Make America the victim of a vulgar bore, again!

[Hypoxia]

Neither candidate needed more than 22.6% of votes to get a nomination. Thank God for the two party system.

The two-party dynamic results from the winner-take-all system. Only the two leading parties have a chance of winning. Party polarization means no compromise and no constructive governance. It also leads a minority party to employ gerrymandering and voter suppression to reduce the majority's advantage. No compromise, merely attempted domination and dictatorship. This democratic republic has painted itself into a corner.

 

[Sean Renaud]

These two sentences.

Time for a math lesson. There are a few assumptions here, but the numbers are fairly accurate. I am not a political person, so here is a salt shaker, everyone grab a grain.


Lets call the parties split even with a 10% buffer for independents. That would mean, at max, 77.4% of the country hates her 77.4% of the country hates him. Around 50% falls in the group that hates both. Conversations I have personally had supports this.

Neither candidate needed more than 22.6% of votes to get a nomination. Thank God for the two party system.

I'm not certain how you did that math but self friend Hypoxia has already pointed out that this is a feature not a bug of American Democracy. Don't like it, amend the Constitution. It's worth noting that depending on how you tweak the system you could easily make that scenario much much worse.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I love the sound of loser whining on the forum.

How am I losing or whining?

You're hearing things SR....get an MRI that can mean real trouble.

 

[Hard_Rom]

The two-party dynamic results from the winner-take-all system. Only the two leading parties have a chance of winning. Party polarization means no compromise and no constructive governance. It also leads a minority party to employ gerrymandering and voter suppression to reduce the majority's advantage. No compromise, merely attempted domination and dictatorship. This democratic republic has painted itself into a corner.

I had to look up gerrymandering when you asked me about it on the Political thread.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering#United_States

In some states, bipartisan gerrymandering is the norm. State legislators from both parties sometimes agree to draw congressional district boundaries in a way that ensures the re-election of most or all incumbent representatives from both parties.

Since the 1990s, however, gerrymandering based solely on racial data has been ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court under the Fourteenth Amendment, first in Shaw v. Reno (1993) and subsequently in Miller v. Johnson (1995).

*may be unconstitutional on racial lines but connivance along liberal/conservative lines seems alive and well, I guess the Machine still rules the US*

 

[sr71plt]

The fundamental flaw in the party system that I see in this election year--shown in both parties--is in the almost nonexistent requirements set for being a party presidential candidate to begin with. In both parties, major contenders who weren't even in the party were permitted to flow in with backers who also had no party history. In the Democratic Party case, a declared Independent nearly took the party over with supporters who, like him, had done absolutely nothing for the party and the down-ticket candidates who were running for office. Bernie could come to snatch the party away from the party and then, when not quite successful, can leave--and take the bulk of his supporters with him when he didn't steal the party (but made a good run at doing so). In the Republican case, Trump did steal the party and is doing nothing for anyone but himself in the party. He's even actively bringing the party down and was doing so from the beginning--as the centerpiece of his campaign. (It was pretty much the centerpiece of Bernie's campaign too.)

The elected section of government isn't just about the position of president. It's the Congress too--and arguably more importantly so. What this year showed to both parties is that they have to think about the whole ball of wax, they have to think about it well in advance, and they have to more stringently control how someone can qualify to lead the ticket of their full ticket roster. The leaks of the DNC, showing that they were trying to fight off Bernie, in fact showed what the party should be doing to offer a coherent set of candidates for the electorate.

 

[BotanyBoy]

The fundamental flaw in the party system that I see in this election year--shown in both parties--is in the almost nonexistent requirements set for being a party presidential candidate to begin with.

Ever the partisan tool.

(D) above all else and at any cost.


SR would probably vote for a kiddy fucking murder as long as it had a (D) in front of it's name.

 

[Sean Renaud]

If they were the better choice I would, I mean it's hard to see a scenario where that would be the case but I suppose it could happen.

 

[bhurry]

Let me know when and where you will cross the border and I will meet you with some maple syrup and 'real' back bacon.

Dec 1 you will have lots of people to welcome with open arms. Lets see how that works out.

 

[sr71plt]

Assuming they will be from the basket of deplorables, I'll be waving good-bye and smiling.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I need a bottle of 100 proof Conservative Tears.

 

[Hard_Rom]

Dec 1 you will have lots of people to welcome with open arms. Lets see how that works out.

As long as they are willing to assimilate into Canadian culture and leave their backward ass politics and culture behind they will be welcome. Whole families and females only please.

 

[Hypoxia]

I consider these the major structural weaknesses in our USA democratic republic:

* Winner-take-all rather than proportional election results leading to only two real party options, as I mentioned above.

* Fixed terms in office mean the next campaign begins as soon as the last ends, if not before. We see how long, costly, and bloody they are. Those elected spend most of their time and effort fund-raising for the next election.

* The electoral college, which leads to only battleground states fought over; safe or small states can be ignored. It can also steal victory from a popular-vote winner.

* In national elections, each state has its own rules, with no common standards of eligibility, voting, and vote-counting. It's close to fucking anarchy.

These are all hard-wired into the Constitution. They ain't going away anytime soon. The USA electoral system will stay a bloody mess into the foreseeable future -- unless a future Supreme Court declares they can rewrite the Constitution, just as they declared long ago in Massey vs Ferguson that they can overturn laws.

 

[Hard_Rom]

An independent electoral commission would solve a few issues. But that would almost certainly be construed as an infringement of state rights.

 

[phrodeau]

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/201...ely-touching-them-years-apart-reports-n665491

Four women accused Donald Trump in articles published Wednesday of having touched them in an inappropriate manner, adding to the growing list of women who say Trump has insensitively treated them as objects over several decades.

The New York Times quoted two women as describing public encounters during which Trump grabbed or kissed them inappropriately.

Separately, the Palm Beach Post quoted a Palm Springs, Fla., woman as saying Trump groped her 13 years ago at Mar-a-Lago, his estate in Palm Beach.

And a People magazine staff writer reported Wednesday that at Mar-a-Lago in 2005, Trump pushed her against a wall and was soon "forcing his tongue down my throat."

Meanwhile, five former contestants in the Miss Teen USA pageant were quoted Wednesday as saying Trump deliberately walked in to dressing rooms while teenage contestants were naked in 1997 and 2001, when Trump owned the pageant.

Donald needs to prove to us that he isn't the type of man they say he is. Release the Apprentice tapes, Donald!

 

[gotsnowgotslush]

Do not urinate on Donald Trump's grass.


http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...p_s_golf_course_to_sue_after_charges_dropped/


Invading women's privacy, everywhere.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...golf_course_to_sue_US_Presidential_candidate/

 

[KingOrfeo]

Just like a lot of us are and have been genuinely tired of hearing about her emails I don't think Hillary could really have leaned on those to any positive effect.

Other people would have faced prosecution, and probably jail time, had he done with classified information what she did. She betrayed a public trust, then, of course, lied about it (no classified info blah blah blah).

Ah, yes, the emails.

Emails

Long story short, most politicians are technophobes. Some of the State Department's emails contained highly-classified information that was sent from an insecure server. Later on, somebody dug up a policy, blew some dust off it and discovered that what everyone was doing was against official regs, effectively saying Hey, stop using your smartphones and go back to using state e-mail.[160][161][162] This memo was about as popular as the plague and went conveniently ignored.[163]

BlackBerrys caught on with politicians back when they were the top mobile company. That peculiarity never really went away.[164] Obama was granted a secure BlackBerry like he requested, as was Condoleezza Rice, the previous SoS. Clinton was repeatedly denied one as it was too much of a security risk and they wanted to phase it out.[165] (In exchange, the NSA offered her this monstrosity.[166]) She could have had two devices, one for state.gov (which, based on the Mills deposition, can be accessed from State-issued mobile devices[167]) and one for her private email. That would have given her more protection, since she could say everything on her private server is personal, everything on the state.gov server is 'work.' Clinton stupidly used only one of each (at home![168]), because didn't want to have to partition conversations between different devices and addresses.

Even the State Department IG report mentioned how inadequate their digital infrastructure is: For example, Colin Powell justified his use of a private email address, saying, "State's system at the time was inadequate."[169] State's e-mail has been hacked extensively by Russia, and they didn't get around to scrubbing it for months (perhaps Russia is still balls-deep in the network as we speak?). There is also no money to fix it. One of Clinton's e-mail exchanges in 2011 concerning how inadequate State Dept. technology was. The Department's Director of Policy Planning wrote to Clinton and her aides:

I’m sure you’ve thought of this, but it would be a great time for someone inside or outside to make a statement/ write an op-ed that points out that State’s technology is so antiquated that NO ONE uses a State-issued laptop and even high officials routinely end up using their home email accounts to be able to get their work done quickly and effectively. Further cuts to State’s budget just makes matters much much worse. We actually need more funds to significantly upgrade our technology.[170]

And Clinton agreed. They discussed strategy to get more funding to improve things, but didn't want to go public with it for fear of alerting enemies to another snafu. It doesn't seem to be an isolated issue: The current SoS, John Kerry, was caught in December still using a private email account.[171] There's a long Daily Show segment (actually, several segments) covering in detail the complete inadequacy of the computer systems at the Department of Veterans Affairs and how it's made their job effectively impossible and defied any attempts to fix it.[172]

Slashing government funding has consequences, even if they're not immediate. In retrospect, it was brilliant on Republicans' part, because she gets blamed for a lot of the fallout, e.g. cutting funding for embassy security after Clinton warned them that it would affect national security (but that's another topic.)

So why not just use a state.gov address? Well, here's where FOIA may come into play. Clinton is a paranoid person,[173] mostly because she has been under constant scrutiny for the last quarter-century. Most of those investigations have included FOIA requests. The Freedom of Information Act can perform its transparency function only when government employees follow the e-mail guidelines.[174] Clinton supporter and former Governor and senator of Nebraska, Bob Kerrey, is disturbed by the email scandal: “It is about wanting to avoid the reach of citizens using FOIA to find out what their government is doing, and then not telling the truth about why she did.”[175] Though, she likely hasn't done anything criminal,[176] her subsequent improper deletion of 30,000 emails violated the Federal Records Act[wp].[177] The FBI is conducting a criminal investigation into this matter and it appears that the use of the private server violates several federal criminal statutes.

On July 5, 2016, FBI director James Comey issued a statement that said that Clinton's use of the server was 'careless', but that no criminal charges had been recommended:[178]

Comey said that the FBI could not find a case in the past that would support bringing criminal charges based upon the facts. The bureau did not find clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information or vast quantities of materials, or indications of disloyalty to the U.S. or efforts to obstruct justice.

More or less torpedoing the idea that blanket punishments should be applied severely and across all avenues of life.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I had to look up gerrymandering when you asked me about it on the Political thread.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering#United_States

In some states, bipartisan gerrymandering is the norm. State legislators from both parties sometimes agree to draw congressional district boundaries in a way that ensures the re-election of most or all incumbent representatives from both parties.

What we have now is a different problem.

 

[KingOrfeo]

You are misreading this entirely, if you think Trump's choice of words like "pussy" is the problem here.

 

[gotsnowgotslush]

http://people.com/politics/thats-tr...xual-predator-in-2006-howard-stern-interview/

October 14, 2016

In a newly unearthed video, the GOP nominee is seen laughing after he’s called a “sexual predator” during a 2006 interview on The Howard Stern Show alongside his children Ivanka and Donald Jr.

“Donald, seriously. You know about sexual predators and things like that,” Stern says in the clip. His co-host Robin Quivers then chimed in: “You are one!”


Trump and Ivanka are then seen bursting into a fit of laughter, and the now-70-year-old is seen apparently saying, “That’s true. That’s true.”

 

[BotanyBoy]

You are misreading this entirely, if you think Trump's choice of words like "pussy" is the problem here.

The problem is that he's running against Clinton.

Democrats loved him when he was backing them with his bucks.....his racism/sexism/xenophobia wasn't a problem then.