Hillary Clinton leads Donald Trump by 2m votes

[sjaak327]

1 hour ago, ttthailand said:

So it is ok for perhaps 5 major US cities to have the power to pick the president. The rest of the country won't really matter and anyone running would only go to the selected few cities that can get them elected.

As opposed to only going to a select few swing states ? The rest of the country still matters, as those five major cities don't have enough people to pick the president.

 

I really don't understand the aversion against cities, people are openly suggesting those votes should matter less, not only undemocratic, but also from a financial perspective not fair. After all the tax contributions mostly come from those cities as well...

Edited November 26, 2016 by sjaak327

[metisdead]

An inflammatory post containing off topic generalizations about Thailand has been removed.  A post containing comments on moderation has now been removed as well, this topic has nothing to do with Thailand. 

 

 

[Silurian]

1 hour ago, elgordo38 said:

5 hours ago, Silurian said:

 

Okay, you got me. I actually had to go look for this item. The reviews of it on Amazon are quite entertaining to read.

 

Donald Trump's Christmas ornament made Amazon reviews great again

http://mashable.com/2016/11/24/trump-ornament-amazon/#u69_EN1fakqk

 

 

PS Yes Donald will make himself greater but America? the proof will be in the pudding so to speak. He is looking more and more like a caretaker president. His interaction with the elites the beltway the establishment seems to becoming symbiotic in nature looking at his appointments. Some are well past their best before dates. He is also looking at way to many generals to suite me. 

 

I assume that your comments were not directed towards me, correct? Anyway, I do agree with your statements.

[tropo]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 Not supporting the president, not rallying behind the president and not embracing his views - all these are not the same as rejecting the election results etc. People do not simply give up their views because a candidate won. It looks like some posters find it easier treating the elections like a sports match. Winner, loser, and that sums it. Using this analogy, does anyone expect the fans to switch sides if their team loses? Hardly.

 

A lot of anti-Trump protesters are intent on sabotaging his efforts. Accepting the loss and letting him get on with business is not switching sides. About half of the voters don't get their man (or woman) at any presidential election. Most of the protesters are a bunch of idiots who don't have a clue what is best for their country.

[JDGRUEN]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Which still doesn't make your "reign of terror" comment any less unhinged.

 

That you assume there's a smoking gun doesn't make it so. That you assume investigations will resume, doesn't make it so.

 

It's is kinda odd going on about others supposedly not accepting elections results, while at the same time not accepting the results of these investigations.

 

I didn't make that comment... but I find that what Obama has done using his pen and phone and cronies in the Admin to be quite reprehensible ... Obama is a pathological liar who lies about lying and lies even when the truth would serve him better... a sign of the depth of his depravity ... 

[Andaman Al]

So getting back to thread. What if just WHAT IF, the recounts in Wisconsin, Pen and Mich actually take place and the physical count and reconciliation of the paper vote shows HRC won the states and that a hack took place to influence the results. What then? Indulge me for a moment Trumpeteer's, what IF that is the case. Then what?

[Morch]

12 minutes ago, JDGRUEN said:

 

I didn't make that comment... but I find that what Obama has done using his pen and phone and cronies in the Admin to be quite reprehensible ... Obama is a pathological liar who lies about lying and lies even when the truth would serve him better... a sign of the depth of his depravity ... 

 

I wasn't praising Obama, just think some of the comments are way over the top. Wonder how does Obama's supposed lies (and sure, not saying he didn't, all politicians do) compare with Trump's? And that's without Trump even assuming office.

 

Also amusing how some can be both indignant when criticism is directed at Trump, while still dishing it out with regard to Obama. 

[Strange]

1 hour ago, sjaak327 said:

You can argue till the cows come home, your first sentence already reveal you have no idea about democracy. You seem to believe a vote in California should not count equally to a vote in Florida.

 

the criticism towards the EC has been going on for decades, heck even Trump himself did so when he (incorrectly) believed Obama won the EC but lost the popular vote.

 

The EC is about throwing away votes on criteria that were written centuries ago. Time to change.

 

To be clear here, its you thats arguing against the way the game has been played for hundreds of years. 

 

Again, you cant cry about it after the fact. 

 

Maybe in the future it'll change but for now its the way it is. I agree with EC, you don't, agree to disagree. 

[Strange]

1 hour ago, sjaak327 said:

Yes, because you left out many other aspects that are specific to a government of a country. Don't worry, it will come to you eventually :)

 

It can be spun both ways. Hillary knows nothing about business and money but is a adept status quo lying politician. She would have surrounded herself with the advisors her party thought were best. 

 

Not one single politician is an expert in every aspect of government. 

[Strange]

7 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

So getting back to thread. What if just WHAT IF, the recounts in Wisconsin, Pen and Mich actually take place and the physical count and reconciliation of the paper vote shows HRC won the states and that a hack took place to influence the results. What then? Indulge me for a moment Trumpeteer's, what IF that is the case. Then what?

 

No.

[Morch]

18 minutes ago, tropo said:

A lot of anti-Trump protesters are intent on sabotaging his efforts. Accepting the loss and letting him get on with business is not switching sides. About half of the voters don't get their man (or woman) at any presidential election. Most of the protesters are a bunch of idiots who don't have a clue what is best for their country.

 

For many people Trump's supposed "efforts" are anathema to much the believe in. Why would they be expected to support such "efforts"? It is not as if there's a consensus that these "efforts" serve the greater good.

 

How are protests (again, not condoning violence) or passing criticism on Trump constitute not "letting him get on with business"? It does not even amount to not accepting results. It's simply not embracing the president-elect's views.

 

True that elections often see a large part of the electorate unsatisfied, and true they do not always result in such a reaction. Then again, Trump wasn't a usual candidate and he did not run a usual campaign. He's at least partially responsible for the outrage expressed. I don't usually go for blanket generalizations with regard to voters, so not going to comment on yours.

 

Notice though, that it is not only the protests which are rejected, but even criticism passed on these topics.

[Andaman Al]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

 

No.

Intelligent - Not! Is it too much to bear thinking about it? You should think about it because there is every possibility the scenario is correct.

 

 

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

Not one single politician is an expert in every aspect of government.

And so you pick a head of state that is not only NOT a politician but is not an expert in ANY aspect of Government. The USA chose a reality TV star to head it's country. Proof the criticism of it's educational system is completely valid I think.

[elgordo38]

54 minutes ago, Silurian said:

 

I assume that your comments were not directed towards me, correct? Anyway, I do agree with your statements.

Your correct. Humor is the name of the game. Belittling people is not although I do stray into this area from time to time unintentionally. I consider you all my friends of past battles that we all have endured and survived over the years. We are the modern day Crusaders, the Knights Templar who have survived and thrived. We are the last of our kind with our dignity intact and still enough strength and desire to punch these keys. We are the Champions. 

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Personally, my street protest days are long gone. I can understand how younger or more emotionally involved people would go out there, though. As long as they there's no violence, it's their right. If people were never to protest anything, politicians would get away with a whole lot more.

 

I doubt that the protests will persist for four years, at least not with the same intensity. Certainly not through the height of winter. But then, Trump is bound to do or say something that will fuel them up, so don't see it going away entirely.

 

Not supporting the president, not rallying behind the president and not embracing his views - all these are not the same as rejecting the election results etc. People do not simply give up their views because a candidate won. It looks like some posters find it easier treating the elections like a sports match. Winner, loser, and that sums it. Using this analogy, does anyone expect the fans to switch sides if their team loses? Hardly.

Using your sports analogy, people don't normally go out and riot in the streets because their team lost.

They might go down to the pub and discuss why they lost, but I doubt that they would still be crying about it two weeks later and demanding a replay because the ref did something they didn't like. Most people move on and wait for the next game.

[thaibeachlovers]

9 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

Intelligent - Not! Is it too much to bear thinking about it? You should think about it because there is every possibility the scenario is correct.

 

 

And so you pick a head of state that is not only NOT a politician but is not an expert in ANY aspect of Government. The USA chose a reality TV star to head it's country. Proof the criticism of it's educational system is completely valid I think.

Proof the criticism of it's educational system is completely valid I think.

I would agree that the American public school system is broken. However, it's worth remembering that Clinton supports the teachers union which is responsible for the chaos. Under her nothing would change.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Using your sports analogy, people don't normally go out and riot in the streets because their team lost.

They might go down to the pub and discuss why they lost, but I doubt that they would still be crying about it two weeks later and demanding a replay because the ref did something they didn't like. Most people move on and wait for the next game.

 

Well, some football fans might disagree with your take. Not all too fond of such analogies, though, just seemed like that's how posters describe it. 

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

Intelligent - Not! Is it too much to bear thinking about it? You should think about it because there is every possibility the scenario is correct.

 

 

And so you pick a head of state that is not only NOT a politician but is not an expert in ANY aspect of Government. The USA chose a reality TV star to head it's country. Proof the criticism of it's educational system is completely valid I think.

 

The recount would need all 3 states going blue. Not gonna happen and its just as likely that Trumps numbers would go up as well. 

 

There were 2 choices. There were more names on the ballot, but there were only 2 choices. Its not like we had 50 of the greatest minds the USA had to offer and chose Trump. It was either HRC or Trump. 

 

As far as the education system, you might, maybe, want to reflect on your own country before barfing up passive aggressive insults. We are pretty much tied as far as % of the population with university degrees. Yours is no better or worse than mine. 

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it. I don't think it represents all or even most Trump supporters.

 

Feel free to post about that again in 4 years.

 

BTW, I don't speak for all or even most Trump supporters. I spoke only for certain people.

[thaibeachlovers]

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

The recount would need all 3 states going blue. Not gonna happen and its just as likely that Trumps numbers would go up as well. 

 

There were 2 choices. There were more names on the ballot, but there were only 2 choices. Its not like we had 50 of the greatest minds the USA had to offer and chose Trump. It was either HRC or Trump. 

 

As far as the education system, you might, maybe, want to reflect on your own country before barfing up passive aggressive insults. We are pretty much tied as far as % of the population with university degrees. Yours is no better or worse than mine. 

Re the recount. Hopefully Trumps numbers would indeed go up and that woman would be consigned to the dustbin of history as the contributors realised they had been scammed.

Might make the snowflakes go home and have a nice cup of tea.

Win win result

 

Even Obama's people are not happy about it.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/25/jill-stein-election-recount-clinton-trump-michigan-pennsylvania-wisconsin

“I really wish Jill Stein had not waited until after the election to be so concerned about a few thousand votes tipping the election to Trump,” said Dan Pfeiffer, a former senior policy adviser to Barack Obama.

 

The recount has to be completed by 13 December. Can anyone imagine the catastrophe that would ensue if enough doubt was cast that the election validity was in doubt? Would they then say a recount/ another vote had to be held in all states with small majorities? Forget January 20.

If it then went to the congress, he would be elected anyway.

Either way, she is not going to come out of this well.

 

 

[sjaak327]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

 

To be clear here, its you thats arguing against the way the game has been played for hundreds of years. 

 

Again, you cant cry about it after the fact. 

 

Maybe in the future it'll change but for now its the way it is. I agree with EC, you don't, agree to disagree. 

I am not crying after the fact, I am trying to get it changed, everyone knows it won't change the results of this election, and that is indeed not even the point.

 

So stop with the cry after the fact remark, that is not the issue, the issue is the flawed EC and I have given ample reasons why I believe it is flawed. The argument that it has been done this way for hundreds of years is a weak argument.

[sjaak327]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

 

It can be spun both ways. Hillary knows nothing about business and money but is a adept status quo lying politician. She would have surrounded herself with the advisors her party thought were best. 

 

Not one single politician is an expert in every aspect of government. 

Sure, and they don't even need to be, they have specific positions in the cabinet to deal with those aspects. The point was being a good leader of a society. By definition, someone who disqualifies a large number of the members of society based upon what religion they practice, or where they come from, cannot be a good leader.

 

Such a person devides he doesn't bond.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

I am not crying after the fact, I am trying to get it changed, everyone knows it won't change the results of this election, and that is indeed not even the point.

 

So stop with the cry after the fact remark, that is not the issue, the issue is the flawed EC and I have given ample reasons why I believe it is flawed. The argument that it has been done this way for hundreds of years is a weak argument.

I don't understand why you would even think the congress would amend the constitution when the government is all 3 Republican. You would have to wait till next there was a congress of a different party to the president.

[sjaak327]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I don't understand why you would even think the congress would amend the constitution when the government is all 3 Republican. You would have to wait till next there was a congress of a different party to the president.

 

Hmm, so I cannot talk about the disadvantages of the EC just because there is zero chance for it to be changed ?

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, sjaak327 said:

Sure, and they don't even need to be, they have specific positions in the cabinet to deal with those aspects. The point was being a good leader of a society. By definition, someone who disqualifies a large number of the members of society based upon what religion they practice, or where they come from, cannot be a good leader.

 

Such a person devides he doesn't bond.

Erm, being a good leader is not always about being popular. Sometimes being a good leader is taking an unpopular stance and persuading enough people to support him.

Many people support him precisely because of his stance on radical Islamic terrorism or illegal immigrants.

[sjaak327]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Erm, being a good leader is not always about being popular. Sometimes being a good leader is taking an unpopular stance and persuading enough people to support him.

Many people support him precisely because of his stance on radical Islamic terrorism or illegal immigrants.

 

Where did I say one needs to be popular ? Maybe you think that painting people with the same brush based upon lies is ok, but where I come from it's not.

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

 

Hmm, so I cannot talk about the disadvantages of the EC just because there is zero chance for it to be changed ?

 

 

Not at all. It's just pointless for at least the next 4 years.

 

This is a public forum and you can expound on any relevant idea on any thread you choose.

[sjaak327]

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Not at all. It's just pointless for at least the next 4 years.

 

This is a public forum and you can expound on any relevant idea on any thread you choose.

Discussion is never pointless. Even IF the democrats would dominate government, 3/4 of the states also need to ratify any change in the EC. If no-one advocates changing, it will never change...

 

One would think the EC is very, very relevant in a thread where Clinton's substantial lead in popular votes is discussed.

Edited November 26, 2016 by sjaak327

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, sjaak327 said:

 

Where did I say one needs to be popular ? Maybe you think that painting people with the same brush based upon lies is ok, but where I come from it's not.

 

 

OK then. I mistook your comment that

someone who disqualifies a large number of the members of society based upon what religion they practice, or where they come from, 

made him unpopular.

I could continue this debate indefinitely, but I need to do something else.

Bye for now.

[Strange]

10 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

I am not crying after the fact, I am trying to get it changed, everyone knows it won't change the results of this election, and that is indeed not even the point.

 

So stop with the cry after the fact remark, that is not the issue, the issue is the flawed EC and I have given ample reasons why I believe it is flawed. The argument that it has been done this way for hundreds of years is a weak argument.

 

Why YOU believe its flawed. 

 

Its convenient that you are harping on about it after trump got the Electoral Votes. 

 

 

[sjaak327]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

 

Why YOU believe its flawed. 

 

Its convenient that you are harping on about it after trump got the Electoral Votes. 

 

 

Hmm, I have been 'harping on it' since 2000. I understand, you think throwing away votes is ok, because it suits your agenda, I happen to believe that every vote should count equally, as in most proper democracies ...