Incompetent Elected Official Of The Month: Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.)

OK, have I got this straight, Congressman? You want to abolish the Electoral College, because its antidemocratic, but before you do, you want to use it to overturn an election that you agree was fair and square. Got it. You're an idiot.

OK, have I got this straight, Congressman? You want to abolish the Electoral College, because it’s antidemocratic, but before you do, you want to use it to overturn an election that you agree was fair and square. Got it. You’re an idiot.

Now a member of Congress has sided with the history-addled cheating advocates who are pressuring Republican electors to overturn the results of the 2016 election. One might expect electors to be this ignorant and confused, since they are not vetted or qualified and may be, for all voters know, self-righteous paramedics.  Smug and partisan social justice warriors using fake names are also not surprising us when they advocate something this unethical. However, we should be able to expect our elected representatives to have more respect for and understanding of our system. Unfortunately, we can’t.

Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) concedes that Donald Trump won the election “fair and square.” (This is a small point in Himes’ favor, at least, since so many of his political brethren won’t even admit that). Nonetheless, he has announced that electors should defy the electorate and make Hillary Clinton President when they gather on December 19to  vote,despite the fact that Trump beat Clinton by winning states that gave him, or were supposed to, 306 Electoral College votes.

Himes’s “argument“ mark him as a bona fide idiot. We should not have bona fide idiots in Congress.

“We’re 5 wks from Inauguration & the President Elect is completely unhinged. The electoral college must do what it was designed for,” he tweeted yesterday. No, in fact, that was not what it was designed for. The Electoral College was designed to prevent big states in a federal system from dictating to the other states, which might not share their culture or sensitivities. Imagine a big, wacko state like California dominating our politics. In fact, that’s exactly what would happen without the Electoral College. In the election just completed, Clinton won the Golden Bankrupt Illegal Immigrant-Enabling State by almost 4 million votes, while Trump got more votes than  Clinton in the other 49 states and the District of Columbia.  That’s why we have the Electoral College, and a more brilliant device the Founders never devised.

But Himes doesn’t understand, or pretends not to. “The Electoral College, if you read the Federalist Papers and understand why it is there, it is a group of people. It is not an algorithm. It is not a set of ballots. It is a group of people that our Founding Fathers, you know, to whom supposedly we all sort of defer to, pledged the idea that if someone gets elected that is manifestly ill equipped to be president … that the Electoral College can step in,” he said.

I know I wrote that if I heard one more quote from Federalist Paper 68 that was so definitive that the writer, who may have been Alexander Hamilton, wouldn’t even attach his own name on it, “I may strip off my clothes and run screaming Norse epithets into the night. “ However, this is a Congressman making this fatuous and dishonest argument, so I have to do something even more extreme.

I’m thinking, I’m thinking…

The Founders were trying to get the Constitution, which was already written and signed, ratified by the states, and that meant selling the anti-big state Electoral College to residents of the big states. This was Hamilton’s, or someone’s, spin to get the thing enacted. Do you know how we know that Himes’ fiction wasn’t what the Founders intended the Electoral College to do? We know it because once the Constitution was passed, the Founder didn’t lift a finger to construct the Electoral College so it was competent to do what Hamilton—or someone’— pretended it would. There was no election of qualified electors. There was no effort to make sure that they met a high standard of character, objectivity, education and wisdom. They were left as just people who agreed, sometimes through  pledges, that they would vote as the public instructed them to. Does anyone really beieve that the Founders, among the most brilliant thinkers the nation has ever produced, would set up a system of super-voters who were empowered to overturn the election of a national leader on a whim without making sure those electors were somehow more qualified than the public they would be defying?  What qualifies these current 306  anonymous, unvetted electors to veto the will of millions of voters? Nothing. Not superior numbers, not tradition, not fairness, not consent by the voters, not logic.

Ah, but Himes says Trump isn’t qualified to be “mayor of a small town in Connecticut.” THAT’s why the Electoral College should overturn the voters’ will. HE disagrees with them. HE knows better. Well, that issue was settled by the voters, unfortunately.

When did Democrats start adopting the philosophy that democratic processes are only valid when they produce results Democrats want?

And get this: Himes  says he wants to abolish the Electoral College, because it’s undemocratic!  Except this one time, of course. After all, Alexander Hamilton—or someone—said in 1788 it should be used in 2016.

What an embarrassment Himes is.

And he’s far from alone.

114 Comments

Filed under Citizenship, Ethics Alarms Award Nominee, Government & Politics, History, Incompetent Elected Officials, Law & Law Enforcement

114 responses to “Incompetent Elected Official Of The Month: Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.)

  1. Bankrupt? No. Come visit, you may like it here, especially in January or February.

  2. I hate to say this; but, I fully expect that there to be violent riots in the streets after the electoral college cast their votes on the 19th.

    • Nah. But if there are, the Democrats will have cut their throats all the way to their spines.

      • I wouldn’t be so sure if I were you; there is verifiable recent history of massive overreactions in the streets when a lot of people feel slighted in someway – regardless of truth.

        You might want to pay a visit to Costco or Sam’s to stock up on a few necessities before next weekend is over; if I’m wrong, no harm, the necessities will still be used. 😉

        • Slick Willy

          The whole lesson of this election is that ordinary people are tired of this crap. Bring that riot to main street America (not the liberal controlled strongholds) and see how that works out for ya.

          Not directed at you, Zoltar (love ya like a brother!) just fed up with the special snowflakes throwing fits to get their way. Enough. The adults are back to take over now, so go back to your safe places.

          I agree with Jack that if the Democrats back rioting they might as well just take their whole head off as cut their throat.

          Now, I AM with you on stocking up… we always have emergency supplies available, because we are responsible for our own lives and family, and do not count on anyone, especially government (at any level) to be there for us. Their track record is pretty poor.

          Wow, a bit of a vent today.

          Sorry if I come off as harsh, just so frustrated with elitist establishment hypocrisy and their willing minions in the MSM. Don’t those idiots in the MSM realize the first thing socialists do (historically) once they get into power is round up the journalists?

          • Spartan

            How many emergency supplies do you have? 1 month? 1 year? 5 years? Do you have a private well? How do you get your power? Do you have enough land to farm for your family? How about protecting those crops? Will you have a private army patrol at night while you sleep? Do you have enough money to pay for that private army.

            Like it or not, we live under a social contract with our neighbors and our government. Our success (or lack thereof) entirely depends on cooperation. Yes, I am responsible for putting food on the table and raising my children to the best of my ability. But I also expect water to flow from the tap and for a fire truck to arrive if I ever have to call 911.

            “The adults are back to take over now” doesn’t speak well of you. Trump is not a grown-up, he is a con man. He will use this Presidency to pad his own pockets and has zero interest in the welfare of this nation. I really do hope I am wrong — I hope he will turn out to be the best President that we have ever had. (Then again, I also am hoping to win Powerball this week — hope rarely wins the day.) But given the evidence that we have about Trump, celebrating his victory is just about the most ignorant thing a person could do right now.

            • Spartan said, “But given the evidence that we have about Trump, celebrating his victory is just about the most ignorant thing a person could do right now.”

              “…celebrating his victory…”

              Seriously Spartan? I’ve got to ask you where the hell did you get the impression that anyone in this conversation was talking about “celebrating his victory”?

              • Spartan

                One, I wasn’t talking about you. Two, there is this line — “The adults are back to take over now, so go back to your safe places.”

                • Spartan said, “there is this line — “The adults are back to take over now, so go back to your safe places.” “

                  I think you are reading the white spaces between the lines. That sounds like resolve not celebrating.

                  • Spartan

                    Perhaps “celebrate” is the wrong word, but suggesting that this administration will be made up of grown-ups or run by a grown-up is at a minimum illogical and worst case suggests that this outcome was desired.

                    • Spartan said, “suggesting that this administration will be made up of grown-ups or run by a grown-up is at a minimum illogical”

                      I’m curious; can you actually explain what you mean when you say that it’s illogical to suggest “that this administration will be made up of grown-ups or run by a grown-up”?

                      I don’t “like” Trump either; but I’m going to suggest that you’re engaging in some rather hyper-partisan regurgitation of fabricated memes.

                      Spartan said, “worst case suggests that this outcome was desired.”

                      So what if Slick Willy likes Trump, so what if Slick Willy thinks that having Trump in office is a good thing, so what Spartan, none of that suggest that Slick Willy wanted immature child-like people in those positions; or is the sky really falling from your point of view?

                      I find your written opinions regarding this to be deplorable.

                    • Spartan

                      Luckily for me, there’s no room in the basket.

            • He will use this Presidency to pad his own pockets and has zero interest in the welfare of this nation.

              I am astonished that you believe that.I could not be surer that you are wrong. He’s an American, he was raised in this culture, and there is no reason to believe he doesn’t regard his nation’s well-being of primary importance. This kind of thing is how the left is be clowning itself–The Trump Is A Monster meme. We have never had a President who thinks like you say Trump is thinking, and nothing in his background and upbringing suggests it. It’s just pure, unadulterated prejudice, and the demonization that has destroyed civil public discourse and even the possibility of it. I had a smart Facebook friend who works for a law firm actually say he wants a military coup. Get help.

              • But but they did it to obama.

                They wanted obama dead.

              • Spartan

                He is an American? So what? The Unibomber was an American too. Go back to every post you write about Trump pre-election. You used to think he was a horrible human being as well. But now that we’ve put the silk purse on the pig, you’ve apparently changed your mind.

                • Wrong. I haven’t changed a thing about my analysis or assessment. I never said, however, that he didn’t want to be President to do his best for the country. The Unibomber? Seriously? Heck, why not compare him with Jeffrey Dahmer and Ed Gein?

                  • Spartan

                    You are getting sloppy. This is the second time you’ve done this — just with me — over the last few days. I wasn’t comparing Trump to the Unibomber, I was poking at your “he’s an American” bona fides. My response remains — so what? Just because you’re an American doesn’t mean you’re qualified for the job, it just means your eligible. Big difference.

                    • I’M sloppy? If “so is the Unibomber” means anything, then it means “saying the President Elect is an American” is no different from saying a serial killer is an American.” But it s completely different. Anyone can be a serial killer. Presidents have to go through a long vetting process in life and in the cauldron of politics. If they are maniacs, they don’t get through.

                      My point is that it’s a terrible and invalid comparison. So what? EVERYTHING. Non patriots don’t get to be President. Doesn’t happen. Until it has, it is unjustified to assume any P-E is not taking the job to do good for the nation.

                      (Had to take a call)

                      And more on the sloppy front, I did not say Trump was qualified because he is an American. I said,

                      I am astonished that you believe [He will use this Presidency to pad his own pockets and has zero interest in the welfare of this nation] I could not be surer that you are wrong. He’s an American, he was raised in this culture, and there is no reason to believe he doesn’t regard his nation’s well-being of primary importance. This kind of thing is how the left is be clowning itself–The Trump Is A Monster meme. We have never had a President who thinks like you say Trump is thinking, and nothing in his background and upbringing suggests it. It’s just pure, unadulterated prejudice.

                      I would say the same about any American who does what is necessary to be elected President. This doesn’t mean he’s qualified, as Trump proves. It means that he’s not some kind of evil Sideshow Bob, Bond villain freak. That’s a long way from being “qualified.”

                    • Chris

                      Spartan, this keeps happening to me too. Someone makes a specific point, that specific point is challenged, then the initial speaker says “Why does that matter?” completely ignoring their initial specific point.

                      Jack, Spartan’s point was clear and correct: “He’s an American” is not a valid defense of Trump or his patriotism, or his ability to put country over self, which is by all appearances non-existent. People who put country over self do not behave this way. I also think it was fair of Spartan to point out that you spent an entire year telling the public how dangerous and unqualified Trump was, how much he degrades and embarrasses our country, and now are completely unwilling to accept our electors taking the only legal measures left to ensure he will not be president.

                    • “Jack, Spartan’s point was clear and correct: “He’s an American” is not a valid defense of Trump or his patriotism, or his ability to put country over self, which is by all appearances non-existent.”

                      On what basis can you say this? That’s a lie, flat out. The campaign cost him millions. He doesn’t gain monitarily. he has worked his ass off, and put up with character assassination for months. What “way” are you talking about? OK, I’ve studied the US Presidency and each of the men who have served in office. Each of them came from the same national culture as Donald Trump, and every one of them placed his nation’s well-being above his own. Every one. I am saying that based on that record, there is no reason to think Trump is any different. The burden of proof is on you, and you can meet it.

                      And there have been Five Presidents killed in office, and another for shot at, one twice. That was enough to keep hero Colin Pwell from running. Trump has put himself in harm’s way: the record says his chances of being killed are 5 in 44, better than 10%, and being shot 6 in 44, closer to 1 in 8. How does that benefit Trump?

                      “I also think it was fair of Spartan to point out that you spent an entire year telling the public how dangerous and unqualified Trump was, how much he degrades and embarrasses our country, and now are completely unwilling to accept our electors taking the only legal measures left to ensure he will not be president.”

                      It may be legal, but it is 100% unethical, destructive and undemocratic. See, I’m an ethicist, and unwilling to destroy the system and faith in democracy to make bitter progressives happy. If it could be done to Trump, it could be done to anyone. Progressives are proving that they are totalitarians at heart, and I will do everything I can to make sure an many people as possible understand that, until they recover.

                    • Chris

                      On what basis can you say this? That’s a lie, flat out. The campaign cost him millions. He doesn’t gain monitarily.

                      There’s quite a lot of evidence that he has, and that this was his intent:

                      In 2000 Donald Trump told Fortune magazine, “It’s very possible that I could be the first presidential candidate to run and make money on it.”

                      During this primary season, Donald Trump made a point of not taking outside donations, but now he is. Some of Trump’s campaign money is making its way back to the candidate himself, because unlike any other candidate in modern history, Trump is using his businesses for his campaign.

                      Legally, Trump has to pay no more than fair market value, so we crunched the numbers to see how much he’s essentially paying himself, reports CBS News correspondent Julianna Goldman.

                      Trump, Clinton slam each other over national security
                      Play VIDEO
                      Trump, Clinton slam each other over national security
                      Donald Trump has contributed more than $52 million to his presidential campaign.

                      “I didn’t need to do this folks. I’m spending a lot of money,” Trump said during a rally in Ohio.

                      But the Republican nominee has offset some of that by pouring $7.2 million dollars — just over eight percent of the money his campaign has spent through July — into his own businesses.

                      Since Trump moved into the general election phase, that spending has increased.

                      During the first year of his campaign, he spent on average half a million dollars a month at his own companies. But as his campaign ramped up from the end of June through July, he spent $1.2 million at Trump businesses.

                      What Donald Trump’s campaign did and didn’t spend on last quarter
                      Donald Trump needs your money to make it to November
                      Donald Trump “fully extinguishes” $50 million campaign loan
                      “There’s a good chance that Donald Trump’s the first candidate for president who makes money off the whole endeavor,” said Charlie Spies, a Republican election lawyer who was Mitt Romney’s CFO in 2008. “The difference with the Romney campaign — he’s a numbers guy, that he’s very cheap, I think in terms of how money is spent, so we were looking to save as much money as possible.”

                      http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-businesses-profit-off-presidential-campaign-money/

                      he has worked his ass off, and put up with character assassination for months.

                      You’re joking. He is only the victim of character assassination if you think saying true things about him is “character assassination,” and he certainly hasn’t “put up” with it–he’s lashed out at every single opportunity! You wrote a whole blog post about how he needs to stop targeting private citizens who criticize him. This is nonsense.

                      OK, I’ve studied the US Presidency and each of the men who have served in office. Each of them came from the same national culture as Donald Trump, and every one of them placed his nation’s well-being above his own. Every one. I am saying that based on that record, there is no reason to think Trump is any different.

                      You’ve spent the past year cataloging all the many ways Trump is different. It isn’t possible to you that he could be different in this one as well?

                      And there have been Five Presidents killed in office, and another for shot at, one twice. That was enough to keep hero Colin Pwell from running. Trump has put himself in harm’s way: the record says his chances of being killed are 5 in 44, better than 10%, and being shot 6 in 44, closer to 1 in 8. How does that benefit Trump?

                      He prides his ego above his safety?

                    • 1) So you found one anti-Trump article full of speculation. Campaigns are expensive. His brand took a hit; he lost money. You quote a 16 year old interview when running for President wasn’t a twinkle in his eye as proof?

                      2) “You’ve spent the past year cataloging all the many ways Trump is different. It isn’t possible to you that he could be different in this one as well?”

                      3. “You’re joking. He is only the victim of character assassination if you think saying true things about him is “character assassination,” and he certainly hasn’t “put up” with it–he’s lashed out at every single opportunity! You wrote a whole blog post about how he needs to stop targeting private citizens who criticize him. This is nonsense.”

                      You think people don’t mind being vilified as long as the insults and criticism are true?

                      What I see, Chris, is just unreasoning, fearful, fact-free paranoia and hate. Bad will is the bias. You’re a case study.

                      A. They are all different, but have things in common. They are public servants, they put themselves in the crosshairs, and they love their country. Sure, it’s possible that Trump is a Bond villain who doesn’t care if he goes down in infamy, but kids don’t want to grow up to be President to be hated.

                    • Chris

                      ) So you found one anti-Trump article full of speculation.

                      Stop. There are plenty of articles out there about how Trump has used his campaign to fill his pockets. They are not hard to find. I found dozens with a quick Google search; you can too.

                      Campaigns are expensive. His brand took a hit; he lost money.

                      His brand took a hit when it was believed by most people that he would lose. Do you really expect that to be the case now that he has won?

                      You yourself wrote about his conflicts of interest. Don’t you think foreign leaders, businesses, etc. might want to curry the favor of the president by staying in his hotels? Buying his products? I expect Trump’s presidency to be very good for his brand. So, apparently, does Trump.

                      You quote a 16 year old interview when running for President wasn’t a twinkle in his eye as proof?

                      I cited it as evidence of his intentions, along with a whole bunch of other evidence. I don’t know why you constantly act like Donald Trump’s own statements about what he believes and how he behaves don’t tell us anything about what he believes and how he behaves.

                      You think people don’t mind being vilified as long as the insults and criticism are true?

                      Who cares whether he “minds?” You said he was character assassinated, I’m saying he wasn’t.

                      Sure, it’s possible that Trump is a Bond villain who doesn’t care if he goes down in infamy, but kids don’t want to grow up to be President to be hated.

                      Total strawman. Of course Trump doesn’t intend to be hated. Of course he probably thinks he cares about his country, just like I have students who think they care about their grade, but who obviously care about other things more. Trump cares about himself more than the good of our country; I don’t see how that isn’t obvious to you. Your bias is toward giving good will to the president elect even though he has already shown himself to be unworthy of good will, because you don’t want to believe he could possibly be as bad as he has already told us he will be.

                    • Ugh. Trump did not run for President to make money. What an absurd idea. He’s already a billionaire! He ran because he’s a narcissist, and that’s the whole of it. Since Reagan, it has been clear than anyone who becomes President will get rich. Did Bill Clinton run to get rich? That would make more sense, since he wasn’t rich already. Trump running was a bad gamble—he could lose money, and was nt sure to make any. He’s already rich!

                      Seriously: that interview? Trump says stuff. Why is this so hard to process? He mused about dating his daughter!

                      Your whole over-heated, phobic, terror-infused view of the man is just bad will bias, so you fall for every crazy super-villain theory and it sounds plausible to you. He’s just a spoiled, pampered, rich, none-too-bright, street smart guy with some savvy and an over-inflated view of himself who wants to step up to being a great historical figure who serves his country, because that’s how he, and most citizens, were brought up to want to be in their dreams. He doesn’t have the temperament or ability or character for the job, and but he’s non-ideological, and has some management skills. I doubt he will be able to do the job, but assuming he doesn’t want to do well at in the eyes of the public is really unwarranted, unjustified, and unfair.

                    • Chris

                      Ugh. Trump did not run for President to make money. What an absurd idea. He’s already a billionaire!

                      This is a silly argument. You know as well as I do that some billionaires, driven by greed, do crazy things to get more money.

                      He ran because he’s a narcissist, and that’s the whole of it.

                      So, wait. He ran because he’s a narcissist, but it’s impossible to believe he puts himself over his country? That doesn’t make any sense. That’s exactly what a narcissist would do.

                      Trump running was a bad gamble—he could lose money, and was nt sure to make any.

                      Trump is known for making bad gambles.

                      He’s already rich!

                      Silly.

                      Seriously: that interview? Trump says stuff. Why is this so hard to process? He mused about dating his daughter!

                      Several times. You’re really saying there’s nothing at the root there?

                      Your whole over-heated, phobic, terror-infused view of the man is just bad will bias, so you fall for every crazy super-villain theory and it sounds plausible to you.

                      I have not made him out to be a supervillain. You’re arguing with a strawman.

                      He’s just a spoiled, pampered, rich, none-too-bright, street smart guy with some savvy and an over-inflated view of himself who wants to step up to being a great historical figure who serves his country, because that’s how he, and most citizens, were brought up to want to be in their dreams. He doesn’t have the temperament or ability or character for the job, and but he’s non-ideological, and has some management skills. I doubt he will be able to do the job, but assuming he doesn’t want to do well at in the eyes of the public is really unwarranted, unjustified, and unfair.

                      I never “assumed he doesn’t want to do well!” You’re making that up. I’m sure he does want to do well. My claim that you disputed was that Trump is unable to put the country above himself. You have not materially challenged that point in any way.

                • Spartan,
                  It seems to me like you’re jumping from one Liberal Hive Mind statement to another; although, you haven’t mentioned Hitler or fascism yet.

              • Chris

                You’re wrong, Jack. Trump has said he will not be receiving daily briefings, as every other president has, because “I’m, like, a smart person.” He has shown no interest in learning basic facts about diplomatic relations, our economy (he once said real unemployment may be 43%), or any other issue affecting our country. He threw the CIA under the bus to appease Russia. A person interested in the welfare of our nation would not behave this way.

                • Slick Willy

                  Fake news, already debunked on this blog. Chris, you should did a little deeper and understand that the MSM is lying to you…

                  • crella

                    Do you remember which post it was? I have searched and can’t find it. FB is awash in ” Our overlord is here, he doesn’t need intelligence briefings, what has our country done!?” panic, I could use a reliable source…

                  • Chris

                    Fake news, already debunked on this blog. Chris, you should did a little deeper and understand that the MSM is lying to you…

                    What is fake news? That Russia hacked Democrats for the express purpose of getting Trump elected? That was stated by the CIA, not by the MSM. That Trump was briefed on this and then denied it? That’s true as well. Trump continues to add fuel to the fire by adding more and more pro-Putin cabinet members. So what exactly do you think has been debunked?

                  • crella

                    Thank you, Slick Willy.

                • Bias and unwaranted supposition.Obama also skipped many of his daily briefings, because he thought HE was smart.(They are both narcissists, after all.) We don’t know how many daily briefings past Presidents got. Trump may be wrong, stupid, misguided, but assuming he isn’t having daily briefings because he doesn’t care whether he does a good job or not is bias. He skipped debate preps too. Was that because he didn’t care whether he won or not? It’s like arguing Robert E. Lee split his forces at Chancellorsville because he wanted to lose. Trump does things his way, and it’s worked pretty well for him. He assumes it will work out well for the country too.

                  • Chris

                    There is absolutely no evidence that Obama “skipped” his daily briefings.

                    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/is-president-obama-skipping-intelligence-briefings/

                    Thanks for once again showing that mere accusations against other politicians are on equal footing with Trump’s own statements about what he does and will do.

                    Trump may be wrong, stupid, misguided, but assuming he isn’t having daily briefings because he doesn’t care whether he does a good job or not is bias.

                    I’m a teacher, Jack. I have a lot of students who claim to care about doing well in my class, but who don’t do their homework, don’t ask for their missing work, and don’t make the time to put in a good job. I am sure Trump thinks he cares whether or not he does a good job. But actions speak louder than words. You are asking for Trump to be held to a ridiculously low standard. Trump’s actions clearly speak to a man more obsessed with his image and his lifestyle than he is concerned with the well-being of our country.

            • Spartan said, “How many emergency supplies do you have? 1 month? 1 year? 5 years? Do you have a private well? How do you get your power? Do you have enough land to farm for your family? How about protecting those crops? Will you have a private army patrol at night while you sleep? Do you have enough money to pay for that private army.”

              I’d like to address this pile of sarcastic nonsense.

              Spartan,
              There are great benefits to being reasonably prepared for short term events that are beyond our control; things like a tornado, hurricane, ice storm, blizzard, wildfire, sand storm, floods, mud slides or avalanches blocking roads, and yes even localized civil disorder, etc; all of these things could directly or indirectly affect things like water supply, electrical power, availability of gasoline, and even emergency services, on a relatively temporary basis. It’s these kinds of things that we can and should reasonably prepare for; just because you have a grocery store within a mile of your home doesn’t ensure that that grocery store will have stocked shelves during emergency circumstances.

              Personally, my target for home emergency supplies is no less than 2 weeks and no more than 4 weeks; that’s actually not a lot when you get right down to it and it’s pretty easy to stock up that over a couple of months without breaking the budget. I also live an area that can get some bad winter storms and I have supplies to help sustain life in for a couple of people in a vehicle for a couple of days in case of being stranded, I learned a hard lesson with that one traveling across North Dakota during a blizzard in February a long time ago.

              I’m not building a bunker, I don’t have to hire a Army to protect what I have, and I’m willing to help others in time of need.

            • Slick Willy

              Dear Spartan,

              How many weeks of supplies, water, and contingency plans are none of your business… and telling you I have them AT ALL broke our family rule, which I now regret.

              The point I was commenting on was that it is always good to have a backup plan. I did not state I was prepping for the Zombie Apocalypse. You took a minor comment and chose to focus it into something it was not.

              However, people survived for millennia without government help. It sucked compared with today, but it is possible. Those of us who grew up rural and live in rural states know this. I understand that most urban dwellers have less than two weeks of food in their homes at any one time, and little to no water. (I hope you are not one of those, as buying a few extra cans of beans each week can add up over time. Buy sodas in two liter bottles, and save some water under the sink in them instead of throwing them away.) We hunt, and eat everything we kill. We garden, and know what grows wild and in what season. Could you eat Bull Nettles and clover safely? We can.

              As far as the real comment that got under your skin, would you like some cheese to go with that whine? What do you call the behavior of the left these past 8 years? Throw a fit (or riot) every time things don’t go your way, from Obama on down. Childish, immature, and self centered are all hallmarks of the left these days. Not saying the right doesn’t act that way (people are people) but the left uses it as a tactic. Remember the evangelical riots when Obama beat Romney? Me neither.

              Your lefties are mistaking calm maturity with weakness, I fear.

              I am most disappointed with your lack of comment about what socialists do to journalists, though. I hope and pray that my formerly conservative friends have not learned that lesson, as they have learned so many others from the left these past few years. They intend to do unto others as they have been done unto, and that is what we should be standing against.

              • Spartan

                I grew up in a rural area too — a farm to be exact. And I have relatives who do prepare for the zombie hordes — or the government hordes — well, I know there are hordes involved at least.

                I was obviously being flippant.

          • Slick Willy said, “Sorry if I come off as harsh..”

            Not nearly as harsh as I usually come off as. 🙂

            I’m frustrated too.

            I’m to the point that I simply don’t trust the illogical political hacks out there that rationalize their violence using the ends justify the means when both the ends and the means are illogical, unethical, immoral etc, etc.. Some of these people seriously think that just because they have the right to do and say something that it automatically makes what they do and say right.

            I’ve vented a little today too.

      • I fully expect that if Trump is elected by the electoral college (as he should be) then the first group of violent rioters will come from the ranks of the 4.84 million idiots that signed the petition at change.org.

        https://www.change.org/p/electoral-college-make-hillary-clinton-president-on-december-19-4a78160a-023c-4ff0-9069-53cee2a095a8

        I’m sad to say I personally know some of the signers and some of them are actually stupid enough to and believe that riots would be an appropriate response.

  3. Getting 270 electors to vote for Ted Cruz is a lot more likely than convincing 38 Republican electors to vote for Hillary Clinton.

  4. Steve-O-in-NJ

    “When did Democrats start adopting the philosophy that democratic processes are only valid when they produce results Democrats want?”

    Probably the first time the process failed to give them what they wanted. Definitely 16 years ago, when Gore won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote, although talk of abolition of the electoral college faded after GWB’s inauguration and died out altogether after 9/11. It was never revived because the media would have us all believe that we were now dealing with a younger, browner, blacker, gayer, less religious electorate, and a permanent Democratic majority was just around the corner anyway. Suddenly it turns out that us older, whiter, straighter, more religious folks still have some life left in us, and that story now lies in pieces, much to the Democrat’s surprise, and to a lot of us on the GOP side too.

    What you’re seeing now is the dirty secret of the left exposed: they are interested in power and control before they are interested in anything else, and they thought they had built a foolproof coalition and methodology to maintain it, based in part on resentment and claims of unfairness. Now that it failed to work, they are defaulting to resentment and unfairness in the hopes it will still give them what they want, or, at least, lay the foundations for them to get it in 2020.

    • I think back to the SDS on my campus taking a vote in the Yard about whether they should take over the administration building. They lost the votes, waited for the crowd to disperse, then 12 of them took over the building anyway.

      • Other Bill

        Now there’s a gem of a story. Made my day. Anybody we’d know among that dirty dozen? Howard Dean? Larry Summers? Robert RRRrrreich? Can’t imagine Al Gore ever made a decision.

    • Spartan

      I agree with your statement except for the line, “What you’re seeing now is the dirty secret of the left exposed: they are interested in power and control before they are interested in anything else.”

      I don’t think power is the right word. We’re not that sinister. I think the worst light you could cast it in is a “nanny state.” But the liberals who stridently believe in this really do think they are doing it for the greater good — whether or not they are wrong ideologically.

      • Junkmailfolder

        “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”

        CS Lewis

  5. “In the election just completed, Clinton won the Golden, Bankrupt, Illegal Immigrant-Enabling State by almost 4 million votes, while Trump beat Clinton in the other 49 states and the District of Columbia. That’s why we have the Electoral College, and a more brilliant device the Founders never devised.”

    Huh?

    If this is supposed to be a hypothetical it doesn’t read that way.

    • It’s not. The current popular vote Clinton: 65,746,532, Trump: 62,904,649, for a Clinton edge of 2, 841, 883.

      The California popular vote: Clinton: 8,753, 788; Trump: 4,483,810, That’s a margin of 4, 269, 978.

      Without Califirnia, Trump’s popular vote in the other 49 states and DC was 1,428, 095.

      “In the election just completed, Clinton won the Golden, Bankrupt, Illegal Immigrant-Enabling State by almost 4 million votes, while Trump beat Clinton in the other 49 states and the District of Columbia.”

      Not hypothetical. True. Has anyone pointed this out?

      • Ah. My mistake. I was reading it like you intended to say that Trump won all the other states electorally.

      • Maybe there should be a recount in California to determine if there was election fraud in that state.

        😉

        • Slick Willy

          Nah, I believe those numbers. It IS Cali, after all! 🙂

        • valkygrrl

          It’s a little late to call for an offiical recount but if you with to audit the results, then so long as you pay for it, I will support you in your endeavor.

          • valkygrrl said, “It’s a little late to call for an official recount but if you want to audit the results, then so long as you pay for it, I will support you in your endeavor.”

            Did you really not get that that was supposed to be a sarcastic joke related to the Presidential election recounts even after I included a humorous Dr. Evil photo AND a winking smiley face?

      • Other Bill

        That is mind boggling. 4.2 million margin in California. No, I don’t think anyone has focused on that. Thanks. You need a bigger pulpit. You need a soap box at least at big as Victor Davis Hanson’s or Glen Harlan Reynolds. Maybe you need to use your middle name?

      • Spartan

        Liberals are pointing it out. That’s why there is all this silly talk about California secession right now.

        For the record though, I do believe (and have always believed) that the Electoral College is BS. And I believed that when I lived in a red(ish) state as well. It encourages people not to vote because there vote could be meaningless unless they are in the majority. The politicians know this — that’s why the purple states are the ones on which they concentrate.

        • “It encourages people not to vote because there vote could be meaningless unless they are in the majority.”

          What? So you think being part of a minority ideology will discourage voting within the states….

          But then you think that the effect won’t occur if the Electoral College is abolished and a vote is taken at the national level…where there will still be a minority ideology?

          That minority will suddenly not be discouraged in the same way you think they are at the state level?

          Whaaaaaaaaa?

        • “For the record though, I do believe (and have always believed) that the Electoral College is BS.”

          Aka you think federalism is BS. Aka you have no clue why the government was designed as it was and what *healthy* political philosophy drove it. And that philosophy was not oneangled towards the collectivist unitary systems of the old world.

          • Spartan

            Well, my history degree (with high honors), political science minor, and law degree say otherwise. Sorry to appeal to authority, but the vast majority of Americans know less about our history than me. At a minimum, I certainly have a “clue.”

            And I do not think federalism is BS, but I think the libertarian extremist view of it (which has become popular over the last decade) is.

            Not signing on to every single idea that the Framers had does not mean that I do not understand history. You’re better than that Tex.

      • Isaac

        Exactly why I voted for the insane Trump and will have no regrets. Only Hillary votes meant anything in Cali anyway. Voting for Trump is the same as leaving the ballot blank (but more fun.)

  6. A.M. Golden

    “When did Democrats start adopting the philosophy that democratic processes are only valid when they produce results Democrats want?”

    The same time they suddenly decided to become fans of Alexander Hamilton.

  7. valkygrrl

    The Electoral College was designed to prevent big states in a federal system from dictating to the other states, which might not share their culture or sensitivities.

    That’s a funny way of saying that slavers demanded power disproportionate to their numbers, and would have let everything burn if not given their way.

    • Et tu Valky?

      Talk about one of the ultimate grasping for straws arguments.

      • valkygrrl

        I don’t need to grasp at straws to dislike the idea of a vote in another state counting more than my vote for president.

        You come from a populous state too, do you like that presidential candidates don’t visit unless it’s to fundraise? Do you like knowing that the people of Iowa matter more than you? That if your issues get addressed, it’s because you’re lucky enough to care about something that people in swing states care about?

        • My vote does count pretty much as equally as someone in Iowa’s. other than subtle population changes between censuses…(censi?)… we have roughly the same number of votes per Representative in the House. Since you are coaching your beef in legislative terms….

          Oh you were talking about the Executive branch.

          Well, since the president isn’t a big brother legislator, I’m fine that my vote *for President* is balanced in a rational system designed to keep my culture from dominating other cultures. If places like Connecticut and New York want to maintain their backwards left wing ways, then who am I to demand an executive to force my views?

          I’m fine that I need to gear my selection of President towards who is the *better and more ethical LEADER* and not who is more legislatively oriented to my worldview.

          I just wish Left wingers would start viewing elections the way the system meant for them to…

        • And to be clear, you didn’t say that. You DID appeal to the false assertion that the Electoral College was designed to protect slavery.

          I wonder, from here on out should we anticipate that when Left wingers don’t like a particular part of the constitution that they will assert it was only designed to protect slavery?

          • valkygrrl

            I didn’t say to protect slavery, I said to give disproportionate power to slavers.

            That the slavers would choose to protect slavery was unfortunate. That the 3/5’th clause incentivized slaving as a way for a state to gain more power is unfortunate. That it gave the slave states enough extra power to maintain their slaving ways is unfortunate. But what really sucks is that 2 and a quarter centuries later, we’re living with the consequences of deals made to placate slavers.

        • Isaac

          Your populous state has a vastly disproportionate influence in the legislative branch which is where, you know, laws are made. And without the Electoral College, the interests of states like Montana and Wyoming (places that have jack-all to do with slavery), would amount to nothing at all, as opposed to almost nothing at all, which is how much they matter with the current system. It’s actually a very smart system, if you aren’t already inclined to whine about the things that don’t personally favor you.

          • valkygrrl

            My populous state has less influence on a per person basis than Wyoming. The entire state of Wyoming has a smaller population than my congressional district.

    • You really should check your facts before saying stuff like that. Here’s the estimated populations in 1788

      Virginia
      420,000

      Massachussetts
      360,000

      Pennsylvania
      360,000

      New York
      233,000

      Maryland
      218,000

      Connecticut
      202,000

      North Carolina
      200,000

      South Carolina
      150,000

      New Jersey
      138,000

      New Hampshire
      102,000

      Georgia
      90 ,000

      Rhode Island
      58,000

      Delaware
      37,000

      Two out of the top three largest states had a lot of slaves. In fact, all of the states did, except Massachusetts. That argument just doesn’t fly. At all.

      • Slick Willy

        You said it better than I did in my post below, Jack

      • valkygrrl

        You’re joking right? The 3/5’th clause ring any bells?

        Your numbers are good for the free states but you left out the slaves who by their presence granted more electoral power. The 1790 census* says

        Virginia
        747,610

        Of which 292,627 were slaves. 454,983 free persons is close to your number, but those 455k had the voting power of 630,559 (454,983 + (292,627*0.6)) people. I’d call that slavers having power disproportionate to their numbers.

        You can go down the line and do the math for the Carolinas as well if you’d like.

        *http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1790m.zip second pdf in the zip, page 6

        • Cute math. Fails to bolster the assertion that the Electoral College was designed to beef up slave state power in Presidential Elections.

          • valkygrrl

            even at 3/5’ths those slaves boosted Virginia’s population for electoral purposes by 38%. How does that not beef-up slave state power?

            • Bzzzzzt. The meme being pushed is that the Electoral College was *designed* to beef up slave state power during presidential elections. This is false.

              • valkygrrl

                The system, as designed, granted more power, per potential voter, in states with high slave populations. More slaves meant more electoral votes, per potential voter, in states with high slave populations.

                Slavers were granted power disproportionate to their numbers.

                • I’m dying to see you simultaneously argue that it was racist for the Framers to count slaves as 3/5 of a citizen, and racist for the electoral system to count them as even that much. The former was done to curtail slave state power,m Congress as well as in the EC, but that deal is constantly cited as proof the Framers were racists. If we regard slaves as human beings, then slave states were unfairly gypped in the EC.

                  • Chris

                    I’m dying to see you simultaneously argue that it was racist for the Framers to count slaves as 3/5 of a citizen, and racist for the electoral system to count them as even that much.

                    You say this as if they were counted as 3/5 of a citizen as some kind of favor to the slaves! The purpose of counting slaves as 3/5 of a citizen was to increases the power of their oppressors. Since slaves could not vote or exercise any of the other rights of a citizen, it was absolute bullshit to count them as 3/5 of a citizen when deciding how many electors would be apportioned to the Southern states. So, yes, it was racist for the Framers to count slaves as 3/5 of a citizen, and racist for the electoral system to count them as even that much when they had no rights of citizens, and the only reason they were counted as all was to increase the power of slaveholders.

                    The former was done to curtail slave state power,m Congress as well as in the EC, but that deal is constantly cited as proof the Framers were racists.

                    I didn’t know there were people who cited this as proof that the Framers were racist. Because I didn’t know that people ever asked for proof that the Framers were racist. Is this a thing people argue about?

                    • “The purpose of counting slaves as 3/5 of a citizen was to increases the power of their oppressors.”

                      Wait, did you say you were a teacher? Because this is pure bull shit, and backwards. No wonder you’re warped. Since the Southern states wanted full credit for slaves, and the Slavery-opposing states wanted no representation for them at all to keep slavery in check, the 3/5 compromise 1)made the various efforts to keep slavery in check possible, 2) Prevented the South from seceding earlier and 3) allowed the Constitution to be passed, so we didn’t end up with 13 little countries. It also made the next compromise possible, the crucial one in 1790.

                      The 3/5 compromise prevented slave states from dominating the government. Thank God you weren’t on in the Congress then, or we’dbe speaking German today.

                    • Chris

                      We’re talking past each other. I am not saying the 3/5 Compromise wasn’t ultimately the best option or that it shouldn’t have been done. It was the best of a number of bad options. That’s why it’s called a Compromise, not “That Awesome Thing Everyone Likes.”

                      If the law had been fair, slaves would not have counted toward the South’s representation at all, since they were not citizens and had no rights. That the Southerners were not interested in fairness was unfortunate, but obvious. Had they simply counted only free men for the purposes of representation, they would have had less electors, and that would have been fair. The 3/5 Compromise was racist, and it was also necessary. You see “racism” as a dirty word meant to condemn, rather than as a description of reality, so you see a contradiction here where none exist.

        • No, the point is that virtually ALL the states included slaves, even New York. In any event, what’s your point? If the Electoral College is BAD, and really to help BAD states, why are Democrats appealing for a BAD device to be used to cheat in an election, and citing a Federalist paper that cites a different rational? If it was designed for the allegedly GOOD reason of being a safety mechanism, why are you attributing it to slavery>

          • valkygrrl

            I do not understand your question.

            Yes it is BAD, it’s also what we have, warts and all.

            There is nothing hypocritical about disliking a system or wanting to change a system, and looking for ways within that system to meet your goals.

            Are you accusing me of claiming the system was designed for the good reason of a safety check? I don’t recall saying that. All I ever said that electors we’re trapped in a situation of having to do the wrong thing no matter what. That’s not a safety check, that’s the situation as it exists right now. Vote for Trump and find a way to live with what you’ve done (assuming any of us are left alive in 4 years) or become an oathbreaker.*

            *Some of us still take that sort of thing seriously.

            • “There is nothing hypocritical about disliking a system or wanting to change a system, and looking for ways within that system to meet your goals.”

              What? That’s like saying “I hate murder, but I’ll use it to advance my goal of killing people.” You hate it because you think it’s undemocratic, then you advocate using it to defeat democracy in a different way that what was intended, claiming that it was intended.. That’s not only hypocritical, it’s dishonest beyond belief.

              They aren’t caught at all. They agreed to do a job as the job was and is defined. It is right to do that, and wrong to do anything else.

              • valkygrrl

                1: In your hypothetical, murder would be the only game in town. Gain power through Klingon promotion or have no political power at all. The only way to end the practice would be to become chancellor of the high consul over a pile of bodies.

                But you’d be in a position to stop the murders.

                2: What exactly are you accusing me of advocating? You don’t get to just pick anything any democrat has ever said and attribute it to me.

                It’s not hypocritical to want popular vote elections and also to want electors to choose the popular vote winner. Not wanting electors doesn’t change that they exist, that there is no alternative to using them until and unless the system is changed.

                • Huh? Electors DO choose the popular vote winner, because we have these self-governing, culturally distinct things called “States.” Did you not read the California vs. National stats? If every citizen of California voted for Hillary, 17 million to zero, and the rest of the country voted for Trump in a landslide, by 16 million votes, do you really think it would make sense to say all of those states be counted for Hillary>

                  Oh, you probably would…

                  • Jack,
                    You’ve really got to stop using anything resembling logic with people like valkygrrl that think with Liberal Magical Thinking, it confuses them when it doesn’t fit into their world view.

                  • Chris

                    You hate it because you think it’s undemocratic, then you advocate using it to defeat democracy in a different way that what was intended, claiming that it was intended..

                    To echo valkygrrl, there is nothing hypocritical about wanting to get rid of the electoral college because one favors a popular vote, and also wanting the current electoral college to pick the winner of the popular vote.

                    Electors DO choose the popular vote winner, because we have these self-governing, culturally distinct things called “States.”

                    OK, I see the problem: you don’t actually know what the “popular vote” means. It does not mean the winner of a majority of states. It means the winner of a majority of citizens, period.

                    • Don’t be snotty to me. Each state has its own popular vote, and doesn’t care one bit what the other vote totals are, nor should they. The Presidential election is about who wins the state totals. The national popular vote has no function at all.

                      YOU don’t know what hypocrisy means. “I hate the Electoral vote because it defeats the will of the people, but I want to use it to defy the voters’ decree in the states.” Hypocrisy. You want to use it to do what you claim to hate.

                    • Chris

                      Don’t be snotty to me. Each state has its own popular vote, and doesn’t care one bit what the other vote totals are, nor should they. The Presidential election is about who wins the state totals. The national popular vote has no function at all.

                      And yet when people refer to “the popular vote,” they are referring to the national popular vote. You know this. Question: who won the popular vote in 2000? Based on what you’re saying right now, George W. Bush did.

                      I’m sorry for being snobby. You’re being obtuse.

                      YOU don’t know what hypocrisy means. “I hate the Electoral vote because it defeats the will of the people, but I want to use it to defy the voters’ decree in the states.” Hypocrisy. You want to use it to do what you claim to hate.

                      No. You can’t just add in the phrase “the states” like it matters to us. We are telling you we don’t care about the states. Our position is “I hate the Electoral vote because it defeats the will of the people, and I want to use it to uphold the will of the people at large in the nation.” You may think our position is wrong, but you can only find our position hypocritical when you misrepresent it.

                    • HA! It doesn’t matter that YOU don’t care, the totalitarian “we” who want to ignore the rules so you can win despite losing The Constitution doesn’t care and the system doesn’t care about the national popular vote, and neither do electors. Too damn bad that you don’t care. That’s the system, it ain’t changing, it works, it makes sense, and you can assemble all of the bitching, rationalizations and tortured history you like: What this is called is cheating and arrogance. It’s 50 states and the District, not one big homogeneous country. and good.

                    • Snotty, not snobby. You are never snobby.

                    • Chris

                      “HA! It doesn’t matter that YOU don’t care”

                      It matters to the point about your accusations of hypocrisy.

                    • In this election, no one won a majority of the popular vote. If the popular vote were to replace the Electoral College, then the House would decide the election if no candidate gets a majority of the popular vote- just as the House decided if no candidate gets a majority of the electoral vote.

                    • Nope. Don’t you get it?

                      In “We hate Federalism and a deliberative system land, i.e. We-hate-the Constitution-land” it doesn’t work that way! Odds are, if pushed, these guys would probably throw the government to whoever gets a plurality.

                    • Spartan

                      Give me a P, give me an A, give me an R, give me an L, give me an I … okay, bored now.

        • The Electoral College was a direct consequence of the Great Compromise that made it possible for the constitution to be agreed upon in the first place (i.e. proportional representation in one chamber and fixed representation in the other).

          Virginia was absolutely one of the big states whose power in the federal government was being curtailed, along with Massachusetts and Pennsylvania. It was a big state versus small state dispute from the outset, and was one of the biggest stumbling blocks in crafting the constitution. The delegates returned to this discussion again and again throughout that summer, even up to the very last moment of referring the constitution to the drafting committee for its final, written form.

    • Slick Willy

      Oh for Gawd’s sake! It was not about RACE, Valky! And untrue as well… population growth in the South was well behind the North at that time

      • Slick Willy

        *Ahem…

        I was supported by Zoltar up the page in this blog, and I appreciate his(her?) support. “So what if Slick Willy likes Trump, so what if Slick Willy thinks that having Trump in office is a good thing, so what Spartan, none of that suggest that Slick Willy wanted immature child-like people in those positions…

        Let me set the record straight, though. I do not like Trump, nor am I celebrating his election, except in that another Clinton is not on the way to the White House (I use the Slick Willy screen name in honor of the Teflon President from the ’90s, after all) Our choices were terrible this time.

        Trump is my president. Not because I supported or chose him (I did not) but because he won. He is picking an administration to represent the views that won him that election. I have no problem with that. To quote Obama, “elections have consequences”

        • Slick Willy,
          Just so you know; I made those statements to make a point blasting her non-logic not to suggest that you are actually a Trump supporter. Spartan is the one that thinks/thought you were a Trump supporter (“celebrating his victory”) and using her perception of you to bust her own non-logical follow about grown-ups was the right thing to do.

          P.S. I am a “him”. 🙂

  8. Randy

    In the election just completed, Clinton won the Golden, Bankrupt, Illegal Immigrant-Enabling State by almost 4 million votes, while Trump beat Clinton in the other 49 states and the District of Columbia.

    This strikes me as an odd line of argument. While it is true that if we subtract California from the equation, then Trump wins the popular vote, is it not also true that if we subtract *any* other state from the equation, then Trump loses the popular vote?

    The state of California represents Clinton’s best showing, and it represents Trump’s third-best showing. That’s because more U.S. citizens have chosen to live in California than in any other state, by a very wide margin. More U.S. citizens voted in California than in any other state, as you’re no doubt aware.

    The electoral college can be defended without resorting to unethical logical fallacies. The implication that California citizens’ votes ought to count less because of anti-California regional prejudice is beneath you.

  9. Slick Willy

    Randy,

    I beg your pardon, but “More U.S. citizens voted in California than in any other state…”

    More non U.S. citizens voted in California than in any other state as well

    Just sayin’

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s