Trump

[RowdyRebel]

If you didn't have 17 Republicans to choose from, you must not have voted in the Republican primary. That is nobody's fault but your own. If you voted in the Democrat primary, you would've had a handful of options to choose from to select their party's nominee.

If you opted to sit out during the primaries, it's your own damn fault you don't feel as though you were represented in the general election.

You're NEVER going to have a candidate running that you agree with 100% of the time on 100% of the issues...unless YOU are on the ballot...in which case NOBODY you are asking to vote for you will agree 100% on 100% of the issues with you. Therefore some level of compromise is necessary...you look at who is running, and select the one that most closely reflects your opinions...or the one you disagree with the least.

It really isn't much different than buying a used truck. You know what you're LOOKING for, but sometimes you have to settle for "close enough". 

[kscarbel2]

On 11/11/2016 at 10:58 AM, RowdyRebel said:

If you didn't have 17 Republicans to choose from, you must not have voted in the Republican primary. That is nobody's fault but your own. If you voted in the Democrat primary, you would've had a handful of options to choose from to select their party's nominee.

If you opted to sit out during the primaries, it's your own damn fault you don't feel as though you were represented in the general election.

You're NEVER going to have a candidate running that you agree with 100% of the time on 100% of the issues...unless YOU are on the ballot...in which case NOBODY you are asking to vote for you will agree 100% on 100% of the issues with you. Therefore some level of compromise is necessary...you look at who is running, and select the one that most closely reflects your opinions...or the one you disagree with the least.

It really isn't much different than buying a used truck. You know what you're LOOKING for, but sometimes you have to settle for "close enough". 

Due to being overseas and traveling, I did not vote in the primaries.

My point was, on election day, Americans should not be limited to a mere two choices. There should be a dozen. (Recall the Bush/Gore election, there was no choice......neither man was qualified to be anything more than a state governor).

Second, the electoral college and the party system are both relics of the past and fraudulent by nature. The president should be chosen by direct election. No matter which state you're standing in, we're all Americans alike.

On the eve of the 2012 Obama/Romney election (November 7, 2012), Trump called the Electoral College “a disaster for a democracy.” After that election, in a tweet he has since deleted, Trump said, “The phoney [sic] electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. The loser one! [sic]” Trump tweeted this at a time when he thought Romney would win the popular vote, which ultimately was not the case. (Yahoo News / Nov 12, 2016)

[HeavyGunner]

The bright side of this to me KS is trump showed us someone besides a career politician who isn't necessarily associated with either of the parties or is associated with both (whichever way you look at it) made it to the White House. 

[Underdog]

I don't often agree politically with left-coasters or northeast corridor liberals. Without the Electoral College, these population centers would carry most national elections. I am proud to see the forgotten fly-over folks rise up in numbers and exercise their right to vote, especially my home state of Pennsylvania. Nobody knows what Trump will do, he has always been unpredictable. We need a change of direction, if it doesn't work, we get to choose again in 4 years.

[kscarbel2]

Interestingly, on the eve of the 2012 election (November 7, 2012) Obama and Romney, Trump called the Electoral College “a disaster for a democracy.”

After that election, in a tweet he has since deleted, Trump said, “The phoney [sic] electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. The loser one! [sic]” Trump tweeted this at a time when he thought Romney would win the popular vote, which ultimately was not the case. (Yahoo News / Nov 12, 2016)

[41chevy]

I find it interesting that all the people who "knew" trump was going to lose , now all "know" exactly what Trump is going to do. 

The same ones who called the republicans sore losers are now whining about their loss .    Paul

Edited November 12, 2016 by 41chevy

[TeamsterGrrrl]

I knew before the election that Trump had a one in three chance of winning the electoral college... I follow statistical scientists like the group at 538, not Hillary's pollsters. The actual vote results are well within the usual 4% or so margin of error, with the polls forecasting Hillary winning by around 3%, and she ended up winning by around 1%. As for predicting what Trump will do, he's proven to be pretty undisciplined and that doesn't play well with the republicans, never mind the democrats. Having taken some stats courses, lobbied, and worked on campaigns before, their is a wide range of statistical outcomes from a Trump administration, and a lot of unpredictability.

 

[mowerman]

Well god bless america.. . I'm finally happy after 8 years of misery be glad to see that dumb blood sucking Monkey hit the road and don't come back. ..high hopes for the future now...bob

[david wild]

Isn't wonderful all these people that didn't/don't like Trump are now all experts on what he will do next ???  and as far as the protesters go, you know I was going to waste my time and write something but instead I'm not going to waste my time. WE WON get over it.

[RowdyRebel]

On 11/12/2016 at 8:40 AM, kscarbel2 said:

Due to being overseas and traveling, I did not vote in the primaries.

My point was, on election day, Americans should not be limited to a mere two choices. There should be a dozen. (Recall the Bush/Gore election, there was no choice......neither man was qualified to be anything more than a state governor).

Second, the electoral college and the party system are both relics of the past and fraudulent by nature. The president should be chosen by direct election. No matter which state you're standing in, we're all Americans alike.

You could have requested an absentee ballot, so being "out of the country" is irrelevant. You CHOSE not to voice your opinion when the options were there, so don't gripe about the lack of options now.

Second, the system the Founders put in place had a purpose which had served this country well up until the 17th Amendment was ratified. The House was the people's voice in the federal government, and was therefore elected by the people through direct elections. The Senate spoke for the States' interests in the federal government, and was therefore selected by the State Legislators, who were elected by the people. The States LOST their voice with the 17th Amendment, leading to members of 1 branch of government doing as they please for 5 years, then pandering to the ignorant masses for the final year of their term to get re-elected.

There IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to vote for the President! The president is SUPPOSED to be nothing more than a public figure-head with limited powers and a few specific duties. Think of it as the CEO of a large public corporation. You as a common share-holder don't get to vote for the CEO...he's appointed by the board of directors. You may or may not get to vote in who sits on that board.

Then, you're also forgetting that an actual MAJORITY (50%+1) is required to "win", thus avoiding a president being selected with 20% of the vote because he had 10 people running against him. The greater number of viable candidates that are on the ballot, the less likely it is that a president is selected ON election day. There is no "run off" election. If nobody gets 50%+1, it goes to the House to select the winner...unless a deal is struck in the electoral college where one candidate with only a handful of electors throws his support (and electors) behind another candidate to give THEM the majority needed to win. Without the Electoral College, that cannot happen, so more often than not the House would be choosing the President...ESPECIALLY with 10-12 names on the ballot.

The system was set up this way for a reason. Just because YOU don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't a good system.

[TeamsterGrrrl]

Except a lot of those "reasons" have disappeared in the last couple centuries...

[TeamsterGrrrl]

34 minutes ago, david wild said:

Isn't wonderful all these people that didn't/don't like Trump are now all experts on what he will do next ???  and as far as the protesters go, you know I was going to waste my time and write something but instead I'm not going to waste my time. WE WON get over it.

Good luck finding an economist that endorsed Trump. And take a look at the analysis Moody's did of Trumps economic plan- the best case scenario is a recession, and it goes downhill from there.

[1958 F.W.D.]

10 hours ago, TeamsterGrrrl said:

Good luck finding an economist that endorsed Trump. And take a look at the analysis Moody's did of Trumps economic plan- the best case scenario is a recession, and it goes downhill from there.

Still better than the treasonous, murderous b*tch. 

[bbob61]

10 hours ago, 1958 F.W.D. said:

Still better than the treasonous, murderous bitch. 

MAKE THAT:  TREASONOUS, MURDEROUS, B*TCH THIEF!

[TeamsterGrrrl]

Sorry, even politicians are innocent until proven guilty in this country, and Hillary ain't even been charged with a crime. And the "B" word... Says something about yourself.

[davehummell]

I never say anything political on the computer sights, but I will say this much I hope this disaster health care we are stuck with gets repaired. I didn't have any faith Hillary would help fix it. And I really am pissed about this free trade crap I owned a machine shop for 16 years had two workers plus me all the accounts I had all went to china. I say lets see what he can do. Dave

[carlotpilot]

time will tell sh*t will smell and cream will come to the top

[41chevy]

25 minutes ago, TeamsterGrrrl said:

Sorry, even politicians are innocent until proven guilty in this country, and Hillary ain't even been charged with a crime. And the "B" word... Says something about yourself.

Why is the White House talking a pardon for her if she committed no crimes? and why is Trump hated in every Democrats eyes? So much that Monisha Rajesh calls for his assisination and the White House says she as a journalist is entitled voice to her opinion??

[kscarbel2]

10 hours ago, RowdyRebel said:

You could have requested an absentee ballot, so being "out of the country" is irrelevant. You CHOSE not to voice your opinion when the options were there, so don't gripe about the lack of options now.

Second, the system the Founders put in place had a purpose which had served this country well up until the 17th Amendment was ratified. The House was the people's voice in the federal government, and was therefore elected by the people through direct elections. The Senate spoke for the States' interests in the federal government, and was therefore selected by the State Legislators, who were elected by the people. The States LOST their voice with the 17th Amendment, leading to members of 1 branch of government doing as they please for 5 years, then pandering to the ignorant masses for the final year of their term to get re-elected.

There IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to vote for the President! The president is SUPPOSED to be nothing more than a public figure-head with limited powers and a few specific duties. Think of it as the CEO of a large public corporation. You as a common share-holder don't get to vote for the CEO...he's appointed by the board of directors. You may or may not get to vote in who sits on that board.

Then, you're also forgetting that an actual MAJORITY (50%+1) is required to "win", thus avoiding a president being selected with 20% of the vote because he had 10 people running against him. The greater number of viable candidates that are on the ballot, the less likely it is that a president is selected ON election day. There is no "run off" election. If nobody gets 50%+1, it goes to the House to select the winner...unless a deal is struck in the electoral college where one candidate with only a handful of electors throws his support (and electors) behind another candidate to give THEM the majority needed to win. Without the Electoral College, that cannot happen, so more often than not the House would be choosing the President...ESPECIALLY with 10-12 names on the ballot.

The system was set up this way for a reason. Just because YOU don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't a good system.

I sincerely respect your thoughts.

[1958 F.W.D.]

11 hours ago, TeamsterGrrrl said:

Sorry, even politicians are innocent until proven guilty in this country, and Hillary ain't even been charged with a crime. And the "B" word... Says something about yourself.

Oh, yeah because the FBI under control of the Nobama white house would dare to prosecute her.

Riddle me this- if she was so innocent- why did the guy who set up her server plead the 5th?

And as for the B word, I didn't use the C word because I was in a generous mood. 

[TeamsterGrrrl]

And why hasn't the guy who set up the server been charged? And why hasn't Hillary been charged? Because they committed no crime.

[HeavyGunner]

14 minutes ago, TeamsterGrrrl said:

And why hasn't the guy who set up the server been charged? And why hasn't Hillary been charged? Because they committed no crime.

Well she did commit a crime. She knowingly set up a private server and put classified information on it. That is illegal. The first FBI investigation wouldn't charge her but chewed her out and told her how stupid and egregious her actions were. Not charging her was a complete mockery of our justice system. Remember at the first inquiry she said she gave all of her emails to the FBI (after she had her hard drive professionally cleaned) and then at the last investigation after wiki leaks they found more emails? Isn't that at the very least perjury?  

[1958 F.W.D.]

27 minutes ago, TeamsterGrrrl said:

And why hasn't the guy who set up the server been charged? And why hasn't Hillary been charged? Because they committed no crime.

"IT DOESNT REALLY MATTER!" now, does it? DJT is your President elect.

[RowdyRebel]

13 hours ago, TeamsterGrrrl said:

Except a lot of those "reasons" have disappeared in the last couple centuries...

The "reasons" I posted are just as relevant today as they were on September 17, 1787. Our President needs to be elected by a majority...50%+1, not a plurality (most votes of any in the race). If it were left to the popular vote, NO Clinton has EVER received 50%+1 of the popular vote! When the election has a DECICIVE victor based upon the system in place and there are protests (bought & paid for, no less) in the streets, imagine how bad it would be in a 10-12 person race where the winner only received 10-15% of the vote? When 85-90% of the country are opposed to the president? THAT is why the 50%+1 majority to win is in place.  

[Underdog]

We haven't even started on the Clinton Foundation investigation... I'd be willing to drop the whole Email scandal to sit back and watch the Foundation crumble.