Hillary Clinton Derail From Religion Of Libertarianism

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I provide facts and you provide insults and sarcasm. Fascinating!

Aww, poor little Maxy. He can dish it out, but he can't take it?

Not nearly so fascinating as you dodging the point. Again. Do you know what a faithless elector is and why that's important?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

It's taking you a while to read up on the EC, I take it. Here's a cheat sheet from one of its primary architects, Alexander Hamilton (you may have heard about his musical):

It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it. The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty.

In short, it was the clear intention of the founding fathers that the electors in the EC be free to vote their own conscience for the best candidate and NOT simply be a rubber stamp for whoever their particular state's citizens wanted. The immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station...A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

So, the "chipping away" at the Constitution you're trying to refer to has already happened by the States that have circumvented the Constitution by requiring that their electors pledge an oath of obedience and rubber stamp whatever they are told to rubber stamp, which was expressly the opposite of what was intended.

Iow, the EC has already been long castrated by the States, who, ironically, almost all require that the winner of the popular vote be the required electoral pledge.

So no matter how you slice it, the popular vote is the only real vote that exists. The only difference is that we still have this pointless vestigial arm that makes absolutely no sense and serves no purpose.

Why should my vote equal 10,000 votes, when your vote only equals 1 just because you live five feet away from me? We are both Americans; it is a Federal election. The EC's mandate and therefore it's entire reason for existing is long dead. And I don't just mean since 2016.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

AND it gets you a clear indication of who the largest percentage of voters preferred.

Which isn't the same as who the population at large preferred, so is rather useless information. At the end of the day she didn't get enough people to come out to vote for her, and she lost because of it, in a race that she was supposed to easily in. She is a failure on a historical level.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Then there's those of us who want to do neither and prefer an honest, qualified leader not just the douche or turd handed to us to consume.

Indeed, but people will tell you that by voting third party you somehow did worse than not vote at all, and are responsible for who won. They don't seem to realize that if enough people voted third party the parties in power may actually listen to the people to try to win their votes, rather than demanding their votes as some sort of loyalty responsibility. "I'm not him/her" isn't and shouldn't be good enough.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You seem to be ignoring the statistical facts of our system: the FPTP system involving an electoral college is designed in such a way that there isn't really any way for alternative options to not be automatically self-defeating; any dissent from the core of a party will automatically split the bloc necessary to defeat the opposition.

That is true, and that should be seen as a reason for the parties to win over voters, and not as a responsibility to vote for one of those two parties no matter what they do simply because they are not the other one.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

AND it gets you a clear indication of who the largest percentage of voters preferred.

Which isn't the same as who the population at large preferred

We know those percentages as well, thanks to Pew. They show an even larger percentage preferred Clinton, over Trump on the order of 37% to 30%, which is an even clearer preferential delineation. Had those people cast their votes as they expressly preferred, it would have given Clinton a lead of some eight million votes and a final percentage of around 55% to his 46%. As a matter of preference, that is an unmistakable landslide.

At the end of the day

She won and now holds the second place record for largest number of raw votes garnered in US history, second only to Obama.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

She won and now holds the second place record for largest number of raw votes garnered in US history, second only to Obama.

And she lost the election, against Trump. My dog could have gotten more votes in that general election when running against Trump. And I don't even have a dog.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

She won and now holds the second place record for largest number of raw votes garnered in US history, second only to Obama.

And she lost the election

The Presidency, yes.

My dog could have gotten more votes in that general election when running against Trump.

And the dying song of the truly desperate, which, once again is conclusively countered by the fact that she DID get more votes in the general election than Trump.

No matter how you try to downplay her achievement, she was the objective and clear preference among the largest number of voters. That's just a fact and will always be a fact, just as, in spite of that fact, Trump was made President.

He lost the vote, but won the Presidency on a technicality. She won the vote, but lost the Presidency on a technicality.

Facts.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

Then there's those of us who want to do neither and prefer an honest, qualified leader not just the douche or turd handed to us to consume.

Indeed, but people will tell you that by voting third party you somehow did worse than not vote at all, and are responsible for who won. They don't seem to realize that if enough people voted third party the parties in power may actually listen to the people to try to win their votes, rather than demanding their votes as some sort of loyalty responsibility. "I'm not him/her" isn't and shouldn't be good enough.

Agreed 100% about more people voting third party. I voted early on a straight Libertarian ticket. Most of those who claim I "wasted my vote" are butt-hurt liberals.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

No matter how you try to downplay her achievement, she was the objective and clear preference among the largest number of voters.

Against Trump, so was a banana peel. It isn't an achievement. Its the default of whoever got the Democrat nomination.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Most of those who claim I "wasted my vote" are butt-hurt liberals.

Which is especially funny if you would have voted Trump if forced to chose between the two at the point of a gun.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

Most of those who claim I "wasted my vote" are butt-hurt liberals.

Which is especially funny if you would have voted Trump if forced to chose between the two at the point of a gun.

I would have in that case. Trump is an idiot and our Founders were smart. Hillary was downright fucking dangerous because she's both smart and viciously corrupt.

 

[Elixir]

... she's both smart and viciously corrupt.

The power of repetition will get you nowhere with this crowd (we're not attendees at a Rumpsucking rally).
Got any evidence of said corruption, other than what Breitbart and Faux News have told you?

 

[Max Rockatansky]

... she's both smart and viciously corrupt.

The power of repetition will get you nowhere with this crowd (we're not attendees at a Rumpsucking rally).
Got any evidence of said corruption, other than what Breitbart and Faux News have told you?

Nor, obviously, the power of truth.

Thanks for the personal attack and the blind partisanship that makes you believe everyone who is against Hillary must be a fan of Breitbart and "Faux" News. I watch CNN, neither of those. What do you watch or read? Daily Kos? MSNBC? Are you a Maddow fan? Try to be honest in your answer...but I don't expect much from someone who comes out of the box with false accusations against anyone who whom he disagrees.

 

[ZiprHead]

I don't recall him ever stating that. Are you sure you remember it correctly or do you have a link? I do, however, recall him saying this:

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information...None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

Yea, it's a crime if the user knowingly mishandles classified information. Have you ever wondered why HRC is so heavily condemned for her e-mails when the republicans do the same thing? It's because the republicans have congress, while we have nothing...

Comey soft-pedaled it, but he did mention she should have known better. Are you really going to play the "she was stupid and incompetent" card to protect "HRC"?

The difference you are avoiding is that Hillary exclusively used her private server while others, D's and R's alike, used government systems for classified work but also had private emails.

Have you ever considered that since she only used a private server and claims she never used it for classified material, then her ambassadors had no way to directly send her classified information such as local threat issues?

None of the emails she sent were marked classified. A few were classified after the fact. A couple she received had small classification markings on the side but no classification headers and I can see viewing on a telephone those markings could easily be missed.

 

[ZiprHead]

she exclusively used her private system and never even set up her government system when she became SoS.

As a previous REPUBLICAN SOS had told her to do as he did himself.

 

[ZiprHead]

the one who gave expensive speeches to wall street

Ahh, the old moron's chestnut. How dare someone be paid for speaking. That's never before happened in all of human history! To be paid for a service provided? Blasphemy.

I happened to catch an old clip of Barney Frank, co-author of the Dodd-Frank amendment. He essentially said, Yes, I spoke to Wall Street like Hillary. "They think I'm interesting." I guess the co-author of Dodd-Frank was in Wall Streets pocket too. Ironic.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

she exclusively used her private system and never even set up her government system when she became SoS.

As a previous REPUBLICAN SOS had told her to do as he did himself.

Sorry, but that's not an accurate summation as I quoted previously.

- - - Updated - - -

Comey soft-pedaled it, but he did mention she should have known better. Are you really going to play the "she was stupid and incompetent" card to protect "HRC"?

The difference you are avoiding is that Hillary exclusively used her private server while others, D's and R's alike, used government systems for classified work but also had private emails.

Have you ever considered that since she only used a private server and claims she never used it for classified material, then her ambassadors had no way to directly send her classified information such as local threat issues?

None of the emails she sent were marked classified. A few were classified after the fact. A couple she received had small classification markings on the side but no classification headers and I can see viewing on a telephone those markings could easily be missed.

No kidding. Here's the problem; whiting out "Classified", "Secret" or "Confidential" then faxing it or emailing it doesn't make it unclassified. What do you think of Comey's comment about her handling of classified material?

 

[Harry Bosch]

Sorry, but that's not an accurate summation as I quoted previously.

- - - Updated - - -

Comey soft-pedaled it, but he did mention she should have known better. Are you really going to play the "she was stupid and incompetent" card to protect "HRC"?

The difference you are avoiding is that Hillary exclusively used her private server while others, D's and R's alike, used government systems for classified work but also had private emails.

Have you ever considered that since she only used a private server and claims she never used it for classified material, then her ambassadors had no way to directly send her classified information such as local threat issues?

None of the emails she sent were marked classified. A few were classified after the fact. A couple she received had small classification markings on the side but no classification headers and I can see viewing on a telephone those markings could easily be missed.

No kidding. Here's the problem; whiting out "Classified", "Secret" or "Confidential" then faxing it or emailing it doesn't make it unclassified. What do you think of Comey's comment about her handling of classified material?

So we're back to just arguing small details here. I think the larger issue is why do you hate HRC and the democrats? You claim to not like Trump, and yet you hate the one group that has a chance to beat him in an election. You're position makes no sense. Sure, the democrats and HRC take some positions that I hate. Because the system is unfair, the democrats can't win unless they win a very large percentage of the votes, a percentage larger than 50%. So, they have to appeal to many people. They must be a big tent. But I'm getting ahead of myself. I'd really like to know what specific issues advocated by democrats do you hate?

 

[Max Rockatansky]

Sorry, but that's not an accurate summation as I quoted previously.

- - - Updated - - -



No kidding. Here's the problem; whiting out "Classified", "Secret" or "Confidential" then faxing it or emailing it doesn't make it unclassified. What do you think of Comey's comment about her handling of classified material?

So we're back to just arguing small details here. I think the larger issue is why do you hate HRC and the democrats? You claim to not like Trump, and yet you hate the one group that has a chance to beat him in an election. You're position makes no sense. Sure, the democrats and HRC take some positions that I hate. Because the system is unfair, the democrats can't win unless they win a very large percentage of the votes, a percentage larger than 50%. So, they have to appeal to many people. They must be a big tent. But I'm getting ahead of myself. I'd really like to know what specific issues advocated by democrats do you hate?

Small details? "Aside from that small detail, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?"

I don't hate, but thank you for labeling me a hater simply because I think Hillary is corrupt. Obviously all you want to do is argue and label people. I suggest you do it in a mirror.