Here’s your daily dose of Republican debauchery….Pervster, (real name is herbster), Trump’s pick for Nebraska, accused by 8 women of groping in the last 5 years, 6 corroborated by witnesses, many stating so publicly well before he was a candidate including a Republican state senator.

Who doesn’t care about law, morality, or ethics again?

Your video, Nebraska rejects abortion bill, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

well...don't see categorizing dung, in the crap column, as spreading the right's meadow muffins. thought it was showing the bigotry, xenophobia, phantom fears that have been an American past time. (also have these ever left the rights' playbook?)

of course, it's boogie-boogie-all-night-long for the right. just tried putting it in the context of other hairy scary nothings that have been hawked - - then and now.

[should have put in a better link for the Nebraska case. the writing of the SCOTUS' decision is enlightening. almost apologetic.]

off-subject slightly...but how can american history be taught w/o ratting out all the bad american history?

crt isn't much different than this...
https://www.thoughtco.com/meyer-v-nebraska-1923-4034984
...lead by hatred against americans w/german names

even pride in great americans can lead to some dark truths...
https://www.militarytimes.com/video/2017/02/17/eugene-bullard-the-black-swallow-of-death/
...that's someone whose life was worth a chapter in a h.s. history books itself.

all of it !?

how different can american history be that much different than today's news?! a lot of todays' spectacles are hard to behold.

it's all on a scale. bad w/the good. why be afraid?

Cool.

I was interested enough to try to find information at circa.com, as suggested at the end of the video. Nothing immediately popped out at the top level domain, but a google search found a short story there where the last line was a link to her personal webpage:

https://yaniseho.com/the-bladress/

She's currently in Nebraska, with 169 days on the road and 2747 miles traveled. Not sure if she had phone/GPS issues or what, but there's a jump from day 93 to 119 as her position went from roughly NYC to Buffalo in that time.

I wonder if she's done any wheel and/or bearing replacements in her skates. Her frames/chassis look like Wizards (nice heavy-duty but light aluminum) with a quality boot that I can't recognize for sure but might be a Seba. Anyway, looks like relatively high-end, durable gear!

I like messing with scammers. Had someone try to get me to accept an "award" cruise. I asked if it could go anywhere, because I've been hearing a lot about space tourism and have always wanted to see the moon. They said it was a cruise, and I asked to visit Nebraska.

Years ago when trying to get people to switch long distance carriers was a thing, I told someone from AT&T that they'll have to beat free, as I sold my soul to Satan for free calls.

The electoral college is part of the problem certainly, but even that could be done better. Even the way Maine and Nebraska do it would be a vast improvement.

I don't believe it's "rigged", it's just a bad voting system, and it suffers from all the problems with FPP voting systems in addition to its unique crapulence.

*related=https://videosift.com/video/The-Problems-with-First-Past-the-Post-Voting-Explained

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Racial Slur, Ernie Chambers, N Word' to 'Racial Slur, Ernie Chambers, N Word, nebraska' - edited by MrFisk

Now try M&N's in Lincoln, Nebraska.

https://www.yelp.com/biz/m-and-n-sandwich-shop-lincoln-2

Tags for this video have been changed from 'great dane, tree, rescue, climb' to 'great dane, tree, rescue, climb, nebraska' - edited by MrFisk

'Murca.

Wait, what? This isn't Nebraska?

I got Venezuela and Nebraska, that's about it for me.

I understand your discomfort with my phrasing. My beef is with the electoral college system.

While I was getting my degree, I took some really good American History and Government classes at college. The prof in the Govt. class really went into depth explaining the electoral college to us, and to me the shittiness of that system was just shocking. For example: (none of this is news to a truly informed voter or an interested person with an internet connection, but it WAS news to me when I was ~20 years old, and I think it still would be news to a really high percentage of US voters)

* First is the very idea of an electoral college. The only way to become president of the US is to win the most electoral votes. But voters don't cast electoral votes, the people of the electoral college do. OK, the electoral college is supposed to follow the votes/will of their state/constituents (more on that next), but the fact remains that literally/practically, our votes as citizens don't matter. Only the electoral votes count. So yes, in the most literal sense ... NONE of our votes "matter".

* In general, the "electors" (the people on the electoral college) are supposed to cast their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote in their state / district. I think 2 states (Nebraska and Maine?) divide up their suggested electoral votes to be as close as possible to the actual proportions of the popular vote, but that's a whole other issue. Anyway, in general the electors are supposed to cast their vote for the popular vote winner in their state. BUT, that process isn't automatic. The votes that actually matter, the electoral votes, are cast by fallible human beings -- and they might "go rogue" and vote against what they are "supposed to" do. That is called a "faithless elector". That would be bad enough if it was just some weird loophole that technically exists but has never actually happened in practice, but actually faithless electors happen fairly frequently. The only upside is that they haven't ever changed the outcome of an election. Yet.

* When we're young and in civics type classes in school, we're brainwashedtaught about Democracy as a very simple, will of the public, one man one vote system. The electoral college shits all over that. One can win the popular vote but lose on electoral votes, and that actually has happened multiple times (not just to Al Gore). In my opinion, the electoral college creates a laundry list of problems (swing states are the only ones that matter, so campaign there and ignore everybody else, etc. etc. etc.), has very few benefits (any supposed benefits of the system are tenuous at best), and is completely contrary to the core concepts of Democracy.


Without the electoral college, a blue vote in Kansas would matter, as would a red vote in Massachusetts. Or a vote for a 3rd party or independent, anywhere. With the electoral college, edge cases like any of those can be safely and easily ignored by candidates.

I think it is unlikely that Kansas would turn blue, even if all of the democrats voted. That being said, we're not a complete LOCK for red; heck, out of the 10 most recent Governors we've had before we turned into Brownbackistan it is an even split between Democrats and Republicans with 5 each. And actually the Democrats had significantly longer total number of years in the office.

So basically, I don't actually think that a vote cast on a losing candidate is "pointless", I just think that the electoral college system does a really good job of making sure that some votes are more pointless than others. It amazes me that there wasn't a MUCH bigger stink made about it when Gore "lost" in 2000, but I guess voter apathy can overcome any challenge to the system.

While I find it entertaining and hilarious, this is simply horrible strawmanning. The US has one of the simplest systems of inclusion of any major nation. He either is not understanding, or he's simply being a demagogue about it.

It's really, really simple.

Want full rights? Then join permanently. Become a state. It's literally the exact same thing that Tennessee, Ohio, Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi, Illinois, Alabama, Missouri, Arkansas, Michigan, Florida, Iowa, Wisconsin, California, Minnesota, Oregon, Kansas, Nevada, Nebraska, Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Washington, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, Alaska, and Hawaii did.

Guam, the Marianas, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands have the EXACT SAME OPTIONS as those states listed above had when those states were territories.

Samoa is different because they don't meet the minimum population requirement (60K) to be bumped up to qualify for statehood.

They're pretty close tho.

But yeah... it has nothing to do with race or bigotry or anything like that. If John Oliver can't understand that simple system, then how does he explain the different rights of citizens in the British Overseas Territories vs the British Crown Dependencies, or how Wales and Scotland are sort of countries and sort of not countries.

I'm assuming he can understand the wonky UK system, and if that's so, he should easily understand the simple US system (want full rights, vote to join permanently).

Just last year, there was a movement in Guam to call for a vote of statehood. Basically a glorified (but meaningful) petition. They didn't get the required % of people wanting to vote, so, in essence, Guam doesn't even care enough to vote for statehood.

They have every right that every other territory has had in terms of what category they fall under.

Basically, just look at states as permanent (and thusly more rights as well as more responsibilities) and territories as temporary until they decide what they want to be. Or territories can stay in limbo forever.

Guam, PR, and the rest can go the route of Hawaii (okay, that was naked imperialism but whatever) or the route of Cuba and the Philippines... or just stay how they are.