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.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]

Sure it does... democrats AND republicans know what it takes to win the EC.

Don't be so obtuse.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The electoral vote has nothing to do with your argument that less people voted democrat.

Electoral vote doesn't care. Electoral votes only care the you win the majority of the states.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Because that's how it works... and, because States matters in our union.

It's illustrative to look at who won county-by-county:

There are 3,141 counties in the United States.

Trump won 3,084 of them.

Clinton won 57.

The electoral college appears to have functioned exactly as designed.

Because you think land ownership should decide representation. We've been through this.
(or more accurately, it's because "your guys" benefit from the current arraignment)

Step off from the whole "land ownership" bs. You know it's not that.

It's simply there are regional differences, ie states, that fething matters.

So your argument is that different territories should get representation because "reasons". Why should a minority be able to overrule a majority because of where they live? Because that is what you are arguing, that people don't matter, only where they live.

Or, could be Clinton was just that MUCH more horrible.

And if you believe that you are deluded. She was a fething run-of-the mill, status-quo, moderate Democrat. If she's "that bad," that I might as well be the devil incarnate to Republican voters (leans towards a socialist-capitalist mix, believes in equality for all, believes that with rights and power comes a responsibility to protect those less fortunate, ect).

:rolls eyes:

No, just about any other Democrat would've beaten Trump... I'm convinced of that.

Really? What horrible thing did she do that was so much worse than the tax-dodging, lying, law-breaking, islamaphaobic, sexist, rapist, molester, and bully that is Donald J. Trump?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]

Sure it does... democrats AND republicans know what it takes to win the EC.

Don't be so obtuse.

So you are arguing that people who live in underpopulated states represent more of america than populated ones?

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Zywus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The electoral vote has nothing to do with your argument that less people voted democrat.

Electoral vote doesn't care. Electoral votes only care the you win the majority of the states.

I don't see any mention of states or electoral votes in this quote:

 whembly wrote:

No, I beleive this current generation of Democrats are so fething far removed from what most Americans want.

"most Americans" don't necessarily correspond to the the most states or the most electoral votes, and no one has made that connection apart from yourself.

It's kinda embarrassing to watch you start to talk about a entirely different subject instead of just admitting that initial statement was just not very well thought out.

Kinda Trump-esque I suppose.

In a presidental election, you have to look at it states-by-states. I think I've been pretty consistent there.

Furthermore, just look at the last 8 years after the 2008 elections... yes, the Democrats has taken a beating.

Want to know why whembly? Because the red states have been gerrymandering the crap out of their states to get that advantage, they have been working at that for years and we are starting to see the full force of it. Get ride of gerrymandering and poof any lead the Rs had disappears

Getting read of gerrymandering won't be a panacea that you think it would. It's much more complicated than that...and no, it's not "just" what Republicans does. Both parties do it in their respective states... you know, STATES is such a thing.

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Zywus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The electoral vote has nothing to do with your argument that less people voted democrat.

Electoral vote doesn't care. Electoral votes only care the you win the majority of the states.

I don't see any mention of states or electoral votes in this quote:

 whembly wrote:

No, I beleive this current generation of Democrats are so fething far removed from what most Americans want.

"most Americans" don't necessarily correspond to the the most states or the most electoral votes, and no one has made that connection apart from yourself.

It's kinda embarrassing to watch you start to talk about a entirely different subject instead of just admitting that initial statement was just not very well thought out.

Kinda Trump-esque I suppose.

In a presidental election, you have to look at it states-by-states. I think I've been pretty consistent there.

Furthermore, just look at the last 8 years after the 2008 elections... yes, the Democrats has taken a beating.

Want to know why whembly? Because the red states have been gerrymandering the crap out of their states to get that advantage, they have been working at that for years and we are starting to see the full force of it. Get ride of gerrymandering and poof any lead the Rs had disappears

Getting read of gerrymandering won't be a panacea that you think it would. It's much more complicated than that...and no, it's not "just" what Republicans does. Both parties do it in their respective states... you know, STATES is such a thing.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/10/27/1579905/-These-three-maps-show-just-how-effectively-gerrymandering-can-swing-election-outcomes

How many red controlled states are there? Oh yeah 68 out of 98 legislature houses, now I wonder how much those states are gerrymandered to benefit republicans? And that kids is how the republicans won congress

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The electoral vote has nothing to do with your argument that less people voted democrat.

Electoral vote doesn't care. Electoral votes only care the you win the majority of the states.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Because that's how it works... and, because States matters in our union.

It's illustrative to look at who won county-by-county:

There are 3,141 counties in the United States.

Trump won 3,084 of them.

Clinton won 57.

The electoral college appears to have functioned exactly as designed.

Because you think land ownership should decide representation. We've been through this.
(or more accurately, it's because "your guys" benefit from the current arraignment)

Step off from the whole "land ownership" bs. You know it's not that.

It's simply there are regional differences, ie states, that fething matters.

So your argument is that different territories should get representation because "reasons". Why should a minority be able to overrule a majority because of where they live? Because that is what you are arguing, that people don't matter, only where they live.

People live in individual States.

Their votes matters with respect within their States.

The EC was a compromise between the large and small states.

Why should NY, TX and CA dominate the other 47 states?

Or, could be Clinton was just that MUCH more horrible.

And if you believe that you are deluded. She was a fething run-of-the mill, status-quo, moderate Democrat. If she's "that bad," that I might as well be the devil incarnate to Republican voters (leans towards a socialist-capitalist mix, believes in equality for all, believes that with rights and power comes a responsibility to protect those less fortunate, ect).

:rolls eyes:

No, just about any other Democrat would've beaten Trump... I'm convinced of that.

Really? What horrible thing did she do that was so much worse than the tax-dodging, lying, law-breaking, islamaphaobic, sexist, rapist, molester, and bully that is Donald J. Trump?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]

Sure it does... democrats AND republicans know what it takes to win the EC.

Don't be so obtuse.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]

While the effort is impressive, that dark blue has got to go.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The electoral vote has nothing to do with your argument that less people voted democrat.

Electoral vote doesn't care. Electoral votes only care the you win the majority of the states.

Which has nothing to do with the argument you made.

It would be easier to admit that you made a bad argument, but feel free to dig your hole deeper.

 whembly wrote:
So your argument is that different territories should get representation because "reasons". Why should a minority be able to overrule a majority because of where they live? Because that is what you are arguing, that people don't matter, only where they live.

People live in individual States.

Their votes matters with respect within their States.

The EC was a compromise between the large and small states.

Why should NY, TX and CA dominate the other 47 states?

 whembly wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

No, I beleive this current generation of Democrats are so fething far removed from what most Americans want.

Except for that annoying little fact that more Americans voted for Hillary than for Trump.

Except for that annoying little fact that the Electoral College doesn't give a gak about popular vote.

That's irrelevant to the point you were trying to make.

It's also interesting that he's making the argument that democrats are so far removed from the majority of Americans (despite the fact that the majority of voters voted democrats), while also making the argument that Hillary was a horrible candidate and that another democrat would have won.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

That's irrelevant to the point you were trying to make.

It's almost the opposite of his argument earlier that the people [MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]


But I think he must have me on ignore or something. Either that or he's totally ignoring my point earlier;.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

No, I beleive this current generation of Democrats are so fething far removed from what most Americans want.

Except for that annoying little fact that more Americans voted for Hillary than for Trump.

Except for that annoying little fact that the Electoral College doesn't give a gak about popular vote.

That's irrelevant to the point you were trying to make.

Yah... more dog pile!

So when I replied "No, I beleive this current generation of Democrats are so fething far removed from what most Americans want"... I was thinking of this tidbit:
Since Obama's first election... by my count:
- Democrats have lost 13 Senate seats and 69 House seats in Congress
- Democrats have lost 12 state governorships
- Democrats have lost 30 state legislative chambers
- Democrats have lost more than 900 state legislative seats

That's a whoop'n.

So Tanner responds with:
"Except for that annoying little fact that more Americans voted for Hillary than for Trump."

And I responded with:
"Except for that annoying little fact that the Electoral College doesn't give a gak about popular vote"

Nothing here is untrue.

The state legislature, state govenorship, US house and US Senate are basically 'popular vote' system.

The Presidential election is a different ball of wax because of the electoral college.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
It's also interesting that he's making the argument that democrats are so far removed from the majority of Americans (despite the fact that the majority of voters voted democrats), while also making the argument that Hillary was a horrible candidate and that another democrat would have won.

Really?

See my post above.

Both Hillary and Cheeto Jesus had record unfavorability. Practically any other Democrat ought to do better that Clinton.

 Ustrello wrote:
Whembly your damage control is amazing, you went from full on nevertrump to defending his cabinet picks hawking that the democrats lost because they are out of touch (which they aren't most americans that voted voted D)

sum cats are red team 4 lyfe yo


Honestly, I'm not freaking out over every cabinet pick. There are some real doozies in there, however, and it's clearer than ever that this is going to be a ridiculous 4 years.

 whembly wrote:

So when I replied "No, I beleive this current generation of Democrats are so fething far removed from what most Americans want"... I was thinking of this tidbit:
Since Obama's first election... by my count:
- Democrats have lost 13 Senate seats and 69 House seats in Congress
- Democrats have lost 12 state governorships
- Democrats have lost 30 state legislative chambers
- Democrats have lost more than 900 state legislative seats

That's a whoop'n.

Well, no, that makes sense, but has nothing to do with the number of people voting in favor of Dems, and a lot more to do with the fact that once the Republicans got a majority, the districts, at least in my area, were Gerrymandered spectacularly to ensure those districts remain theirs. You literally cannot legally run as a Democrat in many of them due to the requirements to get on the ballot for a legislative seat, or on the ballot for governor in that district. To say that they're keeping the vote sewn up is an understatement. This in turn affects the Gubernatorial contests.
One candidate in one district in PA tried to run for state legislature: he managed 90% of all registered dems in his district signing the required docs for his candidacy. 90%. He was short 2.5k names to get on the ballot, because the Republicans had set it up so that the district literally did not have the required number of registered dems to run a candidate.

At all.

I think I even posted on here election night about a local radio station covering the election had a Republican complaining about how there was an awful Republican running in a district there was no way they could lose because of the way it had been gerrymandered. Essentially he said it was proof you could buy a seat since they guy didn't even live in the area but bought a house there in order to run since he could lose in that district.

In addition to the gerrymandering issue at the state level it's important to note that the democrats were handed a gift-wrapped opportunity in 2008: a popular candidate at the top of the ballot to drive turnout, and an incredibly unpopular president ending his term. A lot of the "decline" the democrats have suffered is simply the exceptional results of 2008 returning to something more like the natural state of things. It's likely that no matter who the democrats had run or what policy positions they had chosen there would still have been a decline, as the results of 2008 were not sustainable.

 Peregrine wrote:
In addition to the gerrymandering issue at the state level it's important to note that the democrats were handed a gift-wrapped opportunity in 2008: a popular candidate at the top of the ballot to drive turnout, and an incredibly unpopular president ending his term. A lot of the "decline" the democrats have suffered is simply the exceptional results of 2008 returning to something more like the natural state of things. It's likely that no matter who the democrats had run or what policy positions they had chosen there would still have been a decline, as the results of 2008 were not sustainable.

I think party fatigue is certainly a thing... but, 2016 ain't like 2008.

The outgoing President Obama is still fething popular (he's in high fifties at least)... which I think it's simply more of his persona than any policies that he advocated for...

What's remarkable is the decline in '10, '12 and '14.

I thought the GOP fethed up majorly by nominating Cheeto Jesus and act as a drag on the down ballot.

But, evidently we found out that Clinton had major issues as well.

I mean, her campaign spent more money in Nebraska, than Wisconsin & Michigan combined.

Cheeto Jesus lucked out big time and still barely squeaked by in many states...

 Peregrine wrote:
In addition to the gerrymandering issue at the state level it's important to note that the democrats were handed a gift-wrapped opportunity in 2008: a popular candidate at the top of the ballot to drive turnout, and an incredibly unpopular president ending his term. A lot of the "decline" the democrats have suffered is simply the exceptional results of 2008 returning to something more like the natural state of things. It's likely that no matter who the democrats had run or what policy positions they had chosen there would still have been a decline, as the results of 2008 were not sustainable.

I can see that, but I still think that Biden, Chaffee, and especially Webb would have beaten Trump.

 whembly wrote:
What's remarkable is the decline in '10, '12 and '14.

No, my whole point is that it isn't remarkable. 2008 saw the democrats win a lot of states/districts that were traditionally red-leaning, an exceptional result that was almost certain to reverse to some degree no matter what happened. What we saw over the next few years was mostly the " Bush" effect fading and those red-leaning states/districts going back to electing republicans.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thekingofkings wrote:
I can see that, but I still think that Biden, Chaffee, and especially Webb would have beaten Trump.

Possibly, but I'm talking about whembly's comments on the democrats losing outside of the presidential race.

text removed.

Reds8n

I dont think you know how nuclear bombs work if you think rural people will be fine

Nobody wins in a nuclear exchange. Lots of people die horribly.

Is there a point there, Mitochondria? Or a segue from the topic into that?

 whembly wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
In addition to the gerrymandering issue at the state level it's important to note that the democrats were handed a gift-wrapped opportunity in 2008: a popular candidate at the top of the ballot to drive turnout, and an incredibly unpopular president ending his term. A lot of the "decline" the democrats have suffered is simply the exceptional results of 2008 returning to something more like the natural state of things. It's likely that no matter who the democrats had run or what policy positions they had chosen there would still have been a decline, as the results of 2008 were not sustainable.

But, evidently we found out that Clinton had major issues as well.

I mean, her campaign spent more money in Nebraska, than Wisconsin & Michigan combined.

Cheeto Jesus lucked out big time and still barely squeaked by in many states...

Hillary was probably the single worst candidate the democratic party could of nominated. Instantly, some of her policies already lost her votes in very important "firewall" states:

An avid T.P.P supporter, probably the biggest reason why she lost the rust belt states.

Donations from every corrupt financial firm in existence (Goldman-Sachs I'm looking at you bud), apparently she forgot that the recession is still in recent memory.

>subscribe for more content!!121!!

Trump just happened to be very populist in his economic stance, and his staunch persona to be "draining the swamp" (HIS CABINET PICKS, WHY) and against out-sourcing and trade deals. A major pro when you realize why the rust-belt is called the rust-belt.

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

No, I beleive this current generation of Democrats are so fething far removed from what most Americans want.

Except for that annoying little fact that more Americans voted for Hillary than for Trump.

Except for that annoying little fact that the Electoral College doesn't give a gak about popular vote.

That's irrelevant to the point you were trying to make.

Yah... more dog pile!

So when I replied "No, I beleive this current generation of Democrats are so fething far removed from what most Americans want"... I was thinking of this tidbit:
Since Obama's first election... by my count:
- Democrats have lost 13 Senate seats and 69 House seats in Congress
- Democrats have lost 12 state governorships
- Democrats have lost 30 state legislative chambers
- Democrats have lost more than 900 state legislative seats

...

Again you are making the mistake of thinking that election results reflect voting popularity.

The FPTP system as well as the electoral college makes is possible for a party to gain a majority of seats with a minority of the votes. The US system of guaranteed seats irrespective of population level makes this bias work in favour of Republicans, by giving extra weight to low population, rural, conservative areas.

It actually is the number of votes that expresses the overall national mood, though.

As for dog piling, if you make a statement that a lot of people disagree with, a lot of people will disagree with it. Trying to identify that as a kind of internet bullying is a bit rude.

Let's face it, saying that people are fine with the way Democrats have been doing business because Hillary won the popular vote is like saying people are fine with murder when a serial killer asks them which family member dies first.

It's not that Democrats are doing a great job, it's that a majority of people think they are doing a marginally better job than Republicans.

In that Regard I think Whembly's post was accurate. The more truthful evidence would be to look at approval ratings, which honestly are dreadful for any politician.

 whembly wrote:
I'm not denying that the Russians did indeed try to influence our elections. I'm pissed off at that...

But the WaPo article is in stark contrast to previous statements from the FBI and IC that the Russians had tried, but failed to hack the RNC at large - succeeding only in accessing the private accounts of a few individual Republicans.

To me, what's missing from these revelations is some shred of evidence, beyond unnamed sources, saying that the Kremlin wanted Cheeto Jesus to win and that was the motivation for their actions. That may be the conclusion that some in the agency have reached, but if they have anything to back it up they’re not providing it.

Yeah, the problem with any policy discussion that includes national intelligence is that we never know what they know. Is the CIA interpretation actually rock solid, no doubt about it, or is it more like a conclusion that makes the most sense given what they know... It's probably a lot closer to the former, given what it has been reported was given to the senate committee and the CIA's controls on speculation, but we can't know for sure given we can't see their actual intel.

Let's say there weren't any smoking gun evidence, but a strong preponderance of evidences that Russa did indeed try to help Cheeto Jesus. How come the Obama administration NOT release this information during the elections?

He's the CiC... he can declassify anything he wants. A foreign power directly influence our nations elections is a good enough reason to declassify any information that points to the Kremlin's interference.

It would be an outrageous abuse of government intelligence for an elected representative to do that. Comey's email was terrible, but at least he appeared to be acting as best he could as an independent government agent - he fethed up but its very unlikely he had any partisan motivations. On the other hand Obama's motivations would be partisan by definition.

Probably the only way it could be justified is if it was shown that Trump was actively colluding with the Russians, and even then maybe only if Trump's involvement broke the law. The evidence for any conclusion appears is circumstantial at best (Alex Jones had knowledge of the Podesta leaks before they happened, but there's nothing saying he got that through Trump or that he was alone in knowing what the Russians had given to wikileaks to release), and so really the only thing a decent president can do is sit tight on the matter.

Really, the issue now is to accept that foreign countries can and have meddled in US elections, and when this was discovered the people whom this benefited decided not to work to defend US democracy. Instead they've just put up some half assed bs attacking the CIA. Absolutely fething corrupt to the core. People just need to note this, remember it, and understand who they are voting for.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Yeah, Whem' has been pretty anti-Trump in this whole thing.

This is true.

If I was to complain, and I am because that's what the internet is here for, I would say that while Whembly has been anti-Trump as long as any of us, he hasn't extended that to any of the Republicans who have moved in to work with him.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
A shame that the Democrats can't stop this pick... (damn you Reid... DAAMMN YOOOOOOOOOOU! )

Nope. Remember, if Reid hadn't changed the rules to stop filibustering of non-cabinet positions, then Republicans would just change the rules once Democrats filibustered any of Trump's appointments. That was a power the minority senate was never going to keep in this partisan political age.

The people who are working to stop/minimise Trump's terrible appointments and policies, and the people who voted those people in to office are probably the only people who aren't to blame for what is about to happen in the next four years. Trump is responsible, the Republican party that is working with Trump and actually in favour of many/most of his terrible ideas are responsible, and ultimately the people who voted for Trump and the Republicans are responsible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
No, I beleive this current generation of Democrats are so fething far removed from what most Americans want. 'Tis why 2016 will be known as 'The Year of the Democrats Spankings'.

No, the Republican parody of Democrats is far removed from what people want. The Democrats in reality want to ensure the social safety net, provide a minimum wage, create economic growth and jobs, protect the environment, and remove racial and gender disadvantage.

They aren't great at all these things all the time, because they're a political party and political parties tend to suck, but it's clear the intent is there and what they want is pretty closed aligned with what Americans have said they want as well.

On the other hand, Republicans want tax cuts for the rich, less regulation on business, less environmental control on business. The former is very unpopular, the latter two are sometimes popular in general but almost always unpopular in specific. To overcome this problem, Republicans have built a rather effective collections of lies over the top of this. One layer of lies is the parody of Democrats as SJWs, this has largely worked because a number of fringe lefties have played right in to it. But there's a bigger, and more cynical layer of lies to the Republicans campaign model, in which the issues above are described in passing detail, while populist nonsense is thrown out and focused on as a kind of faux-policy. For instance, we've heard for years about how Republicans are so bothered by immigration, and in this election there was this new claim about how concerned Republicans were about ordinary working class people unable to get a job.

You would think if any of those faux-policy positions were genuine, then Republicans would have a big issue with someone like Andy Puzder being appointed to Dept of Labour. Pudzer is pro-immigration and believes the US needs lower wages. But those concerns about working class people are a simple con meant to bring the rubes in, and now that the Republicans are in power we're seeing exactly what is intended. A tax cut for the rich, cuts to regulations and a reduction in environmental protection. And absolutely nothing done about jobs and wages for the working class, or about immigration that the working class believe has cost them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Niiiiiiiice. Republican votes don't care...

Reason #498586940385 that Trump won.

smdh.

Yes, the US intelligence community is reporting that a foreign power interfered in the election to help Trump win. And most Republicans are falling all over themselves to deny this. Damn fething straight Republicans care about party and not country.

Yeah, there should be some hate, but it shouldn't be for people pointing out how fething disgraceful the modern Republican party is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Because that's how it works... and, because States matters in our union.

It's illustrative to look at who won county-by-county:

There are 3,141 counties in the United States.

Trump won 3,084 of them.

Clinton won 57.

If cornfields were given the vote this would mean something. But instead it is people who are given votes, and in urban areas counties have more people than in rural areas. As such just totalling counties is bonkers.

The electoral college appears to have functioned exactly as designed.

The electoral college is completely unrelated to counties. I mean you were just pointing out that the popular vote meant nothing, but now you're trying to make some kind of point about how individual counties voted? What the actual feth.

 sebster wrote:
It would be an outrageous abuse of government intelligence for an elected representative to do that. Comey's email was terrible, but at least he appeared to be acting as best he could as an independent government agent - he fethed up but its very unlikely he had any partisan motivations. On the other hand Obama's motivations would be partisan by definition.

Got to disagree here. If there is convincing evidence of a foreign power manipulating our elections then that evidence needs to be published as a counter to the attempted manipulation. You don't let them get away with it just because you're afraid of it being seen as a political move if you expose the plan. Otherwise you're sending the message that it's ok to attempt to interfere in our business, as long as you make sure you're helping the winning side.

 gorgon wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Whembly your damage control is amazing, you went from full on nevertrump to defending his cabinet picks hawking that the democrats lost because they are out of touch (which they aren't most americans that voted voted D)

sum cats are red team 4 lyfe yo


Honestly, I'm not freaking out over every cabinet pick. There are some real doozies in there, however, and it's clearer than ever that this is going to be a ridiculous 4 years.

It might not be any consolation, but if you can survive 4 years of Trump, I think it will be so bad, that the Democrats will steamroll to victory in 2020.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 sebster wrote:
It would be an outrageous abuse of government intelligence for an elected representative to do that. Comey's email was terrible, but at least he appeared to be acting as best he could as an independent government agent - he fethed up but its very unlikely he had any partisan motivations. On the other hand Obama's motivations would be partisan by definition.

Got to disagree here. If there is convincing evidence of a foreign power manipulating our elections then that evidence needs to be published as a counter to the attempted manipulation. You don't let them get away with it just because you're afraid of it being seen as a political move if you expose the plan. Otherwise you're sending the message that it's ok to attempt to interfere in our business, as long as you make sure you're helping the winning side.

Forgive me if I am being naive, but I was under the impression that after every Presidential election, there would be a review of sorts into the election: voter registration, counting, technical issues etc etc in order to identify and fix problems for future elections.

It happens in the UK, so it must happen in the USA? Right?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 sebster wrote:
It would be an outrageous abuse of government intelligence for an elected representative to do that. Comey's email was terrible, but at least he appeared to be acting as best he could as an independent government agent - he fethed up but its very unlikely he had any partisan motivations. On the other hand Obama's motivations would be partisan by definition.

Got to disagree here. If there is convincing evidence of a foreign power manipulating our elections then that evidence needs to be published as a counter to the attempted manipulation. You don't let them get away with it just because you're afraid of it being seen as a political move if you expose the plan. Otherwise you're sending the message that it's ok to attempt to interfere in our business, as long as you make sure you're helping the winning side.

Forgive me if I am being naive, but I was under the impression that after every Presidential election, there would be a review of sorts into the election: voter registration, counting, technical issues etc etc in order to identify and fix problems for future elections.

It happens in the UK, so it must happen in the USA? Right?

That would be up to the individual states. We actually have 51 separate elections that happen on the same date. Blame the framers.

https://twitter.com/intlspectator/status/808212067110961152

BREAKING: Editorial in China's state-linked newspaper says country could react to Trump by offering military support to enemies of the US

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-38286645?ocid=socialflow_twitter


Not even in the job yet, well done !