Obama: Trump ‘woefully unfit’ to be President

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, MajarTheLion said:

 

I'm sure they will, and get used to saying it: President Donald Trump.

 

Now I forget, what's the next step in grief after denial? It doesn't matter, really. I just hope the other four steps go better for you.

Four years tops, if the country can survive.  As soon as the farm states realize that ending trade deals and imposing tariffs on imports will shut down their access to overseas markets, and that keeping out immigrants will leave many crops rotting in the fields, farm state support for the clueless one will plummet.  The realization that trade barriers won't bring back high paying manufacturing jobs to the country (unless you have expertise in robotics) will eliminate another block of supporters.  All he'll have left will be the Alt-Right and the KKK.

[Ulysses G.]

5 minutes ago, heybruce said:

 All he'll have left will be the Alt-Right and the KKK.

 

All 15 of them and since Trump has repeatedly denounced these nutters, he will not even have them. 

The whole imaginary scenario sounds like a load of tosh though. 

[Opl]

12 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

All 15 of them and since Trump has repeatedly denounced these nutters, he will not even have them. 

The whole imaginary scenario sounds like a load of tosh though. 

 

Richard Spencer ( white supremacist) , who has called for “peaceful ethnic cleansing”, says he dreams of a "new society, an ethno-state that would be a gathering point for all Europeans". 

he adds: “I think that Donald Trump is the kind of first step toward this new kind of politics that I’ve been outlying. It’s maybe the first awkward, maybe vulgar step in that direction.

“I think that’s a very good thing. And I think Donald Trump has appealed to the right people around the world,"

 

Steve Bannon, Mr Trump's chief strategist,  is probably the most high-profile figure to be associated with the alt-right

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/richard-spencer-white-nationalist-leading-alt-right-movement/

 

We have three major voter suppression operations under way,” an unnamed senior campaign official told Bloomberg.A focus on Clinton’s WikiLeaks e-mails is dedicated to turning away young white former supporters of Sen. Bernie Senders (I-VT); highlighting women who have accused Bill Clinton of sexual misconduct is aimed at undermining her appeal with young women; and her 1996 reference to some black gang members as “superpredators” is meant to suppress the vote among African American voters.

 

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/bloomberg-trump-campaign-suppress-democratic-turnout-voter-information

 

“What he’s built is the underlying apparatus for a political movement that’s going to propel us to victory on Nov. 8 and dominate Republican politics after that,” Bannon told Bloomberg.

 

 

Edited November 24, 2016 by Opl

[Ulysses G.]

Many left wing lies about Steve Bannon. He is not anti Semitic and he is a friend of Israel - just like Trump.

 

http://www.jta.org/2016/11/15/news-opinion/opinion/bannon-and-breitbart-friends-of-israel-not-anti-semites

 

Richard Spencer is one of those 15 loons that I mentioned. No one pays attention to these types besides the MSM looking for dishonest talking points to discredit Trump.

[sjaak327]

Trump doesn't need to be discredited his own lies and bullshit do that more than enough :)

 

Even after two weeks I still have to laugh about this much stupidity. Obama's remark isn't strong enough I would say.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

Unfortunately it seems the EC has lead to the exact opposite of its intended purpose.

 

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

This coming from a supporter of the candidate who was claiming the election was rigged and his supporters would riot if he wasn't elected.

 

The reason the Electoral College was developed was to prevent someone like Trump becoming president:

 

"The function of the College of Electors in choosing the president can be likened to that in the Roman Catholic Church of the College of Cardinals selecting the Pope. The original idea was for the most knowledgeable and informed individuals from each State to select the president based solely on merit and without regard to State of origin or political party."  http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_history.php 

 

Obviously it hasn't worked that way, and, considering all the changes in the US since the constitution was written, the Electoral College no longer serves any useful purpose.

 

When the UK chose Brexit by a margin of 52% to 48%, nobody challenged the results (at least nobody that has been taken seriously).  Even politicians that hate the idea are working to implement the stated will of the majority of the voters.

 

When two million more people, a clear majority, voted for the Democrats than the Republicans, the Republicans still "won" the Presidency, the Senate and the House of Representatives.  That indicates a major flaw in the system.  The EC is only part of the problem, shameless gerrymandering is also an issue.  Recognizing these things is not sour grapes, any more than calling for the abolition of slavery or other necessary changes to the constitution was sour grapes.

 

This whole wall of text right here^^ 

 

There are 60+ million voters - probably a hell of a lot more than that because there are surely a shit-ton of Democrat voters that support the EC and the result in full - that feel the EC did, infact, do its job by not allowing HRC to win the election. 

 

The house, senate, and justices are icing on the cake. 

 

This dog just won't hunt. 

 

I don't care what the UK does. 

[heybruce]

10 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

 

This whole wall of text right here^^ 

 

There are 60+ million voters - probably a hell of a lot more than that because there are surely a shit-ton of Democrat voters that support the EC and the result in full - that feel the EC did, infact, do its job by not allowing HRC to win the election. 

 

The house, senate, and justices are icing on the cake. 

 

This dog just won't hunt. 

 

I don't care what the UK does. 

62.2 million who are happy that the EC will allow minority rule, 64.2 million who think the system is broke.  Clearly you prefer minority rule.

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

62.2 million who are happy that the EC will allow minority rule, 64.2 million who think the system is broke.  Clearly you prefer minority rule.

 

False. There are not 64 million who think the system is broke. There may be 64 million that don't like trump and are disappointed by the HRC loss, but that does not mean they do not support the EC nor the outcome. 

 

The minority is clearly the people that oppose the EC and cry about it. 

[lannarebirth]

8 minutes ago, heybruce said:

62.2 million who are happy that the EC will allow minority rule, 64.2 million who think the system is broke.  Clearly you prefer minority rule.

 

I think if you were to poll the 64.2 million who voted for Hillary Clinton they would not overwhelmingly call for an end to the EC. I think they would call for a change in the way the DNC operates and how potential candidates are treated by the DNC.  Maybe Jill Stein can raise some money and poll them.

Edited November 24, 2016 by lannarebirth

[heybruce]

12 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

False. There are not 64 million who think the system is broke. There may be 64 million that don't like trump and are disappointed by the HRC loss, but that does not mean they do not support the EC nor the outcome. 

 

The minority is clearly the people that oppose the EC and cry about it. 

Stated without evidence or any valid rationale for keeping the EC, other than you like minority rule.  I expect nothing less from you.

[heybruce]

10 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I think if you were to poll the 64.2 million who voted for Hillary Clinton they would not overwhelmingly call for an end to the EC. I think they would call for a change in the way the DNC operates and how potential candidates are treated by the DNC.  Maybe Jill Stein can raise some money and poll them.

I think if you were to poll all Americans and remind them that both W. Bush and Trump were elected by the EC after losing the popular vote, you'd find more than 64.2 million eager to eliminate the EC.

[lannarebirth]

3 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I think if you were to poll all Americans and remind them that both W. Bush and Trump were elected by the EC after losing the popular vote, you'd find more than 64.2 million eager to eliminate the EC.

 

I prefer talking about systems and processes than persons, but that might be a good suggestion for the next Constitutional Convention. Maybe make voting mandatory for all Americans. I voted and my presidential vote wasn't even counted as it was a write in vote. I do accept that that is how the system operates however.

[iReason]

Hillary Clinton leads Donald Trump by 2m votes

 

"Hillary Clinton's lead over Donald Trump in the popular count of the US presidential election has increased to two million votes."

 

"A group of academics, lawyers and data experts is also trying to persuade the Clinton team to join their effort to investigate the results in three states to check there was no foreign computer hacking that manipulated the outcome."

 

"They are curious why Ms Clinton performed worse in counties that relied on electronic voting machines compared to paper ballots and optical scanners."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38087150

Edited November 24, 2016 by iReason

[Strange]

38 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Stated without evidence or any valid rationale for keeping the EC, other than you like minority rule.  I expect nothing less from you.

 

Honestly, where is your evidence that there is a literal majority of people that want to abolish the EC? Its gonna take both sides no matter how you wanna spin it.  

 

Spare me the click-bait & passive aggressive insults and lets just stick to the facts. 

[Strange]

44 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I think if you were to poll all Americans and remind them that both W. Bush and Trump were elected by the EC after losing the popular vote, you'd find more than 64.2 million eager to eliminate the EC.

 

So in other words, whatever you can do to discriminate against republicans. 

 

Honestly, its really weird to me that some posters are such bad losers that they want to change how the game is played AFTER its finished. 

[heybruce]

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

Honestly, where is your evidence that there is a literal majority of people that want to abolish the EC? Its gonna take both sides no matter how you wanna spin it.  

 

Spare me the click-bait & passive aggressive insults and lets just stick to the facts. 

" just stick to the facts"

 

Happy to.  Trump lost the popular vote and the electoral college is being used in a manner contrary to it's intended purpose.

 

Your turn.

[heybruce]

51 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I think if you were to poll all Americans and remind them that both W. Bush and Trump were elected by the EC after losing the popular vote, you'd find more than 64.2 million eager to eliminate the EC.

 

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

So in other words, whatever you can do to discriminate against republicans. 

 

Honestly, its really weird to me that some posters are such bad losers that they want to change how the game is played AFTER its finished. 

Where do you see discrimination against republicans in my post? 

[sjaak327]

15 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

So in other words, whatever you can do to discriminate against republicans. 

 

Honestly, its really weird to me that some posters are such bad losers that they want to change how the game is played AFTER its finished. 

You can't change the rules of the game after you played.

 

However the criticism of the EC is legitimate. I remember the discussion after Bush II won his first presidency. Then too he won the EC but lost the popular vote.

 

Now not taking into consideration that eventually the supreme court had to rule on the issue, after all was said and done, it was 537 Floridians that counted, not the 550,000 votes that Gore was ahead of Bush.

 

And that is precisely the major downside of the EC, votes don't matter. The candidate who can secure the most swing states wins. Votes in say California, New York and Texas don't matter.

 

A republican in California or a Democrat in Texas might as well not vote, as his vote does not count. Is it any wonder why US presidential elections have such a lousy turnout.

 

All votes should count in a presidential election.

 

[Strange]

9 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Happy to.  Trump lost the popular vote and the electoral college is being used in a manner contrary to it's intended purpose.

 

There are a lot of different trains of thought regarding the EC. 

 

My opinion is that its roots are based on the idea of giving individual states a voice, with their own representatives, so that all states have to be taken into consideration, instead of huge population centers stealing every election. We are 2 million votes over trump, and there is another thread on this subject, but those votes are primarily from California, New York, Illinois & DC. In my honest opinion, the EC did its job and trump won the EC votes in a landslide based on the way we do it. Both parties knew full well going into it. 

 

Is the EC perfect? Probably not but I believe its better than the popular vote. Its not all about the very large population centers. There is a whole lot of america out there that need different things and have different issues. 

 

Now, Im not completely opposed to the idea of the popular vote as long as voter ID is enforced, and there is plenty of time for government funded awareness campaigns, and clear majority votes for it, and even then I still think trump would win looking at it now. more people would vote. 

The problem I have is this whole after the fact crybaby campaign thats going on right now. 

[lannarebirth]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

I think if you were to poll all Americans and remind them that both W. Bush and Trump were elected by the EC after losing the popular vote, you'd find more than 64.2 million eager to eliminate the EC.

 

Changes to the Constitution are a big deal. I don't think it's something that should be approached in a "knee jerk" fashion just because an election or two didn't go the way you'd prefer. You may find later you want to change it back as demographics change.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4606139/

[thaibeachlovers]

12 hours ago, Morch said:

 

I dunno about "turn on him". Not even sure what it means, effectively. He's in for 4 years unless he resigns or impeached. Pride probably rules out the former. Impeachment will mean being entangled in something which cannot be ignore - which means a lot of time until such circumstances occur, investigated and matters brought to a head. Under such circumstances, will the GOP go for a weakened Trump or for a grateful Pence? Who knows.

 

And, if anything is to be learned from these elections, it is not to underestimate Trump's salesmanship, and the public's (at least a significant part of) discontent with old style politics.

 

This could be the new normal.

If anything should have been learned about Trump, it is not to assume something will finish him. Even I made that mistake after the Billy tape.

If ever a man has been to the crossroads, it would surely be Trump

[thaibeachlovers]

6 hours ago, sjaak327 said:

You can't change the rules of the game after you played.

 

However the criticism of the EC is legitimate. I remember the discussion after Bush II won his first presidency. Then too he won the EC but lost the popular vote.

 

Now not taking into consideration that eventually the supreme court had to rule on the issue, after all was said and done, it was 537 Floridians that counted, not the 550,000 votes that Gore was ahead of Bush.

 

And that is precisely the major downside of the EC, votes don't matter. The candidate who can secure the most swing states wins. Votes in say California, New York and Texas don't matter.

 

A republican in California or a Democrat in Texas might as well not vote, as his vote does not count. Is it any wonder why US presidential elections have such a lousy turnout.

 

All votes should count in a presidential election.

 

The US belongs to ALL the citizens, not just a majority in a few cities. why should a rich liberal in San Fran have more ability to elect a president for her, than a poor farmer in Texas to elect a president for him? The EC recognizes that different states have different druthers and stops one side winning every time.

[thaibeachlovers]

6 hours ago, heybruce said:

" just stick to the facts"

 

Happy to.  Trump lost the popular vote and the electoral college is being used in a manner contrary to it's intended purpose.

 

Your turn.

I don't remember a SINGLE Dem complaining about the EC before the election when she was expected to win.

This is just a bunch of crybabies that can't accept that they lost- bad losers all.

 

Same goes for that attempt to force a recount. If it goes ahead, I hope he wins by a bigger margin and they wasted all that money.

[Morch]

11 hours ago, MajarTheLion said:

 

Thanks, I didn't know about that. Cool, let's open that door and see where it leads. I think it's a wonderful idea.

 

I doubt that you did not know about this. In case you did, then your previous decisive views on the matter were pronounced without any foundation. Pick one.

[heybruce]

6 hours ago, Strange said:

 

There are a lot of different trains of thought regarding the EC. 

 

My opinion is that its roots are based on the idea of giving individual states a voice, with their own representatives, so that all states have to be taken into consideration, instead of huge population centers stealing every election. We are 2 million votes over trump, and there is another thread on this subject, but those votes are primarily from California, New York, Illinois & DC. In my honest opinion, the EC did its job and trump won the EC votes in a landslide based on the way we do it. Both parties knew full well going into it. 

 

Is the EC perfect? Probably not but I believe its better than the popular vote. Its not all about the very large population centers. There is a whole lot of america out there that need different things and have different issues. 

 

Now, Im not completely opposed to the idea of the popular vote as long as voter ID is enforced, and there is plenty of time for government funded awareness campaigns, and clear majority votes for it, and even then I still think trump would win looking at it now. more people would vote. 

The problem I have is this whole after the fact crybaby campaign thats going on right now. 

What happened to "just stick to the facts"?  Now it's all "My opinion".

 

Our debate began with your claim that Trump won by an "electoral landslide".  This claim is absurd.  In your opinion, a minimum of 47 of 58 presidential elections are landslides, including this one in which Trump lost the popular vote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin    Your definition of "landslide" is so broad as to make the term meaningless.

 

Now you are afraid of "huge population centers stealing every election".  In other words, you object to elections in which every vote counts equally and the majority wins.  You object to democracy. 

 

You then sort-of reverse position and state you are "not completely opposed to the idea of the popular vote" (nice fuzzy speak, are you a politician?) "so long as voter ID is enforced" (any evidence of voter fraud, or that your judgment on this matter is better than the courts?), "there is plenty of time for government funded awareness campaigns" (do you think people were unaware that there was a presidential election?) and "clear majority votes for it" (requiring the abolition of third parties or even longer election campaigns by having run-off elections). 

 

There is no crybaby campaign, there are legitimate objections to the dangerously unqualified egomaniac that was elected and the manner in which he was elected.  It's called free speech.

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, heybruce said:

There is no crybaby campaign, there are legitimate objections to the dangerously unqualified egomaniac that was elected and the manner in which he was elected.  It's called free speech.

 

I was being honest in my reply to you. I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I never denied your right to free speech. 

 

I will never give you the time of day again. 

 

Enjoy your life homeboy. 

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The US belongs to ALL the citizens, not just a majority in a few cities. why should a rich liberal in San Fran have more ability to elect a president for her, than a poor farmer in Texas to elect a president for him? The EC recognizes that different states have different druthers and stops one side winning every time.

Why should an unqualified billionaire from New York have more ability to be elected president than better qualified people with less money?  The rich always have more influence, especially after the Supreme Court's "Citizen United" ruling.

 

However the vote of the rich liberal should count no more or less than the vote of a poor farmer.  Under the EC all votes are not equal.  Under majority vote wins one side will only win every time when one state has over half the voting population.  Under the EC the same problem exists.

[heybruce]

6 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Changes to the Constitution are a big deal. I don't think it's something that should be approached in a "knee jerk" fashion just because an election or two didn't go the way you'd prefer. You may find later you want to change it back as demographics change.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4606139/

Do you think there are states in which demographics won't change?  Why should demographic change prevent the ideal of one person, one vote, all votes of equal weight, majority rule?

[heybruce]

12 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

I was being honest in my reply to you. I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I never denied your right to free speech. 

 

I will never give you the time of day again. 

 

Enjoy your life homeboy. 

Not a problem, I have a watch, and don't need the time of day from people who resort to name calling when they can't win a legitimate debate.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I don't remember a SINGLE Dem complaining about the EC before the election when she was expected to win.

This is just a bunch of crybabies that can't accept that they lost- bad losers all.

 

Same goes for that attempt to force a recount. If it goes ahead, I hope he wins by a bigger margin and they wasted all that money.

Do you recall Trump and his supporters complaining the vote was rigged and the election fixed before the election?  After Trump lost the popular vote by a significant margin but won the electoral college vote I haven't heard a single complaint about the rigged system.