patrick.net

zzyzzx is deplorable says

APOCALYPSEFUCK_is_ADORABLE says

FUCK! THE! VOTES! OF! TRAITORS!

ALL! OF! THEM! WILL! BE! VANQUISHED!

THE! WEAK! AND! TRAITOROUS! WERE! BORN! TO! DIE!

Exactly whom did you vote for? (if you didn't vote, say so as well). I still have no fucking idea.

What makes you think AF lives stateside?

Either an east coaster, or keeps odder hours than even me

turtledove says

What's with the dot-matrix sounding printers in the background

Nano air gun injectors firing. They're not wasting any time getting Trump on the program. Watch as his policies become more conventional, same ole.

Watch as his policies become more conventional, same ole.
===================

Or, he just found out what's really going on... and thought, "oh shit... that's why things are like this..."

The good thing about Trump is that when his term(s) is/are done, you know we'll get a tell-all book. We might finally get the answer to why all presidents, no matter their campaign positions, end up being the same.

Maybe the dot-matrix sounding printers in the background are for effect... To give the impression that the President is constantly getting new data... He's connected!

The only problem with that is who would believe he still uses a dot-matrix printer?

I give up. Didn't mean to hijack your thread with my stream of consciousness writing.

turtledove says

Only when you remove the context. The comment he made was right after emails and videos showed DNC operatives joking about committing electorate fraud for years.

Come off it, he was saying it in the last debate among other times. He made little sideways remarks about people taking up arms. He was spouting completely inappropriate nonsense, especially given his position, and so were plenty of his followers, including on here. It's utterly hypocritical for you and others to be pointing fingers at Democrats being upset about the result when plenty of you would have been the same and potentially worse.

turtledove says

The biggest mistake your side makes in all this (now just hear me out for a second and let the thought sink in before having a knee-jerk response)... You took Trump literally, but not seriously. For us, it was the other way around. You can say that words matter, and I do agree with you to a point. But there's more to meaning than a literal interpretation of the chosen words.

Unfiltered stream of conscience is for children, not leaders of the free world.

WAHHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH

fuck you liberals, we won.

Rashomon says

Come off it, he was saying it in the last debate among other times. He made little sideways remarks about people taking up arms. He was spouting completely inappropriate nonsense, especially given his position, and so were plenty of his followers, including on here. It's utterly hypocritical for you and others to be pointing fingers at Democrats being upset about the result when plenty of you would have been the same and potentially worse.

Yep, he said he wouldn't automatically accept the election night totals if close, like Al Gore did in an 'unprecedented' fashion.

Now the MSM being very sympathetic is really what are a bunch of college feminists scaremongering over Abortion.

"My Body, My Choice, Your Bill. Freedom without Responsibility Now, shitlords!"

The Original Bankster says

WAHHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH

fuck you liberals, we won.

Won what exactly? Perhaps you'd like to wait and see what benefits a thin-skinned real estate (supposed) billionaire will bring to the average Joe before you get too excited.

Thunderlips Licks Shill Tears says

Yep, he said he wouldn't automatically accept the election night totals if close, like Al Gore did in an 'unprecedented' fashion.

He didn't make mention of anything about it needing to be close on a number of occasions. Mind, he did spend plenty of time claiming that voter fraud is “a big, big problem in this country” when it patently isn't.

turtledove says

I want you to know, if some of the things he may have suggested (according to some interpretations) are LITERALLY done, you're going to have a lot of us fighting right alongside you.

Such as? From this forum, most seem to have lapped up everything he's said.

Looks like DJIA is up more than a whole point today.

It's utterly hypocritical for you and others to be pointing fingers at Democrats being upset about the result when plenty of you would have been the same and potentially worse.
=============================

Really. When? How? It's your regressive left (on the DNC payroll, I might add) that laughed about starting fights at Trump rallies to make it look like Trump/Bernie supporters are violent. When did we DO anything like that? In your case, it was an institutional effort. Not just a one-off crazy person, but an institutional attempt to destroy the fabric of our election process. When we lost in 2008 and 2012, where were the SJWs of the right threatening lives -- actual war -- in a supposed "peaceful" demonstration? Go check some of the videos on last night's little get-togethers. Had it been the other way around, I have no doubt, it would have been big news.

Just days ago Democrats were boasting that Trump could win the popular vote but never the electoral vote because of Hillary's "structural advantages."

Crows will be extinct.

Anybody remember when Rally Attendance and Signage Comparisons were bullshit indicators of Trump Support and Enthusiasm?

The Media literally did everything it could to ignore warning signs.

PS Where was Hillary's vaunted "Ground Game"? And Trump's total lack thereof?

Dan8267 says

When the states exercises those rights to make pot legal, all of the sudden the right wants a big, nanny federal government that crushes state rights. Both conservative camps, the left and the right, are hypocrites.

That is true. "States rights" under the tenth amendment were designed to be politically neutral giving the states the right to control things not enumerated as belonging to the Feds under the constitution or prohibited by the constitution. So if a state wants to change the drug laws it should be able to under the tenth amendment BUT the Fed have already overstepped their constitutional grounds and created Federal drug laws. State rights have become less important as the Federal government has taken more power than enemuerated to it by a liberal interpretation of the "general welfare clause"

Dan8267 says

The electoral college is just a gerrymandering mechanism.

The electoral college is not a gerrymandering mechanism and not designed to disenfranchise voters, but rather to enfranchise them. Its the same concept behind giving each state 2 senators no matter its population. It is an anti-mobocracy provision.
It is a form of representative democracy of a republic rather than a pure democracy which is tyrannical by its nature as it would permanently force a minority to the will of the majority

Such as? From this forum, most seem to have lapped up everything he's said.
========================

Okay, I don't have all day for this... So, here are my very quick summaries:

The media decided that Trump was going to round up immigrants and refuse them entry into this country (though I don't know how they twisted his words into that). Nevertheless, we don't believe that to be what he meant. We believe he meant illegal immigrants. Now, if he were to start rounding up immigrants of all kinds, I assure you, most of us are not in support of that.

The media decided that Trump's concern over refugees from terror-prone countries means that he's going to ban Muslims. We believe he wants to strengthen the vetting process. But, I promise, if he starts banning religions in this country, most of us won't be in support of that. Even those of us who aren't religious because we recognize that each person has the right to choose and exercise his/her beliefs as long as those beliefs aren't contrary to our laws.

The media decided that Trump's locker room talk means that he's going to pussy grab women as they walk by. If he starts doing that, we wouldn't support it. Right after we stop laughing in incredulity, we'd fight right alongside you to stop gratuitous pussy grabbing.

Repealing Obamacare. Well yes, we support that one. But most of us recognize that he cannot just jerk the rug out from under it. ACA took years to implement, just hitting the "delete" button would cause tremendous pain. So we agree that ACA was a bad bill... But we recognize that he must have something to replace it with and a well thought out transition plan for achieving that. If he jerks the rug out suddenly from ACA, most of us would not support that and would fight with you for something better.

Cancelling trade agreements. We think we got shafted. Like Obamacare, he cannot just throw the agreements in the shredder and call it a day without causing a tremendous backlash in our economy. Most of us recognize that it would be better to re-negotiate the trade agreements... and that it will take time unless we want to shock the system (hardly ever turns out well). Should he just shred the agreements and launch our economy into some serious turmoil, many of us would be pretty pissed off right there with you.

Thunderlips Licks Shill Tears says

Looks like DJIA is up more than a whole point today.

Who knows....might be a record high too.

turtledove says

The media decided that Trump was going to round up immigrants and refuse them entry into this country (though I don't know how they twisted his words into that). Nevertheless, we don't believe that to be what he meant. We believe he meant illegal immigrants. Now, if he were to start rounding up immigrants of all kinds, I assure you, most of us are not in support of that.

The media decided that Trump's concern over refugees from terror-prone countries means that he's going to ban Muslims. We believe he wants to strengthen the vetting process. But, I promise, if he starts banning religions in this country, most of us won't be in support of that. Even those of us who aren't religious because we recognize that each person has the right to choose and exercise his/her beliefs as long as those beliefs aren't contrary to our laws.

The media decided that Trump's locker room talk means that he's going to pussy grab women as they walk by. If he starts doing that, w...

Well said.

Rashomon says

And if the shoe had been on the other foot...

We have a Constitution and it shouldn't be changed for any except the most compelling and urgent reasons, certainly not because some special snowflakes feel butt hurt.

turtledove says

I'm sorry, but that is bullshit! The needs of people living in cities are different than those living on farms.... or manufacturing centers.... or places with abundant types of natural resources... or those with a lack of natural resources.

Yes, the needs of rural life are different from those of city life. That does not imply that on the national level that one side should have more representation than the other. And if you are arguing that rural people, being less numerous need more representation than other groups than they same should apply to all minorities. The votes of blacks should count five times as much as the votes of whites by that reasoning. And the votes of atheists ten times that of Christians. Funny how that rule is very selectively applied.

Furthermore, the values and needs of one person can and are vastly different from those of his next door neighbor. So to group all people into two categories and only consider the common desires of each category is also wrong.

The purpose of democracies and republics is to most greatly satisfied the population as a whole, not to cater to one arbitrary minority.

turtledove says

What you suggest is a path to fracture.

You say that as if it were a bad thing. If it's better for the U.S. to be split into two two nations, one agricultural and one industrialize, then so be it. There is no holy law that says our territory must be united under a single king. I'm all for people choosing to leave and join countries as their values and needs fluctuate. If the lives and values of the two Americas are so incompatible, then by all means, let them peacefully part ways and become trading partners instead of being a bickering old married couple that hates their lives!

I don't think that would actually happen. For one thing, the kinds of issues that are truly local are already handled on the local level like time zones, zoning, and cultural bullshit. The great divide in our country are on national things that have nothing to do with locality like money in politics, abortion, war, and globalization.

Trump broke through a glass ceiling.

He won the presidency while being outspent by his opponent (by an order of magnitude). When was the last time the top spender didn't win the election?

First Female Campaign Manager to win an election.

turtledove says

The only problem with that is who would believe he still uses a dot-matrix printer?

Maybe it's the only movie set they had available. Last used in Murphy Brown.

turtledove says

We believe he meant illegal immigrants. Now, if he were to start rounding up immigrants of all kinds, I assure you, most of us are not in support of that.

When I lived in San Diego, it wasn't unusual to see border control vans rounding up illegals, even chasing them down in Del Mar.

errc says

He won the presidency while being outspent by his opponent (by an order of magnitude). When was the last time the top spender didn't win the election?

This. More media hamstering: This is a YUGE fucking deal. He was outspent 300% in some categories.

errc says

Trump broke through a glass ceiling.

He won the presidency while being outspent by his opponent (by an order of magnitude). When was the last time the top spender didn't win the election?

No wonder the media hates him. Trump is the existential threat to the mainstream media.

I doubt authoritative media has a future at all. People want personalized narratives, a reality distortion field to protect their safe space.

The media is in a safe space. The few rare times a year they interact with a normal, non-Georgetown Graduate, non-Sushi eating American, it's to bitch about why there isn't an iron in their hotel room.

I also notice that Trump, Trump Surrogates, and Trump Voters were openly nasty and aggressive to the Media in turn this time, instead of trying to kiss their ass and convince them to be fair.

Touchdown Jesus, but Twitter Jesus

Dan8267 says

That does not imply that on the national level that one side should have more representation than the other.

Another correct statement. The idea is that people in all states would have as close to EQUAL representation, just like each state has two senators. But the system is imperfect.

Here is an example in the other direction where it would produce a very inequitable result.

Let's say Candidate A wins just the 13 states below and by a margin of 50%-49% against Candidate B
Perhaps the candidate is promising something important to states that border waterways
California 55 votes
NY 29
Texas 38
FLA 29
PA 20
Ohio 18
Mi 16
VA 13
ILL 20
IND 11
WI 10
MN 10
DE 3
272 Electoral Votes

Let's say candidate B wins in a blow out in the remaining states 60%-40%.

In this case Candidate B would have far more popular votes and would carry 37 states (75% of the states!) by a wide margin BUT Candidate A would win the Electoral College

When I lived in San Diego, it wasn't unusual to see border control vans rounding up illegals, even chasing them down in Del Mar.
================

Now I go through that border crossing at OC border every day of the work week. For those of you who don't know, here's how it works. There's this border security station that spans the 5 right at the border between San Diego and Orange counties. Several times a day, the Northbound lanes are closed. Marshalls stand at each lane. We drive through when they wave us across row by row. Without going off on a tangent, I will just say that I find this really inconvenient on some days as it adds 15 minutes to the trip, but I digress.

Here's my question... What are they looking for? Everyone going through there is in a car. Surely, they aren't pulling over people because they look like they could be from Mexico. How do they know who to pullover? Often times, there are people who are pulled over... their cars being searched. What's the criteria for that? Would they pull me over for wearing a sombrero?

I'm just curious if anyone knows. Since I'm only ever in traffic when I'm being waived through, it never seemed like the right time to ask.

smaulgld says

The electoral college is not a gerrymandering mechanism and not designed to disenfranchise voters, but rather to enfranchise them. Its the same concept behind giving each state 2 senators no matter its population. It is an anti-mobocracy provision.

States are not people. People are people. And granting the same number of senators and voting power to a state with ten thousand people as one does to a state with ten million people does nothing to prevent mob rule. In fact, it makes mob rule easier because a smaller mob can form more easily than a large one.

If people really believed in the rights of the disenfranchised, then no one would be for states rights or the electoral college. Instead, they would be for the rights of individuals over the state and federal governments and for Constitutional reforms to implement representational voting power in Congress instead of winner-take-all elections. Under representational voting, all voices, even fringe minorities, would have some say. Under winner-take-all elections, including state elections, minorities are truly disenfranchised. Try being a liberal in Texas. The entire city of Austin is disenfranchised.

Here's some more stuff that will make your stomach turn.
www.youtube.com/embed/rHFOwlMCdto

smaulgld says

The idea is that people in all states would have as close to EQUAL representation, just like each state has two senators. But the system is imperfect.

The system is more than imperfect. It's based on a fundamental flaw. Giving states controls of votes doesn't empower people. It does the exact opposite. By forcing my vote to be the same as my neighbors, you have in fact silenced my vote, the very minority vote you claim to be trying to protect. The electoral college is like trying to end all rape by making consent assumed by default so that if I guy fucks a girl he found passed out at a party then it's not rape. Sure you can redefine a problem so that it's solved, but that's not a real solution. In fact it's highly counter-productive.

And what if CA decides it wants to split up into fifty different smaller states? Should it then get 100 senators? We could easily gerrymander the system so that 1% of the population has 51% of the votes. I suspect those in favor of small population states would find this highly objectionable.

Dan8267 says

Giving states controls of votes doesn't empower people. It does the exact opposite.

"Sure you can redefine a problem so that it's solved, but that's not a real solution."

Yes that is evident in the example I gave with the 13 states determining the presidency

Voting by definition forces the will of one group upon the other, changing how you count it wont change that

Dan8267 says

Try being a liberal in Texas. The entire city of Austin is disenfranchised.

another great example.
This argues for more political power at the local level and a President that has far less that he has today.

if there was more local control there would still be division. You would have disenfranchised people in nearly all towns BUT you would not have 58 million people disenfranchised over the same issue!

smaulgld says

Voting by definition forces the will of one group upon the other, changing how you count it wont change that

True, but what it will do, and is supposed to do, is to maximize the satisfaction of the overall population. That's the entire idea behind both democracies and republics. If you don't believe that idea is a good one, then you should get rid of voting altogether. If you accept the premise of democracies and republics, then it is clear that the best way to fulfill that premise is to use rules that mathematically represent the population as accurately as possible. This is a purely objective, mathematical problem with definite and provable solutions.

smaulgld says

This argues for more political power at the local level and a President that has far less that he has today.

(Note: "You" is the ephemeral, general, hypothetical you, not anyone in particular.)

If you move all voting power to the most local level possible, the individual, then
1. In a democracy, every citizen casts a single vote and all votes are weighed equally regardless of any conditions including geography.
2. In a republic like the U.S., the voting power of every representative is proportional to the number of citizens that representative represents. In this case, the electoral college cannot exist. Nor can giving a small set of voters the same number of senators and the same voting power for those senators as a large set of voters.

Even if you don't move voting power to the most local level possible, it makes no sense to adjust voting power based on some arbitrary condition like geography. One could make more compelling reasons to group people by race, religion, rationality, education, profession, etc. By forcing the voting power to be adjusted to one particular arbitrary grouping, you are actually suppressing all other possible groupings of people as well as individuals who most certainly will identify more with "being a Jew" than "living in a rural county". Mathematically, it still makes no sense.

turtledove says

I'm just curious if anyone knows. Since I'm only ever in traffic when I'm being waived through, it never seemed like the right time to ask.

My guess....they pull people over at random, and on any tips they may have received.

The really big, and dividing, issues cannot be localized. You can't localize abortion. If you localize to the state level, you still suppressing people and those people will cross state lines to get an abortion. If you localize it to the city level, the same thing happens, but more so. If you localize abortion to the level of the individual, then it in effect becomes completely free. The entire pro-life side is utterly reliant on forcing their will onto other people who reject their beliefs.

At the same time, the pro-life side is entirely reliant on their will to protect the choice of the mother being forced onto those who interfere with that choice by any means. This means not allowing local governments to deceptively subvert federal protections on abortions by implementing bullshit laws about corridor widths. When such local government pass such laws, they are clearly not trying to protect a minority within their community or even the will of the people as a whole. They are forcing the will of the few people in power onto the many in their geopolitical borders.

If anything, it makes no sense to do at the local level most of the things currently done at the local level. Why should traffic laws vary at all from state to state? Drivers can and do drive between states and being familiar with the laws is essential to being able to comply with them. It would make no sense for a state to decide to drive on the left side of the road. Nor do other variations matter. Parameterization can still be used, for example, to set speed limits.

Strategist says

My guess....they pull people over at random, and on any tips they may have received.

If you are wearing a sombrero, and questioning the need for badges, you probably get pulled over. Likewise if you have an I'm With Her decal or bumper sticker.

Blurtman says

Many friends and relatives who were pro-Hillary were country club liberal

Yeah liberals who fight for education but don't want the disadvantaged, usually colored people in their kids schools