OH MY GOD TRUMP IS POTUS

[WinePusher]

Sorry, but I am floored. I am FLOORED. Ok, as of now Trump still needs 26 electoral votes and Clinton needs 55. But he's probably gonna win Pennsylvania and Michigan so yea, he's basically PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

No joke, I am scared. What is going to happen to this country? I don't support Trump and I don't oppose Trump. I actually like Trump to a certain extent. But I recognize that he's an arrogant, narcissistic, somewhat psychotic egomaniac.

Yea, I like this result cause I can now laugh in the face of the Hillary shills, but I am scared for this country. Will this election mark the end of America? Or, 4 years from now will this country be more prosperous then ever?

[Furrowed Brow]

[Replying to McCulloch]
Hiding his mediocrity with self aggrandisement - usually involving putting the name Trump in big letters on everything.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 50 by rikuoamero]

You got it except for that last sentence. If Trump wins the vote in the state, the state's Republican potential Electors become the actual Electors. In some states the Electors are bound by law to vote the same why their state did, and in some states they are not. There is a petition asking the Republican Electors who are in states where they are allowed to go against the state to go "faithless" and elect Hilary in order to honor the national popular vote.

[myth-one.com]

OH MY GOD TRUMP IS POTUS

In fairness, shouldn't we give the Clown a chance?

And he would be the first Clown Of The United States.

That would be COTUS -- Not POTUS.

[2Dbunk]

[Replying to post 53 by myth-one.com]

WinePusher wrote:
OH MY GOD TRUMP IS POTUS

In fairness, shouldn't we give the Clown a chance?

And he would be the first Clown Of The United States.

That would be COTUS -- Not POTUS.

If you think Trump's election was the work of a clown, you've got another think coming. It was the work of a master con artist who said absurd things to gain attention -- to get free press coverage convincing the media his absurdities would never stick to the wall (not the wall at the border that He more than likely will never build).

We've been played, folks -- plain and simple. The Republican party has been played. The media REALLY has been played, and the adorable deplorables have been played as well. They all lapped it up as a circus act(s).

Notice how civil and mature He is acting these days -- HE GOT HIS WAY !! Wait 'til something comes up that doesn't go his way -- then look out! Most think He's not a Conservative, and they would be right. Obamacare isn't going away as he "likes" two of it's most important provisions. He'll have to ask Congress to extend the debt limit (BIG TIME) so as to pay for all His infrastructure promises (and being a New Yorker He will probably ask congress to ban assault weapons -- and that's a good thing).

It's no longer a circus folks. American law and Democracy has entered the twilight zone. The Electoral College is the last firewall -- let's see if it works like it's supposed to.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 50 by rikuoamero]

You got it except for that last sentence. If Trump wins the vote in the state, the state's Republican potential Electors become the actual Electors. In some states the Electors are bound by law to vote the same why their state did, and in some states they are not. There is a petition asking the Republican Electors who are in states where they are allowed to go against the state to go "faithless" and elect Hilary in order to honor the national popular vote.

This would be totally unprecedented. A much more contentious battle saw John Quincy Adams elected president. There was no majority in the electoral college. Yet, none of the electors changed there votes to create a majority for Andrew Jackson. It was resolved in the house of representatives, where the Anti-Jackson coalition voted for Adams. It is good that this happened so early I our history, because it shows how it was expected to work. Jackson did protest the coalition, but he accepted it and just ran and won in the next election out right.

Rutherford B. Hayes is also an interesting case. Though he didn't bring the majority of votes to the convention, he was eventually nominated on the seventh ballot. He did not get the majority vote in the general either, and unlike this last election, who won three states was contested. A commission was set up and it awarded those electoral votes to Hayes. How the electors would vote was never in question. In fact, the electoral voting was considered so certain that the democrats threatened to filibuster the commissions findings, and a policy compromise was necessary to resolve the issue. Again, how the electors would vote once seated was never in question.

Benjamin Harrison also did not bring the majority of votes to the convention. He was fifth on the first ballot. On the eighth ballot he won the nomination. In the election he won the electoral college and lost the popular vote. Though one of his supporters was accused of voter bribery, the results stood and how the electors would vote once seated was never in question.

In our day, the votes in Florida were questioned and there were two recounts which confirmed that George W. Bush had won. even with that, none of the electoral college votes varied from the election results.

In this election, Trump came into the convention with a majority of the delegates and won on the first ballot. For at least two years the Democrats have been opposing voter laws based on the argument that there is not voter fraud. Also, none of the states won by Trump are being contested. So, of the five elections where the president elect did not win the popular vote, this one has the least justification for electors changing their votes. Yet, those who oppose Trumps populist campaign want to overturn 230 years of precedence, just because the candidate that opposes populism lost the popular vote. Go figure.

[rikuoamero]

As an update...I have to admit to readers here that I am in fact not fully studied on the US election.
I have to say about an earlier claim I made. Before, I claimed that if I had been able to vote, I would have voted Trump.
Now...I'm not so sure.
The main reason being that, embarrassingly enough...I honestly had not heard of Vice President Elect Pence until just a few days ago. Before now, I had not spared a single thought to Trump's VP. I had been concentrating solely on Trump and Hilary.
What sparked this was after the election results came in, a post I saw somewhere on social media, about Pence and him supposedly having signed bills where he would have jailed gays for merely asking for a marriage licence, or electroshock therapy for gays.
As of the time of writing this post, I do not know if those allegations are true. I will have to investigate, most probably tomorrow, once I have some time off work.
What worries me about the allegation is that of the many people I follow and support online, all but one of whom are in favour of gay marriage, none of them themselves mentioned anything about Pence and these allegations. They too only ever talked about Hilary and Trump, at least of their articles or videos that I watched/read.

As of this moment in time, I am still strongly in favour of Trump over Hilary, mainly because of my fears over a possible nuclear war against Russia, and TPP (which from what I hear, has now been scrapped. My opposition to TPP has to do with the corporate sovereignty provisions).
However, I am questioning Pence and will be investigating the allegations made against him.

[Elijah John]

It's no longer a circus folks. American law and Democracy has entered the twilight zone. The Electoral College is the last firewall -- let's see if it works like it's supposed to.

I was not a fan of Trumps tactics either, especially in the primaries. But compared to HRC and the direction she wanted to continue to take this country (another far left-turn) it was no contest. Trump looked far more sensible by comparison, in spite of his personality quirks.

Yes, the electoral college is the firewall, that insures candidates do no neglect the "fly over" states and focus on the urban centers.

Trump won where it mattered, and the final electoral tally wasn't even close.

Also, to those who think that was unfair, consider. The "super-delegates" in the Democratic primaries were alloted to favor HRC. Bernie never had a chance.

Not to mention the DNC chair Wasserman-Schultz, who was supposed to be impartial, blatantly supported HRC. It may be to the Democratic parties credit at least, that she was ousted for her bias.

And CNN, feeding Donna Brazile debate questions on HRC's behalf, now Brazile is out too.

[2Dbunk]

[Replying to post 57 by Elijah John]

I was not a fan of Trumps tactics either, especially in the primaries. But compared to HRC and the direction she wanted to continue to take this country (another far left-turn) it was no contest. Trump looked far more sensible by comparison, in spite of his personality quirks.

I believe you are confusing "personality" with "character." One is quanitative while the other is qualitative . . . the difference certainly matters. Maybe you left out the latter for reasons only you know . . . or it was a convenient omission. Hitler had a pleasing personality especially with children, but his character was flawed in many ways. Con artists are very charming in personality but their character is flawed. Charles Manson is a case in point where he charmed disciples to do his bidding. Can you refute this difference?

Yes, the electoral college is the firewall, that insures candidates do no neglect the "fly over" states and focus on the urban centers.

What I meant was the electoral delegates may have a an issue with their conscience in allowing Trump, a liar of the first magnitude, to ascend to the highest office in the land. Oh yeah, Hillary has her issues to -- but so far unproven. Trump has surpassed her in deception . . . and in manipulation . . . in absurdity -- that was his wild card!

Trump won where it mattered, and the final electoral tally wasn't even close.

Sad, but true.

Also, to those who think that was unfair, consider. The "super-delegates" in the Democratic primaries were alloted to favor HRC. Bernie never had a chance.

Do you really care?

Not to mention the DNC chair Wasserman-Schultz, who was supposed to be impartial, blatantly supported HRC. It may be to the Democratic parties credit at least, that she was ousted for her bias.

DO YOU REALLY CARE?

[bluethread]

For all of the electxit types. Something occurred to me. The electoral college meets in December to permit local recounts and certification by Secs State. No, please recall Broward County in the Bush Gore election and the call for a state wide recount in Florida. If we go with the overall vote count, imagine the nightmare of a national recount. There is no way that would ever get resolved. After all a 2% victory would be 6.5 million votes. So, because if "every vote counts", the votes would be recounted even in states where there is a 60% - $40% victory, or more, when it is understood that votes need to be found. No chance for fraud there, right?

[Elijah John]

I believe you are confusing "personality" with "character." One is quanitative while the other is qualitative . . . the difference certainly matters. Maybe you left out the latter for reasons only you know . . . or it was a convenient omission.

Or maybe I simply equated the two.

I have stated on more than several occasions that I do not like Donald Trump's personality, and that includes character. But I have also stated that HRC made him look good in those areas by comparison.

Regarding your misgivings about his character, rest assured that in the US system of checks and balances, he will be held in check IF he goes too far off the rails. But I don't think he will. I am fairly certain Donald Trump will grow into the job nicely.

So far, I have been impressed with the seriousness he has demonstrated since he was elected, and the respect he has shown for the office, including meeting with the current president.

And he is reaching out to his former adverseraries, some of whom were bitter adversaries. Including Ted Cruz, and Mitt Romney. That shows a certain magnamnity of character, and some wisdom.

Regarding HRC and why I believe she lost. Unless you were a woman, a child or a minority, HRC conveyed the distinct impression (intentional or not) that you did not matter.

And her staff demonstrated contempt for Evangelicals and Roman Catholics.

Her elitist "we know best" mentality cost her dearly on election day.

Evangelicals and others turned out against her, in massive numbers.

But that was her own fault. Now, it is Hillary who does not matter politically. Her influence has been rendered null and void for the forseeable future.

Now Obama's propensity for coddling criminals and spoiled students will be reversed, And thankfully, President Trump is likely to appoint a decisive majority to the Supreme Court and will restore law and order as well.