Today’s Trump Drama

Today in Trump, we learned that his trusted son-in-law may or may not have tried to set up a communications line to Russia outside of normal channels that American intelligence services couldn’t monitor. This comes on the heels of Trump pissing away what turned out to be a pretty good visit to Saudi Arabia and Israel by dumping all over Europe and NATO.

The last few weeks have been exhausting with revelation after revelation, ranging from the banal to the dramatic. This is precisely what I feared when Trump won: that we’d have non-stop drama and bullshit. It would be like the 2016 election itself only every day and for four years.

48 comments:

  1. Iconoclast

    Sarcasm aside, and except for the world ending part, you’re absolutely right, CM. For better or worse, the Electorate wanted a barroom brawler, and they got one. Normal people will tune out most of the anti-Trump drama as fake news, because normal people have a distrust of the MSM.

    Right or wrong, that is today’s reality, and the left have themselves to blame, for the most part. You can hurl epithet labels at people who disagree with you for only so long before those labeled deplorables decide to fight back, one way or another.

    Thumb up 5

  2. AlexInCT

    Right or wrong, that is today’s reality, and the left have themselves to blame, for the most part.

    Their anger is also driven by the fact that these unwashed people they look down upon and have used for political gain are finally realizing that the shit the left promises will never be delivered, and actually doing something about it. I think that is the thing that really has them pissed the most. How dare the unwashed masses turn on the hand that feeds them?

    Thumb up 0

  3. AlexInCT

    Nah, by the tune of 2.8 million.

    Still unable to grasp that we have the electoral college precisely to prevent the two most populist states from fucking the country over , huh?

    Nah, to the tune of a lot.

    Actually CM you are right. I don’t tune it out. It makes me angrier and angrier and cements my belief that there should be no compromise with the despicable left even more. And I am not alone there.

    Thumb up 0

  4. CM

    Since 1945, the supreme strategic goal in Europe of the USSR and then Russia was the severing of the US-German alliance. Trump surely delivered. Congrats on that one too. You guys sure are racking em up.

    Thumb up 1

  5. CM

    If it was about distrust then they wouldn’t have gone with the Birther guy, the guy who said Ted’s dad was involved in assassinating a former POTUS, the guy who told Marla and Ivana he was faithful. Save yourself the trouble of shovelling that horseshit. Perhaps you’ve been doing it for so long now that you don’t even notice.

    Thumb up 1

  6. grady

    CM you may want to step away from politics for a while.  This Trump thing cannot be good  for your stress level.

    This is the worst thing about todays political rhetoric.  I’ve seen hatred in politics since I have paid attention (the Reagan days), but I don’t remember it being like this.

    Thumb up 0

  7. stogy

    Still unable to grasp that we have the electoral college precisely to prevent the two most populist states from fucking the country over , huh?

    My guess is you would be a lot less in favor of this gerrymandered system if it leaned 2 – 3 percent of votes toward the Democrats rather than the Republicans.

    Thumb up 1

  8. Iconoclast

    It’s rather apparent that story doesn’t know what “gerrymandering” means. Furthermore, I suspect he would be far less critical of “this ‘gerrymandered’ system if it leaned 2 – 3 percent of votes toward the Democrats rather than the Republicans”.

    Thumb up 0

  9. CM

    CM you may want to step away from politics for a while.  This Trump thing cannot be good  for your stress level.

    Haha, no way, this gets better and better. Certainly helps that I’m afar.

    I’ve seen hatred in politics since I have paid attention (the Reagan days), but I don’t remember it being like this.

    Observations from me, not hatred. I find it very hard to hate someone so fundamentally fucked-up. But yeah, more generally, when you explicitly run a campaign on hate and division, there should be no surprise whatsoever.

    Thumb up 0

  10. stogy

    It’s rather apparent that stogy doesn’t know what “gerrymandering” means. 

    Heh… ever wondered why there are two Dakotas? North and South?

    Thumb up 0

  11. Iconoclast

    Heh… ever wondered why there are two Dakotas? North and South?

    Heh, you think one example means the whole “system” is “gerrymandered”?

    Thumb up 0

  12. Iconoclast

    Since 1945, the supreme strategic goal in Europe of the USSR and then Russia was the severing of the US-German alliance. Trump surely delivered.

    Just because some liberal tweeted that, it does’t mean it means anything, beyond the obvious fact that David Frum (the author of the tweet you plagiarized) is indeed a liberal, masquerading as a conservative.

    If the “alliance” requires our allowing Germany to keep sponging off of us, then good riddance. The Cold War is indeed over, which is ironic, given how liberals collectively had such a raging hard-on for the Soviet Union back in the day. Hell, the Beatles even wrote a song about it:

    “I’m back in the USSR.

    (You don’t know how lucky you are, boy!)

    Back in the USSR!”

     

    Thumb up 0

  13. Iconoclast

    If it was about distrust then they wouldn’t have gone with the Birther guy, the guy who said Ted’s dad was involved in assassinating a former POTUS, the guy who told Marla and Ivana he was faithful.

    Just because you obviously don’t trust The Donald, it simply doesn’t follow that normal Americans shouldn’t or don’t. You’re simply projecting.

    And even if they don’t trust him, it’s clear that they trust the MSM even less. That’s the real point you’re trying to dodge.

    Thumb up 0

  14. Iconoclast

    Nah, by the tune of 2.8 million.

    It’s amusing that you still seem to think that means anything. It doesn’t. Clearly, the Electorate, as a whole, elected Trump. He did win the election, according to the actual Constitutional rules by which we hold Presidential elections. Not sure why whiny liberal insist on banging on about the meaningless “popular vote”.

    Since Trump did indeed win the election, that means the Electorate, as a whole, wanted him over his opponent(s), and he is, proverbially speaking, a barroom brawler. Ergo, by transitivity, the Electorate wanted a barroom brawler. QED

    Your personal feelings don’t enter into it.

    Thumb up 0

  15. AlexInCT

    Just because some liberal tweeted that, it does’t mean it means anything, beyond the obvious fact that David Frum (the author of the tweet you plagiarized) is indeed a liberal, masquerading as a conservative.

    Funny how leftist douchebags that can’t stop making excuses for the murderous inhumane ways of collectivism, and practically always went out of their way to defend the horrors perpetuated in the name of global communism, even as recently as when Romney pointed out that Russia was a problem, seem to now be so engrossed with the fucking red scare shit.

    We had Clinton’s server that let these same Russians, amongst a distinguished list of some seriously evil fucks like North Korea and Iran, compromise the intelligence and government infrastructure for the whole term of the Obama administration, only to then be told there was no intent to commit a crime (the laws related to security and government communications cares not a whit about intent), so this was no issue.

    But the unwashed masses rejected that psyhcopatic and criminal old crone they peddled, and suddenly the Russians are evil. For what? Potentially – and I use that specifically because I remain convinced the leaks were an inside job and the Clintons killed the guy that did it -showing the American voter how corrupt and despicable the dnc really is?

    Fuck the lot of these slavers.

    Thumb up 0

  16. stogy

    Well no, it is pretty much built in and rusted on:

    Still, the House retains a rural bias. Republican voters are more efficiently distributed across the country than Democrats, who are concentrated in cities. That means that even when Democrats win 50 percent of voters nationwide, they invariably hold fewer than 50 percent of House seats, regardless of partisan gerrymandering.
    The Electoral College then allocates votes according to a state’s congressional delegation: Wyoming (with one House representative and two senators) gets three votes; California (53 representatives and two senators) gets 55. Those two senators effectively give Wyoming three times more power in the Electoral College than its population would suggest. Apply the same math to California and it would have 159 Electoral College votes. And the entire state of Wyoming already has fewer residents than the average California congressional district.

    Sounds pretty gerrymandered to me. It was wrong when the Dems did it. It’s just as wrong now.

    Thumb up 1

  17. AlexInCT

    Of course it sounds gerrymandered to you, and it will continue to do so until your side profits from it. Then it rocks! Just like they keep people voting until they get the results they want, and the block all voting, leftist love them elections and election rules as long as it favors them.

    I for one don’t want some douchebag on government subsidies I pay for living in a city deciding how I should be giving even more of my money to support their bullshit.

    Thumb up 0

  18. blameme

    Gah – can’t stand it – have to respond somewhat.

    Stogy – you understand the Senate was set up on purpose for this exact reason – if California had “155 votes” then the smaller rural areas would have no vote. We are not a democracy. Majority vote doesn’t rule. Safeguards, such as having all states with an equal voice in the Senate ensures that the smaller states aren’t run roughshod by the larger more populated states. If the larger states don’t like it, then they need to come to the table with compromises that work with everyone.

    Otherwise, let’s just have the coast and city votes only count and to hell with everyone else.

    Thumb up 0

  19. AlexInCT

    Since 1945, the supreme strategic goal in Europe of the USSR and then Russia was the severing of the US-German alliance.

    Maybe my memory of history, you know what really happened and why compared to what the left wants to peddle, is off but, the Russians wanted to break up the NATO Alliance – as a precursor to an attack on the West. Big difference between you absolutest nonsense and the facts, but par for the course from idiots that parrot shit from other idiots. The rest of Europe would fear a Germany no longer controlled by them, rightfully so or not, more than it would the USSR or Russia, so I am not worried a bit about this crap from that idiot running that country these days. Then again, the Russians also feared a unified and unconstrained Germany, which is why they broke the country up, so I suspect they are watching this development with far more angst than we necessarily should bother.

    You want to worry? Worry about the Obama legacy in the ME, what they did to make it almost impossible to stop Iran from getting a bomb, and how China has lost control of their saber rattling crazy puppet in Pyongyang. Europe is on its deathbed because of the damage done to them by their adoption of collectivism and the idiotic belief they could reverse or stall that damage by having the ludicrous immigration policies they have. Welfare states and uncontrolled immigration, especially from cultures enemical to your cultural essence, are a recipe for disaster. The ruling elite from the left refuses to see or care about that, their focus primarily and exclusively being lining their pocket (what do you think AGW is about), which is why we got the Brexit results and Trump victory. When you can’t admit your ideology is not just deficient, but destructive, self reflection is impossible.

    But hey, if blaming Trump and acting as if the problem is the people that have had enough of the left’s abuse and stupidity is the problem, and not your ideology, have at it. The more shit we get the more people realize the left is basically the problem. Especially when they make it clear that if they are not calling the shots, they won’t let anyone else do it either. In that respect the left proves its commonality with such old time greats as the old USSR and Nazi Germany.

    Thumb up 0

  20. AlexInCT

    Otherwise, let’s just have the coast and city votes only count and to hell with everyone else.

    That’s exactly what the left and people like CM and Stogy are advocating for. They may be pretending they want democracy, which I am pretty sure they don’t even comprehend as a concept, but they don’t want that either: they want a system that legitimizes the left’s power grab. One set of rules for the proles and the rest of us, and none for them.

    You do remember the left lecturing and demonizing Trump when he pointed out he wouldn’t outright accept the results of an election where Hillary won (more like stole it) before they went ahead and went and did far worse than anything he said he would do, right?

    Thumb up 0

  21. CM

    Just because some liberal tweeted that, it does’t mean it means anything, beyond the obvious fact that David Frum (the author of the tweet you plagiarized) is indeed a liberal, masquerading as a conservative.

    Right yeah, he just invented it out of nothing. The issue is slightly larger than a single tweet. Obviously. Bizarre that you would try to pretend otherwise.

    If the “alliance” requires our allowing Germany to keep sponging off of us, then good riddance.

    Is that you, Vladimir? Yeah yeah, I know, it doesn’t matter what Vladimir wants. Anyway, what do you care, you got your judge.

    Funny how Obama was only ever bowing or treating your allies badly, but Trump can do both (treating allies way way worse than Obama ever did, by the same standards) and gets defended staunchly. What a surprise!

    The Cold War is indeed over, which is ironic, given how liberals collectively had such a raging hard-on for the Soviet Union back in the day. Hell, the Beatles even wrote a song about it

    It’s in the past, man. Get over it. Stop whining and banging on. Etc etc etc.

    Your personal feelings don’t enter into it.

    Totally. Which is why I provided the number. Way more people wanted Hillary, that’s a simple fact. Just as it is that Trump won because of the system. The ‘electorate’ is all the people in a country or area who are entitled to vote in an election. Those people clearly favoured Hillary. The system enabled Trump to win. The system favoured Trump. You can say that decisions and actions by both Trump and Hillary led to that result, but the electorate (i.e. the people entitled to vote, wanted Hillary). And yes, again, I couldn’t agree more – my feelings are utterly irrelevant.

    Just because you obviously don’t trust The Donald, it simply doesn’t follow that normal Americans shouldn’t or don’t. You’re simply projecting.

    Again, my opinion is irrelevant, which is why I referred to the numbers (so, the opposite of projecting).

    Why on earth should Americans trust him when he’s shown himself as extremely untrustworthy? I mean he doesn’t even try to hide it and he’s seemingly done it his whole life. It’s to the point where I’m not even sure that he knows or cares. But yeah, forget he said Mexico pays, repeal replace, taxes will be released, what would happen in 100 days, that China is bad, that you’ll leave NAFTA, that the swamp will be drained, that he loves leaks, that anonymous sources are fine, that Goldman Sachs is bad, that she’ll be locked up, it’s easy, the best deals, less golf.

    And even if they don’t trust him, it’s clear that they trust the MSM even less. That’s the real point you’re trying to dodge.

    The MSM wasn’t a candidate. They are there no matter who wins. Banging on/whining about the MSM ad nauseum is the biggest and most transparent dodge of all.

    It’s amusing that you still seem to think that means anything. It doesn’t.

    Well it means the electorate’s choice was clear, but the system resulted in Trump winning. But, sure, keep the dodge going if you like.

    Clearly, the Electorate, as a whole, elected Trump.

    They elected Trump, even though they clearly preferred Hillary.

    He did win the election, according to the actual Constitutional rules by which we hold Presidential elections.

    No question.

    Not sure why whiny liberal insist on banging on about the meaningless “popular vote”.

    Not sure either. I can only speak for myself and I was responding to your specific claim about what the electorate wanted.

    Since Trump did indeed win the election, that means the Electorate, as a whole, wanted him over his opponent(s),

    See above.

    Your personal feelings don’t enter into it.

    100% agree.

    Anyway, so long as you can get some control back over women’s bodies, who gives a shit, right?

    Thumb up 1

  22. CM

    Maybe my memory of history, you know what really happened and why compared to what the left wants to peddle, is off but, the Russians wanted to break up the NATO Alliance – as a precursor to an attack on the West.

    One of Putin’s key objectives is to weaken NATO as much as possible so that Russia can be more dominant and do things like invade the Ukraine. I’m not sure that’s in dispute.

    Romney pointed out that Russia was a problem

    So was Romney right or wrong Alex? If he was right then why is it not a problem any more? How does a weakened relationship between the US and Europe make Russia LESS of a problem? Please explain.

    The rest of Europe would fear a Germany no longer controlled by them, rightfully so or not, more than it would the USSR or Russia

    What do you base that on? What has Germany done, compared to Putin?

    what do you think AGW is about

    It’s firmly grounded in science.

    Thumb up 1

  23. AlexInCT

    One of Putin’s key objectives is to weaken NATO as much as possible so that Russia can be more dominant and do things like invade the Ukraine. I’m not sure that’s in dispute.

    NATO is already weak as shit. precisely because they are not holding up to any of their obligations, and Russia has already invaded other countries without NATO and the US doing anything about it. The point is that the US has carried the brunt of the cost of protecting these douches so they could fuck us over whenever it was convenient to them, and that has come to an end. Me, I see this nonsense from Merkel for what it is: a pathetic attempt to bluff that will fail. The globalist elite are pissed Trump has derailed the global agenda that created the chaos and horror around the planet right now. While people are getting killed by Islamic radicals, these cunts are still peddling the idiotic lie about global warming. A lie intended to allow them to rob people of more of their freedoms while lining their credentialed elite pockets.

    Let the fucking Germans pay to defend themselves for a change, and dismantle that collectivist bullshit state they have. And watch the other collectivist idiots across Europe freak out as Germany does that, and then follow suit as well. I bet that does a lot more to stop the Russians, which by the way other than being a nuclear threat, are a paper military force unable to go nowhere with the price of oil being low.

    It’s firmly grounded in science.

    No, the AGW scam is a fucking lie peddled by a bunch of hypocritical globalist marxist like you that are using it to create a world order where the majority of people will be nothing but serfs to a bunch of incompetent and stupid elitist scumbags worthy of nothing but scorn and derision. But yeah, pretend a fucking fanatical leftist idiot like you even understands what science or the scientific process are really about. It is revealing.

    Thumb up 0

  24. stogy

    Otherwise, let’s just have the coast and city votes only count and to hell with everyone else

    In other words, you support gerrymandering – giving smaller numbers of rural voters greater power than those in coastal cities. Remember that North and South Dakota were divided deliberately to garner three extra votes than they would otherwise have had – which is the very definition of gerrymandering. They have given several orders of magnitude more power to voters in the Dakota than in coastal states. It’s fundamentally unfair.

    I have to wonder though, at what point would you consider the balance to be too much? What if it was 60/40, or 70/30, or 80/20? Would you support it so strongly if the numbers ran the other way?

    We are not a democracy. Majority vote doesn’t rule. 

    No, and no other existing state in the world is either. The US Republic is like pretty much everywhere else, a representative system of government bound by laws and a constitution. Ensuring that people are represented fairly within that system is fundamental to its operation. When one side of politics gains unfair control over electoral systems, then it begins to break down. Electoral processes need to be taken out of the hands of politicians.

    Alex:

    Of course it sounds gerrymandered to you, and it will continue to do so until your side profits from it. 

    Er no. You realize you are here actually making an argument that as it’s OK for the Republicans to do this, then it’s OK for the Democrats to do exactly this too? It’s all about who wins that matters eh? It’s exactly puerile shit like this that is undermining faith in representative politics.

    And thus we have Trump.

    Thumb up 1

  25. stogy

    No, the AGW scam is a fucking lie peddled by a bunch of hypocritical globalist marxist like you that are using it to create a world order where the majority of people will be nothing but serfs to a bunch of incompetent and stupid elitist scumbags worthy of nothing but scorn and derision. No, the AGW scam is a fucking lie peddled by a bunch of hypocritical globalist marxist like you that are using it to create a world order where the majority of people will be nothing but serfs to a bunch of incompetent and stupid elitist scumbags worthy of nothing but scorn and derision. 

    A couple of weeks back, the head of Santos Energy said that the company was working on a four degrees of global warming model, and he regarded it as a sensible business decision and consistent with good value.

    So is he also one of the hypocritical globalist marxists somehow in on the global conspiracy trying to establish a new world order? Or was he lying in a desperate bid to trash his own company’s reputation? How is it that a fossil fuel exec recognises the “fucking lie” that his company’s chief product is likely to cause temperatures to rise, when it’s all “a conspiracy by incompetent and stupid elitist scumbags”? Are you planning to direct some of your “scorn and derision” at him, just to be fair?

    So many questions… never any answers.

    Thumb up 1

  26. CM

    So many questions… never any answers.

    Never ever.

    No, the AGW scam is a fucking lie peddled by a bunch of hypocritical globalist marxist like you…etc etc ongoing conspiracy nutjobbery 

    No Alex, it’s firmly grounded in science. That is doesn’t conform to your capitalist religion is irrelevant to the science. The science couldn’t care less.

    the Russians, which by the way other than being a nuclear threat, are a paper military force unable to go nowhere with the price of oil being low.

    So Romney was wrong then?

    The globalist elite are pissed Trump has derailed the global agenda that created the chaos and horror around the planet right now. 

    What a giant crock of shit – he just did a weapons deal worth $110 million with Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest funder of terrorism. It’s likely to be used to hit more schools, hospitals, factories, and other civilian targets in Yemen where 17 million people face famine. Continued arms sales are illegal under American laws that ban sales to states that violate international law. What say you about Saudi Arabia’s’s human rights violations and export of extremist ideologies?

    Thumb up 2

  27. CM

    Are you planning to direct some of your “scorn and derision” at him, just to be fair?

    Stogy, #covfefe can’t be confined to the #sad limitations of facts or the laws of science or logic.

    Thumb up 1

  28. stogy

    Stogy, #covfefe can’t be confined to the #sad limitations of facts or the laws of science or logic.

    Thanks for the link. :) I sooooo want that hat!

    Thumb up 1

  29. blameme

    Does everything have to sound so hyperbolic? “I must be for gerrymandering.” No – I am for the system of government that our founding fathers set up to protect us from mob rule. Otherwise, why have a senate? If everything is just population based – why not just have majority rule on everything and be done with it?

    The Senate is NOT based on population to make sure that all voices are heard. All states have equal rights – remember, our founding fathers believed local government was the best government. I happen to agree – and the Senate (as it is supposed to be) ensures that population centers don’t run the country from some ivory tower but actually have to listen and compromise with various voices.

    Seriously – what other protections do the citizens of Alabama or Montana have? By making everything based on population, you literally remove all protections for smaller voices and regions. This is not how it was intended (the Founders I believe spoke to the fear of population centers running the country). The system is working as intended and FORCES both sides to negotiate and FORCES the government to move SLOWLY.

    For CM – it’s bullshit that he did that. I don’t think he is a great President or will be. But selling arms to the ME did not start nor will it end with him until we don’t suck the oil teat from the ME.

    This is the real argument for getting off of fossil fuels – not climate change (whether you believe in it or not – the profits aren’t there for most people to care) – but for national security.

    Thumb up 1

  30. Iconoclast

    The issue is slightly larger than a single tweet. Obviously.

    And not nearly as simple as suggested by the tweet. Obviously.

    treating allies way way worse than Obama ever did, by the same standards

    Nonsense. I need only point to Israel to refute that whopper.

    It’s in the past, man. Get over it. Stop whining and banging on. Etc etc etc.

    (Chuckle) You’re the one who brought it up in the first pace.

    Trump won because of the system.

    No, Trump won because he campaigned better.

    Those people clearly favoured Hillary.

    And many of “those people” clearly favored Bernie, but the Democratic primaries were indeed rigged to favor Hillary. Where is your outrage at that?

    The system enabled Trump to win.

    No, the system merely allowed him to win. Not the same thing. Hillary could very well have won if she didn’t suck so bad at campaigning.

    The system favoured Trump.

    No, it didn’t. He simply campaigned better.

    It’s funny, but I distinctly remember about a year ago how you were preaching that “the system” favored the Democrat candidate over the GOP candidate, and how monumentally difficult it would be for any GOP candidate to get enough electoral votes to win the general election. It’s amusing to see you changing your tune so radically after Trump proved you so utterly wrong.

    Why on earth should Americans trust him when he’s shown himself as extremely untrustworthy? I mean he doesn’t even try to hide it and he’s seemingly done it his whole life.

    Why on earth should Americans trust Hillary when she’s shown herself as extremely untrustworthy? I mean she doesn’t even try to hide it and she’s seemingly done it her whole life.

    The MSM wasn’t a candidate.

    Irrelevant, given that I never claimed it was a candidate.

    Banging on/whining about the MSM ad nauseum is the biggest and most transparent dodge of all.

    But I’m not doing that. I am simply observing that normal Americans don’t trust it. Not the same thing.

    Anyway, so long as you can get some control back over women’s bodies, who gives a shit, right?

    You mean, as long as we can make sure the unborn have their Constitutional rights secured, correct? That we have been slaughtering unborn babies by the millions decade after decade is our truly despicable legacy, much more than slavery could ever hope to be.

    Once a woman becomes pregnant, there are two human beings involved, not just one. The whole “women’s right to choose” nonsense utterly ignores that reality.

    As long as we condone the massive slaughter of the unborn, we are essentially a fascist nation, where at least one segment of humanity has zero rights. Pretending that an unborn baby isn’t a human being is just as fascist as pretending a Jew or a Black man isn’t a human being.

    Thumb up 0

  31. stogy

    The Senate is NOT based on population to make sure that all voices are heard. All states have equal rights – remember, our founding fathers believed local government was the best government. 

    Well, I think you are completely right in  argument about the Senate – I agree that it provides an important brake on majority rule, and is necessary in preventing a tyrrany of the majority. But once you start applying it across all three branches of government, you end up with government that is not representative of what a majority of people actually want.

    Look, all I am arguing is that the process should be taken out of the hands of politicians, and that electoral boundaries should be based on the principle of non-partisanship and fairness – otherwise you end up with people who have a similar “win at all costs” attitude to Alex.

    Thumb up 1

  32. Iconoclast

    Imagine two teams playing a series of seven games, where the team who wins 4 games wins the series. If Team A won 4 games 1-0, and Team B won 3 games 10-0, which team wins the series?

    Obviously, it doesn’t matter that Team B scored 30 points and Team A scored only 4. It doesn’t matter that you could conceivably argue that Team B is objectively the better team. All that matters is that Team A won 4 games, and therefore won the series. Everything else is irrelevant.

    The same principle applies to popular vote vs. electoral vote. Trump played the game accordingly, and Hillary didn’t. It’s really that simple.

    Thumb up 0

  33. AlexInCT

    Er no. You realize you are here actually making an argument that as it’s OK for the Republicans to do this, then it’s OK for the Democrats to do exactly this too? 

    That’s certainly the strawman you want to erect to knock down, but not what I said. What I said was that it was no surprise that an agenda driven partisan hack would try to put a negatives spin on a system that the wise forefathers of this once great country put together in order to prevent a concentration of population in a few places – such as the usual massive blue model welfare state coastal cities -from perpetually holding power and fucking over the others. Even more ridiculous is this attempt to pretend that this was done to favor one political party over another. I find it funny that leftists in general love them rules that favor their agenda, but immediately turn on the rules when they no longer let them do what they want.

    But keep pretending that you have a real valid argument to make other than you are pissed that the crooked hag you wanted to see fucking over my country lost the election.

    Thumb up 0

  34. AlexInCT

    A couple of weeks back, the head of Santos Energy said that the company was working on a four degrees of global warming model, and he regarded it as a sensible business decision and consistent with good value.

    When there is so much money to be made of governments peddling this nonsense I can’t fault people for ridding thee gravy train. Doesn’t mean any of this shit is either legit or a good idea. It’s just about making money when the people that pick the winners and losers decide you have to worship their golden calf to do so.

    You could have quote GE, Solyndra, and a plethora of other such companies that went along with this shit and gave it lip service so they could suck at the government’s teat. All this does is validate my point that this scam has been used by corrupt and crooked globalist nanny staters to control entry into what groups win and what groups lose. If there ever was a better argument to be made for why government needs to be small, you made it for me Stogy.

    Thanks!

    Thumb up 0

  35. AlexInCT

    No Alex, it’s firmly grounded in science. 

    You keep using that word, but it is obvious you have no fucking clue what it means or what you are talking about. If anything the AGW scam has been the greatest hoax and most shameful scam perpetuated on science and the scientific principle. It is purely a political globalist agenda hiding behind a veneer of legitimacy lent to it by people profiting from peddling snake oil as the cure all. I find it so laughable that the people that look down upon those that adhere to apocalyptic old time religion and make fun of them replaced it with another apocalyptic religious movement where government plays the role of god, and can’t even see the irony in that development. Proves the point that man is in general a superstitious creature by nature.

    I would not be surprised to find that there is more science in Astrology than in anything related to AGW. Faked data, faked models, flawed concepts, ignoring water vapor to peddle CO2, not a single prediction coming out. Shit, if this was science or followed the scientific principle, people like you would have by bow been laughed out of existence for peddling the nonsense.

    The good news is the US is getting out of this nonsense business. the other globalists can keep playing this rotten game on their own people.

    Thumb up 0

  36. AlexInCT

    But once you start applying it across all three branches of government, you end up with government that is not representative of what a majority of people actually want.

    Did you miss that that was PRECISELY the reason that the US is a Constitutional Republic and not a democracy? Democracy, while a far better alternative to any collectivist government, is best described  as basically three wolves and 2 sheep deciding what’s for dinner. Rule of the mob. Considering what the leftist mob has shown us they are really about now that the mask is off, I can’t thank the forefathers enough for being wise enough not to straddle us with a democracy, but with a representative republic where insane and evil fucks can’t just fuck the rest of us over.

    Thumb up 0

  37. stogy

    Obviously, it doesn’t matter that Team B scored 30 points and Team A scored only 4. It doesn’t matter that you could conceivably argue that Team B is objectively the better team. All that matters is that Team A won 4 games, and therefore won the series. Everything else is irrelevant

    Ah, but you have slightly misconstrued what gerrymandering means here. It means that Team B has to score more points than Team A to win any single game. Gerrymandering gifts Team A an advantage before the opening whistle is even blown.

    Thumb up 1

  38. stogy

    Even more ridiculous is this attempt to pretend that this was done to favor one political party over another.

    Er… what strawman? The Democrats (and I am not one) have done this in the past, and I said above that it was wrong then, just as it is wrong now. I mean, there are members of the GOP openly bragging about how they have/will rig the system. If you are defending such a corrupt system, then this means you are defending the Dems right to rig the system as well.

    But I don’t get why you wouldn’t support removing mechanisms for drawing up congressional districts and electoral college delegates from the hands of politicians, as is done in many other countries, and make the process politically transparent and neutral?

    Thumb up 1

  39. stogy

    Did you miss that that was PRECISELY the reason that the US is a Constitutional Republic and not a democracy? Democracy, while a far better alternative to any collectivist government, is best described  as basically three wolves and 2 sheep deciding what’s for dinner.

    There are currently no democracies, based on the principles you describe. And being a republic is no protection from mob rule. Venezuela is a federal republic. The R in USSR stood for the 15 republics, and we all know how badly that turned out. The point is that most countries have representative government based on a constitution and laws. Most countries also have a bicameral system of parliament, with a different means of representation in both. Calling yourself a republic doesn’t mean anything or make the US particularly special.

     

    Thumb up 1

  40. Iconoclast

    Ah, but you have slightly misconstrued what gerrymandering means here.

    Well, no, I think you simply misconstrued the purpose of my post. I wasn’t even attempting to address the gerrymander issue, but simply illustrating why complaining about the popular vote is meaningless. You may attribute that to gerrymandering if you want, but I will again remind everyone that, about a year ago, the left was cheerfully explaining how difficult it would be for any GOP candidate to win enough electoral votes to win the general election, implying that the “gerrymandered system” heavily favored Hillary, whom everyone knew would be the Democrat nominee due to the rigged Democrat primaries.

    Thumb up 2

  41. Iconoclast

    Calling yourself a republic doesn’t mean anything or make the US particularly special.

    That isn’t the intent. Again, like my game series analogy, the purpose of reminding people that we’re a Republic is simply to point out how meaningless it is to complain about the “popular vote”. We are not a democracy and the popular vote is irrelevant to the issue of how the POTUS is elected.

    Thumb up 0

  42. AlexInCT

    Er… what strawman? The Democrats (and I am not one) have done this in the past, and I said above that it was wrong then, just as it is wrong now. I mean, there are members of the GOP openly bragging about how they have/will rig the system. If you are defending such a corrupt system, then this means you are defending the Dems right to rig the system as well.

    The dems have spent the last 50 or 60 years corrupting every fucking political system, from the lowest level up to the federal, and you are now telling me that republicans that say they will roll that back are the problem and the ones rigging it. Undoing a rigged system, just because it will then deprive the democrats of the built in bias and actually could benefit republicans is not the same thing, no matter how hard you try to pretend it is.

    Thumb up 0

  43. AlexInCT

    Calling yourself a republic doesn’t mean anything or make the US particularly special.

    Actually it does, because it points out that at least our forefathers understood the inherent danger of a system where the majority can simply dictate its will on the minority, a concept that I understand is foreign to people that suck Marx’s dick and don’t value the individual over the government approved collective, and created a system to block that nonsense.

    Productive, sane, freedom loving people will always be outnumbered by scumbags looking to use the power of an intrusive and freedom abusing government with an agenda that is anathema to the individual to rob them of anything and everything they can get away with. In the name of some noble cause like “social justice” or whatever other tossed word salad of ass terms you thieves and knaves peddle as good-speak.

    Thumb up 0

  44. Santino

    In Canada, at least, about 40% of the popular vote will get you a majority in parliament. And with an appointed Senate that pretty much rubber stamps bills, you can get a lot of legislation through.

    2015 election – 39.5% popular vote led to 54% majority for Liberals

    2011 election – 39.6% popular vote led to 54% majority for Conservatives

    2006 election – 40.85% of popular vote led to 57% majority for Liberals

    Thumb up 0

Leave a Reply