PGT: President-Elect Donald J Trump

[GirlySports]

people are even protesting in Toronto!

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by troutman

WOMEN'S MARCH ON WASHINGTON- JANUARY 21st, 2017
OFFICIAL STATEMENT, National Organizers
https://www.facebook.com/events/2169332969958991/

My wife wants to go, but I reminded her that Trump won the white woman vote. She's conflicted now. She still hasn't come to terms that the majority of the women like her voted for the ##### grabber.

[dash_pinched]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

We sure hope Trump keeps a bunch of Obama staffers

- signed people who want the Trump White House to be more leaky than the Iraqi navy.

Is that a reference from 'The Departed'? Well done, good sir.

[Bunk]

Michael Moore: Oprah or Tom Hanks for president

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/13/politi...inkId=31127915

Originally Posted by Bunk

Hopefully not Fata, but who do you think will be in the mix for the democrats for 2020?

Obviously a lot of Democratic soul searching to come, and who knows what the political dynamics will be in 3-4 years, but who are the leading possibilities?

Bernie - probably too old. He'll have passed average Male life expectancy in 2020.

Elizabeth Warren - certainly can straddle both progressive and centrist wings.

Cory Booker - might remind people of Obama in style and politics.

Tammy Duckworth - decorated war veteran

Chris Murphy - Connecticut Senator, strong gun control advicate. White guy.

John Hickenlooper - popular governor in a swing state. Fun name. Another white dude.

Some less congenital choices:

Oprah Winfrey - hey, stranger things

Kanye - again...

Michelle Obama - Very unlikely, but she is basically the anti-Trump

Michael Moore - Midwest factor

An actor - say Tom Hanks, Leonardo DeCaprio.

You heard it here first

[CaptainCrunch]

At this point the US has to find a way to heal what looks like a deep and massive divide in their country, and I believe it started to bubble to the surface with Hillary's silly deplorable concept, and Trump pushed it through his stupid immigration policy bluster.

Right now the States is badly fractured on multiple lines, income, political beliefs, race, age its broken and the only way to fix that is something that we all fear the worst and that's an event that unites America's to a common cause which they are incredibly good at.

And no I'm not talking about some conspiracy theory where there's a false flag terrorist event.

At this point we're viewing what feels like the breakup of the American Empire and the US needs leadership that Trump nor Hillary nor Sanders could provide in their wildest dreams. This election campaign bought all of that resentment and hatred and rage and feelings of isolation or being left behind to the surface.

[OldDutch]

Was in Chicago on the weekend. People down there were all too eager to chat about it even though I never brought it up.

People are flipping out in Obama's hometown, which isn't all that surprising. What was interesting was the Uber driver told me he had a statistician from one of the big polling companies a week before the election. The stats guy said that in auto polls Trump would be ahead, yet when they did human calls Hillary won. He said it was like that across the country.

Lots of closet Trump boosters. Which leads me to wonder if people voted for him are closet racists, didn't agree with the social but the economic policy, felt pressure from others to support Hillary publicly, or something else.

Love to see the objective stats if/when they come out of why this happened. It actually explains in a way how Hillary appeared to be ahead but lost when it counted.

I think people were more sick of losing their jobs to be honest. I still contend that Obama's tenure brought little relief to those who needed it the most. I think he helped the economy just in an uneven way. The black vote will always be his, but Hillary couldn't inspire enough confidence that she'll change course for these people.

Now do I think he will actually help anyone? Of course not. Just amazing how bad peoples lives have to be to vote for him. Speaks to the class divisions and how wide they are down there.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by Acey

Came in with a game plan of who he needed to appeal to during the campaign, did it, and now it appears he actually intends to make the country better. Unless you're squeaky clean and charismatic like Obama, I feel like that's the method of operation to win any election.

Given that he's more than happy to put climate change deniers at the head of the EPA, Ben Carson of "Pyramids were Grain Silos" fame as the head of education, unhinged Rudy Giuliani as Attorney General, Bannon as his Chief Strategist, etc, etc, etc...I have a really hard time believing he's actually going to do any good for this country. He's most certainly not surrounding himself with "the best people," as he claimed to do. He's surrounding himself with extremists, lobbyists, and people so off their rockers even the GOP establishment no longer has use for them.

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Had not seen this. On what basis?

There are a few issues with the Electoral College, and I think a lot of the protesting right now is less about this moment right now and more about the future. This is twice in 5 presidential elections where the loser of the popular vote won the Presidency based on the electoral college.

No state can have fewer than 3 electoral votes. So in a place like Wyoming, with a population around 600k, each electoral vote is worth 190-some thousand votes.

In California? Each electoral vote is worth about 3 million votes, due to the population density.

So why is it that Wyoming's votes are given much more importance than those of people in California/New York, other population rich areas? This is not a problem that can be fixed for this specific election, unfortunately we've already screwed the pooch on this one. But for the future, the electoral college needs to either be changed or removed. State elections are based on popular vote--why not the election for the highest office of all?

As of now (while votes aren't fully counted yet in California, I believe) Clinton is ahead in the popular vote by 1.3 million. So you've got a president elect who was voted in, despite being behind by about the same number of votes as the entire population of Wyoming and South Dakota combined. (800k-ish and 500k-ish)

It just makes a mockery of the idea of "one person, one vote" if the votes of those in small, rural states hold more weight than those in densely populated ones.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

Was in Chicago on the weekend. People down there were all too eager to chat about it even though I never brought it up.

People are flipping out in Obama's hometown, which isn't all that surprising. What was interesting was the Uber driver told me he had a statistician from one of the big polling companies a week before the election. The stats guy said that in auto polls Trump would be ahead, yet when they did human calls Hillary won. He said it was like that across the country.

Lots of closet Trump boosters. Which leads me to wonder if people voted for him are closet racists, didn't agree with the social but the economic policy, felt pressure from others to support Hillary publicly, or something else.

Love to see the objective stats if/when they come out of why this happened. It actually explains in a way how Hillary appeared to be ahead but lost when it counted.

I think people were more sick of losing their jobs to be honest. I still contend that Obama's tenure brought little relief to those who needed it the most. I think he helped the economy just in an uneven way. The black vote will always be his, but Hillary couldn't inspire enough confidence that she'll change course for these people.

Now do I think he will actually help anyone? Of course not. Just amazing how bad peoples lives have to be to vote for him. Speaks to the class divisions and how wide they are down there.

I think that your oversimplifying things a bit. I think that the worst thing that Hillary did in her campaign was the deplorables comment. Right at that moment she created a firm battle line and ostracized a lot of voters that might have plugged their noses and voted for her. Instead as a group they gave her a tremendous middle finger. She didn't create a sheltered all inclusive voting circle for herself and as the campaign went on and Trump painted her as everything wrong with the American Political Process. Corrupt, doesn't care about the people struggling out there with riding costs, he created a narrative of us versus them that Hillary played into.

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Michael Moore: Oprah or Tom Hanks for president

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/13/politi...inkId=31127915




You heard it here first

The cnn article was posted before your post...

I will show myself out.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

Was in Chicago on the weekend. People down there were all too eager to chat about it even though I never brought it up.

People are flipping out in Obama's hometown, which isn't all that surprising. What was interesting was the Uber driver told me he had a statistician from one of the big polling companies a week before the election. The stats guy said that in auto polls Trump would be ahead, yet when they did human calls Hillary won. He said it was like that across the country.

Lots of closet Trump boosters. Which leads me to wonder if people voted for him are closet racists, didn't agree with the social but the economic policy, felt pressure from others to support Hillary publicly, or something else.

Love to see the objective stats if/when they come out of why this happened. It actually explains in a way how Hillary appeared to be ahead but lost when it counted.

I think people were more sick of losing their jobs to be honest. I still contend that Obama's tenure brought little relief to those who needed it the most. I think he helped the economy just in an uneven way. The black vote will always be his, but Hillary couldn't inspire enough confidence that she'll change course for these people.

Now do I think he will actually help anyone? Of course not. Just amazing how bad peoples lives have to be to vote for him. Speaks to the class divisions and how wide they are down there.

And while I fully understand this frustration (Pittsburgh and suburbs south are full of people who moved from old dying coal mine towns), these same people refuse to look to any other option that isn't "bring back coal!"

Coal isn't coming back. Manufacturing jobs were lost more due to technological advancement than because of trade deals. The days of high school dropouts getting well paying union jobs at a manufacturing plant or in a coal mine are behind us, and they're not coming back.

Thus the democratic principles of pushing forth education, of making internet more readily available, pushing for trade certification (because no one's outsourcing welders or plumbers) would help these people, but they vote against democrats because Guns and Gay Marriage and Abortion and then they cry when their towns continue to falter and their children don't have opportunities.

Not to mention the GOP's staunch anti-union stance, which has led to a lot of the employment uncertainty that these people face.

I understand their concerns, but at some point they need to take some blame for voting against their own best interests.

[FlamesAddiction]

I like Booker and Castro. Both are great speakers and I think would be great for rallying disenfranchised to vote. I feel that if Clinton picked one of those 2 as a running mate, she may have fared better.

With Booker though, would America be ready for a vegan president!?

[photon]

McMullin going on a bit of rant.

Saying "stop it" to racist attacks means little when you name white supremacist darling Steve Bannon chief strategist in the very same day.

https://twitter.com/Evan_McMullin/st...20861630431232

[Magnum PEI]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

Given that he's more than happy to put climate change deniers at the head of the EPA, Ben Carson of "Pyramids were Grain Silos" fame as the head of education, unhinged Rudy Giuliani as Attorney General, Bannon as his Chief Strategist, etc, etc, etc...I have a really hard time believing he's actually going to do any good for this country. He's most certainly not surrounding himself with "the best people," as he claimed to do. He's surrounding himself with extremists, lobbyists, and people so off their rockers even the GOP establishment no longer has use for them.




There are a few issues with the Electoral College, and I think a lot of the protesting right now is less about this moment right now and more about the future. This is twice in 5 presidential elections where the loser of the popular vote won the Presidency based on the electoral college.

No state can have fewer than 3 electoral votes. So in a place like Wyoming, with a population around 600k, each electoral vote is worth 190-some thousand votes.

In California? Each electoral vote is worth about 3 million votes, due to the population density.

So why is it that Wyoming's votes are given much more importance than those of people in California/New York, other population rich areas? This is not a problem that can be fixed for this specific election, unfortunately we've already screwed the pooch on this one. But for the future, the electoral college needs to either be changed or removed. State elections are based on popular vote--why not the election for the highest office of all?

As of now (while votes aren't fully counted yet in California, I believe) Clinton is ahead in the popular vote by 1.3 million. So you've got a president elect who was voted in, despite being behind by about the same number of votes as the entire population of Wyoming and South Dakota combined. (800k-ish and 500k-ish)

It just makes a mockery of the idea of "one person, one vote" if the votes of those in small, rural states hold more weight than those in densely populated ones.

Its about 700,000 for California. ~40 million/55. Still quite a discrepancy.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by Magnum PEI

Its about 700,000 for California. ~40 million/55. Still quite a discrepancy.

Ahh, my apologies, I'd read that somewhere else and didn't think to double check the math.

The point stands, however. Why can we elect Governors and Senators based on popular vote, but the President of the US has the scale tipped in favor of rural, low population states?

[missdpuck]

vegan or I smack you upside the head ( South Beach on Halloween)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nik-]

uhhh

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

Ahh, my apologies, I'd read that somewhere else and didn't think to double check the math.

The point stands, however. Why can we elect Governors and Senators based on popular vote, but the President of the US has the scale tipped in favor of rural, low population states?

Because it's how it is in the US Constitution and changing it is very hard.

A more fairer system might be to remove the 100 electoral votes for the Senate but Trump would still win in that scenario. And if the popular vote was the way to elect the president, then the campaign strategies of both sides would be significantly different anyways.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by dash_pinched

Is that a reference from 'The Departed'? Well done, good sir.

Leo/Matt 2020: Those fireman were a bunch of homos.

[wittynickname]

Trump loyalist Rudolph W. Giuliani seemed to acknowledge in a CNN interview Sunday that it wasn't an ideal set-up. But then he offered a remarkable defense. "He would basically put his children out of work if — and they'd have to go start a whole new business, and that would set up the whole — set up new problems," Giuliani said on "State of the Union."

Giuliani added: "It's kind of unrealistic to say you're going to take the business away from the three people who are running it and give it to some independent person. And remember, they can't work in the government because of the government rule against nepotism. So you would be putting them out of work."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ork/?tid=sm_tw


So we're going to rake Clinton over the coals for her husband's thoroughly vetted, successful, and extremely highly rated charitable organization--yet we're totally fine with Trump, as President, still having full access to his conglomeration of businesses.

There's no chance of conflict of interest here, clearly.

Also let me pull out my tiny tiny violin for the poor Trump children.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by accord1999

Because it's how it is in the US Constitution and changing it is very hard.

A more fairer system might be to remove the 100 electoral votes for the Senate but Trump would still win in that scenario. And if the popular vote was the way to elect the president, then the campaign strategies of both sides would be significantly different anyways.

So you don't fix a major problem because it's hard?

The Constitution is a living document, meant to be changed as the times change. Times have changed. Hard or not, we need to fix it.