Trump bucks protocol on press access

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, CaptHaddock said:

But the electors and only the electors have that authority.  Neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has the authority to override the Electoral College.

 

Do you, honestly & objectively, believe elimination of the Electoral College, in favor of the Popular Vote, is in the best interest of our Democratic Republic "for witch it stands"?

 

Or is it just because you don't like Trump, and thats enough for you to justify all this? 

[NovaBlue05]

Have fun with the petition if it helps you cope. Try to come to grips before Dec 19 though or it may cause a relapse 

[LannaGuy]

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

Do you, honestly & objectively, believe elimination of the Electoral College, in favor of the Popular Vote, is in the best interest of our Democratic Republic "for witch it stands"?

 

Or is it just because you don't like Trump, and thats enough for you to justify all this? 

 

why not?  the one who gets the most votes wins?  how can you argue against that???

[ClutchClark]

3 minutes ago, Diplomatico said:

 

  Assume, for the sake of the argument, that this has even a whisper of happening.  Do you really think the Clintons would actually attempt to assume office under these pretenses?  As much as I dislike Hillary Clinton, I have enough faith in her respect for the US system to think she wouldn't want to assume the Presidency under such conditions.  

 

You are asking for a logical plan from people who are acting on pure knee-jerk impulse because they cannot process that they do not always get their way.

 

Thats the problem with liberals, they are ruled by emotion rather than intellect

[mania]

3 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

 

why not?  the one who gets the most votes wins?  how can you argue against that???

 

How can you argue for that ?

Please refer back to original reason EC was created.

Also read how a Republic differs from Pure democracy

 

Edited November 12, 2016 by mania

[lannarebirth]

Just now, LannaGuy said:

 

why not?  the one who gets the most votes wins?  how can you argue against that???

 

For one thing, many of the resources of the United States lie within states with very small populations.  Then there's this:

 

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

[CaptHaddock]

5 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Do you think the number of congresspersons a state has should be determined by the national popular vote totals as well?

 

The House of Representatives is the most democratic institution in the Constitution.  Representation in the House is allocated by population and adjusted after each 10-year census.  Anomalies arise when since each state must have at least one representative in the House, for some small states that congressman represents the interests of only a few hundred thousand voters.  The result is that Alaska has one congressman per 240,000 citizens while in California it is one representative for 678,000 citizens.

 

That said, that particular inequity is a kind of rounding error which would be hard to fix without expanding the House to an unworkable size. 

 

The inequities of the Electoral College are of a different order of magnitude.  Turns out that the candidate without the majority of votes became president because due to the Electoral College, not once or twice in the last hundred years, but ten times.  That is a substantial abridgement of the democratic vote.

 

What's more the original, covert purpose of the EC was to give the South the same overrepresentation in electing the president that it enjoyed in the Congress as a whole.  And that is still the case since the smaller states who currently enjoy the overrepresentation of the EC are just those that are overwhelmingly white.  Which is how Trump won the electoral vote count without the majority of voters!  The ante-bellum South, no longer slaveholding, still has its racist thumb on the election of the president.

 

But if 30 or 40 electors insist on respecting the popular vote by electing Hillary, they can abolish the Electoral College at least temporarily and perhaps provoke a serious move to amend the Constitution.

 

It's admittedly a long-shot, but a great deal is hanging by a thread.  And that thread is the individual electors.

[Strange]

Just now, LannaGuy said:

why not?  the one who gets the most votes wins?  how can you argue against that???

 

You are English, so I assume you have actually learned yourself on how our Republic works and why. 

 

Because California, New York, Illinois etc would steal every election. This is not rhetoric or hyperbole. They would. 

 

There are other things at play as well but I'm not gonna explain it all for you. If you want to participate you should school yourself first. 

[Diplomatico]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

 

You are English, so I assume you have actually learned yourself on how our Republic works and why. 

 

Because California, New York, Illinois etc would steal every election. This is not rhetoric or hyperbole. They would. 

 

There are other things at play as well but I'm not gonna explain it all for you. If you want to participate you should school yourself first. 

 

  It wouldn't even be California, New York, and Illinois.  It would be Los Angeles, New York City, and Chicago.  The candidates would need to campaign for three cities.  

[CaptHaddock]

15 minutes ago, Diplomatico said:

 

  Assume, for the sake of the argument, that this has even a whisper of happening.  Do you really think the Clintons would actually attempt to assume office under these pretenses?  As much as I dislike Hillary Clinton, I have enough faith in her respect for the US system to think she wouldn't want to assume the Presidency under such conditions.  

 

This has been a year that has surprised everyone.  The proposal elect Hillary in the Electoral College is without precedent in modern times, even though it is completely consistent with the Constitution.

 

Whether or not this particular long-shot proposal succeeds or not, expectations in the US are going to change enormously in the next few years and not for the better.  What people find acceptable is going to change as well, perhaps including Hillary Clinton. 

[JLCrab]

The only way that Donald Trump could be denied the Presidency DEC 19 is by the actions of Electors who are from the Republic Party Establishment -- not by the actions of left-wing Commie pinkos.

[Strange]

12 minutes ago, CaptHaddock said:

What people find acceptable is going to change as well, perhaps including Hillary Clinton. 

 

Hillary Clinton & Ol' Bill are out to pasture. Done and dusted. 

 

Either Trump does well, and we benefit, or its a turd sandwich, in witch case the Democrats can re-structure over the next 4 years and provide a point of view thats acceptable for the majority and easily start to take it back, without calling people derogatory names. Nobody likes that noise. 

 

The Democrats need to take the lessons learned here if they want to move forward. 

[NovaBlue05]

Only way you get rid of Trump before 2020 is if the GOP conspire to impeach him and elevate their boy Pence. Trump may actually try to govern as a bi-partisan Prez and that would piss them off

[saminoz]

4 hours ago, stephen tracy said:

 

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. 

Blah, blah, blah, whine, whine, whine.

You're missing the point entirely.

Trump didn't need a valid game plan. He was given a golden opportunity to win this election simply because the Democrats decided to field a candidate so tainted by

lies and corruption as to be (as it turned out) unelectable.

The Republicans could probably have painted a face on an old sack and still have had it kick Clinton''s *ss!! 

[Scott]

I see that some members still haven't heeded the previous warnings about staying on topic.   This one is about the protocol on press access.   I very strongly suggest you get back on topic.

 

 

[Gary A]

The Trump haters have forgotten that Trump is a negotiator. He will have to make deals that make everyone at least somewhat happy. A bullheaded president like Obama, as shown, will never get anything done and will alienate many people. Compromise is the name of the game and must be done to make any progress at all. How anyone can think that this is a con is simply bitter and looking for anyway they can to find fault. There will be many things Trump wants to do that will not happen. No man is an island.

[otherstuff1957]

I haven't waded through the many pages in this topic, so perhaps I am repeating something that has already been pointed out:

 

The Democrats have won the popular vote in 6 out of 7 of the last presidential elections.

 

The US president is supposed to represent ALL of the American people, yet this current system has disenfranchised the majority of voters in two out of five 21st century elections.  Perhaps it is time to reconsider this system and elect the POTUS by direct popular vote.  This would be fairer for people of all parties: as of now, if you are a conservative Republican living in California or New York, your vote is currently meaningless!

[CaptHaddock]

21 minutes ago, Gary A said:

The Trump haters have forgotten that Trump is a negotiator. He will have to make deals that make everyone at least somewhat happy. A bullheaded president like Obama, as shown, will never get anything done and will alienate many people. Compromise is the name of the game and must be done to make any progress at all. How anyone can think that this is a con is simply bitter and looking for anyway they can to find fault. There will be many things Trump wants to do that will not happen. No man is an island.

 

Gary A, this one's for you.

 

Is Paul Ryan already eyeing Medicare cuts?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/11/11/is-paul-ryan-already-eyeing-medicare-cuts/

 

Now you yourself may well not care much about Medicare living here in Thailand, but guess what program you do care about now has a target painted on it in the eager imagination of Paul Ryan's mind?  Hint: its Trust Fund is solvent!

 

[mania]

1 minute ago, otherstuff1957 said:

I haven't waded through the many pages in this topic, so perhaps I am repeating something that has already been pointed out:

 

 

Yes you are repeating.......If your an American you know why elections here are structured this way......if you don't like it...start now to change NEXT election...good luck

 

If your not an American....read why the America the Republic

Chose this system

[mania]

3 minutes ago, CaptHaddock said:

 

Now you yourself may well not care much about Medicare living here in Thailand, but guess what program you do care about now has a target painted on it in the eager imagination of Paul Ryan's mind?  Hint: its Trust Fund is solvent!

 

 

Typical left wing fear mongering

 

[geriatrickid]

14 hours ago, coma said:

 

Example : Obama declaring he would have Guantanamo Bay shut down. FAIL. Did he lie during his election campaign to win votes ? Probably not. 

 

Historical Fact: The House Republican majority refused to allow the closure and blocked the President.

[Gary A]

17 minutes ago, CaptHaddock said:

 

Gary A, this one's for you.

 

Is Paul Ryan already eyeing Medicare cuts?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/11/11/is-paul-ryan-already-eyeing-medicare-cuts/

 

Now you yourself may well not care much about Medicare living here in Thailand, but guess what program you do care about now has a target painted on it in the eager imagination of Paul Ryan's mind?  Hint: its Trust Fund is solvent!

 

 

The basic system has always worked well. It's the corruption and diversion of funds that needs work. Since both Social Security and Medicare have always had a surplus, politicians have seen fit how to steal from those programs and add on other programs that don't belong on the old folks who have paid in all their working lives. Why give benefits to people who have never paid in and if they do receive benefits, they should come from the generous welfare budget which has never been threatened and never seems short of money. Socialist politicians are very good at manipulating the system.

[stephen tracy]

4 hours 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 

You assume a great deal and understand very little. I am in no way on the left of the political spectrum. But I suppose it's difficult for some to grasp that categorizing people in such black and white terms is naïve. To understand that there are those that are neither so-called right or left is clearly to much of an intellectual leap for some to make. As for this: "They liked hearing how well aware a candidate was of voters feelings, anger in certain  areas".  So what is the point of that?  Do explain this to me.  So they new it was bravado and BS, and?  So it made them feel good to listen to an empty-headed bigot confirming their biases and that's it?  Things that even Trump himself did not believe?  So <deleted> ideas (Trump does have any)? <deleted> defining a tangible domestic and foreign policy? None of this matters?  Just vent spleen cause it makes us feel damn good?  What exactly are you saying?  It's nonsensical.  One doesn't need a crystal ball to see that this whole thing is farcical.  And there are 10s of millions of Americans that would agree with that, and billions of people around the world that would also concur.  You got the president.   - I use the term loosely - you deserve. 

Edited November 12, 2016 by stephen tracy

[ClutchClark]

1 minute ago, stephen tracy said:

You assume a great deal and understand very little. I am in no way on the left of the political spectrum. But I suppose it's difficult for some to grasp that can't categorizing people in such black and white terms is naïve. To understand that there are those that are neither so-called right or left is clearly to much of an intellectual leap for some to make. As for this: "They liked hearing how well aware a candidate was of voters feelings, anger in certain  areas".  So what is the point of that?  Do explain this to me.  So they new it was bravado and BS, and?  So it made them feel good to listen to an empty-headed bigot confirming their biases and that's it?  Things that even Trump himself did not believe?  So <deleted> ideas (Trump does have any)? <deleted> defining a tangible domestic and foreign policy? None of this matters?  Just vent spleen cause it makes us feel damn good?  What exactly are you saying?  It's nonsensical.  One doesn't need a crystal ball to see that this whole thing is farcical.  And there are 10s of millions of Americans that would agree with that, and billions of people around the world that would also concur.  You got the president.   - I use the term loosely - you deserve. 

 

And if you are american then you "got him" too.

 

Grin and bare it.

 

;-)

[stephen tracy]

4 hours ago, coma said:

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!!

Me and my lot?  Yo have no clue who I am.  And gutter talk?  That's what Trump's campaign was based on.  You backed a loser, and it's just a matter of time before even Trumpians realise it.

[LennyW]

56 minutes ago, CaptHaddock said:

 

How about putting up an article about resistance to Trump in the World News section so that we can discuss what is on our minds without disturbing these posters?  Since that is a function that you can do, but we cannot, are we not entitled to that much courtesy?

 

Why not just go and cry in the middle of a field somewhere far away from everyone else so we dont have to put up with your perpetual bleating, are we not entitled to that much courtesy?

[Gary A]

You are essentially saying that the US government has done a good job and that you are satisfied with the condition of the country? Moron socialist teachers controlled by the federal government are encouraged and permitted to teach students to be anarchists? I hope one of the first things that happens is to eliminate the US department of education and give it to the states where it belongs. 

[pgrahmm]

2 minutes ago, LennyW said:

 

Why not just go and cry in the middle of a field somewhere far away from everyone else so we dont have to put up with your perpetual bleating, are we not entitled to that much courtesy?

 

errr - that would be Left field.....!!

[LannaGuy]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

 

You are English, so I assume you have actually learned yourself on how our Republic works and why. 

 

Because California, New York, Illinois etc would steal every election. This is not rhetoric or hyperbole. They would. 

 

There are other things at play as well but I'm not gonna explain it all for you. If you want to participate you should school yourself first. 

 

I know that fool but it doesn't make it right - one person one vote is all that's needed no matter where they live but I guess you don't support democracy

[stephen tracy]

1 hour ago, ClutchClark said:

 

You are asking for a logical plan from people who are acting on pure knee-jerk impulse because they cannot process that they do not always get their way.

 

Thats the problem with liberals, they are ruled by emotion rather than intellect

Absurd statement.