|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Nov 12, 2016 22:08:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 12, 2016 22:24:56 GMT -5
memes/posts like this bother me. it implies that if you voted for Trump you explicitly voted for these things. I'm sure that it is true for some, but some Muslims, some Latinos, some women voted for Trump -- but ignored is that some voted against Hillary . . . could they say that a large percentage of voters rejected elitism, rejected identity politics, rejected "the other person in the election" with an ego, rejected . . . and then went on and on and on against Trump and used "the glass ceiling" as the only reason to elect Hillary? and now saying that voting for Trump was a hate crime? (so says HuffPost) I found this interesting: don't get me wrong . . . Trump is more than just a bit of a twit . . . but last I heard voting is over. burning semis on the highway (something I thought was only to be expected from redneck hillbillies who vote Republican) is not going to overturn the results. in a democratic republic we vote, we win or we lose, and we move on-- and try to oust the winner (even if he is a loser) in the next election. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 13, 2016 0:19:04 GMT -5
don't get me wrong . . . Trump is more than just a bit of a twit . . . but last I heard voting is over. burning semis on the highway (something I thought was only to be expected from redneck hillbillies who vote Republican) is not going to overturn the results. in a democratic republic we vote, we win or we lose, and we move on-- and try to oust the winner (even if he is a loser) in the next election. Yes he's a twit, but he is democratically elected twit. The whacko end like Moore want 4 years of extreme protest...and obviously the violence that goes with it. That's ok for Moore because, I'm quoting here "can force Trump to break the law."...to stop the violance. So what is the logic here? Burn the cities and when police try to stop it, their Trumps fascist police? Wow. Preach democracy, but if we don't like the results, then mob rule and violence? BTW...nothing new here. In Greece unions and activist were out in force, destroying whatever was in front of them and pretending they were doing it "for democracy". Once their cafe commie buddies came to power, they ratcheted it down. Basically, the "activist" are the Brownshirt Lite of the far left there and if Moore has his way, the mobs, err, "democracy activist" will come out in every city. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 13, 2016 0:28:06 GMT -5
but last I heard voting is over. burning semis on the highway (something I thought was only to be expected from redneck hillbillies who vote Republican) is not going to overturn the results. in a democratic republic we vote, we win or we lose, and we move on-- and try to oust the winner (even if he is a loser) in the next election. But the voting is not over ... The US is a democratic republic, but they use the Electoral College system. At some point in the near future, the people appointed to cast the electoral college votes will have to stand before Congress and select who they will give those votes too. Some states are bound by law to vote for the candidate who received the most votes in their state, other states are not bound. They could conceivably choose not to give anyone their votes, or go radical and go against the popular vote in their state. It has happened a few times in the history of the US. There was a state that abstained from dolling out their electoral college votes I believe the first time Obama was elected. Now, a rogue state has never swung the election ever ... But it is possible. In a state where the voting was close (Mich, Penn) maybe the protesters can convince the delegates to not cast their electoral college votes for Trump. Maybe that's why they are protesting. It's a very slim chance, and if it ever did happen, there would be a constitutional review in the US. Personally, I think they really do need a constitutional review, because their Constitution has been bastardized for a long time now. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 13, 2016 4:38:58 GMT -5
The party who won the state nominates the electors. That 37 Republicans are going to switch their vote for Clinton is a rolling on the floor laughable fantasy. Electors are chosen from their leadership, loyalty and service to the party.
Some electors are bound by state law and some by party loyalty. Further, their party can disqualify their rogue vote. Even if it were to happen, which never will, Republican controlled Congress can simply dismiss the rogue votes and appoint a Republican President. Clinton will NEVER be president in the next four years. Period. End of fantasies.
The election was fought and won on the basis of electoral collage system, not popular vote. Trump won, by a large Electoral Collage margin. Game over. In four years, they can vote otherwise.
Now if Moore and his kind want to go for mob rule and expect the other side to kneel and submit to it, well, that is going to spark a lot of real anger and hate, with 350 million guns, vastly held by the other side, good luck with that. At best, mobs will accelerate the political devide into a hard social devide and hurt the Democratic base the most. Burning down what is left of Detroit is simply going to terminate any hope for a better future. At worse.......unimaginable.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 13, 2016 8:07:28 GMT -5
But the voting is not over ... The US is a democratic republic, but they use the Electoral College system. At some point in the near future, the people appointed to cast the electoral college votes will have to stand before Congress and select who they will give those votes too. Some states are bound by law to vote for the candidate who received the most votes in their state, other states are not bound. They could conceivably choose not to give anyone their votes, or go radical and go against the popular vote in their state. It has happened a few times in the history of the US. There was a state that abstained from dolling out their electoral college votes I believe the first time Obama was elected. Now, a rogue state has never swung the election ever ... But it is possible. In a state where the voting was close (Mich, Penn) maybe the protesters can convince the delegates to not cast their electoral college votes for Trump. Maybe that's why they are protesting. It's a very slim chance, and if it ever did happen, there would be a constitutional review in the US. Personally, I think they really do need a constitutional review, because their Constitution has been bastardized for a long time now. the voting is over . . .the electing is yet to come. I've never been a fan of the electoral college (well, I've never really understood it), but lately there's been a lot more explanation of it going around. it's main purpose: to avoid "the tyranny of the majority". I stopped at that one: I thought the idea of the majority was to make sure the party with most votes -- the group with the ideas most people agreed with -- led. the electoral college makes sure that the States with the most people (or pockets of the US where the most people live) don't run roughshod over the rest of the country. I guess that the opposite is now true: that pockets where less people live now determine who is their president. but they weren't all redneck hick knuckle-draggers!  |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Nov 13, 2016 11:02:04 GMT -5
... memes/posts like this bother me. it implies that if you voted for Trump you explicitly voted for these things. I'm sure that it is true for some, but some Muslims, some Latinos, some women voted for Trump -- but ignored is that some voted against Hillary . . . could they say that a large percentage of voters rejected elitism, rejected identity politics, rejected "the other person in the election" with an ego, rejected . . . and then went on and on and on against Trump and used "the glass ceiling" as the only reason to elect Hillary? and now saying that voting for Trump was a hate crime? (so says HuffPost) Then blame the media ... there were always election issues, but the real problems began (IMO) just as soon as Trump and Clinton became the only choices ... the media turned more attention on the candidates and their flaws than they did the issues ... as a result, the vote didn't come down to the issues, it came down to a loathing of Trump and a deep distrust of the entitled Clinton(s) ... this election did nothing to ease racial tensions and only added fuel to the fire so to speak ... sure, he had Muslims and women voting for him, so did Clinton ... however, while Trump condemned radical Islam, a few of his minions decided to include all Muslims as a threat (say what you want about Ann Coulter, there are people who consider her opinions as gospel) ... what a crock ... He and Clinton represent the flaws in the 'democratic process' ... "... politicians are there to give you the impression that you have a choice. You have no choices. You have ..." George Carlin's opinion was never more validated than it was in this election ... I suspect the US will not be moving on all that quickly ... burning semis, cordoning off Trump Tower, packing heat when attending the polls and beating up people who vote for 'the wrong people' ... add unbelievable levels of public demonstrations and these are things I've never seen before after an election ... the US is divided more than I've ever seen in my lifetime ... even more divided than they were over Vietnam ... I have American friends on both sides of the fence ... one side has a renewed energy in hanging white ... the other side is worried that Canada will build a wall to prevent any American infection ... this whole farce the called an election has brought out the worst in people on both sides and the media can take their fair share of dollars blame for that ... #disjointed rant Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 13, 2016 11:07:35 GMT -5
The party who won the state nominates the electors. That 37 Republicans are going to switch their vote for Clinton is a rolling on the floor laughable fantasy. Electors are chosen from their leadership, loyalty and service to the party. Some electors are bound by state law and some by party loyalty. Further, their party can disqualify their rogue vote. Even if it were to happen, which never will, Republican controlled Congress can simply dismiss the rogue votes and appoint a Republican President. Clinton will NEVER be president in the next four years. Period. End of fantasies. The election was fought and won on the basis of electoral collage system, not popular vote. Trump won, by a large Electoral Collage margin. Game over. In four years, they can vote otherwise. Now if Moore and his kind want to go for mob rule and expect the other side to kneel and submit to it, well, that is going to spark a lot of real anger and hate, with 350 million guns, vastly held by the other side, good luck with that. At best, mobs will accelerate the political devide into a hard social devide and hurt the Democratic base the most. Burning down what is left of Detroit is simply going to terminate any hope for a better future. At worse.......unimaginable. I'm not saying it's going to happen, only that the mere possibility is why people are protesting. But to respond to some things in your post. The party can not disqualify faithless electors. Some of these electors have been voted on themselves during the primaries, and most have been decided for months now. A small selection of states, Pennsylvania being one, have the candidates put forth the names of their electors prior to Election Day to prevent faithless electors. This has happened in the past, and in the very recent past in fact. So it isn't a matter of saying "We disqualify that delegate". Reading Fox News this morning, they have an article on Clinton surrogates trying to sway delegates, .... It seems if they do become faithless it's just a fine, and their votes count. The Republican Congress can not dismiss it. I'm sure they can fight it, legally. Which is why I said it would throw them into a Constitutional crisis. But faithless electors are not new, states have refused to follow the popular vote before. Fantasy? Yeah, I don't think it will happen. It just a possibility under their multi tiered election process. EDIT: faithless electors face a fine ranging from $500-$1000 dollars and the possibility of a misdemeanor charge against them. There have been 157 faithless electors in the history of the Electoral College, (71 because the elector passed away prior to the date set to cast their vote - Dec 19th this year). |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 13, 2016 11:27:43 GMT -5
I was wrong about the Obama election ....it was the 2004 election, not 2008
Here are the most recent faithless electors and their reason for not voting in line with the General Election
2004 - Anonymous (Democrat, Minnesota)
An unknown elector from Minnesota, pledged to vote for Democrat John Kerry, cast a presidential vote instead for Kerry’s running mate John Edwards (the elector also cast his or her vice presidential vote for Edwards). One Minnesota elector, who believed the Edwards vote must have been a mistake, said, "I'm certainly glad the Electoral College isn't separated by one vote."
2000 - Barbara Lett-Simmons (Democrat, District of Columbia)
Barbara Lett-Simmons, a Democratic elector from the District of Columbia, did not cast her vote in order to protest the lack of congressional representation for Washington, DC. Lett-Simmons was the first elector to abstain from voting since 1832. Her abstention did not affect the outcome of the election.
1988 - Margaret Leach (Democrat, West Virginia)
Margaret Leach, a nurse from Huntington, WV, was pledged to the Democratic Party. During the Electoral College process, Leach learned that members of the Electoral College were not required to vote for the candidates to whom they were pledged, whereupon she decided to draw more attention to the situation by switching her votes for president and vice president. She cast her presidential vote for Lloyd Bentsen, the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate, and cast her vice presidential vote for Michael Dukakis, the Democratic presidential candidate.
Leach tried to get other electors to join her, but hers remained the only unexpected vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 13, 2016 14:34:19 GMT -5
Pretty good article from Glenn Beck
Our country is in trouble — we all feel it. The pendulum of division and hate is swinging faster. I think, in many ways unfortunately and regretfully, I am uniquely qualified to provide this message of warning and hope.
The two party system has created loyal soldiers. This started long ago, but let’s start with George W. Bush. Even before Sept. 11, he was demonized. Not just his policies or principles, but his decency and humanity: selected, not elected; stupid; evil; hates black people; and so on.
The right in turn wrapped everything in the flag. We pushed our oratory to the maximum red-white-and blue position, and if you didn’t understand it, the chants began: “Move to Canada,” or “Texas should secede.” Sound familiar?
In 2008 people needed hope and elected it. But we conservatives did not get the hope and change we wanted, so we switched places with liberals. When people like me raised questions about Barack Obama’s history, relationships and qualifications, we were dismissed. For our concerns, we were told to get ready for a “fundamental transformation”; we were bitter and clung to our guns and God.
From the swelling ranks of the frustrated, disenfranchised, unemployed and scared, the Tea Party sprouted. The media made Occupy Wall Street into heroes, while the Tea Party was called a bunch of dangerous hicks. I don’t think any of us truly understood what was fermenting around us.
If you voted for Hillary Clinton this week, you likely feel despondent, confused and unable to reconcile how the country elected Donald J. Trump. “Don’t people see how dangerous this man is?” Clinton supporters asked. “Our entire way of life is at stake.”
I get it. I opposed Mr. Trump, too. But this is how nearly half the country felt eight years ago. It does not matter if we do not understand one another’s feelings. What matters is that we at least hear them.
How do we stop the cycle?
Tuesday night, as it became apparent that Mr. Trump would win, I saw myself as others may see me. Pundits were beside themselves talking about sexism, “whitelash” and bigotry. I read three articles comparing him to Hitler. I understand what they meant. But just as President Obama was not a Manchurian candidate, Mr. Trump is not Hitler. The seeds of 1933 may have been planted, but they can grow only through our hate and divisiveness.
I don’t question your right and reasons to feel fear. But don’t fear Donald Trump the way I feared Barack Obama. I read a perfect election summation: The people who were against Mr. Trump took him literally but not seriously. His supporters took him seriously but not literally. It is the same pattern of 2000 and 2008. We heard President Obama was coming for our church and our guns. We were mocked. We thought those who laughed were lying or stupid. Yet, I still go to church, sometimes with a gun.
Wednesday night the streets were already chanting obscenities and calling him names he earned as a candidate, but not ones he deserves as our next president. Mr. Obama and Hillary Clinton have offered wise counsel: Give him a chance. The country needs him to succeed and represent all Americans. I can make an argument that Mr. Trump — who has been liberal for much of his life and has supported Planned Parenthood — holds views that resonate with liberals, including restricting trade and spending $1 trillion on infrastructure. The left and the right may find they have some common ground.
If our Mr. Trump, or any future president, should decide to round up Muslims (or any group) as America did with Japanese during World War II under Franklin D. Roosevelt, I will declare, “I am a Muslim.” My values, honor, integrity and the Bill of Rights demand I stand for those most unlike me — that is when it counts.
Let’s get past politics and find common principles. Can we all agree that we live in historic times and we are all determined to leave a legacy for our children of courage, kindness and reconciliation that makes their life better than ours?
I want to meet with any nonpolitical thought leaders on the left who are sincere and honest in their beliefs — and just listen. I don’t want to convince or to change anyone’s mind. When they can tell me, “Yes, that is how I feel,” we can begin a dialogue. I will listen with my heart as if I was speaking to my spouse, child or friend.
If my journey is just a snapshot and not a 3D video in your eyes, this dire message will not be heard, and 2020 will be worse. But if we listen with love, and risk believing in one another, the consternation about who resides in the White House will prove to be overblown.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 13, 2016 15:27:31 GMT -5
I'm not saying it's going to happen, only that the mere possibility is why people are protesting. But to respond to some things in your post. The party can not disqualify faithless electors. Some of these electors have been voted on themselves during the primaries, and most have been decided for months now. A small selection of states, Pennsylvania being one, have the candidates put forth the names of their electors prior to Election Day to prevent faithless electors. This has happened in the past, and in the very recent past in fact. So it isn't a matter of saying "We disqualify that delegate". Reading Fox News this morning, they have an article on Clinton surrogates trying to sway delegates, .... It seems if they do become faithless it's just a fine, and their votes count. The Republican Congress can not dismiss it. I'm sure they can fight it, legally. Which is why I said it would throw them into a Constitutional crisis. But faithless electors are not new, states have refused to follow the popular vote before. Fantasy? Yeah, I don't think it will happen. It just a possibility under their multi tiered election process. EDIT: faithless electors face a fine ranging from $500-$1000 dollars and the possibility of a misdemeanor charge against them. There have been 157 faithless electors in the history of the Electoral College, (71 because the elector passed away prior to the date set to cast their vote - Dec 19th this year). Nope. These are Republican electors. They are not going to change their vote for Clinton in a trillion years. And not even then. Rather then repating myself here is a Vox article, as far left as a site can be... Particular attention... No matter how many fantasies Moore has, the only way Clinton sees the White House is to take pictures...from the outside. Even President Ryan is more likely. Which means that Republicans would commit suicide to set aside Trump. The fact that this is happening is only making things worse. It's only serving the agenda and ego of the hard core left and doing nothing to bring America together. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 13, 2016 16:01:26 GMT -5
I suspect the US will not be moving on all that quickly ... burning semis, cordoning off Trump Tower, packing heat when attending the polls and beating up people who vote for 'the wrong people' ... add unbelievable levels of public demonstrations and these are things I've never seen before after an election ... the US is divided more than I've ever seen in my lifetime ... even more divided than they were over Vietnam ... I have American friends on both sides of the fence ... one side has a renewed energy in hanging white ... the other side is worried that Canada will build a wall to prevent any American infection ... this whole farce the called an election has brought out the worst in people on both sides and the media can take their fair share of dollars blame for that ... #disjointed rant Cheers. There is an active playbook that we don't take that seriously in Canada. It says that a small group of "activist" can have a disproportionate effect by drawing the media to it's cause. Locking yourself to a pipeline or a pretend hunger strike draws the ever hungry media. Or constant riots by the "plausable deniability" faithful make it hard to govern and open the door for their own to govern. It works well on a small scale, may even work on a large scale when a nation is truly in dire straights like Greece, what that playbook doesn't say that by trying to smother someone else's right to political power, it creates an equally angry and potentially violent opposition. Moore and company want to shut down the vote of half the country. The majority of which were so angry that they welded their nose shut and voted for Mr Despicable. Now these people are suppose to sit back and let Moore and company scream into power the very same person who represents the worst of their anger. At best, Moore and company are taking a chain saw to American unity. At worse, this is not going to be pretty. It wont take too long for some mob to try to burn the wrong place....and some other mob to defend it. With escalating and deadly violence. This is all going sideways right now. I'm not underestimating the intelligence of Mr Despicable. I'm expecting him to offer a soft side of himself to quell, if not neuter his opposition. He does have a huge ego, just like obama and the rest of them, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that appearing to take a centrist path is the best antidote for what is happening now. Watch 60 minutes tonight to see the smart, manipulative...err...political soft side of Mr Despicable. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 13, 2016 17:19:54 GMT -5
Trump: Let's get that Muslim Band going.
Pence: Band? We thought you said ban
Trump: No way, that's harsh. Btw, how's that Mexican mall coming along?
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 13, 2016 17:51:38 GMT -5
most definitely. there is no more news, only opinion pieces disguised as news. there were issues?  I know, pretty sad. people latch on to what she says because it supports what they believe. who cares what Coulter or DiCaprio think? why do they think they have more of a say / their opinion is more important that any ones else's. just because they can act/speak? bah. democracy. we have a right to express our opinion.and we'll have 4 years of opinion, just like we just finished 8 years of opinion. all well and good -- in fact, isn't that what the WWs were fought over?" I don't say "it's over, deal with it"; I say "it's over, get working on defeating him (if that's your bent) next time". the violence does nothing. unfortunately, the peaceful marches are being infiltrated by "rabble-rousers" |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 13, 2016 18:29:02 GMT -5
I'm going to say something that will get me in trouble.....I understand Trump.
I understand Trump because I see him as a businessman and not an ideologue. He will not change his mind but he will maneuver, manipulate and appear or actually be conciliatory, but still remain on his bigger objective.
As a businessman, one routinely swallows ones pride and short term objectives to benefit the company in the longer term.
This is not some evil trait but rather, a pragmatic and common sense approach in order to survive in a world were one has few "righteous" rules or protection. It's simply the rules of the jungle for businesses and one MUST wade through them in a civil, path of least resistence, self serving fashion. No matter what, you don't tell a client to go to hell, you simply work around him/her or move on at ones best and convinient time. Been there, done that many times and I'm sure Mr Dispicable has done it a million times.
So expect him to soften up, say all the right things and appear moderate, but don't misunderstand or think that he has changed his mind.
Is this good or bad? I don't know. It is certainly different from almost every other career politician and committed idealogues. He will get things done like infrastructure, re-arrange the chairs on trade deals, probably soften a lot of the immigrant hard lines by compromising, but he's not going to become a closet progressive or give up on his core belief.
As an economic conservative and social liberal, I certainly hope that Mr Dispicible follows the orthodox Evil Business Rules 101 and those core beliefs are not ideologue whackiness that he has spouted.
It may not be the end of civilization after all.....
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 13, 2016 18:52:01 GMT -5
A LETTER TO THE US FROM JOHN CLEESE
To the citizens of the United States of America, in light of your failure to elect a competent President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective today.
Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II resumes monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths and other territories. Except Utah, which she does not fancy.
Your new prime minister (The Right Honourable Theresa May, MP for the 97.8% of you who have, until now, been unaware there's a world outside your borders) will appoint a minister for America. Congress and the Senate are disbanded. A questionnaire circulated next year will determine whether any of you noticed.
To aid your transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:
1. Look up "revocation" in the Oxford English Dictionary. Check "aluminium" in the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at just how wrongly you pronounce it. The letter 'U' will be reinstated in words such as 'favour' and 'neighbour'. Likewise you will learn to spell 'doughnut' without skipping half the letters. Generally, you should raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. Look up "vocabulary." Using the same twenty seven words interspersed with filler noises such as "like" and "you know" is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. Look up "interspersed." There will be no more 'bleeps' in the Jerry Springer show. If you're not old enough to cope with bad language then you should not have chat shows.
2. There is no such thing as "US English." We'll let Microsoft know on your behalf. The Microsoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take account of the reinstated letter 'u'.
3. You should learn to distinguish English and Australian accents. It really isn't that hard. English accents are not limited to cockney, upper-class twit or Mancunian (Daphne in Frasier). Scottish dramas such as 'Taggart' will no longer be broadcast with subtitles.You must learn that there is no such place as Devonshire in England. The name of the county is "Devon." If you persist in calling it Devonshire, all American States will become "shires" e.g. Texasshire Floridashire, Louisianashire.
4. You should relearn your original national anthem, "God Save The Queen", but only after fully carrying out task 1.
5. You should stop playing American "football." There's only one kind of football. What you call American "football" is not a very good game. The 2.1% of you aware there is a world outside your borders may have noticed no one else plays "American" football. You should instead play proper football. Initially, it would be best if you played with the girls. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which is similar to American "football", but does not involve stopping for a rest every two seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like nancies) You should stop playing baseball. It's not reasonable to host event called the 'World Series' for a game which is not played outside of America. Instead of baseball, you will be allowed to play a girls' game called "rounders," which is baseball without fancy team stripe, oversized gloves, collector cards or hotdogs.
6. You will no longer be allowed to own or carry guns, or anything more dangerous in public than a vegetable peeler. Because you are not sensible enough to handle potentially dangerous items, you need a permit to carry a vegetable peeler.
7. July 4th is no longer a public holiday. November 2nd will be a new national holiday. It will be called "Indecisive Day."
8. All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap and it is for your own good. When we show you German cars, you will understand what we mean. All road intersections will be replaced with roundabouts, and you will start driving on the left. At the same time, you will go metric without the benefit of conversion tables. Roundabouts and metrication will help you understand the British sense of humour.
9. Learn to make real chips. Those things you call French fries are not real chips. Fries aren't French, they're Belgian though 97.8% of you (including the guy who discovered fries while in Europe) are not aware of a country called Belgium. Potato chips are properly called "crisps." Real chips are thick cut and fried in animal fat. The traditional accompaniment to chips is beer which should be served warm and flat.
10. The cold tasteless stuff you call beer is actually lager. Only proper British Bitter will be referred to as "beer." Substances once known as "American Beer" will henceforth be referred to as "Near-Frozen Gnat's Urine," except for the product of the American Budweiser company which will be called "Weak Near-Frozen Gnat's Urine." This will allow true Budweiser (as manufactured for the last 1000 years in Pilsen, Czech Republic) to be sold without risk of confusion.
11. The UK will harmonise petrol prices (or "Gasoline," as you will be permitted to keep calling it) for those of the former USA, adopting UK petrol prices (roughly $6/US gallon, get used to it).
12. Learn to resolve personal issues without guns, lawyers or therapists. That you need many lawyers and therapists shows you're not adult enough to be independent. If you're not adult enough to sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist, you're not grown up enough to handle a gun.
13. Please tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us crazy.
14. Tax collectors from Her Majesty's Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all revenues due (backdated to 1776).
Thank you for your co-operation.
* John Cleese [Basil Fawlty, Fawlty Towers, Sir Lancelot of Camelot (Monty Python & The Quest for the Holy Grail), Torquay, Devon, England]
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Nov 13, 2016 19:36:10 GMT -5
but last I heard voting is over. burning semis on the highway (something I thought was only to be expected from redneck hillbillies who vote Republican) is not going to overturn the results. in a democratic republic we vote, we win or we lose, and we move on-- and try to oust the winner (even if he is a loser) in the next election. I suspect the US will not be moving on all that quickly ... burning semis, cordoning off Trump Tower, packing heat when attending the polls and beating up people who vote for 'the wrong people' ... add unbelievable levels of public demonstrations and these are things I've never seen before after an election ... the US is divided more than I've ever seen in my lifetime ... even more divided than they were over Vietnam ... I have American friends on both sides of the fence ... one side has a renewed energy in hanging white ... the other side is worried that Canada will build a wall to prevent any American infection ... this whole farce the called an election has brought out the worst in people on both sides and the media can take their fair share of dollars blame for that ... #disjointed rant Cheers. Yes, Canada is quite good at this ... so was Obama and if his administration hadn't misused their political correctness, guys like Trump wouldn't be a factor ... Well said ... each side hugely distrustful of the other and neither side willing to accept the outcome of the other ... this is where they are now ... I'm not sure what the rules are in the US, but there has to be other ways to facilitate electoral reform ... Moore and Trump ... two self-absorbed individuals who actually think Twitter is a think tank ... Trump may, indeed, try the centrist path, but he's got the right-wing, neocon, we-want-America-great-again votes now and it will be interesting to see how tolerant those supporters will be to any broken/unfulfilled campaign promises ... he's going to have to deliver and if he doesn't those who voted for him are more of the ilk to do something about it ... Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 12, 2016 14:39:24 GMT -5
Two Republican electors in Texas have vowed not to vote for Trump in the Electoral College and are planning on voting for John Kasich.
Seven Democrat electors, in an effort to sway more Republican electors, have vowed not to vote for Clinton and will vote for John Kasich or Mitt Romney or whoever the republican electors want, as long as it isn't trump. They are calling themselves the Hamilton Electors.
Its a real long shot. It's more than a hail Mary. But 2 down, 35 to go ... good luck to them
Fun Fact: Who recalls the presidency of Aaron Burr? That's because he never became president, even though he had enough electoral college votes. (he tied Jefferson) He lost the presidency when the House of representative voted in Jefferson on the 36th try.
In 1824, Andrew Jackson had the most electoral college electors. But he didn't have the majority, he had 99 out of 261 and John Quincy Adams had 84. The House of Representatives elected Adams after the first ballot.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 12, 2016 15:05:53 GMT -5
Despite 157 instances of faithlessness as of 2015, faithless electors have not yet affected the results or ultimate outcome of any other election for President and Vice President of the United States.
but you never know . . .
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Dec 12, 2016 15:14:56 GMT -5
Hypothetically speaking, if you were a foreign power intent on sowing chaos and confusion in your primary world adversary, perhaps, again hypothetically, to annex some foreign nations that used to be part of your empire, and you had successfully hacked into enough of that country's elite political servers that you could legitimately claim - just claim - to have influenced the election, would it be in your best interests to release proof of your own involvement say, right before that country's electoral college votes on who the next President should be? Or would you wait until a couple of weeks before his inauguration? Or perhaps after his presidency has started, and your military is ready to go ahead with the aforementioned annexation?
Or would you just keep quiet and see what kind of chaos develops all on its own?
Hypothetically speaking of course.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 12, 2016 17:38:37 GMT -5
Hypothetically speaking, if you were a foreign power intent on sowing chaos and confusion in your primary world adversary, perhaps, again hypothetically, to annex some foreign nations that used to be part of your empire, and you had successfully hacked into enough of that country's elite political servers that you could legitimately claim - just claim - to have influenced the election, would it be in your best interests to release proof of your own involvement say, right before that country's electoral college votes on who the next President should be? Or would you wait until a couple of weeks before his inauguration? Or perhaps after his presidency has started, and your military is ready to go ahead with the aforementioned annexation? Or would you just keep quiet and see what kind of chaos develops all on its own? Hypothetically speaking of course. I don't think Russia released anything. The US intelligence community knew as of Oct 7th it was Russia hacking the DNC. But now they've had enough time to check other sources, and the study the digital footprint and have agreed that this was all about influencing the election to get Trump elected. They now know the RNC was hacked by Russia too, but nothing released. The RNC is denying they were hacked, Trump is making one of Putin friend's Secretary of State, and now 10 electoral college electors are asking for a full scale review before casting their vote. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 12, 2016 17:48:54 GMT -5
When the founding fathers decided upon the Electoral College system they had three ideas in mind.
1. Prevent a demagogue from becoming president simply because he was popular
2. Prevent foreign interference in their elections
3. Prevent poor administration of government.
How's that all going for them now??
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Dec 12, 2016 18:53:02 GMT -5
Hypothetically speaking, if you were a foreign power intent on sowing chaos and confusion in your primary world adversary, perhaps, again hypothetically, to annex some foreign nations that used to be part of your empire, and you had successfully hacked into enough of that country's elite political servers that you could legitimately claim - just claim - to have influenced the election, would it be in your best interests to release proof of your own involvement say, right before that country's electoral college votes on who the next President should be? Or would you wait until a couple of weeks before his inauguration? Or perhaps after his presidency has started, and your military is ready to go ahead with the aforementioned annexation? Or would you just keep quiet and see what kind of chaos develops all on its own? Hypothetically speaking of course. I don't think Russia released anything. The US intelligence community knew as of Oct 7th it was Russia hacking the DNC. But now they've had enough time to check other sources, and the study the digital footprint and have agreed that this was all about influencing the election to get Trump elected. They now know the RNC was hacked by Russia too, but nothing released. The RNC is denying they were hacked, Trump is making one of Putin friend's Secretary of State, and now 10 electoral college electors are asking for a full scale review before casting their vote. No, they haven't released anything. Yet. What would happen if the Russians were to come out tomorrow and say " Yep, we did it. We hacked the DNC and shared what we found with WikiLeaks. More than that, we actually worked with Bannon, Priebus, and even Trump himself, to undermine Clinton's campaign in the hopes that Trump would win. In return Trump promised us that he would appoint Russian-friendly men to key positions, so that we can work together, on our common interests. We feel it would be better for us, for the world economy, for world security, if Trump was President." Doesn't even have to be true, now does it? Not in today's age. We know, or highly suspect anyways, that the first part about them hacking is true, so who is to say the second part isn't as well? Does it even matter? What kind of turmoil, angst, and confusion would that sew? It would be the ultimate blow in cyber warfare. Undermining the faith in not just an elected President, but in the whole democratic system itself. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 13, 2016 9:16:04 GMT -5
I believe that is exactly what happened ... I don't know about Bannon and Preibus' involvement. But almost all the satirically news shows were connecting the dots regarding Russian ties with Trump. Yes, they all did it for the laughs, but all their evidence was true. The main stream news media didn't pick up on it until after the election, they were too focuses on emails and FBI.
I got to believe that most Republicans are looking at all these recent appointments and now see that Trump doesn't have a clue, or see he doesn't care. Not sure what they can do, but it sure says something when your best appointment is Linda McMahon from the WWF/WWE, and practically every appointment he has made is AGAINST the Department he is now in charge of ...
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 13, 2016 21:18:09 GMT -5
Oh my GOD........it's a secret assessment by unnamed sources in the CIA unearthed by that ever vigilant Democrats who rather eat glass then see Trump as president. "The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, according to officials briefed on the matter." Who is claiming this? Dianne Feinstein, Ben Cardin and Patrick Leahy, DEMOCRATS. www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-orders-review-of-russian-hacking-during-presidential-campaign/2016/12/09/31d6b300-be2a-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.htmlBut wait....there is more..... There was hacking into the Democrats email way back in May, everybody knew it, but then, no one in his right mind thought that Trump would win so there was nothing to see there. Today, a month before Trump is president, all of a sudden it's "news" worthy of asteroid hitting earth. Here is the story back in JUNE. Did I mention JUNE? Here it is.....by the very same paper that is now spinning it as "secret assessment". www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-government-hackers-penetrated-dnc-stole-opposition-research-on-trump/2016/06/14/cf006cb4-316e-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.htmlDid I mention June? What this is is far, FAR more important as a case study for partisan reporting and manipulating the news then any real concern of Russian hackers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 13, 2016 21:28:41 GMT -5
Hypothetically speaking, if you were a foreign power intent on sowing chaos and confusion in your primary world adversary, perhaps, again hypothetically, to annex some foreign nations that used to be part of your empire, and you had successfully hacked into enough of that country's elite political servers that you could legitimately claim - just claim - to have influenced the election, would it be in your best interests to release proof of your own involvement say, right before that country's electoral college votes on who the next President should be? Or would you wait until a couple of weeks before his inauguration? Or perhaps after his presidency has started, and your military is ready to go ahead with the aforementioned annexation? Or would you just keep quiet and see what kind of chaos develops all on its own? Hypothetically speaking of course. I don't think Russia released anything. The US intelligence community knew as of Oct 7th it was Russia hacking the DNC. But now they've had enough time to check other sources, and the study the digital footprint and have agreed that this was all about influencing the election to get Trump elected. They now know the RNC was hacked by Russia too, but nothing released. The RNC is denying they were hacked, Trump is making one of Putin friend's Secretary of State, and now 10 electoral college electors are asking for a full scale review before casting their vote. No, not even close. EVERYBODY ON THE PLANET including some surrounding planets as well as that effervescent US intelligence network knew about it in JUNE of this year, but because Trump was a non factor, nothing to see there. Google "Russians hacked DNC".....go to tools and limit the search between May and June of 2016. I got 14 pages of "news" story. Tell me again how this is "news"? Or that it was some "secret reports" that unearthed this? Did I mention June? When the founding fathers decided upon the Electoral College system they had three ideas in mind. 1. Prevent a demagogue from becoming president simply because he was popular 2. Prevent foreign interference in their elections 3. Prevent poor administration of government. How's that all going for them now?? I'm pretty sure that those 63 million AMERICANS who voted for Trump, including blacks, Hispanics, man and woman see it the same way as a Canadian. And......I bet the house that if any outsider commented on how Newfoundlanders voted, it would be met with a string of ummm...unflattering language. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 13, 2016 21:44:42 GMT -5
What would happen if the Russians were to come out tomorrow and say " Yep, we did it. We hacked the DNC and shared what we found with WikiLeaks. More than that, we actually worked with Bannon, Priebus, and even Trump himself, to undermine Clinton's campaign in the hopes that Trump would win. In return Trump promised us that he would appoint Russian-friendly men to key positions, so that we can work together, on our common interests. We feel it would be better for us, for the world economy, for world security, if Trump was President." Doesn't even have to be true, now does it? Not in today's age. We know, or highly suspect anyways, that the first part about them hacking is true, so who is to say the second part isn't as well? Does it even matter? What kind of turmoil, angst, and confusion would that sew? It would be the ultimate blow in cyber warfare. Undermining the faith in not just an elected President, but in the whole democratic system itself. Ask yourself WHO is making an issue of this 8 MONTHS after it was common knowledge. And why? Is it the hackers who are doing the damage or the ones in the media and Democratic politicians who will go to ANY length to manipulate and enrage public opinion? I despise Mr Despicable probably less then you do , but not much less, but he's gone in 4 years. On the other hand, this unprecedented level of manipulation by what should be "somewhat" neutral media is frightening. And permanent. And as we are seeing more and more, without any borders or concerned about the consequences. Fearless prediction......this is going to make the political divide into a canyon.....and there will be blood spilled. |
|
