Trump II

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I guess you misunderstand what New Hampshire's requirements are for voting...

... Does that answer your question?

Maybe.

Once again, this is an honest question (as in: not sarcastic, rhetorical, etc.).

It all hinges on the "residence" status. You could be a student in NH and vote there. Then you can go to your home state and vote there again. In NH, if you could have someone stating you are their roommate (!?), you could vote there and then go to your home state and vote again.

I also could have voted twice, if i wanted.

Just around the election, I moved from Illinois to Indiana. I still had my IL voter registration card and I went back and voted there. However, I could have also voted in IN, as I moved there, established residency, got a utility bill and a drivers license.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... The only reason Trump won is because the minority vote was suppressed by an Electoral College that values white votes more than non-white votes.

https://www.washingtonian.com/2016/12/08/white-peoples-votes-are-worth-more-electoral-college-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-popular-vote-alt-right/

The linked article is an utter garbage, of course. It also perpetuates the myth that Trump lost the popular vote and Clinton won the popular vote. None of which is true. We do not know who would have won the popular vote. Why? Because there was no popular voting. Period. What is peddled as the "popular vote" is an accidental byproduct of the electoral vote. If there was a popular voting, the turnout would be quite different. Many people abstained from voting for a number of reasons, one of which is that their vote would not count if it went against the prevailing voting pattern in their state. For instance, I could have voted in Illinois (and I did) or Indiana, but my vote would be only symbolic in either one, regardless who I voted for. Why? Because Illinois overwhelmingly votes Democrats, and Indiana overwhelmingly votes Republican.

[Otto Phocus]

I also could have voted twice, if i wanted.

Absent of a national register, there is little that can be done.  That is just the way laws work.  Laws do not prevent someone from doing something illegal, laws, with few exceptions, provide a way of punishing people after they do something wrong. The intent is that the punishment after committing the crime will discourage people from breaking the law.  Whether this works or not is debatable.

There are no laws that prevent you from murdering someone.  There are, however, laws that outline what will happen after you commit murder. No law will prevent someone from committing a crime.  If they could, our society would be a lot better.

There are laws against voting twice, but realistically, they can only be applied after the person has voted illegally.  The problem is that after the person votes, there is little that can be done to nullify that person's illegal vote. Provisional ballots are the only way, but we can't run elections using only provisional ballots.

It is a delicate balance.  We want the freedom of a secret ballot, but at the same time we want accountability concerning voting.  Finding a compromise, and everything ends up being a compromise, is an imperfect art.

What we want is a system that is secure "enough", convenient "enough", and cheap "enough".  Oh yes, costs are an important factor. If we are not going to compromise, we have to pick one at the determent of the others.  I can devise a voting system that is 99 +many decimal points secure. But you would not like the convenience and certainly could not afford the cost. It is easy to devise a voting system that prioritizes any of the three at the determent of the others. But that's not the ultimate solution.

Either an interstate register, run by the states, or a national register, run by the federal government, might be a solution to this.

There is a lot of resistance against a national registry.

The states, so far, have not been willing to cooperate with other states on this issue.

Despite the warts, I feel that we do a pretty good job with our elections.  Not perfect and there is plenty of room for improvement.  But overall, a good compromise that we should be proud of.

We have 50 states and some districts/territories who don't really talk to each other but somehow we manage to elect idiots to office.

[pegelli]

The linked article is an utter garbage, of course. It also perpetuates the myth that Trump lost the popular vote and Clinton won the popular vote. None of which is true. We do not know who would have won the popular vote. Why? Because there was no popular voting. Period. What is peddled as the "popular vote" is an accidental byproduct of the electoral vote. If there was a popular voting, the turnout would be quite different. Many people abstained from voting for a number of reasons, one of which is that their vote would not count if it went against the prevailing voting pattern in their state. For instance, I could have voted in Illinois (and I did) or Indiana, but my vote would be only symbolic in either one, regardless who I voted for. Why? Because Illinois overwhelmingly votes Democrats, and Indiana overwhelmingly votes Republican.

+1. Voter turnout and voter behaviour is set by the system. If you change the system you get will get different voter turnout and behaviour. Transposing the voting results of one system in a "what if" type scenario to another system is useless and anybody deriving serious conclusions from that is trying to fool his readers. I think utter garbage is an understatement  for the article  

[Robert Roaldi]

+1. Voter turnout and voter behaviour is set by the system. If you change the system you get will get different voter turnout and behaviour. Transposing the voting results of one system in a "what if" type scenario to another system is useless and anybody deriving serious conclusions from that is trying to fool his readers. I think utter garbage is an understatement  for the article

"Utter garbage" might be too strong. The article might be incorrect for all the reasons that you and Slobodan state. However, it may also be correct. We can't know because there isn't a parallel universe where the election is run another way. It may be not entirely correct to attribute too much importance to that supposed "popular vote", but I don't think we can entirely dismiss it either. It means something, just maybe not as much as some would hope.

[pegelli]

"Utter garbage" might be too strong. The article might be incorrect for all the reasons that you and Slobodan state. However, it may also be correct. We can't know because there isn't a parallel universe where the election is run another way. It may be not entirely correct to attribute too much importance to that supposed "popular vote", but I don't think we can entirely dismiss it either. It means something, just maybe not as much as some would hope.

There have been so many US presidents who were elected without winning the popular vote that it shows to me it's not just a peculiarity of the last election but something that is inherent in the system that is now in place. So putting value on that as a measure of "mandate" is pointless.

Campaigns, voter turnout as well as the results would be very different if the system was different, even another candidate could have won, we'll never know since like you say, parallel universes to test this aren't available.

[Alan Goldhammer]

That the state of New Hampshire (and probably not only they) allows those with out-of-state drivers licenses to legally vote. Which opens the possibility for those voters to vote in two states.

But this is what happens when the States and not the Federal government are responsible for establishing voting regulations.  The only thing that is prescribed by the Federal government is the date of the election; eligibility, early voting (if any), type of ballot, and many other things are all run by the state.  the votes in New Hampshire, according to the Secretary of State for NH, said that these were legal votes.  Now it may be misguided in your mind for NH to allow such easy voting but that is for that state to decide. 

[Schewe]

Once again, this is an honest question (as in: not sarcastic, rhetorical, etc.).

It all hinges on the "residence" status. You could be a student in NH and vote there. Then you can go to your home state and vote there again. In NH, if you could have someone stating you are their roommate (!?), you could vote there and then go to your home state and vote again.

I also could have voted twice, if i wanted.

But what's different now? Is it the fact Trump claimed there were 3 to 5 million illegal votes cast that all of a sudden our system of registering and voting is faulty? Or is it the fact that the Russians so easily screwed with us? And we don't know what we don't know but more evidence is coming out that Russians did screw around with voter rolls even is that didn't actually change a Hillary vote to a Trump vote or visa versa.

What do you propose we do about it? You want the Federal government to step in and set requirements for voting in national records? You want a national voter registration and voter ID card? I would actually be averse to that if it could be done in a way that it insured voter enhancement rather than voter suppression–which is a typical problem in many red states where governors and statehouses have engaged in gerrymandering and voter suppression. What's to suggest that a national registration and voter ID card won't be used for discrimination? I think that would be a tough sell...

So, what was your point?

[Schewe]

HOW THE RIGHT LOST ITS MIND AND EMBRACED DONALD TRUMP
BY CHARLES SYKES ON 9/21/17

This is a painful story for me to write.

For a quarter of a century, I was a major part of the conservative movement. But like many on the right, in the wake of Donald Trump’s victory I had to ask some uncomfortable questions. The 2016 presidential campaign was a brutal, disillusioning slog, and there came a moment when I realized that conservatives had created an alternate reality bubble—one that I had helped shape.

During the 2016 election, conservatives turned on the principles that had once animated them. Somehow a movement based on real ideas—such as economic freedom and limited government—had devolved into a tribe that valued neither principle nor truth; luminaries such as Edmund Burke and William F. Buckley Jr. had been replaced by media clowns such as Ann Coulter and Milo Yiannopoulos. Icons such as Ronald Reagan—with his optimism and geniality—had been supplanted by the dark, erratic narcissism of Donald Trump. Gradualism, expertise and prudence—the values that once were taken for granted among conservatives—were replaced by polls and ratings spikes, as the right allowed liberal overreach in the Obama era to blind them to the crackpots and bigots in their midst.

Some have argued that the election was a binary choice, that Hillary Clinton had to be defeated by any means. I share many of their concerns about Clinton, but the price was ruinous. The right’s electoral victory has not wiped away its sins. It has magnified them, and the problems that were exposed during the 2016 campaign haven’t disappeared. Success does not necessarily imply virtue or sanity. Kings can be both mad and bad, and the courtiers are usually loath to point out the obvious—just look at Caligula or Kim Jong Un.

Today, with Trump in office, the problems of the right are the problems of all Americans. And the worst part of it is that we—conservatives—did this to ourselves.

Donald Trump is the president we deserve.

--snip--

If the conservative movement is defined by the nativist, authoritarian, post-truth culture of Trump and Bannon, I want no part of it. So once again, I am an ideological orphan.

Despite the demands that conservatives obey the new regime, precisely the opposite is needed. Rather than conformity, conservatism needs dissidents, contrarians. It needs people who believe in things like liberty, free markets, limited government and personal responsibility—but who have no obligation to defend the indefensible or rely on alternative facts. It needs people who can affirm that Trump won the election fairly and freely but recognize the gravity of Russia’s interference in the campaign. It needs those can support tougher border controls and still be appalled by the cruelty and incompetence of the president’s immigration bans. It needs those who applaud Trump’s support for Israel but are still thoroughly appalled by his slavish adulation of Putin and his flirtation with France’s Marine Le Pen.

This position will be a lonely one; we may lose some friends. But conservatives have a long history of being out of step with the spirit of the age. It’s worth remembering that conservative spokesmen like Buckley were actively opposed to Nixon during Watergate, well before he stepped down. Today, there are no “Nixon conservatives,” short of maybe Roger Stone.They are extinct. And good riddance.

He ain't my president, he's just the idiot that happens to currently live at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave...(well, some of the time at least).

[Schewe]

Donald Trump: World-renowned primatologist Jane Goodall likens US President to a chimpanzee


'To impress rivals, males seeking to rise in the dominance hierarchy perform spectacular displays:
Stamping, slapping the ground, dragging branches, throwing rocks,' says prominent conservationist

World-renowned primatologist Dame Jane Goodall has likened Donald Trump's behaviour to that of a chimpanzee.

The British conservationist first gained international recognition for studying chimps in what is now Tanzania and has studied the primates for more than 50 years.

“In many ways the performances of Donald Trump remind me of male chimpanzees and their dominance rituals,” she told The Atlantic during the 2016 presidential election.

“In order to impress rivals, males seeking to rise in the dominance hierarchy perform spectacular displays: Stamping, slapping the ground, dragging branches, throwing rocks."

A more aggressive display was likely to lead the male to higher positions in the hierarchy and allow it to maintain its status for longer, she said.

Mr Trump's election campaign was littered with bombastic statements and since becoming President, he has issued increasingly aggressive threats towards North Korea.

--snipp--

Dame Jane's analysis of Mr Trump's behaviour has since been echoed by prominent psychologist Professor Dan P McAdams.

Describing what he called a male chimpanzee's "charging display" in an article in The Guardian, Professor Adams, of Northwestern University, said: "The top male essentially goes berserk and starts screaming, hooting, and gesticulating wildly as he charges toward other males nearby."

He added: "Trump’s incendiary tweets are the human equivalent of a charging display: Designed to intimidate his foes and rally his submissive base, these verbal outbursts reinforce the President’s dominance by reminding everybody of his wrath and his force."

Ok...I stand corrected, Trump is not a Big Orange Baboon he's a Big Orange Chimpanzee™ with a bad comb-over...

[Schewe]

#MakeCanadaGreatAgain!

Canada's "reverse brain drain" in the age of Trump

Numerous startups in the tech hub of Toronto say they have had steady, double-digit increases in job applications from the United States since last year's presidential election. This is among the first concrete evidence that President Trump's hard line on immigration may be impacting the global race to attract the best minds.

What they're saying: "I've been in tech for over 20 years in Canada and in Silicon Valley, too. I've never seen candidates from the U.S. apply for Canadian positions from places like Silicon Valley," Roy Pereira, the CEO of Zoom.ai, told Axios. "That's never happened."

Why it matters: Since Trump's election, with his attacks on immigration and threats to cut back on visas, France, China and Canada, among other countries, have openly sought to poach American technologists and scientists (as we have written). The reports from Toronto suggest a threat to the United States' long edge as the preeminent magnet for the world's brightest scientific talent.

--snip--

It is not only companies, but students — the seed of later scientists: U.S. applications to the University of Toronto, a leading center for the study of artificial intelligence, have risen 80% since November, the school says.

Why it happened: Pereira said that his discussions with American applicants indicated that they were "concerned just because of the directionality that the country was taking," often citing Trump's travel ban as a reason they were looking at jobs in Canada.

And they're influential: Figure 1 CEO Gregory Levey told Axios that he's meeting with American entrepreneurs this week who are looking to relocate to Toronto from Silicon Valley, describing them as "global-level talent," including "one high-flying startup CEO who just sold his company" for a significant amount of money.

A homecoming: Kurji, Pereira, and Levey all mentioned that they'd been personally contacted about the job market in Toronto by Canadian expats in the U.S., indicating that many of Canada's best and brightest are looking to come home. A big quote from Kurji:

"We're seeing a reverse brain drain for the first time. There are highly talented Canadians — educated in Canada or the U.S. — who are now seeking to come back home. There's has been a significant spike in those conversations. Some of the most highly sought-after talent are asking, 'What positions do you know of in Toronto?' These are leaders in their industries in New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Chicago."

So, Make America Great again by draining the best brains in the world and encourage them to go someplace else? Yeah, that's not gonna be a good strategy...better rethink that approach Donny.

The other problem is, of course, the fact that Trump seems to be anti-science...or it sure seems like that based on who he has tapped for his administration and his departments.

[Schewe]

This is kinda funny (and rather revealing)

Who’s More Qualified to Give Opinions About Health Care Policy, Jimmy Kimmel or Donald Trump?
By Ben Mathis-Lilley


Health care policy wonks Jimmy Kimmel and Donald Trump.

In a turn of events that began when his child was born with a condition that required open-heart surgery, ABC late-night host Jimmy Kimmel has become the the face of public opposition to Affordable Care Act repeal. Kimmel has been specifically critical of the way Republicans have proposed repeal bills that would allow states to waive the ACA's requirement that insurers offer reasonably priced coverage to individuals with pre-existing medical conditions. As he's (correctly) explained, such waivers—like the one in the Graham-Cassidy bill currently looming in the Senate—would likely make it impossible for many families like his whose breadwinners aren't well-compensated celebrities to afford care for their sick kids.

Some on the right have responded by telling Kimmel he should stick to entertainment

Joe Walsh  ✔ @WalshFreedom
I miss Johnny Carson.
Didn't even know what his politics were. He was just funny.
Kimmel, Colbert...these guys are all nags. And boring.
2:06 PM - Sep 20, 2017

You may have noticed a flaw in this strategy, namely that the nation's most powerful Republican got elected president largely because he starred on a reality show for loud idiots. So: Who is more qualified to discuss public policy, Jimmy Kimmel or president of the United States? Let's break it down.

1. Attitude toward reading complicated material:

Kimmel's detailed Wednesday monologue would indicate that he has done a fair amount of research on the issue of ACA repeal.

Trump famously doesn't like to read briefing papers if they're long and don't involve pictures.


2. Ability to explain health care reform in layman's terms:

Kimmel, again, did this on Wednesday.

Trump has famously never demonstrated, in either public or private, any understanding of how Republican health care plans work.


3. Intellectual pedigree of TV co-stars:

Kimmel worked with a former presidential adviser and Yale Law School graduate on a distinguished high-brow program that involved tests of knowledge in areas such as literature and history.

Trump's Celebrity Apprentice co-stars included Gene Simmons and Jose Canseco.


4. History of being so bad at his ostensible occupation (business, for Trump; being a comedian, for Kimmel) that investors in one of his enterprises insisted shortly before its second bankruptcy filing that he resign from any role in its management:

In 2009, bondholders in Trump's publicly traded Trump Entertainment Resorts organization forced him out of his role running the company shortly before it filed for its second bankruptcy.

This sort of thing has never happened, to my knowledge, to Jimmy Kimmel. His relationships with the other creators of Crank Yankers appear to be solid. The Man Show, its problematic sexual politics aside, never filed for bankruptcy even one time.

My verdict? Neither of these people should probably be president, but especially not Donald Trump.

The sad thing is the GOP is gonna try to vote on this steaming piece of crap next week without holding a single public hearing or even knowing what the CBO score is.

Republicans aren’t voting for Graham-Cassidy. They’re just voting for Obamacare repeal.


“Apparently no one cares what the bill actually does.”

... Grassley was even more blunt.

“You know, I could maybe give you 10 reasons why this bill shouldn’t be considered,” he told local reporters this week. “But Republicans campaigned on this so often that you have a responsibility to carry out what you said in the campaign. That’s pretty much as much of a reason as the substance of the bill.”

So when you cut through the salesmanship around state flexibility and the evils of Obamacare, Senate Republicans will tell you right to your face why Graham-Cassidy, a bill nobody had taken seriously until a week ago, might very well pass the chamber in the next few days. They promised to repeal Obamacare, and this is the only Obamacare repeal bill left.

That’s it.

Such an abdication of any coherent policy vision has other Republicans in Washington, particularly those well studied in health policy, baffled.

“I think this process with Graham-Cassidy is an embarrassment on top of the previous embarrassments — the cherry on top, if you will,” a second GOP health care lobbyist told me. “A sweeping revision of federal-state roles in and funding arrangements for health care, with one hearing, no markups, no CBO score. Good grief.”

“I still believe conservatives and Republicans have strong ideas for improving how health care is financed and delivered,” the lobbyist continued. “But will anyone listen to them after this debacle is finally and mercifully over?”

Screw the people...right? I mean, do they honestly think this is any kind of good for people?

[JoeKitchen]

Donald Trump: World-renowned primatologist Jane Goodall likens US President to a chimpanzee


'To impress rivals, males seeking to rise in the dominance hierarchy perform spectacular displays:
Stamping, slapping the ground, dragging branches, throwing rocks,' says prominent conservationist

Ok...I stand corrected, Trump is not a Big Orange Baboon he's a Big Orange Chimpanzee™ with a bad comb-over...

This is a dangerous route to go down and I am surprised you are posting this here. 

The left always seems to open the door to call politicians on the right apes and monkeys (they did this with George W. Bush too), which then opens the door, and justifies it for those whom stoop down to this same level on the right, to call left wing politicians, like say Obama, apes too. 

Personally, both sides should stop it. 

[Schewe]

The left always seems to open the door to call politicians on the right apes and monkeys (they did this with George W. Bush too), which then opens the door, and justifies it for those whom stoop down to this same level on the right, to call left wing politicians, like say Obama, apes too. 

Well, I don't think the right posted photos of Obama as an ape because of behavior did they? Pretty sure it was a racial commentary...what Jane Goodall did was compare Trump's BEHAVIOR to that of a chimp...and Professor Adams said: "The top male essentially goes berserk and starts screaming, hooting, and gesticulating wildly as he charges toward other males nearby."

He added: "Trump’s incendiary tweets are the human equivalent of a charging display: Designed to intimidate his foes and rally his submissive base, these verbal outbursts reinforce the President’s dominance by reminding everybody of his wrath and his force."

Those are scientists saying that...but feel free to blame me for finding a chimp with a comb-over if ya want!

 

[Farmer]

There have been so many US presidents who were elected without winning the popular vote that it shows to me it's not just a peculiarity of the last election but something that is inherent in the system that is now in place. So putting value on that as a measure of "mandate" is pointless.

5 (maybe 6) out of 45 (although there have actually been 58 elections).  There were 3 in the 19th Century and 2 in the 21st Century.  The whole of the 20th Century had no such events officially, but there is some doubt about the 1960 election due to the way Alabama worked out its EC electors in which case it would have had 1 (hence my "5 (maybe 6)" comment to start with.

That's not really in the realms of "so many".  It's not without precedent, but it's uncommon, being at best 10.3% of the time and probably 8.6% of the time.

[JoeKitchen]

Well, I don't think the right posted photos of Obama as an ape because of behavior did they? Pretty sure it was a racial commentary...what Jane Goodall did was compare Trump's BEHAVIOR to that of a chimp...and Professor Adams said: "The top male essentially goes berserk and starts screaming, hooting, and gesticulating wildly as he charges toward other males nearby."

He added: "Trump’s incendiary tweets are the human equivalent of a charging display: Designed to intimidate his foes and rally his submissive base, these verbal outbursts reinforce the President’s dominance by reminding everybody of his wrath and his force."

Those are scientists saying that...but feel free to blame me for finding a chimp with a comb-over if ya want!

 

I am I pretty sure that (your) argument now falls on deaf ears since you are okay with referring to another president being a chimp. 

What is good for the goose is good for the gander, or at least that is the argument you are helping to support by calling our current president a chimp.  Your actions, whether you realize it or not, greatly diminish any racial references to calling Obama a chimp. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... So, what was your point?

I've been wondering the same about your posts, 300+ pages later.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...That is just the way laws work.  Laws do not prevent someone from doing something illegal, laws, with few exceptions, provide a way of punishing people after they do something wrong...

I agree with you about the nature of laws, crime, and punishment.

But... do we really have to make it so easy, so enticing, so tempting? You can come in the morning of the voting day to NH, find a sympathetic soul who will give you a note that you are his roommate, you go in and vote, and you still have the time to go to your home state and vote again. And that is all without taking into account early voting periods. And who is going to check later on whether you actually stayed in NH with your buddy, or your "residency" in NH lasted only a few hours?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

It needs those can support tougher border controls and still be appalled by the cruelty and incompetence of the president’s immigration bans.

You want the cake and eat it too? Or, as my people fondly say: "You want to be f*&#ed, but not penetrated?"

[Farmer]

I agree with you about the nature of laws, crime, and punishment.

But... do we really have to make it so easy, so enticing, so tempting? You can come in the morning of the voting day to NH, find a sympathetic soul who will give you a note that you are his roommate, you go in and vote, and you still have the time to go to your home state and vote again. And that is all without taking into account early voting periods. And who is going to check later on whether you actually stayed in NH with your buddy, or your "residency" in NH lasted only a few hours?

It's clearly a stupid situation.  Get a federal standard and register and you'd go a long way to sorting things out, but that won't happen in the US.