Will you accept the election results?

[pErvinalia]

He'll be impeached before too long. Or mercifully assassinated.

[Animavore]

I don't want him assassinated. It will legitimise his Presidency. I just want to see him fail bigly.

[pErvinalia]

Not if he's assassinated by one of his own former supporters.

[Forty Two]

trump is the kind of guy the electoral college was supposed to protect the nation against, that they have not done this clearly proves the system has been subverted and it's time for it to go.

The difficulty is that Clinton was the kind of gal the electoral college was supposed to protect the nation against. It's probably just as likely that there are delegates, say, in California or New York that would like to switch their vote to Trump. If the electoral college members switch their vote, then it must be remembered that it is not a "given" that the only decisions made to switch will be from Trump to Clinton.

Maybe, but Clinton won the popular vote whereas Frump won per a skewed system that was put in place to avoid populists like him, ergo, the system is bad and ought to be stashed in the dustbins of history's failed experiments.

There may well be a persuasive argument for your position....going forward. Both candidates knew the rules before they started. And, if the rules were different before they started, they would have very likely chosen to play the game with a different strategy. Trump, for example, would have had actually campaign in California. Instead, with the electoral system, he simply chalked California up as a "lost cause." He saved his resources for states that he could win. If it were a pure popular vote, he would have had to deluge Callfornia with advertisements and other campaign efforts and he would have held many, many rallies there.

So, in short, we don't know what would have happened if the EC was not there. We only know what happened when the EC was there.

[Forty Two]

Which Autocrat was the Constitution supposed to protect us against? Trump of Hillary? How about Bush? Gore would have been the wimp that the Constitution likes.

Had Gore been President, we would have had an Iraq War with a Republican opposition. Remember, Clinton/Gore were in favor of deposing Saddam Hussein, and were listening to the same intelligence briefings and information that the Bush government was listening to. They would have made the same move, because it was governed by geopolitical and strategic interests that went well beyond 9/11/01.

[Forty Two]

So, your thesis was that the rifles that look more like the military style weapons are more optimized for killing humans because they are lighter and fire lower caliber rounds. However, that thesis is countered by the two examples I gave you of traditional looking hunting rifles, the Ruger .44 and the Remington 750, both of which are lighter than the AR-15, which you say is "optimized." Also, the .223 caliber is a common sporting rifle, often used for hunting and is the same size as the 5.56. Often, guns that can fire the .223 can also fire the 5.56. And, they are typical hunting guns, and that caliber is seen in both semiauto and in bolt action rifles.

The last bit you mentioned was clip size. Now, I have no problem with limiting the size of available clips. That bit makes sense to me, but it is not something inherent in the gun. The reason it makes sense is that for the purposes of hunting, you really aren't looking to fill the animal full of bullets. For the purposes of target shooting, reloading is not really a big deal after a few rounds. And, for the purposes of home defense, while being able to fire without reloading often may be helpful in a situation where someone is defending themselves, I think a rational case can be made to limit the size of the magazines so that when there are situations where someone is using a rifle in a shooting they at least have to pause here and there.

Really? How disappointing to see that you've drunk the Kool-Aid.

I drank no Kool-Aid. A well-regulated miitia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, contained in the federal constitution (applicable to the federal government), is not violated by a state making a regulation reasonably limiting clip size in rifles. People still have right to keep and bear arms. It is possible to regulate the power and frequency of munitions without infringing on "the right to keep and bear arms.

Do you know how long a "pause" is required to change a magazine in an AR-15? One second or less if you know what you're doing.

A second is a long time during an incident. Most fights of any kind last only a few seconds. One second is a large percentage of the time fights, including gun incidents, generally last.

And, perhaps an argument can be made for larger clips or no limit existing. The point I'm making is that it would be permissible to regulate clip size and still have the right to keep and bear arms remain uninfringed. And, reasonable minds can differ.

Do you know how many criminal crazed killers are going to be dissuaded from obtaining high-capacity magazines by high-capacity magazine bans?

Zero.

Well, if they aren't manufactured, then there will be fewer of them around. I don't know the answer to your question, and neither do you, I suspect. And, I am open to your evidence and arguments. My point, again, is that it's a reasonable discussion that can be had. Your position is arguable, but not indisputable.

Do you know how many criminal crazed killers need more than ten rounds to do most of their killing? Very few.

Then why would they care if they have more than 10 rounds in their clips? If crazed killers don't need them, why do they want to get their hands on them?

Do you really think that one second, or even three seconds between mag changes is going to change the ability of the killer to continue killing?

Oh, yes. If a smart fellow who is involved or in the vicinity of a shooter, it may be enough time to tackle the guy. Of course, you may be right. I'm open to the evidence either way, and to hear the testimony of experts in the military, police, hunting, self-defense, and sporting arenas as to viable regulatory options. All I said was that I can see the sense of it, and I gave you one of the assumptions or premises on which that sense can be based. It makes sense to me. If my basic premise is shown to be untrue, then certainly I would, as a good skeptic, want to reevaluate the argument.

The main point for me is that the 2nd Amendment is (a) a federal constitutional provision, and (b) is not worded in absolute terms even as to the federal government. Like, say, the 4th amendment, which does not prohibit "searches and seizures," but rather prohibits UNREASONABLE "searches and seizures," and is therefore open to much argument as to what is, and is not, "reasonable" under given circumstances. Likewise, the 2nd Amendment is open to argument as to what constitutes "well-regulated" and when "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is infringed by such regulation, and when it is not.

Some depends on jurisdiction. The right to keep and bear arms has never, ever, ever, meant, in practice, that you can bear arms wherever you want and whenever you want, even in public places. For example, I know of no federal building where people can waltz through with guns at the hip. Has a person's right to keep and bear arms been violated by the time and place restriction of not being able to walk into some federal judge's courtroom and presenting testimony while holding an AR-15?

California tried to increase the amount of time it takes to change mags by imposing the "bullet-button law" that requires AR's sold in California to have a modified magazine release that requires (allegedly) the point of a bullet to release the mag. Do you know how long it took for people to get around that silly idea? About a week. The first expedient I heard of was a finger ring with a pointed boss on it that one wore on one's right hand that would depress the bullet button. Do you know how much that delayed a mag change from the standard mag release? Not more than a fraction of a second.

Sounds like a stupid law. So, there are lots of stupid laws out there. The question is, was it violative of the 2nd Amendment or California's state equivalent. I'm not sure if the 2nd Amendment has been held to be applicable to the states. Not all of the bill of rights is applicable to the states under current SCOTUS jurisprudence. Like the right to indictment by a grand jury, for example.

Lately I've seen a system that is "California legal" that simply pulls the rear take-down pin, thus rotating the upper receiver away from the lower receiver by "disassembling" the gun that also drops the empty mag automatically. Slam the receiver closed and the take-down pin reengages, put in the fresh mag and you're back in business. Total time: less than three seconds.

That may well be true, but it is irrelevant to my point, and is no argument that I've drunk any kool-aid. Some laws make more sense than others. Maybe the one you're talking about makes no sense. I'm open to that.

Slowed down the mag changed by two seconds...whoopee!

It might be helpful, depending on how long the average shooting lasts. Might be time enough to pop out and fire some rounds back at the shooter, or charge him.

Now they are proposing to ban any rife with a removable magazine. Have the douche-bags ever heard of the M-1 Garand? The M-1 Garand does not have a replaceable magazine or an open-bottom magazine well like the AR-15, but it does use an "en block" clip that holds eight rounds. The clip is loaded from the top when the bolt carrier is locked back once a clip is empty. Shove the clip down into the receiver, yank the operating rod and you're back in business. Killed a lot of Germans just fine in WWII despite being semi-automatic.

And, some coffee cups have labels saying "contents hot," and some ladders have warning labels suggesting that people climbing them might fall off.

You see, ANY semi-automatic (ie: self-reloading) rifle can be operated very quickly, no matter how many stupid political constraints are put on it.

Sure, but quickly is a relative term, and that's why automatic and semiautomatic are different words. They have different meanings. Quickly to someone firing an automatic weapon is one thing, and quickly to someone firing a semi-auto is another.

Where gun advocates need to be careful is that there may come a time where the line will be drawn at semiauto wholesale. And, the anti-gunners will argue that only non-semiauto weapons should be allowed. So, it might behoove gun folks, who know the ins-and-outs of guns better than anyone, to suggest something of a "Reasonable" regulation. If what the legislators have proposed is silly or unworkable, then what would be reasonable and workable?

Then again so can any quality bolt-action rifle, as all of the dead soldiers of WWI can attest to. It's all in the expertise of the shooter and his intent to kill. The Texas Tower shooter did just fine in that regard, as did the Texans who used their bolt-action deer rifles to make him keep his head down long enough for police (and a civilian) to climb the tower and kill him.

That argument can be used to suggest that bolt-action rifles are plenty. If they're just as good and it's no different than semiauto, because it all depends on the shooter and his intent, then the gun-opponents can argue that nobody's ability to do anything (whether hunt, self-defend, or defend others, or defend against the government injustice) is impacted by not having semiautomatic rifles. After all "so can any quality bolt-action rifle," right?

The best defense against a criminal with a gun is a non-criminal with a gun...or preferable several non-criminals with guns, because just one round well-timed and well-placed from the handgun of an armed citizen renders even an 800 round per minute machine gun perfectly harmless.

Arguably, yes, and I have not argued that citizens should be barred from keeping arms, and using them against criminals, have I?

[Hermit]

Both candidates knew the rules before they started. And, if the rules were different before they started, they would have very likely chosen to play the game with a different strategy. Trump, for example, would have had actually campaign in California. Instead, with the electoral system, he simply chalked California up as a "lost cause." He saved his resources for states that he could win. If it were a pure popular vote, he would have had to deluge Callfornia with advertisements and other campaign efforts and he would have held many, many rallies there.

Indeed, he would have made an effort in California, but it works both ways, doesn't it? I'm sure Clinton would have made a greater effort in, say, Alabama. I don't know what the outcome sans EC would have been either. One candidate could have done better or worse than the other. Or the result might have panned out just the same. Yes. Right. How insightful. I don't know the usefulness of even bringing the scenario up.

[Hermit]

Had Gore been President, we would have had an Iraq War with a Republican opposition. Remember, Clinton/Gore were in favor of deposing Saddam Hussein, and were listening to the same intelligence briefings and information that the Bush government was listening to. They would have made the same move, because it was governed by geopolitical and strategic interests that went well beyond 9/11/01.

The intelligence briefings might have been different. To begin with, there would have been no stacking of staff that lead to the stovepiping of the WMD misinformation.

[Seth]

So, your thesis was that the rifles that look more like the military style weapons are more optimized for killing humans because they are lighter and fire lower caliber rounds. However, that thesis is countered by the two examples I gave you of traditional looking hunting rifles, the Ruger .44 and the Remington 750, both of which are lighter than the AR-15, which you say is "optimized." Also, the .223 caliber is a common sporting rifle, often used for hunting and is the same size as the 5.56. Often, guns that can fire the .223 can also fire the 5.56. And, they are typical hunting guns, and that caliber is seen in both semiauto and in bolt action rifles.

The last bit you mentioned was clip size. Now, I have no problem with limiting the size of available clips. That bit makes sense to me, but it is not something inherent in the gun. The reason it makes sense is that for the purposes of hunting, you really aren't looking to fill the animal full of bullets. For the purposes of target shooting, reloading is not really a big deal after a few rounds. And, for the purposes of home defense, while being able to fire without reloading often may be helpful in a situation where someone is defending themselves, I think a rational case can be made to limit the size of the magazines so that when there are situations where someone is using a rifle in a shooting they at least have to pause here and there.

Really? How disappointing to see that you've drunk the Kool-Aid.

I drank no Kool-Aid. A well-regulated miitia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, contained in the federal constitution (applicable to the federal government), is not violated by a state making a regulation reasonably limiting clip size in rifles. People still have right to keep and bear arms. It is possible to regulate the power and frequency of munitions without infringing on "the right to keep and bear arms.

That's the argument of incrementalist gun-banners and you should be ashamed of yourself. There is no reason to do so because it doesn't matter how many rounds a magazine has when it's possessed by a law-abiding person, and criminals don't obey magazine-size laws any more than they obey no-gun laws. And what the militia clause of the 2nd Amendment protests is the right to keep and bear military arms for military use. The Supreme Court has stated that, for example, a sawed-off shotgun is not protected because nobody showed the Court that it had military utility or was in use by the military. Of course sawed-off shotguns DO have military utility and ARE used by the military, but in the particular case the Court dodged the question because nobody PRESENTED THEM with that evidence and they wanted to preserve the convictions of the criminals who had been so charged.

And, perhaps an argument can be made for larger clips or no limit existing. The point I'm making is that it would be permissible to regulate clip size and still have the right to keep and bear arms remain uninfringed. And, reasonable minds can differ.

Not really. Because the militia clause protects the RKBA of military arms for military use it is a violation to limit the ability of those arms to be used for their intended military purpose. It's exactly the same thing as saying that each man may own a musket for use in the militia, but he can't own powder or ball. The ammunition and the parts of the firearm that cause it to function for it's constitutionally-protected purpose are ALL protected by the 2nd Amendment.

Then why would they care if they have more than 10 rounds in their clips? If crazed killers don't need them, why do they want to get their hands on them?

Who knows. What I do know is that I, or some other person, including the police, might need more than ten rounds to stop a crazed killer and there is absolutely no reason whatsoever why I should be denied that capacity. Limiting magazine capacity by law only limits magazine capacity for victims and the law-abiding.

Do you really think that one second, or even three seconds between mag changes is going to change the ability of the killer to continue killing?

Oh, yes. If a smart fellow who is involved or in the vicinity of a shooter, it may be enough time to tackle the guy. Of course, you may be right. I'm open to the evidence either way, and to hear the testimony of experts in the military, police, hunting, self-defense, and sporting arenas as to viable regulatory options. All I said was that I can see the sense of it, and I gave you one of the assumptions or premises on which that sense can be based. It makes sense to me. If my basic premise is shown to be untrue, then certainly I would, as a good skeptic, want to reevaluate the argument.

What "sense of it" does that happen to be? Gun laws only affect the ability of law-abiding people to use their guns. Why would you want to do that?

The main point for me is that the 2nd Amendment is (a) a federal constitutional provision, and (b) is not worded in absolute terms even as to the federal government.

Correct. However, the bar is set very high for regulations that impact 2nd Amendment rights. You must therefore show three things before your proposal can be deemed constitutional: First, that the government has a "compelling need" to enact specific regulation regarding magazine capacity; second, that the regulation imposes only the least possible amount of restriction on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms; and third, that the regulation actually achieves the intended legitimate government objective.

This is called the "strict scrutiny" test. So let's analyze:

What, in your opinion is the "compelling need" that justifies the government regulating magazine size? What is the goal of the regulation?

Is there a way to achieve that legitimate goal that is less intrusive on the RKBA? Any way at all.

Does limiting magazine capacity factually achieve the intended legitimate goal of the regulation?

Your answers please...

Some depends on jurisdiction. The right to keep and bear arms has never, ever, ever, meant, in practice, that you can bear arms wherever you want and whenever you want, even in public places. For example, I know of no federal building where people can waltz through with guns at the hip. Has a person's right to keep and bear arms been violated by the time and place restriction of not being able to walk into some federal judge's courtroom and presenting testimony while holding an AR-15?

Yes, it has. But it is true that "time, place and manner" regulations are not unconstitutional per se. But such regulations are STILL subject to the strict scrutiny test I elucidated above. Let's take post offices for example. It's illegal to bring a gun onto post office property, even in your car, much less inside the building. But those regulations, created by the Postal Service, not Congress, have always been reviewed under the "rational basis" test by the courts and have been quite recently upheld under that much lower standard of review. But with Heller and McDonald under our belts such rulings are being challenged as improper because they should have been considered under the strict scrutiny standard.

The rational basis standard says that the desire of a federal administrative agency like the Postal Service must be given great deference in how it chooses to operate its facilities and that there is a rational basis for keeping guns out of post offices. This regulation came into being relatively recently, in concert with the term "going postal", after a number of POSTAL EMPLOYEES shot up their fellow workers. There has never been a case of a citizen using a post office shooting postal employees in a post office, but the courts were unwilling to acknowledge that distinction.

Under the strict scrutiny standard however, it's unlikely that the post office ban on citizens lawfully carrying guns will survive. Postal employees can still be denied that right because they are employees and employees have different rights because they choose employment and thereby forfeit some rights while at work.

The bans on guns in federal buildings is much the same. The government blanket-bans civilian (not LE) carry because it can under the rational basis rulings, not because it has a compelling need to do so, because the regulation is the least intrusive way to achieve whatever objective it is they claim, or because it actually accomplishes that objective. They do it because it's easier for them just to say "no guns" than it is to respect 2nd Amendment rights and allow law-abiding citizens to exercise their rights.

On the other hand, I think there is a strict-scrutiny basis for banning the civilian possession of firearms in courthouses and jails, provided that the facility searches and disarms EVERYONE who enters the building and provides adequate armed security so that those who have been disarmed are properly protected.

The point I make is that each situation is unique and each venue must be individually assessed and regulations that meet the strict scrutiny test tailored to each venue, rather than the blanket ban they use now, which is unconstitutional.

Sounds like a stupid law. So, there are lots of stupid laws out there. The question is, was it violative of the 2nd Amendment

Yes, it does, because it seriously inhibits the ability of Californians to use their firearms for self-defense and military service.

or California's state equivalent.

California law has nothing to do with it. The 2nd Amendment overrules California law where they conflict.

I'm not sure if the 2nd Amendment has been held to be applicable to the states. Not all of the bill of rights is applicable to the states under current SCOTUS jurisprudence. Like the right to indictment by a grand jury, for example.

That's exactly what Heller and McDonald did. The court declared that the right to own a handgun for self defense "at least in the home" is a federally-protected civil right and that devolves to the states through the 14th Amendment, which is why Illinois, for example, and Chicago, were compelled by the court to throw out their handgun bans.

Slowed down the mag changed by two seconds...whoopee!

It might be helpful, depending on how long the average shooting lasts. Might be time enough to pop out and fire some rounds back at the shooter, or charge him.

...until you use up YOUR ten rounds, or eight, or six, or four, or one. You see, if the concept of limiting the number of bullets a law-abiding citizen can carry in his gun is constitutional, then the government can constitutionally regulate so that citizens can carry only ONE bullet at a time.

And that is why such laws are constitutionally impermissible. "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Not "may be infringed a little." Not "may be infringed because hoplophobes are afraid."

Shall not be infringed.

Pretty damned clear. And telling me how many rounds I can carry is absolutely an infringement. They can tell me when, where and how I can discharge my weapon (time, place, manner) in a reasonable manner, so long as that regulation doesn't effectively destroy the purpose for which the arms are carried, but they can't tell me how many times I can discharge it in an otherwise lawful manner or limit how many bullets I can carry in anticipation of a need to do so.

You see, ANY semi-automatic (ie: self-reloading) rifle can be operated very quickly, no matter how many stupid political constraints are put on it.

Sure, but quickly is a relative term, and that's why automatic and semiautomatic are different words. They have different meanings. Quickly to someone firing an automatic weapon is one thing, and quickly to someone firing a semi-auto is another.

Where gun advocates need to be careful is that there may come a time where the line will be drawn at semiauto wholesale. And, the anti-gunners will argue that only non-semiauto weapons should be allowed. So, it might behoove gun folks, who know the ins-and-outs of guns better than anyone, to suggest something of a "Reasonable" regulation. If what the legislators have proposed is silly or unworkable, then what would be reasonable and workable?

Exactly. There may come such a time, which is why the 2nd Amendment must be rigorously defended against such incremental infringement, without any compromise at all. A law-abiding citizen has a constitutional right to keep and bear ARMS. The definition of "arms" is very broad. Very, very broad, and goes far beyond just pistols and rifles. It includes tanks and bazookas and armed merchant vessels and aircraft.

What "reasonable" is that gun-banners shut the hell up and respect the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear whatever arms they choose to peaceably keep and bear, wherever they choose to peaceably keep and bear them, and for whatever lawful reason they choose to keep and bear them because law-abiding arms owners are not a threat to public safety merely because they keep and bear arms. And that is the presumption that gun-banners make, that merely possessing and carrying a gun is in and of itself a public menace, regardless of who has it and what they are doing with it.

That argument cannot be allowed to take root in our laws because once it does, the right to keep and bear arms vanishes under the flood of regulations nitpicking every aspect of the keeping and bearing of arms making it impossible to actually do so, precisely as Chicago and New York have managed to get away with for more than a hundred years.

It doesn't matter how many rounds are in my magazine, or how many magazines I carry, it only matters whether or not I lawfully discharge those rounds, and if I discharge them unlawfully then there are plenty of laws to deal with that eventuality but prior restraint on my ability to carry those rounds is absolutely unconstitutional.

Then again so can any quality bolt-action rifle, as all of the dead soldiers of WWI can attest to. It's all in the expertise of the shooter and his intent to kill. The Texas Tower shooter did just fine in that regard, as did the Texans who used their bolt-action deer rifles to make him keep his head down long enough for police (and a civilian) to climb the tower and kill him.

That argument can be used to suggest that bolt-action rifles are plenty. If they're just as good and it's no different than semiauto, because it all depends on the shooter and his intent, then the gun-opponents can argue that nobody's ability to do anything (whether hunt, self-defend, or defend others, or defend against the government injustice) is impacted by not having semiautomatic rifles. After all "so can any quality bolt-action rifle," right?

The 2nd Amendment does not have a quantity or rate-of-fire exception. It is absolute, and intended to be absolute. In fact, what's explicitly protected by the Militia clause is the keeping and bearing by private citizens of military arms. And that means contemporary military arms, which in this day and age means, by way of example, the Colt M-4 select-fire 5.56 caliber assault rifle, a "machine gun." It's perfectly legal to own one, or any machine gun, or a tank or artillery piece or rocket launcher. The only impediment to doing so is finding one for sale that's currently on the NFA registry and paying a $200 transfer tax and doing some paperwork.

And if government is permitted to determine what's "just as good" or "good enough" the end result is the only thing that's "good enough" will be single-shot .22 rimfire rifles and single-shot shotguns, as is the case in the UK. That's why government is denied the authority to determine "need" or decide what's "good enough" for a citizen to keep and bear.

The best defense against a criminal with a gun is a non-criminal with a gun...or preferable several non-criminals with guns, because just one round well-timed and well-placed from the handgun of an armed citizen renders even an 800 round per minute machine gun perfectly harmless.

Arguably, yes, and I have not argued that citizens should be barred from keeping arms, and using them against criminals, have I?

[/quote]

You argue for fatal incrementalism. You make a camel's nose argument and one that's been made for decades by gun-banners because they know if they get the power to decide what arms we can keep and bear they can deny us the ability to carry any but the most simple and ineffective arms, which is their goal.

No compromise will be tolerated because no compromise is required. I am not a danger to the community despite all the many and varied guns I own, so there is no legitimate reason for government to intrude on my right to keep and bear them AT ALL.

[Forty Two]

Both candidates knew the rules before they started. And, if the rules were different before they started, they would have very likely chosen to play the game with a different strategy. Trump, for example, would have had actually campaign in California. Instead, with the electoral system, he simply chalked California up as a "lost cause." He saved his resources for states that he could win. If it were a pure popular vote, he would have had to deluge Callfornia with advertisements and other campaign efforts and he would have held many, many rallies there.

Indeed, he would have made an effort in California, but it works both ways, doesn't it? I'm sure Clinton would have made a greater effort in, say, Alabama. I don't know what the outcome sans EC would have been either. One candidate could have done better or worse than the other. Or the result might have panned out just the same. Yes. Right. How insightful. I don't know the usefulness of even bringing the scenario up.

It's possible she would have made an effort in Alabama - we don't know. But, she likely would have seen herself in the driver seat with the major population centers in her camp. All we know is what happened with the rules this way, and we do not know whether, were the rules different from the start, whether a different outcome would have resulted. It is, however, very reasonable to conclude that both candidates could reasonably have approached the election from very different perspectives than they did, and utilized very different strategies. Therefore, we cannot say that just because the popular vote went one way under these circumstances that the popular vote would have gone the same way under other circumstances.

The usefulness of bringing up the point which you find to be so obvious is that people are declaring the election as a "should have been Hillary's win" because the popular vote went her way under the electoral college rules. The point I raises it that the outcome could reasonably have been different had the rules been different going in. We don't know. And, it's really not relevant to say that the popular vote went to Hillary this time, since that wasn't the operative figure.

It's like changing the rules of hockey to have the 7 game Stanley Cup Final competition be resolved by a count of which team got the most goals over 7 games, rather than which team won the most games out of 7. The teams would clearly approach the series differently if running up the score in game 1 makes a difference. For example, a team leading 5 goals to zero in game 1 may well play more defensively then they would play if they know going in that foregoing chances to score even more goals could come back to bite them later in the series. Clearly, that's as obvious as you suggested my point was -- but folks seem to be missing that point when they say that "Hillary would have won." The "obvious" point is that we don't know whether she would have won under other circumstances....

[tattuchu]

Torn between voting his conscience and dutifully casting his ballot for President-elect Donald Trump, a Republican member of the Electoral College said over the weekend that he would resign his post.

“I believe to resign is to honor the intent of the pledge as it relates to the people of my district,” Texas elector Art Sisneros wrote in a blog post. “Since I can’t in good conscience vote for Donald Trump, and yet have sinfully made a pledge that I would, the best option I see at this time is to resign my position as an Elector.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ele ... af95ef19df

[JimC]

Which Autocrat was the Constitution supposed to protect us against? Trump of Hillary? How about Bush? Gore would have been the wimp that the Constitution likes.

Had Gore been President, we would have had an Iraq War with a Republican opposition. Remember, Clinton/Gore were in favor of deposing Saddam Hussein, and were listening to the same intelligence briefings and information that the Bush government was listening to. They would have made the same move, because it was governed by geopolitical and strategic interests that went well beyond 9/11/01.

Probably, but they may have handled it better, and not let the whole post-war internal chaos happen.

[Seth]

Torn between voting his conscience and dutifully casting his ballot for President-elect Donald Trump, a Republican member of the Electoral College said over the weekend that he would resign his post.

“I believe to resign is to honor the intent of the pledge as it relates to the people of my district,” Texas elector Art Sisneros wrote in a blog post. “Since I can’t in good conscience vote for Donald Trump, and yet have sinfully made a pledge that I would, the best option I see at this time is to resign my position as an Elector.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ele ... af95ef19df

Good for him. That's the moral and ethical thing to do, as opposed to being a faithless fuck who defies the law.

[Seth]

Which Autocrat was the Constitution supposed to protect us against? Trump of Hillary? How about Bush? Gore would have been the wimp that the Constitution likes.

Had Gore been President, we would have had an Iraq War with a Republican opposition. Remember, Clinton/Gore were in favor of deposing Saddam Hussein, and were listening to the same intelligence briefings and information that the Bush government was listening to. They would have made the same move, because it was governed by geopolitical and strategic interests that went well beyond 9/11/01.

Probably, but they may have handled it better, and not let the whole post-war internal chaos happen.

What an idiotic "might have been" argument.

[Hermit]

The usefulness of bringing up the point which you find to be so obvious is that people are declaring the election as a "should have been Hillary's win" because the popular vote went her way under the electoral college rules. The point I raises it that the outcome could reasonably have been different had the rules been different going in. We don't know. And, it's really not relevant to say that the popular vote went to Hillary this time, since that wasn't the operative figure.

Frankly, I am not impressed by people who say "should have been Hillary's win". They can say is: "If the election was determined directly by popular vote, i.e. without the intermediate step of the electoral college, Hillary would have won." And they can say: "The electoral college makes the election by the people unfair and therefore it should not exist." Contracting those two statements to "It should have been Hillary's win" is a step too far, for as you pointed out, all candidates were aware of the rules before they entered. Not only that, but neither the existence of the electoral college nor how the whole electoral system currently works were secrets kept from the voters. I bet they'd complain about it as much as Trump voters currently do, had the boot been on the other foot.

Still, I don't see any use pointing out that the vote count may or may not have been different under a different system. The whingers will just make a minor adjustment to their complaint. "Clinton would have won with the votes she got, had it not been for the electoral college." Your point would have been safe to ignore as far as they concerned because you have no way of saying if Clinton would have been better off, worse off, or if there would have been any difference at all. That inability would have made your suggestion something not a million miles removed in appearance from a null hypothesis.

The usefulness of bringing up the point which you find to be so obvious

Actually, I didn't, and I obviously still don't.