Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, March 18, 2019

On "Fox & Friends" Monday morning, Trump counselor Kellyanne Conway invited all Americans to read the entirety of the 74-page manifesto, which is a winding and bigoted piece of propaganda whose stated goal is to indoctrinate its readers and dog-whistle fellow extremists.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Kellyanne is just as crazy as her boss; crazy enough to make me suspect she's almost as compromised as her boss. I wonder what makes her twist and turn so?

#1 | Posted by Zed at 2019-03-18 05:02 PM | Reply

Info from the shooter's manifesto - 'Beyond his white nationalistic ideals, he claimed to be an environmentalist and said he is a fascist who believes China is the nation that most aligns with his political and social values. He said he has contempt for the wealthiest 1 percent.'

Sounds more in life with the left IMO.

#2 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-03-18 07:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Sounds like this manifesto is about as disjointed and meandering as a typical weekend of Trump tweets.

COU

#3 | Posted by OCUser at 2019-03-18 09:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#2 | POSTED BY MSGT

The left can't read ....

That is why this is so offensive to them.

#4 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-03-18 11:45 PM | Reply

Trump can't read. Certainly not something 74 pages long without pictures. Sad but true.

#5 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-03-18 11:52 PM | Reply | Funny: 4 | Newsworthy 3

That is why this is so offensive to them.

#4 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS AT 2019-03-18 11:45 PM | REPLY| COGNITIVELY DISSONANT

You overrate yourself... MACKERELASS you are a coward... just like him... your fearfulness is what makes you and him so offensive. Go ahead... go grab your guns and shoot people at prayer... yippee sure showed them a thing or two.

That manifesto is just sosdd to those of us reading the mind dribble oozing from the brains of wussies like you... boohoohoo oh them dangerous foreigners they're soooooooo scary.

#6 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2019-03-19 02:57 AM | Reply

Beyond his white nationalistic ideals, he claimed to be an environmentalist and said he is a fascist who believes China is the nation that most aligns with his political and social values. He said he has contempt for the wealthiest 1 percent.'
Sounds more in life with the left IMO.

#2 | POSTED BY MSGT AT 2019-03-18 07:25 PM | FLAG: ERM NO

Let me point out the obvious... the left isn't arming themselves and shooting people... that is what the right is doing... another difference between him and "the left" is he... like the rest of the righty tighty type... he blames it on foreigners. He doesn't want to take ownership of his own destiny... same as you... slaughter is your solution.

Right now you are losing another war... because its the only thing you're good at.

#7 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2019-03-19 03:13 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

the left isn't arming themselves and shooting people

No, the left is stopping ordinary people from defending themselves.

When I was first taught the use of a gun by my mother, she told me the first thing to remember about guns is, "It is a tool that saves lives".

Too Hell with anyone with cute ideas like "let's take everyone's guns away". That is GREAT in theory. HOWEVER, you will NEVER be able to take the guns away from the bad guys. They will ALWAYS have guns. All the do-gooders will do is disarm the law abiding citizens ... like the ones who got killed by that Aussie.

That is unacceptable.

#8 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2019-03-19 04:24 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

As for his "Manifesto"... it is clearly written by someone with a low grade education (Australian public school system) and it is full of rambling, low grade ideas that only make sense to a sick mind.

I gave up after 5 pages and started reading "Ms.Marvel" instead. That comic book has more going for it than his "Manifesto".

#9 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2019-03-19 04:28 AM | Reply

China is the nation that most aligns with his political and social values.

He doesn't have a clue about what China is all about. He is just attracted to China because it is the most powerful nation on earth.

How is it the most powerful? Because it's full power is unknown.

America's power is known. Russia's power is known.

The greatest human fear is "fear of the unknown".. it's why people fear death. "Fear of the unknown" is also what gives military planners nightmares... how do you plan for the unknown and the unexpected???

So basically this is the definition of a terrorist. He liked whatever represents a "fear of the unknown". He admired the concept of death.

Sorry I might not be making sense... all of this post is in Urdu. LOL

#10 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2019-03-19 04:35 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

And now the most IMPORTANT question of all..... would Tremain do Kellyanne?

You know... I have asked that of myself many times... and I always get the same answer. "Hell no".

That face is being held together with make-up and mascara. Gawd knows how many pieces it will fall apart into if you wash it?

And that voice... LOL

But I would happily roll up that Manifesto and......

#11 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2019-03-19 04:51 AM | Reply

"The left can't read .... "

Oh that really burns Ancrea, such brilliant commentary and clever insults. I do know though that I would not waste time reading 74 pages written by a lunatic, bigot. I don't care what he things, I only care that he never gets out of prison.

#12 | Posted by danni at 2019-03-19 06:04 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The murderous --------- is a fanboi of the bloated child rapist. Nuff said.

#13 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2019-03-19 06:28 AM | Reply

When I was first taught the use of a gun by my mother, she told me the first thing to remember about guns is, "It is a tool that saves lives".

#8 | POSTED BY J_TREMAIN

What´s your point? Your mom is a dumbass like you?

#14 | Posted by CrisisStills at 2019-03-19 06:37 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

To each his own, but I will NEVER read this garbage nor watch any of the videos.

#15 | Posted by CrisisStills at 2019-03-19 06:40 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Your mom is a dumbass like you?

Yep.

But not a whore like yours.

#16 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2019-03-19 06:49 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

I will NEVER read this garbage nor watch any of the videos.

Why not? Are you angry he wrote it before you did? LOL

#17 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2019-03-19 06:53 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Info from the shooter's manifesto - 'Beyond his white nationalistic ideals, he claimed to be an environmentalist and said he is a fascist who believes China is the nation that most aligns with his political and social values. He said he has contempt for the wealthiest 1 percent.'
Sounds more in life with the left IMO.
#2 | POSTED BY MSGT AT 2019-03-18 07:25 PM | FLAG: | NEWSWORTHY 1

Fascism? The Left embrace China? Other than that, yes, conservation and wealth redistribution are very deliberately worded general Lefty ideals.

What I find weird is the trip to Pakistan he gushes over, then this. Was that ruse data? Believable schizophrenia? Is this another murder psy-ops?

#18 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2019-03-19 07:40 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

What I find weird is the trip to Pakistan he gushes over, then this.

Yes. It is weird and somewhat creepy. He said he loved being in Pakistan. And then this.

He also went to Turkey... and he has a special kind of hate for Turkey in his "manifesto".

And the Isrealis said confirmed yesterday, he went to Isreal too. As well as North Korea.

The theory about Pakistan, at least, is that this guy wanted to visit all those places where the White Man won a battle.

At the area he visited the British had defeated the Khan of that area and included it in the British Empire. Maybe that was significant to him?

#19 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2019-03-19 07:50 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

this guy wanted to visit all those places where the White Man won a battle.

However that doesn't explain North Korea... or does it?

#20 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2019-03-19 07:51 AM | Reply

The left can't read ....
That is why this is so offensive to them.

#4 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

How do you not expect to be called stupid with dumb statements like this?

#21 | Posted by jpw at 2019-03-19 08:49 AM | Reply

Sounds more in life with the left IMO.

#2 | POSTED BY MSGT

Yawn. Idiots like you would already conclude he was a "lefty" no matter what.

Even when they're shooting up clinics spouting Bible passages and freely admit to police that they did it because right wing rhetoric righties just use the "he's clearly crazy...he must be a librul!" argument.

#22 | Posted by jpw at 2019-03-19 08:53 AM | Reply

While they're at it GOPers should read this page-turner: "Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei"

#23 | Posted by catdog at 2019-03-19 09:13 AM | Reply

--While they're at it GOPers should read this page-turner: "Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei"

Everyone should read the Communist Manifesto if they want to be at least slightly informed. Even that is insufficient for more than a shallow understanding of 20th century socialism. People who self-righteously say they refuse to read documents they disagree with are making a virtue out of ignorance.

#24 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-03-19 09:39 AM | Reply

Well now I go away for a few hours and people are calling each other's mothers names. All of a sudden the women that brought you in to the world are either stupid or whores... real class act you big bad ferocious men...

We need guns!
bang bang bang
We need more guns!!
blam blam blam
We need bigger guns!!!
boom boom boom

Then there you are
Your body parts scattered
An arm here, a leg there
entrails on the ground
heads rolling around
pants all wet filled with poo
screaming mommy mommy mommy
Mommeeeeeeeeee save meeeeeeeeee
because that is what men do.
and you know its true.

I know what 99.9% of what all terrorists have in common.

Currently there are more males on the planet than females... its gonna be a messy 50 years.

#25 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2019-03-19 09:56 AM | Reply

All of a sudden the women that brought you in to the world .... whores...

I am pretty sure it didn't happen all of a sudden. You just NOTICE it all of a sudden.

#26 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2019-03-19 10:03 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

All of a sudden was rhetorical... relative to this discussion.

In general it's a shame you can't give birth to yourselves... change your own diapers... and leave us out of your stupid squabbles.

#27 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2019-03-19 10:25 AM | Reply

All of a sudden was rhetorical...

One man's rhetorical is another man's reality.

and leave us out

Are you saying you are a lady???

#28 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2019-03-19 10:29 AM | Reply

White supremacists committed the largest # of extremist killings in 2017.What the President is saying here: "if you engage in violent acts of white supremacy, I will look the other way."Understand that this is deliberate. This is why we can't afford to sit on the sidelines. https://t.co/yUwUXzhBoE -- Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) March 18, 2019


#29 | Posted by qcp at 2019-03-19 10:31 AM | Reply

...{crickets}...

#30 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2019-03-19 10:37 AM | Reply

I read it. 2 pages in, he sounded like a speechwriter for Trump.

#31 | Posted by JOE at 2019-03-19 10:49 AM | Reply

Everyone should read the Communist Manifesto if they want to be at least slightly informed...

#24 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

I have a copy of it and have read it. I agree with you about this.

#32 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-03-19 11:22 AM | Reply

...{crickets}...

#30 | POSTED BY J_TREMAIN AT 2019-03-19 10:37 AM | FLAG: EYE ROLL

Sorry I was ignoring you... cause i was busy with something else.

#33 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2019-03-19 11:56 AM | Reply

Still hasn't answered the question.......{more crickets}...

#34 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2019-03-19 12:10 PM | Reply

If rolling your eyes is supposed to be a hint then I am not getting it.

Tremain doesn't do hints.

#35 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2019-03-19 12:14 PM | Reply

I am not going to let this go, you know. I never let things go. And I have an awesome Asian memory with instant recall.

So.

You are a guy or a girl?

#36 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2019-03-19 12:30 PM | Reply

From what I've read of it, maybe everone should read it, and see how in it's talking points and intended inflammatory statements how it's meant to further divide and multiply it's own violence, and in understanding so, not play into its hands. As everyone seems so determined to do.

#37 | Posted by zeropointnrg at 2019-03-19 04:28 PM | Reply

Everyone should read the Communist Manifesto if they want to be at least slightly informed. Even that is insufficient for more than a shallow understanding of 20th century socialism. People who self-righteously say they refuse to read documents they disagree with are making a virtue out of ignorance.

#24 | Posted by nullifidian

Nothing screams ignorance like thinking modern democrats are proposing venezuelan style socialism or russian style communism, but that's why fox news screams 24/7.

#38 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-19 09:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#38 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

That had nothing to do with my post. Typical.

#39 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-03-19 09:29 PM | Reply

"That had nothing to do with my post." - #39 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-03-19 09:29 PM

nulli's post typically have nothing to do with anything.

#40 | Posted by Hans at 2019-03-19 09:32 PM | Reply

That had nothing to do with my post. Typical.

#39 | Posted by nullifidian

You think I haven't seen your hundreds of other posts trying to connect democrats and socialism to venezuela?

#41 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-19 09:35 PM | Reply

#41 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

Irrelevant. Respond to what I said, if you're going to quote it. You can't even comprehend what my main point was.

#42 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-03-19 09:42 PM | Reply

Nothing screams ignorance like thinking modern democrats are proposing venezuelan style socialism or russian style communism, but that's why fox news screams 24/7.

#38 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

CA is sometimes referred to as 'the land of fruit and nuts.' Nulli may not be a fruit, but he's definitely nuts!! He must have become beset with a form of mental illness. Eating carrion? Smoking too much reefer? Not getting laid? Who knows? No one rants and raves and spews bulls**t he claimed to not believe just a few years ago ... before he went completely nuts. Bless his heart (southern version).

The many countries in the west that practice a socialist democratic form of government are consistently the happiest people on earth according to poll after poll, year after year.

Republicans have been trying to equate democratic socialism with communism for 90 years so they can give our national treasure to the wealthy and powerful.

#43 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-03-19 09:44 PM | Reply

trying to connect democrats and socialism to venezuela?

#41 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

It ain't a stretch, we arent even trying...

It writes itself.

#44 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-03-19 09:45 PM | Reply

Nothing screams ignorance like thinking modern democrats are proposing venezuelan style socialism - speaks

Go find what Warren just proposed.

#45 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-03-19 09:47 PM | Reply

It ain't a stretch, we arent even trying...

It writes itself.

#44 | Posted by AndreaMackris

No you're DESPERATELY trying, because democrats are suggesting we copy canada where people love their health care, so repubs have to lie to america and scream that democrats want to copy venezuela.

#46 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-19 09:59 PM | Reply

Got nothing to do with healthcare, we are waaaay beyond that..

Because you are lazy...

www.investors.com

#47 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-03-19 10:07 PM | Reply

The problems in Venezuela were mostly born of corruption, not democratic socialism.

psmag.com

#48 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2019-03-19 10:08 PM | Reply

Single payer...AND reparations...AND unrestricted abortion up to, and even in some cases, just after birth...AND free college for all...AND elimination of the electoral college...AND packing SCOTUS once Dems have the WH and the Senate...AND 70% tax rate on the highest bracket....AND almost every major candidate has endorsed the GND...AND a Dem bill that just passed the House that would greatly curtail free speech.....

None of these are lies and none of these positions are limited to an extreme fringe of the Democratic Party, Speaks. What's worse, that list isn't even complete.

#49 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-03-19 10:09 PM | Reply

"You can't even comprehend what my main point was." - #42 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-03-19 09:42 PM

As if nulli has ever had a point...

...main or otherwise.

#50 | Posted by Hans at 2019-03-19 10:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

As if nulli has ever had a point...

He's got one on the top of his head.

#51 | Posted by JOE at 2019-03-19 10:39 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Single payer...AND reparations...AND unrestricted abortion up to, and even in some cases, just after birth...AND free college for all...AND elimination of the electoral college...AND packing SCOTUS once Dems have the WH and the Senate...AND 70% tax rate on the highest bracket....AND almost every major candidate has endorsed the GND...AND a Dem bill that just passed the House that would greatly curtail free speech.....
None of these are lies and none of these positions are limited to an extreme fringe of the Democratic Party, Speaks. What's worse, that list isn't even complete.
#49 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2019-03-19 10:09 PM

What do you eat? Three impossible things every day?

#52 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2019-03-19 11:16 PM | Reply

AND packing SCOTUS once Dems have the WH and the Senate...

I think that's the scary one. If you hold one branch of government and half of another you then control the third.

Separation of powers, indeed.

#53 | Posted by REDIAL at 2019-03-19 11:23 PM | Reply

packing SCOTUS

When McConnell refused to consider an unassailably qualified nominee from the other party, Republicans forfeited their right to complain about court packing. Republicans rule with a minority of US support in both the Senate and the White House. Court packing is a Constitutional means to rectify what Republicans have broken.

#54 | Posted by JOE at 2019-03-20 07:33 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"because she thinks studying it will somehow prove Trump didn't really inspire him."

*wink wink, nudge nudge.

#55 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2019-03-20 08:08 AM | Reply

The Communist Manifesto was written 160 years ago. long life expectancy, antibiotics, air travel, atomic bobs, mass communication with pocket computer, global population explosion, and countless other things didn't exist.

Referencing it beyond anything that summarizes what makes an interesting read is silly. Such silliness is right up there with using the "Holy Bible" as a soothsaying device prognosticating the end of the world and the second coming of Christ...which incidentally was a trend that began about the same time frame when the Marx wrote his masterpiece.

Its right up there with people still referencing Orwell's 1984 ... when in the actual year of 1984 the yuppies were wearing London Fog trench coats and financing the Contras against commies by snorting copious amounts of cocaine... as Nancy was saying "Just Say No"... seriously.

All those books have one thing in common... they strike a nerve of familiarity contained in the human condition... but then so does about anything Shakespeare. They predict nothing... so stop using them as some nefarious material to bolster your stupidity and in this current world of capitalism while insisting that capitalism should not be reformed and kept up to date to meet the demands of a changing world.

#56 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2019-03-20 08:57 AM | Reply

When McConnell refused to consider an unassailably qualified nominee from the other party, Republicans forfeited their right to complain about court packing. Republicans rule with a minority of US support in both the Senate and the White House. Court packing is a Constitutional means to rectify what Republicans have broken.

#54 | POSTED BY JOE

I understand that. The thing is if Democrats pack SCOTUS the GOP will simply return volley once they have the proper control. If Trump wins in 2020 but the Dems take the Senate and a SCOTUS vacancy soon follows, that seat will remain open for at least 4 years. That's not a complaint, it's an acknowledgement of how ridiculous the court battle has become. Stack the courts with originalists and these crucial societal decisions revert back to congress, where they belong. But, legislating is hard. It's slow, it requires political capital, compromise and public consent. Imposing an agenda via the judiciary and bureaucratic state is so much easier and more fun.

#57 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-03-20 09:39 AM | Reply

The thing is if Democrats pack SCOTUS the GOP will simply return volley once they have the proper control.

If Democrats end Senate malapportionment (a very big if but something i think needs to happen), Republicans will probably never control the Senate again, so they wouldn't really have an opportunity to return volley.

#58 | Posted by JOE at 2019-03-20 09:58 AM | Reply

Stack the courts with originalists and these crucial societal decisions revert back to congress, where they belong. But, legislating is hard. It's slow, it requires political capital, compromise and public consent. Imposing an agenda via the judiciary and bureaucratic state is so much easier and more fun.

POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2019-03-20 09:39 AM | REPLY

Not when we are talking about peoples rights. You don;'t compromise rights and they aren't upto a public vote. Why do you think courts are needed??

www.uscourts.gov

The Supreme Court plays a very important role in our constitutional system of government. First, as the highest court in the land, it is the court of last resort for those looking for justice. Second, due to its power of judicial review, it plays an essential role in ensuring that each branch of government recognizes the limits of its own power. Third, it protects civil rights and liberties by striking down laws that violate the Constitution. Finally, it sets appropriate limits on democratic government by ensuring that popular majorities cannot pass laws that harm and/or take undue advantage of unpopular minorities. In essence, it serves to ensure that the changing views of a majority do not undermine the fundamental values common to all Americans, i.e., freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and due process of law.

#59 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-03-20 10:11 AM | Reply

If Democrats end Senate malapportionment

Are you speaking to the fact that a Senator from Rhode Island has the same political clout as a Senator from California?

If that is what you are getting at I think it would take a constitutional amendment to change that and too many states would balk and an amendment would never go through.

#60 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-03-20 10:17 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#59 That doesn't contradict what I'm saying in any way.

#61 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-03-20 10:19 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

o each his own, but I will NEVER read this garbage nor watch any of the videos.

#15 | POSTED BY CRISISSTILLS

I am proud of you Criss. Don't give in to the hate. Spreading the video and his blatherings only rewards him for his act. He has not earned my attention or the attention of any of us. Nothing he has to say is even worth my time. Or my spit.

Turn away and not give him the satisfaction of listening to one word. Except "Guilty your Honor". (3 words)

Spreading this kind of mental virus of hate makes you an accomplice to it. Anyone who shared the video and repeats one word of his chicken scratch is feeding the Hate.

Kellyanne just aligned herself with a murderer and actually promoted his writings as something we should all read.

Nicely done Kellyanne!!

Way to feed our Worst Demons. As opposed to our Better Angels.

The Demon will consume her in the End.

Also way to ruin a perfectly good name Kellyanne.

#62 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-03-20 10:44 AM | Reply

Are you speaking to the fact that a Senator from Rhode Island has the same political clout as a Senator from California?

A better example is that a Senator from California represents 68 times as many people as a Senator from Wyoming.

From what i've read, the most plausible remedies are admitting DC as a state, and chopping California into 3 states, each with 2 senators. Each would still be 5th, 6th and 7th in the country in terms of overall population by state.

#63 | Posted by JOE at 2019-03-20 11:03 AM | Reply

Meant to add that Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution authorizes Congress to admit new states to the Union, so this likely would not require an Amendment.

#64 | Posted by JOE at 2019-03-20 11:05 AM | Reply

admitting DC as a state

Given the history behind it not being a state, that is a really tough sell.

chopping California into 3 states, each with 2 senators.

That is also a steep hill to climb, given all of the competing interests.

Never mind the fact that both of those suggestions are a naked attempt to rewrite the rules in order to give the Democratic Party more power.

You probably see it as leveling the playing field a bit and making things more fair - I'll take that as your intent.

The problem is, those who are actually making this push aren't interested in fairness, they are interested in power. The gerrymandered mess that the 3 states of California would be would look ridiculous on a map.

#65 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-03-20 11:18 AM | Reply

Of course you have objections to the plans. None of them should matter to the Democratic Party though, and I only point these possibilities out to show you what can be done, legally, without a Constitutional Amendment.

Republicans have been governing from a minority position and have used every legal (and sometimes questionably legal) practice available to them to advance their agenda. A Republican presidential candidate has won the majority vote one time in my entire adult life. The Senate that confirmed Gorsuch and Kavanaugh represents nearly 40 million fewer people than the "minority" party. The Consitution has built-in antidemocratic features that are snowballing, and i'm not opposed to rectifying that.

#66 | Posted by JOE at 2019-03-20 11:35 AM | Reply

Never mind the fact that both of those suggestions are a naked attempt to rewrite the rules in order to give the Democratic Party more power.

The people framing these know that, and are trying to make it even, the point of it is to give the CentralValley, and northern north part of the state a voice. Currently its over run by the coastal needs and wants.

Oroville happened in some part due to this disparity.

California would be would look ridiculous on a map.
#65 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

WE are a ridiculous state.

You don;'t compromise rights and they aren't upto a public vote.

Oh but they are ....

The congress and the courts have been incredibly lenient in the interpretation of the their authority.

This will continue so long as "majority" and public opinion rules, and not constitution.

#67 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-03-20 11:37 AM | Reply

The Consitution has built-in antidemocratic features...yes it does, and it's a feature, not a bug.

Those antidemocratic features are designed to prevent the centralization of power. They are designed as a means of checking mob rule.

#68 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-03-20 11:43 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

mob rule

As it stands, we're being ruled by a smaller mob. "Mob rule" in this context is just a pejorative for democracy.

#69 | Posted by JOE at 2019-03-20 11:46 AM | Reply

Also, i'd like to point out that one of the things the framers were most concerned about was that electors would be able to make ure that only a qualified person gets to be president. I think it's safe to say the system has failed in that respect.

Additionally, the notion that a candidate would "only campaign" in certain states if the popular vote were instituted is largely irrelevant given that any candidate's words can be seen and heard at a moment's notice regardless of where they are. I've never seen a study indicating that campaigning in a particular state inures some policy benefit on that state.

#70 | Posted by JOE at 2019-03-20 12:00 PM | Reply

Spreading this kind of mental virus of hate makes you an

The reason you don't want anyone to see the video is because You are trying to protect the image of white christian men... you do not want the world to see them as the hateful animals they really are.

There have been plenty videos of brown people shooting up the place... you have always been fine with THOSE.

#71 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2019-03-20 12:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Get rid of Gerrymandering and make voting manditory.

#72 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2019-03-20 01:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Get rid of Gerrymandering

We just did this in Michigan.

make voting manditory.

#72 | POSTED BY RIGHTISTRITE

Violates the 1st Amendment.

#73 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-03-20 01:57 PM | Reply

The electoral college was created, in part, to ensure that the states maintain some degree of independence from the federal government. States' independence is more important than ever given how bitterly divisive our politics have become. The Senate was created as a check on the majority rules House. It's a tool for the states to protect their own interests. Given that House seats are apportioned based on the census, California has way more seats, and thus more representation, in the House.

#74 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-03-20 02:00 PM | Reply

The electoral college was created,

#74 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Yap.

Hey, sorry democrats, but if we get rid of longstanding American traditions simply because they were created to preserve slavery, are dumber than egg shht, and make no sense then we won't have any longstanding American traditions left..

#75 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2019-03-20 05:53 PM | Reply

The current-day outcomes of the electoral college rest entirely on geographic coincidences. Something tells me that if the electoral college benefited black people in Baltimore people like Jeff wouldn't be pretending to care about what someone thought 250 years ago.

#76 | Posted by JOE at 2019-03-20 06:23 PM | Reply

The current-day outcomes of the electoral college rest entirely on geographic coincidences. Something tells me that if the electoral college benefited black people in Baltimore people like Jeff wouldn't be pretending to care about what someone thought 250 years ago.

#76 | POSTED BY JOE

Why go there? I didn't assign bad intent to you, and I easily could have.

#77 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-03-20 06:45 PM | Reply

Because there's no longer anything redeeming about the electoral college. Its "features" don't apply in a world where you can see and hear a candidate in real time even if they are across the globe, and where the electors shirked their duty to ensure a qualified candidate for office.

So what's left for people who support it, other than wanting power? At least someone seeking to abolish it can rest on the objrctive principle of "one person, one vote."

#78 | Posted by JOE at 2019-03-20 06:51 PM | Reply

Turns out the shooter was an australian who went to new zealand to buy guns and kill people because the gun laws were too strict in australia.

PROOF THAT NATIONWIDE GUN REGULATIONS WORK.

Now new zealand will ban those guns too, just a few weeks too late.

#79 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-20 10:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

And then it took New Zealand only five days to ban assault style weapons.

OCU

#80 | Posted by OCUser at 2019-03-21 02:24 AM | Reply

"And then it took New Zealand only five days to ban assault style weapons."

Maybe JeffJ would like to explain why guns are good for America but banned from his home.
Or maybe JeffJ doesn't think guns are good for America.
We'll never know because he just hides behind the Constitution.
It's his secret hiding place where nobody can ever find out what he thinks if he just hides there.

#81 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-03-21 05:42 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Because there's no longer anything redeeming about the electoral college.

#78 | POSTED BY JOE

That's your opinion.

Here's a differing opinion:

In our era of viciously divisive politics, the states are arguably more necessary than they have ever been. Critics of the Electoral College bristle at the insistence that it prevents New York and California from imposing their will on the rest of the country. But the Electoral College guarantees that candidates who seek the only nationally elected office in America must attempt to appeal to as broad a geographic constituency as possible -- large states and small, populous and rural -- rather than retreating to their preferred pockets and running up the score. The alternative to this arrangement is not less political contention or a reduction in anger; it is more of both.

www.nationalreview.com

#82 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-03-21 10:09 AM | Reply

At least someone seeking to abolish it can rest on the objrctive principle of "one person, one vote."

#78 | POSTED BY JOE

That principle applies to the EC as well.

#83 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-03-21 10:10 AM | Reply

An embrace of federalism - a de-centralization of federal power - goes a long way toward alleviating the steep partisan divide in this country.

I've never understood why lefties are so opposed to federalism. It makes no sense.

#84 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-03-21 10:12 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

it prevents New York and California from imposing their will on the rest of the country

I'm sick of hearing this nonsense. In 2016, California and New York produced 13 million votes for the Democrat. She had 65 million votes overall, meaning she had to acquire 52 million (or nearly 80%) of her votes from places that aren't New York or California

On top of that, over 7 million people in New York and California voted for Donald Trump, and their votes were ignored entirely. That's an indefensible system.

#85 | Posted by JOE at 2019-03-21 10:19 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Also, tell me why it should matter where a person gets their votes from, so long as those votes are cast by Americans. Do arbitrarily drawn state lines make some people less American than others?

#86 | Posted by JOE at 2019-03-21 10:22 AM | Reply

I see a far bigger problem with how the primaries are run. The first 3 states have an outsized influence over the primaries. That is complete horse hockey.

The reason the EC makes sense is because we are the United States of America.

#87 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-03-21 10:24 AM | Reply

So no real reason then?

#88 | Posted by JOE at 2019-03-21 10:26 AM | Reply

"I've never understood why lefties are so opposed to federalism. It makes no sense." - #84 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-03-21 10:12 AM

Perhaps that's because "lefties" remember when federalism was used to defend, among other things, Jim Crow laws.

It was generally known by its other name, "States Rights."

#89 | Posted by Hans at 2019-03-21 10:27 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The reason the EC makes sense is because we wanted to protect the institution of slavery in America."

#90 | Posted by danni at 2019-03-21 10:32 AM | Reply

Hans,

Those sins have been corrected, and rightly so.

In contemporary times, federalism should be appealing to both the right and the left.

California flirted with single payer healthcare for their state. They didn't seek to impose that on Texas. That's great! We are far too diverse of a country to continue to centralize power in DC.

So no real reason then?

#88 | POSTED BY JOE

Plenty of reason. Are you unaware of the rationale behind the EC?

#91 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-03-21 10:33 AM | Reply

"I've never understood why lefties are so opposed to federalism. It makes no sense."

Minimum wage laws
Child labor laws
Voting rightw protections from Jim Crow states
Banking laws
Just about everything that makes America a modern nation instead of a backwater like Mississippi.

#92 | Posted by danni at 2019-03-21 10:34 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#90 Slavery was rightly eradicated in the 19th century.

#93 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-03-21 10:34 AM | Reply

Just about everything that makes America a modern nation instead of a backwater like Mississippi.

#92 | POSTED BY DANNI

Let the people of Mississippi choose their own path. Ditto for California, Texas, Florid, Michigan, etc.

The Constitution enumerates plenty of power to the Federal government. It doesn't need more.

#94 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-03-21 10:36 AM | Reply

Are you unaware of the rationale behind the EC?

You're going in circles. We've been over the rationale, much of which is refuted by #78, which you only respk ded to the first sentence of. You then claimed that the EC "prevents CA and NY from imposing their will on the nation" despite the fact that the Dem candidate in 2016 got 80% of her votes from places that arent CA or NY. Additionally the EC caused 7,000,000 Republican votes in CA and NY to be ignored. You have no defense for such a system.

#95 | Posted by JOE at 2019-03-21 10:38 AM | Reply

This is a more eloquent take than I can muster:

The American order is complex -- it is much more sophisticated than "democracy," which assumes that nothing stands between the individual and the national state except aggregation, that might (defined as 50 percent + 1) makes right. The American order is based on the idea that the United States consists of many different kinds of people in many different kinds of communities, and that each of these has interests that are legitimate even when they conflict with the equally legitimate interests of other communities. The densely populous urban mode of life is not the only mode of life, and the people of the urban areas are not entitled by their greater numbers to dominate their fellow citizens in the less populous rural areas.

The basic units of the United States are, as the name suggests, the several states. The states created the federal government, not the other way around. The states are not administrative subdivisions of the federal government, which is their instrument, not their master. In this, the United States is fundamentally different from countries such as the United Kingdom and Japan, which have unitary national governments under which provincial distinctions are largely irrelevant.

In our system, the states matter. Under the Democrats' vision, some states matter: California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Ohio, which, without the institutions of federalism, have among them the numbers and the power to effectively dominate the rest of the country.

At the time of the Founding, the people of the smaller states did not desire to enter into a union in which they and their interests would be dominated by the larger ones. The people of the smaller states still do not wish to be politically dominated by the larger one. For that reason, the interests of the states as such -- not mere aggregates of voters -- are taken into consideration. The Senate, as originally organized, existed to preserve the interests of the states as such against the opportunism and predation of the more populous House of Representatives -- and against the ambitions of the executive, too. Turning the Senate into an inflated version of the House was one of the progressives' first great victories against the Constitution of the United States and an important step toward the sort of mass democracy that our constitutional order is explicitly designed to prevent.

But the states have other protections as well, one of which is the Electoral College, which helps to ensure that the president -- the Founders were right to fear presidential ambition -- is not a mere tribune of the plebs, a rider upon "the beast with many heads" empowered by the mob at his back to abuse and dominate members of minority groups -- smaller states, religious minorities, political minorities, etc.

The rights of minorities are further protected -- from democracy -- by the Constitution's limitations on the power of the federal government and specifically by the Bill of Rights, which places some considerations above democracy: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to security in one's home and papers, etc...


www.nationalreview.com

#96 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-03-21 10:38 AM | Reply

"The reason the EC makes sense is because we are the United States of America." - #87 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-03-21 10:24 AM

The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists

[snip] Some claim that the founding fathers chose the Electoral College over direct election in order to balance the interests of high-population and low-population states. But the deepest political divisions in America have always run not between big and small states, but between the north and the south, and between the coasts and the interior.

One Founding-era argument for the Electoral College stemmed from the fact that ordinary Americans across a vast continent would lack sufficient information to choose directly and intelligently among leading presidential candidates.

That last part is hardly relevant in the 20th and 21st centuries, with radio, television and the Internet available to ordinary Americans across this vast continent.

But what's the real reason (from the same source):

Enter the 12th Amendment, which allowed each party to designate one candidate for president and a separate candidate for vice president. The amendment's modifications of the electoral process transformed the Framers' framework, enabling future presidential elections to be openly populist and partisan affairs featuring two competing tickets. It is the 12th Amendment's Electoral College system, not the Philadelphia Framers', that remains in place today. If the general citizenry's lack of knowledge had been the real reason for the Electoral College, this problem was largely solved by 1800. So why wasn't the entire Electoral College contraption scrapped at that point?

Standard civics-class accounts of the Electoral College rarely mention the real demon dooming direct national election in 1787 and 1803: slavery.

At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct national election of the president. But the savvy Virginian James Madison responded that such a system would prove unacceptable to the South: "The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes." In other words, in a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (more than half a million in all) of course could not vote. But the Electoral College -- a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech -- instead let each southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall count.

Virginia emerged as the big winner -- the California of the Founding era -- with 12 out of a total of 91 electoral votes allocated by the Philadelphia Constitution, more than a quarter of the 46 needed to win an election in the first round. After the 1800 census, Wilson's free state of Pennsylvania had 10% more free persons than Virginia, but got 20% fewer electoral votes. Perversely, the more slaves Virginia (or any other slave state) bought or bred, the more electoral votes it would receive. Were a slave state to free any blacks who then moved North, the state could actually lose electoral votes.

If the system's pro-slavery tilt was not overwhelmingly obvious when the Constitution was ratified, it quickly became so. For 32 of the Constitution's first 36 years, a white slaveholding Virginian occupied the presidency.

#97 | Posted by Hans at 2019-03-21 10:40 AM | Reply

#78 wasn't a refutation, it was an opinion. As an opinion it is no more or less valid than the opinion I (and others) am espousing.

#98 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-03-21 10:42 AM | Reply

#78 wasn't a refutation, it was an opinion.

Do you dispute that a candidate "campaigning" in a particular place is of less import in a world where anyone can hear what he/she is saying at any time?

Do you dispute that the electoral college shirked their duty to ensure that only a qualified person should be POTUS?

#99 | Posted by JOE at 2019-03-21 10:44 AM | Reply

Quit hiding behind rightwing articles, Jeff. Make a case or GTFO.

#100 | Posted by JOE at 2019-03-21 10:45 AM | Reply

#97 | POSTED BY HANS

The justifications for the EC are far more complex than just slavery. In contemporary times, states seek to protect themselves from being trampled for reasons that obviously don't include slavery, Jim Crow, etc. People who live in Montana tend to have vastly different interests and priorities than people who live in New York city. Neither should be able to dominate the other.

#101 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-03-21 10:46 AM | Reply

Do you dispute that a candidate "campaigning" in a particular place is of less import in a world where anyone can hear what he/she is saying at any time?
Do you dispute that the electoral college shirked their duty to ensure that only a qualified person should be POTUS?

#99 | POSTED BY JOE

What is the biggest criticism of Hillary's POTUS bid?

She didn't campaign in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

In spite of all of our technological advances, face-to-face interaction still (and always will) matters.

#102 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-03-21 10:48 AM | Reply

Quit hiding behind rightwing articles, Jeff. Make a case or GTFO.

#100 | POSTED BY JOE

I am making a case.

#103 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-03-21 10:49 AM | Reply

Do you dispute that the electoral college shirked their duty to ensure that only a qualified person should be POTUS?

#99 | POSTED BY JOE

The EC honored the results of the election. Do you think Trump has been more damaging than W? I don't. Yet, W was more qualified.

#104 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-03-21 10:50 AM | Reply

"In contemporary times, states seek to protect themselves from being trampled..." - #101 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-03-21 10:46 AM

That's an attempt to retrofit a justification for a system designed for states to protect their slave-holding status.

And states are not seeking to protect themselves (that sounds too much like boaz). As Shelby Foote put it...

Before the war it was always the United States *are*, after the war it was the United States is... it made us an is.
Ronald Reagan had no problem getting votes from all over the country, red and blue states.

Same with Richard Nixon.

Same with LBJ.

Same with FDR (4 times).

States seeking to protect themselves, as you put it, is a rather strange way of admitting that a political party does not have the standing to take their case to the entire country.

#105 | Posted by Hans at 2019-03-21 10:54 AM | Reply

States seeking to protect themselves, as you put it, is a rather strange way of admitting that a political party does not have the standing to take their case to the entire country.

#105 | POSTED BY HANS

Eliminate the EC and the sparsely populated states will be completely ignored.

#106 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-03-21 10:56 AM | Reply

The EC elects only one person. It should honestly be one person one vote style and we all get an equal say in who leads us. There are conservatives in California & New York, these states are not solely choosing the President. Congress is where we get more equal representation and I agree with the way the Senate is set up, but would like to Gerrymandering gone. The only reason conservatives still fight for the EC is because it helped them win twice against the majority of the US and they want the Supreme Court pics. If you want a majority of the country to vote for you then maybe you should push policy that helps a majority of the country and not just the richest among us.

#107 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-03-21 10:57 AM | Reply

Eliminate the EC and the sparsely populated states will be completely ignored.

#106 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

They will have a voice in congress looking out for their best interests. The POTUS isn't their voice anyway, he doesn't set policy.

#108 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-03-21 11:00 AM | Reply

The POTUS isn't their voice anyway, he doesn't set policy.

#108 | POSTED BY JUSTAGIRL_IDAHO

Unfortunately, he does. That's not the way this country was designed, but congress has been willingly ceding its powers to the Executive and the Judiciary for decades now. It's why the bureaucracy has gotten so powerful and it's why the control of the courts has gotten so contentious.

Take ACA, aka "Obamacare". It is a 2700 page piece of legislation that spawned 20,000 pages of regulations, ALL written by the Executive branch. For example, the bill made no mention of mandatory coverage for abortifacients. That provision was a regulation (enforceable as law) written by the Executive branch.

#109 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-03-21 11:07 AM | Reply

"Eliminate the EC and the sparsely populated states will be completely ignored." - #106 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-03-21 10:56 AM

Which sparsely populated states are centers-of-attention in presidential elections? Here's a list of the 20 smallest states, based on population:

Wyoming
Vermont
Alaska
North Dakota
South Dakota
Delaware
Rhode Island
Montana
Maine
New Hampshire
Hawaii
Idaho
West Virginia
Nebraska
New Mexico
Kansas
Mississippi
Arkansas
Nevada
Iowa
Utah
Nevada and Iowa are the only ones I see that have been somewhat competitive in recent presidential elections.

I'm not sure why ignoring the other 18 is a reason for keeping the EC.

Just like I think ignoring all the voters in California, Texas and New York are also reasons for keeping it.

#110 | Posted by Hans at 2019-03-21 11:07 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Eliminate the EC and the sparsely populated states will be completely ignored.
#106 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Good.

Who cares what people in Wyoming think. Their control over the EC scews over hundreds of millions of people living in America.

Fact is. The vast majority of Americans are being ignored so a few conservatives can continue to screw up our nation.

#111 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-03-21 11:13 AM | Reply

What is the biggest criticism of Hillary's POTUS bid?

That wasn't the point, Jeff. One rationale for the electoral college was the notion that candidates will only "pay attention" to particular states during their campaign. I'm rebutting that by pointing out that a candidate "campaigning" in California can now be seen and heard in real time by someone in Alabama, and that no proponent of the EC has ever provided evidence that "campaigning" in a particular place somehow inures a policy benefit to that place. If a candidate ignores a place at their own peril, that's not really what i'm talking about.

#112 | Posted by JOE at 2019-03-21 11:13 AM | Reply

Do you think Trump has been more damaging than W? I don't.

He has done a different type of damage that is not really comparable. He has not (so far) cost us the lives and trillions that W did. But he has cost us tremendous credibility with our allies. He has legitimized dictators and slandered our intelligence community. He has intentionally fanned the flames of racism and white supremacy. The effects of those sorts of things are immeasurable.

But aside from all of that - if you don't think the EC should bother assessing the qualifications of a candidate then that is another argument against them existing in the first place.

#113 | Posted by JOE at 2019-03-21 11:16 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

congress has been willingly ceding its powers to the Executive and the Judiciary for decades now. -- JeffJ

And dont you think that would change if the smaller states thought their voices were not being heard? They would send congress members to DC who said they were willing to stand up and fight for them. This is a BS reason to keep the EC and you know it.

#114 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-03-21 11:18 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

People who live in Montana tend to have vastly different interests and priorities than people who live in New York city. Neither should be able to dominate the other.

#101 | Posted by JeffJ

Actually yes they should. That's what democracy is. A competition of ideas with the best idea winning. If people in montana can't get enough people to agree with their policies, they should change their policies.

Someone in montana having more power simply because of where they are born is objectively undemocratic.

The only reason repubs love the EC is because their ideas dont appeal to enough people to win.

#115 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-21 12:02 PM | Reply

Eliminate the EC and the sparsely populated states will be completely ignored.

#106 | Posted by JeffJ

No because a vote in a sparsely populated state is still just as valuable as a vote in a populated state. They'd get equal attention. Attention would go to voters, not states.

#116 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-21 12:04 PM | Reply

I still have yet to see what happens just because a candidate "ignores" a state. Does Wyoming have some pressing federal issues that aren't facing the voters in Colorado? And where's the proof that Wyoming will suffer from a policy perspective just because a candidate didn't conduct some preformatted "visit" there?

#117 | Posted by JOE at 2019-03-21 12:14 PM | Reply

"I've never understood why lefties are so opposed to federalism. It makes no sense.
#84 | POSTED BY JEFFJ"

Well, when slavery is a states rights issue, and you oppose slavery, what's the appropriate attitude towards federalism?

#118 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-03-21 01:02 PM | Reply

Slavery was eradicated in the 19th century.

#119 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-03-21 01:19 PM | Reply

I still have yet to see what happens just because a candidate "ignores" a state.

It forces the candidates to address issues that are somewhat specific to certain, less populated states.

#120 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-03-21 01:21 PM | Reply

"Slavery was eradicated in the 19th century.
#119 | POSTED BY JEFFJ"

Jim Crow wasn't.
Thanks, Federalism!

Are you really unable to discuss what Federalism gets us, and what it doesn't?

#121 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-03-21 01:24 PM | Reply

"Slavery was eradicated in the 19th century.
POSTED BY JEFFJ"

Was slavery eradicated by Federalism or was slavery bolstered by Federalism?

#122 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-03-21 01:34 PM | Reply

It forces the candidates to address issues that are somewhat specific to certain, less populated states.

Proof that these issues are "addressed" (as opposed to just receiving lip service) just because a candidate visited a place?

#123 | Posted by JOE at 2019-03-21 01:44 PM | Reply

It forces the candidates to address issues that are somewhat specific to certain, less populated states.

#120 | Posted by JeffJ

Why do those areas deserve to have their issues addressed more than populated areas?

The electoral college is the reason we have corn in our gasoline, gunking up our engines. Corn comes from iowa, the campaign starts in iowa, so every politician has to kiss iowa's ass with pro corn policies, which end up HARMING people NOT in iowa. That's the system you're defending?

#124 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-21 02:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

That's the fault of the primary system, Speaks. I agree with you that it's absurd that Iowa has an outsized influence on our primaries. I also agree that ethanol is hands-down the worst of all renewable sources of energy. It's not even close. Shockingly, Ted Cruz successfully campaigned in agrarian states on ending ethanol mandates.

#125 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-03-21 02:21 PM | Reply

That's the fault of the primary system, Speaks. I agree with you that it's absurd that Iowa has an outsized influence on our primaries. I also agree that ethanol is hands-down the worst of all renewable sources of energy. It's not even close. Shockingly, Ted Cruz successfully campaigned in agrarian states on ending ethanol mandates.

#125 | Posted by JeffJ

Yes that's true. My mistake. But it's the same principle of giving outsized political power to underpopulated areas.

#126 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-21 02:28 PM | Reply

"That's the fault of the primary system, Speaks. I agree with you that it's absurd that Iowa has an outsized influence on our primaries."

The primary system is a direct result of Federalism.

So if the primary system is absurd, why isn't Federalism seen as the root cause of the absurdity?

Seems like I'm able to render you speechless in just one or two posts these days. I guess we're getting better at having a dialogue. Keep up the good work!

#127 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-03-21 06:42 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort