Telling “how it is”

cropped-13461226_494260390774607_2128876377_o.jpg

Greetings, listeners! In today’s episode, we are joined by Stephanie Ellaine Hunt, leader of the Drinking Liberally New York section to talk about Trump election, to discuss “how it is” and make some sense about how to still stay friendly to each other in this partisan environment. Also, we discuss race issues, women’s issues, LGBT rights and why, exactly, are minorities and these aforementioned groups afraid of Trump. And should Trump voters be afraid of Trump? Maybe there can be something good from this election? Who knows. In the next episode, which shall be released soon, we’ll be talking with Ben. That one was recorded before election – but it will be interesting to listen to that, after both election and after this episode. Enjoy. Also, music was taken from a royalty-free site, and it’s Actionable by talented Ben Sound.
drinking_liberally_2

4 thoughts on “Telling “how it is”

  1. Boing

    I think the USA just needs to break up into 3-4 different countries. The political divisions between us here are largely geographical, yet we’re forced to make decisions collectively. The electoral college is unfair, but NY and CA largely deciding how things should be for everybody in between doesn’t seem much better.

    Our separate parts of the country have more in common than we realize, but I don’t think that will be apparent so long as we see ourselves as adversaries. If the people are no longer put against each other in competition every four years (in campaigns that last two), and we can no longer blame our problems on each other, maybe we’ll start to realize who the real bad guys are. The establishment has played an epic game of divide and conquer that’s spiraled out of control.

  2. Dave

    The Electoral College was included in the Constitution as a flat out bribe to keep the (mostly slave at that time) less populous states in the Union. There was a transition from the Articles of Confederation to a more centralized Constitutional government which was voted on by the states and a number of bribes (compromises they were called) were made to keep all the states in the Union. It essentially adds 2 votes to each states proportional vote giving about 20 less populous states a huge club to hold over the head of the country which is exactly its original intent. The mental gymnastics used to justify it are just that. For instance Wyoming North Dakota and South Dakota all together should have 3 votes to Colorado’s 7 (all matching their Congressmen) if based on population, however they actually have 9 electoral votes to Colorado’s 9.

  3. Larry Zacharas

    Just listened to Stephanie Ellaine Hunt on the “Telling how it is” episode. I will start by stating I am NOT a Trump supporter and certainly did not vote for him.

    That said, Ms. Hunt is certainly ill informed in some of her statements, Examples:

    • Martin Van Buren and Andrew Jackson were both democrats and Van Buren followed Jackson into the presidency with Jackson’s endorsement.

    • The Electoral College was NOT adopted due to the election president and vice presidents belonging to different political parties. The Electoral College is a feature created by the constitutional convention. (Because it awarded the presidency to the highest vote total with the vice presidency to the next highest candidate, Jefferson, a democrat ended up with a federalist vice president. The 12th amendment adopted in 1804 created unified party tickets.)

    • She states that civics is no longer taught in public schools and she was only taught civics because she went to private schools. That is flat wrong. In California, where I live, it is a requirement to pass a class in US constitution in order to graduate from high school, (public or private) and for graduating from state funded colleges and universities. Some stated required classes on their state constitution. (The problem is that we have a minority of incompetent teachers that can only teach dumb-downed material. In our state it is almost impossible to fire a teacher unless he/she has been convicted of a felony.)

    • She claims Bush Jr. won the election because votes were not counted. That’s the noise created by the losing democrats. The federal Supreme Court ruled that the state could not change vote counting rules after the fact (the election). A group of major news outlets had their own people review and count the ballots (they are public documents) and found that Bush would have won the state even under the rules that Gore wanted. Portions of their report:

    So, who really won? What the Bush v. Gore studies showed
    By Wade Payson-Denney, CNN
    Updated 10:06 AM ET, Sat October 31, 2015
    Story highlights
    • As a whole, recount studies show Bush would have most likely won a Florida hand recount of undervotes
    • Studies also show Gore likely would have won a statewide recount of all undervotes and overvotes …
    Taken as a whole, the recount studies show Bush would have most likely won the Florida statewide hand recount of all undervotes. Undervotes are ballots that did not register a vote in the presidential race. …
    The first major review
    The players: A group of newspapers including the USA Today, Miami Herald, and Knight Ridder newspapers conducted the first major review of the Florida ballots.
    How it worked: The group hired the accounting firm BDO Seidman to examine more than 60,000 “undervotes” — ballots that did not register a vote in the presidential race — from all 67 Florida counties. These were ballots the Florida Supreme Court ordered to be hand counted with its December 8, 2000, decision.
    The newspapers applied BDO Seidman’s findings to four vote-counting standards. This was published in April 2001.
    The results: The study shows that Bush likely would have won the statewide recount of undervotes even if the U.S. Supreme Court had not intervened to stop the counting. It also reveals that, ironically, the most lenient standard of vote counting —advocated by Gore — gives Bush his biggest lead. However, USA Today cautioned that, “The study has limitations. …
    The details, with USA Today’s original explanations of the different standards in parentheses:
    • Lenient Standard: Bush +1,665 (“This standard, which was advocated by Gore, would count any alteration in a chad — the small perforated box that is punched to cast a vote — as evidence of a voter’s intent. The alteration can range from a mere dimple, or indentation, in a chad to its removal. Contrary to Gore’s hopes, the USA TODAY study reveals that this standard favors Bush and gives the Republican his biggest margin: 1,665 votes.”)
    • Palm Beach Standard: Bush +884 (“Palm Beach County election officials considered dimples as votes only if dimples were found in other races on the same ballot. They reasoned that a voter would demonstrate similar voting patterns on the ballot. This standard — attacked by Republicans as arbitrary — also gives Bush a win, by 884 votes, according to the USA TODAY review.”)
    • Two corner standard: Bush +363 (“Most states with well-defined rules say that a chad with two or more corners removed is a legal vote. Under this standard, Bush wins by 363.”)
    • Strict standard: Gore +3 (“This “clean punch” standard would only count fully removed chads as legal votes. The USA TODAY study shows that Gore would have won Florida by 3 votes if this standard were applied to undervotes.”) …
    See USA Today, Miami Herald, and Knight Ridder newspapers for the complete story

    • Ms. Hunt also implied that most right wing persons are haters and racist. Her words left me feeling that she is the lefts mirror image of the extreme right. It’s funny that persons on the right are the ones being shouted down and intimidated on left wing campuses such as Berkley. Let’s be real, there are hate fringes attached to BOTH left and right ideologies.

    • Ms Hunt reminds me of my local paper, the Sacramento Bee has been running columns in its opinion pages that follow this tactic. Accuse him of a policy you think he is adopting and then attacking him. The problem is that Trump hasn’t proposed the policy they are attacking. To me this is no better than the bluster and fibs of Trump or Hillary.
    A major problem we have is that the media focuses on elections as if they are a horse race, “Who is ahead” , policy questions are pushed to the back pages.

  4. Jon

    The Vice president of the United States was originally the 2nd runner up in the presidential election.

Leave a Comment