Moose & Squirrel v Boris & Natasha: what's the deal with the rooskies and trumpland?

[Burgold]

18 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

There really needs to be a recall option for the Presidency. If States can have it for Governors...why not for President?

I'd be for it, but I'd want the threshold to be set really high. Let's start with a petition that requires at least 15% of the population to even start the process... and even that number may be too low.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

Russian flags now? 

These guys are too much.

[twa]

I'm ashamed to say I did not recognize it as the Russian flag....even looked it up to be sure.

 

[LadySkinsFan]

Stupid people don't even recognize that it wasn't the U.S.flag, just red, white, and blue colors. French flag is those colors too. Other countries too. 

 

Stupid! They should have their voting rights supressed.

[twa]

Are ya'll sure it is not a movement to bring back the Duchy of Carniola?

 

[The Evil Genius]

26 minutes ago, Burgold said:

I'd be for it, but I'd want the threshold to be set really high. Let's start with a petition that requires at least 15% of the population to even start the process... and even that number may be too low.

 

Of course I'm also a firm believer in popular vote for the Presidential election. So what do I know. And agreed that the recall threshold would have to be high.

 

Elections are expensive as hell to hold. 

[Jumbo]

this is going here cuz it's related to cnn & ny times latest stories om fbi/wh/rooksies

 

 

don't have official explanation yet, but cnn, ny times, la times, politico, and other blocked from wh media briefing...

 

this isn't unprecedented---there is a built in excuse they can use (weak/transparent, but technically valid), but at the very least a "scare" attempt or spanking action...the wh will likely just call it as unplanned change to a "gaggle" presser...other media outlets are waiting it out to see what's said but are ready to act in support..

[FanboyOf91]

my guess: trying to distract from this morning's fbi story...

 

(this is where you do real journalism, press corps members)

[Jumbo]

2 minutes ago, FanboyOf91 said:

my guess: trying to distract from this morning's fbi story...

 

(this is where you do real journalism, press corps members)

 

well, that story and the one of rigging intel to support the ban (and the continuing leaks) are what's prompting it, shirley

[The Evil Genius]

9 minutes ago, Jumbo said:

this is going here cuz it's related to cnn & ny times latest stories om fbi/wh/rooksies

 

 

don't have official explanation yet, but cnn, ny times, la times, politico, and other blocked from wh media briefing...

 

this isn't unprecedented---there is a built in excuse they can use (weak/transparent, but technically valid), but at the very least a "scare" attempt or spanking action...the wh will likely just call it as unplanned change to a "gaggle" presser...other media outlets are waiting it out to see what's said but are ready to act in support..

 

Official explanation?

 

How about the NYT and CNN were barred because the Trump team wants to control the media and it's message. Thus only right wing Trump friendly news messengers are allowed. 

When you are a mentally ill vindictive piece of **** acting as President, you're closest people do transparent **** like this. Eventually, the blowback is going to be epic. 

Edited February 24, 2017 by The Evil Genius

[Burgold]

27 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

Of course I'm also a firm believer in popular vote for the Presidential election. So what do I know. And agreed that the recall threshold would have to be high.

 

Elections are expensive as hell to hold. 

Me too. I have thought that the electoral college has been obsolete pretty much my whole adult life. I've felt that way when it went in my favor and against. I think with modern literacy, communication technology, and the ability for politicians to travel physically or virtually that most of the needs of the electoral college has been wiped away. 

 

I also don't buy that it protects the small states. The Presidency is an office for the whole nation. He is not meant to be beholden to any state's interests and instead look at issues through a national prism. The states' rights are to be protected via the Senate and the House. Those guys are supposed need to make sure their local constituencies needs are not forgotten or left behind.

12 minutes ago, Jumbo said:

this is going here cuz it's related to cnn & ny times latest stories om fbi/wh/rooksies

 

 

don't have official explanation yet, but cnn, ny times, la times, politico, and other blocked from wh media briefing...

 

this isn't unprecedented---there is a built in excuse they can use (weak/transparent, but technically valid), but at the very least a "scare" attempt or spanking action...the wh will likely just call it as unplanned change to a "gaggle" presser...other media outlets are waiting it out to see what's said but are ready to act in support..

Is it too soon to talk about an enemy's list or the desire of the state to control the means of propaganda instead of the dissemination of news?

[Bang]

the official explanation.:

~Bang

 

Edited February 24, 2017 by Bang

[Burgold]

1 hour ago, twa said:

I'm ashamed to say I did not recognize it as the Russian flag....even looked it up to be sure.

 

Sure ya didn't

[twa]

10 minutes ago, Burgold said:

Sure ya didn't

 

Even my vodka is made in Texas 

[FanboyOf91]

 

[Popeman38]

21 minutes ago, Burgold said:

Me too. I have thought that the electoral college has been obsolete pretty much my whole adult life. I've felt that way when it went in my favor and against. I think with modern literacy, communication technology, and the ability for politicians to travel physically or virtually that most of the needs of the electoral college has been wiped away. 

 

I also don't buy that it protects the small states. The Presidency is an office for the whole nation. He is not meant to be beholden to any state's interests and instead look at issues through a national prism. The states' rights are to be protected via the Senate and the House. Those guys are supposed need to make sure their local constituencies needs are not forgotten or left behind.

So, the Electoral College is obsolete because of modern technology, and the President shouldn't be beholden to any state's interests, but it would be perfectly acceptable to have a President elected solely by campaigning in the largest metropolitan areas and "friendly" states? Psst, we just watched that campaign, it was run by Hillary.

 

If the Electoral College goes away, NYC (8.2M), LA (3.8M), Chicago (2.7M), Houston (2.1M), Philly (1.6M), Phoenix (1.5M), San Antonio (1.4M), San Diego (1.4M), Dallas (1.3M), & San Jose (1.0M) account for 25M votes (at current turnout percent). That is 38% of the total votes Clinton got in the election.  A candidate could get elected by campaigning in the top 15 population centers and the top 5 friendly states.

 

Is that more representative of the country than what just happened? The electoral college is in place to prevent CA, OR, WA, NY, MA, IL, MD, VT, NH, ME, RI, NJ from deciding the election. Imagine if you lived in NE in that scenario. And don't say that would never happen, a candidate will do whatever is necessary to get elected. If only paying attention to the population centers got them elected, they would work to get as high a percent of that vote as possible and leave the sparsely populated areas alone. It happened over the last 18 months (look at where Hillary had campaign fundraisers and rallies). And the Electoral College prevented what I just described from happening.  

 

Methinks it is who won that has you bothered the most...

[The Evil Genius]

13 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

So, the Electoral College is obsolete because of modern technology, and the President shouldn't be beholden to any state's interests, but it would be perfectly acceptable to have a President elected solely by campaigning in the largest metropolitan areas and "friendly" states? Psst, we just watched that campaign, it was run by Hillary.

 

If the Electoral College goes away, NYC (8.2M), LA (3.8M), Chicago (2.7M), Houston (2.1M), Philly (1.6M), Phoenix (1.5M), San Antonio (1.4M), San Diego (1.4M), Dallas (1.3M), & San Jose (1.0M) account for 25M votes (at current turnout percent). That is 38% of the total votes Clinton got in the election.  A candidate could get elected by campaigning in the top 15 population centers and the top 5 friendly states.

 

Is that more representative of the country than what just happened? The electoral college is in place to prevent CA, OR, WA, NY, MA, IL, MD, VT, NH, ME, RI, NJ from deciding the election. Imagine if you lived in NE in that scenario. And don't say that would never happen, a candidate will do whatever is necessary to get elected. If only paying attention to the population centers got them elected, they would work to get as high a percent of that vote as possible and leave the sparsely populated areas alone. It happened over the last 18 months (look at where Hillary had campaign fundraisers and rallies). And the Electoral College prevented what I just described from happening.  

 

Methinks it is who won that has you bothered the most...

 

Yes. It's more representative because thats where the ****ing population lives. If 50%+ of the voting population lives in 25 cities..then that is representative of the US. 

 

800k people in bum**** Wyoming shouldn't have more presidential voting power than 30+ million people living in California. 

 

And why would candidates only campaign in those areas? Trump ignored California for the most part. Imagine if he actually wanted to improve the 4.5million votes he got there. He might actually go to that state.

The same with Dems in Texas..and deep southern/mid western states where every single vote could be important (unlike now where most states are out of play to one party).

Edited February 24, 2017 by The Evil Genius

[Why am I Mr. Pink?]

It appears the Russian flags were handed out by leftist activist Ryan Clayton.

 

 

 

 

 

I apologize for the large photos ...  but this Ryan Clayton guy is interesting. 

Edited February 24, 2017 by Why am I Mr. Pink?

[Bang]

1 hour ago, twa said:

I'm ashamed to say I did not recognize it as the Russian flag....even looked it up to be sure.

 

I can leave leeway for a mistake (no outta you on this.. you must have been drinking to not recognize it.)

But,, so many made this 'mistake'..   and none of them when being handed the flag made any stink about it.

So if its agitators, where are the confrontations. Hundreds of people handed Russian flags, and no one recognizes them? Impossible to swallow this.

Logic dictates that some did recognize it, and yet no backlash against what surely have been painted as agitators..  hell, we watch these rabid jackholes start violent confrontations over every perceived demonstration against their precious pumpkin..  and there is no reports i've seen of any confrontations over attendees being handed these flags.

 

There are only three conclusions that can be made

1. They know what they are, and waved them of their own volition

2. None of the people who waved them knew what they were.

3. They were handed obvious agitation tools by agitators, and not only did not do the usual attack, but went in and waved them.

 

~Bang

[Why am I Mr. Pink?]

Bang, I think the number of flags being waved/held were less than 15 and they were promptly collected. 

[Burgold]

Evil Genius basically took my answer. This election told two stories: the first is a warning to politicians who ignore rural areas. Look at Florida. Clinton won the population centers and lost the state. That moral would be true nationally without the EC. If states were not winner take all, but all pennies counted then any politician who focused exclusively on cities will lose. The other lesson of the election is that the voter's voice doesn't matter in an EC driven election. Trump lost the popular vote by millions. It makes no sense that he's the guy the country most wanted because he wasn't. 

 

Now, he won "fairly" because he gamed the system correctly and worked the rules to his advantage. Those rules I continue to believe are obsolete. 

[Popeman38]

Just now, The Evil Genius said:

 

Yes. It's more representative because thats where the ****ing population lives.

 

800k people in bum**** Wyoming shouldn't have more presidential voting power than 30+ million people living in California. 

 

And why would candidates only campaign in those areas? Trump ignored California for the most part. Imagine if he actually wanted to improve the 4.5million votes he got there. He might actually go to that state.

The same with Dems in Texas..and deep southern/mid western states where every single vote could be important (unlike now where most states are out of play to one party).

They DON'T! Wyoming has 3 EC votes (the literal minimum - 1 for Congress and 1 for each Senator). That is 1.1% of the 270 needed to win. California has 55 EC votes. That is 20.4% of the EC needed to win.  How did Wyoming overrule California?

 

Trump didn't campaign in CA because he had no shot of winning there. EVER. If you want to make the EC fair, make it proportional. Then the politicians would campaign EVERYWHERE because literally every vote will count.

[Bang]

2 minutes ago, Why am I Mr. Pink? said:

Bang, I think the number of flags being waved/held were less than 15 and they were promptly collected. 

I'll take your word for it.. the photo looks like more, but not too many more.

 

~Bang

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

3 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

If you want to make the EC fair, make it proportional. Then the politicians would campaign EVERYWHERE because literally every vote will count.

How would that work?

[The Evil Genius]

8 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

They DON'T! Wyoming has 3 EC votes (the literal minimum - 1 for Congress and 1 for each Senator). That is 1.1% of the 270 needed to win. California has 55 EC votes. That is 20.4% of the EC needed to win.  How did Wyoming overrule California?

 

Trump didn't campaign in CA because he had no shot of winning there. EVER. If you want to make the EC fair, make it proportional. Then the politicians would campaign EVERYWHERE because literally every vote will count.

 

Wyoming citizens (and not just voters) had 1 electoral college vote per 186k people (3 EC votes for a state pop of 560k). California has 1 electoral vote per 670k people (55EC votes in a state pop of 37+ million). <-- That was as of the 2010 census.

 

Individual Wyoming voters had at least 3x the electoral voting power as the California voter. That is, unless you want to assign 220 EC votes to California to balance the states populations.

 

 

 

Edited February 24, 2017 by The Evil Genius