American Elections

[Earniel]

Congratulations to our American mooters with their new president. I'd love to hear your reactions. How surprising was the final result for you?

[Valandil]

Very surprising to me. I really thought Hillary Clinton would win it. It was such an odd campaign though.

I'll comment more later.

Thanks for bringing it up.

[Earniel]

Odd? That's not quite the word I would describe for this campaign. But my first choice of words would beeped so at best I would describe the election campaigning that filtered through to my part of Europe as 'degrading'.

I've been briefly looking, but I can't find how much of the voting populace actually voted in this election. Anyone knows? Was the voting turn-out higher or lower compared to the previous presidential election?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Congratulations to our American mooters with their new president. I'd love to hear your reactions. How surprising was the final result for you?

Both options were horrible I wore black on election day. It's so sad - it's gotten so that honest, decent people can't get through the process; you have to be a corrupt millionaire willing to lie and backstab to get rid of the actual good people

I thought Clinton would win. She got the popular vote but not the electoral college vote, which is the thing that counts. I thought it was a higher turnout than normal, but it looks like it started that way (because of our differing timezones, the eastern states' results come in first) but then dropped off and was lower than normal.

[Mari]

On this side of the pond, no one was charmed by the choices either, but we all thought Hillary would win. But hey, we all thought the British wouldn't vote leave and they did anyway, so...

[Alcuin]

Polling before the US election was deliberately skewed to show Hillary with a commanding lead to build a “bandwagon effect�: Democrats were oversampled, while Republicans and independents were systematically undersampled. This was done by “professional� polling firms, particularly those working for the television networks, nearly all of whom Wikileaks revealed to be working closely and (they thought) clandestinely with Clinton. Not only was this patently dishonest – after this, who’ll trust a US pollster or news network for a generation going forward? – it was foolish: Hillary’s supporters expected an easy win, so many of them stayed home. I expect this same polling tactic was employed leading up to the Brexit vote.

[Insidious Rex]

So "rigged" polling for Hilary allowed Trump to win? What garbage. Can we stop looking for conspiracy theories constantly? Especially when you win? If this election proved anything it was that you cant rig an election no matter how hard you try (or a primary for that matter) and no matter how much money you throw at it and that the most unlikely (nightmare) scenario can come true when theres enough people willing to elect a womanizing unqualified hate mongering buffoon despite ALL the terrible horrible things he did and said. They dont care because either they are stupid enough to believe it when he says he will magically regenerate steel and coal jobs that have been extinct for over a generation or they just wanted to screw up the system and knew Donald Trump would certainly be the best candidate for that. So they voted for a brick through the window. Not caring if he was qualified or competent or had any idea what he was doing at all. They voted to crown the pig as king feeling it was the ultimate way to thumb their noses at and show how little they think of Washington and the Federal Government. Get ready world, our insistence that everything in life must play out like the worst most unbelievable story line for a terrible reality TV program is now about to explode in the highest office on earth. Are you not entertained?

[The Gaffer]

If anything the election was rigged the other way. I'm looking at you, Mr FBI man, Russian hackers, mysteriously dropped child rape charges after death threats, etc etc.

Lots in common with Brexit - brick through the window, blatant lies, xenophobia, false equivalence, utter failure of the media to scrutinise any of it in a meaningful way.

The one additional thing at play is plain ol' misogyny. Seems like for a lot of folk, it was bad enough they had to have a black man as president for 8 years. No way were they going to let a woman in.

All in all, hard to say what's more depressing. The specific policy idiocy (e.g. climate change), the long-term harm to Americans (e.g. packing the Supreme Court with radges) or what it says about values generally.

[Mari]

What are 'radges'?

[mithrand1r]

Originally Posted by Rebecca Harrington and Skye Gould

The data available on Monday show nearly 134 million ballots had been counted, according to the United States Elections Project. This sets a new overall record, surpassing the all-time high of 132 million Americans in the 2008 contest between Barack Obama and John McCain.

While results are still trickling in, that total suggests that only 58% of the country's 232 million eligible voters actually voted this year.

I was disappointed in the choices for president. Of 300+ million people this was the "best" the country could do.

I could not justify voting for either major party candidate, although I am glad Clinton is not in charge. Hopefully Trump will be better than he sounds.

The campaign was one low point followed by another. Adding insult to injury was that it lasted until November 8. (1st Tuesday after the 1st Monday)

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Odd? That's not quite the word I would describe for this campaign. But my first choice of words would beeped so at best I would describe the election campaigning that filtered through to my part of Europe as 'degrading'.

I've been briefly looking, but I can't find how much of the voting populace actually voted in this election. Anyone knows? Was the voting turn-out higher or lower compared to the previous presidential election?

[Earniel]

Thank you for those numbers and the link, Mithrand1r.

For someone like me who comes from a country with mandatory voting, it is kinda mindboggling that in the 'biggest democracy on earth' one can become president with maybe only 25% of the eligible voting populace behind you.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Both options were horrible I wore black on election day. It's so sad - it's gotten so that honest, decent people can't get through the process; you have to be a corrupt millionaire willing to lie and backstab to get rid of the actual good people

At least you went to vote. (So go you!) Too many couldn't be bothered.

While I can intellectually understand why Clinton would be a horrible political choice for some, what I can not comprehend -CANNOT- simply. Cannot. Understand is that follows that Trump is in ANY way a suitable candidate for presidency. Did anyone actual LISTEN to that guy and still vote for him? What does that say about his followers? No, cannot understand.

Originally Posted by Mari

On this side of the pond, no one was charmed by the choices either, but we all thought Hillary would win. But hey, we all thought the British wouldn't vote leave and they did anyway, so...

Yeah, I think maybe the Brexit should have taught us to know better. After all, we saw the same things there: big lies, poorly understood consequences, and wrong poll results.

Originally Posted by Alcuin

Polling before the US election was deliberately skewed to show Hillary with a commanding lead to build a “bandwagon effect�: Democrats were oversampled, while Republicans and independents were systematically undersampled. This was done by “professional� polling firms, particularly those working for the television networks, nearly all of whom Wikileaks revealed to be working closely and (they thought) clandestinely with Clinton. Not only was this patently dishonest – after this, who’ll trust a US pollster or news network for a generation going forward? – it was foolish: Hillary’s supporters expected an easy win, so many of them stayed home. I expect this same polling tactic was employed leading up to the Brexit vote.

Sounds a little too simple, though. But conspiracy theories always make for better stories, but not necessarily right ones. Something we saw enough of this election, methinks.

I actually lost a lot of respect for Wikileaks on this one. With so openly trying to manipulate the elections, wikileaks have shown their anti-establishment bias is more important to them that getting out the truth. I can sort of get it, if the rape-charges against Assange really are political as he claims, but still, if you're going to be a whistleblower, get information out, do not curate it to inflict the most damage to your opponent.

I did have my worries about the polling mechanisms used because it seemed , more so than with previous elections, that new polls were coming out almost several times a day. With so much constant polling, how does one keep your polling groups statistically viable? (on a eligible population of 120 millions, your sample needs to be big too) I mean, you can't be calling the same people several times aday with the question 'And who would you be voting for now?' People would go spare after a few calls.

According to one expert over here, the polls suffered from an effect that we see in our own elections too: That the people polled will lie about who they will vote for if the candidate they intend to vote for is deemed morally undesirable by society.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

If anything the election was rigged the other way. I'm looking at you, Mr FBI man, Russian hackers, mysteriously dropped child rape charges after death threats, etc etc.

Not sure if you can call that rigging but we sure saw quite a bit of manipulation techniques trotted out this election. My guess is that in elections to come this will be ramped up because if this election and Brexit have shown us anything then it is that lying and manipulation works. And that the liars get away with it relatively painless, something which, personally, drives me up the wall.

It seems people just like being lied to if they're the sort of lies they want to hear. "We'll make America great again!" "Without Europe we have millions more to pour in our healthcare!" "Voter fraud is real!" "Nations will now be waiting in line to sign international treaties that will be only in our favour ever!" "Clinton is criminal!" "We can totally kick out anyone we want to! But of course we won't use that power against you..."

Yeah. Right.

[mithrand1r]

My response is in blue below:

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Thank you for those numbers and the link, Mithrand1r.

For someone like me who comes from a country with mandatory voting, it is kinda mindboggling that in the 'biggest democracy on earth' one can become president with maybe only 25% of the eligible voting populace behind you.

Technically the US is a Republic and not a direct democracy. (I think you probably knew that ) Actually, I do not think there are any democracies in the world today. There are several representative forms of government.

If people are uninformed on the issues they are probably better off not voting. If one is cynical, one might think that there is little reason to vote.

Unfortunately most if not all types of government tend to attract those who wish to dominate and control others. These busybodies and others obsessed with controlling others make life difficult for many.


At least you went to vote. (So go you!) Too many couldn't be bothered.

While I can intellectually understand why Clinton would be a horrible political choice for some, what I can not comprehend -CANNOT- simply. Cannot. Understand is that follows that Trump is in ANY way a suitable candidate for presidency. Did anyone actual LISTEN to that guy and still vote for him? What does that say about his followers? No, cannot understand.


I think one reason that many people chose Trump is due to being fed-up wit typical politicians. People are tired of the way they have been treated by politicians (both Democrats & Republicans) over many years. Trump is a way to give the figurative middle finger to the political system. May not change things, but people are not happy. Might be part of reason why Bernie Sanders did well against Clinton.

Yeah, I think maybe the Brexit should have taught us to know better. After all, we saw the same things there: big lies, poorly understood consequences, and wrong poll results.


Sounds a little too simple, though. But conspiracy theories always make for better stories, but not necessarily right ones. Something we saw enough of this election, methinks.

I actually lost a lot of respect for Wikileaks on this one. With so openly trying to manipulate the elections, wikileaks have shown their anti-establishment bias is more important to them that getting out the truth. I can sort of get it, if the rape-charges against Assange really are political as he claims, but still, if you're going to be a whistleblower, get information out, do not curate it to inflict the most damage to your opponent.

There are probably many that would like to influence the outcomes of elections. One can always ask "cui bono" to try to make sense of the actions of others. May not always work 100% of time, but it is a good indicator of motive.

I did have my worries about the polling mechanisms used because it seemed , more so than with previous elections, that new polls were coming out almost several times a day. With so much constant polling, how does one keep your polling groups statistically viable? (on a eligible population of 120 millions, your sample needs to be big too) I mean, you can't be calling the same people several times aday with the question 'And who would you be voting for now?' People would go spare after a few calls.


If a proper sample is chosen that is representative of the population in question then the sample size does not need to be too large relatively speaking.

Of course the larger the sample, the more confident one can be with data found.
example from website:
99% confidence level
±3 Confidence Interval
150,000,000 votors
only needs a sample size of 1849 people.


According to one expert over here, the polls suffered from an effect that we see in our own elections too: That the people polled will lie about who they will vote for if the candidate they intend to vote for is deemed morally undesirable by society.

Agreed. Basically conclusions reached are only as good as the data used for the conclusions. garbage in -- garbage out.


Not sure if you can call that rigging but we sure saw quite a bit of manipulation techniques trotted out this election. My guess is that in elections to come this will be ramped up because if this election and Brexit have shown us anything then it is that lying and manipulation works. And that the liars get away with it relatively painless, something which, personally, drives me up the wall.

It seems people just like being lied to if they're the sort of lies they want to hear. "We'll make America great again!" "Without Europe we have millions more to pour in our healthcare!" "Voter fraud is real!" "Nations will now be waiting in line to sign international treaties that will be only in our favour ever!" "Clinton is criminal!" "We can totally kick out anyone we want to! But of course we won't use that power against you..."

A catch-22, people do not want to be lied to, but they tend to vote for those that promise the most for them, regardless of their honesty.

Yeah. Right.

Interesting reads for anyone interested:
The Law -- Frederic Bastiat
(pdf file)

Henry Hazlitt -- Economics in One Lesson (pdf file)

Lysander Spooner
No Treason I --1867
No Treason II--1867
No Treason VI--1870

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by mithrand1r

Technically the US is a Republic and not a direct democracy. (I think you probably knew that ) Actually, I do not think there are any democracies in the world today. There are several representative forms of government.

I know that the USA is a republic with no direct election of their president, but there is no reason a republic can't be a democracy if you take democracy at its most basic: a political system where common people vote for their representation. Whether one's country's elections are direct or through electors, I still think the term democracy applies.

If people are uninformed on the issues they are probably better off not voting. If one is cynical, one might think that there is little reason to vote.

I don't know. One way, no vote isn't always better than a bad vote. Another way, voting is a right many people fought for, suffered for, died for. If one can't be bothered to take an interest in who rules, one gets the sort of rulers who can't be bothered to take an interest in you.

[Valandil]

It was ten days ago, but I said I'd comment more later. If I can fight well enough to keep my boys from a computer take-over, I'll try to get everything in.

I did not vote for Trump - I voted for a third party, conservative candidate. I was very disappointed in and frustrated about Trump throughout the electoral process.

However - I'm glad that he was elected, rather than Hillary Clinton.

Besides my disappointment with Trump, I'm even more disappointed in our media. They were in the tank for Clinton. They've been trending that way for years, always favoring the liberal/progressive/Democratic Party candidates and agenda. To the extent that they have given up on unbiased reporting and have become a mouthpiece for the Left. It was far more evident this time around. Or at least, thanks to WikiLeaks, we found out about more. I mean - leaking debate questions to Hillary's campaign? And if it happened once, do you think it happened other times as well? I saw a video clip where a Clinton staffer is typing on his phone and showing it to a reporter with a microphone. The reporter then asks Clinton a question. The staffer types some more, and shows that to the reporter while Clinton is answering. The reporter asks another question, after again seeing what was on the phone. And... they did their best to report anything bad about Trump (most often out of context) and to avoid reporting anything bad about Clinton. Anything about Trump has been presented in a biased way.

So if the European news agencies get their stories from our mainstream media, it's no wonder you Europeans have a skewed view of the situation. After all, many Americans do also.

I don't think the pollsters intentionally over-represented votes for Clinton. But I think what happened is - many people who got calls from the pollsters, which was often from these same biased media outlets - didn't care to answer, if they were supporting Trump. I don't think they were embarrassed or ashamed to say (to an anonymous person). I think they simply didn't care to talk to the media that was so clearly biased against their candidate.

As I said, I don't like a lot of things about Trump. He is NOT of the character I want to see in a President of the United States. However - Bill Clinton is guilty of doing everything (with women) that Donald Trump is. Maybe more. Bill isn't running this time - Hillary is, right? Well... Hillary didn't just "stand by her man" - she attacked any woman who accused Bill of taking liberties, abuse, rape - whatever it was. Even from before their White House days, when he was governor of Arkansas. Yet Hillary talks like we need to protect women from abuse. And you know what - Bill gets a pass, and Hillary gets a pass, both from the media and the American people (at least, the Left). But - not Trump. Fair?

Lots of immigration talk. Trump wants to tighten up our southern borders, and deport illegal aliens convicted of (other) crimes. He also wants to limit / reduce / stop / vet immigration from predominantly Muslim countries. BOTH of these issues were advanced by Bill Clinton in the 1990's. But Trump is so extreme in wanting to do them now? For the first - 40,000 illegal aliens cross our southern border every month. Half a million a year! I was stunned with footage the summer of 2015 of people - including children - just streaming over. And the Border Patrol's duty was no longer to turn them away. It was to take them to a shelter, provide meals, put them up in hotels, then send them off to different part of America - going onto our social services, with a "promise" to show up at a court on a certain day. Really? As for the Muslim situation - some question the constitutionality of this. But our constitution is not to protect those coming into the country. It's to protect those IN the country.

Registry of immigrating Muslims? I don't think it's going to happen. And that would be wrong. But I'd also WANT us to be very prudent about who we allow into our country - and see the difficulties of bringing in hundreds of thousands of refugees from the Middle East. Causing issues in Europe now, isn't it? And these people - most of them would rather be in their homelands, not here. If their homelands were peaceful and livable.

Trump is called a racist. I don't even listen to that anymore. Because Trump was never a racist until he ran for President as a Republican. According to the Democrats, and our beloved media - EVERY Republican candidate (especially for President, but the rest too) is a racist. It's so lame - but it's about all they've got. And it works as an attack, for many. Of course, they're now extending it to his candidates for staff and cabinet appointments. Ridiculous! It's fear-mongering of the worst order. But... it gets attention, which is what our media wants. And it gets people stirred up, so that they create stories - which is also what our media wants. The KKK endorses Trump? So what, they will always endorse the candidate to the Right over the candidate to the Left (even if those two are both more to the middle), because they're extreme Right - so the one on the Right is a bit closer. And the Klan probably likes the immigration restraints suggested.

All this hubbub about the Electoral College. I still think it's a good system - better than direct popular vote. If we change it, and the Democrats lose the next election by popular vote and would have won it by electoral vote - they'd want to change it right back. This is about sour grapes, and about winning. But to me - the electoral college keeps us from have voter fraud determine our President. As it is now, the effects of fraud in one state are limited to the results of that state. It contains the damage, just a bit. If we open it to the popular vote - every vote counts just as much - including all the fraudulent ones. And I think voter fraud is widespread, and that furthermore, we have a system that allows for easy fraud. I lived long in Chicago, and it has a well-deserved reputation for fraud. Frankly, the Democrats seem especially gifted at it. But if we remove the restraints of the electoral college - both major party organizations will get into a race over it. Some even wonder - with the current popular vote totals - if some were cast by non-citizens. Maybe even illegal immigrants.

To illustrate how easy it could be - when I went to vote, I did not have to show any form of identification. This is the law, if you can imagine it! And that's the way Democrats want to keep it. There's nothing to prevent someone from walking into a polling place and voting, then going to another polling place and voting in somebody else's name there. The "somebody else" has to be on the rolls, but certain places don't clean them off too well. Like if somebody dies, or moves away and registers to vote someplace else.

Do you have this in Europe? Voting without an ID? Does it seem crazy?

Anyway - people will complain about the electoral college, but that isn't going away. It would take 3/4th's of the states to approve the change. Only 13 have to dig in their heels and oppose it. And right now, I think well over half the states would want to keep it.

OK now... what's so bad about Hillary Clinton?

Hillary ran a really bad campaign. She didn't make herself available to the press. She didn't give press conferences. She avoided the public spotlight. She probably thought she had it in the bag, and didn't want to be caught in a mistake of some kind. She also has some mysterious physical condition that most of the media works hard to hide. Maybe Parkinson's, I don't know.

Trump expressed concern in advance about the election being "rigged" - and was ridiculed for it. Yet Clinton worked with the DNC (Democratic National Party) to keep Bernie Sanders from legitimately challenge her. The DNC was in the tank for her - instead of letting their best candidate naturally rise. So in addition to the specter of voter fraud and media bias, Trump had to be concerned that she would have something else in the works. After all, she had the primaries rigged. Besides that - she was caught wearing an earpiece at one debate, but it wasn't widely reported. At the first debate - she signalled the moderator when she wanted help, like 12 times I think, and she got that help each time. Oh - she said she was "prepared for the debate, and she was prepared to be President!" But she stacked the deck in the debate. Friendly moderators, and either getting questions in advance - or maybe even providing the questions. And they never asked Clinton what would have been the "hard questions" for her. Just Trump.

Email controversy - I think it's important that Hillary was careless with our state secrets. And many other people - regular people - have gone to jail for far less than she did, in handling of government information. But President Obama's Justice Department worked to prevent any kind of prosecution. Bill Clinton even got to have a secret meeting with the Attorney General, while Hillary was openly under investigation. Rotten to the core, all of it! When President Nixon crossed the line, his own Attorney General revolted. That doesn't happen with this administration. After all - it's not about justice. It's all about advancing an agenda.

My greatest concern about the emails that never came to light is - what else was she hiding? There were some emails released which indicated a "pay-for-play" arrangement with the Clinton Foundation (how many more are there?). So, get this - a foreign country makes a large donation to the Clinton Foundation in order to get access to our Secretary of State? And more recently - access to someone who will apparently become the next President of the US? Foreign contributions that can affect state policy? And not just a few - a constant stream! What is promised? To whom? And why doesn't our media seem to care? And THIS is who we want as President? Someone beholden to foreign leaders? And the Foundation is NOT a charitable organization. Hillary said in one debate that the Foundation gives away 90% of what comes in. Not on your life! They give away less than 10%! Its sole purpose is to enrich the Clinton Family. And the riches come from those who want access and influence.

Pay-for-play is part of the Clinton Legacy, even before the Clinton Foundation. Chinese military leaders stayed at the White House while Bill Clinton was President. And I believe Chinese money went to the DNC back then. And now... China has a stealth fighter that looks an awful lot like ours...

I think President Obama's foreign policy has been bad (his domestic policy as well) - and Clinton seems to be right in step. The "Arab Spring" was disastrous, and the administration pushed for "regime change" in so many countries: Libya, Egypt, Syria. All three are disasters, even though the change never came about in Syria. We're on the wrong side in Syria - and now, Hillary talks about confronting Russia there. Some are worried that Trump will get us into a war with his perceived recklessness, but Hillary seems like she would lead us right into conflict with Russia.

Then - as fringe-crazy as this sound, there are a LOT of Clinton enemies, especially Hillary Clinton enemies, who meet mysterious deaths.

I've gone long, but I haven't even gotten started. As I said - I think we're better off with Trump than with Hillary Clinton. Don't know if anyone will have had patience to read all of this - my congratulations if you did.

And, I mean, let's dispense with electing multiple people from a single family! There are plenty of us Americans around, so let's start looking somewhere else!

Whichever was elected, we have a big problem. It's our national debt. It has (more than?) doubled during President Obama's 8 years. I believe it's now getting in the range of $20 trillion. That's about $60,000 for every man, woman and child in this country. As head of a family of five, that's $300,000 for us! That's more than what I paid for my house! We can't continue like this. We need to be fiscally responsible. I don't know if Donald Trump will be - or can lead us in that direction. But I don't think Hillary Clinton would have tried. That's the thing that can bring disaster on us all.

~ Done ~
(for now)

[mithrand1r]

Originally Posted by Valandil

...
Whichever was elected, we have a big problem. It's our national debt. It has (more than?) doubled during President Obama's 8 years. I believe it's now getting in the range of $20 trillion. That's about $60,000 for every man, woman and child in this country. As head of a family of five, that's $300,000 for us! That's more than what I paid for my house! We can't continue like this. We need to be fiscally responsible. I don't know if Donald Trump will be - or can lead us in that direction. But I don't think Hillary Clinton would have tried. That's the thing that can bring disaster on us all.

~ Done ~
(for now)

Valandil,

Well said.

An impartial media would be nice. Especially one that holds all to a high standard.

Although I do not have high expectations of DT, I would like for him to actually fail before people start protesting. In other words give him the opportunity to do well.

The debt is astronomical. Bush II doubled the debt from the end of Clinton, and BHO more than doubled the debt from the end of Bush II.

I do not know how the debt can keep increasing without everything shutting down. I wish I was able to personally run up debt like this without issue. (instead I would get everything repossessed and put in jail for fraud)

As I have done after previous elections, I hope that things will be better and the president performs well for the people of the country. If not, the mundanes (not the political elites) will be the ones to bear the brunt of government failure.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

I know that the USA is a republic with no direct election of their president, but there is no reason a republic can't be a democracy if you take democracy at its most basic: a political system where common people vote for their representation. Whether one's country's elections are direct or through electors, I still think the term democracy applies.

Eärniel,

Sometimes I wonder if there is any significant difference between a monarchy and what we have as a representative republic.

In my own congressional district there are roughly 750k to 1 million people represented by a single person. I know I do not agree on every issue with everyone else, yet we are all supposed to be represented by this individual. It is practically impossible for the congressman to represent everyone on every issue. He just does what he wants to do (hopefully with the best interests of those he is supposed to represent) regardless of want I (or other individuals) might want.

At least with a monarchy, there is no illusion of the general public having a say in how things are run.

Apologies for the rant, but those in politics have made me cynical over the years.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Valandil

they did their best to report anything bad about Trump (most often out of context) and to avoid reporting anything bad about Clinton. Anything about Trump has been presented in a biased way.

This is just absurd. Out of context? Are you serious? How is saying Mexicans are drug dealers and rapists out of context? How is saying “if Ivanka weren't my daughter, perhaps I'd be dating her� out of context? How is saying “I grab women by the pu**y� or calling them “fat pigs� out of context exactly? The man is a walking shock quote generator. It seemed like every single day he was doing something or saying something outrageous or repugnant or worse. And “the media� is taking it ALL out of context? Come on Val…

If anything you have it backwards. “The media� helped create his campaign by broadcasting him 24/7 BECAUSE he would say things that people were shocked by and that made for great ratings. And this was back when his candidacy truly was a joke. Without CNN and other media companies giving Trump a free platform to blather on and spew his nonsense to the American public I think its unlikely he would have reached the critical mass necessary to get the nomination. And by the time he reached a certain tipping point it was too late. The media and the mainstream Republican party had made its Frankenstein and they couldn’t stop it.

BOTH of these issues were advanced by Bill Clinton in the 1990's. But Trump is so extreme in wanting to do them now?

You seem to spend a lot of effort here arguing why Bill Clinton shouldn’t be president. That’s a dodge and irrelevant since he was, of course, not running. But nevermind all that. When did Bill Clinton ever argue that we should shut down immigration based on a religious test? When did he say that we needed a “muslim data base� and that we should base our treatment of muslims, INCLUDING AMERICAN CITIZENS, on what Truman did to the Japanese during World War II? So your notion that none of that matters because the constitution “only applies to americans� is a sad statement of complicity of his anti-muslim hate speech and is just plane wrong since he has made statements about wanting to do fully illegal and unconstitutional things to actual muslim americans!

I work with US born citizens who happen to be muslim who are terrified what will happen to them now. I work with US born and fully legal Hispanics who also fear that Trumps election will lead to victimization, harassment, or much worse because it seems to be an endorsement of open bigotry toward them by at least half the american people. And in just the couple of weeks since the election we have seen a spike of racially or culturally motivated incidents against Hispanics and blacks and muslims and their property. Do you think that’s just a coincidence? And he is signaling that’s all ok with the appointments he is making. An attorney general who has made openly racist remarks on the record? A chief strategist who has made his money by running a web site that openly engages in racial, cultural and religious hatred? That embraced white supremacist thinking and on more than one occasion has made clearly anti-Semitic statements? Those are all very ominous signals about what direction he would like to go.

And the Border Patrol's duty was no longer to turn them away. It was to take them to a shelter, provide meals, put them up in hotels, then send them off to different part of America - going onto our social services, with a "promise" to show up at a court on a certain day.

What are you referring to here exactly? Illegal immigration in general? The FACT of the matter is more illegals have been deported under Obama then ANY OTHER PRESIDENT IN HISTORY. This notion that he changed all the rules and is just letting them through is just garbage. He enforced the immigration laws more fervently then George Bush ever did. But yet conservatives still insist on calling his immigration policy an “open border�.

most of them would rather be in their homelands, not here. If their homelands were peaceful and livable.

But they aren’t livable. So should our response be “too bad� because we don’t want to deal with the “threat� of them coming to the US? So we just leave them to suffer and die? What is your alternative?

Trump is called a racist.

I still have my doubts that Trump is an actual racist. I think he thinks hes superior to everyone. Not just blacks and Hispanics. But theres absolutely no doubt he panders TO racists. To a level unprecedented in the republican party (and that’s saying a lot!). And that’s just as bad. Plus he actively red lined blacks and Hispanics out of his housing developments in Queens and when confronted with it by authorities basically used the argument “well everyone is doing it. My people just don’t want to live with those kinds of people. I would be at a business disadvantage if I didn’t discriminate�. That’s not racist? Its ok because its just a business strategy? He has openly said jews are good with money so he hires them to be his accountants and when he found that there were some black people in his accounting department he was “shocked� because he didn’t think blacks could do well with the math or be trusted with the money. He has even said, “laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is; I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.� And that’s an exact quote! So please explain to me how that statement could be construed in any other way but racist. Defending the notion that hes not racially biased is about the biggest act of denial I have seen in this election. Well that and the notion that he can bring jobs back that have vanished from the earth completely simply by enacting trade killing tariffs.

And I think voter fraud is widespread

On what evidence do you base this statement on exactly? Time and time and time again studies show that voter fraud is vanishingly rare. Where are the hundreds of thousands of examples of voting fraud you imply here? They don’t exist. But its become a right wing rallying point because the fake news sites have been feeding them this garbage about democrats flying thousands of illegals in to vote and “millions� of votes being cast by dead people. But its all nonsense. Its clear that voter fraud is very very rare and in too small a scale to effect a presidential election at all. In fact you have it backwards. You say the electoral college system helps reinforce against voter fraud and a pure popular vote would do the opposite? In fact it allows voting fraud to be theoretically focused in a few small pockets of population in a few key states (in this election, Wisconsin, Michigan, New Hampshire for example) that could turn the tide of the entire election. From a few tens of thousands of votes. Where as ten thousand votes on the popular level would have almost no effect because you are talking about tens of millions in the pool.

Personally, I don’t think we should simply get rid of the electoral college. But its absurd and hypocritical to endorse a non democratic system as democratic simply because its worked out to your benefit a few times in the past decade and a half. What we need to do is change the winner take all concept of how the electoral college votes are allocated. Why should a state with 29 electoral votes go to one candidate because that candidate got 1% more votes in that state then the other candidate? How is that democratic exactly? The votes should reflect the percentage of what the voters wanted. And, guess what, you don’t have to change the constitution to implement that change. Several districts already do this (in Maine and Nebraska I believe). That can be done without the near impossible ¾ vote because it doesn’t require any constitutional amendment, although it may take state trading or a law suit to get it started. Im all for it. No matter WHICH party it helps more because it’s the right democratic thing to do. Im also in favor of completely altering our representation rules that lead to horrific disgusting cases of gerrymandering. And I don’t care WHICH direction that gerrymandering takes, I want to eliminate that practice entirely. Don’t you? isn’t that how a truly democratic nation should operate? Where all votes are equal? Where we dont wink and nod at one kind of corruption and kick and scream about another?

She also has some mysterious physical condition that most of the media works hard to hide.

Please do tell us how you are so assured she has some terrible hidden condition. This is the kind of right wing loonie nonsense you see on the deep web and traded back and forth on facebook in fake news reports. Is this because she had to be helped into a van when she was sick? Is it because she bumped her head once? Where does this insidious sexist nonsense really come from and what is the clear obvious evidence that Hillary is “too sick� to be a president exactly but that Donald Trump is perfectly fine to be president despite being a narcissistic sociopath who thinks he can violate laws and people’s rights because hes a “star�? Why is that mental condition ok while Hillary’s mysterious "sickness" automatically disqualifies her from any kind of consideration?

As for all your comments about "pay-for-play" arrangements with the Clinton Foundation, I think its fully understandable to be bothered with the way they operated (although I hardly think its considerably different from the way any politician operates, so it’s a little disingenuous to only be singling her out for this charge). But you are complaining about corruption and underhanded deal making when the alternative is DONALD TRUMP! Seriously? The Clinton Foundation may try to rig the game to their advantage but they send tens of millions to good worthy causes. Donald Trump operates a “charity� group that simply exists as a slush fund for his own use! Donald Trump makes public vows to contribute to charities and then refuses to when the check is due. This is a man that has greased more palms to get lucrative contracts in Manhattan's real estate market then anyone in the country. And then turns around and refuses to pay his contractors and working staff ROUTINELY because, as he says himself, “I can�. So this notion that we cant have Hillary as president because shes acted in corrupt ways loses ALL credibility considering who she was running against!

Then - as fringe-crazy as this sound, there are a LOT of Clinton enemies, especially Hillary Clinton enemies, who meet mysterious deaths.

Ah… Im beginning to see now. You are tipping your cards to the Alex Jones paranoid ranting looney bird mentality that too many formally mainstream decent Christian conservative folk seem to have slipped into in the past decade or so. So Im not sure theres anything I can say then that you wont simply dismiss outright as a lie or “un-American�. And that’s very sad. But at least they didn’t conspire against your Cubs this year, eh? Just goes to show you, crazy unthinkable results happen all the time…. Sometimes within the same few weeks… Despite all the “rigging� and corruption charges and trillions of secret dollars invested in the “status quo�. The only consistent thing we find in politics, in sports and in life is that nothing ever stays still. Change is inevitable…

[Mari]

Valandil, thanks for your post. I'm glad I got to read an educated view on Donald Trump.

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by Mari

Valandil, thanks for your post. I'm glad I got to read an educated view on Donald Trump.

With IR's response, I hope you're not being sarcastic.

IR - I'll get through your post and reply to at least some of it - but it's got to be later.

And everyone please know - I'm not a big fan of Donald Trump. I just think Hillary Clinton was worse. And the worst thing about this election was - I think a good chunk of people thought both of our two major party candidates was awful - but voted for the one they could stomach the most. Which isn't the best way for us to be choosing our President. Unfortunately, that's what it came to.

[Mari]

No, I wasn't sarcastic. I still think if people wanted change, they should have found a better candidate, but it is good to read why people object to hillary so much.

[mithrand1r]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Personally, I don’t think we should simply get rid of the electoral college.

...

Why should a state with 29 electoral votes go to one candidate because that candidate got 1% more votes in that state then the other candidate? How is that democratic exactly? The votes should reflect the percentage of what the voters wanted. And, guess what, you don’t have to change the constitution to implement that change. Several districts already do this (in Maine and Nebraska I believe).

That can be done without the near impossible ¾ vote because it doesn’t require any constitutional amendment, although it may take state trading or a law suit to get it started. Im all for it. No matter WHICH party it helps more because it’s the right democratic thing to do. Im also in favor of completely altering our representation rules that lead to horrific disgusting cases of gerrymandering. And I don’t care WHICH direction that gerrymandering takes, I want to eliminate that practice entirely.

I think the system (for allocating electoral votes) used in ME & NE would be more equitable and more democratic than the current winner-take-all system that most states currently use.

A ME/NE system would change the strategy used by candidates in the run up to 270. Candidates would expand their focus beyond "battle-ground" states and take their message to more areas of the country.

Regarding partitioning congressional districts, I like the path Iowa took.

In brief:

Originally Posted by Boston Globe—Tracy Jan—2013.DEC.08

The state’s 99 counties are divided into four congressional districts nearly equal in population,with each district drawn to include a mix of urban and rural interests. From the cornfields dotting most of the state to the university towns of Ames and Iowa City, the focus is on making sure residents have a voice, not on protecting an incumbent or political party.

This is done by making population size the primary metric when determining a district’s boundaries, followed by the goal of compact, contiguous districts that respect county lines.

I do not know if there would be any difficulties using this redistricting system in other states, but at least there would be fewer "safe" districts and the congressmen would, by necessity, pay more attention to their constituents.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

...
many formally mainstream decent Christian conservative folk seem to have slipped into in the past decade or so. ...

Insidious Rex,

What do you mean when you use the word mainstream to describe the decent Christian conservative folk?

I am not trying to be snarky, but I do wish to understand what you are conveying when you use the word mainstream in the context of Christians. Do you mean Baptists? Perhaps Roman Catholic? Perhaps another denomination. Perhaps you mean something else that I am not even considering.