DNC staffers call for conflict, anarchy in effort to undermine Trump.

[Tombs]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY

No, that title is not an exaggeration.

These democrats have very foul mouths, so just a warning.

 

[T.Lex]

They are dumb.

"Anarchy" actually helps Trump. So does terrorism.

Except when Trump calls the election rigged.

After that, it gets confusing.

 

[Tombs]

They are dumb.

"Anarchy" actually helps Trump. So does terrorism.

Except when Trump calls the election rigged.

After that, it gets confusing.

Still going to try to convince me these people just have a "difference of opinion" and aren't out seeking to do evil?

And it is already a rigged election, in the last video we had DNC staffers telling their employees to destroy republican ballots. How much more clearly does it need made that the election is rigged than poll workers being ordered to destroy ballots?

 

[miguel]

But muh friends, muh friends!

Video embedded for your convenience.

DOH

Video unembedded to protect the innocent.

 

[Tombs]

But muh friends, muh friends!

Video embedded for your convenience.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY

It was unembedded for a reason, read the subtitles on the thumbnail.

 

[T.Lex]

Still going to try to convince me these people just have a "difference of opinion" and aren't out seeking to do evil?

And it is already a rigged election, in the last video we had DNC staffers telling their employees to destroy republican ballots. How much more clearly does it need made that the election is rigged than poll workers being ordered to destroy ballots?

The sky. It is falling.

The worst of Republican operatives can stand toe to toe with those staffers.

I am not denying that corruption exists.

The numbers do not add up. To "rig" an election would take several orders of magnitude more ballot-destroying than is feasible by the DNC, even in their most vivid wet dream.

Tell you what, when you sign up to work a poll, and follow through, then let's talk about how feasible it is. If you've already done that, let's talk about your experience.

 

[miguel]

The sky. It is falling.

The worst of Republican operatives can stand toe to toe with those staffers.

I think what some of us are saying is "both parties need a kick square in the balls and in 2016, at the Federal executive level, nobody but DJT is going to give them one" while others are saying "GOP isn't any better than the Ds".

If a vote for Trump isn't the answer, then what is the plan? And please, no retrofitting the GOP nomination, "It should been Cruz/Bush/Rubio/etc".

I want to hear the solution to our nation's problem that doesn't start with a vote for Trump in November. What can we all do TODAY that will have a more impactful change than a vote for Trump?

 

[whiteoak]

I think it's time we all give serious thought to the concept of a Civil War. The Left and Right are at a point where we can't live the way the others want us to lead our lives. Texas is openly talking about leaving the union, what about the rest of the red states, should we consider it an option if the Supreme Court takes a left hand turn?

 

[Tombs]

I think it's time we all give serious thought to the concept of a Civil War. The Left and Right are at a point where we can't live the way the others want us to lead our lives. Texas is openly talking about leaving the union, what about the rest of the red states, should we consider it an option if the Supreme Court takes a left hand turn?

We don't need a civil war.

We need a redrawing of the electoral college to give states without large urban populations an equal voice. Likewise for senate and house seats.

Those urban dense states have their own governments and legislature, they can write their own laws without trying to tell rural people in Nebraska how they must live their life to avoid going to jail.

For that matter, their cities have their own governments and can write their own codes.

There's no excuse for the overwhelming majority of federal legislation to even exist.

 

[whiteoak]

We don't need a civil war.

We need a redrawing of the electoral college to give states without large urban populations an equal voice. Likewise for senate and house seats.

Those urban dense states have their own governments and legislature, they can write their own laws without trying to tell rural people in Nebraska how they must live their life to avoid going to jail.

For that matter, their cities have their own governments and can write their own codes.

There's no excuse for the overwhelming majority of federal legislation to even exist.

Given that fact that we have the technology to vote and have each vote counted equally, Why do we need an Electoral College at all?

 

[BogWalker]

I don't see nearly as much Republican election screwery as I do Democrat.

I'm sure it exists, and I'm sure they do similar things, but I just don't think there is nearly as much of it. If there were don't you think the media would be latching onto it?

 

[BogWalker]

Given that fact that we have the technology to vote and have each vote counted equally, Why do we need an Electoral College at all?

Direct Democracy does not turn out well.

 

[Tombs]

Given that fact that we have the technology to vote and have each vote counted equally, Why do we need an Electoral College at all?

Because pure popular vote alone would ensure rural people never have a political voice ever again, and get exploited and oppressed by urban city centers.

 

[HoughMade]

Trust me when I tell you, the dems are making very effective headway with the soccer mom crowd- even those who claim conservative beliefs. Part of the effectiveness stems from the desire to be seen as a "nice" person and being associated with a foul-mouthed cad whose supporters engage in loud arguments and physical fights is not "nice".

Decry it for ignoring the issues, it certainly does. Decry it for being anti-intellectual and thoroughly emotion-driven, it is. But that's the reality for the 35-55 year old "Beckys" of the world.

 

[T.Lex]

I think what some of us are saying is "both parties need a kick square in the balls and in 2016, at the Federal executive level, nobody but DJT is going to give them one" while others are saying "GOP isn't any better than the Ds".

The "kick them in the balls" part, I can get behind. Or in front of. Whichever is safer.

The part about DJT even remotely having 1) the ability or 2) the motivation, to do it is where we depart.

If a vote for Trump isn't the answer, then what is the plan? And please, no retrofitting the GOP nomination, "It should been Cruz/Bush/Rubio/etc".

I want to hear the solution to our nation's problem that doesn't start with a vote for Trump in November. What can we all do TODAY that will have a more impactful change than a vote for Trump?

At a personal level, it is difficult to start that conversation without an "I told you so."

At a practical level, the only answer is "wait and see." Regardless who wins the election, it will take considerable activism by conservatives to try to rise from the ashes.

We don't need a civil war.

We need a redrawing of the electoral college to give states without large urban populations an equal voice. Likewise for senate and house seats.

Those urban dense states have their own governments and legislature, they can write their own laws without trying to tell rural people in Nebraska how they must live their life to avoid going to jail.

For that matter, their cities have their own governments and can write their own codes.

There's no excuse for the overwhelming majority of federal legislation to even exist.

Direct Democracy does not turn out well.

Because pure popular vote alone would ensure rural people never have a political voice ever again, and get exploited and oppressed by urban city centers.

So what is the answer?

I've actually been thinking over the whole No-EC-majority issue. It almost seems like an EC based on some combination House and Senate voting, with states being required to vote as a block might make sense. It would hopefully make people pay more attention to their congressional elections.

Conceptually, though, I think that whole thing is very much linked to direct-election of senators. Fixing that problem could easily fix other issues.

 

[HoughMade]

It would have been nice to have a time machine where we could have shown certain people what a weak candidate HRC is and what a debacle DJT would be back when we were fighting about Cruz, Rubio or Walker not being "pure" enough....whatever that meant or Carley not being popular enough or Ben Carson not being savvy enough.

 

[miguel]

At a personal level, it is difficult to start that conversation without an "I told you so."

At a practical level, the only answer is "wait and see." Regardless who wins the election, it will take considerable activism by conservatives to try to rise from the ashes.

Sorry, I've been waiting to see since 1992.

 

[T.Lex]

Sorry, I've been waiting to see since 1992.

I hear you. But, for me, moving the needle as little or as much as I can within my own spheres of influence is the only option.

Every cycle is "wait and see" and look for opportunities because that's really the only choice.

 

[BugI02]

The "kick them in the balls" part, I can get behind. Or in front of. Whichever is safer.

The part about DJT even remotely having 1) the ability or 2) the motivation, to do it is where we depart.



At a personal level, it is difficult to start that conversation without an "I told you so."

At a practical level, the only answer is "wait and see." Regardless who wins the election, it will take considerable activism by conservatives to try to rise from the ashes.







So what is the answer?

I've actually been thinking over the whole No-EC-majority issue. It almost seems like an EC based on some combination House and Senate voting, with states being required to vote as a block might make sense. It would hopefully make people pay more attention to their congressional elections.

Conceptually, though, I think that whole thing is very much linked to direct-election of senators. Fixing that problem could easily fix other issues.

I could envision a solution that remakes redistricting, with the ideal district map being as mathematically close to a honeycomb as possible; varying in size only to achieve requisite population numbers. Where there is a high population density such as Chicago, it might be covered by 4 or 6 or 8 hexagons and gerrymandering to try to lump like minded voters into specific districts would not be allowed. Variations from the ideal would need to be justified by mathematical reasoning. It might allow the best chance to mitigate the black hole-like gravity large metropolitan centers exert on state politics

So imagine instead of this


View attachment 50683














You had four hexagonal districts all meeting in Indy, dividing its population among four districts which would also include suburban dwellers, instead of concentrating it all in one district.
These four districts would be geographically large enough to each contain 1/9 of the population and allowed to depart from a regular polygon only by the minimal amount to assure the correct population. The other five districts would be distributed probably 2 in southern Indiana and 3 in northern (just a guess, I don't know your population distribution) and would also be as regular a polygon as possible. Gerrymandering would be immediately apparent and unsupportable

 

[T.Lex]

Interesting.

As a somewhat tech/programming guy, I've always thought there should be a better way to do the districting. But, I admit, the last time I looked at it in any depth was a long time ago... like "last century."

As I recall, there were certain "be careful what you wish for" kinds of things. Those issues start with the presumptions, as you note. For instance, does 1 hex cover Indy, or do you make Indy where 3 hexes come together? That's a big difference. A single-Indy hex would almost certainly be Dem. A multiple-hex Indy could be very different.

You chose to make Indy 4 hexes, but how those are drawn could have dramatic effects. And ultimately, it is a bit of a quid custodiet ipsos custodes problem: the majority in the legislature gets to choose the consultant to draw the maps?

There are also potential unintended consequences issues, as I recall. I vaguely recall a map of Indiana that broke it up "mathematically" and at the time, it would've been heavily Dem. That certainly may have changed.

And are you suggesting this for congressional races, or the EC generally? A non-winner-take-all EC could also get very interesting, very quickly.