The 2016 United States Presidential Election

Are you and Glen Greenwald ready to apologize to Kurt Eichenwald?
http://www.newsweek.com/...-blumenthal-vladimir-putin-512271
It is shame how Greenwald has let his mission become a tool for a totalitarian regime. He has good points and reasons to distrust the US government, but to allow himself to be a tool of Russia is just sad.He is missing an important tool and skill of a journalist, critical thinking.

Let's look at the 1st district results:Texas's 1st Congressional District, 2014[4] Party Candidate Votes %Republican Louie Gohmert (Incumbent) 115,084 77.47%
Democratic Shirley McKellar 33,476 22.53%
Total votes 148,560 100%In the current system all 33,476 votes for Shirley McKellar are thrown away.In my system, the 33,476 are added to the D state-wide totals to help increase the apportioned Democratic share of the 36 Representatives. Now it may be true that McKellar may not have finished in the top 12 Democrats, but her votes still have contributed to the D share in congress. They are not wasted in her heavily R district anymore. 22.53% is better than none at all.Edited by xongsmith, : percentage signs

quote:

---

[marc9000]

​

Now that the 3 presidential debates are done, what are the opinions here about the debate moderation? Was Wallace of Fox news more biased than...Martha Raddatz (and others from the mainstream) less biased, or about the same?

---

Then the response by Diomedes

quote:

---

[Diomeded]
I am not a Fox News fan, but I have to give credit where credit is due: I thought Chris Wallace did an outstanding job as moderator in the last debate. He asked poignant questions, he did not let either Clinton or Trump divert too much from answers, and he was able to keep the audience controlled.

---

Wallace was indeed biased on Syria. He let Hillary get away with the whopper that her No-Fly Zone against Syria would somehow help to fight ISIS and related extremists. The truth is that it would ensure a stalemate in the west of Syria (and much increased bloodshed in the west) with the result being that Assad would still have the east of the country completely abandoned. There are like 5000 (or more) Kurdish refugees here in Lincoln, Nebraska and it is a direct result of (our government here in the U.S.A.)arming rebels (which also drastically help ISIS) which cause Assad and the Alawites to have to divert every last government troop (and any private fighters as well) into the east of the country to fight for their lives and very survival. Then ISIS, in the abandoned west, gets free reign to slaughter the guts out of the Kurds once Assad and the government are absent in the east.We armed rebels (not as much as the gulf states who also funded them the earliest) a half-decade back and it caused Syria to see its legitimate internationally recognized government have to divert all troops to the west. ISIS was able to gain serious ground in the east (never mind the fact that the west was in shambles as well - the Assad government was on the verge of falling) AFTER the financial intervention of outside powers, and that is chronologically a fact.The added dimension is that many of the rebels that were armed ended up fighting for extremist groups. Another issue (and one I don't want to spend any time on beyond this sentence), but it was Kentucky GOP Senator Rand Paul himself who said that it was very ironic that the rebels are called "extremists" when they cross the border into Iraq and slaughter Kurds, but they are called "moderate rebels" and "good guys" when they cross back into Syria.Remember how right wing nuts (who are presented as reasonable Republicans on Meet the Press) like Hugh Hewitt kept calling the Iranian al Quds force "terrorist" in an effort to intimidate Iran from entering Syria (A media firestorm erupted for weeks/months in 2015 when a radio interview resulted in Trump displaying ignorance of the Iranian group when he thought Hewitt was asking him about the Kurds which sound similar to the Arabic word Quds). Remember the smear job of Iran when word was that they were finally about to consider intervening in Syria?Russia entered Syria in September 2015 and it gave Iran and Hezbollah (a Shia group in Lebanon) the strength to make the decision to enter, despite endlessly dishonest smearing in the U.S.A. press.It was long overdue intervention but it has helped raise the possibility that the opposition to Assad can be destroyed eventually. The possibility exists that there can eventually be a return of Syrian troops to the west and the Kurds can stop loosing lives in the (what like )100,000s to slaughter.The No-Fly Zone of Hillary and Mike Pence will ruin that hope for certain.Wallace never raised these issues and neither did any of the biased worthless journalists that moderated the debates. They told lies though and cleverly diverted AWAY FROM ACCURACTE PICTURES of what was going on in our policy as it relates to Syria. They know that Americans don't understand a thing about Syria and the players involved. Trump has helped educate them so that the number of informed has easily quadrupled since the debates. They now know that Iran is fighting ISIS (our disgraceful politicians regularly throw Iran and ISIS with the word "terrorist" into one giant slurred soup so that Americans don't have a chance of knowing they are bitter enemies as opposed to the same thing) and that Assad and ISIS are enemies and not the same thing. Trump parses the issues involved instead of the conflated soup of lies Hillary spits out as she cynically takes advantage of - and infact contributes to - the ignorance of the American people.Perhaps Hillary can explain to the American people - in 2017 - why we are literally at war with Russia in the Mediterranean when Russia responds to a U.S. military attack on Syria when Assad violates our interventionist and aggressive No Fly Zone.

Here is some unofficial, unscientific, exit polling data based on my subjective, non-repeatable observations.I had promised to get up early to vote, but I stayed up so late writing code that I could not get to the early voting location at 9:00. I took my wife to the nearest location at around noon, but the place was so jam packed that I could not get a parking space. The attendant told me there was a 60-90 minute wait.We drove to the next closest location, but there the line extended out of the building and around the nearest corner and on up the street. No go. We then drove to a third location and found a more reasonable line, and a couple of available parking spaces. The location was at a public library in a predominantly black section of town. I got inside to vote after less than an hour in line. Just about everyone in the line was holding a blue "voter assistance" sheet that listed what folks democrats ought to vote for. Folks in the line, which was composed of people of all races, but mostly black, were freely talking out what a buffoon trump was. One couple told me that they had watched the debate while playing a drink game that required downing something every time Trump said "Bigly".By the time I left, the line at the library was wrapped around the back and extending out into the parking lot. I had gotten to the polling place just before the lunch time crunch.My conclusion: Early voting in North Carolina is off to a smashing start. Reviews in the Raleigh newspaper indicates that the pace is even higher than during either of the Obama elections which is a great sign for Democrats in NC who are hoping to pick a new governor as well as a president. I am unofficially declaring this state for Clinton, well ahead of November 8.Next week, my wife and I will be taking elderly family members to the polls. I don't expect there will be any Trump supporters among them, but I don't plan to ask them who they are supporting.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

What you are essentially saying is that you want all of the representatives to be elected "at large" regardless of what area of the state they represent. While this might sound like a great idea, there are some huge downsides. For example, your representative might end up being someone who has no knowledge of or strong ties to your area of the state despite the fact that the issues involved in your say urban area are distinct from large but sparse rural area of the state.A better system would be just not to allow political gerrymandering which in many cases ends up being predominately race based discrimination excuses as "just politics". NC is a primary example of the downside of the current system.

How is it that you are able to go to different polling places? I have only the Ward 4A place in town where my name is on their list. I have to go there to vote....Strange.

I don't know about where NoNukes lives, but in Florida you can vote in any early voting site. On election day you need to go to your specified polling place though.

NoNukes also misses the paradigm shift: The Representatives should represent what YOU want, not some area of the state. You are essentially arguing for Government by the land owners. "Your representative"??? My Representatives (note the plural) are all from my party, all over the state, as a TEAM. You are still thinking of where I particularly live within Texas (or whatever). If my party's 12 guys can't address my concerns, then I will campaign within my party for those that do next time. Or switch parties, if it comes to that.So a few of my 12 Democrats in Texas might have no idea of my "urban" concerns? Certainly the 22 Republicans wont either. Neither will the 2 Libertarians. The point is to get a fair representation. My 12 guys WILL be better for my concerns than a gerrymandered 8-10 guys, true? Remember which party started "gerrymandering". Who's to say, years from now, as long as they draw lines, which "neutral" agency will be fair? True, but so open to betrayal later, by bribes and other corruptible forces. You have to get rid of the concept of "districts". Whenever you draw lines, you have a monster of a job making sure there are no discriminating lines. Think of the money this would save. How do you define "no political gerrymandering"? How do others? Who is right?Consider the 33,476 D votes for the loser in the 2014 Texas 1st District race. In today's system these are all wasted votes. In my system they all go into the accumulation of D votes which helps towards the D Representation tally that will apportion out the 36 Representatives accordingly*. People won't stay at home so much anymore, thinking their vote won't count. Also the population discrepancies of each district, which leads some to having more power in their vote as opposed to other districts, is nullified. It isn't land, it's the people remember?Remember, when you take the ballot and go into the booth, there will be maybe some 80-160 qualified names listed, clearly labelled by party, and you can vote for no more than 36, for Texas in 2014. Today you can only vote for a name in your district. Often some asshole is running unopposed. Well, you won't have to skip that part or write in Mickey Mouse there any more.Paradigm shift.* of course the nearest integer algorithm will be needed. Edited by xongsmith, : is/areEdited by xongsmith, : more tidying upsEdited by xongsmith, : No reason given.Edited by xongsmith, : Forget the 2 LibertariansEdited by xongsmith, : more detailEdited by xongsmith, : asshole fix

My initial reaction to Chris Wallace, was that the wording of the questions showed a slight right-wing bias. But I don't think that affected the debate. And he did a pretty good job otherwise.I didn't notice any obvious bias in the others.In all honesty, it is hard to compare. The debates were of a different style, and they were influenced by what else was happening in the news cycle.

North Carolina has similar rules. During early voting you can also register and vote on the same day. If your address is improperly listed, you can get that fixed on the spot.But on election day, you have to go to your specified polling place, and issues with your registration can require you to cast a provisional ballot. That is supposed to be safe, but last local election, a bunch of provisional ballots turned up missing and were not counted.

Seriously. I don't see how you get any of that from what I said. Representatives being associated with the region does not mean that they are responsible to land owners. How does living in a district make it difficult for you to represent renters or even homeless folks. Perhaps you should rethink this accusation.Representatives as currently chosen represent the folks in their district regardless of what party is selected. They are required to live in the district as well which may result in them sharing some of the concerns of the folks that live there. Seriously, if we're going to ignore associations with the area, why not allow folks from other states to run for state office? I live in an urban area, and i would prefer that my representative, Democrat or Republican, be similarly situated. Your mileage may vary.

No. Government by the residents. Didn't Thomas Paine say something to the effect that people on this side of the ocean are better able to manage their own affairs than some goober on the other side of the ocean? MY representatives, both at the provincial and federal level, are from a party that I wouldn't vote for if I live to be a million. But they're still MY representatives. They have a duty to represent me whether I voted for them or not. I'd rather be represented by my neighbour, regardless of our political differences, than by somebody a thousand miles away who happens to agree with my opinions.

ringo responds: We're talking within one state, not the other side of the ocean. You are using hyperbole beyond it being useful. What USA state is 1000 miles across? Possibly Alaska. As for the duty to represent you, who really does that these days? If you'd rather be represented by your neighbour instead of a politician who aligns with your views, then VOTE FOR YOUR NEIGHBOUR. It's really that simple. But if I have NO NEIGHBOUR I LIKE, and I live in Texas' 1st District, why shouldn't I be able to vote for VaLinda Hathcox who was redistricted to District 4, next to District 1, instead of Shirley McKellar - Shirley may stand for something I don't want.

The concerns that get people elected in Richmond, VA are vastly different than those that get folks elected in Woodbridge VA, a town which is pretty much a DC suburb. You don't need a thousand mile wide state before regional concerns become important.

You have a bicameral legislature.Elect one house by proportional representation; thus ensuring the representation of minority views and allowing viewpoints which are widely spread across the country but lack any geographical stronghold to be represented.Elect the other house by single-member districts, thus ensuring that there are representatives tied to specific communities.Simple.