Trumped 202

[Passionné]

Now Clinton is blaming Comey for her loss.

No one with eyes, ears, and paying attention can deny it changed the outcome. Sure if she hadn't used that server in the first place she would have won overwhelmingly. But the election at the time of Comey's announcement was all for her. Clinton had over 270 electoral votes in the certain win category and up 80 or 90 more leaning. Right before the election because of Comey's announcement to reopen of the investigation the certain win states for her dropped to less than 190 and the leaners to about 30 or 40, which is about what played out.

This stuff about Clinton still being a favorite is not what I saw a couple of days before. I checked several polls indicating Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Florida being tied or slightly leaning a couple of points either way. Then Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan moved into slight leaners or tossups. It was turn out that did it and it was reported numerous times more Trump voters were turning out over more states than those for her. The result should not be the big surprise it seemed to be to a lot of people. Of course maybe they figured such a piece of garbage like him could not win.

Trump posted the night of the election in 2012 that he was outraged Obama had beat Romney and had suggested people hit the streets and march towards Washington DC. Karma's a bitch, Donald! :lol:

People say accept Trump's win. I do. That's better than President jackass was willing to do. He said he would only accept the results only if he won. People say the protesters won't accept things. Okay they are doing what Trump said he would.

Funny though. Either way Trump didn't win. You can feel how this is going already. The Republican Party does not like or want Trump. Trump made a mockery of their basic principles in significant segments and I see President Cheney2 in charge after inauguration, though he looks exactly like Mike Pence this time. In the end "The Swamp" will drain Trump.

Yes I agree the money motivation is a big problem term limits could help solve. It should be something like one for a senator (because of the length), and two for a Representative.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Yes I agree the money motivation is a big problem term limits could help solve. It should be something like one for a senator (because of the length), and two for a Representative.

I remember reading a few years ago that something like 70% of congressmen & congresswomen become millionaires after only a few years of serving in Congress. They're even better off than the President himself!

Too many bribes, too much money in politics. It's sad and i honestly can't see an end to it. Trump himself bragged about bribing politicians in the past in order to get favors. That's how Washington works. It's really a house of cards. And with the awful Citizens United Supreme Court ruling, they've made it possible for billionaires or wealthy foreign countries to get their own candidates elected in order to gain political influence.

 

[EagerBeaver]

I remember reading a few years ago that something like 70% of congressmen & congresswomen become millionaires after only a few years of serving in Congress. They're even better off that the President himself!

But they only keep that gravy train flowing if they bring federal money back to their district. If they don't they do not get re-elected and the money train stops. Hence the need for term limits.

 

[Doc Holliday]

She did it twice, firs was against Obama.
For her it is 2 strikes and your out.
The only consolation for this Trump win is that Hillary lost.

The problem with Hillary Clinton is that she's always been a bad candidate and had no charisma. A lot of prominent politicans (incl. Republicans) have stated she was one of the most qualified persons to hold the job of President. But you also need skills as a candidate in order to reach the top.

But let's not forget that she did have more people who voted for her in this recent election. More people voted for her!!! Remember this!! So it's very unfair to say that she LOST the election. To be fair, she lost on a technicality. Had Trump lost under these same conditions, he would have been screaming and screaming and his red necks would have been marching every single day and creating chaos.

Most of the marches and protests have been peaceful except for a few in Portland, Oregon. But the violent acts in those were committed by anarchists such as the Black Bloc, who have a presence throughout the world and regularly mix themselves with protestors in various cities around the world at global events as at the G7 meetings, among others.

 

[EagerBeaver]

But let's not forget that she did have more people who voted for her in this recent election. More people voted for her!!! Remember this!! So it's very unfair to say that she LOST the election. T.

It's not unfair to say she lost. She knew that it is the electoral college, not the popular vote, that wins the election. She elected not to set foot in Wisconsin, thinking it was in the bag. She elected not to campaign in other areas, thinking, due to poll results, they were in the bag. She was wrong. She lost. This is no different than the Super Bowl team that gambles on a strategy of blitzing and then gets burned for 2 80 yard TD passes that cost them the game. She made her bed and she must lay in it.

 

[Doc Holliday]

The Black Swan President

Donald Trump is the biggest unknown ever to take control of the White House. What’s the worst-case scenario? The best? As the country waits to find out, Politico Magazine asked 17 experts to game out a Trump presidency.

by Politico Magazine

On Tuesday, when Donald Trump defied the polls, the Clinton machine and much of his own party establishment to become president-elect of the United States, he also became the closest thing to a black swan event we’ve ever seen in American politics: Statistically unlikely, rationalized only in hindsight—and carrying an impact that could be off the known charts.

On one hand, Trump is a pragmatic businessman with a very flexible ideology and a desire to be seen in a positive light; on the other, he’s a ruthless and often improvisational dealmaker with no allegiance to the norms and institutions that set the boundaries for traditional political power. And in 10 weeks he’ll be commander-in-chief.

What could happen? Here’s where we’re hoping the experts can come in. As the country tries to wrap its head around the election result that surprised (almost) everyone, Politico Magazine asked top national security gurus, economists, immigration and energy experts, and a few historians to game out a Trump presidency. Below, they sketch out their worst-case and best-case scenarios—and then, most important, what it would take to achieve the latter.

Read the rest of the article:

The Black Swan President

Doc says: "This is a very good article and highly recommended to anyone who has followed the current election."

 

[Doc Holliday]

+1

If the rules of the game had been popular vote wins, both sides would have conducted very very different campaigns and the popular vote totals may well have been very different.

I was thinking of this the other day & concluded what you just wrote. However, i later thought about it more and i couldn't say they would have changed anything since they still would have had to campaign in various states to appeal to their voters. I don't believe the electoral college system made it much different had there not been one.

 

[lgna69xxx]

The proof and the facts say otherwise. He beat her at her own game. I would say he is one of the smartest men in the world when you look at what he accomplished in only 1.5 years compared to her 30 in that same "game"

Like i mentioned once before, he was like a finely tuned surgeon performing a operation that went perfectly well. (is it just me or am I sounding "eagerbeaver-esque") :lol:

I agree with you that she is far more intelligent than Trump.

 

[lgna69xxx]

Sam21,

I'd say about half the country (the states) do not agree with you but the other half does

 

[EagerBeaver]

Clinton: Comey Double Whammy Did Me In

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/12/politics/hillary-clinton-james-comey-fbi/index.html

I kind of think Comey's intention was to cover his own ass in case something came out from the investigation weeks after the election, not to sabotage Hilary, although he did

 

[Garotalover]

Everyone seems to have missed the obvious. Carlos Danger lost the election for Hillary.

http://nypost.com/2016/01/25/a-long-hard-look-into-anthony-weiners-downfall/

 

[CaptRenault]

For all the leftist Canadians taking part in this thread, all of whom have lots of opinions about but no knowledge of American history and politics, here is an explanation of the reasons behind the electoral college system of electing a president.

If Americans want to change the system, there is a simple process of amendment outlined in the Constitution. Fortunately, thanks to the genius of the framers, this process requires a lot more than a simple majority vote of the people.

http://www.kingsmeadow.com/wp/the-genius-of-the-electoral-college/

The Genius of the Electoral College

“Every word of the Constitution ultimately decides a question between power and liberty.” James Madison


...The Electoral College was originally designed by the Founding Fathers as a federal hedge against the domination of the absolute national majority over the individual states—indeed, without the College, the delicate federal balance between national unity and regional distinctiveness would be lost and the various states would lose their much of their power over the executive branch.

The Electoral College was thus designed to be a method of indirect but popular election of the President of the United States. The Framers of the Constitution were careful to follow clear principle in this design—it was hardly a matter of haphazardness or convenience. They wanted a federal means to elect the Chief Magistrate of the nation so that careful and calm deliberation would lead to the selection of the best-qualified candidate...

...Direct popular election of the President was rejected by the Framers because it failed to protect the states from the intrusion of massed centralized forces. They reasoned that a pure democracy was more easily corrupted than a federal republic. It would essentially eliminate state borders and state prerogative, and whenever more centralized government directly governs the people, they thought that there was likely to be more opportunity for corruption. And electing the President by the Legislative or Judicial branches would violate the separation of powers. Thus, the federal solution was to elect the President by a balanced representation of the States and the people. Electors, independent from either the states or the national government, were elected in accordance with standards established by the State legislatures, and the electors then elected the President. This federal approach carefully avoided direct dependency upon either the states or the people, but kept both represented in the process. Giving each State the number of electors as they have representatives in Congress was also in harmony with this balance.

Direct popular election of the President was also rejected by the Framers because it would fail to prevent a candidate from pandering to one region, or running up their votes in certain states. Political scientist James Whitson, using a sports analogy of, explains, “In a baseball season you don’t play 100 odd games, add up your total runs from all those games, and the teams with the most play in the World Series. Teams would just run up the score on weaker teams to balance the closer games against tougher opponents. In a direct election, Democrats would run up the vote totals in safe states like Massachusetts and Republicans would run up their votes in states like Nebraska.

The Electoral College forces candidates to concede states their opponents are winning handily and contest the tight races.” Direct popular election of the President was also rejected by the Framers because it would fail to protect minority interests from a tyrannical majority. For example in a direct election, since African-Americans account for about 13% of the population, they could only account for 13% of the vote. In the Electoral College, African-Americans account for 25% of Alabama’s 9 votes, 27% of Georgia’s 13 votes, 31% of Louisiana’s 9 votes, etc. Farmers, once a very influential constituency, now make up less than 4% of the population. Why would a candidate worry about this small group in a direct election? In the Electoral College system, farmers do make up sizable parts of several states, and thus their combined strength in a smaller pool of voters gives them more power. Because minority groups are often concentrated in some states and not spread evenly throughout the country, their influence is protected to a greater degree in a federal system.

Finally, direct popular election of the President was also rejected by the Framers because it would fail to prevent candidates from ignoring smaller states in favor of big metropolitan areas. In a direct election, New York City would have about twice the electoral clout of the states of Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming combined. Why would a candidate even campaign in those six states when he can double his impact by spending more time and less money in a single city. The needs and issues of small rural communities would be outweighed in the candidates’ mind by those of large urban areas.

The Electoral College system was thus the careful implementation of an essential Constitutional principle: federalism. Without it, the genius of the whole Constitution would be jeopardized.

 

[EagerBeaver]

Trump: Twitter Helped Me Win, Fight Back Against Negative Media Coverage

http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/12/media/donald-trump-twitter-60-minutes/index.html

 

[charmer_]

Well Michael Moore was right about Trump winning. Maybe he'll be right about this too:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...mp-impeach-resign_us_58261464e4b0c4b63b0c6dee

 

[cpp433]

I really dont see how anyone cant be 100% behind that plan! It truly bewilders me.

 

[EagerBeaver]

* FIRST, propose a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress;

* SECOND, a hiring freeze on all federal employees to reduce federal workforce through attrition (exempting military, public safety, and public health);

* THIRD, a requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated;

* FOURTH, a 5 year-ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service;

* FIFTH, a lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government;

* SIXTH, a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections.

I really like 1, 4, 5, and 6. 2 and 3 are possibilities but could be more problematic. Enough is enough with the selling of influence in Washington, this election finally sent a message that Americans are fed up with it and this could be the one strong positive that comes out of the election result.

 

[lgna69xxx]

In what was in my mind the Best Choice for Trump's Chief of Staff, Reince Priebus was just choosen for the job. :thumb:

 

[Doc Holliday]

In what was in my mind the Best Choice for Trump's Chief of Staff, Reince Priebus was just choosen for the job. :thumb:

Indeed. It was the safe pick. But so much for Trump and his claims of being a 'Washington outsider'. Reince Priebus is the classic Washington insider having long worked with the establishment. Many of the cabinet posts will be held by DC insiders also. And the fact the transition team is made up of a large number of DC lobbyists tells you alll you want to know about Trump's campaign promises. And tonight he'll tell 60 Minutes that he may keep Obamacare, after all. It seems that the 'swamp' is staying put in Washington, which is not surprising since the Washington political establishment is a huge, strong powerful machine.

p.s. Trump did name racist fascist Stephen Bannon as his Chief Strategist. His ex-wife stated that Bannon didn't want their kids to attend school with jewish kids. He also happens to be a sworn ennemy of Paul Ryan and the GOP establishment. So it should be quite an interesting 4 years. I actually feel bad for Reince Priebus, who's a decent fellow. :lol:

 

[Doc Holliday]

In what was in my mind the Best Choice for Trump's Chief of Staff, Reince Priebus was just choosen for the job. :thumb:

I'm shocked you didn't want Stephen Bannon as the Chief of Staff. So we can conclude that you're a Washington establishment guy, after all!

p.s. Aren't you a Breitbart News subscriber? So why wouldn't you prefer Bannon for the job?

 

[Doc Holliday]

For all the leftist Canadians taking part in this thread, all of whom have lots of opinions about but no knowledge of American history and politics, here is an explanation of the reasons behind the electoral college system of electing a president.

As a holder of a bachelor's degree specialized in Canadian history, i would like to simply point out that the large majority of Canadians would be considered 'liberals' or 'leftists' from an American perspective. A conservative in Canada would be comparable to a moderate at best in the American political spectrum. I just wanted to point this out since as a Canadian, i feel absolutely comfortable being referred to as a 'liberal' or a 'leftist' since i'm part of the large majority of Canadians.

p.s. Fellow Canadian & former Bush 43 speechwriter David Frum would fall under this category of a very conservative Canadian.