• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

The Official Paracast Political Thread! — Part Three

Free episodes:

Status
Not open for further replies.
Is it possible that Trump (in this) is displaying a sophisticated understanding of the legalities? Or else he has good advisors - not the ones we hear about - but the 'shadow player(s)' who have the lawyers who understand the nuances - why else would he disclaim the CIA findings? Unless it's just egoboo - that's more likely. (Occam's Razor operating).

If they were following the 'originalist vision' - the electors would reject Trump, but they won't. "The Russian election interference for Trump is grounds for the Electoral College to reject the Republican candidate according to Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 68."

Founding Fathers Say Russia Election Interference Means Electoral College Must Reject Trump
LINK:
Founding Fathers Say Russia Election Interference Means Electoral College Must Reject Trump
TEXT: "The CIA assessment that Russia interfered in the presidential election does more than cast a shadow over the incoming administration.

"According to The Federalist Papers, the role of the Electoral College was to prevent a foreign power from gaining control of the union.

Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 68:
Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office.

No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it. The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty.


"The Electoral College was designed to be a safeguard against exactly what appears to have happened in the 2016 election. If the electors are going to fulfill the role that the Founding Fathers envisioned for them, they must reject the attempt by the Russian government to install their own President Of The United States.

"Hamilton’s writings make it clear that what Russia and Trump have done endangers the nation’s sovereignty.

"Republicans who view themselves as upholders of our founding principles need to read Hamilton and understand that their duty in this situation is to reject the option that is a threat to the independence of the union.

"The reasoning is clear. The path is in front of their eyes. To protect this nation, the Electoral College must reject Donald Trump."
 
Why not call a do-over? Is that legally possible?

Like a mistrial?
Ha! :p

Clearly the system needs some tweaks. With 54% of those who voted (not counting the ones who chose not to vote and those who were blocked - suppressed - from voting) choosing Hillary/Stein/Johnson rather than Trump - we need to fix this pronto. Won't happen, of course - or if and when it does, who knows when, and what wreackage will be cluttering the field by then.

But the fact is - the real split was 54/46. Trump does not have the mandate of the people - just a faction - and that's enough, working the system and the numbers, to get into power and 'screw the pooch'. Trump is not the 'will of the people' - yet we seem unable to stop the train wreck.
 
Gene, this is for you. What I was clumsily trying to say about manufacturing:

"So, the overall effect would be something like this: some manufacturing that is currently done in Mexico might come back to the U.S. But some manufacturing jobs that are currently in the U.S. would be lost as a result of declining American exports, leading to lower sales and reduced demand. In addition, making cars will become more expensive because the parts will be more expensive, leading to higher prices for American consumers, which will reduce demand (more expensive cars means more people will stick with the car they have rather than buy a new one) which will lead to more job losses in the U.S.

The reality is that the decline in manufacturing jobs in the U.S. over the last 40–50 years has many, many causes. NAFTA is only a small part of that. Automation is responsible for a lot of it; the greater global competitiveness (compared to the 1950s and 1960s, when American manufacturing was booming) of goods manufactured in other countries like Japan and Germany is another; reduced transportation costs making imports cheaper even in the absence of trade agreements are another; trade agreements are also part of the picture, but just a part."

In opinion: Will repealing NAFTA bring back jobs?

The only thing different is that I'm saying what many say behind closed doors: the perceived quality of American goods is also low on top of being more expensive.
Exactly. But Republicans want to say it was all NAFTA and immigrants. Lies.
 
Crazy what has gotten voted in under the guise of the very opposite. When will the Trump supporters wake up to what is happening? It's pretty bad already - no 'wait and see' needed.

How Trump Is Repeating the 1920s
TEXT: "Published on Dec 6, 2016: Big Picture Interview: Richard Eskow, The Zero Hour/Campaign for America's Future. Speaking of Trump cabinet picks - the next presidential administration is shaping up to be the richest in American history. The last time we saw this kind of plutocratic takeover of the government it led to the Great Depression. Are we about to witness a sequel to that disaster?"
 
Never mind the Electoral College, the courts could intervene.....in our dreams.......:cool:

Russian Hacks Just Gave Courts Legal Precedent To Replace Trump With Hillary
LINK:
Russian Hacks Just Gave Courts Legal Precedent To Replace Trump With Hillary
TEXT: "In light of revelations on Friday that Russian hackers interfered with the presidential election specifically to elect Donald Trump, Clinton supporters and advocates of free democracy are eagerly searching for potential measures to prevent Trump from assuming the presidency at the hands of the Kremlin. One important legal precedent for such an impeachment is Marks v. Stinson, a 1994 case in which the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a state senate election and ordered the vacancy to be filled by the losing opponent after massive fraud was uncovered.

"The Pennsylvania state senate held a special election in 1993 to fill a seat left vacant by the death of the previous senator. The contest pitted Republican Bruce Marks against Democrat William Stinson, who was ultimately successful in winning the seat. After Stinson was elected, however, evidence of widespread fraud in the election came to light.

"Moreover, two elected officials testified under oath that they had been aware of the fraud and did nothing. Thus after Stinson had already taken office a federal judge ordered that he vacate his seat within 72 hours and hand it over to Marks, a ruling that was maintained upon appeal by the Supreme Court.

"While the circumstances of the 1994 case are obviously significantly different from the controversy surrounding last month’s election, the ruling does establish some degree of a precedent for a high court overturning the results of an election based on evidence of malfeasance.

"Thus if it becomes clear that Donald Trump won the presidency because of Russian interference – which, while hard to prove, does not seem out of the questionit would be possible for a court to invalidate the results and install Hillary Clinton. In Marks v. Stinsonthe testimony of the two elected officials who knew of the fraud proved crucial to the case.

"Thus revelations that Mitch McConnell was aware of the Russian hacks and that members of Trump’s team were holding secret meetings with the Kremlin during the campaign bode well for any such impeachment effort.

"Besides direct litigation there are several other efforts underway to prevent Trump from assuming the presidency. Chief among these is the campaign to convince Electoral College members to act as conscientious electors and vote for Clinton instead of Trump.

"While Trump’s 37 vote lead in the electoral college makes such an effort unlikely, many have argued that the very reason the electoral college exists is to prevent a demagogic populist like Trump from riding to the presidency on a wave of ignorant anger.

"Moreover, an online petition urging the Electoral College to vote for Hillary has surpassed five million signatures. As unlikely to succeed as these moves may seem, every effort we can make is worth it to protect this country, the world, and its people from a Trump presidency. And the fact that Trump seems to have won his victory with the aid of interference by a hostile foreign dictatorship is all the more reason to fight against his installation as the most powerful man in the world."
 
Looks like the vote update has stopped - last update was on 12/7/16

2016 US Presidential ElectionPopular Vote - Maybe the Final?

As of 12/7/16

Hillary Clinton (D) 65,746,544 48.2%
Donald Trump (R) 62,904,682 46.2%

Difference is 2,841,862 - 2.8 million, 2%.

Others took 5.6% of the vote - so the total voting against Trump winds up being 53.8% - or 54% to Trump's 46.2%. That's a 7.6% margin against Trump. (The number that voted for 'Other' was 7.6 million, so that the total against Trump was 73.4 million votes to Trump's 62.9 million. Not a mandate - not that his actions will ever reflect that. He's in it for himself and the wealthy 1% - nobody else).

You can see the numbers here: 2016 National Popular Vote Tracker
 
Last edited:
And so it begins....And So It Begins... no demonstrations allowed in Washington, D.C. from now 'til March 1 (and later?)
LINK: And So It Begins... no demonstrations allowed in Washington, D.C. from now 'til March 1 (and later?)
TEXT: "Apparently the incoming Administration is a tad concerned that there may be one or two people who wish to express a negative opinion about the way they are conducting themselves.

"This is clearly aimed at squashing the Million Women March/Women’s March on Washington planned for January 21, as well as a counter-inaugural planned on January 20 itself, and any other nascent protest plans by folks who might want to point out that the would-be emperor has no clothes."
 
Babies. You are all pathetic whining babies. Get over it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Oops I probably hurt feelings of you libtards and violated some forum nazi rule.
Apologies!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Must view the video within the link. The guy is one straight talkin' hillbilly - right on all counts.

Self-Described "White Trash Hillbilly" Nails Exactly What's Wrong with America

LINK: Self-Described "White Trash Hillbilly" Nails Exactly What's Wrong with America

Listen to the guy: "The coal industry has been dying through the mechanization of labor and good things like more affordable green energy, but another thing that's been causing the death of it is natural gas," Smith said to a group of people fighting for a $15 minimum wage in the state of Virginia. He argues that machines are being used to do jobs better than humans ever could, green energy is a real concern, and globalization is not the perceived threat to American jobs it's made out to be. "Immigrants are not taking coal jobs," he said bluntly.

In regards to Trump's promise to bring back coal plants to his hometown, Smith knows it will be nearly impossible for the President-elect to deliver. "I know a lot of people who voted for him just because of that," he said. "If you woulda asked anyone in Dickinson County three of four years ago what they think of Donald Trump, they'd have said, 'He's a jackass Yankee who probably shoulda had his ass whooped a long time ago.'" As Smith explains, the pressing matter is that Dickinson County Virginia has a 25 percent poverty rate and an average income of less than $20,000 a year.
 
Thom Hartmann's understatement: it is going to be a very interesting time. Yeah. Not in a good way, either.

"Thom talks about the protests at the inauguration of George W. Bush in 2001 and the ways that the incoming Donald Trump Administration is doing everything they can to prevent the same thing at his inauguration."

Dirty Don Is Trying To Criminalize Protests At His Inauguration!
TEXT: "Published on Dec 9, 2016: Thom talks about the protests at the inauguration of George W. Bush in 2001 and the ways that the incoming Donald Trump Administration is doing everything they can to prevent the same thing at his inauguration."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top