Do yourself a favor and delete your email accounts. Messages like that lower your IQ every time your read them, or it seems it might be too late. Anyway carry on I guess.
Just got this in email, yea it is a silly chain email, but there is some truth in it:
Gee, I still haven't figured out why Hillary lost...
Was it the Russian's? Or was it wikileaks? Or was it Podesta? Or Comey? Or was it a sexual predator husband? Or her Chief of staff's husband, Wiener’s, immoral pictures? Was it supeona vilolation? Or was it the corrupt Clinton foundation? Or was it the congressional lies? Or was it the Bengazi lies? Or was it pay for play? Or was it travelgate scandal? Or was it whitewater scandal? Or the cattlegate scandal? Or the ‘TrooperGate' scandal?
Or was it the $15 million for Chelsea's apartment bought with foundation money? Or Comey's investigation? Or her husband’s interference with Loretta Lynch and the investigation? Or was it stealing debate questions with help from Donna Brazile? Was it forensically deleting 30,000 emails? Was it her using a private email server while sending and receiving classified information? Was it the Seth Rich murder? Was it selling our uranium to Putin and the Russians?
Was it calling half the USA deplorable? Was it the underhanded treatment of Bernie Sanders? Was it the Vince Foster murder? The Jennifer Flowers assault? The Jennifer Flowers settlement? The Paula Jones lawsuit? The $800,000 Paula Jones settlement? Maybe the accusations of Juanita Broaddrick, claiming Bill Clinton raped her? Or the fact that her husband has acted much like Harvey Weinstein in the past? The lie about taking on sniper fire? The impeachment? The $6 billion she "lost" when in charge of the state dept? The 10 million her husband took for the pardon of Marc Rich?
Thinking about what's in your head makes me want to vomit.Not sure what is more vomit inducing. Clinton being a great president or Obama being an inspiring leader.
I get them regularly, and most are indeed bat shit crazy. This one is spot on, though. There is no case to crack, Clinton was an awful candidate and terrible for America. You picked the Vince Foster part out while ignoring the rest of the very many points it makes, some more relevant than others.
fixed.I don't know what the OP was getting at, but obviously it was just an analogy. Pres. Trump doesn't talk, walk or act like a politician. He is insensitive and does things with no regard to how it will affect our standing in the world. It's why some love him. He would be really dangerous and effective if he could channel all that a little better.
It is not a quirk, it is how our democracy works. CA and NY may have a lot of people, but they still are just two of 50. Our electoral college is kind of like why we have a House of Reps and a Senate.
I could pick out a half dozen other insane or dishonest things too, that was just the funniest.
Sure it's a quirk as it's an odd aspect of our system that no other developed country shares for electing their head of government. (the reason is because it's stupid)
You didn't get your way. So now the electoral college, a centuries long tried and true, established system, is a quirk. Again, CA and NY, no matter how big a tantrum they throw, are two of 50.
Half a dozen? A good start maybe, because I count about 35 points the email makes. Again, some of them very relevant. Those of you who act as if Clinton was clearly a better choice than Trump have blinders on.
If you search my posting history you will see that I have been against the electoral college for a long time before November, 2016. Whether or not a system is established has zero bearing on whether or not it is stupid. As it is now it gives what amounts to electoral welfare to rural states and bizarrely and irrationally advantages a small number of swing states' interests for no identifiable reason.
This is an easy example of dumb policy and its defenders do so out of political expedience as opposed to a genuine public policy reason.
I disagree 100%. We are a republic, a collection of different states with unique laws and even unique culture to a degree. A popular vote alone does not truly represent America. If were one borderless country, then we should have a popular vote. But, that isn't want America is.
A year later and still going to bat for the worst candidate in decades. So funny.
A year later and still going to bat for the worst candidate in decades. So funny.
and it's broken, twice in my lifetime the popular vote winner didn't win the election. it needs to be fixed.
I guess some people care more about the actual function of the office than elections and even the most crazed partisan should be able to admit she would have done a good job with the office.
Some people are just weird that way.
I disagree 100%. We are a republic, a collection of different states with unique laws and even unique culture to a degree. A popular vote alone does not truly represent America. If were one borderless country, then we should have a popular vote. But, that isn't want America is.
Sure she's intelligent. Very. No one could get where she is without being.
And yes, she'd have made a better president than Trump. But that's not saying much, because almost anyone would. Trump is just horrible and I honestly believe we're witnessing a man who's probably suffering multiple mental illnesses flail his was through the presidency. That's not an excuse for him, I think at heart he's a pompus, rotten sort of person who's slid by his whole life by being rich and powerful. Without money he'd be a minor grade nobody... probably a run of the mill slumlord or something.
There's no question Hillary would have been better at statesmanship and deplomacy. I know I wouldn't agree with her on much, and her 'birthright!' Queen Hillary attitude both in herself and her worst fans I think deservingly did her in, but all around it was a shitty choice.
Of the two rotten choices, she would have been a better president though. No doubt. One has to be blinded by some weird Trump loyalty not to admit that. I see no upside to giving blind loyalty to any of these suit wearing criminals we call "leaders."
That's not broken. You might agrue it's outdated and unfair, and that we should change to a popular vote, but our electoral college system is working as intended and likely won't change.
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 querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.
The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue. And this will be thought no inconsiderable recommendation of the Constitution, by those who are able to estimate the share which the executive in every government must necessarily have in its good or ill administration. Though we cannot acquiesce in the political heresy of the poet who says: "For forms of government let fools contest That which is best administered is best,'' yet we may safely pronounce, that the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration.
glad you're finally able to see drumpf for the conniving shitbag, con artist he is.Trained BS artist that can't stop speaking like a BS artist for 5 minutes. So scared to actually tell the truth and not speak to people in a condescending tone.
Sure she's intelligent. Very. No one could get where she is without being.
And yes, she'd have made a better president than Trump. But that's not saying much, because almost anyone would. Trump is just horrible and I honestly believe we're witnessing a man who's probably suffering multiple mental illnesses flail his was through the presidency. That's not an excuse for him, I think at heart he's a pompus, rotten sort of person who's slid by his whole life by being rich and powerful. Without money he'd be a minor grade nobody... probably a run of the mill slumlord or something.
There's no question Hillary would have been better at statesmanship and deplomacy. I know I wouldn't agree with her on much, and her 'birthright!' Queen Hillary attitude both in herself and her worst fans I think deservingly did her in, but all around it was a shitty choice.
Of the two rotten choices, she would have been a better president though. No doubt. One has to be blinded by some weird Trump loyalty not to admit that. I see no upside to giving blind loyalty to any of these suit wearing criminals we call "leaders."
No, it's a quirk of our system. Quirks are 'peculiar aspects' of something, and reliance on a group of unaccountable electors that don't have to vote the way the citizens of their state or country vote instead of just counting the votes is certainly peculiar. (not to mention undemocratic and foolish, policy-wise).