I bow to your interpretation of the British fall, and Paul's.

I am not sure that I am alarmed by the switch in the US, or the idea that one person cannot make a difference. President Obama made a HUGE difference, with an allegedly hostile Congress, simply through the persuasive authority of his office, by appointment of judges, and executive orders/regulations. But he pushed a liberal and globalist agenda WAY TOO FAR for me. I won't speak for others, but a rubber band that is stretched too far either breaks or snaps back. I think "snapping back" is an apt description of both votes.

 

Paul, you should check the latest NBC news article on the popular vote. I just caught it and the claim is that Hillary's popular vote lead has now topped 2 million after more west coast ballots were counted.

Question: what takes so damned long about counting ballots? Is it even true?

The electoral college argument rises every time there is an inverse relationship between the votes. I recall the same in the Gore/Bush election. Maybe there are other times as well.

Preemptive point: I disagree with your characterization of the reasons for the electoral college over a popular vote, though I admit that your point was a feature of the debates at some point. The number of electoral votes being set in the ORIGINAL constitution.

THE CONSTITUTION
Article II

Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

I am flying bare-assed here, not having looked anything up, and relying on fifth or sixth grade government class (about 40 years ago), but the electoral college was refined (and the arguments you stated earlier were made) when the twelfth amendment was passed. Article II of the Constitution cemented the concept that we were a republic or federation of STATES, and that is is the States' electors who really elect the president and vice president. I see that as a very important recognition of States' rights, and something that may distinguish us from other democracies. There are many other good and bad effects, too. But without the electoral college, I think the only States that would receive any recognition in presidential election and, later, policy, are the ones with the biggest populations.

I think a more appropriate attack for those bemoaning the result would be on most States' decisions to award all or nothing electoral votes.

Further, a straight up popular vote would take HOW MANY WEEKS to reveal a winner since it apparently takes weeks to count votes? Absurd.

 

Charlie, prepare to bow down again. You are wrong on all fronts in your current assertions about Obama.

First with the appointment of judges. There are currently more vacancies on all levels of the judicial system than at any other time in recent memory. Right now over 1/3 of all Court of Appeals and District courts have been empty for over 18 months. We are reaching critical mass in those courts with backlogs and overwork. This is the result of the Republican Party's unwillingness to approve of even the most moderate of judges.

To claim, as you do, that he has appointed judges is simply false. He has been prevented from appointing judges. Even with the BS about the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland was a man praised by McConnell only a few years ago as one of the best jurists out there. It is ridiculous that the Republican Party would not even allow for hearings.

I'm sorry, and I don't care what news you read but you are dead wrong on this on.

Now, as far as executive orders, take a look at history. You know who issued more executive orders??? How about Carter, 320. Or, wait, Clinton, 308. But, hang on, what about Reagan, 381. Yes, THREE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY ONE EXECUTIVE ORDERS BY REAGAN. Want to check Nixon? He we good for 346. Eisenhower was quick with the pen creating 484. Obama? Try 261. Wrong again Charlie and it's not even close. Check your sources.

Please be specific about with that rubber band analogy. What, global agenda was too far for you. TPP? You mean trying to build a defensive trade wall with good partners to help limit China? Because, I'm willing to bet that most people think that the TPP treaty has China as a signatory. It doesn't.

The things you've said in your post speak directly to my questions about where you get your news. I am not trying to be mean but I am not impressed. You have not provided anything other the the sort of broad brush nonsense. Give me facts, examples, numbers. Not feelings. I'm totally willing to listen to anyone who wants to discusss this stuff but you gotta come at me with facts not this blather.

 

Now hold on Paul. I am typing on a tiny little screen. I was referring to the Supreme Court. I am very aware that lower Court appointments have not been made and that is Obama's fault. My home Federal Division has exactly ZERO District judges after the recent retirement of the last two. You might surmise that's where I make my living so it is a real hardship. So yes, you are correct, as a Democrat, Obama fell down on the job when he failed to staff the lower courts. But broad judicial policy is formulated at the Supreme Court and he has makes younger appointments there.

This is the third time I have had to open this post to finish it. I am not good at typing on a phone. So while I am likely to cut things too short, that's is one subject that I know more about than others.

As to your other question I have to be circumspect. I can say that "bathroom policy" is one of them. Refusal to enforce immigration laws is another. Refusal to name and confront our enemies. The absurd insertion into European affairs such as Brexit (remijds me of the time Bill Clinton asked the Pope to change his "position" on abortion). Obamacare.

Now on my sixth time having to start over.

I don't think the number of executive actions has anything to do with the character of them, nor do I think there is any real argument that he has not taken sweeping powers because he couldn't get congress to do what he wanted them to.

I'm at a severe handicap. I need a computer.

 

*******
Charlie,

It's likely HRC will have close to 3,000,000 more votes than Trump by the time all the votes have been tallied. It is not at all uncommon for absentee votes and provisional votes to take this long to count. It's part of the reason why the electors don't meet until December 19th. These votes need to be tallied by hand. Absentee votes come in envelopes as they were typically mailed in from around the world. When we're talking about hundreds of thousands, if not millions, that is a tedious and exacting process. Provisional votes can take a long time to be tallied for a variety of reasons. Rules for counting provisional ballots differ from state to state but from what I can tell, everything must be in place by the December 19th date so the Electors can begin their job.

Now, I don't expect that the popular vote will change anything but it is interesting nonetheless. I also think the only reason why these late votes are of interest is because of the disparity between the Electoral and popular votes. You are aware that Michigan has yet to declare a winner. There are also six Electors who have already stated that they will not vote for Trump because of the outcome of the popular vote. I'm not saying that is the right thing to do at all. I must make that clear. I also think their actions are in vain and do little to help the healing of the country. The one thing I hope all of this does is make us more aware of how our Presidential election process works. I think an informed electorate is best.

Is it even true???? Charlie, how do you live in a world where you have no idea what to believe? Come on man. The world isn't one big conspiracy. That's just to easy. I know as humans we like to be able to explain away stuff and conspiracies make that so much easier but, **** happens. The vote? Look at your own state. I'd be willing to be Texas is still dealing with provisionals, absentee and military votes. It happens every election cycle. This one is no different.

As far as the Electoral College is concerned, I look to and have read Akhil Amar, the Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale. He is a believer in Original Intent not unlike Bork ( who was one of his teachers) and Scalia. In the article linked below, he speaks of the intent of the Electoral College. Now, you may not know Amar but he is truly considered one of the most important Constitutional scholars in the US and is (as is noted in the Vox article) one of the five most cited scholars when it comes to interpretation of the Constitution.

So, again, an Original Intent interpreter of the Constitution, a scholar of the highest order AND someone who I disagree with on a number of issues (who the eff am I) so I'm not relying on a "like minded" source.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politi...khil-reed-amar

 

Three million is a lot in my book. But under the electoral college system the disparity is due to a combination of our system of government and people NOT voting in particular states.

Respectfullky, I can't read your links on my phone but I'll check them from a computer. Still, Article II predates any writings concerning 3/5s votes. The federalist papers is where you should be looking, I think, converning the original intent of Article II.

Conspiracies? I'm not talking about conspiracies. I am rightly skeptical of the MSM's ability to objectively report the news.

 

Wait, BLATHER ​​​​​​?! Paul are you trying to convince me or insult me ?!

 

I have a real hard time with assertions about the news. I tend to check and recheck things all the time. We've had times in our past where, for example the yellow journalism at the end of the Guilded Age, news agencies did the country a real disservice. But, in the end we are either perpetually doubting everything or we reach a point where we can feel confident that we've done our due diligence and mean, with accuracy, the things we say.

 

[QUOTE=Charlie_V;586030]Now hold on Paul. I am typing on a tiny little screen. I was referring to the Supreme Court. I am very aware that lower Court appointments have not been made and that is Obama's fault. My home Federal Division has exactly ZERO District judges after the recent retirement of the last two. You might surmise that's where I make my living so it is a real hardship. So yes, you are correct, as a Democrat, Obama fell down on the job when he failed to staff the lower courts. But broad judicial policy is formulated at the Supreme Court and he has makes younger appointments there.
***************

Let me get this straight, In the last 50 years the only President to appoint more than 2 judges to the Supreme Court was Reagan. But that was ok because you liked his appointments (you were probably a bit soft on O'Connor as she became a vital swing jurist over time). On the otherhand let's not let the Democrat nominate three. It'll be the end of the world!!! Dude, your sense of fair play is a little wanting. You should know that Merrick Garland was a thoroughly qualified candidate. As I said before, people like McConnell were falling over him with praise during his last appointment.

But that doesn't matter. What's done is done. However, you have no more of an expectation for the Senate and House to do their job regardless of whether the sitting President is a Democrat or a Republican. There is no way in the world that you can defend the behavior of Mitch McConnell over the last 6 years. He has broken all records for filibuster. He clearly stated that it was his intention, from the start to make Obama a one term President. There was, at no time an attempt to work with him. In fact, McConnell raised obstruction to an art form

In the end we were left with six years of record disfunction. In the end, any attempts to revive the economy were thwarted by the Tea Party wing of the party that was so extreme it even primaried the Republican speaker of the House out of office in 2014. That was extreme. Talk about a rubber band, the Legislative side of the government as swung so far to the right that no Democratic Executive could possible exercise a significant part of their elected platform.

Again, I want to know who you read and where you get this sense that Obama was having his way with the government. It's simply not true.

So, it was Obama's fault that the bench positions were not filled? Confirmation was up to the Senate for the Court of Appeals or District Courts. The only Federal Judges the President can appoint without Senate confirmation are the Magistrate and Bankruptcy seats.
*******************

 

So, "bathroom policy" is really that important to you. Allowing people who are transgendered to use public bathrooms is that horrific an idea. Think about it. You've got your knickers in a bunch about a very small minority of people using an even smaller number of bathrooms in an even smaller frequency. Do you or your wife or children really spend that much time in public bathrooms that this is a legitimate concern. I can't help but feel this an example of a misplaced fixation but hey, I'll accept that it's a big deal for you but is it so important as to be one of the only things you can cite in your opposition to Obama. I would have thought it would be way down on most people's lists.

As far as Obama's actions regarding immigration, I understand why, last November he used his executive order to do what he did. The actions were challenged and a deadlocked Supreme Court essentially nullified the order. That's the beauty of our government. You should be pleased, not ruminating in anger over actions that were overturned.

Refusal to name and confront our enemies. Common man. Really. If you don't call it Muslim Extremism we'll never be able to defeat them. That's silly. Confront them. How many more billions of dollars in cruise missiles, drones, bombing sorties, special ops would it take before our actions were taken seriously. Do you really want to begin recommitting tens of thousands of our soldiers to battle in Iraq? Didn't we learn enough the first time. How would you go about confronting our enemies? What's the better way? Trump said he had a better way but know he's asking all the Generals. The same Generals he claimed had destroyed our military. In a word, I'm flummoxed.

Bill Clinton asking the Pope to reconsider abortion is the same as attempting to help a partner nation to stay in an important bloc that benefits both nations and their people? This is what I really can't wrap my head around. What is supposed to be the long term benefit of Brexit for the UK, Europe, the US or anyone for that matter. The UK will be weaker, more isolated, unable to negotiate deals with countries like China because it's economy is simply not that powerful anymore (and that is NOT a result of their involvement with the EU). Isolationism does not work. It sets us down a path, like Offroad said, where the end is not pretty. The fact that we've decided to follow down the same path is especially frightening.

Let me try to put this in the context a Texan can understand. Your state, the land it is comprised of was settled by a number of European powers. In the end, Texas seceded from Mexico, let's say, kind of like the UK splitting from the EU after 23 years. On their own, Texas wasn't quite the success it had hoped it would be. There were constant threats from Mexico, possible reannexation of regions of Texas by a not so happy Mexican government, significant debt as a result of the war of independence and a host of other difficulties that weren't really counted upon. So, what did Texas do? Turn to it's northern friends and jump on board the United States of America just a little over years after winning it's independence. Wow. I know you guys like to pride yourselves in your independence but, man it didn't last long and every flirtation with secession since has come to nothing.

Anyway, getting back to my point. Sometimes, there is safety in numbers. Even a big territory like Texas realized quickly that it was better in a much larger union. It's strength only enhanced, not weaked through the union. It's my estimation that the UK will find itself in a similar position. It may take longer than the 93 months Texas existed as an independent nation but it will happen.