TheFlyingDisk wrote:

Veetwo wrote:

I hear of talk all the time about changing it but nothing seems to come of it. Why is that?

Because it requires a bipartisan movement which is lacking in Washington for the past decade or so.

Maybe on this issue, but that's not really the case on the whole.

I browse the house and senate websites somewhat regularly and I see bi-partisan legislation passed all the time- way more often than not. It also seems like the legislative process, on a statistical level, is pretty similar to what its always been with regards to just about every metric. It seems like only the blockbuster laws are the one anyone cares about while the vast majority of legislation is routinely voted upon and passed without much partisan bickering.

Don't fall into the trap of despair that our nation is barely grinding along- because it isn't. Even the Supreme Court is chugging along with the vast majority of cases being 8-1 or 7-1.

I have faith in the country.

DLFREEBIRD wrote:

good point. it seems to me that the major U.S. news channels,are doing a bang up job of filling people heads with utter nonsense.

Even Fox News was saying the same thing, that all the key states had to go for Trump and that was almost impossible.

But of course, Fox has a greater stake than any other US news channel in the election outcome - a financial stake. They make a lot more money with a Democrat in the White House than a Republican.

777Jet wrote:

coolian2 wrote:

777Jet wrote:

Oh, so in a two person race I should always support the misogynist? Not the person I think would serve the world better?

Right then.

You're tone deaf if you can't see what happened. Also, you could try doing what Donald has done (yikes!) and be conciliatory.

Here you go off topic again trying to weasel your way out.

You clearly stated:

""We're feminists. We've decided we need to own it loud, proud and now. We can't let this happen again.""

As if the only reason you would support Hillary, or reject Trump, is because of the feminists woman's card - rather symbolic.

You are just plain daft, almost down at the level of Madeline Albright ""There's a special place in hell for women who don't help other women""...

I'm not engaging with you anymore. You're a prat in the worst way.

DfwRevolution wrote:

seb146 wrote:

KruegerFlaps wrote:

You will never convince people that they are wrong and that you are right if you demonise people yourself. Describing people as "uneducated" and "sheeple" might be emotionally comforting but does nothing to address why people were dissatisfied with Clinton and even Trump too. More people did not vote at all than those who voted for either candidate. Did Fox tell people to stay at home? I don't think so.

People didn't like Clinton because, over and over again, she was called a crook and a liar. It was never proven. No matter how many times people asked, there was no solid answer for why she is a crook and a liar other than "she just is." As far as not voting, that topic actually came up on many talk shows in the week or so before the election. Not saying home period, but not casting a vote for president.

Bull honky. The email controversy was a classic example of Clinton engaging in serial lies. Dozens of public statements that Clinton made regarding her email server was eventually proven false. When you say something you know to be untrue, that is called lying.

Your argument seems to be that someone isn't a liar until they are criminally prosecuted.

She was not prosecuted and there was no evidence to prosecute her.

rfields5421 wrote:

DLFREEBIRD wrote:

good point. it seems to me that the major U.S. news channels,are doing a bang up job of filling people heads with utter nonsense.

Even Fox News was saying the same thing, that all the key states had to go for Trump and that was almost impossible.

But of course, Fox has a greater stake than any other US news channel in the election outcome - a financial stake. They make a lot more money with a Democrat in the White House than a Republican.

yes, did anybody hear Michael Moore comments today? he said some things that really got me thinking.

i'm just going to paste it below. he also had a lot of good points.


https://www.good.is/articles/moore-five-point-plan

Morning After To-Do List:

1. Take over the Democratic Party and return it to the people. They have failed us miserably.

2. Fire all pundits, predictors, pollsters and anyone else in the media who had a narrative they wouldn't let go of and refused to listen to or acknowledge what was really going on. Those same bloviators will now tell us we must "heal the divide" and “come together.” They will pull more hooey like that out of their ass in the days to come. Turn them off.

3. Any Democratic member of Congress who didn’t wake up this morning ready to fight, resist and obstruct in the way Republicans did against President Obama every day for eight full years must step out of the way and let those of us who know the score lead the way in stopping the meanness and the madness that's about to begin.

4. Everyone must stop saying they are “stunned” and “shocked.” What you mean to say is that you were in a bubble and weren’t paying attention to your fellow Americans and their despair. YEARS of being neglected by both parties, the anger and the need for revenge against the system only grew. Along came a TV star they liked whose plan was to destroy both parties and tell them all “You're fired!” Trump’s victory is no surprise. He was never a joke. Treating him as one only strengthened him. He is both a creature and a creation of the media and the media will never own that.

5. You must say this sentence to everyone you meet today: “HILLARY CLINTON WON THE POPULAR VOTE!” The MAJORITY of our fellow Americans preferred Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump. Period. Fact. If you woke up this morning thinking you live in an effed-up country, you don’t. The majority of your fellow Americans wanted Hillary, not Trump. The only reason he’s president is because of an arcane, insane 18th-century idea called the Electoral College. Until we change that, we’ll continue to have presidents we didn’t elect and didn’t want. You live in a country where a majority of its citizens have said they believe there’s climate change, they believe women should be paid the same as men, they want a debt-free college education, they don’t want us invading countries, they want a raise in the minimum wage and they want a single-payer true universal health care system. None of that has changed. We live in a country where the majority agree with the “liberal” position. We just lack the liberal leadership to make that happen (see: #1 above). Let's try to get this all done by noon today. -- Michael Moore

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=1994+crime+bill
From one Clinton's legacy to another.

Was it Bill Clinton platform or was it part of a compromise with the GOP ?

sebolino wrote:

I believe many people wanted to vote for a candidate close to the workers, which is "funny" considering he's a republican billionaire. But Clinton was not more credible in this role.

If he keeps his promises:

1. Increase spending on infrastructure, military and law enforcement drastically. Infrastructure alone would cost more than the DoDs budget, if there shall be any noticeable effect during the next 4 years. That would be some 10+ k US$ out of every Americans pocket, from baby to grand-grand-pa.
2. Cut taxes drastically, probably by as much as 50%, despite the infrastructure program alone would require a 25% hike just to be debt neutral.

hence:

Explode the national debt

Result: the next democrat government has to clean up the mess again (just like Clinton and Obama did), while getting plastered for not doing it fast enough. And then be replaced by the next GOP Gouvernement for more of the stuff that didn´t work, because they promise to lower taxes......

best regards
Thomas

DLFREEBIRD wrote:

5. You must say this sentence to everyone you meet today: “HILLARY CLINTON WON THE POPULAR VOTE!” The MAJORITY of our fellow Americans preferred Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump. Period. Fact.

Bullshit Mr. Moore. The way your republic is set up, popular vote doesn´t count (funny thing, that is also true for the oh-so-undemocratic European Union elected functions). So, that is the law of the land. You don´t like it, change it.
If you want to say something to people, then it should be we shall change our way of electing our president, since the president is far too often not the person with most Americans behind it.

best regards
Thomas

Veetwo wrote:

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

What's the point of the electoral college, seriously?

The electoral college exists to protect the say of the state as a whole, not one or two hot-spots from one side or another.
Is it outdated? I really don't know as I haven't studied it close enough. It does seem odd that someone can win with less than the majority of the popular vote, but what do a consensus of political scientists think? I hear of talk all the time about changing it but nothing seems to come of it. Why is that?

The electoral college was needed in the 18th century when the only communication was via horesback. But now electronic means allow instantaneous updating of the vote, no more waiting weeks for the result.

The electoral college should be abolished immediately. But as usual there are some who like the current system because they see it as a tactical advantage for their side. That and a do nothing congress will continue to prevent needed change.

tommy1808 wrote:

DLFREEBIRD wrote:

5. You must say this sentence to everyone you meet today: “HILLARY CLINTON WON THE POPULAR VOTE!” The MAJORITY of our fellow Americans preferred Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump. Period. Fact.

Bullshit Mr. Moore. The way your republic is set up, popular vote doesn´t count (funny thing, that is also true for the oh-so-undemocratic European Union elected functions). So, that is the law of the land. You don´t like it, change it.
If you want to say something to people, then it should be we shall change our way of electing our president, since the president is far too often not the person with most Americans behind it.

best regards
Thomas

Moore is not saying Clinton won. He's saying Clinton had more votes than Trump, which is a fact.

My only point I have left to make is this:

- Don't tell me I'm doing nothing
- I'm standing in my local elections when they come around.

I'll probably be my only voter, but I'm putting myself out there.

tommy1808 wrote:

If you want to say something to people, then it should be we shall change our way of electing our president, since the president is far too often not the person with most Americans behind it.

It hasn't happened all that often. In total (if we include this election) five times has the President Elect gained fewer votes than their opponent. Only one of those instances was in the last hundred years!

2000: Al Gore lost to George W Bush
1888: Grover Cleveland lost to Benjamin Harrison
1876: Samuel Tilden lost to Rutherford Hayes
1824: Andrew Jackson lost to John Quincy Adams

With the exception of 1824, in all instances the candidate who secured the majority of the popular vote was a Democrat but who nevertheless was defeated in the Electoral College by a Republican, though both parties had changed their stripes by the 2000 election.

Every voter knew how the system works, so in the end it does not matter if the popular vote went to Hillary or not. I am quite enjoying the reaction in Europe with the left already doing the exact same things that formed the basis for Trump´s win, attack the white males.

Aesma wrote:

Moore is not saying Clinton won. He's saying Clinton had more votes than Trump, which is a fact.

i know, but pointing that out is a pointless exercise. It has zero relevance for anything.

best regards
Thomas

seahawk wrote:

I am quite enjoying the reaction in Europe with the left already doing the exact same things that formed the basis for Trump´s win, attack the white males.

Yes and this is the silly thing. While much of the media claims that misogyny helped Trump it ignores the fact that without a large number of women voting for Trump he wouldn't have won. More, it begs the question of why so many women did not vote for Clinton.

Among those who chose not to vote for either party, why were women not inclined to vote for Clinton? The facile argument about "white male privilege" simply doesn't explain why the majority of women did not vote for a woman candidate. Perhaps it is the fact that women vote on issues that transcend gender. The fact that women generally would support equal pay or might favour access to abortion, doesn't mean that it necessarily follows that they welcome immigration, whether it be from Mexico or from Muslim countries, particularly if it means greater competition for fewer jobs and housing. Trade policy would be an issue and the loss of jobs overseas, with the perceived threat of more losses to come, as a result of trade agreements may have influenced the vote. To others, record low interest and returns on investments may have destroyed retirement plans.

Rather than denigrating political opponents as being uneducated, racist or misogynist people need to address the very real issues that have caused disaffection with the Democrats, yes, but also why even Trump, despite winning the Electoral College, did nothing to increase the overall vote for the Republicans. The fact is that although the Republicans now control the White House, the Senate and the House (although the majorities at this stage appear to have been reduced) voters have refrained in large numbers from endorsing either camp.

KruegerFlaps wrote:

More, it begs the question of why so many women did not vote for Clinton.

Religion. Abortion is evil and how dare a women tell a man what to do.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

Religion. Abortion is evil and how dare a women tell a man what to do.

And yet in countries that are even more religious we have seen women elected to positions of power. Even in countries previously considered to be characterised by machismo women have risen to the highest office. How were those women able to do it while Clinton could not?

I am a man with a true American heart and I deeply love US. Yesterday I cried when Trump was announced winner and I don't really even know why. I am not a Trump supporter, but after a day of mixed feelings, I am ready to give him a chance. Not still happy, but I can only hope that not everything he has said will become reality.

KruegerFlaps wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

If you want to say something to people, then it should be we shall change our way of electing our president, since the president is far too often not the person with most Americans behind it.

It hasn't happened all that often. In total (if we include this election) five times has the President Elect gained fewer votes than their opponent. Only one of those instances was in the last hundred years!



2000: Al Gore lost to George W Bush
1888: Grover Cleveland lost to Benjamin Harrison
1876: Samuel Tilden lost to Rutherford Hayes
1824: Andrew Jackson lost to John Quincy Adams

With the exception of 1824, in all instances the candidate who secured the majority of the popular vote was a Democrat but who nevertheless was defeated in the Electoral College by a Republican, though both parties had changed their stripes by the 2000 election.

well it's now happened twice in the past 16 years. and it will probably happen again as our country becomes more and more divided.

KruegerFlaps wrote:

And yet in countries that are even more religious we have seen women elected to positions of power. Even in countries previously considered to be characterised by machismo women have risen to the highest office. How were those women able to do it while Clinton could not?

Because they are not that religious. Keep in mind that a higher percentage of Americans prays every day, without any requirement to do so, than even the people of Iran. And i am pretty sure that less than 42% of all Iranians believe that earth is less than 10k years old.... i would think religiosity levels in the US are higher than in any other nation state with an education system.

best regards
Thomas

KruegerFlaps wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

If you want to say something to people, then it should be we shall change our way of electing our president, since the president is far too often not the person with most Americans behind it.

It hasn't happened all that often. In total (if we include this election) five times has the President Elect gained fewer votes than their opponent. Only one of those instances was in the last hundred years!



2000: Al Gore lost to George W Bush
1888: Grover Cleveland lost to Benjamin Harrison
1876: Samuel Tilden lost to Rutherford Hayes
1824: Andrew Jackson lost to John Quincy Adams

With the exception of 1824, in all instances the candidate who secured the majority of the popular vote was a Democrat but who nevertheless was defeated in the Electoral College by a Republican, though both parties had changed their stripes by the 2000 election.

well it's happened twice in the past 16 years. and it will probably keep on happening. We now have citizens united trying to buy elections by pumping money into the swing states. our forefathers are turning over in their graves at the farce our election system has become..

tommy1808 wrote:

KruegerFlaps wrote:

More, it begs the question of why so many women did not vote for Clinton.

Religion. Abortion is evil and how dare a women tell a man what to do.

best regards
Thomas

Speaking of which, I remember someone saying yesterday that if Trump picks Giuliani as his Attorney General and Gingrich as his chief of staff, there will be nine wives between the three of them. Jesus would be proud.

Something that the Democrats need to look very hard at, Trump got millions LESS votes than Romney in 2012. Though Sanders might well have had his own issues as a candidate the fact is he mobilised a large voter base with little money, fairly or not many saw him not get the nomination as a 'fix' by the DNC, they doubtless also thought Clinton was only there because it was 'her turn'.
If turnout is the key and your machine, as Clinton's did, has a well funded, well oiled machine to do just that and still it fails, what does that tell you?
No good bitching about the electoral college when you are in a position to amend/end it when you are in power but you don't.

Dreadnought wrote:

sebolino wrote:

That's a serious question.
I mean, they didn't vote for the candidate who said the most sensible things, not for the candidate who respected women or minorities ...

You open by saying you have a serious question, and then immediately in the next sentence expose your own prejudices.

First of all, you can never vote for someone who "said the most sensible things" when she has a 30 year history of being a pathological liar. Even when it was not necessary for her to lie, she would. So scratch that off the list right away.

Where do you see prejudices in my sentence ???

Clinton made quite a conventional campaign, nothing special, except that she fainted and Trump was very amused of that.
Trump made a very new campaign, never seen before, full of "unsensible things", and it's just the plain facts:

- “An ‘extremely credible source’ has called my office and told me that Barack Obama’s birth certificate is a fraud”

- “Robert Pattinson should not take back Kristen Stewart. She cheated on him like a dog & will do it again – just watch. He can do much better!”

- “Ariana Huffington is unattractive, both inside and out. I fully understand why her former husband left her for a man – he made a good decision.”

- “You know, it really doesn’t matter what the media write as long as you’ve got a young, and beautiful, piece of ass.”

- and so on ...


Oh, about respecting women and minorities ?

Trump:
- “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending the best. They’re not sending you, they’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bring crime. They’re rapists… And some, I assume, are good people.”

- “Our great African-American President hasn’t exactly had a positive impact on the thugs who are so happily and openly destroying Baltimore.”

- “I’ve said if Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her.”

And so on ...

....and of course the Russian ties get confirmed. After the election:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/mo ... story.html

But all democratic lies, right......

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

....and of course the Russian ties get confirmed. After the election:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/mo ... story.html

But all democratic lies, right......

best regards
Thomas

Same story, different link

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/11 ... l=facebook

And let's not forget Comey interfering.

They voted for the lesser of two evils, a pretty pathetic standard by any measure.

salttee wrote:

Veetwo wrote:

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

What's the point of the electoral college, seriously?

The electoral college exists to protect the say of the state as a whole, not one or two hot-spots from one side or another.
Is it outdated? I really don't know as I haven't studied it close enough. It does seem odd that someone can win with less than the majority of the popular vote, but what do a consensus of political scientists think? I hear of talk all the time about changing it but nothing seems to come of it. Why is that?

The electoral college was needed in the 18th century when the only communication was via horesback. But now electronic means allow instantaneous updating of the vote, no more waiting weeks for the result.

The electoral college should be abolished immediately. But as usual there are some who like the current system because they see it as a tactical advantage for their side. That and a do nothing congress will continue to prevent needed change.

The purpose for the Electoral College has nothing to do with the speed of communication.

The Electoral College has everything to do with giving smaller states representation in the political process. The Electoral College forces the presidential candidates to compete for the votes of all Americans and not just those in a few densely populated urban corridors.

This year proved exactly why the Electoral College is needed. Small and medium-sized states in the Midwest that would go ignored in a national popular vote cast the deciding vote for Trump because they have been alienated by Democrats' economic policy. I guarantee that will send Democratic strategist back to the drawing board to find new ways to compete for those votes. This is a good thing.

DfwRevolution wrote:

salttee wrote:

Veetwo wrote:

The electoral college exists to protect the say of the state as a whole, not one or two hot-spots from one side or another.
Is it outdated? I really don't know as I haven't studied it close enough. It does seem odd that someone can win with less than the majority of the popular vote, but what do a consensus of political scientists think? I hear of talk all the time about changing it but nothing seems to come of it. Why is that?

The electoral college was needed in the 18th century when the only communication was via horesback. But now electronic means allow instantaneous updating of the vote, no more waiting weeks for the result.

The electoral college should be abolished immediately. But as usual there are some who like the current system because they see it as a tactical advantage for their side. That and a do nothing congress will continue to prevent needed change.

The purpose for the Electoral College has nothing to do with the speed of communication.

The Electoral College has everything to do with giving smaller states representation in the political process. The Electoral College forces the presidential candidates to compete for the votes of all Americans and not just those in a few densely populated urban corridors.

This year proved exactly why the Electoral College is needed. Small and medium-sized states in the Midwest that would go ignored in a national popular vote cast the deciding vote for Trump because they have been alienated by Democrats' economic policy. I guarantee that will send Democratic strategist back to the drawing board to find new ways to compete for those votes. This is a good thing.

Yet it still throws up - twice in the last 16 years - where the losing candidate won more votes than the winner.
Not that the US is alone in this entirely, under the UK's first past the post you do get similar results though less often, the starkest one being in 1951 when Labour won many more votes than the Tories but the latter won a few more parliamentary seats to give them a small majority, it happened to a lesser degree in the first of the two elections in 1974, though by that time though still a largely two party system as in 1951 it was less so.

In this US 2016 election 30 out of the 35 largest US cities voted for Clinton.

My own concerns about Trump is not so much what he has said, he's changed his tune so often over the years on so many things, he's contradicted himself within a sentence even!
It's what will happen when the unexpected occurs, back to 2001, I think the huge errors which haunt us to this day in GW Bush's eventual response to the Sept 11th attacks, an uninterested, incurious man surrounded by advisors with an agenda beyond those attacks.
Trump almost makes GW Bush look like FDR, JFK and Churchill combined in comparison, mock the experience, good and bad, of Clinton as many have, some knowledge and experience is better than none.

Never being a watcher, much less a fan of 'reality TV', I have often thought it maybe a symptom of the decline of Western Civilisation (jokingly).
Not so funny now because let's be clear, his dozen or so years on his show is what propelled his image and perception to many in the US, prior to that he was a marginalised figure from the 1980's and 90's with that long list of business failures.

Hillis wrote:

As I said in my thread I just started, Van Jones got it right when he called this "White-Lash". This was a large segment of the white race saying they don't want to share anything with other Americans, like African-Americans, Hispanics, Latinos, Asians, Muslims, LGBTQ's.

They cannot stop the demographic changes taking place, but they are going down fighting, and this may well be their last hurrah to hold on to the reins of power in this nation. By next election, the white participation rate will drop another 4%, and probably another 4% in 2024. So this may well be their last stand. Conservative whites, like a caged animal, are going down fighting.

I don't think this is a permanent re-alignment of the nation's politics. As I mentioned, the demgraphic changes over the next 3 to 4 POTUS election cycles are going to be more and more difficult for conservatives. But this was a perfect storm of a candidate who was able to whip up resentment of minorities and fear of a changing world, combined with a candidate on the other side that many just did not trust.

The Dems need to turn to 2018 and 2020 beginning tomorrow. They can't afford to wait 6 months to a year. They need to lay the groundwork for reversing this ASAP.

Van was right but not for what you just said, People are sick of their country being taken over by foreng invaders and illegals. They are sick of black terrorists burning down their cities because a cop justly shoots a violent thug.

With any luck the immigration act of 1965 will be repealed and we can stop the white genocide in this country. America is a white nation and always has been a white nation.

Hillis wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

sebolino wrote:

I mean, they didn't vote for the candidate who said the most sensible things, not for the candidate who respected women or minorities ...

I believe you couldn't be more wrong. Personally, in all three of those categories he won my vote over Clinton. She has proven herself incapable of doing all three. Now Trump has a chance to put action to his words. If he doesn't, there's another election in four years.

What would that "action" be? Building a wall? Deporting 11 million people and messing up the economy in the process? Spying on, indimidating and throwing Muslims out of the nation? Overturning LGBTQ marriage rights.

Why dont' you enumerate what you want to see? That would be instructive.

We can hope so, the wall is a good idea. Just ask israel and the eastern european nations who have built their own to stop the migrant invasion. We need to stop accepting muslim refugees and african refugees. As far as the homosexuals go, they have always had the same rights as everyone else.

GDB wrote:

DfwRevolution wrote:

The purpose for the Electoral College has nothing to do with the speed of communication.

The Electoral College has everything to do with giving smaller states representation in the political process. The Electoral College forces the presidential candidates to compete for the votes of all Americans and not just those in a few densely populated urban corridors.

This year proved exactly why the Electoral College is needed. Small and medium-sized states in the Midwest that would go ignored in a national popular vote cast the deciding vote for Trump because they have been alienated by Democrats' economic policy. I guarantee that will send Democratic strategist back to the drawing board to find new ways to compete for those votes. This is a good thing.

Yet it still throws up - twice in the last 16 years - where the losing candidate won more votes than the winner.

It is only "throwing-up" if you believe that the popular vote should determine the Presidency. The Founders of our constitution had specific reasons why they did not want the Presidency determined by national popular vote. Those reasons are still relevant today.

What you call "throwing-up" I call "working."

AAPilot wrote:

We can hope so, the wall is a good idea. Just ask israel and the eastern european nations who have built their own to stop the migrant invasion. We need to stop accepting muslim refugees and african refugees. As far as the homosexuals go, they have always had the same rights as everyone else.

I think LGBT should thank Trump if he restricts migration from most homophobic countries, which happen to be universally either Muslim, African or both. The kind of "multiculturalism" (read: growing influence of Islam) Western Europe is witnessing is definitely bad for LGBT.

tommy1808 wrote:

....and of course the Russian ties get confirmed. After the election:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/mo ... story.html

But all democratic lies, right......

best regards
Thomas

I admire russia, I hope we lift the sanctions and make them our number 1 friend.

The number one reason I voted for trump was because of the war on police by black race agitators and the rioters and terror attacks against police they enabled. I hate the fact that obama give legitimacy to blacklviesmatter by inviting them to the white house. These people belong in jail.

AAPilot wrote:

Hillis wrote:

As I said in my thread I just started, Van Jones got it right when he called this "White-Lash". This was a large segment of the white race saying they don't want to share anything with other Americans, like African-Americans, Hispanics, Latinos, Asians, Muslims, LGBTQ's.

They cannot stop the demographic changes taking place, but they are going down fighting, and this may well be their last hurrah to hold on to the reins of power in this nation. By next election, the white participation rate will drop another 4%, and probably another 4% in 2024. So this may well be their last stand. Conservative whites, like a caged animal, are going down fighting.

I don't think this is a permanent re-alignment of the nation's politics. As I mentioned, the demgraphic changes over the next 3 to 4 POTUS election cycles are going to be more and more difficult for conservatives. But this was a perfect storm of a candidate who was able to whip up resentment of minorities and fear of a changing world, combined with a candidate on the other side that many just did not trust.

The Dems need to turn to 2018 and 2020 beginning tomorrow. They can't afford to wait 6 months to a year. They need to lay the groundwork for reversing this ASAP.

Van was right but not for what you just said, People are sick of their country being taken over by foreng invaders and illegals. They are sick of black terrorists burning down their cities because a cop justly shoots a violent thug.

With any luck the immigration act of 1965 will be repealed and we can stop the white genocide in this country. America is a white nation and always has been a white nation.

America is and has always been a white nation, what? I understand that America is facing problems, but that rhetoric won't get you very far.

Oh, just read how you love Russia in it's current form. Well, good luck to you then.

DfwRevolution wrote:

GDB wrote:

DfwRevolution wrote:

The purpose for the Electoral College has nothing to do with the speed of communication.

The Electoral College has everything to do with giving smaller states representation in the political process. The Electoral College forces the presidential candidates to compete for the votes of all Americans and not just those in a few densely populated urban corridors.

This year proved exactly why the Electoral College is needed. Small and medium-sized states in the Midwest that would go ignored in a national popular vote cast the deciding vote for Trump because they have been alienated by Democrats' economic policy. I guarantee that will send Democratic strategist back to the drawing board to find new ways to compete for those votes. This is a good thing.

Yet it still throws up - twice in the last 16 years - where the losing candidate won more votes than the winner.

It is only "throwing-up" if you believe that the popular vote should determine the Presidency. The Founders of our constitution had specific reasons why they did not want the Presidency determined by national popular vote. Those reasons are still relevant today.

What you call "throwing-up" I call "working."

I meant it in the sense of things happening, not as an analogy to vomiting, I also recall how many in America first became aware that the Electoral Colledge even existed in 2000, let alone anywhere else.

AAPilot wrote:

With any luck the immigration act of 1965 will be repealed and we can stop the white genocide in this country. America is a white nation and always has been a white nation.

To put it in Trumps words:

"Wrong."

America, if anything has always been a nation of immigrants, all those whites you consider "real Americans" came there as immigrants. Illegally, unwanted, un-called for.

People like you are the main problem after this election.
It's not Trump, he can get impeached or removed from office in other ways if he screws around too much.
But the masses of white supremacists, racists and flatout neonazis that have been awoken by him and now feel empowered to live out their hate openly is the real issue the US is facing. Just like yesterday morning when the KKK marched through Mebane NC.

It's disgusting to see how the lowest scum of the nation now feel superior just because they aren't black, hispanic, gay, transsexual, muslim or female...

DfwRevolution wrote:

salttee wrote:

Veetwo wrote:

The electoral college exists to protect the say of the state as a whole, not one or two hot-spots from one side or another.
Is it outdated? I really don't know as I haven't studied it close enough. It does seem odd that someone can win with less than the majority of the popular vote, but what do a consensus of political scientists think? I hear of talk all the time about changing it but nothing seems to come of it. Why is that?

The electoral college was needed in the 18th century when the only communication was via horesback. But now electronic means allow instantaneous updating of the vote, no more waiting weeks for the result.

The electoral college should be abolished immediately. But as usual there are some who like the current system because they see it as a tactical advantage for their side. That and a do nothing congress will continue to prevent needed change.

The purpose for the Electoral College has nothing to do with the speed of communication.

The Electoral College has everything to do with giving smaller states representation in the political process. The Electoral College forces the presidential candidates to compete for the votes of all Americans and not just those in a few densely populated urban corridors.

This year proved exactly why the Electoral College is needed. Small and medium-sized states in the Midwest that would go ignored in a national popular vote cast the deciding vote for Trump because they have been alienated by Democrats' economic policy. I guarantee that will send Democratic strategist back to the drawing board to find new ways to compete for those votes. This is a good thing.

no, no, no................it was put in place to protect slavery, and now racism.

Electoral College or not, the problem for the democrats was low voter turn out. The idea that "my vote won't matter, so I'm not going to vote" is toxic.

Apparently it mattered in MI, PA, and WI. And it probably mattered in FL too

i think we are now going in circles. more voters stayed home than those that voted for BOTH parties. If more people would of gotten out for the primaries yes, we probably wouldn't ended up with Trump or Cinton who are widely despised.

lot of people stayed home, because the media world has us living in a bubble. Heck, someone already pointed out above
that even FOX NEWS didn't think Trump would win. Now people are rioting in the streets. Which imo is pointless after the fact.

rta wrote:

Electoral College or not, the problem for the democrats was low voter turn out. The idea that "my vote won't matter, so I'm not going to vote" is toxic.

Apparently it mattered in MI, PA, and WI. And it probably mattered in FL too

And that should scare the hell out of not the Dems, but the GOP. Despite lower voter turnout from the left, and despite the enormous Whitelash vote, especially in the Midwest, Trump still lost the popular vote.

The Democrats can't just rely on the demographic shifts that are happening, but it shows that even with everything going their way, the GOP barely got the win.

And I think you'll see the Dems upend their leadership team, and they'll work to balance regaining white working class voters and keeping the minority voters in the camp, too.
Out of defeat can come opportunity. And the Democrats have a golden opportunity to re-invent themselves in the next 2 to 4 years that will lead to a majority coalition in the long run.

DLFREEBIRD wrote:

i think we are now going in circles. more voters stayed home than those that voted for BOTH parties. If more people would of gotten out for the primaries yes, we probably wouldn't ended up with Trump or Cinton who are widely despised.

lot of people stayed home, because the media world has us living in a bubble. Heck, someone already pointed out above
that even FOX NEWS didn't think Trump would win. Now people are rioting in the streets. Which imo is pointless after the fact.

That's what they do in the urban centers...pointless acts of violence. What do rural "idiots" do...vote.

Nobody's rioting or burning down conservative neighborhoods. I wonder why that is?

lugie wrote:

AAPilot wrote:

With any luck the immigration act of 1965 will be repealed and we can stop the white genocide in this country. America is a white nation and always has been a white nation.

To put it in Trumps words:

"Wrong."

America, if anything has always been a nation of immigrants, all those whites you consider "real Americans" came there as immigrants. Illegally, unwanted, un-called for.

People like you are the main problem after this election.
It's not Trump, he can get impeached or removed from office in other ways if he screws around too much.
But the masses of white supremacists, racists and flatout neonazis that have been awoken by him and now feel empowered to live out their hate openly is the real issue the US is facing. Just like yesterday morning when the KKK marched through Mebane NC.

It's disgusting to see how the lowest scum of the nation now feel superior just because they aren't black, hispanic, gay, transsexual, muslim or female...

Fact is America is white nation, this country was created by whites and is a eurocentric christian nation. The kkk isn't half as bad as your average blacklivesmatter terrorist. Either way REAL americans have taken back their country from race pimps and white liberal enablers. The border will close, we'll deport illegals and hopefully reform immigration to only accept educated and trained people. I also hope we don't accept refugees anymore especially from african and middle-eastern countries.

Also trans people are mentally ill, you can't change your gender and I don't respect it.

lugie wrote:

People like you are the main problem after this election.
It's not Trump, he can get impeached or removed from office in other ways if he screws around too much.
But the masses of white supremacists, racists and flatout neonazis that have been awoken by him and now feel empowered to live out their hate openly is the real issue the US is facing. Just like yesterday morning when the KKK marched through Mebane NC.

It's disgusting to see how the lowest scum of the nation now feel superior just because they aren't black, hispanic, gay, transsexual, muslim or female...

What about black supremacists? They do exist in at least equally large numbers as white ones, and are organized under banner of "Black Lives Matter", which is racist as otherwise it would be "All lives matter".

Here's a quote from FB user "Being Classically Liberal" which sums it all very well:

Trump is the natural result of the left's highly politically correct, anti-white, anti-male and anti- American rhetoric.
Turns out if you demonize the people you disagree with, paint them as racists and oppressors and tell them that any and all of their successes are a result of some unearned "privilege," they will create a counter-revolution.
Progressives, Trump is the consequence of your actions, your rhetoric, and the identity politics you brought into American politics. You made your bed, now lie in it.

I'm tired of hearing that because I'm a white heterosexual male I'm the root of all evil and somehow privileged over anybody of other race, gender or sexual orientation, when in fact statistics clearly show that I'm not. Both in the US and in Finland you've got poor people of all skin colours, and in both countries males commit way more suicides, are more likely to become alcoholic, and to face violence than females. Yet somehow we're still all privileged no matter what.

Because of this bullshit I intend to vote anybody who is an enemy of the racist SJW crowd, no matter if he or she is far right ,far left, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Atheist, White, Black, Asian, straight, gay or something else. I don't care as long as the "progressive" hate preachers are hurt as severely as possible.

Veetwo wrote:

DLFREEBIRD wrote:

i think we are now going in circles. more voters stayed home than those that voted for BOTH parties. If more people would of gotten out for the primaries yes, we probably wouldn't ended up with Trump or Cinton who are widely despised.

lot of people stayed home, because the media world has us living in a bubble. Heck, someone already pointed out above
that even FOX NEWS didn't think Trump would win. Now people are rioting in the streets. Which imo is pointless after the fact.

That's what they do in the urban centers...pointless acts of violence. What do rural "idiots" do...vote.

Nobody's rioting or burning down conservative neighborhoods. I wonder why that is?

that's because Trump won i have no doubt in my mind if Trump hadn't won, we'd see gunfire not rioting.
the way Trump worked people up about the system being rigged.

pvjin wrote:

SJW

Please explain that acronym for me, thanks.

Hillis wrote:

pvjin wrote:

SJW

Please explain that acronym for me, thanks.

Social justice warrior, typically somebody who promotes things like modern feminism (including gender politics) and multiculturalism. Typically his/her thinking is very much based on feelings rather than fact based rationalism. Doesn't like if his/her views get challenged, unable to have a productive conversation with anybody who disagrees. Has a black and white world view where white heterosexual men oppress ethnic, religious and sexual minorities. Sees humans primarily as members of some group rather than as an individual, thus a black Muslim woman must be a victim and white heterosexual man a privileged member of patriarchy, apart from those who are fellow SJW's of course. Unable to comprehend that in modern western world race, gender, ethnicity, religion and sexuality have become more irrelevant for success in life than ever before despite all victimization by the SJW movement. Typically gets offended by all kinds of irrelevant little things, good example being this case:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... xist-shirt

Another good example of a generic SJW:

https://youtu.be/8Y7L_q65jrE?t=646

So, if we had to draw a line between an SJW and an ordinary person with leftist and liberal ideals, I would say that SJW's are much more irrational, unable to "respectfully disagree", unable to respect other people's freedom of speech and thought. Especially the latter part makes them dangerous as they are always starting social media campaigns against whoever doesn't follow their agenda, and thus companies often listen to their irrational views to avoid bad publicity.

Disgusting bunch of people whose life purpose is to spread hate. Thankfully many of them are likely to end up in early grave due to high blood pressure.

seb146 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

....and of course the Russian ties get confirmed. After the election:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/mo ... story.html

But all democratic lies, right......

best regards
Thomas

Same story, different link

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/11 ... l=facebook

And let's not forget Comey interfering.

Let's also not forget about the smear campaign against Trump. The dozen or so lying gold diggers claiming sexual assault and the child rape bs.

You have no moral high-ground to take because the tactics of your side are born out of pure gutter-filth scum. Your side failed. Get over it.

tommy1808 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Moore is not saying Clinton won. He's saying Clinton had more votes than Trump, which is a fact.

i know, but pointing that out is a pointless exercise. It has zero relevance for anything.

best regards
Thomas

It means that a majority of people who cared to vote didn't support the one who got elected. More difficult to heal the divide in such circumstances. I would be surprised if Trump gets approval ratings even close to what Obama got.

And don't mention Clinton, if she had won (which could have happened with merely a few thousands votes here and there) the situation would be the same.