Slashdot Mirror

Amendment, not Article. There is no Article 22 (not even an article 12 - the Constitution contains only seven articles). Amendment 22 sets a limit of two terms for the President. Amendment 12 specifies how the Electoral College works in selecting the President and Vice President and was added in reaction to the election of 1800 and was ratified in 1804, well after the original had been written.

Have experience with the extreme right and having a new government constructed afterwards in particular to avoid repeating that error gives Germany strength.

If you think the Nazis are an example of the "extreme right" then your arrogance and misunderstanding knows no bounds. "Nazi" meant "National Socialist German Workers Party". Remind me again, which political party is it that offers a safe haven to socialism? I certainly don't think it's the big-business first capitalist Republican one. I believe it was your original candidate, Mr. Bernie Sanders, that publicly stated he was a socialist.

Ok, look. Pandering the common man is was easy way to get their backing. There were "socialist" factions within the Nazis who wanted to make sure the common German worker was taken care of. These pretty much all died,, literally, with Rohm in the Night of Long Knives. From then on, they were pretty much a politically extreme right which is to say authoritarian rule, as opposed to the egalitarianism of political left. This is different from the political left or right that is associated with liberal, wanting to make changes, or conservative, wanting to maintain the status quo which are terms that have also formed different meaning than their original. That generally has nothing to do with financially left or right wing which is where the 'socialist" comes in with defining differences between capitalist and communist. Even then, in both cases, things are being defined in dualistic definitions that usually break down when talking about anything in more than a cursory manner as there are many different, often conflicting, meanings even under the same label.

Have experience with the extreme right and having a new government constructed afterwards in particular to avoid repeating that error gives Germany strength.

If you think the Nazis are an example of the "extreme right" then your arrogance and misunderstanding knows no bounds. "Nazi" meant "National Socialist German Workers Party". Remind me again, which political party is it that offers a safe haven to socialism? I certainly don't think it's the big-business first capitalist Republican one. I believe it was your original candidate, Mr. Bernie Sanders, that publicly stated he was a socialist.

From Wikipedia: The party emerged from the German nationalist, racist and populist Freikorps paramilitary culture, which fought against the communist uprisings in post-World War I Germany.[7] The party was created as a means to draw workers away from communism and into völkisch nationalism.[8] Initially, Nazi political strategy focused on anti-big business, anti-bourgeois, and anti-capitalist rhetoric, although such aspects were later downplayed in order to gain the support of industrial entities, and in the 1930s the party's focus shifted to anti-Semitic and anti-Marxist themes.[9]

I am always still managing to be shocked at what kind of back-asswards world you lefties live in. I'm sure you'll find some way to try to twist this around and claim that the Nazis were really Republicans.

It's sure to drop further once he repeals health care.

This is amazing. I was going to post something snarky to the effect that, had Republicans done some kind of major overhaul of national healthcare in recent years, they would've been blamed for the decline of longevity.

But reality is even stranger than what I imagined — although Obamacare was passed without a single Republican vote, the Democrats blame Republicans for nation's worsening health anyway. Because of something they may do in the future!..

Now, the Anonymous Coward may have been sarcastic. But the moderators, who've elevated him to "Score: 4, Insightful" (at the time of this typing), certainly weren't...

Some of the GOP’s most ardent Taiwan proponents are playing active roles in Trump’s transition team.......Several leading members of Trump’s transition team are considered hawkish on China and friendly toward Taiwan, including incoming chief of staff Reince Priebus.

It was planned weeks ahead by staffers and Taiwan specialists on both sides, according to people familiar with the plans.

At the Republican National Convention in July, Trump’s allies inserted a little-noticed phrase into the party’s platform reaffirming support for six key assurances to Taiwan

Trump did the right thing. China should not be allowed to conquer Taiwan. Why would you think allowing that's a good idea?

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

who says they are less experienced?
who says they aren't an authority?

TWC actually has climate scientists and researchers on staff who participate and contribute to the body of research on the subject.
members of TWC staff have gone on to join other groups performing some of the leading edge research.

dismissing TWC staff as just "less experienced meteorologists" is ignorant and does them a disservice.

of the two groups, it is the founder who is lacking in experience.
Yes, he was a TV meteorologist for some 50 years.
But he never performed, published, or was involved in ANY climate research.
Nor did he ever become qualified to do so.
And when he tries to make scientific arguments, they are not based on any scientific data, and are soundly disproven the data that does exist.

He's sole claim to fame is he looked and sounded good on TV, and was a successful entrepreneur (starting up TWC).

To try and claim any sort parity between him and the current TWC staff, or even worse try to claim he is the more qualified....is a complete denial of reality.

further reading:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Justin Trudeau is a master of public-image manipulation. He knows the tricks about appealing to young, inexperienced hyper-liberals, but can do little to divert people's attention from his abysmal track record on matters such as appeasing to the oppressive and aggressive Chinese regime, appeasing to the criminal family of Ibn-Saud, and oppression of First Nations. He self-consciously cultivate his own hero-worship, but he's just politician.

By now, anyone still falling for such cheap PR stunts and gimmicks?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/moscow-had-contacts-with-trump-team-during-campaign-russian-diplomat-says/2016/11/10/28fb82fa-a73d-11e6-9bd6-184ab22d218e_story.html?tid=sm_tw

Russian government officials had contacts with members of Donald Trump’s campaign team, a senior Russian diplomat said Thursday, in a report that could reopen scrutiny over the Kremlin’s role in the president-elect’s bitter race against Hillary Clinton. ...

"Obviously, we know most of the people from his entourage,” Rybakov said. “ I cannot say that all of them but quite a few have been staying in touch with Russian representatives.”

I'll repeat for emphasis: staying in touch with most of his entourage during the campaign. And what did they have to talk about?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/putin-applauds-trump-win-and-hails-new-era-of-positive-ties-with-us?CMP=share_btn_tw

Markov also said it would mean less American backing for “the terroristic junta in Ukraine”. He denied allegations of Russian interference in the election, but said “maybe we helped a bit with WikiLeaks.”

The Obama administration accused Russian authorities of hacking Democratic party emails that were leaked to WikiLeaks. Putin has previously dismissed as “nonsense” claims of Russian interference.

Whether or not you choose to believe that Putin and his party are responsible for his win, they think that they are.

As for the other stuff, I'm not sure what you're questioning - that's just history; pick up a history textbook.

I'll bet you can't point to a single incident ever where it's been used to censor anti-government statements.

I certainly can. How about:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/germany-springs-to-action-over-hate-speech-against-migrants/2016/01/06/6031218e-b315-11e5-8abc-d09392edc612_story.html?utm_term=.bd8dc4da42ab
"In a country whose Nazi past led to some of the strictest laws in the West protecting minorities from people inciting hatred, prosecutors are launching investigations into inflammatory comments as judges dole out fines, even probation time, to the worst offenders."

or...
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/07/08/german-couple-sentenced-migrant-critical-facebook-group/
"A German couple were taken to court and sentenced after they created a Facebook group that criticised migrants and the government's mass migration policy."

Apparently you fail the grasp the facts that our reliance on carbon based energy like coal and oil is causing us many different environmental problems.
Forget about climate change and just focus on air pollution:
https://www.theguardian.com/en...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://www.ibtimes.com/china-a...

I really fail to understand why people continue to support an energy and technology that we have been using since the beginning of the industrial revolution.
It is time to grow up and move on to less polluting energy sources.

With that being said, there is nothing wrong with using oil and petrochemicals for things like plastics, medicines, industry, chemistry, etc;
If we could move away from using coal for electricity and oil for transportation it would greatly reduce our polluted air problem.

I guess sending swastika's to 29K open printers many of them in university "safe spaces" got HP's attention.

https://storify.com/weev/a-sma...

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

The following Party-approved Fake News stories need not be flagged — indeed, tagging them as anything other than deeply concerning may cause your account to be suspended:

• Mr. Zimmerman explained Mr. Martin's being suspicious by the latter being Black.
• Hands Up Don't Shoot!
• The Campus Rape Epidemic

The following Party-approved Fake News stories need not be flagged — indeed, tagging them as anything other than deeply concerning may cause your account to be suspended:

• Mr. Zimmerman explained Mr. Martin's being suspicious by the latter being Black.
• Hands Up Don't Shoot!
• The Campus Rape Epidemic

Better be ready to be beat up when layed off workers find out it's better to be in lock up then out on the street.

In Colorado this year there was a ballot measure to amend the Colorado constitution to ban slavery as a means of punishment. I didn't know slavery was still allowed at all. Even funnier the measure lost. Which means you can be forced into slavery and servitude if you go into lockup in Colorado.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/11/17/slavery-is-technically-still-legal-in-colorado-heres-why

What's better is subjective. I hope there's a UBI or something similar to provide for people before everyone is booted to the curbs and we have 99% of people rummaging trash heaps or whatever other dystopian future could be....

Yes.

http://apps.washingtonpost.com...

You have a weird model of investigations where someone needs to prove things before actually investigating. It may indeed prove that nothing can be found here. But the only way to know that is to actually examine facts. Declaring that there's nothing to be found without even looking just makes you look biased.

Anyhow, it's not as if we haven't seen pedos in places of power before. Here's a big list:
https://medium.com/@LoriHandrahan2/daniel-rosen-s-arrest-1f7befb1762c#.sa25w4uo3

I'm not going to claim anyone is guilty of anything without proof. However, anyone who starts yelling and screaming for people to stop looking is just going to make themselves look more suspicious. You don't normally get well-connected media types to all jump on a story like this...

Well there ya go. It's gone past slandering and harassing innocent people and now some nut nearly went on a killing rampage because of this "investigation".

To translate what really happened here is:

The Washington Post was duped by a fake article about fake news, and then other publicans were duped by the Washington Post's article about the fake article about fake news.

Not quite a "fake article", but an article based on a report that used a questionable method for identifying "Russian propaganda".

Basically a site was labelled as distributing Russian propaganda if it regularly posted articles that reproduced current Russia propaganda narratives.

That sounds legit, but the problem is that a lot of anti-establishment sites push the same kind of narratives. A story getting pushed by RT as Russia propaganda might also be pushed by an independent site as their own fight against the establishment. And they get labelled as promoting Russia propaganda, which they technically are, but that wasn't their intent.

Journalism is now completely dead, or at least the kind the mainstream media used to produce. Its all now just lazy he-said she-said bullshit where the only filter is the bias of the Journalists and Publications.

You know I actually thought you were being sarcastic when you wrote that first sentence.

The WP article got some secondary reporting, and then it got questioned, typically by those same secondary sources.

Note the first publication in the summary, Rolling Stone, is considered pretty damn progressive. The WP themselves even commented on the matter, though it a much less direct way than I'd like (hopefully their still refining their follow up piece).

Investigative journalism is now only done by independent folk with hidden cameras, and released on youtube. Thats what exposed Clinton's campaign tactics and voter fraud methods, its what exposed and subsequently destroyed ACORN, and so on.

Ahh, so when you say "investigative journalism" you mean actual fake news.

Trump got elected because the voters wanted change at any cost. Gun owners don't make up a large enough fraction of the voters to swing an election. https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Three arrests happened in Ukraine, the head of the group is from Ukraine, some photos and video made by local police: http://soft2secure.com/news/av... Other commentators were right about Ukraine. This country is famous for its hackers. What more interesting and sad that the guy already released by the judge and disappeared: http://poltava.to/news/40985/ and here: http://obozrevatel.com/crime/1... So, four years of investigation and now their boss may just restructure and launch Avalanche 2.0 with his money and connections and experience. FBI, Europol and 30+ other organization should have known Ukraine is totally corrupted. I am not surprised at all. Hacker steal our money and become politicians there: http://voices.washingtonpost.c... and here - http://wayback.archive.org/web...

Accusing a federal judge of being unable to discharge his duties because he's Hispanic, and a member of the Hispanic Bar Association (one of hundreds of such affinity lawyers groups), manifestly is racist, as even Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan was forced to admit.

Insofar as Islam, it is a sprawling religion consisting of 2.2 billion adherents, with many sub-ideologies. If you yourself have not apologized for the "Klan" (who call themselves Christian and "light" crosses as emblems of their WASP faith), then any broad brush attack on Muslims over the actions of al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda of Iraq (a.k.a. ISIS) is pure bigotry.

Bashing illegal immigration, while conspicuously being entirely unconcerned that Trump's own wife Melaina was clearly an illegal immigrant, is again not only a sign of hypocrisy, but one of racism. Because there is no legal difference between the two situations. Merely a skin color one.

The reason why people continue to call Trump racist is because he is. The reason why people call his supporters racist, is because there is hard evidence of racist attitudes taken from surveys of them.

The idea that a racist is going to suddenly vote for the party who opposes racism, instead of the Republican party that it has been proven benefits from it, if only people wouldn't point out their racism, is absurd.

Is that enough research for you?

Accusing a federal judge of being unable to discharge his duties because he's Hispanic, and a member of the Hispanic Bar Association (one of hundreds of such affinity lawyers groups), manifestly is racist, as even Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan was forced to admit.

Insofar as Islam, it is a sprawling religion consisting of 2.2 billion adherents, with many sub-ideologies. If you yourself have not apologized for the "Klan" (who call themselves Christian and "light" crosses as emblems of their WASP faith), then any broad brush attack on Muslims over the actions of al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda of Iraq (a.k.a. ISIS) is pure bigotry.

Bashing illegal immigration, while conspicuously being entirely unconcerned that Trump's own wife Melaina was clearly an illegal immigrant, is again not only a sign of hypocrisy, but one of racism. Because there is no legal difference between the two situations. Merely a skin color one.

The reason why people continue to call Trump racist is because he is. The reason why people call his supporters racist, is because there is hard evidence of racist attitudes taken from surveys of them.

The idea that a racist is going to suddenly vote for the party who opposes racism, instead of the Republican party that it has been proven benefits from it, if only people wouldn't point out their racism, is absurd.

Is that enough research for you?

when is brittain planning to copy this one?

Well, Twitter is already doing it, in America too — an early bird, so to speak. But, hey, they are a private company, so we have no need to worry, right?

Well, the new generation of citizens is being accustomed to censoring selves and others in colleges — including professors — so, in 10-20 years, you'll have it world-wide, US and other elements of the British empire included.

I recall the Republicans rioting before Bush was elected. Which helped get him elected. And flying the rioters in on planes supplied by corporate donors. And paying the rioters for their time. And pretending that it wasn't a partisan effort, it was the Good People of Florida spontaneously rising up.
https://www.consortiumnews.com/2002/080502a.html
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/2000/11/sweeney_and_the_siege_of_miami.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11...
http://www.poetrywar.com/Music...
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2008/11/20/a-gop-dirty-trickster-has-second-thoughts.html
http://stonezone.com/article.php?id=28
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/2242...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/23/us/counting-vote-miami-dade-county-wild-day-miami-with-end-recounting-democrats.html

So impossible it has only been done thrice.

You're confused, Trump has a lead in the electoral college. Trump and others are not getting frosted over that. Irrelevant your 2.5 million popular vote, we don't elect presidents that way because otherwise career criminals with no regard for national security or the rule of law like Clinton would get elected by the half of society that is parasites.

There's a problem with your view, Clinton's voters represent about 64% of the U.S. economy.

I'll trust the professionals at the DEA instead of a couple of drug addicts claiming to be doing scientific research.

I'll trust scientists and physicians over badge wearing gun toting grunts any day.

There is also evidence that peyote can also treat PTSD.

We have folks coming back from these wars with serous mental health issues. In in most cases, traditional therapies aren't working.

And I have seen compelling evidence that these treatments can actually get people OFF of heroin addiction.

See, contrary to the moralizing anti-drug crowd who consider addiction to be a character flaw, people don't wake up one day and say, "I think I'll become an addict." They are suffering and most of the time have lived in very abusive environments. They are told they should just buck up and deal and when they can't, it makes them feel worse.

If we want to help these people, we as a society need to grow up, accept the science and actually help these folks.

And lastly, all of the latest and greatest research on this topic is being done in Europe. So, if you would like to learn more, I suggest reading journals from there. Because here in America, we're pretty backwards.

In other news Trump considers declaring twitter a national communications utility and making it a government regulated utility guided by the first amendment, and then promptly kicks all the whiny bitches currently running it out on their asses.

These twits (pun intended) on the fascist progressive left wing can't behave as civil citizens, they will very quickly learn the difference between the minimal power a megacorp has vs the hard power that the leader of the free world has.

What does Angela Merkel have to do with any of this??

There are lots of weird uses of language that make people suspect code words are in play, not just one or two. I mean, I'd like to write this off as a "damn you autocorrect" kind of thing, but some of them are just weird. Look here, for example:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/32795

The realtor found a handkerchief (I think it has a map that seems pizza-related. Is it yorus? They can send it if you want. I know you're busy, so feel free not to respond if it's not yours or you don't want it.

This came up after people were already questioning whether some uses of 'cheese pizza' referred to child pornography (CP), so... yeah.

It doesn't help that they're proud of some very weird art that looks to be posed like one of Dhamer's victims.

Citation please for the fact that people on pot are just as much of a danger on the road. The evidence is the opposite is states that have legalized recreational pot.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

There are eleven million illegal immigrants in the US. That number is falling, and has been for some while. However, you're still talking about deporting more people than live in the state of Georgia. Are you going to pay for that? How do you imagine you would begin rounding people up? Are you going to start demanding citizenship papers from anyone with brown skin? Do you imagine you will be able to do that without mistakes and massive rights violations? Honestly, if that is really a goal of yours, I feel badly for you, because the logistics and legal challenges alone are probably insurmountable. I would also like to point out the inherent contradiction between supporting small government and calling for government action on an unprecedented scale.

It's not unprecedented, as Trump himself has pointed out. He also sees no problem with it according to his "we did it before and therefore it's OK" logic.

All data were obtained for analysis from a large multisite database, involving 26,268 patients who came for evaluation of complex, treatment resistant issues to one of nine outpatient neuropsychiatric clinics across the United States

But "people with serious neuropsychiatric people who used cannabis have low blood flow to the brain" is both less clickworthy and less politically useful than "OMG pot rots yr brain!"

And I love this: "As a physician who routinely sees marijuana users..." Yeah, that's called "a physician". Cannabis use is common, every physician has seen patients who has used it.

Both Amen and this methodology are poorly regarded. He's in the addiction treatment industry -- look at this is an old marketing pitch of his quoted in a Quackwatch article:

How your brain and soul work together determines how happy you feel, how successful you become, and how well you connect with others. The brain-soul connection is vastly more powerful than your conscious will. Will power falters when the physical functioning of the brain and the health of your soul fail to support your desires, as seen by illogical behaviors like overeating, smoking, drug and alcohol abuse, and compulsive spending.

OHOH, Officials at major psychiatric and neuroscience associations and research centers say his SPECT claims are no more than myth and poppycock, buffaloing an unsuspecting public.

" It was like she had something on the DNC or something where they had to support her."

Sure, she had Debbie Wasserman Schultz. But I'm sure everyone on the left is still going to blame Russia. This was a self inflicted wound.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Having worked in and around the government for 40 years, I don't believe that's accurate.

From : https://www.washingtonpost.com...

If they don’t, the money becomes worthless to them on Oct. 1. And — even worse — if they fail to spend the money now, Congress could dock their funding in future years. The incentive, as always, is to spend.

Not true. You may think not but there have been celebrations: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/11/09/yes-we-did-russias-establishment-basks-in-trumps-victory/

Guess what?

Federal bribery does!!

Business deals for trade deals is ... wait for it ... bribery!

Do your calling for the arrest of Hilary Clinton then.

Of course not. Laws don't apply to the left.

Please provide citations for this; what laws did she break? Other than one donation which the foundation should have gotten approval for based on a gentlemen s handshake between Clinton and the Obama Administration. Of course you cannot backup your claim.

Let's just say the whole Birther thing is a bit of a tell

No, it was not. Not unless you share the misconception, that any questioning of a Black President is racist — the notion I ridicule at the top of this sub-thread. And, of course, Trump didn't invent it. Clinton's campaign, apparently, didn't either, but they did carry the torch before Trump picked it up.

then the not renting to black folks in NYC is kind of a give-away as well

That was his father's... If you looked carefully at Hillary's father, you'd find her being drastically different from him.

And whereas you need to go all the way back to when Confederate flag was cool and God hated fags to smear Trump, Hillary's campaign proved themselves racist in 2016.

Do your calling for the arrest of Hilary Clinton then.

Of course not. Laws don't apply to the left.

There is nothing in that Washington Post article about any law broken by Hillary Clinton or the Clinton foundation.

These ones, that were deleted after asked for by Congressional subpoena. Were they actual Government-work related? We don't know - they were deleted. That's the problem. Nixon was going to be impeached for 18 minutes of missing tape - Clinton gets a pass for 33,000+ e-mails wiped.

Guess what?

Federal bribery does!!

Business deals for trade deals is ... wait for it ... bribery!

Do your calling for the arrest of Hilary Clinton then.

Of course not. Laws don't apply to the left.

He-he... I seem to recall your kind being rather outraged, when Trump refused, during the debates, to promise, he'll accept the voting results. Your candidate, of course, did make such a promise. And now, you and she both seek to renege on it... Crybabies indeed.

H1B will stay around because Trump really doesn't care. Those People who are affected by it didn't vote for him anyway. The people running the corporations that use the outsourcing companies that run most of the H1Bs mostly did vote for Trump, or at least didn't work hard against him. They really don't mind having a real estate developer sleazeball for President.

Excellent view on the subject of Trump in general: Garrison Keillor in the WashPost. We're now getting a glimpse of how things will be in his choices for the Cabinet, but the full impact will take a while to develop. Unfortunately for Garrison's viewpoint, a lot of the people who did vote for him as "change" will not notice or care about the consequences - they'll blame their continued lack of meaningful employment on minorities, immigrants, and Democrats, not necessarily in that order. And the H1Bs will stay and expand; Congress is bought and paid for and will ensure that.

California has very serious financial problems:

http://www.sfchronicle.com/pol...

These are worsened by the outflux of people from California:

http://knowmore.washingtonpost...

In fact, without its massive illegal population, California would be losing several congressional seats (which is why Californian politicians love illegals so much).

If Clinton had won the Electoral College but Trump had won the popular vote, would you have taken the time to write up an op-ed outlining the flaws of the Electoral College, would you have protested in the streets, would you be demanding Trump be made President? If not, then you are simply being partisan, and your support for this is out of self-interest rather than truly wishing to improve the system.

Someone truly wishing to reform the Electoral College would be for such reform regardless of who won. If you truly believe a change is for the better, you support it even when it works against your own self interests. I think Merkley made a mistake dismantling one of the checks and balances the Founding Fathers put into the system to prevent a simple majority from having too much power, but I respect him for not changing his position even though he now finds himself on the disadvantaged side of his rule change.

(And if you're one of the people who believe Merkley's rule change was necessary because the Republicans were stonewalling in the Senate, the Washington Post keeps a database of how often each Senator votes with his/her party. Here are the stats for the 108th, 109th, 110th, 111th, 112th, and 113th Senates, spanning 2002-2015 with Senate control by both parties, covering both a Republican President and Democrat President. Click on the Party column to sort it by Senators most likely to vote for their party. You'll see it's actually the Democrats who most frequently vote as a block, and the Republicans who are more willing to cross the party line. The meme that Republicans refused to compromise was fake news spread by the mainstream media without any statistical evidence to back it up.)

If Clinton had won the Electoral College but Trump had won the popular vote, would you have taken the time to write up an op-ed outlining the flaws of the Electoral College, would you have protested in the streets, would you be demanding Trump be made President? If not, then you are simply being partisan, and your support for this is out of self-interest rather than truly wishing to improve the system.

Someone truly wishing to reform the Electoral College would be for such reform regardless of who won. If you truly believe a change is for the better, you support it even when it works against your own self interests. I think Merkley made a mistake dismantling one of the checks and balances the Founding Fathers put into the system to prevent a simple majority from having too much power, but I respect him for not changing his position even though he now finds himself on the disadvantaged side of his rule change.

(And if you're one of the people who believe Merkley's rule change was necessary because the Republicans were stonewalling in the Senate, the Washington Post keeps a database of how often each Senator votes with his/her party. Here are the stats for the 108th, 109th, 110th, 111th, 112th, and 113th Senates, spanning 2002-2015 with Senate control by both parties, covering both a Republican President and Democrat President. Click on the Party column to sort it by Senators most likely to vote for their party. You'll see it's actually the Democrats who most frequently vote as a block, and the Republicans who are more willing to cross the party line. The meme that Republicans refused to compromise was fake news spread by the mainstream media without any statistical evidence to back it up.)

If Clinton had won the Electoral College but Trump had won the popular vote, would you have taken the time to write up an op-ed outlining the flaws of the Electoral College, would you have protested in the streets, would you be demanding Trump be made President? If not, then you are simply being partisan, and your support for this is out of self-interest rather than truly wishing to improve the system.

Someone truly wishing to reform the Electoral College would be for such reform regardless of who won. If you truly believe a change is for the better, you support it even when it works against your own self interests. I think Merkley made a mistake dismantling one of the checks and balances the Founding Fathers put into the system to prevent a simple majority from having too much power, but I respect him for not changing his position even though he now finds himself on the disadvantaged side of his rule change.

(And if you're one of the people who believe Merkley's rule change was necessary because the Republicans were stonewalling in the Senate, the Washington Post keeps a database of how often each Senator votes with his/her party. Here are the stats for the 108th, 109th, 110th, 111th, 112th, and 113th Senates, spanning 2002-2015 with Senate control by both parties, covering both a Republican President and Democrat President. Click on the Party column to sort it by Senators most likely to vote for their party. You'll see it's actually the Democrats who most frequently vote as a block, and the Republicans who are more willing to cross the party line. The meme that Republicans refused to compromise was fake news spread by the mainstream media without any statistical evidence to back it up.)

If Clinton had won the Electoral College but Trump had won the popular vote, would you have taken the time to write up an op-ed outlining the flaws of the Electoral College, would you have protested in the streets, would you be demanding Trump be made President? If not, then you are simply being partisan, and your support for this is out of self-interest rather than truly wishing to improve the system.

Someone truly wishing to reform the Electoral College would be for such reform regardless of who won. If you truly believe a change is for the better, you support it even when it works against your own self interests. I think Merkley made a mistake dismantling one of the checks and balances the Founding Fathers put into the system to prevent a simple majority from having too much power, but I respect him for not changing his position even though he now finds himself on the disadvantaged side of his rule change.

(And if you're one of the people who believe Merkley's rule change was necessary because the Republicans were stonewalling in the Senate, the Washington Post keeps a database of how often each Senator votes with his/her party. Here are the stats for the 108th, 109th, 110th, 111th, 112th, and 113th Senates, spanning 2002-2015 with Senate control by both parties, covering both a Republican President and Democrat President. Click on the Party column to sort it by Senators most likely to vote for their party. You'll see it's actually the Democrats who most frequently vote as a block, and the Republicans who are more willing to cross the party line. The meme that Republicans refused to compromise was fake news spread by the mainstream media without any statistical evidence to back it up.)

If Clinton had won the Electoral College but Trump had won the popular vote, would you have taken the time to write up an op-ed outlining the flaws of the Electoral College, would you have protested in the streets, would you be demanding Trump be made President? If not, then you are simply being partisan, and your support for this is out of self-interest rather than truly wishing to improve the system.

Someone truly wishing to reform the Electoral College would be for such reform regardless of who won. If you truly believe a change is for the better, you support it even when it works against your own self interests. I think Merkley made a mistake dismantling one of the checks and balances the Founding Fathers put into the system to prevent a simple majority from having too much power, but I respect him for not changing his position even though he now finds himself on the disadvantaged side of his rule change.

(And if you're one of the people who believe Merkley's rule change was necessary because the Republicans were stonewalling in the Senate, the Washington Post keeps a database of how often each Senator votes with his/her party. Here are the stats for the 108th, 109th, 110th, 111th, 112th, and 113th Senates, spanning 2002-2015 with Senate control by both parties, covering both a Republican President and Democrat President. Click on the Party column to sort it by Senators most likely to vote for their party. You'll see it's actually the Democrats who most frequently vote as a block, and the Republicans who are more willing to cross the party line. The meme that Republicans refused to compromise was fake news spread by the mainstream media without any statistical evidence to back it up.)

If Clinton had won the Electoral College but Trump had won the popular vote, would you have taken the time to write up an op-ed outlining the flaws of the Electoral College, would you have protested in the streets, would you be demanding Trump be made President? If not, then you are simply being partisan, and your support for this is out of self-interest rather than truly wishing to improve the system.

Someone truly wishing to reform the Electoral College would be for such reform regardless of who won. If you truly believe a change is for the better, you support it even when it works against your own self interests. I think Merkley made a mistake dismantling one of the checks and balances the Founding Fathers put into the system to prevent a simple majority from having too much power, but I respect him for not changing his position even though he now finds himself on the disadvantaged side of his rule change.

(And if you're one of the people who believe Merkley's rule change was necessary because the Republicans were stonewalling in the Senate, the Washington Post keeps a database of how often each Senator votes with his/her party. Here are the stats for the 108th, 109th, 110th, 111th, 112th, and 113th Senates, spanning 2002-2015 with Senate control by both parties, covering both a Republican President and Democrat President. Click on the Party column to sort it by Senators most likely to vote for their party. You'll see it's actually the Democrats who most frequently vote as a block, and the Republicans who are more willing to cross the party line. The meme that Republicans refused to compromise was fake news spread by the mainstream media without any statistical evidence to back it up.)

I agree, but you need to cite the editorial you copy and pasted from.