The future of Electoral Voters

[Rustic]

Hatred.

I'm not like you Joey. I don't hate.

That is your domain.

Really? Because frankly, I read your dripping misogyny about Hillary, and all I see is hate. You keep kicking her ever after she is down.

But frankly, I don't want to discuss your problems with women, too depressing.

I on the other hand, really hate Nazis. My Grandfather left Germany to get away from them, my father fought them in WWII, and I had other relatives who found themselves in Concentration camps. So when I see a guy who is an obvious Nazi rise to power, yeah, I really don't like that.

Do you enjoy being ***** whipped? Joe, you really got to get out of your mothers basement more often...

 

[Rustic]

Like it or not we have a new president… His name is Donald Trump.

 

[Russ Alllah Gehry]

We need a few basic civics lessons around here. Am I alone in believing this to be true?

 

[JoeB131]

We need a few basic civics lessons around here. Am I alone in believing this to be true?

Pretty much. "The Founding Slave Rapists Said So", isn't a good reason to do something stupid after the voters pretty clearly said no.

 

[martybegan]

How can a misogynist have a woman as a campaign manager, or let his daughter run parts of his business. You mistake crudeness for hatred, as progressives typically do when it suits them.

The only reason why he hired her is because the first guy beat up a woman and the second guy was owned by the Russians. Now, if she were his FIRST choice to run his campaign, you might have a point there.

sorry, a guy who talks about how he grabs women by the ***** and then apparently has done that a bunch of times, is really a misogynist.

Look, guy, I know you need to put lipstick on this pig. But you all screwed up letting this guy win because you just couldn't stand the thought of the Clintons winning.

and as for calling for the murder of 5 innocent minorities, link please.

Don't tell Donald Trump the Central Park 5 aren't guilty

Grant is on the 50 for his civil war service, not his presidency. It's amazing how you reconstruct history to suit your views, kind of like a Holocaust denier.

Hayes served in the Civil War, too. In fact, he was a General. Still not getting him on the currency for some reason. Oh, that' right, because he SUCKED as a president. At the time he was called "His Fraudulency" and "Rutherfraud". The people knew what was up.

No, you were implying they were "the worst", and now you move the goal post to say "well now prove they were good". What a ******* hack you are.

Go back and read what I actually said. It's on you to prove they were good, not me to prove they were worse than any other option. (Although, again, you'd have a hard time arguing that they weren't.)

My 401k survived just fine. Stop blaming someone else, and take accountability for your own poor financial decisions. If your 401k hasn't recovered by now, you are an idiot.

Well, mine did fine, too, UNDER OBAMA. Then I had to cash it out to pay off medical bills still left over from Bush's time because my company undercut me in the middle of treatment.

This year, I'll post the largest amount of money we ever made, and never before will I have so much set aside for retirement. I will be debt free by the end of the 2017, providing Trump can avoid ******* things up before then.

But all my planning from here on out is based on the premise that Trump IS going to **** everything up.

Yeah, all those accusations against Trump seemed to have evaporated towards the end of the campaign, almost like they were made up and people started calling them on it....

and again, a real misogynist wouldn't have even made a woman a 3rd pick.

As for the Central Park 5, the whole city went along with that circus, you can blame anyone in NYC at the time.

Hayes wasn't the General that led the Union Army to victory via the total war strategy, Grant was, and that's why he was on the 50. More history jiggery pokery on your part.

And as for your 401k whining, mine went up during both administrations, mostly because I pay attention to it.

 

[JoeB131]

Yeah, all those accusations against Trump seemed to have evaporated towards the end of the campaign, almost like they were made up and people started calling them on it....

and again, a real misogynist wouldn't have even made a woman a 3rd pick.

Uh, guy, you need to stop rewriting history... those claims didn't disappear...

And, yeah, you do pick a nice token woman when you get caught doing stuff you shouldn't be doing. When Clinton got caught, he sent out a whole bunch of women to defend him.

As for the Central Park 5, the whole city went along with that circus, you can blame anyone in NYC at the time.

The difference is, everyone else in NYC realizes they made a mistake, but not your Trumpenfuhrer. He still thinks they're guilty.

Hayes wasn't the General that led the Union Army to victory via the total war strategy, Grant was, and that's why he was on the 50. More history jiggery pokery on your part.

Well, uh, guy, the point is, he is on the $50. He was President. We don't put shitty presidents on the currency.

Which is why Hayes isn't on the currency.

Come on, guy, you are getting off the path. When did the EC flip a big bird to the popular vote and we had a really good result. that was the standard.

And as for your 401k whining, mine went up during both administrations, mostly because I pay attention to it.

Really/ Can't see how that's true, given stock lost 60% of their value in 2008-2009... but you keep telling us otherwise... since no one can call bullshit on you.

Oh, wait, I just did.

 

[martybegan]

Yeah, all those accusations against Trump seemed to have evaporated towards the end of the campaign, almost like they were made up and people started calling them on it....

and again, a real misogynist wouldn't have even made a woman a 3rd pick.

Uh, guy, you need to stop rewriting history... those claims didn't disappear...

And, yeah, you do pick a nice token woman when you get caught doing stuff you shouldn't be doing. When Clinton got caught, he sent out a whole bunch of women to defend him.

As for the Central Park 5, the whole city went along with that circus, you can blame anyone in NYC at the time.

The difference is, everyone else in NYC realizes they made a mistake, but not your Trumpenfuhrer. He still thinks they're guilty.

Hayes wasn't the General that led the Union Army to victory via the total war strategy, Grant was, and that's why he was on the 50. More history jiggery pokery on your part.

Well, uh, guy, the point is, he is on the $50. He was President. We don't put shitty presidents on the currency.

Which is why Hayes isn't on the currency.

Come on, guy, you are getting off the path. When did the EC flip a big bird to the popular vote and we had a really good result. that was the standard.

And as for your 401k whining, mine went up during both administrations, mostly because I pay attention to it.

Really/ Can't see how that's true, given stock lost 60% of their value in 2008-2009... but you keep telling us otherwise... since no one can call bullshit on you.

Oh, wait, I just did.

So why haven't any of the claims gone forward/to court?

They seemed to evaporate 3 weeks before the election....

Grant was a bad president, but he was a great General and that's why he's on the currency.

The key is diversification, having your high risk stock funds in the US, the Pacific, and Europe.

Plus at my age (still) the key is always share count, not value, so downturns only help, not hurt.

 

[JoeB131]

So why haven't any of the claims gone forward/to court?

They seemed to evaporate 3 weeks before the election....

Who said the point was to sue? YOu do realize that 99% of women who are subject to sexual harassment don't sue, right?

Grant was a bad president, but he was a great General and that's why he's on the currency.

I would say he was an okay president, and whoever put him on the currency agreed. In fact he got a second term and was being seriously considered for a third.

The key is diversification, having your high risk stock funds in the US, the Pacific, and Europe.

Plus at my age (still) the key is always share count, not value, so downturns only help, not hurt.

Whatever, guy... somehow, I doubt you were smarter than Warren buffet and all the other guys who took a bath when your boy BUsh tanked the economy.

Not to worry, Trump will get around to tanking it again.

 

[Freewill]

Since politics has devolved into little more than short term thinking, here's a question to ponder. Let's look down the road a bit.

First, let's assume that the EV system remains, so all those who to bring that up don't need to (although I'm sure they will).

Now that the idea of turning Electoral Voters from their obligation has been breached on the largest level to date, can we expect EV's to be targeted each and every presidential election from now on?

And does anyone doubt that this "targeting" will include threats and intimidation and bribery?

The presidential election will only be prelude. The real battle would begin after that. A few dozen faceless EV's will have the power to control the destiny of 300+ million Americans.

Is this really what we want?
.

It needs to stay to protect America from the tyrany of a few very high populated states. That is what our government was founded upon giving the minority a voice. Not total control but at least a voice. If we wish to devolve into CA dediding the president then i am not ready to cede that sort of power. If we are ready for the majority of states, weighed by population to decide then we stick with what we have.

The crying about the EC this election is natural, in my opinion. Had it gone the other way the crying would be equally loud. But it is just crying about losing a baseball game playing by the rules. They don't like the outcome, don't blame them, so they want to force their desired outcome upon the rest of us.

So it comes down to philosophy. Do we want one, two or three large states picking the presidency? Or do we want the system we have were there are 51 popularity contests run? Just saying that a person doesn't want the EC cause their candidate didn't win is BS.

 

[martybegan]

So why haven't any of the claims gone forward/to court?

They seemed to evaporate 3 weeks before the election....

Who said the point was to sue? YOu do realize that 99% of women who are subject to sexual harassment don't sue, right?

Grant was a bad president, but he was a great General and that's why he's on the currency.

I would say he was an okay president, and whoever put him on the currency agreed. In fact he got a second term and was being seriously considered for a third.

The key is diversification, having your high risk stock funds in the US, the Pacific, and Europe.

Plus at my age (still) the key is always share count, not value, so downturns only help, not hurt.

Whatever, guy... somehow, I doubt you were smarter than Warren buffet and all the other guys who took a bath when your boy BUsh tanked the economy.

Not to worry, Trump will get around to tanking it again.

All of Grant's popularity was from his war service.

and again, why haven't those accusations continued once Trump was elected? Pretty powerful stuff to have as ammo in the current EC fight, unless of course they were all made up...

Those guys too a bath, but then they bought cheap on the rebound. Again, if you had managed your portfolio properly, you would have weathered the storm better.

Not my fault you can't manage your money.

 

[Mac1958]

Since politics has devolved into little more than short term thinking, here's a question to ponder. Let's look down the road a bit.

First, let's assume that the EV system remains, so all those who to bring that up don't need to (although I'm sure they will).

Now that the idea of turning Electoral Voters from their obligation has been breached on the largest level to date, can we expect EV's to be targeted each and every presidential election from now on?

And does anyone doubt that this "targeting" will include threats and intimidation and bribery?

The presidential election will only be prelude. The real battle would begin after that. A few dozen faceless EV's will have the power to control the destiny of 300+ million Americans.

Is this really what we want?
.

It needs to stay to protect America from the tyrany of a few very high populated states. That is what our government was founded upon giving the minority a voice. Not total control but at least a voice. If we wish to devolve into CA dediding the president then i am not ready to cede that sort of power. If we are ready for the majority of states, weighed by population to decide then we stick with what we have.

The crying about the EC this election is natural, in my opinion. Had it gone the other way the crying would be equally loud. But it is just crying about losing a baseball game playing by the rules. They don't like the outcome, don't blame them, so they want to force their desired outcome upon the rest of us.

So it comes down to philosophy. Do we want one, two or three large states picking the presidency? Or do we want the system we have were there are 51 popularity contests run? Just saying that a person doesn't want the EC cause their candidate didn't win is BS.

While (as you know) I'm not happy with the election results, I get the theory, and I'd agree that it should remain.
.

 

[Russ Alllah Gehry]

We need a few basic civics lessons around here. Am I alone in believing this to be true?

Pretty much. "The Founding Slave Rapists Said So", isn't a good reason to do something stupid after the voters pretty clearly said no.

What? I guess you're not a serious man Joe

 

[yiostheoy]

Since politics has devolved into little more than short term thinking, here's a question to ponder. Let's look down the road a bit.

First, let's assume that the EV system remains, so all those who to bring that up don't need to (although I'm sure they will).

Now that the idea of turning Electoral Voters from their obligation has been breached on the largest level to date, can we expect EV's to be targeted each and every presidential election from now on?

And does anyone doubt that this "targeting" will include threats and intimidation and bribery?

The presidential election will only be prelude. The real battle would begin after that. A few dozen faceless EV's will have the power to control the destiny of 300+ million Americans.

Is this really what we want?
.

Chuck Todd on NBC's Meet The Press asked roughly the same thing on his show yesterday (12/18/2016).

Should we amend the Constitution?

The salient issue is however does the GOP want to amend it? They have won a home run with it twice now -- under Trump and under "W" Bush.

I don't seen anything changing on this.

But it is a great question by Chuck Todd and others.

I love watching Chuck Todd and John Dickerson wrestle with these issues every Sunday morning.

 

[yiostheoy]

All of Grant's popularity was from his war service.

and again, why haven't those accusations continued once Trump was elected? Pretty powerful stuff to have as ammo in the current EC fight, unless of course they were all made up...

Those guys too a bath, but then they bought cheap on the rebound. Again, if you had managed your portfolio properly, you would have weathered the storm better.

Not my fault you can't manage your money.

Grant was a nationwide hero, same as Ike was later.

Ironically both became fairly inept Presidents.

 

[Mac1958]

Since politics has devolved into little more than short term thinking, here's a question to ponder. Let's look down the road a bit.

First, let's assume that the EV system remains, so all those who to bring that up don't need to (although I'm sure they will).

Now that the idea of turning Electoral Voters from their obligation has been breached on the largest level to date, can we expect EV's to be targeted each and every presidential election from now on?

And does anyone doubt that this "targeting" will include threats and intimidation and bribery?

The presidential election will only be prelude. The real battle would begin after that. A few dozen faceless EV's will have the power to control the destiny of 300+ million Americans.

Is this really what we want?
.

Chuck Todd on NBC's Meet The Press asked roughly the same thing on his show yesterday (12/18/2016).

Should we amend the Constitution?

The salient issue is however does the GOP want to amend it? They have won a home run with it twice now -- under Trump and under "W" Bush.

I don't seen anything changing on this.

But it is a great question by Chuck Todd and others.

I love watching Chuck Todd and John Dickerson wrestle with these issues every Sunday morning.

Everything should always been subject to review. While I lean towards keeping it, a serious discussion is certainly valid.
.

 

[yiostheoy]

We need a few basic civics lessons around here. Am I alone in believing this to be true?

Pretty much. "The Founding Slave Rapists Said So", isn't a good reason to do something stupid after the voters pretty clearly said no.

Jefferson raped his slave, but we don't know if any of the other Founding Freemasons did or not. You should not therefore ever ass-u-me.

 

[yiostheoy]

Since politics has devolved into little more than short term thinking, here's a question to ponder. Let's look down the road a bit.

First, let's assume that the EV system remains, so all those who to bring that up don't need to (although I'm sure they will).

Now that the idea of turning Electoral Voters from their obligation has been breached on the largest level to date, can we expect EV's to be targeted each and every presidential election from now on?

And does anyone doubt that this "targeting" will include threats and intimidation and bribery?

The presidential election will only be prelude. The real battle would begin after that. A few dozen faceless EV's will have the power to control the destiny of 300+ million Americans.

Is this really what we want?
.

Chuck Todd on NBC's Meet The Press asked roughly the same thing on his show yesterday (12/18/2016).

Should we amend the Constitution?

The salient issue is however does the GOP want to amend it? They have won a home run with it twice now -- under Trump and under "W" Bush.

I don't seen anything changing on this.

But it is a great question by Chuck Todd and others.

I love watching Chuck Todd and John Dickerson wrestle with these issues every Sunday morning.

Everything should always been subject to review. While I lean towards keeping it, a serious discussion is certain valid.
.

Chuck Todd and John Dickerson are having a serious discussion about it.

But it's all talk.

I don't seen anything changing under the current GOP control.

It helped them twice. It was a Godsend for them and us.

Thank God Hillary is NOT the POTUS.

 

[Mac1958]

I don't seen anything changing under the current GOP control.

Bingo. For now it's just theorizing.
.

 

[yiostheoy]

I don't seen anything changing under the current GOP control.

Bingo. For now it's just theorizing.
.

While I would have preferred Gore to Bush, I still prefer Trump to Hillary, although I would prefer Kasich to both.

To prevent the big states (which have long since gone Communist within their own borders) like Calif and NY from dictating to the rest of the Nation, I like the Electoral College.

Whereas "W" was a disaster for the world, Hillary would have been an ever bigger disaster.

 

[Freewill]

We need a few basic civics lessons around here. Am I alone in believing this to be true?

Pretty much. "The Founding Slave Rapists Said So", isn't a good reason to do something stupid after the voters pretty clearly said no.

Jefferson raped his slave, but we don't know if any of the other Founding Freemasons did or not. You should not therefore ever ass-u-me.

You got proof of this rape?