home

UnPresident Sunday

From SNL last night. I liked it better than the Alec Baldwin/Vladimir Putin cold open skit which you can see here.

More drama over the Colorado electors who want to vote for someone other than Hillary or Trump. The 10th Circuit denied their Emergency Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal yesterday. Some are taking hope from a footnote about the 12th Amendment. The case is Baca v Hickenlooper, Tenth Circuit, Case No. 16-1482. [More...]

Plaintiffs argue that Colo. Rev. Stat. §1-4-304(5) violates Article II and the Twelfth Amendment by rendering electors superfluous. In making this argument, however, plaintiffs fail to quote any of these provisions of the Constitution. And, more importantly, they fail to point to a single word in any of these provisions that support their position that the Constitution requires that electors be allowed the opportunity to exercise their discretion in choosing who to cast their votes for.2 We conclude that this failure is fatal at this stage of the litigation ....By failing to point us to any language in the Constitution that would support their position, we conclude they have failed to meet their burden.3

Footnote 2:

Instead, plaintiffs point primarily to statements made by Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist No. 68. E.g., Dist. Ct. Docket No. 2 at 6; Emergency Motion at 10. Although we turn to external sources when unable to discern the meaning of the Constitution from its plain language, we begin our analysis with careful examination of the words used. Here, plaintiffs make no textual argument, at all.

Footnote 3:

This is not to say that there is no language in Article II or the Twelfth Amendment that might ultimately support plaintiffs’ position. See Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214, 232 (1952) (“No one faithful to our history can deny that the plan originally contemplated, what is implicit in its text, that electors would be free agents, to exercise an independent and nonpartisan judgment as to the men best qualified for the Nation’s highest offices.” (emphasis added)). For example, there is language in the Twelfth Amendment that could arguably support the plaintiffs’ position. E.g., Michael Stokes Paulsen, The Constitutional Power of the Electoral College, Public Discourse (Nov. 21, 2016) (available at www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/11/18283/). But it is not our role to make those arguments for them.

My view: The electors will elect him, Congress will confirm his appointees. The only way to get rid of Donald Trump is by impeachment. The only way to stop his policies and block his agenda is by lawsuits.

There will be no unity here for UnPresident Donald Trump or his equally unqualified children, advisers and appointees. I expect him to fail on a massive level and I hope he does. He has irreparably divided and damaged our country with his campaign lies. His unprecedented boorishness, narcissism, lack of class, and incompetence will make America a laughing stock all over the world.

We used to be viewed as a beacon of liberty throughout the world. But Donald Trump follows the beacon of authoritarianism, militarism and oligarchs. His only achievement will be to drag our country into his infested swamp (and claim credit for anything good that happens, even when those things happen regardless of him, like some Carrier plant jobs staying in the U.S.)

The one thing every child learns about the Presidency by kindergarten is George Washington's "I cannot tell a lie." For the first time in history, we have a President elect who either doesn't know what the truth is or purposely tells lies. For the first time, we will be led by a man who instills shame rather than pride.

We have four long years to go before another election. It will take a generation, not four years, for America to recover from its Trump fiasco, if it does at all. During that time, the wealthiest of Americans, and companies that make military equipment and build prisons will get richer and everyone else will suffer. Millennials will get another chance during their lifetime (assuming his inexperience and ignorance don't cause the world the blow up.) Their parents, and baby boomers will not, if Republicans tinker with Medicare and Social Security.

Rather than spend my time or money trying to assist in rebuilding the broken Democratic party, I will support the organizations filing lawsuits against the UnPresident and his policies, like the ACLU and Center for Constitutional Rights, and immigrants and prisoners' rights groups. I will also support efforts by Congress to block his federal judicial appointees.

Donald Trump will never make America great. He will only make it toxic.

Added: Here's an interesting article in Salon about a linguistic study showing Trump's intelligence level and his allegedly false claims about his school grades.

Also added: Garrison Keillor: The damage that 80,000 Trump Voters in....

. And now we sit and watch in disbelief as the victor drops one piece of china after another, spits in the soup, sticks his fist through a painting, and gobbles up the chocolates. Not satisfied with the usual election-night victory speech, he stages a post-election victory tour and gloatfest, a series of rallies in arenas where he can waggle his thumbs and smirk and holler and point out the journalists in their pen for the mob to boo and shake their fists at. He puts the Secret Service through their paces, highways are closed, planes diverted, cities disrupted, just so the man can say how much fun it was to defeat Hillary Clinton....
< FBI Agrees with CIA: Russia Goal Was to Help Trump | Electoral College Votes Today >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I'm so heartsick (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 18, 2016 at 03:39:54 PM EST
    I think your choices of who needs our monetary support trying to survive this is right on.

    I completely support your endorsements (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by Peter G on Sun Dec 18, 2016 at 06:11:23 PM EST
    of ACLU and CCR, but I would add Planned Parenthood and the Center for Reproductive Rights to the top of that same list.

    Heartbroken (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Suisser1 on Sun Dec 18, 2016 at 08:30:39 PM EST
    pretty much floundering. I know that I have to and will, suck it up, but I have an 18 year old female kid with a chronic medical condition, a husband about to retire and a sinking sense that our best years are behind us and deep in the night, a feeling that our futures won't matter because they simply won't be. Feeling dark. Oh, yeah, Merry Christmas and all that.

    I agree it is disheartening watching society (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 18, 2016 at 09:31:26 PM EST
    Take a big step backwards. Our child with a chronic medical situation will be 17 soon. It was still very challenging, even after we got ACA.

    My heart is sick and broken too, but I have a thread of pissed running through me. I will make it. There is no other choice. And if we all stick together our chances get better.

    Parent

    Trump to keep (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by KeysDan on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 10:02:48 AM EST
    his "private security" force, a step considered to be playing with fire.  With a distrust of US intel agencies and an admiration for Nixon, hopefully, we will not be entering into another "plumbers" era.  Or worse, such as seen in 1930s Germany.

    Apparently getting 37 Republican electors to (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by vml68 on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 10:08:56 AM EST
    switch their votes for the good of this country is mission impossible.
    But, for one Democratic elector casting his vote for Bernie Sanders instead of Hillary Clinton just to make a statement, no problem.

    Can I just say how much I hate the f*(king Electoral College.

    Again, a national popular vote is the answer (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by jbindc on Wed Dec 21, 2016 at 08:48:04 AM EST
    Why people keep confusing the EC for the Senate is neyond me. One is designed to ensure a demagogue doesn't get to the WH....(oops. Failed at their one job), the other is designed to give equal power to small states.  
    The popular vote works quite well in many parts of the world

    Want to see how presidential elections work if people don't have to hunt in swing states? Lucky for you, we have hundreds of case studies, and the quick answer is "they work pretty well." In countries with free and fair elections, presidential races look a lot like our own, with candidates stumping everywhere to drive up favorable turnout and flip voters their way.

    Start with France, which is ramping up for a new presidential election in 2017. On the surface it has the same regional bias challenges that electoral college lovers see here. One in 8 Americans lives in California; one in 5 French voters lives in the Paris metro area.

    And yet, in 2012, the French campaign ranged across the entire country. Incumbent President Nicolas Sarkozy tried to drive up turnout in strongholds like Marseille; François Hollande, who beat him, campaigned in industrial towns that had suffered in the Great Recession. His final stop took him to Charleville-Mezieres, which you might call the Johnstown, Pa., of France -- if it weren't actually smaller than Johnstown. And in 2017, Hollande is so toxic that he won't even run, demonstrating just how much a country's support can swing, even if a big city looms large culturally and electorally.

    When I've thrown the example of France out there, or the examples of Mexico and South Korea, electoral college die-hards have pointed out that those countries are relatively (well, relative to the United States) small and ethnically coherent. Fair enough; let's turn to the presidential systems of Brazil and Indonesia. Like us, the Brazilians have quadrennial elections and limit presidents to two consecutive terms. Like us, voters in both countries sprawl far past the crowded cities.

    Guess what? Presidential candidates find themselves stumping everywhere. There are swing states in Brazil, like Minas Gerais, and they're showered with attention. But each vote in the swing state counts toward the popular vote; watching who wins it is just taking stock of a bellwether. In Indonesia, the six provinces on Java cast close to 60 percent of the total vote. Current president Joko Widodo had an advantage there, as the outgoing mayor of Jakarta. But his 2014 election was relatively close -- and five years earlier, his party had lost in a landslide. There is no geographic "lock." To win, you need to campaign.

    Indonesia's a useful example of how elections can work because it actually has more voters than the United States. Not as many people -- around 256 million to our 320 million. But turnout in Indonesia, which has held democratic elections only since 1999, is much higher. Former Indonesia president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has received more votes -- close to 74 million -- than anyone else in the history of democracy. (When progressives perk themselves up by saying Hillary Clinton received more votes than any "white man in history," they are technically correct.*)

    Past time for a new amendment.

    Parent

    Two thoughts (none / 0) (#147)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 21, 2016 at 09:49:24 PM EST
    You really don't want to use Indonesia as an example.

    And no.

    One is designed to ensure a demagogue doesn't get to the WH...

    Not unless you want to tell us the Founders were demagogues.

    Problems with the original procedure arose in the elections of 1796 and 1800. The Twelfth Amendment refined the process whereby a President and a Vice President are elected by the Electoral College. The amendment was proposed by the Congress on December 9, 1803, and was ratified by the requisite three-fourths of state legislatures on June 15, 1804.


    Parent
    this is the thing (3.00 / 2) (#26)
    by nyjets on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 02:59:48 PM EST
    Suppose the reverse had happened. Trump wins the popular vote, though like Hillary does not have 50 percent but Hillary takes the electoral college.
    What do you do then?
    The electoral college system does need to be replaced however until it is, the voters in the electoral college should vote the way their voters want them to vote.

    Parent
    Speaking for me only, Tr*mp is the (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by vml68 on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 03:19:47 PM EST
    exception to the rule. I don't support Romney, Kasich, etc., but I would not be ashamed to have them represent me as the POTUS. I would not be calling for electors to change their votes if any of these guys had won.
    Tr*mp horrifies me in every way possible. To think this ignorant cretin  is acceptable to so many americans makes me feel sick.

    Anyway, my earlier rant was because as usual the Republican electors all fall in line no matter how objectionable their candidate is.
    But, that is not true for all Democratic electors. So far we have 1 in Maine, 1 in Minnesota and 4 in Washington trying to vote for Sanders. I guess they did not want to miss that last opportunity to sh!t on Hillary Clinton. These BernieBros and all those voters who were too pure to vote for Hillary can all go f*(k themselves, as far as I am concerned.

    Yes, I am pissed and bitter.

    Parent

    you have points (3.00 / 3) (#29)
    by nyjets on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 03:26:10 PM EST
    However, you do need to be careful. Once you get one exception, that can start the floodgates rolling. But I do understand how you feel.
    And look at it from this point of view, if you feel that Republicans members of the electoral college can change their votes, so can any member of the electoral college from any party. Not just this year, but any year. That is a dangerous precedent.

    And honestly, i do understand the opinions of Bernie supporters. Honestly, Bernie was stabbed in the back by the democratic party. And there are a lot of issues/problems with Hilary (she is war hawkish and not really a progressive the way Bernie is.).

     

    Parent

    I'm of a few minds (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by CST on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 04:19:43 PM EST
    One - if they do this, there would certainly be a push to eliminate the electoral college - which, IMO, is a win-win.

    Two - the electoral college was set up for exactly this.  Yes, it was also to help small states, but not exclusively.  We have come to expect that it will be only used for that purpose and not the other - because historically that's how it's gone down.  But anyone who defends the electoral college based on "it's what the founding fathers wanted" - well, they wanted this too.

    Parent

    The Original Intent (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by RickyJim on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 05:26:29 PM EST
    of Hamilton and Madison in setting up the Electoral College was to prevent a demagogue from getting to be "Chief Magistrate".  Popular votes in each district would determine who would be the elector for that district.  The electors weren't supposed to pledge to vote for a particular candidate.  But in the month between their election and their presidential vote, would consider who was best among all such presidential candidates.  But that way of choosing the electors was not in the constitution and left to the individual states.  Hamilton tried to get a constitutional amendment going to guarantee the district vote plan but was unsuccessful.  So the way the electoral college has turned out, with the exception of Maine and Nebraska, has been a disaster from the point of view of Messrs  Hamilton and Madison.

    Does anybody know offhand who would have won the 2016 election if we made a crude approximation to the founders' intent by giving 2 electoral votes to the winner of each state and 1 vote to the winner of each congressional district?

    Parent

    Popular vote (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by jbindc on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 07:57:33 AM EST

    I'm not sure why we shouldn't have a national popular vote for president and vice president.  These are the only two national officers we vote for - why should the "states" even factor into it?  The candidates can focus on more than just the same 4 or 5 states, because they will have to talk to every voter.  It eliminates the need to "protect small states" (we don't do that anyway - it's always about Ohio and Florida - think the people in Montana feel protected?)  And (I think) it would get more people to vote if they actually knew their voted counted - how many Hillary supporters do you think came out in Alabama or Trump supporters came out in Massachusetts?

    For statistical and recount purposes, you could divvy up by state.  And yes, the states run the elections, but we just do it so the state counts the votes (and names for POTUS / VPOTUS on ballots appear the exact same way in the same place on all ballots) - but those votes are totaled nationally.  Whomever gets more votes wins.  Period.

    And PS - the Electoral College was also set up to give slave states more representation without actually counting slaves as "people".  Remember the "Three-Fifths Compromise"?


    Parent

    Maybe Trump (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 08:25:54 AM EST
    will be the person that finally kills the EC. This election has shown how completely worthless the EC is and the EC is supposed to protect the country from someone like Trump. It failed to do so and has shown itself to be a completely worthless relic of the past.

    Parent
    electoral college = trump university (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by leap on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 09:53:37 AM EST
    Worthless and stupid and juvenile. In Washington State, where HRC won handily, the electors voted:

    -8 for Hillary Clinton
    -1 for Faith Spotted Eagle
    -3 for Colin Powell

    Why not Mickey Mouse? That would have been just as big a "statement."

    We need to get rid of this not only pointless, but dangerous, exercise in American "democracy."

    Parent

    Faith Spotted Eagle (none / 0) (#89)
    by linea on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 07:23:29 PM EST
    ... is a Native American activist. She is a member of the Yankton Sioux Nation who helped block development of the Keystone XL pipeline and the Dakota Access Pipeline.

    In the 2016 presidential election, she became the first Native American to receive an electoral vote for President of the United States.

    Parent

    This is what the Constitution says: (none / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 11:08:51 AM EST
    2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

    3: The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.8

    It doesn't say a word about the electors "protecting" anything.

    You want an amendment? Go for it.


    Parent

    What values, functions and principles (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Peter G on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 11:41:25 AM EST
    a Constitutional provision was designed to serve are generally not stated in the words, but rather in the design of the provision, including its relationship and interaction with other provisions. This is as true for the Twelfth Amendment as for any number of other structural provisions, including the Emoluments Clause, as well as the natural-born-citizen and minimum-age requirements for the Presidency. Undisputed Constitutional interpretive theory, whether you are an "originalist," a "living constitutionalist," or anything in between.

    Parent
    I won't arguw law with a lawyer, Peter ;-) (none / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 12:47:08 PM EST
    But if you think that the small states would ever allow CA and NY to select the Prez and VP then you are wrong.

    But, you can always try a constitutional amendment. That's the clear way to change it, not some judges opining about original intent and other such things.

    Parent

    I am against nearly every suggestion (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by Peter G on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 12:57:04 PM EST
    for a constitutional amendment, whether of the 12th Amend or of anything else. If you think I was implying any position in that direction, you are badly mis-reading what I said. I was only pointing out that your suggestion that the Constitution means nothing other than the the literal denotation of its words was utterly wrong.

    Parent
    No, I understood that (none / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 01:12:59 PM EST
    you aren't for an amendment.

    That was just my suggestion.

    And I understand that we've had "law," according to both sides of quite a few "issues," written by judges. The result usually being a cultural divide that may never be closed among many.

    But some things are glaringly plain.

    What I find ironic in the arguments of many that the electors know better than us and should follow their judgement rather than the election results they pledged to follow is the same one that was used to oppose the election of Senators.

    Parent

    I have no idea what you think (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Peter G on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 01:32:54 PM EST
    is "glaringly plain." I did not express any opinion about what the Twelfth Amendment means, with respect to the freedom of action of electors, properly understood. In addition, nearly every word you wrote in both of your posts about how one is to read the Constitution, and the role of judges in applying and explaining it, is absolutely, totally, and utterly mistaken. Nor would anyone think you understood that I am opposed in principle to a constitutional amendment from your writing, directed to me, that "you can always try a constitutional amendment. That's the clear way to change it, not some judges opining about original intent and other such things." (Judges "opining about original intent" is the conservative methodology for constitutional interpretation, by the way.)

    Parent
    What I was trying to say (none / 0) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 05:03:46 PM EST
    is that partisans on both sides have been dissatisfied with the results of SC decisions and both have declared that judges are making "law." Abortion and gun laws come immediately to mind.

    That's all.

    My glaring plain comment is re the 12th. There is nothing there that speaks to what criteria of competency, education, etc.  they should use.


    Parent

    So in the "plain language" of the 12th (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Peter G on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 07:50:54 PM EST
    Amendment, there is no limitation stated on how electors may or should cast their ballots. From this, it follows that:  (a) any state law that attempts to compel or restrict how an elector votes is unconstitutional under the Twelfth; or (b) there is no federal constitutional restriction on how a state may by law restrict or regulate the votes of its electors.
       You pick which one is right under the "plain language" of the Amendment. Seems to me that either is equally plausible, at least until I research what the drafters intended. That's an example of constitutional interpretation.

    Parent
    You need to read (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 12:04:12 PM EST
    up on how the EC is supposed to not necessarily go with who the voters pick if the person is unfit for the office. Trump is obviously unfit for the office and it's also against the constitution to have a foreign agent interfering in an election which is what we have with Trump. So the electors are supposed to consider all that before picking someone.

    Actually yes, I think Trump is the perfect inspiration for undoing the EC and even the small states would probably go along with getting rid of it now.

    Parent

    I read a lot of things (3.00 / 2) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 12:53:16 PM EST
    about what the constitution is supposed to mean.

    But I prefer what the Constitution does say versus what some people thinks it means or what they think the founders meant.

    GA, your argument is mindful of the ones used against the election of Senators. I mean the elite always knows what's best for us great unwashed!

    Right??

    Look, get over it. Your candidate lost. In four years you'll have a chance to throw Trump back to Trump Towers!

    Parent

    Read (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 02:26:54 PM EST
    this

    Do you really think an unfit foreign agent was something the founders envisioned as someone who should be put in office?

    Parent

    And, the "1" (2.33 / 3) (#63)
    by MKS on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 02:28:49 PM EST
    is for being a jerk by saying "get over it."
    This is a liberal website.  That makes you a guest.  Try not being so insulting.

    Parent
    The problem is that in (none / 0) (#61)
    by MKS on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 02:26:50 PM EST
    two elections out of the last 16 years, the popular vote winner has lost the EC.  This time around the disparity was dramatic.

    It now appears that a permanent feature of the EC is to allow small states to have more power than big states such as California and New York, etc.  That anomaly cannot stand long term.

    Parent

    I know, right? (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 05:28:49 PM EST
    Let's disband the Senate. How dare all those crappy little states be allowed to have their way even if they don't vote with NY and us.

    Parent
    The senate (none / 0) (#84)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 05:49:52 PM EST
    is doing what it is supposed to do and that is support the rights of minority voters in this country. However I'm not sure the current crop of Vichy Republicans are going to hold Trump accountable or put a check on him in anyway. We'll see I guess.

    Parent
    I know, right? (none / 0) (#85)
    by Yman on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 05:53:13 PM EST
    The nerve of you people in your "crappy" big states.  How dare you expect your vote to counted as equal to Uncle Jim Bob's.

    Heh.

    Parent

    A CA vote long hasn't counted as an equal. (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Dec 21, 2016 at 07:20:07 PM EST
    A bit of simple math illustrates that point quite easily. California has 55 electoral votes, so with its population of 39.15 million, that works out to 711,782 persons per electoral vote. On the other hand, Wyoming's 586,100 residents have 3 electoral votes, which comes out to 195,396 residents per electoral vote.

    Therefore, given that the Electoral College is the basis for choosing the president, a Wyoming resident's presidential ballot is 3.64 times more valuable than the one that's been cast by a California voter. Conversely, a California electoral vote carries but 27% of the weight of the one cast by a Wyoming elector.

    I've never been a fan of using weighted formulas in elections, which is ostensibly supposed to level the playing field for supposedly underrepresented communities, yet often winds up giving those same communities a grossly disproportionate influence relative to their actual size.

    Frankly, I'm surprised that the Electoral College hasn't yet been challenged in federal court as a blatant violation of the 10th Amendment's Equal Protection clause. Because as I just demonstrated above, the EC does indeed discriminate against residents of our largest states.

    ;-D

    Parent

    Equal Protection Clause (none / 0) (#169)
    by KD on Thu Dec 22, 2016 at 04:51:41 PM EST
    I passed this along to somebody who works at the ACLU of Southern California. I'll let you know any response from the attorneys.

    Parent
    You only can (none / 0) (#64)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 02:47:44 PM EST
    hold back the majority for so long before you start to have very serious problems.

    Parent
    States that lead (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by MKS on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 04:43:17 PM EST
    the nation such as California, New York and Illinois are getting shut out and effectively ruled by rural America.  That would be backwards.  Or backwards American running  forward thinking America.

    California, perhaps contrary to what many would think, leads the nation in manufacturing and agriculture.  And of course trade and innovation.

    The tech boom did not start in the rural Rust Belt.  

    In other words, they need us; we don't need them.  Shut out your leading states for only so long before something has to give.

    Parent

    Indeed, California's agricultural output... (none / 0) (#100)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 10:30:31 PM EST
    ... of $37.1 billion is more than thrice that of the country's No. 2 agricultural state, Iowa ($12.2 billion). And no state comes close to California in manufacturing output, which totals $255.6 billion. And the state's technology output of $732 billion in revenues accounts for 53% of the nationwide total.

    Donald Trump's Red State America wouldn't survive on its own very long without the money of Blue State America.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    And, welfare? (none / 0) (#76)
    by MKS on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 04:45:37 PM EST
    We pour all kinds of money into white West Virginia, among others.  The disability capital of the U.S.  And these guys get to run the show?

    Parent
    Might be time... (none / 0) (#70)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 03:26:50 PM EST
    for the disenfranchised majority to secede and form more perfect smaller unions.

    United States of the North Atlantic &
    United States of the Pacific anyone?  Everyone would be happier I think, or at least less angry.  Refugees from Trumpland would be welcome.

    Parent

    Exactly (none / 0) (#73)
    by FlJoe on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 04:00:55 PM EST
    as Putin planned it.

    Parent
    Nah.... (none / 0) (#116)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 21, 2016 at 08:52:29 AM EST
    Jefferson Davis maybe, but not Pootie.  Our cultural and ideological divides have/were fermented long before Pootie.

    The West Coast and North East seceding would actually lessen Putin's influence in the western hemisphere.

    Parent

    I don't (none / 0) (#117)
    by FlJoe on Wed Dec 21, 2016 at 09:11:02 AM EST
    suppose you will be volunteering to stand guard on the border with Trumplanidia.

    Parent
    Nah... (none / 0) (#118)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 21, 2016 at 09:32:31 AM EST
    I'm not the standing guard/military sort...but I'd fight with the Abraham Lincoln Brigade should the fascists invade, that much I can promise ya Joe. Absent that, live and let live.

    I was kinda hoping for open borders between the new nations, and a new open one between The USofNE and Canada...but Trumplandia may not wanna practice the art of the deal on that front.  But there is hope for Trudeau's Canada and USofNE Prime Minister Sanders to work it out! ;)


    Parent

    The whole is equal to the (none / 0) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 03:53:45 PM EST
    sum of its parts.

    How the number of electors are selected are the same for each state.

    Both Trump and Hillary had a chance to win their pledged electors.

    Hillary won CA by a massive number.

    Let's look at the results

    With CA

    Trump - 62,598,211
    Hillary - 65,818,318
    Hillary + 2.8 million votes

    Without CA

    Trump - 58,474,401
    Clinton - 57,064,530
    Trump + 1.4 million

    So the so called "popular vote" argument is really that Hillary won by using 1 state and lost when using the other 49.

    I love LA but I don't want it to determine who wins a presidential election.

    Link

    Plus the election was not ran as a popular vote election. I'm not sure but I don't believe Trump visited TN nor did Hillary. She wrote it off and Trump did the same except Trump assumed correctly that he would win TN.

    OTOH Hillary assumed she would win WI and didn't visit it. Trump went in and campaigned and won it.

    So I have to wonder. How many Hillary voters knew that their cause in TN  was lost and stayed home. How many Hillary voters thought she would win WI and stayed home?

    Same for Trumpers in CA. How many Repubs just said, to heck with it. I ain't wasting my time.

    Parent

    Not just California (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by MKS on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 04:50:30 PM EST
    But New York, Illinois, Virginia among others.

    All the major cities voted in large margins for Hillary.  Find me one major city that did not.  Even in Tennessee.  Atlanta.  Not to mention all the cities in Texas.  

    So, we have rural white America, which is running out of jobs and has no new products or ideas, running the country and telling the leading states and cities what to do?  Just because the founders set up that system to protect slavery?

    Parent

    Exactly (none / 0) (#90)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 07:36:09 PM EST
    http://tinyurl.com/julb3dq  U of michigan

    The red and blue map.  Lok at it by counties won.

    Scroll down on the link till you get to the election results by county. It more clearly pinpoints where the voters for each party live.

    The Electoral College is not going away, it would be better to devise your campaign strategy to win the 270 required electoral votes than continually complain about it.

    Just check the statistics from the 1960 World Series, the Yankees killed the Pirates in every statistic...except games won, the only statistic that decides the World Series winner.

    And quite honestly, with a little better campaign management, Madame Sec should have won her 270 electoral votes. She used resources in Arizona , Texas, which were sorely needed elsewhere

    http://tinyurl.com/hb9mdhe  Daily Beast

    Parent

    Silly maps (none / 0) (#98)
    by Yman on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 09:39:52 PM EST
    ... and silly opinion pieces.  Counties don't vote, and bitter, amateur campaign managers' opinions are worth exactly what they are paid.

    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#102)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Dec 21, 2016 at 05:42:13 AM EST
    The county map is very revealing. Drilling down even further, the counties surrounding los Angeles and NYC gave Clinton her entire popular vote lead.
    That is it.

    The Daily Beast piece, ignore that at your own risk

    Parent

    Many of those counties Trump won (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by jbindc on Wed Dec 21, 2016 at 08:20:36 AM EST
    HAVE VERY FEW PEOPLE LIVING IN THEM.  LAND DOESN'T VOTE.

    Oh, and you might want to rethink your thesis.

    Link

    Parent

    Hmmm (none / 0) (#130)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Dec 21, 2016 at 08:09:25 PM EST
    Clinton won California by 4.2 million and took New York by more than 1.6 million. The combined 5.8 million-vote advantage in just those two states was more than twice the size of her overall edge nationwide.
    When the dust settled, she lost the rest of the country by 3 million votes.

    And in NY and California, the bulk of Clinton voters were in the counties making up Los Angeles and NYC

    Parent

    Lost the "rest of the country" (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by Yman on Wed Dec 21, 2016 at 09:40:15 PM EST
    You mean if you ignore the 22 million voters in California and New York, Trump got more votes?!?

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaa...

    I love the fact that you and Rush can try that ridiculous argument while keeping a straight face.  You should be the LAST person to tell others about tin foil.

    Parent

    You have no idea what you're talking about. (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Dec 21, 2016 at 09:41:46 PM EST
    But then, Trevor, why should today be any different, eh? Jeez, you're just as dense as Jim on this issue.

    You can't just summarily discard the results from two large states where nearly 20% of the U.S. population resides and nearly 30% of the U.S. GDP is derived, simply because you don't care for their respective political outcomes.

    The nonsensical argument you're offering here about excluding California and New York from the nationwide popular vote is not just way beyond stupid. The real case you're making against both those states is patently un-American.

    >:-|

    Parent

    oh my god! (none / 0) (#149)
    by linea on Wed Dec 21, 2016 at 10:09:04 PM EST
    that was so funny! all of it. not just "down on the farms, where they fvck chickens."

    npr discussed a state pact that legislates state electors would vote for the national winner. the pact becomes active when enough states have signed. i fully support a national vote (or more realistically because of the US constitution) this multi-state pact that was discussed on npr.

    i am adamant however, in my feeling that, the elected president would be farther left than current candidates. major metropolitan cities are very progressive. look at the city councils of san francisco, portland, seattle, and new york. my councilmember is Alternative Socialist and im sure thats rather common for most major cities. if people elected the president, rather than cows, we would have a progressive liberal democrat vs a democratic socialist for president

    Parent

    Only 19% of Americans live in areas ... (none / 0) (#152)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Dec 21, 2016 at 10:27:51 PM EST
    ... which can be classified as rural or town. Most live in urbanized areas.

    Disclosure: Since Hilo's population is about 40,000, I'm one of those 19%. A town is now defined by the federal government as a place under 50,000 in population. Funny, but 100 years ago people called that a city. Go figure.

    Further, it's important to note that not all big cities or metro areas are necessarily all that liberal. For example, San Diego and Spokane are two cities that are rather conservative in both outlook and in governance. And Los Angeles was decidedly conservative until a little over 40 years ago, when Democrat Tom Bradley ousted incumbent Republican Mayor Sam Yorty.

    :-D

    Parent

    A side note regarding Spokane. (5.00 / 3) (#164)
    by fishcamp on Thu Dec 22, 2016 at 08:43:38 AM EST
    The first downhill ski race I won was at Mt. Spokane.  They had a downward sloping finish area, and I lost my edge control and flew off the small drop, and landed on the roof of a station wagon, down in the parking lot, where a family was having a tail gate luncheon.  We were all startled beyond belief.  The father helped me clamber down in my strange helmet and goggle outfit, and the mother promptly handed me a sandwich.  Dad offered me a beer, which was immediately  snatched away when mom found out I was only 17 years old.  My name was being called out on the loud speakers as the winner, but where are you?  Thanking the family I climbed up the hill to the finish area to receive my accolades.  I may have mentioned this story before a few years ago.  Spokane doesn't often come up on this blog. It was a very funny first time win.

    Parent
    still (none / 0) (#153)
    by linea on Wed Dec 21, 2016 at 10:40:11 PM EST
    i love you and all, and i feel we agree!  population-wise spokane gets washed-out by seattle. nobody is even seriously mobilizing the urban vote. on the radio they said that the trump vote in seattle was 6% which is ridiculously nothing!

    Parent
    Republicans in L.A. (none / 0) (#171)
    by KD on Thu Dec 22, 2016 at 05:10:48 PM EST
    L.A. Mayor Tom Bradley was followed by Republican Mayor Richard Riordan. So L.A. will vote for a moderate Republican. There just aren't many of those around.


    Parent
    There's no risk in ignoring (none / 0) (#104)
    by Yman on Wed Dec 21, 2016 at 05:56:58 AM EST
    ... silly opinion pieces.  But you're right.   If you count counties,  Trump and Republicans do very well by winning large numbers of counties populated by cows and tumbleweeds.

    Too bad counties (and cows) can't vote.  If they could,  your map might be significant.

    Parent

    Counties (none / 0) (#105)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Dec 21, 2016 at 06:02:09 AM EST
    Maybe 10, provided Clinton with her popular vote advantage. That is all

    Democrats should ignore supporters of The Bern, I have no problem with that

    Parent

    Counting counties (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Yman on Wed Dec 21, 2016 at 08:19:30 AM EST
    People vote, not counties.  Almost 3 million more voted for her.  But that bugs the Trumper so much they have to resort to counting cows.

    Heh.

    BTW - I have absolutely no problem ignoring the few, bitter Berners out there.  Even more so their winger friends and their fake "concern".

    Parent

    Bernie (none / 0) (#109)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 21, 2016 at 06:51:56 AM EST
    is not a democrat and his supporters are not rural Americans. That's a myth. His supporters are supporting Keith Ellison for DNC chair who has zero rural connections. Let go of the Putin propaganda Trevor and you might learn something.

    Parent
    No - the argument is one man one vote (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by Yman on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 05:16:21 PM EST
    Each vote should be counted equally.  Right now they're not.  Let the people decide, not the weighted system.

    She won more votes.  A LOT more votes.

    But your link to some ridiculous Townhall piece claiming Trump would've won more votes - as long as you ignore the 12 million voters of our most populus state ...

    ... was funny.

    Parent

    California's turnout this year ... (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 06:21:13 PM EST
    Yman: "But your link to some ridiculous Townhall piece claiming Trump would've won more votes - as long as you ignore the 12 million voters of our most populus state."

    ... was actually over 14.18 million. Hillary Clinton won there decisively by a nearly 2-1 margin, as Trump barely broke 30%. Nevertheless, our president-elect and his fellow wingbats have since claimed that 3 million of CA voters -- some 21% of the total -- were "illegal," which is absolutely and positively ludicrous.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Donald. you make Towm Hall's point. (none / 0) (#88)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 06:57:02 PM EST
    Hillary's large vote count is due to CA.

    Take that state away and she loses the popular vote.

    As for what some have claimed re illegal, that has nothing to do with the facts above.

    But when you have things like this don't be surprised when people are skeptical.

    At a recent meeting with a largely Hispanic audience, Mrs. Busby said something that could lose-or win-her the election.

    When a man said in Spanish that

    "I'd like to help, but I don't have papers."

    Mrs. Busby waited for the translation and then said:

    "Everybody can help, yeah, absolutely, you can
    all help. You don't need papers for voting, you don't need to be a
    registered voter to help."

    On its face, that was an appeal for illegal aliens to vote for her in the election.

    The above was in San Diego Times for years but has now disappeared. Of course it's hard to erase something once it's on the 'net.

    Parent

    What do you mean, 'Take that state away'? (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 10:15:33 PM EST
    JimakaPPJ: "Hillary's large vote count is due to CA. Take that state away and she loses the popular vote."

    Has your brain been dill-pickled, Jim? You can't simply "take that state away," and thus ignore the inconvenient fact that California is home to one in eight Americans. That's just stupid on its face.

    For argument's sake, let's instead take away the states of Tennessee, Kentucky, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Kansas. After all, the aggregate 2016 turnout of those eight states (13,561,966) is only slightly less than that of California (14,181,505). Therefore, all things being roughly equal, let's do an assessment that's comparable to the one you're proposing with your summary subtraction of California from the national totals.

    Lo and behold, when we subtract the respective totals that each candidate received in those eight states, guess what happens? Hillary Clinton's victory in the nationwide popular count now doubles to a margin of 5,760,066 votes. And even better, she wins the Electoral College as well!

    Do you see now what a stupid argument it is that you're trying to advance here by subtracting California from the nationwide vote totals -- or is it still too tough for you?

    California is not only part of the United States, its vibrant and diverse economy accounts for almost 20% of the country's entire gross domestic product. Those are facts, Jim, whether you want to hear them or not. Without California, the United States is a much poorer country.

    >:-|

    Parent

    How many years ago was that? (none / 0) (#94)
    by MKS on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 08:41:07 PM EST
    And, nothing happened.   No illegal voting.

    Parent
    So you say (1.00 / 1) (#140)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 21, 2016 at 09:27:57 PM EST
    But you have no proof.

    Parent
    So YOU say (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Yman on Wed Dec 21, 2016 at 09:33:09 PM EST
    If you want to claim there was voter fraud,  it's up to YOU to provide evidence to back up your claim.  But you never do,  because you never can.

    Parent
    Unbelievable (5.00 / 3) (#167)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 22, 2016 at 09:48:59 AM EST
    Astonishing.  Breathtaking.

    You create a talking point and then it is up to us to disprove it?

    Trumpian logic:  It is true because I say so; never mind the facts; and it will remain true until you disprove it or I lose interest.

    Parent

    Oh, for Heaven's sake, Jim! (5.00 / 6) (#86)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 06:10:08 PM EST
    JimakaPPJ: "So the so called "popular vote" argument is really that Hillary won by using 1 state and lost when using the other 49. I love LA but I don't want it to determine who wins a presidential election."

    California is home to 1 in 8 Americans, which renders it far and away the largest state in the Union. It's also the 5th / 6th largest economy in the world (depending on the source of information), which easily renders the rest of the country's state economies, including that of Texas, dwarfs by comparison. Why shouldn't its citizens be allowed to have a proportionate say in presidential elections, in a manner which is actually commensurate to their state's actual size?

    You said that you "don't want [Los Angeles] to determine who wins a presidential election." Well, I daresay that truth be told, there are one helluva lot of other people across the country who likewise really don't want Tennessee and Kentucky to be dictating to the rest of us, either. But guess what? Neither one of those scenarios is actually happening.

    So why even offer such an absurd statement as yours about L.A., if not to gratuitously and unduly malign the residents of one of the world's great metropolitan areas -- one which, like New York and Chicago, stands as an economic engine and powerhouse in its own right? Who are you to be questioning their values, ethics and morals even obliquely, as was your obvious intent?

    Further, California is a so-called "donor state," whereby it pays a great deal more in federal taxes than it receives in return via corresponding federal spending. In fact, Democratic-leaning "blue" states tend to be net contributors to the federal budget, while Republican-leaning "red" states are more often net recipients of federal spending.

    This presents quite an interesting paradox for you, since the very beneficiaries of federal largesse in "red" states also tend to be the ones who complain the loudest about "excessive" federal spending and entitlements. You live in Tennessee, a state whose own budget is subsidized at least in part by federal tax dollars from California and other "blue" donor states.

    For that matter, I also reside in a beneficiary state, because even though Hawaii is itself arguably the bluest of the "blue" states, we're heavily subsidized by Pentagon spending. But then, I'm also not the right-wing crank here who's always so ready, willing and eager to bite the liberal hands that feed him.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Donald, the deal is this. (none / 0) (#143)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 21, 2016 at 09:36:28 PM EST
    We have a union of states.

    Where in LA would you want Oak Ridge???

    What would happen in HI if we closed all the military bases???

    How much coal is mined in CA?

    Parent

    Oy! Now you're being deliberately obtuse. (5.00 / 3) (#146)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Dec 21, 2016 at 09:43:57 PM EST
    Say good night, Gracie.

    Parent
    No Donald, be careful what you ask for (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 22, 2016 at 09:26:38 AM EST
    You are trying to tell us that the votes of about 4M of people clustered around two very small geographic areas are supposed to control the rest of us.

    That follows the "land owner - peon" pattern beloved by elitists AKA "nobility."

    BTW - That was the structure maintained by the landowners. They lived in town supported by fire/police protection, utilities with cheap power and clean water and easy access to cheap food and clothing stores.

    OTOH the black and white sharecroppers lived on farms with no electric power, water from often polluted wells that spread hepatitis, housing that was below substandard, healthcare that was hours away over often impassable roads and forced to use the "company store" to purchase often shoddy and high priced groceries and clothing.

    Is that what you want?

    So yes CA is a wonderful state. It has a large economy, etc.

    Supported by the other 49 states.

    What would it be if the others left it?

    How much would its citizens pay for defense? What if Mexico decided to annex it?? Should we rush to defend it????

    On that note, how many men died defending Hawaii from the Japanese??

    Maybe we should have just cut a deal with Japan.

    Sure would have saved a lot of lives of men in, to use MKS example, West Virginia....and all those other "backward" states you folks so arrogantly sneer at.

    Parent

    So, CA & NY are two small geographic areas. (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Dec 22, 2016 at 02:20:23 PM EST
    Those "two small geographic areas" so happen the be home to nearly 59 million people. And were they to go their own separate way, these two economic engines would very likely do quite nicely, because the northeastern U.S. and the rest of the west coast would undoubtedly depart with them, along with over 40% of the country's GDP.

    Much of Red State America is aging, stagnant economically and in quite a few places, actually mired in a near-permanent recession. The rural heartland now has some of the most stubborn and intractable pockets of poverty to be found anywhere in the country, in part because many of its most promising members of its younger generations have relocated to more attractive and advantageous locales, leaving in their wake an older, undereducated and declining tax base. Some once-thriving towns in the Great Plains states are literally dying, with older populations now highly dependent upon federal entitlement programs in order to survive.

    That's the hard-core reality presently facing most Red states. Even the most promising Red states such as Texas, Florida, North Carolina and even Arizona are turning purple with the influx of new residents, new blood and more progressive thinking. And remember, California itself was only a few generations ago a very Red state, one which produced both Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.

    Red states need Blue State America, financially and economically, if they are to have any hope of reinventing themselves for a dynamic 21st century world economy. The reverse isn't necessarily true. But in order for Red State America to do that, it's going to have to give up the ghosts which anchor it in obsolescence, which many Red state residents are thus far unwilling to do. Trump's election doesn't change their present trajectory. Rather, it merely postpones an inevitable and increasingly tough reckoning with reality.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    My point was (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 22, 2016 at 11:28:44 PM EST
    you want a society ran by the elites.

    You're not gonna get it.

    Parent

    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by FlJoe on Fri Dec 23, 2016 at 06:21:31 AM EST
    factoid that blows you whole argument out of the water
    There are more Trump voters in Los Angeles County than West Virginia, more Clinton voters in Texas than Massachusetts.


    Parent
    Not at all, Jim. (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Dec 23, 2016 at 09:54:46 PM EST
    JimakaPPJ: "My point was you want a society ran by the elites. You're not gonna get it."

    Rather, I seek and desire a society in which the enormous width and breadth of our country's diversity is seen positively, as a real source of strength which defines us as a nation. You, on the other hand, appear to view that same national diversity myopically, as some sort of an sinister impediment which somehow undermines the homogeneity of your own particularly white subset of the American people.

    If you want to continue living in abject fear of "The Other," that's entirely your business and I feel sorry for you. As for myself, I so happen to be married to "The Other." My children, my grandchild and my in-laws are "The Other." And we further live in a state in which 67% of the population constitutes "The Other." It's therefore hardly surprising that I would characterize your xenophobia as entirely unfounded, ludicrous, and generally pathetic.

    Have a nice holiday.

    Parent

    Or better yet (none / 0) (#156)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Dec 22, 2016 at 05:19:45 AM EST
    where does California get its water?

    Parent
    TrevorBolder: "Or better yet where does California get its water?"

    ... the Owens Valley, and the Sacramento, San Joaquin and Colorado Rivers, all of which are intrastate sources. What does that have to do with anything?

    :-|

    Parent

    Uh, from California (none / 0) (#166)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 22, 2016 at 09:41:33 AM EST
    Couldn't this be fixed (none / 0) (#74)
    by mm on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 04:03:27 PM EST
    A big part of the problem is we are still operating under The Reapportionment Act of 1929.

    Since then there have been vast changes in population distribution :

    Due to population shifts in the last fifty years, there has been a shift in the number of districts apportioned in each state which has caused extreme variances in the number of citizens per district from states losing districts to states gaining districts. As a result, "citizens in the larger district have less direct access to, and influence upon, their elected Representative - thus diluting the principle of `one man, one vote', which has been upheld by the US Supreme Court." (3) In addition, the restriction to 435 members has effectively diluted the power of the people over their own representative in the People's House from 1/33,000 to 1/709,980. By limiting the number of districts with an increasing population, we have made the Peoples House susceptible to big donors and special interests, especially in light of the Citizens United case unleashing corporate money into American politics.

    But increasing the size of the house not only effects Congressional Races, but would have a decided effect on Presidential Politics. Looking at the data above, in the 2012 election, the Democratic States lost 9 (net 7) seats that would have represented votes in the electoral college whereas Republican States picked up a net 7. If population trends from the Midwest and Northeast to the Sunbelt, red states will pick up electoral votes and blue states will lose electoral votes. In a close electoral election, this could be a game changer. (21)
    LINK

    Parent
    p.s. (none / 0) (#34)
    by CST on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 04:20:40 PM EST
    I don't actually expect this to happen.

    Parent
    This year (none / 0) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 10:50:03 AM EST
    should be the incentive to get rid of it forever.

    Parent
    The Russian invasion of (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by KeysDan on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 04:50:45 PM EST
    our electoral system so as to undermine the foundational institution of our democracy and to attempt to tilt the election in favor of one of the candidates by espinage, has been described as being the political equivalent of 9/11. Accordingly, the Russian interference requires investigation by a special commission.  

    However, a similar subversion of our electoral system has been brushed aside in the wake of the Russian attack and, also, requires independent investigation: the curious case of Comey.

    On July 5, 2016, Comey announced that the FBI was completing its investigation into Sec. Clinton's use of a personal email system and whether or not classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system.

     After almost two years of investigation by, as Comey described, the Bureau's top team, no charges would be brought--a conclusion, he added, that would be subscribed to by any reasonable prosecutor.  But, Comey, atypically, gratuitously editorialized to the disadvantage of the individual Comey just concluded was involved in no wrongdoing within his purview or responsibility.

    On October 28, 2016, 11 days before the election Comey wrote to Congress that the FBI had discovered apparently pertinent emails in an "unrelated case," and that the investigation was being reopened. An action that was contrary to DOJ rules and against the advice of his superiors.  He did it because..well, just because his integrity demanded his so doing. Although, he had not read these emails or had a warrant.

    Nine days later, on Nov 6, 2016, two days before the election, Comey wrote another letter to Congress stating that the newly discovered emails had been reviewed and that, based on that review, the conclusion expressed last July had not changed. A "nevermind" for voters. Time to move on and forget all about this glitch.

    At no point did the FBI publicly identify the individual who was subject to the investigation in the "unrelated case," or any other person, save for Sec. Clinton. Although, leaks abounded.  It was emails on a computer of a Clinton staffer, Huma Abedin and her estranged husband, Anthony Weiner.  The later was infamously known bringing additional contamination to the "discovery."

    The Oct 28th letter of Comey to Congress was sent before a search warrant was obtained for the computer with the "newly discovered," emails. Neither Abedin nor Weiner were allowed to see the warrant that was subsequently issued.  And, Comey did not review the emails before sending his letter to Congress.

    An effort to pursue the circumstances, including the warrant issued by Magistrate Judge Fox's findings of probably cause moved forward with US District Court Judge Kevn Castel's order to release by Tuesday, Dec 20, the redacted materials presented to obtain the search warrant (e.g., applications, affidavit in support).  The government's initial objections were overcome by agreements to redact the FBI agents names as well as the individual in the unrelated case still under investigation and the un-involved Ms.Adedin. Much more needs to be investigated.

    That Abedin never saw the warrant (5.00 / 8) (#43)
    by Towanda on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 07:53:09 PM EST
    for her emails amazed me.  Nor the owner of the computer.  I had the same thought: This is the stuff of John Le Carre stories about the Soviet police state, already. . . .

    By the way, in coverage of the impact of Comey's letter, I never have seen mention of what a blow it must have been to the Clinton campaign to lose her closest aide in the crucial last weeks -- remember, Abedin had to leave the campaign trail, the hq, etc. -- when major decisions were being made, such as to which states to go, for which Clinton is criticized.  

    When the definitive book on this campaign comes out, I expect that impact will be addressed, too.

    Parent

    The disclosure today (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by KeysDan on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 04:46:59 PM EST
    of the warrant was "garbage" according to legal experts.  Mere speculation, and based on any email  sent by Mrs. Clinton on her private servers was probable cause of a crime.  It should never have been granted.  

    Parent
    Can someone explain to me why Obama (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by vml68 on Wed Dec 21, 2016 at 01:51:00 PM EST
    still supports Comey? I seriously don't understand why he is standing by him.

    Parent
    President Obama (none / 0) (#127)
    by KeysDan on Wed Dec 21, 2016 at 04:35:41 PM EST
    is an institutionalist and he will not offer any rebukes that might affect the institutions of government.   We saw that during his administration in several instances, such as the defense of NSA mass phone surveillance revelation as a result of the whistleblower, Ed Snowden. And, the inaction on Clapper who lied to Congress.

     There was some change, but the president claimed it had nothing to do with Snowden.   And, in the case of Comey, he does not want to speak out about the FBI.  In his press conference he presented the role of Russia in interfering in the election and steps to be taken, but glossed over the role of the FBI and Comey.  And, then Comey is his appointment.

    But, Comey is a hack. His letter to Congress was unnecessary and wrong. Comey knew as much, telling the FBI, internally, that he knew the letter may be "misinterpreted."  True enough, the letter's  "the FBI cannot yet assess whether or not this material is significant," confirmed the reasons why the DOJ has the policy it has on release during the heat of an election.

     Especially, when the same issue was investigated, at length, and found no basis to proceed, just three months before. And, defended by  Comey, himself, not once, but twice. And, of course, Comey, did not obtain a warrant until after he sent his letter to Congress.

    As for the warrant, it seems to me that there was more probable cause that Comey broke the law in going after the emails in the "unrelated case," than there was probable cause to look at a Clinton staff member's emails, on the premise that any such emails are likely to involve a crime.

     

    Parent

    The worst day's work President Obama ... (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Dec 21, 2016 at 07:26:15 PM EST
    ... ever did in the White House was the day he named Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff. The second worst was the day he nominated James Comey to be FBI director. Both men subsequently proved to be appallingly poor and inappropriate choices for their respective positions, in any and all respects.

    Parent
    I understand what you are saying. (none / 0) (#170)
    by vml68 on Thu Dec 22, 2016 at 05:08:05 PM EST
    IMO, Obama went overboard with the whole "bipartisan" and "they go low, we go high" strategy. As far as I am concerned, it is a ridiculous strategy to use with the Republicans we have in office now.

    I thought he would act on Comey because his whole legacy would be being threatened if Tr*mp won. I don't understand throwing away 8 years of work because he did not want to appear "partisan".  Madness!!!

    Parent

    Kevin Drum on email (none / 0) (#123)
    by KeysDan on Wed Dec 21, 2016 at 12:39:34 PM EST
    swift boating by Republicans.

    Parent
    Alrighty now. (3.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 09:12:06 AM EST
    Trump has nominated a hockey coach to lead the US Army. You just cannot make this bizarre nonsense up.

    Fake News ALERT!!! (none / 0) (#41)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 06:32:25 PM EST
    Now go and find out the truth , Please.

    An accomplished and distinguished resume,

    And he never coached hockey

    Parent

    And very, very little experience in Army (4.33 / 3) (#42)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 06:57:10 PM EST
    He was a mid level officer in the Reserves.

    The disdain Trump shows for government experience will create problems imo.

    Parent

    it's supposed (2.50 / 2) (#44)
    by linea on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 08:10:40 PM EST
    to be a civilian

    i believe the position involves financial management not commanding soldiers.

    Parent

    Scretary of the Army does more than that (none / 0) (#67)
    by MKS on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 03:20:08 PM EST
    Another person with little experience in government.  

    Parent
    Son of a immigrant (none / 0) (#45)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 09:00:15 PM EST
    Blue collar, father was a truck driver, grew up  in Williamsburg Brooklyn.
    Graduated West Point, and NY Law.
    Graduated Ranger School and served in 101st Airborne. After leaving active duty, Viola remained in the U.S. Army Reserves, rising to the rank of major.
    Started multiple businesses, now a billionaire, and a philanthropist.

    Sounds like a can do type of guy.

    But he never coached hockey


    Parent

    He owns a hockey team (none / 0) (#48)
    by jbindc on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 08:03:40 AM EST
    In other words, another billionaire. Money he made in the controversial high-frequency trading industry.

    But hey - Schumer likes him.

    Parent

    NY Law School or NYU Law? (none / 0) (#52)
    by Peter G on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 11:17:42 AM EST
    Yeah, I know I could look it up, but ...

    Parent
    Vinnie Viola (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by KeysDan on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 04:53:43 PM EST
    has a JD degree from New York Law School.

    Parent
    No combat experience (none / 0) (#68)
    by MKS on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 03:21:03 PM EST
    No long term experience in the Army.

    All this can-do b.s.  How about actually knowing what you are doing.

    Parent

    Son of a immigrant (none / 0) (#91)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 07:40:55 PM EST
    Accepted at West Point.  Ranger School.
    Rose to rank of major in the Reserves.

    Yes, he became a billionaire, by starting up several businesses.

    Sorry , but I think that is a impressive resume.

    A can do attitude. The man is used to getting things accomplished.

    Parent

    Really the (none / 0) (#97)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 09:25:15 PM EST
    most important qualification though is will he obey Vladimir and will Vladimir approve? As we've seen with Trump qualifications don't matter.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Dec 21, 2016 at 05:45:49 AM EST
    Vladimir expects the President elect and his administration to follow the footsteps of the current president and administration , letting Russia annex Crimea, invade Ukraine, bolster and prop up Assad and commit war crimes in the Middle East with no repercussions. The real Putin lackey has been Obama. He even let Putin hack the DNC without any repercussions, well, except for a sternly worded lecture which stopped all cyber warfare, lol. Just ask Donna Brazile. So who is the Putin puppet?

    Parent
    That's hysterical (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 21, 2016 at 06:46:24 AM EST
    Why would Putin attempt to mess with Hillary if he agreed with Obama?

    Pucker up and kiss Putin's butt Trevor. It's what Republicans do.

    Parent

    That is for (none / 0) (#132)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Dec 21, 2016 at 08:11:58 PM EST
    You to figure out, multi dimensional chess.

    But hot damn,   Putie couldn't have done much better than Obama, could he?

    Vladimir expects the President elect and his administration to follow the footsteps of the current president and administration , letting Russia annex Crimea, invade Ukraine, bolster and prop up Assad and commit war crimes in the Middle East with no repercussions. The real Putin lackey has been Obama. He even let Putin hack the DNC without any repercussions, well, except for a sternly worded lecture which stopped all cyber warfare, lol. Just ask Donna Brazile. So who is the Putin puppet?


    Parent
    Oh, good lord. (none / 0) (#133)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 21, 2016 at 08:22:37 PM EST
    Put on your Russian Red lipstick Trevor and start kissing Putin's behind because it is what all you Trumpies are going to end up doing. Putin was enraged by the sanctions Hillary negotiated. Trump probably owes Putin a ton of money and Putin has him over a barrel. Why just recently Trump had the pro-Putin Austrian Nazi Party up to Trump tower to form a nice little alliance. You Vichy Republicans would hand the country over to Putin in a heartbeat. Trump is even allying the US with Assad and Putin but then 40% of the GOP admires Putin. So this should make people like you very happy.

    Parent
    No combat experience (none / 0) (#69)
    by MKS on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 03:21:11 PM EST
    No long term experience in the Army.

    All this can-do b.s.  How about actually knowing what you are doing.

    Parent

    good (1.50 / 2) (#93)
    by linea on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 08:15:39 PM EST
    im not endorsing this person obviously

    but we most certainly dont want military people or officers with combat experience (experienced in callously sending young men to die) being involved in government.

    Parent

    Ahem, you do want (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by MKS on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 08:52:30 PM EST
    people running the Army to have combat experience.

    And those with combat experience are often less likely to start wars.  JFK was a good example.  McGovern, perhaps one of the most well known anti-war politicians, was a war hero, being awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross.

    And, as hawkish as John McCain can be, he was clear on waterboarding being torture.  

    Parent

    JFK, in particular (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by MKS on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 09:01:10 PM EST
    knew how chaotic and random combat can be, having his PT-109 run over by Japanese Destroyer at night.

    JFK had enough experience and confidence to resist the generals' call for an invasion--something that would have surely led to nuclear war.

    Parent

    JFK??? (none / 0) (#139)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 21, 2016 at 09:19:22 PM EST
    You seem to forget that JFK was the Prez who expanded US support in Vietnam and then

     

    Washington D.C., November 5, 2003 - A White House tape of President Kennedy and his advisers, published this week in a new book-and-CD collection and excerpted on the Web, confirms that top U.S. officials sought the November 1, 1963 coup against then-South Vietnamese leader Ngo Dinh Diem without apparently considering the physical consequences for Diem personally (he was murdered the following day). The taped meeting and related documents show that U.S. officials, including JFK, vastly overestimated their ability to control the South Vietnamese generals who ran the coup 40 years ago this week.

    Gwued

    Prior to that he allowed the attempted invasion of Cuba to go forward and then lost his nerve and allowed the Cuban rebels to be slaughtered because he wouldn't provide air support.... and then paid ransom for the survivors.

    1962: Bay of Pigs prisoners fly to freedom
    The last of more than 1,000 men taken prisoner at the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba has returned to the United States in time for Christmas.
    The government agreed to the payment of a ransom of $53 million in food and medical supplies, donated by companies all over the USA, as a condition for

    BBC

    But he set the wheels in motion in his meeting with Khrushchev in June'61.

     

    Senior American statesmen like George Kennan advised Kennedy not to rush into a high-level meeting, arguing that Khrushchev had engaged in anti-American propaganda and that the issues at hand could as well be addressed by lower-level diplomats.

    Kennedy ignored the advice and paid the price.

    But Kennedy went ahead, and for two days he was pummeled by the Soviet leader. Despite his eloquence, Kennedy was no match as a sparring partner, and offered only token resistance as Khrushchev lectured him on the hypocrisy of American foreign policy,....

     Kennedy went on: "He just beat the hell out of me. I've got a terrible problem if he thinks I'm inexperienced and have no guts. Until we remove those ideas we won't get anywhere with him."

    To prove that he wasn't weak Kennedy dived into Vietnam. Worse, Khrushchev:

     The following spring, Khrushchev made plans to "throw a hedgehog at Uncle Sam's pants": nuclear missiles in Cuba. And while there were many factors that led to the missile crisis, it is no exaggeration to say that the impression Khrushchev formed at Vienna -- of Kennedy as ineffective -- was among them.

    Look, I voted for Kennedy. But he was shown to be totally out of his league. As a result Khrushchev built the Berlin Wall and almost started WWIII. To avert that he gave up missile bases in Turkey.

    And the last paragraph of this NYT article in May of 2008 is very prophetic.

    If Barack Obama wants to follow in Kennedy's footsteps, he should heed the lesson that Kennedy learned in his first year in office: sometimes there is good reason to fear to negotiate.

    NYTimes

    Obama went on an apology tour to the Islamic worldd and Hillary pushed for a "reset" with Russia..... The result? ISIS, Syria, Iran's nukes, Benghazi on the Muslim side. On the Russian side we have Ukraine, Crimea,Gerogia....

    And more than a million people have died and millions more are in flux and Europe is being invaded by Muslim "refugees" and Obama is bringing more and more here....
     

    Parent

    The Syrian crisis was created (none / 0) (#141)
    by Yman on Wed Dec 21, 2016 at 09:30:10 PM EST
    ... by your boy GWB and all his armchair warriors begging to send others into war,  creating a power vacuum.

    Thanks a lot.

    Parent

    On the Russian side, you say?? (none / 0) (#172)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 22, 2016 at 05:12:09 PM EST
    OMG.  LOL.  That is the Trump foreign policy of cozying up to Putin.  

    Parent
    No, (none / 0) (#101)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Dec 21, 2016 at 05:42:10 AM EST
    You probably want someone who has the seen the real and ugly side of war, and would prefer to avoid it. But when pushed, will choose maximum effort and assault to keep the battle short and swift and protect American lives.
    General Mattis went (after being fired by Obama) on a cross country driving tour visiting as many families of fallen soldiers under his command. I hope and believe that he gets the real cost of war

    Parent
    The real question (3.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 09:24:49 PM EST
    is will he obey Vladimir? Nothing else seems to matter these days.

    Parent
    I know this post won't stay up long. (2.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 01:07:35 PM EST
    But I will say it anyway. There are other ways to get rid of Trump other than impeachment. It has been my hope that there is a cabal of realists in the national security apparatus who know how dangerous a President Trump will be to national security and already has plans underway to deal with that threat.

    I had a feeling if Peter G read your comment (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by vml68 on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 04:10:06 PM EST
    he would not approve. Peter you are a better person than me. I have thought the same thoughts as ChuckO, only difference being I wished Tr*mp's years of fast food consumption might take it's toll on him sooner rather than later. I got the side-eye from my husband when I mentioned it.

    I guess Tr*mp has brought out the ugly not just in his supporters, but in me too :-(

    Parent

    You hope (none / 0) (#24)
    by Steve13209 on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 01:17:32 PM EST
    That the US has a coup, leaving Pence as President? What kind of person are you?

    Parent
    Buy a dictionary. (2.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 03:35:41 PM EST
    Eliminating one actor does not make a "coup."

    Parent
    I do not relish (none / 0) (#35)
    by CST on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 04:22:48 PM EST
    The idea of what the response to that would be.

    The backlash of such an event would not be pretty.

    Parent

    Ok, your candidate lost. What do you like to say? (none / 0) (#5)
    by JeriKoll on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 06:08:11 AM EST
    MOVE ON!

    The Republicans lost some elections.

    They didn't roll over and die.

    Who's suggesting we should ... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Yman on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 07:36:07 AM EST
    ... "roll over and die"?  Just the opposite, in fact.   It's time to stand up and fight harder against Trump and his supporters.

    Parent
    This is more than losing an election (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 08:30:37 AM EST
    If we had lost to Kasich everyone would be moving on. We are saddled with a crazy man.

    Parent
    Crazy? (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Erehwon on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 01:48:55 PM EST
    Is that what the young call it these days?

    Parent
    The Russian ambassador (none / 0) (#14)
    by jbindc on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 11:09:09 AM EST
    To Turkey has died after being shot by gunmen who stormed an art gallery

    Of course, no tweets from Trump...

    Trump (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by FlJoe on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 11:14:58 AM EST
    is probably waiting for instructions from his puppet master.

    Parent
    Yes, (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 12:36:52 PM EST
    he's waiting to be told by Vladimir what to do.

    Parent
    Let the hearings (none / 0) (#16)
    by FlJoe on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 11:51:56 AM EST
    begin! Maybe be can trade Trey Gowdy to the Russians for a case of vodka or something.

    Parent
    Isn't it great? Turkey is on fire (none / 0) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 11:54:57 AM EST
    And we've got President Trump

    Parent
    No, we do not have President Trump (none / 0) (#27)
    by Peter G on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 03:03:21 PM EST
    We have President Obama, thank goodness, for more than another month. Take a breath, Tracy.

    Parent
    And by way of example (or proof) (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Peter G on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 04:24:33 PM EST
    of my point ... Another 153 commutations of excessive federal drug sentences granted today, plus 78 outright pardons (the first of those in a long time).

    Parent
    Some of those commutations (none / 0) (#60)
    by fishcamp on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 01:47:18 PM EST
    seemed way overboard to me.  Many had been caught with pot, coke, crack, meth and guns.  I had been under the impression that since the prisons are so over crowded that they were hoping to commute some of the thousands of prisoners incarcerated for marijuana, but somehow they seem to have moved the goalposts.  Who makes these recommendations to the president?  It points out the absurdity of marijuana being a class one drug, and the people caught with guns should stay in prison.

    Parent
    There is nothing "overboard" about (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Peter G on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 03:13:43 PM EST
    reducing sentences of life without parole -- as many of these were -- to sentences of 20 and 30 years, as the President did in most of the cases. In my opinion, those sentences are still way too long. No one is getting off easy.  As to who advises him, it is the Office of Pardon Attorney within the U.S. Dept of Justice, manned by a core of highly experienced, professional prosecutors, who are looking to recommend that the President adjust highly excessive sentences to "normal" (still excessive, imho) ones.

    Parent
    Thanks Peter, and I agree (none / 0) (#71)
    by fishcamp on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 03:51:24 PM EST
    With the life without parole for drug offenses situation.  I was just shocked to see so many drug cases with guns involved.  Upon further thinking, if the cops came to my house and smelled pot they could bust me, and then find my hunting rifles that I've had for fifty years, and I would be in the category of drugs and guns, which would be unfair.  If they changed the category of marijuana the commutations and pardons would  undoubtedly release many languishing in prison for a mere weed that is becoming legal in many states..  Those that are in prison for pot in the now legal states must be doubly upset.

    Parent
    In federal drug sentencing (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Peter G on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 05:28:54 PM EST
    the greatest injustices are not found in marijuana cases -- there are relatively few, and they are nearly all very large ones, with violence involved -- but rather in the crack cocaine cases, where sentences were through the roof for relatively small amounts sold by lower-level folks caught up in large conspiracies. With a lot of racial discrimination thrown in for good measure, along with a fair amount of sentencing of dealers' girlfriends for "aiding and abetting" with little regard for their true role, if any.

    Parent
    Loved him in Brian's Song. (none / 0) (#65)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 02:51:57 PM EST
    Billy Dee Williams -- Charlotte
    Offense: Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base; using/carrying firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime; and aiding and abetting; Western District of North Carolina
    Sentence: Life plus 60 months' imprisonment; 10 years' supervised release (July 11, 2006)
    Commutation Grant: Prison sentence commuted to a term of 228 months' imprisonment.


    Parent
    Turkey has been spiraling out of (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 05:25:51 PM EST
    Control for awhile. I do not expect Trump to respond well under the sressors coming. I expect escalation instead of de-escalation from Trump.

    Parent
    At this point (none / 0) (#31)
    by FlJoe on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 03:40:50 PM EST
     I think foreign policy is mostly out of Obama's hands, there is little reason for him to initiate anything and I doubt he has any leverage left in any case.

    Trump has shown to the world that there will be no continuity in our policys (even longstanding bipartisan goals are in question), it's not just Americans who are holding their breath and the rest of the world has already arrived at the post Obama reality, a reality based on uncertainty.

    Parent

    I see things still in Obama's hands (none / 0) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 05:28:20 PM EST
    But Trump on Twitter will have its affect too.

    What ails Turkey will not be repaired before Trump's inauguration.

    Parent

    It's that day (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 11:53:36 AM EST
    When the electoral college votes. Refuse to watch the news, don't even know when and if it has gone down. I know the cock will crow on Twitter as soon as it's done anyhow just to let me know.

    No reason (none / 0) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 12:36:12 PM EST
    to watch. We all know what is going to happen.

    Parent
    What happened in Wisconsin was (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Towanda on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 01:00:13 PM EST
    a protest outside the state capitol, by hundreds -- despite the minus-one-degree temperature.

    The protesters were, of course, mocked by media.

    Parent

    p.s. Every time that media here mock (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by Towanda on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 01:06:27 PM EST
    Americans legally and peacefully exercising their Constitutional rights, as they also did during our recount, I reply -- to their tweets -- with a response pointing out that what they are doing is lousy journalism, and I copy to their editors.

    Just once has that been acknowledged by an editor (although that reporter did tone it down, so he may have been advised to do so).  

    Today's tweet did get a reply from a reporter, who whined that it's harrrd to edit oneself and provide context in a tweet.  I replied with an example of how he could have done so, within 140 characters.  I also replied that editing as well as reporting with context and within space constraints has been taught in journalism classes -- for example, in photo captions -- and that perhaps those journalists who cannot do so on the job got poor grades in college.

     

    Parent

    Is anything there... (none / 0) (#107)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Dec 21, 2016 at 06:22:52 AM EST
    Inaccurate?

    Just makes me laugh, Chicken Little running around screaming Putin Puppets, Putin Puppets...

    Well, then I look at the past 4 years ...

    Vladimir expects the President elect and his administration to follow the footsteps of the current president and administration , letting Russia annex Crimea, invade Ukraine, bolster and prop up Assad and commit war crimes in the Middle East with no repercussions. The real Putin lackey has been Obama. He even let Putin hack the DNC without any repercussions, well, except for a sternly worded lecture which stopped all cyber warfare, lol. Just ask Donna Brazile. So who is the Putin puppet?


    I hope you (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by FlJoe on Wed Dec 21, 2016 at 07:42:22 AM EST
    get some nice lipstick for Christmas.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#111)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 21, 2016 at 07:52:58 AM EST
    I think Russian Red would do quite nicely.

    Parent
    Yes let's (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by FlJoe on Wed Dec 21, 2016 at 08:00:00 AM EST
    look at the last four years(using actual facts)

    Fact: Obama has condemned Russia and slapped harsh sanctions on them.

    Fact: Trump has praised Putin and appears to be ready to unilaterally drop the sanctions.

    Fact: Obama and Clinton consider Putin a serious adversary.

    Fact: Many of Trumps top advisors  have been pals of Putin for years.

    I hear Putin still prefers "Soviet Red" on his ho's, so they  look real purdy while they pucker up.


    Parent

    Anybody seen oculus? (none / 0) (#119)
    by caseyOR on Wed Dec 21, 2016 at 11:38:56 AM EST
    She has been absent from around these parts for quite some time.

    She's fine! (none / 0) (#121)
    by ruffian on Wed Dec 21, 2016 at 12:29:34 PM EST
    Doing more keeping up with BTD on twitter than here for the time being.

    Parent
    I was wondering what happened to her too. (none / 0) (#124)
    by vml68 on Wed Dec 21, 2016 at 01:48:33 PM EST
    I was expecting her to comment when Jeralyn put up the post about Roman Polanski a couple of weeks ago :-)!

    Parent
    Ha! Yes I thought that would draw her out too (none / 0) (#126)
    by ruffian on Wed Dec 21, 2016 at 03:18:38 PM EST
    The "Swamp" (none / 0) (#120)
    by FlJoe on Wed Dec 21, 2016 at 12:24:53 PM EST
    gets a pardon. !!!

    Newt Gingrich said Wednesday that Donald Trump's "drain the swamp" catch phrase was "cute" but that the President-elect now disclaims it

    Sure glad that "cuteness" assuaged the economic concerns of the WWC.

    Wow, Pepe the frog will be so disappointed! (none / 0) (#122)
    by ruffian on Wed Dec 21, 2016 at 12:31:50 PM EST
    4-chan wankers !! (none / 0) (#151)
    by linea on Wed Dec 21, 2016 at 10:18:59 PM EST
    Pepe the Frog has been taken hostage by the alt-right fringe. The once-noble meme is now an icon of white supremacy, trotted out to signify the Trump Train's internet bona fides. He needs our help like never before.


    Parent
    Son of a Gun (none / 0) (#137)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Dec 21, 2016 at 08:57:38 PM EST
    The Donald Strikes Again!!
    http://tinyurl.com/jvxnxka


    The heads of Boeing and Lockheed Martin emerged from meetings with President-elect Trump vowing to rein in the costs of new Air Force Ones and the nation's premier fighter jet.
    Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg left the meeting at Trump's Mar-A-Lago estate Wednesday to say one topic had been the $4 billion price tag cited by Trump for two new Air Force One jets.
    Muilenburg said that Boeing will "get it done for less than that... We're going to make sure that he gets the best capability and that it's done affordably."


    Heh, heh, heh ... (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Yman on Wed Dec 21, 2016 at 10:05:06 PM EST
    So a contractor says they won't charge as much as Trump's overestimate (over the next decade) and you think that means something???

    Heh, heh, heh ...

    Parent

    Yup (none / 0) (#155)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Dec 22, 2016 at 05:19:42 AM EST
    They hate the bad press, and it gets results. we will see down the road, but the immediate results are promising.

    Parent
    What "immediate results"? (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Dec 22, 2016 at 06:50:45 AM EST
    Both Boeing and Lockheed haven't promised anything to Trump above and beyond what they've already been contracted by the Pentagon to do.

    Parent
    Oh, please! (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Dec 21, 2016 at 10:13:29 PM EST
    The purported $4 billion price tag Trump first tweeted as the cost of a new Air Force One aircraft is simply false on its face, and has no basis in fact. These guys merely sat him down and set him straight -- and personally, I think it's a damned shame that they even had to do so in the first place.

    Rather, Boeing is presently under contract to the U.S. Air Force for $170 million, to determine the capabilities of these complex military aircraft so that they can serve the unique requirements and necessary demands of the president and commander-in-chief.

    The $4 billion cost estimate being bandied about by the media would actually be for TWO B747-800 series aircraft adapted and customized specifically for service as Air Force One, not just one aircraft as Trump initially alleged. Further, that cost includes the initial development (as cited above), the construction of the two aircraft themselves, and all subsequent maintenance.

    Given the unique customized demands needed for Air Force One, and the fact that the cost of a regular B747-800 series airliner is $379 million per unit, I don't find the estimated $2 billion per plane to be out of the ballpark at all.

    The two B747-200B aircraft that are currently being used as Air Force One were first built in the late 1980s when Ronald Reagan was president, and they are nearly 30 years old. That's why they need to be replaced.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Maybe they can find... (none / 0) (#154)
    by desertswine on Wed Dec 21, 2016 at 11:47:14 PM EST
    a couple of Zeppelins to haul Trump's butt around in.

    Parent