LaxPower Back-Up Stick

Jeez, C&S, you really had to look for this one to complain about something. You are like a contortionist complaining about a sore back.

Doesn’t want to focus on the cops closing in on Trump. Avenatti was right. Again. Trump organized the hush money. As one former us atty said, “Every time Trump opens his mouth we get a cesspool of untruths.”

Fairy tales can come true.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018 ... wonderland

seacoaster wrote:Jeez, C&S, you really had to look for this one to complain about something. You are like a contortionist complaining about a sore back.

Not complaining about it. I only pointed out that the majority of politicians in Kallyforneeya have been hammering Trump non stop about every thing he says or does. When the state endures a catastrophic event and needs federal assistance... guess who they turn to? DJT, even being the a-hole he is, has authorized the feds to give sunny Kallyforneeya what financial assistance they need. We all beat the hell out the man everyday, then when he does the right thing, no one wants to give him any credit for it. I can only imagine the sheetstorm here if Trump did not authorize Federal assistance. cussing1 Damned if you do... damned if you don't. You can still hate the guy but grudgingly give him credit where credit is due. In Trumps case, that doesn't happen very often.

Trinity wrote:Doesn’t want to focus on the cops closing in on Trump. Avenatti was right. Again. Trump organized the hush money. As one former us atty said, “Every time Trump opens his mouth we get a cesspool of untruths.”

We are talking about 2 different things here. What ever misdeeds Trump has been involved in will all come out in the wash. The list of alleged criminal activities is very long and very difficult to sift through. When you have an army of expensive lawyers building roadblocks every step of the way it becomes way more than complicated. There also is the benefit( for now) of being a sitting POTUS who can use the power of the office to keep himself as insulated from all of this as possible. IMO it may not be until Trump leaves office that the truth can finally come out. Muellers conclusions will determine the next direction this goes. If I remember correctly collusion was at the top of a very long list. We will all have to see how that plays out.

Trump doesn’t know Matt Whitaker now. A massive lie. Watch this backfire in Federal Ct. in the Miller case challenging Mueller’s authority.

cradleandshoot wrote:

seacoaster wrote:Jeez, C&S, you really had to look for this one to complain about something. You are like a contortionist complaining about a sore back.

Not complaining about it. I only pointed out that the majority of politicians in Kallyforneeya have been hammering Trump non stop about every thing he says or does. When the state endures a catastrophic event and needs federal assistance... guess who they turn to? DJT, even being the a-hole he is, has authorized the feds to give sunny Kallyforneeya what financial assistance they need. We all beat the hell out the man everyday, then when he does the right thing, no one wants to give him any credit for it. I can only imagine the sheetstorm here if Trump did not authorize Federal assistance. cussing1 Damned if you do... damned if you don't. You can still hate the guy but grudgingly give him credit where credit is due. In Trumps case, that doesn't happen very often.

I think you're right about the "sheet storm" had he not done the bare minimum expectations and instead overruled providing federal disaster relief assistance out of a fit of pique at lefties in California.

Let's just say that "give him credit for it" requires a stretch of the imagination that there was actually a viable option for him, politically or otherwise.

But sure, when you do stretch your imagination, we can be glad that he's hasn't reached that point yet.

But, hey, let's stop for a moment and recognize what we're even saying:
That there is even a chance that any POTUS would use their authority in such a way.

You call it an "inbred entitlement mentality". You sure it isn't that Californians (people and companies) pay federal taxes?
Here's a question: Do they pay more taxes, or less, proportionate to their share of the population?

Another one: Do they pay more, or less, than their proportionate share of federal transfer payments net of obligation? (That's a little more complicated...the answer is they pay more than their share)

MDlaxfan76 wrote:
But, hey, let's stop for a moment and recognize what we're even saying:
That there is even a chance that any POTUS would use their authority in such a way.

You call it an "inbred entitlement mentality". You sure it isn't that Californians (people and companies) pay federal taxes?
Here's a question: Do they pay more taxes, or less, proportionate to their share of the population?

Another one: Do they pay more, or less, than their proportionate share of federal transfer payments net of obligation? (That's a little more complicated...the answer is they pay more than their share)

I will answer your questions with a question. Which state gets MORE federal tax dollars, proportionate to their share of population?

To be clear, my definition of federal aid is probably different than most. They don't include defense industry contracts. (see tables 1, 2 & 3 on page five)

http://www.oea.gov/sites/default/files/ ... df#page=19



(funny, how suddenly you are concerned about proportions and population, just NOT when it comes to US House of Reps though, eh )

runrussellrun wrote:

MDlaxfan76 wrote:
But, hey, let's stop for a moment and recognize what we're even saying:
That there is even a chance that any POTUS would use their authority in such a way.

You call it an "inbred entitlement mentality". You sure it isn't that Californians (people and companies) pay federal taxes?
Here's a question: Do they pay more taxes, or less, proportionate to their share of the population?

Another one: Do they pay more, or less, than their proportionate share of federal transfer payments net of obligation? (That's a little more complicated...the answer is they pay more than their share)

I will answer your questions with a question. Which state gets MORE federal tax dollars, proportionate to their share of population?

To be clear, my definition of federal aid is probably different than most. They don't include defense industry contracts. (see tables 1, 2 & 3 on page five)

http://www.oea.gov/sites/default/files/ ... df#page=19



(funny, how suddenly you are concerned about proportions and population, just NOT when it comes to US House of Reps though, eh )

Thanks for the link. As federal defense contracting is a very small proportion of all gov't spending, your link is merely interesting.
It doesn't answer the question.
But my argument is not with your point about defense contracts.
It was simply to make the point that California pays a higher amount of taxes relative to its population and receives less, so there's no "entitlement mentality" of simply expecting that emergency federal funding would be just as available to them as any other set of taxpayers facing an emergency.

As to the proportions and population, quite to the contrary I do think it's quite important that the House of Representatives, and the allocation of those Representatives, is properly proportionate to each state's share of population. And it is.

The Senate is the reverse with each state holding equal representation regardless of population.

The Electoral College is a strange miss mash of the two principles, with states having a number of possible votes allocated proportionate to their share of the overall population, but with each state having the right to allocate their given votes in whatever manner they deem appropriate. For some, that means proportionate to the actual vote tally of the people with Electoral College votes going to multiple candidates, others are winner take all.

That's our Founder's design, along with all sorts of other checks and balances that provide most power to the majority, but all sorts of protections to the states and to the individual.

The only thing you and I have argued about is whether the Constitution says that the # of Reps should be the population divided by 30,000. That's simply a wholly inaccurate reading of the language.

And that's regardless of any merits of arguments for more Reps than we have today relative to the population level. It's simply not Constitutionally required.

It is required, however, that the representation be proportionate across the states relative to their share of the population, with the few enumerated exceptions that all states must have at least one Rep.

Life under Orange Douche today:

Light rain in France so Trump skips the cemetery visit to honor the fallen US Marines of Belleau Wood. All other leaders can apparently operate an umbrella and visit their war dead as planned.

Trinity wrote:Light rain in France so Trump skips the cemetery visit to honor the fallen US Marines of Belleau Wood. All other leaders can apparently operate an umbrella and visit their war dead as planned.

I honestly think that Trump avoids any kind of inclement weather in order to protect his hairdo. I think that's also why he uses the umbrellas so much. Most of the time, he's the only one using an umbrella.

The reality is that sending John Kelly and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is more respectful to the occasion and the memory of the dead, than allowing this President to spread his fat shadow on hallowed ground.

Trinity wrote:Light rain in France so Trump skips the cemetery visit to honor the fallen US Marines of Belleau Wood. All other leaders can apparently operate an umbrella and visit their war dead as planned.

This is just lower than low and speaks volumes and volumes about our Prez. Bone spurs and rain are a bit too much for for the Commander In Chief to deal with when it comes to the military. Probably has no respect for the dead anymore than he did the POW anyway, they're just the losers who couldn't make it back home.
You folks who tell me he's good for the country and will make it better, I say cool, I'm on your team, I want us to win too, I hope you're right. Meanwhile, I'll continue thinking this President is a low life, self centered, maggot, piece of schit who cares nothing about anything other than himself. For this man to represent our country is an embarrassment to me, I don't want anybody associating me with this hunk of schit.
MAGA, Maggot A-hole Governing America.

I actually agree, sc, sadly so.

Hillary would have stood in the rain weeping. (Bill, next to her, scheming to sneak out, I’ll admit it.)
We must do better soon. Character counts, and that’s coming from a rogue.

we got some news for Orange Douche:

In Paris, Trump also skips the march of Western unity, arrives separately for main ceremonies, as does Putin. World leaders report Trump has been petulant in meetings. Arrived 2 hours late for the dinner.
He should reimburse US taxpayers for this trip. Imagine if you took a business trip and blew off the big events.

Not sure where this should be posted, and don't want to start a thread. So I am dropping this op-ed piece from Corporal Tillman's wife here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 374e08027e

"I’ve been asked to comment countless times on what Pat would have thought about the National Football League protests, but I’ve always declined. Over the years, I’ve become used to people wanting to know what he would have thought about something in the news, or assign a way of thinking to him based on what they know about who he was at 27. They want to freeze him in time. I find it ironic because Pat was always known as a free thinker who was constantly growing. He was very different when we got together at 16 from who he was at 27, and he would have been different, too, at 42. We should be able to respect his willingness to sacrifice for what he believed in without looking at it through the lens of today’s divisive political climate. So while I still refuse to speak for Pat, I will speak as a widow, a wife, a mother, an American and, yes, a patriot.

I think that patriotism is complex, like Pat himself. It is not blind or unquestioning. And it’s a fool’s errand to argue over who’s allowed to claim sacrifice. Many of the kneeling athletes say they are protesting as American patriots who want the nation to be better than it is. When I look around at the vitriol aimed at them for expressing their beliefs, and at the compulsion to simplify complicated issues to pit people on opposing sides, I want to kneel, too. Because I believe we are at our best as Americans when we engage in constructive dialogue around our differences with the goal of understanding one another."

....

"I can’t say how Pat would have felt about race in the United States today or kneeling during the national anthem. But I can say that he would have engaged in thoughtful and respectful discourse, never shying away from the nuance, never taking the easy way, and looking, always, for a conversation instead of a fight."

Thanks for the post seacoaster.