The world was watching...

[MaggieD]

I know...I'm over-reacting, but I think the world was watching our Electoral College. They performed admirably. I didn't have that faith, tell you the truth. I thought the drama would be overwhelming.

But make no mistake. The world was watching, especially our enemies. Destabilization galore. Worst transition, as far as I'm concerned, in modern history. Transitions are meant to be smooth so as not to give our adversaries the mistaken belief that we're at sixes and sevens. We didn't do a very good job this time. And I'm thinking that poor model is going to continue going forward.

Imagine a former president intending to regularly weigh in on decisions made by our new president. Where is the precedent for that? Our transition of power is all ABOUT precedent. What message are we sending to our enemies... to those who would see us falter?

I take heart in that I think the Left's deplorable behavior will cost them... they don't get it.

 

[roughdraft274]

I know...I'm over-reacting, but I think the world was watching our Electoral College. They performed admirably. I didn't have that faith, tell you the truth. I thought the drama would be overwhelming.

But make no mistake. The world was watching, especially our enemies. Destabilization galore. Worst transition, as far as I'm concerned, in modern history. Transitions are meant to be smooth so as not to give our adversaries the mistaken belief that we're at sixes and sevens. We didn't do a very good job this time. And I'm thinking that poor model is going to continue going forward.

Imagine a former president intending to regularly weigh in on decisions made by our new president. Where is the precedent for that? Our transition of power is all ABOUT precedent. What message are we sending to our enemies... to those who would see us falter?

I take heart in that I think the Left's deplorable behavior will cost them... they don't get it.

As bad as that is, and I agree 100% that is would be a bad thing, it's nothing compared to our incoming president endlessly ****ting on every aspect of our intelligence agencies in the public, on twitter no less. He is publicly shaming our institutions for the simple act of providing information. If you are worried about what our enemies are seeing, you are looking at the wrong thing in imho.

 

[haymarket]

I know...I'm over-reacting, but I think the world was watching our Electoral College. They performed admirably. I didn't have that faith, tell you the truth. I thought the drama would be overwhelming.

But make no mistake. The world was watching, especially our enemies. Destabilization galore. Worst transition, as far as I'm concerned, in modern history. Transitions are meant to be smooth so as not to give our adversaries the mistaken belief that we're at sixes and sevens. We didn't do a very good job this time. And I'm thinking that poor model is going to continue going forward.

Imagine a former president intending to regularly weigh in on decisions made by our new president. Where is the precedent for that? Our transition of power is all ABOUT precedent. What message are we sending to our enemies... to those who would see us falter?

I take heart in that I think the Left's deplorable behavior will cost them... they don't get it.

If there is an afterlife and Alexander is looking at this he is disgusted beyond belief as one reason he gave for the EC was to protect against foreign powers interfering and impacting our own elections. The GOP electors played ostrich, shoved their head in the sand (or elsewhere) ignored their responsibility and nodded their heads just like the Republicans are famous for doing.

 

[MaggieD]

As bad as that is, and I agree 100% that is would be a bad thing, it's nothing compared to our incoming president endlessly ****ting on every aspect of our intelligence agencies in the public, on twitter no less. He is publicly shaming our institutions for the simple act of providing information. If you are worried about what our enemies are seeing, you are looking at the wrong thing in imho.

Your opinion may help you feel righteous. But you are wrong.

If there is an afterlife and Alexander is looking at this he is disgusted beyond belief as one reason he gave for the EC was to protect against foreign powers interfering and impacting our own elections. The GOP electors played ostrich, shoved their head in the sand (or elsewhere) ignored their responsibility and nodded their heads just like the Republicans are famous for doing.

Really? Where were the Dem EC voters? And where is the evidence that Russia impacted results beyond shining a bright light on Dem shenanagins?

 

[chuckiechan]

As bad as that is, and I agree 100% that is would be a bad thing, it's nothing compared to our incoming president endlessly ****ting on every aspect of our intelligence agencies in the public, on twitter no less. He is publicly shaming our institutions for the simple act of providing information. If you are worried about what our enemies are seeing, you are looking at the wrong thing in imho.

I knew Obama was incompetent empty suit. But I took the position that "I hope he does so well, I will want to vote for him".

 

[haymarket]

Your opinion may help you feel righteous. But you are wrong.



Really? Where were the Dem EC voters? And where is the evidence that Russia impacted results beyond shining a bright light on Dem shenanagins?

17 different intelligence and defense agencies have ALL come to the conclusion that it was Russia who hacked US info and id it to help Trump.

This is the exact sort of thing that Hamilton warned against in Federalist 68 as a purpose of the EC in the first place.

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?

Hamilton all but named Trump.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

I know...I'm over-reacting, but I think the world was watching our Electoral College. They performed admirably. I didn't have that faith, tell you the truth. I thought the drama would be overwhelming.

But make no mistake. The world was watching, especially our enemies. Destabilization galore. Worst transition, as far as I'm concerned, in modern history. Transitions are meant to be smooth so as not to give our adversaries the mistaken belief that we're at sixes and sevens. We didn't do a very good job this time. And I'm thinking that poor model is going to continue going forward.

Imagine a former president intending to regularly weigh in on decisions made by our new president. Where is the precedent for that? Our transition of power is all ABOUT precedent. What message are we sending to our enemies... to those who would see us falter?

I take heart in that I think the Left's deplorable behavior will cost them... they don't get it.

You have a very active fantasy life and imagination.

 

[MrPeanut]

I'll never understand how some Republicans are terrified of everything. That's got to be a hard life to live.

 

[chuckiechan]

So where do you two go from here?

 

[Mr Person]

I know...I'm over-reacting, but I think the world was watching our Electoral College. They performed admirably. I didn't have that faith, tell you the truth. I thought the drama would be overwhelming.
.

They sure must have been rattled when Trump wouldn't say whether he'd accept the election result and kept claiming the election was going to be rigged.

 

[Jetboogieman]

I know...I'm over-reacting, but I think the world was watching our Electoral College. They performed admirably. I didn't have that faith, tell you the truth. I thought the drama would be overwhelming.

But make no mistake. The world was watching, especially our enemies. Destabilization galore. Worst transition, as far as I'm concerned, in modern history. Transitions are meant to be smooth so as not to give our adversaries the mistaken belief that we're at sixes and sevens. We didn't do a very good job this time. And I'm thinking that poor model is going to continue going forward.

Imagine a former president intending to regularly weigh in on decisions made by our new president. Where is the precedent for that? Our transition of power is all ABOUT precedent. What message are we sending to our enemies... to those who would see us falter?

I take heart in that I think the Left's deplorable behavior will cost them... they don't get it.

No Maggie, the world was watching last month as much to our amazement and horror, you chose an absolute basket case as your President. :shrug:

 

[Beaudreaux]

If there is an afterlife and Alexander is looking at this he is disgusted beyond belief as one reason he gave for the EC was to protect against foreign powers interfering and impacting our own elections. The GOP electors played ostrich, shoved their head in the sand (or elsewhere) ignored their responsibility and nodded their heads just like the Republicans are famous for doing.

You seem to have no idea what Mr. Hamilton was actually attempting to impart with his wisdom in the Federalist Papers, or how he would react to this election, especially the overreach of some to bloviate in their misdirected outrage due to losing the White House, by flouting faux disgust in the form of unfounded and baseless claims of foreign intent that cannot even be honestly implied with any certainty, much less proven factually and empirically, rising from the most flaccid of statements from supposed CIA secret reports that no one has seen publically that has been reported to contain more equivocations and half promises of truth and commitment than 16 year old boys use in trying to talk a 16 year old girl into having sex.

The GOP has stated that they WANT an investigation into foreign hacking of our political parties and candidate campaign officials. However, there is no proof of foreign influence on our election process, nor is there any evidence of any foreign manipulation of the election results or outcome.

To say otherwise is the epitome of dissimilation and obfuscation.

 

[Beaudreaux]

No Maggie, the world was watching last month as much to our amazement and horror, you chose an absolute basket case as your President. :shrug:

You're correct. However, so is she. The world saw today, a peaceful, totally above-board, and Constitutional process play out based on the Rule-of-Law and not the rule of man or the rule of violence and riots in the streets.

Regardless of the name on the ballots cast today, it made me damned proud to be a citizen of the greatest country on the face of this planet, where the peaceful transfer of power is ensured without a need for guns or dogs keeping the people at bay, even when emotions and dissatisfaction with the outcome are as high and heated as they are currently.

 

[Ontologuy]

17 different intelligence and defense agencies have ALL come to the conclusion that it was Russia who hacked US info and id it to help Trump.

Let's say that's true.

What are we supposed to do about it?

If there's a rule/law that says we have to disqualify anyone who it "appears" benefited from an illegal act by a foreign nation, then how do we know that Putin's rhetoric against Clinton wasn't just a smokescreen and he really wanted her to win because he thought he could easily best her in any foreign affair issue and thus he hoped we'd disqualify Trump because it "appeared" he was helping him with the hack? If that's the case, Clinton should be disqualified.

We can't go around reacting to words and deeds initiated by a foreign power as if we "know" what they are doing. We may not truly know what and why they're doing what they're doing. After all, it's not called "espionage" for nothing.

If you don't want a foreign power to influence our elections, the best thing we can do in that regard is not disqualify anyone simply because a foreign power had an opinion or broke the law. Otherwise you're really letting them influence our elections.

Foreign government officials all said many things about who they preferred to win -- it's politics, that's what they do. How do you know how many voters listened to them? And even if they did, so what?

Anymore, the media publishes every little twitter-bite on the planet, so the media's power to manipulate an election to make it look like some foreign power is helping this or that particular candidate can simply be the media's preferred spin.

Besides, foreign policy is spoken by all the candidates in their campaigning, and of course big ol' Russia was mentioned by both candidates. It's foolish to think that Putin wouldn't comment in reply to Clinton's and Trump's policy statements, policy statements made to American citizens in an attempt to secure votes.

No, it's simply wrong to disqualify a candidate because some foreign power acted alone.

Now, if there's evidence that Trump acted as an actual accomplice (no, meaningless rhetoric doesn't count) in the e-mail breech, you know, like "Watergate" actual-accomplice .. or that Clinton had her techies let down the firewall on her server and let it slip to Russia that the e-mail is ripe for the pickings in the hope of getting Trump disqualified when it's leaked against her .. then, that's different.

But there's no indication that either Trump or Clinton or anyone working for them actually acted as an indictable accomplice to justify disqualification.

So I think we're done with this.

If we want to go after Putin, we can .. and maybe we should.

But we can't rightly go after Trump .. or Clinton.

 

[haymarket]

You seem to have no idea what Mr. Hamilton was actually attempting to impart with his wisdom in the Federalist Papers, or how he would react to this election, especially the overreach of some to bloviate in their misdirected outrage due to losing the White House, by flouting faux disgust in the form of unfounded and baseless claims of foreign intent that cannot even be honestly implied with any certainty, much less proven factually and empirically, rising from the most flaccid of statements from supposed CIA secret reports that no one has seen publically that has been reported to contain more equivocations and half promises of truth and commitment than 16 year old boys use in trying to talk a 16 year old girl into having sex.

The GOP has stated that they WANT an investigation into foreign hacking of our political parties and candidate campaign officials. However, there is no proof of foreign influence on our election process, nor is there any evidence of any foreign manipulation of the election results or outcome.

To say otherwise is the epitome of dissimilation and obfuscation.

Sop the words of Hamilton explaining one of the purposes of the EC mean less to you than a pile of horse dung.

 

[MaggieD]

17 different intelligence and defense agencies have ALL come to the conclusion that it was Russia who hacked US info and id it to help Trump.

This is the exact sort of thing that Hamilton warned against in Federalist 68 as a purpose of the EC in the first place.

Hamilton all but named Trump.

Tell me what they did beyond shining a bright light.

 

[haymarket]

Tell me what they did beyond shining a bright light.

Apparently they shined it right in the eyes of Trump supporters and blinded them to reality.

 

[MaggieD]

No Maggie, the world was watching last month as much to our amazement and horror, you chose an absolute basket case as your President. :shrug:

Basketcase?? Pardon me if don't respect Babylon.

 

[countryboy]

I know...I'm over-reacting, but I think the world was watching our Electoral College. They performed admirably. I didn't have that faith, tell you the truth. I thought the drama would be overwhelming.

But make no mistake. The world was watching, especially our enemies. Destabilization galore. Worst transition, as far as I'm concerned, in modern history. Transitions are meant to be smooth so as not to give our adversaries the mistaken belief that we're at sixes and sevens. We didn't do a very good job this time. And I'm thinking that poor model is going to continue going forward.

Imagine a former president intending to regularly weigh in on decisions made by our new president. Where is the precedent for that? Our transition of power is all ABOUT precedent. What message are we sending to our enemies... to those who would see us falter?

I take heart in that I think the Left's deplorable behavior will cost them... they don't get it.

Especially after all of Hillary's harping about the smooth transition of power, and how deplorable Trump was for not saying he would accept the outcome of the election unconditionally, and blah blah blah. And here it was the sniveling left who made a mess out of it. It is despicable, to put it mildly.

And no, you are not overreacting. Not in the least. The left are the true deplorables. I often say, if you want to know what a lib is up to, watch what he accuses others of. It's true EVERY TIME.

 

[haymarket]

Let's say that's true.

What are we supposed to do about it?

If there's a rule/law that says we have to disqualify anyone who it "appears" benefited from an illegal act by a foreign nation, then how do we know that Putin's rhetoric against Clinton wasn't just a smokescreen and he really wanted her to win because he thought he could easily best her in any foreign affair issue and thus he hoped we'd disqualify Trump because it "appeared" he was helping him with the hack? If that's the case, Clinton should be disqualified.

We can't go around reacting to words and deeds initiated by a foreign power as if we "know" what they are doing. We may not truly know what and why they're doing what they're doing. After all, it's not called "espionage" for nothing.

If you don't want a foreign power to influence our elections, the best thing we can do in that regard is not disqualify anyone simply because a foreign power had an opinion or broke the law. Otherwise you're really letting them influence our elections.

Foreign government officials all said many things about who they preferred to win -- it's politics, that's what they do. How do you know how many voters listened to them? And even if they did, so what?

Anymore, the media publishes every little twitter-bite on the planet, so the media's power to manipulate an election to make it look like some foreign power is helping this or that particular candidate can simply be the media's preferred spin.

Besides, foreign policy is spoken by all the candidates in their campaigning, and of course big ol' Russia was mentioned by both candidates. It's foolish to think that Putin wouldn't comment in reply to Clinton's and Trump's policy statements, policy statements made to American citizens in an attempt to secure votes.

No, it's simply wrong to disqualify a candidate because some foreign power acted alone.

Now, if there's evidence that Trump acted as an actual accomplice (no, meaningless rhetoric doesn't count) in the e-mail breech, you know, like "Watergate" actual-accomplice .. or that Clinton had her techies let down the firewall on her server and let it slip to Russia that the e-mail is ripe for the pickings in the hope of getting Trump disqualified when it's leaked against her .. then, that's different.

But there's no indication that either Trump or Clinton or anyone working for them actually acted as an indictable accomplice to justify disqualification.

So I think we're done with this.

If we want to go after Putin, we can .. and maybe we should.

But we can't rightly go after Trump .. or Clinton.

You need to pose those questions to Alexander Hamilton... or barring the impracticality of that ... ask that to the defenders of the EC system since that whole foreign powers thing was supposedly one of the reasons we had it in the first place so electors could put the brakes on a manchurian candidate.

 

[MaggieD]

They sure must have been rattled when Trump wouldn't say whether he'd accept the election result and kept claiming the election was going to be rigged.

Don't know why on earth Haymarket would like this post...

 

[countryboy]

As bad as that is, and I agree 100% that is would be a bad thing, it's nothing compared to our incoming president endlessly ****ting on every aspect of our intelligence agencies in the public, on twitter no less. He is publicly shaming our institutions for the simple act of providing information. If you are worried about what our enemies are seeing, you are looking at the wrong thing in imho.

Yet another example of "it's somebody else's fault, we may suck, but you guys suck worse". Unbuckingfelievable.

 

[countryboy]

They sure must have been rattled when Trump wouldn't say whether he'd accept the election result and kept claiming the election was going to be rigged.

And in the end, it was the uber-hypocritical left who wouldn't. How very.....typical. :roll:

 

[Beaudreaux]

Sop the words of Hamilton explaining one of the purposes of the EC mean less to you than a pile of horse dung.

Hamilton's words are clear, as are the words in Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 of the US Constitution as well as the 12th Amendment to that same document, yet what the progressives and anti-EC folks try to imply from his words are just that - horse dung.

You do realize that those that try to use Federalist 68 and Hamilton as their foundation for Constitutional originalism regarding the President are using the man that wanted the President to serve as quasi-King with a life-term in office?

I would recommend a tad of research.

 

[spud_meister]

17 different intelligence and defense agencies have ALL come to the conclusion that it was Russia who hacked US info and id it to help Trump.

And whose fault was it that Russia had influence over the election? It certainly wasn't Trump that behaved in a questionable manner, and allowed that information to fall into the hands of a rival nation.