Screw em...I would aim for the bright yellow safety bumpers. They're there to protect your car from damage.
Those fuckers needs to be fired....today...but it's comcast, so horrendous treatment of the public is their company motto.

I'm as surprised as most everyone at how the election turned out. In the week or so leading up to election night, I considered the possibility that Trump might win the popular vote but lose the electoral college, but not the other way around.

Still, as someone who thinks the electoral college is bullshit, consider this thing from all angles:

Hypothetical Possibility 1: At first, when I thought that Trump might win the popular vote but lose the electoral college, I thought that would be a good thing going forward. Both sides would have been screwed out of a victory by the idiotic system in recent memory, which might push for bipartisan support to scrap it.

But thinking further ... I don't think that would have actually panned out. The GOP establishment wouldn't have seen that as "their" candidate getting screwed, they would have been happy. They might have had to pay lip service to the idea of reconsidering the electoral college to pander to angry Republican voters who felt cheated out of a Trump presidency, but they could easily have just left it at that and sat on the issue until apathy took over again.


Possibility 2: The likely reality. Trump will win by electoral votes but lose the popular vote, and that will stand. The Senate and House are both Republican controlled, and the Supreme Court will very likely swing further in that direction. Possibly a LOT.

That sounds terrible. And it definitely means that in the short term, there will be absolutely zero traction for anyone wanting to push the idea of getting rid of the electoral college. BUT -- it also sets up a gold-plated opportunity to see real, actual movement on that front in 2 years. Think Trump is going to be horrendous? Think GOP-controlled Legislature will be abysmal? Look on the bright side -- if those expectations are correct, the blowback in midterm elections won't be a "wave". It'll be a fuckin' tsunami. And that's what we need to have a shot at killing the electoral college.


Possibility 3: Faithless Elector rampage. You can argue, with some merit, that the electoral college was intended to prevent or safeguard against exactly the kind of situation that we are in now. And I'd love to see President Bernie myself. But what would actually result if enough electors swapped to make that happen?

First, NYTimes projects Trump getting 306 electoral votes. That would mean that 37 faithless electors would have to happen to flip the election. You have to go back more than 100 years to find an election where there has been more than 1 faithless elector. There has only been 1 election with more than 37 faithless electors, and that was in 1872 because the candidate died. So realistically, it would be close to impossible to pull this off. (all info from wikipedia)

But forget the odds and just assume that it did happen. I think that would be a strategically terrible idea for Democrats, liberals, etc. Trump won because enough people didn't like the prospect of President Hillary and/or actually wanted to see what Trump himself could do. In either case, his voters generally aren't going to give him a whole lot of leash to screw things up or fail to deliver on their expectations. It will be next to impossible for him to keep those swing people happy. If Trump is 1/10th as terrible as the average Democrat expects him to be, he will alienate all of those people in very short order.

But if faithless electors "stole" the presidency from him (and you know that's how it would be perceived)? Oh, man ... he'd effectively be a political martyr. The anger and backlash would likely be apocalyptic and/or lead to revolt. Worse than almost any realistic way that Trump himself might fuck things up as the President. Even if that was somehow avoided, which I tend to think would be impossible, whoever got installed as President would have the shortest leash of all time, and a massively hostile and motivated Legislature that they would be forced to attempt to work with. Better have some sacrificial lamb to put in there that has zero political future, and even then they would probably cause massive damage to their party by association when they inevitably fall.

No, I think the clear best option is to let Trump (and the GOP) dig his own grave over the next year or two, and then graciously ride the wave of comeuppance.

That place always reminds me of Texas City (a massive oil refinery just outside Houston). It's a 5-10minute drive on the freeway through some horrendous stench. I feel terrible for anyone living within 10 miles of either place.

This video is as bad as the sponsored studies it complains about. Adam obviously has never exerted himself a day in his life. When I'm on the 4th hour riding my bike up mountain highways, I know that if I haven't been drinking a liter of water per hour for the past 4 hours(including some form of electrolyte) I'm about to have horrendous hamstring cramps. I know because of experience trying many combinations, not Gatorade studies.

I find it disgusting and outrageous that people are still allowed to use this kind of indiscriminate trapping these days at all. There's no way to keep endangered, or unwanted animals from being killed or injured to the point where they'll likely die later.
I would like to think I would destroy any I found, and/or use them on the trapper if I found them, leaving them pinned in the forest with both arms and legs attached to separate trees in hopes that the animal they were going for finds them and has a nice treat.
Just sickening. I hope at least this one animal didn't die a horrendous, painful, long, torturous death by starvation, but with the injured leg, it still may have.

Wait and see. One of the reasons so many politicians are robotic (ha! @notarobot) is because of soundbites and things taken out of context.

I mean, look at Trump and his joke about asking Russia to find Hillary's emails. I watched more than just the one sentence. It was clearly a joke. Poor taste. Unpresidential. Ill advised. But a joke.

And now it is touted as possible treason. Silliness.

There might be some relaxed honest speech in there, thought to be private, that people are going to make out to be Horrendous and Horrible. Instead of just being someone thinking they could be honest in private.

You watch for it. Remember what I am saying and if I am more prophetic than you. "Unguarded" can sink a political career. But if a politician never allowed to EVER have privacy to be unguarded?

The death of democracy.

Sorry to all for answering a wall of text with another wall of text.

I have far more than just circumstantial evidence, but I do have a few truckloads of that as well to make me think this duck is a duck.
You have no proof that those things in the lake are ducks, why do you keep insisting they are? Because 100% of evidence you DO have says "duck" and nothing contrary besides the ranting cat lady that loves them tells you it's really a swan that lays golden eggs?
Same goes for Clinton supporting and displaying unethical, dishonest behavior repeatedly. I don't have verifiable indisputable "proof", but all evidence I have, including multiple videos of her doing it, and constant reports (none from Faux news) of things like her handing DWS a key position in her campaign directly after proof of her actions at the DNC (for Clinton's sole benefit) that were so bad they forced her out of the DNC (or give me another more plausible reason Clinton would hire someone that absolutely ensures she won't get the Sanders voters she needs to win and that's been tossed out in disgrace, so she is a HUGE NEGATIVE for the campaign she's just been hired to lead, so absolutely not "skilled" at the job, and I'll consider it), actions which were incontrovertibly dishonest and unethical if they've been reported at all truthfully, and you have offered zero evidence or even theory that it hasn't been reported truthfully, or evidence that that's not the reason she just hired her, much less proof, you have a theory not supported by reason or evidence that she was hired for being so good at her job...uh.....

I'm not a court of law trying to put her away, I'm an independent voter, appearance is important, and she appears unethical to say the least, without listening to a word from Faux or any right wing media, BTW. She has demonstrated enough clear dishonesty for me to make up my mind about her in one answer in one live debate...."I supported $15 an hour for years....I don't support a $15 an hour minimum wage....I support $15 an hour", and done and/or said nothing to dissuade me from that opinion.....enough said.

BTW, the only actual accusation I made about Clinton was that she rewarded clear undisputed unethical and dishonest behavior with a top position in her campaign...that is absolutely true unless you're saying she didn't really hire DWS and everyone is lying.

Clearly if she thinks hiring DWS to head her campaign is going to get her the Sanders supporters votes she needs to win, she has zero insight about what the public thinks.

Yes, her JOB was to ensure a fair election process first and foremost, she failed. Secondly to protect the Democratic party, and help Democrats win elections, she failed, she made them look like cheaters and backstabbers, hurting them horrendously and probably losing the election. How is she "skilled" again? What part of her job did she get right again?

It doesn't matter if her cheating is really why Sanders lost, it looks like it is, and it went 100% against her duties to be impartial and safeguard the process. If you cheat on a test and get the highest score on the test, you don't get to say 'it wasn't the cheating that made me score that high, I would have been the highest score anyway, so I'm validictorian', you get a zero and are disqualified....that goes for if someone cheats FOR you too, even if you didn't ask them to, just allowed it and lied about it when asked, but that's not the case here, she was totally complicit, she had her lawyers instructing them on how to toss people off the voter rolls etc.....at least according to all EVIDENCE...but I don't have a paper trail in hand to PROVE it...happy? (sweet Jesus...it's come to this)
No other reason why he may have lost matters since she cheated to win. (and BTW, the DNC emails show some underhanded reasons why he lost like that with minorities, not that it matters)

Carl Rove was protected by Bush after he said anyone in his administration involved would be out, right? So yes, still on Bush.

Did I say "you"? Are you ALL of her supporters, or did I say ALL of her supporters? The DNC and SOME OF her supporters rigged the system to shove her down our throats, which shows me that they were not at all confident she would win in a fair primary, contrary to your insistence. You have no proof she might have won anyway.

Yes, being a governor is more governing experience than being a senator (especially while running for president). (to be honest, I thought he had also been a senator, but it seems not) Secretary of State is good experience, but not at governing, good for understanding foreign affairs, something the president has a secretary of state for. First lady wasn't governing, she didn't pass bills, she was more of a connected political activist. Palin didn't even serve a full term, so no, not the same.

Time will tell, it's still possible that Trump might do something horrendous enough to turn off his rabid supporters....but he would have to suck a black mans dick on stage or worse to do that it seems. Unlikely. Her support is smaller today and FAR less excited about her....that's insane, yes, but true.

I can't have blinders on about why Sanders lost because I have a bag that was put over my head because the process was rigged, so we have no idea what it would look like if it were not. Maybe with the DNC's help talking about his work for civil rights he would have gotten 75% of blacks and Latinos, he certainly has been working for them for longer and in more meaningful ways.

We had a GREAT candidate with a statistically MUCH BETTER chance of winning a general election. They screwed him viciously. You want me to reward that?

Clinton does NOT always operate within the system. That's a major complaint about her, and the big issue here, she's rewarding operating totally outside of and contrary to the system.
Her biggest problem is her unfavorability rating....which may be tied with Trump in the percentage of people that dislike/distrust her, but is exponentially above Trump in the level that those people dislike her...and she's running against the party of hate and handing them more ammunition to get their voters out daily.

I don't think I compared Clinton and Trump...I refuse to agree that I have only 2 choices. Yes of the two, she's preferable. She's still absolutely not my choice. What others do is their concern. Penn voting for Clinton does not sway my vote, nor do the republicans voting for her any more than the democrats voting for Trump convince me he's a good choice.

I live in Ca. Clinton gets our electoral votes no matter how I vote. If I lived in a swing state that was close and mattered, I might reconsider voting out of fear, but I would have to completely ignore my own morals and ethics to even go that far, and would never be able to forgive myself.
Fear is the mind killer. Never do anything important based on your fear is my advice.

Yes....that.

If I were black, I would certainly feel that the police are people to fear and avoid at all costs, not there to protect or serve me. It's incontrovertible that there is NOTHING a black man can do to be safe. There is no level of surrender, clear lack of arms, absolute lack of movement, or ANYTHING they can do to ensure they won't be 'mistaken' for a perpetrator and shot....usually shot dead. It's also clear and incontrovertible that, even when they've done absolutely nothing wrong, and the police agree they've done nothing wrong and they are in no way threatening, the police will still shoot them...and then not give them medical attention, in fact they will handcuff them and try to think of a charge they can make up to excuse their inexcusable deadly actions.
When it's a life or death situation, civilized behavior and respect for authority hardly outweigh a drive for self preservation....it does one no good to have been civilized if that causes one's death. It's for that reason that I say that I would never convict a black man of murdering a police officer...it's reasonable to think it would be self defense under any circumstance just because it was a black man and a police man, just as much as if it was an armed Klansman. They should not have to wait to be attacked before defending themselves, they don't have equipment or training to withstand an attack and respond, their only option is to shoot first if they want a chance to live, unlike police.
Clearly, that's not the situation in every instance, and not all cops are killers, but enough are that it's reasonable for a black man to assume any random officer may well act murderously, and so reasonable to protect one's self from them pre-emptively. That is a horrendous situation, but one I put squarely on the doorstep of the police, and it's up to them to change that perception with actions, not excuses and deflections. They have failed miserably thus far, which is why I have little sympathy for their recent losses. If you pick a fist fight and lose a tooth in the fight, that's YOUR fault....the same reasoning goes for gunfights, IMO.

@MonkeySpank Fascinating how your thoughtful comment on the psychological effects of horrendous treatment for over a hundred of years, followed by being the victims of terrorism for an additional hundred years, gets re-written into a treatise on liberal guilt.

Fascinating.

One of them, yes. I think we had 2 or 3 battery recalls for the macbooks and one hell of a recall for the macbooks with nvidia graphics. The graphics one was horrendous; I didn't have to deal with the support calls once we nailed it down and they stopped escalating them to tier 3, but god the call volume was out of this world for the tier 1 folks.

People don't realize it, but I can tell you that for the years I worked there (from 2005 to 2011), we used to joke that we should change the catchphrase to "It just doesn't work." Of course, a lot of the problems were because end users were trying to use products in a way they weren't meant to be used.

@newtboy

What gave the impression that you think Hillary should drop out is because you are calling for a "debate" at the convention EVEN IF she has it locked up. Why would she do that?

IF IF IF IF she has it locked up, I really want Sanders to use the political muscle he has accumulated to help shape the Dem platform. That is what he says he wants to do, and that is what I hope he does.

Get federal minimum wage increase as a plank in the platform (and good grief, tie it to consumer price index so we can stop having to beg for it every 20 years or so.)

This won't happen, but I would LOVE a tiny tax on all investment transactions. I don't need to have it tied to education, but it wouldn't bother me if it was. If we had that tiny tax, it would stop some of the horrendous volatility in the market as this folks chase fractions of a point going up and down. It's stupid what they do with computers and has nothing to do with capitalism and everything to do with chasing a buck in a virtual market (nothing being created except hard-ons -- tax those hard-ons, baby. Tax 'em.)

What other planks would you like to see in the Dem platform? Those are two that come to mind.

No, I actually try hard to not read ANY biased stuff on either side, since it's all time wasting propaganda with an agenda...but I understand why you might think that. That does mean I have not read much from Clinton's camp either, so it's no surprise I missed it.

Yes, I agree that many charges thrown don't hold water, but some do, some might, and many more appear to because of her dismissive way of addressing concerns. I do push back when I hear claims against her that are pure fantasy, I'm not a Sanders fan AND a lie fan, I'm a Sanders fan because I hate lies, even when they help my cause.
BUT
Because most people don't give her that much, it doesn't matter what reality is, she's thoroughly painted as a dishonest self serving windsock, and nothing is going to change that perception for the masses, and it's the perception that matters come election day. You can be sure the worst smear campaign ever is coming at her, and she can't stand up to it by being dismissive. She's already tied for most disliked candidate EVER!

No, I think they should go to a contested convention and calmly debate who is the better candidate to win, and nominate that candidate, like they normally would. I just think that candidate is obvious, and it's not the one the DNC is going to let win.
(EDIT: There's a reason that the person who's 1 delegate ahead doesn't just 'win', because that person might be unelectable even if they're the favorite. That's why the threshold for victory is way more than 1/2 +1)

I'm doing my best, by contradicting anyone who says it's over. It's not an easy road, but there is a road to his victory, and an easier road to that debate on who's better to both win, and to serve the voters. I contend that both answers are Sanders.

Yes, I think the world is in horrendous shape on nearly every front, and I want it to be different....I want it, and us, to be better. I think everyone should. If you don't continuously try to be better, you undoubtedly are getting worse.
I think of myself as a realist idealist. I want people to try to do the right thing, but I understand that not only can all people not agree what that right thing is, but that it's actually not the same for everyone, and sometimes one person's 'right thing' denies another person's 'right thing'.
I don't look for purity, but when it's presented, I don't turn away either. Purity is a rare commodity, one that should be cherished if found. I see it in Sanders.

Please. This false choice is what has us in the position we are in....because you ignore the actual proper way to vote, which is.....

d) vote for the candidate you think is BEST, not the one you think will win, not the terrible opponent of the disastrous.

Our system is not designed for people to vote against someone, but that's how it operates because of that misguided mindset.
It is not, and never has been either 'a' or 'b' or 'abdication', and the idea that those are the only options is not just wrong, it's horrendously destructive in many ways.
I refuse to vote for someone I think is terrible out of fear of someone I think is disastrous, that only ensures we all lose. Fear is the mind killer, and should be ignored and minimized when making important decisions, not relied on and exaggerated.

So sorry that your quote is being down voted.

Clearly, those folks don't have loved ones who are vegan for ethical reasons, and don't understand the pain of being so empathetic.

I'm not vegan, I'm not even vegetarian. And I know that vegans are smart, caring and intelligent.

Condolences on this reception to accurate words.

(When even hard core Republicans like George Will say that our factory farm practices are horrendous, you know that they damn well are.)

Please stop pretending the entire farming industry practices the worst possible practices. It's not true and you know it. Yes, those practices do happen, but there are alternatives where the animals enjoy better than natural lives under the care of their farmers. It's analogous to saying no one should have dogs because puppy mills are horrendous places that should be eradicated.
My eggs come from free range chickens with windows in their roomy coop, and they never get turned into meat when they stop laying, nor do male chicks get chipper shredded.
Egg laying hens and milk cows do not get turned into meat for human consumption.
Many dairy farms do not practice ANY of the methods you claim.

If you call all farmers murderers and torturers, and all their customers accomplices, you have called all non vegans murderers and torturers.

Go to the butcher.
Inuit eat meat because it's all they have. Same with many Maasi, who survive on milk and blood from their cattle with no other resource to exploit. Pretty damn good and logical reason IMO, not starving.
I'm waiting on that video.