Jump to content
The Education Forum

Hillary blames FBI Director Comey for her loss


Douglas Caddy
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Guess we have something in common Cliff. Who published the cards?

 

You bet!  I have a copy of Bush League kicking around here somewhere.

The underground So Cal artist Bad Otis Link put them out on his Rigomor Press. 

He did the original set of Murderers! collector's cards in '89-'90, raised a ruckus, and the Most Hated was the follow-up.

All the artists and I were from California, but the Most Hated set made the biggest splash in New York.

Al Goldstein gave us a review in Screw!

The New York State Legislature barred anyone under 18 from buying either set, even tho there are zero cuss words and zero dirty drawings.

Donald Trump's in it, so is David Duke, Ted Nugent and Rush Limbaugh.

And Lee Harvey Oswald.  That was the beginning of my JFK interest.

Around 1994 the distribution network supporting our efforts collapsed, sadly.

I love the format!

 

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Misspelled Rigomor, dammit!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 303
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

16 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Glenn,

I don't know why Cliff is ignoring your question. But I think that Kirk Galloway's comment answers it.

Nobody complains about the electoral college when it makes no difference. What would be the point? The two times in recent history where it did make a difference, going by the popular vote would have benefited the Democratic candidate.

As far as we know, Cliff may think of it in this way. Or he may always have disagreed with using an electoral college.. Either way, does it make any difference? To you?

Thanks Sandy,

Glenn, when you asked what I meant when I said that in the elections where a candidate won the electoral college and lost the popular vote, that candidate has never been a Democrat. I said this,

All our elections are decided by one man- one vote except the Presidential Election. In our lifetime there's only been 2 times when a candidate has gotten the most votes but lost in the Electoral College, and that's happened twice in the last  16years. (Gore vs. Bush)  In the only 2 cases, they've gone to Republicans. What's the point in Cliff or any of us "complaining about it every election" when it's not an issue?

What don't you understand about this? And then you use these refuted points as your talking points against Cliff twice. Are you really listening? And facts do matter, you're citing 1960 as an example is wrong! John Kennedy won by both the popular vote and the electoral college. Maybe you should admit you've been wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Thanks Sandy,

Glenn, when you asked what I meant when I said that in the elections where a candidate won the electoral college and lost the popular vote, that candidate has never been a Democrat. I said this,

All our elections are decided by one man- one vote except the Presidential Election. In our lifetime there's only been 2 times when a candidate has gotten the most votes but lost in the Electoral College, and that's happened twice in the last  16years. (Gore vs. Bush)  In the only 2 cases, they've gone to Republicans. What's the point in Cliff or any of us "complaining about it every election" when it's not an issue?

What don't you understand about this? And then you use these refuted points as your talking points against Cliff twice. Are you really listening? And facts do matter, you're citing 1960 as an example is wrong! John Kennedy won by both the popular vote and the electoral college. Maybe you should admit you've been wrong.

"...where a candidate won the electoral college and lost the popular vote, that candidate has never been a Democrat."

I simply didn't understand what you meant. This rephrasing explains it. Thanks.

Also. I didn't in any way "cite" 1960 as an example of anything. I was trying to prompt Cliff with some suggestions. Perhaps you "misread" it.

My point with the question was very simple, being that you can't complain about the process being faulty only when it doesn't go your way. Now that I understand the fact that the only two times this has happened went the R's way, it puts some of these complaints (whining) in more perspective. I have no problem admitting I was wrong. I was wrong. I didn't know these facts.

Nevertheless, what I do know is that the Electoral College is the system we have always used in our Presidential elections, and the reasons for it are perfectly sound. Until you (not you, the colloquial "you") get your asses beat, at least. Then reason apparently goes out the window.

If Cliff, and any others, wish to sound more credible in their arguments, I'd suggest getting the numbers somewhere close to accurate.

Edited by Glenn Nall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

 

You bet!  I have a copy of Bush League kicking around here somewhere.

The underground So Cal artist Bad Otis Link put them out on his Rigomor Press. 

He did the original set of Murderers! collector's cards in '89-'90, raised a ruckus, and the Most Hated was the follow-up.

All the artists and I were from California, but the Most Hated set made the biggest splash in New York.

Al Goldstein gave us a review in Screw!

The New York State Legislature barred anyone under 18 from buying either set, even tho there are zero cuss words and zero dirty drawings.

Donald Trump's in it, so is David Duke, Ted Nugent and Rush Limbaugh.

And Lee Harvey Oswald.  That was the beginning of my JFK interest.

Around 1994 the distribution network supporting our efforts collapsed, sadly.

I love the format!

 

Clearly Trump is a perfect subject and title for a set of cards. It's been so many years now and I'm too lazy. Of course back then we didn't have the internet so research was much harder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Glenn Nall said:

"...where a candidate won the electoral college and lost the popular vote, that candidate has never been a Democrat."

I simply didn't understand what you meant. This rephrasing explains it. Thanks.

Also. I didn't in any way "cite" 1960 as an example of anything. I was trying to prompt Cliff with some suggestions. Perhaps you "misread" it.

My point with the question was very simple, being that you can't complain about the process being faulty only when it doesn't go your way. Now that I understand the fact that the only two times this has happened went the R's way, it puts some of these complaints (whining) in more perspective. I have no problem admitting I was wrong. I was wrong. I didn't know these facts.

Nevertheless, what I do know is that the Electoral College is the system we have always used in our Presidential elections, and the reasons for it are perfectly sound. Until you (not you, the colloquial "you") get your asses beat, at least. Then reason apparently goes out the window.

If Cliff, and any others, wish to sound more credible in their arguments, I'd suggest getting the numbers somewhere close to accurate.

All right, Glenn. I appreciate you admitted you're wrong. I see you work against Veteran homelessness. I appreciate that. Are you a veteran yourself? Then maybe you get turned off with non veterans talking about war when they have never had their character tested by experiencing a war firsthand. You have never experienced an election where the popular will is thwarted by the electoral college and you lost, so you've never had your character tested and that's why it's so easy for you to characterize their rage as "whining."

Do you know we are the only country that uses an electoral college? We are also the only ones that use the phrase "the popular vote" In everywhere else it's just called "the vote" .  And there are people from both parties who don't think the Constitution is so sacred that we can't admit that it might be wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Glenn Nall said:

"...where a candidate won the electoral college and lost the popular vote, that candidate has never been a Democrat."

I simply didn't understand what you meant. This rephrasing explains it. Thanks.

Also. I didn't in any way "cite" 1960 as an example of anything. I was trying to prompt Cliff with some suggestions. Perhaps you "misread" it.

My point with the question was very simple, being that you can't complain about the process being faulty only when it doesn't go your way. Now that I understand the fact that the only two times this has happened went the R's way, it puts some of these complaints (whining) in more perspective. I have no problem admitting I was wrong. I was wrong. I didn't know these facts.

Nevertheless, what I do know is that the Electoral College is the system we have always used in our Presidential elections, and the reasons for it are perfectly sound. Until you (not you, the colloquial "you") get your asses beat, at least. Then reason apparently goes out the window.

If Cliff, and any others, wish to sound more credible in their arguments, I'd suggest getting the numbers somewhere close to accurate.

Glenn - I suggest we try to look at the electoral college not from a sour grapes prospective but historically.You say the reason are perfectly sound, even though I am sure you know that the term 'popular vote' is distinctly American. Elsewhere it is simply called 'the vote'.

i saw an interesting segment on this recently. It seems that Alexander Hamilton offered an amendment to abolish the electoral college, even though it was he that came up with the idea in the first place. His reasoning was interesting. He had conceived of it as a kind of check and balance against an electorate that might make a choice that the wise men in the electoral college could nullify if they found it unacceptable for some reason. He never thought it would become a robotic rubber stamp. He wanted electors to be able vote their conscience if they, from their educated elite positions they deemed it necessary. If there is an historian reading this that knows the subject and thinks I have it wrong, I'm all ears.

if the electors are just robots without a shred of independence, the only thing left to look at is why it is fair or not. I saw a figure recently that illustrates why I think it is unfair. Were California to receive a proportional number of electoral votes based on population to a small state like Wyoming for instance, which I believe gets 3 electoral votes, it would get not 53, but 199 votes. 

So what is the perfectly sound reason you speak of? Is it to give rural states more relative say?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the rationale behind the electoral college:

A popular vote would be unfair to states with large numbers of slaves. Since slaves don't have the right to vote, a popular vote would give them no representation. The electoral college vote, on the other hand, does represent slaves (well, their numbers anyway), because the number of electoral votes allotted each state is based on its whole population... both slaves and non-slaves alike.

The electoral college is outdated and makes no sense.

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

I see you work against Veteran homelessness.

 

Glenn,

If you work for homeless Vets I'll take you off ignore and thank you for your patriotism.

I live a block from the eastern entrance of Golden Gate Park, one of the great homeless magnets.

I get along with them fine -- I've a well developed I'm-as-crazy-as-you-and-care-less vibe that keeps everything on an even keel.

So...What would you like to know?

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/17/2016 at 10:22 PM, Cliff Varnell said:

Bernie 2020 it is!

Bernie deserves it, but he is going to be 79. Elizabeth Warren is good, but I think we got to strike out in a new direction.Gavin Newsome or Tom Steyer, it obviously can't be both. We need someone who will stick it to them. Gavin Newsome would be like the Knight in shining armor, but I fear would play it too much between the 40 yard lines. Steyer would stick it to them. We need a strong leader with conviction. And either could work.

There's a stretch of time between then and now, and it could go wrong. But if things go right,  But the public will want something new and fresh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Bernie deserves it, but he is going to be 79. Elizabeth Warren is good, but I think we got to strike out in a new direction.Gavin Newsome or Tom Steyer, it obviously can't be both. We need someone who will stick it to them. Gavin Newsome would be like the Knight in shining armor, but I fear would play it too much between the 40 yard lines. Steyer would stick it to them. We need a strong leader with conviction. And either could work.

There's a stretch of time between then and now, and it could go wrong. But if things go right,  But the public will want something new and fresh.

"We need someone who will stick it to them?"

Stick it to whom, Kirk? The Republicans?

really? if that's what you meant, is that how you see your politics?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tulsi Gabbard looks pretty "new and fresh" to me. And the few times I've seen her interviewed, she knows what she's talking about. I remember being impressed by her discussion of Iraq. She's been there and done that. She was one of the soldiers that Hillary Clinton voted to send there.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Glenn Nall said:

"We need someone who will stick it to them?"

Stick it to whom, Kirk? The Republicans?

really? if that's what you meant, is that how you see your politics?

No Glenn, stick it to the people who are oppressing us. The wealthy, though not all the wealthy, the bigoted who would divide us. Get new blood in government. Don't have it so far reaching, but get it decisively and efficiently into what the public wants it to get into, and of course, open and accountable. A tall order, not easy, but doable.

Ron, let me look more into Tulsi Gabbard.

Edited by Kirk Gallaway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Tulsi Gabbard could be a star. She is smart, Charismatic, and courageous.

 

The only drawback I see is that she's a Hindu. I can already see Republican ads showing Hare Krishnas dancing with their tamborines at airports. "As if flying wasn't a big enough pain already."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...