Memo to the Grim Reaper: can you please add a certain someone to your to do list for 2016? Many thanks.

Fred99:

 

If Trump's twitter feed is an example, I don't think "the GOP" has got much chance of taming Trump.
Un-presidential, unfactual nonsense being spurted out on a regular basis.
I'm very biased, as I think he's basically evil and dangerous, but replies to his tweets are almost entirely negative and condemning, the best that his supporters seem to be able to come up with are inane memes featuring "liberal tears".  Arguments claiming that he's not lying are thoroughly flamed by facts.

 

His dirty filthy lying tactics using Twitter clearly worked during his campaign, but I doubt they are working now. He's coming across as a petulant immature brat.

 

He is, yes. But he is not a leader, he can't lead the US. His advisors have to, he is the utterer of what the advisors and the GOP advise. He can spout tax cuts, talk is easy, giving them is a way other matter, thats just one example of many. I just cannot see him being any more than an ineffectual President, who rattles the cages of his friends and foes overseas, thereby distancing the US from the world, all to the detriment of the US. I consider him harmless to be honest, a laughing stock to the rest of the world. It may be that if the other countries reduce dependence on the US, trade together more, maybe the "world will be great again", in as far as trade and relations go

I think ol' Donald is going to surprise a lot of people.  Yeah, he's quite arrogant but, he's also connected to a lot of people.  The US is already seeing the market economy better than it's been in the last 8 years.  I just hope that trend continues.  There's not doubt he will fix a lot of things but at the same time, he'll also piss off a lot of people doing it. 

The thing that got me was all the "mud-slinging" that took place against the backdrop of fake news.  The media made all manner of predictions and upset a large segment of the population.  Actually, they did quite well in dividing the country.  Honestly, I don't think there was anything that one side didn't attack the other with.

The latest fad is for people to go on and on about the popular vote but, they fail to understand what it actually means.  The electoral college was established to prevent a single state (or region) from becoming the seat of power over the whole of the country.  Just imagine if population density was the deciding factor in New Zealand.  All one would need to do is campaign heavily in Auckland and the poor folks in Dunedin would just have to suck up the outcome of the election.  There wouldn't really even be a need to go down there and talk to them.

Ok, ok... lecture mode off but... I figured Trump to win sometime back around September.  Hillary maybe be have been a poor candidate but, Obama blew her chances out of the water.

Peace!

Time will tell

He was who the Americans chose as their next Presdident

Can't have democracy and then not want it

JimsonWeed:

 

I think ol' Donald is going to surprise a lot of people.  Yeah, he's quite arrogant but, he's also connected to a lot of people.  The US is already seeing the market economy better than it's been in the last 8 years.  I just hope that trend continues.  There's not doubt he will fix a lot of things but at the same time, he'll also piss off a lot of people doing it. 

 

The thing that got me was all the "mud-slinging" that took place against the backdrop of fake news.  The media made all manner of predictions and upset a large segment of the population.  Actually, they did quite well in dividing the country.  Honestly, I don't think there was anything that one side didn't attack the other with.

 

The latest fad is for people to go on and on about the popular vote but, they fail to understand what it actually means.  The electoral college was established to prevent a single state (or region) from becoming the seat of power over the whole of the country.  Just imagine if population density was the deciding factor in New Zealand.  All one would need to do is campaign heavily in Auckland and the poor folks in Dunedin would just have to suck up the outcome of the election.  There wouldn't really even be a need to go down there and talk to them.

 

Ok, ok... lecture mode off but... I figured Trump to win sometime back around September.  Hillary maybe be have been a poor candidate but, Obama blew her chances out of the water.

 

Peace!

 

 

 

Being connected in business won't help running a country. He has no idea on that topic. Thus, he won't have ideas or goals, as he just doesnt know. Whatever positive things he may do, the GOP will be behind that. Whatever negative things happen, that will be his mouth operating before his brain. I dont feel other nations take him seriously, it remains to be seen whether on the international front, if he sticks with the scripted comments from GOP or he messes up and says his own comments, and slowly isolates the US

joker97:

 

Time will tell

 

He was who the Americans chose as their next Presdident

 

Can't have democracy and then not want it

 

Actually, they didn't.

The Electoral College chose Trump as the President.

Americans don't vote directly for president.

They only get to express a preference.

The overall preference was for Hillary (by 2-3 million).

JWR:

 

joker97:

 

Time will tell

 

He was who the Americans chose as their next Presdident

 

Can't have democracy and then not want it

 

 

 

 

Actually, they didn't.

 

The Electoral College chose Trump as the President.

 

Americans don't vote directly for president.

 

They only get to express a preference.

 

The overall preference was for Hillary (by 2-3 million).

 

Democracy is not kindergarten math.

Democracy - It's a process, and the process has a scoreboard attached to it.

You can't say actually the referee gave the black caps a win over the proteus, the black caps shouldn't have won because of this and that.

joker97:

 

JWR:

 

joker97:

 

Time will tell

 

He was who the Americans chose as their next Presdident

 

Can't have democracy and then not want it

 

 

 

 

Actually, they didn't.

 

The Electoral College chose Trump as the President.

 

Americans don't vote directly for president.

 

They only get to express a preference.

 

The overall preference was for Hillary (by 2-3 million).

 

 

Democracy is not kindergarten math.

 

Democracy - It's a process, and the process has a scoreboard attached to it.

 

You can't say actually the referee gave the black caps a win over the proteus, the black caps shouldn't have won because of this and that.

 

Fully agree. There is a rule. If you dont like it, change the rule. It happened here, popular vote one year was higher for the loser. Social Credit always polled heaps, never got a seat, until Beetham eventually won one as he was very cool. We now have a form of proportional representation. US elections are often 51.5% vs 49.5%, in tbis case it was 46% vs 48%, still close

JimsonWeed:

 

I think ol' Donald is going to surprise a lot of people.  Yeah, he's quite arrogant but, he's also connected to a lot of people.  The US is already seeing the market economy better than it's been in the last 8 years.  I just hope that trend continues.  There's not doubt he will fix a lot of things but at the same time, he'll also piss off a lot of people doing it. 

 

The thing that got me was all the "mud-slinging" that took place against the backdrop of fake news.  The media made all manner of predictions and upset a large segment of the population.  Actually, they did quite well in dividing the country.  Honestly, I don't think there was anything that one side didn't attack the other with.

 

The latest fad is for people to go on and on about the popular vote but, they fail to understand what it actually means.  The electoral college was established to prevent a single state (or region) from becoming the seat of power over the whole of the country.  Just imagine if population density was the deciding factor in New Zealand.  All one would need to do is campaign heavily in Auckland and the poor folks in Dunedin would just have to suck up the outcome of the election.  There wouldn't really even be a need to go down there and talk to them.

 

Ok, ok... lecture mode off but... I figured Trump to win sometime back around September.  Hillary maybe be have been a poor candidate but, Obama blew her chances out of the water.

 

Peace!

 

 

 

Wait on...

Trump and his supporters are claiming responsibility for economic recovery data that has NOTHING to do with Trump at all.  They're stating "thanks Trump" and Trump's even twittering to  thank himself - when he's done absolutely nothing at all.

Honestly - there hasn't been a more dishonest scumbag elected in US history - he also carries the distinction of being the president elect with lowest approval rating.

I completely reject your assertion that "the media" did quite well in dividing the country - Trump did it all himself - have you forgotten his filthy campaigning, "Mexican Rapists", racist fear-mongering, birtherism, endorsing violence, misogyny, failure to reject endorsement by the KKK etc?  Should the US media have ignored all of those comments?

As for the electoral college - I suspect that you fail to understand what it means - so here's a simple graphic:

Petulant Trump's response to Clinton's 2.8 million vote majority in the popular vote was:

"I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people that voted illegally"

Worse than a sore loser is a sore winner.  

Fred99:

 

I completely reject your assertion that "the media" did quite well in dividing the country - Trump did it all himself - have you forgotten his filthy campaigning, "Mexican Rapists", racist fear-mongering, birtherism, endorsing violence, misogyny, failure to reject endorsement by the KKK etc?  Should the US media have ignored all of those comments?

 

Ummm... There's no problem about dividing the country; the whole point of an election is to divide the country into "those who support A" and "those who support B" so that you can count who has the most support. The problem is that there's a whole lot of labeling and baggage attached to either decision. And that the US democratic system produced two almost equally bad candidates, and the media quite rightly pointed out the badness in them.

 

As for the electoral college - I suspect that you fail to understand what it means - so here's a simple graphic:

 

But what's the problem with this? It is *designed* to be like that, and enshrined in the Constitution. Although "1-man 1-vote" is a fine principle, there are aspects which aren't so great; for example, legalised oppression of minorities is possible. In this case, the minorities (people living in less populous states) are being protected. Whether that protection is warranted is a Constitutional matter.

 

Petulant Trump's response to Clinton's 2.8 million vote majority in the popular vote was:

 

"I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people that voted illegally"

 

Yeah... Trump's correct response would have been "It's irrelevant". If he truly believes that 2.8M+ people (and probably many more... surely *all* illegal votes couldn't have been for Clinton?) voted illegally, then the correct response is to tighten up the processes to prevent people from voting illegally. The fact that he's not making a song and dance about it suggests that he doesn't believe it himself (i.e. that it's a comment plucked out of thin air *because* it's impossible to prove true or false), and/or that he really doesn't care about the democratic system.

frankv:

 

 

 

But what's the problem with this? It is *designed* to be like that, and enshrined in the Constitution. Although "1-man 1-vote" is a fine principle, there are aspects which aren't so great; for example, legalised oppression of minorities is possible. In this case, the minorities (people living in less populous states) are being protected. Whether that protection is warranted is a Constitutional matter.

But you already have proportional representation in both the house and the senate. The presidency should be chosen by the popular vote. Has this been the case and Hillary was president, she would still have had to deal with a minority in both chambers just as Obama has. The president themselves can't achieve all that much on their own, they mostly can only influence. And the issue with Trump is that while congress might be able to limit some of the damage he can do legislatively, he's a shoot first ask questions never kind of guy with the nuclear football and a seemingly unvetted social media presence. His dangers are mostly diplomatic - but that alone can be a huge problem.

Fred99:

JimsonWeed:

I think ol' Donald is going to surprise a lot of people.  Yeah, he's quite arrogant but, he's also connected to a lot of people.  The US is already seeing the market economy better than it's been in the last 8 years.  I just hope that trend continues.  There's not doubt he will fix a lot of things but at the same time, he'll also piss off a lot of people doing it. 

The thing that got me was all the "mud-slinging" that took place against the backdrop of fake news.  The media made all manner of predictions and upset a large segment of the population.  Actually, they did quite well in dividing the country.  Honestly, I don't think there was anything that one side didn't attack the other with.

The latest fad is for people to go on and on about the popular vote but, they fail to understand what it actually means.  The electoral college was established to prevent a single state (or region) from becoming the seat of power over the whole of the country.  Just imagine if population density was the deciding factor in New Zealand.  All one would need to do is campaign heavily in Auckland and the poor folks in Dunedin would just have to suck up the outcome of the election.  There wouldn't really even be a need to go down there and talk to them.

Ok, ok... lecture mode off but... I figured Trump to win sometime back around September.  Hillary maybe be have been a poor candidate but, Obama blew her chances out of the water.

Peace!

 

 

Wait on...

Trump and his supporters are claiming responsibility for economic recovery data that has NOTHING to do with Trump at all.  They're stating "thanks Trump" and Trump's even twittering to  thank himself - when he's done absolutely nothing at all.

Honestly - there hasn't been a more dishonest scumbag elected in US history - he also carries the distinction of being the president elect with lowest approval rating.

I completely reject your assertion that "the media" did quite well in dividing the country - Trump did it all himself - have you forgotten his filthy campaigning, "Mexican Rapists", racist fear-mongering, birtherism, endorsing violence, misogyny, failure to reject endorsement by the KKK etc?  Should the US media have ignored all of those comments?

As for the electoral college - I suspect that you fail to understand what it means - so here's a simple graphic:

Petulant Trump's response to Clinton's 2.8 million vote majority in the popular vote was:

"I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people that voted illegally"

Worse than a sore loser is a sore winner.  

 

I appreciate all the responses - thank you, kindly.  It's always good to listen to other people's opinions on matters.

With regard to a couple comments though;

As for the electoral college - I suspect that you fail to understand what it means - so here's a simple graphic:

But what's the problem with this? It is *designed* to be like that, and enshrined in the Constitution. Although "1-man 1-vote" is a fine principle, there are aspects which aren't so great; for example, legalised     oppression of minorities is possible. In this case, the minorities (people living in less populous states) are being protected. Whether that protection is warranted is a Constitutional matter.

"1 man, 1 vote" is a great concept but unfortunately, people tend to cluster in cities these days.  This is especially true of minorities.  You don't generally find large collectives of minorities living in rural America.  There is very little industry to sustain any kind of a life-style unless you inherited it from way back in time.  All it takes is for a shift in the prime rate of a couple points and suddenly people cannot make their mortgage payments.  Anyhow... most of the large cities traditionally swing Democrat (i.e., liberal) and politicians have been taking advantage of the block vote concept for years.  It's only happened a couple of times that a candidate won the popular but lost the election to the electoral college.  It's a process that was established well over 200 hundred years ago and it has seemingly worked well throughout that time.

ajobbins:

 

frankv:

 

 

 

But what's the problem with this? It is *designed* to be like that, and enshrined in the Constitution. Although "1-man 1-vote" is a fine principle, there are aspects which aren't so great; for example, legalised oppression of minorities is possible. In this case, the minorities (people living in less populous states) are being protected. Whether that protection is warranted is a Constitutional matter.

 

But you already have proportional representation in both the house and the senate. The presidency should be chosen by the popular vote. Has this been the case and Hillary was president, she would still have had to deal with a minority in both chambers just as Obama has. The president themselves can't achieve all that much on their own, they mostly can only influence. And the issue with Trump is that while congress might be able to limit some of the damage he can do legislatively, he's a shoot first ask questions never kind of guy with the nuclear football and a seemingly unvetted social media presence. His dangers are mostly diplomatic - but that alone can be a huge problem.

 

Actually, the POTUS can do quite a lot by way of what's called "Executive Order".  Still though... you're right.  Trump with the football :)  Yeah, don't be fooled for a minute... I don't think he would have any compunction to turn some country into a sheet of glass if they muck with him.  I don't think he is any different than Truman or Churchill in that regard. 

JimsonWeed:

 

I appreciate all the responses - thank you, kindly.  It's always good to listen to other people's opinions on matters.

With regard to a couple comments though;

As for the electoral college - I suspect that you fail to understand what it means - so here's a simple graphic:

But what's the problem with this? It is *designed* to be like that, and enshrined in the Constitution. Although "1-man 1-vote" is a fine principle, there are aspects which aren't so great; for example, legalised     oppression of minorities is possible. In this case, the minorities (people living in less populous states) are being protected. Whether that protection is warranted is a Constitutional matter.

"1 man, 1 vote" is a great concept but unfortunately, people tend to cluster in cities these days.  This is especially true of minorities.  You don't generally find large collectives of minorities living in rural America.  There is very little industry to sustain any kind of a life-style unless you inherited it from way back in time.  All it takes is for a shift in the prime rate of a couple points and suddenly people cannot make their mortgage payments.  Anyhow... most of the large cities traditionally swing Democrat (i.e., liberal) and politicians have been taking advantage of the block vote concept for years.  It's only happened a couple of times that a candidate won the popular but lost the election to the electoral college.  It's a process that was established well over 200 hundred years ago and it has seemingly worked well throughout that time.

 

 

 

You'll see the same thing in the UK and probably here - if you look at a map coloured red and blue (with the traditional affiliations of those colours) then cities are almost always red and the entire countryside almost always blue.