2016 US Presidential election thread

[Aktungbby]

Trump will be the president Markus, we will get to see how Corporate America runs the country now. Can hardly wait!:haha:
Well as a fellow Minnesota man familiar with the 'Jessie Ventura Effect', Trump ain't a real stretch!:har: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/zorn/ct-ventura-effect-trump-clinton-perspec-zorn-0731-md-20160729-column.html (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/zorn/ct-ventura-effect-trump-clinton-perspec-zorn-0731-md-20160729-column.html) Trump loves to Hamm it up too ....:O: Minnesotans chose a former professional wrestler to lead them not "because they're stupid or thought that Jesse Ventura was some sort of statesman or political intellectual," Moore wrote. "They did so just because they could. Minnesota is one of the smartest states in the country. It is also filled with people who have a dark sense of humor — and voting for Ventura was their version of a good practical joke on a sick political system."
On the bright side, Minnesota survived this little caper (though it might not have if governors had access to nuclear launch codes), and Ventura was so bored and frustrated by the actual job that he didn't bother to run for re-election after four years. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/20/magazine/donald-trumps-america-minnesota-jesse-ventura.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/20/magazine/donald-trumps-america-minnesota-jesse-ventura.html?_r=0)

[AVGWarhawk]

The funny thing is, the people who are pushing for this give their reason as Clinton won the popular vote, so she is who the people really wanted and the Electoral College system is mocking the election. I don't agree, but some of those folks really believe that, so they think they are in the right.

Reality is the system to determine the winner is based on the electoral college. It is not mocking the system but it is looking to change the agreed upon system in their favor after the fact. These folks can feel right about it all day but it is meaningless as the electoral college is the system used. State recounts(Jill Stein). The Russians are at fault(sure). Maybe just maybe their candidate sucked? So, she wins the popular vote. Sadly, the system is electoral college and campaigned as such. Trumps campaign would have been very different if the popular vote determined the victor. Time to move on much like many did 8 and 4 years ago. The misdirected energy, resources and money is astonishing. It is time to move on. The citizens have had 12 months of nonsense. Maybe Jill Stein can raise millions for people who need it instead of going on hunt for something the Democrats said does not exist(voter fraud) before election day.

[eddie]

Well as a fellow Minnesota man familiar with the 'Jessie Ventura Effect', Trump ain't a real stretch!:har: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/zorn/ct-ventura-effect-trump-clinton-perspec-zorn-0731-md-20160729-column.html (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/zorn/ct-ventura-effect-trump-clinton-perspec-zorn-0731-md-20160729-column.html) Trump loves to Hamm it up too ....:O: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/20/magazine/donald-trumps-america-minnesota-jesse-ventura.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/20/magazine/donald-trumps-america-minnesota-jesse-ventura.html?_r=0)

Just had to bring that up, didn't you!:haha:

[Platapus]

To quote my favourite line from the musical 1776 "America came in to existence like a bastard child - Half improvised, half compromised". And there is much truth there, especially the compromised part. The forming of our governmental system was a system of compromises.

The electoral college was one of them. It was the best system that pissed off everyone equally as any good compromise is.

The issue was representation and we had two distinct levels of representation to address.

1. States
2. People

States with larger populations wanted elections to be determined by popular vote (The Virginia System). Smaller populated states objected claiming that their representation is being marginalized as we are supposed to be a union of equal states.

States with smaller populations wanted elections to be determined by equal representation (The Connecticut System). Larger population states objected by claiming that since they, as a state, pay more in taxes, their representation is being marginalized.

This is very similar to the issue with federal representation in congress.

Wadda ya goin' to do? Well you do what you have to do which means compromise.

What was desired was that the President be elected by a majority of the citizens in the majority of the states. How are ya goin' to do that? The compromise was the Electoral College as it gives representation by population and by state. Warts and all, it works out pretty well. No one has come up with a better system to ensure that the President is elected by both the majority of people and the majority of states. In the US context majority is represented by a plurality, but that's another rant. :doh:t

The electoral college is here to stay. There is no reasonable expectation that a constitutional amendment could pass not only through congress but through the individual state legislation. The solution is not to abolish the electoral college but to fix it.

Currently the states with the exception of Maine and Nebraska choose to use "winner take all". And it is their choice. There is nothing in the constitution nor any federal law that mandates winner take all. Maine and Nebraska us a hybrid of winner take all and proportional voting.

Each of the states, on their own, could easily their type of electoral voting to either completely proportional or a hybrid system. This is where the change should take place -- at the state level just like our founding dudes intended.

If enough citizens make it very clear that they will not elect/re-elect any state legislator that does not agree to change the electoral voting process in that state, things will change.

But this takes effort on the part of the citizens. Sadly, that is lacking in the US. Bitchin' and whining on the Internets Tubes, even on video game website forums, is as much effort as the citizens wish to do.:03:

The system does not change for the simple reason the citizens simply don't care enough. Every four years, people get spun up over the electoral college and than after the election, it gets forgotten until the next four years. Equally sad is the call by citizens for the federal government to "do something" about the electoral college when that something is entirely under the control of the citizens.

[Mr Quatro]

Take the EC out of this election and this is what you would have ...

Hillary won New York City, (City, not State) by 1,508,755 votes. (1,969,920 to Trump's 461,175) NYC consists of Manhattan, The Bronx, Staten Island, Queens and Brooklyn.

She won the City of Chicago by 757,967 votes. ( 890,705 to 132,738).

She won Los Angeles County by 694,621 votes. (2,464,364 to 769,743)

She won these 3 areas by a total of 2,961,343 votes.

She won the nationwide popular vote by 2,654,600 votes.

Just those three areas alone would've been enough to elect Hillary Clinton as the next POTUS.

Is that fair? I don't think so, but then again I am a little prejudice against that woman being in charge of us all. I love women don't get me wrong, but her dirty laundry stinks.:yep:

One more point ... I don't think the east coast wants the west coast to decide the next POTUS and without the EC that's exactly what would've happened.

(by a landslide).

California Presidential Race Results: Hillary Clinton Wins
Candidate Party Votes
Hillary Clinton Democrat Dem. 8,753,788
Donald J. Trump Republican Rep. 4,483,810
Gary Johnson Libertarian Lib. 478,499
Jill Stein Green Green 278,657

[Sailor Steve]

Reality is the system to determine the winner is based on the electoral college. It is not mocking the system but it is looking to change the agreed upon system in their favor after the fact.
I agree. I was addressing the comment by Mapuc that the EC would be mocking the system by giving the election to the candidate who came second. I was merely pointing out that technically they would be giving it to the candidate who came first.

[Sailor Steve]

The issue was representation and we had two distinct levels of representation to address.

1. States
2. People

States with larger populations wanted elections to be determined by popular vote (The Virginia System). Smaller populated states objected claiming that their representation is being marginalized as we are supposed to be a union of equal states.
That argument pertained strictly to representation in the Congress, not the President.

What was desired was that the President be elected by a majority of the citizens in the majority of the states.
Actually the President was to be elected by the States, period. How the States chose their Electors was their business. The purpose of the EC was to keep the Presidential election out of the hands of the people. The reason for that was that the representation of Congress is from the people to the Government. The representation of the President is from the country as a whole to the rest of the world. The people didn't need to be involved in that.

[mapuc]

Most of you American have a lot more knowledge about the American election system than I do and it's only you that have the right to either criticize it and work for a change.

Each state have a certain amount of Electoral and they have been, depending on the outcome of this state's final voting, given a task to put their vote on the candidate that won in this state.

If some of these Electoral suddenly feel obligated to change their task as it has been given upon them by the people in this state-I see it as these Electoral has mocked the people, who put their vote on this candidate.

That was little more in deep explanation about my thoughts on this oncoming second election.

Second.
I have no imagination of what could or would happen politically or in the society if Trump should loose in the Second election.

Markus

[Mr Quatro]

I have no imagination of what could or would happen politically or in the society if Trump should loose in the Second election.

Markus

War! First social media would explode, riots in the states that have right to carry laws. Forget black against white or white against blacks ... it would be brother against brother and sister against sister. Whole families would get involved ... mayhem.

Youtube would be full of the violence and here it is the season to be jolly.

Not a pretty sight Markus, but I also think something big is going to happen, but then again I thought my football team was going to win.

Just two more days anyway ... :yep:

[Catfish]

Well a re-counting would not change much, the US people are almost evenly divided. And those who are tired of 'political correctness' won, this time.

And Facebook as well as YouTube are already full of hate and racism.

[mapuc]

War! First social media would explode, riots in the states that have right to carry laws. Forget black against white or white against blacks ... it would be brother against brother and sister against sister. Whole families would get involved ... mayhem.

Youtube would be full of the violence and here it is the season to be jolly.

Not a pretty sight Markus, but I also think something big is going to happen, but then again I thought my football team was going to win.

Just two more days anyway ... :yep:

Going off topic, ´cause I got this imagination

We jump 40-50 year into the future

In a History book following can be read

"In the second election to the Presidential election 2016, 55 of the states electoral changed their vote and voted for Clinton. This outcome created one of USA's most violent period of riots a.s.o(forgot all the words I was thinking of using) as a result of this 13 state sent a common letter to Washington saying that they felt no obligation to the Government in Washington anymore and as from this day(may 26 2018) they are not a part of USA anymore. In 2021 these 13 states plus 2 more created their own little country. The Government refuse this and....."

End of my off topic story

Markus

[vienna]

The Electoral College most likely will vote Trump into office, but the damage to his administration has been done; he will still be seen, particularly by the governments of other nations, as a president who does not have the confidence of the majority of the voting citizens; getting only about 46% of the total votes, coming in at second place, and, top it off, a swirl of allegations of Russian efforts to swing the election Trump's way do not inspire confidence in his coming presidency. Yes, yes, I know: the election is really up to the Electoral College, but the College votes are more the result of a sort of political 'chess game' than an actual expression of the direct will and intent of the voting citizens of the United States; Trump's election is more the result of 'gaming' the Electoral system than it is what the actual voters decided; no matter what Trump tweets or boasts, he will never be "the People's Choice"...

Speaking of Trump's tweets and boasts, I got a good laugh a few days ago when he boasted his election gave the DEMs the worst defeat in political history. Aside from the fact he lost the popular vote and about 54% of the voters voted for someone else, his Electoral College win isn't even impressive by any standards; compare his win to the results since 2000:

2000 — Bush 271, Gore 266
2004 — Bush 286, Kerry 251
2008 — Obama 365, McCain 173
2012 — Obama 332, Romney 206
2016 — Trump 306, Clinton 232

Obama, as much as he is maligned and criticized, in his reelection in 2012 got 26 more Electoral votes than Trump in 2016; not bad for a "disasterous" Presidential candidate; since Obama, the "disaster", was so much better in his run, what does the 2016 result make Trump? As a further comparative metric, in 1972 Nixon got 520 Electoral votes, a whopping 95% of the Electoral vote, and we all know how well Nixon worked out as President. In fact, in terms of all-time US Electoral College results, Trump stands at #46 of the 58 elections in the history of the US:

http://www.epicjourney2008.com/2016/11/trumps-victory-ranks-46-of-58-in.html

While the Electoral college may have the final say, there are an awful lot of US voters who can say "Trump? Not my choice."; in fact it is a clear majority...

As far as the history of the rationale for the existence of the Electoral College is concerned, the popular notion of the College being a means to protect smaller states' voices in the election process, the genesis has a much more inhumane aspect; the issue of slavery was a far more impelling factor than the simple population of the founding states. As far back as my years in high school in the late 60s, I recall having the need for an Electoral College as an issue and, in fact, it was a proposed topic for our debate tournaments. This is where I first heard of the issue of slavery in connection with the College. This past election has brought it up again; here is an essay in Time Magazine on the subject:

http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/

The Electoral College was, in essence, part and parcel of the infamous "Three-Fifths Compromise" reached as a means of ensuring the Southern states would remain in the fledgling nation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise

There really is no rationale for the continued existence of the Electoral College; all the arguments for its creation are moot or pretty much so: the ability of the average citizen to be informed on the matters and issues facing the country have vastly improved obviating the fear of the 'great unwashed' having a voice; the statuses of the various small agrarian versus large industrial states has homogenized to the point of irrelevance; Civil War and basic common sense and humanity have also obviated any need to assuage the feelings of the South. There really isn't any real good reason to keep the Electoral College other than historical sentimentality or the preservation of a system that can be 'gamed' for political purpose, often at the expense and in contravention of the expressed will of the voters...

At any rate, I didn't vote for Trump, and, even if Hillary had won the Electoral College, I could still say "Not my President."...


<O>

[Skybird]

The only worrying question currently, in these coming hours, is what will happen to or in American civil society if the Electoral College tomorrow does not vote Trump as president?

That is a certain, small though real possibility.

And it would be more than throwing just a spark into the powder magazine that polarised, deeply entrenched civil society seems to have turned into. Would be more like throwing in a bright burning magnesium torch.

Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

[u crank]

The only worrying question currently, in these coming hours, is what will happen to or in American civil society if the Electoral College tomorrow does not vote Trump as president?

That is a certain, small though real possibility.

Not going to happen. Period.

[Mr Quatro]

Not going to happen. Period.

The big game is coming up tomorrow. :yep:

The Electoral College Bowl ... GOP vs DNC the score so far is GOP 306 to DNC 232

The GOP could go all the way unless they fumble the ball causing the game to go into overtime.

All replays will be reviewed by the US Congress and the Senate.

This game could last till January 20th making it better than the Super Bowl :o

[u crank]

The big game is coming up tomorrow. :yep:

The Electoral College Bowl ... GOP vs DNC the score so far is GOP 306 to DNC 232


Don't you realize that all the electors are actually remote controlled robots. Putin is at his gaming desk getting warmed up. :har:

[Rockstar]

Hey lets see if we can find an article tying in the development of the electoral college to Hitler. Whats scary about that is Im sure the now well informed intellectual giants populating this country which have suddenly appeared with the advent of intardnetz would immediately see a connection.

[Oberon]

Not going to happen. Period.

I agree, you're more likely to end up with Elizabeth II as your President than the electoral count come out as anything other than a victory for Trump.

[u crank]

I agree, you're more likely to end up with Elizabeth II as your President than the electoral count come out as anything other than a victory for Trump.

Kinda funny but as a non American I'm not to familiar with U.S. voting laws. It took me all of five minutes to read up on the Electors and how they got that position. These people are party faithful who were probable elected because of their longtime faithful service to their respective parties. And that is the way they will vote despite the hysteria on left wing media sources.

[vienna]

Here's an odd thought I had for a hypothetical: In many states, state law binds the electors to vote in accordance with the state's apportioning of the electoral votes; keep in mind some states give all their electoral votes to the winning candidate in their state while other states apportion the electors according to the ratio of votes each candidate received in those states; there is no federal law or mandate in the Constitution requiring an elector to abide by their state's method of apportioning the electors' votes, so the only thing restricting the electors is the mish-mash of varying states' laws. Lets say a Presidential election resulted in one candidate garnering, prior to the official vote of the College, a total of 300 votes and the opponent 238 votes. Suppose something happens casting the candidate with the 300 votes in a very bad light and and, say 40 of the leading candidate's electors decide to bolt and either abstain or vote for the second candidate. As I understand it, 21 states do not have laws requiring electors to vote strictly in accordance with each of those states' electoral apportionment, so a "faithless elector" in those states would face no punishment; the other states do specify legal and, possibly, criminal remedies against "faithless electors" from their states. However, SCOTUS has only upheld the right of the states to require a pledge from electors and has not ruled on the Constitutionality of the states' ability to punish the electors for being "faithless" or to enforce the apportioned vote; further, the Constitution does not specifically bar an elector from casting a vote differing from their state's election result, giving each elector a 'free will' in their voting decision. So, the 40 electors bolt and let's say the second candidate gets to at least the 270 votes needed to win. Some states (again, there is no national standard to follow) require the voiding of the "faithless" electors' vote, but there is no such provision for vote changing in the Constitution, making it appear that the final vote taken on the day the electors vote is indeed the final result, the laws of the individual states not withstanding. Can a state legally void and replace a "faithless" elector's vote after the final tally?...

Keep in mind no state has ever prosecuted a "faithless" elector nor has any state, to my knowledge, ever sought to change the vote of a "faithless" elector after the announced tally, so there is no established precedent...



<O>

[Catfish]

I thought there have been a lot of "faithless" electors in the past?

Not that i think it happens this time.

[August]

I thought there have been a lot of "faithless" electors in the past?

Not that i think it happens this time.

Just 179 in the entire history of the nation, half of them because the candidate had died. That's a small number compared to the total number of electors over the same period.

[vienna]

The big game is coming up tomorrow. :yep:

The Electoral College Bowl ... GOP vs DNC the score so far is GOP 306 to DNC 232

The GOP could go all the way unless they fumble the ball causing the game to go into overtime.

All replays will be reviewed by the US Congress and the Senate.

This game could last till January 20th making it better than the Super Bowl :o

Can you give any idea of the over/under?...


<O>

[Platapus]

Truth be told, we really don't know what would happen if we had a significant number of faithless electors. It has never happened before.

In the states that do have laws obligating the performance of the electors, we may not have a certified vote.

All the electors have to sign the vote certification form. If a significant number of electors violate state law, the other electors can refuse to sign the Certificate of Vote under the auspice that the vote is in violation of the state law.

Additionally, the individual Secretary of State has to certify the vote, he or she can refuse to certify a vote that is in violation of the state law.

What would happen if either or both of these occurred? We don't know, it would have to go before the state supreme court and perhaps even the US Supreme court, but what would happen to the formal election of the President? Dunno.

I think what would happen is that the GOP would try to recall the faithless electors and depending on the state that may or may not be allowed.

It is truly an unprecedented issue.

But I seriously doubt this will become an issue. With the exception of a candidate dying, all of our faithless electors have been in small numbers.

[mapuc]

From the little knowledge I have learned about these electoral is that in almost every election there are some from both side that change course and vote for the other candidate.

In about 36 hours from now it will be clear-Trump will be USA's next President, Not going to happen, that 60 or more electoral should suddenly forget what their task is...maybe a few not more

Markus

[Aktungbby]

I thought there have been a lot of "faithless" electors in the past?

Not that i think it happens this time.

No doubt, as a good German, you are recollecting the Elector of Saxony:O: A man of questionable faith, he sorta switched sides...protecting Martin Luther and the Reformation. Naturally having attended a Lutheran college I'm a little biased!:yeah: myself...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_III,_Elector_of_Saxony (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_III,_Elector_of_Saxony)

[Mr Quatro]

Truth be told, we really don't know what would happen if we had a significant number of faithless electors. It has never happened before.

In the states that do have laws obligating the performance of the electors, we may not have a certified vote.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

What would happen if either or both of these occurred? We don't know, it would have to go before the state supreme court and perhaps even the US Supreme court, but what would happen to the formal election of the President? Dunno.

I think what would happen is that the GOP would try to recall the faithless electors and depending on the state that may or may not be allowed.

It is truly an unprecedented issue.

But I seriously doubt this will become an issue. With the exception of a candidate dying, all of our faithless electors have been in small numbers.

Like Markus said, "It's not going to happen"

But we have about one more day till we find out ...

What if these some 38 votes the DNC needs come from firmly committed faithful republican electors due to these last minute news media scares that Hillary was robbed by the Russians, even pointing to Putin's dislike for her when she was SoS?

It's either going to be over tomorrow or this crazy 2016 National election is going to continue in it's insane path of destruction for both sides until neither side has the necessary 270 electoral college votes in order to become the next POTUS.

The rules are already in place for this with the US Congress to vote on which of the three highest finshing electoral votes will receive the honor.

No write in's, no debating anyone else that's the present law.

Like you said this has never happened before so no one can really say what will happen if that moment should come.

One thing's for sure the surging stock market will go belly up and President Obama would have to call his vacation in Hawaii short in order to get back to Washington to appease a nation that it still has President in place and for us not to worry.

See y'all tomorrow :up:

[em2nought]

I'm just hoping the results of all this is really cheap 7.62x54r & 7.62x39, and maybe some really cheap Mosin Nagants too. I want to be able to arm my future militia company. :03:

[Platapus]

Here is a list of faithless electors

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

[August]

I'm just hoping the results of all this is really cheap 7.62x54r & 7.62x39, and maybe some really cheap Mosin Nagants too. I want to be able to arm my future militia company. :03:

Bad move on this side of the pond. If the militia is called up for national service you guys couldn't get resupplied. If you go rebel it's Federal government ammo that'd be available for forage. Either way better to chamber for 5.56x45.

[Catfish]

If the militia is called up for national service you guys couldn't get resupplied. If you go rebel it's Federal government ammo that'd be available for forage. Either way better to chamber for 5.56x45.

The voice of reason :D

[Mr Quatro]

Today is an oddity for both Clinton's:http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/president-clinton-impeached

December 19th, 1998 President Clinton impeached

[August]

The voice of reason :D

Just trying to cover all the bases! :)

[Rockin Robbins]

Here is a list of faithless electors

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector
Electors who do not vote as they pledged to should be held to their promise and the electoral college process not perverted by people who do not understand its working and protection of minority and majority rights.

Let's look at this election, for instance. Popular vote: Clinton 50.9%, Trump 49.1% only if you look at the aggregate total country. But let's look at the vote of the states!

In California, Clinton won over trump by a total of 4 million votes. Her total US margin is about 2 million votes. What does this mean. If we take the stupid (it is stupid because it is acting with knowing expediency, taking a position that will hurt the purveyors of this position in the future, but they don't care. They want what they want NOW. This is the perfect definition of stupidity) position, we're letting one state on the left coast, California, reverse the decision of all 49 other states: that Trump won the election.

The Electoral College worked exactly as it is meant to do. It prevented the overwhelming opinion of one state from overruling the opinions of the other 49.

For backup, here is the opinion (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-hillary-clinton-supporters-need-to-quit-whining-about-the-electoral-college-2016-11-30) of James E. Campbell, a UB Distinguished Professor of Political Science at the University at Buffalo, SUNY, and the author of "Polarized: Making Sense of a Divided America".

His most interesting observation, and it is dead on target: "First, had the election been conducted with rules awarding the presidency to the popular-vote winner, the candidates and many voters quite probably would have acted very differently and the popular vote would not have been the same. Trump and Clinton would have campaigned in the "safe" states. Potential voters in those states would have felt more pressure to turn out and to vote for "the lesser of two evils" and not to waste their votes on third-party candidates. Some additional Clinton voters would probably have shown up, but gains on the Trump side would probably have been larger as more reluctant Republicans would have been pushed to return to the fold, particularly in big blue states like California, New York, and Illinois."

You see what the stupid people are demanding? They demand that we conduct a campaign under one set of rules and count the votes under another completely different set of rules. And they demand that we do it secretly so that candidates don't change their strategies to reflect how the votes will be eventually counted. This is madness.

The fact is that Hillary and Trump ran on electoral strategies. Remember Hillary's "Electoral Wall?" Was she protesting the electoral college or embracing it? She was ENTHUSIASTICALLY embracing it. The election was decided by those rules, which all were informed of and were in agreement with. Trump won. On January 20, he will rightfully be sworn in as President of the United States.

John Kennedy won in 1960, in spite of massive voter fraud in Chicago, removal of which would have handed the election to Richard Nixon. Nixon, putting the good of the country ahead of his own ambition quickly, loudly and publicly announced that the election was over. Kennedy had won.

Isn't it amazing that present day left wingers are less morally excellent than Richard Nixon? In fact they are despicable. They deserve our scorn and further deserve to be entirely ignored in any national question in the future. Those who are too enlightened to act in their own interest have elected not to be a part of any decision making process in the future. Electors who betray the wishes of the voters who voted for them need to be prosecuted and imprisoned.

Of course that will not happen. Thuggish machine politics is a grand tradition in the big cities of the US, has been on the wane partly because of the actions of more principled Democrats of the past, and will resurge with sharp teeth and a pitiless vengeance because of the unprincipled, elitist left wingers of the present. Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt and the progressives of the early 1900s would be ashamed of them.

That's why Trump's greatest promise, and the one that is being talked about least, is his promise to reverse the handing out crumbs to the citizens of our blighted inner cities and bring them to life with what they really want: opportunity.

I'm not saying Trump will deliver, everything is subject to question until he actually delivers (we conservatives have been betrayed way too often to declare victory prematurely), but if he really brings expatriate corporations back to the US, locating them in the big cities on the condition that they employ the present residents. If he really can bring prosperity to people who have been locked in a knowing cycle of dependency (here's a crumb so you don't die before you can vote for me again), the hold of the left wing is permanently over.

These people are American citizens. They daily risk their lives for the "jobs" they now perform. Do you risk YOUR life in your job? Neither should they have to. They deserve the same shot at achievement as any other American. They deserve the respect not to be tossed condescending crumbs to extend their misery to the next election. They deserve to vote for those who actually work on their behalf.

Is that going to be Trump? We live in very interesting times.

[Bilge_Rat]

so much for the revolt, Trump is now at 240 and just needs Texas to put him over the line:

http://www.270towin.com/news/#.WFg-ONIrLcs

not one "faithless" elector so far...

go TEXAS, GO! :Kaleun_Party:

[Mr Quatro]

so much for the revolt, Trump is now at 240 and just needs Texas to put him over the line:

http://www.270towin.com/news/#.WFg-ONIrLcs

not one "faithless" elector so far...

go TEXAS, GO! :Kaleun_Party:

Proves something about how the news media can drum up stuff that never happens ... they don't just report the news anymore.

[em2nought]

Proves something about how the news media can drum up stuff that never happens ... they don't just report the news anymore.

I don't trust a word the USA mainstream media says anymore, not one word. They're going to spend the next four years trying to prevent anything good from happening in the USA. Personally, I'd put them all in internment camps. Let's just hire sportscasters from now on to report on everything. :up:

[mapuc]

If I understand the page Bilge_Rat linked to, I see there are already 4 faithless electoral and what surprise me is that it wasn't on Trump side, but 4 from Clinton side, that is if I understood the page correct.

Markus

[Mr Quatro]

If I understand the page Bilge_Rat linked to, I see there are already 4 faithless electoral and what surprise me is that it wasn't on Trump side, but 4 from Clinton side, that is if I understood the page correct.

Markus

That was Washington State ... recent count 4 minutes ago:http://www.wktv.com/news/Protests_as_electors_meet_to_choose_Trump.html

Trump at 262 to Clinton's 166 electoral votes

[Bilge_Rat]

I know Trump does not like them, but I think the SNL skits are hilarious:



https://youtu.be/yi_TevBLr-k

[mapuc]

That was Washington State ... recent count 4 minutes ago:http://www.wktv.com/news/Protests_as_electors_meet_to_choose_Trump.html

Trump at 262 to Clinton's 166 electoral votes

Trump is formally the Next President of USA.

Markus

[Mr Quatro]

It's all over ... nothing left to see. Good-by old thread:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoQZ0qmf-mk

[MaDef]

Does that mean this thread is finally closed?

[mapuc]

Congratulation to those who vote Trump

To those who voted on Clinton and had hope for her-You will get another chance in about 4 years from now, where she or some other Democrat will run for the White House.

Markus

[Platapus]

It is telling that a large number of the faithless electors were faithless to Hillary.

It was not a wise choice to put her up for the nomination.

[Mr Quatro]

It is telling that a large number of the faithless electors were faithless to Hillary.

It was not a wise choice to put her up for the nomination.

I think Biden could've taken Trump out behind the barn in more ways than one.

I guess we can guess what mistakes they made over in the next thread.
My first thoughts are greed and errors in thinking that Hillary could win against any man (because they didn't even know who she was going to run against yet)

They meaning the democrats ... no way can I or anyone else figure out how one man can make so many mistakes and dumb tweets and still win the honor of becoming the next POTUS. :o

[Onkel Neal]

Does that mean this thread is finally closed?

It does.

Carry on in the US Politics thread (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=228628). That will serve until Trump fires off the nukes.