Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 115

Just came to post that. If this had happened with Hillary, she’d be rotting in jail right now because the Republicans control government. Instead, they’re just like, “hey, maybe we’ll get our tax cuts and our judges, so let’s just be spineless traitors and look the other way.”

Disgusting.

Reminder: these assholes now have a WH press credential.

https://mediamatters.org/research/2017/01/25/22-times-jim-hoft-and-gateway-pundit-were-absurdly-wrong/215106

JEDIT:

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2017/02/trump-just-broadcast-a-dangerous-falsehood-about-autism-rates.html

ARGH!!!

Now might be a good time to remember the Watergate scandal, wherein five men were arrested for breaking into the DNC headquarters in an attempt to obtain records and ultimately influence the election in favor of the president. While Nixon didn’t directly condone this specific action, he was in contact with the members of his election committee and was well aware that sabotaging, in general, was going on, and very much okay with it. Ultimately, though, his downfall came not because of the sabotaging, but because of the covering up of the sabotaging.

The parallels are to great to ignore. I remember reading All the President’s Men in high school and being appalled by the lengths these people went to influence the election in their favor. At the time I thought those days were behind us but it’s clear now that’s far from being the case.

If Trump doesn’t want to end up impeached or resigning, he should start getting honest about his Russian connection real fast. Either way, everybody needs to start accepting the fact that Russia is clearly trying to influence what’s happening in the US. We need to get our heads out of the “but where’s the evidence??” sand and start an investigation into this so we can find out what’s really going on once and for all.

Handman said:

TV’s Frink said:

She’s lying. As usual.

She never lies, she merely presents alternative facts.

Yes. Frink, you should have known that she was only presenting alternative facts. I’m disappointed in you.

DominicCobb said:

Now might be a good time to remember the Watergate scandal, wherein five men were arrested for breaking into the DNC headquarters in an attempt to obtain records and ultimately influence the election in favor of the president. While Nixon didn’t directly condone this specific action, he was in contact with the members of his election committee and was well aware that sabotaging, in general, was going on, and very much okay with it. Ultimately, though, his downfall came not because of the sabotaging, but because of the covering up of the sabotaging.

The parallels are to great to ignore. I remember reading All the President’s Men in high school and being appalled by the lengths these people went to influence the election in their favor. At the time I thought those days were behind us but it’s clear now that’s far from being the case.

If Trump doesn’t want to end up impeached or resigning, he should start getting honest about his Russian connection real fast. Either way, everybody needs to start accepting the fact that Russia is clearly trying to influence what’s happening in the US. We need to get our heads out of the “but where’s the evidence??” sand and start an investigation into this so we can find out what’s really going on once and for all.

With the fact that the Republicans control the House and Senate and may soon control the Supreme Court, I think impeachment is very unlikely.

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Now might be a good time to remember the Watergate scandal, wherein five men were arrested for breaking into the DNC headquarters in an attempt to obtain records and ultimately influence the election in favor of the president. While Nixon didn’t directly condone this specific action, he was in contact with the members of his election committee and was well aware that sabotaging, in general, was going on, and very much okay with it. Ultimately, though, his downfall came not because of the sabotaging, but because of the covering up of the sabotaging.

The parallels are to great to ignore. I remember reading All the President’s Men in high school and being appalled by the lengths these people went to influence the election in their favor. At the time I thought those days were behind us but it’s clear now that’s far from being the case.

If Trump doesn’t want to end up impeached or resigning, he should start getting honest about his Russian connection real fast. Either way, everybody needs to start accepting the fact that Russia is clearly trying to influence what’s happening in the US. We need to get our heads out of the “but where’s the evidence??” sand and start an investigation into this so we can find out what’s really going on once and for all.

With the fact that the Republicans control the House and Senate and may soon control the Supreme Court, I think impeachment is very unlikely.

I agree, but depending on what information comes out, they may not have a choice. If there comes a time when the public consensus is that Trump needs to be impeached, then GOP reps risk going against their constituents in a major way that would absolutely hurt them in upcoming elections if they refuse to do any hearings.

It’s probably important to remember too that many in the GOP hate the guy. A lot of them unendorsed him (briefly), and many have been publicly insulted by him. As long as a significant group can join together in solidarity against him, they shouldn’t have to worry too much about individual repercussions for party disloyalty.

Well right now, the GOP seems to be kissing his ass.

Yeah pretty much. But if info comes out that implicates him bigly, things could change.

I wish I could believe that.

Trump is melting down on Twitter this morning and it’s glorious.

doubleofive said:

2. Bringing up the election that he lost.

As much as I wish he had lost, he didn’t.

Warbler said:

doubleofive said:

2. Bringing up the election that he lost.

As much as I wish he had lost, he didn’t.

Lost is a point of view that is factually accurate if not technically. The American people didn’t vote for him, our broken and unfair system did.

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

doubleofive said:

2. Bringing up the election that he lost.

As much as I wish he had lost, he didn’t.

Lost is a point of view that is factually accurate if not technically. The American people didn’t vote for him, our broken and unfair system did.

broken is also a point of view. Some actually like our electoral college system. They do have point. With our current system it is possible for the more populated areas of the country to control the entire country. I am not saying it shouldn’t be changed, but the other side does have a point.

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

doubleofive said:

2. Bringing up the election that he lost.

As much as I wish he had lost, he didn’t.

Lost is a point of view that is factually accurate if not technically. The American people didn’t vote for him, our broken and unfair system did.

broken is also a point of view. Some actually like our electoral college system. They do have point. With our current system it is possible for the more populated areas of the country to control the entire country. I am not saying it shouldn’t be changed, but the other side does have a point.

That’s not true. You can’t win an election with just the cities. Democrats have lost the popular vote before.

Either way, the population is the population. People shouldn’t have less of a voice because they live near other people. Gubernatorial races have no problem using the popular vote. Other democratic countries have no problem using the popular vote.

Republicans have an unfair advantage because they live in more sparsely populated areas. This already helps them in the Senate, and with gerrymandering and urban clustering they have taken the House. Democrats are just fucked, regardless of whether the majority of the country sides with them or not. That isn’t democracy. That’s a broken system. We’re living where the opposite of what you said is true - that the less populated areas control the country. Where you live shouldn’t matter. What should is your vote.

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

doubleofive said:

2. Bringing up the election that he lost.

As much as I wish he had lost, he didn’t.

Lost is a point of view that is factually accurate if not technically. The American people didn’t vote for him, our broken and unfair system did.

broken is also a point of view. Some actually like our electoral college system. They do have point. With our current system it is possible for the more populated areas of the country to control the entire country. I am not saying it shouldn’t be changed, but the other side does have a point.

That’s not true. You can’t win an election with just the cities. Democrats have lost the popular vote before.

I wasn’t talking about just the cities.

Either way, the population is the population. People shouldn’t have less of a voice because they live near other people. Gubernatorial races have no problem using the popular vote. Other democratic countries have no problem using the popular vote.

Actually there are problems. In my state for example. North Jersey is more populated than South Jersey. The result: North Jersey controls the state. I don’t know when the last time we’ve had a Governor from the Southern half of the state. Sometimes it feels like South Jersey is NJ’s ugly stepchild.

Republicans have an unfair advantage because they live in more sparsely populated areas. This already helps them in the Senate, and with gerrymandering and urban clustering they have taken the House.

I agree, gerrmandering is a problem that needs to be fixed. The Senate is bit more tricky. Each state gets 2 Senators, that is the way the founders decided it should. Some wanted a legislature that done by proportion of the population. Others thought each state should get the same number of representatives. The compromise: the House which is done by proportion of the population of each state and the Senate with each state having 2 representatives.

Democrats are just fucked, regardless of whether the majority of the country sides with them or not. That isn’t democracy. That’s a broken system. We’re living where the opposite of what you said is true - that the less populated areas control the country. Where you live shouldn’t matter. What should is your vote.

If that were true, Obama would never have been President. The idea behind the electoral is that all parts of the country get a say in government. I agree, it could use some fixing. That is why I’d like to change it up.

1. Switch from electoral votes to points, to prevent faithless electors.
2. Instead of a winner take all in each state, award electoral points by the percentage. If a candidate wins 40% of the popular vote in a state, give that candidate 40% of the electoral points that state has(2 + the number of representatives in the US House).

doubleofive said:

Ignore this is Cosmo for some reason:

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a8878322/trum-racism-question-electoral-college/

Reporter: Since your election campaign, and even after your victory, we’ve seen a sharp rise in anti-semitic incidents across the United States. And I wonder what do you say to those among the Jewish community in the States and in Israel, and maybe around the world, who believe and feel that your administration is playing with xenophobia and maybe racist tones?

Trump: I just want to say that we are very honored by the victory that we had. 306 electoral college votes. We were not supposed to crack 220. [to Netanyahu] You know that, right? There was no way to 221. But then they said there’s no way to 270. And there’s tremendous enthusiasm out there. I will say that we are going to have peace in this country.

He then goes on to babble about how all violence is bad and he knows Jewish people.

I listened to that whole thing live on the radio. babble is a great way to describe anything that comes out of Trump’s mouth.

I don’t have a problem with the way Congress is set up. States should have a voice. But the House districting is fucked and the electoral college is archaic.

I’m not saying it’s impossible Democrats to win the EC, obviously that’s not true, I’m just saying they are at a distinct disadvantage. Obama had a greater share of non-educated whites than Clinton, a demo that lead to Trump’s victory (a 100,000 vote margin). On the other hand Clinton had more college educated whites, but they were spread out amongst a number of states, blue and red, which didn’t help any. This is the way the parties are shifting, and while I do believe Dems will get an EC victory in 2020, there’s no mistaking the disadvantage they’re at.

Your solution makes sense but is ultimately just an unnecessary substitute for the real deal: the popular vote.