US Erection 12 *AND* 16 *AND* 20 *AND* 22 *AND* 24

[Island Nucklehead]

Lone juror, a woman, was the hold out on 10 counts in Manafort case. There’s always one idiotic in the bunch

[Cousin Strawberry]

Lol buuurn

[Strangelove]

Surely you are aware that Robert Mueller III has a federal mandate to investigate “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation” into Russian meddling?

Yes and surely you are aware that after all this time Robert Mueller III has absolutely nothing.

With five people* having pleaded guilty or been convicted of wrong doing - so far - we can definitely concur that this is not a witch hunt.
These are real crooks having committed real crimes.

Per, you're missing a lot of points and having a hard time following conversations lately.

Please return to the previous page to see my explanation of why some folks are calling this a witch hunt.

And please note I was clearly saying Robert Mueller III has absolutely nothing in regards to Russian meddling.

Russian Meddling Investigator Robert Mueller III going after former Trump associates for non-Russian-meddling crimes = witch hunt.

[Strangelove]

And if it does turn out that he actually does pay USD 130-150,000 to people he has not had sex with for them to shut up about having had sex with him, I'd like to state that I have had sex with president Donald Trump.

Now who do I talk to to get my check?

Yes, I could see folks believing that you were fucked by/dumped by Donny and you are bitter and angry with him for that.

Just present all your posts in this thread as evidence....

[Strangelove]

Lone juror, a woman, was the hold out on 10 counts in Manafort case. There’s always one idiotic in the bunch

... because you know what evidence was presented.

Not sure why you care about Manafort and his non-Trump-related charges.

Perhaps you're a witch hunt enthusiast?

[Strangelove]

Lol buuurn

Please don't encourage Nucklehead's wild fantasies, if anything he needs just the opposite (an intervention).

[UWSaint]

There are pros and cons with both systems.

...

Proportional voting basically has opposite pros and cons.

Good things are that all voters receive a voice in parliament and that each vote carries the same weight as all other votes. A party that has 15% of the voters get 15% of the seats in parliament. This is fair representation. Also, gerrymandering is rendered useless. Since the seats are distributed based on the percentage of the total votes, it doesn't matter if you live in a district/riding with people who think like you or not. Your vote will count.
The bad thing about proportional voting is basically twofold as well:
1) not as clear ties between candidates and ridings: in order to get seats in parliament that corresponds to the share of votes each party recieves, you need bigger ridings, that elect multiple representatives, and you usually need to add a number of seats that are outside of the riding system, to adjust for discrepancies between the outcome in votes/seats. Thsi means that the connection between voter, riding and candidate gets less clear.
2) weaker governments: since it is harder to get a clear majority in a proportional system, a government must usually be formed by two or more parties forming a coalition. This means compromises must be made, and often parties cannot deliver on all their campaign promises, or if the tensions get to strong, the government will split because of differences that cannot be settled, and a new election must be held.

That being said, many countries in Northern Europe, like Germany and the Scandinavian countries have proportional systems and do rather well in most comparissons, whether regarding GDP per capita, employment, innovation, minorities rights, general happiness or what will you.

Another difference between the two systems is that in the first past the post/winner take all system you tend to get more drastic changes when there is a change of guards. In countries that use the proportional system change is often slower, as you need to get there through building consensus and compromising. Which of those scenarios that is better depends on the eye of the beholder. Change may be good, but so may stability.

I thought your post on this was pretty balanced, but I want to add some other cons with proportional representation (which might be seen as independent of your points or corollaries to your points).

* Those elected through proportional representation owe loyalty to their party and their party's voters, but no duty to others. In the first past the post systems (whether representation-by-population or representation-by-area systems), a representative represent all citizens in the district. While I appreciate that substantive policy is going to be influenced by the party the representative belongs to (and has a correlation with the representative's own views -- but not a 1-to-1 correlation (and this is important)), representatives do more than substantive policy voting. They also provide constituent services -- and there is a definite value of having a legislative office involved, whether it is simply to help navigate increasingly byzantine systems or more substantively to increase the "weight" of a constituent request, providing kick-in-the-pants to government bureaucrats.

* Proportional representation increases the changes that parties become substantively static. Why? Because it is effectively a vote for a party platform, whereas in representation-by-population systems, candidates develop their platforms to try to maximize their chances of election. This means that within parties, there is more of a variation and representatives owe their loyalty to the people who elected them and not the parties themselves. And then parties end up negotiating with one another to form coalitions, not negotiating with their voters on their platform.

To be sure, a party that performs poorly in a proportional system may make platform changes to do better the second time around, but just as likely is the creation of third parties, some of which (consider independence parties) are really single issue parties that don't have coherent governing philosophies. You can be a catalunian separatist who likes the free market or who is a socialist. This latter point shows the myth (or at least shows a weakness) about proportional representation being a better proxy for substantive (i.e., policy) representation. The fact is people care about a lot of things, how they care about things may not line up with the collective policy positions of a party, nor do they prioritize things the same way as voters. A voter who prefers separatism to economic might vote for the separatist party, but is that voter's substantive views being reflected by the vote when it comes to other issues?

A corollary to this point is that proportional representation does NOT necessarily reflect the policy preferences of the plurality or majority, and thus the "fair representation" point offered by advocates of proportional systems is not nearly as strong as it is on first blush. (Similarly, the "lack of fair representation" point made by those opposed to political line drawing is quite overblown). The fact is that if constituencies change, whether by line drawing or by the free movement of people in and out of districts, so too does the median political composition of voters in a district. If the Republicans want to draw lines that "crack" their districts, then they need to have more moderate people in those close districts. This has a substantive impact on the philosophical composition of the representatives. "Cracking" is not costless to a party true believer. (One might argue that the direct effect of partisan gerrymandering in the US by Republicans (packing democrats, so goes the allegation) has been that it has made the democrat party's elected representatives a bunch of radical leftists from packed districts that don't have to please people with common sense (i.e., moderate democrats, independents, and Republicans willing to split their tickets for a good candidate) to get elected. This in turn leads to the Democratic party recruiting more and more "true believer" leftists as candidates in the districts they don't have a representative in, because elected representatives by and large control the party. This further exacerbates their radicalism and minimizing their potential to win swing seats and lean-R seats (and even lean-D seats that Rs can be competitive in).

But when Republicans are on the outs, their disposition has not been to become more radical, for whatever reason. I think this might be because you can't really pack Republicans into districts of more than 70% R vote. R influence is widespread outside of urban cores, but less intense. Rs are more likely to live by Ds than Ds are to live by Rs, if that makes sense, and this moderates R's (as compared with Ds). Urban clustering creates strong D districts without even the need to draw funny lines in a traditional gerrymander. Also, while Rs and Ds are pretty even in terms of getting votes, there are generally more self-identified Ds than self-identified Rs. To get to 70% in those heavy R areas (or 52% in those closer districts), Rs constantly have to outperform Ds among non-self-identified-party voters.

* Proportional representation fetishizes party over all else. In the US, a plurality of voters do not self-identify with either party. Split-ticket voting is not uncommon, and the reason is that there are preferences that people have when they vote over party (e.g., incumbents might provide better constituent services, might provide better dyadic representation (getting state resources back to the district); candidates are not equal in moral standing, intelligence, other attributes that can matter more than political affiliation).

A reasonable objection to this claim might be that we have pretty hard-wired partisanship in the US with a two-party, first past the post, representation-by-population (US House), representation-by-area (US Senate) system, but peering behind the curtain I would say that the two parties are pretty dynamic internally and they do shift positions over time. I would also say that gerrymandering is as old as the original gerrymander (that's the late 1790's, if I recall correctly), and that partisanship (in terms of lock-step voting) waxes and wanes overtime with the structural system (two-party, representation by population, first past the post) remaining static. If you want an explanation for today's "divisive" politics, a better explanation that gerrymandering can be found by new modes of communication (social media and increasing echo chambers) and the increasing nationalization of politics (i.e., local races decided by the candidates support or condemnation of Trump/Obama/Bush, etc.).

[Per]

... please note I was clearly saying Robert Mueller III has absolutely nothing in regards to Russian meddling.

Surely you are aware that Robert Mueller III has a federal mandate to investigate “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation” into Russian meddling?

Any matters, which would include matters that have nothing to do with Russian meddling, but that they happen to stumble upon while investigating if there was Russian meddling. Sort of like when you stop a car for speeding and realize they have a dead body in the trunk. You don't ignore the dead body just because you were really just meant to be enforcing the speed limit right now. That does not make it a witch hunt.

Blah blah blah witch hunt.

A witch hunt is usually a term for when someone is accused of something that clearly lacks substance.

When it comes to Russian meddling in the 2016 US presidential election the entire intelligence community of the USA agree that it happened. This is not being debated. It's a fact. The only question mark is if there was collussion between the Trump campaign and the Russians.

There are things that indicate this, such as the meeting between members of the Trump campaign and an agent for the Russian government that promised dirt on Hillary. Yet afaik, no clear evidence of collussion has been presented so far. Maybe the political inexperience of Don Jr, Jared et al made them not understand the implications of that meeting, yet I'm sure Paul Manafort must have.

But we don't know for sure. Most experts on Russia think Putin's main goal was to increase the divisiveness in the US and to create a distrust of the political system. That could be done with or without collussion with Trump. Maybe implicating Trump is part of Putin's long game, to increase divisiveness?

Either way, since all people who have a clear insight into what happened agree there was meddling, it is obvious that there should be an investigation into who were involved. Jeff Sessions understands this. A vast bipartisan majority in both the House and the Senate understand this. Crimes were committed. Those who are guilty should be found and charged. That is not a witch hunt. Not even close. That is what law enforcement should, or even must, look like.

It's kind of funny though to hear people accusing Mueller, a registered republican, if I understand correctly, who was appointed by George W. Bush, of being driven by a liberal agenda. I think the lady doth protest to much!

I call fake news on that one!

[Strangelove]

... please note I was clearly saying Robert Mueller III has absolutely nothing in regards to Russian meddling.

Surely you are aware that Robert Mueller III has a federal mandate to investigate “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation” into Russian meddling?

"witch hunt"

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/witch-hunt#English

Very telling that all you've got left at this point is a silly game of semantics.

You started with evading points and taking quotes out of context... and now you're into semantics.

I'm glad you agree though that after all this time Mueller has absolutely nothing on Trump in regards to Russian meddling.

And I get the impression that you also understand that any/all of this "Russian meddling" occurred under Obama's watch, good.

It's kind of funny though to hear people accusing Mueller, a registered republican, if I understand correctly, of being driven by a liberal agenda.

I was wondering when you would go this route.

I have been very careful all along not to call Mueller a liberal in any way, shape, or form.

I know exactly what he is: One of the ultra-conservative Republicans who oppose Donny.

I have only used "liberal" in regards to the liberal press spin on all of this... as well as the intolerant "liberal" close-minded sheep.

[Strangelove]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/08/ ... ewing.html

(This Manafort/Cohen crap) won’t shake support for Trump among the millions of Americans who voted for him and appreciate his many accomplishments in office.

Here’s why:

Supporters of President Trump are convinced that the Justice Department has been biased against him. They believe Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to win the 2016 presidential election is politically motivated. They know that the Clinton campaign funded a “dirty tricks” dossier that led to a court warrant allowing surveillance of Trump associates. They know that numerous people working for Mueller had ties to Hillary Clinton and opposed Trump’s election. For this and other reasons, much of the country no longer supports the special counsel and his work.

Trump supporters think an investigation into Hillary Clinton’s actions was inadequate and tainted. The FBI conducted a far too limited investigation of Clinton’s use of her own private computer server to handle her email communications – including classified emails – when she was secretary of state. Clinton then lied about what seems to be a clear security breach. Her aides were granted immunity in the investigation for no apparent purpose, and her interview with the FBI was not recorded in any fashion. On top of that, Attorney General Loretta Lynch met secretly with former President Bill Clinton during the probe of his wife. This all seems highly suspect.

Many Trump supporters believe writer Peter Schweizer disclosed wrongdoing by the Clintons and their foundation. Schweizer is the author of the book “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Business Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.” The book documents numerous instances of apparent pay-to-play involving questionable donations to the Clinton Foundation and exorbitant speaking fees paid to former President Bill Clinton by organizations that had received favors from then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Trump fans wonder why the investigations into those activities were sidelined by the FBI.

The Mueller probe has yet to disclose any evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. Democrats are giddy that White House Counsel Don McGahn spoke openly with Mueller’s team, assuming he may have revealed damaging information about President Trump. Trump voters consider the openness indicative of innocence on the part of the president, who approved the conversations. The White House has operated under a cloud of suspicion for well over a year, beset by allegations that are as yet unfounded. Millions of Americans believe, as the president has said, that the Mueller investigation is a witch hunt; two-thirds of the country thinks it should be brought to a close.

The media coverage of the Trump presidency has been almost laughably biased. The persistent focus on “Russia, Russia, Russia” is meant, supporters think, to distract from the accelerating economy and other achievements of the Trump White House.

Trump backers knew they were not voting for a choir boy. If they harbored any such notions, the release of the “Access Hollywood” tape shortly before the 2016 presidential election put those to rest. People do not condone Trump’s language on the tape and his alleged behavior with women, but they do not think it criminal or disqualifying. If Trump follows through on campaign promises, and the country is better off under his guidance, they are willing to look the other way.

Paying a woman to keep mum about an alleged sexual relationship is understandable. Two women received payments from Trump after they claimed to have had consensual sex with him – although he denies their claims. Either way, reaching a financial settlement with the women to not publicly air their charges appears to be a reasonable action by a wealthy married man, much less someone running for office. To many, the payments to the two women do not rise to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors” that would justify impeachment of the president and his removal from office.

...

Trump supporters have a sense that Justice Department holdovers from the Obama years – and indeed officials high up in that administration – were furious at Trump’s election and have worked to undermine his administration from Day One.

More importantly, people who voted for Trump are happy with the way our country is going. In recent months, according to Gallup, the percentage of Americans “satisfied” with the direction of the country was higher than at any time since 2005.

People are optimistic, they are upbeat about their finances... (etc)

[Per]

...

Well written reasonable post. And what you said about those elected ina proprtional system being more loyal to the party than the riding is sort of what I tried to say with stating there was less of a clear bond between voter/riding and representative.

I think the Finns have found an interesting balance though. They vote for party AND candidate. The total votes for the party decides how many seats they get, but which representatives get those seats goes strictly on number of personal votes each candidate got. This means the party favourites often get ditched by the public, and that those elected may have stronger ties to the voters than the party. I mean there could be 10 candidates from a specific party in one region and two get elected, and the party has no say in which two. I'd like something similar in Sweden, but of course the parties are vary of it. They often point to that Finland has a disproportionate number of athletes,writers, actors and singers in their parliament, as the name recognition of those is hard to beat...

... reason for today's "divisive" politics, a better explanation that gerrymandering can be found by new modes of communication (social media and increasing echo chambers) and the increasing nationalization of politics (i.e., local races decided by the candidates support or condemnation of Trump/Obama/Bush, etc.).

And also the Russian strategy of fomenting divisiveness in the US and the EU. A large part of the more extreme posts for both Black Lives Matter and All Lives Matter stem from Rusdian accounts. One third of tweets regarding Brexit in the months preceding the referendum were made from Russian accounts. And they play both sides! The main strategy is to weaken the fabric of society by creating rifts between the opposing sides on any hot button poitical issue.

[Strangelove]

And also the Russian strategy of fomenting divisiveness in the US and the EU.

BTW I'm glad you did not disagree with the part where I said the American government has been meddling in foreign elections for decades.

[2Fingers]

Lol Strange is referencing Fox News.

[Strangelove]

Lol Strange is referencing Fox News.

Oh good, the much studied expert on politics Reefer2 has weighed in!

Lol wake up, you've been outed as a "goosestepping stooge" good buddy.

Or don't... hey when morons start having parades you could be a Grand Marshal!!

[2Fingers]

Lol Strange is referencing Fox News.

Oh good, the much studied expert on politics Reefer2 has weighed in!

Lol wake up, you've been outed as a "goosestepping stooge" good buddy.

Or don't... hey when morons start having parades you could be a Grand Marshal!!

Sure, typical of you.