Drip Drip Drip

[Bus Driver]

We can’t be sure can we? Did he show his original long form birth certificate?  

There may have been layers.  Those do present interesting questions, no?

 

[Blue Crab]

There may have been layers.  Those do present interesting questions, no?

Layers of liars and lawyers. This is good stuff.

 

[Bus Driver]

There may have been layers.  Those do present interesting questions, no?

Layers of liars and lawyers. This is good stuff.

Not quite what I was going for.

But, I don't disagree with you.

 

[nolatom]

okay, an unwilling Mueller will be made to appear Wednesday before two committees, and to what end?

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/07/21/politics/mueller-investigation-nadler-says-evidence-trump-guilty-high-crimes-misdemeanors/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F

The Report “is” his testimony, he’s told us that.  And the report has been public for months, and summarized for non-readers or too-lazy-to-be-bothered-readers (some of whom are in Congress?) by numerous summarizers, pundits, even acting troupes.  Those who care to read it have read it.

So who and what are the committees aiming at?  Civic recluses? Themselves in the mirror? A mythical piñata they’re convinced, or at least hoping, is real?  Glowing reviews of their speechifying sound-bites (oh wait, questions, sorry) from CNN or Fox, respectively?  Making old news appear shiny and new?

I’m not expecting much, aside from the usual media overreaction.  

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

We've heard that your report completely exonerates the President.  Can you tell us how you reached that conclusion and why it was not expressed with greater clarity in the report? 

 

[d'ranger]

Don't forget the No Collusion Conclusion. 

 

[Raz'r]

So - you don't think that it's appropriate for the citizens of a state to decide their own laws?   There's nothing that I'm aware of that prevents you from going anywhere ya want as a citizen of the US - but, your position seems to disregard the consideration of local priorities and concerns.  What's important for you in Oakland might not mean much to me in the Shenandoah Valley, and similarly, some of the things we care about here probably mean little to you.  I don't see that as a bad thing - why do you? 

Not to answer for someone else, but why should someone in Nebraska have 3-12 times the eyesight in the single, national election we have?

(or I could just point your your erroneous false equivalency)

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

Don't forget the No Collusion Conclusion. 

Oh there are a ton of ways to ask things about the report that are not in the report.  I just picked one. 

 

[Mark K]

Pretty sure someone is going to ask that if anyone else had acted to obstruct the investigation in the way Trump did if he would have recommended the case for prosecution.

 Call it a hunch. 

 

[Mrleft8]

Mueller will say that what he said, is what he meant...... Sigh..... And that is all he has to say about that.

 

[frenchie]

okay, an unwilling Mueller will be made to appear Wednesday before two committees, and to what end?

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/07/21/politics/mueller-investigation-nadler-says-evidence-trump-guilty-high-crimes-misdemeanors/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F

The Report “is” his testimony, he’s told us that.  And the report has been public for months, and summarized for non-readers or too-lazy-to-be-bothered-readers (some of whom are in Congress?) by numerous summarizers, pundits, even acting troupes.  Those who care to read it have read it.

So who and what are the committees aiming at?  Civic recluses? Themselves in the mirror? A mythical piñata they’re convinced, or at least hoping, is real?  Glowing reviews of their speechifying sound-bites (oh wait, questions, sorry) from CNN or Fox, respectively?  Making old news appear shiny and new?

I’m not expecting much, aside from the usual media overreaction.  

To create news coverage of the report's actual contents, in an effort to counter all the lies told about its contents.

Duh.

 

[A guy in the Chesapeake]

Not to answer for someone else, but why should someone in Nebraska have 3-12 times the eyesight in the single, national election we have?

(or I could just point your your erroneous false equivalency)

They shouldn't - but, their will shouldn't be subordinated to the "overall popular vote". The *only* fair change is for the EC votes within a state to be proportionally allocated IAW the vote within that state.  What you advocate is decidedly unfair, and overrides voter intent.  I suspect that you only support the idea because you think that the approach will allow the D voting population centers to negate the votes of the rest of the country.   

 

[Raz'r]

They shouldn't - but, their will shouldn't be subordinated to the "overall popular vote". The *only* fair change is for the EC votes within a state to be proportionally allocated IAW the vote within that state.  What you advocate is decidedly unfair, and overrides voter intent.  I suspect that you only support the idea because you think that the approach will allow the D voting population centers to negate the votes of the rest of the country.   

I support it because 1 person 1 vote is fair. 1 acre 1 vote is not.

 

[A guy in the Chesapeake]

I support it because 1 person 1 vote is fair. 1 acre 1 vote is not.

What you propose is the antithesis of "1 person 1 vote" - it is instead Mob Rule. 

 

[Olsonist]

See Raz'r, you and Guy really aren't so far apart. He just thinks that some mobs are more equal than others.

 

[Raz'r]

What you propose is the antithesis of "1 person 1 vote" - it is instead Mob Rule. 

No, it's a 1 person, 1 vote for President. the ONE nationally elected officeholder. (2 if you include the president in waiting)

It doesn't change the Senate

It doesn't change the House

It doesn't change the Governor, etc, etc, etc.

here's an example:

Toni: What do we want for dinner? I vote pizza!

Sally: Pizza!

Ed: Pizza!

Fred: This Old Shoe

Toni: Dang, looks like we're eating This Old Shoe again.

Sally & Ed: Why?

Toni: Fred's from Wyoming and his vote counts as 3.6x ours.

 

[A guy in the Chesapeake]

No, it's a 1 person, 1 vote for President. the ONE nationally elected officeholder. (2 if you include the president in waiting)

It doesn't change the Senate

 It doesn't change the House

It doesn't change the Governor, etc, etc, etc.

here's an example:

Toni: What do we want for dinner? I vote pizza!

Sally: Pizza!

Ed: Pizza!

Fred: This Old Shoe

Toni: Dang, looks like we're eating This Old Shoe again.

Sally & Ed: Why?

Toni: Fred's from Wyoming and his vote counts as 3.6x ours.

Delaware votes 90% for pizza - CA chooses a tofu burger.  All of DE voters lose.  

 

[Olsonist]

The population of Delaware is 967,171 and the population of California is 39.56 million. So CA is 40 times the population of DE. 

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Besides, if it were 1 person 1 vote, CA wouldn't even matter at all. Politicians would be campaigning for everyone's vote.

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

Tofu?  Wasn’t he the cook on Bonanza?

 

[A guy in the Chesapeake]

The population of Delaware is 967,171 and the population of California is 39.56 million. So CA is 40 times the population of DE. 

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

 Besides, if it were 1 person 1 vote, CA wouldn't even matter at all. Politicians would be campaigning for everyone's vote.

Protest too much?  I don't think so - this idiotic idea won't accomplish anything w/r/t establishing "fairness".   I've said what I think, you've shared your thoughts, now we'll sit back and see what happens - neither of us will influence what actually happens.