patrick.net

YesYNot says

but I wouldn't call it a constitutional crisis.

IF the constitution provides for what happens if the electoral college doesn't pick a winner, then there is no consititional crisis at al

Donald Trump, Sept. 2016: "We are in a big, fat, ugly bubble.
Not anymore ;-) #USA #TrumpvsZeroHedge #TrumpvsGoldBugs #TrumpVsAntiFed
Remember the game plan, sentence structure, speech patterns and body language ;-)

Logan Mohtashami says

Not anymore

You mean Trump promising corporations lower taxes does not create a bubble. Who in the fuck is going to pay taxes in US? Only the W2s?

curious2 says

Anyone whom the House Republicans would elect would be worse.

True.

Also background on this subject...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/06/opinion/how-would-the-electoral-college-dump-donald-trump.html?_r=0

Of course, if that happened, there would be riots on the streets. Just like at the aftermath of a legally elected Trump. Now imagine if the entire election were thrown away and some Republican candidate that wasn't the two leading candidates is placed in office instead. Complete outrage from every Trump supporter.

Now imagine everything Trump would do to oppose this and incite violent opposition. Hell, he asked the Russians to hack Hillary's email and gun owners to shoot her. You think he would take having the presidency stolen from him lightly?

tr6 says

Who in the fuck is going to pay taxes in US

I would venture you to look at the tax recites of Americans to the government and see who actually pays the most ;-)

No bubble has been created due to deficits, we shouldn't worry about this ... this is America, currency induced inflation here is a non event

This is literally the stupidest thread I've read on Pat net this year.

bob2356 says

Citizens united

Democrats outspent Republicans in 2016, including outside money, both by a wide margin. If money buys elections, then Democrats paid for a landslide. Even among Republicans, including PAC money, Donald Trump spent a fraction as much as "Jeb!" The Petrodollar candidates were supposed to be Bush v Clinton, again, but the voters weren't having it.

Gerrymandering and other Republican tactics have been going on a long time, and The New Yorker has been reporting on them since at least the W administration. They didn't stop the 2008 election.

Hey Logan, record highs every day. Are we rich yet?

Logan Mohtashami says

No bubble has been created due to deficits

Yes so 3T in unfunded Bush tax cuts per decade certainly does not create a bubble or income inequality. Yep Logan, keep up with your story.

If electors can choose whomever they please, then don't forget that electors disgruntled with the scarlet whore of Wall Street can choose Trump instead of the candidate their voters chose. And if this happens to any degree that it affects the outcome of an election, it doesn't matter what the people want at all. It only matters who is picking people to be electors. And then welcome to the USSR! Democracy will be officially dead!

2016 #American Bears live on and even back in 2001 bears were yapping about the American Collapse ... but one thing is constant since 1790.. every Anti American Great collapse snowflake marshmallow bear has been wrong about America and they will be for decades to come ... it's time to hunt these bears and their worthless ideological economic rants to extinction ... us data miners will tell you when the recession and recovery cycles will happen .. the rest are just storytellers. Markets are at all time highs, over 165 million working, 43 year lows in unemployment claims, 5.5 million job openings, 105 trillion plus in financial assets, biggest military in the world and gas prices with inflation are low... and this will continue under #PresidentTrump #stocks #economics #bonds #RealEstate #housing #Goldbugsareawful #USA

Strategist says

Yes so 3T in unfunded Bush tax cuts per decade certainly does not create a bubble or income inequality. Yep Logan, keep up with your story.

If you have any evidence that deficits created the housing bubble, I would love to see the cross correlation representation data

Could we have a redo on the election? I'm thinking we could nominate different candidates this time. Then democrats could have Bernie and the Republicans could have Rand Paul.
That would be pretty good.
It's what I wanted from the start. Instead we got manipulated polls, Brownshirt activity on the Left, MSM lying their asses off to get the queen bitch elected, and an orange madman blowing up the process by saying what everyone without cheese curds for brains is already thinking.
I blame it all on the Democrats! They fucked this one up really good.
The left is responsible for Trump and his rise to power, because they took what power they had and bullied everyone with it. Fuck them.

Heraclitusstudent says

It doesn't matter if it was designed this way. It would look like it violates the integrity of the election process.

It would look this way to ignorant people, so...Heraclitusstudent says

Riots would ensue,

Heraclitusstudent says

So it would in fact be a constitutional crisis.

Riots ensued after the election, and there was no constitutional crisis. Even if the riots were terrible, it would be a safety issue, not a constitutional issue. The constitution is clear. The rules are and were clear.

YesYNot says

It would look this way to ignorant people, so...Heraclitusstudent says

It would look this way to people who have been taught since a young age that their opinion is taken into account and that the electoral college just repeats the will of the people who elected them.

YesYNot says

Riots ensued after the election, and there was no constitutional crisis.

The constitutional crisis is not the riot. It's the general acceptance of the results by various people in position of power. I doubt there would be a wide consensus if the electoral college didn't reflect the vote.

Not only that, it would make any talk from the US of 'spreading democracy' in the world look like contemptuous bad joke on other people.

People in positions of power would follow the rules that have been in place and are in the constitution.
Heraclitusstudent says

Winning is decided according to the rules in place, not some arbitrary notion of what 'ideally' should be the case.

As I said, if the rules had been different, the action of candidates and therefore results would also have been different.

You can't revise the rules a posteriori.

This is exactly why the people in power would accept it. You are cherry picking which rules you think should be followed and which rules would somehow cause a constitutional crisis and riots.

The EC has never shat on the voters and voted their won way.

More stupid Liberal queerboy fantasies from the fragile left.

YesYNot says

This is exactly why the people in power would accept it. You are cherry picking which rules you think should be followed and which rules would somehow cause a constitutional crisis and riots.

Yes but there is a difference:
- Everyone knew and accepted that representation would be through the electoral college and not directly the popular vote.
- But at the same time, everyone expect the electoral college to reflect the will of the voter. This is supposed to be an indirection not a power grab from people who for whatever reason think they may know better than Joe Sixpack on the ground.

YesYNot says

People in positions of power would follow the rules that have been in place and are in the constitution.

This is politics. People would see this as an undemocratic power grab and politicians would reflect that.

Goran_K says

If this happens, NO ONE who supported Donald Trump's minority victory can complain.

You mean minority as in illegals, as in all the illegals that have been flooding the country, pre-punched D-tickets taped to their backs?

Minority, HILarious...

Strategist says

Hey Logan, record highs every day. Are we rich yet?

S&P: All-time High
Dow: All-time High
Nasdaq: All-Time High
Russell 2000: All-time High
MidCap 400: All-time High
👏👏👏👏🙌

Obama gave us all grey hair.

I commented above but without linking my sources, and got Disliked. I've added the source links, as I tend to do. If anyone Disliked my comment for lack of sources, then please consider the updated version.

curious2 says

bob2356 says

Citizens united

Democrats outspent Republicans in 2016, including outside money, both by a wide margin. If money buys elections, then Democrats paid for a landslide. Even among Republicans, including PAC money, Donald Trump spent a fraction as much as "Jeb!" The Petrodollar candidates were supposed to be Bush v Clinton, again, but the voters weren't having it.

Gerrymandering and other Republican tactics have been going on a long time, and The New Yorker has been reporting on them since at least the W administration. They didn't stop the 2008 election.

Voters wanted change. Heavy spending by party establishments favored the established Bush & Clinton brands, both working for the establishment Petrodollar consensus including especially the MIC and KSA. Many on the left, e.g. Chris Matthews, faulted Hillary's "stupid wars." She campaigned on escalating wars that had served only her MIC and KSA sponsors, at the expense of America. She campaigned on Obamneycare (FKA "Hillary's Plan"), which remained unpopular. And, for optics, she featured Muslims in hijabs.

curious2 says

Democrats outspent Republicans in 2016, by a wide margin. If money buys elections, then Democrats bought a landslide. Even among Republicans, Donald Trump spent a fraction as much as "Jeb!" The Petrodollar candidates were supposed to be Bush v Clinton, again, but the voters weren't having it.

Gerrymandering and other Republican tactics have been going on a long time, and The New Yorker has been reporting on them since at least the W administration. They didn't stop the 2008 election.

There wasn't enough money on the planet to make hillary electable. Christ she barely pulled out the nomination against a vermont socialist who wasn't even a democrat. The big republican money went downstream to the senate and house elections, not to trump. The big players weren't on board with trump and didn't support him, but were very committed to the house and senate races, far outspending democrats.

Post citizens united 2010 election republicans picked up 675 state seats. Republicans won control of both legislature and governor in 21 states. There has never been a shift like that in the history of elections. Never. Not even close. Where did all these new republican voters come from? Money, big big money, certainly did buy a most of these of races. Small rural districts suddenly had millions pouring in to support the republican candidate for state legislative office. Where did this kind of money come from supporting republicans for state races?

After 2010 republicans controlled redistricting of 4 districts for every 1 by democrats. Control of the redistricting is control of the elections. Again look at NC. Did tens or hundreds of thousands of new republican voters pour into the state pre 2012 elections? How did the NC congressional makeup change so radically with the same voters?

Bob, you seem to have reverted to your rhetorical questions, and I am not your research assistant. Obamneycare gave Republicans a 10-point head start in every election. How many trillions of dollars a year does the medical-industrial complex receive, guaranteed by government since Obamneycare? (Hint: more than three.) How many Koch Brothers would it take to add up to $3T? (Hint: you'd need the entire net worth of around 100 Koch Brothers every year to compete.) The reason Democrats could and did outspend Republicans in 2016 is because both MICs favored Democrats, whom they could count on for more wars and more pills. Again, if money alone buys elections, then congratulate "Jeb!" on the Republican nomination, and HIllary on the Presidency. Money can put a thumb on the scale, and it might even buy 37 faithless electors, but blaming Citizens United while ignoring Obamneycare is a partisan meme rather than a serious analysis.

jazz music says

The concept of "hell"....

is intrinsic to IslamIslam. You'd have to cite a source if you want to say Christians invented it. I think it was pre-existing (e.g. Hades, which only few could escape).

jazz music says

What will ever entice people to start looking at the real world?

I wondered that when you claimed Obamneycare had reduced medical inflation. In "the real world," insurance premiums are "soaring" thanks to Obamneycare.

jazz music says

Baptists will come after you if you stop attending.

They won't come after you with swords to cut off your head. In the contemporary world, that feature is unique to Islam.

jazz music says

The concept of "hell" was invented by a Christian religion, totally absent from Judaism.

No - Zoroastrianrism brought these concepts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism

jazz music says

curious2 says

Christians invented it

I did not say that. I said the opposite. Please correct your false comment. Also, your linked sources do not say what you say. They say Catholics believe in hell, but your sources do not claim that Christians invented it. As I wrote, not as you would pretend I wrote, it was pre-existing, and is intrinsic to Islam. If you want to say that some Christians added it to Christianity also, then say what you want to say, but don't accuse me of saying it.

Entitlemented says

Zoroastrianrism brought these concepts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism

And they may even have pre-dated Zoroastrianism.

Sir Winston Churchill:

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

The issue comes down to whether it is easier to corrupt 37 individual persons out of 580 whose names are known, or to fool a majority of the voters in enough of the states to comprise an electoral majority. I suspect the bipartisan Petrodollar establishment is trying to keep the established game going by any means necessary, and corrupting 37 is the latest effort after an avalanche of campaign spending and media manipulation failed. I don't presume to know the best result, but I do think Pence and Blackwell are much worse than the President-elect, and the establishment is going after the guy who campaigned against the establishment in order to replace him personally while leaving the frightening establishment candidates around him.

jazz music says

Now are there any more questions about what I am saying and why I say it?

Yes, why do you persist in failing to understand the difference between inventing and copying? At least two Users have pointed out to you at least two religions that predate the Bible. Christianity rejects a lot of the old Testament. Islam from its beginning included Hell as an intrinsic concept. Why do you persist in defending such madness?

curious2 says

At least two Users have pointed out to you at least two religions that predate the Bible.

But they don't predate God because Jesus is God.

Heraclitusstudent says

You can't revise the rules a posteriori.

Actually, the whole point of this thread is that the electors may in fact try to revise the rules a posteriori.

They didn't like the outcome, so they may change the conventional rule that the elector votes as his electorate directed him to.

Sure, it's not an official rule, but custom is certainly a kind of rule.

"Democracy, except when our side loses!"

Elections should only involve US citizens. The electoral college saved us from being overrun by illegals and voter fraud simply by allowing flyover states to have a bigger voice than would otherwise happen if we just went with the popular vote. Until you fix all that, you have NO RIGHT to argue that the electoral college should be banished.

just any guy says

Elections should only involve US citizens. The electoral college saved us from being overrun by illegals and voter fraud simply by allowing flyover states to have a bigger voice than would otherwise happen if we just went with the popular vote. Until you fix all that, you have NO RIGHT to argue that the electoral college should be banished.

I'm sure you'll be interested to know that the recount in Nevada, which was one state where Trump and his supporters claimed huge voter fraud showed a difference of 15 votes. That's the state where a Pat.net poster claimed he saw truckloads of illegals transported to the polls.

http://heavy.com/news/2016/12/nevada-recount-results-final-totals-wisconsin-latest-update-numbers-clinton-trump-de-la-fuente-laws-rules/

"According to a press release from the Nevada Secretary of State’s Office on the evening of December 8, the Nevada recount found these changes:

Hillary Clinton lost 9 votes.
Donald Trump lost 6 votes."

Yuuuuuge voter fraud. Bigly.

Channeling Trump*

Let me tell you something, it's not going to happen. Believe me.

jazz music says

Your reference says that "Zoroastrian hell" is temporary, that makes it different.

I'm a fan of Zoroastrianism for that reason and others. Pity it has almost died out, except for persecuted remnants in Iran and an extremely wealthy micro-minority in India (the Parsis).

jazz music says

You are prone to highly charged accusations. Explain why.

jazz music says

Perhaps your understanding is quite different from that.

This gets to the point of my previous statement about the origin of hell.

Q.E.D.you are not getting trolled.

This whole exchange is off topic but I can't understand why you persist in failing to distinguish between inventing and copying. You keep saying that Islam started later than Christianity, as if that were something known only to you. Islam was fabricated by the charlatan mohamed, who was not even born until centuries after Christianity had started. That does not change the facts that (a) hell was intrinsic to Islam from the time of mohamed, (b) Christians did not invent hell, (c) Christians rejected a lot of the Old Testament. These are obvious and uncontroversial facts that anyone can see from reading the texts that each group holds sacred. You call them highly charged accusations, and then you copy and paste Wikipedia for some reason, even though it doesn't even say what you say. Here's a thought: if you want Wikipedia to say what you say, you can go and edit it, and then copy and paste; at least then, your reference will match your comment.

If you are not trolling, then perhaps I can help you. The Wright Brothers invented the airplane, or more specifically they invented powered flight with steering. They demonstrated their invention in France, flying figure-eights over the crowd. Nobody had ever seen anything like that before. That is what inventing looks like. Airbus has made airplanes since it began, and they have even added some innovations to the underlying invention, but Airbus did not invent the airplane. I hope that helps you.

Similarly, Islam included hell from the time of Mohamed, and tends to bring hell on earth, in ways that go far beyond any other religion. Early Christians rejected a lot of the Old Testament, and different Christians have different beliefs about whether hell exists, but none of them invented it. I hope that's clear enough for you. Your accusing Christians of supposedly inventing hell was false, as was your accusing me of saying so; if anyone has made highly charged accusations here, I think that would be you.

joeyjojojunior says

I'm sure you'll be interested to know that the recount in Nevada, which was one state where Trump and his supporters claimed huge voter fraud showed a difference of 15 votes. That's the state where a Pat.net poster claimed he saw truckloads of illegals transported to the polls.

OMG! The results of one state have to mean that all other states are similar, and a Pat.net user said it wasn't so. Your deductive reasoning skills are unmatched.