Oh well that's what comes of not reading with care - he was due to go in January anyway still his impending absence from a policy position where he has done damage to his country and its allies is good news.
Col, Being the optimist that I occasionally am (or maybe SciFi fan), I wonder if some cell of wisdom in the Trump transition team requested your perspective on "what the heck do we do NOW?!". I realize it's a long shot, but long shots can happen. In any event enjoy the unseasonably warm Fall - it makes for nice hikes and contemplation of the important rather than the immediate. All the best, & Cheers.
Happy Thanksgiving (to all) and all the best to you and yours during your time off, Col. Lang. Though I do admit I'm hoping you are being consulted on the changes to the national security apparatus.
All
A burr under my saddle has been the attempted argument made by someone, I forget who it was that an agreement among states who control 271 electoral college votes could be used to overcome the mechanism of the electoral college itself. The idea being that these states would oblige their electors by law to vote for the winner in the national popular vote. This is interesting for a number of reasons. One is that the national popular vote has no legal status in national law. if you consult the Constitution of the United States you will find that the electoral college process is described in detail in Article 2. IOW there was never a time since 1789 when we had anything other than the electoral college system. Secondly the "plan" would probably require the electors of states that the winner in the national popular vote had not carried to vote for the national popular vote winner. In this election HC did not win in Texas. Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin. Does anyone think that Texans could be forced to vote for her merely because she won a national beauty contest? pl
As we say, "may your mouth have butter and sugar". May your words prove true.
Posted by: LG | 17 November 2016 at 06:37 AM
Colonel, As you take your break perhaps you have time to raise a celebratory glass or two James Clapper resigns as US director of national intelligence
Posted by: Dubhaltach | 17 November 2016 at 12:03 PM
Oh well that's what comes of not reading with care - he was due to go in January anyway still his impending absence from a policy position where he has done damage to his country and its allies is good news.
Posted by: Dubhaltach | 17 November 2016 at 12:06 PM
Col, Being the optimist that I occasionally am (or maybe SciFi fan), I wonder if some cell of wisdom in the Trump transition team requested your perspective on "what the heck do we do NOW?!". I realize it's a long shot, but long shots can happen. In any event enjoy the unseasonably warm Fall - it makes for nice hikes and contemplation of the important rather than the immediate. All the best, & Cheers.
Posted by: ked | 17 November 2016 at 01:14 PM
You're taking time off at the same time there is an opening at the DIA. Hmmmm
Posted by: eakens | 17 November 2016 at 01:45 PM
Happy Thanksgiving (to all) and all the best to you and yours during your time off, Col. Lang. Though I do admit I'm hoping you are being consulted on the changes to the national security apparatus.
Posted by: gemini33 | 17 November 2016 at 06:21 PM
Sir,
Enjoy your holiday.
David
Posted by: David | 17 November 2016 at 08:37 PM
All
A burr under my saddle has been the attempted argument made by someone, I forget who it was that an agreement among states who control 271 electoral college votes could be used to overcome the mechanism of the electoral college itself. The idea being that these states would oblige their electors by law to vote for the winner in the national popular vote. This is interesting for a number of reasons. One is that the national popular vote has no legal status in national law. if you consult the Constitution of the United States you will find that the electoral college process is described in detail in Article 2. IOW there was never a time since 1789 when we had anything other than the electoral college system. Secondly the "plan" would probably require the electors of states that the winner in the national popular vote had not carried to vote for the national popular vote winner. In this election HC did not win in Texas. Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin. Does anyone think that Texans could be forced to vote for her merely because she won a national beauty contest? pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 18 November 2016 at 08:53 AM