The US Election 2016, Part VIII

[Meshugger]

https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton

 

Have fun reading!

 

Edit:// Part 4, page 44

 

 

"Early in secretary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, she and her staff were observed removing lamps and furniture from the State Department which were transported to her residence in Washington DC.

 

Hillary confirmed for swindler of lamps and sofas.

Edited October 17, 2016 by Meshugger

[Malcador]

 

 

 

Remember kids, if you don't hate yourself, your values or your heritage you are a xenophobe then you are a racist. Preserving anything immaterial or material from your parents or grandparents is racist. The best virtue is for you is to cease to be and let those who weigh over your conscience take over. Then you will find salvation.

 

Actually, i think that all of you are a bit racist.

Funny how some preserve theirs with less effort and fury than they care about destroying others.

Life can be unpredictable and funny in that way.

Not unpredictable at all. It's the easy solution to think up and might even work in short term, but the positive approach is more enduring and smarter. But people are lazy that way.

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

Americans losing faith in democracy: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/americans-are-losing-faith-in-democracy--and-in-each-other/2016/10/14/b35234ea-90c6-11e6-9c52-0b10449e33c4_story.html?utm_term=.18c0fd66fc2f

 

The problem isn't democracy, it's the corrupt two party system. Hopefully people will catch on one day.

You were the one telling me I'm wasting my vote by voting for Gary Johnson! Don't tell me you're changing your mind. You probably should though. Aside from immigration there is more than a little libertarian in you. 

 

By the way, you are wrong about the election challenge. The chairman of the RNC Thurston Morton did proceed with a few challenges but this was done without Nixon's sanction. I read a great book about this a few years ago: A New World to be Won: John Kennedy, Richard Nixon, and the Tumultuous Year of 1960 by G Scott Thomas

 

I also said a lot of other things you apparently paid no attention to or forgot. You can't change the two party system just by voting for a third candidate, all you're doing is defeating whatever major party you're closest to. The election laws (actually the Constitution) needs to be changed to allow for a greater number of viable parties. This is unlikely, but in theory can be achieved if enough people realize the trouble we're in and start a mass movement to change the election system. Of course with my new position that neither candidate is acceptable, it doesn't matter who you vote for or vote at all. As far as Nixon, it's your book vs the article I linked, I don't know enough to argue.

[Meshugger]

...aaaand to no one's surprise:

 

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/788099178832420865

 

https://twitter.com/Lookinabout/status/788085683621498880

[redneckdevil]

Im thinking trump has said something about taking down Obamacare, has Hillary said anything about it either? Are they both at least agreeing that Obamacare has to go?

[Guard Dog]

 

 

Americans losing faith in democracy: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/americans-are-losing-faith-in-democracy--and-in-each-other/2016/10/14/b35234ea-90c6-11e6-9c52-0b10449e33c4_story.html?utm_term=.18c0fd66fc2f

 

The problem isn't democracy, it's the corrupt two party system. Hopefully people will catch on one day.

You were the one telling me I'm wasting my vote by voting for Gary Johnson! Don't tell me you're changing your mind. You probably should though. Aside from immigration there is more than a little libertarian in you. 

 

By the way, you are wrong about the election challenge. The chairman of the RNC Thurston Morton did proceed with a few challenges but this was done without Nixon's sanction. I read a great book about this a few years ago: A New World to be Won: John Kennedy, Richard Nixon, and the Tumultuous Year of 1960 by G Scott Thomas

 

I also said a lot of other things you apparently paid no attention to or forgot. You can't change the two party system just by voting for a third candidate, all you're doing is defeating whatever major party you're closest to. The election laws (actually the Constitution) needs to be changed to allow for a greater number of viable parties. This is unlikely, but in theory can be achieved if enough people realize the trouble we're in and start a mass movement to change the election system. Of course with my new position that neither candidate is acceptable, it doesn't matter who you vote for or vote at all. As far as Nixon, it's your book vs the article I linked, I don't know enough to argue.

 

I disagree. The ONLY way a third party can make the jump to major party status is to get votes. Get over 5% of the votes and they get automatic ballot access AND access to Federal campaign funding in the next election. No 3rd party has done that... ever. At least not since that was set up in 1996. That would be huge considering the money and manpower the LP consumed on ballot access. THAT will make a difference. You live in one of the reddest states in the Union. No matter who you vote for Trump is going to win your state. You voting for Trump will nether help him nor hurt Clinton. But if you voted for Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, or Darrell Castle you vote might actually change the country in 2020 because for those three it's not about winning states or electoral votes. It now only about how many votes they can get. No matter the state the number actually matters. 

 

And this goes for all US voters. Unless you live in one of the swing states where this election will be decided (Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Colorado, or Nevada) your Presidential vote will not change the outcome from your state. It's already a done deal. Voting for one of the 3rd Party Candidates, particularly Johnson or Stein since they have a real shot at the magic number, might be the only "productive" vote you can cast.

 

If you do live in a swing state then your vote might matter. Just do what you think is right.

Edited October 17, 2016 by Guard Dog

[Pidesco]

I really have trouble understanding how all Americans seem to be proud of saying that the US is the "greatest democracy in the world", but conversely don't seem to have a problem with the electoral college. It's such a clear cut undemocratic mechanism.

[ShadySands]

I think the electoral college needs to go

 

That alone would make third parties more viable

[Guard Dog]

I really have trouble understanding how all Americans seem to be proud of saying that the US is the "greatest democracy in the world", but conversely don't seem to have a problem with the electoral college. It's such a clear cut undemocratic mechanism.

We are not a democracy. We are a representative republic. And the electoral college, while it is a throwback to a time when it took days to get from one side of the country to the other it still serves a purpose today. Without it New York, California, Texas, Florida, and Pennsylvania could decide the election by themselves. States like North Dakota, Wyoming, Alaska and the other low population states would be left out of Presidential politics altogether. Their concerns will be ignored forever.

 

On a practical level it would require one of two things. A Constitutional Amendment. That probably will not happen. Or a Constitutional Convention. I seriously doubt the country would even survive that. So we are stuck with it.

 

@Shady I'm not so sure that's true. There is still a scenario where Johnson can win this thing. And it only happens BECAUSE of the Electoral College.

[ShadySands]

Well, it's like you said that if you aren't in the majority for your state than your vote doesn't matter already unless it's a swing state

 

A straight up popular vote would allow your vote to at least count if you aren't in the majority

 

I don't know what would be the "best" system but I'm sure this is not it

[Malcador]

...aaaand to no one's surprise:

 

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/788099178832420865

 

https://twitter.com/Lookinabout/status/788085683621498880

Damn, was hoping it was torched equipment. As for Twitter being a Clinton agent, interesting proof.

 

You'd think they would muzzle Trump with outages if so.

Edited October 17, 2016 by Malcador

[Pidesco]

 

I really have trouble understanding how all Americans seem to be proud of saying that the US is the "greatest democracy in the world", but conversely don't seem to have a problem with the electoral college. It's such a clear cut undemocratic mechanism.

 

We are not a democracy. We are a representative republic. And the electoral college, while it is a throwback to a time when it took days to get from one side of the country to the other it still serves a purpose today. Without it New York, California, Texas, Florida, and Pennsylvania could decide the election by themselves. States like North Dakota, Wyoming, Alaska and the other low population states would be left out of Presidential politics altogether. Their concerns will be ignored forever.

 

On a practical level it would require one of two things. A Constitutional Amendment. That probably will not happen. Or a Constitutional Convention. I seriously doubt the country would even survive that. So we are stuck with it.

 

@Shady I'm not so sure that's true. There is still a scenario where Johnson can win this thing. And it only happens BECAUSE of the Electoral College.

Thanks for stating it clearly, but I understand that perfectly and that's exactly my point. The country of "don't tread on me", personal freedoms and the government is not to be trusted puts states rights above individual rights.

 

 

And by the way, those states still end up controlling Presidential election outcomes.

[Zoraptor]

 

You'd think they would muzzle Trump with outages if so.

 

 

I doubt they think that Trump's twitter earns him votes- I'd bet they think it loses him votes.

 

Besides, without Twitter media would be reduced to mining Trump's Reddit/ Facebook/ Instagram/ Snapchat/ Myspace/ Bebo/ Digg/ Friendster/ Ashley Madison/ etc accounts for controversial content.

[Guard Dog]

 

 

I really have trouble understanding how all Americans seem to be proud of saying that the US is the "greatest democracy in the world", but conversely don't seem to have a problem with the electoral college. It's such a clear cut undemocratic mechanism.

We are not a democracy. We are a representative republic. And the electoral college, while it is a throwback to a time when it took days to get from one side of the country to the other it still serves a purpose today. Without it New York, California, Texas, Florida, and Pennsylvania could decide the election by themselves. States like North Dakota, Wyoming, Alaska and the other low population states would be left out of Presidential politics altogether. Their concerns will be ignored forever.

 

On a practical level it would require one of two things. A Constitutional Amendment. That probably will not happen. Or a Constitutional Convention. I seriously doubt the country would even survive that. So we are stuck with it.

 

@Shady I'm not so sure that's true. There is still a scenario where Johnson can win this thing. And it only happens BECAUSE of the Electoral College.

Thanks for stating it clearly, but I understand that perfectly and that's exactly my point. The country of "don't tread on me", personal freedoms and the government is not to be trusted puts states rights above individual rights.

 

 

And by the way, those states still end up controlling Presidential election outcomes.

 

I'd be more inclined to agree with a popular vote if the population were more evenly distributed. Politics tends to become somewhat monolithic regionally speaking. I don't know why that happens but it does. The thing is the EC does more to protect individual rights than a straight up popular vote ever would. Take the rural and western areas of the country (east of the Pacific States). Property rights, public land access, and Gun Control are big issues. HUGE issues in fact. But in the metro areas of the northeast and SoCal few people even own the apartments they live in. Parks and public land issues are a very different thing and to them gun control means less crime (true or not it's what they think). Is it entirely fair for their will to be rammed down the throat of people whose lives are so different they are almost a different nationality? Should the folks out west just accept that knowing every four years they will have no say in the executive leadership of the country and those who do have no knowledge of or value for their concerns?

[Guard Dog]

But this electoral college discussion is purely academic. We are stuck with it for good or ill.

[Gromnir]

there is a near universal misunderstanding 'bout the powers o' the Presidency.  at the same time, am thinking the founding fathers had a shared fundamental misunderstanding o' human nature.  every time trump opens his mouth and tells us 'bout how he is gonna overturn ny times v. sullivan or he blathers on 'bout preventing muslims from immigrating to the US, we wonder who were the moron who taught trump 'bout our federal government while he were in high school and university.  however, the sad truth is trump is not alone in his misconceptions 'bout the power o' the President.  am suspecting the number o' people who actual understand the powers granted to the President by the Constitution is extreme small.  heck, while the President is the undeniable leader o' the executive branch, from a practical perspective, given how vast is the executive branch, much o' the functional power o' the executive branch o' government is wielded by career bureaucrats who perform their duties with little concern for who is the current President o' the USA. 'course the founding fathers understood what (limited) powers were being granted to the President. more fools were they.

 

the thing is, the President's power ain't as much a product o' the Constitution as it is o' human nature.  the President is the one fed elected office we all get a chance to vote 'pon.  the President is also the most visible and recognizable member o' the federal government.  the most vocal federalists o' 1787 would be shocked by the power and influence o' the federal government. voting for President is not just a vote for the head o' the executive, but it is a functional national referendum o' broad policy issues.  when Presidential elections happen, Congressmen listen.  the President, when he appears to have the backing o' a significant majority o' the people, wields far more practical power over domestic affairs than the founding fathers woulda' ever imagined.

 

the electoral college is fine for what the President was meant to be.  the electoral college may even be ok for what the President actual is 'ccording to the Constitution.  the thing is, actual Presidential power is different than what a reading o' the Constitution would suggest.  am thinking a change to the process by which the President is elected is warranted, but as gd observes, changes to the Constitution is difficult to affect... as were intended by the founding fathers.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited October 17, 2016 by Gromnir

[Longknife]

WTF is this actual investigative journalism?

 

[Wrath of Dagon]

I disagree. The ONLY way a third party can make the jump to major party status is to get votes. Get over 5% of the votes and they get automatic ballot access AND access to Federal campaign funding in the next election. No 3rd party has done that... ever. At least not since that was set up in 1996. That would be huge considering the money and manpower the LP consumed on ballot access. THAT will make a difference. You live in one of the reddest states in the Union. No matter who you vote for Trump is going to win your state. You voting for Trump will nether help him nor hurt Clinton. But if you voted for Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, or Darrell Castle you vote might actually change the country in 2020 because for those three it's not about winning states or electoral votes. It now only about how many votes they can get. No matter the state the number actually matters.

OK, let's say your dream comes true and LP becomes a major party. All it would do is make whichever party it's more ideologically close to lose every election, unless it somehow positions itself exactly in the middle between the Reps and the Dems. The only way it stays a major party under those circumstances is replace one of the other major parties, and we're back to the two party system. And if you believe LP can actually replace either major party you're smoking the same stuff as Johnson.

[Hurlshort]

The goal is to get more than a token seat in congress for these 3rd parties, and there is historical precedent for it.  The trouble is the modern era has been more difficult for smaller parties.  But given the current levels of unhappiness within both major parties, this would seem to be a good time to try and capture some more seats.   

 

edit:  There have been 111 3rd party folks in the house of representatives since Reconstruction.  But right now there is just one.  That's an issue.

Edited October 18, 2016 by Hurlshot

[Guard Dog]

It's a vicious circle actually. To get candidates elected to Congress you need party visibility and money to support the candidates. To get that you need Presidential candidates. A Presidential run is hard and prohibitively expensive. That leaves little left to support Congressional candidates. If you have any.

Edited October 18, 2016 by Guard Dog

[ShadySands]

Yeah, it always seemed weird to me that we don't have more independent or 3rd party representation especially since unaffiliated and independent voters supposedly outnumber Republicans or Democrats (separately not combined)

 

We have some ballot measures to give them more access to primaries but that only gives them more of a say on the presidential nominees but doesn't really help anyone who doesn't want to run in one of the big tent parties

[Guard Dog]

Short article but worth a look: http://www.unionleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20161016%2FOPINION01%2F161019455&template=mobileart

Edited October 18, 2016 by Guard Dog

[Gromnir]

money and moderation

 

the established parties have the political mechanism and money to make it more difficult for 3rd party candidates to enter into the big time political game. the first goal o' any potential Congressman is to get elected. the primary job o' any Congressman is to get reelected. need pac money to get reelected these days. perhaps Gromnir is naive, but am believing most candidates is not bought by pacs.  however, organizations got a vested interest in making sure like-minded candidates is elected.  the whole process o' aligning pac money with candidates is deep entwined with party mechanics.  the money issue is just one issue we believe libertarians would better focus their efforts on state and local offices.  need far less money to compete local and state.  the angry farmer or shoe-salesman-with-a-dream can still compete in the local political arena even without big money.  is still not gonna be level playing field competition, but who ever promised the game would be fair, eh?

 

the other reason we don't see 3rd party candidates in 2016 is 'cause things is actual pretty good here in the US.  we got two parties who talk as if they is world's apart, but in practice they ain't.  when euorpeans hear liberal v. conservative they is using their own political spectrum to pigeonhole US political animals.  the truth is for the past few decades we has had a whole lotta moderates and hardly any genuine liberals or conservatives as would be recognizable beyond US borders.  things need get bad enough, or at least the public needs to be getting frustrated 'nuff, before we see a genuine shift away from the centrist politics which has dominated our political landscape for almost a couple generations... at least. sanders and trump success this cycle does suggest the center is weakening, but am suspecting the two parties learn from their obvious mistakes and next national elections will be business as usual.  

 

just our opinion.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Meshugger]

https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton

Part 4, Page 56

 

John Kerry is according to the FBI part of something called the "The Shadow Government" or referred as "The 7th Floor Group". Quite interesting and ominous description i would say.

[redneckdevil]

im just hoping that whoever wins gets rid of Obamacare and if not rid of them at least made "optional" instead of forced onto us. My insurance is killing me and doesn't even cover not even half of what the insurance did before this thing went into act.

 

Also NC voter here, I castes my vote for Johnson.