Hillary Clinton leads Donald Trump by 2m votes

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, Diplomatico said:

 

LMAO at non-American citizens getting their panties all in a bunch over American election results and then ranting about it on a Thailand-centric forum.  

 

As you state, few are interested in what non-Americans think about American (insert word or phrase here).

 

Some of us live in LOS and have no interest in being on an American forum.

 

BTW, you may be one of the handful of human beings on the planet that does not realise that America, and ergo the American president affects us all, wherever we live.

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, Strange said:

 

Anti Trumpsters accepted eh? Now thats a stretch. 

 

The thing is, honestly that you clearly miss throughout all of this, is that people that voted Trump feel the same way about HRC. 

 

Here is the problem - Trump would have never won if the DNC picked a better person than HRC. That said, HRC might have beaten Trump (maybe) if her campaign was inclusive of not only Illegal Immigrants, minorities, gay communities, feminists, but those groups PLUS everyone else - the choked working class backbone of America. 

 

Seriously a US president campaigning on ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, when the working middle class is stagnant and choked by the ACA & Taxes? What is up with that? 

 

He not against 'sane gun laws' he's PRO 2nd Amendment and enforcing the laws that are already on the books. There is a difference and you should look into it before getting all jihadist about it. 

 

This whole deal is the fault of not only the DNC, but HRC herself. 

 

I really wish you would reflect on why HRC lost and get it out of your head that everyone is a racist because there are more things a play here than your 'feelings' 

The GOP could probably have put a scary clown going "eeh, eeh, eeh" up against HRC and still won. Perhaps by a greater margin though, as it wouldn't have been Trump.

What scares me is that people seem to have already forgotten that Trump is a man of HUGE flaws and are no longer looking to hold him to his word. Too much of this adulation from the GOP establishment and he may become one of them, which would probably result in him being the most hated man in the US and a Dems landslide in 2018 and 2020.

[mettech]

One thing is sure Trump won the election and as far the other party that want to protest well just ignore them and life should carry on tomorrow.

[thaibeachlovers]

10 hours ago, sjaak327 said:

Right, I must admit, I know nothing about how things are done in Australia. Not a fan of compulsory voting, I believe any citizen should take things in their own hand. What I can say is that in my country (where popular vote is king) the turnout is almost always around the 75-80% mark, no compulsory voting.

And, that is a country where a popular vote elected the worst PM of modern times not once but twice with huge majorities, which he wasted by being Bush the younger's poodle in the illegal war in Iraq.

The tragedy of New Labour is that it had the potential to do more for the people of Britain than any government in history and completely blew it.

No election system is perfect, and all have faults. The EC is no worse in practice that first past the posts, but both are better than the abortion of proportional voting ( PR ).

Edited November 27, 2016 by thaibeachlovers

[sjaak327]

49 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

And, that is a country where a popular vote elected the worst PM of modern times not once but twice with huge majorities, which he wasted by being Bush the younger's poodle in the illegal war in Iraq.

The tragedy of New Labour is that it had the potential to do more for the people of Britain than any government in history and completely blew it.

No election system is perfect, and all have faults. The EC is no worse in practice that first past the posts, but both are better than the abortion of proportional voting ( PR ).

My country is not the UK :)

[NickJ]

THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE.. 

How on earth do you explain it?

It's one of those things, that if it works for Yeah!!!!

I have tried to explain it to non Americans.  over and over again.

Let's start, with any given Presidential election night.  

We see John King from CNN coining the phrase over and over...Looking for a Path.

Well, As it is. The best way to summarize the electoral college,  to me. Is to Look at the color of the map itself as votes are counted.

Ask yourself this. how happy would you be if you were a voting American.  to see that only big cities mean anything. in no time without the EC. we would see only areas of population density matter in elections.

Wow....in a welfare state. we would be another Argentina. 

Generalizations of consensus mixed with a federal law including the say so of States.

Well. No Wonder it worked so well. 

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, sjaak327 said:

My country is not the UK :)

Apologies.

[Opl]

When I read Strange's posts , I can only hope D. Trump turns America into a huge gated community.

 

[Morch]

23 hours ago, tropo said:

These people are not protesting efforts, outcomes or results. He has not yet spent one day in office. They are protesting anticipated, negative outcomes, which is just plain stupid.

 

Your country desperately needs a shakeup. Nothing's going to change or improve if you continue to elect lame duck Presidents who continue to dish out more of the same.

 

 

 

These people obviously aren't supportive of all the goals Trump aims for. I'm not sure if the argument is that  his statements, promises and intended future policies should be disregarded as meaningless...? Or perhaps that "these people" ought to wait patiently and see if their fears materialize accurately enough for other people's taste?

 

The protests may be "stupid". I have no opinion about that, depends on how one defines "stupid". As long as it doesn't involve violence, no issues. And to cut the anticipated worn comeback - how much actual violence was there? Apparently not enough for the National Guard to be called in.

 

And no argument with regard to the caliber of candidates. When I said "lesser of two evils", that's exactly what I meant, not quite words of praise to either, there. I just see Trump as a worse choice, but that's water under the bridge now.

[Chicog]

Quote

A Trump vote is not a vote against liberalism. Its a vote against the status quo

And yet it seems the only thing that's surviving from his campaign is the Republican-style "tax cuts" and the accompanying trickle-down nonsense. And he's filling his cabinet with billionaires far removed from the working class that elected him.

So what "Status quo" were they voting against? One of his biggest donors got a cabinet job (Devos), and not a mention of "pay for play" by the idiots that were squealing "pay for play" with every breath a couple of months ago because that's what they were being force-fed on Facebook.

They voted to get rid of greedy, selfish republican politicians by re-electing greed, selfish republican politicians.

And people wonder why their sanity/education is questioned?!

 

Quite remarkable really. 

[tropo]

1 hour ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

 

No. You are the one putting out the tough guy schtick.

 

My honest response is that I think it is irresponsible. The old men on TVF are having their fun with the Millenials but since many non Trump supporters were minorities, using language like war and riots plays into decades long fears and anxieties, particularly about relations between sites and non whites.

 

Donald's apparent victory (yet to be officially certified) does not change the fundamental right of people to dissent and utter political speech. I believe it has and will continue to exacerbate the divisions created by economic inequality and changing racial and social demographics.

 

If Donald lasts 4 years, then fine. People will endure it. Liberalism will continue. It is the only tried and tested system that both generates wealth and respects people.

 

Is this another Pro 2A moment? I don't think so. Just the fears, anxieties and hysteria of those who refuse to deal with today's world and its changes from their mid century mindset.

 

Ultimately Trump will disappoint. However, he has now empowered illiberal and regressive forces that will continue to push that agenda, possibly igniting some unpleasant flash points. However, the generation that believes these things is exiting the stage. Change will continue. I know you hate Brits but you may want to look up King Canute, who was actually Danish and his comments about tides.

 

"Ultimately Trump will disappoint", you say. You say that like you're wishing it to happen, just  to prove your ability at predicting the future. I'm sure many are upset he won, just because they were certain he wouldn't. It's like an ego contest of who can best predict an outcome.

 

I suppose all presidents (ultimately) disappoint many, but certainly the world news is a lot more exciting now than it has been for a long while. For the first time in ages I can't wait to turn on the TV when I wake up.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies removed.  

[Opl]

9 hours ago, NickJ said:

THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE.. 

How on earth do you explain it?

It's one of those things, that if it works for Yeah!!!!

I have tried to explain it to non Americans.  over and over again.

Let's start, with any given Presidential election night.  

We see John King from CNN coining the phrase over and over...Looking for a Path.

Well, As it is. The best way to summarize the electoral college,  to me. Is to Look at the color of the map itself as votes are counted.

Ask yourself this. how happy would you be if you were a voting American.  to see that only big cities mean anything. in no time without the EC. we would see only areas of population density matter in elections.

Wow....in a welfare state. we would be another Argentina. 

Generalizations of consensus mixed with a federal law including the say so of States.

Well. No Wonder it worked so well. 

 

But finally, the EC system makes it a little useless to vote when your party is strongly minority in a state (hence the importance of "swing states" in the election campaign). It also means that a vote does not have the same weight on the final result depending on  where you vote . This can incite turnout or dicourage some people from voting.

Edited November 27, 2016 by Opl

[tropo]

33 minutes ago, Opl said:

 

But finally, the EC system makes it a little useless to vote when your party is strongly minority in a state (hence the importance of "swing states" in the election campaign). It also means that a vote does not have the same weight on the final result depending on  where you vote . This can incite turnout or dicourage some people from voting.

 

Yes, precisely, which makes one ponder over how many Republicans didn't vote in NY or California.

[PattayaBoy]

BREAKING : CNN Finally Admits that the Recount is Pointless and Won’t Change Election Result

http://truthfeed.com/breaking-cnn-finally-admits-that-the-recount-is-pointless-and-wont-change-election-results/38229/

[thaibeachlovers]

11 hours ago, Opl said:

 

But finally, the EC system makes it a little useless to vote when your party is strongly minority in a state (hence the importance of "swing states" in the election campaign). It also means that a vote does not have the same weight on the final result depending on  where you vote . This can incite turnout or dicourage some people from voting.

I don't get your point. If it is useless under the EC for a minority voter to vote because their vote is of less worth, then that argument applies equally to a voter in a rural state if the cities are dominant under a popular vote.

There is no such thing as a perfect voting system.

Edited November 28, 2016 by thaibeachlovers

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, PattayaBoy said:

BREAKING : CNN Finally Admits that the Recount is Pointless and Won’t Change Election Result

http://truthfeed.com/breaking-cnn-finally-admits-that-the-recount-is-pointless-and-wont-change-election-results/38229/


 

 

It is pretty obvious that it's not, and never was about trying to put HRC back as president, though it is somewhat surprising that the Clinton campaign has jumped on, given that she actually conceded ( is it possible to un concede? ). The only thing that might help them is if enough fraud was discovered to make the election null and void. Apart from the chaos that would ensue, as I understand it the congress would then have to decide, and it is unlikely a Republican majority would give it to her.

[boomerangutang]

On 11/27/2016 at 9:08 AM, Strange said:

Anti Trumpsters accepted eh? Now thats a stretch. 

 

On 11/27/2016 at 9:46 AM, CMNightRider said:

Huh!!!  What???  "Anti-Trumpsters have accepted the election results."???  You have got to be kidding me.  Who are all those hysterical, liberal, anti-police, American flag burning, left-wing wacko's, in the streets of American cities rioting? 

I'll tell you who they are.  The rioters are "anti-Trumpsters" (your words) who can not accept the election results.  

Why you ask?  Well, it is probably because these people lack the common sense God gave a goose, and couldn't pour piss out of a boot if the directions were on the heel and there was a hole in the toe, or they wouldn't be hysterical, liberal, anti-police, American flag burning, left-wing wackos.  

 

There's a difference between accepting something, and protesting against it.  When you were 6 yrs old, if your mother said, "go to your room!"  You probably go to your room.  You accept it.  You may be angry, and you may call names (common things that Trump does daily), but you've accepted it by going to your room.

 

When I say, "anti-Trumpsters accepted the result of the election" I'm saying just that.  HRC made a concession speech, did she not?   I didn't say there was no begrudgement in the acceptance by anti-Trumpsters.  I'm also saying that Trump and his sheeple WOULD NOT HAVE ACCEPTED THE OUTCOME, IF HRC HAD WON. Trump said that repeatedly.

 

As for the demonstrators:  They're mostly youngsters.  They've also accepted that Trump won the EC, but they're wise enough to know that their demonstrations aren't going to un-elect Trump.  They're expressing their anger.  Completely understandable. 

 

Today's article in NPR shows a very recent tweet by Trump where he claims if the election was fair, he would have won the popular vote.  He repeats a false claim that 3 million HRC votes were fake.  NPR investigated where the claim came from and found it to be based on nothing but lies.   It's proof again that Trump sheeple will suck up anything uttered by Trump and the mean-=spirited people he keeps around him.

 

source:  http://www.npr.org/2016/11/27/503506026/trump-makes-unfounded-claim-that-millions-voted-illegally-for-clinton

[boomerangutang]

          Trump and his fans can now add NPR to the long list of news outlets which they hate.  The only news they like are hard-right-wingers who sing praises to Trump.  In case you forgot, only two newspapers (out of thousands) in the US supported Trump.  Both were very small circulation.  Neither printed any editorials on why they backed The Divider.  Why not?   Could their editors think of no reasons to support him?   Well, at least those two newspapers are probably not on Trump's Black List of Enemies. Most, if not all other newspapers are likely on that list.  That's part of the reason Trump hates the press corps and wants to drastically limit their role.

 

       Speaking of retribution, a reporter asked Trump, during the campaign, whether he would seek recriminations against people and entities which didn't praise him.  Trump said yes.  The reporter asked the question several times, because it was such an odd answer.  Trump held his ground.   Yes, he knows everyone and every entity that doesn't praise him, and yes, he will pursue retribution.  For all those who don't praise Trump, consider yourselves warned.

 

 

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

There's a difference between accepting something, and protesting against it.

 

Theres a difference between protesting against something, and destroying shit, assaulting innocent people, assaulting police, blocking roads, getting in peoples faces ad nauseam. 

 

5 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

I'm also saying that Trump and his sheeple WOULD NOT HAVE ACCEPTED THE OUTCOME, IF HRC HAD WON. Trump said that repeatedly.

 

No he didn't. He didn't say it repeatedly, over and over again. 

 

6 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

Today's article in NPR shows a very recent tweet by Trump where he claims if the election was fair, he would have won the popular vote.  He repeats a false claim that 3 million HRC votes were fake.  NPR investigated where the claim came from and found it to be based on nothing but lies.   It's proof again that Trump sheeple will suck up anything uttered by Trump and the mean-=spirited people he keeps around him.

 

People vote illegally. It happens. Its easy. There are legitimate step by step guides on youtube and unequivocal proof that it happens. Illegal Immigrants, Felons, anyone that can not vote, if they were so compelled, would vote HRC. 

 

Proof? Well thats gonna be pretty hard considering any kind of stringent voter ID laws get shot down as racist. But logically speaking, its easy, its possible, and does happen. IF they did it would be for HRC - why would they illegally vote to deport themselves? Would it be enough to sway the popular vote? I dunno. 

 

This whole subject is why I support stronger voter ID laws and yeah we as a country can still make sure everyone gets to a polling station and votes. 

[ilostmypassword]

14 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

Theres a difference between protesting against something, and destroying shit, assaulting innocent people, assaulting police, blocking roads, getting in peoples faces ad nauseam. 

 

 

No he didn't. He didn't say it repeatedly, over and over again. 

 

 

People vote illegally. It happens. Its easy. There are legitimate step by step guides on youtube and unequivocal proof that it happens. Illegal Immigrants, Felons, anyone that can not vote, if they were so compelled, would vote HRC. 

 

Proof? Well thats gonna be pretty hard considering any kind of stringent voter ID laws get shot down as racist. But logically speaking, its easy, its possible, and does happen. IF they did it would be for HRC - why would they illegally vote to deport themselves? Would it be enough to sway the popular vote? I dunno. 

 

This whole subject is why I support stronger voter ID laws and yeah we as a country can still make sure everyone gets to a polling station and votes. 

If you were really in favor of stronger fraud controls on voting, you would direct your attention to absentee balloting. That's where experts say the strongest possibility for voter fraud occurs. But oddly enough, absentee ballots tend to favor Republicans and no laws have been passed to regulate them. Hmmm..wonder what that's about?

 

 The justice department just about never goes after voter fraud charges. Oh, there was one exception. A U.S. govt. attorney in Alabama did go after 3 civil rights workers for absentee ballot fraud. He invoked 29 separate charges against them. It took the jury all of 3 hours to acquit them of every charge.  You know who that govt. attorney was?  Jeff Sessions.

 

And by the way, several states run by Republicans in both the executive branch and the legislative branch did conduct massive voter ID fraud investigations. They found virtually nothing.

[Strange]

28 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

If you were really in favor of stronger fraud controls on voting, you would direct your attention to absentee balloting. That's where experts say the strongest possibility for voter fraud occurs. But oddly enough, absentee ballots tend to favor Republicans and no laws have been passed to regulate them. Hmmm..wonder what that's about?

 

 The justice department just about never goes after voter fraud charges. Oh, there was one exception. A U.S. govt. attorney in Alabama did go after 3 civil rights workers for absentee ballot fraud. He invoked 29 separate charges against them. It took the jury all of 3 hours to acquit them of every charge.  You know who that govt. attorney was?  Jeff Sessions.

 

And by the way, several states run by Republicans in both the executive branch and the legislative branch did conduct massive voter ID fraud investigations. They found virtually nothing.

 

Yeah, how does absentee ballots favor 'republicans'? This whole thing is a shit show because voter ID/whatever effects whites just as much as blacks and republicans just as much as democrats. But... but.... but... Thats racist!

 

Yeah yeah its always the republicans fault for everything. 

[Opl]

Electoral College is ‘vestige’ of slavery, say some Constitutional scholars :

 

"When the founders of the U.S. Constitution in 1787 considered whether America should let the people elect their president through a popular vote, James Madison said that “Negroes” in the South presented a “difficulty … of a serious nature.”

"While slavery was abolished, and the Civil War led to citizenship and voting rights for black people, the Electoral College remained intact. Another law professor, who has also written that the Constitution is pro-slavery, argues that it gave states the autonomy to introduce discriminatory voting laws, despite the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that was built to prevent it."

 

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/electoral-college-slavery-constitution/

 

How the Electoral College Rigged the Election for Donald Trump

America's electoral system gives smaller, more conservative states more weight – and that benefited Trump

"So Donald Trump was right about the system being rigged. There are and always have been attempts to reform this system – un-rig it if you will – but those are likely to go nowhere in the near (nor possibly distant) future. "

 

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/how-the-electoral-college-rigs-elections-for-republicans-w450749

 

 

 

[Morch]

6 hours ago, PattayaBoy said:

BREAKING : CNN Finally Admits that the Recount is Pointless and Won’t Change Election Result

http://truthfeed.com/breaking-cnn-finally-admits-that-the-recount-is-pointless-and-wont-change-election-results/38229/


 

 

 

CNN admitted no such thing. The link provided refers to an opinion column, which reflects the author's views:

 

Quote

Joshua A. Douglas is a professor at the University of Kentucky College of Law who specializes in election law and voting rights. He is the co-editor of "Election Law Stories". He contributed to and volunteered for the Hillary Clinton campaign. Follow him on Twitter @JoshuaADouglas. The opinions expressed are his own.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/27/opinions/recount-hopeless-for-clinton-douglas-opinion/

[tropo]

 

12 hours ago, Opl said:

Electoral College is ‘vestige’ of slavery, say some Constitutional scholars :

 

"When the founders of the U.S. Constitution in 1787 considered whether America should let the people elect their president through a popular vote, James Madison said that “Negroes” in the South presented a “difficulty … of a serious nature.”

"While slavery was abolished, and the Civil War led to citizenship and voting rights for black people, the Electoral College remained intact. Another law professor, who has also written that the Constitution is pro-slavery, argues that it gave states the autonomy to introduce discriminatory voting laws, despite the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that was built to prevent it."

 

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/electoral-college-slavery-constitution/

 

How the Electoral College Rigged the Election for Donald Trump

America's electoral system gives smaller, more conservative states more weight – and that benefited Trump

"So Donald Trump was right about the system being rigged. There are and always have been attempts to reform this system – un-rig it if you will – but those are likely to go nowhere in the near (nor possibly distant) future. "

 

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/how-the-electoral-college-rigs-elections-for-republicans-w450749

 

 

 

 

 

IMO the only reason people are debating this now is because Trump ran the most strategic and skilful campaign in US history. He didn't waste time and resources on scoring a higher popular vote count because it simply wasn't necessary and as a result of his strategy his popular vote count was much lower than it could have been. Clinton spent double what Trump spent and should have known better as this was her second attempt. 

 

This "dilemma" is being blown out of proportion. Apart from a very close election in 2000, it hadn't been a problem since 1888, 128 years ago.

 

Ironically, each time this happened (1876, 1888, 2000 and 2016) it was a Republican who won the EC despite losing the popular vote. It's also ironic that Andrew Jackson founded the Democratic party in 1828 after losing to John Quincy Adams in 1824 despite winning the popular vote. 

Edited November 28, 2016 by tropo

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

1 hour ago, tropo said:

 

IMO the only reason people are debating this now is because Trump ran the most strategic and skilful campaign in US history. He didn't waste time and resources on scoring a higher popular vote count because it simply wasn't necessary and as a result of his strategy his popular vote count was much lower than it could have been. Clinton spent double what Trump spent and should have known better as this was her second attempt. 

 

This "dilemma" is being blown out of proportion. Apart from a very close election in 2000, it hadn't been a problem since 1888, 128 years ago.

 

Ironically, each time this happened (1876, 1888, 2000 and 2016) it was a Republican who won the EC despite losing the popular vote. It's also ironic that Andrew Jackson founded the Democratic party in 1828 after losing to John Quincy Adams in 1824 despite winning the popular vote. 

 

Apart from qualifying as Trivial Pursuit questions, there is really no relevance of your 19th Century 'ironies' to anything in the current world. The Electoral College debate is all about the one person one vote issue and how a system designed to protect slave states is no longer appropriate to a modern democracy.

 

All of the noise that Trump boys are making will not distract from legitimate recounts, the reality of Clinton's significant win in the popular vote and its impact on the legitimacy of Trump's soon to be regime and the restarting of Trump's vainglorious lies and paranoid ramblings on twitter about illegal votes. How is this at all connected to Andrew Jackson? Maybe you can provide some context for your interesting little 'fact lets'?

[SheungWan]

On 11/27/2016 at 4:14 PM, NickJ said:

THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE.. 

How on earth do you explain it?

It's one of those things, that if it works for Yeah!!!!

I have tried to explain it to non Americans.  over and over again.

Let's start, with any given Presidential election night.  

We see John King from CNN coining the phrase over and over...Looking for a Path.

Well, As it is. The best way to summarize the electoral college,  to me. Is to Look at the color of the map itself as votes are counted.

Ask yourself this. how happy would you be if you were a voting American.  to see that only big cities mean anything. in no time without the EC. we would see only areas of population density matter in elections.

Wow....in a welfare state. we would be another Argentina. 

Generalizations of consensus mixed with a federal law including the say so of States.

Well. No Wonder it worked so well. 

 

Voting is about people not land mass. No wonder some people talk weird.

The EC is proportional to the number of people in each state. Any suggestion that for example the land mass of NY State should be proportionally more important than the number of people in NY City is away with the faeries. The current discrepancy re the mass vote is due to the fact that most states are winner take all. That's all.

Edited November 28, 2016 by SheungWan

[PattayaBoy]

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been removed.   Please stay on topic.  

[Saastrajaa]

On 11/26/2016 at 4:59 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

I take it you are renouncing US citizenship then! If you don't he is, and nothing you can do about it.

 

No, there's PLENTY we can do about it.  It will look something like this: