Thousands join anti-Trump protests around country

[Publicus]

2 hours ago, joeyg said:

FYI Trump won both the popular vote and electoral college.  Just sayin'... http://www.inquisitr.com/3715891/final-vote-count-2016-donald-trump-popular-vote-won-electoral-college-votes-wins-election-hillary-clinton-twitter/

 

You are invited to visit here plse thx:

 

http://www.readingrockets.org/article/using-think-alouds-improve-reading-comprehension

 

 

[JAG]

3 hours ago, Gary A said:

Here with this map, you will understand why we have the electoral college. These cities could elect every president if the popular vote was used. As you can see they are mostly democrat controlled cities. That would be an absolute disaster for the country. They are also the sanctuary cities.

 

I have to ask again, how is it right that one candidate can win substantially more votes (1 million +) than the other yet not win the presidential election?

 

So far the only answers I have seen here boil down to " because she was not the candidate I wished to win", and "because it means that the cities will decide the election." Well if the vast majority of electors live in the cities (80.7% according to the 2010 census), and one is to assume that the intention is that every vote counts, then that will inevitably be the case. As an outsider it looks frankly like a classic case of gerrymandering.

 

I really cannot imagine that the drafters of the US Constitution wished for or envisaged such an anomaly.

[Jingthing]

There is massive gerrymandering favoring republicans in the house of representatives. Not sure I would describe the electoral college scheme that way.

[JAG]

13 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

There is massive gerrymandering favoring republicans in the house of representatives. Not sure I would describe the electoral college scheme that way.

OK, take away my comment about gerrymandering. The basic question remains - and remains unanswered

[Dtrump]

57 minutes ago, JAG said:

 

I have to ask again, how is it right that one candidate can win substantially more votes (1 million +) than the other yet not win the presidential election?

 

So far the only answers I have seen here boil down to " because she was not the candidate I wished to win", and "because it means that the cities will decide the election." Well if the vast majority of electors live in the cities (80.7% according to the 2010 census), and one is to assume that the intention is that every vote counts, then that will inevitably be the case. As an outsider it looks frankly like a classic case of gerrymandering.

 

I really cannot imagine that the drafters of the US Constitution wished for or envisaged such an anomaly.

Contributes to the cohesiveness of the country by requiring a distribution of popular support to be elected president.

Enhances the status of minority interests.

Contributes to the political stability of the nation by encouraging a two-party system, and

Maintains a federal system of government and representation.

 

For in a direct popular election, there would be every incentive for a multitude of minor parties to form in an attempt to prevent whatever popular majority might be necessary to elect a president. The surviving candidates would thus be drawn to the regionalist or extremist views represented by these parties in hopes of winning the run-off election.

 

http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_procon.php

[Usernames]

52 minutes ago, JAG said:

 

I have to ask again, how is it right that one candidate can win substantially more votes (1 million +) than the other yet not win the presidential election?

 

So far the only answers I have seen here boil down to " because she was not the candidate I wished to win", and "because it means that the cities will decide the election." Well if the vast majority of electors live in the cities (80.7% according to the 2010 census), and one is to assume that the intention is that every vote counts, then that will inevitably be the case. As an outsider it looks frankly like a classic case of gerrymandering.

 

I really cannot imagine that the drafters of the US Constitution wished for or envisaged such an anomaly.

 

Because the election of the US president takes place in a federal system in which 50 separate states also reflect their own interests, traditions, and concerns. Were matters to depend solely on which state or population center is biggest, then you would have instances where states such as California, with its giant population, would overwhelm the interests of seven other states on things like the Colorado River Basin. Because a big glob of people in California wanted the water running through Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and Wyoming, they could continually elect a president to satisfy their water grab.  And presidential elections, btw, are not the only instance where state interests are upheld and there is no one man-one vote.  The US senate is likewise slanted.  Thus, for instance, a man such as Bernie Sanders can get into a national legislative body on an equal footing with, say, Diane Feinstein, despite the fact he represents a mere 625,000 people and Feinstein represents some 40 million.  

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎14‎.‎11‎.‎2016 at 2:26 AM, Ulysses G. said:

Of course we can wait, like you should have waited before annointing Hillary "Madam President". However, as you know, it will not make the slightest difference. Trump is the winner, no matter how you try to spin it.

I wish I could post a VDO of the Mad Hatter doing his little victory dance in reply to every post whining about Trump or the popular vote, but it would probably be called stalking, as it's the same few people doing all the whining.

[thaibeachlovers]

6 minutes ago, Usernames said:

 

Because the election of the US president takes place in a federal system in which 50 separate states also reflect their own interests, traditions, and concerns. Were matters to depend solely on which state or population center is biggest, then you would have instances where states such as California, with its giant population, would overwhelm the interests of seven other states on things like the Colorado River Basin. Because a big glob of people in California wanted the water running through Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and Wyoming, they could continually elect a president to satisfy their water grab.  And presidential elections, btw, are not the only instance where state interests are upheld and there is no one man-one vote.  The US senate is likewise slanted.  Thus, for instance, a man such as Bernie Sanders can get into a national legislative body on an equal footing with, say, Diane Feinstein, despite the fact he represents a mere 625,000 people and Feinstein represents some 40 million.  

Good reply. Should be simple enough for even the most rabid anti Trumpist to understand.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, JAG said:

 

I have to ask again, how is it right that one candidate can win substantially more votes (1 million +) than the other yet not win the presidential election?

 

So far the only answers I have seen here boil down to " because she was not the candidate I wished to win", and "because it means that the cities will decide the election." Well if the vast majority of electors live in the cities (80.7% according to the 2010 census), and one is to assume that the intention is that every vote counts, then that will inevitably be the case. As an outsider it looks frankly like a classic case of gerrymandering.

 

I really cannot imagine that the drafters of the US Constitution wished for or envisaged such an anomaly.

Can you imagine a situation in which the people that grow the food that the people in the cities live on refuse to feed the people in the cities? That would be one possible result of a strictly popular vote that imposes a government that ignores the rural people on them forever.

[Steely Dan]

You have to ask yourself what is the point to the protests? Do the protesters somehow imagine a complete breakdown in law and order will lead to Martial law and Obama somehow delaying the handover of power?



Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[Gary A]

The pampered spoiled students taught by tenured moron teachers are used to getting their way. They really don't know what they are protesting. From watching student interviews, it appears that immigration is a big topic. How would they possibly know how the government will handle this. It is an important problem to solve. No one should have any problems deporting criminals. They don't belong in the USA. Trump estimates that criminals number between two and three million. We are talking convicted felons. No one in their right mind would want them to be protected by sanctuary cities. They must be deported and the bleeding heart liberals must cooperate to rid the country of them. I would wager that honest hard working people, illegal or not will be permitted to stay.

[thaibeachlovers]

49 minutes ago, Steely Dan said:

You have to ask yourself what is the point to the protests? Do the protesters somehow imagine a complete breakdown in law and order will lead to Martial law and Obama somehow delaying the handover of power?



Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

The current plan is to convince EC voters to vote for her instead. I guess they think that if that was even possible the dispossessed Trump voters would meekly accept that travesty and go off home quietly. BUT, we know what would actually happen, don't we..............................!

[JetsetBkk]

19 minutes ago, Gary A said:

The pampered spoiled students taught by tenured moron teachers are used to getting their way. They really don't know what they are protesting. From watching student interviews, it appears that immigration is a big topic. How would they possibly know how the government will handle this. It is an important problem to solve. No one should have any problems deporting criminals. They don't belong in the USA. Trump estimates that criminals number between two and three million. We are talking convicted felons. No one in their right mind would want them to be protected by sanctuary cities. They must be deported and the bleeding heart liberals must cooperate to rid the country of them. I would wager that honest hard working people, illegal or not will be permitted to stay.

 

21 minutes ago, Gary A said:

We are talking convicted felons. No one in their right mind would want them to be protected by sanctuary cities.

 

231,000 crimes committed by 86,000 aliens who were released, instead of being deported.  196 were convicted of homicide, and released. Good work!

 

 

 

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, Steely Dan said:

You have to ask yourself what is the point to the protests? Do the protesters somehow imagine a complete breakdown in law and order will lead to Martial law and Obama somehow delaying the handover of power?



Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

No.

[F4UCorsair]

Intriguing.  Democrat supporters are offering all sorts of reasons on how and why the despicable Trump won,  and why their despicable candidate lost.  Popular vote, country votes, blah, blah, blah!!!!

 

It is all irrelevant!!!  He won legally, within the system

 

You don't like it????  Well work to change the system!!!

 

The problem with the left of politics is that they're sore losers, and creating mayhem won't change the result.

[Jingthing]

22 minutes ago, F4UCorsair said:

Intriguing.  Democrat supporters are offering all sorts of reasons on how and why the despicable Trump won,  and why their despicable candidate lost.  Popular vote, country votes, blah, blah, blah!!!!

 

It is all irrelevant!!!  He won legally, within the system

 

You don't like it????  Well work to change the system!!!

 

The problem with the left of politics is that they're sore losers, and creating mayhem won't change the result.

The left are sore losers!?! How soon they forget!

Quote

I’m going to start by agreeing with Rush Limbaugh, who made headlines eight years ago when he said he wanted President Obama to fail. We were all outraged, but that became the Republican Party’s policy — indeed, Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell explicitly said so.

And it worked.

http://forward.com/opinion/354555/they-went-low-with-donald-trump-and-steve-bannon-we-should-go-lower/?attribution=home-hero-item-text-1

[F4UCorsair]

27 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

The left ifre sore losers!?! How soon they forget!

http://forward.com/opinion/354555/they-went-low-with-donald-trump-and-steve-bannon-we-should-go-lower/?attribution=home-hero-item-text-1

 

Same old stuff from the left, angry, uneducated, Misogny, racism, bigots, etc., Trump supporters. That's the only reason he won.

 

HE WON!!!  Legally and within the system.

 

Obama was a lousy President because he had no backbone.

 

The sun will still come up tomorrow, and If you can just put your hatred aside, you just may find he'll be a good President, possibly even great.

 

GET OVER IT OR YOU'LL DESTROY YOUR OWN LIVES WALLOWING IN SELF PITY AND HATE!!!!!!.

 

Unalbe to edit.  Should be 'misogynist' and 'racist'.

[gemini81]

3 hours ago, Jingthing said:

No.

He won and there isn't anything you can do about it, except accept it.

[F4UCorsair]

5 hours ago, Steely Dan said:

You have to ask yourself what is the poinin to the protests? Do the protesters somehow imagine a complete breakdown in law and order will lead to Martial law and Obama somehow delaying the handover of power?



Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

 

God forbid ANYTHING that delays a handover, to anybody, rather than the Incumbent.

[Jingthing]

48 minutes ago, F4UCorsair said:

 

Same old stuff from the left, angry, uneducated, Misogny, racism, bigots, etc., Trump supporters. That's the only reason he won.

 

HE WON!!!  Legally and within the system.

 

Obama was a lousy President because he had no backbone.

 

The sun will still come up tomorrow, and If you can just put your hatred aside, you just may find he'll be a good President, possibly even great.

 

GET OVER IT OR YOU'LL DESTROY YOUR OWN LIVES WALLOWING IN SELF PITY AND HATE!!!!!!.

 

Unalbe to edit.  Should be 'misogynist' and 'racist'.

I see you fail to take ownership of what the right wing did to Obama.

[tropo]

8 hours ago, JAG said:

 

I have to ask again, how is it right that one candidate can win substantially more votes (1 million +) than the other yet not win the presidential election?

 

So far the only answers I have seen here boil down to " because she was not the candidate I wished to win", and "because it means that the cities will decide the election." Well if the vast majority of electors live in the cities (80.7% according to the 2010 census), and one is to assume that the intention is that every vote counts, then that will inevitably be the case. As an outsider it looks frankly like a classic case of gerrymandering.

 

I really cannot imagine that the drafters of the US Constitution wished for or envisaged such an anomaly.

 

 

 

I don't think the "drafters of the US Consitution" or the Founding Fathers were too concerned about it. I don't think anyone much cares until the losers (Clinton supporters) lose to someone they dislike or hate (Trump). George Bush or Al Gore were not polarizing figures, so they got over it quickly.

 

The first time the president lost the popular vote was in 1824. Andrew Jackson lost the popular vote AND the electoral vote to John Quincy Adams, but because he didn't reach the required 131 electoral college votes, the House of Representatives voted Adams into the White House.

 

At this time James Madison, who drafted and promoted the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights was still alive (until 1836). 3 other Founding Fathers were also still alive in 1824 - Thomas Jefferson (until 1826), John Adams (until 1826) and John Jay (until 1829).

 

John Quincy Adams was the son of John Adams, a Founding Father, yet undemocratically elected (a favourite term on Thaivisa) and given the White House despite losing both the electoral and popular vote. 

 

An elected President lost the popular vote again in 1876 (by 250,000 votes) and 1888 (by 90,000 votes), and then, as most of us still remember, in 2000 (by 540,000 votes).

 

So, as you can see, the US public has had nearly 200 years to sort it out if they wanted to.

 

My prediction is that the Electoral College will stay and all this furor will die down once the losers have cried this out of their system and grow up. Most of the demonstrators are unemployed children with nothing better to do. As for the babies on this forum who can't accept loss - maybe they're senile. 

[lannarebirth]

8 hours ago, JAG said:

 

I have to ask again, how is it right that one candidate can win substantially more votes (1 million +) than the other yet not win the presidential election?

 

So far the only answers I have seen here boil down to " because she was not the candidate I wished to win", and "because it means that the cities will decide the election." Well if the vast majority of electors live in the cities (80.7% according to the 2010 census), and one is to assume that the intention is that every vote counts, then that will inevitably be the case. As an outsider it looks frankly like a classic case of gerrymandering.

 

I really cannot imagine that the drafters of the US Constitution wished for or envisaged such an anomaly.

 

You are working under a wrong assumption. Instead of assuming "every vote counts" consider this instead: "the votes of every state counts".

[F4UCorsair]

7 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

You are working under a wrong assumption. Instead of assuming "every vote counts" consider this instead: "the votes of every state counts".

 

Exactly lannarebirth.  Clarity.

[tropo]

"Left Wing Lunacy". That's catchy.

 

At a university or college campus near you:

 

1. Comfort (therapy) dogs

2. Crying sessions

3. Hot cocoa

4. Coloring books

5. Play dough

6. Aromatherapy

 

That's the future of America you guys should be concerned about, not Trump.

[mania]

12 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

You are working under a wrong assumption. Instead of assuming "every vote counts" consider this instead: "the votes of every state counts".

 

Best explanation yet......simple and to the point....Think they will "get" it?

Or is it they never want to get it?

[F4UCorsair]

15 hours ago, Jingthing said:

I  alle sed tsee you fail toidtake ownership of what the right wing did to Obama.

 

Why should I "take ownership" (cliche speak for 'acknowledge' I presume) of anything American, right or left.

The left are the same the world over, full of Ideology (sometimes known as $hite!), and a bunch of dreamers, given to abuse and violence when they don't see things going their way.

Regardless of what the 'right' Is alleged to have done to Obama, heI Is widely seen as Ineffective.

[F4UCorsair]

2 hours ago, mania said:

 

Best explanation yet......simple and to the point....Think they will "get" it?

Or is it they never want to get it?

Mania....there are none so blind as those who will not see!

[JetsetBkk]

2 hours ago, F4UCorsair said:

4 hours ago, mania said:

 

Best explanation yet......simple and to the point....Think they will "get" it?

Or is it they never want to get it?

Mania....there are none so blind as those who will not see!

 

Oy! That's my line... 

 

On Friday, August 26, 2016 at 4:52 PM, JetsetBkk said:

 

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

 

[joeyg]

On 11/17/2016 at 3:53 PM, Jingthing said:

Why are you intentionally spreading false information? Leave that to the Macedonian teenagers, OK?

 

 

I don't make the news I just report it.  

[joeyg]

I am truly impressed with several sane, rational posts in this thread.  People who are actually in touch with reality.  I feel a renewed faith in some TV BMs.  Tough thing is for the lefties is, the truth is the truth.  Coloring books and play dough in safe rooms now there's something very wrong with that picture.

 

And yes when Obama got elected we just went back to work.  No drama no riots.  We knew what was coming and just "hunkered down" and held on tight for a rough ride.

 

I couldn't take the BS any longer so I retired in Thailand.  I find most of the BS here pretty damn entertaining.  And  then of course there's the entertainment...