Hillarys Victory Fund year end reports for 2015 and 2016 were just amended three hours ago. Hmm?
Not gonna bother doing that google thing. Has her book been published yet? Or is this the edit before being published?
you won't find it on Google, it's on the fec website. I'm guessing she was advised of some material misstatements so the amendments were necessary. I have no idea about her book other than you only have to read the cover to know what happened (question), Hilliary Clinton (answer).
Hillarys Victory Fund year end reports for 2015 and 2016 were just amended three hours ago. Hmm?
Because campaign finance forms never get amended. You know what forms typically don't get amended? Never mind more than once or twice? Security clearance forms and listing of your foreign contacts. Too bad you don't seem to care too much about that. Feeling the Bern? 7Xs.
Hillarys Victory Fund year end reports for 2015 and 2016 were just amended three hours ago. Hmm?
Not gonna bother doing that google thing. Has her book been published yet? Or is this the edit before being published?
you won't find it on Google, it's on the fec website. I'm guessing she was advised of some material misstatements so the amendments were necessary. I have no idea about her book other than you only have to read the cover to know what happened (question), Hilliary Clinton (answer).
But you started this thread about her book. Are you not following it?
Hillarys Victory Fund year end reports for 2015 and 2016 were just amended three hours ago. Hmm?
Not gonna bother doing that google thing. Has her book been published yet? Or is this the edit before being published?
you won't find it on Google, it's on the fec website. I'm guessing she was advised of some material misstatements so the amendments were necessary. I have no idea about her book other than you only have to read the cover to know what happened (question), Hilliary Clinton (answer).
But you started this thread about her book. Are you not following it?
not really, it's out in two weeks. I'm sure it will be all over, so will Hillary, on Ellen, abc this week, maybe Megan Kelly will get an exclusive.
The topic beings up an interesting gender issue: that women are judged more on the quality of their relationships then men. Imagine if Hillary had multiple children with multiple ex-husbands? Or think about how people would look at a race between Michelle Obama vs. Mr. Lisa Murkowski? How much would their spouse factor in?
Haha, oh, if a female with multiple kids from various men tried running for office she wouldn't even get off the ground. Meanwhile, Trump has an ex-wife who says he raped her, and even his opponents didn't seem to give a shit about it.
Ummmm.....there is a good joke just sitting there waiting to be made!
"Nonetheless, his attacks caused lasting damage, making it harder to unify progressives in the general election and paving the way for Trump's 'Crooked Hillary' campaign."
"Nonetheless, his attacks caused lasting damage, making it harder to unify progressives in the general election and paving the way for Trump's 'Crooked Hillary' campaign."
Because we agreed on so much, Bernie couldn't make an argument against me in this area on policy, so he had to resort to innuendo and impugning my character. Some of his supporters, the so-called Bernie Bros, took to harassing my supporters online. It got ugly and more than a little sexist. When I finally challenged Bernie during a debate to name a single time I changed a position or a vote because of a financial contribution, he couldn't come up with anything. Nonetheless, his attacks caused lasting damage, making it harder to unify progressives in the general election and paving the way for Trump's "Crooked Hillary" campaign.
I don't know if that bothered Bernie or not. He certainly shared my horror at the thought of Donald Trump becoming President, and I appreciate that he campaigned for me in the general election. But he isn't a Democrat — that's not a smear, that's what he says. He didn't get into the race to make sure a Democrat won the White House, he got in to disrupt the Democratic Party. He was right that Democrats needed to strengthen our focus on working families and that there's always a danger of spending too much time courting donors because of our insane campaign finance system. He also engaged a lot of young people in the political process for the first time, which is extremely important. But I think he was fundamentally wrong about the Democratic Party — the party that brought us Social Security under Roosevelt; Medicare and Medicaid under Johnson; peace between Israel and Egypt under Carter; broad-based prosperity and a balanced budget under Clinton; and rescued the auto industry, passed health care reform, and imposed tough new rules on Wall Street under Obama. I am proud to be a Democrat and I wish Bernie were, too.
^ I think that the second paragraph is spot on. The first paragraph is a stretch though. But the second is something I and a few others have been saying for over a year; Bernie is not a Democrat. Why would the DNC remain neutral in a two way race with a long time Democrat and a guy who openly says he isn't a Democrat- but would gladly take their money if he were the candidate.
Because we agreed on so much, Bernie couldn't make an argument against me in this area on policy, so he had to resort to innuendo and impugning my character. Some of his supporters, the so-called Bernie Bros, took to harassing my supporters online. It got ugly and more than a little sexist. When I finally challenged Bernie during a debate to name a single time I changed a position or a vote because of a financial contribution, he couldn't come up with anything. Nonetheless, his attacks caused lasting damage, making it harder to unify progressives in the general election and paving the way for Trump's "Crooked Hillary" campaign.
I don't know if that bothered Bernie or not. He certainly shared my horror at the thought of Donald Trump becoming President, and I appreciate that he campaigned for me in the general election. But he isn't a Democrat — that's not a smear, that's what he says. He didn't get into the race to make sure a Democrat won the White House, he got in to disrupt the Democratic Party. He was right that Democrats needed to strengthen our focus on working families and that there's always a danger of spending too much time courting donors because of our insane campaign finance system. He also engaged a lot of young people in the political process for the first time, which is extremely important. But I think he was fundamentally wrong about the Democratic Party — the party that brought us Social Security under Roosevelt; Medicare and Medicaid under Johnson; peace between Israel and Egypt under Carter; broad-based prosperity and a balanced budget under Clinton; and rescued the auto industry, passed health care reform, and imposed tough new rules on Wall Street under Obama. I am proud to be a Democrat and I wish Bernie were, too.
The analysis is important for the left to work on a healthy and progressive party people can vote for and are excited to vote for. There are so many great ideas and there has to be a great candidate promoting and delivering those ideas. I'm looking forward to reading this book. The ideas aren't only leftish, they are important to all so crossover voting would be great.
I agree with what I think Kat is going for. If the Democratic Party can blend the ideas of Sanders and Clinton to appeal to the majority of Americans and find candidates who aren't terribly flawed- it could be the rebirth of Dems here. But that's asking for a lot.
I agree with what I think Kat is going for. If the Democratic Party can blend the ideas of Sanders and Clinton to appeal to the majority of Americans and find candidates who aren't terribly flawed- it could be the rebirth of Dems here. But that's asking for a lot.
Considering the Dems couldn't come up with someone who could beat Trump (how do you lose to Trump- I still find that hard to believe), that's asking quite a lot.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I think she did beat him and strongly. He only got in through a technicality. Cue founding fathers rolling in their graves.
True- the Electoral College. Time to dump that one. Nevertheless, I find it hard to believe the Dems couldn't some up with a candidate that would beat a clown like Trump by a record breaking landslide. Or maybe the American voting public really has gotten that lame in which case- good luck to us.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Gavin Newsom. He's the white knight for the Dems. The only thing hurting him at the moment is timing. He could win governor in 2018, but starting a presidential run in 2019 could be a real stretch.
I think she did beat him and strongly. He only got in through a technicality. Cue founding fathers rolling in their graves.
True- the Electoral College. Time to dump that one. Nevertheless, I find it hard to believe the Dems couldn't some up with a candidate that would beat a clown like Trump by a record breaking landslide. Or maybe the American voting public really has gotten that lame in which case- good luck to us.
I don't think the Electoral College is a bad thing at all, but I do think the 'winner takes all' within a State's voting population makes little sense. Why not do proportional representation within a State? D gets 48%, R gets 52%, a State has 7 seats - 7*.48 = 3.36 = 3 seats for D, 7*.52 = 3.64 = 4 seats for R. This way you can optimize the normalizing of congressional and Electoral College seats (as the method of equal proportions does quite well), while moving forward from committing a State's number of seats based on a binary decision (win or lose).
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
I think she did beat him and strongly. He only got in through a technicality. Cue founding fathers rolling in their graves.
True- the Electoral College. Time to dump that one. Nevertheless, I find it hard to believe the Dems couldn't some up with a candidate that would beat a clown like Trump by a record breaking landslide. Or maybe the American voting public really has gotten that lame in which case- good luck to us.
I don't think the Electoral College is a bad thing at all, but I do think the 'winner takes all' within a State's voting population makes little sense. Why not do proportional representation within a State? D gets 48%, R gets 52%, a State has 7 seats - 7*.48 = 3.36 = 3 seats for D, 7*.52 = 3.64 = 4 seats for R. This way you can optimize the normalizing of congressional and Electoral College seats (as the method of equal proportions does quite well), while moving forward from committing a State's number of seats based on a binary decision (win or lose).
this way has always made sense to me. winner take all is stupid to me. but the electoral college, as I've stated many times before, was never a problem for anyone until Trump won by it. I find it quite amazing the job that was done setting it up way back then, and it hasn't really been a question until now.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
I think she did beat him and strongly. He only got in through a technicality. Cue founding fathers rolling in their graves.
True- the Electoral College. Time to dump that one. Nevertheless, I find it hard to believe the Dems couldn't some up with a candidate that would beat a clown like Trump by a record breaking landslide. Or maybe the American voting public really has gotten that lame in which case- good luck to us.
I don't think the Electoral College is a bad thing at all, but I do think the 'winner takes all' within a State's voting population makes little sense. Why not do proportional representation within a State? D gets 48%, R gets 52%, a State has 7 seats - 7*.48 = 3.36 = 3 seats for D, 7*.52 = 3.64 = 4 seats for R. This way you can optimize the normalizing of congressional and Electoral College seats (as the method of equal proportions does quite well), while moving forward from committing a State's number of seats based on a binary decision (win or lose).
this way has always made sense to me. winner take all is stupid to me. but the electoral college, as I've stated many times before, was never a problem for anyone until Trump won by it. I find it quite amazing the job that was done setting it up way back then, and it hasn't really been a question until now.
One thing to note, is that if proportional allocation had occurred per State in 2016 as I suggested above, I've calculated what the outcome would've been:
Clinton - 256 Trump - 250 Johnson - 18 Stein - 6 Others - 1
For a total of 538 members of the Electoral College.
The challenge here is that the 12th Amendment stipulates then that if less than half of the Electoral College votes for the the number one choice, this moves over to Congress, where they must decide on one vote per State, and the three highest vote recipients are the only eligible candidates (meaning Clinton, Trump, Johnson).
I would assume that in the circumstance where over 50% of a population's vote went to one of the candidates remaining, Congress would likely place their vote for that candidate. In that situation, Clinton would have had 14 congressional votes, and Trump would have had 22.
The States remaining would have been Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin. If four of these States had cast their votes for Trump, he'd have won. If three had, then the winning Vice President (also picked by the Electoral College) would sit as President.
Next challenge - the 12th Amendment majority requirement exists for the Vice Presidency as well. If the Electoral College majority voted for Pence - he would become President. If the Electoral College produced a tie for Vice President (likely, since it's typical for the Electoral College to cast votes for VP from the same party as the President they are casting votes for), the Senate then picks the Vice President.
The Senate would likely toe party lines, and lo and behold - the Republican majority Senate would probably produce President Mike Pence.
And so, with proportional representation in 2016 within the Electoral College - it's likely that Trump's greatest competition for President wouldn't have been Clinton at all - it would've been Pence.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
I think she did beat him and strongly. He only got in through a technicality. Cue founding fathers rolling in their graves.
True- the Electoral College. Time to dump that one. Nevertheless, I find it hard to believe the Dems couldn't some up with a candidate that would beat a clown like Trump by a record breaking landslide. Or maybe the American voting public really has gotten that lame in which case- good luck to us.
I don't think the Electoral College is a bad thing at all, but I do think the 'winner takes all' within a State's voting population makes little sense. Why not do proportional representation within a State? D gets 48%, R gets 52%, a State has 7 seats - 7*.48 = 3.36 = 3 seats for D, 7*.52 = 3.64 = 4 seats for R. This way you can optimize the normalizing of congressional and Electoral College seats (as the method of equal proportions does quite well), while moving forward from committing a State's number of seats based on a binary decision (win or lose).
this way has always made sense to me. winner take all is stupid to me. but the electoral college, as I've stated many times before, was never a problem for anyone until Trump won by it. I find it quite amazing the job that was done setting it up way back then, and it hasn't really been a question until now.
It was a problem in 2000 too... and 2004 where campaigning was only done in like 2 states
I think she did beat him and strongly. He only got in through a technicality. Cue founding fathers rolling in their graves.
True- the Electoral College. Time to dump that one. Nevertheless, I find it hard to believe the Dems couldn't some up with a candidate that would beat a clown like Trump by a record breaking landslide. Or maybe the American voting public really has gotten that lame in which case- good luck to us.
I don't think the Electoral College is a bad thing at all, but I do think the 'winner takes all' within a State's voting population makes little sense. Why not do proportional representation within a State? D gets 48%, R gets 52%, a State has 7 seats - 7*.48 = 3.36 = 3 seats for D, 7*.52 = 3.64 = 4 seats for R. This way you can optimize the normalizing of congressional and Electoral College seats (as the method of equal proportions does quite well), while moving forward from committing a State's number of seats based on a binary decision (win or lose).
this way has always made sense to me. winner take all is stupid to me. but the electoral college, as I've stated many times before, was never a problem for anyone until Trump won by it. I find it quite amazing the job that was done setting it up way back then, and it hasn't really been a question until now.
It was a problem in 2000 too... and 2004 where campaigning was only done in like 2 states
I don't recall it being a problem with the EC in 2000, in that I don't remember anyone saying the EC needed to be scrapped because of that outcome. that was vote counting, plain and simple, from what I recall.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
Comments
I have no idea about her book other than you only have to read the cover to know what happened (question), Hilliary Clinton (answer).
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
But you started this thread about her book. Are you not following it?
But you are absolutely correct.
Crooked Hilliary was Bernies fault.
"Nonetheless, his attacks caused lasting damage, making it harder to unify progressives in the general election and paving the way for Trump's 'Crooked Hillary' campaign."
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Because we agreed on so much, Bernie couldn't make an argument against me in this area on policy, so he had to resort to innuendo and impugning my character. Some of his supporters, the so-called Bernie Bros, took to harassing my supporters online. It got ugly and more than a little sexist. When I finally challenged Bernie during a debate to name a single time I changed a position or a vote because of a financial contribution, he couldn't come up with anything. Nonetheless, his attacks caused lasting damage, making it harder to unify progressives in the general election and paving the way for Trump's "Crooked Hillary" campaign.
I don't know if that bothered Bernie or not. He certainly shared my horror at the thought of Donald Trump becoming President, and I appreciate that he campaigned for me in the general election. But he isn't a Democrat — that's not a smear, that's what he says. He didn't get into the race to make sure a Democrat won the White House, he got in to disrupt the Democratic Party. He was right that Democrats needed to strengthen our focus on working families and that there's always a danger of spending too much time courting donors because of our insane campaign finance system. He also engaged a lot of young people in the political process for the first time, which is extremely important. But I think he was fundamentally wrong about the Democratic Party — the party that brought us Social Security under Roosevelt; Medicare and Medicaid under Johnson; peace between Israel and Egypt under Carter; broad-based prosperity and a balanced budget under Clinton; and rescued the auto industry, passed health care reform, and imposed tough new rules on Wall Street under Obama. I am proud to be a Democrat and I wish Bernie were, too.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
But that's asking for a lot.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
I know I've said something very basic there. Who is going to relentlessly search for that leader?
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnns-jeffrey-toobin-bernie-sanders-set-up-the-crooked-hillary-image/amp/
CNN propagandists tripping all over themselves
-EV 8/14/93
Clinton - 256
Trump - 250
Johnson - 18
Stein - 6
Others - 1
For a total of 538 members of the Electoral College.
The challenge here is that the 12th Amendment stipulates then that if less than half of the Electoral College votes for the the number one choice, this moves over to Congress, where they must decide on one vote per State, and the three highest vote recipients are the only eligible candidates (meaning Clinton, Trump, Johnson).
I would assume that in the circumstance where over 50% of a population's vote went to one of the candidates remaining, Congress would likely place their vote for that candidate. In that situation, Clinton would have had 14 congressional votes, and Trump would have had 22.
The States remaining would have been Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin. If four of these States had cast their votes for Trump, he'd have won. If three had, then the winning Vice President (also picked by the Electoral College) would sit as President.
Next challenge - the 12th Amendment majority requirement exists for the Vice Presidency as well. If the Electoral College majority voted for Pence - he would become President. If the Electoral College produced a tie for Vice President (likely, since it's typical for the Electoral College to cast votes for VP from the same party as the President they are casting votes for), the Senate then picks the Vice President.
The Senate would likely toe party lines, and lo and behold - the Republican majority Senate would probably produce President Mike Pence.
And so, with proportional representation in 2016 within the Electoral College - it's likely that Trump's greatest competition for President wouldn't have been Clinton at all - it would've been Pence.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
-EV 8/14/93
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
You got it, dude!
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
-EV 8/14/93
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1