Guard Dog

The population of the US is not evenly distributed. That's why we use the EC system. But not every state is winner take all.

Unless it's really lopsided they won't call a state until the majority of the districs have reported in

So far no suprises

Polls close in Florida in 12 minutes. If Clinton wins that it's over. If Trump wins it will be an interesting night.

I'd like this twice if i could

No BJs from Madonna after all: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/election/madonna-withdraws-oral-sex-promise-hillary-voters-article-1.2864602 Oh well. To tell the truth this is less enticing now that it would be 30 years ago!

So if that happens what would that mean? Does that mean the Republicans can block any rule or law Clinton tries to pass? Technically yes but she could also block anything they tried to do. At worst it becomes a total stalemate like it did for Obama. He ran absolutely roughshod over them for the two years the Democrats had full control. The Republicans were cut out of everything in a way that is unusual even in DC. It was made worse when that worthless bag of s--t Harry Reid changed the Senate Rules on cloture votes and essentially took away the filibuster. After that is was Democrat rule by fiat and some really, really bad things happened. Then the Democrats lost the House of Representatives in in 2010 and the Senate in 2014. Because Obama had treated them so poorly and was still overtly hostile to them the Republicans were not inclined to compromise with him on much. And to tell the truth he had no inclination to work with them either so the whole government ground to a near halt. A budgetary spending resolution still got passed. The essential tasks of the Government were still accomplished. But very little in the way of legislation moved. Which s fine by me. I'd take that every time over what was going on prior to 2010. Now with a new President and a new Congress the dynamic will be different. If Hillary Clinton is elected and is willing to sign bills she may not like in order to get Congress to pass ones she does she can probably expect to get 50-75% or her agenda through. That hard left and hard right bills will still be stopped. A radical leftist Supreme court nominee (Another Ginsburg or Kagan) would be stopped. So to answer your question it really comes down to how Congress reacts to how the treats them. If she puts their backs up she is in for a long frustrating four years. I say four because historically the mid-term elections favor the opposite party of the Executive. If the Democrats don't have control of the Senate by the end of the night they will not have it until at least 2020. The House is probably a lost cause for them for the foreseeable future. This is a very interesting post. But it concerns me in the sense you could have this really frustrating stalemate and most US citizens are sick of the impotence and lack of consensus in Congress, things seem to take a long time to get done So if I was her I would not try to implement the very ideological controversial things like gun control and focus on fixing things where there can be agreement like Obamacare and improving aspects of foreign policy Bruce as to your first point you need to understand something. In 2010 & 2014 almost 200 million Americans (combined) voted in a Republican Congress to do exactly what they did: Stop the President. That is not dysfunction. That is the United States Government working EXACTLY as it was designed to work. Laws SHOULD be hard to pass. The media has excoriated the Republicans but all they did was at the behest of the voters that sent them there. As toy your second point if Clinton does win and follows that advice she will have a successful term. As long as she and her supporters understand that some 130 Million votes will be cast today, half of them will be against her. Success is not ramming your agenda down their throats. Success is getting most of what you want while compromising on other things. Obama never learned that lesson.

So if that happens what would that mean? Does that mean the Republicans can block any rule or law Clinton tries to pass? Technically yes but she could also block anything they tried to do. At worst it becomes a total stalemate like it did for Obama. He ran absolutely roughshod over them for the two years the Democrats had full control. The Republicans were cut out of everything in a way that is unusual even in DC. It was made worse when that worthless bag of s--t Harry Reid changed the Senate Rules on cloture votes and essentially took away the filibuster. After that is was Democrat rule by fiat and some really, really bad things happened. Then the Democrats lost the House of Representatives in in 2010 and the Senate in 2014. Because Obama had treated them so poorly and was still overtly hostile to them the Republicans were not inclined to compromise with him on much. And to tell the truth he had no inclination to work with them either so the whole government ground to a near halt. A budgetary spending resolution still got passed. The essential tasks of the Government were still accomplished. But very little in the way of legislation moved. Which s fine by me. I'd take that every time over what was going on prior to 2010. Now with a new President and a new Congress the dynamic will be different. If Hillary Clinton is elected and is willing to sign bills she may not like in order to get Congress to pass ones she does she can probably expect to get 50-75% or her agenda through. That hard left and hard right bills will still be stopped. A radical leftist Supreme court nominee (Another Ginsburg or Kagan) would be stopped. So to answer your question it really comes down to how Congress reacts to how the treats them. If she puts their backs up she is in for a long frustrating four years. I say four because historically the mid-term elections favor the opposite party of the Executive. If the Democrats don't have control of the Senate by the end of the night they will not have it until at least 2020. The House is probably a lost cause for them for the foreseeable future.

If Clinton wins, Republicans control both houses and Johnson gets 5%, I'd take that.

Nah, you know who has a good ground game? The Dallas Cowboys. They are leading the league in yards per game, yards per attempt, rushing first downs and rushing touchdowns. They are second in total yards and third in average per attempt. Now THAT is a ground game. Ahhh I'm so glad we can stop worry about who is going to spend the US into insolvency and get back to talking about more pleasant things!

The general complaints I've heard are - *National standards take away states rights and states control *One size fits all standards don't allow room for adjustments to classroom demographics *National standards places even more standardized testing in the path of over-tested students. *Does nothing to address the incentives to move students on regardless of achtievement *Common core standards weren't tested in the classroom before implementation. *Common core relies on rote learning methods and doesn't allow room for creativity. *emphasis on certain subjects leaves little room for the arts or computer science in the curriiculum *textbooks will most likely be aimed at two largest school markets (texas, California) leaving no room for inclusion of local history or authors Those are all true. To add to is there are some bat**** crazy methods of explaining simple algebra and logic problems that IMO make them a lot harder to comprehend. It's like they decided to find the most abstract method on purpose. I get that the idea is to start teaching algebra at earlier ages but they are building the house without a foundation. My formal education is Electronics Engineering. So I am no stranger to math. And the one thing I absolutely learned is every new thing you are taught is predicated on the last thing you were taught all the way back to memorizing multiplication tables. To speed up the advanced math Common Core is cutting out a lot of the early learning and replacing the years or repetition learning of Associative Rule mathematics with some weird abstract logic method. I think that is a bad idea. The teaching methods we were using go all the way back to ancient Egypt and were working fine. I remember a very long time ago asking my 5th Grade teacher Mrs Lutsky why I needed to learn fractions. She couldn't really give me an answer. I remember asking my 8th Grade teacher Mr. Johnson why i needed to learn Geometry. He didn't really give me an answer. I asked my 9th Grade Algebra teacher, Mrs. Hubbard, why we needed to learn Algebra. She couldn't give me an answer. Now I know. I needed to learn fractions and geometry to learn algebra. I needed to learn algebra so I could lean how to solve matrices and Trigonometry. I needed to learn those so I could learn Calculus. I needed Calculus to learn Physics and differential equations. I needed those to learn Statics, Dynamics, Fluid Mechanics, Materials Science, etc. Without Trigonometry RF electronics as we know it would not exist. And I wouldn't be sitting on my porch typing this message on my wifi connected tablet. We lean the simple things so we can learn the hard things. We can't jump straight to the hard things. That's my $.02 on Common Core. But everything Amentep said was right too.

If this is a grand Russian master plan the ambitions and abilities of these folks have been drastically overstated. All that has happened is some embarrassing e-mails hacked and released. Like I keep saying, if the Clinton camp and the DNC were not doing EXACTLY what they were accused of doing this would have amounted to nothing. If there are no skeletons in the closet you don't have to worry about Russian hackers opening the closet. If they even have. As dastardly plots go this one is pretty unimaginative. Now if this gets Trump elected and it turns out he's a Russian spy named Yuri secretly planted in the US as a child by Kruschev and guided towards the Presidency all his life to lead the US in a failed war that results in Soviet expansion into Western Europe and Asia THEN I'll be impressed. Actually no, I wouldn't. I'd still look at Trump and say "Really Nikita? This is you you sent?"

As for the election, like I said two pages ago. Whatever happens I hope i is all wrapped up one way or the other by the time the polls close in Hawaii. No lawsuits, no recounts, no bitching. One outcome is as bad as the other so don't think you're saving the country by tearing it apart fighting over two scumbags who don't deserve the passions or acrimony they have inspired.

Fear not, I have the required red-blooded heterosexual male appreciation for salted cured ribmeat. But I use the smoker to make that. It's been a while though.

And just think, you're not even being bombarded with campaign ads like we are!

Well the freeze dried stuff lasts for years. You don't need to worry about that. The canned goods are more problematic. They are only good for a year or so. I keep my emergency stores in plastic bins. I'll buy a months worth and put it in one bin and store it. After 8 months I start using the items in that bin and when it's gone fill it back up again and put it back on the shelf. It usually takes 6-7 weeks to empty a bin. I keep three bins so that's three months plus what I have on hand at any time and I can reliably produce a months worth of food from the garden and the river over 3-4 months time. I learned how to preserve my own garden produce so the last bin on the shelf has a lot of that. I'd like to by a dehydrator and start preserving produce that way but I'm read mixed reviews on how well that works. I would like to get of one those vacuum seal system for preserving dog food. I have two solar panel arrays that should produce enough power to run the the freezer during the day. I could easily build a DC auxiliary power system to help power the house at night and recharge during the day. I can produce my own food to an extent if needs be. Plus I'm absolutely armed to the teeth. If some SHTF situation were to actually happen I'm in a pretty good position. Dog food though. That is a problem still to be solved. That's just me though. A lot of the folks I read about are stockpiling MREs which last much longer. But I figure I've eaten enough of those for one lifetime.

In other news: http://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/election-chaos-fears-have-preppers-stockpiling-survival-food-n678161 I've got a 3 month supply myself. I will need to stock up on dog food though. I should go to Pet Smart today.

For now. If she wins tomorrow, no harm no foul. If she loses..... he'll be found dead of a heroin OD in the bed of an underage hooker. She'll be dead to because the Clintons don't like loose ends! Kidding of course

The Clintons have a very long list of dead associates. Longer than any other President of politician I've ever heard of. Now many of them there isn't much mystery in how they died and it's only remarkable in that they were associated with or in opposition to either or both Clintons. But there are a hell of a lot of unsolved murders and suspicious suicides on that list. Just google the word "Arkancide". And then there is this: http://www.inquisitr.com/3390706/victor-thorn-suicide-of-anti-clinton-researcher-with-anti-semitic-past-prompts-conspiracy-theories-video/

Oh yeah, one more thing. No 269-269 scenario. That would be entertaining as hell but... no

What I want from this election: I hope it's close. Less than 2% in the popular vote. That way whomever wins can't claim a mandate. I hope it's over on Tuesday. No lawsuits, no recounts, no bitching. The White House & Congress remain in the hands of opposite parties. We'll all sleep better that way. Gary Johnson gets his 5%. It would be nice if Stein did too. But if Johnson does we'll call it a win.

No, they are exactly what they seem to be. The internal correspondence of a political organization that is made up of very dishonest people trying to win an election by any means fair or foul. If it makes any of you pro-Clinton types feel better there are three kinds of people: Those who refuse to believe anything negative about her. Could be for any reason; gender, politics, stupidity, etc. Those who know she is a liar and a snake and will vote for her anyway. Those who would never cast a vote for her no matter what. It's been common knowledge the Clintons were corrupt and dishonest since the early '90s. All the Wikileaks story had done is confirm what group 2 & 3 already knew. For all Trump's flaws there is one thing he does not have. A two page long list of dead associates who died under mysterious circumstances. And for all his sexist behavior I don't recall ever hearing about him taking a bribe. Of course not of that mitigates his other flaws and they are many. I'd just like to remind everyone of something Volo pointed out a few times now. And he's right. Trump has been a public figure since the USFL thing in the 1980's. He was never accused of sexual harassment/assault, or racism, or Klan association in all that time in the public eye until he ran for President against a Democrat. It makes you wonder. But then both Romney & McCain could day the same so there is a pattern there.

Excellent assessment, I wish I could make points in this way. I try but sometimes I just cant articulate my view in the way you have done In summary this is my view of Wikileaks, exactly how you have summarized it I agree with you and Elrond there is an adgenda behind all this. And yes Wikileaks is showing the whole world private information that it's agents stole by hacking into private server's and e-mail accounts. However, that does not make any of that information untrue. And there is so much data the argument that the information lacks context just does not hold water. Yes I agree. The reality is Im sure many of the emails were sent by people within the Clinton campaign. The issue I have is based on the fact Wikileaks is trying to undermine the entire US election process. So this is about the principle as far as Wikileaks is concerned, its not about Trump or Clinton its about a foreign entity interfering in the view US citizens have around the legitimacy of their own election Thats my main criticism of Wikileaks Like I always say if you don't put skeletons in your closet you never have to worry about them getting out. Clinton is not known for conducting herself in an honest or ethical manner. And she has surrounded herself with like minded people. Bruce, by no you must see Hillary Clinton is thoroughly dishonest and completely corrupted. The only thing she has going for her is she's not Donald Trump.

As soon as Trump has top selling iTunes and radio hit he can criticize Jay Z.