Slashdot Mirror
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.
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?...
I wonder if the voting public are considered stakeholders.
He has not been ousted. His term is coming to an end.
SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
The only real "Hacks" were the candidates that were running for election!
And this is a good investigative start to some of the glaring discrepancies.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
"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.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
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.
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.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
Good people go to bed earlier.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
A "power" then. Yes, a sitting President can order investigations on foreign powers attempting to influence domestic affairs.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
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.
How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?
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.
It's easy to do that when you tell the best lies.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
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.
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...
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.
"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.
SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
The delusion is thinking the popular vote matters.
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.
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.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
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?
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.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
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."
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
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.
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.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Unless there is a retirement or death, the supreme court will be back where it started since the vacancy is from a conservative.
SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
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.
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?
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Haha. What fantasy land are you living in? Have you stepped foot on a college campus or in a big city recently?
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.
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.
Someone had to do it.
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.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
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.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
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
It's a power not a right. And yes, he does have the power to order an investigation.
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.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Funny, if you switch "conservative" for "liberal" or even maybe "liberals and moderates" in your statement you get a pretty insitefull comment
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
It's horrifying to imagine a candidate not accepting the results of an election. Wait? We lost? The election was rigged I tell you!
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
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.
Speak for yourself.
Actually, it's currently whoever gets 48%ish of the vote and dropping...
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
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.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
How exactly is asking the intelligence community to compile a report after the election about claims they publicly made before the election undermining democracy?
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.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
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.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
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.
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.
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.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
'What Difference, At This Point, Does It Make?'
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
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.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
"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.
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.
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.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
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.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
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.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
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.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
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.
And since there's no edit, technically no. A liberal hasn't done any of these these. These people aren't liberal.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
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.
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.
If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
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.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Ask Little Debbie (Wasserman Schultz).
Posting AC to preserve moderation.
so no, no chance there. He's pushing 80 for God's sake.
.com bust, housing bust. Over and over and over again.
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,
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
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
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
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.
The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
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....
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
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.
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.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
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.
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.
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.
Speak for yourself.
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.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
This is unbelievable for an ousted president.
He's twice as popular as Trump. Not ousted at all.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
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.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Why?
Because Americans are sheep.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
If you think 'foreign tampering' is the same as 'voter fraud' you've got a few brain cells missing. Donald might have taken 'em.
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.
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.
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...
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?
The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
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.
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.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
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.
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.
Table-ized A.I.
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.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
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".
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
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.
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.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
The libs are too weak-minded to actually do something, like learn how the damn election system operates...
Sixteen years later, actually. The Constitution was signed in September of 1788. Thirty-eight delegates signed it and it was finally ratified in 1789.
How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?
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.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
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.
The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
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
I do not believe that is a human. BTW, who is Pierce?
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.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
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.
"His name was James Damore."
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.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
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.
I stole this Sig
world = word
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
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
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
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.
I stole this Sig
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?
I stole this Sig
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.
Speak for yourself.
How exactly do you think Democrats were able to maintain hold on the house for so many years?
The white working class.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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.
Speak for yourself.
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.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I can tell you just don't have any motivation to do anything other than a half-assed post.
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...
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
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.
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)".
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?
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
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.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
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"
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Sorry! Misread the meaning and tone.
My apologies for coming off like a stupid dick.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
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".
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
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
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
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.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
'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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
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! :)
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".
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
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!
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).
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
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.
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?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
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?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
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?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
I've certainly done that a few times myself.
Thanks for the reply, very polite of you.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Other than saying X won the election but lost the popular vote really doesn't mean anything.
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.
I stole this Sig
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.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
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.
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.)
Speak for yourself.
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.
Speak for yourself.
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.
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.
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.
This is unbelievable for an ousted president.
Yes, we definitely don't want to know who was behind this; anything but the truth.
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.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
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.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
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.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
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.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
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
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
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.
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.
Mod parent up. Probably the third time in a decade I've ever seen someone apologize in a /. thread :)
Mod parent up. Probably the second time in a decade I've ever seen someone graciously accept an apology in a /. thread :)
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.
Says the AC.
Tell ya what. If they come interview me, I'll gladly give them the details.
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."
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
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.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
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.
Nobody's interested in hearing about your mental problems.
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
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.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Maybe it's just you that's confused.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
There is no "everyone gets a trophy" in the Presidential election process.
I strongly suspect you're being purposely dense to further your own views.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
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 :)
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".
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 :)
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 :)
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.
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.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
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.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Agreed. But this isn't true of most SJWs or liberals :)
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.
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.
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 :)
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.
Well, bits and pieces. You couldn't find a single legislator that read the whole thing. Probably couldn't find one today either :)
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?
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 :)
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 :)
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.
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
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.
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!
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.
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 campaigned for Hillary. People that voted for him, chose to repudiate his endorsement of Clinton. He lost those voters.
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, 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 :)
Did we have left wing riots after the election, or right wing ones? Just sayin' :)
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
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 :)
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, 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.
You're mistaking the popular vote count for a coherent and visible message from the supporters of the victor. The two are different.
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 :)
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.
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?
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 :)
Semantics here, but realize you can fight against caddish behav
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.
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 :)
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).
You say that as if you can't have both. The luck of the draw does not devalue the intent of the winners.
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? :)
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.
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 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.
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.
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
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%.
And if it hasn't been clear, I find your observation delightfully hypocritical, given that SJWs are in fact, people trying to control others.
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.
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.
A sudden change of mind (a "whim") is not an accident.
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 :)
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'd be fine with that for non-violent felonies. Like maybe poor old Dinesh :)
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.
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.
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.
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
You don't see the irony there? You literally ascribe to the right-wing the actual modus operandi of SJWs.
The 2016 presidential election. Q.E.D.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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, 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 :)
And I simply have greater regard for personal freedom than you do. We start from different values and premises, and come to different conclusions.
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
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
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
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 :)
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.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
who's the bigger idiot?
you, or the guy that modded you up?
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
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)
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
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".
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
more proof that "libertarian" = "idiot".
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
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.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
"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.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
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 :)
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 :)
You're very good at not reading. My bet is that has something to do with your confusion :)
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 :)
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.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
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 :)
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 :)
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! :)