Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Thursday November 17 2016, @07:33PM   Printer-friendly
from the what-is-your-vote-worth? dept.

Senator Boxer Introduces Bill to Eliminate Electoral College

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Senator-Boxer-to-Introduce-Bill-to-Eliminate-Electoral-College--401314945.html

"This is the only office in the land where you can get more votes and still lose the presidency," Boxer said in a statement. "The Electoral College is an outdated, undemocratic system that does not reflect our modern society, and it needs to change immediately. Every American should be guaranteed that their vote counts."

[...] "When all the ballots are counted, Hillary Clinton will have won the popular vote by a margin that could exceed two million votes, and she is on track to have received more votes than any other presidential candidate in history except Barack Obama," Boxer said.

Trump will be the fifth president in U.S. history to win the election despite losing the popular vote. George W. Bush won the most recent such election, in 2000.

Also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3wLQz-LgrM


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday November 17 2016, @07:37PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 17 2016, @07:37PM (#428282) Journal
    Ok, what's the offer in exchange for 30+ states reducing their voting power? And why is the popular vote more important than getting rid of first past the post?
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday November 17 2016, @07:42PM

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Thursday November 17 2016, @07:42PM (#428288) Journal

    If the Republican Party made some aggressive changes to credibly compete for the "minority majority" votes, the elimination of the Electoral College could backfire for the Democrats. Or at least make things "fair".

    But that seems like a lot of trouble when rural states currently hold an oversized influence on the Presidential election.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday November 17 2016, @09:22PM

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday November 17 2016, @09:22PM (#428375) Homepage Journal

      They wouldn't even need to do that. Consider how many Republican people in California or New York simply do not vote because they know their vote will be meaningless. Democrats don't do that, they're all about fighting pointless causes by their very nature.

      Also, there's the fact that absentee ballots aren't even counted unless they might make a difference in the outcome and the fact that absentee ballots are extremely heavily Republican, so there's a very good chance neither Gore nor Hillary actually won the popular vote.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @09:57PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @09:57PM (#428414)

        http://help.vote.org/article/8-are-absentee-ballots-counted [vote.org]

        "Are absentee ballots counted?

        Yes, all votes are counted, whether they're cast in-person or by absentee ballot.

        It is a common misconception that absentee ballots are only counted during very tight races. This misconception stems from two things: one, absentee ballots are often counted for days after the election since many are coming from abroad; two, absentee ballots are often a small percentage of all voted ballots. Many elections have a clear winner, so the absentee ballots that are still being counted after election night don't affect the results as predicted right after the polls close. As absentee voting becomes more popular, however, an increasing number of elections are decided by absentee ballots. "

        The fact that you exhibit such confident stupidity in political areas is a reason to doubt your judgement and "thinking" in others. I'm sure you don't understand this, but your displays of ignorance dissuade many people from becoming more involved in a site where your influence and presence is so heavy and heavy-handed.

        • (Score: 2, Disagree) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday November 17 2016, @10:48PM

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday November 17 2016, @10:48PM (#428449) Homepage Journal

          Neither, you just managed to find one of the rare occasions that I'm actually wrong. Congrats.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @01:57AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @01:57AM (#428556)

            Neither, you just managed to find one of the rare occasions that I'm actually wrong. Congrats.

            Actually, I've noticed that you show a stunning lack of understanding of many things you choose to pontificate on. No, I'm not going to bother to enumerate them for you. Suffice to say that you really ought to educate yourself before displaying your ignorance to the world. Remember: read, think, post. Do not change this order.

            • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 18 2016, @03:22AM

              by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday November 18 2016, @03:22AM (#428611) Homepage Journal

              Play devil's advocate to your own positions before you go claiming mine are wrong. I do. It's why your arguments are weak while mine can stand up to a site full of quite intelligent people. And, yes, we are talking opinions here mostly because you'll rarely find me factually incorrect.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @10:18PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @10:18PM (#428429)

        All absentee ballots are counted. [vote.org] (Although I've seen claims elsewhere that this varies by state.) At least by December. I was surprised to learn that they do in fact lean Republican (despite early voting leaning Democratic), but multiple sites do agree with that. Of course, it's difficult to measure how discouraged voters would vote; really with ~50% turnout, the election is a pretty poor measurement of what most Americans want.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @09:06AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @09:06AM (#428755)

          "As of Saturday, projections from the United States Elections Project show that there were 231,556,622 Americans eligible to vote, but 134,457,600 voted. That means that 42.1 percent didn't vote, while 58.1 percent did. The voter turnout will likely increase as the popular vote continues to be counted.Nov 10, 2016"

          2016 (58.1%) was the highest voter turnout since 1968. And in 1968, you had Vietnam war protests going on. Higher percentage of the population turned out to vote than when Obama first got elected.

          And although only 58.1% of the population voting is paltry, putting that into perspective makes a big difference.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections [wikipedia.org]

      • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @10:19PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @10:19PM (#428430)

        If democrats only vote for pointless causes then republicans only vote to increase authoritarian laws that deny freedom to others. See, others can play the black and white game too.

        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday November 17 2016, @10:42PM

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday November 17 2016, @10:42PM (#428443) Homepage Journal

          I see that you want to argue more than you care about what I actually said. We're not at home to pointless arguments at this time.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @01:38AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @01:38AM (#428550)

            I don't think he's arguing or out to pick a fight. He's simply calling you out on your strawman.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Dunbal on Thursday November 17 2016, @11:38PM

          by Dunbal (3515) on Thursday November 17 2016, @11:38PM (#428493)

          I'm trying to figure out how getting rid of regulations and cutting taxes is "authoritarian". Did you even HEAR what Trump was campaigning for? Or were you too busy thinking "omg he said he'd like to grab a girl by the pussy"?

          • (Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Friday November 18 2016, @02:22AM

            by TheGratefulNet (659) on Friday November 18 2016, @02:22AM (#428570)

            cutting taxes is dumb when we are so far behind in our infrastructure repairs, healthcare, education - you name it.

            raise taxes on the priv'd few (those one percenters) and keep it the same for the rest of us.

            taxes make a country WORK. no taxes and you end up with cops writing tickets just to pay for their own services; not to mention civil asset forfeiture.

            --
            "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
            • (Score: 4, Informative) by Dunbal on Friday November 18 2016, @02:57AM

              by Dunbal (3515) on Friday November 18 2016, @02:57AM (#428595)

              cutting taxes is dumb when we are so far behind in our infrastructure repairs, healthcare, education - you name it.

              Why don't you run the math on the deficit. Then you'll realize that the American taxpayer hasn't really been footing the bill for many, many, MANY years. The US government PRINTS most of the money it needs. Taxes don't cover it - not by a long shot. So cutting taxes just means they have to print a little more money. Ahhh... but cutting taxes also means you get to keep more of your money. Businesses can afford to hire more people, take more risks on new ideas, etc. The economy grows. And if spending is kept the same, then a growing economy eventually wipes out any deficit no matter how big it is.

              taxes make a country WORK.

              No. Taxes make a GOVERNMENT work. That's all very well when you have a perfect government that gets the most value for its money. The Pentagon alone misplaced 6 TRILLION dollars [cnn.com] last year. It's a pretty safe bet the most of the US government is literally SHITTING money and there is no accounting of where that money has gone EXCEPT it's a pretty safe bet the final destination has not been the bank accounts of the average US citizen.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @05:00AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @05:00AM (#428669)

                Ahhh... but cutting taxes also means you get to keep more of your money. Businesses can afford to hire more people, take more risks on new ideas, etc. The economy grows.

                Except tax cuts don't grow the economy [businessinsider.com], they weaken it, whereas higher taxes on corporations and the mega-wealthy lead to a stronger, more robust economy.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @11:07AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @11:07AM (#428787)

                  I'll take the experience of living through the Reagan years and the booming 80's over some economic theory. Economists can be wrong.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @07:05AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @07:05AM (#429322)

                    I'll take the experience of living through the Reagan years and the booming 80's over some economic theory.

                    Economics is complex. I won't deny that tax cuts can sometimes stimulate the economy, but the continuation of exclusively cutting taxes, and only for the wealthiest (which increases everyone else's tax burden), increases income inequality; moderate income inequality is fine, but eventually it becomes extreme enough that the whole system breaks, and thats where we're headed now.

                    A realistic, sensible tax policy would be based on research and evidence and would apply cuts or increases as necessary, whichever best fits the current situation and benefits the most, instead of today's absurd and unsustainable idea that the only thing that should be done with taxes is cutting them for the wealthiest of the wealthy (although whats really happening is that taxes are effectively being eliminated entirely for the wealthiest of the wealthy, leaving everyone else to pick up the tab, increasing income inequality; its unsustainable in the long term, but of course that's the next generation's problem, right?). There is no "One size fits all" solution to complex problems like the economy, we should be working to alter the political climate such that the best and most effective ideas can be used instead of everyone only dogmatically insisting on a single approach, one single solution, and then only trying that same solution even more extremely if it fails. Trickle-down and supply-side economics are unsustainable bullshit, but occasionally they might be the best short-term, temporary solution, and should be temporarily implemented if so but should not be the one and only, sole policy, pushed and pushed and pushed until everything breaks, like has been the case for decades. Politics and democracy only work through compromise, not despotically forcing your will and ideas on everyone else regardless of what they want or what would work best.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @08:39PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @08:39PM (#429095)

                The Pentagon alone misplaced 6 TRILLION dollars last year.

                I'm probably "on your side" here (taxation is theft and/or slavery), but it is impossible for "the Pentagon" to have misplaced "6 trillion dollars last year". The entire US federal budget is around 4 trillion per year [insidegov.com], and the entire DoD "only" gets around 0.7-0.8 trillion dollars a year.

                Accounting gimmicks to balance the books should not be used to "prove" that the fabric of reality has been warped.

            • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday November 18 2016, @03:57AM

              by Reziac (2489) on Friday November 18 2016, @03:57AM (#428634) Homepage

              Regulatory overreach costs the economy an estimated trillion dollars or so every year. Get rid of the needless regulations and that's a trillion dollars in business profits that falls from the sky -- all of it taxable, and I'd guess at a net revenue gain even after our highest-anywhere business taxes are cut to something rational.

              --
              And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
            • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @03:22PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @03:22PM (#428864)

              we're behind in our infrastructure repairs because the taxes are "given" to thieves, who, of course, don't spend it on what they are supposed to. regarding 1%ers: next it will be those damn 10%ers, then 50% ers. taxes make a country work? it should be quite obvious to anyone with any brains that the more money we give the government the worse shit gets. the cops go around stealing all day(when they're not too busy cracking heads) b/c they have been corrupted (enforcing unconstitutional laws, encouraged to revenue, commit fraud) by their thieving bosses(legislators) who are supposed to be kept in check by the people but the people are mindless slaves (like you). Paying income tax is sabotage.

          • (Score: 2) by tathra on Saturday November 19 2016, @06:12AM

            by tathra (3367) on Saturday November 19 2016, @06:12AM (#429302)

            Did you even HEAR what Trump was campaigning for?

            yes. his platform is: "Because I said so", so there's an outright declaration he's going to to be very authoritarian and do everything he can to force his will on everyone. that says "everyone must do everything the way i tell them to", micromanaging and regulating people's lives and trampling states' rights.

            here's 76 of his campaign promises [washingtonpost.com] and some highlighting of some of the unconstitutional, authoritarian, totalitarian, and outright despotic campaign promises (there's probably highly authoritarian stuff that i didn't identify too, probably some that i'm reaching a bit on, and i wont deny the possibility that i mis-identified some as authoritarian that are not, but there is absolutely an overwhelming authoritarian trend, and he also rates as the most authoritarian candidate [politicalcompass.org] we've had in a long time, or maybe ever):

            1. Build a wall along the southern border that's taller than the arenas where Trump holds his rallies, taller than any ladder and one foot taller than the Great Wall of China.
            2. Make Mexico pay for the wall.
            3. "If I become president, we're all going to be saying 'Merry Christmas' again." -- Regulating people's conversations
            4. Get rid of Common Core because it's "a disaster" and a "very bad thing."
            5. The Environmental Protection Agency might also disappear.
            6. Get rid of Obamacare and replace it with something "terrific" that is "so much better, so much better, so much better."
            7. Knock down the regulatory walls between states for health insurance, making plans available nationally instead of regionally.
            8. Rebuild the country's aging infrastructure -- especially bridges and airports that look like they belong in a third-world country -- for one-third of what the United States is currently paying for such projects.
            9. Save Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security without cutting benefits.
            10. Defund Planned Parenthood.
            11. "I will take care of women, and I have great respect for women. I do cherish women, and I will take care of women."
            12. Frequently use the term "radical Islamic terrorism."
            13. Temporarily ban most foreign Muslims from entering the United States "until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on." -- unconstitutional, discrimination based on religion
            14. Bar Syrian refugees from entering the country and kick out any who are already living here.
            15. Heavily surveil mosques in the United States. Trump has said he's open to the idea of closing some mosques. -- unconstitutional discrimination, unconstitutional surveillance, violation of separation of church and state and the first amendment
            16. Create a database of Syrian refugees. Trump hasn't ruled out creating a database of Muslims in the country. -- more unconstitutional discrimination
            17. Never take a vacation while serving as president.
            18. Prosecute Hillary Clinton for her use of a private e-mail server while serving as secretary of state. -- prosecuting his political rival, thats straight up despotism
            19. Make medical marijuana widely available to patients, and allow states to decide if they want to fully legalize pot or not.
            20. Stop spending money on space exploration until the United States can fix its potholes.
            21. Pick Supreme Court justices who are "really great legal scholars."
            22. Ensure that Iowa continues to host the nation's first presidential nominating contest. -- forcing his will on the states instead of letting them decide for themselves
            23. Strengthen the military so that it's "so big and so strong and so great" that "nobody's going to mess with us." -- more authoritarianism, and the active duty military is also unconstitutional, violating Article I Section 8
            24. Be unpredictable.
            25. Allow Russia to deal with the Islamic State in Syria and/or work with Russian President Vladimir Putin to wipe out shared enemies.
            26. "Bomb the s--- out of ISIS." Also bomb oil fields controlled by the Islamic State, then seize the oil and give the profits to military veterans who were wounded while fighting.
            27. Target and kill the relatives of terrorists. -- straight-up war crimes, also unconstitutional
            28. Shut down parts of the Internet so that Islamic State terrorists cannot use it to recruit American children. -- totalitarian censorship
            29. Bring back waterboarding, which the Obama administration considers torture. Trump has said he's willing to use interrogation techniques that go even further than waterboarding. Even if such tactics don't work, "they deserve it anyway, for what they're doing." -- totalitarian and straight-up war crimes
            30. Leave troops in Afghanistan because it's such "a mess." Protect Israel. And increase U.S. military presence in the East and South China Seas.
            31. Find an "out" clause in the Iran deal and then "totally" renegotiate the whole thing.
            32. "I promise I will never be in a bicycle race.
            33. Refuse to call Iran's leader by his preferred title.
            34. Negotiate the release of all U.S. prisoners held in Iran before taking office.
            35. Oppose the killing of journalists: "I hate some of these people, but I would never kill them."
            36. Find great generals -- like the next Gen. Patton or Gen. MacArthur -- and do not allow them to go onto television news shows to explain their military strategy: "I don't want my generals being interviewed, I want my generals kicking a--."
            37. Drop that "dirty, rotten traitor" Bowe Bergdahl out of an airplane into desolate Afghanistan without a parachute. -- there is nothing more authoritarian than state-sponsored executions, especially cruel and unusual and summary (unconstitutional and illegal) ones
            38. Fire "the corrupt and incompetent" leaders of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and dramatically reform the agency.
            39. Invest more heavily in programs that help military veterans transition back to civilian life, including job training and placement services.40. Bring back jobs from China -- and Mexico, Japan and elsewhere.
            41. "I will be the greatest jobs president that God ever created." -- sounds like he intends to have a very heavy, authoritarian hand in the economy
            42. Students at Wofford College in South Carolina, where Trump attended a town hall, will all have jobs at graduation. -- sounds like straight nepotism and abuse of power to me
            43. Aggressively challenge China's power in the world by declaring the country a currency manipulator, adopting a "zero tolerance policy on intellectual property theft and forced technology transfer" and cracking down on China's "lax labor and environmental standards." -- regulating and micromanaging what people are allowed to do with their own property
            44. Rather than throw the Chinese president a state dinner, buy him "a McDonald's hamburger and say we've got to get down to work."
            45. Replace "free trade" with "fair trade." Gather together the "smartest negotiators in the world," assign them each a country and renegotiate all foreign trade deals.
            46. Put billionaire hedge fund manager Carl Icahn in charge of trade negotiations with China and Japan, and pick an ambassador to Japan who is "a killer," unlike the current ambassador, Caroline Kennedy.
            47. Tell Ford Motor Co.'s president that unless he cancels plans to build a massive plant in Mexico, the company will face a 35 percent tax on cars imported back into the United States.
            48. Force Nabisco to once again make Oreos in the United States. And bully Apple into making its "damn computers" and other products here. -- forcing private companies to do as the federal government demands
            49. Impose new taxes on many imports into the country. Numbers thrown around have included 32 percent, 34 percent and 35 percent.
            50. Grow the nation's economy by at least 6 percent.
            51. Reduce the $18 trillion national debt by "vigorously eliminating waste, fraud and abuse in the federal government, ending redundant government programs and growing the economy to increase tax revenues."
            52. Cut the budget by 20 percent by simply renegotiating.
            53. Get rid of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
            54. Simplify the U.S. tax code and reduce the number of tax brackets from seven to four. The highest earners would pay a 25-percent tax. The corporate tax rate would fall to 15 percent. Eliminate the "marriage penalty" for taxpayers and get rid of the alternate minimum tax.
            55. No longer charge income tax to single individuals earning less than $25,000 per year or couples earning less than $50,000. These people will, however, be required to file a one-page form with the Internal Revenue Service that states: "I win."
            56. Ensure that Americans can still afford to golf. -- wat
            57. Allow corporations a one-time window to transfer money being held overseas, charging a much-reduced 10 percent tax.
            58. Get rid of most corporate tax loopholes or incentives, but continue to allow taxpayers to deduct mortgage interest and charitable donations from their taxes.
            59. On his first day in office, Trump would get rid of gun-free zones at military bases and in schools. -- micromanaging and regulating state or county localities, forcing them to do as the federal government demands instead of letting the states/localities decide such policies themselves
            60. Use "common sense" to fix the mental health system and prevent mass shootings. Find ways to arm more of the "good guys" like him who can take out the "sickos." Get rid of bans on certain types of guns and magazines so that "good, honest people" can own the guns of their choice. -- wat
            61. Impose a minimum sentence of five years in federal prison for any violent felon who commits a crime using a gun, with no chance for parole or early release. -- mandatory minimums are very authoritarian and highly ineffective
            62. Fix the background check system used when purchasing guns to ensure states are properly uploading criminal and health records.
            63. Allow concealed-carry permits to be recognized in all 50 states. -- forcing federal authority on the states instead of letting them decide such policies themselves (whatever happened to "states rights"?)
            64. Sign an executive order calling for the death penalty for anyone found guilty of killing a police officer. -- there is nothing more authoritarian than state-sponsored executions, also stripping away states' rights to create their own laws
            65. Provide more funding for police training. -- more expansion of federal authority trampling states' rights
            66. And provide more funding for drug treatment, especially for heroin addicts.
            67. On the first day in office, terminate President Obama's executive orders related to immigration. This includes getting rid of "sanctuary cities" that Trump says have become refuges for criminals. -- more trampling of states' rights
            68. Deport the almost 11 million immigrants illegally living in the United States. -- there is no constitutional way to identify illegal immigrants. "Papers please", warrantless stops/searches, and profiling/discrimination are all unacceptable and unconstitutional
            69. Triple the number of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers. -- increasing the police state
            70. Continue to allow lowly paid foreign workers to come to the United States on temporary works visas because Trump says they are the only ones who want to pick grapes. -- at least borderline human rights violations, allowing wages so far below a living wage and the minimum wage (plus doesn't this directly contradict his intention to deport all illegal immigrants?)
            71. End birthright citizenship. -- blatantly unconstitutional, birthright citizenship is explicitly stated in the 14th amendment
            72. Say things that are politically incorrect, because the country does not have time to waste with political correctness. -- wat (maybe somebody can finally define what "pc"/"politically correct" means? other than bigots being offended at being called out on their bigotry. fucking own up to it and stop crying about your feelings being hurt because society finds your beliefs that people different than you are subhuman scum repugnant.
            73. Make America great again -- and strong again, as it has become too weak. -- sounds pretty authoritarian and despotic
            74. Be a cheerleader for America and bring the country's spirit back. -- wat
            75. Bring back the American Dream. -- more expansion of federal overreach and trampling of states' rights?
            76. Start winning again. -- wat

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @03:25PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @03:25PM (#428867)

        Democrats fight pointless causes by their very nature?

        I sort of thought the same thing about far right leaning convservatives trying to shape the world to fit their view.

        Democrats often want to blemish this view; conservatives want to wipe the slate of all that they deem offensive to them. There is a differerence, and it relates to tolerance and empathy, something your comment seems to reflect.

        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 18 2016, @04:49PM

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday November 18 2016, @04:49PM (#428925) Homepage Journal

          Have you met a feminist lately? The qualities of tolerance and empathy are not within them. At all. And, unlike the evangelicals on the Republican side, feminists are not a minority within the Democrats.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @07:17AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @07:17AM (#429325)

            Have you met a feminist lately? The qualities of tolerance and empathy are not within them. At all.

            Misandrists are not feminists. Stop conflating the two to demonize ideas and movements you don't like, such as gender equality.

  • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @07:44PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @07:44PM (#428289)

    Because Hillary Won, dude! Don't make me Calexit on your ass, bro! I'm, like, fucking important, because social media and shit!

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @08:08PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @08:08PM (#428317)

    First past the post is the real problem. We need a decent voting system like range voting so that we can truly democratically elect representatives. The existence of something like the electoral college is not necessarily a problem. Just getting rid of the electoral college with solve nothing, but the main parties don't want to implement the actual changes we so desperately need because it would open the door to a multi-party system and would therefore their power.

    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday November 17 2016, @08:18PM

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Thursday November 17 2016, @08:18PM (#428323) Journal

      https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=16557&cid=428316#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]

      Nice, we posted that within in a minute of each other.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @09:58PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @09:58PM (#428415)

      Along with Feinstein and Pelosi (And I am sure many others.)

      Honestly the only D I've been rooting for recently has been Wyden, because he actually seems to care about issues that are important to me and the internet community in general. Too bad I don't get to vote for him. The rest of them though are throwing us under the bus (Too many big business+authoritarian D's nowadays.)

      • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday November 18 2016, @04:08AM

        by Reziac (2489) on Friday November 18 2016, @04:08AM (#428639) Homepage

        Yep, having watched her entire career, my first thought was "It's Boxer, so it has to be a bad bill".

        --
        And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
      • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday November 18 2016, @05:50PM

        by Grishnakh (2831) on Friday November 18 2016, @05:50PM (#428963)

        Well I rooted for Bernie in the primaries, but he wasn't exactly a "real" Democrat either.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @08:15PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @08:15PM (#428321)

    > And why is the popular vote more important than getting rid of first past the post?

    Do we believe in the principle of one-man one-vote or not?

    Because if we do not, then go ahead, keep it so that some votes count more than other votes.

    Funny thing about the electoral college, if it is such a great idea, why is it only for the presidential election? Why don't any states have an electoral college for their governors or us senators. Why does the office of the president the only one to get an exception from direct democracy?

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @08:31PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @08:31PM (#428333)

      Do we believe in the principle of one-man one-vote or not?

      Go ask your Congressman, maybe he can clue you in on that whole representative government thing.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @08:38PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @08:38PM (#428342)

        That's a non-sequitur. Congress is representative, but the electoral college isn't. State electors don't ever make their own decisions, they just vote whatever the popular vote results were. Technically they could vote however they felt like, though in about half the states that would be illegal and if it happened in any other states there would be a category 5 shitstorm.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @09:08PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @09:08PM (#428367)

          From Wiki, because it's about all the amount of effort that it's worth:

          The Constitution gives each state legislature the power to decide how its state's electors are chosen[66] and it can be easier and cheaper for a state legislature to simply appoint a slate of electors than to create a legislative framework for holding elections to determine the electors. As noted above, the two situations in which legislative choice has been used since the Civil War have both been because there was not enough time or money to prepare for an election. However, appointment by state legislature can have negative consequences: bicameral legislatures can deadlock more easily than the electorate. This is precisely what happened to New York in 1789 when the legislature failed to appoint any electors.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by TheGratefulNet on Friday November 18 2016, @02:24AM

        by TheGratefulNet (659) on Friday November 18 2016, @02:24AM (#428572)

        congress represents business interests.

        they stopped caring about us LONG time ago.

        --
        "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
        • (Score: 2) by fliptop on Friday November 18 2016, @04:29PM

          by fliptop (1666) on Friday November 18 2016, @04:29PM (#428910) Journal

          congress represents business interests

          Well, businesses do pay taxes too.

          --
          Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
          • (Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Friday November 18 2016, @08:08PM

            by Fauxlosopher (4804) on Friday November 18 2016, @08:08PM (#429079) Journal

            Well, businesses do pay taxes too.

            US federal budget [cbpp.org] income sources [taxpolicycenter.org]:
            Excise, tariff, etc.: ~9%
            Corporate/business: ~11%
            Individuals: ~80%

            B-b-b-uhwait!, you say? Individuals only fund ~47% because businesses pay the matching/payroll tax? WRONG. Businesses pay workers what they figure to be a profitable wage for the business based on the usefulness of the worker. The wage is simple algebra: take-home wages (x), total wages (a), "business" payroll taxes (b), and employee payroll taxes (c): x = a - (b + c). "Matching payroll taxes" the "business pays" are indistinguishable from other wage costs - the total cost is what is being considered when offering an employee's wage. Therefore, businesses do not pay "payroll taxes" - the workers do!

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday November 17 2016, @09:31PM

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday November 17 2016, @09:31PM (#428386) Homepage Journal

      Do we believe in the principle of one-man one-vote or not?

      No, we do not. We very specifically do not. By design.

      See, you seem to be under the misapprehension that the United States is one nation. We're not. We're one empire made up of fifty nations (and a few territories). Without the Electoral College, you'd be left with New York, Illinois, and California in your empire because the rest of us would have looked at the relative population values and said fuck a bunch of this union thing. Remember that when you're eating dinner that was grown in those fly-over states this evening.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @09:40PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @09:40PM (#428399)

        You seem to be confusing the senate with the presidency.

        > fly-over states '

        I live in a "fly over state." I don't even live in a big city. And you know what? The only people I ever hear use that phrase are whiners with persecution complexes. toughen up, stop projecting your insecurities on other people and own your shit crybaby

        • (Score: 1, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday November 17 2016, @10:51PM

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday November 17 2016, @10:51PM (#428451) Homepage Journal

          You don't listen to many libtards then. They know nothing and care less about anything not on a coast.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @11:26PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @11:26PM (#428485)

            Lol. I am a "libtard."
            Own your shit crybaby

        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by frojack on Friday November 18 2016, @12:03AM

          by frojack (1554) on Friday November 18 2016, @12:03AM (#428507) Journal

          I ever hear use that phrase are whiners with persecution complexes.

          That's because the people that invented the phrase, and still use it, would never stop in your little burg - even if the plane was on fire.

          Its real, very real. I've got relatives on both coasts that actually think the rest of the country exists only to grow food for them.

          --
          No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
          • (Score: 5, Touché) by Reziac on Friday November 18 2016, @04:02AM

            by Reziac (2489) on Friday November 18 2016, @04:02AM (#428637) Homepage

            This is a patent lie, since they actually have NO idea where their food is grown.

            Signed, a flyover redneck

            ;)

            --
            And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
            • (Score: 3, Funny) by hemocyanin on Friday November 18 2016, @04:43AM

              by hemocyanin (186) on Friday November 18 2016, @04:43AM (#428661) Journal

              Darn it -- ran out of mod points by the time I got to you. Virtual +1 funny.

              • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday November 18 2016, @04:59AM

                by Reziac (2489) on Friday November 18 2016, @04:59AM (#428667) Homepage

                [bowing] We here knows where the eats is, cuz we's got forks in the road... ;)

                --
                And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
            • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday November 18 2016, @10:26AM

              by Phoenix666 (552) on Friday November 18 2016, @10:26AM (#428776) Journal

              Pshaw! Yes, they do. Food is grown at Zabar's [zabars.com].

              --
              Washington DC delenda est.
              • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday November 18 2016, @02:24PM

                by Reziac (2489) on Friday November 18 2016, @02:24PM (#428827) Homepage

                Who knew??! My goodness, they're really expert at it -- look at those prices!

                The bones of a conversation I had *twice* while living in SoCal, with nominal adults of apparently-average education:

                Them (munching hamburger): Killing animals is wrong!
                Me: So where'd you get that hamburger??
                Them: McDonald's.

                *facepalm*

                --
                And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
          • (Score: 2) by darkfeline on Friday November 18 2016, @06:21AM

            by darkfeline (1030) on Friday November 18 2016, @06:21AM (#428712) Homepage

            >its real, very real
            >trust me, I've got anecdotal evidence

            Here's some competing anecdotal evidence. I grew up on the west coast, went to college on the east coast. I've had exposure to both the (middle-ish class) ivory tower and the plebeian masses (high school with sea level graduation rates). Yet the first time I heard the term "fly over state" was during this election cycle.

            --
            Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
          • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday November 18 2016, @10:24AM

            by Phoenix666 (552) on Friday November 18 2016, @10:24AM (#428775) Journal

            I've never gotten that attitude from the West Coast. Washington and Oregon have too much exchange with Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Nevada, and Utah through blood ties, frequent travel, etc. California's a little different. There you have to break out the Bay Area, LA, and San Diego from the rest of the state. Its north, central valley, and east are like the rest of the West. The Bay Area, LA, and San Diego are not so much dismissive of the rest of the country as self-absorbed.

            People in the Northeast are broadly dismissive of the rest of the country, with slight allowances made for the economic and population might of the aforementioned urban areas in California, and a faint footnote for Seattle.

            --
            Washington DC delenda est.
        • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday November 18 2016, @10:14AM

          by Phoenix666 (552) on Friday November 18 2016, @10:14AM (#428771) Journal

          I live in Brooklyn and hear East Coast natives use the term "fly-over country" with frequency. I grew up in the West and spent my childhood travelling to see relatives in Washington, Oregon, California, and the rest of the intermountain West. I even spent a good bit of time in Texas and the Deep South. But I never even heard of the concept of "Fly-over country" until I went to college in Chicago and my roommate from Philadelphia used it in orientation week; it was a concept that none of us Westerners or MidWesterners seemed to know, but which the people from New Jersey, New York, New England, and DC all did--they used it reflexively.

          --
          Washington DC delenda est.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @09:47PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @09:47PM (#428408)

        We could import food from anywhere but your State. You're welcome to compete on agriculture in the free market though.

        • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday November 17 2016, @10:49PM

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday November 17 2016, @10:49PM (#428450) Homepage Journal

          You realize you'd be paying out the ass no matter which state you bought from, yes? They'd have you over a barrel and damned well know it because without them you starve and die.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 4, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Friday November 18 2016, @04:47AM

          by hemocyanin (186) on Friday November 18 2016, @04:47AM (#428663) Journal

          So you have the rightish view with Buzzard, let me give you the lefty view.

          Whenever you grow a population density so thick it can't feed itself, it will take what it needs from those surrounding it. The pillage will extend as far and wide as required to sate the city's needs. In other words, cities, for all their faux-progressives, are founded on violence, fueled by violence, and sustained by violence.

      • (Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Thursday November 17 2016, @10:42PM

        by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Thursday November 17 2016, @10:42PM (#428442)

        Remember that when you're eating dinner that was grown in those fly-over states this evening.

        The only reason any major amount of food is grown in flyover states is because the Federal government subsidizes it. This lets the real estate developers can have at the prime real estate in northeastern states like NY, NJ, CT, etc., eliminating a lot of the farms that were once producing the majority of foods for eastern markets. Eventually historians will recognize this as one of our great blunders. The ironic thing is that those northeastern states are paying the lion's share of the subsidies, they invariably pay more in taxes than the government spends there, while the red states almost invariably take in more than they pay out.

        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday November 17 2016, @10:53PM

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday November 17 2016, @10:53PM (#428452) Homepage Journal

          You don't think it might have something to do with the northeast being physically incapable of supplying NYC alone?

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Thursday November 17 2016, @11:14PM

            by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Thursday November 17 2016, @11:14PM (#428477)

            They managed fine for almost a couple centuries. NJ was not nicknamed the Garden State for nothing.

            • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday November 17 2016, @11:53PM

              by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday November 17 2016, @11:53PM (#428502) Homepage Journal

              Yeah, there was a time it was possible. Urban expansion over the last century put the last nail in that coffin very, very thoroughly though.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
              • (Score: 2) by Geotti on Friday November 18 2016, @12:48AM

                by Geotti (1146) on Friday November 18 2016, @12:48AM (#428530) Journal

                With advances in vertical farming, aeroponics, & co. you could probably build a few skyscraper-farms and be okay, probably; even if that'd be quite expensive at first.

                • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 18 2016, @03:37AM

                  by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday November 18 2016, @03:37AM (#428621) Homepage Journal

                  Interesting idea. Not currently economically viable I wouldn't think but in the hypothetically split union it might be. The few blue states certainly wouldn't be getting good prices from the red for simple supply and demand reasons.

                  California? It'd empty very quickly. One word: water. The price for a gallon of potable water would be through the roof because of the demand and the lack of regulations keeping the price down. See, California does have a lot of farmland but what happens to it when the crops can't be watered, or can be but at a much higher cost? Food prices go through the roof as well. Food and water prices going through the roof increases the minimum monthly income necessary to even survive in California. Now poor people can't afford to live there and either leave or demand more money from their employers, so labor costs go way up. Now businesses have to deal with drastically increased labor costs as well as resource costs and start looking for greener pastures. California would lose half its population and much of its economic base inside four years.

                  --
                  My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                  • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday November 18 2016, @10:38AM

                    by Phoenix666 (552) on Friday November 18 2016, @10:38AM (#428778) Journal

                    That's true under the current system of water supply. I'm pretty sure California could figure out mass desalinization quickly if their feet were held to the fire.

                    --
                    Washington DC delenda est.
                    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 18 2016, @11:21AM

                      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday November 18 2016, @11:21AM (#428791) Homepage Journal

                      Quickly enough and cheaply enough? I'm fairly dubious.

                      --
                      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                      • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday November 18 2016, @02:58PM

                        by Phoenix666 (552) on Friday November 18 2016, @02:58PM (#428849) Journal

                        When the alternative is dying of thirst, the "cheap enough" calculus changes quite a bit. Also, since dying of thirst only takes 3 days, "quickly enough" would have a good deal of pressure behind it.

                        So, bye-bye Mono Lake, hello massive chain of nuclear power plants powering desalinization plants.

                        I do think if it had proper motivation, California could figure it out since they do have enough economic power and enough of a brain trust in Silicon Valley.

                        --
                        Washington DC delenda est.
                  • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Saturday November 19 2016, @01:56AM

                    by Reziac (2489) on Saturday November 19 2016, @01:56AM (#429230) Homepage

                    True about CA in the present political climate. But more than enough rain and snow fall on the Sierras to supply the state -- if only it was stored, rather than allowed to flow into the ocean. Of course, they'd have to construct a lot more dams.

                    --
                    And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
          • (Score: 4, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Friday November 18 2016, @10:35AM

            by Phoenix666 (552) on Friday November 18 2016, @10:35AM (#428777) Journal

            It's astonishing how much of the northeast has to be tasked just with trucking food and supplies in and out of NYC alone. Once you cross the George Washington Bridge or come up in New Jersey through the Lincoln or Holland tunnels, New Jersey is nothing but mile after endless mile of container depots and shipping operations and transfer stations. New Yorkers themselves have little idea of the vast machinery that has to operate to supply their comfortable lifestyles.

            --
            Washington DC delenda est.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @09:46PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @09:46PM (#428407)

      Do we believe in the principle of one-man one-vote or not?

      No. You should be able to vote for as many candidates as you like, because otherwise we end up with a terrible two party system. Also, the electoral college could be fixed by simply handing out electoral votes proportionally and giving each state the same number of electors.

      Why does the office of the president the only one to get an exception from direct democracy?

      Electing representatives via a popular vote is not direct democracy, as you're still electing a representative who is subject to checks and balances. This kind of false "direct democracy" is not nearly as dangerous as the mob rule type of direct democracy where the majority holds absolute power. It seems that "direct democracy" has become (and has been for a long time) a scare term, and things that don't really qualify as direct democracy are misidentified as such.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @10:14PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @10:14PM (#428427)

        > Electing representatives via a popular vote is not direct democracy, as you're still electing a representative who is subject to checks and balances.

        Technical objection noted. But so what?
        The important question is why are all other offices selected by popular vote but the presidency is not.
        What value does that provide?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @08:54PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @08:54PM (#429108)

          The important question is why are all other offices selected by popular vote but the presidency is not. What value does that provide?

          Almost none. Repeal the 17th Amendment [wikipedia.org].

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 18 2016, @02:00PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 18 2016, @02:00PM (#428820) Journal

      Do we believe in the principle of one-man one-vote or not?

      No. And this isn't the only exception. I don't believe in it for share holder voting for corporations either.

      Funny thing about the electoral college, if it is such a great idea, why is it only for the presidential election? Why don't any states have an electoral college for their governors or us senators. Why does the office of the president the only one to get an exception from direct democracy?

      Because it gives power to the states. You know that counterweight to federal power that has been steadily weakening for over a century? A move to popular vote means yet another nail in the coffin of state power.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by edIII on Thursday November 17 2016, @09:01PM

    by edIII (791) on Thursday November 17 2016, @09:01PM (#428357)

    The popular vote actually represents what we fucking want, or actual democracy. The EC and gerrymandering are the ways they control the election. They being the two major parties in charge.

    Don't be a fucking fool. You damn well know there are much better ways of voting in the world, and we can get rid of something that doesn't respect the popular vote. You're a true piece of shit, but I'm betting you didn't vote for either Hillary or Trump. Wouldn't have been nice to not have your vote thrown away, but more involved in an intelligent voting process demonstrated by other advanced countries doing objectively better than us?

    I don't want a vote for ending the EC anyways. I want a vote to end the U.S.A, and the ability to do so is right in the Declaration Of Indepedence.

    It's high time we wrote a new one, listed our greivances, and then reformed the government under a new Constitution after a hopefully bloodless revolution based on petitions, votes, and signatories to the new Declaration of Independence.

    Guess what, monkey butt? :D

    The popular vote shows that as a nation, the 51% that voted not for Hillary, but for Progressive policies. I'm pretty sure after feeling this burned, and watching the institutions we rely on set for destruction by ignorant hateful New Republicans, that the nation is ready for REVOLUTION.

    It begins with a document. Thankfully, we already have a template :)

    --
    Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @09:26PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @09:26PM (#428378)

      The popular vote actually represents what we fucking want

      No, it represents what only the most populace regions want. You know, if we went to a straight-up popular vote system, the country would be at the whim of those evil "coastal elites" that apparently is such a slur this cycle. Ironically, it would actually improve the lives of those in "fly over" country because they always vote against their interests by voting red, so that's probably a good thing.

      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday November 17 2016, @09:36PM

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday November 17 2016, @09:36PM (#428394) Homepage Journal

        because they always vote against their interests by voting red

        I know, right? How fucked up is it that they vote principle instead of to line their pockets at the expense of others?

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @09:58PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @09:58PM (#428416)

          What "principles"? These principles change every election cycle, remarkably and coincidentally they jibe with whatever the "crisis" that the Republican National Committee says is going on. And that "principle" term gets pasted onto EVERYTHING. Most normal and rational people have principles that are things like "honesty" and "modesty". Did you know there are basic fundamental principles for such things as "illegal immigration", "lower taxes", "non-unionization"? I had no ideas these were fundamental, core principles. Somehow I have a hard time finding "Thou shall not unionize" in the Bible.

          The majority of those who vote in the red states vote the way they do because they are told that voting otherwise would violate their principles. If only they were wise enough to actually reflect upon what their true principles were , they wouldn't be taken in by all the horseshit they're fed and they might actually get some real representation in Congress. Or, if they want to keep sticking to whatever they're claiming are their principles this year, at least be consistent. Don't cry about your "small government" principles for cutting social programs while at the same time pitching a fit if anyone has the temerity to touch your farm subsidies. They're not subsidies or handouts when they are given to YOU, but they are godless socialism when given to ME.

          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday November 17 2016, @10:44PM

            by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday November 17 2016, @10:44PM (#428445) Homepage Journal

            What "principles"?

            If you don't know, how do you justify voting against them?

            --
            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @03:20AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @03:20AM (#428608)

              Wonderful response, very informative. From what I know of those "principles" you want to promote jobs (the only decent principle) and take away the rights of other human beings. Short sighted selfish principles, very admiral.

              • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 18 2016, @03:43AM

                by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday November 18 2016, @03:43AM (#428625) Homepage Journal

                Then educate yourself, because you have no clue why Republicans believe what they believe. And stop saying "you". I'm not a Republican.

                --
                My rights don't end where your fear begins.
              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 18 2016, @06:13PM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 18 2016, @06:13PM (#428983) Journal

                From what I know of those "principles" you want to promote jobs (the only decent principle) and take away the rights of other human beings. Short sighted selfish principles, very admiral.

                Doesn't sound like you know enough to be relevant to this conversation. I'm siding with TMB on this one.

          • (Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Friday November 18 2016, @02:31AM

            by TheGratefulNet (659) on Friday November 18 2016, @02:31AM (#428576)

            religion.

            it grabs the red states by - well - by the pussy.

            and those idiots ALWAYS fall for it. their church leaders (bought for by the red party) tell them how to vote and the stupid sheep just abide.

            its JUST that simple.

            and just that WRONG for the country.

            religion runs the red group and it never should have been that way. but they were co-opted and too stupid to realize they were conned.

            --
            "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
            • (Score: 2) by fritsd on Friday November 18 2016, @03:09PM

              by fritsd (4586) on Friday November 18 2016, @03:09PM (#428858) Journal

              In the old days in the Netherlands we had a Farmers' party [wikipedia.org] (socially very conservative, economically centre-right, "Party of the Strict Christians" so to speak) and a Liberal party (socially liberal, economically right, "Party of the Rich").

              Using those two as basis vectors you can draw any point in the { conservative, right } quadrant of the political compass. A party for farmers and a different party for factory owners.

              Now the Boerenpartij has been absorbed into the CDA (Christian Democrats).

              Using only one basis vector, like "the Republicans" in the USA, all you can draw is a line. If I was a God-fearing hard-working farmer in a red state, I'd want to vote for the farmers' party, not for the bloody right-wing liberal city slickers. What have the Romans ever done for us? (Except aquaducts etc. etc.)

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @05:07PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @05:07PM (#428929)

              their church leaders (bought for by the red party) tell them how to vote and the stupid sheep just abide.

              Wrong. In mainline Protestantism a Pastor who doesn't promulgate the points of view held by the majority of the super-contributors of the congregation does not last long as a Pastor in that pulpit. With very few exceptions, clergy serve at the pleasure of the congregation; Pastors almost never own the building and land where the church is. So the church leaders are actually telling the voters what they have already wanted to hear, if they get partisan at all (which is actually pretty rare as that can jeopardize the congregation's nonprofit status.)

              Next time, know before you write.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @06:40PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @06:40PM (#428998)

                Wrong. In mainline Protestantism a Pastor who doesn't promulgate the points of view held by the majority of the super-contributors of the congregation does not last long as a Pastor in that pulpit. With very few exceptions, clergy serve at the pleasure of the congregation; Pastors almost never own the building and land where the church is.

                Almost, but not quite. As you say, pastors don't actually own the building or the land. (I believe a caveat should be added for many of the mega-churches run by the prosperity gospel types: while the pastor doesn't actually own the property, they typically do exercise an outsized amount of control.) Contrary to your assertion, pastors don't serve solely "at the pleasure of the congregation". That may be true in large part in more Congregational forms of church polity (e.g., Congregationalists, Methodists, Baptists, et al.). However, for other more hierarchical denominations it gets quite a bit more complicated (e.g., Anglicans, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Presbyterians, etc.) Of course, that doesn't mean that individual congregations in those hierarchical denominations are without recourse to bring concerns about their pastor to the attention of the Bishop (or the presbytery, etc.). And, yes, the Bishop (or the presbytery) will act when they are presented with problems more substantive than "I don't like that guy". On the other hand, the congregation can make life a living hell for an unpopular pastor, no matter what the denominational polity.

                Next time, you should heed your own advice to "know before you write".

        • (Score: 5, Informative) by edIII on Thursday November 17 2016, @10:41PM

          by edIII (791) on Thursday November 17 2016, @10:41PM (#428441)

          Those principles are fairly reprehensible though. The 2016 Republican Party Platform reads like a white nationalist movement utterly filled with hate for the other half of America, immigrants, LQBTQ, liberals, Democrats, etc.

          I'm extremely curious how you can get behind any of those principles. So no, those aren't principles. They vote for their interests. Not principled interests, but just interests.

          By all means, please defend some of these interests for us please. I'd love to see somebody pick apart those interests and explain how they're not filled with hate and ignorance.

          The only Republican principle at play this year has been obstruction at all costs, zero cooperation, and the desire to destroy all the institutions of America and remove all safety nets.

          I'm not trying to attack you, but I cannot understand, or accept, that the choices of Republicans this election were well principled. This, in addition to their designs to bring back internment camps, is what is fueling a revolution under way.

          --
          Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday November 17 2016, @10:59PM

            by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday November 17 2016, @10:59PM (#428458) Homepage Journal

            ed, ed, ed... Who told you this? You really should consider the source and their motivations before you go believing things.

            I mean, should I believe you're either in a mcmansion in beverly hills sipping wine and enjoying the smell of your own farts? Maybe I should believe you're living at home with mom who's still scamming welfare to pay for you. Maybe you're a college kid who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground but spends daddy's money getting high, ditching class, and arguing against free speech. Or maybe you're an illegal immigrant or convicted felon.

            Do you really think you should go believing the caricatures created with the express purpose of demonizing anyone who doesn't agree with your team? Is this what a thinking human being does or is it what a sheep does?

            --
            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
            • (Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Friday November 18 2016, @12:08AM

              by edIII (791) on Friday November 18 2016, @12:08AM (#428510)

              TMB, TMB, TMB, no I get my information directly from the Republican Party. It's the platform chosen by Republicans, just like the Democratic Platform was rewritten this year by Progressives taking over the party. Are you saying the news outlets directly misrepresented the exact words of the platform in question? I agree that the sources of information and their accuracy are extremely important, and I'm no sheep, nor have I ever been one. What caricatures do you speak of? The Republican Party voted on their platform of hate, and this is the result [gop.com]. Direct from their mouths, so how do I have misinformation, or how have been mislead as a sheep?

              There are no teams. Just Americans all in this together. It's not that my "team" lost, which was never my "team", but simply embraced enough of the well principled goals that I can understand, agree with, and passionately get behind. Make no mistake, I'm a team of one person, and a culture of one person. Would the Republican Party have had much of the same goals, and have hate removed from it (The religious bullshit and anti-LGBTQ), I would be a Republican in that I would have supported the goals between us that were aligned.

              The Red states simply voted out of fear and hatred. Fear of the American worker losing even more than we've lost in that last 40 years, and the hatred directly stoked by Trump against immigrants and the "theys" that are responsible for the fetid hell that is the existence of the American worker. Never before has there been as much hate.

              No, I cannot see well principled goals, as directly promulgated by the Republican Party. Which is why I asked to have them explained, especially with regards to how they can possibly be well principled goals and not just acts of hate and avarice in America.

              There is nothing moral about the Republican Party at the moment, and nearly every part of the platform I deeply feel would have offended Jesus Christ, who the Republicans just love so gosh darned much. I'm not a Christian, but damn, the goals that have been promoted are anything but spiritually aligned. All of the other goals are transparent money grabs for further privatization, which has only turned out to be bad for the American worker.

              Again, I don't see principles in action right now, but just fear, hate, and the avarice of those manipulating the angry unwashed masses in the Red states, that are just as equally fucked as the Blue states, but cannot see those that are truly responsible for it.

              --
              Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
              • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 18 2016, @12:37AM

                by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday November 18 2016, @12:37AM (#428517) Homepage Journal

                All I can think then is that you're suffering from a severe case of confirmation bias; only seeing what you want to see and flat out ignoring anything that doesn't fit. This saddens me to see in any of the SN community.

                --
                My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @02:30AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @02:30AM (#428575)

                  All I can think then is that you're suffering from a severe case of confirmation bias; only seeing what you want to see and flat out ignoring anything that doesn't fit. This saddens me to see in any of the SN community.

                  Actually, I'm one of those conservative evangelical Christians that Republicans are supposedly trying to court and I largely agree with ed, particularly on this point:

                  There is nothing moral about the Republican Party at the moment, and nearly every part of the platform I deeply feel would have offended Jesus Christ, who the Republicans just love so gosh darned much. I'm not a Christian, but damn, the goals that have been promoted are anything but spiritually aligned. All of the other goals are transparent money grabs for further privatization, which has only turned out to be bad for the American worker.

                  Plus, we should point out the obvious: their candidate for President this election cycle is a travesty (and the VP pick is not much better). It pains me no end to consider that somewhere around 80% of evangelicals actually voted for Trump, a man who has openly sneered at just about everything I hold dear as a Christian; he shares nothing of my values. It actually makes me ill to think the people I sit next to in church most likely voted for him. A woman at church had been talking prior to this election about "God's people voting for God's principles". Excuse me?!? God's principles? Where are you seeing that on your ballot? Because I am sure not seeing it on mine! Certainly not on the Republican ticket! Right now I feel I need a new religious label because the old "evangelical" label has been hijacked by a bunch of jack-booted thugs. I just wonder how long it will take my spiritual brethren to notice too.

                  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 18 2016, @03:18AM

                    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday November 18 2016, @03:18AM (#428607) Homepage Journal

                    There wasn't much of a choice for them this time around. Either the most corrupt and outright criminal person to ever run for the office or Trump with all his baggage. They did what they felt they had to do.

                    This all has nothing whatsoever to do with the EC though, so I'm going to drop myself from the discussion.

                    --
                    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                  • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday November 18 2016, @06:00PM

                    by Grishnakh (2831) on Friday November 18 2016, @06:00PM (#428974)

                    A woman at church had been talking prior to this election about "God's people voting for God's principles". Excuse me?!? God's principles? Where are you seeing that on your ballot? Because I am sure not seeing it on mine!

                    And did you point this out to her, publicly?

                    This is why Christians are such horrible people. It's like cops who refuse to take a stand against the bad cops. Christians are all represented by the very worst Christians, because they're the loud-mouths who push their morally repugnant values publicly, and the ones who disagree just stand silently, and continue to attend the same churches as them, in effect acting in solidarity.

                    • (Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Friday November 18 2016, @09:08PM

                      by Fauxlosopher (4804) on Friday November 18 2016, @09:08PM (#429113) Journal

                      And did you point this out to her, publicly? This is why Christians are such horrible people. It's like cops who refuse to take a stand against the bad cops.

                      Christians who do this in churches get letters from the "higher ups" telling them to stop because it could jeopardize their 501c3 tax-exempt status. Not only have I heard about this practice from far-away reports, but a close personal friend of mine also was given just such a letter. This is no reason to stop calling out political lies in churches, but it is definitely an inhibition. Sadly, most humans, Christian or otherwise, are not legendary heroes in waiting.

                      • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday November 18 2016, @09:26PM

                        by Grishnakh (2831) on Friday November 18 2016, @09:26PM (#429120)

                        I'm not arguing with you, but how does calling out political lies jeopardize their tax-exempt status, but the person making political lies to begin with isn't also jeopardizing them?

                        I agree about most humans not being heroes in waiting, but Christians are always claiming that they have moral superiority, that they have some calling to be better, etc. But instead, they're at least as bad as everyone else, and in fact, they're usually much worse, with a very few gems hidden in with all the turds. So why bother with the whole charade? It seems to me that, most of the time, church-going is really for people who actually need someone threatening divine consequences if they don't act right, and can't seem to figure out how to act decent on their own. Apparently that whole "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is just too complicated for many people and needs to be drilled into their head every week. The problem, of course, is that most churches don't teach this at all, and instead teach a bunch of right-wing BS about how God loves rich people more or that taxes are evil or something.

                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @09:51PM

                          by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @09:51PM (#429134)

                          I'm not arguing with you, but how does calling out political lies jeopardize their tax-exempt status, but the person making political lies to begin with isn't also jeopardizing them?

                          Agreed, both cases are in the same bucket.

                          I'm of the firm belief [soylentnews.org] that "taxation" is a criminal act in a free country, and that services requested and provided are the only cases where payment can be demanded. If you harken back to the days of landline phones and/or cable TV, "bundling" is kinda-sorta the same problem: there's one small service you wanted, but to get that one thing you also need to accept a ton of junk you don't want - except government agents tend to kill you if you try to "cut the cable" with them or try to "make your own TV show".

                          Taxing churches was an insidious way to silence them politically, and I say this as a willing slave of Jesus Christ who is disgusted with the state of Christian churches in the USA.

                • (Score: 2) by edIII on Friday November 18 2016, @06:42AM

                  by edIII (791) on Friday November 18 2016, @06:42AM (#428718)

                  That doesn't fit part would be justice, prosperity for the working class, evidence of decreasing income inequality, etc. If I'm suffering that, then there are millions of us curiously suffering in the same way, with the same narratives, the same observations.

                  Particularly good evidence would've been strong Wall Street reforms and people brought to justice, but that never happened. How many instances of injustice need to occur before it's not confirmation bias? Is Dupont seriously not going to be brought to justice for knowingly poisoning a family across generations? It would help when things like this happen, and we hear of the corruption, that it would be accompanied by the justice.

                  All it would take is for some things to be getting better, but they've only been getting objectively worse for a long damn time. There have been smatterings of progress, but still a one step forward, three steps back game.

                  I'll take it all back if things get substantively better for the American worker, we don't lose any of our rights (no stop-and-frisks), we don't create the internment camps, and corporations don't abuse the shit out of us when unchained. Which is highly unlikely given the fact they treat the American worker slightly above dirt.

                  --
                  Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
                  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 18 2016, @11:32AM

                    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday November 18 2016, @11:32AM (#428793) Homepage Journal

                    How many instances of injustice need to occur before it's not confirmation bias?

                    We're talking what voters are voting for here, not what they're getting. Unless you think what Democrat politicians do actually has some relation to their platform? Did you vote to live in a surveillance state, outright ignoring the 4th amendment? For prosecuting and persecuting more whistleblowers than all other administrations combined? For the President be able to use the IRS against his political enemies? For drone strikes on American citizens with no due process?

                    What's good for the goose is good for the gander, yo. You really need to get to know some Republicans. They're some of the nicest, most generous people you'll ever meet when you're not calling them assholes.

                    --
                    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @03:42PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @03:42PM (#428881)

                  please reply to the questions; I have the same ones for people that voted out of principal and voted in the Republican establishment.

                  The democrats became what I despised of the republicans -- and the republicans haven't changed. Your wine sipping comment makes me think of the Koch brothers -- not some 'liberal elite', whatever that means. That is how deeply entrenched the big business connation with wealth and the republican part your comment conjures in me.

                  I recognize that many of the IT businesses are now the modern day oil barons and railroad tycoons. One could say those industries were not pro-union, and thus, not really fostering from management any tendencies to vote for less conservative ideals, like workplace safety and pollution controls.

                  Yet conservatives seem to indicate they embrace religion--the whole stewards of the earth thing is something I never have heard them embrace, but the profit motive has always been there.

                  Please tell us the principals you DO support -- besides the elimination of your perceived SJWs. Quieting their voices does nothing to eliminate their concerns; I expect you have a greater plan to allow them to seek liberty and justice without offending your own sensibilities?

              • (Score: 2) by driven on Friday November 18 2016, @01:18AM

                by driven (6295) on Friday November 18 2016, @01:18AM (#428544)

                The Red states simply voted out of fear and hatred. Fear of the American worker losing even more than we've lost in that last 40 years, and the hatred directly stoked by Trump against immigrants and the "theys" that are responsible for the fetid hell that is the existence of the American worker. Never before has there been as much hate.

                Alternative theory: the people you've just described gave Trump enough votes to win, but they don't make up the majority of the votes for Republican. If someone created a pie chart with people's motives for voting for Trump I'm certain there would be a variety of factors, not just the fear and hatred you described. There will be some who voted for Trump while holding their nose, just so Hillary wouldn't [insert anti-Hillary slogan].

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @04:28PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @04:28PM (#428908)

                  I hate to say it, but this is exactly why I voted Trump. It was all about gun control. Hillary ran on an anti-2nd amendment platform, and until the Democrats leave the "common sense gun laws" bullshit alone i won't vote for them.

                  I suspect that there are just as many out there who will only vote for a candidate who supports open borders, or free access to birth control, etc.

                  As a person I think Trump is reprehensible, a product of the old money oligarchy that he professes to combat. A branch can't jump from the tree and call it unholy.

                  But I seriously doubt that Trump is going to be as terrible for this country as the left says, he's the most centrist candidate the right has run in forever, and now that he's been elected we're already starting to see the Hardliner bullshit crumble. The wall has suddenly become "more like a fence", the deportations are only for criminals, he "doesn't want to hurt them(Clintons)" so no special prosecutor, etc.

                  I honestly think that the greater threat will be all of the true hardliners filling up his cabinet, the ones that he made deals with to win. Those guys are the real problem and I hope that they are kept on a tight leash. I suspect that when Republicans loose in the midterms Trump's cabinet will be replaced with more moderate people.

              • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday November 18 2016, @11:16AM

                by Phoenix666 (552) on Friday November 18 2016, @11:16AM (#428790) Journal

                The Red states simply voted out of fear and hatred. Fear of the American worker losing even more than we've lost in that last 40 years, and the hatred directly stoked by Trump against immigrants and the "theys" that are responsible for the fetid hell that is the existence of the American worker. Never before has there been as much hate.

                Then how do you explain Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, ed? Did the Democrats lose those states because they didn't "craft the right message for white workers?" Or did they lose them because they knew Hillary was going to instantly "pivot" and pass the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and thus finish off whatever manufacturing remains in America? Is it possible they were less than enchanted by a vision of a future where all agricultural, ranching, and resource extraction jobs were done by illegal immigrants; where trucking and distribution was done by illegal immigrants; where no manufacturing remains and even those minimum-wage, food-bank ready jobs at Walmart are hard to come by; where high tech jobs are either outsourced to China or insourced to Indian H1B's; and then everything else is lost to automation. What then do Americans do, from the high-school graduate to the over-educated, over-skilled, to earn a living? Can they sell each other derivatives or REITs all day long and live large on the fat deltas? Maybe they can all work for the federal government and run back and forth putting out fires in each other's neighborhoods or arresting each other, or hey, maybe they can all get jobs processing paperwork for all the hordes of immigrants flooding into the country?

                No, ed, people voted on their pocketbooks the way democrats are always chiding them to.

                --
                Washington DC delenda est.
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @07:14PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @07:14PM (#429027)

                  Lol no, Ohioan's voted Trump because half our population is a bunch of tobacco chewing, camo wearing, idiots that barely graduated high school. They saw Larry the Cable Guy and thought that was someone to aspire to be. Trust me, they don't call my home town "Spring-Tucky" for nothing.

                  P.S. Sorry to those who live in Kentucky, I know that not all of you are backwards hicks and hillbillies.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Friday November 18 2016, @01:18AM

            by Arik (4543) on Friday November 18 2016, @01:18AM (#428543) Journal
            "Those principles are fairly reprehensible though. The 2016 Republican Party Platform reads like a white nationalist movement utterly filled with hate for the other half of America, immigrants, LQBTQ, liberals, Democrats, etc."

            You're going to need to back up that assertion with some quotes. Shouldn't be hard to do, if you weren't FULL OF SHIT>
            --
            If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
            • (Score: 2) by edIII on Friday November 18 2016, @01:38AM

              by edIII (791) on Friday November 18 2016, @01:38AM (#428551)

              Uh, huh.

              Yeah.... ummmm you caught me. The Republican Party is just filled with love for LGBTQ. It was my fault I didn't notice that before. All that hate for the Muslims? Rumor mongering. Nobody is interested in registries of people, or internment camps. That was just baseless rumors, just like the wall being built between us and Mexico. All that hiring of white nationalists to cabinet posts? Won't cause any issues with minorities right? Even still, that wouldn't be hate filled activities, but just making America ethno-pure again.

              Likewise, the Republican Party fully supports the EPA, and isn't interested in completely dismantling all environmental regulations that are hampering U.S businesses.

              If you need links, then you haven't been paying fucking attention to the Republican Party. I gave the only link you need, which was direct to the gop.com website. It says it all right there in the documentation. Care to read it? I did post it as citation.... either that or your full of fucking shit too.

              If you weren't, you could give citations against my assertions. I'll wait.

              --
              Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
              • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Friday November 18 2016, @01:45AM

                by Arik (4543) on Friday November 18 2016, @01:45AM (#428554) Journal
                "Likewise, the Republican Party fully supports the EPA"

                This is the level of bullshit you have fallen to. You talk about 'white nationalism' and practically invoke Godwin and what do you have? Anyone that doesn't support the EPA obviously hates the environment and all the people that have to live in it. It couldn't possibly be a legitimate political disagreement, no, anyone that disagrees with you is a fascist.

                Yeah, that shit has worked for way too long but it just backfired spectacularly and it may not be so reliable for you going forward.

                --
                If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
                • (Score: 2) by edIII on Friday November 18 2016, @02:12AM

                  by edIII (791) on Friday November 18 2016, @02:12AM (#428564)

                  I talk about white nationalists because that is what they are. I haven't invoked Godwin, you did :) Neither have I mentioned the word fascist, at all. Not in any one of these posts have I mentioned it.

                  Anybody that doesn't support the EPA usually does believe that only God can affect the weather of Earth, and suffers quite heavily from being unable to see a position beyond that which is dictated by their paychecks. The junk science against it, is exactly that. There was an article about it recently which showed an interesting level of dissent in a particular field, and then when investigated, the dissent fell exactly along funding lines. Meaning, that the entire discussion is political AND corporate, and not scientific. Disagreement does not make one fascist, but acting in accordance with the definition and practice of fascism, does. I'm still not laying claims of fascism anywhere in these posts or against you, while you are doing it to yourself.

                  What has worked so far, and backfired spectacularly, is the push back against environmental regulations and the science of Climate Change. There are at least 200 communities just like Flint, Michigan too. We live in a objectively ruined world from all of the toxins the EPA has been fighting against, on our behalf. I'm guessing that you don't believe the EPA about harmful algal blooms [epa.gov] do you? They're lying obviously....... except that we are now seeing it explode across the U.S.

                  All you're doing is complaining as if I'm victimizing you by showing you truth. The truth hurts doesn't it? At least that is evidenced by your post.

                  --
                  Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
                  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Arik on Friday November 18 2016, @02:49AM

                    by Arik (4543) on Friday November 18 2016, @02:49AM (#428589) Journal
                    "Anybody that doesn't support the EPA usually does believe that only God can affect the weather of Earth, and suffers quite heavily from being unable to see a position beyond that which is dictated by their paychecks."

                    You need to find a way to step back and gain some self-awareness. That's an incredibly broad, sweeping, bigoted, and deeply offensive statement. And you feel free to hurl it around without feeling any need to even provide evidence for it. Nope, anyone that disagrees with you is a horrible horrible person and that's as far as you allow your thought to extend, isn't it?

                    In fact I have read an enormous number of critiques of the EPA, I have written some myself, I have never once seen anyone seriously make the argument you attribute to us. Not once.

                    "I'm still not laying claims of fascism anywhere in these posts or against you, while you are doing it to yourself."

                    That's right you used the phrase 'white nationalist' instead. That's so offensive I unconsciously softened it to fascist, which is not quite as bad, but mea culpa, you said white nationalist, not fascist.

                    "All you're doing is complaining as if I'm victimizing you by showing you truth. The truth hurts doesn't it? At least that is evidenced by your post."

                    What you're doing is acting like an insufferable teenager who has just been enlightened as to the Truth about everything and thinks anyone that contradicts his beloved teacher in any way is Satan. You haven't provided any evidence at all, just an endless string off offensive assertions and a dripping disdain towards anyone who doesn't instantly apprehend the real Truth the way you have.

                    I'm hoping you are actually a youngun, if so this phase may well pass.
                    --
                    If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
                    • (Score: 1, Troll) by edIII on Friday November 18 2016, @03:11AM

                      by edIII (791) on Friday November 18 2016, @03:11AM (#428603)

                      Dude, the fucking evidence is overwhelming and substantial. You just disagree with the science, so please don't act like it doesn't exist.

                      It's not a legitimate concern when the concern itself is derived from junk science known to be funded by those whose paycheck would suffer from the truth.

                      Science IS the search for truth, and that is the difference between an insufferable teenager wildly throwing around accusations, and a person referencing the vast bodies of work performed by adults to ascertain the truth of our world.

                      It is a MYTH that the science is in dispute, and the lines of the dispute fall perfectly upon the lines of funding. Strange coincidence huh?

                      Whether or not you fucking like the term white nationalist, get fucking used to it. None of the rest of the world is confused about what types of people are now assuming power. They are hate filled white nationalists promulgating a platform of hate, bigotry, and fear. As if getting rid of all the minorities, Muslims, and Mexicans would make America Great Again.

                      You know what would make America Great Again? If we actually fucking cared about doing anything for the American Worker.

                      Sit back and relax though... we're going to find out exactly what these white nationalists do, which is distinctly different than fascism. On that note, I wholly disagree with you. White nationalism != Fascism.

                      This isn't about supremacy of the state over the person. This is about racism and bigotry, and that is entirely derived from hate.

                      Like I said, the truth clearly hurts.

                      --
                      Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
                      • (Score: 1) by Arik on Friday November 18 2016, @03:21AM

                        by Arik (4543) on Friday November 18 2016, @03:21AM (#428610) Journal
                        "Dude, the fucking evidence is overwhelming and substantial. You just disagree with the science, so please don't act like it doesn't exist."

                        What are you even talking about? Evidence for what? What science? Have you completely forgotten what we were talking about?
                        --
                        If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
                      • (Score: 2) by fritsd on Friday November 18 2016, @09:38AM

                        by fritsd (4586) on Friday November 18 2016, @09:38AM (#428760) Journal

                        I find it helps, when thinking about fascism, to do the following little thought experiment:

                        Imagine that you believe your world is spoiled by <hated_minority>

                        Now imagine, that your fascist government has painlessly made all of them disappear in a cloud of smoke. Poof!

                        What does your world look like, now? Is it suddenly a paradise? Or are there societeal problems that remain? (I.e. in Flint michigan with the lead in the water; in Detroit; at the Hanford site; at those Red States where people have lost the means to live).

                        Those problems that remain, what are your Fascist Party's plans to do something about them? Would they work, if they were really implemented?

                        Hint: lower taxes for the rich. um..

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Friday November 18 2016, @11:04AM

            by Phoenix666 (552) on Friday November 18 2016, @11:04AM (#428786) Journal

            Please stop demonizing the people who voted for Trump. Stop calling them hateful and ignorant. They are not national socialism, revisited. They are not women-hating klansmen. They are not brownshirts.

            They bucked the Establishment, exemplified by both the RNC and DNC, because they are utterly fed up with a status quo that has rigged every game against them for 40 years. They are fighting the same fight Bernie Sanders was. He would have been a much better leader for the reaction than Trump, for sure. But thanks to yet more game-rigging by the Establishment voters were denied the balm and went for the bomb instead.

            --
            Washington DC delenda est.
      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Friday November 18 2016, @10:46AM

        by Phoenix666 (552) on Friday November 18 2016, @10:46AM (#428781) Journal

        That puts me in mind of something that nobody has pointed out yet, in this post-election fingerpointing. Progressives have been saying for generations, "Tsk tsk how can we get people in the red states to vote for their pocketbooks instead of being misled by social wedge issues?" But that's exactly what they did do in this election, they voted for their pocketbooks because the status quo, that would have been continued by the Establishment candidate Hillary, has been killing their jobs and their finances. But for Hillary enablers, suddenly they want everybody to have voted for her because she's a woman or because she didn't say mean things about immigrants, in other words, to have voted based on social wedge issues instead of on their pocketbooks.

        --
        Washington DC delenda est.
        • (Score: 2) by fritsd on Friday November 18 2016, @03:21PM

          by fritsd (4586) on Friday November 18 2016, @03:21PM (#428863) Journal

          But that's exactly what they did do in this election, they voted for their pocketbooks (...)

          Are you fucking kidding me??? They voted for the Republicans, for God's sake! This is what I really do not understand.
          So they didn't want to vote for the neo-liberal Democrats: fine. But why the neo-liberal Republicans instead?? Both party of the Powerful and Rich.

          • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday November 18 2016, @03:46PM

            by Phoenix666 (552) on Friday November 18 2016, @03:46PM (#428884) Journal

            Your reaction suggests you are working from an image of the Trump voters that was manufactured by forces that wanted Hillary to win. You're reacting to caricatures. You're not considering how the voters see themselves or why they voted for Trump.

            Michael Moore warned before the election that his conversations with people in Michigan led him to believe that Trump could win. The DNC, the media, and nobody else listened to him. Now that the election is over and Trump is the president-elect, nobody is still listening to him, choosing instead to willfully misconstrue what happened and not get the point. Now see today there's an article in Bloomberg News [bloomberg.com] saying that Ford reversed plans to move manufacturing to Mexico, based on Trump's threat to levy high tariffs on their vehicles. That's what the Trump voters in the Midwest were hoping for when they voted for Trump, and they got it already.

            Look at what happened to American manufacturing after NAFTA, what would happen to American manufacturing under the TPP, and what has already occurred with the mere threat from Trump of material action, and tell us again that the Trump voters were not voting for their pocketbooks. It shakes out a little differently based on region and type of industry, but people voted for Trump for mostly the same reasons as the people in the Midwest and for the majority of those people hating on women and brown people was not among them.

            --
            Washington DC delenda est.
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by calzone on Thursday November 17 2016, @09:45PM

      by calzone (2181) on Thursday November 17 2016, @09:45PM (#428406) Journal

      It's basically a states-rights situation.

      You never get to vote for president.
      Your state votes for president.
      You vote to tell your state how you want it to vote.
      Don't like how your state interprets your desires? Then vote to change you state or move to a different state.
      Abolishing the electoral college would be an end-run around this and the first real step toward making the US less of a collection of states and more a collection of people.

      I personally do opine that the US SHOULD be more a collection of people than a collection of states, but I know that's not necessarily a popular opinion. So, abolishing the EC should be the last step in any such process, not the first — just to ensure we do it correctly and that a solid majority is aware of the transformation taking place and on board with it.

      --

      Time to leave Soylent News [soylentnews.org]

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by edIII on Thursday November 17 2016, @10:09PM

        by edIII (791) on Thursday November 17 2016, @10:09PM (#428425)

        I very much appreciate your insight into this, but I respectfully disagree. Moving to another state is an unreasonable request at this point. Maybe back in the 50's or 60's when union membership was near 35% this would have been possible, because people had the resources.

        How do you move like that? There are no jobs. Only shit service jobs for teenagers with no benefits, and no living wages. Costs have skyrocketed everywhere. So, yeah, maybe you could move.... by abandoning property to expensive to take with you? I see that happen a lot. Abandoned properties full of stuff simply because all they could afford is what could be taken in their vehicles.

        So, no. Getting rid of the EC isn't the first step. Getting rid of the U.S.A is the first step, and that begins with a revolution.

        If we can't have a reasonable voting process, then you simply cannot change the system from within. It's too entrenched, and Americans have been ground into the pavement under the Elite's boot heels for too long. We're essentially too weak to do what you're asking.

        Change must come from the way we currently exist, and we cannot shift the populations around the country to create this equal collection you speak of. The EC would be made meaningless in this way and would match the popular vote exactly. It's a matter of calibration, and the manner in which you calibrate is precisely what you advocated: Move to another state. That will make the EC more aligned with the popular vote.

        The system is wholly broken because it evolved to service only a few, while creating serious obstructions for the many to change the conditions of their existence. The EC is one those designs, along with the practice of gerrymandering. Not to mention that our elected officials can simply ignore the will of people at their convenience.

        Now the whole system is set to become far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far worse in every regard for the American worker, the environment, and their civil rights.

        When a national stop-and-frisk is being implemented, along with Muslim registries and internment camps, and an entire fucking wall to keep Americans from escaping? REVOLUTION.

        It's time, and objectively we are not traitors, or terrorists, but PATRIOTS reforming America into what it was always intended to be:

        We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

        Those in power, those who have created our current institutions have abjectly failed in their duties. Moreover, they've not just failed, but been traitors themselves in between frenzied acts of corruption solely designed to funnel the wealth of our people into the hands of the few, the hands of the people that get to enjoy America by themselves at our great expense, our intense suffering, and conditional freedom. Those conditions being how well we behave as cogs in the great meat grinder they've created.

        It's TIME. Revolution is the next logical step.

        --
        Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @05:31PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @05:31PM (#428944)

          So, your eloquent words aside, whom will you kill first in your attempt at revolution?

          Wonderful to talk about, in theory. A lot less wonderful when you have to blow someone's head off or stick a knife in their innards to bring your idealism home.

          Are you really prepared for that, sir? Again, whom will you kill first?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @12:27AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @12:27AM (#428513)

      The important thing is that candidates must be forced to travel beyond California, New England, and a handful of big cities in the middle. The popular vote would cast nearly all of the land area of the USA into complete dispair. (picture suicide, violence, starvation...) I fear you relish the thought of that. Acceptable changes:

      I could maybe agree to having each electoral vote be decided by an equal area of land. (535 regions, averaging 10.7 per state but spanning borders) Alaska would love this.

      I could agree to the above, but each electoral vote being split proportionately. That is, a region that includes San Francisco might have given 0.85 votes to Clinton and 0.05 to each of 3 other choices.

      If we want to encourage 3rd party success, then also use approval voting. Each candidate get 0.00 to 1.00 votes per region.

    • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday November 18 2016, @04:11AM

      by Reziac (2489) on Friday November 18 2016, @04:11AM (#428643) Homepage

      "...the nation is ready for REVOLUTION."

      ...with great irony, funded by George Soros.

      --
      And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
      • (Score: 2) by edIII on Friday November 18 2016, @05:05AM

        by edIII (791) on Friday November 18 2016, @05:05AM (#428671)

        That irony is not lost on me. Which is why this Revolution is occurring from the ground up. It's well beyond the ability of anybody like Soros to steer either. The moment his ilk would attempt to bring their corruption instead of the incumbent corruption, Soros would find that the Revolution will find him. Just like all the others.

        I don't recall the guillotines of France caring about such distinctions.

        As for the funding? That seems to be happening around $15-$30 at a time on average, from the people dwelling on the ground. We don't need Soros' money to do this. We don't need much money at all. All we need is each other, a willingness to accomplish our objectives, and rubber to road so to speak.

        The key ingredient of motivation was provided by Trump and the other white nationalists actually succeeding in getting one step away from tearing down all the work of labor and progressives over the last 100 years.

        I've got news for you. You wouldn't have wanted to live in 1900's America. It was an even worse environment than we have now for labor, precisely because of those progressive accomplishments.

        You're damn right we're all being manipulated by those in power and the wealthy. We're tired of it, and it will stop. Either by We the People, or because we failed and freedom died.

        Guess what is the most frightening thing to those in power? All of us caring about the same thing, at the same time, and organizing to do something about it. Those walls to our Freedom of Assembly will be rent asunder, and we will rise.

        --
        Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
        • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday November 18 2016, @05:22AM

          by Reziac (2489) on Friday November 18 2016, @05:22AM (#428677) Homepage

          [scratching head] I *did* live in 1900s America. Tho I suspect you mean pre-WW2. Okay, I'm not *that* old...

          There is no case where a revolution didn't end in blood, and with a worse crowd taking over... generally with the revolution's founders going under the blade. Be careful what you wish for. Tho it seems you wish for the French Terror.

          (Note that the American Revolution was actually an insurrection, not a revolution.)

          --
          And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
          • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday November 18 2016, @01:03PM

            by Phoenix666 (552) on Friday November 18 2016, @01:03PM (#428806) Journal

            That's mostly true, but not entirely true. India's successful peaceful rebellion against British rule, and Czechoslovakia's Velvet Revolution are a couple notable exceptions. Otpor's successful campaign to depose Milosevic in Serbia is another.

            Revolutions happen because the status quo cannot continue. The chance of a successful, prosperous post-revolution is better if violence can be avoided, because you're right about worse crowds taking over if the revolution was bloody. But if the defenders of the status quo make it impossible to effect change peacefully, then violence is inevitable.

            For that reason I recommend the keepers of this status quo recognize this election result as the rebellion it is, and not try to co-opt and subvert it, or they will go to the guillotine.

            --
            Washington DC delenda est.
            • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday November 18 2016, @02:21PM

              by Reziac (2489) on Friday November 18 2016, @02:21PM (#428825) Homepage

              Haha, yes, I like your conclusion :D

              Tho I still think it's a bit ...undictionary... to call a mass shift in popular opinion and its associated voting behavior a "revolution", even if it does depose a government.

              --
              And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @07:18AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @07:18AM (#428723)
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2016_Presidential_Election_by_County.svg

      You just told all those red areas you don't give a shit about them.

      Best hope they never return the favor. It won't work out well.
  • (Score: 1, Troll) by jmorris on Thursday November 17 2016, @09:08PM

    by jmorris (4844) on Thursday November 17 2016, @09:08PM (#428366)

    Even better, what is the offer to those smaller States which currently tend to have unified (Legislature + Governor) Republican governments because of the never ending gift that has been President Obama?

    No, the Blue Team should fear what might do to them instead. If we were smart and ruthless we would make a list of light blue States (when voting for POTUS) where Republicans control the State government. Then Astroturf up a pair of movements in each, one using Democrat sounding rhetoric and talking points of greater "Democracy" and such rot and the other a much more quiet appeal to naked power aimed at the Republican base. Then have those States, and only those States, adopt the same rules as ME an NE to allocate Electoral votes by Congressional District. Now instead of the Blue Team reaping the whole total in those States they get the couple of districts inside the rotting urban cores and the two for winning the State, but Team Red collects a few too from the rest of the State. Across a half dozen States this tactic could move the baseline a dozen or more EVs toward the generic Republican ballot.

    And one more wave election could easily give Team Red a large enough majority at the State level to push Constitutional Amendments. Btw eliminating the Electoral College would require one of those, something Team Blue is absolutely not in any sort of position to even seriously dream of. Which means Senator Boxer is really the blithering idiot she has projected in public since gaining the office or she is just virtue signaling and trying to rally her base's moral, she isn't in any way serious about her effort in either case.

    • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday November 17 2016, @09:18PM

      by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday November 17 2016, @09:18PM (#428371)

      An interesting proposal if you could get some momentum behind it. In theory, even though they don't want to switch to proportional electoral college voting, if their Republican legislatures are locking them to it in some states, it would be in their best interest to pull the same maneuver in the reverse situation.

      More cynically, I'm sure it wouldn't be that simple. They'd kick and scream and come up with some other plan, I bet.

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
      • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by jmorris on Thursday November 17 2016, @09:53PM

        by jmorris (4844) on Thursday November 17 2016, @09:53PM (#428409)

        Not saying there might not be long term consequences, but right now there are no Red States on the Presidential level where Team Blue has any real power in the state. As of now they have total control of exactly four States. CA, OR, HI and one of the little blue shitholes up on the East Coast which I can't remember off the top of my head right now. We are in a position to have our way with em and end this yammering about the inevitable force of History about to end the Republicans chances forever. Make the change I propose (which I didn't invent, been hearing about it on the Right Side of the Web for a bit now) and add in Trump clearing the Sanctuary Cities of a few million people who shouldn't be voting but we know do and the numbers shift in our favor a lot. As the illegals exit, 'incentivize' the multi-generation slum dwellers into taking the 'jobs we pay Americans not to do' and in a decade a lot of them will have risen into becoming taxpayers, again removing vast numbers of them from the automatic D voter rosters.

        Btw, We know the illegals vote because we keep seeing people like Obama exhort them to vote, the cities enact rules that basically say "Non Citizens aren't technically allowed to vote but lookie here we have a rule that says it is illegal for an election official to even ask if a potential voter is a U.S. Citizen and we have handed out ID cards to every illegal we could find. But we pinkie swears no illegals are voting. Trust us, we print ballots in thirty languages for no particular reason at all!" and the entire policy and platform of the Democratic Party (and the RINOs) built around the notion of getting the votes of people who prefer to wave Mexican flags at protests over American ones.

        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday November 17 2016, @10:46PM

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday November 17 2016, @10:46PM (#428447) Journal

          Please do, just wait until I'm across the border. I can't WAIT to see what you frothing lunatics do with all three branches of the US government in your control. This will be hilarous (from the right distance).

          The best part is, when all of you motherfuckers and up in Hell, you'll STILL be tearing each other to shreds! I'll bring the s'mores fixins and make desert over the heat of whichever caldera you assholes land in. Scream real long and loud; it circulates the hot air nicely.

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
          • (Score: 2, Flamebait) by jmorris on Thursday November 17 2016, @11:05PM

            by jmorris (4844) on Thursday November 17 2016, @11:05PM (#428465)

            Please do, just wait until I'm across the border.

            K. Just remember though, no fair running to Canada because it is far too white for you to signal your commitment to Diversity. Go to Mexico or somewhere brown or black... if you can get in, they don't just let anybody in you know. They might not want you, just sayin'. They have something called a border and they enforce it.

            • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday November 18 2016, @04:10AM

              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday November 18 2016, @04:10AM (#428642) Journal

              I find it very telling that the only kind of people who say "virtue signalling" unironically are those who have no virtue whatsoever to begin with. My only reaction to just about everything you post in response to be is, and can only be, "Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"

              You poor bastard, you have no idea what you and your kind are in for. You've been played, AGAIN, by the same people who've had the same agenda for half a century. And you like it. Un-bloody-believable. Well, enjoy your trip to Hell :/

              --
              I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
              • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday November 18 2016, @01:10PM

                by Phoenix666 (552) on Friday November 18 2016, @01:10PM (#428807) Journal

                I don't think that people are going to sit still if it turns out the way you suppose. The best thing the 1% could do for themselves is to acquiesce to reform; if they fight it or subvert it like usual, all will come to blows.

                --
                Washington DC delenda est.
            • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday November 18 2016, @04:17AM

              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday November 18 2016, @04:17AM (#428648) Journal

              Oh, incidentally, I intend to go to Vancouver, which is about 25% ethnic Chinese last I checked. Which is nowhere near as much as my hometown Flushing, but will feel nicely familiar and will help my girlfriend (Cantonese by way of Malaysia) adjust easier. You were trying to say something about diversity...? God, you fail even when you think you have a point.

              --
              I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
              • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Friday November 18 2016, @01:13PM

                by Phoenix666 (552) on Friday November 18 2016, @01:13PM (#428809) Journal

                Vancouver is a great city, but Canada is too close. A lot of people who didn't like the way things were going in Germany fled to Poland or France thinking they'd be safe. If America were to blow up in the same way, there's hardly any place in the world that would be truly safe, but Canada would definitely be wiped out by the initial blast. Try Australia or New Zealand.

                --
                Washington DC delenda est.
                • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday November 18 2016, @05:28PM

                  by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday November 18 2016, @05:28PM (#428940) Journal

                  Australia isn't any safer, as they seem to be competing with Britain for who can become a fascist surveillance state fastest. New Zealand is also on my list, though. There's always the teach English in Japan route, though I do worry that if China gets salty I'll just end up eating a nuke if go there. Ditto South Korea, plus I can barely read Hangul. Ugh, the entire planet's gone insane...

                  --
                  I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
              • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @06:19PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @06:19PM (#429508)

                Oh, the classic "I have a minority friend so I'm not racis" ploy... :D

                • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday November 20 2016, @11:46PM

                  by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Sunday November 20 2016, @11:46PM (#430209) Journal
                  You're a special kind of idiot, you know that? Where I grew up, I WAS the minority! Nearly everyone was Cantonese and there were more Pakistani and Punjabi people than any sort of euro-whites. And we all got along fine. I didn't hear a single racist slur in either direction until sixth grade. More of the signs were in Chinese than English. I've learned a bunch of herbal medicines and some TCM principles on top of some ordinary food recipes; my girlfriend says I cook like her grandmother and that this is a good thing,

                  Know where I feel weird? Here in southern Wisconsin. Being surrounded by white people feels bizarre. It'll be a relief to go somewhere more familiar-seeming. You would think this would put to rest once and for all the idea that we're born racists.
                  --
                  I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
      • (Score: 3, Informative) by bob_super on Thursday November 17 2016, @10:07PM

        by bob_super (1357) on Thursday November 17 2016, @10:07PM (#428423)
        • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday November 17 2016, @11:07PM

          by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday November 17 2016, @11:07PM (#428466)

          Yeah, recently New York signed it so they're 61% of the way there now.

          Alternately, rolling out proportional EC voting across the country would satisfy me, too.

          --
          "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
        • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday November 18 2016, @04:17AM

          by Reziac (2489) on Friday November 18 2016, @04:17AM (#428649) Homepage

          Given which states have enacted it into law, methinks this is designed and intended for the home team's advantage.

          --
          And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by TheRaven on Friday November 18 2016, @10:56AM

          by TheRaven (270) on Friday November 18 2016, @10:56AM (#428782) Journal
          It's worth noting that this compact works because the states are allowed to select their EC delegates and control how they vote in any way that they want. It would be entirely possible to have a similar compact that would also introduce instant runoff or AV elections, with the state votes having all of the electorate rank the candidates and the EC delegates picking the least-unpopular one.
          --
          sudo mod me up
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @11:22PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @11:22PM (#428482)

    The problem isn't the Electoral College. It is the primaries. Both Trump and Clinton were poor candidates, so as a practical matter, a good outcome was impossible. The best change would be for citizens to vote directly for electors, rather than for candidates. The nomination process should come after choosing the electors, to make it more difficult for them to pledge to support a specific candidate. This would eliminate most of the campaign season, and reduce the effectiveness of making populist statements.

    The election process should refuse to acknowledge political parties, and not list the parties on the ballots.

  • (Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Friday November 18 2016, @02:18AM

    by TheGratefulNet (659) on Friday November 18 2016, @02:18AM (#428568)

    sorry, but the flyover states SHOULD lose the extra power they unfairly have.

    they keep us backwards, they vote wrong (yes, I fully stand behind that) time after time and they are anti-progress.

    the fact that we have to deal with a cheeto for the next 4 years is entirely their fault and many of us are not at all happy about yet another stolen election.

    end this practice!

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 18 2016, @05:13AM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 18 2016, @05:13AM (#428674) Journal

      sorry, but the flyover states SHOULD lose the extra power they unfairly have.

      What's unfair about the power? I assure you it is completely within the rules how that extra power was obtained. And what are you offering in exchange aside from firmly worded rhetoric?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @07:23AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @07:23AM (#428726)
      We need to try an experiment.

      Stop all goods from flowing from any blue to red area. or red to blue area.

      Let see who screams first.
      • (Score: 2) by TheRaven on Friday November 18 2016, @10:59AM

        by TheRaven (270) on Friday November 18 2016, @10:59AM (#428783) Journal
        Probably the reds. The blue areas control most of the ports and a huge amount of food consumed in the USA comes from overseas. They'd even start getting fizzy drinks with Mexican sugar instead of Federal-government-subsidised red-state-grown HFCS...
        --
        sudo mod me up
    • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday November 18 2016, @01:17PM

      by Phoenix666 (552) on Friday November 18 2016, @01:17PM (#428810) Journal

      If you're going to go that route then you'd also want to apportion senators by population, too, right? 2 senators per state was meant to make sure that less populous states didn't get steamrolled by the bigger ones.

      California, Texas, and New York would be pretty happy under your system, but everyone else would quickly get tired of always being outvoted.

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by tathra on Friday November 18 2016, @05:45AM

    by tathra (3367) on Friday November 18 2016, @05:45AM (#428689)

    And why is the popular vote more important than getting rid of first past the post?

    probably because most people have never heard of other options. Maine, however, decided to get rid of FPTP and switch to ranked choice voting [bostonglobe.com] this election. that needs to get more attention so that other states can follow. proportional electoral vote distribution instead of winner-take-all is also incredibly important, but there's still only 2 states that do that.