Nuh uh., It was the wearing of my patriotic jockstrap (what I wore on my pole to go to the poll).

 

Would you like a little salt with your crow Sir?

 

I think it should be just the opposite. Crows are quite intelligent. Why should they have to be eaten by the stupid ones.

Here's a quick clip on how smart crows are. I always get a kick out it. It's only 2 minutes.

 

LOL

I've eaten a lot of crow for that remark.

Confession: I only read the first paragraph.

Now I'm a little bit shamefaced.

There's a lot of bitching about the electoral college today. I might have to start a thread about it. But I'll say this about the curious fact that Trump won 270 and lost the popular vote:

WHY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS FAIR, AND WHY IT WORKED THIS TIME.
by princess clarise

Parable: When you sit at a card table and get dealt five cards, you don't play blackjack. You play poker.

Donald Trump played the game he was dealt. On a shoe string budget, he canvased the entire country, from big stadiums to little high school gymnasiums and town halls. He held thousands of rallies EVERYWHERE. Sometimes in front of 30,000 people, and sometimes in front of 100. With no machine, little money, and a hostile media against him, he did the impossible by winning with a clear mandate.

If the rules were different-- for instance, if the election were a straight-up vote on population, or is often floated, with electoral votes conforming to districting-- he would have changed his tactics, and with his shoe-string budget he would have played THAT game. And won the population vote, with a clear mandate.

How? He would not have run ,thousands of rallies. He would have skipped Alaska, Hawaii, the entire south, the entire midwest. He would have assumed those people don't matter and don't count at all, because in a straight population vote, this would literally be true. Instead, he would have done saturation coverage in Southwest California and the Northeast Corridor, playing a multicultural narrative to diverse metropolitan audiences. And he would have WON by population. In fact, I would bet he would have done even better, because he would not have needed the rural bitter clingers and deplorable rust belt workers at all.

In the electoral college system, large urban constituencies with their local needs and concerns voted, were counted, and were represented. By the same token, the local needs and concerns of farmers in rural Iowa voted, were counted, and were represented.

Trump played a fair game, straight-up. Russia did not hijack the election. Al Qaeda did not drop bombs to force a do-over. He WON. And now it is time for EVERYONE in this country to give him a fair shake.

 

A crow is considered a nuisance bird you know like you.

 

I thought I smelled something.

 

The base ignorance of the American populace is amazing. For fucks sake nothing is written in stone as of yet.

 

Hillary Supporters Are Clinging to One Last Final Hope. Here's How Likely That's Going to Work Out

At last count on Wednesday, Donald Trump held 290 electoral votes. He needs 270 to retain his hold on the White House. Hillary Clinton, despite losing the Electoral College (EC), won the popular vote by approximately 200,000 votes.

Based on that, many Americans are saying that this proves that the EC isn't “fair”:



Popular vote:
Hillary: 59,236,903 votes
Donald: 59,085,787 votes
The people elected Hillary, the system elected Donald

— George Takei (@removed) November 9, 2016
...
The irony is that at this point, the EC may be their only hope.

There is a little-known loophole in the EC that could still place Clinton in the White House: the “faithless elector.”

This phenomenon, which allows electors to vote their consciences in place of their pledges when they deem it necessary, was explained by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 68:

"The office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”

The EC will cast the final votes for president on December 19th, in their respective states. As you can see, Hillary fans are getting their hopes up about it:



There is hope! The #faithlesselector #imstillwithher https://t.co/9hqZ6smPzk

— Lisa Brenner (@removed) November 10, 2016



And while there is the possibility that the electors could go rogue, these wishful thinkers might want to note that 99% of electors throughout our nation's history have voted as pledged.

FairVote.com explains the history of faithless electors:

"Since the founding of the Electoral College, there have been 157 faithless electors. 71 of these votes were changed because the original candidate died before the day on which the Electoral College cast its votes.

Three of the votes were not cast at all as three electors chose to abstain from casting their electoral vote for any candidate.

The other 82 electoral votes were changed on the personal initiative of the elector."
​

Faithless electors are technically barred from voting against their pledges in 29 states, but the penalties are minimal — they include fines of up to $1,000 — and no elector has ever been prosecuted.

Despite that, any number of rogue electors could theoretically balk and instead of voting for Donald Trump as pledged, cast a vote for Hillary Clinton. If enough electors were to become “faithless,” Clinton would win the EC and the presidency.

But according to Bustle.com, the likelihood of enough electors becoming faithless in this election is fairly slim:

"This year, as TIME magazine reported, there were four faithless electors who were outspoken about going rogue — two identified as Republican, and two as Democrats.

So what does that mean? While four faithless electors would make a difference in a tight Electoral College race, that's not what we're looking at right now.

The electoral votes coming in so far show 233 for Clinton and 305 for Trump, in which case, it'd be unrealistic to think there would be enough electors to unexpectedly do a complete turn-around and put a dent in the outcome."
​

In addition, the final EC vote is subject to approval by Congress on January 6th. Even if the EC does secure the election for Clinton, Congress — which is still controlled by a Republican majority — would most likely overturn their vote.

 

Frankly, the EC is in place for exactly the reason we're seeing with this election, being how close it is (total vote wise). So votes in individual states determine their A,B,C selection, and that's it, close voting ends there, and that state as a whole picks a singular candidate. Then their EC votes are applied thusly, yet the entire close race thing ends at the state border. Frankly, I believe we could eliminate actual human EC voters/representatives all together. Them changing the vote from what the majority of their state population wants is BS. Simple fix, get rid of them.

Hush....an alias

 

Ahahahah never expected such thing to be disscussed on an adult forum)))

 

What did you expect?

 

Kinda....sex talks))
I never liked american politics and i'm a convinced militarist))) so we better stop here)

 

Why yes, I guess Donald Trump can become president. Now I didn't believe that myself. And he's sure not who I supported. He's not who I voted for. And his election is not what I believe is best for our country and the majority of Americans agreed with me. But that is not the way we do things in this country so Donald Trump is elected as our next president and as an American who believes in our democracy, our government, and our constitution I have to accept that.

But now the conservative/Republican/Tea Party/White Supremacists of this nation will have to do more than complain and gloat. Now they will actually have to led and govern. So we will just have to wait and see how they do with that.

And some on here can probably count on me to check back from time to time and see how many manufacturing jobs Trump has brought back. How many coal jobs he has brought back. How he's doing on tearing up all our trade agreements. How well he is ending the treat of ISIS and terrorism. How well he's doing at rebuilding our inner cities and being the best president for blacks and minorities. How well he's doing for being the best president for women. How well he's doing at repealing and replacing the ACA. How well he's doing at deporting all undocumented immigrants. And of course how well that great big, beautiful wall is going on our southern border.

 

Wrong again stumbles, the majority of the American did not vote at all, and of those who did, .002 more of them picked your candidate. Hardly a point to gloat over.

 

I don't get it , she lost yet people are protesting? Isn't that what she said Trump's people would do when they lost?

 

Well, and there's the issue. Now that Trump is our man the question is; what sort of President did we get? We know what kind of man we got; a pompous gas bag. What kind of president may very well be a different thing all together. Probably not, but it could be that the solemn weight of President will ............. level out ........... Donald's pomposity.

One thing is for sure. The Hillary supporters, or to be more accurate, the Trump non supporters, will be primed to jump on every thing he does. He could probably authorize Federal funding for abortions on demand and the non supporters would find a reason to froth and protest. In fact, it's already started.
Fair enough.
The Obama non supporters certainly didn't start off giving Obama a truly fair chance; the criticism started almost at once. Of course, Obama non supporters didn't threaten to abandon the country, or actually proceed to burn their own cities in protest.
Before we spend much time criticizing them though, lets keep in mind that Trump non supporters are not constrained by any concept of respect for a difference in opinion. They are absolutely, positively 100% convinced that they are right and everyone else is not only wrong, but fucking wrong and should be properly demonized. Criticism is not going to get much attention or reaction from this bunch, it is easiest to just keep in mind that Trump non supporters are not accountable for backing up their beliefs with facts, nor will facts have much chance to change their mind.

We already know that George Soros has strong feelings about the outcome of this election; and he's already called a summit of his liberal friends to map out ways to sabotage Trump's presidency.

So be it.

Lets see what the Donald can do.

 

The popular vote does not matter in the presidential election.

The Electoral College ensures that all states and all citizens are enfranchised.

There are many ironies.

But one irony apropos to this place is that some of the people who are complaining about the popular vote disparity claim to come from sparsely populated states, like Colorado.

If the presidential election were conducted on a straight-up popular vote, Colorado and other sparse states would not count at all. Candidates would not even bother campaigning there. Idaho, Arkansas, Iowa.... forget it. No coverage. The votes there simply would not count.

The candidates would skip those places entirely. They would saturate the west coast, the northeast corridor, and a couple other populous metro areas, like Chicago and Miami/Dade. They would disregard the rest of the country.

By adjusting resources for those rules, Trump likely would have slaughtered Clinton on the popular vote, by crushing her in the cities. Hell... in that case he might even have taken her head-on by running as a Democrat.


When all is said and done, it will be shown that the Hillary Clinton machine spent upwards of TWO billion dollars, counting union and corporate money into super-PACS. And they couldn't even take the senate or make inroads on governorships, both of which are straight-up ballots on population. This post-election grousing would be amusing were it not for all the violent protests. This is sour grapes of the highest order, fueled in large parts by a combination of ignorance and naivety.

 

Technically the popular vote does count but it's about how many states you get the popular vote in and Trump won the popular vote in the most states. To be exact he got the popular vote in 30 states to Hillary's 20 (including the District of Columbia)

 

[Hellcat41979, post: 7932167, member: 793771"]Technically the popular vote does count but it's about how many states you get the popular vote in and Trump won the popular vote in the most states. To be exact he got the popular vote in 30 states to Hillary's 20 (including the District of Columbia)[/QUOTE]
Bullshit! The popular vote is erealivent. What matters is the electoral votes that's what a candidate needs to be elected

 

There is no national election for president, only separate state elections. For a candidate to become president, he or she must win enough state elections to garner a majority of electoral votes. presidential campaigns, therefore, focus on winning states, not on winning a national majority.