The anti-Trump resistance takes shape: 'Government's supposed to fear us'

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

6 hours ago, teatree said:

 

The electoral college is unfair and it needs to be changed. 

 

But you need to change it BEFORE you go into the election not after.  If you go into a contest knowing full well what the rules are you can't turn around and reject the result because it doesn't go your way.

 

Both parties have supported and benefited from the current '1st past the post system', keeping power amongst themselves and out of the hands of smaller parties by unfairly limiting choice .   It's a bit hypocritical to moan about it now.  Trump won, Clinton lost - suck it up.

 

There is a golden opportunity for real reform of the US electoral system in the wake of this result if people can redirect their anger away from Trump and towards making the US a Proportional Representation system.   But I don't see this happening as the Democrats are quite happy sharing power on and off with the Republicans.

 

 

Hugely ironic. Trump, who has spoken out against the Electoral College when it suited him, will no doubt appoint strictly constructionist justices to SCOTUS who would never consider changing the system. These types do not believe that the Constitution is or should be a living document. They fetishize the Founding Fathers and believe that Americans should be confined to living in the same conditions as the late 18th century despite obvious changes in how people live and how they wish to be governed.

 

The Electoral College system makes Trump's victory legal. The popular vote issue removes legitimacy. This is extremely important in terms of how Trump may or may not be able to effectively govern. His many problems and issues may not be taken literally by his supporters but you can be sure they are taken more seriously by those who will oppose him - and I do not just speak of an opposition party.

 

The popular vote adds legitimacy to the opposition. The general populace have no legal power to remove the President but their voices can certainly provide assistance to those within the system who do have that power.

 

Neither Trump or his cronies have any interest in real change so don't expect any constitutional changes being proposed except those that attempt to limit peoples rights to equality and those that increase government powers to invade people's lives. The Electoral College issue comes up every election and will soon fade away. Most campaign professionals, pollsters, journalists and others involved in the electoral process know and work within the system. Arguments for or against it are interesting from an academic standpoint but quite boring from a partisan standpoint. We should look elsewhere for more meaningful changes that may be instigated by the resistance to Trump and his gang of weirdos.

[F4UCorsair]

23 hours ago, Jingthing said:

You're confused. 

I didn't say he doesn't have almost total control of all branches of government.

The only fighting chance the democrats have there is in the senate.

That is not the same thing as a MANDATE from the people. 

He lost the popular vote BADLY.

His electoral victory was nothing like a landslide, and in the key states that put him over, the margins were generally NOT large.

He takes office as the most unpopular president elect in U.S. history.

The majority of voters that even voted for him don't think he is fit to be president, but rolled the dice anyway.

He ran on many radical policies.

He's already walked back a lot of them.

The majority of people do not support him fully on most of his radical campaign policies. 

The resistance may not be able to do much, but there is a chance pressure from the people can TEMPER him at least a little. It's worth trying. 

 

 

But it IS a mandate from the STATES, and that's what counts.

 

When the electoral act is changed so that the election is based solely on the 'popular vote' come and see me and we can continue the discussion.

 

The popular vote is not a mandate from the states!!!   That's what counts....that's what he has.

[thaibeachlovers]

16 hours ago, MajarTheLion said:

 

Why do you think Trump is under any obligation to put his businesses in a blind trust?

Because if he has anything to do with it he will be suspected of making US policy work for his business. If he doesn't do something, and quickly, to solve this, his presidency will be destroyed before it starts. Even I will be joining the protests that he is a crook.

Having his children run it is no solution. needs to be an independent party. I guess he either never thought he would win, or he didn't realise the unintended consequences.

[thaibeachlovers]

15 minutes ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

 

Hugely ironic. Trump, who has spoken out against the Electoral College when it suited him, will no doubt appoint strictly constructionist justices to SCOTUS who would never consider changing the system. These types do not believe that the Constitution is or should be a living document. They fetishize the Founding Fathers and believe that Americans should be confined to living in the same conditions as the late 18th century despite obvious changes in how people live and how they wish to be governed.

 

The Electoral College system makes Trump's victory legal. The popular vote issue removes legitimacy. This is extremely important in terms of how Trump may or may not be able to effectively govern. His many problems and issues may not be taken literally by his supporters but you can be sure they are taken more seriously by those who will oppose him - and I do not just speak of an opposition party.

 

The popular vote adds legitimacy to the opposition. The general populace have no legal power to remove the President but their voices can certainly provide assistance to those within the system who do have that power.

 

Neither Trump or his cronies have any interest in real change so don't expect any constitutional changes being proposed except those that attempt to limit peoples rights to equality and those that increase government powers to invade people's lives. The Electoral College issue comes up every election and will soon fade away. Most campaign professionals, pollsters, journalists and others involved in the electoral process know and work within the system. Arguments for or against it are interesting from an academic standpoint but quite boring from a partisan standpoint. We should look elsewhere for more meaningful changes that may be instigated by the resistance to Trump and his gang of weirdos.

LOL. It's not up to SCOTUS. It would require a constitutional amendment and that is not going to happen while the GOP is in charge.

[thaibeachlovers]

6 hours ago, teatree said:

 

The electoral college is unfair and it needs to be changed. 

 

But you need to change it BEFORE you go into the election not after.  If you go into a contest knowing full well what the rules are you can't turn around and reject the result because it doesn't go your way.

 

Both parties have supported and benefited from the current '1st past the post system', keeping power amongst themselves and out of the hands of smaller parties by unfairly limiting choice .   It's a bit hypocritical to moan about it now.  Trump won, Clinton lost - suck it up.

 

There is a golden opportunity for real reform of the US electoral system in the wake of this result if people can redirect their anger away from Trump and towards making the US a Proportional Representation system.   But I don't see this happening as the Democrats are quite happy sharing power on and off with the Republicans.

 

Proportional representation is the worst abortion of an electoral system ever invented. Allows idiots to get power that would never win a majority without it.

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

19 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. It's not up to SCOTUS. It would require a constitutional amendment and that is not going to happen while the GOP is in charge.

 

I am sorry that you read my post and assumed I said that SCOTUS can change the Constitution. That was not the intended meaning.

 

You also assume that GOP and Trump are interchangeable.

[DriveByTrucker]

43 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Proportional representation is the worst abortion of an electoral system ever invented. Allows idiots to get power that would never win a majority without it.

Please explain your statement. Proportional representation is at least more democratic.

And do you say that with our existing electoral system there are no idiots in power?

[losworld]

On 11/21/2016 at 2:51 PM, ehs818 said:

The majority of the electorate did not vote for Trump. In fact almost 75% of eligible voters did not vote for Trump. Of those that did vote, about 1,800,000 more votes for Clinton have been counted so far, with more mail in ballots and provisional ballots still being counted. He did not receive a 'mandate' from the voters. In fact, he did not even have a plurality, much less a majority. He is only the 'winner' due to the form of voting that exists in the USA. The Electoral College meets on December 19 to cast their ballots. Still time for an upset as some US states require the Electoral College members to vote for their states winner, while some certainly do not. While it's possible that an upset may still occur to benefit Clinton, it's highly unlikely. You think the Democrats are 'sore losers'? If that turnabout were to occur, you'd see real violence from Trump supporters if enough of the Electoral College voters were to alter their votes based on the information that the poplular vote went to Clinton and not to Trump. If allowed to vote freely the results could be reversed.

you are either delusional or ill informed.  If Clinton captured the majority of the popular vote and that is an "if" given the number of illegals and fraudulent voter tactics she employs.  Luckily it was not quite enough.  Trump won the majority of the country by electoral and that is quite an accomplishment and just as I predicted long ago you can check my posts.  The only places Clinton did well were large urban areas preloaded with illegal voters.  

[MajarTheLion]

The anti-Trump resistance is nothing but a bunch of sore losers, millenials who likely don't even understand what they're protesting but are doing so because they think it's cool, savages looking for an excuse to be lawless and people paid by George Soros.

 

This will pass- just like when Al Gore lost to Bush in 2000.

[MajarTheLion]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Because if he has anything to do with it he will be suspected of making US policy work for his business. If he doesn't do something, and quickly, to solve this, his presidency will be destroyed before it starts. Even I will be joining the protests that he is a crook.

Having his children run it is no solution. needs to be an independent party. I guess he either never thought he would win, or he didn't realise the unintended consequences.

 

I would never turn a large business over to strangers. I have never called on any politician to turn over their business interests to strangers. I don't plan to start now.

[MajarTheLion]

10 hours ago, Morch said:

 

No, that's not what I meant at all. Why troll? (silly question).

Trump's concept of "Blind Trust" falls way short of what it actually means. This was said evident from his statements during and after the campaign. His family's understanding of the concept was pretty much the same, also aired during the campaign. Hence, "sort of" - he said he would, but what he referred to got little to do with the concept itself. Now he seems to renege even on this.

 

I have no idea what he said about turning over his business to a blind trust. And it appears you don't, either. So far, all we have are the vague rants of a feral anti-Trump person. Not very impressive at all.

[MajarTheLion]

4 hours ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

 

Far be it for me to challenge someone so obviously impartial and knowledgeable, but it seems Wikipedia does not agree with you. Perhaps you should work on getting that entry changed to reflect your reality

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

 

It appears you weren't able to interpret your own link's information. Bill Clinton won 43.01% of the popular vote in 1992 and 49.23% of the popular vote in 1996.

 

Both of these numbers are less than 50%, correct?

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

 

I am sorry that you read my post and assumed I said that SCOTUS can change the Constitution. That was not the intended meaning.

 

You also assume that GOP and Trump are interchangeable.

LOL. I certainly don't assume that the GOP and Trump are going to have a love in together. The GOP establishment still hate him. That he is trying to bring some of them into his tent is because he hasn't lost his brain. Better having them in his cabinet than outside sniping at him. Even Jeb approved his pick for the education post- now that's surprising.

[MajarTheLion]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. I certainly don't assume that the GOP and Trump are going to have a love in together. The GOP establishment still hate him. That he is trying to bring some of them into his tent is because he hasn't lost his brain. Better having them in his cabinet than outside sniping at him. Even Jeb approved his pick for the education post- now that's surprising.

 

Poor little Jebbie.... tries to jump on the Trump train weeks after it left the station. How can one not at least smirk about that? 

[MajarTheLion]

3 hours ago, DriveByTrucker said:

Please explain your statement. Proportional representation is at least more democratic.

And do you say that with our existing electoral system there are no idiots in power?

 

A republic is meant to be a republic.

[thaibeachlovers]

54 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

 

I have no idea what he said about turning over his business to a blind trust. And it appears you don't, either. So far, all we have are the vague rants of a feral anti-Trump person. Not very impressive at all.

Unfortunately, Trump is appearing to be REALLY foolish when it comes to his business. His latest comments are seriously disturbing. If he does not get it sorted properly, he will be doomed before even being sworn in, and the GOP elites will join the opposition to crucify him. I hope that the already selected cabinet members are "advising" him to sort it or they will be unemployed long before 2020.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, DriveByTrucker said:

Please explain your statement. Proportional representation is at least more democratic.

And do you say that with our existing electoral system there are no idiots in power?

Proportional representation is not democratic in New Zealand. It allows people that were never voted for to become MPs if they are on the party list.

IMO it allows more idiots to become MPs than first past the post.

Of course there will be idiots under any voting system.

[MajarTheLion]

7 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Unfortunately, Trump is appearing to be REALLY foolish when it comes to his business. His latest comments are seriously disturbing. If he does not get it sorted properly, he will be doomed before even being sworn in, and the GOP elites will join the opposition to crucify him. I hope that the already selected cabinet members are "advising" him to sort it or they will be unemployed long before 2020.

 

I think that no matter what Trump does, RINOs and of course sour grapes losers will come after him. If he is to divest from his businesses, I would point out other hacks who need to do the same thing. Look at Dianne Feinstein. Her husband makes a fortune off government contracts. Why shouldn't he be shut out of making money off his wife being in office? If we're going to apply a standard, it should apply to EVERYONE in DC. Hey, maybe this can end up being a good thing.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

 

I think that no matter what Trump does, RINOs and of course sour grapes losers will come after him. If he is to divest from his businesses, I would point out other hacks who need to do the same thing. Look at Dianne Feinstein. Her husband makes a fortune off government contracts. Why shouldn't he be shut out of making money off his wife being in office? If we're going to apply a standard, it should apply to EVERYONE in DC. Hey, maybe this can end up being a good thing.

I fundamentally disagree. Trump needs to be whiter than white on this. He is going to be attacked on everything he does. What he does not need to do is give them the bullets to shoot him with.

Feinstein isn't POTUS. Nobody cares about her.

 

Either he sorts it, and soon, or he is going to be probably the most hated president ever, even more than Bush the younger. Appearance is everything.

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

1 hour ago, MajarTheLion said:

 

It appears you weren't able to interpret your own link's information. Bill Clinton won 43.01% of the popular vote in 1992 and 49.23% of the popular vote in 1996.

 

Both of these numbers are less than 50%, correct?

 

Less than 50%. Sure. But he won a majority of the popular vote over his opponent. What has 50% got to do with anything? Majority means 'more than', correct?

[MajarTheLion]

21 minutes ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

 

Less than 50%. Sure. But he won a majority of the popular vote over his opponent. What has 50% got to do with anything? Majority means 'more than', correct?

 

Actually, winning with less than half the vote means a win with a plurality, not a majority.

 

Edited November 24, 2016 by MajarTheLion

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

1 minute ago, MajarTheLion said:

 

Actually, winning with less than half the vote means a win with a plurality, not a majority.

 

 

Well, I guess I stand corrected. I will be more precise next time.

[MajarTheLion]

Just now, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

 

Well, I guess I stand corrected. I will be more precise next time.

 

No big deal. I like to nitpick. This is politics, it's what we do.  :)

[Morch]

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Because if he has anything to do with it he will be suspected of making US policy work for his business. If he doesn't do something, and quickly, to solve this, his presidency will be destroyed before it starts. Even I will be joining the protests that he is a crook.

Having his children run it is no solution. needs to be an independent party. I guess he either never thought he would win, or he didn't realise the unintended consequences.

 

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I fundamentally disagree. Trump needs to be whiter than white on this. He is going to be attacked on everything he does. What he does not need to do is give them the bullets to shoot him with.

Feinstein isn't POTUS. Nobody cares about her.

 

Either he sorts it, and soon, or he is going to be probably the most hated president ever, even more than Bush the younger. Appearance is everything.

 

I'm in the odd situation of being in agreement with you. Doesn't feel right.

 

A couple of comments, though - Trump was obviously aware it's an issue at least since the primary elections. Came up publicly on one of the debates. IMO, he simply thought he could get away with it, and run things like he runs his business. Perhaps he'd still go for it, hard to tell. With regard to US senators etc. - laws are actually stricter, and so is oversight.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, MajarTheLion said:

 

I have no idea what he said about turning over his business to a blind trust. And it appears you don't, either. So far, all we have are the vague rants of a feral anti-Trump person. Not very impressive at all.

 

Of course you have an idea, hardly the first time these came up or were cited.

 

From 34:00:

 

 

 

Edited November 24, 2016 by Morch

[Credo]

14 hours ago, F4UCorsair said:

OTHER Illegal Immigrants Implies she Is an IIG.  She Is NOT.  Get It right.

 

IIG should be II = Illegal Immigrant.  Unable to edit since TV upgrade.

No I meant what I wrote, she can join the thousands of legal immigrants, and an untold number who are not even immigrants because they were born here, who get detained and told to produce proof they are legal.   These include a nice lady I know who has never set foot out of the US, but is queried about her citizenship during raids -- and that's happened more than once.   

 

Are you familiar with the law suits against the like to Joe Arpio, the Sheriff, of Maricopa County, AZ?   That's one example of what happens.   My sister is married to a legal immigrant. Her children are darker skinned than her.   Numerous times she has been stopped and questions about whose kids are in her car.   

 

So, a lot of people who aren't 100% white are nervous when they go out.   Life shouldn't be that way, but with Trump and his rhetoric, it is.   

 

I don't believe that Trump is personally a racist person.   He grew up in a very ethnically diverse city, but he has appealed and brought to the surface this not very nice side of many in the US.   

 

 

 

[F4UCorsair]

3 minutes ago, Credo said:

No I meant what I wrote, she can join the thousands of legal immigrants, and an untold number who are not even immigrants because they were born here, who get detained and told to produce proof they are legal.   These include a nice lady I know who has never set foot out of the US, but is queried about her citizenship during raids -- and that's happened more than once.   

 

Are you familiar with the law suits against the like to Joe Arpio, the Sheriff, of Maricopa County, AZ?   That's one example of what happens.   My sister is married to a legal immigrant. Her children are darker skinned than her.   Numerous times she has been stopped and questions about whose kids are in her car.   

 

So, a lot of people who aren't 100% white are nervous when they go out.   Life shouldn't be that way, but with Trump and his rhetoric, it is.   

 

I don't believe that Trump is personally a racist person.   He grew up in a very ethnically diverse city, but he has appealed and brought to the surface this not very nice side of many in the US.   

 

 

 

 

 

I misread your post Credo, and subsequently tried to edit, but couldn't.  Since the TV upgrade, I'm having difficulties posting from my phone.  Apologies.

 

There are racists in every society.  I lived in Japan for a few years, and let me tell you there are no more racist people on the planet.   Since I looked so different from Japanese, I understand their bias/curiosity, etc., but never felt uncomfortable or threatened.

 

I'll check on Joe Arapaio.   I have to admit I'm a fan of his tent city jail, and many of his ideas on crime and punishment, but not any racism he may demonstrate.

[Credo]

Asian countries are notoriously racist, if that is the right term for it.  But they are cultures that are built on a relatively singular ethnic group and changes in the ethnic and cultural makeup have been very slow.   

 

During the time I worked in Europe, I was also surprised at the amount of racism, or quasi nationalism that was present.   It was not particularly hateful, but it was ever present.   I would think that the strengthening of the EU and a sense of a united Europe has lessened this along with the influx of immigrants which have focused more negativity on them than on neighboring countries.

 

The US, Canada and Australia are built a different system.   They are strongly immigrant nations and have large, diverse populations.    In the US, the rhetoric from Trump and some of the groups that supported him have exacerbated this dislike and have put it on the forefront.   

 

My Asian partner lived in the US for over a year while I continued to reside in Asia due to work commitments.   There were some minor issues which could be attributed to race, but nothing serious.   The campaign saw this intensify and there is a pervasive nervousness, which has crept in.

 

As I have said, I don't think Trump is personally a racist.   He is pragmatist and he does business in a lot of countries.   He does, however, need to accept some responsibility to bringing the underbelly of this problem to the surface and hopefully will address it with his followers.   

 

 

[Ulysses G.]

On 11/21/2016 at 10:23 AM, ClutchClark said:

I am trying to wrap my head around a typical member of the Resistance.

 

Is it someone who soends all their time unemployed and camped out on a forum such as this collecting subsidized Obamacare (or hoping to when they arrive in the US) ?

 

I don't understand who all these protesters are and why they are not at a job "earning" a living.

 

Why do they have time to "Resist" but no time to have simply voted?

 

Can someone from the Resistance please enlighten me?

 

I am trying to see if I have any common ground with them at all.

 

Thanks

 

They seem to be the same professional protesters who came out of the woodwork at any excuse when I lived in San Francisco. The Occupy Wallstreet crowd.

[selftaopath]

On 11/21/2016 at 3:59 PM, Tony125 said:

California has a population of 38 million people , aproximately 38 percent Hispanic (plus loads of illegal immigrants) Trump won more states than lying Hillary and the electorial college is based on how many states are won to determine the winner. We are not going to award the victory to Hillary because one state California has more population than any other state in the country ,even Texas has only 28 million people. If a candidate barely won ALL the other states California could force a win by popular vote since they have the most population. Thats not going to happen

The losers should sit back shut up and see how things run for 6 months to a year if the country is doing badly then immpeach him . Oh by the way up untill California votes were counted Trump was leading the popular votes as well as electorial.

4 other US Presidents lost the popular vote but won by electorial college counts including George Bush.

You called Hillary "lying Hillary." What lies are you referring to?  Please show the documentation.... other than from Fox "news" or from lying groper's mouth.