I told you so

[DianeE]

I opined a while back that if Hillary Clinton is elected, she will be
impeached. IIRC somebody offered to bet money that she wouldn't. IIRC my
prediction was generally scoffed at. But now it seems, to put it in
Trumpian terms, "I called it."

http://tinyurl.com/h79mqjn

I hope "Earl" will read this post and tell me why this can't happen.

DianeE

[Earl Browder]

From a constitutional/legal point of view there's absolutely no reason why Hillary Clinton couldn't be impeached (assuming she's elected next Tuesday). If a majority of the House agrees, that body can impeach on any basis it finds sufficient. It's almost certain now that the Republicans will hold the House in this election, although they may lose something like 10-15 seats. Even with a maximal loss of 15 seats, there would still be a clear Republican majority in the House (232-203)--actually a somewhat larger majority than that which impeached Bill Clinton in 1998.

The real issue is whether the politics of 2017 will permit an impeachment proceeding to go forward. The Republicans were badly damaged in the 1998 elections because of public opposition to the impeachment imbroglio. The public regarded the Lewinsky scandal as essentially a private matter between Bill and Hillary and not really a public matter at all. There was also the feeling of many Americans that, by devoting so much time to the impeachment process, Congress was disregarding the nation's problems in order to pursue a mere partisan vendetta.

The severe political damage that was done to the Republican party in 1998-99 might cause a significant number of Republican House members to oppose in 2017 repeating the folly of the past. I suspect that Speaker Paul Ryan has no interest in pursuing impeachment and he has considerable influence with the rank-and-file Republicans in the House. Without support from at least 95% of the Republican House members, any impeachment resolution is almost certainly doomed to fail. And the Democrats would have the additional argument that impeaching a new president just weeks or months after her election would constitute a kind of coup d'etat, overturning the recent judgment made by the American voter in the 2016 election. Moreover, Democrats could make considerable political hay with the argument that impeaching the first woman president would constitute sexism, pure and simple.

And, of course, given that the Senate came nowhere close to convicting Bill Clinton in 1999 (a two-thirds vote is needed to convict an impeached president) and that the 2017 Senate is likely to be divided on something close to a 50-50 split, there is no way a two-thirds vote could achieved. This would mean that, as with Bill Clinton, an impeachment proceeding would be seen by much of the public as Republicans pretending to be pursuing an outcome that everyone knows can never actually be achieved.

[chris]

On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 at 10:32:45 PM UTC-4, Earl Browder wrote:

> From a constitutional/legal point of view there's absolutely no reason why Hillary Clinton couldn't be impeached (assuming she's elected next Tuesday). If a majority of the House agrees, that body can impeach on any basis it finds sufficient. It's almost certain now that the Republicans will hold the House in this election, although they may lose something like 10-15 seats. Even with a maximal loss of 15 seats, there would still be a clear Republican majority in the House (232-203)--actually a somewhat larger majority than that which impeached Bill Clinton in 1998.
>
> The real issue is whether the politics of 2017 will permit an impeachment proceeding to go forward. The Republicans were badly damaged in the 1998 elections because of public opposition to the impeachment imbroglio. The public regarded the Lewinsky scandal as essentially a private matter between Bill and Hillary and not really a public matter at all. There was also the feeling of many Americans that, by devoting so much time to the impeachment process, Congress was disregarding the nation's problems in order to pursue a mere partisan vendetta.
>
> The severe political damage that was done to the Republican party in 1998-99 might cause a significant number of Republican House members to oppose in 2017 repeating the folly of the past. I suspect that Speaker Paul Ryan has no interest in pursuing impeachment and he has considerable influence with the rank-and-file Republicans in the House. Without support from at least 95% of the Republican House members, any impeachment resolution is almost certainly doomed to fail. And the Democrats would have the additional argument that impeaching a new president just weeks or months after her election would constitute a kind of coup d'etat, overturning the recent judgment made by the American voter in the 2016 election. Moreover, Democrats could make considerable political hay with the argument that impeaching the first woman president would constitute sexism, pure and simple.
>
> And, of course, given that the Senate came nowhere close to convicting Bill Clinton in 1999 (a two-thirds vote is needed to convict an impeached president) and that the 2017 Senate is likely to be divided on something close to a 50-50 split, there is no way a two-thirds vote could achieved. This would mean that, as with Bill Clinton, an impeachment proceeding would be seen by much of the public as Republicans pretending to be pursuing an outcome that everyone knows can never actually be achieved.

very well said...thanks.

[RichL]

"DianeE" <Tired...@SorryFolks.com> wrote in message
news:o56dnS84o6NnCIfF...@giganews.com...

Ain't gonna happen. Repugs will be happy simply to shed the curse of Bigly
Stupid.

[Dr_dudley]

k. i had to look that up. BS by any other name. and small potato(e)s.

the onlyest thing i'm looking forward to more than the ending of the onslaught of does bob deserve the nobel and is he going to accept it is the end of this *oddamne* election cycle.

what i wanna know is if Hillary gets impeached and convicted, who becomes president, Donald Trump or Tim Kaine?

at least kaine plays harmonica.

rdd
___
Tim Kaine playing harmonica
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJTIk688UIM

of course, we'll survive anything; we always seem to.

Kaine: I have a 'slightly goofy quality,' then makes terrible dad joke about harmonicas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAtbFZOcu0A

Jesuit CIA Assassin Tim Kaine's Crimes Documented By Militia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOlpy5MKdrs

[tried, convicted and executed]

}
Homosexual child predator Tim Kaine has been engaged in Treasonous clandestine operations of the Jesuit Order & CIA, in Central America, The Middle East, and America. chris dorsey of the Virginia Militia documents some of Kaine's Treasonous crimes.
{

What is Tim Kaine's Gender Identity?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=semqNwBE4vo

Tim Kaine performs on the harmonica
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzHcX_5UXj8&index=10&list=PLZOhTsGKYJvJGC_VNeUxg62f8IJL5nMP9

Senator Kaine Joins Floyd Country Store Jam Session
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpnrmKn_oVI

}
dan sobol3 months ago
This better than the entire GOP platform.

Kenneth Stalberg3 months ago
Amen.

Madison T3 months ago
well this made it easy. Votin for Hillary!

John Tatum3 months ago
good dancing in a very small space...yee haw!

Amos Jessup3 months ago
I think he has potential as a Veep!

Mark Bliss3 years ago
This was a fun afternoon and this song was a highlight of our visit from Md.
Thanks and nice to meet you senator!
{

i'm president_dudley and i endorse this message

[DianeE]

"Earl Browder" <earl.bro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f7a5df60-d90e-4ffb...@googlegroups.com...

From a constitutional/legal point of view there's absolutely no reason why
Hillary Clinton couldn't be impeached (assuming she's elected next Tuesday).
If a majority of the House agrees, that body can impeach on any basis it
finds sufficient. It's almost certain now that the Republicans will hold
the House in this election, although they may lose something like 10-15
seats. Even with a maximal loss of 15 seats, there would still be a clear
Republican majority in the House (232-203)--actually a somewhat larger
majority than that which impeached Bill Clinton in 1998.

----------------
The guy (Ron Johnson) who was talking about impeaching her was a Senator,
not a Representative. Are you saying that impeachment proceedings are done
by the House, not the Senate?

And does anyone know where I could read a copy of the U.S. Constitution
translated into understandable English so I could look this kind of thing up
for myself?

DianeE

[khematite]

Remember that "impeachment" is a term roughly equivalent to "indictment"--it's just the bringing of charges against a government official. So, the House alone, by majority vote, decides whether or not to impeach. If it does vote to impeach, a trial is held in the Senate (with the US Chief Justice presiding if it's the president being impeached), and it takes a two-thirds vote to convict. So, both Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were impeached, but neither was convicted and therefore both remained in the presidency to the completion of their terms.

For a simplified version of the Constitution, you could try something like this:

http://teachingcivics.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Simplified-United-States-Constitution-and-Bill-of-Rights.pdf

Its simplification of the impeachment provision of the Constitution, for example, is boiled down to:

Removal:
The President and all other civil officials
can be removed from office on impeachment for,
and conviction of "treason, bribery, or other high
crimes and misdemeanors." The house of Representatives
presents the charges against an official,
who is tried in the Senate. In an impeachment trial
of the President, the Chief Justice presides over
the Senate and a two-thirds vote is needed for
conviction.

[DianeE]

"khematite" <khem...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:93b12494-aa7e-47ee...@googlegroups.com...

For a simplified version of the Constitution, you could try something like
this:

http://teachingcivics.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Simplified-United-States-Constitution-and-Bill-of-Rights.pdf

-------------
Thanks. I've bookmarked that. But some of its language remains unclear,
for example:

"Members cannot be arrested when attending sessions or going to or returning
home. Members cannot be questioned in any other place for any speech or
debate in either House." (The first sentence is just bad syntax, but the
second one makes no sense at all.)

and, regarding the Supreme Court:
"Term of the judges: They shall hold office 'during good behavior' - that is
to say, they cannot be dismissed unless they do wrong."

It doesn't say dismissed *by whom*, or *how*!!!

However, it does clear up my Ted Cruz dilemma:

"A President must be 'a natural born citizen' or a citizen of the U.S. at
the time of the adoption of the Constitution. A president must also be at
least thirty-five years old and a resident within the U.S. for fourteen
years."

So much for the fact that he didn't set foot in the U.S. until he was four.
He could have stayed in Canada until he was an adult and still be eligible
to run for President. Ugh!

DianeE

[marcus]

Have you considered the possibility that this won't happen because Clinton won't win?

I pray that I'm wrong (I truly hope I am), but I think many of us will be very very sad one week from now.

[gj]

On Fri, 4 Nov 2016 10:47:41 -0700 (PDT), marcus <marc...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>I pray that I'm wrong (I truly hope I am), but I think many of us will be very very sad one week from now.

I think the media is playing us like a fiddle.

I also think that if Mr T does win, he's far more likely to be
impeached. Nothing the man does is ethical, he skirts the edge of the
legal system far too often in his business dealings. Just a matter of
time before he's busted using government funds or legislation for
personal gain. And you know he's going to put his name in big letters
up on the White House.

-GJ 2.1

[JD Chase]

I can't even begin to entertain the notion that Trump will win! That would be a horror beyond imagination! And it will prove that we have sunk as low into the gutter as we possibly could... He is vile and despicable and the worst of the worst... He is a monster and a nut and everything rotten... And I don't think I'll ever forgive the American people... 😟😡

[Earl Browder]

On Friday, 4 November 2016 11:51:45 UTC-4, DianeE wrote:
> "khematite" <khem...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:93b12494-aa7e-47ee...@googlegroups.com...
>
> For a simplified version of the Constitution, you could try something like
> this:
>
> http://teachingcivics.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Simplified-United-States-Constitution-and-Bill-of-Rights.pdf
>
> -------------
> Thanks. I've bookmarked that. But some of its language remains unclear,
> for example:

I'm not keen on simplified versions since it's often quite difficult to boil down complex concepts into simple ones. And in the process of attempting to do so, the simplifiers often strip away so much context that they end up making the concepts even less understandable. Moreover, on top of trying to figure out what the Framers might have intended with some of their murkier language, you've got two hundred years of interpretation and practice to muddy the waters even further. Sometimes it's very hard to make all that material crystal clear to the lay reader.

And if you believe that the Constitution is a living document, then what anything means definitively is even less settled. Words that might have meant one thing at the outset of the Republic can mean something else today and something entirely different tomorrow.

>
> "Members cannot be arrested when attending sessions or going to or returning
> home. Members cannot be questioned in any other place for any speech or
> debate in either House." (The first sentence is just bad syntax, but the
> second one makes no sense at all.)

That's the Speech or Debate clause and was intended to protect members of Congress against the use of executive power aimed at preventing them from carrying out their legislative duties. Kings of England had been known to arrest members of Parliament on their way to vote for something the King opposed. Sometimes, members of Parliament were even arrested for espousing views that were in opposition to those of the King. The Speech or Debate clause basically sought to confer immunity on members of Congress trying to carry out their legislative tasks. Today, that includes a prohibition on anyone being able to sue a member of Congress for what he or she has said on the floor of Congress or in committee sessions.

> and, regarding the Supreme Court:
> "Term of the judges: They shall hold office 'during good behavior' - that is
> to say, they cannot be dismissed unless they do wrong."
>
> It doesn't say dismissed *by whom*, or *how*!!!

That really does confuse more than clarify that particular constitutional provision. "Dismissed" is a term never used in the Constitution, so it's hard to see why the clearer and more appropriate term "removed" wasn't used there. The Constitution provides for impeachment of federal judges, including the Supreme Court justices. The impeachment procedure is the same as for the president (except that the Chief Justice does not preside)--impeachment by a majority of the House and conviction by two-thirds of the Senate. Only one Supreme Court justice (Samuel Chase in 1804) has ever been impeached and, like the two impeached presidents, he was not convicted by the Senate.

[DianeE]

"Earl Browder" <earl.bro...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:b7ea0d29-fe8f-4836...@googlegroups.com...

----------------
Earl....have *you* ever written an explanation of what the Constitution
actually says? I'd buy it in a heartbeat. You make everything so clear to
me. Thank you.

DianeE

[nate]

On Friday, November 4, 2016 at 3:42:52 PM UTC-4, Earl Browder wrote:
...[snipped down to:]....

>
> And if you believe that the Constitution is a living document, then what anything means definitively is even less settled. Words that might have meant one thing at the outset of the Republic can mean something else today and something entirely different tomorrow.

....[sznipppzt to save some more poor electrons]....


Earl, are you familiar with the game of Nomic? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomic

Another interesting foray into these sorts of things is the British game Mornington Crescent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mornington_Crescent_(game)

Fascinating stuff.
Yes, I believe the Constitution is a living document. It has been amended over 20 times already.


- nate

[Earl Browder]

Thanks for the kind words, Diane. Very nice of you to say so. A few years ago, I did toy with the idea of writing something like a beginner's guide to the Constitution. But around that time I saw that many bookstores were already carrying titles like "The US Constitution for Dummies" and "The Idiot's Guide to the US Constitution," and given the popularity of those two series, I didn't think that one more book on the subject would have much success.

[Earl Browder]

On Friday, 4 November 2016 20:29:08 UTC-4, nate wrote:
> On Friday, November 4, 2016 at 3:42:52 PM UTC-4, Earl Browder wrote:
> ...[snipped down to:]....
> >
> > And if you believe that the Constitution is a living document, then what anything means definitively is even less settled. Words that might have meant one thing at the outset of the Republic can mean something else today and something entirely different tomorrow.
>
> ....[sznipppzt to save some more poor electrons]....
>
>
> Earl, are you familiar with the game of Nomic? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomic

No, I've never heard of this game before. Of course, at a theoretical level, I would think that the Constitution affords similar opportunities for rule-changing. The Constitution provides an amending process and therefore there's nothing in the Constitution that can't be changed. So long as amendment proposers can put together the two-thirds vote needed in both houses of Congress and the three-quarters of the state legislatures needed, everything is potentially up for grabs.

Repeal freedom of religion--sure. Repeal freedom of speech--why not? Replace the unitary president with an executive council, abolish the Senate, abolish the Supreme Court, get rid of the states and replace them with administrative units under the federal government--all possible. Indeed, the Constitution even has a provision whereby a new constitutional convention could be convened and write an entirely new constitution, completely different from the current one.

Fortunately, under the Constitution, no one player can unilaterally change the rules whenever it's his or her turn. A pretty broad consensus of the population would be needed to make even the most minute change in the text of the Constitution--and in practical terms, that makes the "US Government Game" considerably more stable than the game of Nomic--maybe even excessively stable.

>
> Another interesting foray into these sorts of things is the British game Mornington Crescent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mornington_Crescent_(game)
>
> Fascinating stuff.

I recall that in college, a friend and I would play a kind of physical analogue to Mornington Crescent. We would sit at a cafeteria table and start moving the various objects on the table around (sugar packets, salt and pepper shakers, silverware, ashtrays (which tells you how old I am). With each move, the player would announce its name ("Double Sugar," "Salt Spill," "Super Fork" as though these were long established terms for our moves. At some point, my friend or I might take a pen out of our pocket, place it on top of the spoon and announce "Parker Play." At some point in this "game"--perhaps five or ten minutes into it--someone would make a final move and yell "Finland." Then we'd go get lunch.

We'd actually sometimes draw a few observers with this imaginary game, and have people trying to figure out the rules we were playing by and what Finland had to do with anything.

> Yes, I believe the Constitution is a living document. It has been amended over 20 times already.

Right--27 times, in fact. But that's a method for change explicitly provided for in the text of the Constitution itself. The people who are critical of the "living document" concept generally have no problem with the process of formal amendment (even if they don't necessarily agree with the substance of the particular changes that result). Their concern is that allowing nine non-elected individuals with strong political opinions and biases (i.e., the US Supreme Court) to change the meaning of the Constitution based on little more than their personal views and their rationalizations is profoundly undemocratic.

>
>
> - nate

[Just Kidding]

On Fri, 4 Nov 2016 19:14:13 -0700 (PDT), Earl Browder
<earl.bro...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, 4 November 2016 20:29:08 UTC-4, nate wrote:
>> On Friday, November 4, 2016 at 3:42:52 PM UTC-4, Earl Browder wrote:
>> ...[snipped down to:]....
>> >
>> > And if you believe that the Constitution is a living document, then what anything means definitively is even less settled. Words that might have meant one thing at the outset of the Republic can mean something else today and something entirely different tomorrow.
>>
>> ....[sznipppzt to save some more poor electrons]....
>>
>>
>> Earl, are you familiar with the game of Nomic? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomic
>
>
>No, I've never heard of this game before. Of course, at a theoretical level, I would think that the Constitution affords similar opportunities for rule-changing. The Constitution provides an amending process and therefore there's nothing in the Constitution that can't be changed. So long as amendment proposers can put together the two-thirds vote needed in both houses of Congress and the three-quarters of the state legislatures needed, everything is potentially up for grabs.
>
>Repeal freedom of religion--sure. Repeal freedom of speech--why not? Replace the unitary president with an executive council, abolish the Senate, abolish the Supreme Court, get rid of the states and replace them with administrative units under the federal government--all possible. Indeed, the Constitution even has a provision whereby a new constitutional convention could be convened and write an entirely new constitution, completely different from the current one.
>
>Fortunately, under the Constitution, no one player can unilaterally change the rules whenever it's his or her turn. A pretty broad consensus of the population would be needed to make even the most minute change in the text of the Constitution--and in practical terms, that makes the "US Government Game" considerably more stable than the game of Nomic--maybe even excessively stable.
>
>>
>> Another interesting foray into these sorts of things is the British game Mornington Crescent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mornington_Crescent_(game)
>>
>> Fascinating stuff.
>
>
>I recall that in college, a friend and I would play a kind of physical analogue to Mornington Crescent. We would sit at a cafeteria table and start moving the various objects on the table around (sugar packets, salt and pepper shakers, silverware, ashtrays (which tells you how old I am). With each move, the player would announce its name ("Double Sugar," "Salt Spill," "Super Fork" as though these were long established terms for our moves. At some point, my friend or I might take a pen out of our pocket, place it on top of the spoon and announce "Parker Play." At some point in this "game"--perhaps five or ten minutes into it--someone would make a final move and yell "Finland." Then we'd go get lunch.
>
>We'd actually sometimes draw a few observers with this imaginary game, and have people trying to figure out the rules we were playing by and what Finland had to do with anything.
>

Hey Earl....you and your friend didn't happen to toke a little bit
before going to lunch, did you?

[Earl Browder]

On Friday, 4 November 2016 23:19:32 UTC-4, Just Kidding wrote:
>>
> >> Another interesting foray into these sorts of things is the British game Mornington Crescent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mornington_Crescent_(game)
> >>
> >> Fascinating stuff.
> >
> >
> >I recall that in college, a friend and I would play a kind of physical analogue to Mornington Crescent. We would sit at a cafeteria table and start moving the various objects on the table around (sugar packets, salt and pepper shakers, silverware, ashtrays (which tells you how old I am). With each move, the player would announce its name ("Double Sugar," "Salt Spill," "Super Fork" as though these were long established terms for our moves. At some point, my friend or I might take a pen out of our pocket, place it on top of the spoon and announce "Parker Play." At some point in this "game"--perhaps five or ten minutes into it--someone would make a final move and yell "Finland." Then we'd go get lunch.
> >
> >We'd actually sometimes draw a few observers with this imaginary game, and have people trying to figure out the rules we were playing by and what Finland had to do with anything.
> >
> Hey Earl....you and your friend didn't happen to toke a little bit
> before going to lunch, did you?

No, man, we were just high on life.

[nate]

Earl writes:

"Fortunately, under the Constitution, no one player can unilaterally change the rules whenever it's his or her turn. A pretty broad consensus of the population would be needed to make even the most minute change in the text of the Constitution--and in practical terms, that makes the "US Government Game" considerably more stable than the game of Nomic--maybe even excessively stable."

Confession - I've never played Nomic. Would love to try. Thanks for your well-thought-out reply. I move to Cherington Cross.


- nate

[Will Dockery]

Impeached over emails, wow, when it is becoming so clear how scary it will be with Trump in office.

The way he flies off the handle and gets so angry about everything, I can just see him getting offended and/or enraged over something some country does, and just pushes the button.

"Make the world go boom." -Ritchie Havens

[JD Chase]

T-rump won't win... We may be stupid, but we are not quite THAT stupid! As Lincoln supposedly said: "you can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but you can not fool all of the
people all of the time."

[Just Walkin']

On Sunday, November 6, 2016 at 8:23:44 AM UTC-6, JD Chase wrote:
> T-rump won't win... We may be stupid, but we are not quite THAT stupid! As Lincoln supposedly said: "you can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but you can not fool all of the
> people all of the time."

Julian Assange assured the world in a recent youtube clip that, despite his best efforts, the ruling class will NEVER permit Donald Trump to assume the presidency.

You can stop worrying, Jordy; it appears that your work in its behalf is going to pay-off on Tuesday!

[marcus]

On Sunday, November 6, 2016 at 9:23:44 AM UTC-5, JD Chase wrote:
> T-rump won't win... We may be stupid, but we are not quite THAT stupid! As Lincoln supposedly said: "you can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but you can not fool all of the
> people all of the time."

I hope you are right, Jordy, but Trump has the big 'mo, and unlike ten days ago when it looked like a Clinton landslide, they are neck and neck, even to the point where it no longer looks like she has 270 electoral votes locked up.

The deplorables are going to come out to vote in massive numbers like cockroaches coming out of a run-down apartment's baseboards.

[Will Dockery]

Yes, for those of us not planning to leave the country if Trump is elected, better at least steal ourselves for the possibility.

Remember, Nixon was elected, twice, as was Reagan and the second Bush.

And I remember the night the drove Dukakis down.

[zippl...@gmail.com]

Marcus, I will be horrified of Trump wins.

[JD Chase]

The extreme danger and threat and abomination that is Trump far exceeds and transcends the wishes of the ruling class... He has unleashed powerful forces of chaos and hate and bigotry... He is a liar, bigot, a bully, a buffoon, a conman, a nut, a demogaugue and so on and so on...

[Will Dockery]

On Sunday, November 6, 2016 at 5:33:39 PM UTC-5, JD Chase wrote:
> The extreme danger and threat and abomination that is Trump far exceeds and transcends the wishes of the ruling class... He has unleashed powerful forces of chaos and hate and bigotry... He is a liar, bigot, a bully, a buffoon, a conman, a nut, a demogaugue and so on and so on...

That explosive, uncontrollable temper of his will be the death of us all, I fear.

[RichL]

"Just Walkin'" <kens...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1c3e23b0-3f8c-48db...@googlegroups.com...

> On Sunday, November 6, 2016 at 8:23:44 AM UTC-6, JD Chase wrote:
>> T-rump won't win... We may be stupid, but we are not quite THAT stupid!
>> As Lincoln supposedly said: "you can fool all of the people some of the
>> time and some of the people all of the time, but you can not fool all of
>> the
>> people all of the time."
>
> Julian Assange assured the world in a recent youtube clip that, despite
> his best efforts, the ruling class will NEVER permit Donald Trump to
> assume the presidency.

Poor Julian. His attempt to take down the Clinton campaign on behalf of
Bigly Stupid and Vladimir Putin has hit the ground with a barely perceptible
thud.

The American People will not allow him to assume the presidency. Despite
all signs to the contrary, they're not that ignorant.

[Just Walkin']

On Sunday, November 6, 2016 at 4:45:25 PM UTC-6, RichL wrote:
> "Just Walkin'"

> > On Sunday, November 6, 2016 at 8:23:44 AM UTC-6, JD Chase wrote:
> >> T-rump won't win... We may be stupid, but we are not quite THAT stupid!
> >> As Lincoln supposedly said: "you can fool all of the people some of the
> >> time and some of the people all of the time, but you can not fool all of
> >> the
> >> people all of the time."
> >
> > Julian Assange assured the world in a recent youtube clip that, despite
> > his best efforts, the ruling class will NEVER permit Donald Trump to
> > assume the presidency.
>
> Poor Julian. His attempt to take down the Clinton campaign on behalf of
> Bigly Stupid and Vladimir Putin has hit the ground with a barely perceptible
> thud.
>
> The American People will not allow him to assume the presidency. Despite
> all signs to the contrary, they're not that ignorant.

Ignorance is endemic to the system. You are voting exactly the way you are supposed to. The ruling class controls both parties; it wins either way. There are no half-measures here; the next president will either be Hillary Clinton or Mike Pence and you can believe what you want.

[gj]

On Sun, 6 Nov 2016 14:58:39 -0800 (PST), "Just Walkin'"
<kens...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Ignorance is endemic to the system. You are voting exactly the way you are supposed to. The ruling class controls both parties; it wins either way. There are no half-measures here; the next president will either be Hillary Clinton or Mike Pence and you can believe what you want.

Exactly why I'm forcing myself to reluctantly play my little role by
voting today. Don't want to, screw em all. Hillary is what's wrong
with government but Trump is what's wrong with America.

-GJ 2.1

[Will Dockery]

"Don't push it, don't push the button, y'all... Make the world go boom." -Ritchie Havens

[gj]

I didn't. Early voting ended friday it seems.

-GJ 2.1

[Just Kidding]

On Mon, 07 Nov 2016 10:24:22 -0500, gj <geminij...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Can someone give me a logical and reasonable explanation for limiting
voting to a single day, as close to twenty states currently do? If
voting is so important, why do we make it so hard to do? Why do we
force people to stand in lines, sometimes for hours, in order to
exercise their right to vote? Why do we effectively revoke the right
to vote for people who have unanticipated circumstances that make it
impossible for them to vote on election day? Why do we put so much
pressure on election officials by forcing them to handle huge crowds
on a single day when spreading the voting out over a week or two would
undoubtedly result in fewer errors and less confusion at polling
places? Why, why, why?

Browder? You out there?

[JD Chase]

Surely, part of the awnser has to be that, as a rule, generally speaking, the people on top, the power elite, the military industrial
Complex etc... Does NOT want people to vote in sufficient numbers! They wish to suppress voting as much as possible! They know that the *one* area where people really *do* have power to change things is the power to vote... And obviously minority voters, in particular, are the ones that they most wish to suppress, as was made evident by the 2000 election fiasco...

[Earl Browder]

On Monday, 7 November 2016 11:06:48 UTC-5, Just Kidding wrote:
>
> Can someone give me a logical and reasonable explanation for limiting
> voting to a single day, as close to twenty states currently do? If
> voting is so important, why do we make it so hard to do? Why do we
> force people to stand in lines, sometimes for hours, in order to
> exercise their right to vote? Why do we effectively revoke the right
> to vote for people who have unanticipated circumstances that make it
> impossible for them to vote on election day? Why do we put so much
> pressure on election officials by forcing them to handle huge crowds
> on a single day when spreading the voting out over a week or two would
> undoubtedly result in fewer errors and less confusion at polling
> places? Why, why, why?
>
> Browder? You out there?

https://ballotpedia.org/Early_voting

Not sure where you're getting your numbers, but the reality is that only seven states (Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Michigan, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, RI) do not permit early voting or even what's called "in-person absentee voting" (early on-site voting permitted for those with a valid excuse for being unable to vote on Election Day).

34 states plus DC allow no-excuse early voting and 6 allow in-person absentee voting. 3 states have all-mail voting, so there really is no Election Day in those states. That's 43 states plus DC that do not require that people vote on just one Election Day.

I do note that there's no clear partisan explanation for the seven states that do not allow early voting. With the exception of conservative Alabama, they're all moderate to liberal states that currently have (or have had in the not too distant past) state governments controlled by Democrats. And, of course, even these seven states do allow traditional absentee voting (i.e., if you know you won't be able to vote on Election Day, you apply for an absentee ballot, fill it out, and mail it back to the board of elections).

[gj]

On Mon, 07 Nov 2016 11:06:53 -0500, Just Kidding
<JustK...@comcast.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 07 Nov 2016 10:24:22 -0500, gj <geminij...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 06:15:50 -0800 (PST), Will Dockery
>><will.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Monday, November 7, 2016 at 7:59:20 AM UTC-5, Gemini Jackson wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 6 Nov 2016 14:58:39 -0800 (PST), "Just Walkin'"
>>>> <kens...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >Ignorance is endemic to the system. You are voting exactly the way you are supposed to. The ruling class controls both parties; it wins either way. There are no half-measures here; the next president will either be Hillary Clinton or Mike Pence and you can believe what you want.
>>>>
>>>> Exactly why I'm forcing myself to reluctantly play my little role by
>>>> voting today. Don't want to, screw em all. Hillary is what's wrong
>>>> with government but Trump is what's wrong with America.
>>>>
>>>> -GJ 2.1
>>>
>>>"Don't push it, don't push the button, y'all... Make the world go boom." -Ritchie Havens
>>
>>I didn't. Early voting ended friday it seems.
>>
>>-GJ 2.1
>
>Can someone give me a logical and reasonable explanation for limiting
>voting to a single day, as close to twenty states currently do?

I guess this one is my fault, I had all of last week, but between this
physical therapy stuff and new work from a new client in Vermont I
just didn't get around to it. Also, I didn't feel compelled to
participate until listening to HC speak the other day referring to
Trump's comments about why have nukes if we're not going to use them.
She said she 'wonders if he even knows he's referring to nuclear war'.
BTW, anyone here in Vermont? Isn't that Bernie country?

-GJ 2.1

[Just Walkin']

The military industrial complex wants lots of people to vote...for Hillary.

[JD Chase]

I can see why! Look at how the stock market is reacting... The people on top want stability, and Trump is about as far from "stable" as one can possibly be... And in this particular respect , we ALL should agree! Trump offers empty promises, empty rhetoric... He would not make things better for ANYONE, most certainly NOT for the poor or middle class...

[Just Kidding]

On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 08:55:15 -0800 (PST), Earl Browder
<earl.bro...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, 7 November 2016 11:06:48 UTC-5, Just Kidding wrote:
>>
>> Can someone give me a logical and reasonable explanation for limiting
>> voting to a single day, as close to twenty states currently do? If
>> voting is so important, why do we make it so hard to do? Why do we
>> force people to stand in lines, sometimes for hours, in order to
>> exercise their right to vote? Why do we effectively revoke the right
>> to vote for people who have unanticipated circumstances that make it
>> impossible for them to vote on election day? Why do we put so much
>> pressure on election officials by forcing them to handle huge crowds
>> on a single day when spreading the voting out over a week or two would
>> undoubtedly result in fewer errors and less confusion at polling
>> places? Why, why, why?
>>
>> Browder? You out there?
>
>
>https://ballotpedia.org/Early_voting
>
>Not sure where you're getting your numbers, but the reality is that only seven states (Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Michigan, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, RI) do not permit early voting or even what's called "in-person absentee voting" (early on-site voting permitted for those with a valid excuse for being unable to vote on Election Day).

>34 states plus DC allow no-excuse early voting and 6 allow in-person absentee voting. 3 states have all-mail voting, so there really is no Election Day in those states. That's 43 states plus DC that do not require that people vote on just one Election Day.
>

I got my numbers from the same place you did. I was off a little bit
because I overlooked the states that allow voting by mail and I don't
include the 6 states that allow in-person absentee voting since it's
only allowed with a valid excuse. So for the purposes of my question,
there are 13 states that don't have early voting.

>I do note that there's no clear partisan explanation for the seven states that do not allow early voting. With the exception of conservative Alabama, they're all moderate to liberal states that currently have (or have had in the not too distant past) state governments controlled by Democrats. And, of course, even these seven states do allow traditional absentee voting (i.e., if you know you won't be able to vote on Election Day, you apply for an absentee ballot, fill it out, and mail it back to the board of elections).

I didn't consider traditional absentee voting for the same reason as
stated above -- you need some sort of arbitrary valid excuse to use
it. That doesn't help someone who's sick on election day or who's car
breaks down on the way to the polls or other unanticipated last-minute
problems.

So again, does anyone konw why these 13 states won't allow early
voting??

[Rachel]

Nobody Knows.

[Earl Browder]

Some of the opposition to early voting involves policy objections relating to democratic theory that are spelled out here:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/01/early-voting-the-case-against-102748

Also, it's likely that having polls open for additional days before Election Day has financial costs that some states with tight budgets might want to avoid. And personally, when it comes to governmental action, I'd never want to underestimate the simple force of inertia.

I imagine to get at the more purely political considerations involved, you'd have to examine closely the legislative debates in the states that haven't passed it in the past decade or two. Probably, there's no one answer. In Alabama, for example, it might be mainly a matter of suppressing the black vote, but that wouldn't be a very plausible explanation for New Hampshire or Rhode Island. Hard to say without doing a lot more research than I'm willing to do on this.

[DianeE]

"Just Kidding" <JustK...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:79912clgub2tqmhgk...@4ax.com...

---------------
Got 4 minutes? Sure you do. Even Earl has 4 minutes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0bMfS-_pjM

DianeE

[Rachel]

not a fan of that show...but i actually watched that.

man, waiting for hours...??? still? i never had that.

that's just wrong.

they should spread it out.

without exit polls or something? ??? i mean, i guess that's a reason they don't, so as not to influence it, and to make the votes count equally?

ugh.

[Just Kidding]

On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 14:58:41 -0800 (PST), Rachel <rach...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I understand that, but do they konw?

[Just Kidding]

On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 15:36:23 -0800 (PST), Earl Browder

Yeah, the "we've always done it this way" factor can never be ignored.
I'm guessing that's probably the main reason. One would think the
least that could be done (and I believe it has been proposed by some)
would be to make election day a national holiday, which would make
things a little easier for working people. Of course, then more people
would vote and the lines would be even longer than they are now.

>
>I imagine to get at the more purely political considerations involved, you'd have to examine closely the legislative debates in the states that haven't passed it in the past decade or two. Probably, there's no one answer. In Alabama, for example, it might be mainly a matter of suppressing the black vote, but that wouldn't be a very plausible explanation for New Hampshire or Rhode Island. Hard to say without doing a lot more research than I'm willing to do on this.

Jeez, Earl....ya know we count on you to come through in situations
like this!

[Just Kidding]

Couldn't we all just raise our hands when our preferred candidate's
name is announced?