Speaking of dreaming...

[ms_m]

I woke up in a positive frame of mind this morning. I must be honest and say, every morning I open my eyes I do tend to be quite positive....after that it's often down hill from there but....looking to the future, is there anyone out there you guys think could be a contender if we survive the next four?

No one truly stands out for me but I do have my eyes on Kamila Harris. I haven't done a lot of research on her. I also doubt she would be ready in four years but I'm interested in seeing how she performs in the senate. Is it possible a VP pick could be in her future?

Now I can think of a lot of reasons people would say it's not possible and I probably would agree with the more thought out reasons but let's dream a little before the wrath of Trump/Pence is fully upon us.

[arr&bee]

Ms.m you have good knowlegde of political things and i trust your opinion,so let me ask you..how about joseph kennedy iii,the kennedy's are well respected and i'm just wondering if drafted would he be interested and would he be a good candidate?

[Jerry Oz]

Make no mistake, one of the main reasons Hillary Clinton is not president today is because a significant part of the voting public will not elect a woman. This includes a lot of women, by the way. I think that Julian Castro has positioned himself well to be considered and so far, has no obvious public warts. If he runs with a progressive VP, I can easily see him defeating President Dipshit. I'd love to see Elizabeth Warren considered.

We're going to survive the next four years but the damage will have been done. There are already plans to put a climate change denier at the head of the EPA. Say goodbye to President Obama's commitment to delaying global warming and clean air and water laws. Rudy Giuliani as head of Justice means that local police will not be reviewed for patterns of discrimination with anything other than a token gesture following the most egregious examples of abuse. Newt Gingrich as secretary of state means that we will burn damned nearly every bridge imaginable with all but our best allies. I even heard that he's considering Sarah Palin[[!) as secretary of the Interior Department, meaning that significant portions of the national parks will be leased for oil drilling.

We will survive. Make no doubt about it, but if we don't do better as a nation in the next election, then we will deserve all that we get thereafter.

[ms_m]

Ms.m you have good knowlegde of political things and i trust your opinion,so let me ask you..how about joseph kennedy iii,the kennedy's are well respected and i'm just wondering if drafted would he be interested and would he be a good candidate?

To be honest I know very little about J.K III so I really can't say much about him at this point. I will make it a point to do some research on him.

[ms_m]

Make no mistake, one of the main reasons Hillary Clinton is not president today is because a significant part of the voting public will not elect a woman. This includes a lot of women, by the way. I think that Julian Castro has positioned himself well to be considered and so far, has no obvious public warts. If he runs with a progressive VP, I can easily see him defeating President Dipshit. I'd love to see Elizabeth Warren considered.

We're going to survive the next four years but the damage will have been done. There are already plans to put a climate change denier at the head of the EPA. Say goodbye to President Obama's commitment to delaying global warming and clean air and water laws. Rudy Giuliani as head of Justice means that local police will not be reviewed for patterns of discrimination with anything other than a token gesture following the most egregious examples of abuse. Newt Gingrich as secretary of state means that we will burn damned nearly every bridge imaginable with all but our best allies. I even heard that he's considering Sarah Palin[[!) as secretary of the Interior Department, meaning that significant portions of the national parks will be leased for oil drilling.

We will survive. Make no doubt about it, but if we don't do better as a nation in the next election, then we will deserve all that we get thereafter.

I can understand why Castro would be on your list but wasn't their some rumblings about his past when his name came up for potential VP? I may be wrong but I do remember hearing something that seemed to turn people off.

I thought of Warren and I really like her fire but in my mind, I'm thinking someone younger. Don't want to come off sounding like an ageist and although progressives like her and they went for Sanders, I personally think we should look towards a younger group of candidates. Her past could also be a problem as well. I wouldn't have an issue but I can see how it could be fodder for the crazies.

As far as the woman thing, I use to think a Black man would never appeal to voters so I think it's possible to get a woman in....just has to be the right woman.

[soulster]

Make no mistake, one of the main reasons Hillary Clinton is not president today is because a significant part of the voting public will not elect a woman. This includes a lot of women, by the way.

Not to change the subject, but, now that you've brought it up: Why do you think that is? One outfield explanation I came up with is that there are a lot of women, for whatever reason, have not made it far in life as far as accomplishments. So, if a woman even did become president, it would not only set the bar higher, but it would eliminate the excuse that it's men's fault for their failure. I'm sure it scared a few Black people when Obama was elected because his victory also set the bar higher.

Don't bash me for that, but it is plausible.

As for the topic question? I think it is a bit too early to tell. There is currently a ground swell of protest and resistance. The pain is turning into the anger stage mighty quick, and the "establishment" will come down hard.

[ms_m]

Make no mistake, one of the main reasons Hillary Clinton is not president today is because a significant part of the voting public will not elect a woman. This includes a lot of women, by the way. I think that Julian Castro has positioned himself well to be considered and so far, has no obvious public warts. If he runs with a progressive VP, I can easily see him defeating President Dipshit. I'd love to see Elizabeth Warren considered.

We're going to survive the next four years but the damage will have been done. There are already plans to put a climate change denier at the head of the EPA. Say goodbye to President Obama's commitment to delaying global warming and clean air and water laws. Rudy Giuliani as head of Justice means that local police will not be reviewed for patterns of discrimination with anything other than a token gesture following the most egregious examples of abuse. Newt Gingrich as secretary of state means that we will burn damned nearly every bridge imaginable with all but our best allies. I even heard that he's considering Sarah Palin[[!) as secretary of the Interior Department, meaning that significant portions of the national parks will be leased for oil drilling.

We will survive. Make no doubt about it, but if we don't do better as a nation in the next election, then we will deserve all that we get thereafter.

Another thing I want to say about being a female candidate. There isn't ANY DOUBT in my mind that many men are threatened by a strong woman but let me give you a female perspective. Back in the day, HRC had a tendency to open her mouth before engaging her brain and as a result, she came off rather condescending towards women. Especially those that chose family over career. It left a bad taste.

Remember when she was campaigning against Barack Obama and she sat down with a group of women and started crying, for many of us we saw nothing but phony crocodile tears. Yeah she won some over with her theatrics but I wasn't impressed and I bet there were other women that weren't impressed either. Now there are some of us that chose to look pass that this time around but trust, likability [[imo) was her biggest negative, not being a woman.

[arr&bee]

It's water under the bridge now,but from things that i've read,hillary can be very nasty towards employees,she should remember that they vote too.

[ms_m]

It's water under the bridge now,but from things that i've read,hillary can be very nasty towards employees,she should remember that they vote too.

I remember those rumors. Can't say they are true or false but if they are true it fits right in there with an issue of likability.

There are many, many, many reasons for why this all played out the way it did and I'm sure it will be analyzed and rehashed for years to come. But I do feel that the DNC needs to get their butts in gear and now is the time.

[ms_m]

Looks like I'm not the only one keeping any eye on Ms. Harris.

Meet Kamala Harris, Who Could Become The First Woman President
California’s popular attorney general is headed to Capitol Hill. The White House might be next.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kamala-harris_us_58247ce2e4b0aac62489433d

I'm far from ready to jump on her bandwagon but I'll definitely keep her in my sights.

[arr&bee]

Wow,ok ms m i too will be watching the congresswoman,i would say that after the way they disrespected obama another black wouldn't be too welcome but after this nutcase.........?

[lakeside]

Make no mistake, one of the main reasons Hillary Clinton is not president today is because a significant part of the voting public will not elect a woman. This includes a lot of women, by the way. I think that Julian Castro has positioned himself well to be considered and so far, has no obvious public warts. If he runs with a progressive VP, I can easily see him defeating President Dipshit. I'd love to see Elizabeth Warren considered.

We're going to survive the next four years but the damage will have been done. There are already plans to put a climate change denier at the head of the EPA. Say goodbye to President Obama's commitment to delaying global warming and clean air and water laws. Rudy Giuliani as head of Justice means that local police will not be reviewed for patterns of discrimination with anything other than a token gesture following the most egregious examples of abuse. Newt Gingrich as secretary of state means that we will burn damned nearly every bridge imaginable with all but our best allies. I even heard that he's considering Sarah Palin[[!) as secretary of the Interior Department, meaning that significant portions of the national parks will be leased for oil drilling.

We will survive. Make no doubt about it, but if we don't do better as a nation in the next election, then we will deserve all that we get thereafter.

Sarah Palin as the Secretary of the Shit House would be too much.....let alone Secretary of the Interior Department. Dear God what a circus this is....and a horrifying one at that!

[ms_m]

Wow,ok ms m i too will be watching the congresswoman,i would say that after the way they disrespected obama another black wouldn't be too welcome but after this nutcase.........?

She is Senator Elect:) but I think she's worth watching arr&bee.

[arr&bee]

Ok,got it.

[ralpht]

Lakeside...Palin as Secretary of Shithouse??? I'm laughing my ass off here. But the shoe almost fits...

[lakeside]

Lakeside...Palin as Secretary of Shithouse??? I'm laughing my ass off here. But the shoe almost fits...
The only thing Sarah Palin would be 'fit to be Secretary of........even if that.
https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.M52a06283971d1d4b43bada6d0c861ad3o0&pid=15.1&H=213&W=160&P=0

[Jerry Oz]

It's water under the bridge now,but from things that i've read,hillary can be very nasty towards employees,she should remember that they vote too.Her nastiness toward employees is a crock because she lost to DONALD TRUMP. Nasty to employees. Nasty to contractors. Nasty to women. Nasty to Black folks. Nasty to President Obama. Nasty nasty nasty nasty nasty.

To put it mildly, I don't think her nastiness toward employees is the reason, bruh. And if they hold it against her, but not against him, that backs up my point that it's a problem with women. Remember when they were calling her out for "shouting" in her victory speeches after primaries? Trump used to shout in debates and not once was he considered loud or unprofessional in his speech.

[Jerry Oz]

Another thing I want to say about being a female candidate. There isn't ANY DOUBT in my mind that many men are threatened by a strong woman but let me give you a female perspective. Back in the day, HRC had a tendency to open her mouth before engaging her brain and as a result, she came off rather condescending towards women. Especially those that chose family over career. It left a bad taste.
I'm trying to think who else that describes... Oh, yeah! The guy who beat her. Times one thousand. So, people didn't like her personal style and condescending nature, so they were willing to lose health care and reproductive health rights and clean air and water, put global warming at risk, permit voter suppression, forsake immigrant families, insult the Islamic faith and community, and threaten the general welfare of the entire planet?

Nope. It's an excuse for the fact that nobody wants to admit that it's because she's a woman.

[Jerry Oz]

Not to change the subject, but, now that you've brought it up: Why do you think that is? One outfield explanation I came up with is that there are a lot of women, for whatever reason, have not made it far in life as far as accomplishments. So, if a woman even did become president, it would not only set the bar higher, but it would eliminate the excuse that it's men's fault for their failure. I'm sure it scared a few Black people when Obama was elected because his victory also set the bar higher.
Jealousy is the reason some women won't vote for another woman. Some men won't because it means that their importance in the world is nullified when a woman is capable of wearing the pants of the leader. Same thing that some White men feel about Black men.

Ask yourself why it makes sense that White men are less than 35% of the population, yet they hold over 80% of all authority roles in the US? Judges, mayors, governors, police officers, business managers, etc. The list goes on and we accept that a minority demographic rules everybody else. I wanted a female president. I don't give two poops if she's nice or nasty, so long as she is not the unholy love child of Archie Bunker and Satan like the orange disaster we have "leading us" in two months.

I swear, if I didn't have my Mom and Dad still around, I'd be booking one-way flights to Greenland right now.

[robb_k]

Another thing I want to say about being a female candidate. There isn't ANY DOUBT in my mind that many men are threatened by a strong woman but let me give you a female perspective. Back in the day, HRC had a tendency to open her mouth before engaging her brain and as a result, she came off rather condescending towards women. Especially those that chose family over career. It left a bad taste.

Remember when she was campaigning against Barack Obama and she sat down with a group of women and started crying, for many of us we saw nothing but phony crocodile tears. Yeah she won some over with her theatrics but I wasn't impressed and I bet there were other women that weren't impressed either. Now there are some of us that chose to look pass that this time around but trust, likability [[imo) was her biggest negative, not being a woman.
11997
It was time for a woman to run for The U.S. Presidency, The Democrats ran the wrong woman. A woman with a squeaky-clean background, who is not so intertwined with the large big-money interests, would have been better, as significant change is wanted by the frustrated voters. A Bernie Sanders-type female candidate would have been better.

Millions of would-be Democratic voters in Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania, and probably Florida, who had voted for Obama, stayed away from the polls as a protest. Had they voted Democratic, just to keep The Republicans from controlling BOTH houses of the legislature AND The Executive Branch, Hillary would have won. Had there been a qualified female candidate with a lot less ties to big money and the corporations and The main-stream Democratic Machine, she likely would have seemed a better candidate for change, and would have won [[as Sanders probably would have).

The Democrats made a bad mistake, because they thought that Sanders would try to help "The People" too much, and not line the pockets of their own "benefactors" enough, to whom they are beholden.

[Jerry Oz]

The people who stayed away are progressives who believe that the Democrats made it impossible for Sanders to win. They talked about not voting for months before the election. They expressed their intention to bring Clinton down and it nothing to do with her politics. It was because their chosen pol was brought down and the DNC refused to address a long laundry list of grievances.

BTW: I haven't seen anything on the news about e-mails all week. It dominated the news cycle for the last two years, so it must be important, right? The mainstream media absolutely did its best to make her problems seem worse than they were to keep the race tight until the end. Good job. Of Trump's victory, CBS' CEO Leslie Moonves said "It may not be good for America but it's damn good for CBS." That says it all.

[ms_m]

I agree with Robb K in that, it was time for a woman, it just wasn't the right woman.

On a personal tip and as a woman, it's rather annoying hearing a MAN try to speak for women, especially when they pull out that tired tripe about how we are jealous of other women. Now obviously I'm speaking from my personal perspective but I've known more than my share of women during my more than 6 decades on this earth and I assure you, many of them can be bitchy, catty and downright mean but jealousy has been relegated to only a few.

HRC lost to uneducated White women, true in states where she should have won but again, UNEDUCATED, women who stay at home, women without careers. To say all these women are jealous, is just as condescending as some of the things I've heard HRC say and that doesn't go over well with me. If a woman dislikes a man, you never hear jealousy as the reason but flip the script and damn, we are soooooooooooo jealous [[read insecure). Come on Jerry Oz, MANY of us deserve more credit than that.

[Jerry Oz]

I stand corrected, ms_m. I certainly meant no offense. But with that said, check again and you will find that it was not only non-college educated women who went the other way. A large percentage of educated White women went for him as well.

[ms_m]

The people who stayed away are progressives who believe that the Democrats made it impossible for Sanders to win. They talked about not voting for months before the election. They expressed their intention to bring Clinton down and it nothing to do with her politics. It was because their chosen pol was brought down and the DNC refused to address a long laundry list of grievances.

BTW: I haven't seen anything on the news about e-mails all week. It dominated the news cycle for the last two years, so it must be important, right? The mainstream media absolutely did its best to make her problems seem worse than they were to keep the race tight until the end. Good job. Of Trump's victory, CBS' CEO Leslie Moonves said "It may not be good for America but it's damn good for CBS." That says it all.

Yep, the media's greed played more than it share in this mess. It was like all these perfect storms formed, then they came together like a force of nature this country has never never seen and wiped out common sense and decency.

[ms_m]

I stand corrected, ms_m. I certainly meant no offense. But with that said, check again and you will find that it was not only non-college educated women who went the other way. A large percentage of educated White women went for him as well.

I regurgitated facts from 538/Nate Silver but I'll go back and check other sources.
Apology accepted.:cool:

[ms_m]

I regurgitated facts from 538/Nate Silver but I'll go back and check other sources.
Apology accepted.:cool:

I'll keep checking but so far....

http://qz.com/833003/election-2016-all-women-voted-overwhelmingly-for-clinton-except-the-white-ones/

Could it be we are both forgetting that women can be racist too?

[ms_m]

11997
It was time for a woman to run for The U.S. Presidency, The Democrats ran the wrong woman. A woman with a squeaky-clean background, who is not so intertwined with the large big-money interests, would have been better, as significant change is wanted by the frustrated voters. A Bernie Sanders-type female candidate would have been better.

Millions of would-be Democratic voters in Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania, and probably Florida, who had voted for Obama, stayed away from the polls as a protest. Had they voted Democratic, just to keep The Republicans from controlling BOTH houses of the legislature AND The Executive Branch, Hillary would have won. Had there been a qualified female candidate with a lot less ties to big money and the corporations and The main-stream Democratic Machine, she likely would have seemed a better candidate for change, and would have won [[as Sanders probably would have).

The Democrats made a bad mistake, because they thought that Sanders would try to help "The People" too much, and not line the pockets of their own "benefactors" enough, to whom they are beholden.

I agree with just about everything you say but I have yet to be convinced Sanders would have won.

The pollsters [[well most) screwed up BIGLY on this and from what I've seen many people are citing a win for Sanders based on polls that were taken months ago.

How does a man that lost in the primaries to HRC by more than 3 million votes suddenly seem like a winner in the general?

[Jerry Oz]

A surprising number of Black people, mostly men voted for him. The number I heard was approximately one million, including my brother-in-law. The most painful part is not that I will call his voters racist but that they don't care that he is or about who it will affect. So it makes no difference if they are not, the result is the same.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[Jerry Oz]

I agree with just about everything you say but I have yet to be convinced Sanders would have won.

The pollsters [[well most) screwed up BIGLY on this and from what I've seen many people are citing a win for Sanders based on polls that were taken months ago.

How does a man that lost in the primaries to HRC by more than 3 million votes suddenly seem like a winner in the general?Because her voters would have voted for him. The opposite proved not to be true.

[ms_m]

Because her voters would have voted for him. The opposite proved not to be true.

Maybe, maybe not [[that he would have pulled in her voters) but I think he would have had the same problem with the uneducated White women vote she had.

Not too mention, socialism doesn't go over well with the people who voted for "elect" and although I have issues with Sanders, purportedly "outstanding" activist Civil Rights record, that meme would have worked against him with the other side.

[ms_m]

A surprising number of Black people, mostly men voted for him. The number I heard was approximately one million, including my brother-in-law. The most painful part is not that I will call his voters racist but that they don't care that he is or about who it will affect. So it makes no difference if they are not, the result is the same.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke

I hear you but the point I was making is, maybe these WOMEN were simply racist, not jealous or what have you, just straight up racist. [[think in terms of the phrase N-lover)

[ms_m]

...but you're right about one thing, at the end of the day it really doesn't matter. It is, what it is.

I have an early day so I need to get a few hours of sleep . GN

Always a pleasure.:D

[ms_m]

Before I go...lol...I just realized there was one thing that hasn't been discussed in all of these threads.

"Elect" energized a hella lot of people that normally wouldn't or hadn't participated in an election. Let's face it, folks came out from the shadows and now the crazies have taken over the asylum. Whatever their reason for making this happen [[and I'm talking from the top to the bottom) they feel large and in charge. A more serious question [[imo)isn't why but what...as in what can we do about it? Aside from waiting for the the crap to hit the fan. I don't have an answer. Does anyone?

[soulster]

Jealousy is the reason some women won't vote for another woman. Some men won't because it means that their importance in the world is nullified when a woman is capable of wearing the pants of the leader. Same thing that some White men feel about Black men. .
Yup! That's all very true too! This, and what I wrote, are things no one will tell the pollsters or media.

[TomatoTom123]

Why were the polls so wrong?

[ms_m]

Why were the polls so wrong?

My first thought was the old saying, garbage in, garbage out.

I'm not a mathematician by any stretch of the imagination so my gut answer is, don't know. But from what I can gather, it was based on the way empirical data was analyzed, entered and tabulated. shrugs

[Jerry Oz]

Why were the polls so wrong?I think there were three reasons that the polls were wrong. First, they could not accurately represent the voter ratio between urban and rural voters. The one demographic I didn't see in any poll was whether the population sample included and noted where the participants resided. Without this information, the polls couldn't predict how many bumpkins would vote in relation to slickers or which way those votes would go. And Jethro kicked Leroy's ass this time.

Second, there was a presumption based upon participation in the primaries that X number of people would vote Democrat, but several million Sandernistas stayed home. It was a small enough number that it probably couldn't be caught in random ~750 person surveys and there was a presumption that almost all eligible voters would participate in "the most important election of our time". They didn't consider abstinence to be participation but in a way, it was.

A third reason would be the huge number of undecided voters noted in most polls. A remarkable number of which said they decided in the week after Comey showed us his Weiner. There's no proof, but it is believed that the FBI letter, which basically said nothing substantive, was [[on top of the non-voters) the straw that broke her back.

[destruction]

Why were the polls so wrong?

People lied......

"You voting for Trump?"

Looks left....looks right.

"errrrrr......no....why would I?"

[Jerry Oz]

People lied......

"You voting for Trump?"

Looks left....looks right.

"errrrrr......no....why would I?"^^ This. As good answer as I can imagine.

[ms_m]

LAWD LOVE A DUCK!

Dear White People, Your Safety Pins Are Embarrassing
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dear-white-people-your-safety-pins-are-embarassing_us_58278b9de4b02b1f5257a36a

12007

[Jerry Oz]

Thanks for posting the that. Too bad it needed to be written and too bad that the people who need to read it won't. I can imagine a lot of Jill Stein supporters reading it and thinking "is he talking about me?!"

[robb_k]

I agree with just about everything you say but I have yet to be convinced Sanders would have won.

How does a man that lost in the primaries to HRC by more than 3 million votes suddenly seem like a winner in the general?
12008
I think that idea is based on the belief that a significant amount of "protestors", who wanted change in big government, who either stayed home or switched to Trump [[because they thought ANY kind of change would be better than more of the same), would have voted for Sanders, as he, like Trump, represented change, and his brand of change would have been a lot more attractive to Democrats than Trump's. This also assumes that those "turncoats" that went over to Trump, and those disillusioned voters, who stayed home, would have given the "swing states" of Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Ohio [[and, perhaps, also Missouri), would have given Sanders and The Democrats the victory. I think that might have been possible, as Sanders has a "squeaky clean background", and would have satisfied their need for change more than the unpredictable Trump, who had some ridiculous campaign promises, and behaved like a severely imbalanced egotistical child.

Unfortunately for all those "protestors" who stayed home, or voted for Trump, to get their "change", they are likely to end up sorry that they wanted THAT particular form of change. It remains to be seen. But I am not optimistic about what will happen to funding for public schools and privatisation of public school systems, Social Security, Medicare, medical insurance coverage, minimum wage, replacement of Federal Supreme Court judges, funding for environmental programmes and environmental policy, Abortion and choice, funding for State universities and community colleges, etc. ad infinitum.

All in all, it looks like a disaster to me. I have to hope that The Republicans, as a group, won't cooperate with Trump, and, of course, The Democrats won't, and that Trump's administration can get nothing done, and THAT helps The Democrats, at LEAST, take over The US Senate in 2 years, and they get close to a 50-50 split in The House of Representatives. And, further hope that Sanders will win The Presidency in 4 years, and that he won't be murdered by people who want so much money in their own pockets that the people have to continue to suffer more and more as their real income continues to be lost to inflation, so more and more money can be diverted from them into the pockets of the super rich.

Somewhere along the line, The US general population will stop being satisfied with "toys" [[big, fast cars, electronics and the like) and rise up. I expect a bloody race/class war and revolution. I'm glad I won't be there for that. In the meantime, I have 2 more years of living there part time, and hope that will be the last of it.:mad: I hope my sister and her family will move back to Denmark, sooner, rather than later [[where I stay 2-3 months, anyway, and would then stay there a bit longer).

I don't expect President Trump to build a wall along The Mexican border [[which wouldn't in any case, be paid for by Mexico). I don't expect Trump to spend more than Clinton would have on military actions versus "claimed" terrorists in foreign nations. I DO expect that Trump will spend more on The US Military, as a whole, than Clinton would have. I don't expect Trump to use nuclear weapons against supposed terrorists or so-called "rogue nations".

All in all, all of us around The Globe will keep an interested eye on what Trump's administration does.

[ms_m]

[[and, perhaps, also Missouri), would have given Sanders and The Democrats the victory.

Missouri? Really?

Robb K there are some people who are questioning if he could have taken Virginia.

Here are 10 shocking 2016 election facts: Old political assumptions are out the window now
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/here-are10-shocking-2016-election-facts-old-political-assumptions-are-out-the-window-now/

It doesn't simply look like a disaster to me, IT IS! However, I suddenly had this thought that maybe this is the Universe slapping people up side the head to get them to WAKE UP!

One can dream.

[ms_m]

thanks for posting the that. Too bad it needed to be written and too bad that the people who need to read it won't. I can imagine a lot of jill stein supporters reading it and thinking "is he talking about me?!"

you're welcome! ....and not just Jill Stein supporters.:p

[ms_m]

12008
I think that idea is based on the belief that a significant amount of "protestors", who wanted change in big government, who either stayed home or switched to Trump [[because they thought ANY kind of change would be better than more of the same), would have voted for Sanders, as he, like Trump, represented change, and his brand of change would have been a lot more attractive to Democrats than Trump's. This also assumes that those "turncoats" that went over to Trump, and those disillusioned voters, who stayed home, would have given the "swing states" of Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Ohio [[and, perhaps, also Missouri), would have given Sanders and The Democrats the victory. I think that might have been possible, as Sanders has a "squeaky clean background", and would have satisfied their need for change more than the unpredictable Trump, who had some ridiculous campaign promises, and behaved like a severely imbalanced egotistical child.

Unfortunately for all those "protestors" who stayed home, or voted for Trump, to get their "change", they are likely to end up sorry that they wanted THAT particular form of change. It remains to be seen. But I am not optimistic about what will happen to funding for public schools and privatisation of public school systems, Social Security, Medicare, medical insurance coverage, minimum wage, replacement of Federal Supreme Court judges, funding for environmental programmes and environmental policy, Abortion and choice, funding for State universities and community colleges, etc. ad infinitum.

All in all, it looks like a disaster to me. I have to hope that The Republicans, as a group, won't cooperate with Trump, and, of course, The Democrats won't, and that Trump's administration can get nothing done, and THAT helps The Democrats, at LEAST, take over The US Senate in 2 years, and they get close to a 50-50 split in The House of Representatives. And, further hope that Sanders will win The Presidency in 4 years, and that he won't be murdered by people who want so much money in their own pockets that the people have to continue to suffer more and more as their real income continues to be lost to inflation, so more and more money can be diverted from them into the pockets of the super rich.

Somewhere along the line, The US general population will stop being satisfied with "toys" [[big, fast cars, electronics and the like) and rise up. I expect a bloody race/class war and revolution. I'm glad I won't be there for that. In the meantime, I have 2 more years of living there part time, and hope that will be the last of it.:mad: I hope my sister and her family will move back to Denmark, sooner, rather than later [[where I stay 2-3 months, anyway, and would then stay there a bit longer).

I don't expect President Trump to build a wall along The Mexican border [[which wouldn't in any case, be paid for by Mexico). I don't expect Trump to spend more than Clinton would have on military actions versus "claimed" terrorists in foreign nations. I DO expect that Trump will spend more on The US Military, as a whole, than Clinton would have. I don't expect Trump to use nuclear weapons against supposed terrorists or so-called "rogue nations".

All in all, all of us around The Globe will keep an interested eye on what Trump's administration does.

BTW....Many people didn't expect him to win. Many people were wrong.
I'm sure there will be those in his inner circle that will have to figuratively and possibly literally wrestle him to the ground to keep him from taking things too far BUT....I DO NOT put anything pass Mr. P%$^^Y Grabber Elect...except the building the wall thing but other than that , nothing!

[144man]

It seems when all the popular vote has been counted, Hillary Clinton will be at least a million votes ahead of Donald Trump. If you have a system of of "one person, one vote", how can it be right or fair that not everyone's vote counts equally?

[soulster]

It seems when all the popular vote has been counted, Hillary Clinton will be at least a million votes ahead of Donald Trump. If you have a system of of "one person, one vote", how can it be right or fair that not everyone's vote counts equally?

The idea behind the electoral college was to have under-populated/underrepresented areas to have an equal say. It's still an imperfect system, too.

[144man]

You can't argue with the math. Hillary got more votes; Hillary won the election; the system stinks.

[TomatoTom123]

You can't argue with the math. Hillary got more votes; Hillary won the election; the system stinks.

Yea, it's 'cause it's all done on states, and each state has a different number of electoral college votes [[depending on its population I believe) - so votes in total don't count. Does seem a bit weird and unfair!

[144man]

Yes. Why should the swing states have all the power when votes for Hillary are piling up uselessly in California?

[Jerry Oz]

Think about it like this:
Imagine that among the 50 states, two were entirely industrial and the other 48 are agrarian. If two candidates ran for president and one was hardcore set on making the entire country a technological wasteland and eliminating the agrarian lifestyle and economy, he could win if Texas and California [[for example) turned out in sufficient numbers and the others [[for whatever reason) had low turnout, since they are the heaviest populated states. Consequently, two states would dominate the election, so the candidates would only need to cater to their needs instead of caring about the entire country. The end result would be that they would control the country instead of having candidates appeal to each state as they do now.

It's imperfect, but it has roots in fair representation. Besides, it's water under the bridge at this point. Our hawkish, pro-Russia, racist, idiot of a president-elect has already been given his assignment by the voters. Let's see if they want what they got.

[Jerry Oz]

It gets worse. Have you heard about the substitute teacher in LA who was fired for telling hispanic elementary school kids that Trump was going to send their parents home? Here's a teacher who told Black schoolkids that he was going to call der Fuhrer and have him send them back to Africa:
http://www.nbcnews.com/video/teacher-suspended-over-trump-comments-808536643699

[arr&bee]

Oh they feel entitled now,and some of em are gonna get more than their feelings hurt.

[ms_m]

Think about it like this:
Imagine that among the 50 states, two were entirely industrial and the other 48 are agrarian. If two candidates ran for president and one was hardcore set on making the entire country a technological wasteland and eliminating the agrarian lifestyle and economy, he could win if Texas and California [[for example) turned out in sufficient numbers and the others [[for whatever reason) had low turnout, since they are the heaviest populated states. Consequently, two states would dominate the election, so the candidates would only need to cater to their needs instead of caring about the entire country. The end result would be that they would control the country instead of having candidates appeal to each state as they do now.

It's imperfect, but it has roots in fair representation. Besides, it's water under the bridge at this point. Our hawkish, pro-Russia, racist, idiot of a president-elect has already been given his assignment by the voters. Let's see if they want what they got.

I agree with Jerry, this is water under the bridge and let's get real, if this was flipped, no one on the anti Trump side would have a problem and Trump and his supporters would be yelling bloody murder and RIGGED.

There is one thing I'd like to add to Jerry's statement. I think people need to understand that the USA is a Republic which is a form of democracy but not a pure democracy. I think Jerry pretty much explains why the Founding Father's set it up that way and I'll add in my own simplistic terms....sometimes the majority can come back and bite the minority in the arse. [[and I'm going to leave that alone)

I also agree it's not perfect and although a case could probably be made that the intent of the Founding Father's doesn't reflect modern times that could very well be said for many parts of our Constitution. It is what it is.

I will add a footnote, apparently President Obama was the first president in five decades to win 51% of the popular vote. [[and yes he won the electoral college twice.) Ironically after the second election, PG Elect was ranting and raving about the Electoral being a joke and should be abolished. [[I took the liberty of paraphrasing here). Now he's loving it although, his feelings are hurt because he didn't win the popular vote. Damn, this man is such a friggin baby!

[ms_m]

Yes. Why should the swing states have all the power when votes for Hillary are piling up uselessly in California?

Because their electoral votes were important for a win. As a general rule it's why candidates spend more time stumping in swing states and very little time in states that are pretty much guranteed to them [[when things were considered normal) For example, HRC may have stumped in Cali once or twice and it didn't harm her vote count in the least.

If you go back and look at election maps from the past, many states were pretty consistent in the way they voted be it red or blue....swings state tended to go either way hence the term swing.

This gives a history of the electoral college. Hope it helps to make some sense out of things.

http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_history.php

[ms_m]

Because their electoral votes were important for a win. As a general rule it's why candidates spend more time stumping in swing states and very little time in states that are pretty much guranteed to them [[when things were considered normal) For example, HRC may have stumped in Cali once or twice and it didn't harm her vote count in the least.

If you go back and look at election maps from the past, many states were pretty consistent in the way they voted be it red or blue....swings state tended to go either way hence the term swing.

This gives a history of the electoral college. Hope it helps to make some sense out of things.

http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_history.php

Another way to look at this 144man.....a candidate wins electoral votes from a state AFTER the voters in said state gives him or her a majority. So winner takes all in each state. What you are disputing is what they win [[votes in the electoral college) but it doesn't change the fact, winner takes all.

http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/how-many-popular-votes-did-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-win-2016-election-state-by-state/

Based on the chart in the link above, I'm not in the mood to look up and post the number of proportional populations in one state vs another and/or eligible voters in each state but if you or someone chooses, then you'll probably get a better handle on this. Maybe.:)

[ms_m]

One more thing and I promise you I'm done. :) Another interesting aspect of the Electoral College...in many states EC members are bound by law to vote the way their state voted.

I remember reading that many EC members were threatening to vote against HRC even if their state had given her a win. Now THAT would have been wrong on many levels. They would have totally ignored what the majority of voters in their state wanted.

[Jerry Oz]

Imagine that the Republican state legislature of Ohio was so booty hurt by the state's role in electing President Obama, they considered changing from winner-take-all to apportioning the electoral college based on percentage of votes for each candidate. That would totally marginalize the state's importance to electing the boss.

[ms_m]

Imagine that the Republican state legislature of Ohio was so booty hurt by the state's role in electing President Obama, they considered changing from winner-take-all to apportioning the electoral college based on percentage of votes for each candidate. That would totally marginalize the state's importance to electing the boss.

Easy to imagine.

There's a petition being sent around by folks on the left trying to get the EC to vote based on the popular vote. I detest equivalency BS when it comes to political parties but sometimes all you can do is shake your head at both sides and say...WTF?

[144man]

Because their electoral votes were important for a win. As a general rule it's why candidates spend more time stumping in swing states and very little time in states that are pretty much guranteed to them [[when things were considered normal) For example, HRC may have stumped in Cali once or twice and it didn't harm her vote count in the least.

If you go back and look at election maps from the past, many states were pretty consistent in the way they voted be it red or blue....swings state tended to go either way hence the term swing.

This gives a history of the electoral college. Hope it helps to make some sense out of things.

http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_history.php

Oh, I understand all right. What I'm trying to say is why bother going through the expense of having a nationwide presidential election. Just have a an election in the swing states because no one else's vote counts a f***.

[ms_m]

Oh, I understand all right. What I'm trying to say is why bother going through the expense of having a nationwide presidential election. Just have a an election in the swing states because no one else's vote counts a f***.

That wouldn't be feasible since swing states can vary from one election to the next.
Everyone's vote count 144man. It counts towards receiving a voice in the electoral college.
Another thing you may want to think about, how many votes in the electoral college a state will receive is based on that state's population and that can also change overtime.

If we go strictly by popular votes and I lived in a state with a small population and a state with a larger population voted against my wishes, would you see that as my vote not counting?

[ms_m]

144man, you do realize it's not the swings states alone that get a candidate to the magic number.
There are a total of 538 electoral votes to be had but in order to be declared a winner you have to have 270 electoral votes. It's a quirky system but it really does work for the most part.

I don't blame the Electoral College for Trumps win, I blame voters that didn't vote and those that threw their vote away on a third party candidate or write in/protest vote. AND many of the latter call themselves Liberals or progressives!!!!!:mad:

[ms_m]

To say I'm not happy with a Trump win would be the biggest understatement to ever exist BUT... I'm not ready to subvert the Constitution to change what has happened. That document and it's amendments are the ONLY thing [[legally) keeping me from being declared 2/3 of a person. I can go for improving/adding to it but compromising it simply because I'm pissed would be the same as a person who votes AGAINST their own best interest.

Once people calm down and start looking at the system in a rational manner, I'm all ears but losing ones mind over the electoral college is a total waste of time imo. Trump may not fulfill his entire term and Pence is his understudy...people need to focus!

[Jerry Oz]

It would be funny if it were not so serious. But a lot of people either didn't vote or wasted their opportunity so they could self-righteously complain after Clinton won. If I had a dollar for every time I read a progressive tweet "I am not compelled to vote for the lesser of two evils", I'd be rich. Well, true to their word they did not and they were rewarded with the greater of the two evils winning the election.

Now, Susan Sarandon, one of the most entitled and privileged voices in the movement is suggesting that liberals and progs reach out to Trump and his supporters when she clearly held no such views about bridging the divide with Democrats prior to the country electing a White nationalist as its leader.

[TomatoTom123]

Another thing that gets me [[that wasn't even mentioned in the run-up to the election because of Trump's other, worse factors) is the HUGE conflict of interests that his presidency has created. He is a really just a businessman [[with stakes in loads of businesses, in America and abroad, etc) and now that he is in charge of the country he doesn't want to separate between "Trump the brand" and "Trump the President" - isn't this just completely corrupt and unfair?

[ms_m]

Another thing that gets me [[that wasn't even mentioned in the run-up to the election because of Trump's other, worse factors) is the HUGE conflict of interests that his presidency has created. He is a really just a businessman [[with stakes in loads of businesses, in America and abroad, etc) and now that he is in charge of the country he doesn't want to separate between "Trump the brand" and "Trump the President" - isn't this just completely corrupt and unfair?


isn't this just completely corrupt and unfair?

That would be a big 10/4 good buddy.

[TomatoTom123]

That would be a big 10/4 good buddy.

Hehe, thank you :)

[ms_m]

Susan Sarandon

That witch and her ilk can kiss it and I have a place she can reach!:mad:

Never thought I'd see the day when I would actually prefer GW and although I had zero respect for the man I was willing to accept him as the president but TRUMP...never, ever!

[ms_m]

Hehe, thank you :)

You're welcome and:) back atcha

[arr&bee]

The scary thing is that if and when the s@@t hits the fan,will he get pissed and declare war or try to reason,if any.

[144man]

Excuse me if I'm being cynical about the workings of the electoral college because I don't like the result produced, but I still can't my head round a system that converts a candidate who gets what is predicted to be two million votes more than her opponent from a winner to a loser. Wouldn't the House of Representatives and the Senate provide adequate protection against the POTUS governing narrowly in favour of one or two states?

I notice that one of our newspapers carried an article yesterday about the beginning of a movement in California to consider leaving the USA.

[Jerry Oz]

Texas threatened to secede every year of President Obama's term. California is too broke to leave.

[arr&bee]

Folks in da hood threatened to secede too,but when they realized that[greasy grady]was their only means of food,they had a quick change of mind....they may be mad about the election but they ain't suicidal!!!

[ms_m]

Excuse me if I'm being cynical about the workings of the electoral college because I don't like the result produced, but I still can't my head round a system that converts a candidate who gets what is predicted to be two million votes more than her opponent from a winner to a loser. Wouldn't the House of Representatives and the Senate provide adequate protection against the POTUS governing narrowly in favour of one or two states?

I notice that one of our newspapers carried an article yesterday about the beginning of a movement in California to consider leaving the USA.

I tend to think you are more frustrated than cynical and I can understand that frustration. However, I also think you’re being hypocritical since I find it difficult to believe we would be having this conversation if the results had been reversed.

We live in extremely partisan times. Why would a Repub controlled Senate and House with a Repub in the executive office protect anyone other than their own?

As far as Cali...what Jerry Oz and arr& bee said...
and I will add and say to California, Bye Felicia.

[ms_m]

WORLDPOST
Two British Siblings Evaluate Trump’s Win from Opposing Ends of a Divided Culture
Kentucky is a long way from New York.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-election-brexit_us_582c8838e4b099512f801b55

A very interesting read.

[144man]

I tend to think you are more frustrated than cynical and I can understand that frustration. However, I also think you’re being hypocritical since I find it difficult to believe we would be having this conversation if the results had been reversed.

We live in extremely partisan times. Why would a Repub controlled Senate and House with a Repub in the executive office protect anyone other than their own?

As far as Cali...what Jerry Oz and arr& bee said...
and I will add and say to California, Bye Felicia.

In the 2015 UK General Election, UKIP polled nearly thirteen per cent of the total vote, yet only succeeded in getting one Member of Parliament elected to the 650 seat House of Commons. Even though I was opposed to their views, as you can see from the Brexit thread, I still unhappy about the extent of their under-representation in Parliament. Maybe it's just the traditional British sense of "fair play".

It would be terrible if California were to secede. It would mean that with the loss of their votes in the electoral college, there might never again be a Democrat as president.

[ms_m]

LOL, I think it would be California's loss more that anything.

144man I happen to think the system is fair even though it went against my preferred candidate. There were a lot of reasons HRC wasn't able to get enough electoral votes, some were self inflicted and others should cause more concerned than the EC process itself. For example, in 2012, in Guilford County, NC [[Greensboro), there were 16 early voting locations. This year for early voting only one. Why, because the Repub controlled election board told counties and cities they were not obligated to help Dems vote for Dems. [[Guilford County has a large population of Blacks who vote Democrat)

That's just one example among many shady practices that occurred in this election so it's not all about the EC. Hate the player, not the game. shrugs

[ms_m]

BTW, 144man. The EC has been around for 139 years [[I believe it is) and there have been only a few occasions when it came back to bite a candidate in the butt. Bottom line, the percentages of it working exactly the way it should is much higher than many people want to believe.

[ms_m]

I had to look this up but are you aware California turned Red on quite a few occasions?
...and


Under the Electoral College system, it is possible that the candidate who receives the most popular votes nationwide does not win the election, a phenomenon that had previously occurred four times in U.S. history prior to 2016.
http://www.snopes.com/2016/11/11/the-electoral-college-and-the-popular-vote/

I said only a few times...heck it's four times in 139 years. That doesn't cause any alarms for me over the EC. What happened sucks eggs and then some but I say again....focus!

Hold on to this as long as you must, your prerogative but although I'm still pissed, I have other fish to fry with this maniac.

[ms_m]

Oopsies, make that 5 [[forgot to count now) in 139 years. IMHO, we [[meaning folks on the left) need to pick our battles wisely. I honestly don't see how petitions, threats of succession and all that sort of thing will reverse the madness this country is currently facing.

As Rod Serling would say, "Imagine if you will," the members of the EC grow a pair and vote HRC into the WH. Do you believe the cult hive would say, oh well, we lost let's take our anger, racist, misogynist, homophobic, xenophobic behavior and guns home. I'm sure you know that would not happen so then what?

In other news. A homophobic VP elect goes to see a play where many cast members are gay. Homie Jr. [[the other clown) gets boo'd and oh my, the outrage begins, starting with his cult leader elect, Trump. Of course the other minions chime in and have the audacity to say, what would have happened if the same had occurred to President Obama? Makes you wonder [[not really) where all these folks were when President O and his family were [[and still are) being disrespected with hateful and racist name calling but hey...

Anyhoo, now the cult members are asking for a boycott of the play Hamilton, a play that is sold out until August 2017 if I'm not mistaken. Oh and these same folks are boycotting Starbucks by buying coffee and using the name Trump which of course they insist be written on their cup.

Let's pick the right battles to fight I say. We should have SERIOUS concerns about Bannon and Sessions, the future of Medicare, AHCA and SS. The potential loss of freedom for many Americans and violence running rampant. The list grows and will only get longer.

[ms_m]

Judge At Citizenship Ceremony: Don't Like Trump? 'Go To Another Country' [[VIDEO)


Primomo later told KHOU that he meant his words to be unifying and not political.


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/federal-judge-donald-trump-president

Hey, I felt the unity and the love, didn't you? 12045

[ms_m]

White supremacists confer in Washington to influence Trump
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/white-supremacists-confer-in-washington-to-influence-trump/

I do not have a problem with being fair. The picture of the men in hoods and robes is inflammatory since the article states they were actually in dark suits and ties and looked more like lobbyist. However, READ the article and then place the picture in context to what you read.

[144man]

I had to look this up but are you aware California turned Red on quite a few occasions?
...and


http://www.snopes.com/2016/11/11/the-electoral-college-and-the-popular-vote/

I said only a few times...heck it's four times in 139 years. That doesn't cause any alarms for me over the EC. What happened sucks eggs and then some but I say again....focus!

Hold on to this as long as you must, your prerogative but although I'm still pissed, I have other fish to fry with this maniac.

I'll let the subject drop now before I become totally obsessed with it:)

[ms_m]

Here are 5 deeply obnoxious things we learned about Donald Trump this week
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/here-are-5-deeply-obnoxious-things-we-learned-about-donald-trump-this-week/

Only five!!!!! SMH