Guy you put words into other people's mouth. Your right wing paranoia prevents you from seeing anything wrong with his asking Jeremy Corbin with help removing the windfarm offshore of his golf course.

---

Angela, betreger, whenever you guys feel like doing some homework then here's just one of the reasons I love "punching up" at Hillary.

I think you assign anyone who hates Trump into the must love Hillary category. Fatal mistake...

LOL, no :)

But there is one thing wrong in that sentence of mine you quoted and it's the word "homework". Well, not "wrong" really... I just meant it super-literally. I wasn't being condescending. All 3 links are super-long reads of past, present, and future. And all the info needs to be tied together for a picture to emerge. That's a lot of work!

No, betreger got dragged into this because I still owed him a real answer as to why I think Hillary would privatize Social Security in a heartbeat given half the chance.

But Angela's in hot water for pretending Hillary Clinton is Jill Stein in her "My Peeps" and "Why aren't you all raging progressives?" speeches. I'll elaborate:

First of all - based on the "Peeps" speech - you'd think Alameda is America's last remaining progressive holdout. But Alameda didn't vote for Bernie and it didn't vote for Stein.



Wisconsin on the other hand:



Yellow is Hillary. Green is... Bernie.

- - - - - - -

Second, and more importantly, there's this list:

A progressive platform generally involves the following oldies but goodies:

the concept (brace yourselves, non-Canadians and non-Europeans!!!) that healthcare is a right and not a privilege

corporate reform and regulation

doctrine driven by science, not special interests

net neutrality

raising the minimum wage and establishing living wages

higher education without the burden of crushing debt

protection of such "socialista" programs such as Social Security, Medicare and pensions

strengthening of unions, so that workers are treated as human resources instead of exploitable, expendable cogs in a wheel

And ends with:

And I am voting for Hilary.

I fail to see the connection here. But it doesn't really matter what I think.

What would Jerry Brown think?
How 'bout Robert Reich?

Call for a Congressional Investigation: An Open Letter from Concerned Scholars

The concern is that in several states, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan the pattern of voting in the counties differs significantly depending on whether it is a "paper ballot" or a "machine ballot". In these state the majority for Trump is very small.

Basically;
Hillary won in paper ballots.
Trump won the machine ballots.

The question is did someone or some outside entity tamper with the machine counts?

---

There was a president who was credited with saying, "If I can't appoint my friends to high positions, what the point in being President?." That president was Abraham Lincoln.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

There was a president who was credited with saying, "If I can't appoint my friends to high positions, what the point in being President?." That president was Abraham Lincoln.

Bob, so how is that relevant to using high office for personal gain? How do you spell quid pro po?

---

Call for a Congressional Investigation: An Open Letter from Concerned Scholars

The concern is that in several states, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan the pattern of voting in the counties differs significantly depending on whether it is a "paper ballot" or a "machine ballot". In these state the majority for Trump is very small.

Basically;
Hillary won in paper ballots.
Trump won the machine ballots.

The question is did someone or some outside entity tamper with the machine counts?

Yeah, right.
Maybe it's just that Trump supporters were more likely to vote via machine than via old fashioned paper.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

Call for a Congressional Investigation: An Open Letter from Concerned Scholars

The concern is that in several states, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan the pattern of voting in the counties differs significantly depending on whether it is a "paper ballot" or a "machine ballot". In these state the majority for Trump is very small.

Basically;
Hillary won in paper ballots.
Trump won the machine ballots.

The question is did someone or some outside entity tamper with the machine counts?

Yeah, right.
Maybe it's just that Trump supporters were more likely to vote via machine than via old fashioned paper.

It was reported that Trump won, in some parts of the country, because the rural population voted for him. it is most likely that rural areas will use a paper voting system, while the urban and suburban areas will use machine voting.
As the educated, more likely to be Democrats, tend to move to cities to get jobs, then one would have expected the machine votes to be more likely for Hillary. What the papers authors are saying is the opposite happened.

---

Call for a Congressional Investigation: An Open Letter from Concerned Scholars

The concern is that in several states, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan the pattern of voting in the counties differs significantly depending on whether it is a "paper ballot" or a "machine ballot". In these state the majority for Trump is very small.

Basically;
Hillary won in paper ballots.
Trump won the machine ballots.

The question is did someone or some outside entity tamper with the machine counts?

Yeah, right.
Maybe it's just that Trump supporters were more likely to vote via machine than via old fashioned paper.

It was reported that Trump won, in some parts of the country, because the rural population voted for him. it is most likely that rural areas will use a paper voting system, while the urban and suburban areas will use machine voting.
As the educated, more likely to be Democrats, tend to move to cities to get jobs, then one would have expected the machine votes to be more likely for Hillary. What the papers authors are saying is the opposite happened.

Well, screw them then.
How many pundits and expundiators had predicted the opposite outcome?
And now they are crying like babies because their predictions did not come true and they are trying to cover their arses.
I, for one, am tired of hearing about it.
The American people have elected their next president and if you wanna go to sleep for the next 4 or maybe 8 years, you can read about it in the history books.

Done deal, enough said.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

Call for a Congressional Investigation: An Open Letter from Concerned Scholars

The concern is that in several states, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan the pattern of voting in the counties differs significantly depending on whether it is a "paper ballot" or a "machine ballot". In these state the majority for Trump is very small.

Basically;
Hillary won in paper ballots.
Trump won the machine ballots.

The question is did someone or some outside entity tamper with the machine counts?

It appears that the "open letter" quoted here is a bit disingenuous. (No big surprise.) And, your evaluation of its content is flawed. It does NOT suggest any problem with the voting in particular counties in any particular states as you imply. You have simply given your own meaning to something that may or may not be true. For instance, my state (voting mostly democratic for president) uses an electronically tabulated paper ballot. Where the counties and towns overrun by Democrates voted the same they always have and the conservative towns and counties were equally predictable.
Nowhere does the "open letter" even mention voting machines or ballot types. Again something that only you have assigned to it to fit your own twist. In fact, it states that the concern is the "role that foreign powers played in the months leading up to November".
The letter also claims, "As voting American citizens,we...", but among the signatories are 10 Canadians and British "scholars".
It looks like a snow job to me.

Call for a Congressional Investigation: An Open Letter from Concerned Scholars

The concern is that in several states, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan the pattern of voting in the counties differs significantly depending on whether it is a "paper ballot" or a "machine ballot". In these state the majority for Trump is very small.

Basically;
Hillary won in paper ballots.
Trump won the machine ballots.

The question is did someone or some outside entity tamper with the machine counts?

Yeah, right.
Maybe it's just that Trump supporters were more likely to vote via machine than via old fashioned paper.

It was reported that Trump won, in some parts of the country, because the rural population voted for him. it is most likely that rural areas will use a paper voting system, while the urban and suburban areas will use machine voting.
As the educated, more likely to be Democrats, tend to move to cities to get jobs, then one would have expected the machine votes to be more likely for Hillary. What the papers authors are saying is the opposite happened.

Well, screw them then.
How many pundits and expundiators had predicted the opposite outcome?
And now they are crying like babies because their predictions did not come true and they are trying to cover their arses.
I, for one, am tired of hearing about it.
The American people have elected their next president and if you wanna go to sleep for the next 4 or maybe 8 years, you can read about it in the history books.

Done deal, enough said.

From the title of a Glen Frey song all the whiners need to "GET OVER IT."

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

How long before he realises that cancelling TPP will actually help China and be bad for the US, China's gain? The collapse of the TPP could be bad for everyone

How long before you figure out you often parrot stuff thought up by a corporate "think tank"? Meanwhile, please explain to me why VW customers in the UK don't deserve a refund.

How long before he realises that cancelling TPP will actually help China and be bad for the US, China's gain? The collapse of the TPP could be bad for everyone

How long before you figure out you often parrot stuff thought up by a corporate "think tank"? Meanwhile, please explain to me why VW customers in the UK don't deserve a refund.

And it makes him or those he quoted wrong because ... ?

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

My answer depends on why you ask:

a) Because Obama thinks it's a good idea?
b) Because Libertarians think it is a good idea?
c) Because we couldn't possibly be smarter than someone writing for CNBC?
d) Other?

In America TRUMP came first for the Muslims, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Muslim;
And then TRUMP came for the Hispanics, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Hispanic;
And then TRUMP came for the Blacks, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Black;
And then . . . TRUMP came for me . . .

---

My answer depends on why you ask:

a) Because Obama thinks it's a good idea?
b) Because Libertarians think it is a good idea?
c) Because we couldn't possibly be smarter than someone writing for CNBC?
d) Other?

(A)? No.
(B)? No.
(C)? Depending on what sigma is (15 or 20?) and what it was the last time I took the test, my z-score for IQ is either 1,90 or approximately 2.53. Thus, I am supposedly smarter than 97.13% to 99.43% of the population. That does not mean I have all the information and background understanding to analyze that information that someone writing for CNBC does.
(D)? Can't answer yes or no or depends because you didn't suggest a fourth option.

Perhaps the best response is "epistemology". You've questioned Winterknight's apparent acceptance of certain things as facts. I am asking you why you clearly reject certain things as facts.

I think we are in agreement regarding the overwhelming power corporations have over our lives. Yes? But, if so, do you then reject everything coming from "corporate thought"? Do corporations get everything wrong?

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Alright then my answer is:

Stop feeling insecure, forgo the humble pie act and - most importantly - quit being so damn lazy.

Answer these very easy questions:
Do you really think this guy is smarter than 97.13% to 99.43% of the population?
Where is his wiki page?
Where is his Amazon page?
Do his other CNBC articles show hints of any sort of "background understanding" regarding trade deals?
Who owns CNBC?
And what is Comcast's lobbying budget?

Last but most certainly not least:

Exactly how many think tanks did he reference in this "article"?

BTW: The 'URL' I referenced. Doesn't work for me, under the new format. Oh well.

I guess that hash marks don't work in URLs.
http://www.wnd.com/2016/11/electoral-college-voters-deluged-with-death-threats/