This was not acceptable to Democrats, most Independents, and
many Republicans who were aware of what was going on. It was
a rigged election, plain and simple.

It sure looks that way, looking back.

GWB was incompetent. But not quite as incompetent as what we
have today. Afghanistan hardly qualified as a nation back then,

GWB incompetent? Yes, I'll agree. Trump incompetent as Commander In Chief?
Yes, a bit - but not spending soldiers' lives like they're pennies like GWB.

claimed he sent the US military there to find Osama bin Laden
and weed out al-Qaeda. He managed to do neither, and the

A period of incompetency ensued for about 24 years, but it's getting better now. GWB & Obama strengthened ISIS so much that they gained control of half
of the middle east; somehow they were not big priorities for either commander in chief.

When Clinton lied, nobody died. When Bush lied, thousands
died. That is something we should all remember.

I agree. I'd take a Clinton over a Bush. Thousands died, and thousands are physically and/or mentally wounded. And what did these wars do for our
national debt?

We have secure borders. And we should continue to keep

But this is where I disagree with you. You're an ex-military guy - guys like
me call you "tough-guys." You ain't scared of illegal aliens who might try murdering you in a robbery, because you're probably able to wake up from a
deep sleep & strangle them to death with your bear hands like 2nd nature.

But guys like me are NOT prepared for that. We've got our cellphones close
by, ready to call for help, but we don't sleep well knowing that there are people lurking outside our windows who have snuck into the USA illegally, and they're extremely desperate, and ready to hide our bodies with sulfuric acid.

We lack the training, courage & discipline to be unconcerned with illegal aliens.

But a wall? That makes us less secure? And costs far

The wall sounds like a primitive method, but the request comes from border patrol & not from President Trump.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Alcoholiday / Est. 1995 / alco.bbs.io (1:123/525)

Am 02 May 19 19:44:00 schrob Mike Powell an WARD DOSSCHE zum Thema
<Re: Peurto Rico>

* Somalia

Bush inherited that one from Billy... Aaron said "started."

* Operation Ocean Shield

I don't recall that one but will take your word for it, so that is 3.

That's about fighting pirate ships in the Gulf of Aden, which is between Yemen and Somalia. It started in 2009.



Tschoe mit Oe
Gerhard
---
* Origin: (2:240/2188.575)

I still cannot believe that there are people who are so dumb that they think the electoral college is why Clinton lost. She only did any

She didn't debate well. At least Obama used and abused his slogan, fooling
many people into thinking it was a deliverable promise.

Trump crushed her in the debates - but I wish he didn't promise the wall because that's a very difficult one to accomplish.

For Trump's future debates, he's got to show us some wall and needs to hand over the tax returns before it becomes more of an issue like Obama's birth certificate was. A real tax return might be harder to produce than a fake
birth certificate.

The democrats already completely soiled themselves, so now it's up to Trump, some other republican, or an independent for 2020.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Alcoholiday / Est. 1995 / alco.bbs.io (1:123/525)

If she only focuses on New York State, California, and Chicago, like Clinton did, she will indeed likely lose.

Those are states where keywords like "sue," "smoke weed," and
"gansta rap" are winners.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Alcoholiday / Est. 1995 / alco.bbs.io (1:123/525)

* Somalia

Bush inherited that one from Billy... Aaron said "started."

* Operation Ocean Shield

I don't recall that one but will take your word for it, so that is 3.

That's about fighting pirate ships in the Gulf of Aden, which is between Yemen >and Somalia. It started in 2009.

OK if it started in 2009 that was Obama. I think Aaron was right, it was 2.

Thanks!
Mike

---
* SLMR 2.1a * Reality-ometer: [\........] Hmmph! Thought so...
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

If she only focuses on New York State, California, and Chicago, like Clinton did, she will indeed likely lose.

Those are states where keywords like "sue," "smoke weed," and
"gansta rap" are winners.

Also places the Democrats are near guaranteed to win. If she wants to win
she will need to campaign in the swing/"purple" states a lot harder than Clinton did.

Mike

---
* SLMR 2.1a * He knows changes aren't permanent - but change is!
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

If she only focuses on New York State, California, and Chicago, lik

Also places the Democrats are near guaranteed to win. If she wants to
win she will need to campaign in the swing/"purple" states a lot harder than Clinton did.

She's already blown her chance by accusing the president of hiring the AG to spy on his rivals; she's out of her mind. No respectable democrats are going
to appreciate her making the party look so bad. She's got an obstructionist disorder, and she wastes a lot of time. Worse than Booker, way worse than Obama. At least Obama had a good fake sales pitch for me, instead of a
campaign built entirely on negativity.

When you see like 20 democrats all competing for the oval office, you know
they lack some serious unity. Being just a representative in some office
is not good enough for them; they all want to be the one in control, instead
of trusting just one of their own. (or a few) This makes it obvious that they're in this for themselves, and not for us.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Alcoholiday / Est. 1995 / alco.bbs.io (1:123/525)

On 05-05-19 16:41, Aaron Thomas <=-
spoke to Mike Powell about Re: Peurto Rico <=-

When you see like 20 democrats all competing for the oval office, you
know they lack some serious unity. Being just a representative in some office is not good enough for them; they all want to be the one in control, instead of trusting just one of their own. (or a few) This
makes it obvious that they're in this for themselves, and not for us.

How many republicans were in the start of the race for 2016? Do you
paint them with the same brush?

Dale Shipp
fido_261_1466 (at) verizon (dot) net
(1:261/1466)


... Shipwrecked on Hesperus in Columbia, Maryland. 02:14:14, 06 May 2019
___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30

--- Maximus/NT 3.01
* Origin: Owl's Anchor (1:261/1466)

Hello Dale,

When you see like 20 democrats all competing for the oval office, you >AT>know they lack some serious unity. Being just a representative in some >AT>office is not good enough for them; they all want to be the one in >AT>control, instead of trusting just one of their own. (or a few) This >AT>makes it obvious that they're in this for themselves, and not for us.

How many republicans were in the start of the race for 2016? Do you
paint them with the same brush?

Same brush. But only red paint. The blue got used up on Monica's
dress during the reign of Bubba.

--Lee

--
We're Great In Bed

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: - nntp://rbb.fidonet.fi - Lake Ylo - Finland - (2:221/360)

Hello Mike,

If she only focuses on New York State, California, and Chicago, like
Clinton did, she will indeed likely lose.

Those are states where keywords like "sue," "smoke weed," and
"gansta rap" are winners.

Also places the Democrats are near guaranteed to win. If she wants to win >she will need to campaign in the swing/"purple" states a lot harder than >Clinton did.

The same can be said of both candidates - the Democratic nominee
and the Republican nominee.

Clinton was a weak candidate, and ran a poor campaign, especially
in the last two weeks. Her opponent unfairly benefitted from
a source that is adversarial to our very democracy. And we all
know what that source is. Furthermore, no real changes have been
made since the election to prevent that same source from doing it
again.

So. Who are the real winners in this game? Not the American
people. That's for sure.

--Lee

--
Pork. The One You Love.

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: - nntp://rbb.fidonet.fi - Lake Ylo - Finland - (2:221/360)

How many republicans were in the start of the race for 2016? Do you
paint them with the same brush?

Nope! None of them threatened to waste this much money on handouts; none of them seemed like they were going to wreck our economy in an effort to make themselves popular so they could sign books later.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Alcoholiday / Est. 1995 / alco.bbs.io (1:123/525)

If she only focuses on New York State, California, and Chicago, like >>MP> Clinton did, she will indeed likely lose.

Those are states where keywords like "sue," "smoke weed," and
"gansta rap" are winners.

Also places the Democrats are near guaranteed to win. If she wants to wi >she will need to campaign in the swing/"purple" states a lot harder than >Clinton did.

I know I know! I ashamed to say I live in New York but what can I do??! I'm outnumbered 10-1. I'm STUCK!

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Windows/64)
* Origin: Capital Station BBS * telnet://csbbs.dyndns.org * (1:267/150)

Hillary Clinton received almost 3 million votes more than

Bush lost the popular vote against Al Gore, but still won the electoral

vote.

Why was everyone ok with that? (for the most part?)

The Corruptocrats screamed bloody murder - and, of course, wanted to do
away with the Electoral College (the left has wanted to do that for at
least thirty years).
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
* Origin: Fido Since 1991 | QWK by Web | BBS.FIDOSYSOP.ORG (1:123/140)

Is that what we want? To have an archaic system that simply
does not work, and fails to reflect the needs and wants of a modern democracy?

It DOES work.

Remember that the Founders did not trust the electorate - not even the
rich, white male landowners who made up the original electorate. It is
too easy to fix any election - there have been myriad examples of
election fraud in just the past decade (and you can go back at least as
far as Roosevelt minor and STILL find election fraud). I refer to the
two major parties as Corruptocrats and Republicrooks - and I refer to
senators and representatives as "pompous, primping, preening, posturing prostitutes," you can use a picture of Jerry Nadler to illustrate the
point
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
* Origin: Fido Since 1991 | QWK by Web | BBS.FIDOSYSOP.ORG (1:123/140)

If she only focuses on New York State, California, and Chicago, like
Clinton did, she will indeed likely lose.

If they change to a straight popular vote the left will win every
election, and need only carry the Washington-Boston corridor, Chicago,
Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles - all of which are bastions of Corruptocrats
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
* Origin: Fido Since 1991 | QWK by Web | BBS.FIDOSYSOP.ORG (1:123/140)

I still cannot believe that there are people who are so dumb that they think the electoral college is why Clinton lost. She only did any

She didn't debate well. At least Obama used and abused his slogan, fooling many people into thinking it was a deliverable promise.

Trump crushed her in the debates - but I wish he didn't promise the wall because that's a very difficult one to accomplish.

The Corruptocrats are going to regret fighting Trump over that wall -
they're going to need that wall to keep all the "rich" people from
fleeing the country - with their money
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
* Origin: Fido Since 1991 | QWK by Web | BBS.FIDOSYSOP.ORG (1:123/140)

Hello Steve,

LL> >>MP>If she only focuses on New York State, California, and Chicago, like
LL> >>MP> Clinton did, she will indeed likely lose.
LL> >
LL> >>Those are states where keywords like "sue," "smoke weed," and
LL> >>"gansta rap" are winners.
LL> >
LL> >Also places the Democrats are near guaranteed to win. If she wants
to wi
LL> >she will need to campaign in the swing/"purple" states a lot harder than
LL> >Clinton did.
I know I know! I ashamed to say I live in New York but what can I do??! I'm
outnumbered 10-1. I'm STUCK!

US Senator from New York running for president in 2016.
Another US Senator from New York running for president in 2020.
Against the same blond from New York who won the last election.

Yes. You are doomed. Truly doomed ...

--Lee

--
Make Sure Your Next Erection Is In Safe Hands

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: - nntp://rbb.fidonet.fi - Lake Ylo - Finland - (2:221/360)

If she only focuses on New York State, California, and Chicago, like Clinton did, she will indeed likely lose.

If they change to a straight popular vote the left will win every
election, and need only carry the Washington-Boston corridor, Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles - all of which are bastions of Corruptocrats

Perfect example of how the Electoral College does work. Back then, I guess
it would have been NYC and Philly. It is set up, in part, so that the candidates cannot ignore large swaths of the country. HRC did that and the Electoral College did its job by keeping her out of office.

Mike

---
* SLMR 2.1a * "Gasoline clears my sinuses!" - Fred G. Sanford
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

The Corruptocrats screamed bloody murder - and, of course, wanted to do away with the Electoral College (the left has wanted to do that for at least thirty years).

That sounds like their style.

What do you think about the electoral college? What would be the drawback of erasing it? (Besides swamp-monsters becoming commanders?)

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Alcoholiday / Est. 1995 / alco.bbs.io (1:123/525)

If she only focuses on New York State, California, and Chicago, like Clinton did, she will indeed likely lose.

If they change to a straight popular vote the left will win every
election, and need only carry the Washington-Boston corridor, Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles - all of which are bastions of Corruptocrats

Perfect example of how the Electoral College does work. Back then, I guess it would have been NYC and Philly. It is set up, in part, so that the candidates cannot ignore large swaths of the country. HRC did that and the Electoral College did its job by keeping her out of office.

People don't understand that the president/veep are elected by the
states, not by the people. I think that the states that now require that
their electors vote for the candidate with the highest *nationwide* vote
total - even if that candidate received precisely zero votes in their
state - are dumber than the proverbial box of rocks - and, of course,
they're defeating the purpose of the EC. The Founders didn't trust the
voters - at the time rich, property owning, white males - to directly
elect the president
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
* Origin: Fido Since 1991 | QWK by Web | BBS.FIDOSYSOP.ORG (1:123/140)

The Corruptocrats screamed bloody murder - and, of course, wanted

to do

away with the Electoral College (the left has wanted to do that for at least thirty years).

That sounds like their style.

What do you think about the electoral college?

It's the method the Founders decided upon that allows the STATES to elect
the president/veep.

What would be the drawback of

erasing it? (Besides swamp-monsters becoming commanders?)

The president/veep would be elected by the Boston-DC corridor, Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco (Bay Area), Los Angeles and, maybe, Dallas.
Everyplace else in the country safely could be ignored. All of those
places (except, maybe, Dallas) are bastions of the Corruptocrats
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
* Origin: Fido Since 1991 | QWK by Web | BBS.FIDOSYSOP.ORG (1:123/140)

People don't understand that the president/veep are elected by the
states, not by the people. I think that the states that now require that their electors vote for the candidate with the highest *nationwide* vote total - even if that candidate received precisely zero votes in their
state - are dumber than the proverbial box of rocks - and, of course,
they're defeating the purpose of the EC. The Founders didn't trust the voters - at the time rich, property owning, white males - to directly
elect the president

I have not paid too much attention but it was my impression that most of
the states that are doing that are states that the Democrats usually win anyway. They are assuming that because it happened this last time, that
the Democrats will always win the popular vote. Seeing as how assuming
makes an ass out of the person doing it... if those states had that law in 2004, 1988, 1984, 1980, etc., they'd would have been forced to cast their
state votes for the Republicans instead. So, yeah, in those instances it will really screw their state voters.

Otherwise, their state voters won't notice much of a difference, and
neither would we, because their state will likely vote for the Democrat.

Mike

---
* SLMR 2.1a * Suicidal dyslexic jumps behind train - film at 11
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Re: Re: Peurto Rico
By: BOB ACKLEY to AARON THOMAS on Mon May 13 2019 04:27 pm

The Corruptocrats screamed bloody murder - and, of course, wanted

to do

away with the Electoral College (the left has wanted to do that
for at least thirty years).

What do you think about the electoral college?

It's the method the Founders decided upon that allows the STATES to elect the president/veep.

What would be the drawback of

erasing it? (Besides swamp-monsters becoming commanders?)

The president/veep would be elected by the Boston-DC corridor, Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco (Bay Area), Los Angeles and, maybe, Dallas. Everyplace else in the country safely could be ignored. All of those

Nah New York would be the Major player for the Dems.The state would cast a dark shadow over any of the surrounding states.
Regards,
Steve Wolf
HusTler/Heliarc SysOp
Havens BBS *havens.synchro.net (1:267/160)*
--- SBBSecho 3.07-Win32
* Origin: Diamond Mine Online BBS bbs.dmine.net:24 1:275/89 (1:275/89)

Hello Bob,

The Corruptocrats screamed bloody murder - and, of course, wanted

to do

away with the Electoral College (the left has wanted to do that for

at

least thirty years).

That sounds like their style.

What do you think about the electoral college?

It's the method the Founders decided upon that allows the STATES to elect
the president/veep.

If no candidate receives a majority of electoral votes, then
the House of Representatives chooses the president with each state
having 1 vote, and the Senate chooses the vice president with each
senator having 1 vote.

What would be the drawback of

erasing it? (Besides swamp-monsters becoming commanders?)

The president/veep would be elected by the Boston-DC corridor, Chicago, >Seattle, San Francisco (Bay Area), Los Angeles and, maybe, Dallas.
Everyplace else in the country safely could be ignored. All of those
places (except, maybe, Dallas) are bastions of the Corruptocrats

The candidates would campaign differently, and visit more places.
The electoral college process is far more limiting, resulting in
much fewer campaign stops for candidates.

IOW, the electoral college process is nothing more than a polite
fiction. A means to con the electorate into believing it is taking
part in a fair election.

--Lee

--
We're Great In Bed

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: - nntp://rbb.fidonet.fi - Lake Ylo - Finland - (2:221/360)

The candidates would campaign differently, and visit more places.
The electoral college process is far more limiting, resulting in
much fewer campaign stops for candidates.

No, you have that wrong. Remember, that is what Hilarious tried (fewer
stops) and it DID NOT WORK. If there was no electoral college, what she did would have worked. She would only need to campaign and play to the areas
that Bob listed. She'd never visit Kentucky or any state that surrounds it (except maybe Northern Virginia). She'd certainly have gotten away with ignoring Wisconsin and Michigan.

IOW, the electoral college process is nothing more than a polite
fiction. A means to con the electorate into believing it is taking
part in a fair election.

The only times it has been "unfair" is when a Democrat has not managed to
win it.

Mike

---
* SLMR 2.1a * Visit Scenic Melnibon
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

The only times it has been "unfair" is when a Democrat has not managed to win it.

When put in its proper perspective, i,e, the President is chosen by the States and not by the people, it makes perfect sense.

Our head of government, i.e. the Prime Minister, is not elected either and I think that's true for about every other country around here.

The difference, I think, lies in the amount of power the head of state gets.

\%/@rd

--- D'Bridge 3.99 SR41
* Origin: Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards (2:292/854)

IOW, the electoral college process is nothing more than a polite
fiction. A means to con the electorate into believing it is taking
part in a fair election.

But it works great when it gets Indonesians elected :)

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Alcoholiday / Est. 1995 / alco.bbs.io (1:123/525)

When put in its proper perspective, i,e, the President is chosen by the States >and not by the people, it makes perfect sense.

Correct.

Our head of government, i.e. the Prime Minister, is not elected either and I >think that's true for about every other country around here.

The difference, I think, lies in the amount of power the head of state gets.

Or maybe the perceived amount of power. I don't think that the President
has as much power as we citizens perceive the position to have. They get blamed, and credited, for a lot of things they don't really have much true participation in.

Mike

---
* SLMR 2.1a * If you believe in telekinesis, please raise my hand.
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Hello Mike,

The candidates would campaign differently, and visit more places.
The electoral college process is far more limiting, resulting in
much fewer campaign stops for candidates.

No, you have that wrong. Remember, that is what Hilarious tried (fewer >stops) and it DID NOT WORK. If there was no electoral college, what she did >would have worked. She would only need to campaign and play to the areas >that Bob listed. She'd never visit Kentucky or any state that surrounds it >(except maybe Northern Virginia). She'd certainly have gotten away with >ignoring Wisconsin and Michigan.

Both candidates would have played the game far differently had
there been no electoral college process. Who would have won under
those conditions is anybody's guess. Some would say Clinton, based
on her results from the election held under electoral college rules.
But that is speculative.

Before the election, Donald Trump said publicly he would prefer
a popular vote than the current electoral college process. After
the election, he changed his mind. As for who would have won had
it been a popular vote, Trump admitted the race would have been
contested by both candidates differently.

Trump also claimed the election was rigged, with lots of "fake"
votes having been counted for his opponent. Meaning he was the
one who got the most popular votes. After all, he counted those
votes himself ...

IOW, the electoral college process is nothing more than a polite
fiction. A means to con the electorate into believing it is taking
part in a fair election.

The only times it has been "unfair" is when a Democrat has not managed to
win it.

Gore v. Bush

Total votes cast - 9

GWB - 5
Al Gore 4

The closest election in US history.

--Lee

--
Everybody Loves Our Buns

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: - nntp://rbb.fidonet.fi - Lake Ylo - Finland - (2:221/360)

Hello Aaron,

IOW, the electoral college process is nothing more than a polite >LL>fiction. A means to con the electorate into believing it is taking >LL>part in a fair election.

But it works great when it gets Indonesians elected :)

I haven't seen many Indonesians with orange hair.
Except for Clyde the Orangatun, who starred in some
of Clint Eastwood's finest films ...

--Lee

--
Your Hole Is Our Goal

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: - nntp://rbb.fidonet.fi - Lake Ylo - Finland - (2:221/360)

Hello Mike,

When put in its proper perspective, i,e, the President is chosen by the
States
and not by the people, it makes perfect sense.

Correct.

Our head of government, i.e. the Prime Minister, is not elected either and
I
think that's true for about every other country around here.

The difference, I think, lies in the amount of power the head of state
gets.

Or maybe the perceived amount of power. I don't think that the President
has as much power as we citizens perceive the position to have. They get >blamed, and credited, for a lot of things they don't really have much true >participation in.

Which is the reality? Power, or the perception of power?

Is power a reality, or is it a perception? Trump tries to
give everybody the impression that he is the wealthiest person
on the face of this planet. Not that he is.

I'll agree with that. The presidency is a weak office, as given
in the US Constitution. Article I is about the Congress, noting
the office of US Representative first. Article II is about the
Executive Branch, noting the office of President sixth. Pretty
low in order of importance (amount of power), in my opinion.
Article III is about the Judicial Branch, whose members are
appointed rather than elected.

--Lee

--
It Ain't Payday If It Ain't Nuts In Your Mouth

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: - nntp://rbb.fidonet.fi - Lake Ylo - Finland - (2:221/360)

Your Hole Is Our Goal

You're QWK reader does Democrat taglines? :)

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Alcoholiday / Est. 1995 / alco.bbs.io (1:123/525)

Hello Aaron,

Your Hole Is Our Goal

You're QWK reader does Democrat taglines? :)

I'll have to update them. Last time I did was after
the women's march in DC. Not sure if they were Democrats
or Republicans. But Madonna was there, and we all know
what she wanted to do with the White House. :)

--Lee

--
As Good As It Looks

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: - nntp://rbb.fidonet.fi - Lake Ylo - Finland - (2:221/360)