Clinton winning popular vote

What multiple web sites? #wingnut, Hitlerdidnothingwrong. com? Bull, if even a tenth, no, hell a hundreth of that many votes were in issue it would be the major news story of the century in the entire world. But oh, wait, I'm sorry, EVERY credible news org in the ENTIRE WORLD are a gigantic cabal of Cultural Marxists, only now with the Holy Influence of the Blessed Trump can the TRUTH come out

 

YES! About 3 million illegals voted and all escaped without even one being apprehended!! Gawd they're smart! -and devious!

And some of them voted under similar names in several states. And they got there in some cases in just 15 minutes!

 

Well stated Robert. It is, for the foreseeable future, unlikely that popular vote will undo the genius of this Constitutional process.The next question is answered Dec. 19th. A few faithless EC voters can be suffered without calamity, however I saw interviews and read stories where at least some of these people have been bombarded with calls about changing their vote, death threats were not uncommon. One EC woman stated about 2/3's of the calls were from outside the state of her citizenship. The Hillary team is still about their mission.

 

Yes, this election isn't up for grabs!

But, any claim that Trump has some sort of mandate is obvious BS.

And, this election does point to serious weaknesses in how we choose leadership - a fact that is agreed by many on both sides and is not limited to the EC.

 

Hillary and hers divide us up into groups.
Hyphen Americans. Black-Americans, Feminist-Americans, LGBT-Americans.
It is time to stop behaving like Argentina (in the fifties) after an election and remember we are Americans, no hyphens as advocated by Teddy Roosevelt. Accept an election and be, Americans.

Usually I vote Democratic but, this time my is
[video=youtube;tptxW_ilRWc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tptxW_ilRWc[/video]

If Trump did indeed steal the election, he did it fair and square.
Like JFK against NIXON who may well have won with a recount in Texas and Illinois.
Or Bush, Jr. and Gore.


Moi

r > g

​

 

I believe all manmade systems are imperfect. What are the weaknesses revealed in the election process? What are the cures?

 

The primary processes used by each party have a number of weaknesses. I'd even point out that having the same states vet every candidate first is a heavy handed weighting of who can even consider running. CA is the most populous state with the highest economic contribution, significant in terms of minorities/immigration, etc., etc., yet who from CA has (or even could) run for an office that requires eastern and southern approval as a prerequisite?

The EC has strayed off the original theme to give much more disproportionate representation to certain states.

The voting process itself has far too many opportunities for abuse - abuses that we see every election.

The election process we use requires stupendous sums of money, giving huge influence to wealthy donors and going a long way to determining who can run for office. It even allows for corporate money, which is absolutely absurd as corporations simply have no right to decide the needs and rights of human beings.

The nature of the contest itself allows for and even promotes a focus that does not include policy. Throughout our most recent election we saw Trump campaign without any significant policy that he was ever required to defend. He was free to switch policy ideas back and forth based on his audience. The result is that as of his victory, we have no idea of what he might do. He was allowed to lie too many times to count. The whole nature of today's "debates" is no more than a reality TV show. We used to score policy in terms of cost, etc. - something that was totally ignored.

We have no adequate law requiring separation of personal business interests and the office of the president. In the past, presidents covered for that by taking personal responsibility for ensuring that separation within reasonable boundaries. Today, it's crystal clear that the office is being used for personal financial purposes - such as the Bannon statement and other events related to Turkey, taking his family (who he says will run his business) into the inner most circle of information and policy, refusal to show IRS returns, the sales pitch for the bracelet that Ivanka wore at 60 minutes, etc., etc.

That isn't directly an election issue, but it started within the election process where issues such as IRS returns, plans for separation of business from office, family within the executive branch, etc., were blown off by the candidate. Plus, it's impossible to suggest that Trump's desire to be president was totally separate from the gigantic personal wealth opportunity it represents in its current form - for those who choose to break with tradition.

I'll stop there.

There ARE cures for these, but Republicans have blocked progress on most of them and the obvious fixes for others are highly unlikely due to the difficulty of the constitutional amendment process.

Do you think today's congress would insist on a separation of Trump's corporation and Trump's executive branch, or making it mandatory for candidates to divulge IRS returns?

Do you think today's congress would move to limit campaign contributions in any way?

 

That is just plain stupid.

It is Trump who embraces the alt-right by selecting Bannon.

It is Trump who makes disparaging remarks toward women, Hispanics, blacks, those disabled (such as the reporter incident), Muslims, those of the LGBT, etc.

That's not just noticing that there are different groups that have different needs and issues.

That IS acting on the division with hate and disparagement - leading America to be divided by bigotry.

 

Absentee votes have not been, and will not be, counted. They would return 60%-70% Republican.

That being said, does it really amount to much of an ethical difference that 49.5%(who don't all agree with one another by a long shot) forcibly impose their legal will on the 50.5%(who would have done the same to the others even though they don't all agree with one another by a long shot) instead of the other way around?

Popular Sovereignty is a fairy tale. Grow up.

 

If Trump was so against black people why was the black vote up for Trump? I know several black people where I work at who felt like Hillary hated black people and voted for Trump. One of the older black guys even said his own son quit talking to him but he could not bring himself to vote for someone who supported a group that wanted mass apocalypse of the black people as he put it. If everyone truly felt that Trump was this bad why did 10 million Democrats choose not to vote compared to about 5 million Republicans who chose not to vote? Obviously those 10 million Democrats did not like Hillary and did not see Trump as evil enough to vote against him. A lot of those people were blacks as Hillary got far fewer black voters than Obama did in 2012.

Hillary celebrated the confederate flag, had a mentor she praised that was a former member of the KKK, supported groups against black people, made remarks about them and even hurt them with welfare. I find it funny how Obama talked about the KKK sending Trump money when he hosted an event for Black Lives Matter which many save is the black equivalent of the KKK. Trump even denounced the endorsement. So if your reason for not voting for Trump was because you felt he was racist towards black people then there was no way you could have voted for Hillary but i'm sure you did.

 

I hope all the people talking about how the Founding Fathers were so genius to design the electoral college realize the Electoral College was NOTHING like it is today. Heck they elected the President and Vice President in separate ballots and had to make the 11th amendment to correct it. They never had any intention of political parties ever forming either. They never even put any wording about popular votes in the individual states either. They really weren't geniuses when designing it, they just put together whatever would work at the time.

 

Trump comments from whenever "Do Not Count". He has recently made that obvious.


So YOU would find it acceptable that White, Straight Men be relegated to the lowest consideration?
And without regard for "qualification" appoint incompetent racist, genderist, etc. as Obama has? Many of those Black appointments to minor Federal Court Life Term positions.

Do Tell.
And what hyphens are activist in the News Media, Inc.

 

This thread would be cool if there were such a thing as, "the popular vote", and one could win it.

 

Democrats did not care about the electoral college when Obama won. Republicans did. Now that Trump won it is reversed with Democrats feeling it is unfair and Republicans thinking it is fair. I'm sorry but you can't just dislike a system only because your candidate lost.

 

I see merit in your points.

Personally I'm for the exercise of righteous liberty. The only stipulation that comes to mind right now is any voter would have to be a living, documented citizen of the USA and can only cast one vote per race. I would not limit any candidate's right to free speech or chance to run. The voters would have to hold them accountable for what they say and did/do by their vote. I like the EC and see merit in its process. I believe there are requirements for the President and VP to place their holdings in blind trusts during their term of office. In America, I think people can share what info they want and keep private things, like their returns, private. I see government as far reaching and personally would like to see it pull back on draconian edicts.

 

There is no law that says putting ones assets in a blind trust is required. The president is free to make deals with foreign countries that benefit his personal holdings. If that were considered to go to far, significant lawyers (Lawrance Tribe, etc.) say the only party with standing to oppose that would be congress and impeachment. There is also a nepotism law, but that only covers official positions - it doesn't cover the case that the president simply chooses someone to be his adviser. And, the president can confer the top most security clearance on anyone he chooses, unless a rather relaxed FBI investigation shows serious offenses. So, his son in law is free to be in the situation room as war and covert action are discussed at the top most level, as trade policy is designed, etc.

Without seeing IRS returns we're pretty much blind to what is being done for personal aggrandizement.

I don't know what you mean by "righteous liberty" - I'm guessing that just means that you can cast a vote in the next election.

I see the EC has having become too weighted. If an elector in CA represented as many voters as an elector in Wyoming, CA would need to have at least 190 electors - and they have less than 1/3 of that. That is a HUGE disparity in representation.

One fix might be to give each state one elector per Representative (as now) + one for the Senate (rather than 2). That would still leave Wyoming, DC, and one other state over represented, but not by as much. Unfortunately, I think it would require an amendment, and we can't even make the change to allow Washington DC citizens have ANY representation in either the House or the Senate!! How fair is THAT?? (I know why, but that is totally irrelevant today.)

 

And you can't change it retroactively

 

Oh, please. Go away until you can argue without making stupid straw dogs and accusing me of believing your rubbish.

 

I do agree that the majority of Americans who are legally entitled to vote should decide about their own country. Not some millions of illegal voters who were given the opportunity to vote in the US election. Do the recount in California, do it by the book. Hillary would lose 1 million plus votes. You know, it takes some time to become a proper citizen. Rushing people through the system so they could vote doesn't serve anyone. The best man won. Get a grip on the reality, please.

 

That's actually quite untrue. The NPVIC was passed almost entirely in heavily Democratic states, and it was all prior to the 2016 election. Plenty of Democrats were against the electoral college from the beginning.

 

Question. Did you support Occupy Wallstreet? Curious.

 

I believe part of that was because the persons running for President would not necessarily want to serve in a do nothing positing such as the VP especially after being the opponent of the person who did win. Much better to have them as partners rather than enemies.

 

Psssssst, ........the election is over. Nobody cares about your carefully crafted race baiting bull(*)(*)(*)(*), in search of votes. Stop looking for special (*)(*)(*)(*) just because of your skin color or genitals, and people will stop identifying you by the flag you wave

 

If any state should be recounted is California. They should take into account how many non-citizens voted there. I would bet that Hillary's popular vote lead would evaporate if you took them out of the picture.

 

Try specifics and not name calling or labels.

To further what you replied to -
Is Lynch really the best out there for Attorney General, or Holder for that consideration.
Or Michelle's college (Black) friend given the $$$ job to set up our seamless ObamaCare computer programs?
Want more?

Now call me a racist for commenting on Black people's racism. ​