REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

The Electoral College

POSTED BY: JO753
UPDATED: Monday, December 26, 2016 16:15
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 5461
PAGE 1 of 2

Thursday, December 1, 2016 12:59 AM

JO753

rezident owtsidr


It made sens back wen it wuz created, then for another 50 or 100 yirz. But not anymore.

The basic idea back in 1787 wuz to create a system that woud avoid the know-nothing voter problem uv direct democracy. Bekuz most sitizenz were rural, uninformed and possibly uncaring, there wuz very real fear that an unqualified person coud bekum prez. The dezignated electorz woud suppozedly be well informed, intellejent, trustworthy, patriotic
individualz.

From wiki:
Quote:


Hamilton was also concerned about somebody unqualified, but with a talent for "low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity", attaining high office.



Sound like sumwun you know?

There were other consernz that made sens at the time, and in the period after the sivil war, the system may hav been helpful (I'm not clear on the history yet).

But, az communication tek advansed and the averaj sitizen gained eazy akses to info about candidates, the main idea supporting the Electoral Collej system dizzolved. And actually, long befor that, the rize uv political partyz and their direct control uv the lawz regarding electionz had rotted and warped it to serv only to rob the majority uv their vote.

The main effect iz to negate the votes uv everybody who iznt in a 'swing' or 'battleground' state. This makes it far eazyr for a relatively small entity to win, sins they can consentrate their resoursez in a handful uv states insted uv having to appeal to the entire nation.

In California, for exampl, its a waste uv time and money to campane for any party sins its solidly Democratic. If youre the Republican candidate, you coud spend your entire fund there and still looz. If youre the Dem candidate, its alredy in the bag, so you shoud spend elsewhere. If you are sum other party or independent, it may be a little less hopeless depending on your popularity with Dem voterz and the Dem candidate's unpopularity.

The effect on the voter iz that on averaj, either Dem or Rep can stay home -
your Dem vote in California iz not going to help the candidate win and your Rep vote will not make him or her looz.

Your only chois if you feel really strongly about having an effect az a voter iz to move to a battleground state.

Then there are thingz the partyz can do to nuj thingz their way. Jerrymandering and voting restrictionz are amplified over wut they coud do in a direct democrasy, so winning the state electionz iz a cheap way to lay the groundwork for a federal victory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)

I dont know why Obama didnt try to dizolv the system wen he had the chans in 2009. The loss in 2000 and 8 yirz uv Bush bungling shoud hav woken everybody up to the danjer, ESPECIALLY the leaderz uv the Democratic party! Dummyz.

Paradoxically, the Electoral Collej iz the only thing that can stop Trump now. This iz exactly the situation it exists for.

But, to reveal another rusty nail in the 'brain' uv this stoopid country, its actually illegal for an elector to vote agenst the winner in many states! GUHUK!


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 3, 2016 3:02 PM

JO753

rezident owtsidr


Jerrymandering! Seriously!

I view much uv the gummit az being very shabby, usually to the point uv complete disfunction, but this particular subject iz outrite criminal.

Giv up on the idea that you are living in a democrasy.

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

Its actually a suprize wen sumthing iz dun about it:
http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/sites/default/files/Whitford%20v.%2
0Gill%20Opinion.pdf?link_id=3&can_id=fb730fed2cca50b4a138822de52862af&source=email-daily-kos-elections-presents-our-inaugural-voting-rights-roundup-covering-all-of-the-most-important-voting-related-news&email_referrer=daily-kos-elections-presents-our-inaugural-voting-rights-roundup-covering-all-of-the-most-important-voting-related-news___139029&email_subject=voting-rights-roundup-federal-judges-strike-a-major-blow-against-partisan-redistricting


----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 3, 2016 3:56 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by JO753:
Jerrymandering! Seriously!

I view much uv the gummit


Why are you interlacing slang gibberish with your experiment?
If you want people to take you seriously, you should avoid trying to confuse them while they are suffering through your rants.

Do you really know anybody who pronounces government as gumit? Or are you trying to say Gumout? Or something else? This sort of example shows why your insistence upon imprecision lack practical application.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 3, 2016 4:04 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Regarding the Eloctoral College, you almost stumbled into reality, but then you decided to rely upon the arguments of others, who are clearly idiots.

America is not a Democracy. For those who have learned the Pledge of Allegiance, recollect what is said "of the United States of America, and to the ________ for which it stands"

America is a Republic. The Federalized States comprise the Republic.
It would do the Nation great good to discard the Electoral College in favor of a simple majority of States. With each of the 50 States getting one vote only, the President would be the person who wins the most States. A majority of States would not even be needed if a Third Party Candidate won a State.

But such a reasonable idea would not be condoned by the Libtards and their mass of followers, assuming that in their lack of knowledge they possess greater wisdom than the knowledgeable world surrounding them.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 3, 2016 5:29 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


JO

As I understand it, the Electoral College wasn't constructed because of difficult communications or educational deficiencies or other technical impediments to democracy, but because ...

EACH STATE was supposed to be able to manage its affairs without the interference of the other states.

I don't know if you realize how vastly different the original colonies were, but some of them were small-farmer economies founded for religious reasons, some of them were founded on the basis of finding gold (which didn't work, but they became plantation states), some were founded on slavery and some were merchant-shipping colonies.

The writers of the Constitution and the various colonial representatives were so very different from each other. The book Founding Fathers: The Essential Guide to the Men Who Made America was loaned to me, and it really opened my eyes to the diversity of people who deliberated on the nation-to-be: some of them were ne'er-do-wells, some of them merchants, some small farmers or clergymen, some plantation owners.

That is the reason for the existence of the House AND the Senate. It is also the reason for the electoral college, which gives small states more electors than large states. Because what the colonists were afraid of was a
tyranny of the majority which would swamp the small-state voices.


BTW, it's an amazing book. I'm a pretty busy person and I hardly ever read any book all the way thru, but I'm really glad I read this one!



-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 4, 2016 12:25 AM

JO753

rezident owtsidr


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
America is not a Democracy...



Then wut type uv ocrasy do you think it iz?

Calling it a republic, thinking that chanjez the game, iz a simple minded tactic I'v herd from several foolz. Glen Beck, Bill O'Rielly, that cube headed guy on Fox whoz name I cant recall at the moment.

Wutever the reazonz behind the system they created back then, the situation chanjed and it makes no sens now. The added complexity haz no functional advantaj. And, az usual, superfluous complexity only enablez trouble.

Quote:

America is a Republic.


In reality, it iz an oligarchy.

Quote:

It would do the Nation great good to discard the Electoral College in favor of a simple majority of States. With each of the 50 States getting one vote only, the President would be the person who wins the most States.


So you dont think the 37 sitizenz in California who get outvoted by 1 sitizen in Rhode Island woud hav anything to gripe about?

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 4, 2016 12:53 AM

JO753

rezident owtsidr


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
As I understand it, the Electoral College wasn't constructed because of difficult communications or educational deficiencies or other technical impediments to democracy, but because..EACH STATE was supposed to be able to manage its affairs without the interference of the other states.



Not exactly. You are attributing a general element to a spesific detail.

The big idea wuz to limit the power uv the Federal Guverment. The Electoral Collej iz only the part that wuz suppozed to keep powerful states frum dominating the Prezidensy (along with other notionz).

Quote:

The book Founding Fathers: The Essential Guide to the Men Who Made America was loaned to me, and it really opened my eyes to the diversity of people who deliberated on the nation-to-be


OK, you tokt me into it. Just ordered it 25 secondz ago.


----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 4, 2016 10:34 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I hope you enjoy the book as much as I did, JO!

I have to say, BTW, that THIS election is a good demonstration of WHY the electoral college exists.

I have a colleague at work explain to me that the "educated people" all live within 300 miles of either coast, and that the "dumb fucks" across the vast swath of middle-America shouldn't be able to vote.

Seriously? This guy is advocating the "tyranny of the majority", in the most despicable way possible. That's what the electoral college was set up to prevent. But just because we coastal people are quite often very comfortable with the status quo (and this man is VERY comfortable with the status quo!) doesn't mean we have the right to force it on people who are living in a very different economic reality.

The Constitution sets up the Federal government for inaction. Any legislation has to pass thru two sieves: the popular sieve (House) and the states' sieve (Senate). And any legislation which does not meet the approval of BOTH viewpoints will simply fail.

The Electoral College was meant to operate the same way (although not as stringently) by granting each state the number of electors which equals the number of Representatives (based on population) plus the number of Senators (state representation).

Quote:

There are currently a total of 538 electors, corresponding to the 435 Representatives, the 100 Senators, plus three electors for the District of Columbia as provided for in the Twenty-third Amendment. Each state chooses electors amounting to the combined total of its Senators and Representatives.


I think its clear from how the Electoral College was numerically constructed what the intent was for its creation.

In addition, another point of the Electoral College was to bring the election of the President CLOSER to the people, not farther way. Distrust of "the people" was not in the original intent. THAT problem (unwashed masses) was left to the States, which decided who was enfranchised and who was not. (The Constitution was originally silent on the topic.) There were three options that the framers considered:

1) Direct democratic vote (by whomever the states enfranchised). This was a problem because of how much to count the slave population in terms of how many representatives a state would have. If direct democracy was implemented, there could technically be states with a large number of representatives who were, in fact, elected by only a small number of people (slaveholders, mostly).

2) Selection by Congress. This was the original proposal, but there was concern that Congressmen, being long-term politicians, would select a President who would meet their political concerns but not be representative of "the people". That would have, in their view, destroyed the concept of the Administration being an independent "check and balance". They could not have foreseen that selection of an Administration by Congress would in many ways make the government MORE responsive to the will of the people.

3) Electoral College compromise. Federal politicians were barred from being Electors, and the Electors were single-purpose representatives, which would tend to diffuse the power of special interests on the election.

Quote:

The Constitutional Convention in 1787 used the Virginia Plan as the basis for discussions, as the Virginia delegation had proposed it first. The Virginia Plan called for the Congress to elect the president. Delegates from a majority of states agreed to this mode of election. However, a committee formed to work out various details including the mode of election of the president, recommended instead the election be by a group of people apportioned among the states in the same numbers as their representatives in Congress (the formula for which had been resolved in lengthy debates resulting in the Connecticut Compromise and Three-Fifths Compromise), but chosen by each state "in such manner as its Legislature may direct." Committee member Gouverneur Morris explained the reasons for the change;

Among others, there were fears of "intrigue" if the president were chosen by a small group of men who met together regularly, as well as concerns for the independence of the president if he was elected by the Congress.

Some delegates, including James Wilson and James Madison, preferred popular election of the executive. Madison acknowledged that while a popular vote would be ideal, it would be difficult to get consensus on the proposal given the prevalence of slavery in the South:

There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections.

The Convention approved the Committee's Electoral College proposal, with minor modifications, on September 6, 1787. Delegates from the small states generally favored the Electoral College out of concern large states would otherwise control presidential elections.

In The Federalist Papers, James Madison explained his views on the selection of the president and the Constitution. In Federalist No. 39, Madison argued the Constitution was designed to be a mixture of state-based and population-based government. Congress would have two houses: the state-based Senate and the population-based House of Representatives. Meanwhile, the president would be elected by a mixture of the two modes.

Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 68 laid out what he believed were the key advantages to the Electoral College. The electors come directly from the people and them alone for that purpose only, and for that time only. This avoided a party-run legislature, or a permanent body that could be influenced by foreign interests before each election. Hamilton explained the election was to take place among all the states, so no corruption in any state could taint "the great body of the people" in their selection. The choice was to be made by a majority of the Electoral College, as majority rule is critical to the principles of republican government. Hamilton argued, electors meeting in the state capitals were able to have information unavailable to the general public. Hamilton also argued that since no federal officeholder could be an elector none of the electors would be beholden to any presidential candidate.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_%28United_States%29



-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 4, 2016 12:57 PM

REAVERFAN


So, a vote in Wyoming is worth more than a vote in California? How is that fair?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 4, 2016 2:17 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


It was to preserve STATES' RIGHTS, not individual rights.

I know that's a quaint anachronism but that's what the Founding Fathers came up with which would stitch the United States REPUBLIC together. It was the only thing that all of the colonies would agree on, seeing as they were more-or-less heading in different economic and social directions at the time.

And some of those contradictions, which the FF did their best to avoid, came home to roost in the Civil War.

If you really want to fix something, and make it meaningful, just go for direct democracy: the people vote directly on issues.





-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 6, 2016 11:41 AM

REAVERFAN


Yup. Should have lost that relic 100 years ago.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 7, 2016 4:54 AM

JO753

rezident owtsidr


Hard to imajin how different thingz woud be.

Even if it wuz dumped in the 1998 and we didnt haf to suffer thru the Bush Jr. administration, where woud we be now? Woud Obama hav even run for prez, or if he did, wun if there wuznt a dire situation to scare peeps into voting for the smart guy?

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 7, 2016 7:44 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
It was to preserve STATES' RIGHTS, not individual rights.

I know that's a quaint anachronism but that's what the Founding Fathers came up with which would stitch the United States REPUBLIC together. It was the only thing that all of the colonies would agree on, seeing as they were more-or-less heading in different economic and social directions at the time.

Wrong, Signym. The founders assumed that electors were free to analyze and deliberate regarding who is best suited to be president. When James Madison and Hamilton, two of the most important architects of the Electoral College, saw that electors chosen by the state were no longer free agents, they protested strongly. Madison and Hamilton both made it clear this approach violated the spirit of the Constitution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)#Evolut
ion_to_the_general_ticket


I am very partisan toward Democrats, but I would be satisfied with a Republican President Pence chosen by the electoral college. No electoral college would select Trump if it was run as it was intended by Madison and Hamilton, with electors free to reject the worst candidates. If the college also rejected Hillary, that would be fine with me. She is the second to worst candidate, after Trump.

Hillary Clinton's Popular Vote Lead Is Now Up To 2%

Kevin Drum Dec. 7, 2016 12:04 AM

I figure it's still worth periodically reminding people that far more people wanted Hillary Clinton as their president than Donald Trump. The latest numbers show Clinton ahead by 2.672 million votes, or 2 percent of the total. Aside from the obviously corrupt election of 1876, no winning candidate in the two-party era has ever done so dismally in the popular vote.

www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/12/hillary-clintons-popular-vote-l
ead-now-2


65,516,951 Clinton 48.2%
62,844,908 Trump 46.2%
7,639,968 Other 5.6%
136,001,827 Total 100.0%
+2,672,043 Clinton Margin +2.0%

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 7, 2016 10:07 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


In 2014, the discrepancy was even greater than today
Quote:

Mitt Romney won 48% of the popular vote but only 38% of the electoral vote.


Where were you then? And more importantly, did you see a lot of butt-hurt GOP losers rioting and demanding recounts and threatening not to pay their taxes?

In any case, the Electoral College, AS NUMERICALLY CONSTRUCTED, was clearly meant to favor the smaller states. AT THE SAME TIME, the framers originally expected it to operate on a precinct-to-precinct level. There is no immediate contradiction between the two expectations, except that the framers did not write the second expectation into the Constitution, but left the Electoral College operations, as well as state-by-state voting regulations (and district boundary-mapping) to the states themselves. The states will obviously favor whichever party happens to be in control of the legislature at that time. I suppose that might have been foreseen, but wasn't.

I don't even know how the electors would be apportioned on a precinct-by-precinct basis, since the number of electors in each state does not equal the number of precincts, and how that apportionment would then reflect the popular vote is anybody's guess.



-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake


"If I could write inflammatory commentary to scorch the eye brows and lashes off Trump, Signym or 1kiki, I would.- SECOND"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 7, 2016 8:37 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by JO753:
Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
America is a Republic.



In reality, it iz an oligarchy.


Well, as long as Obamination is allowed to constantly violate the Constitution, his regime can be imagined to be an oligarchy. But why didn't he get everything he demanded? You don't think the House and the Senate had some effect on things? Or are you considering the 538 to be the FEW of the oligarchy?
Quote:


Quote:

It would do the Nation great good to discard the Electoral College in favor of a simple majority of States. With each of the 50 States getting one vote only, the President would be the person who wins the most States.


So you dont think the 37 sitizenz in California who get outvoted by 1 sitizen in Rhode Island woud hav anything to gripe about?


All Libtards gripe about something. If they wise up, they can break up into 37 States and be better represented. Right now they are useless, they have no power - nobody campaigns there because there vote is not in play. As soon as CA breaks into more than one State, at least half of it will become a State in play, voting more reasonably some of the time.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 11, 2016 2:49 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by JO753:
Paradoxically, the Electoral Collej iz the only thing that can stop Trump now. This iz exactly the situation it exists for.



Maybe if there wasn't a majority of Republicans in both the house and Senate.

Even if the Democratic Wet Dream of 30+ Faithless Electors were to come about and vote for Hillary over Trump, which would never happen, you'd have to watch a Republican Majority House and Senate go along with making Hillary President, which would never happen.



You're a smart guy most of the time J0...

Shame on you for supporting Mob Rule.

If you remove the Electoral College and just let the popular vote decide than we would have nothing but Democratic presidents for the next 100 years because of L.A., New York, Chicago, Detroit, and a handfull of other Urban cities.

I agree that in 2016 we might want to re-investigate the Electoral College and make some tweaks. I've even said as much in other threads. But love or hate the outcome, Middle America made their voice heard this year. That would never be possible in Mob Rule when the amount of voters in Chicago alone could have outweighed 8 of the most hard hit states in the rust belt.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 12, 2016 8:05 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
In 2014, the discrepancy was even greater than today
Quote:

Mitt Romney won 48% of the popular vote but only 38% of the electoral vote.


Where were you then? And more importantly, did you see a lot of butt-hurt GOP losers rioting and demanding recounts and threatening not to pay their taxes?


Are you saying that Romney ran for something in 2014?
Quote:


In any case, the Electoral College, AS NUMERICALLY CONSTRUCTED, was clearly meant to favor the smaller states. AT THE SAME TIME, the framers originally expected it to operate on a precinct-to-precinct level. There is no immediate contradiction between the two expectations, except that the framers did not write the second expectation into the Constitution, but left the Electoral College operations, as well as state-by-state voting regulations (and district boundary-mapping) to the states themselves. The states will obviously favor whichever party happens to be in control of the legislature at that time. I suppose that might have been foreseen, but wasn't.

I don't even know how the electors would be apportioned on a precinct-by-precinct basis, since the number of electors in each state does not equal the number of precincts, and how that apportionment would then reflect the popular vote is anybody's guess.


If you are talking about Districts, it could be done as Maine and Nebraska currently do.
Each Congressional District in these states have an Elector which goes to the popular winner in each CD. The 2 remaining Electors go to whichever candidate gets the popular vote for the entire state.
So if CA did this, then the 2 statewide Electors would still go to the Democrat every election, as well as most of the CDs of SoCal except Orange County and anyplace else not overrun by Illegal Immigrants, and most of the northern CDs would go to GOP except SanFran and Oakland.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 12, 2016 9:11 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


In Wisconsin, a federal court found that 300,000 fewer voters cast ballots because of new ID restrictions; Trump won there by only 27,000 votes. Similar suppression efforts in other states also worked well. In the three states that gave Trump his electoral college majority -- Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania -- Trump won by 100,000 votes, which are fewer than the number of voters suppressed by various Republican measures.

www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2016/12/you-call-this-a-democracy-th
e-american-government-does-not-represent-the-american-people.html

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 12, 2016 9:32 PM

RIVERLOVE


Hillary got 2.5 million more votes than Trump nationally, but in California alone Hillary won by 3 million votes. That means that in the other 49 states, or 98% of the states, Trump got more votes than Hillary. That's why the electoral college is perfect as is. No one state gets to decide the presidency.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 12, 2016 10:19 PM

JO753

rezident owtsidr


JSF & 6String - Youv been huffing GoP fumez too long. Apparently like haf the country. SO now that we are all living in your Tea Party fantasy land, lets see how well it works wen it collidez hed on with reality.

Australia haz a much better election system than America. Its even better than a simple popular vote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_system_of_Australia

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 13, 2016 9:28 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Did you know there is a way for Hillary to sabotage Trump, but she must get back to work convincing 232 Democratic Electors to vote for a Republican?

The beauty of the plan is that it will piss off the Republicans so badly they will pass a Constitutional Amendment abolishing the Electoral College.

It’s a win-win-lose: the Democratic party will never again be screwed by the Electoral College, the GOP controls the Presidency, and Putin doesn’t win, after all.

Democrats can stop Trump via the electoral college. But not how you think.
By Michael F. Cannon

www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-can-use-the-electoral-colleg
e-to-stop-trump-but-not-how-you-think/2016/12/05/c69bb24e-ba86-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html


Hillary Clinton’s decision to join Green Party candidate Jill Stein’s recount efforts in key states may have been welcome news to Democrats, but it is unlikely to change the outcome of the presidential election. Nor will complaining about the unfairness of the electoral college or begging Republican electors to vote for Clinton. Democrats’ best chance to prevent Donald Trump from assuming the presidency is instead to do the unthinkable: Throw their support behind another Republican, such as Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor and 2012 GOP presidential nominee.

To become president, a candidate must get a bare majority of 270 votes when the electoral college meets Dec. 19.

As Alexander Hamilton explained, the electoral college provides a backstop in the event voters select a dangerously unfit candidate. “The process of election,” Hamilton wrote, “affords a moral certainty that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” Electors would use their judgment to prevent the “tumult and disorder” that would result from “this mischief” of presidential candidates exploiting “talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity.” One might call it the cooler-heads college.

Election Day produced 306 electors pledged to Trump and 232 pledged to Clinton. A petition at Change.org asks Republican electors to vote for Clinton. A group calling itself “Hamilton Electors” seeks to persuade at least 37 GOP electors to vote for a Republican other than Trump, leaving him with only 269 votes. If no candidate secures 270 votes, the House of Representatives selects the next president from the top three vote-getters in the electoral college.

Either strategy is a fool’s errand. Whatever reservations Republican electors may have about Trump, empty entreaties from Democrats are unlikely to sway them. Even if 37 Republican electors voted for another Republican, the GOP-controlled House would likely select Trump anyway.

The only way Democrats stand any chance of persuading Republican electors to abandon Trump is with a dramatic gesture of true bipartisanship. If all 232 Democratic electors pledge to reach across the aisle and vote for a Republican alternative to Trump, it would take just 38 GOP electors to make that person the next president.

If Clinton announced she is releasing “her” electors and asked them to vote for a credible Republican alternative, she could plausibly deliver all 232 Democratic electors. She might even secure similar pledges from House Democrats in the event the election went to the House.

Finding 38 Republican electors might then be easier than Democrats think. In 2012, Romney won a larger share of the popular vote (47.2 percent) than Mr. Trump did this year (46.2 percent). There are 35 Republican electors from states where Romney got more votes than Trump (Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Utah, Wisconsin), and at least 120 others from states where Romney won a larger share of the vote. That’s more than half of Republican electors. Texas has 38 electors all by itself.

Naturally, most rank-and-file Democrats would consider the idea of backing a Republican for president abhorrent. Even so, the electoral college presents a most interesting test for Clinton and her party.

If Democrats believe Trump poses a unique threat to the republic, and signal this is not okay by reaching across the aisle to marginalize and stop him, then win or lose, Democrats could legitimately claim they put partisanship aside for the good of the country.

If Democrats believe Trump poses a unique threat yet don’t support another Republican in the electoral college, it will indicate that Democrats see Trump as no different from any other Republican. And if Democrats treat Trump as normal, they will be complicit in normalizing his behaviors.

The only people who will be responsible for a Trump presidency are those who voted for him — plus Clinton and her campaign, who helped to raise Trump’s profile during the primaries. But if Democrats truly believe what they say about Trump, they should prefer another Republican who does not threaten to normalize what a Trump presidency would.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 13, 2016 9:47 AM

JO753

rezident owtsidr


Better to let Trump run thingz for a wile. The Bush administration almost killed the Republican party. Maybe a yir or 2 uv Trump will finally do them in. Hopefully without bringing the hole country down.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 13, 2016 10:47 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Quote:

Originally posted by JO753:
Better to let Trump run thingz for a wile. The Bush administration almost killed the Republican party. Maybe a yir or 2 uv Trump will finally do them in. Hopefully without bringing the hole country down.

If Democrats truly believe what they say about Trump they should prefer another Republican who does not threaten to normalize what a Trump presidency would. Hillary has enough votes from her Electors to bring down Trump, if she can get help from 37 Republican electors. I'm certain there are 37 that hate Trump's guts enough to do it, but it all depends on Hillary murdering Trump's chances. Hillary doesn't seem brave enough to pull the shotgun trigger and blow off Trump's head, Electorally College speaking.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 13, 2016 12:33 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I think that SECOND is worried that Trump might actually pull something positive out of our current shit-show.

Obama had his chance: He had a popular mandate like you wouldn't believe, a once-in-a-century crisis, and a Democratic Congress, and he blew it. REALLY blew it. I think Obama's tepid policies (which helped the wealthy), more than anything, is why the Democrats have suffered up and down the food chain. Thanks to Obama, it's now somebody else's turn.

As I parse through Trump's Cabinet picks, I see that he places a very high value on loyalty. So far, I see a person who is willing to go to war against the neocons embedded in the State Department and the CIA. If Obama really wanted to change things, he should have fired about 1000 disloyal people, but he didn't, and they undercut him many times over. It appears to me (so far) that Trump isn't making that mistake.



-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake


"If I could write inflammatory commentary to scorch the eye brows and lashes off Trump, Signym or 1kiki, I would.- SECOND"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 13, 2016 12:38 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


The reason for the electoral college, in one convenient easy-to-read infographic:





"Hillary won 3 populous states with large urban areas: New York, California and Illinois. And she won a dozen or so small states. Overall, she won 17 of 50 states. To put it another way, she lost 33 of 50 states. That's pathetic. And it doesn't indicate broad popular support."

The states were to have some GEOGRAPHIC presence. The interests of the farming, ranching, and mining states aren't the same as the interests of the manufacturing states or the finance states or the IP states. It would seem to me unfair that a geographically-limited group of people, who have financial interests, should dominate the decision-making for the production states.

Hillary knew all about the Electoral College when she ran for office. All of this after-the-fact bitching is still just an attempt to rewrite history. I guess you're all still in various stages of grief, including anger, denial, and bargaining, all rolled into one.

HOW DO YOU MAKE SURE THE STATES ARE FAIRLY AND INDIVIDUALLY REPRESENTED? If I had my 'druthers, maybe the Electoral College should be split into two "houses", kind of like Congress: one strictly based on population, and one strictly based on equal state's representations, and any candidate would have to pass BOTH screening tests.

Although it seems that in reality the Parliamentarian system (when the Congress would select a Prime Minister with a vote-of-no-confidence) works better.





-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake


"If I could write inflammatory commentary to scorch the eye brows and lashes off Trump, Signym or 1kiki, I would.- SECOND"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 13, 2016 12:39 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


double

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 13, 2016 1:22 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

As I parse through Trump's Cabinet picks, I see that he places a very high value on loyalty. So far, I see a person who is willing to go to war against the neocons embedded in the State Department and the CIA.

Signym, at least you got the loyalty to Trump thing right, but you got the Neocon thing wrong. Michael Flynn, NatSecAdvisor, is a scary nut, not the scourge of Neocons.

Neocon John Bolton to be #2 at the State Department. Bolton is the neocon still defending President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq, if you forgot.

Starting at 2:12 on the video, Bolton shows loyalty to Trump, although that does require him to smear everyone but Trump:



And then there is Goldman Sachs. Trump often railed against the influence of Wall Street investment firms generally, and Goldman Sachs in particular. So Trump hires three Goldmen:

Trump named the chief operating officer of Goldman Sachs, Gary Cohn to lead the National Economic Council.

Trump named Steve Bannon senior advisor in the White House. Bannon previously worked at Goldman Sachs, in acquisitions and mergers.

Trump named Steven Mnuchin, a partner at Goldman as secretary of the treasury.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 13, 2016 1:43 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


This belongs in the Trump cabinet thread, thanks. I shouldn't even have brought it up in this thread, sorry. I'm going to copy it there: http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=61119



-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake


"If I could write inflammatory commentary to scorch the eye brows and lashes off Trump, Signym or 1kiki, I would.- SECOND"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 13, 2016 1:45 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


oops!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 14, 2016 4:32 AM

JO753

rezident owtsidr


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Obama had his chance:



Hardly. The solid block uv GoPs obstructing everything, along with the herd uv cats Demz made it near impossible to get the big stuff dun, aside frum pulling the country off the presipis Bush drove it to.

The Demz fail to grasp the consept uv 'united we stand' for the party.

The GoPs fail to understand 'divided we fall' for the country.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 14, 2016 8:22 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Riverlove:
Hillary got 2.5 million more votes than Trump nationally, but in California alone Hillary won by 3 million votes. That means that in the other 49 states, or 98% of the states, Trump got more votes than Hillary. That's why the electoral college is perfect as is. No one state gets to decide the presidency.



Quote:



With around 12 Million Illegal Aliens, Hilliary's 2.5 Million vote lead means that either about 10 Million of her constituents forgot to vote, or else Trump has a lead of about 9.5 Million legitimate votes, like from citizens.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 14, 2016 8:26 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by second:
Did you know there is a way for Hillary to sabotage Trump, but she must get back to work convincing 232 Democratic Electors to vote for a Republican?

The beauty of the plan is that it will piss off the Republicans so badly they will pass a Constitutional Amendment abolishing the Electoral College.

It’s a win-win-lose: the Democratic party will never again be screwed by the Electoral College, the GOP controls the Presidency, and Putin doesn’t win, after all.

Democrats can stop Trump via the electoral college. But not how you think.
By Michael F. Cannon

www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-can-use-the-electoral-colleg
e-to-stop-trump-but-not-how-you-think/2016/12/05/c69bb24e-ba86-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html


Hillary Clinton’s decision to join Green Party candidate Jill Stein’s recount efforts in key states may have been welcome news to Democrats, but it is unlikely to change the outcome of the presidential election. Nor will complaining about the unfairness of the electoral college or begging Republican electors to vote for Clinton. Democrats’ best chance to prevent Donald Trump from assuming the presidency is instead to do the unthinkable: Throw their support behind another Republican, such as Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor and 2012 GOP presidential nominee.

To become president, a candidate must get a bare majority of 270 votes when the electoral college meets Dec. 19.

As Alexander Hamilton explained, the electoral college provides a backstop in the event voters select a dangerously unfit candidate. “The process of election,” Hamilton wrote, “affords a moral certainty that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” Electors would use their judgment to prevent the “tumult and disorder” that would result from “this mischief” of presidential candidates exploiting “talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity.” One might call it the cooler-heads college.

Election Day produced 306 electors pledged to Trump and 232 pledged to Clinton. A petition at Change.org asks Republican electors to vote for Clinton. A group calling itself “Hamilton Electors” seeks to persuade at least 37 GOP electors to vote for a Republican other than Trump, leaving him with only 269 votes. If no candidate secures 270 votes, the House of Representatives selects the next president from the top three vote-getters in the electoral college.

Either strategy is a fool’s errand. Whatever reservations Republican electors may have about Trump, empty entreaties from Democrats are unlikely to sway them. Even if 37 Republican electors voted for another Republican, the GOP-controlled House would likely select Trump anyway.

The only way Democrats stand any chance of persuading Republican electors to abandon Trump is with a dramatic gesture of true bipartisanship. If all 232 Democratic electors pledge to reach across the aisle and vote for a Republican alternative to Trump, it would take just 38 GOP electors to make that person the next president.

If Clinton announced she is releasing “her” electors and asked them to vote for a credible Republican alternative, she could plausibly deliver all 232 Democratic electors. She might even secure similar pledges from House Democrats in the event the election went to the House.

Finding 38 Republican electors might then be easier than Democrats think. In 2012, Romney won a larger share of the popular vote (47.2 percent) than Mr. Trump did this year (46.2 percent). There are 35 Republican electors from states where Romney got more votes than Trump (Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Utah, Wisconsin), and at least 120 others from states where Romney won a larger share of the vote. That’s more than half of Republican electors. Texas has 38 electors all by itself.

Naturally, most rank-and-file Democrats would consider the idea of backing a Republican for president abhorrent. Even so, the electoral college presents a most interesting test for Clinton and her party.

If Democrats believe Trump poses a unique threat to the republic, and signal this is not okay by reaching across the aisle to marginalize and stop him, then win or lose, Democrats could legitimately claim they put partisanship aside for the good of the country.

If Democrats believe Trump poses a unique threat yet don’t support another Republican in the electoral college, it will indicate that Democrats see Trump as no different from any other Republican. And if Democrats treat Trump as normal, they will be complicit in normalizing his behaviors.

The only people who will be responsible for a Trump presidency are those who voted for him — plus Clinton and her campaign, who helped to raise Trump’s profile during the primaries. But if Democrats truly believe what they say about Trump, they should prefer another Republican who does not threaten to normalize what a Trump presidency would.


I had not heard of this. An excellent plan, and also save America from Trump, and Ivanka.
But this would be a disaster for the Dems. If a reasonable person is occupying the White House, it will be virtually impossible for the Libtards to unseat her in 2020.
I am not entirely convinced yet that if an Electoral majority were denied, that the House would select Trump. Many have voiced dislike for him and his newly reversed policies. The Third Place candidate was Gary Johnson, who has been a Republican of merit for more decades than years of Trump's flirtation.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 14, 2016 8:36 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by second:
Quote:

Originally posted by JO753:
Better to let Trump run thingz for a wile. The Bush administration almost killed the Republican party. Maybe a yir or 2 uv Trump will finally do them in. Hopefully without bringing the hole country down.

If Democrats truly believe what they say about Trump they should prefer another Republican who does not threaten to normalize what a Trump presidency would. Hillary has enough votes from her Electors to bring down Trump, if she can get help from 37 Republican electors. I'm certain there are 37 that hate Trump's guts enough to do it, but it all depends on Hillary murdering Trump's chances. Hillary doesn't seem brave enough to pull the shotgun trigger and blow off Trump's head, Electorally College speaking.


JO posits the ludicrous notion that Bush degraded the GOP. And you quote his post, but don't seem to address it. You seem to confer the opposite, that Bush helped make the GOP normal for America.
Did you quote the correct post? Or am I missing something? Or you maybe just glossed over it?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 14, 2016 8:55 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by JO753:
Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Obama had his chance:



Hardly. The solid block uv GoPs obstructing everything, along with the herd uv cats Demz made it near impossible to get the big stuff dun, aside frum pulling the country off the presipis Bush drove it to.

The Demz fail to grasp the consept uv 'united we stand' for the party.

The GoPs fail to understand 'divided we fall' for the country.


The drugs you are addicted to must be precious.
In Obama's first 2 years the 111th Congress had a Democrat majority of 59/100 in the Senate (margin of 18), and 255/433 in the House (margin of 76).
In Bobo's 2nd biennium the 112th Congress had a Dem majority of 53/100 in the Senate, and the House was majority of liberal Republicans 242/433.
In the first half of Bobo's 2nd term the 113th Congress grew it's Dem majority to 55/100 in the Senate, and the House only had 234/433 majority of GOP, a margin of 33 Reps.

Quite the obstruction from GOP, where Democraps had control of all 3 branches of Government for Bobo's first 2 years.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 14, 2016 9:25 PM

JO753

rezident owtsidr


Drugz? O! you mean memory! Thats wut we call it here on Earth anyway.

Az I understand it, in the Fox version uv reality, Obama iz an absolute dictator who tor up the Constitution on day 1 and haz been finding wayz to destroy the country ever sins. If not for the heroic Tea Party coming to the rescue uv the poor Republicanz, we woud all be in death camps by now resieving daily abortionz. Women and men!

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 15, 2016 8:40 AM

JO753

rezident owtsidr


Ha!

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 17, 2016 3:37 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK



What would you rather, J0?

Hillary Clinton who is bought and paid for by foreign interest and we all know it?

Every single week for over a year when Norm McDonald was doing the Weekend News on Saturday Night Live he made jokes about how new Policy was going to be passed if it was approved by the House and "This Chinese Guy" and that was back in the mid 90s...



How can you go out of your way to be so Obtuse J0?

You're without a doubt one of the most intelligent people here in the RWED.

How come you sound like a mindless Liberal Mouthpiece?

Seriously Bro...

WTF is wrong with you?



Don't know who.....

But SOMEBODY is Using You...




Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 17, 2016 6:50 AM

JO753

rezident owtsidr


Quote:

Originally posted by G:Obama still has more than a month to bring Sharia law to the US, so let's not dismiss JSF's ramblings as madness just yet.


You hav a point. Here in the Twilite Zone, where Trump went frum wakko to prezident elect in a matter uv owrz, ANYTHING can happen!

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 17, 2016 6:56 AM

JO753

rezident owtsidr


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

What would you rather, J0?



I woud rather be the prez than either uv them. I hav more lojik in my finger nail clippingz than both uv them combined so coud get this poor excuse for a sivilization out uv the foolish funk its been wallowing in for 2000 yirz.

And I hear the pay & perks are pretty good.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 17, 2016 7:04 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


The pay is less than the League Minimum for the very worst professional Baseball Players, assuming you don't go corrupt.

As for the rest, I don't believe for a minute you are more capable of running the country, especially since you are a person who would allow Muslims to overrun our country.

I fucking love Jews. My favorite uncle is Jewish and my favorite cousisns are half Jewish. I've spoken about them here. I have no problem with gays or transgenders. I also spoke about fucking both of them in the past. So long as the Government doesn't FORCE any churches to recognize gay marriage, there are plenty of other ways for gays to be married in a church.

I guarantee you I am the only "White Priviliged Male" you've ever known to use the Nigga word freely among co-workers.

I'm sick of the bullshit Feminism, and doubly intolerant of Islam.

If you're pro either of them beyond where they are now, go fuck yourself.

This is the new world we're living in.

Men will start getting Alimony from the breadwinner wives....

Muslims will be kicked out of America.

I know it was 16 years ago, but you're sadly mistaken if you believe that there wasn't a database made of every single Muslim-American who cheered when the Twin Towers fell.

It just took 16 years to have a President that will kick them the fuck out.


Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 17, 2016 7:13 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK





Muslim-American Student supports genocide of Jews.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 17, 2016 9:18 AM

JO753

rezident owtsidr


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
The pay is less than the League Minimum for the very worst professional Baseball Players



400,000 per yir + 50,000 tax free expens account. Then therez the kick ass house thats paid for with all expensez paid 24/7 staff. Then therez Air fors 1, Chopper 1, The Beast (armored limo) etc etc etc. Way more to it than the money. I'v herd the perks add up to sumthing like 50,000,000.

Then therez the pension and life long SS protection.

Its a rare ball player who haznt retired by 40 and squandered hiz millionz by 50.

Quote:

As for the rest, I don't believe for a minute you are more capable of running the country,


I can proov it! Vote for me in 2020. Put your money where your mouth iz. Believ me, it will be unbelievably fantasticly incredibl! Amazing! I cant go into detailz kuz sum other candidate woud steal my ideaz and then screw it up anyway. Trust me, in less than a yir, you will be begging them to fire Trump.

Quote:

especially since you are a person who would allow Muslims to overrun our country.


Wut givz you that idea? I'm the guy who promised to kick the Catholic Church out uv America wen the depths uv the pedofilia scandal came to lite. Why woud I giv thoze oppressiv izlam assclownz a pass?

Quote:

I guarantee you I am the only "White Priviliged Male" you've ever known to use the Nigga word freely among co-workers.


Wuts the monetary value uv your garrantee? I know at least 2 other guyz. I tell you wut, Send me 100$ for the 2 now and I will sine sumthing to the effect that I will make no further claimz no matter how many more I find.

Sorry, but your 'anti PC/liberal backlash wite boy' attitude iz az common az big sity rats.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 17, 2016 11:24 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Az I understand it, in the Fox version uv reality, Obama iz an absolute dictator who tor up the Constitution on day 1 and haz been finding wayz to destroy the country ever sins.- JO
Who do you think is worse in terms of tearing up the Constitution: George W Bush or Obama?



-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake


"If I could write inflammatory commentary to scorch the eye brows and lashes off Trump, Signym or 1kiki, I would.- SECOND"

Hillary knew all about the Electoral College when she ran for office. All of this after-the-fact bitching is still just an attempt to rewrite history. I guess you're all still in various stages of grief, including anger, denial, and bargaining, all rolled into one

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 17, 2016 3:52 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Hillary knew all about the Electoral College when she ran for office. All of this after-the-fact bitching is still just an attempt to rewrite history. I guess you're all still in various stages of grief, including anger, denial, and bargaining, all rolled into one

Gentlemen, I do not fully comprehend what we have just witnessed, but one thing is exceedingly clear—we must abandon any inclination we may have held toward a system of direct democracy—and institute a safeguard to ensure that such a dangerous narcissist will never become president of this nation! It shall be known as—the electoral college!

Our posterity will never even know how close they came to utter ruination!

www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/12/5/1606903/-Cartoon-The-mysterious-str
anger


"If I could write inflammatory commentary to scorch the eye brows and lashes off Trump, Signym or 1kiki, I would.- SECOND"

www.newyorker.com/cartoons/a20602

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 17, 2016 4:05 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Quote:

... we must abandon any inclination we may have held toward a system of direct democracy ...
Quote and link please, or I'll assume that, once again, you're lying.




How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 18, 2016 11:57 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Hillary knew all about the Electoral College when she ran for office. All of this after-the-fact bitching is still just an attempt to rewrite history. I guess you're all still in various stages of grief, including anger, denial, and bargaining, all rolled into one- SIGNY

Gentlemen, I do not fully comprehend what we have just witnessed, but one thing is exceedingly clear—we must abandon any inclination we may have held toward a system of direct democracy—and institute a safeguard to ensure that such a dangerous narcissist will never become president of this nation! It shall be known as—the electoral college! - SECOND

Your posts are pointless, and boring. There was never such a concept in the Constitution as "direct democracy".



-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake


"If you aren't aware, Texans don't have much concern for the well-being of Yankees or Californians, even Yankee factory workers in Indiana "- SECOND

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 20, 2016 2:57 PM

JO753

rezident owtsidr


This wuz the exact situation it wuz intended for and it totally failed. Wen the Demz regain power agen eliminating it shoud be the second thing on the ajenda. (the 1st, uv course, will be bailing the country out uv the mess the GoPs drive it into)

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 25, 2016 4:05 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.






-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake


"If you aren't aware, Texans don't have much concern for the well-being of Yankees or Californians, even Yankee factory workers in Indiana "- SECOND

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 26, 2016 12:28 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by JO753:
This wuz the exact situation it wuz intended for and it totally failed. Wen the Demz regain power agen eliminating it shoud be the second thing on the ajenda. (the 1st, uv course, will be bailing the country out uv the mess the GoPs drive it into)




There's only two problems with what you just said JO...

1. After GWB "stole" the election from Al Gore, the Dems wanted to remove the Electoral College, and 8 years of Obama it never once came up, did it?

2. 8 years of Obama did the exact opposite of bailing us out after 8 years of a terrible 8 years of GWB.

This economy is terrible and the job market is abysmal.

You're one of the smartest people I converse with online. Sometimes I wonder if you're just so smart that you're just living in some fantasy world created by that big brain of yours.



I think you really need to take a step back and at least give Trump a chance before you make a judgement. Hillary Clinton was MUCH more like GWB than Trump ever will be. Look at Trump's history. He is very much socially liberal. In issues not involving money directly, I'll actually go so far as to say that he was probably even more Left than Hillary.


I can't see into the future, so I can't say anything about how the next 8 years will turn out. Maybe everything is worse in 8 years. I just don't think it will be because what you're talking about. There is no way he will be bad for us like GWB was. And I'm hoping that he isn't bad in any other ways either.


We already learned that the MSM was full of shit when Trump won handily, after half a year of them showing Clinton very much ahead and all of the laughter raised when somebody said Trump could win.

I think you're going to find that he is not the Bogey Man the MSM has painted him to be in what is undoubtedly the WORST CAMPAIGN SEASON EVER.

I won't even bother to ask you to take time out of your day to go back and learn about Trump. It's over now and he will be President. Between the election, the recounts, and the fact that more electors turned against Hillary than turned against Trump in the end, Hillary lost THREE times now.


All we can do now is sit back and wait and see what happens. I got laid off in 2009 and in 8 years I have still not made as much money as I used to make in a single year. This year, I had zero income. I'm sure you're in a much better position than I am, but all I can say is that short of full blown nuclear war or a zombie apocolypse it can't get any worse for me and the only way to go is up.

I wish you luck during the Trump Presidency. I have a good feeling about this.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 26, 2016 10:06 AM

JO753

rezident owtsidr


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
There's only two problems with what you just said JO...

1. After GWB "stole" the election from Al Gore, the Dems wanted to remove the Electoral College, and 8 years of Obama it never once came up, did it?



Thats not a problem with wut I sed, its a problem with the Demz believing they woudnt be able to get it dun, so didnt waste their time.

I thot they may hav had a chans in 2009, but they really didnt.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/09/getting-rid-
of-the-electoral-college-dream-on-democrats/?utm_term=.675ecedf8c45


Quote:

2. 8 years of Obama did the exact opposite of bailing us out after 8 years of a terrible 8 years of GWB.


Incorrect on a national level, but maybe true for many working class & poor peepl.

Even tho more uv the money iz going to the 1% than ever befor, therez still so much remaining that ordinary peepl are buying expensiv carz, 800$ fonez, jiant TVz, etc, etc, etc.

Dont forget how bad thingz were in the fall uv 2008. Obama bailed us out PERIOD. Maybe he coud hav dun it differently, and maybe it woud hav worked better for us, but thats 2 big maybez that woud require alot uv research to make a credibl argument for AND the alernativ to the 2nd maybe woud be us living in Mad Max land now.

Quote:

I think you really need to take a step back and at least give Trump a chance before you make a judgement.


I think therez plenty uv info about Trump to make the call: He woud dunk tank the economy and brag about it later. There are many wayz in wich he coud screw up in complex international matterz on a huje scale.

That iz, IF he stayz prezident long enuf. You will notis that I sed the Republicanz are going to drive the country into the dich agen. I still think they are going to oust him so Pence, the real Republican, will be prez.

Quote:

Hillary Clinton was MUCH more like GWB than Trump ever will be.


You coud argue that Hillary iz much more like George bekuz they both hav extensiv previous experiens in electiv offis and Trump haz 0. But making the claim that Hillary woud be az incompetent az George iz rediculous.

Just dump all the election blather out uv your brain and its plain that her administration woud hav been pretty much a continuation uv Obama'z.

Better to claim that she iz like George HW Bush, who extended Reagan'z admin by 1 more term.

Quote:

Look at Trump's history.


I hav. The deeper you look, the more the initial appearens uv a con man iz verified. Great at grabbing the eazy money, tricking chumps and gaming the system.

Quote:

We already learned that the MSM was full of shit when Trump won handily, after half a year of them showing Clinton very much ahead and all of the laughter raised when somebody said Trump could win.


Yes, they screwed up royal, but to repeat it AGEN, Trump did not win handily. Hiz win wuz the direct rezult uv the disfunctional electoral collej system giving 80,000 votes priority over 2,900,000.

Think about that for a minit. You can divide that into blocks uv 36 sitizenz on Hillaryz side getting outvoted by 1 guy on Trumps side!

That iz not a reprezentative system - not a democratic system by any strech or contortion uv lojik.

Quote:

All we can do now is sit back and wait and see what happens.


Yep. I'm at that staje.

Quote:

I got laid off in 2009 and in 8 years I have still not made as much money as I used to make in a single year. This year, I had zero income. I'm sure you're in a much better position than I am,


Nop. I am doing terribl, financially. Been relying on my Dadz social security for yirz. The recovery never reached me. My -$ worth woud probably be around haf a million if my creditorz hadnt given up the gost.

Quote:

but all I can say is that short of full blown nuclear war or a zombie apocolypse it can't get any worse for me and the only way to go is up.


You are incorrect. Read up on the depression. AND! With Trump alredy blathering insane idiotic nonsens about 'expanding our nuclear arsenal' befor he iz even in offis, dont think nuclear war iz unrealistic.



----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 14:12 - 3411 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:18 - 2071 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:16 - 6 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL