Slashdot Mirror
Electoral College Elects Donald Trump As President (nbcnews.com)
mi writes: The drama is over, Donald J. Trump passed the 270 electoral votes necessary to become President. A few electors dissented, resulting in their prompt dismissal and replacement per their state's laws. Ironically, more dissenters turned on Clinton than on Trump... The sky may not be falling yet, but the Earth is already in peril.
(Disclaimer: I didn't vote for the SOB.)
I note that in all the discussion of how Clinton won the popular vote, in CalExit America, she actually lost by about half a million votes. California's vote was that lopsided.
Trump is ... an embarrassment, at best, but the overheated histrionics of the Left wore very very thin a long time ago.
I've been saying for years: Never give powers to your very favorite president in history that you wouldn't want to see in the hands of the president who horrifies you the most. The current administration has spent 8 years weaponizing the Federal government to go after his opponents. For those who applauded that... we'll see how that works out for you in the next 4-8 years.
Maybe we'll get some actual consensus that federalism and limited powers are a good thing again. If so, a Trump presidency might be just the medicine we need, no matter how bad it tastes.
Fun Fact: The majority of emissions in the US come from states which literally are taking action, no matter what the feds say.
Fun Fact: US solar power (in annual output per device) literally doubled in the last three months.
Fun Fact: All - and I do mean all - fossil fuels are much more expensive than both solar and wind. Today. In the USA.
Fun Fact: plug in electric vehicles - which are mostly used in cities which have green energy, and are frequently charged by solar panels - literally doubled in the US during the last six months. There's a factory in Detroit that churns out 600 of them a day. Range 200 miles on a charge. Costs less than 30k.
It really doesn't matter what you do, we're changing the world already. And we will leave you in the dust with more efficient, CHEAPER, green energy and more efficient factories.
Capitalism doesn't care about your failed ideology or your political persuasions. It literally does. not. care.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Obama did a few odds/ends executive orders that could have been shut down by Congress if they cared to bother. Mostly he didn't lock up non-violent drug offenders and he didn't go out of his way to deport illegal immigrants who were holding down jobs (though his admin still did a fuck load of deporting). The right didn't care that much about #1 and actively support #2 so long as they don't have to admit it to their base (they can't get enough of that sweet, sweet cheap labor).
We don't need federalism. The federal gov't were the ones that put a stop to the farce that was "Separate but Equal". They broke up the Trusts. They enabled the Unions that created the middle class. They bring in real and effective disaster relief and keep our shipping ports open. The State governments have proven themselves powerless to stand against even the smallest tyrannies time and time again. Look at Flint, Mi's Water supply (that Gov Snyder is still fighter the cleanup of) and the complete breakdown in Democracy it represented.
What's the phrase about small gov'ts? Small enough to drown in a bathtub? That's your democracy. Small enough to drown in a bathtub...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Definitely, this. If he doesn't distance himself completely from his business interests or from Putin, he will find himself in a more impeachable position than any other president in history. But in his arrogance, he believes himself above such things, and is taking things in the opposite direction by only giving lip service to avoiding conflicts of interest, and by stacking his administration with a very pro-Russia cabinet while ignoring all of the intelligence pointing towards Russia's meddling in the election. The only question is whether the Democrats will have enough of a spine to actually bring impeachment charges, or if they will just give lots of angry speeches. Drama, at any rate.
The white supremacists are just a side show. I don't believe Trump himself is a racist in the same way that many of his supporters are. To him, everything is just business (which poses its own problems, see the conflict of interest issue above), and the white supremacists' support was convenient to that end. But if they continue to be a factor, that will provide plenty of drama of its own.
Whoosh. In fact, I think this gets a double whoosh.
Somehow, viable Democrats (Bernie is really an Independent) seem to have stayed out of the primary this year. Its really strange, there was no Democratic incumbent running for re-election. There should have been a wide selection of viable candidates like in 2008, as happens all the time in non-incumbent years. But somehow, no big names but Hillary showed up. Yes there was the token opponent who mostly agreed with Hillary and said she would be a good President; and there was the Independent Bernie who re-registered to run as a Democrat. How was there not a contested field like in 2008?
Interestingly, the Wikileaks dump had this snippet about Joe Biden:
Ron Klain, a Democrat stalwart who served as chief of staff to Biden and Vice President Al Gore, sent an email to Podesta suggesting the Clinton campaign wasn’t sitting idly by while Biden was agonizing as to whether or not to stage a campaign for president, just months after the tragic death of his son Beau.
“It’s been a little hard for me to play such a role in the Biden demise – and I am definitely dead to them — but I’m glad to be on Team HRC, and glad that she had a great debate last night,” he wrote to Podesta and Clinton Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri.
I make no judgement about this - it's how politics is done - but note that Joe Biden would probably have been a stronger opponent than HRC was.
A guy who claims he knows more than all the generals.
Which, of course, explains why he's hired complete lap dogs like General "Mad Dog" Mattis. Mattis is well-known for his soft-spoken manner, desire to "go along to get along" and his political finesse. The troops hate him and his military record is a joke.
OK, there's only so much sarcasm I can spew before I choke. Point being, Trump is doing what any skilled executive does and that's surrounding himself with people who are damn good at what they do. Trump is shoring up his weak points by finding strong people. You may not like his picks but it's difficult to argue that each one of them aren't formidable in their own arena.
I don't think you're the least bit frightened of a bad President Trump. You're terrified he'll be a good President. You're scared he WON'T destroy civil liberties, round up gays, or wipe his ass with the Constitution. That'd be the ultimate terror attack on your ideology, wouldn't it? That his policies might be effective and actually good for the country, thus proving your ideas are, at best, not worthwhile.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Except that Drano is often a bad choice to fix a blockage, as it can damage pipes and won't clear some kinds of debris. It's the proper tool for someone too lazy to use proper tools or too cheap to call a professional.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2009/12/24/garden/24fix.html as one example.
It's even "terrible for the environment." Hey, look at that, so is Trump.
Thanks for the oddly-appropriate metaphor.
Can you imagine the outcry if China had hacked the RNC and tipped the election so that HCR won?
You mean after the sitting Republican president had already claimed there was no evidence of any such influence?
But yes, I can imagine the outcry. It would be a larger version of the rioting and looting and burnings and shootings every time the Daley machine rigged the elections in Chicago. Oh, wait, the Republicans didn't riot or loot when that happened ...
I think they call your "argument" projection. You know what you'd do, and you assume that others would do the same thing. Or you just want to insult others and spread fear.
The popular vote this time around was decided by just 3 million votes... It only takes a couple smaller states to put together 3 million votes.
The electoral college does NOT give small states a big voice... It gives a hand-full of swing states a big voice (and most of them are big like Florida, Ohio, etc), and leaves small states even MORE IRRELEVANT than they would have been just based on 1-person, 1-vote. At least candidates would be spending some money on TV and radio ads in small states trying to turn around a few thousand votes that were predicted to go against them.
That's probably why even SMALL STATES have enacted National Popular Vote legislation, as well as large ones. We're 2/3rds of the way to eliminating the electoral college... Just a few more states joining on will make it a reality.
The electoral college only makes sense as a way for slave-holding states to use their slave population numbers (at least three-fifths of them) to multiply the value of the white population's votes. Obviously this was important for ensuring more populous states couldn't out-vote them and push to eliminate slavery. Today, it's a nuisance we don't need.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
I can't believe I'm about to defend this ridiculous place...
BUT
I was born and raised in the San Joaquin Valley, and what you say doesn't even begin to resemble my experience. While it's certainly true that I've known a handful of racist white people, they've been an oddity in my life. As for segregated neighborhoods, I'm a white guy surrounded by Mexicans. I've also had Black neighbors in this same neighborhood, in years past, so I'm really not seeing where you're coming from, there. Furthermore, I've never seen anyone turned away from a bar, due to their race (granted, I don't spend a lot of time in bars).
As for the Bi-Lingual Education thing, that came about because Spanish-speaking students had a lower collective GPA than English-speaking students. The thought was that the students were failing because they couldn't understand the language in which the lessons were being taught. So, they teach the primary curriculum to them in Spanish, and then they're supposed to also teach them English as a Second Language. I went through the local public school system, and I haven't met any Mexicans who both grew up here and don't know English. Generally the Mexicans I know who don't speak English very well, are immigrants, and especially immigrants who came over here later in life. I've had friends whose elderly grandparents didn't learn English at all, but if you're 75 and immigrating just to be with your kids and grandkids, then I think that you can be forgiven for not learning the language, and I don't think I'd expect you to, let alone require it.
Don't get me wrong. We've got an abundance of hateful, intolerant people in this state, but they're usually not racists, unless they're racist toward white people, but even that isn't terribly common around here. There's a lot of man-haters, rich-people-haters and Trump-haters (can't swing a cat without hitting one), but people hating on Mexicans, Black people or Asians are strange and unusual. If you told me that this was the most hateful state in the union, I'm not sure that I could disagree so easily, but to describe California as racist just doesn't mix with what I see around me.
Learning about brewing beer, by brewing beer.
I agree on all points. I voted for Bernie in the primaries, but this is the first election I've voted in where my presidential vote didn't go blue. I will never vote for Clinton. I cast my vote for Johnson and I'd do it again, even if I was in a swing state.
Clinton was an obviously terrible choice.
The SJWs that have taken over the Democratic party have turned off a lot of people and their tactics are terrible. You can't shit on people ("Basket of deplorables"? Really?) and then expect them to vote for you.
The media blatantly lies all the time, even the ones that you agree with, I don't care who that is.
Electoral College magic trick...California passes legislation that allows the governor to simply appoint the state's electors. Perfectly Constitutional.
Had this been in effect this election, we can assume Jerry Brown would have appointed 55 Democrats for Sec. Clinton.
The EC remains unchanged, but the "popular vote" swings to Trump by about 1M. Without popular votes from California, Sec. Clinton would have 8.7M fewer popular votes and Mr. Trump would have 4.4M fewer popular votes. So the final tally would be Clinton with 57M and Trump with 58.5.
I notice that Democrats have no problems with Sec. Clinton winning 3/5ths of the California vote but getting all the 55 of the state's electoral votes...
As for "One person, one vote.", that's not how the US federal government is constructed. It is a federation of States, and the balance between population and individual states representation in that federal government are carefully balanced.
As a reference point, the EU Parliament and Presidency is balanced in much the same way as our Congress and Presidency. Each EU member gets a minimum of 6 MEPs, and there is a maximum of 751 MEPs. With 28 members, this means that 168 MEPs are obligatory, and the remaining 583 are apportioned (by treaty) based on population, with Germany having 96, France 74, Italy 73, and UK 73, while smaller members like Cyprus, Estonia, Luxembourg, and Malta having the minimum 6. This is similar to Congress, where each state, regardless of population has 2 Senators and one Representative, with the remaining 385 Representatives apportioned based on population.
The President of the EU is elected by MEPs who cast their ballots based on individual popular elections within their home countries and *not* through an EU-wide popular election. Again, much like the Electoral College.
And, like in the US, political parties cross borders, with e.g., 214 MEPs European People's Party Group members sitting as MEPs. Sometimes they put Party ahead of Country just like sometimes members of Congress puts Party ahead State.
The people in the EU do not want to be in an organization of states that would be dominated by the population of Germany and Italy, despite the positives that association with those states may bring, anymore than the people of the US want to be dominated by the population of California and New York.