Illuminati-R-Us

We need more caning.

Massachusetts passed a law yesterday that will have their electors vote follow the national popular vote instead of that of the state. In this case, Hillary won MA so it won't help her this time but with this precedent being set, other states are considering or being encouraged to follow suit.

It amazes me how fast they were able to get that done. And clearly, this is an interesting time. It may not be over yet.

There is some block of states that have all agreed to do this, but it doesn't come into effect until states with a majority of the electoral votes sign up. Not sure if this is the same thing, or something different.

However, could this have any effect at all this election? From the 2000 extended election, I seem to recall hearing about a federal law that prohibiting changing the rules of an election after the election had taken place.

I think the short answer is "maybe".

In most states, the electors are able to vote their conscience already. They just usually don't. And even in states where it's prohibited, it's never been tested and the consensus among constitutional scholars is that trying to punish an elector for voting contrary to the popular vote in the state would fail. So they already can change their votes, pretty much with impunity.

In my opinion, the more this is talked about and the more the electors are encouraged that it is the "right" thing to do this time, the more likely they may be to do something. Seeing states make changes like this, while probably not binding this time, may still be encouraging.

Does that make sense?

Yes, I can't see many do it but if someone does early in the process then others may.

The constitution expressly forbids "ex post facto" laws.

Trump might be impeachable, but it would require the republican controlled congress to prosecute said impeachment. Not likely.

Enzo wrote:Trump might be impeachable, but it would require the republican controlled congress to prosecute said impeachment. Not likely.

They never impeached Obama (although there's still time), and they hated him even more than they hate Trump.

Мастер wrote:

Enzo wrote:Trump might be impeachable, but it would require the republican controlled congress to prosecute said impeachment. Not likely.

They never impeached Obama (although there's still time), and they hated him even more than they hate Trump.

They hated Obama, yes, but they fear Trump.

Here's wha my favourite news magazine has to say about the affair:



The subtitle reads "The end of the world [as we know it]"

I invite everyone to take the time to watch this video, I feel at least a few of us will be better for it, and most might ignore it all the same but it condenses everything quite eloquently for how I'm previewing the world and what is happening right now since I know for the most part you all think I'm batshit crazy.

Language warning, he's a bit colorful and likely going to offend you, just saying.

He has some worthy observations, but the narrator's message got somewhat lost for me in the long rant of emphatic swearing and cussing, which made it hard to keep track of his substantive message. He could have made his points much more concisely and simply. (So, what was he saying again? LoL)

Arneb wrote:The subtitle reads "The end of the world [as we know it]"

Never having studied German I didn't know that was the German verb "to know". There must be a link to the Scots usage of "ken" as in: I ken Arneb, he kens Arneb, they ken Arneb, and the past tense I kent Arneb.

Heid the Ba' wrote:

Arneb wrote:The subtitle reads "The end of the world [as we know it]"

Never having studied German I didn't know that was the German verb "to know". There must be a link to the Scots usage of "ken" as in: I ken Arneb, he kens Arneb, they ken Arneb, and the past tense I kent Arneb.

It is "to know" in the sense you have used above, to know a person, a place, something like that. To know a fact is "wissen".

How wise.

Heid the Ba' wrote:... There must be a link to the Scots usage of "ken" as in: I ken Arneb, he kens Arneb, they ken Arneb, and the past tense I kent Arneb.

Wow! For some reason I always thought the Scots were saying (Fu)ken when they used that word. Thanks for clearing that up.

Sorry, Dragon, I can't follow this. In the first 3 min there was so much swearing and so many factual falsehoods I just couldn't take it for another 46. I didn't feel "offended", as you predicted we all would; I just don't put much value in people's opinion when they say that the Democrats "lost control of the Senate" (when they went from 46 to 49 seats), that they lost "all institutional power" and were "routed" (when they narrowed their gap in the House and were defeated by razor-thin margins in three states they thought they would win, still winning the popular vote). Lots of feel there, lots of brash "I'll explain the world to you, effing idiots", but hardly a lot of substance. At least, in the first three minutes.

Could cou, in your own words, give us a rundown of the points you think are important in this video, and which you think are correct and resonate with you? Maybe without swearing, maybe without insinuating nobody likes you or thinks you are crazy, maybe with just respectful, maybe even friendly exchange and sitmulating discussion among grown-ups who respect each other, differing opinions notwithstanding.

The kind of discussion I'd prefer on this is something like this, a cool, measured rundown of things to learn from someone who was wrong, says he was wrong and said before that he could be wrong.

Honestly, no. He methodically goes forth to support each and everyone one of his points in the video. I'm not going to take the time to go through his line by line to have you got through mine and back and forth only to waste both of our time. You don't have to watch it...and I didn't assume that anyone would make it through anyhow unless you happen to agree with his points and we already know that's not happening. It wasn't intended to be so much a conversation piece as a "this guy gets exactly what I'm saying and feeling, and here's the mountain of evidence to back it up all on one video", only he does a pretty good job of thoroughly completing his points being able to compile all his data before hand and deliver it in a much better medium than text on a page, a few of them taking nearly the entire length of the video to deliver on.

OK, as you prefer. I just don't think that making several factual errors in the first three minutes bodes well in terms of evidence.

I'll be happy to have any political conversation with you that you are weilling to engage in. I am honestly interested in your point of view, and I would have hoped you'd be interested in mine.

This may belong in Conspiracy Theories and Hoaxes but it is at least a little interesting.

You’re not just imagining it: the Hillary Clinton vs Donald Trump vote totals do look rigged

Lance wrote:This may belong in Conspiracy Theories and Hoaxes but it is at least a little interesting.

You’re not just imagining it: the Hillary Clinton vs Donald Trump vote totals do look rigged

I had a look. I think he ought to be able to prove that every election ever held was rigged.

Мастер wrote:I had a look. I think he ought to be able to prove that every election ever held was rigged.

So it's just a bunch of BS?

Lance wrote:

Мастер wrote:I had a look. I think he ought to be able to prove that every election ever held was rigged.

So it's just a bunch of BS?

I don't think we can ever conclusively prove an election was not rigged. But what is his evidence? Mostly picking and choosing numbers (out of a huge supply of results from which he could choose) and saying, look, isn't that funny?

I have come across people (with both "D" and "R" after their names) who are convinced that their preferred candidate is always the true winner, and the only reason anyone they don't like ever wins is because of fraud. I am actually surprised that I'm not hearing so many of such accusations this time around. Maybe I'm just not paying attention.

Another thought occurs to me - who would generally seem to be in a better position to pull off a massive, nationwide fraud campaign this time? That's going to take the party rank and file to pull off. And the party more or less abandoned their candidate as a lost cause in October, diverting funding from the presidential campaign to congressional races. If I were looking for nationwide voting fraud, I think I'd probably look for evidence in the congressional races first

You would think I should know better than to give any credence to stuff like this.

I just saw something that claimed that Drone Man was the first US president in history to win re-election with fewer votes than he received the first time around.

I don't really have time to investigate this now, but I am wondering whether it is true. Although off the top of my head, there are eight people who won election twice (or more times) since 1900:

Wilson
Roosevelt (II)
Eisenhower
Nixon
Reagan
Clinton
Bush (II)
Obama

I think I need to look up the 1800s to construct a definitive list. And in the early history of the country, there was not a popular election in each state.

This may help: List of United States presidential elections by popular vote margin. Funny, I was just looking at this a few minutes ago.

Apparently Trump has a new record; LOSING the popular vote count by the greatest margin but still winning the election.