1 hour ago, stevenl said:

And who is someone please?

Sent from my ROBBY using Thaivisa Connect mobile app
 

Here, do a bit of reading, you might learn something.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_racism

4 hours ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

 

Reverse racism does not exist except in the minds of the supremacists who cannot deal with any challenge to their perceived superiority.

Says who?  Here's the actual definition.

"Reverse racism is a phenomenon in which discrimination, sometimes officially sanctioned, against a dominant or formerly dominant racial or other group representative of the majority in a particular society takes place, for a variety of reasons, often initially as an attempt at redressing past wrongs."

Someone has gone to a lot of trouble in defining something you alleged does not exist.

36 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Two points.

Electoral college electors have the right to change their votes.

Electors are not delegates. You're thinking of party conventions. 
It's happened before and at least ONE will change them this time. (One elector said he would even before the election.)

That's already known.

Of course it won't be enough to change the president. Possibly could happen if there was a only a margin of few electoral college electors, but that's not the current situation.

 

 

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/electors.html#restrictions

________________

"Are there restrictions on who the Electors can vote for?"

There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their states. Some states, however, require Electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—Electors bound by state law and those bound by pledges to political parties.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that Electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees. Some state laws provide that so-called "faithless Electors" may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No Elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.

Today, it is rare for Electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their party's candidate. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of Electors have voted as pledged."

__________________

 

 

As far as Russian "tampering" in the election, that implies some kind of technical rigging such as taking over counting computers. That didn't happen. However, the Russians were working to INFLUENCE the election to trump.

Thanks for the correction, maybe you should do the same for the  post preceding mine, that's what I was running off.  Yes, I am aware of the article you cut and pasted but thanks anyway for taking the time to do so.  As for the Russians trying to influence the election, no one has presented any actual evidence, at least not that I can find, if you have direct factual evidence, then please let me know.

I have heard many people state this but it they had any factual evidence, I think it would be all over the MSM, yet it isn't.  I wonder why?   I have heard CNN going on about it all the time but they all ways precede their report with the usual disclaimer, "we have not been able to confirm this"  then they proceed to report it as if it was fact. 

3 hours ago, Mr0Yallow said:

This election we were offered the 2 worst candidates in history, TrumpaLumpa has zero government experience, he has already made a number of mistakes his choices for cabinet posts are terrible. Hillary won the popular vote at last count by 1.2 million votes. That's  more than Gore. The formal electoral vote is not until December 9 or19, the delegates can still change their votes. I also read that the chief of the NSA stated there is evidence of foreign tampering with the vote, (Russia).

And your choices would be or better still what is your experience in order to make such comments? Yes, yes, we know she got more votes, take away the dead, illegals and multiple voters, then did she?  If you think the delegates can change their votes with out the matter ending up in front of congress and then the supreme court, you are just wishful thinking, it won't happen no matter how much you dream.  And if you believe that anyone has evidence of vote tampering by the Russians then I suggest you look out your window and count how many of these you seeing fly past.

6 minutes ago, Publicus said:

 

Another glib and mundane 'look in the mirror' post.

 

Waiting now for the 'if the shoe was on the other foot' and others like it from the banal right wing. 

I hope the rest of your day is as pleasant as you are. 

24 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

 

        I know a German man who doesn't sleep - or not more than about 80 minutes at a time.  He lives in a tiny apartment and is clinically depressed.   Pointing at a man who doesn't sleep as a model for being a good executive is nutty.  

 

        I admit, he's known for tweeting at 3 or 4 am.  He did one where he recommended American people look at a sex video that doesn't exist, in his campaign to fat-shame a young woman.  I don't so much hate Trump, as I'm spooked by the harm he will do to the US and the natural environment.  

 

          Another way to look at it:  all empires have their fall.  The Tartars fell from power, The Romans fell, Napolean fell.  The Third Reich only lasted a few years.  The US will fall also.   Trump will be an  unwitting driving force in America's demise as a respected world power.  The US probably won't devolve to a so-so force in the world, like Argentina, ....but without its influence, the world will change for the worse:  Iran and several other countries (Saudis, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, etc) will become armed with nukes.  China will get more aggressive in commandeering other countries' territories, Russia will force former Soviet states to come under its control,   Migrations will explode,   and so on and on.  

Are you able to look your at yourself in a mirror, right in the eyes, and honestly say that you believe what you have written?  He's not even sworn in yet and you are quoting doomsday already. Don't you think that his administration team, the congress and senate have inbuilt safeguards to prevent your doomsday predictions?

Yes, the world is going to change, for the better I believe but it will take time.  As for your other predictions you really don't have any idea do you , as do any of us, so please stop the scaremongering, stick to what you know, which appears to be very little.  Migration has already exploded, or where have you been for the past few years and it was the policies and actions of the Obama Administration, ably assisted by his partner in crime, HRC that caused it.     

1 hour ago, Boon Mee said:

1 hour ago, Boon Mee said:

Of course the US elected the best person.  Here's a list of foreign leaders Trump has spoken so far and he hasn't bowed down to one of them yet!  

 

Here's A List Of World Leaders President Elect Trump Has Spoken To So Far

Donald Trump had his first face-to-face meeting with a foreign head of state on Thursday. Prime Minister of Japan Shinzo Abe stopped by Trump Tower for an "unofficial" meeting with the President Elect and said that the two had a "very candid discussion" and that he believed that the US and Japan would be able to continue "a relationship of trust."

http://www.hannity.com/articles/election-493995/heres-a-list-of-world-leaders-15316636/

Of course the US elected the best person.  Here's a list of foreign leaders Trump has spoken so far and he hasn't bowed down to one of them yet!  

 

Here's A List Of World Leaders President Elect Trump Has Spoken To So Far

Donald Trump had his first face-to-face meeting with a foreign head of state on Thursday. Prime Minister of Japan Shinzo Abe stopped by Trump Tower for an "unofficial" meeting with the President Elect and said that the two had a "very candid discussion" and that he believed that the US and Japan would be able to continue "a relationship of trust."

http://www.hannity.com/articles/election-493995/heres-a-list-of-world-leaders-15316636/

Watched Political Mann on CNN this morning.  He reported the meeting with the Japanese Prime Minister, Mr Abe ,however, did not show any footage.  His comment on this was.  We didn't show video as Donald Trump banned the American press from attending and this was despite there being video taken by the Japanese press however, we elected not to show this as it could be construed as Propaganda. Can you believe their inane comments.

18 minutes ago, sgtsabai said:

I expect and hope the dust never settles until the fascist and his bigoted, racist, cabal are tarred, feathered and run out of the country on a rail. As shown by the posts lately, the win of fascists over what was supposed to be a democracy has brought the racists and bigots out of the woodwork. I hope the Democrats have had a come to jesus meeting and decided on scorched earth just the Republicans did when a black man was elected to a White House. Then again, the Democrats never did inform the people of why there was a "do nothing" Congress.

You're definitely posting on the right thread.

1 hour ago, Publicus said:

Being plaintiff about it and wailing that the rural folk are being picked on is tired, glib, mundane, banal.

Why don't you really say what you mean. 

On ‎16‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 2:11 PM, LotusBoy said:

What a headline 

 

Story was kinda different from what I thought, but maybe I have lived here too long.............

Your  naughty boy.

34 minutes ago, DriveByTrucker said:

 

.....but still you can't get yourself to write down that you aren't.

 

What I said previously is sufficient, it explains everything.

13 minutes ago, Opl said:

 

svastika is red flag - it has not to be promoted in any circumstances - even by those white supremacists.   

I do condemn these hate slogans - hate speeches coming from Trump's core advisers - such as Bannon.

Even more when these people detain the powers at the highest levels to promote their propaganda.

 

Is your only problem with the swastika.  I've also condemned racism and the way certain people use this motif together with words to denigrate others.  But don't forget how other races preach their own hate speech and direct it at certain groups.  It appears you are only interested in one side of the equation or else you would have acknowledged that some African Americans and other nationalities  are just as guilty of racism as many whites are.  It happens world wide, not only in America.

In so far as the swastika it  comes from the Sanskrit svastika, which means “good fortune” or “well-being." The motif (a hooked cross) appears to have first been used in Neolithic Eurasia and to  this day it is a sacred symbol in Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Odinism.  But given that Hitler selected it and the atrocities performed by him that many only associate with him and not who else uses it in peace and what the actual meaning of it is.

2 minutes ago, DriveByTrucker said:

 

So are you the first who openly proclaim to be racist?

A tongue in cheek comment so don't go and get all excited.

3 hours ago, Opl said:

 

 

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/11/10/racist-graffiti-greets-trump-win-across-usa/93584210/

No one condones this, it just goes to show that there are all types in society.   And have you seen any racism being expressed by any group other than whites.  If you haven't here's a link of African Americans being racists. So not only confined to us whiteys. 

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/202174/top-10-racist-african-americans-matthew-vadum

9 minutes ago, DriveByTrucker said:

Bernie did...

Bernie "WHO?"

2 hours ago, Mansell said:

One wonders how many of you supporters of the sociopath Trump are actually American.....and then how many of you are actual trailer trash......and then how many actually voted....and how many are racists.  The questions resonate. And if you are upset by these questions it probably answers them for us.

Not upset but maybe that was your intention.   Here, I'll take you test and wait for however you respond.  Firstly not American and not required to be, the election of a President, regardless  of nationality affects the population, world wide.  Secondly, I see you didn't use the word white, frightened of being lopped in with the rest of us white racists? This why HRC lost, with people being labelled like this by those up themselves.

How many voted, who knows but enough to give your heroine the boot.  Now given what you have written, in my opinion, is a from of reverse racism, so please before you sling off a others, take a long hard look in the mirror.  

1 hour ago, Publicus said:

 

Let's always keep in mind the rural American white vote increased by 10% this year so that Ma and Pa Kettle made the difference in narrow Trump wins in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennslyvania, to include other states. 

Ma and Pa Kettle pause for a moment away from a continuous viewing of Faux to pose for their Republican Party Official Historic 2016 Election Portrait. The Official Portrait will be placed in a prominent position at the offices of the Republican National Committee in Washington and at Trump Tower in NYC. The happy winners said they were "excited" about the victory of their hero, Potus-Elect Donald Trump.

 

"I like to say we have many children everywhere," Ma said when asked of their decisive impact on the election. "Some of 'em have gone abroad but they keep the flame burning bright," added Pa Kettle.

 

We are fortunate to hear directly from Ma and Pa because it was a rare instance of either of the Kettles speaking any words at all.

 

Don't the so called Ma & Pas have rights, last time I looked they did.  They also have opinions, eat and breath and s**t the same as you all, so why all the concern?  Last time it was reported a total of 106'000+ of those so called Ma & Pas, which it appears you look down your nose at,  in the 3 states you referenced, voted for Mr  Trump.  Do   I smell a sense of superiority emanating from your post.  And no, this is not trolling or baiting or whatever else you want to call it, just my opinion.  

49 minutes ago, abrahamzvi said:

50 minutes ago, abrahamzvi said:

 

NovaBlue and all other supporters of Trump, reacting here - why don't you say anything about the awful, yes awful, racial incidents taking place in the last few days, being reported above.

Whether one likes Trump or not, I think that what is now happening in the US as far as a surge of racialism is concerned, ought to be condemned by any decent person, American or otherwise!

NovaBlue and all other supporters of Trump, reacting here - why don't you say anything about the awful, yes awful, racial incidents taking place in the last few days, being reported above.

Whether one likes Trump or not, I think that what is now happening in the US as far as a surge of racialism is concerned, ought to be condemned by any decent person, American or otherwise!

And just what are the awful racial incidents you are referring to?  Please enlighten us Trump supporters so we can make an informed decision as to whether of not it is worth commenting on.  It may or may not be racial but then anything that the left do not like or cannot respond to they cry racist of cite racism in or to shut down the debate.  It really becomes a joke when it is only those of the left who want to play the race card. 

1 hour ago, Publicus said:

 

 

As of today you are removed from my Ignore Hall of Shame so let's see if you and I can discuss the issues and the principal public figures without your trying pathetically to bait or troll as you'd attempted with the devious "Mr. P" posts.

 

Which makes today a new day concerning your posts to me -- hopefully and ideally.

 

 

So you need to know the question in the post is absurd. Same for the vacuous claim we on this side do not accept the election that makes Donald Trump Potus-Elect The right has no argument in this -- it has only political nonsense.

 

A return visit to middle school 7th grade civics class shows unmistakably why the question is absurd. The question is moreover self-embarrassing.  The question is both absurd and self-embarrassing to the right who in 2016 deny and try to dismiss the significance and the Constitutional proscriptions of the Popular Vote in respect of the Electoral College.

 

Here is why and it is the direct answer to the question.

 

The Popular Vote of a state -- each of the 50 states -- determines which candidate wins the Electoral College Electors of the state. (As even you do know, the candidate who totals 270 ECVotes wins election as Potus.)

 

For example, take Pennsylvania. Trump very narrowly won the Popular Vote in PA. (PA had not voted Red for Potus since 1988.)

 

Pennsylvania Popular Vote, Potus, 2016

Trump:   2,900,785  (48.9%)

Clinton:  2,825,767  (47.6%)

Winning Popular Vote Margin for Trump: 75,018  (1.3%)

Total Popular Vote: 5,726,552

(See link below.)

 

Because Donald Trump won the Popular Vote of the voters of Pennsylvania, Donald Trump won the state's Electoral College Votes/Electors (20). Donald Trump did in fact win the Electoral College Electors of each state in which Trump won the Popular Vote.

 

Same same in respect of each state where Hillary Clinton won the Popular Vote, i.e., Clinton won the Electors in the state of the Electoral College. In other words, without the Popular Vote of each state, the election means nothing.

 

(PA is one of 20 states that does not have a state law that binds each person who is an Electoral College Elector to the winner of the Popular Vote of the state.)

 

Further....

 

The U.S. Constitution does not dictate how presidential electors are to cast their votes, but, in general, electors are expected to vote for the winner of the popular vote in their state.

 

https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_election_in_Pennsylvania,_2016

 

 

In the fortunately few instances in which a Potus won the Electoral College Electors but lost the Popular Vote nationally, it is considered an anomaly, something of an odd contradiction of democracy and democratic principles and precepts. The bizarre event not only makes news, it makes history -- in unfavorable and negative ways. 

 

Disparaging or dismissing the Popular Vote is in any respect a dangerous notion and purpose. If one is to dismiss the Popular Vote in any sense or aspect, then he dismisses not only the Electoral College, he dismisses the Popular Vote per se. This includes in each state and nationally.

 

The Popular Vote matters in each state, and the Popular Vote matters nationally because it is the Popular Vote. So either the Popular Vote is significant in technical and moral terms, or it is unimportant and matters not at all anywhere or in any context. Dismissing the Popular Vote in any context or in any respect is a dangerous notion that is exclusive to the Trump Fanboyz in this election.

 

If one is to respect the Popular Vote in each state, then one must recognise and respect the Popular Vote of the nation as a whole. Each has an assigned value that requires respect because in each instance it is the Popular Vote. Any denial of the Popular Vote is the denial of democracy itself.

Gee thanks, I feel wanted again, however, please, given the number of times the popular vote has been discussed it's really old hat, so if you want to discuss something else pertaining to the topic, feel free but if I disagree then I will disagree. It is not trolling or baiting, never has been but when one receives a disparaging response to a legitimate post, it gets answered in a way that you, unfortunately, deem to be as you described.

I shall leave it that but if you want to debate  please do so in a manner that does not contain any insults, such as you have enlisted in your response on this occasion.  It's really unbecoming and shows a lack of maturity of someone who professes to be highly educated.  Thank you and have a nice day.

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

The abominable Mr. trump is still just Mr. trump. 

Ah, good morning.  No, he is the President-Elect, so accept it.  All the name calling and cry baby whining is only showing a lack of immaturity by the losing side.

6 hours ago, Publicus said:

 

A statistical tie.

 

One million vote difference at this point and still counting. The more they count the wider the significant difference becomes in the Popular Vote of the voting public. The only nominee to get more votes for Potus in U.S. history is Barack Obama. Trump is a laggard.

 

 

Trump has a mandate and Trump's mandate from the people is to knock it off, and to knock it off forthwith to instead get real....

 

Less Than A Third Of Americans Want Trump To Follow Through On Campaign Proposals

 Wed, Nov 16th, 2016

 

The honeymoon phase that most incoming presidents enjoy at the beginning of their tenures appears to be nonexistent for Donald Trump.

 

According to a new Washington Post/Schar School poll, just 29 percent of Americans think the results of the Nov. 8 presidential election give Trump a mandate to follow through on his plans, which would include proposals like the Muslim registry/ban, a deportation force, and building a border wall – all agenda items the Trump team is moving forward with as we speak.

 

In all, about 60 percent of Americans think Trump should compromise with Democrats if they strongly oppose something he is proposing – which is (rightfully so) nearly everything on his agenda.

 

One particular promise Trump made during the campaign was to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the email server Hillary Clinton used during her time as Secretary of State. According to the poll, though, a sizable majority of Americans – 57 percent – don’t want Trump to do that, compared to just 36 percent who do

 

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/11/16/29-percent-americans-election-mandate-donald-trump.html

 

 

 

 

Poll finds tempered optimism after Trump victory, but doubts about mandate

By Scott Clement and Dan Balz November 16 at 7:00 AM

 

Americans emerged from President-elect Donald Trump’s surprise victory in last week’s election with passionate and polarized reactions, overall expressing tempered optimism about his presidency but unconvinced that he has a mandate to enact a sweeping new policy agenda, according to a Washington Post-Schar School national poll.

 

Nationally, just 3 in 10 Americans — 29 percent — say he has a mandate to carry out the agenda he presented during the campaign, while 59 percent say he should compromise with Democrats when they strongly disagree with the specifics of his policy proposals.

 

That 29 percent figure is sharply lower than the 50 percent who said the same for President Obama after his first election in 2008 and the 41 percent for former president George W. Bush after the 2000 election and the contentious recount that followed. 

 

Americans are more worried. Slender majorities say they are not confident he will show respect for people with whom he disagrees or make wise decisions about war and peace.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-finds-tempered-optimism-after-trump-victory-but-doubts-about-mandate/2016/11/15/da362ca4-ab71-11e6-a31b-4b6397e625d0_story.html?wpisrc=al_alert-national

 

 

So 29% say a mandate for Trump to implement his wild ideas, yet 59% say Trump must compromise with Democrats in Washington on issues of overriding importance to the Democratic Party. That is +30% to compromise on vital issues.

 

Given Trump lost the popular vote and now 30% more Americans want Trump to compromise than do not want Trump to compromise, there is a mandate. The mandate is on Trump and for Trump to compromise. And to respect people he disagrees with. And to not proliferate nuclear weapons to other countries.

 

Tell us you got it. Once and for all, tell us you got it.

Quoting more of those famous polls, they got it wrong before the election, what makes you thing they've got it right now. The popular vote is still irrelevant so why bang on about it.  Means nothing and will not change a thing. 

6 hours ago, Opl said:

 

The Trump vote combines an anti-system component, and a traditional component ( registered GOP voters, who voted for him out of fidelity to their party) .

One of the issues of the composition of the Trump administration, will be to know how much  these two components respectively  weight  

He is President,  so anti-system component and traditional component is just as irrelevant as the popular vote. They voted and he won, that's all that matters in the end. 

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm amazed that anyone would try to use that argument. Had Clinton won, the country would probably be run by Soros, Bloomberg, the facebook guy and who knows how many overseas "investors" in the foundation, like Saudi.

The truth hurts but I can't wait for the responses.

13 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

A normal amount of lies for a politician but I realize many trumpists bought into the trump branding of her.

Come on, give me a break, a normal amount of lies. She wrote the lie book.  It was not only Trump tho called her out, it was the FBI as well.  Oh, heavens, that's right, poor old Comey was the villain there.  When he cleared her the first time he was a hero, then he had to re-open the investigation then, despite clearing her again, he became the devil and as the democrats allege, lost her the election.  I wish she would look in a mirror and she would realise just why she was beaten, and soundly.  Not interested in the popular vote so please don't bring that crap into the equation.

11 minutes ago, Opl said:

 

quote :  " Mr. Trump will be the President  whether you like it or not"

 

The US Presidency will be BRANDED Trump.

But it's unclear who really is behind the brand and if his supporters like it or not.

 

Wasn't the last Presidency referred to as the Obama presidency? It was also unclear as who was behind him but then with HRC, we all know who was behind her.