.   The President is not a King.   The Congress is not a derelict group of vote getters who ignore their Constitutional duty.

[Yamato]

5 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

Sigh…  You seem to be referencing a thread from years ago.  You can’t seem to let go?  The reason why is simple.  You were totally embarrassed and taken to school.  Your current reply is another example of you not understanding the conversation and you go off on illogical tangents.  I guess you do that to compensate your lack of knowledge.  I guess you think if you can divert a topic then it’ll make you sound like you know something.  But as many point out here, you end up spouting gibberish most of the time.  We were taught to never poke a caged animal with a stick.  It was cruel.  In this case, it is enjoyable.

Well you can bump that thread and we can have some followup if anything discussed there was still in doubt before you ran off.   When you showed you don't understand the most basic tenets of the US Constitution...when you're writing 10 paragraph essays about the President's authority to start war because Article 1 Section 8 says so?   You should have been embarrassed.    

This is the most important kind of stuff we can do by the way, teaching and talking about the US Constitution to ignorant people like you (are you even an American btw?) who seem not to know the most basic information about it yet you talk about it to float your eternal stipend narratives online.   Other than that I can exercise my Constitutional rights in more physical ways because I sure can't vote the precious Pro-Zionist-Sharia-ISIS-Al Qaeda neocons out who are causing the prob-lems we have in the world.

When it gets to the solutions phase an American citizen needs to ask what he or she can do.  And teaching statists the first thing about the Constitution especially Israel-Firsters who do more damage to the Constitution than anyone is the gentlest thing I can think of to do. 

So if the gentlest thing to do is a problem, we have a much bigger problem than we know.

[Bama13]

21 minutes ago, Yamato said:

We're a Constitutional Republic.   Which means we have a Constitution.   Which means we're a country with a rule of law, not a gang of barbarian thugs who go around the world as if that's not the case.   The President is not a King.   The Congress is not a derelict group of vote getters who ignore their Constitutional duty.

First you said we were a Democracy. Now you are saying we are a Republic. So you agree that we are not a Democracy? Good, then we agree.

[Yamato]

4 minutes ago, Bama13 said:

First you said we were a Democracy. Now you are saying we are a Republic.

Yes.  We are, and we are.  Those two things are not mutually exclusive.   Venn Diagrams Bama13.  Venn Diagrams.

 

 

 

[Bama13]

2 minutes ago, Yamato said:

Yes.  We are, and we are.  Those two things are not mutually exclusive.   Venn Diagrams Bama13.  Venn Diagrams.

 

 

 

How about a Federal Constitutional Democratic Republic? 

[spartan max2]

Our technical term is representative republic 

[RavenHawk]

1 hour ago, Yamato said:

Well you can bump that thread and we can have some followup if anything discussed there was still in doubt before you ran off.   When you showed you don't understand the most basic tenets of the US Constitution...when you're writing 10 paragraph essays about the President's authority to start war because Article 1 Section 8 says so?   You should have been embarrassed.    

<rest snipped for brevity>

Wow!  What a load of crap!!  People will definitely need their hip-deeps.  If you want to be embarrassed again, please bump it.  It didn’t take you too long to bring up your anti-Semitism, but I guess that is what a statist does.

 

Anyway, I was not trying to propose that the President can take us to war because Article I gave him the authority.  Everyone should know that Article I describes the powers of Congress and they don’t need you to point that out.  It doesn’t directly affect the powers of the Executive, so I don’t know why you keep trying to twist that around??  It’s clear that you still don’t understand the basics.  His Constitutional power to go to war comes from the War Powers Act.  Article II describes the President’s authority.  In II.2.1a states that he is the Commander-in-chief.  Now he can’t be much of a CinC if he can’t command his troops into battle.  II.2.1a gives the President complete authority over the military.  Congress has no power to direct the military.  So II.2.1a and I.8.11 are in conflict and hence why the War powers act was passed.  This is directly taken from I.8.14.  Congress made a rule for the President to take this nation to war.  There are times that the President must react to a crisis immediately and can’t wait for Congress to be convened to debate the merits of such an action.  You want to be embarrassed more?

 

I.8.11 does grant Congress the power to declare war, but I think this is where you first got confused.  Because I had asked you if only a straight up or down vote was the only way that Congress can declare war?  As usual, you never answered directly, just reiterated the clause.  I guess that amounts to a grunt.  I then went on to inform you that Congress had declared war this way only 11 times before.  6 of those were in WWII and 2 in WWI.  That means that only five wars were declared this way.  And how many conflicts have we been involved in?  It is well into the hundreds.  How can that be if there is only one way to declare war and yet Congress controls the purse?  We can’t go to war without expenditure and the House controls the purse.  So just by authorizing an appropriations bill, Congress declares war.  What usually happens is that the President reacts and sends troops to a particular hot spot.  This gives Congress 3 months to look at the situation and see if further support is needed.  It might be the President that requests more funds or that request may come from Congress, but eventually the troops come home or they are supported.

 

Now I know you will get frustrated and just restate the clause and say something like, Congress can’t pick and choose the clauses they want.  Or something like that??  The thing is, is that yes, they can pick and choose the appropriate clauses that they need.  Are you sure you want to bring up that old thread or start a new one?  I’ve dismissed you in just these few paragraphs.  But please show us more of your brilliance and rewrite the Constitution.

[Yamato]

2 hours ago, Bama13 said:

How about a Federal Constitutional Democratic Republic? 

Good enough but if I had my druthers I'd drop the federal.  It doesn't pay enough respect to the fact that the rights of the people and the powers of the states are theoretically infinite, the enumerated powers of the feds, few and limited.   If I'm going to be consistent though, I would have to accept federal the same way I accept democratic.  We're not a pure democracy the same way we're not purely federal.

[RavenHawk]

2 hours ago, Yamato said:

We're a Constitutional Republic.   Which means we have a Constitution.   Which means we're a country with a rule of law, not a gang of barbarian thugs who go around the world as if that's not the case.   The President is not a King.   The Congress is not a derelict group of vote getters who ignore their Constitutional duty.

And another example of mostly gibberish.  Yes, we are a Constitutional Republic.  Federal will work too (as well as Representative) but the key is that we are a Republic – not a Democracy.  A Democracy is not a country with a rule of law.  A Democracy is the rule of the mob.  The rest of your rant can be ignored.

[Yamato]

1 minute ago, RavenHawk said:

Wow!  What a load of crap!!  People will definitely need their hip-deeps.  If you want to be embarrassed again, please bump it.  It didn’t take you too long to bring up your anti-Semitism, but I guess that is what a statist does.

 

 

 

Anyway, I was not trying to propose that the President can take us to war because Article I gave him the authority.  Everyone should know that Article I describes the powers of Congress and they don’t need you to point that out.  It doesn’t directly affect the powers of the Executive, so I don’t know why you keep trying to twist that around??  It’s clear that you still don’t understand the basics.  His Constitutional power to go to war comes from the War Powers Act.  Article II describes the President’s authority.  In II.2.1a states that he is the Commander-in-chief.  Now he can’t be much of a CinC if he can’t command his troops into battle.  II.2.1a gives the President complete authority over the military.  Congress has no power to direct the military.  So II.2.1a and I.8.11 are in conflict and hence why the War powers act was passed.  This is directly taken from I.8.14.  Congress made a rule for the President to take this nation to war.  There are times that the President must react to a crisis immediately and can’t wait for Congress to be convened to debate the merits of such an action.  You want to be embarrassed more?

 

 

 

I.8.11 does grant Congress the power to declare war, but I think this is where you first got confused.  Because I had asked you if only a straight up or down vote was the only way that Congress can declare war?  As usual, you never answered directly, just reiterated the clause.  I guess that amounts to a grunt.  I then went on to inform you that Congress had declared war this way only 11 times before.  6 of those were in WWII and 2 in WWI.  That means that only five wars were declared this way.  And how many conflicts have we been involved in?  It is well into the hundreds.  How can that be if there is only one way to declare war and yet Congress controls the purse?  We can’t go to war without expenditure and the House controls the purse.  So just by authorizing an appropriations bill, Congress declares war.  What usually happens is that the President reacts and sends troops to a particular hot spot.  This gives Congress 3 months to look at the situation and see if further support is needed.  It might be the President that requests more funds or that request may come from Congress, but eventually the troops come home or they are supported.

 

 

 

Now I know you will get frustrated and just restate the clause and say something like, Congress can’t pick and choose the clauses they want.  Or something like that??  The thing is, is that yes, they can pick and choose the appropriate clauses that they need.  Are you sure you want to bring up that old thread or start a new one?  I’ve dismissed you in just these few paragraphs.  But please show us more of your brilliance and rewrite the Constitution.

 

Curious why you think that you spouting off embarrasses me?  

The Constitution isn't multiple choice.   There is no authority to subvert Article 1 by appealing to the President to initiate armed conflict.   This is true from President Obama's illegal attacks on Libya to President Trump's illegal attacks on Syria that he's still threatening more of today.  

Even in the case that the US was at imminent threat of being attacked by a foreign military, the scenario for which the War Powers Resolution was passed, this is not a substitute for Article 1 of the Constitution for Congress to do its duty and declare the war.   WPR gives the President a limited duration of time to execute his war waging powers authorized by Article 2 until either the clock runs out, or Congress does its duty and declares the war.  

The two real world examples I just cited don't meet the criteria of War Powers Resolution because neither Libya nor Syria were imminent threats to the United States.  The War Powers Resolution wasn't used, debated or paid any attention to at all by Congress now that Trump attacked Syria, and in the case of Obama-Libya, even if gravity points up and Libya was an imminent threat to the United States, Obama failed to meet the deadline thus violating War Powers Resolution as well as the Constitution.

[Yamato]

8 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

And another example of mostly gibberish.  Yes, we are a Constitutional Republic.  Federal will work too (as well as Representative) but the key is that we are a Republic – not a Democracy.  A Democracy is not a country with a rule of law.  A Democracy is the rule of the mob.  The rest of your rant can be ignored.

 

Basically, repeating what I just said while trying as hard as you can to disagree with something that's nothing to do with anything I just said. 

http://www.busybuthealthy.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Sore-Butt-Workout.jpg 

[skyeagle409]

23 hours ago, Merc14 said:

Yeah, all in California where she spent money she should have been spending in Michigan. .  Yep, she got her majority so she'd have a referendum on her election as President and all she has to show for it is sad little men like you waving that bloodied flag like you won the election.  LMFAO  You keep crowing  skyninja but always remember you LOST the election an dyur constant, pathetic whine just hearkens back to that joyful day you sanctimonious, sore losers got kicked in the crotch.  .Watch this skyninja and enjoy and PLEASE, keep bragging that Hillary diverted money from the battleground states to CA and NY to pad teh popular vote, the memories are wonderful and once in a lifetime.  

 

Wonderful stuff and you always bring back that night when you cry "We won the popular vote!"  Someother sore lose does it too can't remember who it is but it is very telling that when you lose your gut reaction is to change the constitution to suit your desires.  Guess that oath you took was rather meaningless.  I'l remind you of this every time you trot your appeal to authority out to justify your outlandish claims.  

 

Here's one example of many as to how Trump dupes and keeps his hardcore supporters. 

Time magazine wants Donald Trump's fake covers taken down

Time magazine has asked the Trump Organization to remove copies of a fake magazine cover featuring Donald Trump from its golf clubs’ walls.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/time-magazine-wants-donald-trumps-fake-covers-taken-down-2017-06-27

 

[skyeagle409]

 And, despite Handel's win, Trump's approval ratings remains in the cellar. Now, there are those calling Trump, "Benedict Donald" for not confronting Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

Edited June 29, 2017 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

6 hours ago, Bama13 said:

First you said we were a Democracy. Now you are saying we are a Republic. So you agree that we are not a Democracy? Good, then we agree.

 

Many have criticized the EC, and remember, both Clinton and Trump attacked the EC. In 1967, the American Bar Association blasted the system, calling it "archaic, undemocratic, complex, ambiguous, indirect, and dangerous" and once again, there were electors who refused to support both Clinton and Trump. In other words, Clinton and Trump did not received all of the electoral votes they were entitled, so it is of no surprise as to why the EC has been attacked.

Edited June 29, 2017 by skyeagle409

[+DieChecker]

On 6/26/2017 at 1:00 PM, skyeagle409 said:

For the record, did Trump urge Russia to hack Clinton's email or not?

From what I've read he was in favor of people who had the emails to turn them over.... I didn't see anything about hacking....

[+DieChecker]

On 6/26/2017 at 0:12 PM, skyeagle409 said:

 

Let's me highlight as to where I am coming from.

Popular Vote

Clinton: 65,844,954

Trump: 62,979,879

A better point would be if Hillary Clinton KNEW the system that she was working inside of, and if she understood that winning the popular vote wasn't an autowin? My guess is that she did... So it is her own fault if she lost due to neglect of the EC votes. She took too many EC votes from the smaller states for Granted.

[Yamato]

Quote

For the record, did Trump urge Russia to hack Clinton's email or not?

Yes.  Simple yes/no questions like this deserve simple yes/no answers. 

And he did it right after mentioning how horrible it is if ("when") Russia hacks into a major party.   As usual Trump is dead wrong.

It's an enormous positive for our country if any other country hacks into either major party, and if they hacked into both major parties at the same time?   They would deserve medals of the highest honor.   Ireland.  South Sudan.  Luxembourg.   Anyone.  Please help us!