13 hours ago, billd766 said:

And was Trump, elected by the voters to be the candidate for the gop?

Yes he was, in the primaries. How can you not know that?

11 hours ago, CanadaSam said:

Somebody please explain why, in the US, the people can vote with a majority for a Presidential candidate, but that candidate can lose, through something called "electoral congress" or some such thing.

 

Not much different from Thailand, innit, where a majority win by the popular people's vote is summarily dismissed and someone else gets to lead the country!

It's called the electoral college and it was enshrined in the constitution by wise men.

Basically it stops the populous coastal states dominating the elections over the less populated central states. The US is not a homogeneous nation, in case you had not noticed.

 

I'm sure google can help you understand it better.

21 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It's called the electoral college and it was enshrined in the constitution by wise men.

Basically it stops the populous coastal states dominating the elections over the less populated central states. The US is not a homogeneous nation, in case you had not noticed.

 

I'm sure google can help you understand it better.

That wasn't the reason but you have parroted commonly held misinformation even most Americans believe. Also, what were the "central states" at the time of the founding?!?

 

The Electoral College’s Racist Origins | Brennan Center for Justice

 

Quote

 

Commentators today tend to downplay the extent to which race and slavery contributed to the Framers’ creation of the Electoral College, in effect whitewashing history: Of the considerations that factored into the Framers’ calculus, race and slavery were perhaps the foremost.

Of course, the Framers had a number of other reasons to engineer the Electoral College. Fearful that the president might fall victim to a host of civic vices—that he could become susceptible to corruption or cronyism, sow disunity, or exercise overreach—the men sought to constrain executive power consistent with constitutional principles such as federalism and checks and balances. The delegates to the Philadelphia convention had scant conception of the American presidency—the duties, powers, and limits of the office. But they did have a handful of ideas about the method for selecting the chief executive. When the idea of a popular vote was raised, they griped openly that it could result in too much democracy. With few objections, they quickly dispensed with the notion that the people might choose their leader.

 

 

36 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Yes he was, in the primaries. How can you not know that?

Voters voted to send delegates. He wasn't nominated by voters. He was nominated by republican party DELEGATES.

There is nothing about parties or primary rules or processes in the constitution.

There is nothing about a two party system in the constitution.

Rules and processes for parties are determined by the parties themselves.

There used to be party called the Know Nothing Party which has been compared to today's maga fascists (who aren't really republicans anymore).

I could start a new party today called the Let's Boogie Party and our new party could make up whatever party rules we liked to choose a presidential candidate.

7 hours ago, Elkski said:

It is a big deal to stop endorsements after 36 years and then blue origin big wigs get to meet behind closed doors with Trump.   Editors quiting says it all.    How often does the right complain about Sorros?  Bozos didn't buy it for no reason.   Sadly I'm addicted to the convenience of getting things on my porch in 1-2 days.   Easily eliminates many hours driving each week for me. 

Bezos has not interfered in the editorial policy of the Post in any way before now.
It's atrocious that he has done it now, but if he continues to allow editorial freedom for everything else, I can't see blaming it on great people that produce the Post which is to me the most important news source for American politics.

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It's called the electoral college and it was enshrined in the constitution by wise men.

Basically it stops the populous coastal states dominating the elections over the less populated central states. The US is not a homogeneous nation, in case you had not noticed.

 

I'm sure google can help you understand it better.

 

Correct.

 

The Electoral Vote is calculated by the number of senators and representatives in the House of each state. Population size is included because House members are designated by population size.

 

Example: A state with 2 senators and 7 House reps would have 9 Electoral Votes. As populations shift, the number of representatives also changes. Eventually, if the migration OUT of California continues, they will lose electoral votes because they will lose House members.

 

Candidates who win the popular vote in each state is "winner take all" in the electoral votes. A couple of states have some exceptions to that.

Bezos should sell the post and get to work on his space projects. Boeing is looking to sell their space division and he should try beat Musk to that vacuum.

The Washinton Post has never endorsed a Republican for President. 

 

Are the papers not supposed to at least pretend they are unbiased? 

 

What would the Washington Post endorsing Harris mean anyway? It is group of hard left hacks that hate Trump and call him a fascist and Hitler and whatnot. Is there anyone that was going to vote for Trump that would change to Harris because the endorsement? 

 

Bezos is, or at least pretends to be a leftist. He probably knows that the endorsement would not help Harris, and it would only make the paper even less credible, as if that were even possible. 

 

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Yes he was, in the primaries. How can you not know that?

Because unlike you. I am not perfect.

 

Also I am unlike you. I am NOT and never will be, a supported nor a sycophant of a convicted felon, a convicted sex offender and a serial liar.

Elon should buy WAPO and turn into something useful based on the pillar of free speech and unbiased journalism. He could easily effect such a retrofit and make $$$Billions doing it.

 

 

20 minutes ago, billd766 said:

Because unlike you. I am not perfect.

 

Also I am unlike you. I am NOT and never will be, a supported nor a sycophant of a convicted felon, a convicted sex offender and a serial liar.

I've explained it umpteen times that I don't support Trump for himself ( I'm not a fan of billionaires, or millionaires ), but because the opposition is rotten to the core.

It's a matter of deciding which is worse and voting for the other.

 

BTW, I do like most of his policies, eg stopping illegal immigration and deporting illegals, drilling for oil, but most of all, ending the Ukraine war and not wasting any more money on it, plus hopefully he won't start any, unlike warmonger Harris who is likely to.

 

Not all positive, for reasons I don't need to say here as well known.

WAPO subscribers are having quasi meltdowns....lol

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/10/28/jeff-bezos-washington-post-trust/

Elon Musk, along with Trump could be having a remarkable influence and impact in changing MSM in a positive manner that improves honesty in reporting. Elon is a certifiable genius.

 

 

From Bezos himself:

 

I would also like to be clear that no quid pro quo of any kind is at work here. Neither campaign nor candidate was consulted or informed at any level or in any way about this decision. It was made entirely internally. Dave Limp, the chief executive of one of my companies, Blue Origin, met with former president Donald Trump on the day of our announcement. I sighed when I found out, because I knew it would provide ammunition to those who would like to frame this as anything other than a principled decision. 

 

I'll let you Google the quoted above for the rest of his editorial...  (WaPo is blocked here)  It's an interesting discussion of the loss of credibility on the part of the MSM.  I found it on an unapproved source, quoted in its entirety.  I'm just quoting a snippet, to stay in bounds.

 

17 minutes ago, impulse said:

From Bezos himself:

 

I would also like to be clear that no quid pro quo of any kind is at work here. Neither campaign nor candidate was consulted or informed at any level or in any way about this decision. It was made entirely internally. Dave Limp, the chief executive of one of my companies, Blue Origin, met with former president Donald Trump on the day of our announcement. I sighed when I found out, because I knew it would provide ammunition to those who would like to frame this as anything other than a principled decision. 

 

I'll let you Google the quoted above for the rest of his editorial...  (WaPo is blocked here)  It's an interesting discussion of the loss of credibility on the part of the MSM.  I found it on an unapproved source, quoted in its entirety.  I'm just quoting a snippet, to stay in bounds.

 

Blue Origin is an American aerospace manufacturer. What's the connection with WaPo besides part of Jeff Bezos business empire. Just curious. 

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

BTW, I do like most of his policies, eg stopping illegal immigration and deporting illegals, drilling for oil, but most of all, ending the Ukraine war and not wasting any more money on it, plus hopefully he won't start any, unlike warmonger Harris who is likely to.

 

Many JFK Democrats voting for Trump for the same reasons. 

On 10/29/2024 at 12:02 PM, Eric Loh said:

Blue Origin is an American aerospace manufacturer. What's the connection with WaPo besides part of Jeff Bezos business empire. Just curious. 

WaPo is not endorsing Harris is just Bezos licking Trump's boots 

On 10/28/2024 at 5:34 PM, thaipo7 said:

I love that Trump lives in your head.  lol   Why didn't you make a statement in the other story on anti-Israel happenings in NY.   

 

Plenty of spare room in there.

On 10/29/2024 at 10:17 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

I've explained it umpteen times that I don't support Trump for himself ( I'm not a fan of billionaires, or millionaires ), but because the opposition is rotten to the core.

It's a matter of deciding which is worse and voting for the other.

 

BTW, I do like most of his policies, eg stopping illegal immigration and deporting illegals, drilling for oil, but most of all, ending the Ukraine war and not wasting any more money on it, plus hopefully he won't start any, unlike warmonger Harris who is likely to.

 

Not all positive, for reasons I don't need to say here as well known.

But you still support Trump, whichever way you try to explain it.

11 minutes ago, billd766 said:

But you still support Trump, whichever way you try to explain it.

A lot of people just do not support open borders and expanded welfare. 

 

Harris is a liar and a cheater, and she calls me a fascist and thinks I'm garbage, then pretends she wants unify county. 

 

The way the left unifies, is to crush anyone that stands against them.