After this's all over, I hope the U.S. gov't bills Trump for the damage he's done to our reputation

[D.o.S.]

You're all still wrong about this. I think Trump speaks to exactly why the electoral college is a good idea.

[Mudfuzz]

You're all still wrong about this. I think Trump speaks to exactly why the electoral college is a good idea.

[D.o.S.]

https://twitter.com/ampersandcastle/sta ... 2751240193

[D.o.S.]

I'm sure we want her vote counting the same as everyone else's.

[D.o.S.]

And I'm sure that the average voter is well informed enough to be trusted to make good decisions.

You've convinced me.

[Gone Fission]

I wouldn't say that it's a spite vote. Hilary is a fucking criminal and has breached national security on a number of levels. The fact that she allowed to still run, is beyond me. The fact that she could President is dumbfounding. I just cannot fucking believe it. That bitch should be in fucking prison. Not running around picking up delegates. This country is completely fucked.

Is this the "Hillary's Kill List" bs that my uncle forwarded to me, despite it having been debunked 20 years ago? The Bey-gazi fantasy? Or is this about retroactive classification totally jumping the shark and the political media completely not getting it or not wanting to get it because it's fun to play like something wrong happened at the time? Where there is smoke, sometimes there is a smoke machine.

[Mudfuzz]

You've convinced me.

ps. yes I am still a bit bitter.

[ChetMagongalo]

You're all still wrong about this. I think Trump speaks to exactly why the electoral college is a good idea.

in what way? is the question we're asking: should we allow everyone's opinion to be equal when electing representatives? maybe not; obviously some people know more about certain topics than others or perhaps have a more valuable perspective. but does the electoral college do a good job of serving this function? to be honest, I don't know for myself, maybe I should read up on it more. I think eventually when everyone has equal access to information and education, everyone's vote would be as intellectually sound as anyone else, and a popular vote would be adequate.

[D.o.S.]

You're all still wrong about this. I think Trump speaks to exactly why the electoral college is a good idea.

in what way? is the question we're asking: should we allow everyone's opinion to be equal when electing representatives? maybe not; obviously some people know more about certain topics than others or perhaps have a more valuable perspective. but does the electoral college do a good job of serving this function? to be honest, I don't know for myself, maybe I should read up on it more. I think eventually when everyone has equal access to information and education, everyone's vote would be as intellectually sound as anyone else, and a popular vote would be adequate.

How are you going to get everyone equal access to information and education without involving the government?

And the answer is yes, the electoral college does a good job of serving this function across the board (generally speaking). They are, for the most part, smart, articulate, and aware individuals (this is, incidentally, how most of them end up in it). Also of note: I know at least one electoral college member who was not asked back because he gave his vote to Howard Dean, rather than John Kerry, for example.

That all sounds very conspiritorial, particularly if you're not involved in the process, but it's nowhere near as tinfoil hat as it sounds. This is a good article describing it in actuality, rather than scary theories about grey eminences or w/e:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ret ... c550508660

the ideal situation for many superdelegates is for them to merely use their vote as a ceremonial affirmation of the voters' consensus. That's why hundreds of them are currently biding their time, not picking anyone. Many superdelegates are in it for the perks -- a hotel room at the convention, a place amid the pageantry on the floor -- and would rather not see their potentially decisive power being used to decide a nominee.

This sentiment was well expressed by Missouri Democratic Sen. (and superdelegate) Claire McCaskill back in April of 2008:

"The majority of superdelegates I’ve talked to are committed, but it is a matter of timing,” said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.). “They’re just preferring to make their decision public after the primaries are over. ... They would like someone else to act for them before they talk about it in the cold light of day.”

And back in the spring of 2008, the way the race had shaped up had placed a lot of undue attention on the superdelegates and their role in the process. There came a moment in the race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama when Clinton's mathematical path to notching the nomination didn't make sense unless a lot of superdelegates started breaking her way.

And it wasn't just the raw arithmetic that mattered. She needed momentum as well, because she was locked in a situation where she had to start winning primaries by decisive margins that hadn't yet manifested themselves. Getting party elites to come out for her -- against the run of play -- was necessary to add a dose of energy to facilitate this outcome.

So Clinton got to the point where she had to start publicly and flamboyantly courting the superdelegates. (Obama, rest assured, was doing the same in a more publicly restrained way.) And many of those superdelegates properly recognized that their lives might get dicey if, after the voters demonstrated a clear desire to nominate their party's first black candidate, some affluent Beltway toff threw the election in a different direction. (Around the same time, the Clinton campaign was also seeking to have the full delegate slate from a pair of states fully credentialed after the party punished them for various primary calendar shenanigans, a much better case for a nominal leader of the "party of the little guy" to be making.)

[ChetMagongalo]

nice thanks for that. most people use their knowledge of the electoral college to confirm their laziness and apathy toward the voting process, instead of actually seeking to understand it and make a well informed decision on whether or not they want to participate.

[Faldoe]

That would be awesome if that lady is trolling the Lefties. Putting in a lot of effort.

[Chankgeez]

The Drumpfian police state has already begun:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... rotesters/

[D.o.S.]

That would be awesome if that lady is trolling the Lefties. Putting in a lot of effort.

According to her and her husband they were showing the proper way to throw a Nazi salute, while they're not Nazis themselves.

Which is actually an incredible answer.

[taco satori]

That would be awesome if that lady is trolling the Lefties. Putting in a lot of effort.

According to her and her husband they were showing the proper way to throw a Nazi salute, while they're not Nazis themselves.

Which is actually an incredible answer.

She was born in Germany in 1946, so I guess she missed out on refining her technique with the Bund Deustcher Mädel.
She seems more like Michael "Back in the day we woulda" Richards based on the anecdote offered by the guy next to her who was offering her passage to leave the protest, which is still pretty shoddy on her part.

[Chankgeez]

Yeah, there's a fine line between parody and being taken for something you're trying to parody. Especially when we all weren't there to witness what actually went on. Context means a lot.