Trump bucks protocol on press access

[hugocnx]

20 minutes ago, CharlieK said:

 

He has a big ignore list already, soon he will be talking to himself!

I know I am on it. Wonder if he is not already jealous that he cannot see what we say about him.

But no worries, when you like Hillary, you can say you ignore but you dont. You see it is all about reversing.

What a kindergarten. Grow up demo's. Surely you must apply by the rules of democracy. Well, you just got conned by the establishment again and poorly they failed.

[Scott]

Please stay on topic and the topic isn't about your reaction to other members.  

[SheungWan]

2 hours ago, saminoz said:

Most of the states wanted Trump as the President.  Even Bill Clinton's Arkansas wanted Trump over Hillary by a long margin (pity cos I really wanted to see Bill in the role of First Lady).  

 

Why are you still whining about popular vote.  She beat him by less than one quarter of one percent.  Over 9 million Americans were too stupid or to lazy to vote!

 

Clinton's a self serving politician, but she was meant to be serving the people.

 

We simply don't know what kind of politician Trump's going to be yet, but he's already head and shoulders above Clinton in the political integrity stakes.

 

The argument that most of the States wanted Trump is as irrelevant as the popular vote play. The only game that counts is the one on the table where each State gets a number of delegates in proportion to their population size with winner takes all. (* except Maine, Nebraska and the District of Columbia) . California 'ahem trumps a whole number of smaller states.

Edited November 11, 2016 by SheungWan

[uptheos]

Stupid electoral system.

Democrats should protest to change it, not riot over their democratic process.

[SheungWan]

Just now, uptheos said:

Stupid electoral system.

Democrats should protest to change it, not riot over their democratic process.

 

Firstly you don't cry against the electoral system afterwards, you do it before. Secondly, you protest against the current rules being broken, not against the current rules not being broken. Thirdly, don't bother, it ain't going to happen.

[saminoz]

32 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

 

The argument that most of the States wanted Trump is as irrelevant as the popular vote play. The only game that counts is the one on the table where each State gets a number of delegates in proportion to their population size with winner takes all. (* except Maine, Nebraska and the District of Columbia) . California 'ahem trumps a whole number of smaller states.

How can you say that?

It is the only reason that Trump won (allowing for the electoral college votes), or did you miss that subtle clue?  

The popular vote issue is moot, as is your pretty irrelevant argument Sir.

Edited November 11, 2016 by saminoz

[Jingthing]

24 minutes ago, saminoz said:

How can you say that?

It is the only reason that Trump won (allowing for the electoral college votes), or did you miss that subtle clue?  

The popular vote issue is moot, as is your pretty irrelevant argument Sir.

It's not by number of states. It's by electoral votes. A small population state might get 4 electoral votes and a large one 55. So you see NUMBER of state wins is  indeed 100 percent irrelevant. Yes, the electoral votes are what matters, and you need 270 to win. But it's always politically relevant (BECAUSE IT IS RARE!) when the winner by electoral college fails to win the most POPULAR votes. That happened this time and before that the most recent was Bush vs. Gore in 2000. So the people that are horrified by the idea of a clown president trump are NOT going to let go of the FACT that trump did NOT receive a mandate. You can't fool all of the people in this case. Numbers don't lie. 

 

Please be clear we're not saying he didn't win legally -- he did win legally. We are saying he won but failed to receive a MANDATE. Normally that means a president will be forced politically to COMPROMISE with the opposition more than they wish to promote national unity. But frankly, I doubt that will happen this time because trump controls the entire congress as well! In other words, for anti-trumpists, basically a worse case scenario. 

Edited November 11, 2016 by Jingthing

[SheungWan]

1 hour ago, saminoz said:

How can you say that?

It is the only reason that Trump won (allowing for the electoral college votes), or did you miss that subtle clue?  

The popular vote issue is moot, as is your pretty irrelevant argument Sir.

 

I can say that because it is true. It is the number of electoral votes that counts, not the number of States won. The majority of electoral votes does not require a majority of States. I will refrain from repeating myself again as it may be a lost cause now. Try reading up on the rules.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)

Edited November 11, 2016 by SheungWan

[NovaBlue05]

Trump swung some blue states in his favor. He also worked his ass off on the campaign trail with no real ground game to speak of and a fraction of his opponents cash expenditures and it paid off. The media's constant barrage of bias towards Hillary was blatant & obvious to the non-Hillary sycophants and turned some fed up independents to him. The Democrats hitched their wagon to a bad candidate back in January 2009 and then, once her server issues began surfacing, blindly forged ahead with their gameplan.

 

Lessons learned?

[SheungWan]

47 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

It's not by number of states. It's by electoral votes. A small population state might get 4 electoral votes and a large one 55. So you see NUMBER of state wins is  indeed 100 percent irrelevant. Yes, the electoral votes are what matters, and you need 270 to win. But it's always politically relevant (BECAUSE IT IS RARE!) when the winner by electoral college fails to win the most POPULAR votes. That happened this time and before that the most recent was Bush vs. Gore in 2000. So the people that are horrified by the idea of a clown president trump are NOT going to let go of the FACT that trump did NOT receive a mandate. You can't fool all of the people in this case. Numbers don't lie. 

 

Please be clear we're not saying he didn't win legally -- he did win legally. We are saying he won but failed to receive a MANDATE. Normally that means a president will be forced politically to COMPROMISE with the opposition more than they wish to promote national unity. But frankly, I doubt that will happen this time because trump controls the entire congress as well! In other words, for anti-trumpists, basically a worse case scenario. 

 

You are incorrect in saying that Trump does not have a mandate. This is opinion and has no legal basis. The President is chosen by the States, not by popular tote. The discrepancy is due to winner takes all (for most states) so the majority is applied at the State level.

[SheungWan]

2 minutes ago, NovaBlue05 said:

Trump swung some blue states in his favor. He also worked his ass off on the campaign trail with no real ground game to speak of and a fraction of his opponents cash expenditures and it paid off. The media's constant barrage of bias towards Hillary was blatant & obvious to the non-Hillary sycophants and turned some fed up independents to him. The Democrats hitched their wagon to a bad candidate back in January 2009 and then, once her server issues began surfacing, blindly forged ahead with their gameplan.

 

Lessons learned?

 

The only thing that is agreed here is that Trump won a number of rust-belt states which provided a pathway to electoral victory.

[ClutchClark]

1 minute ago, SheungWan said:

 

You are incorrect in saying that Trump does not have a mandate. This is opinion and has no legal basis. The President is chosen by the States, not by popular tote. The discrepancy is due to winner takes all (for most states) so the majority is applied at the State level.

 

Exactly.

 

All these liberals are running around saying "no mandate" and they have no idea what it actually means. 

 

Trump's victory is recognized as a "mandate" by the authorities. 

 

Its the way the position of the President works. 

 

Hillary had an equal chance to win. She had an equal chance to receive the Electoral vote. 

 

i have long recognized the differences between a Conservative and Liberal mindset; however, the way that Liberals are dealing with the loss is even a shock to me. Its genuinely embarrassing to see their behavior. 

 

 

[NovaBlue05]

55 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

It's not by number of states. It's by electoral votes. A small population state might get 4 electoral votes and a large one 55. So you see NUMBER of state wins is  indeed 100 percent irrelevant. Yes, the electoral votes are what matters, and you need 270 to win. But it's always politically relevant (BECAUSE IT IS RARE!) when the winner by electoral college fails to win the most POPULAR votes. That happened this time and before that the most recent was Bush vs. Gore in 2000. So the people that are horrified by the idea of a clown president trump are NOT going to let go of the FACT that trump did NOT receive a mandate. You can't fool all of the people in this case. Numbers don't lie. 

 

Please be clear we're not saying he didn't win legally -- he did win legally. We are saying he won but failed to receive a MANDATE. Normally that means a president will be forced politically to COMPROMISE with the opposition more than they wish to promote national unity. But frankly, I doubt that will happen this time because trump controls the entire congress as well! In other words, for anti-trumpists, basically a worse case scenario. 

 

What's a mandate anyway other than a talking point? In most elections, close to half the people vote for someone other than the winner so are those people irrelevant?   He has the Oval Office and his party controlling Congress right now and that's the only mandate that really counts.

[lannarebirth]

9 hours ago, Jingthing said:

So you're not American, right? Your statement of assumption of no personal impact gave you away. 

I have a personal anecdote. A close relative, a lifetime republican (the Romney kind) contacted me and said, I don't recognize my country anymore, this feels like 911. Multiple that by about half the country and you'll START to get it. 

This is not a normal change of presidents by any stretch of the imagination. 

 

 

And therein lies the irony. If a candidate like Romney, who maybe differed from the opposing party by about 10% hadn't been so demonized maybe we never would have ended up here. Probably not.

[lannarebirth]

6 hours ago, CaptHaddock said:

Please consider signing a petition calling on the Electors of the Electoral College to cast their votes for Hillary Clinton on Dec. 19 which would be constitutional and would make her the President.

 

More on this thread:

 

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/953178-petition-to-deny-presidency-to-trump/

 

You must be mad. To condone extra-constitutional measures because your preferred candidate didn't win? Hey, I've got news for you. My preferred candidate didn't won in 9 out of the 11 presidential elections in which I've participated. Some of those I didn't vote for turned out to be alright, at least for awhile and the two I did vote for disappointed me on more than a few occasions. Life goes on. Suck it up, man.

Edited November 11, 2016 by lannarebirth

[lannarebirth]

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

It's not by number of states. It's by electoral votes. A small population state might get 4 electoral votes and a large one 55. So you see NUMBER of state wins is  indeed 100 percent irrelevant. Yes, the electoral votes are what matters, and you need 270 to win. But it's always politically relevant (BECAUSE IT IS RARE!) when the winner by electoral college fails to win the most POPULAR votes. That happened this time and before that the most recent was Bush vs. Gore in 2000. So the people that are horrified by the idea of a clown president trump are NOT going to let go of the FACT that trump did NOT receive a mandate. You can't fool all of the people in this case. Numbers don't lie. 

 

Please be clear we're not saying he didn't win legally -- he did win legally. We are saying he won but failed to receive a MANDATE. Normally that means a president will be forced politically to COMPROMISE with the opposition more than they wish to promote national unity. But frankly, I doubt that will happen this time because trump controls the entire congress as well! In other words, for anti-trumpists, basically a worse case scenario. 

 

I'm only guessing but I think he will compromise more than most presidents we've seen these past couple of decades. He is not beholden to the Republican leadership for his victory and many positions he has taken in the past (for whatever that's worth) are to the left of Hillary's positions. Plus, more than anything, I think he wants to bask in the people's adulation (which is dangerous IMO).

Edited November 11, 2016 by lannarebirth

[stephen tracy]

[stephen tracy]

[JLCrab]

Electoral College electors are chosen by the respective Party establishments. States that Trump won or 'flipped' where the electors are not pledged include Pennsylvania and Iowa.

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

[stephen tracy]

9 hours ago, coma said:

 

Yes. I am serious. I am really interested to know you drew such conclusions. So if you could be so kind as to elaborate and provide evidence to corroborate said conclusions it would be much appreciated.  

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37953528  Another lie from the DT campaign: "US President-elect Donald Trump has said in an interview he is open to leaving intact key parts of President Barack Obama's healthcare bill."... and they'll keep coming.  He's gonna be back-tracking on pretty much all the insane gibberish he blabbed to win votes.  No more Muslim ban, keep Obamacare, and next up will probably be back-tracking on preventing women from gaining access to contraception and/or having abortions... there's no way that wasn't BS.  Oh and the wall?  What wall?  Who said anything about a wall?  That will also be ditched.  It's marvelous. The people who are going to be left most disappointed by Trump's victory are the very same people who handed it to him out of sheer, breathtaking ignorance.  Poetic justice. 

Edited November 11, 2016 by stephen tracy

[ClutchClark]

Well if you know that Trump is going to break all of his campaign promises then why do you hate the guy so much ? 

 

I will let you in on a little secret us Republican voters have long been aware of:

 

Campaign promises are just for show. 

 

The republicans are going to attempt to reform healthcare into something that actually works for the majority of the American people and not just those in low income brackets. 

 

Trump has now suggested he may retsin that part of the 2,000 page Law that prevents insurers from dropping or refusing customers for pre-existing conditions. 

 

That helps all Americans and that is what Trump promised in his acceptance speech. 

 

As for allowing children to remain on their parents' policies until age 26, it is less so but I would be interested in hearing opinions on this here amongst the TVF members. 

 

The downside to this for parents is that the child's income has to be included in total household income, correct? And this can throw parents into a higher tax bracket?  So it is not widespread until the child is in school. Could be wrong on this.

 

Cheers

Edited November 12, 2016 by ClutchClark

[mania]

10 hours ago, stephen tracy said:

Due to the fact that he's lied to them throughout the entire campaign.  Even a moron like Trump must know he will be unable to follow through on his 'polices' (AKA threats and lies).  He backtracked on the Muslim ban within hours of winning

 

See this is a problem with the left......How they underestimate the intelligence of those who voted for Trump

we see it all the time in the slurs used by the left to describe voters for Trump...shitkickers...ma & pa kettle....uninformed whites...Yada,Yada,Yada..

 

Yet is glaringly clear in posts such as yours who in reality lacks a clue .

 

You wrongly assume voters did not know talk at times was bravado? Voters knew damn well. What is & what is not possible. BUT..... They liked hearing how well aware a candidate was of voters feelings,anger in certain  areas. 

 

We  of course knew no race/ethnic group/religion was going to be banned from the USA....of course we knew...nor would we want/allow that

We are after all Americans

 

But many were happy to see unabashed acknowledgment  of problems at our borders etc. To many that was a good indicator.

 

But to the left that  so badly underestimated Trump I would say......You as always again have no clue.....As it was not Trump but the voters you underestimated both before & even now after the election when you dare to think you speak for them or know their mind....worrying as you do that we were duped 

[coma]

9 hours ago, stephen tracy said:

I am not in the minority.  Clinton won the popular vote.  Trump is not a politician.  He's a self-serving businessman. Did you see Putin raise a glass with his inner circle when it was announced Trump won?  Another quick out of the paddock to congratulate him was Hun Sen, as were Prayuth, Erdogan and Sisi.  It's an indication that they view him as a useful idiot. 

He may well not be a politician yet. But he is about to become, arguably the most powerful politician on the face of the earth. And the sooner you and your lot get your heads around it and simmer down, stop the riots, stop the gutter talk and give the man a chance, the better it will be for all. End!!

[ClutchClark]

2 minutes ago, mania said:

 

See this is a problem with the left......How they underestimate the intelligence of those who voted for Trump

we see it all the time in the slurs used by the left to describe voters for Trump...shitkickers...ma & pa kettle....uninformed whites...Yada,Yada,Yada..

 

Yet is glaringly clear in posts such as yours who in reality lacks a clue .

 

You wrongly assume voters did not know talk at times was bravado? Voters knew damn well. What is & what is not possible. BUT..... They liked hearing how well aware a candidate was of voters feelings,anger in certain  areas. 

 

We  of course knew no race/ethnic group/religion was going to be banned from the USA....of course we knew...nor would we want/allow that

We are after all Americans

 

But many were happy to see unabashed acknowledgment  of problems at our borders etc. To many that was a good indicator.

 

But to the left that  so badly underestimated Trump I would say......You as always again have no clue.....As it was not Trump but the voters you underestimated both before & even now after the election when you dare to think you speak for them or know their mind....worrying as you do that we were duped 

 

Mania,

 

I admire your patient and respectful nature towards Liberals.

 

God knows I could use some.

[mania]

9 hours ago, dcutman said:

Since people are having such a hard time accepting democracy, in it present form, it may very well be time to amend the election laws.

Maybe, do a best 3 out of 5 election? And if people's butt still hurts, we can revert to rock paper scissors.

 

 

I know you partly joking......but true if enough voters feel the EC is not working 

( which is not the same as boo hoo we lost )

 

Then yes work within the law to change it, But

realize it does not change retroactively . If changed it changes first election after law changes

 

Also realize the difference between "The Republic For Which It Stands"  and a pure democracy before you decide to change America's intent

 

[mania]

31 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

Mania,

 

I admire your patient and respectful nature towards Liberals.

 

God knows I could use some.

Thanks but ...I also thought your posts were quite respectful and well written...like the one I just read #265

Edited November 12, 2016 by mania

[dcutman]

Just now, mania said:

 

I know you partly joking......but true if enough voters feel the EC is not working 

( which is not the same as boo hoo we lost )

 

Then yes work within the law to change it, But

realize it does not change retroactively . If changed it changes first election after law changes

 

Also realize the difference between "The Republic For Which It Stands"  and a pure democracy before you decide to change America's intent

 

One hand the popular vote is ideal in a democracy, on the other hand, demographically,  the electoral collage makes perfect sense and in fact is more democratically fair. . When a few cities on the east and west coast can and do dictate what goes on with the rest of the country, it was a brilliant idea to implement  at least for this country.  IMO

[Khunchai Tong]

On 11/11/2016 at 7:14 AM, Jingthing said:

Not really. Hillary Clinton won the POPULAR vote. 

 Uh Duh......It may surprise you to know that she did not

[lannarebirth]

I get it now. America "faces a dire threat to its democracy" because Americans exercised their constitutionally protected right to vote. Hey, good luck with all that. A word of advice though. You probably ought to stay in Thailand until the ensuing kerfuffle blows over.

 

Edited November 12, 2016 by lannarebirth

[LennyW]

LOL, what is with all the pages and pages of drivel about the so called popular vote, Donald Trump won the election, Donald Trump is the next president of the United States of America, get over it and get on with life, jeez i thought all the blethering on about crooked Hillary before the election was bad......this is worse.

Suck it up peeps, move on, nothing to see here!!!!