Trump: Our New President

[MarkFL]

I wonder what he'll be like if he becomes president in January.

Putin's lapdog?

 

[Josiah]

I wonder what he'll be like if he becomes president in January.

IF?

What do you think Americans (or Australians) should do to stop it before January 20?



.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Putin's lapdog?

I wonder if we will live to see it?

Mark, my chat friend, flee to Canada if you can.

 

[MoreCoffee]

IF?

What do you think Americans (or Australians) should do to stop it before January 20?

He might resign. He is 70 and appears to be orange, perhaps he has some serious liver complaint that will prevent him taking office in January. Aliens might invade. All manner of things could happen. Perhaps the end is nigh enough to make it so that 20th January 2017 never comes.

:smirk:

 

[MarkFL]

He might resign. He is 70 and appears to be orange, perhaps he has some serious liver complaint that will prevent him taking office in January. Aliens might invade. All manner of things could happen. Perhaps the end is nigh enough to make it so that 20th January 2017 never comes.

:smirk:

Yes, now is not the time to lose hope. :thumbsup:

 

[Rens]

http://www.joemygod.com/2015/08/11/...e-sent-donald-trump-to-help-bring-back-jesus/

 

[Josiah]

He might resign.

It's THEORETICALLY possible he could resign in the next 68 days, before installed. And he could die. Or Jesus could return before January 20. Or yes, as you point out, we could experience an alien invasion. I wouldn't regard any of these as terribly LIKELY but yeah, certainly possible. I just find all that.... well......

I'm glad to hear you are not promoting an assassination or revolution just talking to talk.



- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

The faithful never resort to crass rebellion and wicked revolution - those are the habits of some of our separated brethren - such methods are contrary to Catholic teaching. But lawful impeachment, removal of wicked governors by lawful means, these are permissible.

 

[MarkFL]

Yes, I would never advocate unlawful violence, but...if a hefty meteorite were to come calling on a certain gold gilded penthouse in Manhattan while the resident trumpkin was directly in its path, then...

 

[MarkFL]

Many like democracy as long as the people provide the right answer at elections. When the people give the wrong answer they look for a way to make sure they get the right answer.

It's funny how systems like the Electoral College are great if your candidate wins the college vote but not the popular vote, but as soon as your candidate wins the popular vote but not the college vote it mysteriously becomes an anachronism that should be abolished.

(ETA: "your" in a generic sense, not you as an individual)

Let's take a look back through time at when the winner of the popular vote lost the election, and the party of the person thwarted by the EC:

2016: Hillary Clinton - Democrat.

2000: Al Gore - Democrat.

1888: Grover Cleveland - Democrat.

1876: Samuel J. Tilden - Democrat.

1824: Andrew Jackson - Democrat (considered to be the father of the Democratic Party).

So, oddly enough, no Republican has ever had to face this issue it seems.

 

[Romanos]

There is already a petition going around to get the Electoral College to reverse the decision and to award Hillary Clinton the Presidency.

 

[MarkFL]

There is already a petition going around to get the Electoral College to reverse the decision and to award Hillary Clinton the Presidency.

Is it online? If so, lemme have the link so I can sign it.

 

[psalms 91]

Is it online? If so, lemme have the link so I can sign it.

Me to

 

[Josiah]

There is already a petition going around to get the Electoral College to reverse the decision and to award Hillary Clinton the Presidency.

Romanos -


Each elector PLEDGES to vote as directed by the popular vote in their state (all but two States are a "winner-take-all" - whoever wins the state gets all the electoral delegates vote; two do this by congressional district within the State). Most states mandate this by Law but there is no federal law to honor a pledge; under federal law, this is a point of integrity - being true and faithful to the pledge they gave when they were sworn in as an elector.

Nonetheless, there have been very few times in history when an unfaithful elector violated his pledge to the American voters of his state. Over the 240 years of our nations' history, well over 99% of electors have voted faithfully according to their pledge, it has been 100% of late. The last time an elector voted against his pledge was in 2004, when one elector voted for John Kerry's running mate, John Edwards, instead of Kerry. His vote, like the votes of the very few other faithless electors in American history, had no effect on the outcome of the election.



- Josiah



.

 

[Romanos]

Is it online? If so, lemme have the link so I can sign it.

Me to

https://www.change.org/p/electoral-...make-hillary-clinton-president-on-december-19

 

[tango]

Let's take a look back through time at when the winner of the popular vote lost the election, and the party of the person thwarted by the EC:

2016: Hillary Clinton - Democrat.

2000: Al Gore - Democrat.

1888: Grover Cleveland - Democrat.

1876: Samuel J. Tilden - Democrat.

1824: Andrew Jackson - Democrat (considered to be the father of the Democratic Party).

So, oddly enough, no Republican has ever had to face this issue it seems.

I'm not sure that's really relevant, or if it is it's only relevant in the sense that the Electoral College is doing exactly what it was set up to do (in the sense of representing all areas rather than the most populated areas). Since in this day and age people in rural areas are more likely to vote Republican it merely means that a system that makes sure rural areas are fairly represented (i.e. we don't see entire blocks of states outvoted by a single city) happens to ensure the Republican vote is represented. Since the Democrat vote is typically very highly concentrated in densely populated urban areas it's not really such a surprise.

Either way it still keeps feeding back to what I keep saying about government being as localised as possible, simply to make sure we don't end up in a situation where NYC and LA as a voting block could impose their will by force of law on most of the sparsely populated mid-west. This is the thing so few people seem to want to address - any system under which 49% have only the rights that the 51% are gracious enough to permit is little more than a tyranny.

 

[MarkFL]

I'm not sure that's really relevant...

Earlier you said:

It's funny how systems like the Electoral College are great if your candidate wins the college vote but not the popular vote, but as soon as your candidate wins the popular vote but not the college vote it mysteriously becomes an anachronism that should be abolished.

I took this to imply that both sides have gotten the short end of the stick with regards to the EC, and was interested to find only democrats have run afoul of it. That was the relevance to me of what I posted.

 

[MarkFL]

I guess if we really think about it though, the urban vote is historically Democrat, and it is the urban vote that gets diminished by the EC, so it makes sense that Democrats would suffer while Republicans benefit.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Donald Trump is not USA president yet.

 

[visionary]

I ought to start a thread Visas for Canada

The immigration website for Canada crashed the day after the elections.