Say What? DNC Never Let DHS Look at the Email Server???

[Grumps 3,704]

18 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

He meant what he said he routinely did as confirmed by many of the women he did it to. But you cling to your rationalization. You apparently need it to accept who you embraced.

So you agree with me that we may both be right!

[alexava 6,973]

22 hours ago, augolf1716 said:

Not a Trump fan but everyone will have to deal with him for 3 plus years more. At least

50-50 on that 3 plus years. AT MOST too. 

[augolf1716 21,221]

10 minutes ago, alexava said:

50-50 on that 3 plus years. AT MOST too. 

maybe so maybe no......we shall see

[homersapien 11,393]

3 hours ago, Grumps said:

Seriously? How can it NOT mean, "What agenda do you think that Trump ran on, and what agenda do you think that HRC ran on"?

Sure, once you spend the time to decipher it.

[DKW 86 7,431]

I don't think that the election really turned on DT or HRC. I think the American Public is just contrarian to the status quo. DT beat out the entire Rep Party status quo crowd. Bernie Sanders, Mr Outsider, took HRC to the last round with half the DNC stacking the deck against him. This nation is just in a contrarian mood. Unfortunately for the nation, DT figured this out ahead of the rest of us. No one really supports DT. They like him because he represents  totally new direction. Got to quit posting on my phone. 

[AUFAN78 3,911]

8 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

I don't think that the election really turned on DT or HRC. I think the American Public is just contrarian to the status quo. DT beat out the entire Rep Party status quo crowd. Bernie Sanders, Mr Outsider, took HRC to the last round with half the DNC stacking the deck against him. This nation is just in a contrarian mood. Unfortunately for the nation, DT figured this out ahead of the rest of us. No one really supports DT. They like him because he represents  totally

I think you nailed it.

Of course there is always the Russians. 

[bigbird 60,573]

8 hours ago, homersapien said:

Sure, once you spend the time to decipher it.

If you had to decipher it, then the grief you give to other about reading comprehension is quite ironic.

[homersapien 11,393]

1 hour ago, bigbird said:

If you had to decipher it, then the grief you give to other about reading comprehension is quite ironic.

" what agenda did he run on not trying to be smarty pants and what did HRC run on "

Yeah.  Who needs punctuation anyway?

[bigbird 60,573]

28 minutes ago, homersapien said:

" what agenda did he run on not trying to be smarty pants and what did HRC run on "

Yeah.  Who needs punctuation anyway?

Again, if you need help, then you should stop criticizing others comprehension. The delflection is pedantic.

[AU64 10,122]

25 minutes ago, bigbird said:

Again, if you need help, then you should stop criticizing others comprehension. The delflection is pedantic.

did you mean pathetic?    get some fingers on the wrong keys?

[homersapien 11,393]

34 minutes ago, bigbird said:

Again, if you need help, then you should stop criticizing others comprehension. The delflection is pedantic.

I did ask:  "WTF does that mean?"      

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

1 hour ago, AU64 said:

did you mean pathetic?    get some fingers on the wrong keys?

Is this sarcasm or does Bigbird need to stick to Sesame Street level words?

[AUloggerhead 2,241]

2 hours ago, AU64 said:

did you mean pathetic?    get some fingers on the wrong keys?

Nope.  I'd argue that Bird meant exactly what he typed: 

pedantic -- of or like a pedant.  ex:  "many of his essays are long, dense, and too pedantic to hold great appeal." 

pedant -- a person who is excessively concerned with minor details & rules, or with displaying academic learning.  ex:  "pedants insist that the 21st century started with 2001." 

[WDavE 332]

On 6/23/2017 at 9:42 PM, homersapien said:

BS.  Three million votes is 3 million votes.  

It doesn't matter where they came from.

And there's nothing wrong with a "one or two huge states essentially deciding any election".  This is a false premise barely removed with discounting the votes of women or black people.  It has xenophobic overtones.

The issue of minority participation in government is adequately addressed by the senate allocation.  

The electoral college is obsolete - no different that several other original constitutional provisions regarding the right to vote.

We need to change it just like we changed those outmoded restrictions.  One citizen, one vote.

 

 

The three million votes you keep pointing to can be attributed to California alone. This point alone points to the electoral college doing what it was intended to do. The framers themselves were scared of democracy in itself. They worried that groups of citizens who have a common interest could and would violate the interests of others. Looking back in the past, all of the former republics/democracies down falls can be traced back to the population figuring out that with the help of career politicians they could legislate themselves anything they wanted.

California: 34% of the nations welfare money goes

12% of the nations population

Over two million illegal aliens

 

I can't imagine why California votes Democratic 2-1. I also don't understand why California is going bankrupt. Its the mecca of liberalism.....

 

 

 

 

 

[homersapien 11,393]

1 hour ago, WDavE said:

The three million votes you keep pointing to can be attributed to California alone. This point alone points to the electoral college doing what it was intended to do. The framers themselves were scared of democracy in itself. They worried that groups of citizens who have a common interest could and would violate the interests of others. Looking back in the past, all of the former republics/democracies down falls can be traced back to the population figuring out that with the help of career politicians they could legislate themselves anything they wanted.

California: 34% of the nations welfare money goes

12% of the nations population

Over two million illegal aliens

 

I can't imagine why California votes Democratic 2-1. I also don't understand why California is going bankrupt. Its the mecca of liberalism.....

Ronald Reagan begs to differ.  

California is the cultural and economic leader of the country.  There's no rational reason to penalize them by granting more electoral power to more regressive states.

(And if you are going to quote statistics, attribute them.)

[homersapien 11,393]

1 hour ago, WDavE said:

The three million votes you keep pointing to can be attributed to California alone. This point alone points to the electoral college doing what it was intended to do. The framers themselves were scared of democracy in itself. They worried that groups of citizens who have a common interest could and would violate the interests of others. Looking back in the past, all of the former republics/democracies down falls can be traced back to the population figuring out that with the help of career politicians they could legislate themselves anything they wanted.

Yet here we are with a minority government imposing it's will against the majority.

 

[DKW 86 7,431]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

Yet here we are with a minority government imposing it's will against the majority.

 

I know it sometimes doesnt seem right, but the entire concept of the Senate was to even the voices of each state, regardless of population. It is part of the construction of our govt.

[homersapien 11,393]

2 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

I know it sometimes doesnt seem right, but the entire concept of the Senate was to even the voices of each state, regardless of population. It is part of the construction of our govt.

I am not arguing against the formulation of the senate.  It acts as a modulation device against the "threats" of a totally populist legislation process.

I am arguing against the formulation of the electoral process which too easily allows the election of a minority president.  

In combination with the senate, that goes a step too far in modulating the majority vote.  In combination with the money = speech, ruling of the supreme court, it facilitates a wealthy minority - an oligarchy - to control our political process.  

We have stacked the process to favor an oligarchy.

[DKW 86 7,431]

8 minutes ago, homersapien said:

In combination with the money = speech, ruling of the supreme court, it facilitates a wealthy minority - an oligarchy - to control our political process.  

We have stacked the process to favor an oligarchy.

100% Agreement...

[bigbird 60,573]

Correct me of I am wrong, but in '92 and '96, didn't Clinton win without a majority? Why now is it such a sore subject?

As far as the $$ goes, I agree that both parties have prostituted themselves out to the highest bidder.  

[alexava 6,973]

1 hour ago, bigbird said:

Correct me of I am wrong, but in '92 and '96, didn't Clinton win without a majority? Why now is it such a sore subject?

As far as the $$ goes, I agree that both parties have prostituted themselves out to the highest bidder.  

Surely we don't have to go over this again ?

[bigbird 60,573]

Just now, alexava said:

Surely we don't have to go over this again ?

Must've missed it. My apologies.

[alexava 6,973]

4 minutes ago, bigbird said:

Must've missed it. My apologies.

Bill's "without a majority"was much much different than trumps. No one beat Bill. 

[bigbird 60,573]

23 minutes ago, alexava said:

Bill's "without a majority"was much much different than trumps. No one beat Bill. 

Well, a majority of the country wanted someone else and had to accept Bill as POTUS. Seems pretty similar to me, I was just wondering what the difference was. I guess 2000 would be more alike.

[homersapien 11,393]

2 hours ago, bigbird said:

Well, a majority of the country wanted someone else and had to accept Bill as POTUS. Seems pretty similar to me, I was just wondering what the difference was. I guess 2000 would be more alike.

No, not even similar.