President Obama Orders Review of Cyber Attacks On 2016 Election (reuters.com)

President Barack Obama has ordered a full review of hacking activities aimed at disrupting last month's presidential election, media outlets reported Friday citing a top White House official. The results are to be delivered to Obama before he leaves the office. From a report on Reuters: "The president has directed the intelligence community to conduct a full review of what happened during the 2016 election process ... and to capture lessons learned from that and to report to a range of stakeholders, to include the Congress," homeland security adviser Lisa Monaco said during an event hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.

Comments

Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

This is unbelievable for an ousted president.

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[dugancent]

He has not been ousted. His term is coming to an end.

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

As a sitting President, Obama has every right to do this. And he wasn't "ousted", he's leaving office after completing his second and final term. It's sad that people like you continue to de-legitimize his presidency.

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[MightyMartian]

1. Not ousted, merely at the end of his second and final term (and one wonders if the 22nd Amendment didn't exist if the election might have been rather different).
2. He's still the lawful and constitutional POTUS until January, so he has ever right to order such a review.
3. Why are Trump supporters so nervous of investigations and recounts? It almost seems like they think there's something to hide.

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[SpankiMonki]

Don't pop a Republican's fantasy bubble. It's all they have.

They also have the House, the Senate, the Presidency, the Supreme Court, and a majority of State Governors and Legislatures. Not bad for a party living in la la land.

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd have voted for a 3rd term given the options . . .

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

Well said my friend!!!!

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are Trump supporters so nervous of investigations and recounts? It almost seems like they think there's something to hide.

Because they give the dems another chance to rig the election.

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[Danilushka]

The Founders created Article 22 specifically to prevent a simple majority from electing a president in a representative democratic republic. They were well-aware for the potential of mob rule in a pure democracy. Read James Madison in the Federalist Papers to understand their brilliant idea called the electoral college.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

Not bad for a party living in la la land.

Delusions are very popular, they're quite enticing. And responsible for more than a few hard crashes into reality.

Notice how Trump's already proclaiming a wide base of support, and completely denying that he straight-up lost the popular vote. He's still sticking by his illegals voting story.

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[OhPlz]

More like being against witch hunts, propaganda, and a misuse of federal funds.

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[fustakrakich]

Exactly. Whose fantasy is it anyway? This reaction is so outrageously funny, and tragic. Democrats should be more careful, if they get completely wiped out, some real opposition might emerge, a catastrophe for both factions..

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[MightyMartian]

A "power" then. Yes, a sitting President can order investigations on foreign powers attempting to influence domestic affairs.

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[Archangel Michael]

I'm pretty sure you'd vote for Obama President for Life given the chance. All Hail Obama!

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[avgjoe62]

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.

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[Merk42]

3. Why are Trump supporters so nervous of investigations and recounts? It almost seems like they think there's something to hide.

It's rigged! RIGGED I TELL YOU!!

Oh? We won? Uh, nevermind. Don't investigate anything. Don't question the results.

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[NatasRevol]

It's easy to do that when you tell the best lies.

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

This right here. We need an AUDIT not a recount

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

And you're still clinging to this nonsense that illegals won't vote when Obama himself encouraged it and specifically said they wouldn't check IDs.

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[parkinglot777]

Before you state something as a fact, you might want to check to see if it is so. A "Right" isn't the correct term, even if it was the correct term, it would require some sort of previous example or court case to outline, neither of which has happened here.

I don't see the point why you need to point out something irrelevant. Maybe the GP should say "the President can and is not illegal" instead?

Further this is 100% contrary to what Obama said here: [huffingtonpost.com]

What make you think that such order MUST MEAN something whic is a contrast to what he said? There are many other reasons for doing so (e.g. collecting data for political strategy in the future, etc.).

Not a surprise, when one who is on one side would always attempt to discredit the other side... That's why independents don't want to involve in either side...

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

And the left sticking to the illusion that being right, but still being cunts, is what anyone wants.

Watch Kaine's VP debate performance to understand where you all went wrong. I kept telling my left friends to stop being dicks the last 2 years, but you just insist. And even when it fails, you just keep, twisting, the, knife.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

I couldnt agree more my friend & I can also assure you that a numerous amount of very well compensated hackers were very much involved with the altering of this years electorial votes for President. I'm just surprised these same highly trained individuals did such a sloppy job & made their involvement so obvious to the rest of the world.

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[dugancent]

"Ousted"could mean "lame duck"

It could, but it doesn't and never has.

Oust(ed) definition: Drive out or expel (someone) from a position or place.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

The delusion is thinking the popular vote matters.

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

This is unbelievable for an ousted president.

As President, chief of the executive and commander in cheif of the US Military he not only has the right, but the constitutional duty to do it.

And if that means bringing Treason charges against Putin's boi's Trump & Pierce for conspiring with Putin to hack the voting machines; they need to be treated like anyone else once convicted of high treason and strung up.

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[SpankiMonki]

Before you state something as a fact, you might want to check to see if it is so.

If you really think that ordering this review is not within the President's authority, you are nine kinds of high.

Further this is 100% contrary to what Obama said here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Funny how something "mythical" became "real" simply because the Democrats lost an election.

Apparently your prejudices have overwhelmed your ability to reason.Your article refers to Trump's unfounded claims of voter fraud in order to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the election, while the President's review of the known hacking activities does no such thing.

Unfounded allegations of fraud != hacks supported by actual evidence. See how one of these things is not like the other? The fact that you draw an equivalence between the two indicates weak-minded thinking on your part.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

How is it that they "have the supreme Court"?

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[MightyMartian]

Well, if you're willing to simply invent whole new definitions for words, "ousted" could mean "pickle and onion sandwich". Of course, most of us here speak English, so the word "ousted" has a fairly specific meaning that doesn't include people who are ending a term.

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

Its because the other side has been such poor losers they can't get over the fact they loss.

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

"if they get completely wiped out, some real opposition might emerge" no, we get either nazi germany or soviet russia

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Jill Stein was just denied the Michigan recount. Did she have evidence of fraud? "No." "Do you think a recount will have you win?" "No." "Hillary doesn't think a recount will have her win. Do you?" "No." "You aren't even her and she should be the one asking, but she isn't. Denied."

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

the president appoints supreme court justices, and a few of them are getting very old, also they have yet to fill the seat that just vacated.

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[skids]

...and you'll care about the constitution up until the first evidence of a violation of the emoluments clause, at which point you will pretend it does not exist.

Also, the electoral college primarily exists to introduce the electors. The power of state governments (as opposed to the actual occupants of the states) was supposed to be preserved in the Senate, but this turned out to be such a bad idea that the people dragged their governments kicking and screaming into letting the people elect the Senate, which still preserves protection of regional concerns -- it just ignores those of state legislators because they proved themselves to be too irresponsible to hold this power. At least the power of state government bodies to determine the apportionment of the electors will suffer the same fate eventually... whether we throw out the safeguard of the electors themselves in the process is another matter.

It's kind of a silly argument to be making at this time, considering how badly the system has backfired... those supposedly too ignorant to be trusted to elect a president voted in majority for a qualified candidate, and only because of this system has an untenable administration been elected. It did the exact opposite of what it was supposed to do.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[MBGMorden]

The court is currently sitting on 4-4 split on conservative vs liberal, with 1 vacant spot. Trump will nominate a conservative. Republicans control the senate which means that they will have no problem approving his nomination. That will put the court 5-4 again. If any conservative justices retire during his term, they will be replaced and the same will hold. If any liberals leave, then they will get replaced with conservatives making the split 6-3 or even 7-2.

Basically - the supreme court belongs to the Republicans for at 2 years MINIMUM, with them likely being safe for at least 4. After that period they still have the court until a conservative leaves or dies. If a liberal justice leaves or dies within that 2 to 4 years and they get a 6-3 or better margin that hold could easily continue for decades.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[dugancent]

Unless there is a retirement or death, the supreme court will be back where it started since the vacancy is from a conservative.

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[fustakrakich]

Yes, the odds generally point that direction, but I can't in good conscience support the status quo based on that assumption. Whoever has the best appeal to the brain stem will always win, fascist or liberal. The liberals need to work on their presentation.

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[MBGMorden]

3. Why are Trump supporters so nervous of investigations and recounts? It almost seems like they think there's something to hide.

Because we don't trust a Democrat led White House to necessarily report accurate findings from such "investigations". It's like asking why you're afraid when you just paid the mob your protection money. Do you really think they're going to be "protecting" you?

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[FatAlb3rt]

Agreed, the more the keyboard warriors keep insulting conservatives, the more they'll dig in their heels. I think that has a lot to do with the climate change issue - keep telling people they're stupid, they'll keep giving you the finger.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

Watch Kaine's VP debate performance to understand where you all went wrong.

The VP nomination was not my choice, though to be honest, I consider it irrelevant, as did the debate.

Now the presidential choice, and that debate, with Trump making up his lie about babies ripped from the womb, that was telling.

As is the people who embraced that fraud.

But go ahead, whine about the mean liberals hurting your feelings.

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

Tinfoil hat much do you? You poor little snowflakes are seriously deranged. Given what the dims have done to public education, I'm not surprised. Grow up.

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[MightyMartian]

Well, if it's any comfort, there are several Republican Senators asking the same question. But really, whether you trust Obama or not, he was elected by the same rules that will put Trump in the White House. In other words, he has the legitimate constitutional authority to order such an investigation. Your trust in it is irrelevant.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[danbert8]

Right. This whole "popular vote" bullshit is akin to the ass kissing student complaining that they didn't get the best score on the test because they wrote the longest essay. I'm sorry, the grading scale isn't based on popular votes, it's based on electoral ones. You gotta win the votes that count... The votes that don't count are kind of irrelevant to any discussion.

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama wasn't ousted. The entire Democratic party was ousted. Welcome to the New Right, motherfuckers.

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[khallow]

It's a power not a right. And yes, he does have the power to order an investigation.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

If the shithead republicans had done their jobs over the last year there wouldn't be a vacancy in the supreme court.
Their proclamation to impede the duly elected president is a violation of their oath of office and should have had them all impeached.

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[Archangel Michael]

I find it hilarious that you think that "vote fraud" and "hacking" are some how not the same in regards to corrupting the outcome of an election. Does it matter if electing staffers are stuffing ballots https://www.youtube.com/watch?... or using electronic means to do so?

Vote Fraud it Vote Fraud. It is either "mythical" or it is real. There is plenty of hypocrisy by both (R) and (D) here. Its just that the Hypocrsy of the (D) is really clear this time. You're just pissed that they were caught.

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[danbert8]

You are smoking something... The electoral college primarily exists to reduce the chances of mob rule. The power of State governments (which our country is founded upon) but for stupid "democracy" reasons got nerfed when the Senate became just another House of Representatives that was horribly not representative of the population. The states no longer have any power in government aside from the governors and state legislatures who attempt to not comply with federal law (which is proving pretty effective in the case of pot).

The popular vote is irrelevant. It's a fun statistic, but it has no bearing on the outcome. If the popular vote determined the president, the voting outcome would have been drastically different because people vote based on the rules of the system. You don't score football by net yardage gained, you score it by points. Stop trying to change the rules after the fact.

I am a libertarian and I don't like Trump any more than any liberal, but I sure as hell am not going to advocate for a worse system of first past the post, single vote, popular elections.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[skam240]

Funny, if you switch "conservative" for "liberal" or even maybe "liberals and moderates" in your statement you get a pretty insitefull comment

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[danbert8]

It's horrifying to imagine a candidate not accepting the results of an election. Wait? We lost? The election was rigged I tell you!

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[skam240]

No they're not, the only context that the popular vote is irrelevant to is who literally won the election. What makes the popular vote irrelevant in any other context?

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[aldousd666]

I didn't vote for Hillary or Trump, but yes, this is true. The popular vote is actually not even an official thing at all. It's a media invention. The states vote. They vote with electors. How they apportion their electors is up to them. Adding California voters to Florida voters as a big total is actually an apples to oranges mistake.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[MBGMorden]

The President nominates a Supreme Court justice but the Senate APPROVES that justice. In effect - you have to have approval from both parts of that equation. If the Senate doesn't want to approve a candidate or even hold a vote they're doing precisely their job. The approval of the Senate of a nominee isn't just some rubber stamp formality.

That's literally the whole point of "checks and balances". You might as well proclaim that every one of Obama's vetoes was impeding the duly elected legislature. At least you'd be consistent.

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[SuiteSisterMary]

He wasn't 'driven out' or 'expelled,' as he had no option of staying. He didn't run for a third term, he didn't declare himself President for Life. He'd have been leaving if Trump won, Clinton won, Sanders won, Stein won, Triumph the Insult Comic Dog won, whatever.

You can't be 'ousted' unless you'd otherwise still be in the position.

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[skam240]

You mean the ammendment that puts a layer of government between the people's vote and the office being voted on? A layer of government between the people's will and the government? A system in which party elites can simply tell voters to go screw themselves and then vote for whoever they want? I thought conservatives were supposed to hate government interference and elites telling them what to do.

I suppose that since it's won them a couple of elections these last couple of decades you cant blame them for abandoning princable. I cant wait for things to go full circle though and they lose an election under similiar circumstances.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

You should learn the definition/meaning between these 2 words. There's a big difference in meaning between the word "illegals" & "illegally voted".. Voting after the cut off time is" illegally voting" aka voters fraud & that happened in all democratic areas.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

The delusion is ignoring the fact that Trump has a mandate when more people voted for Hillary,and his margin of victory could have been wiped out with a rainstorm.

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[ClickOnThis]

Obama has gone far beyond and above in de-legitimizing his own Presidency, he doesn't need help!

Really? What did he do that was "far beyond and above in de-legitimizing his own Presidency" when compared to the birther movement?

And let's not talk about who fed that conspiracy.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[danbert8]

Do people vote strategically based on the rules of the election? If they do, then the results of the election cannot be interpreted on how they would play out under a different set of rules. If we DID elect based on the popular vote and re-ran under those rules, the results would likely be drastically different. Talking about what the popular vote results were in an electoral based race is just as stupid as discussing who got the most forward yardage in a football game. Interesting to statistics buffs, but in no way relevant to picking a winner.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

"Lost the popular vote..."

Come on back when you understand what a fucking FEDERAL REPUBLIC is dumbshit!

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[skam240]

Drastically different? No it wouldnt.

Also your quote
"but in no way relevant to picking a winner."

My prior comment
"the only context that the popular vote is irrelevant to is who literally won the election. "

Thanks for repeating what I said.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for taking the time to explain this to people.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Chas]

No. He lost because our government requires broad support from across the nation, rather than simply the support of city dwellers and the assorted weird shit leaking out their ears.

Do a little research on "Federal Republic". Then you'll understand why this country is set up the way it is.

And if you don't like it, you're free to emigrate to Canada or some other shithole someplace else in the world that you imagine will be more fair to you and in line with your delusions.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

Unbelievable you missed the chance to say "You're Fired!"

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

It applies to liberals, moderates, conservatives, libertarians, communists, anarchists... It's a fundamental human cognitive flaw that exists in everyone to a certain extent, even if you train yourself to resist it.

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

Well that, and the senate, and the house, and 35 state legislatures+governorships, just shy of 3 to amend the constitution.

So yeah. Fantasy bubble. I live in the city. San Fran area. Terrible standard of living, billionaires rule, middle class dead, housing out of control, clogged roads bad schools and utterly unfair. And this is what we want? The California government types running the USA?

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[SpankiMonki]

I find it hilarious that you think that "vote fraud" and "hacking" are some how not the same in regards to corrupting the outcome of an election.

You're still not thinking clearly. I merely point out that when Obama (rightly) criticizes Trump for his unfounded claims of voter fraud, Obama is not being hypocritical (as you claim) by ordering a review of the hacking activities that occurred during the election. The FACT that these hacking activities occurred isn't open for debate, while allegations of voter fraud are completely without evidence.

It's also worth noting that Obama's review isn't about investigating hacks of voting machines (of which there is ZERO evidence) that would have corrupted the vote count. It's about the hacks of the systems of various political organizations and the resulting information leaks and their possible effects on the outcome of the election. This investigation isn't about calling into question the legitimacy of the election; Trump's baseless allegations clearly were.

Vote Fraud it Vote Fraud. It is either "mythical" or it is real.

Hacking the DNC and airing their dirty laundry isn't voter fraud. Did it influence the election? Perhaps. But it still isn't voter fraud and it's astonishing that anyone in their right mind would conflate the two.

There is plenty of hypocrisy by both (R) and (D) here. Its just that the Hypocrsy of the (D) is really clear this time.

LOL, now I understand. You're one of those unfortunate souls whose partisanship dictates their logic. "Oooo, the Ds are WAY more hypocritical than the Rs!" Really?!?

You're just pissed that they were caught.

Huh? Who was caught doing what? Never mind. In any event, I'm not pissed about the election or anything to do with it. My guy won.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

America didn't reject Trump he won by a landslide what are you smoking? You sound like a butt hurt liberal along with the rest of the idiots on this once great site.

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[Merk42]

It's horrifying to imagine a candidate not accepting the results of an election. Wait? We lost? The election was rigged I tell you!

To be fair, Hillary isn't the one questioning them.

If you're referring to her supporters, yes hypocrisy is on both sides of the aisle, and it's dumb either way.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[dgatwood]

You can't vote without a voter registration card or some other proof of who you are (e.g. an electric bill), and you can't vote unless you have at some point properly registered to vote, which you can't do without a SSN. So for illegals to vote, they would have to either commit outright identity theft to register fraudulently (which they screen for and actively remove when found) or steal somebody else's mail and vote in his/her name (which would likely be discovered when that other person went to vote).

In short, the absence of strong evidence supporting such a claim is, in this case, strong evidence of the absence of such fraud.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Chas]

What makes the popular vote irrelevant?

Oh. I dunno. The CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES?

It clearly outlines the use of the Electoral College for appointing the chief executive position.

Remember, we're a Federal Republic. We're a nation built of many states. And the EC ensures that all states actually have a voice in the election.

The amalgamated totals of the popular vote are irrelevant as anything other than an interesting statistic, as this country does not elect it's chief executive by mob rule.

All states can figure out their own method for appointing their "personal" federal representatives. But the executive office is different. Since it's beholden to no one state.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

Read Fed paper number 10 you fucking moron.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[dryeo]

Federal Republic, like the USSR? Canada, a country made from a Confederation of Provinces with a first past the post Parliamentary system and a weaker Federal government then the USA.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[invid]

And you're still clinging to this nonsense that illegals won't vote when Obama himself encouraged it and specifically said they wouldn't check IDs.

This is pure fake news. You are a sheep.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[skam240]

Did you just skip where I said "the only context that the popular vote is irrelevant to is who literally won the election" or did you just really want to say that?

You have not contradicted a single thing I've said.

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

"Ousted"could mean "lame duck"

The long held meanings of words don't matter much to you, do they?

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

And some of the original pre-1776 thought founders were still alive in 1804 so its close enough to the original to be authentic.

The point of mob rule is correct. ALMOST ALL COUNTIES that house the country's BIGGEST MOST POPULOUS CITIES, turned up BLUE.
Look at any COUNTY BY COUNTY LEVEL map of election results.
Just immediately outside those big city county borders, almost the ENTIRE REST OF THE USA is RED.

The ELECTORAL COLLEGE is the fucking miracle that keeps NYC, LA, CHICAGO etc and their HIVE GROUPTHINK *IN CHECK AND BALANCE* from dominating over versus everyone else distributed in the USA, balanced representation of the whole People and States, so long as everyone else still has enough EC votes put together.
Without EC, the country would be forever stuck in a pile of far left BLUE BIG CITY. With EC it swings and balances now and then.

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[backwardsposter]

3. Why are Trump supporters so nervous of investigations and recounts? It almost seems like they think there's something to hide.

If the result they got was the result they wanted, then they would be justifiably nervous to find it invalidated. Not to burst a bubble or anything, but this is not a way that Trump supporters are crazy, this is common sense. Hillary supporters tended to get nervous of investigations as well.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

One can only assume that this will turn out to be as beneficial to Trump as Jill Stein's recount. Hillary lost thousands of votes in Wisconsin and Detroit was found out to have produced such corrupted results that Michigan decided to implement voter ID laws.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

Refusing to hold hearings and a vote is abdication of their job. It's abuse of procedure, not the point of checks and balances.

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

> 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.

28 years later is "well after" but hardly out of range of the life of the Founding Fathers.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

If they don't want him as a justice then just sit the fuck down and vote "No".

Why do they have to turn it into a fucking game? Do your job, vote on the nominee. If you vote no, then the president gets to try another appointee, who you can then vote for or against.

But no, it has to be a game.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

They haven't even had the hearings which is a dereliction duty. They've refused this because with a year on his term left "It's not his job to nominate a replacement."
The last eight years of republicans have been the most childish behavior of elected officials I've seen, though the ones when Newt was GOP leader were close.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump LITERALLY won the election. To deny this simple simple fact is foolish at best.

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[WillAffleckUW]

This is unbelievable for an ousted president.

He's twice as popular as Trump. Not ousted at all.

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it hilarious that you think that "vote fraud" and "hacking" are some how not the same in regards to corrupting the outcome of an election. Does it matter if electing staffers are stuffing ballots https://www.youtube.com/watch?... or using electronic means to do so?

Vote Fraud it Vote Fraud. It is either "mythical" or it is real. There is plenty of hypocrisy by both (R) and (D) here. Its just that the Hypocrsy of the (D) is really clear this time. You're just pissed that they were caught.

What you just posted was a video of various people reloading laser jet printers with paper, randomizing the ballots before counting, and standing and talking to eachother. If you would just closely watch the video and research just a teeny tiny bit you would figure out that no fraud occurred, at least in that specific video.

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

Well said

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[AmericaRunsOnDunkin]

Adding California voters to Florida voters as a big total is actually an apples to oranges mistake.

Oh right, I forgot. People from Florida are annointed by God to rule the rest of the country. Those crazy Californians shouldn't even be allowed to vote.

How about this: ONE MAN ONE VOTE. Everyone's vote counts equally. Now I'm the one living in fantasy land...

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[invid]

When everyone thought Trump was going to lose Trump said the election was rigged. After he won the election but didn't win the popular vote Trump said the election was rigged. HRC never said the election was rigged, but the fake news people are saying she said the election was rigged. Who here has less faith in American democracy?

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[rholtzjr]

The popular vote in the United States Presidential Election is irrelevant. The popular vote however is used in other elections such as US Legislature and most state/city/county level positions.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Adriax]

Reagan was a landslide.
Obama was a landslide.
Trump won the electoral college by one of the smallest margins in decades and lost the popular vote by millions.

Now I know numbers hurt your head, so why not just go back to pasting the same GNAA shock post in every article and let us adults talk.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Adriax]

Weird shit leaking out of city dweller's ears?
You're dehumanizing and devaluing the majority of your own countrymen based on regional differences, to support your own view that you have more of a right to this country than they do. Look in a mirror, that weird shit you see gushing out of your own ears is your ego.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

...on this once great site.

Citation needed.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, he's still the President until January. You're a moron.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Seng]

If you went by the books, yes. But the dems' own recount has turned up voter fraud itself...

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[skam240]

As I said above it's only irrelevant in determining the literal winner.

The popular vote for president is valuable for a number of reasons outside of that, chief of which is as a gauge for how voters actually voted and thus who they actually favored in the election.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Seng]

The libs are too weak-minded to actually do something, like learn how the damn election system operates...

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[avgjoe62]

Sixteen years later, actually. The Constitution was signed in September of 1788. Thirty-eight delegates signed it and it was finally ratified in 1789.

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[Archangel Michael]

I am so Partisan, I am a Libertarian!

Yes, I haven't voted for either (R) or (D) in 30 years ... partisan. Yes, there is plenty of hypocrisy, and the Ds are worse that the Rs on Election Hypocrisy but they both are hypocritical.

Who was caught doing what?

Ok so now, there is no evidence of any hacking, I thought that was what Obama was looking for. Is he on a wild goose chase or is that some sort of partisan response to an election that will basically undo his whole "legacy?

Not sure what you're point is, other than to assume I am something I am not.

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[invid]

You have 2 opposing sides. One side uses far more lying and deception to delude its base than the other side. The lying side makes greater gains,because its lies are more attractive than the truth, but its base is so deluded that it can't see that it's electing a leader who is completely incapable of leading the nation. Our present day situation is going to be used as a morality tale about the excessive use of propaganda.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

Adding California voters to Florida voters as a big total is actually an apples to oranges mistake.

That would be an avocados to oranges mistake, for apples to oranges you would need to add Washington to Florida. ;-}

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[rholtzjr]

I do not believe that is a human. BTW, who is Pierce?

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Zak3056]

The confusion most people seem to have is that there is not "the election." There are fifty-one of them, because the citizens of each state are voting to determine who their state wants to be president.

Of course, when you phrase is that way, it's a lot harder to be outraged about it.

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

Tinfoil hat much do you? You poor little snowflakes are seriously deranged. Given what the dims have done to public education, I'm not surprised. Grow up.

I don't need a tinfoil hat after hearing Trump essentially bragging about it prior to the election.

And why do you think he's blowing off security briefings, he's getting all that info from his lord and master Putin.

As for public education, the conservatives have been doing their best to completely sabotage it, and doing a damn good job. Just look at Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas with their constant attempts at god-did-it not evolution.

They don't want any public education, they want Jesus, guns and football as their holy trinity with they oligarchy reaps the rewards; and yet again they've been doing a damn good job of that as well./p.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

No where does it say that. In fact, the Senate (and Congress) are given some fairly free reign in the rules that they operate. If they decided to never hold a vote for 100 years, that would be their right (assuming people voted in a Senate that did nothing for so long).

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[skam240]

Pure world play on your part.

All 51 states / district are all voting simultaneously for president. Calling it "the election" is not only accurate, it is literally how just about every normal person refers to it.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[quantaman]

I didn't vote for Hillary or Trump, but yes, this is true. The popular vote is actually not even an official thing at all. It's a media invention. The states vote. They vote with electors. How they apportion their electors is up to them. Adding California voters to Florida voters as a big total is actually an apples to oranges mistake.

People care about the popular vote because the standard way to elect people in a Democracy is every voter gets one equally weighted vote.

The US does something weird and non-standard to elect its President, that means Trump won, but it also means a lot of people are rightfully annoyed because its mostly an artefact of the weird system.

The same thing happens in Parliamentary democracies if the seat distribution is considerably out of sync with the popular vote, people don't like it because they understand that popular vote carries a lot of legitimacy.

There's no good reason for the US to maintain the Electoral College, the only real proponents are groups who have more power because of the ways in which the EC violates the popular vote.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[skam240]

world = word

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[BlueStrat]

Really? What did he do that was "far beyond and above in de-legitimizing his own Presidency" when compared to the birther movement?

Whatever it was, it was bad enough to get Trump elected, so take your pick...Iranian nuke deal, hostage deals, attempting to end-run the will of Congress and the people in trying to get things like TPP rammed through, the disaster that's Obamacare...the list is too long for one post.

But just keep doubling-down on the outright hate for at least 1/2 the country. It worked so well this election, right? Then we can look forward to Republicans in control for the next few decades and every (D)-sponsored plan/Act/law passed in the last 50 years repealed or made impotent.

Strat

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[quantaman]

The President nominates a Supreme Court justice but the Senate APPROVES that justice. In effect - you have to have approval from both parts of that equation. If the Senate doesn't want to approve a candidate or even hold a vote they're doing precisely their job. The approval of the Senate of a nominee isn't just some rubber stamp formality.

That's literally the whole point of "checks and balances". You might as well proclaim that every one of Obama's vetoes was impeding the duly elected legislature. At least you'd be consistent.

The Senate was making a mockery of their role.

This had nothing to do with whether they approved of the justice, rather they were claiming that the President didn't have the mandate to carry out his role in nominating one.

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[quantaman]

It's horrifying to imagine a candidate not accepting the results of an election. Wait? We lost? The election was rigged I tell you!

Trump won and is claiming the election was rigged.

What do you think is going to happen 4 years from now?

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[aldousd666]

That's fine, then someone should write up an amendment, get it passed and ratified by 2/3 of the States. Nobody is really a 'proponent' of it, as far as I know, it just hasn't had any real congressional Opponents who weren't only griping about losing elections. It's just not been changed because that's the way it has been, and changing it is hard.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

You spelled insightful wrong, retard.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

All that traffic noise and pollution has atrophied your brain, city-dwelling retard.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[aldousd666]

I'm not talking about what is right and what is wrong, better or worse. I'm describing what is, and why it was originally put there. I gave no normative direction on it at all. It takes a constitutional amendment to change it. So, either run for office yourself, or get on the horn to your congressmen, because 'fairness' speculation is getting you nowhere.

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[MightyMartian]

A whole lot of disappointed people will vote for the Democrat because Trump a) didn't do much of what he said and b) turned out to be just a mouthy incompetent version of everything they thought they were voting against.

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

And let's not talk about who fed that conspiracy.

True, there's no need to bring Sid Blumenthal into this - just because he and Podesta pushed that and the "Obama is a Muslim" lies doesn't mean they need to be brought up every time some criticizes Obama.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget all the other lower court positions that weren't filled because the Republicans dragged their feet on the votes.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

The real blame for Trump is simply NBC colluding with Clinton to keep the Billy Bush tape under wraps until after the primaries. But instead we get nuclear saber rattling in the name of delegitimizing the Trump presidency. Welcome to the new mccarthyism.

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[Citizen of Earth]

And let's not talk about who fed that conspiracy.

Hillary's staff during the 2008 Primary? What Trump did was get Barack to finally release his birth certificate. Yet another deal closed for The Donald.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Chas]

No, the USSR was a socialist "republic". Basically Communism. Which, we all know how well THAT worked out...

And who gives a shit about Canada?

They have a different government format than we do. So how they run things is more or less irrelevant to how things work here.

So, any actual points to make?

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Chas]

The point is that city living comes with a VASTLY different set of priorities than you'll find in more rural communities.

That doesn't make those rural communities dumber or less educated. It just means the priorities are different. And attempting to simply treat these people like any other city dweller or assume that their priorities line up with those of city dwellers is just destructive in the long run.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Chas]

It's not just the liberals.

Whole RAFTS of people in this country have been poorly educated on why the Electoral system exists in the first place. And why it's important that it exists.

They've been hearing "Our Democracy" bullshit for so long that it's become "Repeat a lie enough and it becomes indistinguishable from the truth"

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Chas]

Sorry! Misread the meaning and tone.

My apologies for coming off like a stupid dick.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[chihowa]

That's fine, then someone should write up an amendment, get it passed and ratified by 2/3 of the States. Nobody is really a 'proponent' of it, as far as I know, it just hasn't had any real congressional Opponents who weren't only griping about losing elections. It's just not been changed because that's the way it has been, and changing it is hard.

Well, the small or less populated states that would lose their influence (or, as they see it, representation) are proponents of it. Getting 2/3 of the states to ratify such an amendment wouldn't be easy, when it would mean that most of those states would have to accept the presidential choice of California and a few northeastern states every election.

You'd be asking them to ratify an amendment that formalizes their insignificant role of "flyover country".

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

ha! you made my evening!

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[dryeo]

No, the USSR was a federated republic consisting of, IIRC, 15 republics. While it's true that they had socialist in their name, they also had soviet (democratic) in their name and a constitution (that they didn't actually follow).
Generally most forms of socialism are heavy on democracy, sadly they usually get taken over by corrupt authoritarian arseholes.
My point is that to say "Federal Republic" means shit all besides not having a monarchy and being made up of smaller units

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is why people voted for Trump after "Hope and Change" Obama didn't do much of what he said... and so the cycle continues.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[dryeo]

'Tis funny, but reading the comments, it seems no-one understands why the Electoral Collage came into existence, at least according to the Federalist Papers. In summary, to have wise non-politicians, non-bureaucrats (and non-partisan, as there were no parties at the time) to pick the chief executive of the country in a time when communication between the States was slower. A chief executive who was never supposed to have the powers that the post now holds. The Senate was the body that was supposed to take care of evening out the rights of the individual States including preventing the urban people from running slipshod over the rural people or the opposite.

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[Tesen]

Here you go, once you've had your parents read it to you go ahead and read this.Hopefully that clears that up for you! :)

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Adriax]

Me, a city dweller? How the hell do you get internet in your mountain cave?
Recluse cave hermits are the only people who would consider the 10k population midwest farming town I have lived my entire life a "city".

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

When I dress up with my two daughters, the majority of us believe we are princesses. However, the majority are in la la land.

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[SpankiMonki]

I am so Partisan, I am a Libertarian!

Well, if it isn't partisanship clouding your thinking, I guess it must be something else.

Ok so now, there is no evidence of any hacking, I thought that was what Obama was looking for.

You're going in circles. I clearly stated above that hacks occurred, and that their existence was beyond refute. Maybe you should re-read my posts before you comment any further.

Not sure what you're point is, other than to assume I am something I am not.

My point has been and continues to be that you cannot claim hypocrisy on the part of Obama for ordering a review of the hacks that occurred during the election just because he criticized Trump's baseless allegations of voter fraud. Hacking and voter fraud are two different crimes, yet you continue to conflate the two because for some reason you really really want to call the President a hypocrite. You can call him whatever you like, but your arguments supporting your label don't add up.

Cheers!

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Adriax]

I live in a rural farming community and have my entire life. I know what the different priorities are. And so far the vast majority are incapable of comprehending the actual scale of the world and cannot fathom things like human actions altering the climate or even simple shit like other cultures existing in the world and they're not hollywood creations.
You think the average rural person should have more power than 3 city dwellers? I fucking laugh at you as I watch ANOTHER person who has lived here their entire fucking life slide off the highway outside my house because they forgot ice is slippery, just like they did every other year of driving their entire lives.

Before you say another stupid something, I still live here because I have lived surrounded by mountains my entire life. More than a week away and I start getting agoraphobic. And the ocean is just creepy as all get out.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[cstacy]

In New Hampshire, no proof of residence or pre-registration is required. On voting day, anyone may show up, sign an affidavit that they live at any address in NH, and then vote. There is no ID or residency time requirement. Nothing is verified or validated.

I personally know people who live in RI who also vote in CT and MA where they had previous residences. (All Dems, btw.)

I personally know illegal aliens who vote in VA using false papers.
(They work for outsourced IT on federal govt contracts, btw.)
They voted for Hillary due to the "immigration" issue.

My personal experience leads me to believe that there is a fair amount of voter fraud, and that it could affect election results in key districts.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

The popular vote for president is valuable for a number of reasons outside of that, chief of which is as a gauge for how voters actually voted and thus who they actually favored in the election.

It's also a good gauge for Trump's reaction to losing it.

Namely to lie, and sputter some nonsense about illegal voters.

That's what I consider the telling part about it. Bad enough all his erstwhile supporters mouth that garbage, but that he does it himself?

The result is very telling.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[skam240]

I've certainly done that a few times myself.

Thanks for the reply, very polite of you.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[rholtzjr]

It is if you are looking at a popularity contest, but it is not.

Other than saying X won the election but lost the popular vote really doesn't mean anything.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[quantaman]

That's fine, then someone should write up an amendment, get it passed and ratified by 2/3 of the States. Nobody is really a 'proponent' of it, as far as I know, it just hasn't had any real congressional Opponents who weren't only griping about losing elections. It's just not been changed because that's the way it has been, and changing it is hard.

It's easier than that, if states representing 50% of the electoral college pass the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact then they all vote for the popular vote winner and the popular vote wins the election.

There's two big roadblocks for the remaining states. First are swing states who benefit hugely from the electoral college. Second are the red states who realize that the EC benefits Republicans. But if public pressure becomes strong enough they can get over the hump.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, it's on video

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

In New Hampshire, no proof of residence or pre-registration is required. On voting day, anyone may show up, sign an affidavit that they live at any address in NH, and then vote. There is no ID or residency time requirement. Nothing is verified or validated.

Actually, they have an ID requirement. And if you dispute any of them, you can check them out.

Residency is a fool's gambit, and as worthless as Trump's claims.

I personally know people who live in RI who also vote in CT and MA where they had previous residences. (All Dems, btw.)

If you actually knew this, then you'd call a media outlet and give their names. Or the local elections offices. Or the local US Attorney.

I personally know illegal aliens who vote in VA using false papers.
(They work for outsourced IT on federal govt contracts, btw.)
They voted for Hillary due to the "immigration" issue.

Again, if you actually knew this, then you'd call a media outlet and give their names.

My personal experience leads me to believe that there is a fair amount of voter fraud, and that it could affect election results in key districts.

So far your experience has been to do nothing, even though you allegedly can testify to a crime.

Really, that's very telling.

It's quite a bit more likely you're making up a story. But if not, fair enough, write down these names and mail them to a media outlet.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

About as insightful as your spelling coach. Conservatives wish that liberals will dig in and hold to their losing positions. And continue to lose. And lose. And lose.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[aldousd666]

I would be ok with this. Even if this went into effect though, it couldn't prevent the reality star from becoming president this time. (Not that I'd rather Hillary. I'd actually rather just puke that these were our choices.)

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

And if you don't like it, you're free to emigrate to Canada or some other shithole someplace else in the world that you imagine will be more fair to you and in line with your delusions.

We don't need to move out. Apparently we just need to spread out further within the US. A couple million Democrats strategically relocated will flip the entire government very quickly.

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it's going to be awesome when you tell over half the country that they have no say in government at the national level. That will turn out well.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[aldousd666]

Yeah, but if they did ratify it, then there would be no argument. I get what you're saying. And it's the same as what the founders said. That's why it is that way in the constitution. But, we have a way to change that, and I was just enumerating it. Not that it would necessarily pass, but just saying. At that point, "States" would become virtually irrelevant in the context of the presidential election. If that's what they want then fine, if not, also fine. Just saying.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

The President nominates a Supreme Court justice but the Senate APPROVES that justice. In effect - you have to have approval from both parts of that equation. If the Senate doesn't want to approve a candidate or even hold a vote they're doing precisely their job. The approval of the Senate of a nominee isn't just some rubber stamp formality.

That's literally the whole point of "checks and balances". You might as well proclaim that every one of Obama's vetoes was impeding the duly elected legislature. At least you'd be consistent.

And what of them wanting to wait for a Republican president to nominate a conservative to the supreme court when if they were playing to the letter of the law it should have been Obama that made that nomination? You really can't argue that point as anything other than the Republicans gaming the system to their advantage period.

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Not ousted, merely at the end of his second and final term (and one wonders if the 22nd Amendment didn't exist if the election might have been rather different).
2. He's still the lawful and constitutional POTUS until January, so he has ever right to order such a review.
3. Why are Trump supporters so nervous of investigations and recounts? It almost seems like they think there's something to hide.

IF we did things the way that Republicans did during the Clinton and Obama years, they would surely launch a witch hunt to find wrong doing and not stop until they find it or something that they can quickly change gears on to impeach Trump. Remember whitewater? they spent 8 years investigating and found nothing then the monica lewinsky thing came up and they turned it into the Monica Lewinsky trial. If that had happened in a normal court of law a mistrial would have been declared and it would have been over.

I know Democrats are not that shifty and corrupt, but if they operated like Republicans, we would expect 4 to 8 years of investigations into Trump messing with the vote, hiring Russian hackers and Wikileaks to spread FUD on Clinton and not stop until they find proof, in whatever form that he at least evaded his taxes and got involved in several instances of sexual assault and impeach him at the end of his presidency over it. Democrats are not that shifty and corrupt like Republicans are by historical example.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is California always the boogeyman?

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[jandersen]

The popular vote is actually not even an official thing at all. It's a media invention. The states vote. They vote with electors. How they apportion their electors is up to them.

I think you are talking about two different things: The popular vote is a real, measurable thing, the electoral college is just one way of organising the counting of the popular vote - others may exist that are as good or better. It is a discussion worth having, since many democracies have a system much closer to proportional representation, especially in this situation where the popular vote points at the candidate that didn't win according to the electoral college.

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[jandersen]

This is unbelievable for an ousted president.

Yes, we definitely don't want to know who was behind this; anything but the truth.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Chas]

I live in a rural farming community and have my entire life. I know what the different priorities are. And so far the vast majority are incapable of comprehending the actual scale of the world and cannot fathom things like human actions altering the climate or even simple shit like other cultures existing in the world and they're not hollywood creations.
You think the average rural person should have more power than 3 city dwellers? I fucking laugh at you as I watch ANOTHER person who has lived here their entire fucking life slide off the highway outside my house because they forgot ice is slippery, just like they did every other year of driving their entire lives.

Before you say another stupid something, I still live here because I have lived surrounded by mountains my entire life. More than a week away and I start getting agoraphobic. And the ocean is just creepy as all get out.

So, you supposedly know what the differences are, yet you deign to belittle the concern.

The EC exists to protect rural interests from those in more urban areas. AND VICE VERSA.

It's about trying to achieve a balance of concerns.

And please understand, nobody promised you equal representation in electing the chief executive. EVER.

And, because you've already done something stupid and equated rural living (for anyone who isn't you) as making one stupid.

Try Chicago during the first snow. People, en masse, forget how to drive on snow and ice. So accidents skyrocket.
It's just proof that ANYONE, from ANY walk of life can be dumb and careless. Ascribing it just to some rural yahoos means that your perspective is severely truncated.
Probably because you're still not thinking straight after your horse lost the race...

Come on back to this argument once you're ready to calm down and apply actual logic to your argument.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

When do you suppose that's going to start applying to all the "Godless commie mexican jew lizard muslim terrorist traitor" talk that gets leveled at the libs?

You wanted political incorrectness? Congratulations! You Won! Politics is rugby now. So rub some dirt on your precious bruised feelings and grow some damn balls.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Adriax]

I didn't vote for clinton either. She's too fucking toxic and likely would have been impeached in the first year.
But the guy who did win does not have the support of the majority of americans, acts like a god damned child when he doesn't get his way, and STILL thinks this is something he can do part time. I would have preferred Johnson over either, but I'll take a brief Clinton presidency over this train wreck.
My "horse" in this race was anyone but that jaundiced chihuahua.

Your response to my ice driving comment is exactly what I expected. You have the exact same small area mindset as a lot of people here. You can't comprehend scale, can you?

You who believes yourself worth more than others because of where you live can go fuck yourself. I am a citizen, my life and opinion is worth no more and no less than any other.
I've applied logic to this conversation. You just ignore it like everything else inconvenient because you seriously believe your feelings trump actual facts, just like all the other complete idiots who voted for the muppet reject.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

My wife an I were just talking about this and I think that it's pretty simple. Californians seem to be never satisfied to just run California and live there and be content. At least the ones involved in the Californian Diaspora seem to feel this need to move to other states and turn them into California. I just saw a bumper sticker here in Colorado that had "New Cali" written in a Colorado license plate design.

There are plenty of people who are proud of the state that they come from, but only Californians move to other states in such large numbers and with the conscious desire to completely reshape the host state in California's image. Surely, in that context you can see why the others in the country see California as a bogeyman.

But in the context of the thread, California is just brought up because it's a large, highly populated state with a largely homogenous voting block.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Chas]

I didn't vote for clinton either. She's too fucking toxic and likely would have been impeached in the first year.
But the guy who did win does not have the support of the majority of americans, acts like a god damned child when he doesn't get his way, and STILL thinks this is something he can do part time. I would have preferred Johnson over either, but I'll take a brief Clinton presidency over this train wreck.
My "horse" in this race was anyone but that jaundiced chihuahua.

Your response to my ice driving comment is exactly what I expected. You have the exact same small area mindset as a lot of people here. You can't comprehend scale, can you?

You who believes yourself worth more than others because of where you live can go fuck yourself. I am a citizen, my life and opinion is worth no more and no less than any other.
I've applied logic to this conversation. You just ignore it like everything else inconvenient because you seriously believe your feelings trump actual facts, just like all the other complete idiots who voted for the muppet reject.

Again, the support of "the majority of Americans" is NOT a prerequisite for the executive office. NEVER WAS.

How many times does it need to be said, "majority rule IS MOB RULE".

Simple majority in the presidential election has never been anything other than a statistical curiosity.

As for acting like a child. So he doesn't fit your ideal of "presidential behavior". SO WHAT?
All that is, is yet another trap that political enemies set up in an attempt to control one's behavior. It's simply more of "You can't say that. You can't do that."
And that's BULLSHIT.

The only things he's not allowed to do are things already pre-defined BY LAW.

If you don't like that, it comes down to "tough shit".

And you're yet another one of these "Fuck the law, reality doesn't suit me!" idiots who simply can't handle the fact that the man won the election BY THE RULES. Despite all the ham-handed machinations to "anoint" someone else.

Time to grow the hell up. Time to deal with reality. If you don't happen to like it, too bad. You have two options. Crawl back into your crib and pout for four years or get out there and work for change.

Nobody's REQUIRING you to "like" Trump, or even agree with him. But are you saying that you're simply unwilling to work with the man AT ALL, even if your participation in the process could ameliorate some of the damage he might do? And might leave the world a better place in 4 years' time?

Is that REALLY what you're saying? You'd rather burn the country down?

And I'm not sure what you think "scale" is. But your closed, hardened, unreceptive mindset speaks to something OTHER THAN "scale".

And, last I checked, it was YOU who believed yourself superior to others with your comments on the small-mindedness of rural citizens other than yourself.
I don't pretend I'm better than anyone. I just know my arguments aren't sloppy attempts at "I know you are but what am I?"

And I'm not the one letting my feelings trump facts here. And anyone who can read your posts can't help but conclude that your posts are nothing BUT feelings and butthurt.
Seriously, you basically said that you didn't vote for Trump. Neither did I.
You're saying you didn't vote for Clinton either. Neither did I.
But, since Trump IS the winner, I'm willing to work with him to make the country a better place. You are not. You're too busy pouting because real life doesn't organize itself to your whims.

Who, who's the one ignoring facts here kiddo?

Face it. You've got some growing up to do.

Let me know if it ever happens.

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

a) didn't do much of what he said and b) turned out to be just a mouthy incompetent version of everything they thought they were voting against.

So politics as usual, and the set of morons rejoicing that "their" team won rotates.

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[BlueStrat]

Yes, it's going to be awesome when you tell over half the country that they have no say in government at the national level. That will turn out well.

That's exactly what got Trump elected. President-elections-have-consequences-I've-got-a-pen-and-a-phone and his followers are responsible for Trump, along with the Republicans who are liberal-Progressives that fold the moment anything that requires a spine and/or principles comes up.

Between those two groups Americans felt they had no say, so they elected somebody they hope will burn the whole thing down.

Nice going, assholes!

Strat

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[ebvwfbw]

I don't think you're being honest. I can't think of a state that requires anything definitive. Somehow that's racist. Black people they tell us can't either get an ID or they can't be trusted to have it on election day. I'd think they're the racist ones saying black people are so stupid and irresponsible, however somehow it's not. Maybe it's just the black people that are also Democrats, which seems consistent. I have a voter reg card, I've never been asked for it nor any other identification in the 30+ years I've been voting. Not once. I've lived in three different counties. Same thing.
I found an illegal working at a construction site. He said Maryland hooked him right up to vote when they gave him a license. He even said he's not here legally, they didn't care. Motor voter at work. Another guy from Virginia also said he was hooked right up to vote. I talked to a construction foreman from Arizona, he said it was very common there.

Here are the dead voting - http://watchdog.org/57643/md-d...

http://articles.baltimoresun.c... - in this case they were able to prove in court a lot of dead people voted. The Democratic judge didn't care. He didn't invalidate the results even though it's clear the ballot box was stuffed and Sourbrey lost by less than 6000 votes.

Amazing thing, when you die, you always vote for Democrats. Funny how that is. I don't recall ever seeing anyone accusing a dead person voting for Republicans.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[hsthompson69]

Forget the EC - if liberals really have a problem with anything except perfectly equal representation everywhere, they'd have to abolish the Senate too.

The point that I think they're missing is that we have a government of checks and balances - this is a *feature*, not a bug. The electoral college gives the possibility for a minority revolt, which is exactly what happened here. The majority ruled with too harsh a hand, made too many executive orders, and gave too little respect to the minority - and now the minority is in power to undo that damage. And the minority will *continue* to be in power until the majority can reach out to them, and peel away their support through compromise, rather than tongue lashing.

tl;dr - you can set up a government to incentivize one of three things - absolute majority rule (pure democracy), absolute minority rule (monarchy), or compromise government between majorities and minorities. We live in the third.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[cstacy]

Says the AC.

Tell ya what. If they come interview me, I'll gladly give them the details.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

He won the popular vote too despite the millions of dead and illegal voters for Clinton.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Zak3056]

I don't disagree that this is how "everyone refers to it" or that it's a convenient shorthand to use for purposes of conversation. That doesn't change the fact that it's not an accurate description of what is actually taking place, hence my statement "the confusion most people seem to have."

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[eric_harris_76]

Nobody's interested in hearing about your mental problems.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[skam240]

Losing the popular vote doesnt mean anything? That's ridiculous. At the very least it shows that one doesnt have a clear mandate from the people.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[skam240]

Maybe it's just you that's confused.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

Forget the EC - if liberals really have a problem with anything except perfectly equal representation everywhere, they'd have to abolish the Senate too.

The Senate itself is a question of many problems. As are the states themselves. See the 38 state plan, for example.

The point that I think they're missing is that we have a government of checks and balances - this is a *feature*, not a bug.

Nope. This particular manifestation? It's not desired at all. It's actually a way that destroys confidence. Check out the past polling, people didn't like the idea of a president not winning the popular vote. And the people who suddenly change their tune, that's rather telling about their preferences.

Electoral reform, don't knock it, don't dismiss people with your own tongue-lashing.

The electoral college gives the possibility for a minority revolt, which is exactly what happened here.

This was no minority revolt, it was a technical victory of a small margin. No more meaningful than it is. I will give you credit, you aren't calling it a landslide or mandate, like some of the egregious liars in this thread, but it's not anything significant anyway.

The majority ruled with too harsh a hand, made too many executive orders, and gave too little respect to the minority - and now the minority is in power to undo that damage.

Or that isn't what actually happened, the number of executive orders was low, and the minority set about the last 8 years bickering and bitching, obstructing all improvement, and making up stories about oppression that are as fake as any others. And now they're in a position to act on their own vicious tendencies. They can't be reached out to at all, they went for the most pompous, bombastic, and asinine candidate possible, and they're just concocting this false narrative to excuse themselves.

And the minority will *continue* to be in power until the majority can reach out to them, and peel away their support through compromise, rather than tongue lashing.

Let me know when you complain about the minority's own attitudes. They spent the last 8 years fighting everything they could. And lying about it. And Trump is lying about his victory. Outright making shit up.

That's not going to foster compromise at all. Nor the vicious attacks on the Union leader, or the PizzaGate stuff, or any number of other things.

But you'd know that, if you knew about the 8 years of Birtherism.

tl;dr - you can set up a government to incentivize one of three things - absolute majority rule (pure democracy), absolute minority rule (monarchy), or compromise government between majorities and minorities. We live in the third.

Or we live in something else, that has not got the confidence of compromise that you seem to want, and people aren't convinced that Trump, or the Republicans, will act reasonably, or responsibly, so maybe we need to be prepared to make changes to protect ourselves.

This result wasn't too discrepant. If Trump doesn't push himself too hard, maybe he'll be a footnote like Rutherford B. Hayes. If he does...well, things may get very much upset.

He's the one you have to worry about being oppressive.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[rholtzjr]

Sure they did. Mandate was provided by the Electoral College for the entire country.

There is no "everyone gets a trophy" in the Presidential election process.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[skam240]

I strongly suspect you're being purposely dense to further your own views.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[hsthompson69]

Check out the past polling, people didn't like the idea of a president not winning the popular vote.

And the majority doesn't like the idea of being unable to impose their will upon the minority :) Forgive me if I'm reluctant to give much attention to polls if I understand the useful nature of checks and balances :)

This was no minority revolt, it was a technical victory of a small margin.

We're saying the same thing. The technical victory was of a minority that was given that power through the systems of checks and balances we have, namely, the electoral college. The swing of the particular precincts that voted for Obama previously and voted for Trump this time was no small revolution for the people making that switch - it was a massive repudiation of their prior support of "hope and change".

, and the minority set about the last 8 years bickering and bitching, obstructing all improvement,

Well, it's the job of the minority to bicker and bitch, the problem is they weren't very good at obstructing the high-impact low-number of executive actions, or the large scale interventions into the economy through an unread health care bill :)

They can't be reached out to at all, they went for the most pompous, bombastic, and asinine candidate possible,

And this attitude will mean the pompous, bombastic, asinine character will rule for 8 years instead of four :)

When you call people xenophobic, racist, misogynistic, and deplorable, you're not going to get their vote :) Shame has a effective range of 0m :)

people aren't convinced that Trump, or the Republicans, will act reasonably, or responsibly,

The real problem, from the left hand point of view, is that their extremist rhetoric on this point sets the bar so low, Trump just needs to step over it. If you're convinced that Trump is going to setup muslim internment camps, round up the gays and send them to gas chambers, and create rape palaces for him and his other white male cis-gendered friends, you're going to look stupid when all he does is overturn Roe v. Wade.

tl;dr - from a purely tactical point of view, liberals need to be showing contrition, remorse, and reaching out to the wobblers they lost. They don't even have to be *sincere* about it, but until they can recover the folks who made the Obama-Trump switch, they're going to lose.

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

More whiny democrats trying the mod bomb thing. Fuck 'em!

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

"Troll"

This is just another reason the democrats deserve to lose everything. Stupid fuckers have to attack wherever they can. Your abuse of privileges has been noted. I'll just post about you assholes as AC from now on.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

And the majority doesn't like the idea of being unable to impose their will upon the minority

Nope, that's untrue. In general, most people actually do empathize with not coercing others. Except for sociopaths, who are the minority by far.

But that's psychology, and a wide divergence from this discussion as such.

Sticking to voting, nope, people did not like the thought of a minority president, and the only change? Those who see partisan advantage which cloaks their immediate thinking.

Forgive me if I'm reluctant to give much attention to polls if I understand the useful nature of checks and balances

Nope, I don't even agree we are looking at checking and balances here, the Electoral college isn't offering a check or balance in this circumstance at all, it's just showing it capricious nature. At last examination, 80,000 votes was the balance in 3 states.

That's not a check or balance, that's a random result of no convincing value. A rainstorm could change those numbers. Which is why the electoral college is a TERRIBLE solution, it really does not offer confidence when certain things happen.

This was no minority revolt, it was a technical victory of a small margin.

We're saying the same thing.

Nope. Please don't insult me with that kind of remark. It's offensive. We are saying very different things. It is quite obvious that we are not on the same page at all.

You said minority revolt which has some meaning, you even ascribed it to certain things happening. I am saying no such thing occurred, that it was an election result of chance, and as such, nope, the meaning is the Electoral College is erratic, which I knew before this election, from the past, as well as theory, but now we have yet another example.

So the only meaning I hope to get out of it? Meaningful impetus to a system that isn't bollocks. At the least, maybe we'll get the Wyoming Rule implemented. I know what I'm saying, and I'm rejecting your interpretation entirely. If you think I'm wrong about what you're saying...you'd have to offer me some explanation as to how I misread you.

The technical victory was of a minority that was given that power through the systems of checks and balances we have, namely, the electoral college.

The technical victory was a matter of caprice and chance, as I mentioned above, it wasn't power, but a matter of the system being subject to wild variation.

No checks, no balances. Unless something comes up, like say, the CIA releasing a tape showing Trump agreeing to serve Putin, in which case, I will grant that the electors were able to take concerted action to prevent a problem.

This has not occurred, however, and I doubt it will.

The swing of the particular precincts that voted for Obama previously and voted for Trump this time was no small revolution for the people making that switch - it was a massive repudiation of their prior support of "hope and change".

Again, nope. There was no massive swing of people who voted for Trump, because his numbers are STILL below Hillary's, and still below Obama's in the prior 2 elections. This is the problem, people think something like what you described, happened, but it didn't. It doesn't add up.

Sure, you can say there were some people who did. So what? There are probably people who didn't vote for Trump too. But massive repudiation? Nope. You make claims that are unsupported in the actual results. Even if I accepted that there were lots of switched, the net gain? Almost nothing over Bush in 2004. Behind Hillary, behind Obama in 2012, WAY BEHIND Obama in 2008.

The numbers aren't there. Now in 2008, the people turned out in numbers to reject Bush, even the Norwegians were glad of it. Unfortunately, Obama blew his political capital implementing a Republican half-ass solution and

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Chas]

And the majority doesn't like the idea of being unable to impose their will upon the minority

Nope, that's untrue. In general, most people actually do empathize with not coercing others. Except for sociopaths, who are the minority by far.

Okay, if it's untrue, why are you bitching so hard? And why the name-calling?

Face it. You got a result you didn't want, due to checks and balances. Now you're sitting here sucking your thumb, pulling your ear and pouting.

As for not agreeing that the EC is a check and balance system. Luckily, reality still goes on without your agreement.

For you, checks and balances are whatever allows YOU or something YOU support to win.

Nope. Please don't insult me with that kind of remark. It's offensive

Ah! The "I'm offended." plaint.

So you're offended? So what? Facts don't care about your feelings.

The technical victory was a matter of caprice and chance, as I mentioned above, it wasn't power, but a matter of the system being subject to wild variation.

As opposed to a popular vote. Where the party that gets majority simply stays in power and can do whatever the fuck they want to the minority.

No thanks.

Again, nope. There was no massive swing of people who voted for Trump, because his numbers are STILL below Hillary's, and still below Obama's in the prior 2 elections. This is the problem, people think something like what you described, happened, but it didn't. It doesn't add up.

Again, the popular vote total has NEVER been ANYTHING other than a statistical blurb. PERIOD.

The massive swing being talked about is the capture of districts and states overall.

He swung states that have been Democratic bastion states since REAGAN.

I get it. You're a partisan little shitbag who simply wants his way.

Fine. You're entitled to be one.

But if you want change in your situation, you're going to need to work for it.

Just be aware that the tricks of simply labeling people as one of the various "ists" has pretty much exceeded its freshness date. So you're going to need to bring actual facts into the mix.
Because if you keep bringing the same bullshit that's been getting fed to people for the last 8 years, you're going to get buried.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

And the majority doesn't like the idea of being unable to impose their will upon the minority

Nope, that's untrue. In general, most people actually do empathize with not coercing others. Except for sociopaths, who are the minority by far.

Okay, if it's untrue, why are you bitching so hard?

Do you think talking to you is bitching? Do you think that has anything to do with coercion?

But if you want to know why I am dedicated to this, which would be a more neutral question, it's because I find the statements being made to be false, I am troubled by the conduct of Donald Trump, and I wish to change it. You could have chosen to express yourself less vindictively you know.

And why the name-calling?

What name-calling? You'll have to identify some for it to be explained. I can point to yours in this post, though. You've included a couple. Maybe even your first question, though I might give that some leeway. Not so much the others.

Face it. You got a result you didn't want, due to checks and balances.

Face it, the result happened due to sheer chance, and you're thinking it is something it is not. No checks and balances occurred here.

Just caprice.

?Now you're sitting here sucking your thumb, pulling your ear and pouting.

Now this could be construed as name-calling on your part. At the least, it's a pejorative description. So why say this? Me? I think you're doing it because you don't want to hear what others have to say, so you come up with a means to dismiss it. Or you could just be irate and irascible.

p>As for not agreeing that the EC is a check and balance system. Luckily, reality still goes on without your agreement.

For you, checks and balances are whatever allows YOU or something YOU support to win.

I'm afraid you didn't read what I said accurately. I'll repeat it:

Nope, I don't even agree we are looking at checking and balances here, the Electoral college isn't offering a check or balance in this circumstance at all, it's just showing it capricious nature. At last examination, 80,000 votes was the balance in 3 states.

That's not a check or balance, that's a random result of no convincing value. A rainstorm could change those numbers. Which is why the electoral college is a TERRIBLE solution, it really does not offer confidence when certain things happen.

Now go over it a bit more. Read it properly this time.

Note what I'm saying more carefully, I've emphasized the point that you failed to grasp. I'm talking about this result. Not the electoral college as a whole, so your argument about that is based on a faulty understanding of my words. Your response, therefore, does not address what I said, but instead tries to attack me on the wrong principle.

Instead of making an assertion about the electoral college, you would have to argue about this specific election. You should rethink your words. You'll have to admit your error though, to restore your credibility. You have harmed your credibility with this reply where you didn't comprehend my meaning properly. So to get back, you'll have to make an effort.

Nope. Please don't insult me with that kind of remark. It's offensive

Ah! The "I'm offended." plaint.

So you're offended? So what? Facts don't care about your feelings.

Ah the "you're just hurt with your little feelings" response? Fact is, I wasn't saying the same thing as hsthompson69 at all. That's why you cut out the rest of what I said.

But I'll include it:

We are saying very different things. It is quite obvious that we are not on the same page at all.

You said minority revolt which has some meaning, you even ascribed it to certain things happening. I am sayi

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[MBGMorden]

And what of them wanting to wait for a Republican president to nominate a conservative to the supreme court when if they were playing to the letter of the law it should have been Obama that made that nomination?

By the letter of the law the President can nominate a Supreme Court justice WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SENATE. If the senate doesn't wish to approve a specific candidate - or any candidate - from the currently sitting president, then they have no legal obligation to do so. You're only looking at one side of the equation and stamping your feet that Obama isn't getting his Justice appointed, but legally that's simply not a given. If Hillary had won they'd be within their legal rights to go another 4 years without approving a justice if they wanted to.

The simple reality is that the parties have become polarized to the point that if you don't control BOTH the presidency AND the senate - your party probably isn't going to be filling any vacant SCOTUS positions. That's perfectly legal, and generally preferred by most people who voted in the legislature. Can most Democrats honestly say that if Trump had won the presidency but the Democrats had won the Senate, if he wanted to appoint someone openly anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion that you'd be of the opinion that they should just go ahead and approve his choice because appointing a justice is just some perk that Trump should receive? I'd be willing to bet you'd be looking at every single legal option no matter how outlandish to try and avoid that - much like many are already trying to do with Trump's presidency itself (ie, trying to coerce the electoral college into voting for Hillary - in one case I even saw one person suggesting that the electorates would be violating the constitution and should be replaced if they DIDN'T switch their votes to Hillary).

You've lost the Presidency, I would say you "lost" the Senate and House but you didn't have those to begin with, and with the antics after the election you've lost whatever moral highground you thought you had.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think you're being honest. I can't think of a state that requires anything definitive.

You must be dishonest, so dishonest, you don't think anybody has heard of Voter ID.

Somehow that's racist. Black people they tell us can't either get an ID or they can't be trusted to have it on election day. I'd think they're the racist ones saying black people are so stupid and irresponsible, however somehow it's not.

Nothing racist about saying that IDs are deliberately made hard to get for many people, due to mysteriously shutting down locations, only opening them at certain hours, and other effects.

Maybe it's just the black people that are also Democrats, which seems consistent.

Yep, that's what happened in North Carolina.

I have a voter reg card, I've never been asked for it nor any other identification in the 30+ years I've been voting. Not once. I've lived in three different counties. Same thing.

Counties are not states. See

Here are the dead voting - http://watchdog.org/57643/md-d...

Then you read the article, and it says:

"At least two dead voters showed up to vote at least once in a Maryland general election between 2004 and 2008, according to a voter registration watchdog group that has reviewed thousands of voter records this year, 1 percent of the rolls in the largest counties."

According to them. But...

"The group – Election Integrity Maryland – filed a complaint with the State Board of Elections Aug. 30. The group said it found several potential dead voters, voters who registered after they had died and a living Maryland resident who has been voting twice in elections for years."

But potential is the key word.

Here's another article:

Which says other things.

http://articles.baltimoresun.c... - in this case they were able to prove in court a lot of dead people voted. The Democratic judge didn't care. He didn't invalidate the results even though it's clear the ballot box was stuffed and Sourbrey lost by less than 6000 votes.

No, they weren't able to make that proof.

Again, from your own article:

"But others, including city elections administrator Barbara Jackson, said incorrect registrations are common in Baltimore and not necessarily evidence of fraud. Many people fail to notify the election board when they move and continue to vote from their old address, she said."

"The Sun did locate one voter identified by the Sauerbrey campaign, Ora L. Lewis, who listed 913 Whitelock St., a building that was razed several months ago, as her home address on her voter registratio

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

Says the AC.

Tell ya what. If they come interview me, I'll gladly give them the details.

So the person who claims they know about voting improprieties, refuses to take action.

You're just being a blowhard internet poster, comfortable that you can make shit up, but you know you can't prove it, so you won't do anything that'd put you on the line.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[hsthompson69]

In general, most people actually do empathize with not coercing others.

Agreed. But this isn't true of most SJWs or liberals :)

At last examination, 80,000 votes was the balance in 3 states.

And the minority in those small, swing states, which would otherwise be voiceless in a competition with high population states, stood against the status quo.

I am saying no such thing occurred, that it was an election result of chance,

Isn't that true of any close election? Isn't it just chance on who shows up, and who stays home, especially in a close race? Maybe someone had a flat tire? Maybe someone happened to get laid off so they had a day to go vote - asserting that close elections are *anything* but chance seems silly.

There was no massive swing of people who voted for Trump

Sure there was, on the precinct level. That's a small minority of the population, agreed, sitting in some swing state, but that was what made the difference, by chance or not :)

Even if I accepted that there were lots of switched, the net gain? Almost nothing over Bush in 2004. Behind Hillary, behind Obama in 2012, WAY BEHIND Obama in 2008.

You're using the frame of popular vote. That's an improper frame when addressing a minority revolt against an oppressive government supported by large population liberal states.

And nope, plenty of people read that health care bill.

Well, bits and pieces. You couldn't find a single legislator that read the whole thing. Probably couldn't find one today either :)

there's a lot more people who didn't vote anyway. It's more than 40%. That's a problem in itself.

Your assumption that this non-voting 40% isn't generally represented by the 60% that do vote is simply that, an assumption. Accept for a moment that the electorate is generally representative of the total population. Now, is it important for you to reach out to the voters Obama lost to Trump?

Nope. Shame works very well. It even works on the innocent.

No. Calling me a xenophobe, or a racist, or a homophobe, because I don't agree with your policy positions doesn't make you more persuasive - in fact, it drives me to vote for Trump simply to upset you :)

It's the subtle, sly underhanded dealings that I worry about.

You mean like replacing the travel staff of the whitehouse, or renting the lincoln bedroom, or selling access to the Secretary of State?

You and I share the same worry, we just evaluated the risks differently :)

Obama did that.[showed contrition, remorse, and reached out to wobblers] It didn't work.

Pics or it didn't happen :) Obama alienated everyone on the Hill claiming "he won" and "elections have consequences. To this day, he has never blamed himself for his failures, always finding some other scapegoat.

And the way to get them out to vote? It's not your mealy wishy-washy solution, it's giving them a fighting cause. Energy and gumption, not malaise.

Funny, when you say "energy and gumption", i think Trump, and when you say "malaise", I think Clinton (and her predecessor Carter). :)

As for a fighting cause, I think the liberals can't find a *single* one that will unify their base - they have too many special interests, and too much invested in identity politics. A white person supporting "Black Lives Matters" must feel at least some cognitive dissonance, if only shame for their skin color. Anyone can say "Make America Great Again", since it's inclusive.

In fact, Hillary's "Stronge

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

>Agreed. But this isn't true of most SJWs or liberals

Actually, the "SJW" epithet is an example of trying to use control by the right-wing, a recently popular one, though they've been disparaging "liberal" for years too. It's part of their methodology, and based on their desire not to control others, feeding into a need to appear as if they aren't.

Again, psychology for you.

And the minority in those small, swing states, which would otherwise be voiceless in a competition with high population states, stood against the status quo.

Come agian? You may want to re-examine your words. The minority in those swing states, would be the ones who didn't vote for Trump, which means they would stand for the status quo, assuming you take electing a president who intended to stay the course, as the status quo, though I do doubt that Trump's claims to be seeking a sea change would necessarily be true. And they're voiceless, since only two states even consider anything other than WTA, and even that is the problematic district-level awards.

I suggest you consider whatever you wanted to say, but I think you're trying to make some point about the Electoral College, but you can't be claiming it gives voices to those states, because it doesn't. All it would take is 11 states to win the Electoral college, and that's why it is systematically non-functional for the purposes for which you attribute it.

You are confusing a coincidental result with a meaningful one.

Isn't that true of any close election? Isn't it just chance on who shows up, and who stays home, especially in a close race?

Whether it is in a close election, or isn't, doesn't matter, since your point was what was being addressed. Namely you contended this was some major change, when it wasn't. That it was a massive repudiation, that it was revealing something.

You weren't saying it was chance, you were attributing a meaning, whereas I am not, I'm rejecting it. I am saying it is chance. Like I said, we aren't saying the same thing at all.

Maybe someone had a flat tire? Maybe someone happened to get laid off so they had a day to go vote - asserting that close elections are *anything* but chance seems silly.

Well, you're the one who said it was anything but chance, so I guess that makes you silly. Not very funny though, I suggest you work on your act.

I use a rainstorm as an example, since that isn't a particular, but a wider pattern of influence. Could impact thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people.

Sure there was, on the precinct level. That's a small minority of the population, agreed, sitting in some swing state, but that was what made the difference, by chance or not

Well, unfortunately for your argument, your assertion was a massive swing, which means it should show in the national vote. But turnout was down, therefore, it demonstrably wasn't in more votes. Even in those three states. I haven't checked every state to see if they're all down though, some might be up. Perhaps.

And if you want to look at some maps:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2016/
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2012/

You'll want to overlay them yourself, you'll see it's not that great a change. Somebody might be planning on doing it on a precinct-by-precinct GIS level, but I don't know if they have all the data yet.

You're using the frame of popular vote. That's an improper frame when addressing a minority revolt against an oppressive government supported by large population liberal states.

Nope, it's the entirely proper frame to use when you claim a massive repudiation, and purport there to be some revolt towards whatever Trump offered. Nationwide, it's alread

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[hsthompson69]

Actually, the "SJW" epithet is an example of trying to use control by the right-wing

Funny that you think that. SJW has been a term of self-identification by the hardcore alt-left for years now - although if you have any sort of citation to show its origin in the conservative press, I'd be happy to look at it.

The minority in those swing states, would be the ones who didn't vote for Trump, which means they would stand for the status quo, assuming you take electing a president who intended to stay the course, as the status quo

Oh, that's funny! So, I can use "minority" to define the small states and rural areas that went for Trump on a national scale, and then you can use the term "minority" for the folks in the national "majority", but in a local "minority" :)

It's like a hall of mirrors with you!

Namely you contended this was some major change, when it wasn't. That it was a massive repudiation, that it was revealing something.

It was a massive repudiation, on its face. We've literally elected a president that is going to undo a massive amount of government expansion executed over the past 8 years. You can argue that 55 million is less massive than 57 million, perhaps, but to call this anything but a repudiation of the tyranny of the majority is silly.

The fact that this massive repudiation could happen *by chance* doesn't make it any less massive. E.g., even if any given hurricane as caused by chance (some butterfly flapping its wings), doesn't make the hurricane less massive. Ponder on that for a bit.

Anyway, a substantial lack of turnout? This inherently destroys confidence in the reflection of the vote to the wishes of the electorate.

No. People who make the choice not to vote have that right, and it accurately reflects their wishes when they allow their voting peers to make the final call.

Obama didn't lose voters to Trump, you may want to rephrase that. Obama wasn't running.

Obama campaigned for Hillary. People that voted for him, chose to repudiate his endorsement of Clinton. He lost those voters.

They've been playing the "Shame on you for pulling the Race Card" Card for quite a while. It's very popular.

Blame the victim much? :) That's the "Stop shaming me with your race card and make a real argument" card :)

It's popular because it cuts to the quick - the shame tactics of the left have an effective range of 0m.

Oh my. Wait a second. That's 2008. Then what happened? You forget his post-2010 [nytimes.com], or 2014 [washingtonpost.com] speeches?

Oh, you mean when he *lost* elections, and then expected his opponents to treat him better than he did in 2008? :)

You only get one chance to make a first impression :)

I'll say it's difficult because they're reasonable and considerate, rather than just going off on whatever fanatic zealotry will get the yelling started.

Did we have left wing riots after the election, or right wing ones? Just sayin' :)

.anything but bringing up the true cause, which is an actually legitimate grievance.

BLM thinks the true cause is some massive, systemic racism by white cops (even when black cops shoot them).

In fact, the true cause is a thug culture that poisons the well for those people who *aren't* thugs, but happen to share some phenotypic attributes with them. You could also point to the cause a over-militarized police force, and limits placed on self-defense by law abiding civilians.

So, no, they don't have a legitimate grievance, they have a contrived one, which, moreover, is actively detrimental for dealing

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the "SJW" epithet is an example of trying to use control by the right-wing

Funny that you think that. SJW has been a term of self-identification by the hardcore alt-left for years now - although if you have any sort of citation to show its origin in the conservative press, I'd be happy to look at it.

Did I say the word "origin" above? No, I didn't. Did I make any claim as to its origination? No. I said used. As in it is used by the right-wing as a term of disparagement, in order to enact control. You should be more careful in reading my words, especially since I also noted they did the same with "liberal" which means you really never should have come to your misreading regarding origination anyway. I can't even fathom how you did, though if you want to offer an explanation, I'll be glad to see it. I would like to know how I can disabuse such misreadings as yours in the future.

The minority in those swing states, would be the ones who didn't vote for Trump, which means they would stand for the status quo, assuming you take electing a president who intended to stay the course, as the status quo

Oh, that's funny! So, I can use "minority" to define the small states and rural areas that went for Trump on a national scale, and then you can use the term "minority" for the folks in the national "majority", but in a local "minority"

No, you said and I quote "And the minority in those small, swing states" which according to my reading, would be the ones who didn't vote for Trump, assuming you are contending Trump won a majority in those states. Which is true for some, I supose, but for others, technically it is a plurality, and in almost all, no, the minority has no voice, since WTA is the rule except in 2 states.

Really, I believe it's a matter of poor expression on your end. There's a reason I suggested you rephrase whatever you meant, to be more clear as to what you meant. Since you cut the bit I said about the electoral college, as well as my comments on your lack of clarity, I still can't ascertain what you really meant, or even if you understood my problem was with your expression being poor.

It seems to me that you do have a tendency to cut excessively, and focus on the wrong things, I suggest working on that.

Namely you contended this was some major change, when it wasn't. That it was a massive repudiation, that it was revealing something.

It was a massive repudiation, on its face.

Nope. Only in its mask. Which is what a lot of people look at, I will grant, but the true face is different. Or if you prefer another analogy, faces are superficial, the meat is deeper still.

You're not alone though, lots of people have made the same, or similar enough, remarks. They've really been wronger than they know.

We've literally elected a president that is going to undo a massive amount of government expansion executed over the past 8 years.

Nope, we have not. We, as the American People, made no such action. The caprice of the electoral college has resulted in a president-elect who claimed that there was some massive amount of government expansion over the past 8 years that he's going to tear down, but we, as in the American People, made no concerted or deliberate effort at all.

In fact, the American people, by choice, actually preferred otherwise. And of course, Trump is only making the claim to do something, actually doing, is not yet evident, but is, instead, disputable.

You can argue that 55 million is less massive than 57 million, perhaps, but to call this anything but a repudiation of the tyranny of the majority is silly.

Your argument was that it was a massive repudiation of Obama, and that is what is silly, since Trump, as I indicated, got pretty much the same level of support of Bush

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[hsthompson69]

No. I said used. As in it is used by the right-wing as a term of disparagement, in order to enact control.

I mock SJWs in order to repudiate their intended control of me. Again, you've got this hall of mirrors going on, blaming the victim :)

"And the minority in those small, swing states" which according to my reading, would be the ones who didn't vote for Trump, assuming you are contending Trump won a majority in those states.

Yes, I thought that changing of frame on you part particularly clever, since we can draw an arbitrary boundary on any given set of voters to create both Trump majorities, and Trump minorities. When I spoke of minorities, I meant on the national level, and you simply changed the frame. Clever :)

we, as in the American People, made no concerted or deliberate effort at all.

We, the oppressed minority, did make a concerted and deliberate effort. And thanks to the electoral college "capriciousness", and perhaps even the random chance of who showed up to the polls, had our voice heard, and won.

Simply because a number of dice had to fall in a certain order for this particular result to happen, doesn't change the message that was being sent by the oppressed minority. Yes, luck had at least something to do with it, but the fact that Trump's message could resonate enough for him to even win the Republican primary was a deep, meaty message.

Your argument was that it was a massive repudiation of Obama, and that is what is silly, since Trump, as I indicated, got pretty much the same level of support of Bush in 2004.

You're mistaking the popular vote count for a coherent and visible message from the supporters of the victor. The two are different.

By thinking about it, I get the idea that you think a breeze that happened to blow a poorly constructed shed down is the same as a hurricane.

Well, far be it from me to argue that the Democrat party and the tyranny of the majority is anything but a poorly constructed shed :) If, by your measure, Obama's legacy was so fragile that a mere errant breeze might bring it crashing down, I suppose I can see your point...but that seems to be selling Obama short :)

You're presuming that those who didn't vote chose not to vote of their own free will, and that their actually wish was allowing their peers to make the final call.

With power comes responsibility. If you don't vote, you have made a choice. You may regret it later, but your choice was the implementation of at least one of your wishes, even if you come to regret it.

You may have forgotten, but we're discussing the showing of remorse and contrition, that you said he didn't do. He did. I already said it didn't work.

None of that was remorse or contrition, it was a hope that they wouldn't treat him the way he treated them. He fucked up his first impression, and it bit him in the ass. When he lost, he admitted the loss, and then pleaded for them to treat him well, but never apologized for his crass remarks about elections having consequences, and how he "won".

Perhaps your idea of remorse and contrition differs from mine?

Of course, she only got a technical loss, due to the nature of the electoral college

Ah, much like the technical loss of the Cubs who had fewer runs over the course of the series, or the technical loss of any football team that gains more yardage, but makes fewer touchdowns :)

Yeah, keep holding on to those technicalities :)

To fight for something, you need to fight against something.

Semantics here, but realize you can fight against caddish behav

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

I mock SJWs in order to repudiate their intended control of me.

Well, I do wish you'd explained where your confusion arose, since you don't mention this origin part again I guess you realize that was inaccurate on your part, but yes, that is how right wingers present themselves when they mock people as SJW in order to establish control over them. Adopt the posture of martyrdom and self-proclaimed victimization.

It is clear glass though, transparent, not reflective.

Yes, I thought that changing of frame on you part particularly clever, since we can draw an arbitrary boundary on any given set of voters to create both Trump majorities, and Trump minorities. When I spoke of minorities, I meant on the national level, and you simply changed the frame. Clever

Nothing about cleverness on my part, it's about a lack of clarity in your expression. I honestly don't know what you're trying to say. You just seem to be more intent in complaining about me, explaining my confusion over your words with you, and attributing to it some matter that isn't there. You aren't even responding to my words about the electoral college, just making some remarks over cleverness, rather than forthrightly explaining your own meaning. Is that to much to ask?

Here's your words again:

And the minority in those small, swing states, which would otherwise be voiceless in a competition with high population states, stood against the status quo.

Try re-expressing it. Or tell me why I'm wrong in pointing out to you that the WTA system in the electoral college makes people voiceless anyway.

We, the oppressed minority, did make a concerted and deliberate effort. And thanks to the electoral college "capriciousness", and perhaps even the random chance of who showed up to the polls, had our voice heard, and won.

Yes, capriciousness carried the day, not intent. You may think you made a good effort, but not really, as evidenced by the results (unlike in 2008, where effort was demonstrated) and mere chance could have swung it around.

Hence demonstrating that the electoral college only served the act in the role to which you attribute it by inadvertence, not constructive quality.

Thus making it not actually a means to achieve your desired result. Now I can think of ways to make such a result evident, but you've been avoiding the discussion of electoral reform.

Simply because a number of dice had to fall in a certain order for this particular result to happen, doesn't change the message that was being sent by the oppressed minority.

It does, however, mean attributing the success to the qualities offered by the Electoral college is in error. Of course, it also doesn't mean the message was legitimate either. That's something you've whiffed on already, however.

Yes, luck had at least something to do with it, but the fact that Trump's message could resonate enough for him to even win the Republican primary was a deep, meaty message.

Not really, I could have told you the same thing was working back in the 1980s. Even by 1992, H. Ross Perot pulled the same game as an independent. And he was far less disreputable as a person than Trump. And he substantially gained in votes. Trump? Ultimately, he treaded water in the general electorate and won by chance.

I suppose if you were blind to the pattern and practice of the Republican Party you might not have noticed, and it's a message for you, but for me, it's like...uh duh, you're just getting this now? I could even make an argument that Wendell Willkie was an antecedent for him.

You're mistaking the popular vote count for a coherent and visible message from the supporters of the victor. The two are different.

Nope, I'm taking the popular vote count as a showing that the math doesn't work to validate your claim

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[hsthompson69]

they mock people as SJW in order to establish control over them.

So, which came first, the SJW mocking someone as a racist, misogynist, islamophobe and homophobe, or the mocked people mocking SJWs?

Go ahead, take your time with that :)

And the minority [of the nation] in those small, swing states, which would otherwise be voiceless in a competition with high population states, stood against the status quo.

Perhaps the qualifier of [of the nation] helps frame it for you? The fact is there were two "minorities" in this race (since neither candidate got a majority), but for sake of argument this time, let's pretend in fact, 51% of people [in the nation] voted for Hillary, yet she lost the electoral college vote - in this case, the 49% minority [in the nation] was able to stand against the status quo (which, I'm sure you'll agree, was represented by Hillary).

Yes, capriciousness carried the day, not intent.

You say that as if you can't have both. The luck of the draw does not devalue the intent of the winners.

Trump? Ultimately, he treaded water in the general electorate and won by chance.

Sure, that's all he had to do. Keep his head above water during the massive attacks of the MSM, and find a lucky inside straight along the rust belt. That doesn't mean that the people who voted for him didn't do so intentionally.

Do you believe that some people voted for him by *accident*, and that's why he's in? Really? :)

Nope, I'm taking the popular vote count as a showing that the math doesn't work to validate your claim regarding a massive repudiation.

I'm using the term "massive" as in "massive change of direction". You're using the term "massive" as in "massive number of voters (relatively)".

tl;dr - Obama didn't just make mistakes that required course correction, he fundamentally went in the completely opposite direction desired by the minority [of the nation] he oppressed.

others were unable to vote due to the machinations of others. Some forthright, if questionable, like felon restrictions, others less so, like precinct manipulation.

Heh. Felons. Like Hillary winning Virginia by the # of felons given the right to vote by her co-conspirators :)

Not sure how precinct manipulation makes your point though - a vote may be devalued, say, by packing democrats into ultra blue states, but that doesn't stop them from voting.

I prefer to make the action explicit and express though. I can live with "I don't care" being on the ballot, if you wish, but not participating? No thanks.

I can understand the impulse to make voting mandatory, but I can't justify violating someone's right not to participate that way. We need to allow people to make their own stupid decisions.

Except all of that was the remorse and contrition, you're just arguing that they didn't believe him, and saying you didn't believe him.

No. Neither of the speeches you cited included the word "sorry" or "I apologize" or any variation thereof. In order to be remorseful and contrite, you must first admit to *error* - please, find any phrase or clause in Obama's speeches that show any such admission on his part towards his treatment of Republicans.

A technical loss like "The votes here, they count for X in the electoral college" while "All these votes here? They only count for .%X" because you see, the electoral college is the system that turns a straight-forward election into the arcane and technical one.

The ground-rule double is also quite arcane and obscure. Play the game according to the rules as they are, rather than hoping to win on the basis of th

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

they mock people as SJW in order to establish control over them.

So, which came first, the SJW mocking someone as a racist, misogynist, islamophobe and homophobe, or the mocked people mocking SJWs?

Go ahead, take your time with that

Just to let you know, I have zero interest in that subject, if you want to find somebody who cares, go ask them. I thought I had mentioned that already, but I guess not.

I'm sticking to my observation as to the right's usage of that label as a method of control.

Perhaps the qualifier of [of the nation] helps frame it for you?

That's a better choice of preposition, and makes for a clearer expression of the sentiment you apparently, but then, that means you're back to the problem...of the electoral college not actually constructively serving to do that. You just think it did, because chance let it happen that way.

The fact is there were two "minorities" in this race (since neither candidate got a majority), but for sake of argument this time, let's pretend in fact, 51% of people [in the nation] voted for Hillary, yet she lost the electoral college vote - in this case, the 49% minority [in the nation] was able to stand against the status quo (which, I'm sure you'll agree, was represented by Hillary).

By sheer chance of the capaciousness of the electoral college, and a mere 80,000 votes. Which is why the electoral college, despite many people's beliefs, does not effectively serve to protect the minority.

The aforementioned rainstorm could have done it.

Yes, capriciousness carried the day, not intent.

You say that as if you can't have both.

Exactly. You can't. Not in these circumstances anyway. I'll grant other presidents, like Reagan, Eisenhower, Nixon, Obama, could be said to have, by virtue of rendering the capriciousness of the electoral college of minimal impact in their election. But say, somebody like Lincoln, was left in a poor position, though that was influenced by other factors.

The luck of the draw does not devalue the intent of the winners.

It does, actually. That's the whole point of capriciousness. To put it another way, Candyland isn't a game of skill.

Sure, that's all he had to do. Keep his head above water during the massive attacks of the MSM, and find a lucky inside straight along the rust belt. That doesn't mean that the people who voted for him didn't do so intentionally.

Do you believe that some people voted for him by *accident*, and that's why he's in? Really?

Actually, I believe that the margins are close enough in a few states that that very well could have happened, and there's more than enough electoral votes in those states. Let's see, Florida I'm not sure about this year (in 2000, there's no question of it), but Wisconsin, Michigan, New Hampshire, Minnesota, and maybe even Pennsylvania, yes, I could believe it, if you told me you did the polling and found that number of people who decided on a whim. I don't think you have though, and I'm not terribly interested in the question. I'd resolve it in the first place by addressing the turnout, even Minnesota isn't nearly high enough.

But you're forgetting the thread of the conversation, which is against your idea of the massive repudiation, no small revolution as you called it. That's not true. A rainstorm could have had enough effect to influence it. That's chance too, and yes, it does influence voters.

So even if I accept there's a revolution, it's a barely effective one that got through on a chance outcome.

Nope, I'm taking the popular vote count as a showing that the math doesn't work to validate your claim regarding a massive repudiation.

I'm using the term "massive" as in "mass

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[hsthompson69]

I'm sticking to my observation as to the right's usage of that label as a method of control.

And if it hasn't been clear, I find your observation delightfully hypocritical, given that SJWs are in fact, people trying to control others.

By sheer chance of the capaciousness of the electoral college, and a mere 80,000 votes. Which is why the electoral college, despite many people's beliefs, does not effectively serve to protect the minority.

I wonder what you mean by "effectively". In this case it was prima facie effective. Perhaps your contention is that it did not offer the same protection as should have occurred in 2012, when the minority had been oppressed for only 4 years instead of 8, but I'll simply note that perhaps it took 8 years of oppression, and a little bit of luck, to set the stage for the massive directional repudiation of the status quo.

To put it another way, Candyland isn't a game of skill.

Whether or not candyland is a game of skill, if someone wants to beat you in it to make you cry, that intent isn't changed by the nature of the game. Capriciousness and intent are not mutually exclusive.

yes, I could believe it, if you told me you did the polling and found that number of people who decided on a whim.

A sudden change of mind (a "whim") is not an accident.

you were remiss in not making yourself clear enough.

A fair cop. I humbly apologize for not making myself clear enough.

As for Daddy Trump's trolling, I recognize it for what it is :)

And that isn't even considering Obama's re-election. The American people? Didn't reject him.

I chalk that up to white guilt, really. And perhaps a smidge of the MSM covering up things like Benghazi, or torpedoing poor Mitt in the debates. Now Mitt, he would've made a great president.

I know it's not a rational or consistent position, but I think most Americans like Obama, even if they don't like what he's done. Rejecting Clinton after voting for Obama twice was really just circling the square for them.

I'll take pardons and restoring voting rights, over taking away votes any day of the week.

I'd be fine with that for non-violent felonies. Like maybe poor old Dinesh :)

A rainstorm could have had enough effect to influence it. That's chance too, and yes, it does influence voters.

And this is true in any close race. Asserting that chance repudiates the intentional (rather than accidental) choices of the minority [of a nation] which throws of the shackles of the majority [of a nation] is a unjustified dismissal of agency.

Precinct manipulation refers to the variety of electoral strategies by which individual voting sites can be compromised to retard votes.

You mean, like putting a station on the top of a fifth floor walkup to deter the disabled from participating? I can imagine some of that happening along the edges, but it's hard to take something that subtle seriously.

They are still allowed to make their own stupid decisions, I'm just forcing them to make it clear what they did decide.

No. Just, no. You don't get to force that. You've got no right to their unexpressed opinions. It'd be like me forcing you to make clear what your sexual preferences are in gruesome detail - it's frankly, none of your business, even if it offends you that someone would hide those details.

Again, your resistance and rejection to his response is simply validating my position

I said he never showed remorse or contrition. You cited two speeches he gave when he lost, where he never showed any remorse or contrition. Your

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sticking to my observation as to the right's usage of that label as a method of control.

And if it hasn't been clear, I find your observation delightfully hypocritical, given that SJWs are in fact, people trying to control others.

Actually, no, no, I got zero sense of that at all. Where were you expressing that sentiment? I believe I was, when I said:

It's part of their methodology, and based on their desire not to control others, feeding into a need to appear as if they aren't.

But I don't know what you think you said that indicates that, since I see nothing.

By sheer chance of the capaciousness of the electoral college, and a mere 80,000 votes. Which is why the electoral college, despite many people's beliefs, does not effectively serve to protect the minority.

I wonder what you mean by "effectively".

Why do you wonder? Have I not been clear on explaining why it lacks a deliberate nature, and that the result which you ascribe some important was a matter of capriciousness? What have you been missing? Would you want me to explain how the Electoral college COULD serve to effect the role you want it to? There are some changes that might. Maybe restoring the original VP rules. Maybe some regional idea. Add IRV. (Check out how many states are within the margin of the third party vote) Reform the primaries. Or here's one...split the term. Now that could empower the minority.

To put it another way, Candyland isn't a game of skill.

Whether or not candyland is a game of skill, if someone wants to beat you in it to make you cry, that intent isn't changed by the nature of the game. Capriciousness and intent are not mutually exclusive.

Candyland is not a game of skill, at all., and if you claim by winning it, that you did demonstrate some personal capacity, then you are simply mistaken. Capriciousness and intent are contrary operators.

Of course, an election is somewhat more complicated than Candyland, and can be influenced by many factors, but in this case, the assertions have been rather excessive in their exuberance. No landslide happened. No uprising. No groundswell. No upwelling.

I believe the most you can fairly say is that Trump, did not spectacularly collapse, and that was enough that a victory was possible.

yes, I could believe it, if you told me you did the polling and found that number of people who decided on a whim.

A sudden change of mind (a "whim") is not an accident.

Oh, did you want me to specifically mention that? I certainly could accept that level of error as well, with many of the systems, though hopefully not as bad as the butterfly ballot. Man, that one...well, I have heard Florida switched to all optical ballots, but you can make mistakes with those too.

you were remiss in not making yourself clear enough.

A fair cop. I humbly apologize for not making myself clear enough.

Why do I feel you missed so much of what Is aid. And what will you do in the future? Will you avoid making that error?

I doubt it.

As for Daddy Trump's trolling, I recognize it for what it is

Will you repudiate it, and endorse that there was no landslide in his favor? Nope, you've spent considerably time and effort, these past few posts,
clinging to the idea, that somehow there was something major going on, even in this post, you repeat it.

I doubt it. You'd have to say that Trump merely managed to perform as a Republican could be expected to perform, and chanced to exploit a technical victory result.

And that isn't even considering Obama's re-election. The American people? Didn't reject him.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[hsthompson69]

It's part of their methodology, and based on their desire not to control others, feeding into a need to appear as if they aren't.

You don't see the irony there? You literally ascribe to the right-wing the actual modus operandi of SJWs.

Would you want me to explain how the Electoral college COULD serve to effect the role you want it to?

The 2016 presidential election. Q.E.D.

Candyland is not a game of skill, at all., and if you claim by winning it, that you did demonstrate some personal capacity, then you are simply mistaken. Capriciousness and intent are contrary operators.

Candyland is not a game of skill. I can still have the intent to shame you by beating you at candyland. I may not have proven any skill on my part, but even in a game of chance I can have an *intention*.

In the game of a presidential election, you have winners, and losers. You cannot assert that neither of these groups had any intents during the election.

Trump, did not spectacularly collapse, and that was enough that a victory was possible.

And with Rs nominally in charge of the House, Senate and the White House, the end effect is in fact, an uprising, a groundswell, and a landslide. There may in fact, only be a plurality of voters that supported Trump, and even a lesser plurality of those that supported Hillary, but to deny that capricious election didn't end in a landslide of losses for the Ds is just ignoring the plain truth.

Will you repudiate it, and endorse that there was no landslide in his favor?

First off, I don't repudiate trolling. It's humor, and I appreciate it. Seeing SJWs melt down after this election has been particularly tasty :)

Two, you've fallen victim again to the "landslide in popular vote" to "landslide in effective balance of power". Which, from the expectations of the Ds all the way up till 9pm November 8th, was that the Rs would spectacularly implode. Simply in relation to expectations, it was a landslide.

As a net result, they really didn't reject Clinton, though. If they had, Trump would be up in the popular vote

Enough of them really did reject Clinton, after voting for Obama twice. If they didn't reject Clinton, Trump would've have won the rust belt.

Trump didn't gain significantly on Bush in 2004

By my frame, where this was a minority revolt against majority oppression, by *definition* he wouldn't have gained significantly on Bush in 2004. You keep making my point for me.

Well, your difficulty with taking it seriously does make it more likely to be a problem. The slow knife pierces the shield.

Well, I suppose if one could agree that precinct whatever is something we should pay attention to, even if there's not a whole lot of evidence it has a demonstrable effect, we can also agree that voter ID is something we should pay attention to, even if the lack of it doesn't seem to have a lot of evidence of a demonstrable effect either.

Surprise me and agree that free and fair elections means acknowledging the concerns of both sides :)

I say we do. Why? Because voting is going to force a government on them anyway. No sense ninny-prancing around over it.

And I simply have greater regard for personal freedom than you do. We start from different values and premises, and come to different conclusions.

Glad you know what it is though, now you should endorse it.

Good, your phrasing was confusing, it almost sounded like you had a problem with the idea of its implementation.

I might go a step further, and allocate states by population as well :) That'll fix your senate problem

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

It's part of their methodology, and based on their desire not to control others, feeding into a need to appear as if they aren't.

You don't see the irony there? You literally ascribe to the right-wing the actual modus operandi of SJWs.

I'm shocked. You didn't see that that was my *exact* point sooner? Somehow you are just grasping this now? I said that several posts ago. Of course I am literally ascribing that modus operandi to them. Explicitly. Expressly. Directly. Blatantly. Please let me know why you didn't grasp it sooner. I'm going to stop right here until you make an effort to show why you didn't grasp it. Really, it sounds like you're incredulous that I don't see something, which you are insinuating was irony, when it was the very crux of my point. So I'm incredulous that you missed it.

Seriously, that's all I'm going to read of your post until you tell me exactly how you missed it until now.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[dywolf]

lies.

https://ballotpedia.org/Voting...

-New Hampshire does not permit online voter registration, early voting, or no-excuse absentee voting.
-Voters in New Hampshire are required to present valid photo identification at the polls.
-One can also register at the polls on Election Day. Proof of age, citizenship and residence is required to register

Your "personal experience leads" you to believe........ that your anecdote is more accurate than really smart researchers who aggregated data on billions of votes over the past 16 or so year?

doubtful

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[hsthompson69]

Okay, so three options:

1) I'm supposed to read your statement as sarcasm, since everyone knows that the actual modus operandi of SJWs is their desire not to control others, feeding into a need to appear as if they aren't?

2) Or, am I supposed to read your statement as a "a pox on both their houses", where you find both the right-wing and SJWs morally equivalent?

3) Or, am I supposed to read your statement as "I won't give the right-wing the benefit of the doubt, but I'll give SJWs the benefit of the doubt"?

I tended to imagine the third one as your intent - perhaps you were just unable to express yourself clearly. Oh, and apology accepted in advance :)

Honestly, I found it funny that you objected to the use of SJW as some sort of epithet - it seemed like an awfully SJW-esque sensitivity, contradicted by your non-SJW-esque willingness to continue a conversation with someone you disagree with :)

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[dywolf]

By the letter of the law the President can nominate a Supreme Court justice WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SENATE

no, he appoints with approval.
nominating comes before that.

You're only looking at one side of the equation and stamping your feet that Obama isn't getting his Justice appointed, but legally that's simply not a given

No, the problem is that we don't even know if they approved the nominee or not, because:
-they refused to even hold a vote
-on the grounds that the president has no authority to exercise his authority as president during his last year in office

If they don't want to approve the nominee, they have to vote on him and say so.
they didn't do that

The lack of appointment isn't the source of contention.
Its that they literally claimed the president doesn't get to be president during his last year in office.

If Hillary had won they'd be within their legal rights to go another 4 years without approving a justice if they wanted to.

Again there is a difference between withholding approval, and not voting at all.
The latter is an abandonment of their constitutional duties.

Moron.

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[dywolf]

who's the bigger idiot?
you, or the guy that modded you up?

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[dywolf]

The popular vote is irrelevant. It's a fun statistic, but it has no bearing on the outcome.

Except in every other democracy in the world.

If the popular vote determined the president, the voting outcome would have been drastically different because people vote based on the rules of the system.

No, people do not vote based on the rules of the EC system.
People casting their vote is no different under the EC than out from under it.
What is potentially different is the outcome.

but I sure as hell am not going to advocate for a worse system of first past the post, single vote, popular elections.

and you shouldn't.
But that doesn't apply here, because of the two, the EC is the worse system.

Which is more democratic:
-FPTP popular elections
-FPTP elector college system than can be won with only 22.5% of the vote

Now, FPTP has problems, and we should move away from it to ranked choice or similar.
But moving from away from the EC to popular vote would also be an improvement , and is the first step to improving our system,

(besides, you cant get rid of FPTP without also getting rid of the EC anyway)

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[dywolf]

there is a difference between:
-stating prior to the election that you will not accept any election result other than a win
-criticizing a flawed and undemocratic electoral process when those flaws are repeatedly brought to light

if you can't tell the difference between them, then you're only reinforcing my already low opinion regarding the intelligence of the typical "libertarian".

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[dywolf]

more proof that "libertarian" = "idiot".

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[danbert8]

Oh I can tell the difference. My problem is that both sides have ZERO problems with the flawed and undemocratic electoral process when they win, in fact they defend it as the most sacred part of our Constitution. They only bitch and moan when they lose. If they actually spoke about changing the electoral process BEFORE an election or heck, even during a midterm, well before candidates are even established for the Presidential race, I will be all over supporting it.

You complain about the system after the results and you are just a whiner. Fix the system before the election because the system is broken, not after the election because you lost.

Re:Obama has no right to do this

[danbert8]

"Except in every other democracy in the world." 1) The USA is a Constitutional Republic, not a direct democracy. 2) There are plenty of other governments in the world that hold democratic elections that don't choose their executive leader by popular vote.

"No, people do not vote based on the rules of the EC system.
People casting their vote is no different under the EC than out from under it." [Citation Needed] Plenty of people vote strategically... I know I do. I vote for 3rd parties with no reservations in Georgia because I know their electoral votes are unlikely to be influenced by my vote. But I used to live in Ohio where I might have made a different voting decision. Additionally, if the electoral college didn't matter, I would vote for 3rd parties without any strategy because the state results wouldn't matter. I also know of many people who participate in "vote trading" across state lines. Penn Jillette is one well known vote trader who exchanged one vote for Hillary in Nevada for over a dozen votes for Gary Johnson in California.

You postulating that people vote without regard for the rules of the election is naive and absurd and you offer no evidence to support your position.

"But moving from away from the EC to popular vote would also be an improvement , and is the first step to improving our system," I disagree. The electoral college has an important historical purpose to thwart the FPTP popular election. That is one of the intents of the electoral college. I would greatly prefer we throw out the electoral college along with the FPTP voting system, but I'm not going to advocate for one without the other. If we are spending political capital to change the voting system, we might as well fix it right rather than potentially make it worse as a compromise.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, so three options:

No, two options:

Tell me exactly how you missed it until now.

Don't, and I don't read the rest of your above post

There is no third option.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[hsthompson69]

You expressed yourself poorly, and I could care less if you'd like to read my post or not :)

If you'd like to make yourself more clear, please choose, explicitly, one of the following options:

1) I'm supposed to read your statement as sarcasm, since everyone knows that the actual modus operandi of SJWs is their desire not to control others, feeding into a need to appear as if they aren't;

2) I am supposed to read your statement as a "a pox on both their houses", where you find both the right-wing and SJWs morally equivalent.

3) I am supposed to read your statement as "I won't give the right-wing the benefit of the doubt, but I'll give SJWs the benefit of the doubt".

Or, if you'd like, add an explicit fourth option that materially responds to the original critique I had of you, when I assumed you meant #3.

There's always an option :)

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

You expressed yourself poorly

If you believe so, then you'll need to expand further as to why you failed to read it accurately then.

Like I said, two options:

Tell me exactly how you missed it until now.

Don't, and I don't read the rest of your above post

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[hsthompson69]

Perhaps I'm not expressing myself clearly - I gave you an exact answer on why you expressed yourself poorly.

But let's try again, since if it's possible for me to misunderstand you, it's possible for you to misunderstand me:

Your statement poorly expressed because it was ambiguous. There were three possible interpretations of your statement. I'll lay them out for you again:

1) I'm supposed to read your statement as sarcasm, since everyone knows that the actual modus operandi of SJWs is their desire not to control others, feeding into a need to appear as if they aren't;

2) I am supposed to read your statement as a "a pox on both their houses", where you find both the right-wing and SJWs morally equivalent.

3) I am supposed to read your statement as "I won't give the right-wing the benefit of the doubt, but I'll give SJWs the benefit of the doubt".

I interpreted it as #3.

Would you like to pick which interpretation you intended from my list of 3, or would you like to offer a fourth option I haven't covered?

Or, would you like to skip reading this post, and restate an ultimatum that has already been addressed? :)

Please, feel free, re-quote yourself. With bold letters, maybe :)

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps

No, certainty, as you failed to tell me exactly how you missed it until now.

Since you didn't, I don't read the rest of your above post.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[hsthompson69]

You're very good at not reading. My bet is that has something to do with your confusion :)

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

You

Nope, that does not tell me exactly how you missed it until now.

Since you didn't, I don't read the rest of your above post.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[hsthompson69]

Funny, exactly how did you determine that the post didn't answer your question, without reading it?

ESP perhaps? :)

Keep your eyes closed, and stop reading, right now!

Because here's a secret. It's a super secret. And you should have your eyes closed now so you don't read it.

Okay, last spoiler alert!

a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a

You've missed much more than my explanation on your poorly expressed SJW rant :)

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

F

Nope, that does not tell me exactly how you missed it until now.

Whether it's choice, or incapacity, the result is the same, since you didn't, I don't read the rest of your above post.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[hsthompson69]

Quick! Don't read this!

Close your eyes! It'll keep the bad bad ideas out!

Or, go ahead, read this, and make some demands about how you won't read this until someone gives you a candy bar :)

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

F

Nope, that does not tell me exactly how you missed it until now.

Whether it's choice, or incapacity, the result is the same, since you didn't, I don't read the rest of your above post.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[hsthompson69]

The not-reader strikes again! :) Or does he? I can't tell, I didn't read your post :)

Suffice it to say, the answer to your question is in a part you didn't read :)

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

D

Nope, that fails to tell me exactly how you missed it until now.

Whether it's choice, or incapacity, the result remains as constant as ever, since you didn't, I don't read the rest of your above post.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

[hsthompson69]

Two things:

1) I don't believe you are the same guy who started this conversation. They were much more interesting :)

2) I don't believe that you didn't read my posts. It's fairly obvious you read them but cannot find any rational argument against them :)

But hey, keep autoreplying without reading! :)

Fake news and MSM propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

Likely more significant than cyber crime

Hillary Lost Because of Her

[Kunedog]

Hillary lost because of real news about how she was a terrible candidate, not because of fake news or hate speech or the Russians or any other conspiracy theory. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Bernie would've won over Trump. But, that's what you get for trying to put Cliton in office dumbfucks.

Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her

[Anonymous Coward]

It can be both.

Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her

[Anonymous Coward]

The elites spent a lot of money trying to get Hillary elected though, which means we need more censorship so they can control the message.

Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her

[elrous0]

Democrats still can't accept that there are apparently a bunch of states located between California and New England where people don't buy into the idea that all white people are evil racists and that 3-year-olds should be able to create their own genders. They just assumed that all that land that they only see from their plane windows must be empty or something.

Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her

[Anonymous Coward]

It can be both.

I prefer the simpler reason.

She's a fucking world-class liar.

Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her

[Anonymous Coward]

The elites spent a lot of money trying to get Hillary elected though, which means we need more censorship so they can control the message.

Bingo.

Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly I don't think that's the lesson the DNC will learn from this, if any.

Re: Hillary Lost Because of Her

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Write down your own idiotic predictions and watch.

Re: Hillary Lost Because of Her

[Anonymous Coward]

Those concessions are pretty useless when THERE ARE NO JOBS

Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her

[NatasRevol]

Won't disagree with that, but is there any promise Trump hasn't already broken?

They're two sides of the same coin. His comes along with blatant racism, misogyny, populism, and cronyism.

But he sure knew how to play the game better. I'll give him that. Which is ironic given that she's a career politician.

If the Dem's don't learn the real lesson from that, there's no hope for them either.

Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her

[Anonymous Coward]

World-class implies she's good at lying, and not blatantly lying in such a way that insults the intelligence of anyone with intelligence to insult.

Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her

[MightyMartian]

For now the bulk of Trump's die hard supporters will continue cheering for him as he breaks promise after promise. The Rust Belt voters didn't vote for him for anything he said, he was indeed their version of a Brexit vote, a way of sticking to the elites real and perceived. I doubt many voters in these areas hold any illusions as to his capabilities.

What will be interesting isn't four years of Trump's "Twitter presidency", it will be how the Democrats respond, because in all likelihood, a man of Trump's age is unlikely to be seeking a second term, so it will be another non-incumbent election. Will they be able to find an answer to Trump?

Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her

[NatasRevol]

The most ironic part of the Trump election.

'Stick it to the elites!' by putting them in positions of power everywhere in government. Especially those who have given him millions.

Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her

[fustakrakich]

The message of that video might be very factual, but most people will tune out based solely on presentation, which in that case, was horrific...

Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her

[Anonymous Coward]

If truthfulness was a determining factor in the election Trump would have lost to the third party candidates. He literally would lie about statements he had made less than an hour beforehand. I think one of the political accountability orgs did some kind of analysis of one of the debates and I think they tallied up about 10-20% of Clintons statements as misleading/somewhat untruthful, Trumps statements were closer to the 50% truthful region and most of his stuff was in the lies/blatant lies category.

Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her

[skids]

I prefer the simpler reason.

She's a fucking world-class liar.

You cannot have that simple reason, because it is provably false. Trump lies way more than Clinton. His entire business "empire" is a ponzi lie. He lied about things he was on camera saying just weeks before. He lies so much he's afraid to actually sue anyone because he's afraid of being under oath, so he lies about intending to sue them. The guy is one of the worst liars in human history.

If honesty had really been a primary issue, Trump would have lost badly.

Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her

[Anonymous Coward]

Like Obama hasn't broken any promises? Trump isn't even in office yet, wait a couple years and see what happens. If he does a great job ("It'll be great") his follower as POTUS surely won't be a career politician either. Because... I'm pretty sure Trump got elected because the public is sick and tired of the corruption in D.C.

Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her

[Anonymous Coward]

No, if the elites wanted Hillary, she would have been "elected".

She did something to anger them, and not too long before the election took place. They were burying Trump just two weeks prior to election day. Then, suddenly, all of her support dried up and vanished quietly into the night, never to be seen or heard from again. Every challenge since then has just been the weeping of plebs threatening to ragequit the country.

It may come out in the news, or it may not, but mark my words: someone powerful, well-funded, and discreet pulled support for Hillary and switched to Trump's side around mid-October. They probably did it anonymously so that Trump couldn't blow their cover.

When you think about powerful and well-funded people, there are all the usual suspects: Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Putin, various Saudi and Chinese robber barons, etc. Spending money is not a conspiracy, just good old-fashioned tyranny. The only "conspiracy" is in keeping the tyranny quiet enough that nobody gets wise to it.

Censorship isn't enough to do that job. No amount of cloak-and-dagger manipulation is going to keep enough people quiet to keep it under wraps by force. This is why conspiracy-theory nutters are wrong. These well-funded "conspirators" only need to use simple and legal methods to keep their influence. By distributing the influence (read: money) across multiple sub-organizations and putting pressure on multiple specific key people in the political process, their lobbying and influence peddling goes undetected and unhindered. It's a DDoS of the political system. Nobody without the money from these donors gets a seat at the table. No censorship needed. Their money ensures any dissenters will simply be ignored, regardless of how loud their message is broadcast.

The government has failed at its primary and only duties: to protect and provide for the people. Time for a replacement.

What is crooked cannot be made straight, and what is lacking cannot possibly be counted.

Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her

[fahrbot-bot]

Hillary lost because of real news about how she was a terrible candidate, not because of fake news or hate speech or the Russians or any other conspiracy theory.

The other day, Jordan Klepper (The Daily Show) interviewed a Trump supporter about Trump picking insiders and banking executives for the various Cabinet and agency positions (with regard to his promise to "drain the swamp") and the guy being interviewed said, (paraphrasing) "Well, you want the best qualified people for the jobs, even if they have questionable things in their past." Jordan replied, "I think that was Hillary Clinton's entire platform."

Hillary might not have been a great candidate or universally likable, but don't pretend that there wasn't (and isn't) any fake news and/or hate speech about her being circulated by conservatives and Republicans or that those things didn't have any affect on people's opinions and election decisions.

Re: Hillary Lost Because of Her

[Anonymous Coward]

putting the power of the electorate into the hands of a niche minority

But that is what the left is all about!

Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her

[MightyMartian]

And he's giving the electorate even more of it. It's fascinating to hear that it was Bob Dole behind his phone call to Taiwan, what with ol' Bob and all his "interests" in Taiwan...

Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her

[Anonymous Coward]

Soros spent about 2 billion dollars to get Hillary elected.

Trump spent only about 300 million?

Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her

[tsm_sf]

"She must have done something wrong. We've been investigating her for twenty years."

Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her

[Anonymous Coward]

So because she was a shitty candidate we should accept that there may have been cyber attacks on the election?

Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her

[DarthVain]

I agree. Trump more less won on a "change" platform as opposed to Clinton's "status quo" platform. All other things aside, Bernie would have at least presented an alternative "change" platform to choose from. Particularly given that most pundits attribute Trumps win to disenfranchised white unionized manufactures workers and Bernie's socialist background, would have likely seen many of those Trump votes disappear in those key states.

Re: Hillary Lost Because of Her

[Anonymous Coward]

Those concessions are pretty useless when THERE ARE NO JOBS

But Trump is SAVING the jobs! And a unicorn in every pot!

Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you misspelled "There's a bunch of flyover states full of white fragility where any discussion of racial inequality is taken as a personal attack by people who want to stay on top of the pile". It's really easy to argue against social progress when you paint it as a flimsy strawman.

Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her

[Anonymous Coward]

It's all smoke and no fire! Why are they the only Democrats singled out that way!

We have no emails from insiders complaining about Diane Reynolds, sorry, Chelsea Clinton using the "charity" money for her own wedding.... right?

Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her

[PatientZero]

but don't pretend . . .

You forget your audience.

Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her

[Anonymous Coward]

Does she breath?

She lies.

Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her

[Anonymous Coward]

How about both?

Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her

[skids]

Same and worse for Trump. And since that is the case, it cannot be a discriminating factor.

Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her

[skam240]

What a world you live in.

I'm sure if you try hard enough you can find other things fringe democrats have brought up and then you can pretend that applies to everybody too.

By applying dumb stereotypes to all Democrats you're no better than someone applying dumb stereotypes to all Red Staters.

Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her

[mlw4428]

There's a bunch of us in those (and other states) that don't buy into being extorted by corporations, the acceptance of hate crimes against minorities, the total destruction of our natural resources, and endless wars that accomplish nothing. We also don't want a 3 year old, tiny handed, angry orange, mouth breathing, corrupt, loudmouthed, retarded, failure of a businessman to run the country. In fact the vast majority of voters said that in their vote. The. Vast. Majority.

Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump-style elites: Elite by virtue of producing value

Hillary-style elites: Elite despite producing zero to negative value

Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her

[slew]

Soros spent about 2 billion dollars to get Hillary *votes*.

Trump spent only about 300 million to get *electors*.

FTFY. Both got what they paid for right?

Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her

[thunderclees]

Any real review would have to include an idictment of Hillary Clinton on charges of perjury and espionage. It is telling that Hillary (Crime) Foundation donations have dropped to almost nothing since she lost. Pay to play anyone?

Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her

[ClickOnThis]

If truthfulness was a determining factor in the election Trump would have lost to the third party candidates. He literally would lie about statements he had made less than an hour beforehand. I think one of the political accountability orgs did some kind of analysis of one of the debates and I think they tallied up about 10-20% of Clintons statements as misleading/somewhat untruthful, Trumps statements were closer to the 50% truthful region and most of his stuff was in the lies/blatant lies category.

You're thinking of politifact. Trump scored far worse than Clinon on tuthfulness.

Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her

[Anonymous Coward]

Who says this is only being done because Hillary lost? There was a shitload of reporting out there that "state actors" were attempting to influence the election via propaganda, WikiLeaks, fake news, hacking voting machines. Who knows how much of it was real unless we investigate?

Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her

[Bodhammer]

The Democrats haven't been this upset since the Republicans took their slaves away.

Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her

[Tablizer]

BOTH were shitty candidates. But Trump is just too child-like to be making serious decisions.

Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her

[ArtemaOne]

It depends on what you consider truthfulness. I consider integrity far more important. Clinton lies by using things that are true to back her up. Most of her lies were that she holds the views and positions that she claimed during her fight with Sanders, and then was somewhat stuck with them after she lost the popular vote, but beat Bernie with the superdelegates.

Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her

[rholtzjr]

I think it has been said before and in even in previous polls. We were headed in the wrong direction. We did not want the "status quo".

So this election pretty much really was a choice between "continue on the same path" or "choose a different path".

Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her

[Anonymous Coward]

Problem is, Politfact's "lie percentage" is, itself, a complete lie. Try reading this article about it.

Basically, Politfact carefully chooses which statements it is going to evaluate. When Trump says something like "I'm Donald Trump, and I'm the Republican candidate for President. We need a new leader, because China is stealing our IP, Carrier is moving jobs to Mexico, and Hillary acid washed her servers." then Politifact selects the "acid-washed her servers" statement, says it is False, because she used Bleachbit not acid, and calls him a liar. But he actually made 5 factual claims in that statement, four of which were true but Politifact chose to ignore. This same thing is done by Factcheck.org, or the Washington Post, or the AP (assuming their don't just flat-out lie, and try to claim that Assad isn't fighting ISIS).

You can try to evaluate Trump or Clinton's individual statements for honesty and accuracy, but when you try to create a "lie percentage", you yourself have moved beyond 'damn lies' and straight into 'statistics' - aka, fake news.

Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her

[Citizen of Earth]

Bernie's platform would have been quite far left of Hillary's, which would have alienated the vote-rich center of the electorate. I doubt Bernie would have fared any better against Trump than Hillary did.

Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her

[Anonymous Coward]

"The other day, Jordan Klepper (The Daily Show) interviewed a Trump supporter...but don't pretend that there wasn't (and isn't) any fake news"

Don't worry, I don't. There's been fake news for decades on SNL, John Stewart, The View, etc., etc. No one cared when the fake news was aligned with "the correct opinions" (read: left wing).

Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her

[Anonymous Coward]

So what you're saying is that you do not support auditing the electronic voting process? You believe that voting machines that have been proven to be vulnerable to hacking should just be trusted?

I hope that you do not do any work that is in any way related to security.

Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh there are states in betwen the east and west coast alright ! Trouble is that a east coast town like Baltimore has more people than the entire state of North Dakota. North Dakota has roughly 11 people per square mile and 233,886 of the 765.927 people who live in North Dakota live in Fargo, so yes North Dakota is mostly empty space. States like South Dakota, Montana and Idaho are not much better. So you think that that 756,927 people who live in North Dakota should carry the same weight as the 5,773,552 people in Maryland? As far the "3-year-olds should be able to create their own genders" is pure right-wing scare tatics, peddle that line of bullshit elsewhere.

Yes Hillary won the popular vote by 2,678,039 votes or a little more than 2% of the vote. Yes Trump won in Michigan by 10,704 votes out of 4,548,382 or by 0.24%

Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her

[Anonymous Coward]

"She must have done something wrong. We've been investigating her for twenty years."

And yet the only thing they found in that 20 years was Monica, (at which point the whitewater investigation became the 'Monica Lewinsky' investigation proper) Bengazzi which was a bunch of nothing that got blamed on her by Republicans and the email thing which Colin Powell did the same thing but never got blamed for it because he never ran for president and .. the kicker.. he is a Republican!

Hillary did nothing wrong, Republicans hate her because she represents a successful Democratic presidential administration, just like Obama does. They hate Obama too, some people confuse that with racism but it is really partisanship. Don't be confused here!

Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her

[rtb61]

Did they? Clinton was the war queen, she loved it, laughed and clapped to see a person sodomised and tortured and then executed. They cheated on the primaries and got rid of the better candidate because they were in on the get rich quick scheme from cheating disaster victims to a money laundering charity, basically the entirety of the US government for sale, including war deployments.

The are not there to look for evidence and expose those people to justice, they are far more likely there to destroy evidence of cheating the elections to keep the Libertarians and the Greens out of the next election.

Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her

[elrous0]

There's a bunch of us in those (and other states) that don't buy into being extorted by corporations, the acceptance of hate crimes against minorities, the total destruction of our natural resources, and endless wars that accomplish nothing.

And yet you passed over Bernie Sanders for a bellicose corporate whore who was pro-torture, pro-war and who spent a good deal of her campaign assuring Wall Street that she would be friendly towards them if they would donate to her campaign. Great choice!

Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her

[Anonymous Coward]

It can be both.

I prefer the simpler reason.

She's a fucking world-class liar.

No, she is not. Go check the fact checking sites. Trump is the world class liar. Clinton is actually better than many of them. reality

Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her

[Anonymous Coward]

Fight corruption with corruption. How could it possibly go wrong?

Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her

[ebvwfbw]

Heh. Bernie would have beat Trump and ANY of the other Republicans would have cleaned Hillary's clock good.

I blame the Democrats. They are the ones that gave us such a terrible decision. Just because they wanted their top criminal in power.

Either Federal or I understand NY State is looking into locking her up. Plenty of things to get her on, corruption, treason, election campaign... espionage act ( This is what her e-mail server really is about, violations of the espionage act). Book her Danno!

Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her

[Anonymous Coward]

Hillary might not have been a great candidate or universally likable, but don't pretend that there wasn't (and isn't) any fake news and/or hate speech about her being circulated by conservatives and Republicans or that those things didn't have any affect on people's opinions and election decisions.

She still is a felon that is getting away with her crimes.

Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her

[Anonymous Coward]

So fucking what. Mudslinging, innuendo, and outright lies have been the cornerstone of U.S. politics for over 200 years.

Trying to claim this is a new phenomenon that the dastardly Republicans invented just this year is childish.

Hillary lost because of a bunch of different factors, but all of them were of her own making.

I write this because I am a life-long Democrat who voted for Hillary and hate the idea of a Trump presidency (especially because it means that the SCOTUS will be conservative for at least a generation). I write this because unless the Democrats stop playing the victim, try to understand/accept the real reasons why she lost, and address these deficiencies, they will not retake the White House, Congress, or SCOTUS and our future will be one of drinking Brawndo and smelling our own farts.

Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, but that's what the people voted for in an election where the media were far more biased against Trump than any favouritism shown towards Trump by Russia. Clinton Intelligence Agency or lack thereof.

Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her

[HungWeiLo]

I agree that she ran a crappy campaign with outright neglect of important Midwestern swing states.

But Clinton lost 4 states - FL, MI, WI, PA by ~1%. The votes potentially changed by the Comey email thing / Russians / fake news represent well within that margin. We're talking an 80,000-vote spread that decided the election one way or the other.

On the morning of September 11, 2001, polls opened in New York City for a mayoral primary. Because of the cataclysmic events of that day, voting was halted, the votes cast were nullified, and the primary was rescheduled. Officials decided that having a fair and accurate vote outweighed concluding the process by a given date. The CIA report on Russia's attempt to sway the election would seem to be of a comparable if not greater magnitude.

Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her

[HungWeiLo]

Bernie would have been annihilated.

Repeat these 3 words after me: "Socialist atheist Jew".

The GOP wouldn't even have to lift a finger.

Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her

[Rakarra]

and the email thing which Colin Powell did the same thing but never got blamed for it because he never ran for president

Whoa! Colin Powell ran his own email server at his house? Do you have a source for that? Because that's pretty big news.

Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her

[HeckRuler]

Oh sure, because Trump obviously courted the moderate center vote so much. He's the very epitome of "moderate". /s.

If the election was between Bernie and Trump, you've got two extremes and the "vote-rich center" essentially doesn't have a candidate. Sucks to be them. They'd have to pick one or the other or simply abstain.

Back in the primaries, Bernie polled better against Trump than Hilary, but that's pretty early and who the hell knows how accurate they are.

Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her

[Rakarra]

a man of Trump's age is unlikely to be seeking a second term,

That's what I used to think of John McCain as well. I figured a vote for McCain was a vote for President Palin, since the chances were decent that she would take over midterm, but he's still kicking. I've not reason to think Trump won't be still kicking in four years too.

The public

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if the voting public are considered stakeholders.

Re:The public

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, bless your heart. OK sure, Timmy. The public are "considered" stakeholders. LOL

Should be obvious

[bob4u2c]

The only real "Hacks" were the candidates that were running for election!

Re:Should be obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah. How about the white-out tape found over Bernie's name in San Diego? One observer alone observed about 33k such.

Trump lost by millions

[WillAffleckUW]

And this is a good investigative start to some of the glaring discrepancies.

Re:Trump lost by millions

[iggymanz]

No, Trump won majority of Electoral College representatives, who probably will vote for him. Your millions voted for the losing candidate.

The only real discrepancies are from cities known for voting fraud and letting illegals vote; however even though Clinton had the majority in such places the Electoral College did its job and protected us from that particular criminal with no regard for rule of law.

We'll see how Trump regards law in federal office soon.

Re:Trump lost by millions

[Anonymous Coward]

The first step on the path to learning new things is often simply opening the door to the echo chamber you've carefully constructed and stepping out into the real world. Good luck.

Re:Trump lost by millions

[Anonymous Coward]

Lost by millions? Trump WON by 74 in the electoral college, which is the way we decide the winner in the USA. Deal with it.

Re:Trump lost by millions

[Anonymous Coward]

such as?

don't get me wrong, I can't stand trump and never voted for him, but what are these discrepancies your talking about?

Re:Trump lost by millions

[MightyMartian]

There's no evidence of mass voter fraud. This is once again a demonstration of how Trump supporters, even in victory, seem very uneasy. Trumpites, such delicate little snowflakes.

Re:Trump lost by millions

[WillAffleckUW]

I stand by my provably true statement.

Re:Trump lost by millions

[elrous0]

Are you also going to investigate all the "glaring discrepancies" in the DNC, that apparently deliberately sabotaged the Bernie Sanders campaign?

Re:Trump lost by millions

[Mashiki]

So far he's picking up votes in every state where there is a recount. I guess that's working out well. Then again, if you're against the electoral college you're basically saying "fuck you" to everyone who doesn't live in a major city. Brilliant plan of course for the people who support that, that's how revolutions happen.

Re:Trump lost by millions

[fustakrakich]

Trumpites, such delicate little snowflakes.

Wait, what?

Re: Trump lost by millions

[Anonymous Coward]

While I don't like it, the DNC is a private organization and can do as they wish. A federal election is not.

Re:Trump lost by millions

[Archangel Michael]

Obama said voter fraud was mythical when he assumed that Clinton would win. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

So, which is it, mythical or real ?

Besides, the glaring deficiencies that have been found so far, have been in Clinton's favor. Facts are funny that way.

Re:Trump lost by millions

[WillAffleckUW]

Latest mil sec news - it's public, i'm not going to do your work for you

Re:Trump lost by millions

[Anonymous Coward]

No, electoral college is expert state voters who choose the Presidency with advise from the voters in their state.
Democracy is people chosing their presidency. What you want, is a state takes all system where the electoral college vote as a formality and does not represent either democracy or enlightenment. Electoral college votes are anonymous and can and should be used to prevent a seizing of power by Russia, and can and are required to enforce the constitution. e.g. no candidate with income from abroad.

Trump wasn't America's choice he was Putin's choice.

And you're a fooking sell out of your country, iggymanz True Vichy American.

Re: Trump lost by millions

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it in the DNC's best interest though that it remains a two party system? So funny business within the DNC directly impacts a federal election...

Re: Trump lost by millions

[PortHaven]

Actually, not quite true. While private, they have to adhere to their incorporation charter. They ALSO have to abide by anti-fraud laws.

Honestly, the DNC should be sued and severely fined, for both of those violations.

Re: Trump lost by millions

[Anonymous Coward]

So far he's picking up votes in every state where there is a recount.

That would be Wisconsin, where he is actually down a net amount. 61 votes, but still makes your claim provably false at the moment.

Trump defeated Hillary Clinton by more than 22,000 votes in the state. With the recount more than 82 percent complete as of Wednesday, Clinton had gained only 61 votes.

Of course, it would be prudent to wait for it to complete, but you know, it is your own fault for making a false claim that you can be rebutted on.

And it is only the one state. The others haven't really proceeded.

I guess that's working out well.

As shown above, it's not so, but let's say it is.

Then why is Trump so desperately opposing them? Why doesn't he want to be above reproach?

What does he have to hide?

 

Then again, if you're against the electoral college you're basically saying "fuck you" to everyone who doesn't live in a major city. Brilliant plan of course for the people who support that, that's how revolutions happen.

Then again, most of the supporters of the electoral college are basically saying "fuck you" to everyone who lives in a major city. Brilliant plan of course for the people who support that, that's how revolutions happen.

Your words turn against you, you know, but it's like none of you trumpeting fools proclaiming the rural victimization ever think about that. Why is that? Do you not like admitting that urbanites have grievances too?

Re:Trump lost by millions

[Anonymous Coward]

There are not enough votes solely in major cities to constitute a majority.

Re:Trump lost by millions

[Altus]

Voter fraud is mythical, it has been studied and it doesn't happen in nearly large enough numbers to be relevant.

This is not investigating voter fraud. Voter fraud involves people physically voting illegally. This is different from a hacking the voting machines to give an incorrect tally of votes, they are 2 different things and you acting like they are the same only indicates your lack of knowledge or understanding.

Re:Trump lost by millions

[Anonymous Coward]

[nothing]

Duly noted, thanks for playing.

Re:Trump lost by millions

[Camel Pilot]

Over at Breitbart they are whining daily about Kellogg because they moved their advertising budget. Talk about delicate snowflakes in need of a safe place.

They are bragging about they have 400000 "signing" of their petition. An online "petition" that allows multiple votes with ease. Someone should write a script and send it into the Billions.

Re: Trump lost by millions

[Camel Pilot]

They lost so that is punishment in itself. Maybe it is time for a competing centrist political party

Re:Trump lost by millions

[skids]

I don't know how many times we have to explain to you morons the difference between election fraud and voter fraud.

Re:Trump lost by millions

[Freischutz]

The only real discrepancies are from cities known for voting fraud and letting illegals vote-...

[citation needed]

Re:Trump lost by millions

[Anonymous Coward]

> cities known for voting fraud

I used to live in Wayne County, MI, and we often had multiple times as many votes as registered voters in my precinct because we had optical scanners that wouldn't always register correctly that it had scanned the vote so the worker would reinsert the ballot and accidentally count it again. There's no evidence it was fraud. It was a simple mistake.

I now live near Oakland, CA, any my precinct had 142% turn out. Again, there's no proof of fraud. When I voted, there were a lot of legitimate voters that couldn't be found in the registrations since the Republicans here purged the voting roles. The fraud was on the part of the Republicans. The turn-out should be over 100% giving how those people be.

Re:Trump lost by millions

[Anonymous Coward]

I now live near Oakland, CA, any my precinct had 142% turn out.

Greater than 100% turnout happened in every county I looked at here in CA. For Oakland County where I live:

http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/MI/Oakland/63990/184040/en/vt_data.html

My precinct had >160% turnout. There is massive fraud here in CA.

Re:Trump lost by millions

[Anonymous Coward]

1) There is no evidence of the voting fraud you are claiming and the main source of fraud you will find is not from illegals voting, it is from election fraud run by the people running it. You can thank the electronic voting machines for that which have been found to be less secure than ATMs and slot machines.

2) Trump has even less regard for the law then Clinton. While I dislike Clinton and openly admit the DNC and the media rigged the primaries (Not the voter box). When it comes to disregarding the laws, cheating and screwing people over. Clinton is an amateur compared to the Jedi Master of it that we call Trump.

3) We can already see where Trump is going in the presidency by his plans and his appointments.

His tax plan is a huge handout to the rich that can actually lead to raised taxes on the poor, his healthcare plan assumes you are well off, his infrastructure plan is nothing but a scam that is a huge handout, his Carrier deal is a travesty where he saved 730 jobs while 1300 others were sent out by spreading the butt of the workers for them with tax cuts and encouraging companies to make the same threat for tax cuts endangering even more jobs.

Then you have his 50 billion dollar claim from Japan which sounds great till you look into it and see it comes from Sprint who is trying to merge with T-Mobile but getting block currently and Foxconn who not too long ago made news for automating over 60,000 jobs at a single plant making between $1.60 and $2.20 an hour because it was cheaper than paying them. Meaning that what is likely to happen is he will approve the Sprint/T-Mobile merge screwing over the public with less competition and in exchange Foxconn will spend a lot of money and build a plant in the US that is highly automated so the 50,000 jobs they are talking about would most likely but the temporary labor needed to construct the plant and it's automation only to be let go and then staffed with a skeleton crew to run it screwing over the American worker more while they now have easier access to the US without having to worry about trying to import their stuff all while paying less taxes than their workers thanks to Trumps crap.

Then we get to look at his appointments. Head of the EPA is a climate change denialist, Head of Education is in favor of repealing child labor laws and putting children back into the work force while defunding public schools to fund private and charter schools instead which she also wants to deregulate, the head of Healthcare is against Medicare and wants to privatize the whole thing, he put Ben Carson as the head of Housing and Urban development for Christs sake. Everyone he is appointing actually dislikes and wants to remove the department he is putting them in charge of and none of them have a damn clue how any of it works.

So we have an idea of what Trump is going to do when he gets in, he plans to dismantle the government and sell you and your children's future to the companies.

Re: Trump lost by millions

[Anonymous Coward]

They didn't just lose they got DEMOLISHED.

Re:Trump lost by millions

[Anonymous Coward]

Err, you mean because Kellogg put out a note saying they were boycotting them?

Re:Trump lost by millions

[iggymanz]

Your provably false statement about a person who "won by millions"?

No, you are ignorant. Elections in the USA don't work the way you imagine they do.

Re:Trump lost by millions

[iggymanz]

Neither one was significant enough in this election to affect result. The huge cesspools of fraud like Chicago didn't matter as clinton took those places anyway, meanwhile she lost electoral college representation which is the only thing that matters.

Re: Trump lost by millions

[ZenShadow]

You do know there's a middle ground that a lot of us support, right?

Ditch winner-take-all electoral voting and move to a proportional system. Then you'll have a decently representative election while still blunting the effects of peer pressure and groupthink in extremely populous locales.

I wonder if anyone has looked to see if Trump would have won without winner-take-all?

Re:Trump lost by millions

[Anonymous Coward]

"I don't know how many times we have to explain to you morons the difference between election fraud and voter fraud."

As many times as it takes.

Re: Trump lost by millions

[Anonymous Coward]

You do know there's a middle ground that a lot of us support, right?

Yes, I do, that's why I don't buy the right-wing's narrative about a mandate. Trump BARELY won on a technical victory. Hardly convincing.

Yet you can see them crowing over it. A landslide. Huh. Of negative ~3 million votes.

Ditch winner-take-all electoral voting and move to a proportional system. Then you'll have a decently representative election while still blunting the effects of peer pressure and groupthink in extremely populous locales.

We can do better than that, IRV would also be beneficial, as would methods to increase turnout.

I wonder if anyone has looked to see if Trump would have won without winner-take-all?

Depends on how you scale it, and you still have the Wyoming Problem which creates a distortion, as well as the question of third-parties(enough to swing the margin in some states), and I don't consider the district-based proportions to be fair at all, they're way too gerrymandered.

But yes, you can see it eventually, when the data comes in.

If you want a quick spreadsheet version based on state population...Clinton has ~256.4 electoral votes, Trump has 250.4, Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, Evan McMullin get whats left, some 31 electoral votes, probably 20 to Garry Johnson.

Re: Trump lost by millions

[Anonymous Coward]

Ditch winner-take-all electoral voting and move to a proportional system

That is up to the states to decide how the electoral vote is split up. Maine, for example, splits it along congressional district's popular vote. That is why Trump got 1 of the 3 votes in Maine.

It's a prisoners dilemma to change over to it first.

Re: Trump lost by millions

[slew]

I wonder if anyone has looked to see if Trump would have won without winner-take-all?

I think I saw some analysis that if *all* states split their electors proportional to the votes Clinton would have 262 electors, and Trump would have 258 electors, Gary Johnson would have 10 electors and Stein and McMullen would each have 1. Since no candidate would have the majority (270 required), the House of Representatives would consider the top 3 candidates from the Electoral College. Since the House is mostly Republican 247-188, even with a large number of defections, I suspect that Trump would still have won the election.

The scenario that some people are proposing to obsolete the Electoral College is that if a majority of electors were required to cast their vote for whoever got the majority of the popular vote throughout the US. This is similar but not the same as eliminating the overweight that small states have over the big states (because of the "bonus" senator electors) and marginalizes all the battleground states (as they would often simply just split +-1 electoral vote).

Without any type of winner take all complication, any strong 3rd party showing (like this latest 2016) election would likely mean no majority, so unless you want a president elected with a plurality, you probably will end up throwing the election to the House of Representatives.

However, if you read the Federalist papers, direct representation is clearly not what they intended for the office of the president. The complication of the Electoral College was taken because they wanted to make sure that candidates for president weren't just selected for their ability to be popular in a few states as they knew it would take completely different attributes/talents for a president to be successful and accepted by "a considerable a portion" of the whole country. They also wanted to minimize the ability of persons trying to corrupt the process or advancing "manchurian" candidates by distributing the power across all the states so that corrupting influence in one part of the country had a minimal effect on the process. Also, electors were to be chosen only for the task of electing a president and no other purpose and weren't allowed to be holding office in the House or Senate to minimize any institutional influence and corruption. Seems to me these are all worthy goals. Personally, I think more people should read the Federalist papers...

Re: Trump lost by millions

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, they picked up seats in the senate and won the popular vote. Hardly "demolished".

Re:Trump lost by millions

[DamnOregonian]

The only real discrepancies are from cities known for voting fraud and letting illegals vote; however even though Clinton had the majority in such places the Electoral College did its job and protected us from that particular criminal with no regard for rule of law.

That is not, and never was the intent of the Electoral College. The Electoral College could only ever serve that intent in the fictional, never-actually-existing circumstance where electors were unpledged. States turned the EC into what they really intended it to be from the very beginning, on day one: A way to give slave holders a voice for their property.

Re: Trump lost by millions

[PortHaven]

Well, considering the Republicans now have or will have control of the:

- President
- House
- Senate
- Supreme Court
- State Governorships

Abuse of power?

[Archtech]

"The results are to be delivered to Obama before he leaves the [sic] office".

Why? It would make better sense if the results were turned over to Mr Trump, who will be in a position to learn from them and take any appropriate action.

Re:Abuse of power?

[iggymanz]

Obama runs his mouth or takes pointless actions such as these do give appearance of "doing something."

He's mostly a disappointment, thought he'd accomplish certain things but instead gives us Republican healthcare plan that further fluffs up big insurance and big pharmy and big healthcare chain, fraud and scam energy company support, making Bush/Cheney wiretaps and violation of privacy even worse....disgusting.

Re:Abuse of power?

[Godai]

If the results are going to other people ("a range of stakeholders", which includes Congress) the information is there for Trump if he wants it. By having it delivered to him before he leaves office, that puts a timetable on it. Otherwise it's "Hey, go do this thing for me. Also, I'm out of here", which in my experience results in nothing happening.

Re:Abuse of power?

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump will be in that position no matter who the results are delivered to - I mean, come on, you don't think Obama will let him see the results? The concern from those of us who recognize Trump for what he is, is that his idea of "appropriate action" would be to sweep any evidence the election was hacked under the rug, because it threatens his position. It's doubtful Obama would do the same. Which could be a good thing for Trump supporters, if Obama announces that hacking really didn't have much of any effect on the election.

Re:Abuse of power?

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole point of this is to undermine the legitimacy of the next administration, that's why.

Re:Abuse of power?

[chispito]

"The results are to be delivered to Obama before he leaves the [sic] office".

Why? It would make better sense if the results were turned over to Mr Trump, who will be in a position to learn from them and take any appropriate action.

Publicly, at least, Trump is denying Russian involvement, facts be damned. I am going to give the current President the benefit of the doubt and say he's doing it to help persuade Donald Trump that it's something he needs to take seriously.

I don't think it's a ploy to score political points because there are none to score.

Re:Abuse of power?

[Altus]

Just like bush did when he was warned about Bin Laden by the previous administration.8

Re:Abuse of power?

[Anonymous Coward]

the deadline is obviously because trump will undo most everything that's been done the previous 16 of the last 20 years first chance he gets.

Re:Abuse of power?

[fahrbot-bot]

...he's doing it to help persuade Donald Trump that it's something he needs to take seriously.

We can add that to the list of things Trump needs to take seriously. He said (tweeted) the Electoral College is a "disaster" and, for months, said the election was "rigged", but that's apparently all okay now because he won. The man can't keep even the things he's said straight and seriously.

Re:Abuse of power?

[skids]

So he can decide what to declassify.

Re:Abuse of power?

[ndogg]

He won't notice because he doesn't pay attention to his security briefings anyway.

Re:Abuse of power?

[bfpierce]

I mean, it's not like Obama's gonna take it with him. I think Mr. Trump can figure out how to obtain a document from the government. He's not THAT stupid.

Re:Abuse of power?

[Anonymous Coward]

The previous administration (B. Clinton) had a golden opportunity to kill him. They chickened out.

Re:Abuse of power?

[Anonymous Coward]

but that's apparently all okay now because he won.....

At least there's one thing he's been 100% consistent on. That's what he said before the election and that seems to be what he's implementing.

Re:Abuse of power?

[ebvwfbw]

He can announce that they looked into it and Hillary lied (again). There is no evidence of Russian hackers being involved.

President Obama should heed his own words

[LynnwoodRooster]

The president, campaigning in Miami for Hillary Clinton and Senate candidate Chris Murphy, said that “when you try to sow the seeds of doubt in people’s minds about the legitimacy of our elections, that undermines our democracy.” But I guess it's OK to undermine democracy if the results aren't to your liking?

Re:President Obama should heed his own words

[Anonymous Coward]

How is ordering a review the same as undermining democracy? A review, if conducted fairly and openly, bolsters faith in democracy by ensuring that processes are transparent and due diligence is done. The review may well put to rest rumours that the Russians rigged the election. The seeds of doubt are already there - sown deliberately by Mr. Trump among others. Reviews and recounts are the only way to properly address those concerns.

Re:President Obama should heed his own words

[admin7087]

How exactly is asking the intelligence community to compile a report after the election about claims they publicly made before the election undermining democracy?

Re:President Obama should heed his own words

[phantomfive]

For lovers of irony, seeing the democrats upset about voter fraud is delicious.
Next I want to see Ted Cruz hop up and say how awful filibusters are.

Re:President Obama should heed his own words

[jasonshortt]

Voter fraud isn't the issue here. It's the influence of another country on our election process. Should be something we can agree has no place in our elections whether you're conservative or liberal.

Re:President Obama should heed his own words

[phantomfive]

Should be something we can agree has no place in our elections whether you're conservative or liberal.

That's the point right? And yet each party (just like you) can somehow only see it when it hurts them.

Re:President Obama should heed his own words

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's done fairly and openly. Some of the articles use language that suggest he's only asked for reviews of the attacks against the Democrats, and there's no way the Republican party wasn't attacked as well.

Personally, I'd love to see a good security review of our electronic voting systems. Especially if it resulted in real consequences for companies like Diebold and Hart InterCivic that have been peddling this painfully insecure garbage at taxpayer expense for ages now. I know, however, that this will never happen, because those companies were politically connected enough to sell that garbage in the first place.

Re:President Obama should heed his own words

[Anonymous Coward]

Sigh. Here we go again.

There is a big pile of evidence for election rigging by the Republicans through gerrymandering and voter suppression. More than enough to have a significant influence on the election results.

There is zero, zilch, nada, evidence of significant Democratic voter fraud.

Disagree? Evidence!

Re:President Obama should heed his own words

[MrTester]

The problem here is that everyone has a different interpenetration of what is unspoken here.
Conservatives assume that this is obviously Obama whining about loosing the election and making an (unspoken) claim that its because the Russians interfered.
Liberals assume that it is because there have been accusations from other sources that the Russians were trying to hack our electoral system.

There is no claim implicit in the order to investigate that the attempts to hack the system actually resulted in a change in the election results. Although I'm a liberal I actually don't think that was the case. I think Trump won fair and square. I hate it, but there it is.

But if the Russians were trying to do something, we should find out, and try and prevent it from happening in the future.

Everyone just needs to calm the fuck down.

Re:President Obama should heed his own words

[phantomfive]

There is zero, zilch, nada, evidence of significant Democratic voter fraud.

How exactly do you think Democrats were able to maintain hold on the house for so many years?

Appropriately enough, Mr Gerry, who gave his name to Gerrymandering, was of the Democratic-Republican party.

Re:President Obama should heed his own words

[Anonymous Coward]

black people can never take responsibility for their failures, it is a trait of their race

How many times have you heard this on the news? "He was a good boy. He was just getting his life back together."

Re:President Obama should heed his own words

[bfpierce]

If you think 'foreign tampering' is the same as 'voter fraud' you've got a few brain cells missing. Donald might have taken 'em.

Re:President Obama should heed his own words

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd have been worried if the CIA hadn't started an investigation as soon as Putin and Assad started opening their mouths.

The data is probably already there; Review could just mean declassifying --- Obama's been stone cold with running things, regardless how anyone WANTS to spin it. Honestly, this may just be his way of preventing Trump from pulling a Hillary and getting his ass into trouble over dancing around something that's nothing, or preventing the peanut gallery from dragging it into a Benghazi . . . I honestly think he has enough respect for the presidency and fear for what's going to happen anyway that this is just his way of heading things off and digging out any actual foreign rats in the process before it gets too crazy.

Either way, he's got to have a fair idea what went on (with regard to foreign hacking specifically) with regard to the election/news, better than the rest of us . . . he's not going to just let his legacy be one last petty swipe at his successor.

No, I'll eat my hat if that's what this is about.

Re:President Obama should heed his own words

[hey!]

How exactly do you think Democrats were able to maintain hold on the house for so many years?

The white working class.

Re:President Obama should heed his own words

[Anonymous Coward]

That you have to scroll down so far to read a comment like your is disappointing. When there were issues with the first electronic voting machine Slashdot was all over it. People here actually gave a crap about computers and security and pushed for open source software and accountability. Now all people here are talking about is politics. No gives a fuck about what the security best practices are. Where is the call for actual software audits of the machines? Either pre or post election? It's like slashdot is now host to a bunch of computer illiterate Facebook teens that only care about repeating the talking points and arguments of their side. This is very sad. What happened to this place?

Re:President Obama should heed his own words

[phantomfive]

That would make sense, except they couldn't hold on to the presidency or the senate.
(The answer is they gerrymandered it, fwiw. And actually, as a matter of darwinistic politics, those who refuse to gerrymander will lose out to those who do).

Re: President Obama should heed his own words

[Anonymous Coward]

A good quarter of these posts are paid trolls/bots engaging in "forum sliding". They make a few troll posts up top so they can reply to down mods with vaguely plausible comments, like grammar nit picking, which pushes on topic stuff down the page.
Suckers reply, socks puppets puppet and another public common's is a tragedy.

Message boards will need to make posters more accountable, or frankly, just let people view by posters country to filter half this crap out posting the ip of the poster is a bit much, but posting the isp or class b range is worthwhile to consider as a filter.

But slashdot wont be the site that does it.

Re:President Obama should heed his own words

[LynnwoodRooster]

I wonder if you would consider a few million voting non-citizens from a neighbor country as the influence of another country on our election process?

Re:President Obama should heed his own words

[LynnwoodRooster]

A small list of 438 proven, fraudulent votes backed up by convictions, overwhelmingly by the Democrats. Now, can you share a similar list for the Republicans?

Re:President Obama should heed his own words

[LynnwoodRooster]

Well, in the same way that the President and Secretary Clinton were sure that Donald Trump was undermining America by claiming (rightfully so, based upon the Wikileaks e-mails) that the nomination and election system was rigged. When you have a major party colluding with the media, you have a major party using its control of the executive and legislative branches to attack and restrain political action by their opponents, isn't that a rigged system?

Re:President Obama should heed his own words

[Anonymous Coward]

LynnwoodRooster, that document doesn't list any such number, make any review on a parstisan basis, and it concerns a variety of different matters, including false registrations, petition fraud, and other actions that don't indicate voting at all.

Furthermore, the document contains this line, right at the start:

This is not an exhaustive list but simply a sampling that demonstrates the many different ways in which fraud is committed.

Which means it is not meant to be a useful observational sample at all, but a collection of various incidents which even its authors note is not mean to be comprehensive.

LynnwoodRoster, did you link to the wrong file, or are you just not aware that it doesn't say what you claim it to say? It doesn't even provide a partisan breakdown, so you could very well be making that up as well.

Which does you no credit. If you want to fight for election integrity, such partisan bias is not to your gain. It makes you look bitter and vindictive, and people more likely to believe you'll ignore fraud that favors your side.

Re:President Obama should heed his own words

[LynnwoodRooster]

They are actual convictions. And it is not exhaustive but just a sampling of documented, proven (in a court of law) cases of voter fraud. You can go and read up about each conviction if you dig - and you'll find they are actual events, actual voter fraud incidents, and all Democrat. Your move.

Re:President Obama should heed his own words

[Anonymous Coward]

They are actual convictions.

Your own words to describe it:

A small list of 438 proven, fraudulent votes

Actual content of the document? Rather different for your description. There is no count of 438 proven, fraudulent votes in that document, in fact, it explicitly includes many things that were not actual votes. That makes you inaccurate at best. I could have forgiven you if you'd said you posted the wrong document, but that doesn't seem to be the case. You don't even care to address your inaccuracies. So you posted something, and then failed to accurately describe it, then failed to admit to your error, which makes for a problem in terms of integrity.

And it is not exhaustive but just a sampling of documented, proven (in a court of law) cases of voter fraud.

Nope. Many of them are electioneering without voting, including, as I mentioned, petition fraud(no votes), false registrations(caught without votes), and other matters for which zero fraudulent votes occurred.

But yes, I'm glad you agree with me, it's not exhaustive, which means you can't and shouldn't use it for your partisan assertions. If you are honest. However, that is a failing you have, you're not honest, so you do try to use it that way.

You can go and read up about each conviction if you dig - and you'll find they are actual events, actual voter fraud incidents, and all Democrat. Your move.

Oh wow, if you think of this as a game, you just tipped your king. You doubled-down on the falsehood, because you just proved yourself a liar, because you chose an incompetent lie, for no reason, no reason at all. The document is already admitted not to be comprehensive, yet you chose to make a provably false statement that they are all Democrat?

Why lie so badly?

You're not helping yourself, your partisan bias is warping your ability to effectively communicate.

He should review the clinton foundation as well

[NotInHere]

He should be fair and review the criminal acts of both sides, not just of one side. But it shows how biased he is, sadly. 8 years ago, when he ran for president he was a real underdog. Now he is part of the corrupt establishment. Maybe because he couldn't do better and was forced to cooperate with it.

Re:He should review the clinton foundation as well

[chispito]

He should be fair and review the criminal acts of both sides, not just of one side. But it shows how biased he is, sadly. 8 years ago, when he ran for president he was a real underdog. Now he is part of the corrupt establishment. Maybe because he couldn't do better and was forced to cooperate with it.

What "sides" are you talking about here? Donald Trump did not order his elite team of Russian hackers to break into the DNC and air Clinton's dirty laundry. Russia (presumably) did what Russia did for Russia's reasons.

Re:He should review the clinton foundation as well

[liquid_schwartz]

Now he is part of the corrupt establishment.

Anyone who expected a politician from Chicago to be anything other corrupt was kidding themselves.

Re:He should review the clinton foundation as well

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, Podesta's email didn't get hacked, he got tricked. He appears to have fallen for a dumb phishing email that they bought into hook, line and sinker that any 10 year old who can write HTML could have crafted.

Re:He should review the clinton foundation as well

[Anonymous Coward]

Russia didn't want globalists to gain more power. That's all

Re:He should review the clinton foundation as well

[Anonymous Coward]

And those same reasons are why Russia is giving Jill Stein a platform through Russia Times, and is pushing the recounts, and also encouraging California to secede from the US.

They never gave a damn about Trump in the first place; they just want to cause chaos in the US. And certain suckers have fallen for it, hook, line, and sinker.

i think its simpler than we're making it out to be

[nimbius]

If you or any other politician cared about the potential for hacking, it would have started 16 years ago when bush won the vote based on hanging chad and an ominous declaration from evoting vendor Diebold.

the reason the 2016 vote was so unexpected is simple. Democrats ran a turd for a candidate with no policy other than 'i want to be a president.' Hillary ignored midwestern and rural voters at her peril, and in return they ignored her. Sure, benghazi wasnt her fault but one could scholastically argue that the benghazi trials werent about implicating her in a scandal but making sure the public understood she was willing to throw anyone and everyone under the bus during hearings. hillary rigged her own primary and in doing so significantly disenfranchised a number of Sanders voters, but republicans masterfully highlighted sanders curious inability to win delegates as evidence that Hillary was being rammed down constituents throats whether they enjoyed the candidate or not. She was implicated, and controversially exonerated, from a federal investigation into her handling of states secrets that despite her teams best efforts to spin, seemed hypocritical when compared to manning or snowden. Prosecutors even acquiesced that the reluctance to indict her on any charges would pose a nontrivial barrier in litigating future instances of such cases. hillary banked on Obamas strategy of youth votes while arrogantly assuming youth votes just meant do the harlem shake and mannequin challenge until people cast their fucking ballot.

but no, she lost because of a combination of fake news, 4chan meme magic and the infamous russian hackers. Keep it up DNC, because in 8 years if you havent figured out that running moderate republican plutocrats as "liberal" candidates doesnt work, im not sure Biden has much of a fucking chance...and god knows you're not about to let an underdog challenge the next "its time for me to win the presidency because i said so" candidate.

DHS included?

[rholtzjr]

I wonder if the review will include the GA Election system that the DHS did an intrusion test on even after the GA Election office stated the did not require their assistance?

Maybe some phishing training for Podesta?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, maybe they can review why Podesta appears to have reset his Gmail password via a fake bit.ly reset link in a fake spear phishing email that claimed he was being hacked from the Ukraine? Note both the staff's reaction ("This is a legitimate email") and the fact that the Podesta dump ends soon after this email.

It's doubly odd, because Google does warn people who are actually subject to state-sponsored attacks, but we see no such notice here.

Seizing the reins.

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt any "review" is going to change the outcome of the election. Trump and the Republicans aren't going to give up power once seized.

Hacking review !== Election results review

[bjdevil66]

This isn't a Jill Stein or Hillary fanatic's fantasy scenario, where some "evil player" will be uncovered and the results could be overturned or changes.

This is just an honest review of what MAY have happened as a result of bad players trying to fiddle with the election. This is a really good idea to help ensure future presidential elections being trustworthy and valid.

Re:Hacking review !== Election results review

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, this is not a bit to avoid transferring power of changing the results. It's assessing whether the discourse and focus of the election were unduly effected by an outside party.

Like after you get punk'd by ashton kutcher, you can't try and get un-punkd. You just have to make sure you don't get punk's again.

Re:Hacking review !== Election results review

[chispito]

I've already commented so cannot mod you up. I feel like a whole crop of nutters followed this story onto the front page. I did not want Clinton to win, but I also do not want other countries meddling in our elections.

Re:Hacking review !== Election results review

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually Stein's recount in Michigan found all kinds of serious problems. The instant the problems looked like they gave Clinton tons of more votes instead, the recount was stopped and they quit looking at it.

Funny how that happened.

Re:Hacking review !== Election results review

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny how that happened.

Cites, or it DIDN'T happen.

Re:Hacking review !== Election results review

[skids]

This is a really good idea to help ensure future presidential elections being trustworthy and valid.

And so are the recounts. They've already proven Michigan has a lot of work to do to beef up the security/integrity of their ballot system... regardless of who benefits, which will be nobody. Like using seals properly and not using easily or already ripped ballot bags to preserve the paper record.

Recounts of a certain number of precincts at random should be mandatory, and if those recounts show problems, the recount should be expanded automatically, by law. If your state elections division does not do this, they are not doing their job, and you should be writing angry letters to your reps.

Re:Hacking review !== Election results review

[guruevi]

From more reputable news sources: every recount in every other state had more votes for Trump coming out, when Michigan's recount started looking the same way, the Obama appointed judge stopped the recount on a technicality which had been cited before but ignored: Stein has no right to burden the tax payer with a recount since she never stood a chance.

Re:Hacking review !== Election results review

[Straif]

I don't have links but from news reports I saw before they stopped the recount they found that in heavy Clinton areas that used certain types of optical scanners the numbers may have been inflated due to mishandling of ballots. Essentially, the person had an issue running the ballot through the first time and then retried but the machine actually registered both attempts as a vote for Clinton (assuming they were Clinton votes because they were in heavy Clinton districts). They were finding a larger number for their scanned totals than they actually had physical ballots for the recount.

While not voter fraud per se (since there was no intent shown), it definitely put a spot light on a major flaw in the system that apparently was well know from prior elections.

Re:Hacking review !== Election results review

[Dutchmaan]

Apparently, the president elect doesn't require "CITES" when he makes proclamations.... but I digress.

Re:Hacking review !== Election results review

[Dutchmaan]

From more reputable news sources: every recount in every other state had more votes for Trump coming out, when Michigan's recount started looking the same way, the Obama appointed judge stopped the recount on a technicality which had been cited before but ignored: Stein has no right to burden the tax payer with a recount since she never stood a chance.

oh DO tell what these "more reputable" news sources are.... well?

Re:Hacking review !== Election results review

[Anonymous Coward]

You write that as though it's obviously that they didn't want trump to have more votes... he already won. Common sense dictates that if the recount affirms that he won no further action is required. I don't see a problem here.

Re:Hacking review !== Election results review

[Tablizer]

This isn't a Jill Stein or Hillary fanatic's fantasy scenario, where some "evil player" will be uncovered and...

You are drama-queening it. They pretty much just said it doesn't hurt to verify.

Re:Hacking review !== Election results review

[Anonymous Coward]

It's voter fraud if they knew about it and did nothing to correct it.

Re:Hacking review !== Election results review

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been following Slashdot for years and unfortunately it seems that Trump winning brought typical Republican hard liners who believe everything they hear on certain sites or what already agrees with them spilling onto other sites.

They can't wait to discredit everything including slashdot but blindly parrot things like a true establishment media pundit from the other places they visit which tells them how to think and what arguments to use.

Re:Hacking review !== Election results review

[Jerry]

Really? Trump was claiming election rigging for months, and Bernie's failure proved it in the Dem nomination race, because of Clinton's "super delegates". Clinton and her sock puppets in the media and entertainment were so sure that she would win they denied any meaningful rigging existed. Hillary said that refusing to accept the election results was "horrifying", and "un-democratic and un-American". Refusing to accepts the results now is not those things, especially since she only collected 232 electoral college votes? She'd need to steal 68 votes from Trump to reverse the election, an impossibility.

It was only AFTER they lost that they started making claims about hacking and the ridiculous claim of Russian interference, and about "fake news sites". Before he won they were laughing at him and mocking him:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

The Democrats revealed a 2005 audio tape about Trump and pussy grabbing. Here is a 2006 audio of Hillary proposing election rigging:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
And this is to say nothing of her claims to have landed in Bosnia "under fire", or that the Benghazi debacle was caused by a YouTube video, that she was related to Sir Edmond Hillary ... the absurd lies go on and on. http://nypost.com/2015/11/28/h... and that doesn't cover the lies she told this year!
The fake news sites are the ones that repeated Hillary's lies without bothering to verify her statements before publishing them.

Jill Stein, candidate that drew less than 1% of the popular vote, has no standing to demand a recount in any state.
Then she raises $6M to fight the results? According to Hillary she's horrifying, un-democratic and un-American for refusing to accept the results of the election. Clinton won Nevada by less than 27K votes, Colorado by less than 75K votes, Minnesota, by less than 44K votes and in New Hampshire Hillary Clinton won by less than 3,000 votes. If she is interested in merely "verifying" the results why doesn't she want a recount in those states as well?

The facts are that Clinton would need 68 electoral votes to switch the results of election night. That big a shift has never happened and would never happen, not even this time. The Left's real purpose is to either corrupt the Electoral College with intimidation and death threats, or throw the election into the House by making it impossible for the Electoral College to function on December 19th, and you know it.. They still wouldn't win because the House is now controlled by the Republicans, but then the "Progressives" will claim that Trump stole the election and create chaos in the country, even worse than their Media Matters puppets have orchestrated with the SJWs and BLM since the election.

Re: Hacking review !== Election results review

[Anonymous Coward]

that she was related to Sir Edmond Hillary ... the absurd lies go on and on.

Yes, that is an absurd lie. Too bad it is actually yours. Why do you do this? It's a fake lie, even Mitch McConnell didn't twist the story that far. Hillary Clinton related a story about her mother telling her that she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary. Now maybe Hillary Clinton made that up, or maybe her mother did tell her that story, and she believed it, but the important thing is that she never claimed to be related to him.

You made that up. Were you just sloppy, or was it your own knowing lie? Regardless, you harm your own position by failing to be accurate yourself, and I sincerely doubt your capacity to do what is necessary to restore your credibility.

You'll probably post the same false accusations multiple times, and it'll be pizzagate all over again.

Re:Hacking review !== Election results review

[Anonymous Coward]

If that is truly the purpose, then I agree with you. Given the age we live in, it does make sense for election security to be audited.

However, since when do politicians do what's right versus what's politically expedient? It's all just a game to them and winning for their "side" is the only thing that matters.

Re:Hacking review !== Election results review

[HungWeiLo]

It was mentioned in great detail at least 2 months before the election.

Re: She won

[Anonymous Coward]

She didnt "win" anything moron.

Re:She won

[Anonymous Coward]

Saying she won the popular vote (and only by a bit at that) misses the point. We have an electoral college just for situations like this. The majority of the country lives in a handful of states. The voters in those states should not be able to run roughshod over the country, hence why we have an electoral college that's based on the representatives each state gets. Otherwise, east and west coast states would dictate everything about this country.

NAFTA killed the Midwest.

[generic_screenname]

And GATT didn't help. People remember that. Trump is capitalizing on that sentiment. Clinton was offering the modern equivalent of applying more leeches to bleed out an illness.

Re:NAFTA killed the Midwest.

[bfpierce]

It's true, but the Midwest isn't going to make a comeback by getting rid of it.

Unless 'rise of the machines' is what the Midwest was looking for.

Re: NAFTA killed the Midwest.

[Anonymous Coward]

People forget that NAFTA was a Republican idea. Ross Perot was against it, Donald Trump will only pretend, but do nothing.

And GATT was in 1947.

If it was so onerous, why has it lasted? Don't you want free trade?

Re: NAFTA killed the Midwest.

[generic_screenname]

If it was so onerous, why has it lasted?
Because it benefits other people who continue to vote in favor of such things.

Don't you want free trade?
How do you feel about an H1b taking your job? Don't you want open borders?

Re:She won

[Anonymous Coward]

"She got more votes. More Americans voted for her. More people liked her than Trump. More people chose her than Trump."

That's a bit like saying I won the chess match despite the checkmate because I have more pieces on the board...

Also, there's no evidence that more people liked her than Trump. It seems as if nearly half her votes came from people who didn't like her... they just hated Trump more...

"She could lose on electoral college (Dec 19th) due to gerrymandering, voter suppression and some wierd shit."

She could also lose the electoral college by failing to win the electoral votes required. Which appears to be what happened...

Re:She won

[Anonymous Coward]

Saying she won the popular vote (and only by a bit at that) misses the point. We have an electoral college just for situations like this. The majority of the country lives in a handful of states. The voters in those states should not be able to run roughshod over the country, hence why we have an electoral college that's based on the representatives each state gets. Otherwise, east and west coast states would dictate everything about this country.

So instead, the coasts get controlled by the isolated middle. That doesn't sound good either.

The bigger question...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is why the elections should be subject to hacking AT ALL? If we are so vulnerable to "outsiders" rigging our elections, should we not go back to using PAPER ballots and HAND counting of them?

Re:She won

[moeinvt]

She didn't "win" a damned thing! Thanks to the wisdom of the founders, we have the electoral college so that the "more people" in California and New York don't get to rule the rest of the country. WTF does "gerrymandering" (re-drawing legislative districts to favor a particular party) have to do with the presidential election which is done on a state-wide basis(except for 2 electoral votes in Maine which are awarded by district)?

Russian hackers != Russian government. It's true that the Russian government generally takes a hands off approach to Russian hackers. That doesn't mean the hackers work for the government. Some Russian hacker successfully conducted a spear-phishing attack on the DNC and the Democrats and MSM try to imply that it's some ultra-sophisticated attack orchestrated by the Russian government. Ridiculous.

" Ukraine, end up having to eject their Putin puppet,"

The USA government organized and architected a coup against the democratically elected government of Ukraine. We have a recording of U.S. assistant secretary of state Victoria Nuland having a detailed discussion with the U.S. ambassador as they decide the makeup of the post-coup government. Hardly a spontaneous uprising by disaffected Ukrainians.

Re:i think its simpler than we're making it out to

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup. I pretty much agree with this assessment in total.

In Fairness

[Anonymous Coward]

In fairness, the Republicans have been crying(howling more like it) like massive babies for eight solid years!

Even Trump himself was talking that birther shit up to a couple of years ago.

My point being that the Democrats are entitled to whine for a while. I'm surprised they aren't still screaming for Trumps tax returns. You know you'll never see them, right?

Re:In Fairness

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm surprised they aren't still screaming for Trumps tax returns. You know you'll never see them, right?

That's one I'll never understand. Leftists/Progressives have been screaming about that like it is their God given right to pore over his returns. Nobody is required to make their returns public to run for office. It's a courtesy. Leftists tried to wave their hands and distract every time someone brought up Hillary's email debacle which bordered on criminal.

Every time I heard the bleating about returns on main stream media news, I just kept thinking, Is that all you got? Really?

Re:In Fairness

[Anonymous Coward]

"Flamebait"

The angry wimps are on the warpath! I love it! Getting fucked by the truth hurts so bad, doesn't it? Let's hope they lose even territory in 2018.

Re: She won

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they should? Conservatives are more likely to dictate individual behavior than liberals, who by defintion favor liberty. It's odd that the incoming conservative--conserve--administration will have the least respect for precedent of any modern administration.

Re:She won

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Scientists have shown too many rats packed into a closed space start fighting among themselves. Should this distorted worldview run the entire nation?

We are supposed to be a free country, not an unlimited parliamentary democracy where whoever gets 51% gets to pass any law they like.

Fix the system

[bigwheel]

Bickering aside about who did the cheating, can we all just agree on two things?
1: Shitcan the electronic voting machines and stick with something that's verifiable. Perhaps, the paper ballets that we've already been using for a long time.
2: Require a verifiable ID to vote. At least, something as good as what is required to buy a beer.

If not, then can we point our fingers at the people who object to the above?

Re:Fix the system

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm for this, but I think we can still do it electronically with a public verifiable blockchain

Re:Fix the system

[craigminah]

...and MANDATE a photo ID for all voters to ensure foreigners aren't voting which is essentially a HUMINT-hack of our elections. Since that favors democrats it'll be allowed.

Re:Fix the system

[ZenShadow]

The audit chain can't be electronic. There's no way the user can be certain that the vote they entered is the one that got written to the chain. Too much attack surface, especially from an insider wanting to subvert the system.

We shouldn't be focusing on "secure" electronic voting, at least not at first (though I do agree with Voter ID; if you don't have some form of state ID, then either you're a child, not legal to vote, or just plain irresponsible. Exceptions to that are probably very rare. But I digress).

What we need to be focused on is auditability.

I voted this year on electronic machines, and I found the process deeply untrustworthy. There's too much hidden in those hideous plastic boxes. Sure, it might show my candidate's name is checked, but how do I know that's what actually got recorded? Answer: I don't, because I can't examine the device's memory. This is a problem that everyone should be concerned about.

The answer? A receipt printer.

Have the machine print your votes onto a piece of paper. The paper gets a random ID of some sort, completely untied to your identity, time, or whatever else, but linking it to the electronic vote record. It should be printed in clear language so that the voter can examine it to ensure that their choices are correctly represented. This paper is then deposited into a ballot box for record-keeping purposes (and which is clearly marked as "DO NOT COUNT").

This won't affect the ability for people to hack the election machines during the election; that would be impossible. But it *does* make the actual votes auditable after the fact, which is sorely lacking in the current electronic systems.

Just my $0.02, for what little that's worth these days.

Re:Fix the system

[painandgreed]

Bickering aside about who did the cheating, can we all just agree on two things? 1: Shitcan the electronic voting machines and stick with something that's verifiable. Perhaps, the paper ballets that we've already been using for a long time. 2: Require a verifiable ID to vote. At least, something as good as what is required to buy a beer.

If not, then can we point our fingers at the people who object to the above?

Sure, just create the constitutional amendment taking the power for the states to decide how they conduct their voting and put it in the hands of the federal government.

Re:Fix the system

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's get rid of absentee ballots, too, then, seeing as it's impossible to demonstrate that the person sending it in is actually who they claim to be.

Re:Fix the system

[Anonymous Coward]

> Require a verifiable ID to vote

As long as we also add automatic voter registration to getting a driver's license.

There really isn't a reason for the state to be keeping track of two entirely different databases of "people who live here".

For the states that have implemented this, the cost savings from not having to do any of manual data entry of redundant voter registration forms alone is a reason to do it.

Re:She won

[NatasRevol]

I won't argue your larger point. We live in a representative republic, not a democracy.

But this "and only by a bit at that" is demonstrably false.

While the count is still going on, she's already won the popular vote by more than anyone except Obama in 2008. It's more than 2,7000,000 people voted for Hillary over Trump. It's not politically meaningful *today*, but it is something.

Re:Crybaby democrats just won't stop

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't really get too upset about getting modded down for calling people crybabies. Or, I guess you could. You know, maybe you could cry about it. Like a baby.

I can't wait for the

[Anonymous Coward]

FOIA request results.

Re: She won

[Anonymous Coward]

"Russian hackers"

Re:She won

[Anonymous Coward]

While the count is still going on, she's already won the popular vote by more than anyone except Obama in 2008.

What?

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

Re:She won

[Bartles]

If we hadn't spent the last 100 (and particularly the last 8) years concentrating power in the executive branch, those states on the coasts wouldn't be controlled by anyone.

Re: She won

[Bartles]

Haha. What fantasy land are you living in? Have you stepped foot on a college campus or in a big city recently?

Re:She won

[skids]

The voters in those states should not be able to run roughshod over the country

If that were the purpose of the electoral college, the number of electors would not be based mostly on the population of the state. There are some federalist bits around the edges of the electoral college, but that's not its main reason for being... its main reason for being is the electors themselves.

Re:She won

[FatAlb3rt]

And nevermind the fact that both Clinton and Trump knew and understood how the system worked and campaigned accordingly. Otherwise, they would have never set foot in places like Iowa and focused all their activities around large population centers.

Dem futures

[unixisc]

It depends on how the DNC election turns out. Keith Ellison has the baggage about his Farrakhan ties and past statements about Judaism, but Bernie can still put up a less tainted Progressive candidate to head the party: it's not like the party is short of them.

It's no longer a Clinton dominated party: the real battle would be b/w the Bernie/Warren Progressives vs the Rust Belt Centrists like Tim Ryan. This will be an easy battle for the former to win, since the Dems are a bi-coastal party of New England (Bernie/Warren's turf), New York to DC corridor, and the Left Coast. They ain't people left to reward the states that abandoned them - states like MI, WI or PA. Martin O'Malley is not likely to win, Dean has dropped out, so the race remains right now b/w Ellison and Jamie Harrison - the head of the party in a deep red state that's not gonna flip - SC.

But GP is right. It was conventional wisdom that Bernie couldn't win if he was the nominee, being the socialist that he is. But it was also conventional wisdom that Trump couldn't win. In reality, it's been 25 years since the fall of the Soviet Union, so terms like socialist or communist do not have the negative connotations to people that they had even during the Gorby era. He shocked Clinton in battleground states like MI, and would have kept the blue wall intact. In fact, given how Trump had slipped vs Cruz in red states, had Bernie been the candidate, given how well he did against Clinton in many of them, he might even have flipped some states like UT

Constitutional REPUBLIC vs. pure democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: That's what we live in under 'rule of law' (that per Hillary Benghazi email doesn't apply equally to all) & it uses electoral college so that 51% majorities don't steal the rights of 49% minorities (in other words, large population centers in cities with welfare votes Shillary SOROS Saudi Arabia was after along w/ those doing well under the present lousy results regime, especially in employment, another lawyer like her has failed in) - states get 'weights' in electoral college representation under this CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC to stop that from happening.

* AND, that IS how it REALLY WORKS, for good reasons noted above...

APK

P.S.=> I saw Jill Stein say this falsehood:

"If you believe in democracy, if you believe in the credibility of your victory, put down your arms, end your bureaucratic obstruction" FROM https://www.yahoo.com/news/fed... & NEWSFLASH TO HER & ALL THOSE WHO DO UNDERSTAND THE RULE OF LAW HERE - electoral college is HOW it works, with good reason - it's NOT a PURE democracy! apk

Re: She won

[Anonymous Coward]

Has a liberal forced you to do something recently? Has a liberal prevented you from speaking your mind? Has a liberal prevented you from taking any action that doesn't harm another person? Has a liberal responded to your speech in any way other than more speech?

Re:She won

[Anonymous Coward]

The electoral college has little to do with the whole "tyranny of the majority" concept in the constitution. It is a byproduct of being a constitutional republic and is based on the number of federal legislators sent to the federal government (specifically number of senators and House reps) which is mostly a function of population. At a time when it took days/week to ride/sail from one side of the country to the other it was probably a pretty good system that was simple and relatively difficult to corrupt. Even today it's not necessarily a bad system as candidates have to be close in popularity to begin with for there to be an issue so (presumably) either is a "worthy" candidate to be president. What has let us down as a country are the voters who can't see how corrupt/lying "their" candidate is (Failing businessman Trump a champion of the working class? Clinton as the candidate who will take on wall-street/banks? buwahahahahaaahaa on both counts), and political parties which aren't offering anything but corrupt/lying candidates.

Declare Election Invalid!

[Anonymous Coward]

At this point there is no other choice, Obama has to stay president and the election has to be repeated.
It can not stand that Russia manipulated the election to have their guy voted president.

The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process.

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national

Why do we let foreign powers get away with this?

Re:Declare Election Invalid!

[WillAffleckUW]

Why?

Because Americans are sheep.

Hillary publicly conceded her loss

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: Hillary "Soros & Saudi Arabia" Clinton publicly SAID she lost & USA's NOT a DEMOCRACY imbecile! It's a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC!

See here for how it works + WHY in fairness to less populated areas https://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9977161&cid=53453869/

APK

P.S.=> You've already been downmodded & you post by unidentifiable anonymous posts so, so much for your "standing behind your words", eh? Answer the question I just asked, ok?? apk

Re:She won

[danbert8]

Actually, it's currently whoever gets 48%ish of the vote and dropping...

"I pledge allegiance, to the flag..."

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject & "... of the United States of America & to the REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS..." get it? It's not a 'pure democracy' but instead a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC https://www.google.com/search?... (which the #1 result there proves IS the form of gov't. the USA uses idiot) that uses an electoral college as RULE OF LAW, you pitiful apparently easily deceived dumbo!

* Just because you're an easily DUPED CHUMP, don't try DRAG THE REST OF US DOWN with you, ok? Thanks!

APK

P.S.=> I saw that bullshit scammer Jill Stein TRY that weak ploy of 'democracy' quoted too -> https://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9977161&cid=53453869/ to FOOL the undereducated & imbeciles among us (no shortage of that apparently & YOU are the unidentifiable PROBABLY SOROS PAID LIKE HILLARY example thereof if I ever saw one - & yes, Hillary conceded her loss PUBLICLY too, moron!)... apk

Re:She won

[The Grim Reefer]

While the count is still going on, she's already won the popular vote by more than anyone except Obama in 2008. It's more than 2,7000,000 people voted for Hillary over Trump.

I'm going to assume you mean by actual number of votes and not the percentage. Either way that's simply not true.

By the actual margin:

1972 Nixon won the popular vote by almost 18 million votes

1984 Reagan won popular vote by almost 17 million votes

1964 Johnson popular vote by almost 16 million

GWB is in 19th place, for the most popular votes, in the 2004 election by getting just over 3 million votes more than Kerry. .

If you want to look at the percentage, she's at 1.95%. Which is way down on the list. Harding, Coolidge, FDR, Nixon and LBJ all beat their opponents by over 20% of the popular vote. Grover Cleveland won election in 1892 with a 3% margin of the popular vote.

Trump won by electoral votes but lost the popular vote by 1.95%. Rutherford Hayes (-3%) and John Quincy Adams (-10.44%) both won the electoral votes but lost the popular vote by a larger percentage than Trump did.

Oh please don't ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Republicans don't like to be all lumped into the pile of anti-science Bible thumpers and we Dems don't like to be lumped in with those nutty people who interview a 9 year-old about her "transgender" choices like she was an adult.

I love my NPR (I know! Surprising!) but when I heard the interview a couple of weeks ago with this THIRD grader about her/his gender issues, I wanted call in and yell, "Get a fucking grip! She's 9 years old and we called them Tomboys when I was a kid!"

Oh, don't get me started. This whole LGBTNRBQABCD nonsense within the Left is just as annoying to some of us as to the Conservatives. I mean, I heard more about who can use which bathroom during the election cycle than issues affecting working class folks - the Democrats' base in the OLD days. And the Dems wonder why they didn't get the working class vote. It never fails, FATE gives them something on a silver platter - like this past election SHOULD have been - and they fucked it up.

And as far as the racist thing goes - we are ALL racists and bigots because it's hardwired into our fucking being - be afraid of those who are different than us. That is how we evolved - period. What we should do is work with it and show good character and not act on it.

Re:She won

[Anonymous Coward]

We live in a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC in the USA. Popular is meaningless compared to the electoral college. Less than 20 percent of the USA voted for Hillary. Care to take a guess at why that is?

Re:shut the fuck up

[Anonymous Coward]

You sound nice

To quote...

[Bodhammer]

'What Difference, At This Point, Does It Make?'

Re:To quote...

[Tablizer]

Quote: "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

Re:To quote...

[Anonymous Coward]

We got Watergated. Someone (The Republicans? Russia? Another actor?) broke into the documents of the opposing party, and released them to influence an election. You may recall that a sitting president resigned rather than be fired for attempting that.

The motive, which prompted the response you mock above, is interesting, but largely irrelevant. It could well be some Channer who did it for the lulz. The meaningful question is: "Is the incoming President's Administration tarnished (possibly beyond repair) by the crime, or is he an innocent (for this event) beneficiary?" with prerequisite questions "Who did it?" and "Did Trump (as the manifest benificiary) have any meaningful connection to the culprit?"

Re:She won

[skam240]

So a system where only 7 or 8 states matter in the election is better? At least under the popular vote a voters vote in Kanses (as an example) matters. As it stands now the individual's vote doesnt matter there and in 40 other states because where their electoral votes go is practically pre ordained.

Sophomoric Attempts to De-Legitimize the Election

[Anonymous Coward]

Stupid. Hacking emails does not equal interfering with an election process. This is just another pathetic attempt by the losers to cast aspersions upon the legitimacy of Trumps unexpected victory.

Re:She won

[mlw4428]

"She didn't "win" a damned thing! Thanks to the wisdom of the founders, we have the electoral college so that the "more people" in California and New York don't get to rule the rest of the country."

Haha, yeah, because screw elections right? That's absolutely NOT why the founders created the EC. The EC was created so that a candidate who might be able to win on popularity contest (which is what elections essentially are), but are otherwise unfit to rule a nation not make it into the White House. This election is an entirely different situation where the "winner" was really a loser in all regards who only "won" because of a Constitutional Loophole. The EC should act more like a confirmation system where the POPULAR VOTE winner gets to be confirmed.

Re: She won

[Anonymous Coward]

Scientists have shown too many rats packed into a closed space start fighting among themselves. Should this distorted worldview run the entire nation?

Scientists have shown that humans raised in isolation and without exposure to diverse stimuli develop neuroses and a lack of empathy. Should that distorted wordview run anything?

We are supposed to be a free country, not an unlimited parliamentary democracy where whoever gets 51% gets to pass any law they like.

We are supposed to have government of the people, by the people, and for the people, not have a government where some are esteemed above others simply because of your value judgment where you despise and deprecate some, rather than realize that you aren't serving their interests.

Re:She won

[Anonymous Coward]

Saying she won the popular vote...

That's the biggest bit of fake news this year; alert: there was no contest for the popular vote, therefore nobody "won" or "lost" it. Making up the term "win" for something that couldn't be "won" is New-Millenial-speak for "we lost".

Stakeholders - don't forget the most one

[portwojc]

The major stakeholder in this process, which is the American voter, is the one who should receive a full report. Not just the government officials.

RESULTS

[Anonymous Coward]

Mr. President,

I am happy to report I have not only confirmed tampering in the election, but I have identified sources, and what they were trying to do.

The intention was indeed directed to steal the election by swaying a slight control over election results via software tweaks on the voting machines, the voting databases, bribery and blackmail of election officials, including local law enforcement, and intimidation of Electors, and swaying the Mainstream media such as CNN, NPR, ABC, FOX, CBS and NBC.

The evidence clearly shows the intent to steal the presidency, in favor of Hillary Clinton.

Those responsible include but are not limited to the following.
===============
John McCain
Nancy Pelosi
Diane Feinstein
Harry Reid
Lindsey Graham
Mitch McConnell
Joe Biden
Hillary Clinton
Eric Holder
Michael Bloomberg
George Soros
and Yourself.

Re:i think its simpler than we're making it out to

[skam240]

I agree with a lot of what you say but how would Hillary "rig her own primary"? People voted, she won the vote.

Just because she was favored by her party (a political party favoring a candidate!? *gasp!*) doesnt mean the election was rigged.

Re:She won

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people have made hay about California seceding. If that happened, Hillary would have lost the popular vote. Trump had the edge in the rest of the country. (He claims he would have done better in California if he had campaigned more there like he did in the Rust Belt.)

Re: She won

[Bartles]

Let's see, they forced me to buy ridiculously expensive health insurance I don't want. If I was a speaker on a college campus they don't agree with, yes. And certainly their fascism makes me second guess everything I say in public and at family gatherings. Yes, they restrict the sales of my product, and yes they like to tear down my campaign signs.

Re: She won

[Bartles]

And since there's no edit, technically no. A liberal hasn't done any of these these. These people aren't liberal.

Re:She won

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't confuse the poor bastard with facts. John Oliver or Samantha Bee told him it was true, so it must be true.

Re: She won

[Anonymous Coward]

If we hadn't spent the last few decades letting partisan gerrymandering take over, we wouldn't be back to the state of states as they were before Reynolds v Sims and Baker v. Carr.

I get it, I get it, you see only that big White House, but there's a lot of rot to go around.

Try to pay attention to the real sources of it.

Re:She won

[jbengt]

On the contrary, with the electoral college, an individual's vote in a less populous states counts way more than an individual's vote in a populous state. Even the state with the least population gets three electoral votes, while bigger states get electoral votes more in proportion to their population.

Re: She won

[Anonymous Coward]

Has a liberal forced you to do something recently? Has a liberal prevented you from speaking your mind? Has a liberal prevented you from taking any action that doesn't harm another person? Has a liberal responded to your speech in any way other than more speech?

Actually, yes on all counts. A liberal has forced me to leave a restaurant (and I mean forcibly by pushing). A liberal has also prevented me from walking across a campus (berkeley), A liberal has responded to me saying something at their rally by pushing me to the ground and by throwing a bottle of water at my head. It didn't happen to me personally, but a liberal has fired my friend from his job simply for mentioning he was a republican off hours at a company event (according to the California Employment Development Department being a member of a political party is not considered a protected employment class of individuals).

I am a minority in the bay area (because of my politics), and many many liberals have certainly not been very accepting of me and several have been outright hostle and even physical, so I until they reject their brothers and sisters in arms, I will continue to think of them as hypocrites and cowards.

That is all.

Um.. the populuar vote is very, very real

[rsilvergun]

it's nothing more than what the majority of Americans, without the distortion of a Republican government designed from the ground up to mute their voices, wanted.

When anyone's talking about the popular vote, that's what they mean.

Re:Um.. the populuar vote is very, very real

[aldousd666]

It's in the constitution. Which was created before republicans. There never was a 'national' vote. It was ALWAYS the states picking. Of course, you can change it by passing a constitutional amendment. At the time it was designed it was meant to prevent people in one state from having an influence on how another state voted, which as we see, is pretty much what it does.

Re:Um.. the populuar vote is very, very real

[n7ytd]

I'm not sure if by "Republican" you mean "a government controlled by the Republican party" or "a government where they people are represented by elected officials (as opposed to a pure democracy)".

Re:Um.. the populuar vote is very, very real

[rholtzjr]

It is not a popularity contest. It is a selection by all states to be represented.

Ummm, and the Republican Party was not formed until 1854 so to say the distortion that the EC was created to mute voices is bogus. Realize that the Republican Party was formed from the Whig party whose emphasis was on anti-slavery. Which the Demorcats in 1824 were pro-populism mainly from southern states. The didn't shift to their current liberal stance until Roosevelt (FDR) era.

Re:i think its simpler than we're making it out to

[Anonymous Coward]

It looks pretty bad when the sitting leader for the DNC (Tim Kaine) steps down and nominates an ex Clinton campaign employee for the position, and then later that same leader has to leave because e-mails revealed a lot of conflicts of interest, fraud and very suspicious activity. Then the previous leader is rewarded with a VP nomination while the DNC leader who fell on her sword is given a high position in the new campaign for Clinton. The DNC leaks and Podesta leaks both reveal the rest of the story, with DNC funds going to Clinton, people directed to stir trouble at Sanders rallies... the list goes on. That's rigging.

Re:i think its simpler than we're making it out to

[Major Blud]

Democrats ran a turd for a candidate with no policy other than 'i want to be a president.'

"I want to be a president" and "my opponent is a racist, homophobic, mysogynist, Islamophobic bigot"...instead of attacking him on his policies and experience.

Regional Presidents

[Anonymous Coward]

Sparsely populated states won't agree to be ruled perpetually by regional presidents. End of story. We are a union of states. Brown people in New York and LA should not have disproportionate power over states in which they do not live.

Re:Regional Presidents

[mlw4428]

I'm sorry, but our elections are not necessarily meant to be fair to sparsely populated states. Populations matters at the federal level - because that's where the majority is at. And it wasn't just "brown people in NY and LA" (kind of a racist statement there chief), it was a bunch of white people, yellow people, red people, and everyone else. If the racist folks don't like that, they should work to make their state more inviting to live in - which would boost their numbers.

Re:Regional Presidents

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't call me chief, racist.

Re:Regional Presidents

[LordLucless]

I'm sorry, but our elections are not necessarily meant to be fair to sparsely populated states.

That's exactly what they were meant to be, since otherwise, sparsely-populated states would never have agreed to join the union.

Re: Regional Presidents

[mlw4428]

No, it's clearly not. The higher a state's population, the more Electoral College representation a state gets. Population matters, because that's where a MAJORITY tends to be. This is basic US civics.

Re:Regional Presidents

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but our elections are not necessarily meant to be fair to sparsely populated states.

Why do people keep trying to make this a state issue? The New York Times has a very nice set of voting maps, and they clearly show that ALL the big cities went blue, but most of the rest of the country went red.

The big cities have very different interests than the rest of the country - and this election shows that as clearly as any previous election ever has.

Re: Regional Presidents

[LordLucless]

They get more representation, but it's not proportional, because every state gets two electors, in addition to the number they get based on population. This gives underpopulated states more oompf - per capita - than overpopulated states. That's why Delaware has six times the population of Arizona, but only twice as many delegates.

Re:i think its simpler than we're making it out to

[Anonymous Coward]

...how would Hillary "rig her own primary"?

Ask Little Debbie (Wasserman Schultz).

Posting AC to preserve moderation.

Biden's going to be 78

[rsilvergun]

so no, no chance there. He's pushing 80 for God's sake.

And you're forgetting how many 'Blue Dog' and social liberals there are. The Republicans have a much stronger position because they have two basic issues: Low taxes and no regulation for the wealthy and right wing evangelicalism for the bible thumpers (with all the guns, none of the Gays or Abortions). It's real easy to keep those groups together.

Dems have to balance our economic regressive/social liberals with socialists, environmentalists and civil rights activists. We're a much, much looser coalition. That's why Hilary couldn't get the vote out. She was walking too fine a line and tripped over it.

The sad thing is things are probably going to have to go to shit for 80% of the population before we start seeing progress again. It's been like this since I was a kid. Republicans deregulation and wreck the economy, Dems move in and fix it up, folks get complacent and want the Republicans back because instead of slow steady growth they promise the world. Lather, rinse, repeat. Savings and Loan, .com bust, housing bust. Over and over and over again.

Re:Biden's going to be 78

[Anonymous Coward]

so no, no chance there. He's pushing 80 for God's sake.

And you're forgetting how many 'Blue Dog' and social liberals there are. The Republicans have a much stronger position because they have two basic issues: Low taxes and no regulation for the wealthy and right wing evangelicalism for the bible thumpers (with all the guns, none of the Gays or Abortions). It's real easy to keep those groups together.

Dems have to balance our economic regressive/social liberals with socialists, environmentalists and civil rights activists. We're a much, much looser coalition. That's why Hilary couldn't get the vote out. She was walking too fine a line and tripped over it.

The sad thing is things are probably going to have to go to shit for 80% of the population before we start seeing progress again. It's been like this since I was a kid. Republicans deregulation and wreck the economy, Dems move in and fix it up, folks get complacent and want the Republicans back because instead of slow steady growth they promise the world. Lather, rinse, repeat. Savings and Loan, .com bust, housing bust. Over and over and over again.

Well only partially right,

fake news aside, it is a fact that Republicans gerrymandered the districts so that they had congress to make sure Obama could do nothing useful in his presidency. Once that was done, despite the fact the economy was brought back slowly from the brink of the US becoming a 3rd world economy, we got Bin Laden and serious reforms were made on the domestic front, most of the voter base was convinced that Obama was the anti-christ. This created a situation where the general public was convinced we were only able to be 'saved' by an outsider because the blue collar workers were convinced "we need to run our government like a business" when the truth was that it was business leaders that had created the problem by devaluing the American worker with H1-B workers and making the money everyone invested in their education basically worthless. This made an already bad problem worse.

If Hillary had won, she had the formula from the1990s which brought America back from a depression to the greatest economic surplus in recorded history all the while Republicans spread the story that it was her and not the gerrymandered Republicans in congress spreading FUD about her being a "wall street insider" being the problem that caused the supposed "economic depression" of the Obama years, which was a complete fiction.

Trump has already shown that he is out for his own riches, he is retaining ownership of his businesses which is a conflict of interest. Expect taxes on the middle class to go up ,the taxes on the upper class to go down or go away and him to "trickle down" campaign promises about overturning Obamacare, deporting muslims, overturning Rowe vs Wade and other unconstitutional crap that the Republicans have been salivating over. It is not what he wants to do, rather it is a approval seeking move that he can easily blame on Obama just like the Democrats rightly blamed the economic depression on the Bush policies. It was under Bush that funny business like Enron happened.. expect more of that crap (Like false energy deficits and rolling blackouts to artificially inflate the cost of gas which Bush had economic interests in, while creating the Gulf war and raising gas prices even further, lining his bank account like his father did in the early 90s. Bush Senior made something like 90 million in personal profits off of the first gulf war, but Dubya couldn't quite pull that off and now we are mired in a quagmire that will likely cost more in lives and money than the Vietnam war under Nixon.) These are facts, Republicans love to scream "it is all fake news!" but these are facts and a quick google search will prove it, but the Americans that get their news from Facebook are just clueless and will eat whatever shit their Republican bots feed them. The Hypocrisy here is unbelievable to anyone who has just a little fact

Re:She won

[skam240]

They matter more only in small swing states.

Take Florida for instance, our third or fourth largest state by population (dont remember, not looking it up). Are you really telling me an Alaskan's vote matters more or even as much as some one in Florida? Presidental elections are won and lost based on what happens in Florida, meanwhile Alaska votes Republican every election and no one cares because everyone knew that was going to happen just like with every other small (by population) state

Re:shut the fuck up

[Anonymous Coward]

You sound like an idiot douche...

I agree with you

[rsilvergun]

but if Clinton was using leaches then Trump's Trepanation. His cabinet pick's alone make that obvious. Robert Reich pointed out that every single person he's appointed is on record saying they're opposed to the purpose of the department they'll be heading....

Re:She won

[Anonymous Coward]

"Scientists have shown too many rats packed into a closed space start fighting among themselves."

Which has nothing to do with our electoral system.

Re:i think its simpler than we're making it out to

[Anonymous Coward]

She rigged her own *primary*, not the final vote.

Re:i think its simpler than we're making it out to

[Anonymous Coward]

Democrats ran a turd for a candidate with no policy other than 'i want to be a president.'

That is just plain nonsense. She had a platform, and she explained it during the elections. But nobody gave a damn, especially not the MSM. Donald's antics were much more entertaining.

And if Hillary was a turd, I'm curious if the dictionary contains a word for Donald.

Re:i think its simpler than we're making it out to

[Anonymous Coward]

We had some primary voting issues here in Phoenix AZ that made it difficult or impossible for a lot of people to vote. (R)Purcell did not get elected again... but I do have a hard time attributing Bernie's loss to this honestly.

Re:She won

[WillAffleckUW]

Agreed, she won by millions of votes, and if we lived in a Democracy, she'd be President, even with the foreign vote hacking.

But, unlike Governors, and County Execs, and Mayors, they set this fake Electoral College up to deny us our choice.

Re:She won

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, but in 2016 it's wrong. Choosing the leader of the free world based on geography is ridiculous. Choosing the leader of the free world using an approach designed to placate slave states is wrong.

For picking the President, one man, one vote is the way to go. It should not matter where you live.

Re:i think its simpler than we're making it out to

[bfpierce]

He didn't have any policies OR experience to attack, to be fair.

Pretty clever at that honestly, to just spout two different things depending on whether you're on twitter or in a debate. Nobody had any solid idea what they guy actually wanted to DO policy wise.

Re:She won

[AmericaRunsOnDunkin]

So instead we get a few midwest farmers and unemployed mill workers telling the entire country what to do. Brilliant.

Hint: majority rule is called a DEMOCRACY. If you don't like it go back to Soviet Russia.

Re: She won

[Anonymous Coward]

And since there's no edit, technically no. A liberal hasn't done any of these these. These people aren't liberal.

They're Progressive.

Re:She won

[Anonymous Coward]

She's already won the popular vote by more than anyone except Obama in 2008 must mean something different what my small brain can interprets it to mean. She would be in the bottom ten for popular vote margin if she won and yet your statement seems to imply something else.

Oh, one more thing, that is not how we elect presidents.

Re:She won

[Anonymous Coward]

That is nonsense. Non swing states help determine the initial difficulty of winning the presidency for each president. That is the reason that so many people thought it was impossible for Trump to win since Hillary had a lock on more electoral votes.

Penis Cops [Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her]

[Tablizer]

and that 3-year-olds should be able to create their own genders.

Why would you want gov't regulating genders? I thought you people didn't like gov't intervention?

Trump hasn't indicated any mandate to regulate such anyhow.

where people don't buy into the idea that all white people are evil racists...

Filtering immigrants based on religion is just on such a track in my book, along with other rude comments Mr. T has made without apologies. For some odd reason, many conservatives don't see it that way, and that concerns me.

Re:She won

[Anonymous Coward]

And we live in a Republic, maybe you should move.

"Deep dive" includes voting machine forensics?

[TheDarkener]

I RTFA and didn't catch whether this supposed review is going to include a formal forensics analysis of voting machines, at least in swing states where something of this nature would have been beneficial and anomalies in exit polls vs. actual numbers on machines happened. There were states that flat out denied Stein's request of forensics on the machines, which I think is completely ridiculous. If you're gonna punch the same commands into possibly pwned machines, of COURSE you're gonna get the same numbers (both on memory card and internal "redundant" memory). That is *not* a "recount".

Um?

[slew]

I now live near Oakland, CA, any my precinct had 142% turn out.

Greater than 100% turnout happened in every county I looked at here in CA. For Oakland County where I live:

http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/MI/Oakland/63990/184040/en/vt_data.html

My precinct had >160% turnout. There is massive fraud here in CA.

FYI Oakland, California is in *ALAMEDA COUNTY*.

Given that Hillary won in California by 2:1 over Donald, even if there were massive fraud in California, it had exactly zero bearing on the election. However, if you insist, here are the Oakland Alameda, California results. Out of 888709 registered, only 670245 total ballots were cast (~75%). In Alameda County in California, Hillary received 78.06% of votes cast and Donald only managed to receive 14.54% of the votes.

Your link is for the state of *MICHIGAN* (Oakland County). Fromyour link there are only two precincts that report > 100% Southfield Township precincts 8/9 which reported a total 4258 votes vs 2551 registered

Re:Crybaby democrats just won't stop

[Anonymous Coward]

"Troll"

There ya go! Like I said, the crybabies are juiced. What more proof do you need that the democrats are a bunch of brown shirts? Vote them all out! Let's worry about Trump later. So far he's making the right people nervous. At least he's not a pansy.

Re:She won

[Rockoon]

While the count is still going on, she's already won the popular vote by more than anyone except Obama in 2008.

I think we've found someone that reads the fake news.

Donald lost the popular vote

[Anonymous Coward]

Because of his inability to do the job (by the way, on the Duck being an executive for a new reality show, I thought the POTS was a full time job, not for part-timers? Or is such an executive position so lacking in any need for someone to be there that he can do it AND be president? In which case, surely he's indicting just how pointless his "achievements" so far are?), but he still claims that its because 3 million illegal immigrants voted for Hillary.

Do you REALLY think that the voting of 3 million illegal immigrants should NOT be investigated?

Or is it that it should not be investigated just in case it turns out Diebold DID just hand the election to the Republicans, as they said they would?

Re: She won

[AmiMoJo]

I honestly can't tell which side you are talking about now. Conservatives have started a list of professors that hurt their feelings recently, and often demand others be silenced so that they can speak free from consequences. They like to put restrictions on other people, especially other people's bodies.

Republican policies have made US healthcare some of the most expensive in the world... Is that what you were referring to?

Re:She won

[AmiMoJo]

The real problem is winner-takes-all politics. Half the people who voted didn't want Trump or his policies, but the other half gets to dictate for the next four years. Same with Brexit, 48% of people voted to stay in the EU, but some of the 52% of voted to leave seem to think that they have the right to force a "hard" exit.

It's pretty bad in both cases, because the normal balances that ensure everyone has a say and some kind of consensus is reached have failed. The Republicans control both houses and soon the Supreme Court. The Tories dominate UK politics.

So you wanted to continue to freeload?!?!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you weren't buying health insurance, and now you're forced to buy it, and you're pissed off because you used to be able to get free healthcare by not having any insurance and merely waiting until it's serious.

And you're PROUD of that?!?!?

"And certainly their fascism"

You don't seem to know what facism means, ergo this complaint can be summarily dismissed.

"Yes, they restrict the sales of my product"

Yeah, selling coke is exactly what only liberals do... Dumbass.

Re: She won

[Bartles]

I can tell you just don't have any motivation to do anything other than a half-assed post.

Re:i think its simpler than we're making it out to

[Anonymous Coward]

All it takes is a simple google search you shill

Re:She won

[Anonymous Coward]

So a system where only 7 or 8 states matter in the election is better? At least under the popular vote a voters vote in Kanses (as an example) matters. As it stands now the individual's vote doesnt matter there and in 40 other states because where their electoral votes go is practically pre ordained.

Agreed basically. Under a national popular vote everyone's vote is equal. Under the existing system if you win those swing states you probably win, so say 80% odds. How is it right that 80% of the election is controlled by 20% of the population?

Shall we believe that the people in the other states are effectively worth 20% of a person? The numbers are guesses of course, but I don't think they are vastly off. The other purpose of the electors is to stop the populous from electing someone really bad, but it won't happen folks. The electors are shills.

I understand that republicans like the fact that the EC favors them, but I just can't see any fairness to the argument. States like corporations are constructs. People vote. Actually come to think of it I'm surprised republicans haven't pushed to make electoral colleges for state senate and other positions. That way their redistricting could really have some more return on its investment. That would get like the gold star for evil.

He could save himself a lot of time by ...

[Jerry]

Watching Veritas' videos exposing campaign disruptions and voter corruption in the Democrat Party and the shenanigans the Republicans pulled trying to defeat Trump as well.
https://www.youtube.com/channe...
No matter how much editing Snopes claims O'Keefe has done, the entirety of all videos are available for examination AND there is no denying that the Democrat operatives said what they said and no reason to disbelieve that they did what they said they did.

Re:He could save himself a lot of time by ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Watching Veritas' videos exposing campaign disruptions and voter corruption in the Democrat Party and the shenanigans the Republicans pulled trying to defeat Trump as well.
https://www.youtube.com/channe...

Watch what? Words out of somebody's mouth? Why didn't we get videos of ACTUAL buses being driven around? Why do we never get that?

Critical analysis shows the failure.

No matter how much editing Snopes claims O'Keefe has done, the entirety of all videos are available for examination AND there is no denying that the Democrat operatives said what they said and no reason to disbelieve that they did what they said they did.

Actually, Jerry, based on what O'Keefe's done in the past, including the result of the Planned Parenthood investigations that came out of his lies, there is zero reason to believe anything he produces. That you cite him, so uncritically, is a reason to disbelieve you.

Re:She won

[dbreeze]

If the coasts could present an agenda palatable to even a quarter of the middle states they wouldn't have this problem. The system is working as intended. Radical masses of voters don't get to dictate life for the rest of us. This may come as a shock to many on the coasts, but 2 bathrooms is plenty sufficient for us here in the middle...

a day in the life of APK.

[Anonymous Coward]

in the dark of his Moms basement, a groan was emiited by the the flabby 400 lb as it slowly rose from its specially reinforced bed, propagating thru the fetid stench. The wobbling mass waddled over to a dark corner, where next to a filthy rubber Trump sex doll, and a giant pile of junkfood wrappers and empty soft drink cans, a computer dimly glowed.

The quivering mass of ugly virginal fat raised its arms and started its day of trolling, randomly bolding words that were a result of a deranged fantasy of adequacy and intellect. Pushing aside its huge flabby gut, it reached for its maginifying glass to find its tiny penis, and stroked whilst signing APK at the end of each post.

Cool story, bro.

[Anonymous Coward]

Go and talk to that guy who was anally probed by aliens. You two should get along fine.

Re:She won

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, equally, the electoral college is also in place so we don't get a demagogue elected. Otherwise the uneducated masses can just be bough with sweet talk and lies.
Democracy can prevail and there is a majority that was not fooled because they also happen to be more educated individuals that voted for reason, not with their fears.
We're at an impasse. The signs for oligarchical disaster were there for everyone to see. Now it's all coming into place. Trump is not going to change. He's old and knows only what he knows. We will all experience it first hand soon enough

Re:She won

[Anonymous Coward]

Never mind the fact that if the U.S. had a popular vote system, both candidates would have spent all of their time campaigning in and promising things to Texas, California, NY and Florida. It would have been an entirely different election. Hillary's popular vote tally couldn't be more irrelevant but it's all the lefties have left to hold on to.

Re:i think its simpler than we're making it out to

[chihowa]

And if Hillary was a turd, I'm curious if the dictionary contains a word for Donald.

Calling Clinton a turd shouldn't be construed as an endorsement of Trump, but Clinton is probably the only possible candidate that could have lost to Trump. Of course, the followup to that is that Trump is the only candidate that could result in a close election with Clinton. They're both utterly shit choices.

LOL - Boy, have YOU got ME wrong... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm an NCAA lettering 1st string athlete for a national powerhouse in the sport of lacrosse (LeMoyne) as well as a degreed graduate from that school whose been successful in the business + computer science world @ 6' 2" 200lbs. currently!

I'm doing things the "likes of you", reduced to illogical ad hominem attacks on myself since you can't attack facts in my message via UNIDENTIFIABLE ANONYMOUS POSTS from you (I 'id' myself @ least)

Things like APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/

* It gives folks more speed, security, reliability + anonymity for free as I believe in being of service to others, doing the RIGHT thing.

APK

P.S.=> How about YOU by comparison? What am I saying?? You've PROJECTED exactly what YOU are, lol... apk

actually she ran on FIRST FEMALE PRESIDENT

[Anonymous Coward]

and that's all. Hey I voted for her but my nose still hurts from holding it so hard. Who knows what we get with Trump. Everything from funny and/or standard to distopia is possible ( I suspect the former but ... ). The first POTUS tweet storm meltdown with hopefully only retire satire.

Hillary was an awful candidate. And no I'm not a sexist pig.

Go Logical Fallacy Early!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can't fix it feature it, just start right off with a logical fallacy. Thanks for amplifying the GOP's Party over Country policy.

The electoral college is already 60% dead

[shanen]

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... about the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, the Electoral College is already on it's last legs. If states with at least 105 more Electoral College votes adopt this compact, then the Electoral College will have been eliminated. No need to amend the Constitution.

Yours was one of the more insightful posts mentioning the Electoral College, though it received no favorable mods. Typical for today's Slashdot. Your sig was interesting, however.

Re:The electoral college is already 60% dead

[Chas]

If states with at least 105 more Electoral College votes adopt this compact, then the Electoral College will have been eliminated. No need to amend the Constitution.

That, however, leaves it open to direct challenge in court and therefore an injunction.

Only an Amendment and ratification thereof guarantees that such a movement doesn't waste money and get summarily dismantled.

Re:The electoral college is already 60% dead

[shanen]

On what basis do you think a legal challenge would be possible? Near as I can tell, it seems quite clear and explicit that the states are free to award their Electoral College votes according to their own preferences. It seems like you would have to make some kind of argument that the citizens of some states have an absolute Constitutional privilege that their votes for president should could more than other citizens' votes.

Then again, when you consider the legal reasoning of Bush v Gore, Citizens United, or Dred Scott, I have to admit that judges and lawyers can be pretty creative in twisting the law to suit their preferences.

Having said all of that, I'm doubtful the National Vote Interstate Compact will ever be adopted unless the legislation is long-lived. The states that have already accepted are obviously the ones that have the most to gain, and by the time it swings the other way, they may well decide to change their minds again. Obviously a Constitutional amendment for direct popular vote for president would be a cleaner solution, but I think it has a much lower chance of adoption for basically the same reasons.

Re:She won

[Anonymous Coward]

We live in a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC in the USA. Popular is meaningless compared to the electoral college. Less than 20 percent of the USA voted for Hillary. Care to take a guess at why that is?

Uhh, even less than that voted for Trump. Care to take a guess at why that is?

Re:i think its simpler than we're making it out to

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL. There's literally nobody that voted for the man that could possibly have cared about his policies or relevant experience, because he doesn't have any of either.

Re:i think its simpler than we're making it out to

[Anonymous Coward]

Perfectly good point I considered modding up, but /. can cause unintentional, irreversible, negative mods, hence the "Score:0" at this time.

Re:She won

[DamnOregonian]

She didn't "win" a damned thing! Thanks to the wisdom of the founders, we have the electoral college so that the "more people" in California and New York don't get to rule the rest of the country.

We have the electoral college because a large geographical chunk of the country had too few voting people to effectively represent themselves in a presidential election. The Electoral College came about as a compromise between people who wanted a popular vote, and people who wanted the 3/5ths Compromise to work for presidential elections as well. Don't call it wisdom. Or do- but at least know what its real intention was.

There were also people who legitimately wanted electors to buffer the vote, but there's a reason electors are based on state congressional representation, and not state population. The idea of winner-take-all electoral assignment and pledged electors were also never ever part of the plan. Even in the original outline of the electoral college, it's highly unlikely Trump would have won.

I'm not here to argue that Hillary didn't lose fair and square. She did. But the ignorant folks claiming this is what the founders intended the EC to do are inventing history.

Re:She won

[DamnOregonian]

Agreed, she won by millions of votes, and if we lived in a Democracy

We do.

But, unlike Governors, and County Execs, and Mayors, they set this fake Electoral College up to deny us our choice.

Na, they set that up so that non-voting slaves counted as 3/5ths of a vote.
The spread of population-per-elector between the least-populated state and the most-populated state being this incredible wide is a fairly new thing in history.
We haven't increased the number of representatives (and thus electors) since 1908. Unfortunately, to bring it back to the parity it was at in the 1800s, we'd need 2000 representatives in Congress.

Re:She won

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people are just more equal than others.

speaking of fake news....

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they will uncover how the benghazi attacks were attributed to a youtube video and some poor slob ended up in a jail cell over it.

Re:i think its simpler than we're making it out to

[ebvwfbw]

Democrats were stealing elections before that. All the way back into the 1980s that I know of. There's a really good case for Kennedy stealing the election with organized crime away from Nixon in 1960. In fact, we know it's true today. History would be a lot different if Nixon didn't conceed and challenged it as he should have. Just think, no Vietnam, etc. Probably no crazy 1960s hippies and such.

Surprising civility

[hsthompson69]

Mod parent up. Probably the third time in a decade I've ever seen someone apologize in a /. thread :)

Surprising civility

[hsthompson69]

Mod parent up. Probably the second time in a decade I've ever seen someone graciously accept an apology in a /. thread :)

The US is not a democracy

[hsthompson69]

We're a federal republic.

The fact that outraged citizens who have had their popular vote winner lose an electoral college contest is a tribute to the lack of education these people have.

Again, we're not a democracy, we're a federal republic.

If this surprises you, or outrages you, you didn't pay attention in civics class. Furthermore, if you can't understand the very *intentional* reasons behind avoiding a pure democracy (such as 51% of the population deciding democratically to enslave the remaining 49%), then you lack sufficient imagination and intelligence to be worth listening to on the matter.

tl;dr - there was a good reason for instituting the EC in the first place, and those reasons haven't changed.

Re:The US is not a democracy

[quantaman]

We're a federal republic.

The fact that outraged citizens who have had their popular vote winner lose an electoral college contest is a tribute to the lack of education these people have.

Again, we're not a democracy, we're a federal republic.

If this surprises you, or outrages you, you didn't pay attention in civics class.

It may surprise you that I'm not a moron so your "fact" didn't surprise me, nor did it surprise the vast majority of those outraged citizens you speak of with such contempt.

Furthermore, if you can't understand the very *intentional* reasons behind avoiding a pure democracy (such as 51% of the population deciding democratically to enslave the remaining 49%), then you lack sufficient imagination and intelligence to be worth listening to on the matter.

Or the other intentional reason for avoiding a democracy, such as enabling slavery.

Question: How do you count slaves for 3/5s of a person without giving them a vote under a proper democracy?

Answer: You can't. That's one of the reasons you create a system like the electoral college, where slave owning states can get extra electors for their slaves, but they don't actually have to give their slaves a vote.

And what does an EC do to stop the winners from enslaving the losers anyway? It just changes the criteria from "51% of the population" to "51% of the electoral college votes". Worse than that it means the winners have no stake in building support in the states they lose, so a Democrat could run on a policy of "enslave Texas" because, unlike popular vote, losing votes in Texas is completely irrelevant.

tl;dr - there was a good reason for instituting the EC in the first place, and those reasons haven't changed.

Other reasons included avoiding a demagogue, which failed pretty spectacularly.

The original country was much less federalist, so a President who was supposed represent states as more equal partners makes more sense.

And finally under a pure popular vote regions with lower populations tend to be ignored politically. The EC does fix this though it really goes overboard, the Senate does more than enough to give them representation.

Re:The US is not a democracy

[hsthompson69]

And what does an EC do to stop the winners from enslaving the losers anyway?

It's called checks and balances. The liberal majority for the past 8 years has foisted upon the minority a massive expansion of executive power (and government power in general), and the minority has bitten back. The good news is that this expansion of executive power can be undone with the stroke of a Trumpian presidential pen - the better news is that you'll see liberals embrace the idea of putting limits on new Trumpian executive action, and thereby protecting the rights of both the majority and the minority.

tl;dr - leave us alone. That's really what the victorious minority in this election cycle was saying. Once the chastened majority realizes this, and takes it to heart, they'll start winning elections again.

Re:The US is not a democracy

[quantaman]

And what does an EC do to stop the winners from enslaving the losers anyway?

It's called checks and balances. The liberal majority for the past 8 years has foisted upon the minority a massive expansion of executive power (and government power in general), and the minority has bitten back.

So when you wrote:

if you can't understand the very *intentional* reasons behind avoiding a pure democracy (such as 51% of the population deciding democratically to enslave the remaining 49%)

That actually had nothing to do with popular vote or the electoral college, you were just making an unrelated argument about the trouble with what you consider "pure Democracy". Note your understanding is inconsistent with modern Democracies which include numerous checks and balances and protections of minorities.

The good news is that this expansion of executive power can be undone with the stroke of a Trumpian presidential pen

All the foreign leaders Trump praises are authoritarians who Trump praises specifically for their authoritarian actions.

Why would you expect him to reverse the expansion of executive power?

- the better news is that you'll see liberals embrace the idea of putting limits on new Trumpian executive action, and thereby protecting the rights of both the majority and the minority.

As did Liberals during Bush, Conservatives during Obama, and it would have been Conservatives again under Clinton.

tl;dr - leave us alone. That's really what the victorious minority in this election cycle was saying. Once the chastened majority realizes this, and takes it to heart, they'll start winning elections again.

They weren't saying leave the Muslims or Mexicans alone, in fact, Trump's biggest and most consistent campaign pledges all revolved around specific actions he'd take against those two minorities.

Re:The US is not a democracy

[hsthompson69]

your understanding is inconsistent with modern Democracies which include numerous checks and balances and protections of minorities.

One of these checks and balances is called the Electoral College :)

All the foreign leaders Trump praises are authoritarians who Trump praises specifically for their authoritarian actions.

Why would you expect him to reverse the expansion of executive power?

It's the nature of the beast. That is to say, it is easy for him to undo executive actions - nobody can tell him, "Obama had the power to make executive orders about immigration policy, and you can't!" However, it will be hard for him to create *new* executive actions, since everyone can tell him "Obama shouldn't have had this power, so you shouldn't either." The restraint imposed upon an executive makes it hard for them to expand executive power, and easy to reduce executive power, and it is in his (and arguably our own) interests to reduce many of the executive fiats Obama pushed.

As did Liberals during Bush, Conservatives during Obama, and it would have been Conservatives again under Clinton.

The problem is, Bush, Obama, and Clinton were all on the same team :) Trump destroyed both the Republican and Democrat party this year :)

They weren't saying leave the Muslims or Mexicans alone,

1) there's a difference between legal and illegal Mexicans (or hispanics), and illegals don't have any right to be left alone;

2) they want muslim terrorists and their sympathizers to leave *everyone* alone.

Re:The US is not a democracy

[quantaman]

your understanding is inconsistent with modern Democracies which include numerous checks and balances and protections of minorities.

One of these checks and balances is called the Electoral College :)

And your argument comes full circle, how is the EC a check and balance that protects minorities?

All the foreign leaders Trump praises are authoritarians who Trump praises specifically for their authoritarian actions.

Why would you expect him to reverse the expansion of executive power?

It's the nature of the beast. That is to say, it is easy for him to undo executive actions - nobody can tell him, "Obama had the power to make executive orders about immigration policy, and you can't!" However, it will be hard for him to create *new* executive actions, since everyone can tell him "Obama shouldn't have had this power, so you shouldn't either." The restraint imposed upon an executive makes it hard for them to expand executive power, and easy to reduce executive power, and it is in his (and arguably our own) interests to reduce many of the executive fiats Obama pushed.

The GOP controls all three branches of government and it's dubious that they'll start standing up to their own president.

There's also the concern of what he'll do when he's told he has to stop, the SCOTUS doesn't have an army, what happens if the commander in chief decides a ruling is wrong and he knows better? Trump is still extremely unknown as to how he'll govern.

1) there's a difference between legal and illegal Mexicans (or hispanics), and illegals don't have any right to be left alone;

All hispanics are getting caught in the crossfire, when you say you're going to deport millions of Mexicans people are going to start looking at any Hispanic person as an illegal immigrant who should be deported.

2) they want muslim terrorists and their sympathizers to leave *everyone* alone.

And yet they're targeting Muslims as a whole, which causes a lot of hate crimes and creates more Muslim terrorists and terrorist sympathizers.

Re:The US is not a democracy

[hsthompson69]

how is the EC a check and balance that protects minorities?

It protects the minority of people who live in small states from the majority who life in large states.

I think you're conflating "minority" with some specific racial term, rather than a generic term for any less than 50% of the population that believes in a given policy.

The GOP controls all three branches of government and it's dubious that they'll start standing up to their own president.

I have faith that this will encourage the 4th estate to start doing its job :)

That all being said, the GOP controls the House, the Senate, and will soon be about even in the SCOTUS, but Trump destroyed the GOP before he destroyed the Democrat party :)

when you say you're going to deport millions of Mexicans people are going to start looking at any Hispanic person as an illegal immigrant who should be deported.

If you've got papers, no problem :) Frankly, the best way to do this would be to make severe penalties for employing illegal immigrants.

And yet they're targeting Muslims as a whole

Muslims are targeting Americans as a whole. Any muslim (who, in fact, are victims of islam), who can disavow sharia law, is completely fine. The ones that think you should be killed for drawing mohammed, or being gay - I'm sorry, but yes, we're targeting you.

Re:The US is not a democracy

[quantaman]

how is the EC a check and balance that protects minorities?

It protects the minority of people who live in small states from the majority who life in large states.

I think you're conflating "minority" with some specific racial term, rather than a generic term for any less than 50% of the population that believes in a given policy.

That's a pretty odd definition for "minority", you're not even properly selecting for rural vs urban, you're just giving a disproportionate of power to people who happen to live in small states.

We traditionally define minority in terms of race, religion, or sexuality, precisely because those groups are typically discriminated against.

I have faith that this will encourage the 4th estate to start doing its job :)

I hope they do, but I have little faith considering how awful a job they did during the election.

and will soon be about even in the SCOTUS

They are already even in the SCOTUS, the fact that Kennedy is the swing vote doesn't mean he's now a Liberal.

when you say you're going to deport millions of Mexicans people are going to start looking at any Hispanic person as an illegal immigrant who should be deported.

If you've got papers, no problem :)

That's not how racism works.

Muslims are targeting Americans as a whole. Any muslim (who, in fact, are victims of islam), who can disavow sharia law, is completely fine.

That is BULLSHIT absolute BULLSHIT.

I know Muslims you racist piece of shit, they are some of my best friends and some of the absolutely nicest and most peaceful people I know.

These are real fucking people you are talking about, people you just blithely claim "are targeting Americans as a whole" because you have some weird idea about what they're supposed to believe. You should walk up to some of the Muslims I know, good people who helped me get through tough times, people with whom I talked about religion, people I went to parties with, played sports with, guys with whom I talked about girls, people who moved to your country and I dearly miss.

You should try getting to know them as something other than a ridiculous caricature and then see if you still feel comfortable repeating that shit to them.

Yes, so after dozens of comments exchanged you've found the way to strike a nerve and make me absolutely furious, you just need to target good innocent people.

Re:The US is not a democracy

[hsthompson69]

That's a pretty odd definition for "minority", you're not even properly selecting for rural vs urban, you're just giving a disproportionate of power to people who happen to live in small states.

Well, in my definition, it encompasses the rural versus urban, as well as the small state vs. large state.

tl;dr - you can't ignore the interests of minority rural areas, and you can't ignore the interests of minority small states.

We traditionally define minority in terms of race, religion, or sexuality, precisely because those groups are typically discriminated against.

Hrm. Let's shelve that dubious tradition for a moment, and focus on what minority means in the sense of a democratic government where each proposition that passes has a majority (or plurality) support, and a minority that opposes it. As in "majority leader" and "minority leader" of the House or Senate.

I hope they do, but I have little faith considering how awful a job they did during the election.

I agree. Wikileaks showed them as effectively campaign staff for Clinton.

I know Muslims you racist piece of shit, they are some of my best friends and some of the absolutely nicest and most peaceful people I know.

I call bullshit. If you know muslims, you know they're not a race, they're a religion. I know muslims from pakistan, the philippines, and the middle east (both shia and sunni). You know precious little about your best friends if you think muslims are a "race".

Secondly, if your muslim friends don't disavow sharia law (which, my muslim friends do, because they're not terrorist sympathizers, and understand how muslims across the globe are regularly oppressed by islam and islamic law), then frankly, FUCK THEM. If your holy book insists that you create earthly governments that subjugate women, or kill gays, you can kindly do that barbaric shit somewhere else.

You should walk up to some of the Muslims I know, good people who helped me get through tough times, people with whom I talked about religion, people I went to parties with, played sports with, guys with whom I talked about girls, people who moved to your country and I dearly miss.

Ask them if they support sharia law.

Ask them if they believe sharia law should apply to non muslims.

Ask them if they believe sharia law should override the constitution.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

If they really are good people, the aren't "good" muslims.

Re:The US is not a democracy

[quantaman]

and you can't ignore the interests of minority small states.

And I'm sure you'd feel the same way if small states were black and hispanic majority and it was your "team" that lost elections about it.

No wait I forgot, you're a massive hypocrite who would be outraged because you're so obsessed with winning you'll reach out at any dubious justification that gives you an advantage.

Just like I'm sure you think every voter needs to show ID, to combat the virtually non-existent problem of voter fraud. But you think accessibility is really important so you have no issue with mail-in ballots.

We traditionally define minority in terms of race, religion, or sexuality, precisely because those groups are typically discriminated against.

Hrm. Let's shelve that dubious tradition for a moment, and focus on what minority means in the sense of a democratic government where each proposition that passes has a majority (or plurality) support, and a minority that opposes it.

Yes, lets shelve what people actually mean when they talk about protecting minorities so you can confuse the debate by talking about a different concept that happens to share the same word.

I know Muslims you racist piece of shit, they are some of my best friends and some of the absolutely nicest and most peaceful people I know.

I call bullshit. If you know muslims, you know they're not a race, they're a religion.

Sorry, you're a bigoted piece of shit.

You know precious little about your best friends if you think muslims are a "race".

You're a pretentious moron if your positions are so facile that you need to reject the popular definition of a word in favour of a ridiculously pedantic definition and then claim intellectual superiority.

Secondly, if your muslim friends don't disavow sharia law

Do your Christian friends disavow biblical law? Do you tell them to fuck off if they don't?

(which, my muslim friends do,

Somehow I'm doubtful your "Muslim friends" know your real views.

If your holy book insists that you create earthly governments that subjugate women, or kill gays, you can kindly do that barbaric shit somewhere else.

Blah blah, applies to christians too.

The most devout guy I knew was best friends with a lesbian. News flash, a lot of people don't actually follow their holy books.

You should walk up to some of the Muslims I know, good people who helped me get through tough times, people with whom I talked about religion, people I went to parties with, played sports with, guys with whom I talked about girls, people who moved to your country and I dearly miss.

Ask them if they support sharia law.

Ask them if they believe sharia law should apply to non muslims.

Ask them if they believe sharia law should override the constitution.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

If they really are good people, the aren't "good" muslims.

Looks like your party would be quite at home.

I'm not going to claim that Muslims in general are as liberal as Christians. But to say the that anyone who considers themselves a devout Muslim is somehow a terrorist sympathizer looking to subjugate non-Muslims is ignorant and bigoted.

Re:The US is not a democracy

[hsthompson69]

And I'm sure you'd feel the same way if small states were black and hispanic majority and it was your "team" that lost elections about it.

Racial composition of states don't matter to me - we're all human. Everything else is just an arbitrary way to divide us into various victimhood cults.

Just like I'm sure you think every voter needs to show ID, to combat the virtually non-existent problem of voter fraud.

If you care about the security of elections, and want to make sure the Russians aren't hiring bunches of illegal immigrants to vote their candidate in, wouldn't you want voter ID?

If we were going to make sure the system wasn't compromised by foreign elements:

1) secure voter id
2) all paper voting, even with electronic voting (print out a auditable copy after the touch screen portion is done, allow the voter to double check it, then keep that paper copy as the paper trail)
3) no electronic voting machines connected to a network, or with any accessible ports/wifi/etc

you can confuse the debate by talking about a different concept that happens to share the same word.

I hope the clarification that we're talking about the minority opinion on any given issue placed before a democracy helps you understand better.

After all, using "minority" is truly a useless word when it comes to the fake idea of race. If I'm the only Chinese guy in a room, am I a "minority"? If that room is in a Chinese majority chinatown, and I no longer a minority? If that Chinatown is in a white majority county, and I a minority again? And if my country happens to be in a world where it's majority Chinese, do I lose my minority status?

Do your Christian friends disavow biblical law? Do you tell them to fuck off if they don't?

Yes, they do. Most of the time, I just need to demonstrate the craziness of Lot and his Daughters.

I don't put up with people who run countries around the world where it is legal to subjugate women, and kill gays. Find me a christian country that does it, like the dozen or so Islamic ones that do, and I'll disavow them as well.

Somehow I'm doubtful your "Muslim friends" know your real views.

I'm quite clear with them, and they're quite clear with me. Some of them are muslim in the same sense that reform jews who don't go to synagogue but will still have a sader are jewish, that is to say, praying five times daily is a cultural tradition. Some of them are muslim in a more devout sense, but have embraced the need for reform of islamic law, and actively oppose imams who preach strict adherence to the quran.

Anyone who proposes sharia, or imposes sharia, can stay the fuck out of my country.

The most devout guy I knew was best friends with a lesbian. News flash, a lot of people don't actually follow their holy books.

Then he was a good man, but a bad muslim. I'm okay with that.

But to say the that anyone who considers themselves a devout Muslim is somehow a terrorist sympathizer looking to subjugate non-Muslims is ignorant and bigoted.

If by "devout" you mean that sharia law should be imposed upon this earth through a Caliphate, then you're a terrorist sympathizer. If you don't understand that, if you haven't read the quran, and the strict laws it makes explicit, then you're far more ignorant that I ever could be.

Now, if by "devout" you mean, fast during Ramadan, pray five times a day, but you're at least okay with people drawing mohammed, if not doodling him yourself in your spare time, that's something different.

Let's be clear - most muslims are *victims* of Islam, which is in dire need of a reform movement. Any muslim who works towards the reform of the barbaric and evil sharia law is a friend of mine. Any muslim who works towards the imposition of the barbaric and evil sharia law is my enemy. It's really that simple.

Re:The US is not a democracy

[quantaman]

Then he was a good man, but a bad muslim.

You don't get to decide who's a proper Muslim or not.

Anyone who points to themselves and sincerely says "I'm a Muslim/Christian/Jew/Atheist" then I generally take them at their word.

Re:The US is not a democracy

[hsthompson69]

If your definition of a "good" muslim, is one who is devout, and dedicated to the quran, and dedicated to sharia law, then your friend was a bad muslim. This is the general definition imams and islamic countries go by.

If your definition of a "good" muslim, is one who is not dedicated to the quran, repudiates and disavows sharia law, then your friend was a good muslim. This is the general definition the western world should go by.

Go ahead, pick your definition, and if you are brave enough, ask them if they support or disavow sharia law.

And for your christian friends, ask them if they support or disavow the death penalty for witches. Same principles apply.

Re:She won

[Anonymous Coward]

That's true Grim Reefer, but .. ""The Russsssians""

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lhvvlyXOhQ&t=

[Anonymous Coward]

look it

Re: She won

[Anonymous Coward]

Did I read that right? People expecting you to have a minimum level of civility in public are fascists?

Truth in Politics

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't want the truth. Truth is what you think is right, anyhow, no matter what some climate scientist says. What does he know? No, truth is something you know with your gut, something that stands itself up and says, "Here I am!" And when some egghead comes around saying that bad things are gonna happen, and that you need to do as he says because he's smarter than you, well, that just ain't right!

There is a sharp divide among what we may term the scientifically literate and the nonscientific, a sharp epistemological divide. Briefly, there is no such thing as "truth", or equivalently there are many types of truths which are not directly comparable. "1 + 1 = 2" is not the same type of truth as "the boiling point of water is 100 degrees" nor "God exists". They proceed from different methods, and the problem is that all are necessary and competing for primacy. We need mathematics, science, and religion/morality, and it's not like mathematics is going to tell you how to treat other people, nor can the boiling point of water be measured with divine inspiration. So our divide is between people who think that empirical observation and reasoning are more true than any other verification method, and with people who have the equally valid view that truth is what's right and makes sense, no matter what the science says.

As a philosophical position, I really can't fault anyone who relies on intuition, pure reason, or religious inspiration as their main source of truth in the world. What basis do I have to argue? As an empiricist, I wish you would all jump off a cliff -- it's pretty frustrating to deal with a bunch of people who can't even agree on an objective reality.

Re:She won

[HeckRuler]

The voters in those states should not be able to run roughshod over the country,

I get that sentiment, but the Trump presidency is EXACTLY an example of the voters in low population states running roughshod over the country.

Imagine this was extreme and the trend of people moving away from rural America and into the cities or surrounding land continued. Let's say the top 10 cities had 90% of the populace and the smaller states were largely filled with automated farms. (Those combines practically drive themselves even today). You'd have a small handful of people are able to elect a president over the will of the masses.

That's similar to what just happened. California and NY have a lot more federal representatives, but they have just as many senators as Nebraska. Each one of those votes get used in the presidential election. I think states rights should be upheld in the senate, not in the presidential election which should be a straight-up popular vote. It would encourage voter turnout. But I sure as shit don't trust anyone to change the election rules.

Re:She won

[HeckRuler]

He meant to say she got more votes than anyone in the past other than Obama. (twice. In both 2008 AND 2012). Instead of "Won by more" which means how many she got over the number of votes that Trump got. It's the total number as opposed to the difference between the two.

I mean, it's a little snakey to pull that sort of statistic, the populace keeps growing so it's pretty moot. But he's just looking at this graph.

Percentage-wise, yeah Andrew Jackson and Samuel Tilden got more screwed over than Hilary, but at a 2% margin she got screwed harder than Al Gore in 2000 when it was only 0.5%.