Democratic Rep. Lewis: Trump not a 'legitimate president'

Democratic Rep. John Lewis said in an upcoming interview that he's does not consider Donald Trump a "legitimate president," [u]and blamed the Russians for helping the Republican win the White House.[/u]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/14/democratic-rep-lewis-trump-not-legitimate-president.html

It is the Democrat Party which is becoming Illegitimate.

Probably going the way of the Whig Party.

Since is is very probable that The Republican Party will become a Super Majority Power in 2018. By increasing its control of State Governorships, State Legislatures, US Senate and House, SCOTUS, in addition to Controlling the Presidency:

How do the Increasingly Irrelevant Democrats Re-Invent themselves. Or possibly Collapse, to be replaced by another Party. This has happened many times in our history.

BTW: Any further deranged 'Illegitimate' type attacks, and the Non Accepting, Anti Rule of Law (US Constitution) Violent and Disruptive 'Demonstrations', Riots, etc. Will only result in the Increase of Republican and Right Wing Power.

Are the increasingly stupid, silly and always dangerous Left Wing and Progressives that stupid?

It is just so funny...

Rep. Lewis complains that Russia 'interfered' in our political process... The USA has interfered in the political processes of quite a number of other nations. By what right does Rep. Lewis complain because another nation supposedly did it back to US?

Sauce for the Goose... Sauce for the Gander... What goes around, comes around... Karma...

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

Oh, and MK,

*THIS* I agree with

"The REAL method to electoral reform (at all levels) in the USA would be to increase the number of political parties present in the elections, and break the electoral duopoly that the R's and the D's currently enjoy. It is a disgrace that the D/R duopoly effectively prevents the current #3 party in the Nation from having ANY seats in Congress.

Solution? Break the D/R duopoly."

I could not agree with this more.

(Then we can argue over which 3rd party to vote for, instead of arguing about which turd is the better pick of 2)

---

#resist

Oh, and MK,

*THIS* I agree with

"The REAL method to electoral reform (at all levels) in the USA would be to increase the number of political parties present in the elections, and break the electoral duopoly that the R's and the D's currently enjoy. It is a disgrace that the D/R duopoly effectively prevents the current #3 party in the Nation from having ANY seats in Congress.

Solution? Break the D/R duopoly."

I could not agree with this more.

(Then we can argue over which 3rd party to vote for, instead of arguing about which turd is the better pick of 2)

Surely there would be room for more than 3 parties...

But there is just one danger with multiple parties re: the Presidential elections...

What if no single party gets a MAJORITY (50% + 1 -- with 50 States + D.C., that is (538 / 2)+ 1 = 270 ) of EC votes? The Presidential election would then go to the US House of Representatives, where each State gets (per rules of the House) ONE vote, and the choice is restricted to the Top 3 EC contenders. Remember, the EC only gets one 'try' at it... No EC 'round 2' votes.

If you think you have heard a lot of screaming of 'disenfranchisement' due to the EC... the losing candidates and their supporters would go positively hyper-bat-s**t if the election went to the House these days (North Dakota's vote has as much clout as California's, for instance). Yes, Presidential elections have gone to the House here in the USA before (1800 and 1824)... But the news media of the day was... slow, and back then the President would have already been inaugurated before much of the country heard about it back then.

Times have changed these days in Politics due to the nearly instant distribution of 'news'/'op-ed opinion', and perhaps it is not for the better.

Yes, I support the idea of 5 to 10 political parties, perhaps more, but that would really make things interesting <big grin>. It would tend, in my opinion, put a lot of focus back on the elections for the US House, where (again, in my opinion) it BELONGS.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

The rules of the college votes would have to change so that whomever gets the most votes wins, regardless if it was more than 50%. This would be part of changing the system to fit more parties.

---

#resist

The rules of the college votes would have to change so that whomever gets the most votes wins, regardless if it was more than 50%. This would be part of changing the system to fit more parties.

Changing the EC rules would require a Constitutional Amendment to the US Federal Constitution. For reasons I have stated before, that is highly unlikely. The requirement for a majority (50% + 1) is a Constitutional Requirement.

If one wishes Electoral Reform in the USA, one must work within the limitations and requirements of the US Constitution. Amending the Constitution is supposed to be a VERY hard process. The best way towards reform is State by State rules on ballot access. Only three parties had ballot access in all 50 States in the 2016 Presidential elections. Ds, Rs, and Ls. Loosen those rules on a State by State basis, and maybe over the course of a few elections the American people might stop feeling that a non-D/R vote is a wasted vote. That, or we COULD lose the fiction of a popular vote for President totally, and just let our Elected representatives in our respective State Governments go ahead and determine the State's EC votes directly.

You all DO vote for your State Government legislature members (and other State Government officials, as appropriate to your State), don't you? EVERY election? And you do vote for House member for your district and your Senators, on the Federal level, Every election, don't you?

If yes, then let your Elected Representatives function in that capacity. If no... SHAME ON YOU.

In the USA, power flows from the bottom (the People), to the top, constrained by the limits in the individuals' State and the Federal Constitutions, not the other way around. Remember that.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

I hope there're enough paddy wagons to contain all these cry-baby, temper-tantrum democrat children.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/14/inauguration-protesters-plan-to-destroy-property-and-disrupt-balls/

I don't remember anything like this planned for obama's inauguration from the republicans.

It's about time for some adult leadership. We've been without it now for 8 years.

Yes, because people planning on protesting (in an improper fashion) is *also* the fault of POTUS (like everything else...).

sigh.
Maybe our new totalitarian dictator can change this country into something that will make you happier.


@MK, unfortunately like many Americans I do not pay as much attention to my state and local elections as I should. That said, my local media is also at fault for not giving enough information to make a truly informed opinion, especially at the city+county levels.
As far as congress and senate- my preferred candidates hold office in both. luckily.

---

#resist

In the USA, power flows from the bottom (the People), to the top, constrained by the limits in the individuals' State and the Federal Constitutions, not the other way around. Remember that.

ROTFLMAO

It flows from the oligarchs with their massive campaign contributions.

---

In the USA, power flows from the bottom (the People), to the top, constrained by the limits in the individuals' State and the Federal Constitutions, not the other way around. Remember that.

ROTFLMAO

It flows from the oligarchs with their massive campaign contributions.

Hence my belief in certain regulations, and my hatred of others. Citizens United, anyone?

---

#resist

I hope there're enough paddy wagons to contain all these cry-baby, temper-tantrum democrat children.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/14/inauguration-protesters-plan-to-destroy-property-and-disrupt-balls/

Democrats? LOL, they aren't democrats. They are anarchists. That is even the word the article uses to describe them.

An anarchist if anything is closer to a republican because they want to limit government!

---

I hope there're enough paddy wagons to contain all these cry-baby, temper-tantrum democrat children.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/14/inauguration-protesters-plan-to-destroy-property-and-disrupt-balls/

I don't remember anything like this planned for obama's inauguration from the republicans.

It's about time for some adult leadership. We've been without it now for 8 years.

Yes, because people planning on protesting (in an improper fashion) is *also* the fault of POTUS (like everything else...).

sigh.
Maybe our new totalitarian dictator can change this country into something that will make you happier.


@MK, unfortunately like many Americans I do not pay as much attention to my state and local elections as I should. That said, my local media is also at fault for not giving enough information to make a truly informed opinion, especially at the city+county levels.
As far as congress and senate- my preferred candidates hold office in both. luckily.

Dude, don't denigrate WSTM!

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

LOL. Wrong city anyways.

---

#resist

LOL. Wrong city anyways.

Doubting it's WENY or WETM. And I suspect you're not further west of there. :) Unless you're a Democrat & Chronicle subscriber?

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

LOL. Wrong city anyways.

Doubting it's WENY or WETM. And I suspect you're not further west of there. :) Unless you're a Democrat & Chronicle subscriber?

Democrat and Chronicle, Bingo.

Preferred outlets, WXXI TV (PBS) and AM (NPR)

---

#resist

LOL. Wrong city anyways.

Doubting it's WENY or WETM. And I suspect you're not further west of there. :) Unless you're a Democrat & Chronicle subscriber?

Democrat and Chronicle, Bingo.

Preferred outlets, WXXI TV (PBS) and AM (NPR)

Eastman-Kodak.
Gundry.

Gates. Chili.
Webster. West Henrietta.

Strong-Memorial.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

So Rudy Giuliani will be Trump's Cyber Security Advisor. Another questionable choice?:
http://gizmodo.com/the-website-of-donald-trumps-top-cyber-security-advisor-1791145791?utm_campaign=socialflow_gizmodo_twitter&utm_source=gizmodo_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

---

Trickle Down (a.k.a Supply Side) Economics 101. (yes this is going to be a lot of copypasta, as I have put in my personal opinions time and time again. This post will outline what I expect to happen in coming years, assuming Trumpler and/or his policies get a complete term.)

Even the general term given to the policy and policies like it, explains the concept pretty well: It TRICKLES down. (I prefer the term "Dribble Down")

Trickle: to flow in a thin gentle stream, to dissipate slowly.

"There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it."
-William Jennings Bryan

"In the 1992 presidential election, Independent candidate Ross Perot called trickle-down economics "political voodoo.""

"The world's super-rich have taken advantage of lax tax rules to siphon off at least $21 trillion, and possibly as much as $32tn, from their home countries and hide it abroad – a sum larger than the entire American economy."

"Inequality is much, much worse than official statistics show, but politicians are still relying on trickle-down to transfer wealth to poorer people."

"This new data shows the exact opposite has happened: for three decades extraordinary wealth has been cascading into the offshore accounts of a tiny number of super-rich."

"In many cases, , the total worth of these assets far exceeds the value of the overseas debts of the countries they came from."
Source.

"[I]f the income share of the top 20 percent (the rich) increases, then GDP growth actually declines over the medium term, suggesting that the benefits do not trickle down. In contrast, an increase in the income share of the bottom 20 percent (the poor) is associated with higher GDP growth."
Source.

This last quote backs up my belief that putting money in the hands of those at the BOTTOM, has a greater effect on the economy, is better for the greater good, and allows a better distribution of wealth, even at the top rung of the latter.

These are just a few reasons that making the rich more rich, doesn't help the masses, or the economy. Trumped-up Trickle-Down, here we come!



Life Accordian To Trump

---

#resist

So Rudy Giuliani will be Trump's Cyber Security Advisor. Another questionable choice?:
http://gizmodo.com/the-website-of-donald-trumps-top-cyber-security-advisor-1791145791?utm_campaign=socialflow_gizmodo_twitter&utm_source=gizmodo_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

Giuliani has a long and involved career in computer sciences. He's a capable programmer with an excellent understanding of modern IT. He has spent many years writing code, and he has personally set-up and administrated large and complex modern computer networks. He has also written many whitepapers on the current state of IT security and malware issues.








(haha, yeah right.)

---

#resist

"Eight billionaires 'as rich as world's poorest half’"

"The world's eight richest individuals have as much wealth as the 3.6bn people who make up the poorest half of the world, according to Oxfam."

---

#resist

"Eight billionaires 'as rich as world's poorest half’"

"The world's eight richest individuals have as much wealth as the 3.6bn people who make up the poorest half of the world, according to Oxfam."

Yes, it is far worse than we can imagine.

<ed>If it isn't trickling down now, what makes you think it ever will?

---