Someone with a wry sense of humor needs to write a satire about this election. I've voted in 51 consecutive general elections. This is the first time I walked out of the polling place feeling like I soiled myself!
Someone with a wry sense of humor needs to write a satire about this election. I've voted in 51 consecutive general elections. This is the first time I walked out of the polling place feeling like I soiled myself!
This is the first time I walked out of the polling place feeling like I soiled myself!
I didn't feel like I'd soiled myself, as much as the politicians took a dump on ME! Neither one spoke about positions at all. At least one had a few established positions, but she decided to avoid discussing them in favor of attacking her opponent temperament.
Considering how many of the media and talking heads predicted a Clinton landslide and the Trump win, along with Clinton closing down her victory party HQ without appearing there, anyone has a lot of material to write a good story. You can also bet Clinton will be wanting a recount in a lot of states.
This is the first time I walked out of the polling place feeling like I soiled myself!
I voted third party, as did about another 4 or 5% of the electorate from the looks of it, since neither major candidate managed to break 48% of the popular vote this morning. I am mildly amused that Trump is currently showing as another Electoral President, but with not every precinct reporting, that may change back to a Trump Plurality before it settles out.
What is interesting is the Clinton supporters are already starting mini-riots, protests, and calling for active hate campaigns. While others are going on how Clinton got more total votes than Trump, yet that's due to a heavy support for Clinton in a just a few populous states.
Last night some of the media talking heads were asking how Trump will pull the country together after such a divisive campaign, yet it looks like the Clinton supporters are more set on ripping the country further apart because they won't accept Hillary didn't win.
What is interesting is the Clinton supporters are already starting mini-riots, protests, and calling for active hate campaigns. While others are going on how Clinton got more total votes than Trump, yet that's due to a heavy support for Clinton in a just a few populous states.
Clearly you are confused. Get up to date on your political rhetoric.
Rioting, violent protests, violent acts in general, and hate campaigns are all the tools of the political "right wing."
The "left wing" is much too sophisticated and enlightened to even think of performing such acts. So clearly such reports must be false flag operations on the part of Right Wingers. :P
Clearly you are confused. Get up to date on your political rhetoric.
Just in case people don't see you're joking, here's a few news links:
https://gma.yahoo.com/protests-erupt-following-donald-trumps-presidential-projection-111321294--abc-news-topstories.html#
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2016/11/09/many-hollywood-stars-devastated-over-hillary-clinton-loss.html
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/09/501393501/shades-of-2000-clinton-surpasses-trump-in-popular-vote-tally
http://mashable.com/2016/11/09/hillary-clinton-loses-to-donald-trump/#WbDw5.qEUqqQ
(I like how they imply all the women voted for Hillary but she still lost, while denying some of the truths that came out.)
The thing I'm seeing however is that one of my other predictions of the "Winning Candidate" not breaking 48% of the popular vote holds true for both the popular vote leader, and the electoral vote leader. Which then means you need to look at where the other voters went to try to discern their sentiments.
The margin between Clinton and Trump is holding steady between them at around a 200,000 votes right now.
The Libertarian Candidate netted over 4 million votes by the current count.
McMullin(also politically "right wing") netted about 400,000 votes
Stein, who evidently is the Green Party Candidate nets another 1.1 Million voters. So in a "right vs left" mashup, we get +1.3 Million for "the Left" above the vote Trump received. While the other two "right wing" candidates bring another 4.4 Million voters to the table. Which means "the right" fielded about 3.1 Million more voters this time around than "the left" did, by the present tally at least.
So anyone spouting off about Hillary being the "president by popular vote" needs to be very careful. (at the writing of this post, I see a reported 59,462,302 votes for Hillary counted so far. By Comparison, John McCain in 2008 had 59,948,323 votes cast for him. Hillary and Trump both beat Kerry's vote tally from 2004, and are well beyond either candidate in 2000. Romney picked up 60.9 Million votes in 2012, so even he beats either candidate in this cycle by current tallies.)
For comparison to 2000:
543,895 more people voted for Gore over Bush.
Another 2,882,955 voted for the Green party candidate putting "the left" at +3.4 million
The Reform and Libertarian parties netted about 850,000 votes between them, counting them as part of "the right" we can knock that 3.4 million down to +2.75 Million in favor of "the left"
Two other parties netted an additional 98K and almost 84K respectively, but that's not enough to matter much in light of the several million vote lead. So yes, in 2000, "the left" had every right to be upset over the Electoral College "giving" the election to Bush. Popular will/sentiment, as expressed at the ballot box, clearly showed they did NOT want a "right wing" candidate.
This year however? Sentiment is against the Democrats and the left in general. So bitching about the electoral college isn't going to the do them any favors this time.
So bitching about the electoral college isn't going to the do them any favors this time.
But that won't stop them bitching!
But that won't stop them bitching!
For that matter, even a victory for Hillary wouldn't have stopped most of them from bitching.
Roflmfao... tools of the Right Wing...That's rich...
Liberalism is a Serious Mental Disease... not Sophisticated
I tend to agree , voting for 1 criminal over another Criminal..
All Career Politicians are Career Criminals....
Not Only do I Support Strict Term Limits, I also support YEARS in Federal Govt Limits...
No one should be able to spend 25 , 30, or even 40 years in Govt ...period....
Yeah.
My wife and I decided to nickname our bathroom scale Donald Trump for no matter what it says, it lies. :)
... no matter what it says, it lies. :)
Should have just named it 'politician' because they all lie.
No one should be able to spend 25 , 30, or even 40 years in Govt ...period....
Nobody should be able to spend more than 8 years in office. And they should not be able to make several times their salary while in office either. If they are making that much on the side, they aren't doing the job they are supposed to be doing.
Nobody should be able to spend more than 8 years in office.
Sounds like you disagree with having civil service employees spend careers in government service. How about the military, many of them retire after 20 or more years. If officers can only serve 8 years, we will have a lot of very young general officers.
If the electorate is unhappy with a Representative or Senator they can vote him or her out at election time. People tend to dislike congress but support their own district's Representative or State's Senator.
How about the military...
Military personnel are not usually politicians and most officers do not hold a political office.
Military personnel are not usually politicians and most officers do not hold a political office
Military personnel are banned from holding a political office during their careers. They can get in trouble for supporting a political position.
Military personnel are banned from holding a political office during their careers. They can get in trouble for supporting a political position.
Not entirely correct, if you're a reservist, you can get political. More than a couple U.S. Congress critters were/still are in the reserves, and still attend drill/other training exercises.
Military personnel are banned from holding a political office during their careers. They can get in trouble for supporting a political position.
Not true. They are not allowed to participate in any political activity while wearing their uniform nor are they allowed to espouse in any manner that may appear that the military is taking any particular side of a political meeting or demonstration. Before I retired in 1985 the only thing we could do politically while in uniform was vote. At a two different commands it was "suggested" that I change into civvies to vote.
I also recall reading about several servicemen who were told that if they appeared at a political rally in civilian clothes, they would receive either an Article 15 or a court martial.
I also recall reading about several servicemen who were told that if they appeared at a political rally in civilian clothes, they would receive either an Article 15 or a court martial.
See earlier discussions about over zealous prosecutors. The military has them too, their command could try that. But it doesn't mean the soldiers wouldn't be vindicated in the end, although it may take months or years to play out. Something most service members won't consider worth risking.
Capt Zapp
"No one should be able to spend 25 , 30, or even 40 years in Govt ...period...."
Nobody should be able to spend more than 8 years in office. And they should not be able to make several times their salary while in office either. If they are making that much on the side, they aren't doing the job they are supposed to be doing.
The above is what I was referring to. It seemed clear to me the question was spending years in "Govt", not just political office.
In higher ranks, certainly four star Generals, there is a lot of politics involved, not just military politics but making sure your military decisions affecting the nation remain below the level where the Secretary of Defense or the President decide your services can be dispensed with.
Lets consider a lot of procurement issues to buy a particular model of a plane or base closing in a particular state or changing locations of certain large units. Many of these have political consequences. You don't get to be a general officer by ignoring these issues. You probably won't stay one, either.
You don't get to be a general officer by ignoring these issues.
Officers become more political as they rise in rank. Above Colonel the positions are highly political with significant interface with civilians.
Generally speaking, general officers have input to procurement decisions and they are tasked with carrying out the decisions, but they are not the ones that make the decisions.
If the electorate is unhappy with a Representative or Senator they can vote him or her out at election time.
That would assume that there is an unbiased report card that informs the electorate of their Representatives and Senators actions in Congress.
Most of the time the electorate only hears about their elected officials during the reelection, and then it's unsubstantiated claims and counter claims.
Generally, the electorate does not have the time and knowledge about the subject matter to wade through the Congressional Record to extract how their Congressmen voted and what they supported. Very few of them have the desire to do through out the their terms.
No one should be able to spend 25 , 30, or even 40 years in Govt ...period....
But where will they find work? Remember that those than can, do; those that can't, teach; those that can do neither, go into government.
But where will they find work? Remember that those than can, do; those that can't, teach; those that can do neither, go into government.
I might actually support Universal Basic Income if it would keep these leeches under control. It would be a HELL of a lot cheaper than the stuff they vote for themselves!
the Clinton supporters are more set on ripping the country further apart because they won't accept Hillary didn't win.
The same self-styled elite, who feel their votes matter more than everyone else, are trying their damnedest to derail the Brexit process. Unfortunately their number includes the judiciary.
A former Lord Chief Justice says that, whatever their interpretation of the law, the Supreme Court should support the High Court's ruling in order not to make the judiciary appear a laughing stock. So there you have it, our former top judge thinks appearances are more important than actual law!
What next? Obama suspending the election and declaring martial law because the US public can't be convinced to vote for the right candidate? ;)
AJ
Obama suspending the election and declaring martial law because the US public can't be convinced to vote for the right candidate?
Don't give him ideas.
What next? Obama suspending the election and declaring martial law because the US public can't be convinced to vote for the right candidate? ;)
Well, that or "there's evidence of significant voter fraud having occurred" in this election, so the result's can't be trusted and need to be more fully investigated.
Well, that or "there's evidence of significant voter fraud having occurred" in this election, so the result's can't be trusted and need to be more fully investigated.
Obama never once argued about the existence of 'voter fraud', so accusing him of it now is akin to accusing him (after 8 years of never having done anything) of planning to revoke everyone's 2nd Amendment rights.
Obama never once argued about the existence of 'voter fraud', so accusing him of it now is akin to accusing him (after 8 years of never having done anything) of planning to revoke everyone's 2nd Amendment rights.
I think this comment you're responding to and the original one it responded to are jokes, but I could be wrong.
bb
A former Lord Chief Justice says that, whatever their interpretation of the law, the Supreme Court should support the High Court's ruling in order not to make the judiciary appear a laughing stock. So there you have it, our former top judge thinks appearances are more important than actual law!
The legal argument, for the most recent Brexit decision, is that the Parliament can't surrender their responsibilities when faced with difficult decisions, and need to pass the necessary laws rather than foisting them off on a referendum so no one can criticize them for voting for or against the law. It's not an attempt to circumvent leaving EU.
Likewise, the reports of 'protests' in the U.S. have nothing to do with 'rioting in the streets', instead they're protests by the segments of the population that Trump specifically targetted, such as legal Muslim citizens, blacks--whom he's declared have 'nothing to lose' (presumably because their lives aren't worth shit at the moment), the LGBT community who are anticipating new anti-gay laws, or even women who are facing the prospect of a repeal of the Woe vs. Wade decision.
Despite what you think of those positions, there's nothing that says it's against the law to protest a move by the government against your own best interests.
Most of all, I think it's time for everyone to take a deep breath, figure out exactly what happened (i.e. why no one understood what the American public was thinking), and figure out how to proceed.
At the moment, the 'liberal elites' biggest worry is that Trump has repeatedly expressed frustration with the American rule of law, threatening to overturn multiple tenants of American law. So {we) are waiting to see whether he'll act any differently in the White House than he did on the campaign trail.
Likewise, the reports of 'protests' in the U.S. have nothing to do with 'rioting in the streets',
Not being on hand, I have to go with the media reports of:
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/liberal-riots-trump-destroys-hillary-clinton/
https://gma.yahoo.com/protests-erupt-following-donald-trumps-presidential-projection-111321294--abc-news-topstories.html#
Not being on hand, I have to go with the media reports of:
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/liberal-riots-trump-destroys-hillary-clinton/
Ernest, you'd do better to read mainstream U.S. press rather than alt-right crap. From the link you gave I can't figure out whether it's a parody like "Celebrity Jihad" or actual alt-right drivel.
In Oakland there was a small group of vandals that did the usual minor-league violence, and---separately---a much larger group (the one pictured on the page you linked, in fact), that conducted a peaceful protest.
In case of doubt, use Google's search function to find mainstream use of an image you find on a fringe or parody Web site.
bb
EDIT: What I said applies whether one loves or hates Hillary or The Donald, BTW. Why waste your time with garbage when there's so much good stuff out there?
In case of doubt, use Google's search function to find mainstream use of an image you find on a fringe or parody Web site.
I did use Google, and that's how I found it. First I found the Yahoo site and another mainstream site report I can find again. It was only in response to the claim there was no rioting at all got me doing another search and finding that link as well. But on election night there were other sites reporting minor riots in parts of California when the news of Trump's win was announced.
The saddest part of this election was who do you choose - The Devil or the Deep Blue Sea, most of the USA voters avoided the Devil, but the Devil's supporters are now mega upset. The only decent candidates were killed very early in the Primaries, or in prior races.
The only decent candidates were killed very early in the Primaries, or in prior races
I would agree, but even they weren't great candidates.
The only decent candidates were killed very early in the Primaries,
There are many, include myself, who subscribe to the belief that there weren't any decent candidates in any party, let alone the major ones..
If, you believe anything that the Mainstream Propaganda Outlets put out.. your A Idiot
CNN MSNBC CNBC abc nbc cbs NY Times are nothing but Left wing Garbage ..none of their so called News is worthy of being used Toilet Paper
They are exactly the same as Pre war Nazi press
If, you believe anything that the Mainstream Propaganda Outlets put out.. your A Idiot
Suggest "you're an Idiot." Your is one of the homonyms for the contraction of you are. Normally "an" is used when a is describing a word that begins with a vowel. Or sometimes a vowel sound, for example "hotel" sounds like "O tel", at least when some people say it. Perhaps people would like to discuss if writers should write "a hotel" or "an hotel." May depend on how strongly the H is aspirated. A Ho tel, an o tel.
On another subject, hormones, you make a whore moan when you tell you don't have any money for her. Note it is a whore not an whore.
It's not an attempt to circumvent leaving EU.
It certainly looks that way. MPs voted 6-1 for the referendum and the ballot claimed it would be binding.
Applying judicial reviews from the Blair era, it would be legal for the govt to declare war on the EU, and send troops to invade it, without recourse to parliament. But then Blair and the judiciary have left-wing inclinations.
AJ
Most of all, I think it's time for everyone to take a deep breath, figure out exactly what happened (i.e. why no one understood what the American public was thinking), and figure out how to proceed.
You are right about taking a break. As to what happened, about half of the people in the US are idiots for they ignored Trump's history and voted for him as their "Hail Mary Candidate" in the hope that he will do what our "Professional Politicians" refuse to do. During 2017, we will see what we got. I suspect it will not be what the Trump supporters wanted.
A lot of acquaintances are like me, heaving a heavy sigh of relief at the results. Not so much aimed at who won but at who lost. The results reflect more an Anti-Clinton sentiment than a Pro-Trump. IMHO.
That said, the intervening four years (or eight if Trump lives long enough) are going to be interesting to say the least.
What borders on insanity?
Canada!
Canada had to shut down its web site that explained the procedures for emigrating to Canada. I imagine a lot of people were contemplating such a move.
Who knows it could be the emergence of rlfj's "Carling Parker Buckman.
Now that I have the joke out of my system. If Trump does pivot center, and I suspect he will. (Which will earn him even more hate) I strongly suspect he could pretty much do exactly that. Hopefully he gets advisers that set him straight on some things before he creates a disaster.
But on most other fronts, he has every potential to do as much, and possibly more, than Romney would have been likely to do. Actually, it probably wouldn't be too bad of a deal if those two could reconcile and work together on some of this... But I doubt Romney will take a Cabinet Post to a President who couldn't even get as many votes as he did in his own failed election bid.
Hopefully he gets advisers that set him straight on some things before he creates a disaster.
If I recall correctly, there is nothing requiring the President to have a cabinet. From a practical POV, it is almost impossible to do the job without one.
Hypothetically, Trump being the egotistical idiot that he is, might try to do the job himself without a cabinet approved by Congress. He could have a group of advisers who work for him as volunteers. They would have no official standing, but he might be able to use his Presidential powers to appoint them as temporary heads of various Government Departments.
I think it boils down to the fact everyone tried to choose who could be trusted. And neither side had a huge advantage in that regardless of the statements by both sides. The lack of trust for both candidates had to be a huge factor. I just wonder how much it really affected the total vote counts. I for one didn't have much trust in any of the candidates and definitely felt less trust for Hillary, she seemed to be extremely eager to always blame someone else for problems while taking all the credit for successes.
Someone with a wry sense of humor needs to write a satire about this election.
I'm about 20K words into my NaNoWriMo effort, and I think there's room for an unnamed U.S. presidential candidate with an odd hairstyle* to come to the country where the story is set and meet up with the country's most famous dish: the Giant Taco of Death. (EDIT: The Borgias had nothing on these guys, believe me.)
EDIT: *Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, is a coincidence, of course. Of course.
bb
There are a total of 538 electoral votes the announcement and map of trumps win only shows a total of 507 votes where are the rest? the lite colored states are NOT counted in the totals for either candidate. The popular vote in those states is also not counted to the candidates who won those states.
total of 507 votes where are the rest
They haven't been declared yet, the light coloured states are not yet clearly decided and declared, so they aren't counted.
Click on the states all are showing a 100% of votes counted. Why are they not declared.
Click on the states all are showing a 100% of votes counted. Why are they not declared.
Because they are very close, and a number of states have laws requiring automatic recounts if the margin is below a certain level.
The only states still colored as uncertain are Arizona, Michigan and New Hampshire. The first two went to Trump, the latter one went to Clinton. Trump will end up with 306 electoral votes by my count.
As to why the map remains updated, it's hard to say as that's also the case at conservative pages so the sour grapes argument loses a little steam.
Probably the guys who update the map, who stayed up for hours and hours after the election, went home and to bed. Its not like their failure to turn some states red and one blue will change the election results.
Some are saying there are compelling similarities between Brexit and PE Trump.
On the surface, that is true, but to me the most compelling similarity is that both systems have non-compulsory voting.
Does non-compulsory voting occasionally encourage the complete overturning of wisdoms when a large sector of those entitled to vote, who have not been voting through disenchantment or disinterest, finally get angry enough or baited enough to vote in droves when someone finally says what they want to hear?
Seems that is what happened in Brexit. Maybe that explains PE Trump too.
Does non-compulsory voting occasionally encourage the complete overturning of wisdoms when a large sector of those entitled to vote, who have not been voting through disenchantment or disinterest, finally get angry enough or baited enough to vote in droves when someone finally says what they want to hear?
Probably. But we have a Founding Father maxim over here about periodic revolution being a good thing. :)
IIRC, the magic number was somewhere around 20 years for that maxim too. Considering this is being somewhat compared to Reagan, we were about 16 years overdue. Unless you consider Obama to have been a revolution too, and this is the counter-revolution.
Probably. But we have a Founding Father maxim over here about periodic revolution being a good thing. :)
IIRC, the magic number was somewhere around 20 years for that maxim too. Considering this is being somewhat compared to Reagan, we were about 16 years overdue. Unless you consider Obama to have been a revolution too, and this is the counter-revolution.
Sorry, but no electoral swing can qualify.
The maxim is:
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure
Thomas Jefferson
I have never heard of anyone ascribing a specific time frame to it.
I have never heard of anyone ascribing a specific time frame to it.
It is in the rest of his letter to William Smith:
"Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
I am not sure the ignorant taking arms is such a good idea. WAIT! No - that would be a comparison too far …
I too started writing a new story starting a couple of weeks ago but I have had to shelve it because no matter which way I turn the overall ark of the story, it starts leaning towards political assassinations and I did not want jackbooted thugs waking me in the middle of the night asking me about some story I wrote for SOL.
Because I would then feel the need to defend it and giving the thugs all the more reason to send my ass to the newly-expanded ocean-side resort in Cuba.
I burn too easily. And if I didn't fight for what I published... I'd still burn too easily.
I think I need to put to put it away for a few months and come back to it until I can figure out a way too smear some vaseline on the camera lens, thus blurring what I really want to say.
I did want jackbooted thugs waking me in the middle of the night asking me about some story I wrote for SOL.
That's OK, you're safe, Clinton lost, so the Clinton version of the Komitet Gosudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti (KGB) won't be calling on you.
That's OK, you're safe, Clinton lost, so the Clinton version of the Komitet Gosudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti (KGB) won't be calling on you.
But Trump's would.
Many celebrities in the US threatened to move to Canada if Trump won the election. Here is one Canadian article regarding the threat. Somewhat humorous and maybe a little tongue-in-cheek. The comment section is hilarious.
http://heatst.com/politics/canadians-dont-want-america-fleeing-american-liberals-especially-lena-dunham/
Many celebrities in the US threatened to move to Canada if Trump won the election.
People are all the same.
The "group mentality" panicks. Then it recovers.
The "group mentality" screams doom and gloom. Then reality shows they were not totally correct. Many of my friends and acquaintances believed the stock market would crash because Trump was elected. The DOW, Nasdaq, and S&P indexes indicate the market wasn't affected like they thought it would be. Of course, that may change once he has been sworn into office.
The DOW, Nasdaq, and S&P indexes indicate the market wasn't affected like they thought it would be.
That's because the market watchers observed what happened after Brexit, where the market tanked, and then nothing much happened for months, the markets returned to normal and still, nothing untoward has happened to the economy. In short, nothing will happen to the economy until something goes wrong (rather than something hypothetically going wrong).
That's because the market watchers observed what happened after Brexit, where the market tanked, and then nothing much happened for months, the markets returned to normal and still, nothing untoward has happened to the economy.
The GoldmanSachsters tried to sabotage both the stock market and the value of sterling to punish the little people for daring to disobey their voting instructions.
The stock market recovered almost immediately, soon scaling new heights. However, aided by fifth columnist Mark Carney, who cut interest rates and launched a new tranche of quantitative easing, the hit to sterling is lasting longer. Since it's fundamentally a stronger currency than the Euro, with the UK economy, banking system and employment figures far better than the EU, it's clearly the consequence of currency manipulation. Carney is under significant pressure to raise interest rates to curb the inflation and excess money supply that he himself helped to cause.
AJ
I wonder if it is possible that there were enough undecided voters going into the polling stations that the election was actually decided by the equivalent of coin tosses in the voting booths.
That would not surprise me. I had a hard time (and still do) choosing between them, went the third party route instead. Even the that route wasn't a great option just a lesser evil (I think).
Oh well now to see over the next 4-8 years how much damage will be done, since I sure have little expectations of any good results.
Trump and Putin (a former KGB officer) are friendly, at least for some values of friendship, and it seems more likely that his aid to Trump might include advice on establishing a KGB here. We could even use the initials, the Russians changed the name. However the "professional" politicians will probably use a more friendly name, the same way Homeland Security is the name of the paramilitary organizations that took over a number of functions after 9/11/2001. I doubt anyone voted for having to take off their shoes in public in order to fly somewhere.
Homeland Security is the name of the paramilitary organizations that took over a number of functions after 9/11/2001.
DHS as is an umbrella that put a number of safety and security agencies, which were spread out over a number of different cabinet departments, under common cabinet level management. All of those agencies existed before DHS was created(2003) and all but one existed before 9/11/2001.
The only agency under the DHS umbrella created after 9/11/2001 is the Transportation Security Administration, TSA was created 11/19/2001.
The only agency under the DHS umbrella created after 9/11/2001 is the Transportation Security Administration, TSA was created 11/19/2001.
You forgot the NMDSA, or the No More Damn Shoes Administration. :D
You forgot the NMDSA, or the No More Damn Shoes Administration. :D
No, that's the TSA(Total Sadistic Assholes*)
*Truth in advertising adjustment :)
True.
As I recall the story, it was an enlisted man and it was his CO warning him away from a political event. I seem to recall the event was a college demonstration regarding a political stance of some politician.
As I recall the story, it was an enlisted man and it was his CO warning him away from a political event. I seem to recall the event was a college demonstration regarding a political stance of some politician.
Of course, if the protest was over Don't Ask, Don't Tell, or some other gay rights rally. There may have been other reasons for the warning they received, and it wasn't about the event itself so much, but the subject matter.... And the chain of command having reason to suspect they were part of "that group."
Someone I was talking to in the USA the other day was bitching about the US Presidential election and how so few voted. From the way they bitched about who won I guessed they supported the loser. However, I didn't make a comment in support of either side, and simply said, "Every person in the USA that was entitled to vote in the election voted in one way or another."
The person was instantly angry and went on about how many didn't vote, until I simply pointed out people voted in two major ways, and she just had to accept the outcome. I said, "They either didn't care who won for some reason, probably couldn't see a difference between the parties, or didn't give a damn which thief got in the White House to lie to them for the next four years. Thus they voted with their feet by not going to a voting booth. That was the first method of voting, and the second was to go to the voting booth to complete a ballot paper. Thus everyone voted in one way or another." She was upset about the idea some people didn't care enough to go and cast a ballot, even if all they did was write abusive words on the paper.
Someone I was talking to in the USA the other day was bitching about the US Presidential election and how so few voted.
So many people just have no perspective. Modern voter turn out numbers just aren't that bad.
All the way back in the first presidential election our nation ever held, even with the franchise limited to male landowners, voter turn out was only 10% of eligible voters.
While there are some fluctuations in turn out from one election to the next, in general, voter turn out is better now than it ever has been in the past.
ETA:
If they really want to boost voter turn out, put NOTA (none of the above) on the ballot and change the election rules so that if NOTA gets the most votes, the election has to be re-held and no candidate that lost to NOTA is allowed to run in the new election.
That will give all those people who don't like any of the candidates a reason to go vote.
If they really want to hit 100% turn out, any candidate who loses to NOTA should be permanently barred from ever running for any elected office at any level.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
I think part of the problem is in the fact that popular vote doesn't count really for the presidential office. Instead people are selected according to the state's policy on it to go and cast the vote for the state. Those voters can choose to vote for someone entirely different and its LEGAL with no penalties for doing so. Gives the impression to the citizen their choice doesn't really count after all.
When your vote doesn't really count, why vote?
Those voters can choose to vote for someone entirely different and its LEGAL with no penalties for doing so.
Not true in every state. Many states have "faithless elector laws" on the books, they'd get jail time for several years if they breach that mandate. But yeah, there are other states(like mine) that don't have those laws.
Those voters can choose to vote for someone entirely different and its LEGAL with no penalties for doing so.
Not entirely true.
It's true that the constitution doesn't impose any penalties on faithless electors. However, a number of states have criminal penalties in place for faithless electors.
While there have been more than a few faithless electors throughout the history of the US, there have never been enough in any one election to change the outcome.
This time around, it would take almost 40 faithless electors to affect the outcome, and that assumes no defections against Clinton.
Also, given that electors are selected from dues paying party members,even if there are faithless electors against trump, it's unlikely that those faithless electors would vote for Clinton.
A more likely scenario would be that they vote for a different Republican. If their were enough of them, that would create a scenario where there is no majority winner from the electoral college throwing the election to Congress.
Keep in mind that the electors do not gather all in one place to vote, each state's electors gather in that state to vote. Each states tally is then sent to Congress to be tallied by the House of Representatives.
There is no opportunity for faithless electors from different states to confer with each other.
The only single state with enough electors to swing this election by itself is California, but California went to Hillary.
So at least two States won by Trump would have to have their electors vote for Hillary to change the outcome.
There is no opportunity for faithless electors from different states to confer with each other.
Well, modern technology changes the game a fair bit. But otherwise you're right, the Electoral College never convenes in a single location, but instead meet at their respective State capitals. So there never is a chance for a face to face legally mandated meeting to occur for wilder conspiracies to occur.
Although there are liberal/left-wing groups that are going for Elector Intimidation in Trump states that don't have faithless elector laws. Will be interesting to see what's done about that come January 20th.
The electors can technically vote for anyone(when not prohibited by state law). If they fail to cast a majority vote, then Congress decides, but Congress can only choose from the list of persons an Elector voted for.
So even if Trump had enough electors abstain to fail to reach a majority(but no "write ins" happened), it remains Trump vs Clinton with the House of Representatives deciding the outcome. As the Republicans control the House, it's a safe bet Trump would still win election.
Although it would then be used as additional talking point for Democrats as to why Trump "is an illegitimate President" as the scenario then has him losing the popular vote, losing the EC, and only winning "because Congress put him in office."
If they fail to cast a majority vote, then Congress decides, but Congress can only choose from the list of persons an Elector voted for.
Actually, if more than 4 candidates receive an electoral college vote, congress is limited to choosing from the top three.
So even if Trump had enough electors abstain to fail to reach a majority(but no "write ins" happened), it remains Trump vs Clinton with the House of Representatives deciding the outcome. As the Republicans control the House, it's a safe bet Trump would still win election.
And the electors know this, that outright abstentions are pointless, so I wouldn't expect any. Rather, any faithless Trump electors will likely vote for one of the other Republican primary candidates or Gary Johnson(Libertarian).
In any case, the Trump electors are all active dedicated Republicans. The odds of getting any significant number of them to vote for Hillary is basically zero.
In my opinion, the efforts to lobby the electoral college is more likely to backfire than succeed.
There is no plausible scenario under which Hillary becomes president.
The recount efforts aren't going anywhere either.
Each states slate of electors must be certified by Dec 13th, only nine days from now, so the electors can vote on Dec 20th. These are hard deadlines set in the Constitution itself, so no court will/can order delays even if they could come up with incontrovertible proof of large scale election fraud.
Best case (for the Democrats), they could get a few states to not have an electoral college vote, creating a no majority scenario and throwing the election to the House. As you have already stated, that scenario doesn't end well for the Democrats.
Each states slate of electors must be certified by Dec 13th, only nine days from now, so the electors can vote on Dec 20th. These are hard deadlines set in the Constitution itself, so no court will/can order delays even if they could come up with incontrovertible proof of large scale election fraud.
Best case (for the Democrats), they could get a few states to not have an electoral college vote, creating a no majority scenario and throwing the election to the House. As you have already stated, that scenario doesn't end well for the Democrats.
IF a state failed to certify electors by December 13th, there were multiple levels of fail.
The Electoral College composition is "directed by the states" so if the state decides, for whatever reason, that the popular vote result "is unreliable" the state legislature can intervene in many, if not most cases, and simply assign the electoral votes themselves(hasn't happened since the 19th Century, although it almost happened in 2000, before the SCotUS ruled in favor of Bush--the Florida Legislature would have given the electoral votes to Bush as well).
Although that might have opened things up to the Democrats launching a partially successful challenge on the Electoral College votes from Florida.(They did try it anyway, but both houses rejected the challenges, and then they tried again in 2004) I say partially because the Republicans controlled the House in 2000, while the Democrats held the Senate. They would have needed both Houses to agree in order to invalidate the EC votes from Florida. In which case, the Presidency would have defaulted to Al Gore.
The Democrats in Congress may try to invalidate some more electoral votes before they're counted by Congress(as they did in 2000 and 2004), but as the Republicans control both Houses, it's unlikely the effort will get anywhere.
IF a state failed to certify electors by December 13th, there were multiple levels of fail.
I'm not talking about a process failure, but a legal challenge to the vote count.
The Green party is trying to get a federal court to order a recount in Pennsylvania. A court ordered recount, especially at this late date, without an injunction baring the state from certifying a slate of electors before the recount is complete would be pointless.
They are trying to get state courts to mandate recounts in several other states.
Wisconsin has agreed to hold a recount if the Green Party pays for it upfront. Last I checked, they haven't put up the money yet.
Correction: The Wisconsin recount is under way. 48 counties have completed the recount with 23 to go. So far Trump has a net gain.
Correction: The Wisconsin recount is under way. 48 counties have completed the recount with 23 to go. So far Trump has a net gain.
bet that makes them unhappy
The Green party is trying to get a federal court to order a recount in Pennsylvania. A court ordered recount, especially at this late date, without an injunction baring the state from certifying a slate of electors before the recount is complete would be pointless.
And if that were to happen (i.e. the injunction), I, as a state legislature, submit my electoral vote anyway (by legislative act, if necessary). That would create, potentially, competing slates of electors and then it is Congress that decides which slate to accept.
There doesn't seem to be a winning scenario here. If the goal is to discredit a Trump presidency, I think they're spending money on a fool's errand. Either Trump will discredit himself or they will have further damaged their own cause if he's successful.
Sure, forcing the issue to the House throws a cloud over the election and gives them fodder for 2020, but I don't think it'll help. 3/4 of the states are required to amend the Constitution and they'll never get that (even if they got the 2/3 of the House and Senate).
There doesn't seem to be a winning scenario here
I agree.
If the goal is to discredit a Trump presidency, I think they're spending money on a fool's errand.
Personally, I think the end goal is to discredit the electoral college, not Trump
Sure, forcing the issue to the House throws a cloud over the election and gives them fodder for 2020, but I don't think it'll help. 3/4 of the states are required to amend the Constitution and they'll never get that (even if they got the 2/3 of the House and Senate).
2020 is out for a constitutional amendment anyway, the process takes at least 10 years.
The Democrats have long imagined that certain demographic trends would give them permanent majorities. They lost this year in part because they imagined that they were already there. The only thing 2016 has convinced them of is that they aren't there yet.
2020 is out for a constitutional amendment anyway, the process takes at least 10 years.
Not always, IIRC, some amendments went from congressionally approved to ratified in under three years. And most new amendments invalidate themselves if not ratified within 7 years.
Not always, IIRC, some amendments went from congressionally approved to ratified in under three Yeats.
The 10 years counts the time it takes to go from having the bill introduced to getting congressional approval.
P.S.
How long is a yeat?
How long is a yeat?
varies with the length of the lines , the number of lines per stanza, and the number of stanza - check any English poetry book on Yeats for the average answer.
How long is a yeat?
Probably like one of my mistakes. Hit the wrong key then the post button before spotting the errors. Sometimes i leave them others I decide to edit my post, usually someone has spotted my mistakes before I can fix them anyway. I would say that was meant to be "years" instead of "yeats".
How long is a yeat?
Autocomplete on my Kindle. Not even sure what a yeat is, but evidently it needed to be capitalized too. I noticed the capitalization, but didn't looks at the spelling that went with it, since the second time I used "year" came out right. (the error was I was "years" the first time, and "year" the second. Weird all the same. Edited o fix the typo. :)
Autocomplete on my Kindle. Not even sure what a yeat is, but evidently it needed to be capitalized too.
Probably William Butler Yeats, a famous poet who lived 1865-1939.
Personally, I think the end goal is to discredit the electoral college, not Trump
Another possibility is a move to federalize national elections, i.e. President/Vice President. Along with that comes a bureaucracy to regulate it. Said bureaucracy eventually deciding who can run and who can't.
I'm a paranoid SOB if nothing else. But I think this is definitely in back of the Progressive's mind. Assuming one exists, that is.
Another possibility is a move to federalize national elections
It's the same thing. A constitutional amendment to eliminate the electoral college would be a prerequisite to federalizing national elections.
The constitution leaves it to the state legislatures to decide how to select their electors.
Technically, there is no requirement that the states even hold a presidential elections, they could have the sate legislature or the governor simply appoint the electors and that would still be constitutional.
It's the same thing. A constitutional amendment to eliminate the electoral college would be a prerequisite to federalizing national elections.
In that case, it will never happen as it requires 38 state legislatures to agree to give up their state power. The only way that has any hopes of happening is at the point of a gun. In which case, it won't matter.
A far more likely occurrence is an Article V convention to rein in the Federal government. That would be interesting as it's never happened before.
A far more likely occurrence is an Article V convention to rein in the Federal government. That would be interesting as it's never happened before.
That particular effort(which isn't far from the threshold) is also being particularly scrupulous about implementing language into the respective state laws to restrict what their delegates to such a convention can undertake while there.
As the Electoral College isn't on their menu, unless a clear majority of those delegates were willing to serve some serious jail time to propose such a change to the EC, it isn't happening.
That abolishing said college would also decrease the power most of those same states have within the EC, it's highly unlikely any proposal would go far there as well. Better odds of getting Congress to propose it, but very low odds of getting 38 states to ratify.
The work-around that some are trying, with that inter-state compact might succeed at some point at getting a majority of the EC under its control.
But I also somewhat suspect that particular inter-state compact would only last a single election cycle. As soon as a given state had their EC votes go to a candidate their citizens didn't vote for, they're going to be out of that compact before the next election happens.
Possibly, their citizens would be pissed off enough that the Legislature would intervene before December 13th and insert itself into the delegate selection process. Which isn't to mention the potential challenges under the 14th Amendment. ;)
The work-around that some are trying, with that inter-state compact might succeed at some point at getting a majority of the EC under its control.
There is some serious debate around the notion that Congress would have to approve such an 'interstate compact' under Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the US Constitution. It's my opinion that it would be necessary, as it directly affects non-participating states and the US government.
It's my opinion that it would be necessary, as it directly affects non-participating states and the US government.
Ditto.
It's my opinion that it would be necessary, as it directly affects non-participating states and the US government.
I'm largely indifferent to it, and how much it impacts a non-compact member is arguable. They're still part of the National Popular Vote which is what that particular compact keys itself to. Rather than the popular vote within the compact itself, in which case I'd agree, it would probably need US Congressional approval.
Another possibility is a move to federalize national elections, i.e. President/Vice President. Along with that comes a bureaucracy to regulate it. Said bureaucracy eventually deciding who can run and who can't.
They've "federalized" the national elections a few times, including with the Constitution itself.
The US House of Representatives selection process has always been "federal elections" although the states administer, and initially determined voter qualifications.
The 14th Amendment further federalized the electoral process, even at the state level.
But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
The "fun" thing on this also calls into question whether or not the state legislatures can still directly appoint electors after the 14th Amendment. It HAS happened since the 14th was ratified, but the states that did so had extenuating circumstances(such as Nevada becoming a state just days before a Presidential Election, so they had no time to put the candidates on the ballot).
Of course, by a strict interpretation of that amendment, that means ALL judges serving in a State or Municipal court MUST be elected. Obviously, that isn't how they've been interpreting the amendment(so far).
Also of note on this: Under the 14th, it was still technically legal for a state to give minors of any age the right to vote. They just said the state had no choice about male citizens over the age of 21.
The 15th Amendment further extended the Federal input on election processes. (States couldn't disqualify based solely on race, color, etc)
The 17th took away the State's ability "to direct" the selection process for Senators. Some had been directly elected for decades by then(others had the Legislature submitting an "approved list" for voters to pick from), but most were selected by their state legislature directly.
The 19th gave women the right to vote. By federal mandate, they already were voting in many states before then.
The 24th Amendment revoked the "right" of states to revoke people's right to vote by failing to be able to pay a poll tax or any other kind of tax.
The 26th defined 18 as the voting age for the entire nation. (This amendment had the quickest ratification process to date: 3 months and 8 days) I guess if you read it cross-eyed, it's actually still possible for a state to grant 16 Year Olds, or even younger persons the right to vote.
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
So nothing stopping a state from letting a 17YO vote, or a 6YO for that matter. They're only required to allow anyone aged 18 or older to vote.
When your vote doesn't really count, why vote?
All votes count. They have no effect individually, but collectively, they decide the person to be elected.
The problem here in the US is the politics involved in the parties deciding who they will support for the primaries. We common people have little to no power over the selection of who we have to choose from and end up having to select from a group of poor choices.
This past Presidential election is a perfect example. The Democrats and Republican both proposed their respective group of candidates for the Primary Election. The voters didn't seem to like any one candidate. In both parties, the choice came down to voting against the candidates people didn't want, rather than for someone they did want.
It really boils down to an issue of trust. Overall the government at all levels from National to local levels has lost the public's trust in their honesty. The lack of trust has to have effected the overall voter turnouts in all areas of the country to one extent or another. Its funny how much effect trust can have on everyone decisions and choices. Elections are just one of the areas where trust over the years was lost. Some things have been done to try and address the problem, but it is harder to regain it than it was to lose it.
The lack of trust has to have effected the overall voter turnouts in all areas of the country to one extent or another.
The only problem with that is in historical terms, turnout is higher than ever before. What you note is only having a minor effect.
The government in my case lost all my trust in the mid 60's when without breaking any laws or having any kind of trial. The state of Georgia took away all of my citizenship and rights with one of its laws. It was legal at that time and the federal government allowed it, heck they even gave money to the darn program.
Now I admit I am one of those people who hold grudges. So since then even though I love my country, I do not and will not trust it under any label. That will never change for me.
The only problem with that is in historical terms, turnout is higher than ever before. What you note is only having a minor effect.
One issue with the very early election turn out was the issue of traveling from home to where you could vote. Often it was a long hard trip which meant taking a few days off working your property to do, so many people never voted because they either couldn't afford to take the time off, of they didn't have a reasonable means to travel, or tried and never got there in time, anyway. Then you get to add on those who didn't care to vote at all.