The comedy of a California succession.

[Neveragain]

I can't help but run this scenario through my head and it becomes more comical the more I think about it.

The day after California succeeds:

1. Federal Naval facilities put on lock down, fleet leaves harbor and places a blockade on all shipping lanes directed in and out of California.

2. All incoming energy resources cut off and redirected, California goes into a state of emergency as their nuclear power plants begin to go into meltdown status.

3. Water distribution comes to a complete halt.

4. All roads leading in and out of California blockaded.

5. All federal funding is cut off, food shortages plague the state as those that are dependent on federal handouts starve in the streets.


.....time for work.

[Taernath]

It's not going to happen. Texas pulls the same shit when they get butthurt.

[JNewhall]

I can't help but run this scenario through my head and it becomes more comical the more I think about it.

The day after California succeeds:

1. Federal Naval facilities put on lock down, fleet leaves harbor and places a blockade on all shipping lanes directed in and out of California.

2. All incoming energy resources cut off and redirected, California goes into a state of emergency as their nuclear power plants begin to go into meltdown status.

3. Water distribution comes to a complete halt.

4. All roads leading in and out of California blockaded.

5. All federal funding is cut off, food shortages plague the state as those that are dependent on federal handouts starve in the streets.


.....time for work.


The words you want are "secession" and "secede." "Succeed" and "succession" are different.

For example: Secession from the U.S. never succeeds, which is why peaceful succession of power is in the interests of all.

[time4fun]

ROFL.

California has the food shortage? That's funny.

[Gelston]

ROFL.

California has the food shortage? That's funny.

Well, when they have no water, it'll be fun to see how they water their crops.

[time4fun]

Well, when they have no water, it'll be fun to see how they water their crops.

Hate to ruin your one step analysis, but if and when that happens its impact won't be limited to just California.

Do you realize how much of the nation's food comes from California?

[Gelston]

Hate to ruin your one step analysis, but if and when that happens its impact won't be limited to just California.

Do you realize how much of the nation's food comes from California?

Well, we'd have 40 million less people to feed. I think we could take the hit.

[Gelston]

Also, I don't think we'd do all that crap Neveragain is saying. I don't think a state seceding would necessarily cause a war, and therefore, none of those warlike actions. It depends if the issue is forced or not. California wouldn't risk going to war with the rest of the US. Not to mention that California is going to secede right after Texas finally does.

To be quite frank, not a single state in the US could just say "Holla" and expect to really survive. It'd take quite a bit of time to become as self sufficient as possible.

[kutter]

Crap, I say let them go, the liberals will never win the White House again.

[Gelston]

Crap, I say let them go, the liberals will never win the White House again.

Meh, they'd just devolve into hippies and get conquered by Mexico and then become illegals in the US anyways.

[Neveragain]

Hate to ruin your one step analysis, but if and when that happens its impact won't be limited to just California.

Do you realize how much of the nation's food comes from California?
Lol, with what water?

[time4fun]

Well, we'd have 40 million less people to feed. I think we could take the hit.

That's because you have no idea how this works. California's agriculture is set up the way it is to feed the rest of the country. We aren't growing it to feed us, we're growing it to feed you.

That's the insanity of the drought crisis. And if the rest of the country lost California's food supply, or if it suddenly had trade fees attached the rest of the country would end up in an economic death spiral while they scrambled to build the infrastructure needed to feed itself.

In particular, California is the second largest supplier of corn in the US. Even slight changes to corn prices can (and has) devastate overall food prices.

[macgyver]

U.S. will never allow succession under any circumstances as it places a dangerous precedent. Last time this was tried the bloodiest war the U.S. ever fought took place on U.S. soil killing more Americans then all other wars combined.

Also, Cali people are so liberal and flaky that the mere sight of Trump's open hand and a threat to grab their pussies will quickly put them back in line.

[time4fun]

Crap, I say let them go, the liberals will never win the White House again.

You realize the GOP has only won the popular vote once in the last seven Presidential elections, right? As in, once in about 30 years.

[Gelston]

That's because you have no idea how this works. California's agriculture is set up the way it is to feed the rest of the country. We aren't growing it to feed us, we're growing it to feed you.

That's the insanity of the drought crisis. And if the rest of the country lost California's food supply, or if it suddenly had trade fees attached the rest of the country would end up in an economic death spiral while they scrambled to build the infrastructure needed to feed itself.

In particular, California is the second largest supplier of corn in the US. Even slight changes to corn prices can (and has) devastate overall food prices.

And we'd shift production. It might suck at first and certain foods would be scarce and prices would be up, but it is doable. Anyways, this is a pointless discussion as all the food production places went red and would stay in the US anyways.

[Taernath]

CA is like the 6th largest economy in the world, around half of the top 30 tech companies reside there. CA leaving would hurt the rest of the US at least as much as it would hurt them.


ROFL.

California has the food shortage? That's funny.

Apparently they haven't driven the southern portion of I-5.

[time4fun]

And we'd shift production. It might suck at first and certain foods would be scarce and prices would be up, but it is doable. Anyways, this is a pointless discussion as all the food production places went red and would stay in the US anyways.

It's a pointless discussion because you don't understand how economies work.

[Gelston]

It's a pointless discussion because you don't understand how economies work.

Oh, because you are an expert huh? Yeah, you sure knew all about how politics worked too.

It is a pointless discussion mostly because A. They'd never secede and B. They US Government wouldn't let the food go anywhere and there isn't a damn thing California could do about it.

Not that the food producing areas would want to go with the rest of you idiots anyways. I used to live in California. They didn't like any of you people.

And people bring up how large a state's economy is... That is only because of the deals and treaties the Federal government has made, or the ability to freely trade with the rest of the US. Without the rest of the US, all that shit is gone.

[Enuch]

CA is like the 6th largest economy in the world, around half of the top 30 tech companies reside there. CA leaving would hurt the rest of the US at least as much as it would hurt them

You don't think the US would offer incentives for all major companies based out of CA the opportunity to relocate? Business is business, if all those companies shareholders are looking to stay afloat, I highly doubt they would stay with the state that secedes. Sure those companies could try to test their muster on the open market, but again, the US would force harsh embargos and lean on its allies to do the same thus crippling the market for those companies. All those companies would essentially have to open their transports through the ocean...provided of course they have their own docks which aren't owned by the military. Good luck flying as well, the US could ban all flights into and out of CA and muscle all airlines to comply or face serious penalties. Most travel by car or train would be heavily restricted or crippled. Mexico could try to open its arm's to CA that could possibly work but CA is not situated in the best position to negotiate its own destiny versus the US.

Any state can regulate the age of alcohol under 21 but they lose significant funding to roadways if they do change it. While CA may be able to regulate some of the loss, the amount of money no longer flowing into CA from the US would be catastrophic. While you focusing on how this secession could hurt the US you are neglecting to realize that this would go both ways, CA isn't just going to secede and become amazing.

[Parkbandit]

It's a pointless discussion because you don't understand how economies work.

LOL... is this where you tell us how elections work again?

Stop.

[Taernath]

While you focusing on how this secession could hurt the US you are neglecting to realize that this would go both ways, CA isn't just going to secede and become amazing.

I literally said that in the post you quoted.

[Enuch]

I literally said that in the post you quoted.

Your post implied it would hurt the US as much, I am saying it would not.

[Taernath]

Your post implied it would hurt the US as much, I am saying it would not.

The degree of who wins and loses more is up for debate. My position has always been that there would be good and bad for CA and the US as a whole.

There's a weird fantasy among many conservatives that if CA ever broke away (but not Texas!) it would crash, burn, and fall into the Pacific while the rest of America watches and laughs.

[Kembal]

The degree of who wins and loses more is up for debate. My position has always been that there would be good and bad for CA and the US as a whole.

There's a weird fantasy among many conservatives that if CA ever broke away (but not Texas!) it would crash, burn, and fall into the Pacific while the rest of America watches and laughs.

Yeah that (and I live in TX!). Either state could secede and likely be somewhat successful, though they would be certainly poorer for it. The other 48 states - probably not so much.

[kutter]

You realize the GOP has only won the popular vote once in the last seven Presidential elections, right? As in, once in about 30 years.

And I bet if you remove California from that equation the numbers would shift dramatically toward the republicans, at least since 1992. I will say though, that California was primarily a red state before then with brief periods when it went democrat:

As someone pointed out, they could function since they have the 8th largest economy in the world, what would be hard is ramping up a defense program, that in itself would potentially bankrupt the state.

[drauz]

And I bet if you remove California from that equation the numbers would shift dramatically toward the republicans, at least since 1992. I will say though, that California was primarily a red state before then with brief periods when it went democrat:

As someone pointed out, they could function since they have the 8th largest economy in the world, what would be hard is ramping up a defense program, that in itself would potentially bankrupt the state.

They have the 8th largest economy now. Take away the US and that all changes. I doubt the people in charge have fully thought about the ramifications of leaving the US.

[Gelston]

Yeah, stop saying how awesome its economy is NOW. That is because of trade treaties and pacts the US has made, which are generally negotiated to be more favorable towards the US... Because we are a powerful country. California by itself wouldn't nearly beable to get those deals. Not to mention it'd also have to negotiate a trade treaty with the US to sell to the US... I doubt that'd favor Cali at all.

[Warriorbird]

Yeah, stop saying how awesome its economy is NOW. That is because of trade treaties and pacts the US has made, which are generally negotiated to be more favorable towards the US... Because we are a powerful country.

It's funny how this applies to America before the Trump Presidency too.

[Gelston]

It's funny how this applies to America before the Trump Presidency too.

What? The stuff you're typing... Perhaps read it and realize how ridiculous you look. This isn't the first time we've gotten a new President. Stop acting like it is the end of the world because your warmongering, corrupt idiot didn't get elected.

[Warriorbird]

What?

We used to make trade treaties and pacts which were favorable to us.

[Gelston]

We used to make trade treaties and pacts which were favorable to us.

Who says we won't continue this? Oh, yeah, you can see in the future.

[Warriorbird]

Who says we won't continue this? Oh, yeah, you can see in the future.

I can see into the now. We already blew one trade agreement and he isn't even President yet.

[Gelston]

I can see into the now. We already blew one trade agreement and he isn't even President yet.

Just because there was a trade agreement, doesn't mean it was favorable to us.

[Taernath]

We used to make trade treaties and pacts which were favorable to us.

"Us" being corporations? Because NAFTA isn't favorable to anyone but millionaire CEOs.

[Gelston]

Hell, even Bernie Sanders was against T.P.P., both sides of Congress weren't thrilled with it, but yeah, a guy who doesn't even have power yet is the one who is responsible for killing it.

[Warriorbird]

"Us" being corporations? Because NAFTA isn't favorable to anyone but millionaire CEOs.

...and much of the folks employed by the American auto industry and most of the people who buy food in America.


Just because there was a trade agreement, doesn't mean it was favorable to us.

The new anti free trade attitude is pretty baffling. Is damaging our major corporations actually something you want as a Republican?


Hell, even Bernie Sanders was against T.P.P., both sides of Congress weren't thrilled with it, but yeah, a guy who doesn't even have power yet is the one who is responsible for killing it.

Sanders being against it makes sense. A Republican? Much less. The idea of Republicans as a pro tariff party represents them finally going around the bend into actually standing against American success and American exceptionalism. He didn't start the trend but he sure empowered it.

[Taernath]

...and much of the folks employed by the American auto industry and most of the people who buy food in America.

It lowered prices on imports, but we were not in danger of starvation without it. On the flip side, it decimated Mexico's farming industry with a flood of subsidized corn, and caused a massive influx of illegal immigration to the US. All the recent talk about immigrate is largely due to NAFTA.

As far as jobs, estimates are a few hundred thousand jobs displaced. Ford is moving their small car manufacturing down to Mexico where they're cheaper to make, so we can expect more of the same.

[Androidpk]

Being anti-TPP doesn't = anti-free trade.

[Warriorbird]

It lowered prices on imports, but we were not in danger of starvation without it. On the flip side, it decimated Mexico's farming industry with a flood of subsidized corn, and caused a massive influx of illegal immigration to the US. All the recent talk about immigrate is largely due to NAFTA.

As far as jobs, estimates are a few hundred thousand jobs displaced. Ford is moving their small car manufacturing down to Mexico where they're cheaper to make, so we can expect more of the same.

It exponentially multiplied trade and other people estimate up to six million jobs might be effected. The notion that it alone caused the influx of illegal immigrants is simplistic. NAFTA existing allowed American car companies to compete in far better ways based on price. Given the tariff based nonsense that Trump proposes I'm not sure what Ford will do in the end. It isn't the "one weird trick" that will bring American manufacturing jobs back.


Being anti-TPP doesn't = anti-free trade.

Pro tariffs, anti every trade agreement = anti free trade.

[Androidpk]

Again, no. TPP was a mess and an unpopular one at that.

[Taernath]

It exponentially multiplied trade and other people estimate up to six million jobs might be effected. The notion that it alone caused the influx of illegal immigrants is simplistic. NAFTA existing allowed American car companies to compete in far better ways based on price. Given the tariff based nonsense that Trump proposes I'm not sure what Ford will do in the end. It isn't the "one weird trick" that will bring American manufacturing jobs back.

Of course my reply is simplistic, I'm writing a post on a message board not a research paper. NAFTA's effect on the Mexican economy is well studied and reported on though, and definitely had a direct impact on immigration (I also never said it was the sole reason). The average person does not, however, benefit from NAFTA, with 'multiplied trade' and 'better competition for American car companies' translating into growing wealth inequality and stagnant wages.

[Warriorbird]

Of course my reply is simplistic, I'm writing a post on a message board not a research paper. NAFTA's effect on the Mexican economy is well studied and reported on though, and definitely had a direct impact on immigration (I also never said it was the sole reason). The average person does not, however, benefit from NAFTA, with 'multiplied trade' and 'better competition for American car companies' translating into growing wealth inequality and stagnant wages.

Cheaper food prices and a competitive auto industry offer benefits to most of us. I don't believe the elimination of NAFTA and the failure to join TPP, combined with tariffs on Mexico and China (and the ensuing trade war with China), are going to produce much in the way of positive change.

[Gelston]

I was playing hearts of Iron 4 with a mod to make it start in 2000, and I solved all of the issues with NAFTA and illegal immigration. I conquered Mexico and Canada.

[Warriorbird]

I was playing hearts of Iron 4 with a mod to make it start in 2000, and I solved all of the issues with NAFTA and illegal immigration. I conquered Mexico and Canada.

I think we should have accepted Mexico's attempt to sell themselves to us in the 90s for the oil reserves alone.

[Gelston]

I think we should have accepted Mexico's attempt to sell themselves to us in the 90s for the oil reserves alone.

I think we should have just kept them after the Mexican-American War. Congress was very racist though, and didn't want to rule over a bunch of Mexicans though. That is actually one of the reasons why we didn't annex all of Mexico btw.

[Neveragain]

California's top 5 agricultural commodities:

1. Milk
2. Almonds
3. Grapes
4. Cattle
5. Lettuce

https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/statistics/

From the argument of food production, California would easily be replaced.


California’s annual trade deficit is the largest of any state in the nation. At close to $250 billion a year

http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/article/California-s-losing-trade-game-6923169.php

California is 400 billion in debt.


http://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/California-s-400-billion-debt-worries-analysts-6812264.php

I think it's fairly easy to see that California is a parasite incapable of being self sufficient with it's current population.

[Warriorbird]

I think we should have just kept them after the Mexican-American War. Congress was very racist though, and didn't want to rule over a bunch of Mexicans though. That is actually one of the reasons why we didn't annex all of Mexico btw.

It would've been an even more amazing pickup but you're probably right.

[Taernath]

From the argument of food production, California would easily be replaced.
.


California’s agricultural abundance includes more than 400 commodities. Over a third of the country’s vegetables and two-thirds of the country’s fruits and nuts are grown in California.

I thought you were all about the nuts.

[drauz]

It would've been an even more amazing pickup but you're probably right.

But then we wouldn't have the taco!

[drauz]

I thought you were all about the nuts.

California will make you gay! That's were 2/3 of the fruits come from!

[Taernath]

I was playing hearts of Iron 4 with a mod to make it start in 2000, and I solved all of the issues with NAFTA and illegal immigration. I conquered Mexico and Canada.

I wish EU4 had HOI4's supply and military mechanics.

[Gelston]

But then we wouldn't have the taco!

No, Tacos would just be called American food instead of Mexican food :D


I wish EU4 had HOI4's supply and military mechanics.

Yeah, I love HOI for that. I love sticking units on a front, setting their orders, hitting activate, and sitting back and watching my troops invade Europe.

[adverbious]

Yeah, the real issue would be water rights from the Colorado River.

[Tgo01]

You realize the GOP has only won the popular vote once in the last seven Presidential elections, right? As in, once in about 30 years.

And Democrats have lost all presidential elections in the last 4 years. See, I can play this stupid game too.

[Thondalar]

That's because you have no idea how this works. California's agriculture is set up the way it is to feed the rest of the country.

https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/Statistics/PDFs/AgExports2014-2015.pdf

About half of California's crops are exported to other countries.

[Tgo01]

https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/Statistics/PDFs/AgExports2014-2015.pdf

About half of California's crops are exported to other countries.

Not only that but I love when people say California "feeds the rest of the country", like California is growing all of that food out of the kindness of their hearts for the rest of the country.

No, they wanna get paid, bitches. The distance from California and Wyoming would still be the same so shipping costs would still be the same. California still wants a market to sell their food, the US would still be in the market to buy food.

Sure prices might go up a bit here and there due to foreign (lol) trade or whatever, I'm honestly not sure how all of that works, but people thinking the rest of the US is going to starve because California is suddenly not going to sell us their food is so fucking delusional.

No single state is that important to the US. Each individual state needs the US a lot more than the US needs any individual state.

[Neveragain]

You realize the GOP has only won the popular vote once in the last seven Presidential elections, right? As in, once in about 30 years.

You realize Slavery would have either not been abolished or extended had we gone by popular vote.

[time4fun]

https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/Statistics/PDFs/AgExports2014-2015.pdf

About half of California's crops are exported to other countries.

40%. The remaining $30+ billion worth of agriculture that stays in the US amounts to 1/3 of our vegetables and 2/3 of our fruits and nuts.

Funny, I've always thought the South was responsible for most of our nuts.

[Candor]

You realize the GOP has only won the popular vote once in the last seven Presidential elections, right? As in, once in about 30 years.

I find that most Democrats who whine about the popular vote have little or no understanding why the electoral college system was created in the first place and the advantages of the system (and yes, there are disadvantages too, but that's another subject).

I also have very high confidence that if Clinton had won the electoral college vote but lost the popular vote, there would be very few complaints from Democrats.

[Taernath]

I also have very high confidence that if Clinton had won the electoral college vote but lost the popular vote, there would be very few complaints from Democrats.

Of course, the roles would be reversed.

[time4fun]

I find that most Democrats who whine about the popular vote have little or no understanding why the electoral college system was created in the first place and the advantages of the system (and yes, there are disadvantages too, but that's another subject).

I also have very high confidence that if Clinton had won the electoral college vote but lost the popular vote, there would be very few complaints from Democrats.

Um....

Hamilton on the purpose of the Electoral College:

...the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.

Nice recap of Madison and de Tocqueville: (http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-reason-for-the-electoral-college/)


James Madison worried about what he called “factions,” which he defined as groups of citizens who have a common interest in some proposal that would either violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole. Madison’s fear – which Alexis de Tocqueville later dubbed “the tyranny of the majority” – was that a faction could grow to encompass more than 50 percent of the population, at which point it could “sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.”

Interestingly enough, the Electoral College was, in many ways, created to save us from someone like Donald Trump. It was a system created as an emergency fail safe in case the people tried to elect someone who was unfit and/or dangerous.

[Thondalar]

Um....

Hamilton on the purpose of the Electoral College:


Nice recap of Madison and de Tocqueville: (http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-reason-for-the-electoral-college/)



Interestingly enough, the Electoral College was, in many ways, created to save us from someone like Donald Trump. It was a system created as an emergency fail safe in case the people tried to elect someone who was unfit and/or dangerous.

Man. You spent money for this "education"?

[time4fun]

Man. You spent money for this "education"?

Yes. You should try it some time.

[Tgo01]

Interestingly enough, the Electoral College was, in many ways, created to save us from someone like Donald Trump. It was a system created as an emergency fail safe in case the people tried to elect someone who was unfit and/or dangerous.

:rofl:

I don't like Trump therefore he's exactly the type of person the electoral college was supposed to save us from!

This is what 8 years of fostering and coddling SJWs gets us, a bunch of whiny brats with the power to vote and the power to destroy if their vote doesn't get their candidate elected.

[Neveragain]

Yes. You should try it some time.

Maybe you should have used that education and worked to make your brother a citizen.

[Stolis]

Let's focus on more important things, like how someone likely hasn't made contact with an immigration attorney yet and instead, is just bitching and moaning on an unofficial game forum.

[drauz]

:rofl:

I don't like Trump therefore he's exactly the type of person the electoral college was supposed to save us from!

This is what 8 years of fostering and coddling SJWs gets us, a bunch of whiny brats with the power to vote and the power to destroy if their vote doesn't get their candidate elected.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXGBaomJ-7s

[Gelston]

Let's focus on more important things, like how someone likely hasn't made contact with an immigration attorney yet and instead, is just bitching and moaning on an unofficial game forum.

Why would she? She is too busy being an expert on Politics, Economy, and Constitutional Law. Her plate is filled man.

[Shaps]

The funny part is the left considered a Community Activist qualified and a man who has for decades ran an international corporation unqualified.

Feelings vs. pragmatism on full display.

[Gelston]

The funny part is the left considered a Community Activist qualified and a man who has for decades ran an international corporation unqualified.

Feelings vs. pragmatism on full display.

Well, I could counter that with the right saying Obama was unqualified and Trump was qualified. We are hypocrites on both sides.

[Taernath]

The funny part is the left considered a Community Activist qualified

Did you really not know about him being a senator or a law professor?

[Neveragain]

The funny part is the left considered a Community Activist qualified and a man who has for decades ran an international corporation unqualified.

Feelings vs. pragmatism on full display.

It's also funny how the last election they were praising the electoral college.

[Neveragain]

Well, I could counter that with the right saying Obama was unqualified and Trump was qualified. We are hypocrites on both sides.

I come from the thought that to be Commander and Chief one should have served in the armed forces.

[Shaps]

Well, I could counter that with the right saying Obama was unqualified and Trump was qualified. We are hypocrites on both sides.

I'm not a hypocrite. I was stating what the left says, not agreeing or disagreeing with it.

I did not think that Obama was qualified based upon his personal history to be President. I do not think that that Trump based upon his, was the best choice to become President from among the Republicans.

But when you compare the two's work history, there is no comparison between the two with regards to who is more qualified than the other. ONLY when comparing those two to each other, not other individuals.

So, it cracks me up with this argument that the left is trying to now say that an individual is "unqualified", given who they voted for the past two elections and his supposed "qualifications".

[Gelston]

I come from the thought that to be Commander and Chief one should have served in the armed forces.

I don't feel that. Now, for Secretary of Defense, Sec of Army/Navy/Air Force... Yes. I think they should have served.

[Shaps]

I come from the thought that to be Commander and Chief one should have served in the armed forces.

I would like that as well, but I would settle for the Commander in Chief should have to adhere to the UCMJ. That would cut out a lot of the bullshit we see from our Politicians.

[Warriorbird]

I come from the thought that to be Commander and Chief one should have served in the armed forces.

That would have disqualified quite a number of Presidents... and was one of the qualifications that many of the Founding Fathers did not want.

[Gelston]

That would have disqualified quite a number of Presidents... and was one of the qualifications that many of the Founding Fathers did not want.

Yep. Hell, I'm a 9 year Military vet and I have no issues with the President not having had military service.

[drauz]

Did you really not know about him being a senator or a law professor?

Did you think he was a law professor?

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/obama-a-constitutional-law-professor/

[Shaps]

Did you really not know about him being a senator or a law professor?

Getting elected to be a Senator (and especially with what he did while he was in the Senate) is a moot point. That's a popularity contest.

As for being a lawyer? Who cares. He's a lawyer.

I never said he wasn't smart. I said based upon his work history, you can not say he was Qualified... and then claim Trump is not. That's just wishful thinking.

[Taernath]

Did you think he was a law professor?

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/obama-a-constitutional-law-professor/


A: His formal title was "senior lecturer," but the University of Chicago Law School says he "served as a professor" and was "regarded as" a professor.

... yes? It says it right there.

[Gelston]

Getting elected to be a Senator (and especially with what he did while he was in the Senate) is a moot point. That's a popularity contest.

As for being a lawyer? Who cares. He's a lawyer.

I never said he wasn't smart. I said based upon his work history, you can not say he was Qualified... and then claim Trump is not. That's just wishful thinking.

True enough. to be honest, I don't think there really is a way to ever be fully qualified for some jobs. President is one. Well, i mean, unless you were somehow President of some other country and then came over here and were still eligible to run.


... yes? It says it right there.


If the college calls him a professor, he is a professor.

[Taernath]

Getting elected to be a Senator (and especially with what he did while he was in the Senate) is a moot point. That's a popularity contest.

As for being a lawyer? Who cares. He's a lawyer.

I never said he wasn't smart. I said based upon his work history, you can not say he was Qualified... and then claim Trump is not. That's just wishful thinking.

So your counterargument is it's a moot point and who cares. Got it.

[Shaps]

True enough. to be honest, I don't think there really is a way to ever be fully qualified for some jobs. President is one. Well, i mean, unless you were somehow President of some other country and then came over here and were still eligible to run.




If the college calls him a professor, he is a professor.

Now you get what I was trying to say Gelston :) ... The current argument that Trump is "unqualified", when Obama was "qualified" is asinine. Neither are really, yet people choose to try and say things that just suits their argument, as opposed to looking at it objectively.

[Shaps]

So your counterargument is it's a moot point and who cares. Got it.

No, my argument is you can't claim one was qualified, while the other is not.. just because you have a jaded political view.

[Taernath]

No, my argument is you can't claim one was qualified, while the other is not.. just because you have a jaded political view.

No, I got it. You don't think constitutional law or a senate position has any bearing on the presidency.

[drauz]

... yes? It says it right there.

You're right, I was reading what the Clinton campaign had to say about it. Should have read what the italicized part was a little closer. My bad.

[Shaps]

No, I got it. You don't think constitutional law or a senate position has any bearing on the presidency.

What international experience did he have? What military experience did he have? What National Security experience did he have? What business experience did he have? What foreign relations experience did he have? Etc, etc...

So I suppose those don't have a bearing on a Presidency either.

See how it can be slanted either way?

The fact you keep trying to prop up Obama's qualifications and demean Trumps, only points to your political slant. That is what I find so funny about the argument currently being made. It's fucking absurd to claim one was more qualified or less qualified.

But, you'll keep trying to maintain that your bias makes your point true... which it doesn't, it's only your viewpoint.

[drauz]

What international experience did he have? What military experience did he have? What National Security experience did he have? What business experience did he have? What foreign relations experience did he have? Etc, etc...

So I suppose those don't have a bearing on a Presidency either.

See how it can be slanted either way?

The fact you keep trying to prop up Obama's qualifications and demean Trumps, only points to your political slant. That is what I find so funny about the argument currently being made. It's fucking absurd to claim one was more qualified or less qualified.

But, you'll keep trying to maintain that your bias makes your point true... which it doesn't, it's only your viewpoint.

Well he was the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on European Affairs and Regional Security Cooperation during term. So that's foreign relations and national security right there.

[Shaps]

Well he was the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on European Affairs during term.

Lol. Seriously? Subcommittee on European Affairs? That's like being assigned Ambassador to Canada. Additionally he was only a Senator 3 years, which in reality was less than 2 considering first getting settled into the seat, then beginning his campaign for President.

But sure, I suppose titles matter to some. It's a really impressive sounding title, no doubt.

[drauz]

Lol. Seriously? Subcommittee on European Affairs? That's like being assigned Ambassador to Canada. Additionally he was only a Senator 3 years, which in reality was less than 2 considering first getting settled into the seat, then beginning his campaign for President.

But sure, I suppose titles matter to some. It's a really impressive sounding title, no doubt.

You asked and I gave, now who's showing their bias?

[Shaps]

You asked and I gave, now who's showing their bias?

You have a lot more regard for our Politicians than I do, that is for sure. I'd say the same shit about any Politician, not only Obama.

So, yes you are correct. I am showing my bias towards our Politicians.

[Gelston]

Lol, the succession group is saying they will take it to the UN now. Like that makes a difference.

[Taernath]

Lol, the succession group is saying they will take it to the UN now. Like that makes a difference.

Just you wait. Obummer laid the ground work for a UN invasion.

[Gelston]

Just you wait. Obummer laid the ground work for a UN invasion.

Yeah, I imagine the DoD would just let that happen.

[Taernath]

Yeah, I imagine the DoD would just let that happen.

Infiltrated by Liberal Spec Ops. See you in the FEMA camp next week.

[Gelston]

Infiltrated by Liberal Spec Ops. See you in the FEMA camp next week.

He hasn't taken all our guns yet though. Did you know he isn't going to leave the White House?

[Taernath]

He hasn't taken all our guns yet though. Did you know he isn't going to leave the White House?

Trump will do that first. Obama used his Kenyan Muslim voodoo on him. Why do you think Trump has been walking back his positions?

[Gelston]

Trump will do that first. Obama used his Kenyan Muslim voodoo on him. Why do you think Trump has been walking back his positions?

If he has General Mattis as his SecDef, he sure as hell won't. On the first day, the department is renamed the Department of Offense and the title is changed to Overlord of Offense. On the second day, Earth surrenders to the US.

http://2hzxr1lyvt537ichs3vglb28.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/4569666fdfbcec0c9f13eca0b9984b59.jpg

In less than one hour, James Mattis talked to Trump about torture and waterboarding and Trump did a complete 180 to agree with Mattis.

[Parkbandit]

http://2hzxr1lyvt537ichs3vglb28.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/4569666fdfbcec0c9f13eca0b9984b59.jpg



LOL

[drauz]

Infiltrated by Liberal Spec Ops. See you in the FEMA camp next week.

https://i.imgur.com/0H1Z9PT.jpg