SURVEY: Did the US elect the right person as President?

[Thakkar]

5 hours ago, csabo said:

The US was spiraling deeper and deeper into corruption and corporate interests, fanned racial conflict and overgrown government. Will it be better with him? Who knows. Would it have been 100 times worse with her? No question.

 

I agree that the US is drowning in corporate interests. So the solution is to elect a corporate CEO?

 

Brilliant! CUt out the middleman! Let them rule directly!

 

wait, wut??

[dcutman]

35 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

53 minutes ago, dcutman said:

Of course this is an option and a right of the electors.

Fortunately there are only a very few people, such as yourself, that would even consider this  ridiculous idea. 

Fortunately all these electors will respect the constitution and will also accept the outcome of this election whether they agree with the outcome or not, just as most Americans will, yourself excluded of course.

 

 

There was an election once where 27 electors voted against the president elect.  And what ever gave you the idea that I do not accept the outcome?  I was merely making a slightly less ridiculous suggestion in response to the suggestion of requesting a change to the constitution, interesting that you see the legal right of the electors as being "ridiculous" though.  I guess you neglect the fact that Hillary won by a landslide and the president elect has been so divisive throughout the campaign that for the first time in history he has created widespread rioting, for once it might not actually be that ridiculous to at least consider not electing the president elect.

When your reading comprehension improves and you can get facts strait, I will be more than willing to have a discussion, but until then.....

 

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

 Usually, the faithless electors act alone. An exception was the 1836 election, in which all 23 Virginia electors acted together.

The 1836 election was the only occasion when faithless electors altered the outcome of the electoral college vote. The Democrat ticket won states with 170 of the 294 electoral votes, but the 23 Virginia electors abstained in the vote for Vice President, so the Democrat candidate, Richard Mentor Johnson, got only 147 (exactly half), and was not elected. However, Johnson was elected Vice President by the U.S. Senate.

[elliss]

On 11/12/2016 at 9:52 AM, Boon Mee said:

Trump will drain the swamp - full stop. 

 

       Nothing new ,  profit before  country .

[SimpleChap]

19 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

You missed Clinton getting 630,877 more votes than Trump?

 

Which accounts to a 0.5% premium over Trump. Only Clinton supporters would call that a landslide.

But even that is a pipe dream, because these are the current results

 

https://70news.wordpress.com/2016/11/12/final-election-2016-numbers-trump-won-both-popular-62-9-m-62-7-m-and-electoral-college-vote-306-232-hey-change-org-scrap-your-loony-petition-now/

 

 

 

 

What is called a landslide is the the almost 35% premium in EC votes that Trump realised.

Edited November 13, 2016 by SimpleChap

[Ulysses G.]

18 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

You missed Clinton getting 630,877 more votes than Trump?

 

Hardly a landslide and not even significant considering the electoral votes that Trump won meaningfully. 

[dcutman]

5 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

You missed Clinton getting 630,877 more votes than Trump?

630877  =  1/4 of 1 percent, what do you consider a close election? If we were not talking about the fact that Trump won a landslide in the electoral, which is how it works in America.

[sgtsabai]

Was the orange monster the right person, no, no, no and not NO BUT HELL NO. Neither was the Clinton.

[Tug]

Trump is a step backwards a danger to the world a lier a predator in every sense of the word it is a dark day in the USA the country I love

[Jingthing]

Trump is a step backwards a danger to the world a lier a predator in every sense of the word it is a dark day in the USA the country I love

That is correct.

[Thakkar]

3 hours ago, Dtrump said:

3 hours ago, Thakkar said:

If mechanisation and robotics will be doing much of the work, and I agree with you they will, how will bringing manufacturing and other jobs back appreciably improve employment, as Trump has promised?

 

Meanwhile, the cost of stuff Americans pay for will increase, as automation still costs more than cheap Asian labor. Also, don't forget the extra localized pollution those factories will bring to the (still) unemployed schmos living in Michigan.

 

 

Robotics lower the cost of labor so America can compete with China and Thailand.  The jobs will come back if tax incentives are given to labor saving devices like worker assistant robots. 

 

Some manufacturing may be compelled to come back. Automation means the jobs they create will be minimal. And it won't be in the Rust Belt, where they are needed most. The jobs in automated factories require higher skills, which, if such skills were available in the Rust Belt, wouldn't be the Rust Belt.

 

And how does Trump propose to entice these factories? He has intimated that he will do so by increasing tarrifs for imports. If he does, those countries will impose their own tarrifs on American goods, costing American exports and American jobs. Net job gains may be zero at the risk of worldwide trade wars that could lead to depression.

 

Free trade is not a bad thing. It has lifted millions out of poverty, albeit not in America, although it has helped America in numerous ways, too off topic to get into here. What's bad about free trade is the inordinate multi national CORPORATE  influence in trade policy.

 

Not only are Trump's promises in this regard almost impossible to keep, it is delusional to think that a narcissistic billionaire con man born with a silver spoon in his mouth and who has never ever demonstrated the slightest concern for working people had any intention to help them.

 

 

Edit: added "Corporate"

Edited November 13, 2016 by Thakkar

[Ulysses G.]

29 minutes ago, Tug said:

Trump is a step backwards a danger to the world a lier a predator in every sense of the word it is a dark day in the USA the country I love

 

 

What a load of twaddle.

[sujoop]

2 hours ago, pgrahmm said:

http://conservativevideos.com/donald-trumps-victory-delivers-lessons-parties-video/

 

An interesting discussion on who, how, what happened & who voted....Trump won the college educated crowd......

Pretty much every man's (woman's) candidate...  

'Conservative Videos' as source?

Actually, Trump won with a majority of under-educated, ageing, white voters and by the slimmest of margins in the rust belt:
 

"Voters who had college and postgraduate education were far more likely to support Ms Clinton – only 37 per cent of voters with postgraduate qualifications backed the Republican."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/who-voted-for-donald-trump-white-men-and-women-most-responsible-for-new-president-elect-voting-data-a7407996.html
 

In August I posted if he could 'sell' the under-educated in the rust-belt states on 'bringing back coal jobs' etc, he'd win. Of course this is akin to making the future of coal jobs in the UK 'great again'. To others this is 'simple' carbon-dated populism designed to win votes from the under-educated.

Not surprisingly, Trump is also winning on this TV forum poll, a forum which is well represented by white, ageing, resentful, stroppy, misogynist, xenophobes (redundant to also add under-educated;)

Edited November 13, 2016 by sujoop

[geriatrickid]

On 11/11/2016 at 10:04 PM, Dagnabbit said:

Of course the right person got elected. He won. That's democracy.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

No. That is how the US electoral system functions. In a true democracy, the majority wins, i.e. first past the post. In a modified democratic system, a George Bush or a Don Trump can be elected, even though they do not have a  plurality of votes. It was intended to prevent regional dominance. Whatever the rights or wrongs of the format, it is not a one person one vote system where all votes are equal as one sees with  true democratic electoral systems as seen in the UK, Canada etc.  

[Thakkar]

2 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Wrong. Obama had control of both the House and Senate for his first two years.

 

Indeed, and he did quite a lot in those two years. He brought the country back from the brink of a major depression, reversed the trend of massive job losses, and  provided healthcare insurance to millions who previously didn't have it among other things. After that, it's been six years of relentless obstruction from the Republicans, even on issues where the majority of Americans want action like gun control, more infrastructure projects, closing Gitmo, etc.

[tropo]

1 hour ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

You missed Clinton getting 630,877 more votes than Trump?

 

As I mentioned before, it's highly likely if the popular vote was the determining factor Trump still would have won. He would have campaigned differently and focused more on populous states such as California and New York, where he was certain of electoral college defeats under the current system.

The electoral college system requires a certain strategy, which he nailed. Clinton, for example, didn't set foot in Wisconsin. That was a huge blunder.

 

[The Dark Lord]

Irrespective of if Trump is right or not or if Brexit was right or not why is it that the so called liberal elite cannot accept the democratic process?

 

do they really prefer a military rule or a dictatorship because that is what they seem to be saying.

 

face facts guys you lost and you lost in a democratic manner so suck it up and grow up!

 

[Ulysses G.]

18 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

 

Whatever the rights or wrongs of the format, it is not a one person one vote system where all votes are equal as one sees with  true democratic electoral systems as seen in the UK, Canada etc.  

 

Canada is not a true democracy either. The Prime Minister is not elected by the people. They are chosen by their party. The UK has similar issues.

[Honthy]

Did the US elect the right person as President?

 

Definitely.

 

If we see this from the point of view of a slight percent of liberals no, no, no....and more and more lauder, let the folk believe they have basis.

The rest of the world is happy with this election 

[Honthy]

30 minutes ago, sujoop said:

"Voters who had college and postgraduate education were far more likely to support Ms Clinton – only 37 per cent of voters with postgraduate qualifications backed the Republican."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/who-voted-for-donald-trump-white-men-and-women-most-responsible-for-new-president-elect-voting-data-a7407996.html

the only problem with this is that independent is everything, but not independent..... just like the majority of the media. Clintons rule the media but people started to think, not only read...

[tropo]

11 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Canada is not a true democracy either. The Prime Minister is not elected by the people. They are chosen by their party. The UK has similar issues.

 

It's the same in Australia. It's just as democratic in my opinion, as the Prime Minister doesn't have executive power as does the president or the USA and power is shared by the party.

[Publicus]

2 hours ago, Thakkar said:

 

Agreed, but perhaps a proportional system where say, in CA, where Trump gets,say, 10%of the popular vote, so gets 5 of CA's electoral votes and Clinton, 50. Similarly in Texas, where Clinton gets 30% of the popular vote, so gets 11 electoral votes and Trump the rest.

 

That would be more democratic in the sense that it would be more reflective of people's actual preferences by state. But of course, as you say, none of it is going to happen anytime soon.

 

Too hairy.

 

Winner take all with the two voting systems weighted against one another is my strong preference.

 

Proportional only mucks things up severely. Except in the election of Potus, proportions are great. They're rational, symmetrical, balanced, they equalise, they're logical, and proportioning rationally distributes a given matter. There are many good things per se about proportioning. 

 

Proportion however works best in crime and punishment and at the school cafeteria. It's a really bad idea at the Thanksgiving table. In politics especially proportional makes enemies of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders and their supporters. It makes enemies of Donald Trump and all the rest of 'em and within all the rest of 'em. There's no little or unity after that. It's just fact.

 

In American politics, proportional is a form of suicide. So I strongly prefer 'weighted' factoring of the Electoral College Vote and the Popular Vote. It's realistic given the ECV system is ingrained by now despite my own displeasure in having it -- in ever having it, but that's history and its legacies.

 

Proportioning the Electoral College is just not viable or workable in the election of Potus. It is unclear, indecisive, almost always very close and it naturally makes for contests that become too close for comfort and consequently leave deep and lasting scars.

 

My view is if I must say so myself practical, realistic, empirical.

 

If someone did an electoral college map of this election and proportioned the ECV according to the PV, I'd bet a nickle it would be a mess. Could be wrong of course cause I haven't even tried to think through the numbers as a rough estimate, but I'd need to see the kind of outcome you're advocating. We're each in a good faith effort and using good reasoning and logic, so I'd be open to a viable alternative that might be better than my own. Haven't actually seen one yet though.

[Ulysses G.]

35 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

 

Indeed, and he did quite a lot in those two years. He brought the country back from the brink of a major depression, reversed the trend of massive job losses, and  provided healthcare insurance to millions who previously didn't have it among other things.

 

Pure hype. Economists never predicted a depression. The recession hit rock bottom a month before Obama was even in office and started to recover a few months later. Barrack Obama had very little to do with any of that.

 

http://www.investors.com/politics/policy-analysis/did-obama-really-prevent-a-second-great-depression/

 

As far as Heath insurance goes, he passed it without a single Republican vote and it is imploding exactly as they predicted. He also lied his head off to the American people about Obamacare and was awared Lie of the Year for doing so. These are the policies that Hillary intended to double down on which is why she was not elected.

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/dec/12/lie-year-if-you-like-your-health-care-plan-keep-it/

Edited November 13, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[Publicus]

3 hours ago, connda said:

 

As a US Army officer you took an oath to protect the US Constitution which I assume that at some point in your military life you must have read?  An being one of the US Army's elite officer corps I can only assume that you understand how the US president is elected?  So why the cognitive dissonance now?  As a former US Army officer, you should know exactly how the system works.  I'm sorry for your confusion.

 

Let's leave General Robert E. Lee and General Ulysses S. Grant (later PotUS) out of the discussion plse thx.

 

And save the scolding lectures for some fockup 2LT who's fresh out of OCS. Not every commissioned officer went through OCS either.

 

And every commissioned officer of the US armed forces takes the same oath to the Constitution. I don't ever question another officer's loyalty or courage so kindly do not attempt to disparage mine. Taking a military oath is its own reward, however, some of us here have taken the oath to the Constitution in more than one single capacity.

 

So move out smartly from your nonsense.

[Si Thea01]

6 hours ago, Shawn0000 said:

2 hours ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

There was an election once where 27 electors voted against the president elect.  And what ever gave you the idea that I do not accept the outcome?  I was merely making a slightly less ridiculous suggestion in response to the suggestion of requesting a change to the constitution, interesting that you see the legal right of the electors as being "ridiculous" though.  I guess you neglect the fact that Hillary won by a landslide and the president elect has been so divisive throughout the campaign that for the first time in history he has created widespread rioting, for once it might not actually be that ridiculous to at least consider not electing the president elect.

You assume that I am a Clinton supporter, I am not, I was just countering their claim that Trump trumped Clinton in every way, which he did in every way except in numbers of people voting for him.

 

Why can't you just accept the result and get on with it.  Looking at these two posts, I would say that you are in total contradiction of what you posted within a 4 hour period.  A closet HRC supporter who has no conviction.  Who gives a tinker how many votes she got.  What is it that you do not understand about she lost, lost, lost, lost.  It is the left who created the rioting not the President-Elect.  No wonder there is a divide given their mind set goes with yours.  Birds of a feather I'd say.           

 

[Publicus]

 

Just a breezy suggestion to the board to maybe consider a survey of members.

 

How many members/posters are graduates of Christian colleges in the U.S. Southlands down below the Mason Dixon Line.

 

Just a passing thought however and it's all the same no matter.

 

Thanks much for any consideration of the notion.

 

[Si Thea01]

42 minutes ago, tropo said:

It's the same in Australia. It's just as democratic in my opinion, as the Prime Minister doesn't have executive power as does the president or the USA and power is shared by the party.

 

 

You are so right and look what Australia and Canada have ended up with as their Prime Ministers but I noted that in a rural Australia state election in Orange, people power has risen and a safe seat needing about a 25 percent to change hands looks just like doing that.  Another lot of good news for Australians is that it appears given,Mr Trumps grab on fossil fuels and steel production that the cost of oil, coal and gas have all risen and has given the Australian economy a 16 billion boost.  Go people power and look out all you elites, the people are coming for you unless you change you ways and get back to being public servants, not public masters. 

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

4 hours ago, JDGRUEN said:

The United States of America is a REPUBLIC ... not a Democracy... We have democratic principles ... but the Republic concept protects a minority -- even a large minority from the excesses of a majority ... thus the Electoral College was invented... It gives a balance between small population  areas and large population centers... 

 

The Heart of America gave a landslide Electoral Vote to Trump. The Electoral College System was designed for this very purpose to keep large populated states and large urban centers from dominating the political scene. If is the same reason that the Senate is TWO Senators per state - regardless of size geographically or by population to prevent domination of accidents of state boundaries creating huge states like Texas or small one like Rhode Island. And the House is apportioned by population - some House districts are very small and some are very large to get a close approximation of population representation ...

Hillary getting a few more votes especially at this point is meaningless - if in fact the final tally turns out to favor Hillary... We still have overseas ballots and Military overseas ballots  still to count - almost finished I hope. Too bad the rigged votes by Illegal Aliens and Refugees and Dead People cannot be found and retracted from the total ... Hillary would be tens of thousands of votes behind... LANDSLIDE IT IS...

 

 

Do you just make these things up as you go along? With, of course, the assistance of the fringe Alt Right websites that you occupy.

 

The idea that America is not a democracy is a device pushed by the extreme fringe right who have this stupid notion that the Founding Fathers invented a system to prevent lazy people voting themselves entitlements. There are whole reams of polemic devoted to this foolishness.

 

The Founding Fathers did not create the electoral college system to protect rural voters. In fact is is an elitist system that anticipated the uneducated state of many rural voters and the inappropriateness of their participation in elections. However, this is not the most damning thing about the electoral college Its true purpose was to protect the slave states from domination by the free states since, as Madison pointed out, the slaves in the Southern States could not vote.

http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/

 

So those defining the electoral college system are supporting the continuation of the vestiges of slavery.

 

The senate being comprised of 2 persons from each state is sufficient balance between low population states and high population states. It is a system in place in many other democracies.

 

Hillary having nearly 2 million more votes than Trump at this stage has no legal bearing on the Presidency but it has significant bearing on the way that opposition to Trump and his band will develop. Trump is a divider. He will try and rule a divided country instead of representing all Americans. Your long hoped for revolution has begun. You have had some initial successes. It is a long way from over. Irrespective of this, it would be useful to try and remain intellectually honest with historical context and not twist history to fit your fringe ideas that have always been rooted in antagonism towards Black Americans.

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

6 hours ago, Gary A said:

This is how I view democrats. I agree with old Ben;

 

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.”

― Benjamin Franklin

 

Benjamin Franklin never said that.

 

This is a made up meme circulated by Americans for Prosperity, a fringe Right Wing organization that promotes the America is a Republic not a Democracy and a Democracy allows lazy people to vote themselves entitlements crowd.

 

Benjamin Franklin is a particular kind of genius. An American 'Renaissance Man'. Not an American Exceptionalist and an Exceptionalist who happened to be American. His noted work, Poor Richard's Almanac is a true look into his particular mind.

 

It is rather telling that the nasty, selfish, 'keep up or be left behind' Right Wingers who will now be trying to set policy for the US for the next 4 years are so intellectually and morally stunted that they must use fake attributions to peddle their twisted and exclusive policies. The absurdity of a Party running for government office on the basis of eliminating government hasn't really sunk into the thick craniums of the rugged individualists, most of whom have sucked off the government teat at some stage in their lives.

 

If you want to push your harsh and selfish political views, please do so but without trying to steal the glory, passion and achievements of people with minds far greater than yours.

 

I guess we are in a post-factual world now with Trump and his fantasies and his fanboys with fake quotes.

 

You may read more at Fake Founders Quotes http://fakefoundersquotes.tumblr.com/post/89397760173/when-the-people-find-they-can-vote-themselves I won't hold my breath for a retraction. I expect a response consistent with almost all of your posts since Tuesday acting like a sore winner in the school yard.

[lannarebirth]

10 hours ago, Jingthing said:

So you like the anti gay rights stuff, the make abortion illegal stuff, the repress minority voters stuff as well? Just checking.

 

There are lots of ways to repress voting blocks, some of which are apparently legal. Such as have a complicit media convince your opponents supporters there is no point in voting because the race has already been decided by huge margins. Frankly, I would have thought that tactic was going to be successful.

Edited November 13, 2016 by lannarebirth

[dcutman]

7 minutes ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

 

The Founding Fathers did not create the electoral college system to protect rural voters. In fact is is an elitist system that anticipated the uneducated state of many rural voters and the inappropriateness of their participation in elections. However, this is not the most damning thing about the electoral college Its true purpose was to protect the slave states from domination by the free states since, as Madison pointed out, the slaves in the Southern States could not vote.

http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/

 

So those defining the electoral college system are supporting the continuation of the vestiges of slavery.

 

The senate being comprised of 2 persons from each state is sufficient balance between low population states and high population states. It is a system in place in many other democracies.

 

Hillary having nearly 2 million more votes than Trump at this stage has no legal bearing on the Presidency but it has significant bearing on the way that opposition to Trump and his band will develop. Trump is a divider. He will try and rule a divided country instead of representing all Americans. Your long hoped for revolution has begun. You have had some initial successes. It is a long way from over. Irrespective of this, it would be useful to try and remain intellectually honest with historical context and not twist history to fit your fringe ideas that have always been rooted in antagonism towards Black Americans.

When your butt hurts, and you feel the Constitution, as it is written,  does not agree with you ideals, contact your state representatives and demand them to have the Constitution amended.

 

Have you bothered to do that yet?