• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

US President 2016 - the Great Horse Race

It's still around, unlike the Donald J. Trump "Foundation".

and "the people" didn't reject HRC. She won the popular vote by almost 3 million.

The founding fathers wisely chose the "electoral college vote" to stop mob rule. To become president one needs to win a majority of states, not one or two of the most populous states such as California which has always voted democrat. From memory HRC was way behind Trump's total of 302 college votes despite 3 million voters voting for the radical left!
 
and "the people" didn't reject HRC. She won the popular vote by almost 3 million.

The founding fathers wisely chose the "electoral college vote" to stop mob rule. To become president one needs to win a majority of states, not one or two of the most populous states such as California which has always voted democrat.
"Mob rule"... for Hillary Clinton?! You always impress when it comes to making such statements.
From memory HRC was way behind Trump's total of 302 college votes despite 3 million voters voting for the radical left!
She lost by a total of 100,000 votes in the three blue states she lost that gave Trump the election. That 100,000 votes is the popular difference that led to the 64 EV victory, which really isn't that large of a victory.
 
The founding fathers wisely chose the "electoral college vote" to stop mob rule. To become president one needs to win a majority of states, not one or two of the most populous states such as California which has always voted democrat. From memory HRC was way behind Trump's total of 302 college votes despite 3 million voters voting for the radical left!

Bullshit.

At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct national election of the president. But the savvy Virginian James Madison responded that such a system would prove unacceptable to the South: “The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.” In other words, in a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (more than half a million in all) of course could not vote. But the Electoral College—a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech—instead let each southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall count.
http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/
 
and "the people" didn't reject HRC. She won the popular vote by almost 3 million.

The founding fathers wisely chose the "electoral college vote" to stop mob rule. To become president one needs to win a majority of states, not one or two of the most populous states such as California which has always voted democrat. From memory HRC was way behind Trump's total of 302 college votes despite 3 million voters voting for the radical left!

They also chose the electoral college vote because:

The process of election affords a moral certainty, that 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. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.

And we all know how well that turned out...
 
The founding fathers wisely chose the "electoral college vote" to stop mob rule. To become president one needs to win a majority of states, not one or two of the most populous states such as California which has always voted democrat.
"Mob rule"... for Hillary Clinton?! You always impress when it comes to making such statements.
From memory HRC was way behind Trump's total of 302 college votes despite 3 million voters voting for the radical left!
She lost by a total of 100,000 votes in the three blue states she lost that gave Trump the election. That 100,000 votes is the popular difference that led to the 64 EV victory, which really isn't that large of a victory.

Those "100.000" wisely chose not to extend Obama's legacy.
 
and "the people" didn't reject HRC. She won the popular vote by almost 3 million.

The founding fathers wisely chose the "electoral college vote" to stop mob rule. To become president one needs to win a majority of states, not one or two of the most populous states such as California which has always voted democrat. From memory HRC was way behind Trump's total of 302 college votes despite 3 million voters voting for the radical left!

And yet, we got "mob rule". Being subjected to a president that was elected by a mob of racists and putin puppets is not my idea of a democracy. And frankly, the electoral college was supposed to PREVENT a Trump from ever being elected. You, who does not even live in the USA, have no idea what you are talking about.
 
CNN just reported Trump reporting CNN reporting on Trump. Did I say that right?

Anyway, Trump was saying what CNN was going to say he was saying.

They haven't yet; they've simply showed the clip, but I can't help but wonder if they will. There's this weird thing about predicting specifics about those that are privy to them. It would be like telling me that I'm going to choose vanilla as my ice-cream of choice tomorrow. There's just so much control. I wonder if the headlines that don't read, "rants and raves" will be as deliberate as my electing to not choose my otherwise flavor of choice.
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/...ill-hold-a-what-else-campaign-rally.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — In an extraordinarily swift return to politicking after a tumultuous first month in office, the White House on Wednesday said President Trump will hold the first campaign rally of his four-week-old administration on Saturday.

The rally, to be held in an airplane hangar in Melbourne, Fla., is an indication that Mr. Trump, who has sometimes felt isolated in the White House, is eager to get outside of Washington and relive the rapturous reception that greeted him during the presidential campaign. Mr. Trump exulted in large crowds assembled at cavernous venues throughout his 2016 bid, and spent the first days of his presidency quibbling over how many Americans attended his inauguration.

I can't.

I can't.

I just can't
 
^That story is off-topic. It should go in a 2020 election thread.
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/...ill-hold-a-what-else-campaign-rally.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — In an extraordinarily swift return to politicking after a tumultuous first month in office, the White House on Wednesday said President Trump will hold the first campaign rally of his four-week-old administration on Saturday.

The rally, to be held in an airplane hangar in Melbourne, Fla., is an indication that Mr. Trump, who has sometimes felt isolated in the White House, is eager to get outside of Washington and relive the rapturous reception that greeted him during the presidential campaign. Mr. Trump exulted in large crowds assembled at cavernous venues throughout his 2016 bid, and spent the first days of his presidency quibbling over how many Americans attended his inauguration.

I can't.

I can't.

I just can't

I understand the Zeppelinfeld in Nürnberg makes a fine venue for a big rally of political supporters.
 
It seems that HRC, and those of the left supporters have and will not accept defeat. Even when Ronald Reagan, or George Bush won the presidency, there was some outrage from these socialists, but in 2017 it's stepped up a notch or even two. Must be really galling that the socialist Utopia seems so far away!
 
It seems that HRC, and those of the left supporters have and will not accept defeat. Even when Ronald Reagan, or George Bush won the presidency, there was some outrage from these socialists, but in 2017 it's stepped up a notch or even two. Must be really galling that the socialist Utopia seems so far away!

Yeah, it's almost as vitriolic as the right-wing outrage over Obama's election...
The main difference being that Obama was a statesman, and Cheato is an incompetent conman.
 
It seems that HRC, and those of the left supporters have and will not accept defeat.
What's even funnier, though, is Trump's rally. He is still campaigning because that's more fun than leading. He will not accept victory!

It was pretty clear that in the campaign he played the underdog pegged to lose. He assumed he would lose. He's been accredited with that being a conscious plan. But it's getting increasingly clear that it wasn't. He's a whiny opposition politician, even when he's in power. Bizarre.
 
It seems that HRC, and those of the left supporters have and will not accept defeat. Even when Ronald Reagan, or George Bush won the presidency, there was some outrage from these socialists, but in 2017 it's stepped up a notch or even two. Must be really galling that the socialist Utopia seems so far away!
Yeah, it's almost as vitriolic as the right-wing outrage over Obama's election...
The main difference being that Obama was a statesman, and Cheato is an incompetent conman.
It's such a big contrast. To use a Roman-Emperor comparison,

Barack Obama =  Marcus Aurelius
Donald Trump =  Commodus

Like BO, MA wrote some autobiography, his Meditations, originally "To Myself". He comes across as very thoughtful, diligent, and dutiful, even if not very successful, and he writes of avoiding such temptations as retiring to some country estate.

Like DT, Commodus was a megalomaniac. He liked to fight as a gladiator, though some of his "fighting" consisted of killing tied-up injured people and people with various disabilities. He also renamed a lot of stuff after himself, like Rome, its Senate, its army, the grain fleets from Africa, and the months of the year. He was eventually murdered in a coup.
 
Back
Top Bottom