Donald Trump

1…2627293132…552

Comments

  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,436
    Coopster the 1st wrote:
    For a country that is heralded as being so great, how could they have given the electorate such a poor choice for two candidates?

    Additionally, can anyone confirm if the losers are saying the vote was advisory? And whether they are accepting the result of the vote or coming out with ways to undermine democracy?

    IIRC the vote is, in some states, advisory
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,463
    Trump already backtracking on his pledges. I can see a bunch of rednecks in the Carolinas being happy when they realise they've been duped by a man who would say anything to achieve his ambition. No wonder he gets on well with Farage, they're cut from the same cloth.
  • bobmcstuff
    bobmcstuff Posts: 11,435
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    bobmcstuff wrote:
    Nobody cares about Roe v Wade then?

    And similar for potentially decades to come. Two of the Democrat appointees are in their 80s.
    Aye. We can only hope that Trump only gets one term and the older justices hang on till after that.

    It sets women's rights back 50 years.
  • mrfpb
    mrfpb Posts: 4,569
    TailWindHome wrote:
    Coopster the 1st wrote:
    For a country that is heralded as being so great, how could they have given the electorate such a poor choice for two candidates?

    Additionally, can anyone confirm if the losers are saying the vote was advisory? And whether they are accepting the result of the vote or coming out with ways to undermine democracy?

    IIRC the vote is, in some states, advisory

    At least one "elector" on each side of the electoral college said they would not vote for there party's candidate if electEd. They can do this in 21 states. The Republican elector said he wouldn't vote for Trump if his district voted Democrat. Like MPs refusing to support Brexit if their constituents voted Leave.
  • bobmcstuff
    bobmcstuff Posts: 11,435
    mrfpb wrote:
    TailWindHome wrote:
    Coopster the 1st wrote:
    For a country that is heralded as being so great, how could they have given the electorate such a poor choice for two candidates?

    Additionally, can anyone confirm if the losers are saying the vote was advisory? And whether they are accepting the result of the vote or coming out with ways to undermine democracy?

    IIRC the vote is, in some states, advisory

    At least one "elector" on each side of the electoral college said they would not vote for there party's candidate if electEd. They can do this in 21 states. The Republican elector said he wouldn't vote for Trump if his district voted Democrat. Like MPs refusing to support Brexit if their constituents voted Leave.
    AIUI a lot of states have laws which force electors or punish them for voting against their electorate, though.

    This vote is clearly binding unless it turns out there's been massive fraud, however. Unlike the Brexit vote which definitely was not binding.
  • coopster_the_1st
    coopster_the_1st Posts: 5,158
    bobmcstuff wrote:
    mrfpb wrote:
    TailWindHome wrote:
    Coopster the 1st wrote:
    For a country that is heralded as being so great, how could they have given the electorate such a poor choice for two candidates?

    Additionally, can anyone confirm if the losers are saying the vote was advisory? And whether they are accepting the result of the vote or coming out with ways to undermine democracy?

    IIRC the vote is, in some states, advisory

    At least one "elector" on each side of the electoral college said they would not vote for there party's candidate if electEd. They can do this in 21 states. The Republican elector said he wouldn't vote for Trump if his district voted Democrat. Like MPs refusing to support Brexit if their constituents voted Leave.
    AIUI a lot of states have laws which force electors or punish them for voting against their electorate, though.

    This vote is clearly binding unless it turns out there's been massive fraud, however. Unlike the Brexit vote which definitely was not binding.

    So my underlying point still stands. You have gone to the electorate to get their answer to a question. If you are not going to accept the result as to the way to move forward, you do not put the question to them. Simples

    I also agree with SC & RC that if you migrate to another country you should be prepared to put in the effort to learn the local language, laws and customs. It takes minutes to learn the basics eg hello, goodbye, thanks, etc. To not do so is disrespectful
  • pinno
    pinno Posts: 52,322
    Oi!
    Coopster the 1st wrote:
    I also agree with Pinno, SC & RC that if you migrate to another country you should be prepared to put in the effort to learn the local language, laws and customs. It takes minutes to learn the basics eg hello, goodbye, thanks, etc. To not do so is disrespectful
    seanoconn - gruagach craic!
  • bendertherobot
    bendertherobot Posts: 11,684
    So, he's going for his wall then, though it might be a fence in places :D

    And 3 million to go now (soon) with more to be assessed thereafter.......
    My blog: http://www.roubaixcycling.cc (kit reviews and other musings)
    https://twitter.com/roubaixcc
    Facebook? No. Just say no.
  • Garry H
    Garry H Posts: 6,639
    bendertherobot wrote:
    So, he's going for his wall then, though it might be a fence in places :D

    And 3 million to go now (soon) with more to be assessed thereafter.......

    Give them a few bricks each on the way out and that wall will be up in no time.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Coopster the 1st wrote:

    I also agree with SC & RC that if you migrate to another country you should be prepared to put in the effort to learn the local language, laws and customs. It takes minutes to learn the basics eg hello, goodbye, thanks, etc. To not do so is disrespectful


    It's not a question of respect. If you care about respect of strangers for who you represent you're a moron.

    It's just a basic requirement of integration - being able to communicate.

    It's advantageous for everything.
    _
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    There's a city analyst team that a while ago did a full blown analysis on the costs & mechanics of being able to build a concrete wall across the border.

    I can't find it, but IIRC there's not enough concrete nearby so there'll need to build a load of infrastructure in order to be able to transport it over to the south.
    _
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Found it: http://fronterasdesk.org/sites/default/ ... 20Wall.pdf
    _
  • mrfpb
    mrfpb Posts: 4,569
    bobmcstuff wrote:
    mrfpb wrote:
    TailWindHome wrote:
    Coopster the 1st wrote:
    For a country that is heralded as being so great, how could they have given the electorate such a poor choice for two candidates?

    Additionally, can anyone confirm if the losers are saying the vote was advisory? And whether they are accepting the result of the vote or coming out with ways to undermine democracy?

    IIRC the vote is, in some states, advisory

    At least one "elector" on each side of the electoral college said they would not vote for there party's candidate if electEd. They can do this in 21 states. The Republican elector said he wouldn't vote for Trump if his district voted Democrat. Like MPs refusing to support Brexit if their constituents voted Leave.
    AIUI a lot of states have laws which force electors or punish them for voting against their electorate, though.

    This vote is clearly binding unless it turns out there's been massive fraud, however. Unlike the Brexit vote which definitely was not binding.

    I did say "in 21 states they can so this" in those states the members of the electoral college are not bound by the result of the statewide vote. However in the past 'unfaithful electors' have not changed the overall result, so it has never been legally tested. In a situation like this, where the electoral college and popular vote don't match, it would make a very interesting case don't you think?
  • pinno
    pinno Posts: 52,322
    I do not understand the mechanics of the US College system, you'll have to summarise mrfpb for the less informed. Ta.
    seanoconn - gruagach craic!
  • bobmcstuff
    bobmcstuff Posts: 11,435
    mrfpb wrote:
    bobmcstuff wrote:
    mrfpb wrote:
    TailWindHome wrote:
    Coopster the 1st wrote:
    For a country that is heralded as being so great, how could they have given the electorate such a poor choice for two candidates?

    Additionally, can anyone confirm if the losers are saying the vote was advisory? And whether they are accepting the result of the vote or coming out with ways to undermine democracy?

    IIRC the vote is, in some states, advisory

    At least one "elector" on each side of the electoral college said they would not vote for there party's candidate if electEd. They can do this in 21 states. The Republican elector said he wouldn't vote for Trump if his district voted Democrat. Like MPs refusing to support Brexit if their constituents voted Leave.
    AIUI a lot of states have laws which force electors or punish them for voting against their electorate, though.

    This vote is clearly binding unless it turns out there's been massive fraud, however. Unlike the Brexit vote which definitely was not binding.

    I did say "in 21 states they can so this" in those states the members of the electoral college are not bound by the result of the statewide vote. However in the past 'unfaithful electors' have not changed the overall result, so it has never been legally tested. In a situation like this, where the electoral college and popular vote don't match, it would make a very interesting case don't you think?

    It would be extremely interesting. Comparable to what might happen if MPs tried to block Brexit, perhaps?
  • bobmcstuff
    bobmcstuff Posts: 11,435
    Pinno wrote:
    I do not understand the mechanics of the US College system, you'll have to summarise mrfpb for the less informed. Ta.

    http://fortune.com/2016/11/11/election- ... l-college/

    There was a good FT video but I can't find it and it's probably paywalled anyway.

    Basically each state has a certain number of electoral college votes based on size. The candidate who wins in that state takes all the electoral college votes (except in a couple of minor cases). The candidate with the most electoral college votes wins.

    This is how you can lose the popular vote (as Trump has) and still win - if you win the bigger states e.g., Florida which have lots of college votes by a small margin, you could lose in a lot of smaller states by big margins and end up with a smaller share of the vote than your opponent.

    When the candidate wins in each state, they don't automatically get the electoral college votes - they appoint "electors" who then cast the vote for the candidate on behalf of their constituents. This is largely symbolic but they can vote against their constituents in some states.

    It's not that dissimilar to our system, really, if you substitute electors for MPs - it's the same kind of constituency winner-takes-all system. Except they assign different numbers of electors to constituencies (states) based on population size, whereas we take the other approach and change the geographical size of our constituencies to keep the population size roughly equal in each.

    It'd be more or less like if we had fewer constituencies (say we used counties) and changed the numbers of MPs each constituency had based on their population. Of course our "electors" (MPs) then go on to form a government, whereas in the US it seems to be largely symbolic and I don't think they really do anything except elect the President
  • mrfpb
    mrfpb Posts: 4,569
    Pinno wrote:
    I do not understand the mechanics of the US College system, you'll have to summarise mrfpb for the less informed. Ta.

    Each state has a number of "electors" set according to the population of the state. California, New York, Florida and Texas have large numbers (29+), maller states have 3 or 4. All the electors together make up the electoral college. Each elector represents a district within the state.

    Democrats and Republicans each chose an elector for each district, and the electors for the party that wins the state go to Washington five weeks after the general election to formally elect the President. 270+ electors are required to secure the presidency.

    All but two states (Nebraska and Maine) operate a first past the post/winner takes all system. If you win California by a single vote, then you get every elector of the state to vote for you. Nebraska and Maine operate a district by district system, so the electors represent the vote of the local electorate.

    But as electors are real people they may not agree to be bound by the state wide result if the local result went against the state result. In 21 states the rules allow for electors to vote against the state result, this makes them "unfaithful electors" in US political parlance In fact two electors said before the election they would not vote for their parties candidate whatever the result (a democrat in Washington State and Republican in Texas).

    If no candidate gets 270 votes from the electoral college in December, the decision on who becomes President is delegated to Congress and the Senate. Congress/Senate can then choose anyone, they are not limited to candidates on the ballot. As both the Houses are in Republican control, they could choose a Republican candidate they can all agree or compromise on. Most likely they would choose Mike Pence or Paul Ryan, as they are constitutionally 2nd and 3rd "in line to the throne" as it were.

    While Presidents are limited to two elected terms, they are allowed to serve up to 10 years, so Obama can stay for up to two more years while the Houses decide.
  • pinno
    pinno Posts: 52,322
    Ah, I see. Can a Democrat in the Congress/Senate, vote for a Republican nominee in the event that the Republicnas don't choose Trump hypothetically? I presume, the Republicans vote for their 'chosen one' or is it like the Tories and only the Tories voted for Gove or May in the end?
    seanoconn - gruagach craic!
  • mrfpb
    mrfpb Posts: 4,569
    Pinno wrote:
    Ah, I see. Can a Democrat in the Congress/Senate, vote for a Republican nominee in the event that the Republicnas don't choose Trump hypothetically? I presume, the Republicans vote for their 'chosen one' or is it like the Tories and only the Tories voted for Gove or May in the end?

    It requires a vote in the house, so not like a UK party choosing their leader by their own rules. Democrats can vote for who they like, and may offer to support a moderate Republican if hardliners keep pushing for Trump. But the wheeler dealing happens in the corridors/backrooms. If they didn't choose Trump, I imagine the would be an almighty legal ding dong (to add to the 75 lawsuits he is currently facing - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37956018)

    It's all academic as Trump has 290 electors- there would need to be 21+ "unfaithful electors" to stop him, which would be unprecedented.
  • pinno
    pinno Posts: 52,322
    How will he have time to be president of the US of A and defend all those law suits? Perhaps most of them will be solved by settlements.
    That means his Presidential Salary will go back to the people indirectly.

    "Analysis of lawsuits by USA Today, however, shows Mr Tr ump rarely follows through with his threatened lawsuits and almost always loses when he does."
    seanoconn - gruagach craic!
  • finchy
    finchy Posts: 6,686
    On the subject of the wall, it might contravene environmental laws, as it would be a barrier to certain migratory species. I wonder if enough Republicans would be willing to vote with the Democrats to prevent these laws being repealed?
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,416
    finchy wrote:
    On the subject of the wall, it might contravene environmental laws, as it would be a barrier to certain migratory species.
    A lot of Republicans might argue that is why the wall is going up in the first place?
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Sorry Stevo, are you referring to Mexicans as a species?

    What the f*ck is this, 1930's eugenics?
    _
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Sorry Stevo, are you referring to Mexicans as a species?

    What the f*ck is this, 1930's eugenics?

    I thought it funny Stevo. :wink:
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,416
    edited November 2016
    Ballysmate wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Sorry Stevo, are you referring to Mexicans as a species?

    What the f*ck is this, 1930's eugenics?

    I thought it funny Stevo. :wink:
    There's always one isn't there. Unfortunately it's usually the same one :)

    Could have sworn humans were a species :wink:
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Sorry Stevo, are you referring to Mexicans as a species?

    What the f*ck is this, 1930's eugenics?

    I thought it funny Stevo. :wink:
    There's always one isn't there.

    Could have sworn humans were a species :wink:

    Almost as if someone was looking to find offence when there wasn't any isn't it?
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,416
    Ballysmate wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Sorry Stevo, are you referring to Mexicans as a species?

    What the f*ck is this, 1930's eugenics?

    I thought it funny Stevo. :wink:
    There's always one isn't there.

    Could have sworn humans were a species :wink:

    Almost as if someone was looking to find offence when there wasn't any isn't it?
    Almost?
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • pinno
    pinno Posts: 52,322
    Jehovah, Jehovah, Jehovah...
    seanoconn - gruagach craic!
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,416
    Pinno wrote:
    Jehovah, Jehovah, Jehovah...
    'Are there any women here today?'
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • pinno
    pinno Posts: 52,322
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Pinno wrote:
    Jehovah, Jehovah, Jehovah...
    'Are there any women here today?'

    No.....no.....no...no.....

    You're not the new Messiah but you are a very naughty boy.
    seanoconn - gruagach craic!

Categories