Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ustrello wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So looks like Giuliani is on the short list for SoS, I guess loyalty pays. The alternative seems to be John Bolton, who at least has experience, I guess. But seems a stark contrast to Trump's campaign promise of not bombing everybody everywhere.

No matter where he would go it would be a terrible plan, the man is just an idiot.

He's certified to practice before SCOTUS. Idiot he isn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
But seems a stark contrast to Trump's campaign promise of not bombing everybody everywhere.

Oh the Donald "I'm going to bomb ISIS out of existance" Trump? Or Donald "why haven't we already employed nukes" Trump?

Sheesh. Trump is all in for bombing everything that moves. Where anybody got idea he was not going to bomb people up?

He was preferable to Hillary "hey I have an idea lets invade Libya" Clinton.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So looks like Giuliani is on the short list for SoS, I guess loyalty pays. The alternative seems to be John Bolton, who at least has experience, I guess. But seems a stark contrast to Trump's campaign promise of not bombing everybody everywhere.

No matter where he would go it would be a terrible plan, the man is just an idiot.

He's certified to practice before SCOTUS. Idiot he isn't.

AFAIK, any lawyer who is in good standing with his state bar association for a few years can pay $200 to become a member of the SCOTUS bar.

And honestly, you are a lawyer. Think about all the lawyers you know, all the lawyers you practiced with, all the folks you went to law school with who passed the bar.

Can you honestly say that being a lawyer precludes anyone from also being an idiot at the same time?

Lots of people can be smart as well as stupid.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So looks like Giuliani is on the short list for SoS, I guess loyalty pays. The alternative seems to be John Bolton, who at least has experience, I guess. But seems a stark contrast to Trump's campaign promise of not bombing everybody everywhere.

No matter where he would go it would be a terrible plan, the man is just an idiot.

He's certified to practice before SCOTUS. Idiot he isn't.

AFAIK, any lawyer who is in good standing with his state bar association for a few years can pay $200 to become a member of the SCOTUS bar.

And honestly, you are a lawyer. Think about all the lawyers you know, all the lawyers you practiced with, all the folks you went to law school with who passed the bar.

Can you honestly say that being a lawyer precludes anyone from also being an idiot at the same time?

Lots of people can be smart as well as stupid.

That is a valid point D-USA but what is your argument that he is stupid? I mean beyond you disagreeing with him on a political matter?

SemperMortis wrote:

That is a valid point D-USA but what is your argument that he is stupid? I mean beyond you disagreeing with him on a political matter?

He forgot about 9/11, he said he would never forget

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/rudy-giuliani/statements/byruling/false/

I thought that was Giuliani?

Or did Ted do that too? Did I miss that?

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So looks like Giuliani is on the short list for SoS, I guess loyalty pays. The alternative seems to be John Bolton, who at least has experience, I guess. But seems a stark contrast to Trump's campaign promise of not bombing everybody everywhere.

No matter where he would go it would be a terrible plan, the man is just an idiot.

He's certified to practice before SCOTUS. Idiot he isn't.

AFAIK, any lawyer who is in good standing with his state bar association for a few years can pay $200 to become a member of the SCOTUS bar.

And honestly, you are a lawyer. Think about all the lawyers you know, all the lawyers you practiced with, all the folks you went to law school with who passed the bar.

Can you honestly say that being a lawyer precludes anyone from also being an idiot at the same time?

Lots of people can be smart as well as stupid.

Well the fact I passed the Bar proves your point.


Let me refresh your recollection.
-Associate Attorney General of the US
-US Atty for Southern District of NY (Mafia Commission Trial, Ivan Boesky, Michael Milliken trials)
-Two term mayor of New York
-Named Partner in Bracewell and Guiliani

 Spinner wrote:
I thought that was Giuliani?

Or did Ted do that too? Did I miss that?

It was Giuliani, see above.

 Frazzled wrote:

Let me refresh your recollection.
-Associate Attorney General of the US

During that time he argued for the internment of asylum seekers while claiming that Haiti wasn't torturing and killing people while they were selling body parts.

-US Atty for Southern District of NY (Mafia Commission Trial, Ivan Boesky, Michael Milliken trials)

Where he would publicly arrest people and march them in front of the press, only to drop the charges later after the public damage was already done.

-Two term mayor of New York

He was picked by East Coast Liberals. Are you claiming that East Coast Liberals are smart now

He also infringed upon civil liberties with Stop and Frisk and his Broken Window style of policing is heavily criticized.

-Named Partner in Bracewell and Guiliani

I don't know if that was as much for his expertise in law, or if it was for his name brand appeal and means to extend into NYC.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Let me refresh your recollection.
-Associate Attorney General of the US

During that time he argued for the internment of asylum seekers while claiming that Haiti wasn't torturing and killing people while they were selling body parts.

-US Atty for Southern District of NY (Mafia Commission Trial, Ivan Boesky, Michael Milliken trials)

Where he would publicly arrest people and march them in front of the press, only to drop the charges later after the public damage was already done.

-Two term mayor of New York

He was picked by East Coast Liberals. Are you claiming that East Coast Liberals are smart now

He also infringed upon civil liberties with Stop and Frisk and his Broken Window style of policing is heavily criticized.

-Named Partner in Bracewell and Guiliani

I don't know if that was as much for his expertise in law, or if it was for his name brand appeal and means to extend into NYC.

These are policy arguments. Evidently disagreement means they're stupid in your world.

Not policy arguments though.

Claiming something is constitutional long after it has been found unconstitutional is not a policy argument.
Claiming turture isn't happening when it is happening is not a policy argument
Making public arrests without intention of bringing it to trial is not a policy argument either, that's an abuse of the office.
The law firm is not about policy at all, I just don't think it's proof of intelligence.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
I thought that was Giuliani?

Or did Ted do that too? Did I miss that?

It was Giuliani, see above.

...for some reason I thought we were talking about Ted Cruz. I have no idea how that happened in my head.

Wonderful derp moment there.

 ender502 wrote:
I'm sure there are plenty of people who will say this will not work. They'll say it isn't practical. My experience is that pragmatism is cover for cynicism and that cynicism is just cover for impotence.

Stop talking and start doing.

ender502

You're essentially asking for a do-over which isn't going to happen. Your next chance to vote for President comes in four years. Hopefully both parties will field better candidates than they did this time.

 Breotan wrote:

 ender502 wrote:
I'm sure there are plenty of people who will say this will not work. They'll say it isn't practical. My experience is that pragmatism is cover for cynicism and that cynicism is just cover for impotence.

Stop talking and start doing.

ender502

You're essentially asking for a do-over which isn't going to happen. Your next chance to vote for President comes in four years. Hopefully both parties will field better candidates than they did this time.

Yeah, if the decision gets overturned because of petitioning things are going to get a lot worse.

You had your chance to tell electors what you wanted.... it was called the election.

I'm hoping Trump does a good job, but if he doesn't I hope it prompts people to think harder about what candidates make it to the final presidential race next time.

Yeah, the only way the electors would turn against Trump is if he did something really bad between now and the official elector count. Like, say, if Trump really did want to test his ability to shoot someone and get away with it.

 Frazzled wrote:
Well the fact I passed the Bar proves your point.

I would have thought the threat of wiener dog vigilante squads would preclude being accepted to the bar.

 Breotan wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Well the fact I passed the Bar proves your point.

I would have thought the threat of wiener dog vigilante squads would preclude being accepted to the bar.

They do make excellent motivators for other people to make the "right" decision on our behalf.
"I'm just going to set this large box down on your desk."
"Is that box...growling?"
"Only if you make the wrong decision."

True tale from last night. So pulled the old back out again. Crawling on ground trying to get the mountain dog's food bowl. So he comes over-doesn't lick me or anything but just starts leaning on me. I finally get it and use him to help haul myself up. Wow.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Yeah, the only way the electors would turn against Trump is if he did something really bad between now and the official elector count. Like, say, if Trump really did want to test his ability to shoot someone and get away with it.

I mean, would it also be possible if enough confidence is lost in Trump's ability to lead in the next month (electors vote Dec. 19th, I think)? We're watching in real time as his transition team falls apart again and again, and Obama is literally having to stay on and hold Trump's hand as it becomes more obvious that the President-Elect is way out of his depth. That certainly isn't something that Bush had to do for Obama, who was attacked by the right for his "lack of experience" when it came to holding office.

 Breotan wrote:

 ender502 wrote:
I'm sure there are plenty of people who will say this will not work. They'll say it isn't practical. My experience is that pragmatism is cover for cynicism and that cynicism is just cover for impotence.

Stop talking and start doing.

ender502

You're essentially asking for a do-over which isn't going to happen. Your next chance to vote for President comes in four years. Hopefully both parties will field better candidates than they did this time.

Not a do-over at all. The electoral vote and the popular vote are linked in some states and not in others. We are just using the rules as written to try and effect the outcome. I would in general recommend taking a look at the federalist papers #68 if you want to see the intent ( per Hamilton) of the electoral college.

Stop talking. Do something.

Ender502

I did. I voted for the dopehead.

Your guy lost. So did mine. In fact I don't think I've voted for a Presidential candidate that actually won...ever. Deal already. Y'all are starting to sound like a bunch of babies at this point. When did the party of FDR and Johnson become a bunch of nattering nabobs?*



*Ten internet points if you can source the most famous nattering nabob quote to its best without going on the internet.

 Frazzled wrote:
I did. I voted for the dopehead.

Your guy lost. So did mine. In fact I don't think I've voted for a Presidential candidate that actually won...ever. Deal already. Y'all are starting to sound like a bunch of babies at this point. When did the party of FDR and Johnson become a bunch of nattering nabobs?*



*Ten internet points if you can source the most famous nattering nabob quote to its best without going on the internet.

And it's import an for you to realize that your vote only counted if you voted with the majority in one of the states that links the popular vote with the electoral vote.

If you have a problem with the way the electoral college works then change it. But don't whine when you realize your vote may be discounted in the very way intended by the founding fathers.

ender502

 Frazzled wrote:
I did. I voted for the dopehead.

Your guy lost. So did mine. In fact I don't think I've voted for a Presidential candidate that actually won...ever. Deal already. Y'all are starting to sound like a bunch of babies at this point. When did the party of FDR and Johnson become a bunch of nattering nabobs?*



*Ten internet points if you can source the most famous nattering nabob quote to its best without going on the internet.

Wasn't it somebody who worked for Nixon? The bald guy who tries to sell us gold on the commercials? Nattering nabobs of negativity-Gordon Liddy?

 ender502 wrote:

If you have a problem with the way the electoral college works then change it. But don't whine when you realize your vote may be discounted in the very way intended by the founding fathers.

ender502

I like how it works right now.

I would be fine if every state followed Maine and Nebraska's method of splitting the vote by congressional district, but as has been mentioned, can be gamed through Gerrymandering.

Frazz....

You're...a...lawyer....

Adopts Luke Skywalker voice

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!

 ender502 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I did. I voted for the dopehead.

Your guy lost. So did mine. In fact I don't think I've voted for a Presidential candidate that actually won...ever. Deal already. Y'all are starting to sound like a bunch of babies at this point. When did the party of FDR and Johnson become a bunch of nattering nabobs?*



*Ten internet points if you can source the most famous nattering nabob quote to its best without going on the internet.

And it's import an for you to realize that your vote only counted if you voted with the majority in one of the states that links the popular vote with the electoral vote.

If you have a problem with the way the electoral college works then change it. But don't whine when you realize your vote may be discounted in the very way intended by the founding fathers.

ender502

What is the focus of your argument that you hope will sway Electors to ignore the outcome of the popular vote in the state they were elected to represent?

Why do you think that historically Electors have always voted in accordance to the outcome of the vote in the state they are elected to represent? You're arguing that Hamilton's viewpoint on the Electoral College somehow makes Clinton the best choice for President but it doesn't. Hamilton wanted electors to deliberate and choose a candidate, that doesn't mean that the candidate chosen by the people shouldn't be the one they choose. If you think Hamilton's view of the EC is the only correct one why do you think the Electors have always chosen the candidate who won the vote in their state? You're pleading with Electors to do something unprecedented but you seem to think this was always supposed to be commonplace even though it isn't. There were 55 people participating in the constitutional convention and 39 signatories to the ratification of the constitution, why is Hamilton's opinion of the EC the only valid one?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kronk wrote:

 ender502 wrote:

If you have a problem with the way the electoral college works then change it. But don't whine when you realize your vote may be discounted in the very way intended by the founding fathers.

ender502

I like how it works right now.

I would be fine if every state followed Maine and Nebraska's method of splitting the vote by congressional district, but as has been mentioned, can be gamed through Gerrymandering.

I would think working towards a change to that system in Illinois would be possible since you have a very strong urban/rural (really Chicago/everywhere else) divide that you could get the state legislature to go along with it since it would give more weight to all the counties outside of Chicago and therefore be a good issue for all the legislators representing all those counties to champion.

EDIT: Already answered. Curse you Operation Linebacker II

 Breotan wrote:

 ender502 wrote:
I'm sure there are plenty of people who will say this will not work. They'll say it isn't practical. My experience is that pragmatism is cover for cynicism and that cynicism is just cover for impotence.

Stop talking and start doing.

ender502

You're essentially asking for a do-over which isn't going to happen. Your next chance to vote for President comes in four years. Hopefully both parties will field better candidates than they did this time.

If you're upset by the election results, wail against the electoral college system all you want, it's not going to change since it got Trump elected.

The main voice you got between voting sessions is your money.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I did. I voted for the dopehead.

Your guy lost. So did mine. In fact I don't think I've voted for a Presidential candidate that actually won...ever. Deal already. Y'all are starting to sound like a bunch of babies at this point. When did the party of FDR and Johnson become a bunch of nattering nabobs?*



*Ten internet points if you can source the most famous nattering nabob quote to its best without going on the internet.

Wasn't it somebody who worked for Nixon? The bald guy who tries to sell us gold on the commercials? Nattering nabobs of negativity-Gordon Liddy?

You're good.

Nixon's VP: Spiro "Duh Tigerblood...winning!" Agnew


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Frazz....

You're...a...lawyer....

Adopts Luke Skywalker voice

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!

Frazzled Esquire, Neanderthal's greatest lawyer.

"Hyenadons constantly hounding you? Homo Sapiens making fun of your life choices? Call me! The Tough Smart Neanderthal!"

Just to be clear I am not arguing for or against the current form of the electoral college.

To answer the question I think you need to ask why were the electors not linked to the popular vote? I default to hamilton simply because his is the closest in time and place to the decision making process. There isnt much evidence to say that another view was prevalent at the time.

If you haven't read federalist 68, I would suggest doing that now. The electors were there to vote for someone who qualification was not just base popularity. The electors are always the final bulwark against democracy/rule of the mob. It isn't pretty but that is what it was there for.

Why have the electors almost universally gone with the popular vote (outside of where they are required to)? Because in general the popular vote has come out with general reasonable results. We may not like them but that are general inside the realm of reason. No real demagogue or nut jobs. So not a lot of reason to go against that vote.

This isn't difficult. This isn't revolutionary. This is just the rules as written. If Indiana wants their electors to vote for the person who won their popular vote then they would have passed a statute. They haven't.

And by the way...thank you to the 14 of you who have volunteered to help. It is much appreciated.

ender502

Doesn't anyone find it ironic that the party that's yammering about the EC... is the same party that has Super Delegates in their primary?

 ender502 wrote:

This isn't difficult. This isn't revolutionary. This is just the rules as written. If Indiana wants their electors to vote for the person who won their popular vote then they would have passed a statute. They haven't.

What are you talking about?

Indiana is a winner take all state. Trump won the popular vote, there. The majority that voted, voted for Trump. Trump gets the EC votes.

What are you arguing for, here? Help me out.