Obama orders full review of elections hacking

[peabody]

What is their goal?

I don't understand what you mean by this post. Care to elaborate?

 

[jc456]

The Supreme Court would end up getting involved. Just more crazy crying from libturds

 

[Auld Phart]

What is their goal?

I don't understand what you mean by this post. Care to elaborate?

We had the most qualified candidate.
(not really, Kasich, Walker, O'Malley, and Webb were far more qualified)

We got the most votes
(which has never decided a presidential election)

But our candidate didn't win...

and we need to make sure that goes in the history books

 

[whitehall]

What did Hussein know and when did he know about it? I mean, is the president playing freaking dumb these days? Does he claim he wasn't aware of alleged hacking by foreign governments until his party lost the freaking election? If the CIA can't stop the hacking who do we need see about it?

 

[peabody]

What is their goal?

I don't understand what you mean by this post. Care to elaborate?

We had the most qualified candidate.
(not really, Kasich, Walker, O'Malley, and Webb were far more qualified)

We got the most votes
(which has never decided a presidential election)

But our candidate didn't win...

and we need to make sure that goes in the history books

OK. But your comment has no relation to my post. I was taking about potential censorship and you are discussing election results

 

[HaShev]

Boggles the mind how CNN acts like hacking happened when recounts and State reviews show no evidence, then claim how concerning this should be to both parties instead of saying ALL PARTIES.
1) BY saying both parties they are proving to be the concern they so love to point out, because it shows and proves their bias and manipulation to keep other parties from having an outlet that might take away those Liberal votes.
2) they CNN and other media outlets have manipulated the elections, so how can they be concerned about something they are blatantly doing themselves? If sincere they'd be concerned about their own actions.
3)CNN has illegally broadcasted info WILLINGLY to the masses and enemies that would get military and politicians arrested, yet complain
about the appointment to the cabinet who only accidentally told a spouse.
4)CNN has comitted treason.
5)CNN has violated their broadcast licensing FCC rules & Regulations.
6)CNN has behaved like school yard children and is still acting like children, which is why they lost huge numbers in viewership.

 

[jc456]

MSM still doesn't get it. They don't get to make cabinet choices, trump does. I give two fks their opinions of any nominee. Kiss trump's ass you fks.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The question then is why are they pushing this whole Russian manipulation thing so hard all of a sudden? What is their goal? It won't put Clinton in the White House and it won't discredit Trump anymore than they have tried already.

The goal is to discredit the election won by Trump. It's the same reason they started this "fake news" business.

They certainly can't push their agendas. Americans have told them to take their agendas and go pound a salt bag. We told them last mid-terms, the mid-terms before that, and the election now.

The next plan of attack is to make Trump an illegitimate President like they tried to push with Bush his first win. Using our government agencies, they will create this farce that Hillary actually won, and America didn't reject their policies or candidates.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

[
and you seem to be okay with disenfranchising the populations of 30-35 states.

Um, no. I'm saying everybody's vote should have the same weight. You're saying that's not okay..

You tell us. Here is the voting map of counties and states by color. What you're complaining about is those tiny blue sections shouldn't be controlled by those huge red sections:

 

[Papageorgio]

With all your insults and belittling of the guy, he beat your pants off and it's driving you batty.

Hillary won the popular vote. He didn't beat anybody's pants off...

Winning the Electoral Vote by 36 is beating their pants off.

And yet 2 million + more people wanted her as president. That aside, if you look at the history of elections, 36 EC votes is fuck all...

Not any different than having parliament electing your Prime Minister. I have no issues with it and I live her.

 

[Dr Grump]

[

Hillary took 20 states, and had a higher popular vote than Trump.

IF the presidency was based on the popular vote, the people in the other 30 states would have been disenfranchised.

You're basically saying the 30 smaller states should have no input in the presidential election.

This year, they thought the Blue wall was going to put Hillary in the WH, that failed. (badly)

now you want to whine about the popular vote.

Read what I'm saying. I'm not even talking about the popular vote.

 

[Dr Grump]

How is there a different weight? CA went Clinton didn't it? They had more people than Wyoming

As I said, there is 1 EC vote for every 725,000 (that is the correct number) Californian. There is 1 EC vote for every 222,000 Alaskan. IOW, Alaskans have more of a say. If things were equitable either there would be 1 EC vote for every 222,000 Californian or 1 EC vote for every 750,000 Alaskan (in which case Alaska would not even get a full vote as there are only 662,000 of them). So, if you live in a populous state, you vote is worth less...

And you know the rules right? Are you uneducated?

Nice way not to argue your POV.

 

[Dr Grump]

You tell us. Here is the voting map of counties and states by color. What you're complaining about is those tiny blue sections shouldn't be controlled by those huge red sections:

No, I' not. However you do appear to be arguing that those barely populated red parts should ride rough shod over the blue parts. I know it looks nice and big and red, but you know that includes places like the rockies and death valley and Utah, where nobody lives. Looks nice doesn't mean much.

 

[Dr Grump]

Country has had elections since 1792? or was the first one sooner then that? And in those over 200 years please be specific and tell us WHEN the popular vote decided who would be president? Dems controlled the Government from 2006 to 2010 yet did nothing to change the system I wonder why? The dems controlled both Houses of Congress pretty much continually from 1952 to 1992, yet never once floated an amendment to do away with the electoral college. Obama never called for it, Hillary never called for and no dem did either UNTIL they lost this time.

Why are you guys talking about the popular vote? I'm talking the inequality of the EC...

 

[Dr Grump]

[

Not any different than having parliament electing your Prime Minister. I have no issues with it and I live her.

The party elect the PM. Not the parliament.

 

[Lewdog]

If the CIA has "proof" can the President make an executive order to invalidate an election and force a do-over?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You tell us. Here is the voting map of counties and states by color. What you're complaining about is those tiny blue sections shouldn't be controlled by those huge red sections:

No, I' not. However you do appear to be arguing that those barely populated red parts should ride rough shod over the blue parts. I know it looks nice and big and red, but you know that includes places like the rockies and death valley and Utah, where nobody lives. Looks nice doesn't mean much.

When our country was formed, it was thought that representation should equate the population, so it was done with the US Congress. The problem was that those who would live in less populated states would be run by those populated states as far as representation goes, so they created the Senate to have two representatives no matter what size your state is.

Do you think it's fair that California has the same amount of Senators as Rhode Island?

The founders wanted everybody to have representation. Since we couldn't have a structure for voting like we do our representatives, the electoral college was something of a similar compromise. With the EC, you do have representation by population and have equality across the states. Without the EC, those tiny blue sections would be in control over the entire country which is mostly red. Would that be fair?

 

[Papageorgio]

[

Not any different than having parliament electing your Prime Minister. I have no issues with it and I live her.

The party elect the PM. Not the parliament.

So no democratic election for the PM. It's the party that holds the majority in Parliament?

 

[Dr Grump]

When our country was formed, it was thought that representation should equate the population, so it was done with the US Congress. The problem was that those who would live in less populated states would be run by those populated states as far as representation goes, so they created the Senate to have two representatives no matter what size your state is.

Do you think it's fair that California has the same amount of Senators as Rhode Island?

The founders wanted everybody to have representation. Since we couldn't have a structure for voting like we do our representatives, the electoral college was something of a similar compromise. With the EC, you do have representation by population and have equality across the states. Without the EC, those tiny blue sections would be in control over the entire country which is mostly red. Would that be fair?

They don't need more senators, they have more congress critters. That aside, of course everybody should have fair representation. And the only way that can happen is on a per head of population basis.

And no, with the EC you don't have equality amongst the states. You are penalising those who live in cities, just because they live in cities. How is that fair. As it stands, when one Californian elector goes to Washington in January he or she is representing 750,000 Californians. When the Alaskan does the same he or she is representing 222,000 Alaskans. In fact, the 3 Alaskan electors are representing just over 660,000 people So, currently as it stands there will be 3 votes representing 660,000 people while 1 will be representing 750,000. Any way you look at it, that is an inherently unfair and unbalanced system.

 

[Dr Grump]

[

So no democratic election for the PM. It's the party that holds the majority in Parliament?

Of course not. Our PM only has one vote in Parliament, too, which is a good thing. You guys give far too much power to one person. BTW, we know who the party leader is before the election. So going into the election we know, depending on what party wins, who will be the PM. Since MMP was introduced in 1996 there has been no majority in Parliament.