The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

I have been waiting to see who will post anything concerning the recent events involving the FBI directors announcement and subsequent appearance before the House Oversight Committee. No one has, so I will.

The Facts are: (or the lies are)

 1. She didn’t send or receive any e-mails that were classified “at the time.” Clinton told this to reporters at a press conference March 10, 2015. She repeated it at an Iowa Democratic fundraiser July 25 and at a               Democratic debate February 4,

    Comey said that the FBI found at least 110 e-mails that were classified at the time Clinton sent or received them — 52 e-mail chains in all, including eight Top Secret (the highest classification level) chains.

 2. She didn’t send or receive any e-mails “marked classified” at the time. Clinton made this claim most recently July 3, 2016, on Meet the Press. She first made the claim August 26, 2015, at an Iowa news conference. She repeated it at Fox News town hall March 7, 2016; at a Democratic debate March 9; at a New York news conference March 1; and on Face the Nation May 8.

    Comey confirmed suspicions about Clinton’s claim by noting that a “small number” of the e-mails were, in fact, marked classified. Moreover, he added: “Even if information is not marked ‘classified’ in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.”

 3. She turned over all of her work-related e-mails. Clinton said this on MSNBC September 4, 2015; at a Fox News town hall March 7, 2016; and at a New York press conference March 10.

     The FBI found “thousands” of work-related e-mails other than those Clinton had provided; they were in various officials’ mailboxes and in the server’s slack space.

 4. She wanted to use a personal e-mail account for convenience and simplicity, streamlining to one device. Clinton said she used one device on CNN July 7, 2015, and at a New York press conference March 10.

     Clinton used multiple servers, administrators, and mobile devices, including an iPad and a Blackberry, to access her e-mail on her personal domain.

 5. Clinton’s use of a private server and e-mail domain was permitted by law and regulation.

     No: A May report issued by the State Department’s inspector general found that it has been department policy since 2005 that work communication be restricted to government servers. While the IG allowed for occasional use of personal e-mail in emergencies, Clinton used her personal e-mail exclusively for all work communication.

 6. All of Clinton’s e-mails were immediately captured by @.gov addresses. Clinton made this claim at a New York press conference May 10, 2015.

     The State Department did not begin automatically capturing and preserving e-mails until February 2015, two years after Clinton left the State Department.

 7. There were numerous safeguards against security breaches and “no evidence” of hacking. Clinton made the “safeguards” claim at a New York press conference March 10, 2015, and her former tech aide made the “no evidence” claim March 3, 2016.

     There is some evidence of a possible breach. Comey said:

 8. Clinton was never served a subpoena on her e-mail use.

     The next day, July 8, the chair of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, Trey Gowdy, accused Clinton of lying about not receiving a subpoena. Gowdy said in a statement: “The committee has issued several subpoenas, but I have not sought to make them public. I would not make this one public now, but after Secretary Clinton falsely claimed the committee did not subpoena her, I have no choice in order to correct the inaccuracy.”

 This is about Hillary and the statements she has said over and over.
   



 


 

 

No offense meant but is this the best use of this forum? Since there is no chance in hell that more than a handful of Tulsans will vote for her, how does it have any bearing on issues in Tulsa? We don't talk police beatings, we can't talk guns, and we don't dare criticize conservatives so why would this be germane?

This type conversation is available all over the internet and in the past has ravaged this forum at the expense of local issues.

If you are going to plagiarize the National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437606/hillary-clintons-eight-email-lies-exposed-james-comey), you should at least change it up a little.
 

Well my stars

If talking about the "presumptive" Democratic presidential nominee doesn't belong in the "National & International Politics" category, what does?

Policy discussion only?

Why does TulsaNow need a "National & International Politics" category?

(http://www.mememaker.net/static/images/memes/4282950.jpg)

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/28/Flogging_A_Dead_Horse.jpg)

I'm not challenging the placement in this category, but yes, why do we need this if our mission is much narrower. If she had made policy statements that related to our state or city then, ok. Otherwise it seems folly.

I'm going to assume the category was added due to a number of subjects for international and national politics opened on the forum.  They needed a place to be instead of a non-related category.

Do you remember how busy this place used to be with national politics when some of the other contributors were active?  Many of us just ignored that category all together due to the jackasses that would come on and get nasty about it.

Ah, yes. I remember it well. Lots of funny, tasteless pics and name calling. Nothing I care to return to though.

Let me apologize for not referring back to the article I copied all these from. Were any of these items not correct?

Second, CF and Aqua BOTH posted in the TRUMP thread with no problem at all doing so, but when it comes to a Hillary thread its not appropriate?

This is exactly the responses I expected, which is why I stirred the pot.

I will drop it here.

Has my vote.

And it has become quiet because people that have conservative views were labeled as "Right Wing Religious Extremist Terrorists Tea Party Lovers, Angry White Male Idiots whose intelligence is lower than pond scum" who are to be beaten and crucified as not being worthy of being members of the human race.

Both of you should review the posts I made on the Trump thread before your make such assertions. I actually defended the guy. It is one thing to comment on such a larger than life figure like the Don in one of the most interesting Republican primaries ever. Its quite another to mount a decades long crusade against a Clinton by continually posting conservative organization missives.

I can see where some people would be more comfortable with HRC since other than her husband’s personal peccadilloes his administration is generally viewed as successful.  

For uncommitted or independent voters, this is going to boil down to whether people are comfortable with establishment politics or someone with different ideas who hasn’t been sucking at the teat of government and making government policy for most of their professional life when choosing between Clinton or Trump.  

And before someone interjects that Trump’s empire sucks off the government teat, that is not the point.  He’s not been a political appointee, Senator, spouse of an elected official, nor a policy-maker.  He’s as much an outsider to Washington as you could find these days.

I personally think the Trump V. Clinton election is a shitsandwich as both have very detestable qualities.  I could never vote or HRC and didn’t in the Oklahoma primary.  Since there are no serious independents I may end up voting for Gary Johnson.  Trump will carry Oklahoma anyhow with or without my vote.

I was referring to Teatownclown and the like that told everyone how stupid they were, not things in the last 15 months.

Yeah, he's gone somewhere. I like people around here a lot more before I find out their political beliefs. Then it takes me awhile to get over that and find some common ground. The common ground here is that we all want Tulsa to be a better place to live so we don't feel compelled to move!

Who is Gary Johnson?  I would rather waste my vote than vote for either HRC or the Donald.

Republican turned Libertarian former NM governor.

Gotta wonder where all this outrage was when George W Bush and Karl Rove used a private server in the White House for years?  And intentionally, carefully, and illegally deleted about 22 million emails.  Wouldn't that level of illegal activity be at least worth one investigation??


And right up there next to that - we have massive posturing and contortions going on to try to paint Hillary with the Benghazi embassy deaths.   Even a movie - lying about the events!   Admittedly horrible - ANY deaths in a diplomatic mission of any type are despicable!   

Just gotta wonder - again - why 4 killed is worth 8 Congressional investigations - each finding no wrongdoing by the State Dept in general, and HRC specifically?  And 86 killed with hundreds more wounded is not worth even 1 investigation?  Oh, yeah....ALL those others were during the Baby Bush regime!

Thank you.  I will ask my sister about him.  She has lived in NM for about the last 20 years.

You don't need to drop it. This is the national politics, national politic away!  But I don't have much of an urge to spend time and effort on debating you when you have spent no effort on the matter. I could cut and paste an article from somewhere else, if that would help (it wouldn't). 

And to answer your question - no, not all of the items are correct.

You should definitely check him out.  He's polling just over 10% now.  If he get to 15% and makes the debates, things might get really interesting.   I'm not saying he could win the whole thing, but he's the real deal, at least compared to the other two this time around.   Libertarian Party is on the ballot in all 50 states for first time ever, and if Johnson could somehow win a couple of states, the country might finally have that third party they've been wanting for a while.

#feelthejohnson

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#plus
Hillary has this election in the bag (at least at this point), and will continue the policies popular among her party. Economically there will be more hope under Clinton, than her predecessor. The Clintons do not share President Obama's hostility towards prosperity, success and investment.  On the contrary, the Clintons have always worked within the Wall Street machinery with excellent results.  The Clintons are the most cunning people on Earth, the political version of championship poker players.  Hillary may not have Bill's ability to 'fain the genuine,' but she doesn't need it. The only person she is running against at this point is herself, and as long as she can remain viable, she has won.  

Trump is doing exactly as most of us expected.  He's a tank headed for a cliff.  Trump is a vestigial organ of a society that no longer exists. Bombastic Churchillian leadership has limited appeal and even less usefulness in the age of instant information and validation of fact. All one needs to do, is allow him to speak long enough, and he will dig more holes than he can fill.

As for Johnson, unfortunately a society does not simply turn away from expanding dependencies. Historically it rushes towards them. I believe our path is set, and easily forecastable. The process follows the classic Fibonacci sequence of expansion. The larger the sequence becomes the narrower the foundations it rests upon. A government based on individual liberty will only rise after the current cycle is complete.  Johnson knows this, as does any student of history and libertarian philosophy.  His campaign is symbolic, a reminder of the core principals of free society.

Johnson may indeed make for an interesting injection of reason into the debates, but ultimately will be inconsequential.  The concepts of liberty and personal responsibility have been successfully demonized.  The current voter (Republican, independent and Democrat) is far too fearful of uncertainty, and will flock to security, even if that security represents a loss of liberty who's momentum cannot be stopped.

The fact throughout history is that whenever government dominates the economic  affairs of its citizenry, a free society is eroded, then destroyed, and a minority  government ensues. Personal liberty without economic liberty is an absolute contradiction; the one cannot exist without the other. – William E. Simon


 

Not until we do something about First Past The Post (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo) voting

I think I mentioned it elsewhere, but the scariest thing about this election is that one of those clowns is gonna pick the next Supreme Court justice solely due to Ryan and his "Good Buddy" crew not considering the one on the table now.  The current one seems like reasonable compromise.  Which would make sense, which is why it won't happen.

Think Trump justice....
Think Hillary justice....

You don't get chills??

Agreed.   I'm a proponent of the alternative vote method, but I'm not holding my breath on seeing it actually happen...

I'm a fan of "approval voting (https://electology.org/approval-voting)"

I could not agree with you more about the gwb43.com emails. They did this to avoid the Hatch Act and admitted to doing so.

My post was about Clinton because she is running for the highest office in the land, not about Rove or Bush. It was about her statements concerning this and the FBI investigation.

Which items are not correct

It's the reality distortion field from the RWRE.  110 that were "marked" classified - marked with the letter c in the body of the text.  I suspect very easy to miss, as is shown even here by how many spelings errors are missed and odd combinations of letters are sent.  It is RWRE parsing, distortion, deflection, projection, and intellectual dishonesty.  Especially since so many have done the same thing over so much longer a time.  And yeah, it has been on both sides - just in much greater degree by the right. 

I don't have a problem with 110 missed emails out of 50,000 when compared to the 22 million deleted by Bush so nobody could even have a chance to review are an amazing hypocrisy and outright lie.  Why would you be concerned about her getting elected when Bush was already elected once under much worse circumstances?   And if there is anything about "truth, justice, and the American way", or anything even related to it at all in your answer, we will know you are not serious.  It is NOT and never has been a question of good or bad.  It is about who is the lesser of two evils and who will hurt the majority of the American people the least.  That is our reality - and has been forever!  Well, except for Gerald Ford....

IF, as so many of the right wing extremists feel that Hillary should be in prison for this - as shouted about in the recent convention - how can they possibly not feel Baby Bush should be buried UNDER the prison for his actions?  Why was he not impeached?  Why is he not being impeached today??  And why are Bush/Rove/Cheney/Rumsfeld not being prosecuted for war crimes they admitted to - even bragged about how proud they were to be doing?   And it IS pertinent today, since Trump is ALSO calling for doing war crimes!  It is an ongoing theme aimed directly at the destruction of the US.  Again.


http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/clintons-handling-of-classified-information/



And just to kinda lighten the mood a little - here's a little Leadbelly from 1939!  Enjoy!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYrK464nIeY&index=21&list=RDBNj2BXW852g

Are you then saying that the FBI director was influenced by the right concerning the investigation especially the "c" marking?

We can go on and on about the Bush years and the carp they pulled but they were not to my knowledge investigated by the FBI or had the director come out on live TV and call them all liars.

c marking is and was obscure.   No excuse for not knowing what it meant, other than carelessness.  You ever been careless??  Ever come out on national tv like Hillary did and say that she messed up and was sorry...won't happen again....

Did Bush ever even admit he did something wrong?  (No, bragged about it.)  And exactly why was it again they were NOT investigated by the FBI.??    And be shown for the liars their actions proved them to be?

Once again, it's all about perspective - Hillary and her 110 emails carelessly handled but not deleted and actually delivered to State for study.  Versus Bush/Rove/Cheney and their 22 million emails...  One can only imagine how many were classified and even MORE carelessly handled.  If the same proportions as Hillary - we would be talking a couple hundred thousand classified emails in a private server which were then deleted.

It's still the blind eye syndrome - going after the mote in ones eye versus the beam in Bush's eye....

Do you really not see a big difference there?   Just wondering....


Sidenote - thread hijacking;
As for influence by the right - here's what I am beginning to suspect - Cliff's Notes version.  First, we know Trump is not stupid.  Lot's of other things, but not that.  He has been a buddy with many people in the past, including Clinton's.  He has always had a big mouth with no self-control beyond a 5 year old.   But I think he is not interested in being President - really doesn't want it interfering with his private life, so is working on the plan to ensure Hillary is elected.  He is showing the true face of the Republican party to the world - what he says is what the extremist right is all about.  He has no particular party loyalty so doesn't really matter to him that he is elected, but I don't think he and his buddies want the clown show that was coming along to be there either. 

Classified markings.  See page 47 for email.

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/520001_vol2.pdf

What's nice is that nothing said here is of any importance. Accusations, whether accurate or not, unsubstantiated, un-sourced, dubiously sourced, spun at high speed, or merely untrue, mean absolutely nothing in Oklahoma. She is guilty, dems are sleazy and it doesn't matter that repubs did the same thing without consequence. Party, right or wrong. That's what holds Oklahoma back. I think H does a pretty good job of trying to find middle ground and using facts to do so. But its of no consequence.

Surely, there isn't some idea of changing long held beliefs by any of you, are there?

Yep.  Would be nice if it applied to the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches.  But they won't pass any laws that take away their percs.

Too bad the laws/regulations were so loose at the time, too. 

Lol !!!   Love your sense of humor!!

The answer is a solid yes. My thoughts, beliefs, long held notions are changing a lot. This election, this time in my life, this complete pray for peace and then hate thy neighbor attitude this country has really makes me WANT to change. Doesn't mean I won't still disagree with someone, or that I won't see a different point of view, it means its evolving. The problem with Hope and Change is everyone wants to Hope but no one wants to change. I for one see my flaws and how I need to change. I hope others do as well.

I have said from the start, wolf in sheep's clothing. I 100% agree with this statement. I also think Hillary is just as bad in everyway.

Then, I am quite impressed with you! Not the norm in a solid color state.

I've run into this while canvassing for a local candidate. People are incensed about the state's financial mess, especially cuts to education. Yet they say, "I'll NEVER vote for a Democrat!" And they cannot understand why nothing changes.

Just proof that the majority of the electorate doesn't know how to read beyond the headline and first paragraph of a story or they assume Hannity or Limpbag is hard news.

Touches close to an interesting conversation we had at work - I am one lonely little moderate in a sea of right wing extremism...not just 'relatively so, but literally.  As so much of OK is.  There was a political discussion and in the middle, one of the guys was commenting on news sources - I made some comment about something I had seen on Fox and a second turned to me and said, "You don't watch Fox!  Do ya...?"

I guess for some reason it hadn't occurred to me that he would think that since I reference Fox so much around there.  I told him yes, I do - at least as much as any other place.  He was so surprised, so I used the opportunity to mention the concept of "balance".  I got the equivalent of....wait, no...I got literally a blank stare - it was a "does not compute" moment.  I recommended getting some real data from NPR and PBS.   I have no hope of enlightenment on his behalf, but, hey - Miracles can happen, so possibly!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNxO9MpQ2vA


There is something in the water here that makes people do very strange stuff and believe very strange things...



A little light alternative rock for everyone's enjoyment to pass the day....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjAXX2n6_5Q&list=RDuMezg45JI7Y&index=2

NPR has a pretty serious liberal leaning to it.  No denying that.  Point is, I’m not sure where anyone could find untainted news these days, at least in the political realm or anything with political implications like global warming er climate change.

Yeah, they do.  There are many times when I am way to the right of what I perceive their position to be.  But when they provide the other side, I find myself to the left...   And it makes me grind my teeth when they go down the gun control path....

The thing is that even with their bias, they bend over backwards to get the other side.  And when they do say things I suspect, checking from several other directions shows that they are actually telling the truth, even if there is some 'rose colored glasses' attached .  And I can tell from time to time that while they may not agree with a counter position, they still try to present it in as unbiased a manner as possible for human beings with all their frailties.  And I can ignore their opinion about stuff I don't agree with.

It is an excellent example of what polite discourse/discussion should be.


Oh,....also, in that post you referenced, I didn't mean to imply JUST NPR and PBS....I try to watch as wide a variety as possible...it's tough to keep up with everything, but there is just so much out there, ya gotta stick your toes in somewhere all the time.



And I had forgotten just how good Linda Perry's music is - it IS a Perry kind of day...
 "Heaven knows we'll go boom boom boom"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jeu4l7Mnf9I&index=3&list=RDuMezg45JI7Y

Linda Perry....

If one is not old enough to remember 4 Non Blondes, think Christina Aguilera.... "Beautiful".   Perry wrote it.

(https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/14591772_10209407564739886_2985905748017512819_n.jpg?oh=982dd573538464758290e95992621627&oe=58D2CDFE)

Seth....


https://www.facebook.com/LateNightSeth/videos/752515804899101/

But its a tough decision eh? I noticed she was having trouble handling that Weiner. Trump has no problem handling his. ;)

It's so even.....

It's the only reason he likes his tiny hands....

This should go over well here.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/why-is-hillary-clinton-so-widely-loved/506402/

(https://lymphomasucks.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/patrickdrooling.jpg)

There went my appetite.  Isn't "dim-witted mind-numbed sycophant" reserved only for Trump supporters?

I am truly scared that this election has pushed us towards a breaking point for a functioning Republic. Not that we are there and the sky is falling, but certainly this has pulled the covers back and shown that its possible for the State to fail.

Hillary manipulates government and politics to rise above, she has perfected the art.  She has worked her entire life to get people into positions that could benefit her. She appears to be an expert on walking the line between criminal and consummate politician. An utter expect on "soft power" and manipulation. That's dangerous. 

Trump is the opposite end of the spectrum. He appears to have little understanding of how government works or even basic civics.  He wants to use power overtly to undermine the institutions of the Republic (jail political opponents, erode constitutional rights for populism, etc.). If it doesn't go his way, he has shown a willingness to try and undermine the institutions of the Republic by other means (like refusing to accept a transition of power).

The FBI is either a political tool, incompetent, or manic. Essentially, the Federal Police have twice now interfered with a Federal Election (once by declaring no charges would be filed - when that's the job of the Justice Department [Federal prosecutors] and not the police, and then by declaring the case back open and refusing to even say if the decision was supported by evidence). I don't believe the conspiracy theories that Comey is for Hillary or against her, but certainly things have gone off the rails.

We have Justices of the Supreme Court weighing in on political matters, left and right, and making themselves into celebrities for a "side". We have Congress openly saying they will subvert the Courts by simply refusing to do their jobs. We have the executive branch and legislative branch criticizing the Court for its decisions using flowery hyperbole. Instead of arguing the merits, or stating they don't like it - they try to undermine the authority of the Court (and thereby the Constitutional rule of law).

We have military commanders endorsing candidates, rather than endorsing or refuting ideas directly related to the military (if asked: I believe Hillary's plan of cutting funding for R&D would undermine long term strategic goals, or I believe Trump's plan of killing civilians related to terrorists would be an illegal order). A politicized military is bad for representative government (see Egypt, Russia, China, etc.).


Stop applauding when your "side" engages in this same behavior. Its bad when either "side" does it. Its dangerous.

Well, that's well stated, you are a lawyer after all, your business is words. But I disagree with some of your assumptions. Hillary is a career politician and that has no more credibility than a criminal defense lawyer, or a teacher. Both are difficult jobs that are undervalued by the public. As a leader she has been pretty pragmatic and resolute considering there really is a widespread conspiracy to block her upward movement. She killed 77 people? Really? We are that gullible? It isn't her or Obama that is fueling our confusion and anger. What we are seeing is a confluence of some rather strong climactic changes in economics and politics.

Economically, the world has jumped forward with technology and left a sizable part of the labor force behind. Namely the Baby Boomers. Meanwhile they are starting to retire and find their sources of wealth are threatened by financial markets, skyrocketing health care costs and SS changes. At the same time they are retrenching from the marketplace because their major purchases have been made earlier in life. Think about that. The Boomers were a huge population and that population is not actively buying second cars, refrigerators, TV's, houses, second houses etc and is having a huge impact. Indeed, they are scaling down rather than up.

And the next generations are not repopulating at the same rate as the post WW2 generation did. So, along with outsourcing production, refining, manufacturing and services to other countries by often disloyal major players in hopes that globalization would take up the slack, the next group has to deal with smaller domestic market growth. The next generations are also not into manufacturing. They can tell you about investments, beer and high tech phones but can't understand how to check their oil on a dipstick. They went to college to match their parent's wealth and its just not happening. Meanwhile the top tier is getting more and more wealth while those in the middle are squeezed and lower levels are not advancing.

The party in power, not the current POTUS, has muffed up their role and used their power to protect themselves, their jobs and their party. In the last two decades, a critical time for our country, they have followed the Gingrich lead of demonizing their opponents, obstructing the country's wishes and ignoring their obligations. Now, foreign powers smell blood on the water. They use a tried and true method of encouraging the division of their opponents against each other and making use of our own passion for winning at all costs to diminish our power in the world. In this regard, Trump truly is a "useful idiot". And the bonus for them is our own ignorance in underfunding education, infrastructure and renewable energy sources in opposition to examples in other countries of the immense benefits in increasing that support. And why? Read my lips..."no new taxes". That didn't work and re-electing these boobs isn't going to work either.

I disagree with your assessment of HRC. 

Career bureaucrat is a more fitting description of her professional life.
 
She's only faced voters three times in her entire professional career, once as a Senator the other as a current candidate for POTUS.  The vast majority of her experience has been as an un-elected bureaucrat. 

It matters because she has really only had to account for her job performance as an elected official once: in her re-election in 2006. 

Maybe it is what I'm programmed to listen for, but any accomplishment she tries to use as great experience has been touted as either her push for health care as First Lady, her foreign policy experience, or her early career as a cub attorney during Watergate.  I don't hear her touting any noteworthy accomplishments as a Senator.

In terms of real experience, I doubt we've had a first term candidate with such innate knowledge of how the office of POTUS works since she was married to a previous one and there's little doubt she helped shape policy in the Bill Clinton White House.  She does have a very good real world view of foreign policy too.

She has the qualifications.  Her penchant for operating in a grey area of the law and believing she is above the law are why I cannot vote for her.  I see no real ethics in her.  HRC is all about herself and her 50 year quest to become the first female POTUS.  I admire the drive that got her there, but it came on the backs of many people who paid a high price for their association with her.

Aqua, you really think Gingrich was the first to demonize his opponents? I think what the modern day media has shown is how morally bankrupt politicians HAVE ALWAYS BEEN!

He was the first to do it in a totally propagandist, organized way in the Congress. He actually passed out printed material to train his fellow Congressmen on what to say, how to say it and how to spin truth into fiction and vice versa. While Fox and the ditto head were doing it on the airwaves, for profit, Gingrichs did it for power. His evil is only surpassed by Goebbels whose principles he followed.

Modern day media is bankrupt. Politicians are like cops and FBI agents. Some are law abiding, protectors of the public interest. Some are crooked, vile and self serving. Might as well indict all of humanity with that phrase!

Do you have a link on the "first" part?

Such a condescending statement.

CF you are no longer allowed to state anything of value because you are lawyer and pretty words are your profession.

Hey, you in the medical field, don't comment on healthcare either.

Screw off. It was a compliment. Screw off is not.

Do I need one? This idea that every statement has to be backed up with someone else's thoughts to be accepted is not relevant. I'm not defending my thesis for a masters. Perhaps I should have said "in my lifetime", or "in all the history I've read". But I assure you that if it mattered that much to me or you I could find a link. We can find links for the 77 people Clinton has killed as well. It doesn't bolster their statements.

I thought the three posts each of us, CF, Conan and myself made, were decently written and thought out, civil, and defensible. No one else has bothered to ask for links or impugned the motives of the other two.

I'm feeling picked on here.

I was unaware that you were presenting Newt being first was an opinion.  It read more like a statement of fact. Opinions don't need links.  Facts sometimes do.

I stand by my statement of opinion as fact till someone can make a reasonable argument that his was not "the most systematic, organized effort ever". I was paying attention at that time and doing a lot of reading of creditable sources (internet wasn't here yet). That and my grasp of history was where I drew my conclusions.

Facts sometimes do require citations, but this is a forum of facts mixed with opinions and the buyer must beware to decide their merits. My surprise is that only my statements appear to need citations or links. After re-reading the other comments by CF and Conan and I found at least two of them to be dubious.

Gingrich was very much a divisive little turd and he made politics personal.  One need look no further than the relationship between Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill on how to have a cordial and respectful relationship even with many idealogical differences.

I’m certainly not suggesting that Gingrich was the first ever to do this, but simply stating he was really the first SOTH who was so outwardly and openly virulent toward the POTUS of another party affiliation.  He was also bolstered by the new popularity of talk radio and conservative-leaning programming on cable.

Which was my point. I think evil has always been present. 24/7 media has just shed light on it.

Trump is the result of Gingrich politics.

Though I do not believe he was the author of demonizing politics he sure took it to a whole new level.

Gingirch made a career of divisive policy. What did his Congress DO other than harass Clinton? That was his mainstay.

He continues it now. He just did a social media listing today about the FBI needs to release the emails NOW so the American people can decide if Hillary is guilty of treason... some such nonsense. No ideas. No big tent. No debate of alternating views. Just an attack dog, and that's all he's ever been.

Assuming Congress really does define the budget and hold the purse strings, we did have (more or less) balanced budgets and a surplus while Gingrich was the SOTH.  It is next to impossible to get a straight answer or opinion if it was the growing tech economy, slow discretionary spending growth initiated by Congress, Clinton’s 1993 tax increase, residual policies of Reagan, or fairy dust.  Take your pick.

I once read an account of the tit-for-tat political fights that began with the Boeing-United divestiture back in the 1920s, threaded through the anti-communist hearings in the 30s that continued through the Army-McCarthy hearings and the House Un-American Activities Committee, giving rise to the ill-fated Richard Nixon. It continued through his impeachment, Iran-Contra, and culminated in the divisive politics we have today. I wish I could find it again.

But the point is that the extreme acrimony is nothing new. The simple intransigence of the Republican party, notably the refusal to even have hearings on a Supreme Court justice, is both new and a threat to our system of government.

Interesting little story that does more than describe that turd, but also makes note of how he compares to the current floater.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/2016-newt-gingrich-scandals-accomplishments-veepstakes-running-mate-trump-gop-republican-214050

"More than anyone else in the modern history of Congress, it’s Gingrich who observers credit for bringing the hyperpartisan, obstructionist approach to Washington that we associate with the capital to this day. “When in doubt, Democrats lie," he said in 1988. He trafficked in sticky political nicknames: the “loony Left” and “daffy Dukakis.” In 1996, he actually sent out a memo to Republican candidates to help them learn to “speak like Newt.”

Hillary sh*t the bed....

But won the popular vote.

Americans aren't choosing our presidents anymore.

What are you talking about?  I absolutely can't stand Trump, but (apparently) he won fair and square.

We HAVE NEVER had a popular vote for President, so not sure what you mean by "anymore".  And it is a lot more direct than it used to be.  Only relatively recently have the electors been bound by the majority vote in the state they came from.  Originally, the general public was not considered to have requisite knowledge, etc, to directly elect the President.  Hence the electorial college.

I'm not happy with the result, either, but insinuating that the election process is "unfair" in some way reeks of the same inuendo that was coming out of the Trump camp when they thought they were going to lose.

This is the fifth time in history this has happened.  I was previously unaware or had forgotten that John Quincy Adams became president after losing not only the popular vote but the electoral vote as well, so the HOR ended up electing Adams.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/11/07/presidents-winning-without-popular-vote/93441516/

http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/

There are plenty more articles out there suggesting why this is an outmoded method of selecting our president.  It seems those on the losing side are unhappy with it and Trump supporters are likely thankful for it this morning.

It is according the rules, but the rules aren't working anymore. I haven't seen total votes yet but this election will most likely again see Democrats not only get more votes for President but also for the Senate and the House. Democrats got the most house and senate votes in 2008 as well and were in the minority in both houses.

Despite losing the overall popular vote in both houses and the Presidency, Republicans control all three.

We have lost our democracy/republic.

But it is unfair and becoming a liability for our country. It was designed to protect against an illiterate population and may indeed be useful with today's population but now electors must vote as the popular vote did. Regardless of the size of that vote. My brother, r.i.p. who was a staunch republican represented the conservative repub view that it was not working anymore and discriminated against evangelical states. I hadn't really thought about it that way. Now, I think he was partly right.

It discriminates against the popular vote! Why? Because when a turnout is low, which republicans also champion through suppression in swing states, a candidate can take the electors from a large state even though it doesn't really represent the demographics of that state. So, if New York shows up to vote with its huge population it still only gets the New York electors. When 65% of California votes democratic it still only yields those same electors. But when a North Carolina population doesn't show up the candidate gets all the electors too. So, a collection of three large states, like California, Florida and New York with a high turnout can not overcome the electoral votes of 20 smaller states that didn't show up but voted red. The election turnout was 1% less than in 2008 from what I've heard. Thus a popular vote yields to a group of repressed voting states. It worked in 2000. It was a good plan for the Trumpicans and it worked this time as well.

Its a double edged sword but you have to know that it is a tool.

There's also the money, from both sides, that skews elections. This is something the founders never could have envisioned and our democracy must evolve as today it is being subverted.

Citizens United must be overturned and now that is very unlikely to happen.   

Well, let's stick to one line of discussion.   Citizens United and discussions of money are valid discussions but that is a different topic than the mechanics of how we vote, etc.

On the mechanics,  it all comes down to whether we still want to consider the states as separate entities.  If so, any comparison to popular vote is irrelevant, as due to the wide variance in the size of the states and the population make up of each, there is ample opportunity for electorial votes, and particularly congressional votes, to be out of alignment at a national level. 

The senate is an extreme example.  Each state gets two Senators.  But CA is massively larger than OK.  I'm sure the overall DEM vote in CA and OK (added together) would be much higher than the GOP vote, but yet OK still voted in to GOP Senators.   Extrapolate that basic idea, and you get all kinds of opportunity for popular vote to not match up with POTUS and congressional seats.

But also remember that the House/Senate configuration is/was itself a compromise in trying to balance the power of the small and large states.  And while I suppose other compromise ideas could be envisioned (and probably were back then) this particular facet of our government isn't going to change.   So especially for House and Senate races, comparing specific results to overall national party results is simply not applicable.

As far as the POTUS election, again, I don't think we will see the electorial college being abolished anytime soon.  And because each state controls exactly how they partition the electorial votes from that state, a National standard will be hard to establish. 

Having said all that, there is one relatively minor change to the current process that would allow the current process to much more accurately reflect the overall popular vote: Get rid of the winner-take-all electorial voting process, and have each state apportion it's electors by a percentage of the popular vote.  (Heck, even in OK the Dems would get an elector or two in this model.  And the GOP would get some in CA, etc, etc...) A few states still do this, and it would not be a major hurdle to implement. But at least right now, each state would have to enact their own changes.   And since the states went to all-or-nothing due to perceptions related to political and Party power, it's going to be difficult to get all of them to change. 
 

None of you can say the results would have been different sans EC. Who's to say a bunch of Rs didn't vote in Cali. You cannot take this static event and read that much into it. It is far to big and complicated.

The EC is the great equalizer. We do NOT want mob rule. Anarchy was a real concern when the EC was instituted. The EC truly does represent the states, not just those that voted. grumble and moan all you want, it works. We are the "United States" of America. Not the individuals of America.

We just elected a truly evil man. A sexist bigot that has spent his life ripping people off, calling people ugly names and sexually attacking women. And then he brags about it. He's incompetent, stupid and an ugly human being. And we did it all against the will of the people.

That's far from great. 

Let's just dump the Senate while we're dumping the EC.

Absolutely incorrect.  Nearly 1/2 of the voters who voted for either the Democrat or Republican candidate elected him.  That’s not against “the will of the people” at all.  It might have happened against the will of Clinton and Johnson supporters but you make it sound as if Trump was elected in a vacuum.

Trump wouldn’t have happened in the first place if it weren’t for people like the Clintons and the establishment Rethugs.

This wasn’t a referendum on racism or sexism.  People are tired of the BAU politics.

I’m not happy about the GOP/Dem duopoly and I’m not particularly rejoicing in Trump’s victory.  However, he will be our president and I’m willing to at least give him the chance to prove himself as our leader.  Same as I would have if Clinton had won.

Two things. One, no one takes a post seriously that continues to misspell "electoral". And two, it was against the will of the people. She won the popular vote and he didn't. He won the race because of the electoral setup, she didn't. The question of rigging which the president-elect insisted was happening, may very well have happened and his idiocy begged the objection. Some salesman.

Bonus round! It is indeed about a litany of elements including racism, homophobia, misogyny, xenophobia, climate change, supreme court appointments and tons more. Most of which the population has differing views than the president-elect. All we did was raise the climate of suspicion of our country's motives and who we really are. Now, we get to look forward to the will of the people expressed as more vitriolic obstructionism by the same tired players and an outsider. Whoopee.

No grumbling or moaning from Bamboo World about the electoral process... 

The USA is a federation of individual states.  The electoral system is a way for the states to chuse a presiding officer for the executive branch of the federal government.  It's not a perfect method of chusing, but it's better than chusing by a nationwide popular vote, in Bamboo World's opinion.

A few minutes ago, I looked at an online election map (https://election2016.washingtonpost.com/news-service/election-map/), updated by The Washington Post.  According the Post's website, Clinton's popular vote count stood at 59.85 million.  Trump had 220,000 fewer popular votes, but he was likely to receive a majority of electoral votes from the various states.  It seems as though the numbers for Arizona, Michigan, and New Hampshire were too close to call yet.

A nationwide popular vote system would be fraught with too many problems and pitfalls in very close elections such as this one, or the 2000 Gore-Bush race, for example.  If it wasn't up to the individual states to certify vote totals, then who or what would?  The process of re-counting 120 million individual ballots to "settle" a 220,000 vote margin would be time-consuming and open to corruption within and amongst the various states. 

I'm looking at the numbers and seeing 59.85 million versus 59.63 million as a "tie" in the popular vote.  The electoral process, in this case, breaks the tie and allows the states to chuse a president.

Presumably, both Clinton and Trump knew about the process of chusing a president.  Clinton conceded today (although I didn't hear her speech).  She knew that she could win a plurality of popular votes, but that if she did not win a majority of electoral votes, winning the presidency wouldn't be guaranteed.   
                   

My wife and children are not white. My wife and daughter are women.

I have never been more ashamed of this nation.

a nation wide popular vote can still be run state by state.  Hell, as of right now the EC is 50 popular votes that are weighted together.  All we're asking is that instead of throwing everyone into different buckets at the end, Judy combine them.
At the very least, the EC should move away from a winner-take-all model at the state level..  Have the voters select a rep for their congressional district. Then, whoever wins the popular vote for the state could get the votes representing their senators.

Your mind is a scary neighborhood.  I’m glad I don’t live there!  ;)

IIRC, I’d actually predicted on our election prediction thread Trump would win the popular vote and Clinton the Electoral College. 

Both candidates knew how the electoral system works, they played under the same rules.  It is our system, it will never please everyone.  Somehow, I suspect we would not even be having this conversation had this gone the other way.  Democrats are a bit raw over losing in similar fashion in 2000, I get that.  Everyone figured the Clintons would play it right in the swing states and cruise to an easy victory.  I believe there might have been some over-confidence on the part of the Clinton campaign.

Aside from that, Clinton was a really bad candidate.  The Democrats had a chance to nominate someone who seemed to be much more earnest and who might have had an easier time defeating Trump because Bernie didn’t have a trail of scandals (real or imagined) following him around.  From what we have learned via leaked emails, the DNC put the fix in for HRC.  If you are upset, you should first be upset about how your party let you down by apparently rigging their primary system so that HRC was a foregone conclusion.  By your’s and swake’s logic, we could say that HRC became the Democrat nominee against the will of the people.

Dumping the college (at least in favor of popular vote) is a monumentally bad decision. Again, had we had popular vote that does not necessarily mean Hillary would have won. It may be provides solace to some today, but by no means can you infer that the results of Tuesday would have bore out identical if the circumstances were different. Not to say I believe Trump would have won anyway, just that an inference can't be made.

We have the EC because states (you know, the United ones) matter. Eliminating it will make so many states inconsequential. Just think, last night there was a point where Nevada might have been a pivotal state (6 votes). If you were gaming that system you would hit the biggest population centers only. The EC is the great equalizer when it comes to states. And I personally think that giving all the delegates by and large to one candidate only bolsters that effort. For the same reason you have a United States of America, you have an electoral college. If you don't like it, try out the EU, see how that works for you. It's more or less weighted by population anyway, but with the added equilizer of two extra delegates for each state (and D.C.). It's actually quite fair.

The "rules" are working exactly as designed. They just aren't selecting the candidate you wanted. That doesn't mean it didn't work. The simple fact that Hillary got more popular votes in no way indicates that the EC isn't working. You're going to have to try harder than that.

Why are states more important than people? That's ridiculous. But then, companies are people now, right?

When it comes to the formation of this great nation, states are more important than the individual. There are things bigger than yourself. Well maybe not YOUR self, but our selves.

The founding fathers created a system to check mob rule so the uneducated couldn’t just usurp power and create an incompetent government.

That has been turned on its head by urbanization and now the uneducated are using the state system to take power. We have now elected a “Breitbart/Infowars president that is all crazy conspiracies, anti-science, anti-good governance and anti-truth. This isn’t what Madison and company wanted.

Donald Trump, our birther/rapist in chief.

Good job.

Way to stay classy.

Ok you want Trump to be civil, yet you sit here and spew rhetoric about less urban people being stupid. And generally speaking the rural/urban gap has far more to do with economic prosperity than smarts, just saying. Like I said, if you are against the EC, then you should also be advocating for the abolishment of the Senate. Own up and just say that you are pissed she lost, and you want to bend the system to whatever you think would have benefited her. But as I have already stated, had the rules been difference (popular vote) there is no guarantee she would have won either.

I get it, if you're not for Hillary your an imbecile. I forgot the cardinal rule of having a discussion with you. You are right and good.

Stein thought Hillary was going to start World War III. You don't know jack squat about what Trump will or won't do. How could anyone. He's held more policy positions than José Oquendo.

No, that is not what the Electoral College is.


I have no idea what "Judy combining" means.

I agree with erfalf.  "Fair" or not, the electoral process was known by all the candidates beforehand.  Many people do not like the process.  Many people do not like the outcome of this particular election.

But, Hillary Clinton conceded yesterday.  Running for the presidency was her choice.  Since 1985, she has had nine opportunities to become president (by being elected to that particular office).  The electoral process has been established for a long time.  She went for the presidency in 2008 and lost.  She went for it in 2016 and lost.  If she is still around and feels up to the task, she can try again in 2020, which will be her tenth opportunity.


As far as I know, states have that option.  Electors are proportioned in Maine and in Nebraska.  But that doesn't mean all of the other states should be forced to change their current election procedures to something else simply because Maine and Nebraska have done so.

Part of this is due to the nature of the primary system as it caters to the extreme elements in a party. They may be single issue voters but they reliably turn out in numbers. The Republican party has no buffer similar to the Democrats super delegates, though Bernie supporters are blaming those delegates for his defeat.

Is a better system of candidate selection available? I don't want to return to the proverbial smoke filled room.

Craven.  Gingrich was, and is, craven.

First, we have never been a democracy.  We have always been a democratic republic.  Different things.  And we haven't lost what we never had - and we still do have what we have always been!

And it is that way because the guys that started this understood that a democracy is a catastrophic way to run a government and always fails!  Always!  At least every example attempt for the last few thousand years...  They wanted something with some staying power.  Jury is still out on that one, since we are so young, but the really long lived examples from the past aren't anything that I want for myself or any of my descendants.

Only about 47% of the people voting advocate his position as Pedophile in Chief.

But look at what a huge portion of that group claims to be.... Says some very bad things about morals and how many people are able to justify/rationalize that type of behavior!  While at exactly the same time attempting to demonize a man who, while I disagree with on several levels, has shown himself to be a decent, moral, truthful, and even amusing, family man who does appear to practice his Christian beliefs.   But he is half-black, so that is enough...

I have no grumbling or moaning for Bamboo World about their comments on the electoral process... 

Just want to comment on the 1st person referral to oneself.... That is a slippery slope that leads to insanity!!   Like Smeagal in the Lord of the Rings!!

So, if Hillary had won, you'd say what a bunch of enlightened people elected a corrupt Kleptocrat, right? 

You really do have an issue with sour grapes.

The idea that people in rural areas are less educated is simple statistics. And I am saying our political system doesn't work, and hasn't in some time. When was the last time the entirely Republican controlled House and Senate passed a budget? Republicans can't even agree on a budget within themselves. It would be comical if it wasn't so sad.

As for Trump being a birther and a rapist. Well, he is. Deal with it.

Its a fine mind thank you. When people think differently than the masses, it often creates suspicion and criticism. I'm used to it.

So, you're making analysis of a party you didn't support, (you were Johnson iirc)  candidates you couldn't vote for (Hillary and the Don)  and concluding that a Socialist could have easily beaten a Capitalist? Strange brew you've made! An objective view of the two candidates easily show Trump as having many more negatives and baggage as a candidate, yet, we obsessed on the Hillary profiled by her opponents which in the end turned out to be bogus claims. You aren't hearing Trump talk about jail any more are you? And instead its the FBI, Assange, and their hacking partners that are on the hot seat.

I rarely am in Swake's camp but the electoral system isn't one person, one vote. It weights for balancing off the states' interests, not the people's. So, we don't really believe in majority rules, we believe in electioneering rules that keep big populations from overcoming small states. That works fine in the congressional layout where one house makes every state equal, and the other house is based on population....but not for the presidential office. It us unusual and stems from when the country was vastly different. Again, strange brew we're consuming.

If we aren't learning and using the constitution as a flexible, changeable guide to democracy and instead call it sour grapes when it doesn't auto-correct, then why even bother with talking about it? We've had several elections that highlighted the flaw yet, nothing will ever change it if you think of the constitution as some kind of Bible.

May 5, 2015 to be exact. The first year they held both houses of Congress.

During the split years nothing was passed. And the Dems actually punted in 2010 as well, when they had near super majorities in both houses and the had Presidency. History is a B for you isn't it.

I just don't call it a flaw. Calling it so is a shallow analysis in my  opinion. Quirk yes. But a valuable one.

I think you are taking a "too close" view of our system.  It actually does work pretty well, just not always in a way most people would like.  That fact is probably the biggest single benefit and example of how well it is working - if any one or any group is truly happy in a political world like ours, that always means that somebody or big group of somebodies is getting royally screwed!!  Equal discontent on both sides is the ideal operating point!  Key to that is 'equal'....

And yeah, who woulda thought that the ignorance of being a birther would be so far down the list of problems a President would have?


Why the big commotion on "passing a budget"?  Who could possibly care beyond a  bean-counter?  That is just kind of a marker used by people who may be leaning just a little bit too far to the OCD side.  As long as the bills continue to be passed that keep the boat floating and moving, it doesn't really mean much - nothing at all - as to whether it fits some pre-defined plan of dotted i's and crossed t's.

And that deadlock of not being able to come together easily for 'budgeting' is good for us in general.  It means they aren't doing something at that point in time to hurt us.   Long live the deadlock!!

While I'm sure there are people with racist issues who voted for Trump you simply cannot lump all his voters into one group as a bunch of xenophobic racists with pedophiliac tendencies.  My mother voted for Trump.  I can say with no hesitation: she's not racist, not a pedophile, and is by far the most moral person in my life.  Many good people with certain political beliefs voted for Trump.  Many good people with certain political convictions voted for Clinton.

I believe we can all agree that in order to vote for either candidate, you had to overlook some serious flaws in character and a checkered past.  It's a shame we didn't end up with better candidates from the two dominant parties.

People had very real reasons for selecting Trump: Healthcare premiums are skyrocketing this next year amidst health insurers bailing on the exchanges.  Our national debt has nearly doubled in the last eight years to around $20 trillion. People believe many problems with crime and the aforementioned deficit has to do with flaccid immigration policy and failed trade agreements.

Trump spoke to those issues.  He also said a lot of stupid sh!t trying to make those points.  Individuals who count on others on social media or biased "news" providers for their political opinions did a masterful job of mangling that into racism or xenophobia.  The guy is a clumsy speaker and he's boorish.  Personally, I cannot stand the guy but I understand why people voted the way they did.  People now turn to the brand of media which more closely aligns with their own beliefs.  Liberals read or tune into Daily Koz, Huff-Po, Moveon, MSNBC etc.   Arch conservatives tune into or read Fox, Breitbart, or Drudge for their information.

Nowhere did the conservative media point out that annual deficits have been shrinking under Obama nor that much of the huge addition to our national debt in 2009 and 2010 was put in motion by his predecessor as a response to the huge recession which started before Obama took office.  Nowhere did the conservative media point out Obama's record on immigration and deportation has actually been more aggressive than previous presidents.

By the same token, the liberal media made no issue of Hillary Clinton helping to cover up her husband's own sexual predator tendencies nor all the people the Clintons stepped on to get to power.  They largely passed off her email issue as a non-starter (I honestly have no idea how big an issue this may or may not be nor whether it merits further investigation).  While Wikileaks was detailing questionable issues with the Clinton Family Foundation the liberal media wasn't covering it.

Casting dispersions on the people who elected our next president is no better than the supposed behavior of Trump name-calling either.  I didn't vote for the guy.  I have many close friends who did.  Amongst them, I honestly cannot think of a single one who has ever appeared overtly racist to me.  Some of those people who voted for him are very highly educated people with post graduate degrees, some are very successful business people, most I consider to be well-read on issues and knowing why they think the way they do.

Trump took a populist approach to the issues in his campaign rhetoric.  He tapped into an anger over issues long important to Republicans which had gone ignored for decades or only given lip service.  He largely shied away from getting pinned down on social issues like abortion and gay marriage which had become the litmus test for GOP candidates.  Instead, he drilled at the core of what GOP followers felt had been ignored for too long- fiscal sanity, broken immigration, and broken government filled with too many career politicians.  It is really that simple.

Before everyone assumes Roe V. Wade or that gay marriage will be overturned, there will be a return to slavery, or Muslims and Mexicans will face genocide in the U.S. remember Trump was a New York liberal.  Roe V. Wade is now 43 years or so in the past.  It's not going anywhere.  SCOTUS' ruling on gay marriage is not going anywhere.  All but 13 states at the time they made their ruling already recognized gay marriage.

He will get his reality check and I suspect his slate of first 100 days initiatives will look vastly different than what was promised, it is that way with every new president.  He said what he needed to get elected.  Let's at least be patient and see what really transpires before losing our collective sh!t.

I give it about 90 days before Trump goes off the rails. And that's being really generous. He never could go more than three weeks during the campaign. He thinks winning the election was hard. Trump has zero idea what he has gotten himself into.

You've done it for years in speaking about a Republican Party I'm assuming you've never belonged to.  What's your point again about me making an analysis of two parties I don't support?  I figure being somewhere in the middle makes me pretty objective on such things.

My basic point is, Democrats should quit whining that they were screwed by the EC.  If they would have presented a better candidate than HRC, the EC would have been completely irrelevant as a better candidate would not have struggled so much with the popular vote in the swing states.

If the narrative is that Americans are so gullible for electing such a bad man with such obviously poor character, what does that say about the person he beat?

It says a lot but you have to be able to hear to know what it says. And your point was not missed, it just isn't persuasive. We need to change or discard the electoral college. Immediately it becomes a stand your ground issue.

I've only found a few people on here worth staying and conversing with. You are one of those. I think you have potential to change Tulsa but no particular ambition to do so. Some rarely post and I understand why. Some are frequent and I wonder why? Maybe its because, like I do, they try and understand, not influence any more, just to understand. What I've found is that Tulsa is not very open to new thinking, new ideas, or anything that involves change. What they are into is debate and defensiveness. The fact that Tulsa elected a former football quarterback to the state senate rather than a smart teacher says it all for me. That's so high school.

I can go to other websites around the country or FB and find positive responses to my posts and people receptive to discourse without questioning motives. Here I can't seem to get anyone to hear anything. I've offered my services, my time, my business to this site with no real response. NOt taking it personal. Maybe I'm just slow to realize there is not a Steve constituency here. Anyway, I plan to be one of the ones that are infrequent.

You folks got it covered!

Are we going to argue semantics? Ok, fine.  

EC 101

Each state is allocated a number of votes based on the total number of seats that the state has in the US Congress (Senate and HoR), with the exception of Washington, D.C, which has electoral votes but no representation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-third_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution).  

The number of HoR members was set to 435 back in 1913 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apportionment_Act_of_1911), with further additions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_apportionment) clarifying how those were to be allocated (percentage of overall population), with logic guaranteeing every state a minimum of 1 representative. This makes things a bit fuzzy when it comes to number of constituents per representative, though it's up to the state government to draw these numbers as evenly as possible.

When voting for president in the November election, we are actually voting for the members of the Electoral college delegation for our state, usually based on a political party.  In most states (including Oklahoma), the party that wins the popular election gets the entire delegation, anywhere between 3 and 55 votes.

On December 19th, the electoral college will meet and cast their votes. Just because they were voted in for a specific party does not mean that they are guaranteed to vote for that party, but though there are some states with  laws against (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector) this.  The winners of the electoral college is sworn in as president and vice president on January 20th

************

Note, winning the popular election for most (maybe all) only involves having enough of a unified front to get "the most" votes in your state.  I counted 11 states where under 50 percent of the voting population determined the results for the other 50%+ of people.  I will concede that you aren't technically voting against someone, but with the sheer amount of "CROOKED HILARY" and #NeverTrump that was being slung from all sides, it's a data point that warrants consideration.

The weighted average of the states is just that.  You're taking the winning popular vote number at a state level, and assigning a value to set from the state's raw population number.

google's election search results (https://gist.github.com/saintnicster/796e60ad5865e8913f16160ae14c5779) into csv.  I calced everything beyond R-Count in excel

Look at it this way - Alabama is worth 9 electoral votes, won with 1,306,925 R votes, Washington is worth 12, winning at 1,207,943 D, Kentucky is allocating 8 votes with 1,202,942 R.  Practically speaking, a very similar number of people won the election in each state, yet Washington was worth more for less effort.

I'm not saying that this will work in my favor.  In fact, as the HoR and Senate's current layout suggests, the the opposite is likely to be true.  But adjusting the EC to more accurately represent the DIVERSE nature of the peoples in the states that make it up would would be a step in the right direction and could work as a step in the right direction to bringing more people into the election.  As mentioned above, how many people in califorina or other states stayed home because they were were basically guaranteed to be blue?  How many dems in Texas?  California's HoR representation is 39 democrats and 19 republicans, with Texas at 25 republican  and 11 democrats.   That's enough to shake things up and make everything a "swing state".


I posted from my phone, didn't catch an auto correct.



Yes she conceded. Yes, the system as it stands will see that Trump and Pence are in the white house.  

How about we look forward for once in our lifetimes, stop focusing on the now. Should we as a country manage to survive (like we did through Bush and Obama), what about in 2020?  Why do we need to have the exact same system in place?  The constitution evolves for good and bad, but you can't stop that.

Take a look at the rapid iteration of everything else in the world.  Figure out what needs to change, rather than cling onto the past because "it kinda works". Be willing to iterate on things.  Leave the kids and grandkids something to look forward to.

Rambly and at least 9 posts in between the time i started, but had to get it out.

Yep.  My Mom did too!  Sadly.  And there is much more to the astounding list of character flaws than just his pedophilia...and yet, 47% voted for him.  Oh, well, onward and upward!

As for health insurance - yeah, premiums are going up - just like they always have!!  At least since I have been in a corporate, W-2 job.  At huge multiples over the cost of everything else.  And it is being left to continue by the Congress that has been bought and paid for even more in the last 35 years.


On the debt - you continue to fall into the Faux News hyperbole - they take one data point and layer lie upon lie on top of it to excite those who are too lazy or too intellectually dishonest to look beyond their sound bite.  The debt is today almost $20 trillion.  That's from the 'debt clock' site I looked at a few minutes ago.

At the end of Bush's last fiscal year, the debt stood at $12 trillion.  Not doubled since then - it's about a 70% increase.  As opposed to the "God of Debt Increases" - just about every Republican.  Bush started at $5.9 trillion, took it to the $12 trillion mentioned.  More than doubled.  

And lets not forget that Bush's LAST increase in the debt was $1.9 trillion.  And the increases now are running about 25% of that...

Reagan took it from $997 billion to over $2.8 trillion - 280% increase in his 8 years, but somehow still revered as Republican "God" of finance.  Even with the massive tax increases he presided over during his term!   Hint; bigger than his much publicized tax cuts....

And let's get Billy Bob in just for good measure - $4.4 trillion up to $5.8 trillion.  About a 30% increase - since there were several years when the budget was running in the black.

So all those "problems" with the aforementioned debt are really just an artifact of the successful propaganda/lie machine that is being spewed by the RWRE.  An intentionally dishonest endeavor that has been much more successful than the other side's effort.  (And broadening from just national issues to state and local, especially successful in places like Oklahoma.)

As are problems of crime, which is well documented as having gone down for many, many years.  

Which brings us full circle back to the massive number of people - at least 47% and probably much higher - who are too lazy or too intellectually dishonest to look beyond the sound bite.  And that IS a discussion that goes around the circle of family and friends.


Debt history - as I have linked repeatedly;

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

I think you are so far off with that - I expect 90 minutes, but will guess about two weeks.

I think wearing white pantsuits after Labor Day did her in.

Forgot to mention - in this rapid 'testing', I would love to see the people demand the restructuring of the whole damn thing - position term limits, reduced term length on senate and president. Hell, throw in that warren buffett meme scaling pay based on GDP mixed in with constituency wage. Just a general housekeeping.  Require people to keep up with the politics, rather than this set-it/forget-it mentality.  But to accomplish _any_ change in structure would likely require nothing short of revolution.

And if you actually read beyond the last paragraph of mine you quoted, you would have seen my analysis on the debt and deficit which is clearly explained how it is perceived to the masses.  I don't watch Fox and my hyperbole meter wasn't going off when I re-read my post.  I simply stated how it is most people have the political beliefs they have these days. 

It takes far less research to make a poor decision these days then pre-internet and pre-24 hour news cycle.  ;D

In some ways, I wish it were mandated that if you were going run a 24/7 news outlet (like Fox, MSNBC, CNN etc) that it would remain a non-profit.

I know, pipe dream, but it would intrinsically get rid of of the notion that you're broadcasting news only for ratings.

I thought I saw this morning where some think tank estimated that Trump got about $1.6 billion (with a B) in free advertising during this election cycle.

That needs to stop.

The fairness doctrine?

lol

Yes, that was her ultimate mistake.  She knew the electoral system rules but forgot a very important fashion rule.

But she can run again in 2020, if she's able and willing.  By my count, she has missed seven opportunities since 1984 by not throwing her hat into the ring.

Right there.  Had this same discussion with my daughter last night. She missed being able to vote by two months, but bunch of her friends did and a lot of them are up in arms about the EC now.  Simple put, the EC isn't going to change because it generally works, it at the core of the way we elect presidents, and there are reasons why it was done that way.  Gripe all you/we want, it isn't going to happen.

Per my earlier post though, I do think a movement could be made somehow to get all states to apportion their electors by vote percentage within the state.  That is already allowed, and a few do it this way now.  That alone would result in a much tighter match to popular vote, while also having the side affect of removing the concept of a wasted vote as every vote in every state would actually matter.

The level of anger I am seeing from my college aged daughter and her friends is nothing short of stunning, even here in Oklahoma. The level of anger from my friends that live on the coasts is the same.

There is a massive generational and coastal/flyover divide.

The 1960s are brewing again.

Yeah I read it...and I didn't really mean to put "you" in there - as in you personally!  Sometimes the fingers typing just get a life of their own....  It was really intended for the wider audience of people who religiously and slavishly just parrot the RWRE Faux News cycle.

Good!!  I am seeing it in my kids, too!   We need a move away from the dispassionate, mind-numbing, stupor we have been in since Reagan!!  Hopefully I will live long enough to see and live in a country that lives up to its own press....

Now if we could just get some change in Okrahoma!!

Why the anger?  I'm sure your daughter and her friends were taught things don't always go their way and how to be gracious in loss.  This is as free a system as there is to pick our leaders.  We are not some third world craphole where people start looting and rioting when they are unhappy with the outcome of something.  If they are that angry, perhaps they should start with the system the DNC ran to assure HRC was a foregone conclusion.

Democrats got eight years of control of the White House with a bonuse two years at the start of that term with a Dem HOR and Senate.  That's how we got the ACA.  That, itself was a mobilizing event, which helped elect Trump, IMO.

I'm pretty certain two years of GOP dominance will lead to a shift in the parties in the legislative branch.  In the meantime, the Democrats have two years to pick a dynamic candidate who can beat Trump.

The Democrats fell off their formula of success that ushered in Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.  Young, intelligent, idealistic candidates who were capable of energizing their party.  Hillary has never had that charisma and frankly, she was a re-tread well past her prime.  She came off as the authoritarian grandmother not as someone most people could really relate to.  If she had faced a different candidate than Trump, we'd likely have been looking at something more of a landslide favoring the GOP.

No, it's based on at least 51 popular vote elections, not only 50.  That's what I meant in my previous comment.  


I don't know what that means.  I have no idea what you typed into your phone, or how it "corrected" your text.  I'm not trying to argue semantics.  In this case, I'm trying to understand them.

------

I'm standing by my main point for this discussion topic:  Hillary Clinton has known about the electoral process for decades.  Of the nine chances she has had (so far) to run for the presidency and possibly win, she has tried twice.  She lost in 2008.  Yesterday, after her second failed attempt, she conceded.  In 2020, if she is able and willing, she will have her tenth opportunity to go for a run.

The electoral process is not perfect.  I'm not saying that the current system couldn't evolve or be improved.  However, in my opinion, the current electoral process is better than one based on a nationwide direct popular vote.

These kids are almost all former Bernie supporters that came to Clinton only because Trump is so awful. Because wrong is wrong. They are Obama supporters largely and if they are not it's because he's too conservative.

This generation is larger than the baby boomers and is already very diverse. They have been raised to be inclusive on issues of race, gender and sexuality. They see electing Trump as going back to the dark ages almost.

Was honestly thinking about how that would look last night. It can't be overly complicated. The electorate must trust that it works. Tat being said the "fairest" way I thought was to give the two votes (that represented the Senate seats) to the winner of the state popular vote, then allocate the others based on % of vote won. Rounding or not, Trump would have prevailed in this fashion as well as he won 30 states. I still think the current winner take all fashion gives a lot more power to the states (not all obviously). Time changes which states are swing states. Going straight allocation is just popular vote in disguise and pointless to even have an EC. That to me would be a compromise, but an unnecessary change in my opinion.

That all being said, many young people don't understand this system for whatever reason. They also often don't understand that this is not a democracy that they live in. They may have been told that, but that's just our underpaid teachers not understanding either apparently (or parents).

That’s a load of crap. They understand.

The will of the people has now been subverted in 2 of the last 5 elections. It’s long past time to kill the electoral college.  Why should someone’s vote in Idaho count more than mine? Why should my vote count more than someone in California just because of what state you live in? That is just plain wrong.

Even if killing the EC isn’t possible at least a simple federal law that forces states to allocate electors based on the vote percentages. 

The last time the people’s will was subverted we got a mishandled war in Afghanistan, a pointless war in Iraq and the worst economic calamity of the last 100 years.

And Trump is far, far worse than Bush Jr.

What??   Worse than an alcoholic, cocaine addict, wife beater??   Say it ain't so....!!   And whose said wife killed her high school sweetheart when driving drunk??

What comes around, goes around.....  But according to Trump at the time, we should start "rioting and looting"...

And Ted Nugent was his usual class act...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/republicans-react-obama-win-anger-gloom-calls-fight-article-1.1198334

Here's a tweet for you about revolution over the popular vote:

~ lost the popular vote by a lot and won the election. We should have a revolution in this country!







— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2012 (he was lying about the popular vote, but then of course he was)

And then this:
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.
10:45 PM - 6 Nov 2012

From 2012, an election Obama won by millions of votes:
(http://i.amz.mshcdn.com/4uXI5JbKLGtIweG91ePo0ualg8k=/fit-in/1200x9600/http%3A%2F%2Fmashable.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F11%2Ftrump.png)

What does this say about Hillary supporters?  It's one thing to talk stupid smack post election, vandalism is taking it to a whole new level:

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-downtown-la-trump-protests-20161109-htmlstory.html

I'm telling you, there's a lot of anger out there now. People feel they have lost their country (sound familiar?)

I got to thinking about this more and more.  Perhaps an allocation system rather than winner takes all would get more people to the polls because they feel their vote would really matter in deeply red or deeply blue states.  I don't know that it changes the fact that our country seems split down the middle now, but I could see where it might encourage more people to show up on election day.

Not really because I'm not wired that way.  It's one thing for a few celebrity blowhards to blow off steam after a loss.  What was happening in LA and Oakland is more like anti-America rallies in Tehran.

I'd truly be curious to know how many of the vandals are even registered to vote in the first place.

And thank you for expanding on what the anger is your daughter and her friends feel over this.  I hope they take this experience and use it in an active role in helping to find and support dynamic candidates in the future.

I voted for Bernie too, I really thought he had a chance against Trump.  I actually did believe he'd be capable of working with the House and Senate if he'd have gone all the way.

Trump wasn't my guy but my parents taught me long ago you have to respect the office and give the person in office a chance even though you may not like the office-holder.

An allocation system within individual states is possible with our current electoral system, if that's what you mean.  4% of the states have already adopted allocation systems in lieu of winner-takes-all.  Allocation is an option.  That's okay.  But states shouldn't be forced to change from winner-takes-all to any other method.
 

Exactly.

Considering about a quarter of the states considered a system where all their votes went to the eventual winner, I don't see a completely allocated system ever being put into place. It waters down the states power.

It does sound familiar, and I vaguely recall those people saying those things being "put in there place" by people like you.

Funny, when the R's guy loses their voters are racist. and when they win, they are also racists (and stupid). I have no earthly idea why there is such a divide in this country. Can someone please enlighten me?

Because most people simply will not take the time to educate themselves on policy anymore.  You get one guy with a following like Chris Matthews or Harry Reid saying opposition to Obamacare was a symptom of racism, and suddenly that became true.

It's like how children on the playground end arguments: "You are just a poo-poo head!"  You can't refute someone else's position with facts so you resort to the old personal attack.

How can you discuss policy? Trump never articulated a single coherent policy position.

Factually this election was about race and racism. That is how the numbers split out:

Older, less educated rural evangelical white voters are the core Trumpers. And their main issues involve race. Their number one issue is Immigration and second is Terrorism. Neither of which has a sizable impact on people in rural areas. Clinton’s more urban voters that live among immigrants communities much more often found those issues to be the least important.

58% of white voters voted for Trump.
88% of black voters voted for Clinton, only 8% voted for Trump
65% of Hispanic voters voted for Clinton, 29% voted for Trump
65% of Asian voters voted for Clinton, 29% voted for Trump
78% of LGBT voters voted for Clinton, 14% voted for Trump


Age mattered:

Trump got 53% of voters over 45 years old.
He got only got 37% of voters 18-29 and 42% of voters 30-44

Lack of education mattered too:

72% of white men without a college degree voted for Trump
62% of white women without a college degree voted for Trump

Evangelicals voted for Trump too, 81% of white evangelicals voted for Trump
The most important issue to Trump voters was immigration, 64%, second is Terrorism.
Rural voters voted for Trump, 62%. Urban voters only at 35%


https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...on/exit-polls/

Link was broken.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/exit-polls/

Nothing new.  It has ALWAYS been this way.  Since before we became a nation.  Less than half the people in this country wanted the Revolutionary War to succeed - they wanted to stay British.  So this has a long tradition.  

Election of 1800 was probably worse, just without the social media we have.  And 1860 led to all out war, killing more than 600,000 before it was over.  We have been divided MUCH more than we have been united.

I know that Nebraska and Maine do this.  Why can't the rest of the states?

Huh?  Is my name Donald Trump?  Did I vote for Donald Trump?

What has Trump’s incoherence on policy got to do with my ability to think and speak on it?

I’m sorry you are struggling with the results Tuesday night, but you picked the wrong guy to take it out on.

It is truly interesting how the stats are spit out.  I asked multiple people Tuesday night if they ever remember education of voters being such an up-front metric as it was on Tuesday.  Age, race, and gender yes.  Certainly education levels have been looked at as a minor stat, but this was the first time I’ve seen them used so blatantly to make it look like only people who looked like Joe Dirt were Trump voters.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/white-voters-victory-donald-trump-exit-polls

Do you see what you are missing in all this?  What is the education level of the Hispanics and Blacks who voted for Hillary?  Try looking it up, you will be hard-pressed to find that information.  Good luck extrapolating it from Wa-Po, CNN, NYT, or even The Guardian's data.  We can generally assume many of the blacks and Hispanics supporting Hillary do not have college degrees either, but either no one appears to ask them because that would appear racist or it spoils the meme that only uneducated people vote for Trump.

Hispanics and blacks did what they always do- they supported the Democrat that is nothing new though they didn’t support Clinton to the extent they did Obama in 2012.  This is nothing extraordinary.

“People without college degrees” can be either complete losers in life or they might be farmers, factory workers (we do know Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin all swung to the right this time- lots of skilled workers without college degrees who perhaps don’t like the Democrats handling of trade and the economy.

Stats are what you make of them.  If you choose to use them to make the president-elect look like Stalin or Hitler that’s on you, but you only help feed the divide.  You keep on focusing on differences when we all need to be looking at our similarities.

No, you misunderstand. I'm not saying you can't discuss policy, that people in general could not discuss police with regards to this election because one side had none.

The rest of the states can, if their state legislatures changed their laws.  A majority of Oklahoma state senators went well beyond a call for simple apportionment in February 2014 when they passed SB 906, approving the National Popular Vote.

The stat that matters is the number of electoral votes obtained.  In this year's election, Hillary has failed to reach the critical threshold of 270.

Perhaps if enough unbound electors switch from Donald to Hillary on December 19th, then she'll be able to garner 270 votes.  Not likely, but I suppose it could happen.

However, even if Hillary can't get enough support this time around, if she's able and willing, she can try again in 2020.
  

Conan (and Swake) to through even more of a kink in the educational level of voters...

Voters of Asian decent by and large voted for Clinton. This group is widely considered to be the most educated ethnic group in America. That juxtaposed with what Conan said about those of African and Hispanic decent, who according to Census, are the least educated ethnic groups in America. I'd say that's enough for me to say that educational attainment was not the deciding factor. Heck white/Euro's (non-hispanic decent) are the second most educated and they voted for Trump, slightly more than Clinton. Trust me, plenty of dummies voted for both of them. God Bless Merica.

Doing what Swake (and most of the media) is doing is just a way to call those that don't agree with them stupid. It's the only way to justify some people's existence.

I would also say that it appears that economics may not have had that much to do with it either. As Clinton likely carried the poor urban dwellers, and Trump likely did so for the suburban/rural poor.

And I think often the implication is that Whites are racists for not voting in a single block like Blacks & Hispanics tend to. I'm not even going to start on that.

I think what people like Swake need to realize is that America is made up of individuals. We don't fit into boxes or categories. (Even though I didn't actually) I can vote for Trump and not agree with every single thing he says or does. Again, America is not a binary choice (even though the elections more or less are).

Swake, please for the sake of this board, take a Xanax and sleep it off. It's been two days now.

I
Nah, they're not stupid. According to one talking head on MSNBC last night, they are "Disentangled Misogynistic Racists".

It could if electors started receiving copies of their own suicide notes with a Chappequa return address. 8)

Oops, fixed it.

Anyone else remember "effete corps of impudent snobs"?  I had to look up who said it, Sprio Agnew.

I wandered among NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS.  (No cable, satellite etc TV.)   I found it amusing how much emphasis was put on "uneducated white males" voting for Trump.  They did, however, also make references to Hillary underperforming among several minorities compared to Obama in the 2012 election.  One of my co-workers also mentioned that many Hispanic voters may have had difficulties with Hillary being pro-choice regarding abortion rights.  It was fun to see the media squirm as it appeared that Trump even had a real chance of winning.

The one I recall is "nattering nabobs of negativism." No one talks that way any more. I am no Agnew fan, but the discussion was richer then. Actually, that was written for Agnew by William Safire, a master wordsmith. I didn't like his politics, but I appreciated his literacy. Everything now is so damned apocolyptic. People need to surface from Facebook and Twitter once in a while.

Nattering nabobs of negativity....



Edit;   and then I got to cynical's post...

You only see the world through your white male prism. Maybe you should work on empathy for people not just like you with all your built in advantages?

The more likely a statistical group of people is to experience racism or sexism the less they voted for Trump. It’s that simple. You elected a monster.

My built in advantage growing up poor in the middle of nowhere. Yeah, you know me alright.

I vaguely recall working in New York being asked if I used to ride a horse to University. They were serious. Everybody has their impediments. Some just let it get to them more than others.

You aren’t seriously equating being asked if you rode a horse to school with racism are you? Good lord, what a snowflake.

No I am not. But to act like I had a silver spoon up my donkey is something else entirely isn't it. No person in this country has it handed to them. That is the attitude that these "snowflakes" in New York & Portland have. They think they deserve everything just for being the unique soul that they are. It's BS.

Trump supporters are no more racist than any other subset of the population. Your commentary is why Trump is elected. You know this right? People are tired of being called racist and what not.

The horse story was meant to show how backwards thinking people are. They have preconceived notions of how the world works. I don't begrudge them. I don't take it personally. Everyone else needs to do the same.

Best comment I ever heard about "racism". I don't remember who or where I heard it. But it was a black man.

"About the time we get over racism, is about the time everyone else will too".

Quit living in the past. Get over it. They all followed the rules. This is the outcome. Honestly how can you sit here with your doom and gloom. You don't know. None of us do. But I do know that this country has survived some doozies. This will be no different. I have more faith in humanity than that (which I've been told is a problem of mine). When people start realizing they are much more the same than different, that's when things will get better. Until then, I guess I should keep expecting to hear all this hate from you.

Yeah there are those people.  Clinton's weren't, but Trump definitely was.

Seriously?

Aside from the words out of Trump's own mouth, Steve Bannon, you know Trump's campaign president, the white power movement and the KKK all say hello.

Trump's campaign was built on hate. It was his core message.

 

You, just like millions of others, are completely mis-reading this thing.

I said Trump SUPPORTERS are no more racist. Not Trump himself. Are you that dense?

No, there's a huge portion of Trump supporters that voted for him because they themselves are racist. It's a very large part of his support. For example, the KKK endorsed him. They are part of his supporters. Are you dense?

 ::)

A believer in the fact free new order I see. The Infowars/Breitbart era is upon us.

In the words of Avenue Q, "Everyone's a little bit racist".  I agree will agree with you with that one point.  We're human, susceptible to environmental bias, and have a genetic disposition to stereotyping or classifying 'threats' to us based on 'differences'.  WHAT MATTERS is the expression of that stereotyping, those biases, the 'racism'. 

There are a non-zero amount of self-identified Trump supporters out there that are actively threatening people based on color of skin, supposed country of origin, or sexual/gender status, usually based on some misguiding from a historical book. Now, giving people the benefit of the doubt - you and your family are not one of those people spray-painting a swastika on the side of a building, leaving threatening notes, teaching your kids out there (indirectly or not) that these people need to go, but people _ARE_ doing this.

I ask to the people that voted for President-elect Trump (including himself), the candidate that these people self-identify with - how do these acts make you feel?  What is your gut reaction?
Do you decry the acts? Do you take even the slightest pause?  Do you condemn them or do you remain silent?  It is my understanding that to those under attack, remaining silent and/or doing nothing is, at best, condoning the attacks, and at worst, is actually committing those attacks yourself.  _That_ is why I will call people racist, bigoted, or homophobic.  But not before I ask them these questions.

I AM A RACIST!!!!

You win the board today. I can't keep up. Chasing the uncatchable is to damn hard.

I don't know if  "It's a very large part of his support",  but fear of "the other" definitely has manifested itself as a part of Trump's support base.  Several years ago when Obama made the comment about people being fearful and "clinging to their guns and bibles" (something like that), it may not have been a good thing to say politically, but he wasn't wrong.  This fear and uncertainty has grown in last few years, and among other behaviors results in the current racially-tinged backlash(es) that we see right now.   It's unfortunate and sad, but it's also the easiest and simplest outlet for some people.

Associating guilt to people from the actions of others?  Serious?  So if I didn’t publicly condemn the shooter of the five Dallas cops last summer:  I condoned it, and committed those acts myself.

Wow!

Where do you people get this stuff?

I don’t hear anyone condemning Van Jones for calling Trump’s win a “Whitelash”.  I also didn’t hear President Obama, Jones’ prior employer condemning those remarks either.  That definitely makes Obama a racist bigot, in your books right?

Oh, I don't know, maybe in how President Trump himself has repeated blamed Muslim communities as a whole for terrorist attacks.....

The irony obviously escapes Swake.

No, the fact that Hispanics do not choose to be a member of that group. Few Muslims do either. So to associate blame for a bad actor to an entire groups like a race or a religion is wrong.

However, when you chose to vote Trump you CHOSE to elect a known stupid, racist, fraudster, misogynistic serial sexual predator. You self selected to join that group. Just like people choose to join the KKK.

I didn't hear Hillary Clinton's concession speech, but caught a quote or two.

Here's a nice excerpt which was reported by the AP:

I agree.  That's being gracious and polite.

Inconceivable, right? it's not like we as [White ]Americans have ever done anything like that

* Tulsa Race Riots.
* Japanese Internment camps from World War 2
* Gays and The AIDS scare
* 9/11 and anyone that "looked muslim"
* anyone labeled "a thug" because of the way they dress

Those are just some of the big ones.  Yes, it's eye for an eye and it hurts everyone, but at some point you have to stop being a group of victims and defend yourself in the slightest way.  And that defense of themselves will be seen as injustice regardless of the scale. 

But then again, you're just going to ignore that list anyways.

Personally remembering with the 9/11 stuff, we didn't lock them up, but most of us didn't trust them. How else would that god-aweful "boot in your donkey, it's the American Way" song be as popular as it was.  Yes, as a member of the lower-middle class white kid in Stillwater was paranoid and sang along with it like everyone else around me did.  The sentiment made me feel safe at the time, so I fell in line lockstep. 

Looking back, I'm ashamed at how I acted, and I want to prevent something like that from happening again.  I WANT PEOPLE TO BE BETTER


 
You missed my "at best and at worst".  This means that there is a spectrum with multiple variables.  I don't know (or remember, if you bothered posting here) what your reaction to it was, public or private, so I cannot judge. I never asked you the questions. 


for someone that probably doesn't like being retaliated against, that felt like a fairly sloppy "you people"

And to make you happy, since it doesn't seem to happen often these days, then yes, by the narrow definition given above, they're racist.  But then again, you might want to read over the post again because I said that EVERYONE is racist.  Were I able to adjust my definition, I would say that you also need to take into consideration tone and history.  But I'm sure there are flaws there, too. 

I really wish that I lived in this fantasy world that everyone else lives in, but I see the makeup of our society crumbling like an Oklahoma bridge.  It may not go today, it may not go tomorrow.  But it's going to come down one of these days if we just keep patching potholes.

A friend's post from facebook. This happened to her in Tulsa today. She's Jewish and has adopted two girls from Africa.

Another friend's post from facebook. He's gay and lives in Tulsa, this happened yesterday at DFW airport:

Slight drift, but I always felt like that song got a bad rap.  I just listened to it again as I hadn't heard it in years, and it doesn't mention anything about Muslims, etc.  It doesn't even specify who attacked us.  It just basically says "you came at us, and we hit you back.  Really, really, hard. And let that be a warning to anybody else who might be thinking about trying the same thing."  We were attacked by an outside force.  (And in a cowardly way.  A "sucker punch", per the song.)  To me, this song represented the emotions of the time very well.  "We didn't ask to be attacked.  But now that we have been, your @$$ is ours."  Works for me.

Newt Gingrich, our likely new Secretary of State, said he wants a new House Committee on Un-American Activities to investigate Muslim communities.

Fascist acting like fascists. Shocking.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/14/politics/newt-gingrich-house-un-american-activities-committee/index.html

Here is why I busted your chops:

Calling people “racist” or “racists” is no better than hurling common racial epithets.  It is lazy-speak that is being used to homogenize people of differing political and cultural views now.  It is way, way over-used and it’s really become an epithet toward white people.  No one ever once suggested the blacks who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012 when he ran against white candidates were racist, even though they likely voted for him because he looks like them, now did they?  

There is a huge difference between racism and prejudice and I think you are mistaking that to a degree.  Everyone is prone to prejudice.  Everyone has life experience which has made them this way.  Allow me to illustrate:

You are walking through a mall parking lot and you see five or six teenage black males with their pants down around their thighs.  What is your first reaction?  They are looking for trouble or they are on fall break from Harvard?

Über skinny white guy who is rough around the edges, bald, neck tattoo wandering through the parking lot staring at you.  Do you assume he’s a tweaker looking for someone to roll or is he someone who cleaned up his life and now works a productive job?

White overweight woman walking through the grocery store with a mobile canister of oxygen.  Is she on O2 because she is/was a heavy smoker and this was self-inflicted or she’s a breast cancer patient and she needs the oxygen to breathe and the treatment she’s been taking made her very bloated?

We ALL have preconceived notions and prejudice.  People have tribal tendencies to identify better with people who look or believe as they do, that is a part of our very nature.

Using the “R” word because someone is ideologically different, the color of their skin, or educational level shows every bit as much of a lack of respect, understanding, or tolerance as using the “N” word, “Aye-Rab”, “Mooslim”, “Chink”, “Rag Head”, etc.  It is being way over-used in an attempt to intimidate people for their beliefs on immigration or other policy which may be seated in real life experience or fear, not an abstract hatred of Hispanics, Blacks, or Middle Easterners.

Calling people out only increases the divide which exists.  We are becoming a divided nation because people are failing to recognize our similarities, choosing to focus on differences instead.  I guarantee, all of us could do a far better job of attempting to look for the similarities in our neighbors on an hourly or daily basis.

Your kind always says that.

What’s this “My kind” thing here?  8)

Are you suggesting these two instances happened because Trump was elected Tuesday?  Things like this happen because people are ignorant and indifferent to others, not because of whomever is the president.

Instead of promoting a message of despair and seeking to discredit a president-elect who hasn’t been inaugurated as of yet here is my FB message of optimism in spite of or because of Tuesday’s election:


You can continue to be a part of the problem or a part of the solution.  Do things which make a difference.

I'm going to nit pick this part.   I do think that, at least temporarily, this segment of society has been emboldened.  We are discussing and pontificating on this forum, and for the most part we all try to take high ground.  But there are those that championed Trump that have desires and directions that most would not agree with.   And of course there are the idiots that are using the election as an excuse to act out.  I think (hope?) that this will all settle out once everyone realizes that campaign rhetoric and how things actually work are never same.  I do hope though that no one is actually physically hurt by any of this in the near-term.

It’s funny, I never really think about that possibility because I refuse to associate with people like that so it wouldn’t register with me that someone would feel emboldened to be a bully suddenly by an election outcome.

Good attitude, Conan.  I happened to see a Tulsa World article this afternoon, a few minutes after I read your Facebook message.

There's a connection, in spirit, to the FB post you shared:

"Tulsa County Democrats say they're motivated by election results," by Randy Krehbiel (http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/tulsa-county-democrats-say-they-re-motivated-by-election-results/article_5fad0094-2b44-5922-8467-40c2839226ea.html)

You are right. I shouldn't put all barbarians in the same boat.

You do that and there's a very good chance it will sink with all that chain mail, battle axes, and such.

Can we have codpieces along with the.chain mail?

Why would I condemn him for speaking the truth?

Dude, white's elect (edit: play a huge part in the election of) every president. Because they picked the other guy doesn't necessarily mean there was some kind of revolt. Come back in four years and validate your claim.

If anything the "white vote" is the lease racist vote their is. It seems pretty evenly divided with minor shifts every four years. Seems pretty open minded to me.

Yes, those happened because Trump got elected President. Just like the protests are because Trump got elected Tuesday.  This is a time where people are acting based on the results. Trump is a symbol for racism.  He is a symbol for racism for immigrants ,minorities, much of Europe, liberals, and racists.  The last one is where the problem lies the rest could be considered unfair. The people are racists committing these acts were always racist.  But now they think that they are justified because "everybody" thinks like they do.  Everybody is right to a certain degree.  Trump isn't a symbol for racism for most of the people who voted for him.  But he is a symbol for racism to the minority of people who act out. Without the people acting out then the rest of the people yelling "racist" would have no merit.  This will last for another few weeks and hopefully people will go back to just being inwardly racist and the protests will stop.

No, things aren't normal anymore.

Steve Bannon is now Donald Trump's top policy advisor. Actions are now meeting words, and those actions are scary.

Classic Chappelle:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHG0ezLiVGc

His first choice has been accused of being anti-Semitic. No shock there.

The anti-Semite thing is an incredible stretch. The "accusation" was by his ex-wife in a divorce affidavit. Racist, maybe, anti-Semite, seems to be reaching.

Until you realize he's the ring leader of the alt right media. These people are absolute jerks and it goes way beyond policy.

anti-Semite doesn't begin to cover it, he ran Breitbart, and extremely bigoted and sexist website from his home. He owns everything they published, it's all his.

Ah, so being racist makes it ok then.

::)

Read Daily Koz and Huff-Poo much?

No. I read Tulsa World, Politico, WSJ, NY Times and The Economist.

I'll continue being vocal against this garbage President elect. Zero respect from me.

NO, I'm pointing out that embellishing is unnecessary. Wouldn't you agree.

Now, I'm pretty sure this guy is a dick, but leader of the alt right. I'm not quite ready to make that leap either. Although it is possible since we elected a Twitter troll. And the alt right basically consists of a bunch of pajama wearing Twitter Trolls.

Breitbart is likely a puppet of the Rupert Murdock Clown Show.

They are the Slate of the right. Make up crazy headlines to get clicks. Breitbart's actual article content is rather tame by comparison. It's just the headlines that are so incendiary. And obviously they post opinion that is virtually 100% at odds with Democrats, but that in itself isn't illegal or wrong.

You read that??   And believe what you just wrote??   Really...?


Just a few minutes ago, he brings up Rev Wright saying:

"The corrupt mainstream media had no problem with Obama’s nutcase Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who preached political hatred against America and the Jews."

Obivous troll is obvious.   He is referring to the Wright sound bite - again, obviously never having heard or bothering to listen to the entire sermon.  But that wouldn't follow or further the radical right wing agenda he is espousing.

Have you ever listened to Wright's entire sermon?   I'm betting no....


So, today's posts are tame compared to the headlines... Huh, imagine that...!


http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/14/i-know-steve-bannon-hes-not-a-racist-crackpot-like-rev-wright-or-terrorist-bomber-like-bill-ayers/

So your proof that Breitbart's articles are truly incendiary is one that says someone is not a racist. And actually points out a man that has ACTUALLY said things that are anti-semetic, but only appears to regret being caught saying those things. It's a lot more than one soundbite mind you. He once said Obama was controlled by Zionist. In addition he has said the state of Israel is illegal and genocidal? He is in effect the equivalent of the alt-right for the people from the "mother country".

That's what you are going to hang your hat on?

Just one...not gonna quote the whole site like so many do.  When you read over it and get the overall tone, the site definitely is what the headlines proclaim.  They are incendiary.  As exemplified by the oft-repeated reference and direct link to 19 seconds of Wright's sermon.  That revisionist history IS incendiary.  It is also lying...which is really about all that can be expected.  It is trying to stoke an emotional hate response by showing an extremely limited version that is a sound bite taken COMPLETELY out of context!

That IS incendiary.


And Breitbart is so toxic on a broader basis that is has crashed my browser 3 times in the last 10 minutes....  incendiary and toxic at all levels.  As is it's leader.




Reactionary Extremist Psycho-babbler Bannon on mental health issues;

"I’ve got a cure for mental health issues...Spank your children more," wrote Bannon in an e-mail to another Breitbart staffer who had brought up recent congressional deliberations on mental health policy.

That's right. Donald Trump's chief adviser believes that all people with psychiatric disabilities need is a good hard spanking.

I really wish I could say I was surprised.

No, they are White Power idiots: This is a quote from Breitbart News' defense of the Alt Right
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-conservatives-guide-to-the-alt-right/

Re-branding of the same old right wing reactionary extremist carp.  New label on the same ole sh$t sack.


Previously AKA 'skin-heads'.

Breitbart takes pains to show they are "Intellectual Racists", with an actual coherent (and abhorrent) philosophy and not merely old school skins heads. I hate to say it, but it's very like the Nazi Party. High minded and scientific(ish) racism, now with a very strong dash of sexism.

Bannon has no place in Government, but then neither does Trump, our new Rapist in Chief.

Fun test, were the below quotes uttered by the Trump campaign (including Breitbart) or from Hitler:












Go on, guess...












All Hitler.  I just changed Jewish to Mexican or Muslim, Germany to America, and updated the language a bit. That last one I didn't update at all, just cut and paste. Here, go look for yourself:

https://www.phdn.org/archives/www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/statements.htm

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler

You can now go back to convincing yourself that the language that has been used isn't classic racist language.  Go read Adolf's quotes.  He doesn't start by coming out and say he wants to round Jews up and have them murdered.  Step 1: paint a clear us vs. them picture, Step 2: pass as much blame as possible on them and admit no benefit, Step 3: a few more intrusions they deserve for being them for the benefit of us.  Repeat.

Trump isn't Hitler. American isn't 1930s Germany. But the comparison is close enough to understand why the Nazi party and KKK are fans of the sentiment.

(https://hub.wsu.edu/law-justice-realtime/wp-content/uploads/sites/931/2015/12/63413451.jpg)

How refreshing, Hitler comparisons.

http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/33d/projects/media/AnalogiesUSPresHitlerMegan.htm

Edit: You all know he can be a really crappy president without being Hitler right?

So you all know, Hitler was an incredibly effective politician. I have NO faith that Trump possesses the capabilities to accomplish a fraction of the evil (if he chose to) that he could even dream of.

The reason so many presidents compare well to Hitler is because becoming the president usually means you are a power hungry ruthless person. Coincidence, I think not.

Bush Jr, worst president of all time. Not Hitler. Trump often sounds like Hitler.....

http://www.plausibletruths.com/blogging-truth/dont-encourage-thinking (http://www.plausibletruths.com/blogging-truth/dont-encourage-thinking)

(http://www.plausibletruths.com/uploads/2/7/6/9/27698897/1035513_orig.jpg)

(http://www.educationforum.co.uk/reichstag_fire__september_11.jpg)

Ah, Truthers, the earlier version of Birthers. These sick idiots are in charge now.

Ah yes, forgot that flaming liberals are still learning how to function without Jon Stewart blowing his dog whistle.

Ryan and company are not much different - they have been attacking the bottom 95% for decades.... But hey, especially if you are a 1%'er, you are golden!!


http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/after-gop-wins-paul-ryan-puts-medicare-the-crosshairs

So you actually believe, as your little cartoons allege, that President George Bush bombed the World Trade Center.

Good Lord, our democracy is broken.

Been that way a long time...since Nixon at least.  And then the entire 19th century!

Nope, never did, also never fell into the birther crap either. Just showing you that for all your comparing Trump to Hitler and saying that Dubya wasn't is a crock of horse hockey.

The Dems are now turning into what they hated about the Tea Party, and are going to be obstructionist. It doesn't matter who's in office, and Godwinism is the new norm.

That claim was made by the Truthers, who are the exact same people as the Birthers who are the damn alt-right that just took over government.

It's the Breitbart/Infowars crowd. These are the core Trump people and Trump's main policy advisor is one of their leaders. Trump even called Alex Jones and thanked him for his support after the election.

My point wasn't to say Trump is Hitler - my point was that the Trump campaign adopted racist and nationalistic language. People keep saying the campaign didn't appeal to racists or didn't use racist language in that appeal. But when you compare the language used, it compares unfavorably to language used by noted racists from history.

Seriously, which of the quotes I posted could you not attribute to the Trump campaign?

Again, Trump is not Hitler. But the language he employed during the campaign was racist and nationalistic.

People now want excuses for their votes, "it wasn't really a racist campaign, I'm not a racist". In a few months they are going to deny they ever voted for Trump. Most of the people being assembled around Trump now (Giuliani as Sec of State????) are terrible people with no experience. The adults are being kicked out of the room. The rules for appointments seem to be how much Donald butt you kissed. And people thought the Carter admin was incompetent.  

They only think that because they are stupid.  And sadly, and more importantly, have no knowledge of history or the events surrounding his term as well as those of his predecessor and successor.  And are too intellectually lazy and intellectually dishonest to do more of an investigation than to listen to Rush Limbaugh sound bites.

Do you have a better source for sound bites?!

Hannity.
O'Reilly.
Coulter.



All equally "sound-bitey"...

I didn't notice either, but last week the NSA came out and said   Russia set out to help Donald Trump win by attacking Hillary Clinton, using Wikileaks as an intermediary. And they were successful. This is the first known instance of a foreign government directly intervening in a US Presidential election at this level.

That's terrifying. (http://qz.com/838615/nsa-chief-on-wikileaks-and-the-hacks-affecting-the-us-election-a-conscious-effort-by-a-nation-state/"a nation-state consciously targeted presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, in order to affect the US election."[/url)

Let's not blame Hillary or anything by making the monumentally bone headed move that let herself be open to these very types of attacks. Just saying.

None of these emails came from her server and none of her emails have ever been released from a hack. So what exactly are you babbling about?

The DNC server was hacked, as was Podesta's personal email and I think it was the DNC's house reelection server. Not Clinton's.

That would not have been discovered had third party not stepped in. The move of having the server is what cost her the credibility, not necessarily what was on it.

Obviously Trump is pretty good politician as well. He sold the country on not being a politician even. If you don't see the correlation between a Muslim database and a yellow star on a Jew in 1930's Germany than I don't know what to tell you.

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

Never forget.

Will you be the first to let me know when Trump is doing something Trumpy or Hitlery to actual American citizens.

You know, like politicizing the IRS or something. You know, something crazy like that no one would ever do.

Database for Muslims qualifies. Don't expect me to drop this fact either.

Database of immigrants from Muslim nations.  Same as the databases of immigrants from England, Mexico, or the Cayman Islands.

You are doing nothing but trying to spread unfounded fear.

Facts matter.

Words matter.

Sessions is probably thinking the same thing, even though virtually his whole career has flown in the face of those "alleged" words.

Oh please, seriously?

Sessions is the guy that not only wants to deport all illegals but stop most legal immigration as well.

Hell yes, facts matter. It appears Trump may not have never advocated for a registry of all Muslims, as the campaign says. But in his rants, digressions, and interruptions much was lost in translation. The problem is Trump won't be clear on the issue, reporters have tried to pin him down but he leaves it intentionally vague. Trump himself is creating an atmosphere of xenophobia and fear, it has to be intentional. He doesn't want to alienate rational people but he doesn't want to alienate the "hail President Trump" fascists either. 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/nov/24/donald-trumps-comments-database-american-muslims/

He then goes on a rant about Syrian refugees. But they couldn't get him to confirm that it wasn't a database requiring all Americans Muslims to go register.

A few days later:

Followed by a rant about refugees from Syria
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/17/the-evolution-of-donald-trump-and-the-muslim-database/

Just two days ago his administration again refused to rule out requiring every Muslim in the United States to register: 

Reince Priebus said just Sunday, before going on to specifically talk about immigrants again.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2016/1120/Will-Trump-s-plan-to-register-Muslims-make-it-to-The-White-House

You can't blame people for being fearful of President Trump requiring government registration of all Muslims when his administration has never "ruled it out" when asked directly, repeatedly. This isn't a hard issue to close the door on: "No, we are talking about careful registration of immigrants from countries with higher incidents of terrorism and extremism."

Do I think government registration of religious minority likely to happen? No, I don't. But it's pathetic that the issue keeps being asked directly and the administration keeps it alive. Team Trump is happy to use it to create fear and xenophobia so the extreme right rallies behind him and the left is relieved when its just religious based immigration policy as opposed to a national registry of all Jews Muslims. Like most of Trumps bullsh!t, I suspect he will revert to policies that we basically already have or have had in the recent past.  We just phased out a program to carefully screen and then monitor visitors or immigrants from countries on the terrorist watch list, he will likely bring it back.

Intentional double negative?

Get your facts straight. He has directly said a database for Muslims. He did not specify the country tidbit you decided to add while trying to call me out. Here's the video straight out of his mouth: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q4SDWMnjak (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q4SDWMnjak)

I’m repeating text which was in the article swake had posted which stated "immigrants from Muslim nations".  Trump has been all over the place on every issue and he’s an impulsive speaker.  There’s a recent NY Post interview stating as much that he’s been on about every side of every issue.

Candidate Trump knew a "database of Muslims" would never fly and it won’t.  The ACLU would be all over that in an instant.

And guess what, David?  You are in government databases, many of them.  Everyone has lost their sh!t over this without even beginning to realize every American citizen and legal immigrant is in one or more databases.  Woooooo.... bogeyman stuff!

Might be better to be a "non-documented" immigrant than a citizen.
 
 ;D

You're making light of someone that will be in the Oval Office saying he wants a database for people of a particular religion. That's on you, I'll fight that fight if it comes to fruition with or without you.

That might actually be meaningful if hers was an isolated action that only she had been doing.  But since literally everyone else was using private servers, including all the big Republicontin names, but most especially Bush using one in the White House and deleting 22 million emails...how many of those were classified? - this is just the RWRE witch hunt BS that the Murdochian Clown Show and Company have been engaged in for many years.

Where exactly is that "fair and balance" look at the facts??

Proved wrong again by the "Bush did it too" defense. Well, he must have been the most prepared, most over qualified candidate on the face of the earth then. History books will be praising his name. Oh wait, they won't. That's right. It was bone headed then, and bone headed when Clinton did it too.

And you have the nerve to come on here saying that everybody is repeating the Faux News talking points.

No, not wrong at all.  And yours IS the classic Faux News deflection technique, so you either are fooling yourself about the ultimate source of your responses, or are engaging in a flat out lie...and just to be crystal clear, I don't believe you are a liar at all just based on my reading of all the various posts you have made!  

Boneheaded is probably true - but it is also a 'hindsight' evaluation.  Large numbers of people with no technical background or knowledge of computer security engaged in what is now known to be foolhardy action.  No illegal then, just stupid.  Not illegal now, if one believes the RWRE that Obama overreaches too much with his executive actions...

The issue here that is repeatedly and predictably (with the RWRE Faux News points understanding) pursued - going after Clinton's with NO corresponding outrage for actions by the 'other' side that are 100 times worse.  Goes to the whole topic of perspective that I have talked about many times.  For every 1 time Clintons did something, Bush, Reagan, Bush, Gingrich, Trump have done worse things 100+ times each.  

How could Hillary be guilty of criminal action for 1 thing and Bush was not guilty for 666 of the same thing?  Notice the symbolism hidden in the email numbers straight out of Revelation?!!   Bush's 22 million to Hillary's 30,000 is 666!!   There is a message straight from God there, if one is able to comprehend....

Things like emails.  Lack of monogamy.  Embassy attacks.  Budget effects.  Tax cuts for the 1%'ers.   To name just a very few where the differing response is so overwhelmingly disproportionate and intellectually dishonest.

The Clintons have had every possible type of probing possible, including oral, anal, oral again, and probably everything in between, and NO evidence of anything even approaching criminal wrongdoing has ever been unearthed.  And if there were anything at all, do you honestly believe even for a millisecond that the latest Trey Gowdy mad-dog BS attack would hesitate to jump all over that??  (His response by that way was, "Nope, nothing there...")  Or any of those before now?   Or that the two main attack dogs from years ago would have recanted and said their attacks were unwarranted and wrong and recanted every lie they admitted to making while being on the payroll of the RNC??   If you are interested in a little intellectual honesty, check out what Kenneth Starr and David Brock say now.  Or start a steady diet of NPR, PBS, OETA, CPB, etc.  Or preferably both!

If you have been paying attention, you will also know that I have NO hesitation in going after the left when they are out of line, too.  If not, review my various posts on the 2nd Amendment.  Yep, the Clintons are not the kind of people I would want to socialize with, but if there was a mandatory requirement, I would absolutely take them over the crew mentioned above.  Or occupying the office of the Presidency.


And no, not everyone is repeating Faux News talking points - there are some who take a measured balanced view of these situations just like I do.  But when the Faux News quotes end up here - or in other places - with people who say they "never watch Faux News", well, I call BS.  They are getting the script somewhere - either directly through Faux minions or one of the millions of other fake new outlets we have been hearing so much about lately.

You're projecting.

And yours IS the classic Media Matters/Huffington Post/Slate/boogy man of the day deflection technique, so you either are fooling yourself about the ultimate source of your responses.

Excuse me for not posting my rage on this board back when bush did it. I was still in college for most of it and I honestly don't know the age of this board. It was wrong then, wrong now.

Fair and balanced doesn't necessarily mean pointing out other people that did it to vindicate or absolve them of stupidity.

Lol....nice try.  But repetitive.  Keep working on your technique!

It wasn't wrong then.  And again, if one believes the RWRE, it isn't wrong now - it's just a case of Obama Presidential overreach!!

As for posting your rage then...well, nothing is stopping you right now!  The RWRE is still going on and on with their lies about the Clintons today, and Trump has given us a steady diet of lies and BS going back way more than 8 years on a wide variety of topics, including birth certificates, p*ssy grabbing, and active discrimination against brown races to keep them out of his business' home rental units.  Where is your "current event" outrage?

How about Trumps latest BS about widespread voter fraud?  Pretty serious insult to voting authorities that have been repeatedly shown to be upright, honest, competent agencies...what is your take on that, his latest verbal vomit? 


I did hear that Trump will be adding a new cabinet post;  Secretary of P*ssy Wrangling.

How above board of you. You act as if you are above it all, but you are right down in the weeds with then.

It was stupid. Arguable whether anything Bush or Clinton did was illegal. The office of the President obviously affords quit a bit of leeway that a mere mortal like you or I would not be afforded.

While Fox news is really easy to criticize, justly so, that doesn't mean they are wrong about 100% of what they talk about. Same for the likes of Slate and similar outlets.

You just did this;

"Proved wrong again by the "Bush did it too" defense."

Only the other direction....

By pointing out that broken clocks are right twice a day. What are you reading? Stop projecting.

The projecting is what the RWRE does when they ascribe tendencies/characteristics/actions of their own to others.  As you are doing....straight from the Murdochian Clown Show play book and script.

Don't absolve yourself in the situation. You are not some innocent bystander sucked into this. You do the same, from a different perspective.

And on that front (Fox news). They didn't invent the positions, they just saw an opportunity to capitalize off those positions.

Faux News is obviously now and always has been the mouthpiece for the Murdochian Clown Show.  And Rupert is an operative/member/participant of the groups rallied to press this agenda.  A big part of which is to make the US government a fully involved corporate governing entity.  United States of Corporations.  It has been in process for a long time - even before Dwight Eisenhower warned us about it in the late 50's.  They made good progress this November.

Like the hired hands mentioned earlier who have recanted and admitted to what they were paid to do.  (Starr and Brock)  Faux News is the most visible of all the tens of thousands of fake news sites - many if not most hosted on the interwebz - recently brought to light during the last election cycle.

To wit:  https://www.readfrontier.com/stories/fallins-email-among-accounts-listed-stolen-by-russian-hackers/

Another body in the Clinton death march.

Haiti Official Who Exposed The Clinton Foundation Is Found Dead
..
The circumstances surrounding Eberwein’s death are also nothing less than unpalatable. According to Miami-Dade’s medical examiner records supervisor, the official cause of death is “gunshot to the head.“ Eberwein’s death has been registered as “suicide” by the government. But not long before his death, he acknowledged that his life was in danger because he was outspoken on the criminal activities of the Clinton Foundation.
...
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-16/haiti-official-who-exposed-clinton-foundation-found-dead

Im sure it had nothing to do with

Eberwein had fallen on hard times. An Uber spokesperson confirmed that he worked as a driver for awhile in South Florida.
During and after his government tenure, Eberwein faced allegations of fraud and corruption on how the agency he headed administered funds. Among the issues was FAES’ oversight of shoddy construction of several schools built after Haiti’s devastating Jan. 12, 2010, earthquake.

Eberwein was scheduled to appear Tuesday before the Haitian Senate’s Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission, the head of the commission, Sen. Evalière Beauplan confirmed. The commission is investigating the management of PetroCaribe funds, the money Haiti receives from Venezuela’s discounted oil program.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/haiti/article160983614.html

And that news source?

Zero Hedge's content has been classified as conspiratorial, anti-establishment, and economically pessimistic, and has been criticized for presenting extreme and sometimes pro-Russian views.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-29/unmasking-the-men-behind-zero-hedge-wall-street-s-renegade-blog

Right... Nothing to do with the fact he was days away from testifying against the Clintons....

According to Eberwein, a paltry 0.6 percent of donations granted by international donors to the Clinton Foundation with the express purpose of directly assisting Haitians actually ended up in the hands of Haitian organisations.

"A further 9.6 percent ended up with the Haitian government. The remaining 89.8 percent – or $5.4 billion – was funnelled to non-Haitian organisations."

“The Clinton Foundation, they are criminals, they are thieves, they are liars, they are a disgrace,” Eberwein said at a protest outside the Clinton Foundation headquarters in Manhattan last year, the WND reported.

According to the Haiti Libre newspaper, Eberwein was said to be in “good spirits with plans for the future. His close friends and business partners are shocked by the idea he may have committed suicide."

Anyone who sources info from Zerohedge might as well be sourcing from Alex Jones or Sean Hannity.

Lol, lol, lol, lol....

Just another RWRE sleaze journal.  And you bought into it.

HAhahahaha...

And you blew it off and ignored it.

Nope.  Still wrong.  I read it and understood the connections behind it.  Apparently you missed those...

We all kinda knew Hillary wouldn't live out a presidency, didn't we?

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/07/23/538900625/snooty-the-manatee-dies-and-a-florida-community-mourns

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170726/734fce26574f9478797d553ceab8ae91.jpg)

How tragically hip...take away photoshop and the above quote illustrating the real content of your every post...

I got one also:

(https://i.imgflip.com/1k0tbi.jpg)

Trump is indefensible.  He’s just a complete assclown.  I knew he was a poor choice for POTUS but I never realized just what an absolute disaster he would become.  There is finally a POTUS former President Carter can look at and say: “I’m no longer the most ill thought of President of the last 40 years!"

At the risk of being 'preachy'... I tried to help enlighten you beforehand.


For the broader audience;
Between the past criminal activities Trump engaged in...the pedophilia...the sexual molestation...the casting aspersions on our POW's...his saying that anyone who would vote for him would be stupid, and he expected Republicans to jump on the bandwagon (20 years ago or so!) ---  ALL of which happened long before this disgusting, vile person ever ran for office  ---  What has happened since is only verification of what everyone knew before the election!  WAY before!!

The whole idea that anyone can say at this point anything related to the idea, "....I didn't know..." is disingenuous, intellectually dishonest, and morally bankrupt.  So why is it the Republican party has taken no action yet?   Well, see previous sentence.

As for the totally inane, also intellectually dishonest rationalization that someone just couldn't stand Hillary based on her "dishonesty" - well, that too has been debunked so thoroughly that it is just another right wing extremist lie.  Also disingenuous, intellectually dishonest, and morally bankrupt to engage in the ongoing repetition of those lies about her (and Billy Bob) that have been openly admitted to, and apologized for, and had books written about by the two primary perpetrators who were specifically hired by the Republican Party to propagate those lies.   Kenneth Starr.  David Brock.

Anything and everything "bad" that the Clintons may have done is overshadowed by orders of magnitude by just a few months of Trumps excesses and bad behavior.

I don't like Hillary mainly for her 2nd Amendment stance, but given the overwhelming preponderance of trash/garbage that is the Orange Buffoon, and the fact that Bernie, Romney, and McCain couldn't get the nominations, there really was only one, even if somewhat distasteful, choice.  Others drank the Kook-Aid and now we are here....

For what it's worth, Conan didn't vote for either of the major party nods, if memory serves correctly.  So I think inferring that he did is wrong.

Most of that was not for him anyway, but for the broader audience - his note was a convenient place to insert.  I didn't really remember what he had said about it, but I did try to enlighten him, as well as everyone else beforehand so he could have made the right less obnoxious choice.

I do have commentary on the voting for the 3rd party "cop out" but don't really have time to write it up now - if anything, it does not absolve, but is actually worse in some ways....guess I should do some commentaries offline and have them as "canned" text ready to insert at the proper moment, huh??

Trump was not even a remote consideration, ever.  I’ve had a profound dislike for him ever since he fired up his PR machine in the mid 1980’s, he’s a boorish narcissist.

A third party is still many more elections away from winning a U.S. Presidential election so I hope like hell the Democrats run a charismatic moderate candidate in 2020 who could possibly appeal to swing voters who helped elect Trump on ’16.  I suspect there will be primary opponents to Trump as well.  There simply wasn’t much to like in the GOP primaries which more resembled a clown car than a real primary season.  I mean really?  16 or 18 initial candidates?

Like it or not, I really don’t see Trump getting impeached.  I think that is nothing more than a Democrat wet dream.  I’m afraid we are stuck with him until Jan. 2021. 

(http://twitchy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/CryingDems.jpg)

Didn't the forum used to have an option to ignore users?

Nope.  Wouldn't that be nice though?

Fake Fox News Sound Bite alert!   Guido is at it again!!