Maybe it was the part where there was evidence showing Clinton committed treason. You know, that relevant piece behind an accusation. I do like how one just cast for a random protester.
I don't understand protester logic. I read that hundreds of protesters are gathering at the California capitol to protest Trump. #1, Clinton won California. Do they think they will persuade anyone to not vote for Trump? #2, California, Nevada, and Hawaii are the last three states to vote today. Trump will have secured the election before California even gets down to business.
We had people in CANADA publicly protesting the fact that Trump won. They formed up in front of our parliament buildings. Just about every news agency in Canada was there covering it, but not a single one tried to find out what they were hoping to accomplish by protesting.
I think it's just wanting attention for doing it. Make your voice heard! Protesting was meant to be a near last resort for legitimate grievances. It's become more like a social recreational activity.
I'm so frustrated with the democrats right now. You lost, stop bitching and get to work. You need to figure out how the party can win back some seats in the mid-term elections and the best strategy for opposing Trump's worst ideas. It also wouldn't hurt if they actually put some effort into the state level politics as well. I think Trump is going to be a miserable president, but right after you lose is no time to bitch about the rules. Get to fucking work.
If you think that's not happening, you're probably not in touch with your local politicians and/or grassroots organizations and/or NPOs/NGOs. There's been a lot going on since the day after the election (and always, but still), in addition to bitching. There have been huge forces of mobilization. If you're actually interested, you have to start doing things like talking to them and going to meetings and getting on mailing lists and volunteering. It's the only way to know what's actually going on.
You'd have to ask your local politicians. I don't know where you or absentmindedprof live to check myself, but their opinions and priorities usually aren't too difficult to find and usually aren't too difficult to yell at them about if you disagree. Same goes for finding local grassroots efforts and other organizations.
Oh, I thought you were talking about something more broad. I live in Jacksonville. Local movements are about removing what little remaining restrictions on fireworks and firearms they still have. I kind of miss the local stuff from Minnesota because it was always about education and wildlife, and in a moderate/sane way. The town I grew up in had a feminist protest that was never more than 8 women and got national attention. It was our little thing since small towns typically don't factor influentially into politics. They did a recap awhile back and it is hilariously Minnesotan and pretty inspirational. Most of the town at the time didn't want the attention.
Oh fun, the saber rattling is now ICBM rattling: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/811977223326625792
That's like saying "The US has a problem with eating too much food, so we must eat more until we can get our eating under control."
No, no. Dig UP, stupid. I think the most unpredictable thing about Trump is that he actually isn't mentally handicapped.
I so badly wish this country could get over it's military obsession. Yeah, we're a super power, but no matter how much we're spending and extending a huge part of the country always wants MORE. Discussion of any other direction is always being a pussy, or 'insert country' is going to attack everyone. We even have been people(read: a lot of people) that are still concerned about Germany and Japan. I've heard the phrase "but as soon as we leave" more times than I would like to admit. I don't want Iran to get nukes, and I think we would have to intervene if they were near that point, but what are the odds this country doesn't fuck up and we invade there too? 50/50?
My Dad is quite a conservative, but he's far from a war monger. But he is very much of the opinion that the US is a moral authority in the world and without it, things would defend into chaos. Aka the Monroe Doctrine on steroids. We have gotten into arguments about it. Not that he wants to go to war with everyone, but he thinks its an American obligation to keep others in line. And I feel he's not singular in that regard.
That concept is called Pax Americana, and I am a proponent of it as well. I think we should further expand our military presence around the world.
I don't know why people worry about what MIGHT happen with Iran when they should be worrying about what IS in Pakistan, a country who has nukes. And kooks. Some of who are trying to steal them.
Lol. The minimum is 3 electoral votes, so those "powerful" states like WY, ND, SD, MT could all get together and total a whopping 24 electoral votes, which is less than NY's 29. And, you could add all the states with 3, 4 and 5 electoral votes (16 of them) together for 59 electoral votes to be just slightly ahead of California's 55. You can make the numbers represent whatever you like. Yes, based on that map, the power per person is high. But, what about the power per square mile? Or, how much wheat does New York grow? Or, compare North Dakota's oil production to Illinois?
The point isn't that the states themselves are too powerful, it's that the people in the flyover states are actually over-represented by the electoral college. The quote I was responding to was saying that because the big cities and states have more people in them, it's balanced by the EC. It's clearly not. the individual vote matters more in small EC states, as demonstrated by that graphic, in extreme cases like WY vs NY, the people in WY have a vote that's worth more than 3 New Yorkers. Arguing voting power per square mile is ridiculous, as is the production of consumables. CA grows the majority of the vegetables consumed in the US (not counting corn and wheat). Should that make the CA vote more powerful? Alaska has more landmass and oil than 1/3 of the contiguous US. How much should Alaska be worth in the EC? Population is the only fair way to decide, whether it's popular vote or a re-balancing of the EC. Right wingers keep bitching about how the coasts shouldn't get to decide who the elected officials are just because they have more people. I think the flyover states shouldn't get to decide the same just because they have less.
It doesn't matter. It would be 2 states deciding every election for the other 48. If that was allowed, no national politician would ever bother campaigning in any other state other than CA or NY. Interests of the coasts would only be catered to, creating an enormous inbalance of power. Having the flyover states matter in elections helps to maintain that balance.