Reasons for optimism

Pompous, pretentious, petulant, pedantic polemicism. One of the hallmarks of a cheese-eater.

I'm beginning to understand "cheese eater" !!!

Let me guess you love cheese?

Actually I do.

The BS Recount Movement when down in flames and so will the Faithless Elector Movement, but what we should learn from them is that the Left is prepared to do anything and everything to acquire and maintain power.

The examples of hypocrisy abound and are two many to catalog, but just two as prime examples are: The horror the Left declared after Trump said he needed to wait until after the election to say whether or not he would accept it and the way they are now embracing the CIA.

These are people who will say or do anything at all for power. They are called out a hundred times on their lies and hypocrisy and a hundred times they dismiss them

What makes them so dangerous is that they have as a staunch ally, the MSM which has already shown it is more than willing to jettison journalistic ethics.

That Trump won is a great sign that the people of America matter, but he did so in large part because the Left bumbled due to extreme arrogance. They are not likely to make that mistake again.

Dick cheese?

http://www.dicksmithfoods.com.au/products/cream-cheese-spread/

Oh goodness, of course we are. Look who we're dealing with.

Finn's whole statement was;
"That Trump won is a great sign that the people of America matter, but he did so in large part because the Left bumbled due to extreme arrogance. They are not likely to make that mistake again"

To which you replied;
"Oh goodness, of course we are. Look who we're dealing with."

You may be correct in that Trump's approach in many ways confounds the usual responses and channels for delivering them that the liberal extablishment has used for so long. In addition the political alignment of several of the somewhat arbitrary categories of the population that Democrats have so long trargeted appears to be changing and growing more complex.

However, it's hard to buy the notion that Democrats will learn nothing from the experience (if that indeed is what you really mean by your statement).

I'll agree that so far they have behaved like a bunch of spoiled childten, fully revealing their detachment from current reality and continuing self-absorption in the process. However, the reality of their minority positions in all branches of our Federal government and over 2/3rds of our states, plus their exposure to additional losses in both Houses of Congrrss (particularly the Senate) in two years will surely sink in during the months ahead, as the Republicans enact their well-described changes. Hard for me to believe that experience will bot bring about some serious rethinking and changes in the leadership of the Democrat Party.

It was just snark.

The present hold on power by Republicans can't be denied. At the same time, neither can we properly deny what Americans in toto desire as evidenced by the popular vote. Even if that vote had been exactly 50/50, the present GOP's power makes no sense if we presume a democratic system in place. And that's the faulty presumption.

However it has come about, through intentional strategies (redistricting, voter suppression, a more robust lust for power, etc) or through legacy factors (the electoral college, Senate representation, etc) the system itself is now the key factor in why power is held as we see it.

How the Dems might respond to these facts is the important set of questions. But suggesting that Dems have caused it through arrogance or through social policies is not a rational position to hold (again, the popular vote tells us what citizens want and what they reject). Dems can change behaviors or how they self-present to perhaps minimize their dilemma but that's all superficial. What they do have to do is organize, dig up money and set to a project that matches what the right has done since the seventies to revamp the institutions of the nation such that they are not disadvantaged in the manner they now are.

You are advertising your delusions well. Our country is "The United States of America" Our Constitution specifices the fundamental rights of individuals, the primacy of state sovereignty in local mattters and very clear limitations on the powers of the Federal government reserving all perogatives, not specifically assigned to it, to the people and the sovereign states.

Democrats lost the election period. You can wish for any other process or rationalization of the facts you may desire, but that won't change this basic fact. Moreover you don't have either standing or a vote in the matter.

Such rationalizations appear popular among Democrats. They are merely an excuse for continued inaction and the continued faliure that will follow from it.

It is so pleasant to read the criticisms of foreigners to our basic systems of governace and their reminders that ours is not a truly democratic system (as, presumably, is theirs.)

I don't pretend to know all the details of Canada's basic law and federal system. I do know that they too reserve substantial local powers to the various provinces, perhaps much as we do here with the states . Frankly I would hesitate to comment adversely on any matters of Canadian governance that don't affect me directly, even in areas where I do have opinions, simply out of common politeness and discretion for the interests of a neighbor. There are words for people who routinely ignore such self-restraint.

Why on earth would I care or take offence if someone from another country spoke about Canada in some manner which was not aligned with how I thought about Canada? What damage is done? How am I or the nation injured? The only important criteria are knowledge of the subject and reasonable argument.

And I'm sure you understand that the points I made have been made by many Americans too.

You probably better put me on ignore george. Because this isn't going to change.

I think it is very obvious we have different personal standards in that area. I was clear that the offense involvesd directly arises from the foreign source of it. Finally, there was no "reasonable argument" in this case, only a stream of hyperbole and invective.

Though you frequently recommend it for others, I haven't ever used the ignore feature. You'll have to get used to that too.

I have never thought of putting you on ignore, nor McG nor Finn. All are old friends (under definition #3 in the Oxford Dictionary of the Canadian Language).

If someone from Belgrave or Louisiana took a Canadian flag with a picture of Justin Trudea, stuck them in the toilet then took a crap, I would raise my eyebrows out of curiosity but would not take offence. Though I might leap to some assumptions about the man's personal hygiene. That sort of nationalism has little or no pull on me. Nor do the symbols of it.

As to Hyperbole and Invective. I have only once engaged in a threesome. No regrets. Hyperbole was better looking but Invective could really get down and dirty.

Why not? Do you find it to be an impossibility for members of the DNC and the RNC to collude or conspire to keep the plutocrats in power? Why has there been little to no investigation by the parties, state department or the department of justice about interstate crosscheck?

I personally think we have a serious ethics type of metal retardation here in the USA We will fall just like the Roman Empire but hopefully we will evolve ethically.

Do you think Kris Kobach is a reason for optimism?

Actually it's a better than even bet that the Left will again fall prey to arrogance. They can't help themselves.

You are remarkably paranoid about the American Right. You give them way too much credit or else you give Obama way too much credit because he managed to win two terms despite the vast array of Right-wing armament.