So everyone right now is uncertain whats going to happen.Hillary was not good Neither was Trump.So since he has win.Go over the things you see as Bad or Good about this and explain why. To me its very uncertain times.It is doubtful anything he said is gonna happen. It is very doubtful he was serious.. but still go over your concerns.

I think it's neither. The real power is the Congress and there nothing has changed. The duty of the president is to sell their decisions to the people of the USA. Personally I think Trump is an idiot who can't handle money. But considering I'm from Austria this doesn't matter at all. It's simple not his job to impress me. And it seems obvious that the people in the USA like him. Another noteworthy event is, that "big media" has failed. Instead the "new media" showed, that this is the more potent propaganda tool. Which is bad for the USA, as Russia Today is for sure the most potent propaganda machinery in this new media at the moment. For 2 generations the USA was totally dominating when it came to this topic, but I think this is over.

I never knew certain decisive Americans felt that America was not 'great', until now. Trump can do little to fix this. It seems America is becoming worthless except for the blue states. I worry.

I wonder if historians will mark the election as the beginning of the end of America-as-superpower. >Another noteworthy event is, that "big media" has failed. Instead the "new media" showed, that this is the more potent propaganda tool. Which is bad for the USA, as Russia Today is for sure the most potent propaganda machinery in this new media at the moment. For 2 generations the USA was totally dominating when it came to this topic, but I think this is over. This is an important point. My folks both work in the media. I was watching the election results with them last night, and as Trump got closer and closer to victory, they couldn't understand how America could hate Clinton so much they'd vote for Trump. My folks aren't dumb, but they only read MSM; they consider everything else blogging. Had they read outside their comfort zone - and this applies to a lot of liberals - they might have at least recognized that 1) Clinton faced significant and not undeserved antipathy from Americans regardless of party, and 2) Americans didn't elect a racist sexist because that's what they're all about, they elected a guy who promised to essentially reverse the 2008 depression.

> *Originally posted by **[Jantonaitis](/forums/9/topics/681239?page=1#10831951)**:* > I wonder if historians will mark the election as the beginning of the end of America-as-superpower. > > >Another noteworthy event is, that "big media" has failed. Instead the "new media" showed, that this is the more potent propaganda tool. Which is bad for the USA, as Russia Today is for sure the most potent propaganda machinery in this new media at the moment. For 2 generations the USA was totally dominating when it came to this topic, but I think this is over. > > This is an important point. My folks both work in the media. I was watching the election results with them last night, and as Trump got closer and closer to victory, they couldn't understand how America could hate Clinton so much they'd vote for Trump. My folks aren't dumb, but they only read MSM; they consider everything else blogging. Had they read outside their comfort zone - and this applies to a lot of liberals - they might have at least recognized that 1) Clinton faced significant and not undeserved antipathy from Americans regardless of party, and 2) **Americans didn't elect a racist sexist because that's what they're all about, they elected a guy who promised to essentially reverse the 2008 depression**. Recession happened because America took on risky ventures in the world, led by another Republican president, which led to the money flowing out of America. But Obama reasserted security to the world, and likewise, Clinton would have done the same. Americans did not elect Trump, Electoral College elects Trump in December. [Hillary is leading by 200K votes](http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president). I hope this Electoral College nonsense, which favors or rigs the election toward one party because they can't seem get elected otherwise, is abolished within my lifetime as this has happened twice now in the past two decades. What does Trump have to say about this electoral college? He tweeted this in 2012: *"The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy."* Absolutely correct. But Trump flip-flops whenever it's convenient.  Enjoy it while it lasts.

The electoral college is silly. That being said, it isn't like it's out of the norm. I kept hearing on Facebook that the US should move to a parliamentary form of democracy like canada or the uk. That made me lol - whatever slight differences, we use the same winner take all system that you do. Now, you could move to a direct democracy mode where you just count the popular vote. But how is that any more democratic than the electoral college? Hillary may have won the popular vote, but there was still only a .2 percent difference. It wouldn't have been any more fair, it just would have meant the Democrat candidate would have won instead of the Republican, and it would be republicans crying for electoral reform on social media instead of democrats. The truth is, all the different models, including those used in places like Australia, Israel, Germany, etc, have their own pros and cons. Proportional representation might seem like a good idea, but it means having to run a country with 3 or more parties in a coalition. It's unwieldy, and it puts the nutbags inside the tent. Your problem, the US problem, is that you've been running with only two parties for so long that nobody feels represented except the elites. Trump basically had to stage a coup inside the GOP to bring in his nutbag supporters. But in order to bring in electoral reform, you'd have to find a Democrat or Republican [or lots of them, really] willing to commit political suicide by giving away their party's power to minority parties. Also, it doesn't matter who caused the recession, or if it's even fixable. All that matters is this guy said he could do it, whereas his opposition said "Hey lookit he says terrible things!" And don't even get me started on that phrase 'reasserting security to the world'. You can praise obama for obamacare if you like, or for starting initiatives on climate change [both of which will probably be repealed] but his foreign policy has been both blood-soaked and a complete fiasco. Hillary, with her record of screwups in South America, didn't inspire confidence either.

The problem with electoral college is that you are not representing a democracy through the majority, but through individual states, a skewed representation. It is sort of like having kings and emperors. Funny how in this day and age we still have a system like this. While 0.2%(200K) is the difference as of right now between Hillary and Trump, it is believed to be in the 1-2%(or in the million) once all votes are accounted for. But getting back to Trump and his promises... 1) There *will not* be a wall separating Mexico and US. 2) Illegals *will not* be deported, except maybe for those in prison. 3) **Obamacare will be repealed.** 4) Wealthy will get tax cuts which middle class will pay for. 5) Refuge immigration will be dampened, but not rid of. 6) **There will be a conservative majority in the Supreme Court.** 7) Hillary *will not* be in jail. The two bold statements are the main motivation behind voting for Trump. All others are simply a marketing ploy by Trump.

> The problem with electoral college is that you are not representing a democracy through the majority, but through individual states, a skewed representation. It is sort of like having kings and emperors. Funny how in this day and age we still have a system like this. Between you and kasic...how do you go from individual states have the power to 'kings and emperors'? We have a very similar system in Canada. Each province has a certain number of ridings - like counties - and the winner of each one gives one seat to the party. So it's a bit like how Maine can contribute one seat for the Dems and two seats for the GOP. But the number of ridings are determined not so much by population, like your system, but rather on how much power each province had at the time of confederation. It's not a great system, and we elected a guy who is supposedly going to change the system, But it is not 'kings and emperors', and neither is your system. Your system is designed to check the power of Washington, and in that respect it succeeds. I just have to wonder if anyone would be talking about this if Hillary had won. Whether it's .2 percent or 1.2 percent in the popular vote, that's not much, and a first past the post system [like we have in canada] means that if you did run things according to the popular vote, you'd be ignoring the wishes of half the country regardless.

> *Originally posted by **[Jantonaitis](/forums/9/topics/681239?page=1#10833530)**:* > > The problem with electoral college is that you are not representing a democracy through the majority, but through individual states, a skewed representation. It is sort of like having kings and emperors. Funny how in this day and age we still have a system like this. > > Between you and kasic...how do you go from individual states have the power to 'kings and emperors'? > > We have a very similar system in Canada. Each province has a certain number of ridings - like counties - and the winner of each one gives one seat to the party. So it's a bit like how Maine can contribute one seat for the Dems and two seats for the GOP. But the number of ridings are determined not so much by population, like your system, but rather on how much power each province had at the time of confederation. It's not a great system, and we elected a guy who is supposedly going to change the system, But it is not 'kings and emperors', and neither is your system. Your system is designed to check the power of Washington, and in that respect it succeeds. > >** I just have to wonder if anyone would be talking about this if Hillary had won. Whether it's .2 percent or 1.2 percent in the popular vote, that's not much, and a first past the post system [like we have in canada] means that if you did run things according to the popular vote, you'd be ignoring the wishes of half the country regardless.** I suppose this shows your bias. Trump and his supporters were speaking about rigged media when Hillary was leading the polls, and Trump himself has stated he would contest the election, or not concede, if he shall lose or if it is close, so, what exactly is the problem you have in not believing such questioning of the electoral college will not be entertained by the other party if the roles were reversed? As I have stated already, **Trump tweeted this in 2012: *"The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy."***  Republican party, the convenience party.

> Between you and kasic...how do you go from individual states have the power to 'kings and emperors'? I haven't said anything about the electoral college system. I'd prefer a straight up vote, and make it be that we have to keep revoting until we can get a 70% agreement. > I just have to wonder if anyone would be talking about this if Hillary had won. People have been talking about it since 2000 when Bush stole the election from Gore.

> *Originally posted by **[testingnewforum](/forums/9/topics/681239?page=1#10833549)**:* > As I have stated already, **Trump tweeted this in 2012: *"The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy."*** And here I have a tweet of Trump from 2009, just to show how meaningless this is: 

> *Originally posted by **[Frostbringer](/forums/9/topics/681239?page=1#10833596)**:* > > *Originally posted by **[testingnewforum](/forums/9/topics/681239?page=1#10833549)**:* > > As I have stated already, **Trump tweeted this in 2012: *"The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy."*** > > And here I have a tweet of Trump from 2009, just to show how meaningless this is: > >  > Trump is the ultimate BSer, the ultimate BSing salesman. He changes his story whenever it is beneficial for him to do so. He will not be able to accomplish anything other than what any standard Republican would do, which is 1) repeal Obamacare and 2) put a conservative judge in the Supreme Court. Everything else I consider to be part of his BSing attribute to gain traction in the election. But then after four years, when he comes up to re-election, Republicans will state that's all what they wanted to begin with. Changing their story to fit the times, just like Trump. If only he didn't BS as much... Sheesh.

> I suppose this shows your bias. Trump and his supporters were speaking about rigged media when Hillary was leading the polls, and Trump himself has stated he would contest the election, or not concede, if he shall lose or if it is close, so, what exactly is the problem you have in not believing such questioning of the electoral college will not be entertained by the other party if the roles were reversed? I was unclear. Yes, of course trump and his supporters would be contesting it, and it would likely be violent. My point is that this yammering about electoral reform has suddenly come up because your candidate lost. But the system is unfair either way. If you were to run it by the popular vote, then Hillary would win...but it would still be disenfranchising Trump and his supporters, ie half the voting population. The only reason to limit it to the popular vote is because if it were done that way this time, your candidate would've won [I say 'your candidate' but I don't know many people who actually liked Clinton, just hated Trump]. But it's still not very democratic. It's also a question of timing. Complaining about electoral reform days after the election is sour grapes. Hillary may have conceded, but none of her supporters have. By all means you should have electoral reform, but not if it's just going to be a club to beat down your opponent so you can win by the narrowest margins. You actually have to fix the problems dividing your country.

> *Originally posted by **[Jantonaitis](/forums/9/topics/681239?page=1#10834665)**:* > > I suppose this shows your bias. Trump and his supporters were speaking about rigged media when Hillary was leading the polls, and Trump himself has stated he would contest the election, or not concede, if he shall lose or if it is close, so, what exactly is the problem you have in not believing such questioning of the electoral college will not be entertained by the other party if the roles were reversed? > > I was unclear. Yes, of course trump and his supporters would be contesting it, and it would likely be violent. My point is that this yammering about electoral reform has suddenly come up because your candidate lost. But the system is unfair either way. If you were to run it by the popular vote, then Hillary would win...but it would still be disenfranchising Trump and his supporters, ie half the voting population. The only reason to limit it to the popular vote is because if it were done that way this time, your candidate would've won [I say 'your candidate' but I don't know many people who actually liked Clinton, just hated Trump]. But it's still not very democratic. By definition, democracy is rule of the majority. Popular vote is more technically democratic than a weighted average, which is rigged to favor certain states with lower population. And this isn't what democracy is about, **when some citizen's votes are neglected/ignored while other's votes are prioritized**... California has the highest GDP of all US states, almost the same GDP as UK and France, and around half the GDP of Japan! New York has the third highest GDP in the US, the same GDP as Canada! Essentially, the votes by its residents, who are pulling in all the weight, are *undervalued* in a supposedly democratic society. Why? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_U.S._states_and_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) Also to be understood is that Electoral College wasn't supposed to be aligned with any specific party when it was first conceived, and it wasn't supposed to be merely ceremonial. It being ceremonial now makes it have no meaning. Times change, and we need a change in Electoral College. > > It's also a question of timing. Complaining about electoral reform days after the election is sour grapes. Hillary may have conceded, but none of her supporters have. By all means you should have electoral reform, but not if it's just going to be a club to beat down your opponent so you can win by the narrowest margins. You actually have to fix the problems dividing your country. Timing is very important as it brings attention to faults that exist within. Only through *frequent* exposure to flaws can we realize a need for change as this is the second time in the past two decades where popular vote has been ignored. The problem with Electoral College is simply that it ignores certain citizen's right to vote, to have a say in a democracy, because it sets a maximum, and any vote made above that 50% threshold is considered meaningless. **All votes should be counted in a democracy**, otherwise, what is the point of an election? If popular votes of Hillary are over 1,000,000(~1%) against Trump, then they have no reason to concede, or accept Trump as president, because past publicly accepted presidents only won by couple of percentage points of popular vote. Couple of percentage points has been accepted here as the norm for a president. To compare Bush Jr. vs. Gore in 2000, Gore only won popular vote by 0.5%, so, there wasn't much backlash over it. Hillary's lead now stands at 300,000(~0.3%) I believe, with votes, especially absentee ballots, still being counted.

> By definition, democracy is rule of the majority. Popular vote is more technically democratic than a weighted average, which is rigged to favor certain states with lower population. And this isn't what democracy is about, when some citizen's votes are neglected/ignored while other's votes are prioritized... California has the highest GDP of all US states, almost the same GDP as UK and France, and around half the GDP of Japan! New York has the third highest GDP in the US, the same GDP as Canada! Essentially, the votes by its residents, who are pulling in all the weight, are undervalued in a supposedly democratic society. Why? I'm pretty iffy on this whole idea of tying the economy into voting. That sounds like an oligarchy. First past the post systems, rule by majority, are always a problem, because a large proportion of citizens will be voiceless. PR is more democratic, but there are logistical problems to running a country when you use PR [or related methods]. Given nearly half the country didn't vote, it suggests that mandatory voting might be a better idea, like in Australia. > All votes should be counted in a democracy, otherwise, what is the point of an election? I noticed Guam voted overwhelmingly for Hillary. They vote, but their ballots are meaningless, they don't get counted. Hmm. > If popular votes of Hillary are over 1,000,000(~1%) against Trump, then they have no reason to concede, or accept Trump as president, because past publicly accepted presidents only won by couple of percentage points of popular vote. Couple of percentage points has been accepted here as the norm for a president. To compare Bush Jr. vs. Gore in 2000, Gore only won popular vote by 0.5%, so, there wasn't much backlash over it. I think the backlash then had more to do with Florida's counting system, and the backlash now has more to do with the stark differences between candidates, rather than a slight percentage differential. Anyway, your constitution, just like the constitution in my country, says that if the vote is in, they have to accept Trump as president, regardless of the popular vote. And it's interesting because the constitution is such a powerful document in your country, both the left and right practically worship it. So I think it's pretty thin logic to contest it on those grounds. I'd actually agree with bombcog that if you're going to contest it, it ought to be on the more firmer grounds that the US elected a maniac who's pledged to effectively rip out minority rights. Doesn't mean that if they protest enough they're going to get a revote, or that constitutionally they deserve one, but it's another avenue to go when voting doesn't work and before riots happen. *** Saw this today. It's a british guy suggesting that the problem isn't that your country needs to wage class warfare so rich states can have more votes than poor states, but because the left doesn't listen to the right anymore. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs

Nice bait, but I think I'll just start flagging your posts.

-----> *Originally posted by **[Jantonaitis](/forums/9/topics/681239?page=1#10831951)**:* > I wonder if historians will mark the election as the beginning of the end of America-as-superpower. > > >Another noteworthy event is, that "big media" has failed. Instead the "new media" showed, that this is the more potent propaganda tool. Which is bad for the USA, as Russia Today is for sure the most potent propaganda machinery in this new media at the moment. For 2 generations the USA was totally dominating when it came to this topic, but I think this is over. > > This is an important point. My folks both work in the media. I was watching the election results with them last night, and as Trump got closer and closer to victory, they couldn't understand how America could hate Clinton so much they'd vote for Trump. My folks aren't dumb, but they only read MSM; they consider everything else blogging. Had they read outside their comfort zone - and this applies to a lot of liberals - they might have at least recognized that > 1) Clinton faced significant and not undeserved antipathy from Americans regardless of party, and > 2) Americans didn't elect a racist sexist because that's what they're all about, they elected a guy who promised to essentially reverse the 2008 depression. Yep. Strangely [someone](http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/11/patrick-caddell-the-pollster-who-got-it-right/) at [Fox](http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/11/07/patrick-caddell-real-election-surprise-uprising-american-people.html) got it, of all places. Considering who signed his paychecks he's probably long gone though! > *Originally posted by **[testingnewforum](/forums/9/topics/681239?page=1#10833143)**:* > The problem with electoral college is that you are not representing a democracy through the majority, but through individual states, a skewed representation. It is sort of like having kings and emperors. Funny how in this day and age we still have a system like this. > > While 0.2%(200K) is the difference as of right now between Hillary and Trump, it is believed to be in the 1-2%(or in the million) once all votes are accounted for. > > But getting back to Trump and his promises... > > 1) There *will not* be a wall separating Mexico and US. > 2) Illegals *will not* be deported, except maybe for those in prison. > 3) **Obamacare will be repealed.** > 4) Wealthy will get tax cuts which middle class will pay for. > 5) Refuge immigration will be dampened, but not rid of. > 6) **There will be a conservative majority in the Supreme Court.** > 7) Hillary *will not* be in jail. > > The two bold statements are the main motivation behind voting for Trump. All others are simply a marketing ploy by Trump. Yeah, it's mostly a bandaid on a bullet wound, though I think the wall will be got around to, just because the private property will be blasted through with the bellowing of "JOBS! JOBS!" as that's the only area of expertise he has, building useless crap. *BIG* useless crap. Unfortunately that's about all he can do. Most everyone that goes to washington is a Lawyer AND, so they can craft laws favourable to their own specialised fields, and if just so happens to make someone other than themselves and their colleagues rich, well that is just gravy. Everything else than the wall (which only costs about 15 days of military budgeting, forreals even if it takes his whole term it'll be far cheaper than operating bases everywhere on the planet, the highest estimate so far is $25b with the lowball $10b if done "under time and under budget" as he likes to bloviate) and maybe fixing Flint and he has to rely upon others. Others whose interests have nothing at all to do with his. Anything that isn't exclusively executive branch aside from that, they'll lock shoulders and impose gridlock rather than work with him. also there's no reason to question the college. It [worked as it was finally meant to do so](http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/11/trumps-victory-arrogance-defeated/). It saved us from a [mad dog dictator](http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/11/poor-liberals-nobody-to-blame-but-themselves/) who would've plunged us even deeper into war than Bush. It took 200 years but it finally proved its worth as a safety net. At least now the only wars to worry of are short skirmishes due to slights and mopping up the ISIS mess of the previous admins. The major threat is gone, for now, and the Bush Dynasty is mostly done for. Now to keep him on the straight and narrow while dismantling one of the houses the [dumbocrats that elected him](http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/11/poor-liberals-nobody-to-blame-but-themselves/) ever so graciously [handed them without a fight](http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/11/the-silver-linings-in-trumps-win/). As far as jailing Hillary, since so much of the GOP is also complicit in her worst crimes (take note of the places Clinton Cash **didn't** go) she'll get a slap on the wrist to retire in disgrace to placate his hounds of hell, but good luck on seeing any true justice done against her. Stealing the election from the maw of madness will be the best comeuppance we can hope for.

I wish I had the time to teach you guys why our system is like it is but I don't so I will say this. Voting by delegate basically gives every state and their people an equal vote in the choice of a president. Popular voting would let a state like California chose every president.

> *Originally posted by **[jhco50](/forums/9/topics/681239?page=1#10839717)**:* > I wish I had the time to teach you guys why our system is like it is but I don't so I will say this. Voting by delegate basically gives every state and their people an equal vote in the choice of a president. Popular voting would let a state like California chose every president. When was the last time you ever taught someone?

00_00, probably about the same time as he last changed his views on anything. I.e., not within the past 20 years at *least*. Most of us have given up discussing anything with jhco, because you can disprove every argument he makes, and ten minutes later he's repeating the same ones again.

It's horrible in my view as this means fascism will sweep Europe, and we're going to go into a new Fascist vs Communist war. In terms of locally, countryside, America will burn because we will resist his presidency and he will accomplish nothing not only because of that but because he's also a corporate rich elite pile of trash. > *Originally posted by **[jhco50](/forums/9/topics/681239?page=1#10839717)**:* > I wish I had the time to teach you guys why our system is like it is but I don't so I will say this. Voting by delegate basically gives every state and their people an equal vote in the choice of a president. Popular voting would let a state like California chose every president. Yeah, I agree, fuck democracy. Peoples votes shouldn't truly count. :)

> *Originally posted by **[jhco50](/forums/9/topics/681239?page=1#10839717)**:* > I wish I had the time to teach you guys why our system is like it is but I don't so I will say this. Voting by delegate basically gives every state and their people an equal vote in the choice of a president. Popular voting would let a state like California chose every president. Jesus Christ I just realised you're like a mediocre post on [r/iamverysmart.](https://www.reddit.com/r/iamverysmart/)

> *Originally posted by **[jhco50](/forums/9/topics/681239?page=1#10839717)**:* > I wish I had the time to teach you guys why our system is like it is but I don't so I will say this. **Voting by delegate basically gives every state and their people an equal vote in the choice of a president.** Popular voting would let a state like California chose every president. Because it is very important, I will post this video here also, this 2011 video, so that everyone can understand how the system is rigged against populated states. # [The Trouble with the Electoral College](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k) The current argument is that smaller states will be ignored. But as you can see from the current election's popular vote, **everyone** has a say, even with larger states having their say, it is still close in the popular vote! Meaning that even a small state can tip the election. Popular Vote is the democratic thing to do, and the most sensible. But we as a country have problems giving **equal rights** to people, historically. Certain members/groups of our population feel they have more rights than others, and that their votes should be worth more, even though they have yet to contribute and showcase why that is through the increased taxes or the GDP they bring in. If you remember, **jhco50**, this country was founded on 'NO TAXATION without REPRESENTATION'. *"No Taxation Without Representation" is a slogan originating during the 1750s and 1760s that summarized a primary grievance of the American colonists in the Thirteen Colonies, which was one of the major causes of the American Revolution.* How we forget history... Bound to repeat itself. Larger states are paying much, much more in taxes, but has less voting power than smaller states, not equal as you naively state. Why should my vote be worth less than yours? All we ask for is an equal vote. Because if an equal share in voting isn't given, then the president becomes not ours, but yours. As I have said before, if Trump loses popular vote by over 1%, then I will not consider him as my president because I consider him given office on a biased technicality, not because the citizens wanted him as their president. In addition, it could be said that they *didn't* want him as their president.  Yes, those dark BLUE states are actually blue(Democratic) in this 2016 presidential election. Well, except one(IA-Iowa), which is usually blue.

trump: good perhaps better military more availiable jobs greatest meme of all-time bad could cause trade war with china 0 political experience could be our last president cause $ debt to increase looks like the annoying orange