Post by Steven Douglas Post by docufo Post by Steven Douglas Post by docufo Post by Steven Douglas Post by docufo Post by Steven Douglas Post by docufo Post by Steven Douglas Post by docufo Post by Steven Douglas Post by docufo
Even if he's telling the truth, why make an issue of a one-word mishap
in his "condemnation" of Russia's government, with "would or wouldn't"
being the key words, while not mentioning a thing about a private
discussion in which he allegedly warned Putin? All he would've had to
do, to have subdued the widespread criticism, is to have simply said
during the press conference that he'd warned him or was going to warn
him in a private meeting. Why leave it to an unrecorded private meeting
to warn Putin? Is he afraid of publicly shaming him? It looks like it.
[quoting the President of the United States] "It's not like
Putin's gone around the world publicly saying, 'Look what
we did. Wasn't that clever?' He denies it. So the idea that
somehow public shaming is gonna be effective, I think doesn't
read the -- the thought process in Russia very well." [end quote]
Obviously you think a public shaming of Putin was in order,
the the president disagrees for his stated reasons just above.
Since you disagree with the president, please explain why you
think a public shaming of Putin would have been the right thing
If Obama had done the same thing, you'd be calling him a co-conspirator
and coward, a traitor, and been hissing and coiling forever over it.
Actually, that was Obama's quote just above. Obama said it
would do no good to publicly shame Putin. The fact of the
matter is that Trump has said on numerous occasions that
the Russians meddled in the 2016 election. By the way, who
was president during that election? Was it Trump? Did Trump
do nothing about it, even after he was told about it while
it was happening?
Was it Trump who said it would be impossible to affect the
outcome of our elections? Or was that Obama? Do you even
know what I'm talking about? Probably not, since you rely
on the Fake News that you rely on.
I didn't say it would do "any good" to change the behavior of Putin. No,
the public shaming is simply to let Putin know that we know what he did,
we're enraged and we fucking will not sit quietly and let it happen again.
Oh, you mean the way Obama sat quietly by and let it happen
in 2016? Because Obama was informed of it happening before
the election, and he did NOTHING about it.
And now, all of a sudden, it seems the left wants to make it
Trump's fault that it happened at all, when Obama knew about
it and did NOTHING about it while it was happening.
Well, junior, Obama's explanation for that inaction against Putin makes
perfect political sense.
In fairness to Obama, he had reasons to hesitate. Hillary Clinton looked
poised to win the election, right up until the election results began
rolling in. Why needlessly politicize an election that looked like it
would withstand Russia’s disinformation campaign? Why call into question
the legitimacy of a central tenet of democracy—arguably THE central
tenet of democracy—when it looked like the American people would
overcome the challenge?
Obama mocked Trump for even thinking our elections could be
Obama has never mocked the validity of the elections before or after,
But he did mock Trump for thinking our elections could be
So did a number of GOP congresspeople.
And now look at them, claiming Russia hacked our election and
changed the outcome, after assuring us it could never happen.
They're all a bunch of whiners.
Post by docufo Post by Steven Douglas Post by docufo
and every Presidential candidate in my lifetime, since JFK, hasn't
whined about a "rigged election" system before or after.
Until now. Now we have Hillary's whining.
She didn't whine about it being rigged, junior.
She and her party are constantly whining about Russia hacking
the election and giving it to Trump. Of course that was after
they spent the entire campaign mocking Trump for saying the
election could be rigged.
Uh, no, it's a fact.
No, it's not a fact. Hillary has never said the electoral process may be
rigged, as it is and was sans the recent Russian influence which most
analysts said wasn't significant enough to actually tip it towards
Donald. Hillary has said that the Russian influence wasn't what tipped
her out of it, but Comey's timing of a re-investigation into (more of)
her emails. That, she said, was the main factor in a sudden loss of
popularity she suffered just a few days before the election.
I could see that happen as I monitored it by the day. Many observers
remarked on the sudden downtrend at that time, right after Comey's
announcement. Comey himself has said on the lecture circuit that the
Russian influence, whatever it was, didn't cause the dramatic election
swing. He said it was primarily his announcement.
In fact, Donald praised Comey for his action and for a brief moment in
time, Comey became a villain to the Left, a hero of sorts to the Right.
That was before Donald canned him.
Post by Steven Douglas Post by docufo
Jesus will spank you for that one.
Why do you feel the need to mention Jesus, when you've made
it quite clear that you have rejected him?
I can't reject what I don't believe actually exists. Jesus is a mystery
to me, but I have no scientific evidence he was anything but a human
being, without any deification involved. Perhaps if I'd been back in
Judea around 30 A.D. I'd had another view of Jesus' ministry.
I'd have still been suspicious anyway. Lazareth's resurrection would
compel me to investigate whether the figure seen from afar at the
entrance of his caved tomb, was, indeed, a man brought back to life, for
Post by Steven Douglas Post by docufo
She complained about Donald whining
it was rigged!
She's been whining ever since she lost the election.
You've been whining for 8 years over Obama's leadership.
Post by Steven Douglas Post by docufo Post by Steven Douglas Post by docufo
Donald was upset he didn't get the popular vote, and began immediately,
as President, to prove his allegations Hillary didn't win that vote. His
commission inquiry came to an end when numerous states blocked access of
voter data on constitutional grounds.
It'd been more mature and responsible to simply have basked in the upset
victory, and graciously conceded that Hillary was the more popular of
Her winning margin came from people who live west of I-5.
The rest of the country (everything east of I-5) gave the
popular vote to Trump.
Do you think people who live west of I-5 should decide who
the president will be, so that everyone east of I-5 has to
live with choices made by coastal elites on the West Coast?
Do you think we need a civil war, junior, to parcel out the ideological
Not at all. I'm quite happy with the way the Electoral
College protects the rest of the country from coastal
elites who live west of I-5. It's pure genius that the
Founding Fathers thought of the Electoral College!!!
The Electoral College is far from being fair in representation of
population densities, on which it is primarily based, not on equalizing
ideological concentrations. It leaves minorities hurting for fair
representation, and it favors Republicans historically. It is little
wonder most Republicans want it to stay just like it is. LOL! You're a
I quote extensively:
Democrats keep losing the Electoral College while winning ever-larger
popular-vote victories because their support is overly concentrated in
under-represented states like California and New York. Clinton won
California by over 3 million votes, netting 55 electoral votes. Trump’s
combined popular vote margin in Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan, and
Wisconsin was under 250,000, but those victories netted him 75 electoral
Moving forward, Democrats should seek to ensure they not only secure
huge victories in very progressive and populous states, but also invest
time and resources in securing victories in states where votes are
likely to impact the outcome of the election. But which states are those?
Because elections are decided by a vastly different number of voters in
different states, and because states have very different numbers of
electoral votes, voters in some states are far more likely to impact the
outcome in the Electoral College. A voter in a state with a large spread
between the two major candidates and/or a small number of electoral
votes would have a small likelihood of affecting the election. Think of
Washington, DC—an extremely partisan city with a measly 3 electoral
votes. Casting your ballot there, for either party, is unlikely to
influence the outcome of the presidential election. In contrast, a voter
in a state with a small spread between the two candidates and/or a lot
of electoral votes can make a difference. Think of Florida, where
elections have been decided by a tiny number of voters, but the state
provides a whopping 29 electoral votes. Casting a vote in Florida is
more likely to swing how the state apportions its huge prize, which in
turn is more likely to impact the outcome of the election.
Combining these two factors (major candidate margin and electoral
votes), in 2016, voters in New Hampshire and Michigan had the biggest
likelihood of influencing the election.
The data used to create the chart above were collected from CNN.com on
November 20th, 2016 and therefore may under-represent the power of a
vote in certain states, like Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania,
where votes counted in the latter third of November suggested even
closer election outcomes.
Not surprisingly, the top five states where a vote can make a difference
are also typical swing states, and the bottom five are stable Democratic
or Republican states. What is surprising is the huge range of how
valuable a vote in a given state can be. A vote in New Hampshire is over
120 times more valuable than a vote in DC. While this might seem
counter-intuitive given that both places have three electoral votes,
recall that George W. Bush won by two votes. Moreover, the tiny margin
between Trump and Clinton in 2016 meant that a voter in New Hampshire
was a lot more likely than a voter almost anywhere else to help their
candidate of choice secure any points where it counts.
Moving beyond the top five most influential states, many
non-swing-states made the top twenty. A vote in Minnesota mattered 7.5
times more than a vote in the average state, and a vote in Alaska, New
Mexico, Delaware, Rhode Island, and Texas (yes, Texas) mattered anywhere
from 1.5 to 2.65 times more. Votes in all of these states mattered more
than votes in Ohio and Iowa, two typical swing states.
One way to explain Clinton’s loss is that she lost four of the five
states where a vote matters the most, but won the two states where your
vote matters the least.
* * *
To avoid a repeat in 2020, Democrats should do three things.
First, campaign strategically in states where a vote is more likely to
affect the outcome in the Electoral College. While many of these states
are swing states, and swing states certainly receive a great deal of
attention and ad revenue, there are votes yet to be had in each of the
strategic states mentioned above. Even Minnesota, which had the highest
turnout rate in 2016, still only saw 75 percent of its eligible voters
cast ballots. That leaves a quarter of the electorate. And the average
state is far less engaged. Sixty percent of eligible voters nationwide
participated in the 2016 election.
Second, overturn or repeal voter identification laws in those key
states. Voter identification laws are having a clear impact in key
states. They are in effect in New Hampshire, Michigan, Wisconsin, and
Florida—four of the top five states with an impact on the Electoral
College. And a federal court found that voter identification laws in
Wisconsin could be keeping 300,000 voters (or 9 percent of the state’s
electorate) from voting, and that these 300,000 voters are more likely
to be poor, Latino, and Black. Current data suggests that Trump won
Wisconsin by fewer than 23,000 votes. Aggressively taking on these laws
is not only a strategic means of providing Democrats with a potential
pathway to victory in 2020. It is also a moral imperative for those
hoping to remove at least one threat to the franchise experienced by
groups that are already partially disenfranchised by the bias in the
Electoral College (among other threats to their right to vote).
Finally, minimize the negative impacts of voter registration purges in
key states. Both NBC and Rolling Stone have reported that such
purges—allegedly designed to ensure individuals are not registered to
vote in multiple states or are not registered if they are
non-citizens—have a disproportionate, negative effect on the franchise
of Black, Hispanic, and Asian voters. This is largely because those
populations use fewer surnames and thus are more vulnerable to
false-positive identification. Mark Swedlund found that these
disproportionate purges are happening in Virginia and Georgia—two of the
top 15 states where a vote is likely to impact the outcome in the
Electoral College. Ensuring adequate safeguards against hasty purges in
these key states will also safeguard the franchise for vulnerable groups
while helping Democratic candidates benefit from every legitimate ballot
cast in states more likely to impact the outcome in the Electoral College.
* * *
The Founding Fathers envisioned a democracy where all voters could help
determine the destiny of the country through free and fair elections. As
bias in the Electoral College grows and obstacles to the franchise
persist, our nation’s democratic promise fades. To rekindle this
promise, and revive fading faith in our democratic institutions, we must
restore a semblance of balance to the Electoral College and overcome the
laws and practices that are subverting the voices of millions.
Either improve the EC system or rescind the 12th Amendment and use a
popular vote system only, as Donald himself favored before his upset
victory was won by the EC system. No Dem Presidential candidates have
yet benefited from it, yet you whine it's favoring liberals. LOL@!
You're as much a whiner as Donald is. He whined he would've won the
popular vote if it hadn't been rigged and/or sloppily managed. Everyone
seems to be whining these days, eh?