2016 Elections

[Mr.B]

OK, so I've given it a little thought. I think election of Trump is a disastrous tragedy.
I do too, but --- given the alternative--

I think hounding Hillary for years by the Republican scum ought to be criminal.
Can't stop it. The Liberal SCOTUS ruled it free speech. Y'all applauded it then; now the shoe's on the other foot.

But if we had to choose from this years clown car, Trump is likely better than any of the rest other than Kasich, who never had a chance. Here's why: Trump is a loose cannon who won't just rubber stamp everything the right wing tries to pass, and in fact some of his, ummmm, "positions" are opposed to the rabid right wing. He knows nothing about how to get anything done in DC and unlike a campaign where his marketing skills/talent/intuition got him elected, that won't be as effective IRL, particularly in dealing with people who don't share his appreciation for "making a deal." So there's a fair chance that other than making the US look like a bunch of racist/bigoted/misogynists/village idiots, he might be less harmful than say, a Cruz or another Bush.
As opposed to following along blindly with every whim and whine from the liberal left just to maintain his popularity?

Trump can do some personal damage. He could, if he really wants to, un-do Executive Orders.
"Executive Orders", for the most part, are "laws" that the sitting POTUS took upon himself to enact; to force the citizens to abide by his whims. No big deal in undoing them, if it can be done.

He certainly can appoint loons to the Supreme Court and lower courts. He can appoint heads of agencies and departments who decline to enforce their own regulations or revise the regulations. But again, unqualified heads of agencies who ignore the professional staff don't have a history of much success.
Hillary couldn't? Are you saying all Hillary appointees would have been perfect, running their respective offices in complete perfection? Aren't you forgetting you're speaking of politics? Do you honestly think all appointees should be those who only think in one direction?

Everything about the government is going to be a clusterfuck,
It already is; has been for years.

but that may very well be better than a competent, well-organized, and effective right-wing government.
Are you serious?

Then there's the effect of public pressure that can no longer be totally ignored. And the prospect that by mid-term a lot of Congressional seats will turn over and Trump's reign may make the path easier in an otherwise tough Senate election cycle. And, finally, winning in 2016 is less important that 2020 when the winners get to re-arrange the election districts. It's certainly possible that after 4 years of constant bashing, slashing, impeding, and obstructing Hillary that she and other Dems could get flushed at a really bad time (like in 2010).

On balance, there could have been worse results.
Yep. We could have gotten Ben Carson.

In the meantime, there's nothing I can do about it, so Lady O and I are going to the gym, tending some home chores, watching some football, stocking the winter residence for Florida, and expecting life to go on, until it doesn't.
Pretty much the same here. I'm resigned to the fact that Trump is the new POTUS and nothing I can do will change that, despite my looting and burning, screaming and cursing, the drama queens will still be posting and cursing insults here, etc.
To coin my Phrase of the Month, the chips have fallen, the people have spoken, people in the streets are cursing and burning the flag and in general, acting like damn spoiled brats who didn't get what they wanted.

I'll just sit at home and watch the drama unfold.

[O Really]

Another thing - the left will be energized like it should have been during 7 years (until this one) of Obama's GOP-lite.

Yeah, although it's hard to jump very hard on your only immediately available alternative to the alt-right idiots who are instantly opposed to anything Obama does, just because he's Obama. If the left could have come up with a way to boost their views without joining the Obama-bashers, it would have been good as a way to prepare a better context for selection of the 2016 candidates.

On a professional note, labor and employment attorneys are usually happy with any change in regulations since that almost always means more business, but the mess there's likely to be with Trump's administration is going to be a gold rush. Even if the change is a complete or partial repeal of a given regulation, it still causes problems in the workplace. In Cali a few years ago, the Governator's people decided to repeal the requirement to pay overtime after 8 hours in a day (not just after 40 in a week like federal law). Thousands of employers who had gotten used to the system they had, and millions of employees didn't adjust well. A few years later, they changed it back, creating more confusion and the resultant wage-hour litigation. Lots of billable hours coming up for all!

[Vrede too]

I didn't mean Obama-bashing or the missed opportunity for Hillary-bashing as much as better movement building for what we want. There's a tendency to be complacent, cautious and insider focused when a theoretical liberal is in charge. As we saw we with the ballot issues, the Trump voters against a rigged economy, Bernie's run and even the fact that Hillary won the popular vote, most people are on our side. We just have to make that more effective.

[rstrong]

Hillary would have broken the glass ceiling.
Trump broke the rubber-padded ceiling.

[rstrong]

while championing the murder of an unborn child that's just a few weeks from birth?

You know that this is very rare, right? Less than 1% of abortions, and done in cases where the mother's life is in danger or where fetal anomaly has been detected?



That was a trick question, of course. No doubt you oppose abortion where the mother's life is in danger, let alone in cases of rape and incest. That's how you roll.

One thing I forgot to mention:

Ronald Reagan was the first to own the anti-abortion vote, promising to overturn Row vs. Wade and end abortion. Once elected he turned his back on the anti-abortion and made no effort to overturn Row vs. Wade. It was the same for Bush I.

Bush II also own the anti-abortion vote and promised to ban abortion. For a couple years he controlled the White House, House and Senate all at once. The Democrats couldn't have stopped him. But he.... forgot?

The most federal Republicans will do is cut funding to overseas family planning programs - including birth control, likely driving the abortion rate UP. But it gives them an illusion of doing something. The simple fact is, once in office, federal Republicans are in lock-step with federal Democrats on abortion.

And if you think that Donald Trump - on record as strongly pro-choice until running - would be any different, I have a Trump University scholarship to sell you.

[Vrede too]

Most Republicans are women or married to women, a few are both.

Apparently, pretending to Big Brother misogynist "morality" is more moral than pro-woman honesty.

[Mr.B]

"No doubt you oppose abortion where the mother's life is in danger, let alone in cases of rape and incest. That's how you roll."

You're beginning to sound more like Vrede every time you post. When do you graduate his school of Assholery?

You're wrong. I've stated many times that I oppose abortion as a means of "birth control"...the wanton murder of a baby just because it was unwanted.

"Planned Parenthood"...the name speaks for itself.

[rstrong]

"No doubt you oppose abortion where the mother's life is in danger, let alone in cases of rape and incest. That's how you roll."

You're beginning to sound more like Vrede every time you post. When do you graduate his school of Assholery?

It's every time YOU post. It's a response to your assholery.

You're wrong. I've stated many times that I oppose abortion as a means of "birth control"...the wanton murder of a baby just because it was unwanted.

Only with an extreme and unrealistic definition of human being: "Life begins a conception."

Even with abortion out of the picture, only 50% of fertilized eggs will make it to birth. Most abortions are spontaneous, happen naturally, and most women never even know it because it happens in the first month. If you're religious, you have to accept that God is the biggest abortionist.

It's hard to say a what point an embryo becomes a human being, but it isn't during the first trimester. Synapses don't even begin forming until 17 weeks in. 17 to 20 weeks seems like a much more reasonable crossover point. Call for an abortion ban - except in cases of rape and incest and where the mother's life is in danger - after that and I'd support it. And (looking at the above chart) I'm sure you'd get plenty of support from Democrats and *actual* support from Republicans.

"Planned Parenthood"...the name speaks for itself.

Contraception. Breast and cervical cancer screening. Pregnancy testing. Pregnancy counseling. Testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections. Sex education. Vasectomies. Yes, the name certainly does speak for itself.

Abortion is only a small part of what they do, and half of Planned Parenthood affiliates don't offer them.

But approximately four out of five of their clients have incomes near or below the federal poverty level, making it the perfect target for Republicans. Spread lots of fear and hate and lies, and gullible hatemongers like you eat it up and vote for them.

You know, as opposed to offering a reasonable policy on abortion, because then Democrats might support it. Not all, but enough. But that would cost Republicans votes.

[Vrede too]

"Planned Parenthood"...the name speaks for itself.

:?: :?: :?: :!: :!: :!:

That should be the goal for everyone, regardless of strategy used. What have you got against proper homes for children?

[rstrong]

"On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
- H.L. Mencken, 1920

[Mr.B]

re-posted to edit

[Vrede too]

"On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
- H.L. Mencken, 1920

2001, we're used to it.

[Mr.B]

"On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
- H.L. Mencken, 1920

It's hard to determine which is worse...one man, or the knowledge of the average citizen under 40 in the U.S.A.
For sure though, he'll be leader of the "downright morons" who right now, don't recognize that he's their "chosen one".
Half of the protesting-in-the-streets morons can't call the name of the current vice president...they believe that because they protest, the election results will be changed to suit them. The most they're really interested in is the selfies of themselves protesting in order to post to social media.

Also this ... https://youtu.be/Z-bao9fg6Yc

[Mr.B]

"Poor McCrory, losing to a Dem is bad enough but he also did worse than both Burr and Trump. That's gotta be humiliating."

He's not lost yet.

Pat McCrory wrote:
"Attorney and registered Durham County voter Thomas Stark today filed a formal protest with the Durham County Board of Elections for ‘malfeasance’ in tabulating approximately 90,000 ballots using corrupt data from machines that suffered critical errors during early voting and on Election Day. The complaint reasonably demands the County Board of Elections conduct a manual recount of the original paper ballots before the county’s canvass date."

“What transpired in Durham County is extremely troubling and no citizen can have confidence in the results at this point in time,” said Jason Torchinsky, chief legal counsel for the Pat McCrory Committee Legal Defense Fund. "The Durham County Board of Elections has a history of mishandling elections and it is unfortunate that this one appears to be no different."

[Vrede too]

Talk about "obsessed".

"Quoted by Mr.B in _____", "Quoted by Mr.B in _____", "Quoted by Mr.B in _____", etc.

Mr.B, who is currently on your ignore list, made this post.
Display this post.

Mr.B, who is currently on your ignore list, made this post.
Display this post.

Mr.B, who is currently on your ignore list, made this post.
Display this post.

Etc.

Nah, no point.

[Mr.B]

Proof positive of your pouting like a juvenile wuss. Let's see, what were those famous words? Oh yeah...

"You can dish it out, but you're not man enough to take it"... Pathetic

(oh, btw... I don't care)

[Vrede too]

The real reason we have an Electoral College: to protect slave states
“In a direct election system, the South would have lost every time.”

... There are several standard stories that I learned in school, and then there's an emerging story that I find more explanatory. I learned in school that it was a balance between big and small states.

That's what I thought.

But the real divisions in America have never been big and small states; they're between North and South, and between coasts and the center.

The House versus Senate is big versus small state, but from the beginning big states have almost always prevailed in the Electoral College. We've only had three small state presidents in American history: Zachary Taylor, Franklin Pierce, and Bill Clinton. All of the early presidents came from big states. So that theory isn't particularly explanatory....

So what's the real answer? In my view, it's slavery. In a direct election system, the South would have lost every time because a huge percentage of its population was slaves, and slaves couldn't vote. But an Electoral College allows states to count slaves, albeit at a discount (the three-fifths clause), and that's what gave the South the inside track in presidential elections.

I never knew this.

“And thus it's no surprise that eight of the first nine presidential races were won by a Virginian. (Virginia was the most populous state at the time, and had a massive slave population that boosted its electoral vote count.)”

This pro-slavery compromise was not clear to everyone when the Constitution was adopted, but it was clearly evident to everyone when the Electoral College was amended after the Jefferson-Adams contest of 1796 and 1800. These elections were decided, in large part, by the extra electoral votes created by slavery. Without the 13 extra electoral votes created by Southern slavery, John Adams would've won even in 1800, and every federalist knows that after the election.

And yet when the Constitution is amended, the slavery bias is preserved.

So this raises an obvious question: Why do we still have the Electoral College? What’s the utility now?

Well, inertia is one reason. It's the system that we have. A constitutional amendment is a very difficult thing to accomplish. As a matter of public education, most people are not taught the slavery story. They're taught that the Electoral College was about, say, federalism and institutional checks.

They're not told that the Electoral College was not the framers’ finest hour.

... At Philadelphia, the leading lawyer in America, James Wilson, proposed direct elections. Wilson was one of only six people to sign the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. He wrote the words "We the people" in the document. He's one of the first five associate justices on the Supreme Court. And he was for a direct election.

When he advocated this, James Madison's immediate response was: In principle, you're right, but the South won't go for it because they'll lose every time because they won't be able to count their slaves....

Do you agree that a popular vote would encourage greater turnout? As it stands, there are plenty of people who feel their vote is meaningless because they live in a politically homogeneous state.

It would encourage greater turnout in a couple of ways. First, it makes every state a swing state in that the margin of victory matters, and so every voter can make a difference.

Second, it creates incentives for states seeking to maximize their clout to facilitate voting. Today, if a state makes it hard for people to vote, it pays no Electoral College penalty. It gets the same number of electoral votes whether it makes it easy or hard for citizens to participate.

In a direct election world, states that facilitate and encourage voting loom larger in the final count. So that gives states an incentive to experiment in ways that promote democracy....

Okay, I'm persuaded. Do away with the Electoral College. Anything that promotes participatory rather than restrictive democracy is a good thing.

[rstrong]

Okay, I'm persuaded. Do away with the Electoral College.

Of course, that explanation will only trigger a holy war by the Mr.KKKB types to protect the Electoral College.

[Vrede too]

Could be, though I think some cons can appreciate that it's overly complex, anti-democratic, might hurt them someday, that they lost the slave advantage long ago and that it really doesn't serve its claimed purpose. Plus, being in a purple state it would be a relief to not have so many of the campaign dollars thrown at us. Trying to get votes in blue MD or red AL will matter just as much.

[JTA]

"On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
- H.L. Mencken, 1920

It's hard to determine which is worse...one man, or the knowledge of the average citizen under 40 in the U.S.A.
For sure though, he'll be leader of the "downright morons" who right now, don't recognize that he's their "chosen one".
Half of the protesting-in-the-streets morons can't call the name of the current vice president...they believe that because they protest, the election results will be changed to suit them. The most they're really interested in is the selfies of themselves protesting in order to post to social media.

Also this ... https://youtu.be/Z-bao9fg6Yc

From interacting with people over 40 on a daily basis, I don't think ignorance is exclusive to only the younger crowd. Of course, that's only anecdotal. Then again, Trump, the least experienced candidate to ever gain the presidency, won the election, so I think that's proof idiocy runs along the entire age spectrum.

I always take those "let's interview people on the streets so we can see how dumb people are" columns with a grain of salt. Anyone can stand on a street corner, ask a hundred people a common knowledge question that everyone -should- know, then cherry pick the handful of people that are guaranteed to sound like complete fools to air on TV.