Trump wins Electoral College vote as insurgency fizzles

[ready4ONE 5,400]

You must be in a world of Butt Hurt and probably looking for a place to move.

USA is now Trump Country, Philippines is ran by a Trump guy on Steriods, Mexico is too dangerous, Maybe Canada would be a good place for you, I hear there is lots of snow up there.

Seriously? Not leaving. Not licking your Golden Tribble God's boots either. You need a new schtick.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

In a way it did. It prevented 12 million votes in California and New York from alone determining the election, and forcing candidates to campaign in smaller states as well. Without it, candidates could win the election simply by pouring huge resources into NY, LA, DC and Chicago while neglecting 95% of America's landmass.

As to whether Donald Trump is the tyrant the electoral college was designed to protect us from. That.. Depends on your political position nowadays.

I can't entirely disagree with that. Not so much concerned that Donald Trump is a tyrant, clearly he is hyper-sensitive to any criticism, and that is really the heart of my concern. Trump has a very bad temperament for the Oval Office. My opinion, shared by over half the people in the USA.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

That's just it... The electoral college DID work as it was intended. The same as it always has. States with high population densities are not allowed to railroad other states.

It would have been nice to see the Electoral College work as designed, pretty much anticipated this outcome though. And no, the majority who see through the Donald Trump circus sideshow are not leaving the building.

Edited December 20, 2016 by IDGAF

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

[JayJayH 546]

I can't entirely disagree with that. Not so much concerned that Donald Trump is a tyrant, clearly he is hyper-sensitive to any criticism, and that is really the heart of my concern. Trump has a very bad temperament for the Oval Office. My opinion, shared by over half the people in the USA.

I would venture to say more than half the U.S. population. He got 46% of the vote with a favorable rating at 32%. But he has not suggested policies that would completely undermine the fabric of US democracy (this depends on who you ask of course) - In essence, if a candidate was elected whose campaign slogan was "cancel the constitution!" or "bring slavery back!", then it would pretty much be a clear cut decision for electors. This really wasn't "clear cut."

That's just it... The electoral college DID work as it was intended. The same as it always has. States with high population densities are not allowed to railroad other states.

Exactly. There are plenty of people who are screaming for the abolishment of the electoral college. I can agree that it could use some reform. But as good as "one person, one vote" sounds on the surface.. Imagine a pure popular vote election.

The Democratic Party would pour hundreds of millions of dollars strictly aimed at racking up as many votes as possible in the 15 largest metropolitan areas. Meanwhile, the GOP would make it their mission to pour hundreds of millions into campaigning in those same cities' suburbs, maybe in higher density rural areas in the northeast. If you lived outside a major metropolitan area, then screw you, your concerns are too few and far between.

Why promise a national infrastructure package when resurfacing all the streets in Philly would be so much cheaper, and gain more votes?

Why care about jobs in the Midwest if you could round up 30 million votes simply by promising investment in Manhattan, Chicago and Houston?

Special snowflakes are the reason Donald Trump will move to the White House in one month. They scream the loudest, but don't represent the majority, even of liberals. Too bad the media follows whomever shouts louder.. Alt-right? Talk about ctrl-left. In all fairness, even Obama has taken note, though I wish the current administration would have done so much earlier, and in a much firmer tone.

http://www.npr.org/2015/12/21/460282127/obama-warns-campus-protesters-against-urge-to-shut-up-opposition

The left needs to take responsibility for this madness, just as the right needs to take responsibility for birther movements, jade helmers and other wackos.

Edited December 20, 2016 by JayJayH

[smilesammich 10,727]

flurries.

[JayJayH 546]

Lol. Donald Trump likes whatever benefits him. I'm not sure this is a secret. That's why his favorable ratings are the lowest any presidential candidate has ever had. Yet he still won.

Which is, again, why the Democratic Party needs to clean up its own backyard and counter the divisive and authoritarian rhetoric within its own ranks.

flurries.

Edited December 20, 2016 by JayJayH

[smilesammich 10,727]

Lol. Donald Trump likes whatever benefits him. I'm not sure this is a secret. That's why his favorable ratings are the lowest any presidential candidate has ever had. Yet he still won.

Which is, again, why the Democratic Party needs to clean up its own backyard and counter the divisive and authoritarian rhetoric within its own ranks.

personally, i don't expect the dnc to catch on. they won't have to. my bet, 4 years of derpie doo trump and his lap dogs and there will be a democrat back in the white house. unless there is some rising star champion republican in the wings ready to take trump by storm..then i can see the rnc overshadowing the dnc for good. the dnc made a fatal call in ignoring bernie kids and manipulating the primary for hillary.

[JayJayH 546]

personally, i don't expect the dnc to catch on. they won't have to. my bet, 4 years of derpie doo trump and his lap dogs and there will be a democrat back in the white house. unless there is some rising star champion republican in the wings ready to take trump by storm..then i can see the rnc overshadowing the dnc for good. the dnc made a fatal call in ignoring bernie kids and manipulating the primary for hillary.

It depends how they move forward. I could see Trump being a complete failure who could be beat by anyone in 2020.

I could also see him be an FDR type, big government spender who maintains his conservative-cred by appointing some Scalia-like judges and using Putin rhetoric at ISIS.

I mean, I'm no fan of Putin, but when he looked at the camera telling ISIS "You want to meet Allah? Russia will take you to him" - That was pretty sweet.

What's clear is that the DNC will have to become more populist and less pointy finger 'limousine liberal.'

On the surface, I wouldn't mind Keith Ellison as DNC chair.

My fear is that the DNC and media won't market him as "Keith Ellison of Minnesota", but rather, in traditional SJW fashion, he'll be "Black Muslim Keith Ellison" who you'll have to love, lest you be a racist Islamophobe.

We shall see.

Edited December 20, 2016 by JayJayH

[smilesammich 10,727]

I mean, I'm no fan of Putin, but when he looked at the camera telling ISIS "You want to meet Allah? Russia will take you to him" - That was pretty sweet.

makes for good headlines. very iron sheik.

[JayJayH 546]

makes for good headlines. very iron sheik.

Americans love an enemy, and Americans love a president who can talk tough to an enemy.

In the '40s, FDR talked tough on fascism.

In the '80s, Reagan talked tough on communism.

In the '00s, Bush talked tough on Al Qaida.

In the '10s, Trump talked tough on ISIS.

Calling Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany "bewildered people" wouldn't have worked in 1941.

Calling the Soviet Union "ideological hardliners" wouldn't have worked in 1980.

Calling Al Qaida anything but Islamists wouldn't have worked in 2001.

Calling ISIS "confused extremists" didn't work in 2016.

CNN omitted the part where Putin said he'll gladly send them to Allah.

Edited December 20, 2016 by JayJayH

[smilesammich 10,727]

confused extremists?

[JayJayH 546]

confused extremists?

Or "violent extremists" if you will.

America loves an enemy. Failing to name the ideological basis for such an enemy has never been a winning strategy, whether said underlying ideology be colonialism (not all colonialists), fascism (not all fascists), communism (not all communists) or islamism (not all islamists).

Neither colonialism, fascism, communism or islamism have anything to do with skin pigmentation, so I'll reject any accusations of racism thrown my way.

Edited December 21, 2016 by JayJayH

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

The dnc WILL catch on, they are not idiots. Not sure if they can rally back in 4 years, but a lot of that will depend on what the Prime Time star does in the next two years. I'll admit, I was perplexed and surprised when Trump ran. I was even more shocked that he won, though I really wanted him to beat Hillary. That woman has got to be the WORST thing that would ever have happened to America in decades. So yeah, I would choose Trump over Hillary any day. I could throw a Cape Buffalo farther than I would ever trust her with running this nation, or just running to the grocery store, for that matter.

IDK how much good Trump will actually do for America, all we can do is sit back, watch, and hope he puts enough sharp people in place to make improvements.

personally, i don't expect the dnc to catch on. they won't have to. my bet, 4 years of derpie doo trump and his lap dogs and there will be a democrat back in the white house. unless there is some rising star champion republican in the wings ready to take trump by storm..then i can see the rnc overshadowing the dnc for good. the dnc made a fatal call in ignoring bernie kids and manipulating the primary for hillary.

[OriZ 3,157]