Comey to testify that Trump obstructed

[RedDenver]

 

Agreed - so let me take a step back, perhaps this is a dumb question but I need a refresher - why is it that we don't already do that? Single votes are the answer.

Because neither major party wants to see that. Also no other parties have the funding to prop up a candidate properly atm unfortunately.

 

I like the rank-choice vote system passed in Maine last year. Change is difficult but possible.

[Army_Allen]

 

 

Agreed - so let me take a step back, perhaps this is a dumb question but I need a refresher - why is it that we don't already do that? Single votes are the answer.

Because neither major party wants to see that. Also no other parties have the funding to prop up a candidate properly atm unfortunately.

I like the rank-choice vote system passed in Maine last year. Change is difficult but possible.

I'm not saying I'm not a proponent for a new system just saying change is hard. It may be a lone bright spot that comes out of this debacle of an election and presidency. Let's hope the people are heard that it's not okay for the democrats to prop up one candidate over another rather than making it a true competition. Let's hope that republicans realize that their way of thinking isn't a lasting ideology for the future and that people like Trump are seen as loons now instead of far right etc. But really, let's hope we're not stuck with a crap system for electing people to take care of our country much longer.

[Danny Bateman]

I'm a pretty big fan of ranked-choice voting. It would prevent someone like Trump from winning with a plurality and would require an eventual majority.

 

Is that the same thing deedsker was describing with a single-transferable vote system?

[Danny Bateman]

[JJ Husker]

 

Clearly one wouldve been better and more qualified but they still both fell short of what I feel is an acceptable standard. So you can blame me for Trump all you want, if you want, but the complete lack of any worthy candidate is mostly to blame IMO. The fact that the Trump administration is such an absolute train wreck sure does lend some validity to your POV but I'm just not going to play that game.

I appreciate your reply. For me, anyway, it's not about individual blame. Rather it is about assessing how we make decisions collectively -- so that includes for example whether abstentions are truly zero impact or whether it's up to all of us to push back when called upon. So, hopefully, this has been a lesson learned for a generation ... although in the run-up to this year's elections, there were eerily prescient lamentations published by the cynics who stayed on the sidelines and watched as Nixon won. Trump, of course, is far less competent and surrounded by far shadier characters.So I'm not all that confident that we won't return to this theme, again and again over the years. To me, the solution is to push back against the idea of the honorable abstention. Your preferences and values are your own regardless of how you vote; a vote is an expression of outcome preference, not a blood oath or ringing endorsement.If we decline to use the strategic power to shape our nation's path -- a right granted to us by the Constitution -- then we have only but to lament when things don't automatically "happen" as they are "supposed" to. It takes active participation.

I totally appreciate this view and it may be the better road to go down than the one I chose. But to be clear, I'm not holding on to some unattainable standard or really much of a standard at all. My vote requires little more than some semblance of honesty, caring, a pinch of not being a total loon and a modicum of lack of criminal intent. I don't think it would be reasonable to expect much more than that from today's politicians or to demand any less. Amazingly, IMO, neither viable candidate met that sickening low minimum threshold. I wanted to vote for Johnson but that loon requirement kicked into play.

 

Anyway, the optimist in me wants to hope that this Trump CF may be enough to redirect just enough people in the right direction and hopefully it manifests in much better candidates. Like they say, it's always darkest before the dawn. But the cynical pessimist in me thinks it may get much darker first. People who still fervently support Trump are lending credence to that.

[ColoradoHusk]

 

 

 

 

All I could think about today were all the people who voted for this man who admitted he was a horrible person (you know, the sexual assaults, the bankruptcies, the shady business dealings, the sex talk tape, the divorces, the birtherisms etc). They cast their vote for the talking points and propaganda. I will never understand how that can overcome WHO a person is. Sadder yet - I don't know that many would do anything differently.

 

Perhaps some of those who chose not to vote cuz they didn't like their options, or those who voted for independent runners have changed their minds? I know we have some of those here - does your vote change when you think about how it counted (or didn't) strategically?

I didn't vote for Trump or Hillary, and I still would never vote for either of them. Although, at the time, I didn't think Trump would be this big of a cluster. I know better now.

 

As far as strategically, my lack of a vote didn't help elect Trump. I'm in Colorado and Hillary won all the electoral votes here.

Exactly the same for me. And if they held another election tomorrow I again wouldn't vote for Clinton or Trump.

I also left my ballot blank for the President vote. I just couldn't vote for either one. Trump has been a train wreck so far though.

[knapplc]

If we had to vote again tomorrow, I'd vote for Clinton over Trump again.

 

I'd rather get punched 10 times than 11 times. It's pretty much that simple.

 

 

 

Well, that and I don't think Clinton colluded with America's most dangerous enemy. So she'd be a sh**ty president, but the kind of sh**ty president we're used to. This is a whole 'nother level of sh**ty, and a bit socially concerning.

[deedsker]

I'm a pretty big fan of ranked-choice voting. It would prevent someone like Trump from winning with a plurality and would require an eventual majority.

 

Is that the same thing deedsker was describing with a single-transferable vote system?

 

Single best non political argument for a team about voting systems. First past the post promotes a two party system where a third party only ruins one ruling party to give the other power by default. The third party is absorbed by one or the other and the traditional in or out resumes. Single transferable vote takes away the you must vote against your views to decide two party debate and force third party votes who don't like either to show value to anybody else than the two vying for power. Eventually everyone votes how they truly feel and you also eliminate most gerrymandering by running multiple people to multiple positions.

[ZRod]

If we had to vote again tomorrow, I'd vote for Clinton over Trump again.

 

I'd rather get punched 10 times than 11 times. It's pretty much that simple.

 

 

 

Well, that and I don't think Clinton colluded with America's most dangerous enemy. So she'd be a sh**ty president, but the kind of sh**ty president we're used to. This is a whole 'nother level of sh**ty, and a bit socially concerning.

 

I honestly don't think Trump colluded with anyone. I think the people around him possibly could have. But he's just too stupid to even understand what he would have been doing even if he did it.

[Moiraine]

 

If we had to vote again tomorrow, I'd vote for Clinton over Trump again.

 

I'd rather get punched 10 times than 11 times. It's pretty much that simple.

 

 

 

Well, that and I don't think Clinton colluded with America's most dangerous enemy. So she'd be a sh**ty president, but the kind of sh**ty president we're used to. This is a whole 'nother level of sh**ty, and a bit socially concerning.

I honestly don't think Trump colluded with anyone. I think the people around him possibly could have. But he's just too stupid to even understand what he would have been doing even if he did it.

 

 

 

This.

 

But Trump is attempting to do way more damage as far as policy goes than Clinton ever would have approached.

[Danny Bateman]

If we had to vote again tomorrow, I'd vote for Clinton over Trump again.

 

I'd rather get punched 10 times than 11 times. It's pretty much that simple.

 

 

 

Well, that and I don't think Clinton colluded with America's most dangerous enemy. So she'd be a sh**ty president, but the kind of sh**ty president we're used to. This is a whole 'nother level of sh**ty, and a bit socially concerning.

 

That's an interesting way of putting it.

 

I think about it this way. Trump is the first president of my life time that has inspired quite THIS degree of vitriol, both in support of him (toward the evil libs) and against him.

 

He's the first one I can remember where families/friends are torn apart solely on the basis of their support. This does go both ways, as I know there was a similar sentiment towards Clinton from red-dead Republicans. But it's a shame he is so divisive that support or lack thereof pulls our most intimate relationships apart. Especially when he does nothing but stoke the division.

[QMany]

 

If we had to vote again tomorrow, I'd vote for Clinton over Trump again.

 

I'd rather get punched 10 times than 11 times. It's pretty much that simple.

 

 

 

Well, that and I don't think Clinton colluded with America's most dangerous enemy. So she'd be a sh**ty president, but the kind of sh**ty president we're used to. This is a whole 'nother level of sh**ty, and a bit socially concerning.

I honestly don't think Trump colluded with anyone. I think the people around him possibly could have. But he's just too stupid to even understand what he would have been doing even if he did it.

 

I might agree with this, but it wouldn't explain his pandering to Putin at every turn and refusal to acknowledge or condemn Russia's actions.

 

I just don't think Donald Trump coincidentally hired Carter Page, and Paul Manafort, and Jeff Sessions, and Michael Flynn, and Jared Kushner. And then that one time Trump expressly asked Russia to release Hillary's emails and said he loves Wikileaks.

[knapplc]

I just don't think Donald Trump coincidentally hired Carter Page, and Paul Manafort, and Jeff Sessions, and Michael Flynn, and Jared Kushner. And then that one time Trump expressly asked Russia to release Hillary's emails and said he loves Wikileaks.

It's pretty amazing that people can look at the decisions that Trump has made and give him a pass as some doddering simpleton. He isn't, and he isn't dumb. He's the captain of this ship and everything happening in the White House is exactly how he has traditionally run his businesses. He knows what he's doing, with whom he's doing it, and why. All of these Russian ties aren't coincidental and they aren't just happening around Trump.

[knapplc]

[NM11046]

 

 

If we had to vote again tomorrow, I'd vote for Clinton over Trump again.

 

I'd rather get punched 10 times than 11 times. It's pretty much that simple.

 

 

 

Well, that and I don't think Clinton colluded with America's most dangerous enemy. So she'd be a sh**ty president, but the kind of sh**ty president we're used to. This is a whole 'nother level of sh**ty, and a bit socially concerning.

I honestly don't think Trump colluded with anyone. I think the people around him possibly could have. But he's just too stupid to even understand what he would have been doing even if he did it.

 

I might agree with this, but it wouldn't explain his pandering to Putin at every turn and refusal to acknowledge or condemn Russia's actions.

 

I just don't think Donald Trump coincidentally hired Carter Page, and Paul Manafort, and Jeff Sessions, and Michael Flynn, and Jared Kushner. And then that one time Trump expressly asked Russia to release Hillary's emails and said he loves Wikileaks.

 

Once is a mistake, two is a pattern, three is a habit. Five? Not sure what that is. Collusion? Treason?