After this, No Plan to Return

community
By:  @community, 4 months ago
Comments: 395 ..

Tags

By A. Mac

I stay away from the FP primarily because the usuals, IMO, have at least one thing in common, that being … they voted for and/or supported in discussions, the CANDIDATE WHO HATES THE SAME PEOPLE THEY DO, that manifested in a number of ways, all of which necessitate their buying the bullshit up-and-down-the-line. To perpetuate and empower a hater-agenda, looking the other way from Trumpisms while summarily accepting all anti-Clinton rhetoric, was requisite.

Trump is already being the very "Crooked Hillary" he claimed Clinton to be; he's already involved in pay-to-play with foreign governments, in violation of the emolument clause of the Constitution, has conflicts-of-interests that will affect his Attorney General appointment, General Services appointments, Labor Department et al. .

America is truly for sale now with Trump the profiteer.

In Trump's America, the Nazis are emboldened and a Republican-controlled Congress will do nothing because it too, in order to maintain power must hold on to its conflicts-of-interest.

The FBI, Russia, bigots and a fucked-up electoral system elected Donald Trump … how the Electoral College is not a violation of the 14th Amendment is beyond me; if a lower number of votes literally and figuratively TRUMPS a higher number of votes, then the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE IS RENDERED MOOT! In fact, the Electoral College process was implemented to do just what it did in the 2016 Presidential election, that being to thwart majority rule for partisan reasons.

Those who bitch about progressives' demonstrations might want to bone up on the Warsaw Uprising …

From April 19 to May 16, 1943, during World War II (1939-45), residents of the Jewish ghetto in Nazi-occupied Warsaw, Poland, staged an armed revolt against deportations to extermination camps. The Warsaw ghetto uprising inspired other revolts in extermination camps and ghettos throughout German-occupied Eastern Europe.

This will be my only FP comment in a political forum until I can't say when.

 

A. Macarthur
link 11/22/16 11:44:18AM @a-macarthur:

Respond as you will, I have no intention of arguing the points made.

Personal insults towards anyone, innuendo that crosses the CoC line, hate-speak, etc., will prompt me to call for a moderator.

I'll be in the photo/Creative Arts venues.

 
Moonchild63
link 11/22/16 05:04:24PM @moonchild63:

👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏 inf.

You are my HERO🏆

 
Petey Coober
link 11/23/16 12:38:52AM @petey-coober:

I have no intention of arguing the points made.

Expressing your opinion is NOT "making a point" . I don't know how else to put it ...

 
A. Macarthur
link 11/23/16 09:56:04AM @a-macarthur:

A POINT OF ORDER

My article presents a number of SPECIFIC ISSUES/POINTS/QUESTIONS … SPECIFICALLY DELINEATED SO AS TO FOMENT REAL ISSUE-BASED DISCUSSION …

Instead of A DISCUSSION/DEBATE ABOUT THOSE SPECIFIC ISSUES … what do we have … A BITCHING, SHIT-FLINGING LAMENTATION OVER THE FACT THAT I DARED TO RAISE ISSUES, GLOATING, MOCKERY … 

Can't take an articulate position as to why:

• ONE-PERSON-ONE-VOTE is more representative of the electorate than the Electoral College

• Can't refute specifically why the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE APPEARS TO BE VIOLATED WHEN FEWER VOTES TRUMPS A GREATER NUMBER OF VOTES … that's not equal protection … it pro-rates one's vote… it's not the "equitable" protection clause … do you know why the electoral college was implemented in the first place

• Can't intelligently discuss why people demonstrate in fear of history repeating itself

• Can't comprehend that Trump is already being the very "Crooked Hillary" he claimed Clinton to be; he's already involved in pay-to-play with foreign governments, in violation of the emolument clause of the Constitution, has conflicts-of-interests that will affect his Attorney General appointment, General Services appointments, Labor Department et al. .

• Not concerned that the FBI, Russian Hackers and David Duke devotees played key roles in the election outcome?

I am (with point--of-order related exceptions like this), going to remain away from FP/Political discussions, and, for the very reason that WE DON'T HAVE DISCUSSIONS … WE HAVE PISSING CONTESTS AND INSULT FESTS laced with information-free school yard type rants.

Make a fair, specific counter-point, I'll be back to respond.

Do the usual… then look for me in the photo section.

I haven't quit … I've just resolved that while ignorance can be remedied, you can't fix stupid! 

Interestingly, some of you have advised me on this fact … AND NOW I AM FINALLY TAKING THEIR GOOD ADVICE.

Make an intelligent argument … I'll show up.

 

 
Neetu2
link 12/11/16 10:37:57PM @neetu2:

Wise decision, Mac. It is the only thing anyone with rationality and decency can do. It is very unfortunate that freedom to express oneself has led to such hateful and aggressive platforms. Almost everywhere. I do not engage with anyone on the current political scenario. It is pointless and unlikely to change. 

 
Pepe
link 12/11/16 10:39:41PM @pepe:

AMAC couldn't stay away very long. His wisdom was short-lived.

 
Cerenkov
link 12/11/16 10:51:41PM @cerenkov:

"The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."

 
JohnRussell
link 11/22/16 12:17:41PM @johnrussell:

Donald Trump has recently tweeted his complaints about a Broadway cast, the New York Times, Saturday Night Live , and praise for a right wing British politician,  and yet he cannot find 30 seconds to tweet to condemn a meeting of alt right white nationalists that cheered his election with nazi style salutes just a few blocks from the White House. 

Although Newstalkers is in present danger of having only seriously one sided topics because of the "liberals" who have stopped seeding and commenting, I can't honestly say that I blame you for wanting to wash your hands of this front page Mac. 

 
Spikegary
link 11/23/16 11:48:12AM @spikegary:

Though Mr. Trump did find time to call the father of the assassinated police officer in an Antonio.  Maybe he felt that these 'Nationalist' (assholes) didn't deserve ot be noticed at the presidential level, so he let his press person leave a message of 'The Trump Administration wants all people to be treated equally'. 

That's someone acting presidential.  I know it's been a while since you've seen it.

 
1ofmany
link 11/23/16 11:57:21AM @1ofmany:

Personally, I would be disturbed if he were following what a small group of racists are doing. If I were president, they would be beneath my notice and I wouldn't give them any publicity by even mentioning their name.

 
JohnRussell
link 11/22/16 02:20:06PM @johnrussell:

Donald Trump thinks he can get away with anything. And he may be right.


 


By Paul Waldman   Washington Post  November 22 at 1:17 PM




AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster

It’s becoming clearer with each passing day of this presidential transition that like so much of what he said during the campaign, Donald Trump’s promise to separate himself from his business during his presidency was simply a lie. The convenient fiction that Trump offered up is that his children would run the corporation on his behalf as a “blind trust,” which is like referring to a plate of steamed kale as a “hamburger.”

Now, as Trump works to monetize the presidency for his own financial gain like some post-Soviet kleptocrat, we have to look back to the campaign to understand why he’s doing this.

There’s a simple explanation: Donald Trump thinks he can get away with anything

Yes, his limitless greed plays a part, as does his contempt for the rules and norms of the American system of government. But if the election had not gone the way it did, Trump would not feel so free to cash in, and in such a public and obvious way.

 

And it is obvious. In a matter of days, he’s invited his daughter Ivanka, who will be leading the Trump Organization, to sit in on a meeting with the Prime Minister of Japan. He held a meeting with Indian businessmen developing a Trump-branded apartment complex. He had his Washington hotel encourage foreign diplomats to stay there while they’re in the nation’s capital. He pressed British party leader Nigel Farage to fight against a proposed wind farm Trump believes mars the view from a golf course he owns in Scotland.

In response to criticism of these actions, Trump tweeted


Prior to the election it was well known that I have interests in properties all over the world. Only the crooked media makes this a big deal!


This made it clear that he sees no problem with having ongoing business interests in foreign countries as president, and if it becomes an issue he will simply blame the media.

We have to see this as the culmination of what Trump went through and learned during the campaign, and I’d like to point to one particular thing he said almost a year ago. In January, Trump : “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, okay?”

This turned out to be an accurate assessment of the loyalty he inspired in his supporters. His white nationalist message was so powerful for them that no matter what he did or said, up to and including bragging about sexually assaulting women, they would stick with him and wave away his sins. It also revealed how Trump himself was coming to see his campaign, even at that early stage.

At that point, the Iowa caucuses were still a week away. Not a single primary vote had been counted. And Trump stood up in front of an audience and TV cameras and said, in effect, I can get away with anything. And he was right.

So let’s imagine a conversation today between Trump and one of his aides, who says, “Sir, you’re taking a lot of heat for the business stuff. We have to draw a bright line to assure people that you won’t be using the presidency to enrich yourself. This needs to be addressed.” How would Trump respond? I’m guessing he’d say something like this:


“I hear you. But you know what? I got the same advice advice — we need to address this, you’ve gone too far, blah blah blah — when I called Mexicans rapists and criminals. And when I said John McCain wasn’t a hero. And when I went after Megyn Kelly. And when I mocked a disabled reporter. And when I refused to release my tax returns like every other presidential candidate. And when I said we should ban Muslims. And when I got in a fight with a Gold Star family. And when I made fun of Ted Cruz’s wife and said his father may have killed JFK. And when I talked about the size of my penis in a debate. And when I encouraged my fans to knock the hell out of protesters. And when I went after Judge Curiel’s Mexican heritage. And when I invited Russia to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails. And when I said Barack Obama founded ISIS. And when I said a former Miss Universe was fat. And when I said that Clinton started the birther controversy but I finished it. And when everyone found out I didn’t pay federal taxes. And when everyone found out my foundation (which has now admitted to the IRS that it violated the law on ‘self-dealing’) is basically a scam. And when everyone heard me brag about groping women, and then I threatened to sue the women who said I groped them. And when I said I wouldn’t accept the results of the election unless I won.

“And guess what: I got away with all of it. I got the Republican nomination, and then I won the presidency despite the fact that my opponent got a couple of million more votes. I won. And now you’re telling me that I’m going to be in big trouble if I take the opportunities I’m presented with to make my beautiful, successful company even more beautiful and successful? Don’t make me laugh. Who’s going to stop me?”


Let’s not forget that even if tomorrow Trump decided to really not be involved in his businesses, there would still be copious opportunities for foreign interests and foreign governments to line his pockets, since they’ll just be able to do it by working with his children. And if you’re hoping that the web of his connections and arrangements at home and abroad will become clear once his IRS audit ends and he finally releases his tax returns as he promised, don’t get your hopes up. He’ll find another excuse for keeping them secret. We’re never going to see them.

Trump surely believes that he’ll get away with that, too. Everything that has happened since he first rode down that escalator last June has served to convince him that he can do whatever he wants, and when everyone around him is telling him he can’t, that’s just proof that he’s right and they’re wrong.

The question Trump asks at the end of my imagined conversation is one without a clear answer at this point. Republicans in Congress sure aren’t going to be investigating his conflicts of interest. Democrats have no institutional power to do so. The performance of the most of the news media (with some important exceptions) when it comes to holding Trump accountable has been less than encouraging.

So who’s going to stop him?

 
JohnRussell
link 11/22/16 04:29:20PM @johnrussell:

Trump Inadvertently Admits Conflict Of Interest

Donald Trump just wrapped up a meeting with editors and reporters of the New York Times. Reporter Maggie Haberman relays that this happened:








"I might have brought it up," Trump says of Farage meeting and wind farms.









 


In saying this, Trump may have flatly and openly admitted to a conflict of interest, according to Noah Bookbinder, the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

Trump’s admission that he “might have brought up” wind farms in his meeting with Nigel Farage is a reference to today’s New York Times story reporting this:


When President-elect Donald J. Trump met with the British politician Nigel Farage in recent days, he encouraged Mr. Farage and his entourage to oppose the kind of offshore wind farms that Mr. Trump believes will mar the pristine view from one of his two Scottish golf courses, according to one person present.

The meeting, held shortly after the presidential election, raises new questions about Mr. Trump’s willingness to use the power of the presidency to advance his business interests. Mr. Trump has long opposed a wind farm planned near his course in Aberdeenshire, and he previously fought unsuccessfully all the way to Britain’s highest court to block it….

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/11/22/trump-may-have-just-flatly-and-openly-admitted-to-a-conflict-of-interest/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_term=.12941f351b9f

 
Dowser
link 11/22/16 04:38:46PM @dowser:

A Mac, I don't blame you.  I'm feeling the same way...

 
XXJefferson#51
link 11/22/16 06:37:59PM @xxjefferson51:

It takes two sides to argue and also to have a civil dialogue.  In the election, one side won and the other lost.  Obviously the winners will be happy and the losers not so much.  The last two presidential elections went the other way. Conservatives didn't threaten to leave or to control the content of the winners seeds and posts.  Why do progressives try to do that now?  The whole thing about progressives trying to control the content and expression of their political opposition here or else they are going to leave is getting so old.  

 
JohnRussell
link 11/22/16 06:46:32PM @johnrussell:

Since the election you have posted DOZENS of seeds which attack Clinton, the "elites", Democrats, liberals, snowflakes, etc.  No one in their right mind would have a "civil" dialogue with you, given what you seed. 

But I wouldn't have a civil dialogue with you for another reason - Donald Trump is not qualified to be president of the United States

here is one small example from today

 

 


Campaign: constantly repeated claim that torture works. Today: says Gen. Mattis talked him out of it with one simple anecdote.








  • RETWEETS92

 

Now, because he talked to a general that he likes, he is sure that waterboarding will not be useful.

Who was he talking to about it for the past year and a half? The doorman at his apartment building? 

Trump vowed all during the campaign that he would bring back waterboarding, now this disappears in a whim. 

He is incompetent, and often at the mercy of the last person that talks to him, OR more likely, he a pathological lying con man who has no sincerity toward the job or the American people.

 
XXJefferson#51
link 11/22/16 11:00:09PM @xxjefferson51:

John, while I voted a straight GOP ticket down ballot, I didn't vote for Trump or Clinton.  I wrote in Evan Mc Mullin.  

 
sixpick
link 11/23/16 01:18:41AM @sixpick:

John I don't know of any other Republican candidate who has done what Trump has done.  He played right out of the Democrat playbook for the first time ever for a Republican candidate for President and beat them at it.

Now if he continues using it for his Presidency, he won't do a damn thing he said he was going to do.

 
96WS6
link 11/22/16 07:23:05PM @96ws6:

I am amazed at how many people want to throw out the electoral system and with it the constitution because of one election.   How short sighted can you get?   That is worse than cheering BO for using newfound powers that Trump now has.  (and I warned about it then)   I can't wait to see how the cheerleaders react when Trump uses them!/s   The Democrats have only themselves to blame for that.   Now you are considering tearing apart the only thing left that stops a dictatorship!  Madness!!!

 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
link 11/23/16 01:39:15AM @perrie-halpern:

I am amazed at how many people want to throw out the electoral system and with it the constitution because of one election.   How short sighted can you get?......   Now you are considering tearing apart the only thing left that stops a dictatorship!  Madness!!!

Now before I start, I support the electoral college, but oppose gerrymandering, which consistently, no one here has addressed, interestingly. That being said... the electoral college doesn't stop us from a dictatorship. Unless you are feeling that Republicans couldn't win a popular vote. 

May I present to you that every Republican prez we have had in the last 60 years, including George W. Bush, has won the popular vote, with the exception of this election. And I can tell you as a New Yorker, Trump isn't a true Republican, so questionable if he qualifies for this. So calm yourselves down. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin

 
96WS6
link 11/23/16 09:03:06AM @96ws6:

Perrie,

In order to get rid of the electoral system you would have to re-write much of the constitution and the constitution is what stops a dictatorship in this country.   The fact that getting rid of the electoral system would require practically re-writing much of the constitution does not seem to bother liberals that think it needs to be re-written to allow their agenda anyhow.   Funny that these are the same short sighted folks for the most part that applauded BO obtaining new powers by abusing the system that Trump will now wield.   I told them all when they were applauding it this day would come, and when I posted and article on it they all avoided it like the plague....go figure.

The constitution has worked for over 100 years don't mess with it.

How can anyone look at this map and not say the electoral college did exactly what is was designed to.  It stopped a concentration on individuals from deciding the fate of the entire country.  It is clear that the COUNTRY overwhelmingly wanted Trump.   Like I said before, I am just waiting for Trump to do what they applauded of BO.   Any doubt at all in your mind about how they will react?

http://constructionlitmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/US_presidential_election_2004_results_by_county-e13485745988081.jpeg

 

 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
link 11/23/16 11:33:19AM @perrie-halpern:

 

96,

You must have missed my opening sentence to my post. I clearly state that I am NOT for getting rid of the electoral system, but I am gerrymandering, and again, you didn't address that at all. And there is a reason that no one is addressing it. Gerrymandering produces electoral districts that favor one party or another. That is wrong! 

Look at these maps from the 2014 elections. I mean come on. This isn't fair and it has nada to do with the electoral college. It has nothing to do with the constitution. It has to do with the GOP wanting to keep more seats in districts that they would lose, if the map had anything to do with geographic location.  

imrs.png

This map is designed to keep control of the house and the senate and now there is a push to make gerrymandering acceptable for the Presidential election and it is unfair and wrong! 

How can anyone look at this map and not say the electoral college did exactly what is was designed to.  It stopped a concentration on individuals from deciding the fate of the entire country.  It is clear that the COUNTRY overwhelmingly wanted Trump.

The electoral college did stop concentrations of individuals from deciding the fate of the country, but the country didn't overwhelmingly want Trump, since the popular vote was for Hillary. DO NOT CONFUSE THOSE TWO CONCEPTS. That is why you are having dems say they want to get rid of the electoral college? Because if it was by popular vote, Hillary would have won. That being said, this is my point. That your earlier statement:

I am amazed at how many people want to throw out the electoral system and with it the constitution because of one election.   How short sighted can you get?......   Now you are considering tearing apart the only thing left that stops a dictatorship!  Madness!!!

is false. And I pointed out that with the electoral college, in the past, we have had republican presidents that were also voted in by popular vote. That cries of dictatorship are over exaggerations at best. What is truly at issue, is if you go by self identifying party voters, there are more dems than republicans and that freaks out the republicans. Thank goodness for us independents. At least we balance out the vote for both parties. 

 
sixpick
link 11/24/16 09:17:43PM @sixpick:

Just think, the people of Michigan would not have had a voice in this election if the President were to be elected by Popular Votes.  That's not even a small state.  The Electoral College isn't perfect, but it is a lot closer to being fair to all the people scattered throughout this nation than anything else we've come up with.

 
A. Macarthur
link 11/24/16 09:49:32PM @a-macarthur:

Six,

There are recounts taking place currently; what if those recounts result in flipping a state or two and give Clinton the 270 electoral votes in addition to the popular vote.

It's a hypothetical now, but should it become the reality, what would you say?

 
Pepe
link 11/24/16 10:10:45PM @pepe:

Now that is the type of positive thinking that can bring you out of your depression and back on to the front page. Maybe we could debate the failed Obamacare legislation you so valiantly defended for the last few years? 

 
A. Macarthur
link 11/24/16 10:21:39PM @a-macarthur:

 Maybe we could debate the failed Obamacare legislation you so valiantly defended for the last few years? 

If you had the facts, you would not summarily dismiss it as a failure; for many, it has been literally, a life saver.

But if you are serious, I'll be happy, in a future discussion, to discuss the ACA on a point-by-point basis … the good, the bad, the ugly and how it should be changed or replaced.

 
sixpick
link 11/24/16 11:37:41PM @sixpick:

Six,

There are recounts taking place currently; what if those recounts result in flipping a state or two and give Clinton the 270 electoral votes in addition to the popular vote.

I would accept it as I know there would be nothing I could do to change it.  That doesn't mean I would like it, but I truly believe in doing my best to live in harmony with whatever life throws my way to best of my ability.

 
XXJefferson#51
link 11/25/16 12:10:14AM @xxjefferson51:

Congrats to President Clinton.  And a promise to be a part of the loyal opposition for the next four years.  

 
A. Macarthur
link 11/25/16 09:33:12AM @a-macarthur:
(deleted)
 
XXJefferson#51
link 11/25/16 10:43:53AM @xxjefferson51:

You are a mean, tired, and bitter old man.  I was answering your question:  "There are recounts taking place currently; what if those recounts result in flipping a state or two and give Clinton the 270 electoral votes in addition to the popular vote.

It's a hypothetical now, but should it become the reality, what would you say?" and the above is your angry response?  Perhaps it is you that is what's the matter with this forum? eek

 
A. Macarthur
link 11/25/16 11:00:35AM @a-macarthur:

You are a mean, tired, and bitter old man.  I was answering your question:  "There are recounts taking place currently; what if those recounts result in flipping a state or two and give Clinton the 270 electoral votes in addition to the popular vote.

It's a hypothetical now, but should it become the reality, what would you say?" and the above is your angry response?  Perhaps it is you that is what's the matter with this forum? eek

Who you callin' "old"?

However, I see your point … you did in fact answer my question as it was asked AND THEREFORE, I OWE YOU AN APOLOGY.

I apologize; I was wrong to comment as I did and I will have it deleted.

It is deleted but my apology to you will remain.

 
Nowhere Man
link 11/24/16 09:42:57PM @nowhere-man:

Well, I for one see it a bit differently Perrie.

The electoral college worked EXACTLY the way the founders intended it to.

Advocating for the electoral college to be forced to vote along with the national popular vote destroys the intent to make elections fair. Yes there are more democrat voters concentrated in very small areas of the nation. and the Founders addressed the vary valid concerns of the other less populated states at the convention when this issue was specifically raised back then. Without this compromise there would not be a United States of America, not back in 1787 and not today soon after ditching or perverting the process.

WE have exactly the same situation today, large concentrations of voters controlling small sections of the nation and they make no bones about wanting to control the whole nation with those small blocks of area.

The founders created this compromise to get around the very serious issue.

The ten other less populated states did not want to be subject to edicts passed by the most powerful three with the force of law.

You advocating dominance of the minority.

This is either a nation claiming a lot of citizens, or a lot of people claiming to be a nation.

I can live in the former, I cannot live in nor tolerate the latter.

I am currently in a free land, do what you want we will no longer have a free land.

And I will openly revolt and openly advocate for armed revolt. Just like the founders did.

The basis for revolt is identical, from then to now if what you say you want is put into effect.

To me, this is an issue that reveals peoples political leanings and how little they know of the basis for the creation of this country and decisions and solutions they chose.

If we have to relearn the lessons of the revolution, let it start NOW.

I am dead set against any liberal operation to subvert the fair and open elections we have grown accustomed to in this nation.

Maybe it IS time to stand up and be counted.

 
Nowhere Man
link 11/24/16 10:09:14PM @nowhere-man:

The GOP huh?

What do you expect from a 2014 waPO article on Gerrymandering. (clearly critical of the republicans maintaining their control of the house after taking control of the senate and lamenting that the republicans were going to have control of most redistricting) Why didn't they post which districts those were? They do make a claim that it is part of the basis for them holding the House...

There is another Image from the same article of the entire nation showing the areas with the most gerrymandered districts....

This one.

imrs.php.png

 

As you can clearly see darker red, more gerrymandering. quite a bit of it coming from heavy democrat areas also like the entire left coast, huge chunks of Eastern Pennsylvania, Southern Florida, Northern Illinois and other areas known as heavy democrat areas.

Yes both parties do it. it was named for the politician to both invented the practice and helped put it into effect nationally.

Elbridge Gerry,

Elected to the Second Continental Congress he signed the Declaration of Independence, and The Articles of Confederation.

A member of the Constitutional Convention, He refused to sign the constitution cause it didn't contain a bill of rights.

He is a founding father.

It may be a dirty practice, but it is a legal one.

And was created and abetted by the founders.

You may not like it, but it is the way the political parties make it work.

 

 
Kavika
link 11/24/16 10:37:37PM @kavika:

''It may be a dirty practice, but it is a legal one.''

Actually in some cases it isn't legal and the federal judges decided in a recent case in WI. The gerrymandering by the republicans was found to be illegal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/us/wisconsin-redistricting-found-to-unfairly-favor-republicans.html

As a point of interest, the dark red to almost black on the map involves quite a few red states such as AZ, TX, LA, MS, AL, AR, KY, TN...Also much of the changes in California are in areas that are republican controlled.

I can't view the complete map since some of the east coast isn't visible.

BTW, I'm not in favor of gerrymandering by either side.

 
Nowhere Man
link 11/24/16 10:57:20PM @nowhere-man:

right click and view image and you can see the whole image, I didn't scale it down enough. the only part cut off is the eastern tip of Maine, which is grey...

And yes Gerrymandering is evil, that I agree with whole heartedly. in some cases a balanced district creation process would create more democrat votes and in others it would create more republican ones.

Personally I would say a law requiring political demographics be taken into account along with census population when redistricting so all districts are half and half politically. That would be politically fair.

Make the politicians really work for your vote and stop disenfranchising each other in those specific districts.

Let everyone's vote count.

Add to the mix, each district must vote for the candidate that won the district, and we have eliminated all the political favoritism issues.

And I doubt that a democrat would win a presidential election ever again.

 

 
sixpick
link 11/24/16 11:53:13PM @sixpick:

But take a look at these maps beside either other or one above the other.

http://constructionlitmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/US_presidential_election_2004_results_by_county-e13485745988081.jpeg

imrs.php.png

Look where the worst Gerrymandering is and look at where each candidate received the most votes, not that it matters in a Presidential election.

 

 
sixpick
link 11/25/16 12:05:17AM @sixpick:

Also much of the changes in California are in areas that are republican controlled.

That may be true, but according to the two maps it looks like the darkest areas in California voted Democrat.

And the bottom of Texas looks like they voted Democrat and have a tremendous amount of Gerrymandering going on as well as Washington state.

 
96WS6
link 11/25/16 09:58:11AM @96ws6:

Perrie,

 

Gerrymandering is something both parties do.   I don't agree with gerrymandering but overall the electoral college is the best way to go and it did it's job this election.  Imagine with the number of proven ballots cast by deceased and illegals caught this election how many problems a popular vote election would have caused.

 
JohnRussell
link 11/23/16 11:52:03AM @johnrussell:

96,

We have people far more worried about debating the electoral college than the fact that we have a complete know nothing going into the white house. Look at the transcript of the New York Times interview with Trump and the articles and columns that people who were in the room have written about it this morning. The consensus is that trump is an empty suit with unformed or non existent ideas about important issues. The thing he is most sure about is that he has a right to run his business empire from the oval office if he wants to. 

To heck with all this talk of the electoral college as if it were the most important thing going on. Keeping the heat on the looming embarrassment and disaster known as the Trump administration is what is needed now. 

 
96WS6
link 11/23/16 06:34:41PM @96ws6:

So far the only embarrassment is the liberals reaction to the election. 

 
JohnRussell
link 11/23/16 06:57:11PM @johnrussell:

Draining The Swamp ?

 

Trump's new Sec of Education, Betsy deVos, admits that her billionaire family buys influence


Betsy DeVos, a huge advocate for school privatization, admitting her family buys influence with campaign donations






 

https://twitter.com/lhfang/status/801495776467689472



 
XXJefferson#51
link 11/24/16 01:25:14PM @xxjefferson51:

The response to the results of the election, one part rage one part burying their head in the sand is truly a sad spectacle to behold.  laughing dudePartyla de da

 
A. Macarthur
link 11/24/16 01:49:47PM @a-macarthur:

 


The response to the results of the election, one part rage one part burying their head in the sand is truly a sad spectacle to behold.  laughing dudePartyla de da

And still, you evade the issues and you post cartoons.

The election outcome is a manifestation of many serious wrongs perpetrated by a cancerous system with disease-carriers on both sides of the aisle.

Yours is the head in the sand, XX.

 
Buzz of the Orient
link 11/22/16 08:55:01PM @buzz-of-the-orient:

Just keep heaping the garbage onto your President-elect - the whole world is watching what American democracy is all about.

 
JohnRussell
link 11/22/16 08:58:40PM @johnrussell:

Buzz, Donald Trump is not qualified to be president of the United States, a fact that doesnt seem to have made it's way over to China. He will be opposed every single day he is in office. 

Winning the election did not make him qualified. This appears to be where you may be getting stuck. 

 
Buzz of the Orient
link 11/22/16 09:12:25PM @buzz-of-the-orient:

I have NEVER said he WAS qualified, so you can stop pasting that on me. Although the only thing I criticized was his being more unfairly treated and reported than Hillary, you have constantly criticized me for supporting him. In my opinion, the constant criticism is probably one of the reasons he won - which proves that a lot of voters were being more fair than was expected. I never seriously supported any candidate (although I preferred Johnson until he proved to the world what an idiot he was) - I would have supported Clint Eastwood had he run and if I had a vote, but then I've always been fond of classic movies and classic actors.

Whenever I would drive somewhere with my young kids in the back seat, I would hear repeatedly "Are we there yet, daddy?"  I'm beginning to get the same feeling about the ruminating after this election. Don't ignore the line from Leonard Cohen's poem/song Anthem: "There's a crack, a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."  In other words, John, there could be light at the end of the tunnel so it's not wise to blow up the tunnel before you get there.

 
JohnRussell
link 11/22/16 09:23:41PM @johnrussell:

"Fair" has nothing to do with it. No one should have been fair to Donald Trump in his guise as a presidential candidate. The fact that the media insisted on being "fair" to the worst candidate in American history is one of the main reasons we are in the fix we are now in. 

 
1ofmany
link 11/22/16 11:23:35PM @1ofmany:

"Fair" has nothing to do with it. No one should have been fair to Donald Trump in his guise as a presidential candidate. The fact that the media insisted on being "fair" to the worst candidate in American history is one of the main reasons we are in the fix we are now in.

I interpret Buzz's use of the word "fair" to mean impartial. The mainstream media was clearly putting its thumb on the scale in favor of Hillary. Wikileaks exposed collusion between Hillary's campaign and the media to get rid of Bernie and the media's bias against Trump was obvious. For instance, I don't recall seeing a single segment on CNN covering Hillary's shady past dating back to watergate but Trump's alleged 30 years of p***y grabbing was covered day and night for weeks. Trump used the media's bias to whip up public sentiment against them. The more they hit him, the stronger he became . . . like a science fiction monster. 

 
Buzz of the Orient
link 11/22/16 11:36:30PM @buzz-of-the-orient:

That's exactly what I meant, 1ofmany. I should have used a thesaurus to find a more accurate word than "fair".  During my lifetime the media has become more and more biased to the extent that it is impossible to get an accurate picture of anything any more.

 
JohnRussell
link 11/22/16 11:38:59PM @johnrussell:

You guys are hopeless. Fricking hopeless, and the forum is losing contributors for it. 

 
JohnRussell
link 11/22/16 11:46:34PM @johnrussell:

Buzz and 1 of many , why should anyone be fair to this?

 

 

"So let’s imagine a conversation today between Trump and one of his aides, who says, “Sir, you’re taking a lot of heat for the business stuff. We have to draw a bright line to assure people that you won’t be using the presidency to enrich yourself. This needs to be addressed.” How would Trump respond? I’m guessing he’d say something like this:



“I hear you. But you know what? I got the same advice advice — we need to address this, you’ve gone too far, blah blah blah — when I called Mexicans rapists and criminals. And when I said John McCain wasn’t a hero. And when I went after Megyn Kelly. And when I mocked a disabled reporter. And when I refused to release my tax returns like every other presidential candidate. And when I said we should ban Muslims. And when I got in a fight with a Gold Star family. And when I made fun of Ted Cruz’s wife and said his father may have killed JFK. And when I talked about the size of my penis in a debate. And when I encouraged my fans to knock the hell out of protesters. And when I went after Judge Curiel’s Mexican heritage. And when I invited Russia to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails. And when I said Barack Obama founded ISIS. And when I said a former Miss Universe was fat. And when I said that Clinton started the birther controversy but I finished it. And when everyone found out I didn’t pay federal taxes. And when everyone found out my foundation (which has now admitted to the IRS that it violated the law on ‘self-dealing’) is basically a scam. And when everyone heard me brag about groping women, and then I threatened to sue the women who said I groped them. And when I said I wouldn’t accept the results of the election unless I won.

“And guess what: I got away with all of it. I got the Republican nomination, and then I won the presidency despite the fact that my opponent got a couple of million more votes. I won. And now you’re telling me that I’m going to be in big trouble if I take the opportunities I’m presented with to make my beautiful, successful company even more beautiful and successful? Don’t make me laugh. Who’s going to stop me?”"

 

By Paul Waldman   Washington Post  November 22 at 1:17 PM

 
Buzz of the Orient
link 11/22/16 11:51:35PM @buzz-of-the-orient:

“I’m guessing he’d say something like this:”

  I'm not the least bit interested in reading some biased person's conjecture.

 
JohnRussell
link 11/22/16 11:53:50PM @johnrussell:

Those are all facts related to Donald Trump. You are clueless about all this Buzz and your assessment is about as persuasive as if we randomly picked someone out of a crowd. 

 
1ofmany
link 11/23/16 12:09:51AM @1ofmany:

Those are all facts related to Donald Trump. You are clueless about all this Buzz and your assessment is about as persuasive as if we randomly picked someone out of a crowd. 

. . . a crowd at oxford. 

 
1ofmany
link 11/23/16 12:02:37AM @1ofmany:

Buzz and 1 of many , why should anyone be fair to this?

All we said is that the media should be impartial. Why? So I can trust what they say. 

 
1ofmany
link 11/22/16 11:57:29PM @1ofmany:

You guys are hopeless. Fricking hopeless, and the forum is losing contributors for it. 

Geez you were walking around dressed as the grim reaper doing a post mortem on the country just because Hillary lost the election and you think that's just fine. Buzz said that the media covered Trump unfairly and I agreed so we damaged the site. Rest you need. 

 
JohnRussell
link 11/22/16 11:59:40PM @johnrussell:

You are commenting in an article where the author said he is withdrawing because of the reaction to this election on NT. Or are you lost? 

 
Pepe
link 11/23/16 12:13:44AM @pepe:

We've endured 8 years of the Obama while you pumped his failed policies. Notice AMAC who was the resident expert on Obamacare's success hasn't said a word about it in months. Why? He was wrong. The Iran Deal? We all know that one was a disaster.

Obama was a failure, you all sucked his nuts publicly and America took a shit on his legacy and the fake MSM propaganda pimps.

Now you all want to quit and hide?

Suck it up! It was just an election girls.

 
JohnRussell
link 11/23/16 12:16:06AM @johnrussell:

You are immune to facts and logic. After a while it isn't cute any more. 

 
Petey Coober
link 11/23/16 12:55:57AM @petey-coober:

You are immune to facts and logic.

You & logic are complete strangers . As far as I can tell you have been that way your whole life . But saying that does make a fine talking point for those who are unfamiliar with your history ...

 
sixpick
link 11/23/16 01:39:17AM @sixpick:

You are commenting in an article where the author said he is withdrawing because of the reaction to this election on NT. Or are you lost?

He didn't say he was withdrawing.  Man.... get a hold.  AMac said he was staying away from the Front Page and for how long he didn't know.  I don't blame him if it bothers him to read and comment on articles.  AMac can get really involved in something, like take a look at all the edited photos he's put up.  Those things don't just happen, you have to really put yourself into them and that is what AMac does when he gets involved in the arguments on the Front Page. 

And he doesn't like Trump, probably absolutely hates him and it really really bothers him, so he's getting the sh*t out of Dodge at least for awhile and even he doesn't know how long, but he didn't say he was withdrawing from The Newstalkers.

You make me nervous.  I feel your pain so to speak.  I feel your anxiety and stress. 

Maybe you and I can put one political article up and then something else other than political.  You know too much of a bad things isn't good for you.  If you don't want to do it, maybe I will.  Get one or two comments, but at least I won't be as inclined to get too involved in the politics at a time like this.

Anyway I have to hit the sack.

I really like this.

 
JohnRussell
link 11/23/16 12:15:30PM @johnrussell:

Go dream up some more conspiracies to contaminate this site with. 

 
96WS6
link 11/23/16 11:07:54AM @96ws6:

"You are commenting in an article where the author said he is withdrawing because of the reaction to this election on NT. Or are you lost? "

 

If he was a Republican he would have wrote the article 8 years ago.  It looks to me like you people need to grow up.  Do you remember any "safe spaces' for people that were upset about BO getting elected?   I am great with it though.  Keep this whiny baby shit up and soon no one will want to call themselves a Democrat.  How embarrassing that must be to admit with what is going on today.   No wonder where millennial's got their ideology and mindset from any more is there?

 
Spikegary
link 11/23/16 12:10:31PM @spikegary:

I believe A Mac said he was giving the front page a rest, not the entire site.  In fact, I believe he said he'll be over in the Arts & Photography section.  This Chicken Little routine is getting a little old for everyone, John.

Next time, filed a palatable candidate.  It's just as much your fault as anyone else's the Mr. Trump won the election.

 
sixpick
link 11/23/16 12:38:29AM @sixpick:

John.... I can count the fingers on my two hands the people who post to the front page and they are the same people who have been posting long before the campaign even started.  Occasionally one or two other than the regulars will comment here and there, but basically the forum has the same main people posting every day as it has for ages.

I keep hearing this accusation about Republicans whining after you put 6 or 7 articles whining about Trump.  That's alright, I don't care, but you need to take a look at yourself and see if maybe you aren't doing a little whining yourself.

The only time the people on the left get upset is when they are not getting their way.  It never fails.  The people on the left, and you know who they are, can put all kinds of crap on the Front Page and none of you ever say a word about it, but let someone on the right put some crap up and the left comes out of the woodwork complaining about how bad the Front Page is. 

I have something for ya!

 

 

 
JohnRussell
link 11/23/16 12:43:27AM @johnrussell:

Trump will be the president, that is why he is news (for the worse unfortunately).

If Trump had lost the election, you wouldnt see me attacking him any more on the front page. I wish I never had to see that idiots face or hear his voice again, but no such luck. 

You right wingers didnt know how to handle your narrow victory and keep piling on Clinton and some mythical "elites" as if anyone here gives a fuck about that. I don't think we have any elites here. 

Defend the ahole we have in the presidency -(elect) now, if you can. That is what the game is now. 

 
sixpick
link 11/23/16 01:47:10AM @sixpick:

You right wingers

I'm not a right winger.  Remember that test Jefferson put up here a few months ago?  I took it 3 times trying to get to be a right winger and I still was just a tad to the left.

 
Jonathan P
link 11/23/16 10:46:16AM @jonathan-p:

John, like most of the Dems in America, believes that anyone to the right of him is a right-winger. Just another way of underestimating and ignoring those people that should not be underestimated and ignored.

 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
link 11/23/16 12:08:09PM @perrie-halpern:

Jonathan, the same can be said about the right. To them, I am a liberal. I am not a liberal. I have some liberal stances, but I also have some conservative ones to. But anything to the left of right is a liberal. 

 
Gunny
link 11/23/16 12:13:01PM @gunny:

I think even john and Randy has a hard time catching up to your leftist stance.  You need to slow down so they can catch their breath.laughing dudewinking

 
Randy
link 11/23/16 12:16:04PM @randy:

Speaking as myself (Randy) I consider Perrie to be slightly to the right of center. A very, very, very moderate Republican. To say she is on the Left is to admit you have not read or understood any of her posts, IMHO.

 
Gunny
link 11/23/16 12:27:41PM @gunny:

Randy you are a Socialist I understand that and you think of Perrie as a Moderate. However: I have read her comments for many many years and have seen the shift in her stances on many subjects. so I stand by my comments above.

And besides it was suppose to be a funny.

 

 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
link 11/23/16 12:49:45PM @perrie-halpern:

Gene,

Unlike you, I actually consider multiple points and in fact, the only stance that has change is about guns, and I would say, it moved to the right. You have no idea of what my POV's are. You just think you do. 

Randy is right. I am a moderate independent. That means I hold both right and left beliefs based on an issue by issue basis. 

 
Gunny
link 11/23/16 12:59:28PM @gunny:

Unlike what you think of me I think I am more moderate than you. But you do not take the time to really get to know anyone that is leaning right.  But enough of that it's all over and Trump won, and if he doesn't come thru like he promised he will be out also.

Oh and I like  some of the liberal ideas. Just not enough to lean left.  And you forget I have read you for many years and have seen the move you made to the left.  Moderate you may be but lean right never.

 

 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
link 11/23/16 12:46:46PM @perrie-halpern:

Gene,

That is freaking obnoxious and thanks for proving my point. 

 
Gunny
link 11/23/16 12:59:55PM @gunny:

You had and have no point.

 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
link 11/23/16 01:11:07PM @perrie-halpern:

Gene another typical obnoxious comment. No facts.. just a one liner. So....

Let's put this to bed. Tell me where I stand on these issues:

1.The Iran deal

2. Guns 

3. PC

4. Affirmative action

5. Obama's "Red Line"

6. The Electoral College

Let's start there. Let's see how left I am?

Oh btw.. I have read your's for many years and you are a total conservative, which means anything that is left of you is a liberal. 

 
Gunny
link 11/23/16 01:12:45PM @gunny:

All conservative issues. of course.

 

 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
link 11/23/16 01:16:49PM @perrie-halpern:

Exactly Gene. What is my position on those conservative issues? You say you know me, so tell me what are my postions?

 
Gunny
link 11/23/16 01:27:04PM @gunny:

I didn't say I knew you I said you lean left, 

 
Gunny
link 11/23/16 01:32:02PM @gunny:

You tell me how I am then I will address your left leanings.

 

 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
link 11/23/16 01:34:44PM @perrie-halpern:

Gene,

I gave you right issues... if you can't tell me how I stand on them, how can you tell me that I lean left?

 
Gunny
link 11/23/16 01:40:25PM @gunny:

Because you cannot take a funny, and it amuses me to see you get all in a huff when some one calls you on certain subjects that just shows me you lean left and your way of thinking goes right along with the left on this site.

And if you scan on down you will see that I agreed with BF on your issues.

 

 

 
JohnRussell
link 11/23/16 01:15:37PM @johnrussell:

The right is p.c. too. They don't want anyone to talk about the fricking idiot they elected. 

 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
link 11/23/16 01:18:06PM @perrie-halpern:

John,

That isn't being PC. They make excuses for his behavior. Everyone does that for their candidate. 

 
JohnRussell
link 11/23/16 01:22:17PM @johnrussell:

I was being a little sarcastic Perrie. But just a little. 

 
Pepe
link 11/23/16 01:19:10PM @pepe:

How about Obamacare?

 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
link 11/23/16 01:22:57PM @perrie-halpern:

It's not working. It has some good parts, but from a practical standpoint, it is flawed. The insurance companies are backing out and with that, are higher costs. 

Hybrid programs rarely work.

Now BF since you asked me a question.. why not answer my other POV's?

 
Pepe
link 11/23/16 01:24:22PM @pepe:

Haaawhat Qwwwwestion did you ask?

"gobble bubble gobble"

 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
link 11/23/16 01:26:51PM @perrie-halpern:

LOL!

 
1ofmany
link 11/23/16 01:29:27PM @1ofmany:

With all your fish monikers and your background, have you tried fish-of-fury? Or ironfish? Or Fish-of-death? 

 
Pepe
link 11/23/16 01:55:29PM @pepe:

Next week is already taken "Trouser Trout" but i will consider one of those the following....thx...fish management!

 
Buzz of the Orient
link 11/25/16 10:55:10AM @buzz-of-the-orient:

How about gefilte fish?  Here's a possible avatar. That's horse radish behind it - great combination.

gefilte.jpg

 
Gunny
link 11/23/16 01:30:49PM @gunny:

There are good points and bad points

Making it mandatory is one of the bad points.  Taxing (fine) people for not having it is a bad point. It didn't address the cause of higher medical cost, a bad point.

Good point that insurance companies must take people with existing problems.  I've been turned down for insurance because of cancer.

 

 
JohnRussell
link 11/23/16 01:35:40PM @johnrussell:

Making it mandatory is one of the bad points.

Good point that insurance companies must take people with existing problems. 

If you don't make it mandatory you cannot fund the cost of covering pre-existing conditions. 

So I guess your theory is up the creek without a paddle to piss on. . 

 

 
Randy
link 11/23/16 01:42:17PM @randy:

If you don't make it mandatory you cannot fund the cost of covering pre-existing conditions.

Which makes the real answer what it always was. Single payer. Government Healthcare, but as a public option. And insurance companies for those who want to pay for them. Perrie was right. Hybrid programs don't work. And of course neither did what we had before Obamacare.

 
JohnRussell
link 11/23/16 01:46:07PM @johnrussell:

The funding for health care should be taxed on a progressive basis, just like income tax is. This would be to provide a basic level of care for everyone. Supplemental insurance could be made available for those who wanted a "cadillac" policy. 

 
Gunny
link 11/23/16 01:47:31PM @gunny:

I agree with you Randy nothing before or after Obamacare has addressed the cause of the high cost of medical care which is "GREED". I don't like federal regulations either but to stop the medical fields and industry from gouging the people, which includes the insurance companies, there seems to be a need for those regulations to keep the cost down so more people can afford the insurance need for their particular cases.

 

 
96WS6
link 11/25/16 10:16:05AM @96ws6:

You know Randy, I believe that single payer) was the plan all along.  I said from the beginning Obamacare was unsustainable and I think they architects knew it, and that they thought after it imploded and Hillary was in they would usher in single payer to "fix" it.    A plan that was as short sighted as expanding the Presidents powers.  Now both are in the hand of the liberals "Joker".  Can someone pass me the popcorn?

BTW, I think it is pretty damn funny I have not heard a single Democrat say they think a rise in health care premiums of 20-50% right before the election on a program people are forced to participate in or be penalized had anything to do with losing the election.   You know Randy, the average American shuns politics and knows little about it.  They know a lot about their own financial situations and what is affecting them though.

 
Gunny
link 11/23/16 01:43:22PM @gunny:

Nope it still does not address the real cause of high medical cost.

 
Randy
link 11/23/16 01:55:07PM @randy:

The government negotiates the costs of drugs and medical services like it does now with Medicare. The government sets the prices of what it will pay. The involves the "R" word, regulations.

Got to run. Wife is screaming that we run out to lunch NOW! And she is the boss! bow to you

 
Gunny
link 11/23/16 02:01:36PM @gunny:

The government only negotiates the cost for government programs not for everyday citizens programs, not everyone is Medicade nor Medicare some are not old enough for it.  So they need to negotiate for all or none. besides one pill in the US sells for $600 and in Canada it sells for $30. That tells me that greed is the main factor in this country.

 

 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
link 11/23/16 01:36:53PM @perrie-halpern:

Gene,

I agree with you. 

 
Randy
link 11/23/16 11:18:53PM @randy:

Remove the age limit on Medicare. Make it available to everyone from birth. The infrastructure is already in place, so it just needs to be expanded.

 
Pepe
link 11/23/16 01:32:38PM @pepe:

"Raises his hand making a major disturbance in the class!"

"I know....I know!"

1.The Iran deal   Not a Fan

 

2. Guns   Supports the 2nd Amendment with reasonable law

 

3. PC  Dislikes PC Culture

 

4. Affirmative action Have heard support for and against over the years.....Out to lunch on this one.

 

5. Obama's "Red Line"  Did not support Obama's mythical red line or foreign policy in general

 

6. The Electoral College  Supports the constitution and electoral college

 

Contrary to some on the site Perrie is not a Poalei Zionist 

 
Gunny
link 11/23/16 01:35:51PM @gunny:

Yup you got it BF, for conservative issues.

 

 
Pepe
link 11/23/16 01:39:13PM @pepe:

Actually those are positions Perrie supports. Which remove her from the label...liberal or democrat for that matter.

 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
link 11/23/16 01:40:30PM @perrie-halpern:

Gene,

He is right about me. BF was talking about my POV's and he is right! I agree with the right on them. 

 
Pepe
link 11/23/16 01:42:39PM @pepe:

Actually Perrie the Right and libertarian would be opposed to Gun restrictions or at least the majority, and most would take issue with affirmative action without exception as it's discriminatory. As for the foreign policy? The conservative would have gone to war over the red line and the libertarian would have never drawn such a line because it's outside our borders.

 
Gunny
link 11/23/16 01:51:47PM @gunny:

Man, did we ever get this line of discussion off topic.  seeing as this article is about AMac leaving to hide in his groups.  I've done that but I never publicly told the world I did.  And Perrie went right along with it.  

Sorry AMac, But sometimes the world just sucks.

 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
link 11/23/16 01:56:54PM @perrie-halpern:

Gene, Don't even go there about me being off topic, when it was you who called me a liberal and went after Randy as a socialist. Now that you clearly see that my POV's are not all liberal and your argument is flawed you are trying to divert the subject and even trying to blame it on me. You went off topic, I just proved you wrong. 

 
Dean Moriarty
link 11/23/16 02:00:27PM @dean-moriarty:

Randy calls himself a socialist. Same with Bernie.

 
Gunny
link 11/23/16 02:02:47PM @gunny:

Such is life ain't it a joy to be among friends.

 

 
Gunny
link 11/23/16 02:04:22PM @gunny:

You haven't proved a thing.  I still see you as leaning left. and besides I guess you can't take a joke. and that is how this all started and you got all huffy. So yeah you took it off topic just as much as I did.

 

 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
link 11/23/16 02:22:19PM @perrie-halpern:

You haven't proved a thing.  I still see you as leaning left.

Of course you do, because anyone who isn't totally right is left to you, which proves my point. I gave you a whole list of right leaning issues and BF got it and you are still blind to who I am. And this is why our nation is in such a bad state. Most people see things as black and white. Good thing that the majority of voters are now indies, like me. 

 
Gunny
link 11/23/16 02:34:26PM @gunny:

Nope wrong again. I will always think of you as left leaning and besides you don't know how I really lean.  You are just assuming I lean far right.

Indie is new millinial leaning. 

 

 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
link 11/23/16 03:13:56PM @perrie-halpern:

Indie is as old as the hills. I have been an indie since 1978. Try again. 

You know what... don't try again... I think my responses speak for themselves Gene. You can think whatever you like, but here are my beliefs on record. Let others decide for themselves, like BF did. 

 
JohnRussell
link 11/23/16 03:17:23PM @johnrussell:

I would like to see Perrie give her liberal beliefs,  so we can be sure she is not a conservative. patience

 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
link 11/23/16 03:39:10PM @perrie-halpern:

John requests:

I would like to see Perrie give her liberal beliefs,  so we can be sure she is not a conservative. patience

1. Pro-choice

2. Pro gay marriage

3. Religious equality

4. Policing Reform

5. Anti Isolationist

6. Pro Anti-Trust 

 
JohnRussell
link 11/23/16 03:53:05PM @johnrussell:

John requests:

I would like to see Perrie give her liberal beliefs,  so we can be sure she is not a conservative. patience

1. Pro-choice

2. Pro gay marriage

3. Religious equality

4. Policing Reform

5. Anti Isolationist

6. Pro Anti-Trust 

 

Now we know. 

 
Gunny
link 11/23/16 04:02:35PM @gunny:

Her is what I think

1. pro choice yes up until 3rd trimester.

2 Gay marriage. ok as long as it is not forced on those that disagree for religious purposes

3 Religious equality.  Yes

4. Policing Reform.  Yes higher standards for eligibility. Quota system not working.

5. Anti Isolationist.  We arte not the only ones on this planet

6.  Anti Trust. this I'm not sure of to be honest must think long and hard about it.

Hows that for a RWNJ

 
Gunny
link 11/23/16 03:21:42PM @gunny:

I told you I agreed with BF. but you only read what you want.

 

 
Mark in Wyoming
link 11/23/16 02:10:51PM @mark-in-wyoming:

I disagree , Amac isn't "Hiding " in his groups , he like many, is simply tired of the acidity that has become the FP, and its not hard to see exactly who(plural) is causing it. and his reasons are the exact same reasons I was going to chuck the whole site into the "Fuckit bucket" a couple weeks ago .

the only tool we have as individuals on this site to avoid the negativity , is simply "not to play", so AMac  is doing what is right and proper for him , if others wish to say anything they are entitled to their opinion , even if its wrong.

 
JohnRussell
link 11/23/16 02:21:41PM @johnrussell:

Yeah, except his article explains exactly who or what is bothering him and it is not "both sides". It is one side. 

 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
link 11/23/16 02:24:07PM @perrie-halpern:

Mark,

I get that the front page isn't for everyone. But to withdraw is to give in to the other side. There is no dialog and there is no counterpoint. Mac is entitled to do as he pleases, but I wish he would reconsider. 

 
A. Macarthur
link 11/23/16 03:00:04PM @a-macarthur:

POINT OF PERSONAL PRIViLIGE 

Mention me by name, if I so choose, I respond (as per Roberts Rules of Order)

Once again; I offered very specific issues to discuss … WITH RARE EXCEPTIONS, RATHER THAN DEBATE THESE WITH ACTUAL, SPECIFIC, SUBJECT-RELATED DISCUSSION, we have the usual from the usual.

In one instance I note AN ACTUAL EFFORT TO DISCUSS THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE (ALBEIT NOT THE ASPECT I QUESTIONED, and, with a response containing misinformation about illegal voting … BUT AT LEAST AN HONEST EFFORT!)

And how far afield the conversation has gone from what I SPECIFICALLY posted.

ALL REASONS WHY I AM NOT PLANNING TO RETURN TO FP/Political discussions (other than to clarify my reasons).

Not only have issues other than my article's issues been broached, AS USUAL, THOSE ISSUES HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED DISMISSIVELY, SUMMARILY AND PERPETUATING THE PERSISTING LIES WRONGFULLY ATTACHED TO THEM.

I DON'T WISH TO CONTINUE BUTTING HEADS WITH THOSE WHO HAVE NO INTEREST IN HONEST DIALOGUE!

My article presents a number of SPECIFIC ISSUES/POINTS/QUESTIONS … SPECIFICALLY DELINEATED SO AS TO FOMENT REAL ISSUE-BASED DISCUSSION …

Instead of A DISCUSSION/DEBATE ABOUT THOSE SPECIFIC ISSUES … what do we have … A BITCHING, SHIT-FLINGING LAMENTATION OVER THE FACT THAT I DARED TO RAISE ISSUES, GLOATING, MOCKERY … 

Can't take an articulate position as to why:

• ONE-PERSON-ONE-VOTE is more representative of the electorate than the Electoral College

• Can't refute specifically why the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE APPEARS TO BE VIOLATED WHEN FEWER VOTES TRUMPS A GREATER NUMBER OF VOTES … that's not equal protection … it pro-rates one's vote… it's not the "equitable" protection clause … do you know why the electoral college was implemented in the first place

• Can't intelligently discuss why people demonstrate in fear of history repeating itself

• Can't comprehend that Trump is already being the very "Crooked Hillary" he claimed Clinton to be; he's already involved in pay-to-play with foreign governments, in violation of the emolument clause of the Constitution, has conflicts-of-interests that will affect his Attorney General appointment, General Services appointments, Labor Department et al. .

• Not concerned that the FBI, Russian Hackers and David Duke devotees played key roles in the election outcome?

Make a fair, specific, related counter-point, I may be back to respond.

Do the usual…  then look for me in the photo section.

I haven't quit … I've just resolved that while ignorance can be remedied, you can't fix stupid! 

Interestingly, some of you have advised me on this fact … AND NOW I AM FINALLY TAKING THEIR GOOD ADVICE.

Make an intelligent argument … I'll show up.

Second time I've posted this … don't care to see it again … then don't make the discussion about me and discuss like intelligent, civil adults.

 
Petey Coober
link 11/23/16 03:20:14PM @petey-coober:

• ONE-PERSON-ONE-VOTE is more representative of the electorate than the Electoral College

Those words mean something to you . Why don't you explain what "more representative" means & why you think its important ...

 
Nowhere Man
link 11/24/16 11:17:02AM @nowhere-man:

• ONE-PERSON-ONE-VOTE is more representative of the electorate than the Electoral College

 

Fortunately, we do have one person one vote. The unfortunate part is the constitution mandates that how it is determined that vote is counted is reserved for the individual states, not the federal government.

You have your one vote and yes it does count.

You need to exercise that vote and have your state tie their electors to the national vote rather than the state vote.

Good luck with that.

The entire state of Pennsylvania submitting it's electors to the determination of California voters.

Seems like what you think works better?

In certain other elections, it may be Pennsylvania submitting it's electors to the whims of the state of Texas.

Would you like it as well being your vote counted to whom a republican state thinks should win?

Or we could go for the fairy dust and rewrite the constitution to make it favorable to large masses of population in small locals, then try to get two thirds of the states to agree with that.

We have the fairest system in existence, everyone's vote counts (in his state of residence) and the basis of that vote is used to elect the president. No one state or group has an advantage over the other.

Anything else is patently unfair and giving one group power over everything. particularly when that group represents a minority of the nation. (all you have to do is look at a election map by county or legislative district showing an almost two to one dominance, red to blue)

The only fair solution is to tie the elector to the district vote, your vote counts even more now, but for democrats there EC vote totals would drop significantly.

Y'all do not like the EC, but without it, we won't have a nation that will stay together for any real length of time. the only way it could be made fairer for the voter, would cause democrat candidates an extremely hard time winning presidential elections. (given the 2-1 advantage in republican districts)

The way it is now means that republicans are going to be dealing with democrats for the long term. and it works the same way if the shoe ever gets on the other foot.

Except if the democrats ever get that level of power, they would do away with the electoral college to assure their continued power over the majority of the nation with no voice for anyone else.

So the one man one vote argument is a vote to disenfranchise a huge swath of the American people and force one singular ideology on them.

The founders established the EC to prevent Virginia, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania from overriding the other ten states with their massive populations. It was effective then in equalizing/balancing the power of the big cities over the entire nation.

It is even more effective today.

Arguing for one man one vote on the national level is not the argument of a fair minded individual.

 

 
A. Macarthur
link 11/24/16 11:41:02AM @a-macarthur:

Arguing for one man one vote on the national level is not the argument of a fair minded individual.

I voted your comment up, but I disagree.

Why do we accept in a POTUS election, what we'd riot over with regard to the relatively trivial significance of a football game?

The SCORE reflects the winner … NOT THE PRO-RATED, INTENTIONALLY MANIPULATED PROCESS TO THWART CERTAIN OUTCOMES … BUT WHO GOT THE MOST OF WHATEVER IT IS THEY NEEDED TO GET!

Example (using small numbers).

• CANDIDATE X in State 1 wins the Popular Vote 10-9 over CANDIDATE Y -- 10 Electoral Votes for CANDIDATE X, 0 Electoral Votes for CANDIDATE Y

• CANDIDATE Y in State 2 wins the Popular Vote 6-2 over CANDIDATE X -- 4 Electoral Votes for CANDIDATE Y, 0 for CANDIDATE X.

CANDIDATE Y leads in POPULAR VOTES 15-12 over CANDIDATE X BUT IS LOSING THE ELECTION, and, should the phenomenon continue, the CANDIDATE WITH THE MOST VOTES CAST BY INDIVIDUAL AMERICAN VOTERS … WILL LOSE!

Voting for a member of the electoral college IS NOT AN AMERICAN VOTING FOR HIS OR HER CANDIDATE OF CHOICE, BECAUSE IN THE END, IT'S THE PRO-RATED VOTE THAT COUNTS, NOT THAT OF THE INDIVIDUAL VOTER!

The Electoral College was not designed to reflect who the MAJORITY OF AMERICANS WANT AS POTUS!

If 2 votes are not the double equivalent of 1 vote, then those 2 votes do not represent literally or figuratively, the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE of the 14th AMENDMENT.

My vote must be every bit as meaningful as yours; if not, I am being cheated!

______________________________________

We disagree; but I appreciate your time and effort and a respectful, reasonable positioning of two sides of an issue.

Lord hope it rubs off on those who can't seem to get there, or, who don't care to.

 
Hal A. Lujah
link 11/24/16 11:52:01AM @hal-a-lujah:

Our EC system is the equivalent of a high school class president election, where each classroom gets one vote based on a majority, but AP classes only count for 3/4 of a vote.

 
1ofmany
link 11/24/16 11:56:14AM @1ofmany:

The Electoral College was not designed to reflect who the MAJORITY OF AMERICANS WANT AS POTUS!

And that's a good thing. The EC is a brilliant design to balance a popular vote with the interest of the states who agreed to form a federal government. We are a federation of sovereign individual states, not a single centralized European government (nor do I want to be one). 

 
Buzz of the Orient
link 11/25/16 09:21:38PM @buzz-of-the-orient:

"The EC is a brilliant design to balance a popular vote with the interest of the states who agreed to form a federal government."

Finally. I finally got the point of the necessity of the Electoral College. Thanks to 1ofmany I now understand the need and purpose was to balance the interest of the individual States with the interest of the individual voters. Canada differs in that it uses a system of electoral ridings that are based on population. For example the boundaries of a riding in North Ontario could be geographically huge to contain 100,000 voters, whereas a riding in Toronto could be very small geographically to contain the same number of voters. There is equality of voter numbers in ridings, and each elects a member to the government. Boundary revisions take place from time to maintain balance. That way every voter's vote is equal in value to every other voter's vote whether they are in Prince Edward Island or Quebec or British Columbia.  For a federal election the Provincial governments are not taken into consideration in the same way US States in the Electoral system are, because that is taken into consideration in the division of powers between Provinces and the Federal government.  Now I also understand Randy's view that his vote was not considered to be equal in value to the votes cast by voters in other States, and so he has reason to be upset by the result, because he is a citizen of the US with rights equal to those of every other US citizen. However it may be to his disliking to consider Trump to be his President, Trump is in accordance with the Constitution to be the President of every citizen in the US, like it or not. However, the First Amendment does give Randy the right to say as he has that he does not consider Trump to be his President just as he has the right to say that bananas are citrus fruits.

There is an adage that applies. I don't agree with Randy, but I would defend his right to say it.

 

 
Nowhere Man
link 11/25/16 11:20:58PM @nowhere-man:

Buzz, WE do it exactly the same way here in the states. Every legislative district is re-apportioned every ten years after the census is taken. The constitution sets the number of legislators, the total population figure from the latest census is divided by the needed number of legislators and that sets the number of citizens in each legislative district. States with out enough population to divide get the minimum one legislator in one district. Each state gets two senators. So, there is a minimum number of three representatives from each state to the congress.

This in eminently fair, and everyone's votes are equal in congress through their legislator for their district.

The founders used the same schema to put in effect the presidential elections. since each legislative district is already fairly divided up, it provides the basis for selecting what is known as electors to a national congress that meets every four years to select the president. they didn't want this body to be confused in any way with the legislative body collectively known as congress so they named it the Electoral College.

Each elector represents an equal division of the population organized within each state. The state has the right guaranteed by the constitution to affect how said electors are chosen, and how they are supposed to represent their individual state.

That never overrides the fact that the electors themselves are the duly elected representative of their district to select a president. One man one vote and your vote does count. States with large populations have a great many districts, states with low populations have few districts. doesn't change the fact that all districts are relatively equal in numbers of citizens residing in them.

No problem to this point.

The problem comes from the political parties in the states having control of how the electors are chosen, and how they vote. Now electors cannot be forced to vote one way or the other. They are free agents according to the constitution and are supposed to represent the districts in choosing who they feel is the best candidate for the office of president. No law can be made, local, state or federal, to abridge their right to vote their conscience.

The political parties have figured a way around this absolute constitutional grant of freedom to the electors. And how they do that is thus......

Apportionment. The states get to choose how the electors are apportioned in their state. The easiest way to do this is by the direct vote tallies in their state. they cannot tell an elector how to vote, but they can mandate how their contingent of electors will be allocated. The only two ways that make sense is as a block of votes, or as individual votes. This is absolutely within the states rights guaranteed to the states by the constitution since the constitution does not preserve this right to the citizen, or assign it as a duty of the federal government.

It falls to the individual states as their right and duty.

The way the political parties get around this and what works best is to allocate these votes as a block, tied to the overall vote winner in their state. 48 states use this method. Two states ties the votes to the overall vote winner in the individual district. Much fairer in my opinion and nobody is disenfranchised. The selected elector represents the individual voters in his or her district with full freedom to vote his or her conscience. Just like the congressional representative represents the individual voter in his district in congress based upon how his district voted politically in the last election.

So how do you get around the absolute voting freedom granted to these electors by the constitution?

You get the state to mandate to the parties that each party to the election select a list of electors that they would like sent to the Electoral College if they win the election in that district. The parties select the most ideologically sound and loyal party members as electors. It is called a "Slate" of electors. If the democrats win the election in the state, their slate of electors is chosen by the secretary of state for the college, same for the republicans.

The only difference between the two methods is in the block system, the entire slate of electors is sent, no matter if the party won in a district or not, the statewide winning parties entire slate of electors are sent. In the second method the elector is selected from the slate of the party that won the district.

The two electors that represent the state in whole are selected from the slate that won the whole state, the rest from the slate that won their district.

With the first method, Clinton gets the whole 55 EC votes from California, with the second method , Clinton only gets 41 electors from California and Trump gets the other 14. Maine and Nebraska use the district allocation method and when they called the election they had one EC vote from Nebraska going to Clinton, (Nebraska went to Trump) and one EC vote from Maine going to Trump. (Maine went to Clinton) they have since updated the Nebraska total as of late ballot returns the one Nebraska district that was called early for Clinton switched to Trump winning it.

I think forcing a district to vote for the candidate who lost in their district is the greatest voter disenfranchisement in American history. And it is forced upon the system by the political parties.

This is a map of the legislative districts and how they voted in the general election.....

1280pxU.S. Presidential vote by Congressional districts.jpg

Just remember, all those districts have an equal number of voters in them, it ignores the state boundaries. The individual, equally populated district is the basis for the election of the president, NOT the states. The states control nothing in the election of the president. It is all in how the individual districts vote and the politicians who disenfranchise whole swaths of the american voter when they allocate Electors by state.....

What is being complained of by the democrats this cycle is an absolute smokes screen by reporting vote totals by state and counting votes as nationwide, (neither of which matters) they make it appear that the voters in the popular vote totals are being disenfranchised and their vote does not count, when their vote is counted for the actual election in the equally populated district.

The democrats did  not win a greater number of equally populated districts, it doesn't matter where the districts are located, by constitutional law they are equal and adjusted to remain equal every ten years. it is the federal governments duty to make sure they remain equal, so no voters are disenfranchised. either in Congress or the Electoral College.

Yes your vote counts in the district you reside. you want to eliminate any persons vote from being dienfranchised?

Tie the elector to his district, then the states political parties influences are taken out of the picture and the voter controls. there will be no more "Fly-over" states no more areas of the country that would be called "Swing" states and the politicians would be forced to campaign throughout the nation without favoring one location over another.

Eliminate Gerrymandering, and you would have EQUAL districts that are not ideologically purified one way or the other.

Just the way I see the founders intended it, completely fair and equal, and why the politicians see to it that it doesn't work that way.

 
Buzz of the Orient
link 11/26/16 12:01:20AM @buzz-of-the-orient:

@NWM:  Wow! is that EVER complicated. It seems to me that with the Electoral College, Superdelegates in choosing candidates, a mix of possibly hackable electronic voting machines, punch cards, and paper ballots it's amazing how the US can come to a valid conclusion in an election.

 
Nowhere Man
link 11/26/16 12:31:41AM @nowhere-man:

Actually Buzz the way the founders laid it out it is extremely simple and fair.

It's the politicians that have complicated it way beyond reason in their efforts to gain power and snooker the American people.

 
Dowser
link 11/26/16 04:15:05PM @dowser:

Hope you're feeling good today, NWM!  Prayers are with you!  MUCH LOVE!

 
Nowhere Man
link 11/24/16 12:48:08PM @nowhere-man:

EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE of the 14th AMENDMENT.

The equal protection clause does not control. By the specific written provisions of the constitution itself.

Besides the 14th amendments deals with personal rights, not the rights of the individual states to determine how it's electors are allocated.

The 14th amendment argument fails.

Federal courts do not have jurisdiction over those rights under the constitution guaranteed and preserved to the several states.

Any challenge to such under the 14th would necessarily have to be a case where a person claims that his rights to equal protection were violated.

His right to vote is mandated to the states to determine by the constitution. (contained within the provision that anything not specifically preserved to the people or granted to the federal government is reserved to the several states. The constitution specifically says nothing about voting and it has always been held as something determined at the state level)

I've read the arguments over a 14th amendment to challenge the states right to set election rules within it's jurisdiction. I see no actual court cases directly on point. I do se a lot of legal discussion of the possibility of the EC being challenged on that basis.

But they are not really challenging the EC, they are challenging the constitutions specific granting of election sovereignty to the states. Almost like the federal government can and should take that power away from the states and mandate whatever they want it to be.

My own personal opinion......

How fast do you want bloodshed in the streets, state against state, state against the federal government?

There would be no constitution without the EC, that was plain during the convention, and is easily discovered if you seek the knowledge. People being people, states being states, the same conditions would hold today.

Eliminate the EC, we will no longer have a nation. Because without it a small gaggle of relatively populous areas would be dictating to the entire country.

Everyone at the Constitutional Convention understood this needed to be resolved fairly and without resolution they might have well as closed the convention.

The EC was the only fair solution.

I'll even go so far as to say, eliminating the electoral college, is sufficient grounds for me to take up my gun. I will not live in a nation where the few can dictate to the many.

 
A. Macarthur
link 11/24/16 01:12:49PM @a-macarthur:

EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE of the 14th AMENDMENT.

The equal protection clause does not control. By the specific written provisions of the constitution itself.

I disagree for the reason you stated just below …

Besides the 14th amendments deals with personal rights, not the rights of the individual states to determine how it's electors are allocated.

The personal right to have one individual's vote be counted equally with that of another's, is  de facto violated when quantitatively is rendered moot by the process that "counts" it.

The 14th amendment argument fails.

Federal courts do not have jurisdiction over those rights under the constitution guaranteed and preserved to the several states.

The Constitution subsequently strengthened the central government, authorizing it to exercise powers deemed necessary to exercise its authority, with an ambiguous boundary between the two co-existing levels of government. In the event of any conflict between state and federal law, the Constitution resolved the conflict[3] via the Supremacy Clause of Article VI in favor of the federal government, which declares federal law the "supreme Law of the Land" and provides that "the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." However, the Supremacy Clause only applies if the federal government is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers, as noted by the phrase "in pursuance thereof" in the actual text of the Supremacy Clause itself.

IMO, once the final count of the 2016 POTUS election is complete (it is not as of now), a number of challenges to the Electoral College's constitutionality will be forthcoming.

Any challenge to such under the 14th would necessarily have to be a case where a person claims that his rights to equal protection were violated.

One's vote, being one's right, is not protected on an equal basis when it is part of a majority vote subjugated by a minority vote on the same issue.

His right to vote is mandated to the states to determine by the constitution. (contained within the provision that anything not specifically preserved to the people or granted to the federal government is reserved to the several states. The constitution specifically says nothing about voting and it has always been held as something determined at the state level)

IMO, Federal Elections, by their very designation, should be determined by the votes of individuals, not elected designees technically not bound to represent the majority that elects them.

I've read the arguments over a 14th amendment to challenge the states right to set election rules within it's jurisdiction. I see no actual court cases directly on point. I do se a lot of legal discussion of the possibility of the EC being challenged on that basis.

I believe you will see it … and soon.

 
Nowhere Man
link 11/24/16 01:33:39PM @nowhere-man:

Actually Brother, I don't think I will see it, if the doctors are correct.

But I will say this, if the way it has very successfully worked for 240 years is overturned and a very one sided system favoring the cities over the rest of the nation is put in place, we will have bloodshed in the streets after the first election showing the majority of the country voting red and the cities voting blue.

You can have your vote, but many American will refuse to abide by it.

WE will be staring down the barrel of a second civil war within ten years as soon as the majority population realizes that the national election for president has become a referendum on democrat policies, and any opposition position is stifled.

Americans do not take to the bit very well, in fact they have a well known history of spitting it out violently.

The silent majority stood up and voted this cycle, you think they will stay silent when they know their voices are being cut off?

If they cannot speak within the system, they will speak outside it. That is the nature of the American system and citizen.

But like I said, I would be willing to take up my gun to defend this nation from those wishing to destroy it, (and eliminating the EC is an effort to destroy it)

But I will be long gone before actually having to do it.

 
A. Macarthur
link 11/24/16 01:46:15PM @a-macarthur:

The silent majority stood up and voted this cycle, you think they will stay silent when they know their voices are being cut off?

Not according to the 2 million vote lead currently belonging to Clinton -- 48%-46%.

When a once-minority becomes the majority, or, is about to, it makes great common sense to resolve what differences can be resolved so as to incorporate fairness into the transition.

There is much work an soul searching to be done in this country … all races, religions, partisans …

A HOUSE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND!

Fiat justitia ruat cælum 

 

 
1ofmany
link 11/24/16 01:55:10PM @1ofmany:

The majority of voters isn't necessarily the majority of registered voters or the majority of eligible voters so a majority vote is never going to be a definitive determination of what most people think. Every process has a drawback, as JR said, nothing will please everyone. I'm just fine with the system we have.

 
sixpick
link 11/24/16 10:24:42PM @sixpick:

Not according to the 2 million vote lead currently belonging to Clinton -- 48%-46%.

4 to 6 million of those votes came from California and New York as over and above the votes for the Republican candidate.  So she has 2 to 4 million votes to spare over and above the Republican candidate in those 2 states.  Looks like California and New York along can produce at least 6 million more votes for the Democrats than they can for the Republicans.  Even Michigan who evidently just finished counting their votes would not have a voice in this last election.  I doubt they had 6 million votes in Michigan total.  I just looked it up and the last count I could find Michigan only had around 4.5 million votes total (Clinton and Trump).

So you think it is fair California and New York actually have more extra votes than the total of votes in Michigan rendering their voice in electing the President of the United States silent?

 
A. Macarthur
link 11/24/16 11:05:52PM @a-macarthur:

So you think it is fair California and New York actually have more extra votes than the total of votes in Michigan rendering their voice in electing the President of the United States silent?

I think it's fair that the votes of individual Americans should comprise the outcome; California and New York are STATES … STATES ARE INANIMATE, GEO-POLITICAL ENTITIES -- THEY DON'T VOTE -- THE PEOPLE -- THE AMERICANS WHO LIVE IN THOSE AMERICAN PLACES ARE THE ONES THAT VOTE.

Why is a voter in New York or California not equal to any other voter in any other state. Are AMERICAN HUMAN BEINGS WHO LIVE IN MORE DENSELY POPULATED STATES ANY LESS AMERICAN THAN AMERICANS LIVING IN LESS POPULATED STATES?

Pretend for a moment that America was just one state … when voters voted, how would you determine whose votes would count less than who else's vote?

The electoral college relies on a degree of arbitrary and capricious bad reasoning. America AS A WHOLE lost the election, while America as a sub-divided political/ideological fragmentation … WON.

You will not convince me that "majority rules" is unfair.

 
1ofmany
link 11/25/16 12:38:44AM @1ofmany:

I think it's fair that the votes of individual Americans should comprise the outcome; California and New York are STATES … STATES ARE INANIMATE, GEO-POLITICAL ENTITIES -- THEY DON'T VOTE -- THE PEOPLE -- THE AMERICANS WHO LIVE IN THOSE AMERICAN PLACES ARE THE ONES THAT VOTE.

It may be fair but it's not constitutional. Basically, under the constitution, the states do vote. They vote through their electors. Each state gets a number of electors equal to their entire congressional delegation and the state can select electors in any manner they choose. 

Why is a voter in New York or California not equal to any other voter in any other state. Are AMERICAN HUMAN BEINGS WHO LIVE IN MORE DENSELY POPULATED STATES ANY LESS AMERICAN THAN AMERICANS LIVING IN LESS POPULATED STATES?

Because nobody signed the constitution with that in mind. The purpose of the electoral college is to give the states the same relative weight that each state has in congress. That's why each state's allotment of electors is equal to its total congressional delegation. 

Pretend for a moment that America was just one state … when voters voted, how would you determine whose votes would count less than who else's vote?

You wouldn't. But when we leave the world of pretend, we have 50 sovereign states who each have a constitutional right to vote for president based on their allotted electors.

The electoral college relies on a degree of arbitrary and capricious bad reasoning. America AS A WHOLE lost the election, while America as a sub-divided political/ideological fragmentation … LOST.

There's nothing arbitrary and capricious about it. The design is based on a rational determination that allotting electors to each state based on the size of their congressional delegation is just as fair as the manner of determining the size of the congressional delegation itself. 

If we change the electoral college, then let's do away with the idea that one state's electoral votes should carry more weight than the other. Instead of making the number of electoral votes equal to the entire congressional delegation of that state, let's make it equal to their representation in the senate. That way each state gets 2 electoral votes. 

 
A. Macarthur
link 11/25/16 09:51:15AM @a-macarthur:

 


I think it's fair that the votes of individual Americans should comprise the outcome; California and New York are STATES … STATES ARE INANIMATE, GEO-POLITICAL ENTITIES -- THEY DON'T VOTE -- THE PEOPLE -- THE AMERICANS WHO LIVE IN THOSE AMERICAN PLACES ARE THE ONES THAT VOTE.

It may be fair but it's not constitutional. Basically, under the constitution, the states do vote. They vote through their electors. Each state gets a number of electors equal to their entire congressional delegation and the state can select electors in any manner they choose. 

If every citizen in a given state voted in any given POTUS election, then then the ascribed number of electoral votes would be justifiable; but that is never the case so consequently, in the end, the vote of the individual who acts responsibly and votes, IS RENDERED LESS POTENT. 

It may be Constitutional, but if you know the history, you can see the ultimate and illegitimate possibilities; I'll start you with the election of Rutherford B. Hayes … please, check that unholy piece of Americana.

 

The electoral college relies on a degree of arbitrary and capricious bad reasoning. America AS A WHOLE lost the election, while America as a sub-divided political/ideological fragmentation … LOST.

There's nothing arbitrary and capricious about it. The design is based on a rational determination that allotting electors to each state based on the size of their congressional delegation is just as fair as the manner of determining the size of the congressional delegation itself. 

Everything about it is arbitrary and capricious! It purports to ascribe a proportionate weight to a state of voters, more than half of whom typically sit home on their dead asses on election day and bitch about government on 364 other days of the year. A vote that reflects merely the population of an area, that, rather than reflecting the WILL OF THOSE WHO ACTUALLY CAST VOTES … is predicated on a myth -- not a reality!

If we change the electoral college, then let's do away with the idea that one state's electoral votes should carry more weight than the other. Instead of making the number of electoral votes equal to the entire congressional delegation of that state, let's make it equal to their representation in the senate. That way each state gets 2 electoral votes. 

Still arbitrary … as anything other than one person-one vote will be. America has a history of fragmenting the value of certain of its people … 

The Constitution and Slavery: 
Provisions in the Original Constitution

Article I, Section. 2 [Slaves count as 3/5 persons] 
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons [i.e., slaves]. 
Article I, Section. 9, clause 

Lest we forget.

____________________________________

Good debate, my friend!

Thank you.

 
1ofmany
link 11/25/16 10:32:17AM @1ofmany:

If every citizen in a given state voted in any given POTUS election, then then the ascribed number of electoral votes would be justifiable; but that is never the case so consequently, in the end, the vote of the individual who acts responsibly and votes, IS RENDERED LESS POTENT. 

I don't see any connection between the number of people voting and the electoral college. The constitution is an agreement between the states on how to elect the president. There is no requirement whatsoever that it has to be by popular vote. A state could determine that it will assign its electors by a vote in the state legislature and eliminate the popular vote altogether.

For example, if we have a community organization comprised of homeowners, we can agree that each homeowner gets one vote. You still get one vote even if 17 people live in your house. You can ask everyone in your house to vote on what they think your vote should be but, when it comes time to vote in the organization as a homeowner, you still only get one vote, not 17.

Everything about it is arbitrary and capricious! It purports to ascribe a proportionate weight to a state of voters, more than half of whom typically sit home on their dead asses on election day and bitch about government on 364 other days of the year. A vote that reflects merely the population of an area, that, rather than reflecting the WILL OF THOSE WHO ACTUALLY CAST VOTES … is predicated on a myth -- not a reality!

Nothing about it is arbitrary and capricious. Whether people sit at home or not, the state has exactly the same representation in congress and it's that same proportion that determines the number of electors assigned to that state for electing the president. The myth is that the president is determined by popular vote instead of by a vote of the electors assigned to that state (who, themselves, may or may not have been chosen by popular vote).

If we change the electoral college, then let's do away with the idea that one state's electoral votes should carry more weight than the other. Instead of making the number of electoral votes equal to the entire congressional delegation of that state, let's make it equal to their representation in the senate. That way each state gets 2 electoral votes. 

Still arbitrary … as anything other than one person-one vote will be. America has a history of fragmenting the value of certain of its people … 

The arbitrary part is trying to negate the rights that states specifically reserved for themselves when they agreed to the method of electing the president in a federal system. If the electors were equal to the number of senators, then it would still be one man one vote.

To me, the manner in which slaves were counted is irrelevant. Slavery was abolished and all those who were held in bondage, along with those who held them, are dead. That being the case, the method for counting slaves has no bearing on what the constitution currently requires. 

 

 
A. Macarthur
link 11/25/16 10:55:19AM @a-macarthur:

The arbitrary part is trying to negate the rights that states specifically reserved for themselves when they agreed to the method of electing the president in a federal system. If the electors were equal to the number of senators, then it would still be one man one vote.

That's where we disagree; rendering one citizen's vote in any way as to make it less meaningful than that of another's is what's arbitrary. Unfortunately, it was intended to be arbitrary, ironically and hypocritically in the name of "fair and balanced" … hmmmm … where'd I hear that before?

I'll give you the last word on this 1ofmany … we are not going to agree.

 
XXJefferson#51
link 11/26/16 03:16:31AM @xxjefferson51:

You realize that compromise was put in to get the constitution ratified with the goal of eventually ending slavery.  The southern slave states had no intention of allowing their slaves to vote.  The reduction of slave counting from one person for the purpose of federal representation to 3/5ths a person had everything to do with northern free states limiting the number of pro slavery members of congress from slave states.   

 
A. Macarthur
link 11/26/16 12:41:16PM @a-macarthur:

That is not why the Electoral College vote was modified, XX!

During reconstruction, the South began, among other things, electing Black governors, etc. .

In order to make such a phenomenon, along with others, again reflect the antebellum South, a deal was made that removed the union troops from the South, end reconstruction and return to segregation and racism.

Rutherford B. Hayes lost both the popular and electoral vote, but at least two states refused to disclose their state's votes, and that gave Hayes the win.

Strictly a southern racist deal.

Read the history and sequence of events.

 
sixpick
link 11/25/16 01:10:55AM @sixpick:

You will not convince me that "majority rules" is unfair.

I guess you've said it all then.

If you determined to think one party rule is the way to go and only the party who has the most voters should rule this country then I can't change that, but I can leave you with a nice song.....

 
A. Macarthur
link 11/25/16 10:03:05AM @a-macarthur:

If you determined to think one party rule is the way to go and only the party who has the most voters should rule this country then I can't change that, but I can leave you with a nice song.....

I said nothing about "one party rule" … which we will have beginning on January 20, 2017.

Tragically and outrageously, because much of Boobus americana votes on the basis of race (all), religion (all), gender, special interests and low information, or, no actual thought, we have a fucked-up, partisan, pander-fest of government!

 

 
sixpick
link 11/26/16 03:30:29AM @sixpick:

OK AMac here is the way I see it Alaska (3), Idaho (4), Iowa (6), Kansas (6), Mississippi (6), Montana (3), Nebraska (5), North Dakota (3), South Dakota (3), Utah (6), West Virginia (5) and Wyoming (3) all voted Republican for an approximate total of 5,037308 votes.  That's 11 states the people that voted for the Republican candidate had approximately that many votes.  They had a total of 53 Electoral votes from winning those states for the Republican.  7,320,699 people in California voted for the Democrat candidate and they received 55 Electoral votes for winning that state.

The states mentioned above are scattered all over the country whereas California is just one state with policies of its own which were obviously not the same all those other states supported.  And you're telling me you want a country where one state can have as much voting power as 11 other states?

And look at California, the largest part of the state didn't even vote Democrat, although the largest number did.  You want a small portion of one state to determine the presidency over the voice of 11 other states because you want each person's vote to count?  Well it doesn't appear you do to me.  You're willing to take the voice away from the people in 11 states so a small portion of one state can elect the President of the United States and represent the entire country.

I'm not saying this in an angry manner.  I'm just saying an election determined by Popular vote would be a pure democracy and it will end this country as we know it.

Now I can see a method of giving the part of the individual parts of the states won by either party their fair share of the areas won by either party as a better way of doing it as a compromise and splitting the Electoral votes accordingly, but never a pure Democracy by Popular vote.

 

 

http://constructionlitmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/US_presidential_election_2004_results_by_county-e13485745988081.jpeg

1280pxU.S. Presidential vote by Congressional districts.jpg

Use either one of these maps.  I don't know which one is more accurate, but they each are close enough to each other it shouldn't matter.

 
A. Macarthur
link 11/26/16 12:26:53PM @a-macarthur:

Six,

Where a voter lives is irrelevant when compared to why a voter votes for a particular candidate.

Hypothetically, shuffle the population like it's a deck of cards, have voters vote for their candidate of choice, and, at the end of the day, exactly why shouldn't the candidate with the most votes be declared the winner? 

Think about it: imagine if all votes were mailed into a central collection source, that, by each individual voter ... further imagine the ballots tallied as their envelopes, etc. were opened.

Given this scenario, explain to me, by what process, and/or, via the implementation of sheer common sense and reason, how the candidate with the most envelops/votes would not represent the people's choice?

But I'll negotiate it with you, Six, as follows:

Maintain the electoral vote, BUT, instead of the winner of the majority of the votes cast in any given state awarded all of the state's electoral votes, in each state, whatever percentage of the votes cast per candidate shall determine the percentage of that state's electoral votes awarded to each/every candidate on the ballot.

In that way, even third party candidates could potentially receive their representative proportion AS DETERMINED BY THE VOTERS.

In the end, the candidate with the most electoral votes (not that 270 bullshit) wins!

Pick it apart if you can.

 
1ofmany
link 11/26/16 03:15:52PM @1ofmany:

Maintain the electoral vote, BUT, instead of the winner of the majority of the votes cast in any given state awarded all of the state's electoral votes, in each state, whatever percentage of the votes cast per candidate shall determine the percentage of that state's electoral votes awarded to each/every candidate on the ballot.

So that would mean California's electoral vote will still be 55. I don't care how they carve up who gets what. But, if the last election is an example, Hillary would get less than 55 electoral votes from the state of California and Trump would get more than zero. If that's done in the other blue states, then it will likely blow a hole through the democrats blue wall. Something tells me that this is not going to be a popular solution among democrats. 

 
A. Macarthur
link 11/26/16 03:22:53PM @a-macarthur:

 Hillary would get less than 55 electoral votes from the state of California and Trump would get more than zero. 

My objective is not to devise a system that works for partisanship, rather, one that accurately reflects the electorate.

What's the problem with that.

I may, for the hell of it, go state-by-state to see how this would tally for the 2016 POTUS election. R, D, I. There must be a percentage breakdown somewhere on-line; once I find that, I can calculate the electoral votes … maybe someone will do it … I'm on my way out the door until this evening.

 
Dowser
link 11/26/16 04:01:21PM @dowser:

I hope you publish a list here.  I would like to see how KY would do...

 
sixpick
link 11/26/16 04:51:14PM @sixpick:

Dowser based on the way I did it with flaws I'm sure here are the approximate results from 2016 election for Kentucky.

Kentucky 2016 Presidential election for Dowser.JPG

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As you can see Kentucky Trump has 62.5% of the votes so he would receive 62.5% of the 8 electoral votes Kentucky has which would be 5 electoral votes instead of the 8 he received in the election.

Hillary would receive the other 3.

But keep in mind it would take 6 states with the exact scenario to make up for the 18 electoral votes lost to the Republican candidate in California.  See how Californians really get much more for their vote now than they would any other way?

 
Dowser
link 11/26/16 05:27:30PM @dowser:

Thanks!  I was curious!

 
A. Macarthur
link 11/26/16 07:01:22PM @a-macarthur:

Six,

Why should one candidate be awarded all of the state's electoral vote when no candidate receives all the popular vote?

Why should a candidate receiving 49% of the popular vote get 0% of the state's electoral votes.

ILLOGICAL, ABSOLUTELY NOT AN ACCURATE REPRESENTATION OF HOW VOTERS VOTED!

 
Gunny
link 11/26/16 07:22:17PM @gunny:

thumbs down

 
A. Macarthur
link 11/26/16 06:58:19PM @a-macarthur:

 


I hope you publish a list here.  I would like to see how KY would do...

HERE IS MY RESPONSE WITH REGARD TO ANY/ALL COMMENTS IN CONJUNCTION WITH MY IDEA OF AWARDING ELECTORAL VOTES EQUIVALENT TO THE PERCENTAGE OF VOTES A GIVEN CANDIDATE RECEIVES BY VOTERS IN HIS/HER STATE.

• If a state has (i.e.) 10 ELECTORAL VOTES, A candidate receiving 60% of the state's POPULAR VOTE receives 6 ELECTORAL VOTES, etc. .

• No candidate can award his/her ELECTORAL VOTES to another candidate

• The election of POTUS shall be based on the ELECTORAL VOTE TOTALS awarded via the popular vote percentages.

• The NUMBER OF ELECTORAL VOTES ALLOCATED TO EACH STATE SHALL BE CALCULATED AS PER THE CURRENT ALLOCATION METHOD.

No need to complicate my idea by adding, subtracting or modifying its tenets; I WANT THE VOTER TO DETERMINE THE POTUS … NOT THE PROCESS!

Let the ELECTORAL VOTES reflect the votes of the electorate, not the convolutions and obvious pitfalls of the process.

 
Gunny
link 11/26/16 07:22:48PM @gunny:

thumbs down

 
1ofmany
link 11/26/16 04:48:42PM @1ofmany:

I don't have a problem with your objective but the parties control the states. I assume that either party will object to giving votes to their opponent when they can keep them all.

 
Nowhere Man
link 11/26/16 04:57:58PM @nowhere-man:

Already done brother.

I took information already available and found a US map by legislative districts and colored it in by who won which district. (I'm not finished with it cause my final figures are off by 2, I made a simple mistake in adding)

Trump would have taken 14 EC votes from CA and Hillary 41, she wouldn't have gotten the full 55.

In Kentucky, Trump would have gotten 7 and Hillary 1.

When I get my addition fixed I'll post the EC vote totals of what it would have been using the congressional district method of allocation.

A surprising note though, not all the founders were enamored with the whole elector thing. particularly James Madison. He advocated for direct election of the president, until the issue was compromised. and then he went on to strongly defend it with Hamilton in the Federalist as the best solution available, given the political ramifications of the times.

And as laid out in the constitution it wasn't a perfect solution, and modifications were made to it. (note the provisions of the Twelfth Amendment) Also, one of the mistakes Madison noted was the complete reliance on the individual states to ensure the proper allocation of electors. the founders though that electors should be chosen by the people and should be allocated to each district to vote as they see fit. The point being to elect someone with a decent brain in their head to make a good decision as relates to the qualifications of the president. So essentially, the people were supposed to be electing someone that would be making a wise choice for president for them.

They never contemplated direct popular election of the president and in fact rejected that ideal. For the founders it was too serious a position to allow the public the choice.

Soon after the politicians took over the process and within 50 or so years, most of the states had gone to winner take all and were having the political parties propose the elector slate. Which simplified the process, but took control of the political aspects of electing an elector to select a president, removing it from the citizens hands.

The founders never intended for the citizens to be electing the president, but to be electing representatives (electors) to do the selecting for them.

It wasn't all about who has the power and a constant political power struggle, it was about doing what was right for the nation.

A lesson for us all.

 

 

 
Nowhere Man
link 11/26/16 05:19:31PM @nowhere-man:

Mac said.....

 "What's the problem with that"

Simple, not all states have the same population in their districts. Some have many more than others.

All the census does is establish the median on how many should be in a district. And districts are maintained on a state by state basis. which means a state like California is going to have districts that have a population close to 900K or a million. while a state like say Michigan, might have districts with 600 -700K.

This is where the discrepancy in popular vote comes from some districts simply have more people than others, I believe Texas has the districts with the largest per-capita population with California a close second.

Here is an image that reflects this phenomenon....

1280pxState_population_per_electoral_vote.png

At the bottom (red) end you have the states with one district cause there is insufficient population to make up even one full district but they have a single representative and a single elector. On the other end, look at the states with the largest population in their districts.

This is where the discrepancy comes in the popular vote. The Census says the divisor is 711,000 people per district. The constitution mandates 435 representatives based upon that census number.

Some districts in the more populated states are going to have twice as many people in them than others.

And most people do not understand why that is when the media hypes popular vote totals which do not count for anything. (as you look at the list, Texas could bump up by a few districts, but, where do you get them? which state do you take a district away from?

It is an inequity yes, but it is built into the system to keep the over populated states from overriding the under populated states. It wasn't intended that way by the founders that is clear, but it is how it worked out and they did understand it.

 
A. Macarthur
link 11/26/16 07:26:51PM @a-macarthur:

Mac said..... 

"What's the problem with that"

The problem with disproportionately weighting the popular vote is just that … it's disproportionate, in fact, entirely so in the end.

In a POTUS election, a state's districting is ultimately irrelevant with regard to the POPULAR VOTE as it is the total of all voters in all districts that determines the (DISPROPORTIONATE, THUS UNFAIR) allocation of electoral votes.

Again, by what sane rationale does a candidate with (i.e.) 49% percent of the POPULAR VOTE end up with ZERO PERCENT of the ELECTORAL VOTES!

Tell me why that's not an arbitrary and capricious outcome.

 
Gunny
link 11/26/16 07:29:33PM @gunny:

thumbs down

 
Nowhere Man
link 11/26/16 09:46:37PM @nowhere-man:

She didn't end up with ZERO PERCENT, just not a large enough percent to win.

 

 
A. Macarthur
link 11/26/16 10:21:12PM @a-macarthur:

She didn't end up with ZERO PERCENT, just not a large enough percent to win.

In every state where she lost the popular vote, her electoral vote total WAS ZERO … not a number of electoral votes reflecting her percentage of the popular vote, BUT ZERO. That zero represents the same as if every voter in the state voted (unanimously) for the winner. I have a real issue with that.

I think we are at an impasse.

Peace my friend, we will not come to agreement on this one.

 
sixpick
link 11/26/16 04:39:54PM @sixpick:

But I'll negotiate it with you, Six, as follows:

Maintain the electoral vote, BUT, instead of the winner of the majority of the votes cast in any given state awarded all of the state's electoral votes, in each state, whatever percentage of the votes cast per candidate shall determine the percentage of that state's electoral votes awarded to each/every candidate on the ballot.

In that way, even third party candidates could potentially receive their representative proportion AS DETERMINED BY THE VOTERS.

In the end, the candidate with the most electoral votes (not that 270 bullshit) wins!

Pick it apart if you can.

http://constructionlitmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/US_presidential_election_2004_results_by_county-e13485745988081.jpeg

California Example for AMac 20161126.JPG

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

After closer observation, I don't think you would like you idea, although I express almost the same idea in my comment, I wouldn't like it either because I do want the fairest method I can imagine to elect the President of our entire country as I feel I know you as a person have the same desire.  We only see it different methods of accomplishing it.

Now let's take a look at everything above.  First we have a copy of you comment.  Second we have a map of the many counties in the USA.  And last we have a somewhat accurate result of the election results in California.  I understand I don't use the proper words and am not nearly as informed as say Perrie, NWM, or 1ofmany here about the districts or Gerrymandering, so bear with me as I try to explain this in my layman's term.

You'll notice Hillary beat Trump in California.  She received in this example 61.89% of the votes cast.  They say 61.6% but if you add all candidates up the total votes are 11,681,766.  But let's use their figures for this example.

For Hillary 61.6% of the 55 electoral votes would mean she would get 33.88 electoral votes.

Trump would get 32.7% of the electoral votes amounting to 32.7% of 55 = 17.98 electoral votes.

Let's not worry about the other two candidates at this time.  I wouldn't like the idea of these other candidates having the right to pass their electoral votes off to either of the top two candidates as an option.

In this one state Trump would receive almost 18 more electoral votes in California in my example which I'm sure has its flaws, but now take a look across the country and see how you think the election would have turned out.

I know you want it to be fair to each individual, but it is the Electoral College who votes for the President presently in our country, not the people individually.  I believe it was 1ofmany who basically said if you have 10 people in the house they tell the one who to vote for.  With that in mind, if there are 20 people in the house those in the house tell the two people who to vote for, so the Californian voters already has an advantage over a state like West Virginia or Nebraska which only have (5) electoral votes each.  The Californian voter has 11 times the voting power than either one of those states the way it is now, but by changing it to the way you're suggesting, I believe you would find the only people would lose big time would be the Democrats, especially in this last election.

 

Where are the top 4 states in population and how do they vote.

The number 1 state in population is California.  California has supported only Democrat candidate in the Electoral College for President since 1992 for the last 24 years.  California has 55 electoral votes.  California had over 3 million more popular votes for the Democrat candidate over the Republican candidate each of the last 3 Presidential elections.

The number 2 state in population is Texas.  Texas has supported only Republican candidates in the Electoral College for President since 1980 for the last 36 years.  Texas has 38 electoral votes.  Texas had over 800 thousand more popular votes for the Democrat candidate over the Republican candidate in 2016. The Republican candidate had 1.2 million in 2012 and 951 thousand in 2008 more popular votes than the Democrat candidate.

The number 3 state in population is New York.  New York has supported only the Democrat candidate in the Electoral College for President since 1984 for the last 32 years.  New York City hasn't supported a Republican for President since 1924.  New York has 29 Electoral votes down from 36 in 1988.  New York had 1.5 million to 2 million more popular votes for the Democrat candidate over the Republican candidate in 2016.  The Democrat candidate had 2 million in 2012 and 2 million in 2008 more popular votes than the Democrat candidate.

The number 4 state in population is Florida.  Florida has supported the Democrat Presidential candidate in the Electoral College since 2008 and 2012 until 2016 when the Republican candidate won the state in Electoral votes.  Florida has become the number 1 swing state with the most Electoral votes since 1980 increasing Electoral votes from 10 in 1980 to 29 in 2016.  Since 1980 there have been 14 Presidential elections and the state has supported the Democrats 5 times and the Republicans 9 times.  Florida had around 112 thousand more popular votes for the Republican candidate over the Democratic candidate in 2016. The Democrat candidate had 74 thousand in 2012 and 236 thousand in 2008 more popular votes than the Republican candidate.

These 4 states, California, Texas, New York and Florida carry 56% of the Electoral votes to win the Presidency (55+38+29+29= 151 Electoral votes divided by 270 = 55.9%

 

 
sixpick
link 11/26/16 04:59:36PM @sixpick:

Texas had over 800 thousand more popular votes for the Democrat candidate over the Republican candidate in 2016.

I typed that incorrectly.  It was the Republican who received the popular vote in Texas.  I don't why I do this.  It is a compulsion with little reward for the effort.  It's much easier to snap, crackle and pop!!!

 
Nowhere Man
link 11/26/16 05:45:41PM @nowhere-man:

Mac said....

 "In the end, the candidate with the most electoral votes (not that 270 bullshit) wins!"

With there being 538 electoral votes in toto, 269 votes is 50/50. The constitution requires an absolute majority to win. (more than half)

270 isn't bullshit, it is that ABSOLUTE majority to win. (one vote more than half)

 
A. Macarthur
link 11/26/16 08:15:17PM @a-macarthur:

Mac said....

 "In the end, the candidate with the most electoral votes (not that 270 bullshit) wins!"

With there being 538 electoral votes in toto, 269 votes is 50/50. The constitution requires an absolute majority to win. (more than half)

270 isn't bullshit, it is that ABSOLUTE majority to win. (one vote more than half)

I'm calling the process "bullshit" -- the 270 manifests the process. I speculate that the typical voter (if there is such a thing) WHILE MOST LIKELY KNOWING SOMETHING OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE/VOTE, WHEN CASTING HIS VOTE, THINKS ONLY ABOUT THE CANDIDATE FOR WHOM IS VOTING AND/OR THE ONE HE IS VOTING AGAINST!

I further believe, that voters who voted for the candidate with the most votes, upon realizing that the MOST VOTES LOST, sees the process as "bullshit" as well.

Why vote if knowing in advance, that your candidate might get the most votes, and lose? Voters are human beings … human beings expect outcomes to reflect realities, not manipulated realities, but logical, sensible situations that apply, and which are hoped for and/or expected in most aspects of their lives.

Consider that one of the biggest ball-busters of the American middle class, is the tax code, manipulated and controlled by the wealthy, for the wealthy.

Work hard … and get fucked by the loopholes because what's fair, isn't what's real or legal!

Then vote in the hope to change the unfairness, only to come to the realization, that your vote goes into the hopper and loses to a lesser vote.

Sometimes it becomes time to put certain laws on trial.

 
Petey Coober
link 11/26/16 08:21:40PM @petey-coober:

Consider that one of the biggest ball-busters of the American middle class, is the tax code, manipulated and controlled by the wealthy, for the wealthy.

The GOP had a candidate in 2012 who was focused on changing that problem . But his reputation was smeared to get him out of the race so that Obama could get a reelection . And of course Obama did NOTHING about the tax code problem . Now we all have President Trump . Thanks libs !

 
Nowhere Man
link 11/26/16 09:43:45PM @nowhere-man:

 "Then vote in the hope to change the unfairness, only to come to the realization, that your vote goes into the hopper and loses to a lesser vote."

I'm going to end the discussion on this note. WE are obviously not going to agree my friend.

Personally, it is my belief, that no one's vote is a lesser vote.

It saddens me to read that some view my vote, that disagrees with theirs, is a lesser vote than theirs.

Pretty darn revealing......

Sorry my friend, I cannot go along with this line of thinking. it is anathematic to coming together as a people, or a nation.

 
A. Macarthur
link 11/26/16 10:17:05PM @a-macarthur:

Personally, it is my belief, that no one's vote is a lesser vote.

It saddens me to read that some view my vote, that disagrees with theirs, is a lesser vote than theirs.

In terms of the "value" of a vote as it applies to the outcome of an election, if "X" number of votes is quantitatively greater than "Y" number of votes, but "Y" somehow is worth enough to win an election, then the value of "Y" pragmatically is worth more towards the end objective.

Other than i.e. contests like golf, when is "less" the determinant of the way to victory?

When a candidate can win as much as 49% of a state's popular vote but walk away with zero electoral votes, of what value to that candidate are the votes comprising the 49%?

The value, in terms of what is needed to win with 270 electoral votes, is ZERO!

Not so with the candidate receiving 50+% of the popular vote; the value of the popular votes leading to the 50+% in terms of the 270 needed, is 100% of whatever the number of electoral votes ascribed to that state.

If any popular vote DOES NOT LEAD TO AN ELECTORAL VOTE WIN IN ANY GIVEN STATE, IT'S VALUE IS NOT THAT OF 1 VOTE, TO THAT END, IT IS WORTH ZERO.

 
Nowhere Man
link 11/26/16 10:41:02PM @nowhere-man:

BUT you are advocating that the vote be allocated on the basis of NATIONAL popular vote.

Not fair at all.

All EC votes in a state allocated on the basis of the total popular state vote? will still leave some people disenfranchised cause the overpopulated districts will still require some votes from losing districts to be transferred to the winner to make it work.

It would reduce the problem, not eliminate it.

The district vote? which conforms to the systems organization as it is now and every vote is counted and the winner take the district vote. That eliminates any voter disenfranchisements. One vote to win in each district and the winner gets that vote. The state allocation also includes two EC votes that are selected by the statewide vote. who wins the state gets those two votes on top of the district votes they directly won.

This arrangement covers both the individual voters concerns and the states concerns, and leave no one out. You have to win by voters voting to get the vote. no way around it.

There are 436 districts that would need to be won in the voting booth (including the district of columbia) no excuses there you don't win the district you do not get that vote. Two votes are awarded for winning a state/DC overall no issue there you HAVE to win by voters voting in the state/DC to get those two votes.

Add them up and your done. The candidate with 270 or more wins all done by the voter in the booth making an actual vote. Imbalances in population district to district become moot, imbalances in population state to state become moot.

A candidate can only win on the basis of getting votes, and the candidates can get those votes from any district they can win in, no matter where it is located.

I don't see it working any other way without disenfranchising voters somewhere.

Unless your insisting on the national popular vote, and if that is the case, then it isn't about voter disenfranchisement, is it.

 
A. Macarthur
link 11/27/16 09:40:29AM @a-macarthur:

 


BUT you are advocating that the vote be allocated on the basis of NATIONAL popular vote.

Not fair at all.

I am advocating that ALL POPULAR VOTES be ultimately converted to ELECTORAL VOTES based on the percentages of votes per candidate, this in every state. Get 49% of the POPULAR VOTE in a given state, then the ELECTORAL VOTES get distributed 51% to the winner, 49% to the runner up.

How does one rationalize that (i.e.) almost 50% of THE CITIZEN/VOTERS' POPULAR VOTE result in ZERO ELECTORAL VOTES. If a candidate receives 100,000 popular votes and his opponent gets 100,001 popular votes, how does giving 100% of the ELECTORAL VOTE to the candidate with a the 100,001 give the other 100,000 voters anything at all towards their voice/choice … IT DOESN'T … IT'S AS IF THEY NEVER VOTED.

All EC votes in a state allocated on the basis of the total popular state vote? will still leave some people disenfranchised cause the overpopulated districts will still require some votes from losing districts to be transferred to the winner to make it work.

What's an "overpopulated" state district's significance in a POTUS election when it's the total number of votes cast across the state that count towards who gets the ELECTORAL VOTES of that state. Whether one voter lives across the street, or, across the state from another voter, in the end, all the votes are tallied as a state, not as a district-by-district pro-rata allocation.

It would reduce the problem, not eliminate it.

OK, then let's get started. (Actually, it would likely make it near impossible for outcomes like we've had in 2000 and 2016).

The district vote? which conforms to the systems organization as it is now and every vote is counted and the winner take the district vote. That eliminates any voter disenfranchisements. One vote to win in each district and the winner gets that vote. The state allocation also includes two EC votes that are selected by the statewide vote. who wins the state gets those two votes on top of the district votes they directly won.

Disagree. All votes from all districts end up in and are counted from the same hopper after the polls close.

This arrangement covers both the individual voters concerns and the states concerns, and leave no one out. You have to win by voters voting to get the vote. no way around it.

You have to win the ELECTORAL VOTES, and again, 49% to 50% in no way equates EQUITABLY/FAIRLY to a 100% to ZERO ELECTORAL VOTE. 

There are 436 districts that would need to be won in the voting booth (including the district of columbia) no excuses there you don't win the district you do not get that vote. Two votes are awarded for winning a state/DC overall no issue there you HAVE to win by voters voting in the state/DC to get those two votes.

It matters not since popular vote tallies going toward the state ELECTORAL VOTE are counted based on the STATE-WIDE TOTALS not district-by-district. Local elections … I agree, POTUS election … no.

Add them up and your done. The candidate with 270 or more wins all done by the voter in the booth making an actual vote. Imbalances in population district to district become moot, imbalances in population state to state become moot.

Completely disagree with the process … thus, also with the 270. THE ELECTORAL VOTE SHOULD REFLECT THE POPULAR VOTE and when it fails to do so, in essence, lots of votes get tossed out as the winner-takes-all obtains, rather than, the winner gets his fair (proportionate) share.

A candidate can only win on the basis of getting votes, and the candidates can get those votes from any district they can win in, no matter where it is located.

ISN'T THAT MY ARGUMENT? Again, local election, we agree, POTUS ELECTION -- the EC process bastardizes every vote cast for the loser by tossing the individual's vote in the dumpster at the moment it fails to show up in the ELECTORAL VOTE. Either the vote somehow counts towards the outcome, or it doesn't.

I don't see it working any other way without disenfranchising voters somewhere.

Unless your insisting on the national popular vote, and if that is the case, then it isn't about voter disenfranchisement, is it.

If my vote is part of the final tally, whether in the winner's score, or, that of the loser, then either way, it is reflected and comprises part of the true picture.

My idea of a proportionate ELECTORAL VOTE based on popular votes is a fair and reasonable compromise.

_________________________________________

Wonderful give-and-take … hey folks, we are having a discussion in a discussion forum! 

Wonder-of-wonders!

 
sixpick
link 11/24/16 10:34:56PM @sixpick:

Then I should quit my job and go on welfare, because I know the people who support giving me something for nothing are the Democrats.  I mean that is their biggest argument, how the Republicans are going to take away benefits from you, right?  What about the people paying for those benefits?  Shouldn't they have a voice.

There's an old saying...... you know it.

I don't know if Thomas Jefferson said it or not, but it really doesn't matter because when parties learn they can get more votes by promising free stuff to people they will use it to gain absolute power and the more people come to realize if they vote for this or that person or party the more people will do it.  There are quite a few people today who are dependent on the government.  Their biggest gripe is not getting a raise in their check.

 
A. Macarthur
link 11/24/16 11:11:09PM @a-macarthur:

Then I should quit my job and go on welfare, because I know the people who support giving me something for nothing are the Democrats.

There is a higher per capita recipient of welfare in Red States that in Blue … even so, that is a separate issue.

Stop outsourcing jobs, stop insourcing illegal workers, monitor closely and impartially those who are legitimately on welfare and those who milk it.

Disallow employers to pay shit wages that force workers on to food stamps, thus making the employers the beneficiaries of welfare!

 

 
JohnRussell
link 11/25/16 12:56:32AM @johnrussell:

I think many more people cheat on their taxes than cheat on welfare, but we never hear much about that. 

 
JohnRussell
link 11/24/16 01:17:36PM @johnrussell:

I'll even go so far as to say, eliminating the electoral college, is sufficient grounds for me to take up my gun. I will not live in a nation where the few can dictate to the many.

If the Trumpsters were the many, he would have won the popular vote. 

Cows and prarie dogs don't get to cast a ballot. 

 
Nowhere Man
link 11/24/16 01:35:51PM @nowhere-man:

He did, in sufficient individual states to ensure an election victory.

In the way you would like it decided, 15 states would decide the election in favor of your candidate based upon their larger populations.

How is that a majority of the nation?

 
JohnRussell
link 11/24/16 01:43:58PM @johnrussell:

The majority of people in the nation is the majority of the people. 

I guess Trump will win the majority of votes in enough states for him to be made president. He does not have the majority of people in the nation. He does not have a plurality of the voters in the nation. 

Neither argument is really better than the other, as we will now have people questioning why the rural areas are now allowed to dictate to the more populous urban areas. Every time, one faction or the other will be unhappy. 

 
Nowhere Man
link 11/24/16 10:41:11PM @nowhere-man:

 "He does not have a plurality of the voters in the nation"

Do you even know what a plurality is John? From this statement it is plain that you do not.

A plurality of votes is less than HALF the votes cast, ergo sum, he HAS a plurality.

But then again, so does Hillary have less than half the votes cast.

Neither side had a majority.

Things such as this tell everyone reading that you really have little actual understanding of the things your attempting to write about on this subject.

Especially on the subject of plurality/majority and what it means in an election cycle.

 
JohnRussell
link 11/24/16 10:53:21PM @johnrussell:
 


Do you even know what a plurality is John? From this statement it is plain that you do not.

A plurality of votes is less than HALF the votes cast, ergo sum, he HAS a plurality.

But then again, so does Hillary have less than half the votes cast.

Neither side had a majority.

Things such as this tell everyone reading that you really have little actual understanding of the things your attempting to write about on this subject.

Especially on the subject of plurality/majority and what it means in an election cycle.



 

 

I didn't have to look up a dictionary page to know that I am right and you are wrong , but I did have to look it up to copy and paste it.  HIllary Clinton has the plurality in this election.

  No is forcing you to be a blowhard NM. 


 

plu·ral·i·ty



[plo͝oˈralədē]

 







NOUN






 


the number of votes cast for a candidate who


receives more than any other but does not


receive an absolute majority


 

http://www.bing.com/search?q=plurality&go=Search&qs=n&form=QBRE&pq=plurality&sc=8-9&sp=-1&sk=&ghc=1&cvid=843A7FF60BFD489493BDDDCDDB4A3CB6

 

 
 
A. Macarthur
link 11/24/16 11:13:50PM @a-macarthur:

Clinton 48%, Trump 46% as of last Friday.

That's where we stand.

 
1stwarrior
link 11/26/16 05:56:26PM @1stwarrior:

No A. Mac - that's not where "we" stand.

Constitutionally, we stand at Clinton 232 Electoral College votes and Trump with 306 Electoral College votes.  There were/are 538 Electoral College votes available and Trump received 56.7 % of those and Clinton only received 43.2%.  Since only 270 Electoral College votes were needed to win, Trump is the true legal winner of the 2016 Presidential Election.  

That's where we stand.

 
A. Macarthur
link 11/26/16 07:40:15PM @a-macarthur:

No A. Mac - that's not where "we" stand.

Constitutionally, we stand at Clinton 232 Electoral College votes and Trump with 306 Electoral College votes.  There were/are 538 Electoral College votes available and Trump received 56.7 % of those and Clinton only received 43.2%.  Since only 270 Electoral College votes were needed to win, Trump is the true legal winner of the 2016 Presidential Election.  

That's where we stand.

1st; I have not disputed where we stand legally … my argument is with the de facto disenfranchisement and erosion of the absolute value of the INDIVIDUAL AMERICAN VOTER'S declared choice of candidates.

We wouldn't accept a football game, or a golf tournament outcome that ended in such an upside down manner with regard to how the participants performed; so how the hell do we accept a process for POTUS election that can result thus?

 
XXJefferson#51
link 11/26/16 03:33:31AM @xxjefferson51:
This campaign was fought according to the current rules that everyone was aware of going in.  Trump knew he had to get to 270 electoral votes.  He knew Democrats had an advantage in the electoral college.  He devised a strategy to get to that number or higher. He absolutely wrote off the three west coast states, Illinois, and the north east except New Hampshire and the district in Maine and the mid Atlantic except Pennsylvania.  He knew he could get to 270 if he broke through the Blue wall and and played an inside straight on all the eastern and Midwestern battleground states, even if he got no votes from any state on the west coast or north east urban areas.  It's like he said already, if he were competing in a national popular vote election, he'd have spent more money and time camped out in LA, Chicago, and NYC.  Under the current system competing for the five votes in New Hampshire and Maine 1 made much more sense than spending a dime in California.  It doesn't matter now if California voted 100% to 0% for Clinton or 50%+1 for her.  Either way she gets all 55 of our electoral votes.  
 
A. Macarthur
link 11/24/16 01:52:13PM @a-macarthur:

In the way you would like it decided, 15 states would decide the election in favor of your candidate based upon their larger populations.

How is that a majority of the nation?

Answer: States don't vote, people vote. A state is a geographic sub division; a human being is … 

… a human being.

 
sixpick
link 11/24/16 10:47:49PM @sixpick:

Answer: States don't vote, people vote. A state is a geographic sub division; a human being is …

Glad to hear you say that AMac.  I think I covered that in one of my comments, but the people of those states vote and whoever wins in that state gets a vote determined basically by their population.  Wyoming I believe gets 1 vote and California get 55 votes, but at least every state gets a voice in our government even if it's only 1 to 55.

In your scenario California would get over 11 million votes and Wyoming would get 231 thousand.  They wouldn't even get their one vote.

 
Nowhere Man
link 11/24/16 10:48:05PM @nowhere-man:

And citizens are citizens of their states also, and citizens vote in their state of residence, their votes are tallied in their state of residence.

Citizens have never directly elected a president of the united states.

When you shift this to direct election of the presidents then you remove one of the balances of this nation and a fundamental right of the states.

Throwing the whole system of this government into political imbalance.

The whole point if this constitution and system of government was balancing all the competing interests.

Your advocating destroying the point if having a representative democracy for a direct democracy.

And embracing all the evils that direct democracy entails.

Not my words, the words of Thomas Jefferson.

I will go with TJ rather than the emotional desires of self serving political interests.

 
JohnRussell
link 11/24/16 02:00:05PM @johnrussell:

In the way you would like it decided, 15 states would decide the election in favor of your candidate based upon their larger populations.

How is that a majority of the nation?

Maybe Trump should be the president of the states that voted for him and Clinton should be president of the states that voted for her. 

 

 
1ofmany
link 11/25/16 08:34:33AM @1ofmany:

Cows and prarie dogs don't get to cast a ballot.

And no state gets more than it's allotted electors no matter how many people vote in that state. 

 
sixpick
link 11/24/16 10:14:26PM @sixpick:

Like I said, the President is President over all the people in this country.  You first have to accept that.

Let's use schools in a county as an example.  Let's say their are 100 schools in this county. 

Some are out in the country.  Some are in the suburban area and some are in the city.

The number of students out in the country schools is much lower than the rest of the schools.

The number of students in the suburban schools is twice as many as the number of students in the country schools.

There are four times as many students in the city schools as in the suburban schools.

We're voting on a rule that will affect all these schools.

For every 100 students the school gets 1 vote on this rule.

Do you see the dilemma?

 
A. Macarthur
link 11/24/16 10:53:20PM @a-macarthur:

Six,

A POTUS election and its results deal with a multitude of issues … and their permutations.

Your analogy posits a one-size-trying-to-fit all approach … not at all what the electoral college is about.

The reality is, in an election, a candidate wins and a candidate loses, that, in-and-of-itself reflects the outcome of a process in which citizens make a choice … and do so understanding that their particular choice may not prevail. But by what sane rationale can we justify the winner getting fewer votes than the loser? 

Do we rationalize by somehow "justifying" that those who vote where there are many people somehow should have their votes rendered less than those who live where there are fewer? Put another way, WHY WOULD THE VOTE OF ONE HUMAN BEING COUNT FOR LESS THAN THAT OF ANOTHER? If one voter lives on a street in a state that sits along the border of another state which is literally across the street … whose one vote will count for less when the process spits it out?

Here's a theoretical scenario, one that makes the case for me personally. 

The election comes down to the electoral votes in two states to be counted. State "A" has TWO ELECTORAL VOTES, State "B", ONE ELECTORAL VOTE.

STATE "A" votes 1-0 in favor of CANDIDATE X. STATE "B" votes 75,000 to 1 for CANDIDATE "Y".

In State "A", CANDIDATE "X" wins 2 electoral vote. In State "B", CANDIDATE "Y" gets 1 electoral vote … EVEN THOUGH IN TOTAL, CANDIDATE "Y", THE LOSER OF THE ELECTION, received the vote of 74,998 MORE AMERICANS THAN CANDIDATE "X".

Because not everyone votes in elections, the only fair way to tally votes is by individual vote … otherwise, the majority of a nation may not only be not reflected, it may be rendered meaningless.

Most of us wouldn't accept the winner of a football game that somehow ended with the "LOSER" winning with a lower score than "WINNER."

POTUS elections are a bit more important than ball scores; we deceive ourselves in accepting such a false indicator of a vote count.

 
Mark in Wyoming
link 11/23/16 02:45:32PM @mark-in-wyoming:

Just saw his recent points of order , and that makes your statement correct , with the original post without that recent P.O. he said the "USUALS" which was rather neutral and encompassed BOTH sides the way I read and took the statement.

Amac , and even yourself can think it is only one side that is causing problems or are the problem , but I have found that is very seldom the case.

Perrie , every has that line where they just cant do it anymore , they decide to take a break and walk away for a breather , usually its for the better for the moment .  some redhead pointed that out to me not too long ago.

 
JohnRussell
link 11/23/16 02:49:37PM @johnrussell:

when he says "usuals" he is referring to a specific group of people. 

 
Pepe
link 11/23/16 04:39:13PM @pepe:

What would we do without you.......?

 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
link 11/24/16 11:59:33AM @perrie-halpern:

Perrie , every has that line where they just cant do it anymore , they decide to take a break and walk away for a breather , usually its for the better for the moment .  some redhead pointed that out to me not too long ago.

Mark, I really get that. I guess I owe Mac an explanation.

Mac, 

You are the one member here who has stuck with me through thick and thin. You stayed and helped me after Dana and there would be no NT if it wasn't for you. You always held out your hand and asked me how I was and how you could help. I am forever grateful to you. I just find it hard to accept that you are burnt out. I know that it's wrong of me. I just always think of you as the eternal Rocky. I'm sorry for my rant. It was a visceral reaction. 

 
A. Macarthur
link 11/24/16 12:41:36PM @a-macarthur:

You are the one member here who has stuck with me through thick and thin. You stayed and helped me after Dana and there would be no NT if it wasn't for you. You always held out your hand and asked me how I was and how you could help. I am forever grateful to you. I just find it hard to accept that you are burnt out. I know that it's wrong of me. I just always think of you as the eternal Rocky. I'm sorry for my rant. It was a visceral reaction. 

No apology necessary.

Even Rocky goes to his corner between rounds.

And I thought someone would have broken the code before now -- usually BF figures out when the lure/bait is cast upon the water.

This article is proof of its lamentation, its allegation and, of positing the kinds of issues that those who either TELL TALES AND/OR REPUDIATE THE TALES THEY DISLIKE WHILE BEING UNABLE TO VIABLY DEBATE THEM … that is VIABLY … instead do the Shakespearean thing … 

Respond with the usual personal attacks, condemnations, mockery, etc. always

"Full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing" (but their acrimony).

And so far, I haven't returned, BECAUSE I HAVEN'T YET LEFT!

I find "discussions" that lack the component of ACTUAL DISCUSSION, that is, that lack (by definition) …

 

"the action or process of talking about something, typically in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas"

 

… to generally … to USUALLY … foment frustration, bad feelings, a sense of time wasted and other negatives.

 

How many times does one need to raise a thorny, important issue before it is actually discussed?

 

_______________________________________________________________

 

• A HUGE THANK YOU TO SIXPICK, NOWHERE MAN, 1ofmany and those who made an honest effort to engage in discussion with regard to the issues.

• ANOTHER HUGE THANK YOU to all herein who, whether or not going directly to the issues, FOR REMAINING CIVIL.

• Indeed … I made allegations in the body of the original article … I did so with specifics which I initially or subsequently backed with KNOWN REALITIES.

 

To those who did the usual … both the positive and the negative usual …

 

I wish you all a Happy Thanksgiving and Peace.

 

 

YO ADRIAN!

 
Randy
link 11/24/16 12:44:22PM @randy:

I wish you all a Happy Thanksgiving and Peace.

The same to you and yours Mac.

 
Gunny
link 11/23/16 04:36:07PM @gunny:

My thoughts

1. Iran Deal - no

2. Guns - Yes

3. PC - Hell no

4. Affirmative action no and hell no

5. Obama's red line - Putin beat his ass on that one

6. Electoral College - Hell yes.

 

 
sixpick
link 11/24/16 09:39:06PM @sixpick:

Oh this should be fun!!!

Let's put this to bed. Tell me where I stand on these issues:

1.The Iran deal 

It was a little underhanded as far as you are concerned.  You think Congress should have been able to have some input into the decision and it kind of pissed you off when you found out the extra money had been given to them, when they didn't divulge it until it was exposed.  You wish transparency was really a word.

2. Guns

You think law abiding citizens should be able to have all the guns they want.  You think they should have them secured so they aren't stolen or accessible to children.  You don't want crazies to be able to get guns, so you want some kind of background check made so that doesn't happen.

3. PC

You're getting a little tired of all the PC as well.  You don't want people to run around saying anything that reaches their vocal chords, but you don't want to have to carry a PC book around either.

4. Affirmative action

You think people who have a need should be looked after and taken care of as long as they are taking that privilege seriously and taking advantage of it.

5. Obama's "Red Line"

Don't draw any more "Red Lines".  It makes a person look like a fool when they tell someone they're going to kick their arse if they step over the line you just drew and then you have to draw another one a little further back. I dare you to step across this line!!!  And this line!!!

6. The Electoral College

You don't particularly like it, but after thinking about it a little, you realize it's in the Constitution and until something better comes along it's all we have and Popular Vote isn't it.

Let's start there. Let's see how left I am?

You're a white girl who lives in the NYC area and you like southern men because of their testosterone levels.  Oh.... I'm sorry,,,,,, got carried away.

 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
link 11/25/16 02:38:22PM @perrie-halpern:

You're a white girl who lives in the NYC area and you like southern men because of their testosterone levels.  Oh.... I'm sorry,,,,,, got carried away.

Who you be calling a white girl...  and your testosterone levels are meaningless unless you want to do some genetic mixing.

 
Nowhere Man
link 11/25/16 03:09:41PM @nowhere-man:

Well, he did say,

"Lets put this to bed" thinking

 
A. Macarthur
link 11/25/16 03:11:10PM @a-macarthur:

Who you be calling a white girl...  and your testosterone levels are meaningless unless you want to do some genetic mixing.

Cum again?

 
XXJefferson#51
link 11/23/16 01:47:38AM @xxjefferson51:

Right.  chuckle  Because you can't have content control and can't dictate what your political opposition believes and expresses people are leaving the site.  stunned  Conservatives didn't leave when liberals won the last two presidential elections no matter what the lefties here or on NV said or did.  Threatening that the snowflakes will leave if we can't be compelled to celebrate in silence and repress the expression of our equally legitimate view point is no way to have a discussion of issues. 

 
Dowser
link 11/23/16 04:24:35PM @dowser:

XX several of our more conservative members left, for a while, when they felt the FP to be too liberal.  It is an individual choice.  Not trying to be mean to you, but it's true.

Hope you have a great day!

 
XXJefferson#51
link 11/23/16 11:23:14PM @xxjefferson51:

Well I didn't.  I don't care how many liberals, moderates, conservatives seed stuff to the front page.  I don't care how many or how partisan their articles are.  I think that real clear politics daily articles provide a good variety of topics and viewpoints.  There is plenty to comment on in their articles.  I often seed articles from there.  Some return you to the original source to read and copy and some run under the real clear politics heading.  I don't care how badly our resident liberals bash republicans, conservatives, Christians, or whatever I happen to support.  I may just skip on by it or I might read and respond.  My choice.  I will not complain that they seeded the article or complain that it's on the front page.  Live and let live.  I know I won't change the mind of a liberal member seeding an article I disagree with, but I might have a chance with neutral nonmember readers/observers.  

 

 
A. Macarthur
link 11/25/16 03:17:35PM @a-macarthur:

Conservatives didn't leave when liberals won the last two presidential elections no matter what the lefties here or on NV said or did.  Threatening that the snowflakes will leave if we can't be compelled to celebrate in silence and repress the expression of our equally legitimate view point is no way to have a discussion of issues. 

No; instead the stuck around, questioned Obama's citizenship, repudiated his every word and initiative, posted every smear …over and over and over …

And whose the snowflake now? Or are only conservatives allowed to complain?

No, you didn't leave, you made things unpleasant enough so that others left or limited their exposure to the ugliness and misinformation.

Reality check.

 
96WS6
link 11/23/16 11:00:17AM @96ws6:

John,

 

You are the one that is fricking hopeless.  You think rules should apply to others and not you and vise versa as long as you get your endgame.  I can't wait to hear you piss an whine when Trump uses the newfound powers that your savior  has given him.  I told you then you were being short sighted and ignorant and now you will have to live with the consequences of your own shortsightedness and ignorance.   This is the time to cut your losses instead of doubling down.

 
JohnRussell
link 11/23/16 02:24:59PM @johnrussell:

 

 

Let's have some fun !



Happy Holidays! Trump's Campaign Is Selling Gilded $149 Ornaments





























 


For the low, low price of $149, you too can have a collectible Donald Trump "Make America Great Again" tiny red hat ornament.



The Trump campaign is selling the exorbitantly priced ornaments on their website now and bills them as a "collectible" item.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/donald-trump-is-selling-149-dollar-ornaments

 

 




And the millions of poor racist hillbillies who voted for him will scrimp and save to buy 4 of these for their tree while their president-elect abandons every issue that got them to vote for him in the first place.



http://forums.talkingpointsmemo.com/t/discussion-happy-holidays-trumps-campaign-is-selling-gilded-149-ornaments/47657/10




 
XXJefferson#51
link 11/23/16 10:52:29PM @xxjefferson51:

Really John? The forum is losing contributors because we have a diversity of viewpoints and opinions?  We're losing participants because there are weak minded people out there who won't join because they might have to deal with viewpoints they don't like or agree with?  That's just silly.  Why would you want this place to be an echo chamber where only left of center viewpoints are seen and read and where only those who agree with you about Trump qualifications should post anything?  Those who can't deal with that there are all sort of view points and that they are all welcome and that some might have voted for Hillary, some for Trump, and some for someone else, and that some who didn't vote for Trump still saw Hillary as the greater of the two evils might as we not even join might find a number of solid red or solid blue sites more to their liking.  What's really sad is long term members who avoid discussion when their side loses an election and can't force the other side into silence.  

 
Gunny
link 11/24/16 11:29:38PM @gunny:

John started those that went exodus on NT and he continues today. Many that left were my friends and they told me the reason why.  And a couple were very good friends with Perrie at the time.  

I am so sick and tired of this crying ion their beer from people like john and AMac over something they have no control over.  They voted they did their civic duty they lost. end of story.  And that is what they told us when Obama was elected (twice).  So let it go and lets get back on track and get this country working together as one.  It won't be perfect but nothing in life is perfect. 

So stop with the poor little me and stop with the WE BEAT YOUR ASS and lets get going on our country.

 

 
96WS6
link 11/23/16 10:44:19AM @96ws6:

Nice to see you admit advocating media bias against your opponents.   Can't wait until it happens to your next savior.

 
Krishna
link 11/22/16 11:56:44PM @krishna:

 I would have supported Clint Eastwood had he run.

Humphey Bogart would be my first choice! Laugh

 
Buzz of the Orient
link 11/23/16 12:20:46AM @buzz-of-the-orient:

You want a President who's already dead, Krishna? If we want to elect dead politicians how about an honest one like Jimmy Stewart - if he's anything like the Mr. Smith who went to Washington, or Atticus Finch?

 
Krishna
link 11/23/16 12:28:06AM @krishna:

an honest one like Jimmy Stewart?

Or-- Jon Stewart!

 
sixpick
link 11/23/16 01:51:05AM @sixpick:

Jimmy Stewart

Now I could vote for him or Gregory Peck and he was a Democrat.

 
Krishna
link 11/22/16 11:56:51PM @krishna:

 I would have supported Clint Eastwood had he run.

Humphey Bogart would be my first choice! Laugh

 
Pepe
link 11/22/16 11:59:01PM @pepe:

Clint Eastwood is an Alt-Righter....he writes for Worldnetdaily on occasion.

 
dennis smith
link 11/22/16 11:33:55PM @dennis-smith:

He was qualified or he would not have been eligible to run. More excuses from losers

 
JohnRussell
link 11/22/16 11:36:51PM @johnrussell:

Since you have to be 35 years old to be 'qualified' , and he is 70, he must be twice as qualified, right?  rofl. There has never in the history of the country been a worse presidential candidate than Donald trump. 

 
Buzz of the Orient
link 11/23/16 12:26:43AM @buzz-of-the-orient:

How abuut George C. Wallace?

 
Krishna
link 11/23/16 12:33:18AM @krishna:

How about George C. Wallace?

Been there, done that:

 

 
dennis smith
link 11/25/16 11:47:07AM @dennis-smith:

JR - you still refuse to accept the results and continue with schoolyard comments

 
96WS6
link 11/23/16 10:42:42AM @96ws6:

Still in denial.  Keep it up until the next election.  You obviously need the lesson at least one more time..

 
96WS6
link 11/23/16 10:47:38AM @96ws6:

He will be opposed every single day he is in office.

Nice to see you displaying your hypocrisy again.  

 
Randy
link 11/22/16 11:07:54PM @randy:

Just keep heaping the garbage onto your President-elect

He's not mine...

 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
link 11/22/16 11:18:09PM @perrie-halpern:

Randy,

Even guys who hated Obama, recognized him as their president. You can hate Trump, but he is your president. Protest him, if you must, fight for what you believe in, but the office is his for the next 4 years, like it or not. 

 
JohnRussell
link 11/22/16 11:22:26PM @johnrussell:

Perrie, Donald Trump is not qualified to be president of the United States and I expect that he will be opposed every day that he is in office. This was not a "normal" election and we don't have to pretend it was. 

 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
link 11/22/16 11:46:37PM @perrie-halpern:

John,

It doesn't matter what you think of Trump.. or the elections. As far as the Constitution says, he was an eligible candidate, and that is all that matters. His qualifications is up for debate, and that is what this forum is for. 

 
JohnRussell
link 11/22/16 11:48:55PM @johnrussell:

John, It doesn't matter what you think of Trump.. or the elections.

 

Well, excuuuuseeeeeee me ! lol. 

I guess you put me in my place. 

 
XXJefferson#51
link 11/24/16 01:54:17PM @xxjefferson51:

Well John, somebody's got to do it!  wavinglaughing dude

 
Krishna
link 11/22/16 11:58:03PM @krishna:

 I expect that he will be opposed every day that he is in office.

You mean the way Obama was?

 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
link 11/23/16 12:29:09AM @perrie-halpern:

There you go Krish.

 
Pepe
link 11/23/16 12:31:05AM @pepe:

I don't remember anyone hiding in a group, scared of daylight because Obama won 2 elections.....

 
JohnRussell
link 11/23/16 12:32:09AM @johnrussell:

Of course not , Obama was qualified, competent, honest, and sane. 

 
sixpick
link 11/23/16 01:54:03AM @sixpick:

I don't want to say anything and be held responsible for pushing you over the edge.

 
XXJefferson#51
link 11/24/16 01:55:59PM @xxjefferson51:

 

As to Obama John, you are wrong on all counts.  

 
96WS6
link 11/23/16 10:48:57AM @96ws6:

This was not a "normal" election and we don't have to pretend it was. 

 

Unless of course Hillary won right John?

 
Randy
link 11/23/16 12:49:57AM @randy:

Randy,

Even guys who hated Obama, recognized him as their president. You can hate Trump, but he is your president. Protest him, if you must, fight for what you believe in, but the office is his for the next 4 years, like it or not. 

Perrie,

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance"

Emphasis mine. Under my right to the freedom of speech I have the right to reject him as my President and say so. If you or others like it or not. He is not my President. I have the right to reject a racist, fascist as the leader of this great nation. In fact I have a duty as a patriotic American to reject him.

 
sixpick
link 11/23/16 12:53:19AM @sixpick:

Randy.... I don't think anyone is stopping you from doing that.  I don't blame you..... If you don't like him, hate him or whatever and you don't want to accept him as your President, then by all means be my guest.  I can understand those feelings.

 
Randy
link 11/23/16 03:08:31AM @randy:

Thank you.

 
Buzz of the Orient
link 11/23/16 03:57:29AM @buzz-of-the-orient:

Randy, I hope your new home in Mexico has internet service. We wouldn't want to lose you. You DID say you would move there if Trump won, didn't you. You said you were looking for a place there just in case.

 
Dean Moriarty
link 11/23/16 06:24:46AM @dean-moriarty:

Yes he did Buzz I too remember that. 

 
Randy
link 11/23/16 12:05:05PM @randy:

We saw some nice condos Buzz, but nothing we really liked or made financial sense that much in Puerto Vallarta, which is really where we want to move. Also I'm pushing more for a single family home rather then a condo. In January we're going on a 15 day cruise to Hawaii so I can check off seeing the USS Arizona from my bucket list and it makes a stop in Ensenada on the West side of Baja, South of California that has a large community of retired Americans. That might be a better option. We need to find something that makes financial sense and that we really like.

Besides, Trump didn't win. Hillary did by almost 2 million votes and counting. So, since he is not my President (and my wife feels the same way. He's not hers either.) we'll move or not if we find something we like and works for us money wise.

 
Buzz of the Orient
link 11/24/16 10:02:59AM @buzz-of-the-orient:

Well if you get to Zihuatanejo, say hello to Andy and Red for me, okay?

 
Randy
link 11/24/16 12:25:31PM @randy:

LOL! Ok, I will.

 
XXJefferson#51
link 11/24/16 01:58:16PM @xxjefferson51:

 

He won't have to move.  He's too busy trying to make California its own country.  

 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
link 11/22/16 11:16:32PM @perrie-halpern:

Mac,

I have known you for almost 9 years now, and I have never known you to be a quitter. Reading this.. I am really disappointed. There is never an issue or a discussion that can't be had. It's when we stop talking, that things go to pot. Do you know how many movies have been made about things that have gone unsaid? I mean lots (I don't have an actual number, you realize). But quit? Mac... that ain't you. Not the Mac I know. 

 
Buzz of the Orient
link 11/22/16 11:41:36PM @buzz-of-the-orient:

"This will be my only FP comment in a political forum until I can't say when."

It's significant, Perrie, that A.Mac used the word "until", which means he did not quit permanently. He is doing what a lot of us have already done and may do again.

 
Dean Moriarty
link 11/23/16 01:31:55AM @dean-moriarty:

I've seen him make the claim he was quitting the FP at least four of five times. The last time was when NWM made his dramatic exit. 

 
jwc2blue
link 11/23/16 08:43:59AM @jwc2blue:

But quit? Mac... that ain't you. Not the Mac I know. 

There's a world of difference between quitting and shifting focus. If Mac were to quit, he'd be gone.

"This will be my only FP comment in a political forum until I can't say when."

I've no doubt that his contributions elsewhere on the site will be of more value than much of what is on the political articles going here back at least a year.

We have members who knowingly seed utterly false stories. Others who fail to respond when their article is countered by a factual or logical counterpoint, still others who can only attack the source, the member or both. Still others refuse to address requests for any sort of evidence other than their opinion when confronted with an obvious falsehood.

We have at members that are openly misogynistic and bigoted. When a member thinks that he's insulting someone by claiming that they posses female attributes, and the female membership doesn't (or rarely) let them know that it's unacceptable, we have some clear dysfunction here.

There is precious little actual "discussion," and a clearly coordinated effort to avoid commenting on any article posted by any member not of a certain group.

The disappointment and disgust of people on this site looking for intelligent, adult discussion about the issues in the news, especially those of a political nature is perfectly understandable. 

 
JohnRussell
link 11/23/16 09:09:38AM @johnrussell:

When you have anarchists on a forum, when you have self-centered "libertarians" on a forum, and when you have dedicated conspiracy adherents on a forum, and people willing to disseminate false information to further their causes, this is what you end up with. 

 
sixpick
link 11/23/16 11:03:57AM @sixpick:

We have members who knowingly seed utterly false stories.

I thought you were smarter than that.  You mean you don't know it?

 
Pepe
link 11/22/16 11:48:38PM @pepe:

We were patient and AMAC's butthurt did not disappoint. The only thing more entertaining would be the news that Perrie was bringing back the thumbs down.

What a load of hacky alt-left conspiracy garbage!

 

 
JohnRussell
link 11/22/16 11:49:44PM @johnrussell:

Who asked you? 

 
Pepe
link 11/22/16 11:54:06PM @pepe:

Listen up Nancy, the forum has lost it's interest in your thin skinned mentally unfit whinning any longer. Go fucking sob somewhere else.

 
JohnRussell
link 11/22/16 11:54:57PM @johnrussell:

That's not an answer. Now take a hike. 

 
Pepe
link 11/22/16 11:56:09PM @pepe:

America took a shit on the corrupt piece of garbage you worshipped. Get over it.

 
JohnRussell
link 11/22/16 11:57:14PM @johnrussell:
(deleted)
 
Krishna
link 11/23/16 12:05:32AM @krishna:

 the forum has lost it's interest in your thin skinned mentally unfit whinning 

How about some thick skinned mentally unfit whining-- would that perhaps be acceptable?

 
Pepe
link 11/23/16 12:06:59AM @pepe:

The forum has endured 2 weeks of whining unmatched by any trigger event in the forums history.

 
JohnRussell
link 11/23/16 12:09:21AM @johnrussell:

The forum has endured 2 weeks of whining unmatched by any trigger event in the forums history.

Then stop. How many times do I have to tell you that  ? 

 
Pepe
link 11/23/16 12:18:13AM @pepe:

laughing dude

 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
link 11/23/16 12:01:24AM @perrie-halpern:

Yo Fish,

My comment to Mac, was not an invitation to take pot shots at Mac or at liberals.

And there is plenty of hacky alt right conspiracy out there. 

 

 
Pepe
link 11/23/16 12:03:20AM @pepe:

Is it whining like a bunch of teen age girls though?

I think not.