(May 12, 2017 at 5:57 am)Brian37 Wrote:

(May 12, 2017 at 5:15 am)Tazzycorn Wrote: I reckon before the election Comey, as with most other senior republitraitors thought that Trump was simply following the party's southern strategy to solidify the base for November, and would toe the line once appointed. However he quickly realised how wrong this notion was, probably through a combination of seeing Trump up close (it is clear that Trump reverse ferreted on China solely due to the bribe of his name being trademarked) and the actual Russia evidence, and decided that he needed to do his job. Hence the quick turnaround from cheerleader to adversary.

I noticed something else Trump said in his NBC about the election, he called it one that Hillary Clinton "should've won". Now this could simply be an admission by Trump that he was long odds going in, but given his narcissism and his constant crowing about him supposedly trouncing her, I'd say it's far more likely that this was an admission (likely unintentional) that he won by means most foul (combination of Russian hacks and vote stealing in the rust belt and Florida).

No, I think most of why she lost WAS Trump's own Jerry Springer act, the gerrymandering has been going on forever, but I do think Trump's behavior for the past five years, even without a direct connection, Russia was no matter what, simply piling on the division he was creating.

I'm not talking about the gerrymandering, I'm talking about the systematic and highly illegal disenfranchisement of US citizens which started in time for to deliver Florida to Shrub in 2000 (with about 80,000 voters told that their opinion wasn't wanted) and which now has more than ten million US citizens turned into second class citizens with no voting rights. And all because, despite the evidence presented to them, the supreme court in 1999 decided that the Republitraitor party could now be trusted to not make voting while black a crime again in the south.

(May 12, 2017 at 10:21 am)Tazzycorn Wrote:

(May 12, 2017 at 5:57 am)Brian37 Wrote: No, I think most of why she lost WAS Trump's own Jerry Springer act, the gerrymandering has been going on forever, but I do think Trump's behavior for the past five years, even without a direct connection, Russia was no matter what, simply piling on the division he was creating.

I'm not talking about the gerrymandering, I'm talking about the systematic and highly illegal disenfranchisement of US citizens which started in time for to deliver Florida to Shrub in 2000 (with about 80,000 voters told that their opinion wasn't wanted) and which now has more than ten million US citizens turned into second class citizens with no voting rights. And all because, despite the evidence presented to them, the supreme court in 1999 decided that the Republitraitor party could now be trusted to not make voting while black a crime again in the south.

I didn't like the 2000 outcome anymore than 16 but I bet if it happened the other way and Gore won or Hillary won, you would  not be saying that.

IT IS the gerrymandering, and that was going on since Reagan, one could argue even Nixon. How about instead of bitching fight back, don't sit out any local or state election, motivate everyone to speak out every day, and work to expand our maps, sue in the courts. Here in NC the GOP got bitch slapped for what the district court said was "surgical"

THE EC is there as a tool, a coin flip that can go either way. It has always been that way. The EC didn't cause the civil war either, and we have survived as a nation through that, and WW1 and WW2 and even Bush Jr.

I disagree AS A LIBERAL, where is your link that 80,000 FLAers were robbbed? You do understand that in a recount both parties pass the ballots to each other so it isn't overseen by one party. The only part I disagreed with was the GOP stopping it. There is no evidence at all that not stopping it would have changed the outcome. 

As much as I hate TRUMP, Hillary did ignore those swing states and that cost her as much as Trump wrongfully slurred his way to the win. 

Now I always ask this question, and I never get a good answer. 

Ok, you hate the EC, fine, offer up a replacement because simply throwing it out solves nothing. In the west you cannot simply go with 1 person one vote. There has to be a check on the voters as well, otherwise it is simply mob rule by vote. Now I am not saying don't suggest a replacement, but what would it look like if you could replace it?

Even our Supreme Court in it's history have told the voters, DESPITE their vote, "No, you cant do that".

It cant simply be throw it out, you have to come up with a viable replacement that still protects minorities from mob rule by vote. What would you replace the EC with?

(May 12, 2017 at 10:37 am)Brian37 Wrote: IT IS the gerrymandering, and that was going on since Reagan, one could argue even Nixon. How about instead of bitching fight back, don't sit out any local or state election, motivate everyone to speak out every day, and work to expand our maps, sue in the courts. Here in NC the GOP got bitch slapped for what the district court said was "surgical"

Gerrymandering doesn't affect presidential elections, just congressional ones.

Edit: The 80,000 voters were robbed long before the recounts or the hanging chads or the badly printed butterfly ballots. ChoicePoint made a scrublist of 176,000 voters before the election (http://www.gregpalast.com/floridas-flawe...-the-year/), most of whom were perfectly eligible to vote. If I'm wrong about the number of illegally disenfranchised US citizens in 2000, it's because I've lowballed the number.

(May 12, 2017 at 10:47 am)Tazzycorn Wrote:

(May 12, 2017 at 10:37 am)Brian37 Wrote: IT IS the gerrymandering, and that was going on since Reagan, one could argue even Nixon. How about instead of bitching fight back, don't sit out any local or state election, motivate everyone to speak out every day, and work to expand our maps, sue in the courts. Here in NC the GOP got bitch slapped for what the district court said was "surgical"

Gerrymandering doesn't affect presidential elections, just congressional ones.

Yes it does, not directly  if you want to argue that, but it still does because it sets the political tone and marketing long term. 

Reagan was not a House Rep or a Senator, he was a President, but because of the collective district marketing those state and congressional leaders helped him win, and after he won he used his office to bust unions and start the age of deregulation and that bleeds into the state and local level regardless. 

It is connected regardless. Just like our global economy is connected and we have no choice but to interact. 

It is not impossible for a city council member to promote a President, it is not impossible for a town Mayor to promote a president. It is why every President Election you see BOTH parties traveling to all sects of society, rural, suburban and urban to be seen with local and state officials.

A more even district map would motivate more to participate at every level. 

But again, if you want to claim the EC sucks, none of what you argued here is offering a replacement, all you are doing is criticizing what we have now. 

YOU "The EC SUCKS"

Me, "Ok, fine, what would you move to, what would you offer as a replacement, that STILL protected minorities from mob rule by vote". Whatever you come up with still has to contain anti monopoly concepts, even when it comes to the voter.

Saudi Arabia and Iran have elections too, despite what you might think. Those countries are what mob rule by vote look like. 

So again, if not the EC, what? Offer me something.

Speaking as a Canadian

We don't have an EC (in fact the idea just seems silly) are you suggesting Canada is under mob rule ?

(May 12, 2017 at 8:57 am)mh.brewer Wrote: I think the most disturbing thing to come out of this may be that Trump requested a personal "loyalty pledge" from Comey.

Hitler was big on personal loyalty oaths, too.

(May 12, 2017 at 2:18 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

(May 12, 2017 at 8:57 am)mh.brewer Wrote: I think the most disturbing thing to come out of this may be that Trump requested a personal "loyalty pledge" from Comey.

Hitler was big on personal loyalty oaths, too.

And that's the disturbing part.

(May 12, 2017 at 2:09 pm)Orochi Wrote: Speaking as a Canadian

We don't have an EC (in fact the idea just seems silly) are you suggesting Canada is under mob rule ?

No, but again, Canada has constitutional recourses if a minority feels the majority is stepping on their rights don't they? Now again, if you think your system is better, that's fine, all I am looking for is a replacement if anyone is offering one up. 

My point is, even when people call for revolutions, you don't simply topple a government, you have to think about what will rise out of it, not simply do it. If we are to change our system and remove the EC without a revolution you still have to have a model to replace it with.

Brian, I don't think you really want a Constitutional Convention and that's probably required to make that kind of fundamental change - and who knows how that will go?

However, I'm otherwise with you. This country's systemn is archaic and Parliamentary systems are more representative of the will of the people, I think.

(May 12, 2017 at 4:08 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(May 12, 2017 at 2:09 pm)Orochi Wrote: Speaking as a Canadian

We don't have an EC (in fact the idea just seems silly) are you suggesting Canada is under mob rule ?

No, but again, Canada has constitutional recourses if a minority feels the majority is stepping on their rights don't they? Now again, if you think your system is better, that's fine, all I am looking for is a replacement if anyone is offering one up. 

My point is, even when people call for revolutions, you don't simply topple a government, you have to think about what will rise out of it, not simply do it. If we are to change our system and remove the EC without a revolution you still have to have a model to replace it with.

I'm curious by your meaning of the word majority and minority?

---

Quote:representative of the will of the people,

I definitely agree with this

(but of course I have a bias)