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

[jamil]

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

You think getting Trump elected solves the problem of not getting what you've been waiting for. But that's just a symptom, not the problem that you must solve first.

The first problem to solve is that not enough people agree with whatever it is you're waiting for. We live in a nation where other people get a say in things too. You're just one of hundreds of millions. And most of those get forced into an imposed dichotomy called the two party system. That means you must ally yourself with the party that checks the most boxes for you, even if it's not even most of the boxes. Having just two viable parties forces every politician to pander to others who support that party, to get nominated. Last time the result was Mitt Romney, a choice a lot of Republicans were unhappy about. This time it's Trump, a choice even more Republicans are unhappy with.

You and I have similar viewpoints--we share some conservative principles and some libertarian principles. But we don't agree on everything, or maybe even most things, and we don't agree with what the the Republican Party does on a lot of things. But in a two-party system, the two dominant parties must widen their Venn Diagrams such that their is enough overlap with enough people to gain enough political capital to move their ideas forward. So compromise is necessary within the party because there is not enough political capital to move on more fringe ideas. If you demand that the Party does your will, the Venn Diagram just got too small to win.

Now if you want to ally yourself with a Party who checks nearly all the boxes, you can probably find one. You'll find that all the tertiary parties specialize in something. Libertarian. Green. Communist Party USA. Constitution Party, etcetera. Given that I generally side with Libertarians on > 90% of the issues, I could join them. But their focus is so narrow that they have virtually no political clout. So I have to make a decision each election. Go for the party that represents me most, or go for the one of two that is closest to my thinking, and has the political capital to at least get something done. To grow, the LP must either compromise it's values, or convince more and more people to share their values. I just don't see that happening.

As things stand now, you can't have it both ways. You can't build a party that has enough power to win AND have it enact what you've been waiting for. I think you think Trump is what you've been waiting for. But as you can see in this election, not enough people agree with you.

 

[Mgderf]

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

FIFY

 

[jbombelli]

Kicking both parties in the balls, as was stated above, is Trump. He's the chance we have, right now, of kicking both parties square in the balls.

The reality is this: most people don't really want to kick both parties in the balls. They only want to kick the OTHER party in the balls. Otherwise Trump would be winning in a monumental landslide right now.

 

[miguel]

You think getting Trump elected solves the problem of not getting what you've been waiting for. But that's just a symptom, not the problem that you must solve first.

The first problem to solve is that not enough people agree with whatever it is you're waiting for. We live in a nation where other people get a say in things too. You're just one of hundreds of millions. And most of those get forced into an imposed dichotomy called the two party system. That means you must ally yourself with the party that checks the most boxes for you, even if it's not even most of the boxes. Having just two viable parties forces every politician to pander to others who support that party, to get nominated. Last time the result was Mitt Romney, a choice a lot of Republicans were unhappy about. This time it's Trump, a choice even more Republicans are unhappy with.

You and I have similar viewpoints--we share some conservative principles and some libertarian principles. But we don't agree on everything, or maybe even most things, and we don't agree with what the the Republican Party does on a lot of things. But in a two-party system, the two dominant parties must widen their Venn Diagrams such that their is enough overlap with enough people to gain enough political capital to move their ideas forward. So compromise is necessary within the party because there is not enough political capital to move on more fringe ideas. If you demand that the Party does your will, the Venn Diagram just got too small to win.

Now if you want to ally yourself with a Party who checks nearly all the boxes, you can probably find one. You'll find that all the tertiary parties specialize in something. Libertarian. Green. Communist Party USA. Constitution Party, etcetera. Given that I generally side with Libertarians on > 90% of the issues, I could join them. But their focus is so narrow that they have virtually no political clout. So I have to make a decision each election. Go for the party that represents me most, or go for the one of two that is closest to my thinking, and has the political capital to at least get something done. To grow, the LP must either compromise it's values, or convince more and more people to share their values. I just don't see that happening.

As things stand now, you can't have it both ways. You can't build a party that has enough power to win AND have it enact what you've been waiting for. I think you think Trump is what you've been waiting for. But as you can see in this election, not enough people agree with you.

Well, Trump isn't quite what I've been waiting for, but he's the one who is here, a means to an end, so after ~ 25 years of waiting and being patted on the head while voting for go-along-get-alongers who have sold us out like Bush, Dole, McCain and Romney, I'm running with him as fast as my little legs will carry me.

My Venn diagram has one circle labeled, "reality".

One example of what I define as "reality" is a border that is protected, because without borders we don't have a modern nation state. If we did not hand many millions of dollars of our aggregated taxes to people who haven't paid into the pool, I wouldn't give a damn what the geographic border was as long as it was not abutting my front yard. But we do, so I want it enforced. We already have laws on the books for this. I want them enforced. I don't hear anyone else on that Presidential ballot talking about the border in that way other than DJT, so I'm throwing my lot in with him.

Another example would be candidates who, when seeking to represent our modern nation state, prioritize their native citizenship, citizens and nation over their global citizenship. If that is a radical idea, then so be it, I'm happy to be on the wrong side of history even if I'm the last one to go over the top.

I don't think wanting these things is having my cake and eating it too, but I'm certainly willing to admit not enough people apparently agree with me at this point.

Waiting patiently while the floodwaters rise, as suggested further up this thread, is a dead end. Better to go kamikaze than to get the flamethrower in a cave treatment.

 

[1DOWN4UP]

Well, Trump isn't quite what I've been waiting for, but he's the one who is here, a means to an end, so after ~ 25 years of waiting and being patted on the head while voting for go-along-get-alongers who have sold us out like Bush, Dole, McCain and Romney, I'm running with him as fast as my little legs will carry me.

My Venn diagram has one circle labeled, "reality".

One example of what I define as "reality" is a border that is protected, because without borders we don't have a modern nation state. If we did not hand many millions of dollars of our aggregated taxes to people who haven't paid into the pool, I wouldn't give a damn what the geographic border was as long as it was not abutting my front yard. But we do, so I want it enforced. We already have laws on the books for this. I want them enforced. I don't hear anyone else on that Presidential ballot talking about the border in that way other than DJT, so I'm throwing my lot in with him.

Another example would be candidates who, when seeking to represent our modern nation state, prioritize their native citizenship, citizens and nation over their global citizenship. If that is a radical idea, then so be it, I'm happy to be on the wrong side of history even if I'm the last one to go over the top.

I don't think wanting these things is having my cake and eating it too, but I'm certainly willing to admit not enough people apparently agree with me at this point.

Waiting patiently while the floodwaters rise, as suggested further up this thread, is a dead end. Better to go kamikaze than to get the flamethrower in a cave treatment.

What you said is Deplorable! Well said my friend.

 

[jamil]

CGP Grey has a video that explains the shortest-splitline algorithm for determining districts. You can find the video if you want more information on how the algorithm works.

Here's what Indiana would look like using that algorithm:

Nearly 75% of Indiana's population is classified as urban. Just at a glance these districts look more competitive than what we have now since some of the urban areas are lumped more with rural. Urban (generally includes suburbs) areas tend to vote Democrat at a 3:2 ratio. The shortest splitline algorithm could probably be tweaked to account for that.

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

 

[jamil]

Well, Trump isn't quite what I've been waiting for, but he's the one who is here, a means to an end, so after ~ 25 years of waiting and being patted on the head while voting for go-along-get-alongers who have sold us out like Bush, Dole, McCain and Romney, I'm running with him as fast as my little legs will carry me.

My Venn diagram has one circle labeled, "reality".

One example of what I define as "reality" is a border that is protected, because without borders we don't have a modern nation state. If we did not hand many millions of dollars of our aggregated taxes to people who haven't paid into the pool, I wouldn't give a damn what the geographic border was as long as it was not abutting my front yard. But we do, so I want it enforced. We already have laws on the books for this. I want them enforced. I don't hear anyone else on that Presidential ballot talking about the border in that way other than DJT, so I'm throwing my lot in with him.

Another example would be candidates who, when seeking to represent our modern nation state, prioritize their native citizenship, citizens and nation over their global citizenship. If that is a radical idea, then so be it, I'm happy to be on the wrong side of history even if I'm the last one to go over the top.

I don't think wanting these things is having my cake and eating it too, but I'm certainly willing to admit not enough people apparently agree with me at this point.

Waiting patiently while the floodwaters rise, as suggested further up this thread, is a dead end. Better to go kamikaze than to get the flamethrower in a cave treatment.

At least you include in "reality" the admission that not enough people agree with you.

I think the result of your kamikaze will be the election of the most corrupt president in modern history, and that includes Nixon. And it's not like your choice would get us too far from that.

We both agree on securing the borders. Libertarians have argued with me about how can I say I lean so libertarian and yet I want closed borders. It's for exactly the reason you said. If we weren't a welfare state, and we were strictly ruled by laws rather than men (or women), if we were much closer to a minarchy than an oligarchy, I'd say open them up to the world so the world can know liberty. But I don't believe Trump is the guy who will do that. I think he's just telling you what he knows you want to hear.

 

[Tombs]

You think getting Trump elected solves the problem of not getting what you've been waiting for. But that's just a symptom, not the problem that you must solve first.

The first problem to solve is that not enough people agree with whatever it is you're waiting for. We live in a nation where other people get a say in things too. You're just one of hundreds of millions. And most of those get forced into an imposed dichotomy called the two party system. That means you must ally yourself with the party that checks the most boxes for you, even if it's not even most of the boxes. Having just two viable parties forces every politician to pander to others who support that party, to get nominated. Last time the result was Mitt Romney, a choice a lot of Republicans were unhappy about. This time it's Trump, a choice even more Republicans are unhappy with.

You and I have similar viewpoints--we share some conservative principles and some libertarian principles. But we don't agree on everything, or maybe even most things, and we don't agree with what the the Republican Party does on a lot of things. But in a two-party system, the two dominant parties must widen their Venn Diagrams such that their is enough overlap with enough people to gain enough political capital to move their ideas forward. So compromise is necessary within the party because there is not enough political capital to move on more fringe ideas. If you demand that the Party does your will, the Venn Diagram just got too small to win.

Now if you want to ally yourself with a Party who checks nearly all the boxes, you can probably find one. You'll find that all the tertiary parties specialize in something. Libertarian. Green. Communist Party USA. Constitution Party, etcetera. Given that I generally side with Libertarians on > 90% of the issues, I could join them. But their focus is so narrow that they have virtually no political clout. So I have to make a decision each election. Go for the party that represents me most, or go for the one of two that is closest to my thinking, and has the political capital to at least get something done. To grow, the LP must either compromise it's values, or convince more and more people to share their values. I just don't see that happening.

As things stand now, you can't have it both ways. You can't build a party that has enough power to win AND have it enact what you've been waiting for. I think you think Trump is what you've been waiting for. But as you can see in this election, not enough people agree with you.

What I see said in your post is just about every single reason I hate a large part of the republican party.

I might like a few individuals in it, I may love the charter, but you summed up in that post precisely why I hope Trump decimates the whole thing so a party can rise that doesn't wish to "widen" its Venn diagram. Siding with corruption and evil will only welcome more corruption and evil, it's a loss even if they win. And this is why we are where we are today, the right allowed this to happen on their watch because they wouldn't stand up to it for fear of losing their $$$. (This isn't a simple matter of football issues we're talking about, this isn't even a matter of the second amendment, this is a matter of accepting and going along with the creation of a shadow government or what ever other name you wish to assign to it.)

Those 3rd party groups will only have a chance of success once the GOP is gone. It's a dangerous move that could lead to a 1 party state, but it's going to happen eventually regardless because the majority of them only care about the money.

Trump is their reckoning for ignoring their constituency for far too long and allowing the left to oppress and harass them for decades.

Things are going to happen regardless if Trump wins or loses now, that's merely a battle in the war that is being waged. The left has been exposed for conspiring to overthrow the government for their own special interest groups, and there's no way to put that genie back in the bottle.

 

[jamil]

What I see said in your post is just about every single reason I hate a large part of the republican party.

I might like a few individuals in it, I may love the charter, but you summed up in that post precisely why I hope Trump decimates the whole thing so a party can rise that doesn't wish to "widen" its Venn diagram. Siding with corruption and evil will only welcome more corruption and evil, it's a loss even if they win. And this is why we are where we are today, the right allowed this to happen on their watch because they wouldn't stand up to it for fear of losing their $$$.

Those 3rd party groups will only have a chance of success once the GOP is gone. It's a dangerous move that could lead to a 1 party state, but it's going to happen eventually regardless because the majority of them only care about the money.

Trump is their reckoning for ignoring their constituency for far too long and allowing the left to oppress and harass them for decades.

Things are going to happen regardless if Trump wins or loses now, that's merely a battle in the war that is being waged. The left has been exposed for conspiring to overthrow the government for their own special interest groups, and there's no way to put that genie back in the bottle.

It has to or it won't have any power. If you want a party that narrows its views to just yours, you can pick one now. You don't have to wait until the GOP blows up. But you'll have no more political power. If the GOP blows up, there'll be another party to take it's place. And then that party will have to widen it's scope to gain enough political capital to win.

You can't have what you want and still have a two party system. With just two primary parties, you're stuck being pigeonholed into just one of two political dichotomies. That is a cruel fact. I hate the Republican Party as much as you do. But I think I do understand why it is what it is.

 

[miguel]

At least you include in "reality" the admission that not enough people agree with you.
I think the result of your kamikaze will be the election of the most corrupt president in modern history, and that includes Nixon. And it's not like your choice would get us too far from that.

I will sleep like a baby after casting my vote for the man. Every Chamber of Commerce puke who believes DJT is a worse option than HRC and stays home is the one who should sleep with one eye open.

 

[Brad69]

More color pictures of the state I think you have just about figured out how to make it fair.
Then we build a wall around it!

 

[Tombs]

It has to or it won't have any power. If you want a party that narrows its views to just yours, you can pick one now. If the GOP blows up, there'll be another party to take it's place. And then that party will have to widen it's scope to gain enough political capital to win.

You can't have what you want and still have a two party system. With just two primary parties, you're stuck being pigeonholed into just one of two political dichotomies. That is a cruel fact. I hate the Republican Party as much as you do. But I think I do understand why it is what it is.

The views are of little practical importance at this point.

I don't think you're grasping that at this point in time, my only concern is taking back the government from special interests. Disagreements over football issues can wait until that is accomplished.

Domestic policy being handed down to us from London, a banking cartel, or a royal family in Saudi Arabia is unacceptable. The left has decided that it is acceptable, and has conspired to make it a reality, which is where we are today. With many republicans getting their paychecks from the same places the left are, they aren't going to be the ones to stop it or expose it. They'll sit quietly by as our country is signed over to some individual the public is unaware even exists while they count the digits in their bank account and plan a retirement in a foreign nation far far away.

We can't have preferential voting that would help roll back this mess until we take back power from the government and tell them how things are going to be. Do you think you'd ever get republicans and democrats to sign off on such a thing in agreement even if it would be a big help to their constituency and country? No

So the best hope we have is a wild card wrecking ball who isn't afraid of calling these people out and driving public sentiment against them, regardless of the consequence. Even the people who hate him have to be having their sentiments towards something like preferential voting driven in the right direction.

Sounds insane to be saying all of this, but good lord we are in an unimaginable mess.

I will sleep like a baby after casting my vote for the man. Every Chamber of Commerce puke who believes DJT is a worse option than HRC and stays home is the one who should sleep with one eye open.

Of course they hate him, they're going to be rotting in prison for the rest of their life for committing treason, and they know he's actually crazy enough to do it.

 

[Brad69]

So we're screwed Tomes?

 

[Tombs]

So we're screwed Tomes?

Screwed? Hardly.

I already said, they can't put the genie back in the bottle. This is all public knowledge now, on government documents. (Unless you think the FBI are a bunch of crazy conspiracy theorists)
Before the internet existed, they might have been able to squash it and get the public to forget, but unless we get caught up in a major war, I don't see this being forgotten any time soon.

(Granted they are trying to stoke the coals for war right now, surprise surprise.)

Oh look, this is now mainstream news... http://heavy.com/news/2016/10/hilla...investigation-private-server-crimes-indicted/ ala Fact no.4

 

[Brad69]

Ok I won't seal the bunker door yet!

 

[Spear Dane]

Direct Democracy does not turn out well.

He isn't talking about direct democracy, he simply does not understand the point of the Electoral College, which, theoretically, is to prevent exactly what may happen in 3 weeks which is to deny someone who is either controlled from without or is some kind of out of the blue cult of personality (a.k.a. Trump) from gaining the White House. And for the fellow that said the DNC doesn't have the means to commit vast voter fraud...well they don't have to. All that is required is having in hand some few of the right counties...sometimes even just precincts, to turn the election. Why? Because, as Gore discovered in 2000 you can win the popular vote and still lose the Electoral College vote.

 

[Leadeye]

Always follow the money

 

[KG1]

I look at Trump as a stop gap vote in this election. I will be voting as such.

 

[VUPDblue]

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 do talk of civil war. Next time it's mentioned, the mentioner will be banned permanently. Last warning.

 

[actaeon277]

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.

And they should also be arrested.