OT: The pain of losing this election

[Ray Martinez]

In her most gracious concession speech, Secretary Clinton straight out admitted that conceding was "painful" (her term).

Her pain, the pain of fellow Democrats, and the pain of the mainstream media, is most obvious.

Since she and her fellow Democrats, including the mainstream media, demonized Trump the best they could, casting him as unfit to hold the office of President of the United States, laughing at him, and slandering him, the utter PAIN of having to concede and welcome him into the White House is a just punishment for Democrats and media.

Better yet, consider this: President Obama has done everything he could to escape any catastrophe staining his terms as President. Even the atrocities of ISIS around the world, including inspiring acts of mass murder in the U.S., have not angered him enough to go to war. All Obama cares about is peace at any cost, political correctness, and being able to say he kept us out of war despite the fact that ISIS and Iran deserve to be put down militarily.

Yet at the very end of his term America elects Trump which slaps Obama hard in the face because Trump has said he will take out ISIS, confront the goals of Iran, and negate Obama's rule by executive orders.

So Obama doesn't escape catastrophe. Right when he thought he was going to escape unscathed, the American people saw fit to repudiate his bad actions and in-actions. Now Obama lives in a state of seething pain. Whether it shows on his face or not there is no way to escape the fact that the election of Trump as President, like Secretary Clinton said, is most painful.

I am elated and delighted.

Ray

PS: I supported Obama during his first term.

[czeba...@gmail.com]

Ray said: a bunch of blather.

Trouble is, Ray, coming from you it has no value.

gregwrld

[r3p...@gmail.com]

Lack of any substance indicates that the truth hurts.

The election wasn't even close. Obama has been judged to have taken us in the wrong direction. His legacy, which is all he cares about, is un-American: We have NEVER let atrocities go unpunished, or people with the mindset of Nazis (the Iranians) be rewarded. He has turned a blind eye because he is not a real American. Obama is a deceiver who got what was coming to him. Now he has to release control of the Government to a person who he despises with implacable hatred. His legacy is irreversibly stained. He can't leave office in a state of happiness or satisfaction. He has to leave on a very bad and painful note which can never be erased.

I am delighted.

Ray

[czeba...@gmail.com]

Of course you're delighted: you have a history of being taken in by sleazy hustlers...

gregwrld

[r3p...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 5:30:02 PM UTC-8, czeba...@gmail.com wrote:
> Of course you're delighted: you have a history of being taken in by sleazy hustlers...
>
> gregwrld

The American people have slapped Obama and Clinton in the face very hard. You're humiliated and lashing out.

Ray

[*Hemidactylus*]

<r3p...@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

> The election wasn't even close.

Given Hillary is still ahead in the popular vote you might want to temper
the enthusiasm there sparky. More *people* may have actually voted for
Hillary over Trumpeter. Time will tell. The electoral college has other
"intelligent" designs.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2016/presidential-election-headquarters

As of this posting:
Clinton- 60,335,977
Trump- 59,984,154

[*Hemidactylus*]

Given your status as gateway keeper to True Christianity does President
Elect Crotch-Grabber qualify as a man of God?

[Glenn]

"*Hemidactylus*" <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote in message news:MqmdnaOI9_CUv7jF...@giganews.com...

> <r3p...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> The election wasn't even close.
>
> Given Hillary is still ahead in the popular vote you might want to temper
> the enthusiasm there sparky. More *people* may have actually voted for
> Hillary over Trumpeter. Time will tell. The electoral college has other
> "intelligent" designs.
>

Trump 290
Clinton 228

https://www.google.com/#q=trump+electoral+votes&eob=enn/p//0/0///////////

Speaking of Hillary, unity and the protests, where is she?

[Glenn]

"*Hemidactylus*" <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote in message news:FrmdnRjDvpQWvrjF...@giganews.com...

You really should shut the fuck up.

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <487a12cd-a6dc-4641...@googlegroups.com>,

Actually, the American people voted for Hillary. It's the electoral
college that will be electing Trump.


--
Please reply to: |"We establish no religion in this country, we command
pciszek at panix | no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever.
dot com | Church and state are, and must remain, separate."
Autoreply disabled | --Ronald Reagan, October 26, 1984

[Ray Martinez]

One message above portrays the electoral college negatively. It was the same college that elected Obama twice. Another message attempts to save Obama's and Clinton's face by pointing out that Clinton won the popular vote, as if the popular vote means anything when everyone knows it means nothing. In this case the only thing the popular vote means is that Clinton won California, New York, and Illinois by very wide margins. Absent the electoral college, candidates would only need to campaign in the most populated states, effectively shutting out all other people in other states from having a voice in elections. So the popular vote is meaningless, deceptive.

Ray

[Glenn]

"Paul Ciszek" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:o03g6m$n6b$1...@reader2.panix.com...

>
> In article <487a12cd-a6dc-4641...@googlegroups.com>,
> <r3p...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 5:30:02 PM UTC-8, czeba...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Of course you're delighted: you have a history of being taken in by
>>sleazy hustlers...
>>>
>>> gregwrld
>>
>>The American people have slapped Obama and Clinton in the face very
>>hard. You're humiliated and lashing out.
>
> Actually, the American people voted for Hillary. It's the electoral
> college that will be electing Trump.
>
>

Currently by around 300,000 out of 120 million, probably about the same number as the idiotic protesters. But Hillary has conceded. She also claimed to wish unity. By the way, in light of the protesters, where is she?

[Robert Camp]

On 11/10/16 8:45 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> One message above portrays the electoral college negatively. It was
> the same college that elected Obama twice.

And Obama won the popular vote both times. A distinction was offered,
and it appears to have sailed right over your head.

> Another message attempts
> to save Obama's and Clinton's face by pointing out that Clinton won
> the popular vote, as if the popular vote means anything when everyone
> knows it means nothing.

No, no one knows that.

> In this case the only thing the popular vote
> means is that Clinton won California, New York, and Illinois by very
> wide margins.

You do realize that's where most of the people are, right? And that the
will of the people means something in a representative democracy?

> Absent the electoral college, candidates would only
> need to campaign in the most populated states, effectively shutting
> out all other people in other states from having a voice in
> elections. So the popular vote is meaningless, deceptive.

As usual, your "So" is a complete non sequitur, signifying nothing more
than an impotent attempt to connect an unrelated "then" to your presumed
"if". I could just as easily make the point that absent emphasis on the
popular vote, candidates can disregard the will of the majority and
tailor their messages to special interests, "so" the electoral college
is meaningless - but I wouldn't because it's facile and foolish.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 13:53:36 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[...]

>All Obama cares about is peace at any cost

So complains he who claims to be on eof the few *true* Christians
around here.

[Glenn]

"Robert Camp" <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:o03jge$qrc$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 11/10/16 8:45 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> One message above portrays the electoral college negatively. It was
>> the same college that elected Obama twice.
>
> And Obama won the popular vote both times. A distinction was offered,
> and it appears to have sailed right over your head.
>

That the electoral college elected Obama twice seems to have sailed right over your head.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 16:50:58 -0800 (PST), r3p...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 4:20:01 PM UTC-8, czeba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ray said: a bunch of blather.
>>
>> Trouble is, Ray, coming from you it has no value.
>>
>> gregwrld
>
>Lack of any substance indicates that the truth hurts.
>
>The election wasn't even close. Obama has been judged to have taken us in the wrong direction. His legacy, which is all he cares about, is un-American: We have NEVER let atrocities go unpunished, or people with the mindset of Nazis (the Iranians) be rewarded. He has turned a blind eye because he is not a real American.

Err, it might have esacped your notice but even Trump has now accepted
that Obama is a real American.

[Burkhard]

Does it surprise you at all that Ray suddenly is all in favour of
someone who molests woman? His own attitude to woman whenever the issue
came up was pretty much along the same lines. Nor am I surprised that
Ray endorses murder and torture.

[Burkhard]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> One message above portrays the electoral college negatively. It was the same college that elected Obama twice. Another message attempts to save Obama's and Clinton's face by pointing out that Clinton won the popular vote, as if the popular vote means anything when everyone knows it means nothing. In this case the only thing the popular vote means is that Clinton won California, New York, and Illinois by very wide margins. Absent the electoral college, candidates would only need to campaign in the most populated states, effectively shutting out all other people in other states from having a voice in elections. So the popular vote is meaningless, deceptive.
>
> Ray
>

You might want to take this up with your president elect. He has called
the electoral college a "disaster for democracy" and called for "a
revolution in this country" when the popular vote loses out to the
college vote. He also called such a situation "a sham and a travesty"
and urged people "to fight like hell to stop this great and disgusting
injustice"

[eridanus]

this was a sensible question.
eri

[*Hemidactylus*]

I don't take proscriptive orders from expressive aphasic anger clowns. If
you can't comprehend that you've got even worse language issues than I
suspected.

[jillery]

On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 21:06:17 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

There it is; don't like a problem, pretend it doesn't exist.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[Glenn]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:aulb2c5bi6stt3el7...@4ax.com...

The problem is Hemi's, and I'm not pretending that doesn't exist. You're an idiot.

[jillery]

On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 07:57:31 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

No, it isn't.

>and I'm not pretending that doesn't exist.

Yes, you pretending a different problem doesn't exist.


>You're an idiot.


Perhaps, but still irrelevant.

[Richard Clayton]

You're a hateful, sadistic nebbish, Ray... but we already knew that. But
personally, I'd be careful about jumping in bed with nationalists and
white supremacists when your surname is "Martinez."

--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names
are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." — Rudyard Kipling

[Earle Jones27]

*
The ten commandments say nothing about crotch-grabbing.

"Thou shalt not grope thy neighbor's wife's ass."

earle
*

[Steve L]

If nothing else, we have the first [de facto] atheist President.

(And don't bring up his claim to be a "very strong Christian". When he
cites "eye for an eye" as his favorite Bible verse he knows nothing
about Christianity)

[*Hemidactylus*]

Does he give much thought to anything except what is expedient to him? Ray
has latched his wagon to a malignantly narcissistic person who could be one
of those sociopaths who don't collect body parts of victims in their
basement but turn off empathy when it suits them as a successful used car
salesperson would and care nothing for consequences of actions. I wonder
the size of Trump's amygdala.

Trump could be whatever he needs to be to suit his purposes but is he an
atheist? Apparently Sam Harris tweeted such, but Hemant Mehta took issue
with that:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/11/09/donald-trump-isnt-an-atheist/

Didn't Jesus say stuff about rich people's chances of getting into heaven
(contra prosperity gospel) and turning the other cheek? How often has Trump
heeded that advice? Never? If Trump was humble and turned the other cheek
would he gave had escalated showdowns with Rosie O'Donnell or Megyn Kelly?
He doesn't seem to respond to criticism well and threatens litigation quite
often.

But Ray thinks he's great. Blessed are the peacemakers. Ray seems to love
war as much as his newfound hero. Jesus cried.

[Glenn]

"Richard Clayton" <richZIG.e....@gmail.com> wrote in message news:o0529t$6mb$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 10-Nov-16 16:53, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> In her most gracious concession speech, Secretary Clinton straight out admitted that conceding was "painful" (her term).
>>
>> Her pain, the pain of fellow Democrats, and the pain of the mainstream media, is most obvious.
>>
>> Since she and her fellow Democrats, including the mainstream media, demonized Trump the best they could, casting him as unfit to hold the office of President of the United States, laughing at him, and slandering him, the utter PAIN of having to concede and welcome him into the White House is a just punishment for Democrats and media.
>>
>> Better yet, consider this: President Obama has done everything he could to escape any catastrophe staining his terms as President. Even the atrocities of ISIS around the world, including inspiring acts of mass murder in the U.S., have not angered him enough to go to war. All Obama cares about is peace at any cost, political correctness, and being able to say he kept us out of war despite the fact that ISIS and Iran deserve to be put down militarily.
>>
>> Yet at the very end of his term America elects Trump which slaps Obama hard in the face because Trump has said he will take out ISIS, confront the goals of Iran, and negate Obama's rule by executive orders.
>>
>> So Obama doesn't escape catastrophe. Right when he thought he was going to escape unscathed, the American people saw fit to repudiate his bad actions and in-actions. Now Obama lives in a state of seething pain. Whether it shows on his face or not there is no way to escape the fact that the election of Trump as President, like Secretary Clinton said, is most painful.
>>
>> I am elated and delighted.
>>
>> Ray
>>
>> PS: I supported Obama during his first term.
>
> You're a hateful, sadistic nebbish, Ray... but we already knew that. But
> personally, I'd be careful about jumping in bed with nationalists and
> white supremacists when your surname is "Martinez."
>

Thanks for joining in, Richard.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, November 11, 2016 at 9:45:01 PM UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> Steve L <x@y.z> wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 19:48:59 -0600, *Hemidactylus*
> > <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> <r3p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 5:30:02 PM UTC-8, czeba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Of course you're delighted: you have a history of being taken in by sleazy hustlers...

I doubt that Ray will boycott "czeba..." for that; he reserves boycotts
for Christians like Dana Tweedy who effectively refute him in post after
post, year after year. The excuse he gave for his boycott, now in its
second (or is it the third?) is that Dana said essentially the same
thing "czeba..." did just now.

But enough about Ray's deficiencies; the other side gets its turn below.

> >>>> gregwrld
> >>>
> >>> The American people have slapped Obama and Clinton in the face very hard.
> >>> You're humiliated and lashing out.
> >>
> >>
> >> Given your status as gateway keeper to True Christianity does President
> >> Elect Crotch-Grabber qualify as a man of God?
> >
> > If nothing else, we have the first [de facto] atheist President.
> >
> > (And don't bring up his claim to be a "very strong Christian". When he
> > cites "eye for an eye" as his favorite Bible verse he knows nothing
> > about Christianity)

That much is undeniable. But then, neither did Dick Gregory when he
said he believed in turning the other cheek --- "and if he strikes
you on that, kick the daylights out of him."

> Does he give much thought to anything except what is expedient to him? Ray
> has latched his wagon to a malignantly narcissistic person who could be one
> of those sociopaths who don't collect body parts of victims in their
> basement but turn off empathy when it suits them as a successful used car
> salesperson would and care nothing for consequences of actions.

For someone who takes refuge in flippancy when I turn the heat onto
him, you sure can talk out of the other side of your mouth.

> I wonder
> the size of Trump's amygdala.

It can't be much bigger than yours.

> Trump could be whatever he needs to be to suit his purposes but is he an
> atheist?

Obama is emotionally sympathetic towards Islam, and attended a church
whose pastor was nominally Christian, but is there anyone here who
does not think Obama is intellectually an atheist?

> Apparently Sam Harris tweeted such,

What made him think Trump was the FIRST atheist president?

>but Hemant Mehta took issue
> with that:
>
> http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/11/09/donald-trump-isnt-an-atheist/

But I take issue with the claim that Trump is an atheist. Not because
I'm one myself and I'd hate for Trump to be lumped in with "my tribe,"
but because I think atheism requires more thought than Trump gives it.

Yes, I think that is true. On the other hand, I think Saul Alinsky
inspired Clinton enough for her to give lots of thought to being
an atheist. Her cavalier attitude towards Benghazi, insecure
classified e-mails, and lying about what she did about them, suggest
that those thoughts bore fruit.

The name of Obama's Marxist mentor escapes me at the moment, but
the influence he had on Obama is also undeniable.

> Didn't Jesus say stuff about rich people's chances of getting into heaven
> (contra prosperity gospel) and turning the other cheek?

Yes, but not as one-dimensionally or figuratively as your kind thinks.

> How often has Trump
> heeded that advice? Never? If Trump was humble and turned the other cheek
> would he gave had escalated showdowns with Rosie O'Donnell or Megyn Kelly?

Turning the other cheek had to do with physical fighting. If you think
that it also applies to verbal fighting, I suggest you read John 8,
where Jesus does anything but "turn the other cheek verbally."

But you don't take anything in the Bible seriously, do you?

> He doesn't seem to respond to criticism well and threatens litigation quite
> often.

Sounds like the same-sex couple who successfully sued a baker ca. $100k for
the tremendous emotional distress they allegedly suffered when the
Christian baker refused to bake a cake for them. The laundry list
of distresses read like it was copied from all the suffering
gays complained of in 1973 when they got homosexuality taken off the
list of mental illnesses.

> But Ray thinks he's great. Blessed are the peacemakers. Ray seems to love
> war as much as his newfound hero.

Not for war's sake, though: Ray knows that some things, like wholesale persecution of Christians, Yazids, etc. are worth fighting against. Your buddy Mark Isaak also thinks some things are worth taking arms up
for; he had a laundry list of "if"s which, if they really came true,
would be enough for him to want people to take up arms against the
Trump government.

And you are in agreement with Mark, aren't you? You think "Blessed
are the peacemakers" is for Christians and other losers, don't you?

Are you happy about the rioting in Portland, Oregon, where someone
was beaten for having voted for Trump? Not that this was a hate
crime: your kind co-opted the word "hate" for your own purposes
years ago.

> Jesus cried.

It's nice to know you are as fond of cherry-picking as the most
clumsy creationist.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

Not a very telling fact.

But this might be: Kerry did NOT beat Bush in the popular vote, but I have
a sneaking suspicion that Camp and millions like him would have been only
too happy if Ohio had gone the other way and the electoral vote would
have made him president despite his getting fewer popular votes than Bush.

And this might be significant too: Clinton only got a plurality, not
a majority.

But perhaps the following is most telling: the campaigns weren't run
on getting the popular vote: they were run very strongly (but not
exclusively) on wooing the states that weren't firmly in one camp
or the other.

Peter Nyikos

[Robert Camp]

On 11/11/16 8:25 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Friday, November 11, 2016 at 12:20:02 AM UTC-5, Glenn wrote:
>> "Robert Camp" <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:o03jge$qrc$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> On 11/10/16 8:45 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>> One message above portrays the electoral college negatively. It was
>>>> the same college that elected Obama twice.
>>>
>>> And Obama won the popular vote both times. A distinction was offered,
>>> and it appears to have sailed right over your head.
>>>
>> That the electoral college elected Obama twice seems to have sailed right over your head.
>
> Not a very telling fact.
>
> But this might be: Kerry did NOT beat Bush in the popular vote, but I have
> a sneaking suspicion that Camp and millions like him would have been only
> too happy if Ohio had gone the other way and the electoral vote would
> have made him president despite his getting fewer popular votes than Bush.

Like Glenn, you appear to have great difficulty either recognizing or
developing an actual point.

Of course I would have been happy - and it's pretty clear at this
juncture that the rest of the country, as well as the world, would have
been too.

That would not, however, have changed my opinion about the electoral
college. I would still advocate for changes, perhaps like Maryland has
recently passed, which could possibly disadvantage my preferred
candidate in the future. It's about having real principles, not
politically convenient whims. Something for Republicans to think about.

[Richard Clayton]

You're welcome, Glenn.

[Glenn]

"Robert Camp" <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:o07c02$ui0$1...@dont-email.me...

Where is your actual point? That you have a problem with the Constitution?

[Ray Martinez]

On Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 9:20:02 PM UTC-8, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 16:50:58 -0800 (PST), r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 4:20:01 PM UTC-8, czeba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ray said: a bunch of blather.
> >>
> >> Trouble is, Ray, coming from you it has no value.
> >>
> >> gregwrld
> >
> >Lack of any substance indicates that the truth hurts.
> >
> >The election wasn't even close. Obama has been judged to have taken us in the wrong direction. His legacy, which is all he cares about, is un-American: We have NEVER let atrocities go unpunished, or people with the mindset of Nazis (the Iranians) be rewarded. He has turned a blind eye because he is not a real American.
>
> Err, it might have esacped your notice but even Trump has now accepted
> that Obama is a real American.
>

I never questioned where Obama was born. So you've misunderstood the point.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Friday, November 11, 2016 at 10:25:02 AM UTC-8, Richard Clayton wrote:
> On 10-Nov-16 16:53, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > In her most gracious concession speech, Secretary Clinton straight out admitted that conceding was "painful" (her term).
> >
> > Her pain, the pain of fellow Democrats, and the pain of the mainstream media, is most obvious.
> >
> > Since she and her fellow Democrats, including the mainstream media, demonized Trump the best they could, casting him as unfit to hold the office of President of the United States, laughing at him, and slandering him, the utter PAIN of having to concede and welcome him into the White House is a just punishment for Democrats and media.
> >
> > Better yet, consider this: President Obama has done everything he could to escape any catastrophe staining his terms as President. Even the atrocities of ISIS around the world, including inspiring acts of mass murder in the U.S., have not angered him enough to go to war. All Obama cares about is peace at any cost, political correctness, and being able to say he kept us out of war despite the fact that ISIS and Iran deserve to be put down militarily.
> >
> > Yet at the very end of his term America elects Trump which slaps Obama hard in the face because Trump has said he will take out ISIS, confront the goals of Iran, and negate Obama's rule by executive orders.
> >
> > So Obama doesn't escape catastrophe. Right when he thought he was going to escape unscathed, the American people saw fit to repudiate his bad actions and in-actions. Now Obama lives in a state of seething pain. Whether it shows on his face or not there is no way to escape the fact that the election of Trump as President, like Secretary Clinton said, is most painful.
> >
> > I am elated and delighted.
> >
> > Ray
> >
> > PS: I supported Obama during his first term.
>
> You're a hateful, sadistic nebbish, Ray...

Now you know how we felt when Obama won a second term.

> but we already knew that. But
> personally, I'd be careful about jumping in bed with nationalists and
> white supremacists when your surname is "Martinez."

I completely reject human evolution, long extinct apes morphing into Africans, as gutter racism.

Ray (anti-evolutionary)

[Ray Martinez]

If roles were reversed, and Hillary had won, you'd be making the points I'm making. So you have no point against the electoral college. Everyone knew the rules of the election years in advance (popular vote means nothing). Neither Hillary nor Obama have said what you're saying. You're just a sore loser who can't face the fact that America decided Obama had taken the country in all the wrong directions.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 9:05:01 PM UTC-8, Robert Camp wrote:

If Hillary had won you wouldn't be making any of these points. This is how we know your opinions here are entirely subjective, reflecting a double standard.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 9:05:01 PM UTC-8, Robert Camp wrote:

If we discard the electoral college then the most populated states would decide every election. This means California, New York, Illinois, and Texas.

Since the first three are blue states, the Democrats would win every election. This is WHY an electoral college exists. Do try and understand these basic facts.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Trump won the election, which MEANS Trump won the popular vote in a majority of states.

Ray

[Glenn]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:74df15de-c920-40db...@googlegroups.com...

Trump's team called State polling better than anyone. And he may just have anticipated this, when he claimed that he wouldn't contest the election- if he won, so that Hillary et al would either not contest the election when she lost, or look like fools and hypocrites if she did.

[Glenn]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:ae82b728-91a0-40b2...@googlegroups.com...

No, he won because he won the popular vote in enough states so as to exceed 270 electoral votes.

[Ray Martinez]

Not the same thing? What you said and I said?

Ray

[eridanus]

nobody loves his favorite team loosing. This is elemental.
This is like in sports. It seems so childish.

I barely can believe it.
eri

[Glenn]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:c3534ca9-ce38-44f5...@googlegroups.com...

The only minor difference is your inclusion of "a majority" of states. Although he did, that is not required..

[Glenn]

"eridanus" <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:75639700-520f-4d55...@googlegroups.com...

I wouldn't expect you to even come remotely close to understanding it.

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <o07i32$ko8$1...@dont-email.me>, Glenn <g...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>Where is your actual point? That you have a problem with the Constitution?

Well, I certainly do. For starters there are those portions that
acknowledge and condone slavery; fortunately, we fixed that with the
13th amendment. Then there is the eighteenth amendment; fortunately,
we fixed that with the twenty-first amendment. But most of all, I
have a problem with the electoral college--we need an amendment to
fix thati, too.

--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <2accb60a-4ba4-4516...@googlegroups.com>,

Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>If we discard the electoral college then the most populated states would
>decide every election. This means California, New York, Illinois, and
>Texas.

Actually, the *reverse* would be true. Currently the votes of
Republicans in NY and California and of Democrats in Texas count
for nothing, and the majority of states don't count at all and can
safely be ignored by anyone running for president. If the
president were elected by popular vote, every person's vote would
count the same no matter where they lived. A true "fifty state"
strategy would make sense, with a successful candidate scrounging
votes whereever they can get them.

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <o03r0v$clv$1...@dont-email.me>, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>You might want to take this up with your president elect. He has called
>the electoral college a "disaster for democracy" and called for "a
>revolution in this country" when the popular vote loses out to the
>college vote. He also called such a situation "a sham and a travesty"
>and urged people "to fight like hell to stop this great and disgusting
>injustice"

When did he say this? I think that would make a great sig quote, if
I could cite the source.

[Burkhard]

Paul Ciszek wrote:
> In article <o03r0v$clv$1...@dont-email.me>, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>
>> You might want to take this up with your president elect. He has called
>> the electoral college a "disaster for democracy" and called for "a
>> revolution in this country" when the popular vote loses out to the
>> college vote. He also called such a situation "a sham and a travesty"
>> and urged people "to fight like hell to stop this great and disgusting
>> injustice"
>
> When did he say this? I think that would make a great sig quote, if
> I could cite the source.
>

His twitter feed, back in 2012. Here some examples compiled
http://mashable.com/2012/11/06/trump-reacts-to-election/#qMOwkI3w8kqT

[Richard Clayton]

No, if we discard the electoral college then the popular vote would
decide every election. Forty million people in California wouldn't
outweigh forty million people anywhere else.

I can see your knowledge of US politics is as sharp as your knowledge of
biology.

[Richard Clayton]

Fun fact: In the run-up to the 2000 election, some forecasters suggested
George W. Bush might edge out Gore in the popular vote, while Gore won
the Electoral College. Speeches were drafted to call on Gore to heed the
"Will of the People" and concede the race to the winner of the popular
vote, who of course would be the only LEGITIMATE choice for president.

Of course, the opposite happened and Gore won the popular vote but lost
the Electoral College — and suddenly the GOP decided the Will of the
People didn't matter, going so far as to block recounts to ensure the
Will of the People would never be known.

[Richard Clayton]

On 12-Nov-16 13:42, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Friday, November 11, 2016 at 10:25:02 AM UTC-8, Richard Clayton wrote:
>> On 10-Nov-16 16:53, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> In her most gracious concession speech, Secretary Clinton straight out admitted that conceding was "painful" (her term).
>>>
>>> Her pain, the pain of fellow Democrats, and the pain of the mainstream media, is most obvious.
>>>
>>> Since she and her fellow Democrats, including the mainstream media, demonized Trump the best they could, casting him as unfit to hold the office of President of the United States, laughing at him, and slandering him, the utter PAIN of having to concede and welcome him into the White House is a just punishment for Democrats and media.
>>>
>>> Better yet, consider this: President Obama has done everything he could to escape any catastrophe staining his terms as President. Even the atrocities of ISIS around the world, including inspiring acts of mass murder in the U.S., have not angered him enough to go to war. All Obama cares about is peace at any cost, political correctness, and being able to say he kept us out of war despite the fact that ISIS and Iran deserve to be put down militarily.
>>>
>>> Yet at the very end of his term America elects Trump which slaps Obama hard in the face because Trump has said he will take out ISIS, confront the goals of Iran, and negate Obama's rule by executive orders.
>>>
>>> So Obama doesn't escape catastrophe. Right when he thought he was going to escape unscathed, the American people saw fit to repudiate his bad actions and in-actions. Now Obama lives in a state of seething pain. Whether it shows on his face or not there is no way to escape the fact that the election of Trump as President, like Secretary Clinton said, is most painful.
>>>
>>> I am elated and delighted.
>>>
>>> Ray
>>>
>>> PS: I supported Obama during his first term.
>>
>> You're a hateful, sadistic nebbish, Ray...
>
> Now you know how we felt when Obama won a second term.

Not even remotely close. I wasn't prancing about declaring my glee at
Mitt Romney "living in a state of seething pain"; I don't like to see
anybody suffer, and I think it's perverse and despicable that you do.

>> but we already knew that. But
>> personally, I'd be careful about jumping in bed with nationalists and
>> white supremacists when your surname is "Martinez."
>
> I completely reject human evolution, long extinct apes morphing into Africans, as gutter racism.

Long extinct apes morphed into HUMANITY, Ray. All of us. African,
European, Asian, Australian, American, you, me, everybody. No exceptions.

That's irrelevant to my point about not jumping in bed with angry
racists, of course.

[Glenn]

"Paul Ciszek" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:o087gp$dpi$1...@reader2.panix.com...

>
> In article <o07i32$ko8$1...@dont-email.me>, Glenn <g...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>Where is your actual point? That you have a problem with the Constitution?
>
> Well, I certainly do. For starters there are those portions that
> acknowledge and condone slavery; fortunately, we fixed that with the
> 13th amendment. Then there is the eighteenth amendment; fortunately,
> we fixed that with the twenty-first amendment. But most of all, I
> have a problem with the electoral college--we need an amendment to
> fix thati, too.
>

That'll get you out of slavery, I take it.

[jillery]

On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 10:05:04 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>

Apparently you have a problem with the First Amendment, a part of the
Constitution.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[jillery]

On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 10:42:26 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Friday, November 11, 2016 at 10:25:02 AM UTC-8, Richard Clayton wrote:
>> On 10-Nov-16 16:53, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> > In her most gracious concession speech, Secretary Clinton straight out admitted that conceding was "painful" (her term).
>> >
>> > Her pain, the pain of fellow Democrats, and the pain of the mainstream media, is most obvious.
>> >
>> > Since she and her fellow Democrats, including the mainstream media, demonized Trump the best they could, casting him as unfit to hold the office of President of the United States, laughing at him, and slandering him, the utter PAIN of having to concede and welcome him into the White House is a just punishment for Democrats and media.
>> >
>> > Better yet, consider this: President Obama has done everything he could to escape any catastrophe staining his terms as President. Even the atrocities of ISIS around the world, including inspiring acts of mass murder in the U.S., have not angered him enough to go to war. All Obama cares about is peace at any cost, political correctness, and being able to say he kept us out of war despite the fact that ISIS and Iran deserve to be put down militarily.
>> >
>> > Yet at the very end of his term America elects Trump which slaps Obama hard in the face because Trump has said he will take out ISIS, confront the goals of Iran, and negate Obama's rule by executive orders.
>> >
>> > So Obama doesn't escape catastrophe. Right when he thought he was going to escape unscathed, the American people saw fit to repudiate his bad actions and in-actions. Now Obama lives in a state of seething pain. Whether it shows on his face or not there is no way to escape the fact that the election of Trump as President, like Secretary Clinton said, is most painful.
>> >
>> > I am elated and delighted.
>> >
>> > Ray
>> >
>> > PS: I supported Obama during his first term.
>>
>> You're a hateful, sadistic nebbish, Ray...
>
>Now you know how we felt when Obama won a second term.

Actually, that was when you knew how we felt when Bush junior won a

second term.


>> but we already knew that. But
>> personally, I'd be careful about jumping in bed with nationalists and
>> white supremacists when your surname is "Martinez."
>
>I completely reject human evolution, long extinct apes morphing into Africans, as gutter racism.
>
>Ray (anti-evolutionary)
>

[jillery]

When did Hillary, or any of her supporters, say the election was
rigged, and she would accept the results only if she won? Don't be
insulted that I don't wait for your reply.

[jillery]

On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 23:17:58 +0000 (UTC), nos...@nospam.com (Paul
Ciszek) wrote:

>
>In article <2accb60a-4ba4-4516...@googlegroups.com>,
>Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>If we discard the electoral college then the most populated states would
>>decide every election. This means California, New York, Illinois, and
>>Texas.
>
>Actually, the *reverse* would be true. Currently the votes of
>Republicans in NY and California and of Democrats in Texas count
>for nothing, and the majority of states don't count at all and can
>safely be ignored by anyone running for president. If the
>president were elected by popular vote, every person's vote would
>count the same no matter where they lived. A true "fifty state"
>strategy would make sense, with a successful candidate scrounging
>votes whereever they can get them.

A pure democracy is exactly what the Founding Fathers worked to avoid,
to keep the most populous states from monopolizing federal elections.
Without something like the Electoral College, the smaller and less
populous states would have had less incentive to join the Union.

[jillery]

No, it doesn't. It means he won a *plurality* in the *most populous*
states. That in fact Trump won a majority of the states didn't really
matter. By the Constitution, a politician can win a minority of the
popular vote, and a minority of the states, and still win a majority
of the electoral votes.

But if you want to change the rules, the time to do so is before the
election, not after.

[jillery]

Yeppers. That was literally a case of which box was being Gored.

[Paul Ciszek]

It would appear that when he tweeted that, he was under the impression
that the Electoral College and popular vote results were at odds with
each other. Did he make a mistake, or did some early results make it
look like that was the case?

--
Please reply to: | "The electoral college is a disaster for a
pciszek at panix dot com | democracy."
Autoreply is disabled | --Donald J. Trump, November 6, 2012

[Paul Ciszek]

No, the 13th Amendment ended slavery. Do try to keep up.

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <pjjf2cd93eg17i4o6...@4ax.com>,

jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>A pure democracy is exactly what the Founding Fathers worked to avoid,
>to keep the most populous states from monopolizing federal elections.
>Without something like the Electoral College, the smaller and less
>populous states would have had less incentive to join the Union.

The founding fathers also worked to protect the institution of slavery.
They were wrong.

As for smaller states not having an incentive to joint the union, that
problem has been solved. Large states, and groups of states,
occasionally make sessession noises, but none of the small states has
a ghost of a chance of making on its own anymore.

[Richard Clayton]

On 12-Nov-16 22:01, Paul Ciszek wrote:
> In article <o088cn$8m3$1...@dont-email.me>, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Paul Ciszek wrote:
>>> In article <o03r0v$clv$1...@dont-email.me>, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>> When did he say this? I think that would make a great sig quote, if
>>> I could cite the source.
>>>
>> His twitter feed, back in 2012. Here some examples compiled
>> http://mashable.com/2012/11/06/trump-reacts-to-election/#qMOwkI3w8kqT
>
> It would appear that when he tweeted that, he was under the impression
> that the Electoral College and popular vote results were at odds with
> each other. Did he make a mistake, or did some early results make it
> look like that was the case?

He was simply mistaken. I watched the 2012 election closely and there
was never a serious question of a split between the Electoral College
and the popular vote. Obama won both quite handily.

If I recall correctly, Fox News did insist California, Oregon, and
Washington were "still in play" late into the evening — after all, the
tally wasn't officially complete yet, and winning both California and
Washington would juuust barely have given the victory to Romney. Obama
was so far ahead in both states this was pure fantasy, but hey, when has
that ever stopped Fox News?

[Robert Camp]

> If Hillary had won you wouldn't be making any of these points.

Yes, I would Ray. I've been making the same arguments about the
electoral college for as long as I've understood the system. I'd try to
explain the concept of separating your principles from rhetorical and
political convenience, but you wouldn't understand.

> This is how we know your opinions here are entirely subjective, reflecting a double standard.

Ah, classic "Ray logic." Assume something in the absence of any
evidence, then argue from it as if it were axiomatic.

You're always good for a laugh. If only you meant to be funny.

[jillery]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 03:05:37 +0000 (UTC), nos...@nospam.com (Paul
Ciszek) wrote:

>
>In article <pjjf2cd93eg17i4o6...@4ax.com>,
>jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>A pure democracy is exactly what the Founding Fathers worked to avoid,
>>to keep the most populous states from monopolizing federal elections.
>>Without something like the Electoral College, the smaller and less
>>populous states would have had less incentive to join the Union.
>
>The founding fathers also worked to protect the institution of slavery.
>They were wrong.

Events proved they were wrong to compromise on slavery. OTOH my
understanding is had they not made that compromise, which was one of
many, at least some slave states would not have joined the Union. This
would have had some interesting consequences for our fledging nation,
ex. Virginia, a slave state, made an arguable claim that their Charter
gave them control over lands within their latitudes beyond the
Appalachians, and perhaps all the way to the Pacific. That makes for
some interesting alternate histories.

Getting back to the topic, is your objection to the Electoral College
because it compromises a pure democracy? Is a pure democracy your
ideal case? I am weary and wary of those who put ideology above its
consequences.

So, how do you deal with the problem of a tyranny of the majority,
where a legally and morally flawed meme has majority support, ex. the
incarceration of Japanese-American citizens? Or the case where
momentary passions sway the citizenry to unrecoverable action before
they have a chance to consider the consequences, ex. the Iraq War(s)?
Or the case where the majority deprives others of life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness, ex. segregation?

>As for smaller states not having an incentive to joint the union, that
>problem has been solved. Large states, and groups of states,
>occasionally make sessession noises, but none of the small states has
>a ghost of a chance of making on its own anymore.

As counter-examples, the concepts of an independent Hawaii and Puerto
Rico still survive.

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <2itg2cd4nnho52dob...@4ax.com>,

jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Getting back to the topic, is your objection to the Electoral College
>because it compromises a pure democracy? Is a pure democracy your
>ideal case? I am weary and wary of those who put ideology above its
>consequences.
>
>So, how do you deal with the problem of a tyranny of the majority,
>where a legally and morally flawed meme has majority support, ex. the
>incarceration of Japanese-American citizens? Or the case where
>momentary passions sway the citizenry to unrecoverable action before
>they have a chance to consider the consequences, ex. the Iraq War(s)?
>Or the case where the majority deprives others of life, liberty, and
>the pursuit of happiness, ex. segregation?

The Unites States of America is a constitutional democratic republic.
The constitution is supposed to provide a check on the powers of
government, though too often in practice it is simply ignored. We
the people elect (the "democratic" part) the officials who then
allegedly represent us in government (the "republic" part).

You will probably point out that the Electoral College is enshrined
in the Constitution. Well, so was a a lot of other crap that we have
since fixed. The Electoral College is just one more thing that needs
fixing.

Yes, this system can lead to a tyranny of the majority, especially if
the limits placed by the constitution are simply ignored. But I do
not see how making the system less democratic by making some people's
votes count less or not at all improves anything--it just makes a
tyranny of the minority possible. In fact, a big part of solving the
problem of segregation and Jim Crow was making the sytem *more*
democratic, not less, by guaranteeing the right of all citizens to
vote regardless of race, and forcing state and local governments to
actually count those votes. Would women have the rights they have
now if they could not vote? The internment of Japanese-Americans was
one of our great failures as a nation, but do you think it would have
been less likely if the USA were a dictatorship instead of a
democracy? (The answer of course depends on who the dictator was...)
It was not the momentary passions of citizens that allowed the US to
invade Iraq but our elected representatives (see the democratic
republic stuff above) who really ought to have known better. I
suppose that unelected representatives who did not need to suck up
to voters in order to keep their jobs wouldn't have to respond to the
passions of the commoners, but then, neither would they have to
respond to the needs or wishes of the commoners at all, about
anything, ever. Is that really what you want?


The President and vice-President are the only elected officials who
are supposed to represent all Americans, so I believe that those
and only those officials should be elected by a popular vote of all
adult US citizens. Simple enough? If a state governor took office
even though his or her challenger received more votes, would there
not be a similar outcry? If the actual vote count in a state or
district were ignored in choosing a senator or a representative?
How would you feel if the votes of women were counted less than the
votes of men?

It is true that a constitutional democratic republic can do great
evil, but so can every other form of government. As Winston Churchill
is alleged to have said (and in this case he may have actually said
it), Democracy is the worst form of government except for every other
form that has been tried. What would you recommend in its place?

[eridanus]

very good article, Paul. This is a complex case that dear Johnathan would
have to be able to analyze using his theory of complexity. Had he done it?

eri

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 03:05:37 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by nos...@nospam.com (Paul
Ciszek):

>
>In article <pjjf2cd93eg17i4o6...@4ax.com>,
>jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>A pure democracy is exactly what the Founding Fathers worked to avoid,
>>to keep the most populous states from monopolizing federal elections.
>>Without something like the Electoral College, the smaller and less
>>populous states would have had less incentive to join the Union.
>
>The founding fathers also worked to protect the institution of slavery.
>They were wrong.

Did I hear "false equivalence"?

>As for smaller states not having an incentive to joint the union, that
>problem has been solved. Large states, and groups of states,
>occasionally make sessession noises, but none of the small states has
>a ghost of a chance of making on its own anymore.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 21:23:23 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

Exactly; I cringe every time I hear or read a reference to
the US as a "democracy". The original Constitution contained
a pretty good balance of powers; if the 17th Amendment were
repealed (and the 16th, but that'll never happen), it would
be a good start on a return to the intended small-government
representational republic, and if the popular vote for
president were eliminated it would be a further step. Yeah,
I tend to be an "original constructionist"; once the
original bugs were ironed out it was a pretty good process
IMHO.

Note that there is no Constitutional reference to *any*
popular vote for President other than the passing reference
to it in the 24th Amendment, and that only because it was
already in practice.

[Robert Camp]

> If we discard the electoral college then the most populated states
> would decide every election. This means California, New York,
> Illinois, and Texas.

The way to put that, such that it's inherent meaning is recognized,
would be, "This means the places where the most people are, i.e.,

California, New York, Illinois, and Texas."

Is there some reason you think the places where fewer people are should
decide elections? Do you not suppose there are issues that have
motivated the aggregation of people in certain places? Are you
suggesting that those issues are of less consequence than those facing
people in the middle of Nebraska, or Alaska? Do you want to tell me why
the vote of Californians, a state that is a huge economic and
manufacturing engine for the nation, shouldn't carry significant clout,
much less be diminished by the electoral college?

> Since the first three are blue states, the Democrats would win every
> election.

Okay. And...?

You do understand all you're saying is, "We need a mechanism that keeps
the party for whom the most people vote from winning," right?

> This is WHY an electoral college exists.

No, Ray, the electoral college doesn't exist to keep one party from
winning every time.

> Do try and understand these basic facts.

Still funny.

Your political arguments are just as shallow and illogical as your
philosophical ones. Though I'm not a fan of it, there are good arguments
to be made for the electoral college. You are just woefully incapable of
making them.

[jillery]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 16:38:01 +0000 (UTC), nos...@nospam.com (Paul
Ciszek) wrote:

>
>In article <2itg2cd4nnho52dob...@4ax.com>,
>jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Getting back to the topic, is your objection to the Electoral College
>>because it compromises a pure democracy? Is a pure democracy your
>>ideal case? I am weary and wary of those who put ideology above its
>>consequences.
>>
>>So, how do you deal with the problem of a tyranny of the majority,
>>where a legally and morally flawed meme has majority support, ex. the
>>incarceration of Japanese-American citizens? Or the case where
>>momentary passions sway the citizenry to unrecoverable action before
>>they have a chance to consider the consequences, ex. the Iraq War(s)?
>>Or the case where the majority deprives others of life, liberty, and
>>the pursuit of happiness, ex. segregation?
>
>The Unites States of America is a constitutional democratic republic.
>The constitution is supposed to provide a check on the powers of
>government, though too often in practice it is simply ignored. We
>the people elect (the "democratic" part) the officials who then
>allegedly represent us in government (the "republic" part).
>
>You will probably point out that the Electoral College is enshrined
>in the Constitution. Well, so was a a lot of other crap that we have
>since fixed. The Electoral College is just one more thing that needs
>fixing.

I do stipulate there are lots of things enshrined in the Constitution.
OTOH that fact doesn't identify which parts need fixing and which
don't, so I don't see any point in noting that fact here. Obviously
your mileage varies, but I don't understand why.

You make it clear that you recognize the U.S. was designed to be *not*
a pure democracy, but instead a constitutional democratic republic,
and remains so. With variation, so was/is Great Britain.

When Churchill made that statement you quoted above, he was referring
to those governments as they existed, ie *not* a pure democracy. So I
fail to understand why you direct your question in your final sentence
to me and not to yourself. My impression is it's you who argues to
replace these constitutional democratic republics with a pure
democracy. Did I misunderstand you?

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <83li2c1m9hkh85cto...@4ax.com>,

jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>When Churchill made that statement you quoted above, he was referring
>to those governments as they existed, ie *not* a pure democracy. So I
>fail to understand why you direct your question in your final sentence
>to me and not to yourself. My impression is it's you who argues to
>replace these constitutional democratic republics with a pure
>democracy. Did I misunderstand you?

First of all, you are indeed misunderstanding me if you think I am
advocating changing any constitutional democratic republics other
than the USA, at least in this argument. I am proposing one change
to the United States Constitution: The elimination of the Electoral
College and the direct election of the President (and vice president,
keep the ticket together, I don't want to go back to the way we used
to do that) by popular vote of all US citizens eligible to vote. An
analogous change was made in 1913 when the 17th amendment established
the popular election of US Senators by the people of the states.
All the rest of the apparatus of the constitutional democratic
republic remains in place--legislation has to go through the Senate
and the House, the SCotUS can strike down laws as unconstitutional,
the power to declare war lies with congress, a President can be
impeached for a blowjob by a simple majority of the House but must
be convicted by a supermajority in the Senate, etc. etc. etc.

What exactly is this "pure democracy" you seem to think I am
advocating?

And the reason I directed my final question at you, asking you what
you would replace the constitutional democratic republic with, is
because you appeared to be blaming segregation, the internment of
Japanese Americans, and the invasion of Iraq on democracy. I am
very curious as to what alternative form of government you think
would have done a better job, and would actually be preferable to
live under. Also, I am opposed to anyone taking away my vote, which
seems to be what these "Democracy is tyranny" folks want to do.

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <3lbh2cpmb1stftjun...@4ax.com>,

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>Exactly; I cringe every time I hear or read a reference to
>the US as a "democracy". The original Constitution contained
>a pretty good balance of powers; if the 17th Amendment were
>repealed (and the 16th, but that'll never happen), it would
>be a good start on a return to the intended small-government
>representational republic, and if the popular vote for
>president were eliminated it would be a further step. Yeah,
>I tend to be an "original constructionist"; once the
>original bugs were ironed out it was a pretty good process
>IMHO.
>
>Note that there is no Constitutional reference to *any*
>popular vote for President other than the passing reference
>to it in the 24th Amendment, and that only because it was
>already in practice.

Do you believe that you should have a right to vote at all?
Because there is nothing about that in the original constitution
either.

Once you have taken everyone's vote away, who will decide who
gets to run things? Never mind, I know I won't like the answer.
I value my vote even if you don't value yours.

[jillery]

On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 08:24:31 +0000 (UTC), nos...@nospam.com (Paul
Ciszek) wrote:

>
>In article <3lbh2cpmb1stftjun...@4ax.com>,
>Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>
>>Exactly; I cringe every time I hear or read a reference to
>>the US as a "democracy". The original Constitution contained
>>a pretty good balance of powers; if the 17th Amendment were
>>repealed (and the 16th, but that'll never happen), it would
>>be a good start on a return to the intended small-government
>>representational republic, and if the popular vote for
>>president were eliminated it would be a further step. Yeah,
>>I tend to be an "original constructionist"; once the
>>original bugs were ironed out it was a pretty good process
>>IMHO.
>>
>>Note that there is no Constitutional reference to *any*
>>popular vote for President other than the passing reference
>>to it in the 24th Amendment, and that only because it was
>>already in practice.
>
>Do you believe that you should have a right to vote at all?
>Because there is nothing about that in the original constitution
>either.
>
>Once you have taken everyone's vote away, who will decide who
>gets to run things? Never mind, I know I won't like the answer.
>I value my vote even if you don't value yours.

It's your reference to taking away peoples' right to vote that leads
me to infer you think removing the Electoral College is one step
closer to a pure democracy. Please explain how my inference is wrong.

[jillery]

On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 08:16:39 +0000 (UTC), nos...@nospam.com (Paul
Ciszek) wrote:

>
>In article <83li2c1m9hkh85cto...@4ax.com>,
>jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>When Churchill made that statement you quoted above, he was referring
>>to those governments as they existed, ie *not* a pure democracy. So I
>>fail to understand why you direct your question in your final sentence
>>to me and not to yourself. My impression is it's you who argues to
>>replace these constitutional democratic republics with a pure
>>democracy. Did I misunderstand you?
>
>First of all, you are indeed misunderstanding me if you think I am
>advocating changing any constitutional democratic republics other
>than the USA, at least in this argument.

I don't think that. I mention it only because you quoted Churchill,
who was praising the very constitutional democratic republics you seem
to want to replace. That makes your reference to that quote rather
ironic.

> I am proposing one change
>to the United States Constitution: The elimination of the Electoral
>College and the direct election of the President (and vice president,
>keep the ticket together, I don't want to go back to the way we used
>to do that) by popular vote of all US citizens eligible to vote. An
>analogous change was made in 1913 when the 17th amendment established
>the popular election of US Senators by the people of the states.
>All the rest of the apparatus of the constitutional democratic
>republic remains in place--legislation has to go through the Senate
>and the House, the SCotUS can strike down laws as unconstitutional,
>the power to declare war lies with congress, a President can be
>impeached for a blowjob by a simple majority of the House but must
>be convicted by a supermajority in the Senate, etc. etc. etc.

Yes, you're clear that you limit your quest to eliminating the
Electoral College specifically. But you remain unclear why you want
to eliminate the Electoral College. That's the question I asked you.
I hope you will answer it soon.

>What exactly is this "pure democracy" you seem to think I am
>advocating?

I mentioned a pure democracy only as a likely reason why you want to
eliminate the Electoral College. If you would state explicitly your
motive, and it turns out that's not your motive, I promise I won't
mention a pure democracy again.

>And the reason I directed my final question at you, asking you what
>you would replace the constitutional democratic republic with, is
>because you appeared to be blaming segregation, the internment of
>Japanese Americans, and the invasion of Iraq on democracy. I am
>very curious as to what alternative form of government you think
>would have done a better job, and would actually be preferable to
>live under. Also, I am opposed to anyone taking away my vote, which
>seems to be what these "Democracy is tyranny" folks want to do.

You don't say, so I will assume you agree that segregation, the
internment of Japanese-Americans, and the invasion of Iraq are
examples where a majority of the electorate overrode the laws and
principles of their own government. It's as if the fans in a sports
stadium voted for changes in the rules of the game to help the home
team win the game. That makes for emotionally satisfying scores, but
it makes makes playing the game even more pointless.

If you agree with the above, then I return your question back to you
in a form more aligned to your stated goal: how do you think
eliminating the Electoral College would make those failures less
likely? Alternately, what "disasters" do you think eliminating the
Electoral College would help avoid?

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <8maj2cpajcd7vqtdr...@4ax.com>,

jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Yes, you're clear that you limit your quest to eliminating the
>Electoral College specifically. But you remain unclear why you want
>to eliminate the Electoral College. That's the question I asked you.
>I hope you will answer it soon.

I stated earlier: Since the President (and the vice president)
represent all the citizens of the USA, they should be elected by a
popular vote of the citizens of the USA. Each member of the House
of Representatives should be elected by a popular vote within their
congressional district, Senators should be elected by popular vote
of the people of each state (as should governors of those states),
mayors and town councils should be elected by popular vote within
the towns they govern, etc.

>You don't say, so I will assume you agree that segregation, the
>internment of Japanese-Americans, and the invasion of Iraq are
>examples where a majority of the electorate overrode the laws and
>principles of their own government. It's as if the fans in a sports
>stadium voted for changes in the rules of the game to help the home
>team win the game. That makes for emotionally satisfying scores, but
>it makes makes playing the game even more pointless.

None of the things you mention were done by the electorate, or by
referendum, or whatever. Segregation was enacted and enforced by
state governments, while Internment of Japansese-Americans was the
result of an executive order issued by President Franklin D. Roosevelt
(who had been elected by the Electoral College). I believe that both
of these were a violation of the Constituion, but enforcement of
the Constitution when the government chooses to violate it has always
been tricky. It's not like a citizen can call 911 to report that
the government is violating the Constitution, and the cops will show
up and arrest the government.

The invasion of Iraq, on the other hand, was done according to the
rules so far as I can tell--congress voted and gave Bush the
authorization he wanted. It was wrong, but the rules were followed.
(If you can show otherwise, I would like to hear about it.)

Since Mr. Casanova from another branch of this thread is probably
reading this, I would like to point out that if "originalist" states-
rights types like him had their way, Jim Crow would *still* be the
law of the land in the South, and african-americans in those states
would never have had the vote. States' rights are terrible for
human rights. I assume he must be OK with that.

Here perhaps is the core of our argument: I don't see how the US
being less democratic would have helped in any of those situations.
If the state governments of the south during Jim Crow had been
unelected autocratic racist @$$h0les instead of elected racist
@$$h0les, what difference would that have made to African Americans?
Internment was (I thought) an example of FDR behaving like an
autocrat--if he had gone through congress instead of issuing an
executive order, well, congress might have approved something
similar but at least it would have taken longer. I do not see how
Internment can be blamed on "too much democracy." And the Iraq
war--do you think congress would have refused to give Bush
permission to invade if Senators were appointed by the states
rather than being elected by the people? Please outline your
reasoning for that. George W. Bush himself is of course poster
boy for the Electoral College, as I will discuss below.

>If you agree with the above, then I return your question back to you
>in a form more aligned to your stated goal: how do you think
>eliminating the Electoral College would make those failures less
>likely? Alternately, what "disasters" do you think eliminating the
>Electoral College would help avoid?

Segregation, Internment, and the invasion of Iraq were examples *you*
chose of democracy run amok--I merely said that I didn't see how they
could be blamed on too much democracy. As it so happens, the electoral
college *is* relevant to the last of those three in the sense that the
EC put George W. Bush instead of Al Gore in the White House, but I
didn't think that was the direction you wanted to take this argument.

As for what new disasters could be avoided by eliminating the EC,
I believe that Donald Trump qualifies as such. As someone pointed
out to me recently, if the original intent of the electoral college
was to prevent the masses from electing an unqualified populist
demagogue by taking the vote out of their hands, it has accomplished
the exact opposite.

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <p2bj2clpkk8ep261c...@4ax.com>,

You will have to explain this "pure democracy" you keep referring to.
As for why I think Mr. Cassanova wants to take my vote away, that is
how I interpret this statement:

>>>Note that there is no Constitutional reference to *any*
>>>popular vote for President other than the passing reference
>>>to it in the 24th Amendment, and that only because it was
>>>already in practice.

...combined with his apparent position that the original, pre-
amenment constitution is the way things ought to be. i.e, I
don't think he brought this up as a mere historical curiousity,
I interpret his words as support for the idea that state
governments should chose the electors that chose the president.
His explicit support for repealing the 17th amendment means that
he doesn't want me to be able to vote for my Senator--there is
no ambiguity there.

I have done my best to answer your questions as clearly as I can.
I would like you to please answer the following two quesions:

Do you believe that you personally should be able to vote for those
who represent you in government, as per a democratic republic?

If the answer to the previous quesiton is no, then:
Who then should get to pick the people who represent you in
government?

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 08:24:31 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by nos...@nospam.com (Paul
Ciszek):

>
>In article <3lbh2cpmb1stftjun...@4ax.com>,
>Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>
>>Exactly; I cringe every time I hear or read a reference to
>>the US as a "democracy". The original Constitution contained
>>a pretty good balance of powers; if the 17th Amendment were
>>repealed (and the 16th, but that'll never happen), it would
>>be a good start on a return to the intended small-government
>>representational republic, and if the popular vote for
>>president were eliminated it would be a further step. Yeah,
>>I tend to be an "original constructionist"; once the
>>original bugs were ironed out it was a pretty good process
>>IMHO.
>>
>>Note that there is no Constitutional reference to *any*
>>popular vote for President other than the passing reference
>>to it in the 24th Amendment, and that only because it was
>>already in practice.
>
>Do you believe that you should have a right to vote at all?
>Because there is nothing about that in the original constitution
>either.

Actually, there is; it's embodied in the nature of a
republic...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic

....and all states are mandated to have a "republican form of
government".

>Once you have taken everyone's vote away,

Strawman; I thought better of you. See below.

> who will decide who
>gets to run things?

The voting citizens, through their elected representatives
at the state *and* Federal level. As intended and as
described in the Constitution.

> Never mind, I know I won't like the answer.
>I value my vote even if you don't value yours.

I value my vote quite highly, thank you. The Constitution
was written with a balance of powers between the US
government, the states, and the citizens. The citizens were
to directly vote for *all* their state legislatures (and,
IIRC, their governors), and for their representatives in
Congress. (And since those representatives held the power of
the purse they essentially controlled the US government.)
The Senate was to be representative of the states *as
states*, and to be a more deliberative body less likely to
be swayed by passions of the moment. The president was to be
elected by electors chosen by the elected state legislatures
(using rules devised by each state), and thus, at second
hand, by the citizens. The only powers the president was to
have were the veto (which could be overridden), the choice
of executive cabinet members and USSC justices (also with
Congressional oversight), and as CiC of the armed forces; he
(or she) was never intended to exercise royal authority.

So yes, I value my vote; I also value the thought the
founders put into the governing document of the US.

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <s8tj2cp89rcejmtep...@4ax.com>,

Interesting; usually I hear "The US is not a democracy, it is a
republic" used as an argument for limiting the vote to only
certain (possily *very* few) people.

>>Once you have taken everyone's vote away,
>
>Strawman; I thought better of you. See below.

My apologies, I was lumping you in with the other "republic, not
a democracy" yahoos I keep running into. So, for the record, who
should be allowed to vote under this "republican form of government"?

>So yes, I value my vote; I also value the thought the
>founders put into the governing document of the US.

As most "originalists" interpret the intent of the founders, the
federal government was to have little or no power to interfere
with "states rights." If that were the case, southern states would
have been free to impose poll taxes, literacy tests, etc. to
prevent black residents (whether they would have been citizens is
in question, see below) from voting, and would have been free to
write their own segregation laws. For that matter, without the
most blatantly federalist, states-rights violating action of all
time, the civil war, african americans would still be slaves. What
is your take on that?

A related question: As an "originalist", what is the last amendment
to the US constitution that you consider legitimate? And is the
constitution binding on the states or only the federal government?

[Ray Martinez]

I'm not complaining about the electoral college; it's Richard Clayton and Robert Camp who are.

You need to keep up.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

You're complaining about the electoral college because your candidate lost. Neither Hillary nor Obama have complained about winning the popular and losing the election. So you have no point, as usual.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Your point indicates that you don't understand the point. Again, since three of the four examples are currently blue states using only the popular vote would mean Democrats would win every election.

> Do you not suppose there are issues that have
> motivated the aggregation of people in certain places? Are you
> suggesting that those issues are of less consequence than those facing
> people in the middle of Nebraska, or Alaska? Do you want to tell me why
> the vote of Californians, a state that is a huge economic and
> manufacturing engine for the nation, shouldn't carry significant clout,
> much less be diminished by the electoral college?

This point is based on your initial misunderstanding (addressed above).

>
> > Since the first three are blue states, the Democrats would win every
> > election.
>
> Okay. And...?

That's precisely WHY there's an electoral college. If the most populated states decided every election then no campaign would ever need to set foot in a smaller state. The big four states would decide every election. It's hard to fathom what you don't understand? Then again it seems you want exactly that: four states to decide every election. And if and when partisan demographics should change I bet you would want to abandon the popular vote.

>
> You do understand all you're saying is, "We need a mechanism that keeps
> the party for whom the most people vote from winning," right?
>
> > This is WHY an electoral college exists.
>
> No, Ray, the electoral college doesn't exist to keep one party from
> winning every time.
>

It exists so the most populated states don't decide every election.

> > Do try and understand these basic facts.
>
> Still funny.
>
> Your political arguments are just as shallow and illogical as your
> philosophical ones. Though I'm not a fan of it, there are good arguments
> to be made for the electoral college. You are just woefully incapable of
> making them.

No, you almost never concede anything no matter what.

Ray

[Robert Camp]

I already told you I'm not Ray. In fact I've asserted that I've
complained about the electoral college often previous to this election
(and I have). You have exactly zero evidence that I'm not telling the
truth about this, so I have to ask why you feel comfortable calling me a
liar? Do you recall me, or anyone else here, ever taking such liberties
with you? Do you have the slightest idea how incredibly weak you
demonstrate your positions to be when you so often resort to dismissing
the opposing position by suggesting your opponent is lying? Do you not
realize the blasphemous presumption of infallibility involved in making
such accusations absent evidence?

More importantly (from your perspective I suppose) do you have no qualms
about bearing false witness?

> Neither Hillary nor Obama have complained about winning the
> popular and losing the election. So you have no point, as usual.

Classic Ray non sequitur. And the hits just keep on coming.

[Robert Camp]

Since you appear so incapable of thinking past the assumed
impenetrability of your statement that you repeat it without actually
thinking it through, I'm going to make this as childishly explicit as I can.

Here are the conditions on which your argument is premised,

- people vote
- people in states vote
- states with more people produce more votes
- states with fewer people produce fewer votes
- in cases where the the more populous states vote similarly, they may
represent the majority of the popular vote
- often that popular vote is for the Democratic candidate
- in the case that the more populous states vote similarly, and they
vote Democratic, the influence of the popular vote should be mitigated

I know you don't realize it, but this is yet another example of you
presuming the truth of an argument without ever thinking past the
shallow layer of your assumed conclusions. Your argument essentially
reduces to the rhetorical equivalent of a child's, "Just because." Do
you understand that you're not offering any point with these repeated,
empty assertions?

You need to actually present an argument, Ray. You need to address the
issues. Why shouldn't the popular vote, regardless of its distribution,
prevail? Why shouldn't the concerns of the majority of the voters hold
persuasive influence? Why should the influence of the less populous
states be out of proportion to their population? Why shouldn't Democrats
win every time if that's what the electorate wants?

As I've said before, there are good arguments to be made for the
electoral college. It could be that essential and valuable sectors of
our society (e.g., agricultural communities, cultural traditions) might
end up with little to no representation and thus wither. Perhaps certain
shared social structures (military, school systems, etc.) just work
better when they are bolstered by inducements for smaller states. It may
be that the economy functions better if we arbitrarily alter the balance
of influence between the popular vote and institutional (the states)
representation.

As I've implied, I don't buy any of these arguments, but they could
actually represent some reasonable applied analysis. Apparently, all you
are capable of offering so far is, "Just because."

[Ray Martinez]

I didn't call, or imply, you a liar; but a partisan.

> Do you recall me, or anyone else here, ever taking such liberties
> with you? Do you have the slightest idea how incredibly weak you
> demonstrate your positions to be when you so often resort to dismissing
> the opposing position by suggesting your opponent is lying? Do you not
> realize the blasphemous presumption of infallibility involved in making
> such accusations absent evidence?

No one can find any hint of an accusation of lying, on your part, by me. I've simply identified your partisan bias, and loss of the election by your party, as explaining your opinion.

>
> More importantly (from your perspective I suppose) do you have no qualms
> about bearing false witness?
>
> > Neither Hillary nor Obama have complained about winning the
> > popular and losing the election. So you have no point, as usual.
>
> Classic Ray non sequitur. And the hits just keep on coming.

What I said is true; so the point, which has escaped your understanding, is that your view (abandon the electoral college) represents a very small minority. Said view has zero mainstream support from your own party.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Ridiculous, Robert, anyone can fact-check my claims and see that I argue no such equivalent.

Again, the four most populated states: 3 blue and 1 red.

This means ***where*** the most Democrats/Republicans ***happen to live*** would decide elections if we abandon the electoral college. This is all that I've been saying, and you haven't understood. The electoral college prevents large concentrations of partisans from deciding each election. Your opposition to the college hasn't accounted for this reality.

Ray

[r3p...@gmail.com]

I'm unsure if my claims about the electoral college are factually correct, so please consider these claims withdrawn.

Ray

[Peter Nyikos]

On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 12:10:01 PM UTC-5, Glenn wrote:
> "Robert Camp" <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:o07c02$ui0$1...@dont-email.me...
> > On 11/11/16 8:25 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >> On Friday, November 11, 2016 at 12:20:02 AM UTC-5, Glenn wrote:
> >>> "Robert Camp" <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:o03jge$qrc$1...@dont-email.me...

> >>>> On 11/10/16 8:45 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>>>> One message above portrays the electoral college negatively. It was
> >>>>> the same college that elected Obama twice.
> >>>>
> >>>> And Obama won the popular vote both times. A distinction was offered,
> >>>> and it appears to have sailed right over your head.
> >>>>

> >>> That the electoral college elected Obama twice seems to have sailed right over your head.
> >>
> >> Not a very telling fact.
> >>
> >> But this might be: Kerry did NOT beat Bush in the popular vote, but I have
> >> a sneaking suspicion that Camp and millions like him would have been only
> >> too happy if Ohio had gone the other way and the electoral vote would
> >> have made him president despite his getting fewer popular votes than Bush.
> >
> > Like Glenn, you appear to have great difficulty either recognizing or
> > developing an actual point.

I never had any difficulty with that, and Camp is picking a most
inopportune time to claim otherwise. Not only is what I said
clear and to the point, it is right on target, as he himself
immediately reveals:

> > Of course I would have been happy - and it's pretty clear at this
> > juncture that the rest of the country, as well as the world, would have
> > been too.

That is a debatable point, but Camp simply cannot fathom anyone
thinking that Kerry might have screwed up as badly or worse.

It's kind of strange to have Bush being blamed for ISIS even though
nobody heard about it until well after Obama took office. Obama
has done the absolute minimum against ISIS that he could without
turning the media against him. A more forceful policy could have
prevented ISIS from ever taking Mosul, or committing one-tenth
the atrocities it has committed.

> > That would not, however, have changed my opinion about the electoral
> > college. I would still advocate for changes, perhaps like Maryland has
> > recently passed, which could possibly disadvantage my preferred
> > candidate in the future. It's about having real principles, not
> > politically convenient whims. Something for Republicans to think about.

Not lying is a real principle, something for supporters of Clinton
to think about. Avoiding hypocrisy is another principle of the same
kind.

Next to these principles, the principle of having a plurality
elect the President is insignificant. If Camp were really serious
about democracy, he'd be in favor of runoff elections by the
top two candidates if nobody gets a majority, as has been the case
in this election.

> Where is your actual point? That you have a problem with the Constitution?

Touche. Robert Camp frequently accuses people of the very thing
he is guilty of. On another thread today, he claimed that my
arguments on same-sex marriage were "specious". An investigation
of the last thread where we clashed on this topic, a bit over
a year ago, reveals that he was full of specious arguments and
false claims, e.g. about things in a webpage. All it took was quoting
from the same webpage to prove him wrong on that score.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 9:20:02 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:

> On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 11:15:34 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 9:05:01 PM UTC-8, Robert Camp wrote:

> >> On 11/10/16 8:45 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >> > One message above portrays the electoral college negatively. It was
> >> > the same college that elected Obama twice.
> >>
> >> And Obama won the popular vote both times. A distinction was offered,
> >> and it appears to have sailed right over your head.
> >>

> >> > Another message attempts
> >> > to save Obama's and Clinton's face by pointing out that Clinton won
> >> > the popular vote, as if the popular vote means anything when everyone
> >> > knows it means nothing.
> >>
> >> No, no one knows that.
> >>
> >> > In this case the only thing the popular vote
> >> > means is that Clinton won California, New York, and Illinois by very
> >> > wide margins.
> >>
> >> You do realize that's where most of the people are, right? And that the
> >> will of the people means something in a representative democracy?

Our country is, constitutionally, a republic and not a representative
democracy.

> >> > Absent the electoral college, candidates would only
> >> > need to campaign in the most populated states, effectively shutting
> >> > out all other people in other states from having a voice in
> >> > elections. So the popular vote is meaningless, deceptive.
> >>
> >> As usual, your "So" is a complete non sequitur, signifying nothing more
> >> than an impotent attempt to connect an unrelated "then" to your presumed
> >> "if". I could just as easily make the point that absent emphasis on the
> >> popular vote, candidates can disregard the will of the majority and
> >> tailor their messages to special interests, "so" the electoral college
> >> is meaningless - but I wouldn't because it's facile and foolish.
> >

> >If Hillary had won you wouldn't be making any of these points. This is how we know your opinions here are entirely subjective, reflecting a double standard.
>
>
> When did Hillary, or any of her supporters, say the election was
> rigged, and she would accept the results only if she won?

When did Hillary, or any of her supporters, admit that they
indulged in shenanigans to get her to be the Democratic
candidate rather than Bernie Sanders?

By the way, if you think Trump said he would accept the results
only if he won, you have rocks in your head.

What Trump did say was treated as outrageous by people who
oh-so-conveniently forgot that Al Gore didn't accept the results
of the 2000 election for months. And that a lot of his followers
wouldn't accept the results even after the Supreme Court
had its say on it.

And you oh-so-conveniently forgot about all that too, didn't you?

> Don't be
> insulted that I don't wait for your reply.

Actions speak louder than words. Where is Hillary now when her
supporters take to the streets and indulge in violence because they
cannot accept the results of this election?

Where was Hillary when there were revelations that her supporters
paid agitators to make trouble at Trump rallies?

Trump deplored violence by his supporters at a recent (post-election)
hour long interview. Has Hillary uttered a peep about her supporters?

Don't be insulted if I don't wait for your reply.

Peter Nyikos

[Robert Camp]

More false witness, Ray? I told you I wasn't complaining about the EC
because of this election. I told you this was not a partisan issue for
me. You very clearly implied that I was not telling the truth.

>> Do you recall me, or anyone else here, ever taking such liberties
>> with you? Do you have the slightest idea how incredibly weak you
>> demonstrate your positions to be when you so often resort to
>> dismissing the opposing position by suggesting your opponent is
>> lying? Do you not realize the blasphemous presumption of
>> infallibility involved in making such accusations absent evidence?
>
> No one can find any hint of an accusation of lying, on your part, by
> me. I've simply identified your partisan bias, and loss of the
> election by your party, as explaining your opinion.

Do you actually speak English, Ray? When I say my complaints are
independent of political outcomes, and you insist I'm not being truthful
about that, that seems a pretty clear assertion that I'm lying.

I'm trying to determine if you have any respect for the truth at all.

>> More importantly (from your perspective I suppose) do you have no
>> qualms about bearing false witness?
>>
>>> Neither Hillary nor Obama have complained about winning the
>>> popular and losing the election. So you have no point, as usual.
>>
>> Classic Ray non sequitur. And the hits just keep on coming.
>
> What I said is true; so the point, which has escaped your
> understanding, is that your view (abandon the electoral college)
> represents a very small minority.

That was most assuredly not your point. A simple perusal of the
foregoing posts demonstrates this quite clearly.

And I don't believe you have the slightest idea of how many people
support that view. I think you're (once again) talking out of your ass.

[Peter Nyikos]

What you "usually hear" has no bearing on the actual pros and
cons of a republic vis a vis a democracy. Nor, more to the point,
on which of the two the USA is.

If this were a representative democracy, members of Congress
would be always voting the will of their constituents. Like it
or not, we are very far from any such system.

If this were a representative democracy, we would have numerous
nationwide referendums, and maybe initiatives, and maybe even
recall elections for Presidents. Much as you might like these things,
there does not seem to be a movement towards any of them.

> >>Once you have taken everyone's vote away,
> >
> >Strawman; I thought better of you. See below.
>
> My apologies, I was lumping you in with the other "republic, not
> a democracy" yahoos I keep running into.

You seem to run in strange circles. Don't any of them argue
the way I did just now?

> So, for the record, who
> should be allowed to vote under this "republican form of government"?

I think the current situation is just fine. Do you think we should
allow 16 year olds to vote? 14 year olds? 12 year olds?

> >So yes, I value my vote; I also value the thought the
> >founders put into the governing document of the US.
>
> As most "originalists" interpret the intent of the founders, the
> federal government was to have little or no power to interfere
> with "states rights."

That was the system under the Articles of Confederation, i.e., BEFORE the
Constitution was adopted, not after. In fact, Patrick Henry campaigned
vigorously against it because he thought it gave the federal government
too much power.

> If that were the case, southern states would
> have been free to impose poll taxes, literacy tests, etc. to
> prevent black residents (whether they would have been citizens is
> in question, see below) from voting, and would have been free to
> write their own segregation laws. For that matter, without the
> most blatantly federalist, states-rights violating action of all
> time, the civil war, african americans would still be slaves. What
> is your take on that?
>
> A related question: As an "originalist", what is the last amendment
> to the US constitution that you consider legitimate? And is the
> constitution binding on the states or only the federal government?

I'll pass on this one, but I am curious to see how Bob will respond.

Peter Nyikos
Professor of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina

PS Ordinarily I'd just sign my name to this post, it being off-topic
for talk.origins, but I don't know whether you know next to nothing
about me.

[Robert Camp]

On 11/14/16 4:41 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 4:15:01 PM UTC-8, Robert Camp wrote:
>> On 11/14/16 2:29 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Sunday, November 13, 2016 at 5:05:02 PM UTC-8, Robert Camp
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 11/12/16 11:19 AM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 9:05:01 PM UTC-8, Robert
>>>>> Camp wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/10/16 8:45 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:

<snip>

And you have yet to demonstrate that you have the slightest idea of why
this condition should sustain. I ask again, why shouldn't the popular
vote, regardless of its distribution, prevail? Saying, "because then the
party that gets the most votes would win every election," just indicates
that the point has sailed right over your head (as usual).

> This is all that I've been saying, and you haven't understood. The
> electoral college prevents large concentrations of partisans from
> deciding each election.

Which is another way of saying it diminishes the influence of the
popular vote. It redistributes influence from partisans in larger states
to partisans in smaller states. The degree to which it does this, and
the degree to which that is either good or bad, and the degree to which
this historical artifact is contemporaneously useful, is arguable.

The electoral college was intended to prevent a cult of personality
developing around a charismatic autocrat such that the country ends up
electing someone who subverts its core principles. I can't think of a
better description of what just happened than that. Nor can I think of a
better argument for abolishing the EC. It's pretty clear from the vote
totals that there are plenty of ignorant, bigoted people still, but at
least in this one instance the majority would have prevented this
incomprehensibly irresponsible outcome.

That doesn't mean it would always work, but to suggest it isn't an ideal
solution is to make the perfect the enemy of the good.

I realize that all of this going beyond black and white is probably
hurting your brain, so feel free to repeat your silly comments and
toddle off.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, November 11, 2016 at 1:25:02 PM UTC-5, Richard Clayton wrote:
> On 10-Nov-16 16:53, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > In her most gracious concession speech, Secretary Clinton straight out admitted that conceding was "painful" (her term).
> >
> > Her pain, the pain of fellow Democrats, and the pain of the mainstream media, is most obvious.
> >
> > Since she and her fellow Democrats, including the mainstream media, demonized Trump the best they could, casting him as unfit to hold the office of President of the United States, laughing at him, and slandering him, the utter PAIN of having to concede and welcome him into the White House is a just punishment for Democrats and media.
> >
> > Better yet, consider this: President Obama has done everything he could to escape any catastrophe staining his terms as President. Even the atrocities of ISIS around the world, including inspiring acts of mass murder in the U.S., have not angered him enough to go to war. All Obama cares about is peace at any cost, political correctness, and being able to say he kept us out of war despite the fact that ISIS and Iran deserve to be put down militarily.
> >
> > Yet at the very end of his term America elects Trump which slaps Obama hard in the face because Trump has said he will take out ISIS, confront the goals of Iran, and negate Obama's rule by executive orders.
> >
> > So Obama doesn't escape catastrophe. Right when he thought he was going to escape unscathed, the American people saw fit to repudiate his bad actions and in-actions. Now Obama lives in a state of seething pain. Whether it shows on his face or not there is no way to escape the fact that the election of Trump as President, like Secretary Clinton said, is most painful.
> >
> > I am elated and delighted.
> >
> > Ray
> >
> > PS: I supported Obama during his first term.
>
> You're a hateful, sadistic nebbish, Ray... but we already knew that.

I didn't know about the sadistic part. When did you get wind of it?
Before the election, I mean.

Come to think of it, why are you calling him sadistic now? Do you
disagree with his assessment of how Trump was treated before
the election?

> But personally, I'd be careful about jumping in bed with nationalists and
> white supremacists when your surname is "Martinez."

You remind me of those who claim Trump is anti-Mexican just
because he is hard on illegal immigrants. Or that he accused them
of rape and murder because he harped on the irresponsible behavior
of authorities in "sanctuary cities" where criminals among them
were concerned.

Peter Nyikos

> --
> [The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
> Richard Clayton
> "I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names
> are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." — Rudyard Kipling

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <605a32c0-fa29-4ee4...@googlegroups.com>,

Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>It's kind of strange to have Bush being blamed for ISIS even though
>nobody heard about it until well after Obama took office.

ISIS came into existence as a direct result of the USA destroying one
of the least Islamic governments in the middle east. The invasion of
Iraq was a pet project of George W. Bush, completely unrelated to the
job of defending America from Al Qaeda which he apparently never cared
about. America and the world will be dealing with the consequences of
that act for generations to come.

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <0d59f33f-7a38-40a4...@googlegroups.com>,

Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>If this were a representative democracy, members of Congress
>would be always voting the will of their constituents. Like it
>or not, we are very far from any such system.

What you are describing is a feature of politicians, not of any
specific political system. The constitution does not give
Senators and Representatives a mandate to accept bribes, pander
to lobbyists, arrange for lucrative post-political careers, or
molest interns yet they do these things anyway.

>If this were a representative democracy, we would have numerous
>nationwide referendums, and maybe initiatives, and maybe even
>recall elections for Presidents.

No, that is called "direct democracy." "Representative democracy"
means that the voters elect representatives to go to Washington and
do that stuff for them. (In case anyone is about to get pedantic,
Senators also represent their constituents and are therefore also
"representatives" in the original sense of the word.)

>> So, for the record, who
>> should be allowed to vote under this "republican form of government"?
>
>I think the current situation is just fine. Do you think we should
>allow 16 year olds to vote? 14 year olds? 12 year olds?

I see no need to extend the franchise further, but I am curious as
to who Mr. Casanova thinks should be allowed to vote, seeing as he
wants to repeal amendments going back at least to number 16. This
is a quesition worth asking of anyone who wants to restore an earlier
verison (real or imagined) of the US government given the variety of
views on this topic that one can hear expressed in American political
debate. Ann Coulter laments the fact that women have the right to
vote, state legislators specifically reseach racial demographics
when deciding which polling places to close, we have had at least
one congressman suggest that those who do not own land do not have
enough "skin in the game" to deserve to vote, and let's not get
started about those who talk about "fourtheenth amendment citizens."

>> As most "originalists" interpret the intent of the founders, the
>> federal government was to have little or no power to interfere
>> with "states rights."
>
>That was the system under the Articles of Confederation, i.e., BEFORE the
>Constitution was adopted, not after. In fact, Patrick Henry campaigned
>vigorously against it because he thought it gave the federal government
>too much power.

I run into originalists who seem to confuse the constitution
with the Articles of Confederation, believing that the *only* things
that the federal government is legitimately allowed to do are those
explicitly listed in the constitution as things it is required to do.
Why, then, the founders went on to add a list of things that the
federal government is not allowed to do is a bit of a mystery under
this interpretation.

It would appear that the definition of "republic" that you and Mr.
Casanova are using incorporates democratic elements, though you both
are opposed to using the D-word to describe it. Not direct democracy,
not the "perfect democracy" that jillery won't define, but elements
of a representative democracy in which the governed vote for those
who allegedly represent them in the government. There are many types
and degrees of "democracy", and that is one of them.

[Burkhard]

Nothing to do directly with your issue here, but I sometimes gave my
students the "no taxation without representation" quote and asked them
to build an electoral system for it and argue its merits/demerits.

If they did it right they realized that they have a choice either not to
tax foreigners and children, or to give them the vote. They also needed
to decide if they wanted to give the vote to corporations, or find good
reasons for an interpretation of the quote that avoids this implication.

And finally, they had to spot that this does not entail to withhold the
vote from non-taxpayers, it's an "if", not an "if and only if".

Scotland came close to this in the 18th century - if you invested in the
Darien scheme or the Bank of Scotland, you were deemed "for all legal
purposes' a citizen. But then the scheme ruined our economy and we
stopped existing as a fully independent state soon after.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 at 12:45:02 AM UTC-5, Paul Ciszek wrote:
> In article <0d59f33f-7a38-40a4...@googlegroups.com>,
> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> >If this were a representative democracy, members of Congress
> >would be always voting the will of their constituents. Like it
> >or not, we are very far from any such system.

I was oversimplifying with "always." There have to be some exceptions
where the constituents want something that is not in the spirit of the
Constitution. Also some where the representative's conscience will
not let him go along, and where he feels his constituents would
think differently if he could only explain his views to them. But
in a representative democracy where basic human rights are protected
as they are in the Bill of Rights, I believe these exceptions would be
few and far between.

> What you are describing is a feature of politicians, not of any
> specific political system.

I disagree. What we have now is a "package deal republic" where
politicians have a mixed bag of voting priorities and people
vote for them because they are happy with some aspects and prefer
the devil they know to the devil they don't know. This is why there
is so little turnover nowadays in Congress.

In a representative democracy, those in Congress would almost never
go against what their constituents' representatives in the state
legislature are for, and these in turn would be very closely
monitoring where their constituents stand.

> The constitution does not give
> Senators and Representatives a mandate to accept bribes, pander
> to lobbyists, arrange for lucrative post-political careers, or
> molest interns yet they do these things anyway.

These are abuses which can be brought to the attention of their
constituents.

> >If this were a representative democracy, we would have numerous
> >nationwide referendums, and maybe initiatives, and maybe even
> >recall elections for Presidents.
>
> No, that is called "direct democracy."

Wrong. Lots of states have the first two things I mentioned,
and Arnold Schwarzenneger got to be California Governor thanks
to the third, yet the states are far from being direct democracies.

Are you a US citizen? How is it that you didn't take this
into account?

> "Representative democracy"
> means that the voters elect representatives to go to Washington and
> do that stuff for them.

All included. See above.

I've got nothing against democracy, but I do like to maintain
distinctions that are highly useful.

Peter Nyikos

[eridanus]

There is a little problem with democracy. People can have divided
opinions over many topics deemed important to both sides. This is the
typical case of religious people and secular people that do not want
to be controlled by a theocracy. Assuming both sides want to impose their
laws on the other... there is not way you can solve this antagonist
division. Thus some form of democracy won't work, even both sides takes
turns to make new laws and the dismantle the previous laws.

Then, a democracy only can work if it exist some middle of the road such
as the laws that could not shared by 100 % of a population are not valid.

This I remind after WWII when in the US invented to print in bills in god
we trust. Or some form of collective prayers in school. Or to put monuments
the ten commandments, etc. This is an abuse of democracy.

I would not mention all the problems non believer people have to take.

This this sort of democracies are not workable.

eri

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <o0ea87$ds0$1...@dont-email.me>, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>If they did it right they realized that they have a choice either not to
>tax foreigners and children, or to give them the vote. They also needed
>to decide if they wanted to give the vote to corporations, or find good
>reasons for an interpretation of the quote that avoids this implication.

Not taxing children should be fairly easy, if you put a "floor" on
personal income below which no income tax is owed. Well, except for
the ocassional Olsen Twins or whatever.

As for corporations, how about "Corporation are not people" as a
reason? I mean, they are inventing governmental systems from scratch
for this totally made up assignment, so why not correct one of the
legal systems big mistakes?

[Richard Clayton]

Maybe next time you should fact-check BEFORE you spend days arguing
about a subject?