It's not unfair to say she lost. She knew that it is the electoral college, not the popular vote, that wins the election. She elected not to set foot in Wisconsin, thinking it was in the bag. She elected not to campaign in other areas, thinking, due to poll results, they were in the bag. She was wrong. She lost. This is no different than the Super Bowl team that gambles on a strategy of blitzing and then gets burned for 2 80 yard TD passes that cost them the game. She made her bed and she must lay in it.
Trumped 202
- Thread starter cloudsurf
- Start date
- Status
It's not unfair to say she lost. She knew that it is the electoral college, not the popular vote, that wins the election. She elected not to set foot in Wisconsin, thinking it was in the bag. She elected not to campaign in other areas, thinking, due to poll results, they were in the bag. She was wrong. She lost. This is no different than the Super Bowl team that gambles on a strategy of blitzing and then gets burned for 2 80 yard TD passes that cost them the game. She made her bed and she must lay in it.
The Black Swan President
Donald Trump is the biggest unknown ever to take control of the White House. What’s the worst-case scenario? The best? As the country waits to find out, Politico Magazine asked 17 experts to game out a Trump presidency.
by Politico Magazine
On Tuesday, when Donald Trump defied the polls, the Clinton machine and much of his own party establishment to become president-elect of the United States, he also became the closest thing to a black swan event we’ve ever seen in American politics: Statistically unlikely, rationalized only in hindsight—and carrying an impact that could be off the known charts.
On one hand, Trump is a pragmatic businessman with a very flexible ideology and a desire to be seen in a positive light; on the other, he’s a ruthless and often improvisational dealmaker with no allegiance to the norms and institutions that set the boundaries for traditional political power. And in 10 weeks he’ll be commander-in-chief.
What could happen? Here’s where we’re hoping the experts can come in. As the country tries to wrap its head around the election result that surprised (almost) everyone, Politico Magazine asked top national security gurus, economists, immigration and energy experts, and a few historians to game out a Trump presidency. Below, they sketch out their worst-case and best-case scenarios—and then, most important, what it would take to achieve the latter.
Read the rest of the article:
The Black Swan President
Doc says: "This is a very good article and highly recommended to anyone who has followed the current election."
Donald Trump is the biggest unknown ever to take control of the White House. What’s the worst-case scenario? The best? As the country waits to find out, Politico Magazine asked 17 experts to game out a Trump presidency.
by Politico Magazine
On Tuesday, when Donald Trump defied the polls, the Clinton machine and much of his own party establishment to become president-elect of the United States, he also became the closest thing to a black swan event we’ve ever seen in American politics: Statistically unlikely, rationalized only in hindsight—and carrying an impact that could be off the known charts.
On one hand, Trump is a pragmatic businessman with a very flexible ideology and a desire to be seen in a positive light; on the other, he’s a ruthless and often improvisational dealmaker with no allegiance to the norms and institutions that set the boundaries for traditional political power. And in 10 weeks he’ll be commander-in-chief.
What could happen? Here’s where we’re hoping the experts can come in. As the country tries to wrap its head around the election result that surprised (almost) everyone, Politico Magazine asked top national security gurus, economists, immigration and energy experts, and a few historians to game out a Trump presidency. Below, they sketch out their worst-case and best-case scenarios—and then, most important, what it would take to achieve the latter.
Read the rest of the article:
The Black Swan President
Doc says: "This is a very good article and highly recommended to anyone who has followed the current election."
I was thinking of this the other day & concluded what you just wrote. However, i later thought about it more and i couldn't say they would have changed anything since they still would have had to campaign in various states to appeal to their voters. I don't believe the electoral college system made it much different had there not been one.
The proof and the facts say otherwise. He beat her at her own game. I would say he is one of the smartest men in the world when you look at what he accomplished in only 1.5 years compared to her 30 in that same "game"
Like i mentioned once before, he was like a finely tuned surgeon performing a operation that went perfectly well. (is it just me or am I sounding "eagerbeaver-esque") :lol:
Like i mentioned once before, he was like a finely tuned surgeon performing a operation that went perfectly well. (is it just me or am I sounding "eagerbeaver-esque") :lol:
Clinton: Comey Double Whammy Did Me In
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/12/politics/hillary-clinton-james-comey-fbi/index.html
I kind of think Comey's intention was to cover his own ass in case something came out from the investigation weeks after the election, not to sabotage Hilary, although he did
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/12/politics/hillary-clinton-james-comey-fbi/index.html
I kind of think Comey's intention was to cover his own ass in case something came out from the investigation weeks after the election, not to sabotage Hilary, although he did
Everyone seems to have missed the obvious. Carlos Danger lost the election for Hillary.
http://nypost.com/2016/01/25/a-long-hard-look-into-anthony-weiners-downfall/
http://nypost.com/2016/01/25/a-long-hard-look-into-anthony-weiners-downfall/
For all the leftist Canadians taking part in this thread, all of whom have lots of opinions about but no knowledge of American history and politics, 
here is an explanation of the reasons behind the electoral college system of electing a president.
If Americans want to change the system, there is a simple process of amendment outlined in the Constitution. Fortunately, thanks to the genius of the framers, this process requires a lot more than a simple majority vote of the people.
http://www.kingsmeadow.com/wp/the-genius-of-the-electoral-college/
The Genius of the Electoral College
“Every word of the Constitution ultimately decides a question between power and liberty.” James Madison
...The Electoral College was originally designed by the Founding Fathers as a federal hedge against the domination of the absolute national majority over the individual states—indeed, without the College, the delicate federal balance between national unity and regional distinctiveness would be lost and the various states would lose their much of their power over the executive branch.
The Electoral College was thus designed to be a method of indirect but popular election of the President of the United States. The Framers of the Constitution were careful to follow clear principle in this design—it was hardly a matter of haphazardness or convenience. They wanted a federal means to elect the Chief Magistrate of the nation so that careful and calm deliberation would lead to the selection of the best-qualified candidate...
...Direct popular election of the President was rejected by the Framers because it failed to protect the states from the intrusion of massed centralized forces. They reasoned that a pure democracy was more easily corrupted than a federal republic. It would essentially eliminate state borders and state prerogative, and whenever more centralized government directly governs the people, they thought that there was likely to be more opportunity for corruption. And electing the President by the Legislative or Judicial branches would violate the separation of powers. Thus, the federal solution was to elect the President by a balanced representation of the States and the people. Electors, independent from either the states or the national government, were elected in accordance with standards established by the State legislatures, and the electors then elected the President. This federal approach carefully avoided direct dependency upon either the states or the people, but kept both represented in the process. Giving each State the number of electors as they have representatives in Congress was also in harmony with this balance.
Direct popular election of the President was also rejected by the Framers because it would fail to prevent a candidate from pandering to one region, or running up their votes in certain states. Political scientist James Whitson, using a sports analogy of, explains, “In a baseball season you don’t play 100 odd games, add up your total runs from all those games, and the teams with the most play in the World Series. Teams would just run up the score on weaker teams to balance the closer games against tougher opponents. In a direct election, Democrats would run up the vote totals in safe states like Massachusetts and Republicans would run up their votes in states like Nebraska.
The Electoral College forces candidates to concede states their opponents are winning handily and contest the tight races.” Direct popular election of the President was also rejected by the Framers because it would fail to protect minority interests from a tyrannical majority. For example in a direct election, since African-Americans account for about 13% of the population, they could only account for 13% of the vote. In the Electoral College, African-Americans account for 25% of Alabama’s 9 votes, 27% of Georgia’s 13 votes, 31% of Louisiana’s 9 votes, etc. Farmers, once a very influential constituency, now make up less than 4% of the population. Why would a candidate worry about this small group in a direct election? In the Electoral College system, farmers do make up sizable parts of several states, and thus their combined strength in a smaller pool of voters gives them more power. Because minority groups are often concentrated in some states and not spread evenly throughout the country, their influence is protected to a greater degree in a federal system.
Finally, direct popular election of the President was also rejected by the Framers because it would fail to prevent candidates from ignoring smaller states in favor of big metropolitan areas. In a direct election, New York City would have about twice the electoral clout of the states of Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming combined. Why would a candidate even campaign in those six states when he can double his impact by spending more time and less money in a single city. The needs and issues of small rural communities would be outweighed in the candidates’ mind by those of large urban areas.
The Electoral College system was thus the careful implementation of an essential Constitutional principle: federalism. Without it, the genius of the whole Constitution would be jeopardized.
here is an explanation of the reasons behind the electoral college system of electing a president.If Americans want to change the system, there is a simple process of amendment outlined in the Constitution. Fortunately, thanks to the genius of the framers, this process requires a lot more than a simple majority vote of the people.
http://www.kingsmeadow.com/wp/the-genius-of-the-electoral-college/
The Genius of the Electoral College
“Every word of the Constitution ultimately decides a question between power and liberty.” James Madison
...The Electoral College was originally designed by the Founding Fathers as a federal hedge against the domination of the absolute national majority over the individual states—indeed, without the College, the delicate federal balance between national unity and regional distinctiveness would be lost and the various states would lose their much of their power over the executive branch.
The Electoral College was thus designed to be a method of indirect but popular election of the President of the United States. The Framers of the Constitution were careful to follow clear principle in this design—it was hardly a matter of haphazardness or convenience. They wanted a federal means to elect the Chief Magistrate of the nation so that careful and calm deliberation would lead to the selection of the best-qualified candidate...
...Direct popular election of the President was rejected by the Framers because it failed to protect the states from the intrusion of massed centralized forces. They reasoned that a pure democracy was more easily corrupted than a federal republic. It would essentially eliminate state borders and state prerogative, and whenever more centralized government directly governs the people, they thought that there was likely to be more opportunity for corruption. And electing the President by the Legislative or Judicial branches would violate the separation of powers. Thus, the federal solution was to elect the President by a balanced representation of the States and the people. Electors, independent from either the states or the national government, were elected in accordance with standards established by the State legislatures, and the electors then elected the President. This federal approach carefully avoided direct dependency upon either the states or the people, but kept both represented in the process. Giving each State the number of electors as they have representatives in Congress was also in harmony with this balance.
Direct popular election of the President was also rejected by the Framers because it would fail to prevent a candidate from pandering to one region, or running up their votes in certain states. Political scientist James Whitson, using a sports analogy of, explains, “In a baseball season you don’t play 100 odd games, add up your total runs from all those games, and the teams with the most play in the World Series. Teams would just run up the score on weaker teams to balance the closer games against tougher opponents. In a direct election, Democrats would run up the vote totals in safe states like Massachusetts and Republicans would run up their votes in states like Nebraska.
The Electoral College forces candidates to concede states their opponents are winning handily and contest the tight races.” Direct popular election of the President was also rejected by the Framers because it would fail to protect minority interests from a tyrannical majority. For example in a direct election, since African-Americans account for about 13% of the population, they could only account for 13% of the vote. In the Electoral College, African-Americans account for 25% of Alabama’s 9 votes, 27% of Georgia’s 13 votes, 31% of Louisiana’s 9 votes, etc. Farmers, once a very influential constituency, now make up less than 4% of the population. Why would a candidate worry about this small group in a direct election? In the Electoral College system, farmers do make up sizable parts of several states, and thus their combined strength in a smaller pool of voters gives them more power. Because minority groups are often concentrated in some states and not spread evenly throughout the country, their influence is protected to a greater degree in a federal system.
Finally, direct popular election of the President was also rejected by the Framers because it would fail to prevent candidates from ignoring smaller states in favor of big metropolitan areas. In a direct election, New York City would have about twice the electoral clout of the states of Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming combined. Why would a candidate even campaign in those six states when he can double his impact by spending more time and less money in a single city. The needs and issues of small rural communities would be outweighed in the candidates’ mind by those of large urban areas.
The Electoral College system was thus the careful implementation of an essential Constitutional principle: federalism. Without it, the genius of the whole Constitution would be jeopardized.
Trump: Twitter Helped Me Win, Fight Back Against Negative Media Coverage
http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/12/media/donald-trump-twitter-60-minutes/index.html
http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/12/media/donald-trump-twitter-60-minutes/index.html
Well Michael Moore was right about Trump winning. Maybe he'll be right about this too:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...mp-impeach-resign_us_58261464e4b0c4b63b0c6dee
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...mp-impeach-resign_us_58261464e4b0c4b63b0c6dee
I really like 1, 4, 5, and 6. 2 and 3 are possibilities but could be more problematic. Enough is enough with the selling of influence in Washington, this election finally sent a message that Americans are fed up with it and this could be the one strong positive that comes out of the election result.
Indeed. It was the safe pick. But so much for Trump and his claims of being a 'Washington outsider'. Reince Priebus is the classic Washington insider having long worked with the establishment. Many of the cabinet posts will be held by DC insiders also. And the fact the transition team is made up of a large number of DC lobbyists tells you alll you want to know about Trump's campaign promises. And tonight he'll tell 60 Minutes that he may keep Obamacare, after all. It seems that the 'swamp' is staying put in Washington, which is not surprising since the Washington political establishment is a huge, strong powerful machine.
p.s. Trump did name racist fascist Stephen Bannon as his Chief Strategist. His ex-wife stated that Bannon didn't want their kids to attend school with jewish kids. He also happens to be a sworn ennemy of Paul Ryan and the GOP establishment. So it should be quite an interesting 4 years. I actually feel bad for Reince Priebus, who's a decent fellow. :lol:
I'm shocked you didn't want Stephen Bannon as the Chief of Staff. So we can conclude that you're a Washington establishment guy, after all!
p.s. Aren't you a Breitbart News subscriber? So why wouldn't you prefer Bannon for the job?
For all the leftist Canadians taking part in this thread, all of whom have lots of opinions about but no knowledge of American history and politics,
As a holder of a bachelor's degree specialized in Canadian history, i would like to simply point out that the large majority of Canadians would be considered 'liberals' or 'leftists' from an American perspective. A conservative in Canada would be comparable to a moderate at best in the American political spectrum. I just wanted to point this out since as a Canadian, i feel absolutely comfortable being referred to as a 'liberal' or a 'leftist' since i'm part of the large majority of Canadians.
p.s. Fellow Canadian & former Bush 43 speechwriter David Frum would fall under this category of a very conservative Canadian.
The beat goes on, the beat goes on
Drums keep pounding
A rhythm to the brain
La de da de de, la de da de da
Reince Preibus chosen for Chief of Staff...another pledge betrayal and I knew Trump fans would swallow that too.Drums keep pounding
A rhythm to the brain
La de da de de, la de da de da
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/11/politics/tea-party-patriots-reince-priebus/
The Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund warned against a "Washington insider" to run Trump's White House, specifically naming Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, who is said to be one of Trump's top two choices.
Jenny Beth Martin, the co-founder of TPPCF, told CNN in a statement that the group wants Trump to "drain the swamp."
"No Washington insider, regardless of who it is, should serve as President Trump's chief of staff," Martin said. "Appointing Reince Priebus (or any other DC establishment insider) would make it more difficult, not less, for President Trump to achieve the change the people voted for. It's time to drain the swamp -- not promote insiders beholden to the Washington establishment who helped create it."
Well Trumperv has dived into the swamp he guaranteed to drain once again, choosing the insider of insiders the Republican National Committee Chairman and you know the main stream Republicans led by President Pence were behind it.
Michael Moore predicted Trump would be impeached. Who knows. But with Reince Preibus right next to Pence the Republicans Party boys, who do not see Trump as one of them, are in perfect position to take over if impeachment happens. And why would they fight it much if it happened. They get rid of a guy they didn't want in the first place for one who they see as perfect for them. Pence.
History has (not) turned the page, uh huh
The US Defense industry could use a shakeup but it will be difficult.
As a veteran I was always envious of much US kit. Even their food was awesome.
But Canadian Forces and the US often got stuck with stuff that was absolute shit.
(long detailed rant deleted)
The US military has so many suppliers that are chosen because they are in the right Congressional constituency. I saw a very unofficial chart of parts for an airplane once, it had a map showing how there was at least one supplier in every state. That can't be a coincidence.
If this was cleaned up it could save as much money as everything else Trump does put together.
As a veteran I was always envious of much US kit. Even their food was awesome.
But Canadian Forces and the US often got stuck with stuff that was absolute shit.
(long detailed rant deleted)
The US military has so many suppliers that are chosen because they are in the right Congressional constituency. I saw a very unofficial chart of parts for an airplane once, it had a map showing how there was at least one supplier in every state. That can't be a coincidence.
If this was cleaned up it could save as much money as everything else Trump does put together.
During the campaign many establishment Republicans also predicted Trump would wind up getting impeached if he'd ever get elected. Trump would actually be extremely easy to impeach if the GOP establishment decides to do it. It's already starting to be a mess. Appointing Stephen Bannon as his Chief Strategist is proof that a storm's coming. Plus the fact his family is now involved with the transition team and will continue to run his companies, which is a huge conflict of interest, especially considering how much they cried about Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. The Clinton Foundation stuff is peanuts compared to the huge conflict of interest about to happen with the Trump family and their businesses.
And by the way......
Today would be a great day for Donald Trump to finally release his taxes.
I agree with drain the swamp but believe it or not Priebus might actually be a good guy to help drain out the swamp. To drain the swamp you need a guy who knows the swamp.
- Status
