NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

[AG74683]

I agree with everything you just said. Based on the video that I saw from NYC and Chicago of the protesters, they were not older people but millennials who demand that we give them everything they want and they throw a fit like a baby if they don't get their way. Well you know what, I didn't get my way either... but I am not protesting. I am telling my kids that this is how elections work and that we don't need to settle for voting for a Republican or a Democrat because they are not the only people on the ballot. I am telling them that the new president is not a good man, but neither was the person he ran against.

I see so many of my friends on Facebook asking how they join these protests. What a bunch of BS. I'm ashamed for my generation of coddled children. The Electoral College has been around since 1787. It's literally written into the Constitution. This is the fifth time this has happened. Rather than get mad and type up scathing things on Facebook or join some meaningless protest, become active and change the system.

Don't blame Trump or Clinton, don't blame people who voted one way or the other, blame a broken political system that is perpetuating party candidates, not people candidates. We had two of the worst choices in presidential history, status quo or status hoe. That can't be blamed on anyone but the parties.

 

[The One]

Oh yeah....

\


Just think about it for a moment... as bad as he is and people still chose him over Hillary Clinton. What does that say about her?

Actually, "people" chose Hilary Clinton. The Electoral College, however, will vote for DJT on December 16th.

What does it say about her? It says that sexism and misogyny is still unbelievably rampant, that white women would rather stand for white nationalism than break a glass ceiling, and that twenty years of character assassination against a dedicated, if flawed servant of the establishment by the hard right was incredibly effective in making her toxic to middle America. That's what it says.

Great point MacheteJames.....we did choose her. Good grief what a twilight zone result.

 

[michaelskis]

Great point MacheteJames.....we did choose her. Good grief what a twilight zone result.

How well did that work out for President Gore?

Popular vote means squat right now. As it is, if you live in a red state and didn't vote for Trump, then your vote means nothing. My vote was worthless. However if it was changed to each congressional district instead of winner take all, Clinton would have won more electoral college votes. Places like Detroit, Durham, Atlanta, Philly, Miami, and such would have gone to her instead of Trump.

 

[Planit]

First, this is not the end. It’s the beginning. Any political campaign can feel like a goal in itself, but it’s really just a means. The end is governing. And that means making the country work for all its citizens, and for all the world. If you are on the winning side, you carry this burden.

 

[AG74683]

Trump has unveiled a child care plan and spoke very highly of the lgbt community today, both very un-republican things to do. I think his number one goal is to shatter the two party system. He's already basically crushed the dems from the outside. Now he destroys the GOP from inside.

 

[DVD]

Trump has unveiled a child care plan and spoke very highly of the lgbt community today, both very un-republican things to do. I think his number one goal is to shatter the two party system. He's already basically crushed the dems from the outside. Now he destroys the GOP from inside.

I'm good with that. It would be hilarious if he came out and said something like, all that was just to get you idiot GOP voters to elect me. Now let's actually do something right

 

[JNA]

“Monument to the Unelected” Honors All 57 Losing Presidential Candidates in Prospect Park

http://untappedcities.com/2016/11/1...losing-president-candidates-in-prospect-park/

 

[michaelskis]

Trump has unveiled a child care plan and spoke very highly of the lgbt community today, both very un-republican things to do. I think his number one goal is to shatter the two party system. He's already basically crushed the dems from the outside. Now he destroys the GOP from inside.

He is now saying that he will keep the existing conditions and adult children at home provisions of Obamacare.

OMFG, the country is falling apart.... we are all doomed! Doomed I tell you! Protest! Sign Petitions! What won't he do next. Ahhh We are all Doomed! HE Sounds like Hillary for F%@$ Sake!

So now people are calling for the Electoral College to give the election to Hillary.

How bad do you think the riots and the revolution would be if that happens. I am thinking it would make the Civil War and North Ireland look like a picnic.

 

[gtpeach]

He is now saying that he will keep the existing conditions and adult children at home provisions of Obamacare.

The problem is that he can't keep the guaranteed coverage for pre-existing conditions and keep prices somewhat reasonable without an individual mandate. So it'll be interesting to see what he ends up supporting as far as revisions to the policy. Or if he ends up trying to do anything with it.


On a different note, I AM very concerned about Brannon being appointed as his chief strategist.

 

[gtpeach]

This is interesting. But if it happens, then I think the Republicans will have put the last nail in their own coffin. Would voters ever trust them again, especially the voters that ultimately got him nominated in the first place?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ade-another-forecast-trump-will-be-impeached/

 

[The One]

Ha ha ha ha......

The problem is that he can't keep the guaranteed coverage for pre-existing conditions and keep prices somewhat reasonable without an individual mandate. So it'll be interesting to see what he ends up supporting as far as revisions to the policy. Or if he ends up trying to do anything with it.
On a different note, I AM very concerned about Brannon being appointed as his chief strategist.

Not even a week after getting elected and his "team" is walking back on ACA while stammering like a mental patient:lmao: They are FUBAR on ACA. Remove one of the support beams and CRASH it all comes down on their fat heads. On a related note: The projected increase to current insurance rates for 100 million covered (non ACA) insured would be $3,000 if not in large part for the ACA. Translation: We would all be paying $3k more in insurance premiums if we were still stuck with the Bush era insurance increases. MSNBC can suck it!!! They never had experts on like they did this morning prior to the election talking about consequences. IDIOTS!!!!

 

[michaelskis]

Not even a week after getting elected and his "team" is walking back on ACA while stammering like a mental patient:lmao: They are FUBAR on ACA. Remove one of the support beams and CRASH it all comes down on their fat heads. On a related note: The projected increase to current insurance rates for 100 million covered (non ACA) insured would be $3,000 if not in large part for the ACA. Translation: We would all be paying $3k more in insurance premiums if we were still stuck with the Bush era insurance increases. MSNBC can suck it!!! They never had experts on like they did this morning prior to the election talking about consequences. IDIOTS!!!!

Do you have a link to the data? I don't think it will be a total repeal until there is something reasonable to replace it.

 

[Planit]

from a friend........


Remember back when George W. Bush was elected, the Clinton WH took all the W's off the computer keyboards. Well this time Joe Biden is taking all the T's off the keyboards so we will then have President Rump.


:lmao::h:

 

[michaelskis]

from a friend........


Remember back when George W. Bush was elected, the Clinton WH took all the W's off the computer keyboards. Well this time Joe Biden is taking all the T's off the keyboards so we will then have President Rump.


:lmao::h:

The Obama Joe cartoons out there are also super funny.

 

[gtpeach]

I don't think it will be a total repeal until there is something reasonable to replace it.

That's the problem, though. You can't really do much with it if you start removing some of the mandates. It's going to have to stay in place until something new is ready to replace it, or they're just going to have to get rid of it completely and some people will go back to not having access to insurance.

There are tweaks they can do to the policies, but if they're going to try to keep insurance affordable for people that would otherwise be denied coverage, there's no way to get around the individual mandate.

 

[michaelskis]

That's the problem, though. You can't really do much with it if you start removing some of the mandates. It's going to have to stay in place until something new is ready to replace it, or they're just going to have to get rid of it completely and some people will go back to not having access to insurance.

There are tweaks they can do to the policies, but if they're going to try to keep insurance affordable for people that would otherwise be denied coverage, there's no way to get around the individual mandate.

See, I don't think so. I think that there can be a transitional balance to an non-mandated HSA option. I also think that people should have different options so they are not paying for things that don't apply to them.

 

[gtpeach]

See, I don't think so. I think that there can be a transitional balance to an non-mandated HSA option. I also think that people should have different options so they are not paying for things that don't apply to them.

That's basically what insurance is, though - a bunch of people paying for service coverage that most of them will never need. HSA's won't work for people with ongoing, expensive health conditions, which arethe people that get the biggest benefit from ACA.

 

[michaelskis]

That's basically what insurance is, though - a bunch of people paying for service coverage that most of them will never need. HSA's won't work for people with ongoing, expensive health conditions, which arethe people that get the biggest benefit from ACA.

So what you are asking for is socialism.

In terms of stuff they will never use, I used this example before and I will again. One of me best friends from HS had to go through some bad chemo and radiation. He will never have kids. It is impossible. Oh, he is also single. But in his health insurance, he is required to pay for prenatal care. So are my grandparents, but I am quite sure they are done having kids...

HSA isn't a catch all answer, some people will have to deal with the regular classic insurance. But for most, I think having an HSA as an option (non-mandated) works. Other people may choose to do something else, while others, if they so choose, should not be forced to buy insurance. Yes, they are stupid if they don't have any coverage, but they should not be forced.

 

[The One]

Hmmm..

So what you are asking for is socialism.

In terms of stuff they will never use, I used this example before and I will again. One of me best friends from HS had to go through some bad chemo and radiation. He will never have kids. It is impossible. Oh, he is also single. But in his health insurance, he is required to pay for prenatal care. So are my grandparents, but I am quite sure they are done having kids...

HSA isn't a catch all answer, some people will have to deal with the regular classic insurance. But for most, I think having an HSA as an option (non-mandated) works. Other people may choose to do something else, while others, if they so choose, should not be forced to buy insurance. Yes, they are stupid if they don't have any coverage, but they should not be forced.

And what you seem to be suggesting is to let those people that actually need health care and aren't rich........die. I'd rather have medicare for all and take care of America. What good is an HSA if it cost's 10% more than the actual cost of care for your condition over a one year period??? No good at all. HSA's are only good for healthy people that don't need it.

 

[gtpeach]

So what you are asking for is socialism.

In terms of stuff they will never use, I used this example before and I will again. One of me best friends from HS had to go through some bad chemo and radiation. He will never have kids. It is impossible. Oh, he is also single. But in his health insurance, he is required to pay for prenatal care. So are my grandparents, but I am quite sure they are done having kids...

HSA isn't a catch all answer, some people will have to deal with the regular classic insurance. But for most, I think having an HSA as an option (non-mandated) works. Other people may choose to do something else, while others, if they so choose, should not be forced to buy insurance. Yes, they are stupid if they don't have any coverage, but they should not be forced.

Insurance basically is socialism. That's the point. We're required to have car insurance in order to legally drive. Most of us don't file claims each year, but the amount we pay in premiums covers the costs of those that do.

People with severe, catastrophic illnesses and injuries can only afford insurance if healthy people that won't use it much are also contributing into the system. Otherwise, healthy people won't get insurance voluntarily, or will get very minimal insurance coverage, so insurance companies will have to charge a lot more to the people that need their insurance to pay for their ongoing health expenses to the point where it won't be affordable for them. The problem is that healthy people without insurance may develop some serious illness. And that's when they'll try to get insurance. Which will further drive up the costs to have insurance coverage. Yes, the costs are more expensive for healthy people in the short run, but that's what makes it affordable for people who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford needed medical care. And it also provides protection for the healthy people that are suddenly diagnosed with a serious issue or involved in a catastrophic accident that they will have affordable coverage in those circumstances.

Before ACA, we basically let people with serious, pre-existing conditions, be priced out of having insurance. I personally don't agree with that, but there's no way to require insurance companies to allow people with pre-existing conditions to have affordable insurance AND let individuals choose whether or not they want to be insured. One is necessary for the other.

 

[Hink]

Insurance basically is socialism. That's the point. We're required to have car insurance in order to legally drive. Most of us don't file claims each year, but the amount we pay in premiums covers the costs of those that do.

People with severe, catastrophic illnesses and injuries can only afford insurance if healthy people that won't use it much are also contributing into the system. Otherwise, healthy people won't get insurance voluntarily, or will get very minimal insurance coverage, so insurance companies will have to charge a lot more to the people that need their insurance to pay for their ongoing health expenses to the point where it won't be affordable for them. The problem is that healthy people without insurance may develop some serious illness. And that's when they'll try to get insurance. Which will further drive up the costs to have insurance coverage. Yes, the costs are more expensive for healthy people in the short run, but that's what makes it affordable for people who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford needed medical care. And it also provides protection for the healthy people that are suddenly diagnosed with a serious issue or involved in a catastrophic accident that they will have affordable coverage in those circumstances.

Before ACA, we basically let people with serious, pre-existing conditions, be priced out of having insurance. I personally don't agree with that, but there's no way to require insurance companies to allow people with pre-existing conditions to have affordable insurance AND let individuals choose whether or not they want to be insured. One is necessary for the other.

I think what bothers me is the solution the republicans put out there just incentivizes people to not get insurance. Which means that more people go to the Emergency Room. Which is the most inefficient, costly, and stupid form of healthcare. Yet many people use the ER as their primary care physician and don't pay a penny for it. So premiums go up, which is socialized medicine, one way or the other.

I think the ignorance of the healthcare system is what is causing the trouble. Republicans want a free market solution to a problem that cannot be free market solutioned without SUPER inefficiencies and inflated costs ($20 Tylenol anyone?). HSA are not the answer. They are going to keep the system moving in the same direction. Single payer is great in theory, but there are serious issues with market fairness, educating doctors, and assuring that quality stays up (i.e. don't let a NP or a PA do a doctor's job just to lower the cost, but have the quality and outcomes be worse).

There are lots of moving parts. That is why the ACA has had such a tough time. It was stripped down and it tried to address only a couple moving parts. Without the full view of the problem, any solution is going to fail.

 

[Maister]

Insurance basically is socialism. That's the point.

I never considered it before, but you're right. That's pretty much the essence of socialism.

 

[WSU MUP Student]

Insurance (health, auto, flood, homeowners, etc.) the way it's supposed to be, where everybody pays a relatively small fraction of the cost to cover those huge claims is really a pretty great system.

Insurance at the blackjack table at the casino where you don't pony up to help the rest of the table and nobody else pays a portion to help cover you is a pretty bad system.

(Protip: never buy insurance at the blackjack table!)

 

[gtpeach]

To be fair, we should also be having discussions on WHY healthcare is as expensive as it is and how to reduce those costs. But that won't change the way insurance coverage works - just the actual amount that the coverage will cost.

 

[JNA]

What is your reaction to the Clay County WV Development Corp. Director's facebook posting ?

Simple response - How stupid.

 

[michaelskis]

To be fair, we should also be having discussions on WHY healthcare is as expensive as it is and how to reduce those costs. But that won't change the way insurance coverage works - just the actual amount that the coverage will cost.

I agree 100%. Also why the same procedure with the same doctor at the same facility is charged differently based on the insurance you have or if you don't have insurance. In Michigan, the auto insurance is the highest in the country, because it also covers the health care costs associated with it. If you break your arm in a car accident, the hospital will charge you more than if you break your arm playing football.

I also think that we need to be having conversations about why people need health care in the first place. Preventative care is something that seems to get pushed aside on a regular basis. Moreso, it is not just one thing. That is why I am so angry about the implementation of the farm bill and how little of it goes to growing produce. But when you go to the store and see that a tomato or a bag of carrots are more expensive than a box of cookies, you have to start asking where the priorities are.

What is your reaction to the Clay County WV Development Corp. Director's facebook posting ?

Simple response - How stupid.

I did not hear about that until you posted something.

I don't think stupid is a strong enough term. I am happy to see that this woman was removed from her position and I imagine there is discusions with the attorneys about terminating her employment.

 

[The One]

Ahhh....

What is your reaction to the Clay County WV Development Corp. Director's facebook posting ?

Simple response - How stupid.

She demands to not be seen as "racist" after a statement like that?? Me thinks this kind of denial is RAMPANT in the hinterlands:-c

 

[gtpeach]

She demands to not be seen as "racist" after a statement like that?? Me thinks this kind of denial is RAMPANT in the hinterlands:-c

I'm always torn whether the public outlash is the best solution to those kinds of issues. But I guess I don't really care any more. I'm firmly in the camp that we need to stop trying not to make people feel bad when they say clearly bigoted things.

I was looking for that video that was posted several months ago - about what people should do when someone does or says something racist to them. It was humorous, but effective. I can't remember what the acronym they spelled out was to look it up, though. Anyone know what I'm talking about?

 

[terraplnr]

What is your reaction to the Clay County WV Development Corp. Director's facebook posting ?

Simple response - How stupid.

Clay County was the butt of many jokes, from those of us living in the more cultured parts of West Virginia. It probably still is but I haven't been back in many years. Keep it classy, Clay County.

 

[DVD]

cultured parts of West Virginia.

Cultured parts of WV? :lmao::lmao::lmao:

Okay, I shouldn't laugh, I'm in the highly cultured state of Kansas.

 

[AG74683]

To be fair, we should also be having discussions on WHY healthcare is as expensive as it is and how to reduce those costs. But that won't change the way insurance coverage works - just the actual amount that the coverage will cost.

It's expensive because hospitals need to pay millions to their CEOs and jack up prices on things like IV bags and simple procedures that shouldn't cost 10k. It's a a joke. The cost of healthcare that people see (without insurance) is absolutely not equal to the actual cost of performing the procedure. This is somewhat due in part to the staggering cost of running a hospital or medical office now (machinery, employee cost, etc.) but there's a tremendous markup in it. Hospitals want to recoup their costs for machinery immediately. It's also not at all the same from facility to facility. A 2014 study by the University of California, San Francisco found that hospital charges for an uncomplicated vaginal delivery ranged from $3,296 to $37,227, depending on the hospital.That is INSANE. I think one factor here is the lack of competition among facilities. You're not gonna drive from San Francisco to LA to have your baby because you might save 7k, there's just no time for that. The current healthcare system is universally abused by all providers. They can say otherwise, but we all know that's a flat lie. Your poor health is their high profit margin.

I do not believe that anyone should have to risk bankruptcy for health related issues, especially if the cause was not their own doing. Medical bills are the single greatest contributor to bankruptcy in the United States. How do you grow your economy? By keeping cash in the pockets of your citizens that they feel free to use for things they wouldn't otherwise buy.

I view health care as a three part system. A) Medicare/Medicaid, B) modified single payer system. What I mean by this is a system where your healthcare payment comes directly out of the paycheck, I envision this as a tiered system. The employee opts in to their desired level of healthcare, similar to what we already have in place for most areas (IE 70/30, 80/20, etc.). The only difference is this is mandatory, and pulled right from the paycheck. There is no fine like the ACA, because you simply have no option but to be insured. Similar to ACA, your pre-existing condition cannot exclude you from the system. Your provider should not be limited by who's eligible in your state, it should be a nationwide system, similar to what Trump is proposing in his healthcare plan. I believe North Carolina has 1 single remaining health insurance provider still with the ACA, and that's just foolish. This would be strictly for necessary and preventative procedures, elective procedures would fall into, C) full private healthcare. Those who want to opt completely out of the government system can do so, but they still need to carry insurance. If you want to go to Malibu Hospital and get top level stuff, good, but these costs wouldn't be mandated, controlled or kept competitive like those in Option B. You can have your elective butt enhancement surgery if you want. You hear criticisms all the time about how slow standard single payer systems can be, and option C may give those who want to pay a higher monthly rate the option to significantly reduce those times. I understand this is essentially saying "those who can afford it might get help sooner" but man, you can't have it both ways.

 

[gtpeach]

I was listening to NPR this morning and they had a quick clip where they were talking to the Charlottesville Mayor who has a PhD in political philosophy. Specifically, he was talking about the electoral college and how it was specifically put in place to prevent people from taking office that used falsehoods and fear-based propaganda to get elected. The electoral college would be able to over-rule the vote based on facts and truth if it came down to it.

To my knowledge (and I'm not an expert like this super smart PhD guy), this has never been done, but I do find it interesting that our founders thought through this specific scenario and put some checks and balances into place to handle it should the need arise. Dr. Signer also discussed how the term "demagogue" was used throughout the Federalist papers, and this was another danger our founders had anticipated.

Not that I expect the electoral college to vote down Trump, but I do find it interesting that if they did, it would be for the exact purposes the electoral college was put into place in the first place. And also a pretty good reason to keep it the way it is.

I haven't listened to the full segment yet, but it's available at http://wvtf.org/post/cville-mayor-says-electoral-college-could-stop-trump if anyone is interested.

 

[michaelskis]

And here we go with conflicting information. One report says that Trump requested security clearance for his son in law, but another site says that he did not.

Personally, I don't think that any of the kids should have any security clearance unless they are appointed to a cabinet position or elected or hired in a roll that requires it.

On a side note, with all the transitions going on with the transition team and how different people are put in unexpected rolls, I am starting to wonder who is in charge and starting to think it isn't Trump.

 

[Hink]

And here we go with conflicting information. One report says that Trump requested security clearance for his son in law, but another site says that he did not.

Personally, I don't think that any of the kids should have any security clearance unless they are appointed to a cabinet position or elected or hired in a roll that requires it.

On a side note, with all the transitions going on with the transition team and how different people are put in unexpected rolls, I am starting to wonder who is in charge and starting to think it isn't Trump.

This rocky road will only get more rocky. We will see if the talking point of "Trump will hire smart people" is really true or not. The other part of that is will he listen to them?

 

[DVD]

And here we go with conflicting information. One report says that Trump requested security clearance for his son in law, but another site says that he did not.

Personally, I don't think that any of the kids should have any security clearance unless they are appointed to a cabinet position or elected or hired in a roll that requires it.

On a side note, with all the transitions going on with the transition team and how different people are put in unexpected rolls, I am starting to wonder who is in charge and starting to think it isn't Trump.

You didn't think Trump would actually be in charge did you? He probably thinks this is like his other jobs where you show up, do a press conference, then go home. He'll let other people actually do the work. It's gonna be an interesting few years. Do we have a pool yet on when he quits the job because it's more than he expected?

 

[fringe]

You didn't think Trump would actually be in charge did you? He probably thinks this is like his other jobs where you show up, do a press conference, then go home. He'll let other people actually do the work. It's gonna be an interesting few years. Do we have a pool yet on when he quits the job because it's more than he expected?

from the other thread,

Prediction #7 Trump declares, "Take the job and shove it"
Maybe before even the 100 days of fame pass, he will be so stressed and harassed by the demands of responsibility that he will make even more of a historical mark by being the second prez to resign and the first to do so on his own volition. He cannot take criticism, and his thin skin will become so irritated that he will walk out the door, leaving us to the right-wing jackals who have gathered to feed on the carcass of governance.

 

[Bubba]

...his thin skin will become so irritated that he will walk out the door, leaving us to the right-wing jackals who have gathered to feed on the carcass of governance.

Panic on the streets of London
Panic on the streets of Birmingham
I wonder to myself
Could life ever be sane again?

:lmao:



I did not vote for Trump, and I though his candidacy was a joke, but the overreaction to his election is darn entertaining...

 

[michaelskis]

You didn't think Trump would actually be in charge did you? He probably thinks this is like his other jobs where you show up, do a press conference, then go home. He'll let other people actually do the work. It's gonna be an interesting few years. Do we have a pool yet on when he quits the job because it's more than he expected?

I thought he would have had least tried to give the impression that he was in charge, but he isn't even doing that.

I predict he will announce his resignation at the 2018 State of the Union. He will site needing to return to is corporate empire.

I did not vote for Trump, and I though his candidacy was a joke, but the overreaction to his election is darn entertaining...

Same here.

 

[MD Planner]

I did not vote for Trump, and I though his candidacy was a joke, but the overreaction to his election is darn entertaining...

Amen. Now we've got high school students leaving class to "protest" Trump's election. I'm not exactly sure what they're protesting but according to them it's "empowering'. Good lord we have become such a nation of p*&$%#s.

 

[michaelskis]

Let's talk about guns

I would be interested to know if this customer had advanced training or not. My guess is that he did.

Customer Shoots Two Robbers In Pizza Shop

What are your thoughts? Should he have been permitted to protect himself and the two pizza place employees?

 

[WSU MUP Student]

I dunno... a candidate runs on a platform of curtailing 1st Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment rights (among others), threatens political opponents with jail (and alludes to worse), etc. and then gets elected and we suddenly shouldn't be worried anymore about the policies he's proposed and his temperament?




Regarding the alleged request for security clearances for his children... I always find it ironic that the he made such a big hoopla over Clinton's un-trustworthiness and mishandling of classified information but if he were subject to an actual security background check he would almost certainly be denied access to even the lowest level of classified information. All the lawsuits against him in the past combined with his history of bankruptcies in his personal and professional life combined with use of extreme levels of debt combined with a foreign-born wife combined with multiple marriages and a timeline that can only add up to adultery would surely disqualify him. That's not even to mention how he would come across when the investigators would do personal character interviews with folks who know him going back decades and decades. Thankfully for him, the president is not subject to those background checks - the election is there to supposedly serve as the check.

 

[Planit]

Around these parts, over the last 8 years we've seen bumper stickers that say "He's Not My President." Somebody at work said to me that they need to get one of those bumper stickers for her car for the next 4 years. I asked her if she liked seeing those stickers before, which she said no. Then I said think of where you live, they might have the same feelings you did with the last president or they'll think you never removed it from before. She said "nevermind"

 

[JNA]

What is your reaction to the Clay County WV Development Corp. Director's facebook posting ?

Clay County Commissioner Greg Fitzwater confirmed to CNN
that Whaling resigned, but did not know if Taylor was terminated or resigned her post. But he said that she was no longer working for the county.

Joe Coleman, the town recorder in Clay, W.V., said that Mayor Beverly Whaling's resignation is effective immediately.

1. http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/15/polit...ichelle-obama-racist-facebook-trnd/index.html
2. http://www.latimes.com/nation/natio...acist-michelle-obama-post-20161115-story.html
3. http://www.snopes.com/2016/11/15/official-calls-michelle-obama-ape-in-heels/

 

[Suburb Repairman]

I was listening to NPR this morning and they had a quick clip where they were talking to the Charlottesville Mayor who has a PhD in political philosophy. Specifically, he was talking about the electoral college and how it was specifically put in place to prevent people from taking office that used falsehoods and fear-based propaganda to get elected. The electoral college would be able to over-rule the vote based on facts and truth if it came down to it.

To my knowledge (and I'm not an expert like this super smart PhD guy), this has never been done, but I do find it interesting that our founders thought through this specific scenario and put some checks and balances into place to handle it should the need arise. Dr. Signer also discussed how the term "demagogue" was used throughout the Federalist papers, and this was another danger our founders had anticipated.

Not that I expect the electoral college to vote down Trump, but I do find it interesting that if they did, it would be for the exact purposes the electoral college was put into place in the first place. And also a pretty good reason to keep it the way it is.

I haven't listened to the full segment yet, but it's available at http://wvtf.org/post/cville-mayor-says-electoral-college-could-stop-trump if anyone is interested.

He is generally correct on framers likely intent, as they studied the downfall of prior attempts at direct democracy. If they acted on it, that could pose some interesting things. Foremost, 29 states plus DC have faithless elector laws to punish electors that do not vote loyal to the state results.

The Electoral College was also designed as a check against tyranny of the majority. One if the major sources of concern during the drafting of the Constitution was the more urbanizing/industrializing states with higher density populations and simpler voting logistics would have an unfair advantage in a pure direct democracy--candidates could actually campaign exclusively in these dense areas and completely disregard rural.

You can count me as someone that thinks the Electoral College is in desperate need of reform. I won't go so far as to say abolish, but it is not functioning as it should and is having secondary negative impacts. These include:

• Creation of the "Swing State" phenomenon in which candidates focus resources on a handful of competitive states rather than geographically broad campaigning.
• Unfair advantage to less populace states, causing some people's votes to actually have "higher value". This is due to senators counting into the electoral vote total.
• Winner-take-all hampers development of alternative/3rd parties.

I feel reform should be cautious and incremental. The easiest starting point is allocation in proportion to popular vote by state (without creating electoral districts, which could be easily gerrymandered). That would make progress toward resolving two of my three bullets above. I like this also because it doesn't create an advantage toward either of the two parties, and solves two huge populist complaints about not having alternatives and hating the swing state bullshit.

One of my other concerns is U.S. Territories and their representation. I don't think this is an electoral college issue though... I think the solution is to "shit or get off the pot" when it comes to whether these territories officially become states or not. They exist in this strange purgatory.

 

[Maister]

yeah, concerning the Electoral College I agree it was originally intended as a check to 'stupid voters' as well as protecting rural regions. One of the several decidedly anti-democratic ideas adopted early on. We know this was their intent because Madison (I think?) talked about it in the Federalist Papers.

 

[gtpeach]

Y'all see this one? Thankfully, he resigned, but they would not terminate him. I do think if you are in a public position and you espouse this kind of rhetoric in a public forum, it is legitimately a grounds for termination, but I'm no lawyer.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...rber_resigns_after_racist_facebook_posts.html

 

[HomerJ]

I feel reform should be cautious and incremental. The easiest starting point is allocation in proportion to popular vote by state (without creating electoral districts, which could be easily gerrymandered). That would make progress toward resolving two of my three bullets above. I like this also because it doesn't create an advantage toward either of the two parties, and solves two huge populist complaints about not having alternatives and hating the swing state bullshit.

I would guess that at the very least, doing away with the winner take all system within each state could have a big improvement in terms of voter turnout (if you are more convinced your vote counts, logic seems to dictate you would be more invested in showing up to the polls).

I've seen commentaries in a lot of news stories suggesting that a lot of people protesting in cities should have just voted...it's probably worth at least pointing out in many of those instances it really wouldn't have made a difference if they had (Chicago, New York, Portland, etc.).

 

[Planit]

1. http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/15/polit...ichelle-obama-racist-facebook-trnd/index.html
2. http://www.latimes.com/nation/natio...acist-michelle-obama-post-20161115-story.html
3. http://www.snopes.com/2016/11/15/official-calls-michelle-obama-ape-in-heels/

Y'all see this one? Thankfully, he resigned, but they would not terminate him. I do think if you are in a public position and you espouse this kind of rhetoric in a public forum, it is legitimately a grounds for termination, but I'm no lawyer.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...rber_resigns_after_racist_facebook_posts.html

and so it goes

 

[michaelskis]

yeah, concerning the Electoral College I agree it was originally intended as a check to 'stupid voters' as well as protecting rural regions. One of the several decidedly anti-democratic ideas adopted early on. We know this was their intent because Madison (I think?) talked about it in the Federalist Papers.

Well, it is a damn good thing we are not a democracy isn't it. Once again we are a constitutional republic but people seem to forget that important point.

I have posted this before and I will again, I still think that we need to do away with the winner take all aspect of the electoral college and break it up based on the winner of each congressional district. I do think that the congressional districts themselves need to be redrawn to prevent gerrymandering and should match municipal, county, or state boundaries as much as possible. For larger cities, it should try to align with the boundaries of neighborhoods as much as possible.
Then the two extra votes per state should be based on who wins the popular vote for that particular state.

If we went to a pure popular vote, the blue areas could vote for one person and control the election:

Finally, I think they should do away with straight ticket voting everywhere, any candidates that are on the ballot in all 50 states should be in the debate, primaries should all occur on the same day, and no results should be released until all of the polls close.


On a side note, why is it that there is a geographic difference in the way people vote. Urban populations tend to vote more liberal while rural populations vote more conservative. Why do you think that happens?

 

[gtpeach]

On a side note, why is it that there is a geographic difference in the way people vote. Urban populations tend to vote more liberal while rural populations vote more conservative. Why do you think that happens?

Because cities are socialist experiments for central planners? That's what the Commissioner of the Revenue like to tell me...