Electoral College Process-Good, Bad, Or Ugly.

the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-il-buono-il-brutto-il-cattivo-9123When I got into writing this article, it became so cumbersome and long that it would not be appropriate for this venue…..far too lengthy and confusing….so, I went onto several sites, both right and left, to see what the main arguments were and I have reduced it down to four bullet points each. However, with everyone’s permission, I think it appropriate to tackle the four MAIN issues one at a time for debate purposes and to keep individual responses focused. So here goes.

Sometime back, or, back yonder a ways, Buck and I had some discussions on the electoral college process. I had actually come down on the side of “perhaps we need a change but I am against the popular vote”. Since then, I have thought about it a lot (too much actually) and have changed my position to the electoral college is still the best way to go. Consequently, I went through over 50 different sites and basically “boiled ‘er down” to the following four bullet points.

Arguments Against the Electoral College

Those who object to the Electoral College system and favor a direct popular election of the president generally do so on four grounds:

  • the possibility of electing a minority president
  • the risk of so-called “faithless” Electors,
  • the possible role of the Electoral College in depressing voter turnout, and
  • its failure to accurately reflect the national popular will.

Arguments for the Electoral College

Proponents of the Electoral College system normally defend it on the philosophical grounds that it:

  • contributes to the cohesiveness of the country by requiring a distribution of popular support to be elected president
  • enhances the status of minority interests,
  • contributes to the political stability of the nation by encouraging a two-party system, and
  • maintains a federal system of government and representation.

As you can readily see, each topic (and there are many more) could become very cumbersome…. so, let us start with the most basic argument first. However, there is one thing that needs to be recognized in the annals of political history……THE USE OF THE TERM MINORITY DOES NOT REFER TO RACE. Now, let us move on.

The first major argument against the electoral process is the possibility of electing a minority POTUS. This means that the opponents of the electoral process want “One Person, One Vote”, winner take all. The argument for the electoral process is “Not fair…..if one person, one vote were the rule, then population centers would control the POTUS and the rest of the country be damned.”

All of us remember on the school grounds growing up…well, us old codgers remember well…. trying to pick baseball or football teams during recess. In trying to make the selection fair, the two best players would then become team captains and each captain took turns selecting their teams….one at a time…. all the way down usually from best to worse. As kids on the play-ground, we figured out real quick the most fair way to choose. Kids usually do. The choices were across the spectrum and everyone got to play and each team was as close to equal as possible. And, often times, it was discovered that a kid that was not a jock or popular actually had a chance to shine when it was his time to catch the pass or get up to bat or field a pitch.

So, I think I have taken a very logical approach….I have researched each individual state by popular vote. My sources were across the Spectrum as well….MSNBC, CNN, FOX NEWS, Politico, Huffpo, and the National Archives. As you can readily see, I picked only one conservative source. Here is what I have found. Every single state’s electoral votes went in accordance with the popular vote…less one. The State of Maine had one electoral vote that went for Trump even though the popular vote went for Clinton. Ms. Clinton won 20 States and Washington DC while Mr. Trump won 30 States. Each state has electors on the basis of population. Each State has two Senators and a mathematical number of representatives based on population. Each state elects their own electoral college representatives. So each state has a say. And since the electoral college process is based on population, I can see no logical repudiation of this process. This country was founded upon state representation. Each state has a voice. Each state has an amount of electors in accordance with its population. Hence, California has 55 electoral votes to Wyoming’s 3. The reason the founders wanted this type of representation was to keep certain population centers from controlling any election. Pretty smart actually. So the electors are divided and assigned according to population in any event. That seems to me that both issues are handled.

So, here is some math to consider. Trump wins 30 states in population and in electoral votes to equal 306. Clinton wins 20 States and Washington DC in population and electoral votes to equal 232. No population center or centers should ever control a country. California and New York do not a country make. But every state…… a country is made.

I think that another way to look at this are the key states that voted in Trump’s direction. Most of these states did not even reach a 50% popular vote in either direction. For example: Arizona 49.5% went Trump and 45.4 % went to Clinton. But the greater popular vote went to Trump and so goes the electoral vote. The same went for Michigan, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Utah…………….all these states did not make 50% of the popular vote but Trump still pulled the popular vote in these states and so goes the electoral votes. This is a great argument to make for the electoral college because each state had a say.

A fun math exercise to prove the point of the proponents of the electoral process…..Trump had a national total vote of 62,979,879…and Clinton had a total 65,844,954. In California, Clinton beats Trump…. 7,362,490 to 3,916,209 and in New York, Clinton beats Trump 4,143,874 to 2,640,570. Two population centers with impact….however, let us take the total of California and New York and subtract BOTH Trump and Clinton out of the picture. When you do that, Trump wins the popular vote 56,423,100 to Clinton 54,338,590 in 48 states. This paints a pretty hard picture of how two states could control the POTUS. This also points out how policy directed at population centers can also control votes….I will not publish the numbers here because it is a different subject but look at the welfare and food stamp roles in each state and compare them to the rest of the country even in percentage of population.

Ok, this is long enough…..who wants to join in?

Advertisements

Comments

  1. gmanfortruth says:

    I’m not to sure the “two party” system was even thought of when the EC stuff was written, nor do I think the Founders would have wanted one. Federalist No. 68 is a good example.

    On the other end of the argument, of those are projections, not true fears. It’s just how Liberal’s think. Everything the Conservatives like is ALWAYS going to cause voter suppression when it involves elections. Faithless electors would be tarred and feathered, even today. This however was PUSHED by the Liberal Left, not a result of the EC, see the projectionism? The minority President, regardless still requires 270 Electors to win. If this wouldn’t happen, the EC would be null and void and the HoR would decide.

    On another note, while the EC was not intended to support a two party system, it almost makes one mandatory for the EC to work.

    Overall, I think the EC worked as intended.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Had Clinton won and things were switched, this wouldn’t even be a subject of discussion.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      Gman….I do believe the two party system was a primary focus and an unstated goal in the creation of the electoral college. With the difficulty with communication back then and “getting” the message out, States had a tendency to inject a lot of favorite sons into the mix, diluting the electoral votes and keeping one candidate or another from reaching the target of greater than 50% of the available electoral votes. If any candidate failed to meet that objective, it then got kicked to Congress to decide. As the Colonel states, the process was designed to bind the nation more as opposed to some singleminded area that has it’s own issues and opinions being imposed upon the nation. If you go outside of the NYC metro area and that includes Westchester Co. The State did not vote for HRC. Same for CA. outside of LA and SF. You take those three major cities out of the mix and the nation had a different opinion.
      Like the Tilden Hayes election. Several southern States sent two sets of electoral votes creating a problem. Eventually a deal was struck that if the Federal troops and administrators were withdrawn from the south the votes from these States swung to Hayes. Ushering in a whole new set of issues, like Jim Crow laws.
      The States get to choose how they wish to apportion their electoral votes. It can be winner take all or break them out proportionatly. After all was said and done if each state had broken up all their available votes by all the candidates based on how many popular votes each garnered NOBODY would have met the 270 target. McMullin hugely impacted Utah and a few other States. but only placed 3rd in those. The other two major players were Johnson and Stein, who placed in toto 3rd and 4th overall with 5-6 million votes between them.

      Just to inject something that illuminates the mindset when each State was created, even the original ones. Most of the capitals are not in the obvious large population centers, they are away in the hinterlands. NY, not NYC but Albany. PA, not Philly, but Harrisburg, CA, not SF but Sacramento. Oregon, not Portland but Eugene. Washington, not Seattle, but Spokane, MA, not Boston, but Springfield. ME not Portland, but Bangor etc etc etc. There was an element of defense in their selections. My opinion it was to protect against both foreign and domestic enemies of the nation and the wheeler dealers and financiers tend to live in those major cities.

      • Dale, something of note that I found when really getting into the research. The electoral college very basically keeps the two party system alive but effectively kills any third or fourth party. Not that a third party cannot get on the ballot but the way most states have their internal elections configured, I do not see a way that any third party could ever gain traction.

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          From a presidential perspective this has got to be to gain an overall consensus. However, if a district wants to elect anybody to State legislatures and the House of Representatives in Congress they are free to do so. The Federal Senate race and the Presidency there is a need to willow the field to gain a majority across each State. The thing is that most third or fourth or fifth parties are so limited in their influence, being usually a single issue, it is hard to get significant traction to even get elected to local offices.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          d13thecolonel

          Respectfully disagree. The EC does NOT keep the two party system alive. The Two Party system keeps itself alive. That and the entrenchment of the population itself. People just cannot bring themselves out of their habits easily.

          The other factor is that the more parties you get the more limited the range of issues one agrees with in each party. Like the Green party. Pro environment to the point of worship painted with a Communist “green brush”. Hence the limited number of people.

          Libertarian is another. It gives only those willing to consider that philosophy a place but few others would venture to vote for them.

          Thus the majority will gravitate to one of the two Major Leagues.

          The two parties have figured out that every now and then they have to make major changes in who they are or go extinct, like the Whig party.

          The EC does not contribute to these factors in any way. But the two parties will affect how the EC is allocated depending on who is controlling the State legislatures.

          One thing to consider. If we had a multi party system that was robust, the House of Rep. and the Senate would be electing most Presidents and Vice Presidents. Who one in these chambers would then be affected by Two Party or coalitions formed by minority parties.

          • JAC….this following is an excerpt by William C. Kimberling, Deputy Director FEC National Clearinghouse on Election Administration….whom I used in part of my research.

            “Proponents further argue that the Electoral College contributes to the political stability of the nation by encouraging a two party system. There can be no doubt that the Electoral College has encouraged and helps to maintain a two party system in the United States. This is true simply because it is extremely difficult for a new or minor party to win enough popular votes in enough States to have a chance of winning the presidency. Even if they won enough electoral votes to force the decision into the U.S. House of Representatives, they would still have to have a majority of over half the State delegations in order to elect their candidate – and in that case, they would hardly be considered a minor party.

            In addition to protecting the presidency from impassioned but transitory third party movements, the practical effect of the Electoral College (along with the single-member district system of representation in the Congress) is to virtually force third party movements into one of the two major political parties. Conversely, the major parties have every incentive to absorb minor party movements in their continual attempt to win popular majorities in the States. In this process of assimilation, third party movements are obliged to compromise their more radical views if they hope to attain any of their more generally acceptable objectives. Thus we end up with two large, pragmatic political parties which tend to the center of public opinion rather than dozens of smaller political parties catering to divergent and sometimes extremist views. In other words, such a system forces political coalitions to occur within the political parties rather than within the government.”

            Now, while I do not agree entirely on this, it refelcts the summation in various documents that I researched, with little changes. I have never claimed being very conversant with the entire workings of the EC, I took it as gospel because I was taught this in civics class and not being interested in politics, I took the EC at its very basic definition. Only the last 20 years or so, have I taken any interest in politics. But even then, I was only interested it in how politics worked as it pertained to me and the businesses in which I was involved. I became more interested in the election system when Bill Clinton took the reins….and then Obama. Hillary Clinton, I beleive, would have been the death knell of conservative politics. So I got more involved because I saw the corruption. As a matter of record, my family was actually democrat unti the 80’s but it was being hijacked even then and the change was more than I, (we) wanted to handle. We viewed it as taking away incentive and re-distribution of personal ambition. That said, I agree with most of the viewpoints that I have read concerning the EC.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              d13

              Like I said. The author has the cause reversed. If the people did not flow to two primary parties the entire argument fails. People do not gravitate to a party to get POTUS elected. They move to a party to get everyone else elected.

              I think the two party system stems from the original two parties. While they have changed names, agendas and even members, they always maintain agendas that capture most of the people’s thinking.

              The EC ONLY affects the POTUS race. Most political races are not POTUS.

              • But most political races are two party, are they not? There is a smattering of Green Party or otherwise…..but mainly two party. While I agree with you that the EC only pertains to the POTUS, it is a pass down system, me thinks……..but YATAHEY……

              • Dale A Albrecht says:

                Two parties or two schools of thought? They’ve all morphed changed added deleted, gone out of existance, created anew since the beginning. Even today, though the Democratic party is still called by that name they contantly refer to themselves as Progressive
                The Democratic Party pre Civil War could be aptly defined as a “conservative” party. The Republicans were radical progressives. Then there was a period between Cleveland and TR that the term of Democrat or Republican became sort of moot and progressive was a salient term. Truly trying to right social injustice. Once Wilson came to power and ever after the terms in any form are meaningless and just used to blacken the other side. Who infact embraced the civil rights acts and voting rights act…..not the democratic representatives. It was the Republicans, but through media bias the true roles have been reversed in minds only, not deeds and actions and results.

  2. Nicely done. Interesting thought, look at Cali and NY. They are far different from the other states. They represent populations that are heavily subsidized by government in a variety of ways. In addition they are no longer centers of production or manufacturing at least in percentage of population employed. Their experiences are far different from Midwestern States or Southern States or Middle Northern States or the old Eastern Rust Belt states. They do not see the world the same way.

    One of the great complaints that we in New Jersey have is that we do not really have any media of our own. The Northern part of our state is dominated by NY media, the Southern by Philadelphia. This does make a difference. I think it is one of the reasons Trenton is so corrupt and the democrats have such a huge, continuing margin in both our Assembly and Senate.

    Now, does anyone know if absentee ballots and military ballots were ever counted in States like NY and California or wasn’t it worth it?.

    • Google it and you get nothing!

      Absentee ballot voting NY 2016 results

    • Just A Citizen says:

      SK

      NY and CA pay out far more in Federal Tax dollars than they receive in Federal paybacks. This includes ALL Federal payments.

      Those States that receive the greatest amount in Fed payments in excess of Fed taxes paid tend to be Republican dominated in terms of Legislatures, Congress and how they vote for POTUS.

  3. Dale A Albrecht says:

    Granted there are many “sanctuary” cities in this nation that flaunt Federal Immigration Laws, and I do not mean EO’s. These laws are ones passed and signed into law by a consensus of States representatives and the president. Not ones put in place by any President that gets frustrated with Congress and the States and acts unilaterally. But there are three main cities that really stick their middle fingers up in defiance to the overall national will and those are LA, SF and NYC. There are more but these are the most vocal and active. If unrestricted immigration is a worthy goal then convince the nation it is right and Congress will change the law. Defy the law that impacts the nation, through increased lawlessness and use of resources that are not entirely of those cities but of those also that object to this localized policy. If they can support their policy by their own resources so be it. If not it has to stop.

  4. Dale A Albrecht says:

    Sir…your point 4 in the list of reasons the electoral college is bad. I know that these are points those that say the college is archaic and should be eliminated, But the Electoral College did in fact reflect the vote of the majority of the people in the majority of the States, by an huge margin.

    I remember when Quebec was trying to split away from Canada and create an independent French country. Those provinces to the east and west immediately stated that they would petition the United States for potential statehood especially the Maritime provinces. The votes failed just barely for independence and Canada stayed as one nation. During our most major electoral crisis which was the Civil War era the nation was split just two ways north and south and that was bad enough. It’s a really major problem when the two schools of thought are divided by a huge swath in the middle and one school is separated from its allies by 2000 miles, of a fairly cohesive group of States..

    That said, I am totally for the electoral college as is without amendment, and then it is paramount for those that disagree with the outcome of the election to try harder and pick a better candidate to make your case. This campaign season neither party did a good job on their selection. But HRC harped on “it’s my turn” as though she was owed the election, plus her words in no way came close to her actions over the past 27 years she’s been in the public eye. Like I’ve been consistantly tough on Russia, but her actions were there was more high technology transfer to them than at any time. Like to China during Bill’s tenure…..you can not win your case if you look at the major objective was to be more like europe and look at the proverbial mess they are in which is far worse than ours. They’ll fracture within a few years and become far more nationalistic based on the individual countries, We as all nations do will also break up in time after the grand experiment, because of the inability of the hardening lines of ideals and their lack of compromise. Purely based on the majority of 50.1% says the other 49.9% will do what we say. Iraq is a vivid case in point of the results of that democratic popular ideal..

    • “Their reasoning is that in a formal federal structure, important political powers are reserved to the component States. In the United States, for example, the House of Representatives was designed to represent the States according to the size of their population. The States are even responsible for drawing the district lines for their House seats. The Senate was designed to represent each State equally regardless of its population. And the Electoral College was designed to represent each State’s choice for the presidency (with the number of each State’s electoral votes being the number of its Senators plus the number of its Representatives). To abolish the Electoral College in favor of a nationwide popular election for president would strike at the very heart of the federal structure laid out in our Constitution and would lead to the nationalization of our central government – to the detriment of the States. ”

      Again, this is a summation that I have agreed with. Now, As I said, I do have some reservations but I can find no reasonable alternative at this time to make me change my mind from the EC. In my examples that I had in the article, this election and the election of Bush II shows how the electoral process preserves states rights. EC votes are still based on population growth. Claifornia, Texas, and Florida…are examples. BUT…just how important were the other states this time, where Clinton assumed she had wrapped up. This election showed how a multitude of other states were heard and changed this election. This election did not choose the best candidates that were available. It eliminated the worse of the lot.

  5. Just A Citizen says:

    There is ONLY one key question in the EC debate.

    Do STATES matter or not?

    Those who oppose the EC really want a popular election for POTUS because they view that job as sitting atop a Federal SUPREME.

    Those supporting EC support the original Federalist view that States created the Federal Govt. but retained the sovereign right to eliminate the Federal Govt. any time they could reach agreement.

    • You say..”There is ONLY one key question in the EC debate.

      Do STATES matter or not?”

      That is it in a nutshell…..everything shows that the only way a true picture can be told within the US as a whole…..is if each State matters. That was proven this time. A popular election would have been the power of two states….California and New York….and neither of those states represent the country as a whole.

      The other thing that I saw when I pulled stats from the National Archives……Even in California and New York, the votes from LA, SF, and New YOrk City did NOT reflect the position of the entire state. When you look at the counties, Clinton did not win the majority in either state.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        I believe if we go straight popular vote right down the line in all phased of our government we will cease to exists as the “United States of America” The States will have no significance what so ever. The divides will become insurmountable and we as any entity will decend into mob rule. And that is rule by fear and intimidation and never resolve differences amicably.

        • Yes..look at Europe,,,,,

          • Dale A Albrecht says:

            The original ideal there was to erase trade boundaries and ease travel between the different countries, very much like here. What it became was a dictatorial regime that the individual nations/states had no say what-so-ever in anything. Instead of following the 6 ideals detailed in our preamble they achieved none of them and in our rush to be like Europe we are down to only a hint of our core princples…oh god, I had a flashback of BF and core principles..

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Peoples core principles are too different to ever allow any society to live in peace together for eternity. Something Anarchist’s ignore.

  6. Just A Citizen says:

    Historical fact.

    The EC was established in the Constitution. There were NO parties at the time. A few factions obviously but no political parties.

    Minority factions were represented and that was the center of most serious conflicts during the Convention. Like the 3/5’s compromise.

    • There were no established parties in this country at the time but there were certainly parties in England that the Founders were all too familiar with. Most did not want to see that happen in this country and is in part why the EC was to be a select college of the best minds, who then selected the president. From the very nature of an argument, it takes a minimum of 2 parties. Add in the fact that the winner gets the prize, and you have the formula for a 2 party system.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        T-Ray

        Exactly. The first two parties evolved over the basic disagreement over what Federalism and the Republican form of Govt. meant. A basic disagreement over IMPLEMENTING a single concept. Hence the Federalists vs. Democratic Republicans.

        But look at today. We no longer even agree on the concept. Let alone the best way to get there.

  7. gmanfortruth says:

    I’ll be standing in JAC’s camp on the issue of the two party stuff. I’m more inclined to think that the “two party” issue concerning the EC is just establishment propaganda spread by their media whores. This could especially be true since the establishment has been put on notice and the two parties have lost some control, if not lots of control. While Trump carry’s the Republican banner, his mantra is far from being a true card carrying member.

    The election of Trump has put both parties on notice…they are failing and they better straighten out or become extinct.

    As for our current 2 party system, I feel it’s just about money and control by those with the money. Take that away and the 2 party system will splinter. Gee, imagine Congress actually representing the people instead of the donors.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      gman

      Attend local and state party meetings and you will see at the grassroots level it is not about money. It is about power or the perception of IMPORTANCE. In my experienced humble opinion.

      Many party leaders and activists at that level have money. What they want is Stature and the sense they are somebody. They also have belief systems they feel should dominate and are willing to spend their time and money to make it happen.

      They seek out people they think can get elected and they work to make them Kings. It is the wannabe Kings who seek power AND MONEY. The need Money to run and stay King. Some seek money to enrich themselves but most seek power and fame. Because power used correctly will assure fame.

      I think we have been looking at the wrong factors for a long time, regarding what motivates this pack of jackals. I think FAME is a larger motivator that we realized. The need to leave a legacy, to not be forgotten is very ancestral for many of us. Even after they stop telling tales of them, you will find their picture and a story in some history book.

      Now at the local level I think many start here with an idea or some particular issue they want to help resolve. It is not money or fame. For the vast majority. It is about helping solve some issue. But still you see this tendency that they have the answer they wish to impose upon the rest of us. They will listen to our concerns but usually craft the solution based on their own desires. At least at this level the negative impact is not as great and can often be controlled or stopped.

      • Very true….in the last 25 years, I have attended a variety of meetings…mainly the State Legislature and I work, to this very day, very close with the powers in Austin…and do enjoy some stature as to get past the secretaries in some of the offices. Power is the name of the game, however, I like the way Texas does its legislature. Our system actually helps eliminate the power elite because there is no permanent office and the legislature only meets every two years. State legislators are paid meager salaries. Senators and representatives alike earn only $7,200 per year, or $14,400 for a two-year legislative period. Some may consider this salary generous, since after all legislators work only for 140 days over two years. However, this salary equals just slightly over $100 per day. Even if our legislators worked only eight hours per day, this would equal only $12.86 per hour for the people who make our state laws and conduct oversight of executive branch offices.

        This eliminates, not entirely, but it eliminates the professional politican…thus the power can get changed every two years.

  8. I support the EC, I think it was a great compromise between direct elections and a state legislature chosen executive. As originally intended, the EC was meant to be a college of elites who were free to pick any person as president. However, it has become an automatic vote based on the winner take all popular vote by state. Most members of the EC are flunkies or second rate political hacks. Part of this is that their names do not appear on the ballot since they are chosen at large in the state.

    Consider the following changes.

    1) Each congressional district elects a member to the EC. The member’s name will appear on the ballot along with the associated candidate’s name. There will be 2 at large members of the EC from each state. Thus districts like mine which voted heavily for Trump, would not lose their input into the final result. This approach would not require a Constitutional change if all states agreed to the method.

    2) Do we actually need an EC of people? Since the EC vote is virtually automatic, why even have people fill that roll? This change would require an amendment. Some will argue that the EC prevents a demagogue from reaching the WH but I disagree if the slate of electors are already committed to a specific candidate. Eliminating the bodies in the EC eliminates the pressure we just witnessed to hijack the vote by putting pressure on the EC,

    CA has a law on the books that if a majority of states representing 270 EC votes agrees, they will throw all their EC votes to the popular vote winner despite the outcome of the CA election. I adamantly disagree with this approach as it means my vote is even less relevant. The major population centers will then dominate.

  9. Dale A Albrecht says:

    “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of……

    Justice….is selective
    Tranquility…..ah only after a good dose of prozac
    Common Defense….not when one person can override Congress, like with the borders
    Promote General Welfare…..that we’ve got, but general should be revised to Total
    Liberty…..is eroding with each passing day, by popular demand
    Posterity….this new generation will not attain the successes of previous generation

    • gmanfortruth says:

      You just brought up another issue I have, too much Presidential power over government agencies.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        All the rules and regulations should be in the original legislation that is signed into law. That would slow Congress down and give them time to contemplate the damage or good they may actually be committing. Not create a bill that is full of blanks to be filled in later. The president and the agencies are suppose to “faithfully” administer the law, not create it. The president is a single national focal point to help create a vision and possible course of action then duly debated and enacted if that is the wish of the People and States.

        What was said about last year…Congress passed around 200 pieces of legislation and laws, yet the agencies invented around 30000 regulations which are considered LAW. If Congress by the Constitution is suppose to have oversight over the administration of the laws enacted that becomes an impossibility with the way thing have morphed into by delegation of their constitutional authority……bottom line they all want plausible deniability when the chickens come home to roost.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Dale

          Instead of putting regs. in the legislation, require that Congress approve the regulations by majority vote and POTUS signature.

          • Dale A Albrecht says:

            That works also….that way everyone is on record

          • Dale A Albrecht says:

            AS long as it’s not a huge catch all bill/amendment that nobody reads because its to massive and is just rubberstamped. That accomplishes nothing..

  10. Didja ever wonder why we used to say “These United States” and now just say “United States”? Interesting question having to do with the lack of historical knowledge and perspective. Betcha that 9 out of 10 woudl not see the difference if you asked them.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Look and read how Liberal’s are acting and it’s SO EASY to see the division. What I think is sad is that the causes of the division are very minimal, but they are exploited and over blown but the propaganda media. Makes one wonder if the 2 Parties are far more involved in what is talked about, especially by the Left.

      An example….why are the Liberal women so worried about abortion? The subject has been barely talked about during the campaign. Suddenly, the Liberal media is crying wolf and we have the sight of women dressing up in vagina costumes. Propaganda is really working within Liberal circles. The conspiracy folks are relatively quiet and abortion isn’t an issue in that circle, so the finger can only point in one direction….the Liberal media.

  11. gmanfortruth says:

    As I said last week, Falcons look like a team of destiny this year. It would be their first SB victory, should they beat………………New England

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      Falcon’s 1st SB would be assured if Pittsburg gets by the Patriots, which I sincerely doubt….but then Dallas was suppose to beat Green Bay easily as was the Chiefs defeating the Steelers.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        Polls and Pundits and experts mean nothing at this stage of the Championship race. Prime example HRC vs Trump.

  12. Dale A Albrecht says:

    The fears of the left that Roe vs Wade will be overturned by a Supreme Court 5/4 conservative mix and Congress with a slightly more conservative tilt will never happen. An individual does have the right to choose what they deem at the time is the right thing to do with themselves. What will be overturned will be the assumed “right” that others will have to pay for that personal choice. Be it drugs, abortion, marriage. We have had a conservative tilt, ie constitutional bias in the Supreme for most of the tme since Roe vs Wade was upheld and it has not been over turned. What now is the issue is that individual choice by the ACA etc being jammed down the throats of those that choose not to make those choices for whatever reasons. Besides the laws are still on the books and have not been overturned that forbid tax payer money to fund such morality based issues.

  13. Something interesting…..Never known the Ntional Archives to have these types of stats…

    National Debt – Year 2009 = $10.6 Trillion…….Year 2017 = $20.1 Trillion
    Debt per US Citizen – Year 2009 = $31,000……..Year 2017 = $61,340
    Labor Force Participation Rate – Year 2009= 65.8%….Year 2017 = 62.8%
    Home Ownership rate -Year 2009 = 67.3%….. Year 2017 = 63.5%
    Real Median Household Income – Year 2009 = $57,744….. Year 2010 = $54,045
    Average Hath Insurance Rate – Family Plan – $12,680….. Year 2010 = $18,142
    Tax to Benefits Ratio – Year 2009 = 60%
    Food Stamp Dependency – Year 2009 = 32 million……Year 2017 = 43.6 million
    Persons living in poverty – Year 2009 = 38 million….. Year 2017 = 45 million
    Number of people on Obamacare private insurance…Year End 2016 = 334,867
    Number of people on Medicaide supplemental – Year End 2016 = 17.4 million

    Source: US Treasury Department, US Bureau of Lablr Statistics, US Department of Agriculture, US Congressional Budget Office.

    I am trying to find something good in these numbers.

  14. Then there is this…..

    Rex Tillerson owns $240 million worth of Exxon/Mobile. Everyone demands that he divests his stake in order to serve as Secretary of State.

    John Kerry current Secretary of State given a waiver being married to the heiress of Heinz Ketchup worth between $750 million and 1.2 billion. When asked about it yesterday, he said that there is a difference bewteen oil and ketchup.

    To that, I have to agree…..oil is black and oozy…..Ketchup is red and oozy.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      Divesting and putting assets in a blind trust are two different things in my opinion. Oil/fuel drives an economy. Ketchup makes you fat and lazy and maybe makes bad food taste better. example Wochestershire sauce. and vinegars……also kills bacteria and foul tastes.

      McCain and Graham come out today in favor of Tillerson

    • And Ketchup is good on fries. Oil….not so much.

  15. Dale A Albrecht says:

    The search engines on the internet make if difficult to get at FACTS. The only facts are those that you personally experience and even those are bias based on personal experience. This bring up the tweets by Trump about the protesters and did you vote or not? Besides the obvious headlines of this weekend, the observations of voting or not seem to derive from protests immediately after the election. The most posted one was the protests in Portland Oregon about Trumps win…..Oregon was lock stock and barrel in HRC’s camp, why destroy property and protest there? Claiming I didn’t vote because my vote wouldn’t matter because of the Electoral College. Or they weren’t even of age or that they were not from Oregon to begin with. Your vote in Oregon did matter. It was elsewhere that it didn’t matter in States that did not adhere to your views.
    Like the gay rights debate the “Defense of Marriage” The Supreme Court kicked it back to the States as in their realm of responsibility. Even California voted against it. Yet some judge ruled against the people of California and started the ball rolling again and then the same Supreme court under Roberts reversed itself. Regardless, this all boiled down to benefits…..Most of the LGBT agenda has been enacted strictly by the wizards in black robes and Executive Orders by one person and telling the vast majority of the States and people “You’re vote and opinion does not matter” If that is not a dictatorship, I do not know what it is.
    Decades ago there was a Governor of Oregon that put it very bluntly to the different activist groups in the State. This was Gov. McCall. There were those groups that wanted to shut down the lumber industry, Fishing, Nuclear power etc. Then those in opposition about the job loses that would occur. He flatly said, choose and I will manage it. I can not do both.

  16. gmanfortruth says:

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/193

    American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2017

    This bill repeals the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 and other specified related laws.

    The bill requires: (1) the President to terminate U.S. membership in the United Nations (U.N.), including any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other formally affiliated body; and (2) closure of the U.S. Mission to the United Nations.

  17. Dale A Albrecht says:

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/6-year-old-immigration-activist-wins-hearts-at-womens-march-193852650.html

    What a tool of immigration propaganda 1) you appealed to the Pope two years ago about your worries about deportation from the US. He is an Argentinian and his vote does not count and has no influence here in the US. 2) you were four and are now six, you have no vote other than trying to influence your parents. 3) Your parents are ILLEGAL ALIENS, Undocumented, call it what you will and their status or voice also does not count.
    The activist decry how terrible we are….try gaining legal citizenship in Canada or for that matter in most countries in this world….In Canada, you damn well better have health insurance because you will not get it there until you are a legal resident. Same with income….you better have a source of income that keeps you off the State doles, until you get through at best estiments is 8-10 years.

    Watching the stream of noisy protesters going by the house yesterday….all entirely on the sidewalks and not one police officer in sight. all had some placard or another proclaiming all sorts of things that rarely were brought up in the campaign if ever. The young women generally had a baby stroller. Whether there was a baby in it I could not see. It was cool and windy and rainy. The young kids were terribly bored and just along because mom said to be there…but then there was the old hippies that missed out in the 60’s and 70’s and feel they need to make a difference before the torch is passed. Very few blacks that I saw if any. Some people from away like from Burma, like they’re going anywhere. Not likely because they are self sustaining and nobody bothers anybody….They made one round of the block and went away and I went back to my coffee. Mostly they were looking and commenting on the grand old houses along their protest route. Besides who is going to be influenced all government offices were CLOSED.

    • Same in Fort Worth…..some women’s group applied for and recieved a permit to march on Sunday in downtown Fort Worth…about 500 people….they walked their assigned parade route, were civil ( No profanity, no profane signs, no burning of cars, no breaking of windows, no yelling, no rock or egg throwing, no beatings, no confrontations…..very peaceful )…..they walked their route on a pretty day…..and went home. No State offices were open, no Federal offices were open…..many stopped by the Starbucks and had coffee and continued their march…many vendors sold breakfast burritos to the marchers, many soft drinks sold to the marchers……free parking for the marchers…..

      A black organizer from Dallas was told to leave when she tried to get people to throw away their coffee and quit buying from street vendors..this organizer said that peaceful protest will do nothing and said that the only way to get attention is to have violent civil disobedience. It was not the police that told her to leave…..it was the parade organizers that told her to leave…

  18. Dale A Albrecht says:

    News for the left….”Princess Leia” is a fictional character. I hope the protest organizers took the time to get permission to use her image from the “Star Wars” franchise. I doubt it.

    • Just spoke to Jr. his reserve unit was involved in the HQ monitoring of the inauguration and yesterday. Very, very affluent crowd and yes, there were a great number of geriatric hippies.

  19. Dale A Albrecht says:

    Now that the inauguration is over and the weekend of arguing about how big was my thingy versus yours is or my dad is tougher than yours and all the other childish schoolyard games being played…..recess is OVER time to get back to running this country as adults.

  20. Just A Citizen says:

    You just have to read this. The definition of denial and lack of introspection.

    Yes, I know the source is hard to take but read the darn editorial. Just don’t read the comments.

    http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/1/22/1622187/-Do-we-think-we-are-morally-and-intellectually-superior

    • gmanfortruth says:

      WATCH: Nasty Woman Kicked Off Plane For Harassing Trump Supporter

      http://www.prisonplanet.com/watch-nasty-woman-kicked-off-plane-for-harassing-trump-supporter.html

      This fits the link perfectly. This is the arrogant attitude of many on the Left, that I rightfully attack (sorry Mathius, but facts are facts).

      • Unless they are alternative facts.

        • KAC. Heard that one too. First I thought ,,,bad choice, But now I’m thinking this is how they set traps. The use of those words will cause everyone to research and the real facts will jump out.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            HUH?

          • KAC?

          • The flap was about the photos comparing Obama’s crowd to Trump’s. The Obama photo was taken during the ceremony while Trump’s was at 11:04 about 1 hour before the ceremony. The crowd in Trump’s photo is a lot less dense and crowded into the corners of the various fenced off areas. Normally people would spread out to gain some personal space. So what the Trump photo shows is a crowd that is still filing in. A gigapixel photo taken during the speech shows an evenly distributed and dense crowd all the way back to the Washington Monument plus additional crowds in the side streets. There is a structure before the Washington Monument so you cannot see clearly to the Lincoln Memorial plus that structure would have blocked any view from back there.

            The news report comparing the to photos is highly deceptive and should be called out as a lie. No one is disputed that Obama drew more than Trump. The forecast on Friday called for rain plus DC voted heavily for HRC so it is not surprising that the turnout was smaller. What pisses me off is that all the other news agencies are supporting the liars.

            • Priebus wasn’t having any of that though. He flat out told them, (paraphrase) you guys are liars and we will push back.

            • A gigapixel photo taken during the speech shows an evenly distributed and dense crowd all the way back to the Washington Monument plus additional crowds in the side streets

              Can you please provide said gigapixel photo?

              Here’s what I’ve got:

              (If you prefer, I can offer up a dozen others showing similar side-by-sides)

              Now, I’l point out that some things:
              A) The Trump one is 26 minutes ealier and you could, very readily have had some “spread out” issue you reference. You can also suggest more people showed up in the interim. But neither one accounts for that big of a difference.

              B) They conveniently chose the left side for the side-by-side. I have see the fuller picture and it shows more people on the right side. This is a definite skew, but you’d be hard-pressed to suggest it makes up enough difference.

              C)

              Spicer: “We know that 420,000 people used the D.C. Metro public transit yesterday, which actually compares to 317,000 that used it for President Obama’s last inaugural.”

              On Friday, the D.C. Metro published ridership statistics for the past four inauguration days. The figures go up until 11 a.m., presumably on the assumption that riders using the system after that are unlikely to be attending the noon-time ceremony.

              Spicer is correct that, per Metro, there were 317,000 trips taken before 11 a.m. in 2013, “President Obama’s last inaugural.” But by that metric, the 2017 figure would be 193,000 — less than half of the 420,000 Spicer claimed.

              In terms of full-day ridership, Metro told The Washington Post that riders took 570,557 trips Friday. But by that metric, Spicer is wrong about Inauguration Day 2013, when there were 782,000 trips taken. On Inauguration Day 2009, per the Post, that figure hit 1.1 million.

              Short version: Spicer is comparing Trump’s full-day ridership to Obama’s morning ridership. If you compare apples-to-apples, Obama’s ridership was 1.5x-2x.

              D) For what it’s worth, the inauguration takes place in DC: A city that voted for Obama by something like 80-90%. They don’t have to commute to show up. Inauguration is basically a city-holiday anyway, so they’re mostly off work. So it’s MUCH easier for a blue-shirt to have a big crowd. If the inauguration were held in Texas, he’d probably have turned out 2.5mm people.

              E) Spicer tried to blame the optics on a “special covering” to protect the grass which he asserted they used for the first time. “That had the effect of highlighting any areas where people were not standing, while in years past the grass eliminated this visual.”

              However, this was used for the first time in 2013. And the evidence proves it.
              ——

              With that said: my issue isn’t that Obama had a bigger crowd. I really couldn’t care less. What concerns me is that it’s pretty objectively true that Trump had the smaller crowd. It’s just simple empirical fact. It is. It’s fact. And if you want to say otherwise, he should offer up that evidence because the preponderance of evidence says it’s not the case.

              Even if you want to call the crowd size debatable (it’s just not), it’s still a LIE that they used the protective covers for the first time. It’s a LIE that Trump had more rail traffic. These are LIES. Simple empirical LIES.

              What concerns me is that his administration, from DAY ONE is objectively lying. Blatantly. Openly. Callously. Unrepentant. And their insistence that black is white and night is day is very disconcerting to those of us who value objective reality.

              That is a very poor omen.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                I will simply state that I have no doubt that fewer people attended Trump’s Inauguration versus Obama’s first Inauguration (and possibly the 2nd). I say this because Conservatives (Right Wing) views their political leadership differently than Progressives (Left Wing). The Right celebrates, high fives, drinks beer and have a good time, their person won. Then it’s back to work. The Left are quite different as they fawn over their rulers, cry like babies (win or lose) and are generally far more emotional. The Left’s political leaders are treated more like Gods than representatives. They are protected by the Left, no matter how corrupt they are (see the Clinton’s). Conservatives go to see history, Liberal’s go to worship. So yes, far more people went to Obama’s Inaugurations, far, far more.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Mathius

                Speculating here but I think you will only see this behavior as the press and left make attacks on Trump as a brand and not necessarily his policies. They will keep doing it because they want to damage him and they think catching him in these harmless lies is somehow damaging. Not realizing it often makes them ALSO look petty.

                But then again, his used car sales pitch may just continue on all fronts.

              • Gman:

                Objection!

                Bullshit without supporting evidence.

                ———–

                JAC:

                they think catching him in these harmless lies is somehow damaging.

                SHOULDN’T it be damaging that he and his administration lie so casually and blatantly?

                Not realizing it often makes them ALSO look petty.

                Agrees. But the press being petty isn’t an issue.

                The President of the United States being petty is an issue.

                But then again, his used car sales pitch may just continue on all fronts.

                Can you elaborate?

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Mathius, Supporting evidence:

              • From a commenter on another blog, for what its worth:

                CNN Chopped a good bit out of that gigapixel image.

                Go to top of buildings height.

                Scroll left as far as you can.

                Then scroll right as far as you can. It will end right at the CNN tent marked clearly atop one of the office buildings. See it?

                Now scroll right again. Not even close.

                Gigapixel is a 360 degree image. CNN chopped out the section showing other networks.

                Note also the gogapixel image can be stitched. Images taken at different times. Look at the numbers of people not looking at Trump. Well, who did they come to see? Take images during say, Schumer babbling, then merge that bored audience with Trump speaking. Photographers looking elsewhere or fiddling with cameras? During the main speaker’s time? I don’t think so.

                Pictures can lie. Even hivh resolution images.

                Gigapixel may jave the full image elsewhere. The CNN image is incomplete.

              • I just found some BS going on with that gigapixel which verifies the “stitched ” together thing the commenter mentioned.

                Just after the first handrail leading up the stairs (general area behind Trump)…next handrail starts…to the screen right there’s a suit guy>MAGA hat guy>2 poncho guys> then a double headed guy!

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Mathius

                Yes, POTUS constantly lying is an issue. But that is for you and me. The point is that many in the media and on the left just want to keep feeding that frenzy for political purpose.

                They could just back off and wait to catch him in a lie about something really important. But before that happens they may destroy their own credibility. So in this sense it is important if they look petty.

                As for elaboration on used car salesmen. We are going to build a wall and it will be the biggest wall and the best looking wall and people will think it wonderfully beautiful.

                We are going to get Americans back to work, bring back manufacturing and the economy will be great.

                Trump is a businessman and he has some real positives in this regard. That is bringing positive attributes to bear on government. But his business was largely driven by his BRAND. Which in turn was built upon his ego. As an expert in building his brand he puffed up the greatness of the brand. He also defended it against all detractors.

                He is like a con man in this regard but it is not really a con because his brand was and is real. It had and still does have a real economic value. The same personal traits that helped him create that global brand and business are now aimed at Government and Governing. I do not see him changing who he is in this regard.

                So I will try to ignore it all as best I can and focus on what is actually happening at the policy and regulatory level.

                I have often stated my dislike for the “personality” Trump. But I do have to admit, or bring up, something. A little something both I and my anti Trump wife have noticed. Those people who spend time with Trump seem to have nothing but good things to say about him. There are a few detractors from the past who do not have a political axe to grind, but over all a pretty small number given the breadth of his contacts.

                So if he were truly this vacuous person, how could so many people like him at a personal level? Why would they talk about his “smarts” if he displayed ignorance?

                There seems to be a disconnect between much of the persona, “used car salesman” which I do not care for, and the actual person who is a businessman and now Chief Executive.

                Besides, I think good times are ahead simply because this is the first Right Handed President in 24 years. Ever since the lefties got in the White House we have had nothing but problems.

              • err, W was right handed.

                You guys are both taking Trump too seriously. I see him as more of a bullshitter than a liar. Like the fish story where the fish gets an inch bigger for every year passed. Now if he comes out and says something like ” I did not have sexual relations with that woman” or the video was the cause of Benghazi…THAT’S a lie. Relax.

              • Dale A Albrecht says:

                The Italian word for LEFT is sinistra….translates into english quite well…..sinister

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Then there is this despicable act, caught on camera (she is busted)

      http://www.prisonplanet.com/video-anti-trump-protester-sets-trump-supporters-hair-on-fire.html

      This also shows that not ALL on the Left are lunatics………..watch till the end.

    • Ok…..I read it…..and even read some of the responses…..very…..ummmm….enlightening.
      “a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.”

  21. gmanfortruth says:
  22. Mathius…..after you take a look at my article on the Electoral College……how about tackling what is considered a “conflict of interest”…….

    BTW…..good morning to you.

    • This is one of those topics I’ve avoided digging into because there’s just too much speculation and not enough hard facts.

      I believe someone (the ACLU?) just filed a boat-load of freedom of information requests related to his business interests. We’ll see if anything pans out.

      I can say this: the fact that we don’t know is interesting. If there’s nothing to hide, then he should tell us. He’s not a private citizen who gets the benefit of the doubt, he’s the President. The President should be above suspicion.

      Doesn’t it at least raise an eyebrow that he has business interests all around the planet and you and I, fellow citizen, have no idea what those are?

      If a third party threatens or offers to benefit his interests, and we don’t know what those interests are, he can easily wield the power of the President of the United States to serve those third parties and we’d be completely ignorant. That’s not a problem? Even if he doesn’t do it, the fact that he can should be considered problematic, no?

      The President really shouldn’t have divided loyalties. And loyalties to a business empire are still a dividing loyalty.

      —————————————–

      I’ll try to put this in other terms:

      Imagine if your commanding officer let you know that he was also on the payroll of some other governments, but promised not to do anything to compromise US interests or abuse his post. However, he won’t tell you what governments, what his interests were, or anything else about it. You just knew he was getting wealthy from some foreign source(s). Would you trust him to have your best interests at heart? What if you are called to operate against his interests? How would you know you were doing it? How would you know you could trust his leadership? Might he restrain you from otherwise necessary/proper action? Might he suppress or bias intel against his benefactors? Might he emphasis or bias intel against his benefactors’ enemies? How could you have confidence in his command?

      And even if he didn’t do any of that, would you still consider it appropriate for him to lead you under these circumstances?

      • gmanfortruth says:

        For the most part, the President and Vice president are exempt from conflict of interest laws. While I disagree with this, it is what it is. Now if Liberal’s were as concerned about this subject before Clinton sold off 20% of our Uranium to Russia, after a generous donation to the Clinton Foundation as they are about Trump’s possible activities, which will be under extreme scrutiny by the Liberal press, then I might be concerned. But, I’m not concerned, because of what I just mentioned. He’s rich enough, not taking any pay to do the job and there is no evidence he will engage in things that would be less than acceptable to his supporters, who wouldn’t condone such actions.

        You do realize that he will be under an extremely powerful microscope, right?

        • For the most part, the President and Vice president are exempt from conflict of interest laws.

          True.

          But that doesn’t mean it’s right.

          Nor does it mean we shouldn’t know what his other interests are.

          Now if Liberal’s were as concerned about this subject before Clinton sold off 20% of our Uranium to Russia, after a generous donation to the Clinton Foundation as they are about Trump’s possible activities,

          I’m not going to get bogged down in Clinton conspiracies.

          If if she did what you say she did, that wouldn’t make it right either.

          And just because they didn’t bitch about it then doesn’t mean they aren’t right to bitch about it now. Nor, for that matter, if they defended it then does it give you leave to defend it now.

          Right is right and wrong is wrong and it is WRONG for the President to have unknown loyalties.

          You do realize that he will be under an extremely powerful microscope, right?

          Is that so they can see his tiny hands? 😉

      • Your two examples conflict so I will stick to the business example.

        “I believe someone (the ACLU?) just filed a boat-load of freedom of information requests related to his business interests. We’ll see if anything pans out.”

        This is going to be interesting. I know that the Obama administration stalled over 300 FOI requests on Clinton. Be interesting to see what pans out on this one. I do not think that there is much in the way of penalty for not providing the info,,,,it seems to be so many of these FOI’s that are not adhered to from both sides of the aisle. I am actually under the impression that there is not much ado about them.

        ” The President should be above suspicion.” No sir, the POTUS was a private citizen before he took office….he should be afforded the same rights and privileges even being POTUS.****

        “Doesn’t it at least raise an eyebrow that he has business interests all around the planet and you and I, fellow citizen, have no idea what those are?” No sir, this does not bother me if the business is legit and it is a Business and he has no dealings with the business (such as negotiating, etc)…such as a blind trust. HOWEVER……if he has dealings with a government, then I would look askew at it. Just as I looked askew at Clinton’s pay for play deals. I will say this….IF the POTUS does this, then he is a one term POTUS and he loses his following including me.

        “If a third party threatens or offers to benefit his interests, and we don’t know what those interests are, he can easily wield the power of the President of the United States to serve those third parties and we’d be completely ignorant. That’s not a problem?” It is a potential problem, however, if he has no infuence over his business dealings while in office, then I see no problem.

        ” Even if he doesn’t do it, the fact that he can should be considered problematic, no?” No sir, given the current state of things. Now, if you would broaden your scope to mean all elected public officials and not just single out the POTUS, then I am on your side. But the POTUS is the same as a Senator, Representative, Judge, executioner, dog catcher…if on the public payroll as an elected or even appointed official. If the POTUS has to do it…..so should all.

        “The President really shouldn’t have divided loyalties.” Agreed.

        “And loyalties to a business empire are still a dividing loyalty.” Yes they are but no different than loyalties to a movement or a lobbyist or even to a personal interest. President’s have all done this for decades, well, centuries, now.

        Sir Mathius…….I believe that any elected official should present his holdings, investments, cash position to the world. But this does not happen. Kerry, being a great example, and the Heinz corporation being exempt from Obamacare and the taxes associated with it. Same with the corporations that reside in specific districts that have been exempted. Washington is corrupt….no doubt about it.

        However, with respect to Trump, I have no problem with his empire owning hotels all across the globe and people stay in them and they pay for their stay. I disagree with Trump’s decision on the Washington DC hotel…..he has decided to donate all his profit from the hotel to the National Treasury. I would not do that. It is a business…and he does not run it. But that is his decision. I do not see any other President that has done anything remotely like that….and I did not see Obama,nor any other President nor cabinet for that matter, not take a salary.

        Now….I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, just as I did Obama, until he proves it wrong. But suspicion is not it. I can suspect you to be a Commie but that does not make you one and I do not expect you to have to prove otherwise.

        • You seem to be suggest that it’s ok for him to have interests provided
          A) he doesn’t know what they are (blind trust)
          B) he doesn’t control them (his family manages it for him)
          C) he doesn’t do business with foreign governments

          Did I get that about right?

          Now, if you would broaden your scope to mean all elected public officials and not just single out the POTUS, then I am on your side.

          Deal.

          But the POTUS is the same as a Senator, Representative, Judge, executioner, dog catcher…if on the public payroll as an elected or even appointed official. If the POTUS has to do it…..so should all.

          Actually, no.

          POTUS is exempt from many conflict of interest laws.

          And shouldn’t be.

          Agree?

          Whatever the most stringent conflict-of-interest laws there are, they should apply to the person in the strongest position to take advantage of said laws: namely POTUS.

          To turn that into military speak: If you need a background check to be a grunt in some department, you should need at least that level of background check to be his supervisor, and preferable even more.

          ——————

          You didn’t address my attempt at a military comparison.

          • No, I did not address your attempt at a military comparison…other than to state that they were in conflict with one ‘tother……

            You must remember, I was once under UN command…..it was utter nonsense, delusional, SNAFU from the beginning and only helped solve the ethnic cleansing..in allowing it to continue.

            Now as to the business side…… I would even extend item B to extreme. He attends no family business discussions, renders no opinions on the success or failure of business options, nor even render caution.

            And, I do not agree on your limitations to conflict of interest laws……the ones that I was able to find did not single out the POTUS as exempt to anything. If you wish to make it a rule, law, edict or whatever, that any and all public officials must not only disclose holdings but put all business things into a blind trust…..I am on your side. I do not think that a POTUS should be held to a higher standard than all public officials should be held to.

            As to your military speak, any security clearance background check is the same for a private or a general. The only controlling factor is ” a need to know “…..For example, I hold exactly the same security clearance as the POTUS. The highest there is…..my background check was just as rigorous as his…..but I cannot see the same things because I have no need to know……and I certainly do not want to be POTUS….I want to be KING. And, I have no doubt, I would be a proper KING……………KING COLONEL……has a nice ring, doncha know.

  23. Dale A Albrecht says:

    Newest climate change analysis…..”The last time the world had sustained temperatures this high the oceans were 6-9 meters higher”. This is apparently 125,000 years ago. Pardon my ingnorance, but wasn’t the temps over 1000 years ago higher than today, and also way higher with far higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2 during the dinosaur days? The catch phrase, disclaimer, always is that the temps are the highest recorded in modern times since 1880.

    This was out of the University of Oregon.

    • The reported rise is not statistically different than zero.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        I was just pointing out the continued gloom and doom scenario,,,,New Orleans and other coastal cities will be covered……Move as others did when the oceans rose and fell

  24. Simple question: As a citizen, born an raise, of this here country, should I get an equal say as anyone else as to who should run the country?

    A simple yes or no will suffice.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      That is a question that T-Ray can also ask when concerning the EC. To answer both of you 🙂 one vote per person equals a say. Not winning with your choice doesn’t mean the rules must change, that would be……..childish…..maybe 😀

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Mathius

      Yes. But where we disagree is I say you already do.

      You get the same voting power as I do within the State you reside. Because you live in a bigger State, your State gets more votes for POTUS than mine. But each of us has the same vote and voting power regarding selection of who our State chooses in the EC.

      If you insist on the EC as somehow removing your equal “say” then my answer is NO.

  25. Yes…….and you do. ( See how well I learned from you…there is no simple answer )

    • No. I don’t.

      I get 1 vote. Yes. For the Electoral College representatives from my state – not for President. I don’t get to vote for President. And neither do you.

      ——————-

      My state has 19.75mm people and 29 Electoral Votes.

      That means that my vote translates to 681k votes per EC vote.

      The EC is what votes for President, not citizens.

      So, put another way, I get 1/681,000th of a vote for President.

      Wyoming has a population of 584,000 and gets 3 electoral votes.

      That means that a Wyomingan (Wyomingite? Wymonian?) vote translates to 194k citizens per EC vote.

      So, put another way, they get 1 / 194,000th of a vote for President.

      —————

      Let’s just put that side-by-side:
      I get 1/681,000th of a vote for President.
      They get 1 / 194,000th of a vote for President.

      So it take 3.5 times as many New Yorkers to get one vote.

      ——————

      And, if you’ll kindly note, the bulk of those stes that get the highest per capital voting power tend to be reliably red states.

      It’s almost like the Electoral College systemically disadvantages states with larger populations and that, crazily enough, the people who seem to love it are the very one who benefit most from it. What are the odds?

      • gmanfortruth says:

        I’m disappointed that you didn’t bring this up after 2008 or 2012. But I’ll let the good Colonel have at this one, his article 🙂

        • I’m not sure I didn’t. I have written quite a bit on here.

          But it’s not such a big issue when the winner of the popular vote also wins the electoral vote. It falls under the category of “who cares how the math worked out as long as the winner still wins.”

          But you can bet your ass I was whining about it last time the winner lost the popular vote. Now, when was that… oh right, BUSH – another Republican.

          Isn’t it interesting the conservatives support a convoluted arcane system where the people’s votes don’t actually count for anything.. and that that same system has twice now elected their guy over the popular vote winner.. I’m sure that’s just coincidence, right?

          I have been a proponent of abolishing the EC for as long as I have been politically conscious (around 2000).

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Fair enough. I’m sure you know that all 3 branches of the Federal government were chosen differently when the Constitution was ratified, Yes? Originally, the people didn’t even pick Senators, the State legislatures did. The only popular vote was for the peoples house, the HoR. The reason behind all of this was to avoid becoming a Democracy. Should an Amendment pass making the President election by popular vote, then this country will surely parish, as all Democracy’s have and will in the future.

            • I am well aware of how the branches were set up. I had a teacher who made us write out the whole Constitution by hand (we had to start over if we made any errors). We all then signed each other’s copies as one of the signers (I was Roger Sherman). I might even still have my copy somewhere.

              ———–

              Should an Amendment pass making the President election by popular vote, then this country will surely parish, as all Democracy’s have and will in the future.

              [Citation needed]

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Mathius

                See the history of Athens. See the Federalist Papers. You will find numerous quotes about the failure of “democracy” and why they chose to model the Romans and not the Greeks.

      • To really calculate how much of a vote you get, you should divide by the number of people who actually voted, not by population. I’d be curious to see if voter turnout made much difference in your comparison. Also, aren’t the number of electoral votes based on the census? In the US census, they count everybody, not just people who are eligible to vote. So do states with large illegal populations or very young populations get more representation than they should?

        • I would love – love – to do that, but I barely have time to SUFA at all without getting into state-by-state breakdowns of demographics and voting habits. It’s also worth noting that the surveys this time around turned out to be pretty far off, so it’d be hard to get solid data that way (garbage-in equals garbage-out). Additionally, some of the solid states (eg DC, or TX) hardly got any surveys in the months before the election (why spend the money? We know how DC and TX are going to vote).

          Also, aren’t the number of electoral votes based on the census? In the US census, they count everybody, not just people who are eligible to vote.

          Yes, but every state gets at least three votes.

          3 votes out of 538 is 5.57% of the votes. That translates to the votes of 1.77 million people.

          So smaller states (which tend to be more conservative) get their representation inflated because they have to hit that minimum number of EC votes.

          And, because those extra votes have to come from somewhere, they come from the biggest states (which tend to be more liberal).

          So it’s not straight census numbers. Red States get made made bigger and Blue states get made smaller. And that’s how Clinton could win the popular vote by more than 3 million votes, but still lose the election fair and square.

          So do states with large illegal populations or very young populations get more representation than they should?

          I’ll break that in two pieces.

          1. Illegal immigrants are – absolutely – counted in the census. The problem here, as I understand it – is that, because the census feeds the distribution of federal funds, to not count them would.. well, just read this: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/censusandstatistics/a/censusandaliens.htm

          Anyway, to your point, though, I actually agree! I don’t think illegal immigrants (or non citizens of any stripe) should count toward the allocation of votes for elected office.

          That said, I’m not really sure how you break it out, or if doing so would be feasible, but hey, you offer me a reasonable plan and I’m on board. Only citizens get to vote, so only citizens should count toward the vote. Easy Peazy.

          (Disclaimer: With that said, I think everyone who wants to be a citizen and isn’t a known threat should be granted instant citizenship – however that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand)

          2. Very young populations are still citizens. They still are governed. Ostensibly, on a net basis, the votes of their parents represent the interests of the children. To exclude children and the “very young,” would mean that they are rendered governed without representation. We don’t let kids vote because, well, kids are idiots. My daughter would probably vote for President Dragon (come to think of it, that’s not a terrible idea). So the adult vote gets inflated commensurately.

          It’s imperfect, but it’s not really an issue in my opinion.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        Your attacking the wrong problem. It is not the EC system. It is the number of House members which is controlled by Congress.

        Increase the house to match 1 per 30,000 people and see what happens.

        Montana has about 1 million people but only ONE Congressman. Under current rates of allocation they should have ZERO. But obviously they should have at least one, right?

        That added to the two Senators per state gives you the silly prorated EC votes per citizen numbers.

        • Increase the house to match 1 per 30,000 people and see what happens.

          Let’s increase the number to whatever the current population is!

          Everything gets put to a national referendum. Now that would be bedlam.

          Interesting bedlam, though.

          Montana has about 1 million people but only ONE Congressman. Under current rates of allocation they should have ZERO. But obviously they should have at least one, right?

          There are 538 votes and a population of 318mm. That translates to 591k votes per ec.

          With 1.024mm people, they should get 1.73 votes.

          But wait! There’s more!

          Montana voted for Trump 56%, Clinton 36%, and Other 8%.

          So they should send one person to vote for Trump who gets to cast 0.97 votes.
          They should send another person to vote for Clinton who gets to cast 0.62 votes.
          And they should send another to go cast his protest vote who gets 0.14 votes.

          …..

          OK, fine. I’ll answer in the spirit intended.

          Yes. Montana The People of Montana should get at least one vote. Of course they should. If not, they wouldn’t be represented.

          And just to be crystal clear: F*** Montana. Montana is a rounding error. Montana is so insignificant, I have no idea why I ever had to memorize its capital in 4th grade (Helena). HOWEVER, The People, of Montana are human beings and citizens in equal standing to all others of this nation and they – not some oblong Canada-bordering moose-filled lines on a map – are deserving of full and equal recognition to all others. As such, redundantly, each of them should get an equal say to you and I as to who is the President.

          I could not support any system wherein The People who are rightful citizens of the nation do not get a say in their governance. But that, precisely, is the current arrangement if you are, say, a liberal living in a deep-red state or vise-versa. The EC and the states’ winner-take-all system means that, if you are a dissenter in your state, you do not get a vote, even if MOST Americans agree with you.

          Now, at the risk of repeating my self, The People should get their votes heard, not the state. The People. And therefore, I have no personal concern whether their vote is broken out fractionally (see above) or in whole numbers, so long as the result is the same. That is, simply: the person who more Americans want as their President becomes President.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            Logical chopped salad: “I could not support any system wherein The People who are rightful citizens of the nation do not get a say in their governance. But that, precisely, is the current arrangement if you are, say, a liberal living in a deep-red state or vise-versa. The EC and the states’ winner-take-all system means that, if you are a dissenter in your state, you do not get a vote, even if MOST Americans agree with you.”

            No matter what system you use the minority will NOT HAVE A SAY. To have a say in govt is to have some influence. Even in Democracy the minority has not say. Which is in fact one reason the current EC system was devised. To assure that a minority view could carry enough weight to win the day, occasionally. Note that only 5 times has disparity between popular and the EC vote materialized. And one of those times involve candidates who were ALL from the same party (Democratic Republicans).

            Equating having a say with voting is a false claim when it comes down to nut cutting time.

            As I said when we discussed this issue last time. We cannot reach agreement because we cannot agree on the fundamental issue or principle. One man one vote, OK by me. But that is not the principle at hand. It is the form of Govt.. One man one vote is how we operate within that form of Govt. And on that we will not agree.

            Now if you were to affirm the role of States but want to discuss realigning the State boundaries, we could have a good discussion.

            • Logical chopped salad

              I do love chopped salad. It’s really just a shredded cold cut with extra lettuce and less bread the way I make it, but yum.

              Now if you were to affirm the role of States but want to discuss realigning the State boundaries

              This could be a very interesting idea. I’d love to hear your thoughts.

              Let’s break CA, NY, and TX into parts.

              We can merge North and South Dakota (two we really need TWO Dakotas?)

              Let’s break the pan-handle off of Florida.

              Well, now I’m getting concerned about state-level gerrymandering.

              Your thoughts?

              • Texas already has that right…..North Texas, South Texas, East Texas, West Texas, and Central Texas…..let’s see…that makes Texas have 10 Senators and 15 more electoral votes.

              • that makes Texas have 10 Senators and 15 more electoral votes.

                Unless you do some funky gerrymandering, they’re not all going to be Red.

                Plus, you’ll never do it because then 4 of them are going to have to forget about the Alamo.

      • You ain’t getting away with this one…….give me some time….business in the way.

        • If “business” is getting in the way, you’re doing the “retired” part of “retired colonel” incorrectly.

          Now were in tarnation is that steak I ordered?

  26. Just got off the phone to my charges and counter parts on the border…..morale is booming. The Border Patrol is now back to enforcing Federal Law and they no longer have non lethal ammo. Everybody fleeing to California. Our illegal crossings went to nil this weekend….averaging 3,000 per week. There were only 26 in three days.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      Mexicans are protesting at several border crossings over the high gas prices there. US entry is still intact and obviously being enforced now, but from the article I read, many posts on the Mexican side had been abandoned and entry was unrestricted.

  27. When you do that [removing NY and CA from consideration], Trump wins the popular vote 56,423,100 to Clinton 54,338,590 in 48 states. This paints a pretty hard picture of how two states could control the POTUS.

    Yes!

    Well, sort of.

    You missed an important nuance.

    States aren’t real things. States are just borders that house real things: namely CITIZENS. So I’ll go a head and rewrite your sentence – see if you can spot the difference.

    When you do that, Trump wins the popular vote 56,423,100 to Clinton 54,338,590 in 48 states. This paints a pretty hard picture of how two states could control the POTUS. a minority of the population can impose its will on the majority because the share that otherwise makes up the margin of victory lives in specific geographical areas which are systemically disadvantaged in the voting process.

    Subtle, I know.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Your missing our history. The States, not the people, ratified the Constitution and formed the Federal government. To change the Constitution, via Amendment, it requires a 2/3rds majority of the States, not the people. History my dear friend is a great teacher 🙂

      • Your missing our history. The States, not the people, ratified the Constitution and formed the Federal government.

        With all due respect to the honorable Gman, but SCREW THAT.

        The states didn’t do squat.

        States didn’t fight King George. People did.

        The states aren’t real things. They are lines on a map created by THE PEOPLE.

        All power is derived from We The People.

        And I know this because “We the States” didn’t ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

        To change the Constitution, via Amendment, it requires a 2/3rds majority of the States, not the people.

        I am well aware. And, of course, to change it would require that states who get a disproportionate benefit vote to give that up. Seems unlikely.

        How awfully convenient.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          First line of the Preamble: We the people OF THE UNITED STATES.

          The States are and were a huge importance to the Nation forming and continuing today.

          When the EC came about, we didn’t have many States or a very large population, but the power of the individual States remained throughout. Things have changed some since the 1st Civil War, but the States still have a little power. I will agree that is quite unlikely the EC will go away, unless the whole Federal government is dissolved and we start over. That would be AFTER the 2nd Civil War.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Even in formation of our Nation, “We the People” exercised that power THROUGH or duly chosen REPRESENTATIVE to first the Convention and then to the State Legislatures.

            In this regard then it is correct to say that elimination of the EC in favor of popular election will mark the official end of our Nation, as it was intended.

            While not complete, it represents the end of Representative Constitutional Republic and replaces it with a Representative Democracy. The latter in my view cannot stand for long before moving to just plain Democracy.

  28. gmanfortruth says:
  29. Just A Citizen says:

    This is why our modern system automatically gives the EC elector to the winners of the popular vote. And why so much importance is placed on getting a clear winner within each State.

    The 1876 presidential election was one of the most contentious and controversial presidential elections in American history. The result of the election remains among the most disputed ever, although there is no question that Democrat Samuel J. Tilden of New York outpolled Ohio’s Republican Rutherford B. Hayes in the popular vote, with Tilden winning 4,288,546 votes and Hayes winning 4,034,311. Tilden was the only candidate in American history who lost a presidential election despite receiving a majority of the popular vote.[9]

    After a first count of votes, Tilden won 184 electoral votes to Hayes’ 165, with 20 votes unresolved. These 20 electoral votes were in dispute in four states: in the case of Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina, each party reported its candidate had won the state, while in Oregon one elector was declared illegal (as an “elected or appointed official”) and replaced. The question of who should have been awarded these electoral votes is at the heart of the ongoing debate about the election of 1876.

    An informal deal was struck to resolve the dispute: the Compromise of 1877, which awarded all 20 electoral votes to Hayes. In return for the Democrats’ acquiescence in Hayes’ election, the Republicans agreed to withdraw federal troops from the South, ending Reconstruction. The Compromise effectively ceded power in the Southern states to the Democratic Redeemers, who went on to pursue their agenda of returning the South to a political economy resembling that of its pre-war condition, including the disenfranchisement of black voters.[10][11]

  30. Just A Citizen says:

    The EC issue.

    As I said before the primary difference between Mathius’ camp and mine is their desire for Democracy and mine for Republicanism. The State is not recognized within Mathius’ position.

    But something else is involved, I believe. At the heart of this is the proper, as in Constitutionally determined, role of POTUS. It is only for POTUS that this entire issue of the Electoral College exists.

    Mathius’ camps is driven by the modern view of the POTUS, while mine is driven by what should be the role of POTUS. That of the King vs that of the Govt.’s Executive.

    I would also like to point out that Mathius’ argument about equal say over govt. and that States are nothing but imaginary lines, with “individuals” being the ONLY sovereign will lead you to one conclusion. Logically speaking of course.

    That is that the Senators and Congressmen should also be chosen by National Popular Vote.

    Just sayin……..

    • The State is not recognized within Mathius’ position.

      Yup.

      States are nothing but lines on a map (sorry, Texas, it’s true!).

      They are nothing but administrative districts. They have no rights and no powers of their own save what they derive from The People within their borders.

      (for that matter, the same applies to countries)

      Say it with me: People are the only sovereign units.

      one conclusion. […] that is that the Senators and Congressmen should also be chosen by National Popular Vote.

      Yup.

      Representation should be of The People. Proportionately.

      Not the states.

      Wyoming (my perennial punching bag) does not get a say. The PEOPLE of Wyoming get a vote. And they get a vote in proportion to their population. They are 0.2% of the population, therefore they get 0.2% of the representation. Easy.

      Instead, they are 0.2% of the population, but they get 2 senators and a rep equating to 3/538 = 0.5% of the representation. In other words, 2.5x more representation.

      All citizens are equal. Therefore, all citizens should get equal representation. Where they live should be irrelevant.

      • “Representation should be of The People. Proportionately.”

        ” People are the only sovereign units.”

        Since people are sovereign entities, they can only be represented by themselves. Thus proportional representation is individualism.

        But you argue in favor of a majority to represent a minority by force, therefore contradicting your reasoning and stated position. Which is it? Are humans individuals or borg?

  31. Free ranging today.

    As I said the other day, why do we no longer say, “These United States” ? Emphasis on THESE. I suspect because of the lack of proper civics instruction in the schools. Matt wants to be France. I don’t . Older folk can remember when NY State WAS the big kid on the block all by its lonesome. Go on about California if you like,. lord knows who the hell is living in that state. Texas and Florida are the ever growing new big kids. Eventually California will collapse.

    the election is over, Trump is president and TPP and NAFTA are the issues of the day. Trump had crowds but it rained on his parade and my younger friends were Afraid to come with their kids. Obama was a spectacle and part of his inauguration was an effort by even those in opposition to come and show support for the first Black elected. Wanna do comparisons? How about Bush 2 round 1 or Clinton 1. How did those stack up? Anybody care? I doubt it, no controversy there, no fires to be stoked, no little gotcha’;s from the press.

    I find the MLK/Churchill bust more interesting. The crowd size is a distraction with a possible hint of fake news. The MLK bust is fake news in full swing with the usual retraction that no one saw except this time they did not let them get away with it!

    • As I said the other day, why do we no longer say, “These United States” ? Emphasis on THESE.

      Because we’re one country, not 50 and it’s time y’all start accepting that fact.

      The War of Northern Aggression is over. We done wiped the floor with you. Let me know if you’d like to go a second round – we’ll put you on your backsides again. Then maybe we’ll pass a few extra amendments just because – maybe clarify the 2nd Amendment.

      I suspect because of the lack of proper civics instruction in the schools.

      That too.

      Matt wants to be France.

      Well, I do like croque monsieur and baguettes…

      I don’t.

      Probably something to do with all the unnecessary vowels they insist on using over the. I mean, seriously. Oui? No, that’s pronounced “we.” Let’s spell it that way.

      Or maybe it’s the unnecessary apostrophes?

      Older folk can remember when NY State WAS the big kid on the block all by its lonesome.

      Excuse me? New York IS the big kid on the block. And Trumperino is going to only exacerbate that. New York is the other capital of the United States and Texas can just go wish it was them.

      He that controls the wealth… well, we control the banks, don’t we 🙂

      Go on about California if you like,. lord knows who the hell is living in that state.

      Um… the rest of my family. Everyone I went to high school with? About 38.8mm other people?

      Texas and Florida are the ever growing new big kids.

      Bring it on, Tex! Florida is going to sink into the ocean before it can come anywhere close to either of the big boys (TX and CA).

      Eventually California will collapse.

      Well, I mean, it is very seismically active. Give it enough time, Vegas might be beach-front.

      the election is over, Trump is president

      Yup. C’est la vie. (see?? French has it’s uses!)

      and TPP and NAFTA are the issues of the day.

      We’ll see what happens. I wouldn’t bet on him being so quick to pull out of NAFTA. Nor would I bet on Congress letting him so easily. But, we shall see… we shall see…

      Trump had crowds but it rained on his parade and my younger friends were Afraid to come with their kids.

      Waaaa.

      2009: 19-30 degrees. (my brother nearly died.. but he is from CA, so…)
      2013: “high in the high 30’s” (shrug)
      2017: “high of 47, light drizzle” (warmest January Inaug. on record)

      That’s not why Trump didn’t have crowds. Trump didn’t have crowds because Obama had the home-field advantage. DC went 90% Blue. It’s like wondering why the Yankees sell out at home, but don’t have a big draw in Tulsa. Well, duh. There just aren’t as many Yankee fans in Tulsa. Done. Easy.

      Trump didn’t have a huge crowd (relatively speaking) simply because his supporters were located elsewhere. Obama did have a huge crowd because, shocker, his supporters were close by. That’s the whole story.

      Obama was a spectacle and part of his inauguration was an effort by even those in opposition to come and show support for the first Black elected.

      Eh.

      Like Trump wasn’t going to be a spectacle? Don’t overthink it. Obama’s fans live close by. Trump’s don’t. That’s why he had more fans show up.

      Wanna do comparisons? How about Bush 2 round 1 or Clinton 1. How did those stack up?

      No idea. Who cares?

      Anybody care?

      Hey, I asked you that!

      I doubt it, no controversy there, no fires to be stoked, no little gotcha’;s from the press.

      There is certainly a horse-race narrative going on. Nothing really to report other than a big show, they’ll pick it apart to present some entertainment. Que sera sera (whoops, that’s not French…)

      I find the MLK/Churchill bust more interesting. The crowd size is a distraction with a possible hint of fake news. The MLK bust is fake news in full swing with the usual retraction that no one saw except this time they did not let them get away with it!

      I don’t know what this is.

      —————

      And now, just to reiterate. My issue isn’t with the crowd size. I honestly don’t care one iota.

      I care that Trump / Trump’s administration are baldfaced lying about demonstrable objective reality on DAY ONE.

      And it bodes poorly for the future.

      What happens when something serious happens and the population deserves to know and he just flat out lies? And half the country just goes with it. And the media spend their time debating whether reality is real instead of what to do about the issue. Is that a good situation to be in?

      Is that what you want in your President?

      • “Because we’re one country, not 50 and it’s time y’all start accepting that fact.

        The War of Northern Aggression is over. We done wiped the floor with you. Let me know if you’d like to go a second round – we’ll put you on your backsides again. Then maybe we’ll pass a few extra amendments just because – maybe clarify the 2nd Amendment.”

        See…there ya go again…..Texas is around just because it is convenient….we are still a Republic…..biding our time. As to your other point…..New York against Texas for all the marbles? You are ON!!!!!!!

        “Well, I mean, it is very seismically active. Give it enough time, Vegas might be beach-front.” Funny you should say that…..have some property in Vegas area betting on beach front.

        “Is that what you want in your President?” NO>…..we already had that……need something different….I am telling you KING COLONEL….

        • NY would wipe the floor with TX. We’d just cut off your funding and trading. Then we’ll hire mercenaries to clean up the mess after you collapse.

          Go ahead, print your Loan Star Bucks. I love watching hyper-inflation (from a safe distance).

          I would send in the up-staters but, well, I’m not convinced they’d be on our side..

          We might decide to take out Oklahoma just for good measure. A message must be sent.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            I can just see Liberal NYers show up swinging big red dildos 😀 Come on Mathius, everyone knows Liberals don’t have guns and those that do are more dangerous to themselves then Texans (or Pennsylvanians). However, I think outside of NYC you wouldn’t have too much support.

            • We don’t have to use guns. We have something far more dangerous.

              We have Goldman Sachs.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Then what you have, per one infamous person, is a shit sandwich filled with dog shit wrapped in cat shit, all of which is owned by the Fed. It aint yours to play with.

              • It’s cute that you think the Fed owns GS and not the other way around.

              • Dale A Albrecht says:

                Mathius…..I totally agree with you on your “far more dangerous” comment about Goldman Sachs. GS owns the Fed and Treasury Dept….it’s a revolving door from my limited observations

          • Ok…Oklahoma…..most of Oklahoma is ok….start with Norman and Stillwater….then ask us what is next.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      Clinton season 1/2 and Bush II season 1/2 had roughly 1/2 of the MSM estimates at Trumps inauguration, which obviously was never going to meet Obama’s historic events whether you like him or not.

      The bust issue is interesting, but what I found more so was the press bemoaning that the rug with Martin Luther King quotes was removed. I hope it was put in a place of honor like a tapestry and not on the floor and walked on with the bottom of ones shoe like it was for 8 years……that is a total sign of disrespect even here and not just in the M/E.

  32. Ok, Sir Mathius.. ( do you have a suit of armour to go with the “Sir” title you have been bestowed?”………..The only disagreement you and I have is the state issue. States should have an equal say…….population divides up the number electoral votes….

    Buck, the ineveitable Walla, made a statement to me one time that I have not forgotten….it was when I made the statement, similar to yours, ( cant remember the subject ) ….that the majority rules……to which he agreed………………………………..then he added “except where the majority infringes on the rights of the minority”…translation = majority does not rule. So a State not getting the same voting power as another….falls into his statement. ( Yes, I know…he is a New York lawyer ) but that statement has stuck with me.

    JAC pretty much said what I was going to say and there is no reason to go over it again….BUT, I believe that the states should have equal say as it is currently held. I will never agree to popular vote because it is too easiy controlled by three areas….that do not think like the majority of the states.

    Good discussion….now, let the Dread Pirate go.

    • because it is too easiy controlled by three areas

      See, that’s the problem.

      Forget that it’s “three areas.”

      It’s not areas that control anything.

      It’s PEOPLE.

      And in those “three areas” are a whole mess-load of people.

      More people than are outside of those areas.

      “Areas” are just where PEOPLE live. AREAS don’t vote. AREAS don’t count. AREAS are just lines on a map.

      PEOPLE matter.

      Why shouldn’t the areas people in those areas get to control if there are more of them?

      now, let the Dread Pirate go.

      Send me a very large steak and we’ll talk.

      • “Why shouldn’t the areas people in those areas get to control if there are more of them?”

        Because it goes against Buck’s rule.

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          NY gets what NY wants, CA gets what they want as a State and their popular vote totally counts there. However, what they want is not what maybe the other 49 States want, or maybe less of it. The EC makes all States count. The weighting even though there are the electors based on population in a State….minimum of one plus two regardless. We all agree that each State get a strictly population based count of electors plus two regardless of population, Supposing we REMOVE from each State the two not based on population and then do the electoral count again. There are a total of 540 electoral votes up for grabs today. Remove 100 for the two (senators) from each State that leaves 440 electoral votes. Divide by 2 and 220 is the target to reach. Trump had 224 based on that formula and HRC had 192……..Totally population based in each State. Nobody complains about the House of Representatives and the amount of members allocated by each State.

          Trump still wins.

      • What kind of steak?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Because all people are pretty much the same in their thinking in those areas. To reverse and paraphrase Mathius, kind of convenient don’t ya think that those areas which would dominate the popular vote just happen to be left wing.

        • Because all people are pretty much the same in their thinking in those areas.

          Do I gather, by extension that you believe all liberals are alike, but all conservatives are somehow diverse?

          I’ll let you in on a little secret: all people are pretty much the same. Mathius’ Laws apply, sure. And, yes, we city-folk bias left and you country-bumpkins bias right. But the idea that we’re sheep who all bleetingly think alike while you are rugged individualist who came to your beliefs independently is nonsense.

          Most liberals are liberal because they were born into liberal societies and/or to liberal parents and/or had liberal piers.

          Most conservatives are conservative because they were born into conservative societies and/or to conservative parents and/or had conservative piers.

          As diverse as conservatives, so, too, are liberals.

          As smart as liberals are, so, to are conservatives.

          As DUMB as liberals are, so, too are conservatives.

          As indoctrinated as liberals are, so, too, are conservatives.

          Liberals are human beings with human minds and human feelings and human thought processes and these are, by-and-large, no different that conservatives.

          Liberals love to act like they’re fundamentally smarter than conservatives. They’re not. The best studies have shown an itsy bitsy edge for liberals in IQ that’s inside the confidence margin. We’re just as smart – and just as dumb – as you guys.

          Conservatives love to ask like we’re a bunch of patchouli smelling hippies and efeminate weenies. We’re not. We’re the same as you guys.

          Get over it.

          ———–

          kind of convenient don’t ya think that those areas which would dominate the popular vote just happen to be left wing.

          …because.. there are more of us than there are of you…

          We just so happen to be clustered tighter together. That’s it. That’s the whole issue. There are more of us, but we live close together and you done. And, because you dominate the land area of the US (as if that somehow matters), you get to control every level of government even though – and I can’t stress this enough – there are more of us than there are of you.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Mathius, Conservatives run 39 States (Governors) and have the absolute majority in 36 State houses (numbers may off a little, going on memory). Not to mention that Conservatives have picked up over 1000 seats in local/State and Federal government doesn’t seem to fit your mantra. In fact, I would bet that Independents are the largest majority (the middle) with the left and right being close to equal in declared numbers. However, most independents I know are more aligned with conservative views.

            You should also consider what the recent elections are really showing…..the death of progressivism. The majority ain’t buying the lies anymore, thanks to Obama and todays current group of Democrats. Progressivism is being rejected. Even HRC couldn’t save it against a populist businessman.

  33. ANd then there is the dad, standing on the street corner with his young son watching the women’s parade……..pointing out and saying…” LOOK SON…and angry purple haired woman dressed as a vagina here to lecture us on human dignity.”

  34. Re Conflicts of interest:

    Trump tower houses the Adu Dhabi Tourism & Culture Authority which is, of course, owned by the UAE.

    Trump Tower also houses the Commercial Bank of China. In fact, its lease expires during Trump’s term. This means that the Chinese government (which owns the CBoC) will be in negotiations with Trump’s organization.

    Mr. King Colonel says: “HOWEVER……if he has dealings with a government, then I would look askew at it.”

    Do you look askew at this?

  35. I know many of you love a good conspiracy theory. Here’s a Mathius original:

    Raise your hand if you are familiar with the parable of the deer and the horse.

    (assumes a complete absence of raised hands).

    In addition to the ever-popular Aesop’s fables, young Mathius also had a book of Chinese parables. You really wouldn’t believe how many parables they have and how little sense most of them make when translated to English.

    But then there is The Parable of the Deer and the Horse.

    (I have no idea the actual text, so I’ll just write it out as I remember it)

    Once, there evil general who wished to usurp the emperor. He knew he had support in the royal court, but did not know who he could count on.

    One day, he gave the Emperor a gift of a deer (possibly a goat.. I read this a long time ago.. let’s go with deer). He informed the Emperor that it was a fine horse of noble breeding.

    The Emperor, of course, did not believe him. “Well, if you don’t believe me, let’s ask the court” suggested the general.

    Some members of the royal court called the general a fool and pronounced it an obvious deer.

    Some kept quiet, perhaps afraid to defy the powerful general, but unwilling to support an obvious falsehood.

    Some, seeking favor or cowardly, pronounced it to be a fine horse, indeed.

    Later that night, the general had all those who had called it a deer rounded up and executed because they had oh-so-conveniently identified themselves to him.

    He then usurped the thrown. And, of course, no one defied him.

    ———————–

    Omarosa Manigault, Trump surrogate: “But let me just tell you, Mr. Trump has a long memory and we’re keeping a list.”

    ———————–

    Now, I’m just asking questions here, but what paranoid conclusions might we be able to draw from this tale?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      The last President said, over and over “you can keep your healthcare plan if you like it” and “you can keep your doctor”, over and over and over. He was the President and your worried about a surrogate that most have never even heard of. You may be suffering from Trump Delusion Syndrome, which has been rampant as of late. Relax, it should pass when you realize that things are really improving in the country, which shouldn’t take long.

      • Just chumming the waters, old friend.

        Until Trump proves otherwise, I’m just going to assume his primary goal is self-aggrandizement after a joke that went way too far. 🙂

        • I bet that Obama is kicking himself……he actually showed Trump how to win…

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          Mathius…….you know the old saying…..”You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink”

          I was thinking today while running errands, and I’m willing to wager that the administration may very well get (SOME) jobs to return, but my bet is that most will go unfilled by our young citizens. They’ll feel that these jobs are beneath them after their college degrees and the jobs will be filled with none other than “legal documented immigrants” I’ll even go on to say by the “undocumented” migrants, because they will not get deported unless some criminal felony arrest is made, like murder assult etc.

          There will be a fundamental shift in the education field. Starting in HS, people will be tagged as worthy to advance into universities, and I’ll say 1/2 will head towards technical trades. So when HS 12 grade completes you can hit the road running with actual needed job skills. There is a vast need in this country for technical trade, nursing, etc you do not need to go to college to learn how to fill out medical insurance forms.

          What say you?

    • That Mathius could not remember if it was a deer or goat?

      • Some concerted googling determines it was, indeed, a deer.

        (what did we do before the interwebs?)

        • The same thing we did before pagers and cell phones…..you actually went to……ge ready for it……..a LIBRARY (you know, the big buildings filled with books)

    • Nothing but entertainment on the way to MAGA.

      Example 1 RNC
      List: Ryan and Walker mainly who are childhood friends of Priebus
      Action: Make Priebus Chief of Staff as a conduit to a good relationship with the RNC
      Result: Preibus seems to have grown into the position and will either do a good job or Trump will let him go

      Example 2 Pussygate
      List: haters
      Action: Within a couple days, Melania enters the debate seating area wearing a Pussy
      Bow (rhymes with hoe) blouse.
      Result: Pure entertainment and a shot across the hater’s bow (rhymes with how)

      Example 3 Elaine Chow
      List: Mitch McConnell, forever obfuscating something
      Action: Nominate Chow (McConnell’s wife) to a Cabinet to hopefully persuade McConnell to not be such a jerk.
      Result: Remains to be seen but as with Priebus, she can get let go just as easily.

      So, seems to me that his list will be dealt with one way or another, but ONLY in a way to benefit America.

  36. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    Re: Realigning the States. I thought I posted this link before. Maybe you missed it. Maybe I just thought I did and forgot. Anyway, here is one idea of how to go about it.

    The irony is the author left out a very big chunk of ground filled with people. The unnamed State would be bigger than Texas and the people within it would be isolated for the most part, from each other. Violating the authors goal.

    https://mises.org/blog/no-country-should-be-bigger

    Another concept is to use broader eco-regions and ecosystems. For example, the State divide in the Idaho/Montana area would follow the Mississippi vs. Columbia basin divide. Parts of Idaho/Nevada/Utah would be in the Great Basin with the rest in either the Columbia or Colorado watersheds.

    • ::Shudder:: Mises… ::holds nose::

      The state of “Deep South”! I love it!

      Tentatively, I would support this.

      Though, I, too, am not sure about that weird gangly un-named state. But I think there are only like 12 people living it is, so it’s not really that important.

      My big concern is that you’d have to re-draw the state-lines every decade or so and I don’t want to get into a gerrymandered map.

      I also don’t want to have to re-memorize my capitals again.

      • OOOOO.. I’ll challenge you to a game of Name the State Capitol

      • And I bet you think that the capitol of Texas is Austin….

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        I don’t know the country east of Denver very well, or the area south of Nevada. But the reset of the west would not change much. In fact, the original territorial boundaries come closer to this guys map than the eventual State boundaries. You see the economic centers have not changed much in over 100 years. Some get bigger but the centers themselves and the distribution of trade around them has remained.

  37. Just A Citizen says:

    OK. I found this hilarious. Don’t shrug it off. Turns out this study and the theory are real. Which makes a lot of sense. Thus the maximum Clan/Tribe that actually inter relates is about 150 people.

    Anyway, enjoy.

    http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html

  38. Ok, off topic, but I have to share…

    “I refuse to accept the results of the AFC and NFC Championship games.
    Tomorrow I’ll be picketing, protesting, looting, rioting and forming support groups.
    Contact me privately for details.
    #notmysuperbowl”

    Besides, methinks the Russians hacked the games!

  39. Since the Republicans are now in charge, Matt, you should get to work convincing them to get rid of the electoral college. Maybe in the next four years they could get it done, and we could just have one big national, popular, election for the next president. The federal government (run by the red shirts) would need to be in charge of it to make sure it’s fair and all. Maybe they could nix that two term limit while they’re at it. Nothing scary about that. 😉

  40. Dale A Albrecht says:

    The internet and fans of Taylor Swift are outraged that she chose not to support and participate in the “Women’s March on DC”…..isn’t the left being totally disingenuous with their anti-bullying objective? To be fair all sides do it, but I’d expect the left to be free of this behavior and respect a persons right to CHOOSE.

  41. Would you rather be hit in the head with a red hammer or a blue hammer?

    Would you rather the right or left hand be used?

    Would you rather it be a sunny day or a cloudy one?

    Would you rather it be morning, afternoon or evening?

    IT DOESN’T MATTER, YOU FRIGGIN’ IDIOT! YOU ARE GETTING SMACKED UPSIDE THE HEAD WITH A HAMMER. THERE IS NO PREFERABLE WAY TO BE HIT IN THE HEAD WITH A HAMMER!

    • I’ll take the blue hammer, please. Blue is my favorite color. Sunny day during the spring.
      Thanks.

    • That’s Ms. Idiot please.

      • No, you’re evil because you’re unethical when it comes to getting your way.

        Anita says ” I want what I want and will do what I have to to get it, even if I know it comes at the expense of others, that others have to suffer for my gain.”

    • gmanfortruth says:

      The definition of being hit constantly in the head with a hammer, regardless of color, is continuing to push a societal model that is predicated on the changing of the natural actions of a living creature that is thousands of years old and has NEVER acted in such a manner to live in such a society in the way imagined. Or, maybe that is the after affects of being hit in the head with a hammer, regardless of color, far, far, too many times 🙂

      • You are rationalizing violence and enslavement because you are either not intelligent enough to understand, or too brainwashed to think beyond what you’re told to think.

        You respond with a straw-man that denies human nature, reality and thousands of years. People do and have been getting along very well and much more efficiently without being forced to do so, for a very very long time.

        It has never been utopia as you mischaracterize, but it has always been that way because that is the reality of the way humans function socially.

        Wake up, fool. Think of another way besides bashing people over the head with your henchmen.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Your memory is as short as…….nevermind, you fail to understand that I’m actually in favor of your Utopia, but also wise enough to know it isn’t possible over the long term.

  42. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/23/mark-zuckerberg-hawaii-land-lawsuits-kauai-estate

    And why are libs not out protesting about this? Oh maybe because it’s a lib that is taking land and building walls…..that makes it ok?

  43. The significance of the crowd size argument is not the size of the crowd but the distorted impression that the images left in the minds of the viewers. People are visual animals so the split screen image leaves a huge impression. The MSM know this well. The deception was to show photos taken at different times relative to the ceremony and then to cover up the majority of the Trump views with the Obama crowd. Not only was this biased message aired by its originator but it was echoed and not corrected by all the other networks.

    KAC and Priebus did a poor job of presenting their counter arguments. Instead of trying to correct the crowd size, they should have attacked the deceptiveness of the presentation and warned the press that such sloppy deceptive reporting will not be tolerated.

    Personally, I am also disappointed that all the other networks went along and defended the original presentation. Competition should be such that they hammer the other guy for such deceptive practices. But then we all know from Rush’s morning montages, that they are all working from the same taking points.

    • Right, right, and right.. The big picture is to diminish Trump. About KAC, Priebus, and Spicer….they could have done better defending from the jump…but….they are pushing back better today…and… I think they may be on a short leash to an extent…purposely…to allow more facts to come out on their own as everyone combs over the evidence.

      • I just listened to Spicer’s presser. He did a good job of explaining the frustration within the Trump team. Not sure if anyone learned anything, but I hope they keep calling them on the biased reporting.

  44. Dale A Albrecht says:

    Sander’s and some other major democratic senators came out FOR Trump’s new trade initiatives….ie withdrawing from TPP. Obviously Schumer will side with and policy with Israel…that keeps his seat…….McCain was against the new trade initiatives…things will be interesting

  45. gmanfortruth says:
    • A clear product of a liberal education.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      I have always wondered and have also asked “whites” who hate whites, why they do not lead the way and jump first, or do a monk thing.

      I do understand after watching many of the protests about women’s reproductive rights..they’re correct…they should not reproduce.

  46. gmanfortruth says:

    A question for Mathius and/or Buck 🙂

    For years if not decades, there has been a lot of talk about “equal pay for equal work” for women. I can go back several President’s with this mantra being used as a campaign issue. During the recent Pro Choice march in DC, this was yet again and issue, which leads to my question/observation.

    If this issue is still a problem for Liberal women, does that not make Obama’s Presidency a failure when it comes to women’s rights?

    My answer is NO. Not because he failed to fix the problem, but because the problem doesn’t exist and is nothing more than Liberal nonsense that has been debunked.

    What say you?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      It should read “an issue” NOT “and issue”. 🙂

    • It does exist, but it’s only a few cents on the dollar, not 28 cents as frequently indicated. And during Obama’s tenure, this gap did shrink.

      But there are a ton of other factors that get ignored in the larger debate.

      1) First, the most lucrative fields are male dominated. That’s not because women can’t get it, but because they don’t pursue them. (disclaimer: anecdotal evidence is not evidence) I started my college career in comp sci. There were dozens of us, but only one or two girls. But when I looked over at the “gender studies” or “child psych” or “art history” or teaching, etc, it was dominated by women. The engineering department (we had a good one) was begging girls to consider a switch. They actually had a mini campaign to get girls to consider it. If you consider the fields into which men and women voluntarily sort themselves, men pursue higher paying fields and women don’t. Period.

      I make a lot more than my wife. Why? Because I’m a CTO at a hedge fund and she’s a teacher. We chose those roles. She’s smart as they come – she could easily have found something lucrative. She didn’t. She pursued her passion (and good for her!), but to complain about a pay gap as between us would be ridiculous. I would love to pursue my passion of hand-carving canoes – but that’s not going to pay the bills.

      2) Women work shorter, more flexible hours. Fair or not, women tend to bear the brunt of child rearing. As such, they need holidays, they aren’t flexibly available, they need sick days, not just for themselves, but for their kids or when the nanny is out. They also bear the brunt of “home-making” including cooking and cleaning. As a division of labor this is very much so a real job. It’s just not a “paid” job. While I’m at work until 7, she’s home getting the kids ready for bed, making dinner, straightening up, packing lunches and who knows what else. Sure, her “job” ends at 3:30, but does it really? No.

      And so, a lot of women work these unofficial unpaid second jobs that are never captured in the statistics. If you could include this and bill it at a fair value, my wife would probably make just as much as I do.

      And I’ll also add that men tend to almost never be the stay-at-home or working part-time spouse. For whatever reason, it’s viewed as emasculating. As if the role of a man is to be the bread-winner and home-maker isn’t a real and vital job. I don’t get it. But it is what it is.

      3) Labor participation of women in their 20’s is decreased due to pregnancy. Another of those unfortunate realities, but men don’t get pregnant (except that one time). And women who quit the labor force and then re-join a year or two later severely stunt their career trajectory. It’s also the case that, legal or not, companies are hesitant to hire women for important roles if they believe the woman will likely be out on maternity – it’s a dead cost to the business.

      4) Lastly (off the top of my head, anyway, is something a recruiter once told me. He said that women are more passive negotiators for salary than men. It has to do, he believed, with perception of being naggy/demanding (that men are seen as go-getters whereas women are viewed as, well, nags). Whatever the cause (again, note that this is anecdotal) he observed over the years and thousands of placements that men routinely held out for more money whereas women often accepted the offer as-it. It’s not really the company’s fault that the woman didn’t demand more money, now is it?

      ———–

      So, to recap, yes, there is a real discrepancy, but when you account for the above, it virtually disappears. People should shut up about it and go after higher paying jobs if they want more money. The highest paying jobs are male dominated, the lowest are female dominated – so switch fields. If my wife wants to work a 60+ hour a week job that pays really well, I’m happy to be a house-spouse.

      How many of the people whining about “equal pay” majored in Women’s Studies, do you suppose?

    • Gman……Obama is gone and everybody recognizes that he was an elitest as well…and cared nothing for “the little guy”.

      Let’s just watch what Trump does……it was no secret that Obama’s administration paid women less except in “his circle”…every single Clinton organization did the same thing.,,,it is public record.

      It is Trump’s show now…..the one thing that he has to do is win the media war and the only way he is going to do that is being straight forward….use his tweets….confront them when they are wrong, and praise them when they are right. Spicer is right about taking the battle to them….

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      Just an aside….the military is very much an equal pay, equal tenure, equal rank organization. However, my experience was back 42 years ago…..those three items were present, except….the fourth critical element……equal work was notably missing.

  47. Huge pow wow in the West Wing yesterday. First Trump meets with CEOs. Then come the union leaders, the working unions…pipefitters, welders, skilled trades. Everyone comes out impressed and optimistic. Then he brings in the leaders of the House and Senate. All to lay out the plan. Who was missing? Donahue and the Chamber of Commerce, who is the face of the GOPe and Wall Street, and Trumpka, with his SEIU and AFL-CIO cronies. This is where the shtf for 1)the Ds, because now the Rs have the ear of the unions…and how can you argue against the unions being happy about job growth. and 2) the Rs because its no longer about Wall Street, its about Main Street.

    Economic populism! Gotta love it, right JAC?

    MAGA

    • It’s all bullshit unless your govern-god ceases regulation of ALL economic activity.

      • He’s calling for 75% reduction in regulations. How about give credit where it’s due. Or are you so intolerant that you must have it your way. Your colors are showing.

        • “He’s calling for 75% reduction in regulations. How about give credit where it’s due.”

          He is calling for forcefully regulating 25% of the economy. Even if it was all about him, It still simply isn’t good enough. The current mess needs to be replaced with a free market economy. Otherwise it is bullshit.

          “Or are you so intolerant that you must have it your way.”

          My way is to not be a serf who is forced into everything in my home land. You’re god damned right I am intolerant of being violated.

        • Anita…..when are you going to learn not to argue with anarchists? Elisheba is not intolerant…he is an anarchist. It has to be their way or no way….there is no compromise nor in-between. You will just end up with a sore head because the wall will not give…..just pick his brain for another perspective and then move on.

          • IIIIII knowwww, I’m a glutton for punishment.

          • “…there is no compromise nor in-between”

            That is exactly right. There is no in between or compromise with rights. Either they are violated or respected. There is no good reason to tolerate being violated.

            Now if I could only get you folks to realize and admit that you are all criminals and terrorists, we might actually get somewhere.

            • Ok…I am a criminal and terrorist….now what.

              • Oh, I am also a capitalist….or at least I lean pretty heavily that way.

              • Stop being a criminal and terrorists. Try getting along and respecting your neighbors instead.

              • Capitalism is good if it isn’t forcefully regulated.

              • But I do get along with my neighbors and I respect them all….until they do not deserve it. But if you are including neighbors to be world wide……that could be a challenge….I do not turn the other cheek nor will I and neither do you…..but I do read your perspective, my friend.

              • If you vote (I believe you do, if I am not mistaken), it means you are a criminal who violates your neighbors (as well as strangers) by proxy of a terrorist organization called Texas and The USA.

                While you are a nice man, very personable and reasonable, with lots of admirable characteristics, etc… you still organize to violate people with government.

                That is not respecting your neighbors.

              • Well, sir, guilty as charged. We do have a government…I do live by it….thus far. Mostly….

              • If you vote (I believe you do, if I am not mistaken), it means you are a criminal who violates your neighbors (as well as strangers) by proxy of a terrorist organization called Texas and The USA.

                I like this guy..

              • “Well, sir, guilty as charged. We do have a government…I do live by it….thus far. Mostly….”

                So stop. Stop engaging it or supporting it. Stop feeding it’s evil.

              • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

                Elisheba,

                They can’t.

                They cannot conceive of a functional world without the looming threat of government violence to hold everyone in check.

                Like the religious people who cannot conceive of a moral atheist, they believe that without the government monopoly on force to keep everyone in check that everything would break down.

                They so fear true freedom that they have convinced themselves that “freedom” is really just the current regime of enormous all-powerful lawless government-enforced slavery and theft.. but scaled back 0.001%.

                They imagine that, maybe someone like Donald Trump might possible keep his promise of “returning power to the people.” HA! I have a bridge to sell you. Government does not return power to the people. Government takes. And it takes. And then it takes more. And the men and women – the only true sovereigns – not only willingly hand over yet more power, but fight and beg for the government to take more.

                No, freedom is too scary of a proposition for the men and women raised in the mind-indoctrination of modern America. So they redefine the meaning of the word and fetishize it – all the while demonizing “the left” who are a hair’s different from themselves.

                They are lost, friend. They will never see as you do until the collapse comes.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Elisheba, as a reminder, Dread Pirate Mathius still lives in a part of Dumbfuckistan and his alter ego voted……..for Hillary Clinton. DPM is at least funny, entertaining and says the right things. 🙂

              • Elisheba, as a reminder, Dread Pirate Mathius still lives in a part of Dumbfuckistan

                Y’aarrggh!! I live on the high seas!

                and his alter ego voted

                I cannot be held accountable for the actions of the individual known only as Mathius.

                I did not vote. In fact, before the election, I even spent a good amount of time trying to convince you – Gman – of this exact point: that voting is an imposition of your violence upon others. Do you recall?

                DPM is at least funny, entertaining

                Mathius is funny and entertaining, too, you know…

                and says the right things.

                It is easy to say the right things when you just speak the truth. To see the truth, one need only clear the cobwebs from before their eyes.

            • Ha. He dislikes you more than us 🙂

          • Is this the new Black Flag?

            • I am not sure….still trying to figure him out…..he said something a while back…that makes me wonder whom he really is…….it could be BF in drag.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Yes, but more obnoxious. If you can believe that.

            • Trust me here Colonel.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              No, Elisheba is NOT Black Flag, not even remotely close. Actually Elisheba is a pretty nice guy. Not saying Black Flag isn’t as well, but I know both well enough to tell them apart….and they are very different people.

            • Flag isn’t the only anarchist in the world. He just made sense of it to me.

              After much consideration, Anarchy is the only thing that makes sense.

              • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

                Can you spell out your vision for me?

                My good friend Mr. Flag and I spoke of his vision many times, and I often found him too… idealistic. Perhaps the better word would be unrealistic.

              • “Can you spell out your vision for me?”

                An(No) Archy(Rulers)

                The premise of Anarchy is exactly that; No rulers. That means anything but some humans ruling over others. It is premised on the inalienable human condition of individuality and choice. God says we rule ourselves. Whatever god is, it is an Anarchist.

                My vision is whatever the hell people want it to be, as long as it allows for people to choose, to rule themselves and determine their own lives. Anarchy is whatever you make it, whatever people decide.

                Most people like order and calm, all things pleasant and copacetic, secure and comfortable. Thus most people will naturally seek and exhibit that in their actions. Humans are social creatures, and will naturally form an appropriate social order. If that social order is not strictly Libertarian, it is incorrect and will eventually fail. That is to say that Libertarianism is our eventual natural state, our equilibrium if you will.

                My vision is the modern (or future)world, with all the conveniences and systems that work so well for humanity, only without rulers, which makes room for better, more efficient and peaceful means of doing things.

                In Anarchy, you still have suburbs and running water and freeways and cops(with a different job description)and electricity and jobs and cell phones and farmers and accountants and mechanics and factories and office buildings and insurance plans and fast food chains and hot Japanese girls.

                The difference is that it is all voluntary. People do it because they want to, how they want to, because they say so, and no one is forcing anyone to do anything.

                I find it odd that you see it as unrealistic, when it happens everywhere, every day, any time people peaceably organize of their own free will. I find statists to be the unrealistic ones. In spite of reality, they think govern-god faux paper magic words and guns world can somehow change it. Like light and gravity and everything else, God says we’re humans and choose for ourselves, determine our own values, etc, etc.. But statist world says that geography determines what you will do with your time and property.

                It’s complete bullshit.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Anita

      Economic populism is not something to love, or like. So NO!

      But I am reserving judgment on Trump’s actions until I see some actual action.

      So far most of the orders amount to statements of intent, akin to firing a shot across the bow.

      • Ok. Start your judgement now because it’s on. 2 pipelines have the go ahead now with the USA making the pipe! I don’t know what else you’re waiting on. Yes, there’s still the permitting process and all that, but its happening.

        I see no assaults on the constitution…aside from the fact that the entire big govt is an abuse, but this populism business is nothing compared to the abuse brought on by social justie, or fake wars.

        • Does mean that when they are done, that guy, Warren Buffet, (remember him, “My secretary pays more taxes than I do”) will lose a fortune. His tanker cars have been hauling that oil. Personally I consider train spills a lot worse than pipeline spills. They tend to explode and burn for days.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Anita

          A perfect example. Trump did not order the pipelines to begin construction. And he has no power to force the use of USA steel. Not sure we even make the kind of pipe required anymore.

          He signed orders urging agencies to move forward and then said he would make requirements of the companies to use steel and labor, and who knows what else.

          He has NO SUCH AUTHORITY. The Supreme Court has previously denied such unilateral power for POTUS to dictate outcomes to agencies in advance of their decisions.

          Besides, building a pipeline is not the “populist economics” you were talking about. Forcing use of US steel and labor is getting there, but not the pipeline approval itself.

          So as I said, I will wait to pass judgment until something actionable floats to the surface.

          • JAC, I would imagine that THAT is what was being discussed with the CEOs and labor unions. I hardly think that Trump is forcing anything on anyone. He’s meerly opening the doors for it to happen. It was part of his whole campaign. something, something, we’ll rebuild with American steel, American steel will be the spine of our country. Why do you think everyone came out of those meetings happy yesterday. Nothing is getting forced anywhere. People are ready to make stuff happen!!

            He has no such authority??? He’s not pushing American steel companies to do anything…they’re banging the doors to get in.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Anita

              Authority? I was referring to his ability to dictate the outcome of agency decisions. He cannot simply order the agencies to approve of construction without completing the process dictated by law.

              The Supreme Court ruled that Bush II did not have the authority to develop a “rule” that undermined a “rule” developed by Clinton dealing with use on roadless lands in the US (federal lands). They ruled that He overstepped his powers by “arbitrarily” deciding to undo the prior rule without scientific support.

              If you recall, I mentioned this before as a potential barrier to any republican president making changes to things imposed by democratic administrations.

              One reason why court appointments are my biggest concern. I want more Thomas and NOT Scalia. But everyone keeps bragging up the Scalia approach. I am worried. But I remain hopeful in that several of Trump’s potential candidates seem friendly with the Federalist Society. Not a perfect outcome for me but a heck of a lot better than Scalia’s bipolar rulings.

              Now, do you really want a POTUS with the power to decide how people must conduct their business, (aka., FDR?)? I appreciate him making suggestions to them. But there is no way I want him dictating what they must do to get a permit approved that is beyond his explicit authority. Otherwise he is no different than Obama who stopped the project for no reason other than his own and that the law is designed to work against progress rather than for it. In other words, POTUS can arbitrarily stop something by presenting a fuzzy reason. But POTUS cannot make something happen without copious volumes of Environmental studies saying it is OK.

              Which by the way, is what Trump and Congress need to fix.

              • Instead of connecting the dots, you get stuck in the mud. Things are going to move along now. I’m just gonna include this pipeline project for the moment

                1) announces a 75% rollback on regulations…yes, I realize they all have big goals, and yes I realize that will take time…but it’s HIS TIMELINE…not at the pace the govt is accustomed to operating
                2) meets with ceos
                3) meets with labor
                4) meets with congress
                forseeing the very near future…and no I don’t know exactly how this works but probably something along the lines of

                Cabinet members draft their plans of attack with laser focus on efficiency to accomplish this particular project. For this project I’m sure EPA regs will be dealt with…the dept of interior does their thing, the dept of energy will do their thing, whatever other depts are involved in something like this will be on their game…but they’re all going to be doing something…BECAUSSSSE…he HAS DOERS in his cabinet, not talkers.

                Plans get fanned out to committees to begin drafting all the proper legislation…on Trumps timeline, and I bet darn sure that he keeps a timeline….cause all he has to do is tweet and he has mega support. Elections are right around the corner.

                There are plenty of hawks around to make sure he’s within the law. It’s all falling in line JAC…I may have a simplified look at it, but I think I’m on the right track.

                If this isn’t economic populism, I don’t know what is. It’s the fed making it easy for the private sector to do business. Stuff that benefits ordinary people. Like jobs. And reaping the benefits of those jobs.

          • JAC…you will not have too wait long……we did not down here. A simple phone call sufficed and we are in full swing with the INS and BOrder patrol…..catch and release has been sunsetted, the use of non lethal ammunition has been sunsetted, the border has suddenly become very quiet…..for the first time in 10 years. In the last four days, at least in Texas, not one child has crossed the border…not one truck full of illegals has crossed the Texas borders…it is almost like a switch was flipped. The Texas National Guard has now moved its operations to the actual border in concert with Border Patrol…….I do not know what is happening in Arizona or California….but I do know what is happening in Texas and New Mexico……it is really weird. It is now making me wonder what we have missed….even the armed camps on the Mexico side are disappearing.

  48. Correct me if I am wrong but is not the representation in the House dependent on the total population as determined by the census rather than the number of citizens, legal residents or voters? Does not that mean that CA is over represented on EC due to the large number of illegal aliens in the country?

  49. President Trump….interesting meeting this morning. Trump is certainly going to piss of George Soros…..signs order to begin pipeline…..just now.

  50. Trump freezes Federal hiring……good first start.

  51. Well, gotta go do the capitlaist thing for awhile…..see ya’ll later….Hold the fort Anita.

  52. Mathius.,,,,,,re-reading some of your commentary….I have an issue with you but will wait for a new thread….actually, not an issue….you made a statement that I find troubling….almost made me withdraw the Cowboy cheerleaders from your front lawn ( your son appreciates them )….anyway, I want to discuss it with you……..( the anticipation is building, I can feel it )….

    • I say a lot of things – and I don’t always think before I hit enter – how ’bout a hint?

      (but I stand by my assertion that NY would wipe the floor with TX – I can’t apologize because it’s true)

  53. Matt and Dread…throwback from the good days. BF’s vision. This entire article, page, comments is excellent if anybody is interested in memory lane.
    https://standupforamerica.wordpress.com/2010/01/18/i-dont-want-to-tame-big-government/

    Black Flag says:
    January 19, 2010 at 4:33 pm
    JAC

    Looking across the valley at a village where Black Flag lives. Wondering whether to go stay or just visit for a beer before returning to my village

    As you know, you’re always welcome.

    The village is always a buzz when you come and visit – celebrations spontaneously explode everywhere! And, of course, the beer flows freely those days….

    …and you can stay as long as you wish. You’ll always find a welcome room in any home at the village.

    …and if, one day, you decide to make it your home – there is a nice piece of property (for sale, of course) just over there that’ll fit you just fine, I reckon!

    🙂

    Mathius says:
    January 19, 2010 at 5:04 pm
    I’ll come for a visit.. just let me get my tetanus booster first.

    I’m very curious to see how things work over there.. for example, who cleans up roadside litter? And given that the beer factory is massively polluting the river, is the solution just to locate the town upstream?

    Also, is there a generally agreed upon designated area for duels so as to avoid death by stray bullet?

    These questions and more.. I shall have to bring a notepad..

    Maybe I’ll also bring some new technology as gifts since your abhorrence of the concept of intellectual property will stagnate R&D. And maybe some books too, since nobody there is likely to spend a year writing and have someone else just sell copies on the internet without royalties.

    Anything else you need before I head over? Let me know. I’m scheduled for some time off the week of Feb 14.

    Black Flag says:
    January 19, 2010 at 5:22 pm
    Mathius,

    I’ll come for a visit.. just let me get my tetanus booster first.

    Yuck.

    Please stay away for at least two weeks after that shot. We wouldn’t want you infecting the rest of us with all that crap you just shot into your arm.

    I’m very curious to see how things work over there..

    Equally, we’ll ask you to forgive all the strange stares from us. It’s not often we see a wandering ‘slave’.

    🙂

    for example, who cleans up roadside litter?

    Those that are annoyed by litter either do it, or pay someone to do it.

    And given that the beer factory is massively polluting the river,

    NOT HERE!

    Poisoning someone else is strictly forbidden. It is an act of violence against another person.

    The beer plants are all prestene. Yeah, we had a few others try to come in here and sell their crap, but it wasn’t long before the People realized they were merely poisoning everything.

    Most of the people simply stopped buying their stuff. They went bankrupt eventually – bought up by some group from JAC’s tribe – they’ve made a real go of it!

    is the solution just to locate the town upstream?

    If you can tell the difference, let us know!

    It’s probably cleaner downstream.

    Also, is there a generally agreed upon designated area for duels so as to avoid death by stray bullet?

    There’s an area over yonder called “Slave-land” that some sneak over to duel. Most “duels” here are debates in the middle of town square where the one with the best facts, reasoning and truth mixed with the best rhetoric usually wins.

    Not always though. That’s what makes it fun! 🙂

    These questions and more.. I shall have to bring a notepad..

    More than one I’d suggest…

    Maybe I’ll also bring some new technology as gifts since your abhorrence of the concept of intellectual property will stagnate R&D.

    Are you kidding??? We’re so far beyond what you’ve dreamed!

    Ya see … when we see genius, it’s popular. The stuff he invented gets built and rebuilt and copied so its everywhere.

    But everyone knows where it came from. He’s the talk of the town, rarely pays for anything – heck, the amount of money that just drops at his door anonymous is staggering! He wouldn’t want it any other way!

    He loves seeing his inventions EVERYWHERE – nearly everywhere his eyes falls he can say – “I invented that!!”

    Richest man in town, I’d guess….

    And maybe some books too, since nobody there is likely to spend a year writing and have someone else just sell copies on the internet without royalties.

    Books are for pansies… but the blogs are rich – flowing with free thought and debate – one of the fav’s around here is some strange blog called “SUFA” – everyone’s always there throwing their free ideas around – purifying them with the test of the real flame of unfettered thinking – USWep is some what of a hero around these parts….

    Anything else you need before I head over? Let me know. I’m scheduled for some time off the week of Feb 14.

    Bring gold – your paper money doesn’t carry here.

    I love, love, love this convo.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Smiling!!!

    • Just over 7 years ago… wow! Great find, Anita!

      But I’ll point out that Mr. Flag never did make a compelling case for his vision. This just isn’t human nature as I’ve ever seen it.

      For example, the people downstream of the beer factory might boycott, sure, but the ones living upstream won’t care. That beer is cheaper, so they’ll buy it. Or, maybe they won’t and the factory will sell two towns over. You think they’re going to pass up cheap beer?

      So then what? Mr. Flag rounds up a posse and breaks out the torches and pitch forks?

      All the while, the local power plant has been burying nuclear waste in the dead of night and no one has a clue why everyone is slowly getting sick and losing their hair.

      A strip club opens next door to Black Flag and has all kinds of unseemly visitors in the middle of the night while blasting their music, but Flag just accepts it?

      The drug trade – completely unregulated – proceeds with abandon. The corner store across the street sells meth to anyone with the gold to buy it – kids in cluded.

      A villager is murdered. Everyone thinks it’s JAC, but JAC denies it. Who arrests him? Who tries him? Who has standing to do so?

      The town collectively appoints a police officer – but some people dissent. Are they subject to the laws of the officer?

      According to Flag, the litter is picked up by “whoever is most annoyed by it.” So, since that’s not me, I’m going to dump my trash on the road in another part of town each week – someone who is annoyed by that will pay to have it picked up.

      • Checking those time stamps…BF rattled that off within 18 mins. He’s the man.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        The problem with the Anarchy defense is not in the details. This is where most antagonists gravitate but it misses the core issue.

        Yep, that being CORE PRINCIPLES.

        It is not hard to see how a society such as Flag’s Village could evolve if the vast majority held the same set of core moral values or principles. Much like humans did before we started massing together in the Castle courtyard or villages outside the walls.

        Rules were established and enforced by various means. But the Clan/Tribe did not create arbitrary rules on finite things and then enforce them by use of violence or force. Coercion was used via Shunning, however.

        Remember, Govt in this argument is an institution with the ability to INITIATE force, violence, coercion.

        So much of the concern with Anarchy is eliminated by their use of definitions. A very handy trick. But otherwise I think you are correct that ever since the days of limited tribes/clans there is little evidence that humans in any large number can organize themselves without a thing called Govt. This is mostly due to the nature of humans. Some simply require Govt., or cannot bring themselves to try without Govt.

        Then there is the problem of we are where we are. Moving from here to No Govt. would create problems beyond imagination for the purist Anarchist. Like divesting Govt. of the role of building and operating sewer, water and transportation systems within cities.

        • “Remember, Govt in this argument is an institution with the ability to INITIATE force, violence, coercion. So much of the concern with Anarchy is eliminated by their use of definitions. A very handy trick.”

          Remove coercion, the monopoly on legal murder and destruction from government. What happens? It functions as a service or dies. But it no longer qualifies as a government. Thus the principle element of coercion/murder is what defines government.

          When you use the word government, replace it with violence. Because that is the reality of it. It is nothing but systematic violence with a great big stack of bullshit on paper attached to it.

          • Let’s accept your premise for the moment.

            Please spell out how your vision on anarchy handles the concern of bad actors.

            Specific examples:

            A) a company knowingly pollutes, but covers it up. People begin to get sick, but do not know the source. When questioned, the company dies involvement but, citing private ownership, refuses to be inspected.
            B) a dispute arises over ownership of a given property wherein neither side is willing to cede, nor compromise (image it’s a family heirloom or a tract of land).
            C) JAC shoots a man in Reno, just to watch him die.
            D) Anita is a warlord two towns over who has seized the abandoned weaponry of the US military. She intends to take over AnarachyVille and enslave you.
            E) I litter.
            F) Buck decides to open Buck’s Community Whorehouse next door to your home.
            G) Black Flag gets a little too enthusiastic with his annual fireworks display. You feel uncomfortable that his is posing a safety risk to the neighborhood. He insists he knows what he’s doing.
            H) Colonel D13 insists on performing naked calisthenics in his front yard each morning in full site of your family.
            I) All residents draw water from a communal aquifer. However, Gman decides to open a water bottling company and is siphoning off an unsustainable amount for sale to distant lands. Your geological study confirms that you will run out in a year or two and your village will no longer be sustainable.
            J) Mathius takes up yodeling, bagpipes, and the alphorn.
            K) Someone has stolen your lawn flamingos. But who?
            L) Celebrated author SKT would like to write a novel about your town but fears that, after a year of hard work and research, his works will simply be copied and distributed with without commensurate payment.
            M) Youths are harassing (though non physically violent) the denizens of your village.
            N) You state that you have modern internet. Unfortunately, an unknown super-hacker is wreaking havoc.
            O) Without the FDA, snake-oil salesmen are successfully selling, well, snake oil instead of real medicine. Your village is being overrun by Whooping Cough.

            • A) a company knowingly pollutes, but covers it up. People begin to get sick, but do not know the source. When questioned, the company dies involvement but, citing private ownership, refuses to be inspected.

              Find the source, even if by deductive reasoning, or whatever means necessary that does not violate. Communicate the problem. If they do not cooperate to resolve it, do it anyway, whatever that is. You and the community are rightful in your defense of their violence.

              B) a dispute arises over ownership of a given property wherein neither side is willing to cede, nor compromise (image it’s a family heirloom or a tract of land).

              It is between them. Stay out of it until the property owners make it your problem.

              C) JAC shoots a man in Reno, just to watch him die.

              How unfortunate. I bet his friends and family are pist off.

              D) Anita is a warlord two towns over who has seized the abandoned weaponry of the US military. She intends to take over AnarachyVille and enslave you.

              Kill her/them and/or leave now.

              E) I litter.

              You provide nesting material for birds and squirrels and suitable habitat for slugs and rollie-pollies.

              F) Buck decides to open Buck’s Community Whorehouse next door to your home.

              What kind of services do they offer? Do I get preferential treatment being the next door neighbor?

              G) Black Flag gets a little too enthusiastic with his annual fireworks display. You feel uncomfortable that his is posing a safety risk to the neighborhood. He insists he knows what he’s doing.

              He probably does. If not, enlist the community in assisting him, make it a safe and positive experience.

              H) Colonel D13 insists on performing naked calisthenics in his front yard each morning in full site of your family.

              Treat him to a Dr. Pepper and have a talk with him, maybe stop trimming the hedges or move to the rural where I don’t have that worry.

              I) All residents draw water from a communal aquifer. However, Gman decides to open a water bottling company and is siphoning off an unsustainable amount for sale to distant lands. Your geological study confirms that you will run out in a year or two and your village will no longer be sustainable.

              Rain. Even in the desert where there are only a few inches of rain per year, you can collect enough water to sustain life and grow crops. 1 inch of rain per square foot is 0.6 gallons. Build a big canopy and reservoir, and/or collection system. Use it in combination with what is left from the aquifer.

              J) Mathius takes up yodeling, bagpipes, and the alphorn.

              God help us all.

              K) Someone has stolen your lawn flamingos. But who?

              When I find out, I will take them back.

              L) Celebrated author SKT would like to write a novel about your town but fears that, after a year of hard work and research, his works will simply be copied and distributed with without commensurate payment.

              Then he should pick something else to invest in.

              M) Youths are harassing (though non physically violent) the denizens of your village.

              Be more specific. By default, I would probably not bother unless it affected me or my friends/family, but would likely start by telling their parents or family on them. Let them deal with it.

              N) You state that you have modern internet. Unfortunately, an unknown super-hacker is wreaking havoc.

              Buy anti-malware. Be careful.

              O) Without the FDA, snake-oil salesmen are successfully selling, well, snake oil instead of real medicine. Your village is being overrun by Whooping Cough.

              Buy medicine. Tell everyone else where to get it.

              • C) JAC shoots a man in Reno, just to watch him die.

                How unfortunate. I bet his friends and family are pist off.

                Wow.. I really DO like this guy…

                Credit where credit is due.. that’s sticking with a pure line of reasoning alright!

              • I like your answers, friend, but I fear you fall into the same trap as the illustrious Mr. Flag.

                You are too idealistic. The world just doesn’t work like that. Human nature doesn’t work like that.

                One of the sagest lines from any movie ever came from, of all places, Men In Black: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals, and you know it!

                One person. Two people. Maybe 10 or even 20 can live like this. But a modern society with thousands? Seven billion people on this planet all craving space and resources. And you, outside their “MonkeySphere”… no, it just doesn’t work.

              • Canine Weapon says:

              • “blah blah blah… …. no, it just doesn’t work.”

                It does. Every day, everywhere. It works any time there are people with a unified need or goal. When people need to cooperate, they do. It is worth the reward. That is how it has always worked.

                Key to it is not using violence, especially as a default solution to everything, including and especially non-existent problems where there are no victims.

                Like most other statists you conveniently deny reality to justify your barbarism. How are there so many examples of people peaceably cooperating of their own accord for a mutual benefit, in mass, yet you deny it is possible?

  54. gmanfortruth says:

    Damn……..

  55. gmanfortruth says:

  56. gmanfortruth says:

    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/intl-abortion-providers-say-they-will-not-comply-reinstated-us

    Why is it OK for a women to abort and unborn child, but if someone else causes the death of that child (in the same womb) it is then considered MURDER?

    How, again, is anyone to believe that a child is born gay, but not a living being while in the womb?

    Strange people these pro abortion folks, strange indeed.

    • Why is it OK for a women to abort and unborn child, but if someone else causes the death of that child (in the same womb) it is then considered MURDER?

      Double standards?

      Why don’t pregnant women get to use the carpool lane?

      Why can’t expecting families claim the fetus as a dependent?

      How, again, is anyone to believe that a child is born gay, but not a living being while in the womb?

      Many people consider sexual orientation to be genetic.

      Some consider it a consequence of nurture.

      I consider it, like virtually every other complex personality trait, to be a hybrid of nature and nurture.

      Mathius’ opinion: Sexual orientation, like almost every complex personality trait, is almost certainly a bell-curve ranging between 0 (pure hetero) and 6 (pure homosexual) wherein almost everyone is somewhere in the middle. For evolutionary purposes, I would assume (without solid evidence) that the curve peaks around 1-2. It is the societal pressure to conform and the stigma attached to homosexuality which push adolescents from the “strongly predisposed toward hetero” bucket into the “exclusively heterosexual” bucket. You can see artifacts of this lens wherever you look. This lens explains a great deal including closeted individual and bi-sexuality as well as why some people are able to successfully repress their inclinations while others wind up talking about their “wide stance.” It explains why there are homosexuals even in places which are extremely hostile to them (why would anyone “choose” to be gay if they live in Tehran?).

      With all that said, being “born gay” is like being “born tall” – you aren’t tall yet because she have to grow into it, but the genetic predisposition is there. Maybe you will be malnourished and won’t grow tall. Likewise, you can be “born gay” which is to say genetically predisposed to homosexuality (say, a 5 on the above scale), but you don’t have any sexuality until you hit puberty. If you grow up in a bible-thumping backwater, you may consider your urges evil and successfully repress them.

      To that end, “born gay” makes perfect sense – they’re not saying you like members of the same sex when you’re born. They’re saying it’s in your nature, not your nurture. Though, again, I personally consider that to be only part of the whole story.

      Strange people these pro abortion folks, strange indeed.

      No one is “pro abortion.”

      No one is in favor of having an abortion. They just want it as a choice – an option of last resort.

      Yes, I know, there are some (unfortunately vocal) idiots out there who have had a dozen and think it’s hysterical. They can go jump in a lake. But that’s not what we’re talking about here.

      ——————–

      I’ll leave you with this. If you are really, honestly and truly anti-abortion, you should be advocating for better (mandatory!) sex-ed in school, greater availability of birth control, free contraceptives, funding research to develop a condom that feels better (and will thus have higher rates of usage). Also, you should be helping to fund pre-natal care for the needy. You should be helping adoption agencies to relocate children after birth to families who want them.

      You could back a program that installs a free IUD in every 12 year old girl who wants one. And you should aggressively fight any parental notification laws which might scare or shame a girl into not getting one.

      Because – and this is important – kids are going to have sex. I had sex as a teenager, and I’m betting you did, too. And if they can’t do it safely, they’re going to do it unsafely. Adults are only slightly less impulsive. And “abstinence only” has been pretty firmly shown to be the worst possible option – worse, in fact, than even no sex ed. So, again, if you want to stop abortions, the very best option is to help avoid unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

      And, I’m sure you’ll balk at this, but the main reason people have abortions is generally that they can’t reasonably support a child at this point. It wouldn’t be fair to the child and it would be devastating to the parents. Therefore, if you really want to get rid of abortion, you should be seeking to ease this burden. You could do that by helping to publicly fund infant and child nutrition programs, day care programs, preschool programs, school lunches, and more. Having a kid is cripplingly expensive in this country. If it didn’t cost so much, maybe people would be more likely to keep their fetuses instead of aborting them.

      Does that fit neatly into your conservative world-view? No.

      But if you view it as a wide-scale genocide, you should probably be willing to bend a bit for pragmatic reasons in order to stop the slaughter, no?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        Good lord man. Why in the world should I have to pay for someone’s birth control just because I think abortion is immoral?

        This sounds like the typical black mail used by the DNC all the time. “Well if you don’t like it then you should support the New Big Govt. X Program”.

        You know they started Sex Education when I was in school, way back in those dark age days. So why do folks claim we need to “increase sex ed. in schools”?? It has been in the schools for decades. Birth control is more readily available, in wider varieties, and much cheaper than ever before. Yet we need to subsidize birth control??

        Me thinks that maybe the unwanted pregnancy rate has little to do with education or affordability of birth control.

        Me also thinks that what is really needed is restoration of a Govt. which demands fathers participate in their child’s support and rearing. That eliminates incentives for single parenthood, in the name of helping out “working mothers”. I do not deny the latter have a challenge, but the ivy leaguers don’t understand that this help creates incentives for unwed pregnancy as well.

        One thing that has changed is the availability of abortion as a way to erase laziness and lack of responsibility. Much easier to abort than to deal with the mistaken behavior. Maybe we should be increasing the Cost Burden of abortions instead of making them easier to get.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        How about parents doing a better job of teaching personal responsibility. It’s not my responsibility to pay for others sexual activity to protect them from getting pregnant. Make abortion more costly and less available and used for real medical reasons, not stupid control. Abortion isn’t intended for women’s health anyway, and you know this. Sanger’s past is quite clear and well documented.

    • “How, again, is anyone to believe that a child is born gay, but not a living being while in the womb?”

      “Many people consider sexual orientation to be genetic. … Some consider it a consequence of nurture.”

      While there are some with hormonal or physiological issues, most gay people are a result of confusion of gender role assignment during early childhood development. (ref; Freud: Electra Complex – Oedipus Conflict)

      There is a natural process whereby small children will define what a male or female is relative to their social role or place, then identify with that gender. In order to properly identify with the correct gender, they must have role models performing under a certain natural norm.

      Little girls naturally identify dad as the dominant family figure and the difference between genders. They question their worth and seek dad’s approval and affection even though they are just a girl. If dad is a warm loving father and gives assurance that she is special and very much loved, she feels comfortable with being female and seeks women lessons from mom. If dad is abusive, cold or rejecting, critical, etc, she will develop a complex of sorts and/or have issues with her sexuality, marriage and family, behavioral disorders, etc.

      Little boys test mom and dad to see which is more dominant. Because that is the one he is going to identify as the male and emulate. This is typically done through competing with dad for mom’s attention. If he wins, dad is a chump and mom is king. If mom chooses dad over her little bundle of pride and joy, he must be more awesome, thus worthy of emulating.

      If there are not two parents in the home during childhood (particularly 3-10), if there is any distortion of the natural process, if dad is not king of the hill making sure his little girl knows how special she is, what a husband and father is/what kind of man to marry, being a strong confident man for his son to learn from, teaching him the father and husband to be, it presents an environment denying children their necessary resource for proper development, often resulting in homosexual tendencies.

      • Sorry buddy, but you just spouted off a whole mountain of nonsense.

        First of all Freud has been almost entirely discredited.. about pretty much everything that ever came out of his mouth.

        Second, well, no, there is no second, that’s just a mountain of BS and I’m going to have to ask you to site some scholarly works if you want to claim that people are gay because they didn’t grow up in an episode of Leave It To Beaver.

        Also, while you’re at it, please incorporate gay animals into your working theory. Perhaps they didn’t have strong enough father figures either?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Mathius

          How would anyone know if an animal is gay???

        • Freud nailed it. Reality proves it. Boys emulate whoever is dominant while little girls instinctively identify dad as dominant, and seek approval for their gender.

          When this natural process gets screwed up, it leads to issues, often sexual deviance issues, is how you end up with confusion for gender role assignment, gay tendencies. Little boys identify with women and little girls try to be masculine to be as good as a man.

          Interestingly enough, I once knew this guy who had a girlfriend with mostly male gay friends. He often found himself at gay social gatherings, getting to know a lot of gay men personally, making friends within the gay community.

          He got to talking about it one day while he and I were remodeling a home. And without any formal education in behavioral sciences, being completely ignorant of Oedipus Conflict, he makes a pure and untainted observation that almost all gay men have very assertive mothers, …like a personality type.

          I then explained Oedipus Conflict to him, thus making sense of his peculiar observation. I have discussed this with gay people as well. Many agree upon consideration. They have said things like, yeah, that makes sense, because I remember this one time when… … going on to describe childhood experiences and memories that support this.

          It is not that damn complicated nor is it something that hasn’t been well documented. And I am not saying that it is the only explanation for gay people, simply that it does and has had an effect, that people not resolving gender role assignment end up gay adults.

  57. Time will tell but Donald Trump is aiming at something very interesting and something he said throughout the campaign and in his speech.

    The first post-partisan president!

    Obama failed miserably at being the first post racial president.

  58. Colonel, you and your boys need to hurry up and get the rust off those refineries down there.

    MAGA

  59. Hahahahahaaaa.

    Spicer finishes his briefing, gives first question to Lifezette, Laura Ingraham’s blog. See ya later MSM.

    • Yes, it truly is a great thing if the President and his administration manage to successfully cut out anyone who is critical of him.

      Yup. Nothing bad can come of that.

      • What ? Did he just ban free speech?

        • A press core with decreased access has decreased capacity to hold the administration honest.

          Surely, whether you agree with Trump or not, you agree that it is best if he is carefully scrutinized and that those who are doing the scrutinizing have the ability to ask questions of the administration and demand answers.

          • Sir Mathius……..I do not want the media kicked out and trump knows how to handle it……he learned well from his predecesor…..but, I love the idea he caved on….move the media across the street out of the WH into a bigger room and increase the attendance. Do away with seniority rules on front rows…..and let them all fight for postiion before the briefings.

      • No no no no no no no….You’re not goin there! The point was to get the others involved also. Doesn’t matter what blog. He could let you in from SUFA, I wouldn’t care. BOLO for him, while traveling to use local news outfits too.

        • Because that’s how he gets right to the people without an MSM filter or spin. I’ve been noticing also, everything is filmed live…no editing time. He can keep tweeting too.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        We all have Rights. The Right to free speech, for example, has limitations, as does every other Right. A free press is free to write or say what they chose, but when they go astray of reporting the news and become a partisan institution, then they should and can be dealt with appropriately. CNN has colluded with the Democrats and the Clinton camp in a favorable way. Payback is a bitch. I would prefer press access that reports the news and what is said, I don’t really want the Press’s opinion, I can form my own.

  60. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    On the Electoral College again. Do you agree that we should only count “Eligible voters” in the census for allocation of representatives?

    At least for purposes of the EC.

    • Close.

      Lawful citizens.

      I think I addressed this elsewhere (and I don’t really have time to go over it again), but eligible voters only would disenfranchise the young. They can’t vote because they lack the mental capacity / maturity (as do many adult voters, but that’s another issue). However, giving the adults their votes should, generally, represent their interests (theoretically).

      If you cut out the under-18’s, you’d just wind up inflating the power of the elderly (read: Florida).

      But, to what I read as your implied question: no, I don’t think that, for voting purposes, non citizens, aliens, illegal residents of any stripe, foreign nationals, etc should get a vote.

      (Disclaimer: This is where I remind you that I believe that anyone who wants to be a citizen and isn’t a proven threat should be able to instantly claim that title – but that’s a different matter entirely)

      There is a technical challenge as to how to conduct a census in such a way as to calculate these statistics. But as a purely theoretical exercise, I believe the above is relatively accurate to my view.

      ——-

      Adding, why is it so hard to have a national voter registration database with everyone’s name, address, and SSN all in one place? Link it to each state’s DMV and you’ve got a perfect too to prevent your oh-so-feared voter fraud. Link it to birth and death certificates and now you’ve got the census updating in real-time. Or does this fall into the category of “the government is big and scary”?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathus

        If you count children then are you not giving greater weight to the parent, who does vote, with more children than the one with none?

        Why should I get more voting power just because I want more kids than you?

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          3/5th’s ….we’re back to the same argument that a lot of people that were pretty smart could not resolve and ended in a Civil War

          same argument that was ongoing 42 years ago,,,,,why is a person in the military, Job, just because he or she has dependants get more income, better housing etc….same argument we had at IBM, when they took away individual benefits and made the more senior spouse in age, benefits regardless of where they worked, primary. mIne went away except my retirement….it was better to have stayed single.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        Re: In addition;

        “Adding, why is it so hard to have a national voter registration database with everyone’s name, address, and SSN all in one place? Link it to each state’s DMV and you’ve got a perfect too to prevent your oh-so-feared voter fraud. Link it to birth and death certificates and now you’ve got the census updating in real-time. Or does this fall into the category of “the government is big and scary”?”

        Before I respond, go to the basement and ask DPM why this is a stupid effing idea. If you still have questions ask, and I will respond.

  61. Just A Citizen says:

    Thought of the day

    Got myself stuck talking about the Clear Water Act, EPA and wetlands regulations with some lefty bloggers this morning. Amazing how many have no idea what is actually going on in this area. I was told several times how important our wetlands are to having clean water and needed wildlife habitat. How private lands should not be exempt from regulation and should in fact be restored.

    So I am willing to AGREE. Those prior WETLANDS that have been drained to accomadate construction of human infrastructure should be restored. And since this is such a major undertaking I have identified the FIRST place to to this. The location of the American Wetlands Restoration effort, to be carried out by POTUS Trump.

    WE don’t need to drain the swamp, WE need to restore the swamp.

    Bwahahahahahahaha………

  62. Sigh,,,,,Elisheba and Mathius……right now, I live in the reality. Not fantasyland….and so do both of you. Tell you what. If you were truly anarchist, you would not pay your taxes…..if you do pay your taxes then you are part of the system. So, a true anarchist would set the example with more than mere words. Yes? Sir MAthius, and spousal unit, with two children….I bet you are living by the rules of society….you may not like them and you talk against them…which is perfectly ok…..but you are still part of the sysytem. Both of you. Yes?

    • if you do pay your taxes then you are part of the system

      If a man points a gun at your head and you hand him your wallet, are you a willing participant?

      If I do not pay the tax man, he will steal from me what he claims I owe – that which is mine by virtue of the sweat of my brow – and then he will steal an extra “penalty.” And he may even imprison me for good measure.

      Participation, under protest, in fear of a violent enforcement is not the same say “being a [willing] part of the system.

      Think about the mob – if you pay your “protection” money, are you part of the mob? No. You just don’t want goons to show up and bust your windows.

      Sir MAthius, and spousal unit, with two children….I bet you are living by the rules of society

      Mathius is a statist shill and will never see the light. He even wants higher taxes and bigger government.

      Do not speak to me of that fool.

      • If a man points a gun at your head and you hand him your wallet, are you a willing participant?

        The real Dread Pirate would whip out the cutless and sever the man’s head, shit down his neck, kick the head overboard, and say….NEXT !

    • I don’t file or pay taxes. I disengage the system entirely, with the exception of a driver license, which is a convenient form of identification.

      The last time someone demanded I pay income tax, I bugged the piss out of them all day demanding they show an itemized list, a receipt of all goods an services rendered for what they claim I ‘owe’ them, as well as something signed by me proving I was a willing participant.

      I haven’t heard from them since.

      If they actually try to pull some legal bullshit on me trying to steal my labor or cage me or whatever such nonsense, I will identify whoever acts against me or signs the orders and sell their children on the black market for whatever they cost me. I’ll breed them little bitches like mice and sell the young as sex slaves to Muslim terrorists to be gang raped and beheaded.

      Don’t fuk with me.

    • You definitely live in fantasy land. You think religious ceremonial magic words special stamps super hero costumes and weapons makes gods of men, that it gives them some divine right to violate, gives them legitimacy. If you vote, you demand it on your behalf.

      Your perception of reality is absolutely warped all to hell, sir.

      As many pleasant conversations as we have had, as much of a regular guy normal human being as I see you, I will always ultimately consider you my adversary because you support and demand systematic evil upon everyone, because you knowingly support and act to use coercion violence and murder to boss people around. It is evil.

      I don’t look down on you because I know I am a piece of crap as well as guilty of supporting statism in my younger years. But you are not my ally because you support systematic evil that is statism.

  63. Sir Mathius….your hint as you requested……” Now, I’m not saying we should read too much into this, but it sure is a sea of pasty white-ness out there…”

  64. Trump did it…..He announced today that he has all the necessary materials to build the wall on the MExican border…..

    When he won the election, 60 million democrats shit bricks. Problem solved.

  65. Bad ass!

  66. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    For your reading pleasure. Skip to the math formula and description of how the Congressional seats are allocated. NOTE: Only the house seats are allocated in this manner. So each State gets three elec. college votes no matter what (1 house + 2 senate).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_apportionment

    This elaborate process has one advantage over the math I did today. It eliminates fractions of votes or totals greater than the House + Senate.

%d bloggers like this: